The_Global_Warmer Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I posted few pages back about NASA developing a robot to use on GIS. Here is a new article about the first testing of the robot on the actual ice sheet. http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-s-polar-robotic-ranger-passes-first-greenland-test/#.Udse9py0Qc0 That's fantastic. Great ingenuity to apply it to GIS. It's unfortunate that it won't work on Sea Ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 That's fantastic. Great ingenuity to apply it to GIS. It's unfortunate that it won't work on Sea Ice. I could see something developed that could maybe work. The biggest problem in my opinion would be transitioning from ice to water and then getting back onto the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 That's fantastic. Great ingenuity to apply it to GIS. It's unfortunate that it won't work on Sea Ice. I could see something developed that could maybe work. The biggest problem in my opinion would be transitioning from ice to water and then getting back onto the ice. Hovercraft type..... I'm not sure how useful either of these robots would be. Would be cool webcam footage, but other that temps, not sure what data we would obtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Hovercraft type..... I'm not sure how useful either of these robots would be. Would be cool webcam footage, but other that temps, not sure what data we would obtain.It can carry ground penetrating radar capable of analyzing snow and ice layers. It's the start of a useful tool which can then be upgraded as testing continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 GIS melt this year has been almost non-existent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 10, 2013 Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 GIS melt this year has been almost non-existent. How do you figure that the melt has been "almost non-existent"? Here is the current plot from NSIDC: The red line is the 2013 melt season, and the dashed line is the long-term average. The total GIS melt is, of course, the area under the curve. So far 2013 has had an above average amount of melting early in the season and below average melting more recently. But the total amount of ice melted is about typical for this point in the melt season. By what measure is that "almost non-existent"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 How do you figure that the melt has been "almost non-existent"? Here is the current plot from NSIDC: The red line is the 2013 melt season, and the dashed line is the long-term average. The total GIS melt is, of course, the area under the curve. So far 2013 has had an above average amount of melting early in the season and below average melting more recently. But the total amount of ice melted is about typical for this point in the melt season. By what measure is that "almost non-existent"? Does this not explain most of the Wattupwiththat.com crowd. When I went looking for Watt's Arcus July poll, which he didn't do. I saw a thread on how the satellites are completely **** and the CU sea level rise research group fabricates the numbers. One poster brought up how N0AA is at 2.8MM/YR but is essentially the same as the CU group and the others dissecting global SLR. He doesn't explain why the two are slightly different. But it was proof for many that the CU group falsifies the numbers. Even though they don't know why NOAA was different and NOAA was still way off from the actual Sea Level Rise Watt's was peddling them. In another thread everyone but about 3 or 4 people think Co2 is inert or nearly inert. In another thread where Watts asks his bloggers to vote on the min September sea ice extent. Some needed help getting hooked up with an actual sea ice extent graph outside of what Watt's posted. Hence they have never looked it up. Another poster who was reinforced by another poster thought Jaxa was deliberately trying to alter the perception of reality by only showing 2007, 2012, and 2013 against 2013. Obviously he has never been to Jaxa's site or has ever seen the Jaxa graphic will all the years which is on Watts site. Another group of people said the NSIDC was doctoring the daily SIC images to lower how much ice there is because they didn't match up with the only other images they have seen. You guessed it. On Steve Goodards site, of course he uses the IMS images. It's striking not because their predictions typically suck. Everyone sucks at that when it comes to the chaotic climate system. But because their view of reality the things that have already happened that shape our views not a future prediction of what may happen is so messed up. These folks are in the internet seeking INFORMATION on climate change. Person A and Person B both have the data at there finger tips. One make the conclusion. The sea ice loss has been very large and it will obviously have repercussions within the climate system but going forward I don't think the ice loss will continue like this and could stabilize and possibly recover some and I can't see an ice free arctic until 2050 at the earliest if then. Person B thinks the Sea ice loss has been very large and will obviously have repercussions within the climate system and going forward I think the ice will continue to go down at this rate or even faster and possibly melt out by 2020 and certainly by 2030. Person C thinks the Sea ice loss has been manipulated and doctored and it's not that bad. And however much it has changed it was as low or worse in the 1930s. And when the AMO goes negative it will be back to 1970s level by the 2020s. Thinking temps, sea ice, sea level rise are "doctored" doesn't mean you are insane. It means you are totally ignorant to the facts or data and that someone how prayed on you're bias when you went looking for the data or you're bias and you stopped there. Watts doesn't hide the data from them. He just doesn't confirm the truth so far and focuses on the failed predictions. The person who found him had there beliefs confirmed and the ones who never went passed him get their picture from his mouth. Not his pages with graphics showing the reality. Just the posts he makes cherry picking every possible way he can to make it appear like AGW is essentially a hoax. He has it down to a perfect science for him. He wont' correct his poster's glaring mistakes unless it would compromise him. If they say Watt's said Co2 is inert when it comes to the greenhouse effect. He would correct that. Probably linking to a site that admits it is but says its weak or how humans have only put in so and so percentage, whatever will keep their eyes closed. If they say the same thing without making Watts connected to it or the post the comment comes from, no he won't be correcting it. He lives on plausible deniability. So far he basically ignores global land ice loss or cherry picks studies to fit that view. He has started to mute the significance of the arctic sea ice loss by hyping up the Antarctic sea ice growth. He has either ignored snow cover trends or used the fall/winter charts to show it's gaining there, maybe cherry picking the best gaining month or a record month like January. Obviously not mentioning that January or February being a record vs what's going on in May and June does not have the same implications at all. He has successfully crapped on the Satellite sea level rise data. He has tried to make GIS look fine: He really means if no one said **** I sure as hell wouldn't have. I doubt he didn't read it before hand. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/26/noaa-exaggerates-2012-greenland-ice-mass-loss/ [uPDATE: Several commenters, including myself, have remarked on a mathematical error in the author's work. I note this here in the expectation that the author will return to clarify and perhaps amend his claims. Having made such public mistakes myself, it's embarrassing if true, but that's the function of public peer review as practiced on WUWT. Thanks to all who pointed out the error. -w.] He and others perpetrate this reality as long as possible..which is as long as the temperature chart's don't break the record and start staying near a 1998, 2010 base for a couple years. Even then, I am sure they will come up with something clever like it's because the sea ice is reduced but the AMO is about to flip so temps will drop steadily. Jonger doesn't know anything about GIS. He doesn't read the papers or look through the data and read the papers to understand what it means. He does not follow the weather or know what the elevations are. He doesn't care. He is resigned to only want it to be one way and will make it that way so he can believe. it. Of course I have to quote the great and fictional George Costanza since it's where I heard it first. "It's not a lie if you believe it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 GIS has experienced Warmth as was expected. The Summit is up to a balmy -6C. It is expected to reach 1C today. On the plus side it is snowing. Light snow is the forecast for the next few days. Which is good. On the other hand. The Summit is 3200M above sea level and is -6C. The other -6C reading to the South is at 2850M. It is also within a cooler airmass than the one that is being advected just North of there. The 00z Sounding on the Southern tip of GIS has the freeze level at 1000M. On the eastern coast around 67N it was hovering around 2900M. On the eastern coast around 70N it was around 3300-3400M. On the eastern coast around 77N it was around 1750M. On the Western coast around 67N it was 1800M. Overall Southern, SE, and W/SW GISS is expected to warm up after today. We can't forget GIS has swings in temp from night time to day time. This is also why almost no surface ice melt is lost above 1500M. Maintaining above freezing temps and enough sun is tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Total summer melt is at about 200GT based on this graph. last season we lost around 500. 2012 and 2013 are about to be worlds apart in the next few weeks with 2012 going off a cliff right now. I can't see a scenario where Greenland approaches the 500GT from last year, not even close. if I had to guess I'd say we end between 275GT and 375GT of summer melt with a net gain for the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 GIS melt this year has been almost non-existent.I just caught this comment. This adds nothing constructive to the discussion. Not to mention its completely false. We have seen a pretty average melt year when you add it all up. Greenland does lose a bunch of mass in summer even in a normal melt year. Congratulations on the asinine comment.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5hfYJsQAhl0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 image.jpg image.jpg Total summer melt is at about 200GT based on this graph. last season we lost around 500. 2012 and 2013 are about to be worlds apart in the next few weeks with 2012 going off a cliff right now. I can't see a scenario where Greenland approaches the 500GT from last year, not even close. if I had to guess I'd say we end between 275GT and 375GT of summer melt with a net gain for the year. Keep in mind that the GIS ice balance includes ice lost from glacial calving as well as ice lost to glacial melting. It's really too early to say what the net 2013 loss will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Keep in mind that the GIS ice balance includes ice lost from glacial calving as well as ice lost to glacial melting. It's really too early to say what the net 2013 loss will be. He is using there old products that are being upgraded and overhauled. I linked to the new ones back on the 7th. They hired Jason Box to help better their tracking of the GIS melt. http://i.imgur.com/bn75I6R.gif http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland-ice-shelf/nbsp/surface-conditions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 The gap between 2012 and 2013 is about to look like the Grand Canyon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 For being called rather benign the ice mass loss hasn't dropped below average one time. Wonder how benign that will look when the final mass loss tally comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.