The ice is going to be completyely melted! NOT! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

waybomb · #1 01-06-2009, 01:00 PM

I wonder how Al Gore will spin this devastating news to his religion?

Science

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

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.

Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

DieselAddict · #2 01-06-2009, 01:39 PM

Take off your blinder please and look at the entire situation. The fact that the ice has temporarily & suddenly recovered is good news, but it's not very meaningful. The long-term trend is what matters. What was the ice cover in September? As I recall, it was the 2nd or 3rd lowest in recorded history. December was brutally cold in NA so I'm not surprised to see some recovery. This month is a bit warmer. As to Al Gore, he never said we'd see a nice steady warming trend. More extreme swings are to be expected with climate change.

diametricalbenz · #3 01-06-2009, 01:55 PM

It's 27F outside therefore global warming cannot exist. Al is a pathological liar.

sfloriII · #4 01-06-2009, 01:59 PM

Global Warmists (and Al Gore) are saying that the current cold temperatures are actually due to global warming. You see, the rapidly melting ice cap is contributing to this.

The only problem is that this doesn't explain anything when they cry global warming during hot spells in the summer!!

I'm not surprised that the ice is growing.

LUVMBDiesels · #5 01-06-2009, 02:24 PM

I love this information: "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."

and this...:"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."

Oh my Lord, what will the WWF do if the number of polar bears is increasing? I mean they spent a lot of money showing those poor polar bears on the ice flo? You know the one that shows the apex predator of the Artic looking like a cute teddy bear?

What I really love is that this is all based on data from 1979 to 2008. How can you base the condition of the ice cap on 30 years of data?

Hatterasguy · #6 01-06-2009, 03:30 PM

It's Bush's fualt!

Rahulio1989300E · #7 01-06-2009, 04:01 PM

I find it funny that they are basing all of their conclusions and theories off of a 4% sampling rate. They are only tracking 4% of the total ice and they base these huge ideas off of them.

Hatterasguy · #8 01-06-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahulio1989300E

I find it funny that they are basing all of their conclusions and theories off of a 4% sampling rate. They are only tracking 4% of the total ice and they base these huge ideas off of them.

4% is a lot, thats how it works.

I believe ice coverage is done by satellite, so thats accurite.

C280 Sport · #9 01-06-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

It's Bush's fualt!

ha ha ha thats funny.

MS Fowler · #10 01-06-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Take off your blinder please and look at the entire situation. The fact that the ice has temporarily & suddenly recovered is good news, but it's not very meaningful. The long-term trend is what matters. What was the ice cover in September? As I recall, it was the 2nd or 3rd lowest in recorded history. December was brutally cold in NA so I'm not surprised to see some recovery. This month is a bit warmer. As to Al Gore, he never said we'd see a nice steady warming trend. More extreme swings are to be expected with climate change.

This is funny!!
First you say that its the long-term trend that matters, and then, to prove your point you go way back in history, all the way back to SEPTEMBER!!??!. WOW! 5 months ago. That really is getting the long-term trend.

A264172 · #11 01-06-2009, 05:12 PM

I wonder how much global 'climate change' science is highly leveraged?

SirNik84 · #12 01-06-2009, 05:33 PM

DieselAddict · #13 01-06-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

This is funny!!
First you say that its the long-term trend that matters, and then, to prove your point you go way back in history, all the way back to SEPTEMBER!!??!. WOW! 5 months ago. That really is getting the long-term trend.

Obviously you don't get it. September is the time of the year when the ice cover is typically smallest. To get an accurate idea of what's going on (long-term), you want to record and compare the ice cover on the day of each year when it's the smallest. There's absolutely nothing funny about this.

AustinsCE · #14 01-06-2009, 05:40 PM

Are the ice core samples accurate? What do they have to say about long term temperatures over 10's/100's of thousands of years?

123c · #15 01-06-2009, 06:35 PM

With the economy slowing down like it has, and many factories shutting down, I would expect to see a huge decrease in green house gas emissions, thus a decrease in global warming.