Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arctic Ice Cap 'Will Disappear Within The Century'
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 9-29-2005 | Roger Highfield

Posted on 09/28/2005 6:27:13 PM PDT by blam

Arctic ice cap 'will disappear within the century'

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 29/09/2005)

The Arctic ice cap is on track to disappear within a century, according to a study published yesterday.

The satellite survey by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), and the space agency Nasa reveals that for the fourth consecutive year there has been "a stunning reduction" in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer, placing species such as polar bears at risk.

The reduction in ice levels places Arctic wildlife at risk

The survey recorded the lowest sea-ice extent yet seen - 2.06 million square miles on Sept 19 - 20 per cent below the mean average September sea-ice extent from 1978 to 2001.

That is the equivalent of 500,000 square miles - an area about twice the size of Texas.

This year "will almost certainly surpass 2002 as the lowest amount of ice cover in more than a century", said Julienne Stroeve, of the Centre. If current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be ice-free well before the end of this century.

A recent assessment of trends throughout the past century indicates that the current decline also exceeds past low ice periods in the 1930s and 1940s.

From 1979 until 2001, the rate of September decline was slightly more than 6.5 per cent a decade. In 2002, the trend steepened to 7.3 per cent and is now approximately 8 per cent.

Walt Meier, of NSIDC, said: "Having four years in a row with such low ice extents has never been seen before in the satellite record. It indicates a downward trend, not just a short-term anomaly."

Cooler winter temperatures allow the sea ice to "rebound" after summer melting. But with the exception of May 2005, every month since December 2004 has set a new record low ice extent for that month. The winter recovery of sea ice extent in the 2004-05 season was also the smallest observed by satellites.

"Even if sea ice retreated a lot one summer, it would make a comeback the following winter, when temperatures fall well below freezing," said Florence Fetterer, of NSIDC. "But in the winter of 2004-05, sea ice didn't approach the previous wintertime level."

Compared to the past half century, average surface air temperatures from January until August 2005, were up to 3C (5.4F) warmer than average across most of the Arctic Ocean. Since 2002, satellite records have also revealed that springtime melting is beginning unusually early north of Alaska and Siberia.

This summer, the Northwest Passage was open except for a 60-mile swath of scattered ice floes, a far cry from earlier centuries when expeditions were lost as their crews tried to beat through thick ice. The Northeast Passage, north of the Siberian coast, was ice-free from Aug 15 until Sept 28.

The Arctic may be caught in a feedback loop caused by global warming. As sea ice melts there is less to reflect the sun's radiation back into space and experts fear that the downward trend is reaching a point from which the ice will not recover.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: arctic; cap; century; disappear; ice; will; within
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: Beelzebubba

I've said that before, too. What apparently is the cause for concern is the land-locked ice, like on Greenland. But I still don't think there's enough to cause a scenario like "Waterworld."


41 posted on 09/28/2005 6:50:45 PM PDT by Marauder (The height of hypocrisy: Members of congress upset because someone lied to them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

lol....same logic exactly

and next may the world will be on track to self immolate by August 06


42 posted on 09/28/2005 6:50:46 PM PDT by wardaddy (TOM DELAY IS MY HERO.....AUSTIN TEXAS GRAND JURY CAN KISS MY ASS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

Oh well, in the immortal words of the Liberals favorite economist John Maynard Keynes, " In the long run, we're all dead."


43 posted on 09/28/2005 6:50:52 PM PDT by appleharvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gator61
You have a problem if and only if Antarctica's ice melts. Arctic sea ice can melt without raising ocean levels ~

Best bet for me, though, is to have all the ice melt ~ I will live about a block and a half from Chesapeake Bay in that case, with a magnificent view!

44 posted on 09/28/2005 6:51:25 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blam
Now liberal junk science can churn out another disaster flick flatly to contradict the winter wonderland of "The Day After Tomorrow" and the nuclear winter that was bound to follow "The Day After" when Jason Robards started losing his hair. :-( Not to worry, however! There really is no contradiction - because the next ice age will occur precipitously AFTER global warming starts to flood the world's coastlines - the day BEFORE the day after tomorrow. The Discovery Channel featured a documentary that predicted a 10-year turn of events, so there! And let us not forget the Southern Hemisphere and ask - what good are they?!;-) I'm on pain medication of sorts right now so please ignore me. How's my spelling?:-0
45 posted on 09/28/2005 6:51:51 PM PDT by albertp (Malice in Blunderland, The Wizard of Odd, Gullible's Troubles! Steal the wealth, spread the poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne
They specifically said the arctic so there won't be any land underneath.
46 posted on 09/28/2005 6:52:05 PM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
My thought exactly! The last four years out of only 27
they see a reduction of 20 percent on a satellite survey.
Which satellite(s)?

I guess it's time to buy some cheap beach-front property
in Macon! /sarc

47 posted on 09/28/2005 6:52:39 PM PDT by higgmeister (In the shadow of The Big Chicken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A Balrog of Morgoth

'zackly. 'shappened before.


48 posted on 09/28/2005 6:52:51 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Troubled by NOLA looting ? You ain't seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
They specifically said the arctic so there won't be any land underneath.

That won't matter to the environmental whackos!

49 posted on 09/28/2005 6:54:38 PM PDT by airborne (My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: blam

I bet Polar Bear steaks are good eatin'.


50 posted on 09/28/2005 6:55:00 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

CFACT
Find this article at this address:
http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idarticle=247&idcategory=4
Questioning global warming evidence
Data on ice caps, coral reefs, contradict case for man-made climate change

Monday, November 12, 2001
by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

From the beginning of its debate, the issue of global warming has included discussion about the possibility of melting ice-caps. Lately, though, old studies are being re-examined, and now it seems as though it is the science, not the frozen H20, that can?t take the heat.

For instance, in one study published in Science Magazine in December of 1999, it was reported that the Arctic Polar icecap may have decreased by as much as 14% over a 20 year period. However, upon re-evaluation, it was later published that virtually all of that decrease occurred during a sharp drop over a lone period of 1-3 years. In fact, more recent estimates have the northern ice-caps at least holding steady, and possibly growing a bit.

Another factor cited as an indicator that global warming is occurring is the reduction in size of the world?s coral reefs. The United Nations Environmental Program has reported that 58% of the world?s coral is in danger from human activities such as global warming. But scientific attempts to link climate change to global coral decline have been far from conclusive. A study by Linsley, Wellington and Schrag were able to establish through coral samples near the island of Rarotonga a climate record for the South Pacific dating back 271 years. Their report, published in Science, showed South Pacific temperatures 250 years ago that were 2 degrees Celsius higher than those measured today.

Such markedly higher water temperatures prior to the onset of the industrial age, and the fact that coral communities survived, strongly undercuts the notion that human induced global warming is a real cause of concern for coral reefs. Further, A 1995 study of reefs in the Western Atlantic and the Caribbean Sea showed that nearly 14% of all reefs in the area were damaged, with damage to individual reefs reaching levels as high as 42%. However, a subsequent study in 1996 published in Revista Biologia de Tropical discovered that the coral had almost fully recovered within a single year ? this after temps were supposedly on the climb!

In short, as science becomes more advanced it seems that the one thing is clear: While ice caps may be growing, and coral reefs are remaining resilient, the one thing that is dwindling for sure is the case for catastrophic man-made global warming.

Copyright © CFACT. All rights reserved.


51 posted on 09/28/2005 6:55:27 PM PDT by berilhertz (Ice Caps Growing! - A Little Old, But Still Valid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

52 posted on 09/28/2005 6:56:27 PM PDT by Daaave ("All last night sat on the levee and moaned.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I can't agree with you more. They are capitalizing on Rita and Katrina. Already I've heard reporters use the lying phrase "the hurricane, a result of global warming" being used. Was it Hitler who said repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth? Liberals are sure living up to their master's name if he did!


53 posted on 09/28/2005 6:56:59 PM PDT by samm1148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chena

I have a single crow-sized bird coming in now, long black tail, black mostly, but with solid patches of white around the wings. More mellow sounding than the gray jays. Today it flew in with the gray jays. It is probably a magpie. There was another single one a couple weeks ago, more white over more of the body. Also a large single black and white woodpecker and a smaller single redheaded woodpecker in the past day. Do you have magpies down there in your region?


54 posted on 09/28/2005 6:58:16 PM PDT by RightWhale (28 Sep 05 -- first snowflake --where's FEMA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther; Beelzebubba

Now that I think about it, it does make sense.
The rise would be negligible. Ocean levels were lower during the ice ages because a huge ammount of water was locked up in extensive ice caps. Certainly a lot more than there is today.

However our ice caps today are much smaller and thinner than they were to begin with. There are few places that have an ice cover anywhere near what they once were. Where I live now was once covered with a mile or more of ice. Today most of our ice cover is only meters thick in most places.


55 posted on 09/28/2005 6:59:01 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blam
This year "will almost certainly surpass 2002 as the lowest amount of ice cover in more than a century", said Julienne Stroeve, of the Centre. If current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be ice-free well before the end of this century.

A recent assessment of trends throughout the past century indicates that the current decline also exceeds past low ice periods in the 1930s and 1940s.

From 1979 until 2001, the rate of September decline was slightly more than 6.5 per cent a decade. In 2002, the trend steepened to 7.3 per cent and is now approximately 8 per cent.

This is confusing low ice periods during 1930's and 1940's. Constant decline since 1979 but 2005 will be record year surpassing 2002, what happened in 2003 and 2004?

56 posted on 09/28/2005 6:59:28 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Damn it. Another get rich scam shot down by logic.
57 posted on 09/28/2005 7:00:52 PM PDT by Gator61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blam

I need a college fund for the kids and grandkids to be...I'll make a bet with these idiots...1 billion dollars says we still have an icecap at the end of the century. Of course, that will probably be only about 20 bucks in 100 years. Either way, I'll take it. I will also make the same bet with them about the supply of oil. Like the poor, it will always be with us. Before they take the bet, however, I only ask that they do not further their education in economics in any way. Get ready guys, Indian summer will be here soon, that's when the Global Warming crap starts coming out. It will die by the first snowstorm. Nothing until spring from these idiots!


58 posted on 09/28/2005 7:01:39 PM PDT by LumberHack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: blam
for the fourth consecutive year there has been "a stunning reduction" in Arctic sea ice

As I said to a lib friend, *if* things are going downhill that fast, we're all SOL anyway. Overnight extermination of the human race wouldn't change things.

As most of us here note, when the enviro moonbats think they aren't being heard, their response is to make the "crisis" worse on a weekly basis. In another year or two, the ice cap will be melting in 20 years, the seas rising a foot per decade. It is a constant escalation of hyperbole.

60 posted on 09/28/2005 7:04:11 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson