Arctic Updates

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Penguin » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:22 am

Ben D:
This is also from your article, the full pdf. They seem to agree that there is a climate change going on -

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/1/2009/tc-3-1-2009.pdf

1 Introduction
Sea ice in both hemispheres is expected to respond sensi-
tively to climate change. Sea ice insulates and influences the
heat transfer, mass, exchange of gases and interaction be-
tween the atmosphere and ocean. The Antarctic pack ice is a
region of highly variable ice responding to winds, air temper-
atures and ocean currents. Ice motion causes floes to collide
and deform while at the same time creating areas of open wa-
ter between floes, quantified as either the open water or ice
concentration fraction. In winter, cold air temperatures drive
new ice growth at the highest growth rates in the open wa-
ter areas, while in summer, these areas of open water of low
albedo absorb solar radiation and warm up, enhancing the ice
melt (Hunke and Ackley, 1998; Nihashi and Cavalieri, 2006;
Nihashi and Ohshima, 2001).


Understanding the regional changes of Antarctic sea ice
and its response to global climate change is crucial, however,
and increasing the accuracy of satellite estimates is therefore
necessary for the long term monitoring of sea ice and for
comparison to model predictions.


5 Conclusions
Good agreement was found between ship observations
of ice edge position compared to NIC ice charts derived from
high resolution satellite imagery. Passive microwave im-
agery alone, however, provided less agreement with ship ob-
servations and, therefore, NIC ice charts, with a strong bias
toward underestimating the area bounded by the ice edge us-
ing passive microwave. The northward extent of the ice edge
at the time of observation (NIC) had mean values varying
from 38 km to 102 km on different days for the area as a
whole as compared with the AMSR-E sea ice extent. We
infer the passive microwave imagery has this resolution bias
due to the low emissivities typical of wet snow covers and
surface flooding, as well as low spatial resolution of small
ice bands and low concentrations of dispersed small floes
in the ice edge region. In areas of higher concentration in
the interior pack, however, there is an indication that ship
track bias to travel preferentially in the open water areas,
as well the under sampling of a pixel (156 km2 ) by a single
ship observation (1–3 km2 ) in highly variable summer con-
ditions contributes to ship data under predicting ice concen-
tration over the wider region. The result is a generally low
overall correlation (R 2 =0.41) between ship estimates of ice
concentration and passive microwave derived values. Given
the good agreement between ice charts and ship observations
for ice edge, an interesting future comparison would be be-
tween interior ice concentrations derived from ice charts or
other satellite sensors (scatterometer, active radar, and visi-
ble imagery) compared to passive microwave values. While
ship observations provide good agreement of the sea ice edge
with the NIC ice charts, the differences between ice chart es-
timated areas and that estimated from passive microwave can
be up to 14%, or as large as 1.5 million km2 of circumpolar
area greater than that determined from passive microwave on
this date. Our conclusion is that considerable care is required
in deriving the Antarctic sea ice extent, particularly estimates
relying on passive microwave alone. Since the standard cli-
matology of sea ice coverage over the past 30 years uses the
passive microwave data, if this data set is relied on heavily
for modeling intercomparisons, some caution may be neces-
sary in using this record as the best indicator of model perfor-
mance. We recommend that with the available records from
scatterometer and active radar data that are approaching ten
years, that a reanalysis of the Antarctic sea ice extent, com-
pared to the passive microwave record over the same period,
may be a prudent approach to verifying, and perhaps correct-
ing that climatology.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:32 pm

bump, for Ben D`s request 8)
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:12 pm

Yes, these scientists managed fit their aberrant observations into the currently reigning scientific paradigm. How unlike scientists for them to have done so. But what do their raw observations show? Could the increased precipitation caused by the warming and melting in the Arctic, causing the increased ice volume in Antarctic perhaps have something to do with one of the many negative feedback mechanisms of Gaia's temperature control thermostat?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:03 pm

stickdog99 wrote:Yes, these scientists managed fit their aberrant observations into the currently reigning scientific paradigm. How unlike scientists for them to have done so. But what do their raw observations show? Could the increased precipitation caused by the warming and melting in the Arctic, causing the increased ice volume in Antarctic perhaps have something to do with one of the many negative feedback mechanisms of Gaia's temperature control thermostat?


What about positive feedbacks? Can you show me some evidence of negative feedbacks operating?

Can you explain to me how forest cover loss influences these feedbacks?
Do you know how much forests Earth had 8000 years ago, compared to today? What has the change been, historically? How does this affect these feedbacks (positive/negative)?

stickdog99:
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of Earths major ecosystems for the survival of mammals?

What is the oxygen cycle? And while youre at it, what is the carbon cycle?
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:34 pm

http://www.atm.helsinki.fi/SMEAR/
Smear research stations are to measure the relationship of atmosphere and forest in boreal climate zone. The main aims of research are:
Analysis of gaseous and particle pollutants and their role in cloud formation
Analysis of water, carbon and nutrient budgets of soil.
Analysis of environment and tree structure on gas exchange, water transport and growth of trees

The most intensively equipped SMEAR -station - SMEAR II - is built to study material
and energy flows in atmosphere - vegetation - soil - continuum at different temporal
and spatial scales. The station can be characterized as a versatile and automatic
unit operating in continuous and long-term manner to solve cross-disciplinary
(physics, chemistry and biology) environmental problems.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/climate ... n-feedback

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 06591.html
Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_ch ... dback.html
Negative feedback occurs when the response to primary changes acts in the opposite direction to that of the initial climate forcing. Negative feedback reduces the climate response to initial causes of climate change. The formation of clouds in a greenhouse-heated world may cause a negative feedback. A warmer atmosphere will contain more moisture, and consequently more clouds. Clouds reflect a lot of sunlight and may help to reduce the amount of global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the longer term, changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun are believed to influence natural global climate variations that are evident in the palaeoclimatic records over tens and hundreds of thousand of years. It is clear however, that climate feedback effects have augmented the differences in global climate between the Ice Ages and the warmer interglacial periods, including changes in ocean circulation and atmospheric composition.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/feedback_loops.html
Feedback Loops: Interactions that Influence Arctic Climate

In the climate system a "feedback loop" refers to a pattern of interacting processes where a change in one variable, through interaction with other variables in the system, either reinforces the original process (positive feedback) or suppresses the process (negative feedback). In order to model and predict arctic (and global) climate variability correctly, feedback loops must be understood. Two major feedback processes that scientists consider in studies of arctic and global climate change are described below in simple terms. In nature, the processes are considerably more complicated.
Temperature—Albedo Feedback

Rising temperatures increase melting of snow and sea ice, reducing surface reflectance, thereby increasing solar absorption, which raises temperatures, and so on. The feedback loop can also work in reverse. For instance, if climate cools, less snow and ice melts in summer, raising the albedo and causing further cooling as more solar radiation is reflected rather than absorbed. The temperature—albedo feedback is positive because the initial temperature change is amplified.
Temperature—Cloud Cover—Radiation Feedbacks

Feedbacks between temperature, cloud cover and radiation are potentially important agents of climate change. However, they are not well understood and research in this area is active.

It is thought that if climate warms, evaporation will also increase, in turn increasing cloud cover. Because clouds have high albedo, more cloud cover will increase the earth's albedo and reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed at the surface. Clouds should therefore inhibit further rises in temperature. This temperature—cloud cover—radiation feedback is negative as the initial temperature change is dampened.

However, cloud cover also acts as a blanket to inhibit loss of longwave radiation from the earth's atmosphere. By this process, an increase in temperature leading to an increase in cloud cover could lead to a further increase in temperature - a positive feedback.

