IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The tl;dr is this
Sea ice extent doesn't mean jack.

Total ice volume is falling.
New Also, too...
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-antarctic-sea-ice-expansion-overestimated.html

New research suggests that Antarctic sea ice may not be expanding as fast as previously thought. A team of scientists say much of the increase measured for Southern Hemisphere sea ice could be due to a processing error in the satellite data. The findings are published today in The Cryosphere, a journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).


Arctic sea ice is retreating at a dramatic rate. In contrast, satellite observations suggest that sea ice cover in the Antarctic is expanding – albeit at a moderate rate – and that sea ice extent has reached record highs in recent years. What's causing Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover to increase in a warming world has puzzled scientists since the trend was first spotted. Now, a team of researchers has suggested that much of the measured expansion may be due to an error, not previously documented, in the way satellite data was processed.

[...]

In the study published in The Cryosphere, Eisenman and collaborators compare two datasets for sea ice measurements. The most recent one, the source of AR5 conclusions, was generated using a version of Bootstrap updated in 2007, while the other, used in AR4 research, is the result of an older version of the algorithm.
The researchers found a difference between the two datasets related to a transition in satellite sensors in December 1991, and the way the data collected by the two instruments was calibrated. "It appears that one of the records did this calibration incorrectly, introducing a step-like change in December 1991 that was big enough to have a large influence on the long-term trend," explains Eisenman.

"You'd think it would be easy to see which record has this spurious jump in December 1991, but there's so much natural variability in the record – so much 'noise' from one month to the next – that it's not readily apparent which record contains the jump. When we subtract one record from the other, though, we remove most of this noise, and the step-like change in December 1991 becomes very clear."

[...]


Cheers,
Scott.
New Lots of errors in measurement and modeling
Unfortunately, however, when we find the errors the change is almost always for the worse. We're too optimistic, not too pessimistic as Box likes to think.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Yup.
     G-Warming assessment from a guy-you-love-to trash - (Ashton) - (14)
         can we start with a rofl? - (boxley) - (13)
             How about a Kaiser ROFL. - (folkert)
             Watt'sUp will rot your brain. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                 lets go to nasa then unless you consider them biased as well - (boxley) - (10)
                     You're better than this, Box. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         Good response. -NT - (folkert)
                         (Thanks.. :-) - (Ashton)
                         nope, ice is growing temps are dropping in the neighborhood - (boxley) - (6)
                             So, that means... - (folkert) - (1)
                                 See, even Peter agrees... - (folkert)
                             The tl;dr is this - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                 Also, too... - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     Lots of errors in measurement and modeling - (malraux) - (1)
                                         Yup. -NT - (Another Scott)

Better than a kick to the head with a frozen mukluk.
38 ms