Just what you’d expect from 3 decades of dangerous global warming
CBS Boston has published a story with photographs of giant Icebergs washing ashore at Cape Cod, many of them metres thick.
According to CBS Boston;
WBZ-TV Chief Meteorologist Eric Fisher says this could be a “once-in-a-generation” event due to the extraordinary amount of ice on the Massachusetts Bay. Fisher says the ice won’t be around for long.
There have been several remarkable images left from the record-setting winter, including the nearly frozen waves captured off the coast of Nantucket last month.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/03/09/giant-icebergs-wash-ashore-on-cape-cod/
Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports:
The beaches of Cape Cod are taking on an Arctic look, even as the temperature warms.
Months of bitter cold created huge sheets of ice that are now breaking up and washing ashore. In Wellfleet, there are chunks of ice reminiscent of those found in much harsher climates.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/10/mini-icebergs-washing-ashore-along-cape-cod/jZJ8RIkyG9Rztlv0eJ3kMO/story.html
I guess nothing says “dangerous global warming” like a frozen ocean, or pictures of giant lumps of ice washing up on American beaches.
h/t IceAgeNow, story submitted by Eric Worrall
Global warming… it’s worse than we thought.
(Neat pictures!)
Also very neat were the pictures of the “Slurpee surf” (pure slush) on Nantucket in February, which briefly became ice along an ocean shoreline. The above pictures are from the “cold” side of Cape Cod (Massachusetts Bay.) What was amazing about the situation on Nantucket is that is on the “warm” side of Cape Cod, much closer to the Gulf Stream.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/amazing-cape-cod-sea-ice/
I got a chuckle out of the fact that all this happened right after Mann said the blizzards in Boston were caused by warm water off Cape Cod. Mother Nature really seems out to make certain Alarmist look like the fools they are.
The “cold side” of Cape Cod is not in Cape Cod Bay (Massachusetts Bay)….the “cold side” is along the eastern side of the Cape…open Atlantic waters. Cape Cod Bay is warmer than the open Atlantic, but colder than Nantucket Sound to the south. Of course, this time of year it’s ALL cold, despite alleged “warming”…
Now you have me wondering, Eric. I know from experience that the water coming into Buzzard’s Bay via the Cape Cod Canal from Massachusetts Bay is much colder than the water in Buzzard’s Bay, but that is on the southwest side of the Cape. I’ll have to research the outer Cape.
I know a cold current comes down from Maine into Massachusetts Bay from the north. I also know that Great White Sharks are seen at the elbow of the Cape, at Chatham, but not in Massachusetts Bay, and I always assumed it was because the water was colder. Now you have me thinking about the wide sand-flats on the north side of the Cape. Maybe they do allow the water to warm, at least during the summer.
I wonder if there are water temperature readings, from harbors on the Cape, listed somewhere.
Surely it won’t be long before the climate change community request billions in additional research funding in order to understand why it is getting colder… That’s the beauty of “climate change”, which ever way it changes they can still ask for funding to understand why.
Punishment from Gaia. Earth’s a living system and we broke it, now pay your indulgences, heathen. /snarkasm
If Gaia wants humans off the planet, she can just get real cold…
Lawrence, I consider that the ‘why’ is well understood, even defined. In fact, it is preordained. The ‘how’ requires further understanding.
‘Climate change’ is a politicised term clearly defined by the UN: http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=&val=&valan=a&anf=0&id=10
All four definitions provide indirect and direct anthropogenic causation.
The deliberate confusion levered into an axiomatic term betrays its purpose.
The last time the planet was this cold it ended in the greatest extinction in the geological record.
If this prediction comes true, then east US will flow air from Alaska.
Why?
I’m learning this stuff; please explain your reasoning so I can learn.
In the stratosphere jet stream moves along the boundary temperature. The jet stream at 500 and 700 hPa in the troposphere like in the stratosphere (in winter).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f192.gif
Try browsing this site.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/
You should go to weatherbell.com and watch the Saturday Summary videos. The video from this past Saturday is particularly good at showing this.
ren,
Those stratosphere temps, look to be about what I would expect to measure under a clear sky with my IR thermometer from my frontyard (N41 W81).
“The storm this weekend will run into just enough cold air to bring rain and spotty ice for a time in the mid-Atlantic, but more snow and ice farther north in part of New England.”
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03101550_hd23.jpg
Cold air will win out by midweek.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03101950_hd33.jpg
I love to see those “winter returns!!!!” pictures – well, at least as long as they show that I don’t live where winter is returning to!!! (It’s Springtime in Texas!)
Continental US landmass is about 2% of the Earth’s surface why is the fraction of that attracting so much attention?
Will we be setting a new record low this year on Arctic sea ice?
John
No. Arctic sea ice is low, but continues to bounce around its recent usual 13.00 Mkm^2 area. About 7% less than the 1980-2010 average of 14.0 Mkm^2, but right at the 2 std deviations border.
Besides. From today’s sea ice levels, further reduction in sea ice extents only increases heat losses from the Arctic Ocean 9 months of the year. It is during May, June, and July that the Arctic gains more heat than it loses when sea ice is removed/blown away/floated south/melted.
@ur momisugly John, consider that 2% of what? We don’t live on 70 % of the earth’s surface. Many other areas are uninhabitable, and some are only marginal… that’s makes that 2 % extremely important especially since so much of the world’s food is produced here.
And the southern portion of the Laurentide core area keeps adding mass.
Got a link? TIA
The dark area shows the current position of the polar vortex. The solar wind quite strong.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/ivxowl.jpg
Jet stream has shifted to north. Temperature is currently in Boston increased.
I bet it won’t take long before the article comes that says “new study finds out that rising CO2 levels are responsible for this cold snap”. i almost dare to bet a house on that follow up!
after all it more and more looks like there’s nothing CO2 can’t do
You mean the local cold snap on the east coast portion of the usa that equals 2% of the planet surface?
It’s always “climate change” now — that way any exploitable event can be blamed on CO2.
Ice in Massachusetts Bay?? Must be CO2 doing it….
There have been very few references to climate change in New England news stories this winter except for the stories from the NCDC and GISS about the global hottest year and months.
It’s hard to exploit that when your mass transit rail system is packed full of snow and ice.
The Boston Globe will get back on the meme with the first 90 degree day in July.
Yes but the North American school system is preaching “climate change” in K-8 so the new generation believes climate change is amongst the greatest threats to our civilization. I agree. Because the indoctrinated will continue to pour money down that rabbit hole till it ices over.
They’ll blame it on the Chinese instead.
The Globe headline will be, 2015 predicted to have record SNOW MELT, due to global warming.
It must be dry ice!
Hey! Dry ice is solid CO2, and temps haven’t been going up as predicted (desired?) while CO2 output has been increasing. So … something is missing – either heat or CO2. We can’t find the heat, so it must be the CO2 that’s missing. Therefore, the missing CO2 went into the creation of dry ice!
Where’s my cheque?
But of course! Didn’t you see “Day After Tomorrow?”
I managed to avoid it for years. I can’t decide if Day After Tomorrow, Gravity or Interstellar has the most ‘Ur’. Ur, an ignoble gas, is the element of unreal physics.
To be fair, Hollywood generally gets the physics wrong on all movies. George Pal wasn’t too bad, though.
I’ve only seen Gravity, but the physics early in the movie were so laughable that when Clooney opened the hatch to climb in, I thought they might actually think that was feasible.
Any other movie and I would have immediately known something else was going on and started thinking of the explanation, this movie my first thought was that they were just dumb.
All 3!
It seems Like Earth is really trying to show the warmists something.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Extent or volume?
There is a difference.
The extent is low thanks to less ice in Bearing and Okhotsc both in the Pacific.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnthelpit: Ah, bless, I think you are a little confused by oppti’s reply. You see, whenever we (sceptics) point out that sea ice is on an ‘up’, we get told to look at the volume. And whenever the volume is on an ‘up’ we get told to look at the extent. So you can see why we might be, shall we say, a little weary of people like you. Now, you have come along and pointed out that the Arctic sea ice extent (strange you never mentioned the Antarctic, but never mind) is struggling. So I am duty bound to point out the volume recovery since 2012:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Which should we be concerned about, the extent, or the volume? Do tell, as we would then like to pop back on here and remind people like you when things aren’t going quite according to your belief. So which is it? The volume is almost certainly increasing from its depth in 2012. And, of course, we are told so often that it is volume that we should be concerned about. Do you agree, or disagree? As you have come on here and disregarded the volume recovery AND the Antarctic. So can I assume it is Arctic ice extent that bothers you most.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
@icouldnthelpit:
You know that PIOMAS chart is a fabrication, don’t you? It is designed to scare worrywarts like you, and it’s working. But it isn’t an accurate representation. For one thing, it shows the planet’s recovery from the LIA, a process that is continuing with no regard to high or low CO2 levels. And of course, the Antarctic, with 10X the ice volume of the Arctic, is rapidly increasing its ice cover.
In fact, Arctic ice is recovering nicely.
So we can add the Arctic ice scare to the list of alarmist predictions that have failed. It’s a really long list. You say:
For The Antarctic I’m mostly worried about ice…
You’re mostly worried about everything. Tell you what: you do the worrying, and the rest of us will do the laughing. Because climate worrywarts are amusing.
Your arctic sea ice chart shows bands of variation over the time frame, with the recent upward tick falling well within those bands. Of course this last upward tick is more than enough to get the skeptics clamoring with great relief: ‘see, arctic sea ice is growing, its not shrinking!’ As they would have for previous upwards ticks.
They do have trouble stepping back from the pixels to see the entire picture.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Have you tried looking at the Antarctic sea ice extent, as well?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
You can’t just look at the ice at the periphery. A lot of the cold generated in Siberia didn’t head out over the Pacific this year, but instead came over the top of the globe., and down to freeze the socks off Boston. (They’ve been removing three feet of snow from Fenway Park.)
When the cold moves like that it tends to compress ice towards the middle of the Pole. This thicker ice will not show up on the “extent” graph until the thin ice at the edges melts back. More than half of all Arctic sea-ice melts away even on the coldest years.
A wild card this summer will be the effect of the tanking AMO. In January it sank to levels of the “cold” phase not seen in over twenty years. One thing I watching for is for the thicker ice to spread out and drift down into Barents Sea without melting as swiftly as it usually does. (Even though the ice would be spread out, it still counts on the “extent” graphs.)
I wrote a long-winded post about the Atlantic and Pacific storms eating away at the edge of the ice at the periphery last winter, even as cross-polar-flow crushed ice up against Canada:
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-why-so-low/
<blockquote.dbstealey.
You’ve gone back and changed your post on the quiet!
Wow!
That is not possible for a commenter to undertake at this blog … icouldnthelpit, you must be confusing WUWT with one of your CGAW blogs?
icouldntunderstandit
answer Big Jim which do you want us to look at extent or volume? That way we know what chart to use to prove your clueless!
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Arctic sea ice extent was variable BEFORE 1979! See also the 1920s to 1940s Arctic Warm Period. No satellites back then but summer minimum extent was certainly down based on observations of that time.
Now see the 1990 Sea ice extent IPCC AR1 graphic.
http://www.kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/nord2.gif
If Arctic sea ice extent recovers then warmist arguments about co2 causing melt is in the water. 😉
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
The graph is copied from the IPCC 1990 PDF. My point stays the same. Arctic sea ice extent minimum was variable before 1979. The IPCC said so themselves, here it is again.
Time will tell what will happen over the next decade but I certainly won’t act to reduce greenhouse gases based on the minimums since 2005. PS Antarctic sea ice extent has been much lower in the past. Is it a cycle? Like I said time will tell. I am patient.
icouldnthelpit, read these as I hope they may offer you a little more insight into variable climate change – coz that’s what the climate does!
icouldnthelpit, see huge holes in the Arctic sea ice. Antarctic sea ice was also highly variable. I hope you are seeing the bigger picture now.
icouldnthelpit, are you willing entertain various explanations for Arctic sea ice minimums since 1979?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
My point is that summer Arctic sea ice extent will grow over the next decade. The ‘death spiral’ is dead. The minimums since 1979 are natural.
icouldntunderstand;
I actually feel sorry for you, what did you do to Jimbo for him to take you to the wood shed like that.
@Jimbo
Research performed on Baffin Island last summer proves that the arctic is now warmer than it has been in the last 120,000 years. By collecting exposed mosses on the edge of receding glaciers on Baffin Island and radiocarbon dating them, they have found the last time that they added new growth. Video here:
Story here:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29462-greenland-reels-climate-disrupting-feedbacks-have-begun
jai mitchell
See? It HAS BEEN warmer before. It has been warmer,and colder, before – when CO2 levels were both higher, but not much more dangerously lower! – than now!
And nothing bad happened.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnthelpit
March 11, 2015 at 7:15 am (replying to Alan Robertson.)
Wrong. Dead wrong.
At 2.5 million sq km’s each of the past 3 years, the Antarctic sea ice at minimum is more than 35% ABOVE the “average” Antarctic sea ice minimum of 1.7 million sq kilometers. Don’t know who gave you your talking points, but they lied to you. And the Antarctic sea ice maximum is growing even more – setting records last year in June (about its midpoint) with a sea ice anomaly the size of Greenland; and an “excess” sea ice anomaly in September 3/4 the size of Greenland, greater than the entire surface area of Hudson Bay.
Arctic sea ice has been – the past 2-1/2 years – solidly within 2 std deviations of its 1980-2010 averages almost every day. Not all days, but most days stay in that band. Almost every has been below average, but within 2 std deviations of that average. Worse, the more sea ice area lost between August and April, the more energy lost from the Arctic Ocean by increased evaporation, convection, LW radiation, and conduction. The Arctic is doing its job of cooling the planet.
Antarctic sea ice has – more than 85% of the time – EVERY DAY been MORE than 2 std devotion GREATER than average for the past 3-1/2 years. EVERY DAY. It has been 25% to 42% GREATER than average. All seasons of the year, including the minimum just past – at +32% above average.
The past 12 months, the Antarctic reflected back into space 168% of what the Arctic absorbed through ice loss. So? You are dead wrong on all counts.
Italy and Greece see the first signs of an early spring. Italian village kids won’t know what snow is.
Don’t you know that this is only weather not climate, climate only happens when we have a heat wave doh! just ask Warren and Icouldntunderstandit.
@ur momisugly RA COOK… of course you probably know that a probe was sent down to look at the ‘thin’ ice in Antarctic, what they got was 3 to 5 times ticker than their estimates.
rishrac
Yes. That measurement (of the actual Antarctic sea ice thickness) was an “interesting” surprise to the CAGW community. It violated ALL of their assumptions. 8<)
No, no.no.nooooo ….. it can’t be! The models are right so it MUST BE FAKE!
Its faked, just like the moon landings and,and, and 911 … its the CIA thay faked it…. its fake ice! They got the jews in Hollywood to make fake ice in those movie studios they all control. They are obviously in league with Putin who is trying to mess with our heads so he can sell more gas to rescue the Russian economy and he has done secret deal with the Koch brothers and Big Oil to fool us into not believing about global warming is destroying the earth.
Why won’t anyone listen…. why, why, why… don’t you .. sniff… believe me…. you know it must be true.
Is this a first?
Safe money is on “this is the nth + 1”. Don’t forget the age of the planet.
As the cliché goes, is it the first “on record”?
The geological record.
I think I read somewhere that during the little ice age, Boston got a couple of feet of snow in June and July.
Not true. In 1815 there was snow in the air during every summer month, and frosts that killed three separate plantings of corn, but not “feet of snow.”
Nothing is a first when it comes to the weather. Or is that climate change?
Sarc on: Oh but look at all this global warming on the West Coast pushing up into Alaska, which is displacing the Arctic and moving down the East Coast. In 20 years the tropics will be in the Arctic and the Arctic will be in Florida.
During the years when the Laurentide and Scandinavian ice caps were at their greatest extents, Alaska was virtually ice free as were parts of Siberia. The thickest parts of the Laurentide ice dome(s) were found to be just south of the area now occupied by Hudson Bay, which is more or less where the so-called “Polar Vortex” has been setting up in recent years. There are some who believe that the Earth’s mean temperature doesn’t actually have to change in order for ice ages to occur. It’s a simple transformation (freezing) and redistribution of H2O from the ocean to the land surface possibly brought about by severe changes in the jet stream (along with other factors).
Parts of Alaska also reminded ice free because it was too windy for glaciers or ice sheets to form.
100 %.
Look why the polar vortex hangs over Canada. This is consistent with the magnetic field to the north.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/10endpg.jpg
See pix of last glacial max 20K yr ago:
http://www.qpg.geog.cam.ac.uk/lgmextent.html
http://www.qpg.geog.cam.ac.uk/images/WorldLGMm.jpg
It is possible that the Earth’s axis has shifted a bit and that the shift causes ice to build up on land. I am not speaking of precession, I am talking about the pole shifting. The Earth actually has three poles in the core, the mantle and the lithosphere. The lithosphere can shift over the mantle because of the eccentric build up of polar ice, as is happening in Antarctica now. It can move very quickly – not like the sea-floor-spreading rate.
Not too windy – too dry. The windiest place on the planet is Adelie Land in Antarctica, which definitely isn’t ice-free.
>>Pole shift theory.
We know that the lithosphere has not shifted, because of the Hawaiian chain of islands. Straight line – no shift.
Ralph
Ren; That’s a pretty interesting map you’ve got there if it is showing magnetic field displacement – nice correlation with several things. Will you share your source?
Silver Ralph
Suppose the centre of rotation were the Hawaiian Islands. While I find your observation attractive, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence for sudden changes in the pole(s). Lake Titicaca shorelines are one example, and the seal level shorelines on E Ireland and W Wales are another. Neither requires a shift of the Lithosphere, just the pole, as probably happened in 3100 BC, by about 1/2 a degree.
I will keep watching.
Jbird :
The Earth, 1: The Upper Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and Magnetosphere
edited by Charlotte W. Gordon, Vittorio Canuto, W. Ian Axford
If it happens next year, that will be once in the next generation.
Didn’t Caleb write about his youthful adventures on New England ice?
Yes I did. Anthony published it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/a-retrospective-fun-with-sea-ice/
I must add I never recall seeing bergs back then quite as thick as the ones drifting up on Cape Cod now. This winter’s cold must have been colder than the late 1970’s. Or else perhaps the water was chilled more this year, by the very cold November and some cold shots in December and early January, before the cold clamped down and held in late January. In the the winter of 1976-1977 the winter clamped down early, but relaxed in February.
Dry ice or rotten ice? 😉
I am sort of confused. Climate Change/Global Warming is causing Arctic Amplification because it is warming twice as fast as everywhere else. This is causing the Jet Stream to “meander” southwards.
What I want to know, if the Jet Stream is meandering south because of this heat build up, why is the southern push so cold. Where is the “heat”?
Just asking.
The heat is on the west coast of the US, where mountain snowpack is 17% of normal and spring flowers are over a month early. These variations are nearly all weather, not climate—-there is a “global” in global warming (and cooling), but we humans can’t resist taking our local conditions as indicative of something.
“The heat is on the west coast of the US…we humans can’t resist taking our local conditions as indicative of something”
Can you clarify then, doesn’t “Global Warming” mean the globe is warming? And since that doesn’t seem to be the case, Climate Change, (warmer OR cooler), would by definition need to be local?
“… would by definition need to be local?”
Not in my book (or any systems engineer, fluid dynamics person, or climatologist). Given the global warming since the 1970s is only some 0.7C°, any regional change beyond that should be balanced by a region with an opposite anomaly. That was one of the central points I tried to make in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/08/1934-2015-a-tale-of-two-februaries/
This year’s weather (couple years, actually) has obvious connections to that ridge in the Pacific NW, and that connects back to ENSO state and other less obvious phenomena. Another point in my previous post is that we’ve seen all this before – this isn’t climate change, local or global, it’s just weather.
Snow on the beach in Los Angeles.
It’s not all humans, only the humans who pretend they can predict climate and have figured out how all of the earths climate works as a singular totality. Apparently they have accomplished this needing only mediocre statistical and computer skills and big computers.
Yes weather isn’t climate, except…unless… it supports your side of the argument, than of course it is of primary importance. There are scores of climate research papers that look at regional or local variation and claim, see here it is, voila, global warming in action. I am not sure where the separation line is between effects of climate change and climate change itself. But let’s stick with weather.
Weather vs. climate begs the question where is the cross-over from weather to climate. Is it just area? If so how many square miles? Is it time, then how many years, 10, 30, 100, 1000? These numbers are all fungible, which puts climate science clearly into the bargain bin of junk science, since without a proper testable definition of “climate” what in the world are we talking about?
Is the fungible principle a new precept in science or is it just an unwritten rule of climate science?
Catherine Ronconi March 11, 2015 at 5:33 am
Snow on the beach in Los Angeles.
Didn’t happen, it was hail.
A good question.
The globe is supposed to have higher mean temps on average.
This does not mean every place gets uniformly warmer, or warmer at all, or that temp change is same throughout the day or year, or that the variation on temperature keeps the same.
The thing is noone can predict well.
Arctic ice is on a record low level, Antarctic on record high. Who’d have predicted this?
Actually I think it is because the world is getting “less cold” in places. This has been discussed here over and over but when you average out “normal” high temperatures and “less cold” low temperatures you get an average that is warmer. No heat stress on life; less cold stress. Seems a good thing to me but I am just a retired engineer that graduated many moons ago with a water and pollution specialty in civil engineering and I am sure all that math, hydrology, climate, geology, ecosystem and weather stuff et al they taught us was pretty out of date …
A very good point. It would be reasonable to argue that unless weather shifts are prolonged enough to result in actual changes in biological community composition, the climate hasn’t changed. In California during the Medieval Climate Anomaly or Drought as it is often referred out here, there were two major droughts that lasted on the order of a century each. Mountain lake levels dropped by up to three meters. Apparently steam flows were severely reduced and there is evidence of saline marsh biota moving significantly inland in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The changes were so severe that the habitability of the Sierra Nevada was seriously reduced for the prehistoric populations living there at the time. The same period sees increases in warfare, indications of disease in human skeletons, and as one source memorably put it “increased sociopathic violence” in the southwest, meaning there is evidence of cannibalism and some really un-nice treatment of captives based upon perimortem bone damage.
Not surprised you are confused. This has nothing to do with global warming, Arctic amplification, or the jet stream. The fact that Arctic is the only place in the world that is still warming should have made you suspicious or this. What is warming the Arctic is warn water from the Gulf stream, carried north by Atlantic Ocean currents. It was not always so but got started at the beginning of the twentieth century when there was a change in the flow pattern of North Atlantic currents. Prior to this there was nothing there, just two thousand years of slow cooling. Read my paper in E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2012). The initial warming in the twenties and thirties was strong but got interrupted by a thirty year cold spell in mid-century. Warming resumed in 1970 and is still going strong. These people who show the warming curve entirely miss the first part and the beginning of Atctic warming because they start their observations in 1980. Apparently there is magic in this date which happens to be the start date of satellite observations conveniently available. Judging by appearances, the warm water carried north today quite possibly has melted as much as one third of the ice that would have existed between Iceland and the Russian Arctic. It is quite likely that in the absennce of this external heat source the Arctic and the Antarctic ice extents would be similar..
Looks like the lack of sunspots is starting to show up.
Cape Cod was formed by glaciers. They oughta’ be used to a little ice.
Climate alarmists were also formed by glaciers. They are known as ‘terminal morons.’
I see what you did there!
They would say “that’s a big pile!”
There was extensive sea ice all the way down to Chesapeake Bay at 39N this winter until the last week or so. The last time they had ice like this was the winter of 1976-77.
Select “all” here to see the charts from the National Ice Centre.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ches_del.html
It’s weather until someone shows otherwise, but people were still worrying about reglaciation in 1976-77. Maybe it’s time to revert to that older scare.
Tells me there are no such products
Select “All” first then submit.
Yup, I remember that. There was four (4) of us who flew down to Chesapeake Bay in January to “duck hunt” ….. but all the boats were frozen in the ice and we couldn’t get out to “open” water to find a duck to shoot at.
All we need is a polar bear!
Clearly, this has been the result of ice melting at the North Pole caused by global warming. The Earth has become unbalanced as a result and is tipping over. The new North Pole is now near Nantucket. We must stop using all heating fuels to allow the Earth to cool once more. Trenberth warned us over and over about the ‘tipping point’. Too late too late it is too late.
“The new North Pole is now near Nantucket.”
Oh no! Could that huge mass of that floating sea ice cause Isostatic depression, increasing relative sea level rates? It’s worse than we thought AND it is too late.
Don’t ya just hate it when all that future cooling is already baked in?
Kinda makes me wonder about the cookbook.
Given that we are now entering a solar “grand minimum” it seems unlikely that ice on Cape Cod will be just a “once-in-a-lifetime” event. This event will occur again in the near future. Maybe not next winter, but possibly the one after that or the next. Conditions have changed. People need to get used to it.
They couldn’t resist “even as the temperature warms” – how pathetic.
Although I’m not sure I would resist either,
if I were writing news copy for MSM with the CAGW AK47 pushed in my ear.
The skeptic community should never use the term climate change for a number of reasons but the big one is that the rebranding of Global Warming to Climate Change was a huge mistake by the alarmists and they should be reminded of it at every opportunity.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/so-which-is-it-global-warming-climate-disruption-or-climate-change/
Pointman
Great essay, Pointman. You are so right. They have come to despise the phrase “global warming”, which is why we need to throw it in their faces every chance we get.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
I only use the term global warming. When a denier tells me the more accurate term is climate change, I remind them that all of the supposed changes they talk about are, by their own theories, caused by global warming. By keeping the focus on global temperature, we won’t get distracted by all the weather out there.
Absolutely. When I’m talking about it to a friend I’m always careful to use the term ‘global warming’.
‘Climate change’ is completely vague as it can mean practically anything you like. But ‘global warming’ is quite specific. It refers to warming, not cooling. And it’s definitely global.
Chris
When you dig into the details of the predicted “climate disruptions” the mechanism is always warming. Without global warming, none of the changes will occur, so I always feel justified in using GW instead of CC.
Pointman,
You make a good point and I hope many heed your comment. Global Warming is the original meme and should be the prime reference used when referring to the CAGW narrative. It is not unacceptable to further refine that to ‘Catastrophic Global Warming’. It is what the “believers” pitched from the start.
Warning: “Fag Nation” is no longer acceptable. It is now LGBT and you could go to jail for referring to the original self defined identifier. So some caution my be required in the use of “Global Warming”.
Yes, even the term “homosexuals” is now viewed by some as a slur. I saw some old television footage from a gay pride parade from several decades ago, and everyone they interviewed used the term “homosexual” to describe themselves and others.
When did this ‘rebranding’ happen, the WMO and UN have been using ‘Climate Change’ since at least 1988?
Could be photo-shopped photos.
Or maybe deniers with stolen snow machines created these ice chunks in a secret lair and released them for maximum affect.
Or maybe this probably explains why we needed “Global Warming” to morph into “Climate Change”.
I recommend for more affect, we morph “Climate Change” to “Climate Mange”. No one likes mange, and the word itself sounds terrible, where as “change” could sound like a good thing.
I mean look at the Earth including it’s climate, it remains unpredictable in often marvelous ways.
Climate Menagerie is much better. It’s more difficult to spell too, so it will automatically increase the ‘reading grade level’ in student reports about extrapolating local weather events to global extents.
Especially when talking with a true believer, I always name it “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.” I usually just use the acronym CAGW in comments, but in a conversation it is always the full name. If they call it Climate Change or Climate Weirding or anything else I remind them that we are talking about a dangerous man made warming of the entire planet caused by CO2. If it is not Catastrophic, or not Anthropogenic, or not Global, or not Warming, then they must be talking about something else and can we get back to the original subject, please? After all, they bought the concept, hook, line and sinker, so don’t let them “word-walk” away from it.
Meanwhile, Capracotta Italy may have set a new world record for most snowfall in a 24-hour period — 256 centimeters, or 100.8 inches:
Another village (Pescocostanzo, about 16 km / 10 mi southeast of Capracotta) saw 240 centimeters / 94.5 inches) of snow.