|
Post by matt on Sept 14, 2009 19:57:13 GMT
As the recovery of Arctic sea ice progresses, volume will eventually rebound. Volume is the only way to accurately measure sea ice. Thus, there by definition can't be a recovery at all until volume rebounds. According to you, it seems, volume has not rebounded yet. Thus, half of yourself says that there is no recovery of Arctic sea ice, but actually a continued decline. Your comment contradicts itself! As to the difference between navigation and 15% coverage over a wide area, well, that's true in every single year of the record. The Titanic didn't run into an ice pack, after all. If one wants to know about coverage, use the satellites. If one wants to find hazards, one has to use something with greater resolution. I don't see your point. It seems you are changing the subject and hoping nobody notices.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 14, 2009 20:27:32 GMT
As the recovery of Arctic sea ice progresses, volume will eventually rebound. Sea ice cannot form vast areas of thin ice without compressing the area of the ice as the currents and winds push the thin sheets together. It is actually hard for sea ice to form away from land because of all of the mixing that goes on with the colder water being denser sinking to lower levels. Generally the deeper water ice can only form once temperature inversion layers have formed in particular conditions. Give it a bit of wind and that breaks up but it does not mean in my view that the earth gets warmer. in fact all of the melting ice could cool the earth some place else with deeper water. Even if ice area is declining a recovery could still be underway in total reduced arctic heat content which also has to flow thru to reduced other ocean content. Current bouy programs are only measuring the top parts of the water relative to the vast depths of the oceans. Probably thousands of sinkable bouys going deeper would be too expensive due to the problems of keeping water out of an electronic device. The fact is we dont know from one year to the next what is actually happening and have to take a longer term view But you like your 30 year view which to you is a long term view I assume actually you are about 30 or younger? I am the other side of 50 so naturally i prefer the longer term view.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2009 20:38:00 GMT
Volume is the only way to accurately measure sea ice. There is no accurate way to measure volume. Ice area is the best proxy for volume. However, its a poor proxy but it tells you about trends in volume. The favorite game of the AGW political hack scientist is to make unattributed reference to longterm trend lines and ignore short term variations. The non-hack scientist will clarify and attribute what he speaks on. Mark Serreze is duly on record noting his belief that the current volume increases is only normal variability and does not mark a change in longterm trend. Thats fine, time will tell but do not lie for him and claim that there has been no increase in volume over the past two years and at least have a shred of intelligence in your discussion of the subject.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 14, 2009 20:38:01 GMT
Matt I guess you are right the ice is gone. So calculations on the volume are simple, anything times zero is zero. Of course you may recognize that the sensors are a little out of adjustment. I wonder how the volume is calculated with any precision if just area is difficult. I am sure that you have a solid grasp of the process. That is why you suggest that it is the metric of significance. Further the records in the volume have been archived for a very long time so that we can all see the anomaly. I would like to see your programs and data. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 14, 2009 21:24:16 GMT
One thing is lacking in ice extent: some critical thinking. There was a time when we scientists were taught to critically examine our work. These days, they 1 only support a single pre-approved view. Given a long downwards trend over many years, from a satellite sensor which subsequently failed, you would expect that the possibility of a slow drift in the sensor signal would be put forward as a possible explanation for the at least part of the long decline in ice extent. However, I suspect anyone who made that suggestion in the halls of learning would be quickly put in his place. We also used to discuss our results, put forward alternative explanations, and suggest which theory best explained the results. These days, "Science" is approaching authoritarian religious dogma, though burning at the stake is (still) only figurative. Still, knowing how the environmentalist fringe is trending, I can see that it will soon be very dangerous to have a dissenting voice. In Australia, threats have been made to those involved with coal power plants. www.theage.com.au/national/ecoterror-threat-sparks-law-review-20090615-carn.htmlwww.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25638429-2702,00.html When an extreme group looses the public argument, it usually turns to violence. 1 I am no longer active in 'official research', hence changing from 'we' to 'they'
