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: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By diefeuerfront on 11/9/2008 1:50:40 AM , Rating: 3
I read these articles all the time, but have never commented... never, that is, until now.

You are - without a shadow of a doubt - the snottiest cunt I have ever seen. Anyone who shows even the slightest disagreement with your view is labelled a moron and is automatically beneath you. You know what's funny? I actually AGREE with you that the author's view is slanted, and no, I'm not on his side of the climate argument either. Your constant personal attacks on others, however, just make you look like an asshole.

quote:
You remind me of a clueless pissant.


I can certainly see the point of this article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Users+Flood+the+Internet+...

You seriously need to relax, douche bag. You're not doing anyone's argument any favors by treating others the way you do.


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By porkpie on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/10/2008 4:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'll guess that you didn't read the comment I was responding to? Nothing unusual - the reading comprehension and attention span of the morons who inhabit this blog are apparent for all to see. So many of you just skim, pick out a couple of words and think you're an expert - it's known as Dunning-Kruger effect.

> Got anything substantive to say about this article?

"Consistent with the diminishing trends in the extent and thickness of the cover is a significant loss of the older, thicker perennial ice in the Arctic." - http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

It clearly demonstrates Asher is talking shit, and given familiarity with his other work, it's clear that that is what he always does. He lies. He misrepresents. He distorts.

> thousands of scientists who don't agree that man is causing global warming.

That'll be the debunked bullshit Oregon Petition. Try harder, scooter, or try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By nycromes on 11/11/2008 11:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It clearly demonstrates Asher is talking shit, and given familiarity with his other work, it's clear that that is what he always does. He lies. He misrepresents. He distorts.


No, it clearly demonstrates that there are multiple sides to this issue nothing more. You have a very closed mind, to look at only one side and ignore the other side is at best very stupid.

Global Warming, Climate Change, and many other things are theories, neither proved nor disproved. Since we don't have a control case for this type of study, we can't be prove or disprove this theory. Try opening your mind and maybe you can learn something rather than being close minded and spewing one sided arguments that take us no where in the long run. Much evidence supports your view, and much contradicts it. Pose all the links you want to discrediting sites, as I said above the theory can be neither proved or disproved so for something to draw a finite conclusion on incomplete data only proves it is trying to persuade and not actually research.

Also, please note that Wikipedia is widely regarded as a bad source for information due to its ability to be changed by anyone. Even at a middle school level, students are instructed to not use Wikipedia as a source as the information is volatile.


By Jim28 on 11/12/2008 9:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes it makes you wonder if the pro-AGW crowd even cares if they are correct as long as the succeed in pushing this brand of enviro-socialism/poverty one everyone else while turning a blind eye to themselves and their own actions. (For example, see Al Gore and almost any promenint University Professor. Think they live green. Nope.)


By mkrech on 11/12/2008 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Uncool!

Monoape, you really should get some help. I appreciate that you are passionate about your views but please try to be open and objective for once.

Understand that your views may not be the right ones. They may be, but, if they are not, showing such disrespect only hurts your side.

Honestly, I think you are a troll working to drum up support for the AGW movement.

If not, seek help... or at the least, see if you can get laid. I really hope you can work your issues out. I hate to see anyone with so much pent up stress.

Best Wishes.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














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