So, can we suppose that "if" global warming is actually occurring, maybe it only applies to the upper half of this sphere we live on, since there is record ice to the south?? :)
I suppose hell will have to freeze over before most of the global warming preachers would admit to their fallacy of thought. On the basis of track record, even then, they would probably credit "global warming" as the reason of cause for hell freezing over!!!!!!!!!!!! :o
The first link is an interesting read, and the second link has data pics and graphs that can be clicked on for detail views.
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Quote from: rdunk on June 29, 2014, 05:07:40 PM
So, can we suppose that "if" global warming is actually occurring, maybe it only applies to the upper half of this sphere we live on, since there is record ice to the south?? :)
I think that's possible, and if true that it shows that global warming is not a result of the action of the Sun, as that would affect both hemispheres in the same way.
Quote from: ArMaP on June 29, 2014, 05:15:48 PM
I think that's possible, and if true that it shows that global warming is not a result of the action of the Sun, as that would affect both hemispheres in the same way.
ArMaP, I understand your statement of thought, but...............the Sun is absolutely the Earth's external warming heater. Without it, this hunk we live on would be very very cold - assuming that the molten sub-surface interior would do very little toward actually warming the surface.
Of course, the Sun's heating properties are influenced by the orbital position of the Earth, which relates directly to the hot to cold seasons of the Earth areas. Different areas of the earth even have the differing seasons at opposite times of the year because of Earth's positional relationship to the Sun. So, for normal wether patterns, there are differing times of the year for the Sun's warming/cooling influence on the various parts of our hemisphere anyway.
But we possibly should take note when record icing levels are depicted in the collection of data. According to the article, satellite measurement of polar ice first began 1979, so this is the new all-time (35 year) record high.
Only time will tell, but, such could be prolonged-over-time indicators of a move into a very long term cold period for this Earth - happenings as noted in the ice-core sample data, which has also been discussed in other threads here.
Quote from: rdunk on June 29, 2014, 06:08:57 PM
Of course, the Sun's heating properties are influenced by the orbital position of the Earth, which relates directly to the hot to cold seasons of the Earth areas. Different areas of the earth even have the differing seasons at opposite times of the year because of Earth's positional relationship to the Sun. So, for normal wether patterns, there are differing times of the year for the Sun's warming/cooling influence on the various parts of our hemisphere anyway.
Yes, there differences between the north and south hemispheres, resulting from the fact that Earth's axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the orbit's plane, so if the Sun is getting warmer (for example), that should affect both hemispheres in the same way, not affect one more than the other.
QuoteBut we possibly should take note when record icing levels are depicted in the collection of data. According to the article, satellite measurement of polar ice first began 1979, so this is the new all-time (35 year) record high.
Yes, we have too little data for really knowing anything related to climate, as, by definition, climate is something that happens on the long run.
But that high is for the south pole, if you look at the data from the north pole you will see that it shows the opposite effect, with a decline of size of the ice area, that's why I said that I don't think an external source would make a result that that.
QuoteOnly time will tell, but, such could be prolonged-over-time indicators of a move into a very long term cold period for this Earth - happenings as noted in the ice-core sample data, which has also been discussed in other threads here.
That's for sure, time will tell, but it will probably tell us many years from now. :)
Not sure if this means anything, ArMaP...
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/
QuoteCryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year
Posted on February 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Measurements from ESA's CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this past autumn.
The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.
So... Who to believe....?
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 29, 2014, 08:41:40 PM
So... Who to believe....?
They can both be right, as the link posted by
rdunk talks about ice area and the one you posted about ice volume, and you can see that, even if the area was the same (hard to tell just by those images), the thickness was bigger.
The point being, ArMaP, that the ice at BOTH poles is growing - in thickness or in area covered.
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 29, 2014, 09:56:11 PM
The point being, ArMaP, that the ice at BOTH poles is growing - in thickness or in area covered.
Where did you see that the south pole ice thickness increased? ???
Where did You read Me saying it did?
