Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

I think you're being unduly pessimistic; there's plenty of influential Greens pushing the notion as hard as they can.

Humans are plague on Earth – Attenborough

I agree with Attenborough. Additionally, I think overpopulation will be one of the hottest debate topics in the coming decades. Currently economics and terrorism account for 90% of headlines.

Plus, if Green "clean energy" policies drive the price of food beyond the reach of the world's poorest, as intended, sea-level rise will be irrelevant, since there won't be any poor people living next to the ocean, and the rest, Al Gore included, can rent a U-Haul and move inland.

Poor people can survive and breed nearly anywhere - even places that rats and cockroaches can't readily breed at. If you add CARE packages to the mix, people could survive and breed on sand dunes with no shade - as that's pretty much what they've got in South Sudan and other god-forsaken places.

[teatree]

Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

I think you're being unduly pessimistic; there's plenty of influential Greens pushing the notion as hard as they can.

Humans are plague on Earth – Attenborough

I agree with Attenborough. Additionally, I think overpopulation will be one of the hottest debate topics in the coming decades. Currently economics and terrorism account for 90% of headlines.

Plus, if Green "clean energy" policies drive the price of food beyond the reach of the world's poorest, as intended, sea-level rise will be irrelevant, since there won't be any poor people living next to the ocean, and the rest, Al Gore included, can rent a U-Haul and move inland.

Poor people can survive and breed nearly anywhere - even places that rats and cockroaches can't readily breed at. If you add CARE packages to the mix, people could survive and breed on sand dunes with no shade - as that's pretty much what they've got in South Sudan and other god-forsaken places.

What the eugenicist population reductionists won't tell you is that all over the industialised world 'native' populations are REDUCING.

If it wasn't for mass immigration the population in places like the UK would in fact be going down.

It is very simple. Industrialise the poor countries and populations will stabalise.

Edited January 24, 2013 by teatree

[thaibeachlovers]

Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

I think you're being unduly pessimistic; there's plenty of influential Greens pushing the notion as hard as they can.

Humans are plague on Earth – Attenborough

Plus, if Green "clean energy" policies drive the price of food beyond the reach of the world's poorest, as intended, sea-level rise will be irrelevant, since there won't be any poor people living next to the ocean, and the rest, Al Gore included, can rent a U-Haul and move inland.

Of course I'm being pessimistic. The populations that are increasing unsustainably are the ones least likely to listen to any silly "greenies" preaching from the comfort of their airconditioned luxury home in the developed world.

As you say, there are ways of reducing world overpoulation, but they won't be pleasant, and will bring us all down as well.

[thaibeachlovers]

I agree with Attenborough. Additionally, I think overpopulation will be one of the hottest debate topics in the coming decades. Currently economics and terrorism account for 90% of headlines.

Plus, if Green "clean energy" policies drive the price of food beyond the reach of the world's poorest, as intended, sea-level rise will be irrelevant, since there won't be any poor people living next to the ocean, and the rest, Al Gore included, can rent a U-Haul and move inland.

Poor people can survive and breed nearly anywhere - even places that rats and cockroaches can't readily breed at. If you add CARE packages to the mix, people could survive and breed on sand dunes with no shade - as that's pretty much what they've got in South Sudan and other god-forsaken places.

What the eugenicist population reductionists won't tell you is that all over the industialised world 'native' populations are REDUCING.

If it wasn't for mass immigration the population in places like the UK would in fact be going down.

It is very simple. Industrialise the poor countries and populations will stabalise.

Hmmmmm. Industrialising the poor countries will result in an increase in fossil fuel use, and isn't that what this thread is all about?

Modified to allow posting.

[RickBradford]

It is very simple. Industrialise the poor countries and populations will stabalise.

But where's the pleasure in that? Or the control? Or the feel-good factor?

No, no. Much better to let the noble, wise, benevolent and caring Green organisations go in and tell the poor heathen that they cannot have children "for the sake of the planet", and that being sterilised and childless is really much better for them, otherwise "they will breed nearly anywhere - even places that rats and cockroaches" would turn their, er, noses up at. /sarc

Industrialising poor countries will only affect sea levels in a destructive way if you believe a long chain of very suspect reasoning. Overall, in the long term, it will benefit the planet (not that Greens care much about that).

Industrialised countries are losing population; undeveloped ones are gaining it. Too bad that the Green movement can't make the connection.

[maidu]

Industrialize poor countries to bring down population growth? that's an odd way to go about trying to improve the health of the planet, its atmosphere, soils and oceans.

Lessening human population growth is the best thing to focus on. #2 is to get people aware of what actions are harmful (wasting energy, destroying forests, polluting water, etc) and #3 is to get them started on doing things which are less harmful (re-cycling, using less electricity, dumping less toxins in the environment, etc.) - and hopefully, getting them them to feel good/empowered by being part of a solution, rather than slipping in to cynicism and depression.

Increased Industrialization of countries as a solution? Is that an attempt at humor?

[RubbaJohnny]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed. African pygmies with Icelanders, Australian aborigines with Andeans, Native Americans with Thais, ....you get the picture.

I think I am not old enough for your family album.

However inteeligent design avers all this was condensed into 5000 years ,in fact I think there are a few dinosaurs hereabouts.

I am confident cockroaches will survive so all one needs to do is to adapt karma to return as a cockroach,with midnight feasts behind the ice box.

Keep cool Apeman

[canuckamuck]

Industrialize poor countries to bring down population growth? that's an odd way to go about trying to improve the health of the planet, its atmosphere, soils and oceans.

Lessening human population growth is the best thing to focus on. #2 is to get people aware of what actions are harmful (wasting energy, destroying forests, polluting water, etc) and #3 is to get them started on doing things which are less harmful (re-cycling, using less electricity, dumping less toxins in the environment, etc.) - and hopefully, getting them them to feel good/empowered by being part of a solution, rather than slipping in to cynicism and depression.

Increased Industrialization of countries as a solution? Is that an attempt at humor?

The things you point out as answers only make sense to people who are no longer simply existing and reproducing. The majority of the world's population are concerned daily for their own day to day survival. Generally poor people care only about their family and immediate surroundings, maybe a few meters, if they care at all.

They certainly aren't going to have less kids for the sake of the earth (especially certain cultures). and the same is true for using environmentally friendly methods to get things done. Nothing will change until life for them becomes more than just hand to mouth existence.

Humans would easily, and without the need for regulation, maintain a zero growth population; if everyone had a western middle class standard of living. They would also be much more concerned about the environment.

Carbon is not the enemy, poverty is.

[thaibeachlovers]

It is very simple. Industrialise the poor countries and populations will stabalise.

But where's the pleasure in that? Or the control? Or the feel-good factor?

No, no. Much better to let the noble, wise, benevolent and caring Green organisations go in and tell the poor heathen that they cannot have children "for the sake of the planet", and that being sterilised and childless is really much better for them, otherwise "they will breed nearly anywhere - even places that rats and cockroaches" would turn their, er, noses up at. /sarc

Industrialising poor countries will only affect sea levels in a destructive way if you believe a long chain of very suspect reasoning. Overall, in the long term, it will benefit the planet (not that Greens care much about that).

Industrialised countries are losing population; undeveloped ones are gaining it. Too bad that the Green movement can't make the connection.

I wish they would institute compulsory sterilization after 2 children for ALL the world's people. However, that would be politically impossible, and, at the moment, the people that have the most children are the ones least able to support them, so they are the ones to concentrate on.

If not <"for the sake of the planet"> why are we even having a thread about the potential destruction of our way of life, when the cause of that threat is overpopulation.

[RickBradford]

Who is this "they" that you wish would institute compulsory sterilization over the entire planet? Who gives them the right to decide how many children people will have, and to force unwanted medical procedures on them? Who has decided that overpopulation threatens "potential destruction of our way of life"? Whose way of life are we talking about, anyway? Al Gore's?

You seem to be very willing to hand over the power of life and death to some unelected and hence unaccountable bureaucracy. To anyone who has studied history, that is very reminiscent of the eugenics courts and the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring which was passed in 1933 in a large central European country. Once you've taken that step, the next phase is ridding the planet of people who have been born, but are ruled to be "defective" in some way (by being climate skeptics, perhaps).

Eugenics has had a bad name ever since, rightly so, I would say.

I wish I could say that your eugenicist view is extreme, but it is supported by numerous Green organisations (including Oxfam, which frees itself of the burden of trying to feed more people by ensuring that they are not born in the first place).

By the way, the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group has just been caught fiddling the data again, in an effort (naturally) to make sea-level rise look more dramatic, in line with IPCC computer projections.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/sea-level-rate-of-rise-shown-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/

[maidu]

Humans would easily, and without the need for regulation, maintain a zero growth population; if everyone had a western middle class standard of living. They would also be much more concerned about the environment.

Carbon is not the enemy, poverty is.

'western middle class standard of living' (Whew, that's a mouthful), contributes less to overpopulation than billions of poor folks, I agree somewhat with that. Yet, where do test tube babies come from? .....from western middle classes, mostly. There are stories of well-off western women popping out seven babies at a time. The richest family I knew, as a kid, was a Mormon family down the block. One of their kids was my best friend and went on to become a multimillionaire and US senator. His ten brothers and sisters went on to have an average of between 7 and 13 kids each. I know, this topic could get debated for days and weeks on end - with no conclusion. The stark reality is, humans are waaaaaay beyond the carrying capacity of their environs. Look closely at nearly any big city, and you'll see stacks of humans packed like crackers in tens of thousands of cracker boxes (if they're lucky enough to have a roof at all).

[maidu]

By the way, the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group has just been caught fiddling the data again, in an effort (naturally) to make sea-level rise look more dramatic, in line with IPCC computer projections.

http://wattsupwithth...of-adjustments/

I looked at the graph which was shown on that page. It indicates sea levels have risen an average of about 6 mm annually for the past 12 years. The author of the web page appears to be trying to discredit the data garnered by U of Colorado study, but he seems to be unsuccessful in his attempts.

[RickBradford]

I looked at the graph which was shown on that page. It indicates sea levels have risen an average of about 6 mm annually for the past 12 years.

If you look a little more diligently at the graph which was shown on that page, you will see that it indicates in black and white: "Rate =3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr"

[canuckamuck]

Humans would easily, and without the need for regulation, maintain a zero growth population; if everyone had a western middle class standard of living. They would also be much more concerned about the environment.

Carbon is not the enemy, poverty is.

'western middle class standard of living' (Whew, that's a mouthful), contributes less to overpopulation than billions of poor folks, I agree somewhat with that. Yet, where do test tube babies come from? .....from western middle classes, mostly. There are stories of well-off western women popping out seven babies at a time. The richest family I knew, as a kid, was a Mormon family down the block. One of their kids was my best friend and went on to become a multimillionaire and US senator. His ten brothers and sisters went on to have an average of between 7 and 13 kids each. I know, this topic could get debated for days and weeks on end - with no conclusion. The stark reality is, humans are waaaaaay beyond the carrying capacity of their environs. Look closely at nearly any big city, and you'll see stacks of humans packed like crackers in tens of thousands of cracker boxes (if they're lucky enough to have a roof at all).

If you didn't know, it has been shown that most western countries are reproducing offspring close to the range of 2 kids per family. I don't feel like getting the specific stats. But this is a rate that makes population growth impossible. in fact many countries would be seeing reduced population, if it weren't for immigration. So it doesn't matter that some people have ten or more kids. Most people are having two or less, some of which will die, be sterile, or be unable to attract a mate. Unless of course they move to Pattaya.

[maidu]

I looked at the graph which was shown on that page. It indicates sea levels have risen an average of about 6 mm annually for the past 12 years.

If you look a little more diligently at the graph which was shown on that page, you will see that it indicates in black and white: "Rate =3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr"

Shaving hairs. What does the data and the graph indicate? Answer: rising sea levels.

[RickBradford]

I looked at the graph which was shown on that page. It indicates sea levels have risen an average of about 6 mm annually for the past 12 years.

If you look a little more diligently at the graph which was shown on that page, you will see that it indicates in black and white: "Rate =3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr"

Shaving hairs. What does the data and the graph indicate? Answer: rising sea levels.

Yes, but not "rising 60% faster than projected", which is the absurd proposition of this thread.

Only if you mistakenly almost double the rate rise from 3.2mm to 6mm, as you did, can you start to claim "faster sea-level rise."

That is not shaving hairs; it is a gross error.

[maidu]

I looked at the graph which was shown on that page. It indicates sea levels have risen an average of about 6 mm annually for the past 12 years.

If you look a little more diligently at the graph which was shown on that page, you will see that it indicates in black and white: "Rate =3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr"

Shaving hairs. What does the data and the graph indicate? Answer: rising sea levels.

Yes, but not "rising 60% faster than projected", which is the absurd proposition of this thread.

Only if you mistakenly almost double the rate rise from 3.2mm to 6mm, as you did, can you start to claim "faster sea-level rise." That is not shaving hairs; it is a gross error.

My miscalculation. I mistook the horizontal increments to be one year each. Now I see they indicate 2 years each. A clearer look at the graph indicates there has been a 7 cm rise in sea level in 20 years. That equals an average rise of 3.5 mm per year, or a bit over 1 cm per 3 years.

[RickBradford]

That equals an average rise of 3.5 mm per year, or a bit over 1 cm per 3 years.

Agreed.

The authors calculate 3.2mm/year, which equates to somewhere around 30-35cm (or 1 foot) over the course of the next century, that is, by 2113.

I think that humanity, with all its abilities, ingenuity (or rat cunning, if you prefer) and sheer survival instinct, can handle a 30cm sea-level rise over a period of 100 years, however many of us there may prove to be.

This is where the uber-alarmists come in.

They've seen the data, and done the calculations just as you and I have done, and they don't like what they see. Who's going to declare a global crisis over 30cm/century?

So, they head off and find a study (there's always one), which says something more dramatic about sea-level, surround it with a lot of bloviation about submerging islands, threatened penguins and hapless fishermen, and sell it, through their 'useful idiots' in the mainstream press, as a crisis about which "we must act now or it's too late", by piling on taxes and regulations.

It is this kind of deliberate exaggeration that I dislike; apart from the fact that it is dishonest and manipulative, it takes our focus away from the real and present environmental degradation which we really could fix for a fraction of the money being wasted chasing this manufactured "thermageddon" beast.

Edited January 27, 2013 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

Who is this "they" that you wish would institute compulsory sterilization over the entire planet? Who gives them the right to decide how many children people will have, and to force unwanted medical procedures on them? Who has decided that overpopulation threatens "potential destruction of our way of life"? Whose way of life are we talking about, anyway? Al Gore's?

You seem to be very willing to hand over the power of life and death to some unelected and hence unaccountable bureaucracy. To anyone who has studied history, that is very reminiscent of the eugenics courts and the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseased Offspring which was passed in 1933 in a large central European country. Once you've taken that step, the next phase is ridding the planet of people who have been born, but are ruled to be "defective" in some way (by being climate skeptics, perhaps).

Eugenics has had a bad name ever since, rightly so, I would say.

I wish I could say that your eugenicist view is extreme, but it is supported by numerous Green organisations (including Oxfam, which frees itself of the burden of trying to feed more people by ensuring that they are not born in the first place).

By the way, the University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group has just been caught fiddling the data again, in an effort (naturally) to make sea-level rise look more dramatic, in line with IPCC computer projections.

http://wattsupwithth...of-adjustments/

<willing to hand over the power of life and death to some unelected and hence unaccountable bureaucracy.>

In case you hadn't noticed, any country with a public health service already has that.

I'm not advocating eugenics. Two children, regardless of how they come out.

"They" are the government. Try telling the Chinese that they have no right to institute a one child policy.

I'd actually prefer one child, but that just leads to female infanticide, with all the problems that causes- look at India and China to see how the desire to have only male children works out.

[RickBradford]

I'm not advocating eugenics. Two children, regardless of how they come out.

Excuse me, but you are advocating eugenics both explicitly and implicitly.

Implicitly, because very few Western women want to have more than 2 children, whereas Ugandan women prefer to have 5 or 6. You then explicitly add that "the people that have the most children are the ones least able to support them, so they are the ones to concentrate on."

You may not be advocating eugenics on the grounds of mental or physical disability, but you are advocating it on the grounds of race, culture and wealth. Not much of an improvement, many would say.

"They" are the government. Try telling the Chinese that they have no right to institute a one child policy.

Doesn't work. We are constantly told that "global problems must have global solutions". There's no point in Chinese women having one child, if Indian women are having four. "They" has to be some supranational organisation, such as a UN body, who have already shown themselves to be unaccountable and are certainly unelected.

I'd actually prefer one child, but that just leads to female infanticide, with all the problems that causes - look at India and China to see how the desire to have only male children works out.

I'm not convinced that allowing two children will end female infanticide; depending on the strength of the desire for boys, the chance of a girl born first up surviving may still be pretty slim. And a second one, giving girl + girl, has even less chance.

[maidu]

It would be interesting if one of the two largest population countries, China and India, had different attitude toward gender, and actually preferred girls to boys. Then you'd get lopsided ratios that would balance the other. Hordes of Chinese boys, around 20 years old, finding ways to get to India to try and get hold of Indian girls in their mid-teens. Ok, that's not happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar trend happens, with Chinese young men finding their way to SE Asia (and other places) in search of brides and/or sex. Sorry, off topic, though in a roundabout way it's on topic, when you consider that dire climate change will affect human migration patterns.

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm not advocating eugenics. Two children, regardless of how they come out.

Excuse me, but you are advocating eugenics both explicitly and implicitly.

Implicitly, because very few Western women want to have more than 2 children, whereas Ugandan women prefer to have 5 or 6. You then explicitly add that "the people that have the most children are the ones least able to support them, so they are the ones to concentrate on."

You may not be advocating eugenics on the grounds of mental or physical disability, but you are advocating it on the grounds of race, culture and wealth. Not much of an improvement, many would say.

Whatever. I also said somewhere along the line that it'll never happen because it's politically unacceptable, so I accept that it's a lost cause.

We'll just ALL have to die instead.

Regardless of anyone's belief, it is obvious that the planet's carrying capacity for humans is reaching it's limit. We are just too destructive to survive. Gaia will see to that.

I have given my prefered solution, what's yours?

[maidu]

Whatever. I also said somewhere along the line that it'll never happen because it's politically unacceptable, so I accept that it's a lost cause. We'll just ALL have to die instead. Regardless of anyone's belief, it is obvious that the planet's carrying capacity for humans is reaching it's limit. We are just too destructive to survive. Gaia will see to that. I have given my preferred solution, what's yours?

The planet's carrying capacity is way beyond its limit. The carrying capacity could be about 2 billion. Currently there's over triple that. For awhile now, there's been conflict and mass migrations. Few places are isolated. Even the tragic killings in Norway was indirectly the result of unwanted migration (Arabs). Thailand has migration challenges on several levels, not least the Rohinga landing along the Andaman coast. We all know that habitat is getting scraped at unprecedented rates, and seas are getting ever more polluted and over-fished. You've heard the many stories.

I could see a limit of 2 children per couple, plus state-funded tubes tied, for either sex, for whomever over 25 who chose to have the operation done. Condoms freely available, as well as abortions (predicated on getting prior counseling). Also euthanasia, also with prior counselling.

Call it eugenics or whatever, I don't care. What I do care about is the well being of the planet as a whole and of the other species we share it with. Remember how Boy Scouts have/had a merit badge for 'animal husbandry'? We need to instill the concept of 'husbandry' in all youngsters, in the sense of caring for people, the planet and other species.

Edited January 28, 2013 by maidu

[Thaddeus]

Call it eugenics or whatever, I don't care. What I do care about is the well being of the planet as a whole and of the other species we share it with.

Fine, give up anything powered, the TV, the fridge, the car, live in a hut made from mud, grow your own wheat, rice, spuds and any other staple you can't do without, raise your own chickens, sheep, cows, pigs etc, write a blog on slate tablets and announce every new entry by blowing on a conch..

