http://www.norwegianmoose.com/2008/03/polar-ice-cap-melting-away-in-2008.html
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Robertvd on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- roaddog on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Bob G on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
Check out this boat in http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm 1942 it did the North west passage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen#cite_note-Thomas-2 Also in 1903 Roald Amudsen did the North West passage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage we can see some more evidence in history of the north west passage being more ice free then other times
Roald Amudsen did it pretty well in 1903ish
Roald Amudsen did it pretty well in 1903ish
I’m not convinced that an article containing a sentence that begins “After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen ….” really confirms your view of this event. Doesn’t sound like “did it pretty well” to me.
But you’re convinced by the IPCC.
I’m convinced by science, not by the IPCC.
I’m having trouble, by the way, remembering a response of yours that actually responds rather than trying to deflect.
Considering “After a third winter trapped in the ice”, do you continue to maintain that Amundsen did it “pretty well”? That was the comment that you essentially ignored by dragging in the IPCC red herring.
ChrisD says:
October 25, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Roald Amudsen did it pretty well in 1903ish
I’m not convinced that an article containing a sentence that begins “After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen ….” really confirms your view of this event. Doesn’t sound like “did it pretty well” to me.
=====================
Considering he didn’t have GPS, satellite views of the artic, and all the other modern tools available today that enables one to predict and avoid where the ice is moving, the fact that he did it at all is well beyond “pretty well” (and a blow to the “unprecidented” spin).
Sorry, but it’s a bit of a joke to claim that the Northwest Passage was “more ice-free” because a guy was able to get through it in three years in a small, shallow-draft boat.
Amundsen got through because he was able to take three years to do it while making incremental progress as the local ice conditions permitted, not because it was largely ice free at any point.
Check out this boat in http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm 1942 it did the North west passage
During the 1840’s and 50’s while making efforts to find the NW Passage and the Franklin expedition, McClure almost made it. He was able to walk across a point and see open ocean. If he would have been equiped with GPS and satellite data, he probably would have made it.
There is also the anecdotal data from the Vikings settling on Greenland, the Chinese sailing through a near ice free Arctic, etc.
All show that positive feedbacks are bogus.
I think Professor Olav would do better utilizing his predictive powers at the Blackjack table in Las Vegas.
There are still people around it will be ice free in 2 years. How can it be icefree in 2 years when the inside passage still has problems. Bear Grylls went thru it, but I don’t trust him after Hawaii lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBmhNA7JME4
Pretty sure it won’t be Steve.
More sensible predictions have it possibly occurring within a few decades, some see it lasting till the end of this century.
Yea, right.
I’ll believe this before I believe anything Brendon posts
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCTIC.pdf
Brendon says:
October 25, 2010 at 10:20 am
Pretty sure it won’t be Steve.
More sensible predictions have it possibly occurring within a few decades, some see it lasting till the end of this century
And some see the sky falling before then.
Here’s something to keep for a laugh soon http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
“Roald Amudsen did it pretty well in 1903ish”
He spend 3 years trapped in the ice and didn’t make it until 1906 and it was only due to having a craft with a shallow draft. Ordinary ships could never have done it and certainly not in a single season.
It may not have been passable in a single season until the warmest period in the last 100 years…. the 1940s:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/northwest-passage-news-article.png
There’s more ice in the Arctic now than there was 1000 years ago. It was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than now. There is nothing to be alarmed about. All alarmism over Arctic ice is based on inadequate science.
Amino, where is your evidence that there was more ice 1000 years ago than today? Do you have some references or data to back this claim up?
The sensible predictions use the 2007 and 2008 ice extents to come up with the arctic ice free scenario because the Ipcc models are so accurate. Unfortunately or fortunately for these models, the 2009 and 2010 extents are having an extremely negative effect on the projections.
There goes mother nature confounding those models again…. she’s a bad bad lady…
The IPCC models as a group fail to capture the observational rate of decline (i.e. ice loss is happening faster than the models predicted).
Julienne, do you know if Fowler and Maslanik will provide a complete animation of the sea ice age from 1982 to 2010? Also including the reprocessed maps, of course.
With the maps I´ve seen, this “reprocessing” should begin sometime between September 2006 and March 2008. It would be interesting to see the color transition between the last map without reprocessing and the first reprocessed one…
In the sea ice extent long term data series (1979-2010) currently the NSIDC continues to add data from the same SMMR-SSMI instruments used previously, although since 2002 the more reliable AMSR-E datais available . The reason is to get a homogeneous serie, and to can compare each month with each other: fairly reasonable. However, it seems, the same criterion doesn´t apply to the series of sea ice age maps …
It will happen in the near future, but I don’t know the exact date. It has always been a research product rather than an official data set product, but they are working on making it a data set product.
As for reprocessing, we do reprocess our sea ice extents as soon as we get the antenna temperatures from RSS. So even though we are using the same satellite and algorithm, the values for extent and ice concentration do change once we reprocess. For example, the 2007 September monthly mean reported in our sea ice news and analysis report was 4.28, but the final data product value is 4.30.
I should also mention, that updates in our brightness temperatures would also affect the ice age calculations. One of the problems with the near-real-time microwave data stream is that geolocation problems sometimes occur that put ice in the wrong place.
Thank you very much for your answer.
“For example, the 2007 September monthly mean reported in our sea ice news and analysis report was 4.28, but the final data product value is 4.30.”
OK, I understand it, that is a little change.
But, is this a little change or a major one?: http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/5074/372009.gif
My concern is whether this reprocessing of the data of recent years will produce an abrupt jump in some point of the data series, which could difficult the comparison with previous years.
Diablobanquisa, that is a larger change. Just keep in mind though that in the reprocessing of the ice age data, what they are doing is incorporating more information in the later years that is already included in the earlier years (i.e. the buoy data, so they are making the time-series of ice motion more consistent). Also, they still have not updated the ice motion fields using AVHRR data (right now AVHRR data only goes through 2004 in the archive), so that will likely result in another reprocessing when the AVHRR data is ready. Probably best to talk directly with the producers of these data though as they will know more about how results change when they add more data into producing the ice motion fields and in switching from SSM/I to higher resolution AMSR-E data.
No one knows what will happen to the Arctic Sea Ice. Will it melt entirely by summer 2013, as per Al Gore’s prediction? Where did he get that from?
Joe Bastardi thinks a return to “normal” will occur in the near future. This being due to cold PDO now and cold AMO in 10 years time. This is where my money is.
Will it melt entirely by summer 2013, as per Al Gore’s prediction?
Al Gore isn’t a scientist. He doesn’t make scientific predictions.
Where did he get that from?
He got it from Wieslav Maslowski, who is a scientist. Gore (who was speaking from memory in off-the-cuff remarks) did misquote him slightly. Gore said that there was a 75% chance that the Arctic would be ice-free within 5-7 years. What Maslowski actually predicted was that there would be an 80% ice loss in the Arctic within 6 years. Not exactly the same thing, but not a completely bogus prediction, either–and certainly not “Al Gore’s prediction.”
Thanks Chris.
I’m still not convinced about the melt out.
I’m still not convinced about the melt out.
Oh, I’m not, either. Maslowski’s prediction is pretty much an outlier in the scientific community. I was just trying to clarify that it wasn’t Gore’s prediction and explain where he got it from.
Julienne:
In the latest update of the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, NSIDC published a comparative between the sea ice age map of March 2010, and the September 2010 map. But the March map was a not reprocessed version, while the september map was reprocessed…
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure6.jpg
Why not shown the reworked versions of both maps?
(Although the easier color coding difficults the comparison, I think that looking at this animation between the two versions of March, it is clear that the easier colored map of march corresponds to the version without reprocessing: http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7995/animateanda.gif )
Also used the comparison between reprocessed and not reprocessed maps in the Arctic Report Card: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/I4-750.png