SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Worldwide sea ice is growing during winter...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Here is a great site put together by the University of Illinois and their climatology experts. These guys are top in the world for the study of ice levels all throughout the world, and on their site they provide irrefutable proof that sea ice levels have been rising dramatically over the last 20 years.

At the bottom of their front page they have a link that will allow you to compare any two dates since 1979, and you will see a visual depiction of the sea ice levels for that date. These depictions are based strictly on the collected sea ice data, which they also provide a link to, so that anyone can check the results themselves. Now THIS is how science should work!

When I compared the same winter dates in both 1980 and 2008 I couldn't believe how much ice there is now! There is even more this year, though they do explain that several dates in 2009 are missing data because of some faulty sensors out in the ocean. Still, the trend is simply amazing.

I also checked summer dates and what it seems like is that the summers have less sea ice now, but more in the winter. So, what we are seeing is more variation in our weather patterns.

Anyhow, I hope people enjoy looking at these easy-to-read FACTS, so we can finally stop throwing around the "he said, she said" salvos and get straight to the FACTS!

Cyrosphere Today Sea Ice Information - FACTS




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Oh, and one more thing... this is scientific data supporting the assertion that global warming, as it's being presented by the AGW crowd, is just not happening. The polar bears have more ice now then in a long, long time.

Also, here is a great little article about the huge ice bergs that have recently been seen in the sea down here near New Zealand and Australia:



Glaciologist Neal Young said he was not aware of such a large iceberg being found in the area since the days when 19th century clipper ships sailed the trade routes between Britain and Australia.


Link to article

So, it seems that these big bergs were common during the 19th century. It's a good thing Al Gore wasn't alive during those days



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
MODS: Please move this to the Fragile Earth forum... it's very late here and I wasn't paying attention to which forum it was going into


Thanks



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   


When I compared the same winter dates in both 1980 and 2008 I couldn't believe how much ice there is now! There is even more this year, though they do explain that several dates in 2009 are missing data because of some faulty sensors out in the ocean. Still, the trend is simply amazing.


Are you joking, anyone can see that there is A LOT less ice now than in 1980.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Lets take a look at the graphs from the link you provided: Link

Northern Current:
Link

Southern Current:
Link

Northern Anomaly:
Link

Southern Anomaly:
Link

Northern Area:
Link

Southern Area:
Link

Global:
Link

Global anomaly:
Link

(Sorry Pic did not fit and I don't have time to re size them all right now. . . )

Look through these charts that detail the state of both northern and southern ice area and trends and tell me where you got the idea that ice was increasing over the long term?

Please be very specific because I don't see what you are talking about, I see variation in the south and in all honesty a trend back to the state of 1979, but it is not there yet. However in comparison to the losses in the north i would still lean to loss of ice rather than build up of ice.

Cheers



[edit on 16-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy



When I compared the same winter dates in both 1980 and 2008 I couldn't believe how much ice there is now! There is even more this year, though they do explain that several dates in 2009 are missing data because of some faulty sensors out in the ocean. Still, the trend is simply amazing.


Are you joking, anyone can see that there is A LOT less ice now than in 1980.


I HATE this logic, lets put all the math and the debates aside for a second. "anyone can see that" okay so heres my problem, you more than likely have not flown over the worlds oceans checking out its ice deposits, you say anyone can see that because you have seen pictures of glaciers receding. You have no idea whats going on in the oceans but you see some picutres and you think thats the final statement on all this.
Regardless of your position lets always remeber to ask who tells you what you know?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   


This graph shows that there is on average 1 MILLION square-kilometers less sea ice coverage now than it was back in 1980. Thats almost TWICE the size of France.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 


Aye mate, your right on. Take a look at this graph:

Global:
Link

It shows a drop to around the 15-mil sq/mi present day, down from near the 17-mil sq/mi in 1979.

that is closer to 2 million square miles of lost ice.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Hack28
 


We were talking about a specific image comparison. You look at this image and tell me you dont see more ice on the 1980 one:





posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
To tell the truth I’m not sure what to believe anymore on this subject.
It’s warming then cooling then warming? All I do know is it will wind up costing the people of the earth an arm and a leg. There does seem to be a lot of data on both sides but only one can be correct. Which one, that is still a matter for debate I guess. I do not think we have had that much of an impact on the earth to the extent that we are screwing up the climate in less than 100 years since we started polluting it. Just seems way to fast to me. What seems more credible and more likely is the Sun is growing warming and brighter it seems, at least to me. But as I said I don’t know what to believe anymore on this subject. I think all people need to stay well informed on this subject.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy


This graph shows that there is on average 1 MILLION square-kilometers less sea ice coverage now than it was back in 1980. Thats almost TWICE the size of France.


That's interesting. The antarctic graph shows it increasing by about the same amount.

current.area.south.jpg

Is one more important than the other?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo


That's interesting. The antarctic graph shows it increasing by about the same amount.


Northern Ice area has decreased from 5.5 million sq/mi in 1979 to 3.5 million sq/mi today. A decrease of about 2 million sq/mi. Link

In the south the difference is 2 million sq/mi in 1979 and 1.75 million sq/mi today. Link

This is an additional loss of .25 million sq/mi (approximately).



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by heyo


That's interesting. The antarctic graph shows it increasing by about the same amount.


Northern Ice area has decreased from 5.5 million sq/mi in 1979 to 3.5 million sq/mi today. A decrease of about 2 million sq/mi. Link

In the south the difference is 2 million sq/mi in 1979 and 1.75 million sq/mi today. Link

This is an additional loss of .25 million sq/mi (approximately).


Ah yes if you look at the minimums it does seem to be decreasing. So the south is basically staying the same, and it seems that the north increased this year, but only after a large drop the previous two years.
I was looking at the maximums. It seems the range of the area is increasing.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
[edit on 16-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Waldy
 


No, there is more ice in the 2008 one... much more. Look at the color key and notice that the darker the purple color, the more ice there is. Now, look at the one for 2008 and notice that there is much more dark purple than in the one for 1980.

The key is that you have to use the "key"



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
You do realize -- that the iceberg traveling to Australlia -- that you are inferring is a sign of growing ice mass -- used to be attached to a much larger iceberg -- until it melted so thin that it broke off, right?

Note: Icebergs are not supposed to travel willy-nilly like throughout the oceans.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


No, not at all, for if that were the case, how is it they saw huge ice sheets like this in the 19th century when the earth was MUCH colder? If you look at the google earth pictures of Antarctica, you will see where that ice sheet came from, and the reason that ice sheets "CALVE" off like that is because as the ice grows out into the ocean it can't stay connected and it snaps. Those ice sheets are extremely thick and they break because there is TOO much ice, not too little. I lived in Alaska for 7 years and even walked on glaciers, so I have a bit of experience with big ice sheets. Plus, down here in New Zealand we spend lots of time looking into the science behind these things for obvious reasons - big ice sheets make great tourist sites!

Go back and look at photos from 100 years ago that were taken of Admiral Byrd's trips down here and notice there are tons of big bergs and ice sheets floating about.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


No, not at all, for if that were the case, how is it they saw huge ice sheets like this in the 19th century when the earth was MUCH colder?


Ice still melts in the summer during "cold periods" and reforms/grows when the temperatures drop again. So saying there were floating icebergs in the 19th century when it was colder has nothing to do with the fact that we have less ice mass today than 20, 30, 40+ years ago.


If you look at the google earth pictures of Antarctica, you will see where that ice sheet came from, and the reason that ice sheets "CALVE" off like that is because as the ice grows out into the ocean it can't stay connected and it snaps.


It can't stay connected because first-year ice, which happens when temperatures are not cold enough for long enough to allow the ice to remain year after year, cannot support growing ice as well as older ice. The ice is too thin to keep it supported, therefore it breaks off. It breaks off because the ice is not thick enough because it is melting every year more and more and can't become thick enough to support said floating iceberg. Some icebergs do break off as part of the usual cycle -- but not entire shelves as we have now.


Those ice sheets are extremely thick and they break because there is TOO much ice, not too little. I lived in Alaska for 7 years and even walked on glaciers, so I have a bit of experience with big ice sheets. Plus, down here in New Zealand we spend lots of time looking into the science behind these things for obvious reasons - big ice sheets make great tourist sites!


There is a difference between ice thick enough to walk on and ice thick enough to support an entire iceberg -- or entire ice shelves which is more important -- of whose mass keep in mind is generally 80% BELOW the surface of the water.

I can walk on my local lake in the winter, but I wouldn't recommend putting an iceberg there -- tourists or not. Sorry...couldn't resist that one.


Yes, icebergs do break off as a natural part of the process. However, we now have entire ice shelves breaking off -- which is not at all normal. So, of course there are icebergs throughout history -- but we have the problem of entire ice shelves breaking apart -- which is not part of your typical iceberg process.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


I am not sure where you are finding the information that amount of ice is growing, could you please point to it very very specifically so I can follow you?

Every single set of data I have seen presented by the site you are referencing shows a CLEAR trend of lost ice.

Just refer to my last few posts I think I make that pretty clear.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The amount of sea ice has always fluctuated in long term cycles.

We just finished a low ice cycle and may be going into a high ice cycle.

The problem is that the records do not go back very far and its imposable to tell the ice was doing even 100 years ago.

This can be seen in the history of the Northwest Passage.
it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906
en.wikipedia.org...

This was after the Franklin's lost expedition was lost due to heavy sea ice in 1845
en.wikipedia.org...

Reading the history of both expeditions will show that the Franklin expedition was unlucky and got trapped by a period of heavy ice years and the Amundsen try was lucky and made it because they just happened to try during a period of low ice years.

This can also be seen long term by this chart they the world temperatures have a lot since the ice age started.
www.globalwarmingart.com...:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png

The world has been in a increasing period of rapid glacial cycles
www.agu.org...

And with each of these cycles during the warming part of the cycle the temperatures and CO2 levels have increased.
the were before man could cause the problem.
And now its more likely then not another one of these natural warm cycles and not man caused.

It would not be hard for a researcher to have guessed in the 1980s that we were starting one of these warm cycles and plant the theory that CO2 was the cause and the tree huggers took it from there.

The biggest problem the tree huggers would have would be to get the laws in that they wanted before the cycle ended and make it look like they had solved the non-existent problem.
there timing looks to be very close if no one catches on and realises that its just a natural cycle.

By the time people find out this was a natural cycle and the whole country has been taken off high CO2 output it will be to late to restart using coal or oil.
How many time have laws on the books been repealed. Its easy to make laws but very hard to repeal them.

This is why many power companies do not want to shutdown there coal fired plants.
Its cheaper in the long run to sequester the CO2 under ground with a add on to there power plants and if this is a natural cycle they are only out the cost of the add on and not the whole power plant.

This my also be why the tree huggers don't want wind and solar in there back yards. the higher up in the environmental movement know that the cycle will end and they will be stuck looking out there door and seeing these wind and solar plants once built.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by ANNED]





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join