Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule

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?
 
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. :p

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? :p

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? :eek::D
 
No it doesn't.


No it doesn't.
Yes it does x 2 :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
 
Yes it does x 2 :rolleyes:
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.
 
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. :p

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.
 
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
 
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?:eek:

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. :)
 
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.

According to Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, a veteran of Arctic research, the Russians usually prefer to set up their camps on ice at least three metres thick but the thaw was so extensive that they had to settle for a floe that was only around 1.5m thick.

He said that given the floe's thin ice and the fact that it is approaching the East Spitsbergen Current, which is known to be warmer than surrounding waters, the Russians "have got to get off pretty fast - that current would be very dangerous for them".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7503060.stm

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.

Figures 4 and 5 indicate that relatively thin, first-year ice now covers 72% of the Arctic Basin, including the region around the North Pole; in 2007, that number was 59%.

Usually, only 30% of first-year ice formed during the winter survives the summer melt season; in 2007, only 13% survived. Even if more first-year ice survives than normal, the September minimum extent this year will likely be extremely low.

Why is there so much first-year ice this spring? Partly, it is because last summer's record-breaking ice loss created extensive open-water areas in which new ice could form.

Anomalous winds in winter can also flush thicker, older ice out of the Arctic, leaving the Arctic with a greater coverage of first-year ice.

As noted by our colleague Ignatius Rigor of the University of Washington at Seattle, this winter saw a return of the Arctic Oscillation to its positive mode, an atmospheric pattern especially effective in flushing out thick, old ice.

So, what about the multi-year ice that remained after last year’s record ice loss? Jennifer Kay and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that last summer’s clear skies allowed for more intense melt of the multiyear ice, leaving it thinner than normal at summer’s end.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
 
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.
 
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'.)
 
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.

current36514_7_8.jpg
 
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."
 
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?
 
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;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Since I am here, here is a quick run down on the latest from the north pole.


In the North the melt continues apace.

current3_8_8.jpg


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.
arcticseaicesome4_8_8.png

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.
N_timeseries-1.png

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."

current365_4_8_8.jpg

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.
 
Alot of melting in the Arctic this week as we close in on the end of the season.

current8_8_8.jpg



N_timeseries8_8_8.png


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.

current8_8_8365.jpg


Here is a good graph of the current sea temperature anolomy.
P1AME0808PNSST000600ANOM.png

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.
 
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?

Last summer, the headlines read "First ever traversal of the Northwest Passage". This sounds very dramatic, except that it is entirely incorrect. As the BBC reported: "In 1905, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first person to successfully navigate the Northwest Passage, in a wooden sailboat." The Northwest Passage has been navigated at least one hundred times over the last century.

According to official US Weather Bureau records (pdf) from 1922, there was open sailing very close to the North Pole that year. Anthony Watts unearthed this quote from the Weather Bureau:

"In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees in ice-free water.
We must check back in seven weeks to see if the North Pole is ice-free. My money is on the experts being wrong - again. As the great physicist Dr Richard Feynman said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." ®

The author, Steven Goddard, is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any energy industry, nor does he have any current affiliation with any university.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/
 
What is it with the register and this recent crop of dodgy global warming sceptic articles - are they trying to be controversial? (silly question)
 

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:

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.

There has been a marked shrinkage in ice cover in the region in recent years, but this year it was extreme, according to Europe's space agency.

Mr Semotiuk, who completed the journey himself in 1988, said: "This summer the passage was largely wide open.

"It's a very different picture to say 20 years ago, when I travelled the length of the passage.

"The owner of the boat I was travelling on had been trying to get through for five years. On the sixth year, we were successful, although we had to wait for two weeks in the central Arctic for the ice to break."

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.
 
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".

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here's a smaller version of the graph:

nsdic_ice_extent.jpg

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)'s troublesome ice graph

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

arctic_ice_comparison_8aug.jpg

Ice at the Arctic: 2007 and 2008 snapshots


The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.

Video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLiH....co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

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.

So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom