|
Post by thermostat on Oct 3, 2010 3:51:14 GMT
Given the volume of the arctic sea, the affect of ice breaking ships is not significant. That is an opinion and not a fact. Arctic sea ice is analogous to an enormous crocheted beanie stretched over the top of the world. Cutting a few hundred pieces of yarn here and there may very well have an important effect, particularly in light of the lateral forces always trying to drag the ice back down into warmer water. I understand my assertion that ice breakers do not have a significant affect on arctic sea ice is speculative. I would suggest that an opinion to the opposite is even more speculative. We have not done any analysis of the area of arctic sea ice affected/ice breaker effects. But, last I looked, the Arctic Sea was really big, and only a handful of ice breaking ships spent much time there recently. I seriously doubt that the recent observed reduction in arctic sea ice has been affected in any significant way by ice breaking ships.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 5, 2010 5:21:25 GMT
The Norgegian trimarin sailboat is making good progress at circumnavigating the Arctic Sea www.ousland.no/blog/They are in the home stretch now; circumnavigating the arctic ocean in one summer in a small sail boat. Comments on historical sea ice extent, especially given recent implications of a 60 yr natural cylcle would be helpful. Comments on how such a small, vulnerable boat could do this are especially useful. Given that these crazy Norwegians, how come noone ever did this before?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2010 9:10:21 GMT
As Kiwi has stated on the other thread where you posted this IDENTICAL post - the various passages through the arctic have been sailed many times before without the assistance of weather and navigation satellites and preceding icebreakers.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 5, 2010 16:48:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2010 23:12:51 GMT
But they didn't navigate both the NW passage and the Northern Sea Route in one season, circumnavigating the arctic.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 7, 2010 1:59:23 GMT
My question, related to the mythical arctic sea ice cycle, is the evidence that the arctic sea ice has previously been like it is today and that this current phenomenon is the result of a natural cycle.
Among a lot of ambiguous responses, a natural 60 year cycle was mentioned.
If there is a 60 year cycle, then there would have been a similar sea ice minimum 60 years ago; right? That would be about 1950 or so. What is the evidence for that sea ice minimum, again?
If not a 60 year cycle, which natural cycle is it?
Not to beat a dead horse, but in understanding the present situation with the Arctic Sea ice, it is not clear that any simple explanation accounts for current events. (anomalous? perhaps?)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2010 2:21:40 GMT
My question, related to the mythical arctic sea ice cycle, is the evidence that the arctic sea ice has previously been like it is today and that this current phenomenon is the result of a natural cycle. Among a lot of ambiguous responses, a natural 60 year cycle was mentioned. If there is a 60 year cycle, then there would have been a similar sea ice minimum 60 years ago; right? That would be about 1950 or so. What is the evidence for that sea ice minimum, again? If not a 60 year cycle, which natural cycle is it? Not to beat a dead horse, but in understanding the present situation with the Arctic Sea ice, it is not clear that any simple explanation accounts for current events. (anomalous? perhaps?) What current events are that? If the explanation is complicated, then propose what it is, but first you need to clarify what "current events" is. Currently, the Arctic is freezing at or near record rates. You were given references to read on cyclical patterns for Arctic climate. Because you do not acknowledge them only proves you are a troll and not interested in discussion.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 7, 2010 2:35:35 GMT
My question, related to the mythical arctic sea ice cycle, is the evidence that the arctic sea ice has previously been like it is today and that this current phenomenon is the result of a natural cycle. Among a lot of ambiguous responses, a natural 60 year cycle was mentioned. If there is a 60 year cycle, then there would have been a similar sea ice minimum 60 years ago; right? That would be about 1950 or so. What is the evidence for that sea ice minimum, again? If not a 60 year cycle, which natural cycle is it? Not to beat a dead horse, but in understanding the present situation with the Arctic Sea ice, it is not clear that any simple explanation accounts for current events. (anomalous? perhaps?) What current events are that? If the explanation is complicated, then propose what it is, but first you need to clarify what "current events" is. Currently, the Arctic is freezing at or near record rates. You were given references to read on cyclical patterns for Arctic climate. Because you do not acknowledge them only proves you are a troll and not interested in discussion. Magellan, Obfuscation is easy. Understood.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2010 2:42:09 GMT
What current events are that? If the explanation is complicated, then propose what it is, but first you need to clarify what "current events" is. Currently, the Arctic is freezing at or near record rates. You were given references to read on cyclical patterns for Arctic climate. Because you do not acknowledge them only proves you are a troll and not interested in discussion. Magellan, Obfuscation is easy. Understood. You've yet to make a coherent argument. You were given references, then come back and post the same ignoramus crap over and over. Look up the definition of obfuscation- it is you.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 7, 2010 2:47:39 GMT
Magellan, Obfuscation is easy. Understood. You've yet to make a coherent argument. You were given references, then come back and post the same ignoramus crap over and over. Look up the definition of obfuscation- it is you. my, my why the venom;... 'ignoramus crap' ? because I have the audacity to ask for some actual data to support your assertions?
