Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Old Rocks]

Different magnitudes of projected subsurface ocean warming around Greenland and Antarctica : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

The observed acceleration of outlet glaciers and ice flows in Greenland and Antarctica is closely linked to ocean warming, especially in the subsurface layer1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Accurate projections of ice-sheet dynamics and global sea-level rise therefore require information of future ocean warming in the vicinity of the large ice sheets. Here we use a set of 19 state-of-the-art climate models to quantify this ocean warming in the next two centuries. We find that in response to a mid-range increase in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, the subsurface oceans surrounding the two polar ice sheets at depths of 200–500 m warm substantially compared with the observed changes thus far6, 7, 8. Model projections suggest that over the course of the twenty-first century, the maximum ocean warming around Greenland will be almost double the global mean, with a magnitude of 1.7–2.0 °C. By contrast, ocean warming around Antarctica will be only about half as large as global mean warming, with a magnitude of 0.5–0.6 °C. A more detailed evaluation indicates that ocean warming is controlled by different mechanisms around Greenland and Antarctica. We conclude that projected subsurface ocean warming could drive significant increases in ice-mass loss, and heighten the risk of future large sea-level rise.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Holy shit we're going down again!!!

09,15,2011,4700000
09,16,2011,4680156
09,17,2011,4665469

 

[ScienceRocks]

Here is the annual average for Arctic sea ice from the Walsh & Chapman dataset:

More Cherry Ice from Joe D’Aleo | Open Mind

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

Up until 1920-1930 time frame the minimum was near 10.5-11.0 million km^2! HOLY SHIT...We're less then half that! You'd have to be out of your mind to think the sea ice hasn't decreased big time in the past century.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, those charts look grim. The right end is totally off the curve.

 

[ScienceRocks]

09,18,2011, 4,648,438

Down again! 121,563 thousand away from the minimum of the 9th...Doubt we make it.

 

[Chris]

 

[ScienceRocks]

damn both passage have been open for over a month or more.

 

[RollingThunder]

A new study by researchers at the University of Washington indicates that total Arctic sea ice volume actually hit a record low level in 2010, even though the square mile extent last year was slightly higher than the record low extent in 2007. Factoring in the thickness of the ice showed that the well documented ongoing decline in ice cap thickness is more than compensating for the slight variations in the total area covered by the ice to indicate a continuous decline in total ice volume. The ice is three dimensional so cubic volume is a more accurate metric than square mile area measurements. Minimum Arctic sea ice area at the end of the melt season in recent years has been fluctuating around four and quarter million square miles compared to around seven million square miles in the early 70's and some experts think that the reason sea ice extent has declined so rapidly in recent years is because the thickness had been declining for decades.

Total Arctic sea ice at record low in 2010: study
Mon Sep 5, 2011
(excerpts)

(Reuters) - The minimum summertime volume of Arctic sea ice fell to a record low last year, researchers said in a study to be published shortly, suggesting that thinning of the ice had outweighed a recovery in area. The study estimated that last year broke the previous, 2007 record for the minimum volume of ice, which is calculated from a combination of sea ice area and thickness.

"(It fell) by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record," said the authors in their paper titled "Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume." "The real worrisome fact is downward trend over the last 32 years," said Axel Schweiger, lead author of the paper, referring to a satellite record of changes in the Arctic. The researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle checked the model results against real readings of ice thickness using limited submarine and satellite data.

 

[gslack]

A new study by researchers at the University of Washington indicates that total Arctic sea ice volume actually hit a record low level in 2010, even though the square mile extent last year was slightly higher than the record low extent in 2007. Factoring in the thickness of the ice showed that the well documented ongoing decline in ice cap thickness is more than compensating for the slight variations in the total area covered by the ice to indicate a continuous decline in total ice volume. The ice is three dimensional so cubic volume is a more accurate metric than square mile area measurements. Minimum Arctic sea ice area at the end of the melt season in recent years has been fluctuating around four and quarter million square miles compared to around seven million square miles in the early 70's and some experts think that the reason sea ice extent has declined so rapidly in recent years is because the thickness had been declining for decades.

Total Arctic sea ice at record low in 2010: study
Mon Sep 5, 2011
(excerpts)

(Reuters) - The minimum summertime volume of Arctic sea ice fell to a record low last year, researchers said in a study to be published shortly, suggesting that thinning of the ice had outweighed a recovery in area. The study estimated that last year broke the previous, 2007 record for the minimum volume of ice, which is calculated from a combination of sea ice area and thickness.

"(It fell) by a large enough margin to establish a statistically significant new record," said the authors in their paper titled "Uncertainty in modeled Arctic sea ice volume." "The real worrisome fact is downward trend over the last 32 years," said Axel Schweiger, lead author of the paper, referring to a satellite record of changes in the Arctic. The researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle checked the model results against real readings of ice thickness using limited submarine and satellite data.

So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..

So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time? As the claim you guys maintain goes, the atmosphere warms then the oceans. And if that is indeed the case wouldn't it get thinner and less expansive? Also since it was a recovery from the record low year, wouldn't thinner ice be expected? Ice volume is an indicator of new or old ice more so than current temp variations. That would mean the ice after a recovery from a record low year would be thinner.

Just another case of bullshit over substance... Ya know what I find amazing.. That you people will take anything that says we are killing the planet and call it gospel despite it lacking logic, reason or common sense, repeatedly and with no more thought than you gave it the last time they made a fool of you...

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[RollingThunder]

So basically they are telling us that even though actual ice coverage (linear) is not a record low, it is a record low in volume.. Okay..

So how does ice grow linearly and get thinner at the same time?

I see you're completely clueless, slackjawed, as usual. The funny thing about that is the way you project your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. You really are retarded enough, it seems, to imagine that everyone, including the PhD scientists who study this stuff as a career, is as clueless and confused as you are. Your attitude seems to be that if you can't figure it out, then it must be bullshyt. LOL. All of your conjectures about "well, if this does that, then wouldn't this other thing have to happen" are just nonsense pseudo-logic based on your own ignorance of science and how things work and your general stupidity. You continue to spew BS even when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Just another case of bullshit over substance...

That's what you're all about, slackjawedidiot, and you're the master of it, as your every post proves.

 

[zonly1]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.

Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.

The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.

With articles such as this article continues to build up this myth of man-made global warming. It's scientist with grants vs non grants, or integrity vs non integrity.

 

[ScienceRocks]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.

Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.

The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.

With articles such as this article continues to build up this myth of man-made global warming. It's scientist with grants vs non grants, or integrity vs non integrity.

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

 

[zonly1]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.

Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.

The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.

With articles such as this article continues to build up this myth of man-made global warming. It's scientist with grants vs non grants, or integrity vs non integrity.

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

Matt, that's like blaming the Rich hasn't payed fair share enough or regardless of the excuses. I think the two were challenging their intergerty when comes to science.
It's integrity that is in question and the banishment is the after affect.

 

[wirebender]

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

If Greenland's ice sheet is melting at anywhere near the rate claimed by climate pseudoscientists, why is sea level falling? Where is that water going?

 

[Meister]

World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists

(Reuters) - The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss in its thirteenth edition last week, scientists said on Monday.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," HarperCollins said on its website on Monday.

However, a number of scientists disputed the claim.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," said Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute (SPRI) at the University of Cambridge.

"We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered."

Other scientists agreed.

"These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year.

However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality, added J. Graham Cogley, Professor of Geography at Trent University, Ontario, Canada.

"It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast," he added.

Last year, a U.N. committee of climate scientists came under fire for bungling a forecast of when Himalayan glaciers would thaw.

The panel's 2007 report, the main guide for governments in fighting climate change, included an incorrect projection that all Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, hundreds of years earlier than scientists' projections.

With articles such as this article continues to build up this myth of man-made global warming. It's scientist with grants vs non grants, or integrity vs non integrity.

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

Yeah, it's always something, but I really doubt it's the "map maker".... it's more like "garbage in, garbage out".

 

[Liability]

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

If Greenland's ice sheet is melting at anywhere near the rate claimed by climate pseudoscientists, why is sea level falling? Where is that water going?

Hey. I was a little thirsty. Ok?

 

[wirebender]

Some map maker fucked up, ok? Don't you understand that it's NOT a scienctist working with real data. It is that godforsaken simple. The greenlands ice sheet is melting and that is just something you people need to come to grips with. It IS A FACT! You can't make up your own facts without your own data, and we all know you don't have any of that...

If Greenland's ice sheet is melting at anywhere near the rate claimed by climate pseudoscientists, why is sea level falling? Where is that water going?

Hey. I was a little thirsty. Ok?

OK. So long as we can account for it. Do you happen to know anything about trenberth's "missing" heat? Did you commandeer it to keep your tootsies warm or something like that?

 

[Liability]

If Greenland's ice sheet is melting at anywhere near the rate claimed by climate pseudoscientists, why is sea level falling? Where is that water going?

Hey. I was a little thirsty. Ok?

OK. So long as we can account for it. Do you happen to know anything about trenberth's "missing" heat? Did you commandeer it to keep your tootsies warm or something like that?

Well, look. I cannot take or accept personal responsibility for every damn AGW manifestation.

But I have found it necessary to use an extra blanket or two recently.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf