People send me stuff. Sometimes it is stuff I’m not expected to see. It seems NOAA is getting hot and bothered about the Arctic.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently approved a plan to prohibit the expansion of commercial fishing in U.S. Arctic waters to enable researchers time to gather the ecosystem data essential to managing a sustainable fishery.
The area involved — roughly 200,000 square miles of ocean north of the Bering Strait — has no commercial fisheries yet, but it could if the seasonal Arctic ice pack continues to melt.
Climate change is happening faster in the Arctic than any other place on Earth — and with wide-ranging global consequences. I saw this firsthand when I participated in a recent “listening and learning” expedition to the northern corners of Alaska’s Arctic region with Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and other members of President Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. We witnessed an area abundant with natural resources, diverse wildlife, proud local and native peoples — and a most uncertain future.
According to the most recent Arctic Report Card, the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate.
Why is this so significant? A diminished sea ice cover has the potential to open up impassable parts of the Arctic to what could amount to unchecked “booms” in various national and international enterprises: commercial fishing, transportation, mining and energy exploration. A warming Arctic also disturbs worldwide weather patterns, endangers fish and wildlife, and, ultimately, threatens our national security.
Although the Arctic is arguably the world’s fastest changing ocean, it remains largely a scientific mystery. Before we enact plans to protect and zone the Arctic Ocean for specific uses, we must learn more about its marine ecosystems, ocean circulation patterns and changing chemistry.
An aggressive scientific research program must be conducted collaboratively among Arctic nations, government agencies, research institutions and others with a stake in the region. NOAA is heavily involved in a number of joint initiatives, including:
- The Russian-American Long-Term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA) – NOAA, the National Science Foundation and the Russian Academy of Sciences recently launched a 40-day research expedition from Nome, Alaska, to observe physical and biological environmental changes in the Northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea.
- Extended Continental Shelf Mapping – A joint, 41-day U.S.-Canada expedition is under way to map the entire continental shelf using the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent. NOAA and the Joint Hydrographic Center will lead the effort to collect bathymetric data used to measure ocean depths and map the sea floor.
- Climate Monitoring – NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, in conjunction with the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Monitoring facility nearby, provides a model for an international network of atmospheric climate observatories. NOAA satellites track the extent of ice and snow cover, and provide a nearly 30-year record of Arctic atmospheric conditions.
NOAA provides those living and working in the Arctic with critical information products such as weather warnings, ice cover analysis, hydrographic maps, and search and rescue satellite-aided tracking. As efforts to explore and understand the Arctic region expand, NOAA will be called upon by a growing number of stakeholders — from the U.S. military to tour operators to commercial shippers — to provide an even greater suite of services to help ensure these activities are conducted safely and efficiently.
To learn more about the full complement of NOAA activities under way in the Arctic, please visit NOAA’s Arctic Science Laboratory, Arctic Research Office and Arctic Theme Page Web sites.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator
______________________________________________________________
This message was generated for the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator by the NOAA
Information Technology Center/Financial and Administrative
Computing Division
Do these people not even look at their own data?
Yeah it was receding but apparently not now!
Such BS is pI$$ing me off!
DaveE.
Does this mean that they will stop the “see the Arctic Ice before it disappears” cruise ships, sailboats, skiboats, and ice walkabouts? And end all our fun????
“Although the Arctic is arguably the world’s fastest changing ocean, it remains largely a scientific mystery. Before we enact plans to protect and zone the Arctic Ocean for specific uses, we must learn more about its marine ecosystems, ocean circulation patterns and changing chemistry.”
Yup. We don’t want the pleasure boaters in 2030 littering the sea floor with beer cans. (The litter is already off to a good start thanks to the drums the Catlin Survey left last year. Did someone go out and retrieve the barrels or not?)
Do you want to see the arctic in the summer?
Check out this video :
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/oooguruk-island-june-23rd-2009-790036.html
This is at an oil development (Oooguruk – Inupiat for “Bearded Seal”) which my company found in the shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea (yes, I work for an oil company – but it’s not big oil – it’s small oil – only 15 employees : Geologist (with a meteorological background) -Skeptical & damn proud of it! )
Note the date – late June this year – sustained NE wind brought the pack ice right up & over the island. Commercial fisheries any time soon – Highly unlikely !
“seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate”
The rate is undoubtedly alarming for those politically correct within NOAA!
I expect the minimum seasonal Arctic ice to show one of largest increases year on year ever recorded.
Oh Yes.
The Economist, Aug 29, p44, carried a report about the Canadian gov’t and especially its prime minister Harper and the frozen North which they said was supposed to be melting.
As regular readers of this board know I tend to write letters about these things where the quotes contradict actual scientific observation. So I wrote them one on this but whether they will publish it remains to be seen.
Don’t hold your breath.
But of course what my letter says is true. the Arctic has not been warming, at least according to the DMI, since the 1950’s, and the Arctic ice is doing just fine.
End of panic, and of political interest.
Whatever there may be of economic interest in the Arctic, from the sea routes to the mineral deposits is fast becoming inacessable because it is freezing up again.
As it always does.
Kindest Regards
H.R. (18:29:24) :
Yup. We don’t want the pleasure boaters in 2030 littering the sea floor with beer cans. (The litter is already off to a good start thanks to the drums the Catlin Survey left last year. Did someone go out and retrieve the barrels or not?)
_____________________________________________________
Apparently they did. It’s the only thing on the site since they got back – or at least the only headline I could be bothered to read.
Maybe Catlin realized that their name was becoming synonymous with “stupid moron stooges” or something, and stopped the funding. In any event, there’s no link to any peer/stooge-reviewed paper on how thin was the Arctic ice, as measured so scientifically.
…. actually, just checked back, and they do have some of the usual garbage on melting ice, from August 12th.
Looks like it’s being funded by the WWF now, ha ha ha. How topical.
If they are so worried about the ice perhaps they should keep the ice breakers out.
philincalifornia (19:42:28) :
“…. actually, just checked back, and they do have some of the usual garbage on melting ice, from August 12th.
Looks like it’s being funded by the WWF now, ha ha ha. How topical.”
Too funny!
Note that NOAA (from the article above) wants “to learn more,” but I don’t see them lining up to fund another go by Pen Hadow & Company. And I suppose their data has perhaps been turned over to Mann et al for ‘proper analysis’? ;o)
Thanks for the Catlin update. That expedition shall forever live in infamy.
Jeff L, that was a really remarkable video. Do you really mean that all of that ice moving was because of wind?
Thank you for sharing that.
There is another point here if a little off topic by a pole.
It has become fashionable to take cruise ships into Antarctic waters to view whatever may be seen. Probably penguins falling over backwards when the helicopters go over. Whatever.
Except these cruise ships are not ice hardened or even in many cases double skinned. Nor do they have adequate life saving gear for such waters.
Very profitable no doubt but utter folly.
I imagine it gives the Chilean Navy a ten aspirin headache.
Kindest Regards.
Going to need to appoint a Czar to oversee the movement of all the polar bears to more suitable lands.
lol
Jeff L (18:42:14) :
Damn fascinating video, Jeff. Thanks for sharing.
Like you said….”not any time soon.”
An sea ice surge. WOW. That is a rare sight that most humans never get a chance to witness.
Nothing can stand in its way, that’s quite obvious.
But wait, “Arctic Seas Ice-Free by 2013”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Gimme a break.
Nothing like a little real time video to trump failed news stories, failed climate models, and Greenpeace liars who finally admit to prevaricating about Arctic ice.
Thanks again, Jeff.
A video is worth a billion words!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The leakage (so near the end of the Arctic melt season) of this letter to Anthony plus the article at
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2769/Not-Again-Media-Now-Promoting-Arctic-Hockey-Stick–Scientists-Rebuke-Latest-Study
together make me wonder if we (the easily brainwashed masses) are being prepped for a barrage of press releases that would accompany a very low Arctic sea ice minimum, should one occur this year.
Since a remarkably low minimum probably will not happen this year, then probably the propagana will be light. But any perveyor of propaganda worth his/her salt would need to be prepared (and have the population prepped), just in case.
Jeff L (18:42:14) :Do you want to see the arctic in the summer?
Check out this video: http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/oooguruk-island-june-23rd-2009-790036.html
REAL TIME proof that sea ice movement and fluctuation has a significant relationship to the wind patterns across the Arctic.
In the span of a few minutes, the “piling-on” effect of the ice in this one location is nothing less than spectacular.
Truly a SURGE. A wind-driven ICE SURGE. [If it weren’t wind driven then I would take the liberty here and say it reminded me of a mini tsunami.]
Damn fascinating stuff.
They really believe their own BS don’t they?
Greenpeace was on the radio this morning tell us that a team is aboard their Arctic Sunrise icebreaker and is currently measuring the retreating glaciers in Greenland.
Jeff L (18:42:14) :
Excellent video. I’ve never worked in the Arctic – it’s usually tropical rain forests, deserts or offshore I find myself.
I’m like you – I’m an oily geologist too. I’ve only rarely worked for big oil, it’s usually just fairly big to not very big at all oil I work with. I’m also ‘Skeptical & damn proud of it!’ too!
“According to the most recent Arctic Report Card, the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate. ”
Report card from whom? According to Arctic -Roos 2008 was above 2007 and 2009 is nearly 3/4 million square miles above 2008.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_area.png
Despite peaks and troughs, DMI is reporting current arctic temperatures as near as normal as one can hope for:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I am sure the good Dr. Under-secretary is not stupid, and I am sure she has access to the same data I do…. so what explanations are left?
Jeff L (18:42:14) :
This is at an oil development (Oooguruk – Inupiat for “Bearded Seal”)
My 6 month old daughter said ‘eeglybeeg’ once. Can you ask one of your Inupiat friends what it means?
NOAA apparently has surplus funds and people. They have excess resources and time available and seem to be searching for something for these people to do. Times being what they are and given that this will be the third consecutive year of ice INCREASE in the Arctic, I would suggest that NOAA consider a bit of downsizing.
Well, the blather about the ongoing retreat of the arctic ice cover is the typical warmist pandering pap, but if their true objective is as stated to “enable researchers time to gather the ecosystem data essential to managing a sustainable fishery”, that seems reasonable and responsible. If, on the other hand, the goal is to forever lock up the arctic to prevent any and all (dare I say, sustainable?) exploitation of fisheries or its other natural resources, then that’s a pretty darn big wilderness reserve.
We must keep the HOPE that CHANGE wont happen till they pass Cap and Trade….
More BS from Hansen and crew…
Jeff L (18:42:14) :
Your video is clever but it misleads. The ice is retreating. Don’t you get it, RETREATING!! You simply reversed the video, didn’t you? Small oil learns from big oil. I was big minerals and we did not get along with you oilies because of your devious ways. (Joking, of course).
It is usually educational to see the puny power of Man pitted against the might of Nature. Some people just don’t understand orders of magnitude of power, especially multiple. How good it would be to see this footage shown in classrooms.
To see people like Lubchenko and Karl at the helm of governmental weather and climate agencies is extremely frustrating and a bit depressing. There will also be climate alarmism coming from them, which will be dutifully reported by the compliant mainstream media as the “official” and final word.
Arctic sea ice has increased in the last 2 years. Is this enough time to determine a real trend in sea ice, and that the arctic sea ice will continue to recover in the next few years? Or is it weather noise?
If so consider that global temperature have also increased in the last 2 years. This warming rate is 3-4 times as high as predicted by models. Is this enough time determine that there is a real trend in warming temperatures, and that the global temperature will continue to warm further in the next few years? Or is it weather noise?
Talking about the Arctic
There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years (with a 10 year resolution). Yes, even during the medieval warm period! (that’s bad news for skeptics of course)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236
They seemingly could relate this to a declining solar input due to a slow drift in the earth rotation axis. The decrease of the solar input continued in the 20th century, but the temperatures started increasing since approx 1900, with an accelerating trend. They arrive to the conclusion that the last decade was the hottest one in 200 years.
Now, if we thrust these results there’s really no other realistic reason than an anthropogenic one for this increase of temperature. Unless a 100-long underground volcanic eruption took place? Bah…
Russians never bought “The Arctic Hysteria” thing. See this excellent article by Sergey Rodionov explaining the behavior of arctic seas:
http://www.climatelogic.com/trends/north-atlantic/nao-and-barents-sea-climate.html
Lots of other good stuff on that site too.
Re: Flanagan (22:37:03)
Have a look at the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin.
“There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years (with a 10 year resolution). Yes, even during the medieval warm period! (that’s bad news for skeptics of course)”
Hmm, Caspar Ammann in there as an author. Wasn’t he the guy who rushed out some ‘peer-reviewed’ stuff to support Mann’s Hokey Stick?
Steve MacIntyre buried him, or rather he buried himself by refusing to admit his data had a near-zero correlation with his model.
One can safely assume that these priests of climatology will demand we accept their conclusions without making available their data and reasoning.
Thank you Flanagan for gathering the non-science under your name. It will be so much easier to trace down the culpable when this abuse of science is exposed.
If it were only true that the Arctic were opening up then we could have all these commercial ventures in it. Alas, it is the same ole’ Arctic as we have had in recorded history and we shall not have the boon that would come from it opening up.
Gosh! Just how many ice breakers are there currently charging around the Arctic Ocean?
Why does greenpeace need an ice breaker to monitor the melting glaciers on Greenland? It’s melting isn’t it? They are not going to get frozen in are they?
Flanagan (22:37:03)
So how does this paper explain all the times that the northwest passage has been open, documented over the centuries, or that greenland was habitable in the 10th century?
I suggest this paper is not very well researched, bad news for you.
Arctic warmed a bit since 1990 and now it is on cooling trend again:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUNPol.html
Exactly as happened in the fist half of 20th century
http://climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT3%20Since1900.gif
Maybe we should send Bear Grylls up there to see if he can survive the Arctic summer!
Maybe there’s a 5 year programme renewal coming up and they need to prepare the political ground for their proposals?
Technique: drop in a few semi-alarming statements which have been true in the past few years and may or may not be true in the next few. Imply a key need to understand the issues more deeply. Reaffirm the decency of the organisation’s mission.
That should do the job, shouldn’t it?
Still trying for the record low extent of 2007 (the record low volume is from 2008):
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/sep/asi-n6250-20090902-v5_nic.png
The fractured sea ice on the East-Siberian side of the pole is set to disappear.
Both the Northwest- and Northeast-passage have just opened up.
Flannagan:
‘Now, if we thrust these results there’s really no other realistic reason than an anthropogenic one for this increase of temperature.’
You really are clutching at straws here aren’t you.
Re: Boudu (02:32:01) :
“You really are clutching at straws here aren’t you.”
I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years. What straws do you have?
The BBC site is running a similar article
Arctic temperatures are now higher than at any time in the last 2,000 years, research reveals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8236797.stm
It’s means no worried about melting ice
Ack (20:28:18) :
Going to need to appoint a Czar to oversee the movement of all the polar bears to more suitable lands.
And they will be called:
The FreezCzar
They obviously believe their own propaganda and ignore their own data.
“I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years. What straws do you have?”
Whence this desperate need for Mea Culpa, why this need to elevate Man to geo-engineers, especially when we haven’t finished the Tower of Babel yet?
I think Nietzsche was right, this is God’s rotting corpse manifesting as an unassuaged guilt complex as people in a secular world haven’t the confidence to face their own insignificance.
This from this morning’s Daily Telegraph …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6131513/Global-warming-has-reversed-2000-years-of-cooling-in-the-Arctic.html
It is difficult to know where to start with this. While I am not enough of a scientist to dispute the facts (if facts they be) it is the assertions and conclusions that this must be linked to AGW without any attempt by the journalist concerned to test these conclusions that are increasingly frustrating and certainly only serve to reinforce my skepticism of the whole business and (I suspect) others’ as well.
Sandy: when someone immediately counter-attacks a peer-reviewed paper by an ad hominem it is simply a sign that there’s no scientific argument to counter the above mentioned paper.
PaulS: do you have any scientific publication documenting “all the time” the NW passage was open? To my knowledge, the first successful attempts at going through it goes back to Admunsen, who did it in a few years. And what about Greenland? It’s still habitable and has been for centuries now. What is your point exactly?
Boudu: do you have another explanation to propose?
“I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years.”
Not in thousands , actually in millions years . Unprecedented .
Whole 0.8°C per century what means 80°C in only 10 000 years .!
Oceans will boil and we will all die !
The whole planet will be desintegrated and transformed in a fiery hell .
The worst and most horrible apocalypse in the last 4.5 billions years is upon us and you only talk about “pointing” and a “probable” cause ?
t has become fashionable to take cruise ships into Antarctic waters
At least 2 have hit icebergs, where no icebergs are supposed to be, likely due to the high sea ice extent in recent years.
I expect these ships are full of AGW believers. I wonder if they have doubts when their ships hit icebergs that are too far north, at least according to the AGW dogma..
biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years…
can only have been written by someone ignorant of the facts…it isn’t even wrong, it’s just stupid on so many levels
If there were any discernible climate change (leave “biggest and fastest” to horror tales for children), then we could talk about probable causes of it. As there’s none, no empty talk required.
Well, well, well! Here’s another example of ratchet reporting, they’re really going for it now. I dare say by Christmas we’ll all be dead! “To Copenhagen & beyond!”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8236797.stm
They get the golden prize in my book for getting the Hockey Stick back into the news, well done Auntie Beeb!
“Michael Hauber: If so consider that global temperature have also increased in the last 2 years. This warming rate is 3-4 times as high as predicted by models.”
According to the British MET, the mean annual temperature-anomalies were:
2005 0.52
2006 0.42
2007 0.40
2008 0.32
Looks like DEcrease to me.
” RR Kampen (02:28:08) :
Still trying for the record low extent of 2007″
Nonsense. The Nansen Institute in Bergen has 1.2 km^2 MORE ice-extend than in 2007, that is about 28 times the size of the (tiny) nations of Netherland or Switzerland.
But you may keep your hope up for maybe another 3 weeks.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
“RR Kampen (02:40:40) :
I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years.”
That is only so if you believe in the Hockey Stick.
Fisheries has been taken over by watermelons and radical greenies. It happened back in the Bush admin.. The purpose of science to them is just to provide a cover for “political action”.
Boudu,
‘Now, if we thrust these results there’s really no other realistic reason than an anthropogenic one for this increase of temperature.’
NOAA in their Arctic Report Card Loudly proclaim Arctic atmospheric temperatures up 5C.
Then leads in with
Atmosphere
Summary
Autumn temperatures are at a record 5º C above normal, due to the major loss of sea ice in recent years which allows more solar heating of the ocean.
But then read the report itself. NOAA doesn’t report any actual atmospheric temperature measurements from the Arctic Ocean The only data they include, because presumably it is the only data they have, is from land stations. The atmospheric temperatures for the entire Arctic Ocean is extrapolation. No data. None at all.
The 5C increase is just more the deceptive rubbish we are so used from the AGW believers.
And Flanagan:
there’s really no other realistic reason than an anthropogenic one
So some combination of soot, particulates, aerosols, anthropogenic water vapour increases, ocean pollution and GHGs including CO2.
You are saying the role of GHGs and CO2 in Arctic melt is unknown. The role of any global warming is unknown.
One of the most annoying things about AGW believers like yourself is they never understand the stuff they post. It’s all mindless parroting of what they have heard.
Flanagan (22:37:03) :
“Talking about the Arctic
There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years”
No NO NO, it’s been warming……..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6131513/Global-warming-has-reversed-2000-years-of-cooling-in-the-Arctic.html
No mention of the 1930’s and 40’s. The 1830’s and the MWP of course, they didn’t happen.
RR Kampen:
the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years.
