Arctic ice levels hit historic low, researchers say
Melting ice is visible near Greenland's Ilulissat glacier, one of the areas seeing the effects of global warming in the Arctic.
September 12th, 2011
11:07 AM ET

Arctic ice levels hit historic low, researchers say

The amount of Arctic sea ice has melted to a historic low, with the area of land covered by ice at the smallest level since scientists began observing it with satellites in 1972, researchers from the University of Bremen in Germany report.

The North Pole skull cap shrank to about half a percent under the previous record low set in September 2007, according to the school's Institute of Environmental Physics.

Researchers, including those from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, had predicted earlier this summer that Arctic sea ice levels could reach extreme lows. But the University of Bremen physicists said there was uncertainty in July about whether the ice melt would surpass the previous record.

They said their studies indicated that continuing ice decline was related to man-made global warming.

"It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences," researchers said in their report.  "Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced."

Read the report (PDF)

As Arctic sea ice has continued to decline, it also has become drastically thinner overall, the report said.

The researchers said that previously the melting ice had been attributed to yearly weather anomalies. But now it is believed the massive melt is due in part to global warming and the increasing albedo effect, which has to do with the power of the surface to reflect sun. As more ice melts, instead of having white ice reflect more of the sun's rays, you have a larger amount of open water that absorbs those same rays. Therefore, warmer temperatures lead to even more ice melting.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center did not have updated data to confirm the German report but said it expected the historic low to be hit based on the past few weeks' data.  Its site is only up to date to September 6. The historic levels were reached two days later. The center said it would "make a preliminary announcement when ice extent has stopped declining and has increased for several days in a row" and said it would release monthly data for September early next month.

The large-scale thaw is cause for concern, according to Shaye Wolf, climate science director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute.

“This stunning loss of Arctic sea ice is yet another wake-up call that climate change is here now and is having devastating effects around the world,” Wolf said in a statement.

The receding ice is also opening up a war for oil resources.

The Climate Law Institute noted the record followed news that this summer was the second-hottest since 1895.

In 2009, studies began suggesting the Arctic Ocean could be "largely ice free" during summer within a decade.

One of those reports, complied by the UK-based Catlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund, showed that researchers predicted that within 20 years ice cover will be completely gone during the warmer months.

soundoff (835 Responses)
  1. Dr.K.

    Seriously, why do people stubbornly and arrogantly assume that they know more than a consortium of experts who have spent their entire careers studying a particular issue? Just because you can look something up on Wikipedia does not qualify your opinion to override that of almost every PhD level climatologist in the world.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Damon

      Word.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Starman

      Welll Dr. K you are preaching to people that revel in their own stupidity. They were it as a badge of honor. You nor anyone else is going to educate anyone who does not want to be educated.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Damon

      I would bet less than half have ever heard of the Council of Nicea....and they base every day of their life off the outcome...

      September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheEducationalGeek

      Why do we disagree with them........history.......look it up. The earth has gone through the cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years. Man Made Global Warming is a farce. We're not causing the glaciers to melt, nor are we the ones who cause the severe drought in the US...One volcanic eruption in the world adds more caustic and greenhouse gases in the air than man does in a complete year. Believe what you want but in the end, you will see the truth.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      'TheEducationalGeek – Why do we disagree with them........history.......look it up. The earth has gone through the cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years. Man Made Global Warming is a farce.'
      This is exactly what Dr.K was talking about. Do you seriously think that these experts have not taken past history into consideration? have not take sun spots, mini-ice ages and every other 'yeah but....' offered as arguments against, as part of their research?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • skynyrt

      Because we just don't trust them & why should we, the only proof they offer is that they told us so. And just because people do not agree with you doen't mean they are stupid, it means they are unconvinced, you freaking idiot.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dr.K.

      You don't trust "them?" I assume you drove to work in a car, turned on electric lights and computers, sat down in your flame-retardant chair, warmed lunch in a microwave, etc. Probably took your blood pressure and cholestrol meds before that (read the label using your corrective lenses). But you don't trust them scientists, do you? It's all based on the same scientific methods.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Abolish All Religion

      Because "the bahble don't say nothin' about no global warmin' ". Because when you believe in imaginary friends in the sky, facts simply do not factor into your thought process, which is because you have essentially forgone any degree of thinking altogether.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Totido

      Educational Geek,
      Yes the earth has gone through stages of warming and cooling, but those stages were over 10's and hundreds of thousand years, not in 50-100 year time frames. People like you are so ignorant.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      'skynyrt – Because we just don't trust them & why should we'

      darn scientists and their scientisty ways, the only technological thing they have given us is.....well practically everything around us today darn it, why should we believe anything they say.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • bitterjack

      because they look at tiny little air bubbles frozen in the ice and say that's what the world wide weather was like. I bet the air quality in your room are different than in your backyard. Here's a comparative study for you to do. Take an air sample in your bathroom after you take a dump. then tell everyone the levels of methane in the world have quadrupled since 2009. They've been monitoring the ice cap for a whole 40 years. 40 years out of 4,000,000,000 years. yep, I'm scared silly of global warming....

