Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

I just did this math for a post elsewhere.

"As of July 18, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.82 million square kilometers (3.02 million square miles)."

"The average rate of ice loss through July 18 was 89,500 square kilometers (34,600 square miles) per day, which is close to the long-term average (1981 through 2010) rate of 86,800 square kilometers (33,500 square miles) per day. "

The ice reaches its minimum about 60 days from now. If the present rend continues that is a loss of more 5,000,000 sq km.

And this ice extent is based on a 15% coverage.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and i some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in
climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81
degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report
continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * *
* * * * * *
I must apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.

Seen it too many times before.

The report deals with the local conditions at Spitzbergen.

Those who seek to deny global warming constantly use transparently obvious
tricks, selecting data from a single time, a single place, or both, to deny the larger
long-term global patterns. This is easily done as climate is constantly fluctuating,
so picking out the mean patterns and trends requires that one integrates the data
over the largest time and space scales possible. So if one dishonestly wants to
misrepresent the larger patterns, one can always find a particular place at a
particular time that does not agree with the all the rest averaged together. This is
sometimes referred to as the “It’s a cold day in Wagga Wagga” approach, and is
repeatedly used by the climate change deniers to fool people who haven’t looked
at the data themselves. The changes in Arctic Ice are no exception!

This set of observations from a limited area (Spitzbergen) in one year has been
used by deniers to suggest that there are huge natural fluctuations, and to imply
that there is no global warming. Now since the satellite data only goes back to
1979, it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that the trends since 1979 may not
match the trends when looked at over a longer time period. One has to look at
long-term data from ice extent measured in the sea and from shore, and air and
water temperature data, over the longest time periods available. So let’s look at
what this data actually shows!

It is clear that summer temperatures are rising faster than winter temperatures
are rising, but again that 1922 was a purely LOCAL event in Spitzbergen, not a
REGIONAL one.

http://www.globalcoral.org/_oldgcra/...0WARMING.1.pdf

[SV THIRD DAY]

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice | Climate Depot

Folks...sometimes it's the little things in life you take joy at.

[GoingWalkabout]

Jackdale. What I found interesting was the media hysteria and alarmism. We can go back and forth about the details but the glaring elephant in the room is the alarmism peddled by the media. Along with unnamed experts who back in 1922 predicted the horrific calamity of ALL coastal cities disappearing underwater because of rising sea levels caused by melting arctic ice.

It was insanity back then and insanity now.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Jackdale. What I found interesting was the media hysteria and alarmism. We can go back and forth about the details but the glaring elephant in the room is the alarmism peddled by the media. Along with unnamed experts who back in 1922 predicted the horrific calamity of ALL coastal cities disappearing underwater because of rising sea levels caused by melting arctic ice.

It was insanity back then and insanity now.

Stop reading the MSM and start reading science.

BTW

Global Warming — 1922? : snopes.com

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice | Climate Depot

Folks...sometimes it's the little things in life you take joy at.

Not the first time as I recall. Mother Gia wins again.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not the first time as I recall. Mother Gia wins again.

Meanwhile

THIS MORNING 20TH JULY WE LEAVE MURMANSK TODAY

09.06 UTC 12.06 Local time.

Morning! So the plan is to leave today… the weather is lovely and everything is stowed.

Last night I went to a small да́ча dacha (Russian second home), outside Murmansk and met friends of Nikolay. They worked on the ice breakers so we’re keen to pass on help and information. What is the common theme here is what ever the ice maps show it can all change quickly if we get a southerly wind for a couple of days blowing the pack ice off Shore.

Home - The Polar Ocean Challenge

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stop reading the MSM and start reading science.

BTW

Global Warming — 1922? : snopes.com

Is that the prelude to the forthcoming "Global Warming 1998?" snope's entry? An inconvenient truth is the 1930's would have been perceived the same way as today had climate science been a business back then. That's without the benefit of hindsight with global temperatures dipping from the 1940's, though.

