Water that's usually frigid in October (like the East Siberian and Barents Seas) has been warmer,
so ice growth is slow.
Not exact matches
As I said long ago,» the evolutionary vigor of Mankind can wither away although it be surrounded by mountains of coal, oceans of petroleum and limitless stocks of corn; it can do
so as surely as in a desert of
ice, if Man should lose his impulse, or worse, develop a distaste for ever - increased
growth «in complexity and consciousness».
The
growth of Antarctic sea
ice in the winter exhibits more short - term ups and downs (seen as wiggles on the graphs charting the
growth) than Arctic sea
ice does, and
so the Antarctic maximum takes longer to emerge from the noise.
Fresher, colder water freezes more easily,
so this mechanism may contribute to the
growth in area of Antarctic sea
ice.
So you're stuck with a situation in which Winter
ice growth remains vigorous and heat losses to the atmosphere increase as the
ice recedes.
However, in the global mean, these changes sum to zero (or very close to it), and
so the global mean sensitivity to global mean forcings is huge (or even undefined) and not very useful to understanding the eventual
ice sheet
growth or carbon cycle feedbacks.
Orbital forcing causes
ice ages or ends them by redistributing incoming solar radiation over seasons and latitudes
so that
ice sheet
growth or decay is more or less favorable on a regional basis, with a resulting global average albedo feedback.)
In the autumns of 2007 and 2008, the rate of
ice production was very large because there was
so much open water and thin
ice — the rapid
growth is completely expected.
So NSIDC, Tamino, Nick Stokes, Steve Mosher, should prepare themselves for more years of no Arctic sea
ice melting and even Arctic sea
ice growth if AMO decides to turn negative.
It wasn't all bad: rivers like the Thames in London froze
so thickly they could accommodate
Ice Fairs; and it's said that the slow tree
growth induced by the cold gave the wood in Stradivarius violins their special timbre.
The fact that we hear
so much about the melting of the Arctic
ice caps and hear virtually nothing about the
growth of the Antarctic
ice caps is telling - global warmers aren't interested in data that doesn't support their politicized campaign against pollution.
For example, «there has been record
ice growth / loss in the Arctic / Antarctic
so far this year» I though that was a factoid, but the definition doesn't include it.
So despite the
growth in extent, the overall condition and resilience of the year - to - year
ice pack is still tenuous.
So, this past winter as the extreme and extended cold spell continued in Michigan and the mid-continent, I was noting the Great Lakes
ice growth in detail on both NOAA and the Canadian Ice Services websit
ice growth in detail on both NOAA and the Canadian
Ice Services websit
Ice Services websites.
97 % of people on the planet have been brainwashed to believe they need to go back to burning dung to power their laptop
so that we can slow down the
growth rate of plants and speed up the transition to a normal period of climate described as an
ice age.
'' Formulas such as this are empirical, meaning they are calculated only with observed data,
so they really are simplifications of the
ice growth processes.
Sea
ice conditions and glacier
ice growth and melt naturally integrate long term trends
so that «weather» doesn't matter
so much.
The things to consider are immense benefits of cheap energy that makes the developed world
so productive, fertilization of the atmosphere for agriculture, lowering fresh water requirements per unit
growth in agriculture, longer growing seasons, and less
ice / snow in general.
The point of this remark is that no one up to present date has conducted any analysis of this sort on the
ice core data, therefore my assertion that currently «you have no data of adequate quality from past proxies,
so the argument of «unprecedented»
growth can not be used» is perfectly valid and is true.