<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Just think of all the extra oil we can get to by the polar ice caps melting! It will be more <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-0><SPAN>environmentally</SPAN></SPAN> sound to travel to Russia and China through Canada. Also, has anyone given any thought to what we will call the polar bear when the polar ice is gone and they must move South?<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR> Maybe we should ask Sarah <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-1>Palin</SPAN>, she is an expert on polar bears because she can see them from her house.</SPAN></div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"></SPAN> </div>
<div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto">Donovan Arnold </SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr contentEditable=false readonly="true"></DIV><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sunday, September 4, 2011 12:27 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [Vision2020] Will Arctic Sea Ice Extent Set New Record Low in 2011?<BR></FONT><BR>From a credible climate science website, moderated by competent<BR>climate scientists, below read a recent discussion on Arctic sea ice<BR>minimum, that as anyone following the issue knows in 2011 is very<BR>close to the
2007 record minimum for sea ice extent, though the <SPAN id=misspell-3>PIOMAS</SPAN><BR>ice volume indications are that 2010 set a record low for Arctic ice<BR>volume, a record low volume that has continued into the 2011 summer<BR>season.<BR><BR>We will know in this month <SPAN id=misspell-4>Septemer</SPAN> if 2011 sets a new record low sea<BR>ice extent, though given the <SPAN id=misspell-5>thining</SPAN> of the Arctic sea ice, as <SPAN id=misspell-6>PIOMAS</SPAN><BR>indicates, this portends a record loss of Arctic sea ice extent is<BR>only a few years away, given polar amplification under anthropogenic<BR>global warming: <SPAN id=misspell-7>Manabe</SPAN> is well know<BR>for publishing in 1980 what is sometimes considered the first serious<BR>discussion of "polar amplification": <SPAN id=misspell-8>Manabe</SPAN>, <SPAN id=misspell-9>Syukuro</SPAN>, and Ronald J<BR><SPAN id=misspell-10>Stouffer</SPAN>, 1980: Sensitivity of a global climate model
to an increase<BR>of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical<BR>Research, 85(C10), 5529-5554. available in full (26 pages <SPAN id=misspell-11>pdf</SPAN>) free<BR>here: <A href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf" target=_blank>http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf</A><BR><BR><SPAN id=misspell-12>Manabe</SPAN> of course in 1980 was a deep cover operative of the Knights Carbonic:<BR><A href="http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/" target=_blank>http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/</A><BR>He is still publishing in science journals, 164 publications, from<BR>1955 to 2011, counting articles now "in press:"<BR><A href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php" target=_blank>http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php</A><BR>a tribute to the triumph of our quest for world domination! In the<BR>name of the Master, go forth and
terrify!<BR><BR><A href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-discussions/" target=_blank>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-discussions/</A><BR><BR>1Andrew says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-13>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:10 AM<BR>Hope the next <SPAN id=misspell-14>IPCC</SPAN> report has a better section on the retreat of sea<BR>ice. It has already retreated faster than all models under all<BR>scenarios; obvious bias in the models. Also, the <SPAN id=misspell-15>IPCC</SPAN> chart comparing<BR>models was a display of the average extent during the months of July,<BR>August and September. The implication being that there can’t be any<BR>sea ice during those months before the arctic can be said to be<BR>seasonally ice free arctic However, sea ice reaches it minimum in<BR>September with August and October the next lowest months.<BR><BR>Looking at trends in sea ice volume, it’s apparent
that the arctic<BR>will reach a minimum of zero within the next decade.<BR><BR>2Chris G says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-16>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 9:33 AM<BR>I take back some of what I said last month. I really like what<BR><SPAN id=misspell-17>Didactylos</SPAN> and <SPAN id=misspell-18>Sphaerica</SPAN> (Bob) did with a monochromatic graph keyed on<BR>year, last month that started here.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/arctic-sea-ice-discussions/comment-page-3/#comment-211290" target=_blank>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/arctic-sea-ice-discussions/comment-page-3/#comment-211290</A><BR><BR>My favorite color would be light-blue = more distant past and<BR>dark-blue = more recent, and maybe on offset color for the current<BR>year. I can’t make a pattern out of the color schemes used above.<BR><BR>I used to hope that people would wake up when they saw the trend in<BR>ice melt (How can they reconcile a
huge decline in ice with no real<BR>warming trend? Yeah, I know, not all people in denial say there is no<BR>warming, but that zombie keeps walking around.), but that <SPAN id=misspell-19>hasn</SPAN>’t been<BR>the case.<BR><BR>3Philip <SPAN id=misspell-20>Machanick</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-21>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:31 AM<BR>The 2011 graphs so far look to be tracking almost as low as the 2007<BR>minimum for area and extent and the downward trend in volume is still<BR>clear. Another good picture at <SPAN id=misspell-22>PIOMAS</SPAN> shows the daily volume trend in<BR>a format more comparable to the <SPAN id=misspell-23>JAXA</SPAN> graphs. If the volume trend<BR>persists, it will take only one slightly warmer than average summer to<BR>break all records for minimum extent and area. With the current solar<BR>cycle still looking like peaking on the low side, this is not too<BR>surprising but we can’t rely on that to save us long term.<BR><BR>#2
Chris G: we may only really “wake up and see the ice melt” at the<BR>peak of the next solar cycle if this one tops out lower than average<BR>as expected.<BR><BR>4Pete <SPAN id=misspell-24>Dunkelberg</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-25>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:31 AM<BR>Jacobson: Soot’s the thing.<BR><BR>“Soot emissions account for about 17 percent of global warming,….”<BR><BR>“Jacobson says his calculations show controlling soot could reduce<BR>warming above parts of the Arctic Circle by almost 3 degrees<BR>Fahrenheit within 15 years, virtually erasing all of the warming that<BR>has occurred in the region during the last 100 years, a society<BR>release reported Wednesday.”<BR><BR>That does not compute.<BR><BR>5Pete <SPAN id=misspell-26>Dunkelberg</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-27>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:41 AM<BR>There is also Bremen sea ice extent:<BR><A href="http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png"
target=_blank>http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png</A><BR><BR>6<SPAN id=misspell-28>floundericious</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-29>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:44 AM<BR><A href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44353322/ns/us_news-environment/" target=_blank>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44353322/ns/us_news-environment/</A><BR><BR>New photographs taken of a vast glacier in northern Greenland have<BR>revealed the astonishing rate of its breakup, with one scientist<BR>saying he was rendered “speechless.”<BR><BR>In August 2010, part of the <SPAN id=misspell-30>Petermann</SPAN> Glacier about four times the<BR>size of Manhattan island broke off , prompting a hearing in Congress.<BR><BR>Researcher <SPAN id=misspell-31>Alun</SPAN> Hubbard, of the <SPAN id=misspell-32>Centre</SPAN> for Glaciology at <SPAN id=misspell-33>Aberystwyth</SPAN><BR>University, U.K., told <SPAN id=misspell-34>msnbc</SPAN>.com by phone that another section,
about<BR>twice the size of Manhattan, appeared close to breaking off.<BR><BR>But when they returned in July this year, they found the ice had been<BR>melting so quickly — at an unexpected 16-and-a-half feet in two years<BR>— that some of the masts stuck into the glacier were no longer in<BR>position.<BR><BR>7<SPAN id=misspell-35>floundericious</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-36>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:47 AM<BR><SPAN id=misspell-37>MSNBC</SPAN> Article reporting that a second huge ice island is set to break<BR>off the <SPAN id=misspell-38>Petermann</SPAN> Glacier<BR><BR>Sorry if this is old news to you all!<BR><BR>8<SPAN id=misspell-39>JohnN</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-40>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 11:35 AM<BR>Can I ask for some help understanding the set of graphs? The first two<BR>appear to show not much in the way of trend at the peak ice but<BR>upwards of a 1/3 (!) loss in ice extent at the <SPAN id=misspell-41>minima</SPAN> – yet 2007
may<BR>be a bit worse than 2011. However the trend line appears to show 2011<BR>being significantly worse than all previous years including 2007? What<BR>am I missing?<BR><BR>[Response: Different metrics. Arctic sea ice is not easily condensed<BR>to a single number, and each of the graphs show different aspects of<BR>the situation. The resolution of the apparent contradiction is that<BR>the ice is roughly equally spread out this year compared to 2007, but<BR>overall is thinner. I am not aware of any analysis that says that one<BR>metric is more indicative or predictive than another in any general<BR>sense. It's just part of the complexity. - <SPAN id=misspell-42>gavin</SPAN>]<BR><BR>9David Miller says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-43>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:39 PM<BR>I have reservations about the volume numbers and ice thickness models.<BR>The <SPAN id=misspell-44>piomas</SPAN> version 2 model that was introduced this spring shows<BR>considerably higher
thickness values. The navy, for example<BR>(<A href="http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif" target=_blank>http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif</A>)<BR>reports two to three meter thick ice all around the north pole.<BR>Russian and American science vessels recently met at the pole and<BR>reported actual thickness of a meter or less.<BR><BR>Given that we currently have ~3 million square km of ice it would have<BR>to average more than 2 meters thick to reach the current <SPAN id=misspell-45>piomas</SPAN> volume<BR>of a bit over 6 thousand cubic km. Given the thin and fragmented ice<BR>the <SPAN id=misspell-46>Healy</SPAN> went through on the way to the pole I personally find that<BR>average doubtful.<BR><BR>Given the disagreement between volume models and real-world<BR>measurements – admittedly limited spatially – I’m left wondering what<BR>the actual volume is. I’m looking forward to <SPAN
id=misspell-47>cryosat</SPAN> results once<BR>they’re done with the calibration phase.<BR><BR>Note that there’s no good reading on arctic ice. If the models are all<BR>right <SPAN id=misspell-48>wrt</SPAN> volume the ice is declining alarmingly. If the real-world<BR>measurements are closer and volume has already declined to 4,000 cubic<BR>km or less then we’re in even more trouble.<BR><BR>10Kevin McKinney says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-49>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:39 PM<BR>#8–To elaborate a bit on Gavin’s response, the top graph is “extent,”<BR>which means the total area of map <SPAN id=misspell-50>gridboxes</SPAN> containing more than 15%<BR>ice.<BR><BR>The next is “area,” which attempts to quantify the area within those<BR>grid boxes which is actually ice-covered.<BR>Area is thus always going to be smaller than extent-well, for any<BR>realistic case, anyway. And the two track fairly well in general,<BR>though ice can spread out, which can
increase extent but not area, or<BR>the reverse.<BR><BR>For these measures, variability does change throughout the year; as<BR>you noted, the biggest change is in the warm part of the year (though<BR>the biggest change in Arctic temperature is the trend in the winter.)<BR><BR>The third graph is volume, but the difference is greater than that,<BR>because it’s also graphing anomalies, not just the values themselves.<BR>It’s a useful way to display things in that it eliminates the annual<BR>cycle, which is so evident in the other graphs. You can also graph<BR>area and extent that way (and I know just where to find a couple of<BR>graphs like that–when I’<SPAN id=misspell-51>ve</SPAN> posted this comment, I’ll go and fetch the<BR>links.)<BR><BR>You can read more about these matters, and many other related ones, too, here:<BR><BR><A href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" target=_blank>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</A><BR><A
href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/" target=_blank>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/</A><BR><BR>11Kevin McKinney says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-52>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:48 PM<BR>Sorry for the double link in the previous. Here’s the promised links:<BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_N_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_N_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_UBN_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_UBN_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR>These bar graphs are all by L. Hamilton; be aware that they don’t all<BR>come from the same data source, so
processing algorithms and therefor<BR>results may differ a little, apart from the fact that they are showing<BR>different metrics.<BR><BR>They (and much, much else) can be found here:<BR><BR><A href="https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/" target=_blank>https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/</A><BR><BR>12Doug <SPAN id=misspell-53>Bostrom</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-54>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:28 PM<BR>David Miller says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-55>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:39 PM<BR><BR>Russian and American science vessels recently met at the pole and<BR>reported actual thickness of a meter or less.<BR><BR>Can you direct us to a pointer on that? Over on <SPAN id=misspell-56>Neven</SPAN>’s Arctic ice<BR>blog there’s speculation that ships visited the N Pole this year and<BR><SPAN id=misspell-57>didn</SPAN>’t gather that information. Sounds most unlikely that researchers<BR>on these ships would be so myopic.<BR><BR>13Hank Roberts
says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-58>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:36 PM<BR>The Navy site says “system and web page are a demonstration and are<BR>not an operational product. <SPAN id=misspell-59>NRL</SPAN> is providing the INFORMATION on an “as<BR>is” basis. <SPAN id=misspell-60>NRL</SPAN> does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit<BR>for any particular purpose ….”<BR><BR>– I wonder if the report there showing ice thickness not as an average<BR>but as a navigation aid (as in, low hanging ice, don’t bang your<BR>submarine ….)<BR><BR>Pure speculation. Perhaps someone knows.<BR><BR>14L. Hamilton says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-61>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 5:47 PM<BR>The three bar graphs (annual 1-day minimum CT area, <SPAN id=misspell-62>UB</SPAN> extent & <SPAN id=misspell-63>PIOMAS</SPAN><BR>volume 1972 or 1979-present) that Kevin McKinney linked above are<BR>being updated frequently while the melt season continues.<BR><BR>They’re intentionally
simple, losing that “complexity” Gavin alludes<BR>to, but pretty easy for anyone to follow.<BR><BR>I should have a new graphic within a day or two at <SPAN id=misspell-64>Neven</SPAN>’s blog,<BR>comparing the five main area & extent time series.<BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_N_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_N_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_UBN_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_UBN_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_VOL_min_to_date.png</A><BR><BR>15<SPAN id=misspell-65>Jathanon</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-66>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 5:55 PM<BR><SPAN
id=misspell-67>Polarstern</SPAN>, not <SPAN id=misspell-68>Healy</SPAN> (still on its way there)<BR><A href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/polarstern-reaches-north-pole.html" target=_blank>http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/polarstern-reaches-north-pole.html</A><BR><BR>16Philippe <SPAN id=misspell-69>Chantreau</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-70>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 6:21 PM<BR>The latest data on <SPAN id=misspell-71>NSIDC</SPAN> suggest that this year’s extent <SPAN id=misspell-72>coud</SPAN> break<BR>the 2007 all time low. In any case, it will be very close. The<BR><SPAN id=misspell-73>Petermann</SPAN> glacier just lost a huge chunk of ice, according to blurb on<BR>Yahoo I just noticed. The comment thread was a pathetic display of<BR>ignorance, name calling and libertarian type ranting. Not very<BR>encouraging.<BR><BR>17<SPAN id=misspell-74>spyder</SPAN> says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-75>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 7:31 PM<BR>Thanks for bringing
this forward; i was just checking to look for it<BR>after reading about the Greenland ice sheet depletion.<BR><BR>18Candide says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-76>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:38 PM<BR>I do have one friend who is very much on the <SPAN id=misspell-77>denialist</SPAN> bandwagon, and<BR>is a devoted fan of <SPAN id=misspell-78>wattsupwiththat</SPAN>.com. I mentioned this issue about<BR>the thinning Arctic ice to him, and his reply was that the melting is<BR>being caused by “thousands and thousands of underwater volcanoes.” I<BR>have to admit, I <SPAN id=misspell-79>hadn</SPAN>’t expected that reply – I thought he would just<BR>deny that any ice thinning was taking place. Intrigued, I pressed a<BR>little further, and asked if he thought there was an increase in the<BR>number of underwater volcanoes, and if so, why that might be. Again,<BR>he provided a sincere but entertaining response, saying that yes<BR>indeed, volcanoes were becoming
increasingly active all over the world<BR>(he offered up the recent eruptions in Iceland as proof). The reason,<BR>he says, is that the planets are all lining up, a process that will<BR>come to a head in 2012, and cause the Yellowstone Super-volcano to<BR>erupt with disastrous results. He suggested I rent the video “2012″, a<BR>Hollywood blockbuster which until now I’<SPAN id=misspell-80>ve</SPAN> managed to avoid watching:<BR><BR>2012<BR><A href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/" target=_blank>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/</A><BR><BR>Well, there you go. We have a full explanation for the thinning Arctic<BR>ice, and it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 emissions. And here<BR>I was needlessly worrying about <SPAN id=misspell-81>AGW</SPAN>. Silly me.<BR><BR>19Kevin McKinney says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-82>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:06 PM<BR>#18–Well, then, “glitter and be gay!”<BR><BR>20<SPAN id=misspell-83>KAP</SPAN> says:<BR>1
<SPAN id=misspell-84>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:08 PM<BR>If the ice were melting as a result of underwater volcanoes, then we<BR>would expect the oceans to be warming from the bottom up. But actual<BR>(non-Hollywood) data shows that the oceans are warming from the top<BR>down, i.e., the heat is coming from above, not from below.<BR><BR>Don’t expect evidence to change your friend’s mind, however.<BR><BR>21David Horton says:<BR>1 <SPAN id=misspell-85>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:11 PM<BR>Well yes Candide, but those rapidly increasing volcano numbers are a worry!<BR><BR>22Phil <SPAN id=misspell-86>Scadden</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-87>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:08 AM<BR>Candide – you friends needs medication – quickly. That is seriously<BR>detached from reality.<BR><BR>[Response: I don't know. Is the idea of planetary alignments causes<BR>mass climate change in 2010 really so different than the idea that<BR>keeps popping up (e.g. J. Curry) that the
increase in CO2 in the<BR>atmosphere might not actually be related to human activities? You<BR>start medicating the astrology buffs and you'll start medicating<BR>everyone. --<SPAN id=misspell-88>eric</SPAN>]<BR><BR>23<SPAN id=misspell-89>EFS</SPAN>_Junior says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-90>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:14 AM<BR>#9 David Miller says …<BR><BR><SPAN id=misspell-91>NAVO</SPAN>’s PIPS 3.0, aka <SPAN id=misspell-92>ACNFS</SPAN>, over 15 years in the making, is still a <SPAN id=misspell-93>POS</SPAN> IMHO.<BR><BR>The end user is <SPAN id=misspell-94>NIC</SPAN>, and the best use of <SPAN id=misspell-95>NAVO</SPAN>’s model is for ice edge<BR>detection, it’s meant for operational use only, meaning navigation in<BR>open waters.<BR><BR>Read their own calibration report here;<BR><BR><A href="http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/prologue.html" target=_blank>http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/prologue.html</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2010/posey1-2010.pdf" target=_blank>http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2010/posey1-2010.pdf</A><BR><BR>It <SPAN id=misspell-96>overpredicts</SPAN> ice thickness by over a meter when compared to <SPAN id=misspell-97>USACE</SPAN><BR><SPAN id=misspell-98>CRREL</SPAN> (I use to work at <SPAN id=misspell-99>CRREL</SPAN> way back in 1975) buoy data.<BR><BR>It <SPAN id=misspell-100>overpredicts</SPAN> fly over data by about 0.4 meters (Note: Not much of<BR>this type of data to compare against, if you were to ask me).<BR><BR>In total it <SPAN id=misspell-101>isn</SPAN>’t much of an improvement over PIPS 2.0, sorry but,<BR>Navy 0 Army 1.<BR><BR>Have you been to the PIPS 2.0 site lately?<BR><BR>It’s offline, after twice predicting a POLE HOLE where none existed,<BR>and I saved all those daily <SPAN id=misspell-102>GIFS</SPAN> (from their 2<SPAN id=misspell-103>nd</SPAN> failed attempt), to<BR>make a nice animated
<SPAN id=misspell-104>GIF</SPAN> of that absurd model.<BR><BR>Further, I’m building a collection <SPAN id=misspell-105>MODIS</SPAN> imagery where PIPS 3.0 shows<BR>5+ meter thick ice, but there are actually open leads and much<BR>scattered/broken up sea ice, 5+ meters my <SPAN id=misspell-106>AZZ</SPAN>!<BR><BR>NOTE: You can stop with the Goddard type talk, now there’s a real<BR>******** if ever there was one.<BR><BR>24<SPAN id=misspell-107>EFS</SPAN>_Junior says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-108>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:29 AM<BR>#18 Candide says …<BR><BR>2012? IMHO the worst movie ever made, it’s like Transformers One<BR>raised to the power of Transformers Two, itself raised to the power of<BR>Transformers Three, …<BR><BR>See;<BR><BR><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration" target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration</A><BR><BR>25Dave <SPAN id=misspell-109>Werth</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-110>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 12:46 AM<BR>I
think what <SPAN id=misspell-111>JohnN</SPAN> is missing is that the bottom graph is for volume<BR>anomalies which takes the thickness of the ice into account. An area<BR>covered with 3 meters of ice has 3 times the volume of the same area<BR>covered with 1 meter of ice. There has been a significant loss of<BR>thicker <SPAN id=misspell-112>multi</SPAN>-year ice over the past few years so the volume has<BR>dropped more than extent or area.<BR><BR>26Edward <SPAN id=misspell-113>Greisch</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-114>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:34 AM<BR>18 Candide: <A href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/" target=_blank>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/</A> says: “the crust of<BR>the earth is becoming unstable” like on Venus.<BR>Follow the links and the continents re-arrange themselves in a few<BR>hours. All because the planets are lining up.<BR><BR>Yet your friend can’t believe CO2 is indirectly melting the Arctic<BR>ice? I need one of Joe
<SPAN id=misspell-115>Romm</SPAN>’s head clamps!<BR><BR>27<SPAN id=misspell-116>JimCA</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-117>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 2:52 AM<BR>Comparing apples to apples (I think), the <SPAN id=misspell-118>JAXA</SPAN> <SPAN id=misspell-119>ASMR</SPAN>-E graph shows sea<BR>ice area as somewhat under 4 million km^2, but the <SPAN id=misspell-120>cryosphere</SPAN> today<BR>graph shows sea ice area at 3.1 million km^2.<BR><BR>Is there some way to reconcile those? Do they purport to measure the same thing?<BR><BR>28Lawrence Coleman says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-121>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 2:55 AM<BR>Just been looking at Prof Kevin <SPAN id=misspell-122>Trenbeth</SPAN> latest findings..<SPAN id=misspell-123>ie</SPAN>. for<BR>every 1 deg F. of ocean warming there is a 4% increase in water <SPAN id=misspell-124>vapour</SPAN><BR>in the atmosphere resulting in a 6-8% increase in rainfall. The<BR>spurious 6mm decrease in ocean height was the result of
that<BR><SPAN id=misspell-125>riculously</SPAN> intense la-<SPAN id=misspell-126>nina</SPAN> last year causing a hell of lot of rain to<BR>fall on land that is still <SPAN id=misspell-127>perculating</SPAN> and meandering it’s way back to<BR>the oceans. Another study involving a tightly spaced convoy of 5<BR>satellites 2 sec apart collecting data on cloud formation and extent,<BR>reports an over 50% decrease from the norm in arctic cloud cover. This<BR>is allowing even more sunlight to reach the remaining sea ice and<BR>cause accelerated warming not just from above but also below due the<BR>warming arctic ocean this is probably the ice area and extent graphs<BR>are so woeful this year and as I thought this year will most likely be<BR>the worst on record.<BR>One question I have that someone might know the answer to is….. due to<BR>6-8% increase in rainfall over land could the change in river temp of<BR>all the thousands of swollen river waters
emptying into the sea have<BR>any near future impact on the ocean’s temp. Logic says yes but I would<BR>like to have a rough idea as to what extent, whether it is negligible<BR>or yet another <SPAN id=misspell-128>pos</SPAN>’ feedback system?<BR><BR>29Pete <SPAN id=misspell-129>Dunkelberg</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-130>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 7:33 AM<BR>Lawrence Coleman @ 28, do you references for those statements?<BR><BR>30Kevin McKinney says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-131>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 7:35 AM<BR>[Response: I don't know. Is the idea of planetary alignments causes<BR>mass climate change in 2010 really so different than the idea that<BR>keeps popping up (e.g. J. Curry) that the increase in CO2 in the<BR>atmosphere might not actually be related to human activities? You<BR>start medicating the astrology buffs and you'll start medicating<BR>everyone. --<SPAN id=misspell-132>eric</SPAN>]<BR><BR>Well, the friend only needs to be medicated for a
year or so, to<BR>contain his anxiety about imminent death until such time as the fear<BR>can be, er, superannuated.<BR><BR>31Kevin McKinney says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-133>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 7:43 AM<BR>“Comparing apples to apples (I think), the <SPAN id=misspell-134>JAXA</SPAN> <SPAN id=misspell-135>ASMR</SPAN>-E graph shows sea<BR>ice area as somewhat under 4 million km^2, but the <SPAN id=misspell-136>cryosphere</SPAN> today<BR>graph shows sea ice area at 3.1 million km^2.<BR><BR>Is there some way to reconcile those? Do they purport to measure the<BR>same thing?”<BR><BR>Yes, this is indeed apples to oranges, and no, they don’t purport to<BR>measure the same thing. See my comment #10 above.<BR><BR>Extent is probably becoming obsolete as a measure, in that it makes<BR>less sense as a metric the less cohesive (or the more minutely<BR>fragmented) the pack becomes. (Just my opinion.) But area is harder to<BR>measure, and of course