Knowing which process dominates is a complex issue. Cloud type plays a strong role, as do cloud water content and particle size. Another factor is whether the cloud albedo is higher or lower than that of the surface. Research indicates that the effect of this feedback in the Arctic may be different than in other latitudes. Except in summer, arctic clouds seem to have a warming effect. This is because the blanket effect of clouds tends to dominate over reductions in shortwave radiation to the surface caused by the high cloud albedo.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:38 pm

Penguin wrote:What about positive feedbacks?

Depending on their strength relative to the negative feedback processes, they are quite possibly seriously detrimental to a thermostat, which is a classic negative feedback mechanism.

Penguin wrote:Can you show me some evidence of negative feedbacks operating?

In lieu of some awesomely powerful negative feedback mechanisms, how do you propose Earth's surface temperature has stayed relatively constant over geological timeframes despite the Sun's variable energy output and dozens of cataclysmic catastrophes that put humanity's current level of eco-destruction to shame?

Penguin wrote:Can you explain to me how forest cover loss influences these feedbacks??

My best guess would be that forest cover, like most living things on the living Earth, plays its part in maintaining the negative feedback that has kept Earth at a relatively constant temperature for so long. However, all multicellular surface life is merely Gaia's dandruff. I suspect that well over 50% of Earth's biomass consists of subterranean microbial life. And this is a very conservative estimate. I also suspect that the vast majority of Gaia's thermostatic feedback capabilities are the result of currently undiscovered or at least poorly understood subsurface, deep ocean and atmospheric processes, both biological and geological.

Penguin wrote:What do you consider to be the most important aspects of Earths major ecosystems for the survival of mammals?

Gaia knows. Maybe you do as well, but I don't purport to. I feel that it would be circumspect, though, to stop digging up and burning every buried source of carbon we can get our grubby little hands on at ever increasing rates.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ben D » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:22 pm

Penguin wrote:Ben D:
This is also from your article, the full pdf. They seem to agree that there is a climate change going on-

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/1/2009/tc-3-1-2009.pdf


Dear Penguin, everyone agrees that climate change is going on,..everywhere,...always.

However the point that you did not include in your cut and paste job is that their research showed an increase in Antarctic sea ice cover for three decades running!!

Antarctic sea ice cover has shown a slight increase
(<1%/decade) in overall observed ice extent as derived
from satellite mapping from 1979 to 2008, contrary
to the decline observed in the Arctic regions.


I understood that it was common knowledge that Antarctic sea ice cover has been increasing, so to bring you up to date here are the results of another study, this one from NASA covering the 20 year period from 1979 to 1999.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2734
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere.

In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:52 pm

No, I did not fail to paste that.
It was on the first reply, last message on previous page.

And yeah, climate is always changing. But humans do play a part in it too, no matter if we like it or not. And lately its become a large part of the change.

And frankly, if were so stupid that we cause our own extinction, well, good riddance to us. Life will still be all around the existing universe(s), just without humans. Whose loss will that be if not ours?

Im talking about stuff like this:

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0022-fires_indonesia.html
New fire record for Borneo, Sumatra shows dramatic increase in rainforest destruction


The authors found that Sumatra has suffered from large fires since the at least 1960s, but Indonesian Borneo — where industrial conversion of forests was delayed by geography and politics — didn't begin to experience massive fires until 1982.

The fires associated with the 1997-1998 el Niño released more than 2 billion tons of C02 into the atmosphere and caused billions of dollars to the regional economy. Undaunted by these impacts, last week Indonesia announced it will press ahead with a plan to convert millions of hectares of peatlands across Kalimantan, Sumatra, and Papua. Environmentalists and scientists say the move will trigger massive emissions and increase Indonesia's susceptibility to fires like those documented in the Nature Geoscience study.

"The extent of large-scale oil palm plantations is projected to increase, partly to meet growing demand for biofuels," write the authors. "As droughts are inevitable and may become more severe, Indonesia's future fire regime depends strongly on the extent of these types of human activity."

(people I know have been doing research there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Rice_Project_(Kalimantan)
(look at the pic especially!)
The Mega Rice Project was initiated in 1996 in the southern sections of Kalimantan, the Indonesian section of Borneo. The goal was to turn one million hectares of unproductive and sparsely populated peat swamp forest into rice paddies in an effort to allieviate Indonesia's growing food shortage. The government made a large investment in constructing irrigation canals and removing trees. The project did not suceeed, and was eventually abandoned after causing considerable damage to the environment.

Overview

The peat swamp forest in the south of Kalimantan is an unusual ecology that is home to many unique or rare species such as Orang Utans, as well as to slow-growing but valuable trees. The peat swamp forest is a dual ecosystem, with diverse tropical trees standing on a 10m - 12m layer of peat - partly decayed and waterlogged plant material - which in turn covers relatively infertile soil. Peat is a major store of carbon. If broken down and burned it contributes to CO2 emissions, considered a source of global warming.[1]. Unlike northern forests, which regenerate in 10-30 years even after clear-cut felling, the peat swamp forest may take several centuries to regenerate.

The peat swamp forests of Kalimantan were being slowly cleared for small scale farming and plantations before 1997, but most of the original cover remained. In 1996 the Indonesian government initiated the Mega Rice Project (MRP), which aimed to convert one million hectares of peat swamp forest to rice paddies. Between 1996 and 1998, more than 4,000 km of drainage and irrigation channels were dug, and deforestation started in part through legal forestry and in part through burning. The water channels, and the roads and railways built for legal forestry, opened up the region to illegal forestry. In the MRP area, forest cover dropped from 64.8% in 1991 to 45.7% in 2000, and clearance has continued since then. It appears that almost all the marketable trees have now been removed from the areas covered by the MRP.

It turned out that the channels drained the peat forests rather than irrigating them. Where the forests had often flooded up to 2m deep in the rainy season, now their surface is dry at all times of the year. The government has therefore abandoned the MRP, but the drying peat is vulnerable to fires which continue to break out on a massive scale[2].

Peat forest destruction is causing sulphuric acid pollution of the rivers. In the rainy seasons, the canals are discharging acidic water with a high ratio of pyritic sulphate into rivers up to 150 km upstream from the river mouth. This may be a factor contributing to lower fish catches[3].

(Thats 10 000 square kilometers)

http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... 6220070604
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesia is among the world's top three greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation, peatland degradation and forest fires, a report sponsored by the World Bank and Britain's development arm said.

An increase of global temperatures has already resulted in prolonged drought, heavy rainfall leading to floods and tidal waves in Indonesia, putting the archipelago's rich biodiversity at risk, said the report, released on Monday.

"Emissions resulting from deforestation and forest fires are five times those from non-forestry emissions. Emissions from energy and industrial sectors are relatively small, but are growing very rapidly," it added.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forests- ... 4927.shtml

Under normal conditions, forests around the world are able to absorb approximately 20 percent of all carbon dioxide emitted by humans from burning fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and natural gas. This amounts to a massive 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, an extremely large quantity that would otherwise be left in the atmosphere, further accelerating the global warming process. Over the last years, an additional carbon sink has been found to exist in Africa, one that has the potential to attract roughly 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon all by itself.


In a study published yesterday in the journal Nature, a 40 year-long research reveals that rain forests in Africa, which make up for a third of the total amount of forests in the world, have attracted at least 0.6 tonnes per year per hectare over the past decades. This is a very important find, as it illuminates scientists as to another mechanism that is involved in the complicated circuit that carbon undergoes after it's released by either humans or volcanoes.

http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=108
Recent world forest loss

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html
Summary map of vegetation cover at 8,000 14C years BP. By 8,000 14C y.a., the Earth was under a full interglacial climate, with conditions warmer and moister than present in many parts of the world. Tropical forest in Africa (and probably also Asia) was expanded in area, and the areas of desert in Africa and Asia were much reduced.

http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation.htm
Worldwide deforestation rates (look at the "Change %" column)
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/media/a ... 12/detail/
(good pic of the same info basically, forest loss during last few centuries)

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environmen ... tion.shtml

The clearing of tropical forests across the Earth has been occurring on a large scale basis for many centuries. This process, known as deforestation, involves the cutting down, burning, and damaging of forests. The loss of tropical rain forest is more profound than merely destruction of beautiful areas. If the current rate of deforestation continues, the world's rain forests will vanish within 100 years-causing unknown effects on global climate and eliminating the majority of plant and animal species on the planet.

And at the same time, in Siberia:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm
Melting permafrost methane emissions: The other threat to climate change
15 September 2006

A frozen peat bog covering the entire sub-Arctic area of Western Siberia, the size of France and Germany, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas that is melting for the first time since it was sequestered more than 11,000 years ago before the end of the last ice age.

Researchers Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University in Siberia, and Judith Marquand of Oxford University first reported in 2005 that one million square kilometres of permafrost had started to melt.

Such an unprecedented thaw could dramatically increase the rate of global warming.

A study published in the September 7th issue of Nature authored by Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, and Jeff Chanton of Florida State University reports that greenhouse gas is escaping into the atmosphere at a frightening rate.

When Siberian permafrost melts, carbon buried since the Pleistocene era is bubbling to the surface of lakes, and dissipating into the atmosphere as methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

(the same has been noted in Finland also, and in the Arctic sea areas, N2O has also started to bubble to the surface)


----

We can of course do nothing about these trends and go on like we have until now. But if we do, we can blame no one but ourselves for causing our own extinction. And that is, natural, of course. Earth will rectify the situation, and purge us from fooling around on her surface. Do we want that?
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:04 pm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07669.html
(whole article costs, but if you are in a university or such, you can access this through their systems for free usually - Ill see tomorrow if it is in ours)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07669.html

Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year

Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/2 ... rming.html

Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than previously thought, which could lead to an unprecedented rise in sea levels, scientists said Wednesday.

A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula.

Previously most of the warming was thought to occur on the narrow stretch pointing toward South America, said Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Britain-based Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and a member of International Polar Year's steering committee.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 020409.php

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

In the past, the Greenland ice sheet has grown when its surroundings cooled, shrunk when its surroundings warmed and even disappeared completely when the temperatures became warm enough. If the ice sheet on Greenland melts, sea level will rise about 23 feet, which will inundate portions of nearly all continental shores. However, Antarctica, containing much more water, could add up to another 190 feet to sea level.

"We do not think that we will lose all, or even most, of Antarctica's ice sheet," said Alley. "But important losses may have already started and could raise sea level as much or more than melting of Greenland's ice over hundreds or thousands of years," Alley told attendees today (Feb 16) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Warming is expected to cause more precipitation on Greenland and Antarctica, adding snow. Previously, many scientists suggested that this would offset increasing melting. However, recent studies show that the ice sheets on both Greenland and in Antarctica are melting faster than the snow is replacing the mass.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:09 pm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... c-ice.html

(just interesting)

http://www.uantarctic.org/

The polar regions are remote areas of the Earth that have profound significance for the Earth’s climate and ultimately environment, ecosystems and human society. However, we remain largely unaware of how polar climate operates and its interaction with polar environments, ecosystems and societies. To have any hope of understanding the current global climate and what might happen in the future, the science community needs a better picture of conditions at the poles and how they interact with and influence the oceans, atmosphere and land masses. Existing climate models do not work well in the polar regions and have for example failed to predict the dramatic break-up of Antarctic ice shelves observed in recent years. The three fastest warming regions on the planet in the last two decades have been Alaska, Siberia and parts of the Antarctic Peninsula. Thus, the polar regions are highly sensitive to climate change and this raises real concern for the future of polar ecosystems and societies.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 469687.htm

A huge Antarctic ice shelf is on the brink of collapse with just a sliver of ice holding it in place, the latest victim of global warming that is altering maps of the frozen continent.

"We've come to the Wilkins Ice Shelf to see its final death throes," David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said after the first - and probably last - plane landed near the narrowest part of the ice.

The flat-topped shelf has an area of thousands of square kilometres, jutting 20 metres out of the sea off the Antarctic Peninsula.

But it is held together only by an ever-thinning 40-kilometre strip of ice that has eroded to an hour-glass shape just 500 metres wide at its narrowest.

In 1950, the strip was almost 100 kilometres wide.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:12 pm

Oops, was talkin outta my ass re: staellites capabilities to assess thickness / mass...(still every article I find tells me that satellite data "seems promising but needs validation")

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_ ... data_study

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.C52A..07G
Measurements of sea ice freeboard from spaceborne radar altimeters have been used to calculate Artic sea ice thickness on a basin wide scale during the winter. The same technique has the potential to be used in the Antarctic. The technique used to convert freeboard to thickness assumes hydrostatic equilibrium and uses estimates of snow depth and density and water and ice density from climatology. The nature of the Arctic climate means that the sea ice has a positive freeboard and that it becomes entirely snow free during the summer months, which simplifies the analysis of the radar return from the sea ice. However, in the Antarctic the situation may be more complicated with negative ice freeboards and flooded and refrozen snow resulting in inaccurate estimate of sea ice freeboard and therefore ice thickness. We present, for the first time, a comparison of estimates of Antarctic sea ice thickness calculated from satellite radar altimetry measurements of sea ice freeboard with ship observation of sea ice thickness from the ASPeCt data set. We describe the both the satellite and ship borne estimates of Antarctic sea ice thickness, the method used to compare the two data sets and outcome of the validation. We also assess the future potential of satellite radar altimetry to provide sea ice thickness in the Antarctic.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2 ... 1572.shtml
A climatology of satellite ice elevation estimates is compared to an Antarctic sea ice thickness climatology made from the Antarctic Sea Ice Processes and ...

http://www.taraexpeditions.org/en/ice-t ... c70acbf70e

Ice thickness measurement around Tara and the IMB (Ice Mass Balance).

The IMB measures changes in snow and ice thickness over time. This is an effective way to measure and predict climate changes. In fact, the ice acts like a buffer between ocean and atmosphere.

There are many other means to measure the evolution of ice thickness. The newest and most promising is the use of remote sensing. New satellites that are able to measure ice thickness are at the moment on the test bench. Satellites already give very accurate information on the ice area. They are now equipped with lasers and altimeter radars in order to measure the thickness of the ice above the waterline. The total thickness is then calculated. Satellites present the big advantage to cover the whole Arctic. But we need to validate these techniques and find a way to calibrate the instruments.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/tech ... 146379.htm
16th Conference on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography
Fifth Annual Symposium on Future Operational Environmental Satellite Systems- NPOESS and GOES-R

JP2.16

Sea and lake ice characteristics from GOES-R ABI

Xuanji Wang, CIMSS/Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; and Y. Liu and J. Key
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Ben D » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:22 pm

Penguin wrote:Satellites dont give reliable evaluations of the MASS of the ice, just the extent. To a satellite, 20 cm of ice looks pretty much the same as 200 meters of ice.


Dear Penguin, these were sea ice cover studies, not ice mass!
Last edited by Ben D on Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Postby stickdog99 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:22 pm

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be extremely concerned about all this.

Before we started messing with the environment on this scale, we had a very nice, very stable ecosystem for humans to enjoy for a long period of time. So it's far safer not to be actively doing anything that could even possibly (much less probably) upset this balance.

What I don't understand, though, is all this pretending we know for certain what the control systems of Gaia are. We don't. Nobody knows. Science isn't there yet, isn't even close to being there and may never get there, especially if we quasi-exterminate ourselves within the 21st or 22nd centuries.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:23 pm

Ben D, stickdog99:
What do you think will happen when we have no forests left, none at all?
What happens to that feedback loop then, when trees arent in the loop anymore? Can you shed some light on that question for a change?
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:24 pm

penguin wrote:And frankly, if were so stupid that we cause our own extinction, well, good riddance to us. Life will still be all around the existing universe(s), just without humans. Whose loss will that be if not ours?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 181 guests