Vergent Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 does every thread in this forum have to devolve into yet another ice argument--aren't there already dedicated threads for those topics? It is what i'm worried about. It is what I think everyone should be worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The loss of sea ice has actually decelrated in recent years. The big drop was from 2009 to 2010. Volume at the 2012 min was only 1200km3 less than the 2010 min, or 600km3/yr. 600km3 (the 2-yr average) is much less than 1100km3 (the 5-yr average). Volume loss from Greenland and Antarctica may have accelerated slightly but no where near as much as arctic sea ice has decelerated. If we include permafrost and glaciers it might bring the 5 year average to 6% of the energy imbalance. The 2-yr average is 3.6%. Current year: -800km3 2yr average: -600km3 3yr average: -1,250km3 4yr average: -900km3 5yr average: -660km3 6yr average -960km3 Someone is cherry picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 does every thread in this forum have to devolve into yet another ice argument--aren't there already dedicated threads for those topics? Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted December 7, 2012 Author Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yeah the 3 big objections I had were 1) wind is on par with coal and gas for total levilzed cost (the low price of gas right now makes gas the cheapest I think, followed by wind, then coal IIRC). 2) the gas tax is about economic efficiency and pays for the road system (we don't want the gov't subsidizing driving) 3) most estimates find the costs of mitigation to be less than mitigation (these are complex economic studies that I can barely begin to explain) I did not know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Current year: -800km3 2yr average: -600km3 3yr average: -1,250km3 4yr average: -900km3 5yr average: -660km3 6yr average -960km3 Someone is cherry picking. If by cherry picking you mean I used the largest possible # except for the 3-yr trend, then yes, you are correct. I used 1100km3 for sea ice loss, which is greater than 5 of the 6 trends you have listed. If we cherry-pick the absolute largest trend possible, we still only get 6% which is much less than the original 10% you claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If by cherry picking you mean I used the largest possible # except for the 3-yr trend, then yes, you are correct. I used 1100km3 for sea ice loss, which is greater than 5 of the 6 trends you have listed. If we cherry-pick the absolute largest trend possible, we still only get 6% which is much less than the original 10% you claimed. We are getting closer. But I am talking current rate which includes the new mechanism of ice loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 My worries are centered on AGW & I believe the Arctic to be the harbinger of things to come at lower latitudes. A melt down climate theory as opposed to the trickle down economic theory. This graph of surface temperatures in the Arctic from the late 40's to 2011 illustrates my concerns. Anyone who can find any signs of recovery, or even a plateau, has better vision - or possibly a more active imagination - than I. If Global Warming was occurring no where else in the Northern Hemisphere the diminishing effects of the Arctic heat sink would be enough in itself to raise temperatures. Unfortunately this isn't the case. If we lose as much ice in the next 3 years as we did in the past 3 years - we run out of ice. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 We are getting closer. But I am talking current rate which includes the new mechanism of ice loss. The current trend, even using a very short-term average of 2 or 3 years, is not close to 10%. The 3-yr trend which is the largest still yields barely over 6%. Of course the 2-yr trend is more "current" and is morel like 4.5% - way less than 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 The current trend, even using a very short-term average of 2 or 3 years, is not close to 10%. The 3-yr trend which is the largest still yields barely over 6%. Of course the 2-yr trend is more "current" and is morel like 4.5% - way less than 10%. Skier, You have been caught making up numbers to suit your argument(500km3 for sea ice + land ice). No one is going to believe any number you put out. Besides, even if your numbers were correct, there is a new mechanism reducing ice. Its happening right now. It just started a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Skier, You have been caught making up numbers to suit your argument(500km3 for sea ice + land ice). No one is going to believe any number you put out. Besides, even if your numbers were correct, there is a new mechanism reducing ice. Its happening right now. It just started a few weeks ago. 500km3 is not a made up number. As has already been explained to you, this is the 30-yr average. You might like to think nobody will believe my estimates, but I can assure you most people on this forum find me far more credible than you. The 3-yr average is 1500km3. The 2-yr average is 1000km3. Pick whichever you like. The fact is you've offered absolutely no evidence of the 10% number As far as we know you just made that up. I've shown the math for my calculations and indicated where the data comes from (PIOMAS, Antarctic, Greenland). Ooooh a new mechanism for melting ice. I'm so excited. Magically sea ice is going to start melting even faster than it did from 09 to '10 even though melt has been much slower in the past 2 years. How about you throw out a guess for next year's min volume. I'll guess 3.5 * 1000km3 ( an increase of .3 * 1000km3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.