backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 110 comment(s) - last by Grabo.. on Jul 12 at 5:31 AM


The Arctic ice is melting at a very rapid pace says NASA. This global warming induced phenomena will likely have many ill effects.  (Source: ABC News)

NASA satellite images show how much sea ice coverage shrunk between September 21, 2005 (top) and September 16, 2007 (bottom).  (Source: NASA)
Multi-year ice decreases

A new study from NASA has revealed how Arctic sea ice thinned between the winters of 2004 and 2008.  The study utilized NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to allow researchers with NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle to, for the first time, measure ice coverage over the entire Arctic basin.

In the winter, Arctic ice thickens due to the sun setting for several months and ocean currents lessening.  In the summer, there are long sunlight-filled days, stronger ocean currents, and wind to melt the ice.  A lot of ice melts each year, but each year some thicker, older ice survives.  This older ice is 9 feet thick, typically, as opposed to the single-year ice which is on average 6 feet thick.

According to the satellite measurements, the ice has been thinning at a rate of 7 inches per year for a total of 2.2 feet in the last year.  Multi-year ice, meanwhile, shrunk by 42 percent.  Ice cover, meanwhile decreased 595,000 square miles -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area.  The new study is much more accurate than previous studies that estimated ice volume based on area. 

States Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, leader of the research team, "Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the freshwater and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice.  Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer."

The team says a combination of recent global warming and anomalies in patterns of sea ice circulation are to blame for the melting sea ice.  States Mr. Kwok, "The near-zero replenishment of the multi-year ice cover, combined with unusual exports of ice out of the Arctic after the summers of 2005 and 2007, have both played significant roles in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume over the ICESat record."

A melting ice cap may unlock new oil deposits and shipping routes.  However, it may also have a negative effect on polar wildlife.  Additionally, while Arctic ice (floating on water) will not impact sea levels, a melting Arctic likely means that Greenland's ice cover will melt, likely flooding low lying coastal cities such as New Orleans and Amsterdam.



Comments     Threshold


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

Common Sense
By sdegroft on 7/9/2009 7:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
OK so the picture caption says:
quote:
A comparison between Arctic sea ice in 1980 and the ice cover last summer shows the extent to which the ice has thinned.


Then look at the dates of the pictures. So wait you mean in February of 1980 there was more ice coverage than in the middle of summer in 2008. Wow! I could never had predicted that. Another lame attempt to justify the new cap-and-tax legislation. Do they really think we are this dumb?




RE: Common Sense
By Kode on 7/9/2009 7:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
true indeed, look at this:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

not so bad after all I would say. It also depends on the winter/summer so If you compare it with a decent winter like 2003 you get the following:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

I hope there will be another good artic winter so that ice grows back a good chunk just to prove them wrong.


RE: Common Sense
By rodrigu3 on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Common Sense
By kaddar on 7/9/2009 9:18:37 AM , Rating: 5
wait isn't the point of the article that there is the same amount of ice cover but the ice is far less thick? Are you guys not RTFA?

They link to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-2...

Which shows what they are talking about.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Common Sense
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 5
I do believe the point of NASA's study was sea ice thinning and not necessarily loss of area. Thus, unfortunately, this is why there are so many comments regarding the pictures Jason has submitted showing an area-loss effect instead of a multi-year ice loss as well as overall loss of thickness.

Due to this, it's no wonder why there are so many comments bashing the article. The satellite data itself is sound, but its meaning as construed here is a bit misleading unfortunately. I think Jason was on the right track, but got a bit off-message when he tried to show an area loss.

I believe the journalist should have showed the data as is and kept to the sea ice thinning data without bringing in area coverage loss and then let everyone chew on it and debate about it.


RE: Common Sense
By kaddar on 7/9/2009 9:58:28 AM , Rating: 4
That doesn't disprove the nasa study though, even the link provided above shows a contrast from 1982 winter to 2008 winter in thickness to a pretty noticeable degree. I am just really confused. There is a difference between the author of this dailytech article using dumb photos and the original article not being true.


RE: Common Sense
By tallcool1 on 7/9/2009 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Watching the Discovery Channel documentary called "Deadliest Catch"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Catch
which is about crab fishermen in the Bering Sea, just this week the fishermen mentioned that its been the coldest fishing in 30 years this season! Seeing the freezing conditions these guys fish in, I believe them.

Also, just last week it was reported by the National Weather service
http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&p...
that Central Park, New York, has had the 8th coldest June on record since 1869.
quote:

FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE...HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST AND WETTEST
JUNES ON RECORD SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK NY:

COOLEST
AVG. TEMP. = YEAR
64.2 = 1903
65.2 = 1881
65.7 = 1916
66.8 = 1926/1902
67.2 = 1958
67.3 = 1927
67.4 = 1928
67.5 = 2009/1897
67.7 = 1878
67.8 = 1924

DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...HERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR THE 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD. THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...WHICH ALSO
OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
WAS 67.2 DEGREES.

BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OCCURRED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE...OR 75 PERCENT OF THE MONTH.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 90 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1996.

CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 85 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1916. THIS HAS ONLY OCCURRED
2 OTHER TIMES...1903 AND 1886.
For every report about warming, there are reports about cooling. Forcing people to adjust law or lifes for the sake of this is irrational at this point.

Personally I think the Sun has more impact on warming or cooling than anything we are doing. We cannot control the Sun, and therefore some of these politically driven people need to stop the chest pounding alarmism IMHO! I'm tired of hearing about it, let alone have it cost me money out of my wallet with stupid laws to try and control something that we have no control over.


RE: Common Sense
By sinful on 7/9/2009 9:20:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
For every report about warming, there are reports about cooling. Forcing people to adjust law or lifes for the sake of this is irrational at this point.


Amazing that this was rated up.

Does anybody know what the term "AVERAGE temperature" means?
I know this is a difficult concept, but the Yearly AVERAGE temperature can go up *DESPITE* cold days/months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_M...

quote:
Forcing people to adjust law or lifes for the sake of this is irrational at this point.

Yeah, that's as absurd as passing financial regulations BEFORE there's a financial crisis, or building dams BEFORE a flood. Completely absurd and a waste of money. Why spend $10 Million in prevention when we can just pay $10 Billion in flood cleanup costs?

quote:
Personally I think the Sun has more impact on warming or cooling than anything we are doing. We cannot control the Sun,


Wow, some people don't get it.

Sun*Greenhouse Gas = Warming.

In other words, the effects of solar output are multiplied by the amount of greenhouse gases.

It's silly to attribute anything to solar output and then go "Oh well, we can't do anything about it!". It's like saying "Oh, well it's not the dozen of open containers of gasoline I store in my house that caused the fire, IT WAS THE MATCH."

It's a pretty silly stretch to say that the gasoline had NOTHING to do with the fire.


RE: Common Sense
By jhb116 on 7/10/2009 6:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Dude - Do you know anything about climate science?? I am not a Climatology expert, however, don't believe that the equation "Sun*Greenhouse Gas = Warming" is anywhere near that simple. Please refraim from spreading such inaccurate information in an attempt to create support for your cause.

I would argue it is alarmists like you insisting that global warming is soley the result of greenhouse gases (with a fairly obvious inference to CO2 that we can presumably control) that turns the greater community off.


RE: Common Sense
By BeastieBoy on 7/10/2009 5:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
+1
I would rate you up, but you're already at 5...


RE: Common Sense
By phxfreddy on 7/10/2009 8:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
Its abundantly clear the Earth is in a cooling phase.

Its not just Central Park or Alaska.....

....Try Southern Brazil also! ( where I am )


RE: Common Sense
By KaTaR on 7/10/2009 3:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
You are the rest of the haters here are obviously much better at judging whether the earth is actualy warming than lets say:

NOAA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/glob...

or the UK goverment

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Why even bother using scientific measuring equipment right? We can just walk outside and say 'hey it feels colder than last year'.


RE: Common Sense
By MatthiasF on 7/9/2009 2:19:24 PM , Rating: 4
While I applaud you for being intent to discuss the details, perhaps you should read your own link and think about what they're doing.

They measure the sea ice thickness by taking the difference in altitude between the top of the ice and the nearest free surface of sea. I'm sure you've seen an iceberg and all the warnings associated with them that the bulk of it's mass IS BELOW THE WATER LINE and it displaces water.

All their comparisons are proving is that the top of the ice is SMOOTHER than in the past, and by the past I mean the data they've collected for only the last 30-40 years (of a planet that changes minutely over tens of thousands).

This might be more indicative of the weather on the Arctic sea's surface. They've shown glaciers in regions with high amounts of wind also have the smoothest surfaces.


RE: Common Sense
By DigitalFreak on 7/9/2009 8:32:53 AM , Rating: 3
Well done!

Another failed attempt by Mick.


RE: Common Sense
By tastyratz on 7/9/2009 9:00:48 AM , Rating: 3
Yea that was pretty lame.
Ahhhh science.
"Watch as this man is eaten alive by these ravenous dogs, please ignore the fact that he was dipped in peanut butter"

No comment responses Mick?


RE: Common Sense
By superflex on 7/9/2009 5:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
He need a few more hours with his head up Al Gore's ass.


RE: Common Sense
By TSS on 7/9/2009 8:41:25 AM , Rating: 5
by using that i would like to go even further!

consider this:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

now add THIS into that knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Tem...

the ice is nigh the same, while "global warming" has only increased. so what does that tell you?

oh and by the way, claiming amsterdam would flood if ice caps melt is a poor way to make a point. amsterdam currently already is way below sea level. hell, take away the barriers we've created and half the netherlands would already be flooded right now!


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 8:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
amsterdam currently already is way below sea level. hell, take away the barriers we've created and half the netherlands would already be flooded right now!

No kidding. And I'm sure there are enviro-whacko's out there who are saying that New Orleans is feeling the effects of global warming...but being below sea level in a bowl can't have anything to do with it, right?


RE: Common Sense
By Triple Omega on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Common Sense
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:32:30 AM , Rating: 3
Somehow I doubt building a bigger wall will cost billions.

Spending billions on cutting emissions that have nothing to do with rising temperatures (which is even being questioned) only costs billions. It doesn't provide a benefit and makes you poorer.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 9:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(which is even being questioned) only costs billions. It doesn't provide a benefit and makes you poorer.

Correction...TRILLIONS...and thats just for starters.

Yeah, but the liberal lawmakers like Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, and Boxer, plus Al Gore, won't be poorer, doesn't that count for something?


RE: Common Sense
By MrPoletski on 7/9/2009 10:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't assume that GW activist = liberal or that liberal = GW activist.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 12:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
All of the liberal lawmakers I cited are GW activists.


RE: Common Sense
By TSS on 7/9/2009 7:53:44 PM , Rating: 1
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Nederlandvolg...

this is the netherlands, according to the NAP (normaal amsterdams peil, or our measure for the sea level). basically what's blue is what's flooded if water could magically flow past our barriers. on the wiki page, it's described that the lowest point of holland is 6,76 meters below sea level.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Recent_Sea_Le...

now that's how much sea levels have risen over the past 130 years, in total, 25 centimeters. or, 0,25 meters.

do tell what magic information do you have that'll assure us of meters upon meters of increasing sea levels within the next 100 years. my guess is, at the very worst, we'll see 1 meter increase.

now what will be more expensive? several billions to limit global warming over the next 100 years, or building 451 kilometers of 1 meter high wall? (yes that is the entire length of our coastline).


RE: Common Sense
By swizeus on 7/9/2009 9:24:31 AM , Rating: 4
actually, if amsterdam is flooded then it is time to create an even higher barrier, isn't it ? because IT IS artificial to begin with, it is not naturally there..


RE: Common Sense
By 67STANG on 7/9/2009 12:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've got the perfect solution. As we will most like run of out of drinking water in the U.S. within the next few hundred years: desalination plants .

If we install hundreds, nay, thousands of these along the coastlines we can instantly negate any rise in sea level while providing ourselves with the drinking water we need to survive. Win-win.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 3
How about we just look at it from the liberal point of view - we should reduce our water consumption level by 80% by 2050. Not my fault if you dehydrate, plants can't grow, farming goes downhill, and you stink like a Frenchie...but its for the planet!


RE: Common Sense
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 2:57:35 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus dude. Don't give them any ideas.


RE: Common Sense
By LoweredExpectations on 7/10/2009 12:38:28 AM , Rating: 5
I think it's hilarious the way these global-warming articles always turn into a liberal-hater circle jerk, always the same guys pumping up each others’ ratings in a contest to see who can accuse the liberals of ever more extreme crimes against America. If a parodist wanted to do a send up of right-wing nutters, all he'd have to do is copy down some of these comments word for word.


RE: Common Sense
By 2bits on 7/10/2009 4:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
+1. I usually stay out of these threads for exactly that reason.


RE: Common Sense
By mandrews on 7/9/2009 9:08:25 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed.

The only thing "startling" here is how poorly this data is represented. The facts are first, that the Earth has gone through similar warming patterns in the past and these melts are not precedented. Second, NASA cherry picks its data and the study failed to note that in the Arctic winter of 2008 sea ice actually grew at a record pace:

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+...
http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for...
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastes...
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same...

Follow the links to see pertinent research studies.

Jason, you don't honestly expect us to believe that the Arctic is melting when ice levels at the end of 2008 were at their highest since 2008?

Third, even if the Arctic does eventually see less ice coverage that would be happy news for mankind as it would allow easier access to shipping routes and oil deposits. Doomsday predictions of flooding are about as realistic as the Y2K bug warnings -- they are grossly overstated.

Unfortunately, this kind of story is reported across the media, while alternative opinions get little coverage. I've fought for a long time to try to debunk these kind of claims and continue to do so.


RE: Common Sense
By bhieb on 7/9/2009 9:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
failed to note that in the Arctic winter of 2008 sea ice actually grew at a record pace

Yeah it was funny how he picked the 2007 pic instead of 2008.


RE: Common Sense
By Pjotr on 7/10/2009 7:13:45 AM , Rating: 3
You link to area analysis of the ice cover, while the whole article was about ice thickness. Not the same thing.


RE: Common Sense
By Grabo on 7/12/2009 5:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
The article (and NASA) mentioned that thickness of the arctic sea ice had gone down. But if NASA 'cherry picks its data' then..any discussion with you feels futile.

Sea ice coverage (thickness as well as coverage - whatever is decreasing or increasing means a change in overall ice mass.):

http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090...

Summarized " Sea ice extent averaged over the month of June 2009 was 11.48 million square kilometers (4.43 million square miles). This was 420,000 square kilometers (162,000 square miles) above the record low for that month, which occurred in June 2006, and 700,000 square kilometers (270,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."

Conclusion: Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since 1979.

As for the Greenland ice sheet (land ice), it seems to be decreasing too: http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cf... , by 36-60 cubic miles / year.

And while things are a bit more ambiguous for Antarctica, recent studies are gloomy. (Unless you nay-sayers immediately switch to your 'Yes it is happening and we may be causing it but it's a good thing!' phase.)
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseActio...


RE: Common Sense
By ccmfreak2 on 7/9/2009 9:13:12 AM , Rating: 5
I love it! Now Jason Mick changed the picture to compare a two year period! Look Jason: I can cherry pick too! Let's look at August 2007 and August 2008!

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...


RE: Common Sense
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:22:56 AM , Rating: 3
Am I reading that image wrong or does it *gasp* show more ice coverage in 08?


RE: Common Sense
By theflux on 7/9/2009 2:53:16 PM , Rating: 4
Lol I saw that too! If at first you don't find sheep, manipulate again again again.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Common Sense
By Belard on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 8:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure what the connection between global warming and the war is that you're trying to make, besides being a partisan hack.

If the war was so called "better safe than sorry" based on not very good and proven sources of data - and you are complaining about the outcome - why are you so adamant about being better safe than sorry about global warming which time after time has proven to be without merit?


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 8:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
If I read your post wrong, then I apologize. But now that I re-read it, it sounds as if you are questioning the global warming data and don't want to go forward with the "better safe than sorry approach".

However, I get frustrated when people feel the need to slap the "war card" on everything.


RE: Common Sense
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 9:00:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do they really think we are this dumb?

Yes they do. Al wants you to sacrifice your lifestyle for the polar bears - yes the ones that are increasing in population. Kennedy wants wind farms...in your backyard, not his. California wants to shut down the top agriculture producers from water...to try and increase the killer whale population by 15 total whales, several hundred miles away.

Meanwhile, they all meet secretly to discuss how stupid the masses are for believing this bull, while they cheers over their carbon credit profits.

Cap & Trade isn't just a tax - its pure redistribution of wealth...from your pocket, to the liberal politicians pockets. After all, they keep complaining that the "rich get richer while the poor get poorer"...hmm, maybe they're on to something?


RE: Common Sense
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:25:41 AM , Rating: 5
Don't forget Al's ballooning bank account from all the companies he owns or is invested in which will sell/trade carbon credits and sells carbon offsets.

Global warming is nothing but a scam that will make money for a select few and take money away from the masses. As well as lower the standard of living in industrial nations.


RE: Common Sense
By Maxima2k2se on 7/9/2009 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
This is just NASA trying to get funding from the Obama Administration. They are backing him up with Global Warming, so he can use them as a reputable source when he tries to rush these global warming bills into law.


RE: Common Sense
By Boze on 7/9/2009 11:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
...when they're actually using the technologies they all mouth off about on a daily basis.

When Al Gore's houses are covered in solar cells and there are a stack of windmills in his yard and he's driving around a Chevy Volt as his everyday vehicle (not just when he wants to hold a press conference), then maybe the public will actually listen to what he has to say.

What these politicians fail to understand is that Americans are quite as stupid as they'd like to believe. The only proven leadership style that rarely ever fails is leadership by example. You don't set a very good example when you live in an enormous, non-energy efficient home and you're driven around by others in a large black non-hybrid SUV.


RE: Common Sense
By Boze on 7/9/2009 11:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Meant to say, "Americans are not quite as stupid as they'd like to believe." Although we might be far more apathetic than they think... -_-


RE: Common Sense
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 12:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Pelosi: "Global warming is killing the planet!!!! Now is my giant military jet fueled yet to fly me to California?"


RE: Common Sense
By HomerTNachoCheese on 7/9/2009 10:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I am very concerned over global warming. For instance, when I woke up today it was 10 degrees cooler than it is now. And now, the ice in my water is melting.


RE: Common Sense
By knutjb on 7/9/2009 4:23:47 PM , Rating: 3
NASA is using new satellites, 2000 and newer, and getting a snippet of time, to make a solid conclusion from that as a hard confirmation is a bit premature. Also comparing old so-so data to today's new data is misleading too. There is not enough history on this new data to come to anything other than an observation, there are so many other influences that require a better understanding. What is "normal" for the earth? That has yet to be answered.

Example: in the 70's bacon, eggs, and coffee were determined to be killers because people dying had those items common to their diet. If you remove those you will live longer, assumption of the day. Today eggs in moderation can be healthy, coffee looks to be an excellent resistor to Alzheimer's and it sucks to be bacon, but even bacon in small amounts is not a killer on it's own. How does this correlate? Well in the 70's we were freezing to death and the world was turning into a giant white ball. 30 years later we're melting faster than ever and about to turn into a star. What's the truth?

How can you take such a small window of time on such a complex issue and come to such a dramatic conclusion so quickly? You can't, we need more unbiased research and need to pull back on this as a definitive conclusion.

Historically knee jerk conclusions based on data from a limited window have proven themselves to be inaccurate over time.

