|
Post by matt on Oct 7, 2009 18:10:10 GMT
matt writes "Could you show where you heard that the ice was thickening? " My sloppy writing. I ought to have written that there is more multiyear ice in the Arctic in 2009 and 2008 than there was the previous year. I equate older ice with thicker ice. Since the ice area has increased each September, it follows that the amount of multiyear ice has been increasing. I believe the NSIDC figures confirm this. www.colorado.edu/news/r/7b35b8b7288eb23856042d05e3596b7d.htmlno, 2007 had lots of multi-year ice. 2008 was thinner, and 2009 has even less 3+ year old ice. There is a question about 2 year old ice, so we'll have to wait for the data to see if 2009 had even lower ice than the current record-holder, 2008, for least sea ice in the arctic.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 7, 2009 18:48:13 GMT
matt writes "no, 2007 had lots of multi-year ice. 2008 was thinner, and 2009 has even less 3+ year old ice."
Let me quote from the report you gave me.
"The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover. Second- year ice made up 32 percent of the ice cover, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008. 1. Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over two years old -- the least ever recorded in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 summer average of 48 percent, according to the CU-Boulder report. Measurements of sea ice thickness by satellites are used to determine the age of the ice."
What I have stated is that in 2007 a lot of multiyear ice was blown out of the Arctic Ocean. Some of this ice was 7 years old. What NSIDC has stated is the obvious. NSIDC states that there is much more second year ice in the Arctic sea now than there was in 2007 or 2008 - 32 % compared to 21% and 9%. This is res ipsa loquiter. They also state that ice older than 2 years is far less than it was at the end of the 20th century. Of course; old ice was blown out in 2007. But it gives no data of how much ice was over 2 years old in 2007 and 2008. My understanding is that this figure not much different from the 19% quoted for 2009. Do you have any actual numbers. for the percentage of ice older than 2 years for 2008 and 2007?
What I have stated is that Arctic sea ice is that Arctic sea ice is slowly recovering to pre-2007 levels. There will be more multiyear ice at the end of March in 2010 than there was in 2008 or 2009. In this sense, the ice is getting "thicker" over the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2009 19:02:49 GMT
matt writes "no, 2007 had lots of multi-year ice. 2008 was thinner, and 2009 has even less 3+ year old ice." Let me quote from the report you gave me. "The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover. Second- year ice made up 32 percent of the ice cover, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008. 1. Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over two years old -- the least ever recorded in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 summer average of 48 percent, according to the CU-Boulder report. Measurements of sea ice thickness by satellites are used to determine the age of the ice." What I have stated is that in 2007 a lot of multiyear ice was blown out of the Arctic Ocean. Some of this ice was 7 years old. What NSIDC has stated is the obvious. NSIDC states that there is much more second year ice in the Arctic sea now than there was in 2007 or 2008 - 32 % compared to 21% and 9%. This is res ipsa loquiter. They also state that ice older than 2 years is far less than it was at the end of the 20th century. Of course; old ice was blown out in 2007. But it gives no data of how much ice was over 2 years old in 2007 and 2008. My understanding is that this figure not much different from the 19% quoted for 2009. Do you have any actual numbers. for the percentage of ice older than 2 years for 2008 and 2007? What I have stated is that Arctic sea ice is that Arctic sea ice is slowly recovering to pre-2007 levels. There will be more multiyear ice at the end of March in 2010 than there was in 2008 or 2009. In this sense, the ice is getting "thicker" over the last two years. Per the link in my previous post All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. Scientists would do themselves good to heed advice and use caution when making assumptions, otherwise you must make excuses for why those assumptions don't materialize, such as concluding Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. They have no idea how temporary it is, nor whether if or when the Arctic will be "ice free". The hubris of these climate "scientists" are quite removed from reality.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2009 0:48:11 GMT
matt writes "no, 2007 had lots of multi-year ice. 2008 was thinner, and 2009 has even less 3+ year old ice." Let me quote from the report you gave me. "The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover. Second- year ice made up 32 percent of the ice cover, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008. 1. Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over two years old -- the least ever recorded in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 summer average of 48 percent, according to the CU-Boulder report. Measurements of sea ice thickness by satellites are used to determine the age of the ice." What I have stated is that in 2007 a lot of multiyear ice was blown out of the Arctic Ocean. Some of this ice was 7 years old. What NSIDC has stated is the obvious. NSIDC states that there is much more second year ice in the Arctic sea now than there was in 2007 or 2008 - 32 % compared to 21% and 9%. This is res ipsa loquiter. They also state that ice older than 2 years is far less than it was at the end of the 20th century. Of course; old ice was blown out in 2007. But it gives no data of how much ice was over 2 years old in 2007 and 2008. My understanding is that this figure not much different from the 19% quoted for 2009. Do you have any actual numbers. for the percentage of ice older than 2 years for 2008 and 2007? What I have stated is that Arctic sea ice is that Arctic sea ice is slowly recovering to pre-2007 levels. There will be more multiyear ice at the end of March in 2010 than there was in 2008 or 2009. In this sense, the ice is getting "thicker" over the last two years. Per the link in my previous post All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. Scientists would do themselves good to heed advice and use caution when making assumptions, otherwise you must make excuses for why those assumptions don't materialize, such as concluding Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. They have no idea how temporary it is, nor whether if or when the Arctic will be "ice free". The hubris of these climate "scientists" are quite removed from reality. "The hubris of these climate "scientists" are quite removed from reality. "Hubris is easy trap to fall into when no-one ever validates your work.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 8, 2009 2:35:41 GMT
I cannot get the picture out of my mind of the nuclear powered ice breaker carving of sections of ice and the wind blowing them into warmer waters. On board are climate adventurers saying its worse than we thought, as they sip champagne. Meanwhile some agenda driven photographer snaps a picture of a polar bear adrift on one of these sections of ice, of course the ice breaker and champagne are long gone. Where are the Catlin crew when you need them to document all of this. Oh right they had a plane fly them out so its OK. ;D Seems the ice is recovering in spite of the above.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 8, 2009 8:27:51 GMT
From what i have learnt so far there is more or less no doubt there is less ice in the arctic since for example Franklin was locked solid for many seasons and froze to death. But even Amundsun had a pretty easy journey to Goa Haven only 60 years later. The peak coldest period is not known but seems to be around 1800 to 1850 or so. Prior to around 1780 it seems to have been warmer and therefore we can imagine less icey in the arctic. If you look at the DMI data for the region above 80N you can see it is warmer than the last 40 year average at the moment. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpImportant to note though is that by 1957 it was already known that the world was entered a new cooling phase from an earlier warming phase i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpghence the little ice age cooling scare of the 1970's promoted by Stephen Schneider. i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/DSC01120.jpgLooking at other charts you can see where it is colder at the moment than the far northern arctic: www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gifAnd as you can see from this chart: www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.htmlIt is very cold outside the 80N area towards Canada and this is persisting now for weeks. But on the Russian side it is fairly warm relatively. Remember this is Siberia. The Canadian and Siberian areas dont get the kind of ocean warming influence that parts of Greenland and Scandanavia get. So from this point of view the trend is towards warming of the arctic ocean still. And it could be the reason is the atlantic ocean is warmer? Do we have data? It seem to me the ability of the poles to be radiators of heat is still functioning - cold air is arriving to Canada but warm air or air that has not yet been cooled is leaving the high arctic? Comments theories? One possibility is that Greenland which will get a massive amount of extra snow if the ocean is warmer can create sufficient glacial ice that the new foundland current is slowed down for example. Nares strait is only 38km wide at its narrowest. Summit station in Greenland had the coldest september temperatures since the station was built. Cold created by an absence of wind, clear skies and the ability of the earth to radiate energy to space without being warmed by new air arriving to warm the temperature gauges/earth. (the 'Nightcool' effect) No point in denying what is there to be seen so far. For example canada ice survery said that unusually in 2007 and 2008 an ice bridge did not form at smiths sound south of nares strait and instead the ice bridge formed in more or less the arctic ocean at the lincoln sea around northern Ellesmere island and the top of greenland. What will happen this year? Will the ice bridge form at Smiths sound again? Something to watch. Smith Sound is the narrow part of this recent picture: ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Kane/200910060116.ASAR.jpgInformation on the ice bridge from CIS: ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=50&ScndLvl=no&ID=11924Dont get me wrong please. Arctic sea ice has been shown to go thru cycles of melting and regrowing in 20 to 30 year periods but overall it is melting from the time of Franklin and would Franklin have done that voyage had the British Admiralty with centuries of experience of observation not felt that the time was right? It seems Franklin was unlucky and yet his trip was done at at time of relative coldness to todays relative warmth
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2009 10:26:17 GMT
[quote author=radiant board=globalwarming thread=346 post=31473 time=1254990471 ] <<SNIP>>> <<SNIP>>> Dont get me wrong please. Arctic sea ice has been shown to go thru cycles of melting and regrowing in 20 to 30 year periods but overall it is melting from the time of Franklin and would Franklin have done that voyage had the British Admiralty with centuries of experience of observation not felt that the time was right? It seems Franklin was unlucky and yet his trip was done at at time of relative coldness to todays relative warmth [/quote]
I don't think that the Admiralty had centuries of experience of sailing in the Arctic. There were plenty of voyages that took place based on very flimsy evidence and poor geographic knowledge even up to the 1800's.
