2014 arctic sea ice thread!

[ScienceRocks]

 

[westwall]

Oh, gee look....it's within the normal average....

 

[Crick]

Normal? It's at the lower end of a standard deviation below the 1981-2010 average: a period that saw consistent extent decline. The graphic below shows that it is currently below at least every year since 2010.

"Normal"! Hah!

 

[Crick]

Let's get serious here Westie. Do you believe Arctic ice extents are increasing? Do you believe they have recently reached some significant high? Do you accept or reject the NSIDC data that show a steady decline for every month of the year since satellite records began?

 

[skookerasbil]

Sure thing there admiral... Funny how there are no leads in these photo's....

Because leads are temporary things.

Again, you've proudly displayed your jaw-dropping ignorance of the topic. Well done.

LMAO.....coming from somebody who's yet to post a link. Philosophy in a science related forum is ghey.

 

[Crick]

Skooker, what do you think would prevent the occurrence of a polynya at the North Pole in mid-winter?

From Wikipedia's article on them:

A polynya (common US spelling) or polynia (common UK spelling) /pəˈlɪnjə/ is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice.[1] It is now used as geographical term for an area of unfrozen sea within the ice pack. It is a loanword from Russian: полынья (polynya) Russian pronunciation: [pəlɨˈnʲja], which refers to a natural ice hole, and was adopted in the 19th century by polar explorers to describe navigable portions of the sea.[2][3] In past decades, for example, some polynyas, such as the Weddell Polynya, have lasted over multiple winters (1974–1976).[4]

and

Arctic navigation

When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 60s, there was a significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same, large polynya near the North Pole, for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[6]

 

[mamooth]

Back to sea ice ... May and early June 2014 were lackluster with the melt, but in late June, the melt accelerated again and surprised everyone. It's not at the record low 2012 levels, but it's close.

And here's an interesting study. Yes, like all the data, historical data also contradicts the deniers.

Whaling logbooks could hold key to retreating Arctic ice fronts
---
...which analyses historical logbooks recorded by explorers, whalers and merchants during epic expeditions, between 1750 and 1850.

...

A comparison with satellite data from the last 30 years of this area shows the ice was far more advanced than it is today.

...

For example we found that if you work your way through the months August to September which is the time of maximum melt, data shows in Baffin Bay, there was a persistent feature of middle ice in the early 19th century, which is not there today.”
---

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Back to sea ice ... May and early June 2014 were lackluster with the melt, but in late June, the melt accelerated again and surprised everyone. It's not at the record low 2012 levels, but it's close.

And here's an interesting study. Yes, like all the data, historical data also contradicts the deniers.

Whaling logbooks could hold key to retreating Arctic ice fronts
---
...which analyses historical logbooks recorded by explorers, whalers and merchants during epic expeditions, between 1750 and 1850.

...

A comparison with satellite data from the last 30 years of this area shows the ice was far more advanced than it is today.

...

For example we found that if you work your way through the months August to September which is the time of maximum melt, data shows in Baffin Bay, there was a persistent feature of middle ice in the early 19th century, which is not there today.”
---

So that's why New York city is now underwater

 

[Old Rocks]

Back to sea ice ... May and early June 2014 were lackluster with the melt, but in late June, the melt accelerated again and surprised everyone. It's not at the record low 2012 levels, but it's close.

And here's an interesting study. Yes, like all the data, historical data also contradicts the deniers.

Whaling logbooks could hold key to retreating Arctic ice fronts
---
...which analyses historical logbooks recorded by explorers, whalers and merchants during epic expeditions, between 1750 and 1850.

...

A comparison with satellite data from the last 30 years of this area shows the ice was far more advanced than it is today.

...

For example we found that if you work your way through the months August to September which is the time of maximum melt, data shows in Baffin Bay, there was a persistent feature of middle ice in the early 19th century, which is not there today.”
---

So that's why New York city is now underwater

Now Frankie boy, melting sea ice is not going to significantly raise the sea level. However, the ice melting off of the glaciers and continental ice caps plus the raise from and increase in ocean temperatures has raised the sea level at New York by a foot, and that was significant during Sandy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Back to sea ice ... May and early June 2014 were lackluster with the melt, but in late June, the melt accelerated again and surprised everyone. It's not at the record low 2012 levels, but it's close.

And here's an interesting study. Yes, like all the data, historical data also contradicts the deniers.

Whaling logbooks could hold key to retreating Arctic ice fronts
---
...which analyses historical logbooks recorded by explorers, whalers and merchants during epic expeditions, between 1750 and 1850.

...

A comparison with satellite data from the last 30 years of this area shows the ice was far more advanced than it is today.

...

For example we found that if you work your way through the months August to September which is the time of maximum melt, data shows in Baffin Bay, there was a persistent feature of middle ice in the early 19th century, which is not there today.”
---

So that's why New York city is now underwater

Now Frankie boy, melting sea ice is not going to significantly raise the sea level. However, the ice melting off of the glaciers and continental ice caps plus the raise from and increase in ocean temperatures has raised the sea level at New York by a foot, and that was significant during Sandy.

I though Sandy was a storm surge at high tide.

 

[IanC]

So that's why New York city is now underwater

Now Frankie boy, melting sea ice is not going to significantly raise the sea level. However, the ice melting off of the glaciers and continental ice caps plus the raise from and increase in ocean temperatures has raised the sea level at New York by a foot, and that was significant during Sandy.

I though Sandy was a storm surge at high tide.

10 or 15 feet of storm surge but its the supposed 1mm/yr increase from global warming that caused all the damage. Seems reasonable.

 

[Crick]

Where do you get 1mm/yr Ian? It's currently 3.5 mm/yr and with the irremediable destabilization of the entire WAIS, it's only going to get faster.

Sea levels are up 200 mm since 1880. That's 7.87 inches. That obviously didn't cause Sandy to flood the New Jersey coastline. It just took that flooding that much further in. I've experienced flooding and the difference between water lappping at your doorsill and another 8 inches could easily be measured in the tens of thousands of dollars for a single home. So don't try to tell us that global warming's sea rise made no difference.

 

[westwall]

Where do you get 1mm/yr Ian? It's currently 3.5 mm/yr and with the irremediable destabilization of the entire WAIS, it's only going to get faster.

Sea levels are up 200 mm since 1880. That's 7.87 inches. That obviously didn't cause Sandy to flood the New Jersey coastline. It just took that flooding that much further in. I've experienced flooding and the difference between water lappping at your doorsill and another 8 inches could easily be measured in the tens of thousands of dollars for a single home. So don't try to tell us that global warming's sea rise made no difference.

According to NOAA, the vast majority of the "sea level rise" is 0 to 3 mm per year. There are THREE places that show a rise of 3-4 mm per year. There are FIVE places where the sea level DROP is -12 to -9 mm per year... There is ONE place where the rise is 5 to 7 mm per year.

Where the hell did you get that 3.5 mm per year figure? It's simply untrue.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

 

[Old Rocks]

Where do you get 1mm/yr Ian? It's currently 3.5 mm/yr and with the irremediable destabilization of the entire WAIS, it's only going to get faster.

Sea levels are up 200 mm since 1880. That's 7.87 inches. That obviously didn't cause Sandy to flood the New Jersey coastline. It just took that flooding that much further in. I've experienced flooding and the difference between water lappping at your doorsill and another 8 inches could easily be measured in the tens of thousands of dollars for a single home. So don't try to tell us that global warming's sea rise made no difference.

According to NOAA, the vast majority of the "sea level rise" is 0 to 3 mm per year. There are THREE places that show a rise of 3-4 mm per year. There are FIVE places where the sea level DROP is -12 to -9 mm per year... There is ONE place where the rise is 5 to 7 mm per year.

Where the hell did you get that 3.5 mm per year figure? It's simply untrue.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

Here we go again. Now that is a very good site that Walleyes gives us a link to. But it says nothing like he claims.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

In fact, if you expand the map for the area from Washington DC to New York, you will see little yellow arrows that represent sea level rise at the rate of 1 to 2 feet per century.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea level rise as measured by satellite with seasonal signals removed, 3.2 mm per year, plus or minus 0.4 mm.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Frankie boy, melting sea ice is not going to significantly raise the sea level. However, the ice melting off of the glaciers and continental ice caps plus the raise from and increase in ocean temperatures has raised the sea level at New York by a foot, and that was significant during Sandy.

I though Sandy was a storm surge at high tide.

10 or 15 feet of storm surge but its the supposed 1mm/yr increase from global warming that caused all the damage. Seems reasonable.

Ian, why the dishonesty? The sea level rise for the New York area is about 1 foot. An increase of 1 foot on a large storm surge is very significant, and caused a significant increase in storm damage, the reach of the water inland. Because runup goes much higher than the storm surge.

 

[Mr. H.]

RIGZONE - Japan's MOL To Launch Arctic Ocean LNG Route From Russia's Yamal In 2018

 

[Crick]

I though Sandy was a storm surge at high tide.

10 or 15 feet of storm surge but its the supposed 1mm/yr increase from global warming that caused all the damage. Seems reasonable.

Ian, why the dishonesty? The sea level rise for the New York area is about 1 foot. An increase of 1 foot on a large storm surge is very significant, and caused a significant increase in storm damage, the reach of the water inland. Because runup goes much higher than the storm surge.

I think Ian owes Old Rocks an answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I though Sandy was a storm surge at high tide.

10 or 15 feet of storm surge but its the supposed 1mm/yr increase from global warming that caused all the damage. Seems reasonable.

Ian, why the dishonesty? The sea level rise for the New York area is about 1 foot. An increase of 1 foot on a large storm surge is very significant, and caused a significant increase in storm damage, the reach of the water inland. Because runup goes much higher than the storm surge.

According to Mann's Tree rings? The seas rose a foot--but only in NYC?

 

[Crick]

Mann's tree rings? WTF are you talking about? Are you under the impression that tree rings tells us something about sea level?