Meltdown!

[Nuggets Mahoney]

How do you calibrate a sea level measuring satellite?

Some nice men in lab-coats do it for you, very carefully.

[corevalue]

Some nice men in lab-coats do it for you, very carefully.

What, like the Hubble telescope?

[Mr. Miyagi]

Don't forget that the satellite records only go back as far as the late 70's

[Mr. Miyagi]

How do you calibrate a sea level measuring satellite?

Indeed.....

[snowflux]

Must be getting close to minimum now:

Already the lowest ice extent by far since 1979, almost certainly the lowest since the mid 1800s and very likely the lowest for at least 1,500 years.

Looks like we've headed off the end of the current interglacial big time. May have overdone it a touch though!

[Bloo Loo]

Must be getting close to minimum now:

Already the lowest ice extent by far since 1979, almost certainly the lowest since the mid 1800s and very likely the lowest for at least 1,500 years.

Looks like we've headed off the end of the current interglacial big time. May have overdone it a touch though!

its not been particularly warm this year, has it?...i mean, the June start was much the same as 1979 average...maybe its been a bit more blowy and the ice has moved apart, ie spread out to less than 15% per given area, ie, are there more icebergs floating away further South than recently?

[(Blizzard)]

What, like the Hubble telescope?

Are you suggesting that the Hubble telescope didnt work, or are you using it as an example of the open and self correcting nature of science?

[(Blizzard)]

Even fewer that have researched the subject swallow the party line that it is man made.

good luck in your quest

Reading blogs is not research.

No wonder you get so confused!

[gadget]

its not been particularly warm this year, has it?...i mean, the June start was much the same as 1979 average...maybe its been a bit more blowy and the ice has moved apart, ie spread out to less than 15% per given area, ie, are there more icebergs floating away further South than recently?

"Sea ice experts on Friday said they were surprised by the collapse because weather conditions were not especially conducive to a major melt this year. The ice is now believed to be much thinner than it used to be and easier to melt."

[Bloo Loo]

"Sea ice experts on Friday said they were surprised by the collapse because weather conditions were not especially conducive to a major melt this year. The ice is now believed to be much thinner than it used to be and easier to melt."

and yet, it seems, every year, the sea ice returns to normal spreads...probably in the winter i would hazard.

they appear to be guessing why the spread is so much greater, ie, making the theory fit the results this year...Im sure my guess is as good as theirs,

Or maybe...15% was chosen as it is a particularly volatile marker....maybe if they went to 10%, there would be no reduction, or maybe even an increase?

[corevalue]

Are you suggesting that the Hubble telescope didnt work, or are you using it as an example of the open and self correcting nature of science?

I'm suggesting your notion of careful calibration by men in white coats is pure fantasy. Hubble in it's original launch form was pure ****-up, and only fixed by much awkward and very ingenious after-sales engineering.

Incidentally, I've been right there - commissioning the optical section of the orbital control of a satellite, and found a fairly big error in the maths. Got the optical designer in (after much effort, no scientist wants to admit they're wrong), and he reluctantly agreed there was a problem. Luckily, on careful reworking of the math, another mistake was discovered which almost completely cancelled the first, certainly to an order below any effect we would see. Pure luck. We decided to brush it under the carpet. That means it was neither open (only two of us knew, and we weren't telling) and neither was it self-correcting. The fact that an existing launch already had the same system working just fine made the decision to stay silent for us.

I've had other similar run-ins. Once I had to ask why my measurements were a magnitude greater than the scientist's.Turned out he hadn't made those measurements, he'd extrapolated his data, since

"...all the other data points show close agreement with the theory".

"So why did you graph into that region in your report?"

" Er, stumble. The devices work OK, nobody else has complained." Phone dead. That little conversation cost another half a man-year of engineering to find a work-around.

[snowflux]

and yet, it seems, every year, the sea ice returns to normal spreads...probably in the winter i would hazard.

they appear to be guessing why the spread is so much greater, ie, making the theory fit the results this year...Im sure my guess is as good as theirs,

Or maybe...15% was chosen as it is a particularly volatile marker....maybe if they went to 10%, there would be no reduction, or maybe even an increase?

The area, extent and volume of the Arctic ice is measured in a number of different ways, every one of which has indicated a record minimum this winter. There greatest loss is in volume - the volume of summer ice is now only about a quarter of what it was in the 80s. Nevin's blog has lots of info about these different methods as well as other interesting Arctic ice stuff.

