Are You For Reel

[reel]

Now with global warming, there is a little problem with your theory....it stopped warming more than a decade a half ago. Antarctic sea ice is at it's highest level since 1979. Current weather does not really outside historic norms. Sorry, no emergency.

The sea ice in Antarctica is at its highest level, but overall, the ice is melting in Antarctica and Greenland due to significant reduction in land ice, and the cap in the Arctic is changing.  These trends have continued.  2012 was an outlier due to the effect of the Mackenzie river ice dam, so 2013 and 2014 data can't be viewed as a recovery; the continuous trend is melting ice.



The point of my post on the other board is that climate is affected by energy and temperature is not a measure of energy.  I'm not sure how temperature is measured for these conclusions or how accurate it is over a relatively short period of time (15 years being relatively short, as it only gives 15 datapoints in a measurement with significant experimental error), but I'm sure it results in all sorts of conflicting data depending on what assumptions are made by those taking the measurements.



However, the reduction in ice volume is unquestionable and the effect is significant given the amount of energy absorbed by the latent heat of fusion of that ice.  Temperature may fluctuate, but energy balance is easy to evaluate and the bottom line is that more energy is being dumped into the oceans and atmosphere because it isn't going to the creation and melt of ice.  So what does that energy do?  Honestly, I don't really know.  It won't just be hotter days and more flooding.  Eventually, energy breaks down into unuseable heat in a closed system, but earth is not a closed system and the energy can potentially do other work before it gets to that point.

[Anonymous]

Now with global warming, there is a little problem with your theory....it stopped warming more than a decade a half ago. Antarctic sea ice is at it's highest level since 1979. Current weather does not really outside historic norms. Sorry, no emergency.

The sea ice in Antarctica is at its highest level, but overall, the ice is melting in Antarctica and Greenland due to significant reduction in land ice, and the cap in the Arctic is changing.  These trends have continued.  2012 was an outlier due to the effect of the Mackenzie river ice dam, so 2013 and 2014 data can't be viewed as a recovery; the continuous trend is melting ice.



The point of my post on the other board is that climate is affected by energy and temperature is not a measure of energy.  I'm not sure how temperature is measured for these conclusions or how accurate it is over a relatively short period of time (15 years being relatively short, as it only gives 15 datapoints in a measurement with significant experimental error), but I'm sure it results in all sorts of conflicting data depending on what assumptions are made by those taking the measurements.



However, the reduction in ice volume is unquestionable and the effect is significant given the amount of energy absorbed by the latent heat of fusion of that ice.  Temperature may fluctuate, but energy balance is easy to evaluate and the bottom line is that more energy is being dumped into the oceans and atmosphere because it isn't going to the creation and melt of ice.  So what does that energy do?  Honestly, I don't really know.  It won't just be hotter days and more flooding.  Eventually, energy breaks down into unuseable heat in a closed system, but earth is not a closed system and the energy can potentially do other work before it gets to that point.

Hello reel, it's so nice to see you here.

[Anonymous]

The sea ice in Antarctica is at its highest level, but overall, the ice is melting in Antarctica and Greenland due to significant reduction in land ice, and the cap in the Arctic is changing.  These trends have continued.  2012 was an outlier due to the effect of the Mackenzie river ice dam, so 2013 and 2014 data can't be viewed as a recovery; the continuous trend is melting ice.



The point of my post on the other board is that climate is affected by energy and temperature is not a measure of energy.  I'm not sure how temperature is measured for these conclusions or how accurate it is over a relatively short period of time (15 years being relatively short, as it only gives 15 datapoints in a measurement with significant experimental error), but I'm sure it results in all sorts of conflicting data depending on what assumptions are made by those taking the measurements.



However, the reduction in ice volume is unquestionable and the effect is significant given the amount of energy absorbed by the latent heat of fusion of that ice.  Temperature may fluctuate, but energy balance is easy to evaluate and the bottom line is that more energy is being dumped into the oceans and atmosphere because it isn't going to the creation and melt of ice.  So what does that energy do?  Honestly, I don't really know.  It won't just be hotter days and more flooding.  Eventually, energy breaks down into unuseable heat in a closed system, but earth is not a closed system and the energy can potentially do other work before it gets to that point.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/30/1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG.JPG">

I will look for it, but I remember reading that ice levels fall within historic norms. We've also had much warmer periods than this one that just ended. As I said climate science is really in it's infancy. A lot of blatantly dishonest data has emerged. The 1930's were warmer and stormier than today. So, while you worry about the effects of the release of stored energy, I am sorry, but I do not accept that any current changes in land ice is unprecendented. Weather is in flux and ice follows suit.



BTW, this an interesting newspaper article from 1954.

Arctic Ice Thaws

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/1769713?zoomLevel=1&searchTerm=warming%20arctic&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc%7C%7C%7Cl-availability=y">http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/17 ... lability=y">http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/1769713?zoomLevel=1&searchTerm=warming%20arctic&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc|||l-availability=y

[reel]

In 2012, an ice dam blocked the Mackenzie river for much of the spring melt.  When the dam broke, the warm river water behind it spilled into the Beaufort and cut through the ice pack like a hot knife through butter.  If you look at the stats, 2012 saw a massive drop in ice coverage, well below the trendline.  To now look at 2013 and 2014 and compare them to 2012 showing an "increase" in ice coverage is as disingenuous as it would have been in 2012 to say that the reduction was a sign of things to come.



I would say given the disparity in energy content between air and ice that if the ice in flux, the weather follows suit.



Again, you could be right, this could be just a sharper than usual natural phenomenon.  Hard to say.  It bears consideration and observation.

[Obvious Li]

"In 1906, Roald Amundsen first successfully completed a path from Greenland to Alaska in the sloop Gjøa."



i copy this from wackipedia just to point out that over 100 years ago the arctic sea ice had shrunk enough to allow passage in primitive vessels and over the decades more reinforced vessels have periodically made the trip.....we survived....we thrived...the world did not end....and i suspect we will muddle along nicely through what ever crisis the busybodies are wringing  their hands about currently....it is always something with these folks....same folks in every crisis...same blind faith.....same koolaid......some people are just born stupid

[Anonymous]

In 2012, an ice dam blocked the Mackenzie river for much of the spring melt.  When the dam broke, the warm river water behind it spilled into the Beaufort and cut through the ice pack like a hot knife through butter.  If you look at the stats, 2012 saw a massive drop in ice coverage, well below the trendline.  To now look at 2013 and 2014 and compare them to 2012 showing an "increase" in ice coverage is as disingenuous as it would have been in 2012 to say that the reduction was a sign of things to come.



I would say given the disparity in energy content between air and ice that if the ice in flux, the weather follows suit.



Again, you could be right, this could be just a sharper than usual natural phenomenon.  Hard to say.  It bears consideration and observation.

I have a real problem with accepting your pov. The reason is that temps/ice in the arctic are not outside historic norms. Greenland was not only green more than 6 enturies ago, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today.



Based on the tree species found, Greenland must have been warmer than 10 degrees Celsius in summer and never colder than –17 degrees C in winter, much warmer than present conditions.

[Romero]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/30/1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG.JPG">

Wow! If you look at specifically cherry picked years, it looks like arctic ice melt has slowed!



But what if we look at all the years?



http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2014/590x441_06111758_figure31maytrend.png">



Hmm, is that an increase or a decrease?



If you gotta mislead...

[Anonymous]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif">

According to a graph published on the NASA Earth Observatory site, Arctic temperatures were warmer in 1930's than at the end of the 20th century. In addition, the graph shows the Arctic warmed 1.6C over the 19 year period from 1918-1937 at a rate of 0.84C/decade, 75% faster than the 0.48C/decade from 1980-2000. Thus, alarmist claims that recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or accelerating are bogus.



Warming and cooling and now cooling are within historic norms and nothing to worry about even if there was something we could do about it.