Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

To OP Indy:

Thank you so much for posting that. I have maintained for the longest time, (to anyone who would listen) that warming and cooling of the planet and atmosphere is natural and cyclical, and mankind can't intervene.

We are but tiny ants in the large, beautiful world God created, and he would never allow us to ruin it...we can't if we tried.

Happy New Year, Indy-

"....and he would never allow us to ruin it...." (referring to God not allowing mankind the ability to ruin his creation, Earth)
should have a capital "H" for "He"

"....He would never allow....."

carry on.....

Originally posted by LiamStemrad
Thank you so much for posting that. I have maintained for the longest time, (to anyone who would listen) that warming and cooling of the planet and atmosphere is natural and cyclical, and mankind can't intervene.

We are but tiny ants in the large, beautiful world God created, and he would never allow us to ruin it...we can't if we tried.

Happy New Year, Indy-

Thank you and Happy New Year to you too. I agree that we are ants in all of this. Mother Nature with very little effort could wipe out a large colony of us ants. More than warming or cooling I am concerned with our inability to cope with natural disasters in this country. We are a long way from recovering from Katina and it was really nothing compared to what it could have been. One ince storm hits and a huge region gets crippled. Our power grid is pretty 3rd world. How will we survive a true disaster?

Imagine what a super storm would do to the eastern third of the country. Imagine what would happen if a tsunami hit either coast. Or what about a New Madrid quake? On the west coast we have a couple of cities that sit in the footprint of two large volcanoes. Rainer and Hood.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm not assuming that, however I think that's one instructive example of how this should be taken seriously. Fact is, we don't know whether there can be runaway global heating on Earth. Until the models are refined to a degree that the calculations would deny such possibiliy beyond doubt, we must consider such possibility.

Agreed. However, I would like to note that when the idea of a possible runaway global warming event occuring on earth was introduced it was purely speculation. In fact, it was dismissed as a viable hypothesis by most scientists. This idea came about without the consideration of how much closer venus is to the sun. Which for obvious reasons will cause the atmospheric temp. to increase. Nor did they consider the amount of heat coming from within the planet itself.

I'm not denying the possibility, I am merely suggesting that certain obvious factors be included in these assessments.

But I digress. Back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that solar output definitely plays a huge role and could be the reason why the arctic sea ice is re freezing.

Global Warming/ Solar Relationship

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

New sunspot Cycle??

SOHO

SOHO has observed (Dec. 13, 2007) what may be the first indication of a "reversed" magnetic polarity region when compared to the current solar cycle, something scientists consider to be a crucial indicator that the new sunspot cycle is about upon us.

If this is true, then the solar cycle is troughing, which indicates solar minimum. Now, we do know that during The Little Ice Age solar activity was abnormally low for quite some time. So this may be just another part of the cyclical nature of the sun - earth system.

reply to post by Essan



totally right.
the surface area is one element, and if it's a shallow layer of ice over a great expanse...the result will be a quick remelt.

i think that the new ice thickness is a significant element.
If the refrozen water is thick enough it will survive the seasonal assaults by the sun, wind, water currents-- which were significantly different the last couple years to result in an ice-free 'northwest passage' ->>
(which was sort of thought as fiction & legend until it became at least a temporary reality)

Originally posted by harddrive21
This is great news. So does this mean Al Gore has to return his Nobel Prize?
I don't believe Global Warming is real, but as I watch CNN and Fox today, I noticed they now refer to it as "Climate Change". With this change in terminology, whether it heats or cools, they are technically right.

It does nothing to dispute or deny global warming from excess greenhouse gases as the factually accurate scientific explanation for current climate.

Imagine the ice cover is roughly like a sinusoid with a yearly periodicity:

ice(t) = A*sin(2*pi *t / 1 year) + B

A and B are numbers such that of course ice(t) is always nonnegative.

What has been happening is that A has been increasing and B decreasing so that the minimum point (summer) has had less and less ice, and dramatically so.

It is not in the least remotely surprising that the derivative of ice with time (in the yearly cycle) will increase.

Consider non-Arctic temperate areas which get snow like ski resorts. Their derivative of frozen precipitation with time (snowi accumulation and snow melting) is much higher than in permanently frozen areas like Antarctica. And of course they are much warmer on average.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm not assuming that, however I think that's one instructive example of how this should be taken seriously. Fact is, we don't know whether there can be runaway global heating on Earth. Until the models are refined to a degree that the calculations would deny such possibiliy beyond doubt, we must consider such possibility.

Agreed.

However, I would like to note that when the idea of a possible runaway global warming event occuring on earth was introduced it was purely speculation. In fact, it was dismissed as a viable hypothesis by most scientists. This idea came about without the consideration of how much closer venus is to the sun. Which for obvious reasons will cause the atmospheric temp. to increase. Nor did they consider the amount of heat coming from within the planet itself.

I'm not denying the possibility, I am merely suggesting that certain obvious factors be included in these assessments.

But I digress. Back to the topic at hand. It seems to me that solar output definitely plays a huge role and could be the reason why the arctic sea ice is re freezing.

Global Warming/ Solar Relationship

It has the usual role in the arctic ice refreeze, namely that it's winter and the Earths' inclination results in lower solar insolation on the surface.

But the overall solar output---which is what matters for global climate has not changed significantly.

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

New sunspot Cycle??

SOHO

SOHO has observed (Dec. 13, 2007) what may be the first indication of a "reversed" magnetic polarity region when compared to the current solar cycle, something scientists consider to be a crucial indicator that the new sunspot cycle is about upon us.

If this is true, then the solar cycle is troughing, which indicates solar minimum. Now, we do know that during The Little Ice Age solar activity was abnormally low for quite some time. So this may be just another part of the cyclical nature of the sun - earth system.

It's no longer clear that the "Little Ice Age" was truly a global climatological phenomenon, or just one in Europe, where we have greatest records.

To assert that it is a "cyclical nature" of the Sun-Earth system requires physical mechanistic explanations, just like global warming from greenhouse gases did (and it has been verified with experiments and observations).

All theories require backup.

The Sun's output has been quite carefully monitored for decades now with calibrated instruments. There isn't currently that much evidence of any significant changes (i.e. some mythical "Natural Cycle"), or any reason to suppose the changes in the future will be in any beneficial (cooling) or even more harmful (warming) direction versus the substantial contribution from increased greenhouse gases.

In any circumstance, the discovery of one new mechanism does nothing to eliminate other mechanisms (greenhouse forcing) which are very well understood and validated with experiment & observations. It will just add to it.

But the overall solar output---which is what matters for global climate has not changed significantly.

That is an assumption. You don't know what the requirement is.

It's no longer clear that the "Little Ice Age" was truly a global climatological phenomenon, or just one in Europe, where we have greatest records.

To assert that it is a "cyclical nature" of the Sun-Earth system requires physical mechanistic explanations, just like global warming from greenhouse gases did (and it has been verified with experiments and observations).

More speculation. Your comment makes the assumption that current reporting is correct. It makes the assumption that CO2 is the cause of warming (which it is not in this case) and that it has been validated which it has not as well. CO2 levels and temperatures have changed. You take the position that CO2 caused the change and that you are right. I say that is incorrect. I say that CO2 levels have changed as a result of temperature increases and therefore attempts to verify the Global Warming theory have failed. The models predicting the worst case scenarios have all failed.

If you look at the ice core temperature samples you will see something very obvious. The changes are cyclical. It is also VERY clear that CO2 decreases lag behind temperature decreases which fails the CO2 causing global warming claim. I can fabricate a model just as well as anyone else and I'm sure I can get someone to validate my claim. Does it make it right? Nope. But for some reason if I get a bunch of people to copy my work it somehow becomes right. At least that is modern climate science.

Global Warming supporters basically are taking the side in the "which came first? the chicken or the egg?" argument that the egg came first and the very existence of the chicken proves it. It proves nothing. Taking a position which is plausible but not provable doesn't make you right.

The Global Warming theory cannot be proven. We do not have the ability to determine whether CO2 is causing temperature changes or whether temperature changes are causing CO2 level changes because both are plausible. However there is very solid evidence that on a number of occasions temperature changes plunged well in advance of CO2 changes. It throws a huge curve ball for those claiming that CO2 is the cause of change. Based on the Global Warming theory it would be impossible for this to happen. If reality was the reverse of the GW theory which I believe it to be you could explain with ease the drop in the temperatures in advance of the CO2 decline. Oh I'm sure someone will throw out a meaningless and unproven formula to try and explain it.

the changes in the future will be in any beneficial (cooling) or even more harmful (warming) direction

I believe you are completely incorrect here. In fact warming is beneficial while cooling is harmful. Warming, especially in the small amounts that would realistically be possible would result in longer growing seasons. It would expand the frost free safe zone for crops. It would mean fewer crop failures. However cooling by even a small amount could be disastrous. There is plenty you can do to cope with an increase in temperatures like changing planting dates and adding irrigation systems. There is little you can do to cope with the cold. History is very clear on this. The consequences of cooling are well documented during the Little Ice Age and the period starting in 1812 caused by the Tambora eruption.

The reality is that nothing has been proven so until that point all doors are still open.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by testrat
This is great news for the polar bears. With the lack of sea ice the last few years many have been forced to cannibalized. At least this winter it sounds like they will be eating seals.

Please provide proof of you assertation. First I have heard of that.

You asked, here is some reading material.

Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea may be turning to cannibalism because longer seasons without ice keep them from getting to their natural food, a new study by American and Canadian scientists has found.

source


More
another story
and one more

I think its funny how people are saying that Al Gore should give is noble prize back, and this means that global warming is a fake. This is a incredible small sample size. Winter is about a week and a half old in the North Hempshire. All it takes is one large cold high pressure system sit in one spot for a week, and boom you have a lot of ice.

Where I live this is the second snowiest December on record, however its been in the 40's for the past week, and most of the snow has melted. If you break up the month in half, you can make an arguement that we are in a ice age and the planet is warming. Before you make a conclusion wait for more data.

Well some of us may agree or disagree with the global warming theory and thats what it is ....a theory.I just have to say that it is refreshing to see what is happening in this particular post....we are having civil adult conversation which many of the threads at ATS have been lacking these day's.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by CaptGizmo]

reply to post by testrat


This is the conclusion that I had originally drawn from the article myself. Let's not make hasty assumptions based on one measurment in one season. Like I said earlier, if this becomes a trend over the next few years, it might deserve a closer look. Otherwise, its worth just keeping an eye on.

Originally posted by mbkennel

But the overall solar output---which is what matters for global climate has not changed significantly.

I'm sorry, but the overall solar output can change significantly from minute to minute. In fact, the difference in the amount of energy introduced into the earth system from one minute to the next, in most cases, completely dwarfs any manmade energy input. Case in point; In 1999, the solar wind completely stopped for 2 straight days on May 10-12.

OMG, NO!!!!!!! Now we've gone from global warming to an ice age!!! So, what do I do now? Should I immediately increase my carbon footprint to help out old Gaia warm back up??? This is terrible news as I had recently traded in all of my cold weather gear for bathing suits, goggles and a snorkle - and it looks like it was all just a waste!

I'm done with all of this nonsense! I'm digging a great big hole and I'm just crawl in it and letting the earth do whatever it wants. It's not cooperating with me so I'm not cooperating with it. From now on, I am on Earth Strike!!!

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
.......I just have to say that it is refreshing to see what is happening in this particular post....we are having civil adult conversation which many of the threads at ATS have been lacking these day's.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by CaptGizmo]

.......The lack of which is why I was reluctant to join for nearly 3 years while sitting back and just reading through the forums daily. However after a couple of threads recently piqued my interest, I decided to dive right in.

Also, I don't believe global warming is a local phenomenon. It's more of a solar system warming as a whole. I say this in light of recent discoveries that other planets in the solar system have been heating up as well.

-Dev