Arctic Ice

[flacaltenn]

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.

And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

It appears that the ice has started it's downward trend. At at least three standard deviations below the average. Best hope for a very cold spring in the Arctic.

I'm confused. The mean and confidence levels are derived for just 29 years of observation in that analysis? What makes ANYONE SUSPECT that particular period is a "polar normal"? All this says is that polar ice is in a FIVE YEAR decline..

If you went back and could move the Median 20 years earlier it wouldn't help much because 30 years of observation is NOT SUFFICIENT on a climate scale to be calling ANYTHING "normal"...

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure there was a point being made about the NET flux. But you excepted so little of it -- I don't know WHY that's important.

That's the whole point...they aren't talking about "net" flux...they are talking about flux period...if the lens is focused on an object that is warmer than the sensor array, the flux is positive and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of warming the array registers....if the lens is focused on a cooler object, the flux is negative and the image is generated from the rate, and amount of cooling the array registers...there is no positive flux into the camera if the lens is focused on an object that is cooler than the array.

To overcome the DIRECTION of the net flux -- you simply calibrate it.

No...to overcome the direction of the FLUX.. you cool the array....or you warm up the object to a temperature warmer than the array.

You're not listening again. I told you there's no reason to cool the IR sensor is if you have a strong signal in EITHER direction. Handheld IR gun meters work just dandy on colder objects WITHOUT cooling. I use them to find window leaks all the time. The ONLY time you cool the sensor is if your signal is buried in self generated thermo-electric noise and you need more dynamic range to even SEE it. (you can also time integrate. in a sense take longer exposures).

What's the sense of measuring the temperature of an object if you have to WARM it to measure it??

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't continue this here. If I have time tonight -- I'll snip out this Alt-GHouse stuff and put in the "Questions -- GHouse"" thread where it really belongs.

 

[RollingThunder]

It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Conditions in context

Although the 2009 melt season started slowly, the pace of ice loss quickened through May. During May, the Arctic Ocean lost 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) of ice, an average decline of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This is similar to the rate of decline observed last year. For comparison, the long-term average (1979-2000) rate of decline for May is 47,000 kilometers per day (18,000 square miles per day). By the end of May 2009, ice extent was 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) higher than extent at the end of May 2007.

There's the OP to this thread....

.....And here's supporting evidence.

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen.

Case closed!

Meanwhile, the dingbat denier cult dimwits argue futilely about science that they are mentally incapable of understanding.

 

[jc456]

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen.

The denier cultusts' myths about polar ice were thoroughly debunked....but they are too brainwashed and delusional to recognize that fact. 'So sad'.

what about polar ice? it's still ice.

 

[RollingThunder]

It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Conditions in context

Although the 2009 melt season started slowly, the pace of ice loss quickened through May. During May, the Arctic Ocean lost 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) of ice, an average decline of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This is similar to the rate of decline observed last year. For comparison, the long-term average (1979-2000) rate of decline for May is 47,000 kilometers per day (18,000 square miles per day). By the end of May 2009, ice extent was 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) higher than extent at the end of May 2007.

There's the OP to this thread....

.....And here's supporting evidence.

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen.

The denier cultusts' myths about polar ice were thoroughly debunked....but they are too brainwashed and delusional to recognize that fact. 'So sad'.

what about polar ice? it's still ice.

That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "polar ice" when it melts? WATER!

 

[SSDD]

You're not listening again. I told you there's no reason to cool the IR sensor is if you have a strong signal in EITHER direction.

I'm listening fine..and also paying attention to what the author of The Handbook of Modern Sensors is saying...you apparently aren't either because you think you know everything, or you don't want to hear anything that disagrees with your beliefs...


Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.

Handheld IR gun meters work just dandy on colder objects WITHOUT cooling.

Dandy is a relative term...the don't produce as high a quality image as the cooled instruments because the image produced in the uncooled instruments is generated from the rate and amount of cooling of the sensor array...not as fast or as accurate as having the array cooler than the source so that the image can be generated from warming of the array.

I use them to find window leaks all the time.

Yeah...and Roy Spencer used them all the time as well and was sure that he was measuring back radiation when he pointed his at the sky till the manufacturer of his device sent him an email telling him that me most certainly was not measuring back radiation with that instrument..."experts" apparently fool themselves all the time with their instrumentation.

The ONLY time you cool the sensor is if your signal is buried in self generated thermo-electric noise and you need more dynamic range to even SEE it. (you can also time integrate. in a sense take longer exposures).

Not true, but you go ahead and believe that if you like...

What's the sense of measuring the temperature of an object if you have to WARM it to measure it??

