Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't seem to be seeing what you are seeing though . I can see a huge blob of warm anoms to the west of the peninsula (and down the flank of S. America......not much evidence of La-Nina there) and the remnants of the 'Ross outflow' still showing on the shelf sea to the NE of Ross and to me the rest looks average or above average.

You'll need to let me see what you are seeing to understand Beng.

Your picture shows much the same thing as Beng's picture (though with more differentiated granularity). Beng did say that temperatures to the West were above average and - even on your picture - for the most part the anomalies are at or fractionally below average (though I concede that there are some small patches of above average temperature water). How do you interpret the image differently?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Your picture shows much the same thing as Beng's picture (though with more differentiated granularity). Beng did say that temperatures to the West were above average and - even on your picture - for the most part the anomalies are at or fractionally below average (though I concede that there are some small patches of above average temperature water). How do you interpret the image differently?

CB

We could take it 20 degree sector by 20 degree sector and compare notes mindful that Beng said "show MUCH of the Antarctic coastline below average".

Shall I begin?

0 to =20 degrees 50% yellow (above) 50% neutral.

20 to 40 degrees 30 to 40% yellow 60 to 70% neutral

40 to 60 degrees mainly neutral with some shades of below

60 to 80 degrees 20% yellow 80% neutral or just below

80 to 100 degrees 50% yellow 30% below 20% neutral

100 to 120 degrees 30% yellow 60% neutral 10% below

120 to 140 degrees (start of Ross sea) 80% neutral 10% above 10% below

160 to 180 degrees 60% below 10% yellow 30% neutral

180 to -160 degrees 100% below

-160 to -140 degrees 80% neutral 20% below

-140 to -120 degrees 50% yellow 50% neutral

-120 to -100 degrees 100% yellow

-100 to -80 degrees 100% yellow

-80 to -60 degrees 100% yellow

-60 to -40 degrees (Weddell sea) 100% below average

-40 to -20 degrees 100% below average

-20 to 0 degrees 100% below average

so far as following the ice front or exposed coastline these are as close to indisputable facts as you get so where does "mainly below" reflect in this?

The strange thing to me is that the warmest area west of the peninsula is adjacent to the coldest areas to the front of Weddell. Were it not for the spit of land that is the peninsula the circumpolar wind would have spread the warmth throughout the Weddell sea and beyond. Far from being a warm freak the peninsula is actually protecting the Weddell sea beyond from the current warming! eventually Weddell will be bypassed and the the return eddies will do for the shelves protected by the peninsula.

[Admiral_Bobski]

We could take it 20 degree sector by 20 degree sector and compare notes mindful that Beng said "show MUCH of the Antarctic coastline below average".

...

so far as following the ice front or exposed coastline these are as close to indisputable facts as you get so where does "mainly below" reflect in this?

I think you'll find that Beng said "slightly below average" - just how slight is a matter of interpretation since the 0C anomaly actually rests on the line between blue and yellow (check the legend at the bottom of the image). It can be assumed, then, that any pale blue square is at least fractionally on the cool side of zero, and any yellow square is at least fractionally on the warm side. This being the case, there is no colour that actually denotes "neutral".

So let's take a look at your numbers then. Out of a total of 1700% (17 separate chunks, each with a maximum 100% attributable) we have the following:

+ve anomaly: 555% (32.65% of total, rounded to 2dp*)

no anomaly : 610% (35.88% of total, rounded to 2dp*)

-ve anomaly : 535% (31.48% of total, rounded to 2dp*)

Now, since we are presumably agreed that there is no neutral colour - it's either slightly above neutral (yellow) or slightly below neutral (pale blue) - then what we effectively have is one-third of the seas around the Antarctic having a positive anomaly, and two-thirds having a negative anomaly (since the "no anomaly" entry does, in fact, have a slightly negative component). I think this would count as "much of the Antarctic coastline", wouldn't it?

CB

* The rounding to 2 decimal places does mean that there is an extraneous 0.01% in the total above, but c'est la vie...

Edited April 1, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[biffvernon]

This page from NOAA might help:

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cohab/hurricane/sst.htm

CB

Nope. No help at all. The map posted by Grey Wolf leaves the icy parts blank - at least that has the potential for credulity.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nope. No help at all. The map posted by Grey Wolf leaves the icy parts blank - at least that has the potential for credulity.

So the page from NOAA that specifically describes how they measure SSTs is of absolutely no help in answering the question, "just how do they measure these SSTs?"

Sorry. My bad.

CB

[beng]

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...ht.4.1.2003.gif

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.3.30.2004.gif

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.3.29.2005.gif

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...ht.4.1.2006.gif

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.3.30.2007.gif

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.3.31.2008.gif

I don't think anyone will argue that's there's been a reduction in Antarctic sea ice on the Western side of the peninsula, but it does seem to be a fairly localised warming to me - indeed it would appear that overall global sea temperatures have cooled somewhat in the last 5 years. I would guess it's a natural event personally, but I doubt at this point we can prove it either way. They key thing to watch this year is the arctic sea ice and how much melt happens - but that's for another thread.

[biffvernon]

So the page from NOAA that specifically describes how they measure SSTs is of absolutely no help in answering the question, "just how do they measure these SSTs?"

Sorry. My bad.

CB

My question was how did they colour in the map in the parts of the sea that are ice covered. I'm afraid that NOAA page does not explain it. Maybe it can't be done and the map was bad?

[Admiral_Bobski]

My question was how did they colour in the map in the parts of the sea that are ice covered. I'm afraid that NOAA page does not explain it. Maybe it can't be done and the map was bad?

Your original question did not read like that at all - it seemed you were asking how they measure the SSTs (and hence how they determine what colour the area should appear on the map).

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think anyone will argue that's there's been a reduction in Antarctic sea ice on the Western side of the peninsula, but it does seem to be a fairly localised warming to me - indeed it would appear that overall global sea temperatures have cooled somewhat in the last 5 years. I would guess it's a natural event personally, but I doubt at this point we can prove it either way. They key thing to watch this year is the arctic sea ice and how much melt happens - but that's for another thread.

The increase in velocity of the circumpolar winds had led to changes in the way the coastal areas now receive warmer waters from the higher latitudes. The peninsula,being stuck out like a sore thumb, has bourne the brunt of these changes so far but it has also protected the Weddell sea from much of the influence (with the warmer waters piling up on the western side and now backing up down towards Pine Island) once the 'bulge' of warmer waters becomes greater then this will force it around the peninsula and down into Weddell (and on).

[beng]

Hi Gray-Wolf,

Sounds like we agree then that the warming in Antartica is focused on the peninsula then (although you believe it will ultimately spread). Do you have anything you could post regarding the circumpolar winds and how they have changed in the region, I'd be quite interested in reading up about that?

Ben

[biffvernon]

Your original question did not read like that at all - it seemed you were asking how they measure the SSTs (and hence how they determine what colour the area should appear on the map).

CB

My original question was "How do they get to colour in a map like that? I mean, for the sea that fringes Antarctica you can't just drop a thermometer in the water. It's frozen. "

Note the words 'sea that fringes Antarctica...It's frozen'. Yep, I was writing about the ice and pointing out, too subtly it appears, that part of the map in question was rubbish.

[Admiral_Bobski]

My original question was "How do they get to colour in a map like that? I mean, for the sea that fringes Antarctica you can't just drop a thermometer in the water. It's frozen. "

Note the words 'sea that fringes Antarctica...It's frozen'. Yep, I was writing about the ice and pointing out, too subtly it appears, that part of the map in question was rubbish.

The link I posted does explain how they measure the SSTs in the areas which have been coloured. The areas that are blank are presumably not measured (just like the ares on a satellite map that are blank have not been photographed by the satellite). If it's black on the colour map then they don't have data for that area - everywhere else is measured as is described in the link. I'm not sure what is contentious about that...?

CB

EDIT - presumably the icy areas that are coloured (if there are any) are either measured by bouys frozen into the ice (though I think it unlikely) or they measure it by satellite, as described in the link.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Gray-Wolf,

Sounds like we agree then that the warming in Antarctica is focused on the peninsula then (although you believe it will ultimately spread). Do you have anything you could post regarding the circumpolar winds and how they have changed in the region, I'd be quite interested in reading up about that?

Ben

Hi Ben!

I think it'd be easier for you to Google both Circumpolar wind and Antarctic Circumpolar current (ACC) or 'West wind' might do it.

Apart from the obvious surface drift that the wind causes the wind, with the help of the Coriolis effect, it also allows for the upwelling of cold bottom waters and the subduction of the warm surface waters (many folk cock-adoodle -doo about ice extent around Antarctica but this is a temporary feature as, once the now 'warm' bottom waters start to re-emerge at the surface due to the same process, the whole of Antarctica's ice shelf's are in the same kind of jeopardy as Wilkins was).

As you know ,once free of its 'girdle of ice' Antarctica WILL start to loose mass into the southern oceans with the disastrous sea level changes this will induce over a few southern summers.

If this proves to be a repeat of the natural cycles that we have noted, through sea bed core samples around Antarctica, then we have the luxury of time to witness a marvel. If this is a man driven thing then the 'natural' balance points will be over-ridden as we continue to escalate our emissions further forcing warming and we will rapidly enter this phase of ice sheet meltdown. The harbinger will be the collapse of shelf ice around the continent preceded by an increasingly rapid summer melt of sea ice (as this year showed) and a slow down in 'ice extent' growth as the ACC overturns the now warm bottom waters to the surface around the continent.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[biffvernon]

The link I posted does explain how they measure the SSTs in the areas which have been coloured. The areas that are blank are presumably not measured (just like the ares on a satellite map that are blank have not been photographed by the satellite). If it's black on the colour map then they don't have data for that area - everywhere else is measured as is described in the link. I'm not sure what is contentious about that...?

B)

CB

EDIT - presumably the icy areas that are coloured (if there are any) are either measured by bouys frozen into the ice (though I think it unlikely) or they measure it by satellite, as described in the link.

Sigh....Maybe you're looking at a different map. The one I asked the question about was the one that Beng linked to: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

It has areas of sea ice coloured in blue, indicating a negative temperature anomaly. Not just fringing Antarctica but also in the Arctic, which I imagine is also hard to get meaningful sea surface temperatures from right now. In these areas I maintain that the map in question is rubbish.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sigh....Maybe you're looking at a different map. The one I asked the question about was the one that Beng linked to: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

It has areas of sea ice coloured in blue, indicating a negative temperature anomaly. Not just fringing Antarctica but also in the Arctic, which I imagine is also hard to get meaningful sea surface temperatures from right now. In these areas I maintain that the map in question is rubbish.

There's no need to sigh, for crying out loud - I'm only trying to help. If you don't, won't or can't appreciate that help then there are better things you can do than make snarky remarks at people. A simple "thanks" would be nice, even if suffixed by a "but it's not quite what I meant". Your withering remarks do you no favours.

Once again though, if you read the link I posted, it says that SSTs are measured at a depth of 1 metre below the surface. I'm sure it is still possible to measure temperatures under the ice. If not then perhaps those data are taken on the ice itself. Or perhaps the satellites measure the temperatures. Whichever way you cut it, if the data are presented on the map then some kind of measurement must have been made - the measurements are not so unbelievably out of whack with the rest of the data to raise warning signals, so to call the maps "rubbish" is a fairly pathetic response.

I was actually responding originally to the map which Gray Wolf posted, but even that one shows similar negative anomalies, so I don't quite see what your gripe is. Perhaps you should try cheering up? If your attitude is going to continue then I shall retract my apology of this morning.

CB

Edited April 2, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Like the arctic you need to 'chill' C-Bob!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Like the arctic you need to 'chill' C-Bob!

You're right - I do. I should just let everyone treat me like a moron, and make snarky comments at me. Then, after taking that for a few days, I should be "converted" to belief in AGW. Sounds like Nirvana to me...

CB

[biffvernon]

I was actually responding originally to the map which Gray Wolf posted,

Ah, so I was right.

It's the other map, the one I asked about, which I think is wrong - and nobody has shown otherwise yet.

[wysiwyg]

Does this help with the sub-ice temperature measurements? It's in the Arctic but I guess they work down under too!

http://www.damocles-eu.org/article_395.shtml

Wysi

[biffvernon]

Great stuff, wysiwyg, but I bet none of it was used to colour the sea ice part of the map in question.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

[Hiya]

Great stuff, wysiwyg, but I bet none of it was used to colour the sea ice part of the map in question.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

Why don't you just email the people who make the map and tell them it's rubbish? I'm sure they would avail the method of measuring under the ice to you.

[Gray-Wolf]

Why don't you just email the people who make the map and tell them it's rubbish? I'm sure they would avail the method of measuring under the ice to you.

I'd go with what Hiya says. You will get a reply and they generally are very approachable.......we all like to show off our skills now don't we?

[Yeti]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

Just what I always thought

[Yeti]

ooops sorry somebody beat me to it! Please delete thread mods, very sorry.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Yeti

[Mr Sleet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

BBC official acknowledgment.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Mr Sleet