Blackie....

Is there ever any ice in Texas other than your glass?

So Bob, when you don't know the answer you resort to ridicule? You may want to get your sign out again.

I'll wait till Larry responds before I answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H:

quote:

Originally posted by 82Blackbird:
Larry incorrectly stated;

quote:

Wind is only going to melt ice if it’s above 32 degrees

This is an absolute false statement!!!

Would you like to prove him wrong?

Did you miss this post blackie?

You opined Larry made a false statement, now it looks like you are running behind billy boy.

Prove him wrong or pour yourself another cold one.


Is there ice in Texas?

Wind will remove ice even in sub-zero temperatures by sublimation. It disappears without melting and very quickly in higher winds just ask any pilot who has survived airframe ice.

Maybe nitpicking Larry but still true.


Bob, here's your sign;

blackie, i posted that you prove Larry wrong and asked you if there is ice in Texas.

In between, i said to pour another cold one.

It is you that is stupid and nitpicking.


Yes, I agree, you are stupid.

You made more sense when you opined you were a Democrat.

Sublimation is not melting! Now is it blackbird? Or are you trying to redefine/conflate the meaning of melt and sublimation? Ahh, Apparently.

Sublimation might be a significant factor if the wind speed was 400 or 500 mph at an atmospheric pressure of oh say 20 kPa. Maybe you should check out a phase diagram. Should we also take into consideration purity of ice? Maybe salt content? Surface texture? Sure we can play all the games you would like. Ice does not "melt", i.e. the solid to liquid phase change, at normal atmospheric pressures,unless it's acted upon by temperature above about 32 degrees.

Once again, this has noting with the thesis of the paper under discussion. I don't remember any of the authors positing mechanisms involving sublimation as a significant factor in their discussions about anomalous wind patterns being predictive of SIE?

Maybe we should backup a step or two and re-think what the paper is ultimately saying as in;

"Based on a statistical analysis incorporating 925-hPa wind fields from the
NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses, it is shown that the combined effect of winter and summer
wind forcing accounts for 50% of the variance of the change in September Arctic sea ice
extent from one year to the next ( Δ SIE) and it also explains roughly 1/3 of the
downward linear trend of SIE over the past 31 years."

In particular the disbelievers in global warming and polar ice cap melting, have gone from saying poles are not melting, to OK we accept that the above statement is true. But see the bit about downward linear trend of SIE over the last 31 years, to trying to pick nits over how and why it's "IS" occurring, and has been, for the last 31 continuous years as of the date of publication of the paper we are using for the basis of discussions.

Can anyone even tell me where one might find "925-hPa wind fields"?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Heath:
Can anyone even tell me where one might find "925-hPa wind fields"?[/QUOTE

Didn't think so.

They are talking about wind patterns (fields) at an altitude of between roughly about 2100' and 2500' above the surface of the ice. This is about how high you need to go to reach a point where the air pressure is 925 kPa.

Pretty damn difficult to have winds in a 400' thick band, 2000+ feet above the ice causing sublimation of sea level ice. Seems I remember arctic polar sea ice is generally not more than about 10' thick, generally ice older than a couple years is thickest, maybe only 5' or 6' for first year ice, except along edges of land masses where it forms larger pressure ridges.

You want to get back with me on a mechanism to allow for this sublimation you seem to be suggesting to be occurring at surface level might happen, do to the winds 2000' feet above, Blackbird?

Larry, stop the bullSht, your credibility is fked up..

quote:

Originally posted by 78 Cutla$$:
Larry, stop the bullSht, your credibility is fked up..

Typical response from somebody that cannot provide any refutable evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by 78 Cutla$$:
Larry, stop the bullSht, your credibility is fked up..

Well well, the renowned Mexican hoe master is sticking his oar in the water, fancy that. Well you know what tardboy, I doubt you would even have a clue what bu11sh1t is if you walked out in a cow pasture and set down smack in the middle of a big old warm paddy, and, then had a bull sh1t right on your head. So I too have my doubts about anything you have to say as well.

There, now that we are done with the mutual invectives, I would be pleased if you could point out anything in the previous few statements of mine on polar sea ice that is incorrect. Once again, statements made by FUX News or the "twat" at the Daily Mail that thinks that talc and asbestos are the same thing, are not acceptable sources of evidence that I have misspoken. You will have to do a good bit better than that.

I eagerly await your response.

Surface winds are the only factor in sublimation not winds at 2000 ft. There is not ice at 2000 feet unless it is on an airframe then it will sublimate if there is no precipation.

From Grandma's link to Planet Earth;

"The article, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that half of the annual variation in sea ice seen each September can be attributed to changes in wind patterns, not merely global warming as has previously been theorized."

When jousting with little man larry you have to keep in mind little man is simply copy-pasting this bull shyt from whackado greenie and atheist sites and really doesn't have a clue!
little man is as big a puppet for these anti-American anti-religion cabals as "STONER BARRY" is for the forces pulling his strings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surface winds are the only factor in sublimation not winds at 2000 ft. There is not ice at 2000 feet unless it is on an airframe then it will sublimate if there is no precipation.

Wonderful, glad you got that all figured out. Surface winds have nothing to do with the article we are talking about, right? You are just nit picking and confusing the issue, right?

From Grandma’s link to Planet Earth; <<<<< I.E. Fux News, who led with this headline to the article in 24 point bold type,
“Winds, Not Warming, Leading to Arctic Ice Melt
FUXNews.com”

This is patently untrue, they, Fux, are trying to imply that the winds and not global warming leads to ice melt, the head line is disingenuous at best and given Fux’s history, possibly an outright lie on there part. The paper from which Fux seeks to bolster this headline says noting of the sort. As is typical they don't even give a proper link to their source material. I wonder why that could be?

”The article, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that half of the annual variation in sea ice seen each September can be attributed to changes in wind patterns, not merely global warming as has previously been theorized.”

Strange I found the article; normally scientific papers are not released to general circulation, prior to being published in a prestigious publication. In fact this one was accepted by GRL on the 25th of February, last month.

The above (mis) quote, it's not even really a quote, more of a poor paraphrase really, is also by Fux news, here again as I have previously posted is the whole quote from the paper, located at http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc...2009GL042356-pip.pdf which does not try to marginalize global warming by adding the "merely global warming" bit.

“Based on a statistical analysis incorporating 925-hPa wind fields from the
NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses, it is shown that the combined effect of winter and summer
wind forcing accounts for 50% of the variance of the change in September Arctic sea ice
extent from one year to the next ( Δ SIE) and it also explains roughly 1/3 of the
downward linear trend of SIE over the past 31 years.”

It means that half (50%) of the year to year VARIATION in the September SIE is do to anomalous wind patterns, not September SIE per year overall. Any one care to guess what might be causing these wind anomalies?

Go hear http://www.atmos.colostate.edu...s/Over2348-wfigs.pdf

Be forewarned this one is a bit tougher sledding than the last paper. Further, the wind patterns are thought to account for roughly, 1/3 of the total September SIE loss over a total of 31 years.

So where does the rest of the loss come from, that is right, warming, which FUX is diligently trying to obscure or explain away by any means at hand.

All said and done we are looking at one of many mechanisms, anomalous wind patterns, direction and speed, in this case, that disperse polar ice and decrease September SIE, one of the causes of said anomalous wind patterns, is warming at the 925 hPa atmospheric level.
All said and done, a single anomaly does not a complex system make.

Maybe, a little look at arctic melt season length might be edifying.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...TD/view.php?id=42456

PS Where is the beef BS Billy?

Trying to save the planet 'is a lot of nonsense'

Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".

And while renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on "good practical engineering".

Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'







Zell/Granny 2012

Send Your Thanks To the U.S.Military

Post a Message to our Soldiers

Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Grandma / Gpa,

"FUDGED DATA" is the quote I like most!
Couldn't bring himself to label it what it really is, totally fabricated data!!!!!!!!!!!!

March 31, 2010 - British Parliament Climategate investigation report

Apparently the “British Parliament Climategate investigation report” does not agree with the esteemed Dr. Lovelock, that the data was "fudged". If in deed Dr. Lovelock was speaking about Jones and UEA at all? Apparently BS Billy the highly esteemed F'wit and well known mental midget, would rather put words in the mouth of a man at 90, a man that likely has forgotten more than BS Billy knows now or will ever know if you lived two lifetimes. You might also notice that he does not disagree with Global Warming, he see it as a forgone conclusion. Is Dr. Lovelock a hoaxer, as well?

Oh, and by the way BS Billy, got anything for me on that Sea Level rise thing, or Spanish data on jobs relating to their wind power or how far under the index that U/S car of yours runs, or when you are going to collect the national record in it, or are you just going to keep spreading the Bu11sh1t, you ignorant twat. Run, Billy, run.

"The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.

We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticized for making informal comments on academic papers."...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2923...investigation-report

I suppose the British Parliament are a bunch of hoaxer too, or are they just part of the UN global cover-up conspiracy thingy, right BS Billy?

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Heath:
March 31,
I suppose the British Parliament are a bunch of hoaxer too, or are they just part of the UN global cover-up conspiracy thingy, right BS Billy?

The British government ruled that it was unlawful to force-feed the schlockumentary to school kids without giving a disclaimer, since an Act of Parliament prohibits the political indoctrination of children.
The British court cited nine major lies passed off as science in the Goracle's movie:

1. The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
2. The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
3. The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
4. The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
5. The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
6. The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
7. The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
8. The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
9. The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.


British government's global warming ads banned for false warning of extreme weather

banned for false warning







Zell/Granny 2012

Send Your Thanks To the U.S.Military

Post a Message to our Soldiers

Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

Oh no, look what happened!!!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heral...ing_before_your_eyes

How long before we see any mention of this in the left-wing main stream moron media?????????????????

The opponents of GW talk about manipulated data and then proceed to use a study from Goddard and NSIDC using data from NASA....... PRICELESS!!!!!!!

That is an Australian blog..... maybe you guys should ask them how their summer was.