The Herald reporting on Sir Peter Blake's expedition (10/2/01) tried to
give
the impression that ice was scarce due to global warming. Let's see what he
ACTUALLY wrote in his log. Rather than finding water where ice should be,
it
appears his boat had to ram a gap for itself to get through.
"Seamaster Log 64
Wednesday 14th February 2001
Location: At Sea
Conditions: Fine with a cloudless sky
Air Temp: 5.2 deg C
Sea Temp: Minus 1 deg C
Wind:Ý Light and variable
Sea State: Moderate with a low NW swell
Visibility: 100 miles
Barometer: 984mbs
Latitude: 68 deg 52 mins South
Longitude: 68 deg 35 mins West. (at 6pm)
We are out. We are heading north. We escaped from George VI Sound - just!!!
When we first found ourselves attached to a drifting ice sheet a few days
ago, an enormous raft many miles long, we found a gap at the western end
after much searching. This gap enabling us to progress further south.
At
that time we were concerned we might get stuck behind such an ice barrier
and not get out...We are fully conscious of the consequences and fully
understand that if we penetrate any further south than the current position
of 69 deg 50.3321 mins south, we may become beset in the ice and have to
remain for the duration of the winter, or until such time as the ice
permits
departure. The old sea ice and bergs from all the glaciers were clogging up
the entrance - right across the 20 miles width. We hoped we were going to
find an opening.
After a night of drifting, due to the ice shelf
disintegrating around us again, we started engines at 0930 and headed north
towards the first line of blocking ice. We were able to go around the
western end without any trouble. The rest of the Sound was blocked at this
point, apart from this narrow gap right near the shore. There was then a
gap
of a few miles of free water - then more ice - solid from side-to-side.
After much weaving about, Alistair identified the narrowest point that we
might be able to break through. We made sure everything down below was
secure, built up speed and rammed the sea ice that was blocking our way.
The
thickness would have been around 1 to 1.5 metres. Seamaster rode well out
of
the water up on the shelf for about 1/3 or her length, then stopped and we
waited to see what would happen.
The ice broke into large lumps and came to
the surface on either side as our vessel settled back into the water. Back
to power again with the engines and we went for the next blockage, with the
same effect. The boat really did rear right up and on an angle as we made
our way through..Then followed another 4 hours of working between bergs and
brash ice and old lumps of very hard glacial ice before we reached
comparatively open water.
Most of this area of Marguerite Bay is uncharted.
Most of this area is normally under ice all year. We have passed seals
lazing on ice floes and penguins have squawked at us as we have gone by.
The
big bergs are as magnificent as ever, but it is interesting to see the
amount they have changed since we passed them - all aground - on our way
south a week ago. Many have broken down to half their previous size.But
thank goodness we are not having a forced stay over the winter.."
Peter.
Copyright "Blakexpeditions".
Final comment: Perhaps the reason why the ice was less than it was a week before was because his boat broke most of that ice up a week ago. Duh.
Reason why poles will never melt
You would have noticed in Blake's log it says: Conditions: Fine with a
cloudless sky, Air Temp:5.2 deg C, Sea Temp: Minus 1 deg C, Barometer:
984mbs.
So in Antarctica even on a fine summer's day, no cloud, the hotter
it gets is 5deg, which is near freezing and nearly cold enough for snow
anywhere else in the world. At any other time apart from midsummer the
temperatures plunge well below zero. The air pressure of 984mbs is about
the
same as it gets in Auckland during a shower. What is significantly
different
is the temperature.
If you did 5th form physics you'd know from Boyles Law
that the properties of a gas are that when pressure doesn't change but
temperature drops, volume drops. If that gas is air it shows you that at
the
poles, air volume must be ALWAYS diminished. As air is atmosphere and
earth'
s atmosphere protects the planet from the cold of space (which is minus
150degC); where the air is scarcer and less dense the cold of space jumps
in, and in Antarctica this means almost down to ground level all year
around. This freezes everything in sight. So regardless of what one reads
in
newspapers, I cannot see that the poles will never melt.
Best fishing according to the moon will be 22nd -24th. 25th and 26th will be only average, and Tuesday and Wednesday a waste of time.
Auckland will be wet on Saturday, clearing Sunday. Next week will be dry, with some drizzle Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. Nelson will be wet on Friday but dry from Sunday till the end of the month. Christchurch will see some drizzle this Friday and rain next Wednesday off and on till the following Saturday.
Coming up in autumn and winter in 2001 will be a cloudy and wet April; a cool and windy May; a cloudy, windy and cold June; a cool July; a mild and dry August and a mild, cloudy and wet September. And now for the goods! Snow could be likely possibly argund the middle and definitely at the end of May, the end#of the first week in June and end of June;Ý pretty good around mid July; at the end of August; and really good in September with the season ending around mid October. You heard it here first!
This is the bulk of an exchange between myself and a correspondent, who was quoting from media reports and seeking my reaction to them.
He: The vanishing of the seemingly perpetual snows of Kilimanjaro echoed by similar trends on ice-capped peaks from Peru to Tibet, is one of the clearest signs that a global warming trend in the last 50 years may have exceeded typical climate shifts and is at least partly caused by gases released by human activities. Given that the retreat started a century ago it is likely that some natural changes were affecting the glacier before it felt any effect from the large, recent rise in carbon dioxide and other heat- trapping greenhouse gases from smokestacks and tailpipes. And, glaciers have grown and retreated in pulses for tens of thousands of years. But the pace of change measured now goes beyond anything in recent centuries.
Me: There is absolutely no shred of evidence that so-called greenhouse gases have been responsible for any warming of the globe. CO2 is produced by volcanoes, as has been done for millions of years. Volcanoes are continuously active, all around the globe. For instance the planet Venus, which has 100% CO2 in its atmosphere, has not one factory or car on it with a smelly exhaust.
He: The human discharge of CO2 is different in that it is a constant, occurring all the time.Ý Volcanoes are intense for short periods of time.
Me: I'd say volcanoes are occurring all the time too. If you summed all the active craters in the world I'm sure the output would far exceed all the industrialised CO2. Add to that the fact that all metropolitan areas of the world only occupy 1.8% of the earth's surface (National Geographic), an area less than Spain. And how do you account for the CO2 on Venus?
He: Show me where Venus was Earth like in the past and then we look to see why it changed.Ý We do not know enough about Venus to postulate a theory.
Me: It never changed. Venus is far closer to the sun, making for shortwave solar radiation which gets through the transparent gas so runaway heat reactions occur almost immediately and this extreme heat raises the gas, overcoming the planet's gravity. The gas is opaque to the longwavelengths(infrared) re-radiated from the surface. This heat, unable to escape freely, contributes to a rise in temperature.
He: But equally we don't know enough about our own planet to postulate a theory.
Me: Well, no one mentions the moon, they won't even look at it as a factor. Despite a billion-dollar technology of climate watching, no one has noticed the simple fact that our planet is actually a double one.
He: The area of the emissions are not as important as the volume. Volcanoes are not happening all the time with significant air discharges.Ý I recall reading long ago that the Indonesian Kracatowa eruption changed global climate for a couple of years after it went off.Ý If that is so then why are we not also affecting the climate?
Me: There was a golden opportunity to measure all this when Sadam Hussein
set fire to the oil fields after the Gulf War. Climatologists predicted
world wide climate changes if he did so, due to widespread cooling that
would ensue because of the blocking of the sun's rays. Actually no effect
was observed a mere 100 miles away. In a few days it had all dissipated. I
have documented data for this if you want it. But I suggest before you go
any further, you take a look at what the moon does.
We as humans are not
affecting the climate, anymore than the buffaloes and cockroaches. It may
appear so when living in the city, but that is not the world. 1000 million
years ago the earth's climate stabilised. It is far far more stable with
selfadjusting mechanisms than anything puny old us can throw at it. On the
other hand, the moon IS affecting the climate and always has done.
Coming back to CO2, the cycle is that CO2 from volcanoes is thrown up, but
falls as it is heavier than air. Only if it was lighter would it rise to
form a greenhouse cover. Rain mixes with it to form a weak acid, which
descends to become embedded in rocks. Plankton settle on the sea floor and
form chalk. A rolled-up newspaper-sized lump of chalk contains around
1000litres of compacted CO2. The seafloor and CO2-embedded rock form
continental plates that become pushed under other plates and eventually
rise
to form mountain ranges at the edges of continents. Volcanoes are the
result
and the cycle continues.
The more conservative end of the estimates made by reputable scientists of
the amount of increase of CO2 produced since industrialisation began have
been .01% in a century, hardly enough to change or heat anything. What we
have is the ravings of one or two lunatic scientists anxious to receive
research funding, and thereafter dummies commenting on other dummies. They
KNOW there are natural cycles, but have no idea of the extent of them. In
their anxiety to regain their own credibility as experts to a now-scared
public, they invent the emissions cause and produce a whole raft of
differing estimates to prop up their case. There is absolutely no consensus
among climatologists, and whoever can get into print rules momentarily as
the current government and media advisor.
The assumption is that in a century emissions will have become so prolific
that the global temperature balance will have become irretrievably
impaired.
But what about the scare-scenario launched about 5 years ago that the
world's coal and oil reserves will run out around 2040? There will
obviously
be zero emissions and polluting influences after that date, so the
so-called
"problem" will presumably then evaporate well before the century is up.
Pace of change has not been measured in recent centuries, so there is no
data to compare. Observations of global temperatures only became possible
with satellite feeds from NASA 20 years ago. Their data, that the world has
increased only by .04 of one degC over the past 100 years (see
science@NASA.com, Oct 20th 2000) is not only ignored by land-based agencies
like NIWA who, I understand, are contractually tied into the IPCC but
actually rubbished by them. The fact is that land-based temperature
readings
are totally biased by CLOUD COVER, an error factor impossible to eradicate
as clouds are on the
move all the time, and by the Urban-Heat Island Effect which states that
only the cities where the measuring stations are situated themselves are
heating up due to expansion and so greater area of asphalt and
heat-producing industry.
He: But it matches so many other lines of evidence of warming. Whether you're talking about bore- hole temperatures, shrinking Arctic sea ice, or glaciers, they're telling the same story.
Me: By pulling in other "evidence" they endeavour to show a greater
problem.
But where no real evidence for any one phenomenon exists, the pointing to
other areas is a feeble but useless attempt to provide extra proof. It was
midsummertime when the North Sea ice was seen to retreat somewhat, same as
it does every summer, and matches what they have just found in midsummer
down in Antarctica. Nothing to do with global warming. Ice tends to melt
around the edges during the heat of summertime, a fact that all little
children would have little difficulty understanding
He: But many add that having such a rapid erosion of glaciers in so many places is harder to explain except by global warming.
Me: What ABOUT other possible factors, like sunspots, changes in the ionosphere due to the occulting electrical fields of Jupiter and Saturn, and the 18.613 declination cycle of the moon which creates an undeniable 9 year cycle of warming of the earth, to those who care to study it? I'd love to debate that one with someone who knows what I'm on about. To say "except by global warming.." is nonsense. Because scientists have not looked elsewhere..because there are no funds to do so.. does not indicate anything other than their own narrow-sightedness.
He: By 2025 glaciers will have lost 90 percent of the volume of ice that was there a century ago. Only Scandinavia seems to be bucking the trend, apparently because shifting storm tracks in Europe are dumping more snow there.
Me: You've just defeated your own case. The fact that there is a BIG exception suggests global warming is not universal, and probably due to factors other than a greenhouse gas scenario. The fact that the world warmed leading up to the 1940s and then cooled 1940-1980 indicates fluctuations that are natural. Plus, effects take many decades to register. Very slow is the speed of these things. If there indeed is a partial melt of some iced areas it is more likely to be due to the warming that occurred prior to 1940. Again, nothing to do with emissions today or in the last decade, so one can rule out industrialization.
