>We also suggested a possible role of a strong oceanic heat inflow to the Chukchi Sea via Bering Strait.
>In support of this view, in the summer of 2017, Rebecca Woodgate of the University of Washington, Seattle, sailing on the research vessel Norseman II, recovered mooring data that indicated an early arrival of warm ocean water in the strait, about a month earlier than the average. This resulted in June ocean temperatures that were 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
>Higher ocean temperatures in summer plays a large role in the timing of when the ice will form again in winter. There is likely a considerable amount of heat remaining in the top layer of the ocean, which will need to be lost to the atmosphere and outer space before the region becomes fully ice covered.
Water is far less reflective, and so it absorbs significantly more incoming light energy, providing a general warming effect.
Please enlighten me if I am incorrect. Edit: thanks, all. I stand corrected.
> Based on figures from between 1993–2008 two thirds (68%) of recent sea level rise has been attributed by melting ice, and roughly one third has come from thermal expansion.
> During recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise, although there is some uncertainty in the estimates.
So even small changes can have noticeable effect, particular when it's combined with other changes.
> Is this warming uniform throughout the entire depth?
I don't believe so, I think various ocean layers are practically on different planets. But I don't think it makes a difference, less warming at lower levels just means more warming at higher levels, producing the same effect.
I don't think so, this is where waters uncompressability comes into play.
I've seen discussion that the heat lost from the relatively warm ocean water when not covered by ice exceeds the additional heat absorbed by low albedo, suggesting that lack of ice cover is actually a net negative feedback.
I have no personal calculations as to the magnitude of either effect, but I am skeptical of positive feedback loops, as they are inherently unstable. Note that we get significant ice loss every summer, followed by rapid gains in ice, which seems to cast doubt on the significance of any positive feedback.
Open water loses heat much more rapidly than ice-covered water, with the rate dependent on temperature, wind speed, etc. One study found open water heat flux was about 250 W/m2 vs 75 for ice pack in March/April (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JC02485/abstrac...). I didn't find references to give averages or graphs over a year.
However long the ocean remains open, it radiates excess heat at an increased rate vs ice pack - a negative feedback of open water, limited by the area and duration of open water.
It's real but it's not caused by us.
It's caused by us but the water does not rise.
The water does rise but that's actually good.
We believe in gaining a consensus,
but you'd better believe what we say or else.
> I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
I am not defending a position. I was merely pointing out the irony in trying to force a consensus.
Also, there is a difference between thinking that people speaking freely is good for a society's health, and trying to win a legal/ego battle.
If people can't handle a relatively neutral discussion about such things, then they might as well say so up front. I can understand if people have run out of patience, but it's far from being one-sided.
As for the cause, there is bound to be disagreement when you try to reduce it down to a single factor.
If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, along come the thought police to tell us that racism is to blame.
It's not hard to see why people think this discourse is a cover for something else.
I didn't knew that papers were oversimplified, because you're talking about science, not the media, isn't?
Loss of arctic sea ice has major implications, one of them is the affect on the jet stream. A discussion about that would have been much more fruitful. A brief explanation about this can be found here:
And after a while this diversion of attention is irritating. Not a down voter, but I'd assume that's what's going on.
Now, about "the other side" being unscientific -- HN down vote behavior does not have much to do with the content of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So I don't agree with letting HN down voting behaviors drive your decision-making about climate science.
For climate science, a good place to start is the just-published 2017 (U.S.) National Climate Assessment, which helpfully summarizes the peer-reviewed science. See: https://science2017.globalchange.gov
"First, as the oceans warm due to an increasing global temperature, seawater expands—taking up more space in the ocean basin and causing a rise in water level."