|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2014 3:06:43 GMT
And the tide gauges continue to show virtually no sea level rise. But then, those are just "simple" observations. I don't believe they measure to the .00010th of a mm do they? Well after plugging in appropriate figures for continental crust elasticity rebounding from the last ice age there is plenty of sea level rise. Plenty enough in fact to adjust the ARGO float temperature observation record to obtain the required ocean heat uptake and account for the failure of the surface temperature record to reflect the surface warmings demanded by physics. Should be obvious to anybody, Sig!
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Aug 2, 2014 17:48:15 GMT
There seems to be something of a comedian on board Captain Tim's boat blog.mailasail.com/suilven/215Looks like they had a go and only just escaped "And then there was this tom fool adventure into the ice. When you decide to go to a place called Arctic Bay, I think you should expect to find Arctic conditions. I could have given them a spot of advice, given my previous high latitude experience, but no, they just set off and Pig and I had to watch mutely as the inevitable consequences unfolded. ‘It’s just across Lancaster Sound,’ they said. ‘It’s got two shops, a school and they sell diesel. Plus it will give us something to do rather than just sitting around here waiting.’ All went well for the first 6 hours and then they spotted the wall of ice. Undaunted, they plunged in, weaving here and there along the leads like the ice pros they thought they were. That is until they reached a dead end. Round we turned, heading off east to find a gap in the ice and then plunging southward again. At last the skipper saw sense, realized we’d never make it through and turned the boat round to follow our track out. Only the track wasn’t there any more, everything had closed up. They faffed around with the long poley things they call ‘tuks’ and made a bit of progress but then ground to a complete halt. ‘Well, we’ll just have to wait till things change,’ said the skipper, so there we sat for the next six hours, drifting with the ice, making what progress we could as gaps opened up and then closed again. Young Max came up with an excellent wheeze with the dinghy kedge anchor, whirling it round his head like a lasso and hurling it forwards over huge sheets of ice and just pulling. To everyone’s amazement, blocks of ice the size of tennis courts just started moving, and bit by bit they managed to manoeuver the boat to more open water. The question then was which direction was the way out? The skipper wanted to go East, but compasses don’t work in these waters, and they weren’t moving fast enough for the GPS system to give them a direction, added to which the fog closed in, so they were working completely blind. Luckily, the heat of the sun eventually burned the fog off and a bit of a breeze picked up. They could tell by the sun roughly which direction was East, and made a determined effort to push through the rest of the ice, trying to ignore the crunching sounds as they left behind them a tell-tale trail of blue antifouling. Now they could see the open sea and found themselves surrounded by sheets of ice that were bouncing up and down alarmingly in the swell. No matter, nothing was going to stop them now, they were getting out come what may. A few more nasty bangs and we were away, flying along at 7 plus knots. I am pleased to say that they made the decision to go straight back to Dundas Harbour, a very safe anchorage which is beginning to feel like home. The dinghy has been launched and inspection of the hull has revealed no damage. Pig and I can breathe easy."
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 3, 2014 0:42:21 GMT
Up there, the difference between adventure and disaster is small, (not that I've ever been or intend going).
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 3, 2014 2:20:30 GMT
Ratty you continuously give us hope that stupidity can be rewarded by disaster.
Unlike the rain of cash for climate alarmism, which must rank as as big a draw to our children as football celeb.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Aug 3, 2014 11:21:20 GMT
Folk appear , throughout this thread? , to be under the assumption that Antarctic sea ice is 'growing' . The facts would tend to show that Antarctic Sea ice is 'recovering' from the reductions we measured from the 1950's to late 70's. From 1950 to 1980 we measured a 20% reduction in Antarctic sea ice cover. since the early 80's ( lined up with the appearance of the ozone hole) we have noted a less than 2% increase in area per decade. To me this is less than 6% of the 20% lost now recovered? www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4056545.htm#.U9oZ2hSuyNk.twitter
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Aug 3, 2014 11:48:01 GMT
Graywolf
How was the extent of Antarctic Ice measured prior to the satellite era?
I am curious because I would have thought determining the ice boundary during an Antarctic Winter would be difficult. Icebergs and drifting ice in total darkness would make boat approach impossible, while low cloud/blizzards would make aircraft examination difficult. This assumes you could actually cover all of the continent.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 3, 2014 12:37:46 GMT
Greywolf, the Australian ABC may as well be the propaganda arm of the Australian Greens. Their (taxpayer funded) charter legislates for impartiality ** but there were no interviews or any mention of alternative views, no mention of - for one example - the volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica. There were, however, plenty of throw-away lines about " dramatic deep ocean warming", strongest winds " in 1,000 years", etc. ** although I'm not sure that legislating for no bias could ever work.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 3, 2014 20:38:28 GMT
Folk appear , throughout this thread? , to be under the assumption that Antarctic sea ice is 'growing' . The facts would tend to show that Antarctic Sea ice is 'recovering' from the reductions we measured from the 1950's to late 70's. From 1950 to 1980 we measured a 20% reduction in Antarctic sea ice cover. since the early 80's ( lined up with the appearance of the ozone hole) we have noted a less than 2% increase in area per decade. To me this is less than 6% of the 20% lost now recovered? www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4056545.htm#.U9oZ2hSuyNk.twitterI don't see that the two statements are in conflict. Ice is recovering back to where it was (when people were in panic about a new ice age) OR Ice is growing from the previous measurements in the satellite era Indeed that looks very much like the Arctic ice - except the roles of the people making the quotes are different. Ice grows and recedes on cyclical basis. Interestingly, the ice on Mars also grows and recedes on the same cyclical basis both the growth and shrinking are obviously due to all the CO2 in Mars' atmosphee.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 7, 2014 17:10:14 GMT
The BBC reports: Antarctic Halley Station lost power and heat at -32C All power, including heating, to an Antarctic research station housing 13 people was lost for 19 hours, it has been revealed. With temperatures as low as -32C (-25F), members of the Cambridge-based British Antarctic Survey (BAS) at the Halley VI Station suffered the power loss on 30 July. All staff are currently safe and in good health, the BAS said. The cause of the power loss has not been determined. All research at the base other than that connected to "essential weather forecasting" has been halted. "Our urgent priority is to ensure the continued safety and well-being of the wintering team," a statement from BAS said. "Power and some heating are back online, and some other essential services have been restored, but the staff are having to live and work in extremely difficult conditions." Following the incident, it was "now clear the station cannot return to normal operation in the short or medium term". The Halley station is on the Brunt Ice Shelf, 100 miles (160km) from the South Pole. The winter research includes ozone monitoring, other meteorological monitoring and data collection for international research programmes. "Everyone at Halley and Cambridge is doing everything that can be done to ensure that the incident remains under control," the statement said. Link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-28687841
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2014 2:11:31 GMT
They should be using solar power. Pretty soon, the sun will be up and at em for nearly 24 hrs a day.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 8, 2014 8:09:07 GMT
Here's a tweet from survey member Anthony Lister. He managed to send out a “tweet” when power came back up, reporting that the outage occurred while the station was experiencing record cold temperatures of -55.4° C (-67.72° F) - not surprisingly, the BBC neglected to mention the record cold temps, even though it is extremely relevant to the story... Let's hope the team locates & rectifies the power issue.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 10, 2014 20:12:48 GMT
Antarctic for wiggle watchers What happens if this ice closes Drake Passage? Quite an impact on the thermohaline currents.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Aug 11, 2014 10:36:43 GMT
Daily Caller reports: A new study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing due to geothermal heat, not man-made global warming. Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes. Thwaites is considered a key glacier for understanding future sea level rise. UTA researchers used radar techniques to map water flows under ice sheets and estimate the rate of ice melt in the glacier. As it turns out, geothermal heat from magma and volcanoes under the glacier is much hotter and covers a much wider area than was previously thought. Link: dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/study-west-antarctic-glacier-melt-due-to-volcanoes-not-global-warming/
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Aug 11, 2014 15:09:58 GMT
Shouldn't that read "West Antarctic glacier melt due to volcanoes and global warming"?
The base of the glacier isn't exactly over a 'volcano' either more over a geothermally active region? Sadly I just see this as a 'double whammy' where nature is enhancing flow due to basal warming and AGW is eroding the snout up glacier? Between both forcings we end up with even more of a sea level impact from the enhanced losses.
Odd the spin the can go on in some U.S. papers? Do they think you'll all dim or are the reporters so dim as to think you all so dim?
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 11, 2014 16:13:37 GMT
Shouldn't that read "West Antarctic glacier melt due to volcanoes and global warming"? What global warming? According to Professor Phil Jones there has been no statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to 2010, as he told to the BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stmAnd, of course, since 2009:
|
|