|
Post by matt on Sept 25, 2010 22:24:54 GMT
Concur. I imagined a "death spiral" looking rather different. That's because you're looking at extent instead of volume. The ice is getting thinner. The extent won't drop too quickly until suddenly it will fall off a cliff.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 26, 2010 11:47:03 GMT
Concur. I imagined a "death spiral" looking rather different. That's because you're looking at extent instead of volume. The ice is getting thinner. The extent won't drop too quickly until suddenly it will fall off a cliff. lol.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 27, 2010 6:09:20 GMT
Concur. I imagined a "death spiral" looking rather different. That's because you're looking at extent instead of volume. The ice is getting thinner. The extent won't drop too quickly until suddenly it will fall off a cliff. But there's a greater amount of multi-year ice than there was last year and only the young ice (which will ALWAYS return) has melted. That pretty much describes recovery.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Sept 27, 2010 8:52:55 GMT
I think some folk need to re-visit the 'Polar Year' and refresh their memories as to how ice has changes in the last 10 or so years. We can no longer rely on 'ice age' as a measure of strength and durability (or even 'thickness').
We now seem reliant on 'thickness' measures as a guide as to whether this ice will prove durable?
After 07's extreme melt we had a lot of water to re-freeze that winter and some of that ice is now 'coming of age' but does not share the characteristic's of 4th year ice of years gone by.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Sept 27, 2010 12:42:38 GMT
I think some folk need to re-visit the 'Polar Year' and refresh their memories as to how ice has changes in the last 10 or so years. We can no longer rely on 'ice age' as a measure of strength and durability (or even 'thickness'). After 07's extreme melt we had a lot of water to re-freeze that winter and some of that ice is now 'coming of age' but does not share the characteristic's of 4th year ice of years gone by. graywolf, How is it that the ice now 'coming of age' from '07 does not share the characteristics of 4th year ice from years gone by? And how do you know this? I don't understand how recent 4-year ice is somehow different from past 4-year ice. Thanks in advance...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 27, 2010 17:22:16 GMT
How is it that the ice now 'coming of age' from '07 does not share the characteristics of 4th year ice from years gone by? It's like baking. In the past the oven was at 400. Now it's at 350. Ice takes longer to "cook". Water temperatures are higher so the ice doesn't grow and solidify as quickly.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2010 17:35:45 GMT
After 07's extreme melt we had a lot of water to re-freeze that winter and some of that ice is now 'coming of age' but does not share the characteristic's of 4th year ice of years gone by. The ice of years gone by melted. How come the new stuff isn't and is getting thicker? Seems you guys are running out redoubts to evacuate to. After 2007 it was all about ice thickness but that didn't work out now it is about another substance that must freeze at one temperature and melt at another. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 28, 2010 3:18:36 GMT
I'd like graywolf and matt to tell us when the North Atlantic will return to the cool phase cycle. matt, graywolf? It's discussed in countless research articles. Perhaps you haven't heard about the AMO? NAO? AMOC? Do they exist or have they been canceled out by CO2? Also, why aren't you predisposed to support your arguments with evidence? Sorry to burst your bubble, but comparing Arctic research to Easy Bake ovens doesn't quite cut the mustard. I found the following recent work quite interesting. How about you? Big Oil Financed Climate ResearchRecent observations suggest that the eastern Arctic Ocean is in transition towards a cooler state. What does that mean? And what does it mean when the North Pacific is cooling?
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 28, 2010 3:41:08 GMT
How is it that the ice now 'coming of age' from '07 does not share the characteristics of 4th year ice from years gone by? It's like baking. In the past the oven was at 400. Now it's at 350. Ice takes longer to "cook". Water temperatures are higher so the ice doesn't grow and solidify as quickly. Maybe you can clarify this? It sure sounds like you are implying water is changing its physics.
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Sept 28, 2010 19:29:50 GMT
I have a question
For all the peeps talking about the arctic ice breaking up, can someone explain what the cause/effect of all the icebreakers in the ocean be?
Im really curious if that is taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by robertski on Sept 28, 2010 20:13:45 GMT
The ice thinning is all estimated via models, the pips2 shows that actually the ice volume is thicker this year then 2008. stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/is-the-ice-getting-thicker/#comment-1364US Navy PIPS2 maps show that the area of Arctic ice greater than 2 metres thick has increased by about 50% since the same date in 2008. The blink comparator below removes all ice reported as less than two metres thick.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 29, 2010 2:13:36 GMT
I have a question For all the peeps talking about the arctic ice breaking up, can someone explain what the cause/effect of all the icebreakers in the ocean be? Im really curious if that is taken into account. Given the volume of the arctic sea, the affect of ice breaking ships is not significant.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 29, 2010 2:22:18 GMT
The ice thinning is all estimated via models, the pips2 shows that actually the ice volume is thicker this year then 2008. stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/is-the-ice-getting-thicker/#comment-1364US Navy PIPS2 maps show that the area of Arctic ice greater than 2 metres thick has increased by about 50% since the same date in 2008. The blink comparator below removes all ice reported as less than two metres thick. robertski If you investigate the history of the PIPS2 algorithm you will find that it is quite venerable. It is not clear how this model corresponds with actual observations, and how useful it has been. If any forum members have some some related data, that would be helpful. PIPS3 is supposed to be on the way. US Navy, 2003 www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 29, 2010 10:55:55 GMT
I have a question For all the peeps talking about the arctic ice breaking up, can someone explain what the cause/effect of all the icebreakers in the ocean be? Im really curious if that is taken into account. Given the volume of the arctic sea, the affect of ice breaking ships is not significant. That is an opinion and not a fact. Arctic sea ice is analogous to an enormous crocheted beanie stretched over the top of the world. Cutting a few hundred pieces of yarn here and there may very well have an important effect, particularly in light of the lateral forces always trying to drag the ice back down into warmer water.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 29, 2010 11:34:02 GMT
Given the volume of the arctic sea, the affect of ice breaking ships is not significant. That is an opinion and not a fact. Arctic sea ice is analogous to an enormous crocheted beanie stretched over the top of the world. Cutting a few hundred pieces of yarn here and there may very well have an important effect, particularly in light of the lateral forces always trying to drag the ice back down into warmer water. One would have thought if people really believed that loss of Arctic ice was a substantial climatological problem for the entire world, that icebreakers would be banned. It certainly is not the behavior one would expect in a threatened eco system. One can only assume that no-one really thinks this is the case as every 'environmentally conscious' mission to the Arctic seems to be made with attendant ice breakers smashing up the ice. Although, I suppose that the intent could be concerted attempts to hasten its demise. This would make commercial sense for the number of interests that want a North West Passage or access to mineral deposits; and the 'greens' want to be able to say 'we told you so' you can see that from the 'cheering on' that low extents get on this board.
|
|