Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

[audtatious]

By Steven Goddard UK RegisterPublished Friday 15th August 2008 10:02 GMT

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”. Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here’s a smaller version of the graph:

(The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)’s troublesome ice graph)

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 percent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)



The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.

Video Link

The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used. As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area - so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.

So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.

What melts the Arctic?The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.

We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”. The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science.

BootnoteAnd what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?

The author, Steven Goddard, is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any energy industry, nor does he have any current affiliation with any university.

[smockers83]

Well no wonder why it hasn't hit 90 yet this year here, there's a whole bunch of ice comin' my way. For the past 6 or 7 years there's always been a week or two when we reach into the 90s for a few days, this year not so much. I know the past two summers were so uncomfortable without A/C, especially when trying to sleep at night. This summer I have to turn the fans off at night so I'm not freezing.

The media and others like to claim there is a consensus that global warming is real when the fact is that there is nowhere near a consensus in the scientific community. On my most recent road trip, I was listening to Michael Savage on his radio show Savage Nation (I've listened to him twice and I find him to be very interesting and enjoy his show, recommended). He started talking about global warming and the media. He also talked about something I found quite interesting, the newsprint media. They are one of the biggest advocates for global warming yet their very industry has a high carbon footprint. You have the very paper that everything is printed on to the old, inefficient cars that the deliverers drive. Also, some of the biggest advocates of global warming are from the left (in which the newsprint media is also in alliance with) who want to control global warming, thus the economy, thus introducing an almost soft-core Marxist economy, which is associated with the left as becoming socialist.

[skylndrftr]

I was listening to Michael Savage on his radio show Savage Nation

stopped reading right there.

[audtatious]

Ah, finding someone you disagree with to deflect again I see. You don't like Michael Savage so everything else, including the article is a lie and crap.

Good game.

[themadscientist]

It's my fault, sorry. I have been commuting to the ice cap daily, hitting every 7-11 on the way for bags of ice. It is all part of my plot to make Al Gore look retarded. Little did I know he has done that all by himself.

[audtatious]

[rn79870]

What's the disagreement here for. We, at least the ones who read the "Smithsonian" know that the earth is in an overall "warming" trend. Within this trend are peaks and valleys where temperatures warms and cool. It's mother nature and she's been doing this for a long time. Overall, that is, the last 150-200 years, the temperature is climbing ever so slightly. If you look from year to year you're going to see warm years and cool years, and you'll see the ice melt and breakaway, and probably reform too. If you look at much longer periods, you'll see the earth is in a warming trend.

The earth, some 700,000 years ago, was a giant snowball, covered in ice thousands of feet deep. (If I remember my dates correctly)

Some 300,000 years ago (again, if I recall correctly), the earth was a steamy swamp. Compared to the snowball phase we're in a warming phase now. Compared to the swamp phase we're in a cooling phase.

Now, the better question is whether man has played a part in upsetting the natural course of things and if so, is there enough evidence of man's fault for this "overall" warming trend. It follows that if man is responsible, what can man do to correct the problem.

Personally, I believe we should assume man is responsible and use our resources to clean up our mess. I'm not talking stopping all industry tomorrow, instead, I believe we can use our technology to have our cake and eat it too in this matter. We're capable of many amazing things when we set our minds to it.

I like clean air; I like clean water. I like rivers without old tires lining the banks. I like breathing air you can't see or cut with a knife. I like green grass and trees and animals. But then, I'm just a liberal CARB loving troublemaker who wants to leave the world a better place than I found it.

[rn79870]

Ah, finding someone you disagree with to deflect again I see. You don't like Michael Savage so everything else, including the article is a lie and crap.

Good game.

But, that's exactally what happens when I quote Mother Jones. Maybe we need to find a news source that we can all agree on as fair, impartial, and balanced. That's a pretty big assignment there.

[smockers83]

Yes, people have a hard enough time agreeing with themselves 100%, how do we expect to agree with another person 100%? I never said I agreed with Savage 100%, but he brings up interesting conversation. Do I agree with it all? No, but I can think about it on my own and have my own opinion, whether its a variation, a disagreement, or an agreement. You can't listen, watch, or read something and just blindly accept it, you should let it stimulate your mind and think about it on your own. And when you have 7 hours of downtime in the car, there's a lot of time to think about things.

The only sources we would all be able to agree on are reports from government agencies and departments or by groups of professors or even groups of universities.

