Amazon 7
Recommended Posts
I appreciate the recognition of the data showing that it isn't thin. There's a lot more multiyear ice there. It's thicker. Extent is greater. (Mind you, thickness is a function of the amount of ice remaining. But extent is what is most important for reasons of albedo).
Let's not be anti-science and make off-the-cuff-dogma-based statements like the ice is "thin." Look at data (which is pretty easily found) and then make statements. Maybe we'll use 2010 as the start point for measuring the volume trend, since that's when Cryo-Sat 2 was launched.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Let's not be anti-science and make off-the-cuff-dogma-based statements like the ice is "thin." Look at data (which is pretty easily found) and then make statements. Maybe we'll use 2010 as the start point for measuring the volume trend, since that's when Cryo-Sat 2 was launched.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Amazon 7
lawrocketI appreciate the recognition of the data showing that it isn't thin. There's a lot more multiyear ice there. It's thicker. Extent is greater. (Mind you, thickness is a function of the amount of ice remaining. But extent is what is most important for reasons of albedo).
Let's not be anti-science and make off-the-cuff-dogma-based statements like the ice is "thin." Look at data (which is pretty easily found) and then make statements. Maybe we'll use 2010 as the start point for measuring the volume trend, since that's when Cryo-Sat 2 was launched.
Do you think the warmth in the arctic this winter will have an effect on how much open water there is later this year...???? Remember now.. all that warm... pushed the Polar Vortex south.
I see some interesting flooding coming in the East when all that white stuff starts melting off
Small changes are having HUGE impacts on people lives.
winsor 236
lawrocketI appreciate the recognition of the data showing that it isn't thin. There's a lot more multiyear ice there. It's thicker. Extent is greater. (Mind you, thickness is a function of the amount of ice remaining. But extent is what is most important for reasons of albedo).
Let's not be anti-science and make off-the-cuff-dogma-based statements like the ice is "thin." Look at data (which is pretty easily found) and then make statements. Maybe we'll use 2010 as the start point for measuring the volume trend, since that's when Cryo-Sat 2 was launched.
I say you're a
Remember, the Science is Settled.
Nothing has a greater effect on Arctic ice extent than wind. Take a look at Lake Superior - not so much because it's contained. But since the Arctic has outflows (not like the other oceans - which is a reason why it can ice up).
The photos of ice extent and thickness show quite nicely where the winds are blowing. And it quite nicely matches with the bitter cold seen in most of North America this winter.
[Reply]Do you think the warmth in the arctic this winter will have an effect on how much open water there is later this year.
The photos of ice extent and thickness show quite nicely where the winds are blowing. And it quite nicely matches with the bitter cold seen in most of North America this winter.
[Reply]Do you think the warmth in the arctic this winter will have an effect on how much open water there is later this year.
The "warmth" has given us a massive increase in ice extent. And depth. Compare the "warm" Arctic of this year with the "cold" Arctic of last winter. An increase of even a few degrees doesn't make much difference when it's -35 instead of -40.
If the winds manage to blow a bunch of the ice south, then the extent will be lesser, if there is a lot of storm activity to break up the ice, it'll be lesser. But a few million square kilometers of surface ice will be lost.
What do I think? We saw this same weather pattern in the 1930s. Brutally cold winter. In 1934 or 1936, I think, it ended up with above-normal summer heat. I see no reason why this won't happen again. Not saying it will, but I thinkb there will be some balancing out this year.
I don't see flooding in the east when the snow melts. The snow won't all be melting at once and the rivers there are pretty adequate. We're not talking Irene-type water levels in New England. Flooding problems will usually be from excess snowmelt in the midwest.
I don't know the snowmass numbers for the far north. But a large snowmelt would make the Kallend theorem operative (the more I'm thinking about it the more sense it makes - not totally convinced but moving over) in that the Arctic saltwater would be further diluted by fresh water from land, making ice formation easier.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Thicker on top, more down under
February 5, 2014
Arctic sea ice extent remained lower than average in January, and just within two standard deviations of the long-term average. Arctic temperatures remained above average, even as cold winter air embraced North America. The retention of more sea ice in September 2013 has increased the overall thickness and volume of the ice pack compared to recent years. Antarctic sea ice remains significantly more extensive than average.
Critical reading skills are fun da mental... take lots of sources.. munge them together and come up with reality not hopeful thinking for "your team"
This is not a team sport children.. its about what is best for the species.
Bottom line.. in the here and now... the ice is no where near as thick as it once was ... and that will allow the thin ice to have lots of people taking a bath in warming water.
Whoop de do... listening to crabbers who dealt with HUGE amounts of ice last season on the Bering Sea... and this year...same boats they encountered none.
Some of them are looking forward to great seasons off of Barrow in the not too distant future.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites