Weird Winter Weather Puzzles Scientists

[laker67]

Tilt caused by the migration of Mountain Lions moving into Mo. from out west....

Your theory works for me JD.

[Al Agnew]

Ummm...I think any changes in axial tilt could be easily measured given our scientific knowledge these days. As far as I know, nobody has seen anything like that.

September happens to be the month when Arctic sea ice accumulation really accelerates. "Autumn" in the Arctic starts about mid-August, so that's when the ice begins to increase. The increase has historically increased dramatically in September. Less ice in September indicates the Arctic "season" is coming later. Keep in mind that by mid-winter the Arctic Ocean will still be completely iced in, and it is exceedingly difficult to measure the average thickness of the ice over the whole ocean, so typical measurements of Arctic sea ice are done by satellite and mainly measure the extent of coverage. So they are done during the warmer months when not all the ocean is frozen over. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that by the end of September, the Arctic Ocean has been close to completely ice covered, but in recent years, less of it is covered during September.

Which, of course, can be construed as an indication of a warming climate...just sayin'.

[Tim Smith]

I read that this morning as well. And I agree, 30% of anything sounds substantial. But read it closely again. Its a 30% reduction in Arctic sea ice for the month of September only. And only since 1979. I don't know what to make out of statements like that. But its easy to twist statistics in all kinds of funny ways to make them sound worse than they are. What about the month of October? Suppose it was a 35% INCREASE in arctic sea ice from 1999-2009 for the month of October? I don't know. It would be interesting to see what the ice did for 30 year periods for each month going back 3,000 years. Plot those graphs and then lets talk.

You can bet October showed record gains in sea ice. You can only have have record ice cover recovery when there is a lot of open sea available to refreeze.

Talk about twisting statistics!

The total mass of sea ice has been declining steadily for some time now.

September is the annual minimum of sea ice. Obviously that's what they mean by "bellweather". You find the total amount of ice retreat by checking it at the time of minimum coverage.

[Tim Smith]

Here is my uneducated guess, What if the seasons are changing due to eliptical orbits or axial tilt?

If this were true the sky would indeed be falling.

Astronomers watch those kinds of things like a hawk and it doesn't account for what has happened this year or over the past 30 years.

[ColdWaterFshr]

Hey, I don't pretend to be an expert on the meaning of the word bellweather and whatever that entails. I'm just suspicious anytime stats are thrown at me in US Today format . . . sensationalized to help sell papers . . . "30% reduction in sea ice" over a narrow time frame of 30 years and for just one month. Heck, I don't know, maybe the month of May has seen sea-ice stick around longer over those same 30 years. Is May or June also bellweather months for the recession of arctic sea ice? What is the story on those months? Has the Farmers Almanac ever been wrong?? And off on a tangent here, but have these satellite images been taken by the same camera flying in exactly the precise same orbit each of the last 32 years? Is their resolution the same? You can't tell me 1979 imagery is in the same class as anything in the last 10 years. If the satellites changed, did they take this into account? Tell the whole story if we are going to examine it. Lets go in depth with arctic sea ice, don't patronize with one very narrow little stat taken out of context and let us armchair types try to make scientific sense of it. We don't know squat. And I'm at least smart enough to question what it all means.

[Tim Smith]

Hey, I don't pretend to be an expert on the meaning of the word bellweather and whatever that entails. I'm just suspicious anytime stats are thrown at me in US Today format . . . sensationalized to help sell papers . . . "30% reduction in sea ice" over a narrow time frame of 30 years and for just one month. Heck, I don't know, maybe the month of May has seen sea-ice stick around longer over those same 30 years. Is May or June also bellweather months for the recession of arctic sea ice? What is the story on those months? Has the Farmers Almanac ever been wrong?? And off on a tangent here, but have these satellite images been taken by the same camera flying in exactly the precise same orbit each of the last 32 years? Is their resolution the same? You can't tell me 1979 imagery is in the same class as anything in the last 10 years. If the satellites changed, did they take this into account? Tell the whole story if we are going to examine it. Lets go in depth with arctic sea ice, don't patronize with one very narrow little stat taken out of context and let us armchair types try to make scientific sense of it. We don't know squat. And I'm at least smart enough to question what it all means.

Cold, I don't think "patronizing" is the word you want to use here. If I were patronizing, I'd mollycoddle you and assume you're a half wit and incapable of following through to investigate these questions you raise. I don't think that's the case. If anything I'm holding back an impulse to yell at you.

I've seen the "October record ice increase" on denial web pages before and as you seem to acknowledge it's an utterly bogus argument.

If you want more information on May and June ice that information is out there too.

The papers and data and methodology for sea ice are available and transparent and if you actually cared to go and check them out.

[DaddyO]

The Washington Post

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

____________________________________________________

Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!

To Verify, Click Here:

[Wayne SW/MO]

Yeah but what happened a hundred years before that daddyo, oops, never mind, that was the Mini Ice Age.

[Smalliebigs]

I always question the validity of any article from the New York Times.....give me a break. I don't understand it seems to be a double standard on the reasoning behind global warming. Are we saying it's geting warmer because it has been warmer the last couple of years???? If thats the case as soon as it gets cold for a bit you could say we are heading into an iceage. I tend to agree with Coldwater, it's soo typical of the Post Dispatch to print an article that is lacking so much info and parade it around like it's the ultimate truth. It's kind of like the Global Warming THERORY over all....it's just an opinion.

[flytyer57]

I really don't know why this stuff even gets brought up here.

On one side, you have those that believe in the fact that our planet is getting warmer and we should at least try to do something about it.

On the other side, you have those that will never believe it because they think it's just a gimmick by the left wing tree huggers trying to infringe upon their livelyhoods.

Nobody here can post all the facts that are out there and nobody will ever change anybody's way of thinking on this subject. It's a waste of time and energy to even try to convince those that do not believe it. Only when the likes of Faux News, Beck and Limbaugh etc. change their attitudes on this matter will we see some clear path to middle ground.