The North Pole could melt this year

[BrianH]

These photos are from NASA....


NASA - Top Story - RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE - October 23, 2003

"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said. "

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

(THIS IS NASA AS WELL)

"A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004

(AND THIS ONE AS WELL)--Granted, it does loosley tie it to CO2, but by no means says it's the cause and most important greenhouse gas...

 

[Chris]

TopGunna, here's more good info from the University of Illinois...

Global warming may halt ocean circulation - UPI.com

Thanks for telling me about them!

 

[Chris]

"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said. "

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

(THIS IS NASA AS WELL)

"A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases."

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004

(AND THIS ONE AS WELL)--Granted, it does loosley tie it to CO2, but by no means says it's the cause and most important greenhouse gas...

Those quotes are 4 years old....

Let's review shall we.....

California is experiencing its driest year on record. Over 800 square miles of California forests have burned so far, and the real fire season doesn't even start until late July. Most of the North Pole has melted. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Every year we pump 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that number is rising as China and India industrialize.
Most of the "scientists" who were global warming deniers turned out to be paid by Exxon and the Petroleum Institute. Two years ago Exxon realized they were wrong and stopped funding those scientists. Still, some people continue to parrot them. Even Bush the Lesser now believes in global warming.

 

[Chris]

NASA temperature data.....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

 

[jreeves]

Those quotes are 4 years old....

Let's review shall we.....

California is experiencing its driest year on record. Over 800 square miles of California forests have burned so far, and the real fire season doesn't even start until late July. Most of the North Pole has melted. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by one third in the last 200 years. CO2 is now at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. Every year we pump 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that number is rising as China and India industrialize.
Most of the "scientists" who were global warming deniers turned out to be paid by Exxon and the Petroleum Institute. Two years ago Exxon realized they were wrong and stopped funding those scientists. Still, some people continue to parrot them. Even Bush the Lesser now believes in global warming.

Sure anyone who dispels your myth is funded by Exxon.
While man made global warming cultist enjoy huge paychecks from the government through grants.

A government agency says that droughts aren't on the rise. Your reply to this, citing data from CA. LMFAO

CA makes up what less than .001 % of the worlds total area.

When shown wildfires are caused 4 out of 5 times by human carelessness. Your reply, you point out a statistical anomaly. Something that hasn't ever happened in CA. Which if your thoughts were supported by evidence then wildfires wouldn't just start popping up out of nowhere due to global warming. They would have been occuring at least the last 20 or so years.


------->Kirk

 

[Chris]

jreeves, thank you for making it so easy....

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, thank you for making it so easy....

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience

Lmfao....
Center for Science and Public Policy - Southern California Wildfires and Global Warming: No Connection
Any sort of weather-related event that grows large enough to find its way into the national news is seemingly tagged with being a result of, or at least made worse by, anthropogenic global warming. The wildfires burning in southern California are no exception. National television news programs, major newspapers, and even some politicians have gotten in on the act and linked the ongoing wildfires in southern California to human-induced climate changes.
But, as is the case nearly every time, global warming probably has little is anything to do with the wildfires ablaze in southern California.

The major reason that global warming in being fingered in the southern California wildfires, besides the general all-bad-things-weather-related-are-caused-by-global-warming sentiment, is a paper by Anthony Westerling and colleagues that was published last summer in Science magazine. In that paper, Westerling et al. concluded that there was a big jump in wildfire frequency, size, intensity, and duration across the American West that was related to increasing spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts. And for good measure, they pointed out that these were the types of changes that are expected and projected to occur with ever-increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (thanks to us humans).

But, the results and implications of that paper (for a critical review of that paper, see, The Fire This Time: More Perspective Needed) are not well-applied to fires in southern California. In fact, Westerling has authored several other papers that deal more directly with southern California fires, past, present and future.

Westerling describes the history of southern California wildfires, as well as the background conditions, both ecological and climatological, that lead to their occurrence in his 2004 paper, “Climate, Santa Ana Winds and Autumn Wildfires in Southern California.” The paper begins:


Wildfires periodically burn large areas of chaparral and adjacent woodlands in autumn and winter in southern California. These fires often occur in conjunction with Santa Ana weather events, which combine high winds and low humidity, and tend to follow a wet winter rainy season. Because conditions fostering large fall and winter wildfires in California are the result of large-scale patterns in atmospheric circulation, the same dangerous conditions are likely to occur over a wide area at the same time.

Furthermore, over a century of watershed reserve management and fire suppression have promoted fuel accumulations, helping to shape one of the most conflagration-prone environments in the world. Combined with a complex topography and a large human population, southern Californian ecology and climate pose a considerable physical and societal challenge to fire management.


In reviewing the history of wildfires there, Westerling notes:


Large wildfires in chaparral in the autumn and winter months are also not extraordinary events in southern California. They have occurred frequently during the last century. Moreover, charcoal records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments indicate the frequency of wildfires in the region has not changed significantly in the last 500 years.

As to the causes of the bad wildfire season of 2003 Westerling explains:


The severity of the immediate human impact of the October 2003 wildfires was exacerbated by the rapid growth of an extensive wildland-urban interface proximate to a population of nearly 20 million in southern California, where the population has more than doubled since 1950. The intensity of the fires and the severity of their ecological impact on the region’s forests were exacerbated by the long-term accumulation of fuels such as snags, logs, and heavy brush due to 20th-century fire suppression policies and watershed preservation efforts since the late 1800s.

Oh wait ....Lmao another Exxon employee right.....

 

[Chris]

Lmfao....
Center for Science and Public Policy - Southern California Wildfires and Global Warming: No Connection
Any sort of weather-related event that grows large enough to find its way into the national news is seemingly tagged with being a result of, or at least made worse by, anthropogenic global warming. The wildfires burning in southern California are no exception. National television news programs, major newspapers, and even some politicians have gotten in on the act and linked the ongoing wildfires in southern California to human-induced climate changes.
But, as is the case nearly every time, global warming probably has little is anything to do with the wildfires ablaze in southern California.

The major reason that global warming in being fingered in the southern California wildfires, besides the general all-bad-things-weather-related-are-caused-by-global-warming sentiment, is a paper by Anthony Westerling and colleagues that was published last summer in Science magazine. In that paper, Westerling et al. concluded that there was a big jump in wildfire frequency, size, intensity, and duration across the American West that was related to increasing spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts. And for good measure, they pointed out that these were the types of changes that are expected and projected to occur with ever-increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (thanks to us humans).

But, the results and implications of that paper (for a critical review of that paper, see, The Fire This Time: More Perspective Needed) are not well-applied to fires in southern California. In fact, Westerling has authored several other papers that deal more directly with southern California fires, past, present and future.

Westerling describes the history of southern California wildfires, as well as the background conditions, both ecological and climatological, that lead to their occurrence in his 2004 paper, “Climate, Santa Ana Winds and Autumn Wildfires in Southern California.” The paper begins:


Wildfires periodically burn large areas of chaparral and adjacent woodlands in autumn and winter in southern California. These fires often occur in conjunction with Santa Ana weather events, which combine high winds and low humidity, and tend to follow a wet winter rainy season. Because conditions fostering large fall and winter wildfires in California are the result of large-scale patterns in atmospheric circulation, the same dangerous conditions are likely to occur over a wide area at the same time.

Furthermore, over a century of watershed reserve management and fire suppression have promoted fuel accumulations, helping to shape one of the most conflagration-prone environments in the world. Combined with a complex topography and a large human population, southern Californian ecology and climate pose a considerable physical and societal challenge to fire management.


In reviewing the history of wildfires there, Westerling notes:


Large wildfires in chaparral in the autumn and winter months are also not extraordinary events in southern California. They have occurred frequently during the last century. Moreover, charcoal records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments indicate the frequency of wildfires in the region has not changed significantly in the last 500 years.