      September 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • rwmsrobertw

      False statement alert for TheEducationalGeek.

      Humans produce 100 times more carbon dioxide than all of the earth's volcanoes every year.
      See http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm.

      I would not pay any attention to anyone that makes false claims like the one TheEducatedGeek makes.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      "One volcanic eruption in the world adds more caustic and greenhouse gases in the air than man does in a complete year."

      This is an absolute lie that's been floating around in chain emails. Check the math for yourself: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

      Climate data is readily available with a cursory google search. It's really not that hard to check this stuff, people.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      All the scientific proof of ongoing climate change is available for those who have a brain and are willing to try to understand it. Unfortunately, 90% of the world population (and apparently 99% of USA population) are not capable of logical thinking and objectivity required to understand scientific process. They are controlled by emotions and easily stirred in any direction and mislead for any purpose.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      dr: "Seriously, why do people stubbornly and arrogantly assume that they know more than a consortium of experts who have spent their entire careers studying a particular issue?"

      Because giving up your intelligence and refusing to ask questions because the "experts" have made a declaration on what is true is absurd. Give deference to scientists, but ask questions when things make no sense.

      Not to mention, global warming has become such a political, hot button issue, why should anyone believe what any person says on either side of it?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Cedar rapids-"'skynyrt – Because we just don't trust them & why should we'
      darn scientists and their scientisty ways, the only technological thing they have given us is.....well practically everything around us today darn it, why should we believe anything they say."

      The problem is, its those very same scientists and that very same technology that has CAUSED the mess we are in. So I should trust the person who killed me to also heal me? Yea, I doubt it.

      Once again, as I said below, can one of you wise critical thinkers please tell me what it is you think we should do? 350 Million Americans changing to CFL's isn't going to maek up for 1 Billion Chineese and 3/4 of a Billion Indians just coming into economic relevance.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nah

      michael: "All the scientific proof of ongoing climate change is available for those who have a brain and are willing to try to understand it. Unfortunately, 90% of the world population (and apparently 99% of USA population) are not capable of logical thinking and objectivity required to understand scientific process."

      Ah, right. And you've looked at these facts and figures yourself? Or you're merely parroting what others have told you?

      No one doubts the proof of climate change, the question is simply whether it's man made. And when you look at the "figures" it seems man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is negligible.

      The earth's atmosphere is composed of about .03% CO2, 3 percent of which comes from humans. That's equivalent to a person dropping 1 liter of water into a 400,000,000,000,000,000 (400 quadrillion) liter lake.

      Is that the tipping point for the environment? It may very well be. But I get the feeling you really don't know the answer, but you believe you've found one anyway.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • bitterjack

      How about the increased cloud cover that will result from all the extra moisture in the atmosphere? Do those white clouds not count/

      September 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      The old 3% canard. It's simply not true. It may be 3% of the TOTAL FLUX OF CARBON in the global carbon cycle, but that's irrelevant- it's the BALANCE that matters. There is a net increase in carbon now, and that corresponds to the amount we emit. For the last 800,000 years, CO2 has been between 200-280 ppm. Now it's 390 ppm. The math on our carbon emissions will show you that's due to our contribution. Carbon isotopic analysis of CO2 show that the increase is coming from the burning of fossil fuels.

