Kayaking to the North Pole

OffTheBackAdam

The furthest north anyone's ever been in a kayak, 81 degrees, 29 minutes North in ice-free water,( That's about 585miles from the pole, working on 69 miles per degree of latitude)) the polar ice cap's melting obviously.
" Ice conditions were exceptional.
In fact, so little ice has never before been noted!."
"Where formerly great masses of ice were found
there are now often moraines, accunlulations of earth and
stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into
the sea, they have entirely disappeared"
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
That's it folks, the proof that man-made global warming is occuring.
It was submitted by the American Consulate in Bergen, on October 10th 1922.
The numpties who are doing it currently, with their 600 tonne support ship chugging along after them have reached 80 degrees 30 minutes North and got stuck in the ice.
Interesting isn't it.

boybiker

Yeah well the polar ice caps have been quite happily growing and shrinking for many millions of years before some beardy sandal wearing yogurt knitting hippy decided it was all down to the evils of industrialisation but we are not allowed to say such things any more.

nasahapley

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The furthest north anyone's ever been in a kayak, 81 degrees, 29 minutes North in ice-free water,( That's about 585miles from the pole, working on 69 miles per degree of latitude)) the polar ice cap's melting obviously.
" Ice conditions were exceptional.
In fact, so little ice has never before been noted!."
"Where formerly great masses of ice were found
there are now often moraines, accunlulations of earth and
stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into
the sea, they have entirely disappeared"
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
That's it folks, the proof that man-made global warming is occuring.
It was submitted by the American Consulate in Bergen, on October 10th 1922.
The numpties who are doing it currently, with their 600 tonne support ship chugging along after them have reached 80 degrees 30 minutes North and got stuck in the ice.
Interesting isn't it.

No

downfader

Every enviro-sceptic I've read of has always quoted the satelite temperature data over the thermometers on the earth's surface as proof, yet they realised that the satelite was falling towards earth and thus misreading the temperature in the late 90s.

Sceptics dont seem to mention that.

OK so the ice sheet... well, true it has been ebbing and flowing like a tide for millenia, but it has retreated rather far in places like Greenland and Alaska where it shouldnt have. The Alps in europe has suffered from lack of tourists in the past decade due to lack of snow and longer summers. Sceptics dont like to mention that either.

The point is dont beleive everything you read on the web and take journals such as new sceintist with a pinch of salt. All will become clear in about 5-10 years.

My own environmental views stem from the pollution we're kicking out into water, soil and air. That is more dangerous in the shorter term.

OffTheBackAdam

downfader wrote:

Every enviro-sceptic I've read of has always quoted the satelite temperature data over the thermometers on the earth's surface as proof, yet they realised that the satelite was falling towards earth and thus misreading the temperature in the late 90s.


OK so the ice sheet... well, true it has been ebbing and flowing like a tide for millenia, but it has retreated rather far in places like Greenland and Alaska where it shouldnt have. The Alps in europe has suffered from lack of tourists in the past decade due to lack of snow and longer summers. Sceptics dont like to mention that either.

The point is dont beleive everything you read on the web and take journals such as new sceintist with a pinch of salt. All will become clear in about 5-10 years.

My own environmental views stem from the pollution we're kicking out into water, soil and air. That is more dangerous in the shorter term.

Now, please explain why the satellite falling towards Earth makes any difference in it's ability to read temperature?
Europe's had a lack of snow in some years, North America hasn't and Antartica appears to have got even colder!
I take everything said about climate change with a large pinch of salt, especially if it's being used as an excuse to tax us more!
Why wait 5-10 years? The world's been cooling for the past 10 years, despite greatly more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I whole heartedly agree with you about the pollution we're putting out into the world, chemicals, rubbish and other effluent!

boybiker

As every good environmentalist is I am sure aware the experimental data shows a very good correlation between the increase in global temperature and the reduction in the number of pirates, which is why we need more pirates to help cool the Earth again.

nasahapley

boybiker wrote:

As every good environmentalist is I am sure aware the experimental data shows a very good correlation between the increase in global temperature and the reduction in the number of pirates, which is why we need more pirates to help cool the Earth again.

Ah-ha! A fellow acolyte of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - blessed are you who has been touched by his noodly appendage (unless you're from the Reformed Church of the FSM, in which case you can p*** right off).

downfader

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

downfader wrote:

Every enviro-sceptic I've read of has always quoted the satelite temperature data over the thermometers on the earth's surface as proof, yet they realised that the satelite was falling towards earth and thus misreading the temperature in the late 90s.


OK so the ice sheet... well, true it has been ebbing and flowing like a tide for millenia, but it has retreated rather far in places like Greenland and Alaska where it shouldnt have. The Alps in europe has suffered from lack of tourists in the past decade due to lack of snow and longer summers. Sceptics dont like to mention that either.

The point is dont beleive everything you read on the web and take journals such as new sceintist with a pinch of salt. All will become clear in about 5-10 years.

My own environmental views stem from the pollution we're kicking out into water, soil and air. That is more dangerous in the shorter term.

Now, please explain why the satellite falling towards Earth makes any difference in it's ability to read temperature?
Europe's had a lack of snow in some years, North America hasn't and Antartica appears to have got even colder!
I take everything said about climate change with a large pinch of salt, especially if it's being used as an excuse to tax us more!
Why wait 5-10 years? The world's been cooling for the past 10 years, despite greatly more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I whole heartedly agree with you about the pollution we're putting out into the world, chemicals, rubbish and other effluent!

The earth hasnt been cooling for 10 years, thats just the problem. What has happened is that tidal and wind systems have changed - which is why we've had 2 cold summers in a row and the waters been cooler in the middle of the atlantic.

In 5-10 years we will have more data. As simple as that. I do agree that climate change has been made an excuse for taxation and that is something I deplore, sadly though, some people only respond to their wallet.

The satelite falling has effected the rotation around the earth so that where it once measured the temperature at 12 midday, it now measures at 6pm when its cooler. It takes less time to do a full rotation.. hard to explain but has been covered in Earth, the recent BBC documentary (check out the iplayer, its on that)

Then theres the "hockey stick". A guy called Mann did analysis on trees to figure out the temperature of the earth for the past 2 millenia. It was never going to be accurate, but it did initially show that the "medievil warm period" as it is put, didnt exist, and has shown an overall increase in world temperature by the late 20th century. This has been more or less backed up by other studies of ice samples, geology and archeological data. Again, its not an exact science by any means yet but its the best we have so far and there isnt anything to disproove it so far.

If data keeps rolling in as it is doing it will be hard to deny man's involvement with industrialisation and the change to the environment.

boybiker

I was bought up a believer in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) but there is no point in being all dogmatic about it so I am prepared to accept parts of other religions such as pastafarianism.

downfader

boybiker wrote:

I was bought up a believer in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) but there is no point in being all dogmatic about it so I am prepared to accept parts of other religions such as pastafarianism.

LMAO!!

OffTheBackAdam

downfader wrote:

The earth hasnt been cooling for 10 years, thats just the problem. What has happened is that tidal and wind systems have changed - which is why we've had 2 cold summers in a row and the waters been cooler in the middle of the atlantic.

In 5-10 years we will have more data. As simple as that. I do agree that climate change has been made an excuse for taxation and that is something I deplore, sadly though, some people only respond to their wallet.

The satelite falling has effected the rotation around the earth so that where it once measured the temperature at 12 midday, it now measures at 6pm when its cooler. It takes less time to do a full rotation.. hard to explain but has been covered in Earth, the recent BBC documentary (check out the iplayer, its on that)

Then theres the "hockey stick". A guy called Mann did analysis on trees to figure out the temperature of the earth for the past 2 millenia. It was never going to be accurate, but it did initially show that the "medievil warm period" as it is put, didnt exist, and has shown an overall increase in world temperature by the late 20th century. This has been more or less backed up by other studies of ice samples, geology and archeological data. Again, its not an exact science by any means yet but its the best we have so far and there isnt anything to disproove it so far.

If data keeps rolling in as it is doing it will be hard to deny man's involvement with industrialisation and the change to the environment.

Right, let's nail this "Hockey Stick" much loved by Al Gore as he trotted the world, before it was disproved and removed .
Now, for those who know-not what it was. It was this.

