Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice

By Frank D. Roylance
The Baltimore Sun
(Sep 23, 2006)

Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.

Within the past week, this "polynya" -- a Russian word for any open
water surrounded by sea ice -- finally melted through a part of the ice
that separated it from the open ocean, forming a kind of bay in the
planet's northern ice cap.

"The reason we're tracking it is because we had never seen anything
like that before," said Mark C. Serreze, senior research scientist at
the National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder, Colo.

Polynyas occur every year in certain parts of the Arctic where warm
currents and persistent winds clear swaths of sea ice.

But this one, covering 38,000 square miles, is unique in the memory of
scientists who watch the Arctic ice closely because they see it as a
bellwether for the effects of global warming. They've found that the
area of the summer ice cap has been shrinking for at least three
decades, and it's getting thinner, too.

Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most extensive
summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an acceleration in the
rate of its long-term decline.

In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.

The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
that strikes it, sending it back into space.

Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.

So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.

[ . . . ]

If current rates of summer melting continue, NSIDC researchers have
said, the Arctic Ocean could be completely ice-free in summer before
the end of this century.

[ . . . ]

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NAS...=1112101662670

Not particularly significant.

Temperature anomalies within the Arctic Ocean basin for August 2006
were not exceptional:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...us=250&pol=pol

And dynamics (motion of the ice) change a lot.

A lot of melting takes place from mixing warmer water
from below to the surface. And there is always enough
warmer water beneath Arctic sea ice to melt it in
entirety should it be mixed upward vigorously enough.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice

By Frank D. Roylance
The Baltimore Sun
(Sep 23, 2006)

Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.

Within the past week, this "polynya" -- a Russian word for any open
water surrounded by sea ice -- finally melted through a part of the ice
that separated it from the open ocean, forming a kind of bay in the
planet's northern ice cap.

"The reason we're tracking it is because we had never seen anything
like that before," said Mark C. Serreze, senior research scientist at
the National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder, Colo.

Polynyas occur every year in certain parts of the Arctic where warm
currents and persistent winds clear swaths of sea ice.

But this one, covering 38,000 square miles, is unique in the memory of
scientists who watch the Arctic ice closely because they see it as a
bellwether for the effects of global warming. They've found that the
area of the summer ice cap has been shrinking for at least three
decades, and it's getting thinner, too.

Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most extensive
summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an acceleration in the
rate of its long-term decline.

In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.

The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
that strikes it, sending it back into space.

Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.

So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.

[ . . . ]

If current rates of summer melting continue, NSIDC researchers have
said, the Arctic Ocean could be completely ice-free in summer before
the end of this century.

[ . . . ]

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NAS...=1112101662670

Al Bedo wrote:

Not particularly significant.

Oh **** off you ignorant lying ****.

Temperature anomalies within the Arctic Ocean basin for August 2006
were not exceptional:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...us=250&pol=pol


And dynamics (motion of the ice) change a lot.

A lot of melting takes place from mixing warmer water
from below to the surface. And there is always enough
warmer water beneath Arctic sea ice to melt it in
entirety should it be mixed upward vigorously enough.

And overturning it is. It's obvious the overturning of the oceans has
now begun on a global scale, as it was expected with global warming.

That's what happens when the melting of the ice caps proceeds at record
and accelerating rates. The oceans begin to overturn, and the energy is
transported down into the depths. In the oceans, cooler waters are
transported to the surface, where they can begin to warm anew.

This will proceed as an upward jigsaw of warming, melting, overturning,
cooling and then warming, melting and overturning over and over again,
until all the ice sheets are melted. It certainly isn't going to stop.

Every time the cooling phase occurs, you assholes will claim victory.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

A hole it the Northern ice covering 38,000 square miles
is "Not particularly significant."!?!! Did you double up
on your Prozac™ today, Al?

Al Bedo wrote:
Not particularly significant.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com

HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.

So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.

That's very true, in that the darker Earth becomes (especially ocean
dark as opposed to snowy white), the more solar energy gets absorbed,
whereas instead of taking in as little as 10%, it goes to as great as
90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now becoming extensively thawed is
simply adding further insult to injury in more ways than being of less
snow and ice covered, and those expanding dead zones of oceans are now
limited to being populated with jellyfish, if anything.

Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting environment, whereas by day the solar energy
obtains more access to the darker albedo of Earth, while at night the
added moisture that gets placed in our atmosphere becomes clouds which
only retains the solar influx more effectively.

But there's also the nearby mascon worth of our physically dark moon to
take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about the
amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also unavoidably
contributed into our environment.

That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting is how it'll simply
accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.

0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as potential energy is
worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do you really
think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's gravity force and
of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting converted via
friction into thermal energy?

Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (hot going towards the cold) of our global environment?

Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?

Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
unavoidably contributing gaseous elements that emerge to the surface,
into our oceans and contribute to the atmosphere from time to time?

I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you additional tolls to appreciate the ongoing
demise that's primarily caused by our moon.

In other words, you are 100% correct that global warming is getting
rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can
moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean
energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother
Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this forever, and
unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer
ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy.

Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. What we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by
infomercial-science, and it's otherwise media driven at the commands of
those encharge.

Your being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished
is the extra proof-positive that you're right, as otherwise why all the
Usenet damage-control fuss each time you've posted another global
warming topic?

There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
folks like yourself that have seen the light of how much of that thaw
can be directly attributed to human factors, though seemingly unable to
translate that into actions that'll make a difference. Educating the
public via this mostly naysay Usenet anti-think-tank is not going to
happen unless you and others of your kind can manage to kick a few extra
butts, and unfortunately the New York Times wouldn't dare print anything
you've had to say because of their clients and otherwise sponsors would
either sue their socks off or merely extract any future financial
support, the largest of which being our own government and/or of
government sponsored institutions that upon average is what pays for the
most infomercial column inches.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Roger Coppock wrote:

A hole it the Northern ice covering 38,000 square miles
is "Not particularly significant."!?!!

It's not significant and not unusual. A thousand years worth of data
would demonstrate this point vividly. But we don't have a thousand
years of data. We have only about 40 years of data. So don't ****
your pants.

Now here's another honest man from naysayville that's after at least
part my own global warming heart.

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...e2e2810678d397
Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"

Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice
Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that
the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority
of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming",
as that's been more than proven via replicated science to have been a
contributing factor, although I'm thinking it could represent as little
as 10% of the ongoing root cause.

The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so
slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as
even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent
unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us,
and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand
year ice age dips.

And the infomercial wars of mainstream status quo that's wagging thy
dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts
plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally dark
moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last
ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC?
-

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4eeb1ff70466f1
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most
extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an
acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline.

In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.

The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar
energy that strikes it, sending it back into space.

Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy
and expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent
of the solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that
heat from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in
the fall and winter.

So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.

I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes
(especially ocean darkness as opposed to icy/snowy white), the more
solar energy gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as
10%, it goes to as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now
becoming extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in
more ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those expanding
dead zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with jellyfish,
if there's anything.

Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar
energy obtains more unobstructed access to the darker albedo of Earth,
while at night the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere
by day becomes clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more
effectively.

But there's also the nearby orbiting mascon worth of our physically dark
moon to take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about
whatever amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also
unavoidably contributed into our warming environment.

That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth is how
it'll simply accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.

0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as the potential energy
resource is worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do
you folks really think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's
gravity force and of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting
converted via friction into thermal energy?

Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (warm energy going towards the cold) of our global
environment?

Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?

Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
having unavoidably contributed gaseous elements that emerge to the
surface, into our oceans and simply contribute to the atmosphere from
time to time?

I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you folks additional tools to appreciate the
ongoing demise that's primarily caused by our moon.

In other words, you are 100% correct that global warming is getting
rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can
moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean
energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother
Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this forever, and
unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer
ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy.

Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. What we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by
infomercial-science, and it's otherwise media driven at the commands of
those encharge.

Your being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished
from the GOOGLE/Usenet moderated groups is the extra proof-positive that
you're right, as otherwise why all the Usenet damage-control fuss and
flak each time you've posted another substantiated global warming topic?

There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
the few and far between folks like Roger Coppock that have seen the
light of how much of that thaw can be directly attributed to human
factors, though seemingly unable to translate that into actions that'll
make a worthy difference. Educating the public via this mostly naysay
Usenet anti-think-tank that's focused upon wagging those poor dogs to
death, is not going to happen unless the likes of Roger Coppock and
others of your kind can manage to kick a few extra butts, and
unfortunately the New York Times and of similar publications wouldn't so
much as dare print anything you've had to say because of their insider
clients and otherwise status quo or bust sponsors would either sue their
socks off or merely extract any future financial support, the largest of
which being our own state and federal governments and/or of those
numerous government/public sponsored institutions, that upon average is
what pays for the most infomercial column inches.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

wrote in message
oups.com...

Roger Coppock wrote:

A hole it the Northern ice covering 38,000 square miles
is "Not particularly significant."!?!!

It's not significant and not unusual. A thousand years worth of data
would demonstrate this point vividly. But we don't have a thousand
years of data. We have only about 40 years of data. So don't ****
your pants.

"A thousand years worth of data would demonstrate this point vividly"
"we don't have a thousand years of data"

Your first statement is clearly refuted by your second. Illogical - you must
be a denier.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Roger Coppock wrote:

A hole it the Northern ice covering 38,000 square miles
is "Not particularly significant."!?!!

It's not significant and not unusual. A thousand years worth of data
would demonstrate this point vividly. But we don't have a thousand
years of data. We have only about 40 years of data. So don't ****
your pants.

"A thousand years worth of data would demonstrate this point vividly"
"we don't have a thousand years of data"

Your first statement is clearly refuted by your second. Illogical - you must
be a denier.

You wouldn't know logic if it slapped you on the side of the head,
dunce.

You must be a do nothing doomsday cult ****.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice

By Frank D. Roylance
The Baltimore Sun
(Sep 23, 2006)

snipped


The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
that strikes it, sending it back into space.

Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.

A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
implied here.