The climate clowns keep on wailing and moaning, and mostly LYING about global warming, vanishing ice fields, etc etc. This story, and the following one, put that notion to bed.
They call US deniers, but WHO is the REAL denier here ? First is from Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller.com
Here’s Why Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Talk About Greenland
Climate scientists, environmentalists and politicians worried about man-made global warming sounded the alarm this year when Arctic sea ice levels hit their lowest extent on record for March. Some even warned this could signal an ice-free north pole this summer, or in the near future.
But alarmists have been neglecting an inconvenient fact about the polar region: Greenland is seeing healthy levels of ice and record cold temperatures over parts of the polar island.
Northeast Greenland saw its coldest May on record since measurements started back in 1949, and the island as a whole is colder than normal. Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, has also seen its coldest year on record, according to science blogger Steven Goddard.
Greenland is also seeing much less ice melt than normal, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute. Basically, Greenland’s ice sheet has accumulated a lot of ice, but seen little melting this year.
Danish Meteorological Institute data shows Greenland is accumulating more ice than normal, based on the mean accumulation from 1990 to 2013. On net, Greenland seems to have gotten a lot more ice this year.
Hudson Bay breakup date for 2015 will really depend on which definition you use
Is breakup imminent for Hudson Bay sea ice? Probably not, but this year more than ever, it will depend on how you define it.
Despite a large patch of open water in western Hudson Bay (CIS chart above, for 1 June), there is still more than 70% sea ice coverage over the entire bay as of this week, when you use the standard breakup definition of 50% ice coverage (Fig. 1). Ice remaining over the bay is mostly 90% or greater, as the chart above shows – which means there is still a lot of polar bear hunting habitat remaining.
The interconnected region of Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and southern Davis Strait (Fig. 2), what the Canadian Ice Service calls “Regional Hudson Bay,” is only slightly below average for the week of 4 June.
Since ice concentration is factored into breakup date calculation, a record-early breakup is simply not possible, since the previous record date (2 June, for 1990) has already passed. It might be an earlier than average breakup year but not very early, based on the 50% coverage definition (Fig. 3, below).
This year, because of the unusual pattern of breakup of Hudson Bay ice, it will be critical for polar bears which definition of breakup is used – the old, 50% method (adopted because it’s what sea ice professionals used) or the newest one, which was determined to be most relevant to WHB polar bears (Cherry et al. 2013).
I have to say, it continues to perplex me why the polar bear biologists who wrote the latest report on the status of the population in Western Hudson Bay (Lunn et al. 2013, Fig. 3) chose to use the old method of defining breakup rather than the new method developed specifically for WHB polar bears.
Nick Lunn was a co-author of the the Cherry et al. paper; Andrew Derocher was Cherry’s graduate supervisor and second author of the paper, which was the topic of Cherry’s Ph.D. research (see “References” below).
“Throughout the study, bears arrived ashore a mean of 28.3 day (S.E. = 1.8) after 30% ice cover.”
Fig. 3 shows the breakup dates published by Lunn et al. (2013) for Western Hudson Bay, which uses the 50% ice coverage definition of breakup. I’ve labelled a few of them to make it faster to see which years are early and which ones are late.
Given the state of the ice at this point in the season (Figs. 5-7 below), it’s clear that breakup by the 50% coverage definition is not imminent.
Most of the ice remaining over the entire Hudson Bay at 1 June 2015 was classified as “thick first year ice” (Fig. 5):
Combined with the fact that most of this ice is concentrated (90% or more, Fig. 6) tells us the ice is not rapidly disintegrating as one would expect when the date of “breakup” is approaching using a 50% coverage definition (which takes concentration into account by dividing the bay into squares and assessing concentration on a grid-by-grid basis):
As of today (5 June, Fig. 7) the situation hasn’t changed much.
However, I’d still like to know: having determined that 30% ice coverage over the WHB polar bear subpopulation region is the best predictor of when WHB polar bears come ashore, why have polar bear biologists dropped this definition like a hot potato in their published analyses in favour of the 50% definition?
And given the condition of the ice on Hudson Bay on 1 June, why would polar bear biologist Andrew Derocher suggest that 2015 could be the earliest breakup on record? Has he decided to use Cherry’s method (Fig. 8, compare to Fig. 6-7), now that it has the potential to suit a narrative of global warming causing harm to WHB bears?
Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., Lunn, N.J. 2013. Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 82:912-921. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2656.12050/abstract
Cherry’s University of Alberta student webpage, listed under “Andrew Derocher, Previous graduate students and post-docs” [accessed Oct. 23, 2014, created in 2011]:
The ecology of polar bears in relation to sea ice dynamics
Seth Cherry, Ph.D. Candidate
My research focuses primarily on developing methods to assess and predict the effects of sea ice dynamics on polar bear populations. My thesis will examine various aspects of polar bear ecology in relation to seasonal and long-term changes in sea ice composition. I will focus on polar bears in 2 regions of Canada that are currently facing climate induced changes to sea-ice habitat: western Hudson Bay, Manitoba and the Beaufort Sea, Northwest Territories.
In western Hudson Bay, I am using GPS satellite collars to monitor polar bear movement patterns, habitat selection, and home ranges, as they relate to seasonal and yearly sea ice dynamics. The western Hudson Bay marine ecosystem experiences a high degree of natural intra-annual variation in sea ice composition and extent, which makes it an ideal location to study polar bear movement in relation to changing ice conditions. It is also home to one of the southernmost polar bear populations in the world, making it an opportune region to examine the longer-term effects of climate change on polar bear movement and habitat use. Climate change scenarios for western Hudson Bay forecast greater temperature increases than average global predictions which will likely result in extended ice-free periods and less consolidated winter sea ice. Monitoring how the western Hudson Bay bears respond to these changes will be important to future global polar bear conservation initiatives.
It looks to me like the “fix” is in, where it concerns keeping the ” OH MY GOD, ALL THE ICE IS MELTING THE POLAR BEARS ARE GOING TO DIE” narrative alive. These global warming zealots, no matter where in the world they may be, are damn sure going to keep it front and center moving towards the idiots’ conference in Paris coming up.
If the truth of global warming gets out, AND the money disappears, it will be OVER for this scam. And THAT is why they keep hammering it, even though it is a concern to ONLY about 2% of the people.
Maybe I’ll live to see the day this scam dies it’s so richly deserved death.
CLYDE. Best way to get a global warming scammer frothing, ask them why Greenland was so named.