Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Poor ol' Bi-Polar. Now he knows everybodies work schedule. Must be a hell of a hacker to find out all of that.

The dumb ass doesn't seem to realize that to cover a 24/7 operation you have people working very non-standard schedules.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?

 

[Avorysuds]

I listened to some guys that write books about global warming on NPR... I went into it with an open mind as this is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to but I can say now that it is 100% junk science.

 

[polarbear]

Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?

So why don`t you show us how you can calculate from the "Freeboard" the ice thickness on a terrain that looks like that:

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

 

[polarbear]

What`s taking You so long to answer a simple question so long. I left my PC parked on this web page went outside cut the front lawn and You still can`t answer if the level in the pool gos up or down. All you need to know is Archimedes to answer it.
You are even more retarded than that cat:

So think twice before you try fuck around with me and all you got are idiotic left-wing-shit-for-brains "smart" remarks

 

[RollingThunder]

An explanation of Cryosat for the scientifically challenged among us.

BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice

Which is the category that describes you best.
Is that supposed to be a response to :
That the conventional satellites can only measure the surface ice but are not able to measure ice thickness...
Even the "scientifically" challenged should at least be able to read (in English) that BBC article and realize:
BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice
That this is exactly what the article I quoted said...that conventional satellites can`t measure ice thickness...only the ice above the waterline...!!!....and not the rest. Are you that "challenged" that you don`t know the meaning of "Average ice thickness about 2.5 meters"...???...and that was "determined" by drilling a few holes and not by satellite:

Oh PoopBrain, you are such a demented retard. Cryosat is not a "conventional satellite". It was specifically designed to measure ice thickness.

Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

Published 13 August 2012
(excerpts)

Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps. Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year. This rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by polar scientists and suggests that global warming, triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions, is beginning to have a major impact on the region. In a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes.

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time. For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six metres in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three metres. "Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected," said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analysed. "Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water."

The consequences of losing the Arctic's ice coverage, even for only part of the year, could be profound. Without the cap's white brilliance to reflect sunlight back into space, the region will heat up even more than at present. As a result, ocean temperatures will rise and methane deposits on the ocean floor could melt, evaporate and bubble into the atmosphere. Scientists have recently reported evidence that methane plumes are now appearing in many areas. Methane is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas and rising levels of it in the atmosphere are only likely to accelerate global warming. And with the disappearance of sea ice around the shores of Greenland, its glaciers could melt faster and raise sea levels even more rapidly than at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

I listened to some guys that write books about global warming on NPR... I went into it with an open mind as this is not an issue I pay a lot of attention to but I can say now that it is 100% junk science.

So, you listened to some guys on the radio, no names stated, vague subject stated as global warming, and decide it is all junk science? Ever hear of research? Using valid sources for that research? Do you understand what peer reviewed scientific journals are?

AGW Observer

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.

 

[ScienceRocks]

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.

Warmer arctic=northward jet stream as the pressure gradient isn't as sharp between the pole and the equator. Did you see that 960's arctic ocean storm? That wouldn't have occurred 40 years ago the way it did.

A nor'easter a like storm.

Weather patterns charge on a planet that's warmer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.

Warmer arctic=northward jet stream as the pressure gradient isn't as sharp between the pole and the equator. Did you see that 960's arctic ocean storm? That wouldn't have occurred 40 years ago the way it did.

A nor'easter a like storm.

Weather patterns charge on a planet that's warmer.

Uh, and that's because CO2 went from 360ppm to 370?

Are you sure?

 

[tjvh]

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.

I'm so glad I only smoke indoors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you Warmers are wrong and outright lying about "Ocean acidification", "dirty laundry", "Mike's nature trick", and "hide the decline", it's impossible to take your stupid "20PPM of CO2 is melting the polar ice caps" theory seriously

 

[ScienceRocks]

When you Warmers are wrong and outright lying about "Ocean acidification", "dirty laundry", "Mike's nature trick", and "hide the decline", it's impossible to take your stupid "20PPM of CO2 is melting the polar ice caps" theory seriously

According to a recent post by Stu Ostro, The 500 mb heights with the deep Arctic cyclone tied the record for
lowest Northern hemisphere 500 mb heights during this time of year.

Recent #Arctic #cyclone http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78808 had 500 mb hts which tied for record lowest at this time of year

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Yep, as it no longer matters the wind direction as much as the fact it is just being moved. To thin.

 

[polarbear]

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.

Isn`t that typical..!!!
This morning you wrote:

The arctic cyclone spread the ice out for a couple of days, now it is melting even more rapidly.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

And now you say:"Yes, and an Arctic storm that should have actually decreased the melt, increased it"
How about this one:

Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?

Hey it`s after 21:00 and you still can`t even answer:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5820613-post164.html

"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

What`s the matter? Can`t your friends who chimed in to bury that with almost 2 new pages help you answer that..?
I guess not! But the chief retard in your "friend circle" said I believe it was 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.
Anyway I`m still waiting for you to tell me how Archimedes can help you with this problem...:

That`s when you who is a self proclaimed expert and not "scientifically challenged" said:

Note the referance to freeboard, you retarded ass? Ever hear the name Archimedes?

Then I said:

With a surface like that...
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

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.".

So, according to Archimedes does the level in the basin go up or down if you throw a rock overboard.??????

Can`t find it with Google..? Or are you still waiting for somebody to post it on "Yahoo best Answer"...
I`ll check again tomorrow maybe you found somebody by then who "has heard of Archimedes"

 

[Liability]

In a related vein:

I hadn't imbibed this week. But I had a lousy day so I decided to suck down a small scotch.

Not even two fingers and three medium size ice cubs.

Well, I kid you not: Those ice cubes HAVE been MELTING!






I blame Booooooosh!

 

[Liability]

CO2 causes forest fires.

Old Rocks said so.

Warmer arctic=northward jet stream as the pressure gradient isn't as sharp between the pole and the equator. Did you see that 960's arctic ocean storm? That wouldn't have occurred 40 years ago the way it did.

A nor'easter a like storm.

Weather patterns charge on a planet that's warmer.

Uh, and that's because CO2 went from 360ppm to 370?

Are you sure?

It sounds small when you put it like that.


But when you REALLY examine it,


you bust out laughing and say, "Shit. That really IS fucking small."

 

[RollingThunder]

...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.

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.....

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.)

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?

Good physics question but kind of tricky to answer with precision with just the info you've given, I'd say.

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.

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.".

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.....


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.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ray...........I do believe you've been pwned by Polar with this Archimedes Puzzle here...........

Interesting..........in terms of the science, its the most compelling case for proving that the alarmist case is just highly ideological.........a blind acceptance of anything and everything pushed by the IPCC and the Royal Society.


weak