New Solar Cycle Prediction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aren't glaciers formed buy precipitatin? If that's reduced, they'd probally retreat regardless of temp.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Aren't glaciers formed buy precipitatin? If that's reduced, they'd probally retreat regardless of temp.

Shhhhh! They don't want to hear that.
 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/nsidc-pulls-the-plug-on-artic-sea-ice-graphs/
Quote:
As we first pointed out to NSIDC back on 2/18/09 (even though it “wasn’t worth blogging about”) the sensor has been on the fritz for quite awhile, calling the whole arctic sea ice series into question. From their most recent announcement, it looks like that it is now “DOA”:

Here’s what they say now.From NSIDC’s web site:

Update: May 26 2009 The daily image update has been temporarily suspended because of large areas of missing data in the past week. NSIDC currently gets its data from the SSM/I sensor on the DMSP F13 satellite, which is nearing the end of its operational life and experiencing intermittent problems.

NSIDC has been working on a transition to a newer sensor on the F17 satellite for several months. At this time, we have more than a year of data from F17, which we are using to intercalibrate with F13 data. The F17 data are not yet available for near-real-time updates. We will resume posting daily updates as soon as possible, either from F13, if the present problem is resolved, or from F17, when the transition is complete.

It doesn’t look promising to get any usable data for the last 6 months or more, since it clearly has been corrupted by the sensor issues.

crackmeup2.gif
 
If oxygen is so valuable ..and a living environment so precious, the market will provide it.

For example, your current temperate climate may soon turn arid or into tundra. Other areas may turn sub tropical. The market will then offer you nothing for your current flag pole, and be more than willing to sell you new land ..with the money that you don't have since you've already had it fleeced from you ..by the market.
 
Funny, you seem to quote only Watts( who is neither a climatologist or a geologist). Can't you come up with anything from actual geologists who study glaciers,and actually know what they're talking about?

Plenty of studies on glaciers that show a worldwide net loss, yet you insist on being silly.

Any first year geology student can tell you that glaciers form when one year's snow doesn't melt and is covered by successive year's snow, the weight of which turns the snow into ice. Glaciers don't recede merely because the snow stops falling, anymore than ice in your freezer will melt just because you stop putting more trays of water inside.
Some of you really should crack a book open about a subject before you attempt to discuss it. I can recommend several texts, but I realize it's easier to just surf the net until you find some nuggets you like and present them as facts. As shame, because glaciers and the things they do they do are pretty interesting.
 
Originally Posted By: benjamming
So is Watts wrong in regards to the NSIDC sensor problems?


He may be correct ..but you could also say that Wall St. had totally functional indicators ..while the physics of the events were undeniable.

Some people like the elephants in the room to remain invisible.
 
Quote:
Plenty of studies on glaciers that show a worldwide net loss, yet you insist on being silly.

Please show me where I have stated that there is not glacier loss.
Quote:
the weight of which turns the snow into ice. Glaciers don't recede merely because the snow stops falling, anymore than ice in your freezer will melt just because you stop putting more trays of water inside.

So if glaciers have been receding for 7 decades or even hundreds of years, any warming that is occurring must have started occurring long before 30 years ago...

As to experts:
Quote:
Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.

So much for Greenland ice’s Armageddon. “It has come to an end,” glaciologist Tavi Murray of Swansea University in the United Kingdom said during a session at the meeting. “There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off” of the speed-up, she said. Nearly everywhere around south east Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000. An increasingly warmer climate will no doubt eat away at the Greenland ice sheet for centuries, glaciologists say, but no one should be extrapolating the ice’s recent wild behavior into the future.

And:
Quote:
Our reconstruction indicates that the melt observed since the late 1990s is likely among the highest extents to have occurred since the late 18th century, although recent values are not statistically different from those common during the period 1923-1961, a time when summer temperatures along the southern coast of Greenland were similarly high as those experienced in recent years.

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/greenlands-ice-armageddon-on-hold/
 
As to modeling:
Quote:
Professor Andrew Watson at the University of East Anglia researches carbon uptake in the oceans.

He fears dangerous climate change; but he told BBC News that basic science on the carbon cycle is too poorly understood to make a meaningful contribution to models.

"We have to try to model an immensely complex system all the way from the tropical rainforest, the oceans, the northern hemisphere forests, the soil - and we have no fundamental equations to do that with," he says.

"When we are modelling the physics of the oceans and the atmosphere, we do have some fundamental equations.

"We don't have those for the living parts of the system."

And:
Quote:
Professor Roy Spencer, a meteorologist from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a noted critic of the IPCC, accepts that this forecast may be right - but believes that the opposite will prove true.

He thinks clouds are impossible to model at present.

"We just haven't had very good data for more than about six years pertaining to clouds," he says.

"And obviously climate change is a multi-decade or a century-timescale kind of thing.

"We would've needed really good cloud observations for the last 50 years to know how clouds affect climate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7381250.stm
And yet the IPCC is writing US law based on these models.
 
"So if glaciers have been receding for 7 decades or even hundreds of years, any warming that is occurring must have started occurring long before 30 years ago..."

Thirty years ago would have been 1979, why would you find that to be significant? Are you just obstinate, or do you not understand that one big point is that even if this warming period is part of a natural cycle, it's highly possible that human activity, can and is accelerating it?


"An increasingly warmer climate will no doubt eat away at the Greenland ice sheet for centuries, glaciologists say, but no one should be extrapolating the ice’s recent wild behavior into the future."

I guess you really don't actually read or understand what you post, do you?


As for the quotes about models, read them again. And also understand that most disagreement about various models is over timing and scope, not the end result.
And of course, predicting the future is always an iffy prospect, but you can observe longterm trends and be aware of what factors are present.
 
"Please show me where I have stated that there is not glacier loss."

"We have been down that path before. You are perfectly aware that some glaciers are indeed growing, that many glaciers that are shrinking have been doing so for far longer than a couple of decades, that polar ice is increasing, and that aircraft measurements show ice twice as thick as previously believed in certain areas."

With this post you imply that "many" glaciers are growing, which is untrue. If you said "several", or maybe even a dozen", you'd be closer to the truth, as you would be if you said by far the majority of glaciers worldwide are receding.
And your statement about polar ice is just plain false, that's all there is to it.
 
As for Watts,
Interesting comments here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/antony-watts-and-surface-stations-wait.html

And here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/05/ns...attsupwiththat/

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/200...erature-record/

"A recent effort by Anthony Watts and a team of dozens of volunteers at SurfaceStations.org succeeded in surveying and photographing more than one third of the 1,221 temperature measuring stations in the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). An analysis of the temperature trend in the stations identified as well sited and rural corresponds surprisingly well with the official NASA GISTEMP temperature record of the United States. The similar findings suggest that, despite a number of poor quality measuring stations, the official temperature record for the U.S. appears to be quite accurate."
 
The last one is interesting and I'll have to look into it. Something that really stood out however was:
Quote:
However, the media should be aware of the risks in mistaking these holes for actual cracks in the underlying science of anthropogenic climate change.

The article was about the accuracy of stations, and yet they throw in the AGW mention, for which there is no support mentioned. Kinda' shows a mind set.

The second one uses the flawed sensor data WITH NO MENTION of the failure. And they call Watts unscientific. Also, the "melting pole" was reported as the entire poll melting, with no correction from Serreze. How appropriate that they promote him to head of the organization.

The best part was:
Quote:
One major difference is in the type of algorithm used. Sea ice area or extent is not directly measured by satellites. Satellites are actually measuring the amount of energy coming from the surface at certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (in this case microwaves). The amount of energy emitted depends on the type of surface and there is a difference between ice and water. But to get from energy to sea ice extent/area, you need to use an algorithm to make that conversion. Several different algorithms have been developed using various methods. In a general sense they all yield similar results, but they do differ in the details, which can result in offsets between algorithm estimates….

There are also other processing features that differ. Sometimes energy from locations without ice that are right along the coast or in areas of strong ocean waves can resemble the energy from ice-covered regions and be counted as ice. There are are various approaches used to filter out these known erroneous ice zones. Different approaches may yield different numbers.

The key point is that for a given algorithm and processing method, if one is careful to account for differences in the series of sensors used over the years, one can get a very consistent timeseries of sea ice extent and area that one can use to track changes in the ice cover.

However, one cannot “mix-and-match” algorithms or processing methods.

This is exactly what I have been saying. What is the quality control and "check"?

As to ice thickness:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/05/arctic-ice-twice-as-thick-as-expected.html
 
"They" threw in the AGW part because Watts is well-known for his anti-AGW stance, and the entire point of his "study" is to make the case that there is no such thing.
AS for the quality control and "check", you don't seem to comprehend what you read very well at times.

Ice thickness. Hmm, why is it always easier to take as gospel what you find on some blogger's site, than to reach to the source?

"To conduct the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the ice cover. Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily." Not the word "temporarily".

2.5 meters is about 8 feet. 4 meters is about 13 feet.
From NASA'a web page dated 4/06/09,
"The older, thicker sea ice is declining and is being replaced with newer, thinner ice that is more vulnerable to summer melt, according to Kwok. His team found that seasonal sea ice averages about 6 feet in thickness, while ice that had lasted through more than one summer averages about 9 feet, though it can grow much thicker in some locations near the coast."

Twice as thick? Doesn't seem to be. Multiplying 6 by 2 would be 12 feet, not 8.
And, by the way, why are you so prepared to believe in the accuracy of a sensor towed behind an airplane--for the first time--over data from a very expensive and sophisticated satellite? Not that the data appears to be very different.
The airplane survey covered limited area, while the satellite covered much more area.

By the way, did you come up with a list of retreating glaciers vs. advancing ones? Seems like I showed you one a few weeks or months back....
 
Quote:
And, by the way, why are you so prepared to believe in the accuracy of a sensor towed behind an airplane--for the first time--over data from a very expensive and sophisticated satellite?

Satellite sensor is known to be defective. If you have similar information for the aircraft I would like to see it.

Quote:
The older, thicker sea ice is declining and is being replaced with newer

There was a major melt in 2007, so of course "older" ice has declined. DUH. Most if not all of that ice came back last year.

Also:
Quote:
"The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

Using SORCE, scientists have learned that about 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere during the sun's quietest period. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy reaches Earth. "This TSI measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to assess Earth-based forces on climate change," said Cahalan.

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

And I actually provided this proAGW site about glaciers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
 
Originally Posted By: Stuart Hughes
And here I thought this was gonna be about sunspots, solar winds, etc, & their effects on radio waves.
33.gif



Hello, Stuart ...it's just FossilFuelman making his usual disinformation sales pitch.

How's the NEON?
 
Tempest, which satellite are you talking about? Do you even know?
A sensor on one satellite which NSIDC gets data from experienced drift, which was recognized.
NASA uses a different satellite, do you have evidence that there is a problem with it?


"Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004."

So, where's the other 75%?

""Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns."

Oh, well, there's about 40% of it...
Why don't you read things you post parts of in their entirety?

Did you care to scroll down the page you linked to about glaciers? Notice anything?

glacemb.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G-MAN
  • Locked
New 600bhp Continental GT Speed
Replies
11
Views
4K
G-MAN
Back
Top