Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
In fact, if you look at the chart reproduced by DailyTech, you will find that the variance in seasonal sea ice has been fairly small over the past thirty years. So, although the average amount of sea ice in the past decade has trended below the thirty year average, it was never by much (2-3 million sq. km ("MSK") at most). The amount of sea ice at any given time in that period has ranged from roughly 15 MSK to 23 MSK. Accordingly, taking any particular point along that scale because it varies from the mean, and using it to mean anything terribly significant, is probably not very helpful. That goes for proving that the the ice cap is melting as well as for showing that everything is hunky dory.
However, it is interesting that we now have almost exactly the same amount of sea ice as we did in 1979, despite the repeated assertions that the planet is melting. Obviously the warming that we've witnessed was not too great, or we wouldn't be right back where we were at the dawn of the Reagan era. And, again looking at the chart, it's also fairly obvious that the trend is relatively flat. At worst, there is a rather flat arc in the trend of deviation from the thirty year mean, with a high point in the late 80's and early 90's. Overall, however, the trend seems to be a rather consistent amount of average sea ice.
As to why there was so a rapid build-up of ice, one could either consult their expansive knowledge of cheesy-80's-movie trivia, or rely on "experts":
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region.
Personally, I thought Val Kilmer's delivery was better.
And let's not forget the real world consequences of the failed predictions from global warming alarmists:
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
I'm sure those polar bears will be coming off the threatened species list any day now. Either that or the seals comprising a large part of the polar bear diet will have to go on the list, making those "threatened" bears now a threat. Irony: a dish best served cold.
Ah, but see, they’re gonna tell you there’s more ice because there wasn’t snow to keep the ice/water warm, the lack of snow caused the water to be colder. And you can bet your sweet bippy that that lack of snow was caused by warming. The AP already told me the colder winter was a sure sign of warming.
Besides the new kiddy books on Santa going green to save the world (he’s using wind mills now...I always thought they used magic to make the toys, but I guess they were using electrically based assembly lines powered by coal burning plants, and don’t even get me started on all the elves dying every year in coal mines to get that coal....) would have to be sold at discount if the pole freezes up and the bears are saved, so pretty much, this whole thing can’t be true.
It’s difficult to drive the political agenda by taking species off the endangered list.
Last week within a couple of days I heard Global Warming(TM) posited as an explanation for both drought conditions in Australia and plummeting temperatures and increased snow in North America. Why is anyone taking these people seriously?