I’ve been getting a lot of pressure to cover the story by warmspinner Richard Black over at the BBC about a supposed feedback between Arctic sea ice and colder, snowier, winters in the UK and the EU. For example, WUWT “elftone” says:
Richard Black of the BBC – despite getting his head handed to him on a platter twice recently – is spinning like crazy about snowy winters. The cause is shrinking arctic ice. No, really :). I’m amazed he’s able to stand:
I’ve been resisting covering this for a little bit, because I knew sooner or later some MSM media fool would mangle this story into something unrecognizable (they always do). I was right, and the result is the most hilarious global warming headline ever:
They really have lost the plot, haven’t they?
After a few hours, probably responding to people calling up the newsroom and laughing uncontrollably, some editor changed the headline to read “Melting Arctic causes snowier winters in Europe, the US “.
The Internet though, has a memory for such things. The original link was: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/global-warming-is-making-the-world-colder/story-e6frea8l-1226283672088?from=public_rss
But if you click on that you get the revised headline with revised URL.
It is still cached in some places, like this law blog: http://legalnews.findlaw.com/article/0dc48OwedZ44D?q=NASA
UPDATE: I’ve posted the Georgia Tech press release on the science here. While the idea posited isn’t totally implausible, I need to see more examples to be convinced. – Anthony
Don’t you think this is how the Creator designed it all…..? Cooling, heating, cooling, heating, to create a steady supply of water to the earth? Seems Intelligent to me. Why interfere?
Mr Black should write on facts, not speculation
I am not a scientist, nor am I an expert in assessing the masses of data that is produced to support the AGW argument. I am nevertheless a very strong sceptic, believing as I do that humankind does not possess the power to change the earth’s weather patterns as the warmists believe. My views are supported by the many excellent articles and viewpoints presented by logical sceptical scientists in the WUWT blogs. I do however hope I possess a modicum of logic which enables me to evaluate reports such as the one put out by Richard Black supporting the research that is supposed to prove that warmer weather in the Arctic creates colder weather with snow further south. As a very interested enthusiast therefore, I would like to raise a couple of questions arising from the article.
‘The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice’ etc
How does this equate to the following statement in his article?
‘There was a marked deterioration in ice cover between the
summers of 2006 and 2007, which still holds the record
for the lowest extent on record;
and: ‘If less of the ocean is ice-covered in autumn, it releases
more heat, warming the atmosphere’
I thought it is supposed to be the heat in the atmosphere that is causing the ice to melt in the first place, not from a warming Arctic sea. If it is from a warming sea then I presume the sea is warming across all oceans and not just in the arctic. Are we to assume that the sea in the Southern Ocean is not warming since the ice is not melting there, if not, why not? And if it is the warming atmosphere that is melting the ice, then why would the relatively colder temperature of the sea make the air want to rise if it is the warmer air that is supposed to have melted the ice in the first place?
And how can any article on a research project be considered to have any credibility when the article contains so many uncertainties of which the following are just a few:
‘small, natural changes in the Sun’s output can also affect winter weather’
‘declining Arctic ice cover was just one of several factors that could increase blocking’
‘The picture is further complicated by the involvement of the Arctic Oscillation’
‘The oscillation is not understood well enough to predict’
‘May be changing due to escalating greenhouse gas concentrations’
‘A few years ago, one projection even showed 2013 was possible, (Ice free Arctic) though this now appears unlikely’
‘So a related question is whether UK winters will get colder’
‘It’s possible that future winters will be colder and snowier, but there are some uncertainties’
Doesn’t all this suggest that the author is clutching at straws to promote his pre-concieved position on AGW at all costs regardless of how his objectives are achieved? He obviously does not have an open, enquiring mind on the subject, which begs the question, is he really a science journalist, or simply a flag waver on the AGW theory for the warmists and the BBC?
George;
good questions, but here’s a version of the thesis which uses Arctic Ice as a control mechanism:
popesclimatetheory.com . Basically, open AO produces more evaporation, then more snow, then cooling and more ice, then less evaporation, then less snow, then warming and less ice — round and round in a “negative feedback” cycle which has kept the world within narrow benign temp ranges for longer than is usual for interglacials — which normally peak fast and then cool fast.
[Oh, BTW, “begs the question” means “is a circular argument”, not “demands an answer to the question”. Common misuse of the phrase. ]
Has anyone seen the new video titled:- Ecosystems a Genocidal Fraud ? It’s an awesome new documentary that just kills the very centre of environMENTALism as it proves scientifically that there is no such thing as an eco system,it explains where these catch phrases came from and the crazy people that picked it up and ran with it.Unfortunately it’s being taught to the kids at school so it’s up to al parents to watch this video for free at the CEC website Citizens Electoral Council.It does’nt matter where you live on this planet,crazy green legislation is coming your way and will cost you much more than money believe me. Try going to cecaust.com.au
Clearly they give the game away when they say
Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further is unclear
Isn’t that what they are trying to say, that melting ice alters the jet stream and brings colder temps but then they say they can’t be sure ????
Looks to me like the same old method of compare two measurements and claim one measurment causes the other which is not science especially when there are other factors that could bring about the same result.
Once again though, they are relying on the computer models for their proof. When will these morons wake up to the fact that we know that models can only output data based on the info and ASSUMPTIONS you put into them. Slightly alter one piece of data and you get a completely different scenario.
If they want to convince us, put the model forward for inspection so someone can see if there are any unjustified assumptions.
global warming is a series of EXTREME weather events, hot and cold, where warm temps offset cold temps and some years cold offsets warm. Yearly averages are compared, a trend toward warming might be noted. For example, starting at a 70 degree average the graph line wavers across the page, up one year down the other until it is notede that the last average reached 71 degrees. This accounts for that one degree increase in atmospheric heating. In some years, the average may have dropped to 69 degrees, a loss in atmospheeric heating and a gain in cooling. Something like that.
Mark;
I’ve mentioned the “Number Watch” site’s Laws page before, specifically:
So all those gigaflops of added complexity are causing convergence with the modellers’ assumptions. I wonder if it’s asympototic, or linear …