It's true that the winter ice extent has not shown such a dramatic reduction. However, this ice is mostly thin, seasonal ice which will quickly melt away again the next summer. Even when the multi-year ice is gone in a few years time, a thin sheet of ice will still form over the winter.

[(Blizzard)]

I'm suggesting your notion of careful calibration by men in white coats is pure fantasy. Hubble in it's original launch form was pure ****-up, and only fixed by much awkward and very ingenious after-sales engineering.

Incidentally, I've been right there - commissioning the optical section of the orbital control of a satellite, and found a fairly big error in the maths. Got the optical designer in (after much effort, no scientist wants to admit they're wrong), and he reluctantly agreed there was a problem. Luckily, on careful reworking of the math, another mistake was discovered which almost completely cancelled the first, certainly to an order below any effect we would see. Pure luck. We decided to brush it under the carpet. That means it was neither open (only two of us knew, and we weren't telling) and neither was it self-correcting. The fact that an existing launch already had the same system working just fine made the decision to stay silent for us.

I've had other similar run-ins. Once I had to ask why my measurements were a magnitude greater than the scientist's.Turned out he hadn't made those measurements, he'd extrapolated his data, since

"...all the other data points show close agreement with the theory".

"So why did you graph into that region in your report?"

" Er, stumble. The devices work OK, nobody else has complained." Phone dead. That little conversation cost another half a man-year of engineering to find a work-around.

Hubble has been enormously successful. It is a brilliant example of how science is self correcting, and a terrible choice of example if you believe in scientific conspiracies.

As to the rest, your own story of how satellites can be successfully launched despite human frailties confirms my point exactly. Thanks.

[Guest eight]

Hubble has been enormously successful. It is a brilliant example of how science is self correcting, and a terrible choice of example if you believe in scientific conspiracies.

As to the rest, your own story of how satellites can be successfully launched despite human frailties confirms my point exactly. Thanks.

So, you seem to know everything. How do you calibrate a sea level measuring satellite then?

[(Blizzard)]

So, you seem to know everything. How do you calibrate a sea level measuring satellite then?

Science not really your thing is it?

[Guest eight]

Science not really your thing is it?

Not really. But I think even asking the question makes me smarter than the average bear.

[ntb]

[(Blizzard)]

Not really. But I think even asking the question makes me smarter than the average bear.

Go one better, read the answer.

Edit: ok, now I'm being an ****. It's a reasonable question, with several answers, which is the really important point.

Science relies on multiple independent answers from competing groups, and is self correcting. This is why it works, not because scientists are clever or more honest than everyone else.

[Bloo Loo]

The area, extent and volume of the Arctic ice is measured in a number of different ways, every one of which has indicated a record minimum this winter. There greatest loss is in volume - the volume of summer ice is now only about a quarter of what it was in the 80s. Nevin's blog has lots of info about these different methods as well as other interesting Arctic ice stuff.

It's true that the winter ice extent has not shown such a dramatic reduction. However, this ice is mostly thin, seasonal ice which will quickly melt away again the next summer. Even when the multi-year ice is gone in a few years time, a thin sheet of ice will still form over the winter.

I guess we will find out next summer.

[corevalue]

Hubble has been enormously successful. It is a brilliant example of how science is self correcting, and a terrible choice of example if you believe in scientific conspiracies.

As to the rest, your own story of how satellites can be successfully launched despite human frailties confirms my point exactly. Thanks.

Where did I mention conspiracies? Hubble was a brilliant example of how science is self-correcting?

You confuse scientists with engineers. Hubble was a QA cook*-up par excellence, and a shoddy piece of engineering, that luckily, with a lot of effort, was put right. The science part was just fine, it seems they got the maths right the first time. That was my point, an instrument like that should have been CAREFULLY calibrated. It wasn't.

In my experience, scientists are way less careful than engineers when it comes to handling data - it doesn't cost anything if they make a mistake, it only damages their reputations (if discovered).

I suspect you've never measured anything in your life, let alone had to look for falsifications and omissions in others "scientific" work. i have.

*FUBRA censor-proof

[snowflux]

I guess we will find out next summer.

I don't see any reason to expect any significant change from the general trend of seasonal ice replacing multi-year ice that has been the case for the last couple of decades or so. Next summer may or may not bring a new record low, but I'd be very surprised if the record didn't fall again within the next five years or so.