70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice - So, What Happened to Global Warming?

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice

So, What Happened to Global Warming?

An interesting ‘coincidence’ is that the magnetic north pole drift direction is nearly the same as the increase in ice sheet depth.


http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-con...09-to-2011.gif
3-transitional images, Jan-2009, Jan-2010, Jan-2011
Comparing imagery of January arctic sea ice from 2009 to 2011 sourced from the U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System, it appears as though the ice sheet has thickened substantially.
Up to 500,000 square miles of the arctic sea region may have thickened from approximately 5 feet thick during January 2009 to approximately 10 feet thick during January 2011.

The ice thickness scale color, dark blue, corresponds to about 1.5 meters, or about 5 feet.

The color green represents about 3 meters, or about 10 feet.

The estimated area that has changed from dark blue to green measures approximately 500,000 square miles based on approximated Google Earth ruler measurements (1,500 miles length by a bit more than 300 miles width, on average – call it 333).

At an increased thickness of 5 feet, that calculates out to be…
500,000 x (5,280 x 5280) x 5 = 69,626,304,000,000
might as well round it to 70,000,000,000,000 cubic feet

It’s getting colder out there!

…which may bring about an entirely new preparedness category
“mini Ice Age”

(actually, we are well within a ‘La Nina’ cycle – cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean surface)

An interesting ‘coincidence’ is that the magnetic north pole drift direction is nearly the same as the increase in ice sheet depth.

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-con...-direction.jpg

disclaimer: no attempts were made to calculate the overall sea ice change (globally, or in the entire northern hemisphere) – the map loop shows slight reduction at southwest Greenland (Labrador Sea), some reduction in Hudson Bay, while some increase at northeast Greenland (Greenland Sea) – possibly an overall neutral effect there. The vast majority of apparent change is in the Arctic Ocean.

If you enjoyed this, or topics of preparedness, geophysical – current events – risks, consider our survival blog RSS feed, new posts by E-mail, or bookmark us at Modern Survival Blog


[Translate]


Global Rumblings: 70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice

Permalink

Books:
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=h...1&a=0465022723

Frozen Britain: How the Big Freeze of 2010 is the Beginning of Britain's New Mini Ice Agehttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=h...1&a=1844549895

History -- History Sunday Little Ice Age: Big Chillhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=h...1&a=B001CUB97U

LoL!

http://www.alipac.us/f19/green-clima...t-rest-268188/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/heavy-snowf...1/#post1316865

http://www.alipac.us/f19/five-years-...-years-293996/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/boy-al-gore...6/#post1385203

http://www.alipac.us/f19/obama-scien...lation-303720/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...42420566_n.jpgCFACT

'Greenpeace - and similarly powerful, unaccountable, virulently anti-capitalist environmental NGOs - represent one of the greatest economic and socio-political menaces in the world today.'
How can we recapture management of our environment from the radical Green-Left?

Share the facts from James Delingpole

'By rights these activists ought to be treated with tremendous suspicion. As we know, for example, from Greenpeace's appalling campaigning track record - such as its mendacious smearing of Shell over Brent Spar, and its dishonest representations about the Greenland ice shelf - these environmental groups comprise hard-left political activists entirely unsuited to dispensing unbiased policy advice. Yet, time and again, these misanthropic, Gaia-worshipping Luddites with their Mickey Mouse degrees in sustainability, whale management and polar bear empathy studies and their half-baked, junk-science-fuelled opinions on how to save the world from capitalism and the non-existent problem of "climate change", are granted seats at the top table in every government environmental decision-making process.
We didn't vote for these soap-dodging, bunny-hugging loons yet, increasingly, they are ruling all our lives. It's time we followed India's example and told them exactly where they can stick their green agenda.'

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=800&sh=419

Green Global Governance: How Environmentalists Have Taken Over the World
Greenpeace has been having a rough time of it, of late. Good. As I argued...
breitbart.com


Green Global Governance: How Environmentalists Have Taken Over the World

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...g-designed.jpg

by James Delingpole 25 Jun 2014, 4:58 AM PDT 104 post a comment
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...delingpole.png Related News

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...yout.jpg?w=145 India's Government is Standing up to the Green Bullies – Why Can't Ours?

by James Delingpole 1 day ago 144


Greenpeace has been having a rough time of it, of late. Good. As I argued yesterday, Greenpeace - and similarly powerful, unaccountable, virulently anti-capitalist environmental NGOs - represent one of the greatest economic and socio-political menaces in the world today. If you're still in any doubt of this, you should read Richard North. His latest post contains damning evidence of the degree to which our laws and regulations are now created by green pressure groups and shadowy, green-infiltrated institutions over which we have no democratic control.

These include:

Green 10 ("an informal platform of environmental NGOs" in Europe including Birdlife International, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the WWF, funded by the EU and by the governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom); the OECD's Environmental Policy Committee (EPOC); the European Environment Bureau (EEB); the OECD Environment Directorate (which, with the International Energy Agency (IEA), serves as the Secretariat for the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and undertakes studies of issues related to the negotiation and implementation of international agreements on climate change); and the Geneva Environmental Network listing 110 green organisations in a subsidised office, supported by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and led by UNEP.