As to the causes of the bad wildfire season of 2003 Westerling explains:


The severity of the immediate human impact of the October 2003 wildfires was exacerbated by the rapid growth of an extensive wildland-urban interface proximate to a population of nearly 20 million in southern California, where the population has more than doubled since 1950. The intensity of the fires and the severity of their ecological impact on the region’s forests were exacerbated by the long-term accumulation of fuels such as snags, logs, and heavy brush due to 20th-century fire suppression policies and watershed preservation efforts since the late 1800s.

Oh wait ....Lmao another Exxon employee right.....

You love those Exxon butt boys. You just can't stay away from them.

2002: Center for Science and Public Policy Started with Funds from ExxonMobil

 

[Chris]

jreeves, are you being paid by the Petroleum Institute?

 

[Chris]

From the link you quoted....

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."

 

[jreeves]

From the link you quoted....

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."

These are your boys, I set your ass up. These are statements made by Westerling. Which is....
Anthony (Tony) Westerling Personal Home Page


In his research, he stated.....

Both antecedent climate and meteorology
played important roles in the recent extreme
wildfires in southern California.After a multiyear
drought contributed to extensive mortality
in western forests and chaparral, late winter
precipitation and a cool spring and early summer
fostered the growth of grasses that were
cured out during a hot summer and autumn
in 2003, producing an extensive fine fuel coverage.
Fanned by moderate Santa Ana winds, during the last century.
Moreover, charcoal
records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
indicate the frequency of wildfires in the
region has not changed significantly in the
last 500 years [Mensing et al.,1999].

http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04EOS_Westerling.pdf


That's straight from an enviromental wacko like yourself....

 

[Chris]

Insults are not convincing arguments.



July 2, 2008
Melt onset earlier than normal


Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.



Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageOverview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent.

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.


Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the gray line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted green line shows extent for 2007. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image


Conditions in context

While sea ice extent averaged for June 2008 was similar to last year, there were pronounced differences in the spatial pattern of the retreat through the month. Last year, open water quickly developed along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev seas. This year, an unusually large polynya has opened in the Beaufort Sea, and there is significantly less sea ice in Hudson's Bay and Baffin Bay.



Figure 3. Average June ice extent for 1979 through 2008
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image


June 2008 compared to past Junes

June sea ice extent is very similar to last year and is now the third lowest on record. It lies very close to the linear trend line for all average June sea ice extents since 1979, which indicates that the Arctic is losing an average of 41,000 square kilometers (15,800 square miles) of ice per year in June. Last year, the rapid melt leading to the record-breaking minimum extent began in July.



Figure 4. The colors in the above image indicate date of onset of melt over the Arctic Ocean. Light gray indicates areas that have not yet begun to melt this year, or areas for which data is not available. Data from the SSM/I sensor; algorithm used to process the data came from Thorsten Markus at Goddard Space Flight Center.

—Credit: Natonal Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageEarly onset of melt

Preliminary satellite data shows us that surface melt began earlier than
usual over the western and central Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay (see Figure 4). Last year was fairly typical except for significant early melt in the Laptev and Barents seas. This year, sea ice in the Beaufort Sea began to melt on average 15 days earlier than normal, and 15 days earlier than last year. Surface melt in the Chukchi and East Siberian seas was 6 days earlier than normal, and 14 days earlier than in 2007. In the central Arctic Ocean, melt began around June 9th, which was 12 days earlier than normal and 9 days earlier than the year before. In Baffin Bay, surface melt began 14 days earlier than last year and was 16 days earlier than normal. Areas where melt occurred later, compared to last year, are confined to the margins of the ice cover. These results are considered preliminary and will be updated as more data become available.

Figure 4 was updated on July 3, 2008, with data through July 1. A previous version, posted on July 2, used data from June 10, 2008.



Figure 5. This image shows the percent anomaly of ocean absorption of solar heat from January 1 to September 21, 2007, compared to the 1979 to 2005 average. Dark red and orange indicate areas with especially low albedo. Data from SSM/I sensor.
—Credit: From the National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy Don Perovich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

See High Resolution Image Why earlier melt matters

What are the implications of this year's earlier-than-normal melt onset? As melting begins, the layer of snow on top of the ice becomes wet and then disappears, leaving bare ice and ponded water. Each of these changes reduce the reflectance of the surface—increasing absorption of solar energy, further reducing reflectance, and promoting even stronger melt. This is known as the ice-albedo feedback.

Early melt onset exposes the snow and ice to more days with low reflectance. It also increases the exposure during the critical early summer season, when solar energy is at its peak. As colleague Don Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory notes, this combination enhances ice-albedo feedback (see Figure 5). Perovich calculated that in 2007, some areas of the Arctic absorbed eight times as much heat because of the ice-albedo feedback, contributing heavily to last year’s record-breaking melt.

The combination of ice-albedo feedback and early melt onset in 2008 sets the stage for significant ice losses this summer. Three of the most important factors in sea ice losses are melt onset, cloud conditions throughout the melt season, and atmospheric circulation throughout the melt season. With melt onset having occurred earlier than usual, cloud and atmospheric conditions over the next two months come to the forefront. To learn more about cloud conditions and atmospheric circulation, read “More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection” in our June analysis.



A community sea ice outlook

The Study of Environmental Arctic Change program has released a Sea Ice Outlook for 2008. Their May report has predictions from a number of different scientific groups (including NSIDC) of how much sea ice will be left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season. The predictions range widely above and below last year’s record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometres (1.59 million square miles).

References

Perovich, D. K., J. A. Richter-Menge, K. F. Jones, and B. Light (2008), Sunlight, water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, doi:10.1029/2008GL034007.



For previous analysis, please see the drop-down menu under Archives in the right navigation at the top of this page.

NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.

 

[jreeves]

Insults are not convincing arguments.



July 2, 2008
Melt onset earlier than normal


Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.



Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageOverview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent.

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.


Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent; the blue line indicates 2008; the gray line indicates extent from 1979 to 2000; the dotted green line shows extent for 2007. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image


Conditions in context

While sea ice extent averaged for June 2008 was similar to last year, there were pronounced differences in the spatial pattern of the retreat through the month. Last year, open water quickly developed along the coasts of the Chukchi and Laptev seas. This year, an unusually large polynya has opened in the Beaufort Sea, and there is significantly less sea ice in Hudson's Bay and Baffin Bay.



Figure 3. Average June ice extent for 1979 through 2008
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution Image


June 2008 compared to past Junes

June sea ice extent is very similar to last year and is now the third lowest on record. It lies very close to the linear trend line for all average June sea ice extents since 1979, which indicates that the Arctic is losing an average of 41,000 square kilometers (15,800 square miles) of ice per year in June. Last year, the rapid melt leading to the record-breaking minimum extent began in July.



Figure 4. The colors in the above image indicate date of onset of melt over the Arctic Ocean. Light gray indicates areas that have not yet begun to melt this year, or areas for which data is not available. Data from the SSM/I sensor; algorithm used to process the data came from Thorsten Markus at Goddard Space Flight Center.

—Credit: Natonal Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageEarly onset of melt

Preliminary satellite data shows us that surface melt began earlier than
usual over the western and central Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay (see Figure 4). Last year was fairly typical except for significant early melt in the Laptev and Barents seas. This year, sea ice in the Beaufort Sea began to melt on average 15 days earlier than normal, and 15 days earlier than last year. Surface melt in the Chukchi and East Siberian seas was 6 days earlier than normal, and 14 days earlier than in 2007. In the central Arctic Ocean, melt began around June 9th, which was 12 days earlier than normal and 9 days earlier than the year before. In Baffin Bay, surface melt began 14 days earlier than last year and was 16 days earlier than normal. Areas where melt occurred later, compared to last year, are confined to the margins of the ice cover. These results are considered preliminary and will be updated as more data become available.

Figure 4 was updated on July 3, 2008, with data through July 1. A previous version, posted on July 2, used data from June 10, 2008.



Figure 5. This image shows the percent anomaly of ocean absorption of solar heat from January 1 to September 21, 2007, compared to the 1979 to 2005 average. Dark red and orange indicate areas with especially low albedo. Data from SSM/I sensor.
—Credit: From the National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy Don Perovich, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

See High Resolution Image Why earlier melt matters

What are the implications of this year's earlier-than-normal melt onset? As melting begins, the layer of snow on top of the ice becomes wet and then disappears, leaving bare ice and ponded water. Each of these changes reduce the reflectance of the surface—increasing absorption of solar energy, further reducing reflectance, and promoting even stronger melt. This is known as the ice-albedo feedback.

Early melt onset exposes the snow and ice to more days with low reflectance. It also increases the exposure during the critical early summer season, when solar energy is at its peak. As colleague Don Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory notes, this combination enhances ice-albedo feedback (see Figure 5). Perovich calculated that in 2007, some areas of the Arctic absorbed eight times as much heat because of the ice-albedo feedback, contributing heavily to last year’s record-breaking melt.

The combination of ice-albedo feedback and early melt onset in 2008 sets the stage for significant ice losses this summer. Three of the most important factors in sea ice losses are melt onset, cloud conditions throughout the melt season, and atmospheric circulation throughout the melt season. With melt onset having occurred earlier than usual, cloud and atmospheric conditions over the next two months come to the forefront. To learn more about cloud conditions and atmospheric circulation, read “More on the sea ice-atmosphere connection” in our June analysis.



A community sea ice outlook

The Study of Environmental Arctic Change program has released a Sea Ice Outlook for 2008. Their May report has predictions from a number of different scientific groups (including NSIDC) of how much sea ice will be left in the Arctic at the end of the melt season. The predictions range widely above and below last year’s record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometres (1.59 million square miles).

References

Perovich, D. K., J. A. Richter-Menge, K. F. Jones, and B. Light (2008), Sunlight, water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the summer of 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11501, doi:10.1029/2008GL034007.



For previous analysis, please see the drop-down menu under Archives in the right navigation at the top of this page.

NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.

Lmao....so we change the subject?? It's quite funny, when disproven that the wildfires in CA are not extraordinary you change the subject......

 

[Chris]

lmao....so We Change The Subject?? It's Quite Funny, When Disproven That The Wildfires In Ca Are Not Extraordinary You Change The Subject......

Lmfao!!!!

 

[Chris]

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."

 

[Chris]

Just in case you missed it...

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."

 

[jreeves]

Just in case you missed it...

"The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," said study co-author Dan Cayan, director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Climate Research Division. "The recent ramp-up is likely, in part, caused by natural fluctuations, but evidence is mounting that anthropogenic effects have been contributing to warmer winters and springs in recent decades."

It's nothing extraordinary compared to the last 100 years, or using data collected over the last 500 years.

 

[jreeves]

North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say

By Alan Duke
CNN

(CNN) -- The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.


Scientists say it's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole.

"We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?' and it may well," said the center's senior research scientist Mark Serreze.

It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen last autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said.

The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage -- the sea route through the Arctic Ocean -- opened up briefly for the first time in recorded history.

"What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up," Serreze said.

Specific weather patterns will determine whether the North Pole's ice cover melts completely this summer, he said.

Don't Miss
Special Report: Planet in Peril
Study: Global warming sends plants uphill
Global warming could increase terrorism, official says
"Last year, we had sort of a perfect weather pattern to get rid of ice to open up that Northwest Passage," Serreze said. "This year, a different pattern can set up so maybe we'll preserve some ice there. We're in a wait-and-see mode right now. We'll see what happens."

The brief lack of ice at the top of the globe will not bring any immediate consequences, he said.

"From the viewpoint of the science, the North Pole is just another point in the globe, but it does have this symbolic meaning," Serreze said. "There's supposed to be ice at the North Pole. The fact that we may not have any by the end of this summer could be quite a symbolic change."

Serreze said it's "just another indicator of the disappearing Arctic sea ice cover" but that it is happening so soon is "just astounding to me."

"Five years ago, to think that we'd even be talking about the possibility of the North Pole melting out in the summer, I would have never thought it," he said.

The melting, however, has been long seen as inevitable, he said.

"If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100," Serreze said. "Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

Serreze said the Arctic sea ice will not be the same for decades.

"If we had a few cold years in a row, we could put sort of a temporary damper on it, but I think at this point going to an ice-free Arctic Ocean is inevitable," he said. "I don't think we can stop that now."

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions could "cool things down a bit," he said.

"It would recover fairly quickly, but it's just not going to happen for a while," he said. "I think we're committed at this point."

There are some positive aspects to the ice melting, he said. Ships could use the Northwest Passage to save time and energy by no longer having to travel through the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn.

"There's also, or course, oil at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean," he said. "Now, the irony of that is kind of clear but the fact that we are opening up the Arctic Ocean does make it more accessible."

Just last Monday, NASA was quietly issuing a press release explaining why Arctic sea ice loss was so great this year. (h/t Douglas Hoyt).

From the release: A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.

“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

In simpler terms, polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would. Sea ice can easily be wind driven.

I wonder if that’s the same mechanism that caused loss of Arctic sea ice in the 1920-30’s?

The Arctic is almost as warm now as it was seventy years ago. Unsurprisingly, Arctic ice has diminished. But, as Polyakov et al.show, the long-term changes are “generally statistically insignificant”. But there’s more ice in Antarctica now. It seems that points more to a natural, cyclical variation on a global scale when one pole diminishes while another gains.

According to Cryosphere Today, normal North Pole ice area at this time is about 5 million km^2, with current amounts amounting to a negative anomaly of about 2 million km^2, for a current total of about 3 million km^2. On the other hand, the South Pole normal area is about 15 million km^2, with current amounts amounting to a positive anomaly of 1 million km^2, for a current total of about 16 million km^2.

Now, it is easy to get alarmed about the North Pole numbers, because they have gotten so close to zero. But the truth is about 2/3rd of total North Pole ice always melts by the end of the northern summer. This summer it got down to about 1/4 of the winter amount.

It is much less alarming if you consider the total between the 2 poles. Using the Cryosphere Today normals and current ice areas, there is normally about 20 million km^2, and currently there is only 19 million km^2. When you realize that the total taken together only represents about a 5% reduction from normal, then it does not seem nearly as alarming.

Arctic = 3 million square kilometers - shrinking, new record low
Antarctic = 16 million square kilometers - growing, new record highIt appears that there is precedence for what we are observing today, and a strong suggestion of a cyclical nature that points to a natural variability mechanism. Plus, the most important thing to note is that we only have satellite measured sea ice data from about 1979. A 30 year trend isn’t enough to conclude much upon, especially when there is clear evidence of a larger period cycle.

Arctic Sea ice loss - “it’s the wind” says NASA Watts Up With That?

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, the author of the article quoted above works for the tobacco industry and the oil industry. Check out this profile......

Singer was born September 27, 1924, in Vienna, Austria. Singer received a B.E.E. from Ohio State University in 1943 and a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948.

In the early 1990s, Singer's wife, Candace Carolyn Crandall, was Executive Vice President of SEPP and is currently a Research Associate of SEPP. [1]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website. [2]

[edit]Affiliations
1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
[edit]Climate Change "Expert"
The National Center for Public Policy Research [4] lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.[5]

[edit]Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

Lmao...

Global Warming is a business here's a list of EPA grants for global warming research.

Cashing in on Global Warming | cooler heads


Here's a list of 31,000 american scientist saying man made gw is a myth.

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

 

[Chris]

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.