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.


By grenableu on 9/5/2008 1:30:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only for people who can't read.
There seem to be a lot of them lately doesn't there? I don't know why so many people are having such a problem figuring this out. Did IQs drop recently?


By realitybytes on 9/5/2008 2:14:12 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, NOW I get it... you are using the AVERAGE for the month... I'm not sure why, since the data for the end of the month is just as available, and more useful.

(by using an average, you aren't reporting the ice extent only; you're also including a factor of melt acceleration as well, which can be different from year to year; yet you aren't making it known which part of the difference is the extent, and which part is the acceleration of the rate of melting)


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 11:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
> "you are using the AVERAGE for the month... I'm not sure why"

A single day's data to show a climate trend is not very useful. Humorously enough, when I used monthly averages in a previous story on temperature trends, many people chose to complain the period was too short, and that without averaging at least a full year or two, the results were meaningless.

The fact remains that whether one looks at an August average, or any single day in August, total ice extent is higher this year than last. Had I chosen Aug 1, I would have gotten a larger delta. Had I chose Aug 31, a smaller one. Instead, I used the monthly average -- which NSIDC itself calculates and uses -- to get a more indicative figure.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2008 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right. Even the NSIDC says that monthly averages are more useful than daily shots. I apologize for my misplaced criticism. Others' criticism - that you have failed to point out that the ice extent minimum has yet to be reached, and that the pace of ice loss was faster this year than last, are still valid critiques, I'd say. It's the same kind of fact cherry-picking that gets us articles that say, "the ice will be gone this year!!! OMG!"

NSIDC also points out, in the section, "Interpretation Resources",
quote:
Interannual variability in extent is large: for example, a record minimum in September of 1995 was followed by very high extent the next year. Globally, the annual variation of sea ice area is about 37% of the mean (Gloersen et al. 1999). Because of this, it is difficult to infer long-term trends from short observational records, or to deduce the influence of possible natural oscillations in ice extent. The great variability in ice extent is especially noticeable in maps depicting the frequency of occurrence of sea ice.

That, roughly translated, means, "you can't really imply anything based on August, one way or the other."

I know that's not what you were trying to do, you were focused on debunking the "Arctic ice may be gone this year" story. But plenty of people here have decided to read more into the story.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But plenty of people here have decided to read more into the story.
You're absolutely correct; this story was intended to indicate only one thing only -- that the Arctic was colder this year, and the alarmism earlier this summer was misplaced. Long-term, the Arctic will most certainly disappear, completing a process which began when the last ice age ended.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A single day's data to show a climate trend is not very useful. Humorously enough, when I used monthly averages in a previous story on temperature trends, many people chose to complain the period was too short, and that without averaging at least a full year or two, the results were meaningless.


Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing. Your little story was okay until now, but if now you start to pretend that it implies anything about climate trend, that's you're little blog which turn out to be pretty humorous.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing"

To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages. And it indicates one thing clearly -- that this year was colder than the last, a conclusion borne out by the statement from the UIUC Arctic researcher I interviewed.

Long-term, there's no reason to believe this change, however, is anything but an abberation. The Arctic began melting 20,000 years ago: a process that paleoclimatic history tells us will not end until it has disappeared entirely.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages. And it indicates one thing clearly -- that this year was colder than the last, a conclusion borne out by the statement from the UIUC Arctic researcher I interviewed.


Again, you missed the point. One year span compared to the last 1 year span does not mean anything in terms of trend. It just shows the year-to-year variability. Actually your article did not pretend anything about climate trend, and your last answers to foolsgambit11 neither. So why did you have to bring it to your previous comment ... ?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, you missed the point..."

No, you're either not reading or not comprehending my replies. I specifically said this data is meaningful only in establishing that this year was colder than the prior (interannual variability) and to debunk previous alarmist reporting.

I have also repeatedly stated this is meaningless in respect to the long-term trend, which will most certainly culminate in the disappearance of Arctic ice entirely. It's been melting for 20,000 years, neither one or thirty year's worth of data means much beside that.

How much more clear can I be?


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 2:43:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, you're either not reading or not comprehending my replies. I specifically said this data is meaningful only in establishing that this year was colder than the prior (interannual variability) and to debunk previous alarmist reporting.


I am definitely reading, so it must be the other option. That part is clear, definitely. This issue is not only what you wrote, i.e.:
quote:
To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages.

but also that it was answering
quote:
Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing


Now it is clear that you've made the precision for accuracy purpose, and not to suggest that a 1 year span would make sense to interpret a trend.

I won't comment on the terms debunk and alarmists that are irrelevant here ...


By The Night Owl on 9/5/2008 8:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


What does that even mean? You write the oddest things sometimes.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2008 12:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.
I'd also like to point out, though, that the images you cite, the ones you'd understandably want to highlight, are the data for sea ice extent. The sea ice concentration images for August 2007/2008 are more discouraging, and show why the ice extent has been decreasing faster this year than last in August - there's a lot more thin ice this year than last.

I can't find any estimate of the actual volume of sea ice - I suppose that would be hard to calculate. But it would be an interesting metric, and probably pretty valuable in determining how fast the ice is melting. Maybe the data is there on the site. Anybody help me? (Since apparently data comprehension isn't my strong suit....)


By whiskerwill on 9/4/2008 3:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
You need some help reading charts and graphs there, guy.


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm through explaining it them. The first person or two, I thought they were just trolling, but they just really don't get it.


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 3:51:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm through explaining it them. The first person or two, I thought they were just trolling, but they just really don't get it.


We do get it, Masher has taken the average for August but that is rather pointless as an end point as the melt is continuing and 2008 has had fast rate of loss during the latter half of August than 2007. So the average is useless.

Indeed the main NSIDC graph on the front page shows not a monthly average but a 5 day average

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

see

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

Here's another graph of comparison between years ( and yes I can read graphs thanks)

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6272/iceextentd...

Currently 2007 is approximately 400 000km^2 more than 2007 and 750 000+ less than other recent years. Although the melt season is apparently "over" for the month yesterday another 50 000km^2 disappeared.

Regards

Andy


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 1
> "So the average is useless"

Monthly ice melt averages are not 'useless'; indeed the NSIDC calculates and uses them on a regular basis, much more so than 5-day averages. For all climate research, you typically use the longest mean possible for the problem at hand. To show a difference in ice coverage between 2007 and 2008, a yearly average would be even better -- but 2008 isn't yet complete, so a monthly value is the best we have.

Amusingly enough, when I used monthly averages to demonstrate a rapid drop in global temperatures, you yourself again complained it was meaningless -- but because the period was far too short, rather than far too long:
quote:
What are you trying to show here, that there is some fluctuation year on year ? I agree, but it's not relevant. Only the trend is relevant. That seems to be going upwards.
At least then, your point had a kernel of truth. Monthly data isn't useless obviously, but annual data *is* more relevant. But the notion that a single day's results are somehow more valuable and indicative than an average for an entire month is, of course, severely flawed.


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 12:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well what does your month tell us then?

It seems to tell us that the difference this year is 700 000 km^2 between 2008 and 2008 when the actual value of 4th September is actually a lot less than.

Rather than taking a slice when you have incorrectly determined melt has stopped, just take the whole year as given by multiple graphs

Extent

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

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_S...

Area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

There's no 700 000 km^2 there I'm afraid .....

And for NH anomaly

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

As you say, longer time periods are better and the above shows that, but if you are going to pick a particular year then at least take the whole year into account and not cut it short.

Regards

Andy


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
erata ...

between 2007 and 2008

Doh!

:D

Regards

Andy


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Monthly ice melt averages are not 'useless'; indeed the NSIDC calculates and uses them on a regular basis, much more so than 5-day averages. For all climate research, you typically use the longest mean possible for the problem at ha[...]


Whether you compare one day with last year value, or one month with the same last year, the same as for temperatures, you see mostly natural variability, and in no way a trend, even less a climate trend. So you could as well look at 1 day for that matters ... you would have more noise probably, but neither a comparison of monthly or daily average will tell you much about the climate trend.

quote:
Monthly data isn't useless obviously, but annual data *is* more relevant. But the notion that a single day's results are somehow more valuable and indicative than an average for an entire month is, of course, severely flawed.


