Arctic Ice Thickens: NYT Environment Writer Commits Global Warming 'Heresy' Again

Remember the artificial panic pervading the CBS "Early Show" just a little over a year ago that, for the first time in history, the North Pole may not be covered with ice sometime during the summer of 2008? Well, not only did it not happen but evidence now shows that Arctic ice has been thickening substantially this year.

[cumminsdsl24]

Jeremy Webb

[Gina C]

cumminsdsl24 wrote:

Jeremy Webb

What about him? He's not the only one questioning global warming.

[Devils Advct]

And that's a wrap.........

[Earthling]

Devils Advct wrote:

And that's a wrap.........

Not quite, as the man said:

We now await the rationalizations of the global warming alarmists.

Which is always amusing, if never very informative.

[Fair Game]

"Thickening substantially"?

The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt in coming summers. Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent. Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008.

NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said,“We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimump...

How do you get from the lowest level of ice over 2 years old ever to "thickening substantially"?

NewsBusters really is written by morons for morons.

[Devils Advct]

Fair Game wrote:

"Thickening substantially"?
<quoted text>
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimump...
How do you get from the lowest level of ice over 2 years old ever to "thickening substantially"?
NewsBusters really is written by morons for morons.

Newsbusters is just reporting. They did not come to the conclusion.

[Fair Game]

Devils Advct wrote:

<quoted text>
Newsbusters is just reporting. They did not come to the conclusion.

You seem to lack reading skills: "thickening substantially" is entirely NewsBusters highly dubious and unwarranted conclusion at odds with what the report actually said.

[Gina C]

http://www.labspaces.net/100050/Arctic_sea_ic...
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/09...
I took the article from NewsBusters as tongue in cheek. The fact is that the summer ice melt was not as great as expected this year.
Our climate is cyclic and changes year to year and century to century. You do not have to take my word for it, do your research. To get you started, I've attached another site for you to read.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.ht...

[Earthling]

Fair Game wrote:

You seem to lack reading skills: "thickening substantially" is entirely NewsBusters highly dubious and unwarranted conclusion at odds with what the report actually said.

Is it time to admit that you just don't like good news?

[Fair Game]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Is it time to admit that you just don't like good news?

The report says the ice is the thinnest ever; the story claims it's "thickening substantially".

If you would rather be lied to than hear bad news, NewsBusters is for you.

[litesong]

Devils Advct wrote:

Newsbusters is just reporting.

No, Newsbusters is run by Media Research Center, conservatively visioned & not unbiased.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

[Devils Advct]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to lack reading skills: "thickening substantially" is entirely NewsBusters highly dubious and unwarranted conclusion at odds with what the report actually said.

Perhps you should re-read....it quotes the National Snow and Ice Data Center - "...substantial expansion of the extent of second year ice..." The word "substantial' I believe is the word you took exception to, and it is in the report.

[Fair Game]

Devils Advct wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhps you should re-read....it quotes the National Snow and Ice Data Center - "...substantial expansion of the extent of second year ice..." The word "substantial' I believe is the word you took exception to, and it is in the report.

The word "substantial" does not appear in the NSIDC report.

The word "substantial" is NewsBusters.

Work on those reading skills.

And the actual thickness of the ice depends on multi-year ice, which is at an all-time minimum.

[litesong]

Gina C wrote:

I took the article from NewsBusters as tongue in cheek. The fact is that the summer ice melt was not as great as expected this year.
Our climate is cyclic and changes year to year and century to century.

NewsBusters is biased, not tongue in cheek. You must account for the truly remarkable 2009 very low solar minimum, radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal. Tho 2009 Arctic sea ice extent minimum was only 3rd behind the 2008 & 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimums. 2009, due to weather, has presently a bit less ice than 2008, in effect, 2nd only to 2007.

[Gina C]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
NewsBusters is biased, not tongue in cheek. You must account for the truly remarkable 2009 very low solar minimum, radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal. Tho 2009 Arctic sea ice extent minimum was only 3rd behind the 2008 & 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimums. 2009, due to weather, has presently a bit less ice than 2008, in effect, 2nd only to 2007.

There are many media outlets that are biased, including
Huliq News, CBS, NBC, ABC, The Daily Green and others. I guess it depends which way one is 'leaning' as to which is more biased than the other.

I have no doubt that Arctic Sea ice has seen less shrinkage this year than the previous 2 years. The fact remains that measuring Arctic Sea ice had no data prior to 1979 when it was first scientifically measured. Except through personal observations and other, none scientific resources, there are no records to the depth and stretch of Arctic sea ice.

[Gina C]

Climate changes have many factors: people, animals, decomposition, fossil fuels, and permafrost just to name a few. Individually, these have little to do with global warming or cooling. That is except for permafrost. Here are some links about how permafrost is impacting global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

[yesm]

jeremy webb is a b*tch

[litesong]

Gina C wrote:

<quoted text>
There are many media outlets that are biased, including
Huliq News, CBS, NBC, ABC,.
I have no doubt that Arctic Sea ice has seen less shrinkage this year than the previous 2 years.

Again, replying without acknowledging the long extended solar minimum on sea ice minimum possibilities is biased. Comparing well known network news casts to Newsbusters is severe bias. From their mission statement to their funding, they exist to provide bias to those people who love bias.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

[litesong]

Gina C wrote:

Climate changes have many factors: people, animals, decomposition, fossil fuels, and permafrost just to name a few. Individually, these have little to do with global warming or cooling. That is except for permafrost.

It has been part of AGW theory that CO2 would begin warming the Earth, followed by other GHG's such as methane in permafrost lands & hydrates & cathrates in ocean waters that would really send the Earth into global heating....like shifting to higher gears in a car, while lower gear CO2 would continue heating, also.

If methane levels from extreme permafrost, hydrate & cathrate releases leaped 5 times, man's ability to control global warming would come to an end.

[Gina C]

I am not arguing with you. I'm just trying to put out there that there are varying views on the global warming issue. Our climate is cyclic, has been and always will be. John Holdren predicted in the 1970's that the world was heading for another ice age. Al Gore is on the global warming wagon, yet his home in Tennessee lights up like a Christmas tree a lot of the time.

My stand on the subject is that nature has a way of heating and cooling the earth in more extreme ways than man. Yes, man does contribute to the warming, but not on quite the scale as nature.

I feel that it is politics that is pushing the global warming issue to have another reason to raise taxes and prices around the world. Yes, fossil fuels do have an end and the world does need to find alternative fuel sources or fuels to 'power' the world.

My family does the best we can to conserve. Does the governments around this world? Do they use power efficient devices and light bulbs? Do they drive gas saving vehicles? Do they use 'safe' energy? I really don't think so.

The magnetic North Pole has been moving away from the geographical pole for decades and it is moving faster than before. The tsunami in December 2004 slowed the earth by so many seconds. It may seem that I am rambling, but all these things can change the climate.

Beside, without CO2, the plant life in the world would suffer significantly. So, we have a catch 22. Cut down or cut out the CO2 levels and let plant life suffer, or keep the CO2 as it is and have global warming. Do you really think that we are safe in our atmosphere as things stand now? No, but nature does have a way of correcting itself with or without man's interference.