Again, if the object is cooler, the image is produced by the rate and amount of cooling the sensor array detects...it isn't receiving incoming flux from a cooler object..the flux is outbound from the warmer sensor.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah...and Roy Spencer used them all the time as well and was sure that he was measuring back radiation when he pointed his at the sky till the manufacturer of his device sent him an email telling him that me most certainly was not measuring back radiation with that instrument..."experts" apparently fool themselves all the time with their instrumentation.

BS! Your attempted 'proof' of that denier cult myth was a link to a denier cult blog that did not quote or link to any such email from the supposed "manufacturer" to Roy Spencer, but only had some denier dufus claiming that crap without any evidence.

And what does your nonsense have to do with the melting Arctic ice, you silly wanker?

 

[Old Rocks]

Everything above 0 Kelvin radiates heat. Everything nearby is impacted by the photons radiated. Now the cold object gets a lot more photons than it is radiating, so is warmed. The warm object gets far less photons than it is radiating, so cools. Simple physics.

And the subject of this thread is arctic ice, which is rapidly declining. And this year, we may see a virtually ice free Arctic Ocean for a short time.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

It appears that the ice has started it's downward trend. At at least three standard deviations below the average. Best hope for a very cold spring in the Arctic.

I'm confused. The mean and confidence levels are derived for just 29 years of observation in that analysis? What makes ANYONE SUSPECT that particular period is a "polar normal"? All this says is that polar ice is in a FIVE YEAR decline..

If you went back and could move the Median 20 years earlier it wouldn't help much because 30 years of observation is NOT SUFFICIENT on a climate scale to be calling ANYTHING "normal"...

Northwest Passage | trade route, North America

Since the end of the 15th century, Western explorers have attempted to establish a commercial sea route north and west around the American land barrier encountered by Christopher Columbus. Such an accomplishment would realize an objective that has eluded humankind since King Henry VII of England sent John Cabot in search of a northwest route to East Asia in 1497. Five years earlier, Columbus had set out in search of a westward route after conquest of the Middle East by the Ottoman Turks in the mid-15th century disrupted Europe’s overland routes to the East. The Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama sailed south around Africa and reached India in 1498; another Portuguese explorer, Ferdinand Magellan, sailed southwest around South America to the East Indies (present-day Indonesia) in 1521; and Dutch explorers vainly sought a comparable passage to the northeast around Russia.

We have historic records of the attempts to traverse the Northwest Passage going back to almost the time of Columbus. This was not done until 1906, in a voyage that lasted 3 years. In an 80 ton re-inforced herring boat. Last fall a very large luxury liner made the passage. Obviously there has been a massive decrease of ice in the last century.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.

No -- that's not the reason. Has little to do with magnifying the Signal portion of the electrons sitting in each pixel well of the camera. The temperature of the sensor can only affect the area outside of it in terms of altering the exchange between it and any other IR emitters in it's field of view. If you're imaging a snowman 100 ft away, the tiny couple mm sensor being cooled is such a small fraction of snowman's projected photon emission field as to be completely negligible. Besides, you're cooling the SENSOR -- not the lenses or the body of the camera. So there is nothing "colder" in the emission field of the snowman. And it would not change the overall photon flux from the snowman anyway because it emits at rate proportional to its temperature only. If you put a colder NAKED 36 mm object 100 ft away it would theoretically cause a faster snowman loss rate for that single 36mm point at 100 ft. Amounts to nothing tho.. Because of simple geometry. And because under that exchange, it only changes the temperature of snowman over time. And the amount of time it takes to snap a photo wouldn't allow significant snowman heat loss at that geometry.

If it's a full 2D imager with pixel sites, then the electrons sitting in each photo well are either from light conversion or from self-generated "Johnson" electrical noise. The cooling only lowers the self generated thermal noise of the sensor. So that the signal to noise ratio of the electrons in that well increases. It also increases your "exposure time" that you can use because the lower thermal noise component allows more room in the wells for signal to integrate over time. This alone improves the image quality.

 

[SSDD]

No -- that's not the reason. Has little to do with magnifying the Signal portion of the electrons sitting in each pixel well of the camera.

That's nice...but not what the manufacturers of the instruments say...In general, they note that cooled camera are much faster than uncooled cameras, produce a much more detailed image.

For someone who professes to be an "expert" you are a bit thin on the basics...and appeal to complexity doesn't make you right.

 

[Crick]

I'm going to build a pinhole camera out of a shoebox. I try it out on a nice sunny day and it makes an image. But the image is a bit washed out and and low contrast.I get some advice. Paint the inside of the shoebox black. The pictures come out much nicer. I made no change whatsoever in the 'behavior' of the image making photons. Amazing!

