• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic Ocean Is On Thin Ice: European Satellite Confirms Numbers

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
For those interested in new scientific research related to climate change ~

Feb. 13, 2013 — "The September 2012 record low in Arctic sea-ice extent was big news, but a missing piece of the puzzle was lurking below the ocean's surface. What volume of ice floats on Arctic waters? And how does that compare to previous summers? These are difficult but important questions, because how much ice actually remains suggests how vulnerable the ice pack will be to more warming.



New satellite observations confirm a University of Washington analysis that for the past three years has produced widely quoted estimates of Arctic sea-ice volume. Findings based on observations from a European Space Agency satellite, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, show that the Arctic has lost more than a third of summer sea-ice volume since a decade ago, when a U.S. satellite collected similar data.

Combining the UW model and the new satellite observations suggests the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice is one-fifth of what it was in 1980, when the model begins.


"Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive," said co-author Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. " What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid."

Arctic Ocean is on thin ice: European satellite confirms numbers
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,866
Reaction score
4,258
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I keep hearing how so much arctic ice is melting so I am curious where all this water has gone. How much has the sea level risen lately? You would think all this melting would have a dramatic effect on the sea level. I Goggled it and can't really find anything on any sudden and dramatic sea level rises just alot of scary predictions so again I ask, where is all the extra water?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,600
Reaction score
3,990
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those interested in new scientific research related to climate change ~

Feb. 13, 2013 — "The September 2012 record low in Arctic sea-ice extent was big news, but a missing piece of the puzzle was lurking below the ocean's surface. What volume of ice floats on Arctic waters? And how does that compare to previous summers? These are difficult but important questions, because how much ice actually remains suggests how vulnerable the ice pack will be to more warming.



New satellite observations confirm a University of Washington analysis that for the past three years has produced widely quoted estimates of Arctic sea-ice volume. Findings based on observations from a European Space Agency satellite, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, show that the Arctic has lost more than a third of summer sea-ice volume since a decade ago, when a U.S. satellite collected similar data.

Combining the UW model and the new satellite observations suggests the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice is one-fifth of what it was in 1980, when the model begins.


"Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive," said co-author Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. " What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid."

Arctic Ocean is on thin ice: European satellite confirms numbers

So what the satellite record only exists for the last 34 years during which time records have been broken at both polls for minimum and maximum coverage so obviously this is hardly enough time to be making determinations about anything. In other words more pointless hand wringing over what is almost certainly a poorly understood and inadequately catalogued natural phenomenon.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,119
Reaction score
34,052
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So what the satellite record only exists for the last 34 years during which time records have been broken at both polls for minimum and maximum coverage so obviously this is hardly enough time to be making determinations about anything. In other words more pointless hand wringing over what is almost certainly a poorly understood and inadequately catalogued natural phenomenon.

The loss in ice is faster than predicted by a substantial margin. You guys always talk about "natural causes" as if they're these mysterious, magical events that just spontaneously occur. The mechanism for ice melt isn't really that mysterious.
Also, area is not volume.
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,600
Reaction score
3,990
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The loss in ice is faster than predicted by a substantial margin. You guys always talk about "natural causes" as if they're these mysterious, magical events that just spontaneously occur. The mechanism for ice melt isn't really that mysterious.
Also, area is not volume.

Since when have we been able to 'predict' anything about the ice caps ? Since when have we fully understood the mechanisms governing ice melts ? Since when is the duration of our current records deemed adequate to determine what is or isnt normal variation of areas and volumes ?

Without verifiable answers to all those questions this is simply more subjectively interpreted handwringing serving a political agenda nothing more.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
For those interested in new scientific research related to climate change ~

Feb. 13, 2013 — "The September 2012 record low in Arctic sea-ice extent was big news, but a missing piece of the puzzle was lurking below the ocean's surface. What volume of ice floats on Arctic waters? And how does that compare to previous summers? These are difficult but important questions, because how much ice actually remains suggests how vulnerable the ice pack will be to more warming.



New satellite observations confirm a University of Washington analysis that for the past three years has produced widely quoted estimates of Arctic sea-ice volume. Findings based on observations from a European Space Agency satellite, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, show that the Arctic has lost more than a third of summer sea-ice volume since a decade ago, when a U.S. satellite collected similar data.

Combining the UW model and the new satellite observations suggests the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice is one-fifth of what it was in 1980, when the model begins.


"Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive," said co-author Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. " What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid."

Arctic Ocean is on thin ice: European satellite confirms numbers

The extent of arctic ice isn't governed by temperatures but by the winds that push ice out of the arctic into warmer waters. The record loss of ice in 2007 and 2012 were associated with changes in wind patterns.

You determine arctic temperatures by measuring the temperatures, not by looking at the ice. Temperatures have increased during arctic winters over the past 40 years, but they are no higher in the summer. The number of days during which mean temperatures are above freezing have not increased over the years. In other words, the mean temperatures in the arctic have increased, but it doesn't make a lot of difference if the temperature in winter is 25 below or 28 below zero C. Each of the record losses of ice in the arctic have been followed by record gains. It's hard to see how that could happen if temperature was the whole story since temperature increases last into the fall, when ice is re-forming.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
 
Last edited:

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I keep hearing how so much arctic ice is melting so I am curious where all this water has gone. How much has the sea level risen lately? You would think all this melting would have a dramatic effect on the sea level. I Goggled it and can't really find anything on any sudden and dramatic sea level rises just alot of scary predictions so again I ask, where is all the extra water?

Fact Sheet - Sea Level and Climate

"Global sea level and the Earth’s climate are closely linked. The Earth’s climate has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) during the last 100 years. As the climate has warmed following the end of a recent cold period known as the “Little Ice Age” in the 19th century, sea level has been rising about 1 to 2 millimeters per year due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. If present trends continue, including an increase in global temperatures caused by increased greenhouse-gas emissions, many of the world’s mountain glaciers will disappear. For example, at the current rate of melting, most glaciers will be gone from Glacier National Park, Montana, by the middle of the next century (fig. 1). In Iceland, about 11 percent of the island is covered by glaciers (mostly ice caps). If warming continues, Iceland’s glaciers will decrease by 40 percent by 2100 and virtually disappear by 2200.

Figure 1. Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly since the early 1900’s. The arrows point to the former extent of the glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the 19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter."

Fact Sheet fs002-00: Sea Level and Climate
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The extent of arctic ice isn't governed by temperatures but by the winds that push ice out of the arctic into warmer waters. The record loss of ice in 2007 and 2012 were associated with changes in wind patterns.

You determine arctic temperatures by measuring the temperatures, not by looking at the ice. Temperatures have increased during arctic winters over the past 40 years, but they are no higher in the summer. The number of days during which mean temperatures are above freezing have not increased over the years. In other words, the mean temperatures in the arctic have increased, but it doesn't make a lot of difference if the temperature in winter is 25 below or 28 below zero C. Each of the record losses of ice in the arctic have been followed by record gains. It's hard to see how that could happen if temperature was the whole story since temperature increases last into the fall, when ice is re-forming.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


Thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the scientific studies that were confirmed by satellite observations.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,600
Reaction score
3,990
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the scientific studies that were confirmed by satellite observations.

So are you actually claiming to have read them then ? Oh well if thats the case you'll have no problem linking those relevant studies and those satellite 'observations/numbers' so that we can check if that claim is really true ?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What I still don't follow is why they seem to presume that we've always had the ice and it's never gone away before - or that we shouldn't have to live during that time. We've seen evidence of many different ice-cycles throughout earth's history. The scientific community by and large acknowledges that we are nested in an unusually long 'warm period' and that it's silly to expect things to stay stagnant so long as we're alive and kicking.

It is a cycle -the cycle is natural . . . what if it was reversed and the ice was advancing . . . would people be as disturbed or would it be seen as actually a good thing that it's advancing?
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,236
Reaction score
33,408
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I keep hearing how so much arctic ice is melting so I am curious where all this water has gone. How much has the sea level risen lately? You would think all this melting would have a dramatic effect on the sea level. I Goggled it and can't really find anything on any sudden and dramatic sea level rises just alot of scary predictions so again I ask, where is all the extra water?

Arctic ice is sea ice.

Expecting a sea level rise from melting sea ice is like expecting the level in a glass of ice water to increase as the ice melts.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the scientific studies that were confirmed by satellite observations.

That's fine. If you can't analyze the data yourself your only alternative is to pick which experts you'll believe. Just remember, though, that your guys are getting paid a LOT of money to stick with a predetermined set of conclusions. Skeptics aren't getting paid anything.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's fine. If you can't analyze the data yourself your only alternative is to pick which experts you'll believe. Just remember, though, that your guys are getting paid a LOT of money to stick with a predetermined set of conclusions. Skeptics aren't getting paid anything.

No - don't do that.

the Danish Meteorological Institute is hardly something to be ignored or put aside - they're a long established and well respected organization that makes use of technological advances and reports findings from observations and studies.

Someone doesn't want to pay attention to what they and other institutes have to say then they're just choosing to be ignorant on the ENTIRE subject.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Arctic ice is sea ice.

Expecting a sea level rise from melting sea ice is like expecting the level in a glass of ice water to increase as the ice melts.

That's correct. Ice floats because it's less dense than water. When sea ice melts there is no change in sea level.

Ice trapped on land, though, as in Greenland or Antarctica, can indeed cause sea levels to rise if melted.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fact Sheet - Sea Level and Climate

"Global sea level and the Earth’s climate are closely linked. The Earth’s climate has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) during the last 100 years. As the climate has warmed following the end of a recent cold period known as the “Little Ice Age” in the 19th century, sea level has been rising about 1 to 2 millimeters per year due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. If present trends continue, including an increase in global temperatures caused by increased greenhouse-gas emissions, many of the world’s mountain glaciers will disappear. For example, at the current rate of melting, most glaciers will be gone from Glacier National Park, Montana, by the middle of the next century (fig. 1). In Iceland, about 11 percent of the island is covered by glaciers (mostly ice caps). If warming continues, Iceland’s glaciers will decrease by 40 percent by 2100 and virtually disappear by 2200.

Figure 1. Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana; photograph by Carl H. Key, USGS, in 1981. The glacier has been retreating rapidly since the early 1900’s. The arrows point to the former extent of the glacier in 1850, 1937, and 1968. Mountain glaciers are excellent monitors of climate change; the worldwide shrinkage of mountain glaciers is thought to be caused by a combination of a temperature increase from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the latter half of the 19th century, and increased greenhouse-gas emissions.

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter."

Fact Sheet fs002-00: Sea Level and Climate

Seems like all you could find was dire predictions too, no mention of current sea level rises that directly correspond to all this supposed melting of earths ice.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arctic ice is sea ice.

Expecting a sea level rise from melting sea ice is like expecting the level in a glass of ice water to increase as the ice melts.

Funny how we constantly hear from warmers how melting ice is going to raise sea levels then. You are wrong though, ice in a glass is already in the water whereas ice in the polls is out of the water and melting it would raise sea levels if it was really melting as much as claimed.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,236
Reaction score
33,408
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Funny how we constantly hear from warmers how melting ice is going to raise sea levels then. You are wrong though, ice in a glass is already in the water whereas ice in the polls is out of the water and melting it would raise sea levels if it was really melting as much as claimed.
Nope. Lowdown has it right. Check out his post.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nope. Lowdown has it right. Check out his post.

My quote: "You are wrong though, ice in a glass is already in the water whereas ice in the polls is out of the water and melting it would raise sea levels if it was really melting as much as claimed."

Lowdown quote: "Ice trapped on land, though, as in Greenland or Antarctica, can indeed cause sea levels to rise if melted."

Seems like we said the same thing but I guess in reality only the south poll is on land. Makes you wonder why warmers are always telling us that melting ice is going to raise sea levels though like catawba's post to me where he gives links that predict catastrophic sea leave rises. I ask yet again, all this ice supposedly melting all over the world is not having a corresponding effect on sea level, why? Maybe it's not melting as much as advertised.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
For those interested in new scientific research related to climate change ~

Feb. 13, 2013 — "The September 2012 record low in Arctic sea-ice extent was big news, but a missing piece of the puzzle was lurking below the ocean's surface. What volume of ice floats on Arctic waters? And how does that compare to previous summers? These are difficult but important questions, because how much ice actually remains suggests how vulnerable the ice pack will be to more warming.



New satellite observations confirm a University of Washington analysis that for the past three years has produced widely quoted estimates of Arctic sea-ice volume. Findings based on observations from a European Space Agency satellite, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, show that the Arctic has lost more than a third of summer sea-ice volume since a decade ago, when a U.S. satellite collected similar data.

Combining the UW model and the new satellite observations suggests the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice is one-fifth of what it was in 1980, when the model begins.


"Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive," said co-author Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. " What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid."

