Well then post something scientific!!! Fact: posted today: The Kangerdlugssuaq glacier in Greeland has retreated 6 miles since 2001. The Helheim in Greenland is retreating at about 7 miles a year. Alaska's Columbia Glacier - the size of Los Angeles - has shrunk 9 miles since the 1980s. Source: "The American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, "Gordon Hamilton, University of Maine's Climate Change Institute, December, 2005.
>> Tarot reader... The Tarot of science ! WE use science to 'predict' consequences... a valid exercise, because the foundation theories are well tested. Shame moronic politicians think they can use a similar process for their unfounded thoughts. But in science a Tarot could be thrown, using validated processes and input as variables...... after all the answer comes into the mind from the sequential arrangement of the scientific input.... keep that valid and the scientific predictions made can have some substance and in some cases be relied upon. Watching a hurricane form, the Tarot of hurricanes...... allows you to form some predictions..... The Tarot process is very very clever, IMO. Never underestimate the human mind (even if that human sleeps in the gutter)
Yes and? This is also Greenland, the temperature reconstruction of the last 20,000 years. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The publication: http://130.92.227.10/download/qsr2000-papers/alley.pdf Check the last 4000 years in the enlargement. The reconstruction ends in 1852 AD, so I added the global trend in red. See the Medieval Warming Period? (MWP) when the Vikings entered the island and called it Greenland for some reason, instead of white-land or glacier-land. Notice also that the Greenland ice sheet survived all the other spikes of the last 10,000 years. Scaremongering should be punishable by law.
There is no "and", I have no stance in this, because I think that there is not enough information to have one, at least I don't have such sufficient information according to my standarts All I know is that our global climate is a dynamic system which depends on too many (known and unknown) variables to have a precise prediction.
I was just looking over the article on Greenland during breakfast! ^__^ I'm not sure if this was asked in the 5 pages of this thread and I'm sorry I wasn't following it, but.... Can you estimate how many and which areas will become like Venice as a result of the warming and rising sea level? Or is my concern completely unfounded?
OK look on it with oil in your eyes >> A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level >> After WW1 the oil on the world's waters peaked, and that 'dried' the north (less clouds). The Arctic was not melting at that time (this makes more cloud later when it starts to melt big time) >> Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. >>> The Arctic started melting, throwing cloud into the air.... causing a cooling trend at lower latitudes but WW2 brought more oil onto the seas.... and since then industry still layers much more The Northern hemisphere's weather is ruled by the Arctic.... and until it is melted and gone, the northern weather is unpredictable.. it does not mix with the southern hemisphere's weather. The southern hemisphere's weather is ruled mainly by the equator, and Antarctic at lower latitudes.... there is much more open water, much more drying of the land masses has occurred.... It is complicated and confusing, but the role of CO2 is not evident, at least if CO2 was the cause it would be very obvious.... whereas the role of oil as a cause shows a much higher correlation. Ultimately the land will dry, and the oiled waters will boil, until massive cloud banks freezes us.... and then I don't know..... because once the oil is removed the excess heat equilibrium (stored in the mass of the seas) will be so far to "too hot", that a massive (very thick cloud banks --->) ice age could cover the whole world........... ???? To actually determine what is going on The temperature "range" of different locations must be collated, and the trend drawn. The range is the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures.... this is a measure of the water in the air (or CO2 if you like).. the heat capacity A higher range, the less H2O/CO2 in the air.... similar to a dessert area The lower the range the more heat trapping substances in the atmosphere. Remember air is a great insulator, so the range is like a measure of the air insulation index. You will find "range" records are being broken everywhere, I now often see a range of 22 C degrees in many parts of the world, even from areas at sea level.......
