No Ice In The Arctic By 2013 - Yeah, Right

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    President Barack Obama showed that he has bought into global warming hysteria when he declared in his State of the Union address: “For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.”

    He is not alone.

    A 2008 article in The Guardian reported that professor Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and his team produced a forecast “which indicated that by 2013 there will be no ice in the Arctic, other than a few outcrops on islands near Greenland and Canada, between mid-July and mid-September.”

    Maslowski said, “The crucial point is that ice is clearly not building up enough over winter to restore cover and that when you combine current estimates of ice thickness with the extent of the ice cap, you get a very clear indication that the Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in five years.”

    The article also quoted professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge in Britain, who noted: “Now the most detailed computer models suggest the Arctic’s summer ice is going to last for only a few more years ... . However, arctic ice did not disappear last summer ... .”

    In a Nov. 24, 2012, New York Times article, “Is This the End?” James Atlas commented, “We’d seen it before, the Piazza San Marco in Venice submerged by the acqua alta; New Orleans underwater in the aftermath of Katrina; the wreckage-strewn beaches of Indonesia left behind by the tsunami of 2004. We just hadn’t seen it here (last summer’s Hurricane Irene did a lot of damage on the East Coast, but New York City was spared the worst). ‘Fear death by water,’ T. S. Eliot intoned in The Waste Land, ‘We do now.”

    Respected climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in remarks quoted by the Climate Depot website: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st-century developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

    A March 2012 Investors.com posting reported that “... global warming alarmists ... claim that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close. ... Many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the Earth. Of course there are some who don’t. ... But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36 percent believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm. ... Members of this group, not unexpectedly, ‘Express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.’ ... However, another group believe that climate science ‘is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless and impossible.’”

    In 2008, The Guardian reported that a poll of Brits found that the public was not “convinced that climate change is caused by humans — and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem. ... There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public’s doubts on (the) Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.

    “Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly ‘suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.’ The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: ‘We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.’

    “Getting facts wrong and citing dubious sources isn’t the worst of it. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the U.N.‘s climate chief, remained silent when he knew information was false and denied he had been aware of the Himalayan glaciers error before the recent climate-change summit in Copenhagen, which made a big deal about this nonexistent crisis. He only grudgingly came partly clean when Pallava Bagla, a writer for the journal Science, pointed to email correspondence from last autumn showing Mr. Pachauri already knew of the fraud.”

    A 2010 Washington Post editorial made the following observations, “Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science. The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts.

    “Man-made global warming theory isn’t backed up by science; it’s a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It’s time to admit it’s all baloney and move on.”

    My own conclusion is that the Earth has been experiencing both warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time. The problem is that it has become a convenient tool for politicians to raise money and disparage political opponents who dare to disagree with them.


    http://www.noozhawk.com/article/022313_harris_sherline_is_climate_change_real/
     
  2. summer ice. left that out.

    "All told, since 1979, the Arctic sea ice minimum extent has shrunk by more than 50 percent—and even greater amounts of ice have been lost in the corresponding thinning of the ice, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

    "There is much more open ocean than there used to be," says NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier. "The volume is decreasing even faster than the extent [of surface area] as best as we can tell," based on new satellite measurements and thickness estimates provided by submarines. Once sea ice becomes thin enough, most or all of it may melt in a single summer.

    Some ice scientists have begun to think that the Arctic might be ice-free in summer as soon as the end of this decade—leaving darker, heat-absorbing ocean waters to replace the bright white heat-reflecting sea ice. The question is: Then what happens? Although the nature and extent of these rapid changes are not yet fully understood by researchers, the impacts could range from regional weather-pattern changes to global climate feedbacks that exacerbate overall warming. As Meier says: "We expect there will be some effect…but we can't say exactly what the impacts have been or will be in future."

    On thin ice
    Arctic ice influences atmospheric circulation and, hence, weather and climate. Take away the ice and impacts seem sure to follow. There's more warming to come, as well, particularly in the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the globe. Given cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, there's likely at least as much warming to come as has occurred to date—a rise of 0.8 degree Celsius in global average temperatures, most of that in the past 30 years.

    The biggest impacts of the loss of Arctic sea ice, of course, will be felt locally: from the potential for more snowfall (which can act like an insulating blanket keeping the ice warm and incapable of growing) to more storms with stronger winds. These will also whip up waves to pound the shore, eroding it, as well as bringing warmer temperatures to thaw the permafrost—leading to "drunken" trees and buildings as well as villages slipping into the sea. A loss of sea ice will also affect the largest animals in the Arctic: seals, walruses and polar bears. "My people rely on that ocean and we've seen some dramatic changes," said Inupiat leader Caroline Cannon at a Greenpeace event on the Arctic in New York City on September 19. "We are the gatekeepers of the ocean. We speak for the animals. They provide for us so it's our time to speak for them," by arguing to ameliorate climate change."


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-sea-ice-loss-implications
     
  3. pspr

    pspr

    Sea Ice News: Volume 4 #1 – Arctic Ice gain sets a new record

    Posted on February 12, 2013by Anthony Watts

    From the Nature abhors a vacuum department comes this note from RealScience showing that Arctic sea ice has made a stunning rebound since the record low recorded in the late summer of 2012.

    With a few weeks of growth still to occur, the Arctic has blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter. This is only the third winter in history when more than 10 million km² of new ice has formed.


    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/12/sea-ice-news-volume-4-1-arctic-ice-gain-sets-a-new-record/

    <img src=http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/screenhunter_175-feb-12-10-35.jpg width=320 height=270>