What is severely flawed is your comprehension of the issue. Monthly data are relevant for a trend, it's just comparing monthly average over 2 years that does not make much sense.

Averaging the data over 1 year for one hemisphere, you mix up two phenomenon (melting and freezing). That has its usefulness but you can as well focus one of the two processes by looking at monthly averages (particularly if you want to assess possible changes in the length of the melting/freezing seasons), or seasonal averages.

If you want to learn about what to do with monthly averages in terms of trend from people who know what they're talking about, take a look at that:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_...

Now focus on the last two points, showing sea ice extent larger in August 2008 than in August 2007 .... that tells you a lot about the trend, right? Yep, despite the 'gain', it's under what the trend would lead to ...

There's even some text if a simple time series is too complicated for you to analyze:

Even though August ice extent was above that of August 2007, the downward trend for August ice loss has now gone from -8.4% per decade to -8.7% per decade.

That's without mentioning that sea extent doesn't tell much about ice loss ...


By jgvandemeer on 9/5/2008 1:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to learn about what to do with monthly averages in terms of trend
Everything you said is a lot of doubletalk trying to hide these two facts.

#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year.
#2 It's colder up there than it was last year.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Look at Masher words and you'll notice he's paid a great deal of attention to mention the words coverage or extent as often as possible. You haven't

quote:
#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year.


because the discussion is already beyond your comprehension capabilities. It's not about more or less ice, it's about more or less ice extent or coverage ... I know it will be still obscure for you but who cares ...

quote:
#2 It's colder up there than it was last year.


Yep, it has been colder, as about every other year for the last 150 years has been colder than the previous year. What does it say about the trend? not much ... do you even understand the word?

Again, even if words are two complicated, look at that figure
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_...

Now try to count the number of points which are higher than the previous one ... now you conclude yourself about what does it mean in terms of trend to compare just two points 1 year apart (a simplified illustration of what could be a trend is illustrated by the blue line ... it can actually be more complicated, but we've obviously reached a limit of complexity for you).


By jgvandemeer on 9/5/2008 2:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, even if words are two complicated
Well, I know enough about words to tell the difference between "two" and too".


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, I know enough about words to tell the difference between "two" and too".


I really thank you for educating me, because I didn't even know that there were too ... oops two (... or is it too) different spellings for this word, and that they meant twwoo different things. Two bad that your comprehension doesn't go further than that ... Did you figure out the meaning of trend or a difference between to-woo values is the best you can do?


By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 1:17:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year


True, but since the start of September the extent has decreased by 143 000 km^2 with another 50 000+ disappearing yesterday. We'll have to wait to the end of September to actually see what the minima is. Comparing values in 2007 and 2008 without looking at the minima is pointless when talking about extent, no matter which month inbetween you wish to pick. Same for maxima.

Regards

Andy


By ipay on 9/10/2008 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the official communication: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080826_secondlowest....

Asher is a bare-faced liar or just massively deluded. Either way, he's not worth listening to.


By skroh on 9/12/2008 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
This behavior on the part of major media outlets is in perfect keeping with the old saw about GW skeptics not understanding the difference between climate and weather.

Based on the general attitude of GW proponents, I have been able to learn the true definition:

-Any phenomenon that appears to support anthropogenic climate change=climate.

-Any phenomenon that casts doubt on anthropogenic climate change=weather.


By MatthiasF on 9/3/2008 4:55:10 PM , Rating: 4
Read the article. It states 10 times more ice loss on the island in question, not the entire Arctic.

quote:
Including the Markham loss, Ellesmere Island has now lost 10 times more shelf ice this summer than scientists predicted on July 30.


By Motoman on 9/3/2008 4:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
...which is why I think it's much more appropriate to use the term "climate change" - while in general the average temperature is going to creep up slightly, on a localized basis it may or may not actually get hotter...

I think people need to stop pointing fingers at individual data points and actually look at the entirety of what's going on.


By Alexvrb on 9/3/2008 8:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
Right, right, climate change, of course! Couldn't get global warming scare to pan out, so now we're using a concept that can never be wrong, explains all changes in weather and temperature, and requires no facts to back it up! Why didn't we push this idea sooner?!


By Motoman on 9/5/2008 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
...Global warming is "panning out." It's completely undeniable that, on average, the temperature of the Earth is increasing. However, stupid people hear "global warming" and percieve it to mean that temperatures must be going up *everywhere*, which is not the case. Then, said stupid people declare that "global warming" is just a "scare tactic" and that it isn't "panning out."

...but since we're all geniuses here, naturally there's no need to point out the obvious...


By Topweasel on 9/3/2008 5:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Expect vs. Actual loss.

What happened is that cooling, perhaps caused by loss of sunspot activity, resulted in slightly less loss and due to lack of foresight into snow drifts not happening, resulted in less insulation of the ice from the cold air caused actually a drop in Ice loss.

They expected increased temps (even though its been two years since an increase)+ loss of mass = equal exponential increase in loss of ice.

Keep in mind the ice caps have been melting for 20k years. The science of it is right, same temp lower mass easier to melt. Outside factors the same as long as we don't have a full blown ice age, expecting ice to melt quicker isn't rocket science, but considering that it isn't it basically throws just about everything else out. Though one wrench is if it is actually worse on the other hemisphere.

Take all of this into consideration, still doesn't tell us of anything worth knowing in terms of whether its a man made issue (if there is one) or not. Its been proven time and again that there has been many periods in history where temps where below what they are now with higher ammounts of CO2. Not only that but you think that a higher CO2 count would look better anyways in regards to plant life (and therefore cleaner and more abundant oxygen for us).


yep
By kjboughton on 9/3/2008 2:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yet more evidence that man is not the keeper of global climate patterns. I fully expect that all the raving "Global Warming" nuts, that coincidentally have no idea what they are talking about, plan to have a sit in and officially refute more scientific evidence that shows just how horribly impressionable they really are.




RE: yep
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 3:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
So the metric ass ton of previously inaccessible and sequestered (out of the carbon cycle) CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has absolutely no effect on climate?? None at all?

Please enlighten me as to how this is possible.

/not a "Global Warming Nut" btw, but long term research by credible scientists is imperative to understanding what humanity can do to improve the conditions in which we live, or at the very least, maintain livable conditions.


RE: yep
By Jim28 on 9/3/2008 4:12:38 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should learn percentage of man-released C02 is of the atmosphere as a whole?


RE: yep
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 4:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
So what % of the CO2 is man made then?


RE: yep
By CyborgTMT on 9/3/2008 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Roughly .002% to .005% depending on who's data you read.


RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/3/2008 5:07:55 PM , Rating: 5
The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small - less then 0.1%

The amount of CO2 released by mankind each year is circa 3%.

Water vapour is mainly responsible for the greenhouse

The very small impact that CO2 can have on warming is logrithmic and most of that has already happened so future increases on CO2 are likely to be irrelevant to warming. The positive feedback claims aren't happening; looks like it's negative feedback - problem/scare over

CO2 is vital to all life on our planet - without it we're dead - so it not a poisonous gas as some AGW nutters would have us believe. Research has shown that the planet has become greener since increases in CO2 have occurred.

Industrial growers often pump CO2 into their greenhouses to improve growth & crop yields - why's that then?

A warm/warmer world is more preferable to a colder one - just look at how people move to warmer climates for holidays and to live when they're economically able to

More people die from 'cold' deaths that 'warm' deaths

Following the mantra of the AGW alarmists resulted in the disaster that was/is biofuels: people have been starving because of food shortages as farmland has been converted to growing subsidised biofuels which very often produce more CO2 than they're supposed to save - well done environmentalists!!

The IPCC was specifically set up to show that warming is caused by mankind - sound familiar - dodgy dossier: Saddam has WMD so just show he has - remember the experts told us he had them - and.........

The computer models have been very poor at predicting the weather and climate - they didn't predict the stalling of the warming or the recent global cooling so why believe their claims a 100 years out.

Academics and other institutions have a vested interest in keeping the climate scare going as it brings in the grants and media attention

The media sucks - they're not interested in the truth just scare stories - its sells: Sars, Y2K, AIDs, Bird Flu & WMD - all major disasters waiting to consume us - what happened - very little!

Lots of jobs have been created by the warming hoax - no one wnats to say it all been a waste of time, make themselves redundant or have to explain why billions have been wasted on useless policies.

Most AGW alarmists have painted themselves into a corner - and now the hoax is unravelling - Emperors new clothes anyone?

Let's focus our resources and energies on solving real global problems: poverty, disease, economic unfairness, illiteracy and political subjegation - that's what the UN should be doing not selling a pig in a poke!


RE: yep
By juserbogus on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/4/2008 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 1
I know what forcing is - the computer models predicted it but it's not turn up in the REAL World

I suggest you show evidence (and not based on spurious computer models) that shows that CO2 has caused any historical warming


RE: yep
By cocoman on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: yep
By porkpie on 9/3/2008 11:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wow such a long post and yet you still managed to get every single thing wrong.
quote:
CO2 is not vital to all life. It is vital for plants that use it
If there isn't enough CO2 in the air, we all starve to death. Like that better?

Anyway, some CO2 IS required for humans. Turns out if there's none at all, you don't breathe.
quote:
the excess of CO2 is toxic to other forms of living.
So is O2 and water. Guess that means we should ban those too huh?

quote:
That means cities destroyed by a raise in sea level
Huh? The current prediction is for a sea rise of about 1/3 of a foot. That's enough to flood your ankles. If you're already standing on the edge of the water.
quote:
Of course biofuels always will produce more CO2 than they are supposed to save. You are burning it... you just produce less CO2 than fosil fuels
Nope. You produce MORE CO2 than you would had you just burned the fossil fuels in the first place. And you make food prices shoot through the roof in the process.
quote:
Now whose experts were talking about the WMD? US military experts (inteligence).
And the Germans. And the British. And a few other intelligence agencies.
quote:
Even if global warming is not true, we are moving into a cleaner industrie
So its ok to lie long as we think its in a good cause?
quote:
The UN anounced a few years back that the had to decrease the amount of food they sent to Africa because they couldn't afford it anymore
With all major nations wasting billions on carbon reduction projects and burning all our food in our cars, its no wonder.
quote:
I just think that if so many scientist say there is a problem, there probably is one.
30 years ago, so many scientists were saying we were facing another ice age. What's that saying about fool me once, shame on you?


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: yep
By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
who said anything about 'banning' CO2?
Al Gore, and a few thousand other politicians.


RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/4/2008 1:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Have we forgotten about the Enlightenment - a time when man started to question and doubt everything and used science to start better understand how the life and worls worked.

Unfortunately cimate science has been hijacked by socialists, politicians and a left leaning media (BBC)


RE: yep
By Ringold on 9/5/2008 1:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Over at Ars, in the comments part of a recent article on mass extinctions recently, the liberals were out in force actually denouncing the Enlightenment as being a net negative for the world. Human liberties, as we once defined them, such as self-determination and whatnot are to them outmoded concepts incompatible with the survival of.. frogs, I guess.

It was actually pretty scary once I considered that if so many such extremists can show up at Ars, that means that as representative sample of a much larger population, there must be tens of thousands of such fascists/marxists/whatever out there in the country. Maybe hundreds of thousands, or even millions. And those people.. vote.

I can't help but wonder if its an "intellectual" and social trend limited to the US or the Western world, and if the trend will fizzle out or gain momentum. If it gains momentum, then they are signaling an era where humans, instead of seeking knowledge and behaving as individuals, live instead only to serve the greater collective, where a Soviet-style central planning committee directs the lives of the masses. The Enlightenment down the drain entirely.


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/5/2008 3:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't help but wonder if its an "intellectual" and social trend limited to the US or the Western world, and if the trend will fizzle out or gain momentum. If it gains momentum, then they are signaling an era where humans, instead of seeking knowledge and behaving as individuals, live instead only to serve the greater collective, where a Soviet-style central planning committee directs the lives of the masses. The Enlightenment down the drain entirely.


i certainly can see that happen, to some extent. look at china (old hat, i know) - their way of running a country, however frightening it is to us 'free' people, seems to work exceptionally well on a purely economic and political basis.


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/5/2008 3:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
i don't place much concern in what mass media and/or politicians say, especially concerning such matters as those dicussed here. there's no scientific or similar education/reasoning/understanding there and they'll just pick up what fits best. ask those people what nano in powers of ten is or similar questions and you will see how far they can delve into such material ... it's not nice and one can certainly get mad at how much influence there is.

as to al gore - while i would support his cause, i don't like his line of 'reasoning' at all. i'd rather be confronted with 'hard evidence' than semi-populist and dramatically made-up 'documentaries' or whatever it's called. there doesn't seem to be another way to reach certain people, however.


The artic summer has ended? Really?
By psonice on 9/3/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Everything else I've seen seems to say this:

- There's more ice coverage than this time last year. Just.
- It's colder in the arctic than last year.
- The ice is melting faster than last year.
- The melting season ISN'T FINISHED FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS.
- The melt could result in there being LESS ice than last year before the season is done.

Is the author calling a premature end to summer here so the statistics fit the agenda?




RE: The artic summer has ended? Really?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 5:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
> "The melt could result in there being LESS ice than last year before the season is done"

It's possible. However, ice growth usually begins the second half of this month, and with a deficit of 700,000 sq. km to make up, that seems very unlikely.

Certainly my figures are much less premature than those who, three months earlier, were predicting ice melt would set a new record.


By The Night Owl on 9/4/2008 8:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
"Certainly my figures are much less premature than those who, three months earlier, were predicting ice melt would set a new record."

Less premature but premature nonetheless. Clearly, your goal as a writer is not to report facts but to counter bad reporting with more bad reporting.


By pliny on 9/4/2008 9:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
Here's what your source, the NSIDC, said on 26 August: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quote:
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

I don't think they think the melt season is over. And according to the latest figures, the difference from 2007 is gown to 1 Germany.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3463#comment-294351


By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
As of Aug. 26, the deficit was only 430,000 sq.km. to make up. I agree, it probably won't make it, despite the fact that the ice is melting faster (possibly because it's thinner than last year? I don't know for sure). We'll see. Considering it made up 270k sq.km. in 3 weeks, if the melt only goes on for 3 more weeks (from Aug. 26), we could see it only missing by 160,000 sq.km. in the end - if it continued to catch up at the same rate (an assumption I'm sure I'm pulling out of my fourth point of contact) - a final difference of less than 4%.

In the end, we'll know in a month how things fall out, and we won't know before that.


By KarmakazeNZ on 9/4/2008 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Mr Asher, either you are a liar or a fool.

"Arctic sea ice extent on August 26 was 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), a decline of 2.06 million square kilometers (795,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 430,000 square kilometers (166,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.97 million square kilometers (760,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082608.html

"Arctic sea ice extent on September 3 was 4.85 million square kilometers (1.87 million square miles), a decline of 2.47 million square kilometers (950,000 square miles) since the beginning of August.

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."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

What do you have to say about that, Mr Asher?


By realitybytes on 9/5/2008 2:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
Err, by using the *average* 'deficit' for the month of August rather than the real end-of-month deficit of approx half that, you're overtly decreasing your accuracy needlessly (by ignoring how much of that same deficit was already been eliminated by the end of the month).

By looking at the chart, it seems quite clear that melting is still occurring at a pretty good clip - certainly a lot more than last year at this time - and so there is a very real chance (actually, a pretty good likelihood) that *all* of the 'deficit' will be made up by the end of the melting... We'll find out in about 3 weeks!

And, as I recall, based upon a polling of many different opinions, 41% said there would *not* be a new record, while 59% said there would be a new record minimum. And very few were *predicting* a new record minimum, they were just giving there estimate of the chance of a new minimum.

And it appears that there is a pretty good chance that the 59% are right!


Not wishing to spoil the party but...........
By kilkennycat on 9/3/2008 9:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please read today's AP article entitled:-

"Huge ice sheet breaks loose in Canadian arctic"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26529937/

Seems as if a few short-term inches of new ice-cover do not compensate for persistent effects of climate change that are irreversible in the short-term. And the eco-systems that depend on large thick ice-sheets for their survival permanently lose out.




By atrabilious on 9/3/2008 11:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
What "eco systems"? The last I heard, the polar bears were doing fine. Anything else up there can swim.


By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 9:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
Guess you didn't feel like defending that. Not surprising.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The last I heard, the polar bears were doing fine

Just about the only provable thing when it comes to what is happening in the artic.. Polar bears have been officially declared endangered as of last year. Moral of the story, you heard wrong..


By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice:
quote:
According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?... "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.

"According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

"We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.

The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne... "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports.

"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph.


This article is just plain wrong.
By failureman on 9/6/2008 10:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
The current data from the NSIDC shows only 4.5million sq KM of arctic ice today, not 6 million as reported above. The article is essentially a lie. The data is wrong.

http://www.nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/dail...




RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By nsnmeek on 9/6/2008 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he current data from the NSIDC shows only 4.5million sq KM of arctic ice today

Are you really this stupid? Read the article again, and see if you can figure out your own mistake. Hint: I highlighted a lead to get you started. If you fail that test, try reading the comments here for a spoiler.


RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you really this stupid? Read the article again, and see if you can figure out your own mistake. Hint: I highlighted a lead to get you started. If you fail that test, try reading the comments here for a spoiler.


That's pretty feeble to be honest as a defence.

Why not put up a few figures to give it some backbone?

Masher quotes

"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. "

Yet over the past year NSIDC quote, from their front page 4th September update

"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"

whereas Michael Asher quotes

"The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers"

So him cutting the finishing tape early meant his has stateed twice as much as the actual figure now.

To quote NSIDC again

"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

"In a typical year, the daily rate of ice loss starts to slow in August as the Arctic begins to cool. By contrast, in August 2008, the daily decline rate remained steadily downward and strong"

and

"The average daily ice loss rate for August 2008 was 78,000 square kilometers per day (30,000 square miles per day). This is the fastest rate of daily ice loss that scientists have ever observed during a single August. Losses were 15,000 square kilometers per day (5,800 square miles per day) faster than in August 2007, and 27,000 square kilometers per day (10,000 square miles per day) faster than average."

source -> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So Michael stopping this years race early can be seen to be, at the very least, premature.

He does however have some valid points in his original article about ice thickness and temps.

Fogetting ice extent for the moment and looking at the more significant ice area we have

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

Almpst the same as 2007.

And if you look at the total amount of ice lost this year from yesterday we have 2008 being MORE than 2007

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dropfromp...

So yes, I look forward to you figures to proves otherwise.

Regards

Andy


RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By nsnmeek on 9/6/2008 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't normally argue with people that obviously can't understand. All your questions have already been answered over and over ad nauseam. Try reading the comments.

What you say doesn't even relate to the OPs post. He said the article was lying because he can't see the difference between a monthly average and a daily number (even when the day comes after the article was published). Did this guy fall off the short bus?

quote:
Fogetting ice extent for the moment and looking at the more significant ice area
Ice area is not more significant. Extent is the total area covered, and is what controls the amount of sunlight reflected. That determines feedback effects for future cooling or warming.

Ice area is just extent x thickness. It's a valuable predictor for future ice growth rates, but its not at all more important than extent. If you have two blocks of ice of the same area, but one has twice the extent, it will be much more effective at controlling future temps.

I have to go back to real work now, so I won't reply again. If you still don't understand, just try reading slowly. Maybe take off your shoes so you can count higher.


By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 4:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ice area is just extent x thickness


No, that's volume. It's a good job you don't argue given that example.

Ice area is extent with a subtractiion for the regions of open water within that extent.

Regards

Andy


interesting