Someone sent me this e-mail (pasted below):
Science
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase f rom September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.
Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
Global Warming? New Year Ushers in New Snowfall Records
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
January 1, 2009 - 11:23 ET
*
As soon as your humble correspondent flipped on the TV set this New Year morning, he heard an MSNBC report about record levels of snowfall that just hit the Pacific Northwest. Checking around the web, it turns out that other parts of the country were also hit with record levels of snowfall. Here are a few of the reports starting with this one in the Green Bay Press Gazette&nb sp; (emphasis mine):
Green Bay ended the month with 45.6 inches of snowfall, the most of any December on record.
It buried the previous record of 36.4 inches, set in December 1887, but fell 2.6 inches short of matching the snowiest month of all time for Green Bay. That record goes to March 1888, with 48.2 inches, which helped the winter of 1887-88 become the snowiest winter in Green Bay history at 147.7 inches total.
And in the more liberal part of Wisconsin, Madison, the snowfall records are already tumbling as reported in the Wisonsin State Journal:
With about three months to go in the winter of 2008-09, Madison could end up with the average total amount of snow for a season already before the calendar is flipped to the new year.
With 42.9 inches already in November and December, the 1-3 inc hes expected on Tuesday could push the snowfall total up to the average 45 inches that normally falls in any given winter in these parts, with the brunt of winter still to come.
The record snowfall in December is now at 38.6 inches, breaking the previous December mark of 35 inches set in 2000 as well as the previous monthly mark of 37 inches that fell in February 1994.
I loved the movie Fargo and in that North Dakota city snowfall records also fell as you can see in this report:
Fargo's December snowfall total as of 6 a.m. was 30.5 inches, which broke the previous record of 29.2 inches set in December 1927, according to the weather service.
Grand Forks also set a record with 30.1 inches of snowfall this December, compared to the previous record of 27.6 inches set back in 1918.
It will be interesting to see what the Global Warming Alarmists of the Boston Globe will make of this story whic h just appeared in their own newspaper yesterday:
SPOKANE, Wash. - Spokane residents were trying to dig out yesterday after a record-breaking month of snow collapsed roofs and clogged streets. Bismarck, N.D., also set a snowfall record.
And how was the weather at midnight as the New Year was marked by the famous ball drop in Times Square? The New York Post describes the scene:
In a fitting end to a miserable year that saw an economic meltdown, Wall Street's collapse and massive job losses, bitter cold descended on New York to usher out 2008...
...Hundreds of thousands of bundled-up celebrants descended on the Crossroads of the World - huddled in blankets and shielded under umbrellas.
Driving snow pounded many of the early-bird revelers throughout yesterday, and by midnight, the mercury had plummeted to 18 degrees. Howling wind gusts of up to 40 mph made it feel below zero at times.
So the New Year has been heralded in by record snowfall and bitterly cold temperatures but will the Global Warming Alarmists in the media notice? And will some enterprising reporter out there ask Al Gore how he can reconcile his Global Warming predictions with the incredibly cold weather we've been having recently including snowstorms in Las Vegas and snowfall in New Orleans?
Here is my response to that person:
I'm glad you sent me this. It will give me the chance to clear the air about what "global warming" actually is.
I'm no expert by any means, but as an engineer, a scientist, and a pilot (pilot probably the most credible...pilots need to know ALOT about weather), I think I've formed a sound opinion on what GW is.
I believe GW is a combination of natural global cyclical climate change and man-made environmental pollution influencing the environment.
I'll site the example...remember the ozone hole over Antarctica that was trapping green house gases, that in turn caused some global warming? The hole was caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a man made substance. A good place to read about ozone depletion is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
Another thing, the problem with the two articles cited is that it explains climate change as a recent phenomenon...it is much more complex that that. In order to understand how the natural global cycle works is to look at the long-term picture, what has been happening over thousands of years. This data generally shows a natural cycle:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
NOAA (NOAA and NASA are contracting the GOES-R satellites to Lockheed) has alot of good data to look at if you want to learn more about global climate change. http://www.research.noaa.gov/
What saddens me is that "global warming" has been made into such a political issue. Politics has nothing (or should have) nothing to do with it. GW and climate change is a very scientific phenomenon. We live on this precious planet with limited recources. We need to keep it as clean as possible for our children and grandchildren, no matter what the climate is doing. We should be greatful for what our beautiful planet has to offer us and quit wasting time on the GW wars and rediculing people who believe we need to protect Mother Earth.
Feel free to pass this on to the person who sent you the articles, if you'd like.
Love,
Bon
|
content