Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
All I meant about the discrepancies is that the more you research about this, more conflicting data you get. You must have noticed it when you conducted your research.

But it helps to find actual conflicts rather than ghost issues, lol.

Indeed, the actual conflict would revolve around why sea ice is extensively increasing in one area of antarctica (enough to produce a wider regional increase), and the ozone study has tried to assess why. It found that the ozone hole might be altering weather patterns. Other explanations have focused on fresh water melt.

reply to post by melatonin

But it helps to find actual conflicts rather than ghost issues, lol.

You are correct. By ghost issues I guess you mean my previous mistake on mixing sea ice and ice sheet.

I have seen some discrepancies on the ammount of sea ice extent increase reported. I am not finding a good source to support it right now, but will post it when I do.

In the mean time here is one example of conflicting data beetween studies:

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

news.com.au

And I am not including some sensacionalist report that I found stating that 75% of the ice sheet is about to melt this year. Granted the media doesn't help much.

Just to remember, I am not trying to create an argument with you, just trying to ilustrate that conflicts do exist.

By the way, have you checked this paper?

Corr and Vaughn report that volcanic activity
beneath the Antarctic ice may have increased the flow rate of some of the region's largest glaciers.

I found this most intriguing, since I had the impression that it was man made climate change that caused the ice to melt.

Other explanations have focused on fresh water melt.

This I had not seen.

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by MorfeuZ

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

news.com.au

Perhaps there is another explanation?

Perhaps the author of the article misrepresented Dr Allison. Considering all he said is calvings are mainly in the west region, which is no conflict. And considering he has also recently said:

Ice cover 'increasing in east Antarctica'
Posted Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:05am AEST

New research has found that despite climate change concerns, the amount of ice may actually be increasing across much of Antarctica.

Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division's ice, ocean, atmosphere and climate program, says outside of western Antarctica, ice levels are remaining steady or possibly increasing.

"Over most of Antarctica the surface temperatures are very well below the freezing point," he said.

"So it requires more than a slight warming before you start getting significant melt.

"In east Antarctica there may be a slight increase due to increased snow fall."

But Dr Allison says overall, ice levels are still falling.

"In west Antarctica, the smaller bit that hangs off the tail going up towards the Antarctic peninsula, some of the very large glaciers have increased their speed and are discharging more ice into the atmosphere," he said.

"On average, west Antarctica is losing more ice than the east is gaining."

www.abc.net.au...

The author of that article you posted is a denier who originally wrote the article a well-known Aussie deniers rag. So overall, the ice sheet is losing mass.

I'm starting to get this sort of gut-feeling...

I found this most intriguing, since I had the impression that it was man made climate change that caused the ice to melt.

lol

It is groundhog day.

Perhaps two things can happen at once?

This I had not seen.

To the research cave, batmorf!

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]

Found It!

"The Antarctic wintertime ice extent increased...at a rate of 0.6% per decade" from 1979 to 2006, says Donald Cavalieri, a senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

newscientist.com

[edit to add] since maybe some people would not see conflicting data on this.

"This recent paper shows you know a change in the annual mean ice extent of Antarctica of only 0.97 per cent per decade which is really close to zero,"

au.news.yahoo.com

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

reply to post by melatonin

I'm starting to get this sort of gut-feeling...

No, I don't deny climate changes cause I am not a denier, I am a questioner. And acctually despite your jokes and sarcasm I am acctually learning a litlle bit from this discussion.

I just question that all these changes around the globe are happening because of man made climate change. I am sick and tired of being bombarded by the media's hype.

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
I just question that all these changes around the globe are happening because of man made climate change. I am sick and tired of being bombarded by the media's hype.

Whatever you do, don't bother with the science. It might throw you over the edge.

Take care.

reply to post by melatonin

Whatever you do, don't bother with the science. It might throw you over the edge.

Take care.

LOL
Would you care to explain why or all you have is another joke?


[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
LOL
Would you care to explain why or all you have are jokes?

I have jokes, I have science, I have good looks and a wicked smile.

Like variables in nature, they can all exist together - indeed, much the better for it. There's not much left for the thread, some scientist haz model that suggests the ozone hole is an important influence in sea ice. No conflict.

Catch ya around.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin
No conflict?

Look, I made the mistake to mix sea ice shelf with ice sheet. But to say that there is no conflict is too much IMO.

AFAIK science is all about conflict, if every sudy a scientist release were 100% accurate then why peer review it?

Let's see what you think science is:
'satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations compared with a climate model' is more accurate then 'Ice core drilling'. Amazing man. This is not science, this is denial IMHO.

Peace.


[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
reply to post by melatonin

 

No conflict?

...But to say that there is no conflict is too much IMO.

Not for your topic. If you want to make the thread a general whine about climate science, that's cool. Most of them end up that way once the errors and misunderstandings are made obvious, so no big surprise. Generally, goalposts shift, Gore gets a mention, Hockey sticks fly, stuff we are really uncertain about gets a mention, and the reality disappears as we fall into the matrix of obfuscation and FUD.

Not in the mood currently, but it's your thread and you're a climate 'inquisitor' (fetch the comfy chair!).

As I said, catch ya around.

reply to post by melatonin


LOL

you're a climate inquisitor

LOL

I've been called a lot of names but this trumphs them all.

I think the 'inquisitor' sounds and suits you better. Questionner is rather lame. 'Da Inquisitor' comes across real hard ass, like a layman avenger gonna put science to the sword.

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
Found It!

"The Antarctic wintertime ice extent increased...at a rate of 0.6% per decade" from 1979 to 2006, says Donald Cavalieri, a senior research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

newscientist.com

[edit to add] since maybe some people would not see conflicting data on this.

"This recent paper shows you know a change in the annual mean ice extent of Antarctica of only 0.97 per cent per decade which is really close to zero,"

au.news.yahoo.com

Ooh. An edit I missed, cool.

Ok, so where is the conflict?

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]

What an absolute ridiculous thread - the ice being lost outstrips the ice being replaced - further there was always the forecast that from global warming would produce more se as as there would be increased snow (Antarctica is home to the driest place on earth where it has not had any precipitation for thousands of years - some valley) why becuase it is simply too cold to form any precipitation - the heating allows precipitation - this is why there are projections of more snow for alpine resorts as temperatures rises will actuality increase snow falls.

I cant not believe that a study which concluded that there is still massive loss of ice in the Antarctic is being used to debunk global warming -fools.

The fact of the matter is that debunkers need to come to terms with the fact that they are just wrong - pure and simple - wrong. You look profoundly stupid - have not had an intelligent comment from a single debunker = children.

reply to post by melatonin


I thought you meant 'inquisitor' as an official in an Inquisition.
I gotta train my english skills a lil bit.

First study: conducted by NASA's senior research scientist Dr. Donald Cavalieri:
0.6% ( roughly 60.000 square kms) per decade increase.

Second study: conducted by scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA:
0.97% ( roughly 100.000 square kms) per decade increase. Conflicting data do exist.


You see, science is not an exact science.

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
I thought you meant 'inquisitor' as an official in an Inquisition.
I gotta train my english skills a lil bit.

Yeah, of course. I guess so...

First study: conducted by NASA's senior research scientist Dr. Donald Cavalieri:
0.6% ( roughly 60.000 square kms) per decade increase.

Second study: conducted by scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA:
0.97% ( roughly 100.000 square kms) per decade increase. Conflicting data do exist.

You see, science is not an exact science.

Oh, I see, different numbers. I focused on the words as well.

Perhaps it's another spook-like conflict, and you're mixing sour cooking apples and cox's apples this time?

Originally posted by audas
What an absolute ridiculous thread - the ice being lost outstrips the ice being replaced - further there was always the forecast that from global warming would produce more se as as there would be increased snow (Antarctica is home to the driest place on earth where it has not had any precipitation for thousands of years - some valley) why becuase it is simply too cold to form any precipitation - the heating allows precipitation - this is why there are projections of more snow for alpine resorts as temperatures rises will actuality increase snow falls.

I cant not believe that a study which concluded that there is still massive loss of ice in the Antarctic is being used to debunk global warming -fools.

The fact of the matter is that debunkers need to come to terms with the fact that they are just wrong - pure and simple - wrong. You look profoundly stupid - have not had an intelligent comment from a single debunker = children.

Ok, I see now. Maybe Melatonin got frustrated and brought backup?

Look, Mr. audas I will not even bother to try to debunk or discuss your post, since first of all I am not a debunker, second of all I was not using the study wich concluded that there is still loss of ice on the Antarctic to debunk anything.
I was just trying to make a point that real SCIENTISTS (and I don't mean those scientists that sells results) do disagree, their studies do conflict some times. I am not gonna waste my time trying to prove this again, I should not need it, you should know it by now.
Like I said earlier I am here to learn, not to debunk, maybe AGW is real, but there is some scientists that disagree. IMO you are the one looking like a child.

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
Ok, I see now. Maybe Melatonin got frustrated and brought backup?

lol, Mel's posse comin at ya nerd stylee!

You've gotta be kidding me. You think I need backup, lol. Thanks, I didn't need the extra portion of lulz, but I'll take it.

Like I said earlier I am here to learn, not to debunk, maybe AGW is real, but there is some scientists that disagree. IMO you are the one looking like a child.

Audas is correct that if people don't pay attention and follow the issue, comprehend simple concepts and claims, they will look foolish. Just the way it is. Problem is, many don't even realise it.

The arrogance of ignorance.

reply to post by melatonin


I paid attentions to the word "wintertime" also. Can you prove to me that there is a greater increse on sea ice extent on summer?

AFAIK the differences between summer and winter sea ice extent don't change this much.

[edit on 30/4/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by melatonin
Audas is correct that if people don't pay attention and follow the issue, comprehend simple concepts and claims, they will look foolish. Just the way it is. Problem is, many don't even realise it.

The arrogance of ignorance.

I won't fall in your game. By the way both of you are arrogants, and arrogance much of the time means ignorance.

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
I paid attentions to the word "winter" also. Can you prove to me that there is a greater increse on sea ice extent on summer?

AFAIK the differences between summer and winter sea ice extent don't change this much.

They are two different numbers that assess two somewhat different things. It's like stating there is a conflict because mean annual temperature in Rio is different than mean winter temperature.

I don't need to show anything. It isn't my fault that you can't tell the difference between annual data and single season data. If I was you, I wouldn't rely on what you know about climate science that much. Take it as helpful advice, my apparently brazilian friend.

Originally posted by MorfeuZ
I won't fall in your game. By the way both of you are arrogants, and arrogance much of the time means ignorance.

lol, yeah. Must be.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]