Translate:

Global Sea Ice Extent

September 17th Data:

Arctic Sea Ice: 1.2 Million km

Antarctic Sea Ice: 1.5 million km

Net Global Sea Ice Deviation: 0.3 million km

More evidence for arctic ice melting

Unfortunately the latest data from ESA satellite reveil further depletion of ice amount in the arctic sea

http://www.bioenergynet.com/...obal-warming-intensification

It is getting really annoying to have all those "global warming sceptics" try to prove that everything 's going OK...

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather

18 comments to More evidence for arctic ice melting

  • welcome biomassive
    thanks for the post.

  • Fortunately there isn’t much truth to that article. There is little scientific information on sea ice thickness. Only sea ice area and extent has been track for any period of time and that only goes back to the late 70’s. I hate to rain on your parade but sea ice extent and area is at the highest level for this time of year going back at least 7 years. While there may have been a great deal of loss last summer, we have seen considerable gain this winter. In fact we may be looking at the largest gain since observations began.

    I know that doesn’t jive with the notion that man is somehow warming the planet but facts are facts. Here is another fact that escapes alarmists. Global sea ice is above normal. Yes. Above normal. Arctic sea ice may be a bit below normal but Antarctic sea ice is above normal, and the amount above normal is greater than the Arctic’s level below normal. The last I checked a few weeks back the global sea ice was in the area of half a million square km above normal.

    Take the fact that global sea ice is above normal, global temperatures have not increased in over a decade, and the fact that we have not seen a catastrophic rise in sea levels, makes it pretty clear that all this hype is nothing more than unsubstantiated alarmism.

  • Well said, Indy. Much more tactful than this annoying skeptic would have been.

  • Oh well great then! So just keep up burning fossils and let the ‘alarmists” talk about nonsense.
    A fantastic Big Oil theory…

  • Oh well great then! So just keep up burning fossils and let the ‘alarmists” talk about nonsense.
    A fantastic Big Oil theory…

    There is a difference between the need to live cleaner and believing something that just isn’t true. I’m all for being rid of fossil fuels. I think it is sad and pathetic that after 100 years or so we are still working with dated technology. The internal combustion engine should have died out a long time ago. If I had the money, I would own a Nissan Leaf or – in my dream world – a Tesla. I would have solar panels on the roof of my house and I would recharge my car for free every day.

    The problem is that so many of these alarmist stories are filled with little truth. They cherry pick data and manipulate facts to sell a belief system. That simply is not how you are going to win people over. People see through stories and the attempted deception. What we are dealing with is a dishonest battle between big oil and the green movement. The deception on both sides is obvious and people are just getting sick of it.

    I want to add another thought. Nobody is going to win the battle against fossil fuels in the U.S. as long as this country is built in a way that forces people to own cars. There are some places like NY where you can live without one but for the most part you really don’t have a choice. Had we not put all of our eggs in one basket we would be able to use a variety of public transportation options. Many of those options could be electrified. But we live in a country that is 40 years behind the times and people here are very stubborn and unwilling to change. They view progress as something the Europeans or Socialists would do. Until they can be educated and the sawdust vacuumed out from in between the ears, nothing will change. And you aren’t going to change that with deception.

  • Solar panels are just as bad for the environment. We just don’t see the waste right in front of our eyes like smog. Out of sight, out of mind. It just goes to show that the people high up pushing this stuff really don’t care about the environment. They just care about the money to be made from it.

    I am the last person who wants smog in my skies but with the lies that the alarmists push, it makes me want to burn masses of tires in every backyard across the country. It’s sickening how dishonest the high up alarmists are. They have duped and brainwashes millions into following them.

    That said, I’m excited to see how this new method of extracting energy from coal without burning it goes. That could be huge. If it’s claims are true, it could mean a rebirth of coal. It could extend into cars as well. It’s exciting.

  • Coal is one of the worst things we could possibly use. The mining process is incredibly destructive and deadly. And the burning of coal solves nothing. It is really time we moved beyond the early 1900’s and invented something new.

  • The new process doesn’t burn coal but is able to pull the stored energy out of it still.

  • Indy: Sea ice thickness has been measured since the introduction of satellites.

    http://psc.apl.washington.ed…ctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

    http://psc.apl.washington.ed…ed-arctic-ocean/data-piomas/

    Arctic sea ice extent is also not at the highest level in 7 years.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaic…c-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    It is at or near the highest extent in the Beaufort and Chuckchi seas though.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/07/July12.png

    You are correct that during winter months there was the largest gain in Arctic sea ice though. however this followed the point of the lowest extent since records began. This has nothing to do with the notion that man is warming the planet, though. It has to do with warming in general and the amount of warming not the cause. If you want to look at the cause of the warming I’m afraid you are going to have to look at spectroscopic data regarding outbound and downward radiation frequencies and knowledge of forcings and feedbacks.

    Regarding your claim of Arctic sea ice being ‘a bit below normal’ and Antarctic sea ice being ‘above normal’ I think if you look at the data you’ll find that Arctic sea ice is far below normal and Antarctic sea ice is a bit above normal. This is because of a number of factors such as ocean currents, increased stratospheric wind speeds, and so on.

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses…erley/EnviroPhilo/Turner.pdf

    And your claim that the antarctic sea ice extent is greater being above normal being greater than the Arctic ice loss is false and I really have no idea where you got that info from.

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

    Your claim that global temperatures have not risen in over a decade is cherry picking. 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino to date, a short term factor (ENSO) that increases and decrease temperatures by more than the long term trend. That heat is merely being redistributed though it does not disappear. If we look at data from various source for, say, 11 or 12 years we see warming. If we look at surface temperature variations we see continued increases during moderate El Ninos, a drop in about 2007 when extreme La Ninas began, and a warming since then from that new baseline.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot…t/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend

    And sea level is increasing at a current rate of about 3.2mm/year and increasing.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    The term ‘catastrophic’ is a subjective term.

  • PS: forgot to add the following links.

    ENSO Index

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Spectroscopic measurements regarding outbound radiation.

    http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Radiance/Anderson_Arr01.pdf

    https://workspace.imperial.a…20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

    http://proceedings.spiedigit…eding.aspx?articleid=1690262

    Spectroscopic measurements regarding downward radiation –

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.c…0.1029/2009JD011800/abstract

    I find it amazing that you are accusing people that acknowledge the world is warming to be ‘cherry pickers’. Especially considering such things as the claim that it has been cooling over the last ten years or so when climatologists regularly take 30 years at a minimum to see changes in climate to weed out any noise (Such as the ENSO/PDO cycle) to allow the long term trend line to have what is known as statistical significance. That being the error bars not being greater than the measurements to determine the trend.

  • I’m not sure if you actually checked the data that shows the total coverage of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. When you find one (just an example) that is 2 million square km above normal and the other 1 million square km below normal you know you are a net of 1 million above normal. That is why people were so focused on just the Arctic because if they combined the two they would realize they had no case. This isn’t just about one being slightly above normal and the other being slightly below normal. This isn’t about percentages. Because we are talking about two completely different sized chunks of ice. For the Antarctic to be slightly above normal (which it wasn’t.. it was a record levels) it is a much bigger deal in terms of square km than it is for the Arctic.

    And as an FYI the no warming doesn’t have to include 1998. You can start a year or two later and get the same results. Including 1998 just shows a bigger cooling trend. The thing with using satellite data is that there is no concern with the heat spreading out so it is hiding from instruments over the water. It gets picked up no matter where it is at. Unlike surface reporting stations which miss heat and cold if it occurs over water or unpopulated areas. Surface reporting stations are useless. The data is for the most part contaminated. Why? Most stations occur in and around urban areas and as such the data gets contaminated by the urban heat island. Satellite temperatures are the most unbiased. You don’t need multiple data sources when you have satellite. And satellite isn’t subject to the arbitrary adjustments and tampering like surface stations are.

