Bering Strait may be global temperature stabilizer

Apr 10, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Satellite photo of the Bering Strait. Image: NASA.

(Phys.org) -- A diverse group of climate researchers has found after running computer simulations that the strait that separates North America and Russia might be serving as a global temperature stabilizer. This, they write in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is because when the strait is blocked, melting glacial freshwater in the Arctic Ocean can’t make its way to the Pacific, causing it to back up and eventually flow into the Atlantic, disturbing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and eventually air temperatures.

The team began with evidence of wildly fluctuating temperature extremes in the northern hemisphere that occurred during a portion of the last big Ice Age. During that time, temperatures rose and fell in Greenland as much as 10°C over just a period of a few years. This, the team theorized, happened because glaciers in the northern hemisphere grew to such a size that ocean levels dropped sufficiently to cause a land bridge to appear between Siberia and Alaska, cutting off flow between the Arctic and Pacific oceans.

To find out if their theory was correct, they turned to a heavy-duty global computer simulation where they first ran data to show conditions with a land bridge in place cutting off the Pacific Ocean from the Arctic, and then with the Strait open as it is today. Their simulation backed up their theory which goes like this: When a land bridge appears, cold fresh water from melting glaciers is unable to flow into the Pacific, so instead, it overflows into the Atlantic Ocean. And that creates a problem because normally the AMOC causes cycling of warm water from the south to flow north, and cold water from the north to flow south. The engine for this system is cold salt laden water in the north sinking beneath incoming warm water. If the cold water in the north is fresh, as it would be if it were coming from the melted glaciers, then it wouldn’t sink and the whole AMOC system would stop. And if it stopped, air temperatures could change quickly. The computer simulation actually showed the same temperature fluctuations over Greenland as researchers have found, via core ice samples, occurred the last time the Strait closed during the last Ice Age.

In contrast, the computer simulation showed much more stable temperatures in the absence of a land bridge allowing glacial melt to flow into the Pacific Ocean. This the team concludes, means we don’t have to worry about wildly fluctuating temperatures any time soon, so long as the Strait remains open, which virtually everyone agrees will be the case for the foreseeable future as global warming is expected to lead to warmer water and rising ocean levels.

Explore further: Lava on Hawaii continues moving through vacant lot

More information: Role of the Bering Strait on the hysteresis of the ocean conveyor belt circulation and glacial climate stability, PNAS, Published online before print April 9, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116014109

Abstract
Abrupt climate transitions, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, occurred frequently during the last glacial period, specifically from 80–11 thousand years before present, but were nearly absent during interglacial periods and the early stages of glacial periods, when major ice-sheets were still forming. Here we show, with a fully coupled state-of-the-art climate model, that closing the Bering Strait and preventing its throughflow between the Pacific and Arctic Oceans during the glacial period can lead to the emergence of stronger hysteresis behavior of the ocean conveyor belt circulation to create conditions that are conducive to triggering abrupt climate transitions. Hence, it is argued that even for greenhouse warming, abrupt climate transitions similar to those in the last glacial time are unlikely to occur as the Bering Strait remains open.

Related Stories

Understanding ocean climate

Dec 10, 2009

High-resolution computer simulations performed by scientists at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) are helping to understand the inflow of North Atlantic water to the Arctic Ocean and how ...

Atlantic to Pacific feedback discovered

Feb 22, 2007

French scientists say an exchange of water vapor from the Atlantic to the Pacific might be an important feedback mechanism for abrupt climatic changes.

Recommended for you

NASA sees Tropical Storm Kalmaegi weakening over Vietnam

5 hours ago

Tropical Storm Kalmaegi made landfall on September 17 near the border of Vietnam and China and moved inland. Soon after the landfall as a typhoon, NASA's Terra satellite passed overhead and captured an image ...

NASA air campaigns focus on Arctic climate impacts

6 hours ago

Over the past few decades, average global temperatures have been on the rise, and this warming is happening two to three times faster in the Arctic. As the region's summer comes to a close, NASA is hard at ...

NASA image: Smoke wafts over the Selway Valley in Idaho

6 hours ago

Smoke from the fires in the Selway Complex is wafting into the Selway River valley in this image taken by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard the Terra satellite on September ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
If I had access to that simulation, I would have plugged in sea levels app. 6 inches higher and an ice free arctic ocean to see how that scenario played out. Just in case something like this happens before the year 2050.....
Husky
3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
we might even consider to deepen and/or widen the Bering Strait to faccillitate the flow of cold water in the pacific should global temperatures rise, or to disrupt an el nino, one could consider mega-engineered lock gates to dynamically control the circulation, dr evil would be the proud owner of the device....
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 10, 2012
Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

"the winter of 2011-2012 has seen the second highest ice extent in the satellite record for the Bering Sea region, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)."

http://www.ourama...age.html
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


This explains fully what is going on with artic ice. I do not dispute your post. Here's why.

http://earthobser...id=77270
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2012
"Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today." I wonder what Parker's point is. If you look at the graph he showed - it is a 34 year graph - showing a steady downward trend. Just put a ruler on the 22 m.sq km line to see how persistent the trend is. The anti science group often chide us not to take data sub sets - and try extrapolating them to form any broader conclusions. But then Parker cites one day of data - that is part of a 34 year downward trend - and then cites an article that says " perennial ice extent has been shrinking at a rate of 12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of 13.5 percent per decade." Again - I wonder what Parker's point is!!!
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
"Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today." I wonder what Parker's point is. If you look at the graph he showed - it is a 34 year graph - showing a steady downward trend. Just put a ruler on the 22 m.sq km line to see how persistent the trend is. The anti science group often chide us not to take data sub sets - and try extrapolating them to form any broader conclusions. Now here is a quote from the article referenced by rubberman " perennial ice extent has been shrinking at a rate of 12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of 13.5 percent per decade." Again - I wonder what Parker's point is!!! The Bering sea ice increased due to " winds that have pushed ice toward the narrow, shallow strait, where it piles up."
djr
4 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
apologies for the double post - I mixed up the articles on my first post - and was trying to edit - it think I ran out of time.
rubberman
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2012
Parker believes that the accumulation of seasonal ice is somehow meaningful, it is for reasons other than what he believes, those reasons are laid out in the link I posted. I was curious to see if he got it.....
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 10, 2012
If you look at the graph he showed - it is a 34 year graph - showing a steady downward trend.


Upward for the Antarctic.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

What does that tell you? What part of the AGW scare stories predict more sea ice in the southern hemisphere?

As I've said before, the Arctic warmed up in the 20s/30s/40s and cooled off again. It is cyclic and wind patterns determine much of the changes.

And what part of "slightly above normal" makes people trot out scare stories.

2007 was supposed to portend the end of the world. Now sea ice is normal.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
"Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today." I wonder what Parker's point is. If you look at the graph he showed - it is a 34 year graph - showing a steady downward trend. Just put a ruler on the 22 m.sq km line to see how persistent the trend is. The anti science group often chide us not to take data sub sets - and try extrapolating them to form any broader conclusions. Now here is a quote from the article referenced by rubberman " perennial ice extent has been shrinking at a rate of 12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of 13.5 percent per decade." Again - I wonder what Parker's point is!!! The Bering sea ice increased due to " winds that have pushed ice toward the narrow, shallow strait, where it piles up."


Just like a few people were on the verge of a psychotic break the other day when we had a warm March?
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2012
"Upward for the Antarctic." Interesting isn't it - Parker again takes a subset of data - and quotes it as in some way meaningful. However - the graph he himself previously referenced was the total data set - and I repeat - shows a steady downward trend over 34 years. You judge - who is cherry picking data?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
"Just like a few people were on the verge of a psychotic break the other day when we had a warm March?" Many people over react to subsets of data. There were signs all over the capitol steps a couple of years ago when there was an unusual snow storm - they claimed the snow storm disproved global warming - oh well! What is important is the facts. This is an interesting article talking about how extreme March was in N. America http://theenergyc...g-loade- but of course it has to be kept in context - areas of Europe had an unusually cold winter spell.
Lurker2358
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2012
Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


Yeah, you just forgot to mention that average sea ice thickness in the Arctic is just about 40% less than it was in 2005, and probably only about 25% to 30% of what it was in the 1990's.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2012
"Parker again takes a subset of data


Antarctic is half the sea ice. In a different part of the world.

Which part of the AGW scam predicted more sea ice int he Antarctic, and what was their reasoning?
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2012
Yeah, you just forgot to mention that average sea ice thickness in the Arctic is just about 40% less than it was in 2005, and probably only about 25% to 30% of what it was in the 1990's.


There are many hysterical people who repeat the above info. But none of them tell you what I tell you about the Antarctic.

Why should I repeat the hysteria you hear every day when Arctic Sea Ice is below normal ... and then they suddenly go quiet when it returns to the long term average.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
"Parker again takes a subset of data


Antarctic is half the sea ice. In a different part of the world.

Which part of the AGW scam predicted more sea ice int he Antarctic, and what was their reasoning?


whenever glaciers calve into the water it increases sea ice, but the total amount of ice on land and sea has gone down due to net melting.

Pretty obvious stuff.
Lurker2358
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
Why should I repeat the hysteria you hear every day when Arctic Sea Ice is below normal ... and then they suddenly go quiet when it returns to the long term average.


Volume, extent, and area are not the same thing.

Yesterday, the arctic sea ice AREA was 443,000km below the 1979-2008 mean.

For March, the Arctic Sea Ice thickness averaged about 40% less than the 33 years average.

The March average concentration anomaly for the Arctic was -500,000km.

And for the Antarctic it was plus 300,000km.

if you add those together, it was -200,000km for the globe.

ccr5Delta32
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012

But none of them tell you what I tell you about the Antarctic.


The mass balance observations clearly do not support your conclusion that AGW is a "SCAM"
http://www.nasa.g...full.jpg
Which part of AGW predicted some more seasonal sea ice ? . I'm not aware any that did but So What ?
These are not predictions but observations that show an undeniable loss of ice mass
If you feel it necessary to hold on to a little sea ice to maintain your position ,be my gust ! .
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (24) Apr 10, 2012
The only reason we are still relatively "stable" in terms of climate... is because of the ice in russia, greenland etc.
Once those run out, we will burn alive.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
Yeah, you just forgot to mention that average sea ice thickness in the Arctic is just about 40% less than it was in 2005, and probably only about 25% to 30% of what it was in the 1990's.


There are many hysterical people who repeat the above info. But none of them tell you what I tell you about the Antarctic.

Why should I repeat the hysteria you hear every day when Arctic Sea Ice is below normal ... and then they suddenly go quiet when it returns to the long term average.


I knew the info. in the link I posted was a little over your head...sorry if trying to understand gave you a headache.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2012
whenever glaciers calve into the water it increases sea ice


No. Calving glaciers mean growing glaciers.

Sea Ice is not the same thing.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012

The mass balance observations clearly do not support your conclusion that AGW is a "SCAM"


"A paper on Greenland's temperature record shows that the warmest year on record was 1941 while the warmest decades were the 1930s and 1940s. "

http://www.cru.ue...2006.pdf

CRU as in Phil Jones as in one of the high priests of the AGW religion.

Greenland Ice Sheet = 2,850,000 cubic kilometres

The scaremongers say Greenland is losing 200 cubic km per year.

1425 years to lose 10% of its mass.

As for sea level. Greenland sits in a bowl most of which is below sea level.

Lurker2358
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
whenever glaciers calve into the water it increases sea ice


No. Calving glaciers mean growing glaciers.


BS.

Melting glaciers calve and fall in the ocean.

Sea Ice is not the same thing.


An iceberg is ice floating in the sea.

When they calculate sea ice area from a satellite, you generally can't tell the difference for smaller ones.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012
The mass balance observations ...


... for Antarctica are disappointingly dishonest.

Quite clearly the lines since 2002 are drawn through different times in the year, instead of the same time each year.

Antarctica is actually cooling for the last 30 years.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
The mass balance observations clearly do not support your conclusion that AGW is a "SCAM" Response - "A paper on Greenland's temperature record shows that the warmest year on record was 1941". Do you see the slight of hand ladies and gentlemen? - I don't like that answer - quick distract the audience - and throw their attention to something on the other side of the stage. Just keep the target moving - except it is pretty easy to see through the trick when you understand the technique.
Lurker2358
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
Greenland Ice Sheet = 2,850,000 cubic kilometres

The scaremongers say Greenland is losing 200 cubic km per year.

1425 years to lose 10% of its mass.


But you forgot to take into account the cumulative, exponential nature of the melting. A linear trend simply does not meet the observations.

More like 14% to 29% will melt by 2100...

Observations is that average annual net melting is, on average, about 10% to 15% larger each year than the previous year. this means the rate of net annual melting doubles about every 5 to 7 years or so, which an article on Physorg even explained these findings a few months ago, which I had already proven by maths before I ever read it...

Greenland just now started net melting about 30 years ago.

As for sea level. Greenland sits in a bowl most of which is below sea level.


Have you ever heard of Isostatic Rebound?

Greenland rebounds by about 1 inch for every 5 or 6 inches of ice that melts.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012

Quite clearly the lines since 2002 are drawn through different times in the year, instead of the same time each year.

Antarctica is actually cooling for the last 30 years.


"Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year."

http://www.scienc...98.short
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012

But you forgot to take into account the cumulative, exponential nature of the melting.


Exponential? Very funny.

The mass balance instruments are notoriously inaccurate.

GRACE measurements were totally off in Asia and they had to retract them.

"The GIC rate for 2003 to 2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period2. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4.20Gtyr1 for 2003 to 2010, compared with 47 to 55 Gt per yr in previously published estimates"

http://www.nature...847.html

All previous numbers were probably overestimating losses.

And I'm sure they will be humiliated again soon and their current measurements will turn out to be bogus.

10x too high.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2012

Greenland rebounds by about 1 inch for every 5 or 6 inches of ice that melts.


" 2,100,000 km3 of the grounded ice in Antarctica is below sea level and would be replaced by water. [if it ever melted]

The isostatic rebound lags behind the removal of the ice (by thousands of years).

Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
I wasn't using Grace estimates.

I was using survey data from a European expedition.
ccr5Delta32
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012


The scaremongers say Greenland is losing 200 cubic km per year.


No observations say
GRACE satellites http://www.nasa.g...full.jpg

1425 years to lose 10% of its mass.


Assuming a linear and not accelerated melting ,the latter which also is observed

As for sea level. Greenland sits in a bowl most of which is below sea level.


True, 300m in parts due it's believed in the "religion" of geology to the weight of the ice mass above and should rise in time .
Interesting fact just like antarctic sea ice



NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012

I was using survey data from a European expedition.


Oh. I can't demolish without references.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012
Grace says ...


The Nature paper says GRACE was off by at least 30%

"Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 plus/minus 30 Gtyr"

It could be as low as 118.

Trivial. I'm sure melting was much higher in the 1940 period when Greenland temperatures were much higher than today.

I suspect Antarctica is growing as much as Greenland is losing in the same way sea ice balances out.
runrig
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
Which part of the AGW scam predicted more sea ice int he Antarctic, and what was their reasoning?


There doesn't have to have been a prior "prediction" as you put it - nor does there have to be any "reasoning" for there not being. Science takes faltering steps of prediction/observation and may well/often doesn't get it in one go. You show just another example of the simplistic denialist behaviour of equating snow/ice extent/quantity with colder temperatures. Please read this ...

http://news.natio...ronment/

The two environmments of the Arctic and Antactic are VERY different places.

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012

There doesn't have to have been a prior "prediction" as you put it - nor does there have to be any "reasoning" for there not being.


