|
Post by steve on Aug 6, 2009 9:25:03 GMT
Ice conditions vary from place to place. The point is that while the NW passage was passable in 1944, evidence suggests that in the same year the Beaufort and Chuckchi seas had significant amounts of ice in late September whereas for the past 12 years they look like they offer clear passage. Fair enuf. I misunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps todays winds have more westerly component and 1944 had more easterly. Surface winds seem to play a big part in ice formation and removal to warmer water in these areas. Personally i am inclined to believe in a very chaotic system that cannot be modelled or predicted in short time spans of a few hundred years. You mentioned the ARGO ocean bouys in response to my observation about total heat content being relevant - a system only being built from 2000 and in place from 2007 which is regarded as a surface measurement dispite the significant depths used - presumably because the sea is so immensely deep. I mentioned ARGO buoys *and* XBTs. The latter have been used for decades, and continue to be used. They are used less and less as time goes on because the ARGO data are replacing the XBT data. It's true that one hardly hears a story about nature or the weather without a climate change catch-line. But I suppose I've never been much of a media follower so I might not be aware of it. Having said that, the World Glacier Monitoring folk keep a record of a large number of mid-latitude glaciers, and most of them are reducing in size. In the 70's there were matching concerns that the aerosol pollution would cause cooling and the CO2 would cause warming, but because it was apparently cooling at the time, and possibly because the next ice age was an easier story to tell than global warming, the cooling stories are the ones that took hold. www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html Cooling fears died out way before the levels of warming became apparent.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 6, 2009 10:27:41 GMT
Fair enuf. I misunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps todays winds have more westerly component and 1944 had more easterly. Surface winds seem to play a big part in ice formation and removal to warmer water in these areas. Personally i am inclined to believe in a very chaotic system that cannot be modelled or predicted in short time spans of a few hundred years. You mentioned the ARGO ocean bouys in response to my observation about total heat content being relevant - a system only being built from 2000 and in place from 2007 which is regarded as a surface measurement dispite the significant depths used - presumably because the sea is so immensely deep. I mentioned ARGO buoys *and* XBTs. The latter have been used for decades, and continue to be used. They are used less and less as time goes on because the ARGO data are replacing the XBT data. It's true that one hardly hears a story about nature or the weather without a climate change catch-line. But I suppose I've never been much of a media follower so I might not be aware of it. Having said that, the World Glacier Monitoring folk keep a record of a large number of mid-latitude glaciers, and most of them are reducing in size. In the 70's there were matching concerns that the aerosol pollution would cause cooling and the CO2 would cause warming, but because it was apparently cooling at the time, and possibly because the next ice age was an easier story to tell than global warming, the cooling stories are the ones that took hold. www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nat-geog-1976-11.html Cooling fears died out way before the levels of warming became apparent. At the end of the day it is clear to me you have already decided what is going to happen and you see it all thru that lens Open mindedness is no longer an option for you. And screw you about your abilities to not be influenced by the media. You are the media now. You are the one on a board telling people to believe in warming. Funny how you can be aware of media practice and not be aware of the media It's true that one hardly hears a story about nature or the weather without a climate change catch-line. But I suppose I've never been much of a media follower so I might not be aware of it. The fact is you are here all day long telling people they are wrong to believe what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 6, 2009 11:44:30 GMT
At the end of the day it is clear to me you have already decided what is going to happen and you see it all thru that lens Open mindedness is no longer an option for you. And screw you about your abilities to not be influenced by the media. You are the media now. You are the one on a board telling people to believe in warming. Funny how you can be aware of media practice and not be aware of the media It's true that one hardly hears a story about nature or the weather without a climate change catch-line. But I suppose I've never been much of a media follower so I might not be aware of it. The fact is you are here all day long telling people they are wrong to believe what they believe. My, you do blow hot and cold. I know teenagers like you! If you were at college when the ice age concerns were about I'd have thought you'd have learnt by now that arguing a point of view is not the same as holding a dogmatic opinion.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 6, 2009 12:14:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 6, 2009 17:58:08 GMT
At the end of the day it is clear to me you have already decided what is going to happen and you see it all thru that lens Open mindedness is no longer an option for you. And screw you about your abilities to not be influenced by the media. You are the media now. You are the one on a board telling people to believe in warming. Funny how you can be aware of media practice and not be aware of the media The fact is you are here all day long telling people they are wrong to believe what they believe. My, you do blow hot and cold. I know teenagers like you! If you were at college when the ice age concerns were about I'd have thought you'd have learnt by now that arguing a point of view is not the same as holding a dogmatic opinion. If you could hold a conversation with me without wanting to compare me to a teenager your ability to demonstrate your prowess at argumentation would be demonstrably higher.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 9:36:18 GMT
My, you do blow hot and cold. I know teenagers like you! If you were at college when the ice age concerns were about I'd have thought you'd have learnt by now that arguing a point of view is not the same as holding a dogmatic opinion. If you could hold a conversation with me without wanting to compare me to a teenager your ability to demonstrate your prowess at argumentation would be demonstrably higher. I can hold conversations with some teenagers who tell me to screw myself and tell me I'm closed-minded. But sometimes they need to be told to behave themselves.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 10, 2009 12:05:37 GMT
