On Jun 17, 7:35*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

On Jun 17, 6:38*pm, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
In article
,
* *Weatherlawyer wrote:

BTW how will sea ice melting cause problems down here? It won't raise
the sea level. In fact rumour has it that een if Greenland's sheet is
removed most of that will have little effect too neither as most of
Greenland is an archipelago apparently.

What rubbish! Not true, in fact it is worse. If ice is removed from
Greenland, isostatic release means the underlying rock will rise slowly
and raise sea-level further.

Not if Greenland is a matrix of islands masquerading as a lump of
snow covered rock it ain't.

Besides which every glacier is already floating on the melt-water
beneath it. Which I imagine would tend to indemnify the soil below
that where it exists from absorbing what other lesser men may take to
be dry ground.

Isostatic rebound is just another supposition.

What makes mountains grow is tidal effects on the aquifers that cause
them in the first place. All the Himalayan stuff goes up in galleries
some 4 to 7 magnitudes at a time. And I suppose it can just as easily
go the other way. Nothing to do with iso fatso.

How high do strata levels rise in strip mines and mountainside
quarries? Such earth removal should have 3 or 4 times more rebound
than the removal of water, which -if it is pressed to any extent,
melts and flushes downhill.

Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Jun 17, 6:38 pm, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
In article
,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

BTW how will sea ice melting cause problems down here? It won't raise
the sea level. In fact rumour has it that een if Greenland's sheet is
removed most of that will have little effect too neither as most of
Greenland is an archipelago apparently.

What rubbish! Not true, in fact it is worse. If ice is removed from
Greenland, isostatic release means the underlying rock will rise slowly
and raise sea-level further.

Not if Greenland is a matrix of islands masquerading as a lump of
snow covered rock it ain't.

For the Greenland ice not to have any effect on sea level if it were to
melt, it has to be floating. So you are saying that Greenland is a 2000+
metre-high iceberg floating in the middle of an archipelago? That would mean
the ocean beneath the iceberg would be 18,000 metres deep. Almost twice the
depth of the Mariana Trench is going some!

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

You jsut couldn't make it up.

Oh go on, you do it so well.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

On Jun 17, 9:45*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 17, 6:38 pm, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
In article
,
* *Weatherlawyer wrote:

BTW how will sea ice melting cause problems down here? It won't raise
the sea level. In fact rumour has it that een if Greenland's sheet is
removed most of that will have little effect too neither as most of
Greenland is an archipelago apparently.

What rubbish! Not true, in fact it is worse. If ice is removed from
Greenland, isostatic release means the underlying rock will rise slowly
and raise sea-level further.

Not if *Greenland is a matrix of islands masquerading as a lump of
snow covered rock it ain't.

For the Greenland ice not to have any effect on sea level if it were to
melt, it has to be floating. So you are saying that Greenland is a 2000+
metre-high iceberg floating in the middle of an archipelago? That would mean
the ocean beneath the iceberg would be 18,000 metres deep. Almost twice the
depth of the Mariana Trench is going some!

I am not saying that it is or it isn't. I recently read an article
following some research about Greenland, suggesting it might indeed be
a lagoon shaped landmass.

What I am saying is that we do not know what the problem will be when
and if things go from bad to worse.

Personally I'd move there if I liked fish and reindeer meat, if they
could guarantee a few decades of sunny but not too warm weather. As
for England flooding, what harm would it do? We could make sure all
the walls they built around it were repaired and well waterproofed.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 17, 7:35 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe
Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

Well why to you bother then you areshole

On Jun 17, 10:57*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 7:35 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe
Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

Well why to you bother then you areshole- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Odd response for someone who says they never resort to swearing. Sleep
well.

On Jun 17, 10:57*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 7:35 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe
Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

Well why to you bother then you areshole- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Also; when you can't actually spell the insults you try to throw
out............

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 7:35 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and
when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe
Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

Well why to you bother then you areshole- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Also; when you can't actually spell the insults you try to throw
out............


Thanks for proving my point. Yes I never swear but for you I will make an
exception.

What gets me is you are supposed to be some kind of learning facilitator,
god help whoever it is your teaching. You must be very popular. Mind you
being a council where they spend hard working peoples money; It's probably
right-on gobbledygook or some tosh like that.

On Jun 17, 11:40*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 10:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 17, 7:35 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....
On Jun 17, 6:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 5:34 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Worth noting some things about the melt season in the Arctic. The
season is characterised by acceleration and slowing down of the rate
of melt. The recent slowing down was probably due to some fairly
intense low pressures that had been affecting the Arctic Basin. These
storms can lead to a slowing of the melt and storms in August of 2006
were the reason why that summer didn't achieve a record low (2007 then
went on to stun all Arctic scientists, of course, with a quite
incredible ice low!).

As you can see from the wetterzentrale N. Hemisphere maps below, those
storms have been replaced by a large area of high pressure, which was
well forecast and has built over the last few days. It is presently
centred on the North Pole and is forecast to persist, drifting over
the Chuckchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea during the next week. The
increased insolation this will bring ought to kick start the melt in
the Arctic Basin and begin a rapid melt of the very vulnerable first-
year ice in the two other areas I've mentioned, as well as other
adjoining areas. Watch the rate of Arctic ice-loss over the next 7-10
days. I'd expect it to accelerate and we could well see a period of
very fast melt over the solstice and to the end of June.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn001.gif

Now let me get this straight: When it doesn't melt it's weather and
when
it
does its AGW LOL

What ARE you talking about? My post is about varying ice melt during
the melt season and one reason for it. Was something in it wrong?

I've been at pains to point out to you that you simply don't
understand about snapshots and what you mustn't make of them. Ice
melt, especially around the solstice, is prone to acceleration and
slowing down because of synoptics and a comment when it slows down
just shows you don't get it. You see the hand of AGW in everything
around you. An ounce of sense and understanding would really, really,
help you. Leave alone what you don't understand and can't discuss and
stop posting these silly one-line posts with a link to a newspaper, or
a blog, about it being colder somewhere.

I find this stuff rich coming from people like you and Col who believe
Polar
Bears are in danger?

You jsut couldn't make it up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're not worth conversing with. You have no sense and can't spell.

Well why to you bother then you areshole- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Also; when you can't actually spell the insults you try to throw
out............

Thanks for proving my point. Yes I never swear but for you I will make an
exception.

What gets me is you are supposed to be some kind of learning facilitator,
god help whoever it is your teaching. You must be very popular. Mind you
being a council where they spend hard working peoples money; It's probably
right-on gobbledygook or some tosh like that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think that needs a reply, really. Do you?