Green, I only posted a link without comment. I don't know why you felt the need to attack me. If you have a problem with that site, you should contact them. However, they only were addressing what some global warmer believers were setting out to prove: "that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through." That was a fact you chose to ignore. And it was a fact what they found was contrary to what they expected. So it's a fact, that their global warming prediction WAS NOT TRUE. Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice (Notice the title does not say Global warming deniers stopped in their tracks)

The icy blockade comes just over a month after an Oxford climate scientist, Peter Wadhams, said the Arctic would be ‘completely ice-free’ by September of this year. While it obviously isn’t September yet, he did reference the fact that there would be very little ice to contend with this summer.


If you don't feel that David Hempleman-Adams is correct in his global warming beliefs, you should contact him at http://polarocean.co.uk/contact/ . Maybe you would be able demonstrate to them that you approach global warming in a more holistic manner than anyone else and perhaps they could consult with you so they can set more realistic goals rather than wasting their time worrying about the passage being opened and the potential resulting ecological impact.

No need to shoot the messenger.

kland,

I have been addressing the science/scientists, not you. Post whatever link you like. Hold whatever opinion you wish. I will simply address the true science as I see it. I have a natural gift for looking at many variables simultaneously, and a problem like global warming requires such. Computer analyses will only be as good as the programmers who made the programs. If they failed to consider some variable or another, the program itself will have fundamental flaws. Many scientists, partly due to the nature of science and the peer review process that society imposes upon it nowadays, tend to specialize in a particular area of science, defocusing other areas of potential impact. Those who claim more snow equals global cooling are in this myopic category. Snow, like rain, must come from evaporation, which comes from heat.

How many people realize that the Panama Canal was an engineering conundrum on account of a 20+ foot difference (depending on tides) in water levels between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans? How many know that this "sea level" difference is due to a difference in salinity? Facts like these feed my own analyses. I remember everything I have learned on a topic that might apply to it, and I consider the weight of each fact. It is a fact that sea salinity varies by location, and that with greater warming it will vary the more widely from the polar regions to the tropics. It is a fact that ice forms more readily in lower-saline waters. Someone at Oxford, perhaps, failed to account for this.

I'm not going to say I am a more professional or better scientist. I will simply say that an issue like global warming is so complex, that the average scientist, and more particularly the specialist, may not have a broad enough view to see the whole elephant. I would be among the first to say I cannot predict the weather. I would think it foolish to attempt to predict the amount of sea ice at the North Pole this summer. There are too many variables. No one knows, for instance, if a volcano might erupt and spread ash in the upper atmosphere that cools the earth for several months. Whomever attempted to make such a strong prediction was overconfident, plain and simple.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Speaking of taking all variables into account, here's a case in point:

I could make a legitimate case for determining the amount of global warming based on the speed of the earth's rotation. Can you tell me how I might do this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Huh - I wonder what original research on this topic you have done Green? Can you quote any of it?

Your response does nothing to answer the question, does it? Instead of making this thread about me (ad hominem), why not show some intelligence and address the issues? Can you answer the question of how global warming could be determined by the speed of the earth's rotation?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

YOU are the one claiming great insight and knowledge, more that most scientists with the "natural gift". Can you back up your claims? Have you done any original research? Can you quote any?

Sigh. If I were quoting other scientists, my thoughts would not be "original" would they? Did Einstein quote someone else, or find his theory of relativity from published research?

I'll back up my claims on their scientific merit solely quite well enough. You continue to make this about ME because you have no science to contribute. Speaking of attacking the messenger...



Green Cochoa.

Well green - no, you have not done any original research, which is what I asked as you having put yourself up as having natural talent. Are your experts better than other experts? Are yours the right ones because they fit your ideas? I don't most scientists have any real clue what is going on.

Those who are worth their salt (pun intended) should be able to answer my question.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I can think of one simple factor where man had affected the speed of rotation of the earth, and climate temperature is not involved. But I'm sure you have taken that into account in your analysis. Or maybe not.