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 14, 2009 21:47:53 GMT
As the recovery of Arctic sea ice progresses, volume will eventually rebound. You are a funny guy woodstove. Volume is the only way to accurately measure sea ice. Thus, there by definition can't be a recovery at all until volume rebounds. According to you, it seems, volume has not rebounded yet. Thus, half of yourself says that there is no recovery of Arctic sea ice, but actually a continued decline. Your comment contradicts itself! As to the difference between navigation and 15% coverage over a wide area, well, that's true in every single year of the record. The Titanic didn't run into an ice pack, after all. If one wants to know about coverage, use the satellites. If one wants to find hazards, one has to use something with greater resolution. I don't see your point. It seems you are changing the subject and hoping nobody notices. And still we await your scientific evedence that ice is at a record volume. NASA stating that the ice may be at a record volume is no more credible than the Easter Bunny. We need scientific proof.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 14, 2009 22:17:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 14, 2009 23:15:09 GMT
'Rebound' is not nearly as abused as 'worse than predicted'. And 'crisis' being confused for ' lack of time line' is another popular source of word-abuse. But, of course, nothing approaches the Manniac school of data torture for outright destruction of data, words and meaning.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 14, 2009 23:22:10 GMT
That would be the case if we didn't already know that the ice was generally increasing over the course of the cooling period and that it had decreased over the previous warming period (which recent studies seem to indicate was a greater period of warming for the arctic). For now all we know is that there were currents/winds that contributed to the low ice extent of 2007, that levels are climbing AND that the sensors are screwed up and now showing much of the ice. Oh, we also know from the Catlin expedition (as well as other groups with enough sense to use vehicles) that all the new ice is in fact so thick for its age that if it were any thicker it would be considered very unusual.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 14, 2009 23:24:37 GMT
NASA stating that the ice may be at a record volume is no more credible than the Easter Bunny. We need scientific proof. NASA's scientific opinion based on their data is no more credible than the Easter Bunny!?!?! LOLOLOLOL Yep, and the moon landings were faked.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 14, 2009 23:57:29 GMT
NASA stating that the ice may be at a record volume is no more credible than the Easter Bunny. We need scientific proof. NASA's scientific opinion based on their data is no more credible than the Easter Bunny!?!?! LOLOLOLOL Yep, and the moon landings were faked. What NASA opinion? You posted none that I saw. But that aside, when NASA hired the equivalent of the Easter Bunny to run its GISS division. . . .well its earned its lack of credibility. Sorry opinions do not amount to data nor science and opinions not backed by science have zero scientific credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Sept 15, 2009 0:08:05 GMT
Radiant...
Once water reaches about 4 degrees C, it has reached its maximum density. Further reductions in temperature will cause it to be LESS dense, meaning that once the top 100 meters or so gets to 4 degrees, any further cooling of the surface water will mean that it stays at the surface, because its less dense.
The 100 meters is not a randomly chosen depth. It is my understanding that below that depth, at least in the polar waters, that is the depth at which the temperature doesn't change.
If this wasn't true, then lakes would freeze from the bottom up.
Therefore, this:
and this:
Are misleading and wrong.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 15, 2009 0:51:47 GMT
NASA stating that the ice may be at a record volume is no more credible than the Easter Bunny. We need scientific proof. NASA's scientific opinion based on their data is no more credible than the Easter Bunny!?!?! LOLOLOLOL Yep, and the moon landings were faked. Hey Matt -- Any chance that you're confusing NASA and NSIDC? People have asked you for the link to the NASA data, and you haven't provided it. As for NSIDC, it has been collecting volume data for a VERY short period of time. I'm not sure how many frog men NSIDC employs, but I'm going to say that it's not enough. During the very short period of time that NSIDC has been collecting data, by whatever means, Antarctic sea ice coverage has slowly and steadily increased. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 15, 2009 1:31:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluecon on Sept 15, 2009 2:35:49 GMT
NASA stating that the ice may be at a record volume is no more credible than the Easter Bunny. We need scientific proof. NASA's scientific opinion based on their data is no more credible than the Easter Bunny!?!?! LOLOLOLOL Yep, and the moon landings were faked. I only ask that you back up your opinion on ice volume with scientific evidence. So far you have not.
|
|