Arctic ice falls to record winter low after polar 'heatwaves'

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Arctic ice falls to record winter low after polar 'heatwaves'

Arctic ice falls to record winter low after polar 'heatwaves'22-03-2017 20:41
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/arctic-ice-falls-record-winter-low-polar-heatwaves Anyway some news after all this discussion about science fictional atmosphere concepts. Rod Downie, WWF's polar programme manager, said: "The annual freeze and thaw of sea ice in the polar regions is like the beating heart of our planet, driving ocean circulation and regulating our climate. But sea ice is in decline in a warming world and the records have been shattered this year. Some facts for people to get annoyed about. News about climate! On the climate debate forum! Someone will be along to derail this shortly so no disturbing news is passed to the populous. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-03-2017 06:08
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	This series post goes well in this thread, too: It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark. Robert Scribbler makes mention of this year's Arctic sea ice maximum extent: https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/20/frailest-ever-winter-sea-ice-facing-a-cruel-cruel-summer/ Not only was 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum below 14 million square kiometers, it actually DIDN'T reach 13.9 million square kilometers. AND THAT SEA ICE was thin. Of course, March 2017 Arctic sea ice VOLUME was 9600 cubic kilometers less than the average of the 1980's, & 11,000(+?) cubic kilometers less than 1980, itself, but even a thousand (+?) cubic kilometers less than record breaking years, 2015 & 2016. It is good that AGW denier liar whiners double-down & triple-down(?) on their bets that Earth is returning to an ice age. Not mentioned earlier.... during this time of year, when yearly sea ice maximum variations are reduced..... 2017 Arctic sea ice maximum extent was well LESS THAN 2 million square kilometers than for the year 1979. 2017 Arctic sea ice extent is so low as of Mar. 22, that 1980 DECADE average sea ice extent was NOT as low until MAY 9. Beyond that tidbit was this largebit: At these divergent times WHEN ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT WAS THE SAME, 1980 decade average VOLUME WAS 30,000+ cubic kilometers, while 2017 VOLUME is 18,600 cubic kilometers. Edited on 24-03-2017 06:23
24-03-2017 06:11
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	spot wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/arctic-ice-falls-record-winter-low-polar-heatwaves Thought I would check out the story, but when I opened the web site I didn't bother wasting any more time. The below image was on the there and we all know what a crock this is, therefore most of the content is probably a bunch of hooey also . Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are capable of swimming incredible distances, according to a new study published in Zoology, which recorded polar bears regularly swimming over 30 miles (48 kilometers) and, in one case, as far as 220 miles (354 kilometers). http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/22/polar-bear-population-is-rising-despite-green-fears/ Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image: Edited on 24-03-2017 06:14
24-03-2017 19:29
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Perhaps its best if you did not look out my source and instead continue trying to work out how the atmosphere works with a load of pompous retired people from dimly remembered stuff they learned half a century ago You might learn something from my source and we can't have that. Noble effort trying to derail the thread BTW. Polar bears may or may not be dependent on conditions in the arctic however conditions in the arctic are not dependent on polar bears. Do you get Anti-environmentalist troll points for that?
24-03-2017 19:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	spot wrote: Noble effort trying to derail the thread BTW. Remind me again, when what this thread actually on track? Do you get Anti-environmentalist troll points for that? Yes. I cash in my points down and the county courthouse for more carbon credits.

24-03-2017 19:45
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	GasGuzzler wrote: spot wrote: Noble effort trying to derail the thread BTW. Remind me again, when what this thread actually on track? Do you get Anti-environmentalist troll points for that? Yes. I cash in my points down and the county courthouse for more carbon credits. If you addressed points raised in the first post that would be on track. bringing up unrelated points for no reason is derailing it. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 02:44
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	[b]GasGuzzler wrote:.... in one case, as far as 220 miles... "in one case"? If it was a sow with cubs, can I assume the cubs DIDN'T make it?
03-04-2017 03:13
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	litesong wrote: [b]GasGuzzler wrote:.... in one case, as far as 220 miles... "in one case"? If it was a sow with cubs, can I assume the cubs DIDN'T make it? I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you?
04-04-2017 05:47
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: litesong wrote: "in one case"? If it was a sow with cubs, can I assume the cubs DIDN'T make it? I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you? Good that you believe if one Polar Bear swam 220 miles, ya tink it cooda been a cub. That's why you are "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter". Addition: A quick search, found one Polar Bear swam 426 miles.... no cub was mentioned. Edited on 04-04-2017 06:08
04-04-2017 07:11
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Correct...426 miles. And mothers take their cubs with them on 100 miles plus swims all the time....with only a 60% survival rate of the cubs. What happens to the cubs? No one knows for certain. I think the mamma gets hungry. If she gets too hungry she will not hesitate to eat them, you know? So much for the cute cuddly polar bear.
04-04-2017 14:39
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: If she gets too hungry she will not hesitate to eat them, you know? To prove dogs were superior to cats, an acquaintance at work said, "If you die by yourself, your faithful dog will stay by your side & starve to death. If you die by yourself, your cat will eat you." I love recycling..... & cats more than dogs.

Join the debate Arctic ice falls to record winter low after polar 'heatwaves':

Threads	Replies	Last post
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs	14	29-07-2023 20:14
White House ridiculed for defending Biden's economic record as 'incredibly popular:' 'Wit	0	28-06-2023 12:33
Dumb Mexican woman (redundant) falls in love online and travels to Peru to have her organs cut out by	0	26-11-2022 05:31
Polar bears	9	09-09-2022 00:03