Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012!

<<BobGollumNote>>
When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.

Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.
 
Like I said -- when you pick areas with "at least 15% sea ice" and declare the whole thing melted and measure the area --- it sure sounds huge don't it??

Only problem is -- 85% of the area they are measuring never had any ice..

Maybe I'd be impressed if they used "areas with at least 50% sea ice", but then there wouldn't be as much hysteria would there?

That's total nonsense. You quite obviously have no frigging idea what you're blabbing on about. As usual for you, fecalton.

Scientists use two terms, sea ice extent and sea ice area. Sea ice area is larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice. Which means that any grid square on their map that has "at least" 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice area even if that grid square was 85% open water. Quite a bit of the areas that are currently open water were ice covered year round a few decades ago.

The graph used above is CLEARLY LABELED "Sea Ice Extent" USING the definition of containing "at 15% of sea ice".. So in an area of "15% sea ice" the OPEN area would be counted as well as the iced area in the melt. That's a more than just a loose choice of parameter. It's on purpose. So that the sheer number of "SEA ICE EXTENT" appears to be big enough to cause folks to gasp.

Now Sea Ice VOLUME would be different wouldn't it? And I've seen some studies using that more honest metric. But I've yet to see a graph where "extent of sea ice" is quantized using anything more realistic like "25% sea ice" or even 50% sea ice.

Stuff your observation about what the "extent USED to be". The graph (such as it is) speaks for itself.. Or should I say SHREIKS for itself...

You're even more stupid than I thought. You've got it backwards, retard. An area with at least 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice extent even if it has mostly open seas with no ice. It is actually a very conservative way of quantifying how much of the ice cover has melted (and isn't coming back). Not too surprising that you would get it backwards, fecalton, considering how far up your azzhole your head must be jammed. Everything must look "backwards" from that position.
 
<<BobGollumNote>>
When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.
Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.

But Fecaltoons, if you weren't so full of cartoon shit, you'd link to a study and a couple of graphs, showing how albedo transfers neatly, from retreating Arctic sea ice, to cloud cover.

Fact is, H2O is a GHG, so a lot of what any fresh H2O in Earth's atmosphere does is not to simply reflect. That new H2O will trap IR. You need to come up with a study, again.

You don't ever do THAT, do you, Fecaltoonces. Check the Arctic:



seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
 
<<BobGollumNote>>
When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.
Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.

But Fecaltoons, if you weren't so full of cartoon shit, you'd link to a study and a couple of graphs, showing how albedo transfers neatly, from retreating Arctic sea ice, to cloud cover.

Fact is, H2O is a GHG, so a lot of what any fresh H2O in Earth's atmosphere does is not to simply reflect. That new H2O will trap IR. You need to come up with a study, again.

You don't ever do THAT, do you, Fecaltoonces. Check the Arctic:

I don't share with you because you're a disgusting little troll.. And I find it utterly disgusting that you claim to read this stuff, but continue to act like a mental case.

But don't doubt stuff that relatively well known like the feedback effects associated with albedo changes in the Arctic.. How many refs do u want there Gollum?

The Impacts of Albedo, Solar Zenith Angle, and Clouds on the Transition from Melt to Freeze in the High-Latitude Arctic | State of the Arctic 2010

The transition from melt to freeze-up appears to be a consequence of air-mass advection associated with tenuous low-level cloud cover and a lack of cloud liquid, essentially eliminating the warming associated with cloud longwave forcing. After this brief cold regime, low-level liquid-containing clouds returned and the progression to a widespread freeze-up was inhibited until the clouds disappeared once again. The influence of increasing surface albedo and solar zenith angles, as well as the effect of cloud cover on the downwelling radiative fluxes are identified as key components in the transition from melt to freeze-up in the Arctic.

I don't see the value in justifying myself to you.. Can you explain why I should value your opinion of me? Preferably in Oxford English? Naaah .. Don't bother..
 
Last edited:
That's total nonsense. You quite obviously have no frigging idea what you're blabbing on about. As usual for you, fecalton.

Scientists use two terms, sea ice extent and sea ice area. Sea ice area is larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice. Which means that any grid square on their map that has "at least" 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice area even if that grid square was 85% open water. Quite a bit of the areas that are currently open water were ice covered year round a few decades ago.

The graph used above is CLEARLY LABELED "Sea Ice Extent" USING the definition of containing "at 15% of sea ice".. So in an area of "15% sea ice" the OPEN area would be counted as well as the iced area in the melt. That's a more than just a loose choice of parameter. It's on purpose. So that the sheer number of "SEA ICE EXTENT" appears to be big enough to cause folks to gasp.

Now Sea Ice VOLUME would be different wouldn't it? And I've seen some studies using that more honest metric. But I've yet to see a graph where "extent of sea ice" is quantized using anything more realistic like "25% sea ice" or even 50% sea ice.

Stuff your observation about what the "extent USED to be". The graph (such as it is) speaks for itself.. Or should I say SHREIKS for itself...

You're even more stupid than I thought. You've got it backwards, retard. An area with at least 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice extent even if it has mostly open seas with no ice. It is actually a very conservative way of quantifying how much of the ice cover has melted (and isn't coming back). Not too surprising that you would get it backwards, fecalton, considering how far up your azzhole your head must be jammed. Everything must look "backwards" from that position.

You actually had me worried there for a moment pardner. So I performed detailed anatomical checks and painstaking measurements (mirrors were involved) and I am now certain that my head is properly positioned and oriented and has NEVER been near my "azzhole".. But I WAS relying on my math intuition and reasoning. So I did check the premise..

Depends on what you're trying to prove whether 15% is generous or not. First off, SIExtent is widely popular because of satellite data. Every joe can get it. Looks pretty. But doesn't really tell you shit about the melt. Because most of the satellite data used doesn't know 3" of ice from 3m of ice when it's sitting on water. And therefore is meaningless in terms of volume of melt.

If your goal is to come up with the biggest wickedly scariest number you can conjure, then what you want to do is exploit --

1) the a priori knowledge that SIExtent IS decreasing.
2) the fact that it is most apparent and volatile at the extremes of extent.
3) use the largest definition of "iced" by sea surface area that you can defend.
4) that you get bigger melt rates the larger you can make the circumference of the extent. (most important)

It's easy to see why the scariest numbers come from the lowest threshold of "iced". If you were to defined "iced" as at least 50% of area covered -- then obviously the expected yearly decline would be a lower rate. To carry it to the limit -- if it was 80 to 100% the rate of SIExtent decline would be near zero --- WOULDN'T it?

Now that said -- there are some studies that show there's not a lot of diff in the RATE of decline between 15 and 30% -- but the AREA involved is a lot different. Yielding bigger SIExtent numbers at both the annual min and max for 15% definition of course.

There isn't even total agreement on the size of the quantizing boxes used or even whether to normalize the actual iced areas ABOVE the 15% threshold.

At any rate -- take all those pretty pictures with a grain of salt. The types of summer melts -- even the most drastic have been observed to "heal" in literally one season according to this flimsy methodology.

Not that I'm doubting that the world is warming and the ice is melting.. Now THAT'S a given. I'm reserving ALL my energy to understanding WHY this is happening.

That's the more important issue...
 
Last edited:
What if Rolling, BobG and OldRocks all jumped on the Earth at the same time to push it futher from the Sun....would that stop the ice from melting?

It's mV(squared) -- so yeah it would help to add another, but just 2 jumping a little faster would get the job done..

Makes sense since they believe that mankind can alter the climate right?

Mush easier just to alter Earth orbit
 
The graph used above is CLEARLY LABELED "Sea Ice Extent" USING the definition of containing "at 15% of sea ice".. So in an area of "15% sea ice" the OPEN area would be counted as well as the iced area in the melt. That's a more than just a loose choice of parameter. It's on purpose. So that the sheer number of "SEA ICE EXTENT" appears to be big enough to cause folks to gasp.

Now Sea Ice VOLUME would be different wouldn't it? And I've seen some studies using that more honest metric. But I've yet to see a graph where "extent of sea ice" is quantized using anything more realistic like "25% sea ice" or even 50% sea ice.

Stuff your observation about what the "extent USED to be". The graph (such as it is) speaks for itself.. Or should I say SHREIKS for itself...

You're even more stupid than I thought. You've got it backwards, retard. An area with at least 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice extent even if it has mostly open seas with no ice. It is actually a very conservative way of quantifying how much of the ice cover has melted (and isn't coming back). Not too surprising that you would get it backwards, fecalton, considering how far up your azzhole your head must be jammed. Everything must look "backwards" from that position.

You actually had me worried there for a moment pardner. So I performed detailed anatomical checks and painstaking measurements (mirrors were involved) and I am now certain that my head is properly positioned and oriented and has NEVER been near my "azzhole".. But I WAS relying on my math intuition and reasoning. So I did check the premise..

Depends on what you're trying to prove whether 15% is generous or not. First off, SIExtent is widely popular because of satellite data. Every joe can get it. Looks pretty. But doesn't really tell you shit about the melt. Because most of the satellite data used doesn't know 3" of ice from 3m of ice when it's sitting on water. And therefore is meaningless in terms of volume of melt.

If your goal is to come up with the biggest wickedly scariest number you can conjure, then what you want to do is exploit --

1) the a priori knowledge that SIExtent IS decreasing.
2) the fact that it is most apparent and volatile at the extremes of extent.
3) use the largest definition of "iced" by sea surface area that you can defend.
4) that you get bigger melt rates the larger you can make the circumference of the extent. (most important)

It's easy to see why the scariest numbers come from the lowest threshold of "iced". If you were to defined "iced" as at least 50% of area covered -- then obviously the expected yearly decline would be a lower rate. To carry it to the limit -- if it was 80 to 100% the rate of SIExtent decline would be near zero --- WOULDN'T it?

Now that said -- there are some studies that show there's not a lot of diff in the RATE of decline between 15 and 30% -- but the AREA involved is a lot different. Yielding bigger SIExtent numbers at both the annual min and max for 15% definition of course.

There isn't even total agreement on the size of the quantizing boxes used or even whether to normalize the actual iced areas ABOVE the 15% threshold.

At any rate -- take all those pretty pictures with a grain of salt. The types of summer melts -- even the most drastic have been observed to "heal" in literally one season according to this flimsy methodology.

Not that I'm doubting that the world is warming and the ice is melting.. Now THAT'S a given. I'm reserving ALL my energy to understanding WHY this is happening.

That's the more important issue...

Nonsensical gibberish. You really have no idea what you're talking about, you poor confused retard.

Since 1979, Arctic sea ice extent has been declining at an average rate of 3.7% per decade. This is an actual, measurable decline in the ice extent and the rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of 15% as the threshold for considering an area ice covered.
 
<<BobGollumNote>>
Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.

But Fecaltoons, if you weren't so full of cartoon shit, you'd link to a study and a couple of graphs, showing how albedo transfers neatly, from retreating Arctic sea ice, to cloud cover.

Fact is, H2O is a GHG, so a lot of what any fresh H2O in Earth's atmosphere does is not to simply reflect. That new H2O will trap IR. You need to come up with a study, again.

You don't ever do THAT, do you, Fecaltoonces. Check the Arctic:

I don't share with you because you're a disgusting little troll.. And I find it utterly disgusting that you claim to read this stuff, but continue to act like a mental case.

But don't doubt stuff that relatively well known like the feedback effects associated with albedo changes in the Arctic.. How many refs do u want there Gollum?

