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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.