On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

PeterBP wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article
,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total
volume, drill bore holes every kilometer and
measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar
measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently
available. Otherwise it is mostly military
measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and
Decay"

For the thinning part

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on
submarine cruises between 1993 and 1997 with
similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976
indicates that the mean ice draft at the end
of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion
of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1 m in 1958--1976
to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater
in the central and eastern Arctic than in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover
has continued to become thinner in some
regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about
at all, do you? Long-range data series are very
relevant.


I agree. Lets start with the period of time before
the beginning of the last ice age.

(PeterBP) wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.

Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
of the subject matter.

The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
pretty much only the Arctic.

He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?


This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

On May 26, 3:14 am, Whata Fool wrote:
(PeterBP) wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?

Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning parthttp://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.

Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
of the subject matter.

The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
pretty much only the Arctic.

He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

On 25/05/08 23:57, in article ,
"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

I get it. You don't know what science is about
at all, do you? Long-range data series are very
relevant.


I agree. Lets start with the period of time before
the beginning of the last ice age.

The problem is that the data is much better now and
we can see relationships. We know that paleo
data is more inaccurate in some cases because of the use of
isotope ratios. The error bars become larger with regard
to temperature estimates.

I already pointed out that the error bar for temperatures
since the beginning of the last (and during previous) ice
age is 1000 years whereas the CO2 values are more accurate.
Therefore you have a problem stating accurately that
temperature rose before CO2 values rose. In the current era
we know that CO2 values have been rising since the industrial
revolution where as temperatures follow. So even if CO2 values
lagged historically by the famous 700 years, what does that have
to do with know. I prefer the interpretation that the first
domino to fall in coming out of or into was the temperature
and that the CO2 followed and played a feed back role, meaning
that the temperatures would not continue to rise unless more
and more CO2 enter the atmosphere. But I don't see that mechanism
operating now.

So the idea that we need to understand everything from the past
to understand the now is basically false and misleading.

On May 25, 11:57 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
PeterBP wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article
,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total
volume, drill bore holes every kilometer and
measure the thickness?

Land ice is computed from satellite radar
measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently
available. Otherwise it is mostly military
measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and
Decay"

For the thinning part

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on
submarine cruises between 1993 and 1997 with
similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976
indicates that the mean ice draft at the end
of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion
of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1 m in 1958--1976
to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater
in the central and eastern Arctic than in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover
has continued to become thinner in some
regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about
at all, do you? Long-range data series are very
relevant.

I agree. Lets start with the period of time before
the beginning of the last ice age.

Yup. Let's do anything at all, rather than admit to the existence of a
problem.

"John M." wrote:

On May 26, 3:14 am, Whata Fool wrote:
(PeterBP) wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?

Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning parthttp://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.

Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
of the subject matter.

The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
pretty much only the Arctic.

He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 23:57, in article
,
"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

I get it. You don't know what science is about
at all, do you? Long-range data series are
very relevant.


I agree. Lets start with the period of time
before the beginning of the last ice age.

The problem is that the data is much better now
and we can see relationships. We know that paleo
data is more inaccurate in some cases because of
the use of
isotope ratios. The error bars become larger
with regard to temperature estimates.

I already pointed out that the error bar for
temperatures since the beginning of the last
(and during previous) ice age is 1000 years
whereas the CO2 values are more accurate.
Therefore you have a problem stating accurately
that temperature rose before CO2 values rose. In
the current era we know that CO2 values have
been rising since the industrial
revolution where as temperatures follow. So
even if CO2 values lagged historically by the
famous 700 years, what does that have
to do with know. I prefer the interpretation
that the first domino to fall in coming out of
or into was the temperature and that the CO2
followed and played a feed back role, meaning
that the temperatures would not continue to rise
unless more
and more CO2 enter the atmosphere. But I don't
see that mechanism operating now.



So the idea that we need to understand
everything from the past to understand the now
is basically false and misleading.
You left out "In my OPINION"