Arctic Sea Ice: Likely Record-Low Volume
Posted by feww on October 4, 2008
Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume – NSIDC
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline of Arctic ice cover is continuing.
As previously reported, Arctic sea ice extent for 2008 melt season as measured by satellite was the second-lowest level since 1979, reaching the lowest point on September 14, 2008. Average sea ice extent over the month of September, a standard measure in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 4.67 million square kilometers. The record monthly low was 4.28 million square kilometers set in September 2007.
The 2008 observation strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent, NSIDC said. The 2008 low was 34% below the long-term September average for the 1979 to 2000 period and only 9% greater than the 2007 record low. The 2008 low was so far below the average, it forced the negative trend in September extent downward to –11.7 % per decade (from 10.7 %).
A comparison of ice age in September 2007 (left) and September 2008 (right) shows the increase in thin first-year ice (red) and the decline in thick multi-year ice (orange and yellow). White indicates areas of ice below ~50 percent, for which ice age cannot be determined. AVHRR, SMMR SSM/I, and IABP buoy data.
—From National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy C. Fowler, J. Maslanik, and S. Drobot, University of Colorado at Boulder – High-resolution image
“The trend of decline in the Arctic continues, despite this year’s slightly greater extent of sea ice. The Arctic is more vulnerable than ever.” —NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos
Related Links:
.
Fire Earth 
terres said
C. Higley
Since you are bringing your argument with Scienceguy 288 to this blog, we assume you are looking for a “referee.”
The Moderators consider James Hansen’s research on global warming as the best study available on the climate change, and other than prescribing lower atmospheric CO2 levels than those which he recommends as “safe,” there’s little else we can fault with his study.
See In Defense of Kingsnorth Six: Testimony for criminal trial in Kent, United Kingdom dated Sep. 10, 2008 for Hansen’s latest writing on climate change.
Click to access 20080910_Kingsnorth.pdf
That said, we are also aware of the stakes involved and wonder how hard the competition for entering the “Exxon Circle” or the likes might be getting lately, especially with so many junk science peddlers kowtowing to big oil and other corporate interest, ready and willing to sell their mind, body and soul for pieces of silver, or a prized position normally reserved for members of the inner circle. See below for related material.
Global Warming Denial Exxposed
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html
Sarah Palin, Polar Bears and Exxon Junk Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/01/sarahpalin.climatechange
Classic ExxonSecrets map of the junk science authors from the Dyck, Soon, et al article
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=1263
FACTSHEET: American Petroleum Institute, API
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=11
Koch Industries
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
NY Times, June 8, 2005, Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
Global Warming: Heated Denials – The Organized Effort to Cast Doubt on Climate Change
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/731/
Charles Higley said
Scienceguy 288,
Since the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not hold up to real scrutiny, it fails. It is not our fault. That aside, global warming stopped essentially in 1998 and we have been cooling for almost ten years and the last two years have seen the cooling accelerate. The same pattern occurred beginning in 1940 when the temperature was almost a carbon copy of 1998. With the newest solar cycle taking so very long to begin, we have what looks similar to the beginning of a very cool time that was called the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).
I do not have to argue about the junk science of global warming. The real world calls it the Gleissberg cycle. The Russians have known about it for 100’s of years and think we Americans are nuts.
With all due respect, do not assume that the political publications of the IPCC have anything to do with proving AGW. Their job is to find AGW and show its effects. They have no mission to disprove, only find, even if it means ignoring the contradictory evidence of which there is tons.
Their “evidence” is two graphs which have been solidly disproven as lies and computer models which are ridiculously full of flaws and can do exactly what the programmers want it to do. It’s a given that they will “predict” warming when they stack the factors to do so.
So, skeptics are not skeptical because they are anti-anything or just being a problem. Many scientists are skeptical because we know the science and know that AGW is a political agenda and a farce.
Sincerely,
C. Higley, PhD, marine biol/biochem
feww said
So what’s new? Gov Palin who could POTENTIALLY become the US President one [fateful] day, believes Earth was created 6,000 years ago!
scienceguy288 said
Go figure. I just got into a huge argument with a guy who doesn’t believe in global warming. Typical idiocy.