|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 26, 2009 11:24:07 GMT
Seems to go awfully quiet in here when there's a 'stall' in ice growth! /snip Ah, well... on looking I see it was you who's been quiet... Only 4 posts so far for 2009? There's been 74 on this thread alone while you've been off somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 26, 2009 11:49:07 GMT
Been off watching Wilkins collapse and the Weddell coastal polynia break the pack across the Weddell sea (not a lot happens during the freeze oop north....apart from the fissures that have opened up last year that is......The southern 'ice extent' will ,this year drop below the 79'-2000 average (even with such a large ozone hole this season). I hoping we will get some good data (from our seals in thermometer caps) as to the temp profile below Weddell as I suspect that the warm water (from the southern ocean) has found a way through the circumpolar current (as shown by the Wilkins break up over the last southern winter) and is ,as we speak lapping the shores of the Weddell sea.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 26, 2009 11:58:28 GMT
Seems to go awfully quiet in here when there's a 'stall' in ice growth! With the recent disintegration of the Weddell sea ice pack (I thought our Antipodean posters would have picked up on this rare event) pushing southern ice extent below the 79'-2000 ... ...All in all it is not the year many on here were predicting during the October re-freeze, in fact it appears to be moving in the opposite direction from the predictions of the 'coolers' back then(even with the 'cold phases' of various global cycles in place).Only a month before the melt begins eh? It's not at all unusual for the graphs to show a little wiggle during various parts of the cycle...and hey, that arctic air has been busy in other places...like Florida. Unfortunately we don't have records from the previous warm period peak so we have no prior knowledge of potential behavior for PDO switches or solar maximums. It's probably perfectly normal. and...all in all it's not been the year many warmers were predicing globally. With the lag in the La Nina affects it's likely 2009 will be as cold overall as 2008...or colder. LOL, then the negative correlation between cooling and the ice formation is actually kind of a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on Jan 27, 2009 2:41:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 27, 2009 3:24:51 GMT
Absolutely, and that dates from the 19th. The latest (26th) shows the freeze is well ahead of the 1st March forecast (made 15th Jan)- they keep using their out of date models! ;D instead of using their eyes. If things keep going as they are now, we may see the biggest freeze for more than 20-30 years (we are already at the biggest for 15yrs) Eastern Lakes: ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/NAIS25ECT/20090126180000_NAIS25ECT_0004188416.gifWestern Lakes ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/NAIS25WCT/20090126180000_NAIS25WCT_0004188404.gifThis is a sea ice thread so I started the Great Lakes freeze up 2009 thread solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=382The Arctic circle is frozen solid, with all the inner seas at or above the mean. (more solid than normal!!!). The PDO change has the Bering sea up & the Sea of Okhotsk down. There is a lot of heat to overcome from the recent decades of Solar Maximum warming, so further extension into the seas north of the Atlantic will remain below the mean this northern winter. I think there will be a lot of surprised faces when the Arctic ice doesn't disappear next summer. The likely (I predict, I predict) summer melt curve will be about two weeks later than 2008, and will probably follow the 2004 curve down - may even be later than that.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 27, 2009 5:28:38 GMT
Hmm. Looks a lot more like 2 weeks to me. How do you get five weeks?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 27, 2009 5:28:46 GMT
I think there will be a lot of surprised faces when the Arctic ice doesn't disappear next summer. The likely (I predict, I predict) summer melt curve will be about two weeks later than 2008, and will probably follow the 2004 curve down - may even be later than that. Has anyone else noticed that "two weeks" seems to be equal to about whatever amount of cooling we had? It just keeps coming up. The winter temperatures seem to be like january...and a half. It's like someone took the warmest month long period out of the summer and wedged the missing month into the peak cooling of winter so it could keep getting colder.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 27, 2009 8:15:47 GMT
Have I popped into the great lakes thread by mistake??? I thought we discussed the pitiful recovery, some-one called back in October, of 'Arctic Ice' on here. We could talk about the canal race in Holland if yer wanted...can't run them as often as they used to, in fact I saw a few seasons of 'Rollerblade' racing during the mid 90's when I was over there 'cause of the "death of regular ice" (as one racer told me).
Anyhooos, d'yer think we'll pop the 14 mark this year (courtesy of the MWW in the strat) or will the spring storms just serve to disrupt the areas where ice has extended too in the 'growth areas'?
Seeing as we are going into spring with a pack depleted of perennial and only a relatively thin in most other areas are we expecting the 'August melt rate ' record (from last year) to fall?
Wilkins looks to be failing so I'm off onto MODIS to see if the clouds have rolled back
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 27, 2009 8:19:38 GMT
Graywolf:
The Antarctic Ice Collapse myth started as long ago as 1988 (if not longer) and there are repeated news articles of the latest impending collapse almost every year since. (Just Google Antarctic Ice Collapse (Year)) - though you have to weed out the modern links which just reference the older articles.
It is part of the creed of Global warming: "I Believe in the trinity of the IPCC, Gore, and Hansen." "I Believe that mankind's evil greed has caused Global warming via CO2 emissions and the enhanced greenhouse effect." "I believe in the Collapse of the Antarctic Ice Shelf, the rise in the sea level, and the absolute necessity to tax the West out of existence" So help me Gore.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 27, 2009 12:18:10 GMT
Why do some "sceptics" bring up religious analogies when they lose the argument.
It's soooo boring.
Ice shelf collapse and sea level rise has been a story for a long time because ice shelves have been collapsing and sea levels have been rising for a long time.
It's nice for you if you can get excited by the latest snow fall and to feel that these long-term signals are somehow minimised by such events. But I'm afraid it's an ephemeral and child-like hope.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Jan 27, 2009 13:04:19 GMT
Cut the crap guys. Quit the snide remarks.
Prove it
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 27, 2009 13:45:01 GMT
Why do some "sceptics" bring up religious analogies when they lose the argument. It's soooo boring. Ice shelf collapse and sea level rise has been a story for a long time because ice shelves have been collapsing and sea levels have been rising for a long time. [snip] Nils-Axl Morner has another view: We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is tectonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite. If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. Complete interview here: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdfAn expert among experts, with 30+ years in the field taking sea-level measurements, Morner laments the fact that the IPCC's panel of sea level experts does not have a single geologist on it (all of them computer-modeling meteorologists instead). Antarctica's sea ice trend, and no one disputes this, has been positive ever since satellite measurements have been taken. Antarctic sea ice, on its own, disproves the theory that CO2 is disproportionately warming the poles. If the theory were correct you would have negative sea ice trends at both poles. Meanwhile, sea ice has no effect on sea levels, of course. And the recent computer-modeled "warming" in Antarctica will have to be even more enhanced than it has been already to explain how an annual temperature in the -40 degree Celsius range on the continent itself is going to yield rising sea levels anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 27, 2009 14:34:27 GMT
Sea ice is different from ice shelves. Ice shelf loss may be a reflection of faster moving glaciers leading to thinning and weakening of shelves.
Off topic, but Venice would seem to be a poor example since it is far into the Mediterranean. Here, sea levels are influenced by evaporation rates and river run-off rates. Warmer and drier weather leads to sea level falls here.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 27, 2009 18:46:56 GMT
Hi Col!, Just take a look at the current NSIDC plot and ,over the next 2 days, you'll see it fall below the line
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 27, 2009 20:32:25 GMT
(Sorry 'bout the baiting, but Steve & Graywolf haven't done anything to address the fact that the ice collapse in the Antarctic has been in the news ever since 88 when "Global warming" became a religion.
The facts show that the Antarctic has continued merrily along with almost mean extent for all these years, with ice shelves breaking off & re-forming as they have always done. We didn't have the satellites to report all this decades ago, but there is no evidence that anything is new down there.
|
|