What happens if there is new ice growth in the next couple of years? Do we continue draconian implementation of cap and trade or do we rethink it all?


RE: Common Sense
By TSS on 7/9/2009 8:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
i was looking for the hottest artic summer so i could check out the ice concentration and compare it to later/earlyer dates, but while searching for that i came across this on the web:

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/aug06/NN_arctic.htm...

this is what strikes me most (it's about a 400 meter core sample they've taken):

quote:
The core is revealing much about the history of the Arctic, Moran says. Starting 56 million years ago, the Arctic was enveloped in a “greenhouse” world with no ice. The Arctic Ocean was a balmy 18 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit), “much warmer than anyone thought possible,” says Mark Pagani of Yale University and a co-author on one of the Nature papers. Then, for a brief period about 55 million years ago, the Arctic warmed further during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). The ocean’s surface temperatures reached 23 degrees Celsius, he says.


somehow someway some sort of life lived through that hellish place otherwise we and everything else living on this planet wouldn't be here.

actually if you want to go even further back, here's an interesting documentairy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-513925096...

it's about the permian mass extinction, which took out 95% of life on earth (the meteor 65 million years ago took out 65%). in the documentairy they conclude siberia was covered in volcanic eruptions for thousands of years which caused the earth to warm 5 degrees celcius (lets see us humans fast track that!). that in turn melted frozen methane sediments beneath the ocean floor to heat the earth another 5 degrees, which is what killed everything. and yet a cow sized animal seemed to have lived through it, the only mammal to do so (and such, our very distant ancestor).

quote:
What happens if there is new ice growth in the next couple of years? Do we continue draconian implementation of cap and trade or do we rethink it all?


we revel in our arrogance, swing our oppinion around and claim that we have the power to stop this new ice age!


RE: Common Sense
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2009 4:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
lol it's Mick. What do you expect ?

The debate is over anyway. We do NOT have an ice melting problem in the arctic.


RE: Common Sense
By DigitalFreak on 7/9/2009 9:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Even if we did, it would be from all his hot air.


RE: Common Sense
By SamBest on 7/10/2009 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about the fact? And who can forecast the future? The president says so.


So, no danger
By filipenko on 7/9/2009 8:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
This is great! If that many ice has already been melted, and there hasn't been a significant rise in ocean levels, then there will be no imminent danger if the entire Arctic would have melted, except perhaps in some - and very few - zones.

I wonder what will be next...there will probably be some proofs that Sahara is extremely warm all summer long.




RE: So, no danger
By Mitch101 on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: So, no danger
By acase on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: So, no danger
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2009 9:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't realize there would be a test in the comments section today.


RE: So, no danger
By acase on 7/9/2009 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but you ended two statements with a question mark, and then when you finally did ask a question you used a period? It was just a little baffling? Wouldn't you say.


RE: So, no danger
By CannedTurkey on 7/9/2009 10:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
New to the internet?


RE: So, no danger
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
I believe you are not necessarily correct. You don't need to worry about this polar ice melting. For the arctic, if the ice melted, does it really matter? We shouldn't get any rise in sea level because, if we recall elementary school, if you put a cube of ice in a glass of water and it melts, the level still doesn't change. This ice isn't on a continent like it is in Antarctica and thus what it is already displacing is what it will always displace. Now if Greenland (or especially Antarctica) melted, then we would have an effect.


RE: So, no danger
By kattanna on 7/9/2009 10:06:42 AM , Rating: 1
while its true that the floating ice would not directly raise water levels, the rising temps of the waters themselves would expand filling more volume and thereby increasing water levels, though not by much.


RE: So, no danger
By s12033722 on 7/9/2009 11:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Contrary to most materials, water expands as it gets colder, thus ice floats.


RE: So, no danger
By buzznut on 7/9/2009 1:29:07 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, this is not quite correct. The volume of water decreases with temperature, right up until the freezing point. At that point the water solidifies and forms a crystal structure. Thus the molecules are forced apart into a crystalline structure that takes up a larger volume.

The reason that ice floats in water is because the molecules are not packed as densely as the liquid form. The highest density of water (and the smallest volume) would be at the coldest point before ice crystals form. Probably a degree or two above 0C.

So the idea that the world would become flooded with ice cap melting is more than a little unrealistic. This would actually probably help the more immediate issue of acidity; carbonic acid that forms from CO2 emissions is changing the pH of our oceans and threatens all ocean life. Unlike the 1 C change our planet has undergone in the past 150 years which life can adapt to and always has in the past, rapidly changing pH may not be as easy to adapt to.

Climate change involves changes in weather over long periods of time. That doesn't mean 200 years, the planet has been around for 5 billion years and life has existed for 500 million. Climate change is way too complex and dependent on way too many factors for us to claim that we have any true understanding of it, or any ability to predict it in any meaningful fashion.

However, no matter how you feel about global warming or politics, any dolt can see that acid rain is not natural nor is it a good thing. It doesn't take a genius to see that CO and CO2 emissions are the cause of carbonic acid formation and the resulting change in pH in our water.


RE: So, no danger
By HotFoot on 7/10/2009 1:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius.

The reason sea levels are expected to rise if the oceans get warmer has very little to do with ice melting - be that ice floating on the ocean or ice capping mountains. It's by and large simply thermal expansion of the ocean itself. Take the average depth of the ocean around the globe, multiply by the coefficient of thermal expansion, and then see what one or two degrees Celsius does.

Average depth = 3790 m
coeff of thermal expansion @ 17 deg C = 220e-6 K^-1

Change @ +1 deg C = +0.83 m
Change @ +2 deg C = +1.67 m


4 years?
By computergeek485 on 7/9/2009 7:14:00 AM , Rating: 3
I personally have to question with something like this the validity of a 4 year time span. We need something like a 100+ year time span for it to even remotely register any sense of significance.




RE: 4 years?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/9/2009 7:24:08 AM , Rating: 3
Ah, but you see, there isn't that much data. Better to let yourself be thrown off by the anomaly of small numbers it seems.


RE: 4 years?
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think there should be a decent amount of sea ice data from seafarers back one hundred years ago. Although not mapped by satellites, I do believe sea ice was still mapped to a certain extent by icebreakers and others.


RE: 4 years?
By JediJeb on 7/9/2009 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 3
There may be lots of data from years ago, but again here is a mixture of measuring processes. It is like measuring out a building using a peice of string 6 inches long, versus using a new lazer range finder. This satelite is seeing more data than was possible before and therefore the dataset is totally different from what came before it. There are so many inaccuracies when you begin to merge datasets from different sources. Just like counting sunspots with the unaided eye like they did hundreds of years ago, then with primative telescopes, then with new digital equipment.

When this new satelite has been up there measuring data for a thousand years, then you might have a start on the idea of how the climate changes over time. The problem with using the data to prove Human Caused Global Warming is you have no baseline date produced from it from before it happened.


RE: 4 years?
By mandrews on 7/9/2009 9:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, this study is just more bunk from NASA. NASA's statistical practices are laughable at best, malific at worst. And the study fails to note that record ice gain in late 2008 returned the sea ice to its highest levels since 1979.


RE: 4 years?
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
When you look at the long term (truly the long term. as in thousands of years) man-made global warming is disproved. So please ignore the past and focus only on carefully selected time increments which show what they want you to see.


RE: 4 years?
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:41:46 AM , Rating: 1
Not necessarily disproved, just "inconsequential." That, or the fact that the effects of anthropogenic climate change have yet to be fully realized and that AGW-if it exists in any way, small or large--would show as either a small unnatural blip in the climate record or could it possibly be a large spike? That's where the debate lies. Thus far, I think the Earth is doing a decent job at scrubbing itself clean of human air pollutants now that we've gotten rid of CFCs.


Stop with the ongoing editting.
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 9:03:03 AM , Rating: 4
Hey Jason - don't be changing the pictures in the article which are providing your information for the article after the posters here have called you out on it.

The original pictures were attempted comparisons of sea ice from the February 1980 and Summer (June/July) of 2008.




RE: Stop with the ongoing editting.
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think Jason simply agreed that it wasn't the best representation of what he is trying to make a point of. Give him at least some credit for making a more accurate representation of his argument. You may still very well disagree with him and that's fine. Journalists make mistakes sometimes or even stretches. In this case, at least he gave us a more apples to apples comparison. Now whether or not you continue to believe it is relevant or not or worth anything, then that is up for debate now.


RE: Stop with the ongoing editting.
By mdogs444 on 7/9/2009 9:17:16 AM , Rating: 3
Then he should make notation of that in the article, while still displaying his previous marks/pictures. He's attempting to cherry pick, and discredit the posters who called him on his b.s.

I can do the same thing by saying look at these two pictures: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...


By DigitalFreak on 7/9/2009 9:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
I happened to come back to look at the comments and was like, WTF? Just goes to prove you should never believe anything he posts when he has to pull crap like that.


By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:29:32 AM , Rating: 2
But then he's proven wrong...do not question the Hutt behind the curtain.


hey jason!
By meepstone on 7/9/2009 9:58:30 AM , Rating: 4
I got a brilliant idea for you. stop posting articles or blogs on global warming, youve been doing it forever now and you show no facts that can be proven. This is getting real old.

The only global warming im sure has actually taken place is when the Earth cooled down from the ice age you crock.




RE: hey jason!
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 10:26:02 AM , Rating: 3
Well since this is an author's blog, I believe he should be able to post about most anything he finds interesting. We are all welcome to agree or disagree with him as passionately as we'd like, however.

Personally, I welcome a debate on topics such as this. The more debate, the more weeding out of myths there is and the more planting of facts, instead. Through debate, as well as observation and research in general, we will come to understand the effects of man on our climate and determine whether or not they have any consequentiality.


