|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 25, 2009 10:53:39 GMT
I think you are confused with who can't grasp reality! ;D
But, as you say - time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 25, 2009 12:36:30 GMT
Why can people not grasp that ice conditions are dramatically different from past (sat. era) years? The old 'log jam' areas of perennial, that used to help maintain ice within the Arctic Ocean, are depleted to the point that ice is free to flow (with the arctic currents) out into the Atlantic. We may well see the Canadian Archipelago become blocked (with impacts on the NW Passage) as the remaining 'old' perennial drifts out and through it but the rest of the perennial pack north of Greenland/Svalbard is now all but gone. 'Thin ' ice does not have the same structural integrity of the 'old' perennial (some of which was many tens of years old and had undergone the transformation into desalinated,compacted 'glacial ice') and so and drift collisions fragments it further and increases the surface area (for the mass) in contact with air/sea leading to a swifter ablation. I know it is a mark of my impatience as 'Time will tell all' but surely some folk out there can grasp the reality? Oh, my goodness, "many tens of years old"! Oh, my, my, my. Please consider: Arctic ice has been melting and re-freezing cyclically far longer than you have been alive (however long that is). The polar bears have survived periods with temperatures 4 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than present, with far less ice -- or haven't you heard? dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/more-on-the-polar-bears-fate/Gore's legions have a psychological need to believe that until recently climate was a stable entity, some sort of protective and cooing parent. Geology says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Mar 25, 2009 13:31:24 GMT
Sea ice extent is currently above 2004. Does anyone think it will still be above 2004 come September 2009?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 25, 2009 17:01:15 GMT
Sea ice extent is currently above 2004. Does anyone think it will still be above 2004 come September 2009? And its way way way above 4,000 B.C. a period of warmth that rocketed mankind into the dominate specie on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 25, 2009 18:56:16 GMT
Why can people not grasp that ice conditions are dramatically different from past (sat. era) years? The old 'log jam' areas of perennial, that used to help maintain ice within the Arctic Ocean, are depleted to the point that ice is free to flow (with the arctic currents) out into the Atlantic. We may well see the Canadian Archipelago become blocked (with impacts on the NW Passage) as the remaining 'old' perennial drifts out and through it but the rest of the perennial pack north of Greenland/Svalbard is now all but gone. 'Thin ' ice does not have the same structural integrity of the 'old' perennial (some of which was many tens of years old and had undergone the transformation into desalinated,compacted 'glacial ice') and so and drift collisions fragments it further and increases the surface area (for the mass) in contact with air/sea leading to a swifter ablation. I know it is a mark of my impatience as 'Time will tell all' but surely some folk out there can grasp the reality? The thin ice was supposed to result in an even lower minimum last summer than 2007. And the ice going into this summer is going to be thicker overall than it was last year. The true reality is that no one knows exactly what will happen, but to assume that the ice is now beyond recovery is ludicrous. We just don't have nearly enough information to come to that conclusion. Based on past history, I think the odds are much more in favor of recovery or steady state as opposed to further rapid melt...but feel free to believe what you want.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 25, 2009 22:58:26 GMT
I know that all sites have to earn a bit of revenue to keep going, especially science based sites like this one. But it did give me a huge smile that there was an advert for an "established" global warming site for sale at $99. Is this the shape of things to come. Maybe instead of carbon credits, people can trade in their defunct global warming sites for carbon vouchers!
Still smiling :-)
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 26, 2009 2:30:49 GMT
Catlin Expedition: So far, I have been correct, that they wouldn't display live ice depth data (even tho' the website indicates it could) Back March 2nd I posted: solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=17#12647Not one sniff on how deep the ice is yet - I think their site will suddenly go live when they finally find ice that is less than 10's of metres thick. ;D www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspxThey state on their site: Ground-breaking satellite communications equipment, developed specifically for this project, will allow the survey team to transmit their unfolding story directly from the ice to a global audience. Obviously, either equipment isn't working, or, they don't want us to know. In the words of Solomon: Proverbs 26v5 (In modern lingo - Give them heaps)
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 26, 2009 6:50:26 GMT
Well at 3.5km per day, it will take them another 224 days to reach the pole.
Me thinks it's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 26, 2009 9:12:51 GMT
Well at 3.5km per day, it will take them another 224 days to reach the pole.
Me thinks it's not going to happen. The distance covered is going to increase - and is already increasing - as conditions improve. To be fair, it does sound as though they were expecting it to be tough for a week or two
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 26, 2009 16:53:40 GMT
Given that at day 12, they were at or behind where they started, it just isn't going to happen. Even if they doubled their progress, it would still be over three months to get there. Unless the ice starts moving in ways more friendly to their journey.
I'm not trying to knock them, I think it's a great expedition. And brutally difficult on those poor guys (and gal).
|
|
|
Post by nukezm on Mar 26, 2009 17:24:13 GMT
It may be a great expedition and all, but come on, how hard would it be for them to update their ice measurements. It sure seems suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Mar 26, 2009 17:35:12 GMT
The Catlin 3 are at the least filling the gap between arctic max ice and the late summer melt season with some on-site entertainment/drama. I do wonder what the team thinks of their reported lateral jogging and if they try to compensate for it. Their sideways movements (ice drift ?) seems to outperform their Northwards progress at times.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 27, 2009 4:27:23 GMT
Northwest passage was more open in 1973!!! It (European Space Agency) says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stmWell, the Canadians (God Bless them, everyone) have been monitoring the ice for longer than that! O guess the ESA haven't discovered Google yet! ;D There was clearly less ice in 1973. 1981 had no "old ice" unlike 2007. Nor was there much old ice there in 1998, the truly warmest year. and it (old ice) hardly recovered for the next three years.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 27, 2009 20:00:44 GMT
2009 ice extent is now about the same as 1995 and 2008 at the same calendar date. The last four days have closely tracked the 79-00 Mean minus 0.5 million sq kms. So the thaw looks entirely normal. My expectations are the the 2009 plot will still gain on the mean line over the next month or so. The ice has recovered well from the 2005-2007 periods
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Mar 27, 2009 21:11:18 GMT
So lets see how this will evolve! ;D
|
|