Will Arctic summers be ice-free by 2012?

Well being that ice on this day in 2007 looked like this: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/AK/2007/ims2007308_alaska.gif
and Ice on the same day in 2008 looks like this: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif I think the answer is clearly NO..IT WILL NOT. Because we are gaining ice..not losing it.

also if you look at the earth average temp: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

I got to go with NO on this. We are growing ice..not losing it..Plenty of room for those polar bears. an additional 3 million miles of ice for them to walk on this time over last year

woops -

"A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

woops again

Former Vice President Al Gore is removing a dramatic slide in his global warming presentation. The New York Times reports Gore used a graph from a disaster research center in Brussels to illustrate that human-driven climate change is, "creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented."

But the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, which came up with the raw data, says no such direct correlation can be proven: "Justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one...
We need to be cautious when interpreting disaster data... and remain objective scientific observers."

I know we want to believe things will never change, but just take a single geology class that looks at the history of the earth and it's obvious the earth cycles through warmer and cooler periods. Just look at the retreat of the glaciers throughout Europe, the Himilayas, South America, and the southern 48 of the US and it's obvious the planet is not as cold as it was when those glaciers were formed (10,000 years ago). That doesn't mean humans have caused the change, nor does it obsolve them. The fact is that the weather changes people cite to say there is or there isn't global warming are inconsequential. Projecting a trend from the 1880s and using that as evidence of human caused climate change is simply poor science since Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (1883) had a known cooling effect on the earth to an even greater extent than Mt. Pinatubo (1991).

The general trend is warmer. Whether humans did it or not is debatable. But we're all a bunch of idiots if we think that we're not going to run out of cheap oil in the next 20 years. Demand is increasing, production are flat and new discoveries of large deposits aren't happening anymore. There are far more important reasons to find alternative fuels and develop renewable energy than global warming/climate change. Why the talk doesn't turn to the end of peak oil is beyond me, but to me, the climate change argument is a straw man to distract us from the real threat to our society. Name me one current technology that could supply 50% of the world's automobiles in the next 10 years but wouldn't take away from food production or mean 3x the current carbon output per gallon to produce.

As for this question, it's just a couple years off from my estimate. The research I've seen is that the Northwest Passage will be open for shipping by 2013 to 2015. 2012 is pretty optimistic/pessimistic.

I do not know what newspapers will or won't report/say, but to me the term "ice free" for a region (like the arctic), does this mean no ice anywhere? or just a general passage (during the summer say) for a brief time? Anyway, just some thoughts... What must newspapers say/ and or mean?

Ice choking Northwest Passage: officials
Top U.S. institute still predicts 'extreme' melting
http://www.canada.com/technology/choking+Northwest+Passage+officials/1853923/story.html

Though we are experiencing global warming, still, it is still hard to imagine that the ice in the Arctic Region would melt. It is not impossible I think. Anyway, check this out! There’s something new to try and save every Wednesday this summer at Arby’s. From now until Aug. 26, participating Arby’s restaurants will offer Wednesday freebies, a different deal each week featuring new favorites like roast burger sandwiches and an orange cream swirl shake, to signature classics such as roast beef sandwiches. The offer is limited to one per person on designated dates while supplies last and is not valid with any other offer. Find the Arby's location nearest to you. Visit this site to read more: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/08/05/arbys-free-wednesday-free-roast-beef-sandwich-today/

Arctic Lake Sediments Show Warming, Unique Ecological Changes In Recent Decades

An analysis of sediment cores indicates that biological and chemical changes occurring at a remote Arctic lake are unprecedented over the past 200,000 years and likely are the result of human-caused climate change, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.

While environmental changes at the lake over the past millennia have been shown to be tightly linked with natural causes of climate change -- like periodic, well-understood wobbles in Earth's orbit -- changes seen in the sediment cores since about 1950 indicate expected climate cooling is being overridden by human activity like greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm

Ever wonder why they ckeep using 2007 numbers in recent stories? Look at this graph:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png

Yeah GW is really just...... Oh, look at that, Arby's offers Wednesday freebies yummy

Some people honestly believe that the Arctic will be ice-free in TWO YEARS??? Maybe 100 years, but not anytime soon =)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

again, an article which only shows half of the truth.

"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.

Latif, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere.

Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

it's clear that Foxnews wouldn't report that little aspect of the truth, nor the Daily Mail, having a high reputation on knowing science, which serves as source for the article.

Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause'

The Arctic conditions which have brought Britain to a standstill over the past week could be the start of a "pause" in global warming, some scientists believe.

The world could be in for a spell of cooler temperatures, rather than hotter conditions, as a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents for the next 20 or 30 years, it is predicted.

Research by Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modellers, questions the widely held view that global temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

But Prof Latif, of the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believes that the cool spell will only be a temporary interruption to climate change.

"For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."

But Prof Latif believes that the pause represents only a temporary respite rather than a challenge to the basis of global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6965342/Big-freeze-could-signal-global-warming-pause.html

kruijs, I don't question the long term trend towards higher global temperatures, as the data definitely supports this. However, the recent "pause" or even reversal of this trend, although likely temporary, makes an ice-free arctic extremely unlikely within the next two years IMHO.

you're absolutely right. this won't happen that soon. I just wanted to point out that the article was misleading

(since it wrongly suggests that climate change actually isn't happening. just have a look around here, and you'll notice how people fall for these ideas because of such media reports)

The question isn't wether there is climate change, but wether we as humans are causing them. The Earth has always changed it's climate, even well before we started walking on her, let alone started burning fossile fuels and emitting greenhouse gasses. I really don't believe in the doom scenario's shown to us by Al Gore and the IPCC. John Coleman has a much better way of explaining what I believe;

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html
Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”
[More at the link...]

VIDEO OF DEMOCRATS BLAMING "LACK" OF SNOW FOR GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.myfreedompost.com/2010/02/video-of-democrats-blaming-lack-of-snow.html
NOW MASSIVE EAST COAST SNOW STORM CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING TOO?
First, lack of snow is a symptom of global warming, and now record snowfall, which has paralyzed much of the northeast, is caused by global warming too? If it doesn't snow, it's global warming. If it snows, it's global warming. If it's hotter than normal, it's global warming, and if it's colder, it's global warming. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Temperatures and weather have always fluctuated in great degrees.

Yesterday, (no surprise) Time Magazine joined the fray:

There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.
Watch Democrats Jay Inslee, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Robert Byrd and Dianne Feinstein express deep concern and alarm during years when winters were mild and snow was light, contending that global warming was the cause. These people should be ashamed of themselves:

The massive snow storm, which set all-time records in Washington, D.C. and other east coast cities, ironically caused the The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health", to be cancelled. You can't tell me that God doesn't have a sense of humor!

If there is man-made, or "anthropogenic" global warming (now conveniently redefined as "climate change"), then why did the top scientists find it necessary to "hide the decline" (see climategate)?
[More at the link...]

dumbocrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you knew the context, notablenotices, you would know that "then why did the top scientists find it necessary to "hide the decline" (see climategate)?" is a misleading suggestion.

do you remember which decline they are talking about, and exactly when they did? (maybe you should read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies)

and didn't you recently criticize me for using biased sources?

oh, and besides, maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between "weather" and "climate", since, obviously, the author of the comment you posted can't keep these terms apart.

@coolkraft:

dumbocrats!!! that's hilarious! :-)

Check out the comparison between 1980 ice thickness, and this year
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=11&fy=1980&sm=02&sd=11&sy=2010

(darker purple means more ice concentration)

(dark blue means water , eg. ice missing)

Select any two like dates separated by a few years, and note how much more open water there is in the newer picture. Pay special attention to the wintertime images of the Baffin Sea, Hudson Bay, the fjords around Finland and Sweden, and the Sea of Okhotsk. Take a good hard look, then try to convince yourself that the ice isn't getting thinner by the year, and that the decadal gain of tens of thousands of square miles of previously-frozen ocean is just an illusion cooked up by scientists as a way of depriving Big Energy of the trillions at stake.

Good luck with that...

If that is what you think, go ahead and put your money on "yes"... Good luck with that...

Check out the comparison between 1980 summer ice extend, and last summer
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=11&fy=1980&sm=08&sd=12&sy=2009
(thanks to notablenotices for providing the source)

Algore: Anthropogenic Global Warming is Now Increasing Temperatures on the Sun
http://thevitaminpress.com/2009/12/16/al-gore-anthropogenic-global-warming-is-now-increasing-temperatures-on-the-sun/

and how much money does Al Gore have invested in his company? lots....you think he wants to lose it...remember he invented the internet

@fingers_of_fury,

so, you're making a joke out of it --- you have no "scientific" arguments left?

you have no "scientific" arguments left?

I note the scare quotes.

Kinda sums it all up, I'd say........................

yes indeed,

arguments like those notablenotices posted lately, for example.
very scary arguments.

Hmmmm,

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:
There has been no global warming since 1995
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change,
has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones
has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

However, I must caution my optimism here with the knowledge that Liberals are so much more smarter and use science with integrity,
as compared to Conservatives, who only have devious agendas in regards to the horrific problem of AGW.
At least, that is what a few of our esteemed Hubdub members have been telling me for the last year. . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

further

credible sources on MMGW

1. al gore
2. IPCC
3. hubdub liberals

maybe you folks should join the rightwingers. i can get you a good discount on your membership. :O) ok i caused enough trouble for one night. nite nite all.

Vice President Biden's motorcade has caused more pain and suffering than Global Warming:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/2010wintergames/news/sports/2010wintergames/news/vice+president+motorcade+crashes+injuring+former+Olympians/2564905/story.html

^ should not have been all-bold, sorry

just to be clear: in the interview which the Daily Mail published, Phil Jones said this:

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


but okay, you simply can continue posting funny videos and distracting unrelated articles instead of admitting that you were mislead by biased media.

yes you read right: if you believed the Daily Mail's article, you were mislead by biased media.

not me.

CARBON DIOXIDE SHOULD NO LONGER DRIVE PUBLIC POLICY
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
...

The discovery that the Vostok CO2 record is an effect of the oceanic solubility pump has profound effects on the science and on public policy.

Over those 420,000 years, warm ocean water has regulated the concentration of CO2 by release of this gas into the atmosphere. Because there is no trace of build-up of CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, or the oceans themselves, cold waters must be scrubbing CO2 out of the air. Since there is no difference between manmade and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate.

To the extent that the analyst’s Vostok temperature trace represents a global atmosphere temperature, so does the concentration of CO2. Thus, CO2 is a proxy for global temperature, and attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful.

...
[More at the link...]