Have you noticed that there has not been much media attention this summer devoted to the north polar ice cap?
The probable reason is that it seems to be *expanding* and that does not follow the media's "global warming" line. Right now it's running at the biggest it's been in several years but that news is buried.
The image at the top really caught my eye (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png)
Notice that the orange line is the median for 1979-2000 which artificially makes the current ice cap seem small given that 1979 was the coldest year since World War II and right in the middle of a string of cold years. Why not have the orange line be the median from 1989-2008. Why choose an arbitrary time in the past for that median line. I think the answer is obvious.
Something else caught my eye in this image. Notice the smaller areas of ice that are totally outside the orange line - several in southern Hudson bay, some along the coast of Greenland and some in northern Russia and Alaska. Totally *outside* the Orange line. That means ice does not normally exist there on August 16. Even in 1979-2000. I'm guessing that where we see "extra* ice vs the 1979-2000 median are in places where ice does not (typically) make it through the summer.
Much of ice in the arctic ocean is multi year.
Here's the insight: it appears that the remains of single year ice (ie formed only last winter) is actually running *higher* than the 1979-2000 median wheras the ice deficit is in places that had a multi year ice pack throughout the 1979-2000 period. Melting of that multi-year ice pack from 1995-2005 does not reflect higher than normal melting this summer. Key question: how much melting occurred this summer vs recent summers. Given the amount of extra single year ice, I'm guessing less melting - which points to a (sharp?) reversal vs recent years. Note: last years summer ice cap was bigger than the year before so this would be the second year of a reversal.
Will the media report it this way? Or will they report something like "the ice cap is the 3rd or 4th smallest in history" which would be a distortion.
Another insight: research indicates that northern hemisphere cooling can happen very quickly and I think I can see a possible reason why. Notice that there is still some ice in southern Hudson bay (on Aug 16) and that means ice has almost made it through the summer there. That would seem to indicate that only a slight cooling could cause multi-year ice pack to persist in Hudson bay and Hudson Bay extends down towards the middle of N. America. If Hudson bay was frozen over I think summers here in Chicago would be a lot cooler immediately - look at the map. That could set off a cascade. I wonder if anyone has done a mathematical model of this. I'm sure they have but give the media's focus it's not likely to get a lot of attention.
It seems well established that: 1) the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, 2) global temperatures were rising from 1982/83 until about 2006/7 3) the increase in CO2 is due to activities of mankind. We can be pretty darn sure of the first 2, and #3 seems highly (overwhelmingly?) likely also but notice that there is something kind of big left out. This does not mean that humans were causing the global warming observed from 1982/83 until about 2006/7. CO2 level is only one aspect of climate. There are lots of others. CO2 was also increasing from 1960-1979 and the planet was cooling in that period.
Perhaps the Old Farmers Almanac has it right. (www.almanac.com/timeline/). Humans are contributing to global warming but other factors are really driving the climate change process and they are far bigger than us and our impact. Factors like the tilt of our axis, when in our orbit we are closest and furthest from the sun and the (of course!) the sun itself. Sun cycles could be a very important driver of climate on the earth (duh!). It's known that the sun filters out a variable amount of cosmic rays that would otherwise enter our atmosphere and it's also known that cosmic rays cause increased cloud formation. Climate researchers know that cool times are correlated with cloudy times. Could effects like this overwhelm CO2? According to the OFA the answer is yes.
People of course want (often desperately) to believe that they are in control of things. One of the hallmarks of depression a feeling that you are out of control. People at present very much want to believe that they are in control of the climate. If we just behave, it won't change - or so we want to believe. Well maybe not.
But "all the experts agree!" you say?
Yes, and all the experts agreed on the "new economy" in the late 90's and preached to those of us who were skeptical of business models based not on profits or even revenue but "eyeballs" that we "just didn't get it." The experts were proved wrong in 2000-2001.
All the experts were united in telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003. None were found.
All the experts were telling us that "there is no national market for housing" and "a housing bubble is impossible". Until it popped.
In each of these cases the experts were telling the public or a subset of the public (IE important people) what they wanted to hear.
It's time to be skeptical of global warming - at least how it's been presented so far.
It will be real interesting to see how it's presented if the cooling that the OFA is predicting comes to pass.
