Arctic sea ice thinnest ever going into spring

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Arctic sea ice thinnest ever going into spring stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | April 6, 2009 04:19 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this July 11, 2008 photo, a giant glacier is seen making its way to the waters of Croaker Bay on Devon Island. Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years, according to a new report to be released Friday, April 3, 2009. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Jonathan Hayward, File)

WASHINGTON — The Arctic is treading on thinner ice than ever before. Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades, according to researchers with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.

"We're not set up well for summertime," ice data center scientist Walt Meier said Monday. "We're in a very precarious situation."

Young sea ice in the Arctic often melts in the spring and summer. If it survives for two years, then it becomes the type of thick sea ice that is key. But the past two years were warm, and there's more young, thin ice at the top of the world.

In normal winters, thick sea ice _ often about 10 feet thick or more _ extends from the northern boundaries of Greenland and Canada almost to Russia. This year, the thick ice cap barely penetrates the bull's-eye of the Arctic Circle.

The amount of thick sea ice hit a record wintertime low of just 378,000 square miles this year, down 43 percent from last year, Meier said. The amount of older sea ice that was lost is larger than the state of Texas.

"That thick ice really traps ocean heat; it keeps the planet in its current state of balance," said Waleed Abdalati, director of the Center for the Study of Earth from Space at the University of Colorado and NASA's former chief ice scientist. "When we start to diminish that, the state of balance is likely to change, tip one way or another."

Sea ice is important because it reflects sunlight away from Earth. The more it melts, the more heat is absorbed by the ocean, heating up the planet even more, said NASA polar regions program manager Tom Wagner. That warming also can change weather patterns worldwide and it alters the ecosystems for animals such as polar bears.

The Arctic essentially acts as a refrigerator for the rest of the globe. And the amount of sea covered by ice _ thick or thin _ has been shrinking at a rate of about 3 percent a decade in the Arctic.

Story continues below
advertisement

This year, the maximum ice cover of 5.85 million square miles _ reached on Feb. 28 _ was higher than four of the previous five years. But it was still the fifth lowest since record-keeping began in 1979.

Usually, younger, thin ice accounts for about 70 percent of the ice cover. This year it reached 90 percent, Meier said.

And the problems of global warming caused melt is being seen at the other pole, too.

The U.S. Geological Survey last week released a detailed map of the Antarctic coastline and found dwindling and even disappearing ice shelves.

The map itself was finished in the middle of last year, but the previous Interior Department didn't want to release it and other Antarctic maps, said map co-author Richard Williams Jr., a glaciologist for the USGS. The report with the map bears the 2008 date and the previous interior secretary's name on it.

The map shows found for the first time that an entire ice shelf _ the Wordie ice shelf on the western end of the Antarctic peninsula_ has essentially disappeared. In 1966, it was 772 square miles. In addition, about 4,500 square miles of the Larsen ice shelf is gone.

"The map portrays one of the most rapidly changing areas on Earth, and the changes in the map are widely regarded as among the most profound, unambiguous examples of the effects of global warming on Earth," the USGS report concludes.

___

On the Net:

National Snow and Ice Data Center: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

NASA on the thinning ice: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

Filed by Nick Graham
WASHINGTON — The Arctic is treading on thinner ice than ever before. Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes...
WASHINGTON — The Arctic is treading on thinner ice than ever before. Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes...
Loading...
 
 
Comments
367
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 16 fans permalink

For an alternative update, please check out the Danish Meteorlogical Institute's website. It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is continuing to recover.

Please see:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 04/21/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 16 fans permalink

Alternative headline:

Arctic sea ice recovering; maximum higher than four of the last five years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 04/15/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

According to the Washington Post:

"The Arctic sea ice cover continues to shrink and become thinner, according to satellite measurements and other data released yesterday, providing further evidence that the region is warming more rapidly than scientists had expected."

"The satellite data released by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the maximum extent of the 2008-2009 winter sea ice cover was the fifth-lowest since researchers began collecting such information 30 years ago. The past six years have produced the six lowest maximums in that record, and the new data show that the percentage of older, thicker and more persistent ice shrank to its lowest level ever, at just 9.8 percent of the winter ice cover."

"We're seeing an ice cover that's younger and that's thinner as we head into summer," Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a telephone news conference. "It's been a pretty sharp decline."

"The new evidence -- including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s -- contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040601634.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 AM on 04/09/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 16 fans permalink

"The sea ice cover continues to shrink."

Per the NSIDC website: www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The sea ice extent is greater on this date than it was in the low year of 2007, and is only about 3.5% below the average extent for the period 1979-2000. Meanwhile, U.S. military buoys report data on Arctic sea ice thickness, summarized on the "what's up with that" website, that indicates the sea ice has has become thicker over the past year. Further, current weather conditions in the Arctic are more favorable for the ice than the weather was in 2007.

Remember that two years ago several scientists indicated the Arctic sea ice might not survive the summer. The ice was "in a death spiral." However, these predictions turned out to be inaccurate. The Arctic sea ice survived the summer of 2007, and the summer of 2008. Currently, the Arctic sea ice level is doing better, not worse. It is closer to the average level for the 1979-2000 period than to the level of 2007.

The Washington Post should be more objective about Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice and global sea ice total ( now above the 1979-2000 period average). The topic is complicated, and reasoned arguments can be made for either a growing or a shrinking future Arctic sea ice extent.

The statement " the sea ice cover continues to shrink" is incomplete at best, and simply slanted and misleading at worst.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 04/09/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Richard, I know you like to couch your preconceived opinions in seeingly objective language, but if NASA and the National Snow and Data Center say that this year's older, thicker ice is the lowest on record I would believe them over a far-right, climate denial website called watt'supwithdat. If you want to believe far right sources over objective institutions like NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center yuou are welcome to. But I can not go to crazyville to that extent. Actually, your only interest in the whole thing is to deny climate change, you do not care how thick the ice is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 04/09/2009

A new scientific study study just came out.

It appears that the density of our atmosphere acts as a restraint of sorts for the huge volcanic calderas, pressing back against the force of the magma trying to break through the earths crust, which acts as a valve of sorts. Usually, our atmosphere is filled with high amounts of CO2, making our atmosphere more dense, and "heavier", and the magma's pressure cannot overcome the air pressure.

With CO2 concentration at relatively low levels, the pressure on these caldera's has lessened. Earth's mass extinctions have coincided with low levels of CO2 and corrresponding caldera eruptions.


Oh, btw, I just made that up, but gosh doesn't it sound convincing? Come on, you were scared, admit it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 04/08/2009
- jwcmass I'm a Fan of jwcmass 52 fans permalink

Why don't you just make your point.

Are you claiming that this story is made up gibberish?

My background is philosophy, not science, and I was trained to try to think and speak clealry in terms that everyone will understand. (You can't even begin a dialog if people have different understandings in their head of what words mean --and this happens a lot)

Now in science writing, I would think the trick for the scientists would be to take their ideas (oten xpressed mathematically-and beyond most of us laypersons) and communicate it in language that we can understand.

Carl Sagan was one of the best at this. He had a gift for taking complex ideas and explaining them in terms that someone who is not a professional can understand.

I'm having trouble (and maybe it's me) understanding just what your objection to this idea of climate change is.

I've read several of your posts now , and I've gathered that you don't care for Al Gore too much, and now you just uttered a bunch of gibberish (sorry, it wasn't scary-- or plausible) and It sounds like you're being sarcastic, but you never take the next step and explain what your beef is-- or what your alternative explanation to this phenomena is.

As a philosopher I would , with respect, suggest you need to figure out what you are trying to say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 04/08/2009

My point is that it doesn't matter if I make my point clear.

Its like asking an African Bushman to build a Large Hadron Collider

However, since you asked so nicely, I'll try using clicks and whistles.

1. The data set is has an incorrect baseline. We already possess the knowledge of climate changes over the past 1 billion years. Yes, billion. 1979 is not a valid baseline.

2. Climate change is not in question. The debate is whether "man made" CO2 affects the climate. It does not. However, you have to understand point 1 to realize this.

3. The end result of this campaign to "save the world from man made global warming" is, without a doubt, profit. You have to understand point 2 to realize this.

Oh, and click click whistle, that'll have just as much effect...

P.S. My imaginary situation is actually quite plausible, and has a bit of facts splashed around in it, might wanna check that out ;).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 04/08/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Stanly, if a new scientific study cam out saying anything you would be the last to know about it, unless Rush Limbaugh happened to mention it in his ramblings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 PM on 04/09/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Is a little education such a bad thing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 04/09/2009

Sea Ice Data:

2009 (Too Date): Extent: 5.8 million sq km, Concentration: 3.3 million sq km

1997: Extent: 4.3 million sq km, Concentration: 2.7 million sq km

1980: Extent: 4.7 million sq km, Concentration: 3.0 million sq km

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center


Interior ice is also increasing. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up, and the alarmists and the main stream media have been screaming near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 04/08/2009
- jwcmass I'm a Fan of jwcmass 52 fans permalink

Your numbers--are they fro the Arctic? or the Antarctic? (which the rest of your post concentrates on)

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, I never expected t be learning all about ice and glaciers and polar caps and sea levels--

I'm concerned and interested, but I am no expert.

I do seem to remember reading that the Arctic was circumnavigable last year for the first time ever(in human history) "the Northwest passage to Asia finally open"

One othr question--what is the difference btwee Extent and concentration.

Finally, it was my understanding (originally) that the Antarctic WOULD be isolated (relatively speaking ) from the effects of climate change because of the belt of cold ocean current that encircles it.

One thing I do know is thisi s all very complex (and I'm seeing glaciers receding averywhere--even Greenland.­)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 04/08/2009

Stalker! Go back to the Antarctic Ice Shelf comments!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 PM on 04/08/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

jwcmass, I like your very civilized approach. You have poor Stanly frightened out of his mind! He may have to call Rush Limbaugh to get some inspiration!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 AM on 04/09/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 16 fans permalink

Arctic explorers in the past have sought the northwest passage to the Pacific. Some even found it. Seems like the years that these brave people got through would be years where the ice might have been thinner than 2009. Also, the Vikings used to have a colony in Greenland. Isn't it likely that the Arctic ice was thinner during the centuries that the Vikings lived in Greenland, before the cold weather drove them out?

The current Arctic sea ice extent is only about 3.5% less than the average for the 1979-2000 satellite data. This is the great crisis that everyone is so upset about. A 3.5% variance, which seems to be getting smaller over time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 04/08/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

i believe the viking ships were diesel powered back then..

which would explain that short period of warming.

then again.. i could be wrong

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

Have to presume that Stanatee the Manatee is referring to obfuscation, circumlocution and redirection on fumes part. He shucks and jives, he ducks and dives. He does everything short of engaging in simple scientific methodology.

I have invited fumes to apply scientific methodology to his thesis.

State the thesis. State the null hypothesis and so on. . .

Is there ANY logical reason to decline?

If fumes has got a case to make, he stands to save the world billions of dollars. Somehow, some way, nearly the entirety of the scientific community all over the world has got it wrong – and he has it right.

Here’s your chance fumes – show us how they are wrong and you are right.

Then let’s get it published and get you the money and acclaim that is your due!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 04/08/2009

Heh, I'm flattered that you have a pet name for me. Just means I'm really getting under your skin.

Your "argument" has the same basis of ID (Intelligent Design, aka Creationism). Because a lot of people believe that a cell is too complex to arise through natural processes, the only logical conclusion must be that it was created.

The logic appears sound. Cell is complex, complex things cannot happen. Right?

Wrong. The first assertion is a logical fallacy. A cell being "complex" is a subjective term, just as the term "warming" is. You cannot use a subjective term as a fact or baseline. The second assertion, that complex things cannot happen is also a logical fallacy. It is as assumption only, and not a derived from logic. You make the same mistake. You make an assumption of "nearly the entirety of the scientific community".

So, not only have you got the science wrong, but the logic as well. But thats exactly the point. You can't sell Carbon Credits any other way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 04/08/2009

Oh, and no. I'm referring to you, stevehamlin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

But isn't the ice inland thicker? Don't these cycles come and go? Why the hysterical rush to do something which may be WRONGHEADED?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 04/08/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

i like the way you babble there brooks. but of course the center is thicker and the edges calve off.. it's been goin' on like that for over a while now maybe more. have you seen the lede thread? i'm a big gobama fan but cooling the earth by polluting the a'sphere for albedo's sake is ridiculous!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 04/08/2009

Why the hysterical rush? Thats easy. People tend to spend a lot of money without rational thought when they are in an induced state of panic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 04/08/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Stanly, you really have too much time on your hands, man. Nothing else to do or other interests.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 04/09/2009

The article title says: "Arctic sea ice thinnest ever going into spring"

...but in the article it states: "That makes it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades...­But it was still the fifth lowest since record-keeping began in 1979."

Ok, so what is it, the last 30-years or "ever"? Were the papers trying to save ink by not correctly stating "since 1979", or "since it has been recorded", or "lowest on measure"? I can't find a dictionary online that states "ever" (in the concept of time) as being a maximum of thirty years. This headline was clearly used as a scare tactic knowing people are too lazy to even read into the first paragraph.

Shoddy, immature and dishonest. Pure and simple. Yet another reason to question anything and everything "global warming" people have to say. When you have to scare me with dishonest and misleading statements like that, it diminishes anything you have to say no matter how much truth is actually in it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 04/08/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

The article says the Arctic has the fifth lowest ice extent says 1979 and is the thinnest probably since record keeping began in 1979.

"Researchers say that as spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old. That makes it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades, according to researchers with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado."

Ice mass and ice extent are two different things. Ice extent speaks of coverage or square area and then ice mass speaks of thickness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 AM on 04/08/2009
- DaveVDave I'm a Fan of DaveVDave 2 fans permalink
photo

One thing is for sure: The CO2 levels on the charts are staggering when compared to the last few hundred thousand years. We need to do something.

http://www.TheCommentDepot.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 PM on 04/08/2009
- Richard2 I'm a Fan of Richard2 16 fans permalink

So, in the article above, is "sea ice cover" the "sea ice extent" or is it the "sea ice mass?"

The use of the word "cover" would seem to imply the "sea ice extent." In describing an umbrella, someone might say that a larger umbrella would provide greater cover than a small umbrella. If the author means "sea ice mass" why doesn't he just say so? Clarity adds to credibility.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 04/10/2009
photo

Vapor has given us a thesis:
". . .my point is and always has been that our third has not yet warmed the earth anything like the first two thirds have. more CO2 therefore does not need to be feared."

Now we need to restate it as a "null hypotheis.­"

Bonus points for expaining WHY the null hypotheis is important.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 04/08/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

you mean ''hypothesis'' stevie..

there are bonus points for spelling too.

say.. ya got no takers.. bummer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

The scientific method allows you to state your own null hypothesis.

Go for it.

You can save the world billions of dollars by showing how you are right.

(Not only did I miss an "s" twice, I got your pseudonym wrong. Best to finish my second cup of coffee before using a keyboard.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 04/08/2009

Apparently, all that disappearing sea ice just fell on Michigan.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

.038% of our atmosphere is CO2.

1/3 of that amount is our contribution.

the original 2/3 has kept the earth 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.

our 1/3 however has not increased the earth's temperature like the first 2/3 or there

would have been a 16 degree F increase due to our contribution. yay or nay? and why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

The ice in the arctic and antarctic reflect heat back into space. If this melts you will find your 16 degrees.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

not true.. sorry mc: a) albedo is not a reflection of heat and b) the warming process here on earth creates a cooling process through the addition of water vapor to our atmosphere. at water vapor's tipping point it goes from greenhouse gas holding in heat to albedo-causing clouds keeping the heat out and drenching precip cooling the surface.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 04/07/2009

Theres something else that reflects light back into space. They are white, made of water, but its not snow. They can cover up to 70% of the earth. Warm oceans make more of them. What could they possibly be??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

albedo is not a reflection of heat but of sunlight.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

fyi - the climate change that civilized humanity has witnessed has been less than 1 degree C or less. Some say we are close to this 1 degree now, and the forecasts for 2100 are a bit higher as you might imagine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

No citation for numbers.

Assumes a 1 to 1 correlation, of CO2 and temperature for no apparent reason whatsoever.

To quote somebody: "Bull twinkies."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

one at a time just 4u steve: the .038% is common knowledge. the 1/3 of that being anthropogenic again is common knowledge (actually it's 35%), you should know both those numbers before posting here. the original greenhouse effect of CO2 keeping us 33F warmer than we would otherwise be w/o it too is common knowledge and the basis for the global warming discussion. arrhenius and keeling based their models on that. my point is and always has been that our third has not yet warmed the earth anything like the first two thirds have. more CO2 therefore does not need to be feared. get it? did that help?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

I have to agree with Exusian that the tilt is responsible for the seasons. This is the difference of summer and winter occurring at the same time but in different hemispheres.

