Guest post by Steven Goddard
Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon warned that “polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago“
This was based on a number of widely publicized scientific studies released this year claiming that both the Arctic and Antarctic are melting faster than expected.
As recently as last week, scientists were sounding the alarm.
Tues., April 28, 2009OSLO – The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have awakened and are melting faster than expected, a leading expert told peers ahead of a conference of ministers from nations with Arctic territory.Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, an expert with the Center for Ice and Climate at the University of Copenhagen, told the conference in the Arctic town of Tromsoe that the need for a wake-up call was genuine for the polar and glacial regions.
He apparently didn’t read this paper from last Autumn’s AGU Meeting
Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.
One has to wonder if some scientists are lacking access to the Internet, as the amount of polar sea ice on the planet is above the 30 year mean.
Yesterday, NSIDC announced that “Arctic sea ice extent at the end of April 2009 was within the expected range of natural variability.” and “The decline rate for the month of April was the third slowest on record“
The NSIDC graph below shows that April ice extent has actually increased by more than the size of Texas over past last two years. Clearly The UN Secretary General is mistaken when he claims “”polar ice caps were melting far faster than expected just two years ago.”
I took this graph a step further and compared 2009 vs. past years. Current April extent is the greatest in the last 8 years. It is greater than it was 20 years ago.
If you look at the last 20 years, there is no statistically significant trend in the data.
Arctic ice extent is essentially normal.
It is important to remember that ice area between mid-April and mid-August is what affects the earth’s climate, because that is when the sun is up highest in the sky. When the ice reaches it’s minimum in September, the sun is so low above the horizon that the presence or absence of ice has little impact on the earth’s SW radiation balance. A more complete explanation here .
Also, the claim of Polar Bear endangerment is based largely on the idea that the ice is supposedly breaking up earlier than it used to in the spring. The “third slowest melt on record” would hardly support that popular claim.
I continue to be astonished at the amount of misinformation being propagated by some scientists and governmental officials. The correct information is readily available to anyone who has access to Google and five minutes of time. What is the real agenda?
Hi all,
The other day I posted an opinion piece I wrote for Examiner.com on one of WUWT’s posts. Got a lot of interesting feedback (I’m a liberal who happens to be skeptical about AGW catastrophes.) I’m actually the Examiner’s SF Environmental Policy Examiner (whatever that means…) and I have written about 20 pieces skeptical of the Al Gore POV. (But! I’m not 100% on your ‘side,’ as I am still a liberal–I strongly support Obama’s energy policy, and yes, that includes cap and trade.)
Examiner.com is (I think) a model for newspapers that won’t go out of business. As such, I do not believe for one second that they have an editorial opinion on global climate change, or on much of anything else, for that matter. Nobody has spoken to me about it, that’s for sure. There are many other writers who are following the conventional wisdom, but it’s clear that they also are writing independently.
Would you like to help me shape a de facto policy for Examiner.com? I could perhaps interview Anthony Watts in the comments section of a post, with you all pitching in (I’m interviewing Bjorn Lomborg tomorrow morning by telephone–he doesn’t want an email interview). I could post a survey on the site and invite readers to fill it out.
Don’t agree too quickly–I know a lot of you are Republicans, or at least far more conservative than I–and I’m sure some of what I think will annoy you. But we’re fairly close to being on the same side about the state of play on this particular issue. If you want something close to MSM coverage of what you’re thinking, I may be able to help.
I owe Anthony something–I think I’ve got ‘Hat tip to WUWT’ as a macro entry now. If I could do something in return, I’d be happy to oblige.
Do you have other thoughts?
“Many trends begin in 1979 because that is the beginning of satellite data.”
It is amazing to me how ill-informed at lot of the alarmists are.
Tom Fuller,
You may be on the cutting edge. If public opinion goes through a sea change and begins to question the “carbon” scare, you’d have bragging rights as an MSM guy who reached the “tipping point” first.
I hope you at least understand that the AGW scare is pretty much all about the money. It really is. That’s why when one scare is deconstructed [polar bears drowning, coral bleaching, global warming, sea ice melting, ocean acidification, sea level rising, etc., etc.], another scare immediately takes its place. Sometimes the scares run concurrently. The goal posts are moved from the original scare to the next new scare. They have their scares lined up and waiting their turn.
The original reason for Cap & Tax was because CO2 was gonna getcha; runaway global warming. But with a cooling planet, that is losing traction. If this were only about science, then the practical response should be: “Well! Good thing we were wrong. Look at all the money we saved everyone!”
Instead, all the C&T and other costly proposals are left fully in place. The gov’t is just looking for an ostensible reason to cash in — and raising taxes is so much easier when there’s a crisis happening.
Finally, you could use your column to set up a debate between someone like Viscount Monckton and just about anyone the AGW true believers could come up with. At least issue the challenge, and watch the fireworks.
Tom Fuller (16:49:38) :
Liberal skeptic.
I can’t believe there would be the least interest in your offer for the following reasons:
1) True scientific viewpoints are not ideological. It is insulting to a true scientist to equate political ideology to scientific position in a debate. It says that to promote a political agenda, we would skew facts, hide facts that we find inconvenient and lie when we can get away with it. Actually, much of the “skeptic’s” point in this long battle is this is precisely what is been going on with the AGW consensus.
2) Why would you be a believer in CO2 needing capping if it is not doing any harm? I believe in cleaning up toxins, unsightly land scars, shameful clear cut forests and massive ocean going fish factories that scoop up dolphins and millions of tons of unwanted species and people who spit their gum on the sidewalk but not capping and taxing the biospheres most defining element. We are trying to stop a shameful and very life altering and expensive hoax having a deep political agenda.
3) This debate is not a matter of opinion available to those who don’t understand science. You didn’t ask the average reader of the Examiner if they could offer any ideas or opinions on how to build the Golden Gate bridge. We didn’t ask the citizenry to check our calculations or offer alternative designs for the Mars missions….. This is the trouble with this whole thing. Newspaper editors, florists and interior decorators are all lining up to shout their anger about global warming without having the least clue. They rely on the “consensus” that has ordered the debate closed. The Synod of Medieval Bishops who jailed Galileo weren’t much different than the AGW consensus and the chimney sweeps, fruit vendors and boatsmen in Rome undoubtedly, angrily supported the Synod.
Tom Fuller,
You might be surprised that there are more liberals on this site and elsewhere who are deeply skeptical of catastrophic AGW than many would have you believe.
But I don’t see the AGW panic as a left/right position, as there are plenty on the political right who go along with the panic, and plenty of liberals (like Philip Stott and myself) who firmly oppose.
The question is really about scientific ethics and the conduct of science – in that sense the views of a small vocal minority have had a disproportionate effect on the body politic, even while their scientific conduct has been disgraceful.
Ed Scott wrote: “The single, pre-eminent force driving this distortion of science originates in the once-august UN.”
And the UN’s motivation (I read here a week ago) came from a desire to make nice to its billion-dollar donor, Ted Turner, an alarmist, who requested that the UN set up a climate change study group. Naturally, it was staffed with other alarmists. After that, faddism and bandwagonism took over and did their things.
Tom, if we are cooling long term, and I believe we are, then encumbering carbon and raising the price of energy is going to kill millions of people, presently living on the margin.
=============================================
Its ironic that the GW people are walking on thin ice when its getting thicker!
Mick J,
Did you notice that the yachtmen and their group heaped priaise upon the coas guard (who undoubtely did a competent job of finding a passing ship to save them), but had not one word of thanks for the crew of the Overseas Yellowstone?
Were they struck dumb by irony, perhaps?
Icecaps around the North and South Poles are melting faster than expected, raising sea levels as a result of climate change, a major scientific survey has shown.
What rising sea levels?
I don’t see no stinking rising sea levels.
Looks the same to me as it did 50 years ago.
Heck, I haven’t seen photo #1 of before & after.
Probably because any sea level rise is academic: Lost in the noise of tides.
C’mon man, where’s the beef?
(i previously posted in one 04/30 post, but i intended to post here). Changing (a bit) the subject, i want to comment some old record temperatures posted earlier here: All the continental records presented in that table (except for North America and Antartica) were found to be not reliable, they were taken under not standardized conditions, as the Mildura’s 50 and Melbourne’s 47, they were not AIR TEMPERATURE but instead measured inside shelters that acted like “mini saunas”, all discontinued by BOM, some australian cities even used Glaisher Stand that had highs as much as 3 to 4 degrees (celsius) above stevenson screen in clear days. The Seville (50ºC) record was already discontinued by spanish meteorological office some time ago, today the accepted is the Murcia’s 47.8ºC, Argentina 47,3ºC Campo Gallo and Victoria’s (Australia) 48.1 in the (INDEED) record breaking heatwave this year (natural, records are expected to be broken from time to time, no doomsday here). I’m also agains climate alarmist (or AGW), but we sohuld not act like them manipulating data to validate unreliable old temperature records. Sorry for the por english, i’m a foreigner.
Tom Fuller (16:49:38) :
If you have some real guts and journalistic integrity, the biggest service you can provide is not to us, but to your readers. Consider the previous thread on the Nat Geo solar article. Here you have Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. making this comment:
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
I know it’s manipulative, you probably know it’s manipulative and it’s so easy to expose as being manipulative. First, his percentage is exaggerated and I’m sure he knew it (if not, he’s in the wrong field. Second he’s using apples and oranges to make his point. As was pointed out in the thread, the CO2 positive warming impact is <1.3 watts/sq. meter and the solar energy negative cooling impact is 1.3 watts/sq. meter, netting at least a neutral.
I think all we’re asking is to expose the crap. Don’t let those that shout loudest and wave their arms most vigorously get the spotlight. Let the science get the spotlight!
For a little inspiration, visit the late Michael Crichton’s website and look at his speeches. He has some great stuff about looking past the arm waving and looking at the science, climate mostly, but ethics and policy as well:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
Catastrophic Ice Cap melting is going to raise sea levels.
Where’s the rise?
Where’s the before & after?
Where’s the measurements?
I’ll tell you where the proof is, it’s out at your favorite beach.
Find a rock bluff. The one you walk by on your sojourns.
You’ll find that nothing is happening as regards sea level rise.
Most likely, the biggest problem you will witness is the trash washing up.
Go ahead, do it. Get out there and observe for yourself.
Robert Wood (09:43:28) :
Indiana Bones @ur momisugly 09:06:49
…how do these politicians plan to extract themselves from the backlash that is inevitable,
They will point out they were honest and sincere victims of advice that was was thought to be accurate at the time, but turned out to be erroneous.
I expect the scientists to carry the can on this one.
“One has to wonder if some scientists are lacking access to the Internet”
Well, I for one, am willing to donate 50c/year to the “Help Connect a Poor Climate Scientist to the Internet” fund.
It’s the least one can do!
After reading this, a strange thought occured to me. The CO2 propagandia is too bizar. What if it’s being minipulated by the oil producer counteries to stop liquid fuel being made from coal. It reminds me of the era that the KBG was minipulating world politics.
“”NSIDC writes: “Causes of the slow April decline Cool conditions over the Bering Sea, noted in the April 2009 update, persisted through mid-April. Cool weather also slowed ice loss in the Barents Sea.””
Interesting they use the term ‘cool conditions or cool weather’. ‘Cold’ would undoubtedly be a better choice of words.
Reading through this thread was exhilarating. Some months ago, I wrote a paper on GW. At the end, I speculataed as to how the issue would play out. Many of my thoughts and scenarios were mentioned by the respondents. One of my favorites (noaprogrammer–11:11:18) ponders which MSM will break with populist media, first. I think that if that happens in a forceful, convincing way, others will be propelled to follow and require defense from the AGW crowd. Perhaps we would then have something like an honest debate.
cotwome (19:57:12) :
If it were record warmth it would be “Blistering or Searing Heat”.
When it’s below zero, it’s “somewhat cooler”.
Of course, the record warmth leads to catastrophic melting and unprecedented sea level rise.
Okay. I’ve really read about all the boiling over ocean levels I care to.
How’s about something about the Sea Level?
It’s one of thier biggest fearmongering claims.
Fine.
Let’s see some graphic images of sea level, like in 30-50 years ago and now.
Like BeachCity, USA at high & low tide in 1970 or 1960 or whatever.
And the same place in 2008 or 2008, low & high tide.
Let’s see what the Sea has to say.
In my experience politicians don’t often bother to do their own reseach. They prefer meeting people, talking and exerting their influnece. They tend to rely on staff for research, who may sometimes prefer to tell them what they think they want to hear, or even have their own itineraries.
Laurence:
I would definitely agree. I am a TV meteorologist. I wrote our District Congressmen:
Congressman Stupak:
I would like to commend you on your efforts to protect Lake Superior. You are a champion of one of the nation’s most precious resources. That being said, I urge you to reject a bill that’s being touted as a piece of legislation that will help protect our environment for future generations–the Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Bill.
For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of “global warming.” Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore’s movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more. “An Inconvenient Truth” was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out.
My school presentations now center on global warming and climate change. In them, I first state a fact–that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but a life-giving, naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. I then show how small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 really is compared to ocean out-gassing, etc. On the theme of small contribution, I then explain how water vapor is by far (>95%) the most dominant greenhouse gas. The bottom line is that the burning of fossil fuels contributes around 4% to a gas that is just 3% of the total volume of greenhouse gases.
I also show how the modest warming we’ve experienced over the past century is NOT alarming or out of the ordinary and how the cycles of warming and cooling oceans (which are relatively recent discoveries) correlate quite well with the ups and downs of global temperature over the last century. Another element I focus on is the sun. The IPCC report states that solar fluctuations in the climate system are not as important as rising levels of the trace gas CO2. The graphs and charts I show, prepared by eminent meteorologists and astrophysicists, call that assertion into question.
The fact is these natural fluctuations are all pointing toward global cooling over the next few decades. The Pacific Ocean has entered its cool phase (and global temperatures have leveled off and even declined some), while the Atlantic is beginning to cool after reaching its warm-cycle peak around 2005. The sun is in a deep slumber that has confounded most astronomers. These big atmospheric players are all pointing toward sustained cooling despite rising CO2 levels.
CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s not a problem. The problem is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy. As your Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says “cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” This is not the time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will surely do. I believe the majority of your constituents will suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.
There are serious environmental problems that we can do something about. From what I understand, there are hundreds of Super Fund toxic dumps that are not being cleaned up. These dumps represent a real threat to human well-being. Carbon Dioxide is an environmental “boogey man.”
Please do the right thing and vote “no” on this bill.
Sincerely,
Karl Bohnak
Chief Meteorologist
WLUC-TV
He wrote back (I just pasted the portion that supports your statement):
Dear Mr Bohnak:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a discussion draft of energy and climate change legislation proposed by Chairman Henry Waxman and Chairman Ed Markey. ACES is the basis for discussions amongst the House Energy and Commerce Committee members. I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and have been an active participant in the discussions. I appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue.
Let me be clear, I believe we need legislation to combat global warming caused by human activities. According to scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the five hottest years on record have all occurred in the past 10 years, with 2005 breaking the record for the hottest year since 1895. An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing this unusual warming of our planet.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finalized its most comprehensive report yet. The report concluded that global warming is caused by human actions, and if nothing is done to curb our greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures could increase, causing the melting of polar ice caps, significant rise in sea levels, untold impacts on global water supplies, agriculture production, and more intense natural disasters. Since that report, the evidence has become more apparent and the predictions more dire.
Congress needs to move beyond the debate over whether global warming exists.
Yes Laurence, he just regurgitated Al Gore’s talking points. I emailed him a response in which I attached graphics and links to further support my claims. There will be no response from him. I did post a blog with these correspondences on my station’s website:
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=295986
Tom Fuller (16:49:38) :
I have read a bunch of your articles and have been impressed with your journalistic integrity and dedication to the facts.
I think that a de facto policy towards Earth’s climate that offers a clear delineation between opinion and facts, encourages healthy skepticism and develops an appreciation for, and comfort with, the tremendous complexity and uncertainty, would serve your readers well. We have around 30 years of reasonably accurate climate data on a 4.5 billion year-old incredibly complex continually evolving planet. At present our understanding of Earth’s climate is in its infancy and it will take us centuries to unravel the mysteries. Anyone who thinks they’ve already figured it all out is deluding themselves and anyone who claims that they have all the answers is lying.
“Climate Heretic (10:34:01) : The Titanic comes to mind… Big Massive Ship thought Unsinkable…chunk of ice…and you know..”
The housing and DotCom bubble come to mind too…
The AGW bubble…… and you know…
What you should expect to see is something along this scenerio….. Even though warming was over estimated by some models, x model and y model have been right all along.. what they show is that the other guys were wrong but we still know that we are headed for imminent disaster..
They will not admit to being wrong, they will spin whatever events we see as weather into proof that they really have any clue what the climate is doing. In about 10 years, when its safe, the chicken littles will come screaming out of the closet saying we will die of cold unless… They never seem to get that lag time between hot and cold cycles right, so will assume because it continues to cool when it should be warming that we are at the end of times.
I honestly wonder what crisis they will dream up to get cap and trade passed in the US.. It seems like lately anytime Washington (and Im talkin Dems and Republicans here equally guilty) needs something controversial passed or someone controversial appointed, a huge crisis gets drummed to force it through. Honestly, Im betting the current swine flu was already in the US well before it was needed to announce it. What worries me is cooler summer, and a bad next winter could be very bad for all of us.
The Arctic winter makes an interesting story in words, too. From NSID:
…..February 3, 2009….. …January ice extent remained well below normal compared to the long term record. Ice extent averaged for January 2009 is the sixth lowest January in the satellite record.
…..March 3…..The temporary decline in ice extent from February 18 to 22 illustrates the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice extent to transient weather conditions. Conditions along southern boundary of the ice cover, such as in the Bering Sea, are typically just barely cold enough for ice to exist, and the ice there can quickly expand or retreat in response to changes in temperatures and winds.
…..March 30…..On February 28, Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year…making it the fifth-lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. The six lowest maximum extents since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years (2004-2009).
…..April 6…..Overall, it was a fairly warm winter in the Arctic. Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were an average of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above normal this winter…..((The Bering Sea was colder))…..This warmth probably stemmed from unusually low sea ice extent in the region throughout much of the winter, which allowed the ocean to pump heat into the atmosphere.
…..May 4…..Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.
…..close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt.
I haven’t seen any mention of the La Nina, which ended last month after cooling global temperatures (since 2007?). Doesn’t if affect the Arctic?
Honestly, Im betting the current swine flu was already in the US well before it was needed to announce it.
Pat Buchannan was discussing it this past week, that there is evidence that it originated not in Mexico, but in California. Might want to check that out.
What worries me is cooler summer, and a bad next winter could be very bad for all of us.
Keep an eye on Australia, it preceeds us as far as next winter goes.
I’m looking for a much cooler summer in the Pacific Northwest.
The Sun isn’t doing it.
How long has it been?