Global Cooling Chills Summer

[sparky]

Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?

 

[sparky]

Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.

and you may take your pick of many similar anomolies jreeves.........

 

[edthecynic]

Really I got a link to show the age as being several millions of years old...
The Age of the Earth
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.


Got a link for your assumption?

Of course, but you knew that before you made your stupid post. How else would you have known the Earth cooled and warmed in the past!!!
Ice core data have shown that the interglacial warm periods have been 10,000 years or less but this warm period is already 12,000 years long. So the next Ice Age, which probably should have begun with the "Little Ice Age" is clearly overdue according to the natural cycle of the last 400,000+ years.

SEED - Temperature Change History

Notice on your graph, how temperatures fluctuated up and down over the last 400k or so years? Isn't it funny how consistent the peaks and valleys are all throughout that time, even the current time. Wow, that would be just a tad contradictory to the whole notion of AGW.

Quite the opposite. The consistant nature of the cycles would indicate that we should be well into a new Ice Age by now, but we are measuring a 100 year warming trend which is contrary to the established cycle shown in the chart implying something unnatural is involved which therefore does not rule out the possibility of AGW. It doesn't prove AGW but it does not rule it out either as you have done.

 

[sparky]

well that's just one of a number of co-existing cycles ED.....

with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

careful, the fundies will come stampeeding in, and have their pet dinosaur bite you....

 

[code1211]

I see. And I am to trust you more than NOAA?

I think you were responding to the post I put up. What I said was that I was going to post a link and a quote. You can trust me that I did what i said i would do.

The thoughts and the frustration were posted by a scientist that is unsure how to prove or disprove what GISS represents as facts because it is so garbled and inconsistant as to be menaingless.

This could be what makes it the outlier that it is.

As opposed to clinging to a stone age process of gathering data that is ridiculed by most and heavily adjusted by those who conduct the process, why not join those who question both the system and the process.

If every GISS conclusion must be adjusted because the GISS knows that the data is wrong, what does this tell you about the data. Hint: It should tell you that the data is wrong.

This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times you show them UAH, who got caught deceitfully using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, is the "outlier" they STILL discredit themselves by claiming GISS/GISTEMP is the outlier based on UAH's cooked data.

And blogger Steve McIntyre is NOT a scientist!!! He has a BS in mathematics. And for some reason this self anointed "watchdog" has no problem with UAH deliberately using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal drift.

UAH MSU 6-2009: +0.01 °C. Rank: 17/31
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C

GISTEMP 6-2009: +0.63 °C. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

NCDC Anomaly 6-2009: +0.62 °C. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 2005.
Average last 12 months: 0.54 °C.

HadCRUT3 6-2009: +0.50 °C. Rank: 3/160
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.40 °C

HadAT 6-2009: +0.40 °C

Who is better qualified to analyze numbers than a mathematician? If the mathematics expert is challenging the math of the guy with his finger wetted in the wind, maybe that math is wrong.

Does the site that you post this stuff from have the YTD rank of 2009? I see that you posted June as a single month. Does it show all of the months to date this year?

 

[edthecynic]

I think you were responding to the post I put up. What I said was that I was going to post a link and a quote. You can trust me that I did what i said i would do.

The thoughts and the frustration were posted by a scientist that is unsure how to prove or disprove what GISS represents as facts because it is so garbled and inconsistant as to be menaingless.

This could be what makes it the outlier that it is.

As opposed to clinging to a stone age process of gathering data that is ridiculed by most and heavily adjusted by those who conduct the process, why not join those who question both the system and the process.

If every GISS conclusion must be adjusted because the GISS knows that the data is wrong, what does this tell you about the data. Hint: It should tell you that the data is wrong.

This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times you show them UAH, who got caught deceitfully using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, is the "outlier" they STILL discredit themselves by claiming GISS/GISTEMP is the outlier based on UAH's cooked data.

And blogger Steve McIntyre is NOT a scientist!!! He has a BS in mathematics. And for some reason this self anointed "watchdog" has no problem with UAH deliberately using the wrong sign to "correct" for diurnal drift.

UAH MSU 6-2009: +0.01 °C. Rank: 17/31
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.15 °C

GISTEMP 6-2009: +0.63 °C. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.51 °C.

NCDC Anomaly 6-2009: +0.62 °C. Rank: 2/130
Warmest June in this series was in 2005.
Average last 12 months: 0.54 °C.

HadCRUT3 6-2009: +0.50 °C. Rank: 3/160
Warmest June in this series was in 1998.
Average last 12 months: 0.40 °C

HadAT 6-2009: +0.40 °C

Who is better qualified to analyze numbers than a mathematician? If the mathematics expert is challenging the math of the guy with his finger wetted in the wind, maybe that math is wrong.

Does the site that you post this stuff from have the YTD rank of 2009? I see that you posted June as a single month. Does it show all of the months to date this year?

It was YOU who exaggerated him to the level of a scientist, and if you really believed it was more impressive that he was a mathematician you would not have changed him to a scientist.

I posted June because you were using June, which you exaggerated UAH's .01 to .001, among other exaggerations I have already pointed out. And as you can see the list gives the last 12 months in all but one and UAH is STILL the outlier not GISS/GISTEMP.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sparky, what purpose does the ice serve in nature?

Good to see you environuts are still avoiding the questions I ask, this one is probably the scariest since it's not found online or in your environut sources, you actually have to have studied the related science to know it.

What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?

 

[keee keee]

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most! what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!

 

[KittenKoder]

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most! what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most! what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

 

[KittenKoder]

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most! what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

I know thats why it makes sense on the surface.

I was just trying to look up the volume of ice that is above sea level and all i am finding are global warming sites. I'm not googliing properly tonight

 

[KittenKoder]

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

When H2O molecules are frozen they form crystaline structures with a LOT of air trapped, smaller molecules. Since the molecule itself doesn't change size liquid H2O can't fill in the empty space, and the ice itself becomes 30% (somewhere around there) larger in volume. It's why when you take a bottle of water and freeze it it explodes (or expands if it's stretchable enough).

I know thats why it makes sense on the surface.

I was just trying to look up the volume of ice that is above sea level and all i am finding are global warming sites. I'm not googliing properly tonight

Look up "glacial ice" ...

Most of it is actually below the surface, when you see the tip of an iceberg on the water, it's already too late to avoid it. It's also where the coined phrase "tip of the iceberg" came from.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the north pole isn't big enough if it all melted to raise the ocean level to the levels they predict. maybe an inch or two at the most! what a total crock of shit this whole global warming is. Go get some more data real data and get back to us in say 500 to a 1000 years. all this iis, is make believe solutions to a make believe problem, but raising taxes will solve the problem!!!

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

 

[Chris]

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

Nice post.

 

[KittenKoder]

Considering they are completely ignoring water displacement formulas, ice displaces a lot more water. So when it thaws there is more room than when it's frozen. There is so much science they are ignoring to make this con more believable.

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.

 

[KittenKoder]

Aside from obviously not knowing fourth grade science, none of you enviro-morons have even tried to answer the one most important question:

Why are we worried about the ice, what purpose does it serve in the natural world?

 

[L.K.Eder]

First time i've heard that argument guys. I'll have to go look into it but it makes sense on the surface.

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.

yes, kittenkoder, most of the ice cube will be under water, i'd say about 90%. what would you say?

did you even read my post, you little bullshitting moron?

ETA: since i try to pay less attention to the bullshit artist i missed that you labeled me an "environut", well done.

 

[KittenKoder]

when a floating iceberg melts the water level remains about the same.

frozen water is less dense, that's why the ice is floating. ice does not displace more water than liquid water, unless you apply force to keep it down.

imagine pushing an inflatable ball underwater, stop pushing, it will pop up. same happens with icebergs. if not trapped they will pop up and about 10 percent of its volume will be above sea level. that accounts for the density gradient between the solid and liquid phase.

you should worry about the greenland ice field melting and the patagonian and antarctic ice fields melting, that will have an influence on the sea level.

and don't pay attention to KittenKoder.

Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.

yes, kittenkoder, most of the ice cube will be under water, i'd say about 90%. what would you say?

did you even read my post, you little bullshitting moron?

You equated it to a balloon, which is not even close to the same principle. You really over simplified it and mislead with your analogy, which means you know nothing about the subject, or you are lying. Which is it?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Um ... wow ... you are clueless to science. Put an ice cube in a bowl of water, it's that simple to see, most of the cube is under the surface. You environuts really don't know much about science. I mean, that's fucking fourth grade science.

yes, kittenkoder, most of the ice cube will be under water, i'd say about 90%. what would you say?

did you even read my post, you little bullshitting moron?

You equated it to a balloon, which is not even close to the same principle. You really over simplified it and mislead with your analogy, which means you know nothing about the subject, or you are lying. Which is it?

read the post again. it is not hard to understand.

well fuck it, you are beyond reach anyway, but for anyone else.

ever played with the ice cubes in your drink, dunked them with the straw? they pop up again.