backtop

Blog: Science Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 336 comment(s) - last by Doann.. on Jan 17 at 12:24 PM

Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began  (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. 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
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By foolsgambit11 on 1/1/2009 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with Asher's method here is that he lumps all sea ice together, then makes insinuations about Arctic sea ice levels from that data. Of course, there's plenty of data on Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice separately. That Arctic sea ice data still shows:

a. a long term downward trend in sea ice extent.
b. a current sea ice extent below the 1979-2000 average.
c. a current sea ice extent below the 2007 level.
d. a November sea ice extent 600,000 km^2 below the 1979 level. (The December sea ice levels aren't out yet. Next week, I think.)

http://www.nsidc.org/

Additionally, yes, I'd say this data is 'cherry picked'. Considering that, while the current global sea ice extent is roughly equal to 1979 levels, it's pretty clear that 1979 was a 'low' year. After all, this years end of year anomaly is clearly worse than 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007. It's roughly even with 1979, 1983, 1985, 1992, 1998, and 2004. It's better than 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2006. So in 30 years, this year is better than 5 years (all pretty recent), even with 6 years (pretty randomly scattered through the 30 years), and worse than the other 18 years.

Again, this is global sea ice. If we look at Arctic only, the picture is much worse. But the stabilizing influence of the Antarctic sea ice mass (which is 60% or so of total sea ice, and has been increasing in size by about .04%/year) makes this instantaneous picture of sea ice extent worse than only 60% of the previous 29 years.

Arctic sea ice has been growing at a below average rate, which means that the reduction in anomaly is due to a slower-than-normal melt in the Antarctic. The story should have been, "Unusually Slow Melting Season in Antarctic So Far".


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Goty on 1/1/2009 7:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, looking at the graph, 1979 doesn't appear to be "low" in comparison to the next two decades at all.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/1/2009 8:10:02 PM , Rating: 3
1979 as a whole isn't that low - but you have to look at the exact data point masher has picked out (hence, the 'cherry picking' complaint) - the end of 1979. That data point, just like this years similar data point, is lower than 60% of the other years on the table. It's lower than 80% of the 80's, and 60% of the 90's.


By psychobriggsy on 1/1/2009 10:36:52 PM , Rating: 4
Thank you for your useful post that had far better analysis of the data points that were abused in this blog post. I doubt that the post will be changed to accommodate these facts of course, but that's what happens when the original poster has an agenda, rather than presenting the facts with non-biased analysis.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/2/2009 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, this is Asher's repeated pattern: pick out one small fact, highlight it, twist it into a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact, then ignore all the other facts.

So this post is only his latest example: he says Arctic ice "saw a substantial recovery" in 2008. What a load of bull: check out this chart on the Wall Street Journal - you know, that bastion of liberal pinko communists - that demonstrates graphically the enormous loss of ice coverage in the Arctic over the last 30 years:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085070980447477...

That chart shows an undeniable trend of massive ice loss which NEVER returns. None of that Arctice ice has "recovered." How does one look at that chart and says Arctic ice shows "substantial recovery"? By ignoring the overall picture and making unfounded claims, that's how. Of course, Asher's tried-and-true tactic is always point to one data in isolation, draw irrational conclusions from it and generalize to the point where all the other contradictory facts are ignored.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 12:23:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yup, this is Asher's repeated pattern: pick out one small fact, highlight it, twist it into a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact, then ignore all the other facts.


Yeah because we know the pro global warming side NEVER does that....

*cough*


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By danrien on 1/3/2009 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
ahhh.... two wrongs make a right.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 10:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ahhh.... two wrongs make a right.


Group 1 " Man it was 2 degrees hotter this year in my state than last year, global warming is real. "

Group 2 " Based on hundreds of years of data, we can see there is no correlation between man made emissions and polar ice melting "

Group 1 " HEY ! YOUR CHERRY PICKING !!! "

/shrug.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/3/2009 10:22:56 PM , Rating: 3
If you're implying my post did that, demonstrate it.

What I did in my initial post above was point to a graph published by the conservative Wall Street Journal that demonstrate the ENORMOUS loss of Arctic ice over the last several decades. On what basis did Asher make the claim that Arctic ice has "substantially recovered" in 2008? By pointing to the tiny amount of ice that returned in the Alaska area and saying "See, Arctic ice is coming back," as if Alaska = Arctic when in fact, Alaska ice represents only a tiny portion of total Arctic ice and the rest of the Arctic region saw no return of ice. The WSJ graph makes that abundantly and undeniably clear. Here it is again, at the bottom of the page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085070980447477...

Of course, here's an example of Asher's dishonesty. After initially asserting in his original blog post that "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008," he has since changed his blog, removing his remark without any note or retraction. Yup, altering your copy after you post it without making a note is the highest journalistic practice (heavy sarcasm). Caught in his flat-out lie, he's now resorting to trying to hide his paper trail.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/3/2009 10:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
And here's my retraction: I completely misread the blog post and now see Asher did NOT change his blog post. His "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008" is still there. It is still wrong but that's not the point: I was wrong to say he had removed it when he did not.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ipay on 1/8/2009 7:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
Kudos to you for admitting the error.

However, your post does highlight Asher's disconnect from reality. And it's not an innocent mistake that he's making - he knows he's lying by omission and cherry-picking, but he knows the value of "a lie told often enough becomes truth", AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Asher finds graphs or quotes that he can misrepresent without it being obvious to the average lay person, and certainly not obvious to those who *want* to be lied to.

And now DT is largely populated by frightened right wingers who *want* someone, even a nobody like Asher, to tell them climate change is not happening and it's all going to be alright.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By cshmny on 1/5/2009 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I did in my initial post above was point to a graph published by the conservative Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal is not conservative except for Op-Ed pieces.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By azcowboy on 1/5/2009 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
You can't define a trend out of 4 data points----- unless, of course, you are a member of the Church of Global Warming Now. Remember, the glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receeding since 1881. Manmade? I think not substantially.
Someone made the comment that it makes sense to do environmentally conscious things in defining our lifestyle. But to lurch into high cost---monetarilly and human life---programs at the behest of the likes of Al Gore is just silly.

Show me some good data. There's too much ignoring of data that doesn't agree with personal beliefs---maybe on both sides.


By mrhawkeyes on 1/6/2009 5:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
At least read(and comprehend) the previous sentence, ddarko: Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery.

The saw a substantial recovery commeny was directed at the possibility of the North Pole melting entirely in 2008, not historic arctic ice levels. The first sentence of the article sums it all up with mention of currentglobal sea ice levels being equal with 1979 levels. Can you point out something wrong with that?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ocbizlaw on 1/5/2009 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 3
Who cares? Sea levels are hundreds of feet below where they were millions of years before humans existed. Why do we insist that where they are now is the correct level? Why aren't we worried that they are too low in context of geological time?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By FaFbFp on 1/5/2009 4:55:36 PM , Rating: 3
It's called S-U-B-L-I-M-A-T-I-O-N...The process whereby a solid returns to a gas without going through the liquid stage. In the case of the Arctic/Antarctic icecaps it's a result of sunspot and solar wind activity of which we are currently reaching the end of the 40 year cycle. Unfortunately, our current crop of public-educated scientific geniuses haven't yet reached the point in their Einstein Readers that discusses critical thinking. The whole thing with Global Warming (or Climate Change, if you want to call it that) is a game of money, grants, and alarmism.


"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

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki