|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 5, 2009 14:07:58 GMT
Kiwi, I am simply eyeballing your enlarged JAXA data, but the gradient of the 2009 increase seams to be greater than all other lines even the dotted line. This sugests we are looking at record sea ice increase rates. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 5, 2009 14:10:21 GMT
kiwi As always thanks for the charts. I can actually read the ones that you produce.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Dec 5, 2009 16:57:04 GMT
Actually nielhamp, the rate of increase may get us to the average '79-'00 ice growth. Pretty sure that it would not be a record.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 5, 2009 17:25:19 GMT
neilhemp writes "This sugests we are looking at record sea ice increase rates. Is that correct?"
What you need to realize is that the extent to which we gain any more ice from now on depends entirely on how cold it gets. What is now freezing is annual ice. Whether we set a record, whether we have more ice that in recent years, etc. depends on how cold it gets in the appropiate places between now and next March. If anyone is psychic enough to make this sort of morecast, then they can tell you whether we are going to set a record or not. Personally, I would not hazard a guess.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 5, 2009 19:11:45 GMT
In general, velocity of ice growth is dependent on three things:
1. The geography - the constraints of the ice - such as moving through the Bering straights. It isn't like the Antarctic, where there is unrestrained growth in all directions.
2. The extraction of energy - Ice freezing generates lots of heat - and this has to be removed or the temperature will rise back towards -4C.
3. How far behind the ice is- Years which have low summer extent grow faster! - they have to play catch up as the cold descends.
Its more about energy than temperature.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Dec 5, 2009 22:36:58 GMT
I think what neilhamp is suggesting (I wish he would clarify this himself), is that the RATE that the ice is growing TODAY is faster than anytime during the SAME period in the past (i.e., a record rate) - not what the final extent will be. Since we are at a time when all the years from 2002 to 2009 show approximately the same ice coverage, the 1 and 3 above do not apply. The short answer, it looks like it must be colder over a wider area, addressing #2.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 6, 2009 6:09:16 GMT
Latest charts Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 6, 2009 21:14:52 GMT
Well ,welll.i tracked down Dr Barber (of the ice breaker jaunt through the Canadian Basin, in Sept, looking for the 'Old Perennial' that the Canadian Ice Service charts had promised him) and it was via that nice Mr Grumbine (who I've had natters with reguarding a couple of humongous crevaces on the Ross ice Shelf, just off Roosevelt island to the east of the shelf) Here's what Bob has to say; moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/12/fake-ice.htmland here's the interview; www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3Sad though I am to admit it you skeptics and your fear of sat data may well be founded.If the 'Faux ice' can fool the Candians then what chance do we have of seeing the reral picture? Maybe we just listen to the NASA guys about the ice thickness (or lack of it) of the new perennial eh?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Dec 6, 2009 21:51:26 GMT
Well, lower flying planes can do a fantastic job of it (since THEIR radar is close enough to get an actual signal thru the ice)...and ironically what the Catlin crew found for "first year ice" was quite thick (2 meter 1st year ice is about as thick as first year ice gets).
I think that a huge percentage of what we're seeing is actually the result of normal cycles. The Earth had been in a cooling mode for 30 years. The ice had been increasing for 30 years. Unfortunately by the time we were able to turn our fancy new equipment on the climate's various systems...it had switched to warming mode. We've been looking through the warming period through a microscope and have no idea what a warming to cooling phase transition looks like or how it happens.
...and this is where Socold's (and others) faith in the models/climatologists is misplaced. Even if we are causing detectable warming, we know very little about how/why and what it would look like relative to normal warming (since we don't even know what normal warming looks like). If someone has fudged the temperature record by just one tenth of a degree verses the last warm period peak, we've had no statistically significant warming since that time. This could ALL be nothing more than a horrible misunderstanding.
The last thing the world needs to do is freak out over HUGE temperature increases when we've only ever seen small increases.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Dec 6, 2009 23:09:42 GMT
Sorry to one and all if I have not made myself clear I was looking at the slope or gradient of each line
Jtom understood me correctly when he said "I think what neilhamp is suggesting (I wish he would clarify this himself), is that the RATE that the ice is growing TODAY is faster than anytime during the SAME period in the past (i.e., a record rate)"
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Dec 7, 2009 0:47:47 GMT
I just listened to the Barber interview. It seems the multiyear ice he was about to study broke up just after he got there. I hate coincidences.
I wonder if the icebreaker he was on provided just enough weakness in the ice for the swell to crack it. Think of a small crack in a car windshield quickly spreading when the car hits a bump. Nothing would have happened without that initial crack. For that matter, considering all the research that man's done - ice breakers, drilling holes and the sort - we might be responsible for the Arctic ice breaking up without having to invoke global warming.
|
|
|
Post by bobdutch on Dec 7, 2009 2:48:34 GMT
Totally agree jtom, I heard that Russia has a huge Ice-Breaker that was taking tourists to the North pole in the middle of summer and wondered what impact this would have on the breakup of the sea ice. I think Ice Breakers should be outlawed if they wamt to preserve the Sea Ice.
|
|
chb
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by chb on Dec 7, 2009 18:11:29 GMT
The Russians have been transporting tourists to north pole since 1989, so they've been ripping the hell out of the arctic for two decades.
and isn't the late 80's when the decline in summer sea ice started?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 7, 2009 23:37:31 GMT
NSIDC admit that the Arctic is growing the FASTEST ON RECORD - though they are quiet about the ice being ahead of mean around Alaska. Ice is in fast catch up mode. ;D
Quote: In November, the average rate of Arctic sea ice growth slightly exceeded the 1979 to 2000 average growth rate for the month. However, at the end of the month, some regions, in particular the Barents Sea and Hudson Bay, still had much less ice cover than normal.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 7, 2009 23:42:15 GMT
Kiwi: This does not surprise me at all. The fast growth of the ice. I didn't know that the El Nino behaves differently after a PDO switch. The affect on the ice, the temps in North America, which seems to be the land mass most sensative to the cooling trend, are about opposite during a negative PDO.
Interesting times.
|
|