|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 27, 2009 6:08:54 GMT
Antarctic ice pushing for a record winter extent: Tad under 1 million sq kms (I haven't forgotten the million this time!)
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 27, 2009 7:13:36 GMT
"From what I have read if the PDO and AMO go negative together things could get decidedly 'parky' for northern Europe."
AMO so far this year -0.008 -0.114 -0.115 -0.080 -0.015 0.175 0.282 0.205
PDO so far this year -1.40 -1.55 -1.59 -1.65 -0.88 -0.31 -0.53 0.09
The above is NOAA data They both showed negative values early in the year, but not July and August We await with interest the September figures
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 27, 2009 19:42:52 GMT
Would anyone happen to know why the DMI temp data site for the Arctic north of 80N has been brought down?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2009 20:04:22 GMT
Would anyone happen to know why the DMI temp data site for the Arctic north of 80N has been brought down? Probably a decision similar to when oil prices are down, the oil companies like to do maintenance on a few refineries.
|
|
|
Post by inverse on Sept 28, 2009 2:13:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 28, 2009 4:38:06 GMT
That's an AP story. I'm glad you found it. It appeared on our news sources on the internet last week, but I didn't post it at the time, and couldn't find it afterwards. Very interesting, I would say. And we see the extent continuing to expand as Kiwi posted a few posts above ...
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Sept 28, 2009 6:23:55 GMT
That's an AP story. I'm glad you found it. It appeared on our news sources on the internet last week, but I didn't post it at the time, and couldn't find it afterwards. Very interesting, I would say. And we see the extent continuing to expand as Kiwi posted a few posts above ... Greenland, Antarctic Ice 'in Runaway Melt Mode' Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Associated Press www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554123,00.html?test=latestnews "WASHINGTON — New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode." Be careful with stories from Associated Press. Check them for source, accuracy and completeness. (The story appears to contribute to what Cass Sunstein calls the "Availability Heuristic", "making some risks seem especially likely to come to fruition whether or not they actually are".) 1) This story does not differentiate Sea Ice from surface snow and ice. 2) Satellite measurements must be carefully calibrated. 3) No source is given for this story. 4) Melting sea ice does not raise sea surfaces. It floats. It has already displaced all the water it is going to displace. 5) "Arctic sea ice crossed over and exceeded the 2005 level on Sept 20." (minimum extent) www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.pngSea Ice Update, Jeff Id on September 21, 2009 noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/09/6) The temperature of the West Antarctic was exagerated by error in identification and location of some weather stations McIntyre, Steve. “Dirty Harry 4: When Harry Met Gill.” Blog. Climate Audit, February 2, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054. ---. “West Antarctic Stations.” Climate Audit, February 1, 2009. www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044. See Jeff Id's graph in Reply # 1727: noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/untitled-1.jpg?w=330&h=484The horizontal green line is "Actual".
|
|
|
Post by inverse on Sept 28, 2009 8:51:07 GMT
Here is another from the same story thats doing the rounds... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32985250/ns/us_news-environment/Apparently this article identifies the story from the Nature Journal and when you look that up on Wikipedia it has the following quote: On October 30, 2008, Nature made its first ever endorsement for a US presidential candidate when it declared its support for Barack Obama. Realise this is not a political thread but you gota enjoy the twists and turns.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 28, 2009 13:25:07 GMT
I just hope the public realizes how badly they've been mislead once all this crap dies down and treats the alarmist leaders the way the alarmist leaders said skeptics should be treated.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 28, 2009 14:43:07 GMT
As for the DMI Arctic temperature info link, Erik Buch, who manages the graph page, informed me that there are technical problems being addressed and the url should be working again soon.
Regards
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2009 18:10:15 GMT
I just hope the public realizes how badly they've been mislead once all this crap dies down and treats the alarmist leaders the way the alarmist leaders said skeptics should be treated. That probably is too extreme. More to the point the issue needs to be addressed. Requiring complete archiving of data and tearing down paywalls would be a very positive step in the right direction. Additionally the science community should think of putting together an association that promotes licensing, comprehensive peer review, regulation, and set of standards for various levels of services. Working with state and federal governments these standards could be enforced. Doctors have it, lawyers have it, accountants have it. . . .seems to me if we are going to be increasingly putting the public welfare at risk from shoddy science there should be some mechanism to ensure stuff like the following doesn't happen: www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168Climate audit is hard to get to right now with a lot of traffic reading this one.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 28, 2009 19:08:19 GMT
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Sept 28, 2009 19:37:32 GMT
Socold,
I have been seeing those plots for 5 years now and I cannot see how anyone would think that they show that the "ice is melting". Sure, there are AREAS of the coast of Greenland and Antarctica with SOME loss of ice, but the rates of loss are small. However, there are even more areas of the coast with either no loss or a gain. Check out the Antarctic Peninsula. It is bright blue along most of the coast (0.5 m/year). Furthermore, the vast bulk of the interior is ALL BLUE. It is clear that the total ice mass is INCREASING. The data that I remember was an AVERAGE of +5.6 cm/year INCREASE for Greenland and +2.0 cm/year for Antarctica. Now those numbers are very small when you consider that the "glacial rebound" for Greenland is about 10% of the total rate of ice thickness increase (about 0.5 cm/year). However, it is absolutely crazy to look at those INCREASES in average ice thickness and say that the ice is MELTING.
You would be justified in saying that there isn't a statistically significant change. After all, 2-5 cm/year for an average ice thickness of 2000-3000 metres is pretty much in the noise. But you CERTAINLY can't claim that they are melting and no one can take that evidence and extrapolate to the year 2100 to say that the Greenland icecap is going to disappear (and FLOOD the coastlines!).
During the last interglacial period, the Eemian, the temperature was MUCH warmer than it is today (~+5.0 deg. C). There were coniferous forests in the southern part of Greenland and EVEN THEN, the northern part of the Island STILL had an icecap on it. That is why they can take a 1 million year ice-core from the Northern part of the icesheet (it existed for that long despite the temperature being higher than today). It would take a LOT MORE than 1 or 2 deg. C over a hundred years to melt Greenland!! (never mind the MUCH more stable Antarctica!!!). I would think that it would take 10,000-20,000 years of 5+ deg. C to make a big dent in Greenland (and longer for Antarctica).
It just seems like scare-mongering to me to suggest that this data supports AGW. It is actually quite the opposite (IMO).
Appreciate you finding the references.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 28, 2009 20:06:27 GMT
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Sept 28, 2009 20:31:15 GMT
SoCold,
I have no idea how accurate the gravity experiments are, but I thought that the laser range-finder satellites using microwaves were pretty accurate (used on Mars). I would choose the laser range-finders over the gravity experiments.
However, the Topex/Poseidon data on the ocean surface heights is subject to significant errors on the ocean surface. The area of the microwave beam is very wide (many hundreds of kilometers). The surface of the ocean itself is not the problem. It is the presence of metal ships and oil platforms. They are extremely efficient microwave reflectors (trying placing a piece of aluminum foil in your microwave oven!! - actually don't). Also, they are elevated with respect to the ocean on which they are traveling. Since the microwave satellites (Topex/Poseidon) are measuring the average reflectivity of the total area, they are subject to considerable error if there is a lot of ship traffic. Furthermore, the values of ~3.0mm/year that have been measured by Topex/Poseidon over the last decade have leveled out to almost zero over the last 3 years. (not much ship traffic on the top of the Greenland icecap! so that is not subject to that kind of error)
Of course, you could make an argument that the use of 3.2 cm wavelength microwave electromagnetic radiation (T/P) is not sufficient to measure something with an accuracy of 1mm/year. After all, the average of the averages, where the average is one thirtieth of the wavelength of the radiation is pretty scary. Would you really trust a measurement that is one thirtieth of the wavelength of the radiation you are using??? (especially when ship traffic with its very high microwave reflectivity contaminates the data!!)
I believe that the tidal gauges have been measuring a lot less than 3.0mm/year increase in ocean surface height. So maybe the answer to the apparent contradiction that you refer to is that the ocean surface is not really increasing by 3mm/year!! (T/P are NOT capable of measuring the surface height of the ocean accurately). After all, if the gravity experiments are correct and there is 195 km**3/year of ice melting (hard to believe) from Greenland, then the increase in ocean height is only about 0.5mm/year from that. Where is the other 2.5 mm/year? Also, Antarctica is getting colder. It is very very cold anyway. It would take a LOT of warming to get significant melting there!! Also hard to believe that the sea ice of Antarctica would be increasing when the icecap is melting??!!
So although it would be nice if the gravity method worked well, I have not seen any data on the relative accuracy of the method and its comparison to other methods.
Do you still believe AGW is proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Ian
|
|