contrails

Oh, dear... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...arts-here.html

On Jan 10, 11:59*pm, T8 wrote:
Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...DAVID-ROSE-The...

A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
do regard not-X as true.

On Jan 10, 8:41*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:59*pm, T8 wrote:

Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...DAVID-ROSE-The...

A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
do regard not-X as true.

:-). Yes, I added that primarily for light amusement. The gal on the
right hand margin in body paint adds a little color to a drab January
day, as well.

Thanks again for the link to MacKay. I'm fascinated by the deftness
with which he breaks these topics down into bits that any sharp
highschool student can grapple with. A superb teacher.

-T8

Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:59 pm, T8 wrote:

Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...DAVID-ROSE-The...


A good rule of thumb with the Daily Wail is that if it
says X is true then don't merely regard X as unproven, but
do regard not-X as true.

And along those lines, be sure to read what the US National Snow and Ice
Data Centre in Colorado, a source they reference, says regarding 2009:

"Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark"

"We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”

"Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal"

"The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade."

"Despite the cool summer, the ice remained thin and vulnerable at the
sea ice minimum, with little of the older, thicker ice that used to
characterize much of the Arctic."

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

No good news there, unfortunately, despite The Mail's spin on it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

On Jan 11, 4:39*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.

Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.


On the face of it, this looks like the opinion of a person with a 2 year
time horizon, but there's more to it: if 81% of ice in some location
disappeared at least 2 years ago, then we are not seeing catastrophic
results from that.

Or are we? :-)

Brian W

Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."


I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.

It has not staged a "huge" recovery. 2009 is the _third lowest year_ in
the 30 year satellite record. And the loss of multi-year ice is crucial:
"The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt
in coming summers."

That's from http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

While you are on that page, take a look at fig. 3 to see the extent of
the recovery.

And finally, the examination of the ice from ships found the ice was
less that the satellites were reporting:

"Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
small, rotten ice http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice
floes."

There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
of the The Mail says.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

On Jan 11, 7:34*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.

It has not staged a "huge" recovery. 2009 is the _third lowest year_ in
the 30 year satellite record. And the loss of multi-year ice is crucial:
"The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt
in coming summers."

That's fromhttp://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

While you are on that page, take a look at fig. 3 to see the extent of
the recovery.

And finally, the examination of the ice from ships found the ice was
less that the satellites were reporting:

"Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
small, rotten ice http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice
floes."

There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
of the The Mail says.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Look at this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.c...ews&NewsID=242

bildan wrote:

"Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
small, rotten ice http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice
floes."

There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
of the The Mail says.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly


Look at this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.c...ews&NewsID=242

I had no idea the mass loss was accelerating. No good news at the South
Pole, either.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

On Jan 10, 4:59*pm, T8 wrote:
Oh, dear...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...DAVID-ROSE-The...

Well, if it is the start of an ice age, those transitions tend to
happen extremely fast in geologic terms. Sort of like a sudden
viscous winter storm that doesn't stop for 200,000 years.

In reality, the part of the story about arctic sea ice increasing 27%
since 2007 is typical media rabble rousing. 2007 saw the least arctic
sea ice on record so any subsequent year would likely see an increase
even though the overall trend is steeply down.

Seeing the Arctic ocean clear of ice in summer within the next decade
is still a plausible bet. If it does happen, there will be political
havoc on the right.