Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 60 out of 60:

51. archiesteel at 15:32 PM on 16 September, 2010
    @HR: "While the debate remains tribal I'm going to look for words to describe one of the tribes." That seems like an unecessary mental shortcut, especially considering the motley crew of those who disbelieve part or all of AGW, many of which hold contradictory opinions. It's much more constructive to debate the science. "Haas has things relatively unchanged between 2007 and 2009." ...for *old* ice, not for arctic ice in general. The paper makes this quite clear. It also mentions the fact there's *less* old ice, though its thickness remains the same. This seems to go contrary to your argument. "It's interesting what you choose to leave out with your [....]. Is this evidence of your own bias?" Not at all. I edited that part for brevity only; it does not contradict my point, nor does it support yours. The only "interesting" thing about it is how you seem to think it does. It doesn't. The facts remain: both Barber's and Haas' mention loss of old ice, which leads to a simple conclusion: MYI is going down as a result of increased temperatures. Considering you cited the Haas paper, we have to assume you agree with the science in it, and therefore agree that MYI is decreasing.
    0 0
52. CBDunkerson at 22:18 PM on 16 September, 2010
    HR, you concede that Barber's direct ice observations contradicted interpretations of the satellite data... but simultaneously claim that this is invalid because of the TERM he used to describe the difference? Seriously, this hangup on semantics seems to be an ongoing theme amongst many of the anti-science objections. The satellite analysis showed what was thought to be solid thick multi-year ice that would block ship travel through the region. Barber's direct examination found that this was instead actually small chunks of ice held together by a thin crust... and that these sections easily broke apart and posed no significant barrier to navigation at all. Is all that agreed? If so, then I really don't care WHAT the 'ice which does not block navigation' is called. It is a new scientific finding with significant implications.
    0 0
53. Rob Honeycutt at 04:42 AM on 17 September, 2010
    CBDunkerson... Not only that but they traveled for an additional 3 days to find the MY ice. He said they were doing 13 knots. That's potentially (though he did not state this) another 1000 NM. AND he said other ships in the area were experiencing the same.
    0 0
54. michael sweet at 02:17 AM on 18 September, 2010
    I find it astonishing that people with no arctic experience would challenge the observations of an expert like Dr. Barber. If he says that the ice was expected to be thicker, that is what was expected. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that Dr. Barber is wrong and data needs to be provided to support the claim, not just "I doubt it". He did not provide the background information because the talk was to experienced ice scientists who know the background information.
    0 0
55. CBDunkerson at 03:57 AM on 21 September, 2010
    Some interesting developments the past few days. First, what the NSIDC thought was the end of the melt season after 9/10 turned out to just be a 5 day bump. Since then extent has begun declining again and is now below the 9/10 'minimum' and just a hair's breadth above the 2008 low extent. If it drops any further it will tie 2008 for the 2nd lowest result after 2007. Second, PIOMAS just updated their anomaly graph thru 9/14 and shows an anomaly of about -9,500 km^3. Subtracting that from the 13,400 km^3 September baseline would yield 3,900 km^3. However, that baseline value is a monthly average while the anomaly is a daily value and 9/14 is likely close to the minimum for the month. Thus, when the 2010 monthly average is computed it will probably be around 4,000 km^3... still FAR below the previous record low of 5,800 km^3 set in 2009. I did some math based on various statistics they cite on the main page (e.g. "September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3 or 67% below its 1979 maximum") and came up with some stats on ice loss rates; Max (1979): 17,600 km^3 Mean: 13,400 km^3 Min (2010): 4,000 km^3 Rate: -425 km^3 per year Given that long term rate the ice would be gone in September in 10 years. If the rate over the past decade (~-1000 km^3 per year) continued it'd be four years. If the rate continued to increase as it has been it's just two years. So, I'm calling 2016 +/- 4 years for the Arctic sea ice to be gone except for a few bits and pieces. If the long term trends continued then there'd be no ice even in APRIL (the maximum extent) in about 50 years.
    0 0
56. muoncounter at 06:57 AM on 21 September, 2010
    CBD: Clearly, this is more evidence of how warming has stopped (or is flat or is taking a few years off) or whatever. :) At least some people are taking things seriously. "Russia has no plans to deploy troops in the Arctic. We want to strengthen Russia's means of securing maritime security in the region," the Russian Foreign Ministry's Arctic representative Anton Vasilev said at the press conference.
    0 0
57. Philippe Chantreau at 03:21 AM on 25 September, 2010
    Cryosphere today is showing even more evidence of how warming has stopped and how sea ice is doing a spectacular recovery: Arctic sea ice area appears to have bottomed very close to 3 million sq. km, on par with 2008, pretty close to the all time low of 2007 and significantly lower than last year. Lowest sea ice anomaly so far this year was reached in June, when a strong Arctic dipole led to the fastest melt ever recorded at that period, a similar rate to that of August in the all time low 2007. That month in 2007 also had a strong dipole situation. This year's lowest anomaly may not have been reached yet, depending how fast the ice is going to form. Meanwhile, something funny is happening to Antarctic sea ice. After a strong positive anomaly early in the season, it is now showing over 700k sq. km below baseline, a rather unusual occurrence at the time when it should peak. If the data are correct, that brings the global sea ice around 2.5 million sq. km below the 1979-2008 average, close to 2007, on par with 2008, much lower than 2009. Some recovery.
    0 0
58. Doug Bostrom at 04:40 AM on 25 September, 2010
    Extent appears to have declined near to the bottom of the early melt season ARCUS invited predictions.
    
    0 0
59. adrian smits at 09:23 AM on 30 September, 2010
    Has anyone seen how fast the ice is growing back in the last little while looks like a long cold winter,especially with UHA showing near sea level cooling of 100th of a degree per day for the last little while.
    0 0
60. Doug Bostrom at 09:46 AM on 30 September, 2010
    Ever heard of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football, Adrian?
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.