[rn79870]

zerothread/338445

[skylndrftr]

What's the disagreement here for. We, at least the ones who read the "Smithsonian" know that the earth is in an overall "warming" trend. Within this trend are peaks and valleys where temperatures warms and cool. It's mother nature and she's been doing this for a long time. Overall, that is, the last 150-200 years, the temperature is climbing ever so slightly.

over the last 150-200 years we have also changed the method we use to measure the temperature of the earth. Giving rise to much more variability. When you go from estimation on a small sample to a much larger sample worldiwde with more accurate measurements...well things inherently change.

@audtatious... Michael Savage remains a douche tool despite my not being decided or convinced either way on this issue.

[audtatious]

You should do some research and see where some of that measuring equipment actually resides (maybe you have, who knows). Wonder how readings are accurate when some of the stations are in blacktop parking lots, on roofs by A/C and heating units, etc.

I personally don't listen to Savage although the times I have he has bashed Bush pretty good and I probably agreed with half or more of his reasons. I have even tried to listen to Air America but when every 2 minutes they slur the President and do nothing but use political talking points I quickly tired of it. Hell, even Rush and others will slap around the Republican party themselves. Right now I lean towards Beck because he brings up stuff that is simply ignored via the MSM and he bashes both sides as well.

[AZhitman]

SO, if a person you don't like cites a reliable study, that makes the study suspect?

The evidence is clear and oncvincing - Algore is a charlatan and a fraud, MMGW is a hoax, and just another "shame on humans" lie foisted by Dems to get you to relinquish even more respect for yourself and your country.

BTW, I do NOT disagree with Bob about pollution and clean water.... But we should be focusing our efforts on bigger fish, not some mythical man-made impact on the atmosphere.

Let's take care of the garbage issue, clean up the oceans, outlaw non-biodegradable plastic packaging, tax the hell out of disposable diapers, make fast food companies use renewable packaging, educate people about the bottled water lies, etc.

[skylndrftr]

just to clarify...I was agreeing with aud. Not disagreeing.

And spereately...Beck Rush and Savage can all STFU as far as I am concerned. The only one who annoys me more is fat balding douche on CNN whose name I can't remember. Self righteous bungholes should try living as middle class americans before they tell them what they should think.

[audtatious]

Press the vote for the Democratic party and they will ensure that AM radio will have no voices for people to hear. Next will come a bill to give money to the aging dinosaur print media in order to keep getting their word out.

From the temperature isssue, yes, I knew you agreed with me this time.

[skylndrftr]

I was refering to hitman.

Honestly, I could care less about the voices for people to hear. The voices of the people aren't heard...period. The last thing we need to do is protect hate mongers like rush limbaugh giving people their opinions. When all we get from the news is opinion and not fact, we have more important issues.

[smockers83]

Self righteous bungholes should try living as middle class americans before they tell them what they should think.

From what I've heard out of Savage, he did live there growing up.

[AZhitman]

The last thing we need to do is protect hate mongers like rush limbaugh giving people their opinions. When all we get from the news is opinion and not fact, we have more important issues.

...and you don't get your info from biased sources?

For what it's worth, I haven't heard Rush since the late 90's.

What's wrong with people in the media having an opinion?

Someone has to report the news, they're called journalists. They have to be as objective as possible. Then there are talk show hosts, and they do NOT have to be objective.

You call it "hatemongering", but that's YOUR OPINION.

I think most lefty talk show hosts are fearmongering, limp-wristed, excuse-making socialist welfare babies.

And that's my right.

p.s. You said something VERY SCARY: "The last thing we need to do is protect hate mongers like rush limbaugh..."

Since when did you become a Communist? Are you advocating silencing him somehow? Is his free speech less important than the speech of Al Gore or Michael Moore? Hmmmm?

Capitalism would dictate that if no one wanted to hear him, he'd be off the air. Someone's paying big bucks to advertise on his show and keep it on the radio... Wana interfere with the free market?

[audtatious]

Capitalism would dictate that if no one wanted to hear him, he'd be off the air. Someone's paying big bucks to advertise on his show and keep it on the radio... Wana interfere with the free market?

The Dems are trying to do just that with their Fairness Doctrine.....

[smockers83]

Every time political talk radio comes up, this Fairness Doctrine comes up. What the heck is it? The talk radio of the left is just non-existant for whatever reason and I've heard various reasons from that the left doesn't want to buy anything to they want to keep their newspapers.

[audtatious]

The FD was introduced in '49 and implemented into FCC regulations in '67 where it required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. For the most part it was implemented due to the limited number of public stations that allowed opposing viewpoints. A Supreme Court case in '69 (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367) resulted in Justice Byron White declaring:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

Again, the intent was to make sure people had the opportunity to hear dissenting viewpoints which were not possible when there were a small number of radio stations at the time. The FCC began repealing parts of the FD starting in 1985 because they felt it hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In '86, the Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Fairness Doctrine applied to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In '89, the same court declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to inforce it. In '87 the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote which was upheld via the appeals court in '89. Only two rules were still on the books in 2000 and when the FCC was asked to justify them in light of the decision to repeal the FD, the court ordered their repeal.

H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" was introduced in the 109th Congress in order to restore the Fairness Doctrine. The 110th Congress has received no request to restore it at this point.

The main point, when it came to public airwaves of the past, was to allow those who thought they were attacked an opportunity to respond as some people had limited access to news or other commentary. In today's environment, with thousands of radio stations, news print, TV and the internet, it is seen as a way to attack conservative viewpoints on AM radio due to the success of Rush and others along with the lack of success of Air America. Of course, you can't just target the airwaves, thus you will have to enforce it against internet bloggers, forums and web sites that offer editorial style viewpoints or member comments. It becomes a huge mess.

[rn79870]

I remember a rule that required a station to air equal amounts of time when they did non-commercial broadcasts of political issues. IE, 5 minutes of Obama needed to have a corresponding 5 minutes of McCain. That appears to no longer be the case, and that's too bad.

[audtatious]

If you listen to Rush or others on AM radio they play much more than 5 minutes of sound bites through their shows

[AZhitman]

Why is it too bad?

Why must the left insist on government manipulation of what is essentially a free market driven arrangement?

Why must the government be called upon to "level the playing field"?

Here's the deal - Build a better mousetrap (i.e., libby talk radio show) and there'll be nothing to whine about.

So now we're extending affirmative action to the airwaves?

Folks, in its purest sense, that's called state-sponsored propaganda, and it reeks of Communism.

[audtatious]

They tried to build a bigger mouse trap but the spring didn't work

[0wn3r]

Wonder how much the solar cycle has impacted this outcome.

[AZhitman]

That's the point.

There's a lot of new research saying there's actually a global COOLING, and that arctic ice is NOT shrinking (per satellite photos).

I'm all for cutting pollution, even to the point of resucing emissions in practical and EVEN AGGRESSIVE ways (if the net outcome is positive). But this whole MMGW thing is so transparently a joke, it's ludicrous.

Oh Algore, come save us from ourselves... And could ya fly over in the Gulfstream and tell us all about it? Pinhead.

[96Qowner]

And then, of course, there's this startling bit of news:

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASAGISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen...The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.



The troposphere hasn’t warmed for the past five years. And the oceans haven’t warmed for five years either

http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel...thtml

It kinda killed the last global warming thread:

zerothread?id=321948

[0wn3r]

Well, not that I've done any extent of research on this, but I saw that the solar cycle was at the highest activity in 2002. If we're about half way through it, and it goes back up, how much higher will the temperature be?

[OriginalWheelman]

I was refering to hitman.

Honestly, I could care less about the voices for people to hear. The voices of the people aren't heard...period. The last thing we need to do is protect hate mongers like rush limbaugh giving people their opinions. When all we get from the news is opinion and not fact, we have more important issues.

Rush in on the air because people agree with him, not because people want to be told what to believe.

Every time political talk radio comes up, this Fairness Doctrine comes up. What the heck is it? The talk radio of the left is just non-existant for whatever reason and I've heard various reasons from that the left doesn't want to buy anything to they want to keep their newspapers.

The left is too busy listening to techno to turn on talk radio.

I remember a rule that required a station to air equal amounts of time when they did non-commercial broadcasts of political issues. IE, 5 minutes of Obama needed to have a corresponding 5 minutes of McCain. That appears to no longer be the case, and that's too bad.

Why is that too bad? That's not freedom of the press! That's a dictated format. I bet the liberals got rid of this law so they didn't have to give equal time to the Concervs.

They tried to build a bigger mouse trap but the spring didn't work

That's cause it was an ECO friendly spring made of recycled paper, and it got tied up in court because the environmental impact study didn't factor in the post mouse trapping blood flow into the ground water.