Arctic ice TWICE as thick as expected.
09 May 2009, 11:56 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arctic ice TWICE as thick as expected.
For all the global warming alarmists...
Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists - Telegraph
Nobody listens to the real climate change experts - Telegraph
Kudos to The Daily Telegraph for publishing the above.
Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists - Telegraph
Nobody listens to the real climate change experts - Telegraph
Kudos to The Daily Telegraph for publishing the above.
10 May 2009, 07:48 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure Martin will bother, after all it was he that told be last year that the debate was over as far as climate change went.
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
10 May 2009, 08:53 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
10 May 2009, 09:30 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure Martin will bother, after all it was he that told be last year that the debate was over as far as climate change went.
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
The lack of sunspots is certainly becoming a matter for concern. I check the Sun's activity most days in relation to radio communications and there have been hardly any now in comparison to the normal numbers seen at the bottom of the solar sunspot cycle.
All they can really do if we are going into a Maunder Minimum is to act as they are already doing, by having changed the name to climate change, remain in denial, and say it is all our fault! A mini ice age would of course be blamed on global warming! Doublespeak reigns OK!
Les
Trending Topics
10 May 2009, 06:57 PM
#10
i dont agree or disagree with if climate change is real but i do disagree with the fact that we have to be taxed to death to solve it, i mean how do we know that the damage wasnt done during the industrial revolution and the planet is just being effected ?
i just dont think the amount of data they have is enough for them to tell us that we are killing a planet that is billons of years old using 50 years worth of data.
i just dont think the amount of data they have is enough for them to tell us that we are killing a planet that is billons of years old using 50 years worth of data.
Last edited by phil_wrx; 10 May 2009 at 06:59 PM.
10 May 2009, 08:23 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure Martin will bother, after all it was he that told be last year that the debate was over as far as climate change went.
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
Now, about the lack of solar activity we're currently experiencing and the possibility of a "little ice age". Anybody have an idea of how we can tax it?
10 May 2009, 08:58 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve
11 May 2009, 10:09 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I've bitten.
The highest you can vacuum water vertically is 10m. It's not the vacuum that pulls but rather the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water and filling the void in the tube that is under vacuum.
Industrial vacuum systems using condensing sprays have barometric legs in them that are longer than 10m in order to keep a liquid seal.
[Spinal Tap]However, the NASA one may go up to 11
[/Spinal Tap]
Steve
The highest you can vacuum water vertically is 10m. It's not the vacuum that pulls but rather the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water and filling the void in the tube that is under vacuum.
Industrial vacuum systems using condensing sprays have barometric legs in them that are longer than 10m in order to keep a liquid seal.
[Spinal Tap]However, the NASA one may go up to 11
[/Spinal Tap]Steve
12 May 2009, 11:16 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lest have all the tofu eating tree huggers who took that picture of 2 polar bears on a small peice of ice to mean were all gonna drown cos of global warming (thanks to al gore and his complete load of sensationalist bollocks "an inconvinient truth") saying: ok we were wrong, and the world isnt gonna end, and the polar ice caps arent melting, were sorry for trying to take away your cars and your aeroplanes and make you cycle to greece for your holidays, we will go away quietly now!
But they wont, cos they will still over zealuosly persue the green issue till we are all cycling everywhere, the fcuked up idiots!
But they wont, cos they will still over zealuosly persue the green issue till we are all cycling everywhere, the fcuked up idiots!
12 May 2009, 10:19 PM
#22
SPPI's authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for April 2009 reveals that:
(1) Unpredicted ocean cooling over the past five years disproves the theory that manmade "global warming" has a significant effect on the Earth's temperature. None of the IPCC's computer models had predicted ocean cooling. All had predicted ocean warming. They were wrong.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocea...ontentSPPI.JPG
(2) Rapid surface atmospheric cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, has now continued for seven and a half years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/8YearCoolongSPPI.JPG
(3) The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100. However, for seven years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC's temperature projections.
(4) Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 F (1.5 C) per century, not the 7 F (3.9 C) the IPCC imagines. For 600 million years there has been no correlation between CO2 concentration and the Earth's temperature.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2600millionSPPI.jpg
(5) Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 foot/century since 1993. Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has scarcely risen since the beginning of 2006.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SealevelSPPI.JPG
(6) Sea ice extent in the Arctic is above the 30-year average, and has set a nine-year record high. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007, and is now the third-highest in 30 years. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years.
(7) The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 2-year running monthly sum of activity in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. It shows that there is now less severe tropical-storm activity than at any time in 30 years.
(8) Solar activity is at a 100-year record low. We may be facing a 70-year Maunder Minimum - extreme cooling.
(9) Science Focus this month studies "data revisionism" - how scientific results are bent to promote false alarmism.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RevisionismSPPI.jpg
(1) Unpredicted ocean cooling over the past five years disproves the theory that manmade "global warming" has a significant effect on the Earth's temperature. None of the IPCC's computer models had predicted ocean cooling. All had predicted ocean warming. They were wrong.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ocea...ontentSPPI.JPG
(2) Rapid surface atmospheric cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, has now continued for seven and a half years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/8YearCoolongSPPI.JPG
(3) The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100. However, for seven years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC's temperature projections.
(4) Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 F (1.5 C) per century, not the 7 F (3.9 C) the IPCC imagines. For 600 million years there has been no correlation between CO2 concentration and the Earth's temperature.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2600millionSPPI.jpg
(5) Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 foot/century since 1993. Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has scarcely risen since the beginning of 2006.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SealevelSPPI.JPG
(6) Sea ice extent in the Arctic is above the 30-year average, and has set a nine-year record high. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high in 2007, and is now the third-highest in 30 years. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years.
(7) The Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index is a 2-year running monthly sum of activity in all hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. It shows that there is now less severe tropical-storm activity than at any time in 30 years.
(8) Solar activity is at a 100-year record low. We may be facing a 70-year Maunder Minimum - extreme cooling.
(9) Science Focus this month studies "data revisionism" - how scientific results are bent to promote false alarmism.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RevisionismSPPI.jpg
13 May 2009, 01:06 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the above, Jon.
That's a brilliant site - Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home
Any doomsayers can read it and weep.
Have a look, Martin.
Incidentally you don't happen to work, for the BBC do you?
That's a brilliant site - Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home
Any doomsayers can read it and weep.
Have a look, Martin.
Incidentally you don't happen to work, for the BBC do you?
Last edited by 22BUK; 13 May 2009 at 04:59 AM.
13 May 2009, 06:22 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the Catlin expidition. Ill conceived, ill prepared. You, of course, know what business Catlin is into? Insurance.
The UK had it's coldest winter in 30 or more years. The SH summer was cooler than last year, our autumn is proving to be cooler too. Camden, a western Sydney suburb, reached 4c yesterday morning, 5c below "average". Cenral Sydney recorded 9c, the coldest start to a day since last spring. Record snow falls in the Snowy mountains, ski season starts 6-8 weeks earlier than last year here in Australia and in New Zealand. Here in Australia we've the best early snow falls and start to the ski season in 57 years and to top it all off...snow falls in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia in May after record snow and cold in January.
But as Al Gore says, the debate is over and yet our Sun get's quieter and quieter as each day passes.
An interesting site, scientists included.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The UK had it's coldest winter in 30 or more years. The SH summer was cooler than last year, our autumn is proving to be cooler too. Camden, a western Sydney suburb, reached 4c yesterday morning, 5c below "average". Cenral Sydney recorded 9c, the coldest start to a day since last spring. Record snow falls in the Snowy mountains, ski season starts 6-8 weeks earlier than last year here in Australia and in New Zealand. Here in Australia we've the best early snow falls and start to the ski season in 57 years and to top it all off...snow falls in Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia in May after record snow and cold in January.
But as Al Gore says, the debate is over and yet our Sun get's quieter and quieter as each day passes.
An interesting site, scientists included.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Last edited by Klaatu; 13 May 2009 at 06:23 AM.
13 May 2009, 11:27 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder just how good that sunspot number prediction will be. I have seen only one day with 12 sunspots reported in the last two months, and they were only there for one day!
Radio communications are certainly suffering. Wonder how our summer weather will turn out this time in relation to what they have forecast.
Les
Radio communications are certainly suffering. Wonder how our summer weather will turn out this time in relation to what they have forecast.
Les
13 May 2009, 12:22 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 2,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I've bitten.
The highest you can vacuum water vertically is 10m. It's not the vacuum that pulls but rather the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water and filling the void in the tube that is under vacuum.
Industrial vacuum systems using condensing sprays have barometric legs in them that are longer than 10m in order to keep a liquid seal.
[Spinal Tap]However, the NASA one may go up to 11[/Spinal Tap]
Steve
The highest you can vacuum water vertically is 10m. It's not the vacuum that pulls but rather the atmospheric pressure pushing down on the water and filling the void in the tube that is under vacuum.
Industrial vacuum systems using condensing sprays have barometric legs in them that are longer than 10m in order to keep a liquid seal.
[Spinal Tap]However, the NASA one may go up to 11
[/Spinal Tap]Steve
13 May 2009, 06:45 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That right.
P=Density x Acceleration due to gravity x liquid head
Head is the vertical distance or a theoretical column of water.
Rearranging the formula gives:-
Height = Pressure /(Density x accel. due to gravity
Using round figures:-
Atmospheric pressure = 100 kPa=100 000Nm^2
Density of water = 1000kg/m^3
Accel due to gravity = 10m/s^2
Height=100000/1000x10
Height= 10m
Pressure is atmospheric pressure as when you suck through a hose, all you are doing is removing the air from inside that hose. The atmospheric pressure then forces the water up the hose to take the space of the sucked out air. Therefore the max height is limited by atmospheric pressure.
Steve
P=Density x Acceleration due to gravity x liquid head
Head is the vertical distance or a theoretical column of water.
Rearranging the formula gives:-
Height = Pressure /(Density x accel. due to gravity
Using round figures:-
Atmospheric pressure = 100 kPa=100 000Nm^2
Density of water = 1000kg/m^3
Accel due to gravity = 10m/s^2
Height=100000/1000x10
Height= 10m
Pressure is atmospheric pressure as when you suck through a hose, all you are doing is removing the air from inside that hose. The atmospheric pressure then forces the water up the hose to take the space of the sucked out air. Therefore the max height is limited by atmospheric pressure.
Steve
13 May 2009, 06:51 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet we have this BBC report which says the opposite.........
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | New warning over Arctic ice-cap
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | New warning over Arctic ice-cap
13 May 2009, 06:52 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the above, Jon.
That's a brilliant site - Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home
Any doomsayers can read it and weep.
Have a look, Martin.
Incidentally you don't happen to work, for the BBC do you?
That's a brilliant site - Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home
Any doomsayers can read it and weep.
Have a look, Martin.
Incidentally you don't happen to work, for the BBC do you?
For the sake of the hard of reading, I have an open mind on this issue, where the likes of you and I differ is that I'm not prepared to close my mind to one side of the debate
Why would I work for the BBC, I don't understand, maybe that comment says more about your views than mine?