This is the link to the interactive ice tracking map for the Arctic.
You will see that over the winters, the ice has tracked in the normal range all along.
Starting in 2010 it took a summer dip being the lowest in 2012, but it seems to be rebounding so far in 2013.
What is really interesting is to see the winter following the low summers. 2010 bounced right back up; 2011 was just below normal, and 2012 was back in the normal range again. The winter of 2013 was also solidly in the normal range.
This is the link to the interactive ice tracking map for the Arctic.
You will see that over the winters, the ice has tracked in the normal range all along.
Starting in 2010 it took a summer dip being the lowest in 2012, but it seems to be rebounding so far in 2013.
What is really interesting is to see the winter following the low summers. 2010 bounced right back up; 2011 was just below normal, and 2012 was back in the normal range again. The winter of 2013 was also solidly in the normal range.
So much for "disappearing polar ice cap" theorists.
Arn
What's really interesting is you seem to ignore the data and make up your own conclusions. I'll trust the experts Arn but continue on coming up with your interesting take!
Any theories on this from your link?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-09-2013).]
Ice cover this spring was very thin in parts of the Arctic, suggesting that large areas may soon start melting out completely. Much depends on whether the atmospheric circulation pattern seen in June persists through July.
NASA Operation IceBridge data collected during March and April indicated thick ice along the Greenland coast (5 meters, or 16 feet or more), but thin ice north of Alaska in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, ranging from 1 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) in most areas and as low as 0.5 meters (approximately 2 feet) in others. These thin areas are quite likely refrozen leads, linked to the major fracturing events that occurred in the region during February and March. According to Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds, preliminary results from the European Space Agency CryoSat satellite suggest that the ice pack was 8% thinner in March 2013 compared to March 2012.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Surely you can't believe what you've written. CO2 is a chemical with consistent chemical properties. It does not "switch on" when it senses a solar storm. It is the same all the time
The opinion expressed that the increase in CO2 amounts make it "definitely not our friend" is a biassed opinion. It is not scientifically proven.
The increased CO2 in by gone millenia did not cause the irradication of the dinosaurs. It possibly caused,if anything, increased plant growth.
Not only does CO2 moderate the climate, but so does water vapor. Remember that CO2 forms a very tiny percentage of our atmosphere in any event. The lion's share of the climate moderating is happening from other elements.
Water vapor is a moot point, and "increased plant growth" is just grasping at straws
I think that over the entire planet, water vapor traps more heat and contributes more to global warming than all other greenhouse gases combined: "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned." [NASA].
I have been looking for years (ever since I got interested in this topic), and I have never found a credible report of any human process that directly increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It's an indirect effect. As the atmosphere warms above oceans, lakes and all tropical, temperate and polar landmass (except for deserts), the concentration of atmospheric water vapor goes up, and provides a positive warming feedback (more water vapor, more heat from the greenhouse effect).
But water vapor does not have the persistency of other greenhouse gases. Water vapor, unlike the man made greenhouse gases, is rapidly removed from the atmosphere wherever there is precipitation (rain and fog being the first examples that come to my mind, followed by frost and snow). If the overall planetary temperature were to stabilize, water vapor would not continue to increase. It's the man made greenhouse gases--chiefly, carbon dioxide [EIA]-- that are driving the temperature increases that in turn cause the increasing positive warming feedback from water vapor [EPA]. This is what I encapsulated above, as an "indirect" effect of human activities.
I did not mean to say that the cooling effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere (introduced to this thread via the link from Taijiguy) is somehow "switched on" or activated by sudden, transient increases in solar irradiance during solar storms. My interpretation of that recent NASA finding [SABER] is that there is nothing in it to suggest that this upper atmosphere phenomenon has any significant cooling effect on the earth's surface, because it is massively outweighed by the heat trapping effect of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.
"For the three day period [during a solar storm], March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."
"In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years."
But the real significance of the SABER measurements (or should I say, the insignificance of this upper atmosphere phenomenon) is buried as a footnote(!) ...
quote
No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”
As I said before, even Anthony Watts, one of the most ardent and respectable (IMO) skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, cautions (in a very technical way) against getting carried away with the idea that carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere functions as a "natural thermostat" that protects the earth [Misinterpreted claim ...].
The problem for our immediate and second-generation human descendants is not fully encapsulated by the phrase "global warming". It's rapid global warming. More rapid than the earth has ever experienced in the last 800,000 years [Syracuse blog]. As far as the idea that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide would fertilize more plant growth, that is hardly reassuring. It would be inconvenient for our descendants (inconvenient, to say the least), if the lion's share of that increased plant growth suddenly appeared in the higher latitudes of Alaska and Canada and across Antarctica, at the same time as large swathes of what are now farm belts in the U.S. and Canada were plunged into persistent drought and endless dustbowl or desert conditions [Water Cycle Changes]. And they can be expected to not be eating hardly any fish or other seafood [Mass extinctions in prehistoric greenhouse oceans ...].
The Beaufort Sea is directly north of Alaska. Chukchi Sea is west and northwest of Alaska. Both of these seas are affected by Pacific currents. Greenland on the other hand had thick ice.
The main body of ice continues within the standard deviation except for last year.
The decline is 3.6% per decade. This means that in the past 10-13 years when the Global Warming alarmists were preaching the imminent total demise of the Arctic ice shield, it has stubbornly kept up it's pattern. It is the same pattern as it has been following since the last ice age. Of course it continues to diminish. The ice age is over. It does not disappear to accommodate the charlatans who try to mold public policy by scaring people.
I am not saying the ice field is growing, or even staying static. I am saying it is not disappearing as Al Gore and his cronies would like you to believe.
This is the link to the interactive ice tracking map for the Arctic.
You will see that over the winters, the ice has tracked in the normal range all along.
Starting in 2010 it took a summer dip being the lowest in 2012, but it seems to be rebounding so far in 2013.
What is really interesting is to see the winter following the low summers. 2010 bounced right back up; 2011 was just below normal, and 2012 was back in the normal range again. The winter of 2013 was also solidly in the normal range.
So much for "disappearing polar ice cap" theorists.
Arn
NEW ICE IS NOT AS THICK AS OLD MULTI YEAR ICE
the subs in the cold war years hid under the ice often and keep good records of ice thickness the older ice that was thick is gone now making it far eazyer for ice to melt away
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The ice they are talking about that is thin, is not the core ice. They are talking about the ice around Alaska.
There are millions of square miles of core ice still there. If you look at today's satellite view you will see the vast majority hasn't gone anywhere. There are areas around the edges that melt every summer.
Of course there is new ice every winter. If you look at the chart I posted, you'll see that it ebbs and flows regularly, but, there is a core that has not melted to date. And, it is huge.
For instance look at the pic from 15 July 2010
You can see the core was very much the same. There is a melt every summer and a lot of new ice every fall. This is not the case for the whole arctic. Only the edges in the southerly sides.
An Arctic pre-conditioned for rapid summer ice loss?
Through most of June, we did not see the precipitous decline in ice extent that was observed in June 2012 and 2007 (the years with the lowest and second lowest September ice extent in the satellite record). However, the rate of ice loss did increase in late June. Ice cover this spring was very thin in parts of the Arctic, suggesting that large areas may soon start melting out completely. Much depends on whether the atmospheric circulation pattern seen in June persists through July.
NASA Operation IceBridge data collected during March and April indicated thick ice along the Greenland coast (5 meters, or 16 feet or more), but thin ice north of Alaska in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, ranging from 1 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) in most areas and as low as 0.5 meters (approximately 2 feet) in others. These thin areas are quite likely refrozen leads, linked to the major fracturing events that occurred in the region during February and March. According to Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds, preliminary results from the European Space Agency CryoSat satellite suggest that the ice pack was 8% thinner in March 2013 compared to March 2012.
When do we see straight lines in ice cracks that go hundreds of miles.... in a straight line?
Why is the pattern so geometric? It is almost like it was drawn on.
To be fair, if there are mid winter cracks in the ice, the ice heaves and you can get gaps though
Arn
If you look at the link you provided earlier you might understand better. I probably should have provided this from under the graphic.
quote
Figure 4. Data from NASA Operation IceBridge flights over the Arctic Ocean during March and April 2013 indicate thick ice along the Greenland coast (shown in reds), but thin ice north of Alaska (blues and greens).
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-10-2013).]
So it is showing what every Arctic Explorer knows. The ice is not homogenous. It varies widely and has caverns, cracks and other gaps in it.
Part of this is due to storms and heaving ocean tides and some of it is due to sporatic melts.
This should not be seen as a new development.
We should remember that the southern side near Canada opened up in the 18 hundreds prompting the ill fated Franklin Expedition. The ice closed back in the following year trapping their ships for years until they broke up and sank.
The difference between the Greenland coast and the Alaska coast is almost entirely due to the Pacific Ocean currents.
So it is showing what every Arctic Explorer knows. The ice is not homogenous. It varies widely and has caverns, cracks and other gaps in it.
Part of this is due to storms and heaving ocean tides and some of it is due to sporatic melts.
This should not be seen as a new development.
We should remember that the southern side near Canada opened up in the 18 hundreds prompting the ill fated Franklin Expedition. The ice closed back in the following year trapping their ships for years until they broke up and sank.
The difference between the Greenland coast and the Alaska coast is almost entirely due to the Pacific Ocean currents.
Arn
While I don't agree with your theories thanks for at being cordial! I shall remove the facepalm
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-10-2013).]
IP: Logged
12:06 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have been looking for years (ever since I got interested in this topic), and I have never found a credible report of any human process that directly increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Watering your lawn ? Crop irrigation, public fountains, water parks/pools ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The problem for our immediate and second-generation human descendants is not fully encapsulated by the phrase "global warming". It's rapid global warming. More rapid than the earth has ever experienced in the last 800,000 years.
Heat dissipates. To colder, , climates. Check. If the atmosphere is not cooling, if it is heating up, the temperature of the Earth should be up too. Is there scientific data gathering for the Earth's temperature (not surface temps) ? More rapid than the earth has ever experienced in the last 800,000 years ? What does that mean, ? What was the second most, and what were the results ? Our Earth cools too. What was it's fastest and what were the results ? How many swings have we had ? How often ? Are there trends ? I guess those facts are available to me but I don't care to look. The Global Warming people haven't convinced me and people like me are their problem. Cherry picking facts won't convince me.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It would be inconvenient for our descendants (inconvenient, to say the least), if the lion's share of that increased plant growth suddenly appeared in the higher latitudes of Alaska and Canada and across Antarctica, at the same time as large swathes of what are now farm belts in the U.S. and Canada were plunged into persistent drought and endless dustbowl or desert conditions[/url] [Water Cycle Changes]. And they can be expected to not be eating hardly any fish or other seafood [Mass extinctions in prehistoric greenhouse oceans ...].
IF ? None of that doomsday stuff can be proved.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-10-2013).]
Originally posted by newf: I think that pretty much sums it up your position and gives people an opportunity to decide how and if to respond to you on this subject.
No. My position is that it is a scam. Which leads me away from looking to try to prove it true. It has nothing to do with me not caring about our environment.
No. My position is that it is a scam. Which leads me away from looking to try to prove it true. It has nothing to do with me not caring about our environment.
yes it is a scam [the anti-warming people] run by the corpRATs to protect their interests follow the money the whole tea-party is a astroturf scam from the same source
why do you think science is a scam ? are the guys who study solar output in on the scam too? the ocean current guys too? hurricane research ?
IP: Logged
05:56 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: I think that pretty much sums it up your position and gives people an opportunity to decide how and if to respond to you on this subject.
Actually, I had it right.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: The Global Warming people haven't convinced me and people like me are their problem.
Newf, how long have you been championing the reality of global warming ? Yet you tell the unbelievers that they can look it up and find that info for themselves.
IP: Logged
07:12 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Watering your lawn ? Crop irrigation, public fountains, water parks/pools..?
None of that doomsday stuff can be proved . . .
Although it is true that water vapor in the lower atmosphere causes the lion's share of the heat trapping (greenhouse) effect, it is a moot point in this context, because there is nothing that humans have ever done (yet) that has any significant effect on the overall amount of water in the active hydrologic cycle.
You have to understand the hydrologic cycle, which is very different from the carbon cycle. The average residency of a water molecule in the lower atmosphere is about nine days before it is removed from the atmosphere as rain, ground level condensation (fog and frost), snow and hail. The carbon dioxide that humans are retrieving from deep below the surface and putting into the atmosphere by using fossil fuels stays in the atmosphere for a much longer time before any of it is reabsorbed at the surface of oceans, lakes and rivers or taken in by plant life. That goes a long way towards explaining why atmospheric CO2 has been increasing so rapidly since the advent of the Industrial Age.
Atmospheric water vapor has also been increasing, but it's an indirect effect. As the lower atmosphere warms, it holds more evaporated H2O in the form of water vapor, but it's not because human activities are putting more water into the hydrologic cycle. It is because the atmosphere is being warmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which causes more water vapor, which in turn amplifies the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide and the other man made GHGs many times over.
Use of deep water aquifers for water supplies actually does increase the amount of water in the active hydrologic cycle, but there just hasn't been enough of that (so far) to contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. That's what I think. I would like to find some numbers to support that, but so far, I haven't. I suspect that there is some scientific confirmation of this, but it's buried in tech papers that I either can't find with Google or have not searched enough (yet).
If there were widespread adoption of hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles and other processes, which would result in more tailpipe and smoke stack emissions of H2O, that could change the equation some, as far as atmospheric water vapor. It would depend on the source of the hydrogen, and how the energy to produce hydrogen fuel is generated. But I suspect that the short residency of water vapor in the lower atmosphere would make it a moot point--or at least less disruptive of the human ecology than continued and increasing use of fossil fuels.
Using fossil fuels causes CO2 emissons and H2O emissions, and increases the amount of water in the global hydrologic cycle, but I have yet to see a scientific paper or a media report that suggests that the H2O emissions from fossil fuels has any signficant effect on climate. I think that is because it is removed so rapidly from the atmosphere as precipitation. Unlike CO2.
I would also be inclined to think that any increase in the total amount of water in the active hydrologic cycle that is traceable to use of fossil fuels and use of deep water aquifers (and what could be projected for future widespread adoption of hydrogen fuel) is far outweighed by the water and water vapor that is already cycling through the oceans, the lower atmosphere and the land masses. So there would be no direct, measurable warming of the climate from any human activities that actually produce water molecules as a byproduct or retrieve water from deep within the earth.
Not so, for carbon dioxide. Since the advent of the industrial age, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 has been determined (by measuring the ratios of airborne carbon isotopes) to comprise about 25 percent of the carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere. Certain posters here like to harp on the fact that CO2 is only a trace element in the atmosphere (a very small component, compared to water vapor), but their argument backfires: That is exactly why fossil fuel emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2 so significantly from a climate perspective (currently 25 percent and projected to increase) on a proportional basis. This is what makes human greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, first and foremost) the driver in the warming climate equation, and not water vapor.
As far as "None of that doomsday stuff can be proved", I would say that the geologic and fossil evidence from prehistoric warming episodes is both indicative and alarming--especially with regards to the oceans. Warming oceans have been correlated with widespread extinctions of marine life, and warm oceans are sterile, in comparison to temperate oceans. I think it can be shown that people around the world eat a lot more cold water fish and other species, vs. tropical species
If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place..
It's one thing to argue about the validity of the evidence--something else entirely, to not be aware of where the evidence comes from, or exactly what the arguments are about.
When it comes to climate science, someone hasn't been sleeping at a Holiday Inn. (But they're not the only one on this forum.. far from it.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2013).]
Don't give me that crap. You made a statement. Either put up or shut up.
This was my statement...
quote
There are plenty of viable alternatives but with a cheap supply of oil and those who control the oil doing everything in their vast power to delay and keep other means from entering the marketplace we will still have dinosaur technology for a good while yet.
Now what are you asking? Do you want me to list each alternative source of energy because I can try but I don't see the need. There are many sources being tapped as we speak, did you want me to list those as well?
You seem angry? Everything OK?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
10:19 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
This was my statement... [QUOTE] There are plenty of viable alternatives but with a cheap supply of oil and those who control the oil doing everything in their vast power to delay and keep other means from entering the marketplace we will still have dinosaur technology for a good while yet.
Now what are you asking? Do you want me to list each alternative source of energy because I can try but I don't see the need. There are many sources being tapped as we speak, did you want me to list those as well?
You seem angry? Everything OK?
[/QUOTE]
I'm asking you to back up your statement. We already know you can change the subject, evade the question and turn to personal comments.
That's COMPLETLY false, and why I seldom bother to converse with you any more. Simply turning around what someone says is nothing more than the grade school level response of "I know you are but what am I?"
Back up my statement that there are viable alternatives to Fossil fuels....OK
Solar Wind Hydro Geo-Thermal Tidal Bio-fuels Nuclear Etc...
I don't think these alternatives are equal.
Solar isn't economically viable in northern climates Wind is not economical inland. Hydro is absolutely great. Quebec and Newfoundland have huge potential, but it has its limits. Tidal has great potential Bio-fuels require dependence on agriculture. Nuclear is really efficient, but, the spent fuel has to be stored safely for 200 years. That is a whole discussion.
Now if we talk about coal, it can be engineered to run clean with minimal hydro carbons and mostly co2 but, meets stiff resistance from folks who remember the heavy pollution of years gone by.
Natural Gas has good potential, but not as good as Nuclear Oil... well, let's not go there.
That's COMPLETLY false, and why I seldom bother to converse with you any more. Simply turning around what someone says is nothing more than the grade school level response of "I know you are but what am I?"
? I suggest you show examples.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-11-2013).]
Just to clarify all the hype around disappearing ice we have been discussing on this forum and hearing from the Global Warming propoganda machine, here are the 2010 and 2013 ice fields in Canada, where the Northwest Passage should exist in the summer. Both of these are scans from July in each year.
2010
2013
Notice something? There is more ice in 2013 than there is in 2010
hmm.....
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-11-2013).]
Just to clarify all the hype around disappearing ice we have been discussing on this forum and hearing from the Global Warming propoganda machine, here are the 2010 and 2013 ice fields in Canada, where the Northwest Passage should exist in the summer. Both of these are scans from July in each year.
2010
2013
Notice something? There is more ice in 2013 than there is in 2010
hmm.....
Although the rate of ice loss increased toward the end of June, overall ice has retreated more slowly this summer compared to last summer, reflecting patterns of atmospheric circulation and air temperature. Average June temperatures at the 925 mb level were average to slightly below average over most of the Arctic Ocean, contrasting with above average temperatures over most of the surrounding land. This temperature pattern is associated with unusually low sea level pressure centered near the North Pole. This type of circulation pattern is known to slow the summer retreat of ice, not just because it fosters cool conditions, but also because the pattern of cyclonic (counterclockwise) winds tends to spread the ice out. An interesting regional aspect of this pattern is that on the heels of unusually cold spring conditions, the Alaska interior experienced some days of record high temperatures during June.
Just to clarify all the hype around disappearing ice we have been discussing on this forum and hearing from the Global Warming propoganda machine, here are the 2010 and 2013 ice fields in Canada, where the Northwest Passage should exist in the summer. Both of these are scans from July in each year.
2010
2013
Notice something? There is more ice in 2013 than there is in 2010
hmm.....
Rowing the Northwest Passage—Because They Can
Four men are attempting to row a small fiberglass boat through a notorious Arctic route that has claimed the lives of countless explorers. Why? Because it's now possible, thanks to climate change.
The bad news is that it carries the risk of accelerating global warming even faster..
quote
The Finnish government warned in a study published this summer into the potential impact of shipping that "combating oil spills in icy water is almost impossible with the current technology". And scientists have warned that emissions from cargo ships using the Arctic will accelerate global warming.
"One of the most potent 'short-lived climate forcers' in diesel emissions is black carbon, or soot," says James Corbett, a marine scientist at the University of Delaware who has worked with Canadian colleagues to look at the impact of shipping in the far north.
"Ships operating in or near the Arctic use advanced diesel engines that release black carbon into one of the most sensitive regions for climate change," he says in a study first published in the journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The study team's key conclusion, based on the modelling of future emissions in the region, is that "short-lived forcing of about 4.5 gigatons of black carbon from Arctic shipping may increase the global warming potential due to ships' carbon dioxide emissions by some 17 to 78%."
IP: Logged
12:02 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Four men are attempting to row a small fiberglass boat through a notorious Arctic route that has claimed the lives of countless explorers. Why? Because it's now possible, thanks to climate change.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Although it is true that water vapor in the lower atmosphere causes the lion's share of the heat trapping (greenhouse) effect, it is a moot point in this context, because there is nothing that humans have ever done (yet) that has any significant effect on the overall amount of water in the active hydrologic cycle.
That seems logical. I was not attesting that it did, those examples just popped into my mind. I will think about the rest of your post and reply. I am too busy elsewhere just now.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's one thing to argue about the validity of the evidence--something else entirely, to not be aware of where the evidence comes from, or exactly what the arguments are about. When it comes to climate science, someone hasn't been sleeping at a Holiday Inn. (But they're not the only one on this forum.. far from it.)
Ah yes, the arguments. Which include the unscientifically supported doomsday scenarios and the burdensome expensive fixes. The arguments of those that are heavily invested money wise and banking on a payoff. So what if it is real ? No fear mongering please. No "what if's".
IP: Logged
12:23 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yes 3.5 years on a sailboat back then due to icing each year as compared to 3 months in a row boat which is possible now.
That's your answer? Seriously? Was it you who said or quoted that the Northwest Passage was open for the first time in human history? I wasn't aware that 1903 was before human history.
Anyway, if our current warming was unprecedented, and the passage opening now is supposedly something new, how did Admunsen accomplish it at all?
I wish the rowers well. Remember a row boat can get through allot of stuff a ship can't. This includes hauling them over ice shelfs.
It also falls into the 'faint hope' category for any commercial operation. The Northwest Passage is not opening any time soon. You just have to look at the satellite data.
That's your answer? Seriously? Was it you who said or quoted that the Northwest Passage was open for the first time in human history? I wasn't aware that 1903 was before human history.
Anyway, if our current warming was unprecedented, and the passage opening now is supposedly something new, how did Admunsen accomplish it at all?
I have never claimed the northwest Passage was never navigable in human history.
Jaysus.. it took 3.5 years of being stuck in the ice over and over.
I wish the rowers well. Remember a row boat can get through allot of stuff a ship can't. This includes hauling them over ice shelfs.
It also falls into the 'faint hope' category for any commercial operation. The Northwest Passage is not opening any time soon. You just have to look at the satellite data.
Arn
Pick it apart all you like but it doesn't change the facts.
IP: Logged
01:01 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
I shall remove the facepalm 
, climates. Check.
? What was the second most, and what were the results ? Our Earth cools too. What was it's fastest and what were the results ? How many swings have we had ? How often ? Are there trends ?
