Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

ice
The Antarctic ice sheet. Credit: Stephen Hudson / Wikipedia

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

Published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the research reports the first laboratory experiments testing theoretical models of wave activity in frozen oceans.

"Sea ice is both an indicator and agent of ," says project leader Dr Luke Bennetts, Research Fellow in the School of Mathematical Sciences.

"Sea ice covering the ocean surface is white and efficiently reflects the sun's rays, keeping the oceans cool. When it melts it reveals the dark ocean beneath, which absorbs the solar radiation and becomes warmer - and that, of course, further weakens the ice.

"Waves break up the ice so that it melts more easily. In addition, exposing larger areas of the provides a larger area for the wind to generate waves, which further promotes the breaking."

To date, however, haven't included the impact of waves on sea ice.

In collaboration with Dr Tim Williams, of the Nansen Environment and Remote Sensing Centre in Bergen, Norway, and Professor Dany Dumont, of the University of Quebec in Canada, Dr Bennetts conducted experiments modelling travelling through ice floes in a wave basin and measuring the .

"Wave energy is scattered by ice floes and is transferred into collisions between ice floes and into waves running over the tops of the floes, both of which impact the ice cover," Dr Bennetts says.

"Wave-ice interactions occur over hundreds of kilometres into the ice-covered ocean. We need to develop models that predict the distances waves will penetrate so we can determine which regions of sea ice are more susceptible to breaking up.

"Regional variability in sea ice is presently not very well understood, with models under-predicting the extent of Antarctic sea ice and over-predicting the extent in the Arctic. Our research will lead to better physics in climate models and hopefully help answer these questions (among others).

"We need to take into account the impact of to accurately forecast future scenarios for ."


Explore further

Study suggests large waves may have bigger role in breaking up polar sea ice than thought

More information: Water wave transmission by an array of floating disks, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, rspa.royalsocietypublishing.or … .1098/rspa.2014.0698
Citation: Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change (2014, November 25) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-sea-ice-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 26, 2014
Sea ice is both an indicator and agent of climate change

Does he mean it is an indicator of regional or global climate change? While sea ice has declined in the Arctic, it has simultaneously increased around Antarctica to record levels. What does this say about global climate change?

Arctic
http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

Antarctic
http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

Hopefully the climate models will incorporate not only wave action but also wind and ocean currents which are the most significant influences on formation of sea ice.

Nov 26, 2014
"What does this say about global climate change?"

There's a number of studies that have shown that global warming contributes both to the melting of Arctic sea ice as well as to the increase of Antarctic sea ice. So it probably says a lot about global climate change.

Nov 26, 2014
The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Some of the mistakes are discussed at http://consensusm...ot.com/.

The two factors that cause climate change are identified at http://agwunveile...pot.com. CO2 change is NOT a significant factor.

Nov 26, 2014
CO2 change is NOT a significant factor
@enviro414
1- then you are ignoring science and reality. see: http://www.scienc...abstract
2- linking a BLOG is not evidence, it only proves that someone has an OPINION on the subject
3- feel free to refute, with equivalent evidence, any of the studies linked below:
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

if that is too difficult, here are some articles that you can argue about: http://www.epa.go...dity.pdf
http://www.azimut...fication
http://www.epa.go...ity.html

plus, there is always the following to refute:
http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=

Nov 26, 2014
zz5555, please provide links to some of those studies that show that global warming causes sea ice to both decrease and increase at the poles. Should be interesting; something along the lines of global warming causing both droughts and floods. Cognitive dissonance?

Maybe other factors (wind, ocean currents/temperatures) have a greater effect than the rather modest atmospheric warming of 0.6 to 0.9 C over the last 100 years.

Captain Stumpy, you were trying to show that CO2 increases ocean acidity and negatively impacts coral, right? The links you provide don't show that, particularly "reef-building coral Siderastrea siderea exhibits parabolic responses to ocean acidification and warming".

That study shows CO2 improves coral calcification up to rather extreme values. The warming experiment, however, showed a negative impact, though it should be noted that simulating 100 years of temperature rise in 95 days is stressful to any living organism and not realistic.

Nov 26, 2014
Capt - If you had looked at the paper at "agwunveiled", you might have noticed that the discovery that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate is a result..

Anyone paying attention is aware that warming stopped before 2001.

Nov 26, 2014
Capt - If you had looked at the paper at "agwunveiled", you might have noticed that the discovery that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate is a result..

Anyone paying attention is aware that warming stopped before 2001.
@enviro
and if you wil please take note: you linked a BLOG
not a study
not empirical evidence
not any reputable peer reviewed data published in a reputable source...
a BLOG

whereas i linked a very specific study ( http://www.scienc...abstract ) for a very specific reason
it has empirical data (and it is published in a reputable peer reviewed source) that diretly refutes your claims about
CO2 change has no significant effect on climate
Now, you can continue to believe your "blog" all you want
I will believe the proven science which is based upon empirical evidence and proves you wrong


Nov 26, 2014
Capt - If you had looked at the paper at "agwunveiled"
@enviro
and another thing, besides the fact that you think a link to a blog is somehow a "paper", you can get direct refutation from the following site: http://www.skepti...&y=0

Not only is it equivalent data to your "blog" which directly refutes your assertions, but you can see that most of their articles also link relevant studies supporting their conclusions which seriously undermines your position
Why?
because of a simple fact: http://iopscience.../article
this actually helps show where the bulk of the individual studies out there are pro-AGW... but it shows something else as well
there are a LOT of studies being done, all separate (and from different nations) and they are all coming to similar conclusions: AGW is real

thus, you have NO equivalent data supporting your position refuting the above linked studies i left

Nov 26, 2014
You can't trust lazy copy and paste news editors;
Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota upon North American settlement but called the Yellow Bear because it retained its summer coat longer but still the same bear.

Nov 26, 2014
zz5555, please provide links to some of those studies that show that global warming causes sea ice to both decrease and increase at the poles. Should be interesting; something along the lines of global warming causing both droughts and floods. Cognitive dissonance?


Here's one on the affect melting ice on Antarctica is having: http://www.atmos....1767.pdf
And here's one on the affect of decreased salinity of the surface due to increased fresh water: http://ruby.fgcu....ang2.pdf

Why are you puzzled about the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic? The geography is totally different. It would be a surprise if they acted the same. There are likely multiple reasons why the ice is increasing in the Antarctic despite the warming of the Antarctic.

Nov 26, 2014
Maybe other factors (wind, ocean currents/temperatures) have a greater effect than the rather modest atmospheric warming of 0.6 to 0.9 C over the last 100 years.


So how many of those factors that you listed are affected by global warming. If you said all of them, you'd be correct. Interesting that you note ocean temperatures - the rise of which is due primarily due to AGW.

The interesting thing about your comment above is that none of them indicates a lack of global warming (in fact, ocean temperature is indicative of global warming). So looking at your original statement:

What does this say about global climate change?


it looks like you already knew that the answer was that global warming has contributed to the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Nov 27, 2014
Capt - As to 'peer review' there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each other's papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring.

Mother Nature has validated (empirical data from NASA, NOAA, GISS and Hadley) and continues to validate the findings at http://agwunveile...spot.com


Nov 27, 2014
Bill589 said:
From what I studied, both poles have been growing for several years. Glaciers retreating or stagnant. Should we believe our eyes or the government paid university 'scientists'?

The 'Eyes' have it. The planet getting cooler, while CO2 levels still rise, show that CO2 is not the significant cause. IMO, carbon caused "Global Warming" is a government ruse.

How about the next 'ice age'? I would love to be able to stop that eventual climate change so that my beloved Constitution State would not be covered with a mile of ice.


So Bill, who has been lying to you about how the world is not heating?

If you would be so kind as to give us some links to those who claim the earth is not warming and a link to any source that says CO2 is not an important cause. I would love to see what they had to say so I can help you understand how they are lying to you.

Nov 27, 2014
what I studied, both poles have been growing for several years. Glaciers retreating or stagnant. Should we believe our eyes or the government paid university 'scientists'?


You haven't haven't studied very well. Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, as is Greenland. Almost all glaciers are retreating, which means they're melting. The "recovery" of arctic sea ice of the last couple years and the growth of antarctic sea ice are happening despite a great deal of warming in both areas. You should believe your eyes - but your eyes, if they are open, agree with the scientists.

Nov 27, 2014
Capt - If you had looked at the paper at "agwunveiled", you might have noticed that the discovery that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate is a result..

Anyone paying attention is aware that warming stopped before 2001.

I've told you several times here.... that study is worthless.
Where are the peer-reviews?
Where, are the error bounds/uncertainties?
Attributions to measurements used?
Etc etc
Done on the back of a cigarette packet, for deniers to gaze in awe at.

Nov 27, 2014
As to 'peer review'
@Enviro
as to your conspiratorial anti-science bullsh*t:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Using your own circular logic, the only thing that could possibly be validated in your mind is what you have already decided (anti-AGW) regardless of the science and what has been proven otherwise
IOW - you have a faith/religion in your conspiracy
therefore, you must also accept the aether theory, phrenology, astrology, eugenics and flat earth as valid science as well given the logic they have

if you want to talk science, you need to provide reputable studies from peer reviewed resources so that pseudoscience and conspiracy don't creep in, because there is a strong well organized and funded movement out there feeding you BS
and it is PROVEN, not just speculated
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Nov 27, 2014
also
Mother Nature has validated (empirical data from NASA, NOAA, GISS and Hadley) and continues to validate the findings at http://agwunveile...spot.com
your BLOG is not empirical evidence, it is opinion
how can i get that through your thick skull... are you another Ren-Fly?
(see Mayor_Dooley's post to Ren on 2014/11/27 located here http://phys.org/n...firstCmt for more detail on that)

if you have the ability and all the evidence to refute a study, then you should be able to cite reputable science as well as give reputable sources... claiming conspiracy is simply your way of saying "i will not believe anything that isn't my way"

IOW - your argument belongs on a conspiratorial forum, not on a science site

Nov 27, 2014
Capt - If you had looked at the paper at "agwunveiled", you might have noticed that the discovery that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate is a result..


Have you looked at that site? I have issues with the equation he come up with. (Why not include physics in the equation? Oh, that's right - 1. Physics is too hard, and 2. Physics doesn't support his pre-ordained conclusions.) But the real problem is that it's a curve fitting exercise. You think statistics is bad - curve fitting can be used to prove anything. And as part of his curve fit, he assumes CO2 has no role in global warming. The whole thing is nonsense. It has serious problems with physics that it can't explain.

1. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. If the sun were the primary cause of warming as he claims, the stratosphere would be warming. Warming caused by CO2, on the other hand, results in a cooling stratosphere.

Cont.


Nov 27, 2014
2. He uses sunspots as a proxy for the energy coming from the sun. Sunspots decreased dramatically from 2000 to 2010 (part of the solar cycle) which means that the earth shouldn't have heated up during that period. But the earth did continue to heat up (http://www.skepti...1998.htm ). His ocean cycles can't explain that because cycles only move heat around, they don't create it. So his equation doesn't even correlate with reality.

So, by ignoring physics and assuming that CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming, he has "proven" that CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming. Brilliant.

Anyone paying attention is aware that warming stopped before 2001.


I guess the oceans just haven't been paying attention.

Nov 27, 2014
Capt – Speculation is, since it has become apparent that global warming has ended and climate change is natural, that the fear mongers would try worrying everyone about ocean acidification. I wonder how much that had to do with the papers you referred to, nearly all addressing ocean acidification. Ocean PH is above 7 (alkaline, not acid) and, for nearly all of the life of the planet, CO2 level has been much higher than it is now or even speculated in the future. Fewer people will hear you when you cry wolf yet again.

Nov 27, 2014
zz5555 - Take the blinders off. The equation results from physics (conservation of energy as discussed in Ref. 2, http://climatecha...n.html). You do appear to grasp one thing. Ocean cycles "only move heat around". This is spelled out in the paper "Measured temperature anomaly α-trends oscillate above and below the temperature anomaly β-trend calculated using only the sunspot number anomaly time-integral. "

Curve fits don't hind-cast. The entire graph back to 1610 looks credible. If you had looked at Table 1 you would have seen R^2 = 0.9049 when CO2 was excluded and insignificantly higher at R^2 = 0.9061 when CO2 is included.

Pay attention! The paper doesn't ". . . uses sunspots as a proxy for the energy coming from the sun.". That thinking is probably why some people have so much trouble grasping the analysis. The sunspot number anomaly time-integral is a proxy for energy change (temperature change) of the planet.

Nov 27, 2014
Capt – Speculation is, since it has become apparent that global warming has ended


An analogy....
You heat one room in your house and that room spreads it's heat to the rest of your house. That room is far the biggest in the house (Oceans - 93%)), whilst you live in a tiny room adjoining (Air), which has a cooling heat-exchanger in the walls, which feed that heat back to the air (water x4000 the heat capacity of air) in the "big" room.
You are puzzled as to why the temperature is not rising in your living room. On examining your energy usage you find that you are using the same as you always did.
You then realise the heat-exchanger has come on, keeping the heat in you house but "away" from your living area.
Conclusion: if the system heat balance (it is but increasing) is the same, then the heat is being stored within the system ... the mediating medium being the oceans.
The oceans heat the atmosphere and NOT the other way around.

Nov 27, 2014
Curve fits don't hind-cast. The entire graph back to 1610 looks credible.

I don't see much credible about the graph back to 1610. His model is only sometimes within the error bars of Loehle's reconstruction. And that's just the error bars - the earlier period doesn't really resemble Loehle's reconstruction. It looks no different than I would expect a curve fit done to fit the 1850-2010 and then extended. And don't get so wrapped up in the R2 number of the curve fit. If you leave out the physics as he has, getting a good curve fit is meaningless.

Note that his belief that the sun is the primary driver of the current warming still has the following problems with reality:
1. The stratosphere is cooling, which is wrong if it's the sun.
2. He indicates that the earth stopped warming in 2000, which differs from the continued heating of the ocean.
3. Warming continues at night.
etc.

Nov 28, 2014
How about the next 'ice age'? I would love to be able to stop that eventual climate change so that my beloved Constitution State would not be covered with a mile of ice.

You'll have to wait a tad. The Earth's orbit is thousands of years way from being in the configuration to cause an IA again. Besides we've already pumped enough CO2 into the air to stop one even if it was.

Nov 28, 2014
The arctic ice is not retreating rapidly and has not in years. What has retreated rapidly is the truth. The truth is nobody has a clue about arctic sea ice extent prior to the satellite measurement. The modern satellites started that measurement in 1979, though they do have some incomplete measurement from the nimbus satellites of the 60's. the modern measurements show a decline in extent until around 1996, the ice low measured the same more or less until 2012, which was a warm year, and for the last two years is above the 81-2001 average. If you are an AGW, tell a lie, repeat the lie, and keep repeating it.

Nov 28, 2014
The arctic ice is not retreating rapidly and has not in years. What has retreated rapidly is the truth. The truth is nobody has a clue about arctic sea ice extent prior to the satellite measurement. The modern satellites started that measurement in 1979, though they do have some incomplete measurement from the nimbus satellites of the 60's. the modern measurements show a decline in extent until around 1996, the ice low measured the same more or less until 2012, which was a warm year, and for the last two years is above the 81-2001 average. If you are an AGW, tell a lie, repeat the lie, and keep repeating it.


Second such comment, just as wrong as the first. Saying ot over and over doesn't make it right.

Here, read this: http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Nov 28, 2014
zz5555 - Response to your comments:

"1. The stratosphere is cooling, which is wrong if it's the sun." It is not the change in TSI that does it, it is the change in solar magnetic field. The likely mechanism is described. Is your assessment of what should be happening based on the GCMs (which are demonstrated to be faulty)?

"2. He indicates that the earth stopped warming in 2000, which differs from the continued heating of the ocean." The measured data from the five reporting agencies are graphed at http://endofgw.blogspot.com. The average trend is flat since 2001. This is corroborated by sea level measurements. The Global Ocean Heat Content from NOAA is contradictory.

"3. Warming continues at night". Not relevant because annual data is used.


Nov 28, 2014
"1. The stratosphere is cooling, which is wrong if it's the sun." It is not the change in TSI that does it, it is the change in solar magnetic field. The likely mechanism is described. Is your assessment of what should be happening based on the GCMs (which are demonstrated to be faulty)?

Yes, that blog makes lots of claims. However, they aren't supported by the data. Historical data from when the earth's magnetic fields disappeared (and stop protecting us from cosmic rays) have shown no affect on the climate. The blog also claims that this hypothesis is corroborated by data from CERN's CLOUD experiment. However, CERN's CLOUD experiment found the effect too small to account for the claims. The scientist in charge of the experiment has been very clear that this does not show the cosmic rays affect the climate.
http://www.skepti...iate.htm


Nov 28, 2014
"2. He indicates that the earth stopped warming in 2000, which differs from the continued heating of the ocean." The measured data from the five reporting agencies are graphed at http://endofgw.blogspot.com. The average trend is flat since 2001. This is corroborated by sea level measurements. The Global Ocean Heat Content from NOAA is contradictory.


The 5 reporting agencies only look at atmospheric temperatures. Contrary to your claim, sea levels have continued to rise indicating that the ocean continues to heat up (http://sealevel.colorado.edu ). The Global Ocean Heat Content from NOAA is not contradictory. In addition, satellites measuring the outgoing long wave radiation show that we are radiating less than we receive. Unless you claim that Conservation of Energy is wrong, we must be heating up.

Nov 28, 2014
"3. Warming continues at night". Not relevant because annual data is used.

This seems like a bizarre and senseless statement. We can measure the continued warming at night. What does it matter about "annual data" when direct measurement proves the earth continues to warm during the night?

Nov 28, 2014
Is your assessment of what should be happening based on the GCMs (which are demonstrated to be faulty)?

I forgot about this one. No, my assessment is based on fundamental physics. Of course, your claim that GCMs have been demonstrated to be faulty is without any evidence. Models have been shown to perform quite well (except for ice melt - models vastly under estimate the melting: http://www.skepti...iate.htm ).

Seriously, read up on what science knows about the sun (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). Follow the links to the actual papers. If you still believe it's the sun, so be it - many people live in delusions, why should you be any different? ;) As long as Pangburn's site ignores physics, I'm not sure how he'll ever get a correct answer. But some people don't care about being correct. However, I think I'll bow out of your delusions.

Nov 28, 2014
A number of posters seem to be unaware of the current science on climate change. If you go to wood for trees and graft the average from 2001 to 2014 you see no trend which is obvious if you add the trend line. If you change 2001 to 1998 the increase is about .1C which is within the error in the giss data set. If you go to NASA arctic ice data you find some interesting things. The satellite measurements declined from 1979 to around 1996, after that the arctic ice low measured in September was about the same give or take some except for 2012 which was a low year, in 2013 and 2014 the arctic ice low has increased above the average of 1981-2001. That is a U shaped trend, not a downward trend. A recent paper on the mid and lower troposphere shows no trend in 55 years so the actual non warming may be much longer than even the IPCC admits which is 16 years, they say slowing but they can only do that by running the trend back from 1951 to 2012.

Nov 29, 2014
A number of posters seem to be unaware of the current science on climate change. Looking at atmospheric temperatures can be interesting, but the atmosphere represents a tiny amount of the total global warming. Most of it (~93%) goes into the oceans. Sea level continues to rise due to the warming of the oceans - indicating the earth is still warming. In addition, satellite measurements show that the earth is radiating less energy than it receives - also indicating that the earth is still warming.

Looking at sea ice extent can be misleading - volume is more important (http://psc.apl.uw...anomaly/ ). The trend was down through 2012 with a small "recovery" the last 2 years, which would be interesting if it hadn't happened previously. What is interesting is that the "recovery" has occurred despite warming temperatures in the arctic, which seems to undermine claims of a "pause".

Nov 29, 2014
This weird bit of analysis from mbee1:
If you go to NASA arctic ice data you find some interesting things. The satellite measurements declined from 1979 to around 1996, after that the arctic ice low measured in September was about the same give or take some except for 2012 which was a low year, in 2013 and 2014 the arctic ice low has increased above the average of 1981-2001.


Now this is reality as seen by NSIDC
http://psc.apl.wa...V2.1.png

Particularly note "in 2013 and 2014 the arctic ice low has increased above the average of 1981-2001"

The above shows that the '81-'01 ave falls from +5 to -1 and in '13 and '14 was around -6 (10^-3 km^3).
What are you on my friend?

Nov 29, 2014
Funny story, they just discovered last week that the ice is actually thicker than they thought it was.

Nov 29, 2014
Funny story, they just discovered last week that the ice is actually thicker than they thought it was.

Fascinating comment. Here's some questions you might want to think about:
1. Why would the thicker ice not be relevant to a discussion about Arctic ice? (Hint: the thicker ice they found isn't in the Arctic.)
2. Why is the ice thicker? (Hint: it isn't because warming stopped.)

Nov 29, 2014
Speculation is, since it has become apparent that global warming has ended and climate change is natural, that the fear mongers would try worrying everyone about ocean acidification
@enviro
1- it is pure speculation
2- you have NO empirical evidence supporting your conjecture
3- you are not including the oceans, etc ad nauseum
nearly all addressing ocean acidification
you would know if you read them
and there were also papers linked about CO2 (control knob: http://www.scienc...abstract ) as well as how the warming destabilised the jet stream and is causing cold snaps and more extreme weather ( http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf )

But you didn't read those, did you
then you would have to find evidence to refute it, and you have nothing
still

tell you what: start small... just find empirical evidence refuting the two studies linked in this post
we'll go from there!

Nov 29, 2014
Fewer people will hear you when you cry wolf yet again
@enviro
i don't cry wolf
i do/will always say "read the F*cking SCIENCE"
you posted to zz5555
http://endofgw.blogspot.com.
how many times do i have to tell you: a BLOG is NOT empirical evidence
i don't even say skepticalscience is empirical evidence...
now, the STUDIES that they link in skeptical science is where the empirical evidence is, which is why i will link them from time to time

you only link BLOGS... no empirical evidence at all

tell you what, i will only link STUDIES, and you can do the same, how is that?

I don't care where you GET your studies, just link studies published in reputable peer reviewed publications refuting the links i gave you above (all of them)

leave out ANY blog site and get right to the science only argument

no opinions
no conjecture
JUST SCIENCE

Nov 29, 2014
Sea ice covering the ocean surface is white and efficiently reflects the sun's rays, keeping the oceans cool.
Um, do they not know sea ice generally forms at high latitudes in the winter, when the sun is very low and/or below the horizon?

Even in the summer, the sun is relatively low on the horizon in the Arctic and Antarctic (low insolation). And I haven't even begun to discuss polar clouds...


Nov 29, 2014
Funny story, they just discovered last week that the ice is actually thicker than they thought it was.

Fascinating comment. Here's some questions you might want to think about:
1. Why would the thicker ice not be relevant to a discussion about Arctic ice? (Hint: the thicker ice they found isn't in the Arctic.)
2. Why is the ice thicker? (Hint: it isn't because warming stopped.)


1) Yes, it was in the Arctic. It was just last week that it was was announced as well.

2) Because there's less energy there, because that what ice is, water in a low energy state.

