EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:36 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:49 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news ... -2011.html

Arctic sea ice has melted to a level not recorded since satellite observations started in 1972 – and almost certainly not experienced for at least 8,000 years, say polar scientists.

Daily satellite sea-ice maps released by Bremen university physicists show that with a week's more melt expected this year, the floating ice in the Arctic covered an area of 4.24 million square kilometres on 8 September. The previous one-day minimum was 4.27m sq km on 17 September 2007.

The German researchers said the record melt was undoubtedly because of human-induced global warming. "The sea-ice retreat can no more be explained with the natural variability from one year to the next, caused by weather influence," said Georg Heygster, head of the Institute of Environmental Physics at Bremen.

"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences. Climate models show that the reduction is related to the man-made global warming, which, due to the albedo effect, is particularly pronounced in the Arctic," he said. The albedo effect is related to a surface's reflecting power – whiter sea ice reflects more of the sun's heat back into space than darker seawater, which absorbs the sun's heat and gets warmer.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9573
Yoo hoo! Snow!

What's your take.....sounds like a lot of melting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:50 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
There's a dark side of me that craves a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la Mad Max, but Waterworld will do. Not having gas and electricity is going to be the biggest bummer.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:54 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
New records can be expected most years, including from the year before that was a record!
Temperatures, floods, storms, droughts, fires, snow, freezes, ice cap area and depth decreases, and others. Maybe Mad Max in some places, water world in others. Even if people would do the right thing and stop 90% of fossil fuel use and go to sustainable population, the momentum of heat in the system will allow for another .4*C rise. Probably enough to go beyond the tipping point of tundra, then ocean methane hydrate deposits self-release.
Then the temperatures will rise more, faster and faster, to PETM+ conditions 10 times faster, and the resulting ELE. No more ice ages for millions of years.
It is a 50-50 chance right now, even if they quit burning coal and oil 90%. As time goes on the percentage increases for the ELE scenario.
Business as usual until the crash, then it gets worse.
Its 2 in the morning, and the party is almost over.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:06 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
There's a dark side of me that craves a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la Mad Max, but Waterworld will do. Not having gas and electricity is going to be the biggest bummer.



Just picked up a sweet .300 Weatherby Magnum set up with a custom synthetic stock (pistol grip) and variable optics. I have not shot it yet, as they did not have any ammo in stock, but the Weatherby guarantee is to post 1" groups out of the box ...... The effective distance for this is even round better than the M1A1

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:10 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Iowanic wrote:
Yoo hoo! Snow!

What's your take.....sounds like a lot of melting...


Well Iowa, the title is very misleading, because every single other dataset had the ice extent quite a bit above 2007. Many had the extent as the 2nd lowest, instead of the lowest.

NSIDC, AMSR-E, JAXA, NORSEX, DMI etc. all agree that we have not seen the lowest extent minimum with 2011.

It sounds innocuous, but that's the main problem I have with this thread.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
There's a dark side of me that craves a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la Mad Max, but Waterworld will do. Not having gas and electricity is going to be the biggest bummer.



Just picked up a sweet .300 Weatherby Magnum set up with a custom synthetic stock (pistol grip) and variable optics. I have not shot it yet, as they did not have any ammo in stock, but the Weatherby guarantee is to post 1" groups out of the box ...... The effective distance for this is even round better than the M1A1

The Weatherby 300 Magnum is the first rifle I had. Kicked like a mule(too much for a 14 year old), but was very accurate. I had to trade it in for a Remington 30.06 auto, which I had targeted in to a dime at 100 yards. I got three deer with that one. My Dad kept his Weatherby 300 Mag, and was good enough to not ruin the meat like a couple of his friends who bought one did. It was a better moose gun, but needed graphite in extreme cold.
On the lowest ice extent this mid-September, the lowest since measurements began in 1972, and lower than 2010 or 2007, snowjob is using August measurements to say it does not have the record lowest ice extent and depth for at least 8,000 years. If there wasn't any AGW from all the huge amount of HGHGs, then the ice extent would be on the increase and temperatures going down toward the final two thousand years of the interglacial epoch. The records would me all for low temperatures.
It is people like snowjob who have just about guaranteed people's ignorance and business as usual as long as possible, meaning the ELE 200 to 400 years after the human population crash. :evil:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:30 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Johhny Electriglide wrote:

On the lowest ice extent this mid-September, the lowest since measurements began in 1972, and lower than 2010 or 2007, snowjob is using August measurements to say it does not have the record lowest ice extent and depth for at least 8,000 years. If there wasn't any AGW from all the huge amount of HGHGs, then the ice extent would be on the increase and temperatures going down toward the final two thousand years of the interglacial epoch. The records would me all for low temperatures.
It is people like snowjob who have just about guaranteed people's ignorance and business as usual as long as possible, meaning the ELE 200 to 400 years after the human population crash. :evil:


Lolz... you certainly don't act like you're 62 years old. Grow up.

