ANOTHER BOLD PREDICTION OF AN ICE-FREE ARCTIC
Guest post by Mark Johnson
Al Gore trumpets the latest conclusions of Climate Change Advocate David Barber. “Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting more quickly than anyone expected,” says University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System study released Friday. Barber is the lead investigator in the largest climate change study done in Canada. Barber said before the expedition, scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly.
It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.” “We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.
When you read the article, notice a few things:
1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.
2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.
3) The Inuit population are starting to chase the cash cow as well: “There’s also the need for economic development,” Hmmmmmm.
We have finally heard from the Great Climate Change Advocate Al Gore. On his obscure blog, Al says “Its worse than we thought.” Are you kidding me?
=====================
Obscure blog? Let’s look at the numbers for Al Gore -vs- WUWT and find out.
Yup.
In fact, WUWT does pretty well when you look at the entire family of web offering by Gore’s enterprises:
Keep those hits and links coming folks. Thanks – Anthony
NOTE: In the Alexa generated graphs above, the lower number the better for traffic rank. For example in the top graph, WUWT is around the top 10,000 trafficked sites on the web while alogore.com is in the top 100,000 trafficked sites on the web. It’s RANK not HITS.
Since some commenters are confused, here is the description from Alexa:
What is Traffic Rank?
The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and data obtained from other, diverse traffic data sources, and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach). As a first step, Alexa computes the reach and number of page views for all sites on the Web on a daily basis. The main Alexa traffic rank is based on a value derived from these two quantities averaged over time (so that the rank of a site reflects both the number of users who visit that site as well as the number of pages on the site viewed by those users). The three-month change is determined by comparing the site’s current rank with its rank from three months ago. For example, on July 1, the three-month change would show the difference between the rank based on traffic during the first quarter of the year and the rank based on traffic during the second quarter.
How Are Traffic Trend Graphs Calculated?
The Trend graph shows you the site’s daily traffic rank, charted over time. The daily traffic rank reflects the traffic to the site based on data for a single day. In contrast, the main traffic rank shown in the Alexa Toolbar and elsewhere in the service is calculated from three months of aggregate traffic data.
Daily traffic rankings will sometimes benefit sites with sporadically high traffic, while the three-month traffic ranking benefits sites with consistent traffic over time. Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site’s value, we’ve chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site’s overall popularity. We use the daily traffic rank in the Trend graphs because it allows you to see short-term fluctuations in traffic much more clearly.
It is possible for a site’s three-month traffic rank to be higher than any single daily rank shown in the Trend graph. On any given day there may be many sites that temporarily shoot up in the rankings. But if a site has consistent traffic performance, it may end up with the best ranking when the traffic data are aggregated into the three-month average. A good analogy is a four-day golf tournament: if a different player comes in first at each match, but you come in second at all four matches, you can end up winning the tournament.
I am really scared now!
The title to the graphic comparing algore.com and WUWT reads>
“Daily Traffic RANK Trend”
Notice the keyword > RANK.
For the sake of all of us I hope you are reading the data, instruments and your excel sheets much more carefully.
REPLY: I think it is you who have the reading problem with the graphs. -A
“Robert (20:15:48) :
So the argument, in summary, goes like this:”
Ummmm, no, it doesn’t.
Yeah, but Al Gore is riche than you, Anthony.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
And when you think about the $156 million, Barber may be too…
Yes,
and if Barber had run grids on the arctic,
>systematically breaking up all the available Ice –
-he should be jailed for environmental destruction.
Maybe he is not so great a “scientist” – but he certainly qualifies for the TEAM.
And he is a hell of a negotiator – $ 156 Million!!!
chris y (19:13:04) : ” ‘It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.’ That’s only possible if ocean currents can transport enough heat into the Arctic to counter the >100 W/m^2 net radiative cooling that occurs when liquid ocean surface is exposed to a clear Arctic winter sky of perpetual darkness. In other words, that’s not possible on this world.”
The emittance of seawater is 0.993, very close to a perfect emitter (black body). The night black body temperature of the sky above the water is about 4°K. At high zenith angles (winter), the albedo of open seawater overlaps that of ice. Barber must be talking about his home planet.
Anthony,
The top ranked site would be number 1, the lowest ranked site would be something in the billions (or maybe greater now – not really sure how many sites there are currently).
And the RANK is earned by the activity of the site.
All of your earlier commenters were just assuming that the chart was a “hits” chart.
Steve J
REPLY: Yes you have it right, RANK not HITS. – A
Firstly, the study is based on data collected only up to March of 2009.
Secondly, their model clearly does not work. (“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.)
As for Al Gore, he predicted an ice free Arctic years ago, so he is hardly the authority.
John Mackie (19:15:08) :
…
A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.
…
We’re winning!
——-
funny how when the government steals 9 million of your pounds and fritters them away, you can still call that “winning”
strange times 😀
To Nick Stokes and everyone else who questioned the 156 million figure, Mark Johnson tells me the source and I’ve confirmed the source. The Winnipeg Free Press.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/arctic-ice-melt-alarms-scientists-83704042.html
Fourth paragraph has this sentence:
“The Canadian government provided $156 million in funding for the study.”
If you are ranked number 1 over the period of the graph yours will be a flat line at the top. You can go no higher than 1. As you go down in rank you can see the numbers amongst whom you share that rank. At the bottom you share the cellar with 10’s of thousands, and it is there we find AlGore’s site.
As for Gore – I wonder if he got his advocacy training in global alarmism at UEA like his peers:
Wait for 2:45
Robert
A challenge for you.
One piece of evidence that any warming seen in the last century (if there actually has been any non trivial warming) has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 rather than other reasons. Just one thing, anything, and I’ll accept that you’re correct.
Surely you must be exasperated over the amount of evidence now supporting the opposite and that the flat earth sceptics were probably right. It must have been very painful to see the UEA e-mails?
This is a little weird.
Gore’s post is just a copy-paste of the first four paragraphs of the linked article in Time.
But, I don’t see the 2013-2030 statement from Barber in the post at Gore’s blog (which I’d never heard of, so obscure indeed). So where did it come from?
Googling it, it was reported in several Canadian newspapers. Apparently Barber was talking to some students, and he made that prediction. But if he’s published anything to back it up, I haven’t found it yet.
So without finding a paper, it’s hard to judge whether “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.” is true or not. Barber’s most recent publication was purely based on observation with no such prediction included. His point is that observations are running ahead of models, so it’s unlikely that his statement is based on those models. But since I can’t find that prediction in an actual journal article, it’s hard to say.
Martin Mason (20:52:51) : “One piece of evidence that any warming seen in the last century (if there actually has been any non trivial warming) has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 rather than other reasons.”
Which part of it would you like evidence for:
a) Increased CO2 causes warming
b) The observed CO2 is anthropogenic in orgin
You also seem to doubt warming has occurred. That’s three things. What’s your #1 priority?
Should be: “the observed increase in CO2”
Also, a note about funding for the study.
This study was a product of the International Polar Year research program, of which Canada did contribute $156 for participating during the 2007-2009 polar years.
University of Manitoba Prof David Barber stated on June 20 2008 that,
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
I don’t think his climate models are all that reliable.
Jeezus! look at those HUGE energy-sucking monitors and all those dead trees!
Yes Robert, answer the question from Martin Manson.
Why did Global Warming hit the brakes? It certainly was not CO2 because that’s still rising like the scenario “Business as usual”
Here ya go, Al. This will help you read those monitors:
http://www.johnernst.com/sight_windows_p50.html
Lake Erie is frozen. There may be a winter passage on Lake Erie by 2035
Tell algore to not act like he can walk on water.
To a casual reader the ‘vertical Y’ axis is not meaningful. Someone should explain what axis means. I had to go to Alexa to better understand.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you…
That any of these alarmists could POSSIBLY think any warming, melting, flooding, drought, doom, despair or whatever could POSSIBLY be happening any faster then they predicted.
As I recall, most of those predictions are of catastrophic bad mojo happening pretty much next Wednesday, if not sooner (unless there is grant money to be awarded to investigate such mojo, in which case said mojo will be found to be occurring next Monday).
Oops… or I could have just keep on reading the explanation.
“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now.”
ice free in 2013 in the WINTER…???
it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.
the travesty is, that dummies like al gore preferably tend to believe the most absurd claims and so he trumpets ice free winter in 2013.
Gore
“Prediction of an ice-free Arctic”
Just another Gore snow job!!