Northeast Passage 2013

You got me there MP, I was indeed confused, see my edit above.

Icarus

 

No you're just an idiot. If the shoe fits....

Carry on!

MP

 

. [already resolved]

 

Compared to the 140,000 mm swing shown by the ice age swing in your other chart, or even the 200 mm rise of the past century, that isn't much. And it didn't last, the rising trend has more than made up for it since.

Link? That looks like the normal Ice Age cycle, but I don't recall seeing the part about having +10m above current sea level shown in your chart 5-10k years ago. That conflicts with other charts I've seen.

 

Climate Timeline Tool: Climate Science for 100,000 Years

 

Here is one of the conflicting charts I've seen elsewhere: Post-Glacial Sea Level

 

If you go by your chart, sea level has been pretty steady for the past 2000 years. The NOAA chart says we are in a reduction.

That's the problem with science, it requires a certain amount of "faith".

 

It was steady for about 2 millennia. But recently it has begun rising sharply -- 0.2 meter in 0.1 millennia, and a current rate of about 3 meters per millennia.

How so? Apart from the next Ice Age, that is, which some folks suggest is quickly becoming overdue. We are moving in the opposite direction.

 

If you look real close at the NOAA chart, we are coming down from the high of "+10".

 

That is the part I am questioning, as I haven't seen it from other sources, and it conflicts with a variety of archeological evidences. I.e. I'm requesting additional sources.

 

As far as additional sources go, you would have to ask NOAA for that.

 

Thanks for admitting that you have none. I'll stick with the preponderance of the evidence that, since the most recent ice age, sea level has not been higher than it is now.

 

Unwitty sarcasm aside, I thought you were referring to additional sources upon which NOAA based their chart on.

 

69% Increase In Arctic Ice Since 2012 | Real Science
"Green shows ice present in 2013 which was not present on this date in 2012. Red shows the opposite."

 

But I thought they were melting?

 

In other news, Seattle's high temperature today of 72F was cooler than the 79F recorded on the same date last year, and even further below the all time high for this date of 87F. Finally, Global Warning has ended!


Following the linked source to its other details, I see this:

 

I did 'like' fuzzy1's graphic just above. The decadal-scale decline is what it is.
The other most recent thread is about increased terrestrial plant productivity. As it happens, a new publication puts those two together:

Sea ice decline spurs the greening of the Arctic

With a link at the bottom to the article in Science. That journal has a pretty sturdy paywall, but the corresponding author is willing (I'd say 99% of the time) to send a free copy if you email and ask.

Once again, just at the time that one of us poses a question (AustinG, mojo, and I have each done this) some new study pops up as if to respond to our curiosity. Has any one else noticed that?

 

I'm probably one of the few posters who has spend considerable time under the arctic ice. It provides a perspective that "studies" cannot. Bottom line is the Arctic Ice is a thin, thin veneer of ice that is rather insignificant to the giant ice sheets and massive amount of water locked up in Greenland and Antarctica. I would expect the Arctic Ice to vary greatly due to many factors other than long term climate. Both the winds over and the currents under the ice sheet can make a huge change in ice coverage in short order. It would the be last thing I would pick to use either for or against an AGW position.

 

While it is a thin veneer as you suggest, it presence or lack thereof presents a very different environment. Most specifically, the ice albedo being what it is, creates massive reflection of solar radiation back out into space. Turn that are to liquid water, and the absorption of solar energy is vastly increased. There are other environmetal issues that go along with diminished (or increased) sea ice coverage, but to suggest (and I am not saying FlaP is doing so) that because it's mass is so much smaller than grounded the loss of sea ice is less significant. The reality is, in the case of sea ice, it is the area that matters. In the case of grounded Ice it is mass that matters.

Icarus

 

I question how much the albedo really matters. Half the entire year it's dark and the half when the sun is in the sky, the angle of incidence is extremely low. At low incidence angles the water reflects light pretty darn good. During the sunny season, there are quite a few cloudy days. When you look at the variation is ice cover, its acually a small percent of the total. Compared to the albedo of the entire earth south of the arctic circle, this has to be really small in the big picture compared world wide cloud cover.