Get Out Your Hip Waders, The Arctic Is Melting!

Published on July 9th, 2009

Posted by Uncle Dave in Ecology, Research, science

Everybody panic! The horror that Al Gore told us about is happening even faster!!!

A new study from NASA has revealed how Arctic sea ice thinned between the winters of 2004 and 2008. The study utilized NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to allow researchers with NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle to, for the first time, measure ice coverage over the entire Arctic basin.

In the winter, Arctic ice thickens due to the sun setting for several months and ocean currents lessening. In the summer, there are long sunlight-filled days, stronger ocean currents, and wind to melt the ice. A lot of ice melts each year, but each year some thicker, older ice survives. This older ice is 9 feet thick, typically, as opposed to the single-year ice which is on average 6 feet thick.

According to the satellite measurements, the ice has been thinning at a rate of 7 inches per year for a total of 2.2 feet in the last year. Multi-year ice, meanwhile, shrunk by 42 percent. Ice cover, meanwhile decreased 595,000 square miles — nearly the size of Alaska’s land area.

It’s not all bad news:

A melting ice cap may unlock new oil deposits and shipping routes.

Guess we’ll soon be like the Dilbert characters, the Elbonians, whose land is under water and mud.

79 users responded in " Get Out Your Hip Waders, The Arctic Is Melting! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:39 am

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | April 18, 2009

# 2 Named said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:42 am

May I ask a question? Is it not LAND based ice melting that would be the problem? Ice takes up the same volume as water, so ice in water makes no difference. But, land ice melting would INCREASE the water level since there is a net gain of water…

Or, should I have stayed in grade 6 science instead of smoking Benson and Hedges in the parking lot?

# 3 Molloy said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:50 am

@Named

When water freezes it increases in volume by about 10%.

Maybe it’s because alot of the ice is floating, only the parts that are under the water level are displacing an equivalent volume of water.

NASA have done a study where they expect there to be global cooling of 1 degree each year this century. I’d say that’s what’ll happen. Or else the earth will flood lots of places, kill a ton of us off, and thereby correct things. The earth will correct itself, the idea that we are going to destroy or save it is ridiculous.

# 4 Borat said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 am

We need to grow more sponges underwater to soak it up. <;)

# 5 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 am

# 3 Molloy said, “Maybe it’s because alot of the ice is floating, only the parts that are under the water level are displacing an equivalent volume of water. ”

You’re joking, right?

# 6 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:57 am

The Antarctic is towards the South Pole.

The Arctic tends more towards the North Pole.

I’m glad to see you’re as accurate with your comments and as precisely on-topic as ever.

Now tell us how this whole thing is Obama’s fault, blah blah blah…

# 7 Rick's Cafe said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:00 am

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/08/accuweathers-joe-bastardi-the-science-is-in-crowd-does-not-want-them-to-see-facts-and-parts-of-us-to-have-year-without-a-summer/

# 8 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:01 am

# 6 WhereIsDead? said, “The Antarctic is towards the South Pole.”

Yes, but it is undisplaced ice and thus would influence sea level, the Arctic ice is already displaced…

I’m glad to see that you are as uneducated as ever…

# 9 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am

#8,

Right, there’s a story about ice getting thinner at the north pole, so you quote a story about ice getting thicker at the south pole.

The two things obviously go together because – because you say so?

Obviously, what’s happening at the north pole is therefore… what? Not happening at all or not important at all? What’s your implication here? You’re an expert at changing sea levels? Where did you acquire that expertise? During the last Ice Age?

I guess you divined everything was all going to even out in the end during your ten years, giving scientific advice to the senior scientists where… at the south pole or at the north pole… or at both poles? You really get around, don’t you?

Can’t come up with any reason to blame Obama for this one yet? Come on! Where’s your imagination today?

# 10 Rick's Cafe said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:21 am

just a couple other items.

iceagenow.com/Nisqually_Glacier_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Mount_St_Helens.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Glacier_Peak_WA.htm
iceagenow.com/California_Glaciers_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Alaskas_Hubbard_Glacier_advancing_7_feet_per_day.htm
iceagenow.com/Alaskan_Glaciers_Advance_One_Third_Mile.htm
iceagenow.com/Alaskan_Glaciers_Grow_for_First_Time_in_250_years.htm
iceagenow.com/Largest_glacier_in_Argentina_advancing.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Canada_tallest_mountain.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_in_Norway_Growing_Again.htm
iceagenow.com/New_Zealand_Glaciers_Growing.htm
iceagenow.com/Mont_Blanc_glacier_almost_doubles_in_size.htm
iceagenow.com/Glaciers_Growing_in_Western_Himalayas.htm
iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Growing_Thicker.htm
iceagenow.com/Antarctic_ice_growing_not_shrinking.htm

# 11 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:31 am

#10

Forget Darwin’s theory of slow, stately, orderly evolution. In this fast-paced, well-written book you’ll learn how magnetic reversals trigger evolutionary leaps; you’ll learn that those leaps recur according to a predictable, natural cycle, and you’ll learn that the next beat of that cycle is due!

Good source you have there! I hope he sells lots of books – to lots of morons.

# 12 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:32 am

# 9 WhereIsDead? said, “Right, there’s a story about ice getting thinner at the north pole”

And then a comment from UD about rising sea levels…

Are you REALLY as dense as you appear?

# 13 Heisenberg's Cat said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:34 am

Keep your powder dry….! Food riots to follow.

# 14 newrepublican said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:42 am

No worry about panic. Ennui and inaction are central to the American Way of politics.

Pundits and professional skeptics will simply move to higher ground. They can afford to.

# 15 GetSmart said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:43 am

This dang Global Climate Change has got the weather all screwed up these days. It’s not nice and predictable like it was when I was a’growin’ up, nossir, and -HEY! YOU! get offa my lawn! Dadgum whippersnappers, no respect anymore.

# 16 chuck said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:46 am

You know what’s great about this discussion?
People can argue different points. They can make mistakes and others will correct them.
They can make assertions and others expect them to back it up with facts.

And we all learn through the process.

Isn’t this better than “The debate is over”?

# 17 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:49 am

#12

I’d point out you are a spectacularly stupid troll who makes up transparently ridiculous stories about topics of which you are utterly ignorant — but that would violate the Commenting Guidelines, so I won’t.

You see, I’m familiar with stupid people because I have to deal with them everyday. That makes me qualified to Comment on them.

Just once, I’d like to read your real qualifications about anything at all and please, not the imaginary ones. That list is just way too long.

By the way, how did you become an expert on changing sea levels? Just curious.

# 18 LibertyLover said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:59 am

#17, Mr. Fusion, is that you hiding in another name again?

# 19 deowll said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:59 am

The thickness of the sea ice doesn’t have much if anything to do with sea level anywhere. However this comes and goes. At the height of little ice age Iceland spent at least one summer with sea ice all around it. Since they lived by fishing at the time this may have done a good deal to reduce the local population unless they went fishing with success through the sea ice. A lot of people starved and froze to death during that time frame.

Due to low sunspot activity it should be expected that the planet is cooling. There is a known connection.

People who think they know how the climate is going to act with any great certainty are out of their freaking minds. There are to many factors we are still discovering that aren’t even in our modals.

Dust storms in Africa impact the hurricane season in the America’s hugely and those move a lot of energy around. Okay they both do but you do get the idea.

Some guy is now predicting long range major weather events for months in advance just based on solar activity and he’s either awful lucky or he has a point: Solaris rules!

# 20 Named said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:05 am

18, Liberty Lover

Can’t you tell by the semantic usage that it’s NOT Fusion? You’re obviously not an investigator…

# 21 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:13 am

# 18 LibertyLover said, “#17, Mr. Fusion, is that you hiding in another name again?”

It does sound like his typical response to being totally owned. Definitely a sock puppet.

# 22 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:16 am

# 17 WhereIsDead? said, “By the way, how did you become an expert on changing sea levels? Just curious.”

Read up on Archimedes and you too can become an “expert” on displacement. ROLFLMAO!

# 23 Named said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am

21, Paddy-0 (Still a ZERO! Extremely clever!)

