Posted on 04/06/2009 6:26:08 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Turns out there is such a thing as being too young and too thin.
Arctic ice continued its decline this winter, with hearty old ice increasingly being replaced with quick-to-melt young ice, according to a new report by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Ice older than two years once accounted for some 30 to 40 percent of the Arctic’s wintertime cover and made up 25 percent as recently as 2007.
But last year it represented only 14 percent of the maximum. This year the figure fell to 10 percent.
The team did report one ray of hope. In winter 2008-09, more new ice (in this case from winter 2007-08) had survived the summer than in years past.
“From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range,” Meier explained.
Where was all this global warming when we needed it during the past few months?
So, if this winter the entire globe suddenly became covered entirely in ice, global warming would still be a threat because ice “older than two years” would make a smaller proportion of the total.
Hmm. Lower temps worldwide, less evaporation, less snowfall, less new ice. Global cooling!
"From a record low last year of 5 percent or less [it was] back where it used to be, in the 10 to 15 percent range," Meier explained.
"Oh. That's different. Never mind".
This is within normal parameters of the “bounce” between 60-85 year variations. Its a natural event and nobody’s fault.
After nearly 20 years as an avid fan, this is why I canceled by subscription to NatGeo. Totally lunacy!
Yeah, right......based upon how many sensors ? what locations ?
Was ANYONE doing this measuring prior to the 1900s ?
Record low Temps due overnight tonight all over Texas.....Freeze forecast for North Dallas area.
Anyone heard from those North Pole ice “measurement” freaks since their rescue ?
“This is within normal parameters of the “bounce” between 60-85 year variations. Its a natural event and nobody’s fault.”
Do you have a source for this?
Well what I didn’t completely understand is that the subject of the article was “there’s more thin ice.” Thin ice melts faster, so that’s bad. But all thin ice is new ice. So if the accumulation rate of thin ice increased, then that’s good. The question is how much of this new thin ice will not melt and become “old ice?” Since there’s more, isn’t that generally a good thing overall?
Essentially, I felt the article was trying to say more new thin ice is bad.
Yes. What you're not understanding is that H2O molecules unthaw at lower temperatures the longer they remain in a solid ("frozen") state.
...if you ignore the Medieval Warming Period, as global warming enthusiasts need to do.
And I remember when the National Geographic knew the difference between "hearty" and "hardy."
Yeah, we’ve got a winter weather warning in Upstate, SC tonight. I was wearing shorts yesterday.
Smaller...Thinner...Younger....
Dare I dream?
I am impressed with the many ways that GW advocates have come up with to describe the increasing ice cover.
In this convoluted story, the increase of arctic ice in the past two winters is juxtaposed against the average of ice from 1979-2000.
I am surprised to realize the Earth is so young. I would have thought that data from the random 21 year interval selected might be misreprenting the vast spectrum of time wherein the arctic ice may have fluctuated in size over much larger ranges.
I am glad to realize that National Geographic and the Climate Change advocates are upholding the young Earth hypothesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.