Do you find this sort of thing as agonisingly tedious as I do? Of course you do. Even just writing that last paragraph, it was all I could do not to stick forks in my eyeballs. I'm surprised you didn't die reading it.
But this, you must understand, is the whole point. As I argued in Watermelons, boredom is the deadly secret weapon of the bien-pensant technocrats of the EU and the UN. "They wear outsiders down with the tedium of their arguments and the smallness of their fine print, so that by the time anyone else notices what they're up to the damage has been done and it's too late to do anything about it."
So let me just explain simply, and without the use of any more distracting initials, what the problem is here. At every level of government across the Western world - from town councils (via Local Agenda 21) to supranational bodies like the United Nations (and its myriad environment programmes) the decision-making process has been hijacked by environmental activist groups like Greenpeace. Like some hideous green ouroborus, they simultaneously feed on and nourish one another. So, for example, various branches of the EU and the UK government give funding to green NGOs which then repay the favour by proselytising on behalf of the EU's and the British government's environmental initiatives and lobbying for more to be introduced.
By rights these activists ought to be treated with tremendous suspicion. As we know, for example, from Greenpeace's appalling campaigning track record - such as its mendacious smearing of Shell over Brent Spar, and its dishonest representations about the Greenland ice shelf - these environmental groups comprise hard-left political activists entirely unsuited to dispensing unbiased policy advice. Yet, time and again, these misanthropic, Gaia-worshipping Luddites with their Mickey Mouse degrees in sustainability, whale management and polar bear empathy studies and their half-baked, junk-science-fuelled opinions on how to save the world from capitalism and the non-existent problem of "climate change", are granted seats at the top table in every government environmental decision-making process.
We didn't vote for these soap-dodging, bunny-hugging loons yet, increasingly, they are ruling all our lives. It's time we followed India's example and told them exactly where they can stick their green agenda.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...over-the-world

bttt

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f19/volcanoes-b...inning-309428/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...42420566_n.jpg CFACT

President Obama claims the recent drought is California is the product of global warming.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts challenges him to 'Spot the portion of California drought caused by ‘climate change’

How long can the warmists in the White House blame natural weather on "climate change" and get away with it?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...01615168_n.png

... Share the facts at WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/1...limate-change/

Democratic candidates in California are abandoning the President's unscientific climate pronouncements in their mid-term election campaigns.
From the Hill:
'Voters don’t hear the words “climate change” when Democrats in competitive races in California explain what’s causing the worst drought in the state’s history.
President Obama has repeatedly blamed global warming for episodes of severe weather, including wildfires and droughts in the Golden State, but Democrats seeking to unseat Republicans in the hard-hit Central Valley region are balking at that argument.
The drought is an issue in three of the five closest House races in California, but Democrats are opting against drawing a direct link between the drought and climate change.
“The way folks talk about the drought out here is: ‘We have a problem, let’s fix the problem,’” said Amanda Renteria, a Democrat challenging Rep. David Valadao (R).
“Climate change doesn’t really belong in the question, or answer,” said Renteria, one of her party’s best hopes of gaining a House seat this fall.'
Will the White House finally wake up to the fact that weather happens?


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...01615168_n.png

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...4bb7e0d8c8efdd CFACT

It's bad enough that the science doesn't support what President Obama says about the climate, the ruinously expensive solutions are completely useless.
Share the facts at CFACT.org: http://www.cfact.org/?p=23158
Morano: ‘You keep talking about walking and chewing gum, this is stepping into gum. You have a UN treaty & EPA — where even if you buy their science - Podesta said EPA regulations would help reduce future storminess. The regulations will not even impact global emissio...ns, let alone temperature, let alone storminess. Don’t sell [regulations] as a solution to an urgent problem which they have ginned up. You guys say we face the greatest threat and then you propose symbolism. Even if you buy the science, what you are proposing makes no sense. Get your feet out of the gum.”
In a world that hasn't warmed since last century, where the weather is normal and natural, does "this situation absolutely require that a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part?"

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=661&sh=346

Morano: “You guys say we face the greatest threat and then you propose symbolism.”

September 25, 2014 by CFACT Ed, 0 Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bnooUsa3MU

‘You keep talking about walking and chewing gum, this is stepping into gum. You have a UN treaty & EPA — where even if you buy their science - Podesta said EPA regulations would help reduce future storminess. The regulations will not even impact global emissions, let alone temperature, let alone storminess. Don’t sell [regulations] as a solution to an urgent problem which they have ginned up. You guys say we face the greatest threat and then you propose symbolism. Even if you buy the science, what you are proposing makes no sense. Get your feet out of the gum.”

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/25/mora...ose-symbolism/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/pay-your-ca...attack-236371/

Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months

Updated list of 38 ‘excuses’ for the nearly 18 year temperature ‘pause’ or standstill in global warming

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 7, 2014

Global Temperature Update

No global warming for 17 years 11 months …

… or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

1711years
http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-conte...rs-300x168.png
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.

The hiatus period of 17 years 11 months, or 215 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

monckton2

http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-conte...n2-300x168.png
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to August 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

monckton3

http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-conte...n3-300x168.png
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to August 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.

The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to August 2014 – just over half the 428-month satellite record.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Other statistical methods might be used. A paper by Professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada, published at the end of August 2014, estimated that at that date there had been 19 years without any global warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/...ars-11-months/

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...f2&oe=54BB420B


https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...1b579a2a2a780c CFACT

Will the failure of the globe to warm since the nineties prove to be a pause or a peak?

Share the facts at CFACT's Climate Depot:

'The possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.'...

'The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.'

'The spike in temperatures caused by the Great El Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.'