The situation in the Arctic is complicated, it is not just atmospheric temperature and sunlight that melts ice, it is also ocean currents and wind have a big effect, there is also a growing volcanic ridge northwest of Svalbard Island.
Last year 2012 had a huge cyclone that caused a record melt, but what is not fully understood is that although a lot of ice was broken up and pushed towards warmer seas, some of the ice was piled on top of other ice and compacted, which is now not melting at normal rates because of it's thickness and density.
The Arctic is not a good indication of climate change as there are so many other factors involved besides temperature.
Obviously, summer ice is more relevant than winter ice, in terms of warming. During the winter, it's *night* for most of the time, so albedo is essentially irrelevant. In fact, it's even possible winter ice has a very slight local warming effect, by reducing evaporation from the water and/or acting as an insulator. But, summer ice (or lack thereof) will have a very large impact on how much solar radiation the Arctic absorbs every summer, when the sun is shining nonstop for at least a month.
Also, obviously, ice mass is a better marker of warming than ice extent, though ice extent is more relevant for measuring albedo effects.
Just with a cursory look at the chart, I think the only thing you can conclude is that it has been generally stable since 2008 but with greater seasonal variation and two years with very low levels. Most of us probably agree that evidence indicates it has generally warmed since 1979 and the chart tends to reflect that. Perhaps it has reached a level where greater seasonal variation is the norm. Where it goes from here can't be ascertained by review of the graph IMO. If it resumes warming, it will likely remain variable with a renewed downward trend and if it cools, it will likely become less variable with an upward trend IMO.
Hey homeboy, I know you have trouble with data, so I will make it a little simpler, look at the green line, maximum sea ice extent is trending up and has been doing so for 7 years and will continue to slowly do so for the next 20-30 years. Maximum sea ice extent will not go below 2005 values for decades regardless how much CO2 we put in the atmosphere. Are you sad your party is coming to an end?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sate...
I like chocolate ice cream with white cake.
Where does less than .000000001% of recording the history of the Earth's climate constitute a catastrophe due to human progress and moving about?
I doubt that the Arctic or Antarctica is a "tell-tale" of the Earth's CO2 emissions.
Just because you now have the ability to pose a question all around the world in less than 2 seconds doesn't mean you have to diminish the accomplishment by calling "fossil fuels" a detriment.
You'd be as ignorant as a caveman if it weren't for fossil fuels.
That's how stupid your argument is!
A 0.8C rise in global average temperatures in 150 years is not a catastrophe!
The slow melting of the icecaps has been shown to be a natural process in the past.
Ride your scooter and be selfishly happy. I'll drive my car 30 miles to work and help as many as I can!
Thank you "fossil fuels" and energy created by man in general!
Additionally :
CO2
-Greenhouse gases :
Water Vapor – 96.9%
CO2 – 1.9%
Methane – 0.6%
CFCs – 0.4%
N20 (Nitrous Oxide) – 0.2%
--------
CO2 = 1.9% of all greenhouse gases today. In 1880 it was around 1.37% of all greenhouse gases.
Calculating an actual temperature increase based on a 0.53% to 1.06% change in 1 greenhouse gas ( out of all of the other ones) over 133 years is tricky because the temperature has fluctuated over that time period. That's the problem scientists have in actually putting their finger on the actual temperature change caused by CO2.
Try this nuclear physicist's view of the mathematics - http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201...
I'd say that you are ungrateful to scientists who invented propulsion. Show a bit of gratitude please instead of crying "Wolf!"!
Makes you wonder how sea began in the first place. So how much are we suppose to have?
Talk about Ad Hominem. "Me" thinks you just defeated your whole argument.
Alarmist flit and glitter.
i'm no scientist, but i know that ice is declining. soon there will be no more ice
watch CHASING ICE
"There's no doubt maximum sea ice extent has rebounded starting in 2008."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Has ice area "rebounded" or has what happened been that starting around 2008 most of the multi-year ice had melted, leaving only first-year ice? The transition to thinner, first-year only ice cover means the seasonal cycle is much larger. So the winter freeze covers a large area but the summer minimum in total ice area is still decreasing. Would you conclude, given a deeper understanding of the physics, that ice area has rebounded like the climate skeptic claims? Which is more relevant to warming in the arctic, large thin ice cover in the winter, or large areas of open water absorbing sunlight in the summer?
