What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Thickening ice is just as important as ice extent for the obvious reason that it's the mass of ice that counts, and just looking down from above (extent) is not going to tell the whole story; you have to consider depth, too. You're wastng your time trying to prove anything about AGW with ice extent or thickness, which is why it's a subject I don't bother with; we really haven't studied glaciers in enough detail for long enough to establish meaningful trends, and furthermore, a lot of the data is very conflicting with ice growing when we expect it to retreat and vise versa. As I said, it seems more tied to precipitation patterns than directly to warming or cooling.

This may ultimately turn out to be another 'safety valve' in that warming leads to evaporation which leads to precipitation which leads to more ice extent which increases surface reflectivity which ultimately causes cooling. I've seen this proposed before, but I don't know if there's any papers out there on this. Seems like it would take an awful long time to study something like that in real time and the recons will leave us clueless. Nevertheless, it's a plausible chain of events.

Jimbo

[Boston]

Thickening ice is just as important as ice extent for the obvious reason that it's the mass of ice that counts

ya dont say

so if the ice is getting thinner
( which it is and fast )
and the ice extent is shrinking
( which it is and fast )
then I supose it stands to reason something must have melted

now lets see
if its gets colder
water freezes

and if it gets warmer
water melts

pretty sure thats how it works

sooooooooo
how you going to explain that again
cause your idea seems to be melting a lot of ice these days

wait a minute
I just read that last again
did you actually say in one breath that we need to look at extent and thickness and in another that your going to ignore it no mater what

Thickening ice is just as important as ice extent for the obvious reason that it's the mass of ice that counts, and just looking down from above (extent) is not going to tell the whole story; you have to consider depth, too. You're wastng your time trying to prove anything about AGW with ice extent or thickness, which is why it's a subject I don't bother with; we really haven't studied glaciers in enough detail for long enough to establish meaningful trends, and furthermore, a lot of the data is very conflicting with ice growing when we expect it to retreat and vise versa. As I said, it seems more tied to precipitation patterns than directly to warming or cooling.

sherlock
ice is a key thermometer to the polar systems
its the one bit of irrefutable evidence there is and your going to ignore it
Jim
you have been drinkin again

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

Lind


kinda breaks the bank when the guy's coauthor comes out and says stuff like that now doesnt it

But then now the basic hypothesis has been confirmed by observation in at least two studies, as noted earlier.

Originally Posted by Boston

whats funny is that in other regards you guys tend to agree with me on industry funded or catered information or governing bodies
but when it comes to global warming all of a sudden its ok
why is that kids
any ideas

from G

Funny, I see exactly the same sort of blind spot in you, in that you cannot seem to grasp the conflict of interest inherent in a scientist's involvement with a political organization (the UN).

Politics is the struggle for power, and people who want power(if not for themselves personally, then for a 'cause' or political stripe they favor) will lie, cheat and steal to get that power. Certainly they will slant research. We have demonstrated several examples of AGW leaning scientists/organizations/gov't agencies/NGO's/magazines and etc. that have got caught doing so during this thread.

But this doesn't seem to bother you.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

ya dont say

so if the ice is getting thinner
( which it is and fast )
and the ice extent is shrinking
( which it is and fast )
then I supose it stands to reason something must have melted

now lets see
if its gets colder
water freezes

and if it gets warmer
water melts

pretty sure thats how it works

sooooooooo
how you going to explain that again
cause your idea seems to be melting a lot of ice these days

All this applies to the sea ice, not the land-bound ice masses. This kind of makes sense since the oceans are warming, as I've said many times during this thread. That would presumably melt sea ice. But the areas with land bound ice masses are not melting, but instead getting thicker. Remember that the latest research shows that the northern ice cap disappeared completely just a few thousand years ago, and that native Americans got here in boats from Asia, not by walking across an ice bridge.

So, again, trying to prove (or disprove) the AGW hypothesis by looking at land or sea ice extent/thickness is a waste of time; the ice will let you down no matter which side you are on

When something does not behave as we expect it to, this means we don't yet understand it completely.

Jimbo

[Boston]

two rather dubious "studies" and I use the term lightly done by industry stooges

as apposed to hundreds of works to the contrary


FYI
IPCC mandate

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

the IPCC doesnt actually do any science other than to collate the vast quantities of data it gets handed

[Boston]

way to avoid the subject yet admit we're warming at the same time
so what makes you think that the land ice is growing
seems to me that I heard something about glaciers dropping like flies

my god man you are actually trying to say that the ice melt has nothing to do warming or cooling
thats insane

hint
glaciers are on land they melt when they get warm

sea ice
is in the ocean it melts when it gets warm
ice shelves same thing
by the way they float on the oceans
you know
those little state sized pieces that keep floating past
cause there melting


were do you get these insane ideas Jim

ps
would love to see some of that "latest research"

and if you admit the oceans are warming
and the ice is melting whether you admit it or not
and you have already admitted we are in an atmospheric warming trend
then how can you say were cooling

[Jimbo1490]

It takes many, many years for the oceans to warm; you know that, don't you? The consensus is something on the order of 400 years or more so a warming ocean is a long-term climatic event, not something initiated ~60 years ago by squeaking out a few puffs of CO2.

Sea ice may be melting, but the land ice is not. Do I need to explain the significance of this WRT those dire predictions of sea level rise proffered by the AGW crowd? I didn't think so.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

hint
glaciers are on land they melt when they get warm

Better Hint:

Glaciers are sublimating (look it up ) and 'calving' all the time, whether new ice is being added (by precipitation) or not. So when precipitation increases, so do the glaciers. When precipitation decreases, so do the glaciers, even if it's cold out that day/month/year/century.

Jimbo

[SheetWise]

I can't believe I've put as much time into reading this thread as I did. Cringing not only at Bostons unfocused content and inability to comprehend -- but his style and spelling as well. I want those two hours back.

What is it with you Boston? Is this like a religion or something? You say you're from Denver, but you respond like English isn't your native language.

Jimbo --

You've got a message that many of us are aware of, and needs to be told (and I'm sure this is good practice, as people don't get much thicker than this). You've got a lot more patience than most people. I hope you can eventually find a better use of your time, because currently you're attempting to convince Boston to quit worshiping at the alter of computer models and that Al Gore is not God. These are not beliefs you are likely to disabuse him of.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

were do you get these insane ideas Jim

ps
would love to see some of that "latest research"

Here ya go, pal:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n.../65445213.html

Excerpted:


The polar "ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea.

González has also found remains of elephants, giant sloths, and other ancient fauna in the caves.

Human Migration Theories

If González's finds do stand up to scientific scrutiny, they will raise many interesting new questions about how the Americas were first peopled.

Many researchers once believed humans entered the New World from Asia as a single group crossing over the Bering Land Bridge no earlier than 13,500 years ago. But that theory is lately being debunked.

Remains found in Monte Verde, Chile, in 1997, for example, point to the presence of people in the Americas at least 12,500 years ago, long before migration would have been possible through the ice-covered Arctic reaches of North America."

[Jimbo1490]

Sheetwise:

Thanks for the advice and and thanks too for the PM's several have sent me trying to dissuade me from further engagement with Boston as, to quote one of the PM's "Any thread he latches on to just becomes rubbish."

I don't mind that he's 'thick'; maybe he's just deeply convinced, after all, as I am.

What bothers me is that his demeanor is always so petty and condescending. The paradox of that is, as you've pointed out, he hardly commends his own education with his writing style. I just wish he'd stick to facts and not take on the demeanor of an *ass* with each and every post.

I was going to go back through the thread and excerpt each and every one of his condescending, demeaning remarks and compile them into one post for everyone to see. He is certainly free to do the same for my posts. In the end, his 'shame' will be at least 10X the volume of mine, to say nothing of the venom.

