Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Bodhi]

It won't..... It would sink into snow to depth where the density of the snow is sufficient that the distributed weight is inadequate to compress the snow any further. That depends entirely on the density of the underlying snow. Another factor is that the top layer of snow will often soften and partially melt due to sun light (even at very low air temperatures). It will refreeze as ice. Also, when you compress snow you generate heat. This causes the snow to lose its crystal structure and begin to behave more like pure ice. Commonly, the temperature of ice may actually increase with depth. Again, due to compression which generates heat.

Here's an example. I can air down the tires on my Jeep and drive on top of the compressed layer of snow under the most recent layer. If I fail to air down, the higher load per square inch may be enough to compress the sub-layers of snow and create a trough, in which one can bog down. Driving through one layer, even very deep, is usually easier than driving through many layers of increasing density. Which is why you don't air down when driving on roads covered with deep snow. The underlying surface will not compress at all.



My regards,

Widewing

WW,
Almost any weight placed on ice will sink through it.  It is a simple fact.  Is it going to accumulate to 260+ feet in 50 years.  No.  Snow accumulation will turn to ice and add to that layer.  I never stated that the P-38's solely sank to 260+ feet, I stated they did and were sinking through the ice.

[Bodhi]

Scientific dishonesty in support of AGW does not earn you the conclusion that AGW is not happening, unless you simply stipulate it as you do in italics.  If you're going to offer "proof" for a claim, don't restate the claim as part of your proof.

P1. the CRU was modifying their numbers to support climate change

P2. climate change was not actually happening

C. Man made global warming is not happening.

Without P2, your argument is invalid.  With P2, your argument is vacuous.

There is no doubt that there is climate change.  The planet has experienced it nearly the entirety of it's existence.  There is no proof that it is man made.  Further, what proof that does exist of global climate change has been changed by several to overstate the amount it is happening.  It is all money.

[Vulcan]

SWTarget,

You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general.  Is that warranted?

It applies to the the IPCC and other organisations feeding the world the the AGW line though.

Want to see a good example of IPCC and the media lying while the scientists look the other way?

The island nation of Tuvalu has been whining about how global warming and sea level rises are destroying it. It's been put forward as an immediate example of AGW by the media at many of the AGW conferences (like copenhagen). They've got their hand out for money due to AGW caused by the industrial rich nations.

Only problem is the sea level isn't rising, and their problems are in fact caused by them blowing up their coral reefs for fishing and materials for road construction. The reefs acted as a natural barrier to waves prevented shoreline subsidence. So now when a hurricane hits the lack of natural barriers means it causes considerably more damage. They've also caused subsidence by draining to much fresh water from the ground than is replaced/absorbed by the soil/rock normally.

So, here we have the prime example of global warming thats often held forward by the alarmists - and guess what... it's a bunch of lies. I've no doubt many of the other island nations screaming bloody murder on global warming are similar situations.

[Widewing]

WW,
Almost any weight placed on ice will sink through it.  It is a simple fact.

What natural mechanism would you attribute this to?

I've parked my 4x4 on a frozen lake while we fished all day. It didn't sink. I've broken axe handles trying to hack through ice...


My regards,

Widewing

[E25280]

[MORAY37]

 

[MORAY37]

See Rule #4

[Bodhi]

What natural mechanism would you attribute this to?

I've parked my 4x4 on a frozen lake while we fished all day. It didn't sink. I've broken axe handles trying to hack through ice...


My regards,

Widewing

I agree that ice is a very difficult thing to break up.  But, why does an ice shack that sits in one place for a month or two have to be continually jacked up to keep it from being stuck in the ice when you go to pull it?  The ice melts under the pressure of weight, allowing the weight to pass through it. 

[Kev367th]

Well seems like the IPCC 2207 report is coming to pieces....albeit slowly.

Glaciers in the Himalayas will not dissappear by 2035. This was an unreviewed claim by Dr Murari Lal re-gurgitated by the World Wildlife Fund and included in the report to impact policy makers. I.e. a political driven claim and not scientific. Yet the IPCC always claim the contents are meticulously peer reviewed.

NASA has quietly removed any reference to it from its climate website. Very interesting as NASA had originally cited the figure as 2030, not 2035.

Other false claims are quietly being removed or re-written.
The Stern Report relied upon by the UK government for severe weather events has had the GDP impact on the US reduced by a factor of 10, from 1.3%, down to 0.13%. Nothing noted or reported on the site the figure has been altered since publication.

UNIPCC also wrongly linked natural disasters to GW.

Head of the UNIPCC is now all but toast.

Admittedly a sceptic site, but lots of info http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Bodhi]

Which is it, Spinmaster Flave? I guess you think what happens on page 72 stays on page 72.....

Don't get all excited about something you are reading into.  You are still wrong, yet again.

You are reading into that statement "as far as they did".  When those birds were first looked for, they were estimated to be roughly 100 - 150 feet down.  That was based on a calculation of the amount of snow in the area turning to ice.  After the 50 or so years they sat there, a significant amount of snow turned to ice, but the fact that they were deeper showed another force worked on them as well, and that was their weight helping to sink them deeper into the ice.


That said, I find it mildly interesting and very sad that you have completely derailed a thread in an attempt to prove me wrong, and not face the fact that you are nothing more than a hand raised in the faux-science that is man-made global warming.  Hope your happy bucko.

[Widewing]

I agree that ice is a very difficult thing to break up.  But, why does an ice shack that sits in one place for a month or two have to be continually jacked up to keep it from being stuck in the ice when you go to pull it?  The ice melts under the pressure of weight, allowing the weight to pass through it. 

The ice melts due to the heat retention of the fishing shack. It warms up inside due to solar heating. Thus the ice gets softened and the shack become embedded in the ice surface. We're talking only a few inches over the course of the winter. Some fisherman bring kerosene heaters out to their shacks, which only exacerbates this.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

(Image removed from quote.)

These aluminum trays work well. However, if you put it in the freezer overnight and placed burgers on it in the morning, they would not defrost at all. A plane sitting on a glacier will quickly become covered in snow. Thus, there will be no solar heating of the metal surfaces. The aircraft will quickly assume the same temperature as the snow and ice. Therefore, no melting.


My regards,

Widewing

[Bodhi]

The ice melts due to the heat retention of the fishing shack. It warms up inside due to solar heating. Thus the ice gets softened and the shack become embedded in the ice surface. We're talking only a few inches over the course of the winter. Some fisherman bring kerosene heaters out to their shacks, which only exacerbates this.


My regards,

Widewing

WW,
It also melts due to pressure.  We used to put my old shack on blocks to prevent the skids sticking in.  It was not uncommon to have to set the blocks several time.

[MORAY37]

Don't get all excited about something you are reading into.  You are still wrong, yet again.

You are reading into that statement "as far as they did".  When those birds were first looked for, they were estimated to be roughly 100 - 150 feet down.  That was based on a calculation of the amount of snow in the area turning to ice.  After the 50 or so years they sat there, a significant amount of snow turned to ice, but the fact that they were deeper showed another force worked on them as well, and that was their weight helping to sink them deeper into the ice.


That said, I find it mildly interesting and very sad that you have completely derailed a thread in an attempt to prove me wrong, and not face the fact that you are nothing more than a hand raised in the faux-science that is man-made global warming.  Hope your happy bucko.

I'm showing that you cannot ever admit when you are wrong.  You are wrong about this.  But yet, you argue about things you have no idea about, incessantly.  You have zero idea about albedo and how it proves you are wrong.  

Your earlier quote obviously meant exactly what you typed it to mean, and now you have to backtrack on your latest post.  You said blatantly that they sank due to their weight, and you are completely wrong.  That had absolutely NOTHING to do with where they were found.

Amazingly, 268/50=5.36 feet per year, which is exactly what the annual amount of snow for the area+compression would equal.

And, in actuality, when they first looked for them, they thought they were within a foot or two of the surface.  Perhaps you might look into Bob Cardin's notes on the recovery some day.

[Bodhi]

I have dealt with Cardin several times.  Obvious if you read his notes, he is all knowledgeable about everything.  Perhaps if he is, then someone can explain why one boom is two + inches longer than the other.  But that is a discussion for somewhere else.

You on the other hand seem to believe you have a duty to prove me wrong.  I am more than willing to admit when I am, but I do not feel I am.  Your style of argument is to out blather the other, and when the other finally gets frustrated and leaves, you feel you won.  Further, your assumption into the meaning of a statement I made does not make your version correct.  It just makes it another assumption.

Simply put Moray, I will believe as I choose, and you can do the same.  I feel I have wasted enough time on this with a person like yourself that I am going to go no where else except make myself look like an idiot for arguing with one.  I hope you have enjoyed ruining another discussion.