Arctic Sea Ice Freefall is Mirror Image of Carbon Dioxide Ascent
by Emily E. Adams, Earth Policy Institute
The amount of Arctic sea ice has plummeted in recent decades — a bold manifestation of the rise in temperature resulting from the rapid increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. After staying below 300 parts per million (ppm) for some 800,000 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere skyrocketed as humans started burning more and more fossil fuels. In 2013, atmospheric CO2 averaged 396 ppm.
Carbon dioxide traps heat, reducing the amount escaping into space, thereby warming the globe. Together with other heat-trapping gases, the additional CO2 has so far raised the Earth’s temperature by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century. The extra heat is melting snow and ice around the world, including Arctic sea ice, changing the face of the planet as we know it. For some 1,500 years the late summertime size of the North Pole’s ice cap fluctuated narrowly around 10 million square kilometers; in recent summers, ice covered half that area. The ice pack is expected to keep shrinking as temperatures continue to rise.
1987 open water at the North Pole.
https://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
2004 open water at the North Pole
https://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm
2012 open water at the North Pole
https://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=16326
1959 and 1962 open water at the North Pole
https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/
2013 open water at the North Pole
https://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-water-at-north-pole.html
The point illustrated here: the North Pole is not static, ice varies significantly. The Arctic is not static either. Variance is the norm.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
I get the sense this above comment is trying to say this is normal for the artic ice, I’d like to point out that ALL the above dates are well into the industrial period which has induced CO2 increases in the air. The most serious of changes in the northern ice is the lost of OLD dense hard ice. During the summers now it becomes more like a slurpy beverage of floating slush snow.
Jackie
It may not be the North Pole but Greenland is the biggest island on earth which is three quarters covered by an ice sheet. I was settled by the Vikings who grew crops (wheat and flax) there and gave the place its name.
Wheat and flax cannot be grown on Greenland today.
If the Arctic is and has been losing its ice due to a warming of the planet (by any means) surely it is logical crops such as wheat would be cultivated once again upon Greenland.
https://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html
Site mod fro some reason this comment will not post as reply to Jackie.
Using Firefox the post comment and the anti spam radio boxes stop working. Refreshing the page and commenting under the ‘leave a reply form’ is the only way to post it.
Do click through on the links on this page.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/new-study-says-climate-models-robustly-predicted-antarctic-sea-ice-to-decrease-but-the-ice-defies-modeling/#more-101993
For those of you that have been looking for that point of reference about Antarctica’s increasing sea ice in contrast to the shrinking ice in the Arctic, look no further.
A new study recently published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society says robust modeling evidence that the ice should melt (their words) predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease in response to increased greenhouse gases and the ozone hole. Only one problem in defiance of the “robust modeling”, the current Antarctic sea ice has been booming.
With respect, sir, this is insufficient evidence to convince me. Total ice volume has been decreasing for decades. As jackie says, old dense ice is nearly gone in the Arctic. This has been well documented. Ice coverage is not the same as ice volume. I don’t really need to say anything further. QED
However, I have been going to the high Arctic for over a decade and while I do not feel it is a sufficient representative sample, I would posit the following to try and convince you:
1. Multi-year ice is how we obtain our drinking water in the high Arctic. We mine this old ice which has leached brine over multiple melt cycles and melt it and drink it. It is fresh water. It’s great with a good Scotch! This type of ice is much more difficult to find, so now we use a Reverse Osmosis system. Multi-year ice, in the recent past, could be found in cubic kilometer size chunks. No longer.
2.Admittedly less convincing, but when I started going to the Arctic we frequently found sea ice(not rafted ice or pressure ridges) 7-8 meters thick. Now it is closer to 2-3 meters and pressure ridges are rarely more than 4 meters high. 100 years ago, due to the density and shear quantity of multiyear ice mostly, the Arctic had ice tens of meters thick and pressure ridges some 30 meters thick! This is an incredible loss of ice volume yet it still pales in comparison with that of Greenland and Antarctica.
Antarctic Sea ice has a continental component and different physical properties than Arctic ice. This conveyor of ice accumulates and flows to the sea. As temperatures have increased since industrialization this ice flows faster, creating more sea ice. More calving and separation from continental ice equals a greater rate of flow. Once the ice is floating on water the melting rate increases dramatically.
Let’s not forget that scientific models are tools built with the best available, measured data. Do you throw your hammer away because it will not drive a screw?
Should I go on and explain the temperature record?
fixie
Fixie
I am not trying to convince you of anything. All I am pointing out is Arctic ice thins and thickens, ebbs and flows because there is no land mass underneath it.
I fully accept it is in in constant change and the probability is it always has been as have all the climates on earth.
The sun may not be the creator of climates but it is the sustainer of climates.
Scientific models are just tools that much is true but they are predictive tools which attempt to take information from a past to model a specific future.
Hammers are designed to hit things hard. The sad thing is computer models are also designed to hit things hard but instead of nails it is the personal financial wealth of the people of earth that is being hit hard and moved to the personal financial wealth of a small number of people who simply add it to their pile.
Boom away that is just from an increase in moisture from the ocean warming causing more snow. what is happen HERE in North America is the twisting up of the jet stream causing all kinds of climate flipping. In the north of Canada it was only -2 today. The weather is swinging from -35 to -2 within just a few days. As well this area NEVER sees over -40C just 20 years ago every winter would have -50C days.
Simple, yet trick question…
“How many themal vents and underwater volcanoes are active at this time?”
But hey…that’s a scientific query!
First one to answer (with numbers that is) wins $10.00 CDN from me.
Trolling is a sin, and cherry picking data is a scientific sin.
Link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html
Comment:
The Antarctic sea ice is essentially climate neutral, but the Arctic sea ice certainly isnt. People with open minds can see the Antarctic sea ice issue is a very weak sceptical argument, so people who persist with it must have ulterior motives.
No learning is possible if somebody is already certain about an issue. Personally I would love to see the sea ice at both ends of the globe recover to pre-industrial levels. However, the science says that simply isn’t happening. A person has the right to their own opinion but not their own evidence. The fields of physics, chemistry and biology have been around for a long time. It is illogical in the extreme to feel that one can have a “belief” in the sciences only when it suits their belief system.
Recent scientific article on Antarctic ice mass:
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
From the NSIDC:
“Has climate change started to affect Earth’s ice sheets?
The mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet has begun to decline. From 1979 to 2006, summer melt on the ice sheet increased by 30 percent, reaching a new record in 2007. At higher elevations, an increase in winter snow accumulation has partially offset the melt. However, the decline continues to outpace accumulation because warmer temperatures have led to increased melt and faster glacier movement at the island’s edges. To learn more about research on the Greenland Ice Sheet, visit CIRES Director Konrad Steffen’s research Web page.
Most of Antarctica has yet to see dramatic warming. However, the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into warmer waters north of Antarctica, has warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950. A large area of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, probably because of warmer water deep in the ocean near the Antarctic coast. In East Antarctica, no clear trend has emerged, although some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice, but so far the process has not become as quick or as widespread as in Greenland.”
Link: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Antony
Please explain how Vikings living in a pre-industrial Greenland were able to successfully grow flax and wheat.
Before them the Romans were able to cultivate grapes in areas of northern Europe where they will not grow today how could they do this?