Recent headlines have referred to the fact that the arctic ice has melted to a record low and many are using this as evidence to support the theory of global warming.
The earth is tilted on an axis of 23.5 degrees in relation to its orbit of the sun. This means that in winter the sun is below the horizon in Arctic, plunging the whole region into perpetual darkness and causing temperatures to plummet to around 40 to 60 degrees below zero. At this time the whole of the arctic sea freezes over, but during the summer the opposite occurs. The sun is constantly above the horizon and temperatures reach into the 30’s causing the sea ice to melt. Lately the sea ice has been melting more and more, leading some to claim that the reason is manmade global warming.
The problem is that the people who make these claims, and the authors of the articles that report on the shrinking sea ice do not take into account the history of the Arctic and the natural cycle of the sea ice. Only by studying historic records could we understand the natural variations, and put the current levels into context.
Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, took the first steps to comparing current data with previous records and concluded that “in the context of what’s happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it’s an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing.”
Unfortunately Walt just didn’t look back far enough. The “satellite record” which he used only started in 1979 when the polar orbiting satellites were brought online. His study of the 33 years of records showed that there was no change in the amount of Arctic sea ice until the late 1990’s and this lends itself to support a different theory, that the sea ice is melting at the moment because the North Atlantic Ocean is in the warming phase of its long term cooling and warming cycle known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
In the mid 1980’s Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University used this cycle of warming and cooling to correctly forecast the era of increased hurricane activity we are experiencing now. Another natural result of the warming and cooling cycle will be a that the sea ice melts quicker, but to test this theory we must look for historic references to the amount of sea ice present in the Arctic during a previous warming phase in the Atlantic.
During the 1930’s the North Atlantic was in such a phase, and it was reported that the Soviet ice-breaker ships were able to sail waters that had never before been open for travel, the ship Sadko even managed to sail within 500 miles of the North Pole. And the average coal shipping season at Spitsbergen, Norway almost doubled in length from 95 days from 1909-1912 to 175 days from 1930 to 1938 due to the lack of sea ice.
Maybe global warming should not be given as much credit as it is for the current extreme weathers that are being experienced around the world.
ADVERTISEMENT
By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com
But then you KNOW that already don't you.
Have you people no shame at all.
The Arctic has been in the AMO phase for 45 years just for starters.
We know exactly why it's melting now.
I hope one day you and your disgusting ilk will be brought to trial.
I dont think you need an icebreaker to sail to 500 miles from the pole now it is generally clear water and in 20 years you may be able to sail to the pole.
Thats 4 million squared Kilometres lost at summer since the 80's.
on the good side we have more areas where oil can be accessd and so we will keep producing more C02 into the future from oil.
Regards John
So what does the scientific literature say? Here are a few papers I found with a quick google:
This scientific paper, which summarises a wide range of other research, suggests that "[current] ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
Another paper uses proxy records, and concludes that Arctic sea ice extent is the lowest it's been for 1450 years - it's covered here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprecedented-in-last-1450-years.html
What about the idea that the Arctic multi-decadal oscillation is to blame for ice loss? Well, this recent paper suggests, based on modelling, that there is a link between the natural cycle of the Arctic Multi-decadal Oscillation and sea ice loss:
"The method used here shows that for the period 1979–2010, 0.5–3.1%/decade of the observed decline of 10.1%/decade is associated with the natural cycle of the AMO"
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034011/article
In other words, the study suggests that up to a third of the ice loss may be due to this natural cycle - not all of it.
OK; how does that compare to 2012?
That AMO was used to predict hurricanes is interesting in itself, and might be useful to argue that knowledge of AMO helps in making weather predictions. Putting aside the possible confusion of weather and climate, there is nothing in the hurricane anecdote which makes AMO the likely explanation for this year's ice melt. Similarly, knowing that an icebreaker could approach withing 500 miles of the Pole in the 1930s is not evidence for any particular cause of this year's ice melt. It all smacks of what Colbert calls "truthiness". To someone who wants to hear an explanation, a couple of anecdotes may sound like one. To anybody who is objectively looking at what you've presented, you've merely talked around the issue, without presenting any real evidence, at all.
They must be energized by a new months' supply of food stamps and promises of U.N. grants.....if, of course, their funded studies can produce the "right" conclusions.
Gordon
What is notable is the ice volume. Ice volume has at least doubled since the 2007 low and may have come closer to tripling in volume. Thus, melting has not been very good in recent years as the multiyear ice and ice thickness have both been increasing quite nicely.
Leave it to the alarmists to chose a parameter that has little meaning.
And here's what bothers me most and gives me the most pause about fully accepting the GWA's position: shrieking and applications of social pressure (and if Leslie had his/her way, legal pressure) in the face of questions and challenges to one's assertions has all the hallmarks, not of civil discourse or scientific debate, but rather of a kind of Fundamentalist mindset which is easily recognize widely considered abhorrent when it is seen in religious people. Those possessing this mindset find their core identity threatened by the mere questioning of their worldview, and they lash out at anyone who dares to do so. That's a poor foundation upon which to construct a world energy and environmental policy, in my opinion.
This might be a good time to compare what happened after the Arctic melt then and whats happening today and what is going to happen tomorrow.
Even James Hansen of NASA thought that it could be causing most of the Arctic melting--until he decided to become a doomsday profit against CO2. The point, after all, is not to blame industrializing nations for soot production but to have an excuse to tax rich nations for oil and coal use. The point is to build the UN up as an international body with some power and money, run by elitists who think they know what's best for society, to limit and ration resources.