Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Arctic Sea Ice Watch

«13456

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 768 Victor Meldrew


    http://longyearbyen.livecam360.com/flash/main.php

    Worth a look for the weeks that come as things refreeze.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 Godge


    If you look at historical data, the Arctic ice is at its highest level for this time of year since 2006. Not much of a recovery given the huge drops since then but it will be interesting to see where it bottoms out this year and how quickly it recovers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,087 Duiske


    Here's a handy tool for comparing sea ice area on a particular date to the same date in any year going back to 1979. Daily Sea Ice Maps. By the way, if looking to compare ice maximum's or minimums the dates are roughly 15th March (Max) and 15th September (Min).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1 Joey Fritzl


    For anyone who can't sleep, BBC News 24 ran a story on this and will probably repeat itself every half hour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,068 ✭✭✭ Iancar29


    TYLER got there before me ha !

    Will be interesting to see what proper recovery the ice now makes when it get PROPER cold up there!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,548 Harps


    <snip>
    Good to see a recovery in ice but its only one year and still amongst the lowest ever recorded, much as certain sections of the media like to hype up global warming the Daily Mail like to use anything they can as definitive proof that its all a government conspiracy so I wouldn't read much into the article

    I've read a few different articles on the effects sea ice can have on our weather, I think the general theme is more ice can lead to stormier autumn and early winter. Less ice leads to more snow across the Northern Hemisphere early in the season which helps deep cold to build which can lead to a stronger Siberian High by Jan/Feb.

    Interesting to see how it plays out


  • Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭ rickdangerouss


    What I see on the daily mail link, is a graph that is very near the bottom average for 1981-2010, with the deviations included in this too. I agree with Harps. One year ice increases the chances will be there next year.

    Also using one year of sea ice information, to discount that last 30 years is... Trending is still down; Greenland had a big melt season, Iceland's Glaciers shrinking too.

    I do not have the background or any knowledge that says Global warming is true or false or another reason. Wait and see season is ahead for me. Until then, I cannot form an Ice hard opinion on this subject. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,045 Grimreaper666


    It seems it's global cooling now. As far as i'm concerned it's all about generating taxes, I honestly believe the whole thing's a scam. I've read where the Chinese sailed through the north and south poles in the 17th century and there wasn't ice in either place. When i see politicians getting in on the bandwagon it looses all credibility for me anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭ pauldry


    The Chinese thought they were in the North Pole but it was Clew Bay!


  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭ Tae laidir


    They must have also invented Flying Boats, as the South Pole is 2800 metres above Sea Level.
    Perhaps it was 2 Poles, one in Mulrannny & the other in Louisburgh. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭ Tae laidir


    The website has been updated recently to reflect Sea Ice Concentration.
    Should be interesting (frightening?) to watch it shrink following the new Winter minimum.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,045 Grimreaper666


    Interesting how the Vikings used to have settlements under where there's ice now in Greenland and yet mankind had very little impact on the planet then...... Makes one wonder what the real story is......


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭ pauldry


    I spend half my day looking at this
    https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,045 Grimreaper666


    The climate is, has and will always be in a state of change.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,430 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Tabnabs


    Interesting to see some figures from frequent reporting https://twitter.com/istjenesten?lang=en seems pretty average all in all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭ pauldry


    Ice volume is thinner but extent is hanging in there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭ sideswipe


    The climate is, has and will always be in a state of change.

    No one argues that. It's the rate and extent of change that is worrying.
    The Great Barrier Reef has adapted to change constantly, it sits on remnants of ancient reefs that died off because of changing water levels and climate change. The problem now is it's seeming inability to adapt to changes that are happening over decades rather than thousands of years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,775 ✭✭✭ up for anything


    I came across this article and thought of here.

    Up to half of the arctic's melt might be totally natural


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭ Nabber


    4 year revival on this thread.... nice work.

    The scare mongering that goes with anthropological climate change is my issue.
    I'm still not convinced that sea ice, ocean temp, rain fall, etc.. need to conform to an average, but are very much dictated by a series of events that don't adhere to patterns.

    I also feel that science is replacing religion and requesting blind faith. Anyone who doesn't believe is ostracised and a scourge to society....


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,045 Grimreaper666


    Nabber wrote: »
    4 year revival on this thread.... nice work.

    The scare mongering that goes with anthropological climate change is my issue.
    I'm still not convinced that sea ice, ocean temp, rain fall, etc.. need to conform to an average, but are very much dictated by a series of events that don't adhere to patterns.

    I also feel that science is replacing religion and requesting blind faith. Anyone who doesn't believe is ostracised and a scourge to society....

    Very true! There are so many stories contradicting each other now it's hard to know who to believe. The one thing I do believe is that these studies are paid for by governments and they can never be trusted about anything!


  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭ Tae laidir


    Another interesting website - showing Surface Temperatures at 80 degrees North.
    Average temperature now breaching Freezing Point.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭ Billcarson


    For those who doubt man made climate change I say if mans activity could effect the ozone layer,does that not show that man indeed can have some kind of effect on the atmosphere??? Only now 30 yrs after the cfc ban is the ozone layer starting to recover.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,116 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    Very true! There are so many stories contradicting each other now it's hard to know who to believe. The one thing I do believe is that these studies are paid for by governments and they can never be trusted about anything!

    The stories that contradict global warming are denialist propaganda paid for by a few billionaires who are trying to milk the most profits out of their polluting industries without any regard for the long term global implications.

    You say you don't trust Scientists because there is some government funding, but somehow you do believe studies that are funded by Exxon of Koch industries as if they don't have any commercial interest in opposing regulations of emissions.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/01/exxonmobil_koch_family_have_powered_climate_change_denial_for_decades.html

    Also, your claim that governments have all been driving global warming research to exaggerate the risks is completely contradicted by the fact that international treaties to prevent global warming have been extremely hard to negotiate because governments have historically been reluctant to admit that there is a problem, and even more reluctant to agree to solutions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭ pauldry


    Ive studied Arctic Sea Ice for 10 years

    That stuff is rubble this year

    The extent is somehow hanging on

    I look at Nasa Worldview and see all the images

    Maybe nasa are putting false images out to scaremonger

    Maybe sea ice can recover in the coming years but this year its broken everywhere and that is worrying


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,559 pedigree 6


    Billcarson wrote: »
    For those who doubt man made climate change I say if mans activity could effect the ozone layer,does that not show that man indeed can have some kind of effect on the atmosphere??? Only now 30 yrs after the cfc ban is the ozone layer starting to recover.

    I don't think there's no doubt about man made climate change. But the main reservations people have about treaties is where the fine money goes, who gets it and what it's spent on. Then at the end of the day these treaties are voluntary to that particular country if they will enforce them or not.

    The thing that muddies the waters of this whole palava (climate change,treaties, fines, etc) is where the money goes, that climate has always been changing since the start of the planet, unfair regulations across different countries and some are hindered by regulations while others get off Scot free, that natural climate change is barely understood yet and we are only starting to learn about the Sun's influence and increased or decreased amounts of comic rays influence on our atmosphere.
    Even increased cosmic rays seemingly have an effect on the ozone layer.
    Still a lot to learn.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭ Oneiric 3


    pedigree 6 wrote: »
    Still a lot to learn.

    A hell of a lot to learn.

    There can be no doubt that the globe has been warming over the course of the last few decades, but causes remain quite uncertain. Only last year, this paper was published, claiming that it is cleaner air, correlating with a huge reduction in industrial aerosols over eastern Europe over the last 30 years or so, that is having a direct effect on Arctic temperatures, and by consequence, Arctic sea ice extent:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2673.html


    Also worth a read is this article by Bjorn Lomborg, which shows just how hollow the aims of the so called 'Paris Agreement' are: Political grandstanding, and really not much else.

    http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,116 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    A hell of a lot to learn.

    There can be no doubt that the globe has been warming over the course of the last few decades, but causes remain quite uncertain. Only last year, this paper was published, claiming that it is cleaner air, correlating with a huge reduction in industrial aerosols over eastern Europe over the last 30 years or so, that is having a direct effect on Arctic temperatures, and by consequence, Arctic sea ice extent:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2673.html


    Also worth a read is this article by Bjorn Lomborg, which shows just how hollow the aims of the so called 'Paris Agreement' are: Political grandstanding, and really not much else.

    http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
    The causes aren't uncertain. Global Dimming has been known about for decades and we know that it has been masking global warming. It means that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect should be worse than it is, but our particulate emissions are blocking some sunlight and slowing the warming.

    There are some geo-engineering proposals to reverse global warming that involve deliberately releasing particles into the upper atmosphere to block some sunlight but we'd rather it not come to that


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 Yourself isit


    What about the idea of seeding the sea with iron.


Advertisement