# Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule



## david dissadent (Aug 18, 2007)

This week the arctic ice sheet has reached its lowest ever recorded ice coverage. Since it broke that record it has lost another whopping 11% in total ice surface area. Now at this time of the year it does retreat fast, this is high summer but 11% in a week is staggering. It has about a month of seasonal melting left so having already broken the record it looks well set to smash it.

The reasons being given by the climatologists who specialise in this area are that it is due to a high pressure over Siberia drawing in unusualy warm air and the current ice sheet being so increadibly thin.

To try to really hammer home how bad it is, the IPCC report (the really big UN report on climate change released this year) had the assumption we'd be seeing this amount of ice melt in 2050. Two important points, firstly the ice will regrow as winter returns. It always does, but it will regrow much thinner and with less area than in the past. Also there is no guarentee we will see this much ice melt for a while again as conditions again change, but many now believe positive feedbacks have kicked in.

What this means is that the current conditions favour increasing ice melt and heat retention in the arctic. White ice reflects alot more heat than the seas natural dark green, and water retains a great deal of heat energy (hence coastal regions are much warmer in winters [not in the UK where they are exposed to arctic winds but in most of the rest of the world]). This means that far far more energy is entering (and being retained) by the arctic ecosystem, meaning less ice will be able to grow again over winter and so the melt will start earlier and run quicker than usual. These are the dreaded feedback loops that have enviromentalists in stiches of fear.

The other realy dangerous situation is if this ice melt leads to the tundra in Siberia and Canada to start melting and releasing guargantuan amounts of methane. This will again re-inforce global warming.


1979 September







Last week






Friday 17th of August 2007





Here are a couple of the better scientific web sites dealing with the arctic climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://www.weatherunderground.com/blog/Jef...p;tstamp=200708


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 18, 2007)

This is taken from the Illinois uni web site. The green line is the 3 monthly average for summer, the one with the long trend of dissapearing that has had its record smashed a month early.










A blogger, Khehab, put together this epelepsy inducing gif compairing last year to this years ice extent on 13th of august.







"Daddy what was a polar bear?"


----------



## electric.avenue (Aug 19, 2007)

Pretty shocking stuff.


----------



## RhymnRzn (Aug 19, 2007)

at my brothers house i caught eye of this program on t.v. by national geographic called "dangerous jobs", and this episode the reporter was taggin along with all these one track minded guys, after their gains, as they were running their tractor trailers trucking mineral resources in north canada, making a big deal of nothing (evironmental wha?) but the fact that the hazard of one of these trucks falling through the ice sheet they were trecking upon, and how dangerous it is to do this task.  i thought, surely there is an extremely negative effect upon the climate in all this activity, but no conscience of this sort seemed to be mentioned.


----------



## RhymnRzn (Aug 19, 2007)

oh, it's the history channel.........

http://www.history.com/minisites/iceroadtruckers


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 20, 2007)

Please someone be angy at this. Should this not be on the front page, we are watching huge enviromental changes in DAYS.


----------



## Gavin Bl (Aug 20, 2007)

I hear ya dave, but sadly I just don't think people are that interested yet - don't even start to think about what happens when the land-borne ice shelves start to give......


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 20, 2007)

http://hurricane.accuweather.com/hu...=accuweather&traveler=0&basin=world&type=anom

the arctic sea is now 5 degrees warmer in places.


----------



## UTJF (Aug 22, 2007)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> I hear ya dave, but sadly I just don't think people are that interested yet - don't even start to think about what happens when the land-borne ice shelves start to give......



Yep, the majority of people wont give a shit until they notice it's affecting them personally.  By which time it will be way too late to do anything about it.


----------



## Aldebaran (Aug 22, 2007)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> I hear ya dave, but sadly I just don't think people are that interested yet - don't even start to think about what happens when the land-borne ice shelves start to give......




In my idea the main problem is just that: People can't imagine it happening and even if they do, can't imagine how to prevent it. 
The only remedy can come from a drastic change in common reasoning and behaviour patterns. That should be innitiated the moment a child gains awareness of the world around him.  

salaam.


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 25, 2007)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
On the 22nd of August update there is a .mov file that shows this years arctic ice. If you have an interest its an awesome bit of a file.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 6, 2007)

*Heavier than expected Arctic ice blocks British solo sailor*



> A BRITISH yachtsman attempting the first solo Arctic sea passage across northern Russia was examining his options after *heavier than expected ice* blocked his route...
> 
> Adrian Flanagan is discussing with Russian authorities the possibility of using a nuclear-powered icebreaker to lift his boat out of the water and carry it round the most icebound stretch of Russia's Northern Sea Route.
> ...
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22359472-5005961,00.html


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 6, 2007)

You really don't understand this do you bigfish, if the ice is in the, normally navigable, channel then it's not part of the ice cap. Your own link shoots you in the foot.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 7, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22359472-5005961,00.html


Your point being?.......


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 7, 2007)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2164776,00.html

Greenland is starting to accelerate in its melting. This is wide open to interperatation as to how quickly it can melt. But however quick or slow, it has begun.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 7, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> Your point being?.......



That heavier than expected ice in the Vilkitsky Strait region doesn't seem to jibe that well with the idea that the North polar ice cap is disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule or with the fact there hasn't been any global warming since 1998. If indeed the Arctic region really was becoming warmer, then the Arctic tree-line would be displacing Northward, as it did during the Medieval Warm Period (80 kilometers further North than it is today).

Incidentally, the Southern hemisphere is experiencing one of its coldest winters on record (snow in Buenos Aires for the first time in 80 years) and sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 7, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> That heavier than expected ice in the Vilkitsky Strait region doesn't seem to jibe that well with the idea that the North polar ice cap is disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule or with the fact there hasn't been any global warming since 1998. If indeed the Arctic region really was becoming warmer, then the Arctic tree-line would be displacing Northward, as it did during the Medieval Warm Period (80 kilometers further North than it is today).
> 
> Incidentally, the Southern hemisphere is experiencing one of its coldest winters on record (snow in Buenos Aires for the first time in 80 years) and sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is increasing.


Sorry one yauchtsman story about finding some ice somewhere in the Arctic vs satalite data displaying the total amount of melt in the Arctic..... has it even occured to you that ice floats and gets pushed around by the wind so can easily end up in unexpected places. I have posted satalite imaging and subsiquent data, you tell me of a stuck sailor.

Ill see you your first snow in Buenos Aires with no snow in downtown Tokyo for the first time in 130 years....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113939/

Now back to data. Do you openly deny there has been a massive melt in the Arctic this year?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 8, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> That heavier than expected ice in the Vilkitsky Strait region doesn't seem to jibe that well with the idea that the North polar ice cap is disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule or with the fact there hasn't been any global warming since 1998. If indeed the Arctic region really was becoming warmer, then the Arctic tree-line would be displacing Northward, as it did during the Medieval Warm Period (80 kilometers further North than it is today).


You really are thick as two short planks aren't you?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 8, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> Greenland is starting to accelerate in its melting. This is wide open to interperatation as to how quickly it can melt. But however quick or slow, *it has begun*.



Petr Chylek, of Dalhousie University, Canada, summarized Greenland’s climate history recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:_“Although the last decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland.”_ Chylek, P., et al., 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.





*Summer (June, July, August) average temperature at Angmagssalik, Greenland 
(data obtained from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/).*​


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 9, 2007)

Again what is your point, that the melting does not exist? Or that the melting is not due to the increase in temperature in Southern Greenland???








You have insinuated that the satalite data lies about the extent of ice cap melting based on a single report from a single yacht. Now you post data about southern Greenland surface temperatures. Your arguments veer all over the place.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 17, 2007)

The BBC lie machine in action:



> The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since *records began* [records began only 30 years ago. bf], the European Space Agency (Esa) says.
> 
> Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year.
> 
> ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm

But the lie machine reported the NW passage open in 2000



> A Canadian police patrol boat has completed a voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage without encountering any pack ice.
> ....
> The Canadian patrol boat the St Roch II - renamed after an earlier Canadian expedition in 1944 - made the journey in nine weeks, less than half the time expected.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/918448.stm

Here's a report of another vessel navigating the NW passage successfully in 1977



> Several yachts have gone through the Northwest Passage in recent years, perhaps made easier of late by the Arctic ice melt. But the first to do so - in 1977 - was the 18-ton, 13-meter ketch Williwaw, designed for Willy de Roos by Louis Van de Wiele.



http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/deridder/dragon54.html

A 47 ft aluminium yacht, Northabout, captained by Jarlath Cunnane, completed the journey in 2005.

Earlier attempts also succeeded

1903-6 Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen

1940 Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen

1957 the United States Coast Guard cutter Storis 

http://www.arctictony.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=51


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

> Several yachts have gone through the Northwest Passage in recent years, perhaps made easier of late by the Arctic ice melt. But the first to do so - in 1977 - was the 18-ton, 13-meter ketch Williwaw, designed for Willy de Roos by Louis Van de Wiele.



Doesn't look all that ice-free to me:






The caption to the above picture reads: "Williwaw's hull being squeezed upward by the pressure of the ice, revealing the reinforced bow and bobstay guard. (Photo from Le Passage du Nord-Ouest.)"

That's from the link provided in the post above:

http://www.setsail.com/s_logs/deridder/dragon54.html


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Earlier attempts also succeeded
> 
> 1903-6 Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen



Amundsen spent most of the voyage stuck in the ice. Hence 1903-6.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> 1957 the United States Coast Guard cutter Storis



You mean the _icebreaker_ Storis?



> The ’57 Storis crew encountered polar bears, *attempted to blast ice with TNT (which didn’t work)* and, at one point, rescued a Coast Guard helicopter pilot whose aircraft crashed into the icy sea shortly after takeoff.



Again, it doesn't seem like it was what you'd call ice-free. From here:

http://www.storisbramblespar.org/decommissioningofstoris.html


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> 1940 Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen



Ah, Henry Larsen of the St Roch:




			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> World War II provided Larsen an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of his hero and compatriot. In 1940 the St Roch was sent on a mission to travel from the Western Arctic to the Eastern Arctic. The St. Roch completed the West to East voyage in 1942, taking 28 months to do so. *For most of these 28 months the St Roch was frozen in.*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Larsen


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> A 47 ft aluminium yacht, Northabout, captained by Jarlath Cunnane, completed the journey in 2005.



From their own account of the voyage:



> The first two days went grand, through Coronation Gulf, Dolphin and Union Straight, passing all the names from the pages of exploration history. Then in Amundson Gulf we met the ice, more or less where the current ice-charts had predicted. Progress slowed as we banged and shimmied through it. We can now get through about 5/10, depending on the ice type. Ice comes in various forms, old hard hummocked multi-year or softish(ish ) 1 year , small floes easily broken or pushed, or big immovable ones. 5/10 ice would give the impression that there is 50% water showing and 50% ice-and there is-on average. But it's not evenly spread. In the 5/10 or even 4/10 there can be denser bands, and these are the problem. Frank stands on the mast spreaders spotting leads, Kevin and Mike wield our long ice-pole, the off-watch try to sleep ( fat chance with the banging and changing engine-revs ).



http://www.northabout.com/nwp/ProgRep10.htm

Getting better - getting warmer! - but not exactly ice-free.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

So to recap, Amundsen, Larsen, and the Williwaw defintely got stuck in the ice. The icebreaker Storis seems to have run into some sort of ice-related bother, prompting use of TNT; and the Northabout encountered a mix of 50% water, 50% ice.

That leaves a further voyage, that of the Roch II, and I hate to leave a job unfinished. You're a silly old sausage bigfish, as is so often the case, for thoughtlessly regurgitating the above examples without bothering to find out more about them, but in the case of the Roch II there are mitigating circumstances.

The BBC report does indeed state: "A Canadian police patrol boat [the Roch II] has completed a voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage without encountering any pack ice."

But a look at photos of the voyage on this website . . .

http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/VE0NWP/MainPage.htm

. . . shows pictures of the ship making its way through what is described as 'pack ice'. Not enough to require the services of the Roch II's accompanying icebreaker 'Simon Fraser' perhaps, but there does seem to be quite a lot of it bobbing around in the last picture on that page.

If we were to arrange all those examples in a time series, one might well get the impression that navigation through the Northwest Passage has become progressively easier over the last 100-odd years.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 17, 2007)

Sure, all of the vessels encountered problems along the way, but is it any different today? has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems, do you know?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

I've no idea whether anyone has navigated the Northwest Passage with ease this year or not. But it does seem easier than in Amundsen's day. I watched a telly program about his voyage a few weeks ago, and it came across as a horrific ordeal, nothing like what the Northabout encountered in 2005. Also, I wonder what counts as 'ice-free' from the satellite's point of view. Is it the absence of solid pack ice? How does the Northabout's 50/50 mix of water and lumps of ice show up?

Edited to add: the last picture on the website about the Roch II in 2000 shows the accompaning icebreaker 'Simon Fraser' forging ahead (you can tell by the colour of the hull), so perhaps it was clearing the way for the Roch II at that point. If so, this would imply that the BBC's summary of the voyage was inaccurate in that regard. The Roch II may have found the going easy most of the way, but the icebreaker still came in handy.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 17, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> I've no idea whether anyone has navigated the Northwest Passage with ease this year or not.



The report from the lie machine states that the passage is *"fully navigable"* for the first time in 30 years. However, no one appears to have made the journey to confirm that it really is. Weird that, don't you think?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The report from the lie machine states that the passage is *"fully navigable"* for the first time in 30 years. However, no one appears to have made the journey to confirm that it really is. Weird that, don't you think?



If we provide you with a rowing boat and a puffa jacket, would you go and check it out for us. Please.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The report from the lie machine states that the passage is *"fully navigable"* for the first time in 30 years. However, no one appears to have made the journey to confirm that it really is. Weird that, don't you think?



Considering none of your examples supported your argument, and on closer examination overturned it, talk of 'lie machines' is perhaps a little rich.

A degree of humility from you in the face of a series of easily-checked and basic errors would be more appropriate.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

The 'fully navigable' claim comes from the Danish National Space Center - the BBC have merely reported their press release:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/remote-sensing/northwest-passage-opens-up

Would you say that the Danish National Space Center is a 'lie machine'? You do recall the DNSC is also home to the researchers who conducted the experiment on cosmic rays and cloud formation which you were enthusiastic about.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 17, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> Considering none of your examples supported your argument, and on closer examination overturned it, talk of 'lie machines' is perhaps a little rich.



Can you show the forum a single example supporting the lie machine (and presumably your own) argument that the passage is "fully navigable" for the first time "since records began"?

Any idea why Greenwarfare hasn't dispatched a couple of its vessels to the region to maximize its "manmade global warming" propaganda?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 17, 2007)

Are you really claiming that the Danish National Space Center is a 'lie machine'?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 17, 2007)

> Sailing the so-called Northwest Passage is not so unusual a feat as it once was, but it is still a rarity. Cruise ships have accomplished it only three times -- in 1984, 1985 and 1988.
> 
> --New York Times



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9E0CE7D8113BF933A25756C0A964958260


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9E0CE7D8113BF933A25756C0A964958260


erm would those cruise ships have possibly been early versions of this one?

The HANSEATIC, a cruise liner / ice breaker all in one designed to be able to steam through pack ice?



> The vessel’s special construction to the highest ice class rating (E4) means that the 5-star expedition ship can
> plough through the Arctic ice independently.



Just because a few specially constructed Ice Breaker style boats have got through in the past doesn't mean the passage was 'fully navigable' IMO


----------



## bigfish (Sep 18, 2007)

*Guardian's climate hype called "misleading and alarmist"*




			
				david dissadent said:
			
		

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2164776,00.html
> 
> Greenland is starting to accelerate in its melting. This is wide open to interperatation as to how quickly it can melt. But however quick or slow, it has begun.



Here's another interpretation from a climatologist/seismologist working precisely in the area mentioned in the report.



> Your article (Melting icecap triggering earthquakes, September 8) is misleading and alarmist. As a climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic activity in the Jakobshavn glacier basin - precisely the area your reporter mentions - I know that local earthquakes (or glacial quakes) are actually fairly common in the area and have been for a long time.
> 
> I also know that *there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes "are happening far faster than ever anticipated" in the region*, as Dr Corell of the global change programme at Washington's Heinz Centre is quoted as saying.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/13/climatechange.comment

Note: "Melting icecap triggering earthquakes", September 8, is a rehash of the report, published in the Guardian the day before, cited by david above.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 18, 2007)

dash_two: The most comprehensive destruction of anyone's arguement i've seen in quite a while.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2007)

goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> If we provide you with a rowing boat and a puffa jacket, would you go and check it out for us. Please.


I'd be happy to chip in a few quid for the boat, and have a spare puffa jacket I could donate... tis a worthy cause


----------



## bigfish (Sep 18, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to chip in a few quid for the boat, and have a spare puffa jacket I could donate... tis a worthy cause



I love the way you cabal types set about turning things inside out in order to support your fallacious arguments. I know, instead of chipping in a few quid for a boat, why don't you chip in a few examples of vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage with sea-ice apparantly at its lowest extent this year "since records began"?


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Here's another interpretation from a climatologist/seismologist working precisely in the area mentioned in the report.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Glacial earthquakes in Greenland have been monitored for decades using the global seismic network, and although their number has increased over the last five to six years - likely due to Arctic warming -


.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

Everything that does not agree with you is a "lie machine" not a valid difference of opinion.

Speaks volumes for your mind. You already know the answers and only ever see evidence that confrims what you know. Such lack of doubt must make you a very contented person, unlike me, who has to fudge through a world in which every week contradicotry evidence to many of my basic assumptions comes through requiring lots of thought research and analysis.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> Everything that does not agree with you is a "lie machine" not a valid difference of opinion.



it was the BBC I was referring to as a lie machine, david, and not "everything" as you rather disingenuously put it. With an annual budget of more than £3.5 billion, one could be forgiven for thinking that the BBC might  have checked its very own website at least before repeating the claim of a NW passage "fully navigable" for the first time "since records began" - especially as we have not received any reports of vessels successfully making the journey this year, no?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> I love the way you cabal types set about turning things inside out in order to support your fallacious arguments. I know, instead of chipping in a few quid for a boat, why don't you chip in a few examples of vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage with sea-ice apparantly at its lowest extent this year "since records began"?


cabal types?

interesting choice of phrase there Bigfish, yet another demonstration of the weird upside down version of the world you have in your head.



> Cabals are sometimes secret organizations composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. Its usage carries strong connotations of *shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence;* a cabal is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish.


I'd say cabal would be better used to describe you and your exxon funded cronies wouldn't you?

as for you question, well if you'd bothered to read the link in my earlier post, you'd have noticed that the link I'd posted fairly clearly stated that the HANSEATIC had made precisely that trip between 15 August - 9th September this year.

not that it proves anything about whether of not the passage was fully navigable or not being as that cruise liner's designed to break through pack ice, same as the one would have been in the early 80's that you were on about.

what point was it you were trying to make again?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2007)

His point is that unless you can paddle a rubber dinghy through the northwest passage, then the ice has not been melting at all.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 19, 2007)

Ah, the problems of assigning a micrometeorological phenomena a macrometeorological significance...


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> His point is that unless you can paddle a rubber dinghy through the northwest passage, then the ice has not been melting at all.


aha - well that's an easy one, I've got a rubber dinghy & puffa jacket knocking around which I'll be happy to loan to bigfish any time he fancies an attempt on the north west passage.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 19, 2007)




----------



## dash_two (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> I love the way you cabal types set about turning things inside out in order to support your fallacious arguments. I know, instead of chipping in a few quid for a boat, why don't you chip in a few examples of vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage with sea-ice apparantly at its lowest extent this year "since records began"?



But why should anyone pander to your paranoia? The world doesn't revolve around you.

You are asking us to choose between your word, and that of the Danish National Space Center.

That's not a hard choice to make.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> cabal types?
> 
> interesting choice of phrase there Bigfish, yet another demonstration of the weird upside down version of the world you have in your head.
> 
> ...





> (CNSNews.com) - The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" ... publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation [the Heinz center. bf] headed by Kerry's wife. ... Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.
> 
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200603\POL20060323a.html



It's clear that NASA's James Hansen trousered a cool $250,000 "grant" from the Heinz foundation for his services to leading political figures in the Democrat party. It's also worth noting that Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, who features so prominently in david's link in his post No 15, ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...164776,00.html ) is also on the Heinz payroll.

ROBERT W. CORELL JOINS THE HEINZ CENTER AS GLOBAL CHANGE DIRECTOR
http://www.heinzctr.org/news_archive/corell_joins_center.shtml


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> .





> Glacial earthquakes in Greenland have been monitored for decades using the global seismic network, and although their number has increased over the last five to six years - likely due to Arctic warming -



Greenland’s ice is not in danger of disappearing. In fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade.

*Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland*
(Johannesen et al., 2005). 



> A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. *Averaged over the study area, the increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or 60 cm over 11 years, or 54 cm* when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Greenland’s ice is not in danger of disappearing. In fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade.
> 
> *Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland*
> (Johannesen et al., 2005).
> ...


and yet others disagree.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ot&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT



> How much meltwater the Greenland Ice Sheet may be contributing to global sea-level rise depends on the mass balance between the interior of the ice sheet and its margins. The present understanding is that the interior is gaining mass but the margins are eroding even more rapidly. Rignot and Kanagaratnam (p. 986; see the Perspective by Dowdeswell) present an ice velocity map of the entire Greenland Ice Sheet and estimate the rate of ice discharge around its entire margin. A comparison of their results to past data shows that there has been a widespread acceleration of ice flow since 1996, that mass loss has doubled in that time, and that ice dynamics, which are particularly dependent on warming, dominate the rapid retreat of Greenland's glaciers.


Everything you see proves what you already know.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> it was the BBC I was referring to as a lie machine,


True. You dont call everything that disagrees with you a lie machine. You have a long list of disparaging prejorative terms to heap upon anything that does not agree with you.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> True. You dont call everything that disagrees with you a lie machine. You have a long list of disparaging prejorative terms to heap upon anything that does not agree with you.



I must say that's a bit rich coming a member of a cabal promoting manmade climate catastrophe for whom ad hominem is usually the first resort taken against anyone who doesn't immediately snap into line and join the church.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> I must say that's a bit rich coming a member of a cabal promoting manmade climate catastrophe for whom ad hominem is usually the first resort taken against anyone who doesn't immediately snap into line and join the church.


Complaining about ad hominem with ad hominem....

I am open to persuation. I am actualy very keen to be persuaded, I just find your arguments unpersuasive.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> and yet others disagree.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ot&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT



So no consensus then?


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> So no consensus then?


There is no total consensus on evolution or relativity. 

However there is enouggh of a general consensus on them and anthromorphic global warming to make them the dominant paradigm.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> ... there is enouggh of a general consensus on ... anthromorphic global warming to make [it] the dominant paradigm.



Nonsense!

120 specialists from 11 countries who attended the International Climate Seminar meeting at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden September 11-12th 2006 appeared to be in wide agreement that _*"there is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis,"*_ and that _*"there is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the “Mann hockey-stick curve” are by now totally discredited."*_ 


http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/

See also "Consensus? What Consensus"

_It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”.* The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.*_

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...limate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Nonsense!
> 
> 120 specialists from 11 countries who attended the International Climate Seminar meeting at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden September 11-12th 2006 appeared to be in wide agreement that _*"there is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis,"*_ and that _*"there is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the “Mann hockey-stick curve” are by now totally discredited."*_
> 
> ...


If I post links to well atended intellegent design confrences will you give up on evolution?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 19, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> If I post links to well atended intellegent design confrences will you give up on evolution?



david, I have no idea what you are blathering about above, but I do know that your statement that there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming, is false.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 19, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> david, I have no idea what you are blathering about above, but I do know that your statement that there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming, is false.


You have posted the fact that people can orginise a conference of people who challange the idea of anthromorphic climate change as proof there is no consensus. I am pointing out that other rock solid scientific ideas also has conferences with a couple of hundred people attending them. The fact there is some debate does not prove there is no general consensus. 

Its a general pattern of you cherry picking evidence that backs up what you believe. Anecdotes about ships (that were pretty well blown out of the water) to disporve the hard data posted here that there has been a major collapse on the ice coverage in the arctic ocean.

Hell you have posted a paper confirming what many people expected that at high altitudes there would be an increase of ice coverage as it is to high for the ice to melt and perticipation is increasing...... yet, and ignore that the very paper you post partly confirms that at altitudes low enough there is significant ice melt. 



So has there been a significant drop in ice coverage over the arctic ocean this year, yea or nay?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 20, 2007)

Stop moaning about cabals here, bigfish. 

You crave attention and the feeling of being a genius among uncomprehending pygmies - the _big fish_ in the small pond - and you get those by pushing contrarian viewpoints.

I bet you've backed other off-the-wall positions before global warming came into your sights, and in due course you'll move onto some other lonely crusade.


----------



## kerplunk (Sep 20, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Sure, all of the vessels encountered problems along the way, but is it any different today? has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems, do you know?



Here ya go (sorry it's from the lie machine)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6999078.stm



> Mr Semotiuk, who has now signed off for the winter, told the BBC News website that a third boat this season - a lightweight catamaran crewed by a French and Belgian team - had just successfully navigated the full length of the 5,150km (3,200-mile) waterway.
> 
> This is the first time the journey has been completed entirely by sail, says Mr Semotiuk. Not so long ago, he says this journey would have been impossible because of the ice.





> Roger Swanson, a 76-year-old pig farmer turned yachtsman from Minnesota, completed the journey last week after just 45 days.
> 
> Speaking to journalists, he described the journey as smooth sailing.
> 
> "There was hardly any ice," Mr Swanson told the Wall Street Journal.






> A father-and-son British team also completed the journey this year.
> 
> "One of the British sailors, James Allison, said he felt a bit of a fraud after completing the trip because there wasn't any ice," said Mr Semotiuk.
> 
> "He's correct to the point that there really wasn't any challenge, so to speak, other than the cold."


----------



## bigfish (Sep 20, 2007)

kerplunk said:
			
		

> Here ya go (sorry it's from the lie machine)
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6999078.stm



Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html


----------



## bigfish (Sep 20, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> You have posted the fact that people can orginise a conference of people who challange the idea of anthromorphic climate change as proof there is no consensus. I am pointing out that other rock solid scientific ideas also has conferences with a couple of hundred people attending them. The fact there is some debate does not prove there is no general consensus. Its a general pattern of you cherry picking evidence that backs up what you believe.



I posted two links up. One to the findings of an 120 person international seminar on climate at a reputable Swedish scientific institute last year that you've "cherry picked" to respond to here, and a second to a paper, "Consensus? What Consensus?, by Christopher Monkton, that pretty much drives a coach and horses through your statement that _there is enough of a general consensus on anthropomorphic global warming_, and which you have studiously ignored. 

A question for you, david - Can you provide the forum with any concrete evidence - such as a survey of scientific opinion, for example - that is capable of supporting your otherwise vacuous assertion of a "general consensus" on AGW?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 20, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".
> 
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html



as usual with your links, things aren't quite as you portray them... none of those four cases having anything to do with BBC news, one being about the naming of the blue peter cat, the others being "the Tom Robinson Show and the Clare McDonnell Show on BBC 6 Music, and Film Cafe on the BBC Asian Network."

are you seriously trying to say that these 4 incidents mean the BBC must be lying in the news report that was linked to, which clearly answers your question... 'has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems?'

Nope, you're just sending out a load of chaffe as per usual.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 21, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> I bet you've backed other off-the-wall positions before global warming came into your sights, and in due course you'll move onto some other lonely crusade.



He's second only to Jazzz in his off-the-wallness.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 21, 2007)

> And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions.



Yes, these would be about telephone phone in polls, not newsgathering. Not really comparing like with like, whether the decision that 'socks' was a more appropriate name than 'cookie' for a kitten with whether or not people are sailing the NW passage...


----------



## bigfish (Sep 21, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> as usual with your links, things aren't quite as you portray them... none of those four cases having anything to do with BBC news....



I'm deeply moved by your stoic defense of Auntie, but you're confounding the symptoms with the disease itself. 

Snorenight anchor, Jeremy Paxman, stated in a recent Guardian interview that when it comes to global warming the BBC *"abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago"*. Astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn, who produces long range weather forecasts that are generally far more accurate than those produced by the UK Met Office, and at a fraction of the cost, holds a similar view to my own. He describes the BBC as *"a Global warming hysteria brainwashing machine,"* adding that "it is totally unacceptable that their web site now carries floods of carefully prepared Global Warming pseudo-science." He notes further that "the BBC and certain newspapers ... are the chief propagators of *a state sponsored faith system* based more on science fiction than science fact which like those under various totalitarian regimes changes the meaning of words in order to deceive the public. *The ‘Global warmers’ replaced the term ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’ because there isn’t global warming anymore and the phrase ‘climate change’ means they can claim any extreme weather event which happens naturally as evidence of their barmy theory.*" 




> are you seriously trying to say that these 4 incidents mean the BBC must be lying in the news report that was linked to, which clearly answers your question... 'has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems?'



The BBC lies - of that you may be certain. However, that does not mean the BBC lies all of the time or that it is lying now in this particular instance about some vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage. In any event, low sea ice this year at the North Pole cannot be blamed on "anthropogenic global warming" simply because this year sea ice at the South Pole grew considerably and was accompanied by record low temperatures throughout the Southern hemisphere. Ergo, no global warming.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> Nope, you're just sending out a load of chaffe as per usual.



You know what interests me?

Who "bigfish" is flacking for, and why.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 21, 2007)

FWIW, my impression is that BF just processes text, without understanding it.  Very wierd. 

But, _cuo bono_? Adding to the confusion generally benefits the already established:  I guess that's why the chaos merchants are so annoying.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 22, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The BBC lies - of that you may be certain. However, that does not mean the BBC lies all of the time or that it is lying now in this particular instance about some vessels having successfully navigated the NW passage.



Backtracking.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 22, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> In any event, low sea ice this year at the North Pole cannot be blamed on "anthropogenic global warming" simply because this year sea ice at the South Pole grew considerably and was accompanied by record low temperatures throughout the Southern hemisphere. Ergo, no global warming.



BBC News >>> There's a drought in Africa...

Bigfish looks out of the window, see's it's raining concludes the BBC must be lying


----------



## dash_two (Sep 22, 2007)

Bigfish gets some of his stories off 'Greenie Watch', which is run by an Australian called John Ray. Ray also helped set up a site called 'Majority Rights', which is very interested in such issues as 'ethnic genetic interests' and how thick Africans are supposed to be. Nice company to keep.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2007)

Important question.

Why the fuck would anyone want to lie about a catastrophe of the proportions of that suggested by the concept of climate change? I mean - where's the real dollar gain there. It's not like 'TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DON'T TAKE AWAY YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, TERRORISTS HATE CIVIL LIBERTIES - IF WE TAKE THEM AWAY THINGS WILL BE BETTER'.

I mean, honestly.

'THE ICE IS ALL FUCKING MELTING, LIKE - SERIOUSLY. IT'S ALL FUCKING GOING. WE HAVE TO...ER....SEND $500 DOLLARS TO THIS ADDRESS AND WE'LL MAKE SOME MORE ICE...ER....YEAH.....YEAH. $500.'


----------



## mauvais (Sep 22, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Important question.
> 
> Why the fuck would anyone want to lie about a catastrophe of the proportions of that suggested by the concept of climate change? I mean - where's the real dollar gain there. It's not like 'TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOU IF WE DON'T TAKE AWAY YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES, TERRORISTS HATE CIVIL LIBERTIES - IF WE TAKE THEM AWAY THINGS WILL BE BETTER'.
> 
> ...


DEAR MISTER BALBISAUR,

IT IS WITH GREAT TIDINGS AND ALSO SOME MODERATE GLADNESS AND ALSO A PEN THAT I AM WRITING TO YOU ON THIS GLORIOUS DAY. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A GREATLY TRUSTOWTHYR MAN IN YOUR COUNTRY. I PERSONALY THOUGHT YOU WERE BEST ON THE GENERATION GAME BEFROE THAT TWAT DAVIDSON.

SO I GUESS I HAVE A BUSINSEE DEAL JUST FOR YOU. AS YOU KNOW ALL THE POLAR ICE IS MELTING GLOBAL WARMING AN TING, AND THIS HAS PRESENTED US WITH AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY. YOU SEE MY UNCLE WAS A VEY RICH MAN CALLED CAPAPTAIN BIRDSAYE AND WHEN HE DIED HE BURIED ALL HIS WONGA AT THE NORTH POLE JUST FOR A LAUGH REALLY. FUCK YOU UNCLE B.

NOW ANYWAY IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SEND ME ONLY SEVERNTY THOSAND OF YOUR POUNDS I WILL USE THEM TO BUY A COAT AND SOME GLOVES AND MAYBE EVEN A HAT MADE OF ACTUAL BADGER. AND THEN WE CAN GO THERE AND SHARE IN HIS WEALTH TOGETHER LIKE A PAIR OF GREEDY FROSTBITTEN GAYS.

TA VERY MUCH LOVE,

DR UKELELE, FLAT 1, NIGERIA

PS DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIEMACHINE. I AM SUPER TRUTHSOME RIGHT!


----------



## Balbi (Sep 22, 2007)

Have you been taking grammar lessons from bigfish?


----------



## rich! (Sep 22, 2007)

More on the ice caps:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm

Record lows.

People who funded the research:
http://nsidc.org/about/sponsors.html


----------



## bigfish (Sep 24, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> More on the ice caps:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm




That's more like it from the lie machine.

Headline: *Ice withdrawal 'shatters record' *

Nowhere does in the report mention that the "record" is *ONLY 28 years long*. 

The report breathlessly tells us that if what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is projected _"on a global scale"_ i.e. if what's happening in the NH was to happen simultaneously in the Southern hemisphere, then _"the Earth would lose a major reflective surface and so absorb more solar energy, potentially accelerating climatic change across the world."_

However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction. It's been an especially harsh winter in the SH with new low temperature and snow records set in Africa, Australia and South America. Sea ice area at the South pole is close to surpassing its previous historic maximum and was even reported to have done so at one point.

According to NASA/GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957.


----------



## Signal 11 (Sep 24, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The report breathlessly tells us that if what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is projected "on a global scale" i.e. if what's happening in the NH was to happen simultaneously in the Southern hemisphere


The phrase "on a global scale" as used in the article is referring to the *effect* of the loss of arctic ice. You are the one who is fraudulently trying to bring the antarctic into it, as if the ice loss in the arctic would have no effect unless it also happened in the antarctic.



			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction.


It doesn't omit to mention it. It states quite clearly that...



			
				bbc said:
			
		

> In contrast to the Arctic, the extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has come close this year to breaking its satellite-monitored record for maximum area of 16.03 million sq km.


----------



## kerplunk (Sep 24, 2007)

And the article clearly states they are SATELLITE measurements so you'd have to be some kind of desperate spin-merchant to make something out of the fact that the article fails to mention 1979 as the start date. 

And the shattered artic sea ice extent record definitely ISN'T matched in the opposite direction by the antarctic.


Bigfish shoots at the BBC 'lie machine' and scores in his own net again.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 24, 2007)

kerplunk said:
			
		

> And the article clearly states they are SATELLITE measurements so you'd have to be some kind of desperate spin-merchant to make something out of the fact that the article fails to mention 1979 as the start date.



The fact remains the record is *ONLY 28 years long*.

How far did sea ice retreat during the MWP do you think when Vikings farmed on the West coast of Greenland and the Arctic tree-line was 80 kilometers further North than it is today? How far did sea ice retreat during the Holocene Climate Optimum when the tree-line was 400 kilometers further North than it is today? What happened to the polar bears?

Any idea?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 24, 2007)

*Climate Corrections*

By Syun-Ichi Akasofu



> ...
> In understanding the present warming trend, it is absolutely essential to learn more about climate change in the distant past -- or at least during the last 1,000 years. But many scientists, particularly younger ones, prefer to work only with data collected after 1975, when satellite data became available. *With only 30 years worth of data, their results are little more than climatological snapshots of what is really a slow, long-term process.* The latest accurate satellite images of sea ice distribution in the Arctic Ocean today can be obtained by clicking on a computer screen; *but it is impossible to obtain such quality data for periods before 1975*.
> 
> It is for this reason that only a minority of scientists are studying natural climate change, including multi-decadal oscillations and centurial climate change, which is the true realm of climatology. These areas have not been priorities for the IPCC.
> ...


_*
*_
Subscription required: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118954539363624201.html


----------



## Balbi (Sep 24, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The fact remains the record is *ONLY 28 years long*.



That's the fault of that lazy bastard Goddard


----------



## kerplunk (Sep 24, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> The fact remains the record is *ONLY 28 years long*.



Sure but also the _fact_ is that you diverted the thread to divert away from your earlier factual bollox and now your 'lie machine' diversion  has also been shown to be bollox  



> How far did sea ice retreat during the MWP do you think when Vikings farmed on the West coast of Greenland and the Arctic tree-line was 80 kilometers further North than it is today? How far did sea ice retreat during the Holocene Climate Optimum when the tree-line was 400 kilometers further North than it is today? What happened to the polar bears?
> 
> Any idea?



If all else fails drag up the medieval denialists period...


----------



## dash_two (Sep 25, 2007)

It's a good idea not to trust the BBC - Bigfish's Bullshit on Climate.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 25, 2007)

For example, he claims:




			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> However, the lie machine omits to mention that as records "shatter" in the NH, in the Southern Hemisphere they've been shattering in the opposite direction. It's been an especially harsh winter in the SH with new low temperature and snow records set in Africa, Australia and South America. Sea ice area at the South pole is close to surpassing its previous historic maximum and was even reported to have done so at one point.



One would guess the sea ice area at the South Pole to be precisely zero, as it resides roughly in the middle of a certain land mass known as Antarctica.

Also, there is a conflation of 'Southern Hemisphere' with 'South Pole', reinforced later by a cut 'n' paste of a graph showing winter temperatures from the South Pole. But why only the winter temperatures? And why only the South Pole, when there are several weather stations in Antarctica?

Unsurprisingly, a more complex pattern emerges when one looks at the temperature trends presented by the British Antarctic Survey from 18 different stations. Some stations do indeed show a cooling trend over the last few decades, including the one at the South Pole. But others show a warming trend, notably around the Antarctic Peninsula, and still others show no appreciable difference.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/climate/surfacetemps/

A graphical summary of 'Annual and seasonal temperature trends around Antarctica for 1951-2006' is shown in this PDF file (annual mean temperature changes are the left-most column in each station's little bar chart):

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/trends2006.col.pdf


----------



## bigfish (Sep 26, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2164776,00.html
> 
> Greenland is starting to accelerate in its melting. This is wide open to interperatation as to how quickly it can melt. But however quick or slow, it has begun.




Here's another interpretation of how quickly Greenland ice can melt, by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion.



> Professor Mörner has published a booklet entitled _*"The Greatest Lie Ever Told,"*_ to refute claims of catastrophic sea level rise. "When we were coming out of the last ice age, huge ice sheets were melting rapidly and the sea level rose at an average of 1 metre per century. If the Greenland ice sheet stated to melt at the same rate - which is unlikely - sea level would rise by less than 100 mm - 4 inches per century. So the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen."
> 
> The booklet refers to observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.



http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0708/S00012.htm


----------



## longdog (Sep 26, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Interesting, kerplunk. And coming on the day the BBC admitted to 4 more instances of viewer deceptions. In the wake of this, the BBC, apparently, has implemented a policy of "zero tolerance" on viewer/listener/reader deception. Perhaps this helps explain why the report refrains from laying blame for ice shrinkage in the Arctic on "manmade global warming".
> 
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070920/tuk-fresh-viewer-deception-by-bbc-45dbed5_2.html




You're a fucking fruitcake.

What the fuck are you dribbling on about?

Because the BBC rigged a poll to name a kitteh on a kid's program they must be lying if they report something that you don't like?

I think the mercury in your fillings has stopped your tinfoil hat working


----------



## longdog (Sep 26, 2007)

No offence Big Fish but are you on any medication?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 27, 2007)

longdog said:
			
		

> [deleted gratuitous ad hominem] Because the BBC rigged a poll ... on a kid's program they must be lying if they report something that you don't like?



You don't think the poll rigging and all the other stuff might be symptomatic of a deeper malaise then?


----------



## bigfish (Sep 27, 2007)

longdog said:
			
		

> No offence Big Fish but are you on any medication?



No, but I do read the papers. Also, I can still vividly recall the waves of propaganda carpet bombing unleashed by the BBC lie machine at the time of the illegal invasion of Iraq by America and Britain. What about you?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 27, 2007)

But the news story about the diminishing Arctic ice didn't originate with the BBC. It came from the Danish National Space Center, based on their research.

So, are you saying that the Danish National Space Center is a lie machine?


----------



## dash_two (Sep 27, 2007)

Continuing the Scandinavian theme:




			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> Here's another interpretation of how quickly Greenland ice can melt, by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion.



Would that happen to be a certain very elderly Swedish gentleman who believes he can identify different substances by dowsing?




			
				James Randi said:
			
		

> I've described here previously how a pompous-assed "dowsing expert" named Nils-Axel Morner, associate professor of geology from Stockholm University, has consistently refused to be tested for the Pigasus Prize. [. . .] I found that Morner was tested -- amateurishly -- on a prominent Swedish TV show, "The Plain & Simple Truth," on TV2 on February 27th. Morner was first provided the opportunity to brag about anecdotal successes, then he was tested. A local celebrity -- a singer -- was involved, as is usual with these drearily predictable affairs.
> 
> The singer chose one of ten cups under which to conceal a packet of sugar. He chose number seven; are we surprised? Morner had designed this test, saying that it was especially difficult for him to do. (???) He said that water or
> metal could be located "right away," but not sugar. Morner blathered on about "interference" and mumbled about "influences" and "might be here" and the usual alibis, then chose number eight. Wrong. But, said Morner, it was "in the right sector!" But no cigar.



http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html


----------



## kerplunk (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Here's another interpretation of how quickly Greenland ice can melt, by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0708/S00012.htm



I'm not sure this is even contentious - looks in-line with IPCC projections for greenland contribution to sea level rise to me. See the table half way down the wiki page on sea level rise

also see the discussion page there for more on Mörner.

Incidentally IIRC the rate of temp increase after the last glacial period was +0.1C per century (compared to +0.6C for the 20th century and even bigger rises projected for the 21st). Not really sure of the relevence of that to Morners comparison but just thought I'd mention it!


----------



## dash_two (Sep 27, 2007)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You know what interests me?
> 
> Who "bigfish" is flacking for, and why.



Bigfish isn't flacking for anyone, IMO, although it may look like it at times. His positions on subjects such as global warming, peak oil, overpopulation and so on are clearly interlinked and rest on the belief that the underlying principle of the universe is a benign one of continual expansion and ever-greater abundance.

Capitalist society, in his view, tries to suppress knowledge of these truths and engineer artificial scarcities in order to maintain control over the population.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2007)

Not sure where the solid, electric sun fits into it all. IMO, he's just a contrarian.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 27, 2007)

dash_two said:
			
		

> But the news story about the diminishing Arctic ice didn't originate with the BBC. It came from the Danish National Space Center, based on their research.
> 
> So, are you saying that the Danish National Space Center is a lie machine?



No, I'm saying that the BBC is the British ruling establishment's very own lie machine and that it always has been since its very inception. The stuff about rigging polls on Blue Peter, etc., etc., is just the tip of the iceberg - just look at the hysterical doom laden tosh about impending climate catastrophe it spews out on its website or on its nightly sermons live from the White City sewage works.


----------



## dash_two (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that the BBC is the British ruling establishment's very own lie machine and that it always has been since its very inception. The stuff about rigging polls on Blue Peter, etc., etc., is just the tip of the iceberg - just look at the hysterical doom laden tosh about impending climate catastrophe it spews out on its website or on its nightly sermons live from the White City sewage works.



Look on the bright side: at least you don't have to pay the licence pay where you live.


----------



## longdog (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> You don't think the poll rigging and all the other stuff might be symptomatic of a deeper malaise then?




Do you have any evidence *whatsoever* that there is a connection between rigged votes and BBC News coverage?

It's no good you obsessively calling the BBC News a 'lie machine' without some sort of evidence. 

What are we to believe All? Some? None of their coverage? (and keep in mind BBC News has given wide coverage to the phone vote scandals). Or should we just ignore coverage on your say so?

Did you take that picture by the way? Are you compiling a dossier that will save the world?


----------



## longdog (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

>



Ah, the Daily Mail report on a rigged vote on Blue Peter. You must be right about climate change then.


----------



## stdPikachu (Sep 27, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> IMO, he's just a contrarian.



Not a piece of performance art?


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Not sure where the solid, electric sun fits into it all. IMO, he's just a contrarian.



But a busy one - cutting and pasting from his own posts on other boards...

Urban generally runs a couple of hours after the others


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 27, 2007)

Well, science is a bit of an all-or-nothing thing, given the requirement for internal consistency. BigFish is aiming for the nothing end of the spectrum with the holographic, electric sunned sci-fi stuff.

Good material for a novel, but you wouldn't wanna base your chip fab on it.


----------



## bigfish (Sep 27, 2007)

Any of you guys at the BBC?


----------



## Balbi (Sep 27, 2007)

Yes, i'm Huw Edwards.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 27, 2007)

You can't be, I'm Huw Edwards.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 27, 2007)

No, I am definitely The Real Huw Edwards 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ten/2655339.stm


----------



## longdog (Sep 27, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Any of you guys at the BBC?



Do I detect a slight hint of paranoia?

I know I didn't put it very well before but I really think you need to get some help. Your seeing a 'lie machine' everywhere you look is starting to appear somewhat pathological.

Conspiracy theorising is one thing but I fear you have gone several steps over the line in to illness.

Get some help mate, seriously, you need it.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 28, 2007)

National Snow and Ice Data Centre reports sea ice extent at all time low.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html


----------



## citydreams (Sep 28, 2007)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> National Snow and Ice Data Centre reports sea ice extent at all time low.
> 
> http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html



from the above link:


----------



## longdog (Sep 29, 2007)




----------



## kerplunk (Oct 2, 2007)

'nother graph..






...er so that's quite spectacular then. 

Apparently the winter re-freeze has begun so I guess all eyes will be on how well it recovers in the coming months.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 3, 2007)

kerplunk said:
			
		

> 'nother graph..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


where's that graph from?

does look pretty severe from that graph.


----------



## kerplunk (Oct 3, 2007)

free spirit said:
			
		

> where's that graph from?
> 
> does look pretty severe from that graph.



From this blog 

Follow the link there to the NSIDC site if you want to check it but I wouldn't expect any discepancys for such a simple plot of area stats from someone who does guest posts on Real Climate.

eta graph from the NSIDC site






link


----------



## laptop (Oct 3, 2007)

kerplunk said:
			
		

>



Oh shit


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 3, 2007)

huh, facts.  you prove ANYTHING with facts.


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 7, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Oh shit



oh noes.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 7, 2007)




----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Petr Chylek, of Dalhousie University, Canada, summarized Greenland’s climate history recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:_“Although the last decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland.”_ Chylek, P., et al., 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.




I have just been reading this thread for the first time so my response is alittle late - obviously Bigfish is pushing a particular agenda. It's not one I agree with, but yadda yadda. However I would want to take issue with his use of the Chylek findings on technical grounds, and hope this might also be of interest to others interested in this subject.

The specific finding that raised eyebrows was that temperatures measured on Greenland weather stations over up to 100 years (Chylek et al - who published this first in 2004 - did not actually record this data themselves they analysed existing data) showed that temperatures at those stations had been significantly higher during the 1920s than during more recent decades. Interesting, given that even the most fossil-fuel addicted observers have just about all conceded that global temperatures are rising. But what Chylek et al also found was that there was a very strong correlation between annual temperatures recorded at these weather stations and the flow of the North Atlantic Oscilation (for statistics fans, r = -0.84/-0.93, that's very strong indeed). Now whilst repeating always the statisticians mantra that "correlation does not equal causation" this looks as if there are high local variations in temperature in the region and that these are related to/caused by the location of the NAO's flow in any given year.

Chylek says "This rapid warming at a time when the change in anthropogenic [ie manmade] production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate"

So Chylek also went and made measurements at Danmarkshavn on the NE coast of Greenland which is unaffected by the NAO and whaddayaknow? he found warming of temperatures which was 2.2 times greater than the global average.


What this tells us is that the NAO is looking like a good candidate for being a critical process in deciding whether or when the Greenland ice sheets melt. What it most certainly does NOT do is tell us that actually global warming is a myth or that the Greenland Ice Sheet won't suddenly "go". In fact - by suggesting that whether or not the GIS goes is down to another very rapidly changing process (i.e the NAO) it seems possible that IF it goes it could go bloody fast rather than in the drip drip drip style of your traditional glacier melt.

In other words Chylek's results tend to confirm rather than disconfirm the AGW thesis.


----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2007)

bigfish said:
			
		

> Astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn, who produces long range weather forecasts that are generally far more accurate than those produced by the UK Met Office, and at a fraction of the cost, holds a similar view to my own. He describes the BBC as *"a Global warming hysteria brainwashing machine,"* adding that "it is totally unacceptable that their web site now carries floods of carefully prepared Global Warming pseudo-science." He notes further that "the BBC and certain newspapers ... are the chief propagators of *a state sponsored faith system* based more on science fiction than science fact which like those under various totalitarian regimes changes the meaning of words in order to deceive the public.  "



Would this be the same Piers Corbyn who wrote a letter to the Guardian on July 27 this year (shortly after the massive rain storms in Gloucester and the north which caused such severe flooding) that predicted "major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain" in the weeks 5-9 August and 18-23 August?

Neither of which weeks of storms came to pass?

Also the same Piers Corbyn who runs a private weather forecasting company that is effectively a commercial rival to the BBC?


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 9, 2007)

The refreeze in the arctic has begun.

What is perhaps the most exceptional feature of that graphic is to note that the anomoly is very close to being at its furthest largest of the year inspite of the growth, at -2. All we can do now is sit back and watch for the next 6 months to determine whether what we are seeing is a positive feedback or just an anolomy due to freak weather conditions.  A totaly uneducated guess puts it at 75% feedback 25% chance of only being a recoverable anolomy.

I believe watching this ice regrowth and next years melt will be the most imortant 12 months in terms of the enviroment in human history, or at least in industrial history (OK I will concede the Toba VE 8 eruption to be more important.) In economic terms the coming "sub prime" resession/ depression and the possible dollar collapse will be a massive event but I dont think it will be all that remarkable when set against other historic economic crisis like WWI, the great depression and the black death. It wont be on that kind of scale, but if a possitive feedback of the scale witnessed this year has set in on the Arctic then I think it even dwarfs peak oil. I will accept that the freak high pressure system is very unlikely to be repeated so we wont see another drop of 1 million square kilometers of ice next year (we all hope to god not, there are only 4 million of them left at the minimum next year), but if the melt brings us back to the same basic amount of ice, then we can almost certainly kiss goodbye to an ice cap in summer inside of ten years. 

What this means is difficult to fully gather but we have already seen sea temperatures reach a staggering 7C above normal over large areas and hover at 3.5C warmer of areas of water in the order of a million square kilometers. This is in addition to atmospheric temperitures jumping by up to 15C on average in places with 22C being recorded inside the arctic cirlce in Canada at one point.

If this trend is repeated with any regularity the remainder of the ice sheet will thin to the point where mechanical wave energy will break it up and wind currents will drive it out of the arctic meaning it does not even need to be melted.

Temperature increases in the order of 7C from the arcitc (god I cannot think of 15C, really really cant.) will see the Greenland ice sheet start to collapse at a measurable rate, but before Reading in central England becomes a port we will see massive alterations in the jet stream and all kinds of changes in rain fall variability. There is no real prediciting what that kind of change inside of a decade will mean but our current foodstocks are very low and demandis butting up against supply, actually currently exceeding it. We are starving now, just getting through the stored fat reserves. Through in massive permenant droughts over the great grainaries of the world and so on and its really will be a global food emergency.

Beyond that though as mentioned the pace of the Greenland melt, and the addition of almost unbelievable amounts of additional energy (sunlight being absorbed instead of reflected) to the nothern hemisphere (the surface area of the arctic ocean being warmed by an extra 3.5C on average a year: and that is a very low estimate))  to the nothern hemisphere ecosystem and climate will create unpresidented and unforseeable problems. If lower gas bills in winter.

Hyperbole is rarely justified, it does a diservice to all who are trying to bring some kind of rationality to the world in terms of its energy use and ecological impact. It cries wolf.

Loosing 20% of the arctic ice in one year is difficult to absorb and explain without sounding like hyperbole. 

If,

If


If this is the result of a positive feedback mechanism


its time to push the panic button. But too late to do anything about it


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 9, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> If this is the result of a positive feedback mechanism
> 
> 
> its time to push the panic button. But too late to do anything about it


Float lots of shiney silver foil in the arctic ocean.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 14, 2007)




----------



## WouldBe (Oct 14, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

>


So the IPCC's models are out by miles then.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 14, 2007)

Yes they have been long known to be conservative and often leave out feedback mechanisms that are not well understood.


----------



## rich! (Oct 14, 2007)

If I understand that graph correctly, the *extremes* of the *worst-case* IPCC model have already been passed?


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 14, 2007)

rich! said:
			
		

> If I understand that graph correctly, the *extremes* of the *worst-case* IPCC model have already been passed?


The trend currently exceeds them, but then again that is what the title of the thread says as well. This is just another neat graphical illustration of the fact.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 14, 2007)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> This is just another neat graphical illustration of the fact....


... that the IPCC don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## laptop (Oct 14, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> ... that the IPCC don't know what they are talking about.



Nope - it shows that the governmental influence on the IPCC report, much-vaunted by climate change deniers who claim it led to exaggeration of the threat, actually operated consistently to *minimise* the threat it described. 

On this, on the risk of glaciers slipping and sliding faster as they warm... and on, I predict, much else.

Even the worst-case IPCC scenario is conservative compared to what the world is actually doing, I fear.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 14, 2007)

The IPCC does an honest job, but it requires a broad consensus so tends to err on the conservative side. But no one I have read off really predicted this years fall in ice sheet coverage. It was largely caused by a persistant high pressure area over nothern Siberia that lasted months. Given those months featured 24 hour sunlight, the fact the high pressure both brought in warm air from the south and kept the air relatively cloud free with round the clock sun gave a huge boost too temperatures in the area, I guess this kind of condition has happened before but for many years now there have been warnings of thinning ice, especialy from studies done on data collected by nuclear submarines. The thinner ice meant it took far less energy to melt the floating ice, which uncovered dark sea water which absorbed more of the 24 hour sunlight.

It was a statistical blip that tip over a runnaway melt. Some parts of the Canadian arctic measured average temperature increases of 15C. It has really taken almost everyone by suprise including voices outside of the IPCC who were saying it was too conservative.

The other bugger is Greenland. The IPCC is estimating its melt based on a model of a solid, unmoving blob of ice with the global average temperature increase around it. This is not what is happening. Firstly the ice moves and has showen signs of glaciers speeding up ever so slightly. Second is the nature of how large ice sheets melt. They are not big block of ice, but geographical features, and as ice melts it froms moulins and rivers. Moulins are in effect glacier ponds/ lakes. But they really affect the speed of melting. They are pools of melted water, water absorbes and retains heat much easier than ice, so they are far warmer than the same body had it remained ice. They melt ice in 3 dimensions not just the two of the surface, and the burrow down into the ice sheet. On grounded mountain glaciers they are regulalry observed to burrow down to the surface underneath the glacier and act as a lubricant to glaciel flow.

The other agent mentioned is rivers. As water melts if forms rivers on glaciers. These rivers, streams errode ice by both heat and mechanical action, is in rock only much faster. These feedbacks are immensly hard to model so are left out of the IPCC models for Greenlands melting as is the fact that the arctic will be disproportionately warmer than the rest of the world. Already capable of hitting 15C warmer in spates while the world creeks up to 0.6C warmer. 

Ice sheets can collapse spectacularly. We know this as the during the 500 years of the meltwater pulse 1A near the end of the Pleistocene the sea level rose 25 meters. Given the current trends in the Arctic we may see an entire degree of magnitude quicker melting in Greenland than is currently hypothisied by the IPCC.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 17, 2007)

The antaritic has been having a really odd year as well. It just about broke the record for the furthest extent recorded in terms of ice area. Through most of the year it has remained pretty close to the average ice extent then in September near the seasonal maximum it put on a fair old spurt to grow 1million sq km beyond the average to break the record of recorded sea ice coverage by 0.14 million sq km. But now the melt season has begun in the south as well. It is already almost back to the exact spot where it should be for this time of year going by the 27 year average, loosing the extra 1km sq km above average to come back to average. For those sad enough to follow enviromental stories closely this seasons melt will be interesting as it lost the extra ice rather quickly and it will be intersting to see if it stablises over the next month/s and the average holds if it carries on with the quicker than average melt.






On the whole though the floating ice in the Antartic seems to be less of an influence on climate than that in the arctic. The bulk of the ice in the polar region when measured by surface area is the giantic East Antartic Ice Sheet. This is not going to melt in anything like any time soon, so the potential for albedo feedback is on a much lower scale than for the Arctic which is on a few tens of meters thick floating ice on the whole. It is obviously a huge long term problem when it melts but it will melt in an order of magnitude slower than Greenland. Talking about the Antarctic is refreshingly comforting. Back to climate change as a problem measured in decades and centuaries.....

E2A Increase in moisture in the atmosphere also mean that (at the minute) the increase of melting on this continent is balanced or even exceeded by additional snow.....


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 24, 2007)

An FYI for those interested the anolomy from the mean hit  3 million square kilometers today.

Despite starting from several hundred miles further north than usual the refreeze is progressing much slower than usual and the discrepancy between current ice coverage and the average has grown by 50% since the melt ended (at an astonishing 27% less than ever previously recorded) to hit 3 million square km.

Most predict that the late season freezing will put its skates on and make up most of the descrepancy. Id take a WAG and suggest the second half of november would be when the refreeze will really accelerate.






Edited though the Antartic is going in the opposite direction again though and now has more ice than usual after hitting mean a couple of weeks ago. Crazy planet.


----------



## david dissadent (Jan 9, 2008)

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html



> Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to be unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new thinness of the remaining ice,* scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is half of 2004's total*.





> Alaska's frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But temperature measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a degree from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska. While that may not sound like much, "it's very significant," said University of Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.



One of the important points is that as the ice gets thinner the mechanism that melts it can change. It will be less about heat than wind, thinner ice sheets are more vaulnrable to mechanical breaking, that is to say it is broken into smaller chunks by the tide and currents, then it can be moved much easier by wind. The thinner ice in the 90s meant that the winds in the right direction cleared ice out of the Arctic basin into the Atlantic where they melted. This means that even if the freak high pressure system over Siberia that lead to last years 23% drop in ice minimum is not repeated, winds in the wrong direction could have the same effect by driving ice into the Atlantic and produce similar minimums. 

Also the models that gave us an ice free Arctic ocean during the melt minimum by 2050, have made what appears to be flawed assumptions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm



> "Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.
> 
> "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.
> 
> "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."



Of course there is one state in the US that take all this a little serious.

http://alaskareport.com/news1207/ned71112_ice.htm


> Perovich and his colleagues monitored a piece of sea ice off Alaska's coast on the Beaufort Sea this year, finding it was almost 11 feet thick in June but shrunk to less than two feet thick by September. Ice seems to be at least three feet thinner than normal almost everywhere scientists have measured it.
> 
> "That missing meter of ice means the ice is more vulnerable," Steele said.
> 
> The loss of ice in the summer will happen soon unless things change drastically, the scientists said.


Just one more story amoung the hundreds confirming the scale of the recent ice melt.

But the climate is a variable beast and we only can make educated guesses at what happens, that last story had this caveate.


> "Ice grows quickly when the air is really cold," he said. "A recipe to bring the ice back is a few cold winters in a row."


Perhaps it is not all doom and gloom after all. All we need is some cold winters.


Edited for clarity due to very poor grammer.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 11, 2008)

From the link you posted:






			
				NASA said:
			
		

> 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet


 I was just thinking about the colossal amount of heat required (latent heat of fusion) for all that melting.
 

Once the ice has gone:

The heat currently reflected back into space by the ice will be absorbed
The heat currently being used up melting ice will get to work raising temperatures

Positive feedback, exponential rates of change... 'kin yikes!

Now... Where the fuck did I leave the key to my Tardis...?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 11, 2008)

You know what needs to be done? Bacofoil over the Arctic. Or one of those silver capes you get at marathons and disaster zones.

Co-op - Bigfish is, shall we say, a contrarian. Find an established, generally accepted viewpoint, and he'll find a dozen websites with fringe (and that's being polite) research telling you no.

His best ever was Solar - The Gas Model Crumbles...have a good chortle...


----------



## Crispy (Jan 11, 2008)

david dissadent said:
			
		

> Most predict that the late season freezing will put its skates on and make up most of the descrepancy. Id take a WAG and suggest the second half of november would be when the refreeze will really accelerate.



Good guess!


----------



## co-op (Jan 11, 2008)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Co-op - Bigfish is, shall we say, a contrarian. Find an established, generally accepted viewpoint, and he'll find a dozen websites with fringe (and that's being polite) research telling you no.
> 
> His best ever was Solar - The Gas Model Crumbles...have a good chortle...



  I think I had realised that Bigfish was on a little bit of a mission...I must have had too much time time on my hands when I started posting - actually my heart sinks now at the thought of ploughing through yet another global warming argument. Interesting posts by david dissident and others on this thread though.

As for, Solar - The Gas Model Crumbles -  . I really don't get to read enough of this kind of thing since I lost interest in 2012 and the end of the Mayan calendar, think it was about the same time I eased off on the recreationals...


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 11, 2008)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You know what needs to be done? Bacofoil over the Arctic.


White wash. It's natural and cheap to produce. Can't use it in the actual arctic though only on land.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 11, 2008)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> White wash. It's natural and cheap to produce. Can't use it in the actual arctic though only on land.



On first reading I thought you'd written 'only on lard'...

It's that fucking chicken thread...


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 11, 2008)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> On first reading I thought you'd written 'only on lard'...
> 
> It's that fucking chicken thread...


Lard is quite reflective as well.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 11, 2008)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You know what needs to be done? Bacofoil over the Arctic.



hmm them tinfoil hatters might actually have a point... 6 billion tin foil hat wearers * area of tin foil hat = area roughly** equivalent to arctic sea ice melt


** very roughly


----------



## david dissadent (Jan 17, 2008)

Last summers melt on you tube.



FYI the ice has been reasonably stable at about 1million km^2 bellow average since mid November.


----------



## david dissadent (Feb 18, 2008)

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...n-of-changes-in-arctic-ocean-circulation.html

For about the first time in the past 15 million years the Altantic waters are now a major part of the arctic ocean circulation. Basicaly the ice blocked of the Atlantic it is now flowing through, the full impact is yet to be analysed but it could lead to a saltier warmer arctic ocean, hence loss of ice mass through the winter.

The isotope ratios in much of the core correspond to basalt rocks such as those found in the Kara Sea area. This suggests that for most of the last 15 million years, the seawater above the sediments came from within the Arctic Ocean itself. 



> In contrast, today much of the deep water in the Arctic Ocean flows in through the Fram Strait from the Atlantic.



This article covers the fact that old ice is being pushed out of the arctic even during the winter. Wind is pushing what is left of the ten year ice out the Fram Straight.
http://www.adn.com/24hour/healthscience/story/313002.html

Formal projections of sea ice loss will be made for another month or so but all indications are that ice loss will equal or exceed last year's "unless the winds turn around," Rigor said.



> New ice now covering the polar seas is not like older, thicker sea ice that once covered the region in winter, Rigor said. In 1989, 80 percent of the ice in the Arctic was at least 10 years old, he said. Today, only about 3 percent of the ice is that old.



Not totaly all bad news though. Due to extream cold in the Arctic has refrozen to near normal winter levels. However as the other stories point out, this years melt season could be every bit as bad as last years.











And the Southern ice has also returned to near normal.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 18, 2008)

it's the end of the world as we know it


----------



## WouldBe (Feb 19, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...n-of-changes-in-arctic-ocean-circulation.html
> 
> For about the first time in the past 15 million years the Altantic waters are now a major part of the arctic ocean circulation.


Since when has the arctic been solid ice from surface to sea bed?

Subs have been sailing under the arctic ice cap for years so the atlantic must have been able to flow as well. 



In both of those graphs the ice anomally is higher in both the Arctic and Antarctic in Feb this year compared to Feb last year which means it must be colder not warmer.


----------



## david dissadent (Feb 19, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Since when has the arctic been solid ice from surface to sea bed?
> 
> Subs have been sailing under the arctic ice cap for years so the atlantic must have been able to flow as well.
> 
> ...


It does not have to go all the way down, just deep enough to cut off flow into the arctic basin. The basin itslef is largley surrounded by relatively shallow sea due to ridges and the like with only the Fram Straight as a deep water inlet.

The original voyage of the uss nautilus it had to turn back due to ice.



> As mentioned above, the most difficult part of the journey was in the Bering Strait. The ice extended as much as 60 feet below sea level. During the initial attempt to go through the Bering Strait, there was insufficient room for the submarine to pass between the ice and the sea bottom. During the second, successful attempt to pass through the Bering passage, the submarine passed through a known channel close to Alaska (this was not the first choice way through the Bering Strait as the submarine wanted to avoid detection).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_(SSN-571)


The ice used to be up to 60 foot thick on the edges of the ice sheet.


The Antartic has had relatively large positive anolomy this year, that is at points it has had nearly 2 million extra square kilometers of ice during the depth of the winter freeze, but it is now at the minimum and almost bang on average. The reasons for the Antarctic being colder are a mixture of the loss of Ozone which is a greenhouse gas, the strong cirumpolar winds which prevent warmer air from entering the Antartic and the generaly cooler temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere due to it having alot more water and therefore more thermal inertia than the nothern hemisphere.

The _surface_ ice has regrown in the Arcitic to near average and slightly above last year, but the point is that the thickness of the ice has diminished massively. The estimate is that the surface area at minimum has dropped by about 27% since the 2005 record, but that the mass of the ice over the past 3 years has dropped by an increadible 50%. The point being that it is not just summer warming that is melting the ice now. It has gotten so thin that it is easily pushed around by the winds an even during winter this is pushing what little old thick ice is left out of the Fram Straight into the Atlantic to melt, in the Arctic it is replaced by thin one year melt ice. The new research indicates that warmer Atlantic water is enetering the Arctic for the first time which could mean that the ice will melt even faster in the summer with less heating involved.

Ofcourse the sooner the ice melts the sooner the vastly more absorbant ocean is open and absorbing energy instead of radiating it away and reinforcing the other anthromorphic forcing agents (CO2 and NH4).

Edited to add link for increasing ice in Arctic this winter
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html


----------



## david dissadent (Mar 12, 2008)

A very frightening video.


here


It is a WMV file of the ice over the winter melt season. Earlier I had said that the thick multi year ice had been flushing out of the Fram straight into the Atlantic and melting.


Watch this. I hate being so doom and gloom about things but FFS, its winter and the ice is thining (even if the area coverd grows the thick multi years stuff dissapears)


----------



## david dissadent (Apr 22, 2008)

Well the ice melt has started. It was late this year, la nina meant the ice got a good old deep freeze to recover from last years hair raising melt.

But now the melt is getting underway and here are the pictures....

First up just a composite image of where we stand right now. You can compair it to some of the older pictures in the thread. This is based on radar images of the arctic, the deeper the purple the more % of the total sea surface area is covered in ice. As the % drops it goes from purple to red to yellow to green to blue. There is a key on the top left of the picture.






Notice that the atlantic side of the arctic is really starting to loose its ice now.

This graph is the total area covered by ice. It was hanging around only melting slowly till last week the drop is very noticble. This is a year long graph so on the left side is last years melting you can see it is now a bit steeper than last year but still just a bit more surface area so it is going quicker but still behind last year.





Another graph giving the same information but superimposed is last years super melt. The acceleration really shows.






And here is a shot of Marchs global surface temperature anolomies. Although they are now out of date. The area around Scandanavia and the North Atlantic has been consistantly warmer. I think this is where the fast melting is comming in this spring. There is another thread on the la Nina if you dig that out you can see how the surface temperature anolomies compaire with January, especialy central asia, naught to do the arctic just some of the most stunningly extreame weather in the world atm.





Worth pointing out the US is full of AGG climate change sceptics and its coastal areas are currently (and have been all winter) below long term averages (la Nina). Trust me I have been banging heads with them over this all winter.


Finaly just to show how nuts the world is the South. The Antartic has far more ice.






The Southern Hemesphere is more oceanic with makes it slower to respond to climate change and the ozone hole over the antartic is assumed to be helping force temperatures lower.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 22, 2008)

That warming in NE Asia is really going to change things. That's a whole lot of melting tundra right there.


----------



## david dissadent (May 10, 2008)

Just a quick update. To be honest again things are moving quicker than I anticipated.

Over April\ early May the melting has been pretty damned quick. This is with the weaker April\ May sun. God knows what it will be like with the June July sun.






On the actual image of the ice itself you can see that it is now breaking up over the Alaska\ Canada coast.





It is still early in the year, but things are taking an ominous tone. Given that we had a very strong La Nina over the Nothern Hemsiphere winter so the ice had a chance to recover, it has melted back to near enough the same place it was at last year. with a much quicker pace of melting. If we do break last years record this year then all bets are off. It will place a high degree of confidence that one of the biggest positive feedbacks is underway and that the additional energy coming into the ecosphere will be very significant. That kind of additional heat in the polar region will have a very significant impact on global weather patterns. They are driven by temperature differentials (and other factors like the earths rotation and land geography). We simply no longer have the food stored away to cope with a couple of years of bad harvests anymore.

The other great fears are the melting of the tundra wich may realese a great deal of methane and the possibility of the accelerated melting of the Greenland icecap once the seas north of Greenland become ice free for the summer months and additional heat enters the polar regions (from the huge drop in albedo).

If you are an optimist about our ability to mitigate global warming hope to hell I am wrong and that the melting slows down. That the positive feedbacks are not now underway. If they are we are in for some very intersting times ahead.


----------



## bigfish (May 11, 2008)

*Sea Ice Update: Unprecedented SH High, Rapid NH Recovery*

There won't be much, if any, coverage in the media about the unprecedented high in the Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly, so a self-explanatory graphic is posted below of the 1979 to present anomaly from the 1979 to 2000 mean:






We will, of course, be hearing about the extent of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice during the summer, which has bounced back over the winter from its record low. See the graph below of the anomaly for 1978 to present from the 1978 to 2000 mean:






I'll finish with a graphic of the un-exciting 1979 to present global sea ice anomaly trend (in red) from the 1979 to 2000 mean (in black), and the global daily sea ice anomaly (in blue):





The graphs are from The Cryosphere Today

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003016.html


----------



## jæd (May 11, 2008)

Does Mr Dissident ever post up happy news, all is it all doom'n'gloom...? 

I wonder if he's heard of the new Ice-9 concerns..? Its a type of water that can freeze at room temperature...


----------



## david dissadent (May 11, 2008)

bigfish said:


> There won't be much, if any, coverage in the media about the unprecedented high in the Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly, so a self-explanatory graphic is posted below of the 1979 to present anomaly from the 1979 to 2000 mean:


Anyone who had taken the trouble to read this thread would have seen I have occasionaly posted on the Antartics ice coverage.


----------



## Vash (May 11, 2008)

No-one ever talks about the Ozone hole anymore is it gone or getting bigger?


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2008)

Vash said:


> No-one ever talks about the Ozone hole anymore is it gone or getting bigger?




It's still there, but there's hope that it's stabilised:




Source: NASA OzoneWatch


Some climate change deniers point at the ozone hole and say "look, you all said the sky was falling and it didn't."

Er, no.

There was a robust scientific prediction that the sky was in trouble.

Effective measures to deal with the threat - just in case it should turn out to be real - were agreed by international treaty.

The threat did turn out to be real, and was dealt with.

The opposite of the message that the deniers want to broadcast.

I seem to recall reading that it'll take 50-100 years for the ozone hole to *repair* itself, though.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 11, 2008)

Thing is, the industrial chemicals associated with damage to the ozone layer were to a large degree optional. Other ways to do the same jobs were found, but no systemic economic changes were involved, and hence the treaties were both feasible and, it would appear, successful. 

The big problem with anthropogenic climate change is that if you do the sums, it's extremely hard to see how it could be mitigated to a similar degree without major systemic changes, due to our degree of dependence on fossil fuel use. So there aren't going to be any similarly effective treaties. What we're going to get instead is adaptation, which is all very well for the relatively privileged members of the global community, like most of us here. Sure, we'll experience some effects but we live in a rich, technologically able society which is capable of dealing with a bit of sea level rise and shitty weather conditions. 

It's extremely problematic for those who are less privileged however. Not only do people in the developing world get the worst of the effects anyhow, but whatever help they get is almost certainly going to be funded in the form of e.g. World Bank loans, which will of course increase their already crippling endebtedness.


----------



## bigfish (May 11, 2008)

Laptop's post is pure nonsense. The ozone hole over the South Pole is a natural phenomena. First, the circumpolar Antarctic circulation, which, as old sailors know to their cost is the engine-room of the world's weather, generates a vortex above the South Pole, retarding the mixing-rate of the polar atmosphere with the surrounding atmosphere. This effect tends to confine and concentrate the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons from the only active volcano in the Antarctic continent, Mount Erebus, which, in an active year, can spew over 1,000 tons of super heated chlorine gas high into the atmosphere each day.

Why is the Southern ozone hole so much larger than its Northern counterpart when at the same time the greater part of humanity and industry inhabit the northern hemisphere?

The worldwide ban on CFC's is a superpower invention aimed primarily at retarding Third World development by inhibiting access to cheap and reliable refrigeration equipment. it's a similar story with CO2, though the aim of this scam is global in scale.


----------



## max_freakout (May 11, 2008)

does posting about this actually change anything? Or is it just paranoia for the sake of being paranoid?


----------



## rich! (May 11, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The worldwide ban on CFC's is a superpower invention aimed primarily at retarding Third World development by *inhibiting access to cheap and reliable refrigeration equipment*. it's a similar story with CO2, though the aim of this scam is global in scale.



You don't understand refrigeration. Really. Stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## max_freakout (May 11, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> enouggh of a general consensus on them and *anthromorphic* global warming to make them the dominant paradigm.






bigfish said:


> enough of a general consensus on *anthropomorphic* global warming, is false.




 if you children are going to try and use big clever words, you should at least spell them right and use a word appropriate for what you are trying to say


'anthromorphic' is not a word

and 'anthropomorphic' is a real word but it is utterly meaningless in the context of climate change


----------



## rich! (May 11, 2008)

I suspect they both mean anthropic.


----------



## max_freakout (May 11, 2008)

rich! said:


> I suspect they both mean anthropic.




i thought they meant anthropogenic


----------



## Crispy (May 11, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i thought they meant anthropogenic


Indeed.

Ignore bigfish though. He thinks the sun is made of metal.


----------



## bigfish (May 12, 2008)

rich! said:


> You don't understand refrigeration. Really. Stop making a fool of yourself.



I can see that hubris must be one of your stronger suits.

International Herald Tribune 22 November: _The Chinese Foreign Ministry representative Song Dong is singing the same song we heard about CFCs. China (and India) said *you have received the benefits of CFCs with a 30% reduction in food loss through refrigeration. Now you are telling us that this chemical is destroying the ozone and we should therefore forego the benefits you have already obtained. *  The proposal was the West reduce their CFCs and allow China and developing nations to increase theirs. We said no. They said fine, then we won't sign the Montreal Protocol._

I guess the Chinese Foreign Ministry representative doesn't understand refrigeration either.


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 13, 2008)

_You_ certainly don't understand what the Chinese government is really concerned about. 

China is already signed up to the Montreal Protocol (an international agreement to reduce CFCs), but insists on having an opt-out clause covering HCFC-22, which is used in the production of _air conditioning_ equipment. China is the world's biggest manufacturer of air-con. But it gets more interesting:




			
				International Herald Tribune said:
			
		

> Companies in China have begun making air-conditioners with more modern refrigerants for the European market. But by continuing to produce HCFC-22 for markets elsewhere, the Chinese have been able to claim hundreds of millions of dollars a year in payments from an obscure UN agency.
> 
> The payments are to compensate Chinese chemical factories for incinerating a waste gas generated as part of the manufacturing process for HCFC- 22. If the Chinese industry switches to modern refrigerants, it would no longer produce the waste gas and so would lose the credits.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/15/business/warm.php?page=1

So thanks to UN subsidies for producing ozone-shafting chemicals, certain unscrupulous Chinese company bosses can borrow a leaf from your hymn book and sing: "Truly, abundance is materialising all around us!"


----------



## bigfish (May 13, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> So thanks to UN subsidies for producing ozone-shafting chemicals...



Dear d.a.s.h 

Can you shed any light on why the Southern ozone hole grows so much larger than its Northern counterpart when at the same time the greater part of humanity and industry inhabit the northern hemisphere?


----------



## free spirit (May 14, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Dear d.a.s.h
> 
> Can you shed any light on why the Southern ozone hole grows so much larger than its Northern counterpart when at the same time the greater part of humanity and industry inhabit the northern hemisphere?


I think you may have at least partially answered your own question...



			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> First, the circumpolar Antarctic circulation, which, as old sailors know to their cost is the engine-room of the world's weather, generates a vortex above the South Pole, retarding the mixing-rate of the polar atmosphere with the surrounding atmosphere.





> *The ozone hole is caused by the effect of pollutants  			in the atmosphere destroying stratospheric ozone.* During the Antarctic  			winter something special happens to the Antarctic weather.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[source]

and there may even be a grain of truth to this bit...





> bigfish said:
> 
> 
> > This effect tends to confine and concentrate *the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons from the only active volcano in the Antarctic continent, Mount Erebus*, which, in an active year, can spew over 1,000 tons of super heated chlorine gas high into the atmosphere each day.
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 14, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Dear d.a.s.h
> 
> Can you shed any light on why the Southern ozone hole grows so much larger than its Northern counterpart when at the same time the greater part of humanity and industry inhabit the northern hemisphere?



Dash has no reason to respond to the ravings of a 'sun is metal' psuedo-scientist.


----------



## Poi E (May 14, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> 'sun is metal' psuedo-scientist.



What's this?

Bloody interesting thread.


----------



## david dissadent (May 14, 2008)

Poi E said:


> What's this?
> 
> Bloody interesting thread.


link


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 14, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Dear d.a.s.h
> 
> Can you shed any light on why the Southern ozone hole grows so much larger than its Northern counterpart when at the same time the greater part of humanity and industry inhabit the northern hemisphere?



Please don't try to change the subject just because I've refuted your original point. Namely, your uncritical acceptance of what a Chinese government official is meant to have said, which implied that production of CFCs is in some way necessary for China's overall well-being, with particular reference to food production or storage.

I have shown an alternative interpretation, which is that China doesn't really need to produce CFCs, but does so because the UN hands out 'hundreds of millions of dollars' effectively subsidising the manufacture of HCFC-22, to the benefit of Chinese businessmen and by extension the Chinese government.

Further, I have provided a link to the International Herald Tribune article informing my case, so that people can read it in its entirety and form their own opinion. 

You, however, have not linked to your article of relevance, denying others the ability to read the quote in its original context, which is a shame.


----------



## bigfish (May 14, 2008)

*Scientific consensus on manmade ozone hole may be coming apart*

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in
the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge."

Subscription required: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html


----------



## Signal 11 (May 15, 2008)

bigfish said:


> "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
> [...]
> Subscription required: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html





> *In the article, Rex stresses that the reason for ozone loss does still seem to be through anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons* - it is the description of the chemical reactions that need tightening up.


source.


----------



## bigfish (May 29, 2008)

*Icebound In The Northwest Passage*



> *The irony leaves us cold*
> 
> LEE TRELOAR
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080524.TRIPPING24/TPStory/


----------



## laptop (May 30, 2008)

Bigfish said:
			
		

> _"Travel writing"_



This is supposed to show what, exactly?

Or has our friend from Cape Verde accidentally posted to the wrong forum?


----------



## Poi E (May 30, 2008)

I wonder which PR agency arranged that article? And for which industrial concerns? And why should something entirely lacking in scientific merit be thought of as contributing to the considered debate in this thread? Why, bigfish?


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 30, 2008)

Bigfish that article's dated May. Not exactly high summer. Plus, they got going again on the seventh day. Unlike Amundsen, Larsen, and the _Williwaw_.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 4, 2008)

*UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May*



> Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.
> 
> It is *significantly colder globally*, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.
> 
> ...



http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 5, 2008)

So the blogger has discovered short-term variability exists in the global temperature record. Amazing stuff.

Look up 'La Nina'. Meteorologist bods were going on about it last year.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 8, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> So the blogger has discovered short-term variability exists in the global temperature record. Amazing stuff.
> 
> Look up 'La Nina'. Meteorologist bods were going on about it last year.



If you look up La Nina yourself, rather than simply parroting babble, you'll find it is dramatically weakening and likely set to change to ENSO neutral conditions later this month.



> Synopsis: A transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral conditions is expected during June-July 2008.
> 
> La Niña continued to weaken during May 2008, reflected mainly by changes in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Negative SST anomalies in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific weakened, while the region of positive SST anomalies increased in the eastern Pacific



http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html


----------



## david dissadent (Jun 9, 2008)

david dissadent said:


>





david dissadent said:


> Just a quick update. To be honest again things are moving quicker than I anticipated.



Well lets look at todays image.






The melt continues apace. There are huge patches of open ocean appearing just around the Canada\ Alaska border region. Now opening up to 24 hour heating where it was quite recently ice reflecting at this time of year. 

For comparison look at June 9th 2006
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20060609.jpg
2004
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20040609.png
2000
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20000609.png
97
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19970609.png
Or 86
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19860610.png

To compare the views of how the ice has changed at a similar point in the year compared to previous years. (Years were kinda randomly selected)

Notice how as you go further back the main ice cap is such a deep purple across the whole of the cap. That is the thick multi year ice that takes so long to melt that we have now lost. It only really now exists in large fromations around the north end of Greenland and that shows on this current map. Much lighter purples and even pinks are now all over the main ice sheet, this is lower coverage of ice (80%-60% sea ice). We now have much thinner ice with much more open water. Everything on this image seems to just screem that we are headed for another big big melt year. The dynamic of it will be hard to predict as it now involves as much to do with shifting ocean currents and winds as heat. However there is every indication that last years melting of sea ice in the arctic is about to be repeated. This means additional heat energy being absorbed by the seas and the costal regions around the arcitic changing from being a kind of dry continental enviroment to a more coastal, wetter one. The consiquencies of this are very hard to guess, but they are unlikely to be stable.

For those who enjoy a good graph here is the actual graph of the sea ice covereage.






Notice it is about a week out of date. There was a glitch a few months back and they seem now to keep the actualy graph a few days back. We shall see what the sunny month of June brings us all.


----------



## david dissadent (Jun 9, 2008)

Ahh more pretty pictures folks just stumbled across these jems.



The forcing effect of the arctic 







> Figure 3. Infrared energy that the atmosphere emits to the surface during spring shows generally positive trends. Units are change in long-wave energy transfer per decade between 1979 and 2005; yellow and red colors are positive trends; white indicates regions without data. Derived from NOAA polar-orbiting satellites.


The multi year ice





The current anolomy






From here
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


> More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection
> 
> The more we study the Arctic's shrinking sea ice cover, the more we appreciate the key role of clouds and water vapor. Our colleague, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, has linked changes in the ice edge northwest of Alaska to variations in springtime cloudiness and in the water vapor content of the lower atmosphere. She has observed an increase in springtime cloud and water vapor over the last three decades that can be clearly linked to retreat of the ice edge.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigfish (Jun 9, 2008)

How's the Antarctic melt going, dave? Any comparisons of this years melt with last years?


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 10, 2008)

david dissadent said:


>


Both those graphs show there is more ice this year than last year.


----------



## laptop (Jun 10, 2008)

bigfish said:


> How's the Antarctic melt going, dave? Any comparisons of this years melt with last years?




I confidently predict that Antarctic ice, far from melting, is rapidly expanding at this moment


----------



## bigfish (Jun 11, 2008)

Far from home. A polar bear that showed up in Iceland was shot and killed by a team led by police officers, on the grounds that it posed a threat to people. The animal's journey may have been facilitated by the *unusual abundance of pack ice between Greenland and Iceland this spring*.
Photo: Icelandic television

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/06/06/science/060708-Sciencepix_7.html


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 11, 2008)

bigfish said:
			
		

> If you look up La Nina yourself, rather than simply parroting babble, you'll find it is dramatically weakening and likely set to change to ENSO neutral conditions later this month.



First, that still only amounts to short-term variability. 

Second, the link and graph you provided from the blog refers to a period in the past, i.e. January 2007 to May this year. This is what we're talking about, remember?

Unless, of course, you are able to show that La Nina was so weakened as long ago as January 2007 to have no significant bearing on the global temperature between then and May 2008. Your argument requires that to stand, but can you deliver?


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 11, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> First, that still only amounts to short-term variability.
> 
> Second, the link and graph you provided from the blog refers to a period in the past, i.e. January 2007 to May this year. This is what we're talking about, remember?



No it doesn't. The graph goes back to 1979.

The latest value on that graph shows the temperature lower than it has been since 2000 or even 1997.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 11, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> No it doesn't. The graph goes back to 1979.



Wakey wakey hands off snakey! The area _highlighted_ on the graph covers the period from January 2007 to May 2008. Far right hand side, in blue.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 11, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Wakey wakey hands off snakey! The area _highlighted_ on the graph covers the period from January 2007 to May 2008. Far right hand side, in blue.




Yes and the furthest right point (May 2008) is lower than it has been since 2000 or 1997 which covers more than one El Nino cycle (IIRC)


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 11, 2008)

But is there good reason to think that La Nina is _not_ the major cause of the pattern of temperatures seen from Jan 2007 to May 2008? If so, what is the alternative explanation?

And how much can be inferred from a single month? I doubt you would be overly impressed if someone pointed to a single very warm _year_, such as 1998, and said that was sufficient evidence of a long-term warming trend.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Yes and the furthest right point (May 2008) is lower than it has been since 2000 or 1997 which covers more than one El Nino cycle (IIRC)


remember there are multiple factors at play in the climate on top of each other... you appear to have not noticed we're at or near the bottom of the solar cycle and in a la nina phase, whereas in 1997 & 2000 we were at or near the top of the solar cycle.

another factor that I'm currently looking for the data for (if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be much obliged) is the figure for global atmospheric particulate levels, as I've got a sneaky suspicion that this massive increase in chinese and indian coal fired power station building could well be leading to increased global dimming effects that are partially offsetting co2 induced warming again. Any links appreciated.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 16, 2008)

free spirit said:


> remember there are multiple factors at play in the climate on top of each other... you appear to have not noticed we're at or near the bottom of the solar cycle and in a la nina phase, whereas in 1997 & 2000 we were at or near the top of the solar cycle.
> 
> another factor that I'm currently looking for the data for (if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be much obliged) is the figure for global atmospheric particulate levels, as I've got a sneaky suspicion that this massive increase in chinese and indian coal fired power station building could well be leading to increased global dimming effects that are partially offsetting* co2 induced warming* again. Any links appreciated.



"CO2 induced warming". Does this mean that you've finally located that ever so elusive exposition of the CO2 driver theory or is it just another assumption?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2008)

bigfish said:


> "CO2 induced warming". Does this mean that you've finally located that ever so elusive exposition of the CO2 driver theory or is it just another assumption?


for someone who's spent the last 6 years ignoring repeated requests to either back up or retract a huge range of plainly wrong statements, you're not really in any position to be making any demands of anyone now are you?


tell you what, if you go back through some of the threads from the last few years and retract the misleading bollocks you've posted where it's been demonstrated to be misleading bollocks, I might consider tracking down the research papers I currently don't have access to that I'd need to finally shut you up.

as it is though I get the distinct impression that even faced with all the research you request, you'd still be stood there going nahnahnahnahnah I can't hear you.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 16, 2008)

free spirit said:


> ... I might consider tracking down the research papers I currently don't have access to that I'd need to finally shut you up.



So it is just another assumption, then, given that you have yet to locate and read this mythical CO2 driver paper for yourself.

Why do you place so much confidence in a theory that by your own admission you know nothing about?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 16, 2008)

bigfish said:


> So it is just another assumption, then, given that you have yet to locate and read this mythical CO2 driver paper for yourself.
> 
> Why do you place so much confidence in a theory that by your own admission you know nothing about?



Are you really such a dishonest cunt that you have posted that after reading this post?

e2a: and this one and no doubt many others where it has been explained to you.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 16, 2008)

bigfish said:


> So it is just another assumption, then, given that you have yet to locate and read this mythical CO2 driver paper for yourself.
> 
> Why do you place so much confidence in a theory that by your own admission you know nothing about?


as signal 11 has just posted, you really are a dishonest prick aren't you?

I have never admitted I know nothing about co2 driven climate change, all I've admitted is that I'm having trouble getting my hands on the research papers that I'd need to answer your question adequately.

for what it's worth, I'm not trying to locate some mythical CO2 driver paper, as I'm not aware of any one paper that even attempts to cover all the different aspects of the co2 driver hypothesis. What I'm thinking of trying to track down is a variety of research papers on a variety of related factors, that taken together should offer fairly comprehensive support to the co2 driver hypothesis. Like I've previously stated though I don't currently have easy access to the research journals, and most of the papers are pre-internet era & therefore not available online (even if I was prepared to fork out for the subscriptions).

meantime maybe you'd like to post up your evidence that disproves the co2 driver theory. You've so far failed to post up anything that even get's close  in the last however many years, and as I'm sure you're aware hypothesis are there to be disproved rather than proven.


----------



## david dissadent (Jun 17, 2008)

free spirit said:


> another factor that I'm currently looking for the data for (if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be much obliged) is the figure for global atmospheric particulate levels, as I've got a sneaky suspicion that this massive increase in chinese and indian coal fired power station building could well be leading to increased global dimming effects that are partially offsetting co2 induced warming again. Any links appreciated.


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Romanou_etal.pdf

For the lay person
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382

Things may just be about to get very interesting as US airlines are taking a huge number of flights out of service later this year. Some of the biggest carriers may cut by up to 20%. On the other hand China is producing 2 new coal fired power stations per week. And much of the new oil comming from fields like Manifa will be sulfur rich. And on the flip side the Chinese are deeply concerned about atmospheric and water polution so they are reported to be going to spend big time on sulfur scrubbers.

Here is the may termperature anolomies from NASA. Big ugly scary ones over the Siberian tundra and the Himalyas.






For any geeks following this specific thread.....





Yesterdays arctic. The melting is now of a visibly different pattern to last year. Note especialy eastern Greenland and the Kara Sea. 

We are also 50 50 on whether we will beat last years record.





The rate is a bit slower... but who knows. The ice is so much thinner that it may still melt as quick in July and August as last year without the huge high pressure that sat over Siberia last July.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 17, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Unless, of course, you are able to show that La Nina was so weakened as long ago as January 2007 to have no significant bearing on the global temperature between then and May 2008. Your argument requires that to stand, but can you deliver?



Just a little reminder, bigfish, as you haven't yet delivered.

Not that I'm suggesting you're being slimy and evasive, I'd never say that about you.


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2008)

Arctic melting faster than last year...




BBC


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 19, 2008)

.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 19, 2008)

It is not only about the ice cap. (repost of argument in other thread)

All doubters should go on a sightseeing tour of gletschers, armed with pictures of the same gletschers some 60 years ago (and don't forget the Kilimandjaro who lost some 80% of his ice cap in about 60 years time) and then argue again that nothing extremely weird and alarming is happening and that in addition it is not happenening at a speed never recorded before.

That is the whole crux of the debate: Of course the planet went through colder and warmer periods in the past but never before a climate change came about at such a dramatic speed making it impossible for life (all life) to adapt to these changing conditions.
It is in fact causing the motion of the evolution of species to become overruled. They become extinct before they even can start to generate means of adaptation to new circumstances.

salaam.


----------



## david dissadent (Jun 22, 2008)

About right now last year the melt really accelerated. Over much of the week I have been moving into the 'a significant melt but not a record breaker' camp. But the last two days have kinda put a damper under that. The ice has just sheered off. Notably and most worryingly around the east and west side of Greenland. This is where no one want the seas to warm. But it is almost a guarentee that these seas will be ice free in a matter of weeks. 

The next two months will be interesting to be sure. 

For comparison with last year






6 of one half a dozen of the other really.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 23, 2008)

*North Pole may be ice free for the first time this summer!*

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

crikey


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2008)

Merging with megathread on this topic...


----------



## bigfish (Jun 26, 2008)

*Surprise: Explosive Volcanic Eruption Under The Arctic Ice Found*



> Anthony Watts, 25 June 2008
> 
> I posted on a similar story about volcanic eruptions under Antarctic ice earlier this year. What is unique about this situation is that it was a large eruption that went completely undetected, and under pressures that they thought not possible. The big question is then; where did the heat from the volcano go, and what effect did it have on the sea ice environment? Research has been going on looking at volcanism in the ridge but this discovery of a significant eruption in 1999 is new and unexpected.
> 
> ...



http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/


----------



## bigfish (Jun 26, 2008)

*Oops! Antarctic sea ice at record levels*



> Some facts you're not likely to hear about from the mainstream media. By Joe D’Aleo.
> 
> http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SOLSTICE_SEA_ICE_UPDATE.pdf
> 
> ...



http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels.html


----------



## Vash (Jun 29, 2008)

How come do one seems to give a fuck?  Its only the end of the world.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2008)

> The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.



http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

What significance do you attribute to the sentence you quoted? Here's what the article itself says:


> To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The big question is then; where did the heat from the volcano go, and what effect did it have on the sea ice environment?


If you are suggesting that this is responsible for part of the recent melting, please specify what fraction in which years, and provide supporting evidence.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The Antarctic set a new record


As expected. Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover


> Predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic's Southern Ocean.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 29, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> As expected. Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover



That would only make the ice thicker. It has to be *cold* enough for the ice to form in the first place before rain or sea spray can freeze to it.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

If anyone claimed that the antarctic is not cold enough for ice to form, please provide a citation. Otherwise I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you want to dispute something in the article I linked, please be specific.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 29, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> If anyone claimed that the antarctic is not cold enough for ice to form, please provide a citation. Otherwise I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you want to dispute something in the article I linked, please be specific.



This is what you quoted


> Predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic's Southern Ocean.



Increased rain on it's own won't cause an increase in the ice extent. 

If it was simply cold enough at the antarctic then ice would form anyway regardless of the amount of precipitaion.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 29, 2008)

Having bothered to read the link you gave it backs up my suspicions that it affects the *thickness* of the sea ice and not the *area* which you were trying to claim by using it as a counter to bigfish's 'Antarctic sets new record' (for area of ice) post.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> This is what you quoted


By quoting that sentence, I didn't mean to imply that you should ignore the rest of the article, which explains the mechanism.



> Typically, warming of the climate leads to increased melting rates of sea ice cover and also increased precipitation rates. With increased precipitation rates and consequently deeper snow, the snow load on the Antarctic sea ice becomes heavy enough that it suppresses the ice below sea level. This results in *even more* and *even thicker* sea ice when the snow refreezes as more ice.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 29, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> By quoting that sentence, I didn't mean to imply that you should ignore the rest of the article, which explains the mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thicker is hardly suprising if you pile snow on top of the ice already there but that doesn't explain the bigger *area* of ice.

I don't see how snow would increase the *area* of ice. If the snow lands in the sea it will melt. What's the bit about when the snow refreezes. It's already frozen.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> I don't see how snow would increase the *area* of ice.



It is explained in the article. The fact that you "don't see" is not an argument against it.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 29, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic's Southern Ocean.



If you are suggesting that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity is responsible for warmer air temperatures, please specify the physical mechanism by which this miracle happens in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and provide supporting evidence.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 29, 2008)

bigfish said:


> If you are suggesting that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity is responsible for warmer air temperatures, please specify the physical mechanism by which this miracle happens in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and provide supporting evidence.


The mechanism is known as the greenhouse effect. You have already been given an explanation of it several times (for example, here). It is not disputed by any scientists in the field. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence. I am not going to let you shift the burden of proof.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> The mechanism is known as the greenhouse effect. You have already been given an explanation of it several times (for example, here). It is not disputed by any scientists in the field. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence. I am not going to let you shift the burden of proof.



There is no explanation in the link that you have recycled of the actual physical mechanism by which increasing carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, which is what I requested from you. If I am wrong, please quote the text here appropriately.


----------



## isitme (Jun 30, 2008)

I went off him after the 2nd album


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> There is no explanation in the link that you have recycled of the actual physical mechanism by which increasing carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics


Yes there is.



bigfish said:


> which is what I requested from you. If I am wrong, please quote the text here appropriately.


Nobody here has any obligation to explain the mainstream view to you. If you do not understand what the mainstream view is then you are in no position to dispute it. If you do wish do dispute it, you have the burden of proof.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> It is explained in the article. The fact that you "don't see" is not an argument against it.



No it's not. There's just some pseudoscience about the ice being depressed causing the snow to refreeze bollocks.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> If you are suggesting that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity is responsible for warmer air temperatures, please specify the physical mechanism by which this miracle happens in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and provide supporting evidence.



Do you really think there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all?

That when someone like Richard Lindzen points to the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, that he's talking rubbish?

If so, how do you reconcile this with the fact that much lower nighttime temperatures occur in places with low humidity, such as deserts, than in places with high humidity, such as rainforests?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> No it's not. There's just some pseudoscience about the ice being depressed causing the snow to refreeze bollocks.


No experts in the field dispute that increased snowfall causes both the extent and thickness of the antarctic ice to increase. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Yes there is.



There is no explanation in your recycled link of the physical mechanism by which additional carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere. If there is, then it ought to be relatively simple for you to quote the appropriate text accordingly, but you haven't.



> Nobody here has any obligation to explain the mainstream view to you. If you do not understand what the mainstream view is then you are in no position to dispute it. If you do wish do dispute it, you have the burden of proof.



Wrong! The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. I'm not claiming that increased emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere, you are. Ergo, the burden of proof lies with you.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> No experts in the field dispute that increased snowfall causes both the extent and thickness of the antarctic ice to increase. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.



Well then show how the area is increased rather than just a crappy statement that the ice is depressed causing the snow to refreeze.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Well then show how the area is increased rather than just a crappy statement that the ice is depressed causing the snow to refreeze.


If you had bothered to do the slightest research instead of just posting up your own ignorant misconceptions as if they were fact, then you could have easily found that out for yourself. 



> In rough water, fresh sea ice is formed by the cooling of the ocean as heat is lost into the atmosphere. The uppermost layer of the ocean is supercooled to slightly below the freezing point, at which time tiny ice platelets, known as frazil ice, form. As more frazil ice forms, the ice forms a mushy surface layer, known as grease ice. Frazil ice formation *may also be started by snowfall*, rather than supercooling.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice#Formation_of_sea_ice


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> If you had bothered to do the slightest research instead of just posting up your own ignorant misconceptions as if they were fact, then you could have easily found that out for yourself.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice#Formation_of_sea_ice



Notice the *MAY* in that statement. That doesn't mean *always* and certainly doen't mean *is the normal method*.

E2A: It also doesn't back up the previously stated 'weight of snow depresses ice sheet causing snow to refreeze' bollocks either.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> There is no explanation in your recycled link of the physical mechanism by which additional carbon dioxide emissions supposedly warm the atmosphere.


Yes there is.



bigfish said:


> Wrong! The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. I'm not claiming that increased emissions of carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere, you are. Ergo, the burden of proof lies with you.


No, you are claiming that mainstream science is wrong, therefore you have the burden of proof. I am quite happy to believe what the experts say, so I do not need to prove anything.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Notice the *MAY* in that statement. That doesn't mean *always* and certainly doen't mean *is the normal method*.


Like I said before, no experts in the field dispute this. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Like I said before, no experts in the field dispute this. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.



So if freak weather results in tons of snow being deposited in the carribean then sea ice will form?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> So if freak weather results in tons of snow being deposited in the carribean then sea ice will form?



Straw man. Nobody said it would.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

From your wiki article the first sentance is


> Only the top layer of water needs to cool to the freezing point.


Explain how global *warming* cools the water to freezing point?

As ocean warming is one of the climatologists explanations for the *loss* of sea ice then you need to explain how *warmer* water can produce *more* sea ice?


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> From your wiki article the first sentance is
> 
> Explain how global *warming* cools the water to freezing point?
> 
> As ocean warming is one of the climatologists explanations for the *loss* of sea ice then you need to explain how *warmer* water can produce *more* sea ice?



he'll probably refer you to either a post made by one of his mates or to a Wikipedia page policed by the greenshirt cabal there.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> he'll probably refer you to either a post made by one of his mates or to a Wikipedia page policed by the greenshirt cabal there.



bonkers


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> No, you are claiming that mainstream science is wrong, therefore you have the burden of proof. *I am quite happy to believe what the experts say, so I do not need to prove anything.*



How very convenient for you.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jun 30, 2008)

nutter


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 30, 2008)

BigFish, do you agree or disagree with this statement: the surface temperature of the earth will always rise until its thermal output matches the sum of the insolated energy and the heat transfer from the atmosphere?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Explain how global *warming* cools the water to freezing point?


Straw man. Nobody said it did.



WouldBe said:


> As ocean warming is one of the climatologists explanations for the *loss* of sea ice then you need to explain how *warmer* water can produce *more* sea ice?


I have provided a link to an article explaining the mainstream view. For the third time, if you wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> BigFish, do you agree or disagree with this statement: the surface temperature of the earth will always rise until its thermal output matches the sum of the *insolated* energy and the heat transfer from the atmosphere?



The word "insolated" does not exist. Do you mean insulated?


----------



## Poi E (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The word "insolated" does not exist. Do you mean insulated?



 oh yes it does exist



> insolate - expose to the rays of the sun or affect by exposure to the sun;


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Straw man. Nobody said it did.


Your link says that for sea ice to form the sea needs to be cooled to just above freezing.

Climatology claims that global warming is causing the seas to warm *melting* the ice sheets. 

Please explain how global warming causes the sea to cool to cause *more* sea ice to form.




> I have provided a link to an article explaining the mainstream view. For the third time, if you wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.



It explains nothing of the sort and what it does explain makes no sence.


As you're the one claiming this is 'mainstream' valid science please back your claim up.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> As you're the one claiming this is 'mainstream' valid science please back your claim up.



It is mainstream science. It is not disputed by any scientist in the field. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> It is mainstream science. It is not disputed by any scientist in the field. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.



Just because a bunch of people agree to something that's dumbass doesn't make it valid.

How can warm(er) water *both* cause ices sheets to melt *and* cause new ice sheets to form?

It makes no sence whatsoever and that link you provided is not much sence either. Please provide something from a reputable soure.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> JHow can warm(er) water *both* cause ices sheets to melt *and* cause new ice sheets to form?


Straw man. Nobody said it did.



WouldBe said:


> It makes no sence whatsoever and that link you provided is not much sence either. Please provide something from a reputable soure.


I have provided links to reputable sources. The fact that it "makes no sence" to a muppet like you does not make it wrong. It is not disputed by any scientists in the field.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> It is mainstream science. *It is not disputed by any scientist in the field*.



Can you prove that?

Honestly, debating with you and your propaganda peddling chums is like trying to debate with a troop of chimpanzees.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Straw man. Nobody said it did.



Sorry but the climatologists say it did.



> I have provided links to reputable sources. The fact that it "makes no sence" to a muppet like you does not make it wrong. It is not disputed by any scientists in the field.



Yes like Wiki it a top scientific journal. 

It makes no sence from a physics point of view not because I'm some sort of muppet. 

Now please provide a reputable source for the claim you made earlier that global warming can cause ice sheets to grow.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Can you prove that?


Nobody can prove a negative. If you wish to dispute what I  posted, provide your evidence.



WouldBe said:


> Sorry but the climatologists say it did.


No, they say the warming causes increased precipitation which increases the amount of ice in the antarctic.



WouldBe said:


> Yes like Wiki it a top scientific journal.


Please state what was incorrect with the information I quoted from the wiki and provide supporting evidence.



WouldBe said:


> Now please provide a reputable source for the claim you made earlier that global warming can cause ice sheets to grow.


I have already provided one. If you have anything to dispute it, please provide it.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 30, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> No, they say the warming causes increased precipitation which increases the amount of ice in the antarctic.


They also say that it's responcible for the reduction in ice.

Which is it?

Or show how warming can have *both* effects.




> I have already provided one. If you have anything to dispute it, please provide it.



No you've not. You can shout 'strawman' as much as you like. You can say you've provided an 'expert' link all you like. That doesn't make it true.


----------



## bigfish (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Sorry but the climatologists say it did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hilarious stuff! 

Let me see if I've got this right. Down at the South Pole ice coverage is busting new records because of... "global warming". Meanwhile, up at the North Pole ice is melting at a predigious rate because of... "global warming".


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> They also say that it's responcible for the reduction in ice.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> ...


If you can't see a hypothetical situation where it's possible then you're an idiot. Course that doesn't mean the model would be realistic. Is that your issue or are you an idiot who'd like it spelt out?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> They also say that it's responcible for the reduction in ice.


The warming is responsible for the reduction in ice in the arctic. It is also responsible for the increased evaporation which leads to increased snowfall in the antarctic, which increases the amount of ice there.

Again, this is not disputed by any scientists in the field. If _you_ wish to dispute it, provide your evidence.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2008)

Would anyone object to spinning off the antarctic and arctic discussions into seperate threads?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jun 30, 2008)

^ That would be good.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 1, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The word "insolated" does not exist. Do you mean insulated?



Ignorance and arrogance don't look good together, bigfish.

Re. troops of chimpanzees - if so, then why bother? You'll never get what you want or what you think you want here. All urban75 will bring you is frustration. Broaden your interests, develop a sense of humour, and get a life instead.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Ignorance and arrogance don't look good together, bigfish.



Oh, I don't know, they seem to suit you very well, d.a.s.h

Merriam Websters dictionary: *insolated* The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Suggestions for insolated:

1. insulated
2. insulted
3. isolated
4. unsalted
5. insulates
6. inoculated
7. uninsulated
8. insulate
9. insulter
10. insulters

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Cambridge dictionary: *insolated* was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:

insole
insolence
insolent
insolently
insoles
insolubility
insoluble
insolvable
insolvency
insolvent
insular
insularity
insulate
insulated
insulates
insulating
insulation
insulator
insulators

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 1, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

It is not in the dictionary because it is technical vocabulary.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 1, 2008)

You great luminous dollop bigfish


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2008)

You're making yourself look stupid bigfish. Insolation is a common technical term.



> Insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time. It is commonly expressed as average irradiance in watts per square meter



Here's your merriam-webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insolation



> insolation
> One entry found.
> insolation
> 
> ...


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Would anyone object to spinning off the antarctic and arctic discussions into seperate threads?



Yes, I object as it is useful to examine what is going on at one Pole in comparison with what is going on at the other Pole.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, comparisons are tricky. North Pole = Ocean surrounded by continents. South Pole = Continent surrounded by oceans. The weather and climate, although cold, is quite different for each.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> You're making yourself look stupid bigfish. *Insolation* is a common technical term.]



Not as stupid as you Crispy, as the ACTUAL word used by Fruit was *"INSOLATED"*.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 1, 2008)

No, I think it's fair enough. To ask "Why is the Arctic thawing while the Antarctic is not" is a reasonable layman's question.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Not as stupid as you Crispy, as the ACTUAL word used by Fruit was *"INSOLATED"*.


Jesus christ, can you not conjugate a verb?


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 1, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Not as stupid as you Crispy, as the ACTUAL word used by Fruit was *"INSOLATED"*.



Ahem.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insolated


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
> 
> It is not in the dictionary because it is technical vocabulary.



But you used the word INSOLATED which does not appear in the Wikipedia link you give either. INSOLATED is very close to INSULATED. That's why I asked you to clarify. 



> "do you agree or disagree with this statement: the surface temperature of the earth will always rise until its thermal output matches the sum of the *insolated* energy and the heat transfer from the atmosphere"


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Well, comparisons are tricky. North Pole = Ocean surrounded by continents. South Pole = Continent surrounded by oceans. The weather and climate, although cold, is quite different for each.




Yes, they can be, but they are still useful despite the difficulties.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, now you've learned that there is such a word as 'insolated', what's your answer to the question:



> do you agree or disagree with this statement: the surface temperature of the earth will always rise until its thermal output matches the sum of the insolated energy and the heat transfer from the atmosphere


----------



## Poi E (Jul 1, 2008)

This is a very interesting thread. And also funny as fuck.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Well, comparisons are tricky. North Pole = Ocean surrounded by continents. South Pole = Continent surrounded by oceans. The weather and climate, although cold, is quite different for each.



But we're talking about global warming not climate.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 1, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> But we're talking about global warming not climate.



I'm a layperson, but I bet you a fiver that the climate has a bearing on the effects of global warming.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> But we're talking about global warming not climate.


You can't talk about the former without talking about the latter. Climate Change is a better term anyway, as the effects of trapping more heat under the atmosphere are varied and include warming, cooling, wetting, drying in different places in different amounts.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 1, 2008)

Poi E said:


> I'm a layperson, but I bet you a fiver that the climate has a bearing on the effects of global warming.



Climate is a local thing.

I always get a bollocking on here for using the term climate.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Climate Change is a better term anyway, as* the effects of trapping more heat under the atmosphere* are varied and include warming, cooling, wetting, drying in different places in different amounts.



Nonsense! You have no theory to explain how more heat is being trapped under the atmosphere - it's purely an environmentalist pipe dream. Incidentally, "Climate Change" is certainly better in propaganda terms for you than "Global Warming". It allows you to neatly sidestep the issue of global cooling and to claim any and all extreme weather events as being caused by filthy humans.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 1, 2008)

*Global warming is a fraud and a hysterical scare tactic.*



> Recent warming trends are very modest, and well within the range of natural variation. Predictions of future warming are based on speculative computer models whose accuracy cannot be evaluated or even tested. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is at the highest level since satellite monitoring began in 1979. Last summer there was record low snowmelt in Antarctica. During April this year, 1,185 new all-time record low temperatures were recorded at U.S. weather stations.
> 
> Given these facts, it is difficult to see how global warming can be real, or how we can be in the middle of a "climate crisis." But when these data are related to environmentalists, there is no sense of relief. Instead, it makes them angry that they might be deprived of their primary excuse to make war on civilization.
> 
> _David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and an associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma_.



http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/29/getting-sensible-on-energy/


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2008)

Climate Change is just a more accurate term.

Given your demonstrated lack of ability to grasp basic physics, I'm not going to bother trying to explain the greenhouse effect to you _again_. Denying it is like denying the spectral signature of hydrogen or the orbital period of the moon.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 2, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Climate is a local thing.



That's what I meant. Local conditions affect the manifestations of global warming, creating effects that differ depending on the region.


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 2, 2008)

The only conspiracy theory that I will subscribe to at present is that Bigfish is likely a writer for Living Marxism/Spiked/IoI/SaS


----------



## Crispy (Jul 2, 2008)

The weird thing is that if you look at his thread history, he went from world politics forum (mostly iraq) to science-crank almost overnight. very peculiar. I wonder what his damascus moment was?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 2, 2008)

Dr Bigfish: How i learnt to stop worrying and love big oil?


----------



## rich! (Jul 2, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> The only conspiracy theory that I will subscribe to at present is that Bigfish is likely a writer for Living Marxism/Spiked/IoI/SaS



Doing the "post a stupid idea, get a long list of citations, knock up an article out of them" method of journalism?


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 2, 2008)

Crispy said:


> The weird thing is that if you look at his thread history, he went from world politics forum (mostly iraq) to science-crank almost overnight. very peculiar. I wonder what his damascus moment was?



Trouble I have with bigfish's political contribution was that rense seemed to be acceptable as a resource to him: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=6540770


----------



## bigfish (Jul 2, 2008)

*Sea Ice - the Stretch Run*



> By Steve McIntyre
> 
> For anyone who’s betting that 2008 meltback will exceed 2007 meltback, I think that you’ll be able to pretty much know where you stand by the end of this week and your chances are not looking good right now based on this week’s exit polls. Another Climate Audit first.
> 
> ...



http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 3, 2008)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/



> July 2, 2008
> Melt onset earlier than normal
> 
> Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.
> ...



















Well here we are. The bussiness end of the melt year for the nothern hemisphere. Over the next 4 weeks the amount of melting will basicaly determine what kind of year we have. We have already easily recovered from the extreamly cold winter and are now within touching distance of last years record bursting melt. A question mark remains over whether we will equal or exceed it. Alot of this is down to local variations in climatatic conditions, but it looks like we will crush the 2005 previous record anyway. It is hard for a non expert with limited data to cast too much in the way of projections but I cant help but notice the decreasing consentration around the north Greenland area, specificaly as that is the last refuge of the thick multi year ice. For comparison you can look at the same picture last year....






And compaire it with today....






You could really argue both ways for a record melt or againts one. Remember huge tracks of sea and are now experiancing 24 hour sun, so will be absorbing large amounts of energy. From the above images it would appear that open water is to be found across most of the arctic now (the lighter colours indicate lower concentrations of ice). What ever happens it really looks like alot more ice will melt this year, we are very far from the end of the melting.

 My hunch is we will come very close to last years record at least. The real worry is how much open water will surround Greenland come mid September. Open water means much more heat, Greenland is not something we want getting warmer wethaer to be honest.


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 3, 2008)

Too keep the other side happy here are three graphs from the Southern Hemisphere.


















There is more ice than usual, including a very very odd spur of ice that was recorded on satalite. Cant remember where I seen the article but I meant to post it here Oh well.


----------



## soulman (Jul 3, 2008)

The real conspiraloons would have a field day with that pink face image top right...


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 3, 2008)

bigfish said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/


Take your junk science and fuck off you fruit loop. Seriously I am just pissed off with you and your wacky ideas. The arctic ocean has an area of about 14 million km^2 and a depth on average of around 1km (not too accurate a figure) so a volume of around 14 million cubic kilometeres. This would be about 14^15 cubic meters. 1000 liters per cubic meter gives us around 14^18 liters in the arctic. To raise that all by just one centegrade would require (at 1000 grams per liter and at one calorie per gram) about 14^21 calories. At 4.1 joule per calorie that would be 57^21 joules. That is just short of SIXTY TIMES the estimated energy of toba super volcano!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.vendian.org/envelope/TemporaryURL/energy.html

BUT we dont need the greatest volcanic activity since the Deccan traps to heat the arctic when the air temperature has been rising anyway.




NUTS. Dont you do basic maths?

E2A its midnight and Im nackered so all and sundry feel free to check my arithmatic.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 4, 2008)

*Another Climate Scare Debunked: Greenland Ice Sheet Slams The Brakes On*



> Many fear a positive feedback loop, whereby the accelerating flow will bring more ice down out of the mountains and toward warmer temperatures near sea level. Roderik Van De Waal and colleagues at Utrecht University in the Netherlands now say there is no evidence this will happen.
> 
> They looked at how meltwater has correlated with the speed of ice flow at the western edge of the sheet, just north of the Arctic Circle, since 1991. They found that meltwater pouring down holes in the ice - called "moulins" - did indeed cause ice velocities to skyrocket, from their typical 100m per year to up to 400m per year, within days or weeks.
> 
> ...



http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 4, 2008)

"*Not all scientists agree.* Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, US, says that *averaging data over the last 17 years does not make sense because the most rapid melting at the edges of the ice sheet did not start until recently.*

"It's only in the last five years or so that the warming signal has really been visible," he says.

Zwally told New Scientist that unpublished data from the eastern edge of the ice sheet suggests between 3% and 5% more ice is being lost because of lubrication than would otherwise happen."

http://environment.newscientist.com...s-the-brakes-on.html?feedId=online-news_rss20


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 4, 2008)

So 'another climate scare' isn't debunked at all.


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 5, 2008)

Just stumbled across this little site run by NOAA. 

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html
What has really caught my eye is the web cam....
Here is a movie of the webcam this year (warning its slow to load and is basicaly watching an empty polar vista  It stops at about June 23 when there is no melting......

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/cam1-2008web.mov

However todays webcam picutre:





Meltwater.

The webcam is mounted on a buoy out in the arctic by the NOAA team.




I think the webcam is on the bouy being tracked by the orange line[edited no its the purple line at 84 deg north]. It is right in the thick of the last of the multi year ice near the north end of Greenland. So its will be morbidly interesting to see if the ice it is on actualy melts. Ultra geeky I know but hey ho this is a geeky bit of Urban.

Of real interest as well is two of the other tracks, the green and black ones. Many months ago Id said one of the keys to why the ice is melting so much is that so much of the older thicker ice had been flushed out of the Fram straight. The map above shows both those boys going through the Fram straigt and it also shows just how deep the straight is compaired with the rest of the pole, this is where much of the warmer water is entering the arctic and flushing out the ice. Id said that previously the ice tended to be thick enough that there was little interchange between the Atlantic and Arctic, now there is alot more. This is one of the reason why a permenant nothern ice cap is considered a bi-stable situation. Once its established it can survive temporary fluxuations because of the cooling feedback of the very white ice and that it cuts off so much of the circulation from the rest of the worlds oceans, but once it flips to being a temporary ice cap it is hypothisised it takes far colder conditions to re-establish the permenance of the cap than to maintain it.

On a plus side it has been pointed out too me that at a high angle of incidence light reflects of off water, so as the sun sits lower and lower on the horizon we will not get the full absorbtion of solar energy compaired to if it was overhead. This will temper some of the positive feedback of open water later in the summer.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jul 5, 2008)

If one has to believe the deniers there is nothing wrong at all, ice caps aren't melting, gletschers don't melt at an even more dramatic pace... In fact, all those witnessing the very same are blind or even better: the pictures taken are faked, the filming of it is studio work (remember, the US moon landing was also Made in Holywood), the scientists studying it are fake, everything ever published on it is fake.
Great to know... bit I am not blind. So sorry.

salaam.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 5, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> However todays webcam picutre:



Looks remarkably similar to this photograph taken 18 may 1987


----------



## free spirit (Jul 5, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> On a plus side it has been pointed out too me that at a high angle of incidence light reflects of off water, so as the sun sits lower and lower on the horizon we will not get the full absorbtion of solar energy compaired to if it was overhead. This will temper some of the positive feedback of open water later in the summer.


True...







Unfortunately for this idea, the arctic ocean isn't flat, it's made up of waves, and the side of the wave facing the sun will be somewhere around the 0-40 degree's from facing sun head on, and the other side of the wave will be in the shadow formed by the front of the wave blocking the sun (at that latitude), so this means the incident angle factor only really applies to a small part of the top of the wave.

So yes, it's a factor, but I'd not have thought it'd have been that big a factor.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 5, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> Zwally told New Scientist that *unpublished* data from the eastern edge of the ice sheet *suggests* blah, blah, blah..



LOL!


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 5, 2008)

bigfish said:


> LOL!


You are a total lauging stock and have zero grasp of physics, chemistry, geology or any science. So please do not start passing comments about other posters who at least have a grip on reality. 

Now to get back to your silly post on volcano's heating up an entire ocean....

comment 60 on the real climate blog



> re 33 (Sorry for the formatting - cutting & pasting from spreadsheet to text editor to RC)
> 
> Lister, C. R. B., Heat Flow and Hydrothermal Circulation, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 8, p.95
> 
> ...



So according to this IF the entire heat generated by this volcanic episode had been applied to the ice directly it could feasibly have been responsible of only 9.5%. However it was 8 years earlier and under 4000m of water in an ocean with flowing currents. 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/#more-576

Question do you stand by the idiotic assertion that vulcanisity has had any real impact on the 2007 and 2008 melt seasons?



bigfish said:


> Looks remarkably similar to this photograph taken 18 may 1987



This bloody image is popping up all over the web today. Oh well. Much to my chagrin, cryospheres archive for 87 is a bit wonky but here is the exact same date a year later.....






Ocassionaly gaps in the ice open due to wind and currents. This is a well known phenomenon. However the current situation is not localised ice gaps but the whole goddam thing melting. One question about this picture... "your point caller?"


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 5, 2008)

free spirit said:


> Unfortunately for this idea, the arctic ocean isn't flat, it's made up of waves, and the side of the wave facing the sun will be somewhere around the 0-40 degree's from facing sun head on, and the other side of the wave will be in the shadow formed by the front of the wave blocking the sun (at that latitude), so this means the incident angle factor only really applies to a small part of the top of the wave.
> 
> So yes, it's a factor, but I'd not have thought it'd have been that big a factor.


Bugger. I am just getting overloaded by bad news these days. Id hoped I dug out some good news. There is a serious worry that a warmer, more moist arctic will have a huge impact on nothern hemisphere weather patterns. This is so not good it is beyond a joke. It seems that we are in the grip of a series of catastrophies that seem to be reinforcing each other in many ways. Take the old peak oil thing. Sod all to do with global warming most people would think, but unfortunately not. As oil shoots up in price airlines are cutting services. Many of the big ones in the US are planning to cut up too 20% of there flights come this 'thanks giving day'. Less flights may mean a small acceleration in global warming across the 48 states. If this cutting of flights across spreads to transatlantic flights then this will also hit the arctic as transatlantic flights tend to go throught the southern end of the arctic region, so this important region may experiance yet more increased heating.   I did come across this post as one potential impact of a warmer arctic on Nothern Hemisphere weather...



> 174
> Craig Allen Says:
> 1 July 2008 at 12:18 AM
> With regard to my (#146) question about the effect of an ice-free arctic on weather patterns:
> ...



This chimes with what I have been hearing from the models, that we will see a moving north of the isotherms and the nothern jet stream. But any change in temperature and wind will have a major impact on agriculture which could big changes in the total food produced. Again to illustrate how interacting the current problems are, the credit crunch has seen a big loss of confidence in the Indian rupee, this means its falling against the dollar, shooting up the cost of diesel in India faster than even in America. BUT Indias agriculture is massively dependent on diesel pumps to pull up ground water, so as the credit crunch bites and oil scarcity raises prices Indias ability to ride out a drought falls. Oh yeah our global stocks of grains are falling as well so our ability to help India out is also weakening. We are sleepwalking into a bloody disaster much much quicker than anyone (perhaps other than Lovelock and his fans) realize.

Its 12:59. Time to for the world to wake up. Incidently, the arctic has methane clatherates in the shallow continental regions.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 5, 2008)

*Northwest Passage: still impassable*


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 5, 2008)

bigfish said:


>


I dont see a defence of the heat generated by a 1999 volcanic eruption being sufficient to alter the ice coverage. 


Defend your post moron.

Bigfish: These people need your help link


----------



## bigfish (Jul 6, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> I dont see a defence of the heat generated by a 1999 volcanic eruption being sufficient to alter the ice coverage.



Straw man, dave - the thread is called *Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule*. The picture, from just a few days ago, shows the NW Passage still completely ice-bound, which doesn't seem to square with what you are claiming. How do you explain that, dave?


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 6, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Straw man, dave - the thread is called *Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule*. The picture, from just a few days ago, shows the NW Passage still completely ice-bound, which doesn't seem to square with what you are claiming. How do you explain that, dave?





bigfish said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/



Bull you have posted about volcanic activity in the arctic (insinuating it has an impact on the melting) and been shown to be a clueless idiot. Either provide some evidence that this post has some relevance to the melting of the arctic or admit you are a completely clueless fucktard.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2008)

david... present for you






you may already have it, but I just came across it while looking for something else.

Interesting to see that the winter peak sea ice extent doesn't seem to have changed massively, but the summer minimum is under 50% of the 25 year average from 1953-77.

As far as I can work out, this fits with what you'd expect if the change was due to changes that relied on the sun's insolation - ie. it fits with anthopogenic causes (plus any changes in the suns radiation, and changes to albedo in the area from ice melt etc.).

No way it fits with the long term ice melt trend being based on volcanic activity, unless the volcanos stop in winter and start again in summer IMO.

The original paper this is from is online here for anyone who's interested... I'm sure this graph will have been posted before anyway, but not so sure the paper it's from will have been.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 6, 2008)

> In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:
> 
> “There’s nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There’s been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change.”
> 
> ...



More: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Bull you have posted about volcanic activity in the arctic (insinuating it has an impact on the melting) and been shown to be a clueless idiot. Either provide some evidence that this post has some relevance to the melting of the arctic or admit you are a completely clueless fucktard.


david - it's pointless asking him to defend or retract a post he's made, I don't think I've ever once seen him even attempt to defend or retract a position he's taken unless he can find a conveniant cut and paste... ie he doesn't have the background understanding to be able to defend any of the positions he's cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Essentially he plays a hit and run game, fuck all point getting wound up by him.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 6, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Question do you stand by the idiotic assertion that vulcanisity has had any real impact on the 2007 and 2008 melt seasons?



Straw man, dave - your are asking me if I stand by an assertion I haven't made.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 6, 2008)

bigfish said:


> In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases


Explain why you want us to discuss what was known 20-30 years ago rather than what is known now.

e2a: Deleted request for specific citation -- I see it now.



bigfish said:


> most of Antarctica has cooled


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648


----------



## free spirit (Jul 6, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> I don't see any such thing in the cited paper. Provide an exact citation.


actually it's sort of right, as the geographic distribution of predicted temperature changes shows a 6 degree rise in the arctic and a 5 degree rise in the antarctic.

so kind of right, but rather than being a 5-6 degree rise in both places as stated in the article, it's a 6 degree rise in the arctic, and a 5 degree rise in the antarctic, which means he predicted a 20% difference in temperature rise between the 2 poles.

It should also be noted that this prediction was for a doubling of CO2 levels, and we're not there yet.



> Explain why you want us to discuss what was known 20-30 years ago rather than what is known now.


good point, climate science has moved on somewhat since that paper, so interesting though it might be to check how earlier predictions compare to present circumstances, it doesn't really show a lot about the current understanding of climate change.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 6, 2008)

The 1980s paper (PDF!) referred to in the article explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the models they used:


> However, the detailed geographical patterns of the computed climate changes *should not be viewed as a reliable prediction* for a doubled C02 world,
> because current climate models still (i.e. as of 1984) poorly represent many parts of the climate system. *For example, changes in horizontal heat transport by the oceans, which will undoubtedly influence regional climate patterns, are not included in the simulations for doubled C02.*



Now that these limitations have been overcome, the models predict what is observed:


> Climate models *do not predict an evenly spread warming* of the whole planet: *changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first*. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps show far more areas are warming than cooling.


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

I already posted what the IPCC says about antarctica on the other thread. Here it is again (it refers to what is predicted up until the end of this century):


> *Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting* and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.


http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 6, 2008)

I am a bit of a whore for pictures and graphs. This one is just awesome. 






http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

It is so detailed and you can see where the melt and winds cause the ice to really drop in concentration. Massive pity they dont have an archive like cryosphere.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya  (I would have posted this yesterday but could not remember how to spell it so could not find it    )


Here is a 2006 document I have stumbled across that is increadibly interesting. It forcasts an ice free pole within ten years if trends continue and reinforces my assertion that the missing ice area is not only about heat, but other changes as well. Up to 2005 the drop in ice area is given as only about 50% due to thermal forcing from global warming the rest is down to changes in currents, breakthrough of warmer water into the arctic and so on. 

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslowski.pdf

Obviously this percentage will increase going into 2007 and 2008 when the multi year ice was flushed out.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/multiyear.ice.quikscat.mov

I could take a metal pole and beat the climate change deniers over the head with it as the fact that so much of the change has not been directly related to global warming itself but changes in currents and winds that have been able to happen due to the thinning of the ice allowing changes in the dynamics at the poles. They could be pointing to sound science that the heating cannot explain the loss of mass alone instead of posting pictures of polynya's and talking crap about volcano's. Its clear they are totaly clueless about the issue and will just say anything that sounds plausable to a 12 year old.

Since Im here, here is cryosphere for today.....


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 9, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Straw man, dave - your are asking me if I stand by an assertion I haven't made.



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7689048&postcount=208

You often post things up without any text of your own. One can only presume you consider it plausible that volcanoes have something to do with the thawing of the Arctic. After all, you consider lots of unusual things to be plausible: Iron Sun, Growing Earth, and so on.

PS: Why have you stopped posting on <chuckle> the _Treeincarnation_ forums?


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 12, 2008)

Antartic ice sheet breaks up in mid winter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25638651/



> New satellite images show that an Antarctic ice shelf continues to disintegrate — and even more surprising is that it's happening during the Southern Hemisphere's winter.
> 
> Experts warned last March, at the end of the Antarctic summer, that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was disintegrating more quickly, but they expected that the winter cold would put the trend in a temporary deep freeze.
> 
> At 6,000 square miles in size, Wilkins "is the most recent in a long, and growing, list of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula that are responding to the rapid warming that has occurred in this area over the last 50 years," David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement released by the European Space Agency as it revealed the satellite images late Thursday.


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 12, 2008)

The actual ice area coverage has dropped behind last year quite a bit.





But it seems as if big melt areas are now guarenteed till the mid september.





Cryosphere has gone psycodelic






And our boy is now afloat on a little bit of a lake.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

Nice graphs.

There's still 1 million sq kilometers of *extra* ice at *both* poles compared to this time last year. 

So much for global warming.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 13, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Antartic ice sheet breaks up in mid winter.



Your concern over the constantly changing ice shelves is a bit like focusing on dying trees in an old forest growth while ignoring the replacement growth. Warming melts ice. Pressure fractures ice. Accumulating ice is pushing the shelf further out to sea. The movement of the tides causes stress fractures in the ice and the shelf eventually breaks off. Why then is a breaking ice shelf a sign of global warming?


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Nice graphs.
> 
> There's still 1 million sq kilometers of *extra* ice at *both* poles compared to this time last year.


Source please.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> Source please.



It's in the graphs that Dave Dissident provided.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 13, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> Source please.



Here you go:


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 13, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7503060.stm




> Twenty Russian scientists are to be evacuated from their camp on a drifting ice-floe in the Arctic after it started disintegrating sooner than expected.
> 
> The Russians had set up research station "North Pole 35" on the floe last September when it measured a safe five kilometres long and three kilometres wide, and their original plan was to stay on it until this September.
> 
> But after enduring the permanent night of the Arctic winter and surviving the threat of polar bears, the scientists now find that their temporary home has shrunk to just 600m by 300m and faces complete break-up as it drifts towards a current known to contain relatively warm waters.






> Separate teams of scientists in Canada and the US have forecast that this year's seasonal melt of Arctic sea-ice may well reach or exceed last year's record thaw in which the ice retreated to an extent not predicted for several decades.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> It's in the graphs that Dave Dissident provided.


Which ones?


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 13, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Your concern over the constantly changing ice shelves is a bit like focusing on dying trees in an old forest growth while ignoring the replacement growth. Warming melts ice. Pressure fractures ice. Accumulating ice is pushing the shelf further out to sea. The movement of the tides causes stress fractures in the ice and the shelf eventually breaks off. Why then is a breaking ice shelf a sign of global warming?


Not to speak directly to a moron who thinks the sun is made out of iron, but incase anyone else is reading this but has not really followed the stories of what is happening at the poles.....

Heavy thick ice sheets in the Southern Hemisphere have been breaking up unexpectedly over the past few years, most famously Larsen B. 









> Larsen B was stable for up to 12,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last ice age, according to Queen's University researchers.[4] By contrast, Larsen A "was absent for a significant part of that period and reformed beginning about 4,000 years ago," according to the study.
> 
> Despite its great age, the Larsen B was clearly in trouble at the time of the collapse. With warm currents eating away the underside of the shelf, it had become a "hotspot of global warming."[5] What especially surprised glaciologists was the speed of the breakup, which was a mere three weeks (or less). A factor they had not anticipated was the powerful effects of liquid water; ponds of meltwater formed on the surface during the near 24 hours of daylight in the summertime, then the water flowed down into cracks and, acting like a multitude of wedges, levered the shelf apart, almost in one fell swoop.[6][7] Global increase in air temperature was not the only factor contributing to the break according to Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado's national snow and ice data centre.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf


> The spectacular disintegration of Antarctica's "Larsen-B" Ice Shelf was unprecedented since the last ice age, according to a recent study published in Nature. And the disintegrating Antarctic ice could have huge implications for global warming and rising sea levels.
> Using sediment core and oxygen isotope analysis, researchers have recently proved that Larsen B -- which disintegrated in 35 days in 2002 -- had been a stable ice shelf 200 metres thick with a surface area of 3,250 square kilometres for at least 10,000 years. By contrast the Larsen A Ice Shelf, which broke up in the 1990s, was absent for a significant part of that period and reformed beginning about 4,000 years ago, according to the study.
> 
> "The disintegration of Larsen B is almost certainly a response to human-induced global warming," says Queen's geographer Robert Gilbert, the only Canadian researcher on the international research team. "Antarctic temperatures have increased more than 10°C in the last 25 years. By comparison, the world-wide temperature change during the entire post-glacial period has only been 2 – 3°C," he adds.





http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/qu-isd080305.php

The disintegration of these ice shelfs is not an isolated incident but a clear trend that is very very alarming as they are hypothised to hold back the movement of the giant Antarctic Peninsula glaciers effectively bottled in by them. 

The fact that the Wilkins ice sheet is disintigrating in winter is very alarming in that we may have underestimated the speed at which these sheets will break up and plausibly the speed at which the glaciers will speed up.


Edited to include an image of the temperature trends in the arctic surface as measured by NOAA satalites.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 13, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Larsen_B_collapse.jpg
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf



It's well known now that wikipedia climate pages are under the control of a claven of climate crackpots - I don't suppose you can provide only credible sources in future, can you?


----------



## merlin wood (Jul 13, 2008)

bigfish said:


> It's well known now that wikipedia climate pages are under the control of a claven of climate crackpots - I don't suppose you can provide only credible sources in future, can you?



...says a fuck-the-planet crackpot.


----------



## bigfish (Jul 13, 2008)

merlin wood said:


> ...says a fuck-the-planet crackpot.



George Carlin - Saving the Planet

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&eurl=http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 13, 2008)

bigfish said:


> It's well known now that wikipedia climate pages are under the control of a claven of climate crackpots










bigfish said:


> I don't suppose you can provide only credible sources in future, can you?


State what specific information provided from the wiki you disagree with and provide evidence to support your view.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> Which ones?



There's only 2 graphs in the posts immediately above mine. Take a guess at which ones I'm refering to. 

Incase you still can't work it out I'm refering to the graphs in posts 316 for the antarctic and 317 for the arctic.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> I'm refering to the graphs in posts 316 for the antarctic and 317 for the arctic.


The graph in 317 does not support your claim.

Also explain why you want us to compare this year with 2007, which broke the previous record by a huge margin, rather than comparing it with the prevailing average, as one would usually do in order to get a meaningful comparison. Is it because you want to replay the dishonest argument over the 1998 temperature spike, or is there some other reason?


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> The graph in 317 does not support your claim.


Yes it does. Left side of graph shows 6 million Sq Km of ice at this time last year. Right side of graph shows 7 million Sq Km of ice now. So I make that 1 million sq Km *more* ice. 



> Also explain why you want us to compare this year with 2007, which broke the previous record by a huge margin,


Because that's what DD's posts and sources show. Why not ask him? 



> rather than comparing it with the prevailing average, as one would usually do in order to get a meaningful comparison.


The graphs don't show that so I can't compare it.




> Is it because you want to replay the dishonest argument over the 1998 temperature spike, or is there some other reason?



I didn't take part in that argument so how the hell can I replay it?


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Left side of graph shows 6 million Sq Km


No it doesn't.



WouldBe said:


> Right side of graph shows 7 million Sq Km


No it doesn't.



WouldBe said:


> [we should compare with the record breaking year ...] Because that's what DD's posts and sources show.


No they don't. They compare with the prevailing average. "Anomaly from 1979-200 mean".


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.


Yes it does x 2 
Learn to read graphs.



> No they don't. They compare with the prevailing average. "Anomaly from 1979-200 mean".



Thats the lower of the 2 graphs in red. The main graph immediately above it in black shows the ice coverage and clearly shows 6 million sq Km this time last year and 7 million sq Km this year.


----------



## Signal 11 (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> Yes it does x 2
> Learn to read graphs.


The 2007 reading is above 6 million and the 2008 reading is below 7 million.

Now explain why you want us to compare this year with 2007, which broke the previous record by a huge margin, rather than comparing it with the prevailing average, as one would usually do in order to get a meaningful comparison.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

Signal 11 said:


> The 2007 reading is above 6 million and the 2008 reading is below 7 million.



Hoo bloody ray about time. Sorry for not being accurate to several decimal places. 



> Now explain why you want us to compare this year with 2007,


Because that's what the graph shows.



> rather than comparing it with the prevailing average, as one would usually do in order to get a meaningful comparison.


Which is what the lower red graph shows and shows an *increase* of 0.8 (is that accurate enough for you?) million sq Km compared to last year.

Yes I can see that it's still down on the average but it's heading up.


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 13, 2008)

We haven't passed through the season yet and already you are claiming that 'the ice is 1million km sq bigger than this time last year?

Yes, March 2008 ice extent was bigger than March 2007 ice extent, but new growth is first-year ice, which melts quicker during summer. The open-water meant that new ice could form (first-year ice). 

The increase in first-year ice by this spring (March 2008) is due to last years massive ice-loss (1.7 million km sq).

In 2007 season, only 17% of first-year ice survived. 

Even if more than 30% of first-year ice survives, the net loss will still be greater due to the loss of multi-year ice. 

Ice-melt is again earlier this year than in previous years (Russian team was just evacuated due to ice-melt occuring ahead of predictions - see BBC Science and Nature on their http://news.bbc.co.uk)

Graph here showing first-year ice survival rates since 1980s. 
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200804_Figure5.png


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 13, 2008)

tangentlama said:


> We haven't passed through the season yet and already you are claiming that 'the ice is 1million km bigger than this time last year?



Durr that's because it is. The graph clearly shows that



> Even if more than 30% of first-year ice survives, the net loss will still be greater due to the loss of multi-year ice.


That doesn't make sence. If more thinner first year ice survives the summer then ther will be a net loss due to thicker multi-year ice melting?



> Graph here showing first-year ice survival rates since 1980s.
> http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200804_Figure5.png


Which shows 10% more FYI this year than in previous years.


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 13, 2008)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> Which shows 10% more FYI this year than in previous years.



And?  




			
				Russian ice camp in rapid shrink said:
			
		

> Canadian researchers report that the melting of the Arctic ice this year started at least four weeks ahead of the long-term average.
> 
> Separate teams of scientists in Canada and the US have forecast that this year's seasonal melt of Arctic sea-ice may well reach or exceed last year's record thaw in which the ice retreated to an extent not predicted for several decades.
> 
> ...






			
				New ice growth over winter 2007/2008 said:
			
		

> As the winter extent numbers indicate, new ice growth was strong over the winter. Nevertheless, this new ice is probably fairly thin.
> 
> Thin ice is vulnerable to melting away during summer.
> 
> ...


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 14, 2008)

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center:



> June [2008] sea ice extent is very similar to last year and is now the third lowest on record. It lies very close to the linear trend line for all average June sea ice extents since 1979, which indicates that the Arctic is losing an average of 41,000 square kilometers (15,800 square miles) of ice per year in June. Last year, the rapid melt leading to the record-breaking minimum extent began in July.



The long-term trend line referred to above is in Figure 3, which interested readers can see for themselves here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Note the the bit about the 'rapid melt' commencing in July last year - meaning that head-in-the-sand types brandishing newspaper accounts dated May are displaying willful ignorance as per usual. There's also stuff on that page about the melt onset being earlier than usual this year, although it's the long-term trends which are more significant IMO.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Jul 14, 2008)

bigfish said:


> It's well known now that wikipedia climate pages are under the control of a *claven* of climate crackpots - I don't suppose you can provide only credible sources in future, can you?



A claven? 

A claven is a slang word for a long-winded person who dresses up personal opinion as fact, eg _Bigfish, you're such a claven_. It's not a collective noun.

Surely you mean 'coven'? (See also 'insolated'.)


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 14, 2008)

Been a wee bit of a melt in the Antartic over the past week. Short term stuff like this proves nothing but if you follow the thread then perhaps you will find it noteworthy.


----------



## bigfish (Aug 4, 2008)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center link at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html includes the following statements:

"Arctic sea ice extent on July 31 stood at 7.71 million square kilometers (3.98 million square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 8.88 million square kilometers (3.43 million square miles), it was 89,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) above the value for July 31, 2007."


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> A claven?
> 
> A claven is a slang word for a long-winded person who dresses up personal opinion as fact, eg _Bigfish, you're such a claven_. It's not a collective noun.
> 
> Surely you mean 'coven'? (See also 'insolated'.)


 This argument is much more convincing if you spell it with a 'K'

'Klavern of Klimate Krackpots' ... see?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 4, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The National Snow and Ice Data Center link at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html includes the following statements:
> 
> "Arctic sea ice extent on July 31 stood at 7.71 million square kilometers (3.98 million square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 8.88 million square kilometers (3.43 million square miles), it was 89,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) above the value for July 31, 2007."



so it's 1.17 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average, and 89 thousand square kilometers above last years record melt.



thanks for that bigfish, nice to see you're finally coming round to our way of thinking


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 4, 2008)

bigfish said:


> The National Snow and Ice Data Center link at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html includes the following statements:
> 
> "Arctic sea ice extent on July 31 stood at 7.71 million square kilometers (3.98 million square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 8.88 million square kilometers (3.43 million square miles), it was 89,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) above the value for July 31, 2007."


Great link I recomend everyone read it.


----------



## bigfish (Aug 4, 2008)

free spirit said:


> thanks for that bigfish, nice to see you're finally coming round to our way of thinking



I'll be coming round to your way of thinking just as soon as you anti-up that exposition on the CO2 driver theory you promised months ago but can't deliver. So now you have a good idea of when that will be.


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 4, 2008)

Since I am here, here is a quick run down on the latest from the north pole.


In the North the melt continues apace.






Probibly not on course to break 2007 but still a fairly severe melt, clearly the ultra cold la Nina of 07/08 has not stopped the loss of ice coverage in the arctic.

Here is the actual image.




One very worthwhile point, the ice has been congragating in the Atlantic side and some have been hypothisising that this has consricted some of the inward  spill of warmer Altantic water, especialy through the Framm straight. Also the first two weeks of July last year were increadibly warm in the arctic so this year we did not have a repeat of that increadible melt off. 

The NSIDC graph does a great job of capturing the differences between the two yeas.




NSDIC itself is a bit cagey about not breaking last years record as so much of the old thick ice was flushed out by currents over the winter that a sudden final spurt of melting is still well within the realms of feasability. As bigfishes link has done such a good job of explaining.

Oh and all this year the Antarctic ahs been the poster boy for "nothing to worry about."





No doubt after a major collapse of an ice sheet in the Antarctic meant the surface area ice gain has sort of dissapeared we will we hearing alot less about this.
Oh bit of a story here about melting forcing a national park in Canada to close.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7538341.stm
And the break up of another huge bit of ice, this time of off our old friend Ellisemre island. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7532435.stm
This ice shelf seems to be another confirmation that a very significant part of earths geology and climateology, the arctic ice sheet is experiancing rapid change that will have a major impact on the global climate and could have severe economic consaquencies as currents and wind patterns may be shifted.


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 9, 2008)

Alot of melting in the Arctic this week as we close in on the end of the season.












You can really see the spurt. I really really now think we will break the 2005 record of 5.3 million km^2 of sea ice extent. Worth noting though different groups use different definitions and its the second graph that the 5.3 million km^2 comes from.
It may come rather close to the 2007 record, this will be rather notable as it did not have the ultra warm first two weeks of July and had to recover from an increadibly cold winter. 

The antarctic is not going to be setting any records by the look of it.






Here is a good graph of the current sea temperature anolomy.




The exposed water in the arctic is increadibly warm, 5C in places. This will have a major impact on the coastal air temperatures. It is a really good image showing how as sea is exposed to the sun it absorbes much more heat and in turn will lead to more ice melting and a warming of the nothern land areas of Eurasia and North America.


----------



## bigfish (Aug 15, 2008)

*Are the ice caps melting?*



> The BBC's Richard Black wrote an article last week claiming that Arctic Ice is melting "even faster than last year." Looking at the Cryosphere Today map, it is abundantly clear that ice is melting more slowly than last year. By the end of June, 2007 the Hudson Bay was essentially ice-free. This year it is close to normal, with cold temperatures predicted for most of the rest of the short melt season. Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC.
> 
> Northwest Passage?
> 
> ...



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/


----------



## kerplunk (Aug 15, 2008)

What is it with the register and this recent crop of dodgy global warming sceptic articles - are they trying to be controversial? (silly question)


----------



## Crispy (Aug 15, 2008)

No, they've always had a skeptical slant to their stories


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 15, 2008)

bigfish said:


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/



Thank you very much for providing the link to that article. I was intrigued on finding part of the quote you extracted, namely this:



> The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times over the last century.



Now, in the article, the words 'one hundred times' form a link to _another_ article, this time on the BBC website, dated 19 September 2007. Here it is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6999078.stm

Now, much earlier in this thread around pages 1 and 2, back in 2007, you got very cross with me after I handed you your arse on a plate with regards to the navigability of the Northwest Passage:



bigfish said:


> Sure, all of the vessels encountered problems along the way, but is it any different today? has any vessel successfully navigated the NW passage this year without encountering similar problems, do you know?






			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> The report from the lie machine [Bigfish-speak for the BBC] states that the passage is "fully navigable" for the first time in 30 years. However, no one appears to have made the journey to confirm that it really is. Weird that, don't you think?






			
				bigfish said:
			
		

> Any idea why Greenwarfare [Bigfish-speak for Greenpeace] hasn't dispatched a couple of its vessels to the region to maximize its "manmade global warming" propaganda?



A rather unreasonable stance taken there, especially as the news of the Northwest Passage's opening-up had only been released a week beforehand. But with these devastating challenges ringing once more in our ears, let us peruse the September 2007 BBC article linked to from The Register piece:



> Mr Semotiuk, who has now signed off for the winter, told the BBC News website that a third boat this season - a lightweight catamaran crewed by a French and Belgian team - had just successfully navigated the full length of the 5,150km (3,200-mile) waterway.
> 
> This is the first time the journey has been completed entirely by sail, says Mr Semotiuk. Not so long ago, he says this journey would have been impossible because of the ice.
> 
> ...



Bigfish, things are getting bad when I read and think about your little quotes and links more thoroughly than you do. You must learn to concentrate more.


----------



## bigfish (Aug 16, 2008)

*Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered*



> *There's something rotten north of Denmark*
> 
> Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".
> 
> ...



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 16, 2008)

Ummmm bigfish, I know you have some really wacky ideas but you do realise the earth is round.


This article has not adjusted for this. It is a school boy error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

Also notice that the article has not sought the opinion of the people involved or given them a chance to respond as such it is very very close to being libel.


----------



## WouldBe (Aug 17, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Ummmm bigfish, I know you have some really wacky ideas but you do realise the earth is round.
> 
> 
> This article has not adjusted for this. It is a school boy error.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection



Bigfishes article clearly states that the ice area should be bigger than 30% due to map projection. Which doesn't explain how it's claimed to be only 10%.


> The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. *This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used.* As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area - so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.


----------



## Aldebaran (Aug 17, 2008)

Don't worry bigfish & followers, within a not so very long period of time there will be no ice cap left to discuss and then you can focus on what really matters.

salaam.


----------



## bigfish (Aug 17, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> This article has not adjusted for this. It is a school boy error.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection



The "school boy error" is all yours, I'm afraid. Larry Sanger, a Wikipedia co-founder in fact warned school boys against relying on the online encyclopedia, on the grounds that it “broken beyond repair”.

*Wikipedia a force for good? Nonsense, says a co-founder*
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1637535.ece


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 18, 2008)

I'll leave you to be the expert on schoolboys, bigfish, but that Register article makes a mistake at the start.

Printing out the NSDIC's graph and measuring the difference between the August 2007 and August 2008 extents with a ruler shows it to be around 700,000 sq km or 15% greater in August 2008, not 10% as they claim.

Some useful map-based comparisons between the July 2007 and July 2008 sea ice extents and concentrations here:

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist....onc&year0=2008&year1=2007&.cgifields=no_panel

The differences are in the order of 11% and 15% respectively - the latter presumably corrects for differences in ice concentration. There is nothing approaching 30%. A graph from researchers in Japan looks very similar to that of the NSDIC:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

The southern route for the Northwest Passage appears to be have been open too, but for how long remains to be seen:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18113


----------



## bigfish (Aug 18, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> The southern route for the Northwest Passage appears to be have been open too, but for how long remains to be seen:
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18113



Not long according to this 14 August Canadian Weather Service update showing new ice forming rapidly in the Northwest Passage.

http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/2008/08/yesterdays-new-ice.html

Let's hope all those sailors currently attempting to navigate the NWP don't fall victim to the hype about the Arctic melting.

Comparing 17 August 2008 daily sea ice with 17 August 2007 shows a substantial sea ice increase over last year.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=17&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=17&sy=2008


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 18, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Comparing 17 August 2008 daily sea ice with 17 August 2007 shows a substantial sea ice increase over last year.



2007 broke the previous record by a long way. As you should know by now the fact that subsequent years may not exceed that spike does not mean that the trend has reversed. This article shows the long term trend as well as a comparison with the previous record, 2005.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 19, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Not long according to this 14 August Canadian Weather Service update showing new ice forming rapidly in the Northwest Passage.
> 
> http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/2008/08/yesterdays-new-ice.html
> 
> ...


You mean it only looks like the second or third lowest year ever on record now?


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 19, 2008)

bigfish said:


> Let's hope all those sailors currently attempting to navigate the NWP don't fall victim to the hype about the Arctic melting.



Too late for that now. The Berrimilla, a 33-foot yacht from Australia, has just completed its journey through the Northwest Passage:




			
				Berrimilla blog said:
			
		

> The Berrimilla is the first boat to complete the NW passage in 2008, beating the Amodino by one day. (YAAA!!!) (I guess the Amodino got out of the ice OK back in Peel)
> 
> I believe the Berrimilla is the first Australian boat to complete the NW Passage! (YAAAAA!!! CHEERS! homemade Coopers in the air please!!!)



(If you like seafaring stuff in general, this blog makes for good reading.)

http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/2008/08/pond-inlet.html


----------



## Signal 11 (Aug 23, 2008)

bigfish said:


> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/


The register has now updated this article:


> * Editor's note:
> 
> Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. *We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect*. We reproduce Walt Meier's response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:
> 
> ...


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 27, 2008)

This comment was added to the comments section of the register story.



> I see that Mr. Goddard's article has gotten quite a discussion going. I've emailed The editors at The Register, but haven't heard back, and just recently Mr. Goddard directly.
> 
> Mr. Goddard's approach to counting pixels is simply not the correct approach. First, let me clarify a couple things.
> 
> ...



Massive 7 mile crack in far north Greenland glacier.
link

However one scientist does say this may not be as abnormal as it appears. One glacier breakup means little, but it does seem to be part of the measured trend. The cracking up of the thick ice sheets round Ellesmere Island have also gotten alot of attention this year. 

Now back to the ice cap itself. Well here is a nice we link where you can comepare the ice last year with this year...
link

You can see the first 25 days worth of melting in August on this animation]
link

Where we are right now?







Pretty much at the end of the melt season in the north. There will be a growth of ice in the center now, but contintued melting round the edges so perhaps a bit of a balace. The huge additional injection of heat into the arctic ocean this year will, like last year, probibly seriously delay the rapid return of the ice. This is likely to mean that the current amount of ice will hold to be roughly the same or shrink a bit more for a while, but the anolomy from the 1979-2000 average will, like last year, shoot up. Perhaps to 3million km^2 again as the water remains open when it used to freeze. Without last years brutal winter it will perhaps mean the total extent of ice in deep winter does not reach last years levels and the melting start earlier next year. Many other factors are at play here though and this is speculation.

This is the actual arctic measures by the University of Illinios on there excellent Cryosphere site.




For the long term anolomy you can look at this image. It clearly shows that the current anolomy is by far the biggest other than 2007 since accurate satalite measurements began in 79.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

And here is the Antartic that seems to be doing some rather odd things. Unfortunately I cannot explain the slight melt in the middle of winter.






And for the hell of it here are two other images I like.
One is a relief map of the Arctic Ocean basin.





The importance of the Framm Straight in mixing the Arctic and Atlantic is really obvious from this.

And here is an image of what the Antartic would look like sans ice sheet. Although it does not take into account isostatic rebound or increased sea level from a lack of an ice sheet.


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 28, 2008)

Latest report on the subject from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7585645.stm


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 1, 2008)

It's not often linking to the Telegraph story but here it is. 

*Arctic now an 'island'*
link



> The historic development was revealed by satellite images taken last week showing that both the north-west and north-east passages have been opened by melting ice.
> 
> Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.
> 
> ...



As you can see from there there has been a very pronounced drop this week and it is approaching the 2007 record, so it looks like once again I was wrong with my last post in assuming that the melting had halted.





To get a better grasp of the long term trend of this here is the long term graph






It is a great visual aid in explaining how much greater this years melt has been than any other than 2007. 

This is the sea surface anolomy now.




You can see clearly that the coastal regions are 4C-5C warmer than usual. This is probibly a big factor in the findings of some of the water having methane saturation levels 4000%.


There is reportedly a change in a long term ocean cycles to bring cooler waters to the nothern Atlantic, so this could slow or reverse the current trend, while the sun is starting to go into a cycle of increasing the energy it puts out. 






If I was to bet Id say I expect the north pole itself to have less than 40% ice coverage by 2013, Id also be willing to bet that increases in methane from melting permafrost and even some clatherates will also begin to have a measurable impact on the climate over the next 10 years.


----------



## Signal 11 (Sep 1, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> It's not often linking to the Telegraph story but here it is.



They've got another one today backing up the "hockey stick" too. Maybe they've been given the same treatment as The Register's Steven Goddard.


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 18, 2008)

This years melt has stopped now.


So close to last years there is no difference, but without the extreame weather we had last July.


----------



## darkfibre (Sep 23, 2008)

Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2008)

Oh crap


----------



## david dissadent (Sep 23, 2008)

darkfibre said:


> Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble...



This thread is also following the story. Though Id strongly quibble with the Independents "20 times more powerfull". This is a very often repeated figure but I think its wrong. In the atmosphere Methane has a half life of 7 1/2 years. Over 100 years methane has the global warming potential of about 25 times the equivelent mass of CO2, but over just 20 years this spikes to about 75 times more. This becomes very relevant when looking at short burst releases of methane. 

Note that only 1.8 ppb of methane in the atmosphere has an estimated radiative forcing of 0.48 WM^2 while 379 ppm CO2 is estimated at having a radiative forcing of 1.66 WM^2 +. A significant surge in methane would also, in all likelyhood be confined to the Nothern Hemisphere as over only a decade or so it would exist in the atmosphere there is little chance for the gasses to mix across hemispheres to any significant degree.

We shall have to continue to watch this story closely.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 5, 2008)

The Milankovitch cycle is something that has caught my attention recently. It seems that over the past thousand years or so we have had a very significant drop in the summer insolation at the 65 deg north. This suggests that there is vastly less energy midsummer to melt ice and snow, also that general Europe should have shown a very marked cooling trend over its summers. 

In my mind this kind of helps explain the medeval warm period in the North and the little ice age, these are the trends we would be expecting when the insolation is falling from about 505 WM^2 down to something like 460WM^2. I think combined with global dimming the fact that the ice is retreating under these huge negative forcings is very very telling.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 27, 2008)

I have come across an interesting and potentialy disturbing fact. Apparently the west antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) is only 23000 years old. Normaly people assume that the ice sheet in the antarctic is about 50 million years old, and was formed when the Drake passage opened. But that is mainly the east arctic ice sheet. The giantic monster that forms the bulk of the antarctic. the WAIS is apparently much younger and only formed during the depths of the last ice age. This would suggest that it is rather unstable, given its very slim shape, it is a peninsual and that it is a grounded ice sheet not on land (it is resting on the sea bed but rising above it) it is also vaulnrable to the changes in sea temperature.

Now through into the the collapse of the Larsen A, Larsen B and now the Wilkins ice sheet.... this is a potential 5 meter sea level rise that may be waking up. I am not going to say we will live to see this, but it is not the multi millenia melt that most people give as a figure for the EAIS. 

We are not just fighting global warming so we die in dry beds, we are fighting it so in 200 years there is still a Norfolk.


Edited to add this quote from Wikipedia



> Large parts of the WAIS sit on a reverse-sloping bed below sea level. The reverse slope, and the low isostatic head, means that the ice sheet is theoretically unstable: a small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire WAIS leading to rapid disintegration. Current computer models do not include the physics necessary to simulate this process, and observations do not provide guidance, so predictions as to its rate of retreat remain uncertain. This has been known for decades.
> 
> In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by at least 5 metres (16 ft). Estimates by others have ranged from 6 to 15 m (20–50 ft). Rapley said a previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report playing down worries about the ice sheet's stability should be revised. "The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern." [4]. Note that the IPCC report did not use the words "slumbering giant".


Link


----------



## free spirit (Oct 27, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> We are not just fighting global warming so we die in dry beds, we are fighting it so in 200 years there is still a Norfolk.


tbf that's probably the kind of reasoning that's led to the government doing sweet fa about it...


((((Norfolk))))


----------



## free spirit (Oct 27, 2008)

oh yeah, would you be so kind as to post up some links for the antarctic stuff?

or is it your own deductions?


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 28, 2008)

free spirit said:


> oh yeah, would you be so kind as to post up some links for the antarctic stuff?
> 
> or is it your own deductions?


Half of this thread has been my conjecture and guesses. But I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick with the bloke who I got the info of off. The WAIS reached its _furthest exent _about 25 kya. Its been retreating since then. However it was during the Eemian that the sea level was about 6 meters higher that it was hypothosed that the WAIS would have been significantly smaller, especialy the antarctic penisula. And no I dont have a link it was a conversation. I see your point though.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 29, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Half of this thread has been my conjecture and guesses.... And no I dont have a link it was a conversation.... I see your point though.


no worries, wasn't scoring points btw, just interested to have a look into what you were saying a bit further.... had it been conjecture and guesses I'm still interested as your conjectures seem to be mostly pretty spot on.

eta - I've found this to be one of the most interesting threads on here btw, and while we're at it, I've also been following that methane clatherates thread but not contributing coz I'm really in the learning zone on that one.... I'm still getting my head round there being permafrost under the ground under the water


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 29, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> The WAIS reached its _furthest exent _about 25 kya. Its been retreating since then.



So the planets been warming for 25,000 years. I hadn't realised the industrial revolution started that far back.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Oct 29, 2008)

WouldBe said:


> So the planets been warming for 25,000 years. I hadn't realised the industrial revolution started that far back.


Apples are seperated from trees because they are picked by people, thus trees cannot have spread as there is no way for their fruit to fall.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 29, 2008)

There's logic


----------



## kerplunk (Oct 30, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> The Milankovitch cycle is something that has caught my attention recently. It seems that over the past thousand years or so we have had a very significant drop in the summer insolation at the 65 deg north. This suggests that there is vastly less energy midsummer to melt ice and snow, also that general Europe should have shown a very marked cooling trend over its summers.
> 
> In my mind this kind of helps explain the medeval warm period in the North and the little ice age, these are the trends we would be expecting when the insolation is falling from about 505 WM^2 down to something like 460WM^2. I think combined with global dimming the fact that the ice is retreating under these huge negative forcings is very very telling.



Also note that Milankovitch's theories only gained credence in the 70's when sediment studies showed agreement and forms part of the background story behind the denialist meme that 'the scientists were predicting an ice-age in the 70's'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 30, 2008)

> Originally Posted by david dissadent
> We are not just fighting global warming so we die in dry beds, we are fighting it so in 200 years there is still a Norfolk.


This one's taken the hook deep into his cheek.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2008)

sea level has been rising at 1.8mm per year for the last 100 years. Most of norfolk is only a few feet above sea level.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 30, 2008)

Crispy said:


> sea level has been rising at 1.8mm per year for the last 100 years. Most of norfolk is only a few feet above sea level.





> Given all the warnings, here is a slightly inconvenient truth: over the past two years, the global sea level hasn't increased. It has slightly decreased. Since 1992, satellites orbiting the planet have measured the global sea level every 10 days with an amazing degree of accuracy – 3-4mm. For two years, sea levels have declined. (All of the data are available at sealevel.colorado.edu.)



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/climatechange


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2008)

That research comes from the university of colorado. Their webpage has the following graph:






The medium-term trend is obvious (and is a a direct continuation of the long-term trend). A 2-year decline is meaningless when talking about these timescales.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2008)

*You ain't seen nothin' yet!*

There's not a lot of land based ice that's melted yet.  We've been seeing the melting of the Arctic ice, and some ice shelves in Antarctica.  This ice is floating on water, so does not raise the level of the water when it melts.  

You can try this at home with a glass filled to the brim with a mixture of ice cubes and water.  The ice may be sticking out well above the surface, and well above the rim of the brim full glass, but it will all melt down into the glass all the same. So the Arctic ice is melting, and soon will be gone.  No problem.

It's what happens next that's interesting.  Y'see that northern summer sun won't be reflecting off the blindingly white snow and ice, not once that's all  melted.  Instead, it will be absorbed into the cold dark depths of the Arctic Ocean.  

A huge amount of energy each summer will be dumped into the Arctic Ocean, raising its temperature, and changing the climate in the polar regions.  That's likely to accelerate the melting of the ice that is sitting on land, ice that will raise the sea levels when it melts.  

Starting about now, the Northern Polar climate gets radically warmed by the warming Arctic waters, and the Greenland icecap starts melting.  Sea levels will rise, and fast, when this process gets under way.

Take a look at a map of the British Isles, take a look at the contours. See how it looks with sea levels 10 feet higher.  There's a hundred feet and more of water locked up in the form of land based ice.  It's going to melt, unless some sensible global management is put into place.

Right now, climate change is the greatest threat to the UK.  You can take the word of the UK's Chief Scientific Officer for that!


----------



## Jonti (Oct 30, 2008)

> ... over the past two years, the global sea level hasn't increased. It has slightly decreased.


Yeah, the warmer weather has meant wetter weather in the polar regions.  So at the same time as the floating ice has been melting, the land based ice has been thickening slightly.  This is fairly well known, I think.

Thing is, the melting of the floating ice exposes the dark seas beneath to absorb the solar energy that would otherwise be reflected back into space.  That's going to change the polar climate (at both ends of the Earth, but immediately and dramatically in the North).  And then the warmer polar climate will cause the land-based ice to melt, swamping large areas of Northern Europe and the British Isles.

Unless, of course, we do whatever it takes to protect our island home from the threatened rise of sea levels.


----------



## WouldBe (Oct 30, 2008)

Tin foil hat time.


For the Arctic.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 31, 2008)

Yup, 

you'd have to be some kind of ultra-thick, scientifically incapable, conspiraloony not to understand the facts of the matter! No doubt about that.


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 2, 2008)

*Entering positive feedback mechanism territory*

I've been following climate change research and reports for several years now. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the global climate is now entering positive feedback mechanism territory. If you haven't already done so, my recommendation would be for people to start finalising plans now for themselves and their families and take action accordingly, so that they are best equipped to adapt to any of the possible changes, that more rapid climatic upheavals could bring about.  For different people, that will involve different steps.  For example, in older houses people might be thinking they  might want to install larger roof gutters and drain-pipes to cope with the more torrential downpours we are already seeing in the UK.  Other people will be faced with the need to think of even more drastic changes.

Like anything, if you leave your plans to the last minute or wait until everyone else gets round to doing so (the herd instinct), things may be starting to move and change too fast and too quickly by that time for you to have much room or opportunity to do so.

Denial, preferring not to think about it, sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich or watching X Factor instead, aren't very good survival or contingency planning strategies!

It's a case of hoping for the best but planning for the worst, which is always a sensible thing to do.

http://uk.youtube.com/user/11thhouraction


----------



## david dissadent (Nov 17, 2008)

October report from NSIDC


> November 10, 2008
> An expected paradox: Autumn warmth and ice growth
> 
> Sign up for the  Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates. Updates are also available via Twitter.
> ...





> The 2008 growth rate was especially strong in early October but subsequently slowed down slightly.





> Over much of the Arctic, especially over the Arctic Ocean, air temperatures were unusually high. Near-surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska were more than 7 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal and the warming extended well into higher levels of the atmosphere. These warm conditions are consistent with rapid ice growth.
> 
> The freezing temperature of saline water is slightly lower than it is for fresh water, about –2 degrees Celsius (28 degrees Fahrenheit). While surface air temperatures in the Beaufort Sea region are well below freezing by late September, before sea ice can start to grow, the ocean must lose the heat it gained during the summer. One way the ocean does this is by transferring its heat to the atmosphere. This heat transfer is largely responsible for the anomalously high (but still below freezing) air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean seen in Figure 3. Only after the ocean loses its heat and cools to the freezing point, can ice begin to form. The process of ice formation also releases heat to the atmosphere.  Part of the anomalous temperature pattern seen in Figure 3 is an expression of this process, which is generally called the latent heat of fusion.





> At its fastest point on October 15, the 2008 ice growth exceeded the 2007 growth rate on the same date by 92,000 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day.





> However, if we look at the total extent of ice lost between the March maximum and the September minimum, 2008 set a new record for total ice loss over an entire melt season





> Arctic sea ice and climate are behaving in ways not seen before in the satellite record—both in the rate and extent of ice loss during the spring and summer, and in the record ice growth rates and increased Arctic air heating during the fall and winter.



What now appears to be hapening is that some of the the huge amount of additional energy being accumulated by the large dark exposed areas of water over the summer, is being bled back into the atmosphere during the autumn. This will likely be helping raise global temperature averages a small amount. Another impact is the likely creeping north of the snow line as the air is slightly warmer, leading to more heat being absorbed by the ground and leaving more moisture in the air later in the season. Water offcourse is the biggest greenhouse gas of them all. These are the potential feed back effects of all this new heat in the air. But as this shows the system is so dynamic and unpredictable that this is merely speculation. More heat can lead to more percipitation and perhaps more snow in winter. 

My best guess is that the maximum ice for the arctic this year will be significantly down on last year. The refreeze will slow into December and January, especialy without a very strong la Nina to drive it. What the exact 3 dimesional picture is of changes in heat distribution in the arctic is beyond me, whether new heat is penetrating deep into the ocean or if it is only sitting near the top and being immidiately bled back into the atmophere. Another plausability is that the thin ice crust over the ocean will retain more of the heat and the melt back next year may be rather fast. Especialy if it does start from a lower base than this year. 

These are only estimated guesses as the forces at work now seem to be strong enough to drive themselves and overwhelm the CO2 warming signal locally. 

Ice coverage for cryosphere today.






The NSIDC graph





The satelite image





The Hadley centers image of the worlds temperature anolomies. Notice the warming in the far northern Eurasia.


----------



## david dissadent (Nov 23, 2008)

Ive come across this rather splendid graphic. 








> The animated figure shows the temperature difference between the two 5-year periods 1999-2003 and 2004-2008. Such results do not show the long-term trends, but it's a fact that there have been high temperatures in the Arctic during the recent years.



From this excellent and informative article at Real Climate.
Its a bit technical heavy but discusses the differences in the different temperature measurement systems. The gist of it is basicaly the HadCRUT 3 (the hadley climate centers most high profile temperature set) and CRUTEM 3v are not taking full acount of the increases in arctic temperature due to how they calculate areas with little or no direct surface temperature data available. This explains why there is a bit of a discrepancy between Hadly (the UKs met office) and GISTEMP the most used NASA global temperature measure.


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 28, 2008)

Latest news from Hansen from CNN & Scientific American:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/21/climate.danger.zone/index.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2&sc=SE-Earth3_20080924


----------



## david dissadent (Dec 4, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> Antartic ice sheet breaks up in mid winter.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25638651/


Wilkins ice sheet nearing major break up.



> The ice bridge connects the Wilkins Ice Shelf to two islands, Charcot and Latady. As seen in the Envisat image above acquired on 26 November 2008, new rifts (denoted by colourful lines and dates of the events) have formed to the east of Latady Island and appear to be moving in a northerly direction.
> 
> Dr Angelika Humbert from the Institute of Geophysics, Münster University, and Dr Matthias Braun from the Center for Remote Sensing, University of Bonn, spotted the newly formed rifts during their daily monitoring activities of the ice sheet via Envisat Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) acquisitions.



new scientist on the same story


Apparently Wilkins does not corck in glaciers like Larsen B did but still the potential break up of a ice shelf the size of Jamaca is surely a bit of news.


----------



## david dissadent (Dec 12, 2008)

Last year the South Pole was slightly above average. This year the numbers from cryosphere today seem bang on the average, but someone sent me this, its a comparison of this years vs last years ice concentration. Although the areas are not that much different the 'density' of ice is alot thinner this year. 







I dont have a similar comparison for previous years (genuinly great pity) so no real conclusions can be drawn but it certainly appears that the southern hemisphere melt season is set to be alot stronger than last years. 

Just to be absolutely clear, although the southern hemisphere's floating ice is vulnerable to melt back in summer, the almighty continent sized monster that is the East Arctic Ice Sheet aint going anywhere in a hurry, it is so huge and cold it litteraly creates its own climate. The dynamics at work in the south are very different to the north and I dont really understand them fully. 

The satelite measurements are placing this year in the South bang on average atm. 






Thought Id just stick this up here incase the southern ice cap does anything dramatic to act as a baseline.


----------



## Jonti (Dec 13, 2008)

*The future rests on the soil beneath our feet*



> Journalists sometimes describe unsexy subjects as MEGO: My eyes glaze over. Alas, soil degradation is the essence of MEGO. Nonetheless, the stakes—and the opportunities—could hardly be higher, says Rattan Lal, a prominent soil scientist at Ohio State University. Researchers and ordinary farmers around the world are finding that even devastated soils can be restored. The payoff, Lal says, is the chance not only to fight hunger but also to attack problems like water scarcity and even global warming. Indeed, some researchers believe that global warming can be slowed significantly by using vast stores of carbon to reengineer the world's bad soils. "Political stability, environmental quality, hunger, and poverty all have the same root," Lal says. "In the long run, the solution to each is restoring the most basic of all resources, the soil."
> ...
> Reij has come to believe that farmers themselves have beaten back the desert in vast areas. "It is one of Africa's greatest ecological success stories," he says, "a model for the rest of the world." But almost nobody outside has paid attention; if soil is MEGO, soil in Africa is MEGO squared.
> ...
> A black revolution might even help combat global warming. Agriculture accounts for more than one-eighth of humankind's production of greenhouse gases. Heavily plowed soil releases carbon dioxide as it exposes once buried organic matter. Sombroek argued that creating terra preta around the world would use so much carbon-rich charcoal that it could more than offset the release of soil carbon into the atmosphere. According to William I. Woods, a geographer and soil scientist at the University of Kansas, charcoal-rich terra preta has 10 or 20 times more carbon than typical tropical soils, and the carbon can be buried much deeper down. Rough calculations show that "the amount of carbon we can put into the soil is staggering," Woods says. Last year Cornell University soil scientist Johannes Lehmann estimated in Nature that simply converting residues from commercial forestry, fallow farm fields, and annual crops to charcoal could compensate for about a third of U.S. fossil-fuel emissions. Indeed, Lehmann and two colleagues have argued that humankind's use of fossil fuels worldwide could be wholly offset by storing carbon in terra preta nova.


Our Good Earth


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2008)

See my comments on the other thread. 

Won't work unless you can fix capitalism.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 13, 2008)

any chance we can not derail this thread, it would be nice to keep this one as a record and discussion about arctic and antarctic ice melt.

Jonti, why not start a new thread, or at least post that on the other thread that's already discussing this issue.


----------



## isitme (Dec 13, 2008)

i'm prett pissed off. like we are setting all these targets and cutting down on our pollution and shit, and the ice caps aren't doing their bit, they are melting faster than ever ffs


----------



## free spirit (Dec 13, 2008)

isitme said:


> i'm prett pissed off. like we are setting all these targets and cutting down on our pollution and shit, and the ice caps aren't doing their bit, they are melting faster than ever ffs


some might say it was an indication our targets have way off what they needed to be.

me, I'll just say meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep coz it's friday night


----------



## Jonti (Dec 13, 2008)

free spirit said:


> any chance we can not derail this thread, it would be nice to keep this one as a record and discussion about arctic and antarctic ice melt.
> 
> Jonti, why not start a new thread, or at least post that on the other thread that's already discussing this issue.


 wtf?!

3/4 exactly on the theme of the arctic and antarctic ice melt.  The fourth on a possible remedy.

And that fourth gets a reprimand, ffs!!


----------



## david dissadent (Apr 10, 2009)

Gruniad link.

A story about the loss of old ice from the arctic with animation.


----------



## goebfwai (Apr 12, 2009)

David Frost interview with James Lovelock on 'Frost Over the World':

http://vodpod.com/watch/1515364-frost-over-the-world-james-lovelock


----------



## Dr Jon (Apr 13, 2009)

> Evidence of ice loss from both poles this week has sparked fresh fears that global warming is progressing faster than scientists had predicted.
> 
> Arctic ice has thinned dramatically, as well as shrinking in area, according to US research. Thin seasonal ice, which melts and refreezes each year, now makes up about 70 per cent of the Arctic winter ice, up from about 40 to 50 per cent in the 1980s and 1990s, leaving far less of the older, thicker ice that is harder to melt.
> 
> ...


link


----------



## david dissadent (Jun 4, 2009)

If anyone is still following this story, there has been something of a development.

The 09 melt season got off to a rather slow start







This was a temperature anolomy map from April published by NSIDC. As you can see cold air masses persisted over the arctic for the early part of the spring\ summer leading to this.....






This was a taken at about 18/4/9. The melt season continued on this very slow tragetory until it almost hit the 1980-2000 average and tracked it.

This was greated with the usual howls of 'hoax' from the contrarian blogosphere. However over the past couple of weeks there has been something of a change in trend.......







This is from 03/06/09.
Seems this summers melt might not be a quiet and uneventfull as we all first hoped. Breaths are being drawn in again. We shall just have to wait and see what the rest of this year brings. 

There may also have been developments with atmospheric methane concentrations but its all prelimenary and most likely over worried individuals than a genuine new trend.


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 3, 2009)

*Sea Ice At Lowest Level In 800 Years Near Greenland*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701102900.htm


> New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now. The research results from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, are published in the scientific journal, Climate Dynamics.



The nothern hemesphere mid summer is when the earth is the furthest from the sun at the moment that and other orbital factors mean that the insolation at 60N during June and July is the lowest for over 2000 years, we should have much colder summers and an ice pack keeping much further south increasing the albedo of the earth..... cooling it.


The 20th centuary is supposed to have been the coldest for a long time. Something is up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2009)

david dissadent said:


> This week the arctic ice sheet has reached its lowest ever recorded ice coverage. Since it broke that record it has lost another whopping 11% in total ice surface area. Now at this time of the year it does retreat fast, this is high summer but 11% in a week is staggering. It has about a month of seasonal melting left so having already broken the record it looks well set to smash it.


it's reassuring to know that in this age of pisspoor service, when everything else is running late, some things can still arrive early


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 3, 2009)

An interesting blog I have just been pointed too, very interesting too anyone following one of the climate story of the decade.

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

Its by  Jason Box, a Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, and an IPCC scientist.


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 8, 2009)

*Will the arctic ice cap unanchor from land this year?*












These two images were taken two days apart. What appears to be happening is that the normally stable old ice north of greenland is begining to disintegrate and what appear to be cracks are forming north of Canada. Although the ice cap is not a contiguous mass, where it is dense it usualy is pretty close to one.

This is a very very interesting and worrying development. I dont really know the consaquencies but dont they will be all that much in themself, the ice sheet is unlikely to go carreering round the arctic ocean like a loose cannon, but it could mean that much of the old 6 year + ice that is left is becoming free enough to be flushed out into the Atlantic. This will (again) acelorate the melting. 

I think this may be a pretty momentous moment if it does happen, it may have happened during the medievel warm period or something but I think it is unlikely, I think they may be the first time this interglacial this happened. Perhaps not but it would appear to be a pretty big change in the earth if and when it does.

FWIW I am not saying that the cap will detach, but the chances of it seem greater than even a few days ago.


----------



## david dissadent (Oct 27, 2009)

Hmmmm...... 

Still second warmest August and September on instrament records with the sun experiancing what the denialosphere is calling a 'grand minimum' and only a weak el nino in effect. 

Augusts global surface temp anolomy as per HadCRUT3





Septembers should be out soon.


----------



## david dissadent (Jan 8, 2010)

Arctic Ocean Awakens



> All that wave action is expected to bring deep water nutrients closer to the surface, where with sunlight they'll feed summer phytoplankton blooms — forming a vast new foundation for the Arctic marine food web.
> 
> Among the more worrisome questions raised by a more turbulent Arctic Ocean is whether or not it could speed up the melting of Arctic sea ice.
> 
> ...



The thinning ice has long been supposed to make the ice more vaulnranble to wave action, the more kinetic the sea the slower it will melt come autumn, but the mixing is an interesting potential dynamic, but this will be offset by the warming surface ocean being less dense in many places. The arctic ocean has been cut off from the general oceanic cirulation for about 3 million years, the change will be scientificaly very intersting.

Incidently I noticed that Hudson Bay was ice free until early December, it was around the 12th before sea ice began forming. As much as we are experiancing cold here they are experiancing warmth up there






Jeff Masters blogs on the arctic dipole



> Arctic Dipole blamed for colder winters in East Asia
> It turns out that the new Arctic circulation patterns help to intensify the Siberian High, a large semi-permanent region of surface high pressure prevalent in winter over Siberia. According to Honda et al. (2009), this results in increased flow of cold air out of the Arctic in early winter over eastern Russia, Japan, Korea, and eastern China, causing colder temperatures. By late winter, the pattern shifts, resulting in *colder than average temperatures from East Asia to Europe*.





> on December 11, 2009


Hmmm I always read his blogs during Atlantic Hurricane season and off season he often has some interesting observations. Man he nailed that on (superfically anyway).



> Arctic sea ice loss appears to have created a new atmospheric circulation pattern that brings more warm air in the Arctic, creating a positive feedback loop that causes even more sea ice loss. This feedback loop increases the likelihood that an ice-free Arctic in the summer will indeed come by 2030, as many Arctic experts are predicting. *It's worth noting that such an atmospheric circulation shift was not predicted by the climate models. *Indeed, the loss of Arctic sea ice over the past three years exceeds what any of our models were predicting (Figure 4). While we can rightly criticize these models for their inaccuracy, we should realize that they are just as capable of making errors not in our favor as they are of making errors in our favor.




Thats not very comforting! People talk about increasingly chaotic (in a scientific sense) weather and shifts in climate regimes. Its only been 2 years since the 2007 melt season so we are still only speculating here but way may be headed into a new regime in the Arctic\ North Atlantic region.


----------



## HarryinOz (Jan 9, 2010)

david dissadent said:


> Please someone be angy at this. Should this not be on the front page, we are watching huge enviromental changes in DAYS.



I am. I'm fucken well pissed off at the politicians, corporations, the media and all the people who Deny anything is happening... or to worry about.

I especially get pissed off at the average normal person/people on here who actively try to convince everyone else that it's either not happening or that it's just a normal weather cycle, pour billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and you think no damage at all will happen? It doesn't float out to space or just disappear it fucken well just keeps building up to higher and higher levels.

btw, the Australian liberal party (in opposition atm) has several members including it's leader who flat out deny global warming is happening.

pissed off?  pissed off ain't the words for how I feel.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 14, 2010)

I don't know if anyone has spotted this:

Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point'


> A major Antarctic glacier has passed its tipping point, according to a new modelling study. After losing increasing amounts of ice over the past decades, it is poised to collapse in a catastrophe that could *raise global sea levels by 24 centimetres*.


----------



## david dissadent (Jan 25, 2010)

*Satellite data may not be showing the full picture.*

Science Daily



> However, in situ observations made in September 2009 by Barber et al. show that much of the ice was in fact "rotten" ice -- ice that is thinner, heavily decayed, and structurally weak due to a uniform temperature throughout.
> 
> The authors suggest that satellite measurements were confused because both types of ice exhibit similar temperature and salinity profiles near their surfaces and a similar amount of open water between flows. The authors note that while an increase in summer minimum ice extent in the past 2 years could give the impression that Arctic ice is recovering, these new results show that multiyear ice in fact is still declining.




Meanwhile the Kara Sea has been losing in the middle of January!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html

I assume this is due to wind rather than anything else, but I could not find a similar incident in the Crysophere today pages for a January over the past 30 years.

The NSIDC metric has us back under 07 for this time of year, but if the artic dipole has shifted we should not (in theory) get as big a melt.

In theory mind.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 25, 2010)

> The authors note that while an increase in summer minimum ice extent in the past 2 years could give the impression that Arctic ice is recovering, these new results show that multiyear ice in fact is still declining.



Could this be the way the earth compensates for a global warming?

By turning ice into slushies that cover a larger surface area the slushie could  reflect more sunlight, stopping heat being absorbed by the earth and allowing the earth to cool.


Isn't this more evidence that the climate models are a load of toss?


----------



## david dissadent (Jan 25, 2010)

WouldBe said:


> Could this be the way the earth compensates for a global warming?
> 
> By turning ice into slushies that cover a larger surface area the slushie could  reflect more sunlight, stopping heat being absorbed by the earth and allowing the earth to cool.
> 
> ...


WTF? You are not even pretending to make sense.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jan 25, 2010)

WouldBe said:


> Could this be the way the earth compensates for a global warming?
> 
> By turning ice into slushies that cover a larger surface area the slushie could  reflect more sunlight, stopping heat being absorbed by the earth and allowing the earth to cool.
> 
> ...



It could, or global temperature changes and ice buildup/reduction could be down to the evil semi-aquatic sub ice dwelling unicorns waving their magic horns to create either cooling ice tea or dangerous espresso.

But that's just stupid on so many levels.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 25, 2010)

david dissadent said:


> WTF? You are not even pretending to make sense.


lol


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 26, 2010)

david dissadent said:


> WTF? You are not even pretending to make sense.



So what is the minimum thickness ice needs to be to be reflective then?


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 26, 2010)

WouldBe said:


> So what is the minimum thickness ice needs to be to be reflective then?


Not a lot it seems.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 11, 2010)

*bump*

so what's going on in the arctic melting season this year then?

After an end of winter spurt in arctic sea ice growth that pushed the sea ice extent to close to it's 1979-2000 average for April, May and June have seen rapid melting to the extent that the sea ice extent is now lower or the time of year than it was in the previous record low year of 2007.







this rapid melting seems to largely be down to significantly higher than average air temperatures in several regions, particularly around the Siberian coastline. Nasa say it's too early to predict if 2010 beats the 2007 record low this summer, but with the speed it's been melting in the last 6 weeks, I'd not be betting against it.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 21, 2010)

Today is the solstice, we are atleast four days ahead of the nearest record on all analysis.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/

This could be it. If it takes till 2100 AD for the arctic to become seasonal ice free then we will merely be online for the IPCC predictions. Anything before that and we are screwed. The small handfull of people who give a shit or at least pretend to give a shit can fallow the science in the blog listed.

Work it out for yourself and happy solstice


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 2, 2010)

Its raining in the north pole, well one sharp eyed blogger spotted it

Artfull Dodger at 
(Thu Jul 01 19:45 UTC).






I can still see the rainbow at 20:49 UTC Jul 1, but the image will likely referesh. 

I have no idea how often it does that though or how significant it is.

Other links here
http://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/


----------



## Dr Jon (Aug 9, 2010)

Massive Ice Island Breaks Off Greenland Glacier


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 9, 2010)

A bigger one broke off 40 yrs ago.

chicken licken


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> A bigger one broke off 40 yrs ago.
> 
> chicken licken


Source?

There was definitely a humongous one about 5 years ago that's still floating about (B-15 - 11000 sq km), this one is 'only' 260 sq km!


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 9, 2010)

MikeMcc said:


> Source?
> 
> There was definitely a humongous one about 5 years ago that's still floating about (B-15 - 11000 sq km), this one is 'only' 260 sq km!


 
Source?

His fucking link you plonker.



> Andreas Muenchow at the University of Delaware said in a statement Friday that the last time the Arctic lost such a large chunk of ice was in 1962.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 9, 2010)

Patrick Lockerby had predicted this in July. It was getting a bit obvious that a major calving event was due to take place, when you can see the cracks on 250 meter resolution images they be fucking big cracks.

He also has some words for the other major ice loss that is being referenced.


> And that 'not since 1962' is being picked up as 'proof' of natural cycles.  Firstly, the 1962 event  was an ice shelf: the loss of 250km2 of any single Arctic ice tongue in one year is without precedent.  Secondly, the ice shelves that have disappeared were about 3,000 years old.  Their loss is directly attributable to Arctic warming.


Hmmm shows what I know or at least how new I am to this game, I did not realise that Greenland used to have ice shelfs. I dont think there is much landfast ice left in that region it is all mobile sea ice. The big cracking ice shelfs from the Antarctic are always in the news (and have even had a pop song sung about one of them) such as the famous Larsen B and the B-15 referenced by MikeMCC. (link to Patricks second blog post)

Also worth pointing out this is the second major calving event on Petermann in the past few years.






Mauri Pelto a professional glaciologist also blogged on Petermann earlier this year. Very worth a read and again this appears to be a patter of the precursor to Petermann accelerating. Given this is one of the most notherly Glaciers in the world (a fair bit further north than Jackobhaven for example) this is not good news.

Still its not like Pine Island Glacier is showing any signs of melting now is it.


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Source?
> 
> His fucking link you plonker.


I would say sorry, but I won't bother.

What got you so fucking ratty?

ETA: apart from you being wrong_ again_!


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 10, 2010)

Looks like the Ice Age really is ending. Sobs.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2010)

Iconoclast, teacher, revolutionary, award winning comedian, big wave surfer, marksman, saxophonist _and_ climatologist? Your wonders never cease, ern.


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 10, 2010)

Jealous?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2010)

Only of your saxophony


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 10, 2010)

Please don't derail this life-changing 'OMG' 'The sky's falling in' 'Repent sinners for ye end is nigh!' thread.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 24, 2010)

The ship in the front is the Candadian ice breaker Louis St. Laurant it is opening a path for the research vessel Healy. 

Gorgeous.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 26, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> And that 'not since 1962' is being picked up as 'proof' of natural cycles. Firstly, the 1962 event was an ice shelf: the loss of 250km2 of any single Arctic ice tongue in one year is without precedent. Secondly, the ice shelves that have disappeared were about 3,000 years old. Their loss is directly attributable to Arctic warming. .


Seems the Ward Hunt is still in the process of breaking up. 








> A large parcel of ice has fractured from a massive ice shelf on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, marking the third known case of Arctic ice loss this summer alone.
> 
> The chunk of ice, which scientists estimate is roughly the size of Bermuda, broke away from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the island's northern coast around Aug. 18, according to NASA satellite imagery.
> 
> ...



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/08/24/ellesmere-ward-hunt-ice-shelf.html#ixzz0xiFdFXjv


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 27, 2010)

Below 5.5 million today.

Fuck you Steve Goddard you lying anti science cunt.


----------



## laptop (Aug 27, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Below 5.5 million today.
> 
> Fuck you Steve Goddard you lying anti science cunt.



5.5M what?

who?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 27, 2010)

who?

or do I not want to know?

eta - oh, a watts cohort


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 28, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Below 5.5 million today.
> 
> Fuck you Steve Goddard you lying anti science cunt.


Aye, I'm getting a bit of stick on the IET forums from a Monckton arselicker called Ipayyoursalary (never did a username reveal that a person is an arsehole to start with!) over Goddard's BS.


----------



## rich! (Aug 28, 2010)

MikeMcc said:


> Aye, I'm getting a bit of stick on the IET forums from a Monckton arselicker called Ipayyoursalary (never did a username reveal that a person is an arsehole to start with!) over Goddard's BS.


 
IET as in former IEE? Do people *use* their forums? 

(I ask as a member of long standing... tho' not at the bar...)


----------



## MikeMcc (Aug 28, 2010)

Not bloody many, doesn't help that they've buried it quite deeply in their website (there's only one link in the quick links)!  I've just posted a thread to say how dissatisfied I am with the IET (post-merger) and no one has responded yet and that was 5 hours ago!  I was really well involved with the IIE before the merger but I've become really bored of it and feel it doesn't represent me.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

JAXA is just _just_ above 5 million square km

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

5034209km*, we have seen some very significant drops in extend over the past two weeks largely driven by winds driving the thin broken ice out of the Arctic basin.

Another shout for the Arctic Sea Ice blog where you can get details till your head bursts.

And for those dealing with the antiscience mob, you will be pretty familiar with the claims about the Antarctic, well it drop briefly into negative anomoly yesterday

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

So much for record growth in the antarctic. 

We now have the third lowest sea ice extent in the NH on the satellite record and the thesis that there has been a recovery is looking dead in the water. Once cryosat 2 starts reporting we can compare with the PIOMAS team (Zhang and his co workers) estimates on the thickness of the sea ice and at should lead to a pretty good understanding of where we are atm.

*Below 5 million now.  4977344km^2.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 12, 2010)

That chunk that broke of the Petermann has broken in two and the smaller part is now heading out into the Nares straight to see if it can make it way in the world.

Luckily there are no oil exploration platforms in that part of the world or once it escaped out of the Nares Straght it could have caused havock.


----------



## ymu (Sep 12, 2010)

This is as good a place as any to post this.



> The world's most high-profile climate change  sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
> 
> Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## ernestolynch (Sep 12, 2010)

Lol


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 14, 2010)

Covers a bit of research on the Ross Ice Shelf and its likely impact on sea level rise. Also a bit on the end about acidification. Could not find any existing threads on ocean acidification so this seems the only place to really put it.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 24, 2010)

> "The Arctic sea ice has reached its four lowest summer extents (area covered) in the last four years," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado.





> "I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It's not going to recover," he said.


source



> "The exceptional cold and snowy winter of 2009-2010 in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America is connected to unique physical processes in the Arctic," James Overland of the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in the United States told IPS in Oslo, Norway last June in an exclusive interview. ' Paradoxically, a warmer Arctic means "future cold and snowy winters will be the rule rather than the exception" in these regions, Overland told IPS.


Esseantially on a much larger scale the great lakes effect, that as the great lakes reduce in ice cover, the US midwest experiances more snow. 

We go from a dry dessert in the arctic to a medeteranian type enclosed sea basin.


> One local impact underway is a rapid warming of the coastal regions of the Arctic, where average temperatures are now three to five degrees C warmer than they were 30 years ago. If the global average temperature increases from the present 0.8 C to two degrees C, as seems likely, the entire Arctic region will warm at least four to six degrees and possibly eight degrees due to a series of processes and feedbacks called Arctic amplification.
> 
> A similar feverish rise in our body temperatures would put us in hospital if it didn't kill us outright.
> 
> "I hate to say it but I think we are committed to a four- to six-degree warmer Arctic," Serreze said.








Minimum was 09,18,2010,4813594 in third place behind 09,09,2008,4707813 and the 2007 megamelt: 09,16,2007,4267656.


----------



## laptop (Sep 24, 2010)

Stephen Leahy of  said:
			
		

> rapid warming of the coastal regions of the Arctic



And how much methane is there in the soils there?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 24, 2010)

laptop said:


> And how much methane is there in the soils there?


 
500 Gigatonnes of carbon in Siberia alone


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 25, 2010)

Antarctica seems to have lost about half a million square kilometers over the past couple of days. Seems to have been driven by the winds so the anomaly should fall back closer to zero over the coming weeks.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 27, 2010)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 10, 2010)

So the Arctic in the 40s
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ser...List_No,Series_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=14&trs=104


----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## ernestolynch (Oct 11, 2010)

I think I'll burn some tyres today.


----------



## ymu (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 11, 2010)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 11, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> [/IMG]


Have you ever considered experimenting with coherent scientific arguments in the science forum as opposed posting meaningless pictures? Or are you too thick....


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 26, 2010)

Worlds fastest moving glacier could be set to accelerate. The underlying geography of Greenland means that they may expand the width of the calving front as it retreats back inland. This also could happen to Petermann and Humbolt glaciers. 

NOAA report card on Arctic for 2010

Third lowest extent on record.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 26, 2010)




----------



## Crispy (Oct 26, 2010)

Am I right in interpreting the scale as "how long the ice has been there" eg, when it was last liquid water, and nothing to do with the common definition of "Ice Age"?

If so, they should have labelled it "Age of Ice" to avoid confusion 

Also, how do they measure it? And where's the data between 88 and 08?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 27, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Am I right in interpreting the scale as "how long the ice has been there" eg, when it was last liquid water, and nothing to do with the common definition of "Ice Age"?
> 
> If so, they should have labelled it "Age of Ice" to avoid confusion
> 
> Also, how do they measure it? And where's the data between 88 and 08?


The ice can be measured by its thickness using a mixture of the satellite radars and tracking bouys. This year though a synthetic apateur radar on the Cryosphere 2 satellite has finalised comissioning and should be releasing data soon.

CryoSat ice mission gets clean bill of health



> 26 October 2010
> Realising a satellite mission is a complicated task, with many milestones to pass before data are delivered to advance our understanding of Earth. However, scientists will soon have access to precious information on ice thickness as the commissioning of ESA's CryoSat draws to a close.


http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEMM2AZOBFG_LPcryosat_0.html

This should give us live data on ice thickness and hence age, as well as a clearer view of transportation and hopefully where the ice is full chunks or the partially melted 'rotten ice', it will also go along way to validating how good the PIOMAS thickness models of Zhang and co has been. .


----------



## laptop (Oct 27, 2010)

Crispy said:


> And where's the data between 88 and 08?



I'd say 1988 was just a representative past year - note it's bang on trend in the graph above.

And I'd ask the National Snow and Ice Data Center, J. Maslanik and C. Fowler - reference.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 3, 2010)

Brace for over 20 meter sea level rise.



> When was CO2 last at today’s level, and what was the world like then?
> The most recent estimates35 suggest that at times between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene), the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10 – 25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today36. There were large fluctuations in ice cover on Greenland and West Antarctica during the Pliocene, and during the warm intervals those areas were probably largely free of ice37,38,39. Some ice may also have been lost from parts of East Antarctica during the warm intervals40. Coniferous forests replaced tundra in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere41, and the Arctic Ocean may have been seasonally free of sea-ice42.



It also confirms that rapid extursions of geologically sourced CO2 can destabilise methane clatherates in sufficient quantities to be climactically significant.



> The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be



Official statement from the UKs geological society.

Link

It only looks at 200 million years of climate history but it does focus on some undisputed facts. 
The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago.
The Early Aptian 120 million years ago
And the Early Toarcian 183 million years ago. 
Sea leves and CO2 during the Pliocene. The only coment on this is that there is a slightly different configuration of the continents since then with the Drake Passage being open and the Panama Ismuth closed. 

So we can conclude that given the recent climate history of the earth a 20 meter sea level rise would be a fair expectation of only about 3 years more CO2 at current rates. We likely to be comiting to a methane feedback although some can argue this may yet be as much as 1000 years out or perhaps a lot closer, that methane feedback would like see a temperature rise in the order of 6C or greater (there are other mechanisms for methane feedbacks other than deep ocean clatherates).


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 3, 2010)

The sky's fallin' in, Chicken Licken! Head for the hills! Who'd have thunk that coastlines are changin'?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 3, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> The sky's fallin' in, Chicken Licken! Head for the hills! Who'd have thunk that coastlines are changin'?


This topic is a little on the advanced side for you, you should start here.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2010)

Try harder, Lynch. Maybe you'll get a bite one day.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 5, 2010)

Check out the CH4 readings on Ny-Alesund station on Svalsbard. 
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

None of the other stations show anything untoward so clearly a local event but still, gotta raise an eyebrow!


----------



## free spirit (Nov 5, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Check out the CH4 readings on Ny-Alesund station on Svalsbard.
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
> 
> None of the other stations show anything untoward so clearly a local event but still, gotta raise an eyebrow!


worth keeping an eye on, but those data points are given as being preliminary, rather than verified, so it could be an instrument malfunction or problem with calibration etc.

it is exactly these sort of localised monitoring stations that would first pick up on any major releases from the methane clathrates (sp?) below the ocean, and / or permafrost melting though, so this would be pretty worrying if it was confirmed as being correct.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 5, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Try harder, Lynch. Maybe you'll get a bite one day.



Don't fucking wade in like a normal poster, Cwispin. You're a referee, stay out of it.


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 7, 2010)

Here's an image that I found quite shocking.  It's comparing the IPCC predictions for Arctic ice loss with the measured values:



Source
So once again the IPCC has been shown to be too conservative in their predictions (just as they have on CO2 emmissions and sea level rise).


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2010)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=ZEP&program=ccgg&type=ts


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 20, 2010)

As terrible as that Svalbard data looks (and I see it's now being shown as confirmed) there may well be some other problem.  There's an identical looking swing on the methane trace.  Yet those massive changes aren't seen on other Arctic stations.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2010)

MikeMcc said:


> As terrible as that Svalbard data looks (and I see it's now being shown as confirmed) there may well be some other problem.  There's an identical looking swing on the methane trace.  Yet those massive changes aren't seen on other Arctic stations.


Yep, it is almost certainly merely a localised affair.

But I think it is very worth while bringing it to the attention of those who interperate the data and there is a small, very small, but real chance that this is something a little more serious than just a local phenomina. Given there are no NOAA reporting stations across North Russia and this is the area where Shakhova and Semiletov have been finding all the anomolous readings, Svaalsbard would be the first station on the NOAA network to pick anything up. 

I think it is important to bring this to the attention of those who can grasp the significance but I do think it needsto be talked down as much as possible.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 20, 2010)

How elitist.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> How elitist.


Just to be clear; are you some kind of comedy troll in joke that everyone else gets and I havent worked out yet or are you really genuinly as thick pig shit?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2010)

Both
But the joke's not funny.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 20, 2010)

You're the one with a spycam Cwispin.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 21, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> You're the one with a spycam Cwispin.


 
If you're just here to take the piss, don't ever post again in this forum or on this topic.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 21, 2010)

What?


----------



## rorymac (Nov 21, 2010)

Watch yer step lynchy .. man is destroying the sky with ozone and it aint funny when you see all the graphs and the histograms. I flung my missus femfresh away last night .. it doesn't smell anything like a fanny imo !


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 21, 2010)

Lol


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 21, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Just to be clear; are you some kind of comedy troll in joke that everyone else gets and I havent worked out yet or are you really genuinly as thick pig shit?


Nah, he's just a thick as pig shit troll, with nothing constructive to add to the discussion.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 21, 2010)

Keep the abuse levels down, young Michael, there's a good chap. Don't want your hot air to melt Greenland or something.


----------



## MikeMcc (Nov 21, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Keep the abuse levels down, young Michael, there's a good chap. Don't want your hot air to melt Greenland or something.


see what I mean...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 21, 2010)

MikeMcc said:


> see what I mean...


 
He used to be funny, but his material is well out-of-date nowadays.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 21, 2010)

In honour of the poster who seems to think the USSR was a good idea, an explanation of why a molecule of such small concentrations in the atmosphere can causes so much concernation


CO2 – The Stakhanovite of the Atmospheric World


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 21, 2010)

Carbonism - the single issue that gets Liberals up in arms.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 21, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Carbonism - the single issue that gets Liberals up in arms.


This is quite a relevant critique on the current view of the absorbtion spectra generated by homonuclear diatomic molecules and there energy gaps that incoming IR can be absorbed by.



Not, your a fucking bullshiter.


----------



## Jonti (Nov 22, 2010)

It's best just to ignore the clown ~ he was once a noted troll, but he's been left behind as the internet has moved on.

Sad, for him, but true.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 23, 2010)

Lol. 'internet moves on.' 

And in other news...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 23, 2010)

Nail head.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 24, 2010)

free spirit said:


> worth keeping an eye on, but those data points are given as being preliminary, rather than verified, so it could be an instrument malfunction or problem with calibration etc.
> 
> it is exactly these sort of localised monitoring stations that would first pick up on any major releases from the methane clathrates (sp?) below the ocean, and / or permafrost melting though, so this would be pretty worrying if it was confirmed as being correct.


Response form NOAA on Svalsbard via the Guardian eviroment team....

"We are aware of the apparently contaminated samples from Zeppelin.
It looks like there is a leak in the sampling system and we are trying
to sort it out.  I will apply provisional flags to the data that might be affected."

Ah, that feels better.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 24, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Response form NOAA on Svalsbard via the Guardian eviroment team....
> 
> "We are aware of the apparently contaminated samples from Zeppelin.
> It looks like there is a leak in the sampling system and we are trying
> ...


cheers for posting that up. Still worth keeping a close eye on IMO, as if another sensor also starts showing a big increase it'd seem unlikely that 2 of them would fault at the same time (although I guess if they were all installed at the same time then they could start faulting at the same time as well).


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 7, 2010)

> Their analyses indicate that the gradual rise at an average rate of 1 metre per century was interrupted by two periods with rates of rise up to 2.5 metres per century, between 15 and 13 thousand years ago, and between 11 and 9 thousand years ago.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201120605.htm

So again we find proof that ice sheet responces to orbital forcing can be in the order of 2.5m per century. Orbital forcing is in the order of change of 1w/m^2 per thousand years. Human sourced greenhouse gas forcing will see us at around 3w/m^2 or abover per century. 
The kink in the polar jet that has brought icy conditions to the UK has had an impact in other places....


> Near-surface air temperatures over the Siberian and Alaskan side of the Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in November. Air temperatures over Baffin Bay were also unusually warm (8 degrees Celsius, or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average). The warm air came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere; and a circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south.


November has second lowest extent on record.






http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html


----------



## rich! (Dec 10, 2010)

Was at a space conference yesterday where the Cryosat guys went through what they've been doing in terms of characterising the instrument response and so forth. They put up the first data release in one slide, but I don't have a copy yet...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 8, 2011)

New study suggest that Greenland was in balance during the 70s and 80s but has now gone out of balance and that by 2040 the demise of the entire ice sheet will be pretty much locked in.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/ECE1161570/greenland-close-to-unavoidable-meltdown/

It does give a 1000 year life time to fully melt though. 

While I am here, if anyone is interested here is a great presentation to this years AGU by Ellen Mosely Thompson, Lonnie Thompsons wife and in her own right a famed glaciologist. 

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/lectures/lecture_videos/A42D.shtml

Some interesting stuff with the glacier record, perhaps nothing new to some but a good summary of the science.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 9, 2011)

Good news for the people of Kalalit Nunaat!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 27, 2011)

The US has pulled about 200 people out of the Antarctic early this year due to the great tragedy in Christchurch, the tradiational base of most Antarctic activity. Due to local conditions apparently even the Globemasters were having trouble getting in to McMurdo sound.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 10, 2011)

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/topaz-data-by-cryosphere-today-regions.html

Interesting guest post over at Nevens on the thickness.
We are at just about a record low for this time of year and the sun has returned to the Arctic. Given it was January before Hudson Bay fully froze we may have a rather rapid start to the melt season this year when it gets underway.

Editing to add this on glacial balance, new study from the JPL suggests 15cm from Greenland by 2050.

Hmmm not sure they are accounting for early ice free conditions in the Arctic sea.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 11, 2011)

Here is another corker of a paper.

Hansen and Sato. They seem to reckon we have exceeded the Holocene optimum over the past decade and are about to induce an albedo flip in the Arctic (no doubt) which will massively extend the meltseason in Greenland. Also the Pine Island Glacier has exceeded a geological restraint on its movement. They make a case that we will be back in Pliestocene climate conditions due to a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels so that is going to mean 25m sea level rise. Im gueesing the northward progress of the taiga biome will be an important albedo feedback as well though they dont discuss this explicitly. 
The paper is a great education in where we are, very worth a read.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 19, 2011)

John Cook had this on his blog


----------



## MikeMcc (Mar 24, 2011)

Oh dear - Deniers -> shotgun -> foot -> BOOM!

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/

Climate Progress is reporting on the preliminary report from BEST - where the chair (a man actually critised for his anti - AGW stance!) is reported to have stated:

•“We are seeing substantial global warming”
•“None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”

When BEST was started it was pretty widely believed that it would be an attack on AGW given that it's climate expert is Judith Curry and Muller's own background.  It seems though that the new interpretation of the data is backing up GISS and the CRU.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 31, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Oh dear - Deniers -> shotgun -> foot -> BOOM!
> 
> http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/
> 
> ...


 
Story in the Guardian about it today.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 5, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Oh dear - Deniers -> shotgun -> foot -> BOOM!
> 
> http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/22/climate-science-deniers-berkeley-temperature-study/
> 
> ...


Hey hey hey


----------



## MikeMcc (Apr 7, 2011)

Cheers, that is a pretty damning (rightly so) report, especially coming from the NYT.  With the factors starting to stack against any let up in warming but continued observed warming I really think the next 5 years will finally confirm AGW in the populations mind.  

People will start to understand what statistical significance really means.  When 100 year events start to happen at 10 year intervals they'll start to realise that shifting the bell-curve by a degree or a degree and a half has big consequences.   Especially for locations that suffer from amplifying factors, like the Netherlands and ourselves with the North Sea funnel.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 10, 2011)

This may be the mechanism the delayers have for getting out of the hole painted for them by the Watts\ Morano types. To acknowledge warming but to then undermine the significance of it.


That said our anti science friends are in a bit of a pickle with the likes of Judith Curry on the BEST team and signing off on the "UHI wot dun it" theory of the astrologers (Watts et al).


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 5, 2011)

A great blogger, Neven has put together this page of about all the arctic images into one. One for the bookmarks if you care.

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

Anyone who does actually follow this story would do well to keep tabs this year. Very rapid melting so far.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 8, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> A great blogger, Neven has put together this page of about all the arctic images into one. One for the bookmarks if you care.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
> 
> Anyone who does actually follow this story would do well to keep tabs this year. Very rapid melting so far.


 






6 weeks left and its neck and neck between 2011 and 2007 for the record low.


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 2, 2011)

*Second giant ice island set to break off Greenland glacier *




> New photographs taken of a vast glacier in northern Greenland have revealed the astonishing rate of its breakup, with one scientist saying he was rendered "speechless."


----------



## Pingu (Sep 2, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> *Second giant ice island set to break off Greenland glacier *



did he communictae his feeling svia the medium of mime?


----------



## dilute micro (Sep 5, 2011)

If they can make a spray for receding hair they should be able to come up with something for glaciers.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 5, 2011)

Looks like were going to have the uniceiest Arctic Sea since the exceptional 2007: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> *Second giant ice island set to break off Greenland glacier *



Here

you can see the break on this image. I have been waiting since you posted for the clouds to clear. Last year the glaciologists were saying that the huge calving would have sent massive pulses of compression waves through the remaining ice and most likely have weakend some of it. I have not noticed it growing over the past couple of months watching but perhaps there is more fracturing in more detailed images.

We are into the final two weeks of the race to the minimum (and may have reached it.) Someone has put together an excellent visualisation of the differing sea ice teams measurements

Jaxa





University of Bremen






Cryosphere today






Get the updates here
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

As you can see the different teams use different grid sizes, algorithms to determine ice concentration and other variables. However they all paint a very similar picture, we are in terms of statistical significance, near enough tied with 2007. And that is with far less melt friendly weather patterns.

The volume anomaly tells an even uglier picture






The big US ice breaker, USCG Healy, is in the very high Arctic at the moment. Above 88N, she is cruising at 4 knots






5 years ago she would have need to be breaking thick multiyear ice, 3-6 meters thick. Ramping up on top of the ice then have her weight break the ice to ramp up to the next bit of ice. Now the ice is so thin just 1m thick, she can cruise through at optimal speed for her bathymetry. That far north the refreeze is already underway, the loss will continue at the fringes around 75N for a week or two before the freezing becomes more dominant.

You have all been promised it and there it is. Climate change.

Ice free late summers by 2030 are a very very real possibility for the high Arctic.

And that is conservative.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 8, 2011)

thanks for the summary, and this thread in general. I really don't have the time to regularly trawl through the web for the data, but this thread has kept me updated better than anything else.

I can't really see how any sane person can come to any other conclusion than you tbh, and I find it nuts that this is even up for debate still when all around me the signs we were being told to watch for when I studied it in the mid 90's are blatantly happening as we watch them. No one change individually can be taken as proof or even evidence of AGW, but the sum of all the changes happening around the world clearly points in only one direction, which combined with a sound scientific understanding of the major processes involved really does leave little room for doubt any more.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2011)

Here is a great example of what this thread has been saying.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/more-on-ice-thickness-from-awi.html

The Germans put their best ice breaker up in the high arctic with top notch radars and two helicopters, calibrated with surface measurements and come up with sea ice thickness at 90N of 1m.






In years gone by they would have risked hitting ice so thick they would have gotten stuck and drifted for a while but now its cruising speeds of 4 knots plus.

Uni Bremen and Cryosphere today have already set new records for minimums in the past two days. Most likely all those reporting sea ice Area are going to set new records while those reporting sea ice Extent will not. Much of the ice has been very dispersed so it is thick enough to register as sea with ice in it i.e. part of the sea ice extent, but the area of each block that is covered with ice is low so the area measurements will come in low.

here is a satellite shot of a bit of the Arctic that will register as being part of the ice pack in terms of extent but the area measurements will show as with about 30% or less as having ice in it
http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2011-09-08/8-N73.102666-W133.587009


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 12, 2011)

*Arctic sea ice is melting at its fastest pace in almost 40 years*

It looks like the positive feedbacks are really starting to kick in now.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 15, 2011)

Good night in the Arctic as the sun goes down. The melting is over for a year. USCG Healy 79N at 06:01 on the 15/9.






The Canadian ice breaker St Lawrence is in the distance forging the path forward.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 16, 2011)

NSIDC call the bottom of the melt season.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Fat lady is now singing. Second lowest



> *Conditions in context
> *The last five years (2007 to 2011) have been the five lowest extents in the continuous satellite record, which extends back to 1979. While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favored ice loss (including clearer skies, favorable wind patterns, and warm temperatures), this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic. This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin. Models and remote sensing data also indicate this is the case. A large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea, visible in NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imagery, suggests that the ice cover this year is particularly thin and dispersed this year.



NSIDC record extent not area so large patches of sea with about 50% ice count as 100% extent this is one of the reasons for the difference between them and Bremen who count extent.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 16, 2011)

I just worked out from those figures that the average for the last 5 years is more than 30% lower than the average for 1979-2000. That's a huge difference over a significant enough period of time to mean that it's highly unlikely to be just a blip, and while it's possible there could be alternative explanations, it's entirely consistent with what would be expected to occur within AGW theory, and the surrounding aid and sea temperature has been measured to be warming significantly, so.........

or to put it another way, when you leave the freezer door ajar by mistake, then find a pool of water on the floor and all your food defrosted, it's possible the fault lies with the freezer mechanism, or some other factor. However, anyone making out that these explanations were more likely than it being the fault of the door being left open would be judged to be attempting to escape the blame for their actions by inventing silly possibilities when the cause of the problem was obvious.


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 22, 2011)

Here's a piece in the eeek-onomist


> The rapid melting of the Arctic sea ice, then, illuminates the difficulty of modelling the climate—but not in a way that brings much comfort to those who hope that fears about the future climate might prove exaggerated. When reality is changing faster than theory suggests it should, a certain amount of nervousness is a reasonable response.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 26, 2011)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 11, 2011)

*Greenland ice loss continues to accelerate*




> The latest measurements continue to measure accelerating mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. The latest data from the GRACE satellites (noting that it doesn’t include the full 2011 summer season, ending in July 2011) shows that Greenland mass loss has been steadily increasing since satellites began measurements in 2002. The mass loss started spreading up the northwest margin a few years ago.


As the Arctic becomes more ice free the amount of snow falling on Greenland is likely to increase. But inspite of that we are still experiancing mass loss.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 11, 2011)

What sort of sea level rise is being predicted? And is there a map of the earth for where will be flooded?


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 11, 2011)

Himalayas going too...
Rivers of ice: Vanishing glaciers


----------



## Crispy (Oct 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> What sort of sea level rise is being predicted? And is there a map of the earth for where will be flooded?


From the Arctic sea ice melt? Close to zero rise.
From Greenland? If current rates continue, up to half a meter this century.


----------



## laptop (Oct 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> is there a map of the earth for where will be flooded?



Not checked the accuracy of this InteractiveGoogleThingy: http://flood.firetree.net/


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Not checked the accuracy of this InteractiveGoogleThingy: http://flood.firetree.net/



Interesting, ta - presumably it is easy enough to make it accurate. Sea defences might be improved around cities in rich countries, though.

I was idly wondering how much ice there is in total - apparently 100 metres is possible (will take a few hundred years), the map gives up to 60 metres. My word that's a fuck load of water.


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 12, 2011)

Even that graph for Greenland looks like it has contributed something like 5mm just from that. The biggest contributor is thermal expansion of the oceans.  Latest energy curve from Skeptical Science is this (using recent updated data)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 13, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Even that graph for Greenland looks like it has contributed something like 5mm just from that. The biggest contributor is thermal expansion of the oceans. Latest energy curve from Skeptical Science is this (using recent updated data)





> Melting glaciers and icecaps aren't the only things raising sea levels—so is watering your lawn. According to a study published in _Geophysical Research Letters_, irrigation and other ground water extractions pull immense volumes of water from deep underground and dump it into the oceans via runoff into streams, rivers, and other waterways. Using information gathered worldwide and then extrapolating known trends to regions where data is sparse or missing altogether, one researcher estimates that, over the last century, humans pumped more than 4500 cubic kilometers of water from the ground—enough to boost sea level by 12.6 millimeters, or more than 6% of the overall increase measured during that period. In recent years, when ground water extractions have skyrocketed, the contribution was even larger: From 2000 to 2008, humans pumped on average about 145 cubic kilometers of ground water from aquifers each year—enough to raise sea levels by about 0.4 millimeters annually, or about 13% of the measured amount during that interval. Of the remaining 87% of sea level rise, some studies suggest that about half results from the melting and runoff of land-based ice, with the other half stemming from the thermal expansion of the oceans due to an increase in their temperature, particularly in their surface waters.


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/scienceshot-irrigation-raises.html

I have seen figures as high as 25% for aquifer sourced sea level rise. 

Still a bit up in the air but clearly thermal expansion is a very important component.

