dresi
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 120
|
Post by dresi on Oct 10, 2009 14:38:46 GMT
Yesterday increase in Arctic was over 100 000 km2. East Siberian sea and Laptev sea are finally cold enough. Still, there is over 600 000 km2 ice missing.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 10, 2009 17:05:56 GMT
2007 was a low on all ages of ice. 2008 had more 1 year ice left, 2009 had more 2 year ice left. Meanwhile each year some of that 2007 ice gets less by breaking away and drifting out of the arctic. Bottom line is you aren't making 3 year ice in 2 years thats impossible. But you are just playing word games. It was already predicted by the folks here that what is normal will be represented as disaster, I mean Luddites have been doing that for hundreds of years consistently. 2007 had a lot of 3+ year old ice. The quantity of old ice continues to decline as the arctic ice is becoming more and more seasonal-ice. No word games here, I'm simply spouting truth. Again, 2008 had LESS ice volume than 2007, and 2009 is likely to have had even LESS ice volume than 2008. We'll find out as soon as the data is crunched. www.colorado.edu/news/r/7b35b8b7288eb23856042d05e3596b7d.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 10, 2009 17:37:18 GMT
2007 was a low on all ages of ice. 2008 had more 1 year ice left, 2009 had more 2 year ice left. Meanwhile each year some of that 2007 ice gets less by breaking away and drifting out of the arctic. Bottom line is you aren't making 3 year ice in 2 years thats impossible. But you are just playing word games. It was already predicted by the folks here that what is normal will be represented as disaster, I mean Luddites have been doing that for hundreds of years consistently. you really should glance at the data before spouting nonsense. 2007 had a lot of 3+ year old ice. The quantity of old ice continues to decline as the arctic ice is becoming more and more seasonal-ice. No word games here, I'm simply spouting truth. Again, 2008 had LESS ice volume than 2007, and 2009 is likely to have had even LESS ice volume than 2008. We'll find out as soon as the data is crunched. In the meantime, calling the CONTINUED DECLINE of ice volume a "recovery" is the ULTIMATE in word games. www.colorado.edu/news/r/7b35b8b7288eb23856042d05e3596b7d.htmlWell I suppose you have to choose what you want to believe. Your CO University report states: "Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 2.2 feet between 2004 and 2008."I have no doubt that they are confident in their algorithms even though there are well known errors in such satellite readings. At the same time you will read: "Another focal point of the campaign were large-scale measurements of ice thickness in the inner Arctic, which were conducted in close collaboration of the Alfred Wegener Institute together with the University of Alberta. An ice-thickness sensor, the so-called EM-Bird, was put into operation under a plane for the first time ever. To 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."www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09050433-research-aircraft-polar-5-finishes-arctic-expeditionSo we have a sensor specifically to measure ice thickness flown at 20 metres over the ice vs use of a satellite metric which has known algorithmic faults. Obviously you will choose the one that says the ice is melting whereas the AGW sceptics will take the other view. I would ask the two universities why their results were so different and what led them to their conclusions. It may be an idea to stop trying to 'win the argument', after all - the politicians are all persuaded now that the Earth is going to fry if they don't stop climate change and the US EPA now has said that CO 2 is a pollutant like PCBs. Then you could act more like a scientist and try to determine what is actually going on. Of course if you have decided that you know it all already - then you can disregard all other viewpoints - but its not a particularly scientific approach.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 10, 2009 19:31:22 GMT
2007 was a low on all ages of ice. 2008 had more 1 year ice left, 2009 had more 2 year ice left. Meanwhile each year some of that 2007 ice gets less by breaking away and drifting out of the arctic. Bottom line is you aren't making 3 year ice in 2 years thats impossible. But you are just playing word games. It was already predicted by the folks here that what is normal will be represented as disaster, I mean Luddites have been doing that for hundreds of years consistently. you really should glance at the data before spouting nonsense. 2007 had a lot of 3+ year old ice. The quantity of old ice continues to decline as the arctic ice is becoming more and more seasonal-ice. No word games here, I'm simply spouting truth. Again, 2008 had LESS ice volume than 2007, and 2009 is likely to have had even LESS ice volume than 2008. We'll find out as soon as the data is crunched. In the meantime, calling the CONTINUED DECLINE of ice volume a "recovery" is the ULTIMATE in word games. www.colorado.edu/news/r/7b35b8b7288eb23856042d05e3596b7d.htmlMatt: I don't know what is in your pipe, but I want some of that....oh oh....I don't smoke.....but maybe the 2nd hand would work? The url you posted does not bear scrutiny, as not only the Canadian data, but the Danish data etc all show increasing thickness of ice. You posted the outlier, which is using tech that has, at this point, been proven to be false data. The Flat Earth Societys studies just do not bear fruit anymore. The Earth is round.....heck, even the satillites have proven that.
|
|
|
Post by colinaldridge on Oct 10, 2009 21:50:53 GMT
Arctis average temperatures remain higher than average by nearly 10 degrees C at the moment so I guess Ice growth will remain low until temperatures drop to "normal" Data on this is at the Danish Met office site and WUWT has the graph on its homepage
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 11, 2009 1:23:43 GMT
According to NODC, OHC in the Arctic is dropping like a rock, which I had no idea was occurring to such an extent.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 11, 2009 5:23:36 GMT
2007 was a low on all ages of ice. 2008 had more 1 year ice left, 2009 had more 2 year ice left. Meanwhile each year some of that 2007 ice gets less by breaking away and drifting out of the arctic. Bottom line is you aren't making 3 year ice in 2 years thats impossible. But you are just playing word games. It was already predicted by the folks here that what is normal will be represented as disaster, I mean Luddites have been doing that for hundreds of years consistently. you really should glance at the data before spouting nonsense. 2007 had a lot of 3+ year old ice. Summer 2007 set record lows for all ages of ice. Then summer 2008 had more one year ice than 2007 but certainly some of the older ice melted and was not replaced as it would be impossible to add multi-year ice in one year. Winter 2009, which you failed to produce any data for. . . .the polar expedition reported unusually thick one year ice. Obviously some of the multiyear ice melted in summer 2008 and 2009 but it was almost certainly overly compensated for by the thickening of the multi-year ice that did not break up during winter 2008 and winter 2009. The quantity of old ice continues to decline as the arctic ice is becoming more and more seasonal-ice. No word games here, I'm simply spouting truth. If you are measuring quantity by area that makes perfect sense, but the volume of the ice almost certainly increased. It would take a lot better technology we have now that the logical result did not occur. . . .but that never stops warmistas who will hang their hat on anything. Again, 2008 had LESS ice volume than 2007, and 2009 is likely to have had even LESS ice volume than 2008. I am sure you can find some hockey team somewhere that will claim that. But lets see your data. Words are cheap. When you have expanding areas in ice its illogical that the overall volume is decreasing unless it is an anomaly. We'll find out as soon as the data is crunched. You may have faith in any model anywhere but the fact is accurate volume is not accurately measured. Actual volume will go unmeasured. All we are dealing with is warmistas playing games with the unmeasureds. . . .yet again. A recovery is a recovery. You can crystal ball it if you want and call it a temporary recovery. . . .but thats an opinion and a prediction and has little to do with any facts. But keep up the good work Matt. Its folks like you that build the ranks of the skeptical community.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Oct 11, 2009 6:40:26 GMT
Towards the end of October, all the annual curves except 2007 on the JAXA chart converge on a point around 9 million km. It will be interesting to see if 2009 follows 2008 to that point or if it does its own thing like 2007. That also means another 3 million squared km have to set up in the next few weeks. That is a lot of ice growth!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 11, 2009 17:27:05 GMT
Well I suppose you have to choose what you want to believe. Agreed, and that's what keeps life interesting, I suppose. Excellent counter-point in the polar 5 expedition.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Oct 11, 2009 18:49:45 GMT
Wow! JAXA has just shown a big rise
8th. +35K 9th. +108K 10th. +164K
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 11, 2009 20:00:11 GMT
Well I suppose you have to choose what you want to believe. Agreed, and that's what keeps life interesting, I suppose. Excellent counter-point in the polar 5 expedition. I find it ironic that some people deny the beginning of the rebound in Arctic Ice. The rebound is to be expected if you look at normal cycles. Even the 2005 bottom of the decline does not appear to be as extensive as the bottom of the decline in the mid 40's. Validation for that is the sailing of the Northern NW passage, which has not been accomplished during this decline. As an old feller who has seen warmth and cold, I prefer warmth anyday. I do not look forward to the re-building of the ice nor the next 20-25 years of cooling, but reality indicates that I must.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Oct 12, 2009 23:41:51 GMT
Cryosphere Tale of the Tape Chart appears to be dropping dramatically, seems to be totally in conflict with the obvious reality of the North...I don't get it unless its trying to make a statement for Copenhagen. Any other obvious reasons
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 13, 2009 2:25:15 GMT
Cryosphere Tale of the Tape Chart appears to be dropping dramatically, seems to be totally in conflict with the obvious reality of the North...I don't get it unless its trying to make a statement for Copenhagen. Any other obvious reasons Warmer water slowing the re-freeze? Sometimes a duck is just a duck.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 13, 2009 2:46:55 GMT
Cryosphere Tale of the Tape Chart appears to be dropping dramatically, seems to be totally in conflict with the obvious reality of the North...I don't get it unless its trying to make a statement for Copenhagen. Any other obvious reasons The re-icing slowed around this time last year, if I recall correctly. It is probably a common feature of the seasonal change. Warm air is moving up to cool off, as the sunlight fades from the north. Melting ice takes a lot of energy. The important thing is stop the AGW promotion game of wiggle watching every weather fluctuation as confirmation of anything. Weather is, has been and will be, highly variable. It is the AGW community that would like to get us to believe it is predictable.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 13, 2009 3:26:03 GMT
Cryosphere Tale of the Tape Chart appears to be dropping dramatically, seems to be totally in conflict with the obvious reality of the North...I don't get it unless its trying to make a statement for Copenhagen. Any other obvious reasons Although the pictures of ice extent shown on cryosphere are only a day or so behind the charts are at least a week behind. More noticeable at end of month.
|
|