Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Hard Cover Maps reveal no shinking Arctic Ice Sheet

I have just checked this link to a BBC article that claims that Arctic ice coverage is still receding.

"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.
"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.

The map showing the change from 1979 to 2000 appears to show incontrovertable evidence that the ice sheet is shrinking. But, luckily, I was able to check the 1960 edition of the Readers Digest World Atlas, prepared under the direction of Frank Debenham, OBE, MA, DSC(hon) Emeritus Professor of Geography at Cambridge, that has plotted the extent of this ice sheet 20 years prior to the first satellite scan.

And surprise, surprise, the large tongues of ice that in 1979 were protruding between Novaya Zemla and Severnaya Zemla, and on the Eastern side of Severnaya Zemla, that is not there today, were also not there in the 1960's.

The BBC map is not clear enough to be certain but it appears that there may have actually been some minimal expansion in the ice limit between Svalbard and Severnaya Zemla. The only portion that does appear to have receded is a small section in the East Siberian Sea.

So while a short, totally inadequate, sample period may indicate a receding Arctic ice sheet, the evidence over a 40 year interval makes it clear that THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THIS CLAIMED RECEDING TREND IS INTIRELY WITHIN THE RECENT HISTORICAL RANGE OF VARIATION.

Once again, we have so called "highly respected scientific teams" being caught out making extrapolations from limited data sets. It is not only incompetent but downright lazy to limit one's inquiry to the most convenient data sources. But when this is done in relation to a key evidentiary plank in the "Gullible Warming" debate it is inexcusable.

Labels: ,


At February 11, 2007 2:15 pm, Blogger Earthfarm said...

Maybe we'd better just stop beating around the bush and let Joe Public know there are problems with fossil fuel reserves moving forward. Only then will rationing of carbon fuels be seriously looked at, as businesses reliant on large amounts of energy diversify away from the risks posed to profitability. To nitpick at the global warming arguement is plain on silly really because rationing will occur anyway. I'd much rather it be under the more orderly guise of global warming concerns than from the likely chaos with forced rationing should supply fall short of demand in the future. Time is too short to argue. The real issue is we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and very few are doing it!

At February 11, 2007 3:01 pm, Blogger Ian Mott said...

I understand your perspective, earthfarm, but do not share it. If there really is a pending shortage of 'carbon fuels' then action can be taken on those grounds. But that does not justify using partial data sets to establish a position that is at variance with the facts. At present people are being urged to pay significantly higher prices for the entire energy economy with a view to saving an ice sheet that is merely ebbing and flowing within historical norms. And it follows that if the ice sheet is merely ebbing and flowing then there is no basis for scaring the kids on sea level rises.

At February 11, 2007 4:42 pm, Blogger Earthfarm said...

Better to scar with drowning polar bears and melting ice sheets than a chaos and permanent reality that would ensure as everyone in the world looked to hoard anything deemed necessary for survival without guaranteed oil/gas supplies. The end of globalisation per say. Its not the little kids I worry about its the big ones who are the ones that are hard to educate. We're all sleepwalking with cheap oil affording us the time to form opinions on trivial things. Once the expensive oil gongs goes, politics is a futile game. You make the right decision moving forward or you die! Might sound harsh but in my business (food production and I note you were once a farmer) I see how expensive oil affects my ability to produce! And with global food inventories at 34 year lows, the last thing the world needs in reduced production capacity.

At February 12, 2007 11:45 am, Blogger Ian Mott said...

Earthfarm, if the situation is as bleak as you suggest then our claimed CO2 emission problem is about to go away real quick. The rationing will take place anyway and we will all look for alternatives. So what is your problem?

I take it you want to prevent examination of Gullible Warming issues (nit picking as you call it) because it may postpone an opportunity for you to compel everyone to do what you claim will happen anyway.

At February 14, 2007 11:54 am, Blogger Earthfarm said...

Ian its taken nearly a hundred years to get through half of the world's oil so still the hard half to get through I'd say. Ain't going to be cheap or supply secure at times and will be a lot less food around because of it (one of the so called alternatives). So I put it to you, what really matters most, given you likely have children whose future you have at heart? The Gullible Warning debate as you call it (and I note with interest it has your attention), is a diversion from the real issue and that is coping with forced rationing in the future, initially from price and secondly from supply constraints. Both having major impacts on the future world our kids will have to survive in. Good luck


Post a Comment

<< Home