SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141430)

Northeast and Northwest Passages Both Free of Ice

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...574815,00.html

It's a trick. As we all know, all ice is growing and global warming is propaganda only, in fact it's getting colder.

More dumb science - not checking all the facts. If you did, you would find that the amount of ice is unchanged. It is just down in Antarctica right now.

You would also know that these passages have opened many times in the past and they have already been sailed many times before, over 100 years ago even.

-S

PS. The reporters are so stupid, they say its the FIRST TIME EVER! Hahahahahaha!

Maybe you should read the 'small print' at the bottom of your article Subman? :yep: :hmm:

Quote:

Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard's methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC's charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard's charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect. We reproduce Walt Meier's response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:

The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid. The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing, in a plot right on the same page as where Mr Goddard obtained the images he uses for his own analysis:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.
Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.

Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.
"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

So what does the NSIDC data show?

From their own website:

Quote:

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Marks out of 10 for effort Subman, but no cigar I'm afraid. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Marks out of 10 for effort Subman, but no cigar I'm afraid. ;)

Just a question -do you bother to read anything before you post it? Go back and read my post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subman1

If you did, you would find that the amount of ice is unchanged. It is just down in Antarctica right now.

You get a 10 out of 10 for trying however, that is if you don't need a geography lesson. :p

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Marks out of 10 for effort Subman, but no cigar I'm afraid. ;)

Just a question -do you bother to read anything before you post it? Go back and read my post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subman1

If you did, you would find that the amount of ice is unchanged. It is just down in Antarctica right now.

You get a 10 out of 10 for trying however, that is if you don't need a geography lesson. :p

-S

Im sorry I think you might have missed this:

Quote:

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record

Quote:

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

You posted a link to an article which wrongly asserts that ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are recovering and that in the Arctic ice levels are 30% above the 10% increse over last year (which was the lowest recorded extent of Arctic ice) I simply showed that your article is not only wrong, but it even says so itself! ice levels aren't 'unhanged' they are falling; read the bottom of my quote.

All I can say is my plan to retire up in Maine is a heckuva lot better served by global warming than another ice age.

So this weekend when the wife and I are up at our cabin enjoying what has been an absolutely spectacular summer I will be sure to have several large wood bonfires releasing as much Co2 as possible into the atmosphere.

That IS unless you pay me..........

One Zillion dollars!

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_...as_Dr_Evil.jpg

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Nice one August!:up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's a trick. As we all know, all ice is growing and global warming is propaganda only, in fact it's getting colder.

You forgot that some of us don't think it's man-made, or at least not significantly affected by humans yet.

edit- Sorry August, no zillion from me. LOL at the post though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's a trick. As we all know, all ice is growing and global warming is propaganda only, in fact it's getting colder.

You forgot that some of us don't think it's man-made, or at least not significantly affected by humans yet.

Believe me, I haven't. ;)

Here is a interesting study about how most computer models that predict the global warming are in conflict with actual observations. Im all for getting of fossile fuels as fast as possible for different reasons, but climate change isnt on top of that list.

PDF http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.”

“On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp...s/douglass.JPG

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

hehe :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

hehe :lol:

If you pay me a zillion dollars, I'll quite burning charcoal (ohhh! Thats bad!) to BBQ from now on! :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Hardly wrong. Antartica has seen the biggest increase in modern times. The ice has been shown to do this too.

Also, if my article is wrong, how come the the sat data agrees with it?

I guess I could tell you the moon is made out of rock, but if you believe it cheese, by god, Mr Beast says its made of cheese! :p I'm done arguing with you (Besides, it just ticks Neal off when we bicker). Just post relevant links to current data.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hardly wrong. Antartica has seen the biggest increase in modern times. The ice has been shown to do this too.

Subman, the article has a postscript in which Steve Goddard (the author) admits, after a rebutal from Walt Meier of the NSIDC, that the data he challeneged from the NSIDC was afteral correct, effectively de-bunking the major point in the article. Goddard writes

Quote:

"Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy."it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."

As to the increases in Antarctic sea ice, I'll let the experts at the NSIDC do the talking:

Quote:

What about wintertime Antarctic sea ice—is it increasing or decreasing?

Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a record annual maximum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend. To borrow an analogy from sports, one high day, month, or even year of sea ice is no more significant than one early-season win would be in predicting whether the hometown team will win the Super Bowl ten seasons from now.
Another important point is that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is not surprising to climate scientists. When scientists refer to global warming, they don’t mean warming will occur everywhere on the planet at the same rate. In some places, temporary cooling may even occur. Antarctica is an example of regional cooling. Even our earliest climate models projected that Antarctica would be much slower in responding to rising greenhouse gas concentrations than the Arctic. In large part, this reflects the nature of the ocean structure in Antarctica, in which water warmed at the surface quickly mixes downward, making it harder to melt ice.
In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counterintuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.
The one region of Antarctica that is strongly warming is the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and is thus less protected by the altered wind pattern. The Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.
Finally, even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature.

BTW I thought you said the ice was down just now in the Antarctic

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

....It is just down in Antarctica right now.

So you did!

Quote:

Also, if my article is wrong, how come the the sat data agrees with it?

So apart from the fact that the author of the article has effectively retracted his thesis, which data is this, post it.

Quote:

I guess I could tell you the moon is made out of rock, but if you believe it cheese, by god, Mr Beast says its made of cheese! :p

Since you bring it up; mainly Cheddar in the northern hemisphere, with a band of Feta around the Lunar Equator changing to Gorgonzola in the South with outcrops of Rochefort. Unfortunately the predictions of vast deposits of Parmasan lying just under the surface proved to be incorrect. :D

Quote:

I'm done arguing with you (Besides, it just ticks Neal off when we bicker). Just post relevant links to current data.

Come on Subman that just sounds like a cop out! :)

I've posted links to data and given a couple of fairly detailed answers, if anyone is bickering here then I'm afraid it isn't me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441.stm

Quote:

Major ice-shelf loss for Canada

The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.
The floating tongues of ice attached to Ellesmere Island have seen almost a quarter of their cover break away.
Researchers say reduced sea-ice conditions and warm air temperatures have assisted the break-up.
"These substantial calving events underscore the rapidity of changes taking place in the Arctic," said Trent University's Dr Derek Mueller.
A rapid ice retreat is being experienced across the Arctic again this year, affecting both the ice attached to the coast and floating in the open ocean.
The floating sea-ice, which would normally keep the shelves hemmed in, has shrunk to just under five million sq km. This is the second lowest extent recorded since the era of satellite measurement began about 30 years ago.
Scientists reported in July that substantial slabs of ice had calved from Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest of the Ellesmere shelves. Similar changes have been seen in the other four shelves, with the entire 50 sq km (20 sq miles) Markham shelf now said to be floating free in the Arctic Ocean.

The shelves themselves are merely remnants of a much larger feature that was once bounded to Ellesmere Island and covered almost 10,000 sq km (3,500 sq miles).
Over the past 100 years, this expanse of ice has retreated by 90%, and at the start of this summer season covered just under 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles).
Much of the area was lost during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s.
Temperatures in the Arctic are now even higher than they were then, and a period of renewed ice shelf break-up has ensued since 2002.
Unlike much of the floating sea-ice which comes and goes, the shelves contain ice that is up to 4,500 years old.
Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.
Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.