Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?

bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Aug 17, 2:22 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don Klipstein d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:





In article <46C26978.7CCEB...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Most sea ice was never on land in the first place. Hence
won't ever
affect sea level. Check out the North Pole for example.

Perfectly true and quite irrelevant.

So why is there so green-inspiured much fuss over it ?

1. It is an indicator that there is goobal warming that will
do worse things in the future.

Why do you assume that a warming world has to be 'worse' ? I'm
enjoying the warmer winters in particular and it results in
reduced energy use too.

A warmer world will also have warmer summers. Thankfully,
winters
should warm more than summers in most parts of the world that
have both as far as I understand things.

Meanwhile, there is such a thing as people and regions that
have a worse
time with summers than with winters.

2. Replacing sea ice with sea increasesabsorption of
sunlight, so this is a positive feedback mechanism for global
warming.

The incident angle of sunlight at the poles means that this is
a minor effect.

If one merely neglects atmospheric absorption, incoming
radiation at the
poles exceeds peak at the equator about 70-72 days of the year
and average
at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. After what the
atmosphere does to incoming solar radiation, I surely expect
this to remain being significant.

Gee, neglecting one of the most important factors in evaluating
ground received energy flux does not sound like good science to
me.

He didn't neglect it, merely estimated that the somewhat longer
path length wasn't going to make enough difference to matter in
what was an essentially qualitative exposition.

If you were into science, rather than opinion-peddling, you might
have found a few numbers to substantiate your claim. As it is,
you've made it pretty obvious that you don't understand what good
science is about.

3. Loss of Arctic sea ice reduces habitibility of the area
in question for polar bears.

Oh dear. You mean we wiped out N thousand other species and now
we're supposed to get all sentimental over a few less polar
bears ?

I did make that last place of 3 points. Meanwhile, the polar
bear has
become the "flagship species harmed by global warming".

You are aware of the lies promulgated by Gore et al in this
respect I
hope ?

I am aware that Al Gore is a politician more than a
scientist. I have
yet to cite anything worth attributing to him.

The only interesting question is when the Antarctic and
Greenland ice caps are going to slide off into the sea.

A trypically deceptove green statement. The phrase suggests
that they're going to disappear.

As they will - eventually. Polar ice caps come and go over
geological periods.
The interesting question is when. and the speed of the glacial
flows is part of the evidence required to make an estimate.

They have - of course - been sliding off into the sea
pretty
much since they formed, but since we started measuring the
rate of ice- transport within the ice-cap the flow rates
have increased appreciably - more than enough to
compensate for any increase in snow-fall onto the tops of
the ice pack - see

So where are the figures showing that the ice mass grows too
?

<SNIP>

the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
(IPCC) downplayed the issue, forecasting that snow gathering
in the interior of Antarctica and Greenland would offset
faster melting around the edges.

That would change if manmade global warming progresses to
an
extent much beyond that of peak global temperatures of the
past interglacial periods.

Such certainty!

If you think that represents certainty, you need some time in
remedial English. "An extent much beyond" isn't all that specific.

<snip>

I actually believe that global warming is occurring, and will
continue for about one to two decades more. What I do not
believe is that human activities have anything to do with it.

An opinion that suits the people who extract and sell fossil
fuels.

It isn't exactly a belief that's grounded in reality - as
ill-iformed opinions go, it lies somewhere between believing the
earth is flat and believing that Saddam Hussien really did have
weapons of mass destruction.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

From your reply you obviously cannot distinguish what i had to say
from several other posters in the thread. If you had the memory to
check many of my other posts, you would find that i contested the
GWB allegation OF MWD and nukes from the beginning. Issues of near
spherical geometry are left to you the failed student.

PS th US dependency on foreign oil has annoyed me for decades.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... affect sea level. ... Check out the North Pole for example. ... enjoying the warmer winters in particular and it results in ... Greenland ice caps are going to slide off into the sea. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... I'm enjoying the warmer winters in particular and it ... at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. ... So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in ... may be roughly the same amount of incoming solar radiation, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Loading