cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

ICE

I see the lastest season for ice melt in the Arctic has come to an end and reports are second lowest ice recorded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14945773


Sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2011 has passed its annual minimum, reaching the second-lowest level since satellite records began, US scientists say.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says the minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million sq km.

That value is 36% lower than the average minimum for 1979-2000.

NSIDC said the figure was preliminary, and that "changing winds could still push the ice extent lower" before final numbers are published in early October.

The preliminary value is 160,000 sq km - or 4% - above the record minimum seen in 2007.

"While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favoured ice loss - including clearer skies, favourable wind patterns and warm temperatures - this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic," they wrote.

"This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin."

And for anyone looking for more info on "The Discovery of Global Warming" there is lots of reading on this site http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Sam's discussion with me on another thread led me to this about Ice Ages from the above site.

Much info on how humans have studied ice and come to understand how they have happened in the past. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

15 Replies
Highlighted
Advisor

Re: ICE

Why did they leave out 2009? Given what we know about our climate in the quaternary period (the one we're in) is there any reason to think this 30 year window is in anyway unique as far as ice cover?

 

Interesting links, the more I read in them the more it leads me to believe that if our climate is warming, even if it is rapidly warming, it is in no way a unique phenomenon.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: ICE

I don't know why they left it out.

Perhaps so chart was not so cluttered but if you want to see all years from 2002 - 2011 try this http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Gets hard to make them all out but what I see as a trend is hte least ice tends to be in recent years.

read an article suggesting that the real risk to your security is the melting ice and the wars against terror just deflected your country from that risk.

All the $$ spent on your wars would have enabled you to produce energy from wind, water and solar to replace aal your oil and you would have had $ left over.

Will see if I can find that again for a link, actually think part of it was quoting someone from California although the article may have been put on a forieign website.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: ICE

And in other news, the ANTarctic ice sheet is growing.  In fact, in 2007, the entire global supply of ice was at its highest since they started keeping track.

So, why is a shrinking ice cap at the Northern pole a sure sign of global warming, but a Southern pole growth, which is greater than the shrinking to the North, not a sign against it?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/media_credibility_not_ice_caps_1.html

 

a snip from the above link:

 

There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow.
 
 
another snip that demonstrates how some in the media can hype up a small event, while ignoring the bigger picture:
 
Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?'  But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic.  On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear." 
Dr Herman adds an apposite footnote: "It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the western peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown any warming." Herman asks, "How about the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95 percent of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently."

 

 

ne reaaon they may have skipped a year.....

 

 

During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began. Not good news for doomsayers like Dr Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Dr Serreze had predicted an ice-free North Pole in the summer of 2008.

 
 

 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: ICE

Your American Thinker doesn't want to give ALL the facts.  The ice at the southern pole is only growing in ONE area and slowly melting every place else.

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: ICE


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

And in other news, the ANTarctic ice sheet is growing.  In fact, in 2007, the entire global supply of ice was at its highest since they started keeping track.

So, why is a shrinking ice cap at the Northern pole a sure sign of global warming, but a Southern pole growth, which is greater than the shrinking to the North, not a sign against it?

 

 



Not sure about the greatest amount of ice globally in 2007 as I am on the understanding that Greenland ice sheet is shrinking with rapid outflows of glaciers.

The Arctic ice is less, less in area and also less in volumn with less old ice which is the core of the ice sheet.

 

the Antarctic ice sheet is growing some because the warmer ocean temperatures give more evaporation and therefore more snowfall in Antarctica BUT Antarctica is losing sea ice just not as dramatic as the Arctic.

 Now if we switch poles and consider the Arctic then which end of the earth is the guide to ice cover?

IF the Antarctic ice is increasing because of??? then why is Arctic decreasing?

 

2008 saw more new ice in the Arctic but it was new and it rapidly melted back and the old ice continues to decline. Now in 2011 we are back to about the same record small amount that it shrank to in 2007.

It is the trend that counts not an individual year.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: ICE


@schnurrbart wrote:

Your American Thinker doesn't want to give ALL the facts.  The ice at the southern pole is only growing in ONE area and slowly melting every place else.

 

http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm


And I followed one of the links referred to in your link and found

During the penultimate interglacial period, ∼130 000 years ago, when global temperature may have been as much as ∼1◦C warmer than in the present inter- glacial period, sea level was 4±2 m higher than today (Mc- Culloch and Esat, 2000; Thompson and Goldstein, 2005), demonstrating that today’s sea level is not particularly fa- vored. However, changes of sea level and global temperature among recent interglacial periods are not large compared to the uncertainties, and ice sheet stability is affected not only by global temperature but also by the geographical and sea- son distribution of solar irradiance, which differ from one in- terglacial period to another. Therefore, it is difficult to use the last interglacial period as a measure of the sensitivity of sea level to global temperature. The most recent time with global temperature ∼3◦C greater than today (during the Pliocene, ∼3 million years ago) had sea level 25±10 m higher than to- day (Barrett et al., 1992; Dowsett et al. 1994; Dwyer et al., 1995), suggesting that, given enough time, a BAU level of global warming could yield huge sea level change. A prin- cipal issue is thus the response time of ice sheets to global warming.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

Can you imagine our world today with sea level 25 metres higher (plus or minus 10m).

Would be a lot of people looking for higher ground.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: ICE

So, were they wrong where they said total global ice was as high in 2007 as it ever was?

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: ICE

That could very well be bad.  Imagine the nightmare of having to put up with displaced Californians if they moved here! 
I wonder if purple hair freezes at -10*?

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: ICE

Read the following and make your own decision.

 

 

Apples and Oranges

But the reason that the North Pole is melting so much faster (last years summer minimum shattering the previous record of 2005) than the South Pole is very easy to understand.

The South Polar Ice Sheet is two miles thick. That means that the ice is at an altitude of over ten thousand feet where the temperature is much colder than a mere six or so feet as at the North Pole. This makes it impossible for the slight rise in global mean temperature to have any affect at all in the south accept around the edges of the continent.

Also, it sits on a continent rather than on water that is above freezing - as in the north. The ice in the north is an average of 6 to 12 feet thick and is being warmed from beneath as well as above. This has a much larger impact on the North Polar Ice Cap.

Dr. Hansen also pointed out that the ozone hole (the portion of the lowest ozone being roughly the size of the Antarctic ice sheet) is letting more heat escape into the atmosphere as the ozone is a greenhouse gas. [2]

The South Pole is quite literally the coldest place on Earth, and it always will be much colder than the North Pole no matter how much global warming occurs. The Greenland Ice Sheet is very similar to the South Pole and the research shows that it, too, is melting at an accelerated pace around the edges.

"....between 1996 and 2005, they detected a widespread glacier acceleration and consequently an increased rate of ice discharge from the Greenland ice sheet," write three climate scientists in an article for RealClimate.org of research published after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was written. [3]

 

It would seem that the north and south poles should react the same, but because of these gigantic differences they cannot. Antarctica is not the canary in the mine..........the canary is the Arctic, and it's telling the scientists that things are changing faster than they had thought possible.