Notices
Results 1 to 88 of 88
Like Tree34Likes
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 3 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 3 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By billvon
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: Ice caps are melting quicker than previously thought

  1. #1 Ice caps are melting quicker than previously thought 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5
    What measures do you think will help to reverse this?

    Technology Trading: Scout Technologies & Technology Commercialization


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as/re
    -ice-caps-melting-quicker-than-previously-thought
    and
    What measures do you think will help to reverse this
    Perhaps, a psychological cognitive examination?
    Some days, i think most comments on the "global warming" topic belong in their own special subsection of the psychology forum.
    "Neurotics build castles in the clouds. Psychotics live in them"

    Ice caps are growing lately----see the CryoSat data.

    Staying up to date on the field data which is disproving computer climate models may be a bit of a chore, but will likely help you heal from the psychic trauma offered up by the "doom and gloom global warming nutcases".
    The "news" media invariably hypes the "bad stuff", and I suspect that this represents a mental illness shared by the entire species.

    NOAA's testimony before congress is a good read:
    Question 6: Dr. James Hansen and former Vice President Al Gore both are on record saying the
    IPCC is wrong and sea levels may rise upwards of 20 feet by the end of the century; do you
    subscribe to this view? If so, why? If not, why not?
    Response: The models used to project sea level rise reflect a fairly robust scientific understanding of
    the contributions of thermal expansion and glacier melting to sea level rise. The complex processes that
    determine past and potential contributions to sea level rise from changes in ice sheets, however, are less
    well understood. The scientific literature used in preparing the 2007 assessment by IPCC reflected the
    inability of the scientific community at the time to quantify the contributions to sea level rise due to
    changes in ice sheet dynamics, and thus projected rise in the world's oceans of between 8 inches and two
    feet by the end of this century. More recent research3 has provided additional insights into the potential
    contributions to sea level rise from the accelerated flow of ice sheets to the sea and to estimate sea level
    based on the observed relationship between sea level and temperature. Estimates of sea level rise based
    on these new scientific insights exceed those of the IPCC with the average estimates for sea level rise
    under higher emission scenarios at between 3 and 4 feet.
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...ation_QFRs.pdf
    Note the underlined.
    Emissions in the us and europe are going down and in china they have slowed from a 10%/year growth rate to a 3%/year rate.
    Meanwhile, try to imagine the technology which will replace what we currently have in 90 years.

    Most of the linked testimony was in response to testimony by Lord Monckton.
    (Do any "global warming alarmists" have a picture of him on their dart board, and did they draw horns on his head?)


    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewHazlehurst View Post
    What measures do you think will help to reverse this?
    Solar. Electric vehicle adoption. Switch from coal to natural gas (to a degree.) Nuclear. CO2 caps/taxes. Carbon sequestration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5
    The CryoSat does indeed show that the volume of Arctic ice increased in 2013 from 2012, but the difference between the amount of ice from 1980 to 2018 is quite stark. The information needs to be taken in context.
    "It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's (9,000 cu km) minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years"-Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK.
    Also, it could be argued that the ice levels are increasing because of the preventative measures that have been introduced- such as the reduction is emissions you mention.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Can we definitely say with 100% accuracy that the ice has increased by a credulous amount?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Can we definitely say with 100% accuracy that the ice has increased by a credulous amount?
    Depends upon the context, like Andrew said. Increased since last year? Perhaps. Increased since 1980? No.

    You have to be able to see the broader picture. Our ice caps ARE melting. A short period of growth means very little. There is no action we could take right now, even the immediate halt to the production of ALL man-made greenhouse gasses, which would result in certainty that the ice caps would grow the next year. The trend is that they are shrinking and will continue to shrink despite intermittent periods of growth.

    EDIT: I'm also not sure if that is an appropriate use of "credulous".
    PumaMan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as/re
    -ice-caps-melting-quicker-than-previously-thought
    and
    What measures do you think will help to reverse this
    Perhaps, a psychological cognitive examination?
    Some days, i think most comments on the "global warming" topic belong in their own special subsection of the psychology forum.
    You need to ease back and are getting close to trolling. The OP story article accurately reports the NASA study result with an appropriate time to infer climate change and some explanation why. Your quibbling about weather and personal attacks are neither scientific nor meet the forum's decorum.

    --
    Since the OP piece was posted in a technology web, I'd add conservation, insulation, building and using viable and efficient mass transit are far more effective than more other measures people immediately think of--for now electric cars barely save anything in terms of CO2 emissions unless you live where there's a robust hydro powered grid while adding lots of toxins to the environment.
    PumaMan and PhDemon like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Can we definitely say with 100% accuracy that the ice has increased by a credulous amount?
    Depends upon the context, like Andrew said. Increased since last year? Perhaps. Increased since 1980? No.

    You have to be able to see the broader picture. Our ice caps ARE melting. A short period of growth means very little. There is no action we could take right now, even the immediate halt to the production of ALL man-made greenhouse gasses, which would result in certainty that the ice caps would grow the next year. The trend is that they are shrinking and will continue to shrink despite intermittent periods of growth.

    EDIT: I'm also not sure if that is an appropriate use of "credulous".

    Credulous - Too be too quick too believe things.

    You are right about the broader picture - I would cite the heat global temp heat spike in 1998 as a good comparative to this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    [You are right about the broader picture - I would cite the heat global temp heat spike in 1998 as a good comparative to this.
    That's a very good example of people taking things out of context. It's very frustrating to hear people claim that global temperature rise has ceased simply because we had an anomalous spike in 1998. That makes 1998's temperature rise the outlier, not the basis by which future trends should be judged.

    As as aside, I know what credulous means and your use of it still confused me. That's why I mentioned it. I didn't know if it was important, in context, to the rest of your question.
    hannah40 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    [You are right about the broader picture - I would cite the heat global temp heat spike in 1998 as a good comparative to this.
    That's a very good example of people taking things out of context. It's very frustrating to hear people claim that global temperature rise has ceased simply because we had an anomalous spike in 1998. That makes 1998's temperature rise the outlier, not the basis by which future trends should be judged.

    As as aside, I know what credulous means and your use of it still confused me. That's why I mentioned it. I didn't know if it was important, in context, to the rest of your question.

    Absolutely.

    My attitude is this - we know that it will end one day, unless of course we can come up with ways to sustain it all. I believe that all things are here for a limited time but that said, it doesn't do any harm to look after what we have got and apply anything that makes the damage less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    [You are right about the broader picture - I would cite the heat global temp heat spike in 1998 as a good comparative to this.
    That's a very good example of people taking things out of context. It's very frustrating to hear people claim that global temperature rise has ceased simply because we had an anomalous spike in 1998. That makes 1998's temperature rise the outlier, not the basis by which future trends should be judged.

    As as aside, I know what credulous means and your use of it still confused me. That's why I mentioned it. I didn't know if it was important, in context, to the rest of your question.

    Absolutely.

    My attitude is this - we know that it will end one day, unless of course we can come up with ways to sustain it all. I believe that all things are here for a limited time but that said, it doesn't do any harm to look after what we have got and apply anything that makes the damage less.
    All things are transient depending upon your perspective. While I agree that some day all of the life currently on our planet will be extinct (hopefully replaced by something else besides zombies) that doesn't mean it is okay for us to unnaturally expedite the process of their demise. If we set out with only the end game in mind, there is no value to life and that seems like a pretty bleak outlook to have.
    hannah40 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I find this graph on Arctic ice very easy to read and extremely evocative of a clear understanding of what's going on with it:

    February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update

    It's called the "Arctic Ice Death Spiral."

    I haven't checked if there's a 2014 update yet; if so we can probably expect it in the late Spring or Summer.

    Here's the graph:

    Flick Montana and hannah40 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    When I say that I "like" that graph, I mean the way it displays information and not the content of that information which, in reality, is quite depressing.
    Schneibster likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewHazlehurst View Post
    The CryoSat does indeed show that the volume of Arctic ice increased in 2013 from 2012, but the difference between the amount of ice from 1980 to 2018 is quite stark. The information needs to be taken in context.
    "It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's (9,000 cu km) minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years"-Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK.
    Also, it could be argued that the ice levels are increasing because of the preventative measures that have been introduced- such as the reduction is emissions you mention.
    Caveat: CyoSat wasn't in existence in 1980. Cryosat was specifically designed and deployed because those who created it were under the impression that there really was no accurate data concerning ice cap and sea ice volume.
    So, i always take the old numbers as having very large error bars on the order of 50% of claimed volumes.
    The posted graph is an example---compare it to the CryoSat data.

    context-fersure
    the CryoSat data is for a very short period of time, and the satelite is already partly crippled.
    I would really like to see it's replacement in the sky before the current CryoSat(Cryosat II) goes off-line.
    For any real understanding of climate decades of data are required.

    Andrew, sorry if I was a tad impolite earlier-lynx is correct in admonishing me----i really do try to be a bit more congenial(most of the time).

    In science, nothing is 100% certain. Some of the best is done with the instruments of the day, but never(rarely?) with 100% certainty.
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 01:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    In science, nothing is 100% certain. Some of the best is done with the instruments of the day, but never(rarely?) with 100% certainty.
    Most of us are comfortable with 99%.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    In science, few things are 99% certain. Some of the best is done with the instruments of the day, but rarely with 99% certainty.

    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 02:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    This assumption is based upon...?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    As a particle physics groupie I strongly deny that assertion. In fact there are many things we know with far more than 99% certainty. 99% is only 2.3 sigma. Particle physicists do not consider a particle to be "discovered" without far better certainty than that; five sigma is generally considered the minimum criterion for declaring discovery of a particle, and that's 99.9999997132135%, more or less.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    When I say that I "like" that graph, I mean the way it displays information and not the content of that information which, in reality, is quite depressing.
    Funny thing, Flick:
    You're depressed by the "content of that information" and not the way the graph displays the "information": While I'm depressed by it's gross inaccuracy for the years for which we have CryoSat data.
    Meanwhile, what really depresses me is that a lot of simple minded folks will look at that p.o.s. and assume that it is accurate in it's depiction of the "arctic sea ice death spiral". And then repost it for the next generation of the simple minded.

    Do we not already have enough deluded fools?
    Location
    Location
    Location
    If your castle is in the clouds, when you step out your front door, you could plummet to your death.
    (hang onto that door handle while you pray to a god in whom you do not believe)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Hey, I think it's a cool way to present the data. Sue me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Flick, I'd agree if it were really accurate data, but it ain't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Flick, I'd agree if it were really accurate data, but it ain't.
    I read the publications supporting their model. I suppose you have something which strongly counters the data they have?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Me? No!
    However, the CryoSat folks seem to think that they do.

    Are you confusing "model" with "data"?
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 03:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    What do you think models are built upon? Unicorn farts and NyQuil dreams?

    Did you mean this CryoSat:

    11 December 2013 Three years of observations by ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year – considerably more than when last surveyed.

    11 September 2013 Offering new insights into our fragile polar regions, ESA’s CryoSat mission has provided three consecutive years of Arctic sea-ice thickness measurements, which show that the ice continues to thin.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Me? No!
    However, the CryoSat folks do.

    Are you confusing "model" with "data"?
    Errr, no, the CryoSat data confirms the Death Spiral data.

    Could you please show where you claim it doesn't?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Me? No!
    However, the CryoSat folks do.

    Are you confusing "model" with "data"?
    Errr, no, the CryoSat data confirms the Death Spiral data.

    Could you please show where it doesn't?
    That one year where sea ice levels increased. Remember? Global warming isn't real.
    Ken Fabos, PhDemon and Schneibster like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    look at the graph above
    Tell us what you see for sea ice volume in 2011, 2012

    really not easy to guess from the graph, but it seems to show low ice volume for 2012 at <4000 cu km
    while the Cryosat folks saw it at >6000 cu km

    Which would mean the the model from which that chart was drawn would have an error margin of 50% of it's claimed volume---4000 + 50%(2000) = 6000.

    Is the chart Accurate? Yeh well maybe within a 50% error bar (+ and -) so
    4000 cu km could be 2000 cu km or 6000 cu km--------
    extrpolating that margin of error back to the beginning of the chart would yield 17k cu km plus or minus 50% for a range of from 8.5k cu km to 26k cu km

    Current field data trumps modeling every time. (and we need more of it)

    If you know the current error embodied within the posted chart, do you not have to guess a to the likelyhood of potential earlier errors?

    ..........................
    This assumes that the CryoSat data are accurate.
    ...................
    Compared to the piomas estimates, the Cryosat data show a 2013 recovery to the average 2003 to 2008 levels
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/...l_grl50193.pdf
    and
    BBC News - Esa's Cryosat sees Arctic sea-ice volume bounce back

    So, revisiting the chart for those time frames, do you see a correlation to the CryoSat numbers?
    What do you see as an average for 2003 - 2008?

    .............
    None of what we are discussing about the accuracy of that chart goes to the broader understanding of anthropogenic atmospheric forcing nor it's effects on the climate-----atleast, not from me.
    .................
    Not seeing the forest for the trees ain't no worse than not seeing the trees for the forest.
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 04:41 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    So, are you unfamiliar with the difference between a six decade trend and a two year trend?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Is that like asking if I know the difference between a 2 inch penis and a 6 inch penis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Or,
    Would you rather discuss the differences between that graph and the CryoSat data?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    You'll need to argue with the original figures which are in the original paper.

    You can write the editor if you think they're wrong. Let us know how that works out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    May I assume Schneib, that you are still attached to some peculiar concept of accuracy for that p.o.s chart which you posted?
    And have summarily dismissed the CryoSat data?
    Does conflicting data have no effect on your position?
    Is that rational?

    Now you may guess why I think discussions of these matters need their own subsection under the psychology section.

    ............
    I've only pointed out the errors for the 3 years for which we have better field data.
    The rest is extrapolation and thereby speculation.

    as/re:
    You'll need to argue with the original figures which are in the original paper.
    Why?
    You're the one who posted the chart.
    Do you not support your postings?
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 08:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If your castle is in the clouds, when you step out your front door, you could plummet to your death.
    Agreed. And denying that you are high up in the air doesn't work all that well. (Well, you can deny your location, and you can deny the laws of gravity, but you're still in for a nasty surprise at the end of your fall - no matter how much you deny the science.)
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    740
    Sculptor, I think you are wasting your own time and ours with these attempt to conflate a mere couple of years that followed an extreme record low Arctic ice volume/mass (2010) into the suggestion that the strong trend of Arctic ice loss has stopped or reversed. Record lows usually get followed by lows that are not records - calling that a recovery is misleading at best, deceptive at worst, especially when two of the years following were still tracking below the trend line and the last barely exceeded it. ie they contributed to making the trend of ice loss steeper!

    Arctic ice extent is tracking very close to record lows, speaking of data staring us in the face and being ignored. And lower ice extent means greater absorption of solar energy by open water, which is not going to create the conditions for any ongoing 'recovery'. February saw the Arctic tracking 4 to 8 degrees C above average temperatures; not conducive to a 'recovery'.
    adelady, PhDemon and Schneibster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewHazlehurst View Post
    What measures do you think will help to reverse this?
    Solar. Electric vehicle adoption. Switch from coal to natural gas (to a degree.) Nuclear. CO2 caps/taxes. Carbon sequestration.
    I think we need a new type of thinking where science is not separated from the people. If there were real critical thinkers, who could look at life from more than one perspective, or let me say in a holistic way, there could be a revolution in the way we look at and use energy. There has to be a way of storing energy from nature other than taking it from the soil. It is ludicrous to think that the earth will not respond if we take out the substances from the earth and burn it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I think we need a new type of thinking where science is not separated from the people.
    Boneheaded remark.
    1) Science is "separated from the people" because some people don't take the time to learn science.
    2) What sort of "new type of thinking" do you think would help? Science is science: change the way of "thinking" about it and it becomes not-science.

    If there were real critical thinkers, who could look at life from more than one perspective, or let me say in a holistic way, there could be a revolution in the way we look at and use energy.
    Yeah?

    There has to be a way of storing energy from nature other than taking it from the soil.
    What?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I think we need a new type of thinking where science is not separated from the people.
    It's not. However some people choose to separate themselves from science.

    . . . there could be a revolution in the way we look at and use energy. There has to be a way of storing energy from nature other than taking it from the soil.
    I get the power to run my house and the energy to run my car from the sun. How about you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I think we need a new type of thinking where science is not separated from the people.
    It's not. However some people choose to separate themselves from science.

    . . . there could be a revolution in the way we look at and use energy. There has to be a way of storing energy from nature other than taking it from the soil.
    I get the power to run my house and the energy to run my car from the sun. How about you?
    I get my energy from the oil too, but I am on the other side suggesting that there are better ways of saving and using energy than the one we have chosen. The way to do this is to look at life itself form another angle, especially in the realms of science, and technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I get my energy from the oil too, but I am on the other side suggesting that there are better ways of saving and using energy than the one we have chosen.
    So choose better ways! No one is stopping you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,699
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    So choose better ways! No one is stopping you.
    You can't say that!
    Stargate's "method" is to ignore the fact that people are searching for alternatives and to hope that merely wishing - in an especially vague way - is sufficient.

    Example:
    I am on the other side suggesting that there are better ways of saving and using energy than the one we have chosen
    But what those methods actually are is not specified: it's just "Well I think there should be, so there must be".

    The way to do this is to look at life itself form another angle, especially in the realms of science, and technology.
    And an equally nebulous "suggestion" on how to find those ""better ways": ignoring my previous comment that science "looked at another way" wouldn't be science and without specifying which "angle" things should be looked at from.

    Ignorance and wishful thinking abound: if only we could harness those we'd be sorted.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I get my energy from the oil too, but I am on the other side suggesting that there are better ways of saving and using energy than the one we have chosen.
    So choose better ways! No one is stopping you.
    I am going to make a suggestion, but I warn you Mr duck is going to go berserk, I hope you can hold up. My idea is, science could embrace life as a whole and incorporate spirit into the thinking of humans. This would broaden the scope of visibility and allow a glimpse into another aspect of life. What I mean is look to look at life not only from the inside, but also from the outside. Please do not run away with what I am saying as gospel, I am merely giving my perspective of learning more about how we approach the question of energy conservation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am going to make a suggestion
    And I bet it'll be a stupid one.

    My idea is, science could embrace life as a whole and incorporate spirit into the thinking of humans
    Oh, I was right.
    Please show that "spirit" exists.
    Please provide some method of incorporating this "spirit" into science.
    Please elucidate on what you mean by "science could embrace life as a whole".

    This would broaden the scope of visibility and allow a glimpse into another aspect of life. What I mean is look to look at life not only from the inside, but also from the outside. Please do not run away with what I am saying as gospel, I am merely giving my perspective of learning more about how we approach the question of energy conservation.
    Yeah.
    Or a much easier way of saying it: "You're talking bollocks".
    Schneibster likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ken:
    I confined my recent responses to the errors in one single graph posted in here.

    Why conflate my remarks into something which they were not by adding in your own biases?
    again
    Perhaps this topic is beyond dispassionate objectivity for most viewers, and therefore belongs in the psychology forum section?

    My last few posts are exclusively focused on whether or not the graph posted by da Schneib was an accurate reflection on the state of the arctic sea ice volume.
    Let's focus on this one goddamned tree before moving on to other aspects of the forest.
    Is that possible?

    If we blindly ignore errors along our path, we ain't likely to get anywhere worth going to.

    You post about records when you have limited data to support those assertions.
    Perhaps, you'd be more accurate if you used "recorded estimates" instead of simply "record"?
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 08:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    . My idea is, science could embrace life as a whole and incorporate spirit into the thinking of humans. This would broaden the scope of visibility and allow a glimpse into another aspect of life. What I mean is look to look at life not only from the inside, but also from the outside.
    Sure! Go for it.
    I am merely giving my perspective of learning more about how we approach the question of energy conservation.
    It's great that you are learning. Someday perhaps you will be able to put what you learn into action, as many of us have done.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    May I assume Schneib, that you are still attached to some peculiar concept of accuracy for that p.o.s chart which you posted?
    You haven't posted anything to the contrary.

    I'm evidence-based.

    And very, very stubborn. I only accept clean data after I've looked it over a while.

    Just a quick piece of advice: if you start your post with a subtle insult like this you will suddenly find I only respond to the first such thing you say. Most people don't like that. I don't really care. I don't believe in wasting much time on people who consistently behave like that.

    And two years of cherry-picked data does not, ever, challenge forty. The Earth doesn't move that fast.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    May I assume Schneib, that you are still attached to some peculiar concept of accuracy for that p.o.s chart which you posted?
    You haven't posted anything to the contrary.
    .
    Just look at the CryoSat data, mission statement, etc.........
    and you may yet see what it is that I'm referencing.

    da Schneib:.............I ain't isulting you, just that chart.

    I've noticed that quite often, when new data becomes available, people are reticent to embrace it.
    Instead, they cling to that which they have already inculcated. This is true in archaeology(the "clovis first" lunatics used to drive me to voicing many many insults) as well as climate science, and many other human experiences.
    We cling to the devil we know rather than take a gamble on the devil we don't know. Which is why some poor fools stay in really bad jobs or in really bad marriages, or hold on to hypotheses long after they have been disproven.

    It ain't just you:
    "Remember, we're all in this together".
    Last edited by sculptor; March 12th, 2014 at 09:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    May I assume Schneib, that you are still attached to some peculiar concept of accuracy for that p.o.s chart which you posted?
    You haven't posted anything to the contrary.
    .
    Just look at the CryoSat data, mission statement, etc.........
    and you may yet see what it is that I'm referencing.
    "It's in there" doesn't work for me. Link and quote please, that support your claims, specifically and first of all your claim that there is any inaccuracy in the Death Spiral.

    This is a science board. We need to be arguing about the contents of papers, not making sweeping statements about someone else's data and then pointing at an entire space program and going, "It's in there." Surely you can do better than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Did you actually take and read the links I already posted?

    If, not, please do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    I'm sorry, I'm not reading fifty pages of stuff because you say "it's in there." Quote and link, please, and an exact statement of what part of the Death Spiral data you claim it invalidates. I'll be fetching the underlying data from its source so we can compare it to yours. If you don't have any you lose.

    >Schneib tips his hand to the audience: I know what the source data is already. That's why I like the Death Spiral. They're drawn to it like a moth to the flame. <
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Oh come on sculptor. Andy Lee Robinson does excellent work, not all of it based on Cryosat data. If you want to look at all the datasets, try the Arctic Sea Ice blog. Here we have

    1. Daily graphs. All the reporting agencies that produce daily data, including for Greenland melt/accumulation. https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

    2. Regional graphs. One year's worth of area data and anomalies as well as details of the last week's data compared to the previous five years for the week in question. From University of Illinois, Cryosphere Today. https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/regional

    3. Longterm graphs. This is where a lot of Andy Lee Robinson's work shows up. https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/longterm

    4. Concentration Map. University of Bremen.

    5. and 6. These are for the Arctic Sea Ice addicts among us.
    SLP patterns https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/longterm and Webcams https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...graphs/webcams

    The melt season will shortly be upon us and, as usual, bets will be laid on the September extent and area. Now's the time for people to start watching Neven's Arctic Sea Ice. Though nowadays it's a good idea to sign up so that you can see what goes on in the forums. There are a lot of really excellent people who comment there. And there are links to several other terrific sea ice, icesheet and glacier blogs and sites.

    (It's addictive, but if you don't have a hobby and you like dealing with visually difficult material, this could be your chance. When I say difficult, I mean difficult - for example https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worl...792896,-217536 )
    Schneibster likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not reading fifty pages of stuff because you say "it's in there." Quote and link, please, and an exact statement of what part of the Death Spiral data you claim it invalidates. I'll be fetching the underlying data from its source so we can compare it to yours. If you don't have any you lose.

    >Schneib tips his hand to the audience: I know what the source data is already. That's why I like the Death Spiral. They're drawn to it like a moth to the flame. <
    If you took the link, you'd already know that it's 6 pages not 50
    I find it darned curious that you do not wish to inform your opinions.

    Again, does this topic belong in the psychology section?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post

    I think we need a new type of thinking where science is not separated from the people. If there were real critical thinkers, who could look at life from more than one perspective, or let me say in a holistic way, there could be a revolution in the way we look at and use energy. There has to be a way of storing energy from nature other than taking it from the soil. It is ludicrous to think that the earth will not respond if we take out the substances from the earth and burn it.
    We're not talking about renewable technology here. We're talking about the science of observing, measuring and analysing physical data. Don't fall into the trap sculptor set for you by accepting that it's about psychology or attitudes. It's not.

    And hard-headed is better than fuzzy "holistic" wishful thinking for looking at technology anyway.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Cool!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not reading fifty pages of stuff because you say "it's in there." Quote and link, please, and an exact statement of what part of the Death Spiral data you claim it invalidates. I'll be fetching the underlying data from its source so we can compare it to yours. If you don't have any you lose.

    >Schneib tips his hand to the audience: I know what the source data is already. That's why I like the Death Spiral. They're drawn to it like a moth to the flame. <
    If you took the link, you'd already know that it's 6 pages not 50
    I find it darned curious that you do not wish to inform your opinions.

    Again, does this topic belong in the psychology section?
    Quote and link. Sorry, I don't bother with claimants who can't provide a quote and a link.

    Also precisely what portion of the Death Spiral are you denying?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    adelady:
    I took a link of yours which led to
    https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/longterm

    again their 2010,2011,2012, and 2103 estimates do not agree with the CryoSat data

    What I want to discuss is these discrepancies.

    You must always ask yourself:
    Are we dealing with models and estimates, or accurate data.
    If you can shoot holes in the CryoSat data, please do so.

    I'll take the rest of your links as time allows, thanx.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    More and more guys, i think that discussions in here about "global warming" are better suited to psychological studies rather than climate studies,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    adelady:
    I took a link of yours which led to
    https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/longterm

    again their 2010,2011,2012, and 2103 estimates do not agree with the CryoSat data

    What I want to discuss is these discrepancies.

    You must always ask yourself:
    Are we dealing with models and estimates, or accurate data.
    If you can shoot holes in the CryoSat data, please do so.

    I'll take the rest of your links as time allows, thanx.
    OK, then discuss them.

    What discrepancies? You say you want to discuss them, then you change the subject.

    You aren't actually claiming anything tangible or testable.

    What I want to discuss is the problem you have with making these nebulous claims all the time. If we're going to discuss psychology. That's a sign of underlying fear and doubt, you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Yes there are discrepancies, just as with most things measured by different methods.

    Crysat models radiation returns to derive ice thickness at a point, applies smoothing and integrates it into total volume and other total measures.

    Piomas models ice flow, grow and dissipation using input from a variety of sources including insitu measurements (dude standing on ice, submarine sounding etc).

    Neither measure is without significant problems, Crysat tends to overestimate because it's model doesn't have a good handle on surface roughness, which effect radiation returns and thus the algorithms and models that estimate thickness. It's advantage is better coverage. It's disadvantage is it doesn't use dynamic ice modeling nor is there a way to adjust for ice roughness.

    Piomas tends to be effected by model errors that diverge where there isn't in situ observations--in some places insitu variation and input of winds is quite sparse.
    -

    The important part is both confirm each other's falling estimates of ice volume loss in recent years.

    Satellite records show a decline in ice extent over more than three decades, with a record minimum in September 2012. Results from the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation system (PIOMAS) suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a decline in volume, but this has not been confirmed by data. Using new data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 (CS-2) mission, validated with in situ data, we generate estimates of ice volume for the winters of 2010/11 and 2011/12. We compare these data with current estimates from PIOMAS and earlier (2003–8) estimates from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ICESat mission. Between the ICESat and CryoSat-2 periods, the autumn volume declined by 4291 km3 and the winter volume by 1479 km3. This exceeds the decline in ice volume in the central Arctic from the PIOMAS model of 2644 km3 in the autumn, but is less than the 2091 km3 in winter, between the two time periods.

    Cryosat-2 was actually showing faster loss than the PAIO.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50193/abstract
    --

    Sculpture, one of the more annoying parts of these forums is you continue to draw a false and abrupt distinction between models and observations-- there is no such distinction in most natural sciences anymore --even the simplest things require some degree of modeling.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Small descripancies are one thing---rather expected actually.
    However, the aforementioned 50% descrepancy between the posted chart and real data should never be ignored by anyone who would strive for a real understanding.
    The posted volume chart purports to have measurements for something for which there was little or no data until quite recently.
    from the cryosat folks:
    “One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012… We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study into Arctic sea ice thickness, and was quoted in an ESA press release.
    There is little doubt that sea ice extent has been declining.
    Volume, when looking to the past, on the other hand remains speculative.

    The CryoSat folks seem unworried about their measurements of "rough ice". Their current concern seems to be the accuracy of their data when viewed through snow cover. So, teams from different universities and different countries will be converging on the thickest ice as per their extant data to calibrate their instrumentation with in situ data:
    One of the largest remaining uncertainties with CryoSat-2 measurements is the interaction of the radar on the satellite with the layer of snow on top of the sea ice. The main purpose of their experiment is to try to better understand this interaction and reduce this uncertainty. They will make ground-based and airborne radar measurements in conjunction with tradition ‘dig a hole’-type measurements as the satellite passes overhead, so that they can compare the situation on the ground with what the satellite is seeing.
    Good news, they expect the CryoSat to be operational for another 3 + years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Small descripancies are one thing---rather expected actually.
    However, the aforementioned 50% descrepancy between the posted chart and real data should never be ignored by anyone who would strive for a real understanding.
    The posted volume chart purports to have measurements for something for which there was little or no data until quite recently.
    from the cryosat folks:
    “One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012… We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study into Arctic sea ice thickness, and was quoted in an ESA press release.
    There is little doubt that sea ice extent has been declining.
    Volume, when looking to the past, on the other hand remains speculative.

    The CryoSat folks seem unworried about their measurements of "rough ice". Their current concern seems to be the accuracy of their data when viewed through snow cover. So, teams from different universities and different countries will be converging on the thickest ice as per their extant data to calibrate their instrumentation with in situ data:.
    Your characteristic as "unconcerned" might be accurate, but only because they are aware of shortcomings (not only rough ice, but open leads, fresh snow and lack of insitu input on the fly). And as you point out still in the process of improving their model by validation against other models and insitu information.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There is little doubt that sea ice extent has been declining.
    Volume, when looking to the past, on the other hand remains speculative.
    "Speculative?" No, that's not true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    All the data shows decreasing arctic ice volumes, in situ, remote sensing, and combinations of those included in dynamic models.

    How deniers look at things:
    Schneibster likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Your characteristic as "unconcerned" might be accurate, but only because they are aware of shortcomings (not only rough ice, but open leads, fresh snow and lack of insitu input on the fly). And as you point out still in the process of improving their model by validation against other models and insitu information.
    If you read their methodology, the CryoSat folks use the open leads to recalibrate to sea level.
    Their current main concern is what they are showing as very thick ice north of Greenland and west to the Canadian maritime arctic. That is where (some of?) the ground teams will be drilling, etc. this year)
    .........
    as/re:
    Sculpture, one of the more annoying parts of these forums is you continue to draw a false and abrupt distinction between models and observations-- there is no such distinction in most natural sciences anymore --even the simplest things require some degree of modeling.
    If the posted chart is any indication of how far the models can go astray, then the model(s?) from which that chart was derived really need to be revisited because it has/they have been shown to be way off the mark. 50% of their claimed volume is far enough off the mark to bring into question any and all of their extrapolations/projections/speculations/or wild guesses. Why anyone would accept that level of error is way beyond my understanding.
    Curiously enough, that chart claims to be derived from the piomas model but does not reflect the volume as posted in tha above link to the CryoSat data--here it is again--http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Laxon_etal2013_icevol_grl50193.pdf
    Take the link and look on the bottom left of page 5. then compare the listed values to that chart.

    Modeling is needed and important------No matter what we are trying to observe, there will always be gaps in the data which need filling, and when we have good models, we can extrapolate forward and backward with them.
    That being said, an occasional reality check is in order.
    Bullshit don't smell any better no matter who wants to share it.
    Last edited by sculptor; March 13th, 2014 at 03:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Sculptor, there is a large amount of open water in the Northern Summer and Autumn that has not been present for millenia or even hundreds of millenia, according to surveys before the warming began (for example back in the 1960s in the IGY). This open water has a far lower albedo than white snow and ice. Do you deny any of this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    740
    Sculptor @43 I meant to include this graph, that I was referencing in my previous comment, which shows that, far from post 2010 being a 'recovery' it is actually a period of significant loss of ice volume (or mass), that would send the trend line steeper downwards. Sure, there is modelling involved. You have not shown that the modelling is wrong or suspect or intended or used for any other purpose than to use the limited (but not imaginary) data available to get as close to the real state of Arctic ice. You certainly suggest that this is NOT the real state of the Arctic but I don't see that you have shown that that is so.






    You can reject this graph (reasons besides 'modelling' required), but I don't see how you can honestly interpret it as showing an end or reversal of a trend of loss of ice.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Schneib:
    Yes, especially your claim to hundreds of millenia. Ain't no way you can support that outlandish claim.
    (much of the grounded Greenland ice melted during the last interglacial, and we ain't there yet, nor are we likely to get there during this interglacial.)

    The earh has(had?) been steadily warming since the maunder minimum, even with the mild setback of the dalton. Simple logic would support the concept of constantly more open water for those centuries. Of course open water has lower albedo than albus--white. As do trees.

    Based on the usgs information about the Hallstadtzeit cycle, I would hazard a guess that there was less sea ice circa 7500 years ago.
    ...........
    Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why sea ice volume rebounded 50% last year?
    Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the warming seems to have stalled recently?
    Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the antarctic sea ice continues to expand---hitting a new record high last year?
    .........
    CO2 has known effects on the atmosphere.
    Add in that the solar coronal-source magnetic flux doubled during the past century, for which time period the cosmic-ray flux has decreased by about 15%
    The Sun's total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 from 1964–1996 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901
    All of which increase the sun's contribution to warming the earth(seas included) and melting the ice.

    Meanwhile, the sun seems to be quieting down lately.
    Just a blip? or .............
    Gleissberg, devries/suess, Hallstatt, etc cycles working against warming?

    ..........
    Nothing in our environment is a stand alone. Simple claims just don't cut it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Actually Arctic ice cores from before it melted support it.

    On Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The earh has(had?) been steadily warming since the maunder minimum
    Not between 1940 and 1980, for example. But overall it has been warming a lot faster since 1850.
    Simple logic would support the concept of constantly more open water for those centuries.
    No, because weather is not simple. That's like saying "simple logic would support that every day since 1850 got slightly warmer." No, it doesn't.
    Nothing in our environment is a stand alone. Simple claims just don't cut it.
    Exactly. Which is why claims like "Simple logic would support the concept of constantly more open water for those centuries" are silly.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Here's Arctic ice records for a million years: http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.pdf

    That's how long, at minimum, it's been since that Arctic ice melted. It's actually about 2.4 million years according to our best estimates, before it all melted. There are still laboratories that have ice cores that old.

    You are of course comfortable with ice that's a million years old melting today. It doesn't concern you at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ken:
    I never said that there was "an end or reversal of a trend of loss of ice". Except of course for antarctica.
    Nor would I ever claim such a thing based on 3 years of arctic ocean ice volume data.
    From your chart, I'd hazard a guess that we'd have to break above the trend bars as we almost did in 1993 and 1997 then continue to climb before even suspecting that a different trend were in play.

    It ain't the trend that I've been bitching about since post #12, it is the gross inaccuracy of that chart, and the fact that the ill-informed continue to post such nonsense.

    I ain't married to the ice. I'm reasonably certain that the biom would be healthier with less ice and more greenery.
    And, that is the meat and gravy of where you and I differ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Here's Arctic ice records for a million years: http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.pdf

    That's how long, at minimum, it's been since that Arctic ice melted. It's actually about 2.4 million years according to our best estimates, before it all melted. There are still laboratories that have ice cores that old.

    You are of course comfortable with ice that's a million years old melting today. It doesn't concern you at all.
    rubbish and nonsense

    read your link again
    hint: Here is it's title: Eurasian Arctic climate over the past millennium as recorded in the
    Akademii Nauk ice core
    (that's 1000 years dadio, not 1,000,000 nor 2.4 million)

    You might be better informed if you look into the lake el'gygytgyn research.
    When they published, i commented in here that it was a new paradigm in paleoclimate research.
    If you're into getting "science" from youtube, you might enjoy Julie Brigham-Grette's presentation before the nsf.
    Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxbOSB7zDgY

    (jeez, has it really been almost 2 years since I saw further by standing on her shoulders, and refered to her as my current favorite 50 foot tall woman?----tempus fugit)
    Last edited by sculptor; March 13th, 2014 at 06:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    rubbish and nonsense
    Not at all. In fact here are the cores going back more than 3 million years: https://news.yahoo.com/ice-cores-rev...231408238.html

    Note the "ice cores" in the title.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    rubbish and nonsense
    Not at all. In fact here are the cores going back more than 3 million years: https://news.yahoo.com/ice-cores-rev...231408238.html

    Note the "ice cores" in the title.
    I could give a damn what you see in the title, the lake el'gygytgyn cores were mud/sediment cores not ice cores.
    And, did it escape your notice that you just contradicted your post #69?
    It would seem that Sophie ain't got a handle on the lexicon.
    You could do better than to repeat her mistakes.

    FYI: The oldest ice cores would have to be from the east antarctic ice sheet.
    Last edited by sculptor; March 13th, 2014 at 07:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    rubbish and nonsense
    Not at all. In fact here are the cores going back more than 3 million years: https://news.yahoo.com/ice-cores-rev...231408238.html

    Note the "ice cores" in the title.
    I could give a damn what you see in the title,
    Then I couldn't give a damn what more you have to say. Obviously you are deranged and experiencing psychotic delusions. Good bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    740
    Sculptor -

    "...why sea ice volume rebounded 50% last year?" - I think that is called 'Winter'.

    The swings do seem to be more pronounced post 2010, (don't know if that represents an regime change) but - this 'rebound' was about equal to the ice loss of the previous summer . "Rebounded 50%" sounds dramatic, like we are seeing a real recovery of Arctic sea ice, but it's just a rebound that went from the lowest ice volume on record back to much below average. Not really a rebound at all. Why do you see special significance with the apparent strength of this 'rebound' but not with the equally dramatic ice loss of ice that preceded it? Do you have any reason to believe the coming summer will not dramatically turn that 'rebound' into meltwater?

    "...why the warming seems to have stalled recently?" - the operative word is 'seems'. It hasn't stalled or even slowed and this has been explained to you by me and others numerous times. Global heat content continues to rise and has not stalled, ie the world has kept on warming, warming last year at 6 times the average rate since the 1950's.

    When the world is not warming the average surface air temperature goes up and down. Going up and not coming down is exactly what a strong warming trend looks like. The 'seems' part arises for several reasons. The main one is people who know better or should are pretending that the threshold for a global warming trend isn't temperature going up more than it goes down, it must be (for no scientific reason) temperature going up followed by temperature going up some more.

    Other reasons include -

    1998 being such an extreme record, so that, just as sea ice looks like it 'recovered' after hitting a record low, temperature can appear to 'recover' back downwards.

    The period from 1998 to present is too short to show a clear trend in the presence of natural variability. Just having one more la Nina year than el Nino is enough to skew a trend over a period that short.

    There has been a failure to consider and incorporate what is known about natural variability, because when it is considered and included we get a graph more like this (adjusted for ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance) -



    Antarctic ice is still a bit of a puzzle but scientists are trying to figure it out. Changes to wind patterns are one possibility, but there is nothing to suggest it means global warming isn't happening. Loss of land ice from Antarctica exceeds the seasonal gain in winter sea ice and Antarctica is warming, so growth of sea ice is not evidence that Antarctica isn't warming, or that land ice is not being lost.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; March 13th, 2014 at 07:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Sculptor -

    "...why sea ice volume rebounded 50% last year?" - I think that is called 'Winter'.

    --- .
    If that was an attempt to be flippant, congratulations, You nailed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    seriously
    I've been trying to find the current radiative forcing after rewatching the lake e thing, wherein the forcing was between 400-450? w/sq meter for a glaciation low and 500 for a superinterglacial high

    compared to the 3.7 w/sq m for a doubling of CO2
    kinda dwarfs the 3.7

    but i ain't found any numbers from other sources yet
    so' I'm still searching.
    ...................
    thanks for your insights----------the 1998 thing ads valuable perspective,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I've been trying to find the current radiative forcing after rewatching the lake e thing, wherein the forcing was between 400-450? w/sq meter for a glaciation low and 500 for a superinterglacial high
    The FORCING was half the total insolation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    I've been trying to find the current radiative forcing after rewatching the lake e thing, wherein the forcing was between 400-450? w/sq meter for a glaciation low and 500 for a superinterglacial high
    The FORCING was half the total insolation?
    ? indeed--------------still searching
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Rebound? There ain't none. It's entirely possible that we might see a late refreeze like that of 2012 before the sea ice extent fell off a cliff early in the melt season - it's also entirely possible that the record low extent a few days ago, March 10th, won't change a great deal before the sun gets busy. The

    Under this state of ongoing assault, regions near Svalbard fell into rapid retreat as floes fractured over warming waters in the Bering Sea and west of Greenland. The result is the lowest measure of winter time sea ice area ever seen in any record for this day since Arctic observation began. Yet one more passing milestone in the vicious and rapid progression of human-caused climate change.


    (Record low sea ice cover on March 10, 2014 a time that typically features sea ice maximum. Note that all basins show sea ice area and extent below the, already lower than normal, 1979-2000 base-line. Image source: Climate Change Institute.)

    The fact that
    all the seas and ocean regions are affected is the big deal. Some years there's some kind of record like this, but when you look at the details you see that one region has had a huge loss and the others are just chugging along. The fact that Svalbard was circumnavigable at this time of year was the most startling as well as the fact that it looks as though you could sail straight across the Barents Sea to Novaya Zemlya. But everywhere you look, there's less ice, Alaska, Okhotsk, the Greenland Sea, everywhere.
    http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/arctic-heat-drives-sea-ice-back-into-record-low-territory-at-top-of-melt-season/

    You can see the difference when you compare the side by side images for March 10 on Cryosphere Today. (The snow cover not being depicted in earlier years can be a bit off-putting though.)


    Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.

    Schneibster likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    P. Ko¨hler
    seems to be pegging the number closer to 267-271(2010)
    whereas, M.F. Loutre(2003) seems to prefer the 450 to 550 number shown in the lake e data
    whereas A. Ganopolski and R. Calov seem to be referring to those same numbers as insolation
    I ain't completely confused yet, but I am working on it....
    so far
    I'm leaning to accepting @ 1/2 of insolation plus an unknown percentage

    still searching......................................... ...........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    glancing over the above
    adelady seems to have missed the point that I had referenced a rebound in arctic sea ice volume as/per the CryoSat data. and not area.
    I see no reason to deny volume based on area. Nor to therefore doubt the veracity of the CryoSat measurements.

    Data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent.

    In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”

    NSIDC data also shows that the decline in Arctic sea ice extent in January slowed to below the long-term rate of decline.

    Over the last few decades, satellites have shown a downward trend in the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice. However, the actual volume of sea ice has proven difficult to determine because it moves around and so its thickness can change.

    According to ESA, CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, and has allowed scientists, for the first time, to monitor the overall change in volume accurately.

    About 90 per cent of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10 per cent growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover, says ESA.

    Multiyear ice at the end of 2013 was on average about 20 per cent, or around 30 cm, thicker than 2012.

    “One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012… We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study into Arctic sea ice thickness, and was quoted in an ESA press release.
    Only antarctic sea ice seems to have increased in area--------anyone have #s for antarctic ice volume?

    Ken, did you notice this part?
    In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”
    (ergo: my flippant comment)

    (wild guess du jour) The quiet sun and our north american extended winter of 2013 are likely key players in the reported increase in volume and decrease in rate of decline.

    Next years data should prove interesting.

    .................................................. ....
    While searching for the elusive comparisons of radiative forcing between interglacials and glacials:
    I read a paper postulating that anthropogenic CO2 forcing may push this inter-glacial into becoming a super inter-glacial.
    If true, could we offer our great grand children a better gift than that?
    (of course, I doubt his conclusions) entertaining though they may be
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    (wild guess du jour) The quiet sun and our north american extended winter of 2013 are likely key players in the reported increase in volume and decrease in rate of decline.
    Another wild guess is also worth entertaining. That if we did have Cryosat data measured, calibrated and imaged in the same way as now that it would be showing the same trend as we see in the PIOMAS results.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Bother. Hit button early (and I can't edit at the moment).

    There's a good post at Open Mind on this.

    Here’s a graph of the two data sets over the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 ice-growth seasons:


    The obvious comment is here

    Clearly, the PIOMAS data are consistently lower than the CryoSat-2 data. But the important thing is that they both show similar patterns of
    change over time, although there are differences even in the patterns, including the seasonal changes.

    When the differences between the two sets of results are consistent during the period they overlap - and our interest is in the trend as well as in absolute numbers - then it's entirely valid to look at the trend shown by the longer dataset.

    Here it is


    The whole item is worth reading. And some of the comments are interesting, especially the person who talks about the presentation of the Cryosat results at the AGU meeting. CryoSat-2 | Open Mind

    And this comment at the Arctic Sea Ice blog is quite useful too.
    CryoSat: Arctic sea ice up from record low - Arctic Sea Ice
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    There seems far too little CryoSat data to declare a trend.
    That being said:
    Yeh, if we did have a longer data stream from them, the most likely outcome would have shown the same trend over the past few decades.
    But we don't, so sticking with the general trend shown in other data and models, for the time being, seems the wise choice.(with the caveat that prior volume estimates lacked the current ability to test those estimates.)

    One of the really great things about science is the development of ever more sophisticated and accurate(?) instrumentation.
    Each technological leap offers more opportunities to wonder IF we could find out more with more specialized instrumentation, then developing that instrumentation, and testing and calibrating it.
    60 odd years ago, C14 measurements revolutionized anthropological archaeology, and now we have DNA.
    Advances in drilling rig and drill head design allowed the lake el'gygytgyn data to inform us of previous interglacials with much more detail.

    It just keeps getting better and better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    whereas, M.F. Loutre(2003) seems to prefer the 450 to 550 number shown in the lake e data
    If the FORCING was 450-550 w/sq m that means we went from being in balance to having an excess 500 watts/sq m that we could not dissipate. I find that very hard to believe. A radiative forcing that powerful if sustained for any length of time at all would incinerate everything on the planet, and we'd be glowing like a star before long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    whereas, M.F. Loutre(2003) seems to prefer the 450 to 550 number shown in the lake e data
    If the FORCING was 450-550 w/sq m that means we went from being in balance to having an excess 500 watts/sq m that we could not dissipate. I find that very hard to believe. A radiative forcing that powerful if sustained for any length of time at all would incinerate everything on the planet, and we'd be glowing like a star before long.
    Well Sculptor didn't put it into context. That number range is in context of peak radiative forcing at 65N latitude (something Milankovitch noticed) which is pretty well correlated with geologically recent glacial/interglacial cycles. The causal effect is high short wave NH summers (from tilt), or longer ones (near aphelion), or in combination tend to melt winter snows. He's also mixed it up the summer 65 NH forcing with global averaged annual radiative forcing from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

    None of the orbital effects have a thing to do with the OP because they are long term effects compared to the much shorter greenhouse gas one we'll see over the next few generations of people.
    adelady and Schneibster like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    None of the orbital effects have a thing to do with the OP because they are long term effects compared to the much shorter greenhouse gas one we'll see over the next few generations of people.
    In fact the next major Milanković cycle change will not be for 35,000 years. It will be the end of the Holocene Interglacial and the beginning of a new glaciation.

    Climate cranks like to pretend that "climate sciencesis can't meke up theyre mindses" because this was discovered in the 1970s, and they called 35,000 years from now "just tomorrow, right around the corner." Which to a paleoclimatologist, it is. Unfortunately the idiots think "tomorrow" means "next year." Not "next age."

    Snicker.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Artificial Ice Caps
    By Jeff Luce in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2013, 09:35 PM
  2. If Ice Caps Vanished...
    By The Finger Prince in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: December 19th, 2011, 09:38 AM
  3. Polar Ice caps and Cold Winters
    By kojax in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2011, 02:28 PM
  4. Frozen spores in the ice caps?
    By marcusclayman in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 11th, 2009, 09:43 PM
  5. North Polar Ice Caps
    By cochrajo in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 16th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •