But you used the word INSOLATED which does not appear in the Wikipedia link you give either. INSOLATED is very close to INSULATED. That's why I asked you to clarify.
Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule
- Thread starter david dissadent
- Start date
But you used the word INSOLATED which does not appear in the Wikipedia link you give either. INSOLATED is very close to INSULATED. That's why I asked you to clarify.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
But we're talking about global warming not climate.
I'm a layperson, but I bet you a fiver that the climate has a bearing on the effects of global warming.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
You can't talk about the former without talking about the latter. Climate Change is a better term anyway, as the effects of trapping more heat under the atmosphere are varied and include warming, cooling, wetting, drying in different places in different amounts.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Nonsense! You have no theory to explain how more heat is being trapped under the atmosphere - it's purely an environmentalist pipe dream. Incidentally, "Climate Change" is certainly better in propaganda terms for you than "Global Warming". It allows you to neatly sidestep the issue of global cooling and to claim any and all extreme weather events as being caused by filthy humans.
Global warming is a fraud and a hysterical scare tactic.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/getting-sensible-on-energy/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/getting-sensible-on-energy/
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Climate Change is just a more accurate term.
Given your demonstrated lack of ability to grasp basic physics, I'm not going to bother trying to explain the greenhouse effect to you again. Denying it is like denying the spectral signature of hydrogen or the orbital period of the moon.
Given your demonstrated lack of ability to grasp basic physics, I'm not going to bother trying to explain the greenhouse effect to you again. Denying it is like denying the spectral signature of hydrogen or the orbital period of the moon.
That's what I meant. Local conditions affect the manifestations of global warming, creating effects that differ depending on the region.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
The only conspiracy theory that I will subscribe to at present is that Bigfish is likely a writer for Living Marxism/Spiked/IoI/SaS 
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Dr Bigfish: How i learnt to stop worrying and love big oil?
The only conspiracy theory that I will subscribe to at present is that Bigfish is likely a writer for Living Marxism/Spiked/IoI/SaS
Doing the "post a stupid idea, get a long list of citations, knock up an article out of them" method of journalism?
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Trouble I have with bigfish's political contribution was that rense seemed to be acceptable as a resource to him: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=6540770
Sea Ice - the Stretch Run
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229
By Steve McIntyre
For anyone who’s betting that 2008 meltback will exceed 2007 meltback, I think that you’ll be able to pretty much know where you stand by the end of this week and your chances are not looking good right now based on this week’s exit polls. Another Climate Audit first.
The plot below shows the daily meltback for the last 5 years. 2007 is in red, 2008 in black. Notice the surge in 2007 at the end of June and beginning of July. We’re at julian day 182 today - July 2, 2008.
Daily melt (in million sq km)
The most intense melt occurred last year between day 179 (June 29) and day 184 (July 4) with 160,000 sq km meltback on day 182 (July 2) and over 200,000 sq km on day 183 (July 3). This year’s a leap year, so that July 2 is already day 182 and was only 90,000 sq km. As of yesterday, 2008 was about 510,000 sq km behind 2007 and it looks like it is losing ground day by day in the first week of July - a big melt week where it has to make time.
Today (day 183) and tomorrow (day 184) will probably tell the story. I’ll do daily updates for the next few days - it will be interesting to watch.
Both realclimate and William Connolley have recently (June 27, June 28) done posts on Arctic sea ice with neither pointing out that we were beginning a fairly critical melt week. (Connolley bet against a 2008 record.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229
david dissadent
New Member
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Well here we are. The bussiness end of the melt year for the nothern hemisphere. Over the next 4 weeks the amount of melting will basicaly determine what kind of year we have. We have already easily recovered from the extreamly cold winter and are now within touching distance of last years record bursting melt. A question mark remains over whether we will equal or exceed it. Alot of this is down to local variations in climatatic conditions, but it looks like we will crush the 2005 previous record anyway. It is hard for a non expert with limited data to cast too much in the way of projections but I cant help but notice the decreasing consentration around the north Greenland area, specificaly as that is the last refuge of the thick multi year ice. For comparison you can look at the same picture last year....
And compaire it with today....
You could really argue both ways for a record melt or againts one. Remember huge tracks of sea and are now experiancing 24 hour sun, so will be absorbing large amounts of energy. From the above images it would appear that open water is to be found across most of the arctic now (the lighter colours indicate lower concentrations of ice). What ever happens it really looks like alot more ice will melt this year, we are very far from the end of the melting.
My hunch is we will come very close to last years record at least. The real worry is how much open water will surround Greenland come mid September. Open water means much more heat, Greenland is not something we want getting warmer wethaer to be honest.
Well here we are. The bussiness end of the melt year for the nothern hemisphere. Over the next 4 weeks the amount of melting will basicaly determine what kind of year we have. We have already easily recovered from the extreamly cold winter and are now within touching distance of last years record bursting melt. A question mark remains over whether we will equal or exceed it. Alot of this is down to local variations in climatatic conditions, but it looks like we will crush the 2005 previous record anyway. It is hard for a non expert with limited data to cast too much in the way of projections but I cant help but notice the decreasing consentration around the north Greenland area, specificaly as that is the last refuge of the thick multi year ice. For comparison you can look at the same picture last year....
And compaire it with today....
You could really argue both ways for a record melt or againts one. Remember huge tracks of sea and are now experiancing 24 hour sun, so will be absorbing large amounts of energy. From the above images it would appear that open water is to be found across most of the arctic now (the lighter colours indicate lower concentrations of ice). What ever happens it really looks like alot more ice will melt this year, we are very far from the end of the melting.
My hunch is we will come very close to last years record at least. The real worry is how much open water will surround Greenland come mid September. Open water means much more heat, Greenland is not something we want getting warmer wethaer to be honest.
david dissadent
New Member
Too keep the other side happy here are three graphs from the Southern Hemisphere.
There is more ice than usual, including a very very odd spur of ice that was recorded on satalite. Cant remember where I seen the article but I meant to post it here Oh well.
There is more ice than usual, including a very very odd spur of ice that was recorded on satalite. Cant remember where I seen the article but I meant to post it here Oh well.
david dissadent
New Member
Take your junk science and fuck off you fruit loop. Seriously I am just pissed off with you and your wacky ideas. The arctic ocean has an area of about 14 million km^2 and a depth on average of around 1km (not too accurate a figure) so a volume of around 14 million cubic kilometeres. This would be about 14^15 cubic meters. 1000 liters per cubic meter gives us around 14^18 liters in the arctic. To raise that all by just one centegrade would require (at 1000 grams per liter and at one calorie per gram) about 14^21 calories. At 4.1 joule per calorie that would be 57^21 joules. That is just short of SIXTY TIMES the estimated energy of toba super volcano!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.vendian.org/envelope/TemporaryURL/energy.html
BUT we dont need the greatest volcanic activity since the Deccan traps to heat the arctic when the air temperature has been rising anyway.
NUTS. Dont you do basic maths?
E2A its midnight and Im nackered so all and sundry feel free to check my arithmatic.
Another Climate Scare Debunked: Greenland Ice Sheet Slams The Brakes On
http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
"Not all scientists agree. Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, US, says that averaging data over the last 17 years does not make sense because the most rapid melting at the edges of the ice sheet did not start until recently.
"It's only in the last five years or so that the warming signal has really been visible," he says.
Zwally told New Scientist that unpublished data from the eastern edge of the ice sheet suggests between 3% and 5% more ice is being lost because of lubrication than would otherwise happen."
http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
"It's only in the last five years or so that the warming signal has really been visible," he says.
Zwally told New Scientist that unpublished data from the eastern edge of the ice sheet suggests between 3% and 5% more ice is being lost because of lubrication than would otherwise happen."
http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
So 'another climate scare' isn't debunked at all. 
david dissadent
New Member
Just stumbled across this little site run by NOAA.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html
What has really caught my eye is the web cam....
Here is a movie of the webcam this year (warning its slow to load and is basicaly watching an empty polar vista It stops at about June 23 when there is no melting......
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/cam1-2008web.mov
However todays webcam picutre:
Meltwater.
The webcam is mounted on a buoy out in the arctic by the NOAA team.
