Arctic Sea Ice Recovery?

[Richard D]

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

snip

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

* * * * *

OK, what gives here? This doesn't seem to be from a RRW (right wing wacko) source.

[closeupready]

1. Short term, perhaps, but long term trends are crystal clear.

n/t

[Nederland]

5. Too soon to tell

Personally, I think its extremely arrogant for scientists to be claiming that they can predict what things will be like 20 or 30 years from now. We simply aren't smart enough to predict that far into the future.

[tom_paine]

17. Personally, I think it's arrogant for someone who has been wrong about so much as you have

to be judging anyone else.

How 'bout that $100/bbl. oil? You know, if we hadn't just entered a Worldwide Global Depression of indeterminite length, artificially suppressing fuel use, you wouldn't have your excuse and rationalization all ready and prepared "It was all speculators, there's no Peak Oil."

Of course, that would be like the dummies who's memories were so short they forgot we had a massive energy crisis a mere twelve years before and went out and bought a fleet of 10 MPG SUVs.

Now, I don't know if you are going to insult everyone's intelligence by making that or some other nonsensical, incident-based, not scientifically-based thinking, so it was wrong to prematurely compare you to an SUV-buying dummy in 1992.

If you DO decide to Bushiganda us with this "incident" and pretend it stands in for hard mathematics, research data, and long-term observable trends, then it would be proper to compare you to a 1992 SUV-buying dummy.

But I digress. It's quite arrogant for you, who was been so wrong about so much, to complain about scientific or any kind of arrogance.

Now, if you'd said something in pre-9/11 2001 over and over again, something like I predict that the National Debt will be $10,000,000,000,000 by the time Bush leaves office, or if you'd said BEFORE the Iraq War something like I predict that, under the immutable laws of the behavior of Totalitarian Tyrants, the Bushies will bring torture back to Iraq as soon as the cameras are turned off, then maybe you might have a RIGHT to some arrogance, as personally unappetizing as it is.

But as it stands, you have NO right...because you have been so wrong about so much.

Sorry if this offends you, but it's how I see it and I won't sugarcoat it.

[Nederland]

19. Doesn't offend me at all

In fact I'm mystified at your assertions. Yes, a little over three years ago I made a bet that the price of oil would be below $70 a barrel in three years time. As it turns out, speculators drove that price up to the $150 range for a brief period, after which it plummeted to its current price of $42 dollars a barrel. Last time I checked, $42 is less than $70. If I had specified that the duration of that bet be 3 years and 2 months instead of 3 years, I would have won it.

Make no mistake, I lost that bet, and I dutifully paid out. However, I think with oil at $42 a barrel its rather clear who was right about Peak Oil.

[tom_paine]

25. See? STILL WRONG and proud of it. That's why I posted to you.

Wow, even after I said you were going to say that, you said pretty much EXACTLY that...with a small rhetorical twist making it slightly different, but with the EXACT same semantic reasoning as what I said you would say.

And of course how loopy and wrongheaded it would be, against all science but the kind of idiotic (sorry guy, gotta call it like I see it) unreasoning that goes out and buys an SUV in 1992 because the "incident" of prices going down.

Fucking BRILLIANT!

Perhaps you should buy a Hummer. After all, gas will be cheap and plentiful FOREVER now, right?

Abiotic cornucopian fantasies, anyone?

This was amusing, though. Truly. The way you said EXACTLY what I said you'd say even AFTER I explained why it was unscientific incident-based twaddle in the larger scheme of things.

But I suspect that you have quite a lot of trouble pondering the larger scheme of things, the first of which is even being what the "larger scheme of things" means.

I have to keep apologizing but you really did smash through the floor of my lowest expectations with that reply. Not because we disagree but because it bespeaks such a breathtaking ignorance of the scientific method and such a lack of self-awareness to just bull ahead and say it even after I said it FOR you FIRST.

Wow, I don't think I have been THAT unself-aware for two decades, as a young man working and partying my way through college. How could you reply with pretty much EXACTLY what I said you'd say, EVEN AFTER I PREEMPTIVELY EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS INVALID REASONING?

Wow.

Again, my apologies. You really floored me with that reply! At least you didn't just cut and paste my own words, you jangled them around a bit and sort of made them your own before you repeated them back to me.

Congratulations.

Now, since you were obviously right about Peak Oil, and 110 MBBl/day is just around the corner (not total liquids...REFINED OIL) then 200 MBBl/day then 500 MBBl/day, you should put your money where your scientifically illiterate mouth is and buy a Hummer. RIGHT NOW!

Oh, and read a Freshman College book on the Scientific Method. Concentrate your readings specifically on how hypotheses are formed and proven or disproven.

Last time I checked, $42 is less than $70.

Really, Hannity? You don't say! Your brilliant restatement of the obvious totally blows away my folder of scientific long term data and mathematic computer projections based on hard data collected and analyzed by multiple experts such as those oil geologists who regularly post at PeakOil.com.

Wow. $42 is less than $70.

Wile E. Coyote, you genius, you've done it again! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Go and learn how to think in something other than Cable TV.

How's that for the arrogance YOU so richly deserve and which I so gladly heaped on you. I had no idea you were like this, though obviously I suspected.

Go learn some science. And economics is NOT a science.

[Nederland]

28. Wow. Lots of words there.

Not many facts though.

Fact: Oil is at $42 a barrel.
Fact: You were wrong about the timing of Peak Oil.

'nuf said.

[tom_paine]

30. Just like your icon. As stupidly bullheaded as Colbert! At least the character he plays.

Yes, I know how you Bushie-like minds love your short declaratives of restatement of the obvious.

Yes those Lib'rul long-winded explanations full of facts and logic are so tiresome when two shouted short declarative and a fist pound are all you need Hannity.

I do despair. So many, even here at DU, one of the smartest and most conscious sites on the web, are infected with BushBrain or Cable TV Mind.

Wow.

Nice job, Colbert. :rofl:

Well, I tried to explain it to you, even though I've dealt with enough of you scientifically illiterate weak-minds to know it was pointless from the start.

You simply repeated the same bullshit I explained why it was moronica, oversimplified and a massive no sequitur.

But in true Bushie-Colbert (the idiot character he plays on TV, not him personally, who is probably nothing like you) fashion, you bulled ahead anyway.

That kind of shameless idiocy is so amazingly successful, the Bushies, and really you should be one if you aren't already. You have the perfect mind for the Bushie GOP. PERFECT! They'd eat you for lunch and it would feel oh so good to you.

Yeah, lots of words. You wouldn't understand tryin to clearly articulate thoughts.

Wow, you are an asshole of the highest magnitude and a weak-minded Bushie thick-head of the wrst order.

And you probably DIDN'T pay off that bet. I TOLD Paul to check with DU ADmin to see if you did.

Lucky you, he didn't listen, eh?

This was fun, but your short declarative idiot's nonsense hold no more amusement ofr me. You read what I said. No matter what your ego does, unless you are truly stupid, and I don't think you are stupid (though I may have called you that in anger, I retract it, being weak-minded is very differnet that stupidiy) you KNOW much of what I say is true.

Now, keep Colbert-ing away so that you can't hear that small still internal voice inside you

And for fucks sake, read a freshman college book on scientific thinking!

welcome to ignore, Wile E. Reply if you wish, I'll never see it.

And you will never understand what it is like to have a grasp of scientific method..unless you get that frosh textbook like I told you.

Now, back to you shouting down your small still internal voice.

And enjoy writing the reply i'll never see, but I know you read my every word.

:rofl:

Go ahead...reply!

:rofl:

Lots of words. God, you're a fucking idiot of the worst kind. What the hell are you doing here? FDR is the place for you. Lots of minds like yours there. You could be their Mental King!

:rofl:

[Nederland]

33. See post #29 (nt)

[TheWraith]

23. Not to get in the middle of somebody else's argument, but the price of oil WAS speculators.

Unless you seriously believe that oil consumption miraculously fell two thirds overnight, coincidentally right around the time that noise was being made about curbing rampant speculation in the commodities markets. Everybody who's looked at the inside of this agrees that speculation is the key.

[tom_paine]

26. I don't disagree that SOME of it was speculators, some was Bushie political manipulation, I think

some was the fact that the Bushies decided to take all the money while they could and run when it became clear that they couldn't steal the election without a fight (even though they still PROBABLY could have, they dared not take the chance, not when they could punch the safe, loot the nation, steal another trillion in phony bailout monies, and leave Obama with a hollowed-out Third World Nation-In-Waiting).

So on this we do agree. That is not the point and idea. The point and idea is the utter shortsighted ignorance of the "economic mind" that has brought us to this ruin.

The ignorance that says, in effect, "Well $42 is less than $70 so Peak Oil MUST be untrue."
Only a scientifically illiterate idiot could say something like that, and there can be no dispute about it.

The fucking absolute bereft ignorance and scientific illiteracy that says, "Oil is down to $42/bbl. Did consumption go down 2/3rds from it's price peak?"

As if the artificial transient human construct of the dollar has any scientifically relevance to the amount of oil which exists and which can or cannot be pumped per day with existing technology.

My God, I have no patience with that kind of idiocy,and no ability left to moderate my saying that's EXACTLY what it is. Not because it is disagreeing with me, but because it is unscientific nonsense on so many levels I can't begin to enumerate them all.

Peak Oil, scientifically speaking, is a long-term, possibly gradual (possibly faster, we won't know until this Depression is over and consumption levels are up again) phenomena where so many factors meet: geology, consumption, advances in fuel technologies, corruption, speculation honest and otherwise, and dozens of other factor, I think.

It's so long term that only a shortsighted fool would think that an economic price fluctuation has ANYTHING to do with the geology of the earth or the finite amount of oil in it, or that can be pumped per day.

Do I despair? Oh yes I do. I'm not referring to you, Wraith, but to the Nederlands of the world, who's kind of thinking has dominated human history.

Which is why we are almost certainly going extinct within the next 5,000 years, though we may make it longer, I wouldn't bet on it.

[Nederland]

29. Now I understand your problem

Your problem is that you can't read.

You think I believe that Peak Oil is nonsense, when in reality the bet was all about the timing of when Peak Oil is going to occur. You would know that if you knew how to read, but apparently you can't.

Shame.

[tom_paine]

31. ROFLMAO. You understand nothing, not even yourself.

Of course, the onset of the Global Economic Depression which is suppressing oil use wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

Naah.

You predicted that, then, did you? Peak Oil delayed because of Global Economic Depression that you foresaw? Prices plummetting also because of overall deflation that is beginning? Predicted that, too?

And I think you are spinning after the fact quite a bit about your only disagreeing with the timing.

You see, by thinking economically, not ecologically, you think dollars mean something. They don't, not really. More free-marketeer bullshit, like economy being a science.

That puts Einstein and Pasteur in their place, eh?

Enough. Goodbye and welcome to ignore.

[Nederland]

32. Fair Enough

If you'd like to put me on ignore and run away that's fine.

But for the other casual readers out there, here is the proof that I never said Peak Oil is not a valid theory:

8/30/05: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x1535#1541

Post #6 - "I believe the peak is further off than people here believe (I wouldn't take the bet if it were ten years), and I think we are in a temporary speculative run up." (emphasis not in original)

1/6/07: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x2254#2258

Post #2 - "Remember, this is not about whether or not Peak Oil is "real" or not, its about when it will occur."


Plainly the fact is that tom_paine never bothered to read what I had actually written about Peak Oil. He read one or two posts, assumed that I was a Peak Oil denier and posted accordingly. Now that it's obvious that he was wrong about my position, he's running away.

[bananas]

34. self-deleted (moved to post #35)

[bananas]

35. GliderGuider: "Nederland, you were more right than I was willing to admit at the time"

Some people may have missed this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x2626

GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-16-08 12:21 PM
Original message

In honour of a bet graciously lost
Edited on Thu Oct-16-08 12:53 PM by GliderGuider

I had a bet with Nederland that oil would be over $70 a barrel on August 31, 2008. On that day oil closed over $115. I won the bet, and Nederland graciously contributed the amount of the bet to DU.

Today, just 6 weeks later, the price of oil settled at $69.85 on Nymex. This was thanks more to the recession we're entering than to any particular failure of Peak Oil theory, but it pointed out very clearly that the price of oil is multi-factorial.

In recognition of the fact that if the recession had come on just a bit faster I'd have had egg all over my face, and also in recognition of my mistake in tying the price of oil too tightly to the geological nature of Peak Oil, I have just contributed $69.85 to DU. In the language of the accelerating global financial catastrophe I made myself a counterparty to the original bet, hedging it to DU's benefit.

Congratulations, Nederland, you were more right than I was willing to admit at the time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Trends like these

[closeupready]

10. Yes that's exactly what I mean.

n/t

[damntexdem]

9. And global climate change means greater, more rapid variations in all directions.

[Richard D]

2. OK, NASA's explanation

Record sea ice growth rates after a record low may sound surprising at first, but it is not completely unexpected. The more ice that survives the summer melt, the less open water there is for new ice to grow. When summertime ice extent hits a record low, on the other hand, large areas of open water provide room for the ice to grow once temperatures cool off enough. While summer warming of the upper ocean surface can cause wintertime sea ice regrowth to lag initially, as the fall season progresses and sunlight weakens, the rate of energy loss from the ocean increases. That heat loss coupled with a large area of open water creates ideal conditions for sea ice to form rapidly over large areas.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47121205

[Uncle Joe]

13. I believe this post to be a logical explanation.n/t

[leftchick]

40. and it was -40 in Alaska the other day

I was hoping a positive ice growth would happen if even only temporarily.

[MadHound]

3. Global climate change is full of interesting peaks and valleys,

However it isn't the short term data that is telling, but rather the long term data. Sure, the North Pole got a considerable amount of its ice back. Along with that, at least in my area, we had a much wetter and cooler summer than normal. However if you look at the long term data, the Arctic is indeed warming up, as is where I live, which is also, looking at the long term data, getting dryer.

One season or even one year spikes don't tell the tale, it requires people to look at the long term data.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. What happens happens.

You can't take the events of a single year, let alone a single season to mean anything in the much longer (decades and centuries) time frame upon which global climate change occurs.

Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the climate change issue who will take any individual event as a signal of climate change or lack thereof. It's understandable, though. Most people are capable of comprehending singular events, but are fairly ignorant of the small changes on long time scales that are the hallmark of climate change.

[jpak]

6. There is a big difference between thin annual ice (which can melt quickly in summer)

and perennial (multi-year) ice that can resist melting for many years.

Arctic sea ice has been thinning dramatically over the last few decades - and this has contributed to recent rapid areal losses on the summer months.

[Viking12]

7. Yes, it is a denier whacko site

That ice forms in the Arctic winter is hardly news let alone evidence that global warming has stopped.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Thank you. n/t

[anigbrowl]

20. No it isn't.

If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that it was well sourced, and the causes for the apparent anomaly addressed. Daily Tech is just a general science and technology news site, it's not organized around pushing a particular viewpoint.

[Viking12]

38. DailyTech has a long history of pushing denier bullshit.

Just because an article is "well sourced" doesn't mean it isn't misrepresenting the science. It's people like you that don't critically examine the science that are the targets of this propganda.

[Winterblues]

11. Just a couple of months ago the first ships made it across the Northwest Passage

3 Ships crossed from Pacific to Atlantic Ocean through Northwest Passage. First time ever.. I suspect it will happen again next summer as well..

[FarCenter]

14. See National Snow and Ice Data Center for factual data

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

According to the daily extent graph, we are just about at the same level as winter of 2006-7, and substantially below the extent for the average of 1979-2000.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. It's *global* sea ice, not Arctic

And here is the response to the article from the University of Illinois:

One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice. (Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm )

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.

Global climate model projections suggest that the most significant response of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections. Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

[tom_paine]

16. Well debunked, muriel. The usual Incident-Based Propaganda that ignores scientific

thinking.

Luckily for the tyranbts and deceivers, studies show something like 80% of our nation is scientifically illiterate, making them easy chumps for this sort of simple-minded misdirection that, in terms of propaganda, works and works and works so well and so often that it simply must be that some vile marketing reserach has revealed increasingly powerful templates for "The Art of Lying Without Lying" which Bushigandists have basically perfected into ironclad armor against facts, demontsrable truths, and even the shared concept of basic reality.

It's like bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon, my observations of our nation over the last 30 years suggest, but thanks anyway, muriel.

[anigbrowl]

21. I think it's more sloppy reporting than propaganda

The article includes the following: "Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center."

nowhere do they argue that this invalidates theories of climate change or suchlike. If you look at the top level of the site, it's just general Sci/tech news, and as such I expect it to be somewhat superficial...just as New Scientists is somewhat superficial and sometimes gets things wrong, but isn't anti-science. I forget who said 'never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity'.

[tom_paine]

27. Not the reporters, the deniers who use the headline to confuse.

Crazy, isn't it? When the article inside actually debunks what the deniers are saying.

But that doesn't matter. Some psychologist or marketing jerk discovered (I would be willing to stake a lot on it) that in PR efforts, thrusting headlines, even headlines which are mis-representative of the articles, in people's faces along with an authoritative metaphorical "harrumph", causes more people than not to believe what the headline/PR person are saying, even IF the very article inside debunks the PR Lie, because most people won't read the article, or perhaps because experimentation revealed that more people than not will internalize the authoritative "harrumph" delivered aggressively than the scientific reason in the article, even if the people do read it.

Know what? Those experiments are correct. More people than not, indeed.

That doesn't make anyone better or worse than anyone else. Because one person is strong in one area and another strong in a different area does not make either better than the other.

But in this particular place and time in history, being shortsighted and clueless and scientifically ignorant is fatal for us as a society and possibly for a species.

I am speaking not of you personally, but of most of the people in our country, sadly. Again, that doesn't make me or anyone better than anyone else, it's just an aspect of myself (and yourself, anigbrowl, at least based on your thoughtful post) I have chosen to strengthen and work on, while others choose other paths.

Anyway, I agree with you. My issue is not with the reporting. Not in the least. It's with the usual PR-Denier Template of using misleading incident-based thinking to muddy the waters.

And those waters are easier to muddy in a populace mostly ignorant of how the scientific method works, and how to detect bamboozles.

I wish it were not so.

And I do want to say it one more time, being scientifically illiterate or unaware of the scientific method does not make one less of a person in any way shape or form. It just makes a person easier to fool, and a weaker thinker, not to have learned those things, or to have learned them and had them erased by repeated Cable TV "news" watching, as I think a lot of people have had.

Some people have weaker muscles, some people have weaker minds. Some people exercise their minds, some people don't. What happens to un-exercised minds? Same thing that happens to un-exercised muscles.

Is someone less of a person because they choose to be out of shape? No.

Same thing.

[anigbrowl]

36. Having been a copy editor, I think it's likely got more to do with deadlines

you know, not every media outlet is plugged into Republican Media filter central. You make many good points, and when it comes to advertising or media presentation at large, agenda driven outlets (like Fox News or Investor's Business Daily), I agree, there's often a corporate culture which seeks to shape the message.

But in this particular case, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. A website devoted to tech and science news has little or nothing to gain by alienating its readers, but it's unrealistic to expect complete accuracy in all things. As far as I can see, they're just trying to fill the news hole - the daily scramble to find enough news-worthy content to keep your media organ (whether a tiny blog or the NYT) 'stocked up' with a regular flow of information of interest to your readers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. No, that writer is always trying to disprove global warming

Taek a look at his blog titles: http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/~masher

We've noticed misleading stuff from him on Daily Tech before - eg 'Glaciers in Norway Growing Again' when the truth was 3 out of 32 Norwegian glaciers growing; 24 shrinking.

He's a climate change denier, and completely untrustworthy.

[WhiteTara]

41. ah. "Younger, thinner ice"

that's the true story.

[SoCalDem]

18. Weather v climate

:)

[NeedleCast]

22. We Still Have a lot to learn about our planet

[TheWraith]

24. There seems to be a short-cycle "wobble" in the amount of sea ice per year.

If you look at the graphs marking sea ice extent at X date of the winter, you'll see that it cycles up and down every few years, even as it follows longer term trends of decline.

[dysfunctional press]

39. it's the thickness of the ice that really matters.

of course there will be sea ice in the arctic in winter...but it melts more and faster every summer. that's why this year they were able to sail the northwest passage.

we don't need no stinkin' panama canal...