Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOLOLOLOL......oh poopbrain, soooo sure that you know everything and sooooo sure that, based on what you think you know, all of those scientists must be dead wrong.....LOLOLOLOL......you are definitely a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.....you poor deluded retard........something like:
"Cryosat was specifically designed to measure ice thickness."...before my ignore list settings zapped him out after I logged in.
Holy shit this guy is even dumber than you and doesn`t know the difference between contour Radar and surface penetrating RADAR which only Milsats have because of the much larger power requirement...supplied by nuclear batteries...and no civilian satellite has any on board
The only innovation on that satellite is the dual antenna interferometer because before that they could not measure the satellite to ground distance on the steep slopes and other rough contours.
ESA and NASA join forces to measure Arctic sea ice
European Space Agency
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
Marking another remarkable collaborative effort, ESA and NASA met up over the Arctic Ocean this week to perform some carefully coordinated flights directly under CryoSat orbiting above. The data gathered help ensure the accuracy of ESA’s ice mission. The aim of this large-scale campaign was to record sea-ice thickness and conditions of the ice exactly along the line traced by ESA’s CryoSat satellite orbiting high above. A range of sensors installed on the different aircraft was used to gather complementary information. These airborne instruments included simple cameras to get a visual record of the sea ice, laser scanners to clearly map the height of the ice, an ice-thickness sensor called EM-Bird along with ESA’s sophisticated radar altimeter called ASIRAS and NASA’s snow and Ku-band radars, which mimic CryoSat’s measurements but at a higher resolution.
In orbit for two years, CryoSat carries the first radar altimeter of its kind to monitor changes in the thickness of ice. As with any Earth observation mission, it is important to validate the readings acquired from space. This involves comparing the satellite data with measurements taken in situ, usually on the ground and from the air. The teams of scientists from Europe, US and Canada expect that by pooling flight time and the results they will get a much-improved accuracy of global ice-thickness trends measured by CryoSat and NASA’s IceSat.
Copyright 2000 - 2012 © European Space Agency. All rights reserved.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Good physics question but kind of tricky to answer with precision with just the info you've given, I'd say.If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
If you have a boat in pool, the displacement that the boat creates in the water, or how far the boat sinks into the water, is what determines how much the water level in the pool will change. It is the total weight of the boat itself plus whatever is in it that determines how far it sinks into the water. If you take an unspecified random "rock" out of the boat and throw it into the pool, the boat will rise a bit proportional to the weight of the rock (not its volume) sending the water level down an amount proportional to the weight of the rock, but the pool of water will, at the same time rise an amount that is usually* proportional to the volume of the rock (not its weight). An exception*: some very light, low density volcanic rocks actually float on water and don't displace their full volume. But, even ignoring those and just looking at the range between a larger, higher volume rock made of some lighter variety of rock, and a smaller, higher density rock that is mostly metal alloys, you could have rocks that weighed the same but had very different volumes and thus displaced different volumes of water in the pool. Thus, without knowing more about the "rock", it is hard to say just what the water level in the pool would do precisely. In general it shouldn't change much since the removal of the weight from the boat, thus raising it and lowering the water level, is roughly offset by the water level rise produced by throwing the rock into the lake. That balance is not perfect though for the reasons I discussed above.
Your "tricky" question has very little to do with Archimedes and the principle named after him and pretty near nothing to do with the topic of this thread. It would have been interesting to see what answer you would have given to the question before seeing mine. Something absolute, I'm sure, with no awareness of the issue of the volume of a rock vs. the weight of a rock in relation to its displacement in a boat vs. its displacement when submerged in the pool.
The topic of the thread is "Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!", you poor retard, and you say we're changing the topic of the debate by talking about a satellite that is orbiting specifically to study and measure the ice??? LOLOLOLOL......what a dimwit you are, poopbrain.....Now you and the other moron who, like you, can`t take it when somebody calls him what you & he call everybody else, figure you can change the debate to ""Cryosat was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.".
BTW, it is not very surprising to hear that you have to put me on ignore. Charlatans and denier cultists like you don't like the light of truth and scientific fact thrown on your ignorant BS, misinformation and lies so you run and hide and pretend to yourself that no one has debunked your nonsense (repeatedly). Like ostriches with their heads in the sand, trying, futilely, to deny reality. And you wonder why we call you deniers and consider you to be on a par with the Flat Earth Society. You poor brainwashed halfwitted dupe.
Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
So why don`t you show us how you can calculate from the "Freeboard" the ice thickness on a terrain that looks like that:Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?
And with a ice density that varies wildly from top to bottom. Even "climatologists" know that the ice on top is not nearly as compacted and as dense as the lower layers.
So please do show us your "calculation"...
I guess not..because it takes a bit more than "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"
I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks
Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
What meteorologists present is called "weather".
Decades of weather is climate.
You remember what's happened after every winter storm? AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap. AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.
So the weather now doesn't count, either. You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.
LOL Posting the same stupid video
LOL
That's "Science"?
