Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Antarctic sea ice has been above average for 1000 straight days

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #2
    Extent isn't volume - I'm not buying it.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Extent isn't volume - I'm not buying it.
      Not buying what?

      Comment


      • #4
        If 10 square miles of ice 15 metres thick on the west side of Antarctica melts and the ice sheet extends by 20 square miles, 5 metres thick on another side, there will have been a net loss of ice.

        Temperatures have stabilised, but the ocean levels are continuing to rise. That water is coming from from somewhere - and it isn't from the arctic or sea ice in the antarctic ... its coming from ice on the land.
        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          If 10 square miles of ice 15 metres thick on the west side of Antarctica melts and the ice sheet extends by 20 square miles, 5 metres thick on another side, there will have been a net loss of ice.

          Temperatures have stabilised, but the ocean levels are continuing to rise. That water is coming from from somewhere - and it isn't from the arctic or sea ice in the antarctic ... its coming from ice on the land.
          Just curious: from where did you get that data?

          Comment


          • #6
            No data on the ice was cited - I was just pointing out that ice expanse isn't a reliable indicator. And I don't whether or not volume data exists.

            As to rising sea levels:

            CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

            I'm guessing the global warming enthusiasts would hate that graph. It shows reasonably steady rise of sea levels since 1890 or then abouts.

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #7
              Did tabibito make a mistake? "I'm guessing the global denialists . . . " or "I'm guessing the global warming enthusiasts would love . . . "
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #8
                Arctic Ice VOLUME - I'm suspicious of this one - but only as to detail:

                ArcticEscalatorv2.gif
                sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                Comment


                • #9
                  antarctica_ice_mass.gif

                  antarctica_sea_ice.gif


                  Again - I'm not accepting that the date is wholly accurate (which is to say - perhaps exaggerated but not completely false), but trying to find dispassionate data is kind of difficult.
                  sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    Did tabibito make a mistake? "I'm guessing the global denialists . . . " or "I'm guessing the global warming enthusiasts would love . . . "
                    Global Warming enthusiasts said and meant. And some denialists.
                    Denialists fall into two groups: 1/ There is no warming. 2/ Human contribution is not a significant factor in the warming.

                    I'm in the second group - historical data shows the current climate change is predominantly just part of the normal cycle.
                    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Alas, I don't have time to respond to nearly as many of these frequent threads based on Watts up with that and other such sources. But here's a couple of quick comments that may help.

                      There's sea ice, and there's land ice. The OP is strictly about sea ice, which has negligible impacts for sea levels, because sea ice is floating. So all the sea level stuff is completely unrelated to the OP.

                      Issues with volume and extent are mentioned above; that isn't actually all that relevant in the Antarctic; it's more useful in the Arctic where the sea ice goes right to the pole. In the Antarctic, much much more of the sea ice melts and reforms each season, so the issues with volume and extent are much less relevant, I think.

                      What is the significance of this thread? Why on earth is it in Civics and not in the science forums? Is it because it is seen as refuting global warming, and treating that as politics or civics issues?

                      But warming is directly measured. Issues with sea ice don't bring temperature into question in the slightest. The interesting questions are entirely to do with investigating all the factors that bear upon Antarctic sea ice extent. Temperature is only one of the factors, and in the Antarctic in particular there's a lot more involved in the physics of sea ice formation.

                      The original OP seems to be presenting the issue of Antarctic sea ice as some kind of issue that discredits conventional climate science and in particular the discovery of anthropogenic global warming. That's a bit weird; the linkage just isn't there.

                      Cheers -- sylas

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sylas View Post
                        Alas, I don't have time to respond to nearly as many of these frequent threads based on Watts up with that and other such sources. But here's a couple of quick comments that may help.

                        There's sea ice, and there's land ice. The OP is strictly about sea ice, which has negligible impacts for sea levels, because sea ice is floating. So all the sea level stuff is completely unrelated to the OP.

                        Issues with volume and extent are mentioned above; that isn't actually all that relevant in the Antarctic; it's more useful in the Arctic where the sea ice goes right to the pole. In the Antarctic, much much more of the sea ice melts and reforms each season, so the issues with volume and extent are much less relevant, I think.

                        What is the significance of this thread? Why on earth is it in Civics and not in the science forums? Is it because it is seen as refuting global warming, and treating that as politics or civics issues?

                        But warming is directly measured. Issues with sea ice don't bring temperature into question in the slightest. The interesting questions are entirely to do with investigating all the factors that bear upon Antarctic sea ice extent. Temperature is only one of the factors, and in the Antarctic in particular there's a lot more involved in the physics of sea ice formation.

                        The original OP seems to be presenting the issue of Antarctic sea ice as some kind of issue that discredits conventional climate science and in particular the discovery of anthropogenic global warming. That's a bit weird; the linkage just isn't there.

                        Cheers -- sylas
                        Thanks, sylas!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                          Thanks, sylas!
                          Antarctic sea ice is actually a really interesting subject; with unresolved questions. And, therefore, a fertile area for active research looking into those questions. There's a couple of interesting things have come up recently. In fact, there's a bit of a bang up disagreement going this month, concerning the very sea ice extent data we are looking at.

                          In The Cryosphere, there's a report of an error discovered in processing of satellite data.
                          A spurious jump in the satellite record: has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated? (2014) by I. Eisenman, W. N. Meier, and J. R. Norris, in The Cryosphere 8, pp 1289-1296, 2014, doi:10.5194/tc-8-1289-2014
                          This journal is open access, and with an open peer review system, where you can actually read the original paper submitted and the various review comments and responses. The original paper up for review, with comments from peer reviewers, can be found here:Note the different title!

                          Many reviewers pointed out that although identification of the error in satellite processing is a useful and important correction; the expansion in Antarctic sea ice remains present with corrections, and also in other investigations using different algorithms. So the issue is not about whether the trend exists, but rather whether the magnitude of increase has been over estimated. Anyhow... those interested can read the discussion with reviewers. It's a great example of science at work -- AND it shows (particularly if you recognize the names) that so called "global warming alarmists" actually focussed on getting the information correct rather than simply leaping on a convenient bandwagon for pushing an unscientific warming agenda.

                          You can also read a discussion of this new paper, along with some critical response, here: Error discovered in Antarctic sea-ice record, (Nature News, 22 July 2014).

                          For larger context, here's a graph from The Cryosphere Today, showing Sea Ice Extent in the Antarctic from 1979 to present:
                          seaice.area.antarctic.jpg
                          The first thing anyone notices there is the massive seasonal swing from a bit under 2 million sq km in summer to 15 or 16 million sq km in winter. So where's this trend the OP mentions? That shows up in what is called the "anomaly". An average seasonal cycle is obtained by averaging from 1979 to 2008, and then we calculate how much ice extent at any time DIFFERS from an average season. This wipes out the seasonal cycle, and shows up the trend much more clearly. Here's the anomaly plot for the same data.
                          seaice.anomaly.antarctic.jpg

                          The OP is referring to that uptick at the end of the anomaly plot, from about 2011 to the present. That uptick is statistically significant; there is also a longer and slower rate of increase over the whole dataset, which is not strong enough for statistical significance. Understanding and quantifying all the various processes involved in sea ice extent remains an important open problem, and there's a lot being published on this. Stay tuned.

                          Cheers -- sylas

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sylas View Post
                            Stay tuned.
                            Will do.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Esther, Yesterday, 12:09 PM
                            29 responses
                            168 views
                            2 likes
                            Last Post mikewhitney  
                            Started by Gondwanaland, 11-25-2020, 01:42 PM
                            50 responses
                            264 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Andius
                            by Andius
                             
                            Started by Ronson, 11-25-2020, 11:16 AM
                            11 responses
                            92 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Juvenal, 11-25-2020, 04:13 AM
                            14 responses
                            70 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Terraceth  
                            Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:20 PM
                            22 responses
                            139 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Working...
                            X