|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 6, 2016 14:52:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Apr 6, 2016 16:47:48 GMT
There are times I think that some folk are duped into thinking mankind is making some kind of effort into reducing our GHG polluting and so tend to look at the lower end of melt/sea level rise predictions. In reality it looks like this year we will match last years increased CO2 global output. In reality B.A.U. predictions on levels of melt/sea level rise are 'conservative' a.t.m. Plug into that our greater understanding/data, since the papers culled into IPCC use for the last report, and you can see the issues that planning with old data for the impacts of a rapidly evolving system brings?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Apr 6, 2016 16:59:48 GMT
There are times I think that some folk are duped into thinking mankind is making some kind of effort into reducing our GHG polluting and so tend to look at the lower end of melt/sea level rise predictions. In reality it looks like this year we will match last years increased CO2 global output. In reality B.A.U. predictions on levels of melt/sea level rise are 'conservative' a.t.m. Plug into that our greater understanding/data, since the papers culled into IPCC use for the last report, and you can see the issues that planning with old data for the impacts of a rapidly evolving system brings? I'm much more concerned about the people who are duped into believing the climate models are accurate.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Apr 21, 2016 8:06:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 21, 2016 11:44:18 GMT
So, it's all quite normal but the worry is that data could be lost. Nomatter, data can be re-created, homogenized, extrapolated from stations hundreds of kilometers away, and guessed at. It's a risk we have to take!!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on May 10, 2016 11:03:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 10, 2016 11:39:22 GMT
What is it telling us, GW?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 10, 2016 12:10:36 GMT
What is it telling us, GW? Whatever it is 'telling us' will be corrected/adjusted/discounted later
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 10, 2016 13:24:58 GMT
i've paid only cursory attention to ice data regarding Antarctica, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. There appear to be mixed messages (surprise) emerging from different data-collection platforms and associated agencies. I thought that the overall message was that Antarctic ice (both land and water) were expanding in recent years, in comparison to ice losses in the Arctic??? Now I see these. Source: GRACIE - just posted by GW - data1.geo.tu-dresden.de/ais_gmb/Results: For period 2002-2016 - a loss of approx. 99 Gigatons per yr. +/- 35 gigatons Contribution to sea level - 0.27 mm +/- 0.1 mm per year. Continent ice sheets only? Excludes sea ice? GRACIE is based on gravity measurement techniques ERS and ICESAT - posted here back in 2012 - wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/Results: For period 2003-2008 - a gain of approx. 49 Gigatons per yr. The GRACIE value for that period is a loss of approx. 50 gigatons per yr. Continent ice sheets only? Excludes sea ice? ICESAT is a laser altimeter-based system Sea Ice is still assumed to be expanding. No competition? Nice to know that the science is settled. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. This is what we would expect of science. It's healthy. It's how we learn (assuming that the differences are based on instrument-specific quantification, and not theology).
|
|
|
Post by flearider on May 10, 2016 17:02:14 GMT
had been doing for quiet a few yrs until the last melt .. someone left the door open .. it's been closed so should get back to normal soon ..
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 10, 2016 19:12:50 GMT
the Antarctic is much less perturbed by sea and wind movements than the Arctic. Is this where the difference is. clearly the Arctic has massive gaps where ice can move in or out and should a locking weather system restrain or encourage ice to move then the outcome can be significant.
I suspect the Antarctic is less impacted by these locking systems.
Are we looking at the wrong things to define or measure our climate. The Gulf Stream is a defining world thing, if it stopped is the world overall colder or just the people that bleat.
It has defined the LIA.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 10, 2016 19:36:45 GMT
i've paid only cursory attention to ice data regarding Antarctica, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. There appear to be mixed messages (surprise) emerging from different data-collection platforms and associated agencies. I thought that the overall message was that Antarctic ice (both land and water) were expanding in recent years, in comparison to ice losses in the Arctic??? Now I see these. Source: GRACIE - just posted by GW - data1.geo.tu-dresden.de/ais_gmb/Results: For period 2002-2016 - a loss of approx. 99 Gigatons per yr. +/- 35 gigatons Contribution to sea level - 0.27 mm +/- 0.1 mm per year. Continent ice sheets only? Excludes sea ice? GRACIE is based on gravity measurement techniques ERS and ICESAT - posted here back in 2012 - wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/Results: For period 2003-2008 - a gain of approx. 49 Gigatons per yr. The GRACIE value for that period is a loss of approx. 50 gigatons per yr. Continent ice sheets only? Excludes sea ice? ICESAT is a laser altimeter-based system Sea Ice is still assumed to be expanding. No competition? Nice to know that the science is settled. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. This is what we would expect of science. It's healthy. It's how we learn (assuming that the differences are based on instrument-specific quantification, and not theology). Have you heard the one that Antarctica is expected to increase its ice mass as a warmer climate encourages snow, or that the ice mass is like an scoop of ice cream in a fridge, slowly spreading out?? Maybe volcanic activity under the ice mass is eroding the ice from underneath and the water running away throwing the GRACE results right out the window from a warming angle... Take your pick......just DON'T call it settled
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 10, 2016 21:11:55 GMT
the Antarctic is much less perturbed by sea and wind movements than the Arctic. Is this where the difference is. clearly the Arctic has massive gaps where ice can move in or out and should a locking weather system restrain or encourage ice to move then the outcome can be significant. I suspect the Antarctic is less impacted by these locking systems. Are we looking at the wrong things to define or measure our climate. The Gulf Stream is a defining world thing, if it stopped is the world overall colder or just the people that bleat. It has defined the LIA. You look at any icecore record and its jagged moving a good average 2degreesC at a frequency of several hundred years per cycle. Climate warmist scientists knowing which side of the bread has butter on it dismisses this jagged pattern as white noise, but is it? The LIA may be a far more common feature of our climate than anybody has imagined. Its really embarrassing to science in my view that the anthropogenic contribution was "fingerprinted" by Dr Ben Santer and adopted as gospel by the IPCC from a 17 year warming period from 1980 to 1997. Now the science community is restructuring the modern instrument record to bust the pause. What the crap! Is it now the belief of mainstream science that the proxy record was more accurate than the modern instrument record??? If not what is now the basis that the temperature spurt of 1980 to 1997 was unprecedented?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on May 10, 2016 21:41:10 GMT
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.000.pngLooks like an awful lot of sea-ice to me. I don't believe any of the graphs/figures quoted. Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula, I really don't see how the continent can really lose ice mass when most of it is [far] below zero. Arguing that it is sliding into the Southern Ocean [already at -2degC] justs suggests that the surrounding sea will ice up further. Albedo drops -- more cooling ...
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 10, 2016 22:48:35 GMT
yup Ice, the concept of instruments being wrong, so therefore go back to cartoons I mean models is laughable.
If anybody has ever done empirical work, all you ever seem to worry about is instrument drift and comparability of data over time its the backbone of science as a study.
Doug the Antarctic is not melting but remember the heat comes from under, the world is warm inside and will melt the ice from under even if the outside is below freezing, this is different to volcanic, the gradient is 2.5-3.0C/100M ground conductivity willing. the precipitation as low as it is, is what defines the ice level really.
|
|