Melting ice amplifies Arctic warming
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Money Well Spent
Next: Quantum Gravity 367.5: Recent Research in Positive/Negative Quadrant Dependence, Bivariate and Multivariate Distribution Functions, Concordance, Copulas, etc.
From: Sirius on 1 May 2010 00:26 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:50:57 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png >> >> >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ >> >> >> > .........and your point is? >> >> >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not >> >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next >> >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting >> >> going to warm Artic ?** >> >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up >> >> to the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice >> >> could warm something. >> >> > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). >> > You are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a >> > weather forum. >> >> From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just >> the opposite.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > misinterpretaion of "long term trend". The two of the graphs in this page show the 1979-2006 monthly ice cover average -a long term statistical estimate-. And look where is located the red 2010 line. Inside the +1/-1 sigma -another long term (27 year) statistical value-. http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/
From: Benj on 1 May 2010 01:26 On Apr 30, 2:31 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote: > When we talk about "melting ice" we are not talking about a few weeks of > 'almost-average' ice extend. We are talking about the long term trend : > > http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png Since 1978 is "long term trend"? Hey, a friend of mine went to Alaska on a cruise. They toured glaciers. The guide show where the Glacier was in 1889. MILES from where it is now! Now that is a long- term trend. Oh my. The ice is melting long term! Here's the memo you didn't get. The last ice age is over for some time now. The climate has been warming ever since and the sea level rising 2 mm a year from melting ice. And PS. they didn't have SUVs in the 19th century. Let's not mix politics and science. OK?
From: Dawlish on 1 May 2010 03:01 On May 1, 5:26 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:50:57 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > >> >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > >> >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > >> >> > .........and your point is? > > >> >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > >> >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > >> >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > >> >> going to warm Artic ?** > >> >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up > >> >> to the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice > >> >> could warm something. > > >> > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). > >> > You are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a > >> > weather forum. > > >> From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > >> the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > > misinterpretaion of "long term trend". > > The two of the graphs in this page show the 1979-2006 monthly ice cover > average -a long term statistical estimate-. And look where is located the > red 2010 line. Inside the +1/-1 sigma -another long term (27 year) > statistical value-. > > http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes and look at the 30-year trend. You can't do that from Arctic Roos, as the network was only established there recently. I'm sure it will e useful in the future, but it needs more years of records to be sure of their calibrations to means taken from other series. The 30-year trend below must tell you something, surely? It tells almost everyone else working in the cryosphere field something. Maybe you are missing it? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
From: Bruce Richmond on 2 May 2010 21:39 On Apr 30, 1:50 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > > >> > .........and your point is? > > > >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > > >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > > >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > > >> going to warm Artic ?** > > >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up to > > >> the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice could > > >> warm something. > > > > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). You > > > are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a weather > > > forum. > > > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > > the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > misinterpretaion of "long term trend".- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What long term trend? The graphs only go back to 1979.
From: Dawlish on 3 May 2010 04:04
On May 3, 2:39 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 1:50 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > > > >> > .........and your point is? > > > > >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > > > >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > > > >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > > > >> going to warm Artic ?** > > > >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up to > > > >> the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice could > > > >> warm something. > > > > > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). You > > > > are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a weather > > > > forum. > > > > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > > > the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > > misinterpretaion of "long term trend".- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What long term trend? The graphs only go back to 1979.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Circular argument really. It depends what you accept as a long term trend doesn't it? You don't accept 31 years but you cannot provide ice data that goes back further. There is data going back 50 years, but it is not in the public domain and there is sparse and ad-hoc data before that. I do wish there was more and I'm pretty sure that others do too, but there isn't. In this way, I do agree with you and there is only so much you can infer from data before the collation of polar-wide data about 50 years ago and especially before satellite data became available. Everyone and every scientific organisation working in the cryosphere feels that 30 years of excellent data is enough, Bruce, you don't: believe what you will. |