The Impacts of Albedo, Solar Zenith Angle, and Clouds on the Transition from Melt to Freeze in the High-Latitude Arctic | State of the Arctic 2010

The transition from melt to freeze-up appears to be a consequence of air-mass advection associated with tenuous low-level cloud cover and a lack of cloud liquid, essentially eliminating the warming associated with cloud longwave forcing. After this brief cold regime, low-level liquid-containing clouds returned and the progression to a widespread freeze-up was inhibited until the clouds disappeared once again. The influence of increasing surface albedo and solar zenith angles, as well as the effect of cloud cover on the downwelling radiative fluxes are identified as key components in the transition from melt to freeze-up in the Arctic.

I don't see the value in justifying myself to you.. Can you explain why I should value your opinion of me? Preferably in Oxford English? Naaah .. Don't bother..

Yeah, Fekie-poo, you shouldn't try to justify posting a deflection study, even if it is from an interesting org. You know, Fekester, "the transition from melt to freeze-up" isn't the transition, from lost sea-ice albedo, to cloud albedo, with research, into how much GWP of marginal atmospheric H2O affects any net albedo effect.

Why justify yourself, to ME? I know you are a goddamned queer, throwing up deflection media, when you do that because YOU DON'T HAVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, WHICH SHOW YOUR FANTASTIC, PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSIONS, about warming or climate change. You just are too fucking retarded, for the real world.

You should be on TV, Fecaltoons, every Saturday Night.
 
You're even more stupid than I thought. You've got it backwards, retard. An area with at least 15% sea ice is counted as part of the sea ice extent even if it has mostly open seas with no ice. It is actually a very conservative way of quantifying how much of the ice cover has melted (and isn't coming back). Not too surprising that you would get it backwards, fecalton, considering how far up your azzhole your head must be jammed. Everything must look "backwards" from that position.

You actually had me worried there for a moment pardner. So I performed detailed anatomical checks and painstaking measurements (mirrors were involved) and I am now certain that my head is properly positioned and oriented and has NEVER been near my "azzhole".. But I WAS relying on my math intuition and reasoning. So I did check the premise..

Depends on what you're trying to prove whether 15% is generous or not. First off, SIExtent is widely popular because of satellite data. Every joe can get it. Looks pretty. But doesn't really tell you shit about the melt. Because most of the satellite data used doesn't know 3" of ice from 3m of ice when it's sitting on water. And therefore is meaningless in terms of volume of melt.

If your goal is to come up with the biggest wickedly scariest number you can conjure, then what you want to do is exploit --

1) the a priori knowledge that SIExtent IS decreasing.
2) the fact that it is most apparent and volatile at the extremes of extent.
3) use the largest definition of "iced" by sea surface area that you can defend.
4) that you get bigger melt rates the larger you can make the circumference of the extent. (most important)

It's easy to see why the scariest numbers come from the lowest threshold of "iced". If you were to defined "iced" as at least 50% of area covered -- then obviously the expected yearly decline would be a lower rate. To carry it to the limit -- if it was 80 to 100% the rate of SIExtent decline would be near zero --- WOULDN'T it?

Now that said -- there are some studies that show there's not a lot of diff in the RATE of decline between 15 and 30% -- but the AREA involved is a lot different. Yielding bigger SIExtent numbers at both the annual min and max for 15% definition of course.

There isn't even total agreement on the size of the quantizing boxes used or even whether to normalize the actual iced areas ABOVE the 15% threshold.

At any rate -- take all those pretty pictures with a grain of salt. The types of summer melts -- even the most drastic have been observed to "heal" in literally one season according to this flimsy methodology.

Not that I'm doubting that the world is warming and the ice is melting.. Now THAT'S a given. I'm reserving ALL my energy to understanding WHY this is happening.

That's the more important issue...

Nonsensical gibberish. You really have no idea what you're talking about, you poor confused retard.

Since 1979, Arctic sea ice extent has been declining at an average rate of 3.7% per decade. This is an actual, measurable decline in the ice extent and the rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of 15% as the threshold for considering an area ice covered.

Of course it does at some point because I told you that if the criteria was 80%, the rate of de-icing would be close to zero.. Whenever you have a population distribution that you're trying to slice and dice (in this case sea area), you can fiddle with MAXing or MINing the Cumlative part of that distribution by choosing the threshold or knowing HOW that distribution behaves under the conditions in the study (in this case, thinner ice melts faster than thicker ice).

Of course there is a trend.. I'm just arguing that SIExtent and it's methodology is a volatile measurement because it does not actually measure the volume of the melt. That's why it ping-pongs back and forth and skeptics/believers go nuts. It's all about the PR power of those pictures showing ice of some INDETERMINANT thickness ebbing and flowing. THAT can make the evening news..

Sea Ice Area and Sea Ice Volume are more important to the true doomsday crew.
 
But Fecaltoons, if you weren't so full of cartoon shit, you'd link to a study and a couple of graphs, showing how albedo transfers neatly, from retreating Arctic sea ice, to cloud cover.

Fact is, H2O is a GHG, so a lot of what any fresh H2O in Earth's atmosphere does is not to simply reflect. That new H2O will trap IR. You need to come up with a study, again.

You don't ever do THAT, do you, Fecaltoonces. Check the Arctic:

I don't share with you because you're a disgusting little troll.. And I find it utterly disgusting that you claim to read this stuff, but continue to act like a mental case.

But don't doubt stuff that relatively well known like the feedback effects associated with albedo changes in the Arctic.. How many refs do u want there Gollum?

The Impacts of Albedo, Solar Zenith Angle, and Clouds on the Transition from Melt to Freeze in the High-Latitude Arctic | State of the Arctic 2010

The transition from melt to freeze-up appears to be a consequence of air-mass advection associated with tenuous low-level cloud cover and a lack of cloud liquid, essentially eliminating the warming associated with cloud longwave forcing. After this brief cold regime, low-level liquid-containing clouds returned and the progression to a widespread freeze-up was inhibited until the clouds disappeared once again. The influence of increasing surface albedo and solar zenith angles, as well as the effect of cloud cover on the downwelling radiative fluxes are identified as key components in the transition from melt to freeze-up in the Arctic.

I don't see the value in justifying myself to you.. Can you explain why I should value your opinion of me? Preferably in Oxford English? Naaah .. Don't bother..

Yeah, Fekie-poo, you shouldn't try to justify posting a deflection study, even if it is from an interesting org. You know, Fekester, "the transition from melt to freeze-up" isn't the transition, from lost sea-ice albedo, to cloud albedo, with research, into how much GWP of marginal atmospheric H2O affects any net albedo effect.

Why justify yourself, to ME? I know you are a goddamned queer, throwing up deflection media, when you do that because YOU DON'T HAVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, WHICH SHOW YOUR FANTASTIC, PRE-DETERMINED CONCLUSIONS, about warming or climate change. You just are too fucking retarded, for the real world.

You should be on TV, Fecaltoons, every Saturday Night.

It's IN THE STUDY numbnuts.. Go BUY IT AND READ IT.. Who told you that reading the Abstract is sufficient? Did you learn that in astrophysics?

I have free access to almost ANY technical journal in the world.. It sucks to be you....


:badgrin:
 
You actually had me worried there for a moment pardner. So I performed detailed anatomical checks and painstaking measurements (mirrors were involved) and I am now certain that my head is properly positioned and oriented and has NEVER been near my "azzhole".. But I WAS relying on my math intuition and reasoning. So I did check the premise..

Depends on what you're trying to prove whether 15% is generous or not. First off, SIExtent is widely popular because of satellite data. Every joe can get it. Looks pretty. But doesn't really tell you shit about the melt. Because most of the satellite data used doesn't know 3" of ice from 3m of ice when it's sitting on water. And therefore is meaningless in terms of volume of melt.

If your goal is to come up with the biggest wickedly scariest number you can conjure, then what you want to do is exploit --

1) the a priori knowledge that SIExtent IS decreasing.
2) the fact that it is most apparent and volatile at the extremes of extent.
3) use the largest definition of "iced" by sea surface area that you can defend.
4) that you get bigger melt rates the larger you can make the circumference of the extent. (most important)

It's easy to see why the scariest numbers come from the lowest threshold of "iced". If you were to defined "iced" as at least 50% of area covered -- then obviously the expected yearly decline would be a lower rate. To carry it to the limit -- if it was 80 to 100% the rate of SIExtent decline would be near zero --- WOULDN'T it?

