The Guardian sees the light on wind driven Arctic ice loss

First, we pointed this out quite some time ago. See: Winds are Dominant Cause of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet Losses and also NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Second I’m pleased to see the Guardian finally catching on.You can watch wind patterns in this time lapse animation:

Animation of Arctic sea-ice being pushed by wind patterns - CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW ANIMATION- Above image is not part of original story, but included to demonstrate the issue. Note that the animation is large, about 7 MB and may take awhile to load on your computer. It is worth the wait Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

From the Guardian:

Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds

New research does not question climate change is also melting ice in the Arctic, but finds wind patterns explain steep decline.

Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.

Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.

The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate “tipping point” that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.

The new findings also help to explain the massive loss of Arctic ice seen in the summers of 2007-08, which prompted suggestions that the summertime Arctic Ocean could be ice-free withing a decade. About half of the variation in maximum ice loss each September is down to changes in wind patterns, the study says.

Masayo Ogi, a scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, and her colleagues, looked at records of how winds have behaved across the Arctic since satellite measurements of ice extent there began in 1979.

They found that changes in wind patterns, such as summertime winds that blow clockwise around the Beaufort Sea, seemed to coincide with years where sea ice loss was highest.

Writing in a paper to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists suggest these winds have blown large amounts of Arctic ice south through the Fram Strait, which passes between Greenland and the Norwegian islands of Svalbard, and leads to the warmer waters of the north Atlantic. These winds have increased recently, which could help explain the apparent acceleration in ice loss.

read the complete story at the Guardian

Advertisements

159 thoughts on “The Guardian sees the light on wind driven Arctic ice loss

  1. Come ON, surface temperatures have NOT diminished the ice cover. The change is NOT that major.

    Undersea currents have! And, as noted, the winds.

    Has the ocean warmed up that much? No, it’s redistributed its energy.

    Max

  2. Hey, you know what? That study also doesn’t question my assertion that The Guardian is also melting Arctic ice, either. So this study fully supports my assertion that The Guardian is to blame for the melting prolonged!

  3. … or “prolonged melting”… I blame The Guardian editors for the error in my above post. The study also doesn’t question the Guardian’s involvement in my editorial snafu, so the science backs me up there as well.

  4. What does drive winds?…pressure differences?, then, what does drive pressures?, we must find the “primum mobile” and just don’t care if finding the answer causes some undesired psychic reactions among settled scientists..

  5. For the record, Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent is currently slightly below average:


    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    And Global Sea Ice Area is average:

    I think that Antarctic Sea Ice Area is currently slightly above average;

    but NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice Extent now seems to contradict that.

    Does anyone know if NSIDC might be having satellite issues again?

  6. Sorry but this is just a poorly presented story. It was known and widely discussed in 2007 while the melt season was underway that the unusual melt pattern of that year was due to ice being flushed out of the Fram Strait by winds and currents.

    Old ice was also being flushed out during the winter contributing to the extremely low levels of thick old ice in the summer months.

    This story is acting like this is new information. Its not. However similar wind patterns have set them self up over the past 30 years and not caused the ice melt. The reason that the winds were able to remove so much sea ice is that the ice had thinned to the point where it was much more able to be moved around and to a lesser extent the collapse of the ice arches in the Canadian archipelago.

    The whole thing with the wind is that the arctic sea ice coverage decline is non linear, it is not just responding to changes in temperature but has thresholds where other factors can play more of a role, things like the wind.

    Should also be worth noting that while the wind pattern is less conducive to melting this year there has been significant ice loss during the freeze season in the regions of the Barent and Kara seas. Together with the much later freezing in other areas such as the Hudson bay (I think that only completely froze somewhere round the 3rd of December) and the warm waters to the west of Greenland this melt season will be very instructive in how the ice cap is responding to the warming.

  7. From all the arguments the melting polar caps and glaciers are the most persistent to tackle during private discussions among family and friends.

    It’s not that the people I speak with are convinced warmists, they simply picked up the information and took it for granted.

    Therefore it’s a good thing to bring out the true story as much as we can.

    We all know the risks of an uninformed public.
    Let alone the risks of a misinformed public!

  8. They’ve also just given themselves room to yawn if/when Steve and Anthony are proven right late this summer. I can see the airy waving of the hand in dismissal coming already –“oh, right, natural variation recovery on the winds thing –the core AGW rate is still downwards tho, and that’s what matters.”

    Isn’t it lovely how they get to have it both ways –panic in 2007 and dismissal in 2010.

  9. It is interesting that a left wing newspaper is starting to see the reality of natural climate change driven by natural cycles.
    The UK conservatives are fully commited members of the AGW fraud despite the growing opposition and sceptisism of the public.The conservatives are simply basing their entire economic,social and enviromental policies on the AGW fraud and in effect they are building a very rickety house of cards built on quicksand.
    It looks like the conservatives will win the election and if they do the left would have the utterly perfect opportunity to savage the new conservative administration from the start.
    We could be seeing the start of a new political alignment with the labour party reverting back to a wholly left wing base in opposition and the left wing media taking over the sceptics case as a perfect ready made an popular attack platform exposing the big business/banker/carpet bagging carbon trading/money grubbing fraud that has so infected modern politics.
    We are seeing the start of the reformation of the labour party already, with an electoral defeat the left would have the perfect opportunity to rebuild its shattered base with a public sick to death of the lies and fraud of the AGW money making circus.

    Expect to see a surge of leftist media sceptisism post election highlighting the links between big business and the AGW theory. In fact it would be a very clever move by the left to build an anti conservative base and the conservatives are extremely vulnerable to any sustained attack from that angle and it would be hugely popular with the public.

  10. The winds were caused by CO2 from humans. This confirms warming. Less wind will also confirm global warming.

  11. A tropical paradise the Arctic is not.
    Ice, cold and fierce winds.
    I wonder if Gore is busy building himself an Ark, after watching 2012?

  12. I’m not sure what the biggest story is- The decline in sea ice largely due to wind patterns, or the Guardian publishing it.
    Now if it had been on the BBC 6 o’clock news that would have been something.

  13. Click daily image,
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    we are now within 2 std deviations away from “normal”, or what they call normal, 1979-2000. Realizing we could now be at the same ice amt found in the mid 1940’s, except no one measured then. Nothing could be better than to get back to normal or close to it this year.

  14. They have admitted the Arctic Ocean is not completely closed off, and every now and then it gets swirled around and old ice gets flushed out.

    Shocking, isn’t it?

    How old is the oldest sea ice they can find up there anyway? If, as the CAGW believers appear to assume, an ice-free Arctic Ocean is an extremely rare event, one could say it’d be unprecedented, shouldn’t there be ice that is decades old, perhaps even centuries old?

  15. What I don’t get is the apparent pairing of North and South ocean ice patterns. If wind is the mechanism in the North, presumably it also is in the South. But is there a detectable relationship between the winds at the two caps that would explain the remarkable regularity with which rises in the North correspond to falls in the South (in sea ice extent)? I note that, since accurate records began there has not been a year in which GLOBAL sea ice has not been both above the baseline period average and below it for portions of the year — this despite the fact that in the north the sea ice coverage has spent an extended period of several entire years below the baseline average. On the very day in 2007 the northern icecap reached its “lowest extent on record” the Southern cap reached its highest extent on record.

    Given the hemispherical volatility of hemispherical sea ice coverage and the stability of global coverage, one should be led to seek a mechanism that correlates the two. It would be easy to say “heat redistribution” but clearly that’s not it, especially if the dominant factor is wind. Is there a working hypothesis? Are there climatologists paying attention to this connection?

  16. It wasn’t mentioned in the story, but the phases of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) impact the predominant wind direction. When it’s in a positive phase there is low pressure in the Arctic and the winds swirl clockwise and speed ice loss. The lower pressure and wind pattern also allows more warm Atlantic water incursion into the Arctic Ocean.

    Hopefully we see more negative phase AO this summer and it reduces the ice loss.

  17. i wonder what all need to be discovered before they get a critical mass to disabuse the bozos of this AGW mantra. Climate changes. Yes, IT DOES. That is only constant about climate

  18. Marx Hugoson (11:10:55) said:

    Come ON, surface temperatures have NOT diminished the ice cover. The change is NOT that major.

    Undersea currents have! And, as noted, the winds.

    Has the ocean warmed up that much? No, it’s redistributed its energy.

    Max

    If you have been listening to Anu, you would know that the inexorable rise in Ocean Heat Content will melt all the Arctic ice and then steam us all alive.

    Haven’t you been listening?

  19. Well why do they have to couch it in such CYA language. Why not just a plain; “we had it wrong; the wind blew the ice out !”

    Everybody seems to want to hedge their bets.

    I spent the weekend in the Stanford U Book store, looking for Physics texts, to learn something about Infra-red Molecular Spectroscopy. They had plenty of BS books; like Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Impossible.” and similar crappola; but not much on applicable physics for climate understanding.

    Finally found for $21, “General Chemistry” by some chap called Linus Pauling. Turns out I once hear a live lecture by Pauling at the UofA; and what a memorable treat that was; all about the molecular causes of sickle cell anemia.
    But Back to stanford; it seems that infra-red molecular spectroscopy is taught in Physical Chemistry; and Pauling has enough to get one started.
    So then I bought the current Physical Chemistry assigned Textbook for the current semester.
    So these guys go in to the oscillation modes of molecules including CO2. So for good measure they throw in a comment on “Global Warming”.
    CO2 is steadily increasing under man’s watchful eye; but water vapor has always been a constant on earth; so ti is the CO2 that is making it uncomfortably warm so we have to do something about it.
    Hey whatever happened to the computer modellers saying that they didn’t include clouds properly because the water wasn’t permanent and it was too variable; and falls out quickly; whereas CO2 lasts forever once up there.

    So let’s ignore Wentz et al; “How Much more Rain will Global Warming bring?” SCIENCE July-7,-2007 which shows that atmospheric water goes up 7% per one deg C rise in mean global surface area.

    So much for it being a universal constant.

    So are these two authors just plain crooks; or are they dumber than a box of rocks for assuming that just because CO2 is increasing, and it is a GHG absorbing LWIR, that we muct be in trouble. Are these guys too stupid to not think there might be other effects that will maybe stop CO2 warming in its tracks; like CLOUDS for example.

    I don’t like calling people crooks; well except AlGore; specially not “Scientists”; so that leaves stupid; unless there’s a third option.
    Well I suppose there is; there’s always Ignorant to fall back on.

    But how can you write a very fine College Txtbook; and thank 146 other scientists from universities all over the world for their advice and input for the book; which is in its 9th edition; so likely is well known; and never ever hear the word CLOUD; leading you to suggest to your readers that cO2 warming must go on forever unchecked by anything.

    Not to mention that the earth’s temperature seems to be unable to exceed +22 deg C, and that life has flourished for millions of years at such mean global temperatures (if you can believe the proxies).

    Well anyway; it seems like the Chemists know more than the Physicists.

    Maybe the Guardian can get smart if they are waking up to the wind.

    The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157. It’s a bit easier to read; but that’s the most I have ever spent on any Book. I wouldn’t even pay that much for a complete set of the Prose Works of Richard Wagner; well assuming I could even find a copy.

  20. Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.

    Even at the most simplistic reading this is yet another study backing up the consensus on warming. Why commenters here think it challenges that is genuinely bemusing.

  21. George E. Smith (12:02:59) : The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157.

    College textbooks are 200 smackers here, and also they are vacuum wrapt so you cannot look at it before you buy it. So I guess they think we were all born yesterday.

  22. Only 10% of the ice is exposed to the wind and 90% to the sea currents. Granted, wind is much faster but the water is ~722.5 times heavier than air, so wind has to be 722 * 9 (90% vs 10%) ~6500 faster than ocean current to exert same force. Assume speed of the Arctic gyres surface current at say modest 5cm/sec, equivalent wind speed is 32500cm/sec or 325m/s which is just under speed of sound or 1170miles/h, not a likely scenario. Thus conclusion must be that currents are the critical factor.

  23. R.Craigen.
    Svensmark hypothesises about the polar anomaly in his book The Chilling Stars, essentially the change in cloud cover and albedo affects each pole differently. Sadly,I’m in no position to comment on the veracity of his theory, but no doubt some of our clever readers will, if we are lucky.

    By the way, how is Svensmark and his pacemaker?

  24. Quote from H. Lamb, “Climate Present, Past, and Future,” vol. 2 page 516:

    “There was a period of severe ice on the SE coast of Greenland even in the spring of 1938 owing to the exceptional rapidity of the outflow of ice from near the North Pole (fig. 7.4 vol. 1). The late summer of that year saw the most extensive open water ever known north of the coast of Asia.”

    It seems as though someone was measuring the ice in 1938. I’ll see if I can find vol. 1.

  25. Didn’t some WUWT poster a year or so ago laboriously aggregate a years NSIDC images and demonstrate the swirling discharge of ice from the arctic in 2007? Now some eggheads have plagiarized this and published a peer-reviewed paper on their discovery (of WUWT)!!! Why are we so delighted about this. We should be sending the old posting to the journal with a cover “We was robbed!” Anyway, there is some consolation I guess that the #1 science blog beat them to this and to a heck of a lot of other things as well.

    [Reply: click on the picture in the article. ~dbs, mod.]

  26. Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.

  27. Well of course it doesn’t question ‘Climate Change’, bet it doesn’t question the grassy knoll theory or alien bodies at Area 51 either.

    Anyone waiting for the Guardian or other media outlets to come out and say, “WE WERE WRONG ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING”, is going to wait a very long time. They’ll do what they usually do, articles such as this showing alternative explanations while posting ‘not questioning AGW’ as part of the tag line, followed over time by fewer and fewer and references to “Global Warming’, until eventually they simply don’t mention it at all and they’ll latch on to some other ‘we’re all gonna die’ problem. 20 years from now they’ll say, “Global What?”, just like they did with the ‘Coming Ice Age’ in the 70’s

  28. VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :

    Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.

    Even at the most simplistic reading this is yet another study backing up the consensus on warming. Why commenters here think it challenges that is genuinely bemusing.
    =============

    Seems like a ‘jump to conclusion’ on your part. It isn’t necessarily true that because changing wind patterns explain 1/3 of the decline that the remaining 2/3 is due to ‘global warming’ (whatever that may actually mean). The rest could be seasonal variation or increased soot rather than increased temperatures in the Arctic (I’m not certain but I don’t think higher temps in Tuvalu would necessarily melt more ice in the Arctic), who knows?

  29. George E. Smith (12:02:59) : The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157.
    That shows that a genius like Linus Pauling needed less words, “spinned” knowledge is more confusing and expensive. BTW You paid $7.50 more than the Amazon’s price.

  30. Looking at the sea ice graphs it seems to me that ice extent at this time of year means very little. 2006 had somewhat less ice than normal at this time of year but a large ice cover in summer. 2008 was the opposite. Regardless of what happens in summer looking at the graphs you can see that sea ice extent recovers to approximately the same starting point each winter.

    Several posts here have gloated about sea ice recovering as if it were now inevitable that sea ice would continue to increase. However we really have no idea what kind of ice cover to expect this coming summer as it completely depends on what wind patterns we get.

    Yes sea ice levels now are slightly above average for the short period we’ve been able to measure directly, but that means nothing. Given a repeat of the wind pattern of 2007 a repeat of the very low ice levels of that year is entirely possible. You can imagine the rhetoric that would accompany such an event.

    The fact that winds are the immediate mechanism for the ice clearout doesn’t completely settle the argument for me. What causes those wind patterns? Has there been some shift in the climate that increases the probability of such an event?

    The climate definitely has warmed over the last half century. We are still a lot cooler than the Roman warm period though, which seems to have been a rather pleasant climate for human beings. This raises the question of what the arctic was doing at that time.

    I seem to dimly recall some mysterious ancient maps that show the North coastline of Russia in detail. Daniken mentioned this I believe as one of his supposed relics from ancient space visitations, with the idea being that you couldn’t map this coastline because of the ice so it must OBVIOUSLY have been done from orbit by visiting friendly aliens. However I’ve been unable to dig up a modern reference to this map. Is my memory playing me false or does such a relic exist.

  31. I suppose that, coming from the imbeciles at the Grauniad, this should be something to gladden the heart.

    Not today.

  32. Vuk etc. (12:25:52) :Great!….and the heat capacity of water is 4.186 joules and air is 0.001297, this is= 3227.4479568234387047031611410948 times.
    Most surely climate modellers have their brains filled with air if not empty at all.

  33. dorlomin (11:35:03) : If you’d been paying attention, you’d have noticed that what is new here is the fact that the Grauniad has printed an article that dispels a common alarmist notion regarding why the 2007 ice extent dropped so much.

    As for ice thickness, see the animation.

  34. Global Warming/Climate Change is going to just fade away as time goes on. However, ocean acidification caused by CO2 is next on the agenda. The real or imagined damage will be touted as the worst catastrophe in the history of mankind.

  35. Above image is not part of original story, but included to demonstrate the issue.

    Darn. I was so hoping an animated cartoon page was under development…

  36. Philhippos (12:43:37) : “If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.”

    Not really. CO2 has a couple of spectral bands where it’s opaque. Humans don’t have receptors in those bands, so we can’t see any “color.” You need to do more homework if you’re going to post OT speculation. Google carbon dioxide, spectral absorption.

  37. Bill Marsh (12:47:39) :
    Well of course it doesn’t question ‘Climate Change’, bet it doesn’t question the grassy knoll theory or alien bodies at Area 51 either.

    They moved the alien bodies to Hangar 12 at Wright-Patterson in the ’60s.

    I thought *everybody* knew that…

  38. VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :
    Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.

    Even at the most simplistic reading this is yet another study backing up the consensus on warming. Why commenters here think it challenges that is genuinely bemusing.

    To relieve your bemusement I would suggest you reference this paper

    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/research_seaiceageextent.html

    and this animation that the authors created to illustrate their point

    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/animations/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg

    Here is their description of that animation

    This animation of the age of sea ice shows:
    1.) A large Beaufort Gyre which covers most of the Arctic Ocean during the 1980s, and a transpolar drift stream shifted towards the Eurasian Arctic. Older, thicker sea ice (white ice) covers about 80% of the Arctic Ocean up to 1988. The date is shown in the upper left corner.
    2.) With the step to high-AO conditions in 1989, the Beaufort Gyre shrinks and is confined to the corner between Alaska and Canada. The Transpolar Drift Stream now sweeps across most of the Arctic Ocean, carrying most of the older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait (lower right). By 1990, only about 30% of the Arctic Ocean is covered by older thicker sea ice.
    3.) During the high-AO years that follow (1991 and on), this younger thinner sea ice is shown to recirculated back to the Alaskan coast where extensive open water has been observed during summer.
    The age of sea ice drifting towards the coast explains over 50% of the variance in summer sea ice extent (compared to less than 15% of the variance explained by the seasonal redistribution of sea ice, and advection of heat by summer winds).

    You may want to take note of that last sentence. You may also note that these folks are employed at the University of Washington, not exactly a hotbed of CAGW skepticism.

  39. “”” Philhippos (12:43:37) :

    Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant. “””

    Well in order to have a color it would need to be reflective (or emissive) somewhere in the visible spectrum, since color is a special property of the human eye. We have no idea what “visible radiation” looks like to any other species.

    We don’t seem to be able to see any other component of the earth atmosphere either; including water vapor, which is far more prevalent and energy absorptive than CO2, so I would say the answer is no.

    But then I don’t expect we can see Hydrogen Cyanide either; whcih doesn’t mean it won’t do anything bad.

    But CO2 is one moleculae out of 2577 in the atmosphere (at present) while Boron or Phosphorous atoms are between one in ten million and one in 50,000 in the silicon chips in your computer; so would you think they are irrelevent to the proper operation of your computer ?

    Not a good argument to try and make.

  40. The Arctic is comprised of many topographical climate zones. It is best to see it, and study it, not as one entity but as several. Issues relevant to the discussion would be fresh water sources, land proximity, weather shadows, currents coincident with wind patterns, seabed topography, degree of axial tilt in each climate zone GPS address, and pressure systems such as those that affect not only the AO, but local weather variability that determines local wind direction/speed, etc. The Arctic isn’t melting, only pieces of it are. And only pieces re-build. The goodies are in which pieces. These individual areas correlate with local seasonal weather pattern variability and larger oscillations quite well.

  41. Cassandra King.
    Here in Scotland today a pre pre election blurb running to six pages with a number of policy headings and views propounded by David Cameron, National Conservative leader, together with the Scottish Conservative Leader and my constituency MP, avoided any reference, direct or oblique, to AGW, CC, or any other of it’s continually changing names.
    For the time being, at least until the election is over, neither oposition nor Gov dare speak it’s name!

  42. “”” Enneagram (13:03:11) :

    George E. Smith (12:02:59) : The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157.
    That shows that a genius like Linus Pauling needed less words, “spinned” knowledge is more confusing and expensive. BTW You paid $7.50 more than the Amazon’s price. “””

    Yeah but at Amazon.com, they don’t let me sit on the floor for two hours reading their books to see if there is anything in them I want. I never would have located either book at Amazon.

    Yes I could have looked at them at Stanford; and then ordered them on line; would even have saved California’s punitive 10% sales tax; but then I would have to lie to the Cal tax man on my next year’s tax return; the Stanford book store would close down; and I wouldn’t know what to order from Amazon. Otherwise it is a great idea.

    PS, I’m not registered for anything at Stanford; so it is their generosity as a Private Institution to even let me on their campus.

  43. Bill Tuttle (13:23:20) :
    They moved the alien bodies to Hangar 12 at Wright-Patterson in the ’60s

    Among these a peculiar specimen which they named “Al Gore”. I thought everybody knew that…

  44. “”” Enneagram (13:03:11) :

    George E. Smith (12:02:59) : The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157.
    That shows that a genius like Linus Pauling needed less words, “spinned” knowledge is more confusing and expensive. BTW You paid $7.50 more than the Amazon’s price. “””

    Well luckily, the Linus Pauling was a paperback; and was in the main floor science section; along with “Quantum Chromodynamics for dummies”. Interestingly half the books on the main floor were 50% off. Also the Political Science section had 100 books for each title in the Physics section including the Colelge text section. Which probably proves that Political Science is hardly a science at all; merely opinion.

    The “Women’s Studies” section had ten times the Physics or Chemistry sections. Mostly about male violence.

  45. You mean the winds are changing along with the temps, sounds like climate change to me. As far as CO2, green house gases are only 2% of the atmosphere BUT greenhouse gases account for 60% of the heat trapping gases.

  46. Of course it was the wind…

    AND the heat…

    AND the currents.

    Here’s some closing lyrics from a nice little song called “Nothing But the Wind”:

    There is so much between heaven and earth
    How can you declare that it has no worth
    The tyrant within you is your only hint
    He makes you believe that it’s all nothing but the wind

    Full song can be found at:

    http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/golden_dawn/nothing_but_the_wind.html

    ____

    True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.

  47. son of mulder (12:28:18) :
    So how does this affect the outlook for Polar bears?

    Badly. They keep getting blown out to sea and into the Atlantic. Shipping is on alert to watch for hungry bears that might climb aboard looking for a meal.

  48. VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :
    Hello, anyone read the article ?
    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”
    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.
    Even at the most simplistic reading this is yet another study backing up the consensus on warming. Why commenters here think it challenges that is genuinely bemusing.

    Hello, anyone read the graph:

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    Eyeballing, The Arctic is about 100,000 km from normal and still rising. Does that challenge your consensus? You must be very tall because it’s obvious your head is in the clouds.

  49. The unbeatable logic of Joe Bastard!

    I have my own “channel.” Today’s interesting video shows how the warmth that the GISS data shows doesn’t jive with the global sea ice. If it’s so darn warm, how is it there is so much ice? In fact, Southern Hemisphere sea ice, in spite of Goddard showing it warm down there, had the least ice melt in their summer than I have seen on the whole graph on the cryosphere today. And as warm as the arctic was, how is sea ice so close to normal?

    The answers are simple. We have only been using satellite data since the late 1970s, they have readjusted temps they use down since they are showing a mean all the way back to 1950. If it’s this warm, then why is ice so high? Well the only way it can be so warm… against the 60-year means, is it had to be colder before. But if that is the case, why is there so much ice?

    You see folks, you can’t change the way you measure things and say it’s the same thing. It’s the reason tree ring proxies aren’t the real deal.

    In any case, something does not jive, so take a look at that.

    http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi

  50. In re my comment above Dave Wendt (13:23:36) : the sea ice drift maps at DMI

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift/index.uk.php

    suggest, to my eye at least, that the Beaufort Gyre may be returning to a status similar to the pattern from the 80s when old ice dominated the western Arctic, perhaps in response to changes in the AO. It’s really too early to tell if this shift is real, but if it should develop and persist, it would suggest a stronger recovery of the Arctic ice going forward, regardless of any trends in Arctic temps.

  51. But of course the Guardian can’t bring themselves to start the who article out by saying”New research does not question climate change is also melting ice in the Arctic…..”.

    They still cling to their AGW cross.

  52. Tim,

    Actually, I was thinking the arctic might possibly rise above it’s 6 year mark of not being in a positive anomaly state this spring…it actually about 200,000 sq. km below normal right now for this time of year, but it still could push over into the positive range…depends on how fast the spring melt kicks in. I really believed that the deep solar minimum and the negative AO index of the winter would push the arctic sea ice into the positive range…we’ll see.

    Even if it does slip into the positive range, I still think we’ll have a strong melt season this year, as the the water near Greenland is very warm, and the ice will melt fast on that side of the arctic. I don’t see anything changing the longer term trend of the arctic being in a long slow spiral toward lower and lower year-to-year sea ice, and I still believe that AGW is likely correct and the arctic will be ice free in the summer this century, perhaps as early as 2030.

  53. VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :

    “Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    “Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for February, but 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in February 2005. ”

    Artic sea ice appears to be growing at the moment, I suppose the AGW crowd could claim it’s due to warming.

  54. R. Gates (13:45:16) wrote: “True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.”

    There is some truth to what you wrote.

    And, as I recall from previous threads that you claim to be (if my memory serves me) 75% AGW “warmist” and 25% “skeptic”.

    Problem with your claim: I never see comments where you entertain the skeptical side your intellect. So, I end up wondering if that is somekind of ruse so you can possibly be more persuasive for the AGW position.

    Now, R Gates, you can alleviate my concern if you would provide some detail or give some insight to the 25% “skepic” part of your intellect.

    Since, you have taken to commenting, here, on a skepical website (which is a good thing), I’m sure other readers would be also interested an explanation of how you figure on the 75% / 25% split of your intellect.

  55. The Guardian environment team seem to be “challenged” when it comes to reading numbers.

    They link to the source of their graph as http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ but manage not to read the caption of that graph.

    Figure 3. Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.9% per decade.
    —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

    They manage to report this as 10% / decade !!

    This confirms the idea someone posted above that The Guardian are responsible for climate change. About 2/3 of it in this case.

    Last September a similar article managed to report a 18% reduction in arctic sea ice as only 18% remaining.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/16/ocean-temperature-el-nino-noaa
    “Sea ice covered an average of 6.3m sq kilometres (2.42m sq miles) during August, according to the national snow and ice data centre. That was 18.4% the 1979-2000 average”

    No, sorry that was 18% LESS THAN the 1979-2000 average.

    So if we plot a trend in The Guardian’s exaggeration of climate data we see a fall from a factor of 4 to factor of 3 in just 5 months ( 5% per month or 120% per decade ). This is a statistically significant change and suggests that they could achieve accurate reporting around before 2020.

  56. George E. Smith (12:02:59) :
    Re: “General Chemistry by some chap called Linus Pauling”

    It is nice to know that in this virtual world there are still people who prefer solid printed book to CRT, LCD or whatever some of us stare for a few good hours on weekly if not daily bases.
    Despite everything Google occasionally still deserves some praise:
    “General Chemistry” by Linus Pauling is available (or most of it) now in the Google books library:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=General+Chemistry++Linus+Pauling.&source=bl&ots=PHSGmpC0Q-&sig=JJB-jWIYj2EIBFPbGNWIJiCvvPA&hl=en&ei=FuGnS46lOMOOjAelp8CjDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Since I mentioned CRTs, LCDs etc may also add :
    To Dr. George Elwood Smith of the CCD fame, I am evermore grateful for ending (part of) 15 tedious years of my working life; setting the operating parameters of plumbicon, leddicon and saticon tubes. My thanks, gratitude and greatest respect for Dr. George Elwood Smith.

  57. But, according the other alarming article posted on WUWT now, all this wind is apparently causing the flowers on the ice cap to lose their scent!

    Its catastrophic for the polar bees. Call the EPA ASAP!

  58. R. Gates (13:45:16):

    True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.

    Now for the deconstruction:

    Scientific skeptics are not “true believers.” Skeptics simply ask for the data, code and methods showing that a conjecture or hypothesis explains reality better than an alternative conjecture or hypothesis.

    In the case of the CAGW hypothesis [sorry, it’s not a theory], the only folks 100% certain of their beliefs are the true believers. Skeptics simply want access to the original raw data, the code and the methodologies used to support catastrophic AGW, so they can reproduce the results claimed. That’s how the scientific method works.

    But the methods and raw data/evidence are kept secret, so other scientists are unable to reproduce and test the hypothesis. That information should be publicly archived on the internet, a much easier task than in Einstein’s day.

    Instead, every impromptu excuse is employed to avoid letting other scientists test the CAGW hypothesis through replication.

    Since the Climategate emails show that CRU scientists gave the requested information to their pals, but refused the same information to others on various, shifting grounds, the only plausible conclusion is that the CRU scientists [including Michael Mann] knew that either their conclusions would be promptly falsified, or that their work was so sloppy and incompetent that it would be disastrous to open it to the public that paid for it. Probably both.

    So the similarities claimed between the CAGW true believer cult and skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] is false. Skeptics demand that the scientific method must be followed, while the alarmists — who have raked in enormous amounts of grant money by peddling their alarmism — refuse to abide by the scientific method.

    As Dr Richard Feynman repeatedly made clear, scientists proposing a hypothesis also have the obligation to show how and why it might be false. Has anyone ever heard the promoters of CAGW give reasons why the climate could be entirely explained by natural variability? Or given other reasons that their catastrophic predictions might be false?

    A good example is the current arm-waving over Arctic ice cover. Two things clearly falsify the alarmism implicit in focusing exclusively on the Arctic: first, the fact that the Antarctic doesn’t support alarmism about the Arctic; neither does global ice cover. It’s all Arctic, all the time. And second: because natural variability in the Holocene shows that the current climate is nothing unusual. In fact, the current climate is extremely benign.

    There are additional reasons to suspect the CAGW hypothesis, but no contrary reasons are ever proposed by the alarmists. They reject the scientific method because they are paid to do so. There is little grant money available to scientific skeptics — who are not skeptical of a human influence on the climate, but rather, they question its importance and extent.

    The evidence points to the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 being significantly less than one, meaning that there is little to be concerned with rising CO2. In fact, the planet bears this out. And if CO2 is in reality an insignificant factor in the climate, then there is no reason to throw more money at something that is minor, and which could well be beneficial.

    Scientific skeptics are generally immune from the cognitive dissonance that plagues alarmists, because skeptics have no hypothesis or belief system to promote. Skeptics simply want to be able to validate the conclusions of those pushing CAGW. They want to see exactly how the conclusions were arrived at. But because they are refused access to the methods, code and raw data employed [if it even exists], skeptical scientists are prevented from doing their job, and the scientific method has been relegated to the trash bin.

  59. Re VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :…

    Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”

    Yes tall guy, (related to tall bloke?) the warming that normaly comes in the summer!! We can all make assumptions. How much of the melt came from changing ocean currents?

  60. Somewhat O/T.

    We frequently hear about how much colder the climate would be if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect. I’m curious as to how much warmer it would be if it weren’t for all the water and the subsequent water cycle.

  61. VeryTallGuy (12:15:38):
    “Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”

    ————–
    And what caused the warming? Co2, aerosols, other factors or a combination?

    “…new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.”

    “…aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

    And all this from a pro-warming agency!!!

  62. Smokey (14:54:45) presented R. Gates (13:45:16) statement:

    “True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.”

    And, then proceeded to deconstruct the statement.

    Smokey, that was one of the best deconstructions (or should I say “demolitions”) I’ve read here.

    An absolute smack-down in my humble opinion.

    I’d be curious what R. Gates response is to your deconstruction (as I’d be interested in his response to my request).

    Smokey, I have to hand it to you — your demolition was much better than my inquiry into R. Gates split personality — oops — I mean split intellect :-)

  63. Re R. Gates (13:45:16)
    ____?True Believers on both sides of the AGW issue, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, in as much as they are 100% certain of their position, that certainty is the tyrant within.”

    Smokey answered you well and I cannot exceed his answer except in brevity. True skeptics say “We (the current state of scientific understanding) do not know the extent of AGW or the benefits vs the negative impacts, therefore we do not wish to enact worldwide political change and taxes with numerous known negative consequences.

  64. worth reading the comments to both; never forget CAGW is a bipartisan scam:

    22 March: UK Tele: Geoffrey Lean: Good news as research suggests global warming does not directly cause all the melting of Arctic ice
    Yet it is very good news if indeed it proves to be true that global warming is melting the icecap less quickly (and if it does not turn out, for example, that the alterations in wind patterns are not themselves linked to the climate change). And, counterintuitively, it would strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for action to tackle it. For if the ice were indeed to vanish in summer by 2013, the inertia built in the world’s natural systems would ensure that it would already be it would be already far too late . Instead we may have enough time to stop the complete melting taking place.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100030894/good-news-as-research-suggests-global-warming-is-not-directly-responsible-for-all-the-increased-melting-of-arctic-ice/

    22 March: NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: New Light Shed on North Pole Ice Trends
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/

  65. Ian H (13:06:42) :

    “….I seem to dimly recall some mysterious ancient maps that show the North coastline of Russia in detail. Daniken mentioned this I believe as one of his supposed relics from ancient space visitations, with the idea being that you couldn’t map this coastline because of the ice so it must OBVIOUSLY have been done from orbit by visiting friendly aliens. However I’ve been unable to dig up a modern reference to this map. Is my memory playing me false or does such a relic exist….”

    I remember this map.

    “..The Piri Reis map is a famous pre-modern world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman-Turkish admiral and cartographer Piri Reis. The half of the map that survives shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy…”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map

    Ed

  66. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042460.shtml

    Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS

    Shfaqat Abbas Khan

    DTU Space, Department of Geodesy, National Space Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark

    John Wahr

    Department of Physics and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Michael Bevis

    School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Isabella Velicogna

    Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

    Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

    Eric Kendrick

    School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Greenland’s main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade. Recent work has shown that Greenland’s mass loss is still increasing. Here we show that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005. We support this with two lines of evidence. One is based on measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite gravity mission, launched in March 2002. The other comes from continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock adjacent to the ice sheet. The GRACE results provide a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred km. The GPS data are used to monitor crustal uplift caused by ice mass loss close to the sites. The GRACE results can be used to predict crustal uplift, which can be compared with the GPS data. In addition to showing that the northwest ice sheet margin is now losing mass, the uplift results from both the GPS measurements and the GRACE predictions show rapid acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, followed by a moderate deceleration in 2006. Because that latter deceleration is weak, southeast Greenland still appears to be losing ice mass at a much higher rate than it was prior to fall 2003. In a more general sense, the analysis described here demonstrates that GPS uplift measurements can be used in combination with GRACE mass estimates to provide a better understanding of ongoing Greenland mass loss; an analysis approach that will become increasingly useful as long time spans of data accumulate from the 51 permanent GPS stations recently deployed around the edge of the ice sheet as part of the Greenland GPS Network (GNET).

    Received 10 January 2010; accepted 18 February 2010; published 19 March 2010.

    Citation: Khan, S. A., J. Wahr, M. Bevis, I. Velicogna, and E. Kendrick (2010), Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L06501, doi:10.1029/2010GL042460.

  67. In the Daily Mean Temperature graphs (posted by IBRAHIM, near the beginning of this thread) the area above the Melt line is very regular, varying only within a small range for a small number of days in each year, at high summer.

    During the winter months, the averages vary wildly from year to year, with quite startling departures from the “norm”.

    I am wondering what this pattern suggests about the way that temperature “anomalies” are popularly interpreted in the context of GW theorising?

    It seems like the winter months in some years would look “abnormally warm” relative to the usual pattern, and would significantly alter the yearly average, but would not so alter the proportion of the year spent above melting temperature, either in temperature or length of time above melt.

    This would feed a sense of alarm, in some obervers, even while remaining quite harmless.

    You can see these wild variations in some of the oldest data presented, so linking it to anthropogenic CO2 output would be the last of your worries.

  68. Philhippos (12:43:37) :
    Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.

    Yes, just like we can see the color of the low concentration impurities in sapphires, emeralds, rubies etc. which would otherwise be colorless.

  69. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/new-light-shed-on-north-pole-ice-trends/

    Ignatius Rigor bets:
    “As expected from my 2002 paper, the low A.O. conditions of late have sequestered quite a bit of sea ice the Arctic, which should foster a more moderate retreat of sea ice extent this coming spring, summer and fall. So if you apply a negative sign to the figure at the bottom of http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/AO/, I would expect colder than normal spring especially in the Eurasian Arctic, less retreat of sea ice this summer, then colder than normal this fall in the Eurasian Arctic…. Based solely on how high the A.O. has been this winter, I would expect higher sea-ice extents, or less retreat across most of the Arctic seas. Of course, what happens this summer is important, but I think the sea ice is conditioned for a colder, and more extensive sea ice during the next couple of seasons. “

  70. @VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :

    “Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.”
    [etc]

    – – – – – – – –

    Decline in sea ice extent due to Arctic winds is not warming? Or did you mean to say global warming? For the other two thirds (assuming you meant global warming), you are forgetting warm ocean currents, which can warm an entire region several degrees in excess of the amount of any global warming that exists. Warming due to warm ocean currents is regional warming, and is not global.

  71. There are maps showing Greenland as two separated islands, as it was confirmed by a polar French expedition which found out that there is an ice cap quite thick joining what it is actually two islands.

    http://www.nymapsociety.org/FEATURES/TRAGER.HTM
    for Columbus era maps of the new world with links. These look to have been drawn from older maps.

    Looks like someone might have gone on a voyage of exploration in the Roman Warm Period and the sea around Greenland was ice free at that time.

    Ed

  72. John Ryan (13:44:22) :

    “You mean the winds are changing along with the temps, sounds like climate change to me. As far as CO2, green house gases are only 2% of the atmosphere BUT greenhouse gases account for 60% of the heat trapping gases.”

    John, is water vapour a green house gas?

    If it is then what percentage of the heat trapping effect is it responsible for?

  73. Toyotawhizguy said:

    “Warming due to warm ocean currents is regional warming, and is not global.”
    ______
    This is an unproven assertion, not in line with the known global circulation of ocean currents…both in depth and extent.

  74. And, of course, they are still using 1979-2000 as a baseline. 1979-2009 is 30 years of data and would be a better sampling. That would bring current conditions even closer to “normal”, whatever that means.

  75. From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:

    • 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

    • 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

    • 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

    • 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

    • 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

    • 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

    • 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

    • 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

    • 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

    • 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

    • 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

    • 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

    • 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

    • 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

    • 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

    • 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

  76. @Phil. (16:35:11) :

    Philhippos (12:43:37) :
    Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.

    Yes, just like we can see the color of the low concentration impurities in sapphires, emeralds, rubies etc. which would otherwise be colorless.

    – – – – – – –

    Phil, I’d be hesitant to make that conclusion based on the physical properties of a solid, whereas CO2 is a gas, at least above -57 deg C. I have my doubts that the average person would be able to visually detect a colored gas at 380 ppmv. If you’d like to perform an experiment to get a much better idea about that [SEE CAUTION BELOW], bleed some Ozone from a lecture bottle into an air filled glovebox and adjust the Ozone concentration to 380 ppmv. Ozone is a pale blue gas. If you cannot see the Ozone at 380 ppmv, just keep increasing the concentration until you can. Just be sure to vent the exhaust port into the rear of a fume hood or to the outdoors, since concentrations above 0.1 ppmv can cause adverse reactions in some persons.
    Let’s see if we can convince “Mythbusters” to do the experiment for us, since most people don’t have this kind of equipment in the chemistry lab in their basement. :-)
    CAUTION: Kids, don’t do this at home, concentrated ozone is explosive!

  77. I’m totally agog over this. What great news! The wind is blowing out the rotten ice and new clean smelling ice is moving in just in time for the next great Catlin arctic explorers. Oh, I hope the new ice does smell new and has not lost it’s smell like the roses. The explorers need all the help they can get.

  78. George E. Smith (13:25:11) :
    “”” Philhippos (12:43:37) :

    Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant. “””

    Well in order to have a color it would need to be reflective (or emissive) somewhere in the visible spectrum, since color is a special property of the human eye. We have no idea what “visible radiation” looks like to any other species.

    We don’t seem to be able to see any other component of the earth atmosphere either; including water vapor, which is far more prevalent and energy absorptive than CO2, so I would say the answer is no.

    Put some iodine crystals in a flask and leave them to equilibrate at room temperature, and you should see a violet vapor (the vapor concentration is about the same as CO2 in the atmosphere).

  79. 22 March: BusinessWeek: Kim Chipman: Democratic Senators Push for Climate Bill This Year (Update1)
    Senators Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, have been working to craft climate- change and energy legislation after attempts by other lawmakers stalled in Congress last year. Graham said March 18 that a measure won’t be introduced until at least next month..
    The senators are being very constructive,” Bruce Josten, executive vice president, government affairs for the chamber (of Commerce), said in a statement. “They are trying to figure out how to make this work for the American economy.”
    The 22 senators today said that bipartisan legislation has the support of more than 80 of the largest manufacturers, businesses, national security experts, veterans’ groups, labor unions and religious organizations…
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/democratic-senators-urge-considering-climate-bill-this-year.html

  80. Mike,

    “Spread of ice mass loss into northwest Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS…”

    Do you have a point? Anybody can link to any website. Typically for WUWT, it’s customary, or at least courteous, to comment on the link referenced.

  81. pat (17:44:27) said:

    22 March: BusinessWeek: Kim Chipman: Democratic Senators Push for Climate Bill This Year (Update1)
    Senators Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, have been working to craft climate- change and energy legislation after attempts by other lawmakers stalled in Congress last year. Graham said March 18 that a measure won’t be introduced until at least next month..
    The senators are being very constructive,” Bruce Josten, executive vice president, government affairs for the chamber (of Commerce), said in a statement. “They are trying to figure out how to make this work for the American economy.”

    Yes, it’s always for the economy or the children or the baby polar bears.

  82. R. de Haan (14:05:11) :
    The unbeatable logic of Joe Bastard!

    I have my own “channel.” Today’s interesting video shows how the warmth that the GISS data shows doesn’t jive with the global sea ice. If it’s so darn warm, how is it there is so much ice?

    The recent minimum in global sea ice according to CT was the 3= lowest since 1979 and the lowest for three years.

    In fact, Southern Hemisphere sea ice, in spite of Goddard showing it warm down there, had the least ice melt in their summer than I have seen on the whole graph on the cryosphere today.

    I suggest you take a closer look, the ice melt this season was greater than last!

    And as warm as the arctic was, how is sea ice so close to normal?

    Because the winter temperature mainly controls the ice thickness and the extent is controlled by the landlocked nature of the Arctic.

  83. ScuzzaMan (16:22:47) :

    “In the Daily Mean Temperature graphs (posted by IBRAHIM, near the beginning of this thread) the area above the Melt line is very regular, varying only within a small range for a small number of days in each year, at high summer.

    During the winter months, the averages vary wildly from year to year, with quite startling departures from the “norm”.

    I am wondering what this pattern suggests about the way that temperature “anomalies” are popularly interpreted in the context of GW theorising?”

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Indeed. I’ve never understood why this simple fact is overlooked by the forecasters of imminent doom. The plot shows that for only about 70 days each summer the temperature in this region (above 80 degrees north) rises a degree or two above freezing, and this is a relatively stable pattern. Anomolous temperature swings are wilder and more frequent in winter, and these are the numbers that have a disproportionate effect on (what many of us laughingly call) the global average temperature, you know, the thing that others believe means that we’re all gonna fry sometime soon.

    For those in whom this elicits panic, I suggest you calm down. Whether ice is at -25C or -35C, it doesn’t care. Nothing changes, except perhaps the crystalline structure to some small extent. Melting is the furthest thing from its agenda.

    I think what gets people worked up is that when the temperature rises from “you’ll die unless you find shelter” to merely “freezing your nuts off”, it shows red on anomaly maps and makes simple folk think there’s a “hot spot” up there. To those who choose to believe that, I invite you to take a trip there and stand around for a while in your Speedos (aka budgie smugglers in Australia) and see how long you last.

    Given these ranges, it is clear that air temperature can only be a marginal factor in variations in sea-ice melt in high latitudes. The major culprit must be the sea, which is by definition above melting point, and when it is a couple of degrees above its own freezing point potentially contains enough heat to supply the required latent heat of fusion to melt the ice immersed in it. The issue then comes down to the currents and winds extant in the region at any point, and their capacity to move warmer water to where the ice is or shift the ice towards where the sea is slightly warmer. The specific heat of air is such that it doesn’t have the capacity to melt much ice until it has a few degrees of warmth in it.

    Wind direction and strength is in my view the most overlooked feature of climate, right up there with cloud cover. In Sydney, at the height of summer we often have 38C/100F + days caused by north westerly winds, gratefully terminated by a southerly change in the evening that drops the temperature by 15C in twenty minutes. The change of seasons too, as everywhere, is marked by shifts in the prevailing wind direction, which has as much effect on temperature as the insolation strength (including any supposed GHG radiative forcings) on any given day.

    Now my question is, what have wind conditions gotta do with any trace gas? I eagerly await proof from the warmosphere that there’s a connection.

  84. toyotawhizguy (17:27:09) :
    @Phil. (16:35:11) :

    Philhippos (12:43:37) :
    Not directly relevant to this item but I can’t get into Notes & Tips so I ask it here.

    My question is: If CO2 had a colour would we be able to see its presence in the air at its present or predicted concentrations? If, as I suspect not, then making this clear would help to convince many more people that it cannot be relevant.

    Yes, just like we can see the color of the low concentration impurities in sapphires, emeralds, rubies etc. which would otherwise be colorless.

    – – – – – – –

    Phil, I’d be hesitant to make that conclusion based on the physical properties of a solid,

    Why, the color is due to the presence of metal ions?

    whereas CO2 is a gas, at least above -57 deg C. I have my doubts that the average person would be able to visually detect a colored gas at 380 ppmv.

    I’m sure that most people would be able to see the color of iodine vapor at that concentration.

  85. gofer (17:26:18) :
    From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
    • 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

    How did they know?

  86. Bill Marsh (12:54:28) :
    VeryTallGuy (12:15:38) :

    Hello, anyone read the article ?

    “Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent”

    ie the other two thirds is due to warming.

    Even at the most simplistic reading this is yet another study backing up the consensus on warming. Why commenters here think it challenges that is genuinely bemusing.
    =============

    Seems like a ‘jump to conclusion’ on your part. It isn’t necessarily true that because changing wind patterns explain 1/3 of the decline that the remaining 2/3 is due to ‘global warming’ (whatever that may actually mean).

    A ‘jump to conclusion’ on your part actually, you were the one who first mentioned ‘global’!

  87. R. Gates (16:52:33)

    “This is an unproven assertion, not in line with the known global circulation of ocean currents…both in depth and extent.”

    Since as Bob Tisdale asserts, virtually nothing is known about deep ocean circulation, the requirement for a statement to be “in line with the known global circulation of ocean currents” is not a very stringent one.

  88. Smokey @ 14:54:45….right on!

    On watching this animation, besides being mesmerizing…it vaguely resembles a beating heart.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  89. worth reading all:

    22 March: BusinessWeek: Microdyne, Broker of Used CERs, Isn’t on CO2 Markets (Update1)
    by Catherine Airlie, Mathew Carr and Zoltan Simon
    Editors: Mike Anderson, John Buckley.
    Microdyne, which bought and resold United Nations carbon offsets already used by an emitter in Hungary, said a “typing mistake” misrepresented the company on its Web site as a member of the three emissions exchanges. “It was fixed when we found out about it,” the company said in an e-mail today in response to written questions from Bloomberg…
    Anvar Kasimov, listed as Microdyne’s owner on the March 18 letter, couldn’t be reached at the telephone numbers listed on the correspondence and the Web site at http://www.microdyne-uk.com. A person answering the phone today at its office at 55 Bryanston Street in London declined to give his name and said the company would respond to questions by e-mail.
    Patrick Birley, chief executive for the London-based European Climate Exchange, said Microdyne isn’t an ECX member…
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/microdyne-broker-of-used-cers-isn-t-on-co2-markets-update1-.html

  90. savethesharks (19:17:43) :

    Smokey @ 14:54:45….right on!

    On watching this animation, besides being mesmerizing…it vaguely resembles a beating heart.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ————————
    I had the same thought at about the same time, but I also had the realization that the ice and snow in the arctic is the only source of fresh water, in the entire area for seals, people, and polar bears.

    So the ice is the beating heart of fresh water that sustains life in the arctic.

    Due to it’s extremely fragmented nature and constant movement, if a polar bear just sits and waits, food presenting conditions will show up soon.

    Much like when the huge herds of Bison roamed the mid-western USA, until somebody wanted to make a power grab for the land.

  91. George E. Smith (12:02:59) :

    > The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157. It’s a bit easier to read; but that’s the most I have ever spent on any Book.

    I went to CMU around 1970, I still have a Don Knuth “Art of Computer Programming” volume 3 (“Sorting and Searching”). I moved the price tag inside – $19.50. Assuming the books are equally “supertexts, that’s a 8X increase.

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says $19.50 then is $108.93 now, a 5.6X increase. Somewhere in the ballpark….

  92. Phil. (18:40:32

    In fact, Southern Hemisphere sea ice, in spite of Goddard showing it warm down there, had the least ice melt in their summer than I have seen on the whole graph on the cryosphere today.

    I suggest you take a closer look, the ice melt this season was greater than last!

    Looking at this CT graph it would appear neither of you is entirely correct

    On a related point, I recently had occasion to Google the area of the lower 48 States to double check before posting a comment on another thread. What I found was a rather surprising range of values. I later went back and repeated the process for about a dozen other land masses. The pattern persisted. The question that arises is that if our wonderful technology can’t come up with a consistent number within a couple of hundred thousand km2 for something as relatively invariant as these land masses, why should we have any confidence in their ability to measure something as amorphous as sea ice, which is by definition 85% water at the margins, with much higher accuracy, as indicated by their tendency to report sea ice down to single digit km2?

  93. Phil. (18:51:44) :

    gofer (17:26:18) :
    From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
    • 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

    How did they know?

    Flyover by a scout plane? They had such things in Alaska at the time.

  94. @R. Gates (16:52:33) :

    Toyotawhizguy said:

    “Warming due to warm ocean currents is regional warming, and is not global.”
    ______
    This is an unproven assertion, not in line with the known global circulation of ocean currents…both in depth and extent.

    – – – – – – –

    Given that within the context, I was referring to warm ocean currents, specifically the Norwegian warm ocean current which warms the arctic, and not to the entirety of the global conveyor belt (which also includes cold ocean currents), the logic of your statement escapes me. The idea that a specific ocean current, such as the Gulf Stream (warming – NW Europe) or the California Stream (cooling – Hawaii) primarily affects a particular region is well established within the scientific literature.

    Map link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corrientes-oceanicas.gif

  95. Smokey: “Skeptics simply ask for the data, code and methods showing that a conjecture or hypothesis explains reality better than an alternative conjecture or hypothesis.”

    Not true. Climate sceptics make many claims and advance hypotheses of their own. For example:

    “They reject the scientific method because they are paid to do so.”
    “…natural variability in the Holocene shows that the current climate is nothing unusual.”
    “The evidence points to the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 being significantly less than one…”

    So AGW sceptics do much more than “simply ask[ing] for the data, codes and methods”. Rather, they stake out their own positions on the issue, and some of those positions achieve “true believer” status.

  96. Brendan H (22:27:59) :

    You should read Smokey entire statement.

    It has always been incumbent on AGW advocates to demonstrate that natural variability is not the current driver of climate, just as it has been in the past. This they have failed to do.

