Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage - Increase twice the size of Germany

[SUBMAN1]

Imagine that.



-S


A map of the sea ice increase from the same month last year

Increase twice the size of Germany: "colder weather" to blame.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear.

Earlier this year, concerns over global warming led the US to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees...ticle12851.htm

[Tchocky]

Well, 2007 was a record low, so...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, 2007 was a record low, so...

So?

-S

[Tchocky]

So a major relative gain in the past year is not indicative of a shift in climate. One would need several decades of data to make that kind of judgement. THe headline isn't saying what I imagine you want it to say.

Also, area is not as informative as area plus volume, which the Arctic is losing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7303385.stm

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

So a major relative gain in the past year is not indicative of a shift in climate. One would need several decades of data to make that kind of judgement. THe headline isn't saying what I imagine you want it to say.

Also, area is not as informative as area plus volume, which the Arctic is losing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7303385.stm

You are basing your ideas on the incorrect idea that old ice melts slower - that is wrong. This is a prime example on the idea that researchers have no clue whats going on. To say they know the climate is going to rise in temp by certain degrees over a given time - they have no way of predicting that either, especially when they have a hard time predicting weather next week.

And what of those models that determine volume? Wasn't that last months debate about how they were wrong and needed to be recalculated?

Anyway, regardless, Siberia is to blame for last years record low (Which I think the 1940's was even lower, but no one can prove that yet) for which they have been keeping track for a total of 10 years - lots of data there.

Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

There ya have it.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You are basing your ideas on the incorrect idea that old ice melts slower - that is wrong. This is a prime example on the idea that researchers have no clue whats going on.

What? No I'm not. Explain.

To say they know the climate is going to rise in temp by certain degrees over a given time - they have no way of predicting that either, especially when they have a hard time predicting weather next week.

Climate != Weather

And what of those models that determine volume? Wasn't that last months debate about how they were wrong and needed to be recalculated?

Don't know, link?

Anyway, regardless, Siberia is to blame for last years record low (Which I think the 1940's was even lower, but no one can prove that yet) for which they have been keeping track for a total of 10 years - lots of data there.

Record low in 2005, then new record low set last year - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ver/index.html

[geetrue]

Here it is: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012171216

Komfie Manalo - AHN News Writer
Toronto, Canada (AHN) - Scientists on Wednesday said that the breaking of a chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan in Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic is a clear indication of how temperatures are warming the polar frontier.
Arctic ice shelf specialist Derek Mueller of the Trent University in Ontario, Canada said the 19-square-mile shelf is now drifting in the Arctic Ocean after breaking loose in early August. The chunk of ice sheet was part of the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf.
He adds the event underscores how rapid changes are taking place in the Arctic due to global warming.

This one was only 19 square miles another one down in the Anarctic was 160 square miles earlier this year.

[geetrue]

I saw this first, but then I thought good ole subman will see it next ...

So I let it go

Wait a minute your not talking about the 1,400 mile galcier that just fell into the ocean are you. I'll go get the article.

This thing is so big ... the glacier itself very very old.

Didn't the whole thing go crashing off at the same time and thats why it's so big?

[Tchocky]

Geetrue makes a good point, an increase in sea ice can be very bad news, as a result of events like this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441.stm

[moose1am]

Sea Ice is so far off shore that the polar bears are stranded on the land mass and can't swim out to the ice and catch seals this summer. Scientists who were surveying the coast line's shore birds were forced to retreat when a polar bear showed up. Normally this time of the year the polar bears are all out on the sea ice but not this summer.

And yes it was just yesterday that scientists discovered that this shelf of ice had vanished. It fell of into the sea and floated away.

Ice does not melt and ice shelfs don't fall into the ocean when the earth cools down. That only happens as the Earth Warms up.

Remember all it takes is a few degrees of warming to melt ice. Ice melts when it gets above 32 deg F. So ice can go from 31 deg F to 33 deg F and melt. That's only a difference of two deg F. And the mean average temperature of the earth has risen more than 2 deg F.

I don't care where those pictures that Subman posted were manufactured, the Arctic Seas have much less ice now than before.

Why else would Russia start sending Bears out to Patrol the Arctic? They know as we know that the ice is melting up there and exposing rick oil resources for the taking. And they are going to try to claim the outer continental shelf's oil etc. They would not be doing that if there was too much ice covering the Arctic Ocean. But the ice is melting and exposing the water and that's why Russia is going after the oil in this region.

Originally Posted by gee true

I saw this first, but then I thought good ole subman will see it next ...

So I let it go

Wait a minute your not talking about the 1,400 mile galcier that just fell into the ocean are you. I'll go get the article.

This thing is so big ... the glacier itself very very old.

Didn't the whole thing go crashing off at the same time and thats why it's so big?