Man-made global warming alarmists have long used melting glaciers in Alaska as proof of climate change. A new study, however, confirms that Alaska has actually been in a cooling trend from 2000 to 2010.
Despite the claims by numerous government sources (funded by the American taxpayers) and the mainstream media that man-made climate change melts Alaskan glaciers and destroys the habitat of a much-loved species, a new study indicates that Alaska was actually colder in the last decade.
SpaceDaily reports that some parts of Alaska saw a "significant" drop in temperature, 4.5 degrees.
Alaska has been pivotal to the debate, as emotion-inducing photos of polar bears stranded on ever-shrinking glaciers was used to prove that action is needed to be taken immediately in the form of some new tax or societal change.
The term "scientific consensus" is the opposite of scientific. It is reminiscent of a "study" criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity. In 1931, "A Hundred authors against Einstein" was published. Einstein noted that if his theory were wrong, only one scientist would be needed to refute him. Many scientists question whether global warming is man made, but they are sadly marginalized in the partisan mainstream media and academia, despite their credentials.
The Polar Bear population, by the way, is doing just fine.
Image Source: Biodilloversity
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 87
If you look at pictures taken in the winter, there is lots of ice there.
How could you have missed my typo? It was spectacular. One of my worst failures to proofread ever.
I should have written, "If Alaska is colder, how come the Arctic ice cap near there experienced record melting this last summer?"
I am pleased that you did understand what I intended rather than what I actually wrote, however.
But for a place getting colder to have a season which has a higher average temperature than ever before records began being kept hardly sounds like cooling.
Well Larry that's just it, the U. S. has been in a cooling trend, for the last few years.
But I can understand your confusion.....The articles does have some nice pictures.
Please provide data to support your statement "the U. S. has been in a cooling trend, for the last few years." because the data I have seen indicate a warming trend.
The study of tree rings or dendroclimatology has, of late, been used to determine climate conditions long before records were kept. "Professor Dr. Jan Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC."
Estimations must be accurate and they apparently did not estimate that the average temperature in the middle ages was as cool as they assumed. So if the warming trend is evaluated according to erroneous estimations of a cooler climate, there isn't the increase in temperature they wanted to show. So it's for a lot more than just the last few years, but if you just want to see the cooling trend within more recent years, John Knight has several times linked to graphs that show that cooling trend. You'd probably have to go through some of Graham's posts to find the links, but you're the one who wants them so maybe you'll make the time for it.
U.S. cooling trend
I checked the claimed sources for those charts. Those sources don't have any data that is shown on the charts. In fact, one of the sources has no data past 2000 and those charts all start in 2001. I think those charts are just made up.
What does that have to do with this post? This post is about the last 13 years, not the middle ages.
I just responded to what you stated, "...before records began...," and showed you how they can and do derive the temperatures without those records.
I also happened to see your typo above before Dan responded and before you called attention to it, but I just ignored it. That one might have been more blatant than what you usually do, but I didn't think there was any reason to call attention to it because I normally do have to read into what I think you meant rather than what you actually wrote.
I am saying your charts are lying.
The charts purport to show the sources of their data. I checked those sources. They don't have data that supports the charts. Therefore, the charts are lying. Check them out for your self.
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend.
In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun. The study is published in Nature Climate Change.
Both the first and third links support the first comment in this thread that local areas surface temperatures can diverge from overall climate trends. The second link is a silly Forbes magazine article.
Thanks for your support.
So, you read something that is about slight cooling in the southeastern United States, and it does not occur to you that the arctic ice cap is "near" Alaska, in the same way that the SE Us is "near" things like the south-central United States, and the northeastern United States . . So, see how this question kinda didn't really display an understanding of such things?;
"If Alaska is colder, how come the Arctic ice cap near there experienced record melting this last summer?"
Also, the arctic ice cap is not actually measured for melting each year, but for ice extent. That is heavily influenced by ocean currents and wind patterns, so it could actually be a bit cooler there at the ice cap at some point, and still have a low ice extent show up on satellite images.
And, now you perhaps understand how silly it sounds when the "alarmists" pretend when the weather is unusually warm someplace (like in the US last summer) and we get pelted with cries of "global" warming at work . . It's like only warm places are to be taken as indicative of this quasi global warming, but cold ones are sorta "localized" when they are mentioned . . That's "consensus Siants" at work, holding to the consensus script, it seems to me. It's a media/political driven "consensus", which when "bad guys" do it, is called propaganda.
The thickness as well as the extent of polar ice is measured.
Local temperatures clearly do not measure overall trends. The point I was making, that just because Alaska is slightly cooler does not mean that there is no global warming or even Arctic warming, was amply supported by Renee.
Climate scientists are alarmists because things like Sandy are far more likely with global warming. They are warning us of real and serious consequences of our foolish, short sighted actions. It's only political because if we are not brain dead, we must take political action.
The contents of the Forbes article were / are silly. There are so very many sources of temperature data that to say they are "doctored" is silly. The person writing the article has no credentials and is a mere "contributor". He provides no data sources but only accusations. There's no science to his article. It's pure propaganda.
Easy to say but you can't prove them false.....But like I posted I didn't expect it to have an effect.....You being a true believer and all.
"The thickness as well as the extent of polar ice is measured."
Not really, it's just estimated, and if you really knew about this stuff, you would know that, it seems to me;
(from the Wiki)
"Sea ice may be considered in terms of total volume, or in terms of areal coverage. Volume is harder, because it requires a knowledge of the ice thickness, which is hard to measure directly; efforts such as PIOMAS [4] use a combination of observations and modelling to estimate total volume."
Who are the "ruling class"?
I would like your definition of "ruling class," please.
Conspiracies of that size are impossible. The data show you are incorrect about climate science being "junk."
I don't know what an Iceland chart would show.
Over what time period?
The emails were examined and do not contain fraudulent statements. Those scientists did not fake data.
I can perceive no difference between "conspiracy" and "agenda" as you have used the term.
The evidence is overwhelming that climate change is being generated by human activity.
Politically / big money wise / we cannot make changes since many big money interests oppose our changing. We are destroying ourselves. To see previous examples of such stupidity, please read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. The parallels are striking.
What means does our government have to change patterns of consumption and production of energy? None. Big money interests control Congress and the Administration. We will do nothing meaningful.
To persuade me of your case you will need to show me what big money interests 1) will profit greatly from a change to "green" energy and 2) how they managed to co-opt the world's climate scientists. (The climate scientists I know aren't getting rich.)
How about Obama's bundlers that have benefited from his "green stimulus"? ""...fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.†Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion."
How about "Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors"
2) how they managed to co-opt the world's climate scientists. (The climate scientists I know aren't getting rich.)
Larry, anyone who raises a question or concern is marginalized. Climate gate showed that people are intimidated, their research is not peer-reviewed (deliberately), it is "publish or perish" in academia.
The two graphs show Iceland and the U.S. The Iceland chart shows data through 2010 with everything from 2000 on being well above the line of his trend. Thus his selection of the start of the graph has a lot to do with the slope of that trend line.
The second chart, that for the U.S. omits all data after 2000. If he had included that data, the line would have sloped upwards with 2012 being the record high by quite a lot.
I would also point out that Iceland is a small place in the middle of the Gulf Stream. The ocean warms more slowly than the land. Naturally, Iceland would not react as quickly to global warming. But the Arctic ice did reach record lows last summer for extent (you can see that) and thickness. That indicates significant change.
----------
Don't you read my comments? I have written in hundreds of comments that big money interests control / influence strongly the Administration, Congress, and / or the government. Of course big money interests contributed to the Obama campaign. They want to have influence if he wins. Most big money interests also contributed to Romney. That's how influence is bought.
Your interpretation of "Climate Gate" is in error. I know how things are in academia since I worked in academia for 40 years.
Oh, sure, Larry, you "worked in academia", so anyone that is in "academia" is naturally limited only to doing things you find plausible/familiar . . What could be more logical? ; )
Would you like to restate your comment so that it makes a coherent point?
Indeed. It is not much unlike the religion...er..."science," that the pointy-headed apply to a belief in "Evolution." In fact, a far more radical and far less intelligent "faith" is required.
It takes every bit as much "faith" for fools to believe in a pool of Primordial Ooze...
Lol, ain't it the truth?
People forget the really important part about even ONE example killing a hypothesis. They just go with the fake hundred who ignore the proof.
Do you think the Church Of Scienceology (gather branch) will ever understand that.
I realise that the Church of Scienceology (gather branch) tilt at windmills, here...but what the Hell!
I guess what I am trying to say is that anyone who knows anything about the Polar Bear knows that each summer when all that Ice melts in the Arctic which it does each summer will swim for miles sometimes for days and that they are as good in water as they are on land or the ice. However the greeny weenys who take the rest of the population as mugs will have us all believe that the poor cuddly Polar Bear that tugs at everyone heart strings swims in the arctic waters because the ice is not there anymore. Well of course its not there anymore its flaming melted like it does every year.
I would be more concerned if we saw photos like these in winter
http://jolcox.blog.co.uk/2011/10/18/arctic-summer-12032913/
But somehow instead we see photos like these.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/brw/livecamera.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0705-073421.jpg
http://www.kimmirutweather.com/
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2012&image=20120108-2101.jpeg
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2012&image=20120111-0201.jpeg
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/albums/2012/20120111-0001.jpeg
Terrible all this none ice that’s not there anymore isn’t it.
Take a look at the bullshit what was written here.
http://www.earthorganization.com/News.aspx?tid=38
The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas.
That is what research scientists had to say when asked about the bears.
Now I don't know about you Renee but I was taught that Polar Bears could and did swim in open seas for miles. Now I knew that probably 55 years ago and these research scientists are now trying to tell the world that four bears. Four not sixty four or a hundred and sixty four drowned because they had to swim in open water.
Now If you or I employed morons like that who did not know that Polar Bears could swim in open sea for many a long mile we would give them a good kick up the arse and ask to see how they qualified to address anything remotely do with either wild life in the arctic or anything to do with climate change and once we had seen their qualifications we would stick our size 12 boot up their arse's while someone opened the door to the car park telling them to go back to primary school to get some sort of education before coming out to play with the big boys. Either that or we would call the fraud squad and have them arrested for impersonating some with brains.
Oh and after all this came out we found that they died not from trying to swim in open seas but rather because a freak storm erupted while they were out to sea.
In Hudson Bay, Canada, the site of the most southerly polar bears, a study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.
Now, from another report....
IQALUIT, NUNAVUT—Nunavut says a new survey shows Canada’s polar bear population hasn’t significantly declined in the last seven years as predicted and that the iconic mammal has not been hurt by climate change.
sigh. Another example of why "scientific consensus" is not exactly scientific.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
See how that blue line goes up and down, in great big swings (many of about seven degrees)? That's "climate change". That's not something humans could have possibly caused, but it sure as hell is climate change. And this graph shows that we are right now, at this moment, near the coldest this planet has been for 65 million years, according to "climate scientists";
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
And this one shows that we are, right now, in an "ice age", and that apparently if temps drop just a little bit, the continents will begin developing vast ice sheets again;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
See how we are very near the bottom (cold) on that graph, right now, at the zero millions of years ago point? It's just not being mentioned by the AGW "alarmists", but they surely know too. And that's why the infamous Climategate e-mails contain things like this;
cc: “Lowe_Tom”
date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:07:05 +0100
from: “Mike Hulme”
subject: RE: is this an over the top article/reporting
to: “‘Phil Jones’”
"Oh dear, we’re doomed, we’re all doomed!
‘Whipsaws’ now join ‘feedbacks’, ‘flips’ and ‘tipping points’ in the Earth science lexicon.
Hansen certainly uses the words ‘peril’, ‘planetary rescue’, etc. so it’s hard to blame Steve Connor, but what are we to make of all this? Does Jim want us to stop sleeping at night?
Mike. "
Probably.
BTW - ridiculing stuff you're not bright enough to understand doesn't magically make it wrong... but it does make you look a fool.
That's the bad part of an ice age the good part if we don't do anything it will sort out the world population explosion far more efficiently than the wee bit of warming will do if what happened last year is anything to go by.
Of course all the hand wringing warmegedinists will do as they always do and bury their heads in the sand and wail its getting hot in summer so it must be global warming, just as they are doing now on another post berating and taking the piss out of this post..
"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
Of course those "disingenuous" claims were made, loud and long, and an imaginary consensus of all sorts of leading experts was fabricated from a consensus among a few dozen computer modelers (the "Climategate" folks). Naturally most non-involved scientists thought the imaginary consensus of thousands of the world's leading scientists was real, which is to say they were duped like most people, assuming that the statements they were hearing repeated over and over in the mass media echo chamber were genuine.
Nope, lies. bald faced lies, spread by a corrupt mass media that also sold us on the idea that there were all sorts of WMD in Iraq, because we're still rather gullible overall it seems to me. We (to a large extent) still think the "big important people" in high places would never lie to us, because they wuv us so ; )
I thought that those on the right were "fear-mongers..."?
http://mmusicz.com/video/w7RIgs3eygo/Wur_Doomed,_Entombed_&_Marooned....html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6wok7g7do
There are scientists who speak of ice ages millions of years ago. Why did that ice melt? The oil refineries, the automobiles, or any of the components that are being blamed for today's ice melting were not present. What we are experiencing is known as "weather" by the Republicans.
Quite; and, in spite of Leftist Regulations and Companies, the Environment is cleaner than it was in the late 1800's. Jesus...are we still using this horse-and-buggy canard???
"They use it to justify taxes and policies that are questionable." -
NOOO...they use it to justify Taxes and Policies that are punitive and outrageous.
;]
If you wish to question my mention of the increased volume, as water becomes ice, tonight before you go to bed, place a plastic bottle of water into your freezer. You will have your proof when you awaken in the morning.
China Meteorological Administration on Friday said the national average was -3.8 degrees Celsius (25 degrees Fahrenheit) since late November, the coldest in nearly three decades.
The average temperature in northeast China dipped to -15.3 degrees C (4.5 degrees F), the coldest in 43 years, and dropped to a 42-year low of -7.4 degrees C (18.7 degrees F) in northern China.
In some areas — northeastern China, eastern Inner Mongolia, and north part of far-western Xinjiang province — the low has hit -40 degrees C (-40 degrees F), the administration said.
The state-run, English-language China Daily reported Friday that about 1,000 ships were stuck in ice in Laizhou Bay in eastern China's Bohai Sea.
The meteorological administration said Saturday that ice had covered 27,000 square meters (10,500 square miles) of the sea surface by Thursday, the most expansive since 2008 when authorities began to collect such data. The administration expects the ice to continue to grow.
In southwest China's Sichuan province, more than 1,000 tourists were stranded Wednesday in a scenic mountainous area because of icy road, the state-run Beijing News reported.
In southern China, snowstorms from Thursday night have disrupted air and road traffic.
In eastern China's Zhejiang province, at least eight flights were cancelled at an airport in Hangzhou city on Thursday, and authorities told state media the airport might be closed if the snow should continue. Utility workers also rushed to restore power in parts of the province, according to state media.
Several highways, including some sections of the Beijing-Hong Kong-Macao Expressway in central China's Hunan province, were closed Friday because of icy condition, state media reported.
An airport was temporarily shut down in Nanchang city in Jiangxi province, as workers were trying to clear ice and snow from its runway, state media said.
The national meteorological administration said China is seeing dropping temperatures partly because of south-moving polar cold fronts, caused by melting polar ice from global warming. It said the air is moist and likely to dump heavy snow in China, Europe and North America.
On Saturday, the forecast by China's National Meteorological Center said southern China would have more snow and rain in the coming days and that icy rain could hit some regions.
Vic D, take a look at the satellite data from NASA: Artic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era. Our forests are in decline and they are under stress, in part, because of increased temperature.