Many were touting purported Arctic sea ice-melt as the surging sign of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW. Brian Sussman, "ClimateGate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the ...scam of AGW fanatics. Sussmandescribes hownobody officially measured Arctic ice until satellites became available in 1979.
John Daly, a former USSSkate crewmember in 1959: “the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter.”Reports of the “least amount of ice in history, corresponds only to the last 30 years. They don’t include personal accounts by Navy men made before there were satellites to map ice in 1979.
In August 2000, the Russian icebreakerYamal took some environmental scientists on an excursion into the Arctic. Arriving at the North Pole, they noticed expanses of open water. Photographs taken then became the subject of sensationalist reporting.
One scientist there, Dr. James McCarthy, an oceanographer and lead IPCC author exclaimed, "It was totally unexpected," in relation to finding open water in the Arctic circle in amediareport.
Eventually, the New York Times retracted the story. But McCarthy first started the scare. The media simply took his word at face value, assuming scientific credentials would supportthe story. A typical publicity stunt.
In 2007, many thought AGW caused the most expansive Arcticice-melt,ever. But few remembered the typical Arctic-autumnrefreeze. Just during 10 days in November, a NASA satellite recorded sea ice growing in the Arctic ocean at 58,000 sq.mi./day, equaling the size of Georgia(1).
The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. And represents over 90 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. However, in the Arctic and Antarctic, the air is extremely dry from extreme cold. It gives CO2 a much better chance to heat dry atmosphere than possible in warmer climates at lower latitudes.
John Daly’s, The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water?, explains how cooling and warming of polar areas occurs. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, claims global temperature has risen +0.6°C during the 20th century [6].
To be attributable to greenhouse effect, warming has to follow the greenhouse “fingerprint.” Translating: strong warming at the polar regions, less warming in the tropics, and the least warming in equatorial ocean regions. There, water vapor saturates the absorption wavebands where changes in any of the other greenhouse gases has little additional effect.
Previous ‘claimed’ warming was based on thousands of weather stations worldwide. Most those stations are located in cities where heat from buildings, roads, and other structures—directly causing URBAN HEAT ISLANDS (UHIs).This creates artificial warming-creep in long-term data.
In the Antarctic Peninsula, there was only warming in 2 percent of the continent, and cooling over 98 percent. Together with that, the global pattern of warming did not fit classic greenhouse “fingerprints.” The Antarctic shows no overall warming since reliable records began there in 1957.
Interestingly, during the very same period, Antarctic sea ice increased in area by about 1.3% per decade [2]. Results suggest both the Antarctic and Arctic are responding to regional factors, not global ones.
One crew member aboard the USS Skate at the North Pole and numerous other locations in 1959, said ice at the polar ice cap averages seven feet thick, but wind and tides the ice open the ice into large “polynyas” (areas of open water), which refreeze over with thin ice. [5]
The Sverdrup balance - Wikipedia on Ask.com, radiation chart shows as radiation moves into the infra-red, the ability of the deeper ocean to absorb heat rapidly diminishes. Once we move into the far infra-red where radiation from the greenhouse effect occurs, only the immediate surface `skin' of the ocean absorbs that radiation. Energy collected from the greenhouse effect can only warm the top millimeter of the ocean, with most heat promptly lost again through evaporation.
The limits on thickness of ice are determined by how low the air temperature can get, and on how warm and fast-moving the subsurface water is. Temperatures measured in the Arctic show no recent warming, thus discounting the possibility recent thinning could be caused by atmospheric warming above the ice. Rather, thinning of ice in the 1990s is clearly associated with a warming of the sub-surface ocean, seen byScience Ice Expeditions (SCICEX) datacaused by the Global Patterns - Arctic & North Atlantic Oscillations (AO & NAO ...), increasing the flow rate of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.
It is obvious all data suggests nothing but natural cycles at work.Are “AGW” believers actually thinking at this point?
[1] James E. Hester, personal email communication, December 2000, from “Top Of The World”: Is The North Pole Turning To Water?,” John Daly, http//wwwjohn-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm.
[2] Cavalieri, D. et al. Observed Hemispheric Asymmetry in Global Sea Ice Changes, Science, v.278, p.1104, 7 Nov 1997
[5] Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000
[6] IPCC WG1, Third Assessment Report, Shanghai draft 21-01-2001
[9] NASA GISS station temperature data from http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/
[16] SEARCH Science Steering Committee, Draft SEARCH Science Plan,
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/search/search_plan/Science_Plan_9.html, Polar Science Center,
University of Washington, Seattle, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.