Now that said -- there are some studies that show there's not a lot of diff in the RATE of decline between 15 and 30% -- but the AREA involved is a lot different. Yielding bigger SIExtent numbers at both the annual min and max for 15% definition of course.

There isn't even total agreement on the size of the quantizing boxes used or even whether to normalize the actual iced areas ABOVE the 15% threshold.

At any rate -- take all those pretty pictures with a grain of salt. The types of summer melts -- even the most drastic have been observed to "heal" in literally one season according to this flimsy methodology.

Not that I'm doubting that the world is warming and the ice is melting.. Now THAT'S a given. I'm reserving ALL my energy to understanding WHY this is happening.

That's the more important issue...

Nonsensical gibberish. You really have no idea what you're talking about, you poor confused retard.

Since 1979, Arctic sea ice extent has been declining at an average rate of 3.7% per decade. This is an actual, measurable decline in the ice extent and the rate has nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of 15% as the threshold for considering an area ice covered.

Of course it does at some point because I told you that if the criteria was 80%, the rate of de-icing would be close to zero..
You tell us a lot of things, fecalton, but most of them are total bullcrap. Like this one. You still are too stupid to understand that they are counting any area of the ocean with at least 15% ice cover as part of the sea ice area which actually tends to exaggerate the area still ice covered. Arctic sea ice has visibly, measurably declined steeply in both extent and thickness over the last five decades. The ice is disappearing and your moronic fantasies about the methodology are irrelevant.

NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster
NASA

02.29.12
(excerpts)

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap. The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again. The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of the study, which was recently published in Journal of Climate.

The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades. Multi-year ice "extent" – which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface – is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found. There’s another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Comiso found that multi-year ice area is shrinking even faster than multi-year ice extent, by -17.2 percent per decade. "The average thickness of the Arctic sea ice cover is declining because it is rapidly losing its thick component, the multi-year ice. At the same time, the surface temperature in the Arctic is going up, which results in a shorter ice-forming season," Comiso said. "It would take a persistent cold spell for most multi-year sea ice and other ice types to grow thick enough in the winter to survive the summer melt season and reverse the trend."

Scientists differentiate multi-year ice from both seasonal ice, which comes and goes each year, and "perennial" ice, defined as all ice that has survived at least one summer. In other words: all multi-year ice is perennial ice, but not all perennial ice is multi-year ice (it can also be second-year ice). Comiso found that perennial ice extent is shrinking at a rate of -12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of -13.5 percent per decade. These numbers indicate that the thickest ice, multiyear-ice, is declining faster than the other perennial ice that surrounds it.
 
Now there you go.. That is significant. It confirms my point that SIExtent is a silly ass metric to argue over.

There&#8217;s another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Doesn't however contradict anything I said or my "intuition" about choosing thresholds to magnify your assumptions.
 
Now there you go.. That is significant. It confirms my point that SIExtent is a silly ass metric to argue over.

There’s another measurement that allows researchers to analyze how the ice cap evolves: multi-year ice "area," which discards areas of open water among ice floes and focuses exclusively on the regions of the Arctic Ocean that are completely covered by multi-year ice. Sea ice area is always smaller than sea ice extent, and it gives scientists the information needed to estimate the total volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Doesn't however contradict anything I said or my "intuition" about choosing thresholds to magnify your assumptions.

Well of course it does, you sill retard, you're just too stupid to understand your own mistakes.
 
<<BobGollumNote>>
When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.

Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.

So states the fellow who posts yap-yap beginning with "I have read" then posts no links to support his statements.

Cloud cover is a two edged sword. It also retains heat at night. In fact, a recent warm day in the Alaskan Arctic with a foggy night resulted in a 4"+ melt of the sea ice.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

On June 17-18, a confluence of weather conditions, including a daytime high of 19 degrees Celsius (66 degrees Fahrenheit), overnight condensing fog, and bright sun in the afternoon combined to produce exceptional surface melt of just under 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) in a 24-hour period, according to preliminary lidar data. By June 18, ice conditions had deteriorated significantly and with strong winds forecast out of the west, safety dictated it was time to get off the ice. Collisions of the pack with the weakened shore fast ice on June 21-23 resulted in substantial deformation and a series of ice pushes onto the beach, an amazing process to watch from the safety of land.
 
<<BobGollumNote>>
When that ice starts all melting, year after year, it will no longer reflect energy, into space. When the Arctic albedo is GONE, extra CH4 will be in the atmosphere, and then West Antarctica will be endangered ice territory. And after that, East Antarctica will start to melt.

Not necessarily -- I've read at least 2 papers claiming that cloud cover takes over from snow/ice albedo because of evaporation from the now open ocean surface. Also -- Albedo only matters if the sun hits it. Which is rare in most places in the upper Arctic most of the year.

What you got out of your reading is hysteria. Not reasoned deductions.. Or even a balanced view of the studies out there.

So states the fellow who posts yap-yap beginning with "I have read" then posts no links to support his statements.

Cloud cover is a two edged sword. It also retains heat at night. In fact, a recent warm day in the Alaskan Arctic with a foggy night resulted in a 4"+ melt of the sea ice.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

On June 17-18, a confluence of weather conditions, including a daytime high of 19 degrees Celsius (66 degrees Fahrenheit), overnight condensing fog, and bright sun in the afternoon combined to produce exceptional surface melt of just under 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) in a 24-hour period, according to preliminary lidar data. By June 18, ice conditions had deteriorated significantly and with strong winds forecast out of the west, safety dictated it was time to get off the ice. Collisions of the pack with the weakened shore fast ice on June 21-23 resulted in substantial deformation and a series of ice pushes onto the beach, an amazing process to watch from the safety of land.

Tell us again how the oceans are turning acidic.

It's all from the same source, right? The CO2 that's melting the ice caps is turning the oceans acidic and killing oysters in Oregon, right?
 
What is being said here is that at the end of the melt season, as the angle of the sun decreases, the increased temparture of the open water will not prevent the freezeup. Nowhere does it state that this effect will prevent melting when the angle of the sun is higher.

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...tween-arctic-system-components/pdf/sedlar.pdf

Summary
The surface temperature time series illustrates a series of regimes, where the first few days are at the end of the summer melt season. This regime is followed by a temporary cold period, mainly caused by
advective processes; surface temperature is higher than near surface air temperature. Melt ponds and open water starts freezing and at the end a weather system with new snow passes. This permanently
increases the surface albedo and although cloud radiative forcing is large and positive in the following period, surface temperatures never recover, and as the cloud cover dissapate at the end, the temperatures plunge.
 
So this CO2 ocean acidification effect must be really, really strong to overcome the new fresh water from the ice melt, amiright?
 
So this CO2 ocean acidification effect must be really, really strong to overcome the new fresh water from the ice melt, amiright?

laugh.jpg



Even if it is melting, so what? What the fuck can you do about it?


We can re-green the planet, and we have to avoid re-retarding the humans. That means you shouldn't be making kids, Crosstard. So sorry, if you fucked that up.

Meanwhile, you didn't study double-entry accounting, yet, did you. Black Obamney must enter both a debit and credit, if he wants to make an entry, fucking bitch-stupid geek.
 
2012.5260 -1.7798516 5.5981722 7.3780236
2012.5288 -1.9248636 5.3582525 7.2831163
2012.5315 -1.9376196 5.2500610 7.1876807
2012.5343 -1.9923180 5.1030092 7.0953274
2012.5370 -1.9642907 5.0465446 7.0108352
2012.5397 -1.9037149 5.0369329 6.9406481
2012.5425 -2.0189762 4.8619661 6.8809423
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top