BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
Heartbreaking to know that all that ice in the map below is going to suddenly disappear – because you didn’t buy a hybrid.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- BenV on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Greg in NZ on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- czechlist on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- arn on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
It’s a major problem for the AGW psychotics, especially with the photon impact diminishing every day by 23 to 26 minutes.
chewer is the 23 minutes the loss of daylight at the pole?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suz-_aly_I4
I asked Mr Amos about this in February this year and here is reply verbatim, I’m sure he won’t mind as it saves him having to repeat the anser for further questions.
Thank you for your mail and interest in my story. The comparison between what is happening in the Arctic and the Antarctic is, on the face of it, a very interesting one. But I spend a lot of time talking to the scientists who study the cryosphere in depth, at both ends of the globe, and have my head in the literature. And I can assure you the analysis is a pretty uniform one. The Arctic and the Antarctic are behaving exactly as you would expect in response to forcing, with the former experiencing much more rapid warming with the consequent implications for its marine ice cover. This can be explained by the different geography in the two regions. If these scientists express any surprise to me it is that the changes in the north are happening far faster than they expected. The US NSIDC has a good explainer on why sea ice in the Arctic behaves differently to sea ice in the Antarctic. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html As regards the very latest Arctic sea ice figures, first please bear in mind the topic of my article was about ICE VOLUME, not the daily reports that concern ICE AREA/EXTENT. The distinction is very important. I urge you to go and read the story again. Strong regrowth is entirely what you would expect in the Arctic in response to very thin ice or a lot of open water. This negative feedback is the result of some very simple physics. So from a very deep September-low to a March-high, you are going to make a lot of new ice, very fast. But even if you look at the latest NSIDC daily bulletin (see “daily image update” at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/), this AREA/EXTENT is still tracking below the long-term mean. And again, this says nothing about VOLUME trends. Cryosat is the only means we have currently of measuring this.
“… AREA/EXTENT is still tracking below the long-term mean.”
Long term mean? Obviously he has never cracked a book on geology.
Ben, this reply is BS, the vast majority predicted a decline in both the north and south poles, the excuse for the south is ad -hoc. Now that the North is cooling, and ocean currents shifting, and ice is coming back, they have no answer.
Besides Ben, you asked him what? In Feb how did you ask him why his prediction for an ice free (sept) minimum was so far off base, before the fact? The B.S. answer you quoted had nothing, as in zero to do with the minimum being so high this year and his prediction being ass backwards.
I can’t remember my question exactly but I think it was along the lines of was he still happy with the article and had he considered the increase in Antarctic sea ice since writing it.
I expected the weasel word reply I got but hoped for one which said that he was way off the mark and was now more sceptical of what experts said.
Should have looked a bit harder here is what I asked
Dear Mr Amos
I wondered if, as seems likely, this forecast fails to materialise you are intending to talk to these scientists and post an update? I’d be very interested in whether they think the lows of 2007 and 2012 were caused by unusual (but not unprecedented) winds/storms or solely due to Global Warming/Climate Change?
Ben,he probably does not know what caused the main loss of multiple year ice in the Arctic that happened in the late 1980’s to mid 1990’s.It has been posted by Steve several times in the past showing the evidence of strong winds pushing them out into the Atlantic.
CO2 had nothing to do with it.
It’s amazing all the gloom and doom people in this world that get their fantasies put to print.
I beg to butt in and say: amazing indeed; and extreme religious people have been printing, and preaching, doom fantasies for thousands of years, and thereby convincing people in power to limit the harmless activities of the population at large. The same fear and guilt psychology is involved with extremist greens as with pulpeteers.
It is could be or it could be may be or it may be maybe or it may be could be or it maybe could be. Or it could be arguably may be, also.
I like the excuse, “I didn’t say it would be, and I didn’t say when. I said “it could be as soon as.” That meant it might have happened last year, but, as it didn’t, I’m still right.”
World Sea Ice coverage above 29 year Average by 298,000 sq KM as of 8/16/2013.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/368721877474099200/photo/1
Steve How many Manhattan’s is 298,000 sq KM?..
Thanks
More than enough to keep you drunk for a long time!
I have to go with the words of the immortal Billy Preston…”Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.”
Or to quote Billy the Bard, “Nothing will come of nothing”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5-BTdcqjk
Hey Mike! Speaking of nothing, I was added to this person’s circle of friends…
https://plus.google.com/110105487629227652805/posts?fd=1
Apparently she has me confused with someone else, or just could not resist my rugged good looks! I sure hope she is at least pretty, otherwise life is going to be rough for her. 😉
ROFLMAO!
Eva Green has a problem with reality!
And now she has a Gator problem!
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Heh. Heheh.
Sea ice turning; moving up: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Just an instrumentation glitch
Germans showing the same pixie nosed glitch: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/extent_n_running_mean_F17_regular.png
I meant to say, the start of …
(self snip a lot of stuff about reporting and what is going on, just leave this)
The following link might add something, just reread it, not sure I succeed in getting across what I mean in an understandable way.
Add first that these people fixate on a tiny detail, the elephants toe nail and trumpet that.
In recent years the size of the annual variation has increased, why is unclear but I am not ready to say much, might be illuminating (related to a post on the 13th about spectral irradiance). This gets ignored, fixate on a few days a year only.
I mention the snow cover. This also shows an increase in annual variation, is consistent with sea ice, however and this really annoys me: compatible data is almost hen’s teeth. Snow data is area but there is no equivalent sea ice area data, missing at high time resolution. Grudgingly we are given daily extent, no area. The ploy of moving goalpost again is noted, trying to move to volume. In consequence I’ve stalled on how to proceed with sensibly combining two datasets to give a full polar view. Other tricky details.
Incidentally there is nothing inconsistent with the claim over ice volume but there is with the fantasy drawn from it. So what if ice actually cleared briefly if there is no change of mean? Varies more over a year. Isn’t that more a good discussion point?
Point on link is Figure 1, where is the curve, where is the non-linear nosedive? It’s so straight line I don’t buy it.
http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/dubious-arctic-ice-data-does-not-support-the-official-storyline/
(any comments best here, I don’t want to divert discussion and I hope a long comment is not too far unacceptable)