|
Post by woodstove on Sept 6, 2009 1:08:02 GMT
Is it my imagination or has the warmers' attendence been slipping lately? They out sunning themselves while there's still some to get? Hi Pidgey! Looks like the winning number will be 4.75-5.25, better known as 5. That's in the Warming Square and below the long-term trend of 5.6. It will be interesting to see how thickness turns out. Will this be a third record minimum volume in a row? In any case, the volume will be below the long-term trend, which means the prognosis is now worse. Here's a nice article that discusses the 50 year trend in arctic sea ice. They used declassified submarine data to create a thickness record from 1958-2008. www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29103Good, then it's agreed, the recovery continues.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 6, 2009 3:17:17 GMT
I suspect the pixel counters for JAXA are based in Alaska and therefore are on vacation until after the US holiday. Looking for a Tuesday evening revival.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 6, 2009 14:26:54 GMT
50 year record? "Analysis of the new record shows that since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent." There they go again! If the peak was in 1980 and the record goes back 22 years further aren't they again guilty of absorbing natural oscillation into their alarmist BS? They go on: '"It's an astonishing number," Kwok said. The study, published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time." Appears since the last PDO flop!
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 6, 2009 16:35:05 GMT
Back in the 1970's it was well known that the ice was gaining in the northern hemisphere since the 1950's which is why people like Stephen Sneider considered another little ice age was possible. It seems safe to conclude the submarine record supports the idea the ice got thicker and then it got thinner. Meanwhile the current cold spell is continuing in the arctic.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2009 18:27:34 GMT
Good, then it's agreed, the recovery continues. Not even close. This year is BELOW the long term trend. This means that there is no recovery in extent. The all-important thickness numbers aren't in yet either, and they will likely continue their plunge. You're being silly.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 6, 2009 18:33:38 GMT
Good, then it's agreed, the recovery continues. Not even close. This year is BELOW the long term trend. This means that there is no recovery in extent. The all-important thickness numbers aren't in yet either, and they will likely continue their plunge. You're being silly. Silly? If the satellite era had begun in 1945 and now were 1977 and Arctic sea ice was shown to be increasing steadily in thickness, you would almost certainly have been among the Schneider-led alarmists telling us that a manmade ice age was nigh. Taking the arbitrary 1979 start date of the satellite era to be significant to planet Earth is a form of silliness that some would call intellectual dishonesty. In 2007, Gore anticipated an ice-free Arctic by 2013. The clock is ticking....
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 6, 2009 19:45:12 GMT
This year is BELOW the long term trend. This means that there is no recovery in extent. The all-important thickness numbers aren't in yet either, and they will likely continue their plunge. You're being silly. Just to remind you that unless you want to be silly 30 years is not a long term trend. Anyway useable satellite data go back around 44 years as i showed earlier in the thread: www.cmos.ca/IceHistory.pdfIce Central first received the TIROS satellite images in the 1960s. The low resolution power of these early sensors limited their usefulness to showing presence of ice, general ice edge/limit when ice was very diffuse, indications of general concentration within the pack area, In 1961 you could analyse ice in the St lawrence river area www.photolib.noaa.gov/bigs/spac0089.jpg Which shows sea ice analysis in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with a 'dramatic change in one week' And by 1965 there were polar satellites orbiting Devon Island September 16th 1965 www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/spac0145.htmAnd what we learn from the definative review of the research available in 1988 www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Jean-Grove/dp/0415014492was that northern hemisphere ice was growing from the 50's to 1973. And that ship based extent observation records were reliably kept all thru the last 120 years or so including all thru ww2.
|
|
|
Post by jeroen on Sept 7, 2009 0:00:12 GMT
Its just a waste of your time talking to agw people. If the arctic is going to expand again in the nearby future and maybe the antartic is going to decrease( who knows ) then they will be putting a magnifing loop above the antartic and wil predict massive sea level rise becaue there is more ice on the land in the antartic so the rise will be much bigger and more catastroffic.
Mark my words they will always find something to spook us.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 7, 2009 0:19:53 GMT
Taking the arbitrary 1979 start date of the satellite era to be significant to planet Earth is a form of silliness that some would call intellectual dishonesty. Indeed. The parallel here for educated people doing this are witch doctors throwing a bit of gunpowder into the campfire to keep the peons in awe. Its nothing but trickery.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 7, 2009 1:13:02 GMT
Let's not forget the Antarctic: The following image is a composite of the NOAA image to end of August and the image from the UIUC arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arcweb.natice.noaa.gov/ICEWEB2/Default.aspxThe NOAA image may be at a different projection, but the ice edge aligns perfectly on the right hand side of the image, and for a portion at the top. Looks like a record ice extent for Antarctica to me. (The UIUC image is a week after the NOAA image, but at this time of the year, the ice is essentially at its peak maximum and there is little change a week either side.)
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Sept 7, 2009 3:14:04 GMT
They're baaaack. IAARC/JAXA's 0300Z interim update shows Sept 5th still 25,000 km^2 above the 2005 min. The final number for the day is available just after 1400Z.
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 7, 2009 9:17:30 GMT
Looks to me like its ready to flatline and then start to freeze.
Could be an interesting couple of weeks ....
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 7, 2009 10:07:22 GMT
Looks to me like its ready to flatline and then start to freeze. Could be an interesting couple of weeks .... Though the ice (that Jaxa can't "see") could keep melting, so a flat line doesn't mean that the freeze has started, just that Jaxa are playing catch up. Don't confuse the charts & the data with reality - they are a long way different.
|
|
|
Post by Purinoli on Sept 7, 2009 12:33:50 GMT
Though the ice (that Jaxa can't "see") could keep melting, so a flat line doesn't mean that the freeze has started, just that Jaxa are playing catch up.
Don't confuse the charts & the data with reality - they are a long way different.[/quote][/i]
But at least very early snow in our mountains is very real. I can see it driving to my lab he he. It is very premature and very close to Adriatic sea, part of Mediterainan ( less than 100 km North of it).
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Sept 7, 2009 12:55:33 GMT
|
|