In terms of how much will climate change raise sea level? The question is again a very open one. When you model an ice sheet as a large block of fixed ice it takes thousands of years to melt one. But ice sheets are dynamic beasts, they flow, surge, calve and can grow if enough percipitations happens. 2 meters is a figure that is kicked round by the end of Century, but there are doubts round that and it may be lower, as it may be higher.

Last time the world was about 1.5C warmer than today during the Eemian interglacial, the sea level was about 6-10m higher than today. We are aiming (and going to miss) stabilising the climate at 2C warmer. How fast this sea level rise will happen is an open question but we do know it can get rather fast when the big ice sheets start to collapse.

During Meltpulse 1A at the end of the last ice age the sea level rose 20m in between 300 and 500 years. That was under a change in climate at about 0.1C per century. We are currently coasting along at 0.16C per decade and likely to accelerate in the coming decades. Once the ice starts to collapse it may be very fast.

At 3C higher we are likely to enter Miocene-esque conditions with sea level rises somewhere between 20-50m higher. But even at 2C higher we may see enough outgassing of ocean CO2 and from warmer soils to push us up to 3C anyway (2C in theory being about 450ppm 3C perhap around 600ppm). What is in motion now is liable to play out over many hundreds of years to come. And we are likely to be looking at some pretty serious real estate gone.

Remember esturies and deltas are far more vaulnrable than in mere meters, the slowing of the water means the rivers broaden out as they reach the sea, this extra volume will be being pushed back up rivers but with the new flood planes currently some of the most densly populated or heavily farmed land on earth.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 13, 2011)

Interesting, ta ferrel.


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 14, 2011)

Not to forget that Antarctica is also losing ice (in the range of 100 - 350 Gt/yr), roughly 20% of the amount being lost in Greenland.  But both rates of ice loss are *accelerating* (as is the trend in Arctic sea-ice volume).


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 22, 2011)

http://www.norwaypost.no/news/the-arctic-sea-may-be-free-of-ice-in-ten-years-25841.html



> The melting of the Arctic sea ice is progressing much faster and more dramatically than earlier estimated, according to new research by the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI).
> 
> This means that the Arctic Sea could be free of ice in the summer in ten years time, rather than the 50 to 100 years estimated earlier.
> NPI mesurements made by moored sonars show a dramatic reduction in the fraction of ridged sea ice, compared to the 1990s. The vast fields of ridged ice thicker than 5 m, constituting 28 percent of the winter Arctic sea ice cover during the 1990s, is nearly gone.
> ...



I cant find the paper, apparently its by Dag Vongraven but I will continue to nose around.

Note worthy that again its inward heat flux (ie warmer waters coming in )that does play some role according to them. But this is all very new stuff so subject to change.

Another new bit of research is over cold air inversion in the arctic in winter

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/a-cold-blanket-helps-the-arctic-warm-up.ars



> In general, the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude, but there are exceptions. In temperature inversions, warmer air ends up on top of a colder layer. That configuration is inherently stable—cold air doesn’t want to rise, and warm air doesn’t want to sink. This stagnation of atmospheric mixing allows air pollution to accumulate over some cities and create smog.





> During the Arctic winter, they form because the extreme cold at the surface cools the lower atmosphere, setting up a stable inversion.





> It may seem like cold air sitting stagnant on the surface should counteract warming rather than enhance it, but that’s not the case. A well-mixed atmosphere conveys heat from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, where it can be radiated to space. Since temperature inversions create stable, stratified conditions, the efficiency of that heat transport decreases. That means that what little heat _is_ emitted by the cold Arctic surface can accumulate in the lower atmosphere, raising temperatures there. This matches observations of milder Arctic winters.



The running theory has been that as the arctic becomes more ice free the energy from the open waters will be rapidly transported to the upper troposphere where their is a 'free-er path' for the energy to space, ie there is less gasses that absorb IR. But the very cold arctic surface air may not be acting quite like this.



And on cue the refreeze is pretty slow this year as it has been over the past couple of years (its reached the parts of the arctic ocean that were open for weeks and months so had a chance to accumulate a lot of energy).

And finally


> How will Arctic sea ice loss affect the winter?
> NOAA's annual Arctic Report Card discussed the fact that recent record sea ice loss in the summer in the Arctic is having major impacts on winter weather over the continents of the Northern Hemisphere. The Report Card states, "There continues to be significant excess heat storage in the Arctic Ocean at the end of summer due to continued near-record sea ice loss. There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. Winter 2009 - 2010 showed a new connectivity between mid-latitude extreme cold and snowy weather events and changes in the wind patterns of the Arctic; the so-called Warm Arctic-Cold Continents pattern...With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as winter 2009 - 2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations." As a specific example of what the Report Card is talking about, Francis et al. (2009) found that during 1979 - 2006, years that had unusually low summertime Arctic sea ice had a 10 - 20% reduction in the temperature difference between the Equator and North Pole. This resulted in a weaker jet stream with slower winds that lasted a full six months, through fall and winter. The weaker jet caused a weaker Aleutian Low and Icelandic Low during the winter, resulting in a more negative Arctic Oscillation (AO), allowing cold air to spill out of the Arctic and into Europe and the Eastern U.S. Thus, Arctic sea ice loss may have been partially responsible for the record negative AO observed during the winter of 2009 - 2010, and strongly negative AO last winter. If the Arctic Report Card is right, we'll be seeing more of this pattern during coming winters--possibly even during the winter of 2011 - 2012, since Arctic sea ice loss this year was virtually tied with 2007 as the greatest on record.


So we may be in for another cold early winter (and if the pattern continues very mild late winter).

Watching these changes year on year is an amazing experiance.

Quick edit, also to note the ice free Hudson Bay is like a whole new sea appearing in the middle of the American continent and so there is far more moisture available for snow. The US and Canada are quite likely to experiance big increases in snow (as they did last year) sort of like a suped up Great Lakes Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake-effect_snow


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 9, 2011)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-spike-greenland-ice-loss-bedrock.html






Greenlands geology responds to the dropping ice.



> An unusually hot melting season in 2010 accelerated ice loss in southern Greenland by 100 billion tons – and large portions of the island's bedrock rose an additional quarter of an inch in response


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 14, 2012)

According to the University of Illinois we actually lost 266 thousand square kilometers on the 10 of June, i.e. the loss of sea ice area for one day exceeded the surface area of the UK.
The melt will slow in a day or so as wind and cloud conditions change but damn, every single monitoring service for the Arctic shows as at a record low for their respective 'day'.

Its almost as if the world is getting warmer or something! (incidently a new el Nino is forming, the models have it as a mid strength one but we can already see the early stages of it on the sea surface temperature anomaly graphics, keep an eye on that and average global temperature anomaly later in the year )


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 19, 2012)

Greenland glacier calves iceberg twice the size of Manhattan


> This is the second time in less than two years that the Petermann glacier has calved a monstrous ice island. In 2010, it unleashed another massive ice chunk into the sea.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2012)

Greenland melting breaks record 4 weeks before season's end


----------



## Firky (Aug 17, 2012)

I saw that earlier today and I thought it was a bit daft to read any significant into. The records don't really go very far back (30 years) and in glacial and geographical terms - 4 weeks isn't even a heart beat.

Not a cynic of GW, far from it. I just think that particular example is a poor one.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 17, 2012)

firky said:


> I saw that earlier today and I thought it was a bit daft to read any significant into. The records don't really go very far back (30 years) and in glacial and geographical terms - 4 weeks isn't even a heart beat.
> 
> Not a cynic of GW, far from it. I just think that particular example is a poor one.


 
Four weeks should not be seen in glacial and geographical terms. It is four weeks out of a year which is much more than a heartbeat.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 17, 2012)




----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2012)

And that's just the Area figure


----------



## free spirit (Aug 24, 2012)

firky said:


> I saw that earlier today and I thought it was a bit daft to read any significant into. The records don't really go very far back (30 years) and in glacial and geographical terms - 4 weeks isn't even a heart beat.
> 
> Not a cynic of GW, far from it. I just think that particular example is a poor one.


why?

it's an annual seasonal phenomena, so 4 weeks early is an early indication that it's likely the seasonal melt will be significantly greater this year than previously by the time the melt season peaks.

While the exact satellite records only go a few decades back, there's all sorts of evidence that indicates the level of melting is higher now than it's been for at least several hundred years.


----------



## Dr Jon (Aug 30, 2012)

Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Extent Ever Measured


----------



## ska invita (Aug 31, 2012)

im scared


----------



## laptop (Aug 31, 2012)

*Arctic ice low heralds end of 3-million-year cover*

*...*



> * Arctic melt, smash and grab ahead*
> 
> SHELL'S push to open up the Arctic Ocean is not going well. Having already scaled back its plans, it may be prevented from exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea this year. The reason? Whaling takes priority.
> With the Arctic sea ice at its lowest for at least 3 million years (see "Arctic ice low heralds end of 3-million-year cover"), the rush to exploit hitherto inaccessible resources - principally oil, fish and minerals - is well and truly on. The massive melt constitutes an environmental disaster for many of the world's inhabitants, to say nothing of its flora and fauna (see "What ice-free summers will mean for Arctic life"), but for some people, it is simply a commercial opportunity.


----------



## Dr Jon (Aug 31, 2012)

Another positive feedback ready to pop.


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 7, 2012)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 7, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


>




That is just fucking awesome. Has it gone viral yet?


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 7, 2012)

I believe so.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 18, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years


> In an email to the Guardian he says: "Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades' time, and that we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geoengineering ideas that have been put forward."
> 
> These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 20, 2012)

We broke it!


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## laptop (Sep 28, 2012)

That ^^^ looks very, very bad.

Also:




> *Climate change already harming the global economy*
> 
> 
> According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor – a report by Spanish non-profit organisation DARA – in 2010 climate change shaved 1.6 per cent off global gross domestic product.
> ...


 
I'm sure the precise figure can be disputed. But 1.6 per cent is *a lot* - the difference between recession and not, in all probability.


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 4, 2012)

Just spotted this (via Cassandra's legacy)

Climate Change – Emergency Leadership Needed Now


----------



## ska invita (Oct 4, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> Just spotted this (via Cassandra's legacy)
> 
> Climate Change – Emergency Leadership Needed Now





> As Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it”.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cant see any way past this ^^^ which is why i have no faith in meaningful change till its way too late... the only thing i could imagine that might force a change is a real deepening of the economic crisis, or some other uncontrollable external event.


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 4, 2012)

See this.
Warning!!! - contains clips of Margaret Thatcher talking sense


----------



## Dr Jon (Oct 9, 2012)

http://collapseofindustrialciviliza...g-points-for-runaway-climate-change-part-two/


----------



## Dr Jon (Nov 23, 2012)

Latest World Bank report:

Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2012)

Dr Jon said:


> Latest World Bank report:
> 
> Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided


Chris Hedges has written a terrifying analysis of that report


> The picture it paints of a world convulsed by rising temperatures is a mixture of mass chaos, systems collapse and medical suffering like that of the worst of the Black Plague, which in the 14th century killed 30 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. The report comes as the annual United Nations Conference on Climate Change begins this Monday [Nov. 26] in Doha, Qatar.
> 
> A planet-wide temperature rise of 4 degrees C—and the report notes that the tepidness of the emission pledges and commitments of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will make such an increase almost inevitable—will cause a precipitous drop in crop yields, along with the loss of many fish species, resulting in widespread hunger and starvation
> 
> ...


 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/stand_still_for_the_apocalypse_20121126/


----------



## Dr Jon (Nov 26, 2012)

dylans said:


> Chris Hedges has written a terrifying analysis of that report
> 
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/stand_still_for_the_apocalypse_20121126/


He is right. Not only does warming have considerable momentum of its own, but has now triggered various positive feedbacks. We sailed past the tipping point of 350 ppm and look set to do the same with 400 and beyond.

That said, there's a lot of positive new stuff on the Club of Rome website in addition to their new report, Bankrupting Nature – Denying our Planetary Boundaries.

ETA
Just spotted: A REALLY Inconvenient Truth



also


----------



## Dr Jon (Nov 28, 2012)

Solids on course for the air-con


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 1, 2012)

http://www.chasingice.com/see-the-film/trailer/


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 2, 2012)

Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years


----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 3, 2012)

dangerous climate change now almost certain


> Current emissions growth is placing the world on a path to warm between 4C and 6C, says the study, with global emissions jumping 58% between 1990 and this year.


from _A REALLY Inconvenient Truth_:



			
				Dan Miller said:
			
		

> 4°C is The Bible and 6°C is Game Over


----------



## Crispy (Dec 3, 2012)




----------



## Dr Jon (Dec 27, 2012)

Scientists Report Faster Warming in Antarctica


> A paper released Sunday by the journal Nature Geoscience reports that the temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jan 10, 2013)

Climate-Change Summary And Update


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2013)

The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice volume — to _one fifth_ of its level in 1980.


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 7, 2013)

The world is hottest it has been since the end of the ice age - and the temperature's still rising 



			
				Jeremy Shakun said:
			
		

> We are heading for somewhere that is far off from anything we have seen in the past 10,000 years – it’s through the roof. In my mind, we are heading for a different planet to the one that we have been used to


Another record-breaking, scorching summer this year???


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 23, 2013)

Despite being at maximum ice extent an unusual (as in unseen before) break up of ice in the arctic. 

These cracks are hundreds and thousands of miles long.


----------



## laptop (Mar 23, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Despite being at maximum ice extent an unusual (as in unseen before) break up of ice in the arctic.
> 
> These cracks are hundreds and thousands of miles long.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 23, 2013)

I suggest swimming lessons for those who don't already know how.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 24, 2013)

Earth Under Water


----------



## laptop (Mar 24, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Despite being at maximum ice extent an unusual (as in unseen before) break up of ice in the arctic.


 
Is labelled as a NOAA video, but I haven't yet managed to find the report on noaa.gov... help?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 24, 2013)

laptop said:


> Is labelled as a NOAA video, but I haven't yet managed to find the report on noaa.gov... help?


http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 24, 2013)

> What about those big high pressure areas causing all that thin ice to crack and get caught up in the Beaufort Gyre? Not only have they been spurring on the spectacular cracking event of recent weeks,* they are also helping winter to keep parts of the US and Europe in its icy grip. The highs are tied to a sudden stratospheric warming event (SSW) that has effectively made the Polar Vortex **collapse relatively early, after it was already considerably weakened by a SSW in January**. The Polar Vortex normally keeps cold air from spilling out all over the Northern Hemisphere.* As Andrew Freedman wrote on Climate Central a couple of days ago:
> The weather map across the Northern Hemisphere features a sprawling and unusually strong area of High pressure over Greenland that is serving as an atmospheric stop sign, slowing weather systems as they move from west to east, and allowing storms to deepen off the eastern seaboard and tap into more cold air than they otherwise might have.​That is not your typical fair weather area of High pressure, either. Some computer models have been projecting that, sometime during the next couple of days, the Greenland High could come close to setting the mark for the highest atmospheric pressure ever recorded.​The blocking pattern has helped direct cold air into the lower 48 states as well as parts of Europe, while the Arctic has been experiencing dramatically warmer-than-average conditions, particularly along the west coast of Greenland and in northeastern Canada. Blocking patterns are often associated with extreme weather events, from heat waves like the one that occurred last March, to historic cold air outbreaks and blizzards.​Another atmospheric blocking event on a large scale. What a coincidence. Below there's a composite image of the two recent high pressure areas, the extremely negative Arctic Oscillation Index and temperature anomalies for the Arctic since January 1st:











http://skepticalscience.com/arctic-freezing-season-ends-with-a-loud-crack.html#.UU4F5uuyI3M.twitter


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 25, 2013)




----------



## Pingu (Mar 25, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I suggest swimming lessons for those who don't already know how.


 

the artic ice melting is of less concern than if the Antarctic goes in the who is the best swimmer stakes tbh


----------



## Crispy (Mar 25, 2013)

Not just plain-old melting either, but this sort of thing:
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3992-pine-island-retreat-history.html


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 31, 2013)

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/




Far, far too short term to draw any conclusions from. But, blimey, lets all hope its a blip.


----------



## Dr Jon (Apr 6, 2013)

I spotted the attached slide in a recent presentation by Jennifer Francis.
CO2 at its highest concentration in over 650,000 years and the temperature hasn't caught up yet.  That looks like your blip...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 6, 2013)

Dr Jon said:


> That looks like your blip...


That point has been well known since the late 80s (actually late 80s for about 400 000 years, Epica C got us back to 800 000 in the late 90s). 

Changes in radiative forcing from increasing CO2 take decades to fully affect the global temperature (its usually given at about 20 years for the mixing layer of the ocean).

This is a much more short term blip. Partially a recovery from the 2011 la Nina, la Nica mean much more warm water pushed up against the western edge of the worlds oceans and lots of extra rain on the continents (borne out by some satellite gravity measurements). Part of this bump was the draining of those waters back into the oceans (think Brisbane Jan 2011). But some of it will have to be from another source. Perhaps the Greenland ice sheet, not that short couple of day melt reported in the press last year. Jason Box reckons strongly that was an albedo driven event caused by the huge US wildfires. Although he has also been pointing very strongly to increasing albedo in the Greenland ice sheet as melting snow is leaving residue across the sheet. 















I am very cautious about ascribing a definite cause to this... but I do have a list of suspicions.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 15, 2013)

Visualisation of volume loss.


----------



## elbows (Apr 21, 2013)

IEA report 'Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013' report makes for grim but unsurprising reading.

http://www.iea.org/publications/TCEP_web.pdf




> Stark messages emerge: progress has not been fast enough; large market failures are preventing clean energy solutions from being taken up; considerable energy-efficiency potential remains untapped; policies need to better address the energy system as a whole; and energy-related research, development and demonstration need to accelerate.
> 
> The report also introduces a new IEA index, tracking the carbon intensity of energy supply since 1970, that shows no recent improvement and underscores the need for more concerted effort.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr Jon (May 3, 2013)

Emergency Climate Meeting: White House Officials Told Arctic Ocean Could Be Ice-Free Within Two Years


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 3, 2013)

Two years is very very unlikely. 2030? Better than even.


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 6, 2013)

Arctic Ocean 'acidifying rapidly 




> *The Arctic seas are being made rapidly more acidic by carbon-dioxide emissions, according to a new report.*
> Scientists from Norway's Center for International Climate and Environmental Research monitored widespread changes in ocean chemistry in the region.
> They say even if CO2 emissions stopped now, it would take tens of thousands of years for Arctic Ocean chemistry to revert to pre-industrial levels.
> Many creatures, including commercially valuable fish, could be affected.
> ...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 15, 2013)

The sleeping giants awakens.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/glacier_changes_ne_greenland-114582

North Greenland glaciers begin to accelerate. These are the ones in the coldest regions of Greenland but they are outlet glaciers, like Jacobshaven. That is they are gaps in the wall of hills and mountains around the edge of Greenland where the 3km thick ice sheets squeezes out its ice from. 

We  are unlikely to see a new record in 2013 for sea ice extent, but unlikely is far from "will not". However the huge loses we have seen are now starting to really affect the giant outlet glaciers in the NE Greenland. Famously Petermann has become more active and the ice shelf is breaking up bu this blog post by someone I respect is detailing other outlet glaciers starting to move. 



Mid June and we have already exceeded the average rate of melt in Greenland (it maxes out in late July.)
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

And sea level rise is still showing that short term acceleration to 1cm per year. 







Let me be blunt.

*Shit is getting real. *


----------



## Dr Jon (Jun 16, 2013)

Open Water Visible at North Pole Camera 1, Cracks Visible at Camera 2


> Last week, North Pole Camera 1 began to record visual images of cracks on the surface of sea ice. Now, just one week later, open water is visible in the same location. Meanwhile, cracks are beginning to show up in the vicinity of North Pole Camera 2


----------



## MikeMcc (Jun 17, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> The sleeping giants awakens.
> 
> http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/glacier_changes_ne_greenland-114582
> 
> ...


 Wonder if we'll see another major surface melt like last years?


----------



## Dr Jon (Jun 17, 2013)

!


----------



## MikeMcc (Jun 18, 2013)

Speak of the devil, research published linking the melt to jet-stream changes.  The same conditions are still present this year.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/news/nr/jet-stream-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-1.280360


----------



## Dr Jon (Jun 22, 2013)

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013


> My prediction above was based on understanding of the inter-related Artic/climatic system obtained through in-depth research conducted as part of my Ph.D. studies on abrupt climate change, and through my academic work as part-time professor in climatology/meteorology at the University of Ottawa.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 22, 2013)

Dr Jon said:


> Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013


 
Colour me skeptical.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

Sea ice extent is pretty much lagging last year. But the thickness difference is stark. 8 very interesting weeks coming up.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2013)

Have to be logged in to see image http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=92.0;attach=2127;image


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

laptop said:


> Have to be logged in to see image http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=92.0;attach=2127;image


 
fixed?


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> fixed?


 
Fixed, ta.

Are there volume estimates yet?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 23, 2013)

laptop said:


> Fixed, ta.
> 
> Are there volume estimates yet?


last update was June 5

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

This is the anomaly 









This is the estimated mean volume.







These are only modeled results not measurements. They come in from the new European Cryosat about once a season.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> last update was June 5
> 
> http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
> 
> This is the anomaly


 
Those last three years look disturbingly like a break to a new trend, don't they? Fingers crossed for the next 4 months...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 31, 2013)




----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 31, 2013)

more here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/yaleclimateforum


----------



## rover07 (Jul 31, 2013)

Dr Jon said:


> more here:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/yaleclimateforum



Meh, who cares? Let it burn.


----------



## Dr Jon (Jul 31, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Meh, who cares? Let it burn.


Is that you, Clarkson?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 31, 2013)

rover07 said:


> Meh, who cares?


Me.

And a couple of hundred million people in Bangladesh.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2013)




----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 9, 2013)

and also:






link


----------



## MikeMcc (Sep 9, 2013)

I do wish there was a mechanism to impose fines against reporters that blatently print outragous crap like David Rose does.


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 9, 2013)

MikeMcc said:


> I do wish there was a mechanism to impose fines against public stoning of reporters that blatantly print outrageous crap like David Rose does.


corrected for you


ETA



			
				Ugo Bardi said:
			
		

> By all means an impressive presentation of the Arctic ice disaster. But, alas, it has only some 55,000 views on Youtube - that is nearly nothing.
> 
> At the same time, the "Daily Mirror" and the "Telegraph" are aggressively proclaiming, once more, that sea ice is "recovering" (see here for a discussion of what is really happening).
> 
> So, while the planet's ice keeps melting, we are swamped by lies that fill the available media space. How are we going to let the truth out?


link


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 11, 2013)

We're at the 2009 level in terms of sea ice area now.

Not sure what happened in July to give such a plateau - any unusual weather events at that time? (days 204-215)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 20, 2013)

Arctic on course for ice-free summer 'within decades', scientists say


----------



## Dr Jon (Sep 20, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Arctic on course for ice-free summer 'within decades', scientists say


... or now ?
Is the North Pole now ice-free? 

ETA
No, it was still icy on Wednesday:





All the melt-water seen in July has re-frozen (or drained away ?? - check the depth gauge in the foreground)


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2016)

Bit of a heat wave in the Arctic right now






Someone tell the ice what season it's supposed to be


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 20, 2016)

I saw that yesterday on twitter - is it genuine?

I noticed the Cryosphere Today went pear-shaped earlier this year when the satellite they get data from went down - maybe this is something similar?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I saw that yesterday on twitter - is it genuine?
> 
> I noticed the Cryosphere Today went pear-shaped earlier this year when the satellite they get data from went down - maybe this is something similar?



The Japanese source for that graph uses multiple sources, and I see no trace of the weird flatline since April, so no I don't think there's anything fishy going on. The temperature data is likewiise compiled from multiple sources.

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends


----------



## 2hats (Nov 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> I saw that yesterday on twitter - is it genuine?


It's there in the GFS model (seeded with real data from satellite+ship+buoy, of course) too.

2m temperature anomaly:




Sea surface temperature anomaly:




Sea ice/snow extent compared to the CFSR 1979-2000 baseline extent (cyan line):


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 20, 2016)

Both poles are at record low sea ice coverage for this time of year, leading to a very significant anomaly in the global total sea ice. 











That said while the weak la Nina is visible across the Pacific equator, the really big event in the oceans seems to be the emergence of a large cold blob in the North Pacific. Thats very likely to affect the northern polar jetstream, i.e. our weather.


----------



## 2hats (Dec 1, 2016)

Latest research appears to confirm suspicions that Antarctic ice sheets are melting from the inside, not just at the edges:


> An ice sheet in West Antarctica is breaking from the inside out. The significant new findings published yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters show that the ocean is melting the interior of the Pine Island Glacier, which is about the size of Texas. The crack seems to be accelerating, said Ian Howat, associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University and the study’s lead author. The findings are the first confirmation of something glaciologists have long suspected was happening, he said. “It’s showing a new weakness in the ice shelf, and it’s showing the weakness may be extending far up the glacier,” he said. “That’s the alarming thing from our standpoint.”
> 
> Higher ocean temperatures are causing the ice to shrink at an accelerating rate, and it’s eroding the ice fringing the continent. That, in turn, opens the ice sheet to further contact with warmer ocean water and increases the amount of ice running into the ocean, the researchers found. “More importantly, it gives us a mechanism for even faster retreat in the future. Before, we used to have a slow retreat at the edges of the ice shelf,” Howat said. "The ocean had to nibble away at it on the edges. This allows the ice shelf to break apart way further inland from the inside out."
> 
> This latest retreat is particularly noteworthy because it’s farther inland than anything scientists have previously observed, he said. It also shows that the region could be more vulnerable than previously thought. Howat said the rift is further evidence that it’s not a matter of if, but when the larger West Antarctic Ice Sheet will melt. It adds “to the probability that we may see significant collapse of West Antarctica in our lifetimes,” he said.


Source: Scientific American; DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071360


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 1, 2016)

In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet happens in 2127 leading to a rapid 6 metre sea level rise, but they had fusion power by 2020. I always thought that was the wrong way round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet happens in 2127 leading to a rapid 6 metre sea level rise, but they had fusion power by 2020. I always thought that was the wrong way round.


it's fiction, kim's allowed to say anything at all


----------



## 2hats (Dec 7, 2016)

Latest NSIDC figures from satellite observations indicate that Antarctic sea ice extent peaked early in August this year and has been declining very rapidly since, leading to a record low last month (1 million sq km below the previous record low):




November air temperature is several degrees above average too:




Along with the figures for the Arctic, that's an extent of sea ice greater than the area of India that's missing (compared to the 1981-2010 average):






> "There are some really crazy things going on," said Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.
> He said the twin record lows might be "blind dumb chance". But the worry was that "Antarctica is the sleeping elephant that is beginning to stir."
> 
> Anders Levermann, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the low polar sea ice pointed to man-made warming. "It's an extraordinary departure from the norm," he said.


Global 2 metre temperature anomaly:




And now, a short film.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2016)

Cheery stuff


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 8, 2016)

More cheery stuff:


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 8, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> In Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet happens in 2127 leading to a rapid 6 metre sea level rise, but they had fusion power by 2020. I always thought that was the wrong way round.


Aye, but in the book that was in part due to super-volcanic eruption under the ice sheet.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 8, 2016)

MikeMcc said:


> Aye, but in the book that was in part due to super-volcanic eruption under the ice sheet.


So it took a week or so rather than decades, for dramatic effect. Still, the end result would be the same


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 11, 2016)

Crispy said:


> So it took a week or so rather than decades, for dramatic effect. Still, the end result would be the same


I'm just hoping that this years global ice measurements aren't indicative of a new trend.  The Sea Ice Area graph that FerrelHadley posted in post #621 is truly scary.  It is so far out of the 'norm' it's crazy.  The Antarctic Ice Area is presently 1.5 to 2 million sq km less than 'normal' for this time of year.  This means that the oceans are absorbing far more energy in that area due to the albedo change with subsequent knock on effects for next year.

(ETA - a good source at the moment for ice data is here: https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234)

Despite the small steps gained in Paris and Marrakesh I'm quite despondent about the proposed trump cabinet (or whatever it's called in the US), too many denier, oil loving billionaires and fossil-fuel mouth-pieces going into the mix, and no effective counter in the senate to challenge the choices.  The next four years are going to be nightmarish. Thankfully I doubt that the orange buffoon will be re-elected, I think people will see that he doesn't stand for anything that he said in the run up to the election.  He will just line his own pockets and those of his mates and to hell with everybody else.  Mind you my political thoughts on this could well be screwed, I didn't think the US electorate would be daft enough to elect him.  Hillary was an arsehole, but Trump is an ill-educated, pampered, ill-tempered idiot.


----------



## 2hats (Dec 13, 2016)

Of course, besides the poles, other major glaciers are all in retreat too:





(from DOI:10.1038/ngeo2863).

e2a: Research (previous findings covering the Bhutan region at doi:10.5194/tc-10-2203-2016) using declassified spy satellite data also confirms the long term melting trend in Himalayan glaciers.


----------



## bluescreen (Dec 13, 2016)

One of the most worrying aspect of the shrinking/melting of glaciers, which not only causes local landslides and flooding (jökulhlaup), is that it will affect the water supply for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on a steady supply of meltwater.
Tibet: Tibet's Glaciers at Their Warmest in 2,000 Years
Tibet: Giant, deadly ice slide baffles researchers
Cascades: ‘Disastrous’: Low snow, heat eat away at Northwest glaciers
Bolivia: Bolivian glaciers melt at alarming rate - Climate News Network

- just to name a few.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 23, 2016)

Weather buoy near North Pole hits melting point






No one will remember Corbyn, May or Farrage in 50 years. In a couple of thousand years people will remember we once had permanent ice at the poles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> Weather buoy near North Pole hits melting point
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No they won't


----------



## 2hats (Dec 28, 2016)

Meanwhile, rare snow seen in the (eastern Moroccan) Sahara last week both in Landsat 7 imagery and confirmed on the ground:


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 6, 2017)

First part of Larsen C ready to break away. 1/4 the size of Wales (UK media standard measurements) 

Huge Antarctic iceberg poised to break away - BBC News




The break up of Larsen B made world news in 2002, even a song by British Sea Power. 





Larsen C is really important holding back much of the glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula. They do not have huge sea level rise potential but they could go relatively fast. Unlike the _sea ice _in the Arctic which is about 5m thick at most and floats around this is an_ ice shelf _that is it is permanently fixed and about 350m thick.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 14, 2017)




----------



## bi0boy (Jan 14, 2017)

Who needs ice anyway? Water harbours a much greater biodiversity and is just generally more useful. There will be more space for whales for starters.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 15, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


>


"Wipneus", the Dutchman whose graph is shown here, has assembled a page with various global sea ice indices. GSI used to be a denier's favourite, based on some sort of arbitrary assumption that if loss in one hemisphere was gained in another, then all was well with the global climate - but no more. The GIOMAS graphic for global sea ice volume is even more alarming than those for extent (ie, how far sea covered with >15% ice stretches) and area. 
Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin


----------

