2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

2015, the beginning of ice free arctic? Great News... A new trade route free of pirates.

But already full of Russian exploration teams.

It seems Russia is better prepared to take advantage of climate change than the US, Canada or Norway are right now, and are already exploring the sea bed for mining opportunities which may now be viable options.
 
More on this....


Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded

Rate of summer ice melt smashes two previous record lows and prompts warnings of accelerated climate change

Sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its smallest extent ever recorded, smashing the previous record minimum and prompting warnings of accelerated climate change.

Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week – less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.

Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.

A record low in 2007 of 4.17m sq km was broken on 27 August 2012; further melting has since amounted to more than 500,000 sq km.

The record, which is based on a five-day average, is expected to be officially declared in the next few days by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado. The NSIDC's data shows the sea ice extent is bumping along the bottom, with a new low of 3.421m sq km on Tuesday, which rose very slightly to 3.429m sq km on Wednesday and 3.45m sq km on Thursday.

Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
More on this....


Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

Rate of summer ice melt smashes two previous record lows and prompts warnings of accelerated climate change

Records since when...some point in the past less than an eyeblink in geological time?

Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week – less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.

Satellites have shown themselves unable to differentiate between open ocean and a couple of mm of melt water on the surface of the ice.

Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.

Really? Based on what? That very short reference period?

What you have to do in order to be taken as anything more than a hysterical old granny like rocks siagon, is show that what is happening in the arctic is unprecedented in history, not since satellites went up, or even since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The fact, siagon, is that for most of earth history, there hasn't been any ice at all in either the arctic, the antarctic or both. There is ice there now because the earth is still in an ice age that it is going to eventualy come out of no matter how much climate alarmists kick and scream.
 
While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

And where does antractic sea ice come from, genius?

Once again - IF you read about this topic, you'll almost certainly come to understand it.

This is the 2nd time today that you have completely refused to look at science that you very clearly do not understand. And yet on other threads you claim to be looking for evidence....?
 
Last edited:
Arctic Sea ice loss will cause ?pronounced? future melt, study finds | EurActiv

The paper by scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany discovered that solar radiation through ‘first year ice’ was three times greater and allowed 50% more energy absorption than was with the case with ‘multi-year ice’.

This in turn could change the face of the Arctic.

“Ice melt and less sea ice cover will [themselves] make it more likely that more ice will melt in the next years ahead,” Marcel Nicolaus, one of the report’s authors, told EurActiv. “We see that light transmission through sea ice will increase in the future.”

While previous studies had indicated that solar radiation was melting sea ice at the surface, and a warmer ocean was melting it at the bottom, the new paper found that Arctic ice sheets were increasingly melting from within too.

“We showed here that the older multi-year ice is covered with fewer ponds at the surface, while the newer, younger ice has more ponds,” Nicolaus said.

“This albedo radiation transfer effect will be more pronounced in the future,” he added.

Increased Arctic light transmission will also affect sea life in the Arctic ocean, although more research is needed to understand how.
 
So, what are you all going to say when the Arctic is packed with ice in 2015?
 
And where does antractic sea ice come from, genius?

The claim is GLOBAL warming genius. Explain record ice expansion in the antarctic in the presence of GLOBAL warming.

This is the 2nd time today that you have completely refused to look at science that you very clearly do not understand. And yet on other threads you claim to be looking for evidence....?

Again, you aren't showing any science. This may come as a surprise to you, but simply stating a thing doesn't make it science. I guess your claim that shrinking arctic ice is hard proof that man is changing the global climate but your claim doesn't square with growing ice in the antarctic where most of the ice in the world is located.
 
Last edited:
SSDD -

This is very simple stuff, and I am more than happy to explain this, but only if you are willing to commit to actually reading what is posted, and commenting accordingly. As in - that you actually start reading the science, as opposed to just denying it.

The science on how increased humidity can cause increased snowing has been posted - no surprise that you aren't able to comment sensibly on it OR admit your mistake.
 
I have very little confidnce that anybody can predict the outcome of a system as complex as our climate.

I defintinely DO think that global weirding is happening, but as to what outcomes we can predict from that?

Nope!
 
I have very little confidnce that anybody can predict the outcome of a system as complex as our climate.

I defintinely DO think that global weirding is happening, but as to what outcomes we can predict from that?

Nope!

At the heart of the issue is cap and trade. Unfortunately, it essentially does nothing of significance to reduce carbon emissions, even if they are destroying the world. :cuckoo:
 
SSDD -

This is very simple stuff, and I am more than happy to explain this, but only if you are willing to commit to actually reading what is posted, and commenting accordingly. As in - that you actually start reading the science, as opposed to just denying it.

The science on how increased humidity can cause increased snowing has been posted - no surprise that you aren't able to comment sensibly on it OR admit your mistake.

This is what you are calling science? An article from a left wing newspaper?
Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded | Environment | guardian.co.uk

And you wonder why I haven't acknowledged the "science" you have been posting? I repeat, you aren't posting science. That isn't any more science than a recipe for chicken soup.

"could be"...."possible climate impacts"......"model projections"....

Is that what passes for science in your world? You claimed unequivocal proof that man is the primary cause for global climate change and you believe statements from a lefty newspaper chock full of could be's and might happens, and possibles, and model projections equal unequivocal proof?

You are far more clueless than even I thought and I never gave you credit for having a clue in the first place. Clearly, you don't know what science is... Here, have a gander at some actual science....

Here is a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters (as opposed to the guardian) which finds that using even the most outrageously exagerated forcing senarios of the current climate models, the arctic will be ice free during the summer at the end of the 21'st century.

Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

No need to admit the lie regarding the unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of global climate change....I understand now...you know so little that an alarmist report by a left wing newspaper equals science to you....how could you possibly know anything even resembling the truth regarding actual science.
 
SSDD -

You see? I knew you weren't really interested.

And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.

You are absolutely rediculous...."you see? I knew you weren't really interested?" What a laugh. A newspaper article from the guardian passes as science for you while you ignore a peer reviewed paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters which says explicitly that your guardian article is alarmist claptrap.

Who is it that is really not interested in science siagon? What you are interested in is an agenda, not science.

It is you who is unable to admit that you are wrong and it very well might be that you are just to stupid, or perhaps ignorant to know that you are wrong.
 
SSDD -

You see? I knew you weren't really interested.

And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.

You are absolutely rediculous...."you see? I knew you weren't really interested?" What a laugh. A newspaper article from the guardian passes as science for you while you ignore a peer reviewed paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters which says explicitly that your guardian article is alarmist claptrap.

Who is it that is really not interested in science siagon? What you are interested in is an agenda, not science.

It is you who is unable to admit that you are wrong and it very well might be that you are just to stupid, or perhaps ignorant to know that you are wrong.

AGW is a Cult, don't you see that yet?
 
At one point SSDD will figure out that the article from the Guardian isn't what I was referring to.

I was referring to the science that explained why more snow forms in warmer, more humid temperatures.

I do love these threads!
 
climate science was wrong in their prediction for arctic sea ice loss- underestimated.

climate science was wrong with their prediction for antarctic sea ice loss- no loss, highest ever (whatever that means, since we have been measuring I presume).

temperature predictions- wrong, grossly over estimated

climate sensitivity- wrong grossly over estimated

when they changed gears and called it climate change and blamed Hurricane Katrina on CO2, the hurricanes stopped

droughts and floods? still happening like always but at a lower level than normal.

etc, etc
 
" In the strongest forcing scenario (RCP8.5), the Arctic becomes summer ice-free by the end of the 21st century and year-round ice-free by the end of the 23rd century."

Well, this is interesting....this is from the abstract from SSDD's link.

The article itself is not available. Which makes me wonder if SSDD has read it....?
 
Last edited:
Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?
 

Forum List

Back
Top