Global Warming/Arctic/Greenland/Polar Bears
10 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - May 10, 2020, 12:34 a.m.

New Scientist: Global Warming has Already Made Parts of the World Unsurvivably Hot

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/09/new-scientist-global-warming-has-already-made-parts-of-the-world-unsurvivably-hot/#comment-2990453

metmike: That's pretty hot/humid but who knew that humans had this magic maximum threshold of 35 degrees.
Get above that, and we all die. Stay below that and we live.

We should not be surprised that it's worse than predicted. It's always worse than predicted, even when it's the opposite of what was expected.

They forgot to tell us that its the coldest places during the coldest times of year and coldest times of day(night time)  on this planet that are warming the most and many of these hotter places are not warming as fast.

OK, maybe they knew and thought that it wasn't important.

OK, maybe they knew, realized that it was important but decided it would mess up the narrative/weaken the sensationalism to state that.  

Comments
By metmike - May 10, 2020, 10:59 a.m.
Like Reply

              

Climate change rule of thumb: cold "things" warming faster than warm things

Author: 

Deke Arndt

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things


(top) Arctic amplification of climate change evident in map of 2000-2009 temperatures compared to the 1951-80 average. NASA Earth Observatory map, based on data from NASA GISS. (bottom) Yearly October-September temperatures compared to the 1981-2010 average. Black line: global average. Red line: Arctic (60°-90°N) average. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, adapted from Figure 1.1 in the 2014 Arctic Report Card.

The graph above clearly shows the Arctic region’s steeper temperature climb. But the map of temperatures from the most recent completed decade (2000-09) also hints at (remember: we’re talking rule of thumb here) the effect of additional warming across traditionally seasonally snow-covered areas in Siberia.

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 11:07 a.m.
Like Reply

"We should not be surprised that it’s worse than predicted. It’s always worse than predicted, even when it’s the opposite of what was expected."

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989


https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. 

   Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. 

   He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. 

   As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. 

   Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. 

   ″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said. 

   UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone. 

   Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 

   Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse. 

   The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. 

   The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago. "

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 11:16 a.m.
Like Reply



metmike: Speaking of what would be expected. During previous climate optimum's like this, Medieval, Roman, Minoan and especially the Holocene climate OPTIMUM ,  the warming was always greatest in the coldest places......where it benefits the most....... which is why it's a climate OPTIMUM for life-at least according to authentic science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

"Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present."

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 11:31 a.m.
Like Reply

Polar Bears apparently did just great when it was a couple of degrees warmer than this in the Arctic with less sea ice, during the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM.......... between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago.


We heard from Al Gore and others, using the Polar Bear as the global warming mascot, that the poor bears were doomed from melting ice.

Fast forward another decade+, to a time that has allowed us to monitor and track the progress of the Polar Bears.......and the  ice.

Not only have they not been dying off, their numbers have increased with their health improving:

New Paper: Body condition of Barents Sea polar bears increased since 2004 despite sea ice loss

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/06/new-paper-body-condition-of-barents-sea-polar-bears-increased-since-2004-despite-sea-ice-loss/


“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988]

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 11:48 a.m.
Like Reply

Added to the surprises, Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012 and has not receded at the end of the melt season to a level low than that since then, with the last several years having a slight increase.

And even more surprising, some places are actually seeing significant increases in the ice!

Svalbard at end of April again has 6th-7th highest sea ice extent & a lot of very thick ice

https://polarbearscience.com/2020/04/30/svalbard-at-end-of-april-again-has-6th-7th-highest-sea-ice-extent-a-lot-of-very-thick-ice/

Highest Svalbard sea ice since 1988 with Bear Island in the south surrounded

https://polarbearscience.com/2020/04/08/highest-svalbard-sea-ice-since-1988-with-bear-island-in-the-south-surrounded/

From last Summer below:

Shockingly thick first year ice between Barents Sea and the North Pole in mid-July

Posted on July 29, 2019 

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/07/29/shockingly-thick-first-year-ice-between-barents-sea-and-the-north-pole-in-mid-july/

Bear island 8 March 2019_first bear seen since 2011_Bjørnøya Meteorological Station photo SVALBARDPOSTEN

Svalbard ice extent 2020 April 29 graph_NIS

Graphs provided by the Norwegian Ice Service only goes back to 1981 (see the ‘Min/Max’ dotted line in the graph above) but their records go back to at least 1969. Extent at April 29th was sixth highest and on the 30th seventh highest – only slightly less than 1998. NIS archived ice charts availble online only go back to 1998 for April. Below are the charts for April 29th and 30th:


By metmike - May 10, 2020, 12:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Interesting story related to this from earlier this year.


Fat adult polar bear shot in Svalbard New Years Eve after persistent visits to Longyearbyen

https://polarbearscience.com/2020/01/02/fat-adult-polar-bear-shot-in-svalbard-new-years-eve-after-persistent-visits-to-longyearbyen/

There was no attempt by any of the media outlets reporting on the incident to blame it on lack of sea ice or climate change.

It’s no wonder they all avoided the mention of sea ice, since Svalbard has had more ice this fall than it has experienced since 2010 (fall in the Arctic is October-December). In the days before the bear was sighted on the 26th, there had been rather extensive pack ice off the west coast (see chart below for 23 December) as well as developing shorefast ice in the fjords, which would have allowed this bear (and any other who so chose) to walk into Longyearbyen over the ice:

According the the Norwegian Ice Service, since at least 1998, ice off the west coast has been a rare event (see chart below for 29 December 1998):


Only in 2010 (see chart below) was there as much ice along the west coast as was present this year in late December, although in 2002 was there enough ice in the fall for more than a dozen pregant females to den on Hopen Island in the southeast.

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 12:05 p.m.
Like Reply

Sea ice more than 1.2m thick over Hudson Bay portends a good year for polar bears

https://polarbearscience.com/2020/05/08/sea-ice-more-than-1-2m-thick-over-hudson-bay-portends-a-good-year-for-polar-bears/

Posted on May 8, 2020 | Comments Off on Sea ice more than 1.2m thick over Hudson Bay portends a good year for polar bears

 

The chart below shows what sea ice thickness over Hudson Bay was like at the first week of May in a so-called a ‘good year’ (2019) – when polar bears came off the ice in excellent condition late in the summer and left early in the fall (‘thick first year ice’ is dark green and indicates ice greater than 1.2m thick):

Hudson Bay weekly stage of development 2019 May 6

Hudson Bay ice conditions this year appear to be shaping up to be as good or better than last year for polar bears yet specialist researchers and their cheerleaders have still been claiming that bears in this region – Western and Southern Hudson Bay – are doomed because of poor ice conditions. It’s no wonder they still haven’t published the data they’ve been collecting on polar bear body condition and cub survival over the last 15 years or so (Crockford 2020). With most field work cancelled for this year, what’s their excuse for not getting that done?

Compare the above, from the Canadian Ice Service, to the first week in May 2020 below, where the thick ice is much more prominent than last year in the northwest quadrant. A massive polar vortex over eastern North America forecasted for this weekend is likely to thicken up the ice in the south (over James Bay) in short order:

Hudson Bay weekly stage of development 2020 May 4

Courtesy Dr. Andrew Derocher (U. Alberta)

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 12:28 p.m.
Like Reply

As Polar Bear Numbers Increase, GWPF Calls For Re-assessment Of Endangered Species Status


https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-numbers-increase-gwpf-calls-for-re-assessment-of-endangered-species-status/


"Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years."


metmike: Fits with many of the other apocalyptic predictions................just the opposite happens.

We are supposedly killing the planet..............but the planet keeps getting greener each year from the beneficial warming and increasing beneficial CO2.

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 12:33 p.m.
Like Reply

Perfect time to bring up the #1 Climate Crisis Fraud on the internet again.


Note his graph of Greenland Ice below:

NEW: Skeptical Science on global warming: Exposing this climate fraud. Ice melting is not accelerating. Use of deceptive graphs compared to the authentic data. Authentic science shows a climate optimum. March 2020.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/49302/

                By metmike - March 24, 2020, 2:52 p.m.            

            

                             Tim,


"I've been told the skeptical whatevah is a great site for good data"

Let's really expose them here. Look at the graph that they show and note the dates at the bottom. WTHeck. No data from the last 9 years. This is intentionally deceptive because the most recent data from the last 8 years years shows that the ice has stopped melting in the Arctic and the peak melting, there and in Greenland was in 2012, so showing a graph to 2020 would show the ice melt is NOT accelerating.


They claim. 

"Ice is melting at accelerating rates in the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland, and glaciers all over the world."


  This is their graph that suddenly stops in 2010.

 


Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?


https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

(Image source: Climate Signals.)


They intentionally don't have the last decade because it shows this below:


Below is data going thru 2019.


http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/


metmike: Ice melt in the Arctic has come to a halt and is not accelerating at Greenland by definition of acceleration. If they wanted to be  scientifically honest, they would show data thru this year and mention that the peak ice melt was in 2012.

                                    


            

                

By metmike - May 10, 2020, 1:18 p.m.
Like Reply

To be clear:

I am not saying that we are having global cooling or even that global warming has ended. 

Just that this is PROOF that it is not accelerating. PROOF that it's been very modest. PROOF that it's much less than predicted by the much too warm climate models. PROOF that places like Skeptical Science are frauds, that present junk/fake science with intentionally dishonest data and graphs. 

Powerful evidence that we should DO NOTHING and continue to make observations/gather empirical data and..........please, adjust the broken climate models so that all of them are not too warm. 

If they were not biased, then close to half of them would be too cold!



https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png