![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 1/13/2010 9:43 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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. Hmmm. 24 cubic miles of ice loss per year since 2002 across Antarctica. Sounds pretty bad. Thats a lot of ice. But the area of Antarctica is 5.5 million square miles. Average ice depth across the interior is estimated to be 1.2 km. Thats a couple million cubic miles of ice. Now that's a lot of ice. Makes 24 cubic miles seem pretty trivial. But maybe its wildly abnormal to loose that much. Or maybe it really is trivial normal variation. I don't know. But watch out for scale and context. Big numbers can be used to illustrate, impress, or deceive. A seven knot thermal may sound pretty impressive. But on a strong day at Parowan, its not even worth slowing down for ![]() -Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Speaking of big numbers, here's a recent article that explains how the
temps at the Vostok research station in Antarctica dropped to a record -89 C in 1983; http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8087 -Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |