Discussion in 'Environment' started by Abraham3, Feb 1, 2014.
Serious question Abraham. Do you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?
I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior. Why?
Late term meaning "exiting"....?
What;s the matter abraham, can't bring yourself to engage in some straight talk. Is the earth or is it not exiting an ice age....not to be confused with interglacial periods?
I don't believe we know the details of an ice age's progression with enough detail to state that conditions over the last 150 years give us certainty that the ice age is ending. The Milankovitch cycles aren't going to do anything for a good long while and the long term TSI trend seems to be downward. And, besides, why would I do anything to cooperate with you?
Why don't you simply get to your point? Are you having trouble getting there without me?
So what you are saying is that you don't know whether the earth is exiting an ice age or not? Interesting. And I have no problem getting to my point. There is a certain entertainment factor in watching you do your silly dance rather than simply state what you think.
Hell of a thing to be so sure about AGW and unable to state whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age. Are you saying that climate science remains unsure about something as large and obvious as that?
I'm saying that I don't feel like playing childish games with you. You say you've got no problem getting to your point, but you haven't gotten there yet. Did you perhaps forget what it was?
So you deny that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age....or you are unsure as to whether the earth is exiting an ice age....or perhaps you are unsure of what an ice age is.
In any event, your waffling over a straight forward question identifies you for what you truly are. Congratulations.
Your OP is a childish game. Your high priests claimed that there would be NO ICE in the Arctic by 2013. Looks like they were wrong. The last I heard the Arctic ice was in a "death spiral".
All I see is a lot of hyperbole and so much ice cover at the North Pole that you couldn't do this today....Imagine that, waaaaaay back in 1987 three subs surfaced at the North pole.
This was 1986
Or how about 1962?
Or how about 1959?
This is the USS Honolulu about 300 miles form the North Pole once again back in the 80's....I love the Polar Bears....
Please. Are you REALLY going to put those photographs forward as possessing any significance regarding Arctic ice extents?
And SSDD, if you've got a point, make it.
Why yes, yes I am. I know it is hard for you to think logically but give it a try. All of those years I posted you could surface a sub AT the North Pole. How long has it been since you could do that? Can't do it this year, couldn't do it last year, nor the year before that. Etc. etc. etc.
What that shows me is the ice extent and volume have been significantly lower in the past than today. We have loads of newspaper articles from the 1920's that say the exat same thing. We have a wooden ship that was able to sail further north over 100 years ago than has been possible in the current time.
The amount that you don't know is simply astounding.
I would not make assumptions about what other people do and do not know.
Sturgeon (637) and newer classes can get up through 6 feet of ice. Los Angeles (688) prior to 751 cannot as their fairwater planes won't rotate to the vertical. That a photograph has penned on it "North Pole" does not mean the photograph was taken at the North Pole. Subs do not surface where they want to, they surface where they can find polynyas or open leads. Such captions simply mean "Here is a photograph from our trip to the "North Pole". What sailor wants to tell his folks or his sweetie "Well, we didn't quite get to the Pole... came short about 15 miles, but here's a picture of me at some other equally featureless expanse of white - aren't I cool?". Sailor's have commercial-grade poetic licenses.
There are NO comprehensive Arctic ice extent survey data prior to the use of satellites. The best that could be would be aircraft tracks and why waste fuel surveying a constantly changing landscape that no one plans to visit? Navy trips to the Poles, particularly those bothering to surface, are just about rare as hens teeth. It's a nice short cut to Murmansk and the Iceland gap, but its also a good way to lose a boat. They sent Nautilus up there and THEN found out her hull's brittle fracture temperature was 2F higher than the water she was sittting in.
As we saw with that stranded ship down south, a photograph of ice one day is completely useless two days later. The Arctic is a mass of flotsam, driven by the wind. There is nothing preventing leads and polynyas opening up all the way to the Pole in the dead of the coldest winter.
Now, I have no problem believing that the Arctic began melting about 1880, when human GHG emissions began driving up global temperatures. I see no reason why the Arctic shouldn't have warmed more rapidly than the rest of the planet, then, as it does today.
But the contention that Arctic ice is increasing in the long term is not supported by ANY - I repeat ANY satellite imagery data ever collected. The PIOMAS data clearly show that without some MAJOR change, the trend for Arctic summer will hit zero in less than 20 years. Neither the PIOMAS nor all the satellite ice extent data show any significant change at any point in their spans. If it's actually growing, it's got some hellacious natural variation. It would kinda makes the 15 year warming hiatus pale, wouldn't it?
But, hey, you've got some old photographs. Why don't you frame them and hang them on the wall for sentiment's sake?
Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.
Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETpm9JAdfcs]Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013) - YouTube[/ame]
And, yes, Westwall, a real Phd scientist at a real science conferance, not a blog by undegreed idiots.
Sure, if you can bring yourself to stop waffling for long enough to answer a straight forward question. Think you can manage it?
I'm tired of your bullshit. You've had two days and a dozen posts to just make your point but have utterly failed to do so. Go fuck yourself.
SSDD, put your question up your ass and spin.
What's the matter abraham? You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?
Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question. My but you are weak. Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.
Ice ages on the Earth have occurred about every 30 to 40 thousand years, the last major ice age ended around 10 thousand BC or BE.
You are confusing ice ages with glaciations. The ice age that we presently live in began more than a million years ago.
Separate names with a comma.