Death knell for AGW

mt_pockets1000
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Do you seriously think the Earth stays in a perfect orbit around the Sun and the Sun doesn't have it's own orbit in which disturbs our overall long term orbit? You have to think further in time then just a couple of centuries to understand what I'm trying to explain to you.

Seems you're not alone in your opinions Praxius.

Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change (Updated)

By Noah Shachtman June 03, 2008 | 1:46:00 PMCategories: Science!


The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not entirely man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted.


http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/0...vs-global.html
 
#juan
#32
The causes of global warming.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm
 
Scott Free
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about........or you are blind, or stupid.....or both.

I'm not the one having trouble with this very simple logic. The Earth, Mars and Jupiter are all warming up. I am not so stupid that I think we are the reason. If you can explain how my carbon emissions are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter then I will concede you have a point.
 
Tonington
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

You know another thing that crossed my mind on this whole stupid debate of nothing, is that the Entire Global Warming Theory and their evidence is all based on information that only goes back to about 100 years or since the Indurstrial revolution.... where as the other side of the argument which claims this is a natural occuring pattern on the planet and through time which refutes every damn thing that Global Warming represents, is based on much longer time patterns which go beyond 100 years, using Glacier Ice Core data that dates back for thousands of years, which shows more accurate scientific proof that this is a natural occurence that the tempratures will increase and decrease throughout time (Regardless of if we're industrialized or still beating sticks on rocks)

So, now the strength of empirical evidence is dependent on time passed since the discovery of heat trapping molecules? Just because something changes, and we now measure it changing, doesn't mean that the cause is the same. You're conflating cause with effect.

Seriously, that's about as logical as saying: humans have died in the past, so I guess those three bullets in Frank's skull were placed there through natural causes, cause he's dead now too!

Quote:

Eaxctly which side holds the most evidence proving their case? Certainly not Global Warming, that's for damn sure.... it's a farce and is based on limited data.

How would you know? Everything I've heard you repeat here is media swill. Have you ever even read a published paper? Limited data like: ice cores, isotope ratios, changes in growing season, acidification of the oceans, GRACE ice mass satellite recordings, satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures, satellites measuring optical depths of molecules in the atmosphere, decreasing difference between day time and night time temperatures(a greenhouse gas can still emit heat after the sun has dipped below the horizon), species moving farther north to remain in their survivable climate zones, receding glaciers, atmospheric concentrations of gases, nutrient cycle data, and my personal favourite, greenhouse gases rising before temperature, not responding to temperature (hmm, that's not right if we trust ice cores and are trying to call this change the same thing as those in the past 650 kyrs...)

Quote:

Let's look at the two shall we?

Here's the Global Warming's side of the argument:

^ Oh my Goodness.... We're all going to die!!! UBER and all that!!!! Geez... it just keeps on climbing and climbing with no end in site..... EVIL!!!!

Oh but wait.... let's look at an Ice Core shall we:


^ WOW!!!! Look at that!! There's a continual pattern above of the tempratures going up and then going back down, like a heartbeat on the planet and right now we're going up.... and shortly after, we're going to go right down real fast and we're going to freeze our nads off.

So where were all the Evil SUV's back 225,000 years ago to cause the tempratures to rise like that?

Hmmmmm..... Maybe the GW Freaks are just full of Ignorant Sh*t!

Look at that, you hauled it out! If that natural graph tells you that a steady rise in greenhouse gases, follows a steady rise in temperature that began 800-1200 years earlier(which is how natural climate change usually works), how does that compute with our last 800-1200 years of sporadic jumps and falls? That's not at all steady. The two are at odds. Not the same. That single cause can't have two different effects on the same observation. So maybe it's two different kinds of natural climate change then? Well, none of this tripe that pops up saying global warming is garbage, has actually been able to make conclusions and then make predictions. That's what science does. That's why "skeptics" is a loose term, and the term "denier" popped up. Explain to me how all of these things are happening, known consequences of radiative physics, but somehow it's something else. Some phantom physics that not only has to explain them, but at the same time nullify any effects at all from greenhouse gases.

You're right, they didn't have SUV's back then, possible solution to the paradox perhaps?

Nahhhhhh. Those three bullets must have fell in when his mouth was open. Brainless...
 
#juan
#35
Those two graphs do not disagree with each other. Look at the time scales and look where the temperature ends up on the right side of both graphs.
 
Zzarchov
#36



Kindly look at that chart you posted will you?

You see how its in a scale of thousands upon thousands of years?


And how that very last section of the chart, literally the width of the line, is a giant red spike higher than the earty has ever experienced in 400,000 years?

Do you also notice how rise in CO2 causes a proportionally greater change in temperature? The red line goes up, the blue line remains in the same pattern.

So if there is a greater change in the last hundred years than there has been in the last 400,000 thousand, and the the temperature pattern you have shown in history follows history, the temperature is going to spike above anothing seen in the 400,000 years, in the most rapid change ever.


That chart is showing changes in 25,000 year periods (or chunks of roughly 6 x human history), changes in 100 years are happening 2500% too fast.
All since the industrial revolution.
 
MikeyDB
#37
Well all this stuff sure is a poser....

Food riots and water riots , nuclear war and comets screaming out of the sky impacting earth will ruin your day.

Some will survive and some won't.

And thus it has always been......
 
#juan
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post




Kindly look at that chart you posted will you?

You see how its in a scale of thousands upon thousands of years?


And how that very last section of the chart, literally the width of the line, is a giant red spike higher than the earty has ever experienced in 400,000 years?

Do you also notice how rise in CO2 causes a proportionally greater change in temperature? The red line goes up, the blue line remains in the same pattern.

So if there is a greater change in the last hundred years than there has been in the last 400,000 thousand, and the the temperature pattern you have shown in history follows history, the temperature is going to spike above anothing seen in the 400,000 years, in the most rapid change ever.


That chart is showing changes in 25,000 year periods (or chunks of roughly 6 x human history), changes in 100 years are happening 2500% too fast.
All since the industrial revolution.

Nice catch Zzarchov
 
Praxius
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Nice catch Zzarchov

Bout time someone took a look and noticed that....

Notice how the CO2 level spikes over the Tempratures and that the tempratures don't seem to increase on par with the CO2 as it has in the previous spikes? One would conclude that the CO2/Greenhouse gas levels don't nessicarily link to the tempratures in effect, or to the level in which the GW side likes to think.

But I also found it funny that out of the three graphs I presented, you pick the one that appeared to support your claims, yet avoid the other two such as this one:



^ Where this graph which appears to be more accurate then the one you picked, shows it looking normal compared to the rest of the spikes. And the line thins out the farther back you go, due to less accurate readings from the ice core, but there is enough information to provide a moderate determination of those spikes based on given information..... the closer you come to our current time, the more accurate the spikes become, and thus appear more erradic in comparison. And if the CO2 Levels were supposed to be on par with the tempratures in the graph you chose, then why isn't the tempratures which are shown thrown way off the top of the graph? This also explains the reasoning why many countries, such as Canada didn't follow the Kyoto BS, because Kyoto doesn't actually solve the problem even if there is one.

You guys need to learn how to read these things.
Last edited by Praxius; Jun 6th, 2008 at 12:03 PM..
 
#juan
#40
Praxius if half an inch is fifty thousand years, 2 hundred years would be one two hundred and fiftieth part of that half inch, so that graph is totally unsuitable for our purposes. I've quit trying to convince you what is obvious to most other people in the world already; Global warming is happening! It may not all be the fault of man but it is definitely happening.
 
Scott Free
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

It may not all be the fault of man but it is definitely happening.

I remember when this GW stuff started. Scientists discovered that green house gases were the cause of high temperatures on Venus. Some speculated that temperatures on Earth could be affected by the same gases. Someone got a grant and boom here we are.

The point is that the concept of GW wasn't even born here and didn't have anything to do with Earth. Some scientist went for a grant and built on an established theory. Science is very vulnerable to this kind of folly - it really is a culture of following the guy with the longest beard.

Earth is not Venus and the fact that two other planets are also heating up means GW for Earth is false. Maybe not entirely but definitely mostly. The model is sound (for Venus) but the danger isn't (for Earth). This is where the idea that the Earth could be destroyed came from originally. Scientists were postulating a what if scenario of Venus conditions on Earth.

Our emissions here on Earth are no where near bad enough to turn us into Venus and never will be because of anything people do.

The whole planet is in this mess simply because some scientist somewhere wanted a grant to do a study and a US politician with a partisan agenda decided to panic the world.
Last edited by Scott Free; Jun 6th, 2008 at 05:31 PM..
 
Praxius
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Praxius if half an inch is fifty thousand years, 2 hundred years would be one two hundred and fiftieth part of that half inch, so that graph is totally unsuitable for our purposes. I've quit trying to convince you what is obvious to most other people in the world already; Global warming is happening! It may not all be the fault of man but it is definitely happening.

Well you go right ahead and keep thinking it's happening, I'll continue my way of life the way I see fit..... if you drown in the oceans because of my ways, then I guess I owe you a coke.
 
Tonington
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

But I also found it funny that out of the three graphs I presented, you pick the one that appeared to support your claims, yet avoid the other two such as this one:



^ Where this graph which appears to be more accurate then the one you picked, shows it looking normal compared to the rest of the spikes. And the line thins out the farther back you go, due to less accurate readings from the ice core, but there is enough information to provide a moderate determination of those spikes based on given information..... the closer you come to our current time, the more accurate the spikes become, and thus appear more erradic in comparison. And if the CO2 Levels were supposed to be on par with the tempratures in the graph you chose, then why isn't the tempratures which are shown thrown way off the top of the graph? This also explains the reasoning why many countries, such as Canada didn't follow the Kyoto BS, because Kyoto doesn't actually solve the problem even if there is one.

You guys need to learn how to read these things.

I don't really like either of them.

They may be different graphs, but it's the same kind of data , or rather the graph Zzarchov used was all of the Antarctica samples, not only the Vostok core samples, so in fact it's a better set of data.

Do you understand how the graphic presentation choices, change the image enough to highlight a particular trend, or make one disappear? Specifically take notice in your graph. That's data taken from 1999. What's the ceiling on that graph for carbon dioxide? 300 ppm. What's the atmospheric concentration for CO2 available at the time of that research, in 1999? At it's lowest it was 364.6 ppm. Again, that's the problem with only showing one ice core sample, which is the same thing as using one monitoring station. Wouldn't make much sense if we measured the global average temperature (for instance) in the middle of a concrete tennis court in Libya, would it?

As to why the temperatures aren't thrown off the graph, this is similar to the first problem in that it's sloppy as hell. There is a reason scientists tend to be both **** and pedantic with some things in their life. Their job to a large extent depends on it. What would you call the zero point in the graph? If you're presenting CO2 and temperature, you should properly scale the graph to a zero point, or in other words, the graphs if they are to be compared, should have similar scales that are realistic. Do you think it makes sense to follow that a 20 ppm increase in CO2 or even 30 is similar in scale to an increase of 2°C? I should hope not. That would mean an unbelievable 6.5°C increase since 1958.

See how scale fools your eye and graphic presentation can be misleading? That's why I think both graphs suck.
 
#juan
#44
Myths about global warming:

http://tinyurl.com/ouf5c
 
CDNBear
#45
Can I get ice for anyones Koolaid?
 
coldstream
#46
Frankly i'm relieved that the anti-global warming movement has so much vitality, given the disgraceful collapse of media, government and the scientific establishment to what is an obvious FRAUD. In fact its growing and for good reason. Some of the developments in the last few months

1. NASA has found that there is NO evidence that ocean temperatures are rising, in a space based survey, as the lies of the GW conspiracy contend.

2. There is no sustained retreat of glaciers or the ice shelves worldwide.. and especially in the in Antarctic where the GW was SUPPOSED to be most pronounced. They are now, as they always have been, ebbing and flowing due to local conditions.

3. We have had the coldest winter and spring in the Northern Hemisphere in decades. In fact this is likely the first of an extended period of cooling due to predictable waning of solar radiation, the primary engine of the climate, in a predictable and normal cycle.

4. Geological evidence shows conclusively that carbon peaks in the atmosphere have happened AFTER warming periods throughout the eons.. ulterly destroying the entire premis of the GW climate models... that these form 'greenhouse gases'. These models are ALL they have.

The evidence now is that the Southern Hemisphere has been cooling for 20 years and the Northern hemisphere is now starting a cooling phase that could last decades. The big money in speculative capital now supports GW because it offers HUGE profit potential in forming an artificial scarcity in carbon fuels, and an international casino for the trading of carbon credits. The GW is now run by people who throw out nonsense charts and graphs to blind an accepting public with bogus science. Recently the GW 'industry' has been trying to cover their bases by saying the GW might go in a period of 'dormancy'.. but all of their science still holds, even though within the last year they were claiming it was accelerating. The hope for the world has now is that these con artists and fear mongerers cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time.

The GW lobby cares nothing for the vast impoverishment and distress their proposed solutions will impose. They worship an idol of a pristine earth to whom humanity is an alien and invasive predator. They are completely shameless.. and i think.. disgusting.
Last edited by coldstream; Jun 7th, 2008 at 01:08 PM..
 
#juan
#47
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
Last edited by #juan; Jun 7th, 2008 at 02:41 PM..
 
CDNBear
+1
#48
Don't you need the whole Scientific community to agree, before you can say you have a consensus?

Oh ya, the dissenters are all shills...
 
#juan
#49
Quote:

2. There is no sustained retreat of glaciers or the ice shelves worldwide.. and especially in the in Antarctic where the GW was SUPPOSED to be most pronounced. They are now, as they always have been, ebbing and flowing due to local conditions.

http://tinyurl.com/mbk2l

http://tinyurl.com/6kjfx8
 
#juan
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I'm not the one having trouble with this very simple logic. The Earth, Mars and Jupiter are all warming up. I am not so stupid that I think we are the reason. If you can explain how my carbon emissions are causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter then I will concede you have a point.

You ignoramus. Jupiter has always given off almost twice as much heat as it gets from the sun, as does Saturn.
Mars has almost no atmosphere (about one percent of earth's) A good part of any heating on Mars comes from the distribution of dust on the surface that absorbs light from the sun.

.
 
Scott Free
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

You ignoramus. Jupiter has always given off almost twice as much heat as it gets from the sun, as does Saturn.
Mars has almost no atmosphere (about one percent of earth's) A good part of any heating on Mars comes from the distribution of dust on the surface that absorbs light from the sun.

.

So what?
 
Tonington
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

So what?

So, tell us how Martian dust is increasing temperatures here on this planet. If you can tell us that, then maybe try to explain some of the observed phenomena that has accompanied our changing climate.
 
Zzarchov
#53
Scott Free, while you MAY be right, the logic you are using is faulty.


If my house is warming up and my neighbours house is warming up, and he's not using a gas furnace but I am. Does that mean my house isn't affect by the gas furnace I have running?

So if my planet is warming up and the neighbouring planet is warming up, does the fact that they don't have industrialization on Mars mean Industrialization isn't affecting Earth?

Quite frankly we know man affects climates, cities alone are warmer than the surrounding area by absorbing and retaining more heat in concrete and ashphalt.
 
Scott Free
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Scott Free, while you MAY be right, the logic you are using is faulty.


If my house is warming up and my neighbours house is warming up, and he's not using a gas furnace but I am. Does that mean my house isn't affect by the gas furnace I have running?

So if my planet is warming up and the neighbouring planet is warming up, does the fact that they don't have industrialization on Mars mean Industrialization isn't affecting Earth?

I don't think so:

Planets all have the same furnace: the sun. Planets differ by atmosphere not by furnace. So if the temperature is rising on all the planets then obviously the increase has to do with the furnace (source of heat, the sun). Since planets all have different atmospheres it is extremely unlikely and utterly improbable that many planets would all experience warming due to new planetary conditions; even if all the planets were suffering from global warming (which seems probable from the evidence) the reason could not be (nearly zero probability) that all their atmospheres are simultaneously changing to capture more heat. The planets are warming up because of another factor; a factor that they all share in common; like the sun, proximity to it or some other as yet unknown factor. It isn't because of our carbon emissions - it just isn't. Carbon emissions from pollution are an isolated atmospheric condition of earth and not a condition shared by all the planets.
 
Scott Free
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, tell us how Martian dust is increasing temperatures here on this planet. If you can tell us that, then maybe try to explain some of the observed phenomena that has accompanied our changing climate.

That is your argument not mine. Mars, Jupiter, Earth and some moons have been observed to be warming up. There must be a commonality between them that can account for this. Carbon emissions from pollution is not common to all the planets, therefore, it can not be the reason.

I'll make your case for you if you want me to re frame this issue for you (as your post indicates):

While global warming isn't being caused by pollution (because saying that would be stupid) cutting down on our carbon emissions may help slowdown whatever process seems to be warming us up; since carbon in the atmosphere does indeed trap heat; as observations of Venus have shown. While a warmer planet isn't in itself a problem it will be a problem for many communities of people who may not have the resources necessary to react to these changes therefore reducing green house gas emissions will help those people.

While this argument is more truthful than the GW propaganda being forced on people it is still very problematic. We don't really know that reducing green house gases will slow the GW process because we still don't know what that process is.
Last edited by Scott Free; Jun 10th, 2008 at 01:58 AM..
 
Zzarchov
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

That is your argument not mine. Mars, Jupiter, Earth and some moons have been observed to be warming up. There must be a commonality between them that can account for this. Carbon emissions from pollution is not common to all the planets, therefore, it can not be the reason.
.

That is faulty logic.

If three things have the same change, that does not mean they have the same effect.

If I have three metal spoons, and each one is heating, one could be on a stove, one could be in a fire and one could be in direct arizona sunlight.

It is a logical fallacy what you are suggesting.
 
Scott Free
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

That is faulty logic.

If three things have the same change, that does not mean they have the same effect.

If I have three metal spoons, and each one is heating, one could be on a stove, one could be in a fire and one could be in direct arizona sunlight.

It is a logical fallacy what you are suggesting.

lmao!
 
Walter
#58
Cold Irony: Arctic Sea Ice Traps Climate Tour Icebreaker

27 05 2008
Stuck in the arctic ice that doesn’t exist. (file photo: EcoPhotoExplorers)
Last year as arctic sea ice melted to record levels, panic set in for many. But then, as the sea ice rebounded and froze again quickly in the 2007/2008 winter, making up for that record loss and reaching heights not seen for several years, many exclaimed that even though the ice areal extent had recovered, this new ice was “thin” and would likely melt again quickly. There were also many news stories about how the Northwest Passage was ice free for the first time “ever”. For example, Backpacker Magazine ran a story saying “The ice is so low that the photos clearly show a viable northwest passage sea route along the coasts of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska.”
Cashing in on the panic that has set in with the help of some climate alarmists, tour operators like Quark Expeditions of Norwalk Connecticut are offering polar expeditions catering to that “see it before it’s gone” travel worry. One of them is in fact a trip though the Northwest Passage on a former Soviet Icebreaker called the Kapitan Khlebnikov which is a massive 24,000 horsepower Polar Class icebreaker capable of carrying 108 passengers in relative luxury through the arctic wilderness. Here is some background on this icebreaker:
Kapitan Khlebnikov - The Kapitan Khlebnikov was built in Finland in 1981 and is one of three vessels of this class. Not simply an ice-reinforced ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikov is a powerful polar class icebreaker, which has sailed to extremely remote corners of the globe with adventurous travelers since 1992. It was the first ship ever to circumnavigate Antarctica with passengers in 1996-97. See more on this vessel at Wikipedia
According to Quark Expeditions, they’ve even fitted this icebreaker with a heated indoor swimming pool, exercise room and sauna, and a theater-style auditorium for “Expedition Team presentations” ( presumably so you can watch Gore’s AIT polar bear tears while in situ ). It is quite a difference from the travel conditions that Robert Peary experienced just 99 years ago when he reached the North Pole.
One of my alert readers, Walt from Canada, pointed out this story in the Globe and Mail on may 24th in the travel section. It seems the irony of a polar expedition to see such things as record sea ice loss being stopped cold by the very ice that doesn’t exist was not lost on the editors.
From the Globe and Mail article:
I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.
The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther.
The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: “Now, only nature can help this ship.” We are doomed to drift.
What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us.
What irony indeed.
They eventually had nature on their side, and on the seventh day of being trapped in the ice, winds and tide moved the ice pack enough that they could continue. But, I have to wonder, will the pampered eco-tourists on this trip see the irony that we do?
 
Praxius
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

That is faulty logic.

If three things have the same change, that does not mean they have the same effect.

If I have three metal spoons, and each one is heating, one could be on a stove, one could be in a fire and one could be in direct arizona sunlight.

It is a logical fallacy what you are suggesting.

Speaking of screwed up logic... how the hell can you relate three spoons heating up by three different sources to three planets which are heated by the exact same thing, which is the sun? Are there two other suns in our solar system that are blocked from our view by a couple of black holes that are heating up the other planets that we don't know about in which helps support your above logic?

1st and foremost, all the planets get the majority of their heat from one thing.... the sun..... not a fire or a stove. If you are trying to explain to us that our pollution is heating us up differently compared to the other planets, then your above explination still doesn't make any sense, considdering in theory, pollution only retains the heat within our planet that comes from the sun and a wee bit from our own development.... the pollution doesn't create heat from nothing and is not a source of heat on our planet.

And even if you want to stick to your theory of pollution increasing our tempratures, that still doesn't explain what is occuring to the other planets in our solar system.

It's irrelevent? There's no need to look into the information and understand it? I don't think so.... see that's the big problem with the Global Warmers, is that they are stuck with their own self derrived explination to why the world seems to be going to crap, yet when you present them with anything new to look into, or even something old and has been around for sometime.... the usual response is "Why should I bother to look into it?" ~ Well if you don't bother to look into it, then you're excluding possible logical explinations to what's going on, and when you exclude the information provided to you, that automatically expresses a bias in your level of understanding, you avoid new or more logical explinations, stick to your guns on GW, ignore some very key parts to the overall puzzle and thus, like some religious fanatic, you exclude all other information and continue to dictate the same gospel of Global Warming.

Every single time something new and factual comes out to refute the GW theory, the GW supporters always brush it aside as something that's not important and keep preaching about their theory being the right one.

It certainly doesn't help promote your side of the argument that's for sure. All it does is show GW supporters are close minded and shout like mad religious extremists when something is presented as making more sense then their own faithful belief.
 
coldstream
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

http://tinyurl.com/mbk2l

http://tinyurl.com/6kjfx8

It's an old trick of the Global Science con job.. they find isolated example their hypothesis and ignore everything else. Why don't they show the advancing ice shelves in Antarctica.. Because they are involved in a massive criminal fraud.. that's why.
 

Similar Threads

0
Another Death of the Novel ???
by jimmoyer | Oct 12th, 2006
50
What Happens After Death?
by I think not | Jun 26th, 2005
no new posts