Polar bears will thrive in an ice age, and they have survived many times throughout history when temperatures were much hotter then they are today.
imo, lunk
Full Version: On Oceans and Ice
QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 26 2008, 02:34 PM) 
Polar bears will thrive in an ice age, and they have survived many times throughout history when temperatures were much hotter then they are today.
imo, lunk
imo, lunk
Are you sure about that?
Another species maybe but what is happening now suggests that Polar Bears will become extinct.
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 28 2008, 09:36 AM)
Are you sure about that?
Another species maybe but what is happening now suggests that Polar Bears will become extinct.
Another species maybe but what is happening now suggests that Polar Bears will become extinct.
The Earth has gone through many climate changes before, right?
All parts of our globe are covered with different forms of life, that have evolved to thrive in that particular environment, because of that particular environment (including climate).
Do you really think that polar bears only evolved 10 000 years ago?
QUOTE (bill @ Apr 26 2008, 02:09 PM)
"Thus the Polar Bear is well on the way to extinction."
This is total bullshit.
http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/ani...polar_bear.html
This is total bullshit.
http://www.ypte.org.uk/docs/factsheets/ani...polar_bear.html
Bullshit be damned.
That information is totally out of date and the site is crap as many links are inaccesible. I could not even go back as suggested at top left.
Here is the reality:
http://www.life.ca/nl/71/bears.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15747502/
http://www.mercurynews.com/healthandscience/ci_9057529
To be sure that last article indicates that the bears do not face extinction but then they seem to underestimate the percentage loss of arctic sea ice year on year.
Before you throw 'BS' at somebody it is a good idea to ensure it is not likely to bounce back.
QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 26 2008, 02:54 PM)
The Earth has gone through many climate changes before, right?
All parts of our globe are covered with different forms of life, that have evolved to thrive in that particular environment, because of that particular environment (including climate).
Do you really think that polar bears only evolved 10 000 years ago?
All parts of our globe are covered with different forms of life, that have evolved to thrive in that particular environment, because of that particular environment (including climate).
Do you really think that polar bears only evolved 10 000 years ago?
I am not saying that at all.
Whilst polar bears have existed the earth's average temperature has not risen more than +1 degree Celsius, until now when the arctic is warming much faster than lower latitudes. Thus during the existence of polar bears arctic ice has not been substantially reduced, if at all, until now.
If anything survives the total depletion of arctic ice it will have evolved a different way of life (as with the recent news about some small lizards transported to a different island in the Aegean) and probably become a different species, although there will, by definition, no longer be any polar bears to attempt interbreeding with to prove that speciation has indeed taken place. Thus - no more polar bears.
Polar bears have rather specialized feeding habits and it is always specialists that are at most risk.
Polar bears:
Here is what someone, who believes in human caused global warming, has to say about polar bears:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eabjorn105.xml
" Prof Lomborg points out that over the past decades, the global polar bear population has increased dramatically from about 5,000 members in the 1960s to around 25,000 as a result of the regulation of hunting.
Even if a decline in the bear population has taken place since the 1980s, he says, if we try to help them by cutting greenhouse gases we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying, with realistic option meaning that it is probably only around 0.06 bears per year."
They're thriving and their population is increasing.
Wear snowshoes and carry a big spear,
and a can of spam to distract them from eating you.
imo, lunk
Here is what someone, who believes in human caused global warming, has to say about polar bears:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eabjorn105.xml
" Prof Lomborg points out that over the past decades, the global polar bear population has increased dramatically from about 5,000 members in the 1960s to around 25,000 as a result of the regulation of hunting.
Even if a decline in the bear population has taken place since the 1980s, he says, if we try to help them by cutting greenhouse gases we can at the very best avoid 15 bears dying, with realistic option meaning that it is probably only around 0.06 bears per year."
They're thriving and their population is increasing.
