digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at thedailygreen.com

Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

thedailygreen.com — According to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iheartartoo, on 12/12/2007, -37/+281Alert the presses! Global freezing!
    • aliengoods, on 12/12/2007, -12/+242It's not global freezing, but I think I do see a trend. Every Spring things seems to melt, and then they seem to freeze the following Winter. I wish they had a word for these times of the year where the climate naturally changes. I'm proposing "seasons".
      • TheSabre, on 12/12/2007, -11/+37That's not scary enough. How do you expect the masses to get behind your proposal if you don't scare them? We need a term that implies unavoidable death and suffering.
        • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -0/+11How about Jiggly Earth Temperature Syndrome (JET Syndrome) ? This planet's got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell...
      • KennMac, on 12/12/2007, -13/+31Perhaps you're missing the significance of this. Not only are we seeing refreezing, but at "record rates" in a time of supposed Global Warming.
        • redxxx, on 12/12/2007, -18/+13Record rates of freezing following record rates of melting, doesn't actually imply that global warming is not happening. More ice melted this summer than any other time in human record. It is in no way surprising that it would refreeze faster, and according to TFA it is still lagging behind where it would normally be.
          • climateHeretic, on 12/12/2007, -3/+19Hold the reins there skippy,"any other time in human history" ? How about any other time in the 30 Years we have been monitoring total sea-ice extent.
          • Matteos, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1130 years or or 10,000 thousand, still an insignificant number compared to the age of the earth.
            10,000 < 4,500,000,000
          • redxxx, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8...but, that doesn't make for good rhetoric. :(

            not sure how the other comment figures in, the earth will still be here regardless of how inhospitable the climate is.
          • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6it also doesn't imply that global warming IS happening, nice try though.
        • Digitel, on 12/12/2007, -2/+10Everyone forget the 80's? remember we should get ready for another ICE age.... just as the last few years we need stop global warming....

          no one really knows whats happening... if we had data for the last 6 million years we could figure out a trend... still doubtful... and we will all be dead long before we see any real changes. Maybe some of your offspring will see it but i still doubt it.
      • jabrthel, on 12/12/2007, -5/+26This is unacceptable! Things cannot change, everything must remain the same! When I bought my house in August, who would of thought, come February I'd be shoveling snow! I planted a whole crop of lettuce in November, only to have the frost kill it! I refuse to adapt to my environment, so I demand everyone make great sacrifices to force our environment to adapt to us! Things must not change!!!!!!
        • tman84, on 12/12/2007, -1/+18can you believe that on Dec 12th 2006 the weather was not exactly the same as it is today. Obviously something is wrong. And if we look back 2 years we can see 3 different temperatures, all on the same day over the course of 3 years.

          mother earth is telling us something, and its that she wants the UN to be able to levy taxes on us
      • dracostimpy, on 12/12/2007, -1/+36Nobel Prize for the first guy to get a photo of a polar bear frozen in a block of ice. Save the polar bears!
      • seandaly, on 12/12/2007, -5/+14More melt = more water / open space.

        More water / open space = more available to freeze.

        If there was record low ice (therefore record high open water), then it makes sense that it would freeze faster than normal with all that extra space even given the same temperatures. (or does this only make sense to me?)
      • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -6/+3boo! you make far too much sense for Digg... buried!
    • dkoon, on 12/12/2007, -12/+70Damn, now we are in double trouble! Global Cooling & Global Warming every year....
      • dstrack, on 12/12/2007, -6/+41If we keep this up we will surely crack!
        • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9Either no one got that joke.. or they just think its that bad...

          I will digg you up tho...
        • Iconoclast25, on 12/12/2007, -9/+3Unfortunately, mad al and the hysterical chickens already have!
          • SillyDigger, on 12/12/2007, -5/+3Okay, who gave the crazy homeless guy an account on digg?
      • diggimator, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Not really global, you get summer in the southern hemisphere when it's winter in the north.
    • texpundit, on 12/12/2007, -17/+30What makes people skeptical is that you get reports like this...and on the same day, today, I read in the paper that another scientist is saying that arctic ice will completely disappear during the summer months as soon as 2012. I think his quote was "the arctic is screaming."

      Some consensus.
      • nblsavage, on 12/12/2007, -6/+38the water is re-freezing right now because IT IS NOT SUMMER.
        • texpundit, on 12/12/2007, -4/+12No *****, Sherlock. I was merely remarking on the seemingly contradictory (even though they are not) reports coming out simultaneously. People without much knowledge about Climate Change are undoubtedly going to become even MORE confused with the subject.
          • nblsavage, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4My bad then. Sorry for the snarky comment.
      • timbellomo, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6temperature extremes...
      • licoricewhip, on 12/12/2007, -7/+10This is dig, and this is an article frustrating Global Warming fans. So, buried as accurate.
      • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1there is a battle for mind control being waged by two sides with obviously conflicting interests...

        unfortunately the issue has become an ideological struggle more than anything else, much like evolution vs. creationism, but this time those who claim to be on the side of science are actually doing so on a leap of faith.
    • apollo168, on 12/12/2007, -6/+9All about salinity of the water. Check this other NASA Earth Observatory Study, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews ... and you can see it's true. Fresh water melting in to the ocean like crazy fueled this.
    • Arrhenius, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7It expected that all the open water will refreeze over the winter. Duh!

      What is more interesting - but harder to measure - is the thickness and total volume of ice. Thinner winter ice will lead to another rapid summer melt. Average ice thickness has been declining for decades.
    • graemee, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6I'll idle the car a little more, cause it's freezing cold this Dec.
    • SleepingOrange, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1On the flip side

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797. ...

      Then what?
    • nixfu, on 12/12/2007, -7/+19AL GORES GRAPHS WERE FULL OF *****!!

      http://digg.com/environment/UNIVs_Prove_Climate_Mo ...

      According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.

      …

      “This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change,” he said. “It’s a lot smaller than what the models calculate.”

      Singer said the reason why the models “overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases.”

      “Their models just don’t consider them properly,” he said.


      Soo...basically the 'models' that show all this catastrophic danger are complete crap.
      • seandaly, on 12/12/2007, -6/+3Tell that to the planet Venus *****! Venus is only 1/3 closer to the Sun but is 15X hotter on the surface than here on Earth.

        Increased melt means increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a big-time greenhouse effect contributor (likely the largest). More water vapor means more heat is trapped, which means more water vapor, then more heat, then more vapor until...

        You get the picture.
        • wrongonce, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7Me: "Hey Venus!"
          Venus: "Yup, what's up?"
          Me: " You hear what nixfu said in Digg?"
          Venus: "Yup. Nothing to do with me, cause I'm a completely different planet, dude."
          Me: "Sorry to bother you."
          Venus: "No worries. Keep on keepin' on."
        • floorman56, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Tell that to the planet Venus Venus is only 1/3 closer to the Sun but is 15X hotter

          So what you are saying is greenhouse gas global warming IS a natural phenomenon Not man made and that we have as much Chance of stopping it as preventing a volcano from erupting
          So we need to deal with the effects ..NOT the process .. Good job man
          • seandaly, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2ummm, yeah, sure, that's what I said...
          • mojoe1185, on 12/13/2007, -3/+2btw floorman, energy from the sun radiates from the sun inversely to the square of the radius, so yea, that explains the 15X jerk bomb.
          • mojoe1185, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1you have no idea what that means do you?
        • Acolyte357, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2So what you are implying is that global warming is either a natural occurrence, or there was at one time a very large population on Venus. Or you could take the sane route and just say that Venus is very different than the Earth.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
    • EtherGnat, on 12/12/2007, -3/+101,000 scientific studies come out that you don't agree with.

      "Nobody possibly knows what will happen. Scientists are full of ***** and all just propagandists. They're just doing it for the money! It's politics."

      1 study comes out that you agree with.

      "I've been scientifically proven right!"
      • jon30041, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Well, either way, we SHOULD put up renewable energy sources. We're going to run out of our precious fossil fuels soon, so... the wind power turbines and the solar panels will power the planet with the BONUS of being clean. I don't really like seeing a billowing cloud of steam or smoke coming from a smokestack, adding to the smog that's hanging over Chicago. Tack on the whole noxious fume inhalation thing and I think you have a solid argument for upgrading from inefficient fossil fuels to more sustainable wind, solar, and geothermal power.
    • elscorcho717, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4Because we all know how smart people in Virginia and Alabama are!
  • buildbyflying, on 12/12/2007, -37/+92Right. Alert the presses. Really, logic notwithstanding? Quote: "Arctic sea ice re-froze at a record pace in late October and November, but has yet to recover fully from a record summer melt."
    • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -11/+27Alert the press, a reply function has been created
    • HOOKSTER1231, on 12/12/2007, -7/+51I guess it a good thing winter lasts for December and January too then right?
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -6/+13we haven't even hit winter yet, are you really that ignorant Willis?
      • badjoke, on 12/12/2007, -16/+2I'd say December is smack dab in the middle of Winter.
        • nbcaffeine, on 12/12/2007, -1/+20its smack dab at the beginning
        • Butros, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4December 21st bud. And btw Los Angeles is ***** cold right now. I might move to Mexico if this keeps up...
        • x2wenty4x, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6Who taught you about the seasons? They obviously didn't do a good job.
        • h4ppydotcom, on 12/12/2007, -8/+3In Europe many people consider winter to be mid-November to mid-February (Martinmas to Valentine's). So it's time some of you smart alecs realise that there is more than one definition of the term!
          • schnikies79, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5It's a scientific term, not a mere definition. The first day of winter is the shortest day of the year, december 21st. It has nothing to with the weather, it has to do with the earths position.
    • Rippleeffect, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9Plenty more winter and cold coming up. Of course its not fully recovered yet.
    • smackafiyah, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1It feels like spring down here in NC. After 40s-50s all last week, we're hitting around 80. Wish I lived back up north, at least they're consistent with the cold weather.
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7Yet more reason to remain skeptically open to more evidence on this subject rather than either burying ones head in the sand or run around claiming the sky is falling.

      Personally, the only thing this alerts me of is that the patterns oscillations are increasing in amplitude. Winter is still to come and we shall see if the summer melt is matched by the winter freeze.
      • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5I doubt the pattern oscillations are actually increasing in amplitude, or frequency for that matter...

        what IS increasing is our ability to accurately and thoroughly measure every little temperature change for more spots on the earth than ever before.

        More data of more availability = more human analysis, but does not necessarily equal more understanding/predictability of the weather, so why all these armchair climatologists (ie Al Gore and most of you) are so damn certain of what the weather's gonna be like 10 years from now - let alone 5 hours from now - is beyond me.

        Learn about how non-linear dynamics and chaos theory apply to weather forecasting or atmospheric sciences and then get back to me.
        • Digitel, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4that was perfect... can deny the DATA when you don't have it all.
    • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5the bias built into this story is disgustingly obvious, the writer contradicts himself at least on 4 separate occasions -- and the headline contradicts bylines for the same story and other headlines on the same page!

      don't worry, even though the ice is almost all the way back up to its pre-summer levels, its still really warm here in Hawaii, unseasonably warm you might say...
      • Digitel, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1yawn... it was warm in Phoenix this summer no idea why though....
  • radicaldementia, on 12/12/2007, -9/+92Like the article says, this really isn't necessarily evidence either for or against global warming, it is basically a result of there being so much open sea due to more ice melting during the summer.
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -18/+2Hey idiot, ice melts with heat.
    • HoneyNutz, on 12/12/2007, -8/+2So if the Ice melted and no one was watching it with microscope..and then it refreezes -- did it ever happen? ZOMG GLOBAL FREEZING THE ICE AGE IS COMING!!! ALERT THE MEDIA!!!!!!
    • Butros, on 12/12/2007, -0/+6Agreed, it will be interesting to see how much total freezing we have by winter's end. Also I'd like them to study how thick the mass is compared to what it used to be, like the mass of the ice versus the surface area.
    • SleepingOrange, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797. ...

      And then we have no more ice... then what?
    • gostars, on 12/12/2007, -5/+17So...any bad news from the arctic = evidence of global warming. Any good news = insignificant
      • ozydingo, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5Explain how your comment was relevant, because I don't see it.
      • bluesnowmonkey, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2No kidding, when the ice melted so fast it was all over the news. Nobody mentioned unusual wind patterns then. It was passed as (at least implicit) evidence of global warming. Now when it refreezes, we get, "Well, it was never really evidence of anything."
  • 01l0, on 12/12/2007, -44/+44in before GDS (Gore Derangement Syndrome)
    • Kuroneko, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3too late
      • swiftekho, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1See the problem was, people were saying OMG ANTARTICA'S MELTING IT'S GLOBAL WARMING

        What they didn't realize is that the Artic Circle has been growing like mad crazy
  • SugeKnight, on 12/12/2007, -43/+44I can see it now, first everyone freaked out about global warming and now everyone will freak out as we slowly go into our next ice age. The earth is going through another of it's great cycles.
    • Whackly, on 12/12/2007, -18/+12science much?
    • korbink, on 12/12/2007, -7/+37No, they covered all of their bases when they renamed 'global warming' and made it 'climate change' So even when we do enter the ice age, it's going to be because of us.
    • mentalacuity, on 12/12/2007, -6/+9Science doesn't try to prove anything. They are not independent results or variables. Global warming leads to upwelling in the ocean which will lead to a long term cooling effect and eventually another ice age.
      • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3Scientists DO try to prove or disprove things. Unfortunately depending on who signs the checks.
      • oldhick, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4Science might not, but scientist do.
    • CabesMojo, on 12/12/2007, -5/+26Didn't we have a global cooling scare in the 70's?
    • inajeep, on 12/12/2007, -2/+12It's called winter.
    • mwalker05, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10for those of you who dont know, historically the earth does go through long cycles of great warming and cooling. we are overdue for one.
      • netdance, on 12/12/2007, -3/+3too bad the last time we had a warming like this there were dinosaurs...
        • ishmael5, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5source?

          I'm sorry but your "facts" on that snarky trollesque comment are completely wrong.
        • CabesMojo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3***** sweeeeeeeeeet! I want to ride a raptor!
  • lukemandese, on 12/12/2007, -38/+21so i guess global warming is fake?
    • ashmael, on 12/12/2007, -11/+23No, you just don't have any reading comprehension.
    • Jahweh, on 12/12/2007, -7/+6even if global warming ia true, the warming isnt enough to out do the difference of summer and winter, so ice will melt and freeze still for a while to come. I figure nobody considered that the water will re-freeze..
    • Butros, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10It's called a "Jump to Conclusions Mat"! You just stand here and JUMP to your conclusion!
  • codyman, on 12/12/2007, -18/+69manbearpig in hibernation
  • boxoman, on 12/12/2007, -34/+29kinda looks like the earth is balancing itself out... hmmm....
    • Krakn3Dfx, on 12/12/2007, -9/+6What exactly is the "earth balancing itself out"?
      Lol, yes, because the earth is highly concerned with the well being of humans, so it is fixing itself to meet our needs.
      • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -4/+10Where in his comment did he say that? Uh.. no where. He said it was trying to balance itself out, record melt, record refreezing... Hmmm
    • MammasMilk, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5RTFA: "Arctic sea ice re-froze at a record pace in late October and November, but has yet to recover fully from a record summer melt."
      'Yet to recover' does not equate to 'balancing'
      • TheSabre, on 12/12/2007, -4/+6Sure it does. Balancing is the present tense, which means the act itself hasn't been completed yet. It *is* balancing, even if it has not completely balanced itself.
    • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3Refreezing the arctic doesn't repair a centuries worth of ozone damage, nor the desalination of the worlds oceans. But hey, nice try.
      • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Whats that you say? i can't hear you over my Hummer H2's engine...
  • zyl0x, on 12/12/2007, -6/+75Holy *****. Water freezes in the arctic now?
    • machinesbreathe, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2I know... Curious, isn't it?
    • BESTenemy, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1... and hell along with it.
    • pentalive, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1ELECT DR. RON PAUL TO PREVENT STUFF LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING...
  • sedo1800, on 12/12/2007, -31/+19does this mean were not doomed??? global warming is a THEORY... nice to see some science that debunks it...
    • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -11/+3I suppose you still believe evolution is a theory?
      • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Yes. Everyone knows that. Geeze.. Don't tell me they don't teach you about jesus in school...
      • MeNorski, on 12/12/2007, -2/+11Of course Evolution is a theory, I dont remember seeing any reputable articles stating that evolution is a fact.
        • phybere, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2It's taught in every school classroom and textbook as fact...
          Of course, there are those who will still call it a theory despite huge amounts of evidence.
          • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Zooommm... did you hear that? thats sarcasm going right over your head...
          • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Every school classroom? I don't think so.
            And since when are we basing reality on what is taught in schools. Schools fail at everything except babysitting.
            BTW I believe in evolution and creation.
        • zengonzo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+7Sure wish science classes would do a better job of explaining the difference between the colloquial 'theory' and the scientific 'Theory'.
          • oldhick, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2Its still theory. We understand the difference in scientific theory, you still can't say its fact. I don't understand why that distinction is so important. You're simply getting into a stupid argument and trying to do it with semantics. Just tell them to ***** off.
          • zengonzo, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3You might, but not everyone does. When someone says, 'it's just a theory', they have no idea what they are talking about. It would be one less stupid thing to come up - and it ought to be such an easy concept to get across.
          • EtherGnat, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2"I don't understand why that distinction is so important."

            Seriously? There's a critical difference between "I have a hunch" and "after extensive testing, countless hours of research, and thorough peer review this is the model which best fits the facts".
        • Scynet, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4There are no facts to begin with, they simply don't exist. Everything the human race knows is based on the "fact" (pun intended) that "it seems to be that way", from gravity to love. It SEEMS like water flows down, and it SEEMS like we have to breathe or die, but there's always a small chance that we're living in an illusion of some sort. Maybe I've a mutation and can absorb air without breathing? Maybe dark matter has accumulated around Earth, pulling things upward? Could happen any time as far as we know.

          However, without taking things for granted, the society would fall apart. You can't start considering every single possibility before taking an action, or you would be long since dead before making that single decision. Some of the most probable ideas have to become facts so that we can build our world and rules around them. Seeing how accepting very probable ideas as facts has gotten us this far alive, I'd say we're doing a good job.
        • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3Sure wish science classes would do a better job of explaining the meaning of the word "Theory".
    • Smiths, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6Here's a theory: Morons comment on articles before reading them.

      There was nothing in that article that proved, or debunked, anything other than ice is forming at a faster rate than before.
    • ozydingo, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Imagine you have an ice cube in your freezer, and this ice cube has been frozen in your freezer since last year. How fast is the water freezing? It's not, it's already frozen. Now your freezer breaks, but it can still keep temperatures cooler than the atmosphere. You have a hot day, and your ice cube melts. Then you have a cold day (say close to 0 degs C). Try to guess what happens.

      Extra credit: when can you observe more freezing, before or after your freezer broke?
  • exomni, on 12/12/2007, -39/+94The ignorance in these comments astounds me.

    Yes, we had a record amount of water freeze in Oct and Nov, guess why? Because there is MORE WATER TO FREEZE because of our RECORD HIGH MELTING this summer.
    • Phyltre, on 12/12/2007, -17/+10Sounds a bit like a self-correcting problem, then, at least in this observable microcosm. Of course this makes no larger statement on overall temperature trends.
    • noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -20/+11What does that have to do with the rate of refreezing. Water doesn't just freeze because it's liquid. If we were actually warmer than the norm then the Ice would not refreeze anywhere near as fast as we have seen in the past.
      • 01l0, on 12/12/2007, -3/+11Melting (freshwater) glaciers = Less salt = higher freezing point. Science.
      • banmaster, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6noahoward, if you'd bothered to read the article it clearly states that the water ISN'T freezing as much as it had done in past years:
        Quote: "Arctic sea ice re-froze at a record pace in late October and November, but has yet to recover fully from a record summer melt."
    • apollo168, on 12/12/2007, -2/+21It's all about salinity of the water. Another study by the NASA Earth Observatory verifies this, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews ...
    • zengonzo, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10Personally, I prefer to skip past the beginning to the sentence that confirms my preconceived viewpoint, then close the article.
    • ftx437, on 12/12/2007, -6/+3Hmmm yes i see your point..BUT IT WAS SUMMER TIME WHEN THE ICE MELTED!!!! And Now it's freezing BECAUSE IT'S WINTER! WHAT A CONCEPT!
      "Globla Warming" Doesn't come and go with the seasons. God you must be in real bliss right now.(just in case you know ignorance is bliss)
    • HoneyNutz, on 12/12/2007, -7/+2You are the true ignorant one. Stop watching the news and realize that global warming isnt as much of a problem as the TV tells you.
      • Smiff2, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7yeah, sticking your head in the sand is so educational. Thanks HoneyNutz for that total solution to ignorance.

        look, it's not that hard. b
        every summer more ice melts than the previous summer. every winter some but not all of that ice refreezes. what have you got? less ice overall every year. global warming is still on.
        • mchinsky, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Globabl warming may be occurring, but its occurred long before man had machines and will occur long after were gone. What about all the hype in the 70's about global cooling? You folks all forget about that real fast.

          The AL Gore global warming movements is far more about politics and ecomonics than it is about reality. It's about the "have nots" in the world wanting to take down the US. If Russia was the country kicking ass economically, watch how quick they would voluntarily reduce emissions.

          Kind of like George Carlin old joke, "Ever notice women who are for abortion are women you wouldn't want to f_ck anyway??"
    • skeeterbug84, on 12/12/2007, -4/+1Isn't it odd though, that the articles that report the ice melting, never mention it will re-form at a faster rate in the winter months?
      • jon30041, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1I doubt they knew that. The Earth is unpredictable, but we still try to do it.
    • designerutah, on 12/12/2007, -2/+6You really need to extend your baseline to see what effect that man has had on the climate -- in the long term. The big argument really isn't whether the temperature is warmer this year than last. Whether more ice has melted this year than last. Look at temperatures (and ice volumes) around the globe for a long period (50,000 years), and its been both warmer and colder than it is now. Significantly warmer and colder. And both more and less ice. Ice melting faster than previously recorded isn't proof that Global Warming is verified fact. And ice refreezing is not proof that Global Warming is false. All it truly means is that (for the period we have had accurate measurements) this year the ice is melting and refreezing more than previous years (and not refreezing enough to recover the lost ice of recent years). But since there have been hundreds, even thousands of years with less ice than now (in geologically recent times), it just means our baseline of accurate data is too short.

      I don't think anyone can argue that man has affected Earth's atmosphere (and thus the climate). But how great the effect, and even what effects, and what long term impacts will be overall.... these are still much in debate, despite the sensationalist press that Global Warming receives.
      • mchinsky, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1And even if we are, which of you (americans) want to see the economy tank and the cost of energy double from where it is today in the name of "global" warming.

        You have no idea how much energy costs in your daily lives. Far more than just the price of gas. Everything you buy, every service you use has a significant energy component. Basically, would you be willing to give up an addtional tax of .25 to .50 cents on every dollar you have left after layers of taxes to be "green?" per the Al Gore definition.

        I doubt a material fraction of real americans (not the SF Digg crowd) would say yes to that
    • Lokishot, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1So it all even out? AMIRiTE?
    • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2the ignorance of your comment is particularly astounding.
    • spoering, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1This is what happens when people decide that text is a better way of disseminating information than a graph. We end up with these sensationalist headlines that always manage to put a spin on the data. Just look at a graph, people. Arctic sea ice extent varies wildly up and down from year to year, but the general trend is down. I don't even bother to read these stories any more, unless they include a graph of the data.
  • KanosWRX, on 12/12/2007, -21/+24Doesn't look like much left to freeze, still have 3/4 of winter left too. So much for all the polar bears not having ice anymore :) looks like they are getting it all back. Funny that, ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter...
    • bjs3171, on 12/12/2007, -5/+8so much for all the polar bears not having ice? you do realize a great number of animals drowned because of a lack of solid ground, right? so sure, there is some ice again for polar bears right now, but that doesn't change the fact that over the summer it cost some their life.

      and the arctic is not ***** new york. it's not supposed to get warm in the summer.
      • primaldefense, on 12/12/2007, -4/+4Don't Polar Bears enjoy water, and swimming.. they do in the arctic and in our zoos around the world.. I have seen them in their pools of cold water at zoos in New York, Chicago, and California... so why would they drown when they can SWIM..... I am pretty sure that polar bears have been swimming for centuries...
        • badlandz, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4And how much swimming can you do before you get tired?
        • davewashere, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11Very true. Polar bears not only love to swim, they enjoy treading water for several months at a time with no breaks. And that information comes straight from the Official Scientific Institute of my Ass.
        • willr001, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Polar bears will regularly swim for 60 miles to move between ice pieces.
      • climateHeretic, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4You sir are mistaken. Please cite some sort of source for your claim that a great number of animals drown as a result of Arctic Ice Loss. Polar bears are not stupid and ice does not wink out of existence. Bears hunting on ice will stay on solid ice all season, moving around as ice conditions change, the ones on land are quite capable of hunting there as well. FYI they hunt on ice because seals rest there, no ice, seals rest on land. Get it?
      • Duositex, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2"it's not supposed to get warm in the summer." Excuse me? Supposed? Since when are we to decide what the weather is SUPPOSED to be? As if a cold arctic is morally superior to a warm one?
        And to the original post: 3/4 of winter left? This is the Arctic we're talking about. Winter begins in the United states in October in some places. It begins there even earlier, and ends even later. They have probably 90% of their "winter" to go.
    • crimson117, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1The ice is supposed to be there in the summer, too!
  • BadseedJR, on 12/12/2007, -14/+58Are you trying to tell me that water melts in the summer and freezes in winter? I don't believe you.
    • chrismgtis, on 12/12/2007, -9/+9I take everything I read about the environment with a grain of salt these days and nothing but a sensationalist theory thought up by bored "scientists".
      • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6That every major scientific institution agrees with.

        No offense chief, but when all the worlds smartest minds say something in unison, "ignoring" them doesn't make you clever.

        Just because part of the arctic REFROZE (part that should never have melted in the first place), it doesn't mean that the damage wasn't done. Our seas are becoming increasing desalinated. Not only that, but what the hell is going to fix the centuries worth of ozone damage?

        Stop pretending that this disproves global warming. Global warming is a trend and with any trend, it bucks back and forth with a net gain on one side. Jesus.
        • omega6, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Centuries? Really? As far as I was aware, we only started making an impact to the ozone in the last century, which would be "century worth". Also, that ozone depletion has been repairing itself for a while now and is quite stable.
          • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Technically the industrial age began in the 1800's which was over a century ago. More than a century worth. Nice try though.

            The beginning of the industrial age marks the beginning of widespread burning of fossil fuels and the original, albeit much slower, destruction of the ozone.
        • oldhick, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2That simply isn't true. Most believe that the climate is warming, but that's not the concern that most people have. The true debate in the scientific community is whether the warming trend is man made or not.
          So while you can claim that this consensus exist about global warming, thats only partially true.
    • simpleid, on 12/12/2007, -5/+13are you telling me al gore won a nobel peace prize for discovering summer? i can't wait to leave for a new planet.
      • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2He should have won it for 'inventing' summer.
    • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -5/+5Dude, you're ***** retarded.

      It's the ***** arctic, not Florida. Ice DOES NOT MELT IN THE SUMMER. Welcome to the north-god-damn-pole.

      If it melted we have serious problems. Oh wait, it did, and we do.
      • omega6, on 12/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, the arctic goes through cycles of melting and refreezing. Temperatures in the arctic do in fact increase enough to melt ice slowly, though lately it has been melting rather fast.
      • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2We do?
        • betterth, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, and impressively, only a few select Americas choose not to believe in it.

          The vast majority of first world countries actually believe the myraids of multinational scientists that are warning us.

          But hey, it clashes with our extreme consumerism and *****-everything way of life, so I can understand why Americans hate it.

          That and half of us are religious and just think that God will take care of us, so let's chug away in SUV's until Judgment Day.
  • darny, on 12/12/2007, -27/+21oh no i broked ur warmingz
    • Ksurfiws, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3I don't care. That right there will never stop being funny.
  • carbbomb, on 12/12/2007, -35/+39Al Gore is going to be pissed.
  • notfaded1, on 12/12/2007, -35/+35This can't be... you can't trust those scientists... Al knows better... he did invent the internet you know.
    • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Yea with tubes and such
    • lukifer, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6For the last ***** goddamn time: "I was instrumental in the creation of the internet." != "I invented the internet." He was referring to providing funds to the National Science Foundation, not the technology itself, and Vint Cerf (you know, one of the guys who DID invent the internet) agrees with Gore's statement. I am so damn tired of that inaccurate meme.
      • AresDiggs, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2hahahahahahaha apparently you have no grasp on the concept of sarcasm
    • Cyberen, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I thought Gore co-won the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC. Looks like they're not at odds after all.
  • giveer, on 12/12/2007, -9/+59 A more creative title would've been: "Mother Nature Provides Polar Bears with One Last Chance to Walk Out of Arctic."
    • cnot3, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Perhaps if the target audience was bears. You must support a pro-bear agenda.
  • Hosalabad, on 12/12/2007, -20/+16Wait you are all missing it!

    It isn't even winter yet and water is FREEZING! We're doomed!
    • banmaster, on 12/12/2007, -7/+3So, um, December isn't the middle of winter??
      • yazheirx, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3Per the calendar the first day of winter, for the northern hemisphere, is December 22nd
        • LokitheComplex, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1That's astronomically speaking. But meteorologically its December, January and February.
        • Duositex, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2And therefore the answer to the question is "No, December is not the middle of the winter, as per the meteorological and astronomical definition of winter."
    • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Man you don't even know. Water is even freezing outside MY house. That hasn't happened since February 2007. We all have to move south NOW!
    • graemee, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2Actually, Hosalabad is right Winter officially starts sometime between Dec 20-23 on the winter solstice. But around here it starts when the snow stays. It's been winter for 3 weeks.
      • Hosalabad, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Snow? It was 75 today, how can there be snow anywhere ;)
  • odnaryperson, on 12/12/2007, -11/+5nope... global freezing cant be happening, not enough scientific data to back it...
  • IEatHamburgers, on 12/12/2007, -5/+9La Nina shows her face once again. Just like El Nino did last year when it was melting like crazy up there.
    • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Ten years ago Al Gore was saying that La Nina events would be a thing of the past as El Ninos would get longer and more severe... but he also said we only have 10 years to act about... 10 years ago... so... why did this guy get the Peace Prize again exactly?
  • FluffyWolf, on 12/12/2007, -9/+35Yes, ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. What Gore said was that there might not be any ice in summer in a few years time, during the winter there will always be ice.
    • 4chin8, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5Check out the sun spot activity:
      http://spaceweather.com/index.php
      No solar flares & minimal sun spots. However, one is getting large, 978. If that develops into a flare, then there will probably be a temperature change here.
    • grhomepage, on 12/12/2007, -4/+10Al Gore's not a scientist but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
    • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -4/+2Ten years ago Al Gore was saying that La Nina events would be a thing of the past as El Ninos would get longer and more severe... but he also said we only have 10 years to act about... 10 years ago... so... why did this guy get the Peace Prize again exactly?
      • Cyberen, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Yeah, like you're so much more qualified than the freakin' Nobel Peace Prize committee.
        • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1i didn't say that, i'm just asking for somebody to please explain to me what Al Gore has to do with Peace?
        • BadseedJR, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I guess he hasn't killed anyone... that's kind of peaceful.
  • grhomepage, on 12/12/2007, -17/+52Al Gore's private jet usage must be down.
    • Chitownmortgage, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Or he is not bloviating enough
  • jrefenes, on 12/12/2007, -23/+17My favorite part of the article is this...
    "The record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely viewed as a harbinger of global warming, though unusual wind patterns played a role and many factors affecting fluctuations in Arctic ice are poorly understood by scientists."
    Scientists who yet have the audacity to incite panic and massive shifts in how we're "supposed" to live our lives. Just more arrogance from those who think they know better and want to tell us how to live.
    • giveer, on 12/12/2007, -4/+8Seasons still exists you cute little wanker. The reason ice couldn't grow at such a rapid rate in other years, is because THERE WAS ALREADY ICE THERE. Of course ice is going to rapidly grow in the Arctic. In Winter. Where there's barely any ice. For the first time. It's called ratios. It's a tough little concept to grasp, especially when one's head is crammed up an ass.
    • centerblack, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7No one wants to tell you how to live. If your car can do 0-60 in 4 seconds and goes 450 miles before needing more fuel, then what the ***** do you care what it runs on?

      All these people are really trying to do is point out that we live in an enclosed system, and everything we do DOES have an impact on it. You'd think that this would be obvious to people.

      Once you accept that our actions affect the system in which we live, you can start funding research to generate energy cleanly. If the power generating windmills and solar panels are telling you how to run your life, I think you have bigger problems and should probably see a psychiatrist.
    • Math, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Those dang scientists with their electricity and evolution and fancy ways. But we, we know better.
  • Roads01, on 12/12/2007, -17/+10We win!
  • doublsh0t, on 12/12/2007, -10/+22Excelsior!
  • apollo168, on 12/12/2007, -1/+23http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews ... ...that, which recorded our northern water to be less salty, (due to current changes and more fresh water melting in to the salty water), shows why. Less salt = higher freezing point. Our water in the north has less salt in it than it used to, so it will freeze faster at the same/similar temperatures.

    Duh.
    • koko775, on 12/12/2007, -6/+1No, Less salt = lower freezing point. At the same temperature, freshwater will freeze before saltwater.
    • da_bradler, on 12/12/2007, -3/+10exactly right, this is where the theory that global warming could bring about an ice age comes from, if the polar ice caps melt the oceans will become way less salty which in the winter will result in more area being covered in ice, and the more area that is covered in ice the more solar heat the earth reflects back into space, so every year it will become harder and harder for the earth to get rid of all this ice.

      This is how they think the last iceage happend, but there are a few problems namely if this is what causes ice ages it should actually be impossible for the earth to get out of an iceage since it will get to a poitn where the earth reflects so much heat that it can never get out of winter. there of course are many theories as to how earth could remove it from an iceage but like everythign it's just educated guesses.

      the biggest argument is that we think we are causing global warming and we actually have no idea what it's going to do to the earths climate, and since reducing carbon emissions and lead emissions and other chemicals isn't that hard "relatively speaking" and would be better for our health, maybe we should just do that instead of playing Russian roulette with the planet we are living on
      • gostars, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2Probably the best post on this thread.

