Submit your comments on this article |
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
Satellite images destroy myth of arctic meltdown |
2014-08-31 |
![]() Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. He shoulda at least put the date sometime after he would likely be dead or unnoticed. But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession -- with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012. To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America's biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice. The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that -- while the long-term trend still shows a decline -- last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres. ![]() Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise -- from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres. The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois's Cryosphere project. They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas -- denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense -- increasing markedly. Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: "It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year. ![]() Yet for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an 'irrevocable death spiral', with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space. Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: "The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed." Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times -- notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty. Mr Gore -- whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment -- insisted then: "There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." ![]() Asked about this yesterday, he said: "I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres -- the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us." For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with 'medium confidence' that ice levels would 'likely' fall below one million square kilometres by 2050. ![]() However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams's forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them. Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: "Peter Wadhams's views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says." Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an 'extreme low', triggered by freak weather. "'I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back," he said. However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by 'natural variability' -- shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when "there was likely some sea ice retreat". Dr Hawkins said: "There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates." Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, "a decade with no declining trend" in ice cover would be "entirely plausible". Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question -- and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic's future. Prof Curry said: "I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half. "I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades." This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore's, was too pessimistic. ![]() |
Posted by:gorb |
#6 Up until recent times people heated themselves by burning coal and wood. London used to be covered with soot. How much pollution was produced by a smaller population burning a lot more wood? They didn't have gas or electric heaters in the Middle Ages that I've ever heard of. When I was a boy we had a coal stove and we had a ton of coal delivered in the fall. So did most of the other houses in the neighborhood. When it got going good my granddaddy's furnace would have smelted steel. Since 1970 we've been cleaning up emissions. Cars don't put out the gunk the '57 Chevy produced as you were seeing the USA. Major industry has shut down--you don't see the sky dark from smokestacks anymore. Pittsburgh and Wheeling are now visible from miles away. The first time I was in Los Angeles my eyes tried to wash right out of my head and you couldn't see the sky. So now things are worse? |
Posted by: Fred 2014-08-31 23:30 |
#5 few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming I believe that statement is true, as far as it goes. The uncertainty is in 'how much' global warming? Is it a large fraction of a large amount or a small fraction of a small amount (or even just 'less cooling'?) |
Posted by: Glenmore 2014-08-31 21:39 |
#4 "However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming" Uh, er, no. Ditto for the "portion of ice decrease caused by natural variability". I must have missed where "science" was able, on the basis of just about no data (compared to what is required for statistical supposition and hypothesis testing in every other branch of inquiry), to actually fully characterize just what makes climate change (as it has since there was an atmosphere). Without this, there is no possible logical basis to define "natural" vs. anthropogenic contributions to the process, or processes, or system, or system of systems. Are these people ever challenged to demonstrate the logical and empirical basis for these breezy presumptions that in fact are gigantic logical fallacies, and are which the entire basis for "man-made climate change"? I see this over and over - "skeptics" who, nonetheless, believe "man DOES contribute" to climate change. Why? How? On what logical and empirical basis - and here a robust and full characterization of the actual processes at work is requisite - do they "sorta kinda think man's gotta have somethin' to do with it"? I realize, given how effectively dumbed-down and corrupted the culture and society are, that I should never expect such transparently sloppy and illogical argumentation to even get noticed, much less deconstructed. But still. |
Posted by: Verlaine 2014-08-31 21:31 |
#3 Haven't seen or heard of any polar bears in the Smoky Mtns anytime recently. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2014-08-31 18:01 |
#2 New Ice age coming because of man being mean to planet Earth!! Repent and give up all your earthly goods to the Greens!! They'll save us!! /sarc |
Posted by: DarthVader 2014-08-31 11:49 |
#1 If this keeps up... Well...Ummm could this be New York City Summer 2020 ? |
Posted by: Guillibaldo Bumble9343 2014-08-31 09:49 |