Ice melt is in POSTIVE feedback! Bad news for us all!
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
Jean Blanchette
Temporal Novice
Here is a test for you.Take a glass of water and put 2 ice cubes in it.Mark where the water level is , cap the glass so no moisture can evaporate , after the ice melts , mark the water level again and see the differance.This will solve your flooding issue.Yes the is a lot if Ice on land such as the south polar areas.Ice is water expanded in its solid state.
Darby
Epochal Historian
You don't actually have to perform the experiment. Just look at the ice in your ice tray cups. Nice little ice bergs taller than the ice cup itself. Water goes through a phase change when the temperature is slightly above freezing. The water molecules start lining up and forming hexagonal crystals (Ice-h)...it expands in volume and its density decreases.
Depending on the atmospheric pressure, rapidity of cooling and the final temperature you can get water ---> ice to display at least 17 different phases (different densities and crystal forms). Water is so common here on Earth that we tend to take its properties for granted. But it is actually a very fantastic molecule - so fantastic that it has its own sub-branch of physical chemistry to study its strange properties.
servantx
Quantum Scribe
Th
The global warming / melting of Arctic ice might be because of the Solar Cycle. Peak on May 2013.
New Solar Cycle Prediction - NASA Science
What is Solar Cycle 24?
Solar cycle 24 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After that solar peak you will see the temperature drops back to normal. (Psst, part of the truth behind global warming)
The global warming / melting of Arctic ice might be because of the Solar Cycle. Peak on May 2013.
New Solar Cycle Prediction - NASA Science
What is Solar Cycle 24?
Solar cycle 24 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After that solar peak you will see the temperature drops back to normal. (Psst, part of the truth behind global warming)
Why is it sore much more pronounced this time round?
Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when recording of solar sunspot activity began- as it says at that link you gave.
It also says "NASA predicts that solar cycle 24 will peak in early or mid 2013 with about 59 sunspots. This would make it the least active cycle in the past one hundred years"
[/QUOTE]
I would love to think you are correct- but, the day-to-day experiences of many with the change in climate to wetter conditions indicates otherwise.
There are parts of the Northern UK where there has not been a single dry day for famers this summer (reference BBC Countryfile).
When I see pictures like this, it really brings it home to me File:Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
daver;
Why is it more pronounced this time around as compared to what?
This is called "weather", not climate change. Weather changes from year to year, month to month, day to day, and hour to hour. Climate change happens over hundreds and thousands of years. Not 10, or 20, or 50 as Al Gore and the other alarmists like him would have everyone believe.
Why is it more pronounced this time around as compared to what?
This is called "weather", not climate change. Weather changes from year to year, month to month, day to day, and hour to hour. Climate change happens over hundreds and thousands of years. Not 10, or 20, or 50 as Al Gore and the other alarmists like him would have everyone believe.
The changes regarding wetter weather, in relation to the solar cycles.
Just because it has changed at those rates in the past, the change in CLIMATE most likely is accelerating now, and that is proven by many photo's and satellite images
like this (reposted)
File:Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Have you not seen the famous postcard of a glacier, and the pic of it taken recently? Perhaps not.
There are two ways to approach this- take action, or do nothing.
The latter seems to be the accepted state, unfortunately!
Personally, I believe in insurance and preparation, oh, and recognition of a problem that judging by the evidence on the grand scale probably (I would say certainly) exists.
Why do lots of people miss the whole point of the evidence:
The Ice is a reflector, it reflects the heat away! Once the reflector reaches a state of non- recovery ALL the ice will dissapear! Then we absorb heat! Not good.
Regards, Dave.
Of course, there are many intersted parties that are not happy at all- for obvious reasons.
BBC News - Everest Sherpas in glacial lake study warning
BBC News - Everest Sherpas in glacial lake study warning
Jean Blanchette
Temporal Novice
I would love to think you are correct- but, the day-to-day experiences of many with the change in climate to wetter conditions indicates otherwise.
There are parts of the Northern UK where there has not been a single dry day for famers this summer (reference BBC Countryfile).
When I see pictures like this, it really brings it home to me File:Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]
Truth be told,earth is supposed to be a tropical planet.Has it ever dawned on anyone that maybe it is trying to go back to its normal state of being? We have only been tracking the weather properly for the last 150 years. So, that being the fact, we really do not know whats really going on. Because someone says the weather has never done certain things before, does not mean it hasn't. We have no concept past 150 years on the weather aside from stories or bad literature.My point being, we are tripping over an issue that should scream common sense,yet we allow crack pot scientists fo feed us bs so they recieve funding.
Jean Blanchette;
It would appear we agree on the global warming hoax but I must disagree with your statement;
We actually have no idea what the normal climate of the Earth is "supposed" to be simply because it has and will again and again cycle thru every climatic extreme that the best of the alarmists could ever dream up.
daver;
Yes, I have seen that picture postcard and many other pictures of that glacier as well as many other glaciers.
Go here:
History and Geography of Glacier Bay National Park in Southeast Alaska
You may learn something. Primarily, that the glacier began retreating in 1879. I do believe that was a couple weeks before the introduction on the SUV and "all of man's polluting CO2 emissions". You may additionally learn that the glaciers in this area have been retreating and advancing for over 115,000 years and even before that since the advancing glacier is what cut the valley that the smaller Muir Glacier sat in before it, again, retreated. It is a natural cycle that has been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years and it will for many thousands more long after "we" are gone.
The audacity of men to think they are the proprietors of nature and that their actions are necessary or even required by the Earth. I would seem to me that the planet has gotten on just fine without "us" for millions of years yet some self-righteous twits think they need to step in to protect it. The only thing that we need protection from is "them"!
It would appear we agree on the global warming hoax but I must disagree with your statement;
We actually have no idea what the normal climate of the Earth is "supposed" to be simply because it has and will again and again cycle thru every climatic extreme that the best of the alarmists could ever dream up.
daver;
You may be referring to the Muir Glacier.
Yes, I have seen that picture postcard and many other pictures of that glacier as well as many other glaciers.
Go here:
History and Geography of Glacier Bay National Park in Southeast Alaska
You may learn something. Primarily, that the glacier began retreating in 1879. I do believe that was a couple weeks before the introduction on the SUV and "all of man's polluting CO2 emissions". You may additionally learn that the glaciers in this area have been retreating and advancing for over 115,000 years and even before that since the advancing glacier is what cut the valley that the smaller Muir Glacier sat in before it, again, retreated. It is a natural cycle that has been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years and it will for many thousands more long after "we" are gone.
The audacity of men to think they are the proprietors of nature and that their actions are necessary or even required by the Earth. I would seem to me that the planet has gotten on just fine without "us" for millions of years yet some self-righteous twits think they need to step in to protect it. The only thing that we need protection from is "them"!
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming has already been falsified using strict scientific method in that predictions by the AGW "climate scientists" have been shown to be false. The way normal science works, that means the AGW alarmists SHOULD drop their current theory of how mankind's CO2 forces temperature to increase in an uncontrolled manner. It is simply bunk.
Now that being said, I am NOT a "denier" that the globe has been warming, and that there is a thing such as "climate change". The climate has been changing as long as there was climate. The oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods throughout the history of earth is well documented and not disputed. When you study and analyze oscillatory sytem dynamics as much as I do in my job, and then you look at the long term history of glacial and interglacial periods of the earth, you come to the conclusion that right now, at this moment, it looks an awful lot like we are ALREADY OVERDUE for the next glacial downturn. And then we have the sun being in one of its cyclical funks. It is looking VERY VERY similar to what was last known as the Maunder Minimum, which the AGW "hair on fire" crowd wish to ignore or minimize. If we truly are entering a new Maunder Minimum, as the sun seems to be indicating, then that will be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW crooks. There will be no denying their theory is wrong once people start skating on the Thames again.
RMT
Now that being said, I am NOT a "denier" that the globe has been warming, and that there is a thing such as "climate change". The climate has been changing as long as there was climate. The oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods throughout the history of earth is well documented and not disputed. When you study and analyze oscillatory sytem dynamics as much as I do in my job, and then you look at the long term history of glacial and interglacial periods of the earth, you come to the conclusion that right now, at this moment, it looks an awful lot like we are ALREADY OVERDUE for the next glacial downturn. And then we have the sun being in one of its cyclical funks. It is looking VERY VERY similar to what was last known as the Maunder Minimum, which the AGW "hair on fire" crowd wish to ignore or minimize. If we truly are entering a new Maunder Minimum, as the sun seems to be indicating, then that will be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW crooks. There will be no denying their theory is wrong once people start skating on the Thames again.
RMT
I guess that includes me then- how gracious!
Yes, the planet has got on just fine without us- that is the point I am trying to make. WE are the only thing that could make a difference.
Hang on.... the opposition reject statistics when they feel like it- only to use them in their favour, when they feel fit.
More attacks with name calling certainly doesn't help either.
The truth is neither you or I have the answer to whether this is DEFINITELY a problem or not.
So, why not err on the side of caution?
Oh, perhaps if we ignore it- it will go away. I get the feeling that this is viewed from a political angle in preference to a view from a position of caution and common sense.
I have no leanings towards the loony lefties. But, I do care about the place I live in- this is the only one I have!
Regards,
Dave
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
1) I am not talking about statistics, I am talking about data that clearly falsifies James Hansen's et. al's predictions.
2) As for name calling, any "scientists" who refuse to release the RAW data they use to come to their gloom and doom predictions, along with openly sharing all their methods used to reduce or otherwise "smooth" that data are not following the scientific method nor acting in the best interests of the people of earth.
3) Climategate I and II. Need I say more? The evidence of scientists behaving badly that these events revealed should give anyone pause as to their claims and political activism.
Becuase the gimmicks prescribed by the politicians in cahoots with scientists they pay with public funds will cost our economy DEARLY...and just at a time when global economies CAN NOT afford it.
Let us be brutally honest here: The entire AGW scam is nothing more than a political movement. How else could you defend against this when its biggest, continuous gloom and doom proponent is a politician (none other than Al Gore). Add to that the way that the IPCC takes science (and in some cases not even science, but activist environmental articles which are NOT peer reviewed) and turn them into a "summary for policymakers" which is blatantly politcal and recommends exactly the things that politicians like Al Gore want to hear? Let us not also forget that Al Gore and MANY politicians got into the business of "carbon credit trading" well before his Inconvenient Truth movie came out. Does that not smell of CONFLICT OF INTEREST to you? Does to me.
As do I, Dave. I have a 3300W solar PV system on my roof here in SoCal that generates more power than I use on an annual basis. Moreover, in the coming weeks I will be installing an 800W wind turbine power system on the ranch I am building in SW Colorado. That entire complex in Colorado will remain OFF GRID as long as I can keep it that way. So I am clearly doing my part and challenge anyone to do even as much as I have done.
My point in relating all this is that it takes INDIVIDUAL actions, and that is how these things SHOULD be handled. When GOV decides to get in this kind of business, we open the door to not just some corruption, not just a lot of corruption, but MASSIVE corruption that will likely NOT achieve the goals of improving how we tend to our planet and how we generate energy, but rather will make one groups of people poorer (or put some energy companies out of business) while making another group of people (politicians) richer...on the backs of the people they claim to wish to protect.
Sorry, AGW is so laced with politics that I cannot do anything but fight it with all my might. But as you can see from the above, I walk the talk of alternative energy and minimizing my impact on the planet. That is how I choose to roll.
RMT
Hi Rainman,
We both want the same thing- and I too have invested in massive solar panels here in the UK.
I know little of Al Gore, and what he has said, as I am in the UK- we see little of what he says (thank God! we have our own jokers over here!!!).
I don't support him, or his followers either.
I just base my opinions on what I see around me. We shall have to agree to agree on some points, and the others- well, I can't argue them with any foundation- being from the UK.
I Know one thing! I shall NEVER trust politicians at all- they have far too many open or hidden agenda's to be of any use to anyone or anything except themselves!
That is one thing that is an international certainty.
All the best, Dave
We both want the same thing- and I too have invested in massive solar panels here in the UK.
I know little of Al Gore, and what he has said, as I am in the UK- we see little of what he says (thank God! we have our own jokers over here!!!).
I don't support him, or his followers either.
I just base my opinions on what I see around me. We shall have to agree to agree on some points, and the others- well, I can't argue them with any foundation- being from the UK.
I Know one thing! I shall NEVER trust politicians at all- they have far too many open or hidden agenda's to be of any use to anyone or anything except themselves!
That is one thing that is an international certainty.