 

[RollingThunder]

Well, there is a reason to cool the sensor array...the image generated by the warming of the array due to the object being warmer than the camera is of a higher quality than the image resulting from the cooling of the array...the warming is faster...that is why you get a higher quality image with the cooled instruments.

No -- that's not the reason. Has little to do with magnifying the Signal portion of the electrons sitting in each pixel well of the camera. The temperature of the sensor can only affect the area outside of it in terms of altering the exchange between it and any other IR emitters in it's field of view. If you're imaging a snowman 100 ft away, the tiny couple mm sensor being cooled is such a small fraction of snowman's projected photon emission field as to be completely negligible. Besides, you're cooling the SENSOR -- not the lenses or the body of the camera. So there is nothing "colder" in the emission field of the snowman. And it would not change the overall photon flux from the snowman anyway because it emits at rate proportional to its temperature only. If you put a colder NAKED 36 mm object 100 ft away it would theoretically cause a faster snowman loss rate for that single 36mm point at 100 ft. Amounts to nothing tho.. Because of simple geometry. And because under that exchange, it only changes the temperature of snowman over time. And the amount of time it takes to snap a photo wouldn't allow significant snowman heat loss at that geometry.

If it's a full 2D imager with pixel sites, then the electrons sitting in each photo well are either from light conversion or from self-generated "Johnson" electrical noise. The cooling only lowers the self generated thermal noise of the sensor. So that the signal to noise ratio of the electrons in that well increases. It also increases your "exposure time" that you can use because the lower thermal noise component allows more room in the wells for signal to integrate over time. This alone improves the image quality.

What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.

The facts about the rapid loss of Arctic ice have been repeatedly posted on this thread, debunking the denier cult myths.....while the denier cult dimwits exchange pointless BS about IR sensors.

 

[SSDD]

What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.

Actually what you are seeing, you tragically abused dolt, is a response to the hairball's incessant claim that thermal cameras are proof that energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics...not that I actually expected that you could keep up, or anything like that...just to let you know what you are seeing since it is clear that you had no idea..

 

[RollingThunder]

What we are seeing here with fecalhead and SSoooDDumb is a denier cult debate tactic that is used when the reality of the topic, like Arctic ice, is something that destroys their cultic myths and they have no real response to the facts about the topic.....so they just change the subject to something irrelevant and try to drag her thread off-topic.

Actually what you are seeing, you tragically abused dolt, is a response to the hairball's incessant claim that thermal cameras are proof that energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics...not that I actually expected that you could keep up, or anything like that...just to let you know what you are seeing since it is clear that you had no idea..

Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "the second law of thermodynamics", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.

 

[SSDD]

Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "the second law of thermodynamics", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.

How about that...even when you are told what you are seeing, you don't get it...how is that not surprising thunder? And thunder, you calling anyone either stupid or ignorant is just to much irony....even for this board. We all know by now that your angry name calling response to anyone who disagrees with you is the result of deep seated intimidation...following you around from your childhood...you would be so much happier if you would seek help...

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope! Actually what I am seeing, you flaming moron, is you two denier cult nitwits trying to drag a thread titled 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with a lot of nonsense based on your (long since) debunked delusions about "the second law of thermodynamics", which, unfortunately, you are much too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand.

How about that...even when you are told what you are seeing, you don't get it...how is that not surprising thunder? And thunder, you calling anyone either stupid or ignorant is just to much irony....even for this board. We all know by now that your angry name calling response to anyone who disagrees with you is the result of deep seated intimidation...following you around from your childhood...you would be so much happier if you would seek help...

Your delusions are, as always, hilariously demented, SSoooDDumb. As are your continued efforts to drag this thread about the rapidly melting 'Arctic Ice' off-topic with your sheer idiocy. Everyone can plainly see that what you hallucinate you are "seeing" and "knowing" amounts to stark insanity.

Meanwhile....Arctic ice is rapidly declining....


Monthly February sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 3.0 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

[SSDD]

Meanwhile....Arctic ice is rapidly declining....


Monthly February sea ice extent for 1979 to 2016 shows a decline of 3.0 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Ever wonder why that graph always starts at 1978 thunder...of course you don't...but we knew what the arctic ice looked like a good long while before then...you exhibit the difference between faith and curiosity...you accept on faith and aren't curious at all...you accept what you are told and run with it...I suppose your upbringing and the associated trauma leave you little other recourse.

 

[Crick]

You know that from your collection of three or four old photographs that show ice, right?

 

[SSDD]

You know that from your collection of three or four old photographs that show ice, right?

You think the first pictures we took from space were in 1978? Do you think at all?