Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Artic has lost 386,100 square miles of ice

by Angeline Booher / November 8, 2004 7:59 AM PST

A study released Monday said the annual average amount of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased by about 8 percent in the past 30 years, resulting in the loss of 386,100 square miles of sea ice an area bigger than Texas and Arizona combined

Susan Joy Hassol, the report's lead author, said the Arctic probably would warm twice as much as the Earth. A region of extreme light and temperature changes, the Arctic's surfaces of ice, ocean water, vegetation and soil are important in reflecting the sun's heat.

This most comprehensive study of Arctic warming to date adds yet more impetus to the projections by many of the world's climate scientists that there will be a steady rise in global temperature as the result of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and other sources.

It is based on ice core samples and other evidence of climate conditions such as on-the-ground and satellite measurements of surface air temperatures. Nations participating in the study besides the United States are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden.

"The bottom line is that the Arctic is warming now, much more rapidly than the rest of the globe, and it's impacting people directly," Robert Corell, chairman of the scientists' study panel and a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society, said Sunday.

The process is only likely to accelerate in the Arctic, a region that provides important resources such as oil, gas and fish, the study finds.


Though some believe this is a natural swing in temperatures, it is only since the Industrial Revolution that fossil fuels have been burned.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Artic has lost 386,100 square miles of ice
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Artic has lost 386,100 square miles of ice
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) And Antarctica is getting thicker and colder
by Evie / November 8, 2004 8:02 AM PST
Collapse -
Temperature control problem
by Steven Haninger / November 8, 2004 9:30 AM PST

God set the dial to broil instead of bake.:)

Collapse -
Good reminder to me
by netsky / November 9, 2004 12:54 PM PST

I went to buy a ten pound bag of ice while the getting is still good.

Salty but still sweet dreams we live in today that there will always be similar tomorrows.


Collapse -
Re: Antarctica getting thicker and colder -- says who?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / November 11, 2004 12:25 PM PST
Collapse -
Says the evidence...
by Edward ODaniel / November 12, 2004 4:26 AM PST

as even a tyro scientist would admit.

Nothing was mentioned about bergs breaking off although anyone who attended the first week of a Junior High School Physics class would readily see that as ice thickens protruberances (shelves) tend to become unsound due to structural changes in supporting masses. Inadequately supported masses have a tendency to overcome their inadequate support and fall (or break off).

The old Byrd Station has been shut down because it is buried beneath 40 to 50 feet of ice and snow. It is slowly being crushed.

A new radar study shows that the ice sheet feeding the Ross Ice Streams is growing. That is a dramatic change in an ice sheet covering about a third of West Antarctica and that has retreated nearly 1300 kilometres since the end of the last ice age.

Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year.

Most of the growth is on an ice sheet called ice Stream C.

key sections of the ice cap appear to be growing thicker, not thinner, as previously believed. And the continent's average temperature appears to have cooled slightly during the past 35 years, not warmed.

I realize the above links are not opinion articles in the Houston Chronicle so you are not apt to pay much attention but the info is there for those with their heads in the open.

Collapse -
Re: The Artic has lost 386,100 square miles of ice
by JP Bill / November 8, 2004 12:04 PM PST

Rare sighting of wasp north of Arctic Circle puzzles residents

IQALUIT - Southern Canadians wouldn't take a second look at a yellowjacket wasp circling around their picnic, but the discovery of the insect far north of the Arctic Circle has entomologists, well, buzzing.

Noire Ikalukjuaq, the mayor of Arctic Bay, found a specimen of Vespula intermedia, or yellowjacket wasp, outside the community recently. Arctic Bay is on the northern tip of Baffin Island, at more than 73 degrees latitude.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Probably was a big party in Texas needed it.
by James Denison / November 9, 2004 10:25 AM PST
Collapse -
Re: The Artic has lost 386,100 square miles of ice
by drpruner / November 10, 2004 12:37 PM PST

I read on BBC 'net the other day that all scientists now agree on global warming. Still controversy about the cause/s. Some of it finger-pointing, but the problem is. complex.

Regards, Doug in New Mexico, where we're watching the unusual weather of the last 12-18 mos.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Re: The Artic has lost -- but global warming's a myth!
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / November 10, 2004 12:39 PM PST
Collapse -
Why should we care?
by James Denison / November 10, 2004 3:08 PM PST

According to the Bible, which correctly noted the earth was round (...sits upon the circle of the earth), it also claims the center of the earth is water, which in a way makes some sense scientifically. We know that icebergs float in the water, and it's possible the continents could float upon huge center of water due to centrifugal force of earth's rotation. If that rotation slackened even briefly, the fountains of the deep would be opened and rush to the surface as the land masses sank. It's like the clothes in a washing machine spin cycle, or putting rocks and water in a bucket on a rope and swinging it around, the rocks will be further out from the center of the force than the water. So, where did all that water go? Why aren't we seeing higher water levels as doomsayers predicted? Probably because it doesn't matter and if the earth warms it will be a better place everywhere.

Collapse -
Re: Why should we care?
by Roger NC / November 11, 2004 5:57 AM PST

Is this actually saying that some regions are averaging higher rises than others? that seems unlikely.

Or is it just referring to a one year maximum reading with the maximum sea level rises? that average back out to the other quoted averages?

Doesn't seem very likely that one region could consistently rise faster than another. Granted "sloshing" from tides, earthquakes, storms, etc can push water, that's a transient thing and affects different areas different times?

They report 1.8 mm per year with a 0.3 plus/minus. I take it that's an average meaning that they measure a 90 mm rise over the half century, or 3.5433 inches. Does anyone know if that is exactly what they're saying?

Of course, the article does point out they can't positively identify the source of the rise, much less the actually underlining causes. That doesn't change the facts, just a caution.


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Why should we care?
by Dan McC / November 11, 2004 10:18 PM PST

It doesn't seem that unlikely to me, really. The world's oceans are not all at the same level now so there's no real reason to think that they would rise and fall in lockstep.


Collapse -
Both polar caps are melting, so
by Angeline Booher / November 11, 2004 12:41 AM PST
In reply to: Why should we care?
Collapse -
Thanks, Angeline
by Dan McC / November 11, 2004 2:46 AM PST

That's a scary link!


Collapse -
Repeat: Antarctica in undergoing net THICKENING/FREEZING!
by Evie / November 11, 2004 4:22 AM PST

Oh, and BTW, the Earth's magnetic field is slowly declining and may eventually flip. All those "man is destroying their natural habitat" arguments that hinge on changing migratory habits of birds could be nothing more than an anomoly in the changing magnetic fields that they use for guidance.

It is important to know what is happening. It is also important to recognize the differences between coincidence and causality. The degree to which the two are confused (deliberately?) depending on political agenda is astounding!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Did you READ? ? ? ?
by Dan McC / November 11, 2004 5:02 AM PST

From Angeline's link:

"On the opposite end of the globe, Southern Ocean sea ice floating near Antarctica has shrunk by some 20 percent since 1950. This unprecedented melting of sea ice corroborates records showing that the regional air temperature has increased by 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950."


Collapse -
I have read about the ENTIRETY of Antarctic ice ...
by Evie / November 11, 2004 5:10 AM PST
In reply to: Did you READ? ? ? ?

... while it is true that the little arm, for example, is melting, it is also true that the much larger ice shelves of the continent itself are cooling/thickening. Thus, the net effect is just the opposite one observes when one limits one's observations to those that support an agenda.

Collapse -
As have I.
by Dan McC / November 11, 2004 10:36 PM PST

My reading says that continental Antarctica is getting less windy, thus warmer. I have not seen any indication of ice cap growth. What would the mechanism for that be?


Collapse -
There is much evidence that says...
by Edward ODaniel / November 12, 2004 4:30 AM PST
In reply to: As have I.

you are not doing enough reading or are constraining your reading to only that which is supportive of your preconceived notions.

Try reading this and if it piques your interest your research options are practically unlimited.
key sections of the ice cap appear to be growing thicker, not thinner, as previously believed. And the continent's average temperature appears to have cooled slightly during the past 35 years, not warmed.

Collapse -
Political agenda?
by Angeline Booher / November 11, 2004 6:38 AM PST

How the heck does this tie into my "political agenda"? Guilt by association?

Forgive me for being a dotty old woman who has been interested in the environment, and the stewardship of it, through 12 administrations (I was too young to count Herbert Hoover,)

I use my resources, and you use yours. No problem.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Political agenda?
by Evie / November 11, 2004 9:19 AM PST
In reply to: Political agenda?

