Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

In the past couple of days, the media have reported "grim" melting of ice in the Arctic while disgracefully ignoring the history of the region prior to 1979 and explorations of the area as far back as 1903.

As the Washington Post reported Friday (emphasis added):

The Arctic ice cap is melting faster than scientists had expected and will shrink 40 percent by 2050 in most regions, with grim consequences for polar bears, walruses and other marine animals, according to government researchers.

Unfortunately, like the Post, most press outlets conveniently ignored a crucial element of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration study being cited. As reported by the Seattle Times Friday (emphasis added):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In an average August between 1979 and 2000, the Arctic Ocean was covered with about 3 million square miles of sea ice, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. By Labor Day this year, the total had shrunk to a little more than half that, shattering the previous record low set in 2005.

Why is 1979 important? An August 28 National Post article on the subject explained (emphasis added):

The record melting of the passage comes two weeks after the NSIDC and two other ice-monitoring agencies in the U.S. and Japan declared that the Arctic Ocean ice cover has shrunk to its smallest size since regular satellite imaging of the polar cap began in 1979.

[...]

"[A]nalysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."

Getting the picture? Claims of "grim consequences" and "record low" ice levels are based on a satellite record which began in 1979, while routine monitoring of the region started in 1972.

How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?

Such is especially the case given the history of successful sea-based explorations of the Arctic dating back as far as 1903.

For instance, a name media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.):

The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this Passage was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?

Not that the media cares, but this Passage was also conquered several times in the 1940s (emphasis added):

Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, St. Roch was also designed to serve when frozen in for the winter, as a floating detachment, with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.

Putting it all together, when you consider that serious monitoring of Arctic ice levels only started in 1972, and that explorers successfully navigated these seas in relatively archaic ships 60 and 100 years ago, how can anybody honestly claim that today's conditions in this region are in any way unprecedented, historic, or grim?

Beyond this, as the planet entered a warming phase in 1975, isn't it not at all surprising that ice levels in this area are lower now than then? Wouldn't an honest media always point out the existence of this trend rather than presenting data exclusively from this period that conveniently ignores everything prior?

Sadly, this is the disingenuousness we see from today's press which continually make hysterical historical claims that intentionally ignore historical facts.

How disgraceful.

*****Update: Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute sent me the following comment by e-mail --

Noel,
 
One of the commenters on your Arctic blog post the other day asked what the skippers on The Deadliest Catch think of global warming. Here's the testimony of one of them:
 
Al_Batross: With all the current stories about global warming's environmental impact etc. have you found, in your long career, any significant changes in the amount of crab or where you find them?
Johnathan Hillstrand: I want to see global warming, I have not seen it yet. We have a glacier that has grown 5 miles in the last two years. In the Southeast opi fishing has not seen global warming but we've been waiting for it. Bring it on!
 
 
No wonder we haven't heard a peep about the subject on the current flagship program of the otherwise global-warming-mad Discovery Channel.
 
Iain

 

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of more interest is the rate of ice creation

According to your data Mr. Sheppard of historical fact, the stunning part is how quickly ice will form into massive sheets within a few years and not in the melting.

My reason for interest has been the glacier sheets which covered North America in reference to what would be termed the Biblical clock. While it is proven the earth's atmosphere changed "in the flood" from mists to rain, more evidence points not to a global ice age causing glaciers but the literal volume of water which covered the earth and in typical winter season created ice sheets.

The speed with which the historical data shows ice forming confirms it is possible with a very short time with the added cold of ice not melting during summer seasons that Noah's flood waters actually created the glaciers.

What is interesting is the Greenland ice record showing horrendous winds and massive dust storms from North America, but in a remarkable "healing" the coastal areas had Phoenician traders and by the Viking era the melt had created navigation into the northern plains into Colorado.

The near history of earth shows the ability to create massive ice sheets in decades and in the same short time melt offs which people have not experienced in written records.

While the Vikings were navigating during a warming period the spice traders were unable to find a north passage around Siberia several hundred years later.

Thank you for posting this as Gorification of data is slowly being rectified with literal written evidence because who will one believe in the end, Amundsen or Al Gore.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Think about it guys

How long does it take to make an 1X1 ice cube in your freezer? How long does it take to melt it? Add in running water and it is even faster. Multiply that out, and it is completelt reasonable that whole ice sheets can come and go within months, let alone decades or centuries. Especially given that arctic temperatures do not fluctuate near as much as the temps in your kitchen.

Noah's Flood : COMMON SENSE

"Noah's flood waters actually created the glaciers."

FINALLY, some common sense. That's EXACTLY where glaciers came from, where the Great Lakes and other inland seas came from, and where so many of the world's land features came from.

Why do I keep reading about

Why do I keep reading about mists? Are you citing the Bible as evidence for the change in Earth's atmosphere from misty to rainy and saying that Noah's flood caused this change?

To be honest, I see little difference between people who cite the Bible as proof for various universal events and looney libs who believe everything they're told simply because 'it's said repeatedly so it must be true.'

Noel [EDIT]

....which continually make hysterical historical claims that intentionally ignore historical facts.

LOL-Geez, try saying that three times fast.

This is just example #14,658,744,551 of the hysterically liberal home-grown MSM furthering their not-so-humorous socialist agenda by taking advantage of the huge herd of hysterically historically ignorant (or is that historic) ignorance which is now held forth by the now well-homogenized (and damn near lobotomized) homely Amurrican dumbmAsses.

Sadly, there is a huge and growing host of home-grown hysterically historically ignorant Amurrican home-dwellers who will no-doubt fall for this historically inaccurate report, and humbly buy every horrible horse-sh*t prediction held therein.

In any event, it isn't funny.

BTW-If the Polar Bears are going to become endangered due to the reduced ice area, then how is it they survived 1905 when Mr. Amundsen made his journey?


"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts

Polar Bears

Polar Bear = Ursus Martimus, aka Maritime Bear, not Ice Bear.

The Polar Bear's food is found in (liquid) water, not in the middle of great expanses of ice. I've never seen a Polar Bear carrying an ice auger.

Sure, Polar Bears rest on ice flows, but when you're eight feet tall and weigh nearly 1,000 pounds, you rest anywhere you damn well please.

 

 

 


Thompson/Giuliani 2008

Except my backyard. A gun

Except my backyard.

A gun toting Texan.

JSS & Restless,

Then we should be looking for an explosion in the polar bear population, as their feeding areas are going to increase substantially with the melting of the ice.

Hey, with that many more polar bears running around, perhaps Restless will actually see one down in Texas.

"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”- Rick Roberts

I hope so. I just tried

I hope so. I just tried bison recently, ( don't ask why it took so long), and it was very good. For about half the price of beef, I had a good sized loin sizzling away on my pit. Even the wife liked it, and she is not a big beef eater. I can only imagine polar bear tastes equally good.

May Actually Be Better

I've always found Bison/Buffalo to be kind of dry and tough, mostly due to minimal marbling of the fat. The way a Polar Bear carries its fat, I would guess it's a lot more tender and juicy.

I understand that many populations of Polar Bears are actually growing out of control (rarely reported though). Count me in on a hunt to help manage their population. Then we can fire up the BBQ. ;-)

 


Thompson/Giuliani 2008

The hysteria comes from the

The hysteria comes from the fact that polar bears mainly eat seals, which are much easier to catch when they are on ice, rather than in the water. I don't believe the ice is going to disappear, but it's disappearance wouldn't help the bears.

I've heard rumors.

I've heard rumors. Unconfirmed. That there is a man induced reduction in one polar bear population.

But it's not caused by your SUV. The town of Churchill Manitoba erected a fence around the town dump.

The bears considered it an all you can eat as they waited for the sea to freeze.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Polar Bears

Well polar bears sit atop ice floes so they can sneakily catch a lib loved baby seal or another precious lib animal coming up for air by the noggin, haul it up, crush it's skull, and bloodily devour it's fat content, often leaving the red meat alone. So polar bears are fat sucking killers. Libs need that presentation given to them, to get over their insanity.

 Second, if ice floes melt because it's warmer, the polar bear and it's prey will move north or to wherever the ice is left.

Polar bears can swim, they are good swimmers. Al Gore cried they're all drowning.

 We need a movie for the lib schools that shows a polar bear sucking chunking and licking globs of blubber out of a crushed dead baby seal with the blood that gets all over the place, it's a gory mess next to the white bear and landscape. Then it needs to be played a million times on lib news.

 At that point the libs will suddenly, seemingly inexplicably weaken on the whole deal. They won't be able to help themselves.

Nah, SportPolitics

Nah, SportPolitics.

The MSM will claim this is unnatural behavior for a polar bear to kill its prey in such a gruesome manner. This behavior is caused by the polar bear believing this could be his last meal due to global warming.

As we all know, polar bears and the baby seal talk it over and agree, together, that the baby seal would have a happy and better life churning through the intenstines of the friendly polar bear, you see.

Videos

Here are some excellent videos for the kids:

Polar Bear Kills Seal Pup (Video) (2min)
Polar Bear Attacks Seal (Video) (1min)

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

A good show

Has anyone asked the captains on the show "Deadliest Catch" if they have encountered more or less severe weather on their expiditions? I was watching reruns of the past season, and they had one of the ships almost getting trapped ( and I mean trapped a la
wrongway style), in the ice off of Alaska.

Also, does not anyone take into account pressure applied to ice floes at any given time? For a little experiment, place an ice cube in both hands, make a closed fist in one, leave the other in the palm of your hand, and guess which one melts first. The pressure from the floes against one another MUST be accounted for before anyone can claim they are melting because of ambient temperatures.

A little science from a non scientist

Water exists as a liquid or a solid at 32 degrees fahrenheit. If you want to calibrate a thermometer, stick it in a glass filled equally with ice and water. It should read 32 degrees f. Until someone can show that the Arctic or Antarctic are above 32 degrees fahrenheit, then any melting of glaciers in these regions must be due to forces other than ambient temperature.

In other words, even if the ambient temperature in these regions reached 31 degrees fahrenheit, they would remain solid. (salinity of water could change this, but not by much). 

Other factors

You need to factor in angle of sun, cloud cover, relative humidity, and wind (speed and direction).

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

"You need to factor in

"You need to factor in angle of sun, cloud cover, relative humidity, and wind (speed and direction)."

Exactly, Tnt. And none of these factors can be controlled by man.

Or understood

"And none of these factors can be controlled by man" ... or understood by Libs.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Actually, salinity has

Actually, salinity has a rather significant impact on freezing/melting points.  And that's one of the many contentions that refutes AGW: that ocean current changes due to solar warming activity alter salinity levels, thus melting ice drastically compared to what would be caused solely by ambeint atmospheric temperature change.

For fun, stick some salt water in one cube of an ice tray and see how much longer it takes to freeze in your freezer than its unsalted neighbors.

Seawater freezes at 0 F

 How much does this vary in the oceans on this planet?

Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.

 

You got me there Khyris, but

You got me there Khyris, but my main point is still valid. If the average temparature of the planet has risen by less than one degree over the past 100 years or whatever it is, then factors other than ambient temps must be the cause. Whether the starting point is 32 degrees f. or 0. If the caps are melting in abnormal ways, and that is a big IF, then it seems to me man cannot have caused it, nor can he stop it.

They went back to a known

They went back to a known cool period in the region. Then say this is caused by AGW. (Here) 

What's next.They'll notice that tempertures are wamer in August than April. And tell us it's man induced by the use of air conditioners. The more air conditioner are used. The warmer it gets. A direct coorelation.

There is anthropogenic global warming. It's cause by NASA computers.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Noel, Danbo

the Arctic Ocean ice cover has shrunk to its smallest size since regular satellite imaging of the polar cap began in 1979.

sounds like they better stop satellite imaging before they melt it completely

 Support our Troops 

Blame It On The Satellites

Satellites use microwaves, right? Microwave ovens can heat things up, right?

I think we've solved the mystery of global warming/cooling/climate-change, it's all because of the satellites.

Will somebody please turn them down from "Cook" to "Defrost"? That should fix everything. ;-)

 


Thompson/Giuliani 2008

Hell-bent on Apocalyptic Liberalism

If it did melt (which it won't), THEN SO WHAT?!!!

It will provide cheaper shipping routes, it will bring spring weather to the Yukon, it will expand Canada's growing season, hundreds of people won't be dying every year from freezing-temperature-related illnesses, and WINTER WILL BE SHORTENED.

Globalwarmingtologists are hell-bent on their apocalyptic liberalism ... look at THE POSITIVES to your apocalypticisms, global warmists.

Ideal temperature

You have a good point. What is the earth's ideal temperature? GW alarmists believe it's today's current temperature, but they offer this up with no proof at all.

We also need to talk about Conservatism vs. Liberalism. The whole GW discussion really points out the hypocrisy of liberals. All of a sudden, they want to maintain the Status Quo (in terms of current temperatures, dangerous forest undergrowh, etc.). I thought that was what they always acuse Conservatives of? It only goes to show what they want most -- power and control. They don't care a whit for the environment, except for how much power and control it gives them.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Arctic Ice 1979-2005

doesn't look like much

doesn't look like much change to me.....

Poptech,,

That video .. I laughed so hard. No wonder that other fool trying to sail through the NW passage got stuck.. hint, he only reads the news. (;~>

anybody see this?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/GlobalWarming/story?id=3572327

climate change religion at work

reported on The Reference Frame and maybe here but I didn't check.

Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History

Facts about the Arctic from Norway:

Climate variation in the European Arctic during the last 100 years
I. Hanssen-Bauer & E. J. Førland, met.no
 In the present poster, selected data from the “NARP dataset”
(http://projects.met.no/~narp/data_index.html) and the “NORDKLIM dataset”
(http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/nkds.htm) are presented and related to April sea-ice cover in the Nordic Seas and to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO) winter indices. The first two decades of the century were cold at all stations with measurements in this period. Still, Mann-Kendalls non-parametric test revealed that only a few series (from Iceland and northern Norway) show a statistically significant warming (5% level or better) from 1900 to 2002. Førland et al. (2002) actually concluded that none of the stations showed a statistically significant warming from 1910-1999. The reason is that the cold period in the beginning of the century was followed by a rapid warming and some warm decades before a period of cooling and finally a new period of warming at the end of the century. At many stations in the area, the thermal optimum of the 20th century was experienced around the 1930s, and the period 1930 to 1960 was generally warmer than the 1961-1990 average. In the north-eastern part of the area the following cooling was rapid. The 1960s were very cold, and mainly followed by a warming trend during the rest of the century. At the southernmost stations in Iceland and the Faroe Islands, there was a more gradual cooling to a minimum around 1980. At the westernmost stations in Greenland, the cooling continued to around 1990.

And from the Alaska Climate Research Centre:

The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2003, however since 1977 no additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. In 1976, a stepwise shift appears in the temperature data, which corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase.

On Sea Ice extent:

Vinje (2001) published series of April Sea-ice extent in western (30oW-10oE) and eastern (10oE-70oE) parts of the Nordic Seas/Barents Sea region from 1864 to 1998. These series were correlated to annual mean temperatures from the present dataset. In most cases, there is an anti-correlation between the annual mean temperatures and the April sea-ice extent, and generally the anti-correlation is most pronounced for the sea-ice extent in the sector the station is located. The Greenland stations, however, which are located west of both sectors, tend to show a positive correlation with the ice extent in the eastern sector. We can recognise the Arctic Oscillation see-saw (e.g. Rigor et al. 2002): High AOI is associated with high air temperatures and reduced sea-ice in the Barents Sea region, but low temperatures and extensive sea-ice in the Labrador area. The correlation between sea-ice extent in the Nordic Seas and temperatures in western Greenland is not stationary: For 30year periods from the 1960s to the 1990s there is a positive correlation (+0.5) even with the sea-ice in the western area. For 30-year periods in the beginning of the century, however, the correlation was negative (-0.4).

First-Hand Accounts from 19th Century Explorers' Logs for the Canadian Arctic Reflect Similar Climate Conditions as Present.
Kevin R, Wood • Arctic Research Qffice & James E Overland • Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, 2004.

Examination of explorers' logs for the western Arctic from 1818 to 1910 reveals that climate indicators such as navigability, the distribution and thickness of annual sea ice, monthly surface air temperature, and the onset of melt and freeze were within the present range of variability. Forty four scientific reports and related narratives were analyzed; many from expeditions spanning several years. The majority of data come from large naval expeditions that had the capacity to support an intensive scientific program through the Arctic winter. The ship tracks and winter-over location of Arctic discovery expeditions from 1818 to 1859 are surprisingly consistent with present sea ice climatology. The climatology shown reflects percent frequency of sea ice presence on September 10, which Is the usual date of annual ice minimum, for the reference period 1971-2000 [Canadian Ice Service, 2002]. On a number of occasions expeditions came within 150 km of completing the Northwest Passage. By 1859, all possible routes comprising the Northwest Passage had been discovered.