LOL
So why don`t you show us how you can calculate from the "Freeboard" the ice thickness on a terrain that looks like that:Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?
And with a ice density that varies wildly from top to bottom. Even "climatologists" know that the ice on top is not nearly as compacted and as dense as the lower layers.
So please do show us your "calculation"...
I guess not..because it takes a bit more than "Ever hear the name Archimedes?"
I bet you can`t even answer a simple question without asking somebody else...:
If you sit in a boat which is in a pool and throw a rock (an "Oldrocks) will do, from the boat into the pool will the water level in the pool go up or down?
The message board time was 1:27 pm when I asked and You are online...
I bet it `ll take a bit longer for you to answer than your usual crap remarks
That isn't particularly difficult. I got it (almost) instantly.
Are you telling me that Old Crock still can't answer it?
LOL Posting the same stupid video
LOL
That's "Science"?
LOL
If the video is stupid shit, then repeating it makes it brilliant.
Can I have a consensus?
amen.
The arctic cyclone spread the ice out for a couple of days, now it is melting even more rapidly.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it.
"Enviro" tourists trying to "document" the "shrinking ice" are equally stupid:Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 09:02
13 die as overloaded bike falls off bridge
Thirteen people were killed and seven others injured when an overloaded three-wheel motorcycle crashed off a bridge in south-east China, state media said today.
Iceberg tsunami video: Wave nearly takes out a tourist boat in Greenland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB3K5HY5RnE&feature=player_embedded
Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...
Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...
Hey dumbass, you're the one who is too stupid to understand the "Archimedies puzzle".
Okay then "Oldrocks", we already know that you are too "scientifically challenged"...to use your own words to solve a simple Archimedes puzzle...
Hey dumbass, you're the one who is too stupid to understand the "Archimedies puzzle".
What, pray tell, is YOUR brilliant understanding of that "game?"
Your definition of "real scientist" being, of course, "someone who dutifully parrots the AGW cult beliefs".Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
What meteorologists present is called "weather".
Decades of weather is climate.
You remember what's happened after every winter storm? AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap. AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.
So the weather now doesn't count, either. You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.
Dumb fuck. Here is a real scientist discussing exactly the kinds of events that we are presently seeing, and the relationship to decreasing ice and climate change.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]
Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
What meteorologists present is called "weather".
Decades of weather is climate.
You remember what's happened after every winter storm? AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap. AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.
So the weather now doesn't count, either. You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.
Uh huh. Is this data by the same dishonest set of alleged scientists?Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it. Major changes are happening in the climate. That is on observational evidence, not models. The meteorologists are presenting the evidence now, the geologists are presenting the evidence concerning the rapid glacial retreat worldwide, and the increase in ice movement on both Greenland and Antarctica.
What meteorologists present is called "weather".
Decades of weather is climate.
You remember what's happened after every winter storm? AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap. AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.
So the weather now doesn't count, either. You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.
The trend within sea ice and arctic temperatures has been changing over the span of decades. That's climate.
Nope. Those guys, "the same dishonest set of alleged scientists", who you denier cult cretins like to quote, work for Exxon or Western Petroleum. This data regarding Arctic sea ice and temperature trends is from the real climate scientists. They're giving us the facts and, as we all know, facts are anathema to you deranged anti-science denier cult retards, so it is no wonder that you want to dismiss their findings. You're lost in a delusional fantasy world and you can't tell the shyt from the shinola.Uh huh. Is this data by the same dishonest set of alleged scientists?What meteorologists present is called "weather".
Decades of weather is climate.
You remember what's happened after every winter storm? AGW unbelievers say it's proof that global warming is crap. AGW cultists say it's "weather" and doesn't count.
So the weather now doesn't count, either. You really can't have it both ways, no matter how desperately you try.
The trend within sea ice and arctic temperatures has been changing over the span of decades. That's climate.
Nope. Those guys, "the same dishonest set of alleged scientists", who you denier cult cretins like to quote, work for Exxon or Western Petroleum. This data regarding Arctic sea ice and temperature trends is from the real climate scientists. They're giving us the facts and, as we all know, facts are anathema to you deranged anti-science denier cult retards, so it is no wonder that you want to dismiss their findings. You're lost in a delusional fantasy world and you can't tell the shyt from the shinola.Uh huh. Is this data by the same dishonest set of alleged scientists?The trend within sea ice and arctic temperatures has been changing over the span of decades. That's climate.
Nope. Those guys, "the same dishonest set of alleged scientists", who you denier cult cretins like to quote, work for Exxon or Western Petroleum. This data regarding Arctic sea ice and temperature trends is from the real climate scientists. They're giving us the facts and, as we all know, facts are anathema to you deranged anti-science denier cult retards, so it is no wonder that you want to dismiss their findings. You're lost in a delusional fantasy world and you can't tell the shyt from the shinola.Uh huh. Is this data by the same dishonest set of alleged scientists?
Uh huh. The woman in your hour-plus video isn't a climate scientist.
