Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 01:59pm PT
|
Off course your photo is a melt pond and the Navy photos are leads. How convenient.
Can't buy a clue! Do you think the subs surfaced in melt ponds? Or do you think that I think that melt ponds are in some way a bigger deal than leads?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 02:40pm PT
|
There were thousands of huge Melt Ponds in the late Spring and Early Summer on throughout the perm ice... Even at the South Pole.
Even at the South Pole, eh?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 04:03pm PT
|
FM, I'm waiting to see whether Chief wants to add anything about those huge melt ponds he saw at the South Pole.
He didn't do very well walking back the "leads" thing, from
Chiloe, those aren't leads in this photo:
to
I am very familiar what a "lead" is.
to having to look up the definition:
By the way Chiloe, a true definition of a "Lead" is small (20–100 m [about 66–330 feet] across) to giant (greater than 10 km [about 6 miles] across). As the ice drifts, it often breaks apart, and open water appears within fractures and leads. Leads are typically linear features that are widespread in the pack ice at any time of year, extend for hundreds of kilometres, and vary from a few metres to hundreds of metres in width.
Which unless the ice is thin enough to break through, are the places where submarines can surface.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2011 - 04:55pm PT
|
Ever heard of Don Juan Pond, Lake Frixel or Lake Vanda.
Lake Fryxell, I think you mean. Never heard of 'em.
I questioned your claim to have seen "huge melt ponds" at the South Pole. Instead of answering, you toss out non sequiturs about the Dry Valleys and Ross Sea, and demand that I draw you a new graph. Why not be honest?
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 06:01am PT
|
The evidence, both scientific and common sens knowledge, demonstrates that we humans are in the process of degrading the biosphere that provides us with the basics that we need for survival.
What I find ironic in the attitude and arguments put forth by those who so violently and vehmently argue against the concept that human activity induced climate change, is that somewhere in there seems to be the belief that human activity has no long term effect at all on the environment.
Here are two videos that I found interesting (I don't think that they've been posted):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0VHC1-DO_8
(Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean)
http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector#p/u/127/0ZhL7P7w3as
(Naomi Klein: addicted to risk)
In the end Dingus is probably right, and we humans will just continue along our current path until a major catastrophe that will decimate a significant enough portion of the population to bring about some sort of natural equilibrium where the population that remains will be able to survive of the resources that are available.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 09:13am PT
|
Doesn't mean we have to live like rats though and sh#t where we sleep.
What I learned in sociology was that there is really no significant difference between the way we react to our environment and the way that rats react. Except maybe rats are cleaner.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 10:51am PT
|
Not spending much time on this now, so let me just check to make sure I'm up on the all the latest nonsense.
Reduced ice thickness at North Pole -> incontrovertible, obvious evidence of global warming.
Stable ice thickness at South Pole -> not really evidence of anything, certainly not climate is staying more or less the same.
And some of you wonder why the public has already moved on to other issues and "global warming" is about as relevant today as is Al Gore?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 10:58am PT
|
I am being honest. Will post some pics after I scan and upload em.
Only the "huge melt ponds" you saw "at the South Pole." That's the part I questioned, to which you've responded so far by making outbursts about the Ross Sea, Wright Valley, graphs and whether I've ever been on the ice.
So, show your honesty by just scanning those huge melt ponds at the South Pole. No distractions needed. If you've got those I'll be impressed, because so far as I know the record high temperature at the South Pole is about -13 C.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 11:34am PT
|
The Northwest Passage and the North Pole are not equivalent, BTW. All of those British expeditions in the mid-nineteenth century sailed the passage in open water... except when they were frozen into the ice! Franklin's ships were frozen in for a couple, or more, years and unable to move even in summer. Which is why they were abandoned.
Those expeditions went in knowing they would be stuck for significant periods. The British didn't even bother to go looking for Franklin until he'd been gone for five years, or so.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 11:57am PT
|
Chiloe, Working on the pics. They are all slides. Harder than I thought to transfer and download.
Just the South Pole, that's all you need.
In the mean time, you can go ahead and post up a mean graph of your SO HEMP SEA ICE EXTENT graph.
Here ya go, Southern Hemisphere sea ice area on July 10 (most recent available) over 1979-2011, graphed as deviations from the mean. Pretty much the same info as the line graph I posted yesterday, just shifted one day forward.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 12:08pm PT
|
My bar graph above just shows a single date each year. Here's the daily southern sea ice area anomaly going back to 1979.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 12:44pm PT
|
the sea ice extent is not in itself interpretable as an indicator of climate, if I understand the science correctly.
This is the same heads I win, tails you lose argument that climate policy experts make all the time.
Hurricanes are evidence of global warming...oh wait just kidding...it is only the occurrence of daily weather. Weather is going to be getting way hotter over the next ten years...oh wait...that was just a natural cooling cycle, the GG's will kick in later and warming will continue. Heads I win, tails you lose.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 02:58pm PT
|
blahblah,
Reduced ice thickness at North Pole -> incontrovertible, obvious evidence of global warming.
Stable ice thickness at South Pole -> not really evidence of anything, certainly not climate is staying more or less the same.
Tough to know where to start against so much confusion. I'll try, though. This is not cut and paste.
