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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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””
He actually asked a much more reasonable question then yours, which is silly. I’d like to know which issues he wants evidence for. Any of the three are quite doable.
Jim (19:03:00) :
“I don’t see in the article where it mentions computer models, just an ice breaker. Is there another link somewhere?”
Icebreaker? Say…. what does an ice breaker do?
TFD: – “a vessel with a reinforced bow for breaking up the ice”
Now, why would anyone want to break up the ice… seeing as it’s so precious and fragile…
I think the only thing that is heating up is Als brain with those 3 large screen monitors it is being fried!
@Anthony
“REPLY: Sorry you are confused, but there are in fact TWO links to Al Gores blogs, the word “trumpets” in the first pargraph and the words “obscure blog” also contain a link. -A”
Thanks for the reply but it doesn’t answer my original question.
First, I never disputed that there were two links to Gore’s blog. In fact, my previous comment stated that “we have two links to the Al Gore blog…” which agrees with your rejoinder. Both the links you mentioned go to the same place ( http://blog.algore.com/ ), there’s no disagreement on that point.
Second, I’m still perplexed by the inexplicable transition from a discussion of Arctic icecap extent to a discussion of whose blog is more obscure. It’s like I’m missing a piece of vital context. Why doesn’t anyone else seem to be aware of this disconnect? There’s simply no indication that Gore ever made the claim that WUWT is an obscure blog. So what’s the point of digressing into a lengthy rebuttal of a non-existent claim?
I feel like I’m missing something really obvious. Like when I’m looking in the fridge for the milk and it’s right in front of me but I still can’t find it. Oh well… maybe I just need some more coffee.
Manfred (21:57:23) :
“it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.”
I agree that it should be summer, but that could have been the journalist’s mistake in writing it. The original source appears to be the Winnipeg Free Press, relating what Barber said at a seminar. Or maybe Barber misspoke. Who knows.
“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.”
I can’t find this claim on Gore’s webpage. Unless I’m missing it somewhere.
it should be spelled out publicly much more often, with much more emphasis & direct clarity that
pretending to be able to “predict” any long-term climate trend based on computer models is fraud, plain and simple fraud – –
no computer model exists, which can extract a deterministic solution from a set of chaotic differential equations – – which, to top it off, are stuffed with gobs of fudge factors – – any magazine publishing such drivel is participating in a fraudulent activity – –
The chart looks sort of like a cricket bat, not a hockey stick. Need to run the data through the CRU de-truthifier to come up with a pretty graph.
No winter Arctic ice in 2030? Are they both nuts?
Based on climate models, Northern hemisphere should warm by ~1C by next 20 years; however, winter temperatures are something like -30 to -40C there. Something does not add up.. :-/
In the last few years, NSF shovelled out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for research into / propaganda about global warming. (The link escapes my for the moment).
Some of the resultant studies may take a few years (how long can you nurse a million-dollar grant?) to manufacture some kind of results. The final shoe of this many-legged creature won’t hit the floor until all that funding is exhausted. By that time, who knows? Maybe sites like this one will have done the job of undermining the pseudo-science.
Meanwhile, PBS is making an all-out push to instill alarm in viewers at the vanishing ice. See Wednesday night’s “Extreme Ice”
http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899/ or its companion, “Masters of the Ice”.
Both of these were well-wrought photojournalistic science / nature programs, but with the disappointing and monotonous raison d’etre – to funnel AGW hysteria into homes during prime time. (Try to count the number of references to global warming, and the number of crises it is creating.)
The goal seems to be to get legislation passed quickly before voters toss the present bunch of scoundrels out on their ears.
Re: Anthony Watts (Feb 17 20:50),
Yes, it does say $156 million, however one of the commenter points out”
“And how many of those scientists are Canadian? Even if we pretend to be a global scientific player and somehow decided to fund our own and the rest of these scientists, the $156 million amounts to $520, 000 per scientist. Wouldn’t you think there’s a real news story in there somewhere like maybe what the hell do 300 scientists DO with a half million each in a year notwithstanding the same old predictions of melting ice, sick seals and maybe trouble with Orcas? ”
I guess we’ve got used to these kind of typos.
Big numbers sound scary.
I decided for myself to determine whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) and our carbon footprint is really to blame for climate change as claimed. I guess I felt a bit guilty after watching Al Gore’s movie. But I could not find anything definitive that would prove to me that CO2 is to blame. In fact, I found that there is untruth in Al Gore’s story. A lot of CO2 is dissolved in cold water and comes out if the oceans get warmer. Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not cause smoking. But Al made it look from the past that our CO2 output must be the problem. Did someone actually question him on that? I remember trying to get hold of him, but it seems not possible for a mere mortal man to discuss anything with him or to get a message through to him.
Robert, please cite the link to the study of Dr.Barbers that you have read and have drawn your conclusions from. I haven’t been able to find it yet. His study is part of the International Polar Year work done with the Circumploar Flaw Lead team. They refitted an old Canadian coast guard ice breaker and have been studying the summer ice since 2007. The study apparently appears in this months Canadian Geographic
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jf10/default.asp
From the CFL websiteReport # 10 is as close as I can get.
http://www.ipy-cfl.ca/page1/page21/page21.html
Robert, I want one piece of proof that CO2 causes warming under real climatic conditions rather than in controlled laboratory conditions which can’t reproduce an atmosphere. This is given that historically there has never been a link between CO2 and surface temperature?
Why is there no tropospheric hotspot which AGW has to give?
Why is the Antarctic patently cooling (it can’t happen under AGW)?
How is the climate now cooling in terms of temperature and total heat content and has been for several years. Whatever the AGW industry says this can not happen (yes, even the Hockey Club can’t explain it)?
How did the MWP and LIA happen with no change in CO2 level and without any human influence if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
No I do not believe that there has been any significant warming, certainly nothing out of the ordinary.
Now let’s have some answers. You can’t answer the first question so try the others.
Sounds like $156M may have been Canada’s total IPY funding. Here’s an official page on that project, which is more in the $20-30M range. Only about $6M goes to research funding.
Actually it is even sillier than I thought
“Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic studying the impact of climate change”
If you dig into here http://www.amundsen.quebec-ocean.ulaval.ca/amundsenenglish.htm
You will see that the Amundsen has 46 science births
So that would be a total of six complete crew changes, presumably by helicopter.
Assuming a three month stay, 12 weeks, then that’s a new crew every TWO weeks.
Your average North Sea crew does a 4 week roster. And that’s a LOT closer to home than the Arctic.
No wonder it cost so much.
It seems that the “science” is fragile and the Arctic is robust.
Incoherent article.
Note to editor: rewrite and resubmit.
“Canwest Dec. 6 2008, Kevin Rollason: “Mr. Barber, who will present his preliminary findings at the International Arctic Change 2008 conference in Quebec City next week, was the scientist in charge of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study (CFL), a $40-million Arctic research project.”
AND
“Chinta Puxley
Winnipeg — The Canadian Press Published on Friday, Nov. 27, 2009 10:22PM EST
“It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multiyear sea ice – the whole world thought it was multiyear sea ice,” said Dr. Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.
“Unfortunately what we found was that the multiyear [ice] has all but disappeared. What’s left is this remnant, rotten ice.”
=====
Dr. David Barber expressed his surprise and dismay to the Canadian Press about his finding rotten ice in the South Beaufort Sea in September at the maximum melting point of the year. He staged his surprise very well since everyone was horrified and a peer reviewed paper followed the express lane.
Winnipeg is now a AGW hotbed enjoying an Environmental Science building paid for by a guilt Riddel uber-rich Calgary oilman… It seems these days a trendy occupation for retired billionaires of the Calgary Oil business to fund AGW institutes and their prima donnas like Dr Keith at U of C.
Either Dr. Barber is really ignorant in meteorology and that would be worrying but come on, this is unlikely or he knew very well that the meteorological conditions described in July by NSIDC could only yield the rotten ice outcome come September. Therefore his “surprise” may have impressed gullible journalists but can’t fool scientists who think Barber’s sudden celebrity status among the AGW politburo is a sign his “study” is likely the ad hoc outcome he needed to add complementary funding to the $40 million the project he lead received a while back.
Temperatures in the Arctic have been minus 30 C for several months now. As Penn Hadow found out last year, that is very cold and everything including electronic equipment freezes solid. Al Gore should head up there this weekend to check the melt out for himself.
As for the “Winter” / “Summer” confusion topic. I don’t care if they meant summer, winter, fall, spring, autumn, night, day, solar eclipse, lunar lander, … it ain’t gonna happen in any way!
What is this post about? I am totally confused.
Is it about Arctic ice and Mr. Barber? Is it about Al Gore copying and pasting a crap article about a Barber interview? Is it about comparison of blog traffic Al Gore vs WUWT? Where are the links between the three? Sorry, but this remids me of Mann’s starting with tree rings and ending with “real” temperature data.
Where are the computer models Mr. Barber uses – I did not find them in the provided links.
Re: John Hooper (Feb 17 23:09),
Err not quite…
“Rejected. Does not add to clarity or brevity”. (Review editor)
“2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.”
Hell, if you paid me $1 million I will tell you the Arctic will be ice free in winter by 2013.
Notice they say between 2013 to 2030? :o) They will be well retired by then. People need to go straight to jail for fraud.
Manfred (21:57:23) :
(…)
it is quite obvious, that they meant “summer” and wrote “winter”. however, these errors shouldn’t happen in million dollar studies.
(…)
It is more obvious that “winter” sounds much more alarmist than “summer” so that would be preferred for CAGW alarmism.
(…)
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.
Hey now, let’s give him some credit! It is far more likely he wisely knows he needs every last absurd alarmist but scientific-sounding “fact” he can get if he is going to scare the US and Australia into carbon trading. His carbon-swindling portfolio is going up in smoke faster than you can say “Pachauri!” (Gesundheit, btw.)
Bad enough he spent all those years gathering together companies to “do the right thing” and fight global warming on behalf of all those impoverished people of the world who would suffer in the hard times to come… And those companies got to see at Copenhagen that all those people wanted nothing less than to feed on their warm capitalist entrails. Global carbon trading agreement, yielding massive carbon-swindling profits, at Mexico City? Kind of a long shot right now, pity poor (and getting poorer) Al Gore.
Isnt it amazing that surveys like this always find the exact thing they were looking for.
They go looking for the bad climate change, and wow they find it. (BTW how many months are left from gores prediction? the first one)