|
Post by buildreps on Jan 16, 2016 12:12:26 GMT
This location has now been verified as the former position of the geo North pole. There's 99.9999945% certainty that it actually was there, and that is a much better figure than any Greenhouse fanatic could ever give you. The proof is mathematically delivered by analysing the alignment of ancient structures around the world. There will be soon an article on HubPages.com on this issue. The same counts for the penultimate position of the North pole on the Southern tip of Greenland. The proof will only be published in the book. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 17:54:13 GMT
Whoa......that one would take some WORK! And I don't think the slight net negative loss of ice is enough to materially affect the OHC of the area. Think of how much water is ACTUALLY there. Kinda like putting a cup of cold water into a bathtub full of water @110.F. Yeah ... that was kinda what I was thinking. So I just used the already converted figures in the article for Greenland ... 8165 km3 ... equals 8,165,000,000 m3 ... or 8,165,000 m2 x 1 m thick ... divided by 2,590,000 m2 per mile2 equals 3.15 sq. miles. So 1 m3 of meltwater at 0 C would lower 20 m3 of 10C water by 0.5 C. Therefore, all ice lost from Greenland in the 20th century would lower approx. 60 sq. miles of ocean water one meter thick at 10 C by 0.5 C. Therefore, if my calculations are correct, then melting all the ice on Greenland would increase this area by 333 (100% / 0.3%) would only amount to about 20,000 sq. miles at 1 meter thick. Given there are about 20,000,000 sq. miles of area in the North Atlantic, it seems safe to say that temperature drops of 0.5 C, as those claimed to have occurred during the last negative AMO could likely not be accomplished by melting ice. So unless these back-of-the-envelope calculations are oft by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude, even the melting of all of Greenland and the entire Arctic Ocean (~5 million sq. miles) would not accomplish this task. I feel better now! Of course the heat released by water in the task of melting ice would also have an effect I guess. Perhaps if you add in an insulation factor of stripping the insulation off the top of the arctic ocean and the cooling of the ocean that creates? Ice on top of the ocean allows relatively warm water to run under it without surface cooling. Ice melt is cold but colder is water cooled by wind pumping a lot of heat into the atmosphere accounting for Arctic climate warming.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2016 18:55:25 GMT
Yeah ... that was kinda what I was thinking. So I just used the already converted figures in the article for Greenland ... 8165 km3 ... equals 8,165,000,000 m3 ... or 8,165,000 m2 x 1 m thick ... divided by 2,590,000 m2 per mile2 equals 3.15 sq. miles. So 1 m3 of meltwater at 0 C would lower 20 m3 of 10C water by 0.5 C. Therefore, all ice lost from Greenland in the 20th century would lower approx. 60 sq. miles of ocean water one meter thick at 10 C by 0.5 C. Therefore, if my calculations are correct, then melting all the ice on Greenland would increase this area by 333 (100% / 0.3%) would only amount to about 20,000 sq. miles at 1 meter thick. Given there are about 20,000,000 sq. miles of area in the North Atlantic, it seems safe to say that temperature drops of 0.5 C, as those claimed to have occurred during the last negative AMO could likely not be accomplished by melting ice. So unless these back-of-the-envelope calculations are oft by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude, even the melting of all of Greenland and the entire Arctic Ocean (~5 million sq. miles) would not accomplish this task. I feel better now! Of course the heat released by water in the task of melting ice would also have an effect I guess. Perhaps if you add in an insulation factor of stripping the insulation off the top of the arctic ocean and the cooling of the ocean that creates? Ice on top of the ocean allows relatively warm water to run under it without surface cooling. Ice melt is cold but colder is water cooled by wind pumping a lot of heat into the atmosphere accounting for Arctic climate warming. Makes sense to me. I was challenging a paradigm sitting in my head that ice melt 'must' have a lot to do with the cooling Atlantic ... since it has been mentioned many times in other places. But maybe it is not as important as suggested. Heat release to the atmosphere north of 45 N must be tremendous ... supplemented by what you just stated. If 'recharge' from south of 45 N is disrupted, is that enough with some smaller supplement from ice melt to give us the temperature declines we are seeing? And if a disruption of northward Gulf Stream heat flow is countered by recycling of cold southward flow back into the sub-polar gyre then maybe we have part of a mechanism for continuing heat decline north of 45 N. Of course, this 'disruption' would be a near-surface (say 0-700 meters) phenomena. Perhaps ice melt is enough to slow thermohaline subduction at depth and transfer the outflow closer to the surface, which then increases the near-surface disruption. However this happens, the heat loss equation is an important element. We know from Argo (or we think so) that about 2009 we