Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The funniest part is I can and have read two different reports by NOAA that contradict each other

i love these told you so moments..

can we please discuss quantum physics next?
but no string theory please, people might get hurt.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

The arctic is floating ice, ice extent is proportional to ice volume.

No, it's proportional to extent and thickness. The more multi-year ice, the thicker it is and the more volume.

Sea ice volume has been increasing for several years.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

No, it's proportional to extent and thickness. The more multi-year ice, the thicker it is and the more volume.

Sea ice volume has been increasing for several years.

Exactly in line with Dr. Curry's observations & predictions, but the exact opposite of what Jack & others have been claiming! I don't know who's "right," but is there not an objective way of determining such underlying facts? Is it a problem with the science, the source of the graphs, or a matter of interpretation?

When I look at the most recently posted graph, I see an overall downward trend if you look at 1979-2015, but then an upward trend from early 2012 onward. I don't know if this "proves" anything re: the larger MMGW debate, but it would be nice to get some of the underlying data straight.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Just a point of order, which might kinda tie this to sailing, somehow…

With regard to effective use of solar energy for propulsion… that is exactly what we do. Wind is motivated by solar energy. We harness that energy with our sails.

I think that's going to be my final post on this thread. Not that anyone is likely to mind…

I would mind! Have learned some good stuff from your posts, Muckle. And I'm going to use your propulsion comment should someone chide me for not having solar panels on my boat (which I probably will, eventually).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i love these told you so moments..

can we please discuss quantum physics next?
but no string theory please, people might get hurt.

Already have the scars from last time.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Exactly in line with Dr. Curry's observations & predictions, but the exact opposite of what Jack & others have been claiming! I don't know who's "right," but is there not an objective way of determining such underlying facts? Is it a problem with the science, the source of the graphs, or a matter of interpretation?

When I look at the most recently posted graph, I see an overall downward trend if you look at 1979-2015, but then an upward trend from early 2012 onward. I don't know if this "proves" anything re: the larger MMGW debate, but it would be nice to get some of the underlying data straight.

The problem for some of these folks seems to be that the ice hit a minimum point in 2012 and is now rebounding ( time will tell). What we don't want is no ice at all year round. Ice free will lead to humanity experiencing another ice age. ( Which by the way seems to have happened about every 11,500 years) and the last was yep you guessed it about 11,500 years ago. MMGW wil not matter in 20 years due to the data in the next ten will show ( IMO ). that the Arctic is experiencing another long term cooling period of ice volume expansion. Such as currently happening in the southern oceans.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i love these told you so moments..

can we please discuss quantum physics next?
but no string theory please, people might get hurt.

Actually we have discussed several points of quantum physics becides string theory and the antiquated big bang theory. We even discussed the rainbow gravity theory.
Next I propose a thread drift into quantum mechanics. ( after all I are a mechanic )

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Next I propose a thread drift into quantum mechanics. ( after all I are a mechanic )

OH Good, So is a number 6 wentworth spanner better at adjusting "up quarks" or should I use a metric or imperial spanner. Always have problems getting the upquarks just so tight but no more. I think it's tight enough.... but then it's not.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

OH Good, So is a number 6 wentworth spanner better at adjusting "up quarks" or should I use a metric or imperial spanner. Always have problems getting the upquarks just so tight but no more. I think it's tight enough.... but then it's not.

Personally I prefer a #1 ford wrench ( works great on down quarks as well.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

OH Good, So is a number 6 wentworth spanner better at adjusting "up quarks" or should I use a metric or imperial spanner. Always have problems getting the upquarks just so tight but no more. I think it's tight enough.... but then it's not.

Don't buy a torque wrench from anyone named Heisenberg.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The problem for some of these folks seems to be that the ice hit a minimum point in 2012 and is now rebounding ( time will tell). What we don't want is no ice at all year round. Ice free will lead to humanity experiencing another ice age. ( Which by the way seems to have happened about every 11,500 years) and the last was yep you guessed it about 11,500 years ago. MMGW wil not matter in 20 years due to the data in the next ten will show ( IMO ). that the Arctic is experiencing another long term cooling period of ice volume expansion. Such as currently happening in the southern oceans.

11,500?!



http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

You are aware that this 'expanding' sea ice you're going on about is referring to sea ice extent, which means that any coverage of ice greater than 15% is considered complete. Compare this map from AMSR2/University of Bremen to the one below it from the NSIDC and you can see the difference. Sea ice extent is really more useful as a comparison tool than a measure of the health of the ice pack (or lack thereof). As I think has been brought up before, more important is sea ice volume, which is much harder to estimate, but appears to be in a steady, if uneven, decline.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

11,500?!


You are aware that this 'expanding' sea ice you're going on about is referring to sea ice extent, which means that any coverage of ice greater than 15% is considered complete. Compare this map from AMSR2/University of Bremen to the one below it from the NSIDC and you can see the difference. Sea ice extent is really more useful as a comparison tool than a measure of the health of the ice pack (or lack thereof). As I think has been brought up before, more important is sea ice volume, which is much harder to estimate, but appears to be in a steady, if uneven, decline.

Not according to recent research from British Antarctic Survey, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research,NASA Goddard Space Science Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Hardly hotbeds of "deniers"

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


AbstractUnlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Not according to recent research from British Antarctic Survey, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research,NASA Goddard Space Science Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Hardly hotbeds of "deniers"

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


AbstractUnlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1).

Thanks stu I was having difficulties finding all this data on Antarctic ice that I posted last month on the Artic cruising thread. Apparently Jim didn't get the memo.

[newhaul]

Aside from the fact that Antarctic land sheet ice is growing rather rapidly as well.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...r-than-losses/

[fryewe]

From an essay by C.R. Dickson:

A paper by Graeme Stephens et al. in Nature Geoscience also shows how hard it is to find global warming. They reported

the uncertainty in the earth’s warming imbalance as

0.6 watts per m2

± 17 watts per m2.

The enormously large uncertainty in this very small number means that it is difficult, if not impossible, to observe. Just like NASA said it was!