Lets be honest about the ice melt season

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167
    This had to be one very crappy "weather pattern" over the Arctic to cause 4.2 million km^3 not to beat 6.4 million km^3 volume in 2007. That is -2.2 million km^3 decrease in arctic sea ice volume since 2007...:eek: What does that mean? That means the thickness has falling through the floor since 2007. Area's that might of been 3 plus meters thick are now likely 1 meter. You can look at the "ice extent" graph and look at the 'area' and 80-100 percent purple area that is the highest percentage of ice area and you will find looking at that alot less of the deepest colors this year. That is another way to know damn well the volume out of washington state is telling it like it is.

    Extent is NOT a good way to judge the ice sheet at all. It is controlled by many factors
    1# wind direction compacted or spreading the ice out(2007 had winds that worked to compact the ice into thicker/more dense sheets).
    2# high and low pressures---high pressure centered over the arctic is going to have more solar energy hitting the ice pack then a low pressure with clouds. 2007 was amazing for having a high centered over the arctic all melt season(Imagine Texas over the arctic).

    The truth is 2011 had a lot less sea ice within the arctic....But much more spread out over a larger area. Remember the sea ice is three "d", which means it has width, length and height=total of it. When you have a crappy weather pattern that spreads it out instead of compacting it; don't be surprised when it acts differently.

    If a pattern like 2007 happens over the next 3-4 years, which is more or less a anomaly in of its self. I fully expect we will go below 3.5 million km^2...Why? Because there is 2.2 million km^3 less sea ice to go around and a compacting pattern like 2007 will have a far smaller area of extent. Makes sense???

    You have less of something, but it is spread out as the winds are Not favorable for compaction, what do you expect? Get a favorable pattern and then grab your bag of popcorn, but don't hold your breath as 2007 was a once in 20 year event.

    Here is the volume of each year until 8-31
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    You can clearly see that 2007 had much thicker(deeper purple) then 2011...It doesn't matter if it is one inch or 3 meters, but as it is 15 percent of the ice within a area it is counted.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    When the ice is. thinner, it breaks up into smaller peices which have much more surface area exposed per unit of volume than thicker ice. As the Arctic Ocean water warms, that not only melts the ice more rapidly, but also spreads it out more. Within the next few years, we will see a very dramatic reduction in both area and volume.

    We could see the dissapearance of most of ice by 2020.
     
  3. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    I would not be surprised to see dramatic differences in the next few years.
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    and yet Greenland is still not as balmy as it was when the settlers arrived. climate changes, get over it
     
  5. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,694
    Thanks Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,167

    I thought you were open minded about things?:confused:
     
  6. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    Got supporting evidence for this assertion?

    I've seen nothing indicative that turn of the first millenia 800-1200 AD was any warmer than current temperatures.
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    hahaha, I am! but my trust in arctic ice studies took a big hit when I checked the records for the early part of last century and there were no signs in the official numbers of the dramatic loss of ice written about in newspapers.

    you also seem to be linking to PIOMAS a lot lately. I am too lazy to go back and find the thread or the orginal links but they recently made a large change in their model that derives their numbers from available data. do you think I am being overly pessimistic in thinking that their new 'adjustments' might be slanted towards the CAGW direction? why dont you spread your citations around a little bit more to give an air of neutrality? just sayin'
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,444
    first off- I am not one of those sceptics who denies that it has gotten warmer. I do believe that a substantial fraction is due to sketchy 'adjustment' however. I also do not deny that glaciation on average is declining, perhaps with the exception of antarctica. or that sea level is rising. or even that world wide climate is changing, with some winners, some losers and some with little change. I dont even deny that CO2 has some perceptible influence although insignificant.

    what I do deny is that it is unnatural. we are coming out of a cold period and becoming warmer. ice melts when it is warm, forms when it is cold enough. there is lots of evidence that previous eras had less ice. new things get uncovered as the ice retreats. tree stumps, buildings, even human bodies. the volstock ice cores show numerous temp spikes at roughly the same temp as today with varying levels of CO2. none of them led to runaway temps or tipping points.

    we may not like some of the changes. sea level WILL rise if it stays warm for a long period, it has been rising since the Little Ice Age. but as human history has shown it is cold we should fear. we cannot stop time because we like the climate at present.

    human beings have always wanted to believe they were the centre of the universe, that their actions controlled the future. but crippling our civilization for reducing the temperature increase by a few hundredths or thousandths of a degree is no more effective than throwing a virgin into a volcano. of course we actually could cool the atmosphere down if we wanted to. just pump a few billion tonnes of sulphates into the sky or pop off a few thousand nuclear bombs. those actions might actually be less harmful than the suicidal actions some would like to impose on us.
     
  9. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    Can you cite/reference the asserted PIOMAS adjustment assertion, at least with reference to when it occurred and what type of adjustment you are claiming are biased and inaccurately portraying the realities of arctic climate?

    "neutrality"?

    which national or international science agency would you recommend as portraying a "neutral" perspective on these issues?

    As far as I can tell there are two positions with regards to AGW. The mainstream scientific perspective, and those who reject or deny that mainstream science position.

    What is the neutral position between science and pseudoscience?

    How will this help us to derive an accurate scientific understanding of the issue?
     
  10. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    You are not a skeptic, merely another ideologically driven bleever trying to don the mask of reasoned conservatism.

    Skeptics use scientific evidences and supports for their understandings, nor unsupported assertion and beliefs in the framing of their understandings.

    and yet more than half of these things are not in accord with the scientific understandings and evidences.

    Man is a natural animal, the consequences of our actions are "natural" in that sense, but this is irrelevent in accepting responsibility for our actions and the consequences of thos actions.

    according to the natural controls and cycles of planetary climate, our planet should have begun a long slow slide into increased glaciation and growing ice sheets culminating in a full fledged return to the depths of the current ice age within a few tens of thousands of years.

    Regional warm and cold spells occur despite general global trends, previous episodic conditions and previous planetary conditions happen for their own reasons and are not related casually to the current episode of planetary climate shift.

    actually they all had feedback factors, and all time frames that had current levels of CO2 in their atmospheres were much warmer than today and this is only because our current climate has not yet had the opportunity to fully equilibrate to the increased CO2 content of our atmosphere.
     

Share This Page