Sentences with phrase «arctic ice levels»

For the same reasons they have set up the Argo buoys and have just convened a working party to examine arctic ice levels to 1870.

Not exact matches

The melting of the arctic ice and the Greenland glaciers along with the warming of the ocean will raise sea levels and flood some of the world's most populous and fertile regions, the deltas of the great rivers.

Ocean levels have fallen, arctic ice has increased, and so on.

Each level in the game features different background graphics that range from arctic ice to forested mountains, but these are just window dressing.

We see that the arctic sea ice extent has increased since then, currently up around the 2004 levels, so we're told that it's not actually the area, it's the thickness and what birthday it's celebrated.

When there are alternative explanations for arctic ice melt (historical writings that suggest natural periods of very rapid decline, ever - increasing levels of soot that can cause and accelerate melting), how can you be so certain that the cause is CO2 - induced?

For other indicators — glacial retreat, sea level, arctic ice extent, etc. — the data is equally noisy, and it is difficult having a sensible discussion without the inevitable cherry - picking on both sides of the argument.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

Given Eli's preponderance for all things arctic and where we once had lots more ice, the choice looks easy... except I think it's probably Sandy related and so will plump for no. 2: Sandy and Sea Level Rise.

Re: Raven (# 411), Arctic warming in the 1930s was something they never did explain, and I note that arctic sea ice was hitting low levels in the early 1040s as well.

Canadian Ice Service, 4.7, Multiple Methods As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010, and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model, which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictoIce Service, 4.7, Multiple Methods As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010, and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end - of - winter arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model, which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictoice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model, which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC's September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictoIce Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictoice predictors.

Chris V. CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T... Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.

There are degrees of everyone's positions here from those who think the IPCC is wrong because it is much too conservative through those who think the IPCC got it perfectly right to those who think the arctic sea ice has recovered because the record low level is now three years old through those who believe the GHE violates the laws of thermodynamics.

We interpret the split of 2013 Outlooks above and below the 4.1 level to different interpretations of the guiding physics: those who considered that observed sea ice extent in 2012 being well below the 4.1 level indicates a shift in arctic conditions, especially with regard to reduced sea ice thickness and increased sea ice mobility; and those who have estimates above 4.1 who support a return to the longer - term downward trend line (1979 - 2007).

The Greenland Ice Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level rise, implying that there may also have been a contribution from AntarctiIce Sheet and other arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level rise, implying that there may also have been a contribution from Antarctiice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m of the observed sea level rise, implying that there may also have been a contribution from Antarctica.

We interpret the split of 2013 Outlooks above and below the 4.1 median to different interpretations of the guiding physics: those who considered that observed sea ice extent in 2012 being well below the 4.1 level indicates a shift in arctic conditions, especially with regard to reduced sea ice thickness and increased sea ice mobility; and those with estimates above 4.1 who support a return to the longer - term downward trend line (1979 - 2007).

As for global warming advocates, we have been warned for decades that the arctic would be ice free and sea levels up astronomically and no snow by now et al..

Most things point to global warming such as melting ice in the arctic and antarctic continent, global sea level rise, and global temperatures.

We have diminishing levels of arctic sea ice.

Posted in Open Threads Tagged arctic, australia, carbon tax, climate change, environment, gillard, global warming, mann, PNAS, rahmstorf, sea ice, sea level, vermeer 22 Comments

We know that sea level is rising at between 2.5 mm and 3 mm per decade - which is a nonissue - so what is the net problem with less ice in the arctic?

And one more thing, There is a historical correlation between sea level and an ice free arctic.

The last time the arctic was ice free, sea level was significantly higher.

John: I understand that this ice is not in the arctic and it will have no impact on sea level or the good burghers of Tuvalu.

The decrease in albedo that accompanies the loss of sea ice is the phenom that underlies «arctic amplification» (as you point out, it has nothing directly to do with sea level rise).

considering solar activity HAs indeed flatlined, it seems odd there is no associated increase in arctic sea ice levels.

And remember, the satellite data are one small part of a vast amount of data that overwhelmingly show our planet is warming up: retreating glaciers, huge amounts of ice melting at both poles, the «death spiral» of arctic ice every year at the summer minimum over time, earlier annual starts of warm weather and later starts of cold weather, warming oceans, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, more extreme weather, changing weather patterns overall, earlier snow melts, and lower snow cover in the spring...

Sea level rise flooding New York in 20 years (Hansen, 1988), the arctic ice disappearing in 5 years?

A classic case in point was the discovery that field observations of the loss of arctic sea ice showed that by 2007 it had advanced to a level predicted by the mean of models of that loss as occurring in the 2100s, while that mean was used as the consensus projection in AR4.

It is arguably one of the most advanced of the seven in its impacts, with a 2011 GRL report putting its warming effect as equivalent to around 30 % of atmospheric anthro - CO2, and the recent report putting albedo loss from arctic sea - ice decline since»79 as providing a forcing equivalent on average to that from 25 % of the anthro - CO2 levels during the period.

Even RCP8.5 (with its unlikely assumptions to reach that level of forcings) gets an ice - free arctic only in the late 21st C — by the IPCC's definition (which IMO should be the standard definition used in these discussions).

The truth is that in the arctic we're seeing record low levels of sea ice year after year, including just this year, when in March the North Pole saw the lowest maximum ice extent on record.

This grim fact is even bleaker if the international community concludes that it should limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, a conclusion that might become more obvious if current levels of warming start to make positive feedbacks visible in the next few years such as methane leakage from frozen tundra or more rapid loss of arctic ice.

At least four key findings from these projects relating to arctic heterotrophic food web, pelagic - benthic coupling and biodiversity have emerged: (1) Contrary to a long - standing paradigm of dormant ecosystems during the long arctic winter, major food web components showed relatively high level of winter activity, well before the spring release of ice algae and subsequent phytoplankton bloom.

Posted in Open Threads, tagged arctic, australia, carbon tax, climate change, environment, gillard, global warming, mann, PNAS, rahmstorf, sea ice, sea level, vermeer on July 20, 2011 22 Comments»

yet 13 years of ice return and static levels in the arctic would cause little cold build up yet we have amplification?

The outlook for arctic sea ice for September 2009, based on June data, indicates a continuation of low pan-arctic sea ice extent and no indication that a return to historical levels will occur.

Furthermore you use that interpretation to push the claim that temperatures for most of the holocene were warming than now which can hardly be supported by evidence of say arctic ice extent, glacial retreat levels etc, never mind other proxies.

It is not just data from climate models predicting what will happen; now there is evidence of the warming which has already occurred: massive ice melting in Greenland, rising sea levels and retreating arctic ice, record droughts, etc..

It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry - picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20 - foot sea level rise.On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three - part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts.

As surface temperture is altitude dependent one might have thought the first thing to check would be a map, as the arctic ice lies at sea level + 9 % of its thickness, while the antarctic ice sits several kilometers high in the sky, and the surrounding apron of the stuff is immune to windage because of the circumpolar continent in its midst.

Given that arctic sea ice is already set to disappear given current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, there is little chance that this feedback will contribute to an ice age any time in the foreseeable future.

Hi iceman, Sorry for the tardy reply, that pesky real life thing again...:) The reason there is so little excitement about the record high sea ice extent in the antarctic (aside from it having no appealing potential victims, like polar bears) versus the record low arctic sea ice is probably because the southern record is only a matter of 2 % anamoly, whereas in the north we are now looking at levels over 40 % below average.

There are useful things that can be said related to Atlantic temperatures, sea level, and water vapour, but the specific circulation link to arctic sea ice is tenuous at best, and completely speculative at worst.

The report, the most precise yet thanks to advances in scientific monitoring, confirms that climate change impacts are outpacing previous projections for ocean warming, the rate of glacial ice melt in the arctic, and sea level rise.