Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[Winkie]

Hi Sarge

It's almost not worth replying to your postings, what with the insults, the unnecessary use of foul language, poor spelling, grammar and ambiguous statements....

However, it's all for fun, so I will try to answer your questions:-

so what was the point you were making winkie

Dr Semiletov states "This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing,"

I think this clearly indicates that these are new discoveries.

Sure, similar 'fountains' of 10m diameter have been found before, but now they have discovered features that are 1,000m in diameter. The journalist then has selected and printed comments that state "I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."

So, my point simply is, if these are the first sightings of 1,000m diameter plumes, and "the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal", then... what exactly is the 'normal' emission from a 1,000 diameter plume? Please consider that these have never been seen before.... so what is the normal pattern for something that has never been sighted or studied before? Poor reporting in my opinion. Not questioning anything to do with the Scientist.

Or it could be just plain old piss poor posting

Quite possibly, but you are a free thinking (?) independent human, entitled to post what ever you wish

this shows piss poor reading ability

You are right again, not just p**s poor reading ability, but a strangely naive way of linking one poorly reported item, with another.

You may be aware, that on this planet, there are small fury animals, 10cm long... let's call them rats. Maybe sometime in the future, someone will discover a large fury animal 10m in length (that's 1,000cm Sarge). What's the normal emission for a 10m rat? Who knows, until you study it? Is it actually a rat?

Surely the same is true for this new discover of 1,000m diameter plumes?

I suppose i will have to spell it out for you

Its very clear that spelling is not your strongest point. From what I see, you are confirming that 10cm rats have already been seen.... what else are you 'spelling' for me?

so Mr Kettle let me explain again in simple words

1. I believe the world is warming mainly due to the Malankovic cycle
2. I believe that urbanisation deforestation and over population are the major contributors to any and IF there is any man made addition to the natural warming
3. I do not believe man can do buggeral to stop it

That's great Sarge. However, your attacked my following post:

Hi Pete

To me it indicates how very easy it is to misinterpret the situation, and to be led into possibly false thinking (intentionally or otherwise) by poor journalism.

What exactly have your points 1,2 and 3 got to do with my post? and why you choose to attack me for making such a statement? It's my personal opinion! Prove me wrong!

So, there you have it, my attempt to clarify, why, I think the report was not well written. Everything else you state, Science, Internet crap, Michines, that's all wonderful, and I am so happy for you. Still in my opinion, the journalist could have written the article in a better way (I could have), and it leads to different interpretations of what could have been a clearly defined report.

Happy Sarge?

Now, based on what I have re-clarified above, what would you like to attack me about next? The world is your Onion Sarge, take your pick. Not promising that I will either read or reply to it though, but if you make it interesting enough, maybe I'll feed your need.

Hugs

[STEVE G]

Greenland rose faster as 100 billion tons of ice melted away

A network of GPS stations across southern Greenland has detected that the area lost 100 billion tons of ice due to an unusually warm summer in 2010, researchers report. What's more, removing that much weight has raised parts of the bedrock by a quarter inch more than in recent years.

Greenland's ice sheet has been seeing a steady melt during the summer months, and those GPS stations in years prior to 2010 typically detected an uplift of 0.59 inches.

"But a temperature spike in 2010 lifted the bedrock a detectably higher amount over a short five-month period -- as high as 20 mm (0.79 inches) in some locations," Ohio State University said in explaining the research by Michael Bevis, one of its geologists, and others that are part of the POLENET research network.

Bevis described the findings last Friday at a conference of the American Geophysical Union, saying he's convinced that the uplift is due to the ice loss.

"Really, there is no other explanation. The uplift anomaly correlates with maps of the 2010 melting day anomaly. In locations where there were many extra days of melting in 2010, the uplift anomaly is highest."

He added that the findings also have implications for sea levels.

"Pulses of extra melting and uplift imply that we'll experience pulses of extra sea level rise. The process is not really a steady process," he said.

Experts had earlier estimated that Greenland between 1961 and 2003 saw years that ranged from 25 billion tons of new ice to years where 60 billion tons were lost. Years since then have seen even higher shrinkage.

100 billion tons of ice melting from Greenland's ice sheet translates into a global sea level increase of about .01 inches.

The team first reported that ice sheets, which can be thousands of feet thick, suppress bedrock in 2008, when they discussed findings from similar GPS sensors on Antarctica.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... elted-away

[Homer]

100 billion tons of ice melting from Greenland's ice sheet translates into a global sea level increase of about .01 inches.

Based on a computer simulation of a climate model. How does one prove a climate model is correct? Or prove it's simulation is an accurate representation of the model? Or the creators of both haven't already been outed by the east anglia climate change scandal that erupted from the stolen emails? OH WAIT A MINUTE ... that so called finding hasn't been published, let alone published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Move along, nothing to see here. It was just another alarmist preaching to the choir at a conference.

[STEVE G]

... that so called finding hasn't been published, let alone published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

We can stick to peer reviewed journals if want:

Increased Runoff from Melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet: A response to Global Warming

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... JCLI1964.1

[STEVE G]

Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986.full

[STEVE G]

Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958.short

[Homer]

... that so called finding hasn't been published, let alone published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

We can stick to peer reviewed journals if want:

Increased Runoff from Melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet: A response to Global Warming

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... JCLI1964.1

How about this one?

100 billion tons of ice melting from Greenland's ice sheet translates into a global sea level increase of about .01 inches.

[STEVE G]

I'm lost to be honest; are you claiming that the arctic isn't melting?

[STEVE G]

Sticking to peer reviewed:

The geopolitics of Arctic melt:

The rapidity of Arctic melt is no longer the phantasmagoria of B-grade movies, such as the ‘Day after tomorrow’, but is occurring at a rate unimaginable just a few years ago. In 2007, more than one million square miles of ice melted, leaving the region with only half the ice that existed in 1950. The Arctic has been propelled into the centre of geopolitics as global climate change has transformed the region into a maelstrom of competing commercial, national security and environmental concerns with profound implications for the international legal and political system. The prospect of longer ice-free periods in the Arctic has momentous implications for the region's commercial development, in itself a further risk to melting Arctic ice. This article argues that Arctic melt does and will continue to pose economic, military and environmental challenges to the governance of the region and explores the role of technological factors as both a barrier and an enabler of access. Working within existing institutions and building capacity is preferable to the proliferation of new institutions, although the full structure and scope of the legal and regulatory frameworks that may be needed are, at present, unclear. But what is clear, is that Arctic melt is on the increase.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 858.x/full

[sargeant]

So I am insulting am I after the following quote of your good self I will take of my hat and hand over the gavel to you.
Oh and I see you cannot see the difference between insult and sarcastic humour

It's almost not worth replying to your postings, what with the insults, the unnecessary use of foul language, poor spelling, grammar and ambiguous statements....

anyway as you say

However, it's all for fun,

let us parry again
oh I dunno let me try a stupid analogy

Maybe there are some grey animals long noses big ears and 10 feet tall lets call them elephants

some time in the future a guy walking down bintabaht is observed by an elephant scientist receiving about ¾ cwt of dung land on his head from a 100foot tall (that’s 1200inches to you) grey animal with a long nose and big ears

the guy the dung fell on speaking from his hospital bed said as this is the first time it has happened I am not sure it was an elephant of huge size we will need at least 10 decades of research (starting in six months time when my fractures are healed) to determine if it is normal or a new species and the scientist doesn’t know crap whilst I am now due to this new phenomena THE ONLY experienced (foul language sorry) expert in falling dung

I spent 22 years of my life defending your right to free speech and your own opinion

not once in 22 years did that mean I would allow someone to talk bollocks (foul language sorry)

UNCHALLENGED

[sargeant]

You say it both is and isn't a new phenomena. The most appropriate response to you post is laughter, followed by a head shake, then forgive you because you know not what you do.

I feel like moses leading the kids/septics (not a spelling mistake my spell checker says so)

Get yourself together homer you are making yourself look silly

the phenomena of methane rising from the ocean floor is not new but it IS a phenomena

what makes it a new phenomena is the huge size of it

just think of elephants--------carry an umbrella


HHF sorry i missed your post golf weather here is great pm me oh and terry wants a game in february

[Winkie]

Oh and I see you cannot see the difference between insult and sarcastic humour

I have to accept that you must be correct here Sarge. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

Think I can manage it now.......

I spent 22 years of my life defending your right to free speech and your own opinion

not once in 22 years did that mean I would allow someone to talk bollocks

It's easy to spot, now you've pointed it out.

[MrPlum]

Will other countries follow Canada and decide it's not worth the damage to their economies?

[Homer]

the phenomena of methane rising from the ocean floor is not new but it IS a phenomena

what makes it a new phenomena is the huge size of it

Oh now I see. You were using the sargeant dialect of English.

[STEVE G]

Will other countries follow Canada and decide it's not worth the damage to their economies?

This peer reviewed paper explains why Canada acted the way it did:

Canada’s Oil Sands Resources and Its Future Impact on Global Oil Supply
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications ... Thesis.pdf

"Is Canada willing to abandon the Kyoto treaty in order to allow accelerating emissions from the oil sands industry?"