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: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/2008 3:06:56 PM , Rating: -1
John P. Holdren is the Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University. I'll pay attention to what he says until you provide some real evidence (know what that is?) that his association with someone who made an incorrect prediction in 1968 somehow removes his credibility as a climate scientist.

I'm guessing you thought Obama "pals around with terrorists" as well?

> Woods Hole Center, an advocacy group focused on "building a climate regime"

A 'climate regime'?! Ooh, it sounds so *sinister*! Of course, when we read the detail, it's nothing of the sort:

Also, try reading their 'about' page to find out what they really stand for:

> ...and one which receives the entirety of its funding from alarmist claims over global warming.

Bullshit, as usual. Their funding comes from a range of sources - and they don't attempt to hide them, unlike Mr Michaels, who runs for cover as soon he is placed in a position where he would need to disclose his source of funding:

Michaels is just one of the oil industry denier shill zombies. He operates on the edge of the scientific community, offering nothing other than polemics and nit-picking - but you know that already.

Asher, you're a weasel of a human who lies and distorts to further your blatant propaganda campaign of misinformation. Future generations will look back on people like you with disgust and loathing for your contribution to slowing the changes that are desperately needed. Why are you doing it? Greed? Getting paid by Exxon? Whatever. You're scum.

RE: No. Way.
By greenchasch on 11/8/2008 5:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
John P. Holdren is the Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.
And Patrick Michaels is the Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia. Tie game.

I'll pay attention to what he says
I'll pay attention to the person who makes sense. From what I see here, Michaels is stating facts and Holdren is just making personal attacks.

Asher, you're a weasel of a human who lies and distorts Whatever. You're scum.
Just like Holdren. People make personal attacks when they don't have anything intelligent to say.

RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: No. Way.
By JediJeb on 11/9/2008 1:46:10 PM , Rating: 3
You're a know nothing on the internet - you're not qualified to assess any complex scientific discipline. All you need to know is that every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet all confirm recent climate change is due to human activity. If you can't produce evidence that they're all lying or all wrong, then you're a delusional denier

So I guess Galileo and Copernicus were wrong about the Earth not being the center of the Solar System because every other scientist of the time disagreed with them.

And no it wasn't just the Church that disagreed with them, it was all their fellow scientist because they knew it was just how it had to be and would not even look at the data presented by Copernicus because it contradicted what they believed to be true.

RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/9/2008 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
> "...every other scientist of the time disagreed with them."

You have evidence for that? No, you don't. Suggest you spend a little time educating yourself -

Galileo and Copernicus used science to demonstrate heliocentrism - just as climate scientists today have demonstrated anthropogenic climate change.

RE: No. Way.
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 5:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess Galileo and Copernicus were wrong about the Earth not being the center of the Solar System because every other scientist of the time disagreed with them.

They wouldn't look at the data because it contradicted the Bible and was banned by the Church. But it was generally accepted by scientists outside of the Holy Roman Empire, where it could be circulated. There were also many scientists within the Empire that tacitly agreed with Copernicus and Galileo, although they couldn't publicly agree.

I understand you're arguing that AGW is like a new religion, and you must conform to it as a scientist. But how about this - stop complaining about the theory. It's there. It does more good than harm - like religion. Polluting less is good. If, in 10, 20, or 100 years, it turns out we were wrong, it'll be okay. If there's an inquisition, then you can take up arms.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

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