|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2012 4:02:55 GMT
"Apparently there are no Antarctic experts at NSIDC because they aren't saying anything interesting about the ice there." When we know Antarctic ice has survived 4 full global glaciation cycles, it is not of anyone's immediate concern. Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous. Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous. You mean like this? The vast majority of glacier retreat occurred long before the scourge of SUV's. It seems ice melting is not a new phenomenon. Fraudsters (this includes government agencies) for example show pictures of say 1910, then jump to 2004 as "proof" that humans are responsible for glaciers melting. They don't show what happened in between.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 21, 2012 8:06:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 21, 2012 12:41:50 GMT
I think this is some information on the Antarctic. I may be mistaken as some recent posts suggest otherwise but here it is anyway. "Polar sea ice could set ANOTHER record this year" "The sea ice around the coasts of Antarctica on average covers roughly the same amount of sea as the north-polar sea ice does: it's just as important, though you wouldn't know it by looking at the world's press right now. Another thing not everyone knows is that even as Arctic ice has been on a long decline since satellite measurements began, the Antarctic ice has been growing steadily (this despite well-publicised ice shelf losses around the Western Antarctic peninsula, bucking the overall continental trend). Taking all the world's sea ice together, then - as opposed to focusing exclusively on the Arctic - the picture is far less gloomy than most media outlets would have you believe. Generally the world has between 15 and 23 million square km of the stuff: at the moment it has a bit more than 18m, which is approximately 1.5m below average for this time of year. Earlier this year, though, it was nearly 1m up on the seasonal average. There are some other things to bear in mind, too: melting sea ice, of course, doesn't mean rising sea levels the way melting glaciers or ice sheets on land might. Then there's the fact that the satellite record is so short and the polar regions so little known: longer term variations like the one we're seeing may be entirely normal. Famously the president of the Royal Society (Blighty's premier scientific institution) wrote to the Admiralty in 1817: It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past ... " www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/21/arctic_antarctic_sea_ice_record/
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 21, 2012 15:13:43 GMT
The Antarctic sea ice shrinks to a very small amount in the southern summer. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php"wrote to the Admiralty in 1817:" Extremely worn and tired argument, considering all the failed explorations of the 1850s! I've posted the 1854 and 2012 ice edges before. I can post again.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 21, 2012 22:12:33 GMT
Applause on topic.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 22, 2012 0:01:51 GMT
The significance of 2012, from Tamino Annual minima:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2012 0:06:20 GMT
Total world sea ice is well within normal parameters. Arctic sea ice is low compared to recent historical records/proxies.
We know that during the MWP, Arctic sea ice was probably very simliar in extent to current sea ice levels. We do not know the cause of the MWP warmth, just as we really do not know the cause of the recent warmth. 1750 onwards.
The early 20th century acceleration was very simliar in duration to the recent acceleration of temps. Once again, there are many diff ideas as to why the early 20th century warming occured. Just as there are many diff ideas as to why the late 20th century warming occured.
The thing of concern would be if we paused warming for 30 years and then accelerated again. That acceleration would potentially drive temps to Roman Warm Period levels. Those temps showed the world was a very different place than today.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 22, 2012 0:15:12 GMT
"Just as there are many diff ideas as to why the late 20th century warming occured."
Of these ideas, the recently discovered Icefisher Oscillation is much debated among climate scientists, no?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2012 0:25:52 GMT
numerouno: Well.......the Icefisher Oscillation will deff require more funding for study I would think.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 22, 2012 2:21:52 GMT
The significance of 2012, from Tamino Annual minima: numerouno, I think the graph of Antarctic Sea Ice Minumum is most relevent to the present discussion. It is different from the graph of the sea ice minimum in the Arctic as we can see. It shows, that unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic minimum is hardly changing over 30 years. But, hmmm... The Antarctic maximum is increasing... right? Obviously, the whole system is different in the south compared with the north. In the south, sea ice extent maximum is increasing while sea ice extent minimum is staying much the same. Factor in the evidence that West Antartica is warming while East Antartica is holding steady and a picture of events in the south begins to form. The distinct physical processes that affect a polar continent surrounded by ocean are conspicuously different from the processes that affect a polar ocean surrounded by continents. It should be no suprise that the northern and southern systems are behaving differently. The interesting question is to explain the events in Antarctica.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 22, 2012 2:31:38 GMT
I don't know why they dont show us the models that explain the growth in the south and reduction in the north as it clear there will be such super models. And as an extra they will history match.
The fraud is just unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 22, 2012 3:06:00 GMT
I don't know why they dont show us the models that explain the growth in the south and reduction in the north as it clear there will be such super models. And as an extra they will history match. The fraud is just unbelievable. nonentropic, I'm not sure who 'they' are. Perhaps you could clarify. Nevertheless, my interest here is in geophysics, and in particular, my interest is in the geophysical processes involved in understanding observed events such as the ongoing melt of the Arctic Sea Ice and the present changes in Antarctic Ice.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2012 4:15:57 GMT
I don't know why they dont show us the models that explain the growth in the south and reduction in the north as it clear there will be such super models. And as an extra they will history match. The fraud is just unbelievable. nonentropic, I'm not sure who 'they' are. Perhaps you could clarify. Nevertheless, my interest here is in geophysics, and in particular, my interest is in the geophysical processes involved in understanding observed events such as the ongoing melt of the Arctic Sea Ice and the present changes in Antarctic Ice. We are looking here at a practical example of "scientific understanding" otherwise know has "Scientific belief unsupported by scientific reference". Personnally I would like to see the scientific reference that establishes a scienitifc basis for the bias in issuing press releases for record Arctic low minimums but not record antarctic high maximums.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 22, 2012 4:42:20 GMT
nonentropic, I'm not sure who 'they' are. Perhaps you could clarify. Nevertheless, my interest here is in geophysics, and in particular, my interest is in the geophysical processes involved in understanding observed events such as the ongoing melt of the Arctic Sea Ice and the present changes in Antarctic Ice. We are looking here at a practical example of "scientific understanding" otherwise know has "Scientific belief unsupported by scientific reference". Personnally I would like to see the scientific reference that establishes a scienitifc basis for the bias in issuing press releases for record Arctic low minimums but not record antarctic high maximums. icefisher, Do you seriously think that your personal gripe merits a scientific publication? Really? About what?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2012 4:52:49 GMT
icefisher,
Do you seriously think that your personal gripe merits a scientific publication?
Really?
About what?
In the absence of reference its a bias. People who are biased are not independent. People who are not independent should not be believed.
Actually that's a standard for the financial sector, including the requirement of reference, for good reasons. Can you think of any good reasons why it should not be a standard for the science and public servant sector?
I didn't think so!
|
|