On May 19, 11:14 pm, Mike <n00s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 19, 9:13 am, kT <cos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 5:06 am, Mike <n00s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 11:54 am, kT <cos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 10:13 am, Mike <n00s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 16, 10:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 00ZNB wrote:
> > > > > > > F. William Engdahl
>
> > > > > > ROFLMAO
>
> > > > > That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all
that you
> > > > > can do since you can't dispute his facts.
>
> > > > He has no 'facts'. Here is a representation of the data :
>
> > >
>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timese...
>
> > > > Most of that is annual ice now, not multi-year ice. You're an
idiot.
>
> > > I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
> > > data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern
Hemisphere
> > > Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean".
>
> > You are a liar. That chart is up to date almost to the day.
>
> Am not. :-)
>
> You mean that is not the title?
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the data.
> 1. I do try to use current data.
> 2. The title is as I described.
Yes, you're right, the data is calibrated to some previous mean.
> That being said, the chart was very small on my display. I zoomed in
> on the title and didn't look any further.
Well, clearly the melting is now anomalous.
> > > Here is another link
> > > that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will
notice
> > > that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late
summer
> > > and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears
have
> > > much to worry about.
>
> > You think wrong.
>
> > >http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current_cycle.jpg
>
> > That's actual area, and says nothing about the thickness.
>
> > > "As of March 22, 2008 Environment Canada analysis indicates sea ice
> > > cover over the Northern Hemisphere has reached its maximum extent
and
> > > is about 3% above maximum extent reached over the last 3 years. Much
> > > of the thick multi-year ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been
> > > depleted and replaced with thinner first year ice. The amplitude of
> > > the 2007 summer minimum extent to the 2008 winter maximum extent is
> > > dramatically higher than in previous years."
>
> > The amplitude is greater because the ice is much thinner you idiot.
>
> Wow. You are really full of yourself.
>
> The original append was extent of coverage. Notice that as much ice
> was lost last autumn, that loss was made up. The cycle is balanced.
Yes, in the world of kindergartners, the ice forms up further every
fall and melts off again every summer. Clearly the cycle is about to
go badly out of balance. It's already out of balance, the multi-year
ice is disappearing, filled in by yearly ice.
Look at this, the multiyear ice is breaking up and being flushed out
into the ocean. It's suddenly become a huge multiyear ice toilet up
there, on both sides, surely that''s got to be affecting the open
ocean.
> Your data doesn't go back very far. You have no idea what the
> historical variation actually is. Of course that wont stop you from
> drawing conclusions from too little data.
The conclusion is the global warming is causing the collapse of the
multiyear ice in the arctic, and a melt off of the summer ice is
beginning. That's a sign of a warming world, you can see it happening
in the chart as you read along it, the entire arctic ice system is
waning
It's not the yearly seasonal cycle we are looking at, it the gradual
decrease of ice cover over years, the arctic ice anomaly is growing.
|