        I still hate the artificial urgency that Al Gore injects.
      • Oea420, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1Dugg.

        This is exactly the case, and if you do any major research on the subject of global warming (ie. not Al Gore) you'd see that one of the big contributing factors is the decrease in overall sea salinity... which carrier with it a number of consequences..

        Think about it... a couple deg warming coupled with a water source that is now freezing and evaporating at warmer and cooler temperatures respectively..
    • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1well you certainly wrapped up that mistery, good job, i guess the debate is over. back to warning about warming!$$$$
  • EvilNed, on 12/12/2007, -2/+10My guess would be decreased salinity making the freezing point of the water higher than it normally is. I'm not a climatologist though.
    • apollo168, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Got the same answer in one minute ahead of you ;)
    • machinesbreathe, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0Nice observation there. This should be observed in further detail.
  • johnso68, on 12/12/2007, -18/+36I wish scientists that study this would just admit that they have no clue what is actually going on and are winging it. The earth has cycles. This is just one of them. I remember in the 1980's when we had very cold temperatures being told that we were going to be having our next ice age. If the earth is warming it has been millions of years before we had a major change in temperature either positive or negative, get used to it!
    • doctorlw, on 12/12/2007, -9/+8I completely agree.
      • skippyatuw, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2See that handy green thumbs up icon? Give that a click and we will know you "completely agree"
    • 01l0, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9The earth's warming and cooling cycles occur gradually over hundreds of thousands of years. Science.
    • ashmael, on 12/12/2007, -8/+11Actually, you're really just showing your massive ignorance on the topic, and then claiming that since you have such a massive ignorance that nothing at all can be known.

      We get it, you're not a climatologist, but don't knock those who are if the only defense you have is ignorance.
      • johnso68, on 12/12/2007, -5/+10Wow, I guess you showed me. By having used the word ignorance 3 times in two sentences you show how uneducated you are in not being able to come up with another synonym to call me. I never claimed to be a climatologist, but like in all sciences all of these "great ideas" are just theories. It is the bandwagon everyone is jumping on until some other evidence comes along that disproves it, just like the next ice age of the '80s. That was my point. What I do know is that right now it is getting warmer, yes. In another 10 years, it may get colder again. And the cycle will continue.
      • ryan83189, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7So what brought us out of the last ice age? camp fires? nothing, it happened on it's own, we are still warming up.
    • silveravnt, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5They need jobs just like us.
    • EtherGnat, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4"I wish scientists that study this would just admit that they have no clue what is actually going on and are winging it."

      You're drawing a dangerous conclusion. Just because scientists don't know everything doesn't mean they know nothing. I don't know what time the next train is coming, but I'm still pretty sure it's not wise to fall asleep on the tracks.
      • Navigator7, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3You have to be a scientist to reach that conclusion?
        I thought I was doing pretty good not getting hit by a train ....yet.

        Here is what is wrong with global warming: Those who believe are not allowing dissent with those who disagree. Science is not able to do what they do best: Present their case and debate it.
        http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...
        """Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants. """

        In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. --Galileo Galileo 
        • mchinsky, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1If we don't know for sure what's going on and we can't be sure it's man made, than how can we fix it? Who says "fixing" it won't actually either make the problem worse, or create the opposite problem (global cooling).

          All I know is everytime man tries to mess with nature, he loses. Everytime government messes with an economy, long term they make things worse.

          Let things happen in their own natural course and "natural" selection always seems to work for the billion years or so life existed before man got here and for the 99% of time man has been here but hasn't been technologically advanced.
      • johnso68, on 12/13/2007, -2/+0I didn't think it was dangerous to say I disagree with global warming and say that no one really knows for sure what is causing it. So by dangerous you mean the world is going to end tomorrow because I made a comment you don't agree with? Besides I didn't say they know nothing. Most are actually quite intelligent people, I just wish what they say wouldn't be taken as fact. Remember scientists once said that the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe.
    • Cyberen, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4So why aren't you replacing every climatologist in the world? You obviously know better.
  • HeartlandUSA, on 12/12/2007, -17/+10BBC today
    Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797. ...
    And FYI NASA has become a political tool for the White House pressuring them to fall into line with them.
  • irishjays, on 12/12/2007, -12/+6Silly Scientists your reports are for kids.
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1thanks for the intelligent contribution, go back to watching Barney & finish off that bowl you hit a few hours ago.
    • OodlesOnoodles, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1This is probably the most ignorant comment made on this topic.
  • doctorlw, on 12/12/2007, -17/+11More worthless news. Earth's climate is not predictable at all. Why all of this outrage over global warming I will never understand (and before someone says something I fully realize this isn't more global warming polar bear news). The Earth has been warmer and colder before, and there have been a lot of catastrophic events and there will be again. Unless we can find a way to travel faster than light, I doubt humans will be here in a few million years.

    Look at global warming for what it really is: a cash cow for scientists. It's no different than scientists who work for oil companies to prove the opposite. Both spit in the face of science equally, I have seen very little objectivity in the issue of global warming.
    • RealHyperX, on 12/12/2007, -11/+3I agree - problem is educating your average liberal.
      • nblsavage, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5Since you don't seem to be able to read with any semblance of comprehension, I'd say you are the one with a lack of education.
      • centerblack, on 12/12/2007, -4/+8Hyper, if you believe that humans do not have an effect on the environment, then I invite you to come down to Los Angeles Ca. and take a look at the brown ***** sky.

        If people would accept the fact that we live in a closed system and our actions *do* have an affect on the world we live in, then people wouldn't be spending so much time and money trying to convince your dumb ass- they could spend it on advancing energy production technologies.

