8
   

Arctic becomes an island as ice melts

 
 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 07:23 am
@Robert Gentel,
I read something recently that said exactly the opposite.

Guess it depends on the source.
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 07:25 am
Maybe, the cause is beyond our control.

"The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity " which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth."

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

Bush's fault too?

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 08:48 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

I read something recently that said exactly the opposite.

Guess it depends on the source.


You mean that those images are fakes and the charts not worth being used for navigation?

I sincerely do hop that e.g. the Beluga Shipping Company is aware of that ...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 08:51 am
@Robert Gentel,
Friends of the polar bears will be happy to note that the coming minor ice age will very shortly remedy this situation.

http://able2know.org/topic/121595-1
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 08:54 am
@Woiyo9,
The reality of the thing can be viewed at:

http://www.thunderbolts.info

Stars are not thermonuclear engines as has been widely taught. They are plasma physics phenomena which behave as focal points for cosmic discharge and as they pass through regions of space with lesser or greater electrical potential difference from themselves, they cool off and heat up, periodically.

That is the basic reason for things like the medieval climate optimum and/or the late holocene (hypsothermal) climate optimum.

The human race has nothing to do with it. There is not a single thing we could plausibly do which would affect the weather on this planet one iota.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 09:16 am
Winter is coming.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 09:32 am
I didn't take time to hunt it up, but there is some commentary/data posted on Blatham'x global warming thread that comments on the arctic ice and how the ice melt this year is actually about 10% less than it was last year. It's difficult to know what authority's opinion one is to accept as the real deal.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 09:39 am
@Foxfyre,
Well, in that case those satellite imagines and charts must be fake.

(I mean, what ellse can you expect from a German research vessel, a National Space Development Agency of Japan and the US National Snow and Ice Data Center?)
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 09:42 am
I'm thinking of opening a karaoke bar there.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 09:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I didn't say that, Walter, nor did I even imply that. But do we know for sure? Can you say with absolute authority that the photos are the real deal? I certainly cannot say that with any authority nor can I say that they are not. All I am saying, is there are different scientific opinions out there re the amount of ice melt in the Arctic this past summer.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 10:01 am
@Foxfyre,
No, I can't.

And to my personal experience the earth is flat.

(Edit: well, I've been on some planes - it's nearly flat.)
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 11:38 am
@Foxfyre,
I guess if you just want to blindly dismiss all evidence as not absolutely proven to you that's fine. But while you make hoops to jump through I'm going to take the fact that all satellites are showing the same thing at face value and not try to dream up conspiracies to fool me.

The source for this was NASA satellites and no other satellites are showing anything different.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:01 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

I guess if you just want to blindly dismiss all evidence as not absolutely proven to you that's fine. But while you make hoops to jump through I'm going to take the fact that all satellites are showing the same thing at face value and not try to dream up conspiracies to fool me.

The source for this was NASA satellites and no other satellites are showing anything different.


And if you want to misrepresent what I said and pretend that you have any clue what evidence I have or have not dismissed, that is also fine I guess.

If you can be intellectually honst about the subject (or me), you will see that I did not dismiss your posted satellite photo. However, it is not true that no other photos, claimed to be satellite photos, do not show something different, such as this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/satellite-imagery-shows-artic-ice-still-unmelted/

Or this one taken August 22, 2008, which looks a bit different from the one you posted:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/npseaice_amsre_2007234.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17752

And this site from Nasa itself August 2007 looks a bit different too. . .
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~74767~180291:Northwest-Passage-Open

And this:
Quote:
Offsetting the ice loss north of Alaska this summer is a large accumulation of new first-year ice off the north coast of Russia. NSIDC forecasters say it's hard to know whether it will melt or stay. If the latter occurs, Serreze said, then 2008 will probably go down as a close second to last year's record Arctic ice minimum.

On July 31, the extent of sea ice in the Arctic stood at 2.98 million square miles - about 400,000 square miles less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the same date, according to data posted on the NSIDC Web site. But it was about 35,000 square miles more than the July 31 measurement during last year's record summer.

"In other words, it's not looking like it's going to break last year's record (minimum), but we're well below normal," Serreze said. "It should be No. 2."

A wild card this year is the overall thinness of the ice - even near the North Pole. In April NSIDC scientists suggested that the ice at the pole might temporarily disappear this summer for the first time on record.

Now it doesn't appear that it will, Serreze said.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/080408/sta_313372460.shtml


And, as previously posted, the amount of ice melted this year remains about 10% above last year's 'record' minimum though, in the grand scheme of things, the records haven't been kept all that long.

So who is being unreasonable here? Me who doesn't claim to know but wants to know what's happening? Or you who seems to be accusing me of blindly dismissing evidence?



Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:18 pm
@Foxfyre,
I know, a year is nothing in eternity ...

http://i36.tinypic.com/2e0nvwx.jpg

Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
If you can be intellectually honst about the subject (or me), you will see that I did not dismiss your posted satellite photo.


You did a pretty good impression of someone doing so here:

Foxfyre wrote:
Can you say with absolute authority that the photos are the real deal? I certainly cannot say that with any authority nor can I say that they are not.


You don't dismiss them as false, you dismiss them as not authoritative enough.

Quote:
However, it is not true that no other photos, claimed to be satellite photos, do not show something different, such as this one:


I didn't say anything about photos that are "claimed" to be satellite photos.

If you are so concerned these are fake just go to the source. NASA even has a nice animation for this going back to 1979,




What is this supposed to be showing? And what is it supposed to be refuting? Are you googling randomly now? This guy is taking on the notion that the whole sea is melting. It's not even an argument against the same thing.

Quote:
Or this one taken August 22, 2008, which looks a bit different from the one you posted:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/npseaice_amsre_2007234.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17752


Sigh, I guess going to the source isn't even good enough. That image is from 2007 Foxfyre, not 2008. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
And this site from Nasa itself August 2007 looks a bit different too. . .
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~74767~180291:Northwest-Passage-Open


Yeah, last year was a little different Foxfyre. Were you making the claim that past images might not look like the current ones?

Quote:
And this:
<article about ice minimums snipped>


This thread isn't about breaking the total ice minimum, it's about simultaneous opening of the passages which has never happened before. It would be helpful if you are talking about the same thing. You know, apples and apples and all.

The simultaneous opening of these passages is a first in human history. That's what the thread is about, not whether or not global warming is real, what the minimum will be this year and all.

It is about a simple fact Foxfyre: the Arctic can be circumnavigated for the first time in recorded human history.

So if you want to cast doubt on that do so, but digging up unrelated photos from last year, or talking about what the total melt will be does nothing to discredit it.



Quote:

So who is being unreasonable here? Me who doesn't claim to know but wants to know what's happening? Or you who seems to be accusing me of blindly dismissing evidence?


You of course, you don't seem to understand the difference between 2007 and 2008, and have spent all this time without discrediting the topic subject at all in any way.

Way to jerk that knee though!
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:22 pm
@Robert Gentel,
And let me save us both some time:

These images you are using are computer generated based off microwave data. They won't look the same as all other images (because the coloring algorithms will be different) will but you won't find a current satellite image that contradicts the claim in this article.

Look for that, don't waste my time with every random thing you can Google that is not even from this year or not even about this topic.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:22 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes, I did pick up the wrong date. Sorry about that.

But the fact remains there is more ice there than there was this time last year, however marginal the increase is. Which is all that I was saying in the first place. Is that northwest passage open right now? Does anybody know?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:27 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

But the fact remains there is more ice there than there was this time last year, however marginal the increase is. Which is all that I was saying in the first place.


Whether or not there is more ice overall doesn't mean that the article's claim is wrong.

Quote:
Is that northwest passage open right now? Does anybody know?


NASA claims it is, and the Canadian government is telling ships that plan to pass through it to register with Canada.

Do you know something they don't? Or are you just babbling about overall ice minimums?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
There's a photo collection here:
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-34657.html#backToArticle=574815

I don't know if there's more ice this year than there was last year.

I only know that the Beluga company didn't loose a thought about going through the North-West passage last year - but try it this year due to ... well, they are sure that there's less ice due to reports and photos.
(As quoted/linked before, the German 'Polarstern' is there, too.)

I'm sure, the crew on the 'Polarstern' as well as especially the Beluga company would be pleased to get your informations!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 12:32 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Can you find any place where I said it was not open? Or is posting information presented by anybody not cricket here? On the BIG global warming thread we had quite a few discussions on this topic along with stories of scientists who studied ways to intentionally melt the ice to open up the northwest passage. Some thought this would be great. Some thought it was put the ecology at much higher risk.

I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other personally.

But forgive my babblings please. I'll leave you to bask whatever it is you bask in. That apparently doesn't include discussion of anything related to the topic that you do not consider appropriate or pertinent. And that's cool.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 09:13:45