Has someone really read this piece of utter stupidity? Sometimes if becomes hard to understand how a paper or magazine can really print this kind of garbage, or why the editor hasn’t fired the reporter afterwards. First, the whole scare is mounted on “suggestions from a computer model”. So there is nothing observed or proved. Nice. Keep doing it. Very scientific. Then the idiot that gets paid a salary as a journalist says: “the ozone hole should recover GLOBALLY”. Holly crap! What’s got to do the localized ozone hole over Antarctica with the rest of the planet (he said “globally”, remember?). There has not been the slightest abnormal increase of UV-B radiation on Earth, as most UV monitoring stations around the world prove it. The US has closed its network of UV monitoring stations when back in the late 80s and early 90s when Dr. Joseph Scotto, of the Biostatistic branch of the National Cancer Institute published his study in Science telling about a decrease of 7% UV-B radiation in the USA between 1974-1985. (Scotto J. et al., “Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985, Science, Feb. 12,1988). See the graph adapted from Scotto’s paper (sorry if someone doesn't understand Spanish): <img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-12/ozonoTrend.jpg width=500> As soon as Scotto’s paper was published, the USA UV-B network (with Robertson-Berger spectrometers) was shut down and replaced by “computer modeling”. Wonder why? The ozone wars were raging then, with the newly discovered “Ozone Hole”. What a cargo of trash we have been reading since! And they keep pumping lies and stupid new like this. Ozone levels and UV-B radiation varies naturally all over the world affected by natural factors (as solar radiation and some wind patterns inside the hole in Antarctica) or the action of some chlorine atoms over the surface of ice crystals on Stratospheric Polar Clouds. The rest of the infamous ozone hole story is a shame for science and scientists that helped to spread the scare. The answer is no in the wind. It is in the saying of honest and knowledgeable scientists.
So, let me be clear on your argument. (It's a little difficult to pick out the facts amidst your over-the-top outbursts.) There is, or there is not an ozone hole? This was, or was not caused, at least in part by human activity? The primary culprit was, or was not hyrdoflourocarbons? Your aggressive agenda is motivated by a) Business interests. b) Short-sightedness c) A properly researched, validated and published thesis d) Being a bad tempered bastard. e) Other (please specify)
Answering Ophiolite's questionaire: 1. There is, or there is not an ozone hole? No, there is not an ozone hole. Just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole. Some years it is bigger and other years is much smaller, following the sun's activity, or the QBO direction (if you know what that is). 2. This was, or was not caused, at least in part by human activity? Not in the least. The Southern Anomaly (as Gordon Dobson named it back in 1957 when he and the French scientists Leroy and Rigaud, at base Dumont D'Urville, discovered the low ozone levels back in 1957) has totally natural causes. It has been there since the last time the South Pole moved to its present position. 3. The primary culprit was, or was not hyrdoflourocarbons? CFCs have nothing to do with the Southern anomaly. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt. The amount of CFC rising to the stratosphere range between 0.1 to 0.001 parts per trillion. (R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, S. Penkett, "Halocarbons in the Stratosphere," Nature, Dec, 24, 1981). And worse, they haven't been detected in the adequate altitude (above 45 km) to be dissociated by UV-C radiation. Ceck your sources (if you have any) Your aggressive agenda is motivated by a) Business interests. No business motivation. I don't deal with refrigerant gases. b) Short-sightedness I have fantastic sight 10/10 c) A properly researched, validated and published thesis Of course: Many validated studies, mostly derived from the German Crista-Spas satellite observations showing a Freon-11 "hole" in Antarctica. It means: there are no Freons there. (Make a Google for Crista-Spas) d) Being a bad tempered bastard. (That’s a nasty possibility) e) Other (please specify) Yes. Putting in its proper place a pompous idiot like you.
Fact: There is an ozone hole in both the Atctic and a much much larger one in the Antarctic. "Current computer models suggest the ozone hole should recover globally by 2040 or 2050, but Tuesday's analysis suggests the hole won't heal until about 2065. Meanwhile, the lesser-damaged ozone layer over the Arctic is expected to recover by about 2040, according to new modeling done by John Austin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Results were presented at an American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/06/ozone.hole.ap/index.html You're a crack-pot!
