Arctic Ice

[RollingThunder]

While the denier cultists irrelevantly argue over their very ignorant and demented cultic delusions and fraudulent myths that have nothing to do with the actual climate science that they can't even begin to understand......

.....in the real world...human caused, CO2-driven global warming is continually making a mockery out of their bamboozled denial of reality....

Canada’s Melting Ice Caps Are a Big Driver of Rising Sea Levels
The Queen Elizabeth Islands’ glaciers – forming the third biggest contributor to sea-level rise after Antarctica and Greenland – are melting at a dramatically increasing rate. Journal author Romain Millan explains why it started happening in 2005.
NewsDeeply
BY Maura Forrest
PUBLISHED ON: Mar. 9, 2017
Canada's northernmost reaches are the Queen Elizabeth Islands, a mass of 13 large islands and hundreds of smaller ones that fan out into the Arctic Ocean just west of Greenland.

There are eight major ice caps and ice fields in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, which account for 25 percent of Arctic land ice, not including Greenland. Many of the glaciers flow directly into marine basins, including the Arctic Ocean, Baffin Bay and Nares Strait.

Before 2000, these glaciers and ice caps were mostly stable. Though they were shrinking slightly, the changes were relatively small from year to year.

But new research published in the journal Environmental Research Letters shows that in 2005 there was a dramatic difference as Arctic temperatures climbed.

ArcticDeeply recently spoke with lead author Romain Millan, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, who says the Queen Elizabeth Islands are now a major contributor to sea-level rise.

Millan explained how the glaciers of the Queen Elizabeth Islands are changing, how they’re contributing to global sea-level rise and what the future may hold for Canada’s Arctic ice caps.

Romain Millan sets up weather monitoring equipment on Zachariae glacier in northeast Greenland. (Anders Anker Bjørk)

ArcticDeeply: What is happening to the glaciers on the Queen Elizabeth Islands?
Romain Millan: What you have to understand is that there are two main processes that are driving ice loss. You have surface melt and you have discharge of icebergs into the oceanfront n. Before 2005, these two processes were about equal, so the mass losses were equally shared between these two processes. But after 2005, there was a drastic increase in the surface melt due to warmer air temperatures.

Before 2005, the surface melt was at an average of three gigatonnes per year, but after 2005, it increased to 30 gigatonnes of ice per year – so it was multiplied by 10. If we look at the curve of the mass losses, there is an obvious change in 2005. It increased very suddenly.

AD: Did the weather suddenly get much warmer in 2005?
Romain Millan: There was an increase of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9degrees Fahrenheit) between 2005 and present. Warmer temperatures melt ice at the surface of the glaciers. Some might be absorbed on land, but most of the runoff goes into the ocean.

For the period we studied, which is the last 25 years, these glaciers contributed to 1mm (0.04in) of sea-level rise. So if all the glaciers in this region were to melt completely, it would contribute to 8mm (3.4in) of sea-level rise.”

AD: How did you measure this – the ice discharge and the surface melt?
Millan: For the icebergs calving in the ocean, what we did is we gathered ice velocity estimates from satellite data during the last 25 years. After, we combined those data with ice thickness measurements from NASA. When you combine the velocity with the ice thickness measurements, you can infer the ice discharge in the ocean.

And for the surface melt, we used the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model that is developed by European colleagues. Once you have the ice discharge, you combine it with the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (surface melt estimates) and you have a measure of the total mass losses.

AD: 1mm (0.04in) of sea level rise over 25 years doesn’t sound like all that much. Why should people be concerned about this?
Millan: If the climate continues to warm up as it was projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the contribution to sea-level rise is going to continue to increase significantly.

After Greenland and Antarctica, the Queen Elizabeth Islands are the main contributor to sea-level rise. (But) the numbers for Greenland and Antarctica are much larger. If Antarctica were to melt completely, it would contribute to a 70m (230ft) sea-level rise.

AD: To what extent are we locked into this surface melt? Can we change the path these glaciers are taking?
Millan: Carbon dioxide has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. Even if we stop emissions completely, there will still be CO2 in the atmosphere for years so temperatures will continue to increase. So I have to say I’m not sure if we can do anything to counteract the melt of these glaciers now.

But this study is more of a warning signal about what’s happening to the climate on Earth.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

---- To stop this you need to pay more in taxes. Now get out your check book and start sending more $$$$ to Washington. Chop Chop.

And the deranged denier cult dimwits, like ol' blockhead, are still stupid enough and gullible enough to believe their fossil fuel industry puppetmasters who tell them that global warming is strictly a political issue...and not the well confirmed scientific fact that it is.

 

[RollingThunder]

Der Spiegel is Germany`s New York Times version of idiotic left wing propaganda.
Yesterday they featured an article that cited a bunch of ice-hole "scientists" suggesting this hair-brained study:
Arctic ice management
1.1 The Urgent Need to Deal With Climate Change
The climate is warming, and the rate of change is highest in the Arctic, where summer ice is vanishing at an accelerating rate. According to the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal
We propose that winter ice thickening by wind-powered pumps be considered and assessed as part of a multipronged strategy for restoring sea ice and arresting the strongest feedbacks in the climate system.We propose that winter ice thickening by wind-powered pumps be considered and assessed as part of a multipronged strategy for restoring sea ice and arresting the strongest feedbacks in the climate system.
.....we consider the idea to be worthy of future study. (We note that Sev Clarke also has suggested building “Ice Shields” by having wind-pumped seawater brought to the surface to freeze, adding to a growing lens of ice.
Another batch of these ice-holes "calculated" that a flight from Europe to San Francisco causes the melting of 5 square meters of ice.
Which goes to show that these "scientists" have gone into full retard mode.
They claim they can do the math to show that 400ppm CO2 + the CO2 from that airplane is 400+ 0.00000000000....?00x ppm globally and that melts 5 m^2 of arctic ice.
Instead of admitting that they used the phony CO2 & ice cover correlation and apportioned an estimated part of that CO2 to aviation which was then divided by the average number of transatlantic flights....which is exactly the same way idiots like Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi would "calculate" it for their flock of sheep heads.

And the denier cult retard, poopybrain, once again moronically struggles with science that is way, way beyond his cretin-level comprehension.

 

[SSDD]

energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Troll. Millions of scientists say you are wrong when it comes to radiation exchange. Your opinion is meaningless, troll.

Did you mean to cut off part of my statement?

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong...every observation and every measurement ever taken supports me while all those "millions" can't provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[SSDD]

And the denier cult retard, poopybrain, once again moronically struggles with science that is way, way beyond his cretin-level comprehension.

Thunder...we all know that all this is way past your comprehension...it is obivious because you are careful never to use your own words in any manner beyond juvenile name calling and mindless ranting....you can't discuss the topic on your own...and most of the bilge you post is off topic, debunked, or just more fake science produced to feed the fake news industry.

 

[jc456]

It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Conditions in context

Although the 2009 melt season started slowly, the pace of ice loss quickened through May. During May, the Arctic Ocean lost 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) of ice, an average decline of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This is similar to the rate of decline observed last year. For comparison, the long-term average (1979-2000) rate of decline for May is 47,000 kilometers per day (18,000 square miles per day). By the end of May 2009, ice extent was 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) higher than extent at the end of May 2007.

There's the OP to this thread....

.....And here's supporting evidence.

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen.

The denier cultusts' myths about polar ice were thoroughly debunked....but they are too brainwashed and delusional to recognize that fact. 'So sad'.

what about polar ice? it's still ice.

That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "polar ice" when it melts? WATER!

and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises? LOL!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

....energy moves from cool to warm in violation of the second law of thermodynamics

Troll. Millions of scientists say you are wrong when it comes to radiation exchange. Your opinion is meaningless, troll.

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong...

And that's a big part of your severe affliction by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, as well as your insanity.....you are idiotically wrong about climate science, but you are way too stupid and mentally incompetent to comprehend that fact even when the entire world scientific community tells you that you are wrong. Which they have!

every observation and every measurement ever taken supports me while all those "millions" can't provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm.

Another totally bogus and fraudulent denier cult propaganda meme with no connection to reality.

Your pitifully delusional unsupported statements are, as always, hilariously crackpot.

 

[Old Rocks]

It looks like we are headed for another very low ice cover in the Arctic this summer.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Conditions in context

Although the 2009 melt season started slowly, the pace of ice loss quickened through May. During May, the Arctic Ocean lost 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) of ice, an average decline of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This is similar to the rate of decline observed last year. For comparison, the long-term average (1979-2000) rate of decline for May is 47,000 kilometers per day (18,000 square miles per day). By the end of May 2009, ice extent was 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) higher than extent at the end of May 2007.

There's the OP to this thread....

.....And here's supporting evidence.

The scientific data about the loss of sea ice from the Arctic and Antarctica, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, that makes nonsense out of the denier cultists' deranged anti-science, reality-challenged, fact-free rants....