Wear snowshoes and carry a big spear,
and a can of spam to distract them from eating you.
imo, lunk
QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 27 2008, 01:40 AM)
Polar bears:
Here is what someone, who believes in human caused global warming, has to say about polar bears:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eabjorn105.xml
Here is what someone, who believes in human caused global warming, has to say about polar bears:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm.../eabjorn105.xml
Ah! That contrarian Lomborg again.
Check out his form Lunk, you will realise that his opinion has been well discredited.
Lomborg is also remembered for stating that acid rain was a non-problem which was another distortion of known facts. Lomborg is good at distortion and the Telegraph is renowned for giving him a platform.
I suggest you get hold of a copy of:
The Weather Makers: Our Changing Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth by Tim Flannery.
QUOTE
The great bears are slowly starving as each winter becomes warmer than the one before. A long-term study of 1200 individuals living in the south of their range - around Hudson Bay – reveals that they are already [2004] 15 per cent skinnier on average than they were a few decades ago. The feeding season has become just too short for the bears to find enough food, and 15 per cent is a lot of body fat to lose before hibernation. With each year, starving females give birth to fewer cubs. Some decades ago triplets were common: they are now unheard of. And back then around half the cubs were weaned and feeding themselves at eighteen months, while today that number is less than one in twenty. Even those females that successfully give birth face dangers unknown of in times past – increasing winter rain in some areas may collapse birthing dens, killing both mother and cubs sleeping within. And the early break-up of the ice can separate denning and feeding areas; as young cubs cannot swim the distances required to find food, when this happens they will simply starve to death.
As Shweinsburg [1] says, the only thing that stops nanuk is a place where there is no food. And in creating an Arctic with dwindling sea ice, we are creating a monotony of open water and dry land where, for nanuk at least, there is no food.
(Flannery 2007, © 2005, pp. 102)
As Shweinsburg [1] says, the only thing that stops nanuk is a place where there is no food. And in creating an Arctic with dwindling sea ice, we are creating a monotony of open water and dry land where, for nanuk at least, there is no food.
(Flannery 2007, © 2005, pp. 102)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nZRFEhd...MG-Gg&hl=en
After typing the above quote I have just found the above extract here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...ticle732921.ece
Flannery points out that it is not only polar bear suffering reduction in numbers in Arctic regions but also netsik (ringed seal), harp seals, caribou and reindeer amongst others are effected.
[1] Ray Shweinsburg
QUOTE (lunk @ Jun 17 2008, 10:59 PM)
Therefore, lightening travels up to the cloud from the ground.
I just caught myself mis-spelling lightning as "lightening" earlier this week. Damnit lunk- if you're going to read my mind, at least read the GOOD neurons, so we don't both look bad...
Back on topic-
NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations - Not CO2
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693
QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 27 2008, 06:45 AM)
NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations - Not CO2
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693
Uh! Oh!
Consider this comment found there, my emphasis:
QUOTE
# Morgan Mgheeon 24 Jul 2008 at 12:26 am
Each and every lone scientist and the people/companies/groups behind them that take these data and re-configures them without subjecting them to review will also be dealt with at the hands of the possible new ruling regarding false and misleading statements about global warming. Recently Don Easterbrook took a report from JPL NASA and re-worded it to his liking, reporting and blogging to all that it shows global cooling. That is not what the scientists behind the research concluded:
Important information from the source article (NASA):
The image also shows that this La Niña is occurring within the context of a larger climate event, the early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a long-term fluctuation of the Pacific Ocean that waxes and wanes between cool and warm phases approximately every five to 20 years. In the cool phase, higher than normal sea-surface heights caused by warm water form a horseshoe pattern that connects the north, west and southern Pacific, with cool water in the middle. During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the oscillation’s warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are reversed. For an explanation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its present state, see: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and http://www.esr.org/pdo_index.html .
“This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Sea surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also clearly show a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gi … . The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns.
“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008 …
It’s important to look beyond the headlines.
Each and every lone scientist and the people/companies/groups behind them that take these data and re-configures them without subjecting them to review will also be dealt with at the hands of the possible new ruling regarding false and misleading statements about global warming. Recently Don Easterbrook took a report from JPL NASA and re-worded it to his liking, reporting and blogging to all that it shows global cooling. That is not what the scientists behind the research concluded:
Important information from the source article (NASA):
The image also shows that this La Niña is occurring within the context of a larger climate event, the early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a long-term fluctuation of the Pacific Ocean that waxes and wanes between cool and warm phases approximately every five to 20 years. In the cool phase, higher than normal sea-surface heights caused by warm water form a horseshoe pattern that connects the north, west and southern Pacific, with cool water in the middle. During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the oscillation’s warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are reversed. For an explanation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its present state, see: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and http://www.esr.org/pdo_index.html .
“This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Sea surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also clearly show a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gi … . The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns.
“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008 …
It’s important to look beyond the headlines.
Indeed it is.
Now I have mentioned 'The Rough Guide to Climate Change' before now in a 2008 edition, few seem to have had a look at this one and please note that it is much more comprehensive than the title suggests.
Another I should mention is John Houghton's 'Global Warming: The Complete Briefing' of which a 3rd edition is around.
These, amongst other sources, will put these Pacific Ocean Oscillations in correct perspective, as well as many, many other details that should be at least noticed by commentators.
There is considerable disinformation appearing at the moment where scientific reports are distorted before being disseminated by the media, much of it seemingly aimed at those in Australia and Canada.
you know, for me, one of the critical issues is the temperature of the gulf stream.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 5 2009, 01:00 AM)
you know, for me, one of the critical issues is the temperature of the gulf stream.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
valid questions. i've heard lots of theories. would be so much better to have good data... something comprehensive..centuries (millenia, eons) worth of sunspot, solar wind, atmospheric component levels etc etc.
sorry, i don't know. even with all that, throw in a kilauea, krakatoa or pinatubo eruption as an anomalous event and....
i gotta tell you though, if aliens exist and if they have been monitoring the planet, i would love to look at their data!
surely there is some comprehensive monitoring of these critical currents. the gulf stream is a critical one. as is the humboldt. and undoubtedly there are others of which i am unaware.
in my opinion, these are the real rivers of life on this planet.
i think on what has been done to the gulf of mexico in the last 50 years. the enlarging dead zone spreading from the mississippi delta. the destruction of the gulf coast wetlands caused by urbanization and oil&gas extraction operations.
i recall my epiphany. it was 1989. i was flying into and out of puerto montt chile to coihaique to pioneer trout fishing in some very virginal territory. suffice it to say, my surprise was to observe in the golfo ancud, golfo corcovado all these small floating pens. hmmmm. what was all that about, i wondered. landing in coihaique, hooking up with the fisheries biologist that was joining me for this pioneering adventure. so, of course, i asked him what all that was. and he told me. farm-raised atlantic salmon. operated by lever bros. weekly 747's depart puerto montt and puerto aisen to amsterdam with the harvest.
i was dumbstruck. i had encountered a heretofore hidden history of fishery management.
you can do the research and learn about the depredations of salmon farming in estuaries.
if ocean currents are the rivers of life, estuaries are the incubators of life.
and we human beings have been killing them. that chilean estuary in 20 years has been rendered a virtual dead zone.
what effect does the murder of a critical, significant estuarine area have on the global climate, i wonder.
we can talk about co2, but i think that the estuaricide is more consequential.
greenhouse gases may well be critical, but i tend to think of them as a diversion from the real issue: the murdering of the estuarine areas, the murdering of the oceans.
principally because it may be easier to arrest that destruction than to arrest the spewing of co2 into the atmosphere.
it is too late to continue this now. but perhaps we can rejoin this consideration of river, estuary, ocean management at a later date. unfortunately, such a program will require a planetary management authority. and that will not be welcomed by those who think that using the world's rivers, estuaries, seas and oceans as sewers is OK.