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 8, 2010 12:34:01 GMT
You've yet to make a coherent argument. You were given references, then come back and post the same ignoramus crap over and over. Look up the definition of obfuscation- it is you. my, my why the venom;... 'ignoramus crap' ? because I have the audacity to ask for some actual data to support your assertions? The smug banality of the AGW true believer is interesting. So are you saying that Arctic ice was, until CO2, always in a stable system, without significant fluctuation?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2010 1:59:11 GMT
my, my why the venom;... 'ignoramus crap' ? because I have the audacity to ask for some actual data to support your assertions? The smug banality of the AGW true believer is interesting. So are you saying that Arctic ice was, until CO2, always in a stable system, without significant fluctuation? hunterson, I guess you missed my posts regarding the holocene thermal maximum.... Have you ever read any of the literature on the subject of climate? It appears like a no. As with any subject in science, there is a history here worth understanding. To your point, it has been an important advance in science to realize that climate has changed over time. The understanding of the ice ages was particularly important; the planet can change in dramatic ways over time.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 10, 2010 2:42:39 GMT
The smug banality of the AGW true believer is interesting. So are you saying that Arctic ice was, until CO2, always in a stable system, without significant fluctuation? hunterson, I guess you missed my posts regarding the holocene thermal maximum.... Have you ever read any of the literature on the subject of climate? It appears like a no. As with any subject in science, there is a history here worth understanding. To your point, it has been an important advance in science to realize that climate has changed over time. The understanding of the ice ages was particularly important; the planet can change in dramatic ways over time. Can you name a period in history when the climate didn't change? Also, you may think your subtle insults are not being noticed, so don't be surprised when what comes around goes around.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2010 3:10:56 GMT
hunterson, I guess you missed my posts regarding the holocene thermal maximum.... Have you ever read any of the literature on the subject of climate? It appears like a no. As with any subject in science, there is a history here worth understanding. To your point, it has been an important advance in science to realize that climate has changed over time. The understanding of the ice ages was particularly important; the planet can change in dramatic ways over time. Can you name a period in history when the climate didn't change? Also, you may think your subtle insults are not being noticed, so don't be surprised when what comes around goes around. Magellan Appreciating that climate is mutable has been an important advancement in science. I do not seek to insult anyone.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Oct 10, 2010 3:15:45 GMT
hunterson, I guess you missed my posts regarding the holocene thermal maximum.... Have you ever read any of the literature on the subject of climate? It appears like a no. As with any subject in science, there is a history here worth understanding. To your point, it has been an important advance in science to realize that climate has changed over time. The understanding of the ice ages was particularly important; the planet can change in dramatic ways over time. Can you name a period in history when the climate didn't change? Also, you may think your subtle insults are not being noticed, so don't be surprised when what comes around goes around. Magellan, Let us be clear. I presume that this forum allows for various points of view. Is that correct?
|
|