Reports are available which indicate a massive
melting of the arctic ice sheet in the 1920's and 30's, long before the era of global climate studies.
Last year a friend of mine, who is a skeptic, proposed that the
loss of arctic ice was just part of a 20 cycle.
One of the confusing issues that newbies run into is the distinction between the various
measures of arctic ice, including «area» vs «extent».
Is the overall, annual, heat flux into space greater for a
unit of arctic ice or for arctic sea water, in the same local?
If this melting really was an indicator of Anthropogenic Global Warming, why was there no increased melting
of the arctic ice in 1998, a year when atmospheric temperatures in the Northern hemisphere were indisputably higher than they were in either 2007 or 2008?
One potential analog for the future
evolution of the arctic ice pack comes from the work of Holland, Bitz and Tremblay (2006), based on the September extent from a seven - member ensemble of the Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3, Figure 3).
But he also noted, «There is some indication from the QuickScat data that 2nd and 3rd year ice has increased somewhat in the past couple of years which may imply not so linear
decline of arctic ice volume.»
They could have made a simple and impactful point by showing their
example of arctic ice melting, but instead opted to pelt the audience over the head with climate change talk that essentially states «what part of this are you idiots not getting?»
That this particular pond has come and gone does not change the underlying
crisis of arctic ice melt due to global warming and the geopolitical concerns raised by the newly opened shipping routes.
State Senator Jungbauer explained the
state of arctic ice, the nature of sea level rise and Greenlandâ $ ™ s ice cover in a breakout session.
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
By the way, because it takes a tremendous amount of heat to melt ice, melting
of arctic ice provides a natural thermostat for the planet, so temperature increase is not as high as it would be without ice.
I make no claim as to Rud's
interpretation of arctic ice in the 1940's but I have read his books and they are interesting and well written and researched
We must remember that data only goes back for 30 years which is but a short window into the naturalcyclic
nature of the arctic ice history.
Imagine a headline stating, «67,000
km2 of arctic ice melted yesterday an area almost the size of West Virginia».
both of these well - researched observations would seem to put a big chink in the anthropogenic global warming theory — certainly as it applies to melting
of the arctic ice cap.
GOAL 1: Examine the historical
evolution of the arctic ice - ocean system from 1948 to 2003 to understand the large - scale changes that have occurred in sea ice and the upper Arctic Ocean over this time period.
My sense is that before satellites, we got some
measurements of arctic ice extent from fixed observation stations and ship reports, but these were spotty and unreliable.
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.
Will Nitschke — «why was there no increased melting
of the arctic ice in 1998» — remember that the elevated global average temperature in 1998 was due to El Niño.
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.