NASA: Arctic sea ice at second-lowest level on record
NASA has issued a preliminary report confirming environmentalists' fears of disappearing sea ice at the Arctic.
Sea ice is the thick permanent ice formed by frozen ocean water that remains even as seasonal ice melts away in the summer. In the past, it has covered about 60 percent of the Arctic.
The sea ice at the Arctic has now been found to have melted away by as much as half, according to a preliminary report issued Tuesday by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.
"According to NASA-processed satellite microwave data, this perennial ice used to cover 50 to 60 percent of the Arctic, but this winter it covered less than 30 percent," NASA said in a statement.
It is the second-smallest amount of coverage since NASA began monitoring the situation in 1979. The Artic's sea ice coverage this September is about 33 percent below average, compared with the record low of 39 percent below average recorded in 2007.
At this time, neither NASA nor the National Snow and Ice Data Center have made suggestions as to the possible cause for the change. A thorough analysis of the data is scheduled to be released the first week of October, according to NASA.
NASA image showing ice levels (in white) for September 12, 2008, at the Arctic. The orange line indicates the average amount of ice coverage for that day between 1979 and 2000. The black cross is the geographic North Pole.
(Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center)
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 





- by Mister Winky September 17, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
- The fearmongering in this article is incredible. Consider this gem:
<br />
<br />"It is the second-smallest amount of coverage since NASA began monitoring the situation in 1979"
<br />
<br />So, NASA has 28 years of data. That's not much in the grand scheme of things. The earth has been around for millions of years and has likely seen climate change and weather patterns that none of us will ever really comprehend because we won't live through it and we don't have measurements of it. 28 years is a blip - it could be part of a 500 year trend. To draw huge conclusions over 28 years of data is comical.
<br />
<br />"According to NASA-processed satellite microwave data, this perennial ice used to cover 50 to 60 percent of the Arctic, but this winter it covered less than 30 percent."
<br />
<br />Perhaps the perennial ice once covered 100 percent or 0 percent of the Arctic. What's the bigger trend? 28 years of data is interesting doesn't tell us enough to draw macro conclusions.
<br />
<br />Also, you have to wonder about using the word "situation" to describe the meting ice. It's a negative, judgmental word which speaks to the bias of this article. It's only a "situation" if it's empirically clear that we should all be worried about melting ice in the Arctic, which is not the case. Sure, the "report confirm(ed) environmentalists' fears" but environmentalists' fears often (usually?) represent a minority viewpoint. If I were hire a cameraman to tape my kid's birthday party, I suppose I could say "he filmed the entire situation." Sounds dumb, right? The use of "situation" is equally misplaced here.
<br />
<br />-Mister Winky
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by SouthernOregonZealot September 17, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
- The issue with a 500 year cycle verses 28 year?s of data is really a mute point. The fact is that the global climate is shifting. Patterns have changed in the past and will continue to do so. Manmade problem or not, we still have a problem on our hands. Many (did I say many?) people will be effected, adversely, by this climate shift, others will benefit simply by their location. EVERYBODY on the planet will be impacted in some way.
<br />
<br />Now, the real question is not if, but how much and when. If you say ?the sky is falling? and people look up and don?t see it falling, they think you are a crack pot. But that doesn?t negate the fact that the sky really is falling (simple matter of gravity) even though many people can not see the effects. Thank the merciful God in heaven for forward thinkers like Tycho, Galileo, Kepler and Newton! <br />
<br />But I suppose the earth really is flat too!
- Like this
-
- by Mister Winky September 17, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
- First of all, it's a moot point, not a mute point. If it were a mute point, you wouldn't be able to hear it! :-)
<br />
<br />The 500 year data vs. the 28 year data is the ENTIRE issue because too many powerful people are immediately associating climate change, whatever the source, with certain disaster and they blame wholly unproven "man made climate change" in a knee jerk, reactive fashion.
<br />
<br />I agree with you that we need to seperate the science from the policy and politics, but that's not what's happening out in the real world. Politicians are proposing economically disastrous measures to "stop climate change" as if that's possible or wise. Environmentalists are seizing on the fear factor to propose limitations on our freedoms to further their agenda, regardless of how the changes they propose have any impact on climate change.
<br />
<br />What if, over the next 100 years, we end up wasting trillions of dollars on a natural occurrence that man probably doesn't cause to any great extent instead of spending it on fighting cancer, malaria and AIDS, improving education and reducing poverty through economic growth? The logic of trying to stop global warming at all costs is perverse and often self-serving. <br />
<br />There are tremendous real and opportunity costs associated with jumping to unwarranted conslusions over 28 years of data.
<br />
<br />-Mister Winky
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (65 Comments)