Breaking: Arctic Ice Breaks Up in Beaufort Sea. {Video} ~ Paul Beckwith

Via elephant journal
on Mar 23, 2013
get elephant's newsletter

sea ice screen shot

For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer.

An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.

The cracks in the sea ice that I reported on my Sierra Club Canada blog and elsewhere over the last several days have spread and at this moment the entire sea ice sheet (or about 99 percent of it) covering the Arctic Ocean is on the move. Clockwise. The ice is thin, and slushy, and breaking apart.

This is abrupt climate change in real-time.

Humans have benefited greatly from a stable climate for the last 11,000 years or roughly 400 generations. Not any more. We now face an angry climate. One that we have poked in the eye with our fossil fuel stick and awakened. And now we must deal with the consequences. We must set aside our differences and prepare for what we can no longer avoid. And that is massive disruption to our civilizations.

Satelite imagery from NOAA’s Visualization Lab

The NOAA VisLab uses the imagery from NOAA‘s weather and climate satellites to produce animations that show the dynamic nature of Earth and its environment.

How Climate Change is Destroying our Earth. {Infographic}

securedownloadPaul Beckwith is a PhD student with the laboratory for paleoclimatology and climatology, department of geography, University of Ottawa. He teaches second year climatology/meteorology as a part-time professor. His thesis topic is “Abrupt climate change in the past and present.” He holds an M.Sc. in laser physics and a B.Eng. in engineering physics and reached the rank of chess master in a previous life.

Like elephant green on facebook.

Ed: Lynn Hasselberger


About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive.


64 Responses to “Breaking: Arctic Ice Breaks Up in Beaufort Sea. {Video} ~ Paul Beckwith”

  1. Paul Silver says:

    While I am all for dealing with climate change, does not this ice break up every year during these months?

  2. Victoria Reid says:

    this doesn't look like such a big deal– we are having an extra long winter here, Michigan would be such a pleasant place with just a teeny bit of global warming

  3. yogi tobye says:

    We have this strange arrogance about how "we caused it to happen". A funny species we are that's thinks itself completely disconnected from Nature unless we're organic, vegan and low impact cyclists.

    Nature controls our every thought and move. If Nature didn't want it to happen, you can damn well be sure it wouldn't happen.

    Unless you have every last little bit of datum, it's impossible to draw a conclusion and say that it's our use of fossil fuels that is causing this.

    Cities submerged under seas, oceans and lakes around the world show the the human race has been around a lot longer than scientists originally thought and that we've adapted and survived through several major cataclysmic climate changes.

    We're still learning about climate in the same way that we're still learning about everything else and in the grand scheme of things we've only been around for the most briefest moment of time.

    I'm not saying lets ignore it and keep burning up resources that are precious to our Earth but if you just look at Climatology without looking at Geology, Anthropology and all the other ologies, you're not going to see the big picture.

  4. Auki says:

    When the glaciers in the Himalayas all melt due to global warming and there is no longer a snowpack runoff to serve the water needs of billions of people and small farmers, the knuckleheads who are in denial, or worse yet, those who are excited about having a warmer local climate, may finally wake up from their shameful slumber!

  5. gerardo says:

    Yeah, unless you have every last piece of evidence, every particle of soot that has been spewed from a power plant in the last hundred and twenty years? Unless you have every molecule of CO2 that came out of the worlds automobiles? Every calorie of heat accounted for? Everything, every piece of hard evidence that anyone could possibly ask for? In other words, unless you are God himself, this is not true. Humans have never ruined anything before, not land, creek, stream, river, forest. There has never been an actual case where human activities have polluted the air over a city, mountain, or desert. It's just not possible. Nature is in charge. Nature is in charge of everything. If anyone blame her, Mother Nature!

  6. Billy says:

    "For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer." <– I'll take that bet, Mr. Beckwith. Email [email protected] to discuss details.

  7. Bob says:

    Do you have any idea how foolish you sound? This is not some grand mystery. The experts understand how this aspect of nature functions. The facts have been settled. Global Warming is a reality and WE caused it. The only question to answer now is how bad its going to be.

  8. Bob says:

    I call Poe, you're either doing some quality trolling or you're a complete fucking moron with zero grasp on how science and scepticism work.

  9. Claire Romm says:

    NO… this ice is eons old and NEVER breaks up in total… Small pieces will chip away but as the ice rebuilds, thicker each year it is constantly replenishing it's self. THIS is a disaster of epic proportions… we have failed to act and now poise on the precipice before a fall to the depths… prepare to be warm… VERY, VERY warm…

  10. claire romm says:

    If we reach the predicted warming you will get your wish. I hope you are filthy rich as you will need a long anchor chain to anchor your boat to your land as Michigan will be under water… 2 degrees is a calamity… the 6 degrees which it probably will reach will inundate any low lying areas. Enjoy!!!

  11. claire romm says:


  12. claire romm says:

    I'd like to see how this plays out… when you owe the postee and have no job to pay with… inundated land is uninhabitable… think before you embarrass yourself. This is actual science at work.

  13. yogi tobye says:

    Calm down and stop being abusive and insulting to everyone that doesn't have the same opinion as you/

    Whether you're opinion is right or not, doesn't excuse you from being rude and nasty/

    I have my belief. I feel that we are connected to everything and I certainly don't believe we have even a modicum of control over anything.

    You've analysed this whole thread and over-zealously thrown shit in the faces of anyone different from yourself, give yourself a pat on the back for being today's cyber-troll.

  14. Silvio says:

    This is exactly the kind of hyperbole that causes most of the public to tune out environmentalists. Michigan under water? Actually Lake Michigan/Huron are at record low levels and no amount of melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean is going to change that!

  15. Michael says:

    Yogi you are giving nature intelligence, like some being is in control, that is religion not science. I point to the following comment.

    "Nature controls our every thought and move. If Nature didn't want it to happen, you can damn well be sure it wouldn't happen. " and "I have my belief. I feel that we are connected to everything and I certainly don't believe we have even a modicum of control over anything. "

    Fact is the climate reacts to forcings on it, it does not think or have intelligence, it tries to move towards balance. WE are part of nature, what we do will affect it just like every other aspect of nature will affect other parts. So whether it is the sun radiation falling or rising, the orbit changing, currents changing, volcanos being active or not or us spewing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet will react. Our science is good enough to know what most of the natural forcings are doing and how our changes will affect the climate. The imbalance can be measured. Our effect is not guesswork, the broad strokes are well understood and accepted, the eventual outcomes are more hazy as natural factors and variability play their part. But the broad signs are that we have underestimated how quickly the climate will react, and most of that reaction is very bad for us. This is already occuring and we are barely 1 degree hotter than pre industrial. We have been stupid, slow acting and greedy. The planet will survice for billions of years, it will survive and not care whether we are part of its journey or not.

  16. Michael says:

    Gerardo science does not work like that. You do not need to know everything. Most of science is based on probabilities and most (if not all) of science is not known to the 100% level. We have never seen an electron or proton but quantum physics and the electronic revolution depend on them. We do not understand gravity but it can bend time itself and we have to adjust our gps calculations to account for it using Einsteins theories or it will be km out. We do not have every branch in the evolutionary tree proven out but evolution is about as cloase to fact as science gets. You are putting unreasonable and irresponsible conditions on your science, following them would see us still in caves.

    Fact is the climate reacts to forcings on it, it does not think or have intelligence, it tries to move towards balance. WE are part of nature, what we do will affect it just like every other aspect of nature will affect other parts. So whether it is the sun radiation falling or rising, the orbit changing, currents changing, volcanos being active or not or us spewing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the planet will react. Our science is good enough to know what most of the natural forcings are doing and how our changes will affect the climate. The imbalance can be measured. Our effect is not guesswork, the broad strokes are well understood and accepted, the eventual outcomes are more hazy as natural factors and variability play their part. But the broad signs are that we have underestimated how quickly the climate will react, and most of that reaction is very bad for us. This is already occuring and we are barely 1 degree hotter than pre industrial. We have been stupid, slow acting and greedy. The planet will survice for billions of years, it will survive and not care whether we are part of its journey or not.

  17. Giuseppe says:

    That's not a good thing

  18. climatehawk1 says:

    Maybe it would be good to step back and take a look at the big picture, as Mr. Beckwith is implying. I think it is covered very well in this TEDx talk from David Roberts at Grist:… .

  19. climatehawk1 says:

    And actually, the real arrogance is in thinking that we can emit more and more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, where it is demonstrably not being sufficiently absorbed by natural processes, and nothing will happen. Yes, in fact, there really are that many of us, and we are using fossil fuels and other resources at such a rate, that we are now collectively impacting nature. That is what Bill McKibben's book of 20+ years ago, The End of Nature, was about.

  20. climatehawk1 says:

    The planet is warming, and it's due to our activities. Here is an article that summarizes the evidence:

  21. Stan Bladams says:

    The only small silver lining in this, and it is by gawd a small one, is that the denialists that have been so resistant to addressing this issue over the last 2 decades will ACTUALLY be forced to eat crow and recognize that they are going to be held responsible for this by future generations….not those of us that have spent 20 years trying to do something about it, no…many of us have done everything they can. No, it'll be those that, to quote Joel Plaskett, deny deny deny because they didn't want to give up their opulent lifestyles. SO it's not much of a silver lining, but they'll actually get to see how badly they screwed up rather than it happening after they were dead. Have fun explaining your screw-up to your grandkids.

  22. Paul Beckwith says:

    What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. – Paul Beckwith

    Unlike Vegas. I first said this almost a year ago to a TV reporter; too bad they never went with it. I have noticed Greenpeace use it recently.

    Human emitted greenhouse gases warm the planet but the Arctic warms much faster since the snow cover over land and sea ice cover over the ocean decrease rapidly in area. The white cover reflects most (>80%) of sunlight; when gone the underlying land or ocean reflects way less, <10% for dark ocean. So way more sunlight energy is absorbed, heating the Arctic as much as 6x higher than before. So the rest of the snow and ice melts faster. All in the Arctic so far.

    Problem is the temperature change between the equator (which only warmed a little) and the Arctic (which warmed like crazy) is now much smaller. So the jet stream winds that guide our weather patterns slow down. So instead of moving west to east (cold north of them; warm and moist south of them) they go all wavy and the waves can sometimes extend from the Arctic to Florida. South of the wave you are warm and moist; north of the wave you are cold and snowy. And the wave moves to the east so you may switch from cold to warm to cold over a week or so. Kind of makes it harder for farmers to grow stuff.

  23. David Scott Lynn says:

    I've read extensively on both sides of the issue, and it is not easy to just say what's true. For example, right now, the SOUTH pole, according to a number of researchers — including people who actually LIVE there much of the year — has far more ice on it than ever. Like 50 feet thicker. (!!! – That's a lot of ice!) The icebergs breaking off you saw in Al Gore's movie were of the northern peninsula, which juts north up into the warmer ocean waters, is only about a fifth of the land mass of Antarctica. … There are RECORD cold & snow events all over the planet now-a-days, currently more in Europe, Russia and Far East than in the U.S. In the United States, though, ski resorts that thought they would never see much snow again are having too much snow. Several states are having really long winters. A very wide band stretching across much of souther Canada is buried in 40 or more inches of snow. ( See ) But you do not hear about these events on the mainstream media. … Based on what I've read and observed, those who think the earth is due for another mini-ICE AGE are very possibly going to be proven correct. There are numerous signals that is occurring, and according to a number of independent researchers, we are OVER-due for the 11,500 year ice age cycle. And thousands of underwater volcanoes are erupting, warming the oceans, which releases more CO2, and evaporates water, creating more … snow! … And more climatologists, astrophysicists, etc., are switching sides on this issue toward the cooling side. … And the reason the planet has been warming is because we are coming out of the last mini-ice age ending in the (I think it was) 1600s. But 1,000 years ago, the Vikings had farms on the coast of Greenland, until the planet cooled and they were pushed out of Greenland around the year 1,300 by the glaciers. … I also think the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is one of THE worst pieces of DIS-information of the last century. CO2 is the fuel for plant growth, which is what provides much of the oxygen for human beings and other animals. Greenhouse growers like to get their CO2 levels up to about 3 times what is present in our atmosphere because that is most beneficial for plant life. In a world where we are warned about possibly running out of food, more CO2 would be a good thing. ( ) Plus, CO2 is such a tiny portion of the atmosphere, and the predictions of warming from CO2 are based mostly on computer projections, not actual, measurable data. … Even some of the most aggressive pro-AWG theorists have had to admit the temperature has been stable for the last 10 to 15 years, and the question is whether or not that's significant. We shall see. … Personally, if it gets either too hot or too cold, we will ALL need more energy, and getting it from wind, solar, wood, hydro, or whatever will be VERY difficult, if it can be done at all. … If you believe we should eliminate all sources of CO2, be very careful what you wish for, and make sure you are dead certain. Ice ages kill a LOT more people than do warmer temperatures.

