Maxx
Lv 7
Maxx asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 years ago

The Arctic Ice Extent is at a Seven Year High and is above normal. Was this caused by Global Warming?

----------------------

Update:

Baccheus - I'm just saying what the Graph says and according to the one I'm looking at Arctic Ice is at a Seven Year High and is above low-normal.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data...

----------------------

Update 2:

Dook - Maybe you need a reading lesson. Where do I say anything about volume?

----------------------

Update 3:

Baccheus - The graph still shows what it shows.

----------------------

Update 4:

Splitters - That's a fact but I don't pay any attention to it. And I don't post this stuff for them, I post it for the people that have been propagandized by the man-made Global Warming scam and can still be turned from it.

----------------------

Update 5:

Jeff - Look again. We are currently in the month of March. For this month we are at the high. We have yet to see what will happen next month.

----------------------

Update 6:

Big Gryph - Back in 1947, Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish physicist, predicted the catastrophic loss of sea ice within a few years. In 1969, The New York Times predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 1970. In 2008, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said the Arctic would be ice-free by that same summer. Other prediction suggested the demise of North Pole ice by 2010, 2011, and now 2013 and 2015, and so on.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/world/arctic-sea-ice-...

----------------------

Update 7:

Adrian B - There is no important statistic concerning loss of Arctic Ice, being that we have lost nearly all the ice before.

----------------------

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Ian
    Lv 5
    8 years ago
    Best Answer

    Baccheus gets 10 thumbs up for saying it's low and the graph shows it's well within SD for the month of March?????

    WOW. The alarmist drones are out in full force.

    Do you guys get up every morning chant this for 20 minutes?

    "The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science. The science is settled. Don't question the science..."

    Seriously, you guys are in a cult. I hope you don't give all your money to Al Gore or James Hansen but I could seriously see that happening.

    Please read this

    http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult6.htm

    I think the first step is to acknowledge that you are indeed in a cult. Good luck.

  • 8 years ago

    More likely it was caused by local wind patterns and the phase of the Arctic Oscillation. The long term drop in ice volume however, is almost certainly caused by global warming and is the far more important statistic.

    EDIT: "There is no important statistic concerning loss of Arctic Ice, being that we have lost nearly all the ice before"

    When the discussion revolves around the extent of ice in the Arctic, i would say statistics of extent and volume are very important. If they are not, then don't ask questions about them.

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Maxx: Both, yours and Bacheus's, graphs show exactly the same thing only over different time periods. As you can see from this page - http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data... - 2010 was actually the high. 2007 sea ice extent is substantially less. Of course this is the monthly anomaly. If we look at the average yearly sea ice extent on the same page we see we are nowhere near a 7 year high. This is from your exact same source.

    Maxx: You know it's funny. This exact same discussion was held in 2010 on these boards. After 2010, however, sea ice continued to decrease. I apparently didn't look at the time periods closely enough though. the lower graphs on that page go up to February. However, as you can see, in mid March 2010 there was an abrupt increase in sea ice. this yearly sea ice will disappear come summer. This is why sea ice extent regarding global warming is measured during the summer or the lowest extent. Multiyear sea ice is what matters here not single year sea ice. In 2 weeks I'm sure you won't be able to say "Sea ice is at it's greatest extent in 7 years". You probably will be able to say it is at it's greatest extent in 2 years though. What you're doing is looking at a month of data and coming to the conclusion that the globe is in a cooling trend basically.

  • 8 years ago

    Partly correct. The Artic Ice 'Minimum' is what's trending downward. Young ice AND old melts sooner in the year and freezes later. Every year there's less 'old' ice. Some years there actually be MORE ice by mid winter, but it's thin, easily broken and melts earlier, therefore it never gets to be 'old ice'. Mostly this new 'extent' is composed of 'bergie bits' and floes that drift south..with a lot of open water between the bits and the floes. Basically that's what the overall data says. 'Bergie bits' and floes may accumulate and cover a larger area, but that isn't the same as permanent and solid pack ice. 'Warming' has a lot to do with this...the heat index in the atmosphere rises with the accumulation of CO2 . That 'heat' melts ice...that's why the atmospher is warming only slightly....the world's ice acts as a heat sink...like the ice in your beer cooler. As the cans of brew 'cool', the ice melts as it absorbs the heat of the beer.

    Source(s): Former US Navy Ice Patrol crewman.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Gringo
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    With your logic, a 7 ft tall, 400 lbs weighing man is healthy because you ignore his weight and only focus on his length.

    <<The graph still shows what it shows.>>

    Sure. Like a graph of the man exampled above showing he is 7 ft tall. It 'shows what it shows' but in order to connect it to 'a healthy condition' (or Global Warming in your case), one has to look at all the data, not cherry pick one which suits your interest best and ignore the rest.

    <<Where do I say anything about volume?>>

    See? You willfully ignore it.

  • 8 years ago

    Actually, Arctic ice extent is low.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    "Arctic sea ice extent for February 2012 was the fifth lowest in the satellite record. Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for February ice extent over the satellite record is 3.0% per decade. Based on the satellite record, through 2003, average February ice extent had never been lower than 15 million square kilometers (5.79 million square miles). February ice extent has not exceeded that mark eight out of the nine years since 2003."

    More importantly, that is only extent not volume, and the ice is thinning. Extent can be increased by winds.

    *******

    I traced Maxx's silliness back to Steven Goddard, an amateur blogger who posts factoids to fool stupid people and attract an audience so he can sell advertising. Goddard's source is NORSEX in Norway. You can get the scoop from NORSEX here.

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data...

    Sea ice is declining at a rate of about 4% per decade. The annual minimum is declining by almost 10% per year as more old ice melts each year, but new thinner ice partially covers the lost extent. It is part of the declining ice mass.

    *******

    NASA provides the explanation, the March increase in regional in the Bering Sea and due to winds blowing moisture. This is not old thick ice, but thin temporary ice formed by storms just over the last couple of weeks.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=...

    *******

    The long term trend in arctic ice volume can be found here

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content...

    The trend is -3,000 cubic kilometers per decade.

  • Pindar
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    To be honest , the story/propaganda changes so often it's hard to keep track of the current lies.

    The arctic is so warm it makes the rest of the world cold.

    The Sun's output is constant, except for in the time of dinosaurs when it was dimmer allowing for 10x as much co2.

    Co2 is making the ocean acidic but as it gets warmer it will release more co2??

    like you say you can't talk sense to the brainwashed, but we do need to talk sense into the rest and the young.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Arctic ice is melting at record rates. As the ice melts, less Sunlight is reflected and this also contributes to global warming.

  • 8 years ago

    Yes, Global Warming, ah, I mean, Climate Change, has decided to extent artic ice to a seven year high. Global Warming, ah, I mean, Climate Change is fickle at best. One never knows which way he's gonna blow.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.