Polar Ice sets new minimum

[noggin]

This is most interesting. Haven't seen anything in the media, yet. Well, not in the Mail........... B)

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

[Thundery wintry showers]

Aye, it's all well and good being critical of the science behind the IPCC (being critical is a good thing, as it helps point out holes in the science and advance it, etc). But these people clearly have a strong agenda- the "we should keep things the way they are, we shouldn't make any effort to reduce emissions because it could damage the US economy, and we all know that the economy is the only thing that matters in the world don't we?". When there is such an obvious, laissez-faire agenda that acts as a barrier to social and economic progress I immediately lose a lot of respect for the position.

I wonder what these people would reply with if someone was to raise the question, "okay, so let's assume that the current warming is natural and none of it is due to human activity. If so, what do we do when fossil fuel reserves run out?"

It will probably appear all over the US papers as the population over there seem very keen to believe that AGW is a myth, but it won't sell in the UK because the UK media prefer to exaggerate AGW out of proportion.

[SnowBear]

At the moment I think that political and economical influence is going to mask the deep down truth no matter where you look.

The truth is we should be aware that our climate could go either way, colder or warmer, that we are probably adding to the problem but to what degree we don't know so maybe we should err on the worst case scenario and start being careful, that we pollute like no other species on the planet and should morally and for the future of our civilisation start cleaning up regardless. But while economics and politics get in the way, that ain't going to happen, as that god/goddess money is involved.

You want the truth? Look at all studies, use your own intellect, wisdom and thoughtfulness as I have and see that right now, in reality we probably ain't got a clue what the climate is going to do next and no amount of conferences or studies is going to figure it out. We can do something, but its not going to be from politicians or trade that it comes from, it will be when the public wants a change. Either once the AGW scenario is found to be baloney, or when the warming continues with severity. This is a long term problem or "experiment" and many are trying to draw the final results way before the finish line and with many systems left out or in studies as the case may be or to sway towards the current trend of thinking.

Often though as in history, its the little voice in the background that turns out to be right, beware, it may happen in this case too. Don't be so hasty in discounting anything where climate change is concerned.

[Gray-Wolf]

So the antarctic is still gaining ice and not about to collapse then, good....didn't think so.

BFTP

????????????????????

Erm , No .

Antarctica is shedding ice. Some areas on the peninsula ( which has shed most of it's fringing shelf) are gaining snow (due to the climate changes it is experiencing) but on the whole most of Antarctica's glacial 'drains' are accelerating.

The sea ice however seems to have put on 200,000 sq km of extra ice this year.

[noggin]

I am glad that there are voices which question the AGW stance as I (and many others) am not convinced by it at all and I am very glad that there are more people becoming brave enough to speak up. A growing band, no less.

But, and this may seem surprising, if there was indisputable proof that man has caused the warming, then I would accept that I have been wrong. However, I am as yet unconvinced by anything which I have seen and/or heard. So for now, I am trusting my own judgement, based on my own experiences and observations of all kinds, and am still firmly in the "natural causes" camp.

I wish that the media would give equal and unbiased coverage to both sides of the argument.

(Usual proviso applies re cleaning up our filthy acts!)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

????????????????????

Erm , No .

Antarctica is shedding ice. Some areas on the peninsula ( which has shed most of it's fringing shelf) are gaining snow (due to the climate changes it is experiencing) but on the whole most of Antarctica's glacial 'drains' are accelerating.

The sea ice however seems to have put on 200,000 sq km of extra ice this year.

Maybe more pressure due to more snow/ice causing melt and movement. Maybe that's how extended glaciation occurs when the polar regions 'extend' their cold outwards.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Lets see what happens and then we'll have to watch the next few years as well.

Well ice levels seem to have peaked and ice extent is up on previous years. As we saw this year with the Antarctic large gains in extent tend to be wiped out with the summer melt (as they are only thin skins of single year ice) so we should expect a rapid decline in this 'peripheral ice' over the next 2 months.

So far as needing to watch for a few years more I'd tend towards this year being pivotal in the move towards a summer 'ice free' arctic. Any more loss of multiyear ice and any continuation of it's (the bulk of multiyear ice) drift into open water will spell it's final demise (IMHO) which could well occur over this season (to all extent and purposes).

Time to start watching I think!

[Hiya]

Well ice levels seem to have peaked and ice extent is up on previous years. As we saw this year with the Antarctic large gains in extent tend to be wiped out with the summer melt (as they are only thin skins of single year ice) so we should expect a rapid decline in this 'peripheral ice' over the next 2 months.

So far as needing to watch for a few years more I'd tend towards this year being pivotal in the move towards a summer 'ice free' arctic. Any more loss of multiyear ice and any continuation of it's (the bulk of multiyear ice) drift into open water will spell it's final demise (IMHO) which could well occur over this season (to all extent and purposes).

Time to start watching I think!

You are stretching that a bit far, a good bit above average and greater than last year even after the summer melt.

