Sept 18th 2017
Different projections based on the PIOMAS projection found on the site. Hyping up fear is easy with a graph!
I call our world Flatland, not because we call it so, but to make its nature clearer to you, my dear readers, who are privileged to live in Space.
Imagine a vast sheet of paper on which straight Lines, Triangles, Squares, Pentagons, Hexagons, and other figures, instead of remaining fixed in their places, move freely about, on or in the surface, but without the power of rising above or sinking below it, very much like shadows - only hard and with luminous edges - and you will then have a pretty correct notion of my country and countrymen.
~ Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott
Looking around for numbers on the current Arctic sea ice extent, I ended up spending a couple of hours on a site called
Arctic News. Managed by activist Sam Carana, very much a believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), reading it I felt like I'd entered a different reality. The site has many contributors listed, including professors Paul Beckwith and Peter Wadham, both renowned for
annually announcing that this will be the year the Arctic becomes ice-free.
Just six weeks ago,
they predicted that all Arctic sea ice will be gone by this month (September 2017)!
Arctic sea ice may well be gone by September 2017
The Arctic Ocean is warming up fast and this is melting the sea ice from below.
Sea surface temperature anomalies are well above 8°C (14.4°F) in several parts of the Arctic Ocean.
The image on the right shows
sea surface temperature anomalies from 1961-1990 for the Arctic (60°N - 90°N) on August 2, 2017.
Global sea ice extent is at a record low for the time of the year, as illustrated by the graph below, by Wipneus.
© Wipneus
Note that they used data from 1961-1990, a cooler period, as a baseline. And the graph that they used doesn't match others, such as from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). Graphs, like statistics, are easy to arrange to make them fit an agenda, cherry-picking areas where it is warm, then extrapolating. The Arctic Ocean covers over 14 million km2, so there's ample room for finding 'anomalies' to push an agenda.
Reading on, another astonishing claim on Arctic News is that
global temperatures could rise by 10°C (18°F) by 2026:
The global average temperature rose just 1°C from 1750 till 2012, but they want us to seriously consider that in the following 14 years the temperature will rise by 9 degrees!? Actually, the article concludes by suggesting that that it could even happen earlier... in 2021! ("assuming that no geoengineering will take place").
Looking at the graph above, one can see that 2017 is going to fall, but, and this is the advantage of graphs, the following years aptly make up for what 2017 is lacking. Every little added component, just gets a nice increase each year as if there only are positive feedback loops. One of the items listed is aerosols (green) and which has the biggest contribution to the 10°C rise, more than all the accumulated rises until the present time. By aerosols, they clearly mean, those caused by man and not those caused by volcanic eruptions or desert dust:
A rise of Global temperatures by 2.5° in a matter of weeks! Really or perhaps more likely a sign of a schizoidal's limited worldview?
With dramatic cuts in emissions, there will also be a dramatic fall in aerosols that currently mask the full warming of greenhouse gases. From 1850 to 2010, anthropogenic aerosols brought about a decrease of ∼2.53 K, says a
recent paper. While on the one hand not all of the aerosols masking effect may be removed over the next few years, there now are a lot more aerosols than in 2010. A 2.5°C warming due to removal of part of the aerosols masking effect therefore seems well possible by the year 2026, especially when considering further aerosol impact such as caused by burning of biomass, as discussed in
this post.
Man-made atmospheric aerosols are caused primarily by of fossil fuels. Cutting back these emissions as they wish, will then lead to a run away global warming, according to them. They even advocate drastic cuts. That is where geoengineering comes into the picture as they mentioned earlier and which was pointed out by a reader on our SOTT Forum. Lo and behold if not a Bill Gates funded project comes to the rescue with a geoengineering plan to save the world from global warming.
Herefrom the Guardian:
David Keith, one of the investigators, has argued that solar geoengineering could be an inexpensive method to slow down global warming, but other scientists warn that it could have unpredictable, disastrous consequences for the Earth's weather systems and food supplies. Environmental groups fear that the push to make geoengineering a "plan B" for climate change will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Keith, who manages a multimillion dollar geoengineering research fund provided by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, previously commissioned a study by a US aerospace company that made the case for the feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.
Since it is impossible to simulate the complexity of the stratosphere in a laboratory, Keith says the experiment will provide an opportunity to improve models of how the ozone layer could be altered by much larger-scale sulphate spraying.
It might be worth remembering that 10 years ago, scientists discovered that they actually
didn't know how ozone holes come into being:
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2).
[...]
"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
Looking at the above graph about massive global warming one notices that there only are positive feedback loops, which is illustrated by another of the images from the site:
© Sam Carana
Could it be that negative feedback loops as is commonly observed in nature as opposed to positive feedback loops are the norm, which is why Nature is much more resilient than alarmists would like to make us believe?
Another thing that is clear from looking at a site like Arctic-news, is that the world view is totally geocentric like in the days of the Catholic church under the inquisition. The sun's influence is not considered apart from thermal radience. There is no mention of the Solar cycle, the Grand Solar Minimum approaching, sunspots, the human cosmic connection, cosmic rays or some considerations brought up by the electric universe theorists. (For a comprehensive understanding of this check out the book by Pierre Lescaudron
Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection) Nor are the thousands of scientists who criticize the AGW theorists listened to, as all who question the new religion of AGW - like the days of the inquisition - are deemed to be heretics, who only are worthy of the war crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity. The eco-warriors are out to quell dissent. See
here,
here and
here.
I guess Climategate has really upset the apple...
W. DOUGLAS SMITH
