| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5561
|
|
| Author |
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/irelan...winter-2011-12/31274.html
----------------------------------------http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/rss-amsu-jan-jul-2011-second-coldest-in.html Maybe these folks take on board a bigger more complex picture than 392 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere you claim dictates our climate n.b. only Cryosat-2 has the data on Sea Ice Volume producing it's first results this year http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEMAAW0T1PG_LPcryosat_0.html any other claim is just half informed intelligent guessing Not worried about the lack of data at all, just wondering how many more misdirected fools will put their lives in risk while claiming to highlight the "disappearing" arctic. Note to propagandists - this isn't working. It has quite the opposite effect. It makes it clear to those you were fooling that the polar ice cap has far from "disappeared" Those berries just might be right Dave  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Cryosat-2 1st pass is substantially wrong in case you missed. It reports 3 meters when in situ on ice 1.40 to 1.6 meters. What they've ATM shown is that they can determine differential there's variation at high resolution, the calibrations far from over. To example... take a melt pond on the ice that has an edge of 20cm high... then is that ice suddenly 1.9 meters thick?
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa1-2011-0812-033958.jpg If in one day 151,000 km^2 disappears of sea ice area, not extent, then how much volume do you think this represents, David Autumns? 9-Aug-2011 221 2011,6055 -1,7289697 3.7212470 million km^2 10-Aug-2011 243 2011,6083 -1,8477761 3.5697248 million km^2 A 6th grader can figure it out, that actually uses the brain s/he was given that if there's 3.56 million km left and the energy needed to let 151,000 vaporize, the rest might not be in such a fine dandy state either, or? As for Motl... why once don't you try to see if another new fav, long debunked, is talking from the wrong orifice? at Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/motley-cruel.html It's always same coming from the funpack these ''desperation'' claims... Bill Mayer does a good one on: Bill Mayer lays waste to Global Warming deniers Take the visors off and see, food for thought, you could be one of them to find out you've been gullivered, a very long time ago. --//-- |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Enjoy - from The Onion
---------------------------------------- Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Cent[re] Of Solar System http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-t...88/?utm_source=recentnews |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Now, why is that picture on the right not looking as good as the picture on the left... the more red/yellow/green/blue, the lower the sea ice concentration. 4 years since the 2007 record low, and it's still thinning:
 Don't they look familiar, or have they now nothing convenient to tell about that supposed recovery and global cooling? Here's another one from JAXA http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png Definitely recovery, not? Food for thought, and many actually do! --//-- |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Sek it's not 1.5m * 151km^2 is it
----------------------------------------If as you claim the ice that disappeared from one day to the next will be considerably thinner So how much volume would that be then Sek if a 6th Grader can work it out? Pray tell I'm all ears |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Sek it's not 1.5m * 151km^2 is it If as you claim the ice that disappeared from one day to the next will be considerably thinner So how much volume would that be then Sek if a 6th Grader can work it out? Pray tell I'm all ears You're smartening up, not... it's an indicator... how can 151,000 km square, not 151 km^2 go in just one day. So try this: Take the PIOMAS volume and calculate what the average ice thickness is. The 6th grader can do that too, and then draw and another learning point to build the picture. Hint: Thinness is not uniformly spread, but for every km^2 that's thicker, something else must be thinner... ready to melt out tomorrow, and the melt season is far from over. Let me know when you have figured this out. For hard of hearing ears. --//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 12, 2011 4:01:16 PM] |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
You see Sek you are not actually looking you are allowing your bias to show through to everyone who reads this thread
----------------------------------------We can see it You can't The area covered by the image on the right is greater and yes there's more red/yellow/green/blue because in 2011 it's not open Sea. This is quite apart from the fact that the spectral allocation has changed as has the image size and terrain shading You are not comparing apples with apples |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Sek it is not possible to work out it has to be measured in-situ
----------------------------------------The ice does not gracefully taper to the edge at a predefined gradient |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You see Sek you are not actually looking you are allowing your bias to show through to everyone who reads this thread We can see it You can't The area covered by the image on the right is greater and yes there's more red/yellow/green/blue because in 2011 it's not open Sea. This is quite apart from the fact that the spectral allocation has changed as has the image size and terrain shading You are not comparing apples with apples Carefully crafted argue points... they continue to nose-dive, David Authums... take the pictures and then match up the data: 10-Aug-2007 222 2007,6083 -1,7294308 3,6880701 9-Aug-2008 222 2008,6083 -1,4980150 3,8898089 10-Aug-2009 222 2009,6083 -1,0783485 4,3391523 10-Aug-2010 222 2010,6083 -1,3569711 4,0605297 10-Aug-2011 222 2011,6083 -1,8477761 3,5697248 Did we not explain before that if ice is thinner, it brakes up easier, wave action for instance, and it spreading out on the least wind, which is not unidirectional, then wind and wave-action amplifies melt, also share with you before. Did we not? Take an ice cube in a glass of water and let it sit. Take a second glass, same ice cube, same temp and stir that one continuously and take time to see which one melts out first. Game, Set and ... --//-- [Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Aug 12, 2011 4:14:36 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
So, David Autumns, what have we got: Less ice in 2011 than 2007 and equally spread out, you claim it's spread out wider, such as can be seen in this picture:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png It's tapering to the edge alright... I'm ready to call ''Match'' on this game... Choose something else you might be able to win. It is though food for thought why it's not getting through. --//-- |
||
|
|
|