126 replies to this topic

[Gray-Wolf]

Nelson: Thomas was selective on arctic ice report

Columnist spews ideology; check out the real facts
January 22, 2010

Cal Thomas (Jan. 15) refers to English columnist David Rose, who cites data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center claiming to show Arctic sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles since 2007, a 26 percent increase. That, and the fact that weather in Europe has been unusually cold this winter, is enough to convince Thomas that global warming has been dealt a "severe blow."


Now, when Thomas refers to a research organization, my gut reaction is that the organization must be a corporate shill or a tool of the religious right. So I searched the Internet for the National Snow and Ice Data Center. To my surprise, it seems to be a legitimate scientific organization, supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

The NSIDC has an illuminating site (nsidc.org). As I searched for the reference to the 409,000 square miles, I learned that between 1980 and 2007 the extent of Arctic sea ice decreased from an area roughly equal to the area of the lower 48 states to an area roughly equal to the states west of the Mississippi River.

It took a few minutes to find the fact cited by Thomas (through Mr. Rose). It was in a press release of Oct. 6, 2009 (http://nsidc.org/new..._minimumpr.html). I would invite those interested in "climate change" to read the entire press release, entitled "Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark."

To quote from the report: "The average ice extent over the month of September (2009) ... was 409,000 square miles greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 266,000 square miles greater than the second-lowest extent in 2008. However, ice extent was still 649,000 square miles below the 1979 to 2000 September average. Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."

In other words, Arctic sea ice is up since 2007 because 2007 was the lowest on record. The September 2009 level was nearly 24 percent below the 1979-2000 average.

Now for some statements from the press release that Thomas and Rose missed:

"The past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record."

"It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades" - NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

"Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 2.2 feet between 2004 and 2008."

NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said, "A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome."

People like Cal Thomas. And David Rose.

I saw this a few weeks back and thought the reporter a little sad for not knowing who NSIDC were! The fact that folk are attempting to make something of the pitiful max extents since 07' is laughable. No mention of 'ice volumes' you'll note as these continue to fall since 07'.

What tells the tale best? a thin skim of ice that forms in 24hr darkness in the coldest area of the planet or the fact that, for 12 months of the year, it's loosing mass year upon year? I'll let you decide folks

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 09 February 2010 - 11:28 .

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I know its colder this year, but I'm sure the Arctic hasn't dipped into the UK or NW Europe recently...

[pyrotech]

I think that what i forecast back in September 2009 and back in 2008 has come pretty damned acurately true.
solar min is having this effect and not just locally but pretty much all over northern hemisphere. yes the artic is not recovering quickly, and unless solar min continues or solar max is weak then it will not recover. I gave reasons before of why.
That is why i called this UK and Northwest Europe, that is where effects would happen fastest and deepest.

The gulf stream is effected by the jet stream. The Jet stream effected by solar min. As is SSW effected by solar weather.

Another cold winter 2010-2011 due to the lag effect even if solar max really kicks in.

[SP1986]

I'm sure colder periods have happened under solar maximums too and warm periods in minimums, so it's not always as simple as 'solar minimum = cold period' there are so many variables it's unreal. Another misconception I imagine is that cool periods mean year after year of frigid cold winters.. I imagine this is nowhere near the truth.. a cool period could surely be characterised as much by a cool summer than a severe winter!

[Gray-Wolf]

I think of all the places in the world that NW Europe is going to be the most difficult to pin down in so far as the way climate changes impacts will manifest. The places on the Atlantic coast (and the belt inland from the coast) may well find wetter ,cooler conditions plaguing them as the Arctic looses summer ice and ocean currents alter. We all know what a reduction in the gulf stream is proposed to bring us but what of an 'extended ' gulf stream running up into Frans Joseph land and not around the Baltic?

It is not just as simple as 'temps' when you have the Atlantic to factor in. Of course further inland just end up with drought and increased rain 'events' flash flooding areas (with the knock on impacts through the river drainage systems carrying off the rainfall as we saw in the Danube a few years back).

I hope we are not to 'pay' for climate change with a run of dreary summers as the Arctic sorts it's new patterns out but that , coupled with the increase in run off from Greenland, (as the melted glaciers release the ice sheets from above them) makes it's impacts felt.

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 01 May 2010 - 16:45 .

[pyrotech]

Gray-Wolf, on 01 May 2010 - 16:41 , said:

I think of all the places in the world that NW Europe is going to be the most difficult to pin down in so far as the way climate changes impacts will manifest. The places on the Atlantic coast (and the belt inland from the coast) may well find wetter ,cooler conditions plaguing them as the Arctic looses summer ice and ocean currents alter. We all know what a reduction in the gulf stream is proposed to bring us but what of an 'extended ' gulf stream running up into Frans Joseph land and not around the Baltic?

It is not just as simple as 'temps' when you have the Atlantic to factor in. Of course further inland just end up with drought and increased rain 'events' flash flooding areas (with the knock on impacts through the river drainage systems carrying off the rainfall as we saw in the Danube a few years back).

I hope we are not to 'pay' for climate change with a run of dreary summers as the Arctic sorts it's new patterns out but that , coupled with the increase in run off from Greenland, (as the melted glaciers release the ice sheets from above them) makes it's impacts felt.

GW and Stephen make very good points and i have the greatest respect for both of you.
Would you agree that Jet stream effects the Gulf stream?
Would you agree that historic data does show temperature changes occur during suatained deep solar min. even if only in Dalton and maunder minimum?
Would you agree that jet stream is effected by ssw and that links with this and cosmic rays solar min have been discussed even if you do not personnally see a link.
Finally on my forecasts would you agree there is enough to investigate further the connections.

I am not saying that there is no global warming event and certainly agree that human caused polution needs to be kerbed, but please guys and gals lets have an open mind. Science is about new findings and changing outcomes as information becomes available. Sometimes every thing looks clear until new evidence suddenly shows that maybe we have not seen the full picture.

I feel us humans must do our bit and now, but i think our nearest star will have the final say in all this.

[SP1986]

pyrotech, on 02 May 2010 - 00:03 , said:

GW and Stephen make very good points and i have the greatest respect for both of you.
Would you agree that Jet stream effects the Gulf stream?
Would you agree that historic data does show temperature changes occur during suatained deep solar min. even if only in Dalton and maunder minimum?
Would you agree that jet stream is effected by ssw and that links with this and cosmic rays solar min have been discussed even if you do not personnally see a link.
Finally on my forecasts would you agree there is enough to investigate further the connections.

I am not saying that there is no global warming event and certainly agree that human caused polution needs to be kerbed, but please guys and gals lets have an open mind. Science is about new findings and changing outcomes as information becomes available. Sometimes every thing looks clear until new evidence suddenly shows that maybe we have not seen the full picture.

I feel us humans must do our bit and now, but i think our nearest star will have the final say in all this.

The jetstream although not having a direct effect on the gulf stream and NAD must have indirect affects somewhere along the line, but I suspect the affects are literally at the surface and whether the very surface skin of water has much affect on the weather patterns I do not know. As for changes, yes there are well documented evidence showing Dalton and Maunder mins have produced cooler periods, that said I don't think we have a huge amount of evidence to suggest we are in a major solar minimum, especially since the sunspots seem to be increasing on the solar surface, plus a solar flare was spotted I think so the sun looks like it's recovering.

I think the solar minimum pattern are suibject to change, so whilst a pattern is seen in relatively modern history there is no reason to suggest that pattern cannot change it's state. Ie we could get a prolonged maximum or a prolonged minimum at some stage - A prolonged minimum may have some effect, but I think the variables must all connect together. I think in this sense there's as much a lottery of luck to what happens to weather patterns on a solar minimum/maximum, but strong must force it somewhat.

That said I think the globe as a whole has been largely unaffected by that but it seems that NW Europe/UK are particularly sensitive to small changes.