In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the arctic sea ice melting. Additionally, there were predictions that it would not recover to its previous levels.
But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007.
From the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today:
Image above was edited to fit. Click for a full sized image. A long time series is also available.
And here is the satellite sounder derived image showing sea ice extent as of Saturday, Feb 2nd 2008 (right) compared to Feb 2nd, 1980 (left). The color key shows the concentration of sea ice, with deep purple being the most solid ice and reds, yellows. blues showing areas of thinning ice or seawater/ice mix:
Click for a full sized image. Note that the 1980 photo does not show snow cover (in white) as the technology then wasn’t able to resolve it as it does today.
While there has been a slight reduction in sea ice, NASA indicates in a press release in October 2007 that the main component of change is wind driven flow patterns, not air temperature changes.
I’m wondering; are the polar bears out having fun on the new 2008 ice?
And while we are on the subject of melting sea ice, polar bears, and pictures, I’d like to point out that our Nobelic hero, Al Gore, has been caught not only propagandizing, but also using a copyrighted work without permission.
Astute readers may recall seeing a photo flashed around the world earlier this year of polar bears “stranded” on an ice cube at sea. I won’t show it here but rather please follow this link to the original photographer. See the bottom right photo.
A Canadian blogger, Carole Williams, tells the story behind this picture, which was taken in 2004 just off Alaska by a marine biologist on a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute project, Amanda Byrd. As the marine biologist (Byrd) points out, the bears were in no danger so close to the coast (they can swim 30 miles).
She just wanted a photograph more of the “wind-sculpted ice” than of the bears. Byrd writes:
“[You] have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”
The image was copied from the ships computer (where Byrd had downloaded the camera flash memory stick to) by another member of the shipboard research crew and passed on to Environment Canada. Then it was eagerly adopted by many as an example of the fate that awaits the polar bears – including Al Gore, who used the picture as huge projected backdrop in one of his highly lucrative lectures.
Gore said:
“Their habitat is melting,” “beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet.”
Audience: [gasp!]
Yes, it melts every summer.
Read all the details of the story behind the photo, here and here. It seems that a lawsuit is brewing and Canada has some pretty hefty copyright laws.
In the meantime, there’s a big push in the US to “save the polar bears”. The LA Times writes today:
“The Bush administration is nearing a decision that would officially acknowledge the environmental damage of global warming, and name its first potential victim: the polar bear.”
Sure I want to protect wildlife just as much as the next person, but this is just getting to be all about spin and little about facts. Write your congressman and senator and let them know the true story. Let’s give the folks in Alaska (who should know) some credit for injecting some reason into the issue.
UPDATE – The “spike” has a well written story about the Polar Bear issue, along with some statistics.
To be fair in light of your last post;
You now show us a single graph of a single parameter measured for a single year, a single satellite photo taken at a single point in time, a single example of irresponsible media using a single photograph of a single bear, then you redicule a single person and conclude that it’s unreasonable to think there might be a long-term trend with Arctic sea loss, or threats for polar bears. Then on this line of evidence you infer that it’s just silly for our President to be thinking about energy-policy changes based on all the evidence presented to him? Hopefully his advisors are reading more than just BLogg-posts!
Just trying to figure this out.
Jd
REPLY: Hi JD, thanks for the comment. I figured you’d be one of the first to jump in. The story is about the fact that the media (and some groups) did exactly what you accuse me of: “show us a single graph of a single parameter measured for a single year, a single satellite photo taken at a single point in time”. That’s EXACTLY what the media did this year in many stories this past summer about melting ice in the arctic. Here is a story from Sept 2007 from MSNBC showing just such a single instance
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/ (note they don’t say what month the 1979 photo is from, but do for the 2007 photo, for all we know, they could be summer and winter side by side) But to be fair, and in deference to your concerns, I’ve added my own side by side comparison sat sounder images for Feb 2nd, 1980 and Feb 2nd 2008 to the post along with a link to the entire time series.
For my part, I think the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) is one of the biggest drivers of changes we are seeing. NASA itself points out this year that changes in the arctic are more related to flow patterns than temperature changes.
The collapse of the Ross ice shelf is another example of a single event touted in the media with satellite images that comes to mind. But that may be linked to nearby volcanism.
True, the original post contains only a single example of irresponsible media, but many other can be cited, like the one from MSNBC, and such as the recent 60 minutes special, which I touched on here, or the National Geographic specials along the same lines. Plus many other “me too” copied AP and Reuters stories.
What I’m ridiculing (albeit tongue in cheek) is Gore’s tactic of tugging on the public heartstrings by elevating an animal to an icon, where perhaps the elevation isn’t justified by all the science involved.
“you infer that it’s just silly for our President to be thinking about energy-policy changes”
I’m not sure how you got that idea, since the word “energy” does not appear in my original post. Surely you know by now that I actually think energy independence is a very good idea (witness my own solar projects). But I do think it’s a bad idea to rush to judgment (as seems to be the case with pressure for a USFWS polar bear listing) when the current evidence says otherwise. Read the article from the Alaskan biologist which is the last link int he original post to see what I’m talking about. – Anthony
Excellent information.
A few questions for the AGW crowd:
• Why was a very large island in the North Atlantic Ocean, given the name “Greenland” rather than “Whiteland”?
• I wander if it might have had anything to do with the color of it at the time?
• Or the color of even part of it, like the fiords?
• And if those fiords were green at the time, why were they?
• Could it possibly be that the very thick layer of ice overlaying them melted?
• And might that have been caused by the prevailing temperatures at that time?
• My goodness they must have had a heck of a lot of global warming to have melted that much glacier ice?
• and with that amount of warming, the polar bears, did they all perish and subsequently come back again, from the dead?
• Is there a lot of evidence of the great amount of worldwide flooding that must have occurred when much of that ice cap of that huge island melted?
• Or even any evidence?
• Is it true that the world’s climate has always been changing and will always continue to be changing?
• Is it true that some leading researchers (McKittrick et al) have discovered that much of the temperature data used by the IPCC to model world temperature changes was found to be seriously flawed and as such has put into question the basic foundation of the theory of temperature change/ climate change on which the Kyoto accord was founded upon?
• Is it true that over one hundred eminent climate scientists signed an open letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations on Dec 13, 2007, wherein they give a very strong rationalization of why IPCC should give up the futile attempts to combat climate change, as it is in their opinion impossible to stop?
The Canadian Arctic is having a “normal” cold as hell winter where for the past three months temperatures have been close if not slightly below normal temperatures being minus 25 to minus 50 deg C, Most certainly ice does not melt at those conditions yet we hear AGW fear mongers continue to daily chirp about the Arctic ice melting and that the polar bears are going to perish (drown). The biggest problem in the possibility of the bears drowning is that they will have difficulty finding any free water to drown in. In reality there currently is more danger of them freezing to death and or from starvation due to the absence of any open water. Why are Al Gore and his AGW friends not spending much of this winter seeing first hand in the Arctic what is happening, such as the phenomena or Arctic ice melting on a minus 50 deg day. Surely if he is genuinely concerned to the extent that he claims, he would go to “Ground Zero” and see the facts of the matter for himself, it wouod really be character building for him.
From what I have read, it is not the distribution of winter ice, but the extent of the summer ice that is the greater concern. A better comparison would be August 2007 to August 2008.
Another useful piece of information to know would be the thickness of the winter ice in various locations. How does that compare year after year? Will there be enough of it to stick around in large enough masses so as to provide the necessary summer habitat for the bears?
