New sea ice data further bury George Will's global warming credibility
SUMMARY: New data on Arctic sea ice levels further discredit a widely criticized column by George Will in which he falsely suggested that sea ice data undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
On April 6, NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released new data on Arctic sea ice levels that further discredit a widely criticized February 15 column by George Will in which he falsely suggested that sea ice data undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The NASA/NSIDC press release stated that "the maximum [Arctic] sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000." Reporting on the NASA/NSIDC findings, The Washington Post, which publishes Will's column, stated in an April 7 article that the data "provid[e] further evidence that the region is warming more rapidly than scientists had expected" and noted that the new data undermine Will's column.
Will's global warming columns have also recently been criticized by Washington Post editorial board member and cartoonist Tom Toles, Post weather columnist Andrew Freedman, and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.
In his February 15 column, Will wrote:
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
Will's suggestion that the sea ice data he was citing undermined the case for human-caused global warming was false. The University of Illinois document that Will relied on in his February 15 column as purported evidence for his claim actually says that the University of Illinois data are consistent with global warming predictions. It says that "[i]n the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area" -- which Will cited -- "may not be the most relevant indicator" and that it is important to distinguish between sea ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres when discussing global warming. The document explains that "[a]lmost all" climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but that some recent studies have suggested that warming might initially cause the amount of sea ice to increase in the Southern Hemisphere, and that these projections are consistent with observed sea ice data. Even though Media Matters for America and others pointed out that the University of Illinois document actually contradicted the very point Will was purporting to make in citing it, Will falsely claimed in a February 27 column that he had "accurately reported" on the contents of the University of Illinois document.
Indeed, the NASA/NSIDC and University of Illinois data state that Arctic sea ice has decreased. The January University of Illinois document stated that "observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km [386,102 square miles] below values seen in late 1979," while the April 6 NASA release stated, "[T]he maximum [Arctic] sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000."
The NASA/NSIDC and University of Illinois data also noted a similar declining trend in Arctic sea ice thickness. The University of Illinois document stated:
Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area.
Likewise, the NASA/NSIDC release noted a decline in sea ice thickness since 2005:
Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.
[...]
"Ice extent is an important measure of the health of the Arctic, but it only gives us a two-dimensional view of the ice cover," said Walter Meier, research scientist at the center and the University of Colorado, Boulder. "Thickness is important, especially in the winter, because it is the best overall indicator of the health of the ice cover. As the ice cover in the Arctic grows thinner, it grows more vulnerable to melting in the summer."
The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold sets in. Some of that ice is naturally pushed out of the Arctic by winds, while much of it melts in place during summer. The thicker, older ice that survives one or more summers is more likely to persist through the next summer.
[...]
Using two years of data from NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), Kwok's team estimated thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean ice cover for 2005 and 2006. They found that the average winter volume of Arctic sea ice contained enough water to fill Lake Michigan and Lake Superior combined.
The older, thicker sea ice is declining and is being replaced with newer, thinner ice that is more vulnerable to summer melt, according to Kwok. His team found that seasonal sea ice averages about 6 feet in thickness, while ice that had lasted through more than one summer averages about 9 feet, though it can grow much thicker in some locations near the coast.















I stopped reading and watching George Will, he is out of his times.
he sure booted this one, there is no denying that.
now the question will be will he come out and correct himself, issue a retraction or somethign of that nature.
George Will is a nut.
New wind direction further buries George Will in own urine...
George Will is to climatologists as Al Gore is to Denialism.
My Earl_E thoughts for the day...
CO2 of course drops off when you drive 222 billion miles less than the year before, and that is just in the USA. Thank you economic collapse.
The last decade was the warmest decade and continues to keep the trend line up in average temps. So much for the "Getting cooler bull"
Yes the polar ice has melted before, they will melt again, and this time humans have done their ignorant best to help it along.
Since CO2 levels rise after warming in the geologic record, yet CO2 is now accelerating ahead of warming and acidifying the oceans, it is a double whammy. Increase airborne CO2 while decreasing oceans capability to sequester it... priceless.
Do you think the average temp of the ocean would go up or down if you slid ice cubes the size of Jamaica into it?
The Denialist Psalms... love to shoot them down with common sense.
If that ice cube is already in the ocean, what difference does it breaking free from the side of the glass do? None...
It melts.... uh... wow!
You are 100% correct on that one, snoop. It will neither affect the sea level as it melts or affect the temperature of the sea water as it melts.
Except that when ice melts, it absorbs more heat energy than the surrounding liquid environment. Forgot that one, didn't you?
That's a given. It was colder, to begin with, than the surrounding liquid. The most interesting point you made was to remind everyone of the fact that sea ice displaces the same volume as the liquid state, resulting in a net goose egg for the sea level. Many "scientists" have ascerted that as Arctic ice melts, the sea levels will rise. Most Arctic ice is sea ice, whereas, most Antarctic ice is land based ice. The Antarctic is not experiencing the same thawing as the Arctic.
I've always wondered how much geothermal energy under the Arctic has to do with the "warming" of the Arctic seas. I believe it may have a more profound effect than surface temperatures.
When did George Will have global warming credibility?
I see nothing in his biography that would lend crdibility to scientific knowledge ( such as math and science in his curriculum ) I am sure he can't do BTU calculations to check his own statements and intelligently question his sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will
In fact, Will was absolutely correct. The areal extent of mean global sea ice is now
above the twenty-year mean and rapidly increasing. Anyone
can see this for themselves by going here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
That's a nice looking graph... the only problem is... most average Joe's (meaning non-scientist types) will not have a clue as to what it means!
Perhaps you can find a link that explains it? Or maybe you can?
Whereas... my links above offer an entire website dedicated to explaining it all... and two arial views of the Arctic Ice Cap (circa: 1979 and 2005)... visually... even a five year old can see the big difference...
oops... not links above... links below... or ... from earlier
Ok.... anyone ever look at satellite photos from 1979 and compare it to recent photos from 2005... or read a scientific articel on the subject of the Arctic Ice Shelf ?
If these pictures don't prove that some kind of global change is occurring... that we are in serious trouble as a speices... believing the likes of right-wing shills like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or Republican Congressman James Inhof and you find yourself not seeing the reality of it all...
Do yourself a favor and get your head examined! And please shut the heck up while the adults try and do something about saving your dumbass!
when both ends of the earth ( north pole and south pole ) together lose ice mass, something is going on. Who knows if magma is coming in contact with water at the ocean floor.
If it were simply magma hitting the ocean floor... then yes... you would be correct... obviously, that would mean there would be nothing we humans could do except wait for the end.
Short of that though... and to something that is more realistic... CO2 is something we can effect... we all know how... good and bad.
Whether it is our fault for the higher concentrations or not of CO2... wouldn't it more sense to at least go down trying to change it for the better than to sit idly by while the Earth kills us off?
Of course... with that said... if the Earth has decided that our time is up... and since we have wasted all these years not trying to explore deep space looking for a potential new home... there is not a whole heck of a lot we can do about it at this point?
Of course this s just a wacky scenerio to the extreme... but it should be considered nonetheless.
I thought that when fresh water is introduced into the ocean, it changes the salinity. Also, when a solid piece of ice remains landlocked, it remains ice. Ice reflects sunlight.
So to say there is no impact from reduced ice reflection of solar radiation, and no impact from changing the salinity of the ocean, and no impact from melting frozen water, no change in the biodiversity of the under-ice community, it sounds like the only effect it could have to you is Santa Claus may have to move to the South Pole.
"Global change" is always occurring. Why would anyone expect conditions on the Earth to be absolutel static? But the point is, anyone can look at the data themselves and see there has been no net loss of sea ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979. Sometimes, there's more, sometimes less. But no net change or significant trend. This is a real problem for people who maintain that there is or has been significant global warming.