Thin ice

  • Thread starter Thread starter frobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frobert

Guest
Thin ice: Vanishing ice only exacerbates a bad, climate change-fueled situation: “A primer on the impact of diminishing ice.”Most people view our planet’s vanishing ice as a symptom of climate change. And if they pay a bit more attention, some people might even be aware of some of its effects, including sea level rise and the opening up of the Arctic to shipping. But ice is also an active player in the Earth’s climate—it doesn’t only respond to warming by melting. Changes in our planet’s ice are capable of feeding back on the climate system, creating further consequences for the globe.

The regions of our planet where temperatures fall below the freezing point are characterized by ice and snow, lots of ice and snow. Across land masses, seas, and oceans, roughly 70 percent of the fresh water exists as ice. But now, in response to the warming of our planet, that entire system is changing

Read More…
.
 
Most people view vanishing ice as bogus.

Explorers visiting the alleged thin ice are getting stuck in the ice and need to be rescued.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Most people view vanishing ice as bogus.

Explorers visiting the alleged thin ice are getting stuck in the ice and need to be rescued.
Click to expand...
You’re referring to that ship that got stuck in the waters off Antarctica a few years ago. The article above does say that so far the warming has mainly been in the Arctic, not in Antarctica, although things there are now also starting to warm, esp in West Antarctica, with ice shelves (that hold the glaciers back) cracking and breaking up. But right now it is Greenland and the Arctic that are warming rapidly. Later Antarctica will follow suit.

Sheesh, people are so impatient for the warming to go viral today.

Here’s something for Antarctica: “Iceberg twice the size of ACT about to break off Antarctica”
news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/iceberg-twice-the-size-of-act-about-to-break-off-antarctica/news-story/e92dda68a9c3385c78cb16b51efdd134

Now just remember it is winter down there, so that is really something.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
**Most people view vanishing ice as bogus. **

Explorers visiting the alleged thin ice are getting stuck in the ice and need to be rescued.
Click to expand...
Most people actually view it as not bogus. The minority are those that view it as bogus, at least in most places not CA.
 
lynnvinc said:
You’re referring to that ship that got stuck in the waters off Antarctica a few years ago. The article above does say that so far the warming has mainly been in the Arctic, not in Antarctica, although things there are now also starting to warm, esp in West Antarctica, with ice shelves (that hold the glaciers back) cracking and breaking up. But right now it is Greenland and the Arctic that are warming rapidly. Later Antarctica will follow suit.

Sheesh, people are so impatient for the warming to go viral today.

Here’s something for Antarctica: “Iceberg twice the size of ACT about to break off Antarctica”
news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/iceberg-twice-the-size-of-act-about-to-break-off-antarctica/news-story/e92dda68a9c3385c78cb16b51efdd134

Now just remember it is winter down there, so that is really something.
Click to expand...
Thick Arctic ice apparently in May 2017 as well as thick Arctic ice last year:

dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/scientists-blame-climate-change-for-thick-sea-ice-that-halted-arctic-expedition/

Ice breaks off all the time; not news.
 
frobert said:
Yet the ice keeps melting away.
Click to expand...
A ship actually did get trapped in ice off Antarctica and so did the rescue ship – see bbc.com/news/science-environment-25833307

This gives us an opportunity to explain that global warming has to do with global average temperatures over a long timeframe. Actually scientists refer to it as an energy imbalance, with more energy coming into the earth system than going out.

So there could be some locales that actually experience a cooling or non-warming trend. Also there could be global cooling or non-warming for a short time (a year to a decade or so). One needs at least 20, preferably more than 30, years of data to detect significant global warming, because there are other short-term climate variables that come into play in the short-run – volcanic eruptions (cooling); el ninos and la ninas (warming, cooling); and solar irradiance cycles, usually about 11 years, from minimum (cooling) to maximum (warming).

As mentioned in the article you linked, Antarctica had not been warming in the recent past, and even now is not warming nearly as much as the Arctic. But it is not regions scientists look at to figure if GW is significant but all temps around the world…and they have found that GW has been significant at least since 1995 within longer timeframes of at least 20 or more years. Even the so-called pause in which there was warming, but it was not significant) lasted less than 15 years and therefore cannot be counted as proof that GW stopped or reversed, even if one picks 1998 (exceptionally intense el nino year when the warming spiked very high) as the start point – which would mean they would have to go up to 2018 or 2028 in their data to claim no warming.

There is also the distinction between climate and weather. Climate is the aggregate and average of various weather variables over time and space. So there can be cold snaps and even a cooling trends for a short time in an area that is warming. I like to mention this old atlas we picked up in a garage sale published in the 1970s. The climate map is actually still fairly useful because climate change (dragging all that data along) is really quite slow in a human time-frame, even tho it is lickity-split fast in a geological time-frame.

Another point is that GW is causing more evaporation and precip, whch can also come down as snow and blizzards in colder climates. And finally GW is causing melting of ice and increased icebergs floating around. These 2 factors may have factored into the ships being stuck in ice, along with a cold snap in the weather.

To sum it up, two ships being stuck in ice is not proof that GW is bogus or not happening.
 
lynnvinc said:
A ship actually did get trapped in ice off Antarctica and so did the rescue ship – see bbc.com/news/science-environment-25833307

This gives us an opportunity to explain that global warming has to do with global average temperatures over a long timeframe. Actually scientists refer to it as an energy imbalance, with more energy coming into the earth system than going out.

So there could be some locales that actually experience a cooling or non-warming trend. Also there could be global cooling or non-warming for a short time (a year to a decade or so). One needs at least 20, preferably more than 30, years of data to detect significant global warming, because there are other short-term climate variables that come into play in the short-run – volcanic eruptions (cooling); el ninos and la ninas (warming, cooling); and solar irradiance cycles, usually about 11 years, from minimum (cooling) to maximum (warming).

As mentioned in the article you linked, Antarctica had not been warming in the recent past, and even now is not warming nearly as much as the Arctic. But it is not regions scientists look at to figure if GW is significant but all temps around the world…and they have found that GW has been significant at least since 1995 within longer timeframes of at least 20 or more years. Even the so-called pause in which there was warming, but it was not significant) lasted less than 15 years and therefore cannot be counted as proof that GW stopped or reversed, even if one picks 1998 (exceptionally intense el nino year when the warming spiked very high) as the start point – which would mean they would have to go up to 2018 or 2028 in their data to claim no warming.

There is also the distinction between climate and weather. Climate is the aggregate and average of various weather variables over time and space. So there can be cold snaps and even a cooling trends for a short time in an area that is warming. I like to mention this old atlas we picked up in a garage sale published in the 1970s. The climate map is actually still fairly useful because climate change (dragging all that data along) is really quite slow in a human time-frame, even tho it is lickity-split fast in a geological time-frame.

Another point is that GW is causing more evaporation and precip, whch can also come down as snow and blizzards in colder climates. And finally GW is causing melting of ice and increased icebergs floating around. These 2 factors may have factored into the ships being stuck in ice, along with a cold snap in the weather.

To sum it up, two ships being stuck in ice is not proof that GW is bogus or not happening.
Click to expand...
👍 All good points.

Weather vs climate is complicated so its understandable how some of the commenters on here who don’t have a foundation in the basics confuse them. Here is a good primer.

Climate and Weather

Weather is considered to be the atmospheric conditions that are happening now or within a few days. On the other hand, Climate represents the long term atmospheric patterns within which weather occurs. As the popular saying goes, “Climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get!”.

Why do I care? Weather and climate describe the short and long-term occurrence of inclement weather, respectively. These occurrences describe the typical weather conditions for an area on any given day of the year.

More at Climate and Weather
 
All I can say is poor old polar bear…

But seriously, what is that article saying.? Who has read it and is quoting it accurately?

Anyone?

I am going to call you all out on that.

If you have read it, why is arctic ice or the Greenland ice sheet impacted in a more immediate way then the Antarctic ice sheet?

Where did this guy do a lot of his research?

What is his qualification?

Describe Antarctic ice sheets in relation to melt and global protection from its sea level apocalypse.

Lynne I can’t see anywhere in that article where ‘Antarctica had not been warming in the recent past’?

Extra points for this question, how much is bottled Antarctic glacial water selling for these days?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
All I can say is poor old polar bear…

But seriously, what is that article saying.? Who has read it and is quoting it accurately?

Anyone?

I am going to call you all out on that.

If you have read it, why is arctic ice or the Greenland ice sheet impacted in a more immediate way then the Antarctic ice sheet?

Where did this guy do a lot of his research?

What is his qualification?

Describe Antarctic ice sheets in relation to melt and global protection from its sea level apocalypse.

Lynne I can’t see anywhere in that article where ‘Antarctica had not been warming in the recent past’?

Extra points for this question, how much is bottled Antarctic glacial water selling for these days?
Click to expand...
I’m just relating what I’ve read in the past. I do have some academic sources, but it may take some time for me to get them out. I’ll look for them.

As for the OP link it is to a non-peer-reviewed article that appears based on good sources from a writer, Conor Purcell, who knows what he’s talking about. It is mostly based on an interview of Dr. Johannes Sutter, a climatologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany.

RE the author, it says at the end: Conor Purcell is a science and nature writer with a PhD in Earth Science. He can be found on twitter at @ConorPPurcell and some of his other articles at cppurcell.tumblr.com.

Here is a quote from Sutter in the article:

“In Antarctica the situation is different from that on Greenland,” he continued. “Being much colder than Greenland all year round and currently shielded from the effects of global warming due to its unique setting—being surrounded completely by the large Southern Ocean…”

Some 10 or 15 years ago the climate change skeptics were constantly touting Antarctica, which on the whole was not warming (and some areas were even cooling), as proof that GW was not happening. That’s how I came to find out about Antarctica, doing my own research on it.

Also Michael Crichton (a famous writer and CC skeptic) wrote his novel, State of Fear (2004), based on Antarctica not warming.
 
What of climate change and shrinking ice on mars?
Is mankind the hat powerful and evil that we have affected extraterrestrial ice caps?
If only we could carbon tax Sojourner, Opportunity, Spirit, Curiosity. True range ROVERS.
 
lynnvinc said:
I’m just relating what I’ve read in the past. I do have some academic sources, but it may take some time for me to get them out. I’ll look for them.

As for the OP link it is to a non-peer-reviewed article that appears based on good sources from a writer, Conor Purcell, who knows what he’s talking about. It is mostly based on an interview of Dr. Johannes Sutter, a climatologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany.

RE the author, it says at the end: Conor Purcell is a science and nature writer with a PhD in Earth Science. He can be found on twitter at @ConorPPurcell and some of his other articles at cppurcell.tumblr.com.

Here is a quote from Sutter in the article:

“In Antarctica the situation is different from that on Greenland,” he continued. “Being much colder than Greenland all year round and currently shielded from the effects of global warming due to its unique setting—being surrounded completely by the large Southern Ocean…”

Some 10 or 15 years ago the climate change skeptics were constantly touting Antarctica, which on the whole was not warming (and some areas were even cooling), as proof that GW was not happening. That’s how I came to find out about Antarctica, doing my own research on it.

Also Michael Crichton (a famous writer and CC skeptic) wrote his novel, State of Fear (2004), based on Antarctica not warming.
Click to expand...
Regardless of its status of peer review, there is still nowhere that says Antarctica has not been warming in the recent past.

In fact we should look at the Larsen C ice shelf in light of its recent shenanigans in asking wtf is up with the Antarctic.

abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/vast-iceberg-poised-to-crack-off-antarctic/8167150

climatecrocks.com/2017/02/21/new-video-of-antarctic-crack/

And contrary to the past , the Antarctic is experiencing warming. We scientists were wrong , thinking it wasn’t.

NASA.

visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=36736

The articles and education on the NASA website is quite good. Easy to understand from the coffee table. And this is why we were wrong.

The image paints a different picture of temperature trends in Antarctica than scientists had previously observed. Limited weather station measurements had recorded a dramatic warming trend along the peninsula, which juts into warmer waters in the Southern Ocean, but the few stations that dotted the rest of the continent reported that temperatures there had not changed or had cooled. It has been difficult to get a clear picture of temperature trends throughout Antarctica because measurements are so scarce. Few weather stations exist, and most of these are near the coast where they are relatively accessible. These coastal locations left vast regions of the continent’s interior where the temperature has never been monitored routinely. Satellites can measure the ground temperature of the entire continent, but only on clear days, when clouds don’t obscure the view. Since satellite measurements are always taken in the same sort of weather conditions, they can be skewed.

Quite simply, as a scientist, I hang my head in shame and say we were wrong.

Sell that beach house!
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What of climate change and shrinking ice on mars?
Is mankind the hat powerful and evil that we have affected extraterrestrial ice caps?
If only we could carbon tax Sojourner, Opportunity, Spirit, Curiosity. True range ROVERS.
Click to expand...
Well you know mars dried out eons ago.

From as Tale of Planetary Woe (2009)
What happened? Why did Mars dry up and freeze over? These haunting questions have long puzzled scientists. A few years from now we might finally know the answer, thanks to a new orbiter NASA will send to Mars called MAVEN (short for Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution).

“The goal of MAVEN is to figure out what processes were responsible for those changes in the climate,” says Bruce Jakosky, Principal Investigator for MAVEN at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

One way or another, scientists believe, Mars must have lost its most precious asset: its thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide. CO2 in Mars’s atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, just as it is in our own atmosphere. A thick blanket of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would have provided the warmer temperatures and greater atmospheric pressure required to keep liquid water from freezing solid or boiling away.

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/06nov_maven

lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Regardless of its status of peer review, there is still nowhere that says Antarctica has not been warming in the recent past.
Click to expand...
I guess I read that into the article based on what I already knew.

I can’t remember the year when scientists started saying that Antarctica too was on the whole warming, but I’m thinking it was within the past 10 years.
In fact we should look at the Larsen C ice shelf in light of its recent shenanigans in asking wtf is up with the Antarctic.
Click to expand...
abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/vast-iceberg-poised-to-crack-off-antarctic/8167150
Click to expand...
In fact I brought that up in a post on this thread.
And contrary to the past , the Antarctic is experiencing warming. We scientists were wrong , thinking it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless both the scientists and the skeptics were claiming for a long time that Antarctica was not warming, and it is still true today that its warming (on the whole, not focusing solely on the WAIS, Larsen A, B, and C) is not nearly to the level of Arctic warming. Sutter interviewed in the article didn’t think Antarctica was much of a threat to sea level rise at this point, while Greenland was.
visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=36736
Click to expand...
The articles and education on the NASA website is quite good. Easy to understand from the coffee table. And this is why we were wrong.
Click to expand...
The image paints a different picture of temperature trends in Antarctica than scientists had previously observed. Limited weather station measurements had recorded a dramatic warming trend along the peninsula, which juts into warmer waters in the Southern Ocean, but the few stations that dotted the rest of the continent reported that temperatures there had not changed or had cooled. It has been difficult to get a clear picture of temperature trends throughout Antarctica because measurements are so scarce. Few weather stations exist, and most of these are near the coast where they are relatively accessible. These coastal locations left vast regions of the continent’s interior where the temperature has never been monitored routinely. Satellites can measure the ground temperature of the entire continent, but only on clear days, when clouds don’t obscure the view. Since satellite measurements are always taken in the same sort of weather conditions, they can be skewed.
Click to expand...
Quite simply, as a scientist, I hang my head in shame and say we were wrong.
Click to expand...
Sell that beach house!
Click to expand...
Why? Scientists are only doing the best they can and sometimes get it wrong and are always tweaking information. That’s just the nature of science. In fact there are a couple of instances in which skeptics have helped climate scientists to correct their findings (tho for the most part the skeptics are way off base).

RE beach houses, I’m actually thinking to buy a ground floor beach apt (about 100 feet away and about 15 to 20 feet above sea level), since the ocean will not be rising much in the next 10 or 20 years during my timeframe – in fact they figure worse case scenario, maybe 6 feet by 2100. I won’t be around that long.
 
“Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998,”
Zeke Hausfather, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, 30 June 2017, at carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

QUOTE:
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The figure above shows a comparison between the new RSS record and the global surface temperature record produced by NASA. RSS v4 shows about 5% more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began….
END QUOTE
And for the study on which this article is based see: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Now all that fuss about models being totally wrong, about no warming based on satellite data, or there being a “pause” after 1998 can be thrown in the wastebasket (toxic, do not recycle), and at long last we can hop to mitigating global warming in earnest!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top