I miss Perry's posts as he was able cut him off at his knees with such a sharp, swift sword of wit he still believed his argument had legs



Jimbo

[Boston]

sublimating would be what your doing with this hole line of insisting that the ice, land or sea isn't on average melting

nice of you to stop in Mrs S
glad you enjoyed the read
and your right about one thing
English isnt my first language

next question is how I managed to stumble into a nest of republicans

Jim you are waffling from point to point faster and faster these days
am I getting better at shooting down flying flop
or are you getting better at knowing when to waffle

I look forward to checking out they national geographic special

oh
that would coincide with the end of the last ice age nicely
nothing new there
you suggesting that is some kind of "latest evidence"

oh and just for fun the last ice age covered about a third of the planet with ice
what we have now doesnt hold a candle to that amount

[Jimbo1490]

The "latest evidence" is that the polar ice cap melted less than 10 000 years ago. That means even losing the ENTIRE NORTH POLAR CAP to melting is within the range of natural variability.

Get it?

Jimbo

[Boston]

anthropogenic global climate change
got it
its bad and its unnecessary
maybe we should try to avoid it


evidence of humans in north America goes back a lot farther than 12,000 years ( read forbidden archeology )
and although Ive not had a chance to review the suggested
I do have this on the end of the last ice ages
although I haven't really had a chance to dig into it yet
it covers the end of the last ice age by virtue of what amounts to a catastrophic carbon event
kinda like what were doing now
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0706977104v1.pdf

one pat on the back from the planet killer camp and your in rare form

oh
and by that logic I could point out that an oxygenless environment is in the range of natural variability and so its ok if we generate that result as well

ok read the article and it didnt say the entire northern ice cap melted
it just noted that at the end of the ice age
ice melted
is that your "latest" cause science has "suspected" the existence of ice ages for a while now
thing is when that big melt happened about 1/3 of the planet was covered in ice
this time around we started with a thimble full and are likely to end up with none
bring on the dinosaurs and the three foot dragon flies
cause its happening
and fast

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The "latest evidence" is that the polar ice cap melted less than 10 000 years ago. That means even losing the ENTIRE NORTH POLAR CAP to melting is within the range of natural variability.

Get it?

Jimbo

Actually it was probably pretty low around 1421-1423...
They may have been lucky, as this is always an advantage when travelling in those regions..

http://www.1421.tv/
http://www.gavinmenzies.net/pages/ma...es.htm#calicut

On the other hand; you're saying that ice on dry land is increasing...?
It's not, not generally, I will not dispute the fact that some local variations tend to go toward an increase. The general saying is they're melting; the alps and most of the glaciers here in Norway, I know for a fact they are getting smaller and smaller... I have 2 perfectly well functional optical devices planted in front of the hump located between my shoulders. So the logical conclusion for me, to what i have seen is they're melting or getting denser....

"Thickening ice is just as important as ice extent for the obvious reason that it's the mass of ice that counts"

Not true, to reduce warming, we probably should have more extent than volume, a large thin layer on top of the water is better than a large lump of the same ice. Something about bright colours and the reflection of light. Also, to incrase the temp of 1 kg vater 1 degC you'll need 4100 Joules of energy, but for ice you'll need half (approx) of that energy. So to correct for the clobal warming, we'll probably need most water, but a thin layer of ice, with a max extent of that again.

And CO2....(just one of many factors) well; as typed some times now.... It has the ability to insulate, it does that both ways, both when sun is warming, and the sun is a very good source of energy, giving a lot more heat than the heat loss at the same area, but in the night time, the heat loss gets reduced.

We can argue that we only let out 3% of the natural CO2 and that natural variations far exceeds that, but if we look at the time CO2 spends in the atmosphere, we get a little problem with even those 3 %. It's kinda simple intrest calculation. Assume 25 year as an average span in the atmosphere; 1,03 x 1,03 x1,03 (x a total of 25 times, ehh?) = 2,0938.... In 25 years the amount of CO2 will double? Ok, the insulation will double, due to that minor human impact, if that were my house i'd be pleased. Acting directly on our external habitat I'm not so sure.

If we could change our ways of living to more environmental friendly ways, we would hit home run(?) on several goals: Better environment, spread out the use of a limited natural recource over a longer time span that can be handled by the nature's own plants, sea, whatever it takes. We'll create the use for renewable energies that can be used for a longer time= economic stability. No need to lick asses of any stupid despot who happens to sit on top of an oilfield..... No need to "democratize" the same countries....