backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 102 comment(s) - last by Marlowe.. on Sep 21 at 9:04 AM


Satellite Observations of Antarctic Sea Ice, showing this year's record high. The sharp spikes are caused by seasonal variations.  (Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group)

Antarctic sea ice coverage at a recorded record high.  (Source: University of Illinois, The Cryosphere Today)
Highest amount seen since record-keeping began

Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.

This corresponds with research conducted last year by the Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations, which found Antarctica ice sheets to be thickening and gaining mass. Global temperature data shows mainland Antarctica (all but the small Antarctic Peninsula) has cooled by up to 1F during the last fifty years, countering a warming trend that began at least as early as 1850.

David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".

As Antarctica sets historic highs, the Northern ice cap, however, has been on a steady decline, and this year reached a record low. According to the report, "The [Northern Hemisphere] sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum."

Luckily, Arctic ice does not rest upon bedrock, and thus its melting does not affect world sea levels. However, the discrepancy is a difficult to explain by anthropogenic global warming models, which predict both polar regions to warm substantially.

The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Global??? I think not
By acer905 on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 12:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with global warming. It's over 90 million miles away... how on earth could it possibly affect the Earth's temperatures?

Now, all that oil we keep burning, that's right here, in our own back yards and driveways. If that isn't a likely cluprit, I don't know what is.
As proof, I submit to you that there are more power plants and fossil fuel buring infrastructure in the northern hemisphere, CLOSER to the Arctic ice cap!! And guess which ice cap is melting faster?

Problem solved? I think so.


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 1
I won't say anything to you other than: go read about why we have seasons.

Maybe this too: Read about basic properties of gases on the level of what they would teach you in middle school.


RE: Global??? I think not
By theflux on 9/13/2007 12:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he was joking.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:00:29 PM , Rating: 5
No, I am going to hold to my asinine position. I refuse to admit it was an obvious joke.


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should have known from the capitalized "CLOSER" and the exclamation points after "arctic cap" but I've been reading so much BS from these GW naysayers that it wouldn't surprise me if one of them actually wrote what you did and meant it!


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
Indeed, it wouldn't be funny if it didn't reflect the ridiculous beliefs of much of the world.

Fact, a candle flame can burn you within seconds.
Fact, it takes hours of sun exposure (at most latitudes) to get a serious sunburn.

Therefore, a candle produces more heat than the sun, Q.E.D.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/13/2007 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes unfortunately people conclude such things. When the reality is that the candle is just closer and provides a more focused heat.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Marlowe on 9/21/2007 9:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
O RLY?


RE: Global??? I think not
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 1:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh. Sorry.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Spivonious on 9/13/2007 1:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with global warming. It's over 90 million miles away... how on earth could it possibly affect the Earth's temperatures?

You're kidding, right? Actually solar activity is continually changing, and so at times more energy reaches the earth and at times less energy reaches the earth. It is by no means constant.

In fact, if you compare solar activity against global temperatures over the last century, you'll see they're strongly correlated. Much more so than to CO2 levels.


RE: Global??? I think not
By Terberculosis on 9/13/2007 1:16:59 PM , Rating: 5
There is also a strong correlation between the number of freckles on my right hand and global temperature. The number of freckles has increased dramatically over the past 30 years, as has the temperature.

I have brought this up to my doctor, requesting he either remove the skin on my hand and graft new skin on with no freckles, or remove the hand entirely. It is a small price to pay to halt global warming.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228....

''The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. ''


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
Lockwood's paper was debunked by several authors almost before it was released. Here's one such analysis by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, which details some of the basic errors made by Lockwood:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-i...

Here's a summary of one such error, which Shaviv puts in language easy enough for even laymen to understand:
quote:
There is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade. Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example, includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a "step function" in the forcing, and climatologists talk about "global warming commitment" that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even decrease, we should expect to see the "committed warming", e.g., Science 307), but [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are not climatologists ...

This is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are doing.


RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 5:20:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, several authors "debunked" the Lockwood and Fröhlich paper. However, Lockwood and Fröhlich submitted their research to the stringent peer-review process, which none of the detractors have.

Lockwood writes in response to those who have "debunked" his work:

quote:
“I am one of the authors of the Royal Society global warming paper that you say is simple and fundamentally flawed (Comment, July 15). Simple? The idea was to present a straightforward demonstration, without recourse to complex climate models. Flawed? None of the three academic referees the paper was subjected to found any flaws.


Two things of note in this debate:

1) None of the Lockwood and Fröhlich detractors have formally published their findings or misgivings in any official journal, but rather have all offered their opinions in 'blogs' just like this one, for which there is no oversight or mediation.

2) Neither of the prestigious science journals in which the Lockwood and Fröhlich paper was published -- Nature and Proceedings of the Royal Society A -- have retracted nor clarified their publication.


RE: Global??? I think not
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: Global??? I think not
By dluther on 9/13/2007 9:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The direct response to L&F has not been in any journal

Which by itself means next to nothing. Coupled with the fact that neither Nature nor the Royal Society has retracted or clarified their position on the L&F research, in my mind that says that a group of people that probably know more on the subject than you and I together haven't found any scientific basis to discount their research or position.

quote:
So to claim there's been no peer-reviewed refutation of Lockwood's position is wholly inaccurate.


But now you're trying to obfuscate the issue by using semantics, which is something I'd expect from someone who ... well, just isn't you [cough]TomZ[cough].

Another consideration is that Lockwood and Fröhlich did not take the position of refuting or disproving any specific research. They took widely available and verifiable data, analyzed it, and presented their findings to support their theory in a surprisingly terse and concise document.

That there is a wealth of data and findings to support both theories should come as no surprise to anyone. This is part of the scientific process.


RE: Global??? I think not
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 10:01:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But now you're trying to obfuscate the issue by using semantics, which is something I'd expect from someone who ... well, just isn't you [cough]TomZ[cough].

Hello, hello - I'm here - I can hear that!

Sorry I can't speak as clearly as you guys - I'm trying to just get by with an IQ about half of what the rest of you have. I'm just happy when I can form letters into words and words into sentences. :o)