RE: hey jason!
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 10:38:55 AM , Rating: 3
Er, nevermind. It's not an author's blog but a headline... At the same time, if both sides of the fence have been posting headlines about this (notable Michael and Jason), then so be it. If we are all tired of these articles, then they should be relegated to blogs only (both sides of the argument). :)


But but...
By Marlin1975 on 7/9/2009 7:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
I can find articles and selectively edit them to seem like that not’s true...

/asher




RE: But but...
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 8:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
How come we haven't seen him post here lately? No articles and no comments...


RE: But but...
By kattanna on 7/9/2009 10:08:48 AM , Rating: 3
he is called

mandrews

now


RE: But but...
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 10:15:34 AM , Rating: 2
What...did he get married and change his last name? I've not known any guys to change their last name when they get married. Usually only women do. Or I suppose he just changed his name just to change it? Oh well, he probably doesn't want people poking about his personal life. It's not my place anyways.


Love it
By FITCamaro on 7/9/2009 9:34:24 AM , Rating: 3
The article's pictures are now down to a 2 year time span to prove "long term" global warming, the questions and criticism are mounting, and a writer who typically responds to people in his articles remains silent. Wonder why....




RE: Love it
By Maxima2k2se on 7/9/2009 6:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same. I used to love reading Jason and masher go back and forth. We got mandrews now did masher get married and take his spouses last name?


So what?
By svenkesd on 7/9/2009 8:32:11 AM , Rating: 4
I would be much more alarmed if the ice volume grew significantly. Seems like a slight melt is preferrable to most other scenarios.

I doubt the "permanent" ice volume is ever a static quantity.




Ice Concentration vs Thickness?
By marsbound2024 on 7/9/2009 9:27:47 AM , Rating: 3
I've seen a couple of these different definitions lately and am beginning to wonder what is meant by them. Perhaps they are the same thing? NASA data shows:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365869main_eart...

and

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365871main_eart...

from the main article:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-2...

Now as many of you have shown in comparisons, some data is showing ice concentration. To me, this would be the same thing as thickness almost but I am uncertain. I wonder if the NASA article is actually stating that the overall area of ice coverage has been somewhat consistent, but thickness overall has decreased? If this is so, then I am unsure what the whole concentration thing would refer to. To me, these would be contradictory.

However, from the data released by ICESat, the sea ice thickness over a four year period has indeed declined. But, when it comes to CLIMATE record, as others have stated, four years really doesn't mean a whole lot. It does imply current short term trends, but one can't extrapolate that to construe long term trends.




By jbartabas on 7/9/2009 4:25:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now as many of you have shown in comparisons, some data is showing ice concentration. To me, this would be the same thing as thickness almost but I am uncertain.


Ice concentration refers to a spatial ratio, i.e. ice area/area of pixel. For monthy products, temporal and spatial average are conflated. Therefore it is not the same thing as thickness as it involves only surface measurements.

quote:
I wonder if the NASA article is actually stating that the overall area of ice coverage has been somewhat consistent, but thickness overall has decreased?


No, the article states that even in years where the extent was stable, or even increased, the thickness decreased. The overall trends in ice extent and concentrations are reported there (You can select the month of interest):
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaic...


By drilloil on 7/9/2009 2:11:08 PM , Rating: 4
Until they get rid of that political hack Hansen & the fact that the Obomites will eviserate any one that disagrees with their agenda, I won't believe anything that NASA reports.




Another failed doomsday cult
By mattclary on 7/9/2009 9:07:32 AM , Rating: 3
Fighting for their last breath




Um, nice try guys
By guffwd on 7/9/2009 10:05:06 AM , Rating: 1
To Kode and mdogs444, nice try... Lets actually use the correct data you cited. July?? I don't think so. The problem is the ocean is warmest in September and October (in the northern hemisphere of course). If the ice mass disappears more than it did last summer, the ecosystem will be fatally impacted. Even if the mass returns next year, it will be too late. Thus, September is the only month that matters - plus its the same month used in the article. I cannot believe you tried to disprove this article with a different month. I sincerely hope you're not a scientist, mathematician.

Now lets look at the site you quoted:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

Ahhhhhhh. Big difference...

I'm not saying global warming is or is not happening, but if you're going to argue a point and criticize the article for using incorrect data, make sure you stick to the same variables - that is, after all, the logical scientific process.




RE: Um, nice try guys
By jbartabas on 7/9/2009 2:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Comparing ice * coverage or extent* (which is not even the point of the study) between summer and winter does not make much sense, and it was obviously irrelevant to present these two pictures in the first place.

Now to address the point about the existence of trends or not, monthly mean over the last few decades provide some pretty good picture of what's actually going on, even regarding the extent only (which is rather limited representation of the arctic ice but what's the "easiest" to monitor):

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?config=seaic...


Hay guys!
By goku on 7/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hay guys!
By clovell on 7/9/2009 11:17:23 AM , Rating: 3
...and making up strawmen so you can feel better about yourself!!!

What a wanker!!!


heyy....
By swizeus on 7/9/2009 9:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
they change the 1980 pictures, what sucker... so there's no legitimate truth, ey ?




By pequin06 on 7/9/2009 9:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
Evolve or die.

Whatever happened to the tough go get'em attitude of the yesteryear where there was no guilt for making our lives better?
Oh yeah, people became "enlightened".

Wusses




Research Bias
By metasin on 7/9/2009 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I believe the earth is warming. Does human activity have some impact? Probably (land use more so than CO2 but that is another topic), but to what extent I have no idea except that it is likely much much smaller than the doom and gloomers pontificate. What bothers me is this same research bias we see time and again. The polar caps are either not shrinking fast enough or at all so let’s look at ice thickness.

Yet when researchers demonstrate counter evidence (granted they are not free from bias either) it is outright dismissed or even ridiculed. How about we look at all the data and make an informed opinion before we take measures that will undoubtedly negatively impact our current economic system? All the resources wasted on preventing an unproven theory could be put to very good use for mankind. Just a thought.




Breaking News!
By wookie1 on 7/9/2009 11:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists have discovered that temperatures increase in the summer, and decrease in the winter! This could explain some of the changes in ice thickness between these seasons. CO2 emissions from humans seems to cause this, otherwise the arctic temperatures would be constant year-round.




By corduroygt on 7/9/2009 2:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's more like global comforting, everyone can use a little warmth.




Melt Baby Melt..
By snownpaint on 7/9/2009 4:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, I think the ice caps melting is a some what good thing. (Remember the planet is always changing, the deserts were once green, and that took 1000s of years, we've been polluting for a 100years+) There are tons of fresh (clean) water that is trapped in the poles, and we keep on polluting the water that currently is available. Pollution toxicity is usually associated with certain levels of concentration. Therefore, we are diluting the water soluble pollutions to lower levels that can be broken down, stored(settled down in dead biomass), or levels of lesser impactful toxicity.

Personally, I think more cap and trade rulings should be spent reducing what we throw-away in the trash. (wasted energy to produce, dispose of and/or slightly recycle(plastic), look at those product packaging, wrapping, and wasted space in transporting. I feel that will have a greater impact in keeping the world clean and climate issues (save energy producing it, save energy disposing of it). Curbing the Production side of waste , which is less impactful on a weaken economy (you are basically taxing companies to reduce waste and reduce their costs on products/packaging that is thrown away, and allow them to promote the (forced) green direction of their companies) and you will have a greater trickle down effect then directing legislative rulings on the usage and capping of energy production which has a greater effect on the weaken economy.

Finally, after that is handled and we moved away from the throw away side of things, and streamline our production to reduce unnecessary energy usage, then look into using new technology (not refitting old tech) to create an abundance of cheap clean electricity/energy.

Till then, melt melt melt.. I don't want to swim in disgustingly dirty oceans (which will have an effect on fish supplies and up the chain) and those beach front properties are washing away anyway (it all ends up in the ocean one way or another, from the mtn. to the creeks)




By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 7/9/2009 5:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
The ice melting on the mountains of Greenland from warmer temps at the poles doesn't follow the historical data I've been told about. Seems illogical, but when we start to see all the other factors besides CO2, then it is definitely possible. Also, during this time the polar bears survived.

This was explained in this movie:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2889526806...




post-count
By croc on 7/9/2009 6:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
50+ posts and counting.... I'd say Jason earned his keep for this article.




Why?
By toyotabedzrock on 7/10/2009 12:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
Why are they using a satellite to measure the thickness of ice? It's like using a telescope to measure the size of a cell from across a room.




LOLOLOLOLOL
By bill3 on 7/10/2009 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
>>a melting Arctic likely means that Greenland's ice cover will melt, likely flooding low lying coastal cities such as New Orleans and Amsterdam.>>

Yeah good luck with that, Mick.

That will probably happen right after scientists finalize the human invisibility cloak, and the first quantum computer goes online.




what else is thinning
By spepper on 7/11/2009 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
what else that's thinning is the logic in the attempts at propagandizing certain agendas-- this one in particular, for example: artificial global warming-- and all of the ensuing regulations and carbon-footprint taxes-- using articles such as this one-- let's just take as gospel for the moment, the NASA data-- OK, the polar icecap is thinning-- there is still no way in hell, that a scientific conclusion, that is, one based in fact, can be made, that it is human-caused, as opposed to a natural cyclical phenomenon-- to say that we need federal or international regulations and taxes to reduce the "carbon footprint" to forestall these events, to save the earth, is just insane, draconian, and Hitlerian-- there is no more proof that humankind influences such phenomena, than there is proof of the existence of Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, UFO's, and the like-- Iowan farmer abductees notwithstanding--




By TacticalTrading on 7/9/2009 11:43:29 AM , Rating: 1
I float better in salt water than in fresh water. Since there is little salt in Ice, this should also be true for Ice, Right?
If so, do the Satellites/Data compensate for the changes in salinity over area and time? If so, how do you know the salinity of the water under thousands of square miles of ice?

If not, well, anything to help the AGW cause...right?
The difference is likely small, but all those square millimeters still add up.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki