|
Post by ron on Aug 17, 2009 19:56:53 GMT
We live in interesting times. A quarter of a million sq kilometers more ice today than a year ago, and closing in on a million sq kilometers more ice now than in 2007. 8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625 source: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csvWhat will the extent be in the next month or so? This is the point last year where the unusually steep and sustained decline began. Will the arctic hold onto it's ice cover? Or not? How does the leap year figure into this? Are we a day later into the season this year, or a day earlier? All things being equal, would the melt continue for 1 more day or 1 less day? Fortunately the 2007 minimum now looks like a freak event caused by odd weather. Sea ice minimum is about 10% higher this year I hear without such odd weather and during a colder year. arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ice.area.at.minimum.new.pngLooks like everything is back to normal in the arctic then. Now now, no need to be sarcastic. You know it will take a while to recover. Last cold period was the 2nd highest extent recently, but it was all new ice which didn't hang around very long. Let's see what the next cold period brings! We live in interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Aug 17, 2009 21:58:52 GMT
Well, there's technically a difference between an actual melt and the ice floes getting compacted or spread out by way of prevailing winds.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 17, 2009 23:03:32 GMT
8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625
Oh dear, it still looks as though it's a bit below the long term trend and the minimum will probably end up at least 1 million sq km below the long term average.
|
|
|
Post by LakeEffectKing on Aug 17, 2009 23:58:45 GMT
8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625Oh dear, it still looks as though it's a bit below the long term trend and the minimum will probably end up at least 1 million sq km below the long term average. But if a recovery were to take place from an anomously low 2007 and start the falsification process of AGW "ice free" doom, then this is EXACTLY how it would unfold.... If you were looking to "be skeptical" and have your belief disspelled, you certainly wouldn't expect 10 year ice to show up in 2 years....would you???
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Aug 18, 2009 0:00:27 GMT
Oh dear, it looks like there is a LOT more ice there!!! I have overlaid Jaxa image with the Alaskan data, (The Jaxa is a day behind the Alaskan image from Monday. To do this yourself, (those with fireworks or similar) set the Alsakan white to transparent. Enlarge JAxa image by 475% & rotate 10.5degrees will line up quite well The difference is mainly due to the radar reflection from "old ice" being different from new ice. The Old ice has a different density, and it appears to be what the Jaxa radar is calibrated to. The recovered, one year ice appears to have a low extent even when it is 90%. The issue is understandable, as we haven't been in a recovering ice mode in the history of AMSR-E(which started in 2002) Unfortunately, politics seems to be halting re-calibration! The ICE IS BACK!!! The old/new ice breakdown can be seen here: ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56SD/20090810180000_WIS56SD_0004516725.gif
|
|
|
Post by ron on Aug 18, 2009 6:24:59 GMT
8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625Oh dear, it still looks as though it's a bit below the long term trend and the minimum will probably end up at least 1 million sq km below the long term average. [glow=red,2,300] Now now, no need to be sarcastic. You know it will take a while to recover. Last cold period was the 2nd highest extent recently, but it was all new ice which didn't hang around very long. Let's see what the next cold period brings! We live in interesting times. [/glow] I'm having a hard time differentiating between you and socold. DON'T make me talk to you like a school marm.
|
|
|
Post by robertski on Aug 18, 2009 8:15:28 GMT
8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625Oh dear, it still looks as though it's a bit below the long term trend and the minimum will probably end up at least 1 million sq km below the long term average. So a recovering trend then. Despite Hot Air Global Warming, from the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice is still there unlike other times in its past when it did melt.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 18, 2009 8:47:57 GMT
8 16 2007 5,241,406 -919,219 8 16 2008 5,909,688 -250,937 8 16 2009 6,160,625Oh dear, it still looks as though it's a bit below the long term trend and the minimum will probably end up at least 1 million sq km below the long term average. Strange how 'since 1979' becomes a 'long term trend'. I had this idea that in climatology the trend over a couple of centuries would make a little more sense - and a lot of the data is available. But then I suppose there would be little to try and score points about.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 18, 2009 9:01:22 GMT
So a recovering trend then. Despite Hot Air Global Warming, from the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice is still there unlike other times in its past when it did melt.
Although I was being slightly 'tongue-in-cheek' in the earlier post, the general point is still valid. The long term trend is still down. 2007 was an exceptional year but the unusually heavy ice loss was due to specific meteorological conditions. The 2007 (and 2008) minimum would still have been low but nowhere near as low as they actually were. The fact that 2009 will probably end up with more ice than 2008 is encouraging, but just as weather conditions were largely responsible for the huge ice loss in 2007, weather conditions have been helped the 'recovery' in 2009 . There is still variability.
