|
Post by hunter on Sept 15, 2009 2:44:05 GMT
NASA's scientific opinion based on their data is no more credible than the Easter Bunny!?!?! LOLOLOLOL Yep, and the moon landings were faked. I only ask that you back up your opinion on ice volume with scientific evidence. So far you have not. Ice volume is the latest redoubt of the AGW faithful. Of course, they carefully avoid applying that to worldwide ice volume, and they particularly avoid applying the concept to Antarctica, because, well, the results do not quite support the faith needs of the believers. The interesting question is this: When the AGW promotion industry drops the ice issue, what will be the next rallying point for AGW fear mongering?
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Sept 15, 2009 3:05:56 GMT
I see that the media is making a big song and dance about the passage of two German freighters on the north east route: www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.htmlThey kind of failed to mention that the freighters were preceded by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker. Also that the passage had been made by the Finno-Swedish explorer Nordenskiold in 1878. This was followed in the last century by the Challenger, Meteor and Albatross plus the CCGS Hudson some 40 years ago. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story. I often wonder what happened to investigative journalism. They just print or broadcast it nowadays - particularly if it agrees with their blinkered, lazy acceptance of warmist views. I could spit tacks but feel a bit better now!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 15, 2009 4:07:32 GMT
'Rebound' is not nearly as abused as 'worse than predicted'. It all depends on who's listening, but the graph socold linked to is valid. Look at the ups and downs. There are three or four big up's and four or five big downs. The up in extent for the last two years is consistent with the previous ups, and so more likely to drop again. This is especially true since the current year is still pulling the trend line downwards, albeit slightly. The point where the linear trend hits the zero line is a good first-order estimate for when the world will typically have ice free Septembers. Either we're at the bottom of a natural cycle and will soon see a quick increase in both volume and extent, _OR_ this is a linear decline overlaid by a cold weather cycle. The current data points more towards the sum of the natural cycles being a cooling of the planet - orbital? Cooling. Solar? Cooling. pDO? Cooling. Of course, orbital cooling will continue to increase, so that's one automatic brake on global warming. Unfortunately, it's very slow in comparison. Also, if this were to be the top of a natural cycle, then the trend line should be levelling out in preparation for the inevitable re-freeze. But that's not happening. Instead, the trend-line has steepened, which is more in line with a continued propensity to lose ice. Which brings me back to, "It's worse than most folks predicted."
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 15, 2009 4:40:36 GMT
oh oh! AMSE is showing a preliminary reversal of the down trend tonight with about 20K km squared. Looks like the reversal may have occurred today. Lets see what happens with the final data and also the remainder of this week. The turn has to come soon and this looks like it, for now.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 15, 2009 4:56:05 GMT
Meanwhile, latest Jaxa data shows an increase. Some 20,000 sq kms, and is most likely nothing more than 20,000 sq kms of ice pools freezing over, rather than a true change in extent. If you view the latest 10 or so images from Jaxa the "ice" is moving all over the place from day to day, and that isn't credible. (I go back 10 days or so to store the images in my browser buffers and then fast forward to product a sort of time lapse.) www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=eWhat we do have is weather changing the ice surface from day to day causing major changes in the radar signal. I've pointed out in the past that the years of "decline" still had old ice - the ice the radar was "calibrated" to, back in 2002. Since 2007, we have had large areas of young ice, which is of a different density & doesn't have the same radar signature. In future years, the recovery will "slow" because the ice will become old again, and the declines & falls will not be so dramatic. Again, repeating myself for the "young" folk, the satellites produce radar signals which are processed by computer programs to "try" and sort out open water from ice, snow, rain etc. It isn't easy, and the data IS +/- 25% from reality in summer & +/- 10% in winter. (admitted by the researchers). Different ice has different radar colours. Accurate data simply isn't possible with the current satellites. All this means the data isn't something to get that excited about, and certainly no justification for some of the madness by the AGW believers.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 15, 2009 6:30:16 GMT
I think it worth pointing out that ice appears to be constantly forming and melting in the far polar region but also ice is constantly moving southwards each side of greenland and thru the passages to where it melts. At this time of year the area of ice can spread further south because it does not melt very fast. For example with the cold we have had the last week the open water around the north east of greenland has slowly filled with ice and now the sea areas behind the ice sheets on the land side are freezing and a few sea facing bays are either frozen over with new ice or have had 'slush' accumulating on which there is now clearly a good covering of snow. (Even so some fresh water lakes are still not frozen over) Nearly all of the year the pole is an ice generator that spits out ice to other areas where it melts. At any time the ocean currents change or the wind is different, in a way that is unfavourable for ice retention, the ice moves out of the polar area much faster to where it melts. To my way of thinking ignorance of this whole dynamic is behind the predictions that the ice is all going to dissapear. And the thread i created on less heat means more ice is a totally serious one and not meant to be a joke. My feeling is that the state of knowledge of the modellers is so poor that we are likely to be heading for another colder period where the ice comes back again just as some people with far more knowledge than me are already predicting www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF19/1961.htmlImportantly it appears that the year to year air temperature variation are an irrelevance to longer term climate change. What is relevant is the total heat content of the earth and the earths surface which includes the oceans. If ice forms on a roof when it is 51F at 25% humidity in calm conditions you can see that the earths ability to radiate energy is not impaired by the warmer atmosphere and yet the atmosphere itself is not very good at radiating. The oceans and lands therefore massively radiate out thru the warm atmosphere. We measure the total surface temperature as a guess but we cannot know the total heat content of the earth other than an even more vague guess. When the oceans are warmer we get more precipitation. Dryness in California can be a a sign of coldness. Retreating glaciers can be a sign of coldness. The reality is that guess upon guess and incorrect assumptions are the basis of many peoples beliefs about the world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 15, 2009 8:49:21 GMT
I know it has been mentioned before - but as a serious thought - if the Arctic ice sheet is just floating with some parts anchored by ice to land and icebreakers repeatedly cut through the fringes of the sheet - especially the parts acting as an anchor - would this hasten the break up of the ice? From a simple logic point of view it must do. As the ocean currents and winds could in some conditions drag/blow ice out of the Arctic. Or allow the ice to move and compress sheets over each other.
Some of these icebreakers are significantly more powerful and capable than their predecessors as they were build for it rather than modified for it.
Are there any stats on the number of icebreaker voyages that effectively cut away chunks of ice sheet?
It just seems that whenever the ice is at a low point these days there are stories of icebreakers taking boats through thinner ice or shielding kayakers ;-) All this activity must have some effect.
As an addition to this - should driving icebreakers through the arctic ice hastening its melt be seen as environmental vandalism - especially as AGW proponents tell us repeatedly of the apocalypse that will befall if the Arctic were to become ice-free?
Icebreakers should be considered as bad as slash and burn farming in the Amazon perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Sept 15, 2009 11:30:02 GMT
If you watch the anomaly graph, the recovery started in 2006 already, spoiled by summer 2007 minimum caused by special wind and ocean stream summer patterns. 2008 summer ice extent still suffered by that, but some ice buildup already occurred. 2009 looks like the 2007 summer lost got almost cured. AMO peaked in July, August AMO index is 0.205 and probably heading down: eu folks, get ready for winter 2008/09 reloaded.
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on Sept 15, 2009 11:38:59 GMT
Starting back up on cue: 5,269,531 km2.
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" Mark Twain
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Sept 15, 2009 12:57:09 GMT
I see that the media is making a big song and dance about the passage of two German freighters on the north east route: www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.htmlThey kind of failed to mention that the freighters were preceded by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker. Also that the passage had been made by the Finno-Swedish explorer Nordenskiold in 1878. This was followed in the last century by the Challenger, Meteor and Albatross plus the CCGS Hudson some 40 years ago. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story. I often wonder what happened to investigative journalism. They just print or broadcast it nowadays - particularly if it agrees with their blinkered, lazy acceptance of warmist views. I could spit tacks but feel a bit better now! That story has been completely busted now. www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/north_eastern_passage/
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 15, 2009 14:26:13 GMT
I see that the media is making a big song and dance about the passage of two German freighters on the north east route: www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.htmlThey kind of failed to mention that the freighters were preceded by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker. Also that the passage had been made by the Finno-Swedish explorer Nordenskiold in 1878. This was followed in the last century by the Challenger, Meteor and Albatross plus the CCGS Hudson some 40 years ago. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story. I often wonder what happened to investigative journalism. They just print or broadcast it nowadays - particularly if it agrees with their blinkered, lazy acceptance of warmist views. I could spit tacks but feel a bit better now! That story has been completely busted now. www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/north_eastern_passage/From the NY Times 1937. "Across the Pole is the Northeast Passage to China along the top of Norway & Russia. Sebastian Cabot initiated its search in 1553. Henry Hudson twice attempted a passage but it was not until 1879 that the route was navigated. Now Russia currently operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the Northeast Passage's more open but colder waters." www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 15, 2009 14:45:30 GMT
From the NY Times 1937. "Across the Pole is the Northeast Passage to China along the top of Norway & Russia. Sebastian Cabot initiated its search in 1553. Henry Hudson twice attempted a passage but it was not until 1879 that the route was navigated. Now Russia currently operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the Northeast Passage's more open but colder waters." www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html I have read this before, but was glad to see it again today. BTW, as you know from your link, the article is from Time magazine rather than The NYT. I sent it to Andy Revkin as a post script to a much longer e-mail I wrote him regarding his arguably misleading article this week about the shipping route. -- Harold
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on Sept 15, 2009 15:01:27 GMT
suugest we all complain to the BBC, otherwise they will get away with such tripe again www.bbc.co.uk/complaintsand get your rfreinds to do it as well
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 15, 2009 15:43:27 GMT
Todays FINAL adjustment to JAXAs data point suggests a rather V bottom. 5,276,563 or positive ice growth of 26,719...things are chilling up there.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 15, 2009 15:50:35 GMT
Radiant... Once water reaches about 4 degrees C, it has reached its maximum density. Further reductions in temperature will cause it to be LESS dense, meaning that once the top 100 meters or so gets to 4 degrees, any further cooling of the surface water will mean that it stays at the surface, because its less dense. The 100 meters is not a randomly chosen depth. It is my understanding that below that depth, at least in the polar waters, that is the depth at which the temperature doesn't change. If this wasn't true, then lakes would freeze from the bottom up. Therefore, this: and this: Are misleading and wrong. Belushi TD Lets work it thru then. Sea water contains salt water and the salinity of the sea water increases with depth. The top layer also has recent rain and snow and melt water that has not yet fully mixed with deeper levels so it is temporarily particulary fresh salty water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. When sea ice forms pure ice crystals form which increases the salinity of the top water layer which then descends according to temperature and salinity leaving the ice crystals at the surface. So the top layer is the coldest at freezing and layers near the surface are the warmest and less salty. In order for the top layer to remain frozen a layer of cold water has to form that sits on top of the warmer water. There may be reasons like you say that keep this top already cooled layer near the surface but it is still above the warmest layer of water that is not part of the ice forming layer. Therefore near the surface is a complex convection mixture of warmer more dense salty water under a colder less dense fresher water. If the seas are not calm then the warmest salty water mixes with the colder fresher water and no ice can form until the convection layer can form an even deeper protective layer. Once this water mixture is mixed the colder upper layers are going to descend following a fairly complex dynamic between heavier saltier water and colder water because as we know the warmest water is at the top and coldest at the bottom apart from the top most layer in near freezing conditions. At the shore there is only the top layer with less possibility for mixing with deeper water so it can become one uniform mixed mass and will still freeze. in fact all of the melting ice could cool the earth some place else with deeper water. Are misleading and wrong. I am not sure at this point in time. I think the gulf stream brings salty water (because of warm water evaporation) to the arctic to melt the ice and this now denser cooler salty water descends to the ocean floor to return to the equator - it must take some of the cold arctic water with it? The earth after all is very hot. There must be considerable forces at work to take cold water back to the bottoms of the oceans against this continual undersea warming?
|
|