It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Explanation: I now provide a video to show what I meen by how redistributing MASS in relation to the center of gravity can dramatically alter the rate of spin of the rotating object.



Note towards the end of the video the female figue skater enters into a low teapot leg spin and how that alters her rpm's.


Personal Disclosure: I think the issue of sea levels is a moot one and I am far more interested in how this mass currently locked up at the southern polar regions will potentially affect the earths rate of spin.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
From the article linked in the OP:


So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder. That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.


That is their explanation for why there is more ice forming in Antarctica while the rest of the globe is warming. it seems a bit weak to me. But they did finish off by saying that it is the leading explanation.

I wonder why all the extra UV radiation coming through the ozone hole doesn't have some warming effect in Antarctica.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Why does the ozone hole form over Antarctica ? The answer is essentially 'because of the weather in the ozone layer'. In order for rapid ozone destruction to happen, clouds (known as PSCs, Stratospheric Clouds Mother of Pearl or Nacreous Clouds) have to form in the ozone layer. In these clouds surface chemistry takes place. This converts chlorine or bromine (from CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals) into an active form, so that when there is sunlight, ozone is rapidly destroyed. Without the clouds, there is little or no ozone destruction. Only during the Antarctic winter does the atmosphere get cold enough for these clouds to form widely through the centre of the ozone layer. Elsewhere the atmosphere is just too warm and no clouds form. The northern and southern hemispheres have different 'weather' in the ozone layer, and the net result is that the temperature of the Arctic ozone layer during winter is normally some ten degrees warmer than that of the Antarctic. This means that such clouds are rare, but sometimes the 'weather' is colder than normal and they do form. Under these circumstances significant ozone depletion can take place over the Arctic, but it is usually for a much shorter period of time and covers a smaller area than in the Antarctic.


link to more information on ozone layer

Here is a bit on that. The link has a good bit of information.
More than I need to know, but good none the less.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 




We were all warned of melting polar ice caps as being the death of us all, so it would seem to us dumb folks that more ice=good if less ice=bad.
The loss of sea ice itself has never been claimed as a source of disaster. It is more of a canary in a coal mine, indicating an overall change in Earth's climate (toward warming). While sea ice has increased slightly in the Antarctic, it has declined a great deal more in the Arctic. So, overall, there actually is less sea ice.

Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 




I wonder why all the extra UV radiation coming through the ozone hole doesn't have some warming effect in Antarctica.

Because UV radiation does not increase temperatures. It is longer wavelengths (like infrared) which do that.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


I am far more interested in how this mass currently locked up at the southern polar regions will potentially affect the earths rate of spin.
Compared to the overall mass of the Earth its water and ice are pretty insignificant, not enough to create any noticeable change in the rate of rotation. The redistribution of mass can cause other perturbations though and in fact, those perturbations are being used to study the effects of climate change.
www.igcp565.org...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by network dude
 




We were all warned of melting polar ice caps as being the death of us all, so it would seem to us dumb folks that more ice=good if less ice=bad.
The loss of sea ice itself has never been claimed as a source of disaster. It is more of a canary in a coal mine, indicating an overall change in Earth's climate (toward warming). While sea ice has increased slightly in the Antarctic, it has declined a great deal more in the Arctic. So, overall, there actually is less sea ice.

Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


When you speak of sea ice are you talking about polar ice caps?
I think there is some confusion in this thread about the two.
I do believe that if the polar caps melted completely that would cause a rise in sea level but if all the icebergs melted that would not effect levels.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


When you speak of sea ice are you talking about polar ice caps?

No. I'm speaking of sea ice, which is what this thread is about.


I do believe that if the polar caps melted completely that would cause a rise in sea level
Yes. Because, in the Antarctic in particular there is a great deal of ice which is not sea ice. There is also a great deal of ice on Greenland which is not sea ice.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Amazing!


I am very pleased that my intuition on this issue has turned up some profitable information.


Personal Disclosure: Thank you very much and the pdf link is greatly appreciated!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


When you speak of sea ice are you talking about polar ice caps?

No. I'm speaking of sea ice, which is what this thread is about.


I do believe that if the polar caps melted completely that would cause a rise in sea level
Yes. Because, in the Antarctic in particular there is a great deal of ice which is not sea ice. There is also a great deal of ice on Greenland which is not sea ice.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Where does the majority of sea ice come from?
Maybe the polar caps,greenland?
Do icebergs come from the ocean or land?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Where does the majority of sea ice come from?
Mostly from seawater. Sea ice is frozen sea water.


Do icebergs come from the ocean or land?
Icebergs are from glaciers. Icebergs form when glaciers grow, not when they shrink. Glaciers grow when more ice forms than melts.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

www.dailymail.co.uk... html



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 

False. The Met office released no report and the way the data is presented by David Rose is misleading.

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

metofficenews.wordpress.com...

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I just found this link it seemed to sum up my questions similar to how you did.


Sea ice is simply frozen ocean water. It forms, grows, and melts in the ocean. In contrast, icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves all originate on land. Sea ice occurs in both the Arctic and Antarctic. In the Northern Hemisphere, it can currently exist as far south as Bohai Bay, China (approximately 38 degrees north latitude), which is actually about 700 kilometers (435 miles) closer to the Equator than it is to the North Pole. In the Southern Hemisphere, sea ice only develops around Antarctica, occurring as far north as 55 degress south latitude.
Sea ice grows during the winter months and melts during the summer months, but some sea ice remains all year in certain regions. About 15 percent of the world's oceans are covered by sea ice during part of the year.

nsidc.org...



From the op

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.


This statement kinda leads one to believe that sea ice and rising oceans are linked.
Then says floating chunks to make one think of a iceberg and not sea ice.
Seems misleading.
edit on 15-10-2012 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by butcherguy
 




I wonder why all the extra UV radiation coming through the ozone hole doesn't have some warming effect in Antarctica.

Because UV radiation does not increase temperatures. It is longer wavelengths (like infrared) which do that.

Now that I read up on it a bit, I think that most of the UV radiation is reflected back off the largely snow covered terrain. That, and the fact that UV only accounts for 5% of the spectrum of solar radiation would be the reason for little heating effect. UV is more energetic than the rest of the radiation in the solar spectrum, and UV that is absorbed does have a net transfer of energy into the substance that absorbs it. In some substances this will be seen as an ionizing effect, but I think if a rock is the absorber, it would be seen as heat.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Seems misleading.

Why? It says "floating chunks of frozen ocean water". It's pretty clear to me what they're talking about.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well maybe misleading to me because we always here of the possibility of fresh water ice melting and causing the oceans to rise.
My biggest problem is i did not know the difference in sea ice melt off and glacial melt off.
Anytime i have heard talk of global warming and seas rising it would be followed by video of ice falling off into the ocean.
This is the first time i have heard of someone trying to say that sea ice would cause rising levels in the ocean.
Anyway do you think less sea ice has anything to do with less fresh water ice?
Is there a common link?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


In some substances this will be seen as an ionizing effect, but I think if a rock is the absorber, it would be seen as heat.
"Heat" is actually the vibration of molecules. As you point out, the transfer of UV energy to matter involves ionization (or chemical degradation).



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


Anytime i have heard talk of global warming and seas rising it would be followed by video of ice falling off into the ocean.
That would be somewhat misleading. Warming, in general, causes glaciers to retreat.


This is the first time i have heard of someone trying to say that sea ice would cause rising levels in the ocean
Who is saying that?



Anyway do you think less sea ice has anything to do with less fresh water ice?
All other things being equal, higher temperatures would lead to both. It's reasonable to assume that since Artic sea ice is decreasing, so would Arctic land ice. However, since sea ice requires colder temperatures to form the decrease would not be equal.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

From the op



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join