Mr Sleet
-
Posts
380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Mr Sleet
-
-
Almost unnoticed, SH ice is storming ahead, a new record looks a distinct probability.
-
From what I have read, MY ice has less salt content than SY ice due to brine expulsion and consolidation of ice crystals during subsequent seasonal melts and refreezes.
Almost everything you may like to know is here.
The process has analogies to the tempering of metals by heating, reworking and quenching to strengthen the crystal microstructure to provide tougher, harder and less brittle products.
Cheers Chris.
That seems plausible.
-
You mean you want me to wade though all those media clips (again...) post what they say (again) and then you'll perhaps do a bluecon etc on me and claim either I'm wrong, not basing what I say on fact, misleading or some such
Ok, I'll do it - later, If I've time
Actually, it's quite simple. It's been possible to get through the NW passage at times in the past (on another tack the St Roch was also specially built for ice condition - read the link). That's possible to get through. Last year it was open water - you could get through in a balsawood dingy
. Now, some people might not see, of choose to see, the difference, and tbh I can't help them much if that's the case, but I can see it. It's like the difference between an open road and a packed road - which on is passable, which one open?
I need evidence. Save what you find as you go, then post it up !
-
A lot depends on conditions over the Arctic over the summer months and September. Last year, there was a huge melt in late June and early July, most likely associated with the large plume of >10C 850hPa air that headed north of 80N. High pressure and dry sunny weather prevailed over the pole last summer, so conditions were pretty anomalous.
I still think we'll end up running last year's record close or maybe beating it, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Indeed TWS I will come and eat humble pie if I'm wrong, have no fear
Genuine question to all and sundry . I'm going to challenge what seems to be an assumption that " multiyear ice " is somehow more resistent to melting than single year ice. For a given thickness, I don't see why that should be the case. Anyone have any hard evidence on this ? Facts please, not opinions
-
I've checked a few of those report. At least two of them took YEARS to complete, another was a vast icebreaker, another was a specially strengthened yacht. The blog author does not mention this...
Last year the passage was ice free. In none of the reports was it so, the people fought their way through it.
People can believe whatever they want, but I think the blog report is, how shall I put it, ever so slightly spun... But, I urge people to listen to or watch the reports the blogger mentions and draw their own conclusions - for me they undermine his case..
This seems quite a key post in this debate. Could you post up your evidence ? Save us guys spending hours trying to find it B)
-
crunch time now.. this time last year things went very pear shaped in the arctic..
areas to note -
Chukchi and russian sectors doing much better this year.
barents and kara doing worse - not suprising as there was only a couple of weeks of ice formation last winter.
so i would suggest we arent doing too badly..considerin. in fact one would have expected the thinner ice to melt very quickly.. this doesnt look like the case at the moment. time will tell though of course.
You are right. The rate of melt is slower than last year . Attempts to discredit Cryosphere Today suggest that some commentators on here are becoming a little worried about their predictions B)
-
We happen to be discussing current forcasts and the implications.
If we are not, in your opinion, to use/discuss forcasts then this would be a very impoverished site indeed don'tcha' think?
You are second guessing whether or not the NW passage will open up this year. Take your own advice- wait and see.
-
As the ice forcast reports make plain an open Northwest passage has been an infrequent visitor up north but never, to our historical knowledge, in two consecutive years.
Why don't you take your own advice to Snowbear and wait and see ?
-
The NOAA released the 2007 figures (somewhere above) showing the increase in methane in the atmosphere last year. Either the planet suddenly got a whole load of adult bovines somehow or last summer's melt started us on the cathrite release cycle!
In fact if you looked at the graph I posted a few days ago the ruminant population has indeed increased greatly in recent years, although the methane level in the atmosphere has increased very little since 1990.
-
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001..._0003788559.pdf
this is the Arctic's 'form' for completing the prediction.......what form do you have for becoming P.M.?
My monies on the arctic predictions and not seeing the right honourable Mr Sleet becoming P.M. in the same time frame
I could be David Cameron, of that great party soon to return to power.
-
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html
More jolly news from NSIDC.
I also found this;
Study: Arctic warming rate could triple
That, in turn, could quickly thaw permafrost, releasing CO2 and methane
Rapid Arctic sea ice loss could triple the rate of warming over northern Alaska, Canada and Russia and trigger permafrost thawing that unleashes extremely potent greenhouse gases, according to a new study."Our study suggests that, if sea ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate," lead author David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a statement.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and Bluecon, I will post up the temp anoms from the region when I get a mo.
And I could still be the next Prime Minister.
-
Due to the diversion onto carinths thread for a short period we now have two areas of links showing what the major ice agencies are saying about the ice (including both Canadian coastguard and press) so I am at a loss as to where you discovered your lone voice with his strangely inconsistent opinions.
Let us play patience my friend and, noting the time and date, resume this conversation in July.
By then you will be forced to concede how silly you are/were being.
Well if you are relying on the Press for a fair opinion then good luck to you.
-
ok i have tried three times to write this post and each time the images keep failing to show.. grrr
please go to the CT site and look at the comparison charts like the one below...
i would have expected previous years to have ice conditions much better than today??? If you compare todays date with the same date previously you will notice that the Artic has actually had larger polynya's and areas of melt. a few examples..
1980 - comparing June 6th you will see that this years ice conditions as portrayed by this map arent actually that far off conditions in 1980.
1990 - 3 Massive Polynya's much bigger than 2008 ( not sure why a skype link has shown here?)
1993 - 3 polynya's
1995- 8 polynya's small however there none the less
2006 - entire Artic region has 60-80% concentration values, much lower than currently shown.
if someone can show the 1990 comparison that is one of the very obvious ones.
please note this is ice concentration rather than ice thickness, we all know the situtaion here.. i am just a little suprised at the findings.
comments?
OSN
You make a very good point. When all is said and done the NH sea ice is down about 1 m sqkm and the SH ice area is up about 1msq.km. Putting the global tally right on the average line.
Regarding thicknesses, others have posted that first year ice thicknesses are 100-200 cm ( Russian sources) which I think is good and above normal.
On one of the enviro threads someone is frothing about the state of Hudson bay ice, but as that is always one year ice it looks absolutely normal !
I think there would have to be a calamitous drop in ice area now (much faster than 2007 ) to beat the 2007 minimum.
-
So, there you sit with the NOAA measurements for both CO2 and methane in front of your eyes and still you hark back to what the IPCC have witnessed over the preceding years......DOH!
You can show anything you want by sleight of hand /careful selection of scales.
You would make a great politician GW
-
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
There is very good correlation between rising ruminant population and methane levels, which stopped rising in the late 1990's. Despite the authors rather dodgy attempt to claim otherwise.
Also says that the IPCC have acknowledged that in 2007 methane levels appeared to have plateaued.
-
Interesting, but largely inaccurate. Deep oceans won't cool any further than they are already because of the stratification of water as it cools due to its varying density. 90% of ocean water is below the depth of the thermocline - the layers affected by temperature differences - and is already between 0 - 3 degC.
And in the arctic this is even more irrelevant because there is little or no thermocline and the ocean is equally cold throughout its depth.
edited to remove image repost
But the other 95% of what he said could be right ?
-
Thankyou for your enlighten contribution to my last post. Sorry you find it a load of old ...rubbish..
To shed a bit more light on my thinking, pressure patterns so far are more influent to produce less sunlight and cooler conditions to prevail in the High Arctic this summer compared to last year.Hope this helps.
C
Carinthian,
I look forward to your excellent posts bringing us all back into line when needed...
Your comments regarding conditions up there are why I don't think the 2007 minimum will be beaten this year, and will herald the recovery in multiyear ice as the planet cools in subsequent years.
Why? The open polar ocean not only absorbs sunlight - it emits long wave radiation much more effectively than ice does. It absorbs CO2 much more effectively than ice covered water, CO2 which is efficiently sequestered by the extremely productive biological processes in the northern ocean.Watch this space:
Chris
you make a very important point there, one that ( even) I had not seen
-
The point is, due to the much higher percentage of first year ice, it would require conditions in the Arctic to be very favourable- on a par with 1996- for the ice extent to not decline significantly faster than last year. Hence the argument that despite the higher ice concentrations/extent relative to this time last year, the record could still be beaten come September.
It's not impossible that we could have decent ice retention this summer, but the odds don't look great.
It's fine giving a 'punt' that it won't be as low as last year, but you were previously arguing that it was a foregone conclusion, when it clearly isn't, and that was the point that I was challenging.
Well in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion
The first year ice doesn't seem to be melting any faster than the multiyear ice that went up to this point in 2007. Lets wait and see, I will eat my words if it goes below the 2007 minimum. -
7.35 would be about 3 months supply, 29 about 11 months at current rates of consumption.
-
I have to say that Interitus's arguments do sound convincing. We may well have been lulled into a false sense of security by the recovery in ice extent over the winter. But since a much larger percentage of the ice is newly formed, that can easily facilitate the steep declines that Mr Sleet dismisses.
quote]
TWS
If you read my post above properly I say that the rate of decline would need to be steeper than last year to break the record minimum. That is a fact. Whether it will or not is open to guesswork. My punt is that the minimum will be higher than 2007.
-
Really?
"Although there is more ice than this time last year, the average decline rate through the month of April was 6,000 square kilometers per day (2,300 thousand square miles per day) faster than last April.
Yes, really . There was a steep decline for 2 weeks in the middle of April which has long since levelled out. You need to look at the gradient from last year from this point onwards, and we will need to exceed that to beat last years minimum assuming that the minimum will be reached in the middle of August, as in 2007.
-
I wouldn't be so certain, it's looking good at the moment, but remember how quickly and suddenly the ice melted in June last year despite temperatures not far above the average.
Strange discrepancy between Svalbard Airport's anomalies and the anomaly maps there- which is inaccurate?
Hi TWS;
Reason I am so confident is that it would need a considerably steeper decline than even last year to beat the record. It's a foregone conclusion
Not sure about Svalbard....
-
Nice pictures guys and it certainly looks cold up there. C the arctic fairing better than last year so far?
BFTP
I think an ice area minimum comfortably exceeding last years minimum is now a foregone conclusion.
-
A shocking argument. The temperature is not going to go up day by day, week by week, perfectly in line with CO2. It doens't work like that. It shows that this Cardinal doesn't understand science.
Would that be a "Cardinal sin" then ?
Arctic ice
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
I appreciate others defending me but I really didn't take offence at GW's post or Devs response which was full of winks etc which tells me where he is coming from.
I'm sure Dev and GW are really nice guys
(despite their stance on AGW 
)