|
Post by radiant on Sept 17, 2009 6:02:34 GMT
Are you talking about the Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight? Didn't they still require the assistance of two Russian (nuclear-powered?) icebreakers ? I didn't hear that. They were escorted by the Russians, but I think it was political as opposed to physical need. It turns out these two boats Beluga Fraternity and Foresight, both ice class E3, were part of a specialist voyage delivering very heavy equipment to Siberia! Siberia was there destination and there was no other way of getting to Siberia! I have to confess i was believing there was significantly less ice. Amazing that it has taken till now for me to realise the simple reality Truelly we are being fed crap by the media the Beluga vessels were part of a little convoy behind the Russian Atomflot-ice breakers “50 let Pobedy” and “Rossia”. Here they are led via these massive Russian nuclear icebreakers thru the Vilkizki Strait What is more the captains of both german vessels were russians - which seems pretty unusual - but the boats are ice class and the boats were joined by specialist ice pilots for the most difficult parts of the journey www.beluga-group.com/en/#News-NewsAnd via a swedish explorer doing the North East passage who at various times was blocked by ice in August we can read his log for september 1st: www.skinnarmo.com/In the end, we arrived to a dense barrier of ice that effectively set a stop in our way.
After a small consultation within the team, we decided to sail southwards. This was not an easy decision to take, because ice was on its way there with the help of the wind, and in towards land. But according to the latest ice map, a northerly route would be an enormous detour. The last thing we wanted was to get stuck between ice and land. It was several nervous hours before we could eventually find a southerly route through the worst ice and sail east again.
Right before darkness was to fall, we saw on our AIS and radar three ships on their way towards us. Via VHF radio, we could gladly verify that it was our friend Captain Dimitry, who onboard his icebreaker was escorting two cargo ships west through the ice. Fun to see Dimitry again, who we met in Saint Petersburg during our sailing training as well as in Murmansk during the actual trip. Dimitry's ship, Fifty Years of Victory, is the world's largest icebreaker and runs on two nuclear reactors that together put out 75,000 horsepower.And hat tip to: eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/turd-eaters.html
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 19:31:16 GMT
I think you'll be eating your words in coming years time regarding OHC In that case SoCold make a testable prediction that can be validated at a particular time. Such as heat content will be at least x in 20##. After all you have been saying OHC has not been going down - so it should be simple for you. My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat. This is because there is certainty that one of the factors - greenhouse gas forcing will continue to increase. There is no such certainty elsewhere, in fact for aspects such as solar forcing we know that cycles up and down. Without a maintained and ever falling negative forcing to offset the maintained and ever rising greenhouse gas forcing, I don't expect OHC will stall for anything other than a few years at a time.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 17, 2009 19:55:47 GMT
In that case SoCold make a testable prediction that can be validated at a particular time. Such as heat content will be at least x in 20##. After all you have been saying OHC has not been going down - so it should be simple for you. My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat. This is because there is certainty that one of the factors - greenhouse gas forcing will continue to increase. There is no such certainty elsewhere, in fact for aspects such as solar forcing we know that cycles up and down. Without a maintained and ever falling negative forcing to offset the maintained and ever rising greenhouse gas forcing, I don't expect OHC will stall for anything other than a few years at a time. In that case surely you can give a shorter time frame? Or give us some scenarios so we can see what you mean. For example if you look totally wrong in 2019 what does it take to be right by 2020 You are saying rising other than stalling for a few years at a time. Is it rising now or stalling? How long is 'a few' years? By the way what is OHC?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 20:42:57 GMT
My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat. This is because there is certainty that one of the factors - greenhouse gas forcing will continue to increase. There is no such certainty elsewhere, in fact for aspects such as solar forcing we know that cycles up and down. Without a maintained and ever falling negative forcing to offset the maintained and ever rising greenhouse gas forcing, I don't expect OHC will stall for anything other than a few years at a time. In that case surely you can give a shorter time frame? Or give us some scenarios so we can see what you mean. For example if you look totally wrong in 2019 what does it take to be right by 2020 You are saying rising other than stalling for a few years at a time. Is it rising now or stalling? How long is 'a few' years? By the way what is OHC? The extra time is as much to give more time for the last few years of data to hold up as it is to get more data. OHC is ocean heat content. A number of records have seen very big revisions recently, for example the OHC drop in the late 70s has all but vanished: atm-phys.nies.go.jp/~ism/pub/ProjD/doc/Ishii-Kimoto-2009.pdfftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdfThere are also still big differences between these records on scales of a few years. So I am throwing out the year 2020 as being a clear cut case by then. Although we will probably hear from scientists on the matter before then anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 17, 2009 20:53:51 GMT
"A number of records have seen very big revisions recently, for example the OHC drop in the late 70s has all but vanished:" In Orwell's 1984 they re-wrote History as politics changed. These days they rewrite the scientific data...
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 17, 2009 21:35:37 GMT
In Orwell's 1984 they re-wrote History as politics changed. These days they rewrite the scientific data... Animal Farm -- No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheetsAll animals are created equal but some are more equal than othersThere is a real threat of a man made Ice Age Global Warming catastrophe -Stephen Schneider, IPCC's preeminent "Scientist"
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 22:05:19 GMT
socold. My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat.
My prediction is that by 2020 no-one under 30 will hardly even remember the C02 alarmist hoax and people like socold will have switched sides and deny their warmist past or maybe even be using their real names to promote ICE AGE! ICE AGE! alarmism. Plus of course unless the Sun God forgives our CO2 blasphemy it will be FREEZING out there.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 17, 2009 22:11:48 GMT
In that case SoCold make a testable prediction that can be validated at a particular time. Such as heat content will be at least x in 20##. After all you have been saying OHC has not been going down - so it should be simple for you. My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat. This is because there is certainty that one of the factors - greenhouse gas forcing will continue to increase. There is no such certainty elsewhere, in fact for aspects such as solar forcing we know that cycles up and down. Without a maintained and ever falling negative forcing to offset the maintained and ever rising greenhouse gas forcing, I don't expect OHC will stall for anything other than a few years at a time. Unfortunately for AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) prognosticators, OHC did stop increasing. You really need to answer why socold. Also, the latest research, which you conveniently ignore, indicates the oceans were warmed largely by SW radiation rather than LW "back radiation" BS GHE perpetual motion nonsense programmed into models. Start explaining socold, we're all ears.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:40:08 GMT
"A number of records have seen very big revisions recently, for example the OHC drop in the late 70s has all but vanished:" In Orwell's 1984 they re-wrote History as politics changed. These days they rewrite the scientific data... On the otherhand magellan cites the records as "OHC did stop increasing" So we see skeptics will selectively dismiss parts of the data they don't like by invoking a conspiracy theory while putting forward parts of the same record they do like as an argument.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:41:36 GMT
socold. My prediction is that OHC will not fall on the long term, so say 2020 we will see OHC has continued rising since 200x and not fallen or gone flat. My prediction is that by 2020 no-one under 30 will hardly even remember the C02 alarmist hoax and people like socold will have switched sides and deny their warmist past or maybe even be using their real names to promote ICE AGE! ICE AGE! alarmism. Plus of course unless the Sun God forgives our CO2 blasphemy it will be FREEZING out there. My prediction is that as OHC increases skeptics will continue their simultaneous contradicting arguments of "it's a conspiracy the data is wrong" and "the data is right but its natural and we expected it". Ie the "fiddling the figures" vs "recovery from the little ice age" contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:48:42 GMT
Unfortunately for AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) prognosticators, OHC did stop increasing. You really need to answer why socold. That's not unfortunate, in fact if true it would be a good thing. And that's the rub. There's at least one record of OHC that shows a marginal increase in OHC since 2003. The recent time period is still under dispute by the various records. Well first of all you are wrong to dispute backradiation exists. It does and so cannot be dismissed as "perpectual motion". Second what latest research do you refer to? Are you perhaps confusing the impact of the solar cycle on 5 year timescales with longterm trends over decades? It's possible that the solar minimum has contributed to a slowdown in OHC increase, in which case the increase will now continue and we will see an quick additional sharp increase through the next solar maximum.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 22:51:12 GMT
socold. My prediction is that as OHC increases skeptics will continue their simultaneous contradicting arguments of "it's a conspiracy the data is wrong" and "the data is right but its natural and we expected it". Ie the "fiddling the figures" vs "recovery from the little ice age" contradiction.
Now just read this in your mind with the voice of Davros from doctor who.
Davros: No, Wait! Those men are scientists; they can help you! Please let them live! Have Pity! Dalek: Pi-ty? I have no understanding of the word. It is not registered in my vocabulary bank. EXTERMINATE! (fires)
AGW ends.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 17, 2009 23:01:20 GMT
Unfortunately for AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) prognosticators, OHC did stop increasing. You really need to answer why socold. That's not unfortunate, in fact if true it would be a good thing. And that's the rub. There's at least one record of OHC that shows a marginal increase in OHC since 2003. The recent time period is still under dispute by the various records. Well first of all you are wrong to dispute backradiation exists. It does and so cannot be dismissed as "perpectual motion". Second what latest research do you refer to? Are you perhaps confusing the impact of the solar cycle on 5 year timescales with longterm trends over decades? It's possible that the solar minimum has contributed to a slowdown in OHC increase, in which case the increase will now continue and we will see an quick additional sharp increase through the next solar maximum. You must give evidence to support your claims. Whether OHC is increasing or not, the onus is on you to give proofs of why you think GHG can be the cause of OHC warming to any measurable significance. You won't because no such evidence exists. Shortwave radiation is direct from the sun, got it? How many times must this be posted before the light comes on? www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdfResults also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while thefeedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 18, 2009 2:43:04 GMT
This is the Ice thread- can we move the other stuff to another thread please-
The Jaxa image for 17th is showing that it is "seeing" more ice - so should be a jump up when we get the data - Strong growth down the (East) coast of Greenland.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 18, 2009 4:03:29 GMT
Second what latest research do you refer to? Are you perhaps confusing the impact of the solar cycle on 5 year timescales with longterm trends over decades? It's possible that the solar minimum has contributed to a slowdown in OHC increase, in which case the increase will now continue and we will see an quick additional sharp increase through the next solar maximum. Sharp huh? Interesting about the time that NOAA decided to get out of the sun predicting basis. . . .we find an AGW alarmist willing to take up the crystal ball. . . .guess it must be genetic! ;D
|
|