The PIOMAS Arctic sea
ice volume numbers for January 2017 have just been published.
Not exact matches
It would be interesting to compare the
numbers, if any, for
volume and time span of an
ice sheet failure (are there any for how fast it could happen)?
At face value their
numbers suggest the Arctic will be left with an extensive cover (> 4 million km ^ 2) of
ice but only a small
volume (< 2 million km ^ 3): i.e. on average the
ice will be less than half a metre thick.
He said weather scientists have known there was a relationship between
ice and lightning, but were learning new details by studying the National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite images which can look at both the
number of lightning strikes and the
volume of
ice in a cloud at the same time.
The
number of cryospheric elements now routinely monitored from space is growing, and current satellites are now addressing one of the more challenging elements, variability of
ice volume.
That gives you a profile of
ice thickness, and it is straightforward in principle to use it to calculate the
ice volume — though in practice it remains an awful lot of
numbers to crunch.
Plus notes on the ARCUS sea
ice forecasting contest As I pointed out on September 16th in Sea Ice News Volume 4 Number 5: No ice free Arctic this year — it appears that Arctic sea ice has turned the corner sea ice has most definitely turned the corner n
ice forecasting contest As I pointed out on September 16th in Sea
Ice News Volume 4 Number 5: No ice free Arctic this year — it appears that Arctic sea ice has turned the corner sea ice has most definitely turned the corner n
Ice News
Volume 4
Number 5: No
ice free Arctic this year — it appears that Arctic sea ice has turned the corner sea ice has most definitely turned the corner n
ice free Arctic this year — it appears that Arctic sea
ice has turned the corner sea ice has most definitely turned the corner n
ice has turned the corner sea
ice has most definitely turned the corner n
ice has most definitely turned the corner now.
A
number of techniques have been employed to sub-set or recalibrate these projections based on different aspects of the observed
ice cover, including the mean and / or seasonal cycle of
ice extent (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007, 2012a; Wang and Overland, 2009, 2012), historical
ice cover trends (Boe et al., 2009), and
ice volume and thin
ice area (Massonnet et al., 2012).
So the
ice melted before the CO2 increased I picked this up surfing the internt: «Glaciation For a
number of reasons, the
volume of glacial
ice near the poles waxes and wanes over time.
If you Google the best estimates of runoff + thermal expansion contributions to sea level, and assume that the none thermal expansion part came from permanent
ice melt, do you get similar
volume numbers?