« Greenman 3610's video on the 2011 minimum |
| You do it to your shelf »
This isn't telling us something we don't know, but it's a good thing NASA makes these vids (h/t Greenman3610):
Posted by Neven on September 26, 2011 at 16:51 in Video | Permalink
| | Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This week's Economist has an interesting article about arctic sea ice. http://www.economist.com/node/21530079
Rich and Mike Island |
September 26, 2011 at 23:49
Any thoughts on the rapid refreezing?
Should the oilcompanies worry?
Hans Verbeek |
September 27, 2011 at 12:19
It isn't all that rapid compared to other years. We've started speculating a bit in the comment section of the last SIE update.
Areas of interest IMO are:
1. Northwest Passage and Canadian Archipelago
2. Barentsz and Kara Seas (very warm water there)
3. Ice edge on the Atlantic side
4. Hudson Bay
The oil companies should definitely worry (about AGW and Peak Oil), but they don't. All they worry about is maximizing profit, at the expense of everything, even themselves.
In regard to the Arctic, what they could worry about more than the ice is changing atmospheric patterns (big storms for instance). But I'm not seeing any sign of worry over that, so either they're not thinking about it or it's not a threat to oil rigs.
September 27, 2011 at 12:26
The Arctic will remain a hostile environment for humans and oilcompanies.
What do you make the theory of M.A. Vukcevic about the relationship of changing geomagnetic fields and the temperature in the Arctic?
Interesting, far-fetched or complete b*ll*cks?
Hans Verbeek |
September 27, 2011 at 21:00
I lack the knowledge to judge his theories, Hans, but from what I've taken away from his discussions with Leif Svalgaard on WUWT is that he isn't the most objective or trustworthy of sources.
September 27, 2011 at 23:27
there is no rapid refreeze taking place.
that graph shows 30 percent concentration, not the ice edge.
Chris Biscan |
September 27, 2011 at 23:33
@Neven (and @Hans): with regard to oil companies and big storms, Joe Romm made an interesting point in a recent post. He found (anecdotal evidence) that as many as half of the (scientific but unqualified) climate change deniers around were geologists, particularly those employed by oil companies. It should therefore come as no surprise that they would assume no increase in storm size as the ice melts.
A recent article in Business Week on Exxon Mobil efforts to drill off Point Hope Alaska (Chukchi, just north of Bering Strait) suggests that EM is spending little effort determining what effects climate change will have on local communities and wildlife that might affect drilling, and therefore is probably not thinking much about the subject at all. - w
Wayne Kernochan |
September 28, 2011 at 02:34
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text. URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address