The N. pole is thickening, the S. pole is widening. Either way, the amount of ice is increasing at both poles.
Quote from: Amaterasu on June 30, 2014, 01:59:04 AM
Where did You read Me saying it did?
The N. pole is thickening, the S. pole is widening. Either way, the amount of ice is increasing at both poles.
A bigger area doesn't mean more ice, that's why I thought you were talking about thickening on the South Pole too, as that's the only sure measure of an increase in volume.
Well then. It is reverse of what You said before? The NORTH pole is getting ice and the SOUTH pole is merely spreading its ice farther (getting thinner in the process, I might presume?)?
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 02, 2014, 04:44:38 AM
Well then. It is reverse of what You said before? The NORTH pole is getting ice and the SOUTH pole is merely spreading its ice farther (getting thinner in the process, I might presume?)?
It
may be the reverse, I haven't seen enough data.
The link you posted says that there was an increase on the volume of the ice when compared with the previous autumn, but, from what I understood of what they say in the article, that's a new satellite, so they don't have more data and can only compare the last two years.
As for the south pole, with only the area we cannot really know if it's thinner coverage or the same thickness and a bigger area, I suppose we need a second satellite to study the south pole.
Well, ArMaP, whether We have data for decades or just two years, the north pole gained more ice this year than last. This suggests surely that no "runaway global warming" is happening ala Al Gore. But I agree it's too little data to ascertain any pattern.
As for the south pole... If the area of icing increases, either 1) there is more ice there or, 2) the ice is thinning to spread out. Just saying. Which do YOU think it is?
hummmmmmmmmmm
i wonder if this could be connected.???...naw probably just one of those co-winkie-dink things
An entire island nation is preparing to evacuate to Fiji before they sink into the Pacific
14 hr ago |By Gwynn Guilford of Quartz
This has to be the weirdest business deal of the week: The Church of England just sold a chunk of forest-covered land on the Fijian island Vanau Levu for $8.8 million to the government of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati. For the moment, Kiribati plans to use its 20-square-kilometer (7.7-square-mile) plot for agriculture and fish farming. But the investment is really a fallback for its 103,000 residents—a place to live if they must leave their home island.
"We would hope not to put everyone on [this] one piece of land, but if it became absolutely necessary, yes, we could do it," president Anote Tong told the Associated Press, via the Guardian. Tong is awaiting parliamentary approval of the land purchase before clearing that possibility formally with Fiji's officials.
Why is Tong preparing for a mass defection to an island 2,000 kilometers away?
The seas around Kiribati's 32 atolls (ring-shaped coral reefs) are rising 1.2 centimeters (0.5 inches) a year—about four times faster than the global average—thanks to the flux of ocean currents. Some experts think that by 2100, the country will have disappeared beneath the waves. That may be optimistic; some residents expect the sea to subsume their homes within 20 or 30 years.
That's a grim outlook. But the present isn't exactly peachy either. With its atolls no more than about three meters (9.8 feet) above sea level, Kiribati currently faces periodic food shortages thanks largely to rising tides. Not only does rampant flooding caused by spring tides destroy homes and businesses, but it also increases the salt content of the soil, ravaging crops and tainting fresh water sources. On top of that, coral bleaching caused by the heating of ocean waters has decimated the marine ecosystems built off those reefs, driving fish away. That's why one of the short-term advantages of the purchase of the Vanau Levu plot is that it should help secure food supply for Kiribati's residents.
The situation has gotten so bad that some Kiribati residents have tried to claim asylum in New Zealand, arguing that the burning of fossil fuels by industrial countries is a form of persecution against people vulnerable to its consequences. So far, courts have dismissed these arguments for emigration, which may be why the Kiribati government is opting for the investment route instead.
The people of Kiribati might have been the first to make these claims, but they probably won't be the last; recent estimates predict that the number of "climate refugees"—people displaced by the effects of global warming—will reach 700 million by 2050.
http://news.msn.com/world/an-entire-island-nation-is-preparing-to-evacuate-to-fiji-before-they-sink-into-the-pacific-1
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 02, 2014, 09:54:07 AM
Well, ArMaP, whether We have data for decades or just two years, the north pole gained more ice this year than last.
