APP - Antarctic Ice Levels Hit Record High

[cancel2 2022]

Satellite Observations of Antarctic Sea Ice, showing this year's record high. The sharp spikes are caused by seasonal variations.
(Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group)

Antarctic sea ice coverage at a recorded record high.
(Source: University of Illinois, The Cryosphere Today)

Highest amount seen since record-keeping began

Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.
This corresponds with research conducted last year by the Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations, which found Antarctica ice sheets to be thickening and gaining mass. Global temperature data shows mainland Antarctica (all but the small Antarctic Peninsula) has cooled by up to 1F during the last fifty years, countering a warming trend that began at least as early as 1850.

David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".
As Antarctica sets historic highs, the Northern ice cap, however, has been on a steady decline, and this year reached a record low. According to the report, "The [Northern Hemisphere] sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum."
Luckily, Arctic ice does not rest upon bedrock, and thus its melting does not affect world sea levels. However, the discrepancy is a difficult to explain by anthropogenic global warming models, which predict both polar regions to warm substantially.
The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=8871&commentid=183605

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Satellite Observations of Antarctic Sea Ice, showing this year's record high. The sharp spikes are caused by seasonal variations.
(Source: University of Illinois, Polar Research Group)

Antarctic sea ice coverage at a recorded record high.
(Source: University of Illinois, The Cryosphere Today)

Highest amount seen since record-keeping began

Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.
This corresponds with research conducted last year by the Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations, which found Antarctica ice sheets to be thickening and gaining mass. Global temperature data shows mainland Antarctica (all but the small Antarctic Peninsula) has cooled by up to 1F during the last fifty years, countering a warming trend that began at least as early as 1850.

David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".
As Antarctica sets historic highs, the Northern ice cap, however, has been on a steady decline, and this year reached a record low. According to the report, "The [Northern Hemisphere] sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum."
Luckily, Arctic ice does not rest upon bedrock, and thus its melting does not affect world sea levels. However, the discrepancy is a difficult to explain by anthropogenic global warming models, which predict both polar regions to warm substantially.
The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=8871&commentid=183605

You must be one of those flat-earther deniers, that refuse to believe in the Global Warming that is the absolute result of mankinds interference in the natural balance of Mother Earth.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Arctic sea ice has been retreating over the past 30 years. The rate of retreat is accelerating and in fact is exceeding most models' forecasts.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This was too easy, Tom.

 

[cancel2 2022]

This was too easy, Tom.

Well it is not very hard to keep copy and pasting from the same website, I agree.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

They've already done all the research. I don't see the reason to duplicate our efforts.

 

[Cypress]

Researchers at the are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=8871&commentid=183605

Isn't this article from like over a year ago?

Sorry man, you were duped and this "dailytech" article was debunked by the very University who's data "dailytech" mischaracterized . Personally, I wouldn't trust rightwing blogs, tabloids, and these obscure "science" sites if I were you. I suggest logging onto the US national academy of sciences, the Royal Society, or NASA's websites for climate science information, instead of "dailytech.com"

The University of Illinois Arctic Research Center felt compelled to issue a press release to debunk the idiot who wrote this article. That's pretty unusual for academics to respond with a press release. A nice, civil debunking as acamedicians are prone to do, but they clearly didn't like their data being misrepresented by a teabagger blog journalist.

University of Illinois Arctic Research Center Responds to the “DailyTech” article:

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change and/or global warming.

One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm )

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction. Global climate model projections suggest that the most significant response of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections.

Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

Makes sense to the scientifically literate. The north pole has no land, the sea ice is rapidly melting. The south pole is a continent. Presumably, as warming increase, and ice sloughs off the continent, there will be more sea ice in anarctica as the land ice is displaced.

As the University of Illinois says in their debunking of the DailyTech Article, this is consistent with global warming models.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Cypress, you have pwned me in your debunking attempts.

Mine was alright, though. And I shall continue to copy and paste from the same site in the future - it is a vast resource.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I suppose the little leg humper will once again pretend Jones didn't come out and say his data was sloppy, that there has been no significant global warming in the past 15 years, that due to a lack of records, we DON'T KNOW whether the Medieval period was warmer, yet gumby here still wants to shout 'consensus'.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist.Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

That is all.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I suppose the little leg humper will once again pretend Jones didn't come out and say his data was sloppy, that there has been no significant global warming in the past 15 years, that due to a lack of records, we DON'T KNOW whether the Medieval period was warmer, yet gumby here still wants to shout 'consensus'.

Essentially,

"Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995"

And here's the generic counter argument that I didn't even have to lift a finger to obtain:

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.

Here's his actual words:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Isn't this article from like over a year ago?

Sorry man, you were duped and this "dailytech" article was debunked by the very University who's data "dailytech" mischaracterized . Personally, I wouldn't trust rightwing blogs, tabloids, and these obscure "science" sites if I were you. I suggest logging onto the US national academy of sciences, the Royal Society, or NASA's websites for climate science information, instead of "dailytech.com"

The University of Illinois Arctic Research Center felt compelled to issue a press release to debunk the idiot who wrote this article. That's pretty unusual for academics to respond with a press release. A nice, civil debunking as acamedicians are prone to do, but they clearly didn't like their data being misrepresented by a teabagger blog journalist.



Makes sense to the scientifically literate. The north pole has no land, the sea ice is rapidly melting. The south pole is a continent. Presumably, as warming increase, and ice sloughs off the continent, there will be more sea ice in anarctica as the land ice is displaced.

As the University of Illinois says in their debunking of the DailyTech Article, this is consistent with global warming models.

They are talking about a different article, not the one I posted.

 

[Cypress]

They are talking about a different article, not the one I posted.

Okay, fair enough so this "Michael Asher" blogger wrote two sea ice posts on some blog called "daily tech": one post in 2007 (your link) and one again in 2009 that claimed virutally the same thing about the university of Illinois sea ice data.

Do you have anything to say about the fact that University of Illinois themselves took the unusual step of going out of their way to issue a press release indicating that this Michael Asher dude is mischaracterizing their data?

 

[tinfoil]

Essentially,



And here's the generic counter argument that I didn't even have to lift a finger to obtain:






Here's his actual words:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Do you realize the terms "statistically-significant" means the trend does not fall outside the margin of error? And couple that with the FACT that Jones can not reproduce the raw data.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

why do you guys hate science?.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Essentially,

And here's the generic counter argument that I didn't even have to lift a finger to obtain:

Here's his actual words:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Do you understand what statistically significant means?

Do you comprehend the fact that to get even that, thousands of weather stations were removed? From roughly 6000 to roughly 1500?

Why would they remove that many stations water?

Why would they bias the 'science' by removing most of the stations from higher latitude and altitude locations? Why would the ONE station left at high latitude in Canada just happen to be the WARMEST one?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.

3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.

4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.

5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.

8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.

9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.

10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.

11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.

12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.

13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.

14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”

15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.