Visit our Popular Forums

**GordMay** · 31-07-2021, 03:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

That 19 mm is not really accurate heck that is well within. The error range of the satellites...

Monitoring of sea ice makes use of numerous observational datasets, using both in-situ, and remote sensing methods.

What do you think the uncertainty [error range & and measurement confidence] for current satellite radar altimetry sea ice [depth & extent] measurements is?

It is important to note, that each year [in the modern record] has roughly the same absolute error value, so the decline over the long term remains clear. NSIDC has high confidence in sea ice trend statistics, and the comparison of sea ice extent between years.

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Monitoring of sea ice makes use of numerous observational datasets, using both in-situ, and remote sensing methods.

What do you think the uncertainty [error range & and measurement confidence] for current satellite radar altimetry sea ice [depth & extent] measurements is?

It is important to note, that each year [in the modern record] has roughly the same absolute error value, so the decline over the long term remains clear. NSIDC has high confidence in sea ice trend statistics, and the comparison of sea ice extent between years.

With the number of variables that affect satellites the measuring of height can vary by as much as 2.5mm per year and yes that is the official . We have discussed this before many times .
Look it up.
However I have no idea what sea ice cryosat measurements have to do with general sea level measurements ? Well you are suddenly very specific.

jimbunyard · 31-07-2021, 07:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

...What do you think the uncertainty [error range & and measurement confidence] for current satellite radar altimetry sea ice [depth & extent] measurements is?

Well, that's easy (though the answer is somewhat diagonal [almost orthogonal]); for some people, 'science' is a tool for confirming their biases (note the constant cherrypicking and selective interpretations from members of this camp), for others, science is a tool that, with all its shortcomings, uncertainties, blind alleyways and non or counterintuitive concepts, is still the best method for making sense of the world (note how, for these people, these foibles [of science] cause them to constantly reevaluate their position to adapt to new knowledge).

Quote:

It is important to note, that each year [in the modern record] has roughly the same absolute error value, so the decline over the long term remains clear. NSIDC has high confidence in sea ice trend statistics, and the comparison of sea ice extent between years.

Unfortunately, this hugely important point is apparently un-understandable to members of the 'science' camp. Reminds me of the 'thunderstorm here, thunderstorm everywhere' way of thinking... (a favorite is the oft-mentioned [look it up] counterintuitive fact that even though land ice pack melt is causing global sealevel rise, the sea level adjacent to these ice packs is declining because of the lost mass of said icepack. Gravity works sideways (imangine that!) and (to answer the imminent 'isostatic adjustment!' cries) instantly (at these distances). What remains unclear is if the centripetally (or is that centrifugally?) induced mass of water concentrating at the equator is or will actually contribute to speeding the deterioration of the poles' icepack. (this is, of course, [mostly] a tongue-in-cheek poke at some of the more conspiracy-prone amongst us)

Used to be astounding to me that 'science campers' seemed unaware of the definitions of 'global', averaging and the basic concepts of time (amongst a plethora of other related things).

Now it just illustrates the range of ---- intellectual capacity? curiosity? ---- residing within the human animal species.

But, not to worry, I've a new source of astonishment. And that is, of course, how these deniers can continue to break so many of the forum 'rules' and yet continue to 'ply their trade' here. Guess 'cause they break them so 'nicely'?...

**GordMay** · 31-07-2021, 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

With the number of variables that affect satellites the measuring of height can vary by as much as 2.5mm per year and yes that is the official . We have discussed this before many times .
Look it up ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

With the number of variables that affect satellites the measuring of height can vary by as much as 2.5mm per year and yes that is the official . We have discussed this before many times .
Look it up..

Do you mean that any given satellite sea ice height measurement can be understood to mean ±2.5 mm, with a "high" level of confidence?
I am looking it up; with the member who implied knowledge.

According to ➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ise-ice-height
ICESat-2 [laser altimeters*] gathers enough data to estimate the annual height change of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to within 4 millimeters (0.2 inches).
* Laser altimeters can return more precise data about the ice surface, particularly over steeply sloping areas, but it observes the same swaths less often. Radars can observe more ice area with greater frequency, but less precision.

According to ➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
Sea Level Rate of Change Varies from +1.2 mm/year [steric]
(± 0.2 mm/y) to +3.4mm/year [global mean] (± 0.4 mm/y)

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do you mean that any given satellite sea ice height measurement can be understood to mean ±2.5 mm, with a "high" level of confidence?
I am looking it up; with the member who implied knowledge.

According to ➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ise-ice-height
ICESat-2 [laser altimeters*] gathers enough data to estimate the annual height change of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to within 4 millimeters (0.2 inches).
* Laser altimeters can return more precise data about the ice surface, particularly over steeply sloping areas, but it observes the same swaths less often. Radars can observe more ice area with greater frequency, but less precision.

According to ➥ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
Sea Level Rate of Change Varies from +1.2 mm/year [steric]
(± 0.2 mm/y) to +3.4mm/year [global mean] (± 0.4 mm/y)

So it appears my source states that the satellite datasets are even more accurate than your source that states 4mm.

**GordMay** · 31-07-2021, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

So it appears my source states that the satellite datasets are even more accurate than your source that states 4mm.

The biggest difference being, that I state (& link) my sources ...

And, whether the accuracy is ±0.2mm/ear, 0.4mm/y, 2.5mm, or 4mm - 19mm is not within the limits of accuracy, as you seemed* to claim.
* Your statement wasn't entirely clear/comprehensible.

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

The biggest difference being, that I state (& link) my sources ...

And, whether the accuracy is ±0.2mm/ear, 0.4mm/y, 2.5mm, or 4mm - 19mm is not within the limits of accuracy, as you seemed* to claim.
* Your statement wasn't entirely clear/comprehensible.

Mine was from nature magazine article 3 years ago couldn't find it again but it's on cf somewhere .

**GordMay** · 31-07-2021, 11:30

Swimming gives your brain a boost

It’s no secret that aerobic exercise can help stave off some of the ravages of aging. [A & B]

Swimming has long been recognized for its cardiovascular benefits. [c] Because swimming involves all of the major muscle groups, the heart has to work hard, which increases blood flow throughout the body. This leads to the creation of new blood vessels, a process called angiogenesis. [B] The greater blood flow can also lead to a large release of endorphins – hormones that act as a natural pain reducer throughout the body. This surge brings about the sense of euphoria that often follows exercise.[C]

But a growing body of research suggests that swimming might provide a unique boost to brain health. [1]
Regular swimming has been shown to improve memory [1], cognitive function [1], immune response [2] and mood [3]. Swimming may also help repair damage from stress and forge new neural connections in the brain [4].

[1] “Swimming exercise improves short- and long-term memories: Time-course changes” ~ by Mahmoud A. Alomari et al
➥ https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...814/phy2.14851

[2] “Exercise activates vagal induction of dopamine and attenuates systemic inflammation” ~ by GuilhermeShimojo et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...451?via%3Dihub

[3] “Swimming exercise ameliorates mood disorder and memory impairment by enhancing neurogenesis, serotonin expression, and inhibiting apoptosis in social isolation rats during adolescence” ~ by Hye-Sang Park et al
➥ https://www.e-jer.org/journal/view.p...ber=2013600793

[4] “Synaptogenesis in adult-generated hippocampal granule cells is affected by behavioral experiences” ~ by Patrizia Ambrogini et al
➥ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hipo.20679

[A] “Exercise becomes brain: sustained aerobic exercise enhances hippocampal neurogenesis” ~ by Tharmegan Tharmaratnam et al
➥ https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.c....1113/JP272761

[B] “Joggin’ the Noggin: Towards a Physiological Understanding of Exercise-Induced Cognitive Benefits” ~ by Nikolas J.Stimpson et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...102?via%3Dihub

[c] “Swimming and the heart” ~ by Jason M. Lazar et al
➥ https://www.internationaljournalofca...482-8/fulltext

SailOar · 31-07-2021, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

That 19 mm is not really accurate heck that is well within. The error range of the satellites. Aside from it is not rising . No idea where they get the idea but you look at the stations around the planet there is no appricable change some appear to have risen some have fallen . 90% is explainable due to isotastic adjustment. Here we have a daily difference of approximately 13 feet between low low and high high. What are a few mm if it were even there .

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

With the number of variables that affect satellites the measuring of height can vary by as much as 2.5mm per year and yes that is the official . We have discussed this before many times .
Look it up.

I don't know whether your statements are accurate or not, but they are mostly irrelevant (per usual) to the discussion of how much the melting of the cryosphere contributes to sea level rise.

How [mountain] glaciers' contribution to sea level is computed

Global mass balance data are transformed to sea-level equivalent by first multiplying the ice thickness (meters) lost to melting by the density of ice (about 900 kilograms per cubic meter), to obtain a water equivalent thickness, and then multiplying by the surface area of these "small" glaciers (about 760,000 square kilometers). This provides an annual average mass balance of approximately -0.273 meters for the period 1961 to 2005. When dividing the mass balance value by the surface area of the oceans (361.6 million square kilometers), the final result is 0.58 millimeters of sea level rise per year. The Glacier Contribution to Sea Level graph demonstrates how the contribution from melting glaciers began increasing at a faster rate starting in the 1990s. This is in agreement with high-latitude air temperature records. The IPCC (2013) stated that it was "very likely" (at least 90 percent confidence) that the mean annual global rate of ocean level increase was 1.5 to 1.9 millimeters between 1901 and 2010, 1.7 to 2.3 millimeters between 1971 and 2010, and 2.8 to 3.6 millimeters between 1993 and 2010.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Measurement techniques for [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheet mass balance

Scientists have adopted three general approaches to ice sheet mass balance measurement: comparing outflow and melt to snowfall accumulation (the mass budget method), observing changes in glacier elevation (volume change or geodetic method), and detecting changes in the Earth’s gravity field over the ice sheet (gravimetric method).....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sea level rise contributors: Comparison of volume (white), area (grey)
and percent contribution to sea level rise (red) by small glaciers and ice caps,
and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
Image courtesy (Meier et al. 2007).

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SailOar

I don't know whether your statements are accurate or not, but they are mostly irrelevant (per usual) to the discussion of how much the melting of the cryosphere contributes to sea level rise.

How [mountain] glaciers' contribution to sea level is computed

Global mass balance data are transformed to sea-level equivalent by first multiplying the ice thickness (meters) lost to melting by the density of ice (about 900 kilograms per cubic meter), to obtain a water equivalent thickness, and then multiplying by the surface area of these "small" glaciers (about 760,000 square kilometers). This provides an annual average mass balance of approximately -0.273 meters for the period 1961 to 2005. When dividing the mass balance value by the surface area of the oceans (361.6 million square kilometers), the final result is 0.58 millimeters of sea level rise per year. The Glacier Contribution to Sea Level graph demonstrates how the contribution from melting glaciers began increasing at a faster rate starting in the 1990s. This is in agreement with high-latitude air temperature records. The IPCC (2013) stated that it was "very likely" (at least 90 percent confidence) that the mean annual global rate of ocean level increase was 1.5 to 1.9 millimeters between 1901 and 2010, 1.7 to 2.3 millimeters between 1971 and 2010, and 2.8 to 3.6 millimeters between 1993 and 2010.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Measurement techniques for [Greenland and Antarctic] ice sheet mass balance

Scientists have adopted three general approaches to ice sheet mass balance measurement: comparing outflow and melt to snowfall accumulation (the mass budget method), observing changes in glacier elevation (volume change or geodetic method), and detecting changes in the Earth’s gravity field over the ice sheet (gravimetric method).....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sea level rise contributors: Comparison of volume (white), area (grey)
and percent contribution to sea level rise (red) by small glaciers and ice caps,
and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
Image courtesy (Meier et al. 2007).

Whole lot if useless political doublespeak.
The Antarctic is actually gaining ice and snow .
The Arctic sea ice is actually not contributing at all. As sea ice freezes it causes a minor lowering of sea levels and a minor rise each year as it melts.

SailOar · 31-07-2021, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

1) Whole lot if useless political doublespeak.
2) The Antarctic is actually gaining ice and snow .
3) The Arctic sea ice is actually not contributing at all. As sea ice freezes it causes a minor lowering of sea levels and a minor rise each year as it melts.

Once again you either make baseless assertions without providing any supporting evidence (1 and 2), or else you create a Straw Man argument (3) by asserting something that no one would argue against.

**GordMay** · 31-07-2021, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Whole lot if useless political doublespeak...

Indeed.
Your litany reminds me of Cato: "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by SailOar

Once again you either make baseless assertions without providing any supporting evidence (1 and 2), or else you create a Straw Man argument (3) by asserting something that no one would argue against.

Number1 my assertion of most of your cut and paste postings .
Number 2 from noaa and nasa https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
No updates available.
Number 3 ice melting will actually cause minor water level rise that is just common known physics . Heck even Bill nye the engineer guy showed that.

Put a few ice cubes in a glass and mark the water level then check it after the ice has melted .

**newhaul** · 31-07-2021, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
Your litany reminds me of Cato: "Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

That is more like the thinking of the MMGWC not climate realists view .

SailOar · 31-07-2021, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Number 2 from noaa and nasa https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses
No updates available.

One of your biggest personal liabilities is your unwillingness, or perhaps your inability, to learn new things. We had this exact discussion a few months ago, and you didn't seem to learn a thing. Contrary to your baseless assertion, new updates are available, and they have been shown to you. The GRACE and GRACE-FO satellites were specifically designed to track ice loss at the poles. Since you don't seem to be able to learn from charts, I'll present what NASA/JPL has to say in text form:

Ice Sheets & Glaciers

Since 2002, the twin satellites of GRACE have made a complete map of Earth’s gravitational field every 30 days. Gravity is determined by mass. While most of the planet’s mass — its land and core — doesn’t move much in 30 days, its water and ice do, causing Earth’s gravity to shift. By tracking these changes, GRACE and GRACE-FO can identify how much ice sheets and glaciers are shrinking.

GRACE data are used extensively to determine mass changes of the world’s land ice (ice sheets, icefields, ice caps and mountain glaciers). Land ice continually adds mass through precipitation and loses mass via meltwater runoff and calving of solid ice into the ocean. If losses are greater than gains, land ice loses mass, causing sea level to rise. Over the last decade or so, losses from land ice have been implicated in causing two-thirds of the observed rise in sea level.

Researchers seek to further scientific understanding of ice-sheet dynamics and land-ice response to changes in atmospheric conditions and how these processes influence rates of sea-level change. GRACE data also provide information about seasonal and sub-seasonal variations in water transport between the continental land masses and oceans – of which the cryosphere (Earth’s frozen places) is an important component.

Data from the GRACE satellites show that ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 118 gigatons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 281 gigatons per year. One gigaton equals a billion metric tons.