    But now if you want to nitpick on the issue of short term temperature trends you would also have to recognize that the “warming” period that so many base their careers on was also a short term trend. I would strongly recommend you do a little digging when it comes to the fear mongering that was done a few decades or so back about global cooling. That was the big deal at one point. Until we switched to another cycle. Then people jumped on the warming bandwagon. Well that cycles has changed and people are jumping off of that one and probably will move on to another. But since careers and reputations were put on the line they will likely fight it to the death or claim the new cycle was caused by the old one.

    This probably wouldn’t be an issue to most people if there hadn’t been so much dishonesty. Instead of taking the data that comes in and adjusting theories accordingly, it seemed as if the data was being manipulated to fit the theory or discarded completely if it didn’t fit the theory. That isn’t how good science works and it is also why people don’t really believe warmists anymore. When you turn science into a political or personal agenda you tend to lose credibility.

    When you attempt to claim that man is warning the planet (not you but “scientists” in general) you have to look back in history and find other similar warming events. Was man around then? No? Why did it warm like that? Data suggests CO2 levels were up then. Why if there wasn’t industry around to cause this? Could it be that something else caused the warming and CO2 level changes were a result of warming and cooling and not a cause? What about when CO2 levels fall off before temperatures fall? All of these things have to be explained. Not dismissed because the theory falls apart. The theory says that warming was caused by rising CO2 levels but history shoots that theory full of holes.

    We are supposed to be concerned about Arctic ice. I am not. Why should I be? The world won’t end if it all went away. We talk about the lowest extent on record. On record being since the 1970’s. What about 1900? 1800? What about back in the day when Greenland was farmed? What about the the nonsense with the hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere? All that fear mongering, the law changes, and what happens? Nothing. The hole was at about the largest size a few winters back. Seems the hole size changes with Antarctic temperatures. Could that have been the cause all along? Probably. This hole was discovered but what seems to be missed in all this is that we have no idea whether or not this has been a regular occurrence for millions of years. We saw this hole and just assumed it was our fault. I mean a heavier than air substance (CFCs) created largely in the northern hemisphere just have somehow created this hole some 70,000 feet up over the southern hemisphere.

    Bad science is bad. 🙂

  • Indy: I’m sorry to tell you but you are mistaken. Satellite temperature show pretty much the same warming that ground based measurements show. There are exceptions based on satellite measuring the entire lower troposphere and surface measurements measuring only the surface but they show warming that is fairly similar. And the ‘urban heat island effect’ has been studied and the conclusion was that it had already been adjusted for. At least in the US.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pu…2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

    The warming trend is over 30 years. There is little that can affect measurements within that time period that hasn’t already been taken into account. ‘Global cooling’ wasn’t spoken about very often in scientific circles. The ‘cooling’ of that time period was due to increases in atmospheric aerosols which has since been taken care of due to such things as scrubbers placed on power plants and catalytic converters in autos. Curious, though, what this ‘cycle’ refers to. Can you explain this cycle? Can you tell me what stage this cycle is in with actual measurements? I’ll give you the stages of a few.

    Arctic Oscillation: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov…ndex.b50.current.ascii.table
    Pacific Decadal Oscillation: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
    North Atlantic Oscillation: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov…nk/pna/month_nao_index.shtml
    Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd…orrelation/amon.sm.long.data

    Can you list what oscillatory cycle, with proof with actual measurements regarding the current stage of this oscillation, related sea surface temperatures, and warming frequency statistics, that show what you are saying is the truth? Merely stating it is a cycle does nothing with regards to your proof.

    Merely because you do not know the answers to previous warming periods does not mean they do not exist. Look into what is known as Paleoclimatology. For instance: What was the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Anomaly caused by? It was caused by what is known as the Medieval Maximum, decrease in volcanic activity and oscillatory feedbacks.

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes…9/80/51/PDF/cp-2-99-2006.pdf
    http://www.sos.bangor.ac.uk/…rouet_et_al_2009_Science.pdf

    What about the Little Ice Age? It was caused by the Maunder Minimum and associated feedbacks as well as, once again, volcanic activity.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/hol…ticles/MannetalScience09.pdf
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.c…0.1029/2011GL050168/abstract

    And Greenland is currently farmed in various regions. It’s greatest current farming method, though, is sheep farming.

    http://www.res.ku.edu/~crgc/…/GreenlandPosters/Rumsey.pdf

    And there is still a hole in the ozone layer. The ozone hole is defined as an area of ozone that falls below 220 dobson units. As ozone is made from solar interaction with oxygen molecules in the stratosphere when the Sun does not shine in a particular area of the world for a prolonged time, such as at the poles during winter, no new ozone is made and various things such as water vapour, CFCs and other ozone destroying gases have an effect. The atmosphere isn’t layered by gases for the most part. I mean CFCs don;t magically concentrate at the bottom while the next layer is ozone then water vapour then oxygen and so on. Much of the atmosphere is well mixed due to winds. I think, perhaps, you need to look at this quite a lot more closely than you have been.

    Also, regarding your claim about not checking the data, I linked you directly to the data.

  • As this conversation seems to have taken a pause let me post more. I realize that, at the time the original post was made concerning the sea ice extent of both the Arctic and the Antarctic there may have been a large discrepancy due to the slow onset of the Arctic melting season this year. This is shown by the NSIDC website which I already posted. I’ll post it again as a refresher.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    If we go further into this site we come across a page that shows sea ice anomalies of both regions.

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

    Here we see that the slow onset of the melting season this year has kept the Arctic sea ice loss as less than the Antarctic sea ice gain. However there is a very substantial loss beginning early July. The current anomaly for the Arctic is -0.6 million km^2 while the current sea ice anomaly for the Antarctic is 0.7 million km^2. Hardly a 1 million km^2 difference. The overall trend, which is what I am attempting to discuss, shows that Arctic ice is far below normal and Antarctic Ice is a little above normal. However, I think we need to draw a distinction between Sea Ice and Ice Mass. Sea ice extent is increasing while ice mass is decreasing. How can sea ice extent be increasing while ice mass is decreasing? I’m glad you asked.

    One contributor is due to ozone depletion over the region and increasing stratospheric wind speeds which has increased autumnal wind speeds around the continent.

    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses…erley/EnviroPhilo/Turner.pdf

    As well as possible decadal trends, which have weakened.

    http://web.science.unsw.edu….ons/simpkinsetal2013.grl.pdf

    Arctic sea ice extend, however, has regional differences. some areas expanding while others are contracting.

    http://pal.lternet.edu/docs/bibliography/Public/417lterc.pdf

    “In the Antarctic Peninsula and Bellingshausen Sea region, sea ice retreat is more than 1 month earlier and advance 2 months later, resulting in a more than 3-month longer summer icefree season. In contrast, in the western Ross Sea (Antarctica) region, sea ice retreat and advance are more than 1 month later and earlier respectively, resulting in a more than 2 month shorter summer ice-free season.”

    This may be due to an increase in glacial speed and discharge on certain parts of the continent.

    http://www.ess.uci.edu/resea…gnot/files/RignotGRL2008.pdf

    Of course there are still other factors involved as well. The following paper goes into how the freshening of the coastal waters have an effect on the amount of sea ice in the region too.

    “Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica?s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter”

    http://a.knmi2.nl/research/g…intanja_etal_NatGeo_2013.pdf

    So there are a number of variables at play here. stating the the decrease in the Arctic sea ice is offset by the increase in Antarctic sea ice is foolish at best though as both hemispheres work mostly independent from one another.

  • Lol @ biomassive, thinking this was a warmist site. :D

  • Matt… this is a site for everyone. Just have to beware of the scientific ambulance chasers. We follow the data where ever it takes us. We just don’t manipulate the data to keep us on course. 🙂

  • You mean like GISS and Hadley? :P

    And when they see that we aren’t buying what they’re selling, they won’t hang around very long…

  • Coal is one of the worst things we could possibly use. The mining process is incredibly destructive and deadly. And the burning of coal solves nothing. It is really time we moved beyond the early 1900’s and invented something new.

    How to stop “destructive and deadly” mining of the myriad minerals mankind uses is another question.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

3 + sixteen =

*