|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 18, 2009 10:51:18 GMT
This is the Ice thread- can we move the other stuff to another thread please- The Jaxa image for 17th is showing that it is "seeing" more ice - so should be a jump up when we get the data - Strong growth down the (East) coast of Greenland. "This is the Ice thread- can we move the other stuff to another thread please-"I created the "Ocean Dynamics, Ocean Heat Content and Climate" thread to do this - but its difficult to stop thread-drift
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 18, 2009 13:06:48 GMT
Given the full-court press being applied by Hansen, Gore, Meier, Serreze, et al., how many educated folks in the west have any idea that the amplification of global warming in the Arctic currently looks like this: ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpHow many of them know that the worrisome trend toward an ice-free Arctic basin looks like this: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmThe answer? Not many.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 18, 2009 15:09:36 GMT
NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum
On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest point of the year, as sea ice has now begun its annual cycle of growth in response to autumn cooling. The 2009 minimum is the third-lowest recorded since 1979, 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) above 2008 and 970,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) above the record low in 2007.
The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.28 million square kilometers (490,000 square miles) below the thirty-year 1979 to 2008 average minimum.
Should a poll be started to predict this year's maximum? I think 14.8 sq.km.(JAXA)
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 18, 2009 15:52:04 GMT
JAXA reported a minimum of 5.25 million whatever units on the 13th. With precision that amazes they have reported exactly to the nearest unit of data day after day. That is until two days ago when their final number was exactly a decreased 10000 units less than the prior day. Today it showed a net increase of exactly 35000 units. I find it difficult to believe that with their prior indicated level of precision that they would report two round numbers such as these on successive days. It is more logical to assume they have been just throwing darts hoping each days final numbers would be approximately correct. I feel misled again. Oh well, the ramp is once again in the upward direction. So no further catestrophic melting of all the remaining "fragile multiyear ice" this year it seems. Maybe next year.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 18, 2009 19:36:56 GMT
NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum pretty conclusive, eh? The ice is melting far, far FAR more rapidly than can be simply an anomaly. Yep, global warming is conclusively proven. Of course, some will ignore the evidence and pretend that there is nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 18, 2009 21:29:48 GMT
NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum pretty conclusive, eh? The ice is melting far, far FAR more rapidly than can be simply an anomaly. Yep, global warming is conclusively proven. Of course, some will ignore the evidence and pretend that there is nothing wrong. For the right price, Matt, you can be teleported to Salem, Massachusetts, circa 1692, to be part of the "judiciary." Something tells me you will fit in nicely. If she swims, she's a witch. If not ... oh, well. At least now we know.
|
|
vauss
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 55
|
Post by vauss on Sept 18, 2009 21:54:53 GMT
Matt, Global warming has happened. The question that is critical is, what portion is Man contributing? Given that the PDO was in a warm phase for the past 30 years, coincidentally at the same time as some of the most active solar cycles of the past 30 years, is the warming we have experienced due to those two factors or due to Man? If they were not due to Man, then the next 30 years we will experience significant global cooling as the PDO has turned negative and the solar cycles look like they will be significantly less active. So, if this happens and the arctice ice returns to the 1979-2003 or so baseline, what will be your comment then? NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum pretty conclusive, eh? The ice is melting far, far FAR more rapidly than can be simply an anomaly. Yep, global warming is conclusively proven. Of course, some will ignore the evidence and pretend that there is nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Sept 18, 2009 21:54:59 GMT
NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum pretty conclusive, eh? The ice is melting far, far FAR more rapidly than can be simply an anomaly. Yep, global warming is conclusively proven. Of course, some will ignore the evidence and pretend that there is nothing wrong. I dunno. I guess I should've taken more math in college. (Or maybe they accidentally held their graph upside-down). Arctic sea ice has gone up two years running and they call it a "downward trend"!
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 18, 2009 22:12:30 GMT
And the Winners are, (It was my poll!)
Anyone who guessed 5.0 to 6.5 (the likely range within experimental error - as ice can be up to 25% more than detected) ;D
So 20 out of 34 - with 8 way too high and 6 way to low.
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Sept 18, 2009 23:54:01 GMT
And the Winners are, (It was my poll!) Anyone who guessed 5.0 to 6.5 (the likely range within experimental error - as ice can be up to 25% more than detected) ;D So 20 out of 34 - with 8 way too high and 6 way to low. woohoo! I squeeked in at 6.5, ok it was just a wild guess. ;D Thanks Kiwi for a great thread. Now back to lurking....
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 19, 2009 0:33:38 GMT
And the Winners are, (It was my poll!) Anyone who guessed 5.0 to 6.5 5.10 was the answer. So you took 0.1 for the lower bound and 1.4 for the upper bound. Seems a TAD biased....
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 19, 2009 1:06:45 GMT
And the Winners are, (It was my poll!) Anyone who guessed 5.0 to 6.5 5.10 was the answer. So you took 0.1 for the lower bound and 1.4 for the upper bound. Seems a TAD biased.... No Matt, as the researchers acknowledge 1. The error is all on the upside 2. The error in Summer is up to 25% (I posted the links about a year ago, and I haven't time to trudge through all the algorithm stuff, but it is all there for you to search out if you are interested.) 3. The Jaxa minimum is: 5.25 mill sq kms on 13th September.
|
|
|
Post by 6waldog on Sept 19, 2009 1:45:12 GMT
Question for those with more experience, since I have only watched the Arctic ice refreeze for three years.
Now that we have started to refreeze.
How much does the land mass; its disruption of westerly winds and the disruption of wave action help the refreeze in the Southern Canadian Archipelago, compared to Hudson and James Bay?
For several seasons it seems like the Hudson and James have a slow freezing component to windward and this is my best guess. Though, it might just be the temperature gradient?
btw - Glad I don't live in Alert this season - it was a chilly 16 F this morning after daybreak. Spending a bunch of time in Lapland when it was 50 below made me realize that cold winters are one of the reasons I love to have a summer season of more than a couple thousand seconds.
Cheers
|
|
royd
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by royd on Sept 19, 2009 3:23:41 GMT
The post was for "2009 Summer Melt closest to (Jaxa lowest extent)". Unless it drops more (not likely), this is 5.25M km^2. Saying now that this is equivalent to 5.0 to 6.5 is moving the goalposts. Why say use Jaxa if you don't intend to use their values or whine about their calcualtions?. 56% picked values too high (over 5.5), and 24 % picked values too low (under 5). However, the average poll estimate (5.6) was still closer to the minimum than the median ARCUS June forecast (4.7 - www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_june.php). I didn't vote, but I also didn't think the "experts" would be far off. At least they were somewhat closer than Kiwistonewall.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 19, 2009 3:45:35 GMT
NSIDC agree we have reached the minimum On September 12, 2009 sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers The 2009 minimum is 1.61 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum pretty conclusive, eh? The ice is melting far, far FAR more rapidly than can be simply an anomaly. Yep, global warming is conclusively proven. Of course, some will ignore the evidence and pretend that there is nothing wrong. It would be conclusive if the ice extent at the peak of the last warming period wasn't similar. All indications are that the ice generally increased from the 40's until the current period of satellite measurements (and that global temperatures went down over that period).
|
|