Edufer: What the hell. You post this graph and the x and y are labelled: "Contaeo R-B X 10,000/Ano" by "Ano." Now I'm sorry that I'm not fluent in Spanish, but there's no excuse for posting this graph without explaining to us what it means. Would you care to translate it for us? Thanks.
It appears to me that this thread is running out of control and completely OT. Has probably to do with the observation of Alston Chase:
Who? What? is Alston Chase? I agree. This post is "locked." We're no longer communicating in English.
Some data, back on the thread: Greenland’s glaciers are melting. Glacier Kangerdlugssuaq, is currently moving about 9 miles a year compared to 3 miles a year in 2001, said Gordon Hamilton of the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute. The other glacier, Helheim, is retreating at about 7 miles a year -- up from 4 miles a year during the same period. "It's quite a staggering rate of increase," Hamilton said at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting. Alaska's Columbia Glacier -- about the size of Los Angeles -- has shrunk 9 miles since the 1980s. It is expected to lose an additional 9 miles in the next 15 to 20 years before the bed of the glacier rises above sea level. The glacier, which moves about 80 feet a day, currently releases about 2 cubic miles of ice every year into the Prince William Sound on the south coast of Alaska. Glaciers play a major role in discharging water into oceans. Sea levels have swelled globally an estimated 4 inches to 8 inches during the past century due to melting glaciers and polar ice -- enough to cause some places to be awash at high tide or during severe storms. Tad Pfeffer, associate director of the University of Colorado's Institute of Arctic and Alpine, said climate change warming trends do not directly explain the shrinking Columbia Glacier and other tidewater glaciers. Instead, scientists think the retreat is triggered by a slow warming trend that began five centuries ago. Significant thinning of the Columbia Glacier is thought to be caused by huge chunks of iceberg that break off into the sound as a result of seawater pressure rather than climate change, Pfeffer said. The glacier, which is up to 3,000 feet thick, has thinned up to 1,300 feet in some places in the last two decades. Billy T comment: It would seem to me that the melting of inland glaciers, like those of Greenland, etc. are accelerating the reduction of tide-water glaciers. If global warming (what ever the cause) also is making more and stronger storms, this too will accelerate the melting of tidal glaciers. I.e. we seem to be in a positive feed back mode and perhaps it is already too late to do anything about it.
Edufer, it is clear from the tenor of your reply that you are not interested in making your case, rather that you wish to be controversial and argumentative. Andre's quotation above states it perfectly. If you genuinely wish to convince people of your position then you might care to look in more depth at Andre's posts on many threads. I probably disagree with 90% of Andre's conclusions, yet he has never caused my blood pressure to rise by even a nanometre; he has not alienated me in any way; he has encouraged me, by his attitude, to look more closely at his arguments. In short, he has been a perfect gentlemen, and has reaped the benefits of that position in that he has gained both respect and attention. You, on the other hand, appear merely to be an arrogant, puke ridden asshole, with an agenda almost as large as their head. Was that the image you hoped to convey?
Valich: the graph is clear for people that know about ozone hole matters, but especially for people who is in the science fields. But here is the meaning for the words in the graph: Conteo R-XB x1.000/año = R-B counts per 10,000/year (R-B is Robertson-Berger, the values given by the spectrometer) Año = Year. What it should be clear is the fact that UV radiation over the USA decreased by an average of 0.7% annually during the hysterical period when “scientists” went bersek scaring people with the newly discovered ozone hole in Antarctica in 1985 –something that was noticed back in 1957 by Dobson, and the French. This is merely one of thousands of proofs showing the fraudulent way the ozone layer issue was treated, leading to a ban requested by the industry for replace CFCs for new and more expensive gases, as well new and much more expensive refrigeration equipment as the old ones wouldn’t accept the new gases. And you are blaming the oil “industry” for the warming of the planet –but refuse to see the refrigerant industry of the 80s and 90s. Shortsightedness or just looking through a green colored filter? Or just plain ignorance of historic facts? By the way, your link and press release you just posted informing me I am a "crackpot" was answered by my previous post with the graphs. Your Alzheimer is getting worse. Take care.
