|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 14, 2009 2:00:52 GMT
Looks like we're about to hit (or go below) 5.0! nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.pngWe're solidly below 2005 now. 2009 is the third-lowest ice extent in the satellite record. Now the three lowest extents are the last three years. Hard to argue with that! (But it seems the denialists will look at the conclusive evidence and ignore it yet again.) As an aside, August was the sixth-warmest August in 130 years, and JJA was the second-warmest third quarter. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txtFinally, it is most likely that the thinning has continued and we'll end with the thinnest icecap in recorded history, and possibly the lowest volume in recorded history as well. THE MELTDOWN CONTINUES. NO, REPEAT, NO RECOVERY IN SIGHT! Matt: I can tell that you are a young guy. When you are talking temp, you doooo have to realize that past temps have been adjusted downwards don't you? About 10 years ago 1936 was the warmest year on record globally.....now it isn't even a bump in the anomoly. Careful what you are saying, the raw data is still out there in a vault.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 14, 2009 2:12:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Sept 14, 2009 2:20:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 14, 2009 4:32:01 GMT
Sorry to break the news to you Matt, but we are witnessing the second year in a row of increased ice in the Arctic. Next year will be the third. Same thing is happening as when the PDO went to a cool cycle in the Forties and the Arctic froze over. History is repeating. The warming cycle of weather has ended and the cooling will increase. You have no idea what the thickness of the ice is compared to the historical thickness. More of you Easter Bunny science. The ice is still declining. 2008 almost certainly had a lower volume than 2007, and we don't yet know if 2009 will be lower than the current record-holder, 2008. nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.htmlOf course I have a good idea about the thickness of ice compared to historical values. It has lost half its thickness since 1980. Now, the article says that 1980 was thicker than 1958, but gives the impression that it was a marginal difference. I'm thinking of writing Ron Kwok and finding out the thickness data as of 1958. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/nsfc-sas090109.php
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2009 5:19:18 GMT
The ice is still declining. 2008 almost certainly had a lower volume than 2007, and we don't yet know if 2009 will be lower than the current record-holder, 2008. Not exactly rocket science but where there was no ice in 2007 there was ice in 2008. It thickened where there was no ice, presumably it thickened throughout the arctic on average. . . .unless of course you actually have something besides a lot of hot air.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Sept 14, 2009 5:21:09 GMT
According to COI: ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpArctic temperatures are now falling really quickly. I suspect that we are at the minimum for the ice as the refreeze starts. If kiwistonewall is right, and there is actually much more ice around than shown by the satellites, this will be apparent in an abnormally rapid refreeze rate. The next month should be fascinating to watch.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 14, 2009 7:13:32 GMT
"Matt the Troll" meets his reality...
He sees 500,000 sq kms more ice than the year before and a million more than 2 years ago and claims the ice is thinning.
He sees records amounts of ice in antarctica and claims it is a sign of global warming.
He talks how the ice was thicker in 1980 than 1958, knows there was 22 years more industrial CO2 in the atmosphere in 1980 than 1958 and claims that global (man made) CO2 levels cause the arctic ice to melt.
Good luck, Matt. I bet you're a gas at parties.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 14, 2009 8:07:02 GMT
This popular mechanics of 1957 is almost funny in todays context books.google.co.nz/books?id=DeEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA109&dq=arctic+ice+popular+mechanics+1957&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=falseDr Petterson: The warm period you are referring to was not as exstreme as the one we are experiencing now. For example there is considerable melting and breaking up of the north pole ice which was not experienced before. This indicates we are undoubtedly in the warmest period of the last 1000 years.
Question: What are some of the unusual weather occurences during the current warm period that is ending now?
Dr Petterson: Firstly we dont know for sure if it ending. It might take 10 or 15 years before we can verify it. If the warm trend continues there will be some remarkable changes. Already the north pole has decreased something like 40% in volume. If this continues till the end of the century there will be very little summer ice in the Arctic or only small patches of it .Meanwhile 30 years later By 1988 it could be confirmed that the 'current exstreme warm spell' did end around 1957 and cooling was in place until about 1973 when Iceland began to fear it was going to experience a return to the terror of the 'mists' when Sea ice was a regular visitor, and my favourite climatologist, stephen schneider was talking about another little ice age. Meanwhile 30 years after the cold period ended, a trend is in place that if it continues all of the ice will be gone by the end of the century or earlier
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 14, 2009 9:52:59 GMT
Sorry to break the news to you Matt, but we are witnessing the second year in a row of increased ice in the Arctic. Next year will be the third. Same thing is happening as when the PDO went to a cool cycle in the Forties and the Arctic froze over. History is repeating. The warming cycle of weather has ended and the cooling will increase. You have no idea what the thickness of the ice is compared to the historical thickness. More of you Easter Bunny science. The ice is still declining. 2008 almost certainly had a lower volume than 2007, and we don't yet know if 2009 will be lower than the current record-holder, 2008. nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.htmlOf course I have a good idea about the thickness of ice compared to historical values. It has lost half its thickness since 1980. Now, the article says that 1980 was thicker than 1958, but gives the impression that it was a marginal difference. I'm thinking of writing Ron Kwok and finding out the thickness data as of 1958. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/nsfc-sas090109.phpYour thickness is based on your Easter Bunny science. There is no scientific proof to backup your claims. And don't forget that NSIDC predicted all the ice would melt. The're not scientists, the're clowns. This would be funny if there wasn't so many "Useful Idiots" that believe this and use it to ruin our economy.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 14, 2009 12:13:21 GMT
I've updated this overlay. The centre region is now ice free ('A') and the Jaxa radar is slowly pickling up more of the ice that is there, probably as surface pools of water refreeze. There is still a considerable area of 30-70% ice not registering with the radars. (Both are from Friday 11th data)
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 14, 2009 12:37:51 GMT
This popular mechanics of 1957 is almost funny in todays context books.google.co.nz/books?id=DeEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA109&dq=arctic+ice+popular+mechanics+1957&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=falseDr Petterson: The warm period you are referring to was not as exstreme as the one we are experiencing now. For example there is considerable melting and breaking up of the north pole ice which was not experienced before. This indicates we are undoubtedly in the warmest period of the last 1000 years.
Question: What are some of the unusual weather occurences during the current warm period that is ending now?
Dr Petterson: Firstly we dont know for sure if it ending. It might take 10 or 15 years before we can verify it. If the warm trend continues there will be some remarkable changes. Already the north pole has decreased something like 40% in volume. If this continues till the end of the century there will be very little summer ice in the Arctic or only small patches of it .Meanwhile 30 years later By 1988 it could be confirmed that the 'current exstreme warm spell' did end around 1957 and cooling was in place until about 1973 when Iceland began to fear it was going to experience a return to the terror of the 'mists' when Sea ice was a regular visitor, and my favourite climatologist, stephen schneider was talking about another little ice age. Meanwhile 30 years after the cold period ended, a trend is in place that if it continues all of the ice will be gone by the end of the century or earlier While most AGW true believers are sincere, it is hard to believe, when you read stuff like this, that all are.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 14, 2009 16:35:35 GMT
Does anyone know what the trend of the trend is?
Assuming 2002 was the start of a cooling period, then the warming til then was trending at xC per year/decade, based on a start date in say 1979.
From then til now, if cooling has started, then surely the trend of the trend is negative. Or is that too simplistic an approach?
It may still be a +ve trend, but at a lower rate than before. I keep thinking of what a trend line would look like through a sine wave, with a start point at a low, and us now being close to, eg at or just past, the peak, which would maintain the "ooh we're still warming", but doesn't reflect reality.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 14, 2009 17:52:15 GMT
Not exactly rocket science but where there was no ice in 2007 there was ice in 2008. It thickened where there was no ice, presumably it thickened throughout the arctic on average. . . .unless of course you actually have something besides a lot of hot air. You didn't bother reading the link, eh? You just presumed?? That's not exactly rocket science, or any other sort of science either. The heading itself said 2008 was likely the lowest volume. Here's a quote from the article: NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.”
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 14, 2009 18:10:05 GMT
Not exactly rocket science but where there was no ice in 2007 there was ice in 2008. It thickened where there was no ice, presumably it thickened throughout the arctic on average. . . .unless of course you actually have something besides a lot of hot air. You didn't bother reading the link, eh? You just presumed?? That's not exactly rocket science, or any other sort of science either. The heading itself said 2008 was likely the lowest volume. Here's a quote from the article: NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” Meier also wrote the following to me during an e-mail exchange: "First, I would not rely on NSIDC's Arctic-wide map of sea ice for navigation in the Arctic. These are from a satellite sensor that has an effective resolution of ~50 km, so they are not near precise enough for safe navigation. Also, they may miss thin ice and regions of sparse (though dangerous) ice, and they underestimate ice concentration during melt. "The ice charts (I presume you are referring here the U.S. National Ice Center charts or those from the Canadian Ice Service) use higher quality imagery (with spatial resolution as high as 500 m) along with expert analysis to give the best estimate of conditions that they can. They are designed to provide support to mariners." _________________________________________________________ Publicly, NSIDC continues to sound the alarm bells (e.g. "volume at 'record low'"), and that is fine (even if a little historically odd, i.e. the period of record is very short). As the recovery of Arctic sea ice progresses, volume will eventually rebound. If it were my job to sell AGW, and thank God that it is not, I would no longer use Arctic sea ice as one of my promotional materials. Just a friendly suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2009 19:47:44 GMT
Not exactly rocket science but where there was no ice in 2007 there was ice in 2008. It thickened where there was no ice, presumably it thickened throughout the arctic on average. . . .unless of course you actually have something besides a lot of hot air. You didn't bother reading the link, eh? You just presumed?? That's not exactly rocket science, or any other sort of science either. The heading itself said 2008 was likely the lowest volume. Here's a quote from the article: NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.” A quote is not a scientific methodology. In this day and age of the whoar scientist; no methodology equals political bullcrap. . . .or hot air if you will. We know the 2008 first year ice was thin as all first year ice is. We also know multiyear ice was thinner than normal because of the 2007 melt. But we have no evidence that like the melted ice which went from no ice in 2007 to surviving ice in 2008, the multiyear ice also probably gained. For a so-called ice expert to claim anything otherwise without an actual study to refer to is just political claptrap. Now in 2009 we had the on-the-ice expedition that almost froze to death but continually reported "thick first year ice". If first year ice is thicker than normal, presumably so is multiyear ice. . . .that it is unless you believe in some ice fairy that runs around and selectively melting multiyear ice and refreezing some fraction of that melt on top of first year ice. Maybe you believe in the tooth fairy also. . . .probably would if some dentist told you there was one. Some of us are not so dumb to buy into the "expert opinion" without a shred of a hint that the opinion is based upon anything but a political objective.
|
|