...Arctic Sea Ice is Going Fast....Very Fast!

snip
On Aug 30, 8:58*pm, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
Yeah, but Pat; don't forget that there are
no space images of the Arctic and Antarctica
from 50 years ago, let alone 250 years ago,
or 1,000 years ago -
nobody knows how much of the sea ice existed
back then. *We've only got figures from
the past 100 years at most.

Wrong.
There are several lines of evidence regarding
sea-ice distribution in the Arctic ocean and environs:
- sea-mammal fossil distribution
- ice-pushed raised beaches
- reports by European whalers and fishers from
as far back as 500 years ago
- sedimentary characteristics of the ocean bed
- etc.
Similarly for the Southern Ocean.

snip
Our species will survive quite well this time (if the so-called [and
self-appointed] 'experts' are correct). *Don't worry; everything will be
fine - for us, our species in general and our planet as a whole.

Try switching away from the rosy tint next time you order
spectacles.

- Daryl Krupa

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"eyeball" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 10:21 am, BradGuth wrote:

I hear the sky is falling too.

Well, since I moved to Miami I've had Hurricane Andrew
(the most expensive storm is US history) pass forty miles
...south of me. Hurricane Wilma (the most powerful Atlantic
storm EVER) pass forty miles...north of me. And Hurricane
Katrina ( the deadliest storm in recent US history) pass
directly overhead.

Yes, and since you've lived in the area for so many thousands of
years, you know that major hurricanes at that frequency are abnormal.

rolling eyes

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:12:45 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Fievel Mousekewitz Sr (Not A CT'er)" wrote in
message . ..
"jonathan" wrote in message
news

This is really sad.

Just like all the C02 data, the seventies and eighties is when global warming
became rather obvious.

Sea Ice Extent 1900 to Present
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....1900-2007.jpg


IMPACTS OF A WARMING ARCTIC
http://www.amap.no/acia/GraphicsSet1.pdf




Thank you so very much,,.. I've been looking for charts
like these for a while.

Some people seem to think it's all bogus and over-rated.
If it was, then the NOAA wouldn't be seriously considering
adding Category 6 to the hurricane Categories.
And Hurricane Katrina at 165 MPH at the strongest she got wasn't
just 10 - 15 MPH below that mark?, which she was,,..
175 - 180 MPH would be the marker for a Category 6.


I agree completely /and emphatically/ that another category is
needed. But I think this category should be in the overall size
of the storm, not the peak wind speed. The hurricanes have
gotten much larger recently due to global warming.
The eyes are routinely now some one hundred miles
across. Used to be a third of that was normal.

And as the size of the eye increases, the total heat energy
is squared, not multiplied. Which means the large storms
like Katrina and Wilma have /orders of magnitude/ more
energy involved than normal. Used to be hurricanes could take
out a city, now they can wipe out an entire state, or three states
as with Katrina.

The NHC doesn't seem to want to talk about the increase
in size of the eyes.



Look at the last radar image of Andrew, it's eye is
about the size of Miami.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/1992andy.JPG

Here's Hurricane Camille, looks about as tight as Andrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...1969_2340Z.jpg


Look at the eye of Wilma, almost the size of the ...state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...dfallRadar.png

Look at Katrina!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...fall_radar.gif

Camille hit 190mph, Andrew 155, Wilma 180 mph, Katrina 135.

Stop flaunting your appalling ignorance. You obviously don't even
know what the eye of a hurricane is. Hint: the larger the eye, the
weaker the winds.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...


Look at the last radar image of Andrew, it's eye is
about the size of Miami.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/1992andy.JPG

Here's Hurricane Camille, looks about as tight as Andrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...1969_2340Z.jpg


Look at the eye of Wilma, almost the size of the ...state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...dfallRadar.png

Look at Katrina!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...fall_radar.gif

Camille hit 190mph, Andrew 155, Wilma 180 mph, Katrina 135.

Stop flaunting your appalling ignorance. You obviously don't even
know what the eye of a hurricane is. Hint: the larger the eye, the
weaker the winds.


Normally that is correct. The point is that Katrina and Wilma hit
category 5 status....while...their eyes were some 100 miles across.
When an eye gets smaller, what does it do????

Yes the winds get stronger, and when they're ALREADY at cat5 speeds
they become what? What category or description would you give
that differentiates between Andrew at 155mph and an eye 20 miles
across. And Wilma which hit the same speed with an eye
/five times/ that size.

The point is how should the NHC classify those two storms?

I say, the current system, which classifies them both as the
same cat 5 is flawed. And btw, the answer to the question of what
happens to a hurricane like Wilma that hits 155 with a 100 mile eye?
The answer is it hits /180 mph/ when the eye gets smaller
and sets the ALL TIME LOWEST PRESSURE every recorded
in the Atlantic.

That is why we should take more notice when the eyes....
...../start out/...so large. When an eye starts out small
then gets larger, the winds get weaker. That's not what
I'm talking about at all, and you should know that.

Right now what the NHC does is place, in the fine print, the
fact that hurricane force winds extend out to X miles from
the center. That just doesn't convey the seriousness of
the difference between say 40 and 80 miles for instance.
The difference is NOT that the storm will take out a slightly
larger swath of damage. The difference is one storm has
FOUR times as much potential energy with which to
strengthen and persist.

Tropical storm Fay started out with such a large eye
and it went across Florida three times, then up the
Atlantic coast...all over ground....without losing any
steam. Normally, land slows these things down
rather quickly, but not the large ones, not anymore.

Their classifying system isn't keeping up with the changing
behavior. And this is most probably due to political
interference as any such changes would essentially admit
global warming is having it's effect in the here-and-now.


s

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"eyeball" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 10:21 am, BradGuth wrote:

I hear the sky is falling too.

Well, since I moved to Miami I've had Hurricane Andrew
(the most expensive storm is US history) pass forty miles
...south of me. Hurricane Wilma (the most powerful Atlantic
storm EVER) pass forty miles...north of me. And Hurricane
Katrina ( the deadliest storm in recent US history) pass
directly overhead.



Yes, and since you've lived in the area for so many thousands of
years, you know that major hurricanes at that frequency are abnormal.

rolling eyes



Show me the data from thousands of years ago!

..... shaking head

You failed yet again to do your homework. The
multi decade variability is stronger this time than
the last ones. Why? Could it be global warming
is /adding/ to that existing cycle you speak of???

Why yes, the data appears to back up that fact.


Dominant Time Scales

ENSO - El Nino / Southern Oscillation
~3 to 7 year cycle

AMO - Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
~50 to 70 year cycle

Global Warming
Ongoing

Other factors (NAO, QBO, etc.)
http://www.sbafla.com/methodology/pd...August2007.pdf



s

On Sep 8, 5:44 pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...



On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:43:34 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"eyeball" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 10:21 am, BradGuth wrote:

I hear the sky is falling too.

Well, since I moved to Miami I've had Hurricane Andrew
(the most expensive storm is US history) pass forty miles
...south of me. Hurricane Wilma (the most powerful Atlantic
storm EVER) pass forty miles...north of me. And Hurricane
Katrina ( the deadliest storm in recent US history) pass
directly overhead.

Yes, and since you've lived in the area for so many thousands of
years, you know that major hurricanes at that frequency are abnormal.

rolling eyes

Show me the data from thousands of years ago!

..... shaking head

You failed yet again to do your homework. The
multi decade variability is stronger this time than
the last ones. Why? Could it be global warming
is /adding/ to that existing cycle you speak of???

Why yes, the data appears to back up that fact.

Dominant Time Scales

ENSO - El Nino / Southern Oscillation
~3 to 7 year cycle

AMO - Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
~50 to 70 year cycle

Global Warming
Ongoing

Other factors (NAO, QBO, etc.)http://www.sbafla.com/methodology/pd...CAT_NearTerm_A...

s

Add in 2e20 N/sec of Earth body tidal flexing from the last ice age
this planet w/moon is ever going to see, and lo and behold.

There's simply no independent objective proof that Earth ever had such
a terrific moon as of prior to the last ice age, but there is
objective proof of the interstellar association with the Sirius star/
solar system, that could easily have managed those previous ice age
and biological growth spurt cycles, as well as having recently
contributed Selene as our moon.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth