[Newsbot]

Title: Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-09-05 14:41:11
Canadian

[robmik43]

So...this is 180 degrees from the "other"
story...does this mean there is no real consensus.
Is the N.W. "passage" plugged with ice yet again, instead
of the bloating rotting corpses of polar bears and walrus ?
Or what...... ?

[BartSimpson]

Be careful, the 'true believers' will be along to call you a heretic any moment now.

[CommanderSock]

Errr, the article does have holes in it. It doesn't say the net gain, it just said it 'gained an area approximate to the size of Germany".

Well that's certainly nice, but how much did we loose, and what is the % net gain. The gain in ice coverage is 13%, but he doesn't mention net gain.


Statistics don't lie. Statistitians do.

[BartSimpson]

Considering the previous and dire predictions that the Arctic sea ice was supposed to disappear I'd say that any gain in any statistical format is significant and newsworthy on its own.

[Canadian_Mind]

I agree.

Could be any reason for the recovery. Hope it is permanent.

[Delwin]

This is a complete and total load of cowshit. The announcement by NSIDC this August was actually a warning that 2008 has achieved the second lowest (2007 was lowest)Arctic ice coverage in recorded history and that we are in danger of breaking that record again. Your biased source has used the record to try to demonstrate growth using the lowest arctic ice coverage in history,2007 as a benchmark. Let's see what NSIDC has to say about it in their own words:

$1:

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record


Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082608.html

[Tricks]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Errr, the article does have holes in it. It doesn't say the net gain, it just said it 'gained an area approximate to the size of Germany".

Well that's certainly nice, but how much did we loose, and what is the % net gain. The gain in ice coverage is 13%, but he doesn't mention net gain.


Statistics don't lie. Statistitians do.

Way to read the article...

First, twice the size.

$1:

an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

Next, the gain from last year:

$1:

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low.

$1:

Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

[travior]

Hopefully it holds through next season. I will feel better about it once it gets a layer or two on top to reinforce it.

[ziggy]

travior travior:

Hopefully it holds through next season. I will feel better about it once it gets a layer or two on top to reinforce it.

Dont worry too much,Some people cant figure out that the ice melts every summer and comes back in the fall right up to the circle and points north of that,the records go back to the age of satelites when all the weather records you need are on environment Canada's website right back to the early 40's.some temps are recorded every 5 minutes at allmost all remote weather stations which are situated anywhere there is an airport no matter how remote.Temps get above freezing and things melt,with temps at freezing most of the time it doesnt take much for a change to happen.

Read up on them and you may be surprised at how normal things are still,allthough a 1 degree rise in temps in the spring that came a month early would make for some massive melting.

You have to understand the permafrosts impact on any melting to see why the climate and any melting up there is totally different down here and cant be compared.

Next time there is an early fall in the arctic you will see the ice grow the next year and the fearmongers will be out changing their tune.

As an aside Germany would dissapear in many of the smaller lakes in the north if it was plopped down in one.

[ziggy]

This makes me chuckle!

$1:

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

No shit sherlock,snow is an insulator and they dont get much in the arctic,only what drifts and settles or is produced by hoarfrost.

when I was doing ice profiles in january it was gaining an inch a day up to allmost 8 feet thick and over 10 feet on the bigger water bodies.These researchers should leave their warm universities and come see for themselves.

[ShepherdsDog]

gee, you'd have thought the term arctic desert would mean something to these people. Anyways, based on their own theories a large melt in the arctic would be quickly followed by an increase in ice, as soon as winter returned. Water that is less saline, freezes a lot faster than regular sea water, and more ice coverage reflects back more heat extending the hockey season.

[ziggy]

Lawrence of Arcticia?
Did you know that the Arctic is a desert?

You might be wondering how that could possibly be when it has a whole ocean of water right in the middle of it.

The Arctic is a cold desert because it gets very little precipitation (rain or snow) - about the same amount as the Sahara - but it is so cold that the snow that does fall doesn't melt, so deep snow covers the land and ice.

As long as there is some source of moisture and some way to lift or cool the air, it can snow even at incredibly cold temperatures. However, most heavy snowfalls occur at temperatures just below freezing (15°F/-10°C or warmer) since warmer air can hold more water vapor.

The very cold Arctic air is not able to hold much moisture, and therefore it doesn't rain or snow very often - and that makes it a desert. So there!

[ShepherdsDog]

uhhh...no one here was arguing that it wasn't a desert, just like the Antarctic. An interesting thing about the Sahara is that if the water temperature were to rise a few degrees in the bordering Mediterranean, it would change the air flow and moisture patterns, resulting in increased precipitation patterns over the Northern Sahara.

$1:

You might be wondering how that could possibly be when it has a whole ocean of water right in the middle of it.

$1:

"The ocean is a desert with its life underground
And a perfect disguise above"

America sid it best in A horse with no name".

[ziggy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

uhhh...no one here was arguing that it wasn't a desert, just like the Antarctic. An interesting thing about the Sahara is that if the water temperature were to rise a few degrees in the bordering Mediterranean, it would change the air flow and moisture patterns, resulting in increased precipitation patterns over the Northern Sahara.

$1:

You might be wondering how that could possibly be when it has a whole ocean of water right in the middle of it.

$1:

"The ocean is a desert with its life underground
And a perfect disguise above"

America sid it best in A horse with no name".

Uhhh! I dont think anyone was arguing with you shep.