Nah. Only certain people here change names, but never their words…
ಠ_ಠ

Glad to see you and LL are still BFFs…

# 24 LibertyLover said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:19 am

#21, His worship of you was the giveaway.

I’m beginning to think there is really only one fasciso-liberal on this board and he goes by many names . . .

# 25 Named said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am

24, LibertyLover

Was that a pun? Cause if it was, a capital would have made it even better! Good job, old man!

# 26 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am

# 24 LibertyLover said, “I’m beginning to think there is really only one fasciso-liberal on this board and he goes by many names . . .”

I think that theory has merit.

# 27 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:34 am

#21

It does sound like his typical response to being totally owned. Definitely a sock puppet.

LOL. Magnificent LOL argument on your LOL own behalf. LOL How do you LOL come up with these LOL insightful LOL innovations in LOL discourse? LOL. Can’t answer any LOL questions, can you LOL?

LOL ROLFLMAO

#22

Read up on Archimedes and you too can become an “expert” on displacement. ROLFLMAO!

LOL. You didn’t LOL answer any LOL questions LOL again. What are you, LOL, a petulant LOL child? ROLFLMAO.

Anyone can say LOL “look this up”. LOL. Anyone. Any LOL idiot on the LOL face of the LOL Earth.

So, exactly where LOL does LOL Archimedes LOL explain the LOL last LOL displacement of LOL the entire LOL Arctic LOL ice mass?

ROLFLMAO

Somehow, I don’t think you’re actually laughing, Patrick. Could you please stop using those silly lines of meaningless characters? They’re irritating and they make you appear to be a child or an immature juvenile.

# 28 Jason said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:37 am

WhereIsDead?

It is this simple. When you fill your glass of ice with water to the very rim, does it overflow when the ice melts? The answer, BTW, is NO.

This is also the case for sea ice. The only difference is scale. As Patrick pointed out, the Archimedes principle is all you need to know.

Beyond that, if you cannot understand the significance of ice forming at the South Pole (On Land) and how it will cause the sea level to go down due to less water in the oceans/less ice in the oceans, you really are the idiot you have lead one to believe.

And as has been noted above in the comments and as can be found all over the place, the ice is growing again at the NP and shows no signs of slowing down. This approaching winter will, obviously, show a MASSIVE increase in 3rd year ice so I cannot wait to see how Hansen and Gore are going to respond to this.

See, unlike the credit scam, global warning can be detected by ANYONE. When there are colder summers, more rain/snow and more ice forming all over the place, you cannot “wag the dog” near enough to “prove” that there is still global warming.

# 29 qb said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:50 am

I know someone well who lives on the arctic circle and is a naturalist for Parks Canada. This is what she’s seeing.

I don’t know about ice but the animal populations are having problems or changing. They are seeing birds and insects (birds follow insects, right?) that have never been seen before and Inuit are inventing new words for things like robins and starlings.

The polar bears are suffering since the pack ice is melting sooner. They often starve because they can’t hunt seals on the ice long enough anymore.

If you really want to know what’s going on in the arctic, don’t ask Al Gore, ask someone who’s lived on the land all their life.

# 30 Stars & Bars said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:21 am

The real agenda behind Climate Change.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming – “The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it’s supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way,” (CBS)

# 31 Don Quixote said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:25 am

Only fools or Republicans (same thing really) would argue global warming. I just don’t understand their opposition. It’s a chance to rip off the silly Democrats by offering to manage their money for them during this climactic period.

They have proved themselves to be so adept at handling that task haven’t they.

# 32 tcc3 said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am

You know Patrick you are often more confrontational than you need to be, but you get a slow clap for the Archimedes bit.

# 33 iCurmudgeon said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am

So the arctic ice is melting. Instead of running around like chicken little, take advantage of the opportunity. One of the bigger problems we have today is the developing scarcity of fresh water, right? So why not develop ways to siphon off the melting ice (it’s fresh water) and send it to where it’s needed?

(by the way, if anyone uses this idea, I want 15% of the gross profits from your venture.)

# 34 Mr Diesel said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am

People bring up Polar Bears all the time in equation. Like Noah Wyle doing his blatant lie TV commercial about how they are dying off.

Wonder why their population has increased almost 5 fold in the last thirty years then?

Using the map from the World Wildlife Fund you can clearly see that the PB population is INCREASING in the largest area for which they have accurate data. If you look real close you will also see that the PBs in that area are nowhere near the Arctic ice.

Let’s see now, you take meteorological (weather) data temps from gauges next to asphalt parking lots and air conditioner vents, then you place instruments on moving ice floes and say all the ice just disappeared.

What a bunch of dumbass chicken littles.

# 35 chuck said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am

So much for my ridiculous idea that we could have a reasonable discussion of this topic.

# 36 green said, on July 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am

The magnetic pole is moving fast – 40km a year.

Weather patterns are changing, The sun is frying UPSs in Datacenters around the world.

I’m off to watch the latest episode of Ice Road Truckers…

# 37 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am

# 28 qb said, “They are seeing birds and insects (birds follow insects, right?) that have never been seen before and Inuit are inventing new words for things like robins and starlings.”

Nothing new. This has happened before (while man walked the Earth) and we survived, flourished, multiplied, all with no more technology than fire & bear skins. And that was with temps higher than they are now or will be in 100 years…

# 38 dusanmal said, on July 9th, 2009 at 9:23 am

At the same time period (particularly since late 1980’s) Mars poles are also melting… Guess we humans spew pollution way out there…

By the way, Mars poles are melting faster than Earth’s… Simplified guesstimate: our actions are actually reducing global warming due to the Sun, more pollution please or poles will melt faster.

# 39 amodedoma said, on July 9th, 2009 at 9:43 am

North polar ice won’t add to ocean depth. It will affect salinity and currents – also very worrysome. Greenland and Antartica worry me more as far as the rising tides. Since we humans will face appocalypse at the end of 2012 it won’t matter very much if the weather gets harsher or the sea gets deeper.

# 40 Traaxx said, on July 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am

I say this is Bullshit total, more politically motivated propaganda to the President Huessain will be pleased with his little NASA. Their reports are so tainted as to be silly to even consider then anymore.

Globally the temps have gone down 7.2 degrees wiping out the increases and making the new taxes for nothing other then making Demoncrats richer. According to Al Gore we should all be standing in several inches of water about now, has that happened, NO. Again Demoncrat BS, so they can rip off everyone.

Whatever……….
Traaxx

# 41 ManBearPig said, on July 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am

Has the arctic ice ever been this thin before?
I submit that it has.

You have to admire the pro-AGW folks, they sure don’t let the facts get in the way! Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to paint my roof and my car white, I live in california after all!

# 42 Rick's Cafe said, on July 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am

One could argue that NASA is just trying to get on the good side of the boss by releasing this data.
usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/06/11/nasa-budget-cut-by-congressional-committee.htm

#11
Besmirched me and the author – but you forgot to debunk or even debate the data….oops.

# 43 tcc3 said, on July 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am

Why would NASA start sucking up to the boss now? They’ve been reporting these sorts of studies for years, even when Bush made it clear they were frowned upon.

# 44 freddybobs68k said, on July 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

@ 42

Right. Good point.

It’s all getting a little silly. Anything that disagrees with a sides point of view _must_ be due to some backhander, funding or ’sucking up’. It’s all a scam… obviously.

Believe it or not most scientists have integrity and are trying to do good science.

Anyways – I still haven’t heard a good argument against trying to be more efficient. So if you don’t think global warming is happening why not buy into that.

The deniers argument is ‘we don’t know for sure’, ‘we don’t know for sure we make any difference’, ‘the climate changes deal with it’. So do nothing. But that’s not too smart, if the impact (even if unlikely) is huge and it avoids any of the advantages of doing something about it (efficiency).

A few more arguments of the form of climate change ‘doesn’t exist’/'we can’t do anything about it’ but we should try to be more efficient – would prove something. So far I haven’t seen one of those anywhere, which makes me dubious.

# 45 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

#41

In order to argue facts, there first must be facts to argue. There is no way to debunk or debate someone else’s imagination.

