Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New Record...

[LowDown]

... for the greatest extent of coverage for this time of year.

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

In general, extremes of weather will often be balanced by extremes of weather in the opposite direction somewhere in the world. But the political activists will only tell us one side of the story. (I believe that alarm has already been raised about the Arctic ice coverage on this forum.)

 

[Gary]

... for the greatest extent of coverage for this time of year.

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Forbes

In general, extremes of weather will often be balanced by extremes of weather in the opposite direction somewhere in the world. But the political activists will only tell us one side of the story. (I believe that alarm has already been raised about the Arctic ice coverage on this forum.)

People caught up in global warming denial really grab for straws. Your high fives about antarctic sea ice make about as much sense and saying there can't be global warming because of heavy snowfall during the winter. Below are two images of Antarctica, the top image is how we normally view the continent and the bottom image shows areas actually below sea level. Antarctica has a circum-polar current that travels clockwise around the continent. The winds also tend to travel that way, so the continent is isolated. The areas in the Ross and Weddell Seas have these clockwise gyres in the ocean currents that tend to keep sea ice spinning around and protect it during the antarctic summer, though the sea ice does get flushed out over a course of years. It only takes temperatures reaching -1.8 degrees C or around 28 degrees F to make sea ice. The increase of antarctic sea ice during it's maximum isn't considered significant. First off, that sea ice is doomed to melt anyway, so having a little more of it to melt isn't a big deal. The minimums are a big deal, because they occur when the sun is higher in the sky and providing more solar energy. Secondly, the increase in antarctic sea ice has been examined and the conclusions are it's due to an increase in snowfall. A certain amount of snowfall can actually thin the formation of sea ice by insulating it, but the antarctic is experiencing significant accumulations of snowfall that are enough to crack the ice and allow ocean water to freeze in contact with it. That makes the sea ice thicker. Forming sea ice requires more than just a simple concept that it is temperature related, again, it doesn't have to get that cold to start the process of forming sea ice.

 

[Manc Skipper]

An incremental rise in Antarctic ice goes nowhere to balance the record 18% drop in Arctic ice cover. It's a poor attempt to suggest that the south is cooling in proportion to the northern warming. Not so. It's a reflection of the denier cult's desperation that they grasp at an op/ed based on a blogger's misinterpretation of science.

 

[LowDown]

People caught up in global warming denial really grab for straws.

Climate alarmists always try to sound erudite in order to give their biased, misrepresented, and one sided accounts credibility.

Your high fives about antarctic sea ice make about as much sense and saying there can't be global warming because of heavy snowfall during the winter.

Or for that matter as much sense as saying that global warming skeptics can't be right because we had a hot summer.

Below are two images of Antarctica, (bla bla bla)

You skip over the main issue, which is that alarmists try to use sea ice as a proxy for temperature. As you indicate, it's more complicated than that. But that's true of the Arctic, also, where winds have been the main factor in determining sea ice cover, not temperature.

 

[Gary]

Climate alarmists always try to sound erudite in order to give their biased, misrepresented, and one sided accounts credibility.



Or for that matter as much sense as saying that global warming skeptics can't be right because we had a hot summer.



You skip over the main issue, which is that alarmists try to use sea ice as a proxy for temperature. As you indicate, it's more complicated than that. But that's true of the Arctic, also, where winds have been the main factor in determining sea ice cover, not temperature.

That is just mindless rhetoric. Are the winds melting the permafrost, too? Are the winds melting glaciers? That arctic sea ice is in a death spiral and when it's gone having a hot summer is going to be one of the least of your worries.

How does the fact that three quarters of the volume of arctic sea ice has disappeared in the last 30 years make someone an alarmist? When it's all gone, perhaps as early as 2015, the climate of the arctic has to change and that means our climate has to change. When it's summer and that ice is not relecting sunlight, it's going to make a big difference in weather patterns.

You try to not use science and claim having more antarctic sea ice during it's maximum means something. It's not even significant, because it's happen during a time of low solar radiation. It isn't going to grow to the point where the antarctic sea ice lasts the melt season.

 

[longview]

You try to not use science and claim having more antarctic sea ice during it's maximum means something. It's not even significant, because it's happen during a time of low solar radiation. It isn't going to grow to the point where the antarctic sea ice lasts the melt season.

Both increases and decreases in Arctic and Antarctic ice have occurred before, and will again.
In the last 800,000 years our planet has spent most (aprox 75%)of that time in an ice age.
Is it so unreasonable for their to be a feedback mechanism that causes the observed cycling?

 

[Gary]

Both increases and decreases in Arctic and Antarctic ice have occurred before, and will again.
In the last 800,000 years our planet has spent most (aprox 75%)of that time in an ice age.
Is it so unreasonable for their to be a feedback mechanism that causes the observed cycling?

When you get enough snow to crack and flood the antarctic sea ice, you get more sea ice.

Where does this logic orginiate that just because something has a history of slow changes and variability that it's impossible to change it? Your car changes the places it goes, so why do you think you can determine it's destination?

Why can't you people just be honest and say you really don't give a damn about man changing our climate, because until something happens to personally bite you in the ass, you will not care?

Only someone trying to be blind doesn't see the results of global warming. The days of spreading misinformation about climate change are coming to an end and we aren't talking about changes a decade from now.

 

[Fisher]

In the 70's it was "A New Ice Age is Coming Due to Pollution" and now it is "The planet is in the microwave due to pollution".

 

[Gary]

In the 70's it was "A New Ice Age is Coming Due to Pollution" and now it is "The planet is in the microwave due to pollution".

In the 1970s that was magazines making claims to sell magazines. The science involved finding our location in Milankovitch Cycles which should show us slowly cooling. That science is still supported by evidence.

 

[Fisher]

In the 1970s that was magazines making claims to sell magazines. The science involved finding our location in Milankovitch Cycles which should show us slowly cooling. That science is still supported by evidence.

When the science yields both simultaneous ice ages and global warming, I have to wonder how the science changed the freezing point of water.

 

[ecofarm]

Here's how global warming causes an ice age:

The Gulf Stream feeds the Mediterranean. The water cools and sinks, leaves the Mediterranean and proceeds south to Antarctica via the Deep Atlantic Current. This current feeds the only continuous current, the Circumpolar Current. If we don't have deep cold water feeding that circumpolar current, it slows down and can become interrupted - and that will cause an ice age.

What we're seeing could be the beginning of the slowing of the Circumpolar Current. This could have global ecologic and climate impacts.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also:

El Niño

 

[Gary]

When the science yields both simultaneous ice ages and global warming, I have to wonder how the science changed the freezing point of water.

Do you know what Milankovitch Cycles are? It's very simple, we are suppose to be slowly cooling and aren't. When they looked for a reason, the only thing that explained the heating was AGW. It's warmer today than in the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so what is causing that extra warmth?

 

[jambalaya]

I am not a global warming denier. The globe is warming. Now make me believe there is anything that we can do to significantly change the outcome of global warming or an ice age if that was coming. We are just another species of animal on this planet and one day we will become extinct like any other species. Give us the real story. Just what do you want us to do at this point? Who knows, maybe we will evolve into creatures that can withstand 200 degrees F temperatures and feed off industrial waste.

 

[Fisher]

Do you know what Milankovitch Cycles are? It's very simple, we are suppose to be slowly cooling and aren't. When they looked for a reason, the only thing that explained the heating was AGW. It's warmer today than in the Holocene Thermal Maximum, so what is causing that extra warmth?

TV blowhards have multiplied quite a bit since the 70's -- Maybe start there.

Even if GW exists (which I am not saying it does not), how does it have to be man made? The glacier theory was predicated on a belief that pollution makes it increasingly harder for sunlight to reach the earth and now it is because the same pollution keeps the sunlight from reflecting out of the atmosphere. There seems to be an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity so I am not discounting there could be a natural element being totally ignored. I am all for cracking down on pollution because of things like water and the biological magnification of toxins over time, but I do not see a straight line from pollution to global warming the way some do.

 

[Gary]

TV blowhards have multiplied quite a bit since the 70's -- Maybe start there.

Even if GW exists (which I am not saying it does not), how does it have to be man made? The glacier theory was predicated on a belief that pollution makes it increasingly harder for sunlight to reach the earth and now it is because the same pollution keeps the sunlight from reflecting out of the atmosphere. There seems to be an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity so I am not discounting there could be a natural element being totally ignored. I am all for cracking down on pollution because of things like water and the biological magnification of toxins over time, but I do not see a straight line from pollution to global warming the way some do.

Do you bother to listen to yourself? You say: "Even if GW exists" when we have had three quarters of volume of the arctic sea ice melt in the past 30 years, glaciers melting all over the world and permafrost melting. Why is that melting if it isn't warming? Then you say: "The glacier theory was predicated on a belief that pollution makes it increasingly harder for sunlight to reach the earth and now it is because the same pollution keeps the sunlight from reflecting out of the atmosphere", which is totally fabricated. I told you it had to do with Milankovitch Cycles, which cause Ice Age cycles and scientists discovered our position on Milankovitch Cycles before global warming concerns. There is evidence all over they world of past Ice Ages, evidence where they stopped, remains of mammoths and trees in Siberia showing it was warmer in the recent past and you call it a glacier theory. No one claimed pollution was causing cooling except you.

It's really simple, you don't want to know and you want to spread misinformation, which is just a good way saying it's a lie. You can't post those magazine article blaming cooling on pollution, because it never happened and I've read them. It's just typical right-wing, make up lies, nonsense.

Earthquakes don't warm the Earth and volcanos are on the order of a hundredth the amount of emissions man causes.

 

[flogger]

Do you bother to listen to yourself? You say: "Even if GW exists" when we have had three quarters of volume of the arctic sea ice melt in the past 30 years, glaciers melting all over the world and permafrost melting.

Recent peer reviewed studies of the Arctic indicate we have had notably warmer and cooler periods than today over recent millenia. Today is nothing special in either its level nor rate of change. Obsessing over 30 odd years of satellite monitoring is as a consequence quite ludicrous and suggests concerns other than a genuine ones for the planet are what really motivate you here :roll:

 

[Fisher]

Well look somebody other than me thinks that the same pollution that could cause global warming could also cause global cooling. I guess that is totally fabricated research because it does not take Milankovitch's irregular orbits into consideration. There should be a law against such heresy.

Greenhouse gases could have caused an ice age, claim scientists - Telegraph

 

[iguanaman]

Climate alarmists always try to sound erudite in order to give their biased, misrepresented, and one sided accounts credibility.



Or for that matter as much sense as saying that global warming skeptics can't be right because we had a hot summer.



You skip over the main issue, which is that alarmists try to use sea ice as a proxy for temperature. As you indicate, it's more complicated than that. But that's true of the Arctic, also, where winds have been the main factor in determining sea ice cover, not temperature.

As usual you simply link a site that has something that backs up your views. No interest in getting any others that might conflict? You might be interested to know that the Antarctic is also warming while the sea ice is moderately increasing. How is this possible? It's too complex for the narrow minded. You 've been duped by the vested interests into agreeing to let them spew fossil carbon until it's too late.

It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low | Weather Underground

 

[longview]

When you get enough snow to crack and flood the antarctic sea ice, you get more sea ice.

Where does this logic orginiate that just because something has a history of slow changes and variability that it's impossible to change it? Your car changes the places it goes, so why do you think you can determine it's destination?

Why can't you people just be honest and say you really don't give a damn about man changing our climate, because until something happens to personally bite you in the ass, you will not care?

Only someone trying to be blind doesn't see the results of global warming. The days of spreading misinformation about climate change are coming to an end and we aren't talking about changes a decade from now.

It's not that I don't care about the environment, I do have questions about the science that attributes
a large portion of GW to Human activity.
I do think we are now and have been in a warming phase.
My questions have always been about where the signal is in the signal to noise ratio.
Sea ice actually means very little, as we have nothing to compare it to, our sample is just too small.
The best we can do, is improve efficiencies and adapt to changes.
I do not think we have any way to stop the changes.
Even if you buy into the Co2 model, the IPCC report models only show a modest slowdown,
if emissions were reduced to earlier levels.

 

[Gary]

Recent peer reviewed studies of the Arctic indicate we have had notably warmer and cooler periods than today over recent millenia. Today is nothing special in either its level nor rate of change. Obsessing over 30 odd years of satellite monitoring is as a consequence quite ludicrous and suggests concerns other than a genuine ones for the planet are what really motivate you here :roll:

I notice you don't post that peer reviewed study and if you did it would come from some denialist site. We have the satellite history and before that nuclear submarine history. You then have a very long history of commercial operations during the summer minimum. Everyone who has visited the arctic says it's changed. You seem to keep forgetting that arctic sea ice isn't the only thing that is melting, because glaciers and permafrost can also tell a story. Core sample below sea ice can also tell a story of the past.

 

[flogger]

I notice you don't post that peer reviewed study and if you did it would come from some denialist site. We have the satellite history and before that nuclear submarine history. You then have a very long history of commercial operations during the summer minimum. Everyone who has visited the arctic says it's changed. You seem to keep forgetting that arctic sea ice isn't the only thing that is melting, because glaciers and permafrost can also tell a story. Core sample below sea ice can also tell a story of the past.

Simply because it has already been posted half a dozen times now already and I dont want to bore everyone by endless repetition of it . Here is the relevant temperature analysis of Arctic ice cores from the last 4000 years from it........again !

 

[iguanaman]

It's not that I don't care about the environment, I do have questions about the science that attributes
a large portion of GW to Human activity.
I do think we are now and have been in a warming phase.
My questions have always been about where the signal is in the signal to noise ratio.
Sea ice actually means very little, as we have nothing to compare it to, our sample is just too small.
The best we can do, is improve efficiencies and adapt to changes.
I do not think we have any way to stop the changes.

Even if you buy into the Co2 model, the IPCC report models only show a modest slowdown,
if emissions were reduced to earlier levels.

The problem is that we are near a tippng point where high Co2 levels will tend to propagate higher Co2 levels. Melting glaciers release Co2 trapped in the ice for example.
But that does not mean we need to go full speed ahaed with relasing fossil carbon. We can make things much more severe.
I read that the Canada Tar sands contain as much trapped Co2 as man has released in the world to date. Surely we can see that mining all of it would not be a good thing for Earth.

 

[iguanaman]

Simply because it has already been posted half a dozen times now already and I dont want to bore everyone by endless repetition of it . Here is the relevant temperature analysis of Arctic ice cores from the last 4000 years from it........again !

View attachment 67134854

Where is the Co2 level in that graph? It is useless with out it. You should trash it and use this one it is much clearer, it shows Co2 levels and it goes back 400,000 years.

 

[Gary]

It's not that I don't care about the environment, I do have questions about the science that attributes
a large portion of GW to Human activity.
I do think we are now and have been in a warming phase.
My questions have always been about where the signal is in the signal to noise ratio.
Sea ice actually means very little, as we have nothing to compare it to, our sample is just too small.
The best we can do, is improve efficiencies and adapt to changes.
I do not think we have any way to stop the changes.
Even if you buy into the Co2 model, the IPCC report models only show a modest slowdown,
if emissions were reduced to earlier levels.

Not all gases absorb light and heat. That isn't some model, it's a scientific fact. The gases that aborsb light are called greenhouse gases.

You don't care about the environment and your objections to science are based on someone who doesn't want to learn science and objects to people who have.

That sea ice is going to make a big difference in our climate and guess what, it's almost all gone. One of the results that scientists are concerned about is a slowdown in the jet stream causing repeated weather conditions over the same area. If that's the case, it can mean prolonged times drought and flooding, depending on where it stalls.

 

[flogger]

Where is the Co2 level in that graph? It is useless with out it. You should trash it and use this one it is much clearer, it shows Co2 levels and it goes back 400,000 years.

I thought you were worried about rising temperatures ? All rising CO 2 levels will do is marginally increase plant growth which is surely no bad thing. If this whole CO 2 drives temperature hypothesis was correct then we should indeed be having the highest temperatures seen since the end of the last ice age given current levels. The fact that we are nowhere near that suggest this CO 2 bogeyman is just a fantasy and that other natural factors must clearly be doing all or most of the driving. My graph illustrates my point fairly well