Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,178
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Fdre1234
    Newest Member
    Fdre1234
    Joined

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume


ORH_wxman
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:

I don't even wanna know.  At-least our country reports it, most other countries hide it...and we don't do anything to penalize them.  But yea, that's another thing.  Oil leaks not properly sealed off.  It could be Exxon Valdez times a 1000 out there...and nobody knows.

Since it doesn't effect humans from breathing, everybody just looks the other way.  It does however effect ocean life from breathing.  

heck, even when Chernobyl happened...nobody even knew about it for days,  until radiation detectors in the next country over were off the charts.  Amazing the Russians tried to hide that.  Kursk too, I think they tried to hide.

guess maybe we shud make another topic, before going too OT here.  But I appreciate the insight.

 

I don't think you understood him. He's saying since so much oil seeps NATURALLY it doesn't matter when humans spill a few million gallons.

 

I'm not sure if he even read his own links though. The second one says that plastics take forever to degrade in the oceans and plastics building up in the ocean are major environmental problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I'm not sure if he even read his own links though. The second one says that plastics take forever to degrade in the oceans and plastics building up in the ocean are major environmental problem...

My initial post, was simply a counter argument to Bacon Strips unscientific statements. The second link clearly states:

Quote

Most plastics degrade extremely slowly, thus constituting a major environmental hazard

 

However, later:

Quote

 Yoshida et al. (5) address this problem by reporting an organism that can fully degrade a widely used plastic.

Perhaps we should check our reading comprehension next time, before making baseless accusations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that August is ending, a closer look at the Arctic sea ice extent figure is in order.

The 8/30 figure (JAXA) was 4,302,421 square kilometers. If that were the minimum, it would rank as the 5th lowest on record.

However, it is all but certainly not the minimum. A number of scenarios for the minimum figure:

Smallest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 4,140,726 square kilometers (would rank 3rd lowest)

Largest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 3,793,311 square kilometers (would rank 2nd lowest)

Average decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2011-15): 4,007,579 square kilometers

All said it appears very likely that 2016 will see the 2nd or 3rd lowest Arctic sea ice extent minimum on record. There remains a reasonable possibility of a minimum figure below 4 million square kilometers for only the 2nd time on record (JAXA). 2012 is currently the only such case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ufasuperstorm said:

My initial post, was simply a counter argument to Bacon Strips unscientific statements. The second link clearly states:

 

 

However, later:

 

 

 

Perhaps we should check our reading comprehension next time, before making baseless accusations?

 

 

If you read the article, it says that an organism "exists" not that said organism is widespread or actually breaks down most plastics in nature. The idea is we could breed this organism and spray it all around the world to dissolve plastics.

This is easily proven by the fact that the oceans are full of plastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Now that August is ending, a closer look at the Arctic sea ice extent figure is in order.

The 8/30 figure (JAXA) was 4,302,421 square kilometers. If that were the minimum, it would rank as the 5th lowest on record.

However, it is all but certainly not the minimum. A number of scenarios for the minimum figure:

Smallest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 4,140,726 square kilometers (would rank 3rd lowest)

Largest decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2002-15): 3,793,311 square kilometers (would rank 2nd lowest)

Average decline from 8/30 to the minimum (2010-15): 4,007,579 square kilometers

All said it appears very likely that 2016 will see the 2nd or 3rd lowest Arctic sea ice extent minimum on record. There remains a reasonable possibility of a minimum figure below 4 million square kilometers for only the 2nd time on record (JAXA). 2012 is currently the only such case.

Would expect above average extent losses to close out the melt season due to the large areas of low concentration ice, good melting momentum, and relatively mild weather to start September particularly over the Laptev.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Would expect above average extent losses to close out the melt season due to the large areas of low concentration ice, good melting momentum, and relatively mild weather to start September particularly over the Laptev.

That's the way it appears. That's why I still think there's a reasonable prospect that the minimum will be under 4 million square kilometers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8/31 figure on JAXA was 4,242,650 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 8/31 would produce a minimum figure of 3,979,208 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,092,669 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,740,828 square kilometers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We'll see if we can keep the new record every 5 years going for 2017 with the previous records set in 2007 and 2012.

If we get another winter like we just did then it would be a lot more possible. 

 

This year was very difficult despite the early low extent and premature proclamations of a record being likely because average thickness was too high. 

 

But we will be going into this winter with fairly low volume so if it torches again and there's also good Fram export then that would load the dice for 2017. But if winter is a few degrees colder than last year then we'd probably have to rely on exceptional weather to gun for the record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9/1 figure on JAXA was 4,168,394 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/1 would produce a minimum figure of 3,931,250 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,050,385 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,663,584 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears likely and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks bad.... 

My 4+ prediction, should bust.

Amazing how little we hear about geoengineering or sequestration. I have to wait years for anything interesting to come across the news. I bet it could all melt out tomorrow and not another nickel would go into either of these ventures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

Looks bad.... 

My 4+ prediction, should bust.

Amazing how little we hear about geoengineering or sequestration. I have to wait years for anything interesting to come across the news. I bet it could all melt out tomorrow and not another nickel would go into either of these ventures.

Geoengineering is an idea that's dangerous as hell IMO.

The climate status quo is a fairy tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

Looks bad.... 

My 4+ prediction, should bust.

Amazing how little we hear about geoengineering or sequestration. I have to wait years for anything interesting to come across the news. I bet it could all melt out tomorrow and not another nickel would go into either of these ventures.

On Jaxa which is lower than other datasets since they changed their land mask. I think NSIDC, U Bremen, Hamburg, etc will stay above 4...no guarantee tho.   

 

I agree with winter that geoengineering is very dangerous given how much we still do not understand about the feedbacks in the climate as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 9/2 figure on JAXA was 4,090,129 square kilometers. That would rank as the 3rd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2012 (3,177,455 square kilometers) and 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) were lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/2 would produce a minimum figure of 3,875,040 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 4,000,554 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,610,482 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears very likely and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

On Jaxa which is lower than other datasets since they changed their land mask. I think NSIDC, U Bremen, Hamburg, etc will stay above 4...no guarantee tho.   

 

I agree with winter that geoengineering is very dangerous given how much we still do not understand about the feedbacks in the climate as it is. 

But can't we just "switch it off" so to speak if we see adverse effects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sundog said:

But can't we just "switch it off" so to speak if we see adverse effects?

The whole idea speaks to the arrogance of humans. 

Weve pretty much always been guided by the notion that we can mold the earth into what we want it to be instead of adapting and living in harmony with it.  You could argue that it's that very notion that got us to this point in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sundog said:

But can't we just "switch it off" so to speak if we see adverse effects?

Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere has already been tested, every time a volcano erupts. If we could knock current temps back to the 1980's levels, we could buy time and rebuild some of the icepack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

The whole idea speaks to the arrogance of humans. 

Weve pretty much always been guided by the notion that we can mold the earth into what we want it to be instead of adapting and living in harmony with it.  You could argue that it's that very notion that got us to this point in the first place.

It needs to be looked at seriously. Right now, we barely hear anyone talking about it. I think environmentalists think it's a get of of jail free card and deniers poo-poo it, because that would mean admitted there is an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

The whole idea speaks to the arrogance of humans. 

Weve pretty much always been guided by the notion that we can mold the earth into what we want it to be instead of adapting and living in harmony with it.  You could argue that it's that very notion that got us to this point in the first place.

Honestly, it's better than doing nothing, because that's what we're doing right now, absolutely nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonger said:

It needs to be looked at seriously. Right now, we barely hear anyone talking about it. I think environmentalists think it's a get of of jail free card and deniers poo-poo it, because that would mean admitted there is an issue.

We already know the Earth is fine for humans being a couple degrees cooler, because it was before the industrial revolution! :lol: I think it's better than doing nothing because we are definitely screwing up the Earth now. Why not at least try to offset the warming effects? Status quo is simply unacceptable. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic sea ice extent falls to 2nd lowest on record...

The 9/3 figure on JAXA was 4,054,179 square kilometers. That would ranks as the 2nd lowest minimum figure on record. Only 2007 (4,065,739 square kilometers) was lower. The 5-year average decline in sea ice extent from 9/3 would produce a minimum figure of 3,852,090 square kilometers. The minimum decline (2002-15) would result in a figure of 3,950,344 square kilometers. The maximum decline (2002-15) would result in a minimum figure of 3,647,151 square kilometers. A minimum extent under 4,000,000 square kilometers appears very likely (> 90%) and a figure just under 3,900,000 square kilometers appears possible.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sundog said:

But can't we just "switch it off" so to speak if we see adverse effects?

And how do you know it would stop? Climate systems have inertia. How do you know what the effects would be? Our understanding of feedbacks is not precise at all  

 

What if you started a cooling process and weren't able to stop it where you wanted and it ran a degree of cooling? That's pretty dangerous stuff. Rapid cooling is probably more dangerous than current warming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

And how do you know it would stop? Climate systems have inertia. How do you know what the effects would be? Our understanding of feedbacks is not precise at all  

 

What if you started a cooling process and weren't able to stop it where you wanted and it ran a degree of cooling? That's pretty dangerous stuff. Rapid cooling is probably more dangerous than current warming. 

 

Be pretty tough to get a degree of cooling w CO2 at 400ppm.

 

You'd have to take out a crap ton of CO2 or block a lot of sunlight....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We're taking geoengineering projects. 

If we lose the icepack, I think the idea will be taken more serious. There are a number of negatives, one would be the ozone depletion and the second would be the possibility of acid rain. The fact that most industrialized nations (minus China) are reducing So2, this might be leading to more warming. 

Does stratosphere SO2 end up as acid rain or is that more related to surface release?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We're taking geoengineering projects. 

I know. The most common geoengineering involves blocking the sun or sequestering CO2... both of which would have minimal impact unless done on a massive scale and sequestration is pretty reversible. 

I think the bigger issue with geoengineering is the side effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

I know. The most common geoengineering involves blocking the sun or sequestering CO2... both of which would have minimal impact unless done on a massive scale and sequestration is pretty reversible. 

I think the bigger issue with geoengineering is the side effects.

how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...