Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer". The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun …
You see, the polar ice WOULD be retreating, except the measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions are already having an effect.
This shows that WE WERE RIGHT.
Of course, there's a long way to go yet, after all, we want to keep our new industry alive, our living depends on it.
Meantime we'll take action to prevent the reckless release of factual data to the great unwashed so they can't find out what's really happening in future.
Probably by having the data restricted in case it's used by terrorists.
Remember: We are RIGHT. We know best
Paris? Because SHE knows when she's being fucked over.
>Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
Oi, that's Math Abuse. You can't take ratios of ratios like that; fourth form error, sir.
I see the author has "no current university affiliation".
There's a surprise, then.
A lot like this article. There's a bit of media bashing in the article - when that kind of thing comes from a member of the media, those claims loose a lot of their value. Maybe Mr. Goddard should be affiliated with a university of some sort. There's a lot to be learned about how to craft a solid response to a debatable point.
After all, once people realised that religion was just a tool to control the masses, the Powers-That-Be had no choice but to use (pseudo)science instead!
Mine's the one with the ice-pick in the pocket.
Surely if the ice is melting slowly it would increase in land mass as the top of the ice slowly breaks away and slides down to sit next to the previous ice's base?
Has anyone measured for this? whether the height of ice is steady or dropping?
Why is there so much confusion?
Why are so many scientists saying that the ice caps are melting, and yet you seem to present some proof to the contrary? How hard is it to measure this stuff? I would just like to know if the caps are melting or not.
One small point to make. The pictures don't show the depth of the ice (and thereby the total volume) at the various times, only the surface area. Is there any reliable info on this?
Now that Paris has solved the energy crisis, maybe she can apply her ample brains to the "Great Global Warming Debate".
If you check http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html it seems that the ice extent is not too large. All depends on the source... and the information you believe is correct. The thing is that all those graphs are valid and constructed in slightly different ways... Differences also arise basing on different software used to decide 'which colour' the pixel should be and the automatic interpretation of 'ice free' is sometimes a bit difficult too. All in all leads to making comments like you did, substantiated by some evidence, fairly easy. But IMHO one needs to be very careful with generalisations... and claims that this source of information is right and the other is wrong.
Finally, the area of ice - independent on the source of information you are using - is much smaller than it used to be, on average, in 80's and 90's. But true, it is unlikely that whole ice will melt this year and I am happy about that. Those claims were made earlier this year when the ice area seemed to be below those in 2007...
Well there is a surprise, bloody weather forecasters have enough trouble trying to tell if it is going to rain tomorrow let alone predicting when we are all going to get burnt to a cinder.
Now what's the next armageddon story, mine's a pint of carling please !
Why it - 'cause the media is full of *&IT
Now, instead of just *asking* these questions, which are strongly suggestive of bias, would it be possible to actually get them to account for their methodology? Their chart states that their criteria is 15% sea ice by area, which suggests that they don't count pixels (although doing this could be a useful sense check). Does anyone have any idea why this is?
While you're at it, get James Hansen on to explain why his temperature data seems to be skewed up the way (if he'll speak to you). I'd love for you guys to at least try and get some response from them, even if it is 'fuck off'.
I've found these articles and the related discussions pretty interesting and it would be good to hear from the horse's mouths how these things are arrived at.
"The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on "global warming" makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science"
Is any of the global warming crap based on science? Solid or otherwise?
im sure you took into consideration that warmer temperatures will result in thinner ice, so that while the coverage could be the same (or even greater) it will be a lot thinner meaning LESS ice?
knowing that you are a respectalbe journo in a top notch publication and would never slap a half finished story on the desk to get out early on a high note of hysteria i will assume that it was an accidental omission and in no way brought about by a desire to sex it up.
with messing about with the data and statistics to reinforce a story you know is crap but can't tell anyone, you soon forget what you did to the real data.
mmmmm ...... When it's proven that Global Warming is nothing more than a phase in the Earths' natural heating/cooling cycle, what are these doomsaying jokers going to do? They'll be the laughing stock of the entire planet, not just the scientific community. Poor sods will be on trial for crimes against humanity.
Remember kids, if you don't lie, you won't have remember anything.
NH sea ice area of 4.001 Mkm^2, compared to the 2005 minimum of 4.01 Mkm^2.
And we haven't got to september yet.
............................................ Oh wait, no it isn't.
Damn! There goes our funding.
Right, so do I book my skiing holiday in Europe - cheaper, less reliable snow, or the US - speak English (With a close enough approximation), reliable snow, more expensive?
..that global warming is a big phat phaicque?
I don't actually think that, but I am starting to wonder if maybe we've all been had.
It obviously doesn't fit in with the MMGW scare stuff and the heretic who wrote it should be nailed to a wall somewhere.
Facts..we don't need no stinkin facts to hail the great religion of MMGW.
Phew -close one that but I think nobody will notice.
Nothing to see here...these are not the graphs your looking for...move along...
Great stuff guys. the sooner these MMGW fruit loops are discredited the better.
Anonymous -cos I don't want the eco inquisition grabbing me with their comfy chair etc...
Let's not get into a frenzy of "So, there's more ice than there was, rather than less, which isn't what YOU predicted, you doom-mongering, tree-hugging AGW enviro-nazis"
Let's make that attack in a calm, yet derisive manner.
Much more dignified.
Bugger that!
More ICE!
get it RIGHT up ye!
Throw another shovel-full of coal on that fire!
Simpel really. The northern hemisphere is highly industrialised so, on top of the usual reasons for ice melt (currents, vulcanism, wind direction and so on) there's also the addition of large amounts of soot, mostly from China and eastern europe. The soot carries up to the arctic, settles on the ice, lowers its albedo and... melting! Oddly enough this was one of the "fixes" posited for the media-driven global cooling scare in the 70s. It doesn't have the hugest effect but it is a contributing factor, unlike the whole CO2 thing.
The antarctic, of course, doesn't get that soot because the southern hemisphere is relatively free of the stuff, so it'll just keep right on growing.
Im off out to buy myself a cheap 4x4......
Parris coz im sure she knows what to do with an ice cube to melt it....! Oh yeah....!
or even if they meantion it in any real depth - which I doubt.
Because people then may start to realise that climate change has been blown all out of proportion like the war on terror which is constantly push down our necks and has really achieved nothing than make our lifes more expensive and more miserable, not unlike peak oil thoery.
*\. Putting mine on as its a bit cold round here with this global warming.
Surely a proper journalist would be publishing a report where the people who posted the data in question have a chance to respond? You keep doing this with this climate stuff - do some proper work please and present a full report instead of some shoddy speculation.
Is that Sweeden, Norway or Finland? Perhaps they mean north of the Danish teritory of Greenland? it is a seperate country, just part of the Danish Empire..
*Meeting of head muppets at the Al Gore Centre For Dodgy Climate Change Crap Science Institute Of Failure*
/Scientesticle1
Soooo, Antartic and Artic are not melting, polar bears are not swimming for miles and we are not all drowning in meltwater...
/Scientesticle2
Well, we could bamboozle them with some stupid idea that the global warming has some kind of malicious intelligence and it got bored with the Artic and is now global warming the Sahara instead
/Scientesticle1
Yeah yeah, and we could say that all the shit weather people in northern europe are getting is caused by Global Warming's little red headed step brother, Regional Raining.
/Scientesticle2
OK, you get on the phone to Al, I'll start on the story for the new movie...
/Scientesticle1
And remember, do NOT call it "a convenient lie"
"The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on "global warming""
You've got it all wrong... global warming was the phraseology used last time the gubermint used the environment as a scare tactic to increase taxes... this time they realised that if they used the same wording, people would twig that it didn't make a jot of difference last time. This time they call it "climate change". (you could also argue that people realised that things were getting colder - not condusive to global *warming*)
The earth is always going through climate change - thus we know of things such as ice ages, and the fact that the romans grew grapes for wine in scotland. I suspect it cycles roughly every 11 years (in line with sunspots), and sometimes it goes further than others.
In the words of a great author: "DON'T PANIC" (in large friendly letters)
That alarming graph is a lesson in hiding data to fit your needs. The "1979-2000 average" line is very suspect. First of all, where's the data for 2001-2006? Secondly, what the range of values, rather than just an average (mean I guess)?
Scamps -> Yahoo: Stu [-]
Thank you El Reg for the well reported difference in the polar ice coverage. When you are talking about such a large system such as the Earth's climate with a billion variables, I can't see why people allow themselves to knee-jerk unnecessarily.
1000 years ago it was warm enough in York to have flourishing vineyards (more here: http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/spotlight-english-wine.asp ). I think evidence like this with something so colossal as the climate you have to try and look back more than 30-40 years to get any idea of what may come and the natural cycles of the earth's temperature.
You seem to be comparing apples and bananas.
The positive numbers are talking of the area covered with ice, not the mass of it like the Norwegian numbers.
A 1000 sqkm plate of ice 10 meter thick equals 330 sqkm ice 30 meters thick in mass, while only being 1/3 in apparent size.
Ole
Why do I have this suspicion that there's going to be a very large, very damaging, very messy civilisation changing fraud case coming up pretty soon?
My guess is that the trial will start on 21st December 2012.
So we had reports that the north pole was going to be "ice free for the first time" did we? Funny that, because it's been ice free several times. But I suppose a headline like "the north pole will be ice free for the umpteenth time" doesn't grab the attention.
The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that scientists, or at least their press offices, are starting to follow the lead of politicians in not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.
When a politician tells you that facts are stupid things then you shrug. When a scientist does the same it's probably time to panic.
"Is any of the global warming crap based on science? Solid or otherwise?"
Yes.
CO2 is transparent to visible and opaque to IR. The sun is 6000K so peak output is in the visible range. The earth is merely warm at about 280K so peak output is in the IR range.
Therefore energy coming in is finding it easy. Energy getting out is finding it hard.
Or do you have trouble working out how your thermos knows whether its contents are hot or cold and so know how to keep them that way?
The camp citing imminent meltdown is similar to the camp saying it's business as usual...there's not yet signs of meltdown...we haven't got enough data yet, it will take years, maybe decades. But there are some trends:
"Passive microwave satellite data reveal that, since 1979, winter Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3.6 percent per decade (Meier et al. 2006). Antarctic ice extent is increasing (Cavalieri et al. 2003), but the trend is small."
I'm afraid I can't quite understand why it seems so difficult to decide whether an image pixel shows ice or not.
If its ice, its, well, white.
Water isn't usually white...or even close to it.
So why is it so hard to measure ice cover?
Come to that, they could send a plane over to LOOK at the coverage..or wouldn't this method give the results they want to find?
What has the "war on terra" and the "global warming" hype got in common?
One increases the price of oil, the other justifies it.
The media are still loving the global warming / claimate change / carbon footprint rubbish.
I heard the latest government radio ad yesterday, with the infuriating line "How many time have you heard 'funny weather we're having lately' down at the pub?"
Aaarggh.
I like the Cryosphere Today site, because they are strong global warming advocates and yet they don't mind showing data that goes against their beliefs. So, if they don't hide data that disagree with their beliefs, they can be trusted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Their data still shows arctic sea ice above last year. And the antarctic sea ice is above last year's record high too.
But there is still no mention of the volcanic activity under the arctic and antarctic. What is amazing is the antarctic is reaching record highs with a volcano under a part of it. Part of the antarctic ice broke off, and the media said it was global warming all the while ignore that the antarctic is above normal for sea ice coverage.
You want a good conspiracy?
Try this one on for size...
Al "I invented the internet" Gore gets a bunch of his rich buddies together and then they decide to invest heavily in to alternative energy projects. They figure that if they can get enough panic or fear started, then others will look to alternatives on CO2 production. Also he's working with his banker/trader buddies to cook up a carbon trading schemes so that companies that can not afford to make the radical shift in cleaning up their act can then ease the pain by trading carbon credits. (Also allowing companies that don't produce carbon byproducts can then make some extra cash.) (And the traders make money in an artificial economy)
So what you have is a group of rich people making more money from a public which gets their facts from Wikipedia.
Now is it a good idea to clean up our act? Sure. Will we act unless driven in to a hysterical panic? Probably not. So while these unnamed "gore-ites" get rich, they can ease their conscious that they are doing good by being environmental con-men.
T-Boon Pickens an oil man just looking to cash in on his huge investments in wind power productions.
Oops! I've said too much!
What is this constant drip-drip-drip of one-sided denialist insinuation from 'Steven Goddard' doing on The Reg?
The climate change flame war is all very entertaining and that, but where's the tech angle?
From the New Scientist article I was reading last week, the THICKNESS of the arctic ice at the north pole this year was something like 25% of what it was a few years ago. The problem here is that you are discussing the AREA of arctic ice, whereas the important thing is VOLUME. Also, I would imagine it is quite conceivable that if ice sheets are breaking up, it would look, from space, like the total ice area were increasing, since there would be a certain amount of 'spreading out' of the ice sheet going on. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe in the large amount of research being done, where accurate mneasurements are being taken, actually on the ice, by qualified scientists, than some observations taken from space, on a scale which is most likely around the kilometre mark.
So, to summarise, 'YOU AM FAIL'.
As much as I think Gore is a muppet when it comes to AGW, I tend to stop reading when somebody brings out the "I invented the Internet" thing. He never said that, and it's completely counter productive when you use it against him; you just sound clueless.
Not quite the same thing, and the article seems to confuse the two.
The massive flaw in the argument presented here - that the thickness of the ice hasn't been considered - was notified here more than 4 hours ago. I realise it's Friday afternoon and all that, but shouldn't you either fix the article or add a disclaimer or something? Or is this just meant to be a load of old Jeremy Clarkson style bollocks to give people something to get worked up over for the weekend?
Surely the way science works is that:
1 - people gather data
2 - they write a paper describing their conclusions
3 - they publish the paper AND THE DATA, for other people to examine
4 - if no one can find a hole in anything, the conclusions are accepted
So, if we have an issue with ice coverage, where is the raw data, and any information on corrections applied, so that we can all examine it and determine if anyone is wrong?
Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'. Something like this: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
And don't call me Shirley...
is being deconstructed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/north-pole-notes/langswitch_lang/ww#comment-91465
Thankfully with Mr Goddard's participation.
Read and enjoy.
Arctic ice extent (as measured from the UIUC maps) is now 45% larger than the same date in 2007. NSIDC is showing the delta at about 15%.
You can see the increase here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-MnbOGfLE
Please get back to stories about Webwank 2.0 and the iPhone, and leave the pseudoscience to experts in the field, such as the Daily Mail.
Jolyon
Don't bother with the YouTube video that Stephen Goddard posted, I wasted a full 8 seconds of my life watching one frame fading into another.
And it STILL doesn't answer the question about the VOLUME of ice.
Jolyon
...and it's not just the thickness of the ice (which is incidently hard enough to measure) but it's also the density that matters. There are different types of ice depending on how long it's been there for, along with a number of other parameters.
It's such a shame that the Cryosat satellite exploded and got a little bit too close to the action by landing in the sea:
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAOMH1VMOC_LPcryosat_0.html
I think it's a really interesting mission and would help answer some of the questions surrounding the properties of the polar regions.
"Just one of the huge number of problems associated with climate science as practiced in the 21st century is that the base data is often not made public, but instead 'peer reviewed' by a few of your friends. Then a completely spurious claim is held to be 'proven'."
Speaking as a scientist who publishes papers, I can say that this statement is complete BS. If I ever tried to publish a paper without including the data, it'd be deep-sixed by the journal editors before even making it to the peer review stage.
I'm not sure if the commenter understands how science publications work...
