There has been a great deal of speculation about the possibility that the arctic sea ice could, at the worst case, melt entirely, or more realistic, possibly break the record sea ice melt set last year.
Judge for yourself. This photo with 1 kilometer/pixel resolution was taken yesterday July 12th at 17:05 UTC:
Click for full size image – link to original source image is here
Note that the image above has been rotated, and the annotation for date/time added to make it easier to present here. There is some cloud cover, but if you look carefully, you can determine what is cloud cover and what is sea ice.
Here is the area covered by the AQUA/MODIS satellite on this photo:
The North Pole is visible in the satellite image, and I’ve marked it on the image with a “N” and crosshair.
Now compare to a similar photo from ten days ago:
Image rotated- click for source image.
I’d say we have a ways to go yet before the sea ice melts completely.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Evan Jones,
you still walk the fertile fields of your mind.
A faded shirt, a weathered brow,
a calloused hand upon the plow,
you fought till then
and you fight till now,
Evan Jones.
Thanks to Kenny Rogers and apologies to you.
sung to “Jean” by Oliver.
Pam, Pam, roses are red
and some of the hairs on your head.
And your eyes, I can’t say
but your last name is Gray.
I sure have fun with your name.
Pam, Pam, you’re young and alive
since nineteen and fifty five.
And you’ll live evermore
if I know what’s in store
for a bonny lass
named Pam Gray.
A faded shirt has increased albedo.
Pierre/Bill/Aaron,
Thanks for the comments/links. Anyone know of anything before 2002?
Paul
You beasts,
don’t you know, our earth is WEEPING!!!!?
Evan,
I think that there was a study released recently showing the whole ‘mirrors in space’ thing was not workable.
Sad part is I usually remark to myself, “I need to remember where this is in case it comes up in conversation”. But I never seem to remember where I save this stuff. I have great empathy for squirrels as I grow older.
Russ,
The article states they are not leaving the North Pole, the station they are on is on an ice flow that has drifted unexpectedly into a warm current and this (NOT GLOBAL WARMING) is why they are leaving a few weeks early. I love the press. It’s articles like these that got me to cancel any and all newspaper subscriptions 5 years ago. Knee jerk journalism/ Yellow press at its best.
MarkW (07:01:42) 14 July says (to me): I’m guessing that you don’t have kids in school.
No. Four out; next generation a couple years to start; but in hindsight I feel my “shocking” line was knee-jerk in a sense. I know this was happening way, way back, but the thought that it is still happening bolted me.
“We do have a population issue;” – “Actually, we don’t.” – “I know, I know. But one step at a time…”
Thanks, Mark W and Evan Jones. Fair cop, I used the language of fact about mere opinion. But I’m intrigued now. Care to give me some references for this? If you consider it’s off-topic,you can email @ur momisugly my website.
Meanwhile, back to “getting beyond AGW fixations and bad science”.
Evan Jones (20:01:04) wrote: Launch a series of satellites that deploy and maintain…
Way, way back, Evan, the Russians proposed the same with giant mirrors to warm the tundra and light the streets of their cities at night.
Just have to swing the mirrors and back at y’, Sol and show him not to mess with the Jones’ boy…
Evan wasn’t referring to mirrors, but to a giant sun shade. Actually wouldn’t have to be as giant as all that, depending on where it was placed. I would think that keeping it in a specific position in relation to the sun and the Earth would be difficult.
Giant mirrors in space have two problems (apart from cost): Solar wind and tidal forces. Read “Neutron Star” for the second, and a story I can’t remember the title of about solar wind. They just won’t stay where you want them. And turning something 50 km in diameter could be quite a trick. We’re talking HUGE mirrors to have any effect. Not a solution.
Putting a lid on soot emissions would help, just have to get the soot emitters to agree.
I hope that doesn’t require nukes…
Everyone knows that this photo is only showing the top, we don’t know what’s under the ice! The sea level is rising, we’ve seen that in south europe, where the sea recovered what was beautiful beaches. It’s well known that the ice is really melting, and more quickly than predicted. It’s because no one really cares, that the worst can happen. You just need to open your eyes wider, proofs are everywhere. Bigger and stronger storms, tornados in europe, some beaches gone in south Europe, and many other proofs. I wish that all this was only some alarmist warnings, or just talk from crazy people! However, it’s not.
Bigger and stronger storms, tornados in europe, some beaches gone in south Europe, and many other proofs. I wish that all this was only some alarmist warnings, or just talk from crazy people! However, it’s not.
Jonix, wish no more, because it’s all alarmist nonsense. Yes, it is. You need to do some research. You will find you’ve been hornswaggled by AGW alarmist hype and propaganda. Start with a history of AGW here: Global Warming: How It All Began
And here’s a good scientific (written in layman’s terms) article:
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
Happy reading.
Dear Brittany
In the Arctic ice melts from the top down, since the temperature of the salt water under the ice is below zero.
Putting a lid on soot emissions would help, just have to get the soot emitters to agree.
That’s gonna happen all on its own.
China and India need to rich up first. then they will clean up on their own and then they will do the cleanup. Every affluent industrial country has gone the same route, all for the same reasons.
I hope that doesn’t require nukes…
Too risky. You can’t undo it if you get it wrong or there is an unintended secondary effect.
But the satellite solution is infinitely adjustable.
And I’m not suggesting a “mirror”. More like Mylar. Incredibly thin and light. With sats in place to nudge for solar wind and orbital drift. (It’s not today’s solution. It’s for tomorrow’s advanced tech.)
Lucy:
It’s all in the birthrates. Check this out; it tells the story well in microcosm.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html
The only reason population is going up is the falling death rates. Population is headed for a big S-curve.
It’s human nature: We have hit that point in human history (and affluence) when kids are no longer necessary for survival, but instead are a hideous expense! (You parents out there know exactly what i mean!) Result: in every affluent country the birthrates have plunged, often below replacement rate. (It’s even beginning to happen in the poorer countries.)
Even if it doesn’t, there is little to fear: We house 100 with far more elbow room in less real estate than we housed 10 a century ago. NYC was intensely more overcrowded when it had 1 million pop. than today, when it has 8 million. The human “footprint” becomes tiny once technology becomes advanced.
For next, you can stop worrying about running out of natural resources (in case you haven’t yet).
The trouble with grade school these days is it generally takes around 12 years to unlearn all the nonsense they pack one full of. (If we had more reasonable teachers like Pamela, we wouldn’t have this problem.)
Thanks Evan, info appreciated, also advice earlier re apostates! I’m not going to do a sudden U-turn on “population issues” at this point, but your info is noted while I hole up and reconsider.
Great to see that Jonix (above) was put on track straight away by Bruce Cobb. I’d love to see such links as Bruce gave, loud and clear at the top of blogs like this and Climate Audit, where you can direct AGW’s and then say “come back for intelligent discussion when you’ve read these”. I’ve also done one: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransPlanet/Curious.htm and I’m sure there are others. Now perhaps the biggest block to people reconsidering is this: AGW “experts” say that top experts Lindzen, etc are not believable because they are oil-funded and there’s the proof of their funding… and there are the rebuttals of the skeptics’ arguments anyway… AGW believers (like me at that time) won’t even start to look at Lindzen’s science.
I would love to see a website with “de-de-bunk” answers to all the classic “debunks” like one sees on the websites like http://www.skepticalscience.com. Including “why skeptics’ supposed oil funding is an untrustworthy indicator” – the significance of government funding, Al Gore’s own oil funding, etc. – “why more CO2 would help, not hinder, the planet” – in line with real permaculture, after all – and “disinformation at Wikipedia” – http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml .
Evan,
The orbiting sunshade idea is not new. A few calculations. Put a sunshade (either in one piece or many little ones) at L5 (Is that the libration point between Earth and Sol?) That’s a long way away, and Sol is much bigger than Earth so you will need a sunshade of the order of the Earth’s diameter to give an annular eclipse effect. That’s 8000 miles. Take aluminium about 50 microns thick. (Let’s work in SI – easier to make orders-of-magnitude errors but easier for rough computations) So, 7000*7000*PI*0.0000000005=about 7.7 cubic kilometres, or 7,696,902,000 cubic metres of aluminium. At a density of 2600kg/cu.m that’s 20,011,945,203.367 tons (OK, technically tonnes if you want to use FFMs (Funny Foreign Measurements)) of aluminium to be chucked up to a distance that I think is one-third the way to the sun.
Are you sure this is easy?
Welshman to kayak to the North Pole
In Uk, we get a constant diet of drivel from the BBC like this, always without any checking or criticism, just taken as facts. The BBC will not of course follow up this story, they only need to look at the sattelite photo which clearly shows that he’s going to have a hard time. Be patient and go through to the end of the item, says it all!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7507619.stm
[…] Still there! I’ll attempt to hotlink the pic, and I’ll include the site link, just in case. Satellite Imagery Shows Arctic Ice Still Unmelted « Watts Up With That? […]
A ‘shade’ isn’t going to do it. If it doesn’t reflect, at 1365 w/m^2, it will get really hot. Mylar can reflect quite well, at the right angle. The problem is where to put it and how to keep it there. Orbital mechanics do what they will do regardless of anything we might want. Solar wind pushes big, lightweight things around rather well. I think NASA did a comet rendezvous with a solar sail a while back.
India and China may cut back on soot, eventually. Just as their population growth will slow (and the rest of the third world), eventually. Problem is what to do in the meantime.
Aluminum hats, anyone?
Jerry:
Of course it couldn’t possibly be a new idea. Far and away too obvious.
L1 is probably too far out and would requite far more mass. I am thinking more about something in low solarsynchronous orbit. If this were feasible it would be much smaller and would save a heck of a lot on the tinfoil (or whatever material). You’d have to keep the orbit adjusted and be able to patch the holes, of course.
As for India and China, we don’t do anything in the meantime. We simply endure about three decades of soot, and after that we never have to worry about it again. (For that matter, there’s nothing we CAN do about it anyway.)
but your info is noted while I hole up and reconsider.
Can’t ask for fairer than that.
Note that the corner on birthrates turned in most countries starting around 1990. (But it’s nice to have the rates back to 1975 by way of comparison.)
Aluminum hats, anyone?
Personal Power Solar Panel hats, maybe?