|
Post by steve on Aug 3, 2009 10:11:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 3, 2009 10:50:10 GMT
Interesting but the first crossing by Roald Amundsen and the first 1940's one by Henry Larson were done with winter stopovers. Edit: 1944 trip was straight thru as per Bluecons correction. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gj%C3%B8aAmundsens Gjøa left the Oslofjord on June 16, 1903, and made for the Labrador Sea west of Greenland. From there she crossed Baffin Bay and navigated the narrow, icy straits of the Arctic Archipelago. By late September Gjøa was west of the Boothia Peninsula and began to encounter worsening weather and sea ice. Amundsen put her into a natural harbour on the south shore of King William Island; by October 3 she was iced in.
There she remained for nearly two years,During this period Amundsen travelled north to do magnetic survey work Their location: 'The best little harbour in the world' maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=&daddr=68.627234,-95.885067&hl=en&geocode=&mra=mi&mrsp=0&sz=13&sll=68.627547,-95.882835&sspn=0.031717,0.098534&ie=UTF8&ll=68.628297,-95.88953&spn=0.031716,0.098534&t=h&z=13
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 3, 2009 13:24:24 GMT
The preliminary Japanese figures for Arctic sea ice extent are in for 2 August, and it is clear that the trend towards a slower melt are continuing. I can do some "back of the envelope" calculations
ASSUMING THIS TREND CONTINUES FOR THE REST OF THE MELT SEASON.
The rate of loss of ice, daily, for the next 5 days in 2008 was just over 100,000 sq kms. The rate of loss of ice extent for the last three days this year was just under 55,000 sq kms. This indicates the change over between 2008 and 2009 will occur between August 5th and 6th; on the 5th there will be more ice in 2008; on the 6th there will be more ice in 2009.
2009 is tracking in a similar manner to 2005. This indicates a minimum ice extent in September of around 5,300,000 sq kms.. This would be 600,000 sq kms more than 2008, and 1,000,000 sq kms more than 2007. This, in turn, would indicate that in 2010 there will be significantly more multiyear ice that 2008 and 2007.
The liklihood that the Arctic will be ice free in summer in the next decade looks like being zero, contrary to the weasel worded predictions of the warmaholics. Lawrence Pugh can put his kayak into permanent storage. The ice seems to have recovered from the wind event in July 2007 that blew masses of ice out of the Arctic basin, (nothing to do with AGW), and the long term trend of a little less than 1% per year decrease seems to have been re-established.
There are other, more important, implications for my Canadian goverment, whose policy has been dictated by the doom and gloom predictions of the warmaholics. However, I will not speculate, here, on what these might be.
NSIDC will be putting out it's monthly summary in the next day or so. If the above is clear to me, it must be more so for NSIDC. One wonders what spin they will put on what is happening. If they dont face reality this month, than I predict they will have to next month.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 3, 2009 13:37:22 GMT
ASSUMING THIS TREND CONTINUES FOR THE REST OF THE MELT SEASON. Sounds like weasel words to me
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 3, 2009 15:13:38 GMT
You are avoiding the issue by oversimplification. I do not see a black and white issue that you see. I see a system that can respond by bypassing much of the ghg (a point you acknowledge as 'having some truth in it'). I also see a system that can increase its albedo reflecting away much of the input energy.What do you mean by "can respond". Lots of things "can" happen but unless you can show that there will be a change in the trend of other processes then we assume, for the moment, they remain constant. We are interested in what happens when we change one variable, i.e. CO2 concentration. This will change the amount of IR transmission through the atmosphere. Nothing else matters at this point. We're simply analysing the effect of doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere while all other factors remain constant. This leads to a change in forcing of ~4 w/m2 and an increase in temperature of ~1 deg C. If you disagree with this then you are also disagreeing with Richard Lindzen and most other leading sceptical scientists. Now you may want to argue that, say, cloudiness will increase and the effect will be to dampen the warming. Fine - but that is a feedback. Lindzen happens to think that any feedback is low and possibly negative. In other words he believes that net warming may be less than 1 deg. Others think differently. But feedback is a separate discussion. I can see we are in the continuing 'feedback' discussion. So you are happy to think of the claimed rise in temperature due to absorption as a direct effect but the coincident rise in convection and albedo are feedbacks. So therefore we are in a definitions game rather than assessing the actual behavior of a system when an input is changed. You have to admit that instantaneous addition of a well mixed gas to the entire atmosphere without disturbing one other molecule is a TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY. Thus any metric that is based on this is hypothetical. Or perhaps you believe that this is possible? The actual 'well mixed' status of CO 2 only happens BECAUSE there is convection. But of course it is only a feedback. If there were no CO 2 in the atmosphere there would still be a hydrologic cycle and convection. It is an existing process. Any input that changes the temperature is an input that changes the convective process. The two processes are inseparable. Yet one you want to call feedback the other you want to call direct effect.
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 3, 2009 15:39:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Aug 3, 2009 15:48:42 GMT
Interesting but the first crossing by Roald Amundsen and the 1940's one by Henry Larson were done with winter stopovers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gj%C3%B8aAmundsens Gjøa left the Oslofjord on June 16, 1903, and made for the Labrador Sea west of Greenland. From there she crossed Baffin Bay and navigated the narrow, icy straits of the Arctic Archipelago. By late September Gjøa was west of the Boothia Peninsula and began to encounter worsening weather and sea ice. Amundsen put her into a natural harbour on the south shore of King William Island; by October 3 she was iced in.
There she remained for nearly two years,Their location: maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=king+william+island+canada&sll=-41.244772,172.617188&sspn=33.394633,53.525391&ie=UTF8&ll=70.959697,-97.734375&spn=31.2502,107.050781&z=3 Amundsen had planned to stay in the Arctic to do scientific work. That was the purpose of the voyage. It is an old maids tale that he was iced in for 2 years. And he also studied the Inuit and learned how to live in Arctic conditions. Later Amundsen would also travel the NE Passage. Henry Larsen got off to a late start in 1941. He was in the Arctic on assignment and was delayed heading for the East due to his duties with the RCMP. Neither of these guys had radar maps or sonar or gps. A man stood in the bow and they sounded their way through with a lead weight. In 1944 Larsen went through the Northern route. Something I guarantee won't be possible this year. Larsen wrote a book about his decade plus in the North called the "Big Ship". He went many times to Gjoa Haven which is near the Eastern end of the Passage. Map of the Larsen voyage and a sight with much Arctic exploration history. www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 3, 2009 16:52:35 GMT
steve writes "Sounds like weasel words to me"
This looks like heads you win, tails I lose. When I am vague about what I base my predictions on, glc accuses me of basing them on absolutely nothing. When I state as best I can what my basis is, then it is weasel wording.
The fact of the matter is that, apart from a blind faith based on absolutely nothing I believe a magnetically quiet sun means a cold earth, I have absolutely nothing to base predicitons on. So I must wait until there is sufficient hard data that it looks to me like a prediciton is worhtwhile.
This is in contrast to NSIDC, who have some of the best minds in the business when it comes to Arctic sea ice. (Sarcasm mode on) Plus they have highly sophisticated computer models which can precict with unfailing accuracy what the climate will be like in 100 years. (Sarcasm mode off) Nevertheless, when NSIDC makes predicitons, they seem to weasel word them.
|
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on Aug 3, 2009 16:57:32 GMT
Steve, GLC and SOCOLD and any other warmaholics explain to me how the atmosphere shrinks as it gets hotter as its been doing the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 3, 2009 17:07:34 GMT
More data from the land that co2 forgot:
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Aug 3, 2009 17:26:24 GMT
Excellent post Jim. I think you have given a good and accurate estimate of the likely outcome for 2009. Keep up the good work!
What is your estimate for 2009 minimum, Steve?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 19:23:15 GMT
steve writes "Sounds like weasel words to me" This looks like heads you win, tails I lose. When I am vague about what I base my predictions on, glc accuses me of basing them on absolutely nothing. When I state as best I can what my basis is, then it is weasel wording. The fact of the matter is that, apart from a blind faith based on absolutely nothing I believe a magnetically quiet sun means a cold earth, I have absolutely nothing to base predicitons on. So I must wait until there is sufficient hard data that it looks to me like a prediciton is worhtwhile. This is in contrast to NSIDC, who have some of the best minds in the business when it comes to Arctic sea ice. (Sarcasm mode on) Plus they have highly sophisticated computer models which can precict with unfailing accuracy what the climate will be like in 100 years. (Sarcasm mode off) Nevertheless, when NSIDC makes predicitons, they seem to weasel word them. So why did you predict the 2008 minimum wrong? www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=501#comment-69450
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 3, 2009 19:47:49 GMT
soclod writes "So why did you predict the 2008 minimum wrong"
Basically , because at that time I did not know as much then as I do now. Some of us learn from our mistakes.
However, it is rather unfair to quote any of my comments of RealClimate. I only posted there in order to get reaction from the warmaholics. I deliberately exaggerated my position in order to provoke a response, and I learned a very great deal.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Aug 3, 2009 20:42:58 GMT
Lets wait and see if Jim is right for 2009
Still none of his critics are prepared to say what they think might be the minimum.
I voted for 5.5 back in June
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Aug 3, 2009 22:36:38 GMT
I'm still predicting 6 +/- 0.25 million sq kms (as I have been for months) (I'm used to being correct, btw ;D)
|
|