John: Of course there is multi-year Arctic sea ice. You may want to take a look at a fascinating display of Arctic sea ice photo's arranged as a movie video on YouTube, available here, with explanation on what was done and how. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/31/arctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data/
This video shows a 31 year progression of freezing and melting over the pole. When you get to last year and this year, you will see the summer conditions show plenty of ice still in the Arctic sea and upon which still more snow has fallen this year. That is not to say it couldn't all just plain disappear, but at this point, it is incorrect to say that there is simply no multi-year ice. Anyone who looked and didn't find it is simply looking in the wrong place. David. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:57 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is now accepted by most scientists that the Arctic sea ice retreat is > caused by anthropogenic global warming, though the exact mechanism for the > "polar amplification" of global warming is not well understood. Critical > for sea ice survival is the multi-year ice. > > In his recent measurements of Arctic sea ice, Pen Hadow found absolutely no > multi-year ice, and the one-year ice was about 4 foot thick. This is > extremely disturbing, because the one-year ice can melt away very suddenly, > given warm weather. So when Vick Pope says that the sea ice could > disappear "later this century", it is a gross understatement of the danger. > The Pen Hadow finding shows that the sea ice could disappear quite suddenly, > if the natural variation in Arctic weather led to a much warmer than average > summer, such as in 2007 only more so. > > http://vodpod.com/watch/1634449-british-team-finds-no-multi-year-ice > > The implications are: > 1. The risk of massive methane outgassing is increased. > 2. The risk of Greenland ice sheet destabilisation is increased. > 3. Emissions reductions by end century will certainly be too late, even if > they were to have a cooling effect in the Arctic. > 4. Geoengineering in the Arctic must now be deployed for cooling the > Arctic. > 5. The sooner it is deployed the better, providing it is done carefully to > reduce risk of adverse side-effects. > 6. Black carbon levels must also be reduced, as they help to melt snow and > ice in the Arctic. > > Now I know that Vicky Pope considers that this is being apocalyptic. But > actually it's all about risk management. The very argument she uses about > variability actually increases the risk that the sea ice disappears much > sooner than expected, as a violent swing on one side of the trend line. > This is what Vicky was writing in the Guardian in February this year: > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims > > [quote] > Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has > reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so, as some > reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed by frozen > sea water, has collapsed in recent > years<http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html>, > with ice extent in September last year 34% lower than the average since > satellite measurements began in 1979. > > "The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due > to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again > over the next few years," she says. > [end quote] > The result of this optimistic view of sea ice survival, promoted by the > IPCC and continued by the Hadley centre, is that governments are blissfully > unaware of the risk of sea ice disappearance and repercussions. > Furthermore, they are still being led to believe that emissions reduction > alone can halt global warming before tipping points (such as sea ice > disappearance) are reached. This is absolute nonsense, since there is no > way that emissions reduction can cause a cooling effect in the Arctic. > > In the same article, Vicky Pope said "the implications of climate change > are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut > drastically" - but if governments focus on emissions reduction alone, there > is the danger of sea ice disappearance taking us all by surprise. And then > it will be too late. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
