Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
In the longer context, the anomaly is above the trend line about half the time and below the trend line about half the time.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The global sea ice anomaly graph shows how meaningless your statements are, Sketch.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Poor silly sketch, still bitter his side lost the civil war.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The mean anomaly for 2013 was 530,000 sq km above 2012.
Sketch confuses the Arctic sea ice minimum extent, with global sea ice anamoly, LOL!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I saw that the arctic sea ice extent is lower than last year at this time. I guess that the recovery is over? It is the second lowest arctic sea ice extent for this time of the year (at least after 2002).
I don't believe that this really means anything important but I guess that it is an important data point for Sketch, Antony Watts and many other bloggers.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Gotta love the consistency in the decimation of the fear bullshet propaganda.
you did spell consistency correctly. for a 90% jibberish rating. congrats.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Ever hear of Pine Island Glacier? It's in Antarctica.
yes, it IS in Antarctica
which is a different place than the Arctic, which is the place that IS melting
whereas, the southernmost pole, the Antarctic is not
because as the earth rotates through space around the sun it keeps its ass end, the Antarctic,
pointed more out into space, versus the Arctic which points to the sun more
regardless if my made up story is correct or not, the fact is the "north" pole is responsible for melting
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So the f*#k what?
Fooking idiot.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Hey Chief Running Mouth...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
What a random post.
Do you think it somehow discounts my post about the Pine Island Glacier, in Antarctica?
actually, yes it does
considering that your mention of the glacier is irrelevant as it is located in the south pole.
which is not the pole that is melting
get it?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
The Chief, I am responding to the 2013 NH sea ice extent discussion.
I believe that sketch is mostly talking a bout the total sea ice extent, the sum of the NH and SH.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
However, I believe that doing the similar analysis for the South Pole will likely result in the same conclusion,
that the 2013 sea ice extent is within statistical expectation, after accounting for the anomaly time dependence. Yes, that fits with the conclusion reached by Lorenzo Polvani after a detailed analysis he presented at the recent AGU meetings, which I briefly summarized upthread. To save people the trouble of clicking, here's my Dec 10 note and Polvani's concluding slide.
One reason the Arctic sea ice has responded to warming has been the influence of rivers carrying North American and Eurasian continental heat to the sea; there are no such Antarctic rivers. But why does Antarctic sea ice seem to be expanding? Ozone-related hypotheses don't seem to work, those effects should be causing ice to decrease. More plausible causes of increase are the observed wind changes, and also freshening of surface layers (due to ice sheet melting) that increases stratification so the sea surface is relatively insulated from warmer deep waters. Although both factors are real, they are perhaps not enough to explain the observed increase. Lorenzo Polvani finished off the session with a rapid-fire and (to me) impressive analysis suggesting that the small Antarctic sea ice increase we have seen during the satellite era could easily be nothing more than natural variation. Modeling shows that this is quite possible, indeed upward runs like this occur often in simulations with no external forcing. And observational support for his argument includes the fact that in decades prior to 1979 Antarctic sea ice was apparently much more extensive, so the recent increase follows an even larger decline -- no sustained trend as there has been in the Arctic.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
You mean the average of a declining period, Chief?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Dumbass, the period you want averaged is a declining period.
Your graph also shows it as a declining period, idiot.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Just posting more diatribe bullshet questions.
so what's your question ?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Why does he need to Chief, your graph shows the same points as Chiloe's?
Your graph has 13 month average, of the same data used to calculate the anomaly in Chiloe's graph.
Both show the declining period.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Cryosphere uses the same same data from NSIDC, idiot.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Sketch probably meant 'anomaly', not actual area.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!