On Jun 30, 2:45*pm, William Asher wrote:
george wrote:
On Jul 1, 1:22 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
Global Warming to Melt North Pole Ice Cover For First Time in Recorded
History!
Jason Mick (Blog) - June 30, 2008

Obviously Jason (and you) need to catch up on a wee bit of history
where a nuclear submarine surfaced at the North Pole some time back
around 1959

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/131289.html

HMS Sovereign took part in Operation Brisk during 1976. The submarine
surfaced at the geographical North Pole as part of the exercise on
20th October 1976.

Or just recently
http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm.
My advice is for you to use Google

Obviously you (and the other skeptics here) need to catch up on a wee bit
of oceanographic terminology. *The image of the Skate in 1959 clearly shows
multi-year ice in the background (and very thick multi-year ice from the
looks of it (with a huge pressure ridge in the distance)). *The image of
the three subs from 1987 and the one from 1976 that someone else linked to
on the John-daly.com website are similar, showing boats in leads. *All
"subs at the N. Pole" images are of them surfacing in a refrozen lead,
which is what they do. *They find a lead, or a recently frozen one and
punch through it since they can't penetrate multi-year ice. *They do not
show submarines surfacing at the north pole in open water.

Open water to an arctic oceanographer is very different from leads in pack
ice. *The explanation on John-Daly.com is about what you would expect, and
is laughable when he explains "see those leads of open water?" *"Leads of
open water" is an oxymoron to an oceanographer since you can't have leads
in open water. *Open water is ice free. *Leads occur in pack ice. *

If the N. Pole becomes open water (i.e., ice free, not leads in pack
ice) this year, that is fairly different and should give you pause for a
moment. *Unless of course, you are like John Daly and don't understand how
dumb it is to say "leads of open water" or not recognize what that Skate
image and the others really show. *My advice to you is to learn the
difference because it is not semantic. *

I know you are scared of climate change because like a lot of things you
see it as taking away your core liberty of consumerism. *But that fear
doesn't give you free reign to talk nonsense. *

--
Bill Asher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Couldn't have said it better. Then it isn't about _just_ the N Pole.
There are missing and retreating glaciers all over the world, Anarctic
ice shelfs breaking off and disappearing in chunks the size of entire
states.

Harry K

harry k wrote:

Couldn't have said it better. Then it isn't about _just_ the N Pole.
There are missing and retreating glaciers all over the world, Anarctic
ice shelfs breaking off and disappearing in chunks the size of entire
states.

Harry K


You are confusing two different processes, ice sheets flow outward
from some center point in directions of least resistance, apparently there
is a maximum thickness that ice can exist in Earth's gravity.

So outward flow is sometimes a result of added snow and ice, just
the opposite of melting.

Naturally pieces have to break off if nothing supports them, just
how and where they break depends on the terrain and sea level there.