PDA

View Full Version : Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage



Gingersnap
09-03-2008, 03:58 PM
Science

Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 3, 2008 2:44 PM

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g206/Gingersnap_01/arctic.png
A map of the sea ice increase from the same month last yearIncrease twice the size of Germany: "colder weather" to blame.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear.

Earlier this year, concerns over global warming led the US to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

Interesting.

Daily Tech (http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm)

Bubba Dawg
09-03-2008, 04:20 PM
So, lemme get this straight, it melts in the summer when temps rise, and it re-freezes in fall and winter. And it does this every year, which would make it....predictable.

hmmmmm

Troll
09-03-2008, 04:21 PM
Well of course. This also is evidence for global warming. See that part of the Arctic, up until a few years ago, was so cold that ice actually couldn't form there. But now, the smog from all America's cars has somehow accumulated above a region that has no cars and the sun has overheated that area. Now ice is forming which is bad because more ice means less ocean for the Narwhals to swim in. Panic.

I suggest we levy a "Nowhere for the Narwhals" tax on America to offset this.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 04:51 PM
Well of course. This also is evidence for global warming. See that part of the Arctic, up until a few years ago, was so cold that ice actually couldn't form there. But now, the smog from all America's cars has somehow accumulated above a region that has no cars and the sun has overheated that area. Now ice is forming which is bad because more ice means less ocean for the Narwhals to swim in. Panic.

I suggest we levy a "Nowhere for the Narwhals" tax on America to offset this.

No, the Daily Tech article is evidence that Michael Asher is a dishonest prick.

Teetop
09-03-2008, 05:26 PM
No, the Daily Tech article is evidence that Michael Asher is a dishonest prick.

Nevermind those satellite pics. :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Nevermind those satellite pics. :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.

Teetop
09-03-2008, 05:44 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.


Just what the "global warming alarmist" do...

:rolleyes:

When are the sea levels going to rise, again????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

jinxmchue
09-03-2008, 07:59 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.

And, of course, no one on your side could be lying. Nope.

megimoo
09-03-2008, 08:04 PM
No, the Daily Tech article is evidence that Michael Asher is a dishonest prick.That makes at least two of you !

megimoo
09-03-2008, 08:11 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.A before and after satellite map of the same region with more ice packs is pointless ?

FlaGator
09-03-2008, 09:20 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.

Could your opinion be an example of the bias we were discussing last week? Also I don't see the pointless comparsion that you mention. Could you point it out to me? If you will recall I mentioned that I found it curious how people will automatically accept facts that agree with a preconceived notion and reject out of hand those facts that refute the same preconceived idea.

gator
09-03-2008, 09:29 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Michael Asher is lying about the numbers. What he is doing is making a pointless comparison which creates a false impression of the situation in the Arctic.

You are right.

Increased ice in the Artic is a sign of global warming, not global cooling.

How could we be so stupid as to not understand that? :rolleyes:

Bubba Dawg
09-03-2008, 09:35 PM
You are right.

Increased ice in the Artic is a sign of global warming, not global cooling.

How could we be so stupid as to not understand that? :rolleyes:

You know Gator, I was thinkin' the same damn thing. I mean, when I want my freezer to make ice, I make the temperature warmer, not colder.

I mean, Who can argue with science? :rolleyes:

Bongo55
09-03-2008, 10:03 PM
OMG The sky is RAISING, the sky is RAISING!!!!!! :D:D

Owl, I'm afraid someone sold you a bill of goods.

Now your entitled to believe whatever you want, but a bunch of pencil necked geeks that have their livelihood tied to their findings have absolutely zero creditability, at least with me anyway.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 11:03 PM
Could your opinion be an example of the bias we were discussing last week? Also I don't see the pointless comparsion that you mention. Could you point it out to me? If you will recall I mentioned that I found it curious how people will automatically accept facts that agree with a preconceived notion and reject out of hand those facts that refute the same preconceived idea.

From the NSIDC FAQ...


If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?

For details concerning why summer of 2008 is shaping up differently than previous summers, please see our ongoing analysis updates.

A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. One game during a winning season when the home football team lost badly wouldn’t be indicative of their season as a whole. And comparing that one bad game years ago with a really good game this year, when the team managed to win 28-0 during a terrible losing season, wouldn’t be a fair comparison, either. However, plotting all of the games on a line graph would give an accurate indication of how the team did that year. And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more

FlaGator
09-04-2008, 08:27 AM
From the NSIDC FAQ...


If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?

For details concerning why summer of 2008 is shaping up differently than previous summers, please see our ongoing analysis updates.

A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. One game during a winning season when the home football team lost badly wouldn’t be indicative of their season as a whole. And comparing that one bad game years ago with a really good game this year, when the team managed to win 28-0 during a terrible losing season, wouldn’t be a fair comparison, either. However, plotting all of the games on a line graph would give an accurate indication of how the team did that year. And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more


The side of Global Warming jumped on the polar bear extinction just as fast on just as little evidence. The main body of evidence seemed to be some pictures of polar bears leaping from small icebergs in to the ocean and a claim that the polar bears were dying out. Evidence that is currently available suggests that this is not the case. I did not, however, hear you crying out against this misuse and skewing of data in order to prop up the pro global warming side of the argument. Could this be because this data confirmed you preconceived notion? If by chance the images that are in the OP had supported your belief in a shrinking polar cap would you have used them to reinforce your view or would you have cited the above study and asked us to ignore the shrinking ice images?

For the record, a short term trend may be indicative of a long term trend. Because the data only represents one year over another it is no reason to call it pointless and it doesn't make it wrong. You have assumed that it is wrong because a) it doesn't support your current position and b) the range of data is too small. I personally lean to the side that any global climate change is cyclical in nature but I am open to the possibilities that I am wrong. When I see information that seems to contradict my view I don’t dismiss it out of hand. I look first to see if it is true and then adjust my opinion accordingly. I have noticed that you seem to first seek to discredit information that is contradictory of your view. I may be wrong about this and if so I apologize. It is merely an observation on my part. You don’t like to be wrong once you’ve taken a position and will defend it at all costs. Personally I am interested in the truth and my viewpoint is negligible when the truth of something is up for grabs.

Nubs
09-04-2008, 05:48 PM
I'm sorry but anaolgy to sports and those that participate in such activities is not relevant as they are not climatologists. To discuss global warming, you must be a climatologist. Noone other than a climatologist can make relevant observations and conclusion about global warming

wilbur
09-04-2008, 06:01 PM
I'm sorry but anaolgy to sports and those that participate in such activities is not relevant as they are not climatologists. To discuss global warming, you must be a climatologist. Noone other than a climatologist can make relevant observations and conclusion about global warming

There's a difference between using analogy to make a point easier to comprehend and expecting proper credentials from people who claim to be authorities on a subject. In fact, one doesnt really have anything to do with the other. Comparing apples to automobiles...