.png)
The latest report of arctic sea ice was released, since the September minimum has passed and ice is now reforming as winter approaches. The National Snow and Ice Data Center report states that this was the third lowest amount of sea ice on record, but I contend that is missing the point. In this era of dire claims of climate marred by the controversy of global cooling, public dissent, and early season snow, a NASA follow up report appears to ignore the good news: The arctic sea ice is actually expanding!
The first lines of a press release from the NSIDC did state this:
At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
Polar ice has only been studied extensively for 30 years. That small amount of solid data is only part of what many believe to be a larger cycle. It is entirely possible that we have turned the corner, and the recovery of ice has already begun on its own. Even the EPA had a scientiic report that the planet has been cooling for the past decade, and covered it up.
The NSIDC report continues with this positive statement:
Scientist Walt Meier said, “We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”
The charts and diagrams come directly from the NSIDC report. It does clearly show that since the the record lowers ice in 2005, every year since has shown more ice.
This is called young ice since it is new, and not as thick as the long term polar ice cap. That does make it more susceptible to melting in the summer, yet look at the diagram of second year ice in the slide show below. This crucial point that should not be ignored. If ice can survive one summer, then build upon itself the following winter, that is a sign of regrowth. That is a sign that while over the 30 year average the ice is still low, it is recovering. That is a good thing, and should be celebrated. That is also something that should be the focus of the current research.
So why does the NASA report on this ignore the positive? Instead, their statement talked about decline as if it was showing no end or stabilization.
Several recent studies based on data from NASA’s ICESat and QuikScat satellites have shown that, in addition to shrinking geographic ice coverage, the amount of multi-year ice cover – thicker ice that survives more than one summer -- has been declining in recent years.
That is not entirely true, and contradicts the NSIDC statements. See the first few images in the slide show below. This comparison shows the increased ice coverage, and in fact less geographic area without ice. We have a lot of respect for NASA, and honor their accomplishments in this forum often. But there does seem to be an attempt to not include some aspects of the report which is more widely distributed. Consider that just last winter, a report came out that Arctic sea ice underestimated by 193,000 square miles. That is the size of California. During the winter freeze last winter, arctic sea ice returned to 1979 levels. Why was that not mentioned in this report as well?
Instead of the overall decline of ice since 1979, new research should focus on what forces are allowing this ice reformation and whether it will continue? In the face of rising CO2, something or many other things act to influence the ice more.
For the complete images and close up views comparing years see the slide show below.
For more stories on this topic:
- Great Lakes ignore global warming
- Global Warming may stop for years or decades
- Four points of climate change skeptics
Reports mentioned in this story:
Comments
Has Tony not fallen for the snake oil!
Thanks for being another voice in the wilderness.
Yes, since the "low" in 2005, each year has seen more ice than the previous. That's what they call a "trend"!
Why is that being ignored.
Oh yeah, it also contradicts the requisite assumption of Global Warming fearmongers of positive feedback. That is every time it gets a little warmer, that makes it more likely to get warmer still.
Obviously that's not the case. And since their theory is built on that assumption, their theory is disproven by logic.
<blockquote>Several recent studies based on data from NASA’s ICESat and QuikScat satellites have shown that, in addition to shrinking geographic ice coverage, the amount of multi-year ice cover – thicker ice that survives more than one summer -- has been declining in recent years.</blockquote>
<i>That is not entirely true, and contradicts the NSIDC statements.</i>
It is entirely true and it does not contradict the NSIDC.
You are confusing area with volume. Among several other false perceptions you propagate.
Should we also celebrate the amazing sunrise this morning?
Despite pumping more CO2 since 2007, the ice surface area has recovered. Why? Not because of anything we did, rather the way the wind blows over the ice.
So if you celebrate the river running downhill, enjoy.
The new temp data for nov-dec 2008 put the arctic seven degrees above normal. SEVEN degrees above normal. Shall we celebrate that as well?
I will state this again: I am ALL FOR THE GREEN MOVEMENT! We should have been doing this along time ago...nobody is against cleaning up the atmosphere and finding alternative fuel sources. There are a million different reasons for doing these things. However, I do not support the science behind the global warming theory.
I still don't get the premise that more ice is better. It gets in the way of a valuable trade route and inhibits the growth of plankton- the base of the ocean's food chain- also contributes to maintaining vast areas of Canada and Siberia as frozen wasteland.
If all this fuss is only concern for Polar Bears - why not just limit hunting instead?
JP Codwery: Before knocking Tony for false perception- read the darn article! The second statement from NSIDC said they the first and second year ice has been preserved more than in recent years. There is a link to the entire report as well. Clearly NASA DID NOT mention this in their report. Holding on to ice over the summer is the most important part of rebuilding the ice cap. That is happening regardless of rising CO2. You should be more impressed that a member of the media is trying to tell a positive story rather than scaring you. Geees... I'm still waiting for my West Nile Virus and Shark Bites from 2004
This is nearly outrageous! Let's look at paragraph 1.
"The arctic sea ice is actually expanding!" - Are you talking about the annual winter freeze after the sun departs, or the fact that 2009 saw a lower minimum anomaly than 07 and 08? They did not ignore the lower minimum, and the winter freeze is irrelevant.
Par. 2. "It is entirely possible that we have turned the corner" - yes, possible, but statistically unlikely.
The EPA report you reference was done by an economist that did not work on climate at all, and who has admitted it was a bit shoddy.
Par. ? "the amount of multi-year ice cover has been declining in recent years." - yes, exactly - see the green "old ice" in your slide 3, as it goes to the smallest area ever in 2009?
wow..statistics, gotta luv them, you can massage the numbers anyway you want, let's see ice extent or ice volume, ice extent may be marginally improving, but volume is down, there is less ice by volume then ever before. wind patterns this year blew the summer ice in a way that made it appear to have a larger extent. the ironic thing is that as the ice blew out into larger areas it helped to actually melt the ice making it thinner, hence less volume.
i once read on the nsidc site that they consider an area of 15% or more of ice to be solid ice, so an area that is 85% water would still be considered solid ice, interesting.
we are now at approx 390+ ppm co2, with a 460 ppm co2 equivalent(if you include methane and other greenhouse gasses). some scientist's say that hasn't happened in 80 million years. this year the ocean is warmer then ever. i wonder what's next. i live in south florida, believe me it's hot here.
Current data for 15% ice cover in the Arctic is currently at a record low for this date, November 13th - 14th.
I suggest anyone to go look at nsidc's web site and look at the data.
This is the old "area vs volume" crock, it has been debunked one million times already. In reality the ice is shrinking every year and it has been prooven again and again. The misleading interpretation of photographs showing appearently "new and extending" ice is used since many years by the anti AGW crowd, that is nothing new. What they don't tell you is that the extent of new ice by area has nothing to do with it's real quantity.
Don't let yourself mislead by distorted and misrepresented information !
Both sides of the photograph say "September 2009." Is one side supposed to say "September 2007"?
Sorry. I reloaded the page and even though there was nothing in the comment box it reposted.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!