Consistent with other empirical indications of a changing climate, the extent of Arctic sea ice has continued to consistently lag more than two standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average:
The source for that graph is the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Skeptical readers may note that the comparison time period against which current ice extent is measured stretches back only to 1979, and may assert that possibly Arctic sea ice was lower in the decades before the 1970s. NSIDC’s doesn’t have a time machine to go back to those previous decades and initiate its own measurements earlier than 1979, but climate researchers have done almost as well, diligently locating and drawing together a historical record of measurements taken by shipping vessels back to 1953 in order to reconstruct the Arctic sea ice extent to January of that year:
Extending the record back another 26 years shows a consistent trend toward decreasing Arctic sea ice, not a turnabout as skeptics might have suspected.
old article (from late last year):
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/04/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama-2/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
The above is the Center’s graph for Antarctic ice. Over so many years as this post’s graph, no decline is found.
This does not falsify global warming, or, what we skeptics actually are skeptical of, catastrophic global warming- just as local climate change at another pole or any other bit of the planet does not vouch for global warming. Climate changes locally naturally all the time- we must look to the global, long-term trends in temperature, atmospheric, sea-surface, whatever- to divine whether the requisite high positive feedback for the greenhouse effect has in fact shown up, vindicating the theory of catastrophic global warming, or not.
Right. You noticed I didn’t use the words “global warming” in relation to the Arctic here, although arguably the two may be connected. The Antarctic and the Arctic are different kinds of places: Antarctica is a land mass, and sea ice off Antarctica may actually be increased by faster glacial flows. Arctic sea ice does not flow off a central land mass.
I don’t mean to put words in your mouth about global warming- I just assumed that by highlighting Arctic ice extent in the context of other empirical evidence of climate changing, you meant to invoke the Arctic as evidence of global warming, since the phrase ‘climate change’ is often used in place of ‘global warming.’
Have I misconstrued you? If so, I apologize. As to your mention of these differences between the poles contributing to their different fates- that I do not know enough to speak to. However, if you are right, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then that only puts we two, as well as yourself and the greater body of climate skeptics, in agreement on the importance of distinguishing literal climate-change from global trends.
No, I didn’t think you misconstrued me… and I agree with you! Nothing to apologize about.
Nature doesn’t care what we think, feel or believe. It just reacts to all the chemicals and their effects and we’re in the process of recreating the atmosphere of millions of years ago when the planet was uninhabitable. Good luck with these theories as we stew in our own juices, the sea levels continue to rise, animals, plants, fish and insects die off from the imbalanced state we’re causing with our pollution. Just ignore it all and continue to shop. When there isn’t enough food to go around, or the fresh water becomes scarce, or your town is flooded out, or civilization goes chaotic in reaction to need and scarcity of resources, or your part of the country goes in to a 10 year drought, the Earth will just continue along for the next 100,000 years or so getting more and more inhospitable to life.
Yeah, that’s just the way it is and we have absolutely NO influence on anything. Keep saying that as you look at the line of cars belching out CO2 (and other toxic crap in exhaust) ahead of and behind you on your way to work (if you’re lucky enough to still have a job) and extend that to the whole world – all the factories, energy sources (like coal fired power plants), barges heading out from shore (all over the world) dumping our trash and waste into the oceans, millions of huge trucks dumping our trash and waste into landfills, while fish being tested show up with tranquilizers like Paxcil and Prozac in their flesh, yeah – it’s all just natural . . .
Tom:
If I may assume you’re addressing my posts- If by the first paragraph you mean that the posited risk of waiting to act on climate is high and consequently skepticism should be the less attended to, I would rejoin that the cost of acting, with its many regressive economic impacts, is high as well, and so the supposed risk of a great cost is no justification for enduring a great cost. Acting on the theory of catastrophic global warming is not free. And, in any case, it s not justified at all if the theory is not justified- meaning that the assertion of great risk is no reason to neglect skepticism. If I missed the mark on what your argument there was, please tell me. I don’t want to redress ambiguity or my poor interpretation by putting words in anyone’s mouth.
As to your second paragraph, I quite agree that there is far too much done to the environment, and our impact as humans is often too great. I am all for environmentalist controls and am glad to agree with you there.
“The assertion of great risk is no reason to neglect skepticism.”
Wish I’d heard more of that in 2003.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/08/science-amazon-drought-co2-emissions-source-sink-simon-lewis/
And, locally, see how (in this example) the way we “do business” (organize and live our lives in a local environment) leads to a big mess:
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/04/texas-electricity-trying-to-understand-the-blackouts/
This is just ONE of the many facets of environment/human economic system interaction, and we’re blowing it on every level.
Here’s another example: cost inflation of things will continue for a very long time to come (due to Peak Oil for one, but there are others which aren’t trivial either):
http://questioneverything.typepad.com/