Reduced sea ice disturbs balance of greenhouse gases

Feb 18, 2013

(Phys.org)—The widespread reduction in Arctic sea ice is causing significant changes to the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is shown in a new study conducted by researchers from Lund University in Sweden, among others.

According to the study, the melting of in the Arctic has a tangible impact on the balance of in this region, both in terms of uptake and release. The researchers have studied the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane both in the and in the .

"Changes in the balance of greenhouse gases can have major consequences because, globally, plants and the oceans absorb around half of the carbon dioxide that humans release into the air through the use of . If the Arctic component of this buffer changes, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", says Dr Frans-Jan Parmentier, a researcher at Lund University, Sweden.

He has carried out the research study together with a number of colleagues both from Lund University and from Denmark, Greenland, Canada and the USA. The researchers observed that a vicious circle is formed when the sea ice melts. Normally, the white ice reflects sunlight, which then bounces out into space, but when the sea-ice cover shrinks, the amount of sunlight reflected is also reduced. Instead, a larger proportion is absorbed by the surface of the ocean, which causes warming that contributes to the rise in around the Arctic.

On the one hand, the rising temperatures make vegetation grow more vigorously and therefore more carbon dioxide is taken up, which is a positive effect. On the other hand, the same temperature rise means that more carbon dioxide and methane are released from the soil, which has a strong negative impact on the climate, according to Dr Frans-Jan Parmentier.

In addition to the changes on land, the present study shows that there are a number of uncertainties surrounding the effects of the melting ice on the amount of greenhouse gases exchanged by the ocean through natural processes. Many of these marine processes are poorly understood in this context.

"We know very little about how the shrinking sea ice cover disturbs the balance of greenhouse gases in the sea in the long term", says Dr Parmentier.

The article has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Explore further: New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

More information: Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1784

Related Stories

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

Mar 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Resolving the paradox of the Antarctic sea ice

Aug 16, 2010

While Arctic sea ice has been diminishing in recent decades, the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing slightly. Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology provide an explanation for the seeming paradox ...

Recommended for you

Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean

1 hour ago

As the climate warms and sea ice retreats, the North is changing. An ice-covered expanse now has a season of increasingly open water which is predicted to extend across the whole Arctic Ocean before the middle ...

New research reveals Pele is powerful, even in the sky

7 hours ago

One might assume that a tropical storm moving through volcanic smog (vog) would sweep up the tainted air and march on, unchanged. However, a recent study from atmospheric scientists at the University of Hawai'i ...

Image: Wildfires continue near Yellowknife, Canada

7 hours ago

The wildfires that have been plaguing the Northern Territories in Canada and have sent smoke drifting down to the Great Lakes in the U.S. continue on. NASA's Aqua satellite collected this natural-color image ...

Excavated ship traced to Colonial-era Philadelphia

8 hours ago

Four years ago this month, archeologists monitoring the excavation of the former World Trade Center site uncovered a ghostly surprise: the bones of an ancient sailing ship. Tree-ring scientists at Columbia ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (28) Feb 18, 2013
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Feb 18, 2013
Vegetation in the arctic controls the climate? What vegetation?!
ahaveland
4.3 / 5 (19) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker, your statement is a misleading lie.
This is the real state of the Arctic - it is in a freefall terminal decline:
http://thinkprogr...llapsed/

Antarctic ice is increasing is happening precisely because of warming, like rats leaving a sinking ship, ice is leaving the continent, and higher winds are increasing calving and pushing the ice out to increase extent.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.

Scream at the data, not the messenger: current global sea ice extent anomaly (divergence from the historical average) = 0:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
LariAnn
4 / 5 (21) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker is not a messenger, he is an opinionated, fearful individual who seems to feel that denying data equals eliminating data. NikFromNYC, thanks for posting DATA instead of opinion, except that the data also show a trend towards greater anomalies over time towards decreased global sea ice. CURRENT global sea ice extent anomaly does = 0 but as this year (2013) progresses, check that chart again. The data also show that daily sea ice area is deviating from the mean (starting around 2001) increasingly towards a decrease in daily sea ice area.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker is not a messenger, he is an opinionated, fearful individual.../q]

Fear is a healthy response to threats of artificial energy rationing and the bombing of school children by their teachers in typical climate activist videos such as this one:

http://www.youtub...CH-Xc0co

Or the Greenpeace attempt to turn children into the Unabomber, here:

http://www.youtub...875_rv1s
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.

Scream at the data, not the messenger: current global sea ice extent anomaly (divergence from the historical average) = 0:

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


Arctic sea-ice is steadily declining. Currently it has an abnormally high proportion of young ( 1 season ) ice, and therefore highly susceptible to melt later in the summer.
A recent study....

http://www.nerc.a...onsent=A
maowcat
3.4 / 5 (20) Feb 18, 2013
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.


What a moron not only is this a lie, it just shows how stupid and in denial you are of climate change. Do you also believe our solar cycles are causing climate change too? Please pull your head out of your anus good sir.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (27) Feb 18, 2013
"Moron, lie, stupid, denial, anus." The way Climatology resembles Scientology I pointed out in a single poster graphic a couple years ago that mentions "deniers of natural climate change":

http://s18.postim...mage.jpg

P.S. "LariAnn" is a man.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (23) Feb 18, 2013
NotParker, your statement is an absolute flatout lie.

Scream at the data, not the messenger: current global sea ice extent anomaly (divergence from the historical average) = 0:

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


Note that this chart begins in 1979 and that the 70s were so cold that the climate "scientists" were claiming that this was the start of a new ice age. Most claims of catastrophic sea ice melting are based on levels from the 70s.
LariAnn
4.1 / 5 (23) Feb 18, 2013
P.S. "LariAnn" is a man.


LariAnn is transgender, and what bearing does this fact have on the current discussion, or any other discussion, unless it is in reference to gender variance or transgender issues?

Too bad NikfromNYC has nothing else of value to share so has to bring in information irrelevant to the discussion in hopes of swaying people who may not be focused on the TOPIC and DATA being discussed.
Bob_Wallace
4.1 / 5 (23) Feb 18, 2013
Oh, for the FSM's sake. How often do we have to see that tired old "scientists predicting new ice age" myth repeated.

Cannot facts drive a stake in its heart? Or will the stupid linger on forever....

Fact is - the Arctic is now experiencing winter. It gets cold enough in the winter to from a layer of ice on most of the Arctic ocean. But each year that layer gets thinner and thinner.

It's so thin now that in the next very few years we are likely to see a day or more on which there is essentially no sea ice in the Arctic.

And in the following years the length of ice free water will lengthen. We could see a year round ice free Arctic Ocean before 2030.

That is going to play hell with our weather.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (23) Feb 18, 2013
Bob when the glaciers are covering Washington DC you will still be blaming it on CO2. Enjoy the warmth while you have it since the cold periods last a lot longer than the warm ones. A few degrees of warming will kill a lot less people than a few degrees of cooling. If there was such a thing as a CO2 "tipping point" the earth would have tipped millions of years ago.
Tangent2
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
I think this article was also hinting at the release of gases from the Permafrost melting, something that I had been commenting on in other articles of this nature that did not see the connection between the permafrost melt and the self reinforcing feedback loop that has started from the methane release.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (21) Feb 18, 2013
BTW an ice free arctic sea is quite a common occurrence. The north pole has been ice free many times. Since the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, the real problem is that man will run out fossil and suffer an economic collapse way before the earth cares one way or another.
MikPetter
5 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
The Arctic contains many vegetation types all of which can be effected by climate change. For those interested in the topic refer to CAVM. "The CAVM, published at 1:7,500,000 scale, is the first vegetation map and GIS of an entire global biome at a comparable resolution. The map provides a broad view of the vegetation of the whole Arctic through legend descriptions, photographs, lists of major syntaxonomic groups, and supplementary maps" http://www.arctic...emes/cp/
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
A perpetual liar, ParkerTard decides to continue his pattern.

"Global sea ice is normal" - ParkerTard

As the following graphic shows, Arctic sea ice EXTENT is around 600,000 square kilometers below normal for this time of year, 2.5 weeks away from the seasonal peak.

Arctic sea ice VOLUME on the other hand has completely collapsed as shown by the following graphic...

http://psc.apl.wa...ntV2.png

ParkerTard is a congenital and perpetual liar. I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
The arctic hasn't been ice free in at least the last 150,000 years.

"BTW an ice free arctic sea is quite a common occurrence." - MR166

However it was very common before the evolution land based plant and animal life.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
You have to remember that ParkerTard comes here to lie.

It is his business to lie.

Lying is what makes him happy.

Lying is his life.

"What a moron not only is this a lie, it just shows how stupid and in denial you are of climate change." - Maowcat

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (16) Feb 18, 2013
Arcitic prarie, litchen, and aquatic plant life.

"What vegetation?!" - NikkieTard

Poor, ignorant Nikkie.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
NikkieTard is opposed to teachincg children the science of climate change, just as it is opposed to the teaching of evolution or cosmology.

All three violate Conservative Ideology.

"Or the Greenpeace attempt to turn children into the Unabomber, here:" - NikkieTard
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.


