DailyTech – Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 – FYI.
Lies I say! Now Let’s All Sing! Laaaaaa! 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.
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.
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.
Perhaps the Dvorak.org should revisit this topic.
This posting combines apples and oranges. The issue for the last few years has been arctic sea ice, not global sea ice. And arctic sea ice has not returned to normal. See http://tinyurl.com/67875l for the latest stuff on arctic sea ice. Even if ice area returns to previous levels, the average ice thickness is way down from 1979 values.
“It is very clear, from both the IPCC data and from satellite measurements, that there has been no net warming since 1998 (which was a record year because of a very strong El Niño warming in the tropical Pacific). ” — http://tinyurl.com/8aeyye
#31, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and retired Mall Rent-A-Cop,
The largest effect of the ice cap is to reflect solar radiation. So, the most important thing is the area, not thickness.
So once again you demonstrate you don’t know shit. The polar regions do reflect solar radiation, true, BUT, in insignificant amounts. You seem to forget that being at the poles they receive little enough sunlight as it is. They effect the worlds climate and weather patterns far more as heat sinks.
The oceans have many currents that carry warm water from the tropical regions to the polar regions. Other currents then carry cold water back to the tropical regions. If these currents did not remove heat from the tropical regions, then there would be far more desertification in the sub tropical belts.
If the polar regions lose their ice caps, they will no longer be as efficient as heat sinks. That means the cold water currents will be warmer and cause severe weather patterns.
These currents also use cold induced density to start and propel their movement. Warmer polar waters will reduce this density, slowing or even preventing the currents. The North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans are viewed as the key sectors of the whole ocean current business.
#33 Mr. Confusion said, “The polar regions do reflect solar radiation, true, BUT, in insignificant amounts. ”
The albedo of the surface of the Earth is ~30%. Sea ice (with its high albedo of more than 80%), serves as a screen preventing solar radiation from being transmitted into the open water beneath (with its weak albedo of 10% to 15%) and warming it up.
Without the ice cap the overall albedo goes WAY down. This is a key factor in the global warming computer models.
What’s funny is that a slight increase in surface temp also increases humidity and thus total cloud cover. Now cloud albedo can range up to 70%. Much higher than land or open water. Thus, lowering solar radiation greatly and causing a MAJOR cooling effect on the planet.
Another lose for Mr. Confusion.
#1 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Wow an actual correction from you
>>guys. Kudos to you!
“Correction”? This is the same old same old from John C Dvorak, who’s had almost as much of a hardon for global warming as he has for Barack “Hitler” Obama, right from the get-go.
This silly article, describing two dimensions of sea ice and ignoring the third dimension, is just another in an unending series of attempts to pooh-pooh global warming.
And note how he Photoshops up Al Gore’s picture to make him look like an effeminate clown, with rouge, eye shadow, and lipstick. That’s a pretty keen trick, for an elementary school kid. Sheesh. I’d like to see HIM after about with Photoshop. There’s a lot to work with there….
Yes the real world is just like a mathematical proof where all we need is one counter-example to disprove the whole thing.
Shortened version of all these comments….
“I think A is true so B is false.
No B is true, A is false.”
It would be nice if people would just throw their arms up and admit they have no idea what is happening. I’m all for alternative energy, but it seems (sadly) that the oil companies are going to be the “leaders” in that field so if that’s the case….lets all burn.
The weather catchphrase of 2009 will be the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. This is similar the the el nino/la nina cycles but with a ~30 year cycle.
I remember the winters of 1975-79 in the northeast and the blizzards. That was the previous cold cycle.
Of course all these trends are statistical evaluations of past data, which means they are as dependable as the stock market.
Maybe what we need is a two weather channels, one for global warming [red] and one against global warming [blue].
1. Reducing pollution is a good idea.
2. Increasing energy efficiency is a good idea.
3. Reducing dependence on a single source of energy is a good idea.
If we can agree on these 3 points, then belief (or lack of) in global warming/cooling/climate change is irrelevant.
“And note how he Photoshops up Al Gore’s picture to make him look like an effeminate clown, with rouge, eye shadow, and lipstick. That’s a pretty keen trick, for an elementary school kid.”
And having a photoshoped picture of Bush reading from an upside down childrens book is not?
Sweet! Ya know maybe, jussssst, maybe. Honest discussions about the environment can take place. Pollution is bad… Global warming is junk science and lying propaganda for the agenda.
# 40 chuck said, “If we can agree on these 3 points, then belief …”
Add:
#4. Artificially increasing the cost of energy is VERY bad for world economies and poverty.
Fixed.
What does the scientific body have to gain to put forth a “hoax” of global climate change? have you ever thought about why they would do it? Are all of these scientists just lying about the mountains of data that are being and have been collected? So please prove that it is a hoax.
As for the sea ice. Please please please stop cherry picking data points to prove your theory that it is all a hoax. Do what the scientists do, look at the trends. Look at the signal in all of the noise. Use your brain. Please.
I don’t think any isolated data point can be used to support or refute global warming. In the Pacific NW we’ve just had the worst snow storm in 40-years. Is this proof one way or another about global warming? I seriously doubt it, it’s weather.
Global warming is the transformation of climate zones into entirely different climates. Semi arid to arid, humid subtropical to mediterranean, or tundra to ice cap.
Right now the preponderance of the scientific community supports the idea that global warming is happening and that human activity is at least partially to blame. The question we need to answer is what is the appropriate action for us to take? Do we do nothing? I doubt that too.
John is rightly pointing out that there is a lot of hysteria on this subject. Knee jerk policies are very bad too. We could easily piss away huge sums of money on the wrong action and then not have the resources for the correct policies.
I say, bring on the debate.
# 44 BillR said, “Global warming is the transformation of climate zones into entirely different climates. … humid subtropical to mediterranean, or tundra to ice cap.”
Umm, no. That would be the result of cooling.
#35, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and retired Mall Rent-A-Cop,
Once again you don’t have an effen clue what you are talking about.
Now you claim otherwise?
You don’t get it. At the angle of the earth polar regions to the sun, there is little solar energy hitting the earth regardless of the absorption. The main effect the polar regions have on the climate is as heat sink for tropical water. Without this heat sink the tropical and temperate regions would become even hotter.
Another lose for Mr. Confusion.
Ya right, are you ever going to post where in the Constitution it bars the Congress from regulating CEO’s wages?
This does not jive with what those of us who live in the Rockies have experienced as a rapid year-to-year receeding of our glaciers. The Victoria glacier above Lake Louise, for example, is no longer visible in the summertime for the first time in living memory. It looked like this just several years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_Louise_Canada.JPG
# 46 Mr. Fusion said, “Once again you don’t have an effen clue what you are talking about. ”
Still trying to grasp how radiation causes heat on Earth? LOL
Still haven’t read & understood the Constitution?
Holy Crude! From my sample data, I’ve noticed that the days are lighter by 1 minute each day. By next December, I’ll never be able to sleep as I’ll be in 100% daylight
Does anyone want to sell me some shade credits?
#46 – Mr. Fusion
>>Ya right, are you ever going to post where in
>>the Constitution it bars the Congress from
>>regulating CEO’s wages?
I imagine he’ll do that right around the time FuckUp explains what PROTEIN CELLS are, or ‘tempt provides evidence for there being more votes cast in Minnesota than there are registered voters.
Id est: Never.
When an issue is “actually serious” to a person, they seek out experts and rely on their opinions. Think anything medical.
When an issue is not perceived as important, any experts opinion will be contested from a variety of pre-existing preferred ideologies. Think anything Global or that costs money or that changes life style.
I stuck my h ead in my chest freezer the other day, and I didn’t notice any global warming.
#51, bobbo,
Good point. Until they wake up though we usually say they are in denial. The first clue is when they have to bullshit their way through arguments with make up points.
#5 amodedoma,
Glad to see someone knows the difference between annual ice and multi-year ice. Yes. The single year ice tends to be quite thin and likely to melt again during the summer.
The best we can hope for from this is a bit of help with the albedo during the winter … when it matters least. In other words, not much hope from this.
#27 – Eideard,
Nice chart thanks. I guess it is possible to get some overlap between 1979 and today if ’79 were a particularly low ice year and this one is particularly high. That long term trend is still pretty obvious despite an individual year or two of overlap, I’d say.
#30 – Mr. Fusion,
Cool. Two people know that first year ice is not the same as multi-year ice. We’re on a roll now.
#34 – Mr. Fusion,
Actually, the albedo at the poles is important. The problem is that it is most important at precisely the time that all of this single year ice will melt again, in summer, when the north is facing the sun. In winter, during the months of darkness or near total darkness, it won’t help.
#36 – Paddy-O,
You’re correct about the albedo. You’re an idiot about when it matters. What are you going to do? Point your air conditioner at the arctic to keep that thin first year ice from melting this summer?
Keep trying though, another 4,950+ posts or so and you may be able to make one more valid point.
#44 – Paddy-O,
#4. Artificially increasing the cost of energy is VERY bad for world economies and poverty.
How about if we just stop artificially lowering the cost of oil with subsidies to the oil companies and free protection from the U.S. military of their oil fields?
How about if we charge for dumping into the atmosphere the same way we charge for dumping garbage in the ground?
We’ve been heavily subsidizing the cost of oil for years. The real cost would have put gasoline at $15/gallon back in 1998. Add the cost of the Iraq war now and it’s much much higher.
The fact that you don’t see the cost at the pump doesn’t mean it’s not real. Here’s a link. (Look, you just copy them and paste them into place. et voila.)
http://tinyurl.com/3b7w9m
So good with charts Eideard, how about one showing solar activity versus temperature, or temperature vs CO2?
# 53 Misanthropic Scott said, “How about if we just stop artificially lowering the cost of oil with subsidies to the oil companies and free protection from the U.S. military of their oil fields?”
No problem. How much was the check that the US gov sent to the oil companies last year?
As far as protection, the military adventures have done nothing but hinder oil production.
#55 – Paddy-O,
I think we’re over $500,000,000,000 just for the Iraq war, counting only the costs borne directly by the federal government.
http://tinyurl.com/28dcxo
Some estimates go as high as $3,000,000,000,000 (that’s three terabucks).
http://tinyurl.com/249ckx
We can start there. For other costs, why don’t you actually click through the link in my prior post instead of just replying to it blindly, as you obviously did.
Funny though, I knew you didn’t know how to post a link. I had no idea that you didn’t know how to click one.
1) Move the mouse around on the desk until the little arrow is over the link.
2) Press the left button.
3) Read.
As for your statement about the U.S. military hindering oil production, just imagine what happens when the fields are unprotected, especially the ones in volatile areas of the world. Think it through … if you can.
#53, Very good link.
If this doesn’t show people how corrupt the government has become, nothing will. The sad part is a lot of “intelligent” people think that cutting government programs is bad.
#56 Show me the amount of money the US gov’t gave to the oil companies. Quit trying to wiggle out.
If you don’t have the data just say so. I have no idea why you are showing the cost of a war that has only disrupted oil production…
Can you read?
I get it Scott. The gov’t failing to put a gun to someones head and robbing them is a “subsidy”. ROFL!
Paddy–you’re starting to bounce around in that padded room of yours. Its reasonable to disagree that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil==that he was even more stupid and invaded it to bring Democracy to the Middle East. BUT–its worthy to “just consider” that such things do occur==take the First Gulf War Expressly fought to protect oil resources of Kuwait.
You can still disagree that such expenses aren’t “fair” in some sense to apply as a subsidy to the cheap cost of oil but its not as far afield as “not holding a gun to Exxon’s head.”
How about road taxes to support the road system? Is THAT an indirect subsidy for oil or would oil be just as cheap if the entire road budget was spent on trains and barges?