Sentences with phrase «then sea ice extent»

Since then sea ice extent has become much more stable — though still low.

Not exact matches

They then used the satellite record of Arctic sea ice extent to calculate the rates of sea ice loss and then projected those rates into the future, to estimate how much more the sea ice cover may shrink in approximately three polar bear generations, or 35 years.

Since then, its ten instruments have supplied data on environmental factors such as air quality, the extent of Arctic sea ice and oil spills.

The monthly mean of the September sea ice extent can then only be determined in October.

Just look at the plots taken from CMIP4 and CMIP5 models when they are compared with measured extents from NSIDC data then tell us where you would place your bet for a summer free of sea ice.

Since then, anthropogenic influence has also been identified in a range of other climate variables, such as ocean heat content, atmospheric pressure and sea ice extent, thereby contributing further evidence of an anthropogenic influence on climate, and improving confidence in climate models.

Then in 2002, June sea ice extent was the lowest ever recorded.

We see that the arctic sea ice extent has increased since then, currently up around the 2004 levels, so we're told that it's not actually the area, it's the thickness and what birthday it's celebrated.

Just look at the plots taken from CMIP4 and CMIP5 models when they are compared with measured extents from NSIDC data then tell us where you would place your bet for a summer free of sea ice.

This then rises to the sea surface enhancing the extent of freezing pack ice.

If we see an ice free september sea ice extent in the next few years then I think I will have to concede that the Anthropogenic portion is higher than I previously anticipated.

Interesting you cut - off total ice extents at 2012, especially since the total extent of Arctic sea ice has actually increased since then, and in fact the Antarctic ice extents are at a RECORD MAXIMUM — so things aren't always what they appear to be in a very complex system known as global climate.

If you agree with me that 4 years is too short term to be meaningful for a trend of arctic sea ice extent then why are you bothering me with it?

Earth Warms, Oceans warm, Sea Ice Thaws, Snowfall increases, Ice volume increases, Ice advances, Earth Cools, Oceans cool, Sea Ice freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth WarIce Thaws, Snowfall increases, Ice volume increases, Ice advances, Earth Cools, Oceans cool, Sea Ice freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth WarIce volume increases, Ice advances, Earth Cools, Oceans cool, Sea Ice freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth WarIce advances, Earth Cools, Oceans cool, Sea Ice freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth WarIce freezes, Snowfall decreases, Ice volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth WarIce volume and then ice extent decreases, Earth Warice extent decreases, Earth Warms.

We'll see very soon, if Wyatt is correct then no global temperature record nor a record low sea ice extent, area or volume within the next year.

After a reaching its maximum extent unusually early and then following a period of relatively unchanging overall extent, Antarctic sea ice extent started to decline in earnest.

We compared 23,000 days of observations in those records with late twentieth - century observations, and concluded that the extent of the sea ice at the end of winter was pretty much the same in the nineteenth and late twentieth century, but that the end - of - summer Arctic sea ice retreat is greater today than it was then.

Then we ran NSIDC's September sea ice extent Google Earth file (downloaded from here), clicked play to let the video run through once (you need to do this to let Google Earth load the images), and then we scrolled the time bar back to 1979 (the date at the top says «1/1979», but the NSIDC file only shows September values, so it actually means 9/19Then we ran NSIDC's September sea ice extent Google Earth file (downloaded from here), clicked play to let the video run through once (you need to do this to let Google Earth load the images), and then we scrolled the time bar back to 1979 (the date at the top says «1/1979», but the NSIDC file only shows September values, so it actually means 9/19then we scrolled the time bar back to 1979 (the date at the top says «1/1979», but the NSIDC file only shows September values, so it actually means 9/1979).

So, the fact that the Arctic sea ice extent seems to have been decreasing since then is not an indicator of «unusual and dramatic melting of the Arctic».

If the claim that the recent Arctic melting is unusual and due to man - made global warming were true, then this would mean that the sea ice extent in September 1979 was relatively low (September being the month of minimum sea ice in the Arctic).

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg And then explain why it is that Arctic sea ice is only slightly lower now than it was during the LIA, and why nearly all of the last several thousand years had much lower sea ice extent than now.

If this is correct, then the fact that the sea ice extent has been «declining since records began» (in 1979) doesn't mean that recent trends are unusual.

Not only that, but if rising CO2 levels were responsible for the decline of sea ice and implied effects on polar bears since 1979 (when CO2 levels were around 340 ppm), why has spring ice extent been so variable since 1989 (when the first big decline occurred) but so little changed overall since then?

Then, in the beginning days of February, the Arctic sea ice extent and area both broke records again, as the entire global sea ice area entered the second - lowest range ever to have been recorded.

If the increasing number of sunspots would bring the Arctic index into «a positive phase» as well, then temperature isolation of the High North would in the winters months improve compared to recent years [which brought temperature records over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean — and a smallest ice extent last winter], perhaps allowing for some extra sea ice recovery.

To be consistent with the validating sea ice extent index from NSIDC, if possible, please first compute the average sea ice concentration for the month and then compute the extent as the sum of cell areas > 15 %.

And then explain why temperature based proxies to calculate the sea ice extent (Alekseev) or adjust reconstructions (Conolly) are good enough.

this seems to be the third time that we have warmer months near a conference although it might have been on different data sets.the sea ice extent was headed back to median a couple of years ago and then was conveniently hijacked.

If yes, and there is not an additional influx of warmer water coming in from the Bering Strait, then one can expect sea ice extent to be above or at the median for the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait areas in the futusea ice extent to be above or at the median for the Chukchi Sea and Bering Strait areas in the futuSea and Bering Strait areas in the future.

-- First we increase the greenhouse gases — then that causes warming in the atmosphere and oceans — as the oceans warm up, they evaporate more H2O — more moisture in the air means more precipitation (rain, snow)-- the southern hemisphere is essentially lots of water and a really big ice cube in the middle called Antarctica — land ice is different than sea ice — climate models indicated that more snowfall would cause increases in the frozen H2O — climate models indicated that there would be initial increases in sea ice extent — observations confirm the indications and expectations that precipitation is increasing, calving rates are accelerating and sea ice extent is increasing.

For example, the argument that follows very substantially from the extent of continental shelf that there is within the Arctic Basin and, therefore, the particular relationship that warming on that relatively shallow sea has on trapped methane - for example, the emergence of methane plumes in that continental shelf, apparently in quite an anomalous way - leading possibly to the idea that there may be either tipping points there or catastrophic feedback mechanisms there, which could then have other effects on things, such as more stabilised caps like the Greenland ice cap and so on.

That study showed sea ice extent crashing by two thirds by the 2030s and then collapsing to near - zero shortly thereafter — unless we cut global GHG emissions about 60 % to 70 % almost immediately and have further cuts after that, an implausible assumption the authors never spelled out clearly (as I explain here).

That is because the extent of sea ice in early summer and late fall means little to polar bears, in part because most bears eat very little then, even if they are on the ice.