• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Summer Arctic Ice

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
I know some of has been following Bastardi during the winter for his storm forecast however I have been following his blog and other stuff....

Here's an interesting piece of news... arctic ice coverage may be on the rise. This was the same trend last year, if so, the long warming trend will be gone and the cold trend will be upon us. We may get another winter like the one we just had. Yeah! bring on that polar vortex.

Beware its political... Bastardi thinks AGW is nothing but garbage science and a power grab, so this piece is in a "conservative" site.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/25340
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0


yep, nice piece of propaganda. Anytime they cite the 97% by Cook is great pr, that paper will go down in history as one of the greatest forms of propaganda.



btw... back to the op which was about arctic melt, here's another write up from Epstein, former boston area met.

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/2014/05/how_is_the_arctic_and_antarcti.html
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,773
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
yep, nice piece of propaganda. Anytime they cite the 97% by Cook is great pr, that paper will go down in history as one of the greatest forms of propaganda.

Speaking of propaganda.

News of another intentional scientific suppression of a researcher's work (again) refuting man-made Global Warming breaking today.

This times it's even got a bit of cattiness to it, as the researcher used to be a proponent of man-made Global Warming but no longer believes the hypothesis.

[h=1]Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal[/h]
Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe. The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double. The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
Speaking of propaganda.

News of another intentional scientific suppression of a researcher's work (again) refuting man-made Global Warming breaking today.

This times it's even got a bit of cattiness to it, as the researcher used to be a proponent of man-made Global Warming but no longer believes the hypothesis.

Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html



yep, he's been in the field since 1975 and was involved with the UN/IPCC process. imo, he's doing what any top notch scientist would do. If the observations does not match the hypothesis, you question the hypothesis. some of these so call top climate scientist do not even question correlation implies causality, so it does not surprise me that he is getting booted off the island.


btw, speaking of observations, here's the page that Bastardi and Epstein referenced about sea ice. If some of the so called leading climatologist are concern about the rate of temperature rise (before the 17-18 year plateau) the sea index will show the arctic sea ice rate of melt is on the decline. Antarctic sea index is on the rise. I recalled some hand waving explanation that the antarctic sea ice has nothing to do with AGW but that given by a scientist/UN official who had everything to gain by promoting AGW.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
 
Last edited:

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
or the antarctic ice expanding

or we can tie this with the great lake ice coverage

or we can tied this in with the endless winter discussion
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted

Edd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
5,512
Points
48
Location
Newmarket, NH
Both. Antarctic land ice volume is declining big time (the article you posted). Antarctic sea ice area has been expanding. They aren't mutually exclusive. For example, as the land ice melts and drains fresh water into the sea, it refreezes along the cold edges, expanding the areal extent.

So if huge amounts of land ice are falling into the sea, wouldn't the result be displacement causing higher sea levels? Visualizing it, the water is displaced regardless of any refreezing.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
So if huge amounts of land ice are falling into the sea, wouldn't the result be displacement causing higher sea levels? Visualizing it, the water is displaced regardless of any refreezing.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking. What interesting to Bastardi and Epstein is the rate of change at both poles. That will be the signal that the cooling trend is here.

Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level. This has happen before and it will happen again.... what makes us immune to it now?



btw.... i love the way they use gigatonne of volume loss and then say .45mm/yr rise in water level. when the ice age happens this will be the least of our concerns.
 
Last edited:

Rowsdower

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
817
Points
16
Location
Upper Bucks/Lehigh Valley, PA
Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking. What interesting to Bastardi and Epstein is the rate of change at both poles. That will be the signal that the cooling trend is here.

Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level. This has happen before and it will happen again.... what makes us immune to it now?



btw.... i love the way they use gigatonne of volume loss and then say .45mm/yr rise in water level. when the ice age happens this will be the least of our concerns.

It's the rate of change that is significantly faster than normal.
 

fbrissette

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,587
Points
38
Location
Montreal/Jay Peak
Yep, in the antarctic, the sea ice is expanding and the volume over the land mass is shrinking.

And how do you reconcile the net loss of volume and accelerating rate to your statement that warming has stopped ?

Btw, climate and sea levels have been changing even before man's industrial age. In Miami, they use a stone quarry several miles inland that has fossils of an ancient corral reef. There are archaeologist studying ancient civilizations in India that once thrive but was forced to migrate due to changes in sea level.

And the rocks on top of Mount Everest were once under water. What's your point ?


btw.... i love the way they use gigatonne of volume loss and then say .45mm/yr rise in water level. when the ice age happens this will be the least of our concerns.

And what units should they use ? 10^13 onces ? In science, it is common practice to use units that don't require exponents. .45mm/yr at an increasing rate may translate to 10-20 cm in the next 100 years (and several meters in the centuries following), to which you have to have all other ice losses and thermal expansion. Not so insignificant anymore.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
It's the rate of change that is significantly faster than normal.

umm... that rate of change happens at various points in the temp plots before the sixties/seventies. and yes there have been pauses before that as well.
 

jack97

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,513
Points
0
And how do you reconcile the net loss of volume and accelerating rate to your statement that warming has stopped ?
there could be other factors such as the delay time from the warming trend, wind differences and the sinking of land mass due to all the weight from the glaciers. Our great lakes is still rebounding from the last ice age we had...

btw... CryoSat-2 is a radar altimeter which measures height. Not sure how its measure volume and I would like to hear confirmation the satellite has a stable orbit. The RSS is on decaying orbit which may led to erroneous reading.


And the rocks on top of Mount Everest were once under water. What's your point ?

haha.... using another wild @ss hyperbole. My point is sea levels has always changed... even at periods where men had thriving ancient civilizations. What makes you think we are so special that we must keep the seas level at the comforts level we have grown use to.


And what units should they use ? 10^13 onces ? In science, it is common practice to use units that don't require exponents. .45mm/yr at an increasing rate may translate to 10-20 cm in the next 100 years (and several meters in the centuries following), to which you have to have all other ice losses and thermal expansion. Not so insignificant anymore.


what's the big deal about using the number they quote .45mm/yr. Things will change in a 100 years, the IPCC's GCMs has so much fudge factors that their outputs are essentially guesses and totally missed the mark when compared to observed data.
 

twinplanx

New member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,748
Points
0
Location
lawnguyland
I don't get why skiers would argue against climate change. You don't actually believe man has NOT adversely affected the planet, do you? Why not, er on the side of caution? Good planets are hard to find.

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk
 
Top