Ohhhh nooo, we're undergoing global COOLING, how is this possible!!!

LOL...sorry, couldn't resist.

I can't wait to see how global warming naysayers portray this.

"There is no global warming, it's just a rare airborne molecule hovering over the arctic ice cap that briefly undergoes an exothermic reaction, then cools down again. Yeah, that's it!!"

*cue naysayers ripping me and everyone else that believes in global warming up*

Meanwhile, my question is: Where do all the polar bears go? Does this mean that if they can't swim to Canada, Greenland, Russia or Alaska, they go kaput?

weatherdudeVA, before jumping to conclusions you should look at the facts.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg http://icecap.us/images/uploads/June22NHIce.jpg http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22globeice.jpg

These are from the ICECAP site

Re "dog days":

We're not there quite yet! According to the Hagerstown Almanack, the astronomical Dog Days begin July 3 and end Aug. 11.

I've heard that lava is a little hot -
--begin quote--
Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible, according to a new study.
--end quote--
source - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.html

--begin quote--
Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
--end quote--
source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080625/sc_afp/sciencegeologyoceansvolcano

Mr. Q.

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." -- Abraham Lincoln

Excellent points, Mr. Q. Capital Gang..........take note.

It's nice that you link to stories on the melting Arctic from Foxnews and the Independent, but where's the Post article on this...eh...rather important issue? I wonder what will happen with all the methane hydrates below all that ice and water?

Mike, do you know of any scientist who thinks that the discovery of undersea volcanic activity under the Arctic is responsible for melting the surface sea ice? I have not seen anyone saying that, and that study did not link the two. I wondered the same thing when I saw the press release though.

For those with open minds and interested in Arctic sea-ice melting and related issues, please refer to the following:

http://www.ipy.org/index.php?ipy/detail/sea_ice_experts

http://www.us-ipy.gov/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticleDetails.aspx?ItemID=439

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcrp/Special_IPY.html#activities

These links are examples of where, why and how scientists search for knowledge and understanding of what's really going on. They and their sponsors represent the exact opposite of the relatively few, but obsessively verbose, loud, and blindly self righteous individuals who believe they know THE truth. Their tactic is to scourer the internet or other "sources" for tidbits that support their version of truth, while ignoring or distorting that which does not. This is nothing more than a crusade against those who recognize and readily acknowledge that they do not have all the answers - and seek to find them regardless whether the results support or run counter to any preconceived views or working hypothesis.

Compounding the affect of the volcanoes is this -

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

Mr. Q.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Well shoot. I messed up the link in my previous comment. I should have kept it simple.

--begin quote--
A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
--end quote--

source of quote - http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Mr. Q.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson

Steve, I suggest that you follow the rules of the blog and quit with the personal attacks

"hey and their sponsors represent the exact opposite of the relatively few, but obsessively verbose, loud, and blindly self righteous individuals who believe they know THE truth. Their tactic is to scourer the internet or other "sources" for tidbits that support their version of truth, while ignoring or distorting that which does not. This is nothing more than a crusade against those who recognize and readily acknowledge that they do not have all the answers - and seek to find them regardless whether the results support or run counter to any preconceived views or working hypothesis."

Argue the facts instead of the people. That is wrong with this debate.

BTW there are multiple mikes are this site

The ice links that I provided above are from another source that I find to be insightful:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22ANTARCTIC.jpg http://icecap.us/images/uploads/June22NHIce.jpg http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JUNE22globeice.jpg

His main point was the melting refreezing had more do with the PDO and AMO cycles than anything else. I, for one, don't have time to endless scan through all the information out there, most of which is completely misleading on both sides of the issue. I was hoping for a discussion of why you agree and disagree with this other person's point.

I hesitate to link to this person's blog, because his blog is political, but I have to give him credit, he has a very good write up on this issue.

He has a graphic showing the location of the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia, and location of the recently discovered volcanoes.

He also has some side by side comparisons of the location of the melting ice, as compared to the location of the Gakkel Ridge.

If you factor in the reversal of the Arctic Ocean circulation (linked to in my comment), along with the shift in the PDO, to the volcanic eruptions beneath the Arctic, I personally think you can completely explain the melting Arctic ice. But that is just my humble opinion.

Anyway, enough said, check out the pictures for yourself.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589#more-5589

By the way, I am not endorsing anything found on that blog. I only link to it for the excellent graphics and discussion on this issue. If there were a different source I could link to, trust me, I would.

Mr. Q.

"Delay is preferable to error." -- Thomas Jefferson

See this related story from the NY Times DOTEarth blog: What's Really Up With North Pole Seace ice

Note in a response to a comment about subsurface volcanic activity, Revkin writes: "Keep in mind it's two miles below the sea ice, with thick intervening layers of water that don't exchange much heat"

Consider the merit of writer who doesn't know that a song is a ditty (compared with a rapper who is P.Diddy).

According to livescience, black soot may be a big contributing factor.

--begin quote--
The stuff that builds up in your chimney is soiling the ice of the Arctic, possibly hastening the melting of the polar ice cap, a new study suggests.

Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant accumulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.
--end quote--

source of quote -
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html

There would appear to be many factors working against the Arctic ice. So far we have -
undersea volcanoes,
a shifting AO,
a shifting PDO,
soot,
And of course, a trace gas which makes up approximately 0.03% of the atmosphere. We can't forget about that one.

Mr. Q.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." -- Alexander Pope

I'm not going to comment upon the "why's" here (not on a Saturday afternoon, anyway), but it will be most interesting to see how much the arctic sea ice decreases this summer. The graph that "Mike" links to indicates that the ice extent recovered very nicely from last years melt off. It's now diminishing, but starting from a higher ice extent than last year. So, how low will it go?? Stay tuned.

Whatever the cause, should the ice totally disappear -even briefly - it will have considerable implications on global societal and enconomic interests - some positive, some negative. You can be sure also it will impact directly or indirectly diplomatic and military establishments in significant ways.

RealClimate has some analysis of the polar commotion.
Capital Climate

There seem to be several different "Mikes" posting. Hard to know who is who.

From Gristmill:
What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007?

Capital Climate

Mr Q:

Regarding the article on the counterclockwise circulation of the sea ice
Did you read the entire article? Quote from the article which appears slightly lower than your quote (I am assuming that you missed it). Doesn't sound like its quite the anti-global warming finding you were hoping for...

"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said. "

Also, if soot is helping to warm the Artic (BTW your article was from 2005, but I couldn't find anything newer.), does that mean if we stop building and using coal fired plants,the soot will diminish? Asia, Russia and North America were listed as the main culprits.

Sounds like we need (and by "we" I mean everybody Europe, Asia, and North America) to stop building coal fired plants!

NEAT PICTURE FROM THE EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: Earth from Space: Arctic Ocean swirls

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM4LNRHKHF_index_0.html

O.K., someone educate me. Per cryosphere today: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

it appears that while the North pole is below average on sea ice the South pole is well above. The result is almost exactly the mean for the period from 1979-today.

(1) Shouldn't the fact that global sea ice is NOT down dispel the possibility that the cause of the decline at the North pole is global warming? If that were the cause, wouldn't it be unlikely that the south pole would be freezing up?

(2) Might this indicate that the volcanic activity at the north pole should at least be carefully studied as a contributor? The commenter above quoted the statement that the intervening water did not transfer much heat. The key word to me there is "much." Just a little transfer of volcanic magna-laden heat to ice might make a difference, no? At least one that might at least PARTIALLY explain the melting?

(3) Why does no one seem to talk about the fact that the south pole's ice is doing quite well. Is it actually climatologically unimportant or is the failure to mention it intentional? It just seems to me that it ought to be mentioned in virtually any story talking about the melting at the north pole and suggesting its causes (unless it's actually universally agreed that it's unimportant for a reason that escapes my untrained mind).

Thanks in advance.

NovaHoo:

Per your question, the quickest articles I could find is this one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html

from the Christian Science Monitor

Also, see Slate article here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2192730/

While these are most definitely not the most scientific of sources, the scientists in the articles do outline the basic cause-and-effect, nicely. Essentially, climatologists do seem to predict the growth of Antarctica. Since the North and South Poles are different types, they do not necessarily go in lock-step. Also, South Pole is affected far more by the El Nino/La Nina cycle.

No matter, there are signs of warming there as well, retreating glaciers, and snow and ice melting further inland than ever.

Its not unimportant by any stretch, but it is different than the North.

Hmmm... should we ignore the hot magma boiling beneath the ice and focus our attention on a trace gas that makes up 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere?

The mental gymnastics that some would have us attempt in order to advance their theory is nothing short of astounding. If they choose to do the mental backflips, that is their prerogative. But I shall pass.

I believe T.C. Chamberlain hit the nail on the head when he said,
---begin quote---
"The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more dear to him...As this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence...

When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will..."
---end quote---

Mr. Q.

Capital Weather Gang wrote
Note in a response to a comment about subsurface volcanic activity, Revkin writes: "Keep in mind it's two miles below the sea ice, with thick intervening layers of water that don't exchange much heat"

Keep in mind some of those eruptions were and ARE larger than those that destroyed Pompei. Global Warming is a fairy tale drummed up by Al Jor-El Gore and Enviros seeking additional funding. Just as Global Cooling is now a defacto JOKE, so too will Global Warming become. Where will all the fools associated with chicken little Gore be when this happens? Filthy rich, thats where.

He's made more than 100 million since 2000 on the spoof of Global Warming.

Why is the arctic ice melting while the antarctic ice expanding? Antarctica is a continent. The ice is 2 miles thick. Antarctica is symentrical about the pole. The arctic has a mix of ocean and land causing the jet stream to have more north and south motion bringing warmer air to the north pole. The air over the arctic rises above freezing in the summer which causes rapid melt.

Antartica is much colder than the arctic but has warmed considerably (but not as much as the north pole) so why should ice be rapidly expanding oveer antarctica? Because the average summertime temperature has risen by 5 to 10 degress but not enough to bring it over freezing. And with warmer temperatures, you get more precipitation falling as snow.

More snow doesn't neccesarily mean colder temps. You can;t get it to snow below -40 F.

There are underwater volcanoes across the planet. They only recently discovered the ones below the arctic. No telling how long they were erupting. And the volcanoes are not spread across the entire sea bed. Also if volcanoes were having an effect on sea ice loss, we wouldn;t have a rapid re-freeze in the fall and winter. Also if volcanoes were causing the rapid increase in CO2 each year we would have spikes and dips in CO2 amounts, but that is not happening. It's a steady but accelerating rate of additional CO2.