Really? Where did you come up with that nonsense? Still believe in hockey sticks?
Stick around, and you might actually learn something. Or not, since flanagan never seems to. Up to you.
NOAA is seeking Polar Bear sign. To achieve a count on the elusive, and exceedingly scarce animal, they have set up a program for their Arctic Science Lab to determine how many unobserved bears are under the ice, then to Facilitate & Administer Real Time Solutions, herein after referred to as F.A.R.T.S.
Re: RR Kampen (02:40:40)
“I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years.”
I think you mean “the biggest and fastest measured climate change”. All others in previous centuries and millenia are just proxied. And the proxies don’t agree on what the truth is.
Geoff Sherington (21:36:49) :
No, no. You think you’re looking at the north coast on the island, the video was actually take on the south side – the ice was rushing to fill the vaccuum left by the polar melt.
To–
Richard111 (23:20:15)
Apparently one or more arctic cruises
now use converted huge Russian icebreakers–
capable of smashing 3 metre ice–
Here is more ice breaker and sea ice information–
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=346&page=98#28425
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/newdata.htm
Canada considers ice breakers information
a military secret–
especially since now even the cruise ships
are more capable than the canadian ice force(farce?).
How come AGW alarmists never have facts, data or proof. They just say things like they are gods and make decisions out of gut feelings. For example: last comment, RR Kampen states ” would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years” but he doesn’t show us proof that it is the fastest in thousands of years, no data, no observations, nothing. So frustrating trying to debate zombies like this.
“the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate.”
except for the 400,000km2 increase the year before last and the expected 400,000km2 increase this year.
In the world of global warming hysterics, an increase in the Arctic Ice area is a retreat in all cases.
Go figure.
Flanagan
The Arctic growing is very bad news. We best put out as much CO2 as possible in hopes of slowing it down.
What this means is natural forces control climate and climate varies and changes due to these natural forces are at least an order of magnitude larger than AGW is or is likely to be. But somehow that isn’t what you took out of this citation?
Speaking of the Science paper noted by Flanagan (22:37:03):,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236
http://www.physorg.com/news171206871.html
The study modeled the changes expected in the Arctic as a result of the changing Axial Tilt and Orbit due to the Milankovitch cycles. The study found that summer temperatures in the Arctic were cooling off by 0.2C per century.
Now look at the DMI polar temperature chart on the right margin. It wouldn’t be very long at that rate (500 years or so) before temperatures never get above 0.0C in the summer. What would happen if that trend had continued? No summer melt of the ice or the snow in Greenland or Ellesmere Island. A few more centuries and there is no summer melt a little farther south as well. I wonder what that would do.
RE: RR Kampen (02:40:40) :
“I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years. What straws do you have?”
Biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years? Really? Please elaborate. As for “probable cause” in the slight increase in global temperatures over the last decade, poke your head out the window during the day and take a look at that big, bright, yellow thing in the sky known as the sun (from which we receive LIFE sustaining heat energy). For the last decade or so, preceding the slight increase in global temperatures, solar activity increased. Hmmm… Methinks there might be a correlation there, i.e., a straw.
RR Kampen (02:40:40) :
Re: Boudu (02:32:01) :
“You really are clutching at straws here aren’t you.”
I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years. What straws do you have?
Is it not obvious? We all know that the arctic has been cooling over at least 1000 years since Greenland was farmed in the first millenium but abandoned in the 15th century. So why is this being talked about now?
The answer is that there is no warming – which is a rather inconvenient truth.
The first solution to this problem was to repackage global warming as climate change. Now the problem is that there is no discernable climate change so they are repackaging it as “no climate change but there should be”.
I am fed up with climate scientists and their disciples claiming that we cannot see any other reason for XYZ so it must be anthroprogenic. If they lack the insight and creativity to come up with real hypotheses that are testable they should keep quiet until they do.
Hey! Where is the ubiquitous statement that “NOAA understands yada yada yada…” in the blogpost?
By the way, that video of the ice crawling out of the sea was taken when one of those Catlin crew creatures took a spill into the ice water way off shore. The ice just wasn’t gonna touch that thing and crawled outa the sea to get away. Where is photoshop when you need it!
Jeff L (18:42:14) : All that ice is but imaginary!, it is not in their infallible models!,
clearly you are a part of conservative conspiracy!
Mike Lewis (06:08:34) :
“For the last decade or so, preceding the slight increase in global temperatures, solar activity increased.”
In fact solar activity hasn’t changed for at least a century.
That is, hasn’t changed significantly. Because, in fact, the solar energy hitting the top of the atmophere exhibits a continuous, slow decline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
Or would you rather refer to those hyperesoteric, immeasurable solar influences that only certain people for whom CO2 is taboo seem to know about?
“Biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years? Really? Please elaborate.” – what is to be elaborated? Methinks it’s clear.
So if the Arctic was opened up we could bypass the Panama Canal… Use less fuel to get to destinations on the Atlantic or Pacific… And this is a bad thing….
The only truly bad thing is that it won’t happen in my life time if ever.
Tired of people freaking out over things that are not worth freaking out over.
Jeff L (18:42:14) :
I have to ask. Did you get any oil?
Looks tough. Even the bearded seals are not sticking around there in June.
Sounds like NOAA is just trying to stake a claim to the territory and set the ground work for more funding. They’ll use the most effective information (valid or invalid, recent or stale) that does the PR job. Jane Lubchenko was a good marine ecologist who did some pioneering work as freshly minted PhD 30 years ago. Nobody, it seems, is completely immune to the lure of policy-making.
Ryan C (05:45:42) : – please do not refer to me as ‘zombie’. It tempts me to warn you of mirrors.
Your style suggests that if I link you to reliable data and observations you will dismiss them offhand simply because they exhibit my point.
Said data and observations are available online in many different locations, including the IPCC-reports: which you will not use. I’m no fan of this kind of catch 22’s and I will not help you. You can help yourself or continue posting nonsense and insults.
—
L Bowser (05:17:46) :
“I think you mean “the biggest and fastest measured climate change”. All others in previous centuries and millenia are just proxied. And the proxies don’t agree on what the truth is.”
The proxies do lead to the agreement that the recent warming has risen above all margins of uncertainty from the proxy measurements. My statement follows.
No one has commented on “According to the most recent Arctic Report Card, the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate. ” The comment on warming water should be noted. It could be attributed to water flowing in from the Atlantic and Pacific. Yet the stress continues to be placed only on ice extent and warming AIR. I continue to wonder how much arctic melting is from underneath due to “warm” water rather than to air temperature. More attention should be paid to this and less to the effects of CO2.
IanM
I am sorry to present along post, but it may be worth someone’s effort to read. If one places this ….
Sandy (23:12:13) :
“There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years (with a 10 year resolution). Yes, even during the medieval warm period! (that’s bad news for skeptics of course)”
Hmm, Caspar Ammann in there as an author. Wasn’t he the guy who rushed out some ‘peer-reviewed’ stuff to support Mann’s Hokey Stick?
in context with …
RR Kampen (02:40:40) :
Re: Boudu (02:32:01) :
“You really are clutching at straws here aren’t you.”
I would surmise he just sensibly pointed to the most probable cause for the biggest and fastest climate change in thousands of years. What straws do you have?
They provide a decent lead-in to what I think people might find an interesting story. In the late 1970s I was in graduate school at the U of Utah. My Ph.D. director was David Chapman, whom I regard quite highly in most ways, but who became a disappointment to me over the global warming hysteria (he was suitably skeptical at one time, but finally succumed to the fever once he had the right postdoc.). Chapman rarely knew what I was up to, which gave me a lot of free time to simply explore ideas without any sort of preconceptions.
I became interested for a time in a means of using subsurface borehole temperature measurements as a way of measuring climate change. Chapman’s Ph.D. director, Henry Pollack at U. of Michigan, had also looked at this in the early 1970s (maybe late 1960s). I quickly came to the conclusion that the method was worthless because there is so little information remaining in temperature after about 100-150 years of diffusion in the subsurface–and we may as well depend on surface air records rather than deal with the expense and trouble of boreholes. All methods of recovering past temperature from boreholes in soil and rock are ill-conditioned, extremely sensitive to noise and errors in the temperature measurements, and capable of providing any conceivable temperature history depending on how one “guides” the inverse procedure. I stopped fooling with the idea in about 1979, long before global warming hysteria.
Chapman, quite unaware of what I had been doing in 1979, got interested in the same idea in the early 1990s. The hysteria was now in full bloom. He had quite a lot of borehole temperature data from around the western U.S. and was, reasonably, looking for some use for it–what better than to study global warming? I visited him in 1992 while on a ski vacation, and he told me at this time he had come to the conclusion that the recent global warming was principally a recovery from colder temperatures prevailing during the Little Ice Age. From what little time-temperature information was available in the borehole data, he concluded that this end to the LIA in western North America occurred after 1840 or so. At the time I thought this was the most reasonable explanation for the data also.
Independently of anyone else Art Lachenbruch of the USGS had been analyzing Arctic borehole records from engineering work in the mid 1970s-1980s, and had come to the conclusion that a sharp warming of the Arctic had begun to occur around 1900 or just after.
Where this story of using subsurface temperatures to recover past surface temperature leads is a tale of its own, and is eve related to the Hockey-stick and some failures of scientific ethics, but let’s take just what the best of the borehole data leads us to conclude so far.
We figure that Europe staggers out of the LIA in the 18th century or so, that western North America staggers out about a century later, and that the Arctic begins to recover in temperature a half century or so after western North America.
After my talk with Chapman in 1992 and after reading Lachenbruch’s work, I concluded that a warming world does not warm up all at one time, but rather that local influences cause one portion to warm, then another, and so forth. One can see how people might be confused by such a pattern. Having found evidence of a natural warming in Europe two centuries ago, people conclude that recovery from LIA must have completed not long afterward, or certainly have completed by the mid 19th century rise in western North America.
These same people observe a late rise in Arctic temperatures and conclude it must be the result of some new factor, and so they jump on the AGW bandwagon.
It stands without saying on this weblog that we don’t really know for certain what current temperature trends truly are. However, it is quite likely, in my opinion, that the temperature rose until year 2000 and that some of this temperature rise results from CO2. But it is entirely reasonable to suppose that most of the temperature rise results from other, natural, factors; and that the Arctic rise, which dominates the news, and may also present an upward bias in the temperature trends of the past half century, is actually the very last of the recovery from LIA.
One part of this story I’d like to know about is how Asia and other locales fit into this tale. Did Asia, apparently, began the rise out of LIA perhaps before Europe did? What about other places? If anyone has information about my questions, I’d like to hear about it.
WUWT has very conveniently put up a little picture on the right side that leads to arctic temperatures as measured by the Danish Meteo-Institute since 1958. So if somebody thinks it has been getting warmer, she or he can very easily show when and how much.
Not doing that and just bloviating is not only lazy, it it disingenuous.
” RR Kampen (07:29:11) :
The proxies do lead to the agreement that the recent warming has risen above all margins of uncertainty from the proxy measurements.”
Since “agreement” means that everybody shares that belief, this is nonsense. Plimer states the exact contrary. See the beginning of the second chapter.
Sandy (23:12:13) :
This has been posted several times, but once more won’t hurt: click
The title refers to the same Caspar Amman. How can someone as verifiably dishonest as Amman continue to be published by Science?? Can’t they find enough ethical people to write their articles? Does Caspar Amman get a free pass because he trumpets the Party line on AGW?
Diogenes would have the same problem with the editors of Science that he had back in the day.
Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.
REPLY: unfortunately no, wordpress.com does not offer an edit feature that I can enable – A
Alexej Buergin (08:02:04) :
Since “agreement” means that everybody shares that belief, this is nonsense. Plimer states the exact contrary. See the beginning of the second chapter.
—
I meant ‘agreement’ as correspondence of many models, data and observations. Imo consensus plays no role in the value of scientific theories.
I don’t trust Plimer:
“The next part of Prof Plimer’s research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.
He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.” (from http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21542331-5003402,00.html ).”
Determining the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the easy part. Isotopes C-13 and C-14 in the air diminish as an increasing portion of the CO2 gets there from burning fossile fuels (this even leads to a measurable, and corresponding, drop in O2-concentration). Calculation, first done in 1961, proves that all the extra CO2 is anthropogenic. A scientist like Plimer dismissing this (and other) evidence and instead averring that 99.9% of the extra derives from “little-understood geological phenomena” amounts to ignorance in a normal person and to outright lying by a ‘top scientist’.
Kevin Kilty (07:47:05) :
You may write long posts anytime you want.
Excellent.
RR Kampen (08:23:26) – Correction: change “99.9%” into ‘the vast majority’ or so…
More-
To–
Richard111 (23:20:15)
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/our-fleet/kapitan-khlebnikov
For the summer months –
the Russian nuke powered icebreaker “cruise ship”
with it’s Russian crew
gets PAID by tourists to zip around and
map and otherwise
espionage security intense(?) USA and Canada
hallowed territorial arctic waters under
the noses of the USA and Canada arctic “navies”.
I wonder how many times these Russian icebreakers
have actually rescued north american forces?
What a joke our arctic sovereignty has become.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=346&page=98#28425
August (month end averages) NSIDC (sea ice extent)
30 yrs ago
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 18.1 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 8.0 million sq km
Total = 26.1 million sq km
Recorded Arctic min yr.
2007 Southern Hemisphere = 18.0 million sq km
2007 Northern Hemisphere = 5.4 million sq km
Total = 23.4 million sq km
Last yr.
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 17.9 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 6.0 million sq km
Total = 23.9 million sq km
This yr.
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 18.6 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 6.3 million sq km
Total = 24.9 million sq km
It may be some time before governments have to worry about a commercial fishing industry. Good thing because they haven’t a good track record for fishery management.
“Canada considers ice breakers information
a military secret–
especially since now even the cruise ships
are more capable than the canadian ice force”
I’m Canadian, and what you said is probably true.
🙂
Re: RR Kampen (02:40:40)
Have a look at the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin.
Jack Simmons (07:28:48) :
I have to ask. Did you get any oil?
Yes we did – that is video from the development island
“After my talk with Chapman in 1992 and after reading Lachenbruch’s work, I concluded that a warming world does not warm up all at one time, but rather that local influences cause one portion to warm, then another, and so forth.”
Fits into this quite well, http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf
A few of the proxies from this may even have made the “cut” for the team’s latest Arctic paper, Tiljander did (upside down of course, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932).
Pity they did not use them all, I wonder why?
Flanagan (04:09:20) :
To confirm, “all the time” is not what I said. I’m sure your response is just a typo, but lets be clear on this. In response to your request for Scientific Publication on the passage being open during periods historically, I would think that sailors of bygone years ability to navigate the open passages is not scientific in nature. However, it is well documented throughout the ages. I’m sure you don’t require me to host examples, you have been here long enough to have read multiple examples in other posts. Lets not play dumb on this!
Regards Greenland. You are correct that it is still habitable, but hardly hospitable. Greenland in the 10th century was able to be farmed using primitive methods by todays standards, suggesting a warm and hospitable land, certainly compared to today. My point is that this suggests climate is colder today that 1000 years ago, half the time of the 2000 years that the paper you link to suggests. Again, I’m sure you don’t require me to host examples, you have been here long enough to have read multiple examples in other posts.
When I eyeball the recent graph of 2000 years of Arctic temperature on the BBC website :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8236797.stm
and compare it with the IPCC graph of CO2 increase over the last 150 years, it appears to me that the increase in Arctic temperatures leads ahead of the dramatic increase in CO2 ?
“RR Kampen (08:23:26) :
I don’t trust Plimer: etc etc”
I mentioned him as a representative of people whose opinion differ from yours and your consensus. There are many others behind him.
He has written a 500-page-book about climate; it would be surprising if there were no mistakes in it, especially as “climate” consists of so many different sciences. So you select a topic (not the one I was talking about) to attack him ad hominem. That was to be expected, and that part of AGW remindes me a bit of Pawlow’s studies.
OT,
UK daily Mail,
The inconvenient truth about ozone-puncturing Two Jags Prescot
Two Jags is flying to China this week to deliver a lecture on global warming. That’s right, he’s jetting halfway round the world and back to talk about the need to cut carbon emissions.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211080/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-inconvenient-truth-ozone-puncturing-Two-Jags.html#ixzz0Q9stDthN
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211080/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-inconvenient-truth-ozone-puncturing-Two-Jags.html
Yes, Paul, it was a typo.
For the rest, I must differ. A succession of short anecdotes from the past, from which we don’t even have some alternate confirmation, cannot serve as an opposition to long-term trend analyses.
For example: I’m quite sure the medieval warm period had some cold, hard winters in Europe. Just cherry-picking those wouldn’t be a proof that the earth was not warm at this time.
” RR Kampen (08:23:26) :
Determining the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the easy part. Isotopes C-13 and C-14 in the air diminish as an increasing portion of the CO2 gets there from burning fossile fuels (this even leads to a measurable, and corresponding, drop in O2-concentration).”
To be exact: Not C-13 and C-14 diminish, but the proportion to C-12 decreases.
Plimer:
Human activities such as deforestation, coal burning, animal husbandry and cropping add CO2 to the atmosphere. Biological carbon also enters the atmosphere with methane leaks from continental shelf sediments, coal seams and gas leaks and this gives the same isotope signature as CO2 from burning coal and oil. (etc. etc. 18 pages)
And which is the easy part?
It is not that you have not read the book; you do not even own it.
Mitchel44 (09:14:31) :
“After my talk with Chapman in 1992 and after reading Lachenbruch’s work, I concluded that a warming world does not warm up all at one time, but rather that local influences cause one portion to warm, then another, and so forth.”
Fits into this quite well, http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf
Thanks for the reference; it looks quite interesting. Maybe I’ll time to read it tonight.
There was a newspaper report yesterday that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, while promoting her contra-carbon jihad, had ridiculed “the myth” that EPA will regulate cows and.. kittens. Well, at least she didn’t ridicule my breathing. Whew!
When I checked it yesterday, the Census Bureau clock showed current US population is about 307,349,376, and world population is a little more than 6.78 billion people. So, each day, humans here in the USA are exhaling over 353,452 tons of CO2, and all the world’s humans, around 7.79 million tons.
But not to worry. EPA has said that human exhalations needn’t be counted because they are part of a closed carbon cycle. Our exhalations are recovered by the plants we will eat next, thereby sequestering all the carbon we exhale. Mmmmm.
How long will it take some enterprising environmentalist lawyers to challenge the EPA’s leaky concept of a closed carbon cycle for carbon-exhaling cows, kittens and people? Can they do this by calculating the millions of tons of mineral fertilizers that are essential in growing the food we eat?
For example, about 5% of global natural gas production is consumed in producing ammonia-based fertilizers — and how many tons of rock phosphate are mined to help feed us using heavy machines that daily gobble tons of fossil-fuels?
Will radical environmental-malthusians let EPA continue to ignore the enormous amounts of CO2 created by farm machinery, produce delivery trucks, food processors and supermarkets? Aren’t these culprits all complicit in my exhalations of carbon dioxide, and everyone else’s, too?
Will EPA’s contra-carbon jihad eventually create the mother of all unintended killer consequences?
Bob, a living, food-consuming carbon-exhaling air-polluter hoping for EPA’s continued pardon and indulgence
RE: RR Kampen (07:22:13) :
“In fact solar activity hasn’t changed for at least a century.”
The proxies disagree – might these be the esoteric, immeasurable influences you speak of?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Irradiance data is only available for the past 30 years but correlates well with the proxies shown. Ergo, since those proxies show increased activity for the past 300 HUNDRED years, solar activity has been increasing as well. It’s even happening on Mars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
Nothing esoteric or immeasurable about that.
Re: cal (06:40:07) and others,
It is a good point to make that there is a logical fallacy of trying to set up a strong disjunction and say warming is either agw OR this particular xyz natural process – it’s not xyz, therefore it’s agw. This is only true if there are no other processes (e.g. abc) that could account for the warming. To say that we understand climate that well is boastful and easily falsified. In other words, IF it is warming, we don’t yet know why. Let’s just hope that if it is warming that it continues until we get back to the old days of farming on the greenland coast and opening up big stretches of Canada and russia to farming and settlement.
Flanagan
I’ve gritted my teeth and ignored it for months now, but I can’t hold back any longer. it’s not your views on AGW that irk me, in fact, they amuse me and I missed your contibutions during the summer vacation.
What is getting me is your consistent mis-spelling of “trust”. There simply is no “h” in it – I understand the thrust of your argument but I don’t trust the conclusions you draw.
I would strongly recommend you read Australian geologist Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth. The complexity of our climate is astounding and he discusses earth’s climate history and all the elements that impact it.
The climate has so many variables that no model, which are by their nature designed to show a predicted result, could accurately show what will happen 3 days from now let alone 50 years out. They try to make a non-linear, chaotic system into a linear one focused only on CO2.
So many of the vital parts of this puzzle are not even discussed let alone part of the IPCC’s models of which none predicted the cooling since 1998.
Not Covered in IPCC models:
*solar influence – sunspots, 11, 22, 30, 1,500 year etc. cycles, orbit of earth
*volcanoes – release of aerosols, dust, 85% of eruptions take place under the ocean or under ice sheets in Iceland, Canada, Greenland releasing massive heat and CO2
*weather stations – urban heat sinks not considered with huge upward bias in actual temps. 90% don’t meet US Weather standards. Satellites and ocean sensors show no increase in global temperature.
*wobbles – axis tilt as solar system moves through the universe over millions of years linking to glaciation.
*El Nino, La Nina
*ocean currents, Gulf Stream, water column cycles
*sea levels – constant movement up and down, 130m drop in ice age, lands still rising from weight of ice, oceans deepening from extra weight of water, both cause earthquakes.
*CO2 is just a trace gas though vital to our very survival and has been many times higher even in ice ages, water vapour is key GHG
*plate tectonics – mid ocean ridges 64k long, earthquakes releasing CO2
*clouds – cooling impact ignored
and on and on.
As so many posters have stated and through links to WUWT and other blogs the science is never settled but for those with a leftist bent no amount of facts or solid evidence will change one iota of their emotional belief. As we know politicians are in this for the money and go hand in glove with grant supported “scientists”, teachers and the MSM is spreading these lies and propaganda. This is the new religion of the greenies and just like all religions questions are not accepted and you will be punished for asking them.
Ian Plimer writes we had better hope for global warming as the alternative of little ice ages and global cooling with crop failure, drought, diseases and general misery is not nice.
Flanagan (22:37:03) :
“Talking about the Arctic
There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years (with a 10 year resolution). Yes, even during the medieval warm period! (that’s bad news for skeptics of course)”
Let’s assume for a moment that the study is accurate (big assumption). The fact is this would be GREAT news for skeptics. Many skeptics, including myself, assert than not enough is known about the climate. What this study indicates is an unknown cooling trend. One more point for the skeptics. BTW, thanks for pointing out, yet again, just how little the climate scientists really know about the climate.
Kevin Kilty (07:47:05) :
Did Asia, apparently, began the rise out of LIA perhaps before Europe did?
Based on a study from this paper:
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.
it looks like Asia began emerging from the LIA around 1700. See this graph from the paper:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_yakushima.gif
OMG. These NOAA nerds sure are good. They are going to find out the impact of commercial fisheries in an area that has NO fisheries!!! Maybe they can help us figure out the cause of why AGW/CC cultists and lefturds are brain dead, since they can study something that doesn’t exist.
RR Kampen (07:22:13) :
Or would you rather refer to those hyperesoteric, immeasurable solar influences that only certain people for whom CO2 is taboo seem to know about?
Not very clear there. I’m a skeptic and CO2 is certainly not taboo. Bring it on!
RR Kampen (08:23:26) :
Determining the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the easy part. Isotopes C-13 and C-14 in the air diminish as an increasing portion of the CO2 gets there from burning fossile fuels (this even leads to a measurable, and corresponding, drop in O2-concentration). Calculation, first done in 1961, proves that all the extra CO2 is anthropogenic. A scientist like Plimer dismissing this (and other) evidence and instead averring that 99.9% of the extra derives from “little-understood geological phenomena” amounts to ignorance in a normal person and to outright lying by a ‘top scientist’.
You’ve trolled onto the wrong website there, Buckaroo. First, I’ll show you my source to refute that ridiculous claim, ( a government one at that), then you show me yours to support it.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)
Preinductrial Baseline/natural causes/manmade amounts/total/% of increase
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000/ 68,520 / 11,880 / 368,400 / 99.438%
Kevin Kilty (08:19:51) :
“Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
If you are using IE you can install the google task bar which has a spell checking capability (not great but catches simple errors). For example, I just used it here and noticed you combined “to” and “spot” above.
Mrs. Leverlilly: “But that’s a priceless Steinway!”
Clouseau: “Not anymore!”
— The Pink Panther Strikes Back
Flanagan,
And of course if you take out the tree ring proxies they used, there is no sudden increase in temperature trend in the 20th C.
Same old rubbish, same old Team.
Alexej Buergin (07:50:22) “arctic temperatures as measured by the Danish Meteo-Institute”
They are modeled, not measured, and the model changed several years ago, so not continuous under the same method.
Dave12 (11:30:29) “Not Covered in IPCC models” I think you are somewhat misinformed there. But then, if you take Plimer as your bible…
G. Karst,
To do a fair comparison of global sea ice extent over 30 years, you have to include Febuary as well as August data because the trends for NH, SH, summer and winter are quite different.
There is little trend in NH winter sea ice extent, although partly due to geographic reasons.
Jeff L
Quite a movie. The scary thing is that we are looking at the future in microcosm. Unless something pretty major happens, the glaciers will be back one day and then it won’t be breeze blocks and pipes, it will be whole cities.
Mitchel44 (09:14:31) :
…A few of the proxies from this may even have made the “cut” for the team’s latest Arctic paper, Tiljander did (upside down of course, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932).
Pity they did not use them all, I wonder why?
I’ve been reading over at CA this afternoon, and I must say I am stunned–stunned is the only description I can offer. I have not been following any of this story for a long time now, and thought that the Hockey Stick had “died in its sleep” some time back. What is it about the Hockey Stick that makes otherwise sensible people involve themselves in very bad science?
In my earlier post (above) I alluded to how climate reconstruction using borehole temperature records in soil and rock had a connection with the Hockey Stick and with some issues of scienctific ethics. It is not a simple story that one should tell in a posting here. Perhaps I’ll make a suggestion over on tips and notes to WUWT.
Thanks, again, for the heads up, Mitchel44. I am quite surprised that this has become topical again.
Richard M (12:30:00) :
Kevin Kilty (08:19:51) :
“Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
If you are using IE you can install the google task bar which has a spell checking capability (not great but catches simple errors). For example, I just used it here and noticed you combined “to” and “spot” above.
Thanks. I’m going to give this a try, but it may help only a little. I am a very poor typist and my eyesight is becoming awful at short range.
Richard: no unknown cooling, but related to precession of earth rotational axis. Please read my link. Still bad news for sketpics. But that’s life, ok?
Peter: yes, sorry that English is not my main language. Should we turn to French? Or Dutch? Or Latin? Or Greek? Spanish? Turkish?
Paul Hildebrandt (12:04:16) :
Kevin Kilty (07:47:05) :
Did Asia, apparently, began the rise out of LIA perhaps before Europe did?
Based on a study from this paper:
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.
it looks like Asia began emerging from the LIA around 1700. See this graph from the paper:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_yakushima.gif
Thanks, also. That is an interesting graph, and it suggests 1600-1700, doesn’t it? The literature on these topics is simply vast, and one of the great services of a site like WUWT is that it connects so many people who have one piece or another of the puzzle.
Flanagan (14:35:04) :
“Richard: no unknown cooling, but related to precession of earth rotational axis. Please read my link.”
Did you read the press release? It indicates that orbital changes are what has been claimed to cause the cooling. So, it’s more than just precession.
” the result of a wobble in Earth’s rotation that has been increasing the distance between the sun and Earth and decreasing Arctic summer sunshine.”
On to more nonsense …
“Still bad news for sketpics. But that’s life, ok?”
Chuckle, chuckle … it’s looks like more bad news for the Team. Still using Tiljander upside down, still picking and choosing only the proxies that support their predetermined conclusions, still withholding data. Those who support this nonsense look very silly indeed. You really want to be in that group?
The skeptics look better all the time. Not so much for the blind faithful.
Flanagan
Before you write any more posts on Greenland and make inaccurate comparisons between the MWP version of the island and today’s, can I suggest you read ‘The Viking World’
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viking-World-Routledge-Worlds/dp/0415333156
It is a very scholarly work with numerous academic studies of the Vikings settlement of Greenland, its growth and subsequent decline. It was undoubtedly a much more hospitable place 1000 years ago than it is now.
I borrowed it from our local library as it is a very expensive book-I do not know if the same facility exists in Belgium.
best regards and happy reading
tonyb
Kevin Kilty wrote (08:19:51): “Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
Kevin-
You can compose your message in MS Word, or even in Outlook Express, then copy/cut and paste the message into the WUWT comment block. Either method allows you to use a larger font for easier reading.
Alternatively, if you are using the same Google/MS home page as I am, there is a selection “Page” just above and to the right of what you are reading. Click on “Page” and you will see “Zoom”. Click on that and select the degree of enlargement you desire for the screen. I read all web pages at 150%.
IanM
IanM (17:57:50) :
Kevin Kilty wrote (08:19:51): “Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
Kevin-
You can compose your message in MS Word, or even in Outlook Express, then copy/cut and paste the message into the WUWT comment block. Either method allows you to use a larger font for easier reading.
Alternatively, if you are using the same Google/MS home page as I am, there is a selection “Page” just above and to the right of what you are reading. Click on “Page” and you will see “Zoom”. Click on that and select the degree of enlargement you desire for the screen. I read all web pages at 150%.
Thanks. Yes, I could do this as well–I just don’t think to take the extra two steps when I am excited about something. Occasionally I’ll write a post on the commentary boards of the WSJ, and their weblog allows an edit after submission until one navigates away from the page. It is very convenient. I had hoped for something similar here. I may take your advice and use notepad or some such.
Kevin,
Your post earlier was great. but I have to ask, what makes you think CO2 has an effect on climate? I ask because you seem like you know what you’re talking about and I’ve never heard an acceptable explanation as to how the association works. I understand the physics behind how it works in a controlled laboratory setting, but I don’t understand how it can be successfully extrapolated to a much more complex and highly variable system such as our planet’s atmosphere.
Philip_B (13:56:12)
I post global month end sea ice averages, the day NOAA/NSIDC releases them. I included 2007 figures because the Arctic minimum is approaching and I thought people might find the reference useful. I find that constantly looking at anomalies, leads to a situation where many have forgotten, what the actual values are. The 30yr and last year reference merely helps frame variation range. It was not intended to establish long term trends. There are plenty of graphs available. This is just to get the actual numbers out there and to remind people, that there is still a lot of ice. I do not think monthly reports on extent have broad significance. Many are shocked by the actual values and will not believe them until I post the actual plates. (Don’t forget, graphs require links, which are not always desirable nor possible. Brevity is best)
When reaction no longer happens, I will probably quit. There has been no lessening of reaction in the last 2 yrs, so I guess I’ll carry on. I only post my global extent report here, occasionally, when a related subject is being discussed. Most people here have a realistic view of ice and so there is less requirement for reminding. If anyone here finds it not useful and requests it stopped… I’ll not post my report here again. Are you requesting I stop??
Flanagan (14:35:04) :
Amazing! Flanagan is completely wrong in half a dozen different languages. Someboidy contact Guiness! This must surely be a new record.
Flanagan has some strange ideas, but de gustibus non est disputandum… esso si, que es.
Dan D,
The same extrapolation was used to ban coolant around the world with the intention of saving the ozone layer, only to discover recently that chlorine has no effect on it at all. I saw this sometime not too long ago, but did not keep the source, but if anyone is interested, I will attempt to locate it.
“Flanagan (14:35:04) :
“…sorry that English is not my main language. Should we turn to French? Or Dutch? Or Latin? Or Greek? Spanish? Turkish?””
Since Latin was the language of science in Newtons time it would be quite interesting to see if there are still people alive who can do physics in it (today nobody reads Newton because they either do not understand the language or the subject; but I did have a physics professor who was said to speak it fluently).
But when in Rome (GA 30161), do as the Romans do. And when a friendly soul helps you, it it elegant to say thanks.
Flanagan….that’s Turkish right?
Flanagan
Perhaps if you were to use your real name, as I do, rather than an Anglophone handle, then I would have realised and would be prepared make allowances for English not being your first language. As for your comments about alternative languages – just grow up.