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.
AGW rat overboard.
UNabomber Mao Stlong is silent.
(Mao’s nephew is Canadian “Liberal leader” Boob Rae.)
…-
“Top UN climate official resigns
Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate change official, says he will resign after nearly four years in the post.
His departure takes effect from 1 July, five months before 193 countries are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt at global deal on climate.
Nations failed to reach a binding deal at the Copenhagen meeting in December.
Mr de Boer told the Associated Press news agency he was announcing his departure now so that a successor could be found before the Mexico meeting.
The former Dutch civil servant and climate negotiator was widely credited with raising the profile of climate change issues.
But suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries barred the way to a binding accord at the UN’s climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.
He said the failure to secure a treaty at Copenhagen was unrelated to his decision to quit, and that he had begun looking for a new job last year, before the summit.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8521821.stm
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi
A disappointing aspect of the Noble Prize process is the (to me) obvious disconnect between the Nobel Prize committee’s assessment of Mr. Gore’s status in the American culture versus what his actual status is in our American culture. It is the Nobel Prize committee’s undoing. Do not tread lightly into assessment of American politics without multiple backup plans . . . Result is some significant loss of self esteem for the Nobel Prize committee.
John
From the article above:
————————————–
“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.”
————————————–
How in the hell is 24 hour darkness and -70 degrees Celsius conducive to melting ice?
Even the idea that there is enough warmth long term to melt the remaining late summer four MILLION square kilometres of ice completely seems unlikely, but the suggestion that winter Arctic ice will disappear is loony tunes ridiculous.
Steve Goddard (23:22:07) :
“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”
Steve…you are a tease!!!!!! Lets give Pen some slack! (I dare not write my next sentence or A will snip me!) 😉
Anyway, it really is time Al got out from behind his blog (he done any lectures in the last few weeks?) and did the debate Lord Monckton has challenged him to? I wil fly from Shanghai to see it! By the way, this post proves that someone a couple of article down is wrong, You can access WUWT from China if you know how Gores “Internet” works! Yep, we all know he was mis-quoted but….
geronimo said: “There is no historical relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core records. Moreover, we had a Mediaeval Warm Period and a Little Ice age in the last thousand years. Clearly the climate has it’s own agenda.”
Given the known multi-centuary lag between temps rising and CO2 increasing before man started putting CO2 in the atmosphere, I wonder if any conclusive work has been done to eliminate the medieval warm period from causing some or all of today’s rising CO2.
I say conclusive because, frankly, much of the stuff in the IPCC is so equivocal to be meaningless until you get to the summary for policymakers where all the negatives are highlighted.
For all we know (which isn’t much), the bisophere may be perfectly capable of coping with anthropogenic CO2 emissions and it is a natural process that has tipped the balance.
will fly..oops, Chinese New Year celebrations..Will proof read from now one! By the way, anyone who knows how to make silent fireworks….please email so I can get a nights sleep!
H Hak (19:42:28) :
I know someone tried to explain away the increase in ice cap extent by saying the ice was ‘rotten’.
Just exactly what is the definition of ‘rotten’ ice?
I would like to see a physical description of rotten ice using consistent standards of measurement. Is is a question of ice density? Ice mixed with particulates? Purity of water in ice? Then I would like to see photographic comparisons of rotten versus unrotten ice.
Then I would like to see actual, on-site surveys of rotten versus unrotten ice down through the years, to confirm the alleged satellite surveys indicating an increase of rotten ice.
Then to the laboratory to compare melting times of rotten versus unrotten ice, to confirm the hypothesis of the ‘rotten ice is not the same as unrotten ice and we still have a problem with the icecap’.
All should then be published in a peer reviewed climate change journal.
That should keep someone busy for a few years.
Until then, I don’t believe in ‘rotten’ ice.
Al Gore…….liar and fraud.
JLKrueger (02:01:39) :
Ah. I found this, about Gore at Copenhagen:
“”Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.”
http://cbs3.com/national/gore.arctic.ice.2.1369046.html
Some more links would have been helpful in this post. Not all of us pay attention to what Gore says.
News Flash–
(humor?hyperbole?)–
Dr. Reuben to switch from medical research to
AGW research publications with Mann et al
peer reviewing his work as a condition of his switch–
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/big-pharma-researcher-admits
Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.726 (million sq. km) from the 1979-2008 mean:
021710: -.757
021810: -.726
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day is fragile?
Three monitors, wow. Hasn’t Al Bore heard of tabs?
And with all this recent global non-warming, I wonder if he’ll grow another beard.
“H Hak (19:42:28) :
Sorry Mark but did you read the article?
1 There was no mention of models.”
RESPONSE: From the article: Dr. John Hanesiak says the earth’s extremes, warm & cold can be blamed on “human actions”: “There’s no question about that.” he says, “The models are telling us that now.”
The article wraps everything up in a neat tidy package using climate models.
Surely a missprint “ice free in Winter”?!
Don’t they mean “Summer”- at least there is a remote chance.
Mark Johnson (07:10:10) :
First off, please update the post so that there is a link to the article in the Winnipeg Free Press. It should not be left to the reader to figure out that half the post is referencing Gore’s copy/paste of Time, and the other half is from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. You tell us “When you read the article”, but without the link, it isn’t made easy to do so.
As for Hanesiak, I don’t think that particular statement had much to do with Barber’s prediction. So far as I can tell from the article, the article is merely giving a smattering of quotes from the several different speakers who addressed a student symposium.
From this source alone, it’s impossible to tell what the basis for Barber’s prediction is.
This attitude claerly shows that he has become absolutely IDENTIFIED with Global Warming, HE IS now Global Warmimg HIMSELF!
It´s a well known psychological phenomenon. Really a disgraceful situation.
How does RealClimate do on these rankings?
Any way to figure out why the Gore sites show these spikes?
Just one question:
Is it really necessary to draw attention to Al Gore? All he is intersted in thesedays the Arctic. It would be understandable if he wanted to live in such a freezing wilderness. Observations prove that he is more intersted in his luxury home and lifestyle. Like Prince Charles, and other such privileged men, these imaginary problems are for others to needlessly worry about and incur higher costs and incursions into our lifestyles and not for them to do so.
Shouldn’t people like them they really be living in Greenland to live and swear in what they invent and believe?
“Dr. John Hanesiak says the earth’s extremes, warm & cold can be blamed on “human actions”: “There’s no question about that.” he says, “The models are telling us that now.”
So THAT is an interesting piece of information and it starts to explain many things of the past and the present…
“They paid $156 million for what exactly?”
How much does an icebreaker go for these days?
Al Gore: The dumbest Whack a Mole of the global warming alarmist community.
Isn’t there a cell with this frauds name onit?
“For there to be any evidence that CO2 density in the atmosphere is the sole/most important driver of global temperatures it needs either of two things:”
No one thinks CO2 is the sole thing that affects global temperatures (this fallacy recurs in your thinking below). “Most important” is also an ambiguous framing. “The likely cause of recent warming and the potential source of significant (several degrees) warming in the future” might be another way to say it.
“1. A defined relationship between CO2 and temperature that allows for predictions, which are subsequently observed to be accurate;
2. Historical records that support temperature being driven by CO2 densities.
Clearly the first is a none starte as we’ve just had 15 years of statistically insignificant warming while CO2 has risen steadily;”
Both the facts and the logic of your statement are flawed. In fact, the last decade was the warmest on record, and the decade-on-decade trend is strongly positive and significant. While you can’t pull it out of a noisy signal using just fifteen years of data, we fortunately have more than 15 years of data, with which we can demonstrate a warming trend.
As for the logic: temperatures need to rise in lockstep with CO2 only if nothing else affects global temperatures. Since we know that is not the case, we shouldn’t expect a one-to-one correlation between rising CO2 and global temperatures. What we would expect is a positive long-term trend in temperatures, to accompany a positive long-term trend in CO2, which is exactly what we see.
“There is no historical relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice-core records.”
You are absolutely wrong on that. See here: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/Storms_Fig.03.gif
There is an unmistakable relationship.
“Moreover, we had a Mediaeval Warm Period and a Little Ice age in the last thousand years. Clearly the climate has it’s own agenda.”
Because the climate responds to things other than anthropogenic forcings, it doesn’t follow that anthropogenic forces are insignificant. Everybody’s going to die of old age; that doesn’t mean I can’t kill them by hitting them with my car.
who in their right mind other than Al Gore could possibly believe that the Arctic and Anarctic will be free of ice in three to twenty years time? How much more of this unbelievable rubbish is going to be put out by Gore et al in their growing desperation to hold on to their beliefs, the foundations for which are crumbling at an ever increasing rate?
George Lawson (10:34:01) :
who in their right mind other than Al Gore could possibly believe that the Arctic and Anarctic will be free of ice in three to twenty years time? (…)
Just about anything is possible with the right conditions. I believe both regions could be ice free within one week, just takes a large enough solar flare. Within one day, if the sun blows up.
You know, it really is a shame that we are not properly set up to observe and analyze such events. Perhaps we should do something about that, for the sake of the science.