QuoteThis suggests surely that no "runaway global warming" is happening ala Al Gore.
I don't really know Al Gore's version, as I ignore politicians' opinions. ;D
QuoteAs for the south pole... If the area of icing increases, either 1) there is more ice there or, 2) the ice is thinning to spread out. Just saying. Which do YOU think it is?
I don't have any idea of which of those it could be, and, apparently, neither do the scientists, and that's why they launched that new satellite to measure the thickness of the ice layer.
I suppose that, once more, time will tell. :)
Quote from: sky otter on July 02, 2014, 02:57:12 PM
On top of that, coral bleaching caused by the heating of ocean waters has decimated the marine ecosystems built off those reefs, driving fish away.
According to some people, that's where the bigger difference in temperature is, and the air temperatures are only a consequence of the warmer sea waters.
Unfortunately, the oceans are even less known than the atmosphere, so there's not much knowledge about it.
so if I read this correctly, the ice volume in the arctic increased by 50% from the previous year; cool. can those satellites measuring the ice pack be accessed by peons like us so we can check and see how it is as of right now?
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on July 02, 2014, 08:30:52 PM
so if I read this correctly, the ice volume in the arctic increased by 50% from the previous year; cool.
It looks like it, but it also looks like Antarctica is really losing ice (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/full).
Quotecan those satellites measuring the ice pack be accessed by peons like us so we can check and see how it is as of right now?
It looks like they accept people from the "scientific community", but I guess anyone can try it here (https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/pi-community/apply-for-data/fast-registration). :)
PS: I suspect the data available is in some kind of "raw" format, probably just numbers that have to be interpreted.
As I should suspect in a case like this, this is satellite is orbiting in a near polar orbit, so it "sees" both poles (except a small area exactly on the poles, as the orbits is just near polar, not really polar), that's why there's data available for Antarctica too, as seen on my previous post. :)
wellllllllllll..maybe you don't have to be to scientifically oriented
quick search using:
can satellites measuring the ice pack be accessed by anyone
you'll have to go to the sites to read everything.. i only copied the start of the info
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Read scientific analysis on Arctic sea ice conditions. We provide an update during the first week of each month, or more frequently as conditions warrant
? Previous Article June changes its tune
July 2, 2014 Arctic sea ice extent continues its seasonal decline. Through most of June the pace of decline was near average, but increased towards the end of the month.
...................................................
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/sea-ice/
All posts tagged sea ice
Hot Arctic Water, High Pressure Domes Pushing Sea Ice Toward New Record Lows
It doesn't take much to shove Arctic sea ice toward new record low values these days. Human caused climate change has made it easy for all kinds of weather systems to bully the ice.
In the case of the past seven days, three moderate strength high pressure cells churned away over the central Arctic, bringing with them clear skies, air temperatures in the range of average for 1979-2000 above the 70 North Latitude line, and a clockwise circulation favoring sea ice compaction and warm water upwelling at the ice edge.
The highs measured in the range of 1020 to 1025 hPa barometric pressure. Moderate-strength weather conditions that during a typical year of the last century would have been almost completely non-noteworthy. Today, instead, we have sea ice extent testing new record lows in the Japanese Space Agency's monitor:
.....................................
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Link to this pageWhat the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.
Climate Myth...Antarctica is gaining ice
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.
In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.
In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.
..................................................................
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/New_dimensions_on_ice
CryoSat at a glanceAn Earth ExplorerCryoSat: an icy missionEarth's changing iceFacts and figures
About the satellite...
PlatformInstrumentsAbout the launch...
Launch siteLauncherAfter launchMeet the team...