and finally, there is the issue of fishery regulation. i became interested in this when i learned how lever bros[aka unilever] bought up the gangster general, augusto pinochet ugarte, and his junta to gain permission to place their atlantic salmon pens in what might be considered the largest estuarine basin on this planet. if you doubt that, get out your atlas.
what an education in how the industrial state[g8] governments of the world, all for sale to the highest bidders, dedicated themselves to piscicide[to coin a term? anyway, the fisheries equivalent to genocide].
eventually, this caused me to connect with a very wealthy new yorker and igfa-champion, stephen sloan. who came to his epiphany chasing billfish with a flyrod off the coast of west africa.
before his death a few years ago, he wrote of his "insider" observations/experiences trying to prevent global piscicide. the book is entitled OCEAN BANKRUPTCY: WORLD FISHERIES ON THE BRINK OF DISASTER.
if stephen sloan gets it accurately[and i think he does], it will matter little what we do concerning atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. because the world population dependent upon the global fisheries will starve to death first.
as an afterword, i made some observations of causes of the antarctic ozone hole during that 1989 patagonian fishing expedition.
patagonia, southern africa are areas ripe with naturally produced methane. both areas are rife with termite digestion of wood and the consequent termite flatulence. and both areas are rich with ruminants[cattle].
there is just a lot of methane being outgassed into that part of the southern hemisphere.
mental meandering late on a friday night.
in my opinion, these are the real rivers of life on this planet.
i think on what has been done to the gulf of mexico in the last 50 years. the enlarging dead zone spreading from the mississippi delta. the destruction of the gulf coast wetlands caused by urbanization and oil&gas extraction operations.
i recall my epiphany. it was 1989. i was flying into and out of puerto montt chile to coihaique to pioneer trout fishing in some very virginal territory. suffice it to say, my surprise was to observe in the golfo ancud, golfo corcovado all these small floating pens. hmmmm. what was all that about, i wondered. landing in coihaique, hooking up with the fisheries biologist that was joining me for this pioneering adventure. so, of course, i asked him what all that was. and he told me. farm-raised atlantic salmon. operated by lever bros. weekly 747's depart puerto montt and puerto aisen to amsterdam with the harvest.
i was dumbstruck. i had encountered a heretofore hidden history of fishery management.
you can do the research and learn about the depredations of salmon farming in estuaries.
if ocean currents are the rivers of life, estuaries are the incubators of life.
and we human beings have been killing them. that chilean estuary in 20 years has been rendered a virtual dead zone.
what effect does the murder of a critical, significant estuarine area have on the global climate, i wonder.
we can talk about co2, but i think that the estuaricide is more consequential.
greenhouse gases may well be critical, but i tend to think of them as a diversion from the real issue: the murdering of the estuarine areas, the murdering of the oceans.
principally because it may be easier to arrest that destruction than to arrest the spewing of co2 into the atmosphere.
it is too late to continue this now. but perhaps we can rejoin this consideration of river, estuary, ocean management at a later date. unfortunately, such a program will require a planetary management authority. and that will not be welcomed by those who think that using the world's rivers, estuaries, seas and oceans as sewers is OK.
and finally, there is the issue of fishery regulation. i became interested in this when i learned how lever bros[aka unilever] bought up the gangster general, augusto pinochet ugarte, and his junta to gain permission to place their atlantic salmon pens in what might be considered the largest estuarine basin on this planet. if you doubt that, get out your atlas.
what an education in how the industrial state[g8] governments of the world, all for sale to the highest bidders, dedicated themselves to piscicide[to coin a term? anyway, the fisheries equivalent to genocide].
eventually, this caused me to connect with a very wealthy new yorker and igfa-champion, stephen sloan. who came to his epiphany chasing billfish with a flyrod off the coast of west africa.
before his death a few years ago, he wrote of his "insider" observations/experiences trying to prevent global piscicide. the book is entitled OCEAN BANKRUPTCY: WORLD FISHERIES ON THE BRINK OF DISASTER.
if stephen sloan gets it accurately[and i think he does], it will matter little what we do concerning atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. because the world population dependent upon the global fisheries will starve to death first.
as an afterword, i made some observations of causes of the antarctic ozone hole during that 1989 patagonian fishing expedition.
patagonia, southern africa are areas ripe with naturally produced methane. both areas are rife with termite digestion of wood and the consequent termite flatulence. and both areas are rich with ruminants[cattle].
there is just a lot of methane being outgassed into that part of the southern hemisphere.
mental meandering late on a friday night.
