• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979


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.



With all the chicken little threads about melting ice, I found this article rather intriguing... If you read the article, it even mentions how some thought the north pole would completely melt by 2008. I believe this has not occurred and levels seem to ebb and flow.
 
With all the chicken little threads about melting ice, I found this article rather intriguing... If you read the article, it even mentions how some thought the north pole would completely melt by 2008. I believe this has not occurred and levels seem to ebb and flow.

All due to Global Warming.
Pass the Kool-Aid.

Could be one fewer thing for Obama to do.
 
With all the chicken little threads about melting ice, I found this article rather intriguing... If you read the article, it even mentions how some thought the north pole would completely melt by 2008. I believe this has not occurred and levels seem to ebb and flow.

But, but, it can't be true. Al Gore said we'd all be sailing across the north pole by now in tourist boats.
 
With all the chicken little threads about melting ice, I found this article rather intriguing... If you read the article, it even mentions how some thought the north pole would completely melt by 2008. I believe this has not occurred and levels seem to ebb and flow.

The study that I assume you are referring to with the 'chicken little' comment was studying the melting of land ice, which impacts sea levels rather than sea ice, which does not. Also, the study that put forth the possibility of the melting of ice at the north poll was speaking of a temporary event during the summer, and only gave it about a 50% probability.
 
The study that I assume you are referring to with the 'chicken little' comment was studying the melting of land ice, which impacts sea levels rather than sea ice, which does not. Also, the study that put forth the possibility of the melting of ice at the north poll was speaking of a temporary event during the summer, and only gave it about a 50% probability.




What say you regarding this phenomenal increase in sea ice? Is the north pole NOT sea ice? :confused:
 
What say you regarding this phenomenal increase in sea ice?

Sea ice is very volatile, but pretty steady over time. Here is the graph from the article

9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg


There is an uptick at the end of 2008, but the article gets a bit sensationalist about it as it's no bigger than a few dozen other spikes in the graph, including three in 2007 alone. From the graph the level indeed looks the same as 1979...and 1980....and 1981....and 1982....you get the picture.

Is the north pole NOT sea ice? :confused:

Yes it is. In a year the amount of ice cover at the North Poll varies greatly. There was a possibility during the summer that the ice cover would recede completely at the spot of the north poll (there would still have been ice around it, but not at the actual poll), but this would not have been permanent had it occurred. It just would have been a moment at one of the yearly troughs in that graph. I'm afraid the media misrepresented the situation quite a bit while it was happening.
 
Looking at your graph, it seems there is no movement on the sea ice, just a steady ebb and flow. Wouldn't global warming have shown a different effect?
 
Looking at your graph, it seems there is no movement on the sea ice, just a steady ebb and flow. Wouldn't global warming have shown a different effect?

No idea. I don't know how sea ice fits into the big picture like how it forms or what affects it. If I had to venture a guess (and it is a guess) I'd look at the effects of great swaths of land ice breaking free, as we see every few months when some Antarctic ice shelf breaks off. If I had to venture another guess I'd say that sea ice, which tends to be submerged for the most part, is less susceptible to atmospheric changes than land ice, which is more exposed. Neither of those are based on anything but common sense, though.
 
Looking at your graph, it seems there is no movement on the sea ice, just a steady ebb and flow. Wouldn't global warming have shown a different effect?

Global warming is seen much better in longer intervals of time, rather than just 30-40 years.
 
Global warming is seen much better in longer intervals of time, rather than just 30-40 years.

Not really. People haven't had the capability to affect the environment and greenhouse gasses in any significant way for much longer than that. I'd say that graph is pretty damned good evidence that sea ice isn't significantly affected by climate change
 
Global warming is seen much better in longer intervals of time, rather than just 30-40 years.



So there would be no effect? Then why did they claim we would lose the ice and it would be due to global warming?


Here is but one example

Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.


So if it did have no ice, proof of global warming butfollowing the same pattern for 30 years, inconclusive?????
 
Last edited:
Not really. People haven't had the capability to affect the environment and greenhouse gasses in any significant way for much longer than that. I'd say that graph is pretty damned good evidence that sea ice isn't significantly affected by climate change

AGW? Sure.

Sometimes I can't figure out whether people are referring to AGW (man-made) versus global warming (natural).
 
I've made none of those claims. :roll:

I'll defer you to my last post.



I said "they" not you.


This is a discussion.


I am curious as to how the scientists so revered by GW types can be so wrong and it is downplayed.
 
Ahh the deniers, continuing on their crusade to attempt and discredit science by cherry picking data and attempting to falsify. From the usual suspects no less.
So the daily tech article - which made no conclusions - claims that in this winter sea ice has returned to levels of 1979 - seems like then that there's no AGW?
Except for a big problem. Global warming didn't just start in 1979, it started well before that.
The daily tech article cites the Arctic Climate Research of the University if Illinois.
a simple click to that site gave this graph

seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

And this one from National snow and ice data center
N_timeseries.png


What daily tech did was a classic case of cherry picking data. Attempting to obfuscate the reality of AGW by a set data that seems to suggest there is no melting.
So they disregard summer data in turn for simply that of December - when ice is supposed to form.
For further read the source website Arctic Climate Change
as well as from the National Snow and Ice data center.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

So yes deniers, I'm claiming you guys are flat out lying - again.
 
Last edited:
The graphs are of two entirely different data sets. The Daily Tech graph is of sea ice anomaly. The graph you posted from U of I is sea ice extent.

The anomaly ( do you need a definition of anomaly? ) is the same now as it was in 1979, just as the article claims.

What were you saying about dishonesty??
 
The graphs are of two entirely different data sets. The Daily Tech graph is of sea ice anomaly. The graph you posted from U of I is sea ice extent.

The anomaly ( do you need a definition of anomaly? ) is the same now as it was in 1979, just as the article claims.

What were you saying about dishonesty??
______________
What daily tech did was a classic case of cherry picking data. Attempting to obfuscate the reality of AGW by a set data that seems to suggest there is no melting.
So they disregard summer data in turn for simply that of December - when ice is supposed to form.
For further read the source website Arctic Climate Change
as well as from the National Snow and Ice data center.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

So yes deniers, I'm claiming you guys are flat out lying - again.
 
The Daily Tech graph is of sea ice anomaly.
Sea ice anomaly is measured by the red line, but there are two others on that graph. Look at the legend: "daily sea ice area" and "daily sea ice mean".
 
Ahh the deniers, continuing on their crusade to attempt and discredit science by cherry picking data and attempting to falsify. From the usual suspects no less.
So the daily tech article - which made no conclusions - claims that in this winter sea ice has returned to levels of 1979 - seems like then that there's no AGW?
Except for a big problem. Global warming didn't just start in 1979, it started well before that.
The daily tech article cites the Arctic Climate Research of the University if Illinois.
a simple click to that site gave this graph


And this one from National snow and ice data center


What daily tech did was a classic case of cherry picking data. Attempting to obfuscate the reality of AGW by a set data that seems to suggest there is no melting.
So they disregard summer data in turn for simply that of December - when ice is supposed to form.
For further read the source website Arctic Climate Change
as well as from the National Snow and Ice data center.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

So yes deniers, I'm claiming you guys are flat out lying - again.

Another well informed post demonstrating your excellent grasp of a complex subject.
 
Sea ice anomaly is measured by the red line, but there are two others on that graph. Look at the legend: "daily sea ice area" and "daily sea ice mean".

The article was about sea ice anomaly.

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.
 
Well you have all officially intrigued me. Thanks for the fun facts.

For the record, I don't know if sea ice has anything at all to do with climate change. I'd guess that how much ice builds up in the winter isn't as important as how much melts in the summer. Drastic changes in ocean levels can be detrimental. If the ice always builds up to the same level in the winter but melts more and more every year in the summer, I view that as a bad thing.
 
Well you have all officially intrigued me. Thanks for the fun facts.

For the record, I don't know if sea ice has anything at all to do with climate change. I'd guess that how much ice builds up in the winter isn't as important as how much melts in the summer. Drastic changes in ocean levels can be detrimental. If the ice always builds up to the same level in the winter but melts more and more every year in the summer, I view that as a bad thing.
In a nut shell yes.
Sea ice and all other ice are clear indicators of just how much warming is going on, that they are melting at such an unprecedented rate in of itself is indication that something is going on.
The best explaination to date is that of climate change, and the cause of that climate change is most deffinitively anthropogenic in origin.

Additionally, if sea ice melts too much during the summer that's a double wammy, because dark open sea water absorbs solar radiation far more efficiently than highly reflective snow and ice.
More energy absorbed equates to greater quantities of heat being trapped which equate to accelerated warming.
The real big problem that has not been addressed with this past summer is that of La- Nina and an 11 year solar minimum.
Solar activity this year was at it's 11 year minimum to which as all past data supports results in a cooler year; another is that this was a La-nina year - the two in combination resulted in a summer that was noticiably cooler and yet even with that together as we see from the snow and ice data the arctic still melted significantly. In two years we will see the solar maximum and a year after that we will see El Nino 2012,2013 those will be years that are quite warm which we can expect to see far less arctic ice coverage.
This is why it is all so worrisome.
 
Thanks for the rundown. The whole dark ocean vs. reflective ice part made sense.

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS!?! Why not just develop alternative energy? We know we need it, oil is running out. We get dual benefits for alternative fuels, more security and less pollution, since when is that bad?

Boohoo, it costs a bit to get started. Big deal. So did Iraq. Didn't stop the conservatives from clamoring to go in. What's their big beef with spending only a fraction as much on global warming?
 
Thanks for the rundown. The whole dark ocean vs. reflective ice part made sense.

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS!?! Why not just develop alternative energy? We know we need it, oil is running out. We get dual benefits for alternative fuels, more security and less pollution, since when is that bad?

Boohoo, it costs a bit to get started. Big deal. So did Iraq. Didn't stop the conservatives from clamoring to go in. What's their big beef with spending only a fraction as much on global warming?


That's what Obama has planned, so let's hope he sticks to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom