On Sep 7, 11:31*am, "N_Cook" wrote:
Alastair McDonald wrote in message

...











"N_Cook" wrote in message
...

Ah, the hand of man rather than the hand of big-G
the last 2 entries for the csv table for 05 sept
04,3726563
05,3628125

changed to
04,3726563
05,3681094
06,3614219

on the 6 Sept, the AWG-brigade put its oar in ?
Where is the footnote relating to such "revisions" ?

I think I have now worked out what is going on.

Today the figures have changed to:

04, 3726563
05, 3681094
06, 3676406
07, 3601875

In other words, yesterday's (06,) figures have been revised when today's
provisional figure was entered. The change between 05, and 06, was
only -4,688 sq km and at present the change betwween 06 and 07 is -74,531
sq
km but this will probably be revised down. So the difference between 2007
and 2012 will most likely settle at around 800,000 sq km i.e. an extent of
between 3,400,000 and 3,500,000 sq km.

There is an page on the BBC web site about the melting sea ice posted this
morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19508906

Cheers, Alastair.

This is a probable tipping-point
"If the ice is thinner there is more light penetrating and that light can
heat the water."
I wonder if 2012/13 winter will be like the 2007/8 a winter and full remelt
or whether 2013 spring will start with a much lower ice area because of
failure to fully refreeze to the previous amounts.

Wouldn't a surface of fresh water tend to freeze more quickly than the
more usual brine?

It doesn't have to cope with a lading of salt to start with, therefore
will remain on the surface all winter. It's just that business of
reaching 4 degrees C.

I wonder how it will react to warmer brine at depth.