QUOTE (albertchampion @ Feb 7 2009, 02:00 AM)
you know, for me, one of the critical issues is the temperature of the gulf stream.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
what regulates those temps?
if you get a 1-2 degree F reduction in gulf stream temps, what happens to europe? does it enter into an ice age?
and what would such a temp reduction do to north america?
and the atlantic fisheries.
i don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but i often find that the dynamics of the oceans[the seas] are avoided.
any thoughts? any knowledge?
concerning this issue.
all ears.
AS far as I know the biggest climate driver is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO shift, the Atlantic goes through a similar cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or AMO. IF I remember correctly the discovery of the PDO has something to do with Salmon as well. The PDO goes from a cold phase to a warm phase in a roughly 30 year cycle with El Nino dominant in the warm phase, La Nina dominant in the cold phase. THe AMO seems to cycle roughly every 70 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_Th...emperatures.pdf
The problem is, what drives the PDO shifts? What is observed are the changes in the activity of the Sun from active, high sunspot numbers to quiet, low sunspot numbers. Heres where it gets interesting because it is in this search where an infant science is up against the ancient science of snake oil selling. The real scientists are strugling to apply what happens in the complex and only recently discovered area's of space weather on an infinately complex terrestrial climate system. This search requires space technology that has only exsisted in the past 20 or so years and in that time up until recently the sun has been in an active phase. This is the first time that space weather measurments from space have coincided with a quiet phase of solar activity. Even as infant as it is the real science is making an absolute mockery of the blanket CO2 fits all theory simply because despite all the spin and all the wagon back selling there's only so much a molocule can do.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/sta...ure-connection/
Whatever causes ice ages, probably turns ocean currents.
There may be vast areas that freeze,
but there also may be some areas that keep,
or get warmer.
The Queen Charlotte Islands, come to mind,
off the West coast of North America,
it did not get the "ice sheets," last ice age.
I wonder if this was caused by a warm ocean current, at that time.
There may be vast areas that freeze,
but there also may be some areas that keep,
or get warmer.
The Queen Charlotte Islands, come to mind,
off the West coast of North America,
it did not get the "ice sheets," last ice age.
I wonder if this was caused by a warm ocean current, at that time.
Due to a problem with sensors, Arctic Ice Sea News reports that figures for ice this year were underreported by 193,000 sq. miles -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 8 2009, 12:30 PM)
Due to a problem with sensors, Arctic Ice Sea News reports that figures for ice this year were underreported by 193,000 sq. miles -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
193 000 square miles.
That isn't that much.
or is it?
Hmmm, lets convert it to square meters (just over 3X3 feet.)
193000 square miles is equal to 499,867,703,300 square meters.
QUOTE
The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time.
As of March 2009, the world's population is estimated to be about 6.76 billion
As of March 2009, the world's population is estimated to be about 6.76 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Lets give every man woman and child in the entire world a square meter each,
and a comfortable chair to sit in.
499,867,703,300/6,760,000,000=73.944926523668639053254437869822
Therefore, 73 times the human population of the entire world would fit onto this newly discovered little bit of sea ice.
...I'm not sure about the carrying capacity of sea ice, though.
could someone check my math?
cheers, lunk
(edit) changed highlight colour to mauve (thanks Omega)
193,000 square miles is about the size of Spain.
By the way it snowed here a couple days ago. (I'm in Kanagawa, Japan ... it NEVER snows here)
I don't know for sure what the planet is going to do, but I'm betting on colder weather setting in over the next decade.
By the way it snowed here a couple days ago. (I'm in Kanagawa, Japan ... it NEVER snows here)
I don't know for sure what the planet is going to do, but I'm betting on colder weather setting in over the next decade.
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 7 2009, 11:20 PM)
193,000 square miles is about the size of Spain.
And a small fraction of the total maximum ice area of the Arctic.
Then there is the big question about Arctic Ice volume where it is known that multi-year ice coverage is not only shrinking in area but in depth. Now I am sure we appreciate that when a volume changes the numbers involved quickly become an awful lot bigger.
QUOTE
By the way it snowed here a couple days ago. (I'm in Kanagawa, Japan ... it NEVER snows here)
With more moisture in the air due to higher temperatures then that is what one should expect as air and ocean current's interaction shifts and cold air meets an atmosphere of higher saturation and in new areas.
QUOTE
I don't know for sure what the planet is going to do, but I'm betting on colder weather setting in over the next decade.
Could be right. But where is this colder weather going to set in exactly?
I note that you once again mention weather and not climate. The two are often thought synonymous - they are not.
Besides, this in itself does not indicate an overall downward shift in average global temperatures.
QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 6 2009, 10:33 PM)
193 000 square miles.
That isn't that much.
or is it?
Hmmm, lets convert it to square meters (just over 3X3 feet.)
193000 square miles is equal to 499,867,703,300 square meters.
That isn't that much.
or is it?
Hmmm, lets convert it to square meters (just over 3X3 feet.)
193000 square miles is equal to 499,867,703,300 square meters.
Why the fascination with square meters?
QUOTE
Lets give every man woman and child in the entire world a square meter each, and a comfortable chair to sit in.
Ah! I see now.
Unfortunately there are not enough comfortable chairs in the world to make that work.
If there were I think the spot for carrying out this exercise would have to be picked with care lest they all fell through the ice as it thawed.
Seriously though let us get this in context.
February 2008 Arctic Sea Ice 14·84 million square kilometers (5·73 million square miles)
499867703300 square meters = 499867703300 ÷ 106 square kilometers = 499867·703300 square kilometers.
14.84 x 106 square kilometers ÷ 499867·703300 square kilometers = 296·8730112
or 0.3368%
of 2008 maximum sea ice coverage and please note that sea ice is a smaller fraction of the total ice area coverage of the Arctic, at least at the moment. The multi-year ice is also thinning, and reducing in extent between seasons and, as I remarked to Sanders, when volume comes into the equation then numbers become very much bigger.
See the following:
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
Arctic Sea Ice Hits Second-lowest Recorded Extent, Likely Lowest Volume
Not the model of clarity that latter article, and note the orders of magnitude error in one para'.
The Cryosphere Today
Note the links top for sea ice animations these are worth downloading.
While 2/3 of those links don't appear to be all that independent of NASA, NOAA, and NSF with some cross-links, that last link took me to a very interesting graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.1900-2007.jpg
OK class, can anyone name a scientific "discovery" after about 1945 that could be related to or have caused the "jump" discontinuities that are obvious in that graph around 1952? Does this graph necessarily show anything related to CO2, or could other factor(s) be at work here?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.1900-2007.jpg
OK class, can anyone name a scientific "discovery" after about 1945 that could be related to or have caused the "jump" discontinuities that are obvious in that graph around 1952? Does this graph necessarily show anything related to CO2, or could other factor(s) be at work here?
QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 8 2009, 11:37 AM)
While 2/3 of those links don't appear to be all that independent of NASA, NOAA, and NSF with some cross-links,
So!
QUOTE
that last link took me to a very interesting graph:
Groan! Watching this open was like watching paint dry.
Besides splitting this off was sneaky, I nearly missed it whilst fighting with broken BB connection and it being that time of day when things get worse I will have to give up for now and do something productive. I lost the first attempt at a reply.
Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of being able to follow every lead when I have the time to do it and I think that you are being a bit naughty with that question dmole.
I was trying to grasp the size of ice the the sensors missed.
193 000 square miles is just sort of number, unless it can be visualized.
I thought of the example of giving everybody on Earth a square meter each,
and dividing that into that 193 000 square miles of previously unnoticed
sea ice. (astonishingly, almost 74 times!)
...Sanders used Spain.
cheers, lunk
193 000 square miles is just sort of number, unless it can be visualized.
I thought of the example of giving everybody on Earth a square meter each,
and dividing that into that 193 000 square miles of previously unnoticed
sea ice. (astonishingly, almost 74 times!)
...Sanders used Spain.
cheers, lunk
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 10 2009, 10:31 AM)
Besides splitting this off was sneaky,
Well that other thread has strayed very far from CO2 being the prime suspect for MMGW ahem... several times.
I see a distinction there between causes, evidence of/support for those causes, and effects (ice sheets area specifically in this context). The various sub-threads (and sub-plots) have been a little convoluted to say the least, and there is still some debate on what exactly constitutes cause(s) I think.I was also listening to a radio broadcast this morning, so I didn't post a link here (but this should have been very near the top of the GP forum with lunk's and my recent posts this morning). I wasn't trying to "be sneaky" if that is the implication, but I was busy with several other things.
On the image from your links, isn't it embedded in the thread in a smaller version, in addition to the link itself? It is for me, and I provided both (as the forum software allows, and it is only a 668 KB .JPG).
Does anyone have any newer Antarctica data than this for comparison to the Northern Hemisphere chart above? More analogous chart formats and time frames would be better, too.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/...11/sea_ice.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/Image52.gif
QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 8 2009, 03:48 PM)
Well that other thread has strayed very far from CO2 being the prime suspect for MMGW ahem... several times.
Well that is what one would expect with a thread entitled 'Climate Change: Is C02 The Problem?'. It is inevitable that other causes would be pushed forward as there are other drivers for climate change. And then of course CO2 is not the only GHG that figures.
Perhaps the thread should have been entitled, 'Climate Change: Is C02 MAIN The Problem?'
The following web site may be of interest to ice watchers:
Extreme Ice Survey
QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 8 2009, 03:18 PM)
I was trying to grasp the size of ice the the sensors missed.
May have missed lunk - the jury is still out ASFAICT.
And I in turn was placing the size of the error, if indeed there turns out to be one, in the context of the total area of Arctic Sea ice. An error of 0.3368% is pretty small and even then that is only WRT sea ice and not total ice coverage - let alone the volumes involved.
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 8 2009, 08:30 PM)
Due to a problem with sensors, Arctic Ice Sea News reports that figures for ice this year were underreported by 193,000 sq. miles -
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
Hmm, unreported conveniently. That's how the crap works, there will be no correction and so this data which has been reported will be used in support of a position by cherry picking. Guess which position this will be used to support. It won't be the position of truth it will most certainly be used to support the position of those who have cherry picked every tiny piece of climate variation to support their agenda.
Now please be upstanding for the anthem and quit being an unperson by questioning Big Brother.
Apparently, according to the National Snow and Ice Center @ University of Colorado, Antarctic sea ice has grown 43% since 1980.
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...warminghoax.com
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.p...ment.news.109.3
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...warminghoax.com
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.p...ment.news.109.3
QUOTE (Sanders @ Apr 8 2009, 02:35 AM)
Apparently, according to the National Snow and Ice Center @ University of Colorado, Antarctic sea ice has grown 43% since 1980.
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...warminghoax.com
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.p...ment.news.109.3
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?anno...warminghoax.com
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.p...ment.news.109.3
Where does this sea ice come from?
Look into that and you discover that this is not a sign of things getting cooler.
Note that I do not jump gleefully into reporting on articles that support APGW and Climate Change as quickly as you folk jump in with things that you think, note think, counters APGW facts.
In other words I do not shoot from the hip.
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 10 2009, 03:32 AM)
Where does this sea ice come from?
The sea.
~70% of the Earth surface is oceans.
If there is more ice, year to year,
that means that the Earth is cooling.
Less ice would indicate that the Earth is warming.
It takes more energy to change the state of matter,
than changing the temperature of that matter, within in a given state.
The size and thickness of the polar icecaps,
are an excellent indicator of long term, average,
global temperature, change.
imo, lunk
QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 8 2009, 12:57 PM)
The sea.
~70% of the Earth surface is oceans.
If there is more ice, year to year,
that means that the Earth is cooling.
~70% of the Earth surface is oceans.
If there is more ice, year to year,
that means that the Earth is cooling.
But that gets to the heart of the matter for there has not been more sea ice year on year. Over the last ten too fifteen years the amount of sea ice has dropped. One years apparent slight gain does not make up for the overall loss over that longer period.
My question was intended to make you consider that there are different forms of sea ice. There is the sea ice that melts every summer and then the sea ice that is a feature all year round.
When this is considered then it is not only area alone which should concern you but the volume. It is known that the covering of permanent, year round, sea ice has been thinning.
As this, and glacial ice from continental areas, reduces then the surrounding sea temperature will drop. Why do folk put ice cubes in their drinks? Does that ice not melt as the drink cools?
QUOTE
It takes more energy to change the state of matter,
than changing the temperature of that matter, within in a given state.
than changing the temperature of that matter, within in a given state.
Yes lunk, latent heat, I know that and that is why we should sit up and take notice when there are rapid changes in polar ice.
QUOTE
The size and thickness of the polar icecaps,
are an excellent indicator of long term, average,
global temperature, change.
are an excellent indicator of long term, average,
global temperature, change.
So what should we do now that there are rapid changes at the poles?
But one caveat, extra snowfall on the eastern Antarctic are more likely the result of the warming and melting of ice from the Antarctic Peninsula.
And then of course there is the albedo effect.
I recently heard of a theory, that I never heard of before, but could be a very good explanation of what is happening at both ice caps. Both loosing ice and gaining ice.
This explains both!
The poles are moving. The rotational poles, very slowly over time. According to Neal Adams the South pole was once South Africa, but as the Earth grew, it re-orientated to Antarctica.
I wonder if this is based on the assumption that the North pole remained in the same spot, and the growth of the Earth offset the South pole?
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
Ah, but there is another theory too, and I think parts of it may fit this picture.
The shift of the polar ice caps, in this theory, is blamed, on the upper crust of the Earth shifting, causing the poles to move.
http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off....com%2Fdel1.htm
So, putting these two theory's together;
we not only have the Earth growing in space,
but the axis of the spinning Earth moving within our oblate spheroid, as well.
The "oblate" shape is probably caused by the centrifugal...or is that centripetal, forces, acting at right angles to wherever the poles happen to be, causing the Earth to "bloat out" at its' equator.
If the physical poles of the Earth are slowly on the move, the equator is slowly moving, too. This would cause the ice caps, at the poles, to appear to be melting in some places and freezing in others.
Glad to see you back Omega.
(edit) spelling (had to access my brain, again)
This explains both!
The poles are moving. The rotational poles, very slowly over time. According to Neal Adams the South pole was once South Africa, but as the Earth grew, it re-orientated to Antarctica.
I wonder if this is based on the assumption that the North pole remained in the same spot, and the growth of the Earth offset the South pole?
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
Ah, but there is another theory too, and I think parts of it may fit this picture.
The shift of the polar ice caps, in this theory, is blamed, on the upper crust of the Earth shifting, causing the poles to move.
http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off....com%2Fdel1.htm
So, putting these two theory's together;
we not only have the Earth growing in space,
but the axis of the spinning Earth moving within our oblate spheroid, as well.
The "oblate" shape is probably caused by the centrifugal...or is that centripetal, forces, acting at right angles to wherever the poles happen to be, causing the Earth to "bloat out" at its' equator.
If the physical poles of the Earth are slowly on the move, the equator is slowly moving, too. This would cause the ice caps, at the poles, to appear to be melting in some places and freezing in others.
Glad to see you back Omega.
(edit) spelling (had to access my brain, again)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.