Global = Arctic plus Antarctic

Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
its state is normal thanks to record levels
It sounds like the oxymoron, doesn't it? IMO it supports the geothermal theory of global warming, in which most of heat comes from decay of radioactive potassium inside of marine water. The main portion of heat during global warming therefore comes from water - not from atmosphere.
borc
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2013
If there was such a thing as a CO2 "tipping point" the earth would have tipped millions of years ago.

It did. many times. See Permian extinction as a primary example.
The current theory is that there was an enormous vulcan event on current arctic landmass. (it was more temperate then. much more south, nearer the equator) This vulcanism increased temperatures by an estimated 5 degrees celcius over a few thousand years (max).
As the temperature rose obviously ice melted. There wer vast deposits of frozen methane gas locked on the bottoms of the oceans and in ice. the vulcanism killed a good chunk of land animals.
the methane released into the atmosphere and the oceans causing massive ocean acidification killing over 90% of sea life. that methane was released into the air where it warmed another 5 degrees killing the rest of the land animals.
after about 80,000 years something around 95% of life on the planet had died.
It took millions of years to recover.
borc
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
oh btw the intiiating event of the permian extinction was the vulcanism as i said before. it released enormous billions of tons of CO2. the whole thing started by co2 release, and 95 or so % of all life died.

On another note, one thing I never ever hear about in any articles is the effect of increased precipitation when sea ice melts and temperatures increase.
Warmer air can hold more h2o which means more precipitation which (in the arctic/antarctic) means increased ice sheets. This effect is, of course, limited and I am in no way suggesting it counters CO2 (etc), but it does have some regulatory force on the local climate. I just wonder exactly HOW MUCH.
Another curiosity is the effect of contrails. Contrails are extremely high white clouds that trail in wakes of high alt. planes. They have a cooling effect (reflect radiance) and I'm curious how much on a global scale.
If anyone has links to studies for either of these forces linkem for me please? :)
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2013
They have a cooling effect (reflect radiance)
I'm not so sure about it. At first, you're talking about noctilucent clouds, which aren't identical with contrails. The noctilucent clouds are composed of very fine particles (essentially ice crystals and micrometeorites), which aren't blocking the infrared radiation very much. In addition, the high altitude of noctilucent clouds may contribute to heating of surface with reflecting of sun light incoming under low angle.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2013
And both are experiencing mass loss.

"Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard can't live a day without lying.

Lying is what he does.

Lying is his life.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 18, 2013
Global sea ice is normal thanks to record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice.

NotParker is so far down it looks like up to him.
ahaveland
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.


Two vastly different environments, reacting in different ways to the same thing - irrefutable evidence of global warming.

Arctic ice at sea level, just a few feet thick, a vast thermostat, insulating warm ocean in winter, reflecting excess heat in summer and failing.

Antarctic - quadrillions of tonnes of couple-mile-high ice that WANTS to flow down to the ocean, and because the edges are warmer and destabilising, it can. More warmth, more ice, more wind, greater extent, net loss of 'cold' as warmer air/water move in.

You are peddling myths to the gallery and hope they fall for it.
A real scientist would not be so egregious, so you are obviously a Heartland or similar funded shill.

Sorry that you can't make the reality fit your party-line fantasy, the public aren't buying it anymore, so just give it up and start being part of the solution.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013

Contrails .... They have a cooling effect (reflect radiance) and I'm curious how much on a global scale.


"In an unprecedented experiment following the September 11 grounding of all aircraft in the United States, researchers reported in the August 8 issue of Nature that temperatures in areas usually affected by contrail blankets fluctuated higher and lower during the contrail-free period. Despite this dramatic conclusion, it is nevertheless too early to know whether contrails produce a net warming or cooling of the atmosphere. Whereas cirrus clouds seem to have a net warming effect, contrails are denser and thus may produce the opposite effect"

An increase in diurnal range is obvious, but what dominates? In my experience a thin layer of cirrus on a very cold night can dramatically raise the temp ( especially over snow ), whereas by day only lower by a deg or two.
Difficult to say as all thicknesses will occur as the contrail disperses.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2013
Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.


Two vastly different environments, reacting in different ways to the same thing - irrefutable evidence of global warming.


Nonsense. Both are sea ice floating in the ocean.

Antarctica is at record levels at both maximum and minimum.

If records in Antarctica are "irrefutable evidence of global warming", why is the AGW cult ignoring the records set for most ice over the last week?

Antarctic = 0.608 million sq km

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

Arctic = -0.535 million sq km

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

For a net positive of .073 million sq km

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2013
Antarctic is 600,000 sq km above average.

Thats is 20% above average.

Global = Arctic plus Antarctic
Arctic is below normal. Antarctic is above normal.


Two vastly different environments, reacting in different ways to the same thing - irrefutable evidence of global warming.


Nonsense. Both are sea ice floating in the ocean.

Antarctica is at record levels at both maximum and minimum.

If records in Antarctica are "irrefutable evidence of global warming", why is the AGW cult ignoring the records set for most ice over the last week?

Antarctic = 0.608 million sq km

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

For a net positive of .073 million sq km


runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
Parky
Is your comprehension of the two environments ( Arctic and Antarctic re sea-ice ) really boil down to " ... Both are sea ice floating in the ocean" - because if it is, that is THE most staggeringly ignorant thing I've read on here. To reduce the complexities of climate science in, as has been pointed out to you countless times, TWO VERY DIFFERENT environments to the mere fact that ice floats in both. I will not bother to waste words explaining ( again - find on previous threads ). I would ask you to address your ignorance and not keep spouting it on here - but that is not what you are about is it? You merely want to irritate parrot fashion.

I shall continue to deny ignorance so for others - look here ....
http://journals.a...LI4136.1
ahaveland
5 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
The Arctic is the primary focus. The Antarctic increase in ice is not so dramatic.
I take it that you've seen the Death Spiral currently going viral?

Ice extent doesn't mean much if it's only a few cm thick - it will melt out quickly when the summer comes, given more opportunity to collect even more energy to be released and delay freezing later in the year. Note the very late temperature profile after the record Arctic melt last year.
A large extent in winter is not necessarily a good thing - it locks in ocean heat and interferes with CO2 absorption.

Concentrating on Antarctic sea ice is a "look squirrel" tactic - the continent's mass loss is still accelerating.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (20) Feb 19, 2013
Antarctic is 600,000 sq km above average.
Thats is 20% above average.


600,000 sq km over the 3,000,000 sq km average.

1,200,000 sq km higher than the minimum at this time of year.

Not trivial. And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 19, 2013
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.

No one, other than the denialist idiots, has presented a convincing argument as to why your vast ignorance should be given any attention.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 19, 2013
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.

No one, other than the denialist idiots, has presented a convincing argument as to why your vast ignorance should be given any attention.


Insults instead of an explanation. Standard response from the cult.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2013
And no one has a convincing explanation of why Antarctica should be ignored and the Arctic held up as a example of the end of the world ... other than the AGW cult are liars and frauds.

No one, other than the denialist idiots, has presented a convincing argument as to why your vast ignorance should be given any attention.


Insults instead of an explanation. Standard response from the cult.

If facts insult you, so be it. See the chaplain about getting your TS card punched. :rolleyes:
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2013

If facts insult you, so be it.


If Antarctic Sea being 20% above normal and was an actual IPCC prediction it would be front page news for weeks.

As of today , global sea ice slightly above normal.

Thats the fact.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2013

If facts insult you, so be it.


If Antarctic Sea being 20% above normal and was an actual IPCC prediction it would be front page news for weeks.

As of today , global sea ice slightly above normal.

Thats the fact.

To repeat what another said, and you conveniently ignored, "Concentrating on Antarctic sea ice is a "look squirrel" tactic - the continent's mass loss is still accelerating."

The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice.

You are an intellectual fraud.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2013

To repeat what another said, and you conveniently ignored, "Concentrating on Antarctic sea ice is a "look squirrel" tactic - the continent's mass loss is still accelerating."


No. It is gaining.

"A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150 years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, "a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.""

http://hockeyscht...een.html
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2013
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."

Conflating it with Artic ice is an act of intellectual fraud.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 20, 2013
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."



But there is more Antarctic sea ice at Antarctic maximum (19 million sq km) than there is Arctic Ice at maximum (16 million sq km).

And the AGW cult always ignores all the ice on Greenland and the other northern islands when beclowning themselves over Antarctica.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2013
A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice ... over the past 150 years, and finds acceleration ...

Parky
In extremis the atmosphere will dump more snowfall ( ultimately ice mass ). The Antarctic is at a mean height of 2000m/6500ft with an average environmental lapse rate giving a temp around 16C below that at sea level. The Antarctic environment has a tightly cyclonic westerly circulation, accentuated by a cold Strat ( missing ozone exacerbated ) and vast high interior. Why do you find it surprising that ice mass will continue, even accelerate, away from the peripheries? plus given the lack of nearby land-mass to heat peripheral air - the cold is LOCKED in there. It will be the last place to see widespread melt. Thank God.
But of course we know it just boils down to "floating ice" - apparently just like the Arctic. Life must be simple for you in a world of no greys. I deny ignorance for others.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2013
Why do you find it surprising that ice mass will continue, even accelerate, away from the peripheries?


