What can be said about the polar ice caps growing by 30%, not completely melting as scientist claimed?

Question

"Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

"Predictions of “ice free” summer for first time in history completely debunked"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/arctic-ice-grows-30-per-cent-in-a-year.html

Here was where they said we would be ice free by the end of the summer

"North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

Answer 1

Scientists fail to see a 30% gain in ice cover.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...

As of July 2008, the Northern extent is at 9 million sq miles, which happens to be the same as 2005.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archi...

When I look at the quote you posted, it specifically states "MAY BE," not "would be."

Also, you actually need to read the details, because Dr. Olav Orheim stated that IF temperatures averages EQUAL that of 2007, they will melt. We all know 2008 is slightly cooler than 2007.

Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, told Xinhua, “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions.”

Answer 2

We need to keep in mind that these scientists are not "pure" scientist as they are employees of the government and they need to lobby the politicians to insure continued funding.

Many of these "scientists" have admitted to embellishing claims to insure funding.  

It's a shame because the public has a hard time figuring out what's real, and what's made up.  This method corrupts the entire process.

What needs to be done is to shut down government funding of climate studies and hand this over to the private sector.  Then if corporations are caught embellishing claims, they would just go out of business.

Answer 3

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

There are only two possibilities here, either the North Pole freezes or it doesn't.

Since the North Pole normally freezes, the projection here is that it would not.

But it stayed frozen.

So even with all the weasle words, the projection was wrong.

Now that wasn't hard was it?

If anyone wants to say this wasn't a projection because of the word "may", there was no point in making this projection in the first place.

Answer 4

Growing 30%?  Where did you get that whopper?

Arctic ice is probably going to reach the second largest melt in recorded history this year, only behind last year which shattered the previous record.

Plus nobody predicted the north pole would be ice free this summer.  One guy said it was a possibility, but didn't predict it would happen.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time"

See the words "may be"?  He's right, it may be.  The summer isn't even over yet.

Please get your facts straight.

Answer 5

Your own links show/state:

1) That ice cover in 2008, while larger than 2007, is still substantially less than the 20-year average

2) The prediction is "that the Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030"; the NatGEo article uses 3 'mays' and 1 'possible' when 'predicting' an ice free north pole (NOT "completely melting" this year - no one predicted that but the semi-literate deniers seemed to think that's what was said)

3) Yes, the comparision between 2007 & 2008 show that ice coverage by area is 30% (estimated) more in 2008.

When comparing just two data points one can conclude either that 2008 was colder than normal or that 2007 was warmer than usual. If you look at the long term average, you can see that in fact, both years are warmer (i.e. have less ice cover) than average just 2007 was the warmer of the two. This continues to support AGW not refute it.

Similarly, we are talking surface area, not ice volume. Even though the surface area of ice is greater in 2008 (on August 11 at least) than in 2007, the volume of ice is less in 2008 than in 2007.

When both surface area and volume of ice return to, or exceed, decadal averages, then you can gloat but until then, we are still in hot (or less cold anyway) water!

Answer 6

Climate change alarmists didn't invent junk science (it was the paralegalsthat did that), but they are taking it to a new level.  

If global warming researchers were objective instead of pushing their political ideas, I guess they'd be out of funding.

Answer 7

Don't worry-- water freezes in the Arctic during the winter-- and the sun is cooperating--

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...