<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://conversationamongfriends.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Conversation Among Friends - arxtic sea ice - Comments</title>
 <link>http://conversationamongfriends.org/taxonomy/term/94</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;arxtic sea ice&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Polar Ice Loss</title>
 <link>http://conversationamongfriends.org/arctic-sea-ice-loss#comment-281</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
JM,
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Sticking with the &amp;quot;sun as culprit&amp;quot; theme.  I wonder if polar ice loss is especially indicative of a solar effect.  My earlier post cited scientific studies of other locations, some of which had increases in ice coverage.  Thus ice loss is not uniform as one might expect in the case of an atmospheric cause.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I&amp;#39;m thinking of the magnetosphere and the field lines directing charged particles (higher energy particles) to the poles.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Would be nice if our resident physicist would grace us with a comment, Bob?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
js
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:47:02 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Joey</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 281 at http://conversationamongfriends.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
