Global sea ice

[Old Rocks]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, why does the sea ice matter?

Because the amount of sea ice has a large influence on the jet stream, we can expect to see more storms that create major economic losses as the sea ice diminishes.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/future/bib/Vihma_accepted_in_Surv_Geophys.pdf

Effects of Arctic Sea Ice Decline on Weather and Climate: a review
Timo Vihma
Finnish Meteorological Institute
P.O. Box 503 Erik Palmenin aukio 1 FI-00101 Helsinki

Abstract
The areal extent, concentration and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas have strongly decreased during the recent decades, but cold, snow-rich winters have been common over mid-latitude land areas since 2005. A review is presented on studies addressing the local and remote effects of the sea ice decline on weather and climate. It is evident that the reduction of sea ice cover has increased the heat flux from the ocean to atmosphere in autumn and early winter. This has locally increased air temperature, moisture, and cloud cover, and reduced the static stability in the lower troposphere. Several studies based on observations, atmospheric reanalyses, and model experiments suggest that the sea ice decline, together with increased snow cover in Eurasia, favours circulation patterns resembling the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation. The suggested large-scale pressure patterns include a high over Eurasia, which favours cold winters in Europe and northeastern Eurasia. A high over the western and a low over the eastern North America have also been suggested, favouring advection of Arctic air masses to North America. Mid-latitude winter weather is, however, affected by several other factors, which generate a large inter-annual variability and often mask the effects of sea ice decline. In addition, the small sample of years with a large sea ice loss makes it difficult to distinguish the effects directly attributable to sea ice conditions. Several studies suggest that, with advancing global warming, cold winters in mid-latitude continents will no longer be common during the second half of the 21st century. Recent studies have also suggested causal links between the sea ice decline and summer precipitation in Europe, the Mediterranean, and East Asia.

 

[deannalw]

I don't see the problem.
All the stores I know of still have plenty of bagged ice!

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, we see the very serious mental deficiencies of the far right idiots. Why should I be gentle with idiots on the net? You did not reply to the OP, you merely insulted the person that did the OP.

The Cryosphere, alpine glaciers, sea ice, continental ice caps, are all melting. The result is more weather extremes, a rising sea level, and damage to infrastructure in the Arctic areas. You did not address any of these facts. There is no reason not to hold you in contempt.

 

[Mousterian]

Don't expect to make any converts here, rocks.
The poor saps who give you stick for pointing out the bleeding obvious, also think Trump's a swell guy.
Their grandchildren will spit on their graves.

 

[fncceo]

The Cryosphere, alpine glaciers, sea ice, continental ice caps, are all melting.

Oh NOES!

 

[The Irish Ram]

So, if we humans and golden retrievers contribute so much to global warming, all of the changes we have made should show signs of working by now. We should be seeing an improvement by now. Unless we aren't responsible to begin with.....
The sun heats the earth. They sun cools the earth. And there isn't a thing you can do about it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Could you repeat that in English?

 

[westwall]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

 

[fncceo]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

Wow! Wish my ECG looked that good!

 

[Old Rocks]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

 

[westwall]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

 

[fncceo]

Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept your data as undoctored and accurate. We can also accept your dire prognostications as inevitable.

What would be your plan to deter the dire consequences you predict? Or, if there are no dire consequences in the future, why should we care?

I'd like to know, as comprehensively as possible, what would you do - if you had the power?

What would you ban? On what would you insist? How much is too much to spend? Whom would you get to foot the bill?

 

[RollingThunder]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

Well, in the REAL "real world", you are, as always, walleyed, full of beans.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.....

On March 7, 2017, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.42 million square kilometers (5.57 million square miles), the lowest in the 38-year satellite record. This year’s maximum extent is 1.22 million square kilometers (471,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum of 15.64 million square kilometers (6.04 million square miles) and 97,000 square kilometers (37,000 square miles) below the previous lowest maximum that occurred on February 25, 2015. This year’s maximum is 100,000 square kilometers (39,000 square miles) below the 2016 maximum, which is now third lowest. (In 2016, we reported that year’s maximum as the lowest and 2015 the second lowest. An update to the Sea Ice Index last summer has changed our numbers slightly.)

It was a very warm autumn and winter. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above sea level) over the five months spanning October 2016 through February 2017 were more than 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the entire Arctic Ocean, and greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over large parts of the northern Chukchi and Barents Seas. These overall warm conditions were punctuated by a series of extreme heat waves over the Arctic Ocean.

In the Southern Hemisphere, sea ice likely reached its minimum extent for the year on March 3, at 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles). This year’s minimum extent was the lowest in the satellite record, continuing a period of satellite-era record low daily extents that began in early November.

 

[RollingThunder]

Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept your data as undoctored and accurate. We can also accept your dire prognostications as inevitable.

What would be your plan to deter the dire consequences you predict? Or, if there are no dire consequences in the future, why should we care?

I'd like to know, as comprehensively as possible, what would you do - if you had the power?

What would you ban? On what would you insist? How much is too much to spend? Whom would you get to foot the bill?

When the United States was fighting for our nation's survival in World War II against Hitler and the Nazis, and the Imperial Japanese Military, and the outcome was by no means a sure thing, how much would you have said is "too much to spend" to win the war?

Now that the human race is fighting for its survival and the survival of an inhabitable planet for our presumptive descendants, in this climate change crisis the entire planet is facing, which is pretty much the most severe threat to our survival our species has ever faced, you want to quibble about "how much is too much to spend" on our own survival?

Do you understand just how idiotic your question is?

 

[fncceo]

Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept your data as undoctored and accurate. We can also accept your dire prognostications as inevitable.

What would be your plan to deter the dire consequences you predict? Or, if there are no dire consequences in the future, why should we care?

I'd like to know, as comprehensively as possible, what would you do - if you had the power?

What would you ban? On what would you insist? How much is too much to spend? Whom would you get to foot the bill?

When the United States was fighting for our nation's survival in World War II against Hitler and the Nazis, and the Imperial Japanese Military, and the outcome was by no means a sure thing, how much would you have said is "too much to spend" to win the war?

Now that the human race is fighting for its survival and the survival of an inhabitable planet for our presumptive descendants, in this climate change crisis the entire planet is facing, which is pretty much the most severe threat to our survival our species has ever faced, you want to quibble about "how much is too much to spend" on our own survival?

Do you understand just how idiotic your question is?

The outcome of the 2nd World War was never an existential threat to the US and climate change isn't an existential threat to the human race.

Hyperbolic predictions concerning the threat is the reason many people have taking climate change seriously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm hearing your answer the question of how much is too much to spend is that no amount is too much regardless of the actual threat.

 

[RollingThunder]

Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept your data as undoctored and accurate. We can also accept your dire prognostications as inevitable.

How much is too much to spend? Whom would you get to foot the bill?

When the United States was fighting for our nation's survival in World War II against Hitler and the Nazis, and the Imperial Japanese Military, and the outcome was by no means a sure thing, how much would you have said is "too much to spend" to win the war?

Now that the human race is fighting for its survival and the survival of an inhabitable planet for our presumptive descendants, in this climate change crisis the entire planet is facing, which is pretty much the most severe threat to our survival our species has ever faced, you want to quibble about "how much is too much to spend" on our own survival?

Do you understand just how idiotic your question is?

The outcome of the 2nd World War was never an existential threat to the US and climate change isn't an existential threat to the human race.

Wrong on both counts, bozo.

If the Nazis and Imperial Japan had won WWII, there would be no 'United States' today......and the outcome of the war could easily have gone the other way if wrong decisions had been made by the Allied leadership at certain crucial points in the war.

The United States was very fortunate to have had excellent leadership who were willing to spend whatever it took to win the war. For example, In the middle of a World War that had the USA financially strained to the max, President Roosevelt started the Manhattan Project, which was entirely experimental, trying desperately to develop a new and radically different weapons technology, with absolutely no assurance of that they would be successful. Eventually, the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion US Dollars (equivalent to $23 billion in 2007 dollars).

The current climate change crisis is much more of a threat to America and the American people (and to the whole world) than a fascist triumph in WWII would have been. Now though, we have traitors to the human race trying to confuse people about the severity of the threat the world is facing so that they can continue to make more profit selling the stuff that is destroying our world.

Hyperbolic predictions concerning the threat is the reason many people have taking climate change seriously.

The scientific predictions of the consequences to the Earth's biosphere and ecology if the human race continues to add 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (and the oceans) every year are not hyperbole, you poor bamboozled fool. The real reasons many people are not taking climate change seriously have to do with the fossil fuel industry's massively funded propaganda campaign that plays on rightwingnut anti-government, anti-science political and economic ideologies to deceive people about this threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm hearing your answer the question of how much is too much to spend is that no amount is too much regardless of the actual threat.

OK....you are wrong!

You have been deceived into believing that anthropogenic climate change is no real threat, in spite of the overwhelming consensus by the world scientific community that it is an enormous threat to the peace and stability of our civilizations, to the Earth's biosphere, to our agricultural systems and food supplies, and to our very survival.

"The actual threat" to our only world and to the human race is so enormous that there is indeed NO amount of money that is "too much to spend" to try to deal with it.

Too bad you no longer live in the real world because you are so brainwashed by the fraudulent propaganda and lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[fncceo]

[

Wrong on both counts, bozo.

If the Nazis and Imperial Japan had won WWII, there would be no 'United States' today......and the outcome of the war could easily have gone the other way if wrong decisions had been made by the Allied leadership at certain crucial points in the war.

The United States was very fortunate to have had excellent leadership who were willing to spend whatever it took to win the war. For example, In the middle of a World War that had the USA financially strained to the max, President Roosevelt started the Manhattan Project, which was entirely experimental, trying desperately to develop a new and radically different weapons technology, with absolutely no assurance of that they would be successful. Eventually, the Manhattan Project employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion US Dollars (equivalent to $23 billion in 2007 dollars).

The current climate change crisis is much more of a threat to America and the American people (and to the whole world) than a fascist triumph in WWII would have been. Now though, we have traitors to the human race trying to confuse people about the severity of the threat the world is facing so that they can continue to make more profit selling the stuff that is destroying our world.

Hyperbolic predictions concerning the threat is the reason many people have taking climate change seriously.

The scientific predictions of the consequences to the Earth's biosphere and ecology if the human race continues to add 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (and the oceans) every year are not hyperbole, you poor bamboozled fool. The real reasons many people are not taking climate change seriously have to do with the fossil fuel industry's massively funded propaganda campaign that plays on rightwingnut anti-government, anti-science political and economic ideologies to deceive people about this threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm hearing your answer the question of how much is too much to spend is that no amount is too much regardless of the actual threat.

OK....you are wrong!

You have been deceived into believing that anthropogenic climate change is no real threat, in spite of the overwhelming consensus by the world scientific community that it is an enormous threat to the peace and stability of our civilizations, to the Earth's biosphere, to our agricultural systems and food supplies, and to our very survival.

"The actual threat" to our only world and to the human race is so enormous that there is indeed NO amount of money that is "too much to spend" to try to deal with it.

Too bad you no longer live in the real world because you are so brainwashed by the fraudulent propaganda and lies pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

And you're having trouble understanding why people don't take you seriously? Worry less about the climate and more about becoming self-aware.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Arctic News

The amount of sea ice continues to be well below any previous record since we started measuring it by satellite.

And, in the real world, the global sea ice extent is holding steady. It dropped last year, but has now rebounded back up to the normal level we have been seeing for the last couple of decades.
Which is no doubt why you posted a graph that is three years old. It was more skeery.

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall.

Global Sea Ice - ArctischePinguin

That is an up to date graph of the global sea ice from 1978 to present. Are you ever going to learn not to lie about something so easy to demonstrate?

I was referring to this graph you posted, dumbass. See, 1980 to 2014. Now go piss up a rope, clown boy.

Well now, here is a graph from Swiss Re;

Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

I think you had better be checked for advanced senility.

 

[deannalw]

Oooooo!
Pretty color!