backward-compatibility in data is highly<BR>desirable.<BR><BR>32<SPAN id=misspell-137>cRR</SPAN> <SPAN id=misspell-138>Kampen</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-139>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 7:58 AM<BR>#3 “If the volume trend persists, it will take only one slightly<BR>warmer than average summer to break all records for minimum extent and<BR>area.” by Philip <SPAN id=misspell-140>Machanik</SPAN>.<BR><BR>Not exactly. A ‘cool’ or ‘warm’ summer <SPAN id=misspell-141>doesn</SPAN>’t have much meaning in<BR>that region. Summer 2007 was actually on average somewhat cooler than<BR>normal, even during the flash melts in that season:<BR><A href="http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php" target=_blank>http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php</A> . This was also during<BR>solar dip and onset of a very strong La <SPAN id=misspell-142>Niña</SPAN>.<BR><BR>Sunshine and wind are more important factors. And most of the melting<BR>appears to happen from
beneath, what with ever warmer waters lapping<BR>around and underneath the pack.<BR><BR>I do agree with the gist of the message. The pack could disappear any<BR>summer now. Volume decrease is accelerating, catastrophe theory needs<BR>to be incorporated in <SPAN id=misspell-143>modelling</SPAN> the phenomenon (<BR><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory" target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory</A> ).<BR><BR>33<SPAN id=misspell-144>pete</SPAN> best says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-145>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:27 AM<BR>The <SPAN id=misspell-146>NSIDC</SPAN> have an graph of total volume of ice and it down on 2007 as well.<BR><BR><A href="http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110816_Figure5.png" target=_blank>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110816_Figure5.png</A><BR><BR>Joseph <SPAN id=misspell-147>Romm</SPAN> often has articles stating that Arctic Sea Ice is in a<BR>death spiral.<BR><BR><A
href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/08/262576/arctic-death-spiral-sea-ice-volume/" target=_blank>http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/08/262576/arctic-death-spiral-sea-ice-volume/</A><BR><BR>The very last graph seem somewhat interesting. I believe that Richard<BR>Alley has stated that the models are running 100 years behind schedule<BR>and that warming in the Arctic is 4x faster than predicted.<BR><BR>34<SPAN id=misspell-148>arcticio</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-149>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:33 AM<BR>On latest <SPAN id=misspell-150>Envisat</SPAN> radar images sea ice concentration looks even worse<BR>compared to low resolution microwave echo images. Check out for<BR>example the North of the <SPAN id=misspell-151>Laptev</SPAN> Sea.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.arctic.io/zoom/ouYS/0.45;0.3;1.37/Envisat-Radar-2011-09-02" target=_blank>http://www.arctic.io/zoom/ouYS/0.45;0.3;1.37/Envisat-Radar-2011-09-02</A><BR><BR>Here’s a close-up of the ‘ice
pack’ bulging into East Siberian Sea<BR>waiting for compaction.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.arctic.io/zoom/y60y/0.45;0.46;2.77/East-Siberian-Sea-2011-09-01" target=_blank>http://www.arctic.io/zoom/y60y/0.45;0.46;2.77/East-Siberian-Sea-2011-09-01</A><BR><BR>35Jim Eager says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-152>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:53 AM<BR><SPAN id=misspell-153>KAP</SPAN> (@20), the fact that the ocean would need to be warming from the<BR>bottom up is not a problem for the delusional, since they don’t even<BR>consider the water column between all these ‘new’ volcanoes and the<BR>ice. They simply assume that the warmth jumps straight from the<BR><SPAN id=misspell-154>volcanos</SPAN> directly to the ice.<BR><BR>I’m not making this up: one of the more numerate denizens at <SPAN id=misspell-155>WTFUWT</SPAN><BR>actually calculated a ball park heat value emitted by these phantom<BR>volcanoes and declared that it would in fact be just enough to account<BR>for
the 2007 melt…., except that he did not include the mass of the<BR>water column in his calculations.<BR><BR>36<SPAN id=misspell-156>JimCA</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-157>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 8:57 AM<BR>#31 — How is “sea ice area” for one apples and for the other oranges?<BR>What are they doing differently to measure ice area?<BR><BR>37Lars <SPAN id=misspell-158>Kaleschke</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-159>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 9:16 AM<BR>#33 <SPAN id=misspell-160>Envisat</SPAN> <SPAN id=misspell-161>ASAR</SPAN> does not show ice concentration since the radar<BR>signal of water and ice can not easily be distinguished, in particular<BR>during summer.<BR><BR>But yes, it is quite a mess! The colleagues on RV <SPAN id=misspell-162>Polarstern</SPAN> are<BR>searching for suitable ice floes for drilling without much success<BR><A href="http://www.geo.de/blog/geo/polarstern-blog/wissenschaft/schollensuche?LTblog=681ae33de5eb42054ef5d251977fe021"
target=_blank>http://www.geo.de/blog/geo/polarstern-blog/wissenschaft/schollensuche?LTblog=681ae33de5eb42054ef5d251977fe021</A><BR><BR>38Hank Roberts says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-163>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 10:06 AM<BR><SPAN id=misspell-164>JimCA</SPAN>, where are getting confused by trying to compare?<BR>Cite/point to the site definition; they do differ.<BR><BR><SPAN id=misspell-165>JAXA</SPAN>: <A href="http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm" target=_blank>http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm</A><BR><BR>“Definition of sea-ice cover (extent and area)<BR>The area of sea-ice cover is often defined in two ways, i.e., sea-ice<BR>“extent” and sea-ice “area.” These multiple definitions of sea-ice<BR>cover may sometimes confuse data users…..”<BR><BR><SPAN id=misspell-166>Wattsup</SPAN> explained it at his blog back in 2008; I don’t recall how well.<BR><BR>39Kevin McKinney says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-167>Sep</SPAN>
2011 at 11:08 AM<BR>#36–Sorry, <SPAN id=misspell-168>JimCA</SPAN>, I misread your original comment somehow. I was<BR>thinking one was for ‘extent.’<BR><BR>However, you might imagine different area products as being, say Fuji<BR>apples versus Red Delicious (or something like that.) Significant<BR>differences still exist, even if they are all ‘apples.’<BR><BR>One is the sensor used–<SPAN id=misspell-169>IJIS</SPAN> uses the instrument on the Aqua satellite,<BR>which is why their data only goes back to 2002, while <SPAN id=misspell-170>NSIDC</SPAN> uses data<BR>from a series of older instruments, suitably spliced together.<BR><BR>Some products choose different resolutions, looking at 6.25 km2 grid<BR>boxes versus 12.5 k, and so on. This, too, can make a difference to<BR>the area result.<BR><BR>Finally, the statistical presentation can make a difference. For<BR>example, the <SPAN id=misspell-171>IJIS</SPAN> extent number is actually (I am told)
a two-day<BR>moving average, whereas <SPAN id=misspell-172>NSIDC</SPAN> extent presents a 5-day average. (This<BR>is all <SPAN id=misspell-173>IIRC</SPAN>; I haven’t checked my memory on this.) So you’d expect<BR><SPAN id=misspell-174>NSIDC</SPAN> extent to be higher at this time of year, since it would be more<BR>affected by values ‘less far along’ in the melting process. (Haven’t<BR>checked if that’s the case just now, and of course other differences<BR>play into it, too.)<BR><BR>If you want to specifically reconcile <SPAN id=misspell-175>IJIS</SPAN> area and CT area, you’d<BR>want to search the ‘<SPAN id=misspell-176>metadata</SPAN>’ that applies to each and see if you can<BR>infer what’s causing the difference you observe.<BR><BR>It’s confusing, I know, and can be misrepresented by those naive or<BR>obfuscating folks who expect (or claim to expect) that these<BR>measurements should be an exact ‘truth.’ They are, as Gavin
said,<BR>‘metrics’–measurements–that are intended to give information about the<BR>ice. They are not the ice itself!<BR><BR>One good thing about having all of these different metrics is the fact<BR>that, despite the differences of detail, they all show basically the<BR>same big picture. That gives us some additional reassurance that said<BR>“big picture” is not somehow the artifact of a particular way of<BR>measuring things.<BR><BR>40Paul S says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-177>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 11:36 AM<BR>#38, Hank Roberts – Take a look at the RC article. There is a graph<BR>showing <SPAN id=misspell-178>JAXA</SPAN> sea ice extent AND a different one showing sea ice area.<BR><BR><SPAN id=misspell-179>JimCA</SPAN> is asking what the difference is between the <SPAN id=misspell-180>JAXA</SPAN> data <SPAN id=misspell-181>labelled</SPAN><BR>‘Sea Ice Area’ and the <SPAN id=misspell-182>Cryosphere</SPAN> Today ‘Sea Ice Area’.<BR><BR><SPAN
id=misspell-183>ReCAPTCHA</SPAN>: Response <SPAN id=misspell-184>rticatic</SPAN><BR><BR>41L Hamilton says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-185>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:19 PM<BR>Although the various ice measures disagree from day to day, their<BR>long-term agreement is striking. Here is a graph comparing five time<BR>series (<SPAN id=misspell-186>NSIDC</SPAN> area & extent, <SPAN id=misspell-187>UB</SPAN> extent, <SPAN id=misspell-188>IJIS</SPAN> extent, CT area) of<BR>August means for 1972-2011.<BR><A href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_time_series_Aug.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_time_series_Aug.png</A><BR><BR>42<SPAN id=misspell-189>JimCA</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-190>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:43 PM<BR>Thanks for all the responses, everyone. I tried to be clear what I was<BR>asking, but should have been more explicit to avoid confusion.<BR><BR>I think I see now how the
difference might emerge, but then have to<BR>wonder if these folks talk to each other. Assuming there is a ground<BR>(so to speak) truth, it should be possible to perform spot checks on<BR>small areas to calibrate both, which presumably would reduce or even<BR>eliminate the discrepancy. But maybe that is easier said than done.<BR><BR>43<SPAN id=misspell-191>JimCA</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-192>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 1:47 PM<BR>Everyone, thank you for the responses. (And damn you <SPAN id=misspell-193>captcha</SPAN> for<BR>eating the previous version of this message.) I tried to be clear in<BR>my question, but should have been more explicit to avoid confusion.<BR><BR>I think I see how the discrepancy might arise, but then must wonder if<BR>those people talk to each other. It would seem to be straightforward<BR>to find small areas for which a ground (so to speak) truth can be<BR>found, then calibrate both series to that, in which case
the<BR>discrepancy should mainly vanish. But maybe that is easier said than<BR>done.<BR><BR>44Rich Hendricks says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-194>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 2:36 PM<BR>Any bets on another harsh winter for the <SPAN id=misspell-195>CONUS</SPAN> this year? I’m betting<BR>on it happening again, caused by the lack of ice coverage in the<BR>Arctic.<BR><BR>45Hank Roberts says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-196>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:18 PM<BR><SPAN id=misspell-197>JimCA</SPAN>, they’re working on it. Examples:<BR><A href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arctic+sea+ice+satellite+area+estimation+pixel" target=_blank>http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=arctic+sea+ice+satellite+area+estimation+pixel</A><BR><BR>Your input could help:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.aip.org/fyi/2011/040.html" target=_blank>http://www.aip.org/fyi/2011/040.html</A><BR><BR>“NASA Administrator Charles <SPAN id=misspell-198>Bolden</SPAN> …. described problems
confronting<BR>some earth satellite replacement programs, and starkly warned the<BR>committee “we are in dire straits as a nation when it comes to weather<BR>and climate prediction.” He was blunt in calling, as “dumb things”<BR>congressional attempts to <SPAN id=misspell-199>defund</SPAN> a satellite program that would<BR>measure, among other data, shifting changes in the world’s climate. “I<BR>don’t do global warming, I do earth science,” he said emphatically.”<BR><BR>46Eli <SPAN id=misspell-200>Rabett</SPAN> says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-201>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:20 PM<BR>Why always <SPAN id=misspell-202>JAXA</SPAN> and not <SPAN id=misspell-203>IUE</SPAN> Bremen?<BR><BR>47Kevin McKinney says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-204>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:22 PM<BR>#41–”It would seem to be straightforward to find small areas for which<BR>a ground (so to speak) truth can be found, then calibrate both series<BR>to that, in which case the discrepancy
should mainly vanish. But maybe<BR>that is easier said than done.”<BR><BR>I think it would be a moving target, since the differences are<BR>effective at different times, or in different situations. So the<BR>discrepancies <SPAN id=misspell-205>wouldn</SPAN>’t stay vanished for long (although they might<BR>conceivably “phase in and out.”) Plus the data sets would lose that<BR>backward compatibility I mentioned. (The jargon is that they would<BR>become internally “<SPAN id=misspell-206>inhomogenous</SPAN>.”)<BR><BR>#42–I <SPAN id=misspell-207>wouldn</SPAN>’t bet on it myself–I think there’s more to NH winter<BR>weather conditions than just the ice cover–but neither would I be<BR>terribly surprised if it came about as you expect. There is, after<BR>all, some support for it in the literature.<BR><BR>48Chris R says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-208>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 3:27 PM<BR>#42 Rich Hendricks,<BR><BR>I don’t know this <SPAN
id=misspell-209>CONUS</SPAN> of which you speak. ;)<BR><BR>But if you’re talking about the very cold winter periods we’<SPAN id=misspell-210>ve</SPAN> been<BR>having in the Northern Hemisphere recently: I suggest you <SPAN id=misspell-211>google</SPAN> for<BR>‘Judah Cohen Siberian Snowfall’, link.<BR><BR>I’m researching this at present for a post on my blog, should post in<BR>the next week or so. Cohen makes a fairly convincing case that<BR>anomalous Siberian <SPAN id=misspell-212>snowcover</SPAN> has a pivotal role.<BR><BR>49L Hamilton says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-213>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 4:15 PM<BR>Although the various ice measures disagree from day to day, their<BR>long-term agreement is striking. Here is a graph comparing five time<BR>series (<SPAN id=misspell-214>NSIDC</SPAN> area & extent, <SPAN id=misspell-215>UB</SPAN> extent, <SPAN id=misspell-216>IJIS</SPAN> extent, CT area) of<BR>August means for 1972-2011.<BR><BR><A
href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_time_series_Aug.png" target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_time_series_Aug.png</A><BR><BR>50Brian Dodge says:<BR>2 <SPAN id=misspell-217>Sep</SPAN> 2011 at 4:56 PM<BR>@ Candide — 1 <SPAN id=misspell-218>Sep</SPAN> 2011 @ 8:38 PM Re sea ice melt and volcanoes<BR><BR>see <A href="http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=576#comment-90991" target=_blank>http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=576#comment-90991</A> and<BR><A href="http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=576#comment-91077" target=_blank>http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=576#comment-91077</A><BR><BR>About the time I was posting that comment, I came across a skeptic who<BR>used a slightly different set of metrics, and calculated that a<BR>Vesuvius size eruption would melt an area of Arctic sea ice slightly<BR>larger than the ENTIRE state of Massachusetts!!!(assuming all
the heat<BR>made its way through 4km of strongly stratified sea water) – then<BR>realized the relative scale of melt. The difference between average<BR><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-219>NSIDC</SPAN> minimum extent and current (or 2007) melt is ~2e6 km^2; the area<BR>of Massachusetts is 2.15e4 km^2. <SPAN id=misspell-220>Yah</SPAN> think someone might have noticed<BR>100 (give or take) <SPAN style="RIGHT: auto" id=misspell-221>Vesuvian</SPAN> scale eruptions, even if they were hidden<BR>beneath the Arctic ice?<BR>A mole! WHACK!!!<BR><BR>------------------------------------------<BR>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the <SPAN id=misspell-223>Palouse</SPAN> since 1994.<BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
<SPAN id=misspell-224>mailto</SPAN>:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>