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

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

It's just placing an extra 50 teratonnes of water into our polluted
atmosphere. What possible harm could that generate?

You do realize that 2e20 N/s of tidal flexing our 98.5% fluid Earth is
a warming trend, don't you?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


jonathan wrote:
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

On Aug 28, 10:21*am, BradGuth wrote:
It's just placing an extra 50 teratonnes of water into our polluted
atmosphere. *What possible harm could that generate?

You do realize that 2e20 N/s of tidal flexing our 98.5% fluid Earth is
a warming trend, don't you?

* ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

jonathan wrote:
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....extent.1900-2...

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

I hear the sky is falling too.

"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.


Fievel..

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
It's just placing an extra 50 teratonnes of water into our polluted
atmosphere. What possible harm could that generate?


But remember what happens when a complex adaptive system
is driven far from equilibrium. It's behavior can become chaotic.
Which means less stability and larger swings in behavior.
More and deeper droughts, larger and more numerous
storms and floods and so on.

In the extreme case what this means is a global climate
NOT just s t e a d i l y g e t t i n g w a r m e r as most
'linear minded' imagine. But a climate that could begin swinging
from very /warm/ to very /cold/...almost overnight.

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

"Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant
flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several
million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve
from the deep freeze."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

May I remind you of this one simple fact few seem to appreciate.
It only takes ONE SUCH SWING to land this planet squarely
into another 100,000 year long ICE AGE!!

And bring new meaning to that old cliche.....


........"The End is Nigh"


Please scroll down to fig 1-5
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html

Notice how the current warm period is rather brief and short lived.
What that means is that the earth is attracted to.....IT LIKES
ice ages. The Earth is always looking for an excuse
to go back to it's normal very cold and very ice covered state.

It's mostly the blooms of life that keep it warm. Our technology
is allowing life to bloom like never before.

Will we let the bubble burst?

Every day we ignore the obvious, we give the Earth another
excuse to wipe most of our sorry-asses right off this planet.

You must think in non linear terms. To what happens to something
that's normally spinning round and round, and you walk up to it
and give it a good solid kick in the rear. Most of the time it's
momentum will rip your foot off. But once it's 'at the edge'
of it's stability, it can take but a feather to cause the wheels
to fly off, and rip the whole works into shreds.

aka Tipping Point or the Edge of Chaos.


Nonlinear Science - Chaos Tamed

"Lo! thy dread empire Chaos! is restored:
Light dies before thy uncreating word;
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall,
And universal darkness buries all."
~Alexander Pope
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm


Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos

"Self-organized criticality is a new way of viewing nature...
perpetually out-of-balance, but organized in a poised state"
~Per Bak, How Nature Works
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm




Jonathan

s






You do realize that 2e20 N/s of tidal flexing our 98.5% fluid Earth is
a warming trend, don't you?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


jonathan wrote:
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

"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.

And I got a very good taste of all three. So yes, I would
say the sky is indeed falling...literally...on my head.
And down here we can ...smell...that the last part of this
hurricane season, and all of next year is going to be
a couple more for the books.


Jonathan

"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.



These are two entirely different classes of storms in my opinion.
I would say there needs to be a category that reflects the
overall size. When they're organized and near a hundred miles
across, they're a Super-Hurricane imho.

Even weak tropical storm Fay just a couple weeks ago showed
this new trend. It had an eye around a hundred miles across and
passed over Florida /three times/ and hardly noticed. Used to be
landfall meant a tropical storm or hurricane would quickly
fall apart, not anymore. In fact, with Wilma, it just got ****ed off
and strengthened as it came ashore.

Once Bush leaves office, we'll start hearing more about this
and especially global warming I believe. Once all the Bush
'yes-men' are replaced.


Jonathan




Fievel..

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"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.
It goes to show what I typed in another reply.
Though I would've gotten A's in my basic weather science class.
Which I ended up with a D-.. Only because of spelling and rushed projects.
I always seemed to wait till the last minute, till I worked on my projects.
The teacher told me I would've gotten an A, if it wasn't for the above.
(Ouch, my wrists.)

My point to the above is..
There's things I learned in weather science class, that are totally out the
window.
Things that don't seem to make sense, like strong tornadoes here in PA.
July 14 2004, Campbelltown, Pennsylvania..
http://nws.met.psu.edu/severe/2004/14July2004.pdf
Almost an F4
We've had many reports across this state of tornadoes this year.
I don't know where we are now. 8, 12?
Just 10 years ago, it didn't seem possible for a tornadoe this strong
to move across the area, nor the number of reports across Pennsylvania
we had so far this year. I suspect that it's only going to look worse next
year.




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.



These are two entirely different classes of storms in my opinion.
I would say there needs to be a category that reflects the
overall size. When they're organized and near a hundred miles
across, they're a Super-Hurricane imho.
Agreed..
The same, might also work with tornadoes as well.
The winds aren't really growing, but the storms are.
They also happen much faster, and die the way they start.
Not long ago, we had a really odd afternoon.
There was almost nothing on the radar for us here in PA.
Then, like they came from nowhere, something like 8 storms
just came from nowhere.
At better inspection of all data, it appeared like it might've
come from moisture evaporating off of Lake Erie..
After some research, I found that Lake Erie's temp are
approaching the 80 degree mark,,.
I believe the data came from NOAA.
Isn't that suppose to be the warmest, but still cool to swim in?
That's one of many things I learned, that not trash.
Lake Erie can now, low pressure in place, create it's own
storms. Including snow storms in the winter, that are getting
more intense.


Even weak tropical storm Fay just a couple weeks ago showed
this new trend. It had an eye around a hundred miles across and
passed over Florida /three times/ and hardly noticed. Used to be
landfall meant a tropical storm or hurricane would quickly
fall apart, not anymore. In fact, with Wilma, it just got ****ed off
and strengthened as it came ashore.

Once Bush leaves office, we'll start hearing more about this
and especially global warming I believe. Once all the Bush
'yes-men' are replaced.
The Day After Tomorrow,, here we come.

It just doesn't feel like it's as close as it is.

Fievel.



Jonathan




Fievel..

On Aug 28, 10:03 am, eyeball wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:21 am, BradGuth wrote:



It's just placing an extra 50 teratonnes of water into our polluted
atmosphere. What possible harm could that generate?

You do realize that 2e20 N/s of tidal flexing our 98.5% fluid Earth is
a warming trend, don't you?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

jonathan wrote:
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....extent.1900-2...

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

I hear the sky is falling too.

Only by .05%/year if you're talking about the SAA contour. So we
still got lots of time to pillage, plunder and rape mother Earth for
all she's worth.

~ BG

On Aug 28, 4:43 pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"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.

And I got a very good taste of all three. So yes, I would
say the sky is indeed falling...literally...on my head.
And down here we can ...smell...that the last part of this
hurricane season, and all of next year is going to be
a couple more for the books.

Jonathan

Too bad you folks can't attribute any of that falling sky or global
warming trend to the 2e20 N/s worth of tidal interactions associated
with our Selene/moon.

If Earth wasn't getting tidal flexed by 55 cm, how much cooler might
our 98.5% fluid Earth get?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth