Arctic Ice

[Roo]

Not sure if this has been already posted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7692963.stm

[BUSHY]

Not sure if this has been already posted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7692963.stm

I thought that it was not possible to determine ice thickness by satellite. This is the point of that expedition planned for next year to physically measure ice thickness. I am not convinced by this article.

[noggin]

If the BBC told me it was dark outside, I'd have to check. They are no more than a mouthpiece for the government. Their coverage of the financial crisis is no better than their "global warming" coverage.

I won't even mention the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross business.......whoops, I just did.

How can this organisation expect to have any credence in the eyes/ears of their viewers/listeners?

I've finished ranting, now.

[Roo]

If the BBC told me it was dark outside, I'd have to check. They are no more than a mouthpiece for the government. Their coverage of the financial crisis is no better than their "global warming" coverage.

I won't even mention the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross business.......whoops, I just did.

How can this organisation expect to have any credence in the eyes/ears of their viewers/listeners?

I've finished ranting, now. :o

Ermmmm.......what has the BBC report got to do with research carried out by UCL, one of the biggest and well respected universities in the world? If your entire case against the research is that it was reported by the BBC, then that really says a lot.

The article is accepted and in press,

Giles, K. A., S. W. Laxon, and A. L. Ridout (2008), Circumpolar thinning of Arctic sea ice following the 2007 record ice extent minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2008GL035710, in press. (accepted 10 October 2008)

Edited October 28, 2008 by Roo

[noggin]

If your entire case against the research is that it was reported by the BBC, then that really says a lot.

Well, it isn't and so it doesn't.

[stewfox]

If the BBC told me it was dark outside, I'd have to check. They are no more than a mouthpiece for the government. Their coverage of the financial crisis is no better than their "global warming" coverage.

They need to do something to appease their funders ?? Just an observation ?

The researchers hope to keep the data series, funded by the EU and the Natural Environmental Research Council (Nerc),

[Roo]

Well, it isn't and so it doesn't.

OK...my apologies: would love to know your actual case against this piece of research then.

[Mondy]

I haven't read the report, nor likely to. Anything by the BBC on Global Warming can be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, is this the team that got stuck in thick ice doing sea ice research (proclaiming to the world ice was melting at super fast rates)? God, I hope so :o

Edited October 28, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Roo]

I haven't read the report, nor likely to. Anything by the BBC on Global Warming can be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, is this the team that got stuck in thick ice doing sea ice research (proclaiming to the world ice was melting at super fast rates)? God, I hope so

Shoulda known you'd have turned up Mr Mondacious! :o

Thing is...doesn't really matter WHAT the BBC says does it? If the research is solid that's all that counts.

Also, to be fair, even the BBC don't say anything about WHY it's happening, just that the researchers have recorded that it is.

Now, please, can we get back to the actual research rather than the reporting of the research, which means diddly squat! :o

Edited October 28, 2008 by Roo

[Mondy]

A simple question: do you really feel that a month and a half (of fast ice re-growth) is long enough to determine that a melting process that has been going on for decades is now reversing?

Melting process for decades..quite. Not thousands of years, just a few decades. There used to be no ice, y'know..then it came back, then it melted, then it returned..that kind of thing is called a cycle, but since you're not a dim-wit, you'd have known that anyway :o

I hope the small melting process stops, but it's irrelavent to me. Please note small melting process because on the grand scale of things, it's hee-haw / nada. It's just made to appear like a doom-ridden tale by warmers, hellbent on scaring the Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of me out of people. I honestly cannot see why agw'rs et al champion the gloom. Please, warmers, Stop It!

[laserguy]

Please, warmers, Stop It!

We'd be so lucky! Actually,I'm not bothered anymore. Let them carry on,all they're doing is setting themselves up for an even bigger fall when it comes. And come it will. All good fun to watch really,though admittedly a little exasperating at times. By the way,wonder how the ice recovery is doing now,alongside global temps,and not forgetting those ever increasing CO2 levels?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, I do think the BBC can sometimes be a bit biased when it comes to global warming. But the cynic in me suspects that if a BBC article appeared suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change might be grossly overestimated, you'd all suddenly change your opinions of the BBC and be insisting that it was the indisputable truth. Anything to bash these so-called "warmers" who dare to suggest that there's even a 0.1% chance that human activity might, just might, be having a tangible impact upon global climate.

