Does double BOE mean back to back years? I don’t see how any following year wouldn’t have a time of clear ocean after the first one can collect that energy. The BOE point from then on just gets longer and longer, until the waters stay open all year. I.e., there’s only one BOE, and no going back.
Antartica’s ice will be present even in a hothouse Earth, at least for a millennia. That’s a lot of ice. And there’s no “ocean”, just the surrounding waters that don’t freeze in the same way as the Arctic. We are about to get some action though from the Thwaites glacier, so that will be fun.
Granted, its surrounding waters and refrigerator action does influence the weather and current systems in its own way, but is different.
Agreed on all that, but you should look at your first link, as it makes my point. The BOE is literally an Arctic event. The only mention of Antarctica is the ice sheet collapses (there and Greenland) which will be long after the first BOE. Fun fact, when the Arctic loses enough cooling power from lack of ice, Greenland will take over as the main driver of the weather in the northern hemisphere, and it being much offset from the rotational axis should provide very interesting weather side effects. So much for stability.
I’m all for learning new things. I don’t think the usage here of BOE is correct. Number one, how does one measure extent on the Antarctica ice coverage? I realize they do measure the ice amount and it’s low, but because it’s not in an enclosed area it’s a bit different, as is the water heating as the ice disappears. More important in that case is how the ice in the sea prevents ice loss from the land (as in with Thwaites) and how that will impact sea level rise, much like Greenland’s losses.
Also, none of the charts show an extent area coverage of the Antarctic, so I don’t think it’s a thing except in trying to tie in with the Arctic BOE and how they are both intertwined and going to affect the overall global condition.
Does double BOE mean back to back years? I don’t see how any following year wouldn’t have a time of clear ocean after the first one can collect that energy. The BOE point from then on just gets longer and longer, until the waters stay open all year. I.e., there’s only one BOE, and no going back.
Double means the north and south poles at the same time.
Antartica’s ice will be present even in a hothouse Earth, at least for a millennia. That’s a lot of ice. And there’s no “ocean”, just the surrounding waters that don’t freeze in the same way as the Arctic. We are about to get some action though from the Thwaites glacier, so that will be fun.
Granted, its surrounding waters and refrigerator action does influence the weather and current systems in its own way, but is different.
The Blue Ocean Event is about the sea ice extent. Here’s another link to another interactive map showing the ice extent at the poles. It’s not looking so great.
Thwaites is going to be interesting to see the impact of, however grusome that is to admit.
Agreed on all that, but you should look at your first link, as it makes my point. The BOE is literally an Arctic event. The only mention of Antarctica is the ice sheet collapses (there and Greenland) which will be long after the first BOE. Fun fact, when the Arctic loses enough cooling power from lack of ice, Greenland will take over as the main driver of the weather in the northern hemisphere, and it being much offset from the rotational axis should provide very interesting weather side effects. So much for stability.
Which is why a double BOE is both poles.
I’m all for learning new things. I don’t think the usage here of BOE is correct. Number one, how does one measure extent on the Antarctica ice coverage? I realize they do measure the ice amount and it’s low, but because it’s not in an enclosed area it’s a bit different, as is the water heating as the ice disappears. More important in that case is how the ice in the sea prevents ice loss from the land (as in with Thwaites) and how that will impact sea level rise, much like Greenland’s losses.
Also, none of the charts show an extent area coverage of the Antarctic, so I don’t think it’s a thing except in trying to tie in with the Arctic BOE and how they are both intertwined and going to affect the overall global condition.