Was that the prediction?

As usual, the AGW cult tries to have it both ways.

If a cult member claims that the ice is melting on Antarctica, and I respond with a paper saying ice is increasing, then some other cult member will claim increasing ice on the continent is proof of AGW.

If global sea ice is normal, then of course the AGW cult dismisses increased Antarctic Ice and claims only Arctic Ice counts, despite tha fact that huge land masses like Greenland and the norther Canadian Arctic Islands surround the arctic and should act like the Antarctic continent.

Sane people know that there are cycles and the arctic has melted before the satellite era.

Insane cult members will flail around beclowning themselves.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 20, 2013
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."



But there is more Antarctic sea ice at Antarctic maximum (19 million sq km) than there is Arctic Ice at maximum (16 million sq km).

And the AGW cult always ignores all the ice on Greenland and the other northern islands when beclowning themselves over Antarctica.


Wholly immaterial to the effect on Earth's albedo, which determines how much short wavelength radiation is reflected vs absorbed and re-radiated as IR.

It's the SURFACE AREA of snow and white ice that affects radiative forcing , NOT the VOLUME.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2013
NP: I will summarize what the others have been telling you. The arctic ice is floating on an ocean and some seas. The antarctic ice is mostly sitting on a rocky continent. The average temperature of the arctic is near zero C. The average temperature of the antarctic is near -57C at the interior and near -26 C (use Wikipedia) near the shores. Those two very different climates react differently to an increase in global temperature. Naturally you will get more water transport into both regions, but the antarctic will get solid water and the arctic will get rain or snow. No rain in antarctica. Do you understand the difference between a rocky continent and an ocean or sea? The arctic mostly floats and the antarctic, mostly, does not.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2013
Sane people know that there are cycles and the arctic has melted before the satellite era.


Scientists are sane people, and they know that of course. They also know that it happened for reasons other than can be the case now. It's not a matter of having it both ways either - it's a matter of the complexity of what's going on and not jumping to simplistic prejudice. It is especially complex in the Antarctic environment. You again try to equate the Arctic with Antarctica. Why cant you see that geographically its vastly different? And hence the climate. Have you not noticed it gets hot over land in summer - that air penetrating the Arctic but cannot the Antarctic due its strong westerly circulation and lack of nearby land-mass. My previous post highlighted the height of the ice, that lowering air penetrating there by 16C from sea level, even before heat is lost to space over the high albedo surface.
So I have explained again. I wonder why? To deny ignorance.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2013
NP: I will summarize what the others have been telling you. The arctic ice is floating on an ocean and some seas. The antarctic ice is mostly sitting on a rocky continent.


At maximum, there are 19 million sq km of Antarctic Sea Ice.

Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.

At maximum, there is 16 million sq km of Arctic Sea Ice.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 21, 2013
To repeat "The bulk of Antarctic ice is NOT sea ice."



But there is more Antarctic sea ice at Antarctic maximum (19 million sq km) than there is Arctic Ice at maximum (16 million sq km).

And the AGW cult always ignores all the ice on Greenland and the other northern islands when beclowning themselves over Antarctica.


Wholly immaterial to the effect on Earth's albedo, which determines how much short wavelength radiation is reflected vs absorbed and re-radiated as IR.

It's the SURFACE AREA of snow and white ice that affects radiative forcing , NOT the VOLUME.


Antarctica Antarctic Sea Ice = 33 million sq km at maximum and since most of the Antarctic Sea Ice is a long way from the pole because it surrounds Antarctica more solar energy is reflected by Antarctica than the Arctic.

Arctic maximum is only 16 million sq km.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) Feb 21, 2013
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?

And, the only reason that the Antarctic region has a higher albedo than does the Arctic is because so much of Antarctic ice is NOT SEA ICE subject to seasonal melting.

You are an intellectual fraud.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2013
ParkerTard is an intellecutal fraud?

"You are an intellectual fraud." - Deepsand

How can that be when he runs a Conservative Website that claims the cooling sun is causing the globe to warm?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2013
How can that be when he runs a Conservative Website that claims the cooling sun is causing the globe to warm?

Cold fusion?
Steven_Anderson
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2013
As global temperatures increase, the winter ice will eventually stop being created. Right now the contraction and expansion of ice is on a downward spiral but in an equilibrium never the less. Eventually enough increase of CO2 and methane will make it so that the new ice won't form. Then we will be in a death spiral. Perhaps NotParker and Deepsand would like to move to the Arctic to see it first hand that way there is no way the scientific conspiracy can hide it? http://rawcell.co...axation/
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2013
Perhaps NotParker and Deepsand would like to move to the Arctic to see it first hand that way there is no way the scientific conspiracy can hide it?

Since deepsand stands against NP, why would he have need for such travel? :confused:
ahaveland
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
To a hammer everything looks like a nail.
To ParkerTurd, who sounds like a redneck-fossil-fuel-funded-oil-drunk-god-fearing-religious-creationist-zealot-freak, so intoxicated with his own warped delusions, that he cannot understand that no amount of effort will change reality to fit his fantasy world, however much he wishes it to be so - reality is not cooperating.
He insists on broadcasting his ignorance to the world, and not at all bothered by how he is perceived, that we all laugh at him, yet he continues to pollute the truth. Either there's something not right in the head, or this is his astroturfing job.
He should be exposed or certified.

Meanwhile, the Arctic *is* dying, and Northern Hemisphere is starting to get hammered.
http://haveland.c...1301.png
http://neven1.typ...vid.html
http://thinkprogr...llapsed/
StarGazer2011
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
CAGW as it stands has at its heart a rotten core of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Its just laughable rubbish; but it makes good idiot bait similar to religion.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
ahaveland
3.9 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2013
Takes a lot of effort to defeat such amoebic intelligence.

Which bit of "putting on an extra pullover makes you warmer" don't they understand?

This is just an example of the industry of denial, and it is an industry, highly funded by Koch brothers and their ilk.

Just because some rich, mean and callous people that know the price of everything and the value of nothing don't want to sacrifice 1% of their profits to help make a better life for people, they pay poor desperate amoral sock puppet trolls like StarGazer2011 here to sell out Humanity for a few bucks per 100 denialist words or messages, and they can't even do it convincingly. None of them know what they are talking about, and none of them can produce any evidence whatsoever.

Welcome to the real world, Neo.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2013
Not all of the denialists present here are shills; in fact, the majority are most likely willing dupes, those for whom their policy positions require that GW/AGW be non-existent if they are to stand.

Of the regulars here, NotParker, with his one-trick-pony "The Earth is cooling; the next Ice Age is just around the corner" show strikes me as being a willing dupe.

On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.
CAGW as it stands has at its heart a rotten core of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Its just laughable rubbish; but it makes good idiot bait similar to religion.


A comment like that barely makes you qualified to part of the human race never mind comment on here. With that spectacular lack of scientific knowledge you attempt to rubbish AGW theory. Well of course your greenhouse has a heated roof - otherwise how could it keep the interior warm. Gob-smacking ignorance. Please look up some ( very ) basic physics.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Not all of the denialists present here are shills; in fact, the majority are most likely willing dupes, those for whom their policy positions require that GW/AGW be non-existent if they are to stand.

Of the regulars here, NotParker, with his one-trick-pony "The Earth is cooling; the next Ice Age is just around the corner" show strikes me as being a willing dupe.

On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.

Actually personalities come through via their posts. Uba for instance comes through as one of those types who is so pleased with himself, that if he was a chocolate, he'd lick himself. Parky is just a parrot, repeating the same mythic stuff ad nauseum with no apparent flicker of comprehension behind it. Greggy probable a mixture of those two.

deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
Actually personalities come through via their posts. Uba for instance comes through as one of those types who is so pleased with himself, that if he was a chocolate, he'd lick himself. Parky is just a parrot, repeating the same mythic stuff ad nauseum with no apparent flicker of comprehension behind it. Greggy probable a mixture of those two.

In addition to Uba's polished smugness, his profligate posts evidence a clipboard filled with canned responses which he repeats from thread to thread, post to post.

This is why I opined that he is the more likely to be a professional shill.

If not, he's a foolish old fart with much too much time on his hand, a troll who gets his kicks disrupting informed discussions.

In either case he needs to be taken out back to the woodshed and have his sorry ass given a good whooping.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
Then clearly covering yourself with a blanket can't keep you warm if the blanket is below your body temperature.

"The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground." - StarTard

Can you explain why reality isn't corroborating your ignorant understanding of thermodynamics?

Is nature wrong?
Is thermodynamics wrong?

Or are you a moron who posts pure ignorance on a science site?
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
Public execution is the appropriate punishment for Conservative Traitors like UbVonTard.

"In either case he needs to be taken out back to the woodshed and have his sorry ass given a good whooping." - deepsand

Have your freedom lists ready people.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
The proper name for them is "useful idiots". They are willing to give their lives, the lives of their family, and the lives of your family to serve the interests of Corprations and the Corporate elite.

