The Volume's the Thing

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0


I'd bet you the losses here more than make up for any gains in Antarctica. And mind you there'll be no loss of albedo below the summer minimum till the temperature on the continent is above freezing for a very, very long time. And since the ice at the South Pole is seasonal and almost all of it will disappear come summer, the impact of its losses or gains is almost insignificant.

As I also pointed out earlier, since the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land normally covered by snow over the winter, there is the likely possibility of an even greater loss of albedo in areas extending away from the pole that do still retain some incident sunlight over the winter months.

Be that as it may, the volume of the ice sheet IS the significant parameter. The area only gives us a rough idea of what the mass of the ice sheet is doing. Given the predominance of single year ice these days, it is possible to see what would seem to be significant increases in ice extents without a corresponding increase in ice volume or mass.

That red line up there: the April volume; it's at about 6,000 km^3 and descending at 3,300 km^3 / decade. That would indicate it's going to hit ZERO in less than 20 years.
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,474
Reaction score
4,123
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Ohhh.......now its the volume. Is that this weeks official entry?


We gotcha s0n!!!:2up:

LMAO.....when they got pwned over ice surface extent, had to call an audible and go to volume. Brilliant stuff, I gotta admit!!
 
OP
A

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Anyone care to relieve Skookerasnoc of his burden as the sole denier representative?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,190
Reaction score
13,783
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Anyone care to relieve Skookerasnoc of his burden as the sole denier representative?
Nope.. He's doin OK and I don't do ice.. It's been melting long before we had satellites to measure mass..

But hey.. If I DID DO ice, I would congratulate you on finding something more important than SIExtent that seems to fascinate the kiddies around here. Particularly because that game is so rigged that a single berg in open ocean gets counted as "completely iced"..
 
Last edited:
OP
A

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
The amount of actual ice coverage that constitutes "frozen" ( I guess) is clearly stated in all these data sources. It's typically 15%. I think most folks here know what "15%" means and do not require your rather vague visualization.

Volume - or more accurately - mass, has always been the more important parameter. It just hasn't been available till lately. The reliance on ice extents was not the result of ignorance on the part of the scientists involved.
 
Last edited:

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
But Flat is going to make silly statements no matter what.

Both the volume and extant show the same thing, that the ice will be gone before too long in the summer. And that will have consequences.
 
OP
A

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
And while we're here, do you have any comment on the September ice volume data? Do you agree that if the current trend continues it will hit zero within 20 years?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top