You can therefore cease being afraid. Calm yourself.

You’re perfectly safe inside your own mind – today and every day.

# 46 Patrick said, on July 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Whatever the final outcome (warming/cooling) it will be fun to watch. If you live in Canada warming would be great. MUCH more land for living and growing on…

Remember, climate change is a constant for this planet…

# 47 Rick's Cafe said, on July 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

#43
Naw, ya missed what the Deniers are saying – not that I speak for them, but:

Not denying that climate changes.
Not denying that minimizing pollution is a positive, necessary aspect of human life (look at NYCity circa 1900 w/horses).
Not denying there are beneficial cost savings in being efficient.

WILL deny the premises that one person (Gore, Obama, etc) knows more than anyone else based on the power he temporarily has.
Will deny that the most effective/efficient way to produce ‘alternative’ fuel resources is for one single person to say so and then enforce the statement with taxes.
Will deny that any ‘alternative’ fuel developed by the mandate of one person (ie:government) will be successful.
Will deny that any climate change is man made and can be corrected by actions that men make – if only for the reason that people who are always wanting to take my money and tell me how to live my life are the only ones who are saying it’s true.

Will NOT deny that if fuel prices go up due to a true scarcity (ran out, radiated, contaminated, etc)and NOT a make believe government scheme to collect more taxes (or stock market scam), natural market forces will develop an alternative that works cheaper and more efficent than anything else.

[and for those afraid of things that go bump in the night, the closet door has been opened a crack in the middle/far east]

Does that simplify things for ya….or just make it more confusing?

# 48 freddybobs68k said, on July 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

@ 46

Gotcha.

They are out to get you. You hear them in the night. They and their puppets. There are lots of them. You are very very very scared.

What’s so scary? The government. Those wacky scientists. Al Gore.

You’d think it was a dictatorship, and they were hunting you down for the dog you are. But you live in the land of the free. Or so you preach at the sad unenlightened idiot nations of the Earth.

Quick lets spread American style democracy around the world. It scares the bejesus out of you, but its great. Or is it to scare the sh*t out of everyone else too?

What a load of old rubbish.

There there. It will be alright. The evil guvvy wuvvy won’t come and go bump in the night. You’ll be alright…

Boo.

# 49 MikeN said, on July 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Note the detail on multi-year ice. That is thrown in because ice levels increased instead of producing an ice-free arctic as some predicted.

They can talk about a low level of 2-year ice, and then the next year a low level of 3-year ice.

# 50 sargasso said, on July 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Until you’ve tried Elbonian cuisine, you haven’t experienced the full scale of human barbarity.

# 51 dano said, on July 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

those pic are photoshopped. they’re exactly the same with the ice erased — see ref. the clouds

# 52 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

#46

I’m really sorry but I only speak, read and write English. I appreciate your efforts but I simply didn’t comprehend most of what you wrote.

Maybe it’s all this smog, so thick I can’t hardly see through it. It must be volcanoes causing it, right?

#48

Tell it to the Inuit. They live up there. They say there’s a problem with less ice.

I don’t live up there, so I can’t testify firsthand.

Do you? Live up there, I mean? You seem so sure of yourself! When is the last time you walked the Arctic ice?

# 53 Glenn E. said, on July 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I was reading at the doctor’s office an article in a Science magazine, about the the ESA putting a satellite in space (in April) to accurately measure the earth’s gravity. And determine a more correct “sea level” or zero altitude, over the globe. And NASA has a similar satellite program to map earth’s gravity over ten years (apparently it changes).

So all this maps and recalculating what is zero altitude, calls into question…. How can they say with any accuracy what thickeness sea ice is, was, or should be, based on the older, less accurate standard of “sea level” determination. That method can be off by 20 inches or more, I believe. So it doesn’t sound like we ought to get out the waders just yet, if their two foot decline in sea ice, is based on a measurement method from the early 20th century (level surveying from the coast, inland). And gravity is stronger at the poles, versus the equator. Causing the sea level there to be deeper, as it “holds onto” more water. That, and the slower circulation patterns and colder temps, is what causes sea ice to form. IF, sea ice is thinning. It could be the result of any number of factors. A change in water flows, solar activity, less atmospheric pollutants (blocking the sun) than existed decades ago (either man-made or from volcanic sources). Not just “it’s man’s fault”, so “let’s blame America”. Well what about the increased industrial production in China and Russia? They could be pumping warmer waste waters into the currents that effect the arctic.

But it seems that if America can’t be solely blamed, the international cabal of global climate crybabies don’t want to hear about it.

# 54 RSweeney said, on July 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

See it live and know that global ice stopped shrinking but instead is above normal levels.

cryosphere.com

# 55 JimR said, on July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

#50, dano… you are right! It’s been photoshopped. Would any Gore believers like to explain that?

# 56 WhereIsDead? said, on July 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

#53 RSweeney

What does one of those phony ‘this domain name is for sale’ alleged search engines have to do with anything except spam and infecting people’s Windows computers with spyware?

# 57 MikeN said, on July 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

#51, no I haven’t been there, but the Catlin Ice Survey had an expedition earlier this year.

They were going to take important measurements of the ice on their way to the North Pole, with real time tracking on their web site. Turns out the live biometric data on the site was a fake, it was TOO COLD for them to finish their journey, and they had to be airlifted out, while leaving behind fuel drums and the like as litter.

# 58 clancys_daddy said, on July 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

The point only a fool would deny global warming is not quite true. Only an individual with no understanding of basic environmental science would deny global warming. All scientists agree with the physical model of global warming. External radiation is either reflected back into space, or enters the earths atmosphere. At this point some of the energy it either trapped or radiated back into space. The trapped radiation plays a part in warming the planet allowing the relatively stable climate, that allows the planet to support the multitude of life that we have. The argument is whether or not man has the ability to effect this equilibrium. The jury is still out, except to those with an agenda on both sides. If all the ice at the north pole were to melt there would be no major difference in sea levels due to the apparent addition of water. Simple third grade experiment place ice and water in a glass, mark the level of the water. Wait for the ice to melt, note any difference in water level. The reason ice floats is that as it reaches 4C the molecular lattice expands as the like charges repel each other. The density of water changes as it gets colder; water becomes more dense per unit volume as it cools. Don’t believe me jump into a lake during the summer warm water on top, now dive down even as little as five feet and notice the temperature change. Ice is less dense than the liquid water, IE it floats like oil on water. Not due to the principal of displacement (battle ship in a bathtub analogy). The salinity aspect changes are a significantly more troubling issue, as some climate models show a potential for fast and extreme cooling leading to severe cold weather for north America and Europe. This is not a change in the overall global climate on the short term, but more of an expanded aspect of a micro climate.

“The inability to respect the views of another in common discourse without resorting to name calling is the sign of ones own insecurity”
clancys_daddy

# 59 Cap and Babble said, on July 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Our coastlines can not be saved by carbon credit cards with introductory low interest rates.

# 60 Stars & Bars said, on July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

The “debate” may be over but the court case is not.

It is all about robbing the average Joe via legalized theft a.k.a. taxes.

# 61 brendal said, on July 9th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

I thought the sky was falling…

# 62 MikeN said, on July 10th, 2009 at 1:54 am

#58, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase temperatures by a little over 1C. The question is whether you believe there will be a factor of 5 or more positive feedback as the scaremongers say? They are very good at finding one positive feedback after another, which all sound good in theory, and in some cases can be observed as well. They just don’t seem to put as much of an effort into finding negative feedbacks. Even aerosols got added to the mix after Mt Pinatubo erupted, and the chemists’ arguments could no longer be ignored.

# 63 Mr Diesel said, on July 10th, 2009 at 3:20 am

#51 dano

Good catch. I’m surprised that no one caught that sooner.

Proves that the climate change people are a bunch of lying bastards. Algore and the ilk like him will stop at nothing to line their pockets and do it on the backs of the people paying taxes.

# 64 WhereIsDead? said, on July 10th, 2009 at 4:03 am

Sorry, I’m going to have to go with the observations and opinions of the people who’ve lived up there for many thousands of years. If they say it’s changing bad, it’s changing bad.

No arguments by scientists or people with agendas quoting scientists or morons on blogs who know nothing whatsoever, hold quite that much weight with me.

Even the giant oil corporations you all seem to worship for whatever utterly insane reasons are getting into the new oil rush. If you can’t trust a bunch of oil corporations to tell you the truth when profits are involved, who can you trust?

Oh, yeah, the Northwest Passage is navigable pretty much all year now, for the first time in human history. Hey! Maybe that’s a big fat lie, too? We’ll have to warn all those ships.

Idjits.

By the way, those aren’t photographs of the ice. They’re representations of where the ice is now compared to where the ice used to be. Nobody said it was a photograph or a representation of how the clouds have changed.

Unimaginative idjits, too.

# 65 Mr Diesel said, on July 10th, 2009 at 5:55 am

#64 WhereIsDead

I would be the first to agree with you except for one small detail about the satellite images in the article. It clearly says in the caption that they are images, from a satellite, not a representation of the ice melting. That implies two images (plural) and not one.

That means one was doctored for effect.

Idjit

# 66 JimR said, on July 10th, 2009 at 8:12 am

Well clancys_daddy? You said “All scientists agree with the physical model of global warming.” As it turns out at least 30,000 disagree including 9000 of which hold doctorates.

# 67 MikeN said, on July 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am

#64 I didn’t realize the Inuit were immortal.

# 68 MikeN said, on July 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am

According to http://climateaudit.org/

the northern hemisphere ice extent in June is at its average level for the last 30 years, and during the last 30 years, there has been no decrease in ice, with the Southern Hemisphere showing an increase equal to the decrease in the Northern Hemisphere.

# 69 MikeN said, on July 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am

Media tend to doomsday when addressing environmental issues.

http://tinyurl.com/lgm6b5

This site seems to have figured that out already.

# 70 Alfred1 said, on July 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am

It’s about time the ice age end and the dinosaurs retake the land…damm ice age isn’t to their liking.

Back when Greenland was green, not covered with ice, before environmentalists began clamoring for the ice age to continue…everything was warm and cozy.

# 71 WhereIsDead? said, on July 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

#65 Mr. Diesel

That means one was doctored for effect.

Exactly!!!! What’s your point? Don’t read the cutline added by the publication or web site, look at the label on the image:

Sea Ice September 21, 2005
Sea Ice September 16, 2007

Is it your point that’s NOT where the sea ice was on those dates? What possible evidence could you have? Did you take your own measurements from your own satellite?

Are you saying NASA is a giant conspiracy, designed to do nothing but fool you? From what I can see, it wouldn’t take the resources of NASA.

Unimaginative, uninformed idjits.

#67 MikeN

I didn’t realize the Inuit were immortal.

Thanks for the intelligent and useful contribution.

Some peoples have an oral tradition and memory that lasts longer than five to seven minutes.

You’d best think about that real quick now – before you forget it and it’s gone forever.

# 72 Patrick said, on July 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

# 49 MikeN said, “Note the detail on multi-year ice. That is thrown in because ice levels increased instead of producing an ice-free arctic as some predicted. ”

The same applies as to why it is now called “climate change” rather than global warming. When the warming was debunked, they shifted marketing/pr gears and rebranded it as “climate change”.

# 73 Rick's Cafe said, on July 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

So what have we learned today?
Climate changes…it cycles from cold, to hot and back again – much like the sun rising and setting everyday, just not as fast.

Some people don’t like change.
Other people are greedy.
The greedy people like to make the people who don’t like change, feel guilty. To make them believe that the change is all their fault. The greedy people know that once these people feel guilty, they’ll want to ‘fix it’. The greedy people tell you that the only way to resolve this guilt (and ‘fix it’) is to do what they say.

Other people may or may not like change, but they tolerate it.
They show patience and compassion towards those who are afraid of change.
They call the greedy people crooks.
For this effort they are given all sorts of mean nasty labels by the greedy crooks who stay in power by keeping everyone ignorant.

The sun will rise, the sun will set. Man does not need to pay extra taxes or do other silly things because of this ‘change’. If you do as the crooks tell you, you will still watch the sun rise and set, but you will be poor and the crooks will be rich.

# 74 clancys_daddy said, on July 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

#66 pardon me, which part of the fundamental model do they disagree with? Look again at my statement. “External radiation is either reflected back into space, or enters the earths atmosphere. At this point some of the energy it either trapped or radiated back into space. The trapped radiation plays a part in warming the planet allowing the relatively stable climate, that allows the planet to support the multitude of life that we have.” I stand by my statement and will place my doctorate up against theirs. The only real argument is again, is man changing the climate: which is still an open debate. I am not taking a side simply showing the general public’s lack of fundamental science knowledge, and critical thinking skills. The two arguments are either the sky is falling or gee no problem. Neither is the true statement. The absolute worst thing that can happen is the human race becomes extinct and we take some species with us. The planet will continue to orbit the sun until it uses up its fuel and expands to the point it incinerates the plant. Since barring some major catastrophic change in the sun, the human species as we know it will be extinct anyway. Don’t buy into the scifi crud as knowledge star trek, and BSG were fun shows but were fiction. Man will go the way of 99% of all the species that have ever existed. The question is will we do it to ourselves, are we doing it already, or will time do it for us? Any which way humans are toast.

# 75 MikeN said, on July 11th, 2009 at 5:26 am

Where, if I asked you what the record temperatures or snow level were for your area, would you have any idea? How could these Inuit know that this has never happened in hundreds of years? How many oral histories talk about what has not happened? This is just activists using the Inuit as an authority.

# 76 WhereIsDead? said, on July 11th, 2009 at 7:43 am

#75 – MikeN

Do you believe what’s in the Bible?

I guess that’s just religious activists using an oral history as an authority.

Which is a BAD thing, right? Now I’m confused.

# 77 Rick Cain said, on July 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

I trust scientists on these matters far more than Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter. None of them as far as I know are degreed experts in the Climatology field.

# 78 Rick's Cafe said, on July 11th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

#77
Understand your logic. But don’t forget, it’s ’scientists’ working for government agencies like the FDA who can’t decide from one year to the next if a particular product is good or bad.

Ya know, Cheerios now have to be labeled as a drug. Coffee causes strokes, but now is now a good defense for Alzheimer. And of course Vitamin C, it’s good, but it’s also worthless.

It seems that some scientists, while smart and talented, are so caught up in their little world, their vision gets limited so ya end up with, “…man is bad, green is good, but too many trees is also bad”.

It’s hard to plan for the future with that kind of scientific information.

# 79 Moody Loner said, on July 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am

What “Al Gore Inc.” is preaching is nothing more than a scary story based around a cyclic event which has been coming around time & again since the big-bang. The fact is that ice will melt, seas will rise, food will become scarce and some species will die out /some may not of course.
Exactly the same model as the dinosaurs, ice-age…hell, even Pompei. Natural disasters have occurred throughout time, why is this so different?

The only real disaster here is that oil/gas/coal companies are a static target and the science community are shooting with both barrels to create a lot of fervor and hike up the research funding – scientists gotta’ eat dude…!

I don’t dispute that the environment is being polluted but so what? It’s inevitable that the human race implodes and kills itself due to it’s collective aggressive greedy nature, what does the earth care. The planet will rejuvenate itself once the infrastructure is given time to naturally.

The only real positive, effective and sustainable way to cut down pollution of the planets’ ecosystem is to restrict the growth of the populous! Stop the uneducated, young, elderly, poor, middle-class, wealthy, religious and stupid classes of society having children at will/accidentally! Bring in enforced abortion where countries cannot sustain the growth of it’s population – in every nation. Cut the amount of unnecessary births which result in over population and a massive drain on the resources available. Lower the numbers overall.

People are the problem not the technology [possibly one in the same] – just halt the rabbit like spread of the human race instead of flying all over the world and pontificating, over-taxing companies or berating corporations that are only doing what’s natural to companies – making money!

To effect the message of global decay, stop producing the damaging element to the environment – people, not CO2!!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!