      If you actually look at any data, there's absolutely no confusion.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • coffegirl

      And there you have it, you can google any and everything you want and find the answer you are looking for. Whether Global warming is the fault of man or nature, I think we can all agree the weather is changing, the ice caps are melting, we should all try to reuse, reduce and recycle and aim for alternative energy, just because of the affects fossil fuels have on humans and animals alone...Sorry but I don't see anyone sucking on exhaust pipes unless they want to die.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • bitterjack

      The global cooling/warming/climate change crowd probably would have been more successful had they not blamed Bush for everything (while he was president). They tell us that the Earth is billions of years old, that 98% of the worlds creatures that ever existed are now extinct, and then tell us everything was perfect until Bush was elected president. I know everyone will say it never happened, but go ahead and look, it'll be archived.
      If the scientists had said, " The globe is warming. It is part of a natural cycle. However, the human race will not survive the natural increase in global temperatures and resulting changes. We should do something to save ourselves." Instead they said "the world is warming. We are right because we are soooo much smarter than all the other knuckle dragging humans that are so very far beneath us. We've never been wrong about anything ever before. Therefore we have to be right. Blame Bush."

      September 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      Nah: the increase in CO2 levels has almost doubled over 40 years ago. So I am not sure how you arrived at 3% human contribution. It is more like over 50%. Yes, even though CO2 is "only" 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere by volume (close to 0.04% now)- those 0.03% contribute very significantly to trapping heat and preventing it from leaving the atmosphere. So, a 0.01% change can already lead to catastrophic consequences. Once world ice melts beyond a certain point- climate change will accelerate rapidly. Currently the world ice is "buffering" the climate change a great deal...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect:
      the people with the least knowledge tend to be the most confident in their knowledge.

      Read the actual science (not blogs, not cable news) and get back to me with your substantive critiques.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Starman

    Why accept direct observation and measurement from all major scientific and engineering based agencies and the concurrence of all top universities, when we have Sarah Palin and Glen to tell us what's really happening?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • CLIMATE CONTRARIAN

      Nobdy disputes that the ice cap is undergoing a period of contraction due to ice melt. However, it is the reason for this melting that is being disputed. It just seems to me that the explaination for this melting is way too convenient. I think the scientific community doesn't really know why this is happening and the expedient explaination is to say it is man's fault. Man can in no way influence the weather to such a degree to be causing this. It is man's self importance and narcissism
      that compells him to believe in man made global warming.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • rwmsrobertw

      10 lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming / climate change by burning carbon
      (taken from http://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm )

      1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

      2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.

      3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)

      4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

      5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.

      6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

      7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.

      8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.

      9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.

      10.It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

      Please visit http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php to see what is wrong with the arguments of those who think climate change (which includes global warming) is not real.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
  3. mseikeh

    Meanwhile world leaders are consumed by finding ways to pay interest on their country's loans.....and other problems of this kind....

    September 12, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
  4. James V.

    I really wish people would separate the varying aspects of this conversation (global warming vs. climate change). It may be just arbitrary labels but I believe something like this is really needed. I mean I feel it would help in the long run to distinguish between those things that occur due to the natural fluctuations in the planet's climate over time and those in which our actions are demonstrably having a direct impact. For people who what to simply ignore the realities and facts – well all I can say is they will always ignore reality and there's no amount of science or observation or reason which will convince them otherwise. One only needs to look as far as religion to see that this would be a fruitless endeavor.

    The reality is that our planet has enjoyed a very recent period of historically unheard of climatic and geologic stability. In fact we'd probably not exist in our current form as a species nor likely be where we are in terms of civilization if it were not for this stability. But all things do change – weather and geology for certain – so I really think people need to be more rational when discussing these topics. And we, perhaps like no other species, have proven more than capable of adapting and surviving in nearly all manner of environments. But that is our "natural" adaptiveness. But we no longer live by paying attention to nature. We now live based on "ideas" and even our "gods" are not longer based on nature and the world around us but rather on "ideals" (some good some not so good). I feel we are dangerously approaching a point where we are so far removed from the "natural" that we could arrive at a point where we are no longer capable (or more to the point WILLING) of successfully adapting to natural changes in our world – our collective ideology will prevent us from adapting and could well lead us into some terrible situations.

    We should be talking about how to minimize our impact on the changes that are inevitable as well as discuss how we will need to adapt and change our lifestyles & ideology when the inevitable changes do occur. And while we may enter a period of much warmer than normal temperatures in some places, at the same time the effects may be dramatically different in other locations. We should be thinking about the impact all of this will have on population densities, food production, potable water supplies, etc.

    When the world had less than a billion people on it we could perhaps slide by without real thought or planning when it came to world changing events – that is no longer the case. There are simply too many people and most are no longer connected to the natural world but rather the ideological world. This reality and how detrimental it will prove to be are already manifesting in the arguments you see regarding whether this topic is even REAL or NOT. It will only get worse, to the point where we will not be prepared and many many people will suffer and die as a result. We need to be prepared and we have the knowledge and tools to perhaps begin to understand a little what it is we need to do in order to survive and continue to thrive as a species.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Level-head?

      Amen

      September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • bitterjack

      you're spot on when you said our idealogical beliefs well prevent us from adapting. Just look at the mess in the US and European Union. I would say the people least affected by the current economic mess are the "primitives" like Aboriginals and tribes of Africa and the Amazon.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • CLIMATE CONTRARIAN

      Greenland wasn't called Greenalnd for nothing. it used to be green not white.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Rob

    First of all, I am soooooo tired of Liberals with no other ammo in the can but name calling. "Deniers" , "Morons", TEA crazies,Good Lord, you sound like 5th graders -grow up.

    i am not so much a climate change denier as I am a human change denier. What is it you think you are going to do? Seriously, in the 40 years we have been studiing the poles, liberals claim the sky is falling. Ok, so if man did so much damnge to a 4 billion year old system in 40 years, how on earth do you suppose that we can stop it? The answer, we can't.

    Someone needs to tell me SPECIFICS about what it is we should expect the mechanized AND DEVELOPING, worlds to do. What change by human beings could possibly change the fate of the planet at this point? If things are half as bad as the Libbie crowd make them out to be changing to CFL's and turning down the heat on the shower are NOT going to help. i try to make small changes, and have been for years, but you keep telling me things are getting worse. Ok, so that means the little things I am doing don't help, so why bother?

    When you tell India and China they can not continue to develop a society that rivals the US and Europe, THEN I will listen. Until then, screw it, this is not going to get better so why make myself uncomfortable? According to liberal "scicence" this planet only has 100 or so years left, so why bother? Its like quitting smoking after you are diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. Why?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • AntiFringe

      I believe you've summed it up quite well for the "conservative" cause.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Juxta

      That's cool... got it. I've given up on it too and figure we've only got about 100 years left so no need for you to continue driving the legitimacy of the Obama presidency into the ground since everything is so asinine.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mosin Nagant

      Pay carbon taxes to Al Gore and he will make things better.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Ok, so more name calling and no substance.

      That really does seem to be the norm for your side. Its a pitty, really. All you can do is howl at the moon, but no one can comeup with workable action steps that matter.

      Like I said, you tell me how it will help to give up my F-150 when every day in China 100,000 new people are buying thier first car. make it make sense, adn I will listen. You can't so I don't.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Confused

      Question: Why are those, who believe what the scientists say, labelled as Liberals? Stereotyping people's beliefs over a single issue is ignorant.

      I am a conservative Republican, but that does not mean I can't believe in man-made climate change.

      The world isn't an all or nothing proposition that so many democrats and republicans make it seem. It's called independent thinking – we need more of it in this country.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • bitterjack

      Confused – historically liberals are anti-military/big corporation. Even though everything the american liberal enjoys was developed and brought to them by military/big corporations. Liberals, while they feel they don't have to do anything they don't want to do (ie, free/liberal), and are all for stopping other people from doing what they want to do. Ironic, isn't it?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • coffegirl

      Ok, Liberals are anti government, yet it is the tea partiers main goal to shrink the government.

      Let's face it, we the people actually agree on more than the media would like us to believe and most differences are pretty minor. It is this insane idea that you have to be on one side, all or nothing and that just isn't the case. I can sit in my living room with politically divided family and friends and we have cured the countries economic problems multiple times, but our elected officials can't. My conspiring mind says, they WON'T...There is too much money to be lost if they fixed the problems. Just like cutting programs that won't dent the deficit, and we the tax payers will never see the return of that money or tax relief because they've cut such programs. Kind of like the global warming, why make yourself uncomfortable when it really isn't going to change anything?

      Flat tax, this so called liberal agrees. More financial responsiblity, yeppers, but that includes the Homeland Security debt too – not just union teachers, firefighters and police officers. Forget about privatizing Social Security, Wallstreet cannot be trusted, nor can the banking industry. Implement the Tariffs on China Imports so that Corporations will not be lured to send business to China, but keeping it here in the U.S. –

      If we can spend 3 trillion on National Security – I'd say we can spend 1.3 trillion over 10 years on a national health care plan not necissarily Obama's, but a combined plan.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      Calling you ignorant is not an insult Rob, it's merely the truth. The bottom line is, you want to keep polluting and so you're easily duped by the paid liars from the corporate world who want you to keep driving your pickup truck. You'll believe anyone who tells you you're right, no matter how obviously dishonest and self serving they are. People like you have been the downfall of every civilization and sadly this time the downfall that selfish ignorance will cause is of the whole planet.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Joe Black

    Know body wants to do anything about it. It was bound to happen. The way we can help is for us to buy small cars until we stop using oil.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
  7. AntiFringe

    There are thousands of pseudo scientists that will "refudiate" this "liberal" scientific community nonsense!

    September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  8. svart

    How bout take some initiative and look for yourselves to see that this article is false and misleading propaganda.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      If I understand that graph correctly it shows that on average the ice has been getting less and less each year. Did I miss something?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • no1der

      Try this instead. To understand the trends you'll need to have more than the last 10 years of data. We're currently almost 40% below the average sea ice area measured 1979-2000:

      September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      How do you figure? The data at the link confirms the article, not refute it.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
  9. OOPS - I Fell Of The Edge

    After all the ice melts
    and the planet has a magnetic shift
    will we find lost civilizations that will explain
    the origins of man ?
    Civilizations that have been buried under ice for millions of years.
    Our past has been kept from us for a reason.

    Or maybe i will just ask Sarah Palin about those 6000 year old dino bones
    god planted and leave it at that.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Mosin Nagant

    After climategate there is no reason to believe anything these so called climate scientists say.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  11. bobrt1

    The real debate is whether it is a result of global warming or all the hot air about global warming that is melting the icecaps...

    September 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
  12. realist

    More truth from the people who have been shown to be fabricating facts to support their own conclusions. It is the time honored scientific approach to keep fabricating facts in the hope that it will eventually be accepted. It is the idea that we should believe the conclusion even though the facts are not true or are ADJUSTED to fit the conclusion.

    I guess the old saying fits " Everything is true from a certain point of view"

    September 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
  13. blake

    Historic lows based on less than 40 years of tracking. Give us a break.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
  14. RUFFNUTT

    Sometimes when I'm hungry and bored I like to eat my own poop. Just sayin.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
  15. julianpenrod

    The "disproofs" of global climate change invoking harsh winters and any supposed increase of snow level in Antarctica are characteristics of the wholesale misrepresentation of the hglobal warming denier camp.
    Global warming never said that every part of the earth would becomce uniformly hot simultaneously. Even at its hottest, with temperatures like that of an oven, the earth will have different temperatures at different areas, the equator being, say, 450 degrees, the poles 400. At most, the different parts of earth will warm by the same amount. Currently, they talk about only about 1 degree warmer temperatures from some decades ago. But the poles are at an average of at least 25 degrees below zero. Antarctica is much colder, on average, than the North Pole, since the South Pole contains land and the North Pole is open water. Land absorbs heat more quickly than water, and land doesn't move as much beneath the ice, constantly replenishing itself with warmer material, the way water does. Even if the temperature of the earth uniformly rose the 10 degree amount used for addressing some models, both poles would still be below freezing year round! Although the South Pole would be further below freezing than the North Pole.
    So the process of snow formation would continue, even in a warming world.
    The change would be in the storm cylces. A warmer planet would have more water enter the atmosphere, especially near the equator. Also, air at the equator would warm more and so rise faster, resulting in lower barometric pressures than previously seen. And this would make for a more active "conveyor belt" of warm, wet water to the poles, where there would be still below freezing air traveling toward the equator. The result would be more severe storms, both with rain and snow.
    And, as the amount of moisture overall increased, the amount reaching the poles would also rise. At the North Pole, and that falls or calves off glaciers can be affected by the warmer water it sits on. In Antarctica, snow falling on still cold ground could increase. But not because temepratures are getting colder, only because there is more water in the air to become snow, as a result of warmer temrperatures elsewhere! A world in which temperatures are falling would have decreased snow because there is less water in the atmosphere.
    The New World Order is a vast criminal enterprise. Which means it cannot be open and above board about its machinations. They can never tell the truth about their actions, so, among other things, they tailor their approach. Among other things, they do not try to sway all with their "arguments", only the simpering dullards who can't think for themselves, anyway. And they can never state the facts about their actions, which makes their target audience cxonvenient, since they can't make heads nor tails of the obvious. They resonate tom shows of arrogance and venom. Such responses will not address the facts of the matter. They will summarily dismiss what was said without explanation, they will behave contemptuously, viciously, they will mock, the will use vulgarity.
    So often, the truth of a statement can be discerned by the disreputable attempts made to "disprove" it.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20