Arctic Ocean is on thin ice: European satellite confirms numbers

And? It is supposed to be melting. We are still in the process of exiting an ice age. The current temperature is 15 Celsius. The average temperature is 17, but that is meaningless because the earth only transitions from 10 to 25 and at no point in history has stayed at any temperature in between. The fact is, the climate temperature will rise to 25 C. YOU CAN'T STOP IT!

This fallacy that the Earth is warming so it must be man's fault is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little's running around with their tin foil hats on trying to make sense of something they don't understand. Guess what. The Earth is warming SLOWER than it has in the past. I know that doesn't play into the liberal meme, "corporations are evil", but the truth is the truth.

Let's take a look at how alarmists cherry pick data. Take a look at this average global temperature chart (relative to standard atmosphere 15 C):

proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png


Global Warming : Feature Articles

In their report they claim (and rightly so) that the Earth's atmosphere has warmed 0.7 degree's over the last 100 years and that that is 10 times faster than previous eras following an ice age. And that's true. But, they are comparing a section of the data that best supports their claims. If you take today's temperature and compare it to the temperature 1500 years ago (the very beginning of the data set, and a low point) you'll see the temperature has changed about 1.0 C. The average temperature rise over 5000 years in the time following an ice age is between 4 and 7 C per 5000 years. If you do the math, we are on a rate of about 3.3 C.

So, we can cry and whine that the sky is falling and that we are awful people and the earth would be better of without us. And you may have a point. But you are wrong about anthropogenic global warming.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,236
Reaction score
33,408
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And? It is supposed to be melting. We are still in the process of exiting an ice age. The current temperature is 15 Celsius. The average temperature is 17, but that is meaningless because the earth only transitions from 10 to 25 and at no point in history has stayed at any temperature in between. The fact is, the climate temperature will rise to 25 C. YOU CAN'T STOP IT!

This fallacy that the Earth is warming so it must be man's fault is nothing more than a bunch of chicken little's running around with their tin foil hats on trying to make sense of something they don't understand. Guess what. The Earth is warming SLOWER than it has in the past. I know that doesn't play into the liberal meme, "corporations are evil", but the truth is the truth.

Let's take a look at how alarmists cherry pick data. Take a look at this average global temperature chart (relative to standard atmosphere 15 C):

proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png


Global Warming : Feature Articles

In their report they claim (and rightly so) that the Earth's atmosphere has warmed 0.7 degree's over the last 100 years and that that is 10 times faster than previous eras following an ice age. And that's true. But, they are comparing a section of the data that best supports their claims. If you take today's temperature and compare it to the temperature 1500 years ago (the very beginning of the data set, and a low point) you'll see the temperature has changed about 1.0 C. The average temperature rise over 5000 years in the time following an ice age is between 4 and 7 C per 5000 years. If you do the math, we are on a rate of about 3.3 C.

So, we can cry and whine that the sky is falling and that we are awful people and the earth would be better of without us. And you may have a point. But you are wrong about anthropogenic global warming.

So, if the Earth's atmosphere has warmed 0.7 degree over the last 100 years, or 10 times faster than previous eras following an ice age, compared to 1.0 degrees over the past 1,500 years, that means that warming is natural, and the data don't support the idea that warming is accelerating.

Understood.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That's fine. If you can't analyze the data yourself your only alternative is to pick which experts you'll believe. Just remember, though, that your guys are getting paid a LOT of money to stick with a predetermined set of conclusions. Skeptics aren't getting paid anything.

Right, scientists all over the world have been in conspiracy for the last hundred years. Got it!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,119
Reaction score
34,052
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Right, scientists all over the world have been in conspiracy for the last hundred years. Got it!

Don't you see? You can't trust scientists because they get paid money.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What I still don't follow is why they seem to presume that we've always had the ice and it's never gone away before - or that we shouldn't have to live during that time. We've seen evidence of many different ice-cycles throughout earth's history. The scientific community by and large acknowledges that we are nested in an unusually long 'warm period' and that it's silly to expect things to stay stagnant so long as we're alive and kicking.

It is a cycle -the cycle is natural . . . what if it was reversed and the ice was advancing . . . would people be as disturbed or would it be seen as actually a good thing that it's advancing?

Natural warming cycles have had some type of forcing such as a solar maximum, or huge volcanic event. Those have been ruled out in this warming. What is left is our pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes.
 
Top Bottom