Angeline, I wasn't talking about you having a political agenda. But the various political and environment activist groups have a definintive political agenda. Look at the "about us" section for your link and you will see the economic-environment link. The agenda of these people is that socialism has largely been discredited as a viable political system, so good people can be convinced to adopt it in the name of the environment. There is NO doubting that Kyoto is a treaty more interested in suppressing the US economy to redistribute wealth globally (if it was about greenhouse emissions causing global warming, the three most populous emerging economies -- China, India, Brazil) would be included.

I want clean air too. But I cannot stand idly by while scientists are used as pawns in a political game. If one wants to look at global warming and identify a cause, ALL the possibilities must be identified.

Good example of this is abortion/breast cancer link and global warming/CO2 emissions link. With the first, any reporting of even a suggestion of a link is immediately shot down as inconclusive. With the latter, if the reporting bothers to include a dissenting opinion or pointing out that coincidence does not equal causality, it is mentioned dismissively at the end.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Re: Repeat - repeating an untruth doesn't validate it!
Collapse -
You should know
by Evie / November 11, 2004 7:59 PM PST

The truth behind that assertion has been discussed and linked to several times in the past. Just because you ignore that which doesn't support your agenda doesn't mean the rest of us have abandoned scientific thinking.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: You should know
by netsky / November 12, 2004 1:53 AM PST
In reply to: You should know
Collapse -
You linked to drivel that is meaningless and ...
by Edward ODaniel / November 12, 2004 5:27 AM PST
In reply to: Re: You should know

doesn't even attempt to answer the question posed.

Want to try again?

"Answer this: The Earth has been far warmer during past eras and the CO2 concentration was far lower. Can you explain this??"

Yeah, we were not around then burning coal and oil!!!!!

Your flippant response reeks of ignorance or inside you are recognizing that CO2 concentration is not the boogy man and are afraid to admit it even to yourself.

Collapse -
not checking published studies doesn't make them untrue,
by Edward ODaniel / November 12, 2004 5:21 AM PST

it just reinforces the far too tangible evidence that you are "too busy" to do any research or learning.

Collapse -
Don't be an idiot!
by Edward ODaniel / November 11, 2004 12:25 AM PST

No one has called global warming a myth. MANY however have disputed agenda driven and faulty model "explanations" that simply ignore historical cyclic occurances.

Was't really that long ago that Indiana and Illinois as well as Ohio lost many many square miles of permafrost themselves.

Maybe as glaciers retreat THIS TIME as they have done before in the past, we will again see more of the natural habitat of the Wooly Mamoth and Rhinocerous--we should as ice entombed mamoths found with vegitation in their mouths indicates.

Get a grip Chicken Little! Even if sea levels rise losing the People's Republics of Berkley and Portland would be a worthwhile trade for humanity.

Collapse -
Re: Don't be an idiot!
by Angeline Booher / November 11, 2004 1:17 AM PST
In reply to: Don't be an idiot!

Natural forces such as meteors striking the planet and resulting in lo-o-ng winters and cataclysmic volcanic eruptions no doubt influenced the climate. And our proximity to our son is not static, nor our axis rotation.

For the first time un-natural forces created since the Industrial Revolution are playing a role, and upsetting the eons of natural balance.

I'm too old for it to effect me, or to be around to see what I believe will happen to come to pass.

Earth is an island, and it looks like it's also going to be a while before settlements are possible on another planet or moon. Happy

Holding this view does not make me an idiot. I cannot prove that I will be right, and you cannot prove that I will be wrong. The difference between us is that I will not use belittling comments against you for disagreeing with me.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Re: Don't be an idiot!
by Edward ODaniel / November 11, 2004 3:43 AM PST
In reply to: Re: Don't be an idiot!

And interestingly enough Angeline you mentioned the causes that are cyclic and have been repeated before as they are being now.

The flawed models used by those with their agenda lapped up eagerly by Dave find it donvenient to ignore historical evidence and recent happenings such as major fires and volcanic eruption as well as axial tilt and sun spots--ANYTHING inconvenient to their "blame man" agenda.

Unnatural forces? Man was here for at least the last ice age and if you are referring to petrochemicals don't forget to factor in the extensive tar pits happily bubbling along at the time.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?