Global Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

KingCondanomation

New member
I believe Don Quixote on here asked those who do not believe in the prevailing theory on global warming, that how do we explain that there is less sea ice? Well the answer is that despite continuing increases in manmade CO2, there is still the same sea ice as 30 years ago.

"Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.


Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions"
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
 
Do you have a link for the actual study?

I checked that research center in IL, and just a year ago, they were concluding that ice was retreating at unprecedented rates that exceeded most computer models...
 
Do you have a link for the actual study?

I checked that research center in IL, and just a year ago, they were concluding that ice was retreating at unprecedented rates that exceeded most computer models...
Did you read the article?
 
Do you have a link for the actual study?

I checked that research center in IL, and just a year ago, they were concluding that ice was retreating at unprecedented rates that exceeded most computer models...
Couldn't find one, but it is a science site and nothing political, you are welcome to ask the author for the source here:
http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=44

And sorry man, I know you're gonna hate me but I saw your name and thought of polar bears and just put 2 and 2 together because I would assume that with the same levels of sea ice, polar bears have the same competitive hunting conditions that they did 30 years ago.
 
Couldn't find one, but it is a science site and nothing political, you are welcome to ask the author for the source here:
http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=44

And sorry man, I know you're gonna hate me but I saw your name and thought of polar bears and just put 2 and 2 together because I would assume that with the same levels of sea ice, polar bears have the same competitive hunting conditions that they did 30 years ago.


Your assumption is incorrect. The world is not so simple.
 
Couldn't find one, but it is a science site and nothing political, you are welcome to ask the author for the source here:
http://www.dailytech.com/ContactStaff.aspx?id=44

And sorry man, I know you're gonna hate me but I saw your name and thought of polar bears and just put 2 and 2 together because I would assume that with the same levels of sea ice, polar bears have the same competitive hunting conditions that they did 30 years ago.

No need to apologize. If you can't link a study, I have doubts about those conclusions, given a variety of studies & articles over the past year showing the opposite:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926194613.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news85069865.html

Sorry, man...
 
No need to apologize. If you can't link a study, I have doubts about those conclusions, given a variety of studies & articles over the past year showing the opposite:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926194613.htm

http://www.physorg.com/news85069865.html

Sorry, man...

While I also want to see the original study, had you read the article he posted it referenced the fact that earlier in the year it was melting but that in the fourth quarter it rebounded sharply. To dismiss it based on articles from earlier this year or last year is simply foolish. Your articles would need to be from the fourth quarter of 2008 to have any merit.
 
While I also want to see the original study, had you read the article he posted it referenced the fact that earlier in the year it was melting but that in the fourth quarter it rebounded sharply. To dismiss it based on articles from earlier this year or last year is simply foolish. Your articles would need to be from the fourth quarter of 2008 to have any merit.
Bingo.
 
While I also want to see the original study, had you read the article he posted it referenced the fact that earlier in the year it was melting but that in the fourth quarter it rebounded sharply. To dismiss it based on articles from earlier this year or last year is simply foolish. Your articles would need to be from the fourth quarter of 2008 to have any merit.

I agree with that, but what kind of trend can a one-quarter rebound represent?

Scientifically, it would seem to be an anomoly based on previous data. Naturally, someone like Dano will jump on that after ignoring all previous data, but does that mean its conclusions, or the one's he is inferring, are sound?
 
I agree with that, but what kind of trend can a one-quarter rebound represent?

Scientifically, it would seem to be an anomoly based on previous data. Naturally, someone like Dano will jump on that after ignoring all previous data, but does that mean its conclusions, or the one's he is inferring, are sound?

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg

Again, I would want to see the data for the above chart, but if it is accurate, then the trend would appear to show that there is no substantial difference in the year over year change. That while it melted more rapidly this year, it also froze more rapidly.

Whether or not his conclusions are sound cannot be determined without the data.

However, IF the data backs up what is stated in the article then there has not been a substantial change to sea ice levels over the past 30 years even though the volatility within the year may have been abnormal.
 
While I also want to see the original study, had you read the article he posted it referenced the fact that earlier in the year it was melting but that in the fourth quarter it rebounded sharply. To dismiss it based on articles from earlier this year or last year is simply foolish. Your articles would need to be from the fourth quarter of 2008 to have any merit.

Classic moving goalposts.
 
I agree with that, but what kind of trend can a one-quarter rebound represent?

Scientifically, it would seem to be an anomoly based on previous data. Naturally, someone like Dano will jump on that after ignoring all previous data, but does that mean its conclusions, or the one's he is inferring, are sound?

The climatologist Lorax speaks!! LOL

Who's in denial here, dude?


cryosphere today

visit the website and learn something ya hackl

here's a graph for you

seaice-feb2008-small.png
 
FOR THE MORONS!!! LAST TIME I POSTED THIS THEY SAID GEE IT GETS WARM IN SUMMER AND ICE MELTS, THEN IN WINTER IT GETS COLD AND ICE GROWS. DUHHH TINFOIL/STIRFRY!!!!


well silly warmers. notice the Anomaly!!!! the fucking red line!!! read the damn graph
 
Back
Top