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2017 averaged 14.28 million square kilometers (5.51 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the 38-year satellite record. This is 40,000 square kilometers (15,400 square miles) below February 2016, the previous lowest extent for the month, and 1.18 million square kilometers (455,600 square miles) below the February 1981 to 2010 long term average.

Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2017 shows a decline of 3 percent per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of March 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 to 2017 is shown in blue, 2015 to 2016 in green, 2014 to 2015 in orange, 2013 to 2014 in brown, and 2012 to 2013 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Antarctic sea ice is nearing its annual minimum extent and continues to track at record low levels for this time of year. On February 13, Antarctic sea ice extent dropped to 2.29 million square kilometers (884,000 square miles), setting a record lowest extent in the satellite era. By the end of February, extent had dropped even further to 2.13 million square kilometers (822,400 square miles). Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Amundsen Sea, which remained nearly ice-free throughout February. Typically, sea ice in February extends at least a couple hundred kilometers along the entire coastline of the Amundsen.

The denier cultusts' myths about polar ice were thoroughly debunked....but they are too brainwashed and delusional to recognize that fact. 'So sad'.

what about polar ice? it's still ice.

That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "polar ice" when it melts? WATER!

and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises? LOL!!!!!

 

[SSDD]

That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "polar ice" when it melts? WATER!

and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises? LOL!!!!![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

Do you never tire of fake news about fake science?

 

[Wuwei]

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.

Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.

 

[RollingThunder]

That is even more utterly meaningless than your usual clueless drivel, justcrazy.

What do you call "polar ice" when it melts? WATER!

and besides it turning into water what happens? do you think the sea level rises? LOL!!!!!

Do you never tire of fake news about fake science?

Do you never tire of keeping your head up your ass, SSoooDDumb?

Enormous amounts of ice from the glaciers on Greenland and on the shores of the Arctic Ocean have already melted and are continuing to melt......of course sea levels are rising as a result, you flaming retard.

Only insane people regard solid science as "fake news".

In the real world, 'fake news' refers to the bogus made-up crap coming from Trump, Breitbart, FauxNews, and the traitor Trump's Russian allies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Our resident ignoramouses apparently do not know the history of Lysenkoism, and the damage done to Soviet agriculture. And we will see the same kind of damage to our educational and scientific systems under the orange bozo and his fascists.

 

[SSDD]

Our resident ignoramouses apparently do not know the history of Lysenkoism, and the damage done to Soviet agriculture. And we will see the same kind of damage to our educational and scientific systems under the orange bozo and his fascists.

So the answer is no..you never tire of either fake news nor fake science.

 

[SSDD]

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.

Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

 

[RollingThunder]

And it doesn't matter who says I am wrong.

Yes, that's a common way that trolls think. Millions of scientists against one troll.

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses -- one based largely on a deliberate, corporately manipulated and inculcated distrust of science and scientists, BTW -- than this extremely retarded wholesale rejection of the value of a scientific consensus within the world scientific community as a very meaningful estimation of the current state of scientific knowledge in some area, one that has been used successfully for many, many decades as a guide for government and business leaders.

In the real world, here's a pretty good explanation of the matter....

Scientific consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]

Politicization of science
Main article: Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[8][9][10] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[11] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[12] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[2]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.[13][14] Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[15] The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[16]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.[2]

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.[2]

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjusting policy as needed.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

Spoken like a troll. Consensus in radiation physics is unanimous.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

 

[RollingThunder]

Consensus is a Moonbat fringe word, it's not a scientific term

See post #174, moron.

 

[SSDD]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry that you were raised to fear authority and always capitulate....no matter how many times authority is wrong...and in so far as consensus is concerned, it is damned near always wrong.

Spoken like a troll. Consensus in radiation physics is unanimous.

So lets see a single measurement of a discrete band of radiation from a source cooler than the instrument being used to detect it. Actual evidence to support what is, to date, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. Consensus doesn't mean anything in science....hell damned near the entire world of science has been found dead wrong several times in the past couple of years...anyone who accepts consensus, especially in science, is doing so for reasons that are not scientific in the least.

 

[gipper]

It would be hard to find a more totally insane denier cult delusion than this one that SSoooDDumb so moronically expresses

Thunder, you don't have to look far to find someone who is crazy as a shithouse rat...seek the nearest mirror...just look at the quality and tone of your posts...just go back a single day and you will see the ravings of someone who is standing on, if not already fallen over the precipice of madness...you talk like a raving lunatic.

I would have thought the polar ice cap disappeared long ago (if one choose to believe crazy warmers)....you mean to tell me the ice cap still exists. WTF!