Sentences with phrase «measure ice volume»

To notice something is going on with the world's ice sheets, you could measure melting water runoff, glacier retreat or use satellites and GPS to measure ice volume decline.

I understand that PIOMAS is forced by NCEP / NCAR data, which I think makes a lot of sense, since that the data that is as close to «reality» as we can get without actually measuring ice volume.

To better understand the difference between measuring ice volume and mass, Simons compares it to a person weighing himself by only looking in the mirror instead of standing on a scale.

Not exact matches

When measuring flour or icing sugar by volume (cup) never scoop the flour / icing sugar up with the cup otherwise you compress the contents and this can make a big difference in the amount you're using.

The thickness of the ice, and its overall volume, may be a more important measure of what is happening in the Arctic over the long term, even though it is not as simple to measure, said Overland.

The radar can measure the surface height variation of ice in fine detail, allowing scientists to record changes in its volume with unprecedented accuracy.

ICESat - 2 will add to our understanding of Arctic sea ice by measuring sea ice thickness from space, providing scientists more complete information about the volume of sea ice in the Arctic and Southern oceans.

While extent is a traditional measure of sea ice, volume is also important.

Ice volume, the product of sea ice area and thickness, is a measure for the total loss in sea ice and the total amount of energy involved in melting the iIce volume, the product of sea ice area and thickness, is a measure for the total loss in sea ice and the total amount of energy involved in melting the iice area and thickness, is a measure for the total loss in sea ice and the total amount of energy involved in melting the iice and the total amount of energy involved in melting the iceice.

Its not too short a time, Arctic sea ice volume is like a giant mercury thermometer to all parameters used to measure global warming.

I would have said it is transparently obvious that ice volume is a better measure than ice area, if you want to understand long - term trend and the impact of human emissions — though it's great to have both measures.

If you're not refuting the volume analysis, then I can't see how you can say focusing on ice volume is «a bit funky» — it's clearly a more important measure of the system's ability to recover, which is the central point of this post.

It can also be measured in thickness, and the two measures can be combined to calculate the overall volume of ice.

There are two ways to categorize the amount of ice: by measuring the extent (essentially the area of the ocean covered by ice, though in detail it's a little more complicated) or using volume, which includes the thickness of the ice.

Previous studies of the Antarctic ice sheet used satellite data to measure the volume of ice loss.

For example, let's say that evidence convinced me (in a way that I wasn't convinced previously) that all recent changes in land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures and deep sea temperatures and sea ice extent and sea ice volume and sea ice density and moisture content in the air and cloud coverage and rainfall and measures of extreme weather were all directly tied to internal natural variability, and that I can now see that as the result of a statistical modeling of the trends as associated with natural phenomena.

Measuring the distance apart and speed of 2 satellites in space orbiting the earth to the width of a human hair with no margin for error [damn those drift recalculations], and taking into account unknown factors with respect to the true values for water depth, water weight at different salt concentrations, ice depth magma flows, volcanic activity etc [ie making a lot of guesses], plus taking human motivation on board [like CO2 increase must melt ice surely] can give you an accurate measurement of the volume ice in Antarctica.

They found that 2017 tied 2012 for the lowest measured Arctic sea ice volume on record, though 2012 remains the year with the lowest summer minimum volume.

I said that the best measure for Artic warming is ice volume.

They are limited only by the amount of water the glaciers themselves release — ice masses that hold volumes of water often measured in cubic kilometers.

Poitou & Bréon do not explain why the ice pack volume would be relevant for the albedo; according to Haas (2005)[47] the changes of the thickness of the sea ice are small since they are correctly measured by an airborne radio apparatus, only over the Arctic.

What they call «differential diffusion» and «lower molecular volume» I call «preferential fractionation» and «kinetic diameter», the latter being the relevant measure of molecular size at the lowest level in the firn and n the ice beneath.

They measured the organic carbon content of the samples and determined how much of the soil volume was taken up by large bodies of ground ice.

Finally, given the measured a increase in advection of energy to the Arctic via ocean currents, the increase in energy of the oceans should be expected to have the exact effect we are seeing with a rapidly declining Arctic Sea ice volume, with a great deal of this happening from ice being melted from underneath.

To extrapolate forward using these measures we would also need to extrapolate ice volume increases from minimum.

These records provide both a direct measure of sea level and an indirect measure of global ice volume.