  24. Michelle says:

    Your last sentence is false, but I guess you don't really have a clue.

  25. Stan Bladams says:

    >And more climatologists, astrophysicists, etc., are switching sides on this issue toward the cooling side

    Really? Names please. I know of none who are credible climate scientists.

    Your "extensive reading" is a good example of knowing enough to think you know something but not actually knowing enough to know what you don't know.

    Do you question your doctor like this? The guy that built the airplane you fly in? Why not? Exactly what makes you focus on climate science as something that an amateur could understand better than an expert? Shouldn't you question every diagnosis from your doctor? Shouldn't you be a full proponent of rainbow reiki and every other fringe medical practice? Did you know, by the way, that in all likelihood how you think airplanes fly is actually wrong? Doubt me? (See In that and a thousand other areas the understanding of science by the general public is full of misconceptions, particularly when it comes to complex issues that individuals have an overly simplistic understanding of. Most global warming skeptics fall into that category.

  26. kevin says:

    Think of the incredible amount of weight this ice has locking land mass in place. The earth is not completely round because of this as it rotates, and once this water disperses around the globe, expect major earthquakes to happen on a global scale once the ice is gone from the polar caps. As for the rising sea levels, governments will be asking the public to head down to the ocean with their buckets and fill them up with sand and rocks and take them to higher ground, and all pleasure craft and cruise ships will have to be placed in dry docks to lower the sea level, just joking but would probably help lower rising sea levels.

  27. David Scott Lynn says:

    Thanks, Michelle. Please explain your point-of-view on that. … Mine is based on looking at how many people live in MUCH warmer temperatures on this planet today then in northern climates. Then look at how many deaths there have been JUST this past winter in Europe and Russia due to the few degree extremes in cold weather. And what happened to the residents and their farms in Greenland when the glaciers came in a few hundred years ago. And what happened to food supplies all through Europe a few centuries ago in the cold temperatures. And what happened to the mammoths who were caught with fresh food in their stomachs when they were flash frozen due to how fast ice ages come in (they come in matters of days and weeks, not decades or centuries, BTW), and so on. *IF* predictions are correct that sea levels will rise a few inches over the next few decades, people will move inland, as they have done repeatedly over the last few thousand years. Very inconvenient. The mammoths had no warning of the flash freezing. Evidence? They were nearly frozen in place in a matter of hours, or a few days at most. I could go on about this, but I'll stop there.

  28. David Scott Lynn says:

    You make my point exactly in your comment. And YES, I always question my doctors, especially since they refer people to me when they get stumped on certain kinds of health issues with their Clients. The reason I take this seriously is because so many people adapt the position that THEY are smart enough to pass judgements on what The Truth is. So if the people who are posting on, for example, this website are claiming they are better equipped to pass judgement than others who disagree are, then they are in fact guilty of the very thing they accuse others of.

    Now, if you do not know about, and have not read the papers by these climate scientists who are opposed to the AWG theory, then it is obvious you have not familiarized yourself with their arguments. So if yo udon't even know who they are, hwo can you say you've effectively refuted them?

    Have you never done a Google search and looked at their many websites and examined their evidence? Are you just taking someone else's word for your beliefs about the truth or falsity of their analysis? Can yo articulate their analuysis and explain why it is wrong?

    Even though you know (I hope) that there is BIG money to be made by the Carbon Trading schemes so many people are trying to get passed, including many big, crony capitalist corporations , for whom Al Gore just happens to be a consultant of (see Generation, Inc). For their schemes to work, they NEED for global warming to be caused by humans. That's why many of the global arming skeptics have described how when they attempted to publish their findings, they were blackballed of threatened with termination from their employment? You know about the several dozen of those, right?

    Just in case you have not, maybe you can start by Googling "ipcc scientists dissent" and read about the U.S. Senate Minority Report where they state **More Than 700 [that is seven HUNDRED] International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009**… Many of them claim that the IPCC panel produced a politicized document that did NOT effectively represent the actual science that had been done by the IPCC researchers.

    Or you could go go… and check out the 35 Errors in Al Gore's movie. You can read Lord Monckton's comments. He was a high official in the British government and is very scientifically oriented. (BTW, there are several offers out there for various scientists who have offered to debate Al Gore in public, but Al will not answer.)

    Or go to and read about the EIGHT International conferences they've sponsored that feature prominent global warming skeptics. Watch some of the videos of the professors, meteorologists, glaciologists, physicists, and so on whom are highly trained in the sciences. (And for those of you who have heard the accusations of Joe Bast at the heartland Institute, well, I know Joe and his wife Diane personally, and I know them pretty well. So I take unfounded accusations of them personally. … Unless, of course, you have proof.)

    Then, how about Joanne Nova's website, where she has extensive articles on this stuff. (I started to list the links, but I'm sure you'll be able to find them. They are listed in the left margin of her home page at: .) Especially following the money and corruption endemic in the pro-AWG climate scientists world. Her chart following the ClimateGate debacle, where AWG people were caught saying they were trying to hide the warming trends covered up by, for example, Michael Manns' "Hockey Stick" chart that conveniently left out the fact that temperatures on earth were at least as warm as they are now back a thousand years ago — with NO SUVs to warm the atmosphere a thousand years ago. … "Her blog won Best Australian and New Zealand Blog in the 2012 Bloggies Awards. Nearly 430,000 people visited it in 2012."

    Then there is , run by Robert Felix, an architect — who went back to college after he retired — to get a more education so he could pursue his new interests in climate science. Robert wrote two books on the topic, which are getting rave reviews. One of them **Not By Fire But By Ice** received this: "Prentice Hall has included an entire chapter from **Not by Fire but by Ice** in their college-level textbook The Millennium Reader (5th edition)."

    I could go on and on to list the several dozen websites I've visited and spent a LOT of time on regarding these topics. But just like the "average" person will go to websites like or to see what they have to say before they take the advice of their doctors, I too decided that since there was so much controversy and disagreement that I needed to find out for myself.

    And BTW, anyone who says the "consensus" is settled on climate science has only been reading one side of the story. Because that is jut not true. I believe that is mostly propaganda put out, primarily, by the corporatists who've co-opted the government and want more control over the economies and people of the world. … Follow the money. The trail is fresh and … dare I say it … green (with money).

  29. Jezza says:

    Will the author of this piece of junk article stake his qualifications on his projections ?. I doubt he will, for he would be standing by his prediction, and climate alarmists like to have room to move when nature makes them look stupid. I hope many of you save this article and come back and give the author a good serve when the Ice is still there in September

  30. jezza says:

    Agreed 100%.

  31. I looked at the Kimberly wood stove at the Pop Mech website. Looks really nice. I Liked the page and Shared it to Facebook.

    I remember driving through a small town up in the mountains of Colorado, somewhere in the vicinity of Aspen. The town was mostly heated with wood stoves. You could hardly breathe. Fortunately, it only took a few minutes to drive through it. I moved away from Aspen because one winter morning, I was walking down the hill from Snowmass to downtown Aspen, and there was a thick dark cloud over the town. I never figured out how much o fthat was wood smoke versus car smoke.

    Whatever it was, I decided I did not want to be breathing that stuff. It reminded me of stories from the early 1900s when towns were so polluted by wood smoke, and horse gassings & droppings, and very little to no sanitation facilities, that people got sick A LOT. Waterways would spontaneously burst into flames from all the waste matter in them.

    I think that we should be thankful that we had much cleaner energy sources developed over the 20th Century, and yes, that includes so-called "fossil" fuels. (I have read many scientific doubters about petroleum being from organic matter. Especially since they've found it at ever deeper layers of the Earth's crust.) They might have outlived their usefulness, but if so, you can thank the government for putting protections on the petroleum & insulating the industry from TRUE free-market forces. Rockefeller achieved that by getting the government to classify oil as a resource worthy of state protection.

    It's funny (NOT) how The State plays both ends against The People. They protect & subsidize things at one end, then condemn & penalize on the other end. It's al a game to them, and WE are the pawns in these political games. That's why whenever The State tells me something, especially when they say something like the "science is settled," I always look for the other side of the story, which you will usually NOT find in the mainstream press. Or if you do, it is always with derogatory remarks.

  32. David Scott Lynn says:

    Sorry, my reply was supposed to be to Roger Lehet. Somehow it got under your comment, Auki.

    Regarding the Himalayas', though: They have been melting since the late 1800s, long before SUVs roamed the planet. The scientists who live in that area say their melting is more from the extreme deforestation there from people using up all the wood. Yet in the lat year or so, some satellite data shows those glaciers starting to regrow again. That might be from the under-ocena volcanoes that have been erupting and heating the oceans, which increases evaporation. that evaporated water will fall somewhere.

    You might go to this webpage:
    and read some of the articles there about how many of the glaciers are growing in size. And how some say the Arctic sea ice was, at least for a time, at record level highs last year. That's when the ice breaking ships were having trouble getting through the ice, and Canada and Finland are cooperating on designing a bigger, better ice breaking ship because … they're tired of getting stuck in the ice! But you won't read about that because it sends the wrong message to the true believers.

    And here's an article from NPR at least providing a more balanced view-point, rather than the usual one-sided reporting we are so used to:

  33. David Scott Lynn says:

    Hello Climate Hawk! I re-read that page, and it only makes assertions, with not much actual proof. For Example:

    CO2 is admitted to be .038 % of the atmosphere. To put that in perspective, imagine sitting in a sports stadium with 10,000 seats in it. Round UP (in your favor) .038 to .04, and that would be the equivalent of FOUR seats out of the 10,000. I understand the Butterfly Story & Hurricane and all that (but like the 100th Monkey Theory, never demonstrated in real life), but there is an Assertion that that small % can do all this damage, but not proof. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by a LARGE margin. Why could it not be the water vapor? Why not outlaw that? (Just kidding.) But we see all these photos of smokestacks putting out these clouds, given the impression that's carbon dioxide "polluting" the air. In many cases, that is water vapor. CO2 quantities are so small you'd not see them.

    Then there is the Assertion that ONLY greenhouse gasses can heat the oceans. What about the under-ocean volcanoes that have long been postulated by scientists, and now being discovered by the THOUSANDS down there, now that they have the underwater subs that an go deep enough? … NO effect?

    It is also known that when the Earth's magnetic fields reach a cyclic minimum, which is a well known phenomena, volcano and earthquake activity increase too. That heats the oceans from below. And now, increasing evidence says that CO2 follows temperature increases, because the increased temps heat the ocean, causing release of CO2. … This is just outright ignored by most of the articles I've seen.

    See **Not By Fire But By Ice** by Robert Felix. It has gotten so many positive reviews a chapter is now included in a textbook published by Prentice-Hall. And Felix is completely self-funded, BTW.

    Then there is the solar & sunspot activity, which a number of AWG people adamantly deny relevance of, but is one of the few things that has been tracked for a long time. Just stand outside at sundown or sunrise and tell me the sun has no effect on temperatures. And sunspots have been doing some unexpected things lately.

    Your recommended article said to stop at 2 or 3 items, so I'll stop there for now.

  34. David Scott Lynn says:

    There is a constant back and forth about whether there is increasing or decreasing ice up there. The only thing that is "settled" is that it is NOT settled. But one thing is for sure, whether it's global warming or global cooling heading our way — or even if ti stays the same, and if the consequences of either are as dire as many say, then the REAL question is, how do we produce enough ENERGY to get through the Earth Changes? (If it stays the same, we still have huge growth in energy usage coming our way in the developing countries.)

    Given that, even with massive subsidies from governments all over the world, the wind & solar industries are doing very poorly in producing the desired results (meaning they are a LOG way off from powering The Power Grid, which takes massive power sources), and hydro is very limited geographically … and no matter WHAT energy source someone proposes, SOMEONE objects to it, you really have to think about THAT question more than any other. That is, if it's really humanity you're worried about.

    For some people, it's just a religious crusade that's either anti-technology, or anti-oil, or anti-whatever. So they use whatever "science" (valid or not) they can to justify their anti-whatever crusade.

    Of course, if the Yosemite Volcano goes off — and its LONG overdue — ALL of this debate will disappear over night. The western half of the U.S. will become very difficult to live in at all, and the whole world will probably suffer crop shortages and so on.

    I, personally, think the entire debate needs to be re-focused. But who am *I* to tell other people they are focused on the wrong thing?

  35. David Scott Lynn says:

    Thank You Jezza! … I appreciate the support!

    It is interesting how here, in a website supposedly started from a Yogic point-of-view, one must be on guard against finger-pointing and ridicule. To me, the Yogic Principle of Ahimsa, non-violence or non-harming applies to verbal exchange, as well.

    The whole Global Warming versus Cooling versus Neither debate — and whether humans caused it or not, and if so, how — is one of THE most vitriolic things I've ever witnessed in the name of "science" or "humanity." It is more scary to see people act this way than are the prospects of the climate change.

  36. David Scott Lynn says:


    Certain daily News Media in Germany have broken ranks with the AGW band-wagon. They can no longer avoid the long-building reality (over the last few years) of record cold temperatures & snowstorms in Europe, Russia, and beyond. Even the U.S. is getting similar events in a more than few areas of the country. China had horrific ice storms a couple of years ago. … Any wonder the Chinese were not too thrilled about fighting global warming?

    More skeptical scientists are now admitting things that AGW science has been ignoring, and in some cases ridiculing, theories such as that (surprise, surprise) the SUN has something to do with climate change. … Or the effects of sun spot activity on the solar winds that are increased or decreased by solar radiation, or lack of it. … They are also saying the CO2 explanation of AGW is "one-dimensional" and does not explain very much, partly because the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny.

    (And every the IPCC reports, if you read them closely, use ambiguous terms like "could" and "may" and such. There is another report, the NIPCC that has extensive refutations, if you care to read it. And there is a summary, too. )

    So, just like most scientific breakthroughs, the minority is often ridiculed to protect The Establishment. And in this case, The Establishment was the AGW community who had received somewhere between 60 and 80 BILLION dollars of public funding with the foregone — and hoped for — agenda to prove global warming, and that humans were causing it. The prime motivation was even many more billions of dollars to be funneled into both pubic and private hands if they could get the various Cap & Trade schemes passed. But that required public acceptance of the Anthropogenic theory of Global Warming.

    It did not help matters that back in the 1970s, we were being warned of allegedly impending global COOLING and an ice age that was going to cause dire consequences. Then they turned around in the early 1980s and said it was global warming. … Even older folks remember back to the dust bowls in the 1930s and 40s, again, we were warned of doom from global warming, again. That led some older folk who remember such flip-flops to be a little suspicious. …

    There is MUCH more to that story, but I'll leave it at that for now. Unless anyone is curious.

    But just like the Climate Cycles, all this is nothing new, folks.

  37. Paul Beckwith says:

    My view on the sea ice, Arctic amplification, jet streams, extreme weather patterns from Oct/2012…

    I started giving presentations on sea ice connections to jet streams and extreme weather in Jan, 2012 to educate the public, well over 50,000 people have accessed this presentation that I gave to the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society back then.

    Once I clear my PhD comprehensives hurdle which is ongoing for the next few weeks I will focus on the publications.

    Remember that the Arctic June snow cover extent has declined at an even faster rate than sea ice area has; in fact much faster. So the albedo collapse is not just from sea ice. Also, the albedo has been dropping very fast on Greenland, especially since the 97% melting coverage back in July last year. Also, the equatorial temperature is fairly constant, so since the high Arctic is warming much faster the polar-equatorial temperature gradient is collapsing, thus the physics dictates that the jets must slow down and become much wavier, and thus start being dominated by ocean/land temperature contrasts which lock them into persistent patterns. Such as for Pakistan in 2010 when it flooded out (persistent L) while Moscow baked (persistent H)and lost 40% of its grain crops. Like the ongoing drought in the US SW and the bizarre patterns now. Yes, it can all be tied directly to GHG slashing the Arctic albedo reducing the temperature gradient bending the jets. This is ongoing, not just indicative of SSW events. The meteorology in the Arctic has become completely fractured, the SSW exacerbates the fracturing.

    Once question regarding methane? Has anyone tried to examine the satellite images for the regions where the methane emissions are the highest to see if there is any sign of bubbles. For example in the Barents sea now. Or in the ESAS region during last summer when the ice left that region where plumes 1.5 km in diameter have been reported by the Russians? It should be visible on the satellite images as very bright white circular areas.

    Anyone read the BAMS, November, 2012 article on the AMOC? The data shows that it basically cratered to zero (even below zero; reversing) in 2010/2011. And then jumped back to more normal behavior. I would expect the AMOC to significantly slow as the Arctic is warming like crazy from above as there is less need for as much heat transport northward via the ocean (which carries 25% or so of the heat) as well as via the atmosphere (75% or so of heat). So of course more heat is transferred to the southern hemisphere, and Oz bakes, for example. Since the temp. gradient increases around the ACC region the SAM polar vortex and ocean currents speed up and further isolate Antarctica, leading to more isolation and decreases in surface temperatures and thus increases in seasonal sea ice extent there. Remember the out-of-phase changes there, for example the ACR Antarctic Cold Reversal that occurred during the Bolling-Allerod warming while we were still in caves. Same see-saw idea. Of course the ice cap is still shedding weight as we know from GRACE since the ice is melting from below due to the higher water temperatures.

    Last of all, I may as well share this link for good measure…

    Oh, and the professional climate denial folks that are dominating the commenting. Best to ignore them. The arguments that they use are same old, same old, nothing new and have all been debunked at numerous authentic sites like ClimateProgress, SkepticalScience, RealClimate, etc…

  38. Speeding up the melting of the Arctic ice pack should not come as a surprise. We have seen this coming for several decades. Initially it looked like our politicians were concerned enough to do something about it. However, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would hurt profits in that sector and the climate change deniers made it acceptable to do nothing. Canada has reacted by attempting to speed up the extraction and sale of GHG producing coal, oil and natural gas. As a result it is already too late to stop entirely. Some areas, like the Arctic are being hit by a chain reaction of climatic changes that speed up the process. As vast areas of our planet suffer from drought and desertification our biggest challenge will be to produce enough food and distribute it to the two to three billion people in drought stricken areas who will need it. After two to three years of drought already, and loss of forage to feed their cattle, the climate change deniers in Texas are already seeing their ability to produce food reduced dramatically..

  39. Bernhard says:

    With the "knowledge" gained the past 10k years we've come to understand that our behaviour stands above reality.
    More "knowledge" added past 200 hundred years – the more we refuse to adapt behaviour according to reality.
    Outcome clear. Disrupting cycles of life, ends animal life first. Humans are animals after all, no?

  40. Villabolo says:

    Homo Hubristic should be what future anthropologists call us.

  41. Paul Beckwith says:

    Good explanation on the importance of the jet stream…

  42. Paul Beckwith says:

    Extremely good explanations. This video (5 min.) clearly explains with images why there is so much snow and coldness and no sign of spring far south in some regions (where you are sitting in the wave trough, and the wave is south of you) and very little snow and lots of warmth in regions much farther north (where you are sitting in the wave crest, and the wave is north of you)…remember the wave separates cold air (north of it) from warm air (south of it) and guides the movement of storms…

  43. Landbeyond says:

    Lord Monckton!? The Heartland Institute!?
    "…anyone who says the "consensus" is settled on climate science has only been reading one side of the story. Because that is jut not true. I believe that is mostly propaganda put out, primarily, by the corporatists…" !
    "Follow the money. The trail is fresh and … dare I say it … green (with money)."

    Follow the money indeed. Who doesn't know who funds The Heartland Institute?
    Is this satire? Paul Beckwith, did you write this? :o)

  44. Paul Beckwith says:

    New article today: the sea ice does not lie…

  45. michelle g. says:

    what about cherinobal?

  46. samitee says:

    Is this a joke? Beaufort Sea Ice is above normal and has doubled since last year.

  47. samitee says:

    ahh yes, always with the fear.

  48. samitee says:

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

  49. samitee says:

    We're all going to burn! Please, stop with the fear-mongering. Here is an article from December 29, 1900 that outlines how 86% of Swiss Glaciers were retreating (with CO2 levels well below 300ppm). This doom and gloom nonsense has been going on for well over a hundred years. Relax, the planet is fine.…

  50. samitee says:

    Yes, I'll take that bet too. Please e-mail me if you'd like to place a wager. If I lose, I'll buy you dinner and we can discuss all things climate. [email protected]