The Race for the Arctic

[Chris Coles]

Very well worth a read:

http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/the-race-for-the-arctic/

http://icyseas.org/2015/07/23/prepar...day-at-a-time/

[santafe2]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Very well worth a read:

http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/t...or-the-arctic/

http://icyseas.org/2015/07/23/prepar...day-at-a-time/

The first time I read an official unclassified US document regarding US security concerns over an ice free arctic was in 2001. I've attached the US Navy's unclassified 2014-2030 Roadmap. This one line from the document should make US plans clear: "Ensure United States Arctic Sovereignty...".

http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

[Jam]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Very well worth a read:

http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/the-race-for-the-arctic/

http://icyseas.org/2015/07/23/prepar...day-at-a-time/

Americans are notoriously bad with geography

Americans are also notoriously bad with science as illustrated in the statement right at the top of Ms. Laura Kurek's piece

The melting of polar ice is quickly destroying the Arctic ecosystem and slowly making*Venice the next Atlantis*as rising sea levels submerge coastal areas.*

since the melting of Arctic polar ice does not contribute to rising sea levels.

[santafe2]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

..since the melting of Arctic polar ice does not contribute to rising sea levels.

...yup, good catch

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Americans are also notoriously bad with science as illustrated in the statement right at the top of Ms. Laura Kurek's piece



since the melting of Arctic polar ice does not contribute to rising sea levels.

First read "Unquiet Ice Speaks Volumes on Global Warming" http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unquiet-ice/

Then you need to remember that the last chunk of ice from the previous ice age sits two miles high, ABOVE the surface of the Arctic Ocean, on Greenland; and is generally considered to be sufficient when melted back into the surrounding planet to raise sea levels ~ 7 metres or between 20 and 25 feet.,Arctic Ice is Melting We Must Face Facts Sept 2012.pdf

Oh! and before you all come back to report that the Antarctic is experiencing increased ice surrounding the continent, you need to realise that the increased ice is caused by the increase in melting of fresh water ice; in turn creating an increase in the surface waters that now freeze earlier due to less salt in the surface waters.

Again, the forecast increase in the slide of ice into the surrounding sea is now recorded as dramatically accelerating. CryoSat Detects Sudden Ice Loss in Southern Antarctic Peninsula - SpaceRef

[Jam]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Then you need to remember that the last chunk of ice from the previous ice age sits two miles high, ABOVE the surface of the Arctic Ocean, on Greenland; and is generally considered to be sufficient when melted back into the surrounding planet to raise sea levels ~ 7 metres or between 20 and 25 feet.,[ATTACH]5676[/ATTACH]

Well, my quarrel was with "sea ice," specifically ice floating over the Arctic sea, which was my understanding of the term "Arctic polar ice." But, I guess, you are right, "Arctic ice" does include ice over land mass. Of course, melting of the latter does contribute to rising sea levels.

Whether such melting is caused by global warming predominantly caused by humans burning fossil fuels is a separate issue.

[Jam]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Oh! and before you all come back to report that the Antarctic is experiencing increased ice surrounding the continent, you need to realise that the increased ice is caused by the increase in melting of fresh water ice; in turn creating an increase in the surface waters that now freeze earlier due to less salt in the surface waters.

Just as melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels, the increase in sea ice, around the Antarctic or elsewhere, would not lower the sea level. So, clearly, if said increase in sea ice happens at the cost of reduced ice over land, then the net effect would be increased sea level.

[don]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Just as melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels, the increase in sea ice, around the Antarctic or elsewhere, would not lower the sea level. So, clearly, if said increase in sea ice happens at the cost of reduced ice over land, then the net effect would be increased sea level.

If the ice cubes in your drink melt, the liquid level in your glass will not go up.

If you add more ice or liquid into your glass it will.

Sea ice vs glacier melt runoff.

[santafe2]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

First read "Unquiet Ice Speaks Volumes on Global Warming" http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unquiet-ice/

Then you need to remember that the last chunk of ice from the previous ice age sits two miles high, ABOVE the surface of the Arctic Ocean, on Greenland; and is generally considered to be sufficient when melted back into the surrounding planet to raise sea levels ~ 7 metres or between 20 and 25 feet.,[ATTACH]5676[/ATTACH]

Oh! and before you all come back to report that the Antarctic is experiencing increased ice surrounding the continent, you need to realise that the increased ice is caused by the increase in melting of fresh water ice; in turn creating an increase in the surface waters that now freeze earlier due to less salt in the surface waters.

Again, the forecast increase in the slide of ice into the surrounding sea is now recorded as dramatically accelerating. CryoSat Detects Sudden Ice Loss in Southern Antarctic Peninsula - SpaceRef

CC, Jam pointed out what others had missed. Sea ice is ice mostly in the ocean. Nothing more or less. You brought out the religious global warming Billy Club to discredit the point and assume the worst regarding the observation. You're flailing off like the deniers did here in the past. I'd rather we didn't go there, it doesn't end well.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

CC, Jam pointed out what others had missed. Sea ice is ice mostly in the ocean. Nothing more or less. You brought out the religious global warming Billy Club to discredit the point and assume the worst regarding the observation. You're flailing off like the deniers did here in the past. I'd rather we didn't go there, it doesn't end well.

As I understand it; my report to the UK government was read by our Prime Minister (the Cabinet Office wrote to me to tell me the PM thanked me for my input); the Canadian government ordered their scientists to shut up; New Scientist published a report suggesting that sea levels would not rise so much due to gravity effects caused by continental mass; and the trail of effects it caused seem to be continuing. The climate scientist, Andreas Muenchow, http://icyseas.org/2015/07/23/prepar...day-at-a-time/ upon whose web pages I have continued to debate the issue raised was placed in front of Congress to also explain and I also believe a major intergovernmental conference met recently.

My argument has been that climate scientists do not take account of the kinetic energy effects of a block of ice two miles high; being exactly the same as a dam back filled with water two miles high; that the tiny flow from the upper surface of Greenland's ice, during the 2012 event, in fact generates more than 2 TW of kinetic energy input to the base of the ice block.

All I did was take their debate and present my interpretation. As for the Scientific American article, as I have shown, what they were predicting has already started.

Reasoned debate is not ever "flailing off". So I can only add my disagreement with your comment.

[vt]

Re: The Race for the Arctic

Huge Temperature Fraud At NOAA:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...fraud-at-noaa/

Thank God for the British press:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fuel-hour.html