Our cooling world

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Ya, see that, itès a cooling Jupiter





Shrink Spot, Shrink

Posted on November 27, 2014 by Stephen Smith
Jupiter’s Great Red Spot from the New Horizons spacecraft in transit to Pluto. Credit: NASA/JPL


Nov 27, 2014
The size of Jupiter’s red vortex is smaller than ever.
For over 300 years, the Great Red Spot has persisted in Jupiter’s atmosphere—longer than telescopes have existed to see it. It is commonly believed to be a cyclonic storm driven by thermal convection from deep inside Jupiter’s atmosphere. How it was formed and why it has lasted so long remain a mystery, however.
No one is sure why it is red in color. In fact, scientists are not sure why any of the gas giant planets possess unique color schemes. Neptune has a blue tint, Uranus green, Saturn is pale yellow, and Jupiter is a rusty red, overall.
According to a recent press release, the Spot is shrinking. It is now measured to be 16,650 kilometers long, the smallest yet. Measurements over the years indicate that it varies in size. At one point, it was over 39,000 kilometers long and 21,000 kilometers wide.
Conventional investigators contend that the warmer areas in the center of the Spot’s vortex are sufficient to drive its rotation as well as to turn that center a darker red than the rest of the Spot. The red color’s origin—whether from chemical changes in the atmosphere or upwelling of other materials from below—requires further study. Harvard University fluid dynamics researcher; Pedram Hassanzadeh, believes that it is “vertical flow” that maintains the Great Red Spot. Thinking that the red vortex is a storm means that vertical flows circulate hot and cold gas in and out of it, thus preventing it from dissipating.
From an Electric Universe perspective, the Great Red Spot could have a different origin altogether: Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere might be receiving its energy from an external source.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
46
48
66
Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard

Arctic sea ice extent is at a 10 year high, and expanding at record rates



COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
 

Canbyte

Time Out
Feb 23, 2011
139
0
16
Southern Ontario
Just accept that 'expert' economists are often wrong when forecasting short term trends (which is what makes stock markets so interesting). Canbyte prepares for the long term worst and enjoys the daily best (Canbyte is often wrong).
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36

oh no Locutus... you've been burned with yet another piece of your go-to-guy Goddard's purposeful misinformation! And look at all the claimed "skeptics" that just accepted your post, lock-step! Skeptics you claim to be, hey..... not so much, hey guys! :lol:

your/Goddard's linked graphic is one that masks out coastal zones... here, try the following, the absolute extent:


now, again... any single year increase in extent is all so-called "single-year ice"... again, the ice that will melt first during the subsequent years melting phase. You need several years of increase to realize a build-up of so-called "multi-year ice". Of course, none of this addresses all the past melting... the long-term trends. Notwithstanding, again, volume/mass is the more significant indicator of actual increase versus melting.

speaking of "recovery" based on a single year reference is nonsense... notwithstanding the context with Extent is single versus multi-year ice. Single year ice is that ice most readily melted in the next year's melting season. Following are the trend lines for both Extent and Volume... for an appropriate perspective on Arctic sea-ice.

 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I think the important chart is the one showing the reduction in sea ice since 1979. It's a pretty startling drop. Probably the single biggest indicator of present climate change, which I suppose is why it gets attacked so much. Pretty unassailable stuff though.

Even most other skeptics won't have anything to do with Goddard. The guy doesn't even use his real name, and he's posted some real groaners over the years, even by the low standards of the so-called skeptics.

Forbes has an article on how global warming is benefitting the Great Lakes area. Which is odd because yesterday they were saying long winters in Europe proved that there is no global warming.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36

you had a kick at extent... now area? What's the difference between extent and area?


or..... changes in Arctic Sea ice area, thickness, and volume:

Sea Ice Thickness Comparison: 1979 vs 2013 - YouTube
This animation compares the difference in the area, volume and depth of the average September Arctic sea ice between 1979, shown in blue, and 2013, shown in orange. The data from these two years has been projected onto a circle to provide for easy visual comparison without altering its area or volume. The depth of the sea ice is measured in meters. This data comes from the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). This system combines real observations of the Arctic sea ice from 1979 through the present with data of the ocean and atmosphere to produce a complete picture of the changes in Arctic Sea ice area, thickness, and volume. The sharp spike at the center of the visualization represents the very real phenomenon of thick ice ridges formed by ice dynamics. Credit: NASA
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36

get a grip Walter! The scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every year.
Assessment of Ice Type: First Year versus Multiyear Floes

All of the surveyed floes are most likely to be first year (FY) floes based on multiple lines of evidence (Table S1, Fig S1, S2). While in most cases MY ice is distinguished from thinner FY ice by the deep snow cover, thick ice and high freeboard, discrimination is more difficult in our case where the FY ice was also thick and heavily deformed and most floes had a deep snow cover. This evidence includes imagery showing lack of ice in the region at the end of the previous summer, ice morphology, ice properties, and snow cover characteristics.

extent growth attributed to stronger winds and slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves... you do know the difference between extent and volume/mass, right? You do know that Antarctic sea-ice almost completely melts annually, right?

 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
You should seek help for your projection problems.

are you self-taught... or did you get your psychology degree on the internets?

It is now the tail end of 2014. Where is the cute little graph for the past 5 years?

given the ongoing whine-fest you're having over the assorted graphs I've been putting forward, do graphs make you... uneasy? Yes, that graph I linked to only went to 2009... your concern (and implication) is noted and given you're from DenialTown, I expect you could... you should... put up your own more timely graph/data that registers your concern (and implication) that Antarctica is, in fact, not losing ice mass balance. But you didn't... why not? Is there a problem for you?

since you whined, let me allay your concerns... per the NASA GRACE Tellus satellites (I've also given you a bonus look at Greenland... you're welcome):

NASA's Grace satellite's data show that both Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass; since 2003:
- Antarctica losing ice mass @ ~ 147 billion tons of ice per year
- Greenland losing ice mass @ ~ 258 billion tons of ice per year