|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 4, 2015 9:38:25 GMT
The south turned ages ago.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 5, 2015 9:14:49 GMT
Starting to look like a pretty early min? Losses again today and lowest by over 200k on JAXA...... with a very nasty storm looking to beat up the Atlantic side over the next 7 days it's a very interesting end to the season.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 5, 2015 17:39:11 GMT
Pretty clear that the sea ice extent is a function of weather pattern than any early warning of CAGW witness contradiction between north and south.
Time to relax and enjoy the satellite data from a spectator perspective.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 6, 2015 5:53:05 GMT
Starting to look like a pretty early min? Losses again today and lowest by over 200k on JAXA...... with a very nasty storm looking to beat up the Atlantic side over the next 7 days it's a very interesting end to the season. I would say the ice continues fluctuate like normal every few years. ENSO cycles seem to be pretty much on the same clock. The only thing remarkable is how many scientists got sucked in by the temporary fluctuation of 2006 and 2007 and jump on it with both feet to declare that all the ice would be gone by 2013. Some of them even sit on the National Academy of Science if you can believe that!!!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 6, 2015 9:13:12 GMT
Still bumping along bottom , trailing the Feb max by 350k now so is there enough time to make up the difference before we see the peripherals welcome back the sun? With Fram still sucking our good ice out of the basin we are also looking at a pack set up we had become used to prior to 2013 with most of the basin covered in 2m FY ice ( including the atlantic side where all the 'gains'of the last 2 years have now been wiped out).With a record warm pool waiting to feed any nino that gets atmospheric cooperation we could be in for a very interesting ice year. Ice fisher, how many polar scientists said ice would be gone by 2013? How many said 2016 plus or minus 3 years and how many said gone by 2030?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 8, 2015 7:32:55 GMT
Still bumping along bottom , trailing the Feb max by 350k now so is there enough time to make up the difference before we see the peripherals welcome back the sun? With Fram still sucking our good ice out of the basin we are also looking at a pack set up we had become used to prior to 2013 with most of the basin covered in 2m FY ice ( including the atlantic side where all the 'gains'of the last 2 years have now been wiped out).With a record warm pool waiting to feed any nino that gets atmospheric cooperation we could be in for a very interesting ice year. Ice fisher, how many polar scientists said ice would be gone by 2013? How many said 2016 plus or minus 3 years and how many said gone by 2030? Well first off I was not limiting it to polar scientists. Dr Lonnie Thompson, NAS member, got sucked into a 3rd grade mistake on his projections for the glacier Qori Kalis. The point is not how many, the point is that without any standards of accountability a PhD in climate science means nothing as far as reliability goes. All they are doing is sponging off the true professional PhDs in a very unprofessional manner, like the medical profession. The only thing that means anything is replication and that in how many predicted what is currently occurring, as you point out is "bumping along the bottom". . . .except that its a false bottom as the true bottom is an ice free Arctic which obviously you are not claiming.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 9, 2015 4:07:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 9, 2015 14:04:49 GMT
Still sub 14 million? Are we going to see the first year maxing below 14 then??? hows that even possible if we are supposed to be in rampant recovery mode???
With losses again today it is getting harder and harder to see us making up those losses, and beating the current Feb Max date, before the sun is up and melt starts in earnest.
The other thing that has been troubling me is Dr Barber's 'Rotten Ice'? Are we still looking at the same mess of older ice with 'near melted out' ice being consolidated with FY ice come re-freeze? We have seen some fantastic melt rates off the North shore of Greenland over the past 5 years? They would appear to defy physical melt properties but the records are there? Are we seeing 'rotten ice' melting out at normal speeds or is the piomas/cryosat data inflated?
|
|
dh7fb
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by dh7fb on Mar 9, 2015 15:05:03 GMT
"Still sub 14 million? Are we going to see the first year maxing below 14 then??? hows that even possible if we are supposed to be in rampant recovery mode???" graywolf, in the case you don't know it (I'm afraid you know it but try to make some rhetorical point...): The extent of the September depends on this of February with R²=0.05. ( detrended records for both) This is nothing at all. Everything else of your post is... speculation.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 9, 2015 17:30:13 GMT
I wonder where the water from the “accelerated ice melt” due to the accelerated global warming is hiding. Here’s a chart of sea levels back to 1870 from the EPA. The rate of sea level rise from 1870 until CO2 emissions began to rise significantly after WWII is similar to the rise from that point until present. Note from the chart above that the satellite data begin in 1992, a year when sea level readings were low. From the beginning of satellite-based sea level measurements in 1992 until 2005, sea levels have increased at the rate of 14.2 inches per 100 years. Adding on the data up to the end of 2014 (not shown on chart), the rate has fallen to 12.8 inches per 100 years. Sea levels are rising and based on observations there’s no acceleration in recent years. Elimination of CO2 emissions may reduce the rise rate a little, but most of the rise is from natural causes.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 10, 2015 19:20:15 GMT
So now floating ice ,when melted, increases sea levels? ? Hmmmm...... maybe thermal expansion? As it is we're still below our 14 million and we are still drifting away from our current Feb max. As for start points not indicating end points? Could we say that in a 14 million plus pack it does not seem to make a difference ( as all the extra ice is outside the basin anyway?) but that a pack restricted to the basin alone will see earlier melt of the peripheral ice ( seeing as it has no buffer of ice beyond its limit) and so warmer oceans eating back into the pack earlier?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 10, 2015 20:14:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 10, 2015 20:18:36 GMT
Now THIS is causing a sea level drop, well, at least until it melts anyway
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 10, 2015 20:19:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 10, 2015 20:19:19 GMT
Graywolf's missing ice. At least 2 meters thick in spots don't ya think?
|
|