Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

What gets me about the whole global warming trend to blame CO2 on everything is the fact that CO2 is required for plants to grow. The plants turn CO2 into O2 with the presense of Nitrogen in the air.. So maybe what we SHOULD be doing is attempting to increase the amount of Nitrogen in the air to counter act it.. The plants would be happy. In the mean time, garden suppliers such as this one (Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide) actually sell CO2 generators for use in the green house.

Any thoughts??

reply to post by gizmohd

---

The nitrogen important to plants is in the ground and called "fixed nitrogen" like nitrate fertilizer and ammonia.
Increased levels of CO2 will cause increased growth when CO2 is the limiting factor. There are bounds to this in that above a certain level, the CO2 won't do much for growth. Sea ice is important as a reflector, so increases in sea ice will reduce warming trends. About 1000 years ago, the earth was warmer than it is now. Greenland was green. Why was that?CO2? Solar cycles? Methane? Ask Al Gore, the scientist.

reply to post by Chris McGee

---

"Actually having looked at the scientific data in some depth I do believe that mankind is having an effect on the climate of the planet."

W00t! We are now a Type 1 civilization! (according to YOU)...

me, i am moving to higher ground

I have been considering setting up a website to sell "Carbon Debits".

My website would cater to those of us who know that "Global Climate Change" is BS.

What I would do is engage in activities that produce CO2, for a price.

For example: For a buck, I would run my lawnmower for an hour. For 5 bucks, I would drive my SUV for an hour. For 10 bucks, I would fire up my barbeque grill full of charcoal briquets.

Can you imagine how crazed this would make the CC crowd?

Ok.......so......what will you charge to burn a pile of tires with a spotted owl used as kindling?

I don't think this idea would work because NOW, it is obvious that we are on the edge of an impending ICE AGE! Everyone, start buying coal, we need to warm this place up so Global Warming ........wait a minute.....

I guess all their bases are covered by calling it CLIMATE CHANGE now..... Al, Katie, you got me by my snarglies....

Don't know if anyones suggested this to you yet but take a glass of water with a few ice cubes in it and mark the waterline on the glass.

Then after the ice melts, check where the waterline is. You'll see it is in the same exact place.

Why don't the global warming activists ever answer the question of exactly how the seas are supposed to rise when the ice melts? Something I learned very early on in my grade school science class is displacement. How exactly is the ice floating supposed to make the sea levels rise when it melts?

If you wanna argue, grab yourself a glass of water, put a few cubes of ice in it, mark the water level, wait until the ice melts and tell me if the level has increased any. (Hint: It hasn't).

del

[edit on 1/2/2009 by leisuredrummer]

Do any of you people understsand "overpopulation"?
We humans must limit our fecundity.
We must reduce the number of humans on this earth.
There are two ways to do that --- Increase the death rate, or decrease the birth rate. Do you religiously indoctrinated morons understand that?
Which do you religious people prefer?-More deaths, or fewer births?
Religion is a human invention designed to control other human beings.

while i think that humans do make some sort of impact on the planet because of the so called dirty way that we live, I also think that when it comes down to the global warming threat it's all to get more money out of the public, i also think that there is more onus put on some countries than on others to clean up their act, one example of a smog bound city is Beijing, there were some days we couldn't see much at all of the olympics (not very green), then there are some countries being told reduce emissions by a certain time or else, surely we should all live cleaner if it's going to make a difference.

The global warming nuts are mostly liberals. To the liberals America is supposed to stay out of every other countries business unless it comes to global warming, in that case it's ok to tell other countries what to do. Liberals and global warming nuts are the exact definition of hippies.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe that a problem could be that if all of the ice that is on land (mountain tops etc) was to melt, flow down, hit the sea, then the levels would rise?

reply to post by ukuli

---

And if we are headed for global cooling we are in a much bigger mess than global warming.

Did anyone think to check what the level of sea Ice was in te Arctic in 1979, the year we are comparing 2008 with.
Does anyone realise that because the AUTHOR of THE BLOG has no specific Arctic data and has used the GLOBAL ice DATA, and makes assumptions about the ARCTIC, that this does not discount the observed, recorded and ongoing trend of Ice loss in the world.
Dose one BLOGGED interpretation of one data source for one aspect of the whole environment mean that all the other observed changes are not taking place?
They have cherry picked a data point in 1979 and 2008, and 2008 was lower than 18 other years, even with six of those years and better than 5 years in the record. Out of 29.
Look at the graph linked to the blog it is GLOBAL, look at 1979 and look at 2008 and, try tell me they are the same! Look at the down trend over the record. The BLOG author makes his assumptions based on the end of the years where the artic recovers in winter. These points are both below the average. 79 was generally above average for the whole year, 2008 was severly under the average and makes a recovery that was still under that average.
Look at the graph linked to the blog. Look at the Red line on the Botton first, this is the GLOBAL average anomoly, see how it is trending down. There is only one point that is the same, the end of both years, there was alot less ice for the year 2008, but it recovered to the same point that was at at the years end of both 79, and 08
If you read the article, it says the melting was slower than expected, that was what caused the better than expected ice formation, they believed it would melt more because that is what has been happening pretty much over the last 10 (look at the red line on the bottom from 2000 to 2008 of the years in the record.
This is not what usually happens.
The value of the anomoly is under zero, a value less than the average which would be the zero mark to range the anomoly trends. As this lies under 0. Less Ice than the average trend over the period.
Anomoly, this does not mean global warming is a myth. What was the difference in the level of sea ice and the average? The anomoly is below 0, the average, Below. Under. Less. Decreased. Reduced.
Both points where below average, but in general 1979 had much more sea ice for the season. Look at the graphs.
Who made these predictions, NASA, IPCC or was it the MEDIA?

Please, deny ignorance. The denial of Global Warming seems to have taken over as a motto for some.
OP's BLOG DENIAL SAUCE
National Snow and Ice Data Real Source


EDIT ADD SOURCES.




[edit on 2-1-2009 by atlasastro]

Sea ice holds back the land ice - the land ice is not IN the water hence when it moves into the water the levels rise....pretty simply.

If all the ice on earth were to melt into the ocean then we would have a 67 meter rise - scary stuff.

The seasonal variations on the long term trend are to be expected and predicted, so annual variations are completely irrelevant, remember this is not called global warming, but climate change.

If you feel that this is not true and a ruse then you are a victim of right wign media manipulation..

The extent of winter sea ice is largely an irrelevance. The world would have to warm an awful lot for the Arctic not to freeze over each winter! And most of the winter sea ice also has no effect on insolation - because it's in permanent darkness.

What is important is how much subsequently melts each summer. And the actual predictions (people really should listen to the science not the media ) is that there may be an ice free N Pole within the next 20 years. However, the rate of decline in summer ice is faster than was expected.


Edit: worth noting that the last time we had a largely ice free Arctic (in the summer) was during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 8,000 years ago.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan

---

But what about Antarctica?

The ice covering that Continent isn't displacing any water - If that ice melted, the oceans would rise.

Good thing man-made 'global warming' is fictitious .

I believe i read somewhere when the seasonal re-freezing comes it is MUCH thinner than the old arctic ice that was there previously. So in my oppinion i still believe there is alot less ice as it is thinner than before and will melt much faster when summer comes. Make sence to anyone? my acct is tylerc25211 but im at work and have to post annomously. Can anyone confirm my theory??????

I'm amazed at how gullible so many of the Global Warming alarmists are. Sea levels do not rise with melting Ice. Its quite the opposite. It's called the Archimedes effect. I challenge anyone to do this simple 4th grade science experiment. Fill a container half way with ice, then fill the rest with water. Mark the level of the water, wait for ice to melt then mark the water level again. The water level went down not up.

Ice floating in water displaces the water. As water freezes in to ice, it's volume expands, which displaces more water. However, People are more impressed with fancy(false) images of receding land masses than real science._javascript:icon('')