Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- czechlist on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Jehzsa on “pushing nature past its limits”
All of this warm water, high winds and open seas is causing the polar bear to exhibit ‘unprecedented’ behaviour…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-CrTvKBijE
Steve,
THIS post made me laugh out loud actually.
Have I mentioned that you should read the ACTUAL article? Here is a long quote from the actual article. ( I must admit it is POSSIBLE that REISS went back in time to add this part just to embarrass people who do not bother to check sources)
I do have some free time available this month if you want to hire me to make sure you don’t post things that contradict your narrative. Doesn’t it concern you at all that none of your followers ever question even the most obvious gaffs you make?
“in the first ploce,1 venture to suggest tdat the term open Polar Sea applied to la- titudes of 82 degrees and 83 degrees N, can have only a mere relative and vague, uncertain meaning, because, in these lati- tudes, any part of the sea, however narrow and ice-bound, may be open at times, and no part of it, however extensive and deep, can be entirely and always free from ice. The term is more in its place when used in a comparative or circumscribed sense, as» for instance, when saying that Baffin’s iBay is an open (ot more open) sea as com ‘pared to Wellington Channel, and the lat- her, again, with its northerly outlets, an>pen (or more open) channel than Banks strait or Prince of Wales Channel. The
term ‘ open Polar Sea, no doubt will be rightly understood in its bearings and im- port, in each individual case so used, by persons accustomed to a critical view of such subjects, but for general use it leads to much misconception, and is altogether
perfluous when, as in speaking of Dr Kane’s open sea, the epithet ‘ iceless ‘ is added to it. There can be no doubt the precise meaning of the latter, for it implies a sea entirely free from ice, whereas the term ‘open’ sea by no means excludes the existence of vast quantities of that frigid article. As to the term ‘iceless’ sea, it conveys, in this instance, altogether an er- roneous meaning, such as Dr Kane proba bly did not intend to impart to it, for in peaking of that Northern Sea under this lenomination, he and his companions de cribe the nature of that sea at the parti- cular time when they saw it, and these statements I have not the slightest ground or wish to doubt or disbelieve. But I do most decidedly “doubt ‘ it to be a perma- nently iceless sea, notwithstanding the ex traordinary fact of continued north wind having failed to bring any ice into it. Such an occurrence only shows how effectually the ice formed during the previous winter may be swept away by the currents out of a sea situated even underjhe most northern latitudes.
The poor bears. They must have all drowned.
Do you think there is a lot of land at 90N?
Steve,
I do appreciate your ability to respond to my factual comments with totally unexpected irrelevent words.
Actually, Bob Reiss great-great- grandfather wrote this article.
“Such an occurrence only shows how effectually the ice formed during the previous winter may be swept away by the currents out of a sea situated even underjhe most northern latitudes.”
Thanks, Tony, for showing that people in 1856 were too smart for the alarmist claptrap spread by our media these days; understanding that it’s the movement of the ice that makes the difference.
Looks like Dr. Kane was yesteryears equivalent to todays alarmists, and Paterman was the skeptic. So, Tony, you proudly discovered a skeptic voice of 1856. But had you been present in 1856 you would have taken the side of Dr. Kane, probably protesting against the introduction of the railway because it kills the polar bears.
Dirk,
very good, you take the quote that in detail contradicts steve’s post, and find one element that is totally irrelevant and then change the argument to an issue that every scientist , skeptic or not is well aware of, and has nothing to do with global warming.
Tony’s disordered mind at work. I post a news clipping. The clipping confuses Tony, and then Tony blames his confusion on me.
Dirk,
Um. No. Paterman was just explaining rationally what Kirk meant so that uniformed people would not misunderstand Kirk’s quote. I find it much more likely that they both had very similar views, and you are inventing a fantasy scenario with three people you know nothing about.
Steve,
I think you are refering to a different post. As in this case. the chronology is this.
1. Steve posts a link to an article where he has done a search for specific terms.
2. Posts the actual content of the article which completely contradicts Steve post.
3. Steve and friends frantically come up with bizarre excuses and irrelevent explanations.
4. tony ponts out this tactic
5. repeat 3 and 4 until tony has to get some work done.
I’m sorry if the article contradicts whatever is going on inside your disordered mind. I just posted an article from an old newspaper.
Yes, about that. Here (quoted in full by me below this sentence) is the part of Steve’s post which is clearly contradicted by “Tony Duncan”:
Stark,
you forgot to hit the paste function. Here is just one part.
“The term ‘ open Polar Sea, no doubt will be rightly understood in its bearings and im- port, in each individual case so used, by persons accustomed to a CRITICAL VIEW of such subjects, but for general use it leads to much MISCONCEPTION, and is altogether
perfluous when, as in speaking of Dr Kane’s open sea, the epithet ‘ ICELESS ‘ is added to it. There can be no doubt the precise meaning of the latter, for it IMPLIES A SEA ENTIRELY DEVOID OF ICE, whereas the term ‘open’ sea by no means excludes the EXISTENCE OF VAST QUANTITIES of that frigid article.
no need to thank me!
Dearest Tony Duncan,
You forgot to past in the part of Steve’s post that is actually contradicted. Everything else you have posted is spurious at best, or just an outright attempt at distraction.
Oh, wait. I can see it right down there at the bottom of your post: nothing.
Thank you for clearing this up for us.
Lol, Tony, Dirk’s observation is entirely relevant to the larger discussion.
Let’s go up a bit higher in the article….
“As to the term ‘iceless’ sea, it conveys, in this instance, altogether an er- roneous meaning, such as Dr Kane proba bly did not intend to impart to it, for in peaking of that Northern Sea under this lenomination, he and his companions de cribe the nature of that sea at the parti- cular time when they saw it, and these statements I have not the slightest ground or wish to doubt or disbelieve. But I do most decidedly “doubt ‘ it to be a perma- nently iceless sea,……”
It is simply astonishing! It seems Mr. A Paterman is clearing some misconceptions up about the nature of the sea ice. Apparently Dr. Kane had viewed that northern sea in a state devoid of ice. But, Mr. Paterman clarifies that this lack of ice is temporary. He also states how fragile the temporary state of the ice always is. That regardless of the previous winter’s state of being, that the next year can easily lose the ice. The amazing part of all of this is that many of us have come to the same conclusion without the benefit of direct observation while Mr Paterman came to the same conclusion without the benefit of modern technology!
Regardless of intent, it is a wonderful gem Steve has pulled from the rough. It is a bit melancholy, though. It is difficult to fathom, but apparently it is true nonetheless, our understanding of the nature of the sea ice has not advanced in over 150 years!
There is something else that needs clarified. The “Northern Sea” Paterman refers to is improperly capitalized by today’s standards. Given the location of Kane’s party in the article, they’re location would be in this area…. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg/220px-Ellesmere_Island%2C_Canada.svg.png
(Using the names of locations and latitudes describe) It’s meaning is the sea, which is of the north, rather than the Northern Sea which is east of England and Scotland.
So, the arctic was mostly ice free in the not so distant past! Nearly like it is today!! Especially noting that a prevailing wind from the north failed to produce any ice floes! The area is described as “teaming with animal life, great numbers of herbivorous and other animals and birds feeding on the shores.” ….. later on, he goes on to say, “I find similar observations recorded by that great arctic navigator and acute observer. Sir Edward Perry…. “
An absolute treasure! ….. more to say later……
Suyts,
I was hoping you would not comment on this.
“So, the arctic was mostly ice free in the not so distant past! Nearly like it is today!” You can determine this from one observation in Ellesmere island from one summer? Of course it IS possible the arctic was mostly ice free if this was the only observation from that time or if the others from this time all confirm little or no sea ice.
The other possibility is that there are often years when parts of the arctic are ice free, and this says absolutely nothing of any relevance to the current situation. Unless you have quotes from Hansen saying that in the early part of the century the Arctic was always completely covered in ice even in the summer, this observation has no general meaning and in no way supports the agenda that the arctic had similar or less ice earlier in the 20th century than now.
The only “amazing” thing about this is that Steve, you and others manage to take information that sounds like one thing, and when someone uses the actual text from the link to point out that it is completely wrong, those who can only accept one possibility still try to turn it into the opposite of what it says.
Kudos!
“The other possibility is that there are often years when parts of the arctic are ice free, and this says absolutely nothing of any relevance to the current situation. ”
Yes indeed. So you *ARE* a closet skeptic after all; not being too alarmed about a summer ice melt and all, right? Hope i got it right this time.
Now I’m hurt. Tony, I will admit to not being very clear, you shouldn’t take that to mean I would make statements without support. Before we get to all of that, I should note, that your “actual text” is coming from a source that believed the bodies of water discussed was two separate seas…… distinguished by an imagined land mass dissecting the north pole! More on that in a second……
First, there is much to take away from that one time observation that doesn’t directly speak to ice extent, but upon consideration will tell you what one needs to know…….
Herbivores? This infers vegetation. Did you click on the link I provided showing the location of this party? This is, apparently, similar to what Sir Edward Perry reported. It wasn’t so much the condition of the ice, but rather the environment described.
As to the similarities, they were very similar…. except flipped.
“You can determine this from one observation in Ellesmere island from one summer?”……. well, you can determine much, but it wasn’t from one summer and one observation, rather it was from 2 summers and 2 observations separated only by many years. You’ll note that early in the article, the party had to disembark……. because of ice on the east side of the island.
Read Mr. A Paterman’s description of the area we would call the arctic off the shore of the Eurasia landmass. (Between Spitsbergen and Siberia.) The “seas” are so different, our Mr. Paterman believed these to be two separate bodies of water. He articulates a well-reasoned, nearly impassioned argument for this opinion. Why? Because of the ever changing environment of arctic! Now, as to the similarities….. in the article, the arctic is described as two separate areas! One, an inhospitable area which would be the part of the ocean that borders Eurasia. Contrast that with the vast ice-less area described not only by Kane, but also Perry and apparently others, too! So, going up to the tip of Greenland, one side was virtually ice free, and the other side full of ice, so much so, that the impression was that this was not one sea, but two. Now, look at this……… http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticice/nowcast/ice2011080218_2011080800_035_arcticice.001.gif
The same, but flipped. This article, in conjunction with other well established historical commentaries, can and does make the argument of less ice in the arctic than today.
SUYTS,
I don’t see how you can come to ANY conclusion about the arctic as a whole from what you describe. One can certainly state with confidence that the decriptions you bring up indicate that the arctic does not melt in the same way in the same places at all times. No one has ever said otherwise, as far as I can tell. What exactly in this description contradicts anything that arctic scientists have said about the arctic past or present?
What the text of the article DOES contradict verbatim is that at this time the arctic was iceless. It indicates that this one particular area was iceless. Again if you can find a quote from any scientist who has said that until the late 20th century the arctic was always completely ice covered in every location even during the summer, this would be very strong evidence that he (or she) was completely wrong. But since any scientist studying ice, who received any kind of degree would likely have had to have read SOME history of the arctic, and all of them show periods of ice free conditions in parts of the arctic at many times in the past.
Again, what was most fun about this was seeing the post and knowing Steve had not bothered to read the article, and then finding in the main body of the article a long detailed warning against doing EXACTLY what Steve was doing. I am sorry but all your rationalizations and irrelevant comments can never take that small moment of joy away from me.
Three no four no three polar bears represents the whole Arctic
” I am sorry but all your rationalizations and irrelevant comments can never take that small moment of joy away from me.”
It warms my heart to see that a warmist had a small moment of joy in his pityful, angst-ridden existence. But there will still not be a global agreement on reducing CO2 emissions. And we’re all gonna fry, FRY i tell ya.
Dirk,
I haven’t noticed any warmists commenting on this post. Did ill wind write soemthing and then delete it?
“What exactly in this description contradicts anything that arctic scientists have said about the arctic past or present?” That we’ve changed it in any way. Then as today, we had discussions of ice vs ice free conditions. Then, as now we had discussions of the winds being responsible for ice loss. Then as today, we had discussions of probability of permanence in being ice free. Nothing has changed except the level of alarm. Look at the maps I provided and understand where the explicitly stated “ice free” state was. That ain’t Barrow that we’re talking about.
SUYTS,
No it is not Barrow. Sorry. i was not aware that if parts of Ellesmere are ice free that means the rest of the arctic is as well.
But as usual you are all missing what is so funny. STEVE posted an article about an ice free arctic and almost the entire body of the article is about how this is not the case and the fact that the ice is such an impenetrable barrier that we should use submarines as commercial transport vehicles to get around the problem!
lol, “But as usual you are all missing what is so funny. STEVE posted an article ……..”……. you seem singularly preoccupied to further the discussion much more, but there is information in that article which is worthwhile……
No, the NW part of Ellesmere being ice free doesn’t mean the rest of the arctic is as well. And, that’s not what I stated, nor implied. But given its latitude, there would be reason to believe there was much less ice than today. And certainly, it shows that the ice in place today would not have been there then.
As to my missing anything…… of course, I didn’t miss it, I just thought it impolite to grieve my host. That said, you guys seem to enjoy the back and forth, so……have at it.
Once again, a certain drama queen manages to miss an actual question posed by someone.
Once again his response is to repost the same cut & paste nonsense.
Once again, for our reading impaired friend “Tony Duncan”: what exact words in Steve’s post are contradicted?
You know that something strange is going on when he manages to post as much text as there was in the original article.
That article was about as comprehensible, concise and to-the-point as the Athanasian Creed.
The article is getting some corrections now for the newspaper scanning errors. So far the complete text (one single paragraph!) …
Ice melts. Big deal.