Arctic Ice Watch

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Nov 2016, 20:23

Global sea ice area anomaly. Ice extent is very similar

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.p ... 8322;image

Why isn't this global headline news? It is now 10 standard deviations below the line!

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.p ... 8324;image

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Nov 2016, 09:34

PS_RalphW wrote:Why isn't this global headline news?

Who cares? Certainly not those who own media.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 18 Nov 2016, 15:29

http://www.itechpost.com/articles/55463 ... r-dead.htm

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 18 Nov 2016, 16:23

The debate is over: Earth's sixth great extinction has arrived

Extinctions rarely happen instantly, but the conspiracy of declining numbers, population fragmentation, inbreeding and reduced genetic variation can lead to a fatal “extinction vortex”. In this sense, our planet is currently accumulating a large extinction debt that must eventually be paid.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Nov 2016, 07:31

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-research

Trump shoots the messenger.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Nov 2016, 10:52

PS_RalphW wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-research

Trump shoots the messenger.

Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.

So, all of NASA's climate research has been wrong in his eyes. So, even if he wanted to, could he enable unbiased funding for unbiased science and, more importantly, accept its findings? He could of course and it's a great way of doing what previous funders of NASA have done - nothing.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 23 Nov 2016, 18:13

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

My emphasis!!!!

So good science is what is convenient while bad or politicised science is what is inconvenient.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 23 Nov 2016, 18:59

trump is clueless, he doesn't recognise anything as a fact unless it makes him money. He will be burning books next, and if he doesn't do it, his followers will.

This suits me.........

Finally, I think I have figured it out. To put it simply, Trump is a small, weak man. Everything that he says and does can, I think, best be understood as the dangerous and fearful reactions of a man who does not understand what it means to be a grown up, and who simply does not comprehend the notion of true strength.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 23 Nov 2016, 22:35

emordnilap wrote:
PS_RalphW wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-research

Trump shoots the messenger.

Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.
So, all of NASA's climate research has been wrong in his eyes. So, even if he wanted to, could he enable unbiased funding for unbiased science and, more importantly, accept its findings? He could of course and it's a great way of doing what previous funders of NASA have done - nothing.

I wonder how much of his decision is actually anti-climate-change and how much of it is a misplaced hope that increased funding for NASA's space exploration programme will help to "make America great again"? Like the moon landings, right?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 24 Nov 2016, 11:50

UndercoverElephant wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
PS_RalphW wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-research

Trump shoots the messenger.

Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.
So, all of NASA's climate research has been wrong in his eyes. So, even if he wanted to, could he enable unbiased funding for unbiased science and, more importantly, accept its findings? He could of course and it's a great way of doing what previous funders of NASA have done - nothing.
I wonder how much of his decision is actually anti-climate-change and how much of it is a misplaced hope that increased funding for NASA's space exploration programme will help to "make America great again"? Like the moon landings, right?

The pundits all lean towards his being anti-climate change and, for the moment, I'll go along with that. We'll see, you know how people say one thing then do the other.

Of course, Trump's more interested in stuff that will make him and the rest of his gang money, such as fracking and coal (especially the financing side rather than the physical end of things), possibly the space stuff is a little icing, the 'think big' of a small mind.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 01 Jan 2017, 12:21

Sea ice ended 2016 where it has been most of the year - at record lows for extent, and almost certainly area and volume. Both arctic and antarctic ice extents remain at record low, and the global extent is 1.8M sq km below the previous low for year end.

Temperatures in the arctic have been at record highs in the early freezing season and this must inevitably result in less ice growth - different models give different figures, but thin ice will be dramatically thinner , and multi year ice maybe 22cm thinner than it would be for 'normal' climate temperatures.

This year broke so many records it is hard to pick one, but the global ice extent graph is by far the most dramatic, and looks horribly like a major tipping point.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.p ... 9383;image

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 01 Jan 2017, 12:33

PS_RalphW wrote:Sea ice ended 2016 where it has been most of the year - at record lows for extent, and almost certainly area and volume. Both arctic and antarctic ice extents remain at record low, and the global extent is 1.8M sq km below the previous low for year end.

Temperatures in the arctic have been at record highs in the early freezing season and this must inevitably result in less ice growth - different models give different figures, but thin ice will be dramatically thinner , and multi year ice maybe 22cm thinner than it would be for 'normal' climate temperatures.

This year broke so many records it is hard to pick one, but the global ice extent graph is by far the most dramatic, and looks horribly like a major tipping point.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.p ... 9383;image

That plot is confusing to read as it combines both north and south poles and the south pole is on land vs the north's open ice covered ocean. Having the annual minimum of sea ice in February only happens because the Southern ocean has so little ice on it to begin with.
For us Northern hemisphere dwellers this plot shows our situation much clearer by using just the northern data.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2 ... egular.png

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 01 Jan 2017, 15:51

The plot has limited scientific value but it is useful because a lot of climate trolls for years have been pointing out that antarctic sea ice extent has been growing whilst the arctic was declining, whilst ignoring the causes - that more land ice was melting into fresh water run off, and this fresh water was freezing at a higher temperature than the salt water it was displacing, extending the seasonal sea ice around the continent, even though temperatures were not lower. Now, a powerful el nino year has blown away all the gains in antarctic ice and more, resulting in dramatic falls against global sea ice figures. The trolls are routed on this obfuscation.

The ice is at seasonal record lows at both poles simultaneously, and by a dramatic margin - at one point 7 standard deviations from the mean, and it is hard to see that as anything other than a shift in the underly climate.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 01 Jan 2017, 21:11

trump will see 7 standard deviations as some perverted social behaviour and obviously political. It therefore does not reflect reality so he will take no notice.

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 06 Jan 2017, 18:46

PS_RalphW wrote: The ice is at seasonal record lows at both poles simultaneously, and by a dramatic margin - at one point 7 standard deviations from the mean, and it is hard to see that as anything other than a shift in the underly climate.

Ralph, this might be obvious to you but it as clear as mud to me. On the other hand news that a 5,000 square kM "iceberg" is about to break off from the Antartic is much clearer than mud!