see more near-surface cold flows penetrating straight south from the Labrador Current (some extremely extensive in an east-west extent) deep into the heart of the Sargasso. It appears that these offset the more common pre-2009 westward channel at depth around the western edge of the Gulf Stream. At least that is how the picture looks to me ... but I could be wrong. If, as you suggest, that more open water accelerates this heat loss to the atmosphere and hence to space, then overall cooling would be accelerated??? Except north of Iceland in the eastern Greenland and Svalbard Seas where heat (at least anomalies) just seems to hang in there. This seems illogical in my brain unless there is either 'fudging' (why there and not elsewhere) or supplementation in the form of geothermal going on. Or something else that has not penetrated my gray matter.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2016 19:28:42 GMT
Geothermal Missouriboy. Trying to remember a map that I saw indicating that the Iceland ring stretches into that area.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 19:47:45 GMT
Perhaps if you add in an insulation factor of stripping the insulation off the top of the arctic ocean and the cooling of the ocean that creates? Ice on top of the ocean allows relatively warm water to run under it without surface cooling. Ice melt is cold but colder is water cooled by wind pumping a lot of heat into the atmosphere accounting for Arctic climate warming. Makes sense to me. I was challenging a paradigm sitting in my head that ice melt 'must' have a lot to do with the cooling Atlantic ... since it has been mentioned many times in other places. But maybe it is not as important as suggested. Heat release to the atmosphere north of 45 N must be tremendous ... supplemented by what you just stated. If 'recharge' from south of 45 N is disrupted, is that enough with some smaller supplement from ice melt to give us the temperature declines we are seeing? And if a disruption of northward Gulf Stream heat flow is countered by recycling of cold southward flow back into the sub-polar gyre then maybe we have part of a mechanism for continuing heat decline north of 45 N. Of course, this 'disruption' would be a near-surface (say 0-700 meters) phenomena. Perhaps ice melt is enough to slow thermohaline subduction at depth and transfer the outflow closer to the surface, which then increases the near-surface disruption. However this happens, the heat loss equation is an important element. We know from Argo (or we think so) that about 2009 we see more near-surface cold flows penetrating straight south from the Labrador Current (some extremely extensive in an east-west extent) deep into the heart of the Sargasso. It appears that these offset the more common pre-2009 westward channel at depth around the western edge of the Gulf Stream. At least that is how the picture looks to me ... but I could be wrong. If, as you suggest, that more open water accelerates this heat loss to the atmosphere and hence to space, then overall cooling would be accelerated??? Except north of Iceland in the eastern Greenland and Svalbard Seas where heat (at least anomalies) just seems to hang in there. This seems illogical in my brain unless there is either 'fudging' (why there and not elsewhere) or supplementation in the form of geothermal going on. Or something else that has not penetrated my gray matter. Eskimos traditionally lived in ice houses. Lots of insulation there. I don't currently have the source but I recall a few years ago reading that wind based cooling of the water surface releases tremendous amounts of heat into the atmosphere cooling the water to even below the -1.8C that seawater normally freezes at and as low as -4C. Take away a lot of arctic ice and you get negative feedback in spades. Of course then becomes the puzzle of why it seems arctic ice fluctuates on a multi-decadal scale and how much might be due to longterm climate warming. Both could create sufficient negative feedback to warm the arctic climate while cooling the arctic ocean. That cold water would likely both sink to depth and run out of the arctic ocean into the northern atlantic. Some may serve to just stunt a longterm warming and some may circulate back via a slow moving current system such as the thermohaline system whereby the circulation takes decades to make the circuit. Its mostly that I didn't buy the idea of greenhouse warming creating feedbacks that favor the arctic because of albedo changes. Since the poles are net losers of energy, logically the albedo effect is warming the higher the albedo, with the opposite at the poles where albedo variation is only in the clouds. At any rate there needs to be an explanation for why times of high precipitation indicates warm climate. With Hadcrut 4 showing an increased warming trend via including the arctic into the surface climate record they managed to warm the climate even when the climate is cooling if you consider that the oceans likely are the largest variable for climate. When I last checked the mean annual ice cover in the arctic ice loss had shown signs of leveling out even as the summer ice cover was still diminishing. Its been a couple of years since I checked that. If so the atmosphere temperature increases could be on their last hurrah with this El Nino (assuming it does with a leveling ice condition) and as that cold water pours out of the arctic, Europe gets cold winters until the flow abates. This can explain a lot. Satellite lower troposphere coverage does not cover the arctic. Hadcrut 3 did not cover the arctic. Both show the pause. To see continued warming you need Hadcrut 4 and its many clones (because it does show warming). But the warming in the words of Nautonnier is just heat on its way to space from the ocean. To properly understand global warming we need to understand the oceans as this "liquid atmosphere" is where almost all accumulated heat is located. ARGO raw data shows or at least showed cooling until the tide gauge estimators convinced folks they needed to start weeding out cold buoys to bring ARGO into compliance with estimated ocean heat expansion. But I was reading a couple weeks ago that the oceans have expanded from Greenland ice melt alone without global warming. So where does that leave the idea that one should start throwing out ARGO buoy readings because of estimated sea level rise? Not to speak of the fact that sea level rise was expanded a number of years ago to match expected ocean heat uptake using a continental uplift theory that I am pretty sure we have a very scant handle on. I mean if the ice runs off the continents into the ocean allowing the continental crust to expand, should not the ocean bottom crust compress? Sorry for all the jabber. I really like what you are doing but I have not had the time to look at it as carefully as it deserves so I am just throwing out some of theoretical stuff for the sake of seeing in more of it than what I have seen remains consistent.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2016 20:30:16 GMT
Eskimos traditionally lived in ice houses. Lots of insulation there. I don't currently have the source but I recall a few years ago reading that wind based cooling of the water surface releases tremendous amounts of heat into the atmosphere cooling the water to even below the -1.8C that seawater normally freezes at and as low as -4C. Take away a lot of arctic ice and you get negative feedback in spades. Of course then becomes the puzzle of why it seems arctic ice fluctuates on a multi-decadal scale and how much might be due to longterm climate warming. Both could create sufficient negative feedback to warm the arctic climate while cooling the arctic ocean. That cold water would likely both sink to depth and run out of the arctic ocean into the northern atlantic. Some may serve to just stunt a longterm warming and some may circulate back via a slow moving current system such as the thermohaline system whereby the circulation takes decades to make the circuit. Its mostly that I didn't buy the idea of greenhouse warming creating feedbacks that favor the arctic because of albedo changes. Since the poles are net losers of energy, logically the albedo effect is warming the higher the albedo, with the opposite at the poles where albedo variation is only in the clouds. At any rate there needs to be an explanation for why times of high precipitation indicates warm climate. With Hadcrut 4 showing an increased warming trend via including the arctic into the surface climate record they managed to warm the climate even when the climate is cooling if you consider that the oceans likely are the largest variable for climate. When I last checked the mean annual ice cover in the arctic ice loss had shown signs of leveling out even as the summer ice cover was still diminishing. Its been a couple of years since I checked that. If so the atmosphere temperature increases could be on their last hurrah with this El Nino (assuming it does with a leveling ice condition) and as that cold water pours out of the arctic, Europe gets cold winters until the flow abates. This can explain a lot. Satellite lower troposphere coverage does not cover the arctic. Hadcrut 3 did not cover the arctic. Both show the pause. To see continued warming you need Hadcrut 4 and its many clones (because it does show warming). But the warming in the words of Nautonnier is just heat on its way to space from the ocean. To properly understand global warming we need to understand the oceans as this "liquid atmosphere" is where almost all accumulated heat is located. ARGO raw data shows or at least showed cooling until the tide gauge estimators convinced folks they needed to start weeding out cold buoys to bring ARGO into compliance with estimated ocean heat expansion. But I was reading a couple weeks ago that the oceans have expanded from Greenland ice melt alone without global warming. So where does that leave the idea that one should start throwing out ARGO buoy readings because of estimated sea level rise? Not to speak of the fact that sea level rise was expanded a number of years ago to match expected ocean heat uptake using a continental uplift theory that I am pretty sure we have a very scant handle on. I mean if the ice runs off the continents into the ocean allowing the continental crust to expand, should not the ocean bottom crust compress? Sorry for all the jabber. I really like what you are doing but I have not had the time to look at it as carefully as it deserves so I am just throwing out some of theoretical stuff for the sake of seeing in more of it than what I have seen remains consistent. If they have been throwing out Argo 'cold buoy' readings, then it doesn't seem to be helping much. I tallied the four-ocean temperature changes since 2004 across 2000 meters of depth (North & South Pacific and Atlantic) and there appears little for warmists to crow about. Am going to post this on the Pacific & PDO site but I include it below. Note that the southern oceans show slight temperature rises (about 0.03 C since 2004) while the northern oceans had declined till the current El Nino ... N. Atlantic has lost ~ 0.03C, while the N. Pacific, because of El Nino, is up ~0.025 C, but only for 2015. I don't have the weights for the composite, but it can't be more than about +0.025 ... and that in the teeth of the high side of SC24. I might point out that that is roughly only 0.25 C per century ... hardly enough to wipe the chill off a warmist's liver. There's not even much anomalous heat in the upper 100 meters ... and without El Nino??? One might point out to them that statistical anomalies of a random nature can be high as well as low ... but of course they knew that!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 16, 2016 21:31:58 GMT
Geothermal Missouriboy. Trying to remember a map that I saw indicating that the Iceland ring stretches into that area. That would be very interesting. I just do not see how a sea that is up-latitude and down-current from an area that is rapidly cooling (neg. anomalies) can maintain positive anomalies without another source of heating. My grey matter is protesting.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 16, 2016 22:54:07 GMT
Is there value in analyzing the data in absolute temps rather than anomaly. A stalled flow of water can impact anomalies counter logically.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2016 23:44:09 GMT
Eskimos traditionally lived in ice houses. Lots of insulation there. I don't currently have the source but I recall a few years ago reading that wind based cooling of the water surface releases tremendous amounts of heat into the atmosphere cooling the water to even below the -1.8C that seawater normally freezes at and as low as -4C. Take away a lot of arctic ice and you get negative feedback in spades. Of course then becomes the puzzle of why it seems arctic ice fluctuates on a multi-decadal scale and how much might be due to longterm climate warming. Both could create sufficient negative feedback to warm the arctic climate while cooling the arctic ocean. That cold water would likely both sink to depth and run out of the arctic ocean into the northern atlantic. Some may serve to just stunt a longterm warming and some may circulate back via a slow moving current system such as the thermohaline system whereby the circulation takes decades to make the circuit. Its mostly that I didn't buy the idea of greenhouse warming creating feedbacks that favor the arctic because of albedo changes. Since the poles are net losers of energy, logically the albedo effect is warming the higher the albedo, with the opposite at the poles where albedo variation is only in the clouds. At any rate there needs to be an explanation for why times of high precipitation indicates warm climate. With Hadcrut 4 showing an increased warming trend via including the arctic into the surface climate record they managed to warm the climate even when the climate is cooling if you consider that the oceans likely are the largest variable for climate. When I last checked the mean annual ice cover in the arctic ice loss had shown signs of leveling out even as the summer ice cover was still diminishing. Its been a couple of years since I checked that. If so the atmosphere temperature increases could be on their last hurrah with this El Nino (assuming it does with a leveling ice condition) and as that cold water pours out of the arctic, Europe gets cold winters until the flow abates. This can explain a lot. Satellite lower troposphere coverage does not cover the arctic. Hadcrut 3 did not cover the arctic. Both show the pause. To see continued warming you need Hadcrut 4 and its many clones (because it does show warming). But the warming in the words of Nautonnier is just heat on its way to space from the ocean. To properly understand global warming we need to understand the oceans as this "liquid atmosphere" is where almost all accumulated heat is located. ARGO raw data shows or at least showed cooling until the tide gauge estimators convinced folks they needed to start weeding out cold buoys to bring ARGO into compliance with estimated ocean heat expansion. But I was reading a couple weeks ago that the oceans have expanded from Greenland ice melt alone without global warming. So where does that leave the idea that one should start throwing out ARGO buoy readings because of estimated sea level rise? Not to speak of the fact that sea level rise was expanded a number of years ago to match expected ocean heat uptake using a continental uplift theory that I am pretty sure we have a very scant handle on. I mean if the ice runs off the continents into the ocean allowing the continental crust to expand, should not the ocean bottom crust compress? Sorry for all the jabber. I really like what you are doing but I have not had the time to look at it as carefully as it deserves so I am just throwing out some of theoretical stuff for the sake of seeing in more of it than what I have seen remains consistent. If they have been throwing out Argo 'cold buoy' readings, then it doesn't seem to be helping much. I tallied the four-ocean temperature changes since 2004 across 2000 meters of depth (North & South Pacific and Atlantic) and there appears little for warmists to crow about. Am going to post this on the Pacific & PDO site but I include it below. Note that the southern oceans show slight temperature rises (about 0.03 C since 2004) while the northern oceans had declined till the current El Nino ... N. Atlantic has lost ~ 0.03C, while the N. Pacific, because of El Nino, is up ~0.025 C, but only for 2015. I don't have the weights for the composite, but it can't be more than about +0.025 ... and that in the teeth of the high side of SC24. I might point out that that is roughly only 0.25 C per century ... hardly enough to wipe the chill off a warmist's liver. There's not even much anomalous heat in the upper 100 meters ... and without El Nino??? View AttachmentOne might point out to them that statistical anomalies of a random nature can be high as well as low ... but of course they knew that! They have its quite well documented. It was necessary to do so because Josh Willis of NOAA published his findings of ocean cooling that created an uproar. Here are two links discussion some of the details of how they erased it. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.phpearthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.phpIts an interesting look at how science sausage is made if it doesn't fit the "official" view. One gal at an NGO funded research lab in France took the ARGO buoy data and threw out more ARGO buoys to bring the buoys in line with "expected" ocean heat up take. She made no bones about what she did, namely select enough cold buoys to force a fit to demonstrate global warming was still possible. And of course all the raving warmist sites grabbed that as hard science. Whewwww! Its dang hard to use much of what is produced in science today without having a very good idea of how its all produced. This scenario was seized on my Michael Crichton for his book State of Fear. Crichton was a biologist with first hand experience in the sausage making. He spun it into a world destroying fiction novel with this practice at the heart of the deception. Its a fun read and all too true. I understand the ARGO raw data is available. But it should be somewhat of challenge to figure out what data sets were used to produce the various products.
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jan 27, 2016 15:15:15 GMT
The geo North pole was on Greenland with 99.999999997% certainty. Shall we round it up to a 100%?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 27, 2016 21:02:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 27, 2016 21:11:59 GMT
Is there value in analyzing the data in absolute temps rather than anomaly. A stalled flow of water can impact anomalies counter logically. Not exactly sure what you mean. I agree with Nautonnier's comment that anomalies can be used in nefarious ways such as to make a minute change appear meaningful. Quite true. I always use absolute temps for the analysis. The problem is in displaying results so change can be compared between areas. In my case, I merely use the first month or year of the time series as the base from which everything else is calculated. NOAA and others use 20-year averages and call them normal ... or move them around when they want to show something else. Since Argo only has 12 years worth of data (or 143 months to be exact), it doesn't seem useful to create a normal. Fortunately, 2004 is kind of a neutral spot ... it's half way down the peak from SC23. If you are looking for change, and comparing multiple areas, then its very difficult to see if you use absolute temperatures. Significant changes in the ocean can be very small numbers. In this case, anomalies are a way of standardizing the results for viewing purposes ... recognizing of course that a 0.5C change in one body of water may be more important than in another .... but the heat content change is the same. If you're looking at relationships between areas, then absolutes may be best.
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jan 27, 2016 22:11:46 GMT
No, ice depositions at the pole don't induce crustal shifts. What causes it is quite surprising, and fully logical as well, but I'm not allowed to tell it yet. It has to be verified, revalued etc. You probably know how that works. It will be published in my book.
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jan 28, 2016 10:16:49 GMT
What I can tell is that the paleomagnetic data contains the sum of two variables: magnetic pole shifts + crustal shifts. It has to be filtered to identify which is which, and that is something no one was ever able to do. It is now done and is revalued and verified at the moment. It might revolutionize the whole idea how we look to the earth, ice ages, and climate change.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2016 14:28:24 GMT
Which journal should we look for your paper in?
|
|