(Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Week) Greenland and The Future of Humanity

Screen Shot 2018-09-08 at 11.18.52 PMThe once “unthinkable” has happen.  The 2-3 million year old “Last Ice On Earth”, as it was called, has melted, re-formed, melted, and finally reformed again. This photo is of that ice during the last melt where it had turned into a “rubble” of ice bergs, etc.

Yes, the title is dramatic. But what is happening is also dramatic.  Once the Arctic Sea Ice and its rich harvest saved the flagging species Homo Sapien in North America.  Salmon and Shelter were the two saving “S”s for our species at one point. This gave rise to new technologies unseen before. The hand-driven atlatl spear-throwing technique gave way to the bow-and-arrow.  Fishing with hook and sinew, and fish ponds.  That was +50,000 years ago.

Screen Shot 2018-09-09 at 11.23.28 AM

Screen Shot 2018-09-08 at 11.10.04 PMSo far, overall melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet has tracked at a slightly above average pace. Surface melting has been slightly below average in the northwest and far southern coastal areas, and slightly above average in the central southern region. A small area of significantly higher-than-average melting has occurred along the northeast coast, where some melt ponds have formed.  You will here a lot about this in the coming Fall.  This is what Greenland looks like now.  I know. I flew over it last week from Iceland.

 

The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.

This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.

One meteorologist described the loss of this ice as “scary”.  Others said it could force scientists to revise their theories about which part of the Arctic will withstand global-warming the longest.

The sea off the north coast of Greenland is normally so frozen that it was referred to, until recently, as “the last ice area” because it was assumed that this would be the final northern holdout against the melting effects of a hotter planet.

But abnormal temperature spikes in February and earlier this month have left it vulnerable to winds, which have pushed the ice further away from the coast than at any time since satellite records began in the 1970s. How this plays out with the Arctic Vortex collapse later this Winter is of deep concern for any human.

But perhaps it takes drama and deep concern to stir the heart of woman…

What’s Happening to Our Weather? The Answers Lie in The Arctic

Screen Shot 2018-09-09 at 1.22.05 PMDr. Helen Czerski, second from left, with her scientist colleagues from the Oden  (“Oðin” under Swedish flag), pictured on their first day on the ice of the 2018-2019 season.  Photo credit: Helen Czerski.

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-09 at 1.20.47 PMThe Oden disembarks supplies and scientific equipment.

[MORE TO COME AS WE UPDATE]

4 Replies to “(Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Week) Greenland and The Future of Humanity”

  1. The Radiative Greenhouse Effect Theory

    Premise 1:
    The earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. (288 K – 255 K = 33 C)
    So, just how does that work?

    Premise 2:
    There is an up/down/”back” CO2/GHG LWIR energy loop between the surface and the atmosphere that “traps” and recirculates energy through molecular level QED processes warming both the atmosphere and the surface.
    And what powers that energy loop?

    Premise 3:
    The surface radiates LWIR as a S-B 289 K ideal black body with a 1.0 emissivity at 396 W/m^2. (TFK_bams09)

    Premises 1, 2 & 3 are demonstrably false. See links below.

    No ideal BB upwelling surface radiation + No up/down/”back” GHG LWIR energy loop + No 33 C warmer = ZERO RGHE & ZERO carbon dioxide warming & ZERO mankind caused climate changing.

    Premise 1:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

    Premise 2:
    http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

    Premise 3:
    http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW

    Like

    1. nshroeder,

      I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Thank you for the links to Greenhouse effects. Some commentary have just become active on my site. I have not tried to defend any one theory of global warming or climate change. What I do know from both personal and scientific experience is that of the Arctic Sea Ice: I know it is seasonal. I know there is less of it than, say 10 years ago. I know that many small communities of Inuit and Inupiat depend on it, as do their food staples, the fish, the polar bear, the reindeer herds they tend, the caribou. Is it a linear decline? No. Is it important. Yes. As the authors of the “Nature Communication” justified, the data to support the hypothesis that annual melting of the Kara and Barents Sea regions of the Arctic Sea Ice has a profound effect on the weather systems of Earth. In particular, the annual collapse of the Arctic Vortex. A vortex that surpresses cold fronts from inundating the East Coast of the US. With its collapse, so to the East Coast weather has become detrimental and costly. And more, that over the past 4-5 years I have been using their thesis through two US Presidential administrations, this has more that been proven to be a viable thesis. My predictions, based on their thesis, for the severe East and Southeast regions of the US have all – unfortunately – born fruit. As you are aware of the idea that CO2 was a ‘greenhouse gas’, did you know also it was the original thesis of a moderate and prominent Republican scientist working out of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea in the 1950’s? He documented for President D. Eisenhower the relationship he observed between a small rise (at that time) in Earth’s surface temperature and human use of coal and oil and production of CO2. These observations were confirmed during that Republican administration at Ames Airfield, later to become NASA-Ames. I was a punk kid then, so I must use others’ insight in the 1950’s. Why do I say Republican or Democrat? To emphasis that the concept of global warming and climate change is independent of geopolitical affiliation.

      But again: (1) Arctic Sea Ice Minimum was something I learned from being a volunteer superforecaster in GJP, and from those gaining that DARPA-funded research, (2) That specific regional increases in melting and warming of the Arctic Sea surface in the Kara and Barents Seas have a profound effect on Arctic or Polar Vortex Collapse, and (3) that collapse leads to horrendous, detrimental weather on the East Coast. The West Coast has not had that, in contrast. Most weather changes here have been short-term, unrelated to the global warming trend in the East. This too, is well-documented. All the best!

      Like

      1. Well, that’s all interesting – but much of the climate change debate attempts to correlate what are short term anecdotes, observations of natural variations with CO2 warming and CAGW.

        For instance, per DMI & JAXA & NSIDC the sea ice is very little different over the past decades. Data trumps anecdotes.

        Without the ideal BB LWIR upwelling from the surface there is no greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming and no man caused climate change.

        https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6447825132869218304

        https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552

        https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6384689028054212608

        Regards,
        Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774

        Like

      2. What’s all interesting? I am sorry, but I am reading the reports by AIP on the new levels of Scientific and Energy funding just signed into law by President Trump that rejects his own proposals! I find that alone..staggering! Don’t you? I am taking comments on the allocation of our American taxpayer money and for what. If you might move on, please read those article. Much of what the US Congress see as important is funding alternative energy sources. How much and why you might ask? Hashing over old topics? Please…

        Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s