record low maximum arctic sea ice

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Hopefully some of the northern ice cap will survive until next winter.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record/#.VREpbJSwpzQ

2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record

March 19, 2015

The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year’s maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest.

Arctic sea ice, frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas, is in constant change: it grows in the fall and winter, reaching its annual maximum between late February and early April, and then it shrinks in the spring and summer until it hits its annual minimum extent in September. The past decades have seen a downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent during both the growing and melting season, though the decline is steeper in the latter.

This year’s maximum was reached 15 days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average date of March 12, according to NSIDC. Only in 1996 did it occur earlier, on Feb. 24. However, the sun is just beginning to rise on the Arctic Ocean and a late spurt of ice growth is still possible, though unlikely.
Click to expand...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=16&v=8iNet2WkHkU#

^^sorry, couldn't embed the video^^
 
retyred

retyred

Active Member
On the positive side, melting sea ice raises ocean levels and makes more seaside property for sale. Too bad about the properties that sunk. Think I'll move to higher ground.
 
Hazydat620

Hazydat620

Well-Known Member
retyred said:
On the positive side, melting sea ice raises ocean levels and makes more seaside property for sale. Too bad about the properties that sunk. Think I'll move to higher ground.
Click to expand...
How is it making more? You are just replacing the ones that were lost.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
retyred said:
On the positive side, melting sea ice raises ocean levels and makes more seaside property for sale. Too bad about the properties that sunk. Think I'll move to higher ground.
Click to expand...
Melting sea ice doesn't raise ocean levels by much. Think of ice cubes in a cup. It does decrease salinity and also thermal expansion raises sea levels slightly. The real cause of sea level rise is melting glaciers which is adding to the cup.

I'm not trying to be overly aggressive with you since you're open to the conclusions of scientific research it's just that the right wing blowhards are really petulant and so it's best to get the science right. Sea level rise is certainly a real and significant threat.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
You'll notice all the dire predictions and doom & gloom impending disasters always have a problematic caveat..."on record". Information presented on its own, absent incrimination of human activity or prognostication of apocalyptic consequences, can be entertaining and in some cases, accurate.

However, the inference is always that [insert environmental/climatological event/measurement] is a dangerous aberration and must be a result of humanity's lust for fossil fuels. The dishonesty in those conclusions is the requirement of supporters to focus on what amounts to a single grain of time in the sandbox of history™.

If the agenda is to convince the skeptics or the fence sitters that have the ability to see past their noses through examples of historic aberrations, you had better start providing incontrovertible proof that they haven't happened tens of thousands of times before in the past. Until you can, they are nothing more than entertaining factoids.
 
retyred

retyred

Active Member
I understand your point. Re: glaciers, I was in western Canada several years ago and had a photo taken with a friend of where it was in 1948. By 2010 it had shrunk many kilometers back up the mountains. It was what was left of the Columbia ice field. I was shocked.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
retyred said:
I understand your point. Re: glaciers, I was in western Canada several years ago and had a photo taken with a friend of where it was in 1948. By 2010 it had shrunk many kilometers back up the mountains. It was what was left of the Columbia ice field. I was shocked.
Click to expand...

Petrified vegetation is under these two ice domains, indicating that the planet will show sunshine in cycles. should that cycle happen periodically like every 50,000 years, ..well than so be it. It will do what it will do with or without mans help. If the goal for Nature is to melt all that ice so she can shine on Santa`s lawn, than it happens.

Should the cycle be 10,000,000 years, then mankind pushing it up by a couple hundred years wont really matter.

Change you can believe in...but no checks for self proclaimed scientists.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
Let it go,....

That`s what it`s supposed to do. Daily alerts as to it`s current level are panic filled researchers looking for funds.

It will have highs, lows, and gone all together,...but the cycle will correct it`self as it always has and will.


No check for you....
Click to expand...
something in it for everyone..even the weed biz takes advantage of the newb.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
Let it go,....

That`s what it`s supposed to do. Daily alerts as to it`s current level are panic filled researchers looking for funds.

It will have highs, lows, and gone all together,...but the cycle will correct it`self as it always has and will.


No check for you....
Click to expand...
MuyLocoNC said:
You'll notice all the dire predictions and doom & gloom impending disasters always have a problematic caveat..."on record". Information presented on its own, absent incrimination of human activity or prognostication of apocalyptic consequences, can be entertaining and in some cases, accurate.

However, the inference is always that [insert environmental/climatological event/measurement] is a dangerous aberration and must be a result of humanity's lust for fossil fuels. The dishonesty in those conclusions is the requirement of supporters to focus on what amounts to a single grain of time in the sandbox of history™.

If the agenda is to convince the skeptics or the fence sitters that have the ability to see past their noses through examples of historic aberrations, you had better start providing incontrovertible proof that they haven't happened tens of thousands of times before in the past. Until you can, they are nothing more than entertaining factoids.
Click to expand...
OddBall1st said:
Petrified vegetation is under these two ice domains, indicating that the planet will show sunshine in cycles. should that cycle happen periodically like every 50,000 years, ..well than so be it. It will do what it will do with or without mans help. If the goal for Nature is to melt all that ice so she can shine on Santa`s lawn, than it happens.

Should the cycle be 10,000,000 years, then mankind pushing it up by a couple hundred years wont really matter.

Change you can believe in...but no checks for self proclaimed scientists.
Click to expand...

BEN?

GHA?

ZI?


EEEEEEEEEEE MAILZZZ!!!!!????
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
retyred said:
I understand your point. Re: glaciers, I was in western Canada several years ago and had a photo taken with a friend of where it was in 1948. By 2010 it had shrunk many kilometers back up the mountains. It was what was left of the Columbia ice field. I was shocked.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you missed out on sixth grade science class. :(
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
You'll notice all the dire predictions and doom & gloom impending disasters always have a problematic caveat..."on record". Information presented on its own, absent incrimination of human activity or prognostication of apocalyptic consequences, can be entertaining and in some cases, accurate.

However, the inference is always that [insert environmental/climatological event/measurement] is a dangerous aberration and must be a result of humanity's lust for fossil fuels. The dishonesty in those conclusions is the requirement of supporters to focus on what amounts to a single grain of time in the sandbox of history™.

If the agenda is to convince the skeptics or the fence sitters that have the ability to see past their noses through examples of historic aberrations, you had better start providing incontrovertible proof that they haven't happened tens of thousands of times before in the past. Until you can, they are nothing more than entertaining factoids.
Click to expand...
why do you espouse the same global warming conspiracy theory as former KKK grand wizard david duke?

coincidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top