|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 12, 2009 9:59:55 GMT
Cook Inlet is now also showing the first signs of ice in the top bays, and the Baring Straight is forecast to be 20-80% (say 50% as an average) within the next 5 days. Thats a big jump from yesterday when the forecast was for it to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 11, 2009 9:31:45 GMT
I've been watching the SSTs for the Baring Sea / Straight, and over the last week / 10 days they have dropped significantly from up around 7 - 8C in the open and even 2-3C at the ice edge down to 0C over a large area, which suggests to me that in the next few days there will be a big increase in the ice extend in that location (including Cook Inlet). Also when you compare the sea ice coverage from pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=sst its a lot further progressed than arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.003.png.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Nov 5, 2009 9:21:33 GMT
No, they said it was a philosophical belief based on the moral imperatives resulting from a belief that AGW science is well-founded: And thats the rub - science isn't "belief" based, its fact based. If you have to "believe" the science, then it isn't science you believe in, its something totally different - in this case its probably a latent desire to be able to feel morally superior to his co-workers that previously would have resulted in him being one of the more pious church-goers, but with the failure of main-stream religion, people like this have latched on to the green/environmental movement as their superiority sop.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Oct 27, 2009 9:41:31 GMT
The biggest long con in history, and we're the suckers who are going to have to pay for it, even though we know its a con.
I just hope that retribution is available in theor life-times...
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 23, 2009 22:40:11 GMT
To my untrained eye, that looks like a 1/2 million jump - impressive
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 14, 2009 16:35:35 GMT
Does anyone know what the trend of the trend is?
Assuming 2002 was the start of a cooling period, then the warming til then was trending at xC per year/decade, based on a start date in say 1979.
From then til now, if cooling has started, then surely the trend of the trend is negative. Or is that too simplistic an approach?
It may still be a +ve trend, but at a lower rate than before. I keep thinking of what a trend line would look like through a sine wave, with a start point at a low, and us now being close to, eg at or just past, the peak, which would maintain the "ooh we're still warming", but doesn't reflect reality.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 7, 2009 9:17:30 GMT
Looks to me like its ready to flatline and then start to freeze.
Could be an interesting couple of weeks ....
|
|