Monday, April 27, 2009
Ice fine
Hope and change: An alarmist with a history of wildly inaccurate predictions is slatedly to become head of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which tracks data on Arctic sea ice, among other things. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice area is barely below the satellite-era baseline, and global sea ice is now almost a million square kilometers above the baseline. Oh, but you say the problem is that it is too "thin"? Is it actually thinner than it was in 1959?
23 Comments:
By 
Viking Kaj, at
Mon Apr 27, 10:58:00 AM:
12,000 years ago there was an ice sheet a mile high where my house now sits.
Just about the one thing that all climatologists agree upon is that we are in a period of interglacial warming.
I'd say longer term the biggest problem isn't global warming, it's global cooling.
By Brian, at
Mon Apr 27, 11:07:00 AM:
Ice is almost certainly less thick now, along with covering less area than in 1959. A single point measurement in 1959 doesn't tell you much anything about average thickness. Winds push ice floes about, so the right combination of winds will leave a single point with thin ice. Note that the same article refers to pushing through 25-feet thick ice.
And by the way, Serreze was just referring to that single point, the North Pole, POSSIBLY having open water last year. Also a meaningless measure, IMHO, but not a claim for an ice free Arctic. Wild inaccuracies are reserved to the Watts Up website itself.
By Brian, at
Mon Apr 27, 11:10:00 AM:
And for those still full of hope about Arctic sea ice, I'll repeat my offer: a monetary bet that ice area will reach a record low in the next five years, and/or a separate bet than no record high will be set during the next five years.
By Chris, at
Mon Apr 27, 11:28:00 AM:
Brian - a record low against what? If you are going to bluster about monetary bets, I want to know what data set for sea ice extent you are willing to to wager on.
By 
, at
Mon Apr 27, 11:48:00 AM:
"Ice is almost certainly less thick now, along with covering less area than in 1959. A single point measurement in 1959 doesn't tell you much anything about average thickness."You're almost certainly talking out of your hat. One thing is absolutely true: climate change is a constant and the faith-based "science" community seeking fewer people and smaller economies in hopes of alleviating or, foolishly worse, controlling natural phenomena are not our friends.
By Mike, at
Mon Apr 27, 12:17:00 PM:
Brian -
The Northern Hemisphere is surely warming - it can be clearly seen in the data. I also believe record highs and lows are nothing too special - the amount of ice is pretty variable.
If you truly believe in global warming, I'm happy to bet. To be specific: total global ice coverage (as measured by satellite pics) will not be at a place lower than the current record five years from now. Are you willing to escrow with our esteemed host?
By TOF, at
Mon Apr 27, 12:21:00 PM:
Viking Kaj is right: global cooling is vastly more of a problem than global warming.
Brian: how many veggies did you grow in your garden last January? There have been some years in the past 200 where crops failed because of cold.
Having been old enough to clearly recall the Forties and Fifties I can tell you that it went from cold winters and a lot of snow to warmer winters and less snow. Of course that was just a point observation over a decade or so. It doesn't count.
By , at
Mon Apr 27, 12:35:00 PM:
From Link
Whether or not AGW is true or not doesn't support the path where Obama wants to take us on energy. I'm a partial skeptic on AGW -- but I'm for energy independence and for conservation -- so I can get to the same place as most on the left ... but not as far as those who want to use AGW as an excuse to take down industrialized society.
Waxman has turned up a 700 page piece of idiocy. It won't lower emissions a wit, for several reasons. If we were serious, we'd follow the path of the French on nukes, or do nothing. We know the "green" plan doesn't work -- just look at Spain ... or California.
We have a lot to deal with ... we don't need an energy crisis. Short of a shooting war in the Middle East we won't have one ... unless we create it on our own.
We could take a few hundred billion Obama wants to "invest", and build 100 new nukes -- and gain an additional 20-25% electricity capacity. That's would create a real asset with a real pay-back period.
Pretend a group of us were at Harvard B School or the Kennedy School and asked to come up with an energy plan. If we handed in what Obama-Waxman are proposing I'd expect we'd be ripped to shreds. I didn't go to either place by expect they're exacting. Am I wrong?
By , at
Mon Apr 27, 01:20:00 PM:
Mike (and Chris): I'm happy to escrow with TH if he's willing.
I said Arctic ice, not global ice. As you must know, AGW predicts accelerated warming in the Arctic and mixed effects in the Antarctic, so global ice is a bad measure.
As for data set, name one that you like and I'll take a look.
By Mike, at
Mon Apr 27, 01:52:00 PM:
Brian -
Appreciate your gameness (and that you got me thinking in your last comments), but not up for that bet.
If ice shifts from the Arctic to the Antarctic, does it indicate a warming Earth?
Mike
By Kinuachdrach, at
Mon Apr 27, 05:06:00 PM:
"As you must know, AGW predicts accelerated warming in the Arctic and mixed effects in the Antarctic, so global ice is a bad measure."
No -- anthropogenic global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 predicts global warming -- everywhere gets warmer.
At least, that was the starting point. Then it turned out that the data did not fit the model, so tweaks were invoked. And when the tweaked model predictions turned out to be wrong, yet more tweaks were invoked.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd have had more mulligans than Bill Clinton.
By , at
Mon Apr 27, 06:43:00 PM:
Kinuach - First IPCC report came out in 1990. Turns out it's not as accessible as I thought, I'd have to trek to a library to read it.
So - I'll give $50 to the non-political charity of your choice if the first report doesn't say the Arctic will get more warming. You do the same to my choice if it does say more warming. Loser sends the check to TH and he forwards it to the charity (if he's willing), confirming the payoff. Offer expires in 24 hours.
This is just my best guess as to the first report, that's why it's lowball money.
By JPMcT, at
Mon Apr 27, 07:31:00 PM:
This is really getting hilarious.
Arctic ice measurement has been rampant with GROSS errors for most of the time we have been doing it...so, consequently, it's hard to define a baseline.
We keep appointing political hacks to environmental positions of power in a government that finds it convenient to believe that C02 is a pollutant, despite no evidence of such.
It goes along with the recent reports of countries cancelling orders for North American pork products because of "swine" flu.
Idiotic?.....YES!
Scientifically plausable?....NO!
Consensus?....yes, of course!
There should be laws that protect Freedom of Scientific Thought and funding for grants that is independent of politics.
Nice thought...but it's never going to happen. So until then we will continue to live in the modern version of the Dark Ages.
Consequently, I will not engage in any wagering.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Mon Apr 27, 08:19:00 PM:
"First IPCC report came out in 1990 ... I'll give $50 to the non-political charity of your choice if the first report doesn't say the Arctic will get more warming."
Brian -- I admire your willingness to put your money where your mouth is, but ...
The hypothesis of CO2-mediated Anthropogenic Global Warming goes back to the 1800s, long before the First IPCC report -- but you knew that.
First IPCC report is very long, with multiple sections written by different authors not all in agreement. There may well be tentative support for almost any statement buried in there somewhere (along with its opposite) -- but you knew that too.
By Brian, at
Tue Apr 28, 12:54:00 AM:
Mike - if shifting ice was the only piece of information, without any other evidence, then no, it wouldn't suggest warming. The fact that global warming theories and models predicted what's happened though, is one validation of the theory. Science says predictive hypotheses are the strongest ones.
Kinuach - it's not so much a matter of putting my money where my mouth is, but of motivating myself to get off my butt and go to a library.
By Mike, at
Tue Apr 28, 07:13:00 AM:
Brian -
I'm naturally skeptical of any scientific organization burying trillions of dollars of policy implications behind such high publishing walls. But then again, I think the UN would take away my loved ones in black helicopters if given half a chance.
Seriously, I appreciate your willingness to do a little legwork on this. For me and the rest of the sofateriat, it never happened if I can't link to it.
When you head to the library, please look for predictions of Antarctic cooling - and try to keep an eye on whether this is a consensus prediction or one of many possible paths.
Thanks, Mike
By , at
Tue Apr 28, 01:32:00 PM:
Watts Up now admits they posted wrong information about the sub picture:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/open_thread_25.php#comment-1592941
There's an old Twain quote about a lie flying around the world before the truth gets its shoes on (I don't think Watts was deliberately lying, though, just careless). I doubt many readers who saw the picture will learn that it was wrong.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Apr 28, 09:08:00 PM:
"Watts Up now admits they posted wrong information about the sub picture"
Err, Brian...head over to Watts site....I think you will be a trifle disappointed. How many sub pictures and newsreels do you need?
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 04:03:00 PM:
JP - they posted a picture that was supposed to be the North Pole that wasn't. Follow my link for info.
If you have contrary info, please provide a specific link.
By , at
Wed Apr 29, 05:15:00 PM:
The Northern Hemisphere is surely warming - it can be clearly seen in the data.Can it? The "data" are so contaminated with fudge factors and local geographic changes (read: putting temperature sensors next to A/C units and asphalt parking lots) that I don't trust a bit of it.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Apr 29, 05:24:00 PM:
Hmmm.....he's got several sub pics from various years. Not sure which one was incorrect.
By , at
Thu Apr 30, 04:12:00 PM:
Randian - satellite data verifies warming, as does night time and ocean data.
By , at
Thu Apr 30, 04:35:00 PM:
Randian - satellite data verifies warming, as does night time and ocean dataRaw data? As I said, the data that's made public is usually contaminated with fudge factors and adjustments, making it unreliable in my book.
