It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Data from new sensors, combined with older sources, are providing a more complete picture of ice thickness changes across the Arctic. In a recently published paper, R. Lindsay and A. Schweiger provide a longer-term view of ice thickness, compiling a variety of subsurface, aircraft, and satellite observations. They found that ice thickness over the central Arctic Ocean has declined from an average of 3.59 meters (11.78 feet) to only 1.25 meters (4.10 feet), a reduction of 65% over the period 1975 to 2012.
Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.
Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.
Over time, sea ice reflects the fast-changing circumstances of weather. It is driven principally by changes in surface temperature, forming and melting according to the seasons, the winds, cloud cover and ocean currents. In 2010, for example, sea ice extent recovered dramatically in March, only to melt again by May.
Sea-ice is subject to powerful short-term effects so while we can't conclude anything about the health of the ice from just a few years' data, an obvious trend emerges over the space of a decade or more, showing a decrease of about 5% of average sea-ice cover per decade.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SuperFrog
california has plenty of water but they are mismanaging it over a SMELT. a fish that dont effect the environment hardly at all.
Year No. 4 of California's severe, long-term drought will be a turning point, because the state might not have enough water in the reservoirs to make it to next year, according to one NASA water expert.
Jay Famiglietti, NASA's senior water scientist, wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Golden State has depleted its water resources so much that it'll all be gone in about one year. He came to his conclusion by using NASA satellites to study maps of the San Joaquin and Sacramento river basins.
"We're not just up a creek without a paddle in California, we're losing the creek too," he wrote.
originally posted by: KuzKuz
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Go and read. Since 2013 there has been increase in volume and thickness. Bad teacher needs a spanking
After the 2014 September minimum, first-year ice expanded through the winter growth season and older ice was redistributed around the Arctic Ocean. Figure 5 shows that winds have compressed second-year ice towards the coast of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. Old multi-year ice (4+ years old) drifted into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and spread out, with first-year ice forming between parcels of the older ice. Some of the multi-year ice (both second-year and older) drifted out of the Arctic through Fram Strait on its way to melting in the warm waters of the North Atlantic.
Overall, the area of second-year ice decreased by more than a third during the winter, while ice of four years and more declined by about 10%. In recent years, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas have seen substantial loss of ice during summer, even of the thicker, older ice.
In recent years, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas have seen substantial loss of ice during summer, even of the thicker, older ice.
originally posted by: KuzKuz
To me it more sounds like a pole shift if anything
originally posted by: paradoxious
NASA needs to be living up to its name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If you're unfamiliar with the term "aeronautics", it quite literally means navigating air.
NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)... you know them right? They're one of many groups that can't even tell you if it'll rain in the next hour. THEY should be watching the oceans and atmosphere, not NASA.
From the wiki place:*emphasis added.
Purpose and function
NOAA plays several specific roles in society, the benefits of which extend beyond the US economy and into the larger global community:
A Supplier of Environmental Information Products. NOAA supplies information to its customers and partners pertaining to the state of the oceans and the atmosphere. This is clearly manifest in the production of weather warnings and forecasts through the National Weather Service, but NOAA's information products extend to climate, ecosystems, and commerce as well.
A Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services. NOAA is also the steward of U.S. coastal and marine environments. In coordination with federal, state, local, tribal, and international authorities, NOAA manages the use of these environments, regulating fisheries and marine sanctuaries as well as protecting threatened and endangered marine species.
A Leader in Applied Scientific Research. NOAA is intended to be a source of accurate and objective scientific information in the four particular areas of national and global importance identified above: ecosystems, climate, weather and water, and commerce and transportation.