More like more biased pap snafu

Although several analyses[19] have examined large-scale temperature variations in the Arctic, no study has evaluated the spatial and temporal variations in temperature over all land areas in the zone from 60º to 90º N for the entire 20th century. Consequently, temperature trends are illustrated for this latitude band using the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) database[20] and the GHCN database[21]. Both databases were used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report[22] to summarize the patterns of temperature change over global land areas since the late 19th century.While the impact of urbanization on large-scale temperature trends in the Arctic has not been assessed, the results of Jones et al.[23], Easterling et al.[24], Peterson et al.[25], and Peterson[26] indicate that urbanization effects at the global, hemispheric, and even regional scale are small (<0.05 ºC over the period 1900 to 1990).

IE : We really don't have much of a clue so we are going with what this mob said. Seriously tho just what is the expected outcome from the extrapolation of surface temperature records in this part of the world? MMmmmm bugger going out there it's freaking cold, lets just make it the same temperature 1200 Km away as it is here and call that empirical science shall we? And just for [censored] and giggles lets adjust the empirical records before we do it huh?

Yeah sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? But what's actually sadder is that it actually happened, and then useful idiots base scientific papers on the taxpayer funded "research" provided and produce useless little graphs like the one posted above. Which are then sourced by industry funded NGO's such as Getup and WWF, Greenpeace etc and disseminated to their gullible garnered astroturf groupies who in turn post them on sites such as this as credible evidence to back up claims of "it's worse than we thought".

Meanwhile in the real world it is a fact that the Northwest passage was open to Roald Admunsen in 1903-06 in a ship.

Northwest Passage (1903–1906)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen#Northwest_Passage_.281903.E2.80.931906.29

So just what was the cause of Arctic melting way back then CeeBee ? Was it the small diesel engine he used to power the ship causing a localised AGW effect as he found his way thru with no satellite navigation or GPS coordinates or just a big oil conspiracy backed by the ancestors of Monckton and Watts?
It might seem a disparaging question but I would really like to know what your thoughts are on this.

One would think that once such a beneficial trade passage was navigated and mapped and with the advances made in navigation and shipping technology such a route would be utilised to advance the cause of capitalism. We all know of course that the reason why it wasn't and isn't is that 98% of the time since then it has been full of freakin ice.

But the questions I am curious about is why was it not full of freakin ice back in 1903 ? and if Co2 is the culprit now why did the Northwest passage close back up again despite obvious elevations of Co2 during the industrial revolution? And not barley open again until recently ?

The disappearing of the Roman and Medieval warm periods based on the holy hockey stick of warmist dogma in the good book of the IPCC is one thing. But when it comes to the ice record of the Arctic, with the ample empirical evidence of actual records of real people in actual memory doing the Northwest passage in relatively primitive vehicles, How do you reconcile your current "record this or that" with previous history ?

It was over one hundred years ago, if it was due to Co2 why didn't it stay open? If it was due to Co2 why has it not happened again regularly since then ? The best records are from satellite measurements but only date back to 1979 still how many of those years show the Northwest passage open? One would think that with current technology and navigation the Northwest passage would be taken advantage of to save time and fuel if it was such an option, it isn't obviously. [quote]

Once again overall, correlation does not imply causation, we don't argue no climate change just the cause.

Sorry, but I'm a little confused now...

If, according to you and your IPCC chums, the globe is warming and the glaciers are in retreat...how can the above statement be true?

But an ice core taken a couple of clicks away can be assumed to have perfect anual resolution - no conamination from " drifting glaciers " :ROFL:

I have to ask - which climatezientist came up with the drifting glacier excuse for covering a fragile plane....? Can I please have link so I can have a good laugh? Please CB?

Here's a link to the full story on Glacier Girl.

http://www.sunlakesaeroclub.org/updates_web_data/070427/GlacierGirl.htm

Take note of this sentence.

"The heap of wreckage, which was slowly beginning to resemble an airplane again, was affectionately nicknamed "Glacier Girl." Many individuals and organizations donated time and materials to the historic project, and over nine years the airframe was transformed from a wad of crushed remains into a beautiful, working airplane."

Here's some info on the GISP2 ice core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Project

GISP2 produced an ice core 3053.44 meters in depth, the deepest ice core recovered in the world at the time.

Heh - I notice you left out the part of the article where it says it took 3 YEARS for Roald Admunsen to do the Northwest passage.

Why did it take 3 years you may wonder - it's because he got trapped in the ice for 3 winters. That's hardly on "open passage" now is it!

That the passage has been navigated in recent times owes much to the use of Russian nuclear powered ice breakers as much as supposed cAGW CB. But then you never do let little things like facts stand in the way of a good cAGW beatup story.

(1) http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

Passage transited in 1853 and again in 1942/43 (over 2 seasons) and again in 1944 Global warming the cause then was it CB? No of course it wasn't any more that it is today.

(2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/cl...y-and-all-that/

I suggest a bit more research insread of repeating the bull put out by those whoes best interests is to cause fear and panic to obtain their own goals.

(3) http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/northwest-and-northeast-passages-are-open.html

Nortwest passage open for the 4th year in a row (In 2010).

Your claim that navigating the passage owes much to the use of Russian nuclear powered ice breakers is not correct.

Right now there are joy cruises of the passage up and running without the aid of Russian nuclear powered ice breakers...

From the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), a couple of excellent Artic Ice Thickness animations.

30 day Ice Thickness animation

365 day Ice Thickness animation

also, Real Time Ice Concentration map;

Real-time 1/12° Arctic Cap HYCOM/CICE/NCODA Nowcast/Forecast System (ACNFS)

Arctic sea ice disappears faster than projected -> ocean acidifies faster

Impact of rapid sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean on the rate of ocean acidification – Yamamoto et al. (2012)

Abstract:

“The largest pH decline and widespread undersaturation with respect to aragonite in this century due to uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Arctic Ocean have been projected. The reductions in pH and aragonite saturation state in the Arctic Ocean have been caused by the melting of sea ice as well as by an increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Therefore, future projections of pH and aragonite saturation in the Arctic Ocean will be affected by how rapidly the reduction in sea ice occurs.

The observed recent Arctic sea-ice loss has been more rapid than projected by many of the climate models that contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.

In this study, the impact of sea-ice reduction rate on projected pH and aragonite saturation state in the Arctic surface waters was investigated. Reductions in pH and aragonite saturation were calculated from the outputs of two versions of an Earth system model with different sea-ice reduction rates under similar CO2 emission scenarios. The newer model version projects that Arctic summer ice-free condition will be achieved by the year 2040, and the older version predicts ice-free condition by 2090.

The Arctic surface water was projected to be undersaturated with respect to aragonite in the annual mean when atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches 513 (606) ppm in year 2046 (2056) in new (old) version. At an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 520 ppm, the maximum differences in pH and aragonite saturation state between the two versions were 0.1 and 0.21 respectively.

The analysis showed that the decreases in pH and aragonite saturation state due to rapid sea-ice reduction were caused by increases in both CO2 uptake and freshwater input. Thus, the reductions in pH and aragonite saturation state in the Arctic surface waters are significantly affected by the difference in future projections for sea-ice reduction rate.

Our results suggest that the future reductions in pH and aragonite saturation state could be significantly faster than previously projected if the sea-ice reduction in the Arctic Ocean keeps its present pace.”




Paper

Regarding that chart above of September sea ice extent at 10M km2 in the 1970s and earlier, that is the same level as today.

That means there was no sea travel in the Arctic in those times. That means that Inuit did not invent kayaks and whaling boats nor travel all the way over to Greenland.

That means the proposed 10M km2 September numbers built into many papers, models and forecasts is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker

Yes it is just a wikipedia article but I am getting a tad tired of providing in depth links that you ignore.

I guess with all that ice melting and the northwest passage open etc that they won't need them next year. Pity they are building another 2 for some strange reason. Oh thats right, so they can use them to keep the globally warmed non existent ice from stopping trade again or something.

Really Bill? The 10M km2 September numbers built into many papers, models and forecasts is incorrect?

I'd like to see an actual peer reviewed paper that supports that claim.

If one does not exist then the 10M km2 September numbers built into many papers, models and forecasts will remain.

Why don't you write up a paper and submit it to a relevant journal Bill so your claim can be properly put to the test.

I highly doubt that 1938 ended up at 10.0M km2 when it was already down to about 7.0M km2 in August.

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1938/1938_08.jpg

Were about to reach an interesting point in this year melt season. The areas that lose ice early have now done so.

The areas that generally keep ice later in the season are the Arctic Basin, Greenland Sea and Canadian Archipelago. These 3 areas alone retain an extent in excess of 3 million sq km even in bad years.

The main question that decides how low the extent goes this year is the result in the Beaufort, East Siberian, Laptev and Chukchi Seas. Given the water temp anomalies in the Bering Sea are sitting close to 6C below normal the question now arises as to how this will impact late season ice loss in those areas.

I would suggest that the big anomalies your seeing currently for extent are about to plummet. By the end of July I would expect the anomaly value to be below 1 (its currently noted at -1.915 on Cryosphere Today).

Bill thats an excellent post, and one that wont recive a response from CeeBee as he is off to report to his superiors about his next load of garbage to drop on the forum.

I agree Locke, will look nowhere near as bad in a month.

I thought CEEBEE had moved to Greenland to breed cattle and grow organic vegetables with the Vikings as they had heard natural warming had returned as promised in those wonderful models....GDL

The Double Recovery of Arctic Sea Ice

Just two months ago we learned that Arctic Sea Ice Is Normal For The First Time In At Least Seven Years
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/...st-seven-years/

Now we are told that Arctic Sea Ice is the lowest on record for the time of year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Just what is going on?
Lets ignore what the so-called "scientists" say and look instead to the wealth of knowledge Blog Science has built up about Arctic sea ice over the years:

Watt's Law: A record low in Arctic ice is a sign that a Recovery has begun. Such an event occurred in summer 2007.

Goddard's Law: If arctic sea ice reaches normal levels it is clear proof that a recovery is in progress.

The Monckton Conjecture: Arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade.

So we can see that normal levels of ice in April means that The Recovery since 2007 is progressing well. The more recent record low is a sign that a new recovery has begun (watt's law). So we now have two Arctic sea ice recoveries running in parallel and amplifying each other through solar magneto-reluctance. This is very inconvenient for IPCC alarmists and their communist handlers.

Prediction
Arctic sea ice will now recover double fast. It may even melt out completely in a coming summer and thus initiate a third recovery which will be the final nail in the coffin of man-made global warming.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/

I see you got your latest talking points and instructions.  A bit late though... Things have moved on:





Doesn't look anywhere near as scary as your cherrypick?

You've got those big pics again, haven't you.....