1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 257:

1. fydijkstra at 02:42 AM on 30 March, 2011

   No good perspective for the arctic sea ice in September 2011. Unfortunatly it has little or nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and thus we cannot do anything against it. It's nature, and we can only observe and explain. By the way: the arctic ice extent in February 2011 was not a record low: in February 2005 the frozen surface was the same as in February 2011 (14.36 square km).

   Response:

   [dana1981] Please see "Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle"

2. Peter Bellin at 02:49 AM on 30 March, 2011
   The links seem to be broken (links to resources at the endo of the post).
   
   Thanks for the summary.
3. Rob Honeycutt at 02:52 AM on 30 March, 2011
   fydijkstra... Your post strikes me as both baseless and grasping for straws.
   
   Little or nothing to do with the GHE? Really? And how do you come to that conclusion? Isn't Arctic amplification a predicted result of an enhanced greenhouse effect?
   
   Feb 2011 vs. Feb 2005? Really? Are you going to ignore the 350 some odd other data points in the data and focus on just two? That doesn't seem very skeptical to me.
4. CBDunkerson at 03:22 AM on 30 March, 2011
   fydijkstra, while the article above doesn't actually say so... February 2011 was a record low, not a 'new' one but still a record... tied with 2005.
   
   Granted, given that the prior two months (December 2010 and January 2011) were new record lows you might draw a distinction of February having 'merely' tied the record, but it seems a bit desperate.
5. dana1981 at 04:09 AM on 30 March, 2011
   Peter #2 - sorry about that, I think I've fixed the links now. Thanks for pointing that out.
6. Chris G at 04:20 AM on 30 March, 2011
   In some respects, the Arctic is like a canary in a coal mine. The fact that the canary dies itself has relatively little effect on people. By itself, it is merely an indication that something is happening. But maybe that is not a good analogy because the canary has no impact on the gas content of the mine, but replacing ice with water changes the albedo from 90% reflected to 90% absorbed. So maybe a better analogy to the current situation is watching a canary become ill at the same time that the noise from the air circulation system is faltering.
7. ClimateWatcher at 04:21 AM on 30 March, 2011
   #3.
   
   Isn't Arctic amplification a predicted result of an enhanced greenhouse effect?
   
   Perhaps, but advection is not.
   
   Clearly this:
   
   
   has everything to do with advection.
   
   There is a tendency to blame Arctic Sea ice change on temperature.
   
   There is much less tendency to blame temperature on Arctic Sea ice change.
   
   But there are a couple of reasons to do so.
   
   Sea ice insulates the air from the warmer water below, allowing temperatures to decrease further and thinner ice insulates less well.
   
   Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared.
   
   Surely it takes heat to melt ice. But cause and effect are intertwined and dynamics are at work as well as thermodynamics.
8. muoncounter at 04:34 AM on 30 March, 2011
   CW#7: "sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared."
   
   That's part of the problem. Decreasing summer ice extent means increasing areas of open water. This was addressed in detail on the Flanner threads.
9. CBDunkerson at 04:51 AM on 30 March, 2011
   CW#7: On what grounds do you proclaim that global warming is not a factor in ice export/advection? I'd think there is a direct correlation;
   
   1: Warming melts ice (as you have conceded)
   2: Melting ice increases the likelihood that ice bridges/jams break up... allowing advection through more channels.
   3: Melting ice means less ice for currents to propel... resulting in less energy being used to move the ice and thus faster currents / advection.
   
   Basically, you are arguing that the Arctic sea ice loss is caused by advection rather than global warming... as if global warming weren't directly responsible for the increased advection.
10. Chris G at 04:52 AM on 30 March, 2011
    ClimateWatcher,
    What is your point? Or, what are you talking about?
    
    "There is much less tendency to blame temperature on Arctic Sea ice change."
    
    Circulation patterns are driven by patterns of energy imbalances. Without a change in the thermodynamics of the system, there would be no cause for the circulation patterns to change.
    
    "Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared."
    
    Emission spectra of black bodies is given by Planck's Law. Granted, neither is a perfect black body, but this is the first I have heard that they are categorically different in that respect. Are you confusing emission with reflectance?
11. Albatross at 05:01 AM on 30 March, 2011
    We have to be careful about making dichotomous statements about what drives Arctic sea ice area and volume. The climate system is a continuum and a myriad of intertwined factors/processes modulate its behaviour. So for someone to state with authority that increased GHGs have nothing to do with Arctic sea ice coverage when we the science and data show that CO2 is a major control knob of the climate system, is simply not true. So let us please ignore the myth floated @1 on this thread.
    
