Another Arctic positive feedback

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Ocean Awakening as Ice Melts : Discovery News

Earth's sleepiest ocean is waking, say researchers.

The Arctic Ocean's ice-capped depths have been quiet for millennia, thanks to winds being largely unable to ruffle the surface and stir things up.

The rapid loss of summer ice cover is changing all that, however, creating internal waves in the Arctic waters that could dramatically change life there -- and perhaps even accelerate the sea ice loss.

"It's a very, very quiet ocean," said Luc Rainville of the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, in Seattle.

He and his colleague Rebecca A. Woodgate have just published a study in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters reporting how Arctic waters along the continental shelves are getting more turbulent as the summer ice disappears and waves start churning the water like in other oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Melting Arctic Ice: What Satellite Images Don't See - TIME

But those high-altitude observations need occasional reality checks from scientists down on the surface. It was during one such on-the-ground research expedition last fall that David Barber, an Arctic climatologist at the University of Manitoba, got an unwelcome surprise.
(See pictures of the Arctic.)

Barber was aboard the Canadian research icebreaker Amundsen, checking on ice in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska and Western Canada. The ship was well inside a region the satellites said should be choked with thick, multiyear-old ice. "That's pretty much a no-go zone for an icebreaker of the Amundsen's size," says Barber. But the ship kept going, at a brisk 13 knots — its top speed in open water is 13.7 knots — and even when it finally reached thick ice, he says, "we could still penetrate it easily."

In short, as Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber's words, "full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven't seen this sort of thing before."



Read more: Melting Arctic Ice: What Satellite Images Don't See - TIME

 

[driveby]

zero fucks given ......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oceans have waves, fuck, I never saw that coming

 

[del]

whenever i think of hard science,meticulously researched and stringently reviewed, i think of time magazine.

unless people has a hotter cover.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Arctic seafloor has become very active lately too, no doubt the decline in temperatures that East Angelia was trying to hide is the culprit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

whenever i think of hard science,meticulously researched and stringently reviewed, i think of time magazine.

unless people has a hotter cover.

Time for mo' pos rep methinks lol

 

[Old Rocks]

whenever i think of hard science,meticulously researched and stringently reviewed, i think of time magazine.

unless people has a hotter cover.

Whenever I think of a really stupid fuck, I think of someone that does not check out the source of the article.

David Barber | Global Climate Change Information

The Arctic could be primed for major, even irreversible, changes”
Posted by admin on January 29, 2010 · 4 Comments

As Arctic climatologist David Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber’s words, “full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven’t seen this sort of thing before.”
What Barber’s expedition further discovered was that some Arctic sea ice is not only whisper thin, but that even in places with thick ice, the ice was not as solid as satellites had indicated. That thick ice was still there, but largely as individual chunks covered with a veneer of new ice that masked their true nature.

 

[Big Fitz]

mmmm... blog truthiness.

aahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggg.....

 

[Toronado3800]

Thanks for the articles. More interesting reading to be sure.

Glen Beck hasn't come up with an official rebuttal to pass down to the minions yet so there hasn't been much intelligent debate. That or there isn't any, just some folks cussing.

I'll fill in just for them just for conversation.
See level might rise 6 to 16 feet? Not real precise. How accurate have the predictions been to this point?

Also I noticed the one fella was from Climate Change. org or something similar.

Seems more unlikely satellites would miss out on ice formations than mistake them for thicker than they are. Never know I suppose.

 

[elvis]

whenever i think of hard science,meticulously researched and stringently reviewed, i think of time magazine.

unless people has a hotter cover.

Whenever I think of a really stupid fuck, I think of someone that does not check out the source of the article.

David Barber | Global Climate Change Information

The Arctic could be primed for major, even irreversible, changes”
Posted by admin on January 29, 2010 · 4 Comments

As Arctic climatologist David Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber’s words, “full of holes, like Swiss cheese. We haven’t seen this sort of thing before.”
What Barber’s expedition further discovered was that some Arctic sea ice is not only whisper thin, but that even in places with thick ice, the ice was not as solid as satellites had indicated. That thick ice was still there, but largely as individual chunks covered with a veneer of new ice that masked their true nature.

in other words, del doesn't worship al whore, the way you do, eh old fuck?

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for the articles. More interesting reading to be sure.

You are welcome.

Glen Beck hasn't come up with an official rebuttal to pass down to the minions yet so there hasn't been much intelligent debate. That or there isn't any, just some folks cussing.

For sure.

I'll fill in just for them just for conversation.
See level might rise 6 to 16 feet? Not real precise. How accurate have the predictions been to this point?

Very inaccurate. The rise is at the upper edge of the probability cone. We are seeing far more rise than was expected. And we are seeing more instability in the ice shelves in Antarctica than expected.

Wish it were otherwise.

Also I noticed the one fella was from Climate Change. org or something similar.

Seems more unlikely satellites would miss out on ice formations than mistake them for thicker than they are. Never know I suppose.

Wasn't so much that they had an error in the thickness, as that the ice was not solid as it has been in the past. That means that it will take much less to melt it than good solid ice.

 

[dilloduck]

A good solid piece of ice will melt me everytime.

 

[Old Rocks]

That was the source of the paragraph, Climate Change, but the source of the article was one published in Geophysical Review Letters.

Geophysical Research Letters

 

[Toronado3800]

Old Rocks, you got me. I was just making discussion where other folks should have been.

 

[Charles Stucker]

That was the source of the paragraph, Climate Change, but the source of the article was one published in Geophysical Review Letters.

Geophysical Research Letters

Yet more astounding revelations from a self proclaimed scientific genius.
That is what you claim is it not Old Rocks in the Head?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks, you got me. I was just making discussion where other folks should have been.

And I appreciate that.

I would really like to see some negative feedbacks or some data that shows that we are not pushing the edge of the unknown.

 

[Charles Stucker]

No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.

So you admit you are not anything like a scientist eh rocky boy?
Then how can you distinguish between real science and sham fakery?
Answer - you can't, you just have taken, as an article of FAITH that the Earth is warming. And like any good religious fanatic you push your FAITH on others.
Others who happen to know far more science than you.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, what I claim is enough initiative and intellect to use the instrument you just used for a meaningless insult to look up information that is published by real scientists.

So, Mill Rat. Now that the Earth is cooling, I'm confused. Why do we need cap and trade or any CO2 limiters or a global totalitarian oligarchy.

I mean, what IS the ideal temperature for this planet? A universal 72 degrees and mostly sunny?

What does SCIENCE!!!!! say about that and our ability to achieve it? Can the Garden of Eden be powered on Ethanol, Solar power and Windmills?

Where do you expect to go, if given your druthers?