Sentences with phrase «more arctic ice»

In 2008 we lost more arctic ice and more of the thicker ice beyond 2007.

Not exact matches

Mammoths and other creatures that grazed arctic environments during much of the last ice age were eating more than just grasses, a new study suggests.

Now the question is, can the real climate scientists come forward and present the truth about global warming, or are we in for more ridiculous predictions about an ice free arctic by 2013 and the extinction of polar bears?

One took place in a opulent Greek setting that wouldn't have looked out of place in older God of War games, while the other is a much more arctic setting, set with a deep cavern behind and ice floes on the other side.

Installed in conjunction with the more traditional gallery exhibition, 33 °, the murals range from the humorous, an image of tourists wandering aimlessly across an aqua blue expanse, to a sobering, a black fissure opening stark and deep in what we are to assume is an arctic ice sheet, to the iconic, a lonely polar bear drifting on a small iceberg.

More data on impact of changing local weather patterns, maybe putting more personal ground - based perspective to melting arctic ice: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131202/winter-what-winter-barrows-october-november-downright-balmy (captcha: thanks ideaMore data on impact of changing local weather patterns, maybe putting more personal ground - based perspective to melting arctic ice: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131202/winter-what-winter-barrows-october-november-downright-balmy (captcha: thanks ideamore personal ground - based perspective to melting arctic ice: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131202/winter-what-winter-barrows-october-november-downright-balmy (captcha: thanks ideafun)

Seems this might hold for larger scale events, such as the arctic ice melting (i.e., there would be more warming in the arctic ocean in our current times, except some of the «warming» energy is going into the melting process rather than warming).

I was wondering how much more energy there must be in the arctic to melt so many more cubic miles of ice.

All the fanfare, yet the snow off expanse continues, the arctic sea ice continues several standard deviations below, and my regional weather is highly anomalous... whats more watching plants and everything else living outdoors, nature is to me in panic mode... let's also ignore the bark beetle in the US pine forests... it's ain't true they say, the lobotomized.

I don't know about the «freakout» claim, but I believe Peter Wadhams» ideas / estimates regarding the loss of arctic sea ice are going to prove to be much more accurate than the IPCC estimates that sea ice will be gone by midcentury.

eg after a decade of no more MYI and several months a year in summer / fall of almost no arctic sea ice.

And each of the next 4 to 5 years will show succesively more arctic sea ice.

I remember when I once worked on a project for managing arctic ice rafar data in th 90's, the NASA project manager said that he had access to a room full of computer tapes of satellite data collected in the 70's that nobody had ever looked at, and that nobody he knew had equipment any more that could even read the tapes.

This would certainly explain why arctic sea ice cover has been absolutely crashing in recent years while the HARDCRU / GISS global average temps had been increasing more modestly.

Are the statistics from the high arctic, where the ice is most likely to survive, or do they include a lot of more southerly areas where most of the first year ice always melts away?

It should then be obvious the as more heat energy is continuously added then there will continue to be arctic ice melting.

-- The Minimum Sea Ice Extent in the arctic was lower in 1990 than in 2006 — ie the arctic ice summer (September) minimum has been more - or-less stable for 16 yeaIce Extent in the arctic was lower in 1990 than in 2006 — ie the arctic ice summer (September) minimum has been more - or-less stable for 16 yeaice summer (September) minimum has been more - or-less stable for 16 years.

Glaciers have continued to melt at accelerating rates, arctic summer ice is declining at accelerating rates, more 6 - 10 thousand year old ice shelves are collapsing.

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.

quote loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere.

Just recently a «scientist» at the German hyper alarmist PIK «found out» that the (temporary) loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere.

Bob Tisdale says: January 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm Manfred says: «Just recently a «scientist» at the German hyper alarmist PIK «found out» that the (temporary) loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere.

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.

Ice as polystyrene full of air was insulating the water from the winter coldness — minus ice; water absorbs extra coldness — in combination of the coldness from the air and extra coldness in the water = that double coldness as ripples goes south — intercepts 95 % INSTEAD OF 50 % of the moisture and is dropping it in Europe / USA — end result: SOUTH MUCH MORE SNOW AND COLDNESS — NO MOISTURE TO REPLENISH THE ICE DEFICIT ON ARCTIce as polystyrene full of air was insulating the water from the winter coldness — minus ice; water absorbs extra coldness — in combination of the coldness from the air and extra coldness in the water = that double coldness as ripples goes south — intercepts 95 % INSTEAD OF 50 % of the moisture and is dropping it in Europe / USA — end result: SOUTH MUCH MORE SNOW AND COLDNESS — NO MOISTURE TO REPLENISH THE ICE DEFICIT ON ARCTice; water absorbs extra coldness — in combination of the coldness from the air and extra coldness in the water = that double coldness as ripples goes south — intercepts 95 % INSTEAD OF 50 % of the moisture and is dropping it in Europe / USA — end result: SOUTH MUCH MORE SNOW AND COLDNESS — NO MOISTURE TO REPLENISH THE ICE DEFICIT ON ARCTICE DEFICIT ON ARCTIC.

Also, it seems the condition of more exposed and warmer arctic waters also adds to the moisture content, regardless of how much ocean was covered by ice at the beginning of the cycle.

I would say that's weather not climate change but I already got the lecture on how global warming causes freezing in the prairies by disrupting wind patterns so more cold air gets drawn down from the arctic warming it more so ice melts more, or some such folderol.

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

Many commentators are proclaiming, more in sorrow than in anger, that the melting of arctic pack - ice (which was high again this year) is a certain indicator of global warming.

Meantime, a cubic 18 km of ice in a big chunk floating and in 6 days 800, ooo square km less of arctic ice und 30 more days to go

Melting of arctic sea - ice, antarctic ice shelves, and mountain ice and snow exposes the darker rock, soil, or sea beneath; which then absorb more of the Sun's heat and further warm the Earth.

In a belated Christmas present, Crockford provided this December 26 posting that further deflates the already collapsing narrative about the non-existent «crisis» of declining arctic sea ice: «Polar bear habitat — more Arctic sea ice in Canada this week than in early 1970s.»

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...

Overall, the curve shown in Figure 4 is commensurate with the notion that a thinner arctic ice cover that is more mobile can lead to greater seasonal and interannual variability, with a potential loss in predictability.

Actually the argument makes more sense applied to the arctic sea ice — both in winter and summer, since it is at a much higher average latitude and therefore affects albedo much less.

While the 2010 melt season started with more multi-year ice (MYI) in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas than seen in recent years and an overall greater percentage of MYI arctic - wide, by the end of August nearly all of this MYI had melted out or ice concentration had fallen below 40 %.

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.

When we get a arctic season with great cyclones, those cyclones can lead to a break up of the ice (more lateral melting), If currents conspire we end up with more transport out of the arctic (ice then melts in the warmer water), and we get Eckmen pumping and more ice melts.

In short, 2008's summer arctic ice extent observation is not a wheel off the GW bandwagon — it is one more nail in the coffin of denialism.

Yet funny how that can't be contemplated: but a far more geologically radical alteration in arctic ice extent from a larger increase in arctic temperature changes and other factors, is so easily perceived and, taken as truth, even.

LIA wasn't GLOBAL cooling; but colder in Europe, north America — because Arctic ocean had less ice cover - > was releasing more heat / was accumulating - > radiating + spreading more coldness — currents were taking that extra coldness to Mexican gulf — then to the Mediterranean — because Sahara was increasing creation of dry heat and evaporating extra water in the Mediterranean — to top up the deficit — gulf stream was faster / that was melting more ice on arctic also as chain reaction — Because Mediterranean doesn't have enough tributaries, to compensate for the evaporation deficit.

However, the arctic ice pack remains substantially younger, thinner, and more mobile than prior to 2005.

Air temps in arctic are almost precisely the same as the average for the past 50 years — So it is unlikely air temps have created ice loss — BUT CONVERSELY — the increased open arctic water SHOULD be affecting the arctic air temp - but is not (large expanses of 1 degree C arctic water make it difficult for air temps to drop to minus ten C — but since that is what is happening, then in fact there must be much more cold air around to create «normal» arctic temps for this time of the year)

In years such as 2008, initial sea ice conditions at the end of spring may have more of an influence on a September arctic sea ice extent Outlook than a forecast of summer wind fields, which dominated the ice situation in 2007.

An arctic ice pack that consists mostly of first - and second - year rather than multi-year sea ice, implies a thinner, more mobile ice cover relative to conditions five or more years ago.

The arctic ice cap is like a thermostat in traditional automotive water cooling where it was positioned between the engine block and radiator and opened farther as water temperature increased allowing more water to reach the radiator.

when the ocean is warm and the arctic is open, it snows more and moves water mass from the oceans and adds ice mass on land and the axis does shift.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

When melting ice disappears from the arctic, it exposes more of the ocean's dark surface, which absorbs the sun's warming rays.

any warming melts more arctic sea ice and then it snows more and cools us.

However Antarctic ice is further from the pole than is arctic ice, as a result it receives sunshine for more of the year and it receives sunshine at a higher angle.