2013 sea ice thread!!!

[whitehall]

The US weather bureau used to base it's forecasts on American computer models until the European model seemed to be more accurate but not perfect. Computer models can't tell where a tornado is going to appear or the next day of a tropical storm. The people who make the computer models about pack ice and warming are paid to come up with a model that their sponsors (UN?-US government?) like. The global warming model makers are like anybody else. They are going to make damned sure that they give the right answers so they can make the next car payment and their kids go to a decent school.

 

[Old Rocks]

The US weather bureau used to base it's forecasts on American computer models until the European model seemed to be more accurate but not perfect. Computer models can't tell where a tornado is going to appear or the next day of a tropical storm. The people who make the computer models about pack ice and warming are paid to come up with a model that their sponsors (UN?-US government?) like. The global warming model makers are like anybody else. They are going to make damned sure that they give the right answers so they can make the next car payment and their kids go to a decent school.

Who the hell is talking about computer models? These are real time observations of the ice. Are you incapable of reading? And from not only our satellites, but also those of the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and Russians.

In fact, the computer models that have tried in the past to model the ice, have all predicted far less melt than we are currently seeing.

 

[mamooth]

The Russians have started evacuating their drifting research station.

Tauwetter setzte früher ein: Atomeisbrecher rettet Forscher - n-tv.de

Sorry for the German link, but it's all I have. "Atomeisbrecher rettet Forscher" would be "Nuclear icebreaker rescues researchers". The gist of it is that helicopters from the Yamal are evacuating the station now.

 

[lynn63]

By the time everyone agrees climate change is indeed changing, it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is already too late. The warming that is already in the pipeline will cause significant changes in climate for the whole world. The things that we see happening now are the result of the GHG levels in the 1980's. The levels of today, 400+ ppm for CO2, 1800+ ppb for CH4, bode ill for the next 30 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Ice has been melting for the past 14,000 years and it's still 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago....why is "melting ice" newsworthy?

 

[mamooth]

Here's the route the Russian icebreaker took to rescue the drifting research station. They started at Murmansk and curved around the pole to avoid thicker ice. The yellow dashed line will be the route back, and they'll unload the research station in a new spot on solid ground on that Siberian island. On the Russian side, there no longer is any safe ice.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Ice has been melting for the past 14,000 years and it's still 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago....why is "melting ice" newsworthy?

1. We have warmed 1.6c since 1680 and .8c since 1880. This gives us understanding about how our planet works.

This is good.

 

[Saigon]

By the time everyone agrees climate change is indeed changing, it will be too late to do anything about it.

The rest of the world started doing something about it more than 20 years ago.

Which is why we now have wind energy that is cheaper than any form of coal. Which is why tidal energy is the fastest growing form of energy production, and which is why some countries have reached 90% market penetration with solar panels.

The turning point was when oil companies changed sides and admitted thatclimatechange was real - waiting for people like Frank to catch up is not what the world is doing.

 

[mamooth]

New picture time. The persistent cyclone is winding down. The most recent similar persistent cyclone season was 1989, but the ice was much more solid back then, and thus relatively unaffected by the wind. The current thin ice is getting slushified by the storms, as seen in the colors on the Russian side.

So, there are conflicting effects. The storms reduce sunlight and temps, but they agitate the ice and blow some of it south out the Fram Strait, where it's eventually doomed to melt in the North Atlantic. We're in new territory here, unsure of how it will turn out.

 

[SSDD]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep,

This year is following the lower edge of the 1979-2000 avg. That cyclone that is talked about above is causing this.

 

[SSDD]

 

[westwall]

Yep,

This year is following the lower edge of the 1979-2000 avg. That cyclone that is talked about above is causing this.

Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.

If they are so fascinated by ice, you would think the conversation would center on the steady growth of Antarctic ice in direct opposition to the claims of climate science.

 

[westwall]

Yes, and 1979 is when the world started warming up from the global cooling scare of the 1970's.

If they are so fascinated by ice, you would think the conversation would center on the steady growth of Antarctic ice in direct opposition to the claims of climate science.

I keep telling you, the revisionists don't DO facts. Facts make them nervous and scared.

 

[mamooth]

Given that the AGW scientists correctly predicted the Antarctic ice growth ahead of time, the cranks look kind of crazy for claiming they ignored it. I guess in crankland, "predicted" = "ignored".

The current ice area is being kept up by behind-schedule (compared to recent years) melts in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, due to the cold weather there over May. That will be meaningless in the final tally, since Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay always melt out completely.

It's what's happening in the central arctic that's going to determine the final tally. The slushified areas there are still counted as ice-covered in the tally, despite their fragility. Melting near the pole is more a factor of water temperature than of sunlight and air temperature, so increased ice surface area in contact with water is a significant factor.

 

[westwall]

Given that the AGW scientists correctly predicted the Antarctic ice growth ahead of time, the cranks look kind of crazy for claiming they ignored it. I guess in crankland, "predicted" = "ignored".

The current ice area is being kept up by behind-schedule (compared to recent years) melts in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, due to the cold weather there over May. That will be meaningless in the final tally, since Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay always melt out completely.

It's what's happening in the central arctic that's going to determine the final tally. The slushified areas there are still counted as ice-covered in the tally, despite their fragility. Melting near the pole is more a factor of water temperature than of sunlight and air temperature, so increased ice surface area in contact with water is a significant factor.

Sheer and utter bullshit. You revisionists forget there's a internet and all of your predictions are online for all the world to see.... You really do suck as a propagandist...

Here are just TWO of hundreds..... Better start learning how to do the backstroke....


Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyes is lying once again. All too easy to copy the links;

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is generally considered to be ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between antarctic and arctic sea ice exists. Arctic sea ice lasts all the year round, there are increases during the winter months and decreases during the summer months but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Is Antarctica Melting?01.12.10 The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
Larger Image

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting