Arctic ice cap set to disappear within a decade

Rebelheart

According to today's Irish Times, 'The Arctic Ocean will be an "open sea" almost entirely free from ice within a decade, newly-released data has indicated.'

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1015/breaking3.htm

So much for the "global warming is a myth" school of thought.

SV

I keep hearing this..

I'll be dead by then so no worries!

CodeMonkey

You believe everything you read?

jhegarty

Rebelheart wrote: »

According to today's Irish Times, 'The Arctic Ocean will be an "open sea" almost entirely free from ice within a decade, newly-released data has indicated.'

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1015/breaking3.htm



So much for the "global warming is a myth" school of thought.

Haven't we been cooling for 10 years now ?

junkyard

It's happening, get over it. There was no ice there in the 1700's either according to the Chinese who sailed around the world then. Anytime you see governments worrying about something you can be sure taxes will sort it out.;)

dlofnep

junkyard wrote: »

It's happening, get over it. There was no ice there in the 1700's either according to the Chinese who sailed around the world then. Anytime you see governments worrying about something you can be sure taxes will sort it out.;)

But isn't some of the ice dated as being really old? And besides, where's the evidence to show that they went directly through the cap?

Shiny

My flat is in the clear unless the sea rises in excess of 6 meters. :cool:

Macha

Shiny wrote: »

My flat is in the clear unless the sea rises in excess of 6 meters. :cool:

Will you be investing in your own personal jetty? :pac:

When you look into it, you'd be surprised how much reclaimed land there is around Dublin's coast.

Shiny

I was basing it on the flood map from here:

http://flood.firetree.net/



I'm in the Beggars Bush area, very close .

Macha

Shiny wrote: »

I'm in the Beggars Bush area, very close .

Yes, I think I'm just clear also. Thank God for apartment blocks.

Thanks for the floodmap link - looks like they get their data from NASA.

robtri

anbody know how much water volume there is in ice, suring the summer months in the artic???

slagger

Rebelheart wrote: »

According to today's Irish Times, 'The Arctic Ocean will be an "open sea" almost entirely free from ice within a decade, newly-released data has indicated.'

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1015/breaking3.htm

So much for the "global warming is a myth" school of thought.

I remember reading about the americans in their subs at the north pole surrounded by water. A quick google found these photos.

1962
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg

1959
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg

The particular Caitlin expedition mentioned in the article is also discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/

djpbarry

slagger wrote: »

I remember reading about the americans in their subs at the north pole surrounded by water. A quick google found these photos.

1962
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg

1959
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg

And we know those were taken at the North Pole because?

cnocbui

The quoted article said this:

"Drilling and observation figures obtained during a 450km route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea suggest the area is almost entirely made up of young, "first-year" ice, whereas the region traditionally consists of older, thicker "multi-year" ice."

But the BBC article on the same topic said:

"Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick - typical of so-called "first year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to melting.

The survey route - to the north of Canada - had been expected to cross areas of older "multi-year" ice which is thicker and more resilient."

Then, in a staggering slip, they contradict the whole scaremongering tripe by letting slip:

"When the ridges of ice between floes are included, the expedition found an average thickness of 4.8m."

I thought they just said the average was 1.8m? If the average is 4.8m, then the ice is predominantly 'old' ice by definition.

Anyway, don't worry, the Canadians did the job properly and mapped and measured the ice thickness over a much greater area, with far better accuracy using a plane with a very accurate radar, and their data did not support the reported findings.

So how is the ice going to all melt away if the Earth is actually going to get cooler? That's right, cooler.

Just a few days before this Chicken Little article, the BBC published another article titled "What happened to global warming?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

In that article...

"Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

And he's not the only character singing that tune:

"To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers."

The UK Hadley Centre disagrees with all this, but it would, seeing as how it is run by an environmental activist. This is the mob who are so confident about the reality of climate change they feel the need to incorporate a climate change fudge factor into their forecasting models just to make sure they produce forecasts that agree with the official party line.

Tipsy Mac

slagger wrote: »

I remember reading about the americans in their subs at the north pole surrounded by water. A quick google found these photos.

1962
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg

1959
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg

The particular Caitlin expedition mentioned in the article is also discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/

One could be taken the middle of winter, one could be taken the middle of summer, factually $hite.

With the Arctic ice free the savings in fuel for shipping around the world should please the muppets who believe mans burning of CO2 gasses contributes to a meaningful level to the warming of the earth.

If we were serious about climate control being a controlable problem that man can influence we would hire Readymix to cover all the volcanoes on earth with cement.

cnocbui

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

If we were serious about climate control being a controlable problem that man can influence we would hire Readymix to cover all the volcanoes on earth with cement.

Wouldn't it be far more effective to get all the 'believers' to insert their heads into the rear orofices of all the worlds bovines in order to prevent the leakage of methane?

You know, sort of putting your head where your mouth is.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

But the BBC article on the same topic said:

"Led by explorer Pen Hadow, the team's measurements found that the ice-floes were on average 1.8m thick- typical of so-called "first year" ice formed during the past winter and most vulnerable to melting.

The survey route - to the north of Canada - had been expected to cross areas of older "multi-year" ice which is thicker and more resilient."

Then, in a staggering slip, they contradict the whole scaremongering tripe by letting slip:

"When the ridges of ice between floes are included, the expedition found an average thickness of 4.8m."

I thought they just said the average was 1.8m?

No, they didn’t. I suggest you re-read the article, paying particular attention to the terms I have highlighted in bold.

cnocbui wrote: »

Anyway, don't worry, the Canadians did the job properly and mapped and measured the ice thickness over a much greater area, with far better accuracy using a plane with a very accurate radar, and their data did not support the reported findings.

Source?

cnocbui wrote: »

"Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

And he's not the only character singing that tune:

"To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers."

The article also states:

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

Also worth pointing out...

... temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

If we were serious about climate control being a controlable problem that man can influence we would hire Readymix to cover all the volcanoes on earth with cement.

Considering how tiny greenhouse gas emissions produced by volcanoes are (approximately 0.3 gigatonnes per annum) compared to those resulting from human activity (32 gigatonnes), I doubt it would make too much of a difference.

cnocbui wrote: »

Wouldn't it be far more effective to get all the 'believers' to insert their heads into the rear orofices of all the worlds bovines in order to prevent the leakage of methane?

Not really, considering most of it exits the animal’s digestive tract via the mouth.

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

No, they didn’t. I suggest you re-read the article, paying particular attention to the terms I have highlighted in bold.

I don't need to re-read anything. The average ice depth, when ridges are included - which they should be, given they must be very extensive to more than double the final avaerage - is still 4.8m

Source?

Originally, my wife, but when I checked up, it turns out it was a mostly German effort, not Canadian as I originally said:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't need to re-read anything. The average ice depth, when ridges are included - which they should be, given they must be very extensive to more than double the final avaerage - is still 4.8m

You claimed the article contradicts itself. It doesn’t. It clearly makes the distinction between the average thickness of ice floes and the overall average.

cnocbui wrote: »

Originally, my wife, but when I checked up, it turns out it was a mostly German effort, not Canadian as I originally said:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/

Blogs are what pass as scientific evidence these days?

The press release from the Alfred Wegener Institute states that:

Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily.

Those findings are approximately in agreement with those reported in the BBC article. I would be amazed if two different methodologies yielded exactly the same result.