Of course a true alarmists probably should agree that 1922 was indeed the "hottest year ever" for the time (1923) and point out that global warming started 1-1-1850 on the dot and it was only due to WWII and sulphate pollution that the cataclysmic upward march of temperatures was temporarily arrested. Or something like that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just did this math for a post elsewhere.

"As of July 18, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.82 million square kilometers (3.02 million square miles)."

"The average rate of ice loss through July 18 was 89,500 square kilometers (34,600 square miles) per day, which is close to the long-term average (1981 through 2010) rate of 86,800 square kilometers (33,500 square miles) per day. "

The ice reaches its minimum about 60 days from now. If the present rend continues that is a loss of more 5,000,000 sq km.

And this ice extent is based on a 15% coverage.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stop reading the MSM and start reading science.

Which science might that be? The science that says 2016 is a record year for low sea ice based mostly on warming, or the science that says it's running neck & neck with 2012? Or the science you quoted above which says that the rate of loss in 2016 is close to the long term average? The graph from your link (below) sure looks "neck & neck" to the casual observer, as does the statement from NSIDC that . . .

"As of July 18, Arctic sea ice extent was . . . just above the level observed on the same date in 2012, the year that ended up having the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Throughout the month, extent has closely tracked both the two standard deviation and 2012 levels."

You mean there's actually MORE ice right now than there was 4 years ago? So what's with all the science you also posted that labels 2016 a record year? Wasn't that from NOAA and/or NASA?? And if warming is the driving force for sea ice loss, then why not additional loss in the past 4 years when temps have supposedly been increasing? Could it be all the local and regional factors also discussed in your most recently posted article? You know, the myriad of complex factors often discussed on Curry's blog which you frequent so often?

In fact, when you look at this graph, the extent of sea ice through April-June might just coincide with warming induced by the well-established El Nino, and the recent uptick in July might just coincide with the predicted transition to a La Nina. But that's for the science as a whole to determine, not just selected parts of it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Which science might that be? The science that says 2016 is a record year for low sea ice based mostly on warming, or the science that says it's running neck & neck with 2012?

2012 was the previous record low ice extent.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

2012 was the previous record low ice extent.

LOL! Yes, that part I got thanks. I guess I won't expect you to respond more directly unless I remove a bunch of question marks . . . .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

LOL! Yes, that part I got thanks. I guess I won't expect you to respond more directly unless I remove a bunch of question marks . . . .

And 2016 is "neck and neck" in the race.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And 2016 is "neck and neck" in the race.

Indeed. But the latest (7/18) numbers you just posted show that 2016 is starting to lose ground as current sea ice levels are starting to increase. I think I hear Stu calling this time . . . . But as you say, a couple of months to go.

Unlike the certainty that ultimately developed around the science which defined gravity, heliocentrism, tobacco use, etc. . . . , there sure are a lot of uncertainties surrounding climate science, no?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

tobacco use, etc. . . . , there sure are a lot of uncertainties surrounding climate science, no?

How come the same guys who were lobbying for tobacco are are the same guys lobbying for fossil fuels?

Joe Bast, Fred Singer and their colleagues at Heartland. Have you noticed the similarity in tactics?

Hey - I know that smoking does not cause cancer, I smoked until 43 years ago; I do not have cancer. /sarc

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Indeed. But the latest (7/18) numbers you just posted show that 2016 is starting to lose ground as current sea ice levels are starting to increase.

What?

The average rate of ice loss through July 18 was 89,500 square kilometers (34,600 square miles) per day, which is close to the long-term average (1981 through 2010) rate of 86,800 square kilometers (33,500 square miles) per day. Recall from our last post that the month of June was characterized by a stormy pattern over the central Arctic Ocean, which likely acted to slow the rate of ice loss. This pattern has persisted into July. However, the rate of decline increased in the first two weeks of the month as very warm conditions spread around the Arctic coasts. Ice loss has slowed in the last few days.

Ice levels are not increasing!