 2014 Arctic sea ice minimum sixth lowest on record (Update)Environmental | 207625 hits | Sep 25 6:37 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  Arctic sea ice coverage continued its below-average trend this year as the ice declined to its annual minimum on Sept. 17, according to the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
That's interesting. Wouldn't that mean if there are no winds and storms next year, and there is a continuing lack of increasing warmth, the ice will continue to grow?
Doesn't this put a kibosh on the myths we've been reading in the press releases about how things like albedo, or waves, or whatever they can think of this week necessarily demands a continuing increase of ice melt?
So according to the article the sea ice has been increasing for 2 years and the last big mimimum in 2012 was caused by winds and storms not human caused warming.
The article didn't say whether the winds and storms were symptoms of global warming or not.
That's interesting. Wouldn't that mean if there are no winds and storms next year, and there is a continuing lack of increasing warmth, the ice will continue to grow?
In which year have we not heard 'last month is another record hot month going back X years...' ? In which year have we read that arctic ice extents have exceeded yearly averages?
Doesn't this put a kibosh on the myths we've been reading in the press releases about how things like albedo, or waves, or whatever they can think of this week necessarily demands a continuing increase of ice melt?
Nope. And the word you use, "myths", is ambiguous and meant to give the incorrect interpretation that those things are false, rather than the correct term that they have actually been 'observed'.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/green ... -1.2776628
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic- ... ea-ice.htm
Observation always trumps opinion.
I think the salient observation is that arctic sea ice has decreased markedly since satellite measurements began. Antarctic ice, on the other hand, has reached unprecedented levels over the period of record (although reports also indicates antarctic land ice is decreasing).
Antarctic *sea* ice has increased. Salt water and fresh water have different freezing points (freezing point depression), so melting land ice has changed the freezing point of the sea, creating more sea ice in winter. As Bart would say, "warming creates more ice".
The of both sea ice and land ice has decreased in Antarctica.
Doesn't this put a kibosh on the myths we've been reading in the press releases about how things like albedo, or waves, or whatever they can think of this week necessarily demands a continuing increase of ice melt?
Nope. And the word you use, "myths", is ambiguous and meant to give the incorrect interpretation that those things are false, rather than the correct term that they have actually been 'observed'.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/green ... -1.2776628
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic- ... ea-ice.htm
Observation always trumps opinion.
If something is supposed to happen and doesn't happen why wouldn't the term "myth" be acceptable to describe it?
Speaking of CBC for example weren't they telling us a few weeks back waves caused by supposed warming during the freaky storm year of 2012 we're going to continue to spread through the areas of thinner ice, knocking back more and more ice in an ever-increasing feedback loop, until all the ice in the Arctic was gone?
So that's what was supposed to happen. But it didn't happen. The ice increased after 2012. I call myth.
Speaking of misnomers though, physician heal thyself. "SkepticalScience.com" (or as I call it ClimateBS.com) is the misnomer of all time.
If something is supposed to happen and doesn't happen why wouldn't the term "myth" be acceptable to describe it?
'Myth' implies it didn't happen, whereas I supplied you with a link showing your albedo 'myth' actually did happen. As did of large waves in the Arctic.
The soot thing, yeah that requires attention. I've been reading about it at for real skeptical science sites for years.
So, is it a 'Myth' even though you've been reading about it for years? The logical fallacy here is called 'Appeal to Emotion'.
Edit: (nice deletion!)
Speaking of CBC for example weren't they telling us a few weeks back waves caused by supposed warming during the freaky storm year of 2012 we're going to continue to spread through the areas of thinner ice, knocking back more and more ice in an ever-increasing feedback loop, until all the ice in the Arctic was gone?
So that's what was supposed to happen. But it didn't happen. The ice increased after 2012. I call myth.
No, they didn't say that. They quoted a study that said it was possible, not that it was probable.
As Bart would say, "warming creates more precipitation".
Fixed that for you.
True warming means a more active hydrologic cycle. Thus places that are wet will be wetter. Places that are historically dry will receive more rain.
When the Sahara desert retreats and when there's regular rainfall in the Atacama desert then I'll sign on for global warming.
As always, I do not buy into the alarmism that global warming means droughts. Droughts are a symptom of cooling.
As Bart would say, "warming creates more precipitation".
Fixed that for you.
True warming means a more active hydrologic cycle. Thus places that are wet will be wetter. Places that are historically dry will receive more rain.
When the Sahara desert retreats and when there's regular rainfall in the Atacama desert then I'll sign on for global warming.
As always, I do not buy into the alarmism that global warming means droughts. Droughts are a symptom of cooling.
Incorrect. Water evaporates and rises, when it meets cool air then it precipitates. If it doesn't meet cool air, there is no rain, no floods. Thats' why the Atacama is one of the driest places on Earth, there is rarely warm moist air meeting cool dry air over that land. Warm moist air meets warm dry air, and nothing happens.
That's why we in the north know that 'its too cold to snow', because cold air can't hold moisture. In fact, the only precipitation we get below -30 is when the water that's in the air freezes and falls like snow. From a blue sky, some days.
True warming means that the air can hold more water vapour, and when it meets cooler air; then there is more rain, more flooding and more weather extremes. If the warm air never meets cool air, then the air will continue to absorb moisture and never precipitate it. The water oceans on Venus would be spectacular, if it were only cool enough to precipitate all the moisture in the atmosphere.
In fact, there is more ice there now than there was in 2009.
The BBC - which is into all that Global Warming nonsense - told us in 2007 that the Arctic will be completely ice free by 2013.
In fact, there is more ice there now than there was in 2009.
No, not a fact. In fact, the exact opposite of a 'fact'. This year was the 6th lowest ice volume on record in the Arctic.
No, not a fact. In fact, the exact opposite of a 'fact'. This year was the 6th lowest ice volume on record in the Arctic.
Yeah but we threw out all the records so how do we know that?
No, not a fact. In fact, the exact opposite of a 'fact'. This year was the 6th lowest ice volume on record in the Arctic.
Yeah but we threw out all the records so how do we know that?
It's too bad. Unlike Batsy, you have a keen mind. You just seem unwilling to use it.