In other words no it was not wiped out by summer melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

You are stretching that a bit far, a good bit above average and greater than last year even after the summer melt.

In other words no it was not wiped out by summer melt.

I see an alleged 2+ million sq km gain at max followed by a 200,000 sq km 'anom' at ice extent 'min'. How does that work as a percentage then? Remember 1 guy at least got away from Custers last stand........same kinda odds?

[PersianPaladin]

The rate at which some of the world's glaciers are melting has more than doubled, data from the United Nations Environment Programme has shown.

Edited March 17, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Devonian]

This NASA briefing looks like it will be interesting.

[Gray-Wolf]

This NASA briefing looks like it will be interesting.

Were it not my son (Jamie) and my birthdays tomorrow I'd be glued to the telecast.......as it is I'll probably be braving the cold at his annual 'Chester Zoo' outing.......ho hum.

[stewfox]

My fish pond has ice on it for the first time ever! does this mean it'll be frozen all year???

or is it just fissile ,2m thick, single year ice that will fracture,break and melt as the remaining multiyear ice is flushed out into the atlantic 'icebreakering' it before it?

I'll tell you in 6 months but i know where my wadge is stacked!

So far as needing to watch for a few years more I'd tend towards this year being pivotal in the move towards a summer 'ice free' arctic. Any more loss of multiyear ice and any continuation of it's (the bulk of multiyear ice) drift into open water will spell it's final demise (IMHO) which could well occur over this season (to all extent and purposes).

Time to start watching I think!

Ok so you have invested in artic sea crossing pleasure cruises opens summer 2008

Id still put it back a few years

[Chris Knight]

I see an alleged 2+ million sq km gain at max followed by a 200,000 sq km 'anom' at ice extent 'min'. How does that work as a percentage then? Remember 1 guy at least got away from Custers last stand........same kinda odds?

Well GW, we are up at least 1 million sq km on last year's area estimation at this time when the 2006/2007 ice pack was barely starting to recover. IIWY, I'd cheer up a bit!

[VillagePlank]

... during the coolest year, globally, for goodness knows how long.

So, how does that work then? It gets cooler, and de-glaciation accelerates? or it get warming and glaciation increases, or it gets cooler and glaciation increases, or it gets warmer and de-glaciation increase.

I know I'm simple, but, for the love of God, I can't see how this works.

[Mr Sleet]

... during the coolest year, globally, for goodness knows how long.

So, how does that work then? It gets cooler, and de-glaciation accelerates? or it get warming and glaciation increases, or it gets cooler and glaciation increases, or it gets warmer and de-glaciation increase.

I know I'm simple, but, for the love of God, I can't see how this works.

No doubting things warmed up a bit up to 98/2000, what we are seeing is the thermal inertia in the system, probably. The subsequent plateauing and possible cooling off may reverse/slow down the shrinkage in the next 10 years or so.

[VillagePlank]

No doubting things warmed up a bit up to 98/2000, what we are seeing is the thermal inertia in the system, probably. The subsequent plateauing and possible cooling off may reverse/slow down the shrinkage in the next 10 years or so.

That can't possibly be true, if you'd take the time out to listen to Al Gore. He showed graphs of temperature/CO2 interacting instantly If CO2 was the cause, and thermal intertia, such as this, existed, surely the latency from the cause would be apparent?

Edited March 17, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

That can't possibly be true, if you'd take the time out to listen to Al Gore. He showed graphs of temperature/CO2 interacting instantly If CO2 was the cause, and thermal intertia, such as this, existed, surely the latency from the cause would be apparent?

Humm. CO2 'instantly' effects the atmosphere's radiative properties. But the oceans take time to respond to that forcing (being made of water, so thermal inertia and all that) and glaciers are also made of water. So, what's the inconsistency?

[Bobby]

... during the coolest year, globally, for goodness knows how long.

Huh? 2007 was the second warmest year ever according to NASA.

[BUSHY]

We are not looking at up yo date data here. See references to 2006. There is currently a rash of articles out there regurgitating the same old scare tactics.

Roo it was not the second warmest year --

[Roo]

Roo it was not the second warmest year --

It wasn't Roo either!

Edited March 17, 2008 by Roo

[BUSHY]

Oops

[Gray-Wolf]

With all the 'oh it's cold' clamour recently the fact that February was the 15th warmest on record since records began (globally) would seem to point to the glaciers continuing their retreat whilst we (recently habitualised to the 'new' warm) folk claim it's cold and cooling..............funny thing individual perception isn't it?

[Gray-Wolf]

. IIWY, I'd cheer up a bit!

There was this Fox about to cross a river when a little voice said "will you carry me over with you?". The voice belonged to a Scorpian....................

[Richie V]

Huh? 2007 was the second warmest year ever according to NASA.

Hmm, Funny they should say that. I wonder if their say so had anything to do with the fact they recently recieved an extra $3 billion US dollars for climate change research. For crying out loud, wake up people!!

Edited March 17, 2008 by Chassisbot