View Single Post
Old 09-25-2019, 01:10 PM   #7035 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aerohead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 12,626
Thanks: 20,291
Thanked 6,282 Times in 3,888 Posts

Originally Posted by redneck View Post

The issue is not sea ice extent,it's sea ice volume.Either the messenger is ignorant,stupid,or is intentionally attempting to deceive the audience via intellectual dishonesty.
The 'ancient ice' is virtually gone,except at very high latitude.The annual ice which does form is not long-lived.
The snow which used to cover the ice,and reflected 85% of sunlight, cannot tolerate the new warmer temperatures.
The exposed ice only reflects as little as 70% of the light.
Once this thin ice melts,the open water only reflects 6.5% of the light.
With the ice gone,for every pound of ice lost,each pound of water can gain 144-degrees,instead of just converting from 32-F ice,to 32-F water.
This is where the runaway warming sets in,and methane clathrates melt and out-gas,beginning a double feedback amplification.
We ought to be happy that it will take as long as 2030 before we see a blue ocean event.
There's an expedition which is going to park a ship,tethered to the pack ice near the North Pole,for 352-days,and observe,first-order,winter ice dynamics.
Photobucket album:
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
redpoint5 (09-25-2019)