  97. @Phil. (17:34:25) :

    “Put some iodine crystals in a flask and leave them to equilibrate at room temperature, and you should see a violet vapor (the vapor concentration is about the same as CO2 in the atmosphere).

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/IodoAtomico.JPG

    – – – – – – –

    Nice try, but that wiki photo you linked to is not illustrating even close to 380 ppmv of Iodine vapor, and that’s not the color intensity you get per your description. The concentration of Iodine vapor in the photo is certainly >> than 380 ppmv.
    1) Although Iodine will sublime at room temperature, the flask in the wiki photo has obviously been heated. Note, that Iodine M.P. = +133.7C and B.P = +184.3C. In fact if you read the wiki article on “Iodine” that accompanies the photo you linked, it makes obvious reference to the flask being heated as part of a classroom demo. No crystals are visible at the flask bottom, only liquid or possibly re-solidified, which means the flask has been heated >+133.7C.
    2) It appears in the photo that some of the color visible is due to Iodine vapor that has condensed onto the interior walls of the flask, so in this case much of the color is due to liquid or possibly re-solidified Iodine.
    3) I have stored and handled pure Iodine crystals and the solid simply does not sublime any where near this amount at room temperature, in fact I’ve never even noticed it.
    4) A 10% solution of elemental Iodine as Povidine Iodine, stored in a capped clear glass vial at standard temperature and pressure produces zero discernible color from the vapor above the liquid level, and that is by direct observation. The pungent odor present when the cap is removed confirms the presence of Iodine vapor.

  98. Any time I wonder along the lines of “it’s the sun, stupid,” I get clobbered by SVIPs (Scientifically Very Intelligent People.)

    SVIPs invariably pull out a graph showing me the TSI (Total Solar Index,) and whip off some neat calculations showing that the difference between the top and the bottom of the sunspot cycle is a very small amount of heat.

    I have no answer to this, but lately I’ve taken to furrowing my brow and stating, “Have you added in the USA?” Few SWIPs ask me how the TSI is influenced by the USA, or even what USA stands for. (Undiscovered Solar Amplifier.)

    Usually they just leave me alone, and I get to puzzle in peace.

    Last year I got to thinking that even a slight change in solar intensity effects land masses far more swiftly than oceans. If you live by the sea you notice this on a daily basis. Therefore, because the northern hemisphere has much larger land masses than the southern hemisphere, I thought I’d just watch the northern hemisphere’s land masses to see if they got colder than any other place.

    Lo and Behold, anomaly maps showed that they indeed get colder, last winter.

    Everyone explained this as a side effect of the AO, suggesting the AO is the “driver.” But what if, at least to a small degree, the AO is the “driven.” Maybe it was the colder land masses that drove the AO to record-setting levels.

    Of course, when we say “record setting” we should be humble and admit the records only go back to the late 1800’s, but still last winter’s AO was nearly double the level ever seen before.

    There is a lot we are studying for the first time. The last time we switched over to a cold PDO the only way to bomb other nations was with airplanes. We had nothing even close to the data we now get with satellites. Also this sunspot cycle is different from most we have studied in the recent past. Therefore we shouldn’t pretend we know everything, and need to study HTBH, (How To Be Humble.)

  99. Gilbert: “You should read Smokey entire statement.”

    I have. That’s why I was able to quote some of his claims.

  100. Maybe they should just ask a few old Siberian peasants or Inuit. They’d sniff the air, walk 5 yards, sniff again, and tell them where the ice went.

  101. Roger Knights (21:31:25) :
    Phil. (18:51:44) :

    gofer (17:26:18) :
    From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
    • 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

    How did they know?

    Flyover by a scout plane? They had such things in Alaska at the time.

    Alaska isn’t the North Pole!

  102. toyotawhizguy (00:54:16) :
    3) I have stored and handled pure Iodine crystals and the solid simply does not sublime any where near this amount at room temperature, in fact I’ve never even noticed it.
    4) A 10% solution of elemental Iodine as Povidine Iodine, stored in a capped clear glass vial at standard temperature and pressure produces zero discernible color from the vapor above the liquid level, and that is by direct observation. The pungent odor present when the cap is removed confirms the presence of Iodine vapor.

    I’ve used iodine as a laser filter and in an optical cell at room temperature and the color is easily visible (I used a path length of about 1 foot and measured absorption in the green of over 99%).
    Using a solution gives a much lower vapor pressure (Henry’s Law).
    Povidone (sic) iodine is a compound of iodine not free iodine and would have a much lower vp.

  103. In perspective, prior to 2000, men had been seeking a Northwest passage for 3 or 4 centuries and only had one success, and that took 3 years. (Well OK, an icebreaker went though in 1969.) In most years since 2000, it has been possible to transit it in a matter of weeks by any competent sailor and many have done it. So, what, has there been wind in the past decade unlike any seen for hundreds of years? Or, is the arctic warming up more than has been seen for hundreds of years?

  104. Ed Forbes (16:42:31) :…Or changes on the earth are wrongly dated, perhaps due to changes in not considered GCR changes…hmmm

  105. gofer (17:26:18) : An interesting list of its psychological projection: Translation “My readers are melting away!!!!”

  106. gofer (17:26:18) :
    From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:

    ———————
    Newspapers aren’t the best source of science information, even a “respected” newspaper like TNYT.

    On January 12, 1920, the paper ran a story on a Smithsonian press release about a “multiple charge high efficiency rocket” that rocketry pioneer Robert Goddard was working on. The next day, an unsigned NY Times editorial heaps scorn on the Clark University professor who believes his rockets will one day reach the moon. “After the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey it will neither be accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that.” It expressed disbelief that Professor Goddard actually “does not know of the relation of action to reaction, and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react” and even talked of “such things as intentional mistakes or oversights.” Goddard, the Times insisted, apparently suggesting bad faith, “only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

    On July 17, 1969—the day after the launch of Apollo 11— the New York Times published a short item under the headline “A Correction,” summarizing its 1920 editorial mocking Goddard, and concluding: “Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

    FYI, GISS of climate science fame:

    is named after this Robert H. Goddard.

  107. Caleb, if you are curious about some unknown solar amplifier, get a good book on the Sun. For your purposes, just about any book will do. That way you will have something intelligent to say or comment on regarding discussions about the Sun. Why depend on solar scientists to answer your questions?

    I am curious. Do you think there is some mysterious beam of material or essence emanating from the Sun that has not been detected because it is an unknown substance (like back in the old days of unknown atoms)? Or do you think the fairly steady state Sun is interacting with some Earth variable and that this interaction drives our climatic atmosphere?

    I’m more inclined to point to the heavenly body that has been demonstrated to have many more intrinsic variable components (both chaotic and oscillatory) that are known to affect weather pattern variability and long term climate as being the source of our climate variability, both in the long and short term.

  108. So 1/3 of the ice disappearance was not warming? What happened to ‘faster than expected’ ‘worse than we thought’ ‘Doooooooommmm!!!‘?

  109. >>
    Smokey answered you well and I cannot exceed his answer except in brevity. True skeptics say “We (the current state of scientific understanding) do not know the extent of AGW or the benefits vs the negative impacts, therefore we do not wish to enact worldwide political change and taxes with numerous known negative consequences.
    >>

    No true scientists do science , report science then shut up.

    The whole current problem is that they have the hubris to think that being “clever” at science qualifies them as clever at everything and to play at politics.

    Sadly, they are on the whole grossly inept at politics and their well intended environmental strategy does not get any more sophisticated than exaggerating the science results more and more until till we all panic.

    People who work at politics say “here is a strong popular movement driven by naive activists, how can we turn this to our advantage?”

    One of the first groups to exploit this was the nuclear energy PR machine. They have tirelessly engineered the “green movement” (for green they are) into believing N.E.is now essential to “save the planet”.

    25 years ago nuclear was the nemesis of the green movement. Now many are saying “nuclear power , yes please!”

    Scientists trying to play green activist politics have been mugged (and half the planet along with them).

    Sadly, the day they shut up and go back to science it will be too late , no one will believe their science anymore because they lie.

    Get ready for a “low level” radio-active dump near YOU! You do want to save the planet don’t you??

  110. Chris G

    Please give us some refferences as to the people using the North West Passage. I have not heard these stories. The only ones I hear are either ice breakers (hardly qualifies), or people getting stuck in the pack ice. The NE passage on the other had, has been used off and on for a long time.

  111. Pamela Gray (08:10:48) :

    >> Caleb, if you are curious about some unknown solar amplifier…

    The amplifier is in the atmosphere but may well respond to something like sun’s magnetic field or solar wind that is not taken into account by simplistic climate models.

    What may be more to the point is to ask IPCC sources for climate models how they justify “mysterious CO2 amplifier”. My contact with the UK Met. Office revealed that their models ASSUME a climate sensitivity of x4 for CO2.

    This is nothing more subtle than making up for the part of the warming they CANNOT explain by simple energy balance by ARBITRARILY multiplying the _known_ CO2 effect by FOUR times.

    In science and engineering this is called a fudge factor. It is bullshit.

    Some how this bullshit becomes an undeniable truth if you feed it into a very, very big computer.

    Rather than posting Caleb, I propose that your ask the Met office what the scientific basic for the CO2 sensitivity is:

    enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk

    Ask a thorough question and they will answer it (with a bit of prodding).

  112. Phil

    On August 12, 1937 Sigismund Levanevsky of Russia took off from Moscow to fly to Fairbanks by way of the North Pole. His last transmission had him 300 miles from the NP on the Alaskan side and having engine problems. His plane was a large four engined wheeled craft. The search for his plane was begun almost immediately by the Mackenzie Air Service. A couple of days later, others joined the search using pontoon planes and a PBY. They searched for 7 months over 170,000 sq. miles of the Arctic Ocean, but the Russians were never located.

    The article “Our Search for the Lost Aviators” NatGeo Mag. August 1938 is a good source of information and pictures including some pretty rotten ice.

    Here’s a direct quote from the author:
    “In my opinion, August is the least favorable month to fly in the Arctic, especially in a plane fitted with wheels, as was Levanevsky’s. At that time of year the Arctic floe ice is much broken. The summer rains have melted the ice surface and deep gutters have been cut in the ice, making it treacherous for any landing on wheels.”
    Aviators had been flying around the Arctic since at least the 1920’s.

  113. Caleb:
    >>
    Last year I got to thinking that even a slight change in solar intensity effects land masses far more swiftly than oceans.
    >>

    Read up Henrik Svensmark’s papers. http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/ and the CLOUD project at CERN.

    They are trying to quantify cloud seeding effects by cosmic radiation, exposure to which is modulated by the solar activity (other than its irradiance).

  114. “”” vukcevic (14:50:33) :

    George E. Smith (12:02:59) :
    Re: “General Chemistry by some chap called Linus Pauling”

    It is nice to know that in this virtual world there are still people who prefer solid printed book to CRT, LCD or whatever some of us stare for a few good hours on weekly if not daily bases.
    Despite everything Google occasionally still deserves some praise:
    “General Chemistry” by Linus Pauling is available (or most of it) now in the Google books library:
    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EpxSzteNvMYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=General+Chemistry++Linus+Pauling.&source=bl&ots=PHSGmpC0Q-&sig=JJB-jWIYj2EIBFPbGNWIJiCvvPA&hl=en&ei=FuGnS46lOMOOjAelp8CjDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Since I mentioned CRTs, LCDs etc may also add :
    To Dr. George Elwood Smith of the CCD fame, I am evermore grateful for ending (part of) 15 tedious years of my working life; setting the operating parameters of plumbicon, leddicon and saticon tubes. My thanks, gratitude and greatest respect for Dr. George Elwood Smith. “””

    Well Vukcevic, I too am quite partial to books on dead tree. I simply cannot read online texts, or manuals, help notes or anything else, so If I have to look for it on line, I still have to print it to be able to read it.

    Sadly, a lot of stuff the web lets you read, it also stops you from printing.

    So i keep a camera in my desk drawer, so anything I can bring up on screen, I can photograph, and then print the photo from my computer.

    As to George Elwood Smith; nobellist in Physics (2009); we have never met, but we have crossed paths many times; and anyway, I am not him. My E is not for Elwood; but relates to an old line English Shoe making family that emigrated to New Zealand a couple of centuries ago.

    But I know folks who know Elwood personally , from industry connections, so I am familar with his career.

    I work for an outfit, that has made literally billions of digital video cameras; well between one and two billion; but they are all CMOS sensors, and not CCDs.

    Trouble with CCDs is that the silicon process is not compatible with CMOS, so you can’t integrate the sensor and processing functions.

    All out CMOS cameras come with an on chip computer integrated with the sensor; and they are all high speed; up to 10,000 frames per second; but gawdawful on resolution. 15 x 15 up to 30 x 30 pixels.

  115. “”” Ric Werme (19:41:54) :

    George E. Smith (12:02:59) :

    > The Linus Pauling cost me $21; the modern supertext a whopping $157. It’s a bit easier to read; but that’s the most I have ever spent on any Book.

    I went to CMU around 1970, I still have a Don Knuth “Art of Computer Programming” volume 3 (“Sorting and Searching”). I moved the price tag inside – $19.50. Assuming the books are equally “supertexts, that’s a 8X increase.

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ says $19.50 then is $108.93 now, a 5.6X increase. Somewhere in the ballpark….

    The Pauling book is a Dover paperback brand new from a 1988 edition.

    I very nearly bought Marie Curie’s thesis on Radioactive Substances for $7.95

    So inflation doesn’t explain the increases.

  116. During my first year of high school chemistry; the very first experiment called for adding an Iodine crystal to a sliver scraped off a stick of white Phosphorous, in a crucible; to demonstrate a “Chemical change”.

    In an adjoining class having the same lecture by a newly graduated MSc in chemistry; the head of the Chem department happened to enter the room just in time to see the lecturer upending a bottle of Iodine crystals onto a whole stick of white Phosphorous.

    They did manage to get all the students out of the room, before the visibility went to 0-0.

  117. Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (10:28:39) :
    Chris G

    Please give us some refferences as to the people using the North West Passage. I have not heard these stories. The only ones I hear are either ice breakers (hardly qualifies), or people getting stuck in the pack ice. The NE passage on the other had, has been used off and on for a long time.
    —————-
    Cruise ships can now make it through the North West Passage.

    http://www.mycruiseblog.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/9/5/3208677.html

    The German Hanseatic cruise ship is not an icebreaker, but it is an “ice-strengthened” cruise ship:
    http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/ubb-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=010019&p=3
    ICE-1A* – Vessel which may operate in channels prepared by icebreakers and/or in open waters with smaller ice floes. Extreme ice conditions. Ice floes of thickness 1.0 m are anticipated

    http://www.cruisemates.com/ships/more-ships/hanseatic.html

  118. George E. Smith (11:08:28) :
    “Well Vukcevic, I too am quite partial to books on dead tree. I simply cannot read online texts, or manuals, help notes or anything else, so If I have to look for it on line, I still have to print it to be able to read it.”

    Hi Mr.Smith
    It is a pithy that some of the stuff , most notably Google books, cannot be printed directly. I normally hit ‘PRINT SCRN’ key, then go directly to blank page of MS-Word, and paste. Using graphic tool crop unwanted bit and print directly, if print is too small it can be stretched to required size.
    The CCD chips that replaced professional TV camera tubes were originally low resolution of 625 pixels/line, while the new HDTV have 1920 pixels/line.
    I think CCDs diodes are up to an order of magnitude more sensitive than CMOS, have lower fixt pattern noise and certainly are far more expensive once they are stuck on the prism block. Tubes were pain in the neck.
    Even if E is not for Elwood, it is pleasure to exchange few words.
    G. Elwood Smith did do a great job, took lot of tediousness out of my work in years gone by, kind of a hero.

  119. “Not true. AGW proponents make many claims and advance hypotheses of their own.”

    Fixed it for you.

  120. Re: Chris G (Mar 23 07:09), “In perspective, prior to 2000, men had been seeking a Northwest passage for 3 or 4 centuries and only had one success, and that took 3 years.”

    3-4 centuries ago was the Little Ice Age. One would tend to expect the world to warm up from an extrema point like that and that there would be difficulty passing through the poles after such an event.

    Contrast that with events PRIOR to the LIA like Gavin Menzies’ maps of the Chinese voyages he postulates SIX centuries ago. LinkText Here If Menzies’ postulations bear out, the successful Chinese voyages may have prompted the later searches for the Northwest Passage.

  121. Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (10:28:39) :
    Chris G

    Please give us some refferences as to the people using the North West Passage. I have not heard these stories. The only ones I hear are either ice breakers (hardly qualifies), or people getting stuck in the pack ice. The NE passage on the other had, has been used off and on for a long time.

    Last summer the NW Passage was traversed by the following yachts:
    Bagan,
    Ocean Watch,
    Baloum Gwen,
    Silent Sound,
    Fleur Australe,
    Fiona.

    These are just the ones that I knew about and followed, a similar number made the journey in 08.

  122. @Phil. — Yeah, but those recent traversals were made to prove a point, and they were, I suspect, tricky or difficult to make. I suspect they could have been done earlier, if there’d been motivation.

  123. “The vessel’s special construction the highest ice class rating (E4) means that the 5-star expedition ship can plough through the Arctic ice independently. … Only a few cruise ships are among the vessels designed to traverse difficult routes through ice.”

    50-some years ago, when last the ice was low, there were probably few similarly reinforced cruise ships, so naturally there would have been no galivanting about up there then.

  124. Modern vessels have the very real advantage of knowing beforehand where open passages are thanks to airplanes and satellites. Prior to that, you simply plowed into a passage based on wind direction, ice movement, and reports from the year before. The early explorers didn’t even know where the passages were.

Comments are closed.