REPLY: I agree that a measure of thickness would be useful. There is a measure of density in the satellite sounder images. By that measure it appears that 2008 arctic sea primary ice over the north pole is a bit more dense than in 1980. But thats just an eyeball view.
The summer ice extent changes are related to what NASA has discovered about winds affecting the arctic ice:
Of course, during the winter. with ice masses being much larger and contiguousmore , they don’t get influenced by the wind as much.
I’ve been following the Al Gore photo follies.
Erle Stanley Garner would have called it “The Case of the Purloined Picture”.
Unsurprisingly, it gets little play in the mainstream press.
The big question in terms of polar temperatures is at the other end of the planet: Why is it that Antarctica, despite having the same level of CO2 as the rest of the “globe”, shows no sign of global warming, and in fact in its center, furthest away from the ocean, has been cooling for decades?
The answer seems to be here, and although it has to do with anthropogenic causes, has nothing to do with CO2:
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/19/a-new-paper-that-highlights-the-first-order-radiative-forcing-of-black-carbon-deposition/
I spent three months above the arctic circle in the summer of 1955 while in the Navy. We had three months to get in there, and get out.
Reason? Ice melts in the summer, and refreezes in the winter. DUH!
Anthony,
You’re making a good point. Forgive “my speed” in understanding the approach.
Regarding the heart-strings dynamic; there is a much larger problem that relates to this digital age. That is, such tactics are actually required to make the general population pay attention. Sad but true? Worthy of looking into as discussion perhaps.
I’m not sure what biologist reference you’re making; where is that link found?
As a side-note; understand how difficult it is to be a field-biologist trying to convince upper-ranks (especially in USFWS) that something needs more attention. A few years ago while working on a project, I was informed by USFWS biologists that the Bush Administration closed down the USFWS Library at the Branch Office in California so that the biologists couldn’t get to scientific literature/references without formally requesting them from superiors (who were given authority to deny requests without explanation). Not good science-policy from the top-down. I can appreciate what effort, and what level of proof is needed for “official” Administration acknowlegment of what a team of USFWS field biologists suggest.
Regarding the energy policy comment, I jumped the gun somewhat. You’re right, the Administration acknowledging AGW and polar bears does not translate directly to energy policy decisions. I should have read that more carefully.
Your support of sustainable technology and energy independance is appreciated.
Jd
REPLY: Thanks, I just added some additional info to the original post in deference to your concerns. the link you seek is at very bottom of the original post, look for the “folks in Alaska” -Anthony
The lower part of the graph shows, it says, “Anomaly from 1979-2000 mean” or something like that.
I would expect it to swing above and below zero.
You mean sometimes it IS the motion of the ocean?
Or was that go with the floe?
REPLY: [groan]
[sorry, comments deleted until apology issued on statements made regarding jihad]
It seems that I read that the population of the polar bear has increased from 5000 in 1950 to 25000 in 2000 I am not sure of the exact numbers but with that kind of increase there seems to be no problem with the bears being endangered.
JD there is no excuse for a field biologist to exagerate conditions to try to get some ones attention. The data genetated in the field is used by many more scientist and policy makers that just the “upper ranks” for that reason the data must be as accurate as possible. It is also possible that they may be recieving other data than what you are provicing.
as a side if your data is proven to be unreliable in future because of exagaration to get attention………. We are having this problem now in the AGW debate. To much data manipulated and smoothed and the raw data being withdrawn from access.
It isn’t a nice thing.
My 2 Cents.
Bill
Alrighty, I apologize for my comments regarding your approaches on the assessment of the surface stations.
c
It seems that I read that the population of the polar bear has increased from 5000 in 1950 to 25000 in 2000 I am not sure of the exact numbers but with that kind of increase there seems to be no problem with the bears being endangered.
What we have here is a population explosion crisis. Immediate action imperative.
Excellent information. Does Al Gore know about this?
Excellent information. Does Al Gore know about this?
He has a “need to not know”.
Besides, there will be no film at 11.
Anthony, did you get my email? If you did not, please email me back (or post here) and let me know and I will resend it. Looking forward to your reply.
REPLY: No I did not, I have my spam filters turned on extra high these days because some enterprising folks have signed me up to just about every environmental newsletter on the planet in an effort to sway my thinking. Of course “unsubscribe” doesn’t work for all of these.
It is probably worth noting that the temps are at 30 years lows almost everywhere except Europe. You can see that in the snow/ice cover images as well (e.g. no ice in the Baltic Sea). This probably explains why the Europeans are much more concerned about GW than everyone else.
I for one welcome the newness of the ice in the artic and hope we continue “recycling” in this way.
I speak from experience that “old ice” does some dreadful things to the flavor of scotch.
Just a chip off the old block.
Bill,
I’m not sure what exaggeration you refer to, nor is it clear as to who you claim is doing the exaggeration (principal field biologists, armchair scientists, popular media, Al Gore, USFWS, “environmentalists”, Fox News, Eskimos or maybe?). Personally, I’ve not read the original peer-reviewed scientific papers regarding the Ice-Bear issue (nor has anyone else this biologist personally knows).
In my mind this review of original work is pre-requisite in basically understanding the issue and in judging how it’s being reported in popular media. Or we could just take someone’s else’s word for it (e.g., Al Gore, Rush, Bush, etc.), or loudly voice personal opinion.
Conversely perhaps, we could place some trust in a group of professional, dedicated scientists working in the hopefully transparent realm of peer-reviewed publication (Anthony has contributed an excellent example of how review contributes to accuracy of the data). Of the options just mentioned, if that’s all the choice given, I know who I’d pay attention to regarding AGW and polar bears.
My comments regarding challenges of being a field biologist working with beauracrats/politicians are based on almost 20 years of professional experience…no exaggerations necessary there my friend; trust me. All you have to do is present good data that are unpopular and you too are guaranteed the pleasure of being accused of exaggeration! That’s no exaggeration! Its’ pretty simple really; it’s how politics work..not science though. Like a friend of mine once said, “if you want to know what a fart- in-church feels like, bring up an ecological problem for discussion at your next cocktail party”.
The true beauty of science is in its systematic method of approach, obtaining replicated, repeatable and statistically defensible data, making realistic assumptions, drawing logical conclusions and importantly, readjusting the hypothesis based on results (lets not forget peer review).
If that’s what the Polar Bear field biologists are doing we should defer to them and their studies. If that’s not what they are doing..shame on them; but rest assured, like broken thermomters, their presence will be revealed.
Again though, I’ve not read the original biological studies, nor have I seen the original USFWS analysis/conclusions. Also, not having yet read the analysis of the President’s advisory committee, my conclusion is a resounding “who am I to judge the matter of polar bear truths?” Logical answer: I’m nobody, really.
What Al Gore, Brad Pitt, The Bush Administration, A.M. Radio hosts or other “higher-ups” do with data/reports is a matter quite outside the realm of science. Question them all of course (especially the scientists), but don’t throw the data out along with all the distracting noise.
Thanks again for the links Anthony. By the way, the Carbon-Cycle-Ocean threads were very interesting, even though I’m still trying to understand a good portion of it!
Jd
I read your NASA winds article, and yes, that study does seem to support that arctic winds play a role in the melting of the summer ice. But here is more information from the same article:
“The scientists observed less perennial ice coverage in March 2007 than ever before, with the thick ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster. This ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. Those thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated the ice loss, leading to this year’s record low amount of total Arctic sea ice.”
So, why was there less perennial ice coverage in March 2007 than ever before? And if our present February 2008 coverage levels are the same as last year, well, I wouldn’t really call that an optimistic report.
REPLY: Hi Jeremy, This paper from Dr. Roger Pielke may help you understand what is going on a little better.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-256.pdf
Here is an excerpt:
Regarding Pielke’s paper that is linked, is this a peer-reviewed publication? I for one am somewhat intimidated by the technical details, I see the excerpted conclusion, yet am concerned that they are using “data” in the singular tense. This could be viewed as a silly detail, but that’s one of the things resolved by peer review.
Jd
REPLY: yes it was published in peer reviewed journal, Climate Dynamics, 22, 591-595 DOI10.1007/s00382-004-0401-5.
see reference on the periodical here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0930-7575
Perhaps this will help though I am not a scientist and never claimed to be, I do read. This article would seem to indicate that there might be some discrepancy some where.
———————————————————-
“The Endangered Species Act, for all of its flaws, was written to protect species that are actually endangered in light of low population numbers or a steep, rapid present decline based on the best available data–not to protect species prospectively–that is, if x, y, and z happen, they might go into decline at some time far in the future.
“Based on this standard, there is no way the polar bear should be listed–their numbers are at a high mark for the twentieth century and perhaps in history, having risen from around 5,000 at the middle of the century to more than 22,000 today. While a couple of polar bear populations do seem to be shrinking, most populations are stable or increasing and the ones in decline are in areas where cooling is actually occurring.
“This is just a transparent attempt by radical environmentalists to use what is widely acknowledged as the most powerful environmental law in the land, to slow or halt continued economic development, not just in Alaska but in the mainland U.S.–which has been their ultimate goal for many years.
“The purported threat to the photogenic polar bear is their golden opportunity to turn out the lights on industrial civilization and individual choice in the marketplace.”
H. Sterling Burnett
Senior Fellow
National Center for Policy Analysis
sterling.burnett@ncpa.org
972/386-6272
———————————————————-
I hope that the truth might be found
Bill
Good blog and good information!
Lonnie Walker
Bill,
I appreciate the reference, thanks.
If Mr. Burnett is honestly representing the best available science as an authority on the subject of polar bear demographics/ecology, so be it. Obviously we all can learn something important from him; no problems there.
If his opinion does not represent the best available science, and he’s not an authority on the subject, time and the scientific process will show what his opinion actually is. No further opinion required.
Again, that’s the beauty of science, and it’s the quality that defines itself against political hyperbole; no exaggerations needed.
Regarding the Endangered Species Act, it’s very imperfect; as one dealing with it professionally for almost 20 years, I know. But one has to understand it’s origin and intent to know why its an important, albeit imperfect piece of legislation.
If early on, limits were placed voluntarily by industry in the interest of sustainable economy without requirement of scientific proof from “the other side”, the Endangered Species Act would never have happened; would it? Spotted Owls would never had the opportunity to be a silly Poster Child for a self-destructive economy. The California Sardine Fleet and New England Cod Fishery might still exist; no?
Or after all, it might really just be because of silly environmentalists hiding behind frivolous legislation that these problems manifest? I personally think it’s more complicated than that.
Just putting it out there.
Jd
REPLY: Here is another article on population studies being done, this one from the Christian Science Monitor, who *ahem*, doesn’t have a bear in the fight so I’d trust the reporting more than most.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html
How many human beings must remain in an “undeveloped” condition — i.e. riddled by disease, malnourished, shivering through the winter and baking through the summer, with teeth rotting in their heads during the 35-year lifespan of the 30% or so that survive beyond the age of 5 (which was the typical condition of human beings prior to the advent of the industrial revolution) — how many human beings must remain in such a condition so that the polar bears may roam freely across the arctic ice?
I am no scientist but what is all the fuss about a short term time line of 1979 to 2007? The lower part of the graph shows “anomoly from 1979 -2000 mean”. I know 1979 is when satellite data was available but what does that have to do with real climate change? And why is the mean cut off at the year 2000? Why isn’t the mean taken through 2007 (which would probably lower the mean used in the graph)?
Hi,
This is a good paper on Arctic Sea Ice.
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/ice/index.php
Anyone notice something “interesting” about the 1980 image? It shows “sea ice” on land!
There is a well known explanation. It has to do with the innate limitations of passive microwave remote sensing methodologies. Of course, the “fix” (workaround) has its own problems. The “fix” artificially lowers the areal extent figure, by inserting a “gap” between the shoreline and a new “calculated” ice edge.
Someone needs to audit sea ice “data.”
MS: It seem quite unlikely it will even cost us the polar bears to save the kiddies.
However, to be fair about it, I have to wonder about that 5000 number for polar bears in 1950. Is it possible we are just better able to count them today? (But I would not be at all suprised if the pb pop had not increased significantly.)
Hullo, JA. We are not exactly, Sr. tam’s flavor of the month, wot? He honored you with an outright deletion. (Me, he merely took to task.)
Hi,
Evan, yea it was an innocent enough of a post. Not the first time he has deleted me,LOL. I guess Tamino doesn’t like a paper going against his opinion. He also doesn’t like those denialist sites like NASA. Here is link he wouldn’t post.
http://lwsscience.gsfc.nasa.gov/TRT_SunClimate.pdf
RSS data is up: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt
Globally speaking, January posted a -.08C anomoly. Coldest month since Jan 2000. 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years. Both hemispheres posted negative anomolies, first time that has happened since Jan 2000.
I expect GISS to report is as one of the all time warmest months ever for the planet…..
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_polar_bear_attack.htm
Here’s a polar bear attack story. They’re not the friendly, coke drinking creatures they’re made out to be- A. McIntire
I love it.
The Great Global Warming Swindle in full force!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4092449199080437781&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&total=126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Is that comment about Greenland once being green a joke? Yes, it was once greener, but Eric the Red called it Greenland to get people to go there…and Iceland, which is much more temperate, but over grazed “Iceland” so people would go to icy Greenland.
Reminds me of the documentary “Arctic Tale” .. lets hope the polar bears are safe..
Greetings,
so is Global Warming a real phenomena or not?
If it is real, then is it a threat or not?
If it is threatening, then is it man-made or naturally caused phenomena?
Could someone please pay a serious attention on these questions. Because we in the developing countries are greatly affected by the way people reacted on our decision to use more on our coal reserves for energy, as well as our decision to expand our agricultural basis to empower our society.
Do we really have to invest a much more expensive “renewable” energy, while we already have un-used huge coal reserves that could provide much cheaper energy to a lot more people in need?
Would anyone care to respond?
“but Eric the Red called it Greenland to get people to go there…”
That is what they taught me as a kid. But it appears that this may well have been an exurban legend.
Archaeological digs reveal the Vikings had agricultural communities on Greenland in the European model. There were hunting camps as far north as the 70th parallel. Evidence for the last known settlement at the southern tip dates to the early 1400s. The Vikings either could not or would not adapt to the Inuit lifestyle. And it looks very much as if they were “hulled in” by the offshore ice and died to a man.
Historical theories, like the scientific variety are subject to unannounced change, of course, and they are sometimes a tad slow on the upgrade.
At any rate, Greenland is ice right down to the tip, these days.
Greetings,
“so is Global Warming a real phenomena or not?”
Very probably. But the extent is in great question.
“If it is real, then is it a threat or not?”
Probably not, even if the extent is considerable.
“If it is threatening, then is it man-made or naturally caused phenomena?”
Probably both. Natural, slow recovery from the Little Ice Age, Oceanic Oscillations, land use, and maybe even greenhouse gasses.
“Could someone please pay a serious attention on these questions. Because we in the developing countries are greatly affected by the way people reacted on our decision to use more on our coal reserves for energy, as well as our decision to expand our agricultural basis to empower our society.”
YOU MUST DO THIS. YOU MUST.
It would be a crime against humanity if you do not develop as quickly and completely as you possibly can. When the UDCs have D’d, they will have the wealth and power to clean up. Same as we in the west did. We will help you.
It is an outrage that anyone would suggest that yet another generation in the UDCs be sacrificed on the bloodstained altar of anti-growth. Such an event would be an obscenity. A sacrelige. A monstrous crime. A pointless, tragic act of self-immolation.
Shun any who would suggest such a horrible course. Flee them! Reject them! Abhor them! Rebuke them!
“Do we really have to invest a much more expensive “renewable” energy, while we already have un-used huge coal reserves that could provide much cheaper energy to a lot more people in need?”
NO! By all that you swear by, NO! On the lives of your children, NO!
Use WHATEVER coal you need to in order to develop and become affluent. We will help you do it cleaner than you would have otherwise, but DO IT. DO IT. The faster the better. Speed is of the essesnce.
When you have great wealth, you will have great power. Power to move beyond coal (and, who knows, by then you may be able to burn it completely cleanly). In twenty years you will be standing on the mountaintop. There will be PLENTY of time to wash the linen then. And you will. But now you and your children have no time to lose.
In the meantime, you have your work cut out for you. Do not allow ANYONE to increase your burden.
The the future will belong to ALL of us, my brother. Do not deny yourselves and do not let anyone else deny you. Anyone.
“Would anyone care to respond?”
FORWARD! Full speed ahead. And damn the man who stands in your way.
Jim A: I do believe I have joined you in the not-so-exclusive “deleted by tamino” club.
I uttered the Magic Words “code, algorithms, operating Manuals.” (For Worthy Eyes Only.) And thew in a reference to “Alchemic Method”, for good measure.
Snip!
Greetings, so is global warming a real phenomena or not?
What’s real?
Al Gore is a rich, millionaire, politician from the American ruling class–he deals in perceptions, not reality, and currently dabbles as a capitalist movie maker. I’m not a rich American upper class politician, but I do get to enjoy a comparable life of material comfort, enjoying cultural productions, and a rule of law altogether lacking in rural Afghanistan, working class luxuries that are directly proportional to my American carbon footprint. Few Americans, like myself, have had to live packing an M16 twenty-four hours a day. Men may be redundant in peaceful New York, but even liberated Maureen Dowd is just another piece of meat in the undeveloped jungle where Hobbes still lives and life is nasty, brutish, and short and the iconic AK47 reigns supreme–expressed in dollars it takes more oil to produce a lap top than to produce an AK47 and buy it in Africa. Somehow I don’t see mini mansions as the up and coming celebrity Hollywood trend in the future, unless as a rental for the kids while they attend college during our “phony war,” as Maureen Dowd puts it. I hope that answers your question.
[…] As the man’s title says, “Arctic sea ice back to its previous level, bears safe; film at 11″. […]
The fact that many said to let nature take its course (not help the polar bears, seals and other animal in the arctic) when in fact it wasn’t the nature to blame for this but us humans PISSED ME OFF!!
[…] Watts toob aga oma blogis http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe… võrdluseks pildid 2. veebruarist aastatel 1980 ning […]
Global warming will go down as the biggest, most costliest scam perpetrated on the smuggest, most informed, and sophisticated and educated populaion in the history of man.
This generation will become laughingstocks as our descendants wonder what we were thinking when we introduced carbon taxes,bovine flatulence levies, and pumped co2 gas into the ground at great cost using Rube Goldberg devices.
Evan wrote, “Archaeological digs reveal the Vikings had agricultural communities on Greenland in the European model. There were hunting camps as far north as the 70th parallel. Evidence for the last known settlement at the southern tip dates to the early 1400s. The Vikings either could not or would not adapt to the Inuit lifestyle. And it looks very much as if they were “hulled in” by the offshore ice and died to a man.
Historical theories, like the scientific variety are subject to unannounced change, of course, and they are sometimes a tad slow on the upgrade.
At any rate, Greenland is ice right down to the tip, these days.”
One of my goals is to get to Greenland, see Halvasy Church and other ruins. As
far as I know, there is no evidence that the ice is down further now, than it was when the Vikings were there, but it would be interesting to see any research on this topic.
Supposedly, the little Ice Age has come and gone in the meantime.
Dwight
[…] the details at What’s Up With That! Looks like the Polar Bears are safe after all. Whew! Al, you gave us a bit of a scare […]
curves
But what about the stats that indicate the polar bear populations are on the upswing? One need opnly protect that which needs protecting. There are other species that are actually in decline.
Stifling development won’t even achieve its own purpose. But when the entire world develops to the postindustrial level, there will be a “green clean” the likes of which are unimaginable today. We’ll have the wealth and the technology for it. Two short decades down the road. But that will ONLY happen if the world develops. There is probably a much greater environmental risk in slowing growth than accelerating it.
“Global warming will go down as the biggest, most costliest scam perpetrated on the smuggest, most informed, and sophisticated and educated populaion in the history of man.”
I do not regard it as a scam. That implies active motive.
I believe the AGW community is in error and that there has probably been only some modest warming.
I don’t predict egg on any faces, though, because the egg hasn’t yet stuck to any of the of the false prophets of doom over the last four decades. If it won’t stick to Paul Ehrlich or Dennis Meadows, it would seem that they are creatures of teflon.
“As far as I know, there is no evidence that the ice is down further now, than it was when the Vikings were there, but it would be interesting to see any research on this topic.
Supposedly, the little Ice Age has come and gone in the meantime.”
The Rev ran something on this very subject fairly recently.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/greenland-is-as-warm-as-today-as-in-prior-eras/#comments
He was “scientifically correct” enough to link to the abstract:
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22C13A-04%22
Note well that we’re talking right above the 70th parallel, here!
Shouldn’t we use the following two charts from the same source, than the one your provided? These graphs show a reduction in ice coverage area. True?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
and
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
REPLY: They are fine to use, but the premise of the original post remains, the arctic ice rebounded to Feb 2007 levels. Yes there’s been a reduction in coverage, attributable to the mechanism that NASA discovered, and also likely due to PDO shift that occurred in 1977.
[…] slight decline in Arctic sea ice coverage, this winter, Arctic ice is back to normal levels. (Via Anthony Watts, who links to the useful University of Illinois Cryosphere Today site. It also has a cute story […]
[…] Watts at Watt’s Up With That? has the scoop: A Canadian blogger, Carole Williams, tells the story behind this picture, which was […]
[…] the way I have to wonder if any of these computer models predicted the fact that the Arctic ice pack has returned to its previous levels. Share This Popularity: 1% Share […]
damartriadi finally asks the good questions:
I’d put it a little differently:
Is there global warming?
Did we cause it?
Can we do anything about it?
I’d say: 1. Yes, just as there has always been global warming and cooling (remember the Maunder Minimum?).
2. Possibly, though that cedes mere Man with a lot more power than he has (all our atomic bomb tests have had almost no effect on global climate (or even weather, for that matter), compared with minor natural events like Mt Pinatubo, Mt St Helens, Mt Krakatoa.
3. Maybe, maybe not. If “maybe not”, let’s just go back to the usual course: cut back on the nasty stuff like coal (and somehow get the Chinese to follow suit). If “maybe”, then at least do a good economic tradeoff study and see where the effort is best put.
I think Lomborg’s new book “Cool It” is a step in that direction.
evan said:
You’re more charitable than I am. I think that the aim of the AGW crowd is little more than a global “income redistribution” scheme, that will end up bankrupting 1st world countries and benefiting a few people. (I’m new here, so I don’t know how many know about the global firm nicknamed “Blood and Gore” (David Blood and Al Gore), whose business is buying and selling “carbon offsets”).)
When the Cold War ended, the Left was left without a Cause, so they picked up on Global Warming as the agenda that gives their life meaning.
Lots of folks felt orphaned when the CW ended. Both sides were sort of stunned.
But I will never forget that joyful night when Freedom danced on the Wall . . . I never really thought it would happen in my lifetime.
The ecology movement was in full swing before that, though. The Population Bomb came out in ’68. Earth Day was 1970. The Club of Rome was Early ’80s. I will grant you that GW took off right after the wall went down, but I think it was more of a mindset than a other-motive conspiracy. Though I do admit there’s an anti-growth-as-solution thread commonality. I think it’s more of a guilt/self-righteouness trip than a plot.
I think there’s always a panic over something. GW just happens to be this flavor-of-the-decade. We’ll come up with something else when and if this one goes away. (We’ll get getting very powerful tech by then. Neo-Luddites, maybe? Robo-smashers.)
REPLY: We’ll never get Robo-smashers, I’m still waiting for my Flying Car Popular Science promised me in the 50’s, and 60’s, and 70’s, and 80’s, and 90’s, and why, there was just one a couple months ago.
“We’ll never get Robo-smashers, ”
I hope not. But it’s still too soon to tell.
When they start walking and talking and cheating at cards (and marrying? Ack.) there might be a change of mind. The Japanese are planning on having a “sexy model” on the market “Real Soon Now”.
I think I might have found it within myself to have taken a sledge to Twiggy. And I can’t see R2D2 making it too far without a good dent. And when the first one decides to sue for its inhuman rights…
“I’m still waiting for my Flying Car Popular Science promised me in the 50’s, and 60’s, and 70’s, and 80’s, and 90’s, and why, there was just one a couple months ago.”
Really? Is it in any way practical? Does it fly or merely hover? What does it have by way of autopilot? Or was it just another empty Popular Science promise?
Fellas the way this election is shaping up we will be stuck with a full on AGW believer as President.
This is rapidly becoming a certainty.
There will never be an outcry against staged polar bear pictures. Forget about it.
Keep an eye open for other more blatant false evidences.
Moving a harbor tide marker? With these sorts of people that and more would be rationalized as tiny white lies in the service of the greater good.
We need a more robust campaign. We need a mainstream politician as our spokesman. We need the reams of evidence organized and editted for him or her to present in general public understandable chunks.
Before McCain is anointed the GOP standard barer. Before Hill or Barry beats him down in the general election.
We need an anti AIT movie, pointing out exactly in painstaking detail each and every instance of outright fraud perpetrated by Gore.
And we need that now.
Before global warming becomes an official federal agency.
The Canadian Arctic since October has had ‘normal’ or slightly below normal temperatures. At the moment the temperatures are well below, normal some 15 degrees, several locations are reporting minus 50 C (58 below F) this morning with no letup in sight. I see that parts of northern Alaska are even colder.
Arctic ice will certainly spread considerably this winter given 2 to 3 more months of cold weather yet ahead.
“REPLY: They are fine to use, but the premise of the original post remains, the arctic ice rebounded to Feb 2007 levels. Yes there’s been a reduction in coverage, attributable to the mechanism that NASA discovered, and also likely due to PDO shift that occurred in 1977.”
Yet somehow you failed to mention that 2007 was a tie for the record low area! Also you may want to take a look at the breakup of the multiyear icepack in the Beaufort sea this December and January.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=43&ScndLvl=no&ID=11892
REPLY: “Yet somehow you failed to mention that 2007 was a tie for the record low area” well yes, but that headline has been trumpeted around the world this year, and has had overexposure, so didn’t need repeating here, while the other headline of “Antarctic ice reaches record high levels” was ignored. I didn’t cite that Antarctic headline in this post either, neither did you. This post was a bit of tongue in cheek satire over the headlines seen this year, with some data attached, so I expect some folks won’t like the mix, but that’s ok.
I appreciate the link though, thank you. I’ll put that one in my library.
Actually I don’t think that the 2007 Arctic winter max was a low has been that publicised.
That the record high for the Antarctic was ignored isn’t that surprising since it was only <1% higher than the previous whereas the Arctic minimum was ~27% below the previous record. It will be interesting to see what happens in the Beaufort sea this summer.
REPLY: Well it is all about balance, be it headlines or bipolar ice distribution. Total global ice is up, we don’t hear much about that either.
curves79lady stated: “The fact that many said to let nature take its course (not help the polar bears, seals and other animal in the arctic) when in fact it wasn’t the nature to blame for this but us humans PISSED ME OFF!!”
In fact, nature is the only one to ‘blame’ in this example.
See, the polar bears eat the seals. Those cute cuddly little white harp seal pups with the big eyes. Polar bears eat those little suckers like popcorn.
So, which ones should we ‘help’?
What really, really scares the hell out of me is the fact that unthinking, emotional people can vote.
Good luck getting the sea ice anomaly above 0. A warm spring or fall in any year which delays your ice over of the arctic basin can never be recovered in the anomaly calculation-when this area freeezes over you are at 100 percent of maximum coverage, with no upside to overcome acccumulated ice deficits. The only way you get to zero if you expand the icepack across open ocean areas, namely the Bering or Greenland sea. In these areas, ice extent is as much a measure of sea and wind conditions as it is temperature. Try forming ice on a 12 foot swell and 50 knot wind.
Carbon taxes are a massive scam.
[…] Yes folks you heard that right, the eco-loons could care less about actual evidence of expanding polar bear numbers and are relying on computer models instead. So how long before the anti-whaling lobby releases their own computer model claiming whales will go extinct? Since the facts did not fit the reality these people want they rely on computers to make the reality for them. By the way I have to wonder if any of these computer models predicted the fact that the Arctic ice pack has returned to its previous levels? […]
Science is at its best when it openly projects a high degree of skepticism about it’s own findings and conclusions and freely admits that “all is tentative.” It is at its best when it deals in a respectful and reasonable manner with those who disagree or have doubts. It is at its best when it serves as an independent arm of society and does not tie itself to special interest groups or to those who have personal agendas.
Humility is also a virtue for science. For example, the earth and environmental sciences are in their infancy. Yet, they frequently do not behave that way. It is important to admit this fact and that it is possible that many methodologies and computer model forecasts, etc. may not be much more accurate than a coin flip.
Caution and prudence is needed when issuing public statements about potential consequences of scientific findings and conclusions. The very reputation of science is at stake when it takes on the aura of a “new priesthood.”
Care to comment on this?
Losing the Thick Stuff
Jan. 18, 2008 — A new study using satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice have revealed that thinner ice that’s only two or three years old now accounts for 58 percent of the ice cover — up from 35 percent in the mid-1980s.
Meanwhile, ice older than nine years had all but disappeared by 2007.
The extinction of the older, thicker ice is effectively melting away the Arctic Ocean’s hedge against complete summer meltdowns, say researchers.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2008/10.html
The new study by Maslanik and his colleagues appears in the Jan. 10 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. Co-authors include CCAR’s Charles Fowler, Sheldon Drobot and William Emery, as well as Julienne Stroeve from CU-Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Jay Zwally and Donghui Yi from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
Sent from Stockholm, Sweden, where arrival of spring has just been officially declared several weeks before the normal time, ending a “winter” which has been the warmest on our 250 year record. No snow, no ice in the Baltic. If this is a scam, it is indeed very elaborate…..
It will indeed be very interesting to watch what will happen with this summers sea ice cover.
[…] year since 1966, a full 0.3 degrees F below the 20th century average. More coincidentally, Arctic ice is as thick as ever (in recent times, anyway). (Watts Up With That is one of the best climate blogs on the […]
“Where is the thick ice?”
Please give a source for your statement “Arctic ice is as thick as ever”
I gather no one has a really accurate way of measuring ice thickness. Otherwise, I would not think a polar team would actually need to look at the situation first hand. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/10/17/vanco_ice_cap_feature.shtml
These intrepid explorers say that “The only way to accurately gauge the current thickness of the polar ice cap is to physically go out there and measure it on the surface, to supply crucial data that can’t be recorded by submarine or satellite”
The team says it “…will travel on foot, pulling a sledge boat containing a ground penetrating radar unit. Their route will take them from Point Barrow in Alaska to the North Pole.”
Brrr!
I would be delighted to find that the warming scenario put forward by Gore et al is exaggerated or altogether wrong. Your data on this winter’s temps and ice extent are certainly at odds with the notion of continuous year over year warming, but don’t represent (to me anyway) enough of a trend to warrant any real conclusions one way or the other. Questions of ice thickness vs extent are of interest, and summer ’08 numbers should prove useful.
As a skeptic, I’m suspicious of scenarios that suggest that industrial business-as-usual just happens to have either neutral or only slightly negative environmental consequences. The oil, coal and gas industries, among many others, have everything to gain and money to burn (heh, heh) promoting such ideas. Further, the human tendency toward wishful or magical thinking is so pronounced that just saying “everything will be OK” is not exactly comforting to me, especially in light of the tragedies of the past century. But just because someone’s motives are unrealistic doesn’t mean his beliefs are wrong.
What I’m left with is an inability to believe that the consequences of human contributions to the environment are scientifically predictable at this point. Given that assumption, wouldn’t the most prudent approach be to try to minimize human inputs into the ecosystem? Absent hard evidence to the contrary, should we not assume that whatever degree of stability earth’s climate has shown since the last ice age, we’re extremely unlikely to make it more stable by burning fossil fuels? If there were only a 5% chance of the direst climate change predictions coming to pass, would that be acceptable, given the stakes? We know why the captain of the Titanic failed to slow down or change course, and the odds of actually striking an iceberg were presumably miniscule. Are we assuming climate change is not our fault (or doesn’t exist) for the same reasons the Titanic didn’t take action? I’m guessing yes. Could we err on the side of caution, or are we so locked into current practices that proposing that we clean up our act is tantamount to threatening global prosperity.
I think, global warming has been happening in these past years, but I doubt that CO2 is the main cause.
Scientists talk about global warming, but they do not mention anything about hte heat generated by the energy that we consumed. Will the burning of the fuel increas the earth’s surface temperature? I wonder if there is a scientist that actually does this caculation.
I believe that the enenrgy we consume will increase the earth surface temperature, but natual plays dominant role.
If the natual process is a “constant”, then the earth surface temperature should increase a bit and reach a new equilibrium, unless we keep increasing the energy consumption rate endlessly.
100s of millions of years of volcanoes spewing billions of tons of deadly gasses into the athmosphere and land formations destruction, earthquakes of unrecorded unimaginable forces, tsunamis, sea level changes, meteor strikes wiping out over 90% of life on earth!!
And we are all alive today ( at least until the next meteor strike )in a world that has suffered so many ecological disasters.
And the fringe lunatics want to save planet earth?!! From what ?
If a big meteor were to hit the earth in a year’s time wiping out the surface of the earth as we know it and all living creatures, wouldnt we feel pretty stupid not having used the abundance of wealth the earth has to offer us in the forms of coal, gas, oil, minerals etc. to better our lives until that time.
I say build a big enough institution for all the insane environmentalists and house them there under lock and key because right now they are the biggest threat to all of mankind’s future prosperity.
Consider our planet a closed system.
The CO2 we emit into the air is the same CO2 that was extracted from the air some time in the past.
To the greenies I say dont panic because we dont have an endless source of CO2 buried in the ground.
The earth thrived at the time when all the coal and oil was still in the athmosphere at the time and creatures were much bigger and healthier then.
Great Work on Showing what the media is trying to hide, its so bad that i am having problems finding video in particular to the return of the Ice that they claimed would never come back but during the video searching i have been doing i have found so much freezing weather video from america and around the world especially this year because of the record cold temperature conditions that have been occuring I mean the proof is all over the place its just sad that Prejudice media trying to hide the Big Story about the ice returning back to normal conditions i use the term Prejudice because its a more accurate discription of mainstream liberal media! Glad to see the Lie of global warming Exposed and liberals giving up the term Global Warming and now retreating to the assessment of Climate Change! LoL “The Truth is Victorious Yet Again, Glory be To God always”
It must be funny to be as stupid as you are.
You are a jerk-off, Andy.
Just the facts. UN weather and climate folks couldn’t hit a forecast 6 to 12 hours out let alone a year or more, my self included. Global cooling is well under way, and not only due to La Nina which by the way was a major bust of a forecast by the UN, the Brits and many other so called climate experts. Northern Hemisphere warming peaked in 1998, leveled off, and began cooling in mid August 2005. The southern hemisphere never had any warming but now the entire planet is cooling at a much faster rate. Antarctic sea ice is 25 to 30% greater than the same time last year. Why isn’t that making headlines instead of some tiny piece of ice falling off a huge glacier. Sea Ice in the Bering Sea reached a greater extent and is more persistent than has ever been recorded. Why isn’t this making any headlines? Talk about denial. Finally, the global warming crowd seem to be coming around to the reality of global cooling before they lose all credibility but, I think its too late.
-Dave Percy Meteorologist in the great USA Anchorage, Alaska.
There has been little advertisement in regards to how cool this winter actually was. Many snowfall records were shattered across the Northern U.S. this year, including Maine, Michigan, New York, Montana, Idaho, Washington State, Oregon, and my home town of Spokane, WA.
Spokane ranked as #2 snowiest since 1893. Yes, I know La Nina exists, I check up on it every Monday, when the CPC releases their weekly update on sea surface temperatures.
In addition, temperatures there for the last two months have been remarkably below normal…with temperatures this weekend (4-18/4-19) forecasted to be 20-25* F below normal for mid April. And snow is expected. There has been no year since I’ve been alive (1984), except for 2002, that I remember being so cold.
But it’s not just in the U.S. that winter demanded attention. It was all across the Northern Hemisphere.
What annoys me about people who believe in global warming…is that they have not mentioned the last 10 years. It doesn’t fit in with the idea of “every year hotter.” This is not how things are looking if you check GISS/HadCRUT/etc. graphs of global temperatures.
It’s slight cooling, if anything. Anyone who says otherwise, is just plain wrong. And the graphs at the University of Illinios show that the Northern Hemisphereic sea ice anomaly at practically 0, as of 4-16-2008, and rising amazingly. In addition, Southern Hemispheric sea ice is WAY above normal…and rising.
And global sea ice in general is rising.
It’s a shame that these things are being ignored by the mainstream media. Why? Because everyday I have to sit and hear people talk about ‘oh no the polar ice caps are melting’ and ‘global warming is terrible’ and people talking about ‘carbon credits’.
I have to pull out the all-mighty cold hard facts of GW falicy and current cooling and correct them, because they are too lazy to research themselves, or too stupid to question the media or anything else they’ve been told.
Where’s all the talk of global warming now?! HUH?! And any of my fellow collegues from college will get it if they disagree with me.
–Kenrick Westerman, Meteorologist, Salt Lake City, UT
Regarding the side by side images of the polar ice, it is useful to go to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ where you can “Compare side-by-side images of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent for any two dates in the satellite record”. You might note their animation of seasonal ice record data with the comment “The 40Mb animation at the left shows the dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice over the past year. Multiyear sea ice is older and generally thicker ice – sea ice that has survived at least one melt season (shown in brighter white). ” – The Cryosphere Today. This would be from the author’s own source. If this isn’t enough, which is isn’t for myself, you can continue to drill down to their source which they site as “Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA”. Eventually, I’m going to get to the bottom of this story. Apparently, this isn’t going to happen by stopping at this authors misquoting and out of context reporting.
To the authors comment that “The story is about the fact that the media (and some groups) did exactly what you accuse me of:…” only depletes the authors credibility as a reporter. He’s back peddling. Caught in the act of skewing the facts, he then excuses himself by claiming he’s only doing what the other guy did. As my mother liked to ask me when I was eight, if Johnny jumped off the Golden Gate bridge, would you do it too? Either you report the facts in an unbiased manner or you don’t. What I get is that you admit that you don’t.
I simply don’t buy the arguement that “The story is about the fact that the media (and some groups) did exactly what you accuse me of:…” Here is how an essay is done. You start by making a synopsis or your point in the opening paragraph. Then, you follow this up with details that support your arguement. Finally, you present your conclusion which is basically a restatement of your original point. So how does this author start our his article? With “But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007.” This is not a statement of how the media misrepresents the evidence. That is a statement that the arctic sea ice is back.
If it’s all the same, I’ll just have to put this guy on my list of people to ignore.
[…] interupting your fear mondering and your appeals to pity, but I have some facts to interject from Watts Up With That: In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the […]
Arctic ice levels fell enough in April to give credence to suggestions that we could have a repeat of last year’s level — a record for the satellite age starting in 1979. Early in May, there was not much difference between 2007 levels and 2008 levels, even after considering that 2008 has one more day in it. Nevertheless, the decrease has slowed down in the last couple of days, and caution should be taken on assuming a long term trend from 3-4 weeks of data. Also, it seems plausible that the estimation system has a few “burps” associated with it.
[…] Arctic Sea Ice Back to its Previous Level […]
[…] pressures. The status of several populations is not well documented. 2. The Arctic sea ice has recovered from recent losses. 3. Polar bears (and penguins and seals) survived the Holocene Maximum 8000 […]
[…] By the way I have to wonder if any of these computer models predicted the fact that the Arctic ice pack has returned to its previous levels. […]
Excellent article!
In a number of official accounts of returning sea ice in the arctic this past winter, I noted that the new ice was typically characterized as “thin.” I don’t know how the thinness of the ice was determined. What sorts of tests are done to ascertain just how thin or thick the ice is? But the following suggests that it may all be wishful thinking:
On May 24th 2008, in the Travel Section of the Globe and Mail Newspaper an article appeared about being icebound in the northwest passage. It relates a trip on the Russian icebreaker, Kapitan Khlebnikov, from northeast Russia across the Bering Sea destined for Canada’s Resolute Bay.
This massive icebreaker encountered some of this “thin ice,” which was so thick that it became icebound for a week, before finally being able to continue its trip.
The writer observed that ” What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage-which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world – and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can set us free.”
This piece was buried in the travel section. In view of the earlier hype about vanishing sea ice, I think this should have been front page news!
REPLY: Thanks for sharing that, I’ll put it on the front page in a couple of days.
It is hardly surprising that the Arctic ice pack is back to full extent in February of 2008. The ocean surface should be expected to freeze every winter unless winter temperatures get much higher. The real question is, how thick is that ice and what will it look like in September of 2008? We will get the answer to that soon enough.
DaveE
9/11 denied by some
evolution denied by some
age of the earth denied by some
global climate change denied by some
Soon all of these groups will march together with their banners gloriously waving in the breeze
If the ice breaker HAD been able to make that Northwest Passage it would have set a record for earliest of the year, most waut until July1st or later
And if polar bears could fly we’d all need better hats. What’s your point?
Here’s an article you guys might find interesting:
http://www.nosocialism.com/2008/06/global-warming-make-that-cooling.html
[…] Arctic sea ice back to its previous level, bears safe; film at 11 […]
I just want to know if the polar bears are drowning
The area of “sea ice” (a thin layer when compared to the mass of an “ice sheet”) varies wildly. But the tremendous mass of the WAIS (25.4 million km3)
is steadily & measurably decreasing.
TOTAL DISINFORMATION !
The pictures comparing Feb 1980 to Feb 2008 don’t make any sense :
1- In 1980 the continent is green then in 2008 it is white. It was green in Feb 1980, I was skiing at Mont Ste-Anne and it was an excellent snowy winter. This lie is so obvious that it deserves a denunciation. I can only think that the University of Illinois is corrupted…
2- The 2008 picture white covering the continent looks like a normal snow cover because it goes back to green in the southern regions. They want people to believe there was an increase since 1980 to associate it with the main subject lie : sept 2007 minimum was a glitch and ice is coming back.
3- “Sea ice concentration” units are not explained. Why ? Because the only way these “picture” could be almost identical is about the percentage of coverage by ice, any thickness. It a distorted “concentration” of surface “pixels” of ice.
The ice thickness and surface both diminished, the volume diminished. In science concentration is a quetion of mass or volume, not of surface.
4- Febuary is very close to the annual maximum of sea ice cover (wich is around march as seen from the 2007 graph. So the fact they use data during the maximum to proclaim that 2007 was a false alarm is scientific garbage.
The minimum ice of Sept 2007 was 20% less then the minimum of 2005 it self an all time record.
5- Honest scientifics in Canada are presently saying that we could have, for the first time ever, absolutly no arctic sea ice at all VERY SOON. Some bet even in Sept 2008!
Radio-Canada interviewed scientists from Environment Canada who said it could be in September 2008, more likely in 2009 and certainly not further then 2010.
6- IPCC most pessimists models were predicting not before 2040 or so. Now don’t tell me the IPCC could not be more accurate then that. Simulations are not as complex as they want you to think: they purposefully made GROSS “errors”.
I bet Illinois University had many scientists on the IPCC.
This article is pseudo-scientific propaganda produced by scientific WHORES. The only science here is that of disinformation, mass mind control with tainted data.
Well we have are answer. Here we are in September and the artic ice has melted to the point where it is no longer pack ice but seperate floating ice pieces. These pieces are so thin many will not last the summer. The coast gaurd is scrambling to get a foothold in all the new teritory as unfrozen country bountries become accessable. If people thing the ice is not melting they should do the research and check it out. Friends of mine just sailed the north west passage (not many have done that) they report the melt is massive. Those that think it isn’t melting will probably still be saying that when there is only water left.
Its really interesting to see a website where the status-quo of climate change thinking is refuted.
In reality the earth has been warming since approximately 1976, directly after the unusual long summer of that year. But the effects of this warming had a long time lag, indeed the harsh winters of the 1960’s and early 1970’s abated into the 1980’s, with some harsh winters but a warming trend, into the ridiculously mild winters of the mid 1990’s, which by 2002 had begun to level off, and by 2007 had all but ended.
In reality the scientific evidence is all to sketchy to be completely sure, apart from when it began and when it appears to be leveling off. But to attribute it to Co2 or methane increase from humans is STUPID. For a couple of reasons.
1) Co2 only makes up 0.04% of the earths atmosphere. It is a trace gas! Theres more Argon in the atmosphere than co2. To attribute it all to a trace gas is VERY strange! Take a sealed greenhouse, increase the Co2 level from 0.04 to 0.06%, think you’ll see an temperature increase??? Wait 20yrs, think you’ll see one!!! Makes me laugh.
2) The earths temperature routinely changes across time periods. When the Romans were in Britain it was warmer than today. Vineyards were abundant in London, note the roads still named after them. Note how wide the rivers were as they sailed their galleons up and down them….
3) Its really all about big business. By the late 1980’s the scientific community had latched onto the idea, then the green-left, then everyone who knew next to nothing about climate… RESULT…. Mult-billion pound bullshit industry….
There is only one driver of climate change… Its called the Sun.
Mr Bill Barrett said: …into the ridiculously mild winters of the mid 1990’s, which by 2002 had begun to level off, and by 2007 had all but ended.
Well here in central europe, we had two very warm winters. – 06/07 and 07/08. In fact, January and February were spring months here for two years 🙁
Ashford, Kent… Mid December 2007.
Lake in my neighbourhood…. 60metree wide, 100metres long, 10metres deep…
In what was supposedly one of the warmest winters on record from the dates 15th December 2007 to 24th December…. Frozen solid, from end to end. Ice was a foot deep for a few days as I tested it….
Then on 25th December 2007 weather changed, warmed rapidly, and then un til and of January, very mild…..
Is this unusual…. No…. The winter weather goes up and down like yo-yo.
Last week in Uk has been unusually cold for this time of year, now the Met office predicts temperatures will average around 11degrees C, for Southern Uk, exactly right for this time of year.
By mid December we’ll have nigh frosts every night (not as severe as 1960’s) but they’ll happen) and in between there will be warm winds from the SW and thus midler nights.
Is this global warming!!??? NOOOOOOO.. Its normal and natural and I’m honestly fed up with little green fools waffling on about how we are polluting the planet.
End of my rant!
A simple solution to the hungry polar bears is for all AL Core’s groupies to will their bodies to The Feed a Polar Bear Society. The Canadian and USA Air Forces could drop them in areas of bear groups. It is a win win solution. The bears get fed and maybe counted. The Air Forces can always use practice in making strategic air drops. We gain more space in the local cemeteries and use less wood, metal and concrete for buriel.
Can I be forgiven that ‘global warming’ [Oh heavens, we’re all gona die!!] is probably little more than a money grab??
@911allo (11:14:19) :
“Click for a full sized image. Note that the 1980 photo does not show snow cover (in white) as the technology then wasn’t able to resolve it as it does today.”
Try reading the “Bold Print” under the image – it states “the 1980 photo does not show snow cover (in white)” – no attempt at deception – all you have to do is read it.
Also WRT “5- Honest scientifics in Canada are presently saying that we could have, for the first time ever, absolutly no arctic sea ice at all VERY SOON. Some bet even in Sept 2008!” – Well they lost their bet didn’t they – not even close.
911allo Your barking at shadows…
Some of you are morons.
Sure let’s pretend this doesn’t exist and keep consuming our way to the edge of the cliff. The 2 Billion or thereabouts Chinese and Indians knocking on the western way of life sure aren’t going to make this worse.
Unfortunately by the time you guys get the proof you need it’s going to be a slap in the face with a tsunami or hurricane and by then it will be way too late.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10043977-72.html
Unfortunately by the time you guys get the proof you need it’s going to be a slap in the face with a tsunami or hurricane and by then it will be way too late.
Would you care to explain the physics by which human activity is responsible for a) Hurricanes (2 marks) b) Tsunamis (10 marks).
Thanks for your words of correction, Tim. You are exactly what we need, another big daddy telling us how we must live our lives.
Thanks again from a contrite and humbled,
Mike Bryant
The Global Warming scare is not about saving the Planet. The planet Earth has been around a lot longer than man kind. The main purpose of the Global Warming scare is MONEY. The Fat Cats like Al Core and Scientific Researchers who need grant money started the rumor that the sky was falling and all the Chicken Littles are running around screaming The Sky is Falling. This is nothing more than a money scam on the World. What right does Al Core have in selling carbon credits? What are carbon credits? You pay for a piece of paper that lets you emit X amount of CO2. The US Justice Dept should investigate this scam. I can understand the Scientific Researchers point it is difficult to get money for research with out having a disaster. But Al Core is just out to make the American Public pay ( your hard earned money) for not having elected him President.
Just how thick due these fools think the ice at the North Pole is or was? US Navy submarines where punching holes at the North Pole back in the 1960s. They had hardened conning towers but still could only break through a few feet of ice. The Earth’s Climate is controlled mainly by the Moon and Sun and our relation to them. Also by the jet stream winds and the sea currents that run like rivers through the oceans. The molten core of the earth leaks heat through cracks in the earth plates which change as the plates move. Al Core and his groupies can stand by the sea and command the tide not to rise BUT IT WILL RISE and with a little luck right over their heads.
I attended a conference last year where the main speaker was one of the founding members of Greenpeace. He no longer supports Greenpeace, feeling that they have become more or less a home for the disenchanted, the ignorant, the angry, basically people who couldn’t make it as teachers. Anyway, as far as I could tell this guy remains a dedicated and well regarded scientist on the leading edge of environmental issues and this is what I got out of his message, ….bottom line, the link between CO2 and Global warming has not been established and no serious scientist could ague differently… What!! Shocked and angered were the hard-core greens, lacking everything but the innate assuredly that western civilized and the Bush administration, and all those meat eating republicans (read farting cows), were directly behind it. ALL OF IT!!! But he added, and pay attention here, …on the other hand, given the possibility of the linkage, the ease of which CO2 could be controlled in many instances, the risk if there is linkage, and given that we have the general shared goal of decreasing pollution and increasing energy independence, why not do what we can?
So, yeah, why not; conservation, nuke power, heat sinks, better engineering, electric autos, etc. But it has to make economic and social sense – bringing down western civilization does not make sense. So, let’s do what’s reasonable, but let’s not get crazy.
As usual those who desperately believe (the operative word is “believe”) in climate change and global warming do not look at the total body of science information. They look for a reason to believe that climate change is about to destroy the planet. They do not understand or refuse to be intellectually honest about the entire scope of the climate process. Many devotees of the so called dangers of global warming obtain their information from politicians, actors, amateur scientists and those who have a vested interest in keeping this issue alive, This vested interest may be political , financial or merely fear of losing employment or not being awarded a grant to study the topic du jour, which right now is climate change. These people rely upon the scientific illiteracy of the general public and can easily scare them into believe that we are in imminent doom. Just look at the doomsday junk science movies like ‘Day After Tomorrow’ that portray worst case scenarios as plausible. A scientifically literate patron would laugh at these events. Instead they leave the theater worried and confused about the possible end on civilization.
The reality is that climate is supposed to change. It is a dynamic not a static process. There is nothing unusual about climate change. It is the height of arrogance to assume that we humans can have such a dramatic effect on climate. If we are really that powerful then why can we not accurately predict or prevent natural disasters.
[…] on my story about the hoax that is global warming by saying that the Arctic is melting….well, no it isn’t. As usual–too much hype. […]