HE: Trying to stay ahead of the widespread melting on Kilimanjaro, Dr. Thompson and a team of scientists have apparently been hurriedly traveling around the tropics to extract cores of ice from a variety of glaciers containing a record of thousands of years of climate shifts. Do you think the data may help predict future trends?
Me: They needn't hurry. Antarctica has seen a thickening of ice over the last 20 years (ref, science@NASA.com)
He: The accelerating loss of mountain glaciers is in a scientific report on the impact of global warming, released by the IPCC. The melting is likely to threaten water supplies in places like Peru and Nepal, the report says, and could also lead to devastating flash floods.
Me: Well, to my small brain it seems that "threatened water supplies" and "flash floods" cancel each other out! Or am I missing something here?
He: Once ice is gone, chances are that the communities will have to turn to oil or coal for power, adding even more greenhouse gases to the air.
Me: Aha! Now you're assuming it's all going to vanish. You've been sucked in alright. Look at it this way. Scientists have an extremely bad record at predicting anything into the future. Things they warn about just don't happen, mate. Collision-with-earth-bound meteorites ended up millions of kms away, Halleys Comet was a fizzer, the Grand Planetary Alignment was a nonevent, the "population explosion" has now reversed itself. On the other hand things happen that they fail to warn about, like the extreme floods in France end of 1999, mudslides in Venezuela that same December, Hurricane Floyd on the eastern seabord of the US and the recent floods in the UK, just to name a few. There is no reason to rely on the profit-driven scientific community to give us the truth.
He: When Dr. Hardy climbed Kilimanjaro to retrieve his data, he discovered that the weather instruments, erected on a tall pole, had fallen over because the ice around the base was gone. So it must be melting at an alarming rate.
Me: I say that the moon's warming effect will continue until 2005. Astronomers know about this effect, called the Nutation or Nodal Cycle or Cycle of Maximum Lunar Declination but there is no communication between them and other sciences. To have a decent debate on the subject, first look at past lunar cycles to see if there's a trend. Then solar flares on the 11 year cycle. And then go back during winter. When one has looked first at these and understood them, we can get them out of the way as factors. But until then none of us can discuss global warming.
He: I will look at your web site and am open to the concept of the Moon having a substantial effect on us.
Me: I have been studying the moon's orbits for 25 years - I don't have
all the answers - but much can be explained logically and mathematically by
what the moon does. Mainstream science won't let me get a look in,
newspapers around here won't print any alternative theories, and at global
warming public meetings I am told to sit down and shut up when I ask if
there is room for an alternative viewpoint. People get very offended if
they
feel threatened and if they might be required to change their minds when
presented with a new set of facts. I am impressed that you are going to
take
the trouble to look at the moon..
And thanks for the lively debate - K
Contact
Editor: Ken Ring
Phone: land. 09-817-7625, fax. 09-817-2203, mobile 021 970-696
Postal: P.O.Box 60197 Titirangi, Auckland 7, New Zealand.
E-mail: ken@weatherman.co.nz
Internet: http://www.predictweather.com
Subscribe: Send a blank email to weather-subscribe@topica.com.
Contributions: The editor reserves the right to include or exclude contributions
submitted. Comments or questions for Q's and A's should be addressed to
ken@weatherman.co.nz
Disclaimer: The contents of this document are the views and opinions of the editor and/or associates only, and carry no guarantees as to accuracy. No responsibility will be undertaken by the editor or webmaster for actions or outcomes on the part of readers as a result of information contained herein. Opinions expressed by contributors and reprinted are likewise their own and may or may not reflect the views of the editor or the webmaster.
Copyright: This e-zine is subject to international copyright laws but may be freely distributed to all interested parties; except for purposes of unauthorized
commercial gain. All Rights Reserved (c) Ken Ring 2000 - 2001.