Global Warming?

[powerpace]

Almost missed this one. The actual Glacier Ice does not mix and churn. It flows as a continuous mass.

But surely does mix, churn and bulldoze the strata's it travels over. Just think of all the lateral and terminal moraine or float deposited along the glaciers path.

The shelf ice is probably made up of mostly fresh glacier melt water that is of lower density than the seawater and will freeze at higher temperatures than saline seawater. All that cold fresh meltwater may also muck up the normal current flows and when that happens th Merry Breezes may be angered into deviant behaviour.

If you have ever seen a glacier the streaks in the ice are sections of the flow traveling at different speeds. The center of the flow travels fastest. The uneven travel speed creates crevasses. Opening and closing at different travel speeds.

The meltwater is minimal in the Antarctic, only occurring in small areas along the coast. The pack ice is seawater that gradually loses most of the salinity during the freezing cycle.. Your right about the aberrant ocean current. The currents coming into the coastal areas melt large areas of the ice every year. Wind has an affect on the ice movement.

 

[Mace Canute]

The interesting thing is that many of us will live long enough to absolutely have proof positive of manmade global climate change. ......

That's about as erroneous a statement as could be made. While it's possible that might happen it is by no means assured that it will happen.

 

[EE_Bota]

I'll can tell you the way it's going, with 'first hand' knowledge, and that is for the last four years Canadian scientists have been forbidden from talking about anything related to climate change. Every paper, every press release, every email is censored at the source.

Agenda... you betcha.

That's interesting regardless of any other point here. That would be a good thread..pursuing that censorship and those who censor.

 

[EE_Bota]

The interesting thing is that many of us will live long enough to absolutely have proof positive of manmade global climate change. Even Limpbaugh and Hannity who will then both claim they told us so.

If you don't like those guys, stop listening to them.

 

[patrick_g]

The Coastal sea ice is mostly new ice each year. That ice is composed of salt water. There is an addition of precipitation which is fresh water in the form of Snow and ice crystals. The Fresh water glaciers that move from the Arctic Continent down to the sea can travel many miles from their deposit location mixing and churning as it moves.

Actually, sir, you are not correct when you say, "that ice is composed of salt water." Au contraire, mon ami... If you melt some of that ice the water is almost pure! It is NOT composed OF salt water. It was made FROM salt water and that is NOT the same thing.

As the ocean water begins to freeze, small needle-like ice crystals called frazil form. These crystals are typically 3 to 4 millimeters in diameter. Because salt doesn't freeze, the crystals expel salt into the water, and frazil crystals consist of nearly pure fresh water.

I was on Viet Nam GI bill when I took 14 upper division semester hours of physical oceanography in the physics department at San Diego State University so consider the above mini-tutorial as yet another federal tax rebate.

It has been years since I had an opportunity to dredge up those old memories. Thanks...

Oh, if anyone want some interesting reading (real science not hyperbole) then http://nsidc.org/icelights/

Pat

 

[tcartwri]

That's interesting regardless of any other point here. That would be a good thread..pursuing that censorship and those who censor.

We had an emeritus scientist with 40+ years of service, escorted out of the building by security when he was critical of a new policy. He didn't go public, he kept it within the organisation. Boom out the door.

Contrary to what most people think, these guys work for the love of the science, do not receive royalties or any other benefits, in some of the most difficult environments on the planet.

So bad now, that policy writers and lawyers outnumber the actual people doing the science.

Case in point. We had a 5.0 earthquake in June of 2010. A big deal here as we have a lot of unstable clays in the ground. It took 6 hours for the Federal department in charge of emergency response to issue a statement because no one was allowed to talk directly to the press. It all had to go through the lawyers hands first. The USGS had information within minutes of the event.

 

[rsewill]

In your mind what would be proof of man-made global warming?
Oh. And you can't mention any weather event or temperature extreme that has happened previously.

