| Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Scientists Blame ‘Climate Change’ For Thick Sea Ice That Halted Arctic Expedition; You just can't make this stuff up... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 15 2017, 08:25 PM (2,995 Views) | |
| nNeo | Jun 19 2017, 03:31 PM Post #41 |
|
Good news then, since it isn't used as average. It's the starting point of a specific set of instrumentation allowing apples-to-apples comparison. Reference is generally the average of a 20 year period, or the median of the entire set. The DMI maps are interesting, but largely guesswork outside of a small area of actual measurements. Also, their definition of extent was different than the modern one, so comparing those maps to the satellite derived ones today is like comparing apples to coconuts. Here's some good history on the DMI archives, and the actual maps which have mysteriously disappeared from Watts: http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10007-dmi-seaice/ https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/ As usual, Watts aims to misinform, not enlighten. No one has ever claimed that no part of the Arctic has melted before. What's new is that large parts of it are melting most years. We have 300 years of ship attempts to cross, and ~50 years worth of areal and satellite observation confirming that having changed radically over the past two decades, consistent with Arctic amplification of AGW. Edited by nNeo, Jun 19 2017, 03:34 PM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| Robertr2000 | Jun 19 2017, 05:41 PM Post #42 |
|
Edited by Robertr2000, Jun 19 2017, 05:43 PM.
|
| "if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses" | |
![]() |
|
| Robertr2000 | Jun 19 2017, 05:45 PM Post #43 |
|
|
| "if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses" | |
![]() |
|
| Robertr2000 | Jun 19 2017, 05:47 PM Post #44 |
|
|
| "if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses" | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Jun 19 2017, 06:02 PM Post #45 |
|
Point 1:
Nonsense! By using 1979 as your starting point, as you clearly do with the graph above, you're making the implicit statement that this should be the "normal" or "average" ice coverage for the Arctic. It t'aint. As you and I BOTH know, the year 1979 was at the end period of 4 to 5 previous years of very cold temperatures (at that time being advertised in the press as being the coming "Ice Age") and ice build-up was very much higher than normal. Anytime you use that comparison, you're scamming the casual observer. It's a ruse, a fraud of the highest order. Why not use, oh, say, 1923 as your starting point? No satellites? But, there were people who reported EXACTLY what was going-on in the Arctic. It's all there in numerous documents. Point 2:
Nope! You're comparing apples with apple sauce.... . If the claims made by the above referenced post are accurate, and I have no doubt that they are, then your argument has been shot full of holes, and YOU know it! There was a considerable warm period in the Arctic from 1923 to 1938 to the point that the observers of said shrinkage of ice (who didn't need a satellite to verify what they were seeing... ) were astonished at the now navigable waters that opened-up in the Arctic. You can't tap dance around it. You can't hide that which is obvious. It's all right there for you to read. Are you saying that it didn't happen? That this is all made-up? Again, if it's true, your argument is dead-in-the-water. There was no great concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the early 20th century. So, like, how and why did this massive ice reduction occur? Hmmm? How?Nope, you lost this argument hands down.... Mozart Edited by W A Mozart, Jun 19 2017, 06:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Jun 19 2017, 07:32 PM Post #46 |
|
1979 was used as the starting point, because that was the first year that system was operational. It happens to have been fairly near the 20th century average. It was not "at the end period of 4 to 5 previous years of very cold temperatures". You're simply wrong.![]() Sections of old DMI maps drawn based literally on guesses can't "prove" what was happening in areas that were not visited or observed. The areas that were visited periodically open and close, which no one has disputed, but they are open more often and longer now. Higher latitudes were usually solid, thick ice. That is no longer the case. Natural variation certainly occurs, and will continue to occur. That doesn't negate what humans are adding to the equation. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| Robert Stout | Jun 20 2017, 12:57 AM Post #47 |
|
We should postpone funding research on sea ice melting until climate permits............
|
| Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid | |
![]() |
|
| Hughmac | Jun 20 2017, 08:32 AM Post #48 |
|
Even given three clues, you're still clueless - odd! I'll keep it short for you: the Gulf Stream keeps the North West of Scotland with an enviable climate because of the route that it takes. If, the Arctic dumps billions of tonnes of fresh water into the North Atlantic it will push the denser Gulf Stream down, as freshwater is lighter than seawater. This will cause the Gulf Stream to alter its course leaving the North Sea and North Atlantic denied their warming element; in other words it will have a climate similar to the rest of the world on the same latitude - Think northern Canada. Now if you would like to argue about water ice sheets are made of or the relative densities of fresh and salt water, for the matter why the Gulf Stream takes the course that it does. Then please go ahead. Cheers Hughmac Edited by Hughmac, Jun 20 2017, 08:35 AM.
