Carinth's Arctic Sea Ice Watch Thread

[Turnedoutniceagain]

How dare you. When Norwich's mustard shop is under 3 feet of water you wont be saying that.

:lol: :lol:

I'm alright Jack !!

[Mondy]

http://arctic-roos.org/

With the onslaught of Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, ice still holding up well.

Over 1 million sq.km up on 2007 and approx half a million sq.km from 2008.

And talk about all things cyclical:

I really don't see anything to worry about.

Nice to see the Hudson Bay retaining ice:

And from these coloured areas, all parts experiencing upturns in sea ice.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satell...lity-in-regions

Arctic Roos :lol:

Edited June 25, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Mondy]

Forecasted sea ice:

Actual

Lot to be said for forecasts/model generation and how wrong they can be. Guess the IPCC use this kind of forecasting technique too to make things look worse than they actually are?

At quick glance, they look pretty much the same, but when you think about million km.sq in extent there is a huge difference in ice, with the forecast not following the actual. Look at the Hudson Strait as a prime example. Not Hudson Bay, the Strait. The forecast has no ice, the actual has tons, and that is the problem.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Delta X-Ray

[Duane S.]

Lot to be said for forecasts/model generation and how wrong they can be. Guess the IPCC use this kind of forecasting technique too to make things look worse than they actually are?

At quick glance, they look pretty much the same, but when you think about million km.sq in extent there is a huge difference in ice, with the forecast not following the actual. Look at the Hudson Strait as a prime example. Not Hudson Bay, the Strait. The forecast has no ice, the actual has tons, and that is the problem.

They and the deluded will spin it, they always do. It would probably take the sight of penguins walking down Oxford Street for them to admit that there is a small possibilty that they may have been wrong in their 'calculations'.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

They and the deluded will spin it, they always do. It would probably take the sight of penguins walking down Oxford Street for them to admit that there is a small possibilty that they may have been wrong in their 'calculations'.

Any updates here guys ??

[J10]

Any updates here guys ??

Weekly updates are done every Sunday on the Arctic Ice thread. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/55299-arctic-ice-2009/

[Mondy]

You'd think by looking at this (currently) a virtual online melt was occuring, but no..check the gain out:

[mountain shadow]

That can't be right surely? If it is things will ice up very very quickly if you complete that graph.

[J10]

The latest updates are in the Arctic sea ice thread. 2009 Sea ice is above 2008 but currently sea ice is still dropping by around 55,000 per day.

[Mondy]

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney

[MR EXTREMES]

The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

http://www.notevilju...-ann-mcelhinney

very intresting indeed.

perhapes if others amitted when they are wrong then the world would listen better.

Edited August 20, 2009 by badboy657

[Thundery wintry showers]

But since 2030 is 21 years away how can we say for definite that anyone is wrong?

[oldsnowywizard]

absolutely... you cant guess what will happen but reflect on what has... and what has happened is a factual reduction of sea ice in the Artic. there are going to be fluctuations.. and i do really hope that levels get back to where they were... id rather err on the side of caution..

[Typhoon John]

But since 2030 is 21 years away how can we say for definite that anyone is wrong?

Have a think about it.

Your argument is like saying, "How can we be sure all humans won't have three arms by 2030?"

[Mondy]

Whisper it Fozi:

*TWS is a secret agw fan*

[Mondy]

Pretty good recovery to me:

[Terminal Moraine]

Have a think about it.

Your argument is like saying, "How can we be sure all humans won't have three arms by 2030?"

I'd say that TWS's argument is not at all like that. As it's taken about 200,000 years for humanity to evolve from its origins to where it is now, and it had two arms at the beginning and still has two arms, it seems to me to be an infinitessimally small chance that we will become a 3 arm species within the next 20 years. In fact I'd stake my house, my pension and the lives of my children on it not being so.

The Arctic ice on the other hand has shown a marked decline in extent and thickness in the last 30 years or so and while it's unlikely that the Arctic will become ice free in the next 20 years it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

If 40% of humanity were currently in posession of 3 arms, whereas 30 years ago everyone had two, I'd be agreeing with you rather than with TWS.

[Iceberg]

Is that a pretty good recovery DXR ?.

[Methuselah]

Is that a pretty good recovery DXR ?.

Well, it is a 'recovery'; there's no-doubt about that, Ice...Even better with all-but the last three years' ice-extents removed??

[Mondy]

Is that a pretty good recovery DXR ?.

Wouldn't you say so by looking at it? Do you agree that is a recovery? Are you not happy to see such a marked improvement in recovering ice?

[Methuselah]

Wouldn't you say so by looking at it? Do you agree that is a recovery? Are you not happy to see such a marked improvement in recovering ice?

By looking at it, yes. But, having all data previous to 2007 removed, of course it looks good (skewed?), Monds...

I do think a 'longer-term' context is more meaningful though, don't you?

[Iceberg]

This is what I see Mondy when I look at your graph.

Is this a recovery ?, I am not sure it is tbh, as ice has been melting quicker this summer than last year, we need to see where it ends up.

[Mondy]

You're looking at the wrong graph.

[Iceberg]

This is what is shows for me Mondy, I've included the bit that says it was posted yesterday. I also refreshed by cache.

Is it a live link ? and has the data changed again ?. The problem with the SMMI data is that it has a habit of jumping around as there are so many technical glitches with it, I think they are going to retire it in the next 18 months.

[Iceberg]

This might explain some of the difference, but not why we see different things when looking at the same post

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic