Home > AGW, Climate Change, Data, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Science, Skepticism > Arctic Sea Ice On The Edge (literally!)

Arctic Sea Ice On The Edge (literally!)

Continuing in my investigation of how “unfair” the situation is regarding Arctic sea ice and its forever-negative anomaly (forever-negative since it is calculated against a reference is pretty much the most sea ice the Arctic will ever going to see), some curious results about where the 1.1 million square kilometers are missing from.

The edges, that is.

As of Jan 16, Cryosphere Today reports 1.131M sq km of missing Northern Hemisphere sea ice area.

If you go into more details, the situation is:

  1. Bering sea, missing .1M sq km
  2. Sea of Okhotsk, missing .15
  3. Greenland sea, missing .1
  4. Baffin/Newfoundland area, missing .4
  5. Hudson Bay, missing .3

————

Total is 1.05M sq km already. If you then look at all the other areas, you will find them pretty much all

  • At around zero anomaly
  • Full of ice (i.e. there is no space for additional ice area)

In other words, there is no way that those places could contribute a positive anomaly that would balance out the negative ones listed abov. The only Arctic place that could contribute anything positive to the anomaly is actually the Barents Sea (where it is currently zero).

And where are all these non-full negative-anomaly areas placed? Why, they are all at the edges of the Arctic ocean.

This strongly indicates it’s not a generalized Arctic warming that is behind the “missing Arctic sea ice area”/negative anomaly, but something connected to sea currents.In fact, the Hudson Bay situation shows this nicely: it’s not the actual Bay that is missing most of the ice, it’s the Hudson Strait linking the Bay to the (negative-anomaly) Baffin/Newfoundland area.

Advertisements
  1. PKD
    2011/01/18 at 10:51

    Out of curiosity, if its all just seacurrents and the ice is not really really melting as a result of AGW as you seem to be claiming here, then why is the thickness of the ice that is there also showing to be thinning?

    BTW – It would be good to see NSIDC’s answer to these claims, although somehow I suspect this is a rather large red herring…

    • 2011/01/19 at 00:11

      I do not think the thickness is thinning.

  2. sdcougar
    2011/01/17 at 16:29

    Richard Lindzen, in a one sentence remark, notes that it used to be common textbook knowledge that wind is the primary factor affecting arctic sea ice.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: