Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Reefmagnet: try discussing these things without your silly offensive comments and you might be taken more seriously. You obviously feel seriously about this, so spend the time to explain yourself without the need to put people down.

Says pot to kettle.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, let me demonstrate how your science works.

Reading the abstract, because I CBF reading the rest of this drivel.

340 km3 of ice is "vanishing" a freaking year. O.M.G. The sky is falling.

We're doomed I tell yea! Noooooooooooooooooooo.........................
.
.
.
.
.
But, hang on a moment. Let's be a "denier" and actually stop panicking and have a think about this, oh, for about 5 seconds.

Step one. Note the melt rate. 340 km3 per year.
Step two. Work out the volume of the Antarctic ice sheet = 26 500 000 km3 (go find your own link for this)
Quick Math. 26500000/340 = 77941.18 years (oops, is "only" 310, but I already typed into the calculator)

Run for the hills! Cap the wells! Flood the mines! Sell the Landcruiser! The ice sheets will be completely gone in less than 80000 years at this rate!!!!!

Now, let me highlight the falsehoods.

Abstract from Conachair's link...
The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using eighteen years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades.

Umm, ok. Can't be too many of them of them there ice shelves reducing by 18% based on my numbers. And, my-oh-my 70% is a dramatic number. To bad it means SFA in the AGW context. The rest is just blah blah blah....

But of course words like "rapid", "accelerated", "losses" et all really add to the dramatics and hysteria which I guess is the effect the author was after.

Does the bibliography of this paper note the wasted cost time and effort involved in this total waste of time study that mentions no more than numerous other studies on exactly the same thing?

Keep sipping on that pro-AGW alarmist Kool-Aid, fellas.

I'm no mathametician, but I'm seeing some serious misunderstanding on the way you worked out your 8k years. The following passage is the bit I don't think you grasped.

"Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased"

Its the acceleration that is the alarming bit. It went from what was 25km3 in the 9 years between 94 to 03 to a sudden 310km3 in the 9 years between 03 to 12.

At that rate, if it continues we are looking at the next 9 years, being 2012 to 2021 will be up around 600 or a little less if it remains at a 70% acceleration. It doesn't take too much maths to work out that if it increases at 70% for the next 4 cycles alone, (as long as it doesn't increase from 70% ) then 8000 years is not even close.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Says pot to kettle.

I havnt been reverting to name calling or put downs?
I legitameticlly and in honesty asked you for your thoughts on the film of Ice Chasers. You came back after you said you watched it and claimed certain things were said in the film which supported your claims. I went away and watched it again and could not locate your claims. Then I highlighted some of the clear 'observations' in the film and asked you to address them. You failed to do that and reverted to becoming extreem and silly.

Is it really too much to put responses forward fairly,and with integrity?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I'm no mathametician, but I'm seeing some serious misunderstanding on the way you worked out your 8k years. The following passage is the bit I don't think you grasped.

"Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased"

Its the acceleration that is the alarming bit. It went from what was 25km3 in the 9 years between 94 to 03 to a sudden 310km3 in the 9 years between 03 to 12.

At that rate, if it continues we are looking at the next 9 years, being 2012 to 2021 will be up around 600 or a little less if it remains at a 70% acceleration. It doesn't take too much maths to work out that if it increases at 70% for the next 4 cycles alone, (as long as it doesn't increase from 70% ) then 8000 years is not even close.

The hype and hysteria was the most alarming bit. I'll apologise if your right in 2 centuries, promise ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I havnt been reverting to name calling or put downs?
I legitameticlly and in honesty asked you for your thoughts on the film of Ice Chasers. You came back after you said you watched it and claimed certain things were said in the film which supported your claims. I went away and watched it again and could not locate your claims. Then I highlighted some of the clear 'observations' in the film and asked you to address them. You failed to do that and reverted to becoming extreem and silly.

Is it really too much to put responses forward fairly,and with integrity?

Not having come down in the last rain shower, I believe your intentions, and conachair's intentions were to bait me.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Eder

At any rate it has been established that this winter is the first in a new mini ice age that will last about 100 years. As good science as any other quoted on this thread.

Sun Scientists Debate Whether Solar Lull Could Trigger Another 'Little Ice Age'

Did you read it to the end

Maybe, but it wouldn't do much, and not for very long. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research used a computer model to predict the effect of a future "grand solar minimum" on Earth's climate from 2020 to 2070. The model suggested the minimum might temporarily slow down the warming process by 20-30 percent. But within a few decades afterward, the temperatures would go right back to where they would have been anyway. Sigh.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly phrased that another grand solar minimum would cause global cooling, as opposed to slowing down the warming process.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by StuM

What is the normal temperature and CO2 concentration is a horticultural greenhouse full of lush fruit and vegetables?

