High Arctic warming surpasses Viking era, study shows

Sep 27, 2012 Full story: Reuters 47

Temperatures high in the Norwegian Arctic are above those in a natural warm period in Viking times, underscoring a thaw opening the region to everything from oil exploration to shipping, scientists said on Thursday.

Full Story
Northie

Spokane, WA

#24 Oct 1, 2012
the real DUD FIVERS wrote:
<quoted text>sorry, but the information confirms what we "deniers" have always said. I worded it very badly. The fact is that the Warmies always denied there was a warm period at this or any time.
I doubt that anyone given to calling experts "warmies" has a mind open more than a micron, but, for what it's worth, every competent climatologist, paleontologist, biologist and geologist is well aware that the Earth has had warmer periods than the present.

55 million years ago, Greenland's northern coast was home to palms and crocodiles...while most of the the earth was baking and dead. We can thank basalt floods in India for that, filling the air with enough carbon to start a runaway greenhouse warming cycle. Now we're doing the same on our own.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25 Oct 3, 2012
+Barely ABOVE 4 million km2, Arctic sea ice extent is still BELOW any recorded level in any previous year for ~6 weeks, presently at 4,166,563 km2 (October 2, 2012), fractionally gaining ~25,000 km2(a bit more than West Virginia area) of sea ice the previous day, despite the sun, unseen, from the North Pole for 10+ days, & temperatures above the 80th parallel, a bit above -13 degC, fractionally above normal. Much warmth built up in Arctic waters these past months is resisting its conversion back to sea ice, especially southern Arctic waters which have seen much more solar energy absorbed than northern Arctic clear waters.

Only along the Greenland east coast is sea ice extending greatly south. All other regions, including the Northwest Passage, Northeast Passage & Arctic waters, south of the Arctic Ice Pack, resist conversion back to Arctic sea ice.

It is stunning how the southern Arctic waters resist the ever increasing darkness & cold atmospheric temperatures trying to convert water to sea ice(yes, only West Virginia this past day). IN ADDITION, for months, any downwellings in the Arctic waters that have been ice-free, have been conducting much captured solar energy radiating on those clear waters, to the depths of the continental shelves & Arctic Ocean.

This same Arctic Ocean warmth is & will continue to keep Arctic sea ice thinner through the coming winter & even spring. As of October 2, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is ~23% lower than any satellite recorded year AND indications of submarine-detected Arctic sea ice VOLUME.

Yes, the Arctic sea ice Volume is disappearing, day to day, & year to year, quicker than the Arctic sea ice extent, even in the time of Arctic sea ice increase.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#26 Oct 4, 2012
These daily reports of disappearing Arctic ice are quite boring, because the messengers aren't warning us which of the terrible consequences will happen to humanity when all the ice has melted.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#27 Oct 4, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#28 Oct 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
It's called WINTER you idjit. It happens EVERY YEAR while you sit on your brain.

And no. It does not constitute a 'recovery' of the ice sheet. In fact, the rebuilding ice is still below the PEAK LOW from previous years due to the water being warmer than normal from the increase in captured sunlight. Which fact presages an even lower peak next year. I suspect that the forces of positive feedback have overcome the year to year variability and that each year from this point will see a new peak low. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#29 Oct 4, 2012
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
These daily reports of disappearing Arctic ice are quite boring, because the messengers.....
The ol' saw 'bout messengers, again! But its lack of edykation, science & mathematics that makes the message sour in its belly..... or whatever aliens have.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#30 Oct 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Recovering, not much........
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...

Here's how much,'not much' is:

A stunning performance(non-performance). Two days ago, Arctic sea ice expansion was only the size of West Virginia! TODAY THE ARCTIC SEA ICE AREA EXPANSION WAS ONLY AS TINY AS CONNECTICUT!
Called a secondary feedback in AGW, solar energy absorption by historically unrecorded amounts of clear Arctic waters is putting on an incredible show in a non-performing role, well worthy of an Academy Award. With a stoic unchanging face, almost all Arctic waters refuse to ice:
Details below:
//////////
\\\\\\\\\\
litesong wrote:
Barely ABOVE 4 million km2, Arctic sea ice extent is still BELOW any recorded level in any previous year, at 4,166,563 km2 (October 2, 2012), fractionally gaining ~25,000 km2(a bit more than West Virginia area) of sea ice the previous day, despite the sun, unseen, from the North Pole for 10+ days, & temperatures above the 80th parallel, a bit above -13 degC, fractionally above normal. Much warmth built up in Arctic waters these past months is resisting its conversion back to sea ice, especially southern Arctic waters which have seen much more solar energy absorbed than northern Arctic clear waters. Only along the Greenland east coast is sea ice extending greatly south.
It is stunning how the southern Arctic waters resist the ever increasing darkness & cold atmospheric temperatures trying to convert water to sea ice(yes, only West Virginia this past day).
This same Arctic Ocean warmth is & will continue to keep Arctic sea ice thinner through the coming winter & even spring. As of October 2, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is ~23% lower than any satellite recorded year AND indications of submarine-detected Arctic sea ice VOLUME.
Yes, the Arctic sea ice Volume is disappearing, day to day, & year to year, quicker than the Arctic sea ice extent, even in the time of Arctic sea ice increase.

Also, Arctic downwellings in regions of previous sea ice, now have had as much as many months of solar energy absorbing waters, in which extra energy is conducted to depths of continental shelves or into deep Arctic Ocean waters.
//////////
litesong continues:
Arctic sea ice extent is BELOW any recorded level in any previous year, at 4,173,594 km2 (October 3, 2012), fractionally gaining ~7,000 km2(a bit more than tiny Connecticut area) of sea ice the previous day, the sun, unseen, from North Pole for ~2 weeks, & temps above the 80th parallel, at -13 degC. Temps on landforms surrounding the Arctic Ocean are dropping well below freezing, yet Arctic Ocean & seas still remain remarkably free of sea ice. Much warmth built up in Arctic waters these past months is resisting its conversion back to sea ice, especially southern Arctic waters which have seen much more solar energy absorbed than northern Arctic clear waters. Only along the Greenland east coast is sea ice extending greatly south.
It is stunning how the southern Arctic waters resist the ever increasing darkness & cold atmospheric temperatures trying to convert water to sea ice(yes, only Connecticut area, this past day).
This same Arctic Ocean warmth is & will continue to keep Arctic sea ice thinner through the coming winter & even spring. As of October 2, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is ~23% lower than any satellite recorded year AND indications of submarine-detected Arctic sea ice yearly VOLUME.
Yes, the Arctic sea ice Volume is disappearing, day to day, & year to year, quicker than the Arctic sea ice extent, even in the time of Arctic sea ice increase.
Yeah, despite the feeble denial efforts of 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling', a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig, to discount this thread, this thread is alive.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31 Oct 4, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
The ice is recovering.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin ...
//////////
litesong wrote:
Recovering, not much........
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin ...
//////////
litesong continues:
Even at this date in the Arctic autumn, large regions of Arctic waters in 2012 can still catch & retain some solar energy, altho the North Pole has been in darkness & minimal twilight for 2+ weeks, not getting any direct sunlight energy. With temperatures above the 80th parallel, averaging -13 degC, & many lands surrounding the Arctic with temperatures at -4 to -8 degC & lower, southerly Arctic waters still resist icing due to months of collecting solar energy, when previously sea ices reflected solar energy to space.

Yes, recovering.

No, not much.
PHD

Houston, TX

#32 Oct 5, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
These daily reports of disappearing Arctic ice are quite boring, because the messengers aren't warning us which of the terrible consequences will happen to humanity when all the ice has melted.
Much like what happens to humanity when you start spewing useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste hot air.Have you seen your care giver today?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34 Nov 9, 2012
fun farts wrote:
Let's see how much sea ice is recovering.......

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...

Of course, the present Arctic sea ice is also much thinner than that of 1980.
Silica

Thailand

#35 Nov 18, 2012
My colleague Julian Bulman recently posted this article in Science Now, this may help you with your nonsense posts regarding climate change denial:

Hydraulic fracturing, to give fracking its correct term, is a technology used to induce or propagate fractures in rocks by injecting pressurised fluids into those fractures and thereby releasing held oil or gas allowing those fossil fuels to migrate either to existing reservoirs or to come directly to the surface. For simplicity, using fracking technologies, we are rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure on natural faults within the earth’s crust to release hydrocarbons and actually lubricating and extending these natural fracture zones.

If you listened to opinion and editorial nonsense from the media you would assume that fracking is a safe, wholesome technology that is helping America become less dependent on foreign oil so three cheers for the good ol’ US of A. Unfortunately this is not the case and factual studies have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these fracking technologies can and have produced substantial earthquakes and increase seismicity wherever the technology is used.

That is why it is vitally important that any person understands that opinion is not fact. To cut to the chase any media source that promotes fracking as a safe technology are lying to the general public and are part of the scams and frauds perpetrated by business interests that could and will likely lead to an extreme event in more seismically active areas of the continental US.

Fracking causes seismic activity as the pressures are released, this is a fact backed up by years of research and evidential support. Fracking also causes many other potential environmental impacts including; contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the various health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even outright banning its use.

That is not the case in the United States and for exactly the same reasons that there is a non-debate on human induced climate change. Namely this is because corporate America (and all large global producers affecting the environment) have far more money to spend on disinformation campaigns than scientists have on promoting their real and proven, and therefore, factual research.

Thus these corporates spend huge amounts of cash seeding junk science, disinformation campaigns, pressure groups and opinion to the mass media and this directly affects the vast majority of people’s views and opinions who believe that scientists are debating whether Human Induced Climate Change or Human Induced Seismicity is actually a real thing. The reality is far different.

To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work).

This is the same for Human Induced Seismicity, seismographs are impossible to fake so any earthquakes that are in the vicinity of these various fracking technologies a link can be made using evidence support systems which is why there is no debate in the scientific community about fracking causing earthquakes, the science is proven and the earthquakes caused cannot be faked, especially in areas with little to no known previous seismic activity.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#36 Nov 19, 2012
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...

With 30 of the warmest years on record between the two, looks pretty good.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#37 Nov 19, 2012
Silica wrote:
To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up over the last 300 years due to the proliferation of carbon we humans have been putting in to our atmosphere with a particularly strong spike in the last 50 years or so. The other 3% of scientists, who are either on the fence or against these theories, are likely to be either financially supported by big business or are dependent on them in some way for funding (it pains me to say that most dissenters are geologists who rely on the energy companies for work).
"To put it bluntly 97% of scientists agree that the earth has been heating up..."

Do you think your friend was referring to the 77 of 79 self proclaimed climate scientists who responded to a two question internet survey? Or maybe has the 97% confused with the 98% statistic from a survey of climate study abstracts and the number of times each paper was cited?

My experience is, you can't get 97% of all scientists to agree on the exact attributes of gravity. They all agree with gravity, but just exactly how it acts and where is still being debated. Look up repulsivity of gravity.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#38 Nov 19, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cg i-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11& fd=15&fy=2012&sm=11 &sd=15&sy=1979
With 30 of the warmest years on record between the two, looks pretty good.
Even tho your bias-picked graphs show lots of Arctic sea ice concentration reduction(which you overlook), you also don't mention the major Arctic sea ice thickness decrease. The THICKNESS AND CONCENTRATION REDUCTIONS have combined, such that the average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for November 1980-89 period have reduced from ~18 thousand km3 to ~6.2 thousand km3.
What your blind & biased non-scientific eyes show as pretty good, is in truth, rapidly decreasing uncontrolled ice loss that blind, biased & non-scientific minds work hard to purposefully make disappear for short-term one industry profit.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39 Nov 19, 2012
fun farts wrote:
My experience is, you can't get 97% of all scientists .....
Your experience is that you have no science or mathematics background & are in no position to voice your opinion in any forum that counts for anything. That's why you blow-off in toxic topix AGW forum threads that couldn't swing science in any direction.
PHD

Oak Park, MI

#40 Nov 23, 2012
Ahh but science does swing in all directions.No need for a science or math background to figure science just open your eyes.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#41 Nov 23, 2012
PHD wrote:
No need for a science or math background to figure science just open your eyes.
The present Arctic sea ice extent is less than any previous year, by your state's entire area+!

Your weather disappointment means nothing at all.

Furthermore(or less), the total Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss from ~1985, amounts to the area of your state piled to a depth of ~40 to 50 meters. Now, that is weather change!

Your weather disappointment really really means nothing at all.
PHD

Oak Park, MI

#42 Nov 23, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The present Arctic sea ice extent is less than any previous year, by your state's entire area+!
Your weather disappointment means nothing at all.
Furthermore(or less), the total Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss from ~1985, amounts to the area of your state piled to a depth of ~40 to 50 meters. Now, that is weather change!
Your weather disappointment really really means nothing at all.
Your arctic sea ice really really means nothing at all.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43 Nov 23, 2012
PHD wrote:
Your arctic sea ice really really means nothing at all.
Arctic sea ice belongs to all of us. Sorry, you don't want it.......

November 1980-89 average Arctic sea ice VOLUME was ~18,000 km3. Present November 2012 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 6200 km3.
PHD

Oak Park, MI

#44 Nov 24, 2012
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Arctic sea ice belongs to all of us. Sorry, you don't want it.......
November 1980-89 average Arctic sea ice VOLUME was ~18,000 km3. Present November 2012 Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 6200 km3.
Your arctic sea ice belongs to all and it really really means nothing at all. Do claim your own piece of the sea at let us know how that works for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Geology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Geologist Speculates on Disappearance of Sanxin... Dec 25 Ken 1
Alert! ECG cuts power to seismic station for no... Dec 25 Krazy 1
Scientists try to decipher Idaho earthquake swarms Dec 24 Red 1
Series of strong earthquakes rattle B.C. and ed... Dec 23 Ted 1
Zachary Mazi, Santa Cruz County Stories: a Ther... Dec 21 Get a job ColbyLOSER 2
Magnitude 3.4 earthquake shakes west Alabama ne... Dec 17 USGS 1
Small earthquake shakes Greene County half a mi... Dec 17 Eutaw AL 1
More from around the web