Having said that, the World Glacier Monitoring folk keep a record of a large number of mid-latitude glaciers, and most of them are reducing in size. Do you have any data from these folks that isn't already two years old?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 10, 2009 12:10:02 GMT
If you could hold a conversation with me without wanting to compare me to a teenager your ability to demonstrate your prowess at argumentation would be demonstrably higher. I can hold conversations with some teenagers who tell me to screw myself and tell me I'm closed-minded. But sometimes they need to be told to behave themselves. I wonder why it is that you feel such a very strong urge to continue to compare me to a teenager?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 12:26:43 GMT
I can hold conversations with some teenagers who tell me to screw myself and tell me I'm closed-minded. But sometimes they need to be told to behave themselves. I wonder why it is that you feel such a very strong urge to continue to compare me to a teenager? It's an observation, not an urge. One minute, polite conversation and discussion. Then out of the blue a set of un-called for insults. You've done it twice so far in the past week or so.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 12:34:28 GMT
Having said that, the World Glacier Monitoring folk keep a record of a large number of mid-latitude glaciers, and most of them are reducing in size. Do you have any data from these folks that isn't already two years old? Have they all doubled in size since then?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 10, 2009 13:06:43 GMT
I wonder why it is that you feel such a very strong urge to continue to compare me to a teenager? It's an observation, not an urge. One minute, polite conversation and discussion. Then out of the blue a set of un-called for insults. You've done it twice so far in the past week or so. We see it differently. I think you are arrogant. You assume you know better than others. I reacted to that arrogance when i said: And screw you about your abilities to not be influenced by the media. You are the media now. You are the one on a board telling people to believe in warming. Funny how you can be aware of media practice and not be aware of the media Dont you find it odd that you can say you are not aware of the media and yet be aware of media practice and insuate that somehow i am more susceptible to the media influence than you are and that you have the ability to be more objective than i can be? That is the issue here your ability to be objective. Instead we now have the side show of you wanting to claim that i am a teenager. If you believe i am a teenage you are not able to be objective. And if you dont think i am a teenager than why keep on going on about it? I think you are not able to be objective. And i lost my rag with you. You are as far as i can see a troll on this board. It seems your only purpose here is to wind people up. Well congratulations on your success How about we focus on a scientific discussion or just ignore each other?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 13:59:18 GMT
It's an observation, not an urge. One minute, polite conversation and discussion. Then out of the blue a set of un-called for insults. You've done it twice so far in the past week or so. We see it differently. I think you are arrogant. Well excuse me if I suggest that my perceived arrogance is a reflection of the tone of this forum which tends to be rather robustly sceptical. I didn't say you were susceptible to media influence. I was suggesting that just because the media is full of faulty global warming stories is not a reason for rejecting the global warming thesis. I will happily focus on the science if you don't take offence if you think I am being arrogant! I'm really not an arrogant sort of person - ask my mother!
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 10, 2009 15:01:48 GMT
I was suggesting that just because the media is full of faulty global warming stories is not a reason for rejecting the global warming thesis. Yes and in reply to my comment that Climate scientist Steve Schneider honestly believed in global cooling in the 1970's www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=7252&st=160But where you now want to associate 'the faulty reporting' with media reporting of global cooling in the 1970's as far as i can see. It is like everything you say is some kind of smokescreen designed to distract and hoodwink. For example you entered this thread wanting to compare the SF6 scientist to the tea lady. And you wanted to tell me i need to spend more time looking at C02 graphs to be able to get an informed opinion. Why is is that people need special AGW training to be able to read a graph?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 10, 2009 15:02:13 GMT
Steve said: Well excuse me if I suggest that my perceived arrogance is a reflection of the tone of this forum which tends to be rather robustly sceptical.
And with good reason Steve. As someone who used to believe in AGW, I will say that the science is not even close to convincing that AGW is a FACT, rather than a hypothisis, which hasn't even reached true theory level yet. Is it plausable? Maybe, but there is so much that we do not know about climate, which a realist, not a skeptic; realizes, that to say with any kind of certainty that AGW is in fact, a fact, is purely ludicrous.
To propose policy on the science at hand is even more ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 10, 2009 16:18:31 GMT
I was suggesting that just because the media is full of faulty global warming stories is not a reason for rejecting the global warming thesis. Yes and in reply to my comment that Climate scientist Steve Schneider honestly believed in global cooling in the 1970's www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=7252&st=160But where you now want to associate 'the faulty reporting' with media reporting of global cooling in the 1970's as far as i can see. It is like everything you say is some kind of smokescreen designed to distract and hoodwink. For example you entered this thread wanting to compare the SF6 scientist to the tea lady. I'm offended that you think that comparing someone to a tea lady is an insult. If you want a cup of tea, ask a tea lady. If you want knowledge on SF6 emissions ask the bloke who the thread is about. If you want to judge whether people in the climate science arena are having fresh doubts about whether global warming is a genuine threat, then don't ask the tea lady or the SF6 expert.
|
|