It's a bit like the El Nino temperature spike in 1998. That was 2+ sigma increase above the trend. That was not likely to be repeated for some time.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 18, 2009 9:31:12 GMT
glc you are correct if this is simply a fluctuation from a long term trend of reducing sea ice we are still in trouble. As you correctly point out if this in fact is a discontinuity in that trend and in fact a proper reversal we will have to wait some years to see, lets hope for our own sakes. I will begin to feel comfortable once the solar cycle lifts in activity and temperature continues to trend down. 2 more years of sea ice growth at a minimum 20 years would be great.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 18, 2009 11:21:05 GMT
glc you are correct if this is simply a fluctuation from a long term trend of reducing sea ice we are still in trouble. As you correctly point out if this in fact is a discontinuity in that trend and in fact a proper reversal we will have to wait some years to see, lets hope for our own sakes. I will begin to feel comfortable once the solar cycle lifts in activity and temperature continues to trend down. 2 more years of sea ice growth at a minimum 20 years would be great. Why such an alarming tone? Europeans are still not ready to recolonise Greenland and live as people did in the medieval ages . If it warms it will be annoying for people who like Winter snow and ice in places like Finland but what actually is the big deal, most of Canada Finland and the UK are very sparsely populated up north . Anyway so far even the sea ice in Hudson lake has not melted, none of which is anywhere near the arctic circle. ;D More or less world sea ice levels are the same as they were in 1980.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 18, 2009 12:59:27 GMT
Why such an alarming tone?
Exactly the question. But alarmism and hype have become world wide spectator sports. Notice how our very own socold is now moved on, trying to (very poorly) deconstruct Rutan. He is hooked on alarmism. We will soon see socold, or another true believer, posting about how *Antarctica* is now on its way to run away melting.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 18, 2009 13:14:27 GMT
Why such an alarming tone? Exactly the question. But alarmism and hype have become world wide spectator sports. Notice how our very own socold is now moved on, trying to (very poorly) deconstruct Rutan. He is hooked on alarmism. We will soon see socold, or another true believer, posting about how *Antarctica* is now on its way to run away melting. It has to be Greenland, not Antarctica. Antarctica is just too far south to ever have any widespread melt with the current climate scenerio. There really is a lot of alarmism over nothing. The rise in temps is not showing to be any different than cycles in the past. In fact, it may even be slower. We need a warmer climate to support mankind. IT is that plain and simple. A colder climate would cause mass starvation. And we all know that when peoples stomacks are empty that they do stranger things than believe in AGW.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 18, 2009 13:32:50 GMT
Lovely cold day at N84 W01 today Camera lens seems to have ice crystals on it.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 18, 2009 14:57:42 GMT
So a recovering trend then. Despite Hot Air Global Warming, from the Alarmists, the Arctic Ice is still there unlike other times in its past when it did melt.Although I was being slightly 'tongue-in-cheek' in the earlier post, the general point is still valid. The long term trend is still down. 2007 was an exceptional year but the unusually heavy ice loss was due to specific meteorological conditions. The 2007 (and 2008) minimum would still have been low but nowhere near as low as they actually were. The fact that 2009 will probably end up with more ice than 2008 is encouraging, but just as weather conditions were largely responsible for the huge ice loss in 2007, weather conditions have been helped the 'recovery' in 2009 . There is still variability. It's a bit like the El Nino temperature spike in 1998. That was 2+ sigma increase above the trend. That was not likely to be repeated for some time. The long-term trend is not down. We know from the Vikings' colonization of Greenland from 1000 to 1350 and the dozens of papers noting high latitude warming during this period that the Modern Warm Period is not unprecedented in the Arctic. During the past 100 years, Arctic temperature rose by more than 1.6 degrees from 1920 to 1940 and then fell equally drastically from 1940 to the mid-1970s. During this latter period, sea ice increased (go figure). Hilariously enough, the satellite record of sea ice started in 1979, when multi-year ice was great, and ocean heat content was low. Your "long-term trend" is an artifact of the COMPLETE COINCIDENCE of the satellite-era start date. If the satellite era began, instead, in 1941, the "long-term trend" would be seen for what it is: a sinusoidal curve, likely pegged to the PDO (among other things). Those who fixate on 2007 as a year of climate infamy, a dead canary in a coal mine, are obligated by principles of intellectual consistency to deal with the Antarctic sea ice maximum of that year.
|
|