I think the webcam is on the bouy being tracked by the orange line[edited no its the purple line at 84 deg north]. It is right in the thick of the last of the multi year ice near the north end of Greenland. So its will be morbidly interesting to see if the ice it is on actualy melts. Ultra geeky I know but hey ho this is a geeky bit of Urban.
Of real interest as well is two of the other tracks, the green and black ones. Many months ago Id said one of the keys to why the ice is melting so much is that so much of the older thicker ice had been flushed out of the Fram straight. The map above shows both those boys going through the Fram straigt and it also shows just how deep the straight is compaired with the rest of the pole, this is where much of the warmer water is entering the arctic and flushing out the ice. Id said that previously the ice tended to be thick enough that there was little interchange between the Atlantic and Arctic, now there is alot more. This is one of the reason why a permenant nothern ice cap is considered a bi-stable situation. Once its established it can survive temporary fluxuations because of the cooling feedback of the very white ice and that it cuts off so much of the circulation from the rest of the worlds oceans, but once it flips to being a temporary ice cap it is hypothisised it takes far colder conditions to re-establish the permenance of the cap than to maintain it.
On a plus side it has been pointed out too me that at a high angle of incidence light reflects of off water, so as the sun sits lower and lower on the horizon we will not get the full absorbtion of solar energy compaired to if it was overhead. This will temper some of the positive feedback of open water later in the summer.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html
What has really caught my eye is the web cam....
Here is a movie of the webcam this year (warning its slow to load and is basicaly watching an empty polar vista
It stops at about June 23 when there is no melting......http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/cam1-2008web.mov
However todays webcam picutre:
Meltwater.
The webcam is mounted on a buoy out in the arctic by the NOAA team.
I think the webcam is on the bouy being tracked by the orange line[edited no its the purple line at 84 deg north]. It is right in the thick of the last of the multi year ice near the north end of Greenland. So its will be morbidly interesting to see if the ice it is on actualy melts. Ultra geeky I know but hey ho this is a geeky bit of Urban.
Of real interest as well is two of the other tracks, the green and black ones. Many months ago Id said one of the keys to why the ice is melting so much is that so much of the older thicker ice had been flushed out of the Fram straight. The map above shows both those boys going through the Fram straigt and it also shows just how deep the straight is compaired with the rest of the pole, this is where much of the warmer water is entering the arctic and flushing out the ice. Id said that previously the ice tended to be thick enough that there was little interchange between the Atlantic and Arctic, now there is alot more. This is one of the reason why a permenant nothern ice cap is considered a bi-stable situation. Once its established it can survive temporary fluxuations because of the cooling feedback of the very white ice and that it cuts off so much of the circulation from the rest of the worlds oceans, but once it flips to being a temporary ice cap it is hypothisised it takes far colder conditions to re-establish the permenance of the cap than to maintain it.
On a plus side it has been pointed out too me that at a high angle of incidence light reflects of off water, so as the sun sits lower and lower on the horizon we will not get the full absorbtion of solar energy compaired to if it was overhead. This will temper some of the positive feedback of open water later in the summer.
If one has to believe the deniers there is nothing wrong at all, ice caps aren't melting, gletschers don't melt at an even more dramatic pace... In fact, all those witnessing the very same are blind or even better: the pictures taken are faked, the filming of it is studio work (remember, the US moon landing was also Made in Holywood), the scientists studying it are fake, everything ever published on it is fake.
Great to know... bit I am not blind. So sorry.
salaam.
Great to know... bit I am not blind. So sorry.
salaam.
However todays webcam picutre:
Looks remarkably similar to this photograph taken 18 may 1987
free spirit
more tea vicar?
True...
Unfortunately for this idea, the arctic ocean isn't flat, it's made up of waves, and the side of the wave facing the sun will be somewhere around the 0-40 degree's from facing sun head on, and the other side of the wave will be in the shadow formed by the front of the wave blocking the sun (at that latitude), so this means the incident angle factor only really applies to a small part of the top of the wave.
So yes, it's a factor, but I'd not have thought it'd have been that big a factor.
LOL!
Similar threads
