Sorry Irthers: The Arctic Ice Cap Has Returned!
Guess what? The Arctic ice cap has returned in force. Daily Mail is reporting:
Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year with top scientists warning of global COOLING [LINK]
Science has spoken! The debate is over. Global warming is dead.
Of course, for some people this is going to come as a very inconveniently cold truth. For the rest of us it’s just reassurance of what we’ve known all along.
But there is a silver lining here. We can all have fun looking back at the whacko predictions #Progressive geniuses were making just a few short years ago...
The arctic ice cap has grown this summer by nearly a million square miles of ice-- right at the time warming loons predicted complete disappearance of the ice cap, and CO2 has reached the climategeddon level of over 400 ppm.
The global warming hoax is crashing straight into the ground-- with the engines at full throttle.
This graph should put everything in perspective.ReplyDelete
The 60-percent increase might sound impressive, but it is an increase from the bottom. The extent of the ice cap is still well below the 1981-2011 average.
Wake me up when it crosses the solid gray line.
This graph shows the extent of the ice cap in August of every year from 1979 to 2013. If someone sees these data points and declares them to be evidence of "global cooling," they are in denial.ReplyDelete
He could plead ignorance before seeing the data. He can't after that.Delete
Judith Curry's comment on David Rose's Daily Mail article:ReplyDelete
In summary, I think the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed in the arcticle; I think we are mostly talking about the absence of the predicted surface warming which has manifested itself in the pause since 1998 and even a slight cooling trend since 2002. But I imagine that it is difficult for a journalist to argue against the overhyping of the pause and the cooling, given the anticipated dismissal of the pause by the IPCC.
This graph shows global sea ice area!ReplyDelete
What global warming?
Put on your reading glasses, Pépé, and you will see that the blue curve (daily sea ice area) used to be above the gray one (1979-2008) average and is now below it.Delete
You, guys, couldn't find your ass with both hands.
Can you see that the blue line started above the average (gray) in the late 1970s and is now below it? If not, I can blow up the plot and show it to you.
Having spent time in the circle between the mid/late 90's, I can say I did in fact see a difference in the summer ice in the areas I was stationed. There was less and less residual ice in the 'hills' and less floats seen in the bay.ReplyDelete
It was still there, just significantly reduced.
There has been such a reduction that we (in the CF) have been working on new deep water ports and coastal facilities in the region.
So while I am not a believer in AGW, I will concede there has been something going on. Cyclical climate change is the working hypothesis of my seniors. I tend to agree.
I think Dr. Egnor wanted to show the failed prediction by climate alarmists of "Arctic summers ice-free by 2013!" How many failed predictions must a science have before being scrapped?Delete
Global warming and global cooling is a fact of life on this planet so, move on, there is nothing to see here.
The Four Horsemen are mounting up...ReplyDelete
White Horse (pestilence):
Currently, it is estimated that between 10% and 16% of the world's crops are lost to [pests and pathogens]. The researchers warn that rising global temperatures could make the problem worse.
Red Horse (war):
How Climate Change Worsened Violence in Syria
--- Momma Jones
Black Horse (famine):
Global warming may have contributed to low rain levels in Somalia in 2011 where tens of thousands died in a famine...
--- Puffington Host
Pale Horse (disease):
From the known and treatable (Lyme disease) to the unpronounceable and potentially deadly (Cryptococcus gattii), climate change is giving gross diseases a leg up, clearing their way onward to the United States.
--- Momma Jones
This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.
--- Barack Obama
[T]he interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot...
--- Al Gore (Nobel Prize: PowerPoint)
So... how hot is it boys and girls???
Basically, it's hotter than a snake's ass in a wagon rut.
--- Adrian Cronauer (Good Morning Vietnam)
Even admiral knows better than to defend Egnor's silly opening post.Delete
Egnor: The global warming hoax is crashing straight into the ground...Delete
[Snowfall will become] a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is.
--- D Viner, U East Anglia CRU (2000)
Snow continues to grip parts of UK... In Pembrokeshire, a school bus taking 40 pupils home slid off the road but no-one was hurt. The head teacher said conditions were "probably the worst" he had seen in 25 years.
--- BBC (2013)
The children know.
Admiral, either defend Egnor's claim or admit it was wrong. Don't sit on the fence.Delete
Well, first you have to tell me what you think Egnor's "claim" is. Based on history, it's possible we may not agree on that point. :)Delete
As I see it, Egnor is "claiming" two things:
1) "The arctic ice cap has grown this summer by nearly a million square miles of ice-- right at the time warming loons predicted complete disappearance of the ice cap..."
[The] latest  modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
--- BBC (2007)
In fact, the principal investigator behind that prediction, W. Maslowski (Naval Postgraduate School) noted that "[Y]ou can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
A frayed knot, Sir.
2) The global warming hoax is crashing straight into the ground...
The predictive power of the climate simulators does seem to be a bit... off. Well, maybe a bit more than a bit. And the dire predictions of death, famine, etc told by the climate establishment seem like "[Tales] told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing".
But to go on record here, yes, the planet has been warming. That's easy to see from recent data. In fact, my beloved and sorely missed granny (who died over a decade ago) thought so too. Even without climate models! Winters were much harder when she was a kid in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
But we know that the planet has had a variable climate.
So the questions I'm interested in are:
1) Is the warming a Bad Thing? Despite all the caterwauling and garment-rending, I'm not convinced it is. The qualitative predictions [see above] made by climate zealots are pathetic in retrospect.
2) If it is a long-term warming trend, why is it occurring? We know that the simulators failed to predict the "pause" (or whatever the euphemism of the day is). I happen to think that big bright ball in the sky should get more credit than it does. And demonizing carbon is idiotic. Carbon is the very keystone of life.
3) If it is warming, or cooling, or simply fluctuating, should we do anything about it? My inclination is to say no. Climate is variable. Attempting to stabilize it or reverse it's direction on a global scale is a fool's errand. We don't know enough to start putzing around with it. Be scientists, guys. Go putz around with somebody else's actual - not virtual - planet first. Just to work out the kinks, ya know? And the notion that we should repeal civilization (energy is a synonym for civilization) is insane. A return to medieval technology is most assuredly not the answer, and it's weird to hear people call it "progress". Would it be "progress" to return to outdoor privies and tons of horseshit in New York City streets?
Frankly, my view is we should start building pebble-bed nuclear power plants and, in the interim, aggressively exploit our newly-recoverable natural gas reserves. I would convert my personal vehicles to natural gas if we had a workable retail distribution system.
"But to go on record here, yes, the planet has been warming. That's easy to see from recent data."
Very good, sir.
Emergence from a Little Ice Age is commonly associated with warming.Delete
The issue is A-GW. The issue seems less and less in doubt. CO2 is way up, temp is holding steady (even slightly cooling since 2002), and AGW models and predictions look like they were made in the psych ward at Bellevue.
All AGW models should come with a contol stick. The stick should now be shaking, with a voice saying "Pull Up! Pull Up!"
Have you looked at this graph yet? What do you think of it? Is the average slope directed up or down?Delete
What's the slope on this graph?Delete
Hoots, stop being obstinate. Everyone knows the predictions are embarrassing.Delete
The issue is not GW, it's AGW and the ludicrous claims made by the faithful.
Now answer my question: what happens if you add the Northern and Southern hemisphere data? Is the slope positive or negative?
I am not holding my breath that you can do any math, Pépé, so here are the answers. The area of Antarctic ice has increased by about 1 million square miles. The area of Arctic ice has decreased by 2 million. The net area has gone down by 1 million.
No, admiral. The issue here is much more basic.Delete
Egnor seems to believe the preposterous claim that a year-on-year change in the amount of Arctic ice is indicative of a cooling trend. Whoever came up with it is a dishonest hack. Whoever believes this claim is an idiot.
By the way, the "whoever", the "dishonest hack", is a mathematician at UW-M. Typical of you to refer to him as a "dishonest hack" without even knowing who he is, what he said, or on what basis.Delete
Now that's what I call intellectual rigor.... Just before laughing my ass off. Goes to show the clownishness of the fake "denier smear" industry.
Your muttering is hard to decipher. WTF are you talking about?Delete
This guy, Hoots, who said "Whoever came up with it is a dishonest hack. Whoever believes this claim is an idiot." about -3 comments above. You may have read his stuff. It's very entertaining.Delete
Show me a mathematician (at a major research university!) who deduces a cooling trend from a one-year fluctuation. Name the bastard!Delete
right at the time warming loons predicted complete disappearance of the ice capReplyDelete
Except no one did that. They stated:
latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Notice the "could" in there. That's not a prediction. That's a possibility. Of course, actually paying attention to what people say isn't your strong suit, since you're best when making up lies, so that sailed right by you.
"Notice the 'could' in there. That's not a prediction"Delete
What a bunch of chickenshit tossers.
The principal investigator behind that prediction, W. Maslowski (Naval Postgraduate School) noted that "[Y]ou can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
You panty-wetting climatards don't get any respect because you don't deserve any.
Admiral, maybe you want to first find out exactly what was predicted, then judge the predictions. Here is the BBC article in question. Pay attention to what Malinowski and Wadhams say.Delete
As it happens, I already had the BBC article open. I checked it to make sure the "you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative" nonsensical phrasing wasn't a stupid error on my part. It wasn't. I'm assuming the correct text would have been you can argue that maybe our projection is already too conservative...Delete
Why would it be "too conservative"? Because the BBC is even more alarmist, noting that "Remarkably, this stunning  low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 [the BBC article was 2007] to constrain their future projections."
And why might that be an issue? Well, "previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss..." and "the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models."
So what's your point?
The point was that Maslowski was alone in predicting the melting of the ice cap by 2013.Delete
Wadhams: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
Serreze: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
Then you agree that Maslowski was a climate alarmist.Delete
And how do the BBC close the article?
Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."
Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
The BBC was pushing an alarmist narrative, hoots, and they got their winkies caught in the zipper. They deserve to be ridiculed. It's not like you wouldn't be ridiculing Fox News had they done a stinker like that.
Oh, and I almost forgot... the title!!!Delete
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
The very 'clever' global warming deniers don't seem to have looked very carefully at the images of the Arctic and wondered whether the variations in colour and shading actually mean anything. They do.ReplyDelete
The one for 2012 showed a large central white area surrounded by a narrow rim of light blue in the deep blue of the ocean.
The one for 2013 showed no central white, just a large light blue area in the dark blue ocean.
The white is largely uninterrupted sea ice. The light blue is broken sea ice, with large areas ice free separating ice floes. The deep blue is largely ice free ocean.
The area covered by sea ice says nothing about the amount of ice. Sea ice disappears either by melting where it formed or breaking up into floes and being carried by winds and currents to lower warmer latitudes where it melts.
In 2013, the weather conditions were such that more of the broken sea ice stayed at higher latitudes and didn't melt. Which we see in the images.
Arguing that global warming is happening because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age is just begging the question. It's an invalid argument. To have force, you'd have to explain what caused the Little Ice Age, and hence what stopped happening to cause the Little Ice Age to terminate.
One of the reasons the Little Ice ceased was because we started dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of land clearing and burning of fossil fuels from the start of the 19th century.
The lack of curiosity on the part of global warming deniers is astounding. I personally find climatology fascinating. In particular - what caused the current ice age? What causes the glaciations and the end of the glaciations? When will the next glaciation occur?
Curiosity is one thing. Jumping to conclusions and experimenting with the lively hood of an entire civilization is another.
Speculating and forming theories about the driving forces of climate shifts is one thing. Geo-engineering and restrictive growth policies combined with population controls ('sustainability') is a mad man's leap.
The argument for cleaner forms of energy does not rely on the sky falling. There are plenty of sane, rational approaches to countering pollution, the destruction of our forests and seas, and environmental contamination. Arguments based on known facts like desertification, depleting fisheries, and smog and micro climate issues.
As for a global climate shift, we should be working on ways to adapt to such a shift.
To SAVE lives and civilization, not to counter it by playing around with the systems of the ONLY planet we have.
Where exactly have I claimed that we should be 'playing around' with the Earth? That's exactly what we are doing now with our 'business as usual' plan.
Regardless of whether AGW is true or not (and I think it is and it will have dire consequences), having enough cheap energy to supply an increasing population is going to be a major problem, which we will have to deal with.
We won't run out of oil or natural gas, because a lot of it is inaccessible requiring more energy to access than it yields or just too expensive.