People send me stuff. This is an email solicitation claiming that if you send Avaaz £2 a week (About $3.07 USD at current exchange rate) they’ll somehow be able to help NSIDC’s Julienne Stroeve get started putting back that Arctic ice, much like as a previous subscriber, you may have given money to help dolphins from being sad (see below). There’s only 30 months left apparently, and salesmen operators are standing by to take your urgent call.
I wonder how much money Ms. Stroeve gets for endorsing this alarmist sales pitch, or maybe her name is being used to raise funds without her knowledge/permission? Inquiring minds want to know. What is most curious is that they don’t actually reference Stroeve’s papers or any NSIDC publications, only alarmist news stories.
Of course one only has to look at the WUWT Sea Ice page to note that sea ice disappears every summer, and comes back in the fall and winter. So, with summer just started, now is the perfect time to claim “vast areas of sea ice have disappeared” so as to snag money from the seasonally challenged. According to NASA and AP’s Seth Borenstein: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” Well, that didn’t happen, so 2013 MUST be the year. No, wait, its 2015 now. Give while there’s still time!
I loved this line from the solicitation: Fatalism on climate change is not just futile, it’s also incompetent.
Dear Avaaz community,
This may be the most important email I’ve written to you. Scientists have found that vast areas of Arctic sea ice are disappearing, accelerating the destruction of our planet — it is a climate tipping point and we CAN stop it, if we act very fast, and all together. We have 30 months until the biggest climate summit ever. To win it, we need to blast out of the starting gate. Click below to pledge a donation of £2 to help us get there:
This may be the most important email I’ve ever written to you.
Scientist Julienne Stroeve has studied Arctic ice for decades. Every summer she travels north to measure how much ice has melted. She knows that climate change is melting the ice fast, but on her last trip, she couldn’t believe what she saw. Vast areas of Arctic ice have disappeared, beyond our worst expectations.
This is what the experts warned us about. As the earth warms, it creates many “tipping points” that accelerate the warming out of control. Warming thaws the Arctic sea ice, destroying the giant white ‘mirror’ that reflects heat back into space, which massively heats up the ocean, and melts more ice, and so on. We spin out of control. Already this year — storms, temperatures — everything is off the charts.
We CAN stop this, if we act very fast, and all together. And out of this extinction nightmare, we can pull one of the most inspiring futures for our children and grandchildren. A clean, green future in balance with the earth that gave birth to us.
We have 30 months until the Paris Summit, the meeting that world leaders have decided will determine the fate of our efforts to fight climate change. It might seem like a long time – it’s not. We have 30 months to get the right leaders in power, get them to that meeting, give them a plan, and hold them accountable. And it’s us vs. the oil companies, and fatalism. We can win, we must, but we need to blast out of the starting gate with pledges of just £2 per week until the summit — we’ll only process the donations if we hit our goal. For the world we dream of, let’s make it happen:
[donation link redacted]
Fatalism on climate change is not just futile, it’s also incompetent. The hour is late, but it is still absolutely within our power to stop this catastrophe, simply by shifting our economies from oil and coal to other sources of power. And doing so will bring the world together like never before, in a deep commitment and cooperation to protect our planetary home. It’s a beautiful possibility, and the kind of future Avaaz was born to create.
Facing this challenge will take heart, and hope, and also all the smarts we have. Here’s the plan:
1. Go Political: Elect Climate Leaders — 5 crucial countries have elections in the next 30 months. Let’s make sure the right people win, and with the right mandate. Avaaz is one of the only major global advocacy organizations that can be political. And since this fight will be won or lost politically, it could be at some points just us vs. the oil companies to decide who our politicians listen to.
2. Make Hollande a Hero — French President Francois Hollande will chair the Paris summit – a powerful position. We have to try every tactic and channel — his personal friends and family, his political constituency, his policy advisors — to make him the hero we need him to be to make the summit a success.
3. Take it to the Next Level — The scale of this crisis demands action that goes beyond regular campaigning. It’s time for powerful, direct, non-violent action, to capture imagination, convey moral urgency, and inspire people to act. Think Occupy.
4. Out the Spoilers — Billionaires like the Koch brothers and their oil companies are the major spoilers in climate change – funding junk science to confuse us and spending millions on misleading PR, while buying politicians wholesale. With investigative journalism and more, we need to expose and counter their horrifically irresponsible actions.
5. Define the Deal — Even in the face of planetary catastrophe, 195 governments in a room can be just incompetent. We need to invest in top quality policy advice to develop ingenious strategies, mechanisms, and careful compromises so that when the summit arrives, a critical mass of leaders are already bought in to a large part of the deal, and no one can claim that good solutions don’t exist.
We need tens of thousands of us to pledge small donations to blast out of the starting gate on this plan. The amount doesn’t matter as much as much as the choice – to hope, and to act:
[donation link redacted]
At the last major climate summit in Copenhagen 2009, we played a pivotal role in German and Japanese ‘climate’ elections, in shifting Brazilian policy, and in helping win a major global deal on financing, with rich countries promising $100 billion per year to poor countries to help them address climate change. Back then, Avaaz was 3 million people. After Copenhagen, we reflected that we needed to be a lot bigger to meet the challenge posed by climate change. Now, we’re 23 million, and growing by 1 million per month.
Climate change is the ultimate global collective action problem, requiring cooperation from every government in the world. And Avaaz is the ultimate collective action solution, with millions of us united in common vision across every nation. This is our time, to build a world for our children that’s beauty matches our dreams. Let’s get started.
With hope and appreciation for this amazing community,
Ricken and the entire Avaaz team
MORE INFORMATION:
With Arctic sea ice vulnerable, summer melt season begins briskly (The Christian Science Monitor)
Arctic sea ice levels to reach record low within days (Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/23/arctic-sea-ice-record-low
Five Reasons We Need a New Global Agreement on Climate Change by 2015 (Switchboard NRDC)
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/five_reasons_we_need_a_new_glo.html
The Doha climate talks were a start, but 2015 will be the moment of truth (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/doha-climate-talks-global-warming
Arctic sea ice melt disrupts weather patterns (NBC News)
The Arctic Ice “Death Spiral” (Slate)
Avaaz.org is a 22-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
You are getting this message because you signed “Save the Saddest Dolphins ” on 2011-xx-xx using the email address xxxxx@xxxx.com
h/t to reader “JP”
===========================================================
Now here’s the real kicker, Dr. Stroeve doesn’t think sea ice will disappear this summer. See her official forecast in the ARCUS June 2013 Sea Ice Outlook:
Of course, NSIDC may not care that Stroeve’s name is being used to raise money, after all, she has a current history of activism while employed there. Your tax dollars at work? This photo was taken on 09/11/2012:
Source: Greenpeace
h Avaaz t
Article was about Arctic ice. But the top picture of the huge melting flat ice shelf is only found in the Antarctic? Or have I been misinformed?
Makes you wonder if CAGW as an industry would exist at all were it not for Photoshop.
Ed Zuiderwijk says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:15 am
Steve from Rockwood says (June 24, 2013 at 5:37 am)
What happens if the Arctic ice extent rebounds in 2013?
It would be denied, obviously.
—————————————–
Weather.
(Anthony may not allow this, but here goes…..)
The program is called 95/95. Send $95 to WUWT and we will GUARANTEE that 95% of the Arctic sea ice will return by Feb/2014.
This is your chance to SAVE the Planet!. Why wait. The guarantee is absolute. If the sea ice does not return as promised, you get 95% of your contribution back.
Sleep better. Save the planet. It’s all about the children (and polar bears).
CONTRIBUTE NOW!
REPLY: it is a joke of course, Anthony
Manfred says:
June 24, 2013 at 11:57 am
•Avaaz was co-founded in 2007 by “Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org,” a George Soros-funded organization involved in ideological and political campaigns in the US.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/avaaz
———————————————
Soros is in on the same carbon scam as Gore.
Oh I see Avaaz is a moveon.org subsidiary. That explains the stupidity.
As this thread concerns Ms Stroeve it is highly relevant to post this abstract from my recent article ‘historic variations in arctic ice Part two 1920-1950’ as it references her; This is from the much fuller version. Copies on request.
‘….but the preceding does raise the question as to whether x amount of ice in the satellite era (1979 onwards) is really the same as x amount in the period prior to that, derived through climatological or physical observations in often difficult conditions by such as whalers, which brings us to the thorny question of what the definition of ice actually is.
This comment was noted by the author in the library of the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge and has parallels in one of the news items previously quoted;
‘Observational data of the drifting station 1950-51-by M Somov -Volume 1 of 3 of this Russian North pole station on an ice floe.’
Middle of June onwards ‘the melting of the snow and ice took place very quickly although the air temperature remained close to freezing’
‘the sun shone…could walk about without a coat…some even tried to get a sun tan.’
‘because of the thaw an enormous amount of water accumulated on the ice’
‘walking was only possible if one wore high rubber boots reaching above the knees’ (because of the water sitting on the ice.
