|
Post by pidgey on Sept 15, 2009 17:01:28 GMT
Ya' know... it's at times like this that I really get ta' missin' Ol' MAV... I fondly remember him postulating last year several months before this that the Arctic ice melt was going to extend into October and that each year thereafter would be even worse. And here we are, middle of September, already starting to add ice...
MAV... wherever you are... please know that we miss you for entertainment's sake if nothing else!
|
|
|
Post by LakeEffectKing on Sept 15, 2009 18:21:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Sept 15, 2009 20:24:14 GMT
So as a long term prediction, next year the bottom out will be in the middle of the trend lines or just above. Looks like it's stepping up which would lead me to believe the ole ice density is increasing
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 15, 2009 20:56:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 15, 2009 21:18:45 GMT
greenarrow writes "So as a long term prediction, next year the bottom out will be in the middle of the trend lines or just above. Looks like it's stepping up which would lead me to believe the ole ice density is increasing "
It seems to me that there are two likely scenarios as to what is going to happen in the future.
1) A return to the trend that existed before 2007. This was a roughly linear trend with ice area decreasing about 10% per decade.
2) A trend away from the trend that existed before 2007, with an increase of ice area in future years.
My instinct is that 1) is the more likely. However, if global temperatures really are falling, then 2) could be the one which will occur.
I simply do not believe that we will see a trend with ice area decreasing more rapidly than 10% per decade.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 15, 2009 21:22:04 GMT
I prefer my ice education from the Canadians ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=4&ScndLvl=yes&ID=10162Where Does Sea Ice Form First? Ice will form first in shallow water, near the coast or over shoals or banks, and particularly in bays, inlets, and straits in which there are no currents, and in areas of low salinity (near the mouths of rivers, for instance). Shallow water is conducive to ice formation because of the relatively small depth of water that has to be cooled. The greater the depth of high-salinity water, the later the time of freezing. In fact, deep waters may never freeze over entirely,Theoretically, the whole body of water must be cooled to the freezing point before any ice will form. In reality, the oceans are stratified with increasing salinity and hence become denser toward the bottom. The convection currents need only reach down to a layer of sufficient density to provide a stable stratification. By the way on the topic of education what was the final verdict on the ability of oxygen and nitrogen to radiate heat? solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=780&page=15#29561Are you still saying i am wrong about that?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 15, 2009 23:23:52 GMT
What NASA opinion? You posted none that I saw. Ron Kwok's work. Here's a link: www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.htmlBe sure to click on the first link under the graphic. It has side-by-side false color graphics for each year from 2004-2008, along with a chart showing the arctic ice thickness decline. Take a good look at the graphics. They really give a good feel for the health of the ice pack. After you look, come back here and post that you think the ice is on a rebound. And here's NASA's opinion as to why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The biggest driver is probably the ozone hole. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting_prt.htm
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 16, 2009 0:54:07 GMT
greenarrow writes "So as a long term prediction, next year the bottom out will be in the middle of the trend lines or just above. Looks like it's stepping up which would lead me to believe the ole ice density is increasing " It seems to me that there are two likely scenarios as to what is going to happen in the future. 1) A return to the trend that existed before 2007. This was a roughly linear trend with ice area decreasing about 10% per decade. 2) A trend away from the trend that existed before 2007, with an increase of ice area in future years. My instinct is that 1) is the more likely. However, if global temperatures really are falling, then 2) could be the one which will occur. Since we know without question that the Arctic has been ice free previously during the Halocene (or virtually ice free at a minimum), and we have seen that it has refrozen to recent modern levels, and we have seen fluctuations in the ice in the arctic during recent recorded history (1950's being less than the 1980's), and because we know these historical events were not caused by CO2 and we otherwise don't know what caused them; I haven't a clue if its going to be 1 or 2 nor am I willing at the moment to even suggest one is more likely than the other considering how strange the sun is acting. But considering the well documented variability from no ice to a lot more ice than now. . . .Arctic ice levels is no evidence of AGW and can never be cause you can't measure less than zero ice.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 16, 2009 1:03:27 GMT
What NASA opinion? You posted none that I saw. Ron Kwok's work. Here's a link: www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.htmlBe sure to click on the first link under the graphic. It has side-by-side false color graphics for each year from 2004-2008, along with a chart showing the arctic ice thickness decline. Take a good look at the graphics. They really give a good feel for the health of the ice pack. After you look, come back here and post that you think the ice is on a rebound. And here's NASA's opinion as to why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The biggest driver is probably the ozone hole. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature/antarctic_melting_prt.htmIf winter ice of 2008 means the winter after fall of 2007, then of course it would be the thinnest then. We need the data point for last winter, and for the coming winter, as well.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 16, 2009 1:07:38 GMT
It has side-by-side false color graphics for each year from 2004-2008, along with a chart showing the arctic ice thickness decline. Matt, you simply give far too much credence to highly inaccurate & speculative science. Just remember Matt that there is no "showing" - These are computer interpretations of radar signals, with a 10-25% error, normally LOW as ice can be undetected. So all these images mean very little in real terms, though they get papers published. I'd prefer more funding for fantasy & genuine science fiction actually - would do more good for humanity!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 16, 2009 1:37:54 GMT
If winter ice of 2008 means the winter after fall of 2007, then of course it would be the thinnest then. We need the data point for last winter, and for the coming winter, as well. Agreed, Hilbert. We're almost to the next data point. The linear trend will change upward or downward? I'm going with downward. The old estimate for typically ice-free Septembers was 2030 or so, right? I don't think that will move much this year. That doesn't mean 2030 will be the first ice-free September. 2013 is still in the running, and so is 2050.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 16, 2009 3:13:27 GMT
The turn looks confirming, with another almost 11000 positive units reporting for Sep 15th preliminary...Cross over of the 2005 line should be happening soon maybe 5 - 10 days. Another non-ice-free winter is on its way!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 16, 2009 4:51:11 GMT
If winter ice of 2008 means the winter after fall of 2007, then of course it would be the thinnest then. We need the data point for last winter, and for the coming winter, as well. Yeah, I really hate that the AGW proponents keep manufacturing "evidence" by making incredibly stupid observations Oh my god, there's more first year ice during the year after a recovery Oh my god, there's more ice but it's thinner (because its newer) Oh my god, this glacier is still melting so it must be hotter than the past times when it was...also melting (instead of...because it's not below freezing yet) We actually have a thing for measuring how warm or cold things are...it's called "temperature". We don't have to rely on inaccurate proxy methods like melting ice (was it 5C causing melting or was it 3C plus wind causing melting?). Melting ice, changing hardiness zones and advancing tree lines do not constitute any more/new evidence of increasing temperature when you already know what the actual temperature is.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 16, 2009 6:16:47 GMT
I see Search have issued there September update at www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/update_september.php"The weather pattern for August completely changed from the pattern of June and July, decreasing the chance of a record September sea ice loss for 2009. The September minimum is likely to be around 5.0 million square kilometers, compared to around 4.5 million square kilometers for 2008 and 4.1 million square kilometers for 2007. It should be noted that this 2009 extent would still be well below the average for 1979–2000 of 6.7 million square kilometers" They don't mention that ALL of their estimates for Ice Extent Minimum were below the likely minimum of 5.25 sq.km.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 16, 2009 7:12:31 GMT
I see Search have issued there September update at www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/update_september.php"The weather pattern for August completely changed from the pattern of June and July, decreasing the chance of a record September sea ice loss for 2009. The September minimum is likely to be around 5.0 million square kilometers, compared to around 4.5 million square kilometers for 2008 and 4.1 million square kilometers for 2007. It should be noted that this 2009 extent would still be well below the average for 1979–2000 of 6.7 million square kilometers" They don't mention that ALL of their estimates for Ice Extent Minimum were below the likely minimum of 5.25 sq.km. I for one am pleased to see the earth has given us a good health report and that it is currently horribly cold up north! However there are other realities also. The German husband and wife team aboard the small sailing boat Perithia have managed what must be the trip of a lifetime for them having got to Barrow in Alaska after travelling from Germany to the mediterrainen and then to what turned out to be an horribly cold trip for them where often they found their own german Breman uni data was under estimating the ice they encountered! ;D Meanwhile 250M satellite pictures of places like Eureka for the time of the icebreaker resupply show that the water was free of ice at Eureka with the only difficult part around the north of Devon Island (unfortunately partly under cloud) in this 27th of august image. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/40000/40046/necanada_amo_2009239_lrg.jpgAlso in the last few days most of the southern part of the northwest passage has cleared bearing in mind that Bellot strait has been totally open and boats travelling east have not had to go north to Resolute to escape the ice. Even the Brits could probably have made it had they continued and not decided it was just too cold and tedious to continue! So it seems that all are now alive and well and no doubt most are far more aware of how cold it can get up north!
|
|