backtop

Blog: Science Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 3, 2008 2:44 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 285 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Sep 25 at 9:56 PM

A map of the sea ice increase from the same month last year
Increase 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.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By jjunos on 9/3/2008 3:15:10 PM , Rating: 4
Arctic ice shelf splits; ice loss 10x expected this summer

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-arct...

Isn't that the opposite feel of what Masher is saying here? I'm not an eco scientist btw...




By geddarkstorm on 9/3/2008 4:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Look at the satellite imagery: the ice increased towards Russia and decreased from around Greenland and that particular island. The total ice mass in the entire arctic has increased by 13% according to this article, while the local ice mass near that island decreased, according to that article.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 9:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
BBC just released this article yesterday
quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441....
quote:
The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

Masher, while I do agree with much of what you say, an increase in Greenland does not constitute the title of this article. While I would have to say that this melting has been ongoing for the past 100 years, this summer was apparently worse than usual, and does not match your findings that as a whole the Arctic has had a major gain in ice coverage.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 9:52:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "and does not match your findings that as a whole the Arctic has had a major gain in ice coverage"

They're not mine-- They are they official figures of the NSIDC. I encourage anyone who disbelieves to go to their site and generate the same graphics as I did.

The BBC article (and many similar ones) simply chose to ignore the year-to-year gain in total ice coverage, and instead limit their coverage to only those areas which experienced gain.

The areas around Nothern Canada (the Northwest passage) experienced some Y2Y loss, but the Arctic as a whole experienced a very large gain. You can see this from the images above.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 3
I understand what you are saying, but considering that this years temperatures were lower than normal than the past few years, and this shelf loss still occurred and is at an all time low is quite worrisome. The gain on the Siberia side for all we know can be fully attributed to the fact that the trade winds that they had last year were non existent this year.

I don't mean to dispute the findings, I just think that all the evidence is so inconclusive on all sides, that nobody can really claim that they know whats going on here. Natural occurrences like trade winds have been happening for thousands of years, just as rapid heating and cooling. Until we separate previous trends from new an unseen occurrences, I don't think I can side either way.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Temperatures this year are *colder* than last year.

Temperatures this year are *warmer* than those from 100 years ago.

Temperatures this year are *colder* than those from 10,000 years ago.

Temperatures this year are *warmer* than those from 1,000,000 years ago.

Which of these is the correct period to say what "normal" temperatures are?


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 3:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
Normal was a very poor choice of words, especially when you consider my second statement.

My point was our understanding of Arctic temperature trends is minuscule. We have no absolute understanding of why the earth was colder 10,000 years ago (yes I know it was the last ice age, but do we know why it happened), or why the earth was warmer 1,000,000 years ago. Until we can figure this out, yearly trends are meaningless, because as you stated already, what is "normal"?

Our understandings of such events end at (for example)'an ice age happens when more snow falls than melts' and I find this a big problem, especially with the countless reports that we see each week, all of which contradict each other, and none of which have provided us with any sort of definitive temperature model.


By dgingeri on 9/10/2008 7:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
My biggest point in the global warming debate is this: Why is it people keep touting that man is causing this when the models they use don't figure in the change in sunlight and solar wind, which can vary by up to 8%, but push and push on the variation of CO2, which can affect the insulative value of the atmosphere by .3-.5%?

It's like someone arguing on a car catching on fire, blaming it on the flammability of the paint, and completely ignore the gasoline.


By Quantem on 9/13/2008 8:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.
Science knows essentially nothing about global climate(or weather prediction), and it will be a long while before this changes.
Global warming/cooling is a chimaera. This entire debate is about self-serving political and economic agendas. The ozone hole scam was the same.


By Procurion on 9/10/2008 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why do the poor cavemen and others responsible for recording all those temperatures from hundreds and thousands of years ago never get any credit for their work? They established "normal" temperatures and all that we draw comparisons from to generate data.

I would like to see more of the hard work done for all these years rewarded with at least a mention for them in the articles published constantly that show such detailed temperatures from 800 AD or say from the sampling and analysis done by the native aborigines in South America during the 11th century......


By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Okay. I did it. I didn't really disbelieve your evidence, but I went there. Then I disbelieved your evidence.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

First, they note that this is now officially the second worst summer since the satellite age began. Their picture (of Aug 26, 2008) shows substantially less ice coverage than the picture you used (your picture from early August, perhaps? I hope you used the same date in 2007.) Also, their official figure for ice coverage on that date is 5.26 million square kilometers, which is only 430,000 square kilometers more than the same date last year - not the 700,000 you use. That would put the ice coverage in late August 2007 at 4.83 million square kilometers, not the 5.3 million square kilometers you used. I still believe you didn't falsify your numbers. I assume their from early August. Why did you use that data when newer data was available? Considering this data was a week old when you posted the article, there's really no excuse.

You also failed to mention that coverage is almost 2 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average.

I'm not saying the most recent data is conclusive support that we're all going to die in a massive tsunami. But it would have been nice if you'd either posted this a month ago, or used the most recent data.

Also, the ice continued to melt through September last year. The average coverage in September 2007 was 4.28 million square kilometers, demonstrating a continued loss of sea ice. As such, I'd say your statement,
quote:
With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.
was inaccurate. My guess is, we'll see ice fall below 5 million square kilometers before the month is over.

So my real question to you is, did you think nobody would call your bluff?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "So my real question to you is, did you think nobody would call your bluff? "

Honestly, I didn't think data comprehension would be that difficult for most people. Perhaps I was wrong. The data I gave was not for "early August", they were for the entire month . The image you cite (and the one the NSIDC understandably chose to highlight) was data for one single day of that month.

There is no "newer data". This article was written the day after the full August dataset became available.

If you want to regenerate the same images I did, go to to following link, clink of Ice extent, choose Aug 2007 and 2008, and hit the button:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

And yes, on a full-month basis, the melting season is over. It stops gemerally in the latter half of September, and reverts again to growth.


By porkpie on 9/4/2008 2:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that qualifies as a smack-down.


By Andy35W on 9/4/2008 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 3
NSIDC etc do not declare the melting season over because there is not a full month of melt, only you do this.

To quote NSIDC on the 27th

"With several weeks left in the melt season"

Only you are calling the result now, with this artificial cut-off as it suits your purpose.

Regards

Andy


By pliny on 9/5/2008 12:43:50 AM , Rating: 3
There is a new report today from NSIDC (your source), dated Sept 4th. Under the heading
"Record ice loss in August" they say:
quote:
Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline. With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.

and
quote:
Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Hard to reconcile with your headline and article, based allegedly on this source.


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hard to reconcile with your headline and article
Only for people who can't read. There's no contradiction. See how it says "second-lowest"? Since the lowest was the year earlier, it obviously means the ice grew this year.

That article chose to not explicitly point out there's more ice this year than last year, since it wouldn't sound as scary.


By pliny on 9/5/2008 1:24:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's no contradiction.

?? Who can't read? Michael says:
quote:
With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

NSIDC says Sept 4:http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quote:
With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.

Masher says the sea ice put on 700000 sq km (2 Germanies). NSIDC says:
quote:
Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same. date


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
?? Who can't read?
You. See the word "August" on the graphic for this story? See the date "9/3/2008" on the graphic for the other story?

The numbers here are the average for ALL August. The numbers there are for a single DAY in SEPTEMBER.

The melting season for monthly data is over. Before Sept data is out, the ice is going to be growing again.

/sigh.