It obviously shows a great and unpresidented increase in mean global temperatures since circa 1900.
The rebuttal of the data manipulation needed to produce this is quite lengthy, so please read this article, if you're interested.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
A precis of it is that whatever data you put into the algorithm, you come out with this "Hockey Stick" shape.
Now, over to the tidal and wind systems. If they're responsible for the current cooling, surely they must be responsible for the prvious warming?
If it is truly a global phenomenum we're seeing, where has all this heating gone? A wind or tide system may move heat/cold from one place to another, it can't destroy it.
This article is also worth reading.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/#more-2769
I don't have Broadband, so no i-Player here, so I can't follow up with your satellite orbit, if you could post the name of the satellite, I'll see what I can find, but to be honest, it sounds like a load of bull to me. The data we're talking about isn't surface temperature, but that of the lower troposphere.

downfader

I'll try and have a read of that tommorow if I get time, and look up the satelite name.

I think it is also worth remembering that not just the usual scientists (trying to put it delicately) from universities, The Jason and various government bodies are doing research - the oil and energy companies have done a lot of counter-research in the past. This information seems to get regurgetated even now, and the internet has done proper research no favours.

I would offer caution in reading blogs as your basis for believing or disbeleiving. Check out papers from various universities, MIT, oxford, stuff from New Scientist and Scientific American... sorry I'm not on top form tonight - massive migrane and just off to bed. :oops:

boybiker

I think both sides of the argument are guilty of using very poor science and manipulating statistics to show that 'their' evidence is correct, but it does seem that the worst offenders are the enviromentalist who do use some appalling research and feed it to a public 99.9999999999999% of whom are a bunch of mouth breathing morons who will believe anything that they read in the daily mail.

downfader

boybiker wrote:

I think both sides of the argument are guilty of using very poor science and manipulating statistics to show that 'their' evidence is correct, but it does seem that the worst offenders are the enviromentalist who do use some appalling research and feed it to a public 99.9999999999999% of whom are a bunch of mouth breathing morons who will believe anything that they read in the daily mail.

Thats just the thing though - the public think climate change is a scam - a reason to tax them more. You can read various letters in papers and blogs/forums online and it suggests nothing else really.

I dont know a soul, other than a couple of proper scientists (well they aint environmental based, they're chemists) that actually beleives in it. Ofcourse the easiest way to get funding for research is just to mention the climate.

..still havent read those blogs yet.

heavymental

Just out of interest.... What do you think the effects on the Earth of 100 odd years of industrial activity might be?

heavymental

Yes...I think there's a youtube video on that subject isn't there dooncaan? Its of someone showing a simple diagram of consequences of action or non action regardless of whether it exists or not. Like you say, I think the conclusion is that there aren't any drawbacks to addressing the way we treat the planet. We just need it to be a bit more positive rather than just applying taxes.

downfader

We also have to adress the fact that there is simply too many of us here. Less of us would mean less drain on every resource

heavymental

downfader wrote:

We also have to adress the fact that there is simply too many of us here. Less of us would mean less drain on every resource

Its very true. I hate it when newspapers run lighthearted stories on some family thats had 20 kids. Thats the very worst contribution to environmental problems that most people could manage. After a couple of generations they'll have enough people to inhabit a village. All driving cars, eating food, producing rubbish, using power and water. Great. Headline should have read "Keep your dck in your pants".

downfader

Heavymental wrote:

downfader wrote:

We also have to adress the fact that there is simply too many of us here. Less of us would mean less drain on every resource

Its very true. I hate it when newspapers run lighthearted stories on some family thats had 20 kids. Thats the very worst contribution to environmental problems that most people could manage. After a couple of generations they'll have enough people to inhabit a village. All driving cars, eating food, producing rubbish, using power and water. Great. Headline should have read "Keep your dck in your pants".

..or we'll cut it off!

OffTheBackAdam

Heavymental wrote:

Just out of interest.... What do you think the effects on the Earth of 100 odd years of industrial activity might be?

In terms of the population and its lifespan, a great increase on both parameters.
In terms of the ability to support a human population, hugely greater
In terms of the ability to destroy other humans & other lifesforms, immeasurably greater.
In terms of atmospheric CO2, a 20% increase.
In terms of raising global temperatures, diddly-squat!