|
Post by radiant on Sept 20, 2009 5:57:18 GMT
To all those deniers who mistakenly (on purpose?) gave false evidence about the two German ships which crossed the arctic.... "I think it will soon be possible to navigate the Northeast Passage all year round. We were escorted by an ice-breaker but, frankly, we could have done without it. This is great news for our industry." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8264345.stmYes, there you have it, straight from the captain -- THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ICEBREAKERS!!! The ships were described as Germanischer Lloyd E3 (up to 80 cm) I dont see you providing any evidence thru effort and hard work like i did. Now you are telling me I am a liar. These are commercial vessels with nothing more than ice class Germanischer Lloyd E3 (up to 80 cm), and thus got company by a Russian icebreaker for the most dangerous part of the journey. How about you do some research and phone up lloyds of London and ask them what ice class Lloyds of London require to ensure a boat travelling without Russian nuclear icebreaker support via the north East passage? Once you have done that and you report back here then you might get some respect from people like me who take the trouble to find out things for themselves It is stupidity to compare the ice today with the ice in the 1970's after the ice had thickened for some 20 years since it was said to be 40% reduced by top experts in the united states who were publishing at that time while Schneider was thinking in the 1970's another little ice age was possible By all means make stupid comments if you want to be stupid. But leave me out of it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2009 10:10:05 GMT
matt writes "WRONG!!! Sea ice DECLINED in 2008 to a new record minimum volume and may or may not have declined even further in 2009. You keep up with the news and so you obviously know that 2008's ice was lower than 2007's yet you still spout the converse. Why?" Whose data set are you quoting Matt? Must be the infamous "head up the butt" dataset.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2009 12:22:10 GMT
Matt has moved position - it was initially extent and area - but as that is now showing a recovery he has moved to 'volume' of ice. Presumably defined as [estimated area * estimated thickness]. Unsurprisingly, so called young ice will be thinner than compressed multi-year ice, so it may allow a claim that there is still less _volume_ than there was in 2006. Of course as a multiplication of two estimates it leaves even more room for straight mathematical errors and these can be expected to be exploited for several years if the recovery continues.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 20, 2009 12:45:18 GMT
Matt has moved position - it was initially extent and area - but as that is now showing a recovery he has moved to 'volume' of ice. Presumably defined as [estimated area * estimated thickness]. Unsurprisingly, so called young ice will be thinner than compressed multi-year ice, so it may allow a claim that there is still less _volume_ than there was in 2006. Of course as a multiplication of two estimates it leaves even more room for straight mathematical errors and these can be expected to be exploited for several years if the recovery continues. Our AGW friends must notice the trend of their retreat: From 'ice free' to 'ice extent' to 'ice volume'. Of course they are going to move the goal posts. It is all they have left. Now they found a picture of some dead walruses, and that is 'proof' of AGW. When a movement as popular as AGW implodes, the emotional cost of admitting they have been wrong is quite high. And for the aGW profiteers, it is even higher.
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Sept 20, 2009 12:49:23 GMT
Climatewise the volume of sea ice doesnt matter much.It is the extent of the ice which controls albedo.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 20, 2009 14:09:42 GMT
Wow JAXA data indicates we've hit 2005 already Looking back through previous years on the chart this looks like the earliest turn round on arctic ice extent on JAXA record
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 20, 2009 15:27:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Sept 20, 2009 15:36:32 GMT
Matt, you do know that is from 2008.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Sept 20, 2009 16:50:11 GMT
For the "scientific" sake we should say that untill 2007 there was GW, 2008 increased area was just surprised climate change and 2009 area increased due to the local weather conditions.
Someone have an idea for 2010 ? Eco terorists covered large areas with styropore maybe?
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Sept 20, 2009 16:50:38 GMT
Matt, you do know that is from 2008. Oops... Rabidity is always tough to deal with...
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 20, 2009 17:58:50 GMT
NSIDC has an unmistakable political agenda, as well as the usual one of guaranteeing the largest possible funding stream toward itself, in perpetuity. If it were principally, or even largely scientific, then it would devote equal time and energy to communicating to the public about the situation in Antarctica as it does about the situation in the Arctic. For instance, the Antarctic sea ice extent would pop up at the top of NSIDC's page half the time (as opposed to never). I suggest interested parties glance through the NSIDC's press releases of the last three years. Surely, this august authority regarding polar ice caps would have wanted to put out a release when sea ice extent for the Southern Hemisphere hit its all-time record high during the satellite era, right? Wrong: nsidc.org/news/Again, if it was science being advanced, and not politics, the news about the Southern Hemisphere can and should be taken to be far more significant than the news that NH sea ice extent is at the "third lowest ever." Why? Because you can melt the entire Arctic basin without raising Earth's sea levels by a whisker. On the other hand, Antarctica, whose land ice one can choose to be concerned with reasonably, shows a continent-wide cooling pattern as exemplified in the behavior of its sea ice. By the way, the theory that melting the Arctic will lead to major warming of the sea water because of its exposure to the Sun is a theory and not a fact. The glancing angle of the Sun at that latitude suggests that little or no warming would be caused by such exposure. Another theory is that the best way to accelerate global cooling would be to remove as much sea ice from the Arctic as possible. Make no mistake, both of these are theories, not to be confused with facts. As for the terrifying canary-in-a-coal-mine melting nightmare being experienced at the Earth's southernmost continent: nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 20, 2009 19:43:40 GMT
Woodstove writes "NSIDC has an unmistakable political agenda, as well as the usual one of guaranteeing the largest possible funding stream toward itself, in perpetuity."
Harold, I agree with everything you have written. But if we go on taking notice of Matt, we are simply wasting time. He has not got any data to back up any of his assertions. So far as I can tell he is just a troll.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2009 20:16:13 GMT
Matt, you do know that is from 2008. I think he does - it was intended to show that he is merely following the 'scientific lead' of NSIDC who saw early on that a new ice metric would be required as 2008 was so much higher than they had forecast. "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.” "nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.htmlThat was picked up and highlighted in the title - which no doubt attracted certain readers.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 20, 2009 22:23:47 GMT
By the way, the theory that melting the Arctic will lead to major warming of the sea water because of its exposure to the Sun is a theory and not a fact. The glancing angle of the Sun at that latitude suggests that little or no warming would be caused by such exposure. Another theory is that the best way to accelerate global cooling would be to remove as much sea ice from the Arctic as possible. Make no mistake, both of these are theories, not to be confused with facts. As I keep pointing out to these types (They ignore it, of course)...a lack of sea ice isn't a "tipping point", it's entirely tipped. It means an absolute end of ice albedo feedback for the time it's gone. It would tend to decelerate warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 20, 2009 23:31:12 GMT
Complete sea ice loss in summer still leaves room for the duration of sea ice loss in summer to increase. In fact it's the spring in which the water absorbs more sunlight, by the time sea ice minimum is reached currently the period of annual maximum sunlight in the arcitc has already passed.
|
|