I agree that reasoning is absent from most of AGW.

The trouble with AGW is that they do make predictions and then when the opposite happens they make other predictions.

"Children Will NEVER know what snow is"

And then there is record snow in the UK and Eurupe and suddenly the AGW advocates are claiming warmer = cold and warm = more snow.

Sad.

But, back to the point. Which AGW cult leader predicted the end of the world because there was less ice in the Arctic but never, ever mentioned that more ice in the Antarctic was occurring?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2012
"Oh. I can't demolish without references." The objective is exposed - not the search for knowledge, not an interest in learning from the science, simply the objective to demolish the opposition - facts be damned.
NotParker
2.4 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2012
"Oh. I can't demolish without references." The objective is exposed - not the search for knowledge, not an interest in learning from the science, simply the objective to demolish the opposition - facts be damned.


Are you suggesting that blindly accepting people proclamations is "good science"?

You people never accept what I say, so I go out and produce references and more often than not make you look silly.

AGW cult members seem horrified that people can have a well referenced point of view that contradicts the pronouncements from their cult leaders.

PS Which AGW cult members posting on this site have EVER voluntarily noted that Antarctic ice is above average?
Lurker2358
4 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
Greenland rising up to 1 inch per year due to isostatic rebound:

http://www.livesc...lts.html

Greenland melt rates discussion puts annual loss at 300 to 400 gigatonnes per year (a gigatonne of ice is about 1 cubic kilometer):

http://www.grinzo...melting/

Read the entire article, and bear in mind that this article is already about 2.5 years old.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
Parker asked - Which AGW cult members posting on this site have EVER voluntarily noted that Antarctic ice is above average? This quote is taken from a post on this very thread from Lurker - "And for the Antarctic it was plus 300,000km." But the interesting line for me is when Parker says "You people never accept what I say" "You people" - interesting terminology - I guess he means anyone who is interested in the science being presented in the articles - vs any one who's objective is to "demolish" the opposition. It is a hard process to watch.

_ilbud
4 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
What's with the microbrain and his oil company nonsense? He doesn't even know what the article said never mind any of the nonsense he's spouting.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2012

Read the entire article, and bear in mind that this article is already about 2.5 years old.


And has been refuted.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2012
hich AGW cult members posting on this site have EVER voluntarily noted that Antarctic ice is above average? This quote is taken from a post on this very thread from Lurker


Long after I mentioned it.

And then he claimed -200,000km for globe.

Cryosphere has it 452,000km for SH and -443,000 for NH.

Global 19,000

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Gaba
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
I've taken the stand to not acknowledge people like Parker here by issuing a reply to any of their comments. It only gives his ignorance more importance and since nothing will ever stop him from spouting his nonsense, it's wasted time. Some people are just not worth it.
Lurker2358
5 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
And then he claimed -200,000km for globe.

Cryosphere has it 452,000km for SH and -443,000 for NH.

Global 19,000

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png



I got my number here.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
I've taken the stand to not acknowledge people like Parker here by issuing a reply to any of their comments. It only gives his ignorance more importance and since nothing will ever stop him from spouting his nonsense, it's wasted time. Some people are just not worth it.


People like Al Gore and David Suzuki refuse to debate too. They don't like their religion questioned.
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
People like Al Gore...
There is a big difference between you and Al Gore. Al Gore actually won a Nobel Prize. You have not.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
This explains fully what is going on with artic ice. I do not dispute your post. Here's why.


I'd suggest the age of the ice isn't as important as its thickness. It looks to me like the Arctic sea ice is a bit thicker now than it was in 1980:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
Global Sea Ice is slightly above normal today.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


Yeah, you just forgot to mention that average sea ice thickness in the Arctic is just about 40% less than it was in 2005, and probably only about 25% to 30% of what it was in the 1990's.
That's not true:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2012
When they calculate sea ice area from a satellite, you generally can't tell the difference for smaller ones.
Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images.

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2012
@NotParker
PS Which AGW cult members posting on this site have EVER voluntarily noted that Antarctic ice is above average?
I wish I could rate you a "100" just for that.

djr
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2012
That's not true:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012

Your reference does not address the thickness of the ice. This reference indicates an average thinning of 40% - comparing 1960's to 1990's. http://imb.crrel....kcli.htm
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
That's not true:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012/
Your reference does not address the thickness of the ice. This reference indicates an average thinning of 40% - comparing 1960's to 1990's. http://imb.crrel....kcli.htm Sure, but concentration is indicative. It's not like it concentrates around the thinnest area.

But, the 2007 meltdown had a profound effect on the age of, and thickness of the ice, which I think will linger with us for some time.

Here's a paper from 2007 which explains the situation:

http://www.agu.or...43.shtml

Because of this melt, the data is skewed toward thinness as, "researchers look at ice age data as one indicator of Arctic sea ice thickness."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

So, good sea ice thickness data is hard to come by.

So, good sea ice thickness data is hard to come by.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2012
That's not true:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2012/
Your reference does not address the thickness of the ice. This reference indicates an average thinning of 40% - comparing 1960's to 1990's. http://imb.crrel....kcli.htm
Sure, but concentration is indicative. It's not like it concentrates around the thinnest area.

But, the 2007 meltdown had a profound effect on the age of, and thickness of the ice, which I think will linger with us for some time.

Here's a paper from 2007 which explains the situation:

http://www.agu.or...43.shtml

Because of this melt, the data is skewed toward thinness as, "researchers look at ice age data as one indicator of Arctic sea ice thickness."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

So, good sea ice thickness data is hard to come by.

rubberman
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
No it isn't. I'll repost since we seem to like going in circles.

http://earthobser...id=77270

"So, good sea ice thickness data is hard to come by."

I'll choose to take the NASA data at face value....
Lurker2358
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Hey, what happened to that meltdown in the Artic that supposedly happened 50 or 100 years ago or whenever?

How is it there's no record for that alleged meltdown photo with the Submarine?

http://arctic.atm...2010.png

But this graph illustrates something you skeptics need to understand.

We know winter and Spring ice does not follow the global warming trend as strongly as Summer and Autumn ice. Duh. there's a reason for that, it's because the arctic circle is in perpetual darkness or nearly perpetual during the shortest days of the year.

For this reason, there is an assymptote associated winter and spring melt due to darkness. However, pumping more CO2 and other GHG into the atmosphere shifts this assymptote downwards gradually over several years.

The result of this is that over the long term, temperature and melt are directly related to the amount of GHG in the atmosphere.

A few seasonal or monthly anomalies don't change that fact.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
No it isn't. I'll repost since we seem to like going in circles.

http://earthobser...id=77270

"So, good sea ice thickness data is hard to come by."

I'll choose to take the NASA data at face value....
Notice the title of that is: "Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing" As I said, sea ice age is being confused with thickness. They do not necessarily correlate.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2012
Hey, what happened to that meltdown in the Artic that supposedly happened 50 or 100 years ago or whenever?

How is it there's no record for that alleged meltdown ...


Lack of satellites.

But, Sea Surface Temperature data from the Arctic shows a warming from about -.5C to .5C from 1905/10 to 1940 or so.

http://i30.tinypi...b3tf.jpg
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2012
I have been following this argument for more than a decade. It has become utterly clear to me that people who do not think global warming is real will never accept its reality, no matter how much additional evidence piles up to support it. They are like the Luddites that refused for centuries to believe that the earth is round, and the millions who think that the earth is less than 9000 years old, and that evolution is just a theory.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2012
They are like the Luddites that refused for centuries to believe that the earth is round


"The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested often by destroying mechanized looms against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution"

You and VD are modern day luddites who hate the advances of our modern fossil fuel economy.
Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2012
Notpark, how do you explain the Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events which occurred frequently during the last glacial period?

That is the question.

kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (22) Apr 15, 2012
You and VD are modern day luddites who hate the advances of our modern fossil fuel economy.

advances into depletion and pollution?