Richard Francis - Project Manager Tommaso Parrinello - Mission Manager Duncan Wingham, Lead Investigator Klaus Köble, EADS Astrium Project Manager Mark Drinkwater, Mission Scientist Bill Simpson, Launch Campaign Manager Nic Mardle, Spacecraft Operations Manager Laurent Rey, Thales Alenia Space SIRAL Project Manager Malcolm Davidson, Validation Manager MultimediaImage Gallery Videos Online documents
ESA > Our Activities > Observing the Earth > CryoSat
Arctic ice thickness 2010–13
Access the video
New dimensions on ice11 September 2013
Offering new insights into our fragile polar regions, ESA's CryoSat mission has provided three consecutive years of Arctic sea-ice thickness measurements, which show that the ice continues to thin.
Although satellites have witnessed a downward trend in the extent of sea ice over the last two decades, it is essential to have accurate information on the mass or volume of ice being lost. This is a more accurate measure of the changes taking place.
Along with observations of ice extent, CryoSat's measurements of thickness now span from October 2010 to April 2013, allowing scientists to work out the real loss of ice, monitor seasonal change and identify trends.
.....................................................
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/antarctic-sea-ice-increase/
? Pity the Fool Tiny Graphs
?Antarctic Sea Ice Increase
Posted on February 4, 2014 | 23 Comments
There's no doubt that the amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased, by a lot. I would even describe the decrease as "staggering." Meanwhile, the amount of sea ice in the Antarctic has trended in the opposite direction, i.e. it has grown. Has its increase also been "staggering?" Let's look at the data.
Here's Antarctic sea ice extent anomaly, monthly data from NSIDC (the National Snow and Ice Data Center), with the baseline period for "anomaly" calculation selected as the entire time span, together with a lowess smooth (in red):
8)
So again, We're faced with a "who to believe" situation. I have many sites saying the north is gaining ice and many that are saying the opposite... Hmmmm.
Well, while we were talkig about the record antarctic record ice growth, the "record" fell. Antarctic sea ice hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. It will be interesting to see how long these "new weekly records" continue. We may want to start digging out the really insulated stuff if this continues into the coming winter!! :)
Antarctic sea ice hits second all-time record in a week
Posted on July 2, 2014 by stevengoddard
stevengoddard:
Mark Serreze demonstrates a classic example of making up technical sounding gibberish to confuse laymen.
Originally posted on Talking About the Weather:
Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007, as I reported here, and also covered in my book.
Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.
Serreze
"The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean – water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced..."
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/
Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded!
That is the headline of a July 12, 2014 article. Are we beginning to see world evidence of global cooling??
Posted on July 12, 201 by Anthony Watts
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d'Urville Station.
According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F).
June this year also broke the June daily minimum temperature record, with a new record low of -34.9c (-30.8F).
Other unusual features of the June temperature record are an unusual excess of sunlight hours (11.8 hours rather than the normal 7.4 hours), and unusually light wind conditions.
Dumont d'Urville Station has experienced ongoing activity since 1956. According to the Meteo France record, there is no other weather station for 1000km in any direction.
http://www.meteofrance.fr/web/comprendre-la-meteo/actualites?articleId=8990197
h/t IceAgeNow
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
Quote from: rdunk on July 14, 2014, 06:54:22 AM
That is the headline of a July 12, 2014 article. Are we beginning to see world evidence of global cooling??
Only when the global temperatures get lower. :)
Local differences in temperatures do not mean that global temperatures are getting higher or lower, and one thing expected from global warming was that the extreme temperatures (both high and low) would get more extreme.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 14, 2014, 09:20:15 AM
.... one thing expected from global warming was that the extreme temperatures (both high and low) would get more extreme.
I remember reading this in several articles. When more energy is in the system, you get higher highs, and also lower lows.
Quote from: rdunk on July 14, 2014, 06:54:22 AM
Other unusual features of the June temperature record are an unusual excess of sunlight hours (11.8 hours rather than the normal 7.4 hours), and unusually light wind conditions.
What does THIS mean??? The days are longer than predicted? By 4.4 hours??? Or what?
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2014, 07:28:20 PM
What does THIS mean??? The days are longer than predicted? By 4.4 hours??? Or what?
