Arctic Ice Same in May 1980 as in May 2008 how can that be?

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
1

How does one explain this if global warming is occurring?

[quote]Satellites first started taking measurements of sea ice in 1979-1980. After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Arctic Ice Concentration for May 1980 and May 2008 (click on link to see graphs). These are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado. Note that the total is 10.9 million square kilometers for both years. All the while CO2 levels have gone up. At the other side of the planet, the Antarctic is still experiencing record ice. Since 1980, total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. This also from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
[/quote]

globalwarminghoax.com/commen … nt.news.76

2

Here’s more on Antarctica… Has me scratching my head… how can this be? You will have to click on the link to get access to the images…

[quote]Yet another example of just how far off the mark the main stream media is on global warming. How many times have you heard on the news lately that global warming is now melting Antarctica? The image pretty much speaks for itself, April 2008 had 46% greater Antarctic sea ice extent and 70% greater sea ice concentration compared to April 1980. The penguins are apparently very safe from the effects of global warming despite what the media may lead you to believe. Antarctic Sea Ice for April 1980 and April 2008 - Click on Image for Larger Version from NSIDC Image Courtesy of The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), University of Colorado

The next time you’re watching the news and they show giant chunks of ice breaking off Antarctica remember these images. When the sea ice extends out over the ocean it is going to break off at its furthest extents, that is called calving and is completely normal. If the calving was exceeding new ice growth than perhaps there would be a problem. But its obvious from the satellite images that there is no shortage of ice at Antarctica. All of the melting has been along the southern side of the Western Antarctic peninsula. Every where else Antarctica has seen large increases in ice extent and concentration, including the northern side of the peninsula (see image above).
“The largest iceberg ever spotted was sighted by the USS Glacier on November 12, 1956. It measured 208 miles long by 60 miles wide–the size of Belgium.” - That is long before anthropogenic global warming could have caused it.

Here are some scary headlines from the main stream media.
“Giant Antarctic ice shelf breaks into the sea” Guardian.co.uk - Yes, that is called calving and is completely normal. If you look at the satellite images for various years you’ll say a lot of variation from year to year. One year the western side is losing ice, the next year its the northern side. Some years total ice is way down, a year or two later its back to normal.

“Antarctica’s ice melting faster” - The Australian. They’re specifically talking about the western Antarctic Peninsula. The rest of Antarctica is gaining ice. The images above show just how (relatively) small of an area they’re discussing. It is the are below the peninsula on the left side. But never mind that Antarctica has 50-70% more sea ice, this small area is losing ice so it must be man’s fault. That is a bizarre assumption.

“New Research Confirms Antarctic Thaw Fears” - Spiegel: “the fact that the Antarctic ice melt is happening at the same time as man-made climate change cannot be dismissed out of hand”. What about all of the additional new ice over the rest of Antarctica? Quite amazing that the massive gains in ice over the rest of the continent are ignored while nearly every media outlet runs headlines about the melting on the peninsula. Melting that is quite likely due to cyclic changes in currents and has definitely occurred before.

“Antarctic glaciers calving faster into the ocean” New Scientist - Turns out they’re talking about one relatively small area around West Antarctica

Just a few short years ago (January 2003) BBC managed to report the following from a study appearing in the peer reviewed journal Science.
“Antarctica’s ice sheet melting naturally” - “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been melting naturally and releasing water to the ocean for the last 10,000 years…If the melting continues at its current rate then the WAIS could disappear in 7,000 years, possibly raising worldwide sea levels by five metres…” Did they say “melting naturally”? When is the last time you’ve heard those words in regards to changes at either pole?[/quote]

globalwarminghoax.com/commen … nt.news.69

3

It’s melting from the bottom up.

4

Got a link to support that theory?

And if that were the case, why would the news media make such noise about the EXTENT of Artic ice?

I think that we will be seeing some recovery to that ice very soon.

Also, explain the land-based ice on Antarctica and tell me why that is increasing. Thanks.

5

nothing as swanky as globalwarminghoaxdotcom.

I actually don’t think it’s plausible.

12 steps!

Glaciers melt; runoff causes erosion, beaches expand. Are the mountains getting smaller?

6

Surly:

I have no idea what your response means.

As to the other poster:

Reread the two articles. Did mine say that melting was not occurring on the peninsula or West Antarctica? No?

Overall, however, there has been a discussion of extent of ice cover. Now, satellite images show that the Artic is the same as in 1980 despite 28 years of “global warming” and Antarctica’s ice coverage has extended by 35 percent though not in all areas equally. The author notes the exception is the peninsula. So? How is this possible? How are the satellite images wrong? If there is a theory of “melting from below,” please explain how this could result after 28 years in ice coverage that is the same as in 1980 in the Artic and 35 percent greater in Antarctica? I will need something like a link on this. The simple effortless responses above do not satisfy me. Sorry.

7

Firstly, define clearly your continents here, Fred. As a rule of thumb, the Arctic is that big dripping ice block to the north and the Antarctic is the one to the south. As for doing your legwork, that charity you work for not employing a volunteer lackey these days? No one took over your old post?

I can offer you a clue, try reading what Tim Flannery has to say. Met him recently. He’s a lot more interesting and knowledegable in this area than you, Freddles.

HG

8

My giant book Geologica, printed in 2007, says, and I quote: “In 2005, the British Antarctic Survey and the US Geological survey…found the 87% of the region’s glaciers are retreating at an average rate of about 165 feet per year. It is a recent phenomenon, as up until the 1950s, most of the glaciers were advancing.”

It goes on to say that the glacier retreat on the western side of Antarctica and the shelf ice collapses on the Eastern side is due, researches believe, to “human-influenced climate change.”

Who knows what’s really happening? We are in the Holocene epoch now (11500 years ago to the present) which followed the Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 million years to 11,500 years ago) which was a glacial period.

Ice comes and goes. AFAIK, it’s still going.

9

[quote=“fred smith”]Surly:

I have no idea what your response means.

As to the other poster:

Reread the two articles. Did mine say that melting was not occurring on the peninsula or West Antarctica? No?

Overall, however, there has been a discussion of extent of ice cover. Now, satellite images show that the Artic is the same as in 1980 despite 28 years of “global warming” and Antarctica’s ice coverage has extended by 35 percent though not in all areas equally. The author notes the exception is the peninsula. So? How is this possible? How are the satellite images wrong? If there is a theory of “melting from below,” please explain how this could result after 28 years in ice coverage that is the same as in 1980 in the Artic and 35 percent greater in Antarctica? I will need something like a link on this. The simple effortless responses above do not satisfy me. Sorry.[/quote]

Here is what I have posted.

Here is your response…

[quote]Firstly, define clearly your continents here, Fred. As a rule of thumb, the Arctic is that big dripping ice block to the north and the Antarctic is the one to the south. As for doing your legwork, that charity you work for not employing a volunteer lackey these days? No one took over your old post?

I can offer you a clue, try reading what Tim Flannery has to say. Met him recently. He’s a lot more interesting and knowledegable in this area than you, Freddles.

HG[/quote]

I would imagine that Artic means the north and Antarctic means the south. I would also imagine that only one of these would qualify as a “continent” and that would be Antarctica. Thus one would be highly confused as to how say a peninsula could be part of the floating ice of the north pole or the Arctic. Second, West Antarctica would indicate the area well that forms the western part of Antarctica. What is confusing? To me, only your response. Now, can you explain or can you not explain how the extent of the ice can be increasing by 35 percent in Antarctica (does this need an explanation? If so, it is the one that is a continent and not the big dripping ice block to the north) and that of the North Pole or Arctic (just to help out the ignorant) be the same as 1980 despite 28 years of global warming? Hey, if there is this “melting from down below” theory, let’s have it and why it would make the extent of the ice less relevant than would appear to be the case. Anyone? No? What a surprise.

10

Fred,

ASSUMING your proffered facts are correct,

Get a dictionary and look up heat capacity of water. You may also find, as part of the definition, that it is [quote]an extensive property because its value is proportional to the amount of material in the object; for example, a bathtub of water has a greater heat capacity than a cup of water.[/quote]

realclimate.org/index.php/ar … /#more-529

If after 2010 or so, things haven’t changed dramatically, we can talk some more (and I hope you’re right for our sakes).

11

[quote]Fred,

ASSUMING your proffered facts are correct,

Get a dictionary and look up heat capacity of water. You may also find, as part of the definition, that it is [/quote]

JB:

Aren’t you the one who loves images from satellites? So? Here are two different sets from the University of Colorado. Tell me how or why they are inaccurate or explain why the evidence of ice extent that they show does in fact equate with the exact same levels in 1980, despite 28 years of global warming. Also explain why the ice extent in Antarctica despite the loss of ice along the peninsula and west side is 35 percent greater. Be sure and explain how the bathtub and cup scenario would relate to ice extent. I believe that someone suggested that it was because the ice was “melting from below” and that this would indicate that … that the extent was irrelevant because… help me out here… fill in the blanks.

I mean, it seems as if it were only yesterday when we were reading about how ice levels had shrunk to their lowest level in 30 years. (smirk smirk) and satellite images were used to “prove this” and now here we have the same types of satellite readings which were then used to cause such consternation leading to skepticism and doubts now all the while people like you genuflect before the idea that there is some sort of supposed consensus among scientists on what is happening with the world’s climate.

12

Oh dear Fred, no one buying snake oil today? Well I don’t mean to question the facts from www.globalwarminghoax.com , but NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) tells a very different story.

[quote] Arctic sea ice still on track for extreme melt
Arctic sea ice extent has declined through the month of May as summer approaches. Daily ice extents in May continued to be below the long-term average and approached the low levels seen at this time last year. As discussed in our last posting, the spring ice cover is thin. One sign of thin and fairly weak ice is the formation of several polynyas in the ice pack.
A note on satellite update and intercalibration
The DMSP F13 satellite that has been central to our Arctic sea ice analysis for the past several years is nearing the end of its mission. As is standard data practice, we have transitioned to a newer sensor, in this case the DMSP F15. The DMSP F15 has the same type of sensor as the DMSP F13.
NSIDC has done preliminary intercalibration to assure consistency with the historical record. Further calibration and processing will be necessary, which may slightly affect final reported ice extent values (on average +/- 30,000 square kilometers or 11,600 square miles per preliminary number reported).
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent for May stood at 13.18 million square kilometers (5.09 million square miles), which is 0.28 million square kilometers (0.11 million square miles) greater than May 2007, but is still 0.42 million square kilometers (0.16 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. [/quote]

Also from wiki on ice shrinkage [quote] 2007 saw a record low in summer sea ice, though most of that iced area reformed during winter; the iced area was almost near normal during the winter of 2007-2008.[12] However the amount of thick perennial ice was below levels measured in the previous winter.
[/quote]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shr … rebound-11

How about a peer reviewed paper backing up your claims ?

13

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Fred,

ASSUMING your proffered facts are correct,

Get a dictionary and look up heat capacity of water. You may also find, as part of the definition, that it is [/quote]

JB:

Aren’t you the one who loves images from satellites? So? Here are two different sets from the University of Colorado. Tell me how or why they are inaccurate or explain why the evidence of ice extent that they show does in fact equate with the exact same levels in 1980, despite 28 years of global warming. Also explain why the ice extent in Antarctica despite the loss of ice along the peninsula and west side is 35 percent greater. Be sure and explain how the bathtub and cup scenario would relate to ice extent. I believe that someone suggested that it was because the ice was “melting from below” and that this would indicate that … that the extent was irrelevant because… help me out here… fill in the blanks.

I mean, it seems as if it were only yesterday when we were reading about how ice levels had shrunk to their lowest level in 30 years. (smirk smirk) and satellite images were used to “prove this” and now here we have the same types of satellite readings which were then used to cause such consternation leading to skepticism and doubts now all the while people like you genuflect before the idea that there is some sort of supposed consensus among scientists on what is happening with the world’s climate.[/quote]

Mr Smith,

I believe you are looking at the Surface Area of ice rather than the Volume. It would be an assumption to suggest that a change in surface area is in anyway correlated with a change in the volume.

Can you provide us with any evidence that the volume has remained the same?

Doesn’t your suggestion that polar ice isn’t melting conflict with evidence (not provided by me) of rising sea levels?

14

[quote=“fred smith”]How does one explain this if global warming is occurring?

[quote]Satellites first started taking measurements of sea ice in 1979-1980. After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Arctic Ice Concentration for May 1980 and May 2008 (click on link to see graphs). These are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado. Note that the total is 10.9 million square kilometers for both years. All the while CO2 levels have gone up. At the other side of the planet, the Antarctic is still experiencing record ice. Since 1980, total ice concentration is up 35% and ice extent is up 21%. This also from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado.
[/quote]

globalwarminghoax.com/commen … nt.news.76[/quote]

I guess that’s license to pump more toxins into our atmosphere…

15

Good thread Fred, give 'em hell. And another thing, folks, if the earth’s round as people keep saying how come the edge is so clearly visible? Spheres don’t have edges do they? Maybe we shouldn’t be so fast to believe popular wisdom in the future, huh?

16

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Fred,

ASSUMING your proffered facts are correct,

Get a dictionary and look up heat capacity of water. You may also find, as part of the definition, that it is [/quote]

JB:
help me out here… fill in the blanks.
[/quote]

Dear Jack Ass,

Read the article I linked before you comment. It’s related to the “heat capacity of water” issue. And I’m not debating whether the Anarctica ice is growing; I’m assuming for the purposes of this discussion, those observations are correct… in which case, you are still wrong (see article linked).

Sincerely,

Jack Burton.

17

Who claims the Earth is a sphere? Some crackpot site? It’s flat, and ships fall of at the edge.

Here is a satellite picture to prove my point:

See!?

18

Good thing about global warming? More hot chicks.

19

"This guy brings a bodiless head into a bar, the head asks the bartender for a drink and after he is finished - POOF! (snicker!) - a torso appears. So the head asks for another drink and after it finishes - POOF! - arms come out of the torso. So the head asks the bartender for another drink and when he’s finished - POOF! - legs appear. So the head is thinking “hey, this stuff is great” so the head asks the bartender for one more drink for the rode and - POOF - his whole body dissapears. The bartender turns to him and says “You should have quit while you were a head.”

HG

20

I believe globalwarminghoax.com/ is simply cherry picking data to fit its political agenda. The funny thing is that even the data shown on the Global Warming Hoax website confirms a decrease in Arctic Ice. Their claims about the Arctic ice remaining the same is easily refuted by going to the actual source of their data, The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Global Warming Hoax claims that the ice is the same in May 1980 as in May 2008.

The first picture below is the actual data and maps from the NSIDC from those two months. The maps on the right hand side show ice concentrations from May 1980 (bottom) and May 2008 (top). The “total area” numbers at the bottom of the right hand side maps both show 10.9 million sq km, which on the surface seems to say that both months have the same area of ice cover. But even with the naked eye, one can see that not only does the May 1980 map show more ice cover, its concentration is also higher.

So why are the numbers the same? Read the fine print. Here’s what NSIDC has to say about how “total area” is calculated:

[quote] Important Note: The “extent” column includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. However, the “area” column excludes the area not imaged by the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in the “area” data values in this file at the June/July
1987 boundary.[/quote]

If you look at the maps again, right at the North Pole, there’s a big circle. That area is not included in the “total area” calculation. If you want to get the true “total area” calculation for ice concentration above 15%, take the “total area” number and add 0.31 million sq km for data after June 1987 and 1.19 million sq km before or on June 1987.

Thus, the true reading of the total area (>15% concentration) from May 1980 should read 12.09 million sq km while May 2008 should read 11.21 million sq km, thus showing less ice in May 2008 than May 1980.

The maps of the left hand side show this more clearly, where “ice extent” is shown. Ice extent shows the total area with at least some amount of detectable sea ice. As you can see, May 1980 shows more ice (14.0 million sq km) than May 2008 (13.2 million sq km).

While comparing beginning of Spring ice cover is all fine and well, why doesn’t Global Warming Hoax also show ice cover comparisons from the end of summer? Oh, that’s right, because it doesn’t fit their political agenda.

Below shows a comparison of ice cover at the end of summer: Sept 1980 vs Sept 2007. I think the images are pretty self-explanatory.