Nov 29, 2014
A lot of posters seem unable to let go of data which is no longer correct. Google Nasa arctic ice low measurements. Look at the last two years , above the average. Click on the antarctic ice measurements , 6 percent larger. the argument the ice in the antarctic is thinner is a theory, the latest data from measurements, measurement in Yahoo, last week are the ice is thicker than they thought. Ice in parts of western Antarctica are claimed to be melting, a study mentioned here on Yahoo, said that melting may be due to volcanic activity. Finally go to wood for trees.com, put in the graft for average temperature 1998 to 2014 a .1C, a tenth of a degree increase if you trend it. If you move the starting date to 2001 no trend at all. Another study on the mid and lower troposphere shows no trend in 55 years. ,Your facts are bogus and based on incomplete and erroneous information given to you by people who stand to gain with the transfer of your money them

Nov 29, 2014
Runrig, you are simply refusing to look at the data. The ice extent is measured in September. If you look at your own graft which pretends to measure volume as well as extent, you notice the decline stopped around 2010 went sideways and in the last two years went up. why are you refusing to google the September ice low measurements. I can throw grafts around showing the second coming of Christ, that does not mean Christ is showing up anytime soon so when you look at one data and ignore everything else you are essentially shooting yourself in the foot.

Nov 29, 2014
Look at the last two years , above the average.

What? Look at the piomas plot (http://psc.apl.uw...V2.1.png ). It's been ~12 years since it hit the average (0 anomaly). And this average is taken relative to 1979 to 2013, so it's much lower than before the current melt started.

the argument the ice in the antarctic is thinner is a theory, the latest data from measurements, measurement in Yahoo, last week are the ice is thicker than they thought.

Yes, and this despite warmer temperatures in the air and water. Why is the ice thicker? Because of increased winds piling up the ice. Are increased winds associated with global warming? Yes. So this doesn't really support your claims.

Cont.

Nov 29, 2014
Ice in parts of western Antarctica are claimed to be melting, a study mentioned here on Yahoo, said that melting may be due to volcanic activity.


I doubt you saw a study that said that. There is volcanic activity in Antarctica, but there is no evidence it's increased in the last decade or two. As such, there's no reason to believe that volcanic activity is causing the increase in melting of the ice sheet. (https://news.vice...ice-caps )

Finally go to wood for trees.com, put in the graft for average temperature 1998 to 2014 a .1C, a tenth of a degree increase if you trend it.


Yes, ignoring the increasing heat in the oceans is a good way to pretend the earth isn't warming. Of course, satellite measurements continue to confirm that the earth is heating up. But ignoring those measurements is also a good way to pretend the earth isn't warming.

Nov 30, 2014
The ice extent is measured in September. If you look at your own graft which pretends to measure volume as well as extent, you notice the decline stopped around 2010 went sideways and in the last two years went up. why are you refusing to google the September ice low measurements.

Are you looking at the same graph? Your claim that the decline stopped in 2010 doesn't correspond with the graph at all since it shows that the trend from 2010 - 2012 drops faster than the trend over the last 3 decades. Why do you call decreasing rapidly "stopped around 2010 went sideways"?

Your comment about "in the last 2 years went up" would be more interesting if it hadn't happened before during the last 3 decades of melting.

Nov 30, 2014


Your comment about "in the last 2 years went up" would be more interesting if it hadn't happened before during the last 3 decades of melting.

Thanks zz for repying for me.....
As I say, and continue to wonder.....

But to add:
A lot of posters seem unable to let go of data which is no longer correct. Google Nasa arctic ice low measurements.

I do regularly in summer.
To see these graphs:http://nsidc.org/...re21.png
Which show the last 4 melt seasons as being the biggest on record.
Also the extreme nature of the 2 to 3 sd's below the mean (you do know what that signifies?) show how most definitely that Arctic ice "..... is not retreating rapidly and has not in years."
You seem to be confusing a falling trend with an acceleration of that trend.

Nov 30, 2014
You folks claiming all the melting of the Arctic do know what PI0MOS, the ice volume measurement is?. It is a software program written 11 years ago and recently updated as somebody finally noticed the software had a mistake in it. It is not an actually measurement of anything, it is an educated guess based on measurement of years ago applied to todays measured ice area. The software assumes X amount of that is old ice and hence thicker. GIGO comes to mind. You folks also know that the ice area software had a bug and has been improved in version 2.3. Now they simply eliminate if the center pixel is land the four other pixels on each side as also being land, the old software only eliminated two pixels as land while of course throwing in the new satellite data which is using a smaller pixel without any redoing of the older data using the bigger pixels. The result is a reduction in ice, around 6 percent. GIGO comes to mind.

Nov 30, 2014
You folks claiming all the melting of the Arctic do know what PI0MOS, the ice volume measurement is? It is a software program written 11 years ago and recently updated as somebody finally noticed the software had a mistake in it. It is not an actually measurement of anything, it is an educated guess based on measurement of years ago applied to todays measured ice area.


Umm, yes, I suspect we both knew that (I certainly did). There is a satellite that measures the changes in mass, so should get more accurate results. Comparisons have been done and show that the loss of ice volume given by PIOMAS is conservative; i.e. PIOMAS under estimates the ice loss (http://psc.apl.wa...0193.pdf ). So, yes, the loss of ice volume is worse than is shown by PIOMAS, but PIOMAS has a longer history (and it's always good to be conservative in science).

I thought you were knowledgable about Arctic sea ice. How didn't you know this?

Dec 01, 2014
zzz555, you do go on yet continue to believe in the witch doctors. The satellite you mention is actually two with a microwave link between them to measure the slight difference in distance between them as the satellite goes over more massive and less massive areas. To translate that distance change into more or less mass requires a lot of ground based measurements and it does have a slight problem, or rather two of them, In the case of Arctic ice the change is within the satellites error range so to claim it shows you something is pure horse manure. The second is they have not done enough data collection on the ground to separate the ice thickness from all the other cases of very slight mass variations. That is why we are back to piomas as the usual measure of claimed ice thickness, it has zero to do with conservative, and 100 present does not work.

Dec 01, 2014
ZZZ555, your pointer is to the radar altimeter satellite. If you actually read it they do a whole bunch of fudging to arrive at an answer, One such fudge is to measure the ocean surface distance with and without ice which means they are measuring it at different times. If you do that you have to make a whole bunch of adjustment due to among other thing tidal adjustments from the movement of the moon, rainfall, currents etc. They even have adjustment to the adjustments of where the edge of the ice is using an earlier version than the later version done by the same author. While the paper does seem to flow from adjustment to adjustment, it might be useful to remember similar papers on other adjustments which turned out to be bogus like the first version of piomas or the claim the shuttles were safe to fly, 100 percent wrong. So unless you physically go out on the ice and measure, all the thickness claims might as well be GIGO until proved differently. so we are back to Piomas

Dec 01, 2014
zzz55/ What would be interesting is to use the radar satellite to verify the surface area of the ice. You have two system, one which measures the ice in optical pitals which are adjusted for known land areas and another which claims to measure the ice edge. What the two systems are doing is measuring the ice extent differently which would be a check on the accuracy of both, Most likely will never get funded as that would put one or both under pressure if the two did not come up with a very similar number.

Dec 02, 2014
You folks claiming all the melting of the Arctic

It's not a matter of "claiming" my friend - it's f**** obvious to anyone who has eyes and can understand the basics of trends presented by data, that you have been shown on linked graphs (from the foremost authority).
If you don't like Piomas then the long-term decline in the extent of Sept ice is obvious enough.
Do you think the thickness is increasing whilst the extent declines.
FFS

Dec 03, 2014
Been toying with woodfortree's configurable plots, sometimes too many options to explore, those pesky permutations again, please note the Provenance as mentioned here:-
http://www.woodfo.../credits

Have arranged to output a passably useful plot of hadcrut4 with CO2 on same graph here:-

http://woodfortre...ormalise

Correlation of interest to those which seem to have faith no such relationship appears - when I say interest, I would like to see actual substantive refutation, not political diatribe or claims I removed some data or fudged anything at all - be genuine you arbitrary denier clan !

Havent as yet found way to put scale on right hand axis re CO2 ppm, anyone have an idea ?

Definitions are immensely important AGW denier guys, not unscientific dictionaries & correct climate change periods etc

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more