I'll post the actual data from AMSR-E that supports the 2nd lowest ice for 2011.

The lowest number I could find for the 2007 Ice Extent was this:

4267656

The lowest number that I could find from 2011 was this:

4527813

Now do your math. Which one is higher, and which one is lower?

(SOURCE) for Ice Extent data.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
Yoo hoo! Snow!

What's your take.....sounds like a lot of melting...


Well Iowa, the title is very misleading, because every single other dataset had the ice extent quite a bit above 2007. Many had the extent as the 2nd lowest, instead of the lowest.

NSIDC, AMSR-E, JAXA, NORSEX, DMI etc. all agree that we have not seen the lowest extent minimum with 2011.

It sounds innocuous, but that's the main problem I have with this thread.



So the satellite measurements of temperature are better in your opinion, but the satellite measurements of sea ice extent are somehow flawed?

http://www.livescience.com/16083-arctic ... -2011.html

The German group, at the University of Bremen, reported a minimum of 1.64 million square miles (4.24 million square km) on Sept. 8, lower than the record they had cited for 2007. They use a satellite sensor that can detect ice cover at a higher resolution than that used by NSIDC. The two groups probably came up with different results because this year ice was more dispersed in the water, and the Bremen group was able to pick up on details, leading to more variability between the two sets of measurements, Meier said.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:46 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
There's a dark side of me that craves a post-apocalyptic wasteland a la Mad Max, but Waterworld will do. Not having gas and electricity is going to be the biggest bummer.



Just picked up a sweet .300 Weatherby Magnum set up with a custom synthetic stock (pistol grip) and variable optics. I have not shot it yet, as they did not have any ammo in stock, but the Weatherby guarantee is to post 1" groups out of the box ...... The effective distance for this is even round better than the M1A1

The Weatherby 300 Magnum is the first rifle I had. Kicked like a mule(too much for a 14 year old), but was very accurate. I had to trade it in for a Remington 30.06 auto, which I had targeted in to a dime at 100 yards. I got three deer with that one. My Dad kept his Weatherby 300 Mag, and was good enough to not ruin the meat like a couple of his friends who bought one did. It was a better moose gun, but needed graphite in extreme cold.


One day I would like to hunt caribou and Alaskan brown bear along with moose. My brother-in-law took a vouple of caribou when he was stationed in Alaska and loaned his rifle (.06) to a hunting partner who had ruined his scope to allow him to get a bear on his last hunt there.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So the satellite measurements of temperature are better in your opinion, but the satellite measurements of sea ice extent are somehow flawed?


NSIDC also uses satellite based readings, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You are making quite a claim to suggest that every single other dataset is wrong, and AMSR-E satellites overestimated Arctic Sea Ice in 2011 by 300 K. I just don't buy that.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

So the satellite measurements of temperature are better in your opinion, but the satellite measurements of sea ice extent are somehow flawed?


NSIDC also uses satellite based readings, so I'm not sure what your point is.


But according to the statment NSIDC does not have the resolution of the satellite system used by the Germans.

Quote:
You are making quite a claim to suggest that every single other dataset is wrong, and AMSR-E satellites overestimated Arctic Sea Ice in 2011 by 300 K. I just don't buy that.


From what I have been reading every other data set is stating there is no statistical significance in the difference between the two years due to the variation in the way the measurements are made, while the dataset with the highest resolution is claiming they have measured a difference. In either case, the Arctic ice extent is clearly staying in decline.

I am sure you would buy anything that could be made to indicate an improvement. :mrgreen:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:16 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But according to the statment NSIDC does not have the resolution of the satellite system used by the Germans.

From what I have been reading every other data set is stating there is no statistical significance in the difference between the two years due to the variation in the way the measurements are made, while the dataset with the highest resolution is claiming they have measured a difference. In either case, the Arctic ice extent is clearly staying in decline.

