|
damn tree huggers Saw this too. Glad you clipped it. :~) Global Alarming again. Good find, thanks!  NSIDC, September 4th, 2008: Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline. With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.[1]Plus, this image shows that the ice extent in the Artic has been on a long downward trend since 1978. So just showing that the ice extent is greater in 2008 than 2007 is not really proof of anything. Sorry, here is the link to the long-term downward trend of the ice extent in the Artic. that the ice extent in the Artic has been on a long downward trend since 1978is not really proof of anything. Norwegian Polar Institute begun keeping records in 1972. However there are a lot of evidence that the Arctic ice has certainly retreated this far in the near past. Amundsen first navigated the passage in 1906 without the use of an icebreaker and he walked into Alaska. So the term "record" coming from the GW-militants means over the past 10-30 years. And what so-called "record" tell us about real causes of the ice loss? long-term downward trendJklugman, look at the graph you referred to and see how it is really "long-term". However there are a lot of evidence that the Arctic ice has certainly retreated this far in the near past. Amundsen first navigated the passage in 1906 without the use of an icebreaker and he walked into Alaska.This argument conveniently ignores the fact that Amundsen took 3 years to navigate the Northwest passage; he and his crew sometimes waited months for the ice to thaw. [2]. So the fact that Amundsen took advantage of seasonal variation in the ice extent does not prove that the August ice extent was just as bad in 1906 as it is in 2007-2008. Jklugman, again without a solid data set on LONG-TERM ice extent fluctuations in Arctic, any assertion that "it was not as bad in the past as in 2007-2008" is far away from science. What is more, science will never know what is bad and what is good as to the ice extend. There is nothing to compare with. Do you have any idea what the ice extent should be? Will you be comfortable if it regains Florida? I assert nothing about trends in the Artic ice extent past 1978. I only make these observations: 1. The website, and you, who claim to be a scientist and should know better, focus on a trend of 365 days while neglecting to tell readers about a clear trend that has been occuring for the past 30 years. 2. You stated that "a lot of evidence that the Arctic ice has certainly retreated this far in the near past" but the only evidence you cited was a misleading account of Amundsen's 1906 expedition through the Northwest passage. I certainly cannot help but wonder if you are arguing in good faith. Plus, this image shows that the ice extent in the Artic has been on a long downward trend since 1978 I assert nothing about trends in the Artic ice extent past 1978Jklugman, are you arguing in good faith? As to "a lot of evidence...", you should not be a scientist to know them from any book on physical geology. I see no contradiction between those two statements, nor do I see any falsehoods contained in them. If I said anything incorrect please let me know. I am still waiting to see "a lot of evidence" for your claim. Jklugman, you left my questions unanswered: 1. What so-called "record" does tell us about real causes of the ice loss? 2.Do you have any idea what the ice extent should be? 3. Will you be comfortable if it regains Florida? As I said, I made no assertions about the real causes of ice loss. My point only was that basing a trend on a one-year period is dishonest when clearly the past 30 years shows the opposite is happening. Maybe you should be posing questions not to me, but to the pundits who disregard published data on the ice extent for the past 30 years or people who think Amundsen's voyage proves something about a 100-year trend in the ice extent in the Artic. My point only was that basing a trend on a one-year period is dishonest when clearly the past 30 years shows the opposite is happeningMy point only was that basing a trend on 30 years is dishonest because of the climatic upheavals that geological history shows us. But let's get back to the point of the clip. In brief, it just says: Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer". And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. What is wrong with i... What is wrong with its point?An honest, well-informed discussion would have informed readers that the increase from 2007-2008 in no way reverses the trend we're seeing from 1978 to 2008, showing that the (perhaps overdramatic) predictions had a basis in reality. But the clipped source preferred to just snicker about genuine concern about ice loss. It looks like you are very upset about the fact that actual 2008 data failed to match the 30-years trend.I do not see that. The chart clearly shows some years where the ice extent increased dramatically, but these increases were undone by the larger downward trend. Look at the increases from 1990-1992, or from... Why 1978 to 2008? Why is that the important time-frame? Because that is the data on record with the NSIDC. Why 1978 to 2008? Why is that the important time-frame?Because that is all we have on record, except, of course, geological data showing that alligators swam in swamps on the North Pole and Alaska in Early Eocene. Not so long before now, in Eemian warm period (last Interglacial, 120-130 thousands years ago) there was no Arctic ice cover at all, only Greenland ice existed to lesser extent than now. Here you can see how warmer Arctic region was 8000 years ago than now. So, I don't know what genuine concern should be about and, what is more important, how much helpful the concern can be. |
View the Top Clips from August 17, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
