http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feature...cemin.html

Quote:The new record minimum measures almost 300,000 square miles less than the previous lowest extent in the satellite record, set in mid-September 2007, of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers). For comparison, the state of Texas measures around 268,600 square miles.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

Ok. You have peaked my interest. Why is there less Sea Ice in that area?

(09-19-2012 01:47 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Ok. You have piqued my interest. Why is there less Sea Ice in that area?

FTFY

I draw no conclusions or implications from this announcement. However, it is important to know that the rate at which these changes are happening is increasing at an increasing rate, more so than is experienced on record from various data sources (such as ice drilling in the antarctic, or tree ring samples, for example).

Some people may say that this is a natural cycle of the earth, while I believe it is true that this sequence is in cycle with the afore-recorded cycle of cooling the earth goes through, it is happening much more dramatically and much more quickly than it should be.

I think that there is resonance kind of thing going on, like when you put too many clothes in the washer on spin cycle. If these wet clothes slide to one side, the rotation in the spin cycle causes it to resonate a displacement (creating that crashing sound when the tub collides with the walls of the washer). In more relevant terms, the earth is shifting cycles, while we as humans are aiding in the warming of the earth, causing us to "collide with the walls of our own washing machine".

just my $.02 though. A hypothesis if you will.

(09-19-2012 01:47 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Ok. You have peaked my interest. Why is there less Sea Ice in that area?

Warm up there. Antarctic ice is growing though.

What's interesting is that if you follow the data, earlier this calendar year the Arctic sea ice was about the highest it had been in 15-20 years.

Still, you want more ice during the summer as it reflects the sunlight then...if global warming is a concern. It's been a summer w/ little ice.

But that's only one factor since the ice levels had been increasing thru summer since 2007.

Holy crap find a small image man..

Anyway Satellite Era = 1.5% of recorded Human history and 0.015% of human fossil history..

IOW...

(09-19-2012 02:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Holy crap find a small image man..

Anyway Satellite Era = 1.5% of recorded Human history and 0.015% of human fossil history..

IOW...

I apologize for the image, it scales down automatically for me on my computer.

Satellite is not even remotely the primary driving force for these hypotheses. It is only a qualitative measure (granted they are able to estimate ice area via satellite, i.e. a quantitative measure). Quantitative measures come from material analysis in ice cores drilled from both the poles, among many other readings.

Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

(09-19-2012 02:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

We seem to think as humans we are important to the earth and have impact upon it. The fact is...we are like a grain of sand on it's deserts.

(09-19-2012 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

We seem to think as humans we are important to the earth and have impact upon it. The fact is...we are like a grain of sand on it's deserts.

Grains of sands... that have Gigatons of nuclear warhead force that can easily split the earth in two.

(09-19-2012 02:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

We seem to think as humans we are important to the earth and have impact upon it. The fact is...we are like a grain of sand on it's deserts.

Grains of sands... that have Gigatons of nuclear warhead force that can easily split the earth in two.

zero sum games don't count...and....Is that really true? I'm calling "fabrics" on the common claim that it would. Even with direct targeting of ALL the nukes at one location...it seems impossible to do so. I don't even think the badass Tesla could figure out how to do it.

(09-19-2012 03:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

We seem to think as humans we are important to the earth and have impact upon it. The fact is...we are like a grain of sand on it's deserts.

Grains of sands... that have Gigatons of nuclear warhead force that can easily split the earth in two.

zero sum games don't count...and....Is that really true? I'm calling "fabrics" on the common claim that it would. Even with direct targeting of ALL the nukes at one location...it seems impossible to do so. I don't even think the badass Tesla could figure out how to do it.

I'll give you that. Tesla was a badass.

(09-19-2012 03:47 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 03:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:55 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 02:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Kruciff I think your $.02 worth is about right. It's part of the natural cycle, humans are just this cycles 'asteroid impact'. Overall I doubt that our presence, and overall impact will distort the cycle too much.

We seem to think as humans we are important to the earth and have impact upon it. The fact is...we are like a grain of sand on it's deserts.

Grains of sands... that have Gigatons of nuclear warhead force that can easily split the earth in two.

zero sum games don't count...and....Is that really true? I'm calling "fabrics" on the common claim that it would. Even with direct targeting of ALL the nukes at one location...it seems impossible to do so. I don't even think the badass Tesla could figure out how to do it.

I'll give you that. Tesla was a badass.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/tesla.html

Regardless of whether it's natural causes or man-influenced, or whether it's short term or long term, we can throw all seasonal winter predictions out the window so long as the Arctic stays mild and there are large swaths of open sea (not that season prediction are too accurate to begin with).

The jet stream's west-east configuration has a greater tendency to wave north-south, and patterns tend to hang around longer. Hence, "the year without a winter" in the US last year and the frigid icebox for Europe. It could just as easily be the other way around this winter.

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http://www...QCw&wsc=bf