‘many problems because of the thawing.’
The book described how later in the season some high spots became dry and these were little hillocks in a sea of icy water sitting on solid ice. This caused me to ask the following question of NSIDC;
“ …..how did pre satellite researchers estimating sea ice extent tell the difference between water, water floating on ice, and solid ice, and how can satellites differentiate between the three states? I was struck by Russian reports from the 1950’s at The Scott Polar institute in Cambridge when staff at the floating research stations commented about using Wellington boots in order to walk around the station, and how little dry ice islands eventually formed by the end of the summer surrounded by water on top of ice.”
I received the following reply from Julienne Stroeve ;(reproduced with permission)
“ … using passive microwave data it is very easy to tell the difference between ice and water as the dielectric constant differs quite a bit and this is reflected in large differences in the microwave emission. The main advantage of using passive microwave is that it can see the ice even if it’s cloudy or dark. There is a problem however in summer when melt ponds form on the ice since the sea ice algorithms then underestimate how much ice there really is (they think it’s open water). That’s one reason why we focus on extent rather than true ice area for the NSIDC sea ice news and analysis web site.
Visible and thermal imagery provides higher spatial resolution but is often hampered by clouds. Trying to do this work using earlier visible and thermal imagery requires the scientists to go through each image and manually filter out the clouds and determine where the ice is.”
Ends
The arctic in those pre satellite days was simply too large to be effectively and continually monitored. Observers getting close enough to the ice edge to make physical observations might be deterred from proceeding further by apparently impenetrable ice although better, more open conditions, might lie beyond. Data from such as the Russian sector – where much warming occurred, was not always taken into account. (However, the reader should be aware that, as Larsen noted, ice did sporadically return, whilst reports from 1939-45 are sparse for obvious reasons.)
In trying to determine the true extent of sea ice melt during the period we run the risk of comparing apples-physical observations, and oranges- satellite altimetry, and the different methods employed over the years creates uncertainties over whether each accurately picked up what is ice, what is water covered ice and what is open water. This makes it difficult to determine how modern ice extent compares to the past with any certainty.
However, the conclusion must be that drawn that warming was more widespread in the arctic-not just the Atlantic side-than is currently noted in the official sea ice data bases covering1920-1945/50 and that the official records appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent. Some of the thinning of the ice and reduction of glaciers noted today appears to have had their genesis in the period.
The 1920-1940’s arctic sea ice melt can therefore be seen as remarkable, albeit the caveats about apples and oranges need to be applied. Looking at the evidence available from each of the arctic oceans means the ice extent probably lies somewhere within that experienced during the first half of the 2000’s, but was probably not as low as 2007 and 2012, the causes of which are out with the scope of this paper.’
End of extract
So the definition of ice is not that clear cut, but the high level of melting in the period is something that seems to have been quickly forgotten
tonyb
Ryan says:
June 24, 2013 at 6:13 am
“Regardless of how you feel about their tactics, arctic sea ice is dropping much faster than models predicted”
Ah, Ryan you are starting to see the light. Obviously GCM’s have failed in predícting arctic sea ice extent. We agree on that. Now accept that they have also failed by predicting a tropospheric hotspot that doesn’t exist; failed by forecasting a warming that hasn’t happened in the last 17 years etc.
You know, failure is failure. Failure tells you that the model is wrong. Whether they’re off in the warming or in the cooling direction does not matter – it’s wrong. So… why would anyone trust the models, and therefore, why would anyone trust the predictions of the IPCC?
The models are wrong. You and I agree.
climatereason says:
June 24, 2013 at 12:26 pm
1998-2012: Less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice
1977-1998: Less ice
1945-1977: More ice
1915-1945: Less ice
1880-1915: More ice
1850-1880: Less ice
Little Ice Age: Mostly more ice than now
Medieval WP: Less ice
Dark Ages CP: Mostly more ice
Roman WP: Less ice
Cold Period: Mostly more ice
Minoan Warm Period: Less ice
Up & down for a while: More & less ice
Holocene Optimum: Less ice than now
It’s all about the elections. They want the “right” votes to “save the world”. Another power grab (They’re getting worried). I bet they’re disappointed with having only 16,000 (out of millions).
BTW, is there a use-by date on that 30 months? Or will it always be 30 months? When they send out a secondary push, say in two months, will it be down to 28 months, or will it still be 30? What’s the betting?
Meanwhile, their course of action is to run around yelling at anyone who disagrees with their brand of politics, and try and turn around the greenie-slump. That’s their idea of humankind using their smarts? Wow, I’m gobsmacked.
ferdberple says:
June 24, 2013 at 7:09 am
An ice free arctic would be a huge benefit to the peoples of the countries that border the Arctic. Rather than be a cause for alarm it would open up vast areas for commerce and exploration that to date has been largely inaccessible due to the ice.
To see this as a cause for alarm is to ignore history. The arctic was largely ice free for a period of 1500 years, between 8500 and 6000 years ago. The area of permanent ice was much smaller than today. The polar bears did not die out. The world did not end. In fact, that time period marks the beginning of human civilization in many parts of the world.
Exactly. The alarmists have a strange logic. The Arctic was largely ice free and that did not start any irreversible warming. The whole globe was warmer.
So what is their problem with that sensible ice? What? What if the Arctic melts?
Unfortunately it does not look like this.
William Astley says:
June 24, 2013 at 9:43 am
….
Thanks for the explanations and for the link to Svensmark’s paper. Good to see that science papers are for free :).
Milodonharlani
Well, that was an awful lot more succinct than my articles over the last five years and summed up pretty accurately.
Don’t write haikus do you?
Tonyb
You can see the 2010 form 990 Avaaz filed with the IRS at
http://avaazimages.s3.amazonaws.com/2010-12-31_Avaaz%20Foundation%20Form%20990%20for%20Public%20Viewing.pdf
I could not find a more current filing. Looks like they have two directors who get paid about $180K and $110K. They list 16 total employees and about $600K wage expenses. The pay a couple of consultants $400K for IT work. They also pay a lot for services of various types and lots of travel. It gives me a headache going through it so I stopped, but you can look if you want.
So Ice is normal?
I’m surprised that hasn’t been attempted already. The probable reason it hasn’t is that influential voices like Fenton advised against it behind closed doors (wisely).
Tonyb:
If my not quite flippant summary approximates your observations of reality, then maybe I should write haiku. I’ll inflict this one on readers:
Climate
Ice forms on the sea.
Water pools on floes unseen,
Change will always be.
Okay, another ‘play on words’ as interpreted on the first quick ‘read’ thru the eyeballs en route to the brain:
” co-founded in 2007 by Res Publica, a global chic advocacy group ”
This re-interpretation by the brain was not without help from the internet though where a search for Julienne Stroeve earlier leads one to a number of web sites like these two:
(1) “Climbing Mountains around the World for Critical Conservation Causes”
http://climbforconservation.org/climbing/
and
(2) ” ‘Green Girls’ to Climb Mount Kilimanjaro for Rhinos”
http://www.genconnect.com/giving-back/green-girls-to-climb-mount-kilimanjaro-for-rhinos/
Where she and her self-styled (and labeled) “Green Girls” seek to do ‘right’ on saving endangered animals of all sorts …
Good work, I’m thinking, if one can get the grant money and donations to come in!
.
Or maybe this last line:
Change the same shall be.
_Jim says:
June 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Climate crusading is the gift that keeps on giving for social climbers.
Milodon
You need to get the words ‘satellite’ in there, something along the lines of ‘ice pools on floes unseen by satellites’
You can do it
Tonyb
Tonyb:
I tried, but the 17 syllable tradition in the English haiku makes it tough. Regrettably “eyes in the sky” has even more syllables than satellite & is trite. This is the best I can do while holding down my day job (at least not blogging on the public dime, as my time’s my own, & my clients’):
Ice forms on the sea.
Water on floes above unseen,
Change shall always be.
PS: This would work, if space counts as sky:
unseen from sky
Tonyb:
Final drafts, to relieve suffering of too patient readers:
1998-2012: Less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice
1977-1998: Less ice
1945-1977: More ice
1915-1945: Less ice
1880-1915: More ice
1850-1880: Less ice
Little Ice Age: Mostly more ice than now
Medieval WP: Less ice
Dark Ages CP: Mostly more ice
Roman WP: Less ice
Cold Period: Mostly more ice
Minoan Warm Period: Less ice
5 to 3 kya: More & less ice
Holocene Optimum: Less ice than now
Wisconsin Glaciation: Much more ice than now
Eemian Interglacial: Less ice than now & Holocene Optimum
2.4 mya to 130 kya: repeat above many times
Climate Satellites
Ice forms on sea.
Water on floes unseen from sky,
Change the same shall be.
in the official sea ice data bases covering1920-1945/50 and that the official records appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent.
====
Tony…don’t forget…..the early, and up to fairly recent, satellite data did the same..
every time they’ve “improved” the satellite measurements…it’s to show more water and less ice