Manmade? Well, that is always going to be in doubt in the minds of a few until we quit dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and then see a temperature decline. That won't happen. But climate change. How about the Gulf Stream quits flowing?

 

[EE_Bota]

We had an emeritus scientist with 40+ years of service, escorted out of the building by security when he was critical of a new policy. He didn't go public, he kept it within the organisation. Boom out the door.

Contrary to what most people think, these guys work for the love of the science, do not receive royalties or any other benefits, in some of the most difficult environments on the planet.

So bad now, that policy writers and lawyers outnumber the actual people doing the science.

Case in point. We had a 5.0 earthquake in June of 2010. A big deal here as we have a lot of unstable clays in the ground. It took 6 hours for the Federal department in charge of emergency response to issue a statement because no one was allowed to talk directly to the press. It all had to go through the lawyers hands first. The USGS had information within minutes of the event.

Not knowing the facts of the matter, I can only speculate...

Escorting an emeritus researcher out of a meeting sounds like it could be a form of censorship. I can't know if his remarks were appropriate for the forum and to the matter addressed, but generally folks would offer considerable forbearance to an emeritus researcher.

The last part sounds like that department is in disarray and needs a general investigation as to efficacy and purpose. Most such departments know in advance who will be speaking and approximately what will be said for typical sets of events and circumstances. That dept. should be put under review. If the word of the technical authorities cannot be put out due to the legal folks, it calls into question the need for the unheard researchers.

Censorship is often misunderstood. I am not saying you are misunderstanding, or that your citations are not valid examples. But I am sure you have seen folks claim censorship in cases where there was no right to speak in any case. For example, I didn't have a right to make this post, and if it gets removed, I would not claim censorship.

My sensibilities may not be shared by most folks, but if a person is in a meeting complaining about a government policy, I want that person heard. Once heard...he can't filibuster...but we should always try to give opportunity to criticize policy which restricts others, or things which spend the people's tax dollars. In the case of a senior researcher, it would have been smart and appropriate to give him a fixed amount of time for his comments, and just go silent and let him speak his piece.

 

[Mace Canute]

Federal scientists in Canada are not allowed to speak to reporters without the consent of media relations officers of which we have 4,459 at last count. This is just a Conservative government policy to control all information from federally funded researchers. Harper's a control freak and doesn't want anything said that might contradict some political policy his party has, hence they muzzle all those he can. He'd like to muzzle everybody but he cant manage to do that...yet.

Ottawa ‘muzzling’ scientists, panel tells global research community - The Globe and Mail

If the word of the technical authorities cannot be put out due to the legal folks, it calls into question the need for the unheard researchers.

Poppycock. In this case, it's pure and simply censorship for political purposes. The real question is why do we have 4,459 media relations officers. It wouldn't matter if it were 10 researchers, they would still be gagged.

 

[EE_Bota]

Federal scientists in Canada are not allowed to speak to reporters without the consent of media relations officers of which we have 4,459 at last count. This is just a Conservative government policy to control all information from federally funded researchers. Harper's a control freak and doesn't want anything said that might contradict some political policy his party has, hence they muzzle all those he can. He'd like to muzzle everybody but he cant manage to do that...yet.

Ottawa ‘muzzling’ scientists, panel tells global research community - The Globe and Mail

Poppycock. In this case, it's pure and simply censorship for political purposes. The real question is why do we have 4,459 media relations officers. It wouldn't matter if it were 10 researchers, they would still be gagged.[/quote]

I need to look up "poppycock" I have heard the term, but never seen the definition.

In this case, if the research is suppressed, is the research of use to the people who pay for it? Canadians must decide these issues...but to me...I want what I pay for, and if the lawyers doing the suppression are in the department whose findings are being suppressed, why can't the general lack of utility of the department be used as a wedge to either prop open the information window, or close down the department?

Edit:
poppycock...nonsense, meaningless chatter

Your current situation is nonsense...why pay folks to come up with things to say, and others to suppress it?