|
Post by hilbert on Oct 7, 2009 0:59:12 GMT
This is the same NSIDC that last year was worried about 2008 being an "ice free" Arctic. Then we were told 2013, but no mention of that now. Al Gore is still on record for this prediction, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 7, 2009 2:40:58 GMT
matt writes "thickness is shrinking faster than extent,," I think you need to be more specific. Prior to 2007, ice area in the Arctic just got smaller, and there was little change in thickness, so far as I am aware. As I have noted many times, in 2007 a lot of multiyear ice was blown out of the Arctic Ocean. This resulted in much thinner ice being present at minimum. However, in the last two years, the ice has been getting thicker. So I cannot see how you can conclude that "thickness is shrinking faster than extent,". www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.htmlNo, ice is still getting thinner. 2008 was significantly thinner than 2007, and even had lower volume. 2009 looks to be thinner still, but we'll see when the data comes out. Could you show where you heard that the ice was thickening?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 7, 2009 3:19:40 GMT
This is the same NSIDC that last year was worried about 2008 being an "ice free" Arctic. Then we were told 2013, but no mention of that now. Al Gore is still on record for this prediction, I believe. Dr Maslowski came up with 2013. That's one individual's extreme model run (which hasn't been disproven yet.) It has never been the median estimate. Here's the facts, as documented on 12/12/2007: The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting. Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stmOh, and about that silly 2008 figure. Everyone knows a physical north pole free of ice does not mean that the arctic is free of ice. I even heard one where they included Greenland! "The NSIDC said Greenland would melt along with the rest of the arctic ice cap by 2030"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 7, 2009 3:23:45 GMT
No, ice is still getting thinner. 2008 was significantly thinner than 2007, and even had lower volume. 2009 looks to be thinner still, but we'll see when the data comes out. Could you show where you heard that the ice was thickening? I guess with the poor leadership at NASA these days, NASA is completely out of touch so they have recycle year old press releases and hope morons take them as current information. The ice peak for winter 2008 occurred in March 2008 and represented the refreezing from the satellite era low of the summer 2007. Since then there are have been two years of melts and one year of a bigger refreeze than 2008 in March 2009.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 7, 2009 4:07:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 7, 2009 10:36:56 GMT
matt writes "Could you show where you heard that the ice was thickening? "
My sloppy writing. I ought to have written that there is more multiyear ice in the Arctic in 2009 and 2008 than there was the previous year. I equate older ice with thicker ice. Since the ice area has increased each September, it follows that the amount of multiyear ice has been increasing. I believe the NSIDC figures confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 7, 2009 13:19:05 GMT
As before, show me 60 years of data, and we can have a conversation.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 7, 2009 13:41:32 GMT
As before, show me 60 years of data, and we can have a conversation. That would be a conversation on weather presumably... around 300 years would be better from a climatological viewpoint
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Oct 7, 2009 13:42:43 GMT
I think the guy who thinks ice just reduced in area and not thickness prior to 07' needs to do a little study on the subject? I thought we used the sub records/physical measuring data prior to the sat era and this is where we have our dramatic reductions in ice thickness from (and not just the ICESat study showing ice thickness hammered over winter as well as through summer over the last 5 years). Seeing as this data set runs from 1958 we only have 9 years to wait until the "wait 'till we have 60yrs of data ..." folk deem to join in our discussions. We may all have our differences of opinion but it does help if we are all current on our data surely?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 7, 2009 14:11:50 GMT
graywolf links?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 7, 2009 14:19:15 GMT
Why do I suspect that this thread is going to devolve back into a retread discussion of how the satellites measure the ice thickness, their margin of error, etc.? It seems like we go back and forth between area and thickness on this thread. It seems to me that the only reliable indicator of trend, though, is the area. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Oct 7, 2009 14:43:30 GMT
As before, show me 60 years of data, and we can have a conversation. That would be a conversation on weather presumably... around 300 years would be better from a climatological viewpoint And of course you and I agree, Nautonnier. Just trying to pry our good friend away from the notion that 7 years of data can be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Oct 7, 2009 16:00:18 GMT
NSIDC state "Sea surface temperatures in the Arctic this season remained higher than normal, but slightly lower than the past two years. The cooler conditions, which resulted largely from cloudy skies during late summer, slowed ice loss compared to the past two years"
Hmm! We are experiencing increased cosmic rays. Don't cosmic rays cause increased cloud cover?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2009 17:05:11 GMT
matt writes "thickness is shrinking faster than extent,," I think you need to be more specific. Prior to 2007, ice area in the Arctic just got smaller, and there was little change in thickness, so far as I am aware. As I have noted many times, in 2007 a lot of multiyear ice was blown out of the Arctic Ocean. This resulted in much thinner ice being present at minimum. However, in the last two years, the ice has been getting thicker. So I cannot see how you can conclude that "thickness is shrinking faster than extent,". www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.htmlNo, ice is still getting thinner. 2008 was significantly thinner than 2007, and even had lower volume. 2009 looks to be thinner still, but we'll see when the data comes out. Could you show where you heard that the ice was thickening? If the Arctic were to be ice free by 2013, one could only imagine the howls by AGW proponents of how accurate all those scientists were. NSIDC also entertained the idea of 2013; it's not hard to find. The idea is to float scenarios of doom for effect. It gets media coverage, then when it doesn't happen or obvious it won't happen, True Believers say things like "it was only one scientist" or "nobody said.....", all without noting what actually was the cause for the 2007 decrease. Now we must endure the hot air coming from these same "experts" warning that 2008 and 2009 is only a fluke and very temporary. As for ice thickness and your contention the ice is continuing to get thinner: www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09050433-research-aircraft-polar-5-finishes-arctic-expeditionTo conduct the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the ice cover. Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. The researchers found the thickest ice with a thickness of 15 metres along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island. go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftranslate.google.com%2Ftranslate%3Fjs%3Dn%26prev%3D_t%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26u%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.radiobremen.de%252Fwissen%252Fnachrichten%252Fwissenawipolararktis100.html%26sl%3Dde%26tl%3Den%26history_state0%3DThe Catlin clowns went out to prove the Arctic ice was getting thinner and what happened to them? It was a joke. What about Antarctic ice, or isn't that global enough to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2009 17:58:46 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!!! wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/#more-11535Only one problem: The Northeast Passage has been opened for commerce since 1934 – and never ‘closed’.
Over the years hundreds of thousands of freighters have passed through, and after Russia put Soviet-era politics aside it was extended to foreign commerce in the 1990s. As the Register reported two weeks ago. 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 Yes, there you have it, straight from the captain -- THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ICEBREAKERS!!! Ah yes, speculation is always easy to quote
|
|