|
| H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies. | |
![]() |
|
| BuckFan | Jun 20 2017, 12:10 PM Post #49 |
|
Greenland is not the Arctic. One is a land mass and the other is water. As we see in Antarctica, parts of Greenland may see higher snow falls as it warms and there is more moisture in the air. But also like Antarctica, we'll see that trend change as it continues to warm. |
![]() |
|
| Mr. Tik | Jun 22 2017, 12:10 AM Post #50 |
![]()
|
I stand corrected..but here is the link that the dailycaller misrepresented https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/14/canada-hudson-bay-climate-change-study-warm-temperatures?CMP=share_btn_tw Devil in the details Barber, a climate change scientist at the University of Manitoba, and the other scientists did what they could to help the Coast Guard rescue the vessels and carved a path for the tankers. They also took the time to study the ice that surrounded them, discovering that much of it was the multiyear ice typically seen in the high Arctic. It was an unexpected find, said Barber, given the time of year and how far south they were. “It’s not something you would expect to see there and not something we’ve seen there before,” he said. “In the high Arctic, climate change is causing the ice to get thinner and there to be less of it. What that does is that it increases the mobility of ice.” |
|
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up | |
![]() |
|
| Robert Stout | Jun 22 2017, 01:34 AM Post #51 |
|
North America used to be part of a much larger continent....How long do you expect these trends to take effect ???.............
|
| Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Jun 22 2017, 05:42 AM Post #52 |
|
The real point of this debate is the word 'if.' 'If' is a wonderful word filled with pretense and dread. 'If' the seas rise by a foot there are countless photoshops of Manhattan under 6 feet of water, sharks swimming around downtown Miami and liberals no longer able to dock their yachts on Martha's Vinyard. If, ....if, ....if.
'If' is a great word to use in this context, especially when there is no proof! ... Mozart |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Jun 22 2017, 06:39 AM Post #53 |
|
LOL, you're comparing a process that took 80 million years to one that is being observed in a couple of human lifetimes. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| Robert Stout | Jun 22 2017, 06:49 AM Post #54 |
|
My grandfather, my father, and I denied the climate was changing.........
Edited by Robert Stout, Jun 22 2017, 06:52 AM.
|
| Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid | |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Jun 22 2017, 07:03 AM Post #55 |
|
Genetic defects can cause all sorts of problems. |
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| Hughmac | Jun 22 2017, 01:30 PM Post #56 |
|
Look, I've tried to explain and I am not going to type it all out again for you, so do yourself a favour and read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation Cheers Hughmac |
| H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies. | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Jun 22 2017, 06:12 PM Post #57 |
|
I did. Not impressed. First, there is this statement:
So, this has nothing to do with global warming. Nada, bupkis. (CO2 rates dramatically increased in the 1950's) Second, there is this:
Complete gibberish. There has been NO global sea level rise outside of the very, very gradual sea level rise that has taken place for the past two or three centuries. We come back to the 'what if' nonsense. Third, there is this:
These two guys? Really? When I read that both Hansen and Mann were behind this study, alarm bells go off. '0' credibility. AMOC may in fact have some merit in the context that climate is ALWAYS changing, and that Gulf Stream circulations may have modified over the years (since 1930), but this has nothing to do with the global warming argument. Scotland may be getting a bit chillier in the future, but that only means that the value of Scottish woolen sweaters will go up! Mozart |
![]() |
|
| Attaburnsinhell | Jun 22 2017, 06:24 PM Post #58 |
|
Trump has already said global warming is a hoax Since Trump is a reliable liar, we should take that as an affirmation that man made global warming is a fact |
![]() |
|
| nNeo | Jun 22 2017, 06:27 PM Post #59 |
|
Yes, and always changing for a reason(s). Sea level is most certainly rising, the rate of rise is accelerating, and the east coast of the US has increased more than some other areas, which is consistent with a slowing Gulf Stream. ![]()
Edited by nNeo, Jun 22 2017, 06:28 PM.
|
| “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” | |
![]() |
|
| W A Mozart | Jun 23 2017, 04:20 AM Post #60 |
|
Nonsense! Rubbish! A steaming Austrian cow pile wafting amidst the Edelweiss...! I don't have time today to look-up all of the data, but this is total BS! (and would include non-Austrian cows and bulls...! )Mozart Edited by W A Mozart, Jun 23 2017, 04:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com FOREIGN* & DEFENSE · Next Topic » |






. If the claims made by the above referenced post are accurate, and I have no doubt that they are, then your argument has been shot full of holes, and YOU know it! There was a considerable warm period in the Arctic from 1923 to 1938 to the point that the observers of said shrinkage of ice (who didn't need a satellite to verify what they were seeing...
) were astonished at the now navigable waters that opened-up in the Arctic. You can't tap dance around it. You can't hide that which is obvious. It's all right there for you to read. Are you saying that it didn't happen? That this is all made-up? Again, if it's true, your argument is dead-in-the-water. There was no great concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the early 20th century. So, like, how and why did this massive ice reduction occur? Hmmm? How?








8:30 PM Jul 10