Mo, you need to read the article. The second paragraph starts with the statement "This image shows the extent of Arctic sea ice, based on the latest microwave data from the Pentagon's DMSP-F17 satellite." Did you see where it says "microwave data"?

errrh.......It says "microwave data"....just saying......RADAR doesn't do well with median change......May cause problems from orbit.......Microwave can do two things better.......vacuum has no effect (RADAR doesn't do well in orbit....ie vacuum)and it is less sensitive to minor dielectric changes.......

Peter - get a life and a sense of humor. It is a festive time of year after all.

HOWEVER, technically microwaves are a subset of the radio spectrum.

ID123 - No, microwaves and Radio waves are part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC spectrum...

Well anyway, I guess it not perverted to have MAN - WOMAN sex . Right?

This is more of a question than a comment. I've been watching cloud patterns on google earth (weather) since march in an attempt to understand global weather patterns. (I compare the cloud pattern to jet-stream data from the california weather server and various surface product maps of DAS at University of Illinois) For the first time , today, there is complete coverage of the north pole region. Is there a new sattelite on-line? I had assumed that the blank space in the KML files was due to some technical limitation.

Thank you alan, I take your response to mean that you have not heard of any sattelite being repositioned. When you refer to "this picture" I started looking for a picture or a link, and found none. No matter, my computer is old , it's operator older, and my competence with it questionable. After that one bref period, the "not covered by sattelite"surrounding the north pole returnedfile got data not usually sent to google earth. Triangle of coverage originated in asia,(the apex) and widened to the north , covering the entire arctic ocean area, and I had high hopes. I often get odd images as I have the opacity set at less than maximum , and can often see through the composite image to an under layer with source notation. I know they do move the sattelites given sufficient cause. I was eagle eyed as sandy formed off the yucatan, and followed it every few hours in its journey north. At some point the coverage got much better, and the time stamp much closer to current.

I was reading again looking to see if alan had responded to my question when I saw someone speculating that some man made micro-wave device might be melting the polar ice caps. I've been chuckling to myself ever since. A microwave at house current might be able to boil the water in his eyeball in a few minutes. With a huge power source, more could be accomplished. With the entire planet's electrical output, and a micro-wave transmitter capable of handling the power, the arctic ice cap --might-- be melted. Of course, we'd all have to go without electricity for the 3 months it might take

Thanks for making the change Alan. My science professor husband wrote the comment and the median/mean/average mix up is his biggest pet peeve! I asked him not to post and to get his own account if he feels the need to be snarky know it all :)

eugene

Unfortunately sister Sarah Palin doesn't take climate change seriously like the rest of Alaska, but of course she bought a million dollar house in Arizona I believe with the money from Fox noise

Alan, incredibly enough, you just did.

It's refreshing to find a journalist that is interested in the facts and not just the talking points.

:)

I am glad when people have an interest in learning. Because of the crisis, I have been looking at images of the arctic almost daily for the past few years. Our government and other governments do not care. All they want to do is encourage shipping over the arctic oceans for a few months, and increase drilling, which will further damage the area.

Because this situation is so important to the continuation of this planet, much more than asteroid impacts which might take out a city, but not the whole world, this should be covered with the greatest possible knowledge and expertise, not covered by people who know nothing about it.

America is so gun-crazy that we have a real crisis in the world, and we can't even see it; we only see our guns. Or maybe a self-inflicted "fiscal cliff" that has been driven by greed on the part of billionaires... the same billionaires who deny climate change on one side of their mouth while increasing shipping in the arctic on the other side of their mouth.

I want the media and the government to take climate change much more seriously.

Elizabeth - Take off the tin hat and come back to reality. The fact is that global warming has halted. We are also at the peak of the procession of Earth's axis - remember the Mayan calendar? When it is another ice age in 13,000 more years, those folks will be asking for more greenhouse gasses.

Shipping across the Arctic - that must be the latest conspiracy theory. You should get Al Gore on that one right away - but I forgot, he is one of those pesky billionaires. Guess how he made his money?

And guns - they are what made you free and keep you free.

Yes, no one in the lower 48 takes climate change seriously, while all Alaskans do. Brilliant thinker you are, Eugene. Tell us more about how special Alaskans are, and how bad the lower 48 is. Cripes I get sick of this crap.

It's not climate change that is man made, we are coming out of an ice age. Look at the millions of years of facts:

http://worldview3.50webs.com/6globalwarming.html

The majority of our earth's history has had average temps around the 70's.

Only if you propose to do something with the money, besides being smarmy in public.

Truth hurst huh?

I.O.

Because it's happening much faster than is typical, and millions of people live in low-lying coastal areas, and... well, and some dopes like you are just dumb as a box of rocks. Thanks for playing!

bcmech, where the hell did you hear that global warming has been proven wrong? That's perhaps the most inaccurate statement I've heard in 2012, with the exception of anything that came out of Mitt Romney's mouth of course. The fact is that 97% of the world's scientists, from all disciplines and all countries agree that global warming is in fact true. That's 97% that agree that it's happening. How did you get that it has been proven wrong from that?

Let me guess, some conservative politician (perhaps the infamous liar himself, Romney) told you in some stump speech that it wasn't true because conservatives simply don't believe in it right? And you went for it because it came from a conservative right, because it was what you wanted to hear? That's like saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true; it doesn't prove a damned thing.

That's the problem with conservatives these days. It doesn't matter what the facts are; if they don't say what the GOP wants to hear then they simply don't believe them. Deny them long enough and they'll go away right. WRONG!

Global warming, (I prefer the term climate change so all you ignorant delusional red-neck hillbillies can't wait for a cold day and say "whurs yer global wurming now huh"), is very real. The only debate left is what is causing it. As it happens the same number of scientists also believe that it's mostly caused by human behavior.

It's true; the earth does go through cycles of temperature. But to say that's the explanation is to totally ignore the rest of the data. This period of warming is not the normal cycle; the extremes we are seeing now have not been seen before, ever. So, if it's just the normal cycle of the earth then how do you explain the fact that the median temperature has continued to rise dramatically over the past several decades. If it were normal then the median would be normal. It's not, it's going up. Let me say that one more time, it's going up. It's not the typical cycle that the earth is used to; there's another factor at play here. Deny it all you want; but when it jumps up and slaps you in the face I don't want to hear you crying about it.

even though it has been proven wrong.

The Faux Noise propaganda outlet proving something regarding science doesn't count.....well, to most of us anyway.

Hey Sherron you had a good Post going until you to pulled politics into it..

The title of this article has nothing to do with politics "Satellites check in on the North Pole" unless there was a secret hidden title that appered to you, please point it out to me..

Take it elsewhere...

1. Global warming was proven by the Koch brothers, who funded a careful study that proved human-caused global warming is worse than previously reported.

2. Politics does play a part, as the Bush administration purposely hushed any global warming reports. In fact, it is his billionaire buddies like the Koch brothers who have been laughing all the way to the bank, with arctic drilling and also arctic shipping... oops, our "enemy" [sic] Russia is making most of the profits, because that shipping is between Europe and China. But don't worry, the multi-national corporation billionaires will make a profit, and don't worry, they can still send their millions and millions of dollars to GOP political PACs to try to hoodwink a few people into thinking that they actually do not believe in global warming (while they continue to laugh and put more profits in the bank... an overseas bank, mind you).

Hey, look, it's another brilliant thinker - Sherron. Yes, people who don't abide by all of the talking points of the political arm of the global warming movement are conservatives, and, hur hur, Mitt Romney! Mitt Romney! Mitt Romney! Just like everyone who is wholly ignorant of basic economic principles is a liberal, and Nancy Pelosi! Nancy Pelosi! Nancy Pelosi!

You're the same kind of ignorant f*cktard as the ignorant f*cktards you're trying to convince yourself you're better than. Get over yourself and start thinking. For once.

Ah, another thinker in Elizabeth. Koch brothers! Bush! Conspiracy! If not for the REPUBLICANS the world would be amazing! There are no other factors in anything other than REPUBLICAN GUIDED CONSPIRACY AND SHENANIGANS!

The world must be so easy for the stupid. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to endure both the problems of the world, and the stupidity of people like Elizabeth.

I've been wondering about polar ice and hoping to watch it grow.I've been checking the temperature readings from the bouys around the edges of the arctic ocean. seeing no ice forming, I googled polar ice, and ended with some legitimate seeming report. I moved a link to desktop, but it's so cluttered I can't find it at the moment. To paraphrase, the writer graphed arctic and antartic icefield extent over time. He found an 11 year cycle which is now at it's nadir for the artic. He claimed the antarctic ice field is now the largest in extent ever recorded, while the arctic is the least. This is irrespective of global warming trends, and represents a cyclical pattern that at the moment is reinforcing the preception of global warming 's effects.

Geoengineering is man made and your govts are presently doing this for the last 50 years for reasons known and unknown. Please understand they are changing the weather patterns and are Man Made. But, putting the blame or deflecting the blames so the sheeple will attack the wrong persons or organizations.

See this

OK, I'll bite: what scientists who actually work with atmospheric science, geology, hydrology, etc., do you know who are climate change skeptics? Or are you just parroting some other disinformation? I can name a few like John Christie, but I could also name 50 others who strongly disagree with him. We're waiting:

Dear Tetrapoda,

What scientists who actually work with atmospheric science, geology, hydrology, etc., do you know, period? None? That's what I thought.

Here's a hint: THAT the climate is changing is not denied. The degree to which it has been influenced by man is the debate, as is what the proposals from the heavily politicized arm of the global warming movement would actually do to change anything, and at what cost that lack of change may come.

Stop with the "disinformation" bull@!$%#. People have opinions and reasons for those opinions. Not everything is some grand plan or conspiracy against your beliefs.

Two Ashes:

"Here's a hint: THAT the climate is changing is not denied. The degree to which it has been influenced by man is the debate, as is what the proposals from the heavily politicized arm of the global warming movement would actually do to change anything, and at what cost that lack of change may come."

NASA doesn't share your view. The charts and the data they have say man-made mostly. Check out there website NASA Climate change.

Can you provide a link showing data that states otherwise? Interested in what you are looking at. There is a big concern that in the future the Keys will have area under water due to the rising sea levels.

Just google geoengineering , as well as, you tubing the same. You will see that you are putting the blame on the wrong entities. Salting the skies are your culprits and they are MAN MADE. But just not for the reasons you think.

Tman...

Named to attract settlers

The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. Along with extended family and thralls, he set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.^[9][10]

...Thank you for adding the other links..You, like everyone else has a `boss'. You were only allowed so much text for a very large story. As I notice your interaction with these comments, I am sensing you will be writing a larger story..to be posted somewhere despite the boss's red pencil.

Besides the historical oddity of the names "Iceland" and "Greenland," a Viking joke used to attract settlers to Greenland, there is no evidence of any recent warming of the Arctic. Core samples of ice prove that the Arctic ice is very old, far older than the Vikings. The article also did not state that for the first time ever, the surface of Greenland melted across the whole continent in July of 2012. That does not mean that the mile-thick ice all melted, but that the surface turned into vast lakes. Those lakes find their way down crevices, and under the thick ice, lubricating the ice cap so that it is moving. It is only a matter of a short time before all that Greenland ice will be gone.

The large extent of sea ice in Antarctica some months ago was most likely due to its huge melting glaciers that are all fresh water, that freezes again at higher temperatures than salt water. The southern currents which circle Antarctica keep the water there. I have been watching these maps for a few years, and I notice that the ice melts last around Greenland for the same reason: the fresh water from Greenland flows into the ocean, and freezes at a much higher temperature than the rest of the salt water.

The Arctic waters and winds do not stay in the Arctic, but the water currents flow under the ice cap, and air currents above it. With so much water exposed, there was not enough temperature differential to drive the northern "jet stream," and that caused extreme drought in the American Great Plains, and also in Mongolia and other grasslands. These areas also produce a huge quantity of the world's food. In previous centuries, a sudden loss of water and food tended to preface wars.

There are so many different concerns, not just the polar bears (not very cuddly creatures, but necessary), wolverines, foxes, seals, walruses, etc. But I don't want to see those creatures become a thing of the past either. Let some part of the earth alone.

elizabeth, I'm going to look for you on FB , we have interests overlaping. I've been watching cloud patterns on google earth, and started being more methodical when I noticed that all the sudden changes coincided with changes in the jetstream. It was like taking an eraser across a thickly written chalk-board. If you have been watching polar ice for two years, I'd be interested in your observations and conclusions.

Volcanoes put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere per year then humans have in our history. However, that is almost entirely water vapor which precipitates in a few weeks. The offsetting short-term effect of the particulates blocking the sunlight makes the two influences pretty much cancel each other out.

On the other hand, volcanoes emit approximately 10 million tons of CO2 per year, but humans contribute approximately 100 BILLION tons of CO2 per year (usgs site). CO2 takes decades to be reabsorbed from the atmosphere. The fact that will be cited in conversations depends on the political influence of the one that is speaking.

No. Part of the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, in East Antarctica, because of... climate changes that affect wind and precipitation patterns, meaning that it's snowing more in that area which is truly bizarre since it's essentially a frozen desert. Changes in Earth orbit, and precession, do affect climate over tens of thousands of years, but they can be overriden by atmospheric conditions and sea circulation patterns. Also the current changes are unusually fast, taking place in decades rather than millenia.

No, please actually make an effort to read and understand science... global scale wind and ocean current patterns are changing which affect East Antarctica resulting in more snow there, since there's more moisture in the atmosphere from warmer sea surface temperatures. It's counter-intuitive but a warming atmosphere has the effect of growing glaciers in some places simply because they receive more inputs in the short term. If you're fixated on yapping about Obama at every challenge your life must be really miserable; I'm sorry.

Jrock

who will your homework for you in the first grade next year?

You might reasonably suspect that all the fuss about disappearing Arctic sea ice is overblown, then, given the growth of ice down south.

But you’d be wrong, for all sorts of reasons.

Credit: US Embassy New Zealand

The first is that the 1 percent growth per decade in the Antarctic pales next to the much faster 15.5 percent drop per decade in the Arctic. They aren’t even in the same ballpark. Not only that: while the sea ice bordering Antarctica has been growing slightly, the massive ice sheets that sit directly atop the frozen continent are shrinking, at an accelerating rate, with worrisome implications for global sea level rise.

Keep drinking the Kookaid ...

Sounds like you've already had your fill.

Listen, being a lifelong Republican myself that contributes in more ways than just voting, I can say with a high degree of certainty that Republicans and the vast majority of conservatives (I can't speak for everybody) do not WANT to trash the planet or are even "Pro Pollution" as you say. I mean common on, who in their right mind is Pro pollution anyway? These comments are mainly rhetoric that many on the left (including certain news outlets) push to try to gain more supporters to for whatever motives they may have.

Don't buy into everything you hear from them. We want many of the same things that our Democrat friends want too, we just have different views on how to get there.