|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 17, 2015 1:31:08 GMT
Nobody seriously disputes that the next 3 years will see a climate flip. The big issue is will the flip bring the worlds temperatures back the LIA recovery line or will we see an AGW delta. I think the world will be pleased to see that CAGW is largely lost from the serious study focus. The crowd that enjoy for alternate ideological reasons the CAGW dialog will new let facts weaken their drive. nonentropic: That is pretty evident today. There are paleo records established, things that we KNOW happened during past interglacials. I, for the life of me, can't understand why AGW and GAGW advocates want to ignore the geo record and think that what is happening presently is something new and exciting. Offfftttta is all I can say. Amongst a few other words..... Sig. I think they listened to you ... maybe ... they mentioned the Pliocene and sea level being 40 meters higher. Of course, they forgot about the recent Antarctic ice expansion. www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 17, 2015 4:11:12 GMT
this is crap.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 17, 2015 9:58:18 GMT
How so? sadly we see the exact same mechanism at play with the Greenland ocean outlet glaciers with freshened surface waters driving the circulation throwing 'warmed' bottom waters at the ice front ( base) leading to rapid calving and thinning behind. Whilst you guys have been throwing your 'sea ice' party science has been very busy discovering the what is going on under that thin gloss of ice. Since the late 90's profiles of the currents flowing through the canyons underlying the oceans around Antarctica have measured the ingress of the warmed bottom waters around the continent ( under the radar of the strengthened circumpolar current). Ozone loss and AGW may well have temporarily placed Antarctica in splendid isolation from the atmosphere but not the global Oceans..... and so AGW warming. The thing is warmed water will melt more ice than the Antarctic sun, over southern summer, ever could. And this appears to be the thing with some folk. When you mention the melting of Antarctica they picture 2 miles up at minus 40c and laugh. Of course, the ice that melts mainly comes from the interior but melts in the waters around Antarctica. We saw the massive ablation from Austfonna on Northern Svalbard and so have recent understanding of just how rapid acceleration in glacier speeds leads to massive thinning over extremely short periods. Why , when we have now seen the warm water ingress, should we not expect similar behaviour here?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2015 14:41:02 GMT
How so? sadly we see the exact same mechanism at play with the Greenland ocean outlet glaciers with freshened surface waters driving the circulation throwing 'warmed' bottom waters at the ice front ( base) leading to rapid calving and thinning behind. Whilst you guys have been throwing your 'sea ice' party science has been very busy discovering the what is going on under that thin gloss of ice. Since the late 90's profiles of the currents flowing through the canyons underlying the oceans around Antarctica have measured the ingress of the warmed bottom waters around the continent ( under the radar of the strengthened circumpolar current). Ozone loss and AGW may well have temporarily placed Antarctica in splendid isolation from the atmosphere but not the global Oceans..... and so AGW warming. The thing is warmed water will melt more ice than the Antarctic sun, over southern summer, ever could. And this appears to be the thing with some folk. When you mention the melting of Antarctica they picture 2 miles up at minus 40c and laugh. Of course, the ice that melts mainly comes from the interior but melts in the waters around Antarctica. We saw the massive ablation from Austfonna on Northern Svalbard and so have recent understanding of just how rapid acceleration in glacier speeds leads to massive thinning over extremely short periods. Why , when we have now seen the warm water ingress, should we not expect similar behaviour here? Graywolf: Isn't it great that we are living in an era where mankind can observe and document the behavior of an interglacial period? I think it is. Paleo data has shown us the outcomes of interglacials and we now can observe the mechanics of one. The old adage of "Time stops for no man" comes to mind. The melting of ice masses is not related to AGW at all, it is a known happening in the historical record of the interglacials. Do you think we will hit the temperature of the Eemian interglacial? Do you think mankind will observe the approx. 10Meter higher sea levels? Interesting times..........interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 26, 2015 18:41:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 26, 2015 20:53:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2015 14:19:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Mar 27, 2015 23:05:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 28, 2015 0:41:35 GMT
I can't see the minus sign thar....I even control + the monitor to find it....
Maybe graywolf needs a larger monitor?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 28, 2015 7:16:57 GMT
Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating Abstract The floating ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic Ice Sheet restrain the grounded ice-sheet flow. Thinning of an ice shelf reduces this effect, leading to an increase in ice discharge to the ocean. Using eighteen years of continuous satellite radar altimeter observations we have computed decadal-scale changes in ice-shelf thickness around the Antarctic continent. Overall, average ice-shelf volume change accelerated from negligible loss at 25 ± 64 km3 per year for 1994-2003 to rapid loss of 310 ± 74 km3 per year for 2003-2012. West Antarctic losses increased by 70% in the last decade, and earlier volume gain by East Antarctic ice shelves ceased. In the Amundsen and Bellingshausen regions, some ice shelves have lost up to 18% of their thickness in less than two decades. m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/25/science.aaa0940Paywalled, anyone subscribe to this publication?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 28, 2015 10:00:40 GMT
Acidohm I have not read the article, but two questions immediately occurred to me. a) If the ice loss on the ice shelves is as significant as shown, one would suspect that the Summer minimum of the ice would be diminishing. 300 km3 for 9 years represents a lot of sea ice [although I suspect that in terms of the ice volume on the Antarctic land mass, it is probably insignificant]. With less ice to melt, the Summer minimum should also be below average. The link shown below does not show this - Summer minimums are at record high levels. b) I still find the idea of major ice loss hard to reconcile with charts showing that winter sea ice keeps setting new records since satellite measurements began. nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.pngarctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 28, 2015 11:52:42 GMT
I Agree Douglavers, sea ice extent is often discussed but volume less so, just wondering what others opinions are on this...
Do we know if the science is credible? Or perhaps as you think Douglavers, insignificant?
Warmists keep banging on about this because they obviously can't have the Antarctic not behaving as they wish....but someone is suffering from a touch of confirmation bias on this I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Mar 28, 2015 13:58:02 GMT
Loss ice ice shelf area 'increases' the area available for 'sea ice formation' ( shelfs are 'masked' as 'land' for the purposes of sea ice extent/area) so if anything you can take the 'lost' area away from any increase in sea ice area as this is 'newly created' sea ice area?
West Antarctica has lost 1/5th of its land ice over the past 40 years, that is a lot of mass!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 28, 2015 23:55:17 GMT
Loss ice ice shelf area 'increases' the area available for 'sea ice formation' ( shelfs are 'masked' as 'land' for the purposes of sea ice extent/area) so if anything you can take the 'lost' area away from any increase in sea ice area as this is 'newly created' sea ice area? West Antarctica has lost 1/5th of its land ice over the past 40 years, that is a lot of mass! How was that measured, GW?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 29, 2015 5:35:29 GMT
I Agree Douglavers, sea ice extent is often discussed but volume less so, just wondering what others opinions are on this... Do we know if the science is credible? Or perhaps as you think Douglavers, insignificant? Warmists keep banging on about this because they obviously can't have the Antarctic not behaving as they wish....but someone is suffering from a touch of confirmation bias on this I reckon. There is a huge amount of cherry-picking in measurements of ice at the poles. It would appear that certain warmists to keep their gullibles happy will flit from metric to metric and agencies reporting those metrics looking for the one that best suits their case. If none quite support their case they will revert to models of metrics of which there are a plethora and again choose the one(s) that best suit their case. They will wherever possible use units that also suit their case amplifying the impact of what they are saying to keep the gullibles suitably impressed. So pointing out that the extent is at record levels will elicit the response that the volume is lower. Pointing out that no, the volume has been found higher than expected with really thick ice _not_ melting from the bottom gets the response that _land_ ice has diminished. And this goes on like a kind of slow motion whacamole We have moved from observation/evidence based science to opinion/policy based science.
|
|