Icy reality cools the climate cultists(Above avg ice in Arct

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Icy reality cools the climate cultists
Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 02:07am

DAILY, new evidence emerges to demonstrate that Climate Minister Penny Wong is wrong.

The latest blow to the Government’s apocalyptic prophet is news from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.

According to the Barents Observer there are open areas in this area in most years during July - but this year the area is covered by ice.

A fortnight ago a Norwegian research ship, Lance, and a Swedish ship, MV Stockholm, got stuck in the ice in the area and needed to be freed by the Norwegian Coast Guard.

Once again real time events and science have defeated Senator Wong and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, despite their constant refrain that human-induced climate change is already occurring and we must act now to protect our prosperity and way of life.

Among them is Dr S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, who established and served as the first director of the US Weather Satellite Service, now part of the global National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (the universally respected NOAA), and is a former chief scientist of the US Department of Transportation.

Singer and a team of renowned international scientists earlier this year published a report titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, under the banner of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N).

It should be mandatory reading for all who wish to participate in the climate debate - be they policymakers, private individuals or representatives of business organisations.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... _cultists/

[RL3AO]

I was going to say that was the most one sided article I've ever read until I saw it was a blog.


I'm all for GW is a natural event, but when morons like this rip on the pro-GW people saying they are only going on 150 years of data, but then turn around and "prove them wrong" on one year of data...

[xironman]

Huh,

The Arctic is down over 1^2 km from average http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg. To chose one small area is cherry picking to the nth degree. When an article starts out with a whopper like that you can pretty much determine what the rest is going to be like.

[HenkL]

Arctic sea ice is always drifting. The high and low pressure areas determine the direction for the drift. This year a lot of ice drifted away from the Canadian Arctic coast towards the Svalbard area.

[Honeyko]

I was going to say that was the most one sided article I've ever read until I saw it was a blog.

Like CNN is better?

I'd rather read a snide, flippant, one-sided article that is correct than a nuanced article which is completely wrong.

Last year's polar ice at this time:



This year's ice:

[xironman]

It is a snide, flippant, one-sided article that is completely wrong. The arctic is down over a million square kilometers of ice coverage over average. Last year was an amazing record, which may not be beaten this year. But that has nothing to do with the trend.

[Honeyko]

It is ... completely wrong.

No it's not.

The arctic is down over a million square kilometers of ice coverage over average.

Coverage but not necessarily mass. For example, in 2008, ice-coverage is less than in some previous years, but it's thicker north of Iceland. (The over-pole charts only go back to 1979 -- so there's no readily available comparisons from previous thermohaline cycles.) Suffice to say that it gets blown around and piled up thicker in various places each year (and a good 40% to 50% of pack-ice is always thin and susceptible to piling given a few freak wind events...see Ioke below). Suffice also to say that open water is a more efficient black-body radiator than ice, so this "problem" is self-correcting. Suffice also to say that these comparisons do not measure water temperatures (I remember a half-dozen years ago when much of Hudson Bay was 60F or even 70F in spots; this year, there was still ice in parts of it on August 1).

Lastly, the region north of Alaska is still recovering from the effects of Super Typhoon Ioke's remnants in 2006. (Ioke was the longest-tracking Pacific "super" on record, and shoved an incredible amount of warm air into the polar regions on strong winds.)

Last year was an amazing record,

The last solar cycle had an amazingly potent maxima, which the Earth is still cooling off from; 2007 wasn't just an aberration. 2008 ice-coverage is also greater than in 2006, when it was possible to sail a ship from Murmansk to Japan:

which may not be beaten this year.

"...may not..."? Do you honestly think there's a even a chance? Come now.

But that has nothing to do with the trend.

Given the time-scales involved, 1979-onward does not a "trend" make. Given the record unusually cold weather in various parts of the world in 2008 (e.g., Siberia's had a very cool summer), and the albedo trends of the polar regions this year, I predict with good confidence a continued cooling trend until the next solar cycle approaches maxima.

[xironman]

I don't care about what is just the north of Iceland. If you can show me verifiable evidence that the overall mass of ice in the Arctic has increased I would love to see it. Of course 2006 was a low point, it is all part of the trend.

[Honeyko]

I don't care about what is just the north of Iceland. If you can show me verifiable evidence that the overall mass of ice in the Arctic has increased I would love to see it.

Is there verifiable evidence that it's decreased in 2008? It's already obvious that coverage is considerably higher in 2008 than in 2007.

Of course 2006 was a low point, it is all part of the trend.

Actually 2007 was the low point. But let's wait and see what sort of winter we get with our new solar minima before we get all confident about "trends".

[xironman]

Actually 2007 was the low point.

Now you are just parsing speech, of course 2007 was _the_ record that is why I said 2006 was _a_ not _the_ low point.
You are the one that brought up ice mass not me. It is verifiable that there is much less multi year thicker ice, that information is readily available at NSIDC. For trending the tale of the tape is a good place to start http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... series.jpg

[gigabite]

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... latest.gif

The cloud cover aspect over the polar ice sheet and how increased global atmospheric water vapor has been curtailed even as the surface area of water has been increasing as a result of sea level rise due to a shrinking Earth orbit and the compensating thickening of the plasma shield is a totally overlooked element in the global warming debate.

As the Earth is slung into a wider orbit the plasma phase will erode decreasing global atmospheric pressure and increasing cloud cover. That will increase planetary albedo decreasing all global temperatures.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/t ... x_minf.gif

The Earth is in a tight orbit right now. From July 2008 until after 2020 the Earth/Sun distance will be increasing in a big way relatively speaking. It is all about how quickly the effects of UV radiation falls off after a certain distance from the Sun. Then there is what I said before the whole albedo thing.

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/SUNDIST20062030.gif

I’ve been buying quilts. I live in south Florida. That is all you need to get through the winter. The weather has been beautiful here even for summer. I can’t remember the last 90 degree day. It’s going get cold on the northern tier this winter. I am betting I can eBay those quilts this winter make some US$ and buy a new surf board.

[Cane Scared]

I agree with you about the summer weather this year. I also think this winter weather will be earlier than usual and be colder.

[gigabite]

(I don't even wanna think about those orbital adjustments down the road.)

The sling shot let go on the forth of July 2008 (aphelion). Year over year Earth will be further from the sun until some time in 2020.

http://mdisas.nascom.nasa.gov/temperatu ... opts01.gif

You might be upside down on you sun spot concept. The above link is the soho thermometer. Note the temperature around the beginning of solar cycle 23. Cooler then now eh. And look at the swing from perihelion to aphelion. SOHO is 150 million kilometers closer to the Sun that Earth is and it experiences a 6 degree Celsius swing in temperature from summer to winter. The swing at Earth has to be greater because it is further away. Maybe not much, but no one knows how much. As near as I can tell the thermometer on soho is the only one in space. Irradiance does not seen to be answering the question about absorptive heat.

Any way are you in the market for a house in a warmer climate, cheap 30 percent off, how about a quilt?

[xironman]

Late Hudson's Bay ice-out

Hudson Bay has been in negative anomaly this year http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... on.13.html

[Honeyko]

Late Hudson's Bay ice-out

Hudson Bay has been in negative anomaly this year http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... on.13.html

Those anomaly records at that site only go back to 1979. Statistically speaking, it's an insignificant data-set..

[xironman]

The satellite data set is back up by longer term observational data sets, for Hudson Bay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Bay#cite_note-1

It is largely frozen over from mid-December to mid-June when it usually clears from its eastern end westwards and southwards. A steady increase in regional temperatures over the last 100 years has been reflected in a lengthening of the ice-free period which was as short as four months in the late 17th century.

[Honeyko]

Eh, a "significant" data-set would be like a couple [i]thousand[/] years -- something we simply don't have, because you can't count ice-cover like tree rings or alluvial deposit layers.

[xironman]

Now hold on, you said

Late Hudson's Bay ice-out

and I said there was no data to support that statement. You have not refuted that statement yet, usually a statement like that is made about recent known history. Just like looking at warm / cold anomaly in the tropics. BTW: Check out the amazing warm anomaly in Hudson Bay right now http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png. Given that could you say what the statement "Late Hudson's Bay ice-out" is supposed to mean?

[gigabite]

It is not unusual to have a heat anomaly north of 50 degrees in the summer because the radiation belt thins out over the poles and more uv gets to the surface on clear days.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... 080704.gif

BTW the you are not going to get 5 minute resolution from tree rings.

[Air Force Met]

It is a snide, flippant, one-sided article that is completely wrong. The arctic is down over a million square kilometers of ice coverage over average. Last year was an amazing record, which may not be beaten this year. But that has nothing to do with the trend.

I see this all the time. Over what average? The last 30 years? You (generic you) gonna base a whole movement on 30 years of data...that if you included the south pole TOO it would be a wash? What about last century? There is ice in placed today that was totally void 100 years ago.

Who's to say that your 30 year average isn't the top end of the long term average? What about 1000 years ago compared to today? No comparison. What about Roman Era Max?

Then you can compare to the Maunder minimum and the Sporer minimum.

Averages are just the middle between two extremes.