Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

WindWatcher

Members
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WindWatcher

  1. Yes, he put petrol on it and burnt down his neighbours hours! 0862C872-668A-4C92-ACBA-32AEEA6419A0.MOV
  2. I’m really worried for my neighbours house, their house burnt down last summer after a neighbours BBQ got out of hand. The builders despite working 7 days a week haven’t got to the stage the scaffolding can come down. Most of the roof is on but the windows aren’t in upstairs. I hope that scaffolding doesn’t collapse causing even more damage. I might have to set up a camera if is as bad as expected down here.
  3. Just driven through some light snow at Rownhams on the M27, Southampton, I didn't see that on any forecast
  4. Snowing heavily in Totton, just starting to settle well on the garden and roofs
  5. There was an excellent question and subsequent answers in the learning area, which I had missed until it was accidentally bumped yesterday. So in case anyone else hasn't spotted it, this is the link Tight pressure gradient around Greenland so why aren't the winds very strong? I have often looked at the charts and thought there must be a howling gale through Fram, but the ice barely moves, now we know what may affect it.
  6. IJIS now updated to a more respectable 84,688 increase.
  7. Ahh thank god for that, I thought you were actually talking about the ice, and not just the graph watchers. I don't think I will leave the house today, if it is that perilous out there for me! I'm glad we cleared that up :wacko:
  8. You were clearly referring to ice extent and calling a situation perilous after one partial daily update. No name calling, merely saying such statements are Alarmist and I stand by that given the evidence given in your post was only today's small increase. You would be first to criticise someone saying the problems were over after yesterdays 148,000 increase.
  9. We are unlikely to spend more than a few hours on a "30 odd thousand day" as the second update will probably increase it dramatically as they have done every day for weeks. With the largest daily increase this month recorded just yesterday ~148,000 sqm, to suddenly start calling the situation perilous after only the first update of the day is alarmist!
  10. These events you describe will have happened in the past and are not exceptional. Many 100k events past and present will have included such fragmentation and drifts.
  11. You can read the final report here: http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf BEWARE!!!! It is huge, and far too much to digest at this time of night.
  12. Trying not to flog a dead horse, but I did find the numbers in this article quite surprising and obviously going to increase as it becomes financially viable to explore the region: Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17arctic.html
  13. At least it was just sarcastic, I got insulting replies when I posted about it. Apparently it is all about scale, and icebreakers are so insignificant to the scale that they are irrelevant. So using the same logic, all data that was gathered whilst aboard an icebreaker, is equally insignificant to the scale and irrelevant, good bye Dr Barbers rotten Ice.
  14. Now updated to a more respectable 58,594km2 increase, taking us over 5,100,000km2
  15. It appears this increase has been revised again to a 36,718km2 increase. It appears that at the moment it isn't worth looking at the daily figures until the second pass has been updated, I am not sure what is causing these large revisions, but would be interested to find out. Steve
  16. What I actually think is; that I can relax in the knowledge that in amongst all the speculation, supposition and unproven theory contained in this thread I am factually correct to say that ice breakers are breaking up the Arctic ice. What isn't so clear hence the pages of argument is whether man made climate change is having an effect at all or to what degree it is. :lol: Time to move on folks.
  17. Look, I am not saying and never have that the ice breakers melt any ice! I have read all summer posts from GW and others about fragmented pack, increased ice export as a result, ice melting faster if it is broken up, the slush puppy analogy for the umpteenth time. I bring up the point about all the shipping and ice breakers adding to this but get jumped on. Ok, so it maybe negligible a good answer, I accept that, but the posts calling into doubt my reasoning and knowledge are unnecessary. Edit: That is really helpful GW, is it meant to be funny?
  18. I agree, clearly a misunderstanding. It is clear that my understanding of ice breakers is not up to standard. I always thought that they were designed with re-inforced hulls so that they can ride up onto the ice and smash through it. I thought they designed the hulls specifically to force the broken ice under the ship and away behind the ship. Clearly I was wrong and they merely push the ice aside and don't damage it or induce factures, weaknesses or new shear lines. Luckily they don't go near the main ice pack either, which is a shame, as I could clearly have learnt something on one of these tourist trips to the north pole on an ice breaker. I could have seen for myself how wrong I am.
  19. Good grief, that is a ridiculous and unnecessary comment when you have even read it properly! I am out of here.
  20. Of course they break the ice, this from this morning Piccie from the icebreaker Healey I don't believe I have said they have caused all the melt I have made a point that it won't be helping, sure the track may be only 20 metres wide, but they are thousands of miles long. Broken ice melts faster, and drifts easier.
  21. And your comment does rather add to the feeling that those blinded by their beliefs are closed to anything other than Co2=climate change=poor ice. I fail to see how this ice breaker activity to map the continental shelf can do no harm to the ice at all?
  22. Why did they ever decide upon 15% coverage to decide extent, was it purely that melting ice would never reach those levels unless it was outside the area of interest or because, it described the ice around the edges as it still does today? I get the impression that some believe the ice today never gets above 20% and is all about to melt, just like the last of the "real ice" whatever delusional rational applies... Seemingly in years past, extent would only be conclusive and extent would never be affected by the 15% rule. obviously it was healthy 75-99% ice, and 15% just never occurred... hmm I'm only asking as I haven't seen any evidence of 15-25% ice being in greater proportion than previously discovered? Why does thick ice separating/spreading out explain growing extent any better than it did previously? Apparently all growth that meant the ice extent expanded last winter, was in areas that would normally melt during the summer... hmm and you are surprised at the extent graph? Perhaps Ice is now only able to survive at levels above 15% and then suddenly melt..??? To be honest, after a few years of following this thread I think everyone believes exactly what they want. No science on either side will make a difference. Having followed the pics of Healey and the sister craft, I am believing that all these ice breakers, support ships, tourists, adventurers, exploiters and green supporters are doing far more damage than a quicker bonfire in the park! It all seems bizarre, send an icebreaker to look at the broken ice sheet that it had to have severed to get there, and then blame global warming...oh dear.
  23. Thank you Michael, for an excellent factual summary, please post more. Steve
  24. You can find the planned routes here: 2010 Extended Continental Shelf Project click the map for a larger version. Steve
  25. Huge Ice sheet breaks from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10900235
×
×
  • Create New...