People send me stuff. Sometimes it is stuff I’m not expected to see. It seems NOAA is getting hot and bothered about the Arctic.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently approved a plan to prohibit the expansion of commercial fishing in U.S. Arctic waters to enable researchers time to gather the ecosystem data essential to managing a sustainable fishery.
The area involved — roughly 200,000 square miles of ocean north of the Bering Strait — has no commercial fisheries yet, but it could if the seasonal Arctic ice pack continues to melt.
Climate change is happening faster in the Arctic than any other place on Earth — and with wide-ranging global consequences. I saw this firsthand when I participated in a recent “listening and learning” expedition to the northern corners of Alaska’s Arctic region with Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and other members of President Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. We witnessed an area abundant with natural resources, diverse wildlife, proud local and native peoples — and a most uncertain future.
According to the most recent Arctic Report Card, the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, and seasonal Arctic ice is retreating at an alarming rate.
Why is this so significant? A diminished sea ice cover has the potential to open up impassable parts of the Arctic to what could amount to unchecked “booms” in various national and international enterprises: commercial fishing, transportation, mining and energy exploration. A warming Arctic also disturbs worldwide weather patterns, endangers fish and wildlife, and, ultimately, threatens our national security.
Although the Arctic is arguably the world’s fastest changing ocean, it remains largely a scientific mystery. Before we enact plans to protect and zone the Arctic Ocean for specific uses, we must learn more about its marine ecosystems, ocean circulation patterns and changing chemistry.
An aggressive scientific research program must be conducted collaboratively among Arctic nations, government agencies, research institutions and others with a stake in the region. NOAA is heavily involved in a number of joint initiatives, including:
- The Russian-American Long-Term Census of the Arctic (RUSALCA) – NOAA, the National Science Foundation and the Russian Academy of Sciences recently launched a 40-day research expedition from Nome, Alaska, to observe physical and biological environmental changes in the Northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea.
- Extended Continental Shelf Mapping – A joint, 41-day U.S.-Canada expedition is under way to map the entire continental shelf using the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy and the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent. NOAA and the Joint Hydrographic Center will lead the effort to collect bathymetric data used to measure ocean depths and map the sea floor.
- Climate Monitoring – NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, in conjunction with the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Monitoring facility nearby, provides a model for an international network of atmospheric climate observatories. NOAA satellites track the extent of ice and snow cover, and provide a nearly 30-year record of Arctic atmospheric conditions.
NOAA provides those living and working in the Arctic with critical information products such as weather warnings, ice cover analysis, hydrographic maps, and search and rescue satellite-aided tracking. As efforts to explore and understand the Arctic region expand, NOAA will be called upon by a growing number of stakeholders — from the U.S. military to tour operators to commercial shippers — to provide an even greater suite of services to help ensure these activities are conducted safely and efficiently.
To learn more about the full complement of NOAA activities under way in the Arctic, please visit NOAA’s Arctic Science Laboratory, Arctic Research Office and Arctic Theme Page Web sites.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator
______________________________________________________________
This message was generated for the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator by the NOAA
Information Technology Center/Financial and Administrative
Computing Division
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: cal (06:40:07) and others,
It is a good point to make that there is a logical fallacy of trying to set up a strong disjunction and say warming is either agw OR this particular xyz natural process – it’s not xyz, therefore it’s agw. This is only true if there are no other processes (e.g. abc) that could account for the warming. To say that we understand climate that well is boastful and easily falsified. In other words, IF it is warming, we don’t yet know why. Let’s just hope that if it is warming that it continues until we get back to the old days of farming on the greenland coast and opening up big stretches of Canada and russia to farming and settlement.
Flanagan
I’ve gritted my teeth and ignored it for months now, but I can’t hold back any longer. it’s not your views on AGW that irk me, in fact, they amuse me and I missed your contibutions during the summer vacation.
What is getting me is your consistent mis-spelling of “trust”. There simply is no “h” in it – I understand the thrust of your argument but I don’t trust the conclusions you draw.
I would strongly recommend you read Australian geologist Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth. The complexity of our climate is astounding and he discusses earth’s climate history and all the elements that impact it.
The climate has so many variables that no model, which are by their nature designed to show a predicted result, could accurately show what will happen 3 days from now let alone 50 years out. They try to make a non-linear, chaotic system into a linear one focused only on CO2.
So many of the vital parts of this puzzle are not even discussed let alone part of the IPCC’s models of which none predicted the cooling since 1998.
Not Covered in IPCC models:
*solar influence – sunspots, 11, 22, 30, 1,500 year etc. cycles, orbit of earth
*volcanoes – release of aerosols, dust, 85% of eruptions take place under the ocean or under ice sheets in Iceland, Canada, Greenland releasing massive heat and CO2
*weather stations – urban heat sinks not considered with huge upward bias in actual temps. 90% don’t meet US Weather standards. Satellites and ocean sensors show no increase in global temperature.
*wobbles – axis tilt as solar system moves through the universe over millions of years linking to glaciation.
*El Nino, La Nina
*ocean currents, Gulf Stream, water column cycles
*sea levels – constant movement up and down, 130m drop in ice age, lands still rising from weight of ice, oceans deepening from extra weight of water, both cause earthquakes.
*CO2 is just a trace gas though vital to our very survival and has been many times higher even in ice ages, water vapour is key GHG
*plate tectonics – mid ocean ridges 64k long, earthquakes releasing CO2
*clouds – cooling impact ignored
and on and on.
As so many posters have stated and through links to WUWT and other blogs the science is never settled but for those with a leftist bent no amount of facts or solid evidence will change one iota of their emotional belief. As we know politicians are in this for the money and go hand in glove with grant supported “scientists”, teachers and the MSM is spreading these lies and propaganda. This is the new religion of the greenies and just like all religions questions are not accepted and you will be punished for asking them.
Ian Plimer writes we had better hope for global warming as the alternative of little ice ages and global cooling with crop failure, drought, diseases and general misery is not nice.
Flanagan (22:37:03) :
“Talking about the Arctic
There’s a paper in Science this week suggesting that the Arctic has actually been cooling and growing for the last 2000 years (with a 10 year resolution). Yes, even during the medieval warm period! (that’s bad news for skeptics of course)”
Let’s assume for a moment that the study is accurate (big assumption). The fact is this would be GREAT news for skeptics. Many skeptics, including myself, assert than not enough is known about the climate. What this study indicates is an unknown cooling trend. One more point for the skeptics. BTW, thanks for pointing out, yet again, just how little the climate scientists really know about the climate.
Kevin Kilty (07:47:05) :
Did Asia, apparently, began the rise out of LIA perhaps before Europe did?
Based on a study from this paper:
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.
it looks like Asia began emerging from the LIA around 1700. See this graph from the paper:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_yakushima.gif
OMG. These NOAA nerds sure are good. They are going to find out the impact of commercial fisheries in an area that has NO fisheries!!! Maybe they can help us figure out the cause of why AGW/CC cultists and lefturds are brain dead, since they can study something that doesn’t exist.
RR Kampen (07:22:13) :
Or would you rather refer to those hyperesoteric, immeasurable solar influences that only certain people for whom CO2 is taboo seem to know about?
Not very clear there. I’m a skeptic and CO2 is certainly not taboo. Bring it on!
RR Kampen (08:23:26) :
Determining the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the easy part. Isotopes C-13 and C-14 in the air diminish as an increasing portion of the CO2 gets there from burning fossile fuels (this even leads to a measurable, and corresponding, drop in O2-concentration). Calculation, first done in 1961, proves that all the extra CO2 is anthropogenic. A scientist like Plimer dismissing this (and other) evidence and instead averring that 99.9% of the extra derives from “little-understood geological phenomena” amounts to ignorance in a normal person and to outright lying by a ‘top scientist’.
You’ve trolled onto the wrong website there, Buckaroo. First, I’ll show you my source to refute that ridiculous claim, ( a government one at that), then you show me yours to support it.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)
Preinductrial Baseline/natural causes/manmade amounts/total/% of increase
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000/ 68,520 / 11,880 / 368,400 / 99.438%
Kevin Kilty (08:19:51) :
“Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
If you are using IE you can install the google task bar which has a spell checking capability (not great but catches simple errors). For example, I just used it here and noticed you combined “to” and “spot” above.
Mrs. Leverlilly: “But that’s a priceless Steinway!”
Clouseau: “Not anymore!”
— The Pink Panther Strikes Back
Flanagan,
And of course if you take out the tree ring proxies they used, there is no sudden increase in temperature trend in the 20th C.
Same old rubbish, same old Team.
Alexej Buergin (07:50:22) “arctic temperatures as measured by the Danish Meteo-Institute”
They are modeled, not measured, and the model changed several years ago, so not continuous under the same method.
Dave12 (11:30:29) “Not Covered in IPCC models” I think you are somewhat misinformed there. But then, if you take Plimer as your bible…
G. Karst,
To do a fair comparison of global sea ice extent over 30 years, you have to include Febuary as well as August data because the trends for NH, SH, summer and winter are quite different.
There is little trend in NH winter sea ice extent, although partly due to geographic reasons.
Jeff L
Quite a movie. The scary thing is that we are looking at the future in microcosm. Unless something pretty major happens, the glaciers will be back one day and then it won’t be breeze blocks and pipes, it will be whole cities.
Mitchel44 (09:14:31) :
…A few of the proxies from this may even have made the “cut” for the team’s latest Arctic paper, Tiljander did (upside down of course, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932).
Pity they did not use them all, I wonder why?
I’ve been reading over at CA this afternoon, and I must say I am stunned–stunned is the only description I can offer. I have not been following any of this story for a long time now, and thought that the Hockey Stick had “died in its sleep” some time back. What is it about the Hockey Stick that makes otherwise sensible people involve themselves in very bad science?
In my earlier post (above) I alluded to how climate reconstruction using borehole temperature records in soil and rock had a connection with the Hockey Stick and with some issues of scienctific ethics. It is not a simple story that one should tell in a posting here. Perhaps I’ll make a suggestion over on tips and notes to WUWT.
Thanks, again, for the heads up, Mitchel44. I am quite surprised that this has become topical again.
Richard M (12:30:00) :
Kevin Kilty (08:19:51) :
“Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
If you are using IE you can install the google task bar which has a spell checking capability (not great but catches simple errors). For example, I just used it here and noticed you combined “to” and “spot” above.
Thanks. I’m going to give this a try, but it may help only a little. I am a very poor typist and my eyesight is becoming awful at short range.
Richard: no unknown cooling, but related to precession of earth rotational axis. Please read my link. Still bad news for sketpics. But that’s life, ok?
Peter: yes, sorry that English is not my main language. Should we turn to French? Or Dutch? Or Latin? Or Greek? Spanish? Turkish?
Paul Hildebrandt (12:04:16) :
Kevin Kilty (07:47:05) :
Did Asia, apparently, began the rise out of LIA perhaps before Europe did?
Based on a study from this paper:
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.
it looks like Asia began emerging from the LIA around 1700. See this graph from the paper:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_yakushima.gif
Thanks, also. That is an interesting graph, and it suggests 1600-1700, doesn’t it? The literature on these topics is simply vast, and one of the great services of a site like WUWT is that it connects so many people who have one piece or another of the puzzle.
Flanagan (14:35:04) :
“Richard: no unknown cooling, but related to precession of earth rotational axis. Please read my link.”
Did you read the press release? It indicates that orbital changes are what has been claimed to cause the cooling. So, it’s more than just precession.
” the result of a wobble in Earth’s rotation that has been increasing the distance between the sun and Earth and decreasing Arctic summer sunshine.”
On to more nonsense …
“Still bad news for sketpics. But that’s life, ok?”
Chuckle, chuckle … it’s looks like more bad news for the Team. Still using Tiljander upside down, still picking and choosing only the proxies that support their predetermined conclusions, still withholding data. Those who support this nonsense look very silly indeed. You really want to be in that group?
The skeptics look better all the time. Not so much for the blind faithful.
Flanagan
Before you write any more posts on Greenland and make inaccurate comparisons between the MWP version of the island and today’s, can I suggest you read ‘The Viking World’
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Viking-World-Routledge-Worlds/dp/0415333156
It is a very scholarly work with numerous academic studies of the Vikings settlement of Greenland, its growth and subsequent decline. It was undoubtedly a much more hospitable place 1000 years ago than it is now.
I borrowed it from our local library as it is a very expensive book-I do not know if the same facility exists in Belgium.
best regards and happy reading
tonyb
Kevin Kilty wrote (08:19:51): “Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
Kevin-
You can compose your message in MS Word, or even in Outlook Express, then copy/cut and paste the message into the WUWT comment block. Either method allows you to use a larger font for easier reading.
Alternatively, if you are using the same Google/MS home page as I am, there is a selection “Page” just above and to the right of what you are reading. Click on “Page” and you will see “Zoom”. Click on that and select the degree of enlargement you desire for the screen. I read all web pages at 150%.
IanM
IanM (17:57:50) :
Kevin Kilty wrote (08:19:51): “Moderator-Is there a way to edit these posts after submission? I find typos that are hard tospot in the tiny edit box, but are readily apparent once I can read the full text.”
Kevin-
You can compose your message in MS Word, or even in Outlook Express, then copy/cut and paste the message into the WUWT comment block. Either method allows you to use a larger font for easier reading.
Alternatively, if you are using the same Google/MS home page as I am, there is a selection “Page” just above and to the right of what you are reading. Click on “Page” and you will see “Zoom”. Click on that and select the degree of enlargement you desire for the screen. I read all web pages at 150%.
Thanks. Yes, I could do this as well–I just don’t think to take the extra two steps when I am excited about something. Occasionally I’ll write a post on the commentary boards of the WSJ, and their weblog allows an edit after submission until one navigates away from the page. It is very convenient. I had hoped for something similar here. I may take your advice and use notepad or some such.
Kevin,
Your post earlier was great. but I have to ask, what makes you think CO2 has an effect on climate? I ask because you seem like you know what you’re talking about and I’ve never heard an acceptable explanation as to how the association works. I understand the physics behind how it works in a controlled laboratory setting, but I don’t understand how it can be successfully extrapolated to a much more complex and highly variable system such as our planet’s atmosphere.
Philip_B (13:56:12)
I post global month end sea ice averages, the day NOAA/NSIDC releases them. I included 2007 figures because the Arctic minimum is approaching and I thought people might find the reference useful. I find that constantly looking at anomalies, leads to a situation where many have forgotten, what the actual values are. The 30yr and last year reference merely helps frame variation range. It was not intended to establish long term trends. There are plenty of graphs available. This is just to get the actual numbers out there and to remind people, that there is still a lot of ice. I do not think monthly reports on extent have broad significance. Many are shocked by the actual values and will not believe them until I post the actual plates. (Don’t forget, graphs require links, which are not always desirable nor possible. Brevity is best)
When reaction no longer happens, I will probably quit. There has been no lessening of reaction in the last 2 yrs, so I guess I’ll carry on. I only post my global extent report here, occasionally, when a related subject is being discussed. Most people here have a realistic view of ice and so there is less requirement for reminding. If anyone here finds it not useful and requests it stopped… I’ll not post my report here again. Are you requesting I stop??
Flanagan (14:35:04) :
Amazing! Flanagan is completely wrong in half a dozen different languages. Someboidy contact Guiness! This must surely be a new record.
Flanagan has some strange ideas, but de gustibus non est disputandum… esso si, que es.
Dan D,
The same extrapolation was used to ban coolant around the world with the intention of saving the ozone layer, only to discover recently that chlorine has no effect on it at all. I saw this sometime not too long ago, but did not keep the source, but if anyone is interested, I will attempt to locate it.