8 replies to this topic

[nimblebear]

and most scientists just plain SUK.

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
Email | Print | A A A

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.


OOPS. Don't bother sending this data to AL GORE. They had the same faulty sensors measuring his level of incompetency.

Edited by nimblebear, 21 February 2009 - 11:11 AM.

[U.F.O.]

Global warming is all about power and money. You define a problem that doesn't exist and demand resources and money (implicitly and explicitly) to fix it. You inject yourself as a key cog in the solution and voila.....you just found a new career.

U.F.O.

[n83]

Global warming is all about power and money. You define a problem that doesn't exist and demand resources and money (implicitly and explicitly) to fix it. You inject yourself as a key cog in the solution and voila.....you just found a new career.

U.F.O.

MOST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL (All caps to counter the initial message-gg)

TAKE A LOOK AT ELLESMERE ISLAND, CANADA

folks can debate till kingdom come..they will pick apart as they pick noses..

and they will..until the kingdom is gone he he

About "and most scientists just plain SUK. "..as 99.9% of the traders

Edited by n83, 21 February 2009 - 01:01 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

More on this or something related here:

http://wattsupwithth...oday/#more-5742

Mark

[Rogerdodger]

The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate NASA satellites.

I love this quote:
“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said.

They would rather be consistent than accurate?
That's Science?

[stocks]

Man-made collapse of Arctic ice!!

Carries the fingerprint of the human murderous acts against Ms Gaia


Unless you believe in miracles, tipping points, extraterrestrial aliens, or catastrophic global warming, it should have been clear to you that the graph was a result of a failure or a mistake. Indeed, two days later, NSIDC confirmed that it was the case

http://motls.blogspo...arctic-ice.html

[stocks]

Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming


Aerosols can influence climate directly by either reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation as it moves through the atmosphere. The tiny airborne particles enter the atmosphere from sources such as industrial pollution, volcanoes and residential cooking stoves.

Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.

A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.



http://www.nasa.gov/...g_aerosols.html

[risktaker]

The melting may not be caused by man-made global warming, but why is there so much denial about the melting?

Extreme Ice http://www.npr.org/b...xtreme_ice.html

Once a climate change skeptic, Balog here presents stirring time-lapse images of melting bodies of ice. By placing cameras throughout the Arctic and programming them to shoot one frame every daylight hour for three years, he and his team were able to capture unprecedented footage of the world in flux. The gathered evidence points to extreme melting in polar regions. But it also suggests that the effects of climate change are occurring at a much more accelerated rate than previously thought. Extreme Ice explores the potential implications of this undeniable "big melt."

Glacier Bay Park's Gravity Shifts As Ice Melts http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=91894873

When English explorer George Vancouver visited southeast Alaska in 1794, the fjord we think of today as Glacier Bay was the site of a giant sheet of ice, more than 60 miles long. There was no bay — just ice.
But over the next two centuries, something astounding happened: The ice melted, and fast. (While this is the fastest glacial retreat ever documented, it's not thought to be caused by man-made global warming.)
All that ice was very heavy; it had been pressing down on the Earth's crust like a bowling ball on a bed. So when it disappeared, the bed — the Earth's crust — sprang back up. And it's still springing up. That's isostatic uplift.
Nowhere is the phenomenon more pronounced than Russell Island, farther up Glacier Bay. About 200 years ago, the island sat under thousands of feet of ice; now it's covered with brush and trees.

Edited by risktaker, 01 May 2009 - 03:58 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

There was a pretty good ice melt going into 2007. Now we've got a heck of a lot of new ice. "Weather is not climate." These shifts seem to happen often in the arctic, but the take away ought to be that we're doing OK, on balance. NOT looking at any sort of catastrophic warming.