Massive melting of glaciers and ice sheets will lead to a 10-foot rise in the seas. Meanwhile fires are burning endlessly. CLIMATE CHANGE?

"The Chukchi Sea experienced very early melt onset and rapid ice loss in spring 2019, and by the end of summer 2019 reached one of the lowest ice extents in the satellite record for the region."

Chukchi Sea

The Chukchi Sea has experienced large changes in sea ice coverage. The September 2018 Arctic sea ice minimum extent was characterized by profound sea ice loss in the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 6). The dearth of sea ice continued into the autumn season, accompanied by anomalously warm air temperatures of 3-8°C above the 1981-2010 average. Progressing into October and November 2018, a high-pressure system over the Bering Sea expanded into the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, sustaining warm conditions and, as a consequence, slowed the autumn advance of the sea ice cover. Sea ice extent in the Chukchi Sea remained well below average until the end of December 2018, when it reached near-average coverage (Fig. 6). Throughout the winter and spring, air temperatures continued to be 1-4°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average, which likely contributed to the low sea ice concentrations.

In spring 2019, melt onset across the Chukchi Sea occurred 20-35 days earlier than the 1981-2010 average. Sea ice began a rapid and accelerating retreat from the south in early May, leading to a record low sea ice extent that lasted until early August, with negative sea ice concentration anomalies of 50%. A combination of anomalously warm air temperatures (1-5°C above the 1981-2010 average) and southerly winds promoted this precipitous loss ice. As the sea ice retreated northward, exposed open water areas warmed, leading to anomalous sea surface temperatures greater than 5°C above average. By mid-September, sea ice coverage in the Chukchi Sea remained far below the 1981-2010 average. This reduction in sea ice coverage has continued far into the freeze-up period, with ice extent only one-third of the previous record minimum. Consistent with the long-term record of Arctic-wide ice loss, most characteristics of the sea ice in the Chukchi Sea, including the length of the melt season and area of open water subject to rapid warming in summer, are now entirely different compared to the first decade (1979-88) of the satellite record."

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/841/Sea-Ice#:~:text=The%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20cover,minimum%20and%20winter%20maximum%20extents.&text=The%20Chukchi%20Sea%20experienced%20very,satellite%20record%20for%20the%20region.

Look at the graph....there is more ice now than there was centuries ago. 

Your graph is from 2017.  My article is from 2019. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at September 15, 2020 11:25 AM MDT

:):):)

Ever notice that all of the global warming ice melting alarmists information starts in the 1970s?  This is because that was a unusually thick period. 

We know that the newer data from 2018 and 2019 did not drop to below the other centuries in the graph because of the graph in the article you posted shows that 2012 was the lowest amount of ice in recent years. 


This post was edited by my2cents at September 15, 2020 12:55 PM MDT

I'm guessing you don't realize that the Earth is warming at a faster rate than every.  Higher temperatures will increase the melting of the ice.  I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that correlation.

Yet, from the graph in your article shows that 2018 and 2019 did not melt as much as 2012. 

This is 2020.  There weren't as many fires in 2019. weren't as many hurricanes, tornadoes or tropical storms in 2019 either.  You just can't admit you may be wrong, can you.  

I have not been showed I am wrong. 

When someone states that "I have not been shown that I am wrong," that is of course only your opinion of course---and thus respected.

But then anyone here who reads that is free to think that perhaps the person stating that is in fact unable to understand the reasoning that proves that person wrong.

In my experience on these Q & A websites, lack of understanding runs rampant.

Of course, everyone is free to think what they want. That is the beauty of this site. 

:):):)

I beg to differ. At least that is what is being said. The massive icebergs and ice sheets are melting rapidly due to GLOBAL WARMING. Where does that go if not in the seas? Why do you think it has no impact on a rising sea level? Does it all just evaporate? Inquiring minds would like to know. Thank you for your reply E! Well? This post was edited by RosieG at September 16, 2020 1:59 AM MDT

Put some ice in your glass of water.  Let the ice melt.  Does the water level increase as it melts?  No. The ice is already taking up the space in the glass.  It does not matter which phase (liquid or solid) the water is in it will take up the same amount of space. 

This is 10 ft increase in sea level is just to scare people into just following orders. 

Sigh...

[In a closed system, where the ice has already displaced it's volume (Archimedes Principle) what you observed in your glass will happen in all such closed systems with ice (since water expands its volume when it freezes by 10%)}

Melting land ice, like mountain glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, will change the Earth’s rotation only if the meltwater flows into the oceans. If the meltwater remains close to its source (by being trapped in a glacier lake, for example), then there is no net movement of mass away from the glacier or ice sheet, and the Earth’s rotation won’t change. But if the meltwater flows into the oceans and is dispersed, then there is a net movement of mass and the Earth’s rotation will change. For example, if the Greenland ice sheet were to completely melt and the meltwater were to completely flow into the oceans, then global sea level would rise by about seven meters (23 feet) and the Earth would rotate more slowly, with the length of the day becoming longer than it is today, by about two milliseconds.

Melting sea ice, such as the Arctic ice cap, does not change sea level because the ice displaces its volume and, hence, does not change the Earth’s rotation.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/30/if-all-of-earths-ice-melts-and-flows-into-the-ocean-what-would-happen-to-the-planets-rotation/

And your answer scares me---there is a difference between icebergs in the ocean that melt and the ice sheets on land that melt and then flow into the ocean. This post was edited by tom jackson at September 16, 2020 1:55 AM MDT

Topic of this thread was SEA ICE. See above that was specified by Element99's answer. 

Rosie talked about Massive melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

Element 99 first mentioned sea ice.---and then you headed off in that direction.

How, especially as a moderator, did you conclude that the topic was now "sea ice?"

Now I'm even more scared.

That is how a thread works. 
You respond to the posts in the thread below each answer. 
So as I said Element99's answer specified that SEA ICE melting will not raise sea levels.  Rosie then asked how that could be so I explained it. 

Or, here's how a thread works:

A running commentary of text messages pertaining to one topic or question. Message threads are used in all forms of user discussions on the Internet, including Usenet newsgroups, Web-based forums, blogs, chat rooms, groupware and email. The "thread" refers to the collection of messages organized by the software.

So if someone asked a question about child abuse, you would allow someone who asked a question about child prostitution to be hijacked?

Questions are topics, threads develop topics---they don't allow them to be changed.

There are no rules against "hijacking a question." As such I would have no reason to moderate it or not "allow" it. 

Read the question again. Where do I say anything about SEA ICE? That is your invention not mine. Seriously. SIGH. AARRGGHH