Pick it apart all you like but it doesn't change the facts.
Which facts? That the Northwest Passage has been opened before global warming? By the way, I've given other examples of the passage being sailed at other times in history. Of course, you will never acknowledge it.
IP: Logged
01:10 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
Which facts? That the Northwest Passage has been opened before global warming? By the way, I've given other examples of the passage being sailed at other times in history. Of course, you will never acknowledge it.
I'm not sure what you think you have here but I was merely rebutting Arm incorrectly using NASA's data to misrepresent ice scans.
You can try to make this about the Northwest passage all you like however the data on arctic ice is very clear according to the site Arn uses.
As for acknowledging the Northwest passage being sailed before I don't think anyone is denying it, it is called the Northwest PASSAGE for a reason I assume.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-11-2013).]
At the risk of running afoul of Newf's lazer mind, here is the satellite pic from 15 July 2010, 3 years ago when we were arguing about the Arctic ice disappearing, causing horrendous floods around the world
Here is the similar pic today
Notice the difference? There's mo' ice.
Here is a comparative graph
Now I am not making this up, and I'm not misinterpreting it. The ice volumes are still within the standard variability and are still higher than last year. We don't know what next year will look like, but, unlike the Global Warming scammers, I'm not going to project what I don't know
At the risk of running afoul of Newf's lazer mind, here is the satellite pic from 15 July 2010, 3 years ago when we were arguing about the Arctic ice disappearing, causing horrendous floods around the world
Here is the similar pic today
Notice the difference? There's mo' ice.
Here is a comparative graph
Now I am not making this up, and I'm not misinterpreting it. The ice volumes are still within the standard variability and are still higher than last year. We don't know what next year will look like, but, unlike the Global Warming scammers, I'm not going to project what I don't know
Arn
1 day does not a recovery make, the trend is STILL downward. So according to you if the 2013 line were to dip below the 2012 it's in decline again, correct?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-13-2013).]
The ice field has been in decline since the last ice age. It was not and is not got anything to do with mankind.
It is not accellerating, there are no drowning and starving bears, there are no inundated islands, there is no increase in the number of hurricanes. In short, the lies told are not coming true.
Arn
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
Jul 25th, 2013
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
rinselberg, I promised you I would think about your reply to my thoughts after I had time to fully evaluate your reply. Sorry for the delay. I am indebted in gratitude with your reply. Thanks for speaking logic instead of throwing out opinions and graphs.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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.
That makes sense. It does not explain how this makes CO2 a culprit.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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.
That's an indirect effect ? That also makes sense, a warmer atmosphere should theoretically cause/hold more evaporated water. GHS, ... ? What is that ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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).
Hence your other post I responded to (I guess). Something about your belief doesn't sit well with me. I am not exactly sure what it is. It would seem to me that the hydrologic cycle would have different states of being. Hence a cycle. You say there has not been enough, deep, newly exposed, water to affect it. Yet you also said (quoted above) that as the atmosphere warms it holds more water vapor, which increases global warming. I believe it is undisputed that water vapor helps increase a warming affect. As it warms, more water vapor will be exposed due to evaporation, which will warm the atmosphere more. Do I have it right ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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.
That's telling. Is there one which excludes the contribution of H2O to the perceived problem ? There damn well better be.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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.
IP: Logged
07:57 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
GHGs is short for Greenhouse Gases: CO2, water vapor, methane and a list of other chemicals.
quote
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and also the most important in terms of its contribution to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime. Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation. Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.
But I have not looked at this second link to see if it provides a more exact explanation about atmospheric water vapor and how that ties into human activities on the planet.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-25-2013).]
The decline in Arctic sea ice has been widely seen as economically beneficial because it opens up more shipping and drilling in a region thought to contain 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 per cent of its undiscovered oil.
But melting ice is releasing plumes of methane into the Earth’s atmosphere, speeding up the pace of global warming, Wadhams says.
For the Nature article, the researchers calculated the global consequences of the release of 50 gigatonnes of methane over a decade from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea and concluded there will be a $60 trillion economic impact resulting from more extreme weather, flooding, drought and poor health.
That’s a preliminary estimate because it doesn’t factor in ocean acidification or potential changes in atmospheric circulation that are not yet fully understood. Nor does it calculate the cost of greenhouse gases released by melting permafrost on land.
IP: Logged
08:39 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Opens shipping channels [QUOTE] The decline in Arctic sea ice has been widely seen as economically beneficial because it opens up more shipping and drilling in a region thought to contain 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 per cent of its undiscovered oil.
But melting ice is releasing plumes of methane into the Earth’s atmosphere, speeding up the pace of global warming, Wadhams says.
For the Nature article, the researchers calculated the global consequences of the release of 50 gigatonnes of methane over a decade from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea and concluded there will be a $60 trillion economic impact resulting from more extreme weather, flooding, drought and poor health.
That’s a preliminary estimate because it doesn’t factor in ocean acidification or potential changes in atmospheric circulation that are not yet fully understood. Nor does it calculate the cost of greenhouse gases released by melting permafrost on land.
[/QUOTE]
An article and theory that is SO BAD, staunch warmist Gavin Schmidt debunks it. But, of course, dimwitted newf couldn't wait to jump on it without any consideration...
Wadhams' statements on summer ice disappearance: guardian.co.uk/environment/ea… based on extrapolation: realclimate.org/index.php/arch… Consensus imaginary.
IP: Logged
11:03 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
An article and theory that is SO BAD, staunch warmist Gavin Schmidt debunks it. But, of course, dimwitted newf couldn't wait to jump on it without any consideration...
Wadhams' statements on summer ice disappearance: guardian.co.uk/environment/ea… based on extrapolation: realclimate.org/index.php/arch… Consensus imaginary.
Back to name calling?
IP: Logged
01:00 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-26-2013).]
"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."
The more interesting event is the pooling of water at the North Pole. I am surprised none of the AGW people are on top of this one. The Arctic Ocean is not a solid thing. The ice moves, opens and closes, and the surface melts in places during the summer months. The ice under the melt is still hundreds of feet deep, and the currents flowing under it flow all year long. This is the reason submarines are used in the Arctic.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-26-2013).]
"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."
The more interesting event is the pooling of water at the North Pole. I am surprised none of the AGW people are on top of this one. The Arctic Ocean is not a solid thing. The ice moves, opens and closes, and the surface melts in places during the summer months. The ice under the melt is still hundreds of feet deep, and the currents flowing under it flow all year long. This is the reason submarines are used in the Arctic.
Arn
I did read the article. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Did you not understand the term "arctic permafrost" maybe?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-26-2013).]
IP: Logged
10:41 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
"Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."
The more interesting event is the pooling of water at the North Pole. I am surprised none of the AGW people are on top of this one. The Arctic Ocean is not a solid thing. The ice moves, opens and closes, and the surface melts in places during the summer months. The ice under the melt is still hundreds of feet deep, and the currents flowing under it flow all year long. This is the reason submarines are used in the Arctic.
Arn
yes - it does now. I did mention this a few posts up: Santa had to relocate from the N.Pole. When is this gonna be let out to children of the world? Santa got chased off the N.Pole, because it is now underwater.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Now I am not making this up, and I'm not misinterpreting it. The ice volumes are still within the standard variability and are still higher than last year. We don't know what next year will look like, but, unlike the Global Warming scammers, I'm not going to project what I don't know
Your data measures surface area only. It does not measure volume. Ice thickness is not taken into account. The measurement is two dimensional, not three like it should be.
You are misinterpreting it. Ice volumes are not within standard variability. You are projecting what you don't know.
IP: Logged
04:08 PM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
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.
There's plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle that are trying to make a profit from climate change, or lack thereof. On one hand you have "green" companies, the other you have oil and carbon giants.
Still, the the science behind AGW is sound. The models aren't exact but this is to be expected. The science behind the skeptics, so far, has not been at all comprehensive.
Regarding fossil fuel usage - a lot of carbon emissions are from gas and coal plants. We'd be smart to replace those coal plants with nuclear ones, if the environmentalists would ever pull their heads out of their collective asses, and realize that no other option will come close to supplying enough power for a developed world.
Your data measures surface area only. It does not measure volume. Ice thickness is not taken into account. The measurement is two dimensional, not three like it should be.
You are misinterpreting it. Ice volumes are not within standard variability. You are projecting what you don't know.
Yes we are talking about the extent of coverage. No it is not 2" thick it is in places hundreds of feet thick. Nobody really knows the volume, and the amounts given are projections and estimates. Most of the ice is below the surface or "0" feet altitude.
Yes we are talking about the extent of coverage. No it is not 2" thick it is in places hundreds of feet thick. Nobody really knows the volume, and the amounts given are projections and estimates. Most of the ice is below the surface or "0" feet altitude.
Arn
no 4 meters max unless ridged locally and not near as much as there use to be of the thick multi year ice by far most is less then one meter
do you check anything or just post with out thinking