All the best, Dave
daver;
Please don't misunderstand my position on this. RainmanTime described the junk science and politics involved in this quite well and all I can add is;
We are not the controllers of the conditions on this planet. We are the stewards of its resources while we are here. Can we mess things up enough to wipe-out ourselves? Yes. Can we do enough to irreversibly damage the planet? No. On the planetary scale we are no more able to destroy this Earth than an ant colony is able to destroy Chicago or Los Angles. To err on the side of caution in this case is little more than lip service to a "cause" and a baseless one at that. We can not control the weather. We can not affect the weather to any great extent. One example is the dust bowl of the 30's. It was brought about by poor stewardship of the land. We learned from that but as is now obvious, there were no lasting effects and the effects were limited in scale. Any other errors we commit will cause disruptions but no lasting effects. The planet on the other hand has endured Ice Ages, Massive Desert Shifts, Volcanic Eruptions, Meteor Collisions, Earth Quakes that change the course of rivers, and too much more to list. Like it or not... We are basically insignificant. We can and should use the resources responsibly and protect the environment from careless or needless damage (My previous job involved industrial wastewater treatment. I am a serious conservationist but by no means a tree hugger type, brought on by my love of Biology ) but, to ignore the benefits of using our natural resources is also irresponsible.
We are aggressively putting out the wild fires that pop-up in California, Arizona, Colorado, and other states. We do this to protect personal property of the people who live in these areas prone to the fires. Now, is this a good thing, or a bad thing? It depends on your point of view. RainmanTime might be justifiably grateful when his ranch in Co. is saved, but many coniferous trees require fire to release their seeds so new trees can grow and the ecosystems in those areas have adapted to also require a fire-borne cleaning to re-new and expand their little corner of the Earth. Sometime the difference "we" make may not be for the best.
RainmanTime;
I am envious. I also want to build a small ranch in Co. but I am not ready to retire just yet and I don't want to change jobs. I am looking into rehabbing a 7 acre ranch/farm here in ILL but my final decision won't be until after the elections in Nov. If these morons in ILL put the same SOB's back in Springfield, Maybe I'll be your neighbor by April 2013.
Please don't misunderstand my position on this. RainmanTime described the junk science and politics involved in this quite well and all I can add is;
We are not the controllers of the conditions on this planet. We are the stewards of its resources while we are here. Can we mess things up enough to wipe-out ourselves? Yes. Can we do enough to irreversibly damage the planet? No. On the planetary scale we are no more able to destroy this Earth than an ant colony is able to destroy Chicago or Los Angles. To err on the side of caution in this case is little more than lip service to a "cause" and a baseless one at that. We can not control the weather. We can not affect the weather to any great extent. One example is the dust bowl of the 30's. It was brought about by poor stewardship of the land. We learned from that but as is now obvious, there were no lasting effects and the effects were limited in scale. Any other errors we commit will cause disruptions but no lasting effects. The planet on the other hand has endured Ice Ages, Massive Desert Shifts, Volcanic Eruptions, Meteor Collisions, Earth Quakes that change the course of rivers, and too much more to list. Like it or not... We are basically insignificant. We can and should use the resources responsibly and protect the environment from careless or needless damage (My previous job involved industrial wastewater treatment. I am a serious conservationist but by no means a tree hugger type, brought on by my love of Biology ) but, to ignore the benefits of using our natural resources is also irresponsible.
We are aggressively putting out the wild fires that pop-up in California, Arizona, Colorado, and other states. We do this to protect personal property of the people who live in these areas prone to the fires. Now, is this a good thing, or a bad thing? It depends on your point of view. RainmanTime might be justifiably grateful when his ranch in Co. is saved, but many coniferous trees require fire to release their seeds so new trees can grow and the ecosystems in those areas have adapted to also require a fire-borne cleaning to re-new and expand their little corner of the Earth. Sometime the difference "we" make may not be for the best.
RainmanTime;
I am envious. I also want to build a small ranch in Co. but I am not ready to retire just yet and I don't want to change jobs. I am looking into rehabbing a 7 acre ranch/farm here in ILL but my final decision won't be until after the elections in Nov. If these morons in ILL put the same SOB's back in Springfield, Maybe I'll be your neighbor by April 2013.
Oh what a difference a year makes.
Some follow up for those interested.
Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 | Fox News
New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | Fox News
Some follow up for those interested.
Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 | Fox News
New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | Fox News