        Oh that's right, we're throwing generalizations and stereotypes around. You must be conservative, so you think that instead of doing any kind of fiscally irresponsible research spending, we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars securing oil resources through force at the cost of many peoples lives and welfare.
    • apollo168, on 12/12/2007, -3/+3Dugg down for misspelling of "scientologists" and failure to be wearing tinfoil hat at time of post.
    • johnso68, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5I totally agree with you. What I don't understand is why you get dugg down for actually making sense. I guess if you don't go along with global warming and that it is ALL OUR FAULT you are wrong.
    • thotpoizn, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4FTL travel is not necessary for humans to be able to reach the stars. Lucky thing, too - since it's unlikely to ever occur. But, at 99.9% the speed of light, you would experience a single day passing for every 22 days that pass on earth. That makes the next closest star system, which is about 4.5 light years away, a mere 75 subjective days away, give or take. Granted, if you don't like it there and head straight home, you will find a decade has passed you by - but if your intention is to seed the universe with human colonies, that is a totally achievable goal.
      • centerblack, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3Pretty cool stuff. It's to bad we spend so much time and money on stupid ***** instead of advancing the human race.
  • mentalacuity, on 12/12/2007, -17/+14Misleading title. More ice melted therefore there is more water to freeze. Think, then speak.
    • chalkboy, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9Yes because when it melts it stays right there and waits to be frozen again.
      • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1?? I don't understand the point of your comment. Please explain.
        • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2he's being facetious in that he is insinuating that most likely the Arctic ice water does not remain in place once melted but instead gets diluted and carried away by currents into the vast stretches of ocean, until it is no longer freshwater but simply "water"
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4hey idiot, title isn't misleading, read it again before laying your idiotic comment... did you re-read it?? is english your 1st language?? "re-freezing" "record pace"... did you miss those few words in this comment?? one thing i can't stand is fools like you who make stupid statements, that can't read before laying comments.. go finish your blog on myspace, you won't have to use your brains there..
    • Butros, on 12/12/2007, -1/+2RTFA
      • oenoneablaze, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0_you_ RTFA. The title or description should read something about how it still lags behind the record melt from this summer.
    • bullcutter, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1i guess neither you nor Al Gore have ever heard the expression "practice what you preach"...
  • RealHyperX, on 12/12/2007, -27/+39Are people still buying into the human causing global warming? or is it just the dumb ass liberals?
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -5/+8no, it's not all liberals, it's just dumb asses in general.. dumbasses like mentalacuity & radicaldementia who don't have any brain cells left due to excessive drug & alcohol abuse.
    • machinesbreathe, on 12/12/2007, -9/+4With sweeping generalizations such as yours, why should anyone regard your words with any shred of credibility?
      • ftx437, on 12/12/2007, -3/+3Ummm because Libs do the same thing?
        • machinesbreathe, on 12/12/2007, -3/+0OK. That still fails to elucidate why your words should be lent any greater credence than any self perceived "dumb ass" liberals.
          Going by your logic, does that make you too a "dumb ass"?
          On that note, under what circumstances does name calling serve as legitimate debate?
      • geoffg, on 12/12/2007, -3/+2Terms like "neocon" really parse the subtleties of individual thought right?
    • lukifer, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1We prefer dumb ass-liberals, thank you very much: http://www.xkcd.com/37
    • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8Humans aren't the ONLY cause, but they DO have an impact on the climate. You can't honestly believe that our use of fossil fuels has absolutely no impact on the environment. Be realistic about this, don't just act like nothing's wrong at all and it's all a big hoax, because that's foolish and shortsighted, not to mention willfully ignorant.
    • oenoneablaze, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1RTFA. The ice is freezing, but it's still lagging behind a record melt this summer. Part of the reason it's freezing so quickly is because of the unprecedented levels of open ocean surface.
    • mchinsky, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1No, its just the dumbass liberals who have no clue when they are being manipulated for a political and financial cause (the lobbyists who benefit by global warming and the countries who want to knock us down off our high perch by wrecking our economy)

  • fleischner, on 12/12/2007, -14/+22How dare you challenge scientific consensus! Don't you know that if a number of scientists claim something is true, you're not supposed to offer contradictory evidence!?
    • centerblack, on 12/12/2007, -2/+10The goal of science is to form a better hypothesis. If you have contradictory evidence, you should definitely write it up and publish it.
    • EtherGnat, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4I'm sorry, what was contradictory evidence to global warming again? I'm not seeing any in the article, which I doubt you read and understood.
    • StrangeFamous, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Science is all about making hypotheses and then disproving them with better information. It's FUNDAMENTALISM that doesn't allow contradictory evidence.
  • ChiefShaman, on 12/12/2007, -11/+12These comments show peoples intelligence... stupidity that is. Obviously they can read, but they have the same problem as most politicians and scientists - selective reading. The problem with the planet is those same ignorant people! Get rid of them and the earth's problems will clear up.
    • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1they are flooding both sides of the issue is the problem
    • mchinsky, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Yea, like that left wing environmentalist whacko in the UK that had an abortion and had herself steralized to avoid creating another CO2 emmitting human being.

      Newsflash to all you global warming libtards...Follow this womans example, and the worlds problems will be solved in a generation or so
    • ChiefShaman, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1FYI - the "comments" I was referring to, for people who aren't sure, are the posted comments.
  • sockfire, on 12/12/2007, -8/+3I'm sure that the opposite is happening at the South Pole.
    • 4U55l3NlNJ4, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2you're more smarter than you think.. it's a natural occurrence to have seasons that span a decade and other seasons that span half a century.. it's amazing that the world is taught only 4 seasons and y'all believe it as fact.. y'all think that the earth has this perfect annual rotation with the sun.. it's nice to see some brains on digg rather than the constant idiotic comments from fools that think they know it all because they surf the net without actually reading. dugg comment for intellectual remark.
    • primaldefense, on 12/12/2007, -0/+4actually the south pole is growing by a very small amount overall each year.. but that amount it so small it comes out to be a fraction of an inch overall per year... still at least it is be stable and not shrinking each year.. look at the different antarctic expedition reports.. Talk to Dr. Sponholz who even has a mountain named after him down in antactica (http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/display_name.cfm?g ... his years of research show that it has been growing slowly.
  • darkhand, on 12/12/2007, -6/+12"While summer warming of the upper ocean surface can cause wintertime sea ice regrowth to lag initially, as the fall season progresses and sunlight weakens, the rate of energy loss from the ocean increases. That heat loss coupled with a large area of open water creates ideal conditions for sea ice to form rapidly over large areas."

    Sorry, anti-global-warming people, the article suggests otherwise. The water is warmer, so it freezes faster in the winter. Nature is performing her own 'Which makes ice cubes faster, warm water or cold water?' experiment!
    • Veretax, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3the specific heat of water doesn't change purely on temperature. It could be a result of a change in salinity, but if the water was warmer before, that means it takes more heat to get temperature down to the freezing point. That still doesn't mean this is a global and not a local phenomena though, whether you are a Global Warming Alarmist, or doubter.
    • ftx437, on 12/12/2007, -5/+1Ok..so the water is warmer....so wouldn't that make it take longer for the ice to freeze? so if thats the case..then how is it freezing at a record pace?
    • kellymahan, on 12/12/2007, -4/+3Maybe you should think about what you say before you say it.
    • bullcutter, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2the relevancy of comparison of variables between the two "experiments" is far reaching at best. for one, there are waaaay more factors to be taken into consideration on the grand scale experiment, like the weather patterns and atmospheric makeup of the entire earth, and that's just for starters... then there's how physics affects different substances at different temperatures differently... there are no similarities here. and the earth is not a freezer. nice try though.
  • ubitendo, on 12/12/2007, -10/+4Maybe if the arctic sea ice froze over a period of years the global warming skeptics would have an argument.
  • soil, on 12/12/2007, -10/+11"Now, when I give this back, do I mail it in? Or do I have to hand deliver it the way I received it."

    /nobel prize discussion
    • redcard, on 12/12/2007, -5/+6x = 100 // Perecent of ice in winter , year 0
      x = x - 50 // Record loss of ice in summer, year 0
      x = x + 35 // Recrod refreezing of ice in winter, year 0
      print x; // 85
      x=x-55 // Record loss of ice in summer, year 1
      x=x+40 // Record refreezing of ice in winter , year 1
      print x; // 70

      So why should Al Gore return the nobel prize? Record melting and record refreezing does not mean that all the ice that melted refroze.
  • MeNorski, on 12/12/2007, -8/+12The projections about global warming are all done with computers models and computers are just as dumb as the humans that created them. I'm not saying global warming is definitely false, but facts do show that the earth has hit warm cycles warmer then this so I still don't see any reason to get alarmed.
  • andyd273, on 12/12/2007, -8/+21I know that this is one of those topics where the global warming fans will have a bury-a-thon, but there really is something to be said about cycles in nature...
    Lately I've been thinking a lot about self fulfilling prophecies. Namely, the theory of global warming was supposed to be something like 3 degrees over 100 years, or something like that. But now that the theory is out there every time something happens that would have seemed normal or at least insignificant before, everyone points and cries "global warming!" but no many people take the time to try to figure out the real cause.
    For instance, in this case the ice was melting, and everyone says global warming, but FTA "many factors affecting fluctuations in Arctic ice are poorly understood by scientists" and anyone that tries to come up with another answer gets buried for not agreeing with everyone else.
    I really like this planet, and I really think we should take care of it a lot better, but I get tired of all of the fear mongering that is going on...
    • da_bradler, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5I think maybe the problem is people listen to celebrities more the scientists, scientists basically say that carbon emissions are bad and other emissions are bad and these greenhouse gases most likely are aiding the warming of the planet. Now here's where people get maybe a little confussed, scientists for the most part have absolutely no idea what that is going to do, there are many theories but there doesn't seem to be one that is overwhelmingly supported.

      Now here's the thing, we know there are a lot more greenhouse gases then there were a 100 years ago, and we know these things are not exactly good for us or the planets other live mainly because were not used to them in these levels. So since we don't know what tehre going to do to the climate maybe we should lay off dumping them into the atmosphere until were sure were not going to ***** things up for ourselves or other animals that we would prefer not to die.

      The fear is not that we'll kill the planet(since if a volcano like yellowstone fully erupted it would dump more greenhouse gases in a week then we most likely ever have) the fear is that we'll kill us and the things that we need to make sure we don't die.

      I mean hell we've only been on this planet for like 40,000 years in this form and if we managed to kill ourselves this fast that might make us the most shortly lived specie that ever circled the globe.
    • bsmang, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1fear mongering? What purpose have they to do that in regard to global warming? Are there a lot of large corporations and rich people who would benefit astronomically from global warming fears? It's not like they're George Bush and have 5000 ways to get wealthier and more powerful by spreading fear.
      • Duositex, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5"Are there a lot of large corporations and rich people who would benefit astronomically from global warming fears?"
        Isn't the answer to this question an obvious and resounding, "YES!"? Can I name them? Of course not. But are you under the impression that information outlets worldwide are giving us global warming news because they lose money doing it? And that Al Gore is in the global warming business for his health?
      • andyd273, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Our minds automatically want to run to two things, what we love, and what we fear. It's a deeply ingrained human trait, and is predictable. That makes it excellent for marketing ("Dihydrogen monoxide has been shown to cause many illnesses and even death. If you or a loved one has suffered from the effects of dihydrogen monoxide, call the law offices of Binky, Binky and Dot"), and I would argue that it drives people to consume more. For instance, think back to 911. There were a lot of people that I know who didn't watch cable news all that much, but after the event, most people I know had CNN on around the clock.
        And lastly, carbon offset credits. Seriously.
    • Goldkill, on 12/12/2007, -3/+0Global warming fans? I can't think of any apart from Bush and Cheney.
  • harrisbradley, on 12/12/2007, -14/+16Mr. Gore, may we please have the prize back?
  • bjs3171, on 12/12/2007, -9/+4you people are dumb. of course water is going to freeze in the winter. unfortunately most animals in teh arctic lack frequent flyer miles, so they can't just go chill somewhere else in the summer when there is consecutively less ice each year. animals drown when they have nothing to rest on. yes, for surviving and young animals, there's now more solid ground but this does not magically change the past.
  • sweetholymosiah, on 12/12/2007, -8/+8So there's a few clever people here, and then theres the hopeful masses who still LOVE revving their combustion engines.
  • lionpirate, on 12/12/2007, -8/+9ITS CALLED WINTER... welcome to northern Canada dumb asses... now stop waisting money researching something I could have told you happens.
  • rspeed, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Is it just me or is this BAD news? Salt water freezes at a might lower temperature than fresh water. If there was a larger runoff from melting glaciers it would lower the salinity of the water and make it freeze faster. *****... and I'm supposed to be an optimist.
    • kellymahan, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1If more water will freeze, it will take longer to melt the next summer. And the salinity of the water will slowly rise back up to normal levels over the years as the salty ice melts first, leaving just fresh water back in the ice. And then the whole thing repeats all over again sometime in the future and people will freak out and scream about the weather changes all over again.
      • PoopStick, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Im glad no rivers run into the ocean say for the last X millions years..... that could do something right? some may say well the ice is more than normal... Really whats normal?
  • Locnar, on 12/12/2007, -5/+6HEY! Weather happens!
  • Fabc001, on 12/12/2007, -14/+6Here we go again saying that Al Gore is FULL OF *****, will this never stop? Al invented the internet for Gods sake, he won the Nobel peace prize for Global warming (ok nothing to do with peace but he still won it). We are melting to death, just face reality will you, for once in your lives.
    • mnocket, on 12/12/2007, -3/+7Yeah. I just can't understand these people who feel a need to question global warming. Why can't they just believe? Why do they want to question and debate? It's like they think that a free and open discussion of sometimes contradictory "facts" is a good thing. Damn it! A mind is a terrible thing to use!
      • Navigator7, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. What's the point in questioning authority? algore is above all this in house fighting.
        And what about those pesky humans that call themselves scientists? Why won't they just go along to get along?
        People should just accept what they are told and push the food pellet peddle.
        I never said "Al Gore is FULL OF *****"
        I do believe "Al Gore is FULL OF *****"
        I don't like it when people use lower case dialog to make a point like saying "Al Gore is FULL OF *****"
        "Al Gore is FULL OF *****" could = True however
        "Al Gore is FULL OF *****" could be false?
        "Al Gore is FULL OF *****" is certainly a pejoritive.
        "Al Gore is FULL OF *****" may be the conclusion of the world if science is allowed to debate the issue to a full and proper conclusion.
        As it stands...The idea man caused Global Warming is algore's idea. If proven otherwise...like inventing the internet...."Al Gore is FULL OF *****".

  • darksydxx, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4In Arnold Schwartzeneggers as Mr Freeze in batman once said " CHILLLLLLL, CHILLLLLLL, CHILLLL "
  • bfcnet, on 12/12/2007, -9/+8Global Warming stole my car!
    • zeroomegazx, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4Global Warming Beat my mother and raped my father!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.