http://www.physorg.com/news8542.html
PEOPLE: I screwed up! I screwed up big time! I am embarrassed. I apologize to each of you. I am an engineer, and I should have known better. I acted too quickly without thinking. I am going to gag down a piece of my hat today.
BUT, I do know more, now, than I did 12 hours ago. I will not make the same mistake again. I will try not to make a similar mistake in the future.
Wouldn"t it be great if all the people in government, politics, science, religion, and even the advocates of global warming; responded to their mistakes and misunderstandings in the same way? Everything would move forward much faster. Remember... the Catholic Church advocated an Earth Centered System until 1835... The Catholic Church was 292 years behind science in 1835... and that was only 172 years ago.
My intention was to show a large non-linear relationship between ocean radius and ocean volume. Unfortunately, my example was true only for an initial ocean radius of zero. In fact, at a radius of 4,000 miles, a 20-foot increase in ocean radius is almost linear with volume. I demonstrated the folly of prejudicial science.
I received 18 email responses within a few hours. Two blew me off. Three attributed ocean level rising primarily to thermal expansion. Eight made extensive comments and helpful explanations. Two made erroneous arguments (like me). One did not believe that the ocean has a radius. Only three of the responses correctly discerned and explained my error. Thank you.
We must resist believing-in and advocating things that we only read... Things which others have only read, believed, and then wrote about as experts.
In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have known better?
In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.
In 2007, global warming is certain to be a disaster. "Tens of millions will be flooded out of their homes each year." The experts include Al Gore, who has a degree in "government" and has written a book about what he has read.
Has anyone ever watched a campfire? It starts, it grows, it gets hot, and it gets cold. How many global warming experts have been watching the Sun?
James T. Conklin
Longwood, FL
Don't worry about getting it wrong over global warming. adoucette does it everytime he posts on GW, as does sock puppet NotArthur and other conspiracy theoriests who think they know something the weather experts and scientists don't know.
As to the sun, experts not checking it before they made their claims is like an engineer turning up for a job with chopsticks instead of tools.
Provably the world's ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. Where is it going? In the sea of course, so the seas will rise. When you say that they will rise about eight inches this century worldwide, it doesn't sound much. Just like when you say there could be a temperature rise of 5-10.C . People think their summers will just be a bit warmer and their winters not quite so cold.
In the year 1816, the year without a summer when they had snow in New York City in July and many harvests failed leading to famines, it was just 1.F colder than usual.
To think that a rise of water levels of eight inches is just going to mean high tides will be just a little higher is a similar fallacy. With a trend of more and stronger storms in the last few decades, it will mean even worse storms, severe flooding and so on as the barriers have to hold back millions of tons more water (1 cu m of water weighs a ton, and the pressure isn't just a single metre of water distance resting on a barrier. It can be miles of water) and higher waves.
B15, one of a number of melting icebergs containing a mere 10^15 gallons of water :
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
and the warmer weather will mean that it is not replaced.
As to the sun, experts not checking it before they made their claims is like an engineer turning up for a job with chopsticks instead of tools.
Provably the world's ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. Where is it going? In the sea of course, so the seas will rise. When you say that they will rise about eight inches this century worldwide, it doesn't sound much. Just like when you say there could be a temperature rise of 5-10.C . People think their summers will just be a bit warmer and their winters not quite so cold.
In the year 1816, the year without a summer when they had snow in New York City in July and many harvests failed leading to famines, it was just 1.F colder than usual.
To think that a rise of water levels of eight inches is just going to mean high tides will be just a little higher is a similar fallacy. With a trend of more and stronger storms in the last few decades, it will mean even worse storms, severe flooding and so on as the barriers have to hold back millions of tons more water (1 cu m of water weighs a ton, and the pressure isn't just a single metre of water distance resting on a barrier. It can be miles of water) and higher waves.
B15, one of a number of melting icebergs containing a mere 10^15 gallons of water :
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
and the warmer weather will mean that it is not replaced.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 23 2007, 01:38 PM)
B15, one of a number of melting icebergs containing a mere 10^15 gallons of water :
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
and the warmer weather will mean that it is not replaced.
Except B15 was part of the Ross Ice Shelf, and as such was ALREADY FLOATING
Thus essentially no change to sea level when it melts.
OOPS.
Was it due to GW?
From Kaneda's own link?
The Reuters report of the new iceberg was incorrectly linked to global warming. This is actually a naturally occurring event that is overdue to take place.
Regarding ocean levels, it should not have any significant effect that we know of.
this is not a signal of global change. .... This is a natural part of the hydrological cycle. This part of Antarctica breaks off an iceberg this size every 50 to 100 years. The last large iceberg was seen in 1956, so we’re about due.
global warming appears to not be responsible for this at this time. This is a naturally occuring event that we are seeing, although this is a one in 50 to 100 year event. Actually this part of Antarctica has not seen an iceberg of this magnitude in about that amount of time. So, we are due for this to occur.
Typical GWer BS though.
Arthur
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
and the warmer weather will mean that it is not replaced.
Except B15 was part of the Ross Ice Shelf, and as such was ALREADY FLOATING
Thus essentially no change to sea level when it melts.
OOPS.
Was it due to GW?
From Kaneda's own link?
QUOTE
The Reuters report of the new iceberg was incorrectly linked to global warming. This is actually a naturally occurring event that is overdue to take place.
Regarding ocean levels, it should not have any significant effect that we know of.
this is not a signal of global change. .... This is a natural part of the hydrological cycle. This part of Antarctica breaks off an iceberg this size every 50 to 100 years. The last large iceberg was seen in 1956, so we’re about due.
global warming appears to not be responsible for this at this time. This is a naturally occuring event that we are seeing, although this is a one in 50 to 100 year event. Actually this part of Antarctica has not seen an iceberg of this magnitude in about that amount of time. So, we are due for this to occur.
Typical GWer BS though.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 23 2007, 06:58 PM)
Except B15 was part of the Ross Ice Shelf, and as such was ALREADY FLOATING
Thus essentially no change to sea level when it melts.
OOPS.
Typical GWer BS though.
Arthur
So, floating ice aside. Land based glaciers are developing little pools, by little i mean much bigger than your average swimming pool, and instead of seeping back into the ice and freezing they make huge holes to the bottom of the ice and lubricate the glacier causing it to slide into, and melt into, the ocean. Must be some more of that GW BS right guy.
Thus essentially no change to sea level when it melts.
OOPS.
Typical GWer BS though.
Arthur
So, floating ice aside. Land based glaciers are developing little pools, by little i mean much bigger than your average swimming pool, and instead of seeping back into the ice and freezing they make huge holes to the bottom of the ice and lubricate the glacier causing it to slide into, and melt into, the ocean. Must be some more of that GW BS right guy.
Why do you think this is a NEW phenomena?
Note the IPCC REDUCED its estimate of Sea Level rise, and most of that rise is supposed to come from thermal expansion.
Do you know something they don't?
Arthur
Note the IPCC REDUCED its estimate of Sea Level rise, and most of that rise is supposed to come from thermal expansion.
Do you know something they don't?
Arthur
QUOTE (conklin+Mar 23 2007, 03:16 PM)
In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have known better?
In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.
Maybe off the subject but I would not have used these two examples to prove any point:
Y2K was a real problem and thousands of people throughout the world worked on the problem for several years before it happened to fix the problem. I know for a fact that at one large company, over 200,000 employees, that a whole department devoted just to Y2K worked on this problem for several years. The reason nothing happened is because it was fixed before the due date.
Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He gassed his own people; he was constructing a behemoth of a gun able to lob a round as large as a small car or nuclear weapon to Israel. He was working on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. We don’t know, and may never know exactly what happened, but I believe as others, that he sent his WMD to neighboring countries because, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even though he wanted to take over those countries, he would have rather had other Arab countries have the WMD’s than for them to get in the hands of the West, and for us to hold them high and show the world what we had found.
In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.
Maybe off the subject but I would not have used these two examples to prove any point:
Y2K was a real problem and thousands of people throughout the world worked on the problem for several years before it happened to fix the problem. I know for a fact that at one large company, over 200,000 employees, that a whole department devoted just to Y2K worked on this problem for several years. The reason nothing happened is because it was fixed before the due date.
Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He gassed his own people; he was constructing a behemoth of a gun able to lob a round as large as a small car or nuclear weapon to Israel. He was working on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. We don’t know, and may never know exactly what happened, but I believe as others, that he sent his WMD to neighboring countries because, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even though he wanted to take over those countries, he would have rather had other Arab countries have the WMD’s than for them to get in the hands of the West, and for us to hold them high and show the world what we had found.
QUOTE
The Reuters report of the new iceberg was incorrectly linked to global warming. This is actually a naturally occurring event that is overdue to take place.
which the very desperate conspiracy theorist adoufusset uses. Duh year 2000. Climate experts and scientists have found out new information since then. Monkeys have been found to be able to learn new information but creationists and climate deniers cannot showing they are inferior to those monkeys.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 23 2007, 08:24 PM)
Why do you think this is a NEW phenomena?
Note the IPCC REDUCED its estimate of Sea Level rise, and most of that rise is supposed to come from thermal expansion.
Do you know something they don't?
Arthur
adoufusset. Original estimates were 45 cm which has been knocked back to 30 cm but this would have to be upgraded if much of the world's ice melts (on land as well as sea) as predicted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
and it is getting worse!
Note the IPCC REDUCED its estimate of Sea Level rise, and most of that rise is supposed to come from thermal expansion.
Do you know something they don't?
Arthur
adoufusset. Original estimates were 45 cm which has been knocked back to 30 cm but this would have to be upgraded if much of the world's ice melts (on land as well as sea) as predicted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
and it is getting worse!
Nope, the 30 cm REPRESENTS the latest IPCC prediction.
You know something they don't?
Your article was about SEA ICE.
Which has NOTHING to do with ocean levels.
I do hope you noticed THIS from the article:
So NOW, it is POSSIBLE that the sea ice is now reaching the levels it reached during the 30s and 40s.
You know from before there was significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was also this:
So NOW, it is POSSIBLE that the sea ice is now reaching the levels it reached during the 30s and 40s.
You know from before there was significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was also this:
One of the limitations of these records is that they measure [b]only the area of ice, rather than the volume.
"One other factor could be movements of sea ice," said Liz Morris, of the British Antarctic Survey, currently working at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK.
"If it all piles up in one place, you might have the same total amount of ice," she told the BBC News website, "and there is some evidence that ice is piling up along the north Canadian coast, driven by changes in the pattern of winds and perhaps ocean currents."
OOPS.
Arthur
You know something they don't?
Your article was about SEA ICE.
Which has NOTHING to do with ocean levels.
I do hope you noticed THIS from the article:
QUOTE
An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.
So NOW, it is POSSIBLE that the sea ice is now reaching the levels it reached during the 30s and 40s.
You know from before there was significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was also this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s. |
So NOW, it is POSSIBLE that the sea ice is now reaching the levels it reached during the 30s and 40s.
You know from before there was significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was also this:
One of the limitations of these records is that they measure [b]only the area of ice, rather than the volume.
"One other factor could be movements of sea ice," said Liz Morris, of the British Antarctic Survey, currently working at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK.
"If it all piles up in one place, you might have the same total amount of ice," she told the BBC News website, "and there is some evidence that ice is piling up along the north Canadian coast, driven by changes in the pattern of winds and perhaps ocean currents."
OOPS.
Arthur
adoucette.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
US and Canadian scientists reported in September that the largest ice shelf in the Arctic off Canada's coast has broken up due to climate change and could endanger shipping and drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea.
The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf had been in place on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory for at least 3000 years.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631611744.html
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/16551462.htm
Why don't you give any links? Afraid I'll see where you are quoting something out of context?
So you're absolutely convinced that, of the eight possible contributing factors, only the first was significant? Proves nothing. From all the evidence you've made available, there's a good chance that "cooling climate" never even happened.
So you're absolutely convinced that, of the eight possible contributing factors, only the first was significant? Proves nothing. From all the evidence you've made available, there's a good chance that "cooling climate" never even happened.
Actually the cooling appears to be key, and YES there is quite a bit of evidence of a cooling globe, they call it the LITTLE ICE AGE:
"Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's explored the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he returned with a group of Viking families and settled at Brattahlid. The climate at this time was warmer than it is today, and hundreds of farms were established. The name "Greenland" was given to the country because it was a climatic fact at that time. No one would ever name it Greenland today.
In 999, Leif Eriksson (the son of Erik the Red), brought the first Christian missionary to Greenland and the first church was built beside Erik's farmhouse.
The church became extremely powerful in Greenland such that in 1124 a bishop was appointed, and a residence was built for him near Brattahlid.
At about the same time that this is going on, the favorable climate allowed the present Greenlanders, the Inuit, to migrate from the East and they also settled in Greenland but even further to the north (though it is not known if they did any farming).
This warm climatic period was fairly short in geologic terms (~500 years) and around 1150 the climate once again began to cool. By about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life difficult for the colonists in Greenland. Records show that around this time they began having years when no ships were able to reach Greenland through ice-choked seas.
There were brief returns to short warm periods but the overall trend got steadily colder and by 1350, the Norse settlements in southwestern Greenland had been abandoned.
A few clung on in other southern coastal areas but clearly it continued to become more tenuous of an existence. The last written record of the Vikings in Greenland was a wedding performed in the Hvalsey Church in 1408. It is thought that some settlers may have stuck it out another 50 or so years but ultimately they died or were forced to leave by the deteriorating climate.
The climate stayed in this cold phase until the nineteenth century.
Then it began to warm.
Arthur
in central California.
Just thought I'd finish that sentence for you.
"Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present, resembling values projected for California in the next 70–100 yr."
It's a single data point. To get any kind of comparable number we'd need at least a half dozen other comparison points around the globe.
The before and after normalized temperature charts. The evidence suggests the MWP was nearly as warm as today, but not quite.
QUOTE
But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm
US and Canadian scientists reported in September that the largest ice shelf in the Arctic off Canada's coast has broken up due to climate change and could endanger shipping and drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea.
The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf had been in place on the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut territory for at least 3000 years.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631611744.html
QUOTE
Then, from 1900 to 2000, tide gauges around the world showed sea level rise accelerating to 4 to 8 inches.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/16551462.htm
Why don't you give any links? Afraid I'll see where you are quoting something out of context?
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 27 2007, 10:15 AM)
Why don't you give any links? Afraid I'll see where you are quoting something out of context?
The QUOTES were from YOUR link.
Since your memory is short here's YOUR link again:
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
Arthur
The QUOTES were from YOUR link.
QUOTE
Your article was about SEA ICE.
Which has NOTHING to do with ocean levels.
I do hope you noticed THIS from the article:
Which has NOTHING to do with ocean levels.
I do hope you noticed THIS from the article:
Since your memory is short here's YOUR link again:
http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1
Arthur
So, Arthur. Do we have your guarantee that the Greenland icecap isn't going to experience significant melting, even if we burn all the coal in your home state? Where does Florida send the insurance claim if you HAPPEN to turn out wrong?
QUOTE (lengould+Mar 28 2007, 02:07 PM)
So, Arthur. Do we have your guarantee that the Greenland icecap isn't going to experience significant melting, even if we burn all the coal in your home state? Where does Florida send the insurance claim if you HAPPEN to turn out wrong?
People who worry about Greenland melting have NEVER been to Greenland.
As to our 18 semi-reliable weather monitoring stations on Greenland, when I checked, only 4 had been working in the last 6 days.
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Now of those, in the last 6 days
GITS has a net air temp of -2 C
NGRIP has a net air temp of -25 C
Summit has a net air temp of -18C
and
TUNU-N has a net air temp of -30C
Lets check back in a Month and see how things are going shall we.
Because, I do believe its a WAY SAFE BET.
Arthur
People who worry about Greenland melting have NEVER been to Greenland.
As to our 18 semi-reliable weather monitoring stations on Greenland, when I checked, only 4 had been working in the last 6 days.
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Now of those, in the last 6 days
GITS has a net air temp of -2 C
NGRIP has a net air temp of -25 C
Summit has a net air temp of -18C
and
TUNU-N has a net air temp of -30C
Lets check back in a Month and see how things are going shall we.
Because, I do believe its a WAY SAFE BET.
Arthur
Well its May.
Wonder how the temps are doing in Greenland?
And more stations are reporting (all temps in degrees C)
GITS continues to be the warmest station with a Low of -6 and a high of -2
South Dome had a Low of -28 and a high of -10
Dye-2 had a low of -23 and a high of -12
NASA-U had a low of -29 and a high of -20
NGRIP had a low of -33 and a high of -10
Summit had a low of -33 and a high of -17
Tunu-N had a low of -32 and a high of -15
The three most Northerly stations sent in no report.
Arthur
Wonder how the temps are doing in Greenland?
And more stations are reporting (all temps in degrees C)
GITS continues to be the warmest station with a Low of -6 and a high of -2
South Dome had a Low of -28 and a high of -10
Dye-2 had a low of -23 and a high of -12
NASA-U had a low of -29 and a high of -20
NGRIP had a low of -33 and a high of -10
Summit had a low of -33 and a high of -17
Tunu-N had a low of -32 and a high of -15
The three most Northerly stations sent in no report.
Arthur
And according to Arthur's simplistic logic, as long as the air temperature above the SURFACE of the glacier is below freezing, it will never reduce in mass. Arthur, ever used a snow cave to keep yourself warm in a cold climate? Didn't think so. I have.
QUOTE (lengould+May 5 2007, 10:11 PM)
And according to Arthur's simplistic logic, as long as the air temperature above the SURFACE of the glacier is below freezing, it will never reduce in mass.
No, my logic is if it is not above freezing and its losing mass, then you can't blame the loss on temperature.
Mass Balance of Glaciers is a complicated issue, but here it is May and 6 of the 7 stations reporting, are reporting HIGHS that are 10 degrees below freezing.
I'll check back in a month and see how its doing.
Arthur
No, my logic is if it is not above freezing and its losing mass, then you can't blame the loss on temperature.
Mass Balance of Glaciers is a complicated issue, but here it is May and 6 of the 7 stations reporting, are reporting HIGHS that are 10 degrees below freezing.
I'll check back in a month and see how its doing.
Arthur
QUOTE (conklin+Mar 23 2007, 03:16 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news8542.html
PEOPLE: I screwed up! I screwed up big time! I am embarrassed. I apologize to each of you. I am an engineer, and I should have known better. I acted too quickly without thinking. I am going to gag down a piece of my hat today.
BUT, I do know more, now, than I did 12 hours ago. I will not make the same mistake again. I will try not to make a similar mistake in the future.
Wouldn"t it be great if all the people in government, politics, science, religion, and even the advocates of global warming; responded to their mistakes and misunderstandings in the same way? Everything would move forward much faster. Remember... the Catholic Church advocated an Earth Centered System until 1835... The Catholic Church was 292 years behind science in 1835... and that was only 172 years ago.
My intention was to show a large non-linear relationship between ocean radius and ocean volume. Unfortunately, my example was true only for an initial ocean radius of zero. In fact, at a radius of 4,000 miles, a 20-foot increase in ocean radius is almost linear with volume. I demonstrated the folly of prejudicial science.
I received 18 email responses within a few hours. Two blew me off. Three attributed ocean level rising primarily to thermal expansion. Eight made extensive comments and helpful explanations. Two made erroneous arguments (like me). One did not believe that the ocean has a radius. Only three of the responses correctly discerned and explained my error. Thank you.
We must resist believing-in and advocating things that we only read... Things which others have only read, believed, and then wrote about as experts.
In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have known better?
In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.
In 2007, global warming is certain to be a disaster. "Tens of millions will be flooded out of their homes each year." The experts include Al Gore, who has a degree in "government" and has written a book about what he has read.
Has anyone ever watched a campfire? It starts, it grows, it gets hot, and it gets cold. How many global warming experts have been watching the Sun?
James T. Conklin
Longwood, FL
Hey man, you missed the last bit ..... "glug, glug, glug" (gasps for air) .... "glug".
PEOPLE: I screwed up! I screwed up big time! I am embarrassed. I apologize to each of you. I am an engineer, and I should have known better. I acted too quickly without thinking. I am going to gag down a piece of my hat today.
BUT, I do know more, now, than I did 12 hours ago. I will not make the same mistake again. I will try not to make a similar mistake in the future.
Wouldn"t it be great if all the people in government, politics, science, religion, and even the advocates of global warming; responded to their mistakes and misunderstandings in the same way? Everything would move forward much faster. Remember... the Catholic Church advocated an Earth Centered System until 1835... The Catholic Church was 292 years behind science in 1835... and that was only 172 years ago.
My intention was to show a large non-linear relationship between ocean radius and ocean volume. Unfortunately, my example was true only for an initial ocean radius of zero. In fact, at a radius of 4,000 miles, a 20-foot increase in ocean radius is almost linear with volume. I demonstrated the folly of prejudicial science.
I received 18 email responses within a few hours. Two blew me off. Three attributed ocean level rising primarily to thermal expansion. Eight made extensive comments and helpful explanations. Two made erroneous arguments (like me). One did not believe that the ocean has a radius. Only three of the responses correctly discerned and explained my error. Thank you.
We must resist believing-in and advocating things that we only read... Things which others have only read, believed, and then wrote about as experts.
In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have known better?
In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.
In 2007, global warming is certain to be a disaster. "Tens of millions will be flooded out of their homes each year." The experts include Al Gore, who has a degree in "government" and has written a book about what he has read.
Has anyone ever watched a campfire? It starts, it grows, it gets hot, and it gets cold. How many global warming experts have been watching the Sun?
James T. Conklin
Longwood, FL
Hey man, you missed the last bit ..... "glug, glug, glug" (gasps for air) .... "glug".
GW?
WHY IS ICE NOW MELTING ON MARS?
THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT THE SUN IS HEATING UP.
MAN MADE GW SHOULD BE HANDLED IN SUCH A TIMELY MANNER. WE SHOULD NOT BE LIVING IN FEAR OF IT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
WHY IS ICE NOW MELTING ON MARS?
THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT THE SUN IS HEATING UP.
MAN MADE GW SHOULD BE HANDLED IN SUCH A TIMELY MANNER. WE SHOULD NOT BE LIVING IN FEAR OF IT.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
The baloney about all the GW hype is starting to unravel. Lengould, you never crack a history book? About the vikings in Greenland? Why is it called Greenland? Because it was MUCH warmer then and green in the southern parts (like it is becoming now, again) They farmed and had flocks of sheep and cows. Until the Ice came back. Dont believe me? Pull your head out of Gore's rump and look at some of the latest research
(QUOTE=http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/htmlonly/greenland.html)
Located west of Iceland, Greenland is a vast ice-capped continent 1700 miles long and 700 miles wide, fringed by a thin strip of mountainous terrain. Most of this land is frigid arctic tundra, but around A.D.985, Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch. He named this land Greenland "so that people would be encouraged to go there," and indeed many followed him to this new land. The colonies flourished for three hundred years. Farms proliferated; animal and human populations grew quickly. Its peak population reached nearly 5000 Norse, who lived in two colonies in southwestern Greenland, called the Eastern and Western Settlements. Then, environmental, economic, and social conditions began to worsen until, only a few decades before Columbus arrived in America, they disappeared.
The disappearance of the Norse colonies in Greenland is the outstanding unsolved mystery of the Viking's North Atlantic saga. After more than two hundred and fifty years of study by historians, archeologists, and natural scientists, there are clues but no firm answers. What happened to the Greenland Norse? A range of factors-cooling climate, declining trade relations, over-grazing of soil, cultural taboos against eating certain foods, competition with Inuit, emigration, taxation by the crown and church-all contributed to the decline. No single event seems to have spelled the end, but rather the complex web in which the Greenlanders were caught.
(/QUOTE)
The period of Erik the Red also jives with the Medieval Warming Period. and the Little Ice Age conveniently marks the death of the little norse colony.
But can anyone explain the whole 200 year CO2 lag thing?
Deadbeat
(QUOTE=http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/htmlonly/greenland.html)
Located west of Iceland, Greenland is a vast ice-capped continent 1700 miles long and 700 miles wide, fringed by a thin strip of mountainous terrain. Most of this land is frigid arctic tundra, but around A.D.985, Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch. He named this land Greenland "so that people would be encouraged to go there," and indeed many followed him to this new land. The colonies flourished for three hundred years. Farms proliferated; animal and human populations grew quickly. Its peak population reached nearly 5000 Norse, who lived in two colonies in southwestern Greenland, called the Eastern and Western Settlements. Then, environmental, economic, and social conditions began to worsen until, only a few decades before Columbus arrived in America, they disappeared.
The disappearance of the Norse colonies in Greenland is the outstanding unsolved mystery of the Viking's North Atlantic saga. After more than two hundred and fifty years of study by historians, archeologists, and natural scientists, there are clues but no firm answers. What happened to the Greenland Norse? A range of factors-cooling climate, declining trade relations, over-grazing of soil, cultural taboos against eating certain foods, competition with Inuit, emigration, taxation by the crown and church-all contributed to the decline. No single event seems to have spelled the end, but rather the complex web in which the Greenlanders were caught.
(/QUOTE)
The period of Erik the Red also jives with the Medieval Warming Period. and the Little Ice Age conveniently marks the death of the little norse colony.
But can anyone explain the whole 200 year CO2 lag thing?
Deadbeat
QUOTE
A range of factors-cooling climate, declining trade relations, over-grazing of soil, cultural taboos against eating certain foods, competition with Inuit, emigration, taxation by the crown and church-all contributed to the decline. No single event seems to have spelled the end,
So you're absolutely convinced that, of the eight possible contributing factors, only the first was significant? Proves nothing. From all the evidence you've made available, there's a good chance that "cooling climate" never even happened.
QUOTE (lengould+May 7 2007, 09:27 AM)
So you're absolutely convinced that, of the eight possible contributing factors, only the first was significant? Proves nothing. From all the evidence you've made available, there's a good chance that "cooling climate" never even happened.
Actually the cooling appears to be key, and YES there is quite a bit of evidence of a cooling globe, they call it the LITTLE ICE AGE:
"Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's explored the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he returned with a group of Viking families and settled at Brattahlid. The climate at this time was warmer than it is today, and hundreds of farms were established. The name "Greenland" was given to the country because it was a climatic fact at that time. No one would ever name it Greenland today.
In 999, Leif Eriksson (the son of Erik the Red), brought the first Christian missionary to Greenland and the first church was built beside Erik's farmhouse.
The church became extremely powerful in Greenland such that in 1124 a bishop was appointed, and a residence was built for him near Brattahlid.
At about the same time that this is going on, the favorable climate allowed the present Greenlanders, the Inuit, to migrate from the East and they also settled in Greenland but even further to the north (though it is not known if they did any farming).
This warm climatic period was fairly short in geologic terms (~500 years) and around 1150 the climate once again began to cool. By about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life difficult for the colonists in Greenland. Records show that around this time they began having years when no ships were able to reach Greenland through ice-choked seas.
There were brief returns to short warm periods but the overall trend got steadily colder and by 1350, the Norse settlements in southwestern Greenland had been abandoned.
A few clung on in other southern coastal areas but clearly it continued to become more tenuous of an existence. The last written record of the Vikings in Greenland was a wedding performed in the Hvalsey Church in 1408. It is thought that some settlers may have stuck it out another 50 or so years but ultimately they died or were forced to leave by the deteriorating climate.
The climate stayed in this cold phase until the nineteenth century.
Then it began to warm.
Arthur
"The terms “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively. The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."
IPCC 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm
So there never really was any global phenomenon in that time period, simply a regional effect.
IPCC 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm
So there never really was any global phenomenon in that time period, simply a regional effect.
Note, the IPCC based this heavily on Mann's now discredited Hockey Stick which minimized both the MWP and the LIA.
Other researchers, since the release of this report have found global evidence for Both the LIA and MWP.
Arthur
Other researchers, since the release of this report have found global evidence for Both the LIA and MWP.
Arthur
Actually it appears to have been based on:
(Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000)
(Grove and Switsur, 1994)
(Bradley, 1999)
No mention of Mann, though no doubt also worked on it.
(Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000)
(Grove and Switsur, 1994)
(Bradley, 1999)
No mention of Mann, though no doubt also worked on it.
Nope, those researchers just showed that the MWP and LIA "these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically"
NOT that they didn't exist.
Note that they have little problem with the LIA:
Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall.
But where Mann's graph was really off was for the MWP, which it discounted.
Thus:
The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures.
Compare that to:
Note, even in this picture you can't compare the BLACK line with the other lines, as the black is an INSTRUMENTAL record and the others are PROXY records. The Proxy records have error bars that extend ABOVE the instrumental record. Which is why you look to HISTORICAL data, as published before, to see that the historical evidence suggests that the MWP was WARMER than today.
See: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mill...6_millar027.pdf
Where far from the North Atlantic they found annual minimal temps were 3.2 C warmer during the period of the MWP.
This came out 5 years after that IPCC report was published, so we will have to wait and see how/if it is acknowledged by the IPCC this go around (and how far they will distance themselves from the Mann Hockey Stick ).
Arthur
NOT that they didn't exist.
Note that they have little problem with the LIA:
Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall.
But where Mann's graph was really off was for the MWP, which it discounted.
Thus:
The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures.
Compare that to:
Note, even in this picture you can't compare the BLACK line with the other lines, as the black is an INSTRUMENTAL record and the others are PROXY records. The Proxy records have error bars that extend ABOVE the instrumental record. Which is why you look to HISTORICAL data, as published before, to see that the historical evidence suggests that the MWP was WARMER than today.
See: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mill...6_millar027.pdf
Where far from the North Atlantic they found annual minimal temps were 3.2 C warmer during the period of the MWP.
This came out 5 years after that IPCC report was published, so we will have to wait and see how/if it is acknowledged by the IPCC this go around (and how far they will distance themselves from the Mann Hockey Stick
). Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 7 2007, 05:36 PM)
Note, the IPCC based this heavily on Mann's now discredited Hockey Stick which minimized both the MWP and the LIA.
Other researchers, since the release of this report have found global evidence for Both the LIA and MWP.
Arthur
It never ceases to amaze me, the GW guys have NOOOOO problem with extrapolating wild exaggerations, ocean level rises 100 times the IPCC estimate, including sudden ceased Halocline caused theoretical maximum disasters, but suddenly go ultra conservative when presented with real historical data like the LIA and MWP.
it is starting to look like you are just picking and choosing which science you believe, Len? Only the parts convenient to your position?
Other researchers, since the release of this report have found global evidence for Both the LIA and MWP.
Arthur
It never ceases to amaze me, the GW guys have NOOOOO problem with extrapolating wild exaggerations, ocean level rises 100 times the IPCC estimate, including sudden ceased Halocline caused theoretical maximum disasters, but suddenly go ultra conservative when presented with real historical data like the LIA and MWP.
it is starting to look like you are just picking and choosing which science you believe, Len? Only the parts convenient to your position?
Well as we near June, how are those Greenland temps doing?
Think by now its a HEAT WAVE up there?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Lets see:
GITS, last month's warmest station is again the warmest, but STILL temps haven't broken the Freezing level. Last 6 days the temps have been -6 to -2 C.
South Dome reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -14
Dye - 2 reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -8
NASA U reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -12
NGRIP reports in at a low of -30 to a high of -15
Summit reports in at a low of -32 to a high of -18
Tunu reports in at a low of -24 to a high of -10
Swiss Camp reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -4
JAR 1 reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -2
Arthur
Think by now its a HEAT WAVE up there?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Lets see:
GITS, last month's warmest station is again the warmest, but STILL temps haven't broken the Freezing level. Last 6 days the temps have been -6 to -2 C.
South Dome reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -14
Dye - 2 reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -8
NASA U reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -12
NGRIP reports in at a low of -30 to a high of -15
Summit reports in at a low of -32 to a high of -18
Tunu reports in at a low of -24 to a high of -10
Swiss Camp reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -4
JAR 1 reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -2
Arthur
QUOTE
Where far from the North Atlantic they found annual minimal temps were 3.2 C warmer during the period of the MWP.
in central California.
Just thought I'd finish that sentence for you.
"Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present, resembling values projected for California in the next 70–100 yr."
It's a single data point. To get any kind of comparable number we'd need at least a half dozen other comparison points around the globe.
The before and after normalized temperature charts. The evidence suggests the MWP was nearly as warm as today, but not quite.
QUOTE (Corvidae+May 29 2007, 09:31 AM)
The before and after normalized temperature charts. The evidence suggests the MWP was nearly as warm as today, but not quite.
Which, considering that the world is on a LONG TERM WARMING TREND, makes today's temps within what one would expect from NORMAL VARIATION.
Which doesn't mean that they are from Normal Variation, but they are not that abnormal either.
Which is why the IPCC says only that it is very likely that somewhat more than about 1/2 of the warming of THE LAST 50 YEARS (~0.3 C) was caused by humans.
These causes include Land Use changes (mainly pavement, buildings & irrigation etc) and increases in SOOT, NOx, CH4 and CFCs.
CO2, might represent about ~2/3 of that or ~ 0.2 C
Arthur
Which, considering that the world is on a LONG TERM WARMING TREND, makes today's temps within what one would expect from NORMAL VARIATION.
Which doesn't mean that they are from Normal Variation, but they are not that abnormal either.
Which is why the IPCC says only that it is very likely that somewhat more than about 1/2 of the warming of THE LAST 50 YEARS (~0.3 C) was caused by humans.
These causes include Land Use changes (mainly pavement, buildings & irrigation etc) and increases in SOOT, NOx, CH4 and CFCs.
CO2, might represent about ~2/3 of that or ~ 0.2 C
Arthur
CLIMATIC CHANGE
"There are ominous signs... Weather patterns have begun to change dramatically... Most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded... Signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather... Evidence in support of these predictions has begun to accumulate massively..."
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
These are the warnings from: National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mitchell of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Kukla of Columbia University, Reid Bryson of University of Wisconsin, and Dr. McQuigg of NOAA Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment.
Proposed solutions include: "Melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot" in an absurd attempt to warm the Earth.
Source: The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
James T. Conklin
"There are ominous signs... Weather patterns have begun to change dramatically... Most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded... Signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather... Evidence in support of these predictions has begun to accumulate massively..."
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
These are the warnings from: National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mitchell of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Kukla of Columbia University, Reid Bryson of University of Wisconsin, and Dr. McQuigg of NOAA Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment.
Proposed solutions include: "Melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot" in an absurd attempt to warm the Earth.
Source: The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
James T. Conklin
GLOBAL WARMING
"Undeniable evidence"... "There are ominous signs... Weather patterns have begun to change dramatically... Most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded... Signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather... Evidence in support of these predictions has begun to accumulate massively..."
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
These are the warnings from: National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mitchell of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Kukla of Columbia University, Reid Bryson of University of Wisconsin, and Dr. McQuigg of NOAA Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment.
Proposed solutions include: "Melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot" in an absurd attempt to warm the Earth.
Source: The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"Undeniable evidence"... "There are ominous signs... Weather patterns have begun to change dramatically... Most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded... Signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather... Evidence in support of these predictions has begun to accumulate massively..."
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
These are the warnings from: National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Mitchell of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Kukla of Columbia University, Reid Bryson of University of Wisconsin, and Dr. McQuigg of NOAA Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment.
Proposed solutions include: "Melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot" in an absurd attempt to warm the Earth.
Source: The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975
Who knows what the ideal conditions of the earth should be. Everyone assumes what we have now is ideal. Shouldn't an ideal earth be one that promotes maximium evolutionary potential. Yet the current one has species dropping like flies. From the point of view of nature, it can do better than that. The earth may be adding a little spice for forward progress. What better way then to open up more land for life to occupy, i.e., thaw Greenland. The extra rain will be beneficial to all the plants. Hurricanes help make lakes and swamps to expand fish and insects. Rising oceans make more coastline and allow the brackish water to get further inland. This will help blend isolated species of fish to make new fish. Hotter areas create a need for trees and animals to adapt, while forcing some to migrate to other areas so they impact those eco-systems with fresh genes. Cooler areas get warmer shifting the migration patterns of birds. I would think the greenpeace folk will be all for this.
Not all humans will suffer. Those who live in cool areas might find their climate changing for the better, with population redistribution moving toward the once cooler dormant land, i.e., cleaner to live it. Those who are smart will do their calculations and speculate where the new ocean front property will be. Many people will create wealth this way. Deserts could farmable with all the extra water in the atmosphere. All the extra rain and storms may help clean up the rivers and lakes so they are pure once again. Everyone is worried about how to feed the growing world population and where will also the fresh come from. Global warming could save the day.
Not all humans will suffer. Those who live in cool areas might find their climate changing for the better, with population redistribution moving toward the once cooler dormant land, i.e., cleaner to live it. Those who are smart will do their calculations and speculate where the new ocean front property will be. Many people will create wealth this way. Deserts could farmable with all the extra water in the atmosphere. All the extra rain and storms may help clean up the rivers and lakes so they are pure once again. Everyone is worried about how to feed the growing world population and where will also the fresh come from. Global warming could save the day.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2007, 08:19 AM)
Well as we near June, how are those Greenland temps doing?
Think by now its a HEAT WAVE up there?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Lets see:
GITS, last month's warmest station is again the warmest, but STILL temps haven't broken the Freezing level. Last 6 days the temps have been -6 to -2 C.
South Dome reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -14
Dye - 2 reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -8
NASA U reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -12
NGRIP reports in at a low of -30 to a high of -15
Summit reports in at a low of -32 to a high of -18
Tunu reports in at a low of -24 to a high of -10
Swiss Camp reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -4
JAR 1 reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -2
Arthur
Well now its July.
Has the heat come to Greenland yet?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Well its finally here.
Sort of.
A quick check shows that Dye-2 is the only station that reported ANY temps above freezing. Dye had a few hours in two of the last 6 days that make it briefly to 1 degree above freezing.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
NONE of the other sites got above Freezing.
GITS is the SAME as last we checked -6 to -2
South Dome has no report.
NASA U has warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
NGRIP has also warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
Summit is still frigid at a low of -35 and a high of -15C
Tunu almost got above freezing but is averaging about -8C
Swiss Camp and JAR 1 have no report
Arthur
Think by now its a HEAT WAVE up there?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Lets see:
GITS, last month's warmest station is again the warmest, but STILL temps haven't broken the Freezing level. Last 6 days the temps have been -6 to -2 C.
South Dome reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -14
Dye - 2 reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -8
NASA U reports in at a low of -22 to a high of -12
NGRIP reports in at a low of -30 to a high of -15
Summit reports in at a low of -32 to a high of -18
Tunu reports in at a low of -24 to a high of -10
Swiss Camp reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -4
JAR 1 reports in at a low of -16 to a high of -2
Arthur
Well now its July.
Has the heat come to Greenland yet?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Well its finally here.
Sort of.
A quick check shows that Dye-2 is the only station that reported ANY temps above freezing. Dye had a few hours in two of the last 6 days that make it briefly to 1 degree above freezing.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
NONE of the other sites got above Freezing.
GITS is the SAME as last we checked -6 to -2
South Dome has no report.
NASA U has warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
NGRIP has also warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
Summit is still frigid at a low of -35 and a high of -15C
Tunu almost got above freezing but is averaging about -8C
Swiss Camp and JAR 1 have no report
Arthur
We mustn't forget to look at the information found at: http://www.physorg.com/news102864888.html
We also should not forget that not all the ice cores show the same thing. One ice core showed temperatures warmer 1,000 years ago than today. We also should not forget that wind-driven events like tornados and hurricanes are affected by solar emissions, which, by the way, have been increasing over the last few years.
Warming and wind-driven events also are increasing on Mars at the same time, where man and man's CO2 "pollution" do not exist! There is no clear evidence to link increased wind-driven events to so-called manmade global warming, just a lot of hype and misinformation.
We also should not forget that not all the ice cores show the same thing. One ice core showed temperatures warmer 1,000 years ago than today. We also should not forget that wind-driven events like tornados and hurricanes are affected by solar emissions, which, by the way, have been increasing over the last few years.
Warming and wind-driven events also are increasing on Mars at the same time, where man and man's CO2 "pollution" do not exist! There is no clear evidence to link increased wind-driven events to so-called manmade global warming, just a lot of hype and misinformation.
Links_ Start with this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Then continue with...
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/200...2202.htm?enviro
.And. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...he-21st-century
Methane.
http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...725124.500.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eoc...Thermal_Maximum
Look for what they think the 'causes' to it might have been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event
Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
http://www.physorg.com/news102864888.html and the full quote listed before:
"That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion. "
Which seems to be the author of the reviews conclusion, not the thesis author's.
BTW: There were no man_made induction of CO2 at that time, as far as i know? Or is it true??? There are little men in green saucers (with time machines perhaps?)
And if you checked them out it will be easier to see when people put forward as truth (or 'their proof' 'ideas' as, ah well ..Whatever :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Then continue with...
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/200...2202.htm?enviro
.And. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...he-21st-century
Methane.
http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...725124.500.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eoc...Thermal_Maximum
Look for what they think the 'causes' to it might have been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Trias...xtinction_event
Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
http://www.physorg.com/news102864888.html and the full quote listed before:
"That signifies that there was ice there during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago. It means that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion. "
Which seems to be the author of the reviews conclusion, not the thesis author's.
BTW: There were no man_made induction of CO2 at that time, as far as i know? Or is it true??? There are little men in green saucers (with time machines perhaps?)
And if you checked them out it will be easier to see when people put forward as truth (or 'their proof' 'ideas' as, ah well ..Whatever :)
Most people don't seem to realize that the earth is better off with global warming. Only humans have something to be concerned about. Say the CO2 levels rise and this warms the earth. This means more evaporation and rain. It means land closer to the poles will thaw. The net affect is that the amount of plants and biomass will increase on the earth, because of more land, warmer and longer growing seasons, more rain and more CO2. This means more food for animals and therefore more animals. This adds up to better for the earth to me.
Cold makes the earth worse off. It shortens the growing season, we get less rain and more snow. Snow doesn't recycle back to the oceans, but accumulates. This causes the plants to die-back toward the equator and the earth to get more barren. There is less food for the animals resulting in more animals deaths.
The environmentalists are upside down. They say they love nature but prefer nature exist in its wilted state. If one wishes to maximized nature, global warming is the way to go. The realitiy is one is just trying to save their own human hinnie, using global warmin as cover. It is OK to be scared but don't say you are doing it for nature. Nature can do much better if it was a little warmer.
That is the paradox. Those who ignor global warming are actually the most in tuned with maximizing nature, sinced this trend will increase the number of plants and other speciies that the earth can support. While those who panicing over it, are for minimizing nature. Tell me how nature is better off with the world cooler?
Take humans out of the picture and asset planet earth as though it was a planet from days gone by. I can picture hot steamy jungles, with even the polar regions full of forests. There is extra CO2 and rain for all the plants. The storms are stronger and the rain more plentiful, but the land is made fertile by the floods (spread the golden earth) and the flora lush by the rain. Even if there is natural disaster, nature is so invigorated it quickly replenishes itself with the new and the improved, i.e., paradise.
Cold makes the earth worse off. It shortens the growing season, we get less rain and more snow. Snow doesn't recycle back to the oceans, but accumulates. This causes the plants to die-back toward the equator and the earth to get more barren. There is less food for the animals resulting in more animals deaths.
The environmentalists are upside down. They say they love nature but prefer nature exist in its wilted state. If one wishes to maximized nature, global warming is the way to go. The realitiy is one is just trying to save their own human hinnie, using global warmin as cover. It is OK to be scared but don't say you are doing it for nature. Nature can do much better if it was a little warmer.
That is the paradox. Those who ignor global warming are actually the most in tuned with maximizing nature, sinced this trend will increase the number of plants and other speciies that the earth can support. While those who panicing over it, are for minimizing nature. Tell me how nature is better off with the world cooler?
Take humans out of the picture and asset planet earth as though it was a planet from days gone by. I can picture hot steamy jungles, with even the polar regions full of forests. There is extra CO2 and rain for all the plants. The storms are stronger and the rain more plentiful, but the land is made fertile by the floods (spread the golden earth) and the flora lush by the rain. Even if there is natural disaster, nature is so invigorated it quickly replenishes itself with the new and the improved, i.e., paradise.
Well my man, i hope you're right :)
But somehow i doubt.
"The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now.
Our oceans are always slightly alkaline. As the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases so too does the amount dissolving in the sea. Lately, the ocean is taking more CO2 than it gives; the oceans are absorbing about half the CO2 emitted by humans, and are acidifying as a consequence.
The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean.
As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound. The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently.
They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
/ On the other hand if ice shelfs disappear into the oceans it will probably both slow the alkaline processes somewhat and also lead to a short term cooling effect. But after that is over the reaction will accelerate again /
Of course there is that with coal to.
We have China, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc. They are growing at a speed that will make EU and USA a small player. Today 30% of Global CO2 emissions. In 2023 it could be USA+EU combined. over 500,000,000 years, the biosphere has gradually taken most of the CO2 out of the air, and turned it to coal and oil.
Now humans are digging up all that fossil carbon, and putting it back in the atmosphere a million times faster than it came out. Burn it all, and we might indeed get back where we started, to a planet with lots of CO2 but no oxygen, and a warmer sun. Not a place most of us would want to live, even supposing we could.*
But somehow i doubt.
"The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now.
Our oceans are always slightly alkaline. As the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases so too does the amount dissolving in the sea. Lately, the ocean is taking more CO2 than it gives; the oceans are absorbing about half the CO2 emitted by humans, and are acidifying as a consequence.
The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean.
As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound. The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently.
They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
/ On the other hand if ice shelfs disappear into the oceans it will probably both slow the alkaline processes somewhat and also lead to a short term cooling effect. But after that is over the reaction will accelerate again /
Of course there is that with coal to.
We have China, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc. They are growing at a speed that will make EU and USA a small player. Today 30% of Global CO2 emissions. In 2023 it could be USA+EU combined. over 500,000,000 years, the biosphere has gradually taken most of the CO2 out of the air, and turned it to coal and oil.
Now humans are digging up all that fossil carbon, and putting it back in the atmosphere a million times faster than it came out. Burn it all, and we might indeed get back where we started, to a planet with lots of CO2 but no oxygen, and a warmer sun. Not a place most of us would want to live, even supposing we could.*
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 6 2007, 12:11 AM)
"The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now. ...
More "Real"climate crapola. I have noted that the majority of what I see there does not seem to have references that we can check. Most of it reads like people pulling ideas out of their rear-ends. I have also seen that there is much that is there that is scientifically of little value as the facts contradict what is seen there quite often. Do some careful research and you, too, will see it.
Here is a sample of the Vostok Ice Core that shows temperature/isotope ranges. Notice that the present time does not yet come to where it was 150,000 and 300,000 years ago? How does that data fit in with what is being claimed?
More "Real"climate crapola. I have noted that the majority of what I see there does not seem to have references that we can check. Most of it reads like people pulling ideas out of their rear-ends. I have also seen that there is much that is there that is scientifically of little value as the facts contradict what is seen there quite often. Do some careful research and you, too, will see it.
Here is a sample of the Vostok Ice Core that shows temperature/isotope ranges. Notice that the present time does not yet come to where it was 150,000 and 300,000 years ago? How does that data fit in with what is being claimed?
QUOTE (yor_on+)
the biosphere has gradually taken most of the CO2 out of the air, and turned it to coal and oil.
Nope.
The current ocean alone stores many times the carbon sequestered in ALL Fossil Fuels.
More Bovine Poo.
You want sequestered carbon?
Check out the MASSIVE carbonate layers from the CRETACIOUS (Chalk Forming) period.
Arthur
Nope.
The current ocean alone stores many times the carbon sequestered in ALL Fossil Fuels.
QUOTE
The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently. They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100
More Bovine Poo.
You want sequestered carbon?
Check out the MASSIVE carbonate layers from the CRETACIOUS (Chalk Forming) period.
Arthur
Hmmm,
Let's see, the glaciers have been more or less retreating for the last 14,000 years
or so, with some short reoccurences of glaciation happening sporatically since.
So, the process of global warming has been underway for much longer than
civilization with any long term impact has been around, and is a naturally occuring
cyclic phenomenon.
Ever watch an ice cube melt? It starts melting slowly because it has a fixed
cold mass that is only conducting heat where its exposed surface area contacts the
ambient atmosphere and the ground, which determines its initial rate of melting.
As the ice melts, its mass decreases and its exposed surface area also decreases,
but it is also in contact with melt water, which acts as a thermal sink that
increases the heat transfer efficiency of the melting process.
It's safe to predict, that if the ambient temperature rises over time, that the
rate of melting will also increase. The less ice mass there is, the faster it will
melt in a warming, thermally conductive environment.
Periodically the the icecaps melt due to the atmospheric changes caused
by the change in orbital Milankovich cycles. Effectively, there is more exposed land
and water surface area, and thermal mass, that absorbs and retains solar energy
that increases the melt rate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...ions.png/350px-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Global warming caused by man is more ominous, and is an easy way to get
research funding and sell green products on the fear and hype that
scientific "authority" pushes. If they can convince the politicians, then it must be
an absolute truth. 30 years ago, the scientific experts were pushing the agenda
of the coming ice age. I was glad to see that someone posted that "expert"
opinion.
PT Barnum was right.
That's not to say that overpopulation and rampant industrialization/modernization
aren't harming the planet, I agree that premise is correct. The damage inflicted
on mother earth cannot be undone and will continue unabated as the global
population continues to rise, unchecked. The problem isn't the high tech nations,
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciation#Ice_ages
Just another perspective.
LL
Let's see, the glaciers have been more or less retreating for the last 14,000 years
or so, with some short reoccurences of glaciation happening sporatically since.
So, the process of global warming has been underway for much longer than
civilization with any long term impact has been around, and is a naturally occuring
cyclic phenomenon.
Ever watch an ice cube melt? It starts melting slowly because it has a fixed
cold mass that is only conducting heat where its exposed surface area contacts the
ambient atmosphere and the ground, which determines its initial rate of melting.
As the ice melts, its mass decreases and its exposed surface area also decreases,
but it is also in contact with melt water, which acts as a thermal sink that
increases the heat transfer efficiency of the melting process.
It's safe to predict, that if the ambient temperature rises over time, that the
rate of melting will also increase. The less ice mass there is, the faster it will
melt in a warming, thermally conductive environment.
Periodically the the icecaps melt due to the atmospheric changes caused
by the change in orbital Milankovich cycles. Effectively, there is more exposed land
and water surface area, and thermal mass, that absorbs and retains solar energy
that increases the melt rate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...ions.png/350px-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Global warming caused by man is more ominous, and is an easy way to get
research funding and sell green products on the fear and hype that
scientific "authority" pushes. If they can convince the politicians, then it must be
an absolute truth. 30 years ago, the scientific experts were pushing the agenda
of the coming ice age. I was glad to see that someone posted that "expert"
opinion.
PT Barnum was right.
That's not to say that overpopulation and rampant industrialization/modernization
aren't harming the planet, I agree that premise is correct. The damage inflicted
on mother earth cannot be undone and will continue unabated as the global
population continues to rise, unchecked. The problem isn't the high tech nations,
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciation#Ice_ages
QUOTE
Ice ages
Main article: Ice age
Divisions
A quadruple division of the Quaternary glacial period has been established for North America and Europe. These divisions are based principally on the study of glacial deposits. In North America, each of these four stages was named for the state in which the deposits of these stages were well exposed. In order of appearance, they are the following: Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan. This classification was refined thanks to the detailed study of the sediments of the ocean floor. Because the sediments of the ocean floor are less affected by stratigraphic discontinuities than those on land, they are useful to determine the climatic cycles of the planet.
In this matter, geologists have come to identify over twenty divisions, each of them lasting approximately 100,000 years. All these cycles fall within the Quaternary glacial period.
During its peak, the ice left its mark over almost 30% of Earth's surface, covering approximately 10 million km² in North America, 5 million km² in Europe and 4 million km² in Asia. The glacial ice in the Northern hemisphere was double that found in the Southern hemisphere. This is because southern polar ice cannot advance beyond the Antarctic landmass. It is now believed that the most recent glacial period began between two and three million years ago, in the Pleistocene era.
The last major glacial period began about 2,000,000 years B.P. and is commonly known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this glacial period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for long periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene, however, was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glaciers retreated (interglacial) because of mild temperatures, and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene. The most recent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years B.P. and is still going on. We call this period the Holocene epoch.
Main article: Ice age
Divisions
A quadruple division of the Quaternary glacial period has been established for North America and Europe. These divisions are based principally on the study of glacial deposits. In North America, each of these four stages was named for the state in which the deposits of these stages were well exposed. In order of appearance, they are the following: Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoisan, and Wisconsinan. This classification was refined thanks to the detailed study of the sediments of the ocean floor. Because the sediments of the ocean floor are less affected by stratigraphic discontinuities than those on land, they are useful to determine the climatic cycles of the planet.
In this matter, geologists have come to identify over twenty divisions, each of them lasting approximately 100,000 years. All these cycles fall within the Quaternary glacial period.
During its peak, the ice left its mark over almost 30% of Earth's surface, covering approximately 10 million km² in North America, 5 million km² in Europe and 4 million km² in Asia. The glacial ice in the Northern hemisphere was double that found in the Southern hemisphere. This is because southern polar ice cannot advance beyond the Antarctic landmass. It is now believed that the most recent glacial period began between two and three million years ago, in the Pleistocene era.
The last major glacial period began about 2,000,000 years B.P. and is commonly known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this glacial period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for long periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene, however, was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glaciers retreated (interglacial) because of mild temperatures, and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). Average global temperatures were probably 4 to 5° Celsius colder than they are today at the peak of the Pleistocene. The most recent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years B.P. and is still going on. We call this period the Holocene epoch.
Just another perspective.
LL
By Magnetar
"
Polar ice caps, global weather and climate, ozone, and CO2 affect each other. Holes
in the ozone layer trigger a complicated, and not fully understood, series of events. Excess water vapor is mostly responsible. Methane, CO2, and hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFC) are also to blame.
When water vapor rises into ozone-rich stratosphere over the Poles, UV can split H2O, leaving an HO+. This reacts with ozone, depleting it for a season. And, CFHCs compounds this issue.
With ozone holes, heat escapes to space, and the atmosphere below sinks. O2 has less chance to migrate upwards to repare the ozone. This is somehow connected to the global wind currents. Those wind patterns influence the oscilations of a "polar vortex" that normally is seasonal. With less ozone aloft, the patterns prolong the southern vortex, for example.
This, in turn, insulates and isolates Antarctica. It gets colder, as does everything above. Hence, less O2 rises to replenish the ozone. Not only is the southern polar vortex less variable, but world patterns are effected. Through "global warming", the northern hemisphere warms faster than the southern hemisphere. This leads to more southern winds, and a warmer ocean. Instead of the cool ocean absorbing CO2, the winds stir up the lower depths, which churns up CO2 and saturates it to the surface. This prevents sinking and uptake of new CO2 from the atmosphere.
So, less manmade CO2 goes into the ocean, and instead, is carried aloft. Along with various destructive gases, CO2 is suspected of enabling additional water vapor to move upward, which might harm ozone. General altitude- 15-35 km, and avg. temp 300* K (80*F, 27*C).
CO2 is disolved into the ocean to form carbonic acid, H2CO3, which disolves into carbonate and bicarbonate. The carbonate is removed from solution ( eg. as CaCO2), while the bicarbonate (2HCO3-) reacts to form =>H2CO3 + CO3. Most of this inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), along with carbonate ions (11%) and CO2. The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans.
We read that rather than merely sinking or convecting down near the colder polar oceans, surface waters in both hemispheres are also on a conveyor belt system. They occasionally outcrop along the way, with less saturated lower layers rising to absorb additional CO2 (or even out-gas in warmer climes). The news lately has been that climate warming melts freshwater ice at the poles, which lowers the density of those surface waters. That diminishes the sinking of colder water at the surface, and the uptake and transport of CO2 from the polar climes.
And, Dreaming_awake mentioned that sea creatures absorb calcium, live/reproduce/die natural cycles, and sink away exposed skeletal material. It reacts with CO2, confining it downward, as well. So, that adds another long term sink for CO2. Provided, ocean pH (read pCO2) is WNL.
This leads to a system of storage of CO2 in oceans, beginning with high latitudes, where cold water conveys downward.
But, new research concludes pCO2 is currently at a high saturation point in the Southern Ocean. Not so much from dilution of saltwater by meltwater leading to transport slowdown (I'm not clear on that), but from the weather patterns that lead to increased winds. And, it relates back to the ozone holes, which are not due to repair themselves for several more decades. (China used lots of freon since 1990, and only just shut down production).
MSN news- quote
“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”
This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.
Professor Chris Rapley, Director of British Antarctic Survey said, “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean – the strongest ocean sink - is weakening is a cause for concern.”
The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world. Since 1981 the Southern Ocean sink ceased to increase, whereas CO2 emissions increased by 40%. End Quote
Abstract (subscription)-
Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=17510327
"
"
Polar ice caps, global weather and climate, ozone, and CO2 affect each other. Holes
in the ozone layer trigger a complicated, and not fully understood, series of events. Excess water vapor is mostly responsible. Methane, CO2, and hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFC) are also to blame.
When water vapor rises into ozone-rich stratosphere over the Poles, UV can split H2O, leaving an HO+. This reacts with ozone, depleting it for a season. And, CFHCs compounds this issue.
With ozone holes, heat escapes to space, and the atmosphere below sinks. O2 has less chance to migrate upwards to repare the ozone. This is somehow connected to the global wind currents. Those wind patterns influence the oscilations of a "polar vortex" that normally is seasonal. With less ozone aloft, the patterns prolong the southern vortex, for example.
This, in turn, insulates and isolates Antarctica. It gets colder, as does everything above. Hence, less O2 rises to replenish the ozone. Not only is the southern polar vortex less variable, but world patterns are effected. Through "global warming", the northern hemisphere warms faster than the southern hemisphere. This leads to more southern winds, and a warmer ocean. Instead of the cool ocean absorbing CO2, the winds stir up the lower depths, which churns up CO2 and saturates it to the surface. This prevents sinking and uptake of new CO2 from the atmosphere.
So, less manmade CO2 goes into the ocean, and instead, is carried aloft. Along with various destructive gases, CO2 is suspected of enabling additional water vapor to move upward, which might harm ozone. General altitude- 15-35 km, and avg. temp 300* K (80*F, 27*C).
CO2 is disolved into the ocean to form carbonic acid, H2CO3, which disolves into carbonate and bicarbonate. The carbonate is removed from solution ( eg. as CaCO2), while the bicarbonate (2HCO3-) reacts to form =>H2CO3 + CO3. Most of this inorganic carbon in the ocean exists as bicarbonate (~88%), along with carbonate ions (11%) and CO2. The co-existence of these species in seawater creates a chemical buffer system, regulating the pH and the pCO2 of the oceans.
We read that rather than merely sinking or convecting down near the colder polar oceans, surface waters in both hemispheres are also on a conveyor belt system. They occasionally outcrop along the way, with less saturated lower layers rising to absorb additional CO2 (or even out-gas in warmer climes). The news lately has been that climate warming melts freshwater ice at the poles, which lowers the density of those surface waters. That diminishes the sinking of colder water at the surface, and the uptake and transport of CO2 from the polar climes.
And, Dreaming_awake mentioned that sea creatures absorb calcium, live/reproduce/die natural cycles, and sink away exposed skeletal material. It reacts with CO2, confining it downward, as well. So, that adds another long term sink for CO2. Provided, ocean pH (read pCO2) is WNL.
This leads to a system of storage of CO2 in oceans, beginning with high latitudes, where cold water conveys downward.
But, new research concludes pCO2 is currently at a high saturation point in the Southern Ocean. Not so much from dilution of saltwater by meltwater leading to transport slowdown (I'm not clear on that), but from the weather patterns that lead to increased winds. And, it relates back to the ozone holes, which are not due to repair themselves for several more decades. (China used lots of freon since 1990, and only just shut down production).
MSN news- quote
“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”
This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.
Professor Chris Rapley, Director of British Antarctic Survey said, “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean – the strongest ocean sink - is weakening is a cause for concern.”
The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world. Since 1981 the Southern Ocean sink ceased to increase, whereas CO2 emissions increased by 40%. End Quote
Abstract (subscription)-
Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=17510327
"
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 6 2007, 05:51 AM)
MSN news- quote
“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”
This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.
Professor Chris Rapley, Director of British Antarctic Survey said, “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean – the strongest ocean sink - is weakening is a cause for concern.”
The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world. Since 1981 the Southern Ocean sink ceased to increase, whereas CO2 emissions increased by 40%. End Quote
Abstract (subscription)-
Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=17510327
"
Note the NEWS quotes are NOT SUPPORTED by the Abstract.
The NEWS quotes of course got the SCIENCE wrong.
Notice the ABSTRACT does NOT mention the word SATURATION.
The ABSTRACT claims that the Southern Ocean Sink has
Note: Relative to the TREND EXPECTED is the TREND expected based on the INCREASE of Atmospheric CO2.
This means that the UPTAKE DID INCREASE, just not as much as expected, hence the term "WEAKENING"
BUT
They DO NOT blame this WEAKENING on SATURATION of the oceans but on the
Note: Relative to the TREND EXPECTED is the TREND expected based on the INCREASE of Atmospheric CO2.
This means that the UPTAKE DID INCREASE, just not as much as expected, hence the term "WEAKENING"
BUT
They DO NOT blame this WEAKENING on SATURATION of the oceans but on theincrease in Southern Ocean winds
Please NOTE that the REASON the winds are increasing was NOT part of the study thus the researchers have apparently included an UNSUBSTANTIATED conclusion that the increase is "resulting from human activities".
Now back to the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
(Note a pentagram is the same as a Gigaton so from now on, I'll use Gigatons the more common measure of Carbon in the Atmosphere and Ocean)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/C...cle_diagram.jpg
First note how INSIGNIFICANT .08 Gigatons is to the amount of Carbon being cycled into the oceans (92 Gigatons).
Now note that the STUDY showed that the SOUTHERN OCEANS may have decreased by 0.08 Gigatons per year over the last 24 years but using the Muana Loa CO2 figures the NET impact of this is that (assuming worst case in that the rest of the globe did not take up ANY of the .08 Gigatons of CO2) then the CO2 figures which were 375 ppm at the end of 2003 would have only been 373 ppm.
BIG WHOOP.
Arthur
All: That was a quote from the link provided in the opening post on this thread. Although I'm admittedly ignorant in regards to this topic, I just saw this news article that may pertain to your discussion. If not, I apologize for the misread. Thanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070705/sc_af...ce_070705151649
It's a small world after all: German researchers
Thu Jul 5, 11:16 AM ET
BONN, Germany (AFP) - The world is smaller than first thought, German researchers at the University of Bonn said on Thursday.
They took part in an international project to measure the diameter of the world that showed it is five millimetres (0.2 inches) smaller than the last measurement made five years ago.
Dr Axel Nothnagel, who led the Bonn researchers, told AFP the difference was crucial in the study of climate change.
"It may seem a very small difference, but it is essential for the positioning of the satellites that can measure rises in sea level.
"They must be accurate to the millimetre. If the ground stations tracking the satellites are not accurate to the millimetre, then the satellites cannot be accurate either."
The scientists round the number up to 12,756.274 kilometres (7,926.3812 miles) for the general public.
The system of measurement used by the Bonn geodesists in the two-year project consists of radiowaves that are transmitted into space.
"A network of more than 70 radio telescopes worldwide receives these waves. Because the gauging stations are so far apart from each other, the radio signals are received with a slight timelag," Nothnagel said.
"From this difference we can measure the distance between the radio telescopes to the preciseness of two millimetres per 1,000 kilometres (0.07 inches per 621 miles)."
The procedure is called VLBI, which stands for "Very Long Baseline Interferometry". The technique can be used, for example, to demonstrate that Europe and North America are moving apart at a rate of about 18 millimeters (0.7 inches) a year.
“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”
This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.
Professor Chris Rapley, Director of British Antarctic Survey said, “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean – the strongest ocean sink - is weakening is a cause for concern.”
The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world. Since 1981 the Southern Ocean sink ceased to increase, whereas CO2 emissions increased by 40%. End Quote
Abstract (subscription)-
Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO2 in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO2 on a multicentury time scale.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=17510327
"
Note the NEWS quotes are NOT SUPPORTED by the Abstract.
The NEWS quotes of course got the SCIENCE wrong.
Notice the ABSTRACT does NOT mention the word SATURATION.
The ABSTRACT claims that the Southern Ocean Sink has
QUOTE
weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected
Note: Relative to the TREND EXPECTED is the TREND expected based on the INCREASE of Atmospheric CO2.
This means that the UPTAKE DID INCREASE, just not as much as expected, hence the term "WEAKENING"
BUT
They DO NOT blame this WEAKENING on SATURATION of the oceans but on the
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected |
Note: Relative to the TREND EXPECTED is the TREND expected based on the INCREASE of Atmospheric CO2.
This means that the UPTAKE DID INCREASE, just not as much as expected, hence the term "WEAKENING"
BUT
They DO NOT blame this WEAKENING on SATURATION of the oceans but on theincrease in Southern Ocean winds
Please NOTE that the REASON the winds are increasing was NOT part of the study thus the researchers have apparently included an UNSUBSTANTIATED conclusion that the increase is "resulting from human activities".
Now back to the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
(Note a pentagram is the same as a Gigaton so from now on, I'll use Gigatons the more common measure of Carbon in the Atmosphere and Ocean)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/C...cle_diagram.jpg
First note how INSIGNIFICANT .08 Gigatons is to the amount of Carbon being cycled into the oceans (92 Gigatons).
Now note that the STUDY showed that the SOUTHERN OCEANS may have decreased by 0.08 Gigatons per year over the last 24 years but using the Muana Loa CO2 figures the NET impact of this is that (assuming worst case in that the rest of the globe did not take up ANY of the .08 Gigatons of CO2) then the CO2 figures which were 375 ppm at the end of 2003 would have only been 373 ppm.
BIG WHOOP.
Arthur
And, as often has been stated here, wind-driven events are increasing on Mars in the same way as on Earth. This coincides with increased solar emissions. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this under current technology.
As an aside, however, if demonstrably true that increases of H2O vapor contributes to Ozone depletion, do we really want to put in effect Hydrogen technology and pump billions of more tons of H2O vapor into the atmosphere as the Gorians want us to do? Something to think about!
Of interest is another theory that is gaining in popularity (but not amongst the Gorians!) is that weather events are controlled in part by cosmic rays. As the Sun's magnetic emissions decrease, more cosmic rays reach the earth and form high-altitude clouds that reflect the light and heat and, in turn, cools the earth. When these solar magnetic emissions increase, the earth is shielded from more cosmic radiation and warms accordingly as less high-altitude clouds are formed. This new theory has the advantage of closely matching solar emissions/cosmic radiation that is and has been charted. They seem to coincide much more closely than the co-called CO2/global warming trends which most often in their Gorian versions omit crucial data regarding the fact that the there are periods where the earth cooled in spite of levels of CO2!
While these same scientists that are the proponents of the theory hold that perhaps humans do contribute something toward global warming, they hold that the models upheld by climate scientists today are flawed in that they do not take into consideration solar emissions and the effects of cosmic radiation on the atmosphere. Solar emissions are the highest they have been in the last 1,000 years.
Check out this information from the Telegraph UK newspaper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/11/warm11.xml
Gorians love to omit that information and would desperately love to obliterate the new theory if they could. Gorians stand to lose millions of Dollars, Euros, etc., if they do not stop this theory from gaining supporters.
As an aside, however, if demonstrably true that increases of H2O vapor contributes to Ozone depletion, do we really want to put in effect Hydrogen technology and pump billions of more tons of H2O vapor into the atmosphere as the Gorians want us to do? Something to think about!
Of interest is another theory that is gaining in popularity (but not amongst the Gorians!) is that weather events are controlled in part by cosmic rays. As the Sun's magnetic emissions decrease, more cosmic rays reach the earth and form high-altitude clouds that reflect the light and heat and, in turn, cools the earth. When these solar magnetic emissions increase, the earth is shielded from more cosmic radiation and warms accordingly as less high-altitude clouds are formed. This new theory has the advantage of closely matching solar emissions/cosmic radiation that is and has been charted. They seem to coincide much more closely than the co-called CO2/global warming trends which most often in their Gorian versions omit crucial data regarding the fact that the there are periods where the earth cooled in spite of levels of CO2!
While these same scientists that are the proponents of the theory hold that perhaps humans do contribute something toward global warming, they hold that the models upheld by climate scientists today are flawed in that they do not take into consideration solar emissions and the effects of cosmic radiation on the atmosphere. Solar emissions are the highest they have been in the last 1,000 years.
Check out this information from the Telegraph UK newspaper: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/11/warm11.xml
Gorians love to omit that information and would desperately love to obliterate the new theory if they could. Gorians stand to lose millions of Dollars, Euros, etc., if they do not stop this theory from gaining supporters.
QUOTE
In contrast, sea-level measurements since 1850 from tidal gauges and more recently from satellite images, when corrected for land settling along the shoreline, reveal the current two-millimeter annual rise. "Without reliable information on how sea levels had changed before we had our new measures, we couldn't be sure the current rate wasn't happening all along," said Miller. "Now, with solid historical data, we know it is definitely a recent phenomenon.
All: That was a quote from the link provided in the opening post on this thread. Although I'm admittedly ignorant in regards to this topic, I just saw this news article that may pertain to your discussion. If not, I apologize for the misread. Thanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070705/sc_af...ce_070705151649
It's a small world after all: German researchers
Thu Jul 5, 11:16 AM ET
BONN, Germany (AFP) - The world is smaller than first thought, German researchers at the University of Bonn said on Thursday.
They took part in an international project to measure the diameter of the world that showed it is five millimetres (0.2 inches) smaller than the last measurement made five years ago.
Dr Axel Nothnagel, who led the Bonn researchers, told AFP the difference was crucial in the study of climate change.
"It may seem a very small difference, but it is essential for the positioning of the satellites that can measure rises in sea level.
"They must be accurate to the millimetre. If the ground stations tracking the satellites are not accurate to the millimetre, then the satellites cannot be accurate either."
The scientists round the number up to 12,756.274 kilometres (7,926.3812 miles) for the general public.
The system of measurement used by the Bonn geodesists in the two-year project consists of radiowaves that are transmitted into space.
"A network of more than 70 radio telescopes worldwide receives these waves. Because the gauging stations are so far apart from each other, the radio signals are received with a slight timelag," Nothnagel said.
"From this difference we can measure the distance between the radio telescopes to the preciseness of two millimetres per 1,000 kilometres (0.07 inches per 621 miles)."
The procedure is called VLBI, which stands for "Very Long Baseline Interferometry". The technique can be used, for example, to demonstrate that Europe and North America are moving apart at a rate of about 18 millimeters (0.7 inches) a year.
heyaa boy's. you do seem to team up here :)
Well, that is what one should expect i guess, considering that this guy used his brain :)
Now why don't you do the same? And just to give you the chance to tell me how wrong i am. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece
BTW Laserligh, that sucks Big Leauge.." The problem isn't the high tech nations,
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs"."
So is that your view of humanity my man?
Well, that is what one should expect i guess, considering that this guy used his brain :)
Now why don't you do the same? And just to give you the chance to tell me how wrong i am. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece
BTW Laserligh, that sucks Big Leauge.." The problem isn't the high tech nations,
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs"."
So is that your view of humanity my man?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 6 2007, 12:55 PM)
Now why don't you do the same? And just to give you the chance to tell me how wrong i am.
Sure.
That report was from 2 years ago.
It has Hansen's infamous "Smoking Gun" claim.
So
Simply find ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE that supports this claim:
Sure.
That report was from 2 years ago.
It has Hansen's infamous "Smoking Gun" claim.
So
Simply find ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE that supports this claim:
QUOTE (From Yor_On's link+)
The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years
Good Luck.
Arthur
Good Luck.
Arthur
Woops wrong article, but as that was the one i posted I'll 'bite the bullet' and take my medicine as a good boy :)
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/100698
And the full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/...ent_5643146.htm
And as i know that a chinese newspaper might raise doubt's, this is from USAtoday
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-...te-report_x.htm
And now what Arthur?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/100698
And the full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/...ent_5643146.htm
And as i know that a chinese newspaper might raise doubt's, this is from USAtoday
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-...te-report_x.htm
And now what Arthur?
Great Chart.
I do note that there is NO Medieval Warm Period nor any Little Ice Age.
So much for REVISIONIST science.
Sheesh.
Do you even try to CRITICALLY READ the BS you post?
Arthur
I do note that there is NO Medieval Warm Period nor any Little Ice Age.
So much for REVISIONIST science.
Sheesh.
Do you even try to CRITICALLY READ the BS you post?
Arthur
Wow, it is almost as if they lifted the pseudo-science right off the "Real"climate website! By the way, where exactly is the Midieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age data? Pretty disengenuous, if you ask me. And where is the information that should be derived from the GISP Ice Core data??? Revisionist science indeed is an apt term, Arthur! I wonder how much these people have invested in the latest stocks tied with "environmental" "science" of the Gorians, and how much they stand to capitalize on when the proceeds fully come in. As much as Gore, perhaps?
Here is an interesting chart, posted elsewhere but ignored by the Gorians:
This chart shows that average temperatures in the Arctic were as high or higher in the 1930s than they were the 1990s, and this BEFORE "global warming caused by high CO2 output" could have taken effect.
Here is an interesting chart, posted elsewhere but ignored by the Gorians:
This chart shows that average temperatures in the Arctic were as high or higher in the 1930s than they were the 1990s, and this BEFORE "global warming caused by high CO2 output" could have taken effect.
Hi yor_on,
Sorry to sound so callous, but 40 years ago the population of the earth hit
3 billion souls. Today it stands at 6 Billion+, the rainforests are being cut down,
pollution and demand for resources is rising exponentially, along with population
growth. So, one can make the link that excess population growth has been a
factor in global warming..... look where the majority of the population growth has
occured over that timeframe. How can the planet possibly support unchecked
population growth, especially in underdeveloped nations with little infrastructure
or resources, like food, clean water, etc. The problems will only get worse.
Projections put the earths population in excess of 9 billion within 40 more years.
You do the math. Reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow.
No offense intended, just stating the obvious.
LL
QUOTE
BTW Laserligh, that sucks Big Leauge.." The problem isn't the high tech nations,
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs"."
So is that your view of humanity my man?
with stable or decreasing birth rates, it is the up and coming 3rd world nations with
high and rising population densities and ever increasing demand, that have
exceeded the ability of the planet to sustain humanities "needs"."
So is that your view of humanity my man?
Sorry to sound so callous, but 40 years ago the population of the earth hit
3 billion souls. Today it stands at 6 Billion+, the rainforests are being cut down,
pollution and demand for resources is rising exponentially, along with population
growth. So, one can make the link that excess population growth has been a
factor in global warming..... look where the majority of the population growth has
occured over that timeframe. How can the planet possibly support unchecked
population growth, especially in underdeveloped nations with little infrastructure
or resources, like food, clean water, etc. The problems will only get worse.
Projections put the earths population in excess of 9 billion within 40 more years.
You do the math. Reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow.
No offense intended, just stating the obvious.
LL
Yeah the math is no fun and there has to be a stop to it, i agree, if you had presented it this way i would have agreed wholeheartedly. The danger as i see it, is when the blame is put upon society's that still lives in that older cultural model that we moved away from since a fifty? to hundred years ago. It makes it sound as all those nations are 'idiots' who cant see the obvious, while they are not. In a lot of societies son's are Worth more than girls as the sons are the ones expected to work outside the family f. ex. And getting lot's of kid's is exactly what we too did before (and under) the industrial revolution. Both because we had a higher infant mortality and because it was natural, the more sons, the more money to the family, and also for the care taking of our old folks. Today we have a opposite phenomena in the high tech world, it seems that some countries are stopping :) having children. why is that? When everything is working so smooth for us? But i know man, I also post thing that sounds worse than i mean. No Arthur , not that !!! :) (I do see Co2 as the main suspect)
Ps: don't forget the way all major 'Religion's' tends to view nativity.
Ps: don't forget the way all major 'Religion's' tends to view nativity.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 7 2007, 05:51 AM)
Today we have a opposite phenomena in the high tech world, it seems that some countries are stopping 
having children. why is that? When everything is working so smooth for us?
As a father of a 1-year-old, I can tell that there's nothing smooth about having a child. My wife turned into a control freak, she wants NOTHING even slightly bad to happen to him, so we're glued to his a** 24/7 and don't have no personal live anymore and hell breaks free if he as much as takes a sneeze.
So, neither me, nor my wife would put up with another one, not for a million dollars. Let some one else have them, preferably a catholic southamerican than a muslim asian.
I watch Animal Planet in sadness and see how a zebra or a antelope gives birth to a calf, licks him for 5 minutes and than he stands up and starts to run faster than an adult human. What kind of a stupid species are we, if for the first 2 years we cannot decently communicate with our babies, so we're basically slaves to some ... Things without reason?
having children. why is that? When everything is working so smooth for us? As a father of a 1-year-old, I can tell that there's nothing smooth about having a child. My wife turned into a control freak, she wants NOTHING even slightly bad to happen to him, so we're glued to his a** 24/7 and don't have no personal live anymore and hell breaks free if he as much as takes a sneeze.
So, neither me, nor my wife would put up with another one, not for a million dollars. Let some one else have them, preferably a catholic southamerican than a muslim asian.
I watch Animal Planet in sadness and see how a zebra or a antelope gives birth to a calf, licks him for 5 minutes and than he stands up and starts to run faster than an adult human. What kind of a stupid species are we, if for the first 2 years we cannot decently communicate with our babies, so we're basically slaves to some ... Things without reason?
Aah that observation strikes an accord friend. to see those small .???. 'whelp' out at obstetric clinic, getting a friendly lick and a goodbye by our Doctor. And then see them crawl out in the sunshine to earn some money to support their hard working parents :) A friend of mine informed his daughter that he was keeping tabs on her and that he expected her to start paying back as soon as she could get a job. That's the way it should be done...Yes Siree. :)
QUOTE (Mircea the Romanian+Jul 11 2007, 05:18 AM)
What kind of a stupid species are we, if for the first 2 years we cannot decently communicate with our babies, so we're basically slaves to some ... Things without reason?
Adults are just babies way of making more babies.
Arthur
Adults are just babies way of making more babies.
Arthur
Thank ?god? we, adults, have discovered contraceptives.
Might win the war, after all.
Who will stick around to tell the story?
Might win the war, after all.
Who will stick around to tell the story?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 7 2007, 05:51 AM)
Today we have a opposite phenomena in the high tech world, it seems that some countries are stopping having children. why is that?
Birth control is more readily available in industrialized countries. Women and couples can choose not to have children. Most couples that take the time to think about it, decide to wait until they have a stable income/home or other means to support a child before actually having the child...Then never reach the point they feel is stable or don't reach that point before getting too old.
There are a hundred reasons modern society slows down the birth rate. Mainly to do with making a child seem like a bad choice, until it's too late to have a choice.
The birth rate in America would be almost flat with the death rate if it weren't for immigration. As it is, even with a low birth rate, we need to plan for a population explosion, and probable migration of lots of people around the country.
having children. why is that? Birth control is more readily available in industrialized countries. Women and couples can choose not to have children. Most couples that take the time to think about it, decide to wait until they have a stable income/home or other means to support a child before actually having the child...Then never reach the point they feel is stable or don't reach that point before getting too old.
There are a hundred reasons modern society slows down the birth rate. Mainly to do with making a child seem like a bad choice, until it's too late to have a choice.
The birth rate in America would be almost flat with the death rate if it weren't for immigration. As it is, even with a low birth rate, we need to plan for a population explosion, and probable migration of lots of people around the country.
The truth about global warming....
It has been an ongoing natural process for many thousands of years.
Ancient mariner tools found in Cyprus By GEORGE PSYLLIDES, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 19, 4:28 PM ET
AKAMAS, Cyprus - Archaeologists excavating the seabed off Cyprus have discovered the tools of ancient mariners, which they believe were used by foragers more than 10,000 years ago — before the island had permanent settlements.
The underwater discovery of what archaeologists said were the oldest materials recovered off the island's coast could shed fresh light on the early history of Cyprus and Mediterranean seafaring.
Earlier this month, divers located the pre-Neolithic finds — chipped stone tools and ground stone implements — in several areas off the western coast, near Aspros, an archaeological site discovered in 2004.
The most significant finds were located in water about 33 feet deep and about 330 feet offshore.
"These are the people who are the pioneers; without their knowledge people who came later maybe would not have had it that good," said Colgate University's Albert J. Ammerman, the survey's director.
Archaeologists say the new discoveries indicate that ancient Aspros was much larger than the landward section visible today. The Aspros site, discovered in 2004, now extends more than 820 feet along the top of a cliff on the north side of the dry Aspros River bed, the archaeologists said.
"All of what we see on the land is just a tip of the iceberg of what is in the water," said Ammerman, whose underwater survey was carried out by nine divers from Cyprus and the U.S.
Aspros, along with a similar site also discovered in 2004 at the tourist resort of Agia Napa in southeastern Cyprus, lies on a coastal formation of aeolianite — old cemented sand dunes.
The archaeologists believe that tools found at the two sites were used by seafaring foragers who frequented the island well over 10,000 years ago — before the first permanent settlers arrived around 8,200 B.C.
They are thought to have sailed from present-day Syria and Turkey, at least 46 miles north and east of the island.
The dawn of seafaring in the region has been put at around 9,500 B.C. from evidence found 20 years ago at Aetokremnos, on Cyprus' southern Akrotiri peninsula.
The finds indicate these early wanderers traveled more widely, and more frequently, than was previously believed, outside experts say.
"This just shows there is a lot more activity than was originally thought," said Tom Davis, an archaeologist and director of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, who not involved in Ammerman's study. "We're looking at repeated visits around the island."
"These would be people stopping deliberately, coming to the island to use resources, setting themselves with a clear understanding of the landscape," Davis said.
The tools found at Aspros and Ayia Napa are similar to those found at Akrotiri, though precise dating must still be verified through radiocarbon tests, which are in progress.
The era in question coincided with a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas — dated roughly 11,600-12,800 years ago — when the sea level was some 200-230 feet lower.
Rising seas subsequently submerged much of the ancient coast.
It has been an ongoing natural process for many thousands of years.
QUOTE
The era in question coincided with a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas — dated roughly 11,600-12,800 years ago — when the sea level was some 200-230 feet lower.
Rising seas subsequently submerged much of the ancient coast.
Rising seas subsequently submerged much of the ancient coast.
Ancient mariner tools found in Cyprus By GEORGE PSYLLIDES, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 19, 4:28 PM ET
AKAMAS, Cyprus - Archaeologists excavating the seabed off Cyprus have discovered the tools of ancient mariners, which they believe were used by foragers more than 10,000 years ago — before the island had permanent settlements.
The underwater discovery of what archaeologists said were the oldest materials recovered off the island's coast could shed fresh light on the early history of Cyprus and Mediterranean seafaring.
Earlier this month, divers located the pre-Neolithic finds — chipped stone tools and ground stone implements — in several areas off the western coast, near Aspros, an archaeological site discovered in 2004.
The most significant finds were located in water about 33 feet deep and about 330 feet offshore.
"These are the people who are the pioneers; without their knowledge people who came later maybe would not have had it that good," said Colgate University's Albert J. Ammerman, the survey's director.
Archaeologists say the new discoveries indicate that ancient Aspros was much larger than the landward section visible today. The Aspros site, discovered in 2004, now extends more than 820 feet along the top of a cliff on the north side of the dry Aspros River bed, the archaeologists said.
"All of what we see on the land is just a tip of the iceberg of what is in the water," said Ammerman, whose underwater survey was carried out by nine divers from Cyprus and the U.S.
Aspros, along with a similar site also discovered in 2004 at the tourist resort of Agia Napa in southeastern Cyprus, lies on a coastal formation of aeolianite — old cemented sand dunes.
The archaeologists believe that tools found at the two sites were used by seafaring foragers who frequented the island well over 10,000 years ago — before the first permanent settlers arrived around 8,200 B.C.
They are thought to have sailed from present-day Syria and Turkey, at least 46 miles north and east of the island.
The dawn of seafaring in the region has been put at around 9,500 B.C. from evidence found 20 years ago at Aetokremnos, on Cyprus' southern Akrotiri peninsula.
The finds indicate these early wanderers traveled more widely, and more frequently, than was previously believed, outside experts say.
"This just shows there is a lot more activity than was originally thought," said Tom Davis, an archaeologist and director of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, who not involved in Ammerman's study. "We're looking at repeated visits around the island."
"These would be people stopping deliberately, coming to the island to use resources, setting themselves with a clear understanding of the landscape," Davis said.
The tools found at Aspros and Ayia Napa are similar to those found at Akrotiri, though precise dating must still be verified through radiocarbon tests, which are in progress.
The era in question coincided with a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas — dated roughly 11,600-12,800 years ago — when the sea level was some 200-230 feet lower.
Rising seas subsequently submerged much of the ancient coast.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 5 2007, 02:48 PM)
Well now its July.
Has the heat come to Greenland yet?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Well its finally here.
Sort of.
A quick check shows that Dye-2 is the only station that reported ANY temps above freezing. Dye had a few hours in two of the last 6 days that make it briefly to 1 degree above freezing.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
NONE of the other sites got above Freezing.
GITS is the SAME as last we checked -6 to -2
South Dome has no report.
NASA U has warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
NGRIP has also warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
Summit is still frigid at a low of -35 and a high of -15C
Tunu almost got above freezing but is averaging about -8C
Swiss Camp and JAR 1 have no report
Arthur
Well now its late August, pretty much the PEAK temp period in the Northern Hemisphere.
Has the heat come to Greenland YET?
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_07.6day.jpg
Of the stations reporting, only Dye-2 makes it above freezing and only for a few hours over the last 6 days.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
And Cires makes it to the freezing point, for ONE HOUR over the last 6 days, but averages closer to 10 below.
GITS is getting close to breaking the freezing mark, but still hit a peak of only -2 degrees.
Of course, off the ice sheet its a tad warmer
See: http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html for Coastal temps.
Arthur
Has the heat come to Greenland yet?
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/
Well its finally here.
Sort of.
A quick check shows that Dye-2 is the only station that reported ANY temps above freezing. Dye had a few hours in two of the last 6 days that make it briefly to 1 degree above freezing.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
NONE of the other sites got above Freezing.
GITS is the SAME as last we checked -6 to -2
South Dome has no report.
NASA U has warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
NGRIP has also warmed up but is still averaging about -10 C
Summit is still frigid at a low of -35 and a high of -15C
Tunu almost got above freezing but is averaging about -8C
Swiss Camp and JAR 1 have no report
Arthur
Well now its late August, pretty much the PEAK temp period in the Northern Hemisphere.
Has the heat come to Greenland YET?
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_07.6day.jpg
Of the stations reporting, only Dye-2 makes it above freezing and only for a few hours over the last 6 days.
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/steffen.g...lot_08.6day.jpg
And Cires makes it to the freezing point, for ONE HOUR over the last 6 days, but averages closer to 10 below.
GITS is getting close to breaking the freezing mark, but still hit a peak of only -2 degrees.
Of course, off the ice sheet its a tad warmer
See: http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html for Coastal temps.
Arthur
Recent news on the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.
They have found at least one “hotspot” in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.
...
The ice sheet in northeast Greenland is especially worrisome to scientists. It had no known ice streams until 1991, when satellites spied one for the first time. Dubbed the Northeastern Greenland Ice Stream, it carries ice nearly 400 miles, from the deepest interior of the island out to the Greenland Sea.
“Ice streams have to have some reason for being there. And it's pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of an ice sheet,” von Frese said.
The newly discovered hotspot is just below the ice stream
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm
Arthur
Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland 's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice.
They have found at least one “hotspot” in the northeast corner of Greenland -- just below a site where an ice stream was recently discovered.
...
The ice sheet in northeast Greenland is especially worrisome to scientists. It had no known ice streams until 1991, when satellites spied one for the first time. Dubbed the Northeastern Greenland Ice Stream, it carries ice nearly 400 miles, from the deepest interior of the island out to the Greenland Sea.
“Ice streams have to have some reason for being there. And it's pretty surprising to suddenly see one in the middle of an ice sheet,” von Frese said.
The newly discovered hotspot is just below the ice stream
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/hotgreen.htm
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.