backtop


Print 191 comment(s) - last by lucasb.. on Nov 30 at 1:58 PM


30 years of sea ice data. The red line indicates deviation from the seasonally-adjusted mean.  (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels.  In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.

That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years.

The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E microwave radiometer, an instrument package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite. AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/2008 10:29:56 PM , Rating: 0
That's just dumb, I didn't bring politics in here - this whole subject is political and has no place on a tech site.

And feel free to rate me down again, sigh.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By masher2 (blog) on 11/7/2008 10:44:41 PM , Rating: 5
> "the whole subject is political and has no place on a tech site."

With respect, sir, you are confused. The extent and causes of climate change are science. The discussion of if and/or how we should react to those changes is politics.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By eetnoyer on 11/8/2008 9:23:34 AM , Rating: 5
Dumbass, he is the article poster. M ichael Asher .


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 5
hahaha OMG Moklar is retarded!

See, this is the problem with stupid people these days, especially left-wingers. They want to make everything political.

Global warming data is science. Science should not be politicized. Politicizing scientific data and conclusions is the same as banning evolution from schools.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By JS on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By mezman on 11/10/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid you are incorrect.

While the two issues you mentioned are politicized by the Right, there is simply no more egregious case of the politicization of science than the AGW debate by the Left.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 3:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
See, this is the problem with stupid people these days, especially left-wingers. They want to make everything political.

I hope you were joking. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say I chuckled to myself when I read that line - so reminiscent of Epimenides' Paradox.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
The bigger chuckle was this is no place for politics, when the hope of the O crowd is a new world order of energy - as long as the old world is first destroyed.
If this isn't a political topic, you never passed sea urchin and made it to ostrich with head in sand.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By teldar on 11/8/2008 5:54:48 PM , Rating: 5
I rather think that the tracking and projection of ice caps ARE science. It's the study of the earth. Something along the lines of CLIMATOLOGY, not politics.
And I fear that there is little journalism that does not have spin.

If you truly believe that Fox is the only network with spin, you need to get your head out of your @ss. Fox is simply the only news network with a republican spin rather than the outrageously liberal spin of nearly ALL other news outlets....

And if you want to talk about global warming and who is making it a political statement....
Al Gore has made around $700M giving talks about global warming. Do you really think he cares whether it is real or not?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Myg on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 12:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't just a tech site. It's a science site. Global climate data is (or at least should be) science.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Except we all insinctively understand at this point it is not science, it is grant money, politics, and power and control. Exhale freely, co2 polluter. :)


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki