Beck, Breitbart ignore long-term trend to claim Arctic sea ice is increasing
Purporting to correct comments made by Al Gore about the impact of global warming on the North polar ice cap, both Fox News' Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart's Breitbart.tv forwarded the false suggestion that, in the past two years, Arctic ice "has returned" and "is increasing." In fact, 2008 and 2009 were the second and third lowest years on record for summertime Arctic sea ice and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has stated that the data from the past two years are consistent with the long-term negative trend that will result in ice-free summers for the Arctic Ocean.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Attempting to correct Gore, Beck, Breitbart claim Arctic ice is increasing in size
Breitbart.tv: "Gore says arctic ice is disappearing while the scientific proof is that arctic ice is increasing." A video posted on Breitbart.tv on December 14 asserted of Arctic sea ice: "[T]he minimum in 2008 was 700,000 square kilometers more than in 2007, and the minimum this year, which was reached earlier than normal on 12 September, 2009, (meaning it got cold earlier and arctic ice began increasing sooner) ... was 1 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE THAN IN 2007, AND 300,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE THAN IN 2008!!! Al Gore says arctic ice is disappearing while the scientific proof is that arctic ice is increasing."
Beck: "[N]early all of the ice has returned." Purporting to correct Gore's "lies," Beck stated on his Fox News program, "In September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction in the usual minimum ice cover. This, my friend, is the truth: 25 percent. In the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned. He must have some wrong and old data."
In fact, long-term trend of shrinking Arctic sea ice area persists
NSIDC: 2007 low-point was 39 percent lower than long-term average. Contrary to Beck's claim that "[i]n September of 2007, there was a 25 percent reduction in the usual minimum ice cover," and that "[i]n the two years since, nearly all of the ice has returned," NSIDC stated that "[a]t the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000." In 2008, the minimum sea ice extent was 33 percent below the long-term average. And in 2009, the minimum sea ice extent was 24 percent below the long-term average.
AP: Melting in 2008 and 2009 "ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record." The Associated Press reported on December 14 that "[i]n the summer of 2007, the Arctic ice cap dwindled to a record-low minimum extent of 4.3 million square kilometers (1.7 million square miles) in September. The melting in 2008 and 2009 was not as extensive, but still ranked as the second- and third-greatest decreases on record."
NSIDC director: "[T]here's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s." NSIDC director and senior scientist Mike Serreze stated of the 2009 ice data: "It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades." NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos also said: "A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome." On September 17, NSIDC reported the 2009 minimum Arctic sea ice extent and stated, "While this year's minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years." According to NSIDC: "[I]ce extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. During this time, ice extent has declined at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade during September (relative to the 1979 to 2000 average)."
From an October 6 NSDIC analysis:
Scientists also concerned about thinness of the Arctic ice
NASA: Arctic sea ice "thinned dramatically" between 2004 and 2008. In July, scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle concluded that, based on a comprehensive survey of satellite data, "overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older 'multi-year' ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent." NASA further stated, "In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area."
Submarine data also show trend of sea ice thinning. On October 19, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated, "The recent satellite estimates were compared with the longer historical record of declassified sonar measurements from US Navy submarines (Figure S4b). Within the submarine data release area (covering ~38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.6 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.9 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record -- a decrease of 1.7 m in thickness. This combined submarine and satellite record shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span three decades."
BBC: "Young, thin ice" worries scientists. On September 17, BBC reported that "[w]hat continues to have scientists worried is that a significant proportion of the cover consists of young, thin ice formed in a single winter. This is much more prone to melting than the older, thicker ice that dominated in years gone by." Indeed, in its October 6 analysis, NSIDC stated of the Arctic sea ice in 2009:
The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt in coming summers. Scientists use satellites to measure ice age, a proxy for ice thickness. This year, younger (less than one year old), thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to melt, accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover at the end of summer. Second-year ice made up 32 percent, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008 (Figure 5). Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent. Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) between 2004 and 2008.
NSIDC Scientist Walt Meier said, "We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer."
Meier: "Most people would agree it is not a matter of if we lose the summer sea ice but when." The Telegraph reported on April 7 that Walt Meier, research scientist at NSIDC, "said thinner sea ice is less likely to survive the summer and predicted the Arctic Ocean will be effectively ice free sometime between 2020 and 2040, although it is possible it could happen as early as 2013." Meier further stated: "Most people would agree it is not a matter of if we lose the summer sea ice but when. ... Temperatures are still warming because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. Even if we stopped that temperatures will continue rising and we will see 'positive feedback' where the ocean absorbs more energy therefore increasing the melting effect." Predictions of when the Arctic sea will have an ice-free summer vary from "less than 10 years" to several decades into the future. On October 15, National Geographic reported that NSIDC's Mark Serreze said of the widely varying predictions, "When we lose the ice really depends on the natural variability in the system":
Dueling Dates for Arctic Ice Melt
The new data, presented by the Catlin Arctic Survey and the international conservation group WWF, support the view that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer within about 20 years.
Most of the ice melt is expected to happen within the next ten years, [sea-ice expert Peter] Wadhams said in his statement.
Serreze's group in Boulder, though, is on record saying the Arctic's summer sea ice will fully melt around 2030. Other groups have put the ice-free date as late as 2100.
Why such seemingly wild guesses?
"When we lose the ice really depends on the natural variability in the system," Serreze said.
A good example of this is the record low year of 2007. That summer saw a perfect storm of climatic conditions: warm temperatures plus wind patterns that broke apart and pushed large chunks of ice out of the Arctic.
The summers of 2008 and 2009 have seen some recovery of Arctic ice, though the long-term trend is still for shrinking ice, Serreze said.
Will the slow, steady trend be the norm? Or will another year like 2007 come along and wipe out the Arctic ice?
"These are the unknowns," Serreze said. "We simply don't know."
We here in TX also had some nice "above average" weather the last few days.
Does that nullify the deniers claims? (That's a rhetorical question.) ;-)
"Not sure where in Texas you are"
Then, look it up!
Deniers seize on localized cool spots & shout, "See! No global warming!" (They miss the word "global".)
But, when it's warmer? Crickets.
Deniers cherry-pick the data, as usual.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Somehow I think we've been over this before.....
Temperatures have been going down for the last decade. I know that's not what the global warming alarmists wanted to happen, but it is true. 1998 was the hottest year of the current "warming period" (though not the hottest year in recorded history, as the alarmists claim - that was 1932). But even if 1998 was merely a "local temparature peak", it means that temperatures have not gotten that high since then. Therefore, temperatures have gone down.
Interestingly, mankind has not decreased its emissions of carbon dioxide during the last decade. In fact, the burning of fossil fuels has increased over that time, just as it has over the last 150 years.
In fact, the 2007 temperature dropped sharply from 2006, and the 2008 temperature is predicted to drop even more. The World Meteorological Organization blames this on the La Nina, and claims that as soon as the La Nina is over, temperatures will resume the "rapid increase" seen in the previous 3 decades. But for all we really know about climatology, a La Nina is the Earth's natural response to global warming, and it will continue until temperatures return to "normal", whatever that is.
But here's the kicker, whether La Nina is to blame for the current cooling or not, the fact is, none of the climate models that predict global warming predicted that a La Nina would occur in the early years of the 21st Century. So, if they can't accurately predict climate for the next 10 years, why in the world are we giving any serious consideration to things that they are predicting to occur a hundred years from now?
Averaging all of the temperatures from 2000-2009 yields a higher number than for any other decadal period in recorded history. It's not complicated mathematics.
1998 was the warmest year on record (in some temperature datasets, but not all) because of one of the strongest El Nino events on record. When adjusting the temperature data to compensate for this, we've had warmer surface temperatures since then.
Irrelevant. None of the major climate models were meant to predict the intensity, starting point, and duration of La Nina events. Even so, temperatures right up through 2009 (in each of the temperature datasets, even) continue to show values that follow the observed/predicted trend of climate-scale warming, within the data's standard deviation.
It's not that hard to understand. The temperature anomalies (amount above or below a given period average) for the years of 1990 through 1999 were: .247, .203, .070, .104, .169, .270, .138, .347, .526, and .302. That produces an average for the decade of .2376. The temperature anomalies for the years 2000 through 2008 were: .277, .406, .455, .465, .444, .475, .421, .399, and .327. That produces an average for the decade of .4077.
You see, the fact that 1998 was a spike and that the years since have been lower DOESN'T mean they have been going down. In fact, if you plug the current decade's numbers into a spreadsheet and graph them you will see a very slight upward trend in an Excel "best fit" trend line. That trend will even tip a little more upward when 2009 data is included because it is looking to be about the 5th warmest ever recorded.
And you're also wrong about 1998. It WAS the warmest year ever recorded globally. In the US, 1932 was warmer than 1998, but not globally. Remember, the US only makes up about 4% of the earth's surface.
I don't know where you got that "La Nina is the Earth's natural response to global warming" silliness, but I'd love to see your source.
There really is no need to debate this stuff. One side is being truthful, the other side is being deceitful.
ClimateGate exposed total deceit on the alarmist side. Posting all the data from sources like ClimateProgress is a waste of time. How can you assume that the data is accurate when climate models have been exposed as faulty and the data used to make these alarmist claims have been cooked?
There is no consensus, folks. I really wish you all would at least accept that instead of simply believing the alarmists like it's a religion and calling naysayers "holocaust deniers" or whatever...
Thanks for admitting your guilt freely and openly. It makes the scientist's job much easier - they can focus on the science instead of wasting time cleaning up the mess than people like you create.
What climate models have been exposed as "faulty?" What peer-reviewed scientific journal article reached this conclusion? As required by science, please cite your sources.
What data has been cooked? Who cooked the data? Again, citation of sources is required.
Just because snow fell doesn't mean it was the coldest day ever.
As "they" say in Texas, if you don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes.
But serially, local weather obviously has nothing to do with GLOBAL warming. Or cooling. Except to deniers.
Al Gore summed it up today when he said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2014, not one ounce of science to prove that, even the scientist he quoted said thats not what he said.......
Its all a scam to take more tax dollars from hard working people, while the out of work (by choice) left wing, tree huggin, Prius driving liberals use up precious resources making protest signs to march on Washington.
Get a job, get a life, sit down and have a nice Polar Bear tenderloin, they are very lean, and oh soooo tasty!!! (Almost as good as baby seal)
By David Sharp
Associated Press Writer / December 4, 2009 In Boston, the temperature hit 69 degrees, breaking the old record of 65 set in 1932. I wonder what was going on in 1932 to make is so hot, had to be the SUV's as well. Yep, has to be GW.
Look at the graph and you can see that 2009 has the smallest amount of ice on the graph.
Are you ready to agree with me?
Look, I'm sorry but the debate IS NOT over. The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling based upon sun activity. Should humans try to conserve energy? Sure! However, man's effects on the earths climate are minimal. Will it be worth TRILLIONS of dollars to make a dent the size of pea in the earths climate/environment. No. Should some governments of the world mandate penalties and fees upon others? No.
Look, I'm sorry but the debate IS NOT over
Hey there are still people who deny the holocaust. Sorry to tell you the debate really is over.
Dr. Evans is an expert in coastal, ocean, marine, atmospheric, climate, and space and geophysical sciences. He worked as the leader of the United States Global Climate Change Research Program; managed programs in nautical charting and coastal zone management; and received a meritorious service Presidential Rank Award for his leadership and management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/simple_proof.pdf
Evans' case fails because he uses the fact of pre-industrial warming as evidence against ACC, even though climatologists have never insisted on CO2 as the only cause. Pielke's case is based on the erroneous assertion that climatologists insist on the idea that "greenhouse gases are the only first order climate forcing."
Regardless of Pielke's flawed logic, the research he cites works very well to disprove Evans' "proof."
"climatologists have never insisted on CO2 as the only cause" So much like Global Warming was not selling to the general public, not you all are going to change what gases do and do not cause GW. I wonder what was going on in the Middle Ages that caused all that GW? Face it, you all are wrong.
"I wonder what was going on in the Middle Ages that caused all that GW? Face it, you all are wrong."
Deny, deny, deny,.... So focused on denying, you hacks don't take the time to learn anything.
Deniers can't ever tell the difference between fact and fiction, yet they spout their opinions on these blogs like they are experts. Yeah, experts at nothing.
MWP was a local event, not global. Deniers have absolutely no idea what local vs. global even means. If you all can't get this simple concept down, why should ANYONE take you seriously?
It is the deniers who are all wrong.
"To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today."
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/
Wow.
There is no conflicting data between the scientific paper cited on Pielke's website and the little essay that Evans wrote. The differences are in the way the data is applied. The peer-reviewed paper I linked to explains that the period of 1700-1850 was anthropogenic, but not linked to greenhouse gases. The flaws to which I referred don't exist in that paper.
Pielke and Evans both try to referrence that period to make cases against ACC, but they use different kinds of logic. Pielke claims that it proves that "greenhouse gases are the only first order climate forcing." The problem with Pielke's case is that modern climatologists aren't making that claim. They are pointing out that currently, after accounting for other sources of warming as completely as they are able, greenhouse gases and especially CO2 stand out as the single most significant warming factor in recent decades. Pielke is using straw-man logic.
Evans' case in his essay (note - it's not a scientific paper) is somewhat similar, but not identical. He suggests that the mere fact that there was warming before CO2 became a factor somehow means that CO2 isn't now a major contributor. The paper Pielke linked to explodes that because it cites what WERE the major factors in that period, while we know that those factors CAN NOT account for the current upward trend.
The data is fine, it's the logic in both cases that is faulty. And it isn't necessary that Pielke be correct in his logic in order for the report he cites to disprove Evans' "proof." That's faulty logic on YOUR part.
Your last paragraph is such a mangled use of the English language that I don't know what you're trying to claim. I will point out that the medieval warm period was initially overstated as a global phenomenon when it was actually was more of a local European phenomenon. It's overstated and falls within natural variability, though at the upper levels.
Spoken like a "true believer". There's no discussion or mutual discovery of the facts and possible causes, just the typical conservative narrow-mindedness where you must be right and everyone else must be wrong. Find a single inaccuracy in one detail and extrapolate that to mean everything Al Gore has said is wrong.
Are you applying this standard to Beck or Pox News? Do I hear a double-standard?? Oh that's right you're a conservative, so that's a "fact" of life for you.
I think this is the bio for the one who write the piece at your link:
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia
It suggests that we are in a warming period, which reinforces other data suggesting we are in a warming period. To crow about the recovery to near but still below the previous low point is irresponsible, as it suggests the preponderance of empirical long term evidence is irrelevant.
I restate my position that it is arrogant of us humans to claim exclusive responsibility for global climate change, naive at best and irresponsible at least to suggest we are not responsible at all, and that there is no actual climate change other than the normal cycle. I think we are contributing to climate change, and that as responsible stewards of our planet we need to apply our considerable intelligence and creativity to finding ways to mitigate our detrimental impact to the environment.
The fox news site said in 2007, that the ice was shrinking and thinning. I guess Beck conveniently forgot to read the memo.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298013,00.html
"how do you know this is fact from Fox?"
If it's not a Fox web site, then they're certainly letting someone use their name and logo. Did you actually navigate the site?
"So now you think Fox has good data? All I hear around here is that Fox is so wrong"
Fox doesn't have good or bad data. I've never said Fox is wrong, just that they allow distortions and lies to be promoted on their programs. Their "talent", which they don't distinguish between opinion hacks and journalists, distort and lie on a regular basis. They can't even agree with their own web site.
And, don't bring up the "everybody picks on Fox" argument.
I've always welcomed anyone who can demonstrate a repeated pattern of distortions and lies from the MSM.
So far, no takers.
Regardless of what this twit Beck says, the facts are the ice is thinning, and it's caused by us. Period.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
"However big the fool, there is always a bigger fool to admire him." - Nicholas Boileau
"Believe one who has proved it. Believe an expert." - Virgil, AeneidRoman epic poet (70 BC - 19 BC)
In the winter-time, one thing dumber than getting on an airplane in Los Angeles wearing an overcoat, is getting off an airplane in Minneapolis without one.
Everyone here complains about the people on Fox, but never mention the 3 1/2 (I don't give hardball a full bucket) slime buckets filled with pure idiots like Keith, Dr. Q, and Ed, who spew their lies and hate on MSDNC.
20 minutes of any of those hours will tell more hate and lies than would have been heard on Fox in 20 years.
You seem to have tripped over a bucket and stumbled into the wrong place.
Cherry pickers...
Religion and spiritual experience are two different things, as is science and opinion. The climate change "skeptics" have lots of the latter and not much of the former.
Did any of you doubleplusgood proles find the time to read the LEAKED (I only did that because the word 'leaked' as opposed to 'hacked' seems to bother some of you so much) e-mails where the 'Settled Science Set' at the CRU were seeking to be funded by Shell and BP? I nearly fell off the chair laughing when I read the e-mail thread. Who again is getting funded by the oil companies? This didn't surprise me given the number of companies already lined up at the feeding trough to shake down the taxpayers by way of mandates and subsidies. Why haven't your thought overlords in the mainstream media or MMFA brought this to your unfocused attention?
On a slightly different front, I was disapppointed to see that MMFA didn't have quite as much stuff about Climategate as normal today. Just as well- it's a fight that the alarmists are destined to lose in the long run anyway.
Don't tell anyone, but the Thought Overlord Control Center diverted us proles to our War on Christmas(tm) today. As you know, we're installing BP feeding troughs in all nativity displays.
Is the satelite record since 1979 long enough to make assesment of trend in Arctic Sea Ice extent?
Is the extent of Arctic Sea Ice an indiactor of AGW ... in other words is it legitimate to say things like "We know that global warming is happening beacuse the Arctic is melting"
What organisation/individuals have an ability to predict future Arctic Sea Ice extent?
How many decades have they been exhibiting these predictive abilities?
Now we get to the crucial questions .... very reasonable questions ... logicaly necessary questions.
If Arctic Sea Ice increases for another year, does this mean that those organisations/individuals that say that they can predict Arctic Sea Ice ... actualy can't?
If in the coming few years the Arctic Sea Ice were to return to levels seen in recent times ... perhaps to the 1979-2000 satelite average ... would that mean that AGW is not happening?
And above all ... simply put ... how much Arctic Sea Ice would we have to see in one Arctic Summer for these charlatans and flim-flam men to pack up their stuff and take a long walk of a short pier.
Now ... readers ... you won't see any kind of response to any of these questions. The kind of prediction that the flim-flam man makes never has an absaloute downside. They like to have the wrigle room ... climate is difficult to predict!! ... yet the do predict it don't they!! Think you'll find that ... it'll shift .. it's not the extent .. it's the thickness!! It's not the Arctic ... it's the Antarctic!! so on and so forth .. like the three shell game ... can you spot the AGW ... no ... it's over here now!!
I note that neither one of you have anything but snark and nothing to back up any of your speculations. Sad.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
and the Antarctic Sea ice has been steadily increasing
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
The thicker, older ice is fading away.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html
...and the differences make scientific sense, and still work within the theory of the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect.
Artic sea ice tends to trend upward in winter.
Unless you are talking about the plot of yearly values, by which you can only get a conclusion of "beginning to increase" if you include only 3 years of data. That has virtually no climatic significance for trend analysis.