Ice at the North Pole is sea ice, a few meters thick. Ice at the South Pole is land ice, a few kilometers thick. The mass of both southern hemisphere land ice and northern hemisphere sea ice (or northern hemisphere land ice, for that matter) is decreasing. But I wasn't writing about ice thickness, or mass, or land ice -- my recent graphs, carefully labeled, show the area of sea ice.
So, back to the area of sea ice: the NH and SH geographies and seasonal cycles are quite different. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land; sea ice in the central part of this ocean can persist for multiple years, and in the first decade of the satellite record still covered around 5 million km^2 at its minimum in September. There has been a steepening decline in the September minimum, obvious in almost any analysis or graph. For recent years the minimum NH sea ice area has dropped to around 3 million km^2. This results both from warming air and water. It has global consequences partly because it makes the earth much less shiny from space in the NH summer, when the North Pole gets sunlight 24-7, so more heat from the sun is absorbed by dark ocean, producing a positive feedback for more warming. There's also a lot of research interest in how increased heat loss or evaporation in fall (from the non-ice-covered ocean) will affect mid-latitude weather. Jim Overland might have been ahead of the curve on that, but many other scientists are on the trail too, having noticed signs of change.
The Antarctic is land surrounded by an ocean, so the sea ice is simply a fringe. Throughout the satellite record, about 85% of the area has melted each summer. Only around 2 million km^2 remains at the minimum in February, and at the maximum in September, most SH sea ice is first-year ice. There's not much longterm trend in the SH ice area; as my anomaly graph upthread shows, it seemed to be going slightly up for a while and now seems to be going down. In either event the SH sea ice area in summer is small enough and low-latitude enough to not have nearly as much impact on Earth's albedo as the NH sea ice does. In the SH summer, the land ice of Antarctica remains white and reflective while the midnight sun shines.
Well, if the Earth's average temperature is rising, why was SH sea ice not decreasing until recently? Because even with global warming, temperatures are very cold around Antarctica; global warming is not always local warming; and there are other factors at play. One key reference, certainly not the last word, is a paper by Turner et al. in Geophysical Research Letters (2009). They studied sea ice and climate data for 1979-2007 (BTW missing the recent downturn visible in my 1979-2011 graph above). [emphasis added]
Based on a new analysis of passive microwave satellite data, we demonstrate that the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% dec−1 since the late 1970s. The largest increase has been in autumn when there has been a dipole of significant positive and negative trends in the Ross and Amundsen‐Bellingshausen Seas respectively. The autumn increase in the Ross Sea sector is primarily a result of stronger cyclonic atmospheric flow over the Amundsen Sea. Model experiments suggest that the trend towards stronger cyclonic circulation is mainly a result of stratospheric ozone depletion, which has strengthened autumn wind speeds around the continent, deepening the Amundsen Sea Low through flow separation around the high coastal orography. However, statistics derived from a climate model control run suggest that the observed sea ice increase might still be within the range of natural climate variability.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 06:48pm PT
|
That's some interesting logic. Are you saying that calls for conservation and reducing pollution doomed the conservation movement?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 07:02pm PT
|
The Chief knows everything--just ask him.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 07:15pm PT
|
Ha-ha.
Blow harder Chief!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 07:26pm PT
|
Chief, I've offered several ideas, so have others.
You just don't listen, cuz you can't hear over your big fooking mouth.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 07:37pm PT
|
"that if not done immediately and in the manner that the AGW science consensus crowd dictates it be done now, without question, or else it is the end of world"
The AGW science consensus crowd ONLY says it is very highly likely AGW is happening. They don't dictate what must be done or when. That is your confusion. You can't separate policy from science.
That's like saying anyone opposed to US policy actions to combat AGW (e.g. You) thinks it's ok to waste and pollute as much as we want.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 07:42pm PT
|
Oh I am listening.
Yur politicized dogmatic ideas are all the same. The common middle class folks that are struggling day in and day out can not afford to implement them. They are too busy trying to survive.
Doesn't that make any sense.
How many kids you got feed Dirt? You got a mortgage? You unemployed or making minimum wage cus you got laid off after your job got shipped off to China?
YAP YAP YAP YAP YAP!!!
You're a know it all. That's why I don't explain nothing to you. It's a huge waste of time.
All you do is yap yer trap.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2011 - 08:16pm PT
|
Again, I believe that is why the current polls show that people are quickly losing interest in this whole deal. They do not have the money to cough up to get a new Hybrid or get a small car to put their kids in, put solar panels on their home that is a nickel away from being foreclosed on, to reduce their gas consumption cus they gotta drive to work to make the cash to pay the bills and feed the family etc etc. There are no incentives to these positive actions. None. To by GREEN entails more money than it does not to. Same goes with organic etc. Middle Class family folks do not have the money to purchase the Green stuff.
And expecting/demanding that the gov't fix all this shet? Right. They can't even get their heads together in order to begin to remedy the countries budget/financial crises and avoid default.
People are certainly going to make a priority of clothing and feeding their families, indeed.
As for lack of money, I disagree. Unfortunately, this government will willingly spend millions for each goatherd they kill in the middle-east, yet working to improve America and the lives of Americans is out of the question to them.
I put it to you, Chief, that it is the government's job to promote the general welfare, and that "greening" America is what it should be doing.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!