Furthermore, the article says nothing about "global warming", it just says that the ice thickness has been decreasing. Ice thickness and ice extent aren't the same thing btw- it is quite possible to have thinner ice covering a larger area. The findings for last winter shouldn't come as a surprise as they did, after all, follow a record low sea ice extent. Thus, there's a good chance that we might see a slight recovery in ice thickness for winter 2008/09, because of the slightly greater extent this summer and the more rapid recovery.

As for the reasons, the BBC did well on this occasion not to point the finger at "global warming". Although the recent trend is consistent with what computer models suggest based on greenhouse gas-assisted warming, the recent ice retreat has been too rapid to be due to that alone. More likely, it's primarily a result of atmospheric circulation changes, a move towards a warm phase of the Arctic Oscillation similar to the 1930s, with more input of warmer airmasses, and the wind helping to blow ice towards warmer parts of the ocean. The upward trend in global temperature will be a contributory factor as well, but possibly not the biggest factor.

[laserguy]

Yes, I do think the BBC can sometimes be a bit biased when it comes to global warming. But the cynic in me suspects that if a BBC article appeared suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change might be grossly overestimated, you'd all suddenly change your opinions of the BBC and be insisting that it was the indisputable truth.

Nope,I'd just recognise that at long last that they are up to speed and have acknowledged that the pretense cannot go on indefinitely. Wow,there's a monster snow shower just kicking off here and it's not yet November! Now I'm not saying that is a prognosticator of Ice Age II,but I'd not be in the least bit surprised if at some point the BBC declared this unusual cold to be an undeniable symptom of AGW.

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's exactly what I mean though: your premise is that AGW is a myth, your "evidence" is based on this premise (if the evidence supports AGW it must be wrong, if it contradicts AGW it must be right) and your conclusion, from this "evidence", is that AGW is a myth. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting (the same goes for some of the other contributors on here as well).

"A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true"- not a very convincing line of argument.

[Gray-Wolf]

How's about looking at what "Science Daily" has to report on the thinning of the Arctic then chap(esse)s?

'Tis really a shame I'm not able to be in a game of choice with you 'Coolisits' (if that is what you wish to be called), maybe 1oz of gold hammered so thin as to cover a table top and a pound of gold in a block. From all I read on here the 'Coolists' have amply shown that they would choose the thin and skimpy 's-t-r-e-t-t-c-h-e-d' bit to the one with greatest mass.......I could play that game all day with them and everyone would,apparently , go home happy :o greater extent = 'more' in fact!

ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2008)

— Last winter, the thickness of sea ice in large parts of the Arctic fell by nearly half a metre (19 per cent) compared with the average thickness of the previous five winters. This followed the dramatic 2007 summer low when Arctic ice extent dropped to its lowest level since records began.

Up until last winter, the thickness of Arctic sea ice showed a slow downward trend during the previous five winters, but after the summer 2007 record low extent, the thickness of the ice also nose-dived. What is concerning is that sea ice is not just receding but it is also thinning.

Some scientists blamed the record summer 2007 ice extent low on unusually warm weather conditions over the Arctic, but this summer, sea ice extent reached the second lowest level since records began, even though the Arctic had a relatively cool summer. Dr Katharine Giles, who led the study and is based at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London – part of the National Centre for Earth Observation, says: “This summer’s low ice extent doesn’t seem to have been driven by warm weather, so the question is, was last winter’s thinning behind it?”

The team of researchers, including Dr Seymour Laxon and Andy Ridout, used satellites to measure sea ice thickness over the Arctic from 2002 to 2008. Winter sea ice in the Arctic is around two and half metres thick on average. Ice thickness can be calculated from the time it takes a radar pulse to travel from a satellite to the surface of the ice and back again.

The research - reported in Geophysical Research Letters - showed that last winter the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic fell by 26cm (10 per cent) compared with the average thickness of the previous five winters, but sea ice in the western Arctic lost around 49cm of thickness. This region of the Arctic saw the North-West passage become ice free and open to shipping for the first time in 30 years during the summer of 2007.

The team is the first to measure ice thickness throughout the Arctic winter, from October to March, over more than half of the Arctic, using the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite. Before this, Christian Haas of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, had discovered thinner ice in a small region around the North Pole. Whilst the overall loss of older, thicker ice led researchers to speculate that Arctic sea ice had probably thinned, this is the first time scientists have been able to say for definite that the ice thinning was widespread and occurred in areas of both young and old ice.

“The extent of sea ice in the Arctic is down to a number of factors, including warm weather melting it as well as currents and the wind blowing it around, so it’s important to know how ice thickness is changing as well as the extent of the ice,” added Giles.

The team will continue to monitor the thickness of the ice over this coming winter. Laxon says: “We’ll be keeping our eyes on the ice thickness this winter as it’ll be interesting to see what happens after a second summer of low ice extent.”

The Envisat satellite that provided the UCL scientists with their data doesn’t cover the whole of the North Pole. Because of the satellite’s orbit, there’s a hole north of 81.5 degrees, which is about 600 miles shy of the North Pole. But a team, including Laxon, at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling has designed a satellite – CryoSat-2 – to plug this hole.

CryoSat-2 is the first radar satellite specifically designed to measure ice thickness. It will do this with greater resolution than is possible with Envisat and so will give scientists a much more detailed picture of what is happening to ice in the Arctic. CryoSat-2 is being prepared for launch at the end of 2009.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

Tsk, silly me

I read the BBC link posted earlier (after saying I wouldn't). Yep, it's just how imagined it to be, but as TWS says, they surprisingly don't mention agw or Global Warming - well done to them - perhaps even they know a huge hoax is taking place.

I then check out my local BBC section (that'll be Scotland) and noted this article tucked away ( I almost never noticed it) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/7693701.stm

Radar instruments will be used to penetrate the ice, which is several kilometres thick.

...and then there was GW's "Science Daily" report. Dear oh dear.."Science Day Late" more likely.

What is concerning is that sea ice is not just receding but it is also thinning.

Why is that concerning? We all gonna die or something? Are the poor ickle Polar Bears gonna be snuffed out? Just why is that so concerning?

Ice thickness can be calculated from the time it takes a radar pulse to travel from a satellite to the surface of the ice and back again.

In 100% properly calibrated equipment? You'd be better digging a hole for a few kms to see exactly how thick the ice is instead of using hi-tech gadgets inwhich data/figures can be easily fudged to fit the agenda - you think that doesn't go on - you better believe it.

The research - reported in Geophysical Research Letters - showed that last winter the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic fell by 26cm (10 per cent)

Not even the size of a ruler.

The team will continue to monitor the thickness of the ice over this coming winter

Good. They'll see like the rest of us the fascinating sea ice extent for a fact, and should they continue to monitor (perhaps on an ice-breaker vessel) I for one wish them stuck :o

The Envisat satellite that provided the UCL scientists with their data doesn’t cover the whole of the North Pole. Because of the satellite’s orbit, there’s a hole north of 81.5 degrees, which is about 600 miles shy of the North Pole.

600 miles shy of the North Pole? Where the thickest ice is? Therefore, as quoted above, how can they say "the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic fell by 26%, when they can't even get their goddam instrumentation to cover the thickest part of the Arctic. So, this proves the figures are wrong and more than likely fudged.

Btw, LaserGuy..agree with you:

wonder how the ice recovery is doing now,alongside global temps,and not forgetting those ever increasing CO2 levels?

I don't think you've had a reply to that yet, and you have asked once or twice..like you say it's all exasperating, tiring and one falsehood after another interwoven with scare tactics. I really couldn't care less now. Damn them :o

Edited October 28, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Gray-Wolf]

600 miles shy of the North Pole? Where the thickest ice is?

I think you'll find the Arctic ice is a little more Mobile than you allude too. The central portion (the geographic pole) is not the domain of multi-year perennial as this was lost to the Atlantic over the period 2002-2008 and is now more likely to be 3 year old ice that has travelled there from the Russian sector. The Buoys/ice probes used to track the ice movement are easily available to track and there are plenty of 'movies' of time lapse sequences to adequately illustrate how the Arctic, and other ,gyres rotate/move the ice around up there.

As I have said many times before some people do come on here to be informed about our cryosphere,not just entertained by a pack of jokers, some recent posts seem purely content to highlight personal ignorance of postee's as they bring nothing to further our understanding of the recent workings of the cryosphere (or, in fact, the ancient cyclical workings of the same).

If our Mod's do wish to give the impression of order on the thread then maybe some of the more 'errant post' could be removed allowing the more pertinent ones to be viewed rather than lost in the clutter?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aparently one vessel did 'circumnavigate' the pole via both NW and N passages over the summer

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Research...h_Pole_999.html

they returned home on oct 24th

Edited October 28, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[J10]

To say this topic has gone a bit off topic is an understatement, please stay on topic, as any further diversions will be deleted.

[laserguy]

Why is that concerning? We all gonna die or something? Are the poor ickle Polar Bears gonna be snuffed out? Just why is that so concerning?

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/10/chur...rvey-found.html

Well,polar bears live in the area in question so this is sorta on topic,J1!

[J10]

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/10/chur...rvey-found.html

Well,polar bears live in the area in question so this is sorta on topic,J1!

It relates to Arctic Ice and so is fine,

[Roger J Smith]

Okay, I hope this will be on topic.

Have a close look at this map of today's conditions around the arctic. Some of the temperatures west of the Canadian arctic islands in the range of -5 to +1 seem to be either surface water or ice temperatures, or under-the-ice water temperatures, because air temperatures in the region are obviously in the range of -20 to -30 C. The readings I am talking about are in light green colour mostly and have crosses beside them.

Anyone know for sure what these readings indicate? They seem new on today's map, I look at this map most days and don't see readings like these, just the air temperatures which I assume are from remote sensors on the ice or interpolations of satellite and weather map.

Meanwhile, I think you'll agree, winter is well advanced on nearby (60-70 N) land masses in the arctic basin, Alaska and northeast Siberia have been running some sporty -20 to -30 C temperatures recently.

Cold air is pouring out of the arctic in two regions now, yours, and the Great Lakes. There are long streamers of snow squalls coming in from southern Lake Huron at the present time. Seems like the arctic is flexing its muscles (about time) this autumn.

Whoops, forgot the map:

http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geome...nNNWWarctis.gif

Edited October 28, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Gray-Wolf]

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/10/chur...rvey-found.html

Well,polar bears live in the area in question so this is sorta on topic,J1!

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Polar_be...expert_999.html

Swings and roundabouts methinks

[Mondy]

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/10/chur...rvey-found.html

Well,polar bears live in the area in question so this is sorta on topic,J1!

They have been around for 100,000 odd years so they most definately have seen warmer times.

They have been around for 100,000 odd years so they most definately have seen warmer times.

Btw, what a difference a year makes..wow!

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=27&sy=2008

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi all,

I'd like to start off by saying that despite my leave of absence I am still a skeptic. But there has been a lot of nonsense on these boards by certain skeptics which really does show the more moderate skeptics in a bad light. So I'm afreaid I have to respond to this one from DXR:

Tsk, silly me

I read the BBC link posted earlier (after saying I wouldn't). Yep, it's just how imagined it to be, but as TWS says, they surprisingly don't mention agw or Global Warming - well done to them - perhaps even they know a huge hoax is taking place.

I then check out my local BBC section (that'll be Scotland) and noted this article tucked away ( I almost never noticed it) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/7693701.stm

It must be said that we are talking about Arctic Sea Ice here - the article you have linked to is about the Antarctic. The Arctic sea ice thickness is pretty easy to measure by satellite - every school boy knows that only one-tenth of an iceberg is visible, while the remaining nine-tenths are below the water, so if there is a metre of ice protruding above sea level then there mst be nine metres below the waves. The problem is measuring ice-thickness on land, because the satellites can't penetrate the ice. So we can't directly measure ice thickness, but we can infer ice thickness by alternative means if tht ice is floating on water.

The article above is about a project to accurately map the mountains buried beneath several kilometres of ice and snow in the Antarctic.

600 miles shy of the North Pole? Where the thickest ice is? Therefore, as quoted above, how can they say "the average thickness of sea ice over the whole Arctic fell by 26%, when they can't even get their goddam instrumentation to cover the thickest part of the Arctic. So, this proves the figures are wrong and more than likely fudged.

I'm going to ignore the ridiculous comments prior to this (e.g. "not even the length of a ruler") and hop along to this one. Again, if ice thickness fell by around 26% virtually everywhere they measured then they can infer a similar decrease in places they haven't measured. It may not be 100% bang on the correct answer, but it is a reasonable inference. It's a bit much to conclude that the figures are "more than likely fudged".

There seems to be a certain amount of hysteria in these types of post - it is possible to be skeptical about AGW (or ACC or whatever you want to call it) without having to resort to name-calling and conspiracy-theorising. It is possible for people to be wrong without being duplicitous. It is possible for a theory to be wrong without it being a deliberate hoax.

Two words:

Calm Down.

CB

PS - I know off-topic posts were going to be deleted, but I sincerely hope you allow this to stand.

[Mondy]

Thanks Mr C-Bob

That's me been told off good and proper, lol ..I'll go play on another forum now..I'm done spamming here

*goes away with tail between legs*