There are many things wrong with this world, but the only ones that are prominent are prominent because the price of fixing them benefit a select few.

I get heartedly sick and tired of the blame game.... it's your fault, you caused this, you must pay for it.

[maidu]

Call it eugenics or whatever, I don't care. What I do care about is the well being of the planet as a whole and of the other species we share it with.

Fine, give up anything powered, the TV, the fridge, the car, live in a hut made from mud, grow your own wheat, rice, spuds and any other staple you can't do without, raise your own chickens, sheep, cows, pigs etc, write a blog on slate tablets and announce every new entry by blowing on a conch..

There are many things wrong with this world, but the only ones that are prominent are prominent because the price of fixing them benefit a select few.

I get heartedly sick and tired of the blame game.... it's your fault, you caused this, you must pay for it.

Let me see if I've got this right. If I care for the well-being of the planet, then I "give up anything powered, the TV, the fridge, the car, live in a hut made from mud, grow your own wheat, rice, spuds and any other staple you can't do without, raise your own chickens, sheep, cows, pigs etc, write a blog on slate tablets and announce every new entry by blowing on a conch.."

I think you're trying to be cute and witty, but somehow it doesn't come across that way. I do re-cycle, I do grow some of my own veges and fruits. I do avoid driving and airflights when possible. As for blame, yes there are people to blame for making a mess of things. Probably the main culprits are people who waste resources, pollute, and destroy habitat. Next on the list are people, like the Pope and Arab Imans, and Christian bible-thumpers, who forbid their flock from using birth control.

[thaibeachlovers]

Call it eugenics or whatever, I don't care. What I do care about is the well being of the planet as a whole and of the other species we share it with.

Fine, give up anything powered, the TV, the fridge, the car, live in a hut made from mud, grow your own wheat, rice, spuds and any other staple you can't do without, raise your own chickens, sheep, cows, pigs etc, write a blog on slate tablets and announce every new entry by blowing on a conch..

There are many things wrong with this world, but the only ones that are prominent are prominent because the price of fixing them benefit a select few.

I get heartedly sick and tired of the blame game.... it's your fault, you caused this, you must pay for it.

Let me see if I've got this right. If I care for the well-being of the planet, then I "give up anything powered, the TV, the fridge, the car, live in a hut made from mud, grow your own wheat, rice, spuds and any other staple you can't do without, raise your own chickens, sheep, cows, pigs etc, write a blog on slate tablets and announce every new entry by blowing on a conch.."

I think you're trying to be cute and witty, but somehow it doesn't come across that way. I do re-cycle, I do grow some of my own veges and fruits. I do avoid driving and airflights when possible. As for blame, yes there are people to blame for making a mess of things. Probably the main culprits are people who waste resources, pollute, and destroy habitat. Next on the list are people, like the Pope and Arab Imans, and Christian bible-thumpers, who forbid their flock from using birth control.

I concur with that.

We have tried the "old" way of unrestricted exploitation in the name of "profit". It's time for a new way. However, the chances of that are ZERO while every poor person in the world wants what rich people have- the car, the huge tv, package holidays to stay in an hotel and get a tan etc etc etc.

What chance is there of moderation when China is now the world's number one polluter of carbon and shows no intention of slowing down, even while their cities are poisoning their citizens.

[craigt3365]

Thought you guys might be interested in this video. Pretty amazing:

http://www.youtube.c...3VTgIPoGU?rel=0

[canuckamuck]

cool

[boomerangutang]

2012 Columbia Glacier, Columbia Bay, Alaska
Photograph by 'Extreme Ice Survey with Matthew Kennedy'

Here's the photo's caption: "Iceberg-choked Prince William Sound reveals that the retreat of the Columbia Glacier is accelerating: It’s lost two more miles of ice in six years. And since 1980 it has diminished vertically an amount equal to the height of New York’s Empire State Building."

[RickBradford]

Here's the diagram's explanation (National Geographic)

.... in late September [2012], satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday.

One year later and the record has been broken again:

This year's massive sea ice reached 7.53 million square miles (19.51 million square km) on Sept. 14, 2013, the NSIDC reports.

Ice increases in some places, decreases in others.