"Not all of the denialists present here are shills; in fact, the majority are most likely willing dupes" - Deepsand

Clearing these useful idiots from the gene pool will be beneficial to mankind.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Reduced sea ice disturbs balance of greenhouse gases


Like there has never been "reduced sea ice" ever before.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2013
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Actually personalities come through via their posts. Uba for instance comes through as one of those types who is so pleased with himself, that if he was a chocolate, he'd lick himself.
So if we don't like the message, we attack the messenger?

If the science is so settled, why are your arguments so desperate?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
In addition to Uba's polished smugness, his profligate posts evidence a clipboard filled with canned responses which he repeats from thread to thread, post to post.

This is why I opined that he is the more likely to be a professional shill.

If not, he's a foolish old fart with much too much time on his hand, a troll who gets his kicks disrupting informed discussions.

In either case he needs to be taken out back to the woodshed and have his sorry ass given a good whooping.
And how is this an example of an "informed discussion?"

Seriously. You're not helping your argument with this foolishness. Why don't you try using the actual, current science?

...oh wait, I see. It's that the actual, current science belies your position! LOL.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?


At maximum, Antarctic Sea Ice is 19 million sq km in area. Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.

So at maximum, sea ice is 5 million sq km more than the continent of Antarctica itself.

The AGW cult members who comment here are pretty stupid.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?


So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."

Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?


At maximum, Antarctic Sea Ice is 19 million sq km in area. Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.

So at maximum, sea ice is 5 million sq km more than the continent of Antarctica itself.

The AGW cult members who comment here are pretty stupid.


You've said that before Parky, several times on this thread. You don't win the argument by failing to respond to critiques of your assertions by simply stating the arguments again. People will merely think you are just a computer programme, and a poor one at that.

BTW: I will argue that a good definition of stupidity is to merely put up repetitive posts and fail to defend them. You know, kind of smacks of an unthinking/unimaginative soul. Bless.
MikPetter
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2013
Ice Balance for Antarctica(East & West) is est. -41 gigatonnes per year with gains in East and losses in the West.
"Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively.
A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance, Andrew Shepherd et al
Science 30 November 2012: 338 (6111), 1183-1189."
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?

The effort at explaining Science has been lost on you, as you put your policy positions ahead of all else.

You can't learn what you don't want to know.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?

Stupid attempt at misrepresentation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?
So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."

Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2013
What do you not understand, NotParker, re. the bulk of Antarctic ice NOT being SEA ICE?


At maximum, Antarctic Sea Ice is 19 million sq km in area. Antarctica itself is only 14 million sq km.

So at maximum, sea ice is 5 million sq km more than the continent of Antarctica itself.

The AGW cult members who comment here are pretty stupid.


You've said that before Parky, several times on this thread. You don't win the argument by failing to respond to critiques of your assertions by simply stating the arguments again. People will merely think you are just a computer programme, and a poor one at that.

BTW: I will argue that a good definition of stupidity is to merely put up repetitive posts and fail to defend them. You know, kind of smacks of an unthinking/unimaginative soul. Bless.

It seems quite clear that he's stating the Antarctic sea ice (and only the sea ice) area in the Antarctic, at maximum, is greater in area than the Arctic sea ice area at maximum.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?

The effort at explaining Science has been lost on you, as you put your policy positions ahead of all else.
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?

You can't learn what you don't want to know.
Well, you certainly exemplify that.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?

Stupid attempt at misrepresentation.
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim. It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.

Now, was that so difficult?

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2013
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?
So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."

Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.

False. Figure out why for yourself.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
It seems quite clear that he's stating the Antarctic sea ice (and only the sea ice) area in the Antarctic, at maximum, is greater in area than the Arctic sea ice area at maximum.

Of no material relevance.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
On the other hand, ubavontuba seems to be very much the professional shill.
It's nice that you're thinking of me. But making erroneous and unfounded accusations isn't winning your argument. Have you tried using actual science?

The effort at explaining Science has been lost on you, as you put your policy positions ahead of all else.
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?

Stupid pretense at ignorance? Or, a very real, if unrecognized, ignorance?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2013
Arctic ice is interesting, but the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground.

Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?

Stupid attempt at misrepresentation.
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim. It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.

Now, was that so difficult?

Obviously difficult for you, as you've still got it wrong. :rolleyes:

And, no, I am not going to yet again explain it to you.

Go play "But, why, Daddy?" with someone else.
ahaveland
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2013
Saying that global ice extent is average is like saying your body temperature is average - while it might be true, it hides the fact that your legs are frozen and your head is on fire.

Egregious misdirection.

These pigeons don't know that they can't play chess, and don't know that knocking over the pieces and crapping on the board doesn't mean you're winning.

I don't want to play anymore - I have a sick planet to fix.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.


Uba, by conduction true - but..
Professionally I many times saw cold air warming the ground (so to speak) - the greenhouse effect, which is what is being discussed here. Yes, the energy ultimately comes from the sun but IR absorption/re-emmitence by GHG's occurs at any temperature (of that gas). Often I have seen, while monitoring air and road temps, the road warm above that of the air above it as cloud has rolled overhead. The most dramatic is when fog forms. A transfer of heat balance occurs - ground gets cold due radiation to space - cools air - cools to fog point - road temp rises ( as result of GHE ) to 1-2C above air temp, even if the fog is freezing. Point is the OP was saying (citing law of thermodynamics) that a cold body cant warm a warm one. His concept of the GHE was bollocks, and typical of certain deniers who think they know it all, when even at such a basic level they're science idiots.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
Nonsense; no one said that the atmosphere warms anything.

You clearly lack even a basic grasp of Physics.
LOL. So, the extra IR which is supposedly retained by the CO2 in the atmosphere is suddenly not the culprit? LOL! Do tell!

So, what IS the culprit?
So you are defending the statement that ... "the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'Greenhouse theory' violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."

Just asking. It's nice to be clear.
LOL. Of course. If/when the atmosphere is cooler, it clearly cannot warm the ground.

False. Figure out why for yourself.
Wrong. A cooler atmosphere cannot directly warm the ground,as this would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But, the sun certainly can act to warm the ground, through the atmosphere. And a warmer atmosphere certainly might have a small influence on the ground (very small, due to the difference in energy density).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2013
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?
Stupid pretense at ignorance? Or, a very real, if unrecognized, ignorance?
So you admit it's not about the science with you? It's about policy?

So why don't you quit the pretense of arguing the science, and simply argue policy then? ...you're obviously terrible at the science, anyway.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2013
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim? It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.

Now, was that so difficult?

Obviously difficult for you, as you've still got it wrong. :rolleyes:

And, no, I am not going to yet again explain it to you.

Go play "But, why, Daddy?" with someone else.
LOL. You're so pretentious. If you don't know the answers, why are you even bothering to reply?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2013
Point is the OP was saying (citing law of thermodynamics) that a cold body cant warm a warm one. His concept of the GHE was bollocks, and typical of certain deniers who think they know it all, when even at such a basic level they're science idiots.
I think this clearly applies to both sides. It seems few even understand how a greenhouse works, to begin with.

A related and interesting (I hope) story: It's been rather cool around here, but bright and sunny. I left my car in the sun for awhile, and when I returned, it was quite (exquisitely) warm inside. So I felt the glass, and it was still quite cool to the touch.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
A cooler atmosphere cannot directly warm the ground,as this would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Pointless repetition of a deliberate misrepresentation.

Grow up or go away.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
What policy positions? Why are you trying to politicize the science?
Stupid pretense at ignorance? Or, a very real, if unrecognized, ignorance?
So you admit it's not about the science with you? It's about policy?

I admit only that that is the basis of your position.

So why don't you quit the pretense of arguing the science, and simply argue policy then? ...you're obviously terrible at the science, anyway.

It only appears that way to ignorant idiots like you.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
Perhaps, but why didn't you address the claim? It's as easy as stating: The atmosphere, in this case, acts like the glass in a car, heating up in a parking lot. It's the sun which provides the energy.

Now, was that so difficult?

Obviously difficult for you, as you've still got it wrong. :rolleyes:

And, no, I am not going to yet again explain it to you.

Go play "But, why, Daddy?" with someone else.
LOL. You're so pretentious. If you don't know the answers, why are you even bothering to reply?

Explaining facts to you is a waste of my time.

Deal with it.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2013
Point is the OP was saying (citing law of thermodynamics) that a cold body cant warm a warm one. His concept of the GHE was bollocks, and typical of certain deniers who think they know it all, when even at such a basic level they're science idiots.
I think this clearly applies to both sides. It seems few even understand how a greenhouse works, to begin with.

It is quite obvious that there are a lot of things that you do not understand, that you do not want to understand.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2013
Lets's state this again in BIG letters ..

My/others point was the OP ( Stagazer2011 ) stated ....

"the idea that CO2 is causing it is ridiculous. The 'GREENHOUSE THEORY' VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS; a cooler body (the atmosphere) cannot warm the ground."

This statement ( THE BIT IN CAPITALS ) is demonstrably WRONG and anyone who argues the contrary, as said in my original reply, does not belong on here.