I am sure you would buy anything that could be made to indicate an improvement. :mrgreen:


Regarding your first statement, your own link clearly states that it was the 2nd lowest, and not the lowest on record, which says something about trying to prove that the Arctic Sea Ice reached a record minimum this year, and providing a link for evidence, only to see that it says "Arctic Sea Ice reaches 2nd Lowest Extent."

A 300K difference is most certainly not having just happened by chance. It is likely that 2011 is 300K higher than 2007, and IJIS-JAXA actually adjusts the ice data in the morning, to provide the most accurate Ice Extent Data.

And finally regarding your third statement, I think you would buy anything that indicates a record low... and you did. :razz:

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:20 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
And I thought that this paper brought up by Judith Curry on Climate Etc. fits this thread quite nicely.

From the conclusions...

Quote:
This article addresses probable causes of the observed reduction of the Arctic Ocean’s 179 coverage of MYI [multi-year ice] over that past decade. There is evidence of the increasingly important role 180 of atmospheric thermodynamic forcing in shaping recent changes of the Arctic MYI. In addition to direct MYI melt due to high-latitude warming, the impact of enhanced upper- ocean solar heating through numerous leads in decaying Arctic ice cover and consequent ice bottom melting has resulted in an accelerated rate of sea-ice retreat via a positive ice-albedo feedback mechanism. The pan-Arctic role of this feedback is yet to be quantified. Analysis of satellite ice motion suggests that the role of ice export through straits connecting the Arctic Ocean with sub-polar basins may be elusive. This situation probably differs from the situation that existed in the early to mid-1990s, when enhanced ice export through Fram Strait was caused by anomalous winds associated with the positive Arctic Oscillation phase. The possible long-lasting impact of anomalous winds such as those in 2004–05 or 2007 (especially when superimposed on a warming trend) on the state of MYI should not be ruled out. An intriguing feature of the scenario described here is the potential contribution of oceanic thermodynamic forcing to the recent changes of the high-latitude MYI coverage. Available observations suggest a thermodynamic coupling between the heat of the ocean interior and the sea ice. In the Canadian Basin, the impact of Pacific water warmth has been recently documented. While vertical AW [Atlantic Water] heat fluxes are negligible in the Canadian Basin, turbulent mixing may be strong enough in the western Nansen Basin to produce a sizable effect of AW heat on sea ice. In the eastern Eurasian Basin, double diffusion provides an important alternative to weak turbulent mixing for upward AW heat transport. However, this contribution to sea-ice loss remains uncertain pending new field experiments that will provide estimates of upward AW heat fluxes.

The fact that the rate of MYI recovery observed in recent years shows a delay relative to thermodynamic forcing indicates that MYI is resistant to recovery. However, the relative roles of dynamic and thermodynamic factors in recent changes of the Arctic MYI cover remains to be determined. Quantifying these roles is a high priority if we are to develop reliable forecasts of the future state of Arctic ice coverage.


The paper clearly adresses how there is more complexity to Arctic Ice melt, than what CAGW Proponents want to believe.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20356
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
But according to the statment NSIDC does not have the resolution of the satellite system used by the Germans.

From what I have been reading every other data set is stating there is no statistical significance in the difference between the two years due to the variation in the way the measurements are made, while the dataset with the highest resolution is claiming they have measured a difference. In either case, the Arctic ice extent is clearly staying in decline.

I am sure you would buy anything that could be made to indicate an improvement. :mrgreen:


Regarding your first statement, your own link clearly states that it was the 2nd lowest, and not the lowest on record, which says something about trying to prove that the Arctic Sea Ice reached a record minimum this year, and providing a link for evidence, only to see that it says "Arctic Sea Ice reaches 2nd Lowest Extent."


It says the NSIDC classifies it as the second lowest and goes on to quote the NSIDC statement concerning the increased resolution of the sensors the German team uses. There is a slight disagreement in the data, but the higher resolution data indicates the new record.

Quote:
A 300K difference is most certainly not having just happened by chance. It is likely that 2011 is 300K higher than 2007, and IJIS-JAXA actually adjusts the ice data in the morning, to provide the most accurate Ice Extent Data.


So now the "most accurate" does not include the highest resolution? Are you sure you want to take such a position?

Quote:
And finally regarding your third statement, I think you would buy anything that indicates a record low... and you did. :razz:


No, it matters not whether it is a record this year or not as the trend is still unaffected.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sushilydv and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group