For most fruit and vegitables, the temperature needed is between 20-30C, with adequate water (preferably rain or with good oxygen in the water) sufficient light and most importantly great soil. The CO2 concentration can be quite high, really not sure the exact limit or if we will ever reach it. This isn't the direct problem. The problem is rainfall and temperature. When it's too hot and/or not enough water, plants die.

There are C3 and C4 plants. C4 plants are more efficient (evolved later in earth's history) and more adapted to lower CO2 levels. C4 plants include corn, and sugar.

C3 plants are less efficient at turning light into energy, but perhaps more viable in higher co2 environment, include rice, wheat and potatoes.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Run for the hills! Cap the wells! Flood the mines! Sell the Landcruiser! The ice sheets will be completely gone in less than 80000 years at this rate!!!!!

Even at 80,000 years if antartica melted this would be extremely quick in geological time.

But, you aren't considering acceleration, because after all, we are at the tip of the ice berg, and really it looks more like a few hundred years not 80,000 which is incredibly fast.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The hype and hysteria was the most alarming bit. I'll apologise if your right in 2 centuries, promise ;-)

It's a few decades at most, and really apologizing won't suffice; we require that you sacrifice your life, because, really you won't have a choice.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Heck...if some of you MMGW Cultists are gullable enough to think the Ice caps will be gone in 10-10yrs, I found the perfect deal for you in my inbox this morning.





From: puregoldminer@yahoo.co.jp [mailtouregoldminer@yahoo.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 5:58 AM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Alluvial Gold Dust for sale

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are small scale Gold miners here in Abidjan Cote D'Ivoire. We have huge quantity of alluvial Gold Dust for sale at aconsiderable price of Gold Dust $28,500USD per kilo and Gold Dory Bar $30,000 USD per Kilo which is below world market price because we
recently decided to expand our business scope internationally and are on the move of building our customer and partnershipnetwork.

We want only reliable and serious buyer or broker for a long term business relationship.If you are interested,do not hesitate to get back to us as soon as you receive this mail so that we will prepare and send you our
full co-operate offer (FCO). Even if you are not prepared to buy our Gold Dust now but can get a buyer for us, we pay 7% commission per kg toAgent/Mandate or Intermediary.
We look forward in doing a long lasting business transaction with you.

Best Regards
Chief.Kone Bamba
Local Miners Gold,Diamond,Minerals
Rue de Canal Zone 3 Marcory
03 BP 1195 Abidjan 03
Côted’Ivoire
SYKPEuregoldminer
TEL:+225-56425642

[LakeSuperior]

The link below is an interesting concise article documenting AGW paranoia, hysteria, jumping on the bandwagon, and just plain lying about the facts. This is by folks that should be better than this (they understand the scientific method.) For me it is indicative of how the alarmists play the game where the ends justify any means.

National Wildlife Federation De-volves into Climate Alarmists! | Watts Up With That?

[GoingWalkabout]

I'm looking for a grant to study the effects Global Warming is having on the mating patterns of Gay Whales in the Antarctic region. The grant will need to cover the purchase of my catamaran along with its tungsten hull shell for Arctic navigation. The scientific research program is estimated to last 5 years but given the rapid decrease in the floating ice shelf may require a longer period of research. Both the DoD and NASA are welcome to contribute grant money along with private and public donor's. This is a solicitation being made in bad faith and only the gullible and feeble minded need apply.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

There are C3 and C4 plants. C4 plants are more efficient (evolved later in earth's history) and more adapted to lower CO2 levels. C4 plants include corn, and sugar.

C3 plants are less efficient at turning light into energy, but perhaps more viable in higher co2 environment, include rice, wheat and potatoes.

These studies might interest you. Greenhouses really cannot be considered the same as open air.

Higher CO2 levels in open environments result in

1) increased predation by pests

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects

2) compromised nutritional value in food crops

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13179.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

I'm looking for a grant to study the effects Global Warming is having on the mating patterns of Gay Whales in the Antarctic region. The grant will need to cover the purchase of my catamaran along with its tungsten hull shell for Arctic navigation. The scientific research program is estimated to last 5 years but given the rapid decrease in the floating ice shelf may require a longer period of research. Both the DoD and NASA are welcome to contribute grant money along with private and public donor's. This is a solicitation being made in bad faith and only the gullible and feeble minded need apply.

You would need to apply to the National Science Foundation. Many skeptics are funded through that agency. Lindzen got over $3,000,000 during his career.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I believe your intentions, and conachair's intentions were to bait me.

You don't need any help for that, you seem perfectly capable of achieving that all on your own

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You would need to apply to the National Science Foundation. Many skeptics are funded through that agency. Lindzen got over $3,000,000 during his career.

Thanks for the heads up. I wonder why the National Science Foundation would be funding contrarian scientific research. Isn't the NSF part of the Federal Government? How could they not be in lock step with the Federal mindset? So many questions and so much grant money to plunder.

[Kenomac]

For the first time in 26 years, here in New England all the ponds are still frozen over on April 1st.

Global warming?