Less hours with cloud cover = more hours with direct sunlight.
Ahhhh. It didn't specify why there was more sunlight. So... We're blocking sunlight with "geoengineering" to "keep it cool" while MORE sunlight seems to equate to lower temps at the south pole...?
Maybe the "geoengineering" is to keep Us warm...?
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 14, 2014, 07:56:12 PM
So... We're blocking sunlight with "geoengineering" to "keep it cool" while MORE sunlight seems to equate to lower temps at the south pole...?
It depends.
Less cloud coverage during the day lets more sunlight hit the surface, resulting in more energy received and, most likely, higher temperatures. During the night, the cloud cover prevents Earth to emit some of the heat received back to space, so a small cloud coverage results in lower temperatures.
During summer, with long days and small nights, less cloud coverage means more heat, but in winter, with long nights and small days, less cloud coverage means more heat radiated back to space and lower temperatures.
The weaker winds are also interesting, as it may mean that there's a lower difference in atmospheric pressures in the surrounding area, which may mean that there isn't such a great difference in temperatures in the whole area as before, as different temperatures create different atmospheric pressures and these create the winds.
QuoteMaybe the "geoengineering" is to keep Us warm...?
If that's what they want they should do it in the winter and not doing it in the summer. :)
Well, yes, ArMaP. I understand the principles You outlined there. That's why I thought it odd that Antarctica had MORE sunlight, yet colder temps.
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 15, 2014, 12:15:43 AM
Well, yes, ArMaP. I understand the principles You outlined there. That's why I thought it odd that Antarctica had MORE sunlight, yet colder temps.
I don't understand it.
You say you understand the principles and that's why you find it odd they work like that? ???
Let's see. We're talking about LESS cloud cover DURING SUNLIGHT HOURS - that SHOULD allow MORE warmth in. BUT...it's colder.
So. Yeah I understand the principles You outlined. And yeah. This is OPPOSITE of them.
I am just curious as to how they are getting so much sunlight considering it is dead of winter down there? 4 hours more daylight is quite a bit...
seeker
Quote from: Amaterasu on July 15, 2014, 06:12:17 PM
Let's see. We're talking about LESS cloud cover DURING SUNLIGHT HOURS - that SHOULD allow MORE warmth in. BUT...it's colder.
So. Yeah I understand the principles You outlined. And yeah. This is OPPOSITE of them.
Do you think the clouds appear suddenly at sunset? ???
A cloudless day, except if there are local nuances or a change in the weather, means also a cloudless night, making it a colder night, specially in winter.
According to the site (http://terreadelie.sblanc.com/pages/rythme-du-soleil-en-antarctique.htm) of the Dumont d'Urville base (where these measurements were made), in June they only have 3 hours of sunlight.
Quote from: the seeker on July 15, 2014, 08:44:08 PM
I am just curious as to how they are getting so much sunlight considering it is dead of winter down there? 4 hours more daylight is quite a bit...
During the whole month, 4 hours is not that much. :)
In December the average is 346 hours.
Quote from: ArMaP on July 15, 2014, 09:18:15 PM
Do you think the clouds appear suddenly at sunset? ???
A cloudless day, except if there are local nuances or a change in the weather, means also a cloudless night, making it a colder night, specially in winter.
According to the site (http://terreadelie.sblanc.com/pages/rythme-du-soleil-en-antarctique.htm) of the Dumont d'Urville base (where these measurements were made), in June they only have 3 hours of sunlight.
Ahhhh. Ok. I get it now. Thanks, ArMaP. [smile]
Quote from: ArMaP on July 15, 2014, 09:19:35 PM
During the whole month, 4 hours is not that much. :)
In December the average is 346 hours.
Aye, a matter of semantics; don't recall seeing it stated it was a monthly versus a daily total...
I know when i was in Alaska during July-August of 'o6 it never got dark... it was a hoot eating fresh caught fresh smoked salmon at sunny midnight in the land of the midnight sun 8)
seeker