kenneal wrote:Even the graph you published show a reducing trend for the area.
Oh do come on. Between 1979 and 2005 there's no trend, upwards or downwards in global sea ice area whatsoever.
It doesn't make sense to combine Arctic and Antarctic sea ice series, the two systems are very different. If fact, other than being at high latitudes it's hard to find much in common between the two systems. The Arctic is land bounded (over a shallow sea) so has a small seasonal cycle (min is 40% of max) whereas the Antarctic is unbounded over deep ocean with a large seasonal cycle (min 17% of max). This results in the Arctic having far more multi-year ice than the Antarctic. The melt process is totally different with Arctic sea ice melting from the surface forming melt pools, increasing absorption of solar radiation and enhancing the melt process. In the Antarctic melting occurs from the bottom.
The Arctic and Antarctic climate system are also totally different, one in the land dominated Northen hemisphere, the other the south, one at sea level, the other rising several thousand metres. Another big difference is the ozone hole in the South causing the Southern Annular Mode to become more positive, increasing the cold winds circling the continent.
kenneal wrote:Even the graph you published show a reducing trend for the area.
Oh do come on. Between 1979 and 2005 there's no trend, upwards or downwards in global sea ice area whatsoever. There's the merest smidgin of an area decrease since 2005, well within normal variations.
I think it's extremely unlikely, given that lack of global area change, that there's been any significant change in global sea ice volume. Any change in ice depth should, logically, be restricted to the fringes of the ice sheets. So it's rather a flight of fancy to predict a disaster on the back of that lack of evidence of significant area change.
Thanks, Chris, for your contribution. There is a very good explanation of the differences here which includes this quote:-
According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consistent with observations of a warming Arctic. This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.
It can't be due to solar influences because, as everyone knows, the sun is getting weaker at the moment.
According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consistent with observations of a warming Arctic. This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.
is claiming too much. It should in fact read:
According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consistent with observations of a warming Arctic. This trend is a major sign of warming in the Arctic region.
If it's happening in the Arctic, but not in the Antartic, for whatever reason, it ain't global.
An Inspector Calls wrote:If it's happening in the Arctic, but not in the Antartic, for whatever reason, it ain't global.
There are global signals and regional signals. The Arctic has an additional regional positive signal, the Antarctic an additional regional negative signal. The existence of these regional signals, both positive and negative, doesn't say anything about the global signal.
I am sticking my neck out again, but the arctic weather pattern this past month seems to be consistent with another record sea ice melt this year. A lot of ice seems to have been flowing down the east coast of Greenland, this is the channel through which most of the multi-year ice passes to enter warmer water where it melts.
The monthly NSIDC report will be out in a day or two, see if I am right...
An Inspector Calls wrote:I totally agree. Therefore, they are not supporting evidence for or against global warming.
The globe doesn't have to warm everywhere for there to be an aggregate warming of the planet. The two poles are literally and metaphorically poles apart, as has been explained above. I think Chris and I have proved our point so I will refrain from feeding the troll any more. You can lead a horse to water but if he doesn't want to drink...
RalphW wrote:I am sticking my neck out again, but the arctic weather pattern this past month seems to be consistent with another record sea ice melt this year. A lot of ice seems to have been flowing down the east coast of Greenland, this is the channel through which most of the multi-year ice passes to enter warmer water where it melts.
The monthly NSIDC report will be out in a day or two, see if I am right...
Yes, we will see.
We will also see over the next few years whether or not the sun can affect our climate sufficiently to cause another Maunder Minimum type event as has been predicted, due to the turn down and lengthening in the 11 year solar cycle. This could cause a reverse in the ice loss but the extent to which this happens will indicate how much effect that CO2 is having on our climate. We could have a considerable amount of climate cooling, though, before the ice loss is reversed because of the momentum caused by heat build up in the oceans. The warmer ocean could continue to melt Arctic ice during he summer even as air temperatures dropped.
'Some media roundup updates on the ongoing Yellowstone River oil spill: 1) Higher than normal winter snow runoff means cleanup (and assessing the full scale of damage) will be slower than usual; 2) because of that, farmland is being submerged in oily water; and, 3) ExxonMobil admits it took nearly twice as long to shut off the leak than initially reported.
According to US Department of Transportation documents, the pipeline under the Yellowstone River was not shut down until 56 minutes after the leak had been first detected. Initially ExxonMobil said it was shut down after just 30 minutes. The discrepancy is being chalked up to ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.'s president speaking without notes to the press, and the the DOT figure was based off figures provided by Exxon.
As for the effect of spring snowmelt-caused flooding, which normally would have peaked already but because of high winter snowfall still continues, the Yellowstone River is now flowing over its banks, the banks are unstable, and there's a high about of floating debris in the river. This is bringing oil into people's yards and into farmer's fields'.