The sea _has_ warmed since the LIA - the ARGO reports seem to show that the warming is not now as fast or has stopped. It takes a LONG time for ocean heat content to alter so the cycle lengths for such warming and cooling are necessarily very long. Very much longer than the 30 years of the satellite era and possibly longer than a couple of centuries.
There are lots of variables to consider that are not just temperature and some are extremely slow to alter such as the thermohaline circulation and the 'beat frequencies' between various ocean multi-decadal oscillations that may take centuries to get back into a warming or cooling synchrony.
In some ways saying that "look we have metrics from 1800 to present and its been steadily rising therefore by 100 years time it will be at this level," are the same as observing the tide coming in for 10 minutes and making a linear progression forwards a day and claiming the world will be flooded.
Then as trbixler says, we now have vandals in icebreakers cutting the ice away from its land anchors and the 'environmentalists' on board tut-tutting at the way the ice is being blown out of the Arctic. I would think that there is possibly a correlation between the number of icebreaker voyages in the arctic and the drop in the amount of sea ice.
I feel that anyone who uses 30 years as their baseline for forecasting sea and arctic behavior is displaying a lack of understanding _or_ is doing so for some ulterior reason.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 8, 2009 10:58:39 GMT
Icebreaker Tourism started in 1989, and has been steadily growing. The biggest Nuke Ice breaker entered service in 2007, the year of greatest ice decline: 50 Let Pobedy (50 years of Victory)
There is obviously an excellent correlation with declining ice extent, even with the recovery in the last couple of years (assuming declining tourism because of the GFC) - Not that correlations imply causation.
There is also the environmental damage when the tourists trample slow growing arctic plants, and stress out the wildlife by chasing for photographs.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 8, 2009 16:38:41 GMT
I feel that anyone who uses 30 years as their baseline for forecasting sea and arctic behavior is displaying a lack of understanding _or_ is doing so for some ulterior reason. ? As for admiralty charts, it was mentioned in the little ice age by Jean Grove that sea ice extents have been know about for more or less hundreds of years. Naturally if you control the globe it pays to take notice of these things. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#United_KingdomSo the brits stole the Dutch secrets: And note this map was published in 1599 a few years after Willem Barentz died. Similarly if you control the globe and sail under the ice and you know about the ice thickness and extent it is a military secret more or less and it pays to ensure your enemy is confused. Plenty of people talk heaps of rubbish on these boards, as best as i can i try to avoid that but nobody is perfect.
|
|
dresi
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 120
|
Post by dresi on Oct 8, 2009 17:03:22 GMT
Well, increase of ice right now in Arctic is slow. Especially on European and Siberian side. Temperatures in Arctic are over 10°C above average. Not good for winter in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 8, 2009 20:10:07 GMT
Well, increase of ice right now in Arctic is slow. Especially on European and Siberian side. Temperatures in Arctic are over 10°C above average. Not good for winter in Europe. Ice extent in the Arctic other than the Russian side is almost the same as the 21 year average from 1979 to 2000. North and North West of Banks island on the canadian side there is a large area with under -19C. At Summit station in Greenland it is -48C Here in Finland at 61N we are just under sub zero at nights with snow up north in the arctic circle and well under zero at about 65N. www.iltalehti.fi/saa/?mode=country&continent=Europe&country=FI&wait=0&defaultCity=FI_a1_ck2009240So fairly normal so far.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Oct 9, 2009 10:34:41 GMT
There is also the environmental damage when the tourists trample slow growing arctic plants, and stress out the wildlife by chasing for photographs. Oh puhleeze.... you might as well say that the caribou are damaging their environment by trampling and foraging... and the people traveling on these expeditions are generally of the environmentalist type (or fancy themselves to be) so most at least try to tread lightly on the earth. Further, on some of the tours I've taken in the north, the guides restricted people to very small areas of the tundra so their local tourist economy wouldn't be effected. After said tourist season is over, they go and harvest a couple of whales. The area of land is so massively huge that I'd assume the small numbers of tourists cause a completely negligible amount of environmental damage. Now those ice breakers.... I do wonder about opening up long lines in the ice and destabilizing shelves and land anchors and other such -er-- landmarks. It looks like the arctic is a small area because we condense it to fit onto our screens, please compare it to the size of say, Alaska or the continental US. Or Russia.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 12:05:49 GMT
There is also the environmental damage when the tourists trample slow growing arctic plants, and stress out the wildlife by chasing for photographs. Oh puhleeze.... you might as well say that the caribou are damaging their environment by trampling and foraging... and the people traveling on these expeditions are generally of the environmentalist type (or fancy themselves to be) so most at least try to tread lightly on the earth. Further, on some of the tours I've taken in the north, the guides restricted people to very small areas of the tundra so their local tourist economy wouldn't be effected. After said tourist season is over, they go and harvest a couple of whales. The area of land is so massively huge that I'd assume the small numbers of tourists cause a completely negligible amount of environmental damage. Now those ice breakers.... I do wonder about opening up long lines in the ice and destabilizing shelves and land anchors and other such -er-- landmarks. It looks like the arctic is a small area because we condense it to fit onto our screens, please compare it to the size of say, Alaska or the continental US. Or Russia. Most of the arctic sea ice is fractured and floating and drifting with currents so is not solid ice and it is not very thick either www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w5LrFx-wdYThe larger ice flows might be 20 feet above the water but they are not being passed thru with the ice breakers. The breakers are going thru the easier parts and they have helicopters to plan out their routes for that purpose. Most of the ice remains in the arctic because the currents keep it there and if the currents changed ice would not have any strength to resist those currents If ice breakers expose the water under the ice they could be helping cooling of the arctic rather than interfering with it. Sea ice acts as a thermal blanket to hold in the warmth of the deeper ocean because the surface is calm when ice is present and can have convection layers as inversions built so that the warmest water is not at the surface. Open water enables greater mixing and a more normal convective layering. Whatever influence the ice breakers has is in the context of an already broken thin surface that is constantly moving around
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Oct 9, 2009 12:41:24 GMT
The sea ice melting is probably a natural event of the last 2 decades where the temperature was warmer. When the water at the poles sink and becomes a current carrying cold water toward the poles, what temperature is that? There is a current in the Atlantic that takes a very long time to come up off the coast of Bahama. Is it possible that from time to time that the conveyor belt doesn't deliver enough cold water to the tropics? And in order for the water to sink it has to be the right temperature and salt content. I think it is around 39 F. That's above freezing. As the water sinks, it draws in more warm water from the tropics. A good example of something that works like that is in Colorado. When Pike's Peak has no snow on it in the summer time, the air heats up and rises. This rising draws in moist air from the Pacific and (depending on temp) rains or snows. That happened in 2004 or 2005. I think the weather system is very complex. To state that co2 is the main driver for global warming is over simplified. If you look at rhythms and waves, there are reinforcing waves, and canceling waves. Reinforcing waves can make the weather much colder than normal or warmer and canceling waves can keep the weather from going one way or the other. The timing of the energy from the sun has a lot to do with that. The model for co2 forcing only considers radiance, and that it is held to be constant. From something that massively hot, a .02% drop at 93 million miles should do something. It has to do with that inverse square law and distance. At any rate, there are other forms of radiation that dumps energy into the atmosphere. Just because we don't know how it works, doesn't mean its not there. Just as an example, we don't know everything about lighting. And we certainly don't know much about magnetism. Wonder what a magnetic storm on earth would look like.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 20:38:51 GMT
no, 2007 had lots of multi-year ice. 2008 was thinner, and 2009 has even less 3+ year old ice. 2009 should have less 3+ year old ice whether the arctic is losing ice or gaining ice. 2007 was a low on all ages of ice. 2008 had more 1 year ice left, 2009 had more 2 year ice left. Meanwhile each year some of that 2007 ice gets less by breaking away and drifting out of the arctic. Bottom line is you aren't making 3 year ice in 2 years thats impossible. But you are just playing word games. It was already predicted by the folks here that what is normal will be represented as disaster, I mean Luddites have been doing that for hundreds of years consistently.
|
|