Ice cap disappearing 30 years ahead of schedule
- Thread starter david dissadent
- Start date
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.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
david dissadent
New Member
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Notice it is about a week out of date.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
New Member
Ahh more pretty pictures folks just stumbled across these jems.
The forcing effect of the arctic
The current anolomy
From here
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The forcing effect of the arctic
The multi year ice
The current anolomy
From here
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Both those graphs show there is more ice this year than last year.
I confidently predict that Antarctic ice, far from melting, is rapidly expanding at this moment
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
bigfish 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?
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
Dislicksick
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.
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
Dislicksick
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)
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.
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
more tea vicar?
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
more tea vicar?
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.
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?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
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
New Member
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.
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.
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.
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
New Member
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
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
North Pole may be ice free for the first time this summer!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
crikey
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
crikey
Surprise: Explosive Volcanic Eruption Under The Arctic Ice Found
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...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.
From Science and The Sea: “In the last few years, for example, scientists have found that a long ridge beneath the north polar ice cap is dotted with volcanoes, and with vents of superheated water that could be home to many new species.”
http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=10
Press release from EurekAlert: International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean
An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php
Bathymetric chart of the Gakkel Ridge at 85°E. Photographic bottom surveys were conducted along profiles shown as thin, black lines. The photo showing volcanic ashes on the sea bed were taken at the site, which is marked with a red star and the letter a.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
Oops! Antarctic sea ice at record levels
http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels.html
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
The Antarctic set a new record (since records began in 1979) for sea ice extent at the end of last winter. It stayed well above the normal through the summer with icemelt 40% below the normal. As a new height of irony and hype, the media made a big deal about a fracture of a small part of the Wilkins ice sheet in late February (160 square miles of the 6 million square mile Antarctic ice sheet (0.0027% of the total).
Media headlines blared: Bye-bye, Antarctica? and Massive ice shelf collapsing off Antarctica.
But as you can see from this Cryosphere chart below, the extent never dropped to less than 1 million square km ABOVE NORMAL during or after the brief event. Currently Antarctic ice extent is running nearly 1 million square kilometers higher than last year at this time. Peak comes at the end of the southern winter (September).
This chart, also from Cryosphere, shows the Global Sea Ice Area from 1979 to present. It begs the question, where's the melt?
http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/06/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels.html
Similar threads