    ChrisG @6 is right, the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine and we ignore its warnings at the peril of future generations.
12. Daniel Bailey at 05:16 AM on 30 March, 2011
    CW also ignores that the Arctic Polar ice cap of the 21st century is much thinner, friable and decrepit that of the 20th Century.
    
    Why? Arctic amplification of global warming. A cap that in winter was essentially a monolithic bloc 8-10 meters thick is down to about 2 meters thick. What was once 40% or more multiyear (MY) ice is down to perhaps 5% MY ice. The cap of yore was very resistant to advection during winter. Not that of today.
    
    Winter was once the time the cap recharged its volume to endure and withstand the summer onslaught of sun/insolation.
    
    As evidenced by the lack of winter recovery of the cap in the OP graph above, this summer melt season will be...interesting.
    
    In the Chinese curse sense of interesting.
    
    The Yooper
13. Alec Cowan at 06:35 AM on 30 March, 2011
    A very informative article.
    
    I don't know if this has been said but the bottom of the graph taken from PIOMAS means a situation of no-ice in September. I'm saying this because many people posting comments -some of them in this website- had claimed about the Y-axis scale in that graph distorted in order to "dramatize" the situation.
    
    On the other hand and abusing of the profusion of data, I'd like to ask the author and the participants about data involving CO₂ transportation to deep ocean waters as an important byproduct of sea ice. I mean, by new year ice formation in the Arctic amounts to some 2,000,000 m³ per second -that is about the double of all the rivers in the planet together-; that means at least 1GTon/sec of brine rich in CO₂ going down and sweeping more sea water to finally reach the bottom of the ocean (that's why we have some 70% of sea water below 4°C in spite the temperature of the atmosphere and the Earth's crust is higher).
    
    I'm asking this because we have seen and see here a persistent reduction in the Arctic's ice pack, but the mass of ice formed and melted every year has remained almost unchanged -I think-. I'm interested in what is going to happen when we see a week ice-free Arctic, then a month, then a season, because the provision of chill waters will slow down and that is going to have vast consequences in the long run.
    
    Thank you in advance for any information on this subject.
14. ClimateWatcher at 06:43 AM on 30 March, 2011
    #10. Chris
    
    Circulation patterns are driven by patterns of energy imbalances. Without a change in the thermodynamics of the system, there would be no cause for the circulation patterns to change.
    
    There are to major circulations that govern Arctic sea ice - the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift:
    
    
    
    Clearly when the Transpolar Drift dominates the gyre, sea ice is lost to lower latitudes and the multi-year ice declines, which makes the ice more prone to melt in summer.
    
    When the gyre dominates, ice is not lost, but rather spins and accumulates in place, leading to the build up of multi-year ice.
    
    It is certainly true that thermodynamics drive circulation, but there is no plausible prediction or causal link to identify why for any particular regime, the gyre would dominate, the drift would dominate, or the two would be in relative balance.
    
    Different wave patterns arise in the atmosphere from one year to the next, even though the energy imbalances are quite similar. There are multiple wave states for the same initial condition.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image width (too wide).
15. ClimateWatcher at 06:51 AM on 30 March, 2011
    #10.
    
    "Also, sea ice is much more emissive than sea water in the infrared."
    
    Emission spectra of black bodies is given by Planck's Law. Granted, neither is a perfect black body, but this is the first I have heard that they are categorically different in that respect. Are you confusing emission with reflectance?
    
    You are correct.
    
    That statement is in error.
    
    Ice and water are both efficient emitters:
    
    http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm
16. Chris G at 07:29 AM on 30 March, 2011
    I've no disagreement with most of the points in the post, except this one is giving me pause: "In plain terms, the 2011 melt season will soon continue more or less where the 2010 melt season left off."
    
    I have no question that the thickness of the ice has dropped a lot in the past decade, but it isn't clear to me that 2010 was terribly exceptional in that respect, and I don't see how the extent can be expected to go from where it is now to August 2010 levels within a few weeks.
    
    I have been under the impression that Greenland's NE coast is an outflow region; so, I expect ice there to be highly variable. I don't know that it makes the best case for representing the ice pack as a whole.
    
    Or, is the point that the region shown is already showing signs of break-up where in years past this has come much later in the season?
    
    CW,
    Thanks for the reasoned response. I think we are mainly in disagreement about cause versus effect, and with feedbacks in play, it can be difficult to distinguish the one from the other.
    
    While it is not clear to me that it is possible to predict gyre or drift domination, it should be clear that things are changing. There exist broad patterns of circulation, like Hadley Cells, that can be predicted to change. That wasn't always the case. Just because we may not now fully understand how or why thermodynamic changes that result from an increase in GHGs should result in arctic circulation pattern changes should not be taken to mean that there is no relationship.
    
    On the other hand, I don't know that the wind patterns are changing. It could be merely that the thinner ice is more susceptible to wind movement and that the wind itself hasn't changed. That would be an interesting research article: Have the arctic weather patterns changed with respect to their propensity to export ice, over say, the last 50 years?
17. Sphaerica at 07:43 AM on 30 March, 2011
    14, ClimateWatcher,
    

    ...but there is no plausible prediction or causal link to identify why for any particular regime, the gyre would dominate, the drift would dominate, or the two would be in relative balance.

    
    But none of that mattered when the ice was relatively solid and well packed throughout the Arctic, which had been the case for the past several thousand years.
    
    It's only been in the past decade that the sea ice concentrations have diminished to the point where circulation patterns can have an effect, and exacerbate the warming by shifting ice fragments towards warmer latitudes.
    
    It's not that the patterns have shifted. It's that the patterns never even mattered before.
18. Chris G at 07:45 AM on 30 March, 2011
    Mmm, a little more reading and a little less writing may be in order, some of my questions answered here under Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness and Decline Causes.
19. adelady at 07:58 AM on 30 March, 2011
    Yes Chris. " exacerbate the warming by shifting ice fragments towards warmer latitudes."
    
    No need to shift to a warmer latitude if that warmer water has already come to you.
20. Craig Allen at 10:34 AM on 30 March, 2011
    I wonder if the recently published finding by Young, Zieger, and Babanin of Swinburn University that wind and wave heights have been increasing over the last 23 years worldwide includes the Arctic and could be brought to bear in understanding what is going on. If so then the trends will need to be included in models that address ice decline.
    
    See the press release and the journal article in Science magazine.
21. Bern at 11:53 AM on 30 March, 2011
    Craig, you'd certainly think that increasing wind & wave heights would put more stress on the margins of the sea ice... particularly if the wind was blowing away from the main pack, then the combination would tend to lead to rapid break-up. Whether it has actually *been* a factor, that's an interesting question.
    
    Reading the article, I was rather surprised to see a prediction that August 2010 extents may be reached by the end of April. If that happens, then it'll be hard to ignore by the 'skeptic' blogs.
    
    It reminds me of the Larsen B ice shelf break-up a few years ago. Scientists knew it was weakening, but were astounded when the entire 200m-thick ice shelf broke up in little more than a month. Could we be seeing the beginnings of a rapid collapse of the Arctic ice pack? Might the Arctic be largely ice-free in summer in only a few years?
    
    Interesting times indeed!
22. Djon at 13:34 PM on 30 March, 2011
    Bern,
    
    I don't think he means by "I suggest that by mid-April the sea ice will be in a similar condition to that of late August 2010." that the extent will be about the same by mid April as it was in late August 2010. It reads to me as though he was thinking in more qualitative terms when he wrote that. After all, a drop in extent by that much would make the part of his forecast saying "By April 30th, ice extent graphs will show a strong downward trend similar to that of May - June 2010." an incredible understatement.
23. Daniel Bailey at 13:48 PM on 30 March, 2011
    @ Djon & Bern
    
    Logicman means the melt season of 2011 will have a month's head-start on that of 2010 due to the much poorer state of the ice currently.
    
    Which is why veteran ice watchers such as Logicman feel Maslowski's predictions may now be dated and conservative as the ice conditions seen are much inferior to those present when those predictions were made. And I find myself in agreement with him (L-man).
    
    The Yooper
24. Bern at 14:24 PM on 30 March, 2011
    Ah, I see where I misinterpreted that part of the article... thanks for pointing that out.
    
    Such poor ice condition would tend to lead to rapid break-up of the ice pack, you would think. Will be interesting to see how the extent tracks this year.
25. Ken Lambert at 00:11 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Graphical stories on Arctic sea ice melt regularly appear on SKS and seem to assume undue importance when the heat energy involved is considered.
    
    Only about 7% of the earth's surface is above 60 degrees North.
    
    Of the purported Earth's warming imbalance of 145E20 Joules/year, only 1E20 Joules/year is accounted for by the reduction in Arctic sea ice. That is only 1/145 of the claimed heat being gained by the Earth due to global warming.
    
    The problem is trying to find where is the other 144/145ths.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Actually, when the heat energy is considered, during the Arctic melt season more energy is delivered to the Arctic than the tropics (due to the much longer periods of daylight available):

    

26. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:04 AM on 31 March, 2011
    So there has been a lot of concern about arctic ice, what level of ice would be considered a safe amount.
27. adelady at 01:16 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Ken, I find it handy to think of the Arctic as a bottleneck for heat. Atlantic currents drive warm water northwards which just happens to be towards a smaller and smaller area because of the NH land mass. So all that warmth has to find somewhere to go.
    
    For a few decades it's been more or less invisible because the ice has been soaking it up from underneath. But all good things must come to an end. So much warmth has gone into thinning the ice that it is finally giving up. It's breaking up into slush in many places, it's not forming the former massive slabs it used to. And those smaller, thinner pieces of ice are more vulnerable to winds, tides and currents that formerly used to circulate around, over and beneath the ice shifting and compressing most of it and moving just the edges away.
    
    Now those "edges" are all through the no-longer-packed ice and the winds and currents have free rein to move damaged ice further and faster out of the Arctic area.
28. adelady at 01:27 AM on 31 March, 2011
    drjc, I don't know about "safe, but it would be reassuring if we were to see 3 out of 5 years above the 2 standard deviation range rather than below it.
    
    
    Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked image.
29. adelady at 01:28 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Rats, it's past my bedtime. If someone wants to do the link properly, go ahead. I'm off.
30. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:51 AM on 31 March, 2011
    adelady, 32 years of data isn't enough to make such an ( -snip- ) prediction. Note that from 1935-1945, arctic temperatures were much higher than today, and dropped from that peak until about 1960. This tells us that the arctic can sustain greater warming.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Actually, this is well-documented and studied. See here for background information and studies.
31. Sphaerica at 02:18 AM on 31 March, 2011
    30, Cadbury,
    

    Note that from 1935-1945, arctic temperatures were much higher than today...

    
    Citation, please.
32. Rob Honeycutt at 02:21 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Yes, Jay... Citation. If you're going to make statements like that you need to be able to back them up. That standard gets applied to both sides of the debate here at SkS.
33. Alexandre at 02:51 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Jay #30
    
    Arctic temperatures higher between 1935-1945 than today?
    
    NOAA seems to disagree:
    
    
34. Albatross at 03:49 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Alexandre @33,
    
    Re the unsupported claim made by Cadbury @30 that:
    
    "Note that from 1935-1945, arctic temperatures were much higher than today"
    
    The data plotted below also agree with the NOAA figure that you posted.
    
    
    
    Source here.
35. Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 03:59 AM on 31 March, 2011
    @Alexandre
    
    Do you think NOAA did a very good job updating the public about the BP oil spill?
    
    [muoncounter] Above is off topic.
    
    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL038777.shtml
    
    Sorry, this links only to the abstract, I think this is a pay journal but it says in the abstract the arctic warmed faster 1910-1940.
    Moderator Response: [DB] I'd recommend reading a bit more closely. The abstract clearly speaks of rates of warming, not absolutes. And those rates are relative to the global average, which we know today is much higher globally than during the earlier time period in question. In any case, an open copy is available here.
36. Rob Honeycutt at 04:04 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Jay... Please note that in the abstract of the paper you post they say, "...the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming..."
    
    That is not saying that the Arctic was warmer in 1940. You said, "Note that from 1935-1945, arctic temperatures were much higher than today" which would be inaccurate.
37. fydijkstra at 04:16 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Honeycutt (3) and others: I stated, that the melting of arctic ice has little or nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. You asked: 'Isn't Arctic amplification a predicted result of an enhanced greenhouse effect?'. This question has already been dealt with by Climatewatcher (7 an 14).
    My additional answer: yes, the warming at high latitudes has been predicted as a result of the greenhouse effect. But that's the only point where the sea ice melting has something to do with the greenhouse effect. ( - Off-topic Gish Gallop snipped - )
    You may know, that arctic sea ice has a high recovery capacity: some colder years are enough to restore it, because thin ice grows faster than old ice.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Many other threads exist covering the topics snipped. If you wish to discuss those, place individual on-topic comments on those other threads please.
38. Albatross at 04:41 AM on 31 March, 2011
    fydijkstra @1 and @37,
    
    Actually, CW did not address Arctic amplification in his/her posts. They simply stated what is already known about winds and currents in the region. And if the strength of the polar vortex is affected by polar amplification, and the recent wild swings in the AO index suggest it is, that will translate into changes in the winds and ocean circulation. So advection of sea ice is/will be affected by polar amplification-- as I said up thread, "The climate system is a continuum and a myriad of intertwined factors/processes modulate its behaviour.".
    
    There is also evidence that warmer ocean water from lower latitudes is now entering the Arctic (Spielhagen et al. 2011), water that is the warmest in the past 2000 years.
    
    "Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming."
    
    Perhaps the present situation can be best be placed in context by the findings made by Polyak et al. (2010):
    
    "The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."
    
    And yet "skeptics"/contrarians in their delusion are still trying to tell us everything is just fine. The 2011 Arctic melt season is going to be yet another interesting one...and not necessarily "interesting" in a good way.
39. Sphaerica at 05:07 AM on 31 March, 2011
    35, Cadbury,
    
    You do need to read a paper more carefully before you cite it, to be sure that it says what you claim it says... this one doesn't.
    
    But, that aside, I'm not sure that I agree with their methodology. They limited their analysis to 8 stations with complete temperature records back to 1880, but in so doing... the only stations which fit that criteria were one in Iceland, 4 in Scandinavia, one around Archangel, 2 in Siberia, and one in southern Greenland (that's nine, and a discrepancy in their paper).
    
    First, this distribution clearly (and they say so) is the "lower arctic".
    
    Second, there is a preponderance of stations in the same area -- many in Scandinavia within a very small region, then others in nearby Russia/Siberia. They completely missed North America, most of Greenland, anything near the Pacific, and anything further north than 70˚ and so missing the "true" Arctic... where the ice is melting.
    
    Third, the primary area they used happens to show a local, regional cooling trend, so it is hardly a good sample on which to base any such study (approximate station locations are black circles):
    
    
40. MP3CE at 05:33 AM on 31 March, 2011
    @#37 fydijkstra:
    Another nice topic about AGW and observed changes is available here:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/how-likely/
41. Sphaerica at 05:54 AM on 31 March, 2011
    37, fydijkstra,
    

    You may know, that arctic sea ice has a high recovery capacity: some colder years are enough to restore it, because thin ice grows faster than old ice.

    
    This demonstrates a total and complete lack of understanding of the problem. No one really cares if ice "recovers" or even quintuple recovers during the winter. Big deal. The sun goes down, it's dark for months on end, the temperature plummets and ice forms.
    
    Yay.
    
    What we do care about is what happens in the summer months, when the ice melts. When this happens, instead of nice, shiny, reflective ice redirecting the summer sun back into space, open, transparent, high specific-heat water absorbs that radiation and warms, above and beyond the warming which triggered the too-great summer melt and was in turn caused by the greenhouse effect and CO₂.
    
    Thirty years ago, the ice melted back to here:
    
    
    
    Twenty years ago, the ice melted back to here:
    
    
    
    Last year, it melted all the way back to here, exposing that much more lower latitude open water for that much longer time to absorb heat:
    
    
    
    Even after the year comes when it melts back to nothing, things will still get worse, because the game then will be predicting how much sooner in the spring/summer the ice melts completely away. And every day sooner is that much more heat absorbed by the planet.
42. Sphaerica at 06:00 AM on 31 March, 2011
    37,
    

    You may know, that arctic sea ice has a high recovery capacity: some colder years are enough to restore it, because thin ice grows faster than old ice.

    
    By the way, you made this up. Specifically:
    
    "You may know..." -- No, we don't know, because it's not true.
    
    "High recovery capacity" -- a citation please? You base this on what?
    
    "some colder years are enough to restore it." -- Really? Can you provide a single example when this has actually happened? Not just surface area... that's easy, and will happen even in a warm winter, because the sun goes away for months on end. But has it actually recovered thickness as well as area? Is the ice robust, or just a flaky crust that will vanish with the first kiss of the sun?
    
    "...because thin ice grows faster than old ice" -- So what? Thin ice also melts faster than old ice. That's the whole problem. You'd need decades of much colder weather to rebuild the Arctic back to a state which is harder to melt in the summer.
43. Daniel Bailey at 06:17 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Adding to the current discussion, one can look at the current trend in Arctic Sea Ice cover in several ways:
    
    1. By trend in winter sea ice thickness:
    
    
    Image courtesy ICESAT/NASA
    
    2. By trends in ice extent and area by month:
    
    
    Image courtesy LHamilton@Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog
    
    3. Or by looking at trends in ice edge by month by latitude:
    
    
    Image courtesy LHamilton@Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog
    
    (Edit) To sum:
    1. Arctic sea ice thickness is in a multiyear decline, led primarily by the loss of multiyear (old & thick) ice
    2. Arctic sea ice extent and area have declined in every month of the year
    3. The southernmost ice edge has retreated northward in every month of the year.
    
    The trend (the dwindling of the Arctic sea ice is like an ice cube melting away in your favorite drink) should be clear by now to all with eyes that see (and ears that hear)... (end edit)
    
    The Yooper
44. Alexandre at 06:58 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Jay #35
    
    Ok, so NOAA is not reliable and reputable enough to provide this kind of data (please tell me if I unvoluntarily misrepresent you). I do not agree, but that's rather personal.
    
    NCAR seems to endorse the same data (Albatross' ref).
    
    From which much more reliable source than these did you get the information that that period was warmer?
45. scaddenp at 07:25 AM on 31 March, 2011
    When thinking about arctic seaice as indicator, perhaps we should also consider this:
    When was the last time there was a ice-free summer at the pole (and I dont mean polynas)?
    
    Melting in Greenland is actually more important but arctic ice gets a lot of attention because of what the models predict (they underestimate loss) and the view that it is the "canary in the coal mine".
46. dhogaza at 07:27 AM on 31 March, 2011

    over the years I have often, as I'm sure you have done so as well, call for all to pause and get back to basics in order to regain perspective, just as your brief observation so ably demonstrates.

    
    
    Here's a basic: the arctic plays a large role in the weather of the NH. Just look at last winter ...
47. Albatross at 07:30 AM on 31 March, 2011
    John @45,
    
    "Almost always, just those few words brings greater illumination than days of numerous minds shining light on things irrelevant."
    
    I might regret asking this, what do you believe to be "irrelevant", and why? Please provide some science and citations to back-up your assertions/belief, otherwise you are just pontificating.
48. scaddenp at 07:36 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Actaully as Arctic situation gets worse (as predicted by climate theory), it becomes a priority for denialists to find reasons for trivializing it. So far we have "its not nothing to do with global warming" (with side dose of "its a natural cycle"), "it not important (only a small area)", a lame attempt at "but its happened before recently". I am guessing we will soon get "it good for us - opens up oil/gas reserves and new areas of arable land". Any other bets?
49. Albatross at 07:50 AM on 31 March, 2011
    Scaddenp @48,
    
    Well, they actually started off claiming that the loss was not evening happening and that is was "recovering". But as for the rest of your post....right you are.
50. ranyl at 09:28 AM on 31 March, 2011
    "I suggest that by mid-April the sea ice will be in a similar condition to that of late August 2010. In plain terms, the 2011 melt season will soon continue more or less where the 2010 melt season left off."
    
    Does this mean that the in April 2011 the volume of sea ice will be the same as in late Aug. 2010?
    
    Because I can't see how it means that the arctic melt is a month ahead as suggested by D. Bailey, however for "By April 30th, ice extent graphs will show a strong downward trend similar to that of May - June 2010." that seems to be the case.
    
    Lawrence, D.M., A.G. Slater, R.A. Tomas, M.M. Holland, and C. Deser, 2008: Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11506, doi:10.1029/2008GL033985.
    
    This article is suggestive that losing the summer sea ice will accelerate arctic region, extending 1000 mile south, by 3.5X, and that model didn't include the more recent data on the increased stength of the albedo effect reported by Flanner et al, Nat. Geo, vol 4, 151-155, 16 Jan 2011,
    
    "we conclude that the albedo feedback from the northern Hemisphere cryosphere falls between 0.3-1.1 w.m2.k, substantially larger than comparible estimates obtained from 18 climate models."
    
    Also considering the already changing weather patterns (Arctic Dipole) that effect the whole NH, what is next is going to be interesting.
    
    This rate of arctic sea ice loss, is well ahead of any computer predictions, what is the next 0.7C of global temperature rise going to bring?
    
    Oil speculation in the arcitc?
    
    A massive arctic wind farm to cool the arcitc?
    
    Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms
    C. Wang and R. G. Prinn
    Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, 2010
    www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Flanner's work was discussed here.

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.