|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 19, 2009 6:15:20 GMT
The turn round from the minimum is showing up very quickly on JAXA Note how the turnround date has advanced from 2007, 2008 and 2009
We are just starting to hit 2005 already Is there any correlation between early rate of growth and final maximum ice extent? I still think 14.8 (JAXA) is the likely maximum.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 19, 2009 8:56:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 19, 2009 9:13:28 GMT
The Chinese have a different take on the Arctic ice! ncc.cma.gov.cn/Monitoring/Snow/ice200908e.doc"Northern Hemisphere: During August 2009, anomalies of sea ice concentrations were observed 20-50% above normal in northern of Greenland Sea and Barents Sea. Meanwhile, the 20-50% low centers located in Kaka Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukot Sea respectively and some areas less than 60%. In general, sea ice concentrations were negative in the northern hemisphere." bcc.cma.gov.cn/Website/index.php?ChannelID=26&show_product=1
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Sept 19, 2009 17:52:32 GMT
I think so also this graph shows some move towards significantly earlier end of melting period during last 2 years. And what is interesting, there is every second year of later time of refreezing....El Nino / la Nina? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 19, 2009 22:17:20 GMT
Attached is another overlay of NOAA Alaska service with the Jaxa image over the top. I have coloured the NOAA diagram to make the ages of the ice more apparent, but refer to the NOAA key. Here we see the inability of the Satellite to see younger ice. The ice will changes colour as autumn progresses (less glazed surface and fewer melt pools). Thus the Jaxa ice extent will grow quickly, tho' the true ice extent will not! Unfortunately, I have no access to an archive of the Alaska Sea Ice analysis over time, so I can't see what happened in previous years. I suspect that what we are seeing is different though, as we are entering a period of sustained recovery of ice, while the Satellites were calibrated to declining ice. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2009 23:02:18 GMT
To all those deniers who mistakenly (on purpose?) gave false evidence about the two German ships which crossed the arctic.... "I think it will soon be possible to navigate the Northeast Passage all year round. We were escorted by an ice-breaker but, frankly, we could have done without it. This is great news for our industry." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8264345.stmYes, there you have it, straight from the captain -- THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ICEBREAKERS!!!
|
|
|
Post by glacier on Sept 19, 2009 23:40:31 GMT
To all those deniers who mistakenly (on purpose?) gave false evidence about the two German ships which crossed the arctic.... "I think it will soon be possible to navigate the Northeast Passage all year round. We were escorted by an ice-breaker but, frankly, we could have done without it. This is great news for our industry." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8264345.stmYes, there you have it, straight from the captain -- THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ICEBREAKERS!!! I would not bet on it Matt - the trend is up, not down.....
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 19, 2009 23:43:38 GMT
To all those deniers who mistakenly (on purpose?) gave false evidence about the two German ships which crossed the arctic.... "I think it will soon be possible to navigate the Northeast Passage all year round. We were escorted by an ice-breaker but, frankly, we could have done without it. This is great news for our industry." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8264345.stmYes, there you have it, straight from the captain -- THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ICEBREAKERS!!! This company believes that it is on the verge of capitalizing on the unstoppable Arctic warming that it has been told is taking place. The captain, as an employee of the company (and a significant one), is merely mouthing a sales pitch for a service that he believes will enrich him personally. It is interesting, Matt, that you view such a statement as significant in a discussion about climatology. Does the captain even know that the PDO exists? Or that it switched to its cool phase a couple of years ago? Does he know that the AMO exists? Or that it is likely to enter its negative phase five years from now? Does he know that the most significant solar minimum of our lifetimes is under way? Does he know that Arctic sea ice has increased, significantly, since 2007? (I would be willing to bet, given his apparent lack of contact with reality, that he has no idea at all that Antarctic sea ice has steadily grown since 1979.) I like the part about year-round shipments through the Northeast Passage, though. That one was excellent. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 19, 2009 23:58:48 GMT
Matt Did not need nuclear icebreakers but used them anyway. Heh it was cheap to run them along for the ride. I genuinely think that Matt backs vandalism in the Arctic, then wants to blame it on AGW. Good science Matt!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 20, 2009 0:02:44 GMT
It is interesting, Matt, that you view such a statement as significant in a discussion about climatology. I am simply refuting the insistence by wrong-headed folks that ice breakers were needed for the journey. Does he know that Arctic sea ice has increased, significantly, since 2007? WRONG!!! Sea ice DECLINED in 2008 to a new record minimum volume and may or may not have declined even further in 2009. You keep up with the news and so you obviously know that 2008's ice was lower than 2007's yet you still spout the converse. Why?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 20, 2009 0:29:39 GMT
matt writes "WRONG!!! Sea ice DECLINED in 2008 to a new record minimum volume and may or may not have declined even further in 2009. You keep up with the news and so you obviously know that 2008's ice was lower than 2007's yet you still spout the converse. Why?"
Whose data set are you quoting Matt?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 20, 2009 1:03:54 GMT
matt writes "WRONG!!! Sea ice DECLINED in 2008 to a new record minimum volume and may or may not have declined even further in 2009. You keep up with the news and so you obviously know that 2008's ice was lower than 2007's yet you still spout the converse. Why?" Whose data set are you quoting Matt? It's simple. First, you use MSM reports of information that has no basis in fact derived from extremist prograganda and then you can say that it has been reported. See? That is how you can claim that the science is settled.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 20, 2009 3:38:24 GMT
I am lost who is arguing what here.
In addition the captain in the BBC story is being a salesman the likelihood of the route being open all year round is a joke and the BBC are clearly one of two things, Stupid because if they have not an understanding of this they have a recruitment bias to spin doctors, or the second possibility is that they have morphed into a Nazi style propaganda organisation.
This is from a democratic nation! Yeh Right!!!
Hitler could have saved us a lot of misery if only we had realised we were wrong all along.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 20, 2009 4:06:14 GMT
It is interesting, Matt, that you view such a statement as significant in a discussion about climatology. I am simply refuting the insistence by wrong-headed folks that ice breakers were needed for the journey. Does he know that Arctic sea ice has increased, significantly, since 2007? WRONG!!! Sea ice DECLINED in 2008 to a new record minimum volume and may or may not have declined even further in 2009. You keep up with the news and so you obviously know that 2008's ice was lower than 2007's yet you still spout the converse. Why? Matt: I would very much enjoy reading the source of the above statement. I have not read anything that would indicate what you have written is true. Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 20, 2009 4:55:36 GMT
|
|