 amgumen says: the second was the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1200 AD, and most recently the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s, which we now know were warmer than the 1990s in North America despite what Al Gore says. As Marie Curie, a worthy winner of two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics said, “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.” Full story in the: Canada Free Press Full story in the: Canada Free Press Why would the arctic ice freeze so quickly? You claim to be a scientist, give us a physically based reason. As far as I can see, Kmcolo, you are not glad about the freezing, or maybe you do not believe in that fact. You still prefer to see Arctic melting. And as far as you can see, this clip is not about my claim to be a scientist. I spent more than 20 years of research in seismo-hydrogeodynamics and still do not know, for example, why earthquakes occur and no one can give the physically based reason. Climatologists, likewise, still do not know what governs the climate and glaciologists do not know why glaciers retreat or gain in mass again over time. And only GW-alarmists claim that they knows almost everything about the things to take some action immediately. Kmcolo, why not to be glad ab... i'm happy, and i do ..  This clip is also doing some manipulating in that it is not telling the whole story. It is the steady loss of perennial ice, ice that stays all year round, and is 10 ft or more thick that causes concern. when this ice disappears it is replaced with thinner seasonal ice that fluctuates more in it's area of coverage, and that is why you can get the impression that all is well because there is more ice than there was before, more? appears so yes, but wrong type. The perennial ice does not uniformly melt , at the moment it seems to be the east Arctic that suffers the most especially as some of the ice is pushed by winds into the western half which actually grew. Overall the loss of perennial ice has been between 6-8% per decade. amgumen, I'll take your reply as a rather lengthy "I don't know". My question was quite simple, yet you somehow try to turn it into some sort of attack on me and my beliefs and intentions. I would call it odd behavior but sadly it is not in this day and age and not for this subject. What is sad is to find someone who claims the mantel of science behaving most unscientifically and attempting to cover that behavior with rhetorical tricks. I shouldn't have to say this to a scientist but if you don't have a basic interest in understanding how a system works or behaves, why make any claim about it? It couldn't be for political reasons, could it? This clip is also doing some manipulating in that it is not telling the whole story.Yes, but show me the "whole story" elsewhere. The perrenial ice dynamics is subjected to long-term factors that are poor studied because of a very short period of observations (25-30 years).So the 6-8% decadal loss is most likely a transient varation within multi-decadal cycles. Based on the fragmentary data, maybe somebody defined already what "normal" mass of the ice cover should be? You claim to be a scientist, give us a physically based reasonKmcolo, was not it "some sort of attack on me"? Why should not I call it odd behavoir? The way you begun the discussion, casts a shade of doubt about your interest in the matter of the clip. Well you do claim to be a scientist, don't you? I have no other information other than that claim to go on. Now perhaps you could hazard a guess as to why the ice might be returning so quickly. And, as a scientist, you no doubt know that you cannot say that a) we don't know enough so therefore b) it is most likely a natural phenomenon. That is utterly ridiculous. What is utterly ridiculous is your logic. To my knowledge, freezing and melting in Arctic sea is not "most likely a natural phenomenon", but it is exactly a natural phenomenon. But, nevertheless, we do not know much about this natural phenomenon because of insufficient observation. The perrenial ice dynamics is subjected to long-term factors that are poor studied because of a very short period of observations (25-30 years).So the 6-8% decadal loss is most likely a transient varation within multi-decadal cycles. is not "most likely a natural phenomenon", but it is exactly a natural phenomenon.What is causing the unusual melting either cannot be determined (due to the system being poorly understood) or can be to some degree. If you say that we do not have enough knowledge to determine what is causing the melting you cannot then claim it is due to natural factors. We either know it (to some degree) or we don't. We can either say it is x a... If you say that we do not have enough knowledge to determine what isWell, Kmcolo, freezing and melting occurred (even up to full ice disappearance) in Arctic well before first hominid let out his first portion of poisoning CO2. I still claim that these processes are poor known. But it does not mean that I cannot claim they were due to natural factors. We can either say it is x amount natural and y amount human caused (all with uncertainty) or we can say we don't knowThen could you please say what is X and what is Y, based on the fact that nature puts 1,68*10e12 tons of water vapor ... I very much hope i am wrong, but is there not some underlying false assumption going on here? Science struggles all the time to overcome the limitations of its models (a basic part of the scientific enterprose). In particular, there is acknowledged difficulty in linking climate change to meteorological change. Except, obviously, the suggestion that meteorological change includes freezing temperatures as well as desertification. Yes, but show me the "whole story" elsewhereGo to National geographic or BBC science where you can get a much more balanced and i have to say increasingly rare approach to problems we face. Where you stand personally on the GW issue does not matter, but it just seems strange to use a clip to try and promote the idea of "manipulation of public perceptions" when it is clear, that that clip, set out to do exactly that. Go to National geographic or BBCI went there and spent a couple of days to find some solid science. Nothing. Only scaring foecasts about what our climate and ice cover should be in 20-50 years based on some speculative models with endless uncertainties. It is clear that the investigators study not the earth processes but the models itself. Kmcolo, I am still waiting. How much is X (natural) and how much is Y (homo sapiens-caused)? Happy New Year anyway. solid science.There is no solid science, just our best judgement on things past , present , and future, based on the information available to us. Nothing.No further comment on that... |
View the Top Clips from December 26, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
