flossie asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 years ago

Arctic ice cover appears to have recovered, what does this actually mean in practice?

Arctic ice cover appears to have recovered, what does this actually mean in practice?

2 days ago the graph shows ice cover to be well within "1979-2000 Average plus or minus 2 Standard variations."

What does this mean for Global Warming, is the ice cover to be a permanent feature or just a "blip"?

What do climate realists make of it?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

Update:

Why accuse me of fabricating the graph, it's one used all the time by warmies?

How come the word "volume" is suddenly in vogue, never mentioned before?

Wh is ice extent no longer important?

What personal attack have I made on Jeff, I assue you I couldn't be bothered?

19 Answers

Relevance
  • Ian
    Lv 5
    8 years ago
    Best Answer

    ROFL laughing...I love Adrian B answer. It is a typical alarmist response. If ice extent is down they will keep on droning on and on about how it's indicative of AGW. If Ice extent recovers...it wasn't such a big deal in the first place and you should really be looking at volume. If volume recovers then of course it wasn't such a big deal in the first place and you really should be looking at temperatures. If temperatures stay flat or go down, you really should be looking at ice extent, which hopefully will be down at this time.

    As for ice extent itself, it just proves that it VARIES. Nothing more. Sometimes it will be high, sometimes it will be low. When it's high alarmists will claim it's the wind, when it's low alarmist will claim it's proof of AGW.

    It will be interesting to see what the minimum extent will be this year. I've heard ice free by 2012, 2013, 2050....Like most alarmist predictions as the date approaches they come up with a new prediction as they know the old one will not come true.

    "500 million climate refugees by 2010....Huh? Stupid denier. We NEVER said it would occur in 2010....It will occur in 2020 though...Huh? WTF...We NEVER said 2020....It will occur in 2030 for sure....Huh? Who said anything about 2030?....There will definitely by 500 million climate refugees in 2040 though. That's a fact....Huh? 2040? We NEVER said that....2050 though..."

    @John W..."Excuse me, the Northwest passage has been navigable every summer since 2006. It never was for 6,000 years before."

    Since I know most alarmists lie through their teeth and then keep repeating the lie over and over I had to look that one up.

    From Wiki: On September 14, 2007, the European Space Agency stated that, based on satellite images, ice loss had opened up the passage "for the first time since records began in 1978". According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the latter part of the 20th century and the start of the 21st had seen marked shrinkage of ice cover. The extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable".[4][5] However, the ESA study was based only on analysis of satellite images and could in practice not confirm anything about the actual navigation of the waters of the passage.

    Of course the Northwest Passage has opened up before, but like most alarmist like to think, history is something that should be forgotten.

    http://www.livescience.com/1884-arctic-meltdown-op...

    So, as per usual, an alarmist is lying. How SHOCKING (sarcasm).

  • John W
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Excuse me, the Northwest passage has been navigable every summer since 2006. It never was for 6,000 years before.

    Oil companies aren't laying claims for nothing. Russia isn't claiming Arctic territory out of false science and there's a reason why Canada is ordering 65 more fighter jets and opening a base in Resolute.

    The last link is an animated map of the arctic ice cover from 1980 to 2010.

    Besides the link you've provided clearly shows 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 has significantly less sea ice than 1979-2000 average so how is that a recovery? Note that +/- 2 standard deviation is a 95% range, being inside +/- 2 standard deviations means little but the fact that so much of 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 are outside the +/- 2 standard deviation range is significant. I can only surmise that you must just be trolling for the deniers to put their proverbial feet in their mouths. Don't worry, they do that all on their own.

  • 8 years ago

    Deniers have tried played this game a number of times going back years, jello tried it years ago based on a short term spike ~3 years ago, at the time predicting it spelled the end of AGW of course it felll a short time later and strangely he would not acknowledge this later. That has repeated several times since with other deniers. They want to play up a brief spike over just a few weeks, while ignoring the longer term trends.

    One of your fellow deniers, or you (who really knows) asked this exact same question just yesterday the graph he posted showed the same 3-4 weeks of a spike but he like you seemed to have those pesky denier glasses on that stopped him seeing the 3 months before that which was well below several other recent years at the same time of the year.

    About all this highlights is, as usual, the rather sad and desperate nature of denial as you search for even the tiniest scrape of data to try and prop up your dying cult. Let's see if you have the guts to answer these point or try this question again in a few months when ice levels have dropped back, I strongly doubt it.

  • Jeff M
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    A new made-up chart? I have no clue why you stated my name. Your hatred is burning bright. Good. I'm sure if you were here in 2010 you would have been arguing along with other deniers about sea ice being at a maximum too. However, ice mass and yearly sea ice extent continues to decrease.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/03/Fi...

    But then again why let silly little things called facts get in the way right? Maybe you can quote a few bible verses that would make things right. Or maybe you could continue quoting your out-of-context lines from co2science when faced with the scientific reality.

    Why do deniers have such a problem looking at the cause of an effect rather than just the effect itself and coming to a conclusion based on that? Arguments that only look at the effect and not the cause are very simpleminded.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Ice cover fluctuates all the time in the arctic. Saying it will be permanent is just as much of a stretch as saying it will will disappear. Being that this is March, ice extent should be near the peak this year. With spring onset and summer coming, ice extents will begin to diminish once again.

    Joe Bastardi, among others, is predicting that we will be back to 1970's era weather patterns in the next few years. although much cooler than today, that was still not cold enough to "permanently" freeze the arctic ice.

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    The graph that you’ve linked to has a very limited interpretation as it applies to such a tiny part of a much larger dataset. In order to apply any form of rational conclusion it’s necessary to look at the larger picture.

    What we have in the graph is a comparison of the sea-ice extent in recent months against a historical mean and against the values of 2006-7, although I’m not sure why that year’s been chosen as it has no significance.

    Of course, what’s missing from the graph is a year on year comparison, any long term trends and the year round picture. All of which are essential if any overall conclusions are to be drawn.

    Here’s a graph showing trends over the last 140 years (and a datasource should you wish to create your own graphs)

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/49959...

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.187...

    The orange line on the graph shows the winter sea-ice extent, and as you can see, there’s been something of a decline in recent decades, but not by all that much. Now, if you look at the year round averages or the plots for any other season or the long term trend you can see a much more pronounced decline.

    You need to be careful of interpreting too much into a graph like the one you linked to. Two years ago Anthony Watts was jumping up and down issuing his usual brand of unscientific comments about Arctic sea-ice, proclaiming how much there was and that it was at record levels – the usual stuff.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/earth-gives-...

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-i...

    One month later and the sea-ice extent was at an all time record low, strangely Watts kept very quiet about that one and deleted all the comments on his website where people pointed that out.

    As always, look at the larger picture. Climate change is like a jigsaw, you shouldn’t try and determine the overall picture by looking at a single piece.

  • 8 years ago

    It means that over the past few weeks winds have blown over the Bering Sea and the moisture has temporarily frozen. This is temporary new and very thin ice. It says nothing about the ongoing decline of permanent ice which has been declining at almost 10% per decade.

    Temporary thin ice is indeed just a blip. It is more telling to look at the annual minimums because that shows the amount of ice that has lasted through a year. It is also more telling to look at volume rather than surface. I provided links to these data in an answer yesterday for those who are interested.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Will depend on the long-term trend. Annual variation doesn't really mean much, believe another post similar in topic had reference to the reasons behind the latest Artic ice extent. Also remember there are is more than ice extent in the Artic (hence called global warming, not northern hemisphere or artic warming).

  • 8 years ago

    A single year swerving into a confidence interval of a 21 year mean +/- 2 standard deviations wouldn't pass as "recovery" to anyone.

    As soon as a multi-year *mean* does so then you might have a story worth telling.

    This is all inconsequential anyways as extent and volume are two entirely different things as mentioned several times above.

  • 8 years ago

    It means nothing to the warmies. They will alter their lies and Jeff M will come up with a new chart made by a left handed pigmy Eskimo who sleds to work drawn by a across between reindeer and polar bears with his right pinky in the air. That is real solid evidence.

    Darn, Darn. Why do all theses facts get in the way? I told that Dumkopff Al Gore to stick with the Ice Age. That would be working right now.

    EDIT: 6000 years ago? Who sailed it? Was it Moses or Noah? Look in history and find out who was walking the earth at that time. I think that even predates them. You have to remember Columbus didn't discover the American Continent until 1492 B.C.E. (or AD). We should pull the warmie trick and say PROVE IT. Anyway he was only off a couple of zeros. In the warmie books that is nothing. East Anglia does it all the time.

  • Maxx
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    John W --- Arctic Ocean passage open for the first time in 6,000 years? Then why do you think it’s called a "passage" ? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it was open in early 1900′s, and that was long before cars and planes and big industry as you might be aware.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/northwest-passage?cat...

    1903-1906 Roald Amundsen's ship, the Gjoa, completed the first successful east-to-west trip through the Northwest Passage.

    1942 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner, St. Roch, completed the first west-to-east voyage through the Northwest Passage.

    1969 The U.S. icebreaker-tanker Manhattan became the first commercial ship to complete the passage.

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

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.