On 12/2/2012 1:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/2/2012 12:56 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/1/2012 11:23 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2012 6:42 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/1/2012 9:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/1/2012 5:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/1/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:03:35AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish

Be that as it may, even a study over the last millenium
would be based on inadequate data compared to the
data from the Vostok ice cores. The hockey stick data
used by Gore and others could possibly be a real change,
but it pales in comparison:


so there is some undetermined cause of these cycles which occurred long before the automobile or industrial production. There is a theory based on earth's inclination or wobble called the mikhailovich cycle, but the periodicity, although close, doesn't match.
As I understand it, state of the art understanding has it that the
Milankovitch cycle is the initial cause of the cyclic variation in
glaciation, is not sufficient in itself to generate the temperature
variation. Rather, various positive feedbacks amplify the Milankovitch cycle into the large glaciation cycle. That would also explain why the
period doesn't match exactly.

My own belief (not original) is that the CO2 is expelled and redissolved from the vast reservoir of the oceans as temperature varies. C)2 is much more soluble in cold water.

Yes, that would another +ve feedback. But a rather minor one, I
suspect. A 2-5 degree temperature variation out of 300 degrees (room
temperature on the Kelvin scale) doesn't sound like it would change
CO2 solubility by much. By contrast, we've seen a near doubling of CO2
concentration since preindustrial times, which doesn't seem
explainable from ocean temperature trends.

So why is the arctic ice melting but in contrast only melting
   slightly at the southern pole ?

Well, it is melting a bit more than slightly in Antarctica, mostly in the Antarctic peninsula. Many of the glaciers in West Antarctica have
accelerated, just as they have in Greenland. By contrast, East
Antarctica seems stable, which is just as well for us humans.

In the arctic, there is a strong +ve feedback from the fact that open
ocean has lower albedo, so absorbs more sunlight during summer,
heating the ocean, and preventing buildup of ice during Winter.  By
contrast at the South Pole, the ice sheet is some 3km thick - it will be a long time indeed before the ice has melted enough for the albedo
effect to start accelerating things.

It may be related to El Nino and La Ninja, which are unevenly distributed. I believe El Nino (which is associagted with warming and is now present) is the cause of north pole melting.
El Nino is associated with warming of the ocean off South America, and
corresponding cooling of the Coral sea. It causes droughts in
Eastern Australia, and rain in Chile. La Nina is the reverse situation. It causes a lot of rain here in Australia, and somewhat cooler weather. I thought we were still in La Nina (we had a lot of rain last year), but I see the current value of the ENSO index is neutral - neither El Nino
nor La Nina.

I would assume that polar warming would be more influenced by the Artic
Oscillation than ENSO. I'm not sure how connected the AO is to the

But, I don't claim any expertise in these matters :)

"Scientists Peg Sea Level Rise from Polar Ice Melt at 11.1 Millimeters Since 1992". http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-measure-sea-rise-from-po

    What is the panic about?

a) Polar ice melt is not the only source of sea level rise. Thermal expansion is a big contributor.

b) Every reasonable projection of polar melting indicates it will be accelerating, melting at an increasing, not a constant, rate.

c) Sea level has gone up 200mm since 1900. Total rise is projected to be around 0.8m by 2100 AND STILL RISING FAST. If the Antarctic ice sheet melts sea level will rise about 60m. But even one meter makes a big difference to low coastal regions in a storm, e.g. New York, New Orleans, Bangladesh,...

d) Weather patterns are likely to change much faster than flora, fauna, and maybe even people can adapt, resulting in worldwide crop failures and famine.


The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

Mockery doesn't change the facts.

Hi Brent,


We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

Interesting, since when is "modeling" considered a means to obtain facts. Facts are stubborn things... The problem is that a few facts are being used to push an addenda of control <http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/> and "governance". Are you OK with that? I truly would like to understand the thought process involved.

The facts are that we're putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel. It's accumulating there as confirmed by direct measurement. CO2 is a "green-house" gas as known from laboratory measurements of absorption spectra. Models are use to make predictions from facts. In this case the prediction is that the Earth will get warmer. Warmer means more ice melts and water expands. It also means the oceans become more acidic. Which of these do you disagree with?

That sea level or temperature or CO2 concentration may have gone up or down for some other known or unknown reason is irrelevant. To argue such is like putting another blanket on your bed and then thinking, "I must be hot because the thermostat is set too high, because last time I was too hot it was because the thermostat was set too high."


So our existence at the current level is "bad' and we are to revert back to some primitive non-tech version and be happy. OK. Proceed there without me. I am not interested in telling you how to live your life, just respect my basic human rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. The climate alarmist are busy inventing new reasons that I cannot have even these and you seem to be OK with that! Why?

I am interested in advancing technology and understanding such that, maybe, this constant panic and obsessive compulsive need to control everything is mitigated. Why can't people just be happy and live their lives w/o having to constantly invent "good reasons" to get into everyone's business??? IMHO, all this climate change stuff is just a reharsh of Malthusian thinking and the very idea of criminalizing disenting opinions, well... What a wonderful way to impose tyranny!



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to