"kT" <cosmic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6d469437-3f94-444f-a9ae-1c12041c9ec9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
DEJA VU!!!!
US Weather Bureau 1922
2 May 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/print.html
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a re****t to
the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Re****ts from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions re****t that
scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29
minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream
still very warm. Great m***** of ice have been replaced by moraines of
earth and stones, the re****t continued, while at many points well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are
found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts,
which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in
the old seal fi****ng grounds.
A RealClimate blogger? No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the
principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich
countries?...In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the
only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" Maurice Strong,1990
|
