According to Fishupdate.com:
“Fish merchants on the Humber may be throwing up their hands in frustration at the worrying decline in fish supplies from Iceland since the beginning of the year. But the underlying cause is something they would never have guessed at – a massive deep freeze around the west coast of the country.
While the rest of the world shudders at the prospect of global warming and all that it threatens to bring in the form of floods and soaring temperatures, Iceland has been bucking the trend – and it is having a dramatic effect on fishing activity around the island.
Thick packs of ice, which have not been seen for almost 40 years, have been moving into the western fjords across some of the best fishing grounds, followed by bitter winds and plummeting temperatures…
Read the article here: http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/6564/Ice_packs_(and_polar_bears)_thwart_Iceland_fishing.html
And it goes on to report that ice drifting in from Greenland has been carrying dozens of polar bears.
And Ann Novak sent me a link to a picture of a stranded bear, click here:http://www.bt.no/miljo/article337253.ece
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
But isn’t drifting ice packs a sign of melting, warming and thinning of sea ice?
What I have read is that the Vesterisen ( Greenland) where the annual seal hunt takes place will be very difficult due to thinning of sea ice ( so the seals are happy about this!) This according to sealers reports this year.
LOL Jen, you should know better than to point out inconsistencies in natural occurrences with global warming claims. If the globe gets warmer, the people who worship at the altar of global warming will say that it’s because of AGW. If the globe gets cooler, they rationalize that it is also an indirect result of AGW. These people can’t lose!
The best hope that they have is that their long-term claims can’t be disproven with observation for hundreds of years, which will allow them time to take more control over the lives and money of private citizens.
Now, I’m going to put a glass of lemonade outside and see if global warming will add ice cubes to it for me.
Inconsistency? Have you considered if your glass of lemonade used to be completely frozen that it may be something else?
No inconsistency at all Luke. The Arctic ice sheet was not ‘completely frozen’ as you put it. It has always ebbed and flowed but the only difference this time is that we have a bunch of shonks who want to play fast and loose with the facts for political gain.
Lets face it, you are a ‘normal range of variation’ denialist.
Well that’s because you as an apologist have put no serious information up to the contrary.
So now we need eight google hits for “common sense” do we Luke?
A million Gigabytes of cyber spin, brought down by a 50 year old atlas. I love it. At least my atlas still has all it’s carbon intact.
My atlas shows the whole Russian Artic area as ice free so you must be right. Giggle.
Ever heard of the precautionary principle? Every human has fluctuations in temperature, but it would take a brave physician in the face of signs of dangerous fever to sit back and observe, as Woody suggests?
The problem with that analogy, George, is that in this instance the temperature measurements are still within the normal healthy range but we have these nutters who want any excuse they can find to drain the patients blood.
And they justify it all by modelling the contents of chooks guts.
Luke, your atlas is obviously an incomplete record, mine is not. Mine was compiled under the direction of Frank Debenham(OBE), Emeritus Prof of Geography at Cambridge University, in consultation with the Polar Institute. Obviously, yours was not. Mine is a credible record of fact, yours is not.
Why do you continue to have trouble comprehending that non-electronic, non-web based, evidence can be just as valid, if not more valid, than a google scan?
Since when has the www constituted the sum of all knowledge?
Hi Ian, the patient is sick. Piecing all the now seemingly disconnected pieces together says “sick”. Precaution is hardly draing the patient’s blood. In Australia, they have the worst draought in recorded history, and despite all the science on climate change they still call it a drought. They would be silly not to be putting in place strategies based on the fact that there might just be another thing happenning than just a “drought”. And unprecented cold occurrances are not inconsistent with predictions associted with the whole phenomenon. So, keep burning fossil fuels unti we have another hundred years of observation? Not a bright idea!
I should add that the sealers not being able to get to the seals because of the thinning of the ice is not the good news for the seals that Ann suggests.
Georgo, the story is about “thick packs of ice” that have not been seen for 40 years, not thinning ice as you suggest.
And BTW the “not seen for 40 years” line is entirely consistent with the 1966 bottoming out of the 5 year moving temperature mean at 8.99C (courtesy of British Met). Ergo, we are still within the historical range of variation.
The thick packs of ice are noteworthy because they are well and truly detached from the ice sheet and are elsewhere. Hmmmmm……….not associated with thinning AND breaking ice sheet? Common. I go back to my original argument, and that is there is sufficient concern across too many disciplines not to employ the precautionary principle. The question now begs, and I don’t want to diminish your credential only your argument, Ian, but do you work for a carbon dioxide or fossil fuel producer?
George,
As far as I know, and I have known Ian and his family for some years now, he does not work for a carbon dioxide or fossil fuel producer.
His passion is farming and particularly forestery, and trees are consumers of carbon dioxide.
Now how do explain that?
No explanantion necessary, but with the line that Ian has been taking it was one possibilty. My argument remains that if there is something extraordinary about thick ice being where it is out of historic context, then there is something wrong? Lets not take the debate back ten years.
George, the other explanation for the thick ice packs is that it is summer drift ice that did not melt and is now re-accumulating in the Fjords during the unusual cold weather.
This explanation is more consistent with the historical records because the last warming peak was in 1978, only 29 years ago, while the last very cold trough was 1966 or exactly 40 years ago and consistent with local knowledge of the event.
That would mean that the Arctic ice glass is actually half full, not half empty, se parakalo.
Reposted from the Fraser institute thread:
http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/ARCSS-SAT/
This paper from the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington has an interesting figure.
Check out figure 8 Ian, which has arctic surface temperature next to sea ice extent from 1900 to 2000.
The data seems to come from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
You can see the graphs in the first paper in the graphics set 1 here:
http://amap.no/acia/ACIAGraphics.html
Presumably the report explains how they got the data, though i haven’t looked at it yet.
Probably a better source of data on arctic sea ice extent than Ian and his atlas though.
Their website looks pretty interesting.
Ian you don’t need google hits for common sense, but common sense should tell you that you need to do better than an old atlas to demonstrate that the weight of scientific opinion on AGW and arctic ice levels is incorrect.
It seems like the ice packs are drifting to Iceland and the West Fjord due to high pressure and winds blowing from Greenland.
Rising temperature in the Arctic has also caused killer whales to venture north and they are attacking every kind of marine animals , according to scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/04/wbears04.xml
Yiasou, Ian!
Reposted from Fraser Inst. thread.
Steve, the report doesnt explain how they got the data and the graphics set reveals an underlying misleading approach. It is riddled with graphs that show changes, attributed to climate, that are subject to other variables. We have graphs of Cod and shrimp catches showing major declines etc when the primary variable is over fishing, not @#%& ice extent or sea temperature.
The classic was p17 of the 3rd graphic series which purported to show aquaculture production in the Faroe Islands. It showed a steady rise from 10,000 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes in 2003 (the year of the document) and a projected decline back to 10,000 tonnes in 2006. This enabled the rapid reader to assume that this was somehow climate related but the fine print revealed that climate had nothing to do with it.
The fact that the graph was even there betrays an intent to mislead.
The rest of the material displays similar mistakes deceptions. But thanks for the links, I am sure there is a mine of shonkademia to be discovered yet. Yee haa.
Posted by: Ian Mott at February 13, 2007 02:15 PM
Ian, the full report is here:
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html
chapter 6, page 189-192.
I had only linked to graphics sets with my earlier links.
If you read through it, you will notice that Fig 6.6 icelandic sea-ice index looks like it might support your argument to some degree, though there is plenty of other material that supports the view that sea ice has been declining in recent decades to levels not seen in over 100 years.
Posted by: Steve at February 13, 2007 02:47 PM
I will check the whole report, Steve.
BTW did you notice the graphs on Greenland Ice melt? That stuff is full of holes. Watch this space.
Just to put some perspective on the polar bear pictures
http://newsbusters.org/node/11545
cheers
Arnost