Im not the only one either-

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question165.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

lol.. the tilt and the revolution around the sun are not mutually exclusive.­. the seasons cannot exist w/o BOTH. no really!! (it's kinda basic)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 04/07/2009

The melting and re-freezing of the ice is a natural process, just like the warming and cooling of the planet. Alarmists were trying to convince us the world was on the verge of a catastrophic ice age just a few decades ago, when that's where the grant money was. Now, those who claim humans are causing global warming believe human beings are so powerful, they can magically control earth's climate by manipulating a trace atmospheric gas, CO2. They ignore the fact that earth's heat comes from the sun`s solar activity. They have developed the technique of convincing people that what is natural is un-natural. The global warming extremists claim they want to protect the environment, but they call CO2 a pollutant, even though it is essential to biological life. All plant life thrives of CO2 to produce the food we eat. The man-made global warming hoax is an expensive and wasteful distraction from the real environmental problems of our planet: disappearing wildlife, polluted water, land degradation due to over-population, and the ravages of mass poverty. Fortunately, hundreds of the world's leading scientists, and growing in number everyday, are publicly explaining and speaking out against this global warming nonsense.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

once upon a time.. when temperatures were 9 degrees F warmer than now.. the ice was still there:

''However, a recent study suggests a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times:
Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. The existence of those DNA samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter. They also indicated that during the last interglacial period, 116,000–130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[22]'­'

this from the ''greenland'' page @ wiki

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 04/07/2009

See, those plants and insects didnt respect the Earth Goddess, and She smote them down with ice age, volcanoes, shifting continental plates, and ever changing warm water currents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

What is your point?

You pull stat's and factoids out of . . . I'll refrain from being crass and pun instead . . . "thin air" and expect to be making a cohesive argument.

But you aren't.

Greenland had different climate, Delaware got cold 200 years ago. So?

How about a couple of simple declarative statements. Feel free to use these as starting points:
The earth is(n't) _______. (warming, cooling, in constant flux)
The effect of CO2 is _____ in this process.
Man's role in altering the atmosphere is _________ .

Feel free then, to cite the sources for your contentions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

you resist good historical evidence in favor of gloom and doom theories..

why? that's so weird..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 PM on 04/07/2009

Loaded questions are fun!

All cats have whiskers. Therefore anything that has whiskers is a cat.

I love logical fallacies! More more!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 04/07/2009
photo

Funny how the supporting reports for that wiki entry do not match exactly with the paragraph there--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17615355
&
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5834/111

"It is difficult to obtain fossil data from the 10% of Earth's terrestrial surface that is covered by thick glaciers and ice sheets, and hence, knowledge of the paleoenvironments of these regions has remained limited. We show that DNA and amino acids from buried organisms can be recovered from the basal sections of deep ice cores, enabling reconstructions of past flora and fauna. We show that high-altitude southern Greenland, currently lying below more than 2 kilometers of ice, was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects within the past million years. The results provide direct evidence in support of a forested southern Greenland and suggest that many deep ice cores may contain genetic records of paleoenvironments in their basal sections."

Also it seem there have been 5 interglacial periods in the last 450,000 years- Whose view do you think they are talking about when they say "existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago. "? Is that really the prevailing view?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 04/07/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

you miss my point again onevoice: the earth has been warmer without our help and the earth has been warmer and life goes on. you argue for the negative and i the positive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 04/07/2009
- karela I'm a Fan of karela 85 fans permalink

For those who think a small change in temperature has small effect, I would like to point out that the human body's temperature is 98.6 degrees F. Ask yourself how you felt the last time you had a temperature of 103? That's about a 4 degree change. It's also a drastic change for the earth and she will respond to those changes in ways that may well make life much harder for we who live on and from her generosity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 PM on 04/07/2009

Praise be to Earth! Worship her or face her wrath!

Where have I heard that before?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:14 PM on 04/07/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

Only among conservatives is being stupid a badge of honor!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 AM on 04/08/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 79 fans permalink
photo

r u scared?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 04/07/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 149 fans permalink

What does being cared or not being scared have to do with anything? Having knowledge is not scary. Being ignorant and liking it is scary! Who benefits by your seeming intransience and ignorance about climate change? Perhaps the Big Oil companies! They like you to be fat, happy, uninvolved, uninformed, and self-interested. It is called being a "useful idiot!" Then you are just a perfect consumer and little more- certainly not a thinking person. If being a thinking person equates with being scared, then I choose being scared.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 AM on 04/08/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect