あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]murmsModerate -1ポイント0ポイント  (23子コメント)

I'll just leave this here.

[–]JustWanderfulLibertarian Conservative 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dan Rather, is that you?

[–]jeraggie 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I'll leave this one

[–]WhoWatchesTheWatcher 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The extent has increased, but the volume has decreased.

Why? Because the antarctic is not like the arctic. It is built on land, and the ice is a higher percentage of fresh water ice. This melts and freezes at a different temp. The salt water is still liquid, but cold enough to refreeze the melting "pure" ice when they collide.

This means the fresh water ice melts, some is lost (overall volume goes down) but as it spreads out it refreezes on the edges.

Even if you ignore that though and just look at area increase (not volume) the Arctic's losses are much greater than the Antarctic's gains.

[–]kriegson 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'll just leave this here

Also carbon vs global sea ice for an interesting correlation (or lack thereof).

[–]murmsModerate -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What are you trying to point out? That ice coverage gets smaller in the summer and larger in the winter?

Or are you showing the year-on-year decline of ice coverage over a 5 year period? Because if that's the case I felt like my graphic provides a clearer picture of that.

[–]kriegson 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all it should be fairly obvious what I'm pointing out considering both graphs come from the same source. Though I doubt you're even aware of what it entails considering you probably plucked it from some blog or another.

Starting the record at the end of a cold period (70's) is quite disingenuous. Why not start from the 40's or 30's? Secondly, as you can see global sea ice has remained relatively consistent. Why is that?
Record levels of ice in the antarctic.

Cherry picking a year and region just to try and push your point of scare tactics with a snide "I'll just leave this here."? Tsk tsk. Also worth noting sea level has remained relatively consistent in a rise of about 3.3mm per century IE whatever melts off the arctic isn't changing much.

So then, what was your point with your scary "I'll just leave this here" graph?