Heavy ice could delay start of Shell Alaska's Arctic drilling

May 28, 2012

The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.

Unveiling a newly refurbished ice-class rig that is poised to begin drilling two exploratory wells this summer in the , Shell executives said Friday that the unusually robust sea ice would further narrow what already is a tight window for operations. The company's $4-billion program is designed to measure the extent of what could be the United States' most important new inventory of oil and gas.

Shell has pledged to end its first season of by Oct. 31 in the Beaufort Sea and 38 days earlier in the more remote Chukchi Sea to remain within the relatively ice-free summer season.

Meeting with reporters and Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, on board the Kulluk drilling rig in the Seattle shipyards, Shell's vice president for Alaska operations, Pete Slaiby, said the company had given up on its controversial attempt to win permission from the federal government to extend Chukchi drilling though October as well.

"Not this year. I think it's a done deal," he said.

The summer ice melt in the Arctic has often reached record levels in recent years in what many scientists believe is a sign of climate change. But this year a high pressure zone over the coast of Alaska, low and certain have combined to bring unusually large amounts of ice not only to Alaska's northern coast, but farther south in the Bering Sea as well, officials said.

"I do think it's going to be a slow breakup this year," Kathleen Cole, sea ice program leader for the weather service, told the Los Angeles Times.

The result is that while Canadian waters in the far northern Atlantic have relatively low ice levels, Alaska is an iceberg - at least for now.

"We're seeing multiyear ice that they've not seen in such large quantities in over a decade, and it could impact our ability to start the well," Slaiby said. Of particular concern, he said, is the region of the Chukchi Sea around the company's Berger Prospect - potentially the crown jewel of the company's offshore oil inventory - which in normal years would be accessible by mid-July. This year, it may be unreachable until late July or early August.

Company officials say they need shore-fast ice to retreat at least one nautical mile from the coast of Point Barrow, the northernmost tip of the Alaskan coast, before proceeding.

"Point Barrow is the choking point for the ice. If you can get around Point Barrow, the Beaufort Sea will pretty much be open," said Eric Whatley, drilling supervisor on the Kulluk.

Although offshore drilling operators in the 1980s and 1990s might have used icebreakers to plow a path to ice-bound drilling sites, Shell has committed during its new round of operations to avoid icebreakers as a means of minimizing disturbances to wildlife, including polar bears, walrus and bowhead whales.

"You've got to work with nature in this job. You can't hurry. You might want to go, but you can't do it till the conditions are right," Slaiby said.

Shell Alaska is preparing to tow the 160-foot Kulluk derrick next month to Alaska, where it may wait in Dutch Harbor before sailing north to the Beaufort Sea, depending on weather conditions, officials said. A second drilling rig, the Noble Discoverer, will set sail for operations in the Chukchi Sea. The Discoverer, which got a more limited upgrade, will drill one or two wells in the Chukchi.

Friday's tour was to showcase the $150-million refurbishing the company has undertaken on the 29-year-old Kulluk , recently resurrected from nearly a decade of cold storage in the Canadian Arctic.

The rig has been equipped with four new diesel engines and equipment designed to dramatically reduce potential air pollution in the pristine region. Recent tests have shown a 90 percent to 95 percent reduction in nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and substantial reductions in particulate emissions compared with the rig's previous levels, Shell officials said.

The refurbishments also include 4,200 barrels in onboard waste storage to achieve "zero discharge" targets - meaning no wastewater, ballast water or drilling muds and cuttings will be discharged into the Arctic seas. Instead, they will be held aboard the two drill ships for permanent disposal at a certified landfill in the Lower 48 states, Slaiby said.

Shell officials said they've completed one of the most important parts of the company's oil spill response program for the Arctic, a preconstructed capping stack. That piece of equipment will be positioned offshore with the drill ships and ready to deploy in the event of a well blowout that can't be controlled by the beefed-up blowout preventers to be installed in each well.

The capping stack, modeled on the equipment that finally stopped the flow of oil in the 2010 BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is in Portland, Ore., and will be tested in Puget Sound near Seattle within the next few weeks, Slaiby said.

Shell still must obtain final permits for both offshore leasing areas before sending down the first drill bits, but those are expected to be approved once the new emissions equipment and capping stack are tested.

Conservationists have filed lawsuits challenging air emission permits approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and Shell has launched a pre-emptive suit in an attempt to get other potential environmental challenges aired quickly.

Explore further: Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

More information: (c)2012 the Los Angeles Times
Distributed by MCT Information Services

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Walrus herds gather on Alaska's northwest shore

Aug 19, 2011

(AP) -- Large herds of Pacific walrus have begun gathering on the northwest coast of Alaska, again forsaking sea ice for sand in what has become a symbol of climate warming in the region.

US opens ways for Shell Arctic Ocean drilling

Aug 05, 2011

US officials have granted oil giant Shell conditional approval to begin drilling exploration wells in the Arctic Ocean from next year, a move swiftly slammed by conservationists as "inexcusable".

Gulf anniversary renews debate on Arctic drilling

Apr 23, 2011

(AP) -- A year after the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, some experts are pondering the next doomsday scenario - a massive oil well blowout in the icy waters off Alaska's northern coast.

Greenpeace activists climb Greenland oil rig

May 29, 2011

(AP) -- Three Greenpeace activists on Sunday climbed up an oil rig off Greenland's coast in an attempt to stop a Scottish oil company from starting deepwater drilling in the arctic waters, the environmental ...

Recommended for you

Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

14 hours ago

New Zealand's pastoral landscapes are some of the loveliest in the world, but they also contain a hidden threat. Many of the country's pasture soils have become enriched in cadmium. Grasses take up this toxic heavy metal, ...

Oil drilling possible 'trigger' for deadly Italy quakes

18 hours ago

Italy's Emilia-Romagna region on Tuesday suspended new drilling as it published a report that warned that hydrocarbon exploitation may have acted as a "trigger" in twin earthquakes that killed 26 people in ...

Snow is largely a no-show for Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

18 hours ago

On March 1, 65 mushers and their teams of dogs left Anchorage, Alaska, on a quest to win the Iditarod—a race covering 1,000 miles of mountain ranges, frozen rivers, dense forest, tundra and coastline. According ...

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

18 hours ago

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Study shows less snowpack will harm ecosystem

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A new study by CAS Professor of Biology Pamela Templer shows that milder winters can have a negative impact both on trees and on the water quality of nearby aquatic ecosystems, far into the warm growing season.

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Feldagast
2.8 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012
See, man made global warming.
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) May 28, 2012
We were told the ice was going to be gone by 2012.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Local conditions don't serve as a reliable indicator of conditions in general, and once again, the champion denialists willfully confuse weather with climate.

This, of course, is not surprising.

What is surprising is that Shell, et al, insist on pursuing this folly of Arctic drilling. There is absolutely no way that it can be carried out or carried on without accident --and the virtual certainty of a major disaster-- precisely because of the unpredictability of weather conditions locally.

Imagine, for instance, the consequences of a rapid, unforseen thaw of these "unusually large amounts" of ice while drilling was was being carried on. Just a single mass of packice or iceberg broken free could be enough to put paid to the whole affair. Further, imagine the consequences if this were to happen just after oil/gas were reached. Imagine this during one of the area's frequent storms.

In essential terms, there is no margin of safety for drilling there.

entropyrules
2.6 / 5 (10) May 28, 2012
Indeed, ice expert Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center even
told us it would be burned away in 2008 http://www.newsci...html(and in 2009 and 2010 ...). We survived, but NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally assures it will be
gone this year http://news.monga...ic.html.
Life as a climate scientist is great, you can make the most stupid predictions year after year and no one in the field will hold it against you because you are an expert.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Indeed, ice expert Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center even
told us it would be burned away in 2008 http://www.newsci...html(and


Said nothing of the sort. Said it was a "possibility" that it would be gone. Not surprising, given that the trend was year-over-year decline in both extent and mass.

Your second link has expired altogether. Time to update your Rapid-Response Denial Database.


Life as a climate scientist is great, you can make the most stupid predictions year after year and no one in the field will hold it against you because you are an expert.


Not nearly so easy as the life of a Pick'N'Click denialpuppet.
Aclimate scientist actually has to work to collect, compile, model, and interpret the results of those efforts --not just troll the web for articles to "refute" with a stockpile of irrelevant, inapplicable, and/or expired cherryclickings.

Mere noisemaking.

gregor1
2.1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012
Caliban We live in the age of the internet where rusted on science hierarchies are open to scrutiny by all and sundry. The lack of transparency in the work of the climate modelers has left them in considerable strife as reproducibility is a mandatory requirement of the scientific method. In fact A former chief at NASA, Dr. John Theon, former
supervisor of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the GISS,
slammed the computer models claiming they are not
scientific because the modelers have resisted making
their work transparent so it can not be replicated
independently.
The battle lines are not between the catastrophic warmists and the Deniers they are between the modelers and the empirical evidence. Warmists are actually empirical evidence deniers.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
If the Emperor is wearing no clothes is it our fault if we laugh?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
So, instead of just a couple of nutritionally devoid Denial Crisps, you offer a whole bag? One neat little package of specious arguments and graphics designed to overwhelm with redundant irrelavancy, inapplicability, and/or disingenousness?

Golly! Wow! Gee Whizz!

OK, I'll counter with an omnibus refutation, issued by John Abraham to Lord Monckton(briefly famous denialist, now fallen from favor after the lambasting he sustained in this rebuttal):

http://www.stthom...abraham/

Unlike your linked to talking points and deliberately misinterpreted graphics, Dr. Thomas actually presents the facts of the matter, and makes the case, refuting pretty much the whole passel of lies contained in your presentation along the way.

The Emperor is wearing new clothes, allright --problem is, since they were crafted by your tailors at the Petroleum Institute, Heritage Foundation, et al-- they just don't fit...the facts, that is.

Davecoolman
1.4 / 5 (9) May 28, 2012
Wait a minute this is a skeptic trick. there is no Ice in the Arctic, just wait Global warming hero Vendi will set us right with James Hanson's latest report.

Waiting with baited breath!

Sarc off.
AndyG55
2.3 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
quote re Abrahams and StThomas

"So its ok for an employed Prof to post videos with hundreds of errors and personal attacks in the name of science, but when someone replies with corrections, they silently acknowledge some, ignore the rest, and crawl back in their holes, pretending that being caught lying is just a scholarly difference, and, having been humiliated, that theyve effectively held up a white flag by not replying to the detailed points, and by providing nothing in support of their own accusations. Yet, they hope no one will notice that Monckton has categorically defeated any pretense that Abrahams deserves to have the title Professor, and that the organisation called St Thomas deserves to use the word University."

You should find the qiuote and read the text to learn the reality.
pres68y
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
Yepper, I better agree with the denialists. We can dump billions of tons of hydrocarbon contaminated air into the upper atmosphere each year and it simply does not have a significant effect. However, if it came from mount pinatubo then it can affect the entire world. It's all so simple if I remember to memorize those things and not analyze them any further.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2012
quote re Abrahams and StThomas

"So its ok for an employed Prof to post videos with hundreds of errors and personal attacks in the name of science, but when someone replies with corrections, they silently acknowledge some, ignore the rest, and crawl back in their holes, pretending that being caught lying is just a scholarly difference, and, having been humiliated, that theyve effectively held up a white flag by not replying to the detailed points, and by providing nothing in support of their own accusations. Yet, they hope no one will notice that Monckton has categorically defeated any pretense that Abrahams deserves to have the title Professor, and that the organisation called St Thomas deserves to use the word University."

You should find the qiuote and read the text to learn the reality.


No, you should supply the source of this quote, yourself, instead of blandly supposing that your entirely context-free quote will stand in rebuttal.

gregor1
1.7 / 5 (11) May 29, 2012
pres68y "
Yepper, I better agree with the denialists. We can dump billions of tons of hydrocarbon contaminated air into the upper atmosphere each year and it simply does not have a significant effect. However, if it came from mount pinatubo then it can affect the entire world. It's all so simple if I remember to memorize those things and not analyze them any further.
"
This is a classic straw man. The argument is between science (empirical evidence) and pseudoscience (computer models). That later qualify as pseudoscience because of the lack of transparency and thus reproducibility which are basic requirements of the scientific method. "A former chief at NASA, Dr. John Theon, former
supervisor of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the GISS,
slammed the computer models claiming they are not
scientific because the modelers have resisted making
their work transparent so it can not be replicated
independently."
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) May 29, 2012
Local conditions don't serve as a reliable indicator of conditions in general, and once again, the champion denialists willfully confuse weather with climate.


It wasn't skeptics who claimed the arctic would be ice free in xxxx.

(Where xxxx is pretty much any year in the last 5 or 10 and then such predictions are denied).

AGW cult members are the real deniers: "What, we never predicted that! We deny it. It was our evil twin."
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
NotParker: I find myself agreeing with you for once. I think that those who make predictions of when ice will be gone from the summer Arctic do no one any favors. They have a high probability of getting that wrong. Having said that, it is clear that we are losing ice in the Arctic. There were chortles of joy from some of the skeptics (I can't recall if you were one or not) when the Arctic ice approached normal this March. There was twittering about the ice age coming back. Of course they did not realize this was weather and related to one year ice, not multiyear ice. So, now it is coming down close to the minimum again. Now they will screech about Ice in the Antarctic to misdirect the issues in the arctic. Please make up your mind. Either the ice is melting due to normal variation or it is freezing due to a new ice age. You can't vacillate between then as is convenient. The reality is the ice is melting due to anthropogenic influences. Deal with it.
SamFar
2.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
Only a very foolish man or woman would take the climate forecasts of the more unhinged alarmists seriously, or for any practical purpose. They have an unenviable track record of being wrong over and over and over again. They will soon be seen by all and sundry as charlatans at worst, simpletons at best. And the climate system will continue on its way, with CO2 in particular remaining a very minor player indeed.
Sinister1811
2.6 / 5 (10) May 29, 2012
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.


Newsflash: CO2 *is* pollution. At least, in larger quantities. You obviously know nothing about the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Anything that is NOT natural to Earth's atmosphere and affects Climate directly could be considered pollution. Look at our closest planetary neighbour - Venus. It has a surface temperature of 400 degrees. Why do think that is? It's BECAUSE of the CO2 composition of its atmosphere. You sir, are wrong. It's common knowledge that Carbon Dioxide causes rising temperatures. Or are you completely dense?
Origin
1.3 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
Each new drill brings the risk of new environmental accident similar to the Deep Horizon disaster. At the cold Arctic waters the impact of such accident would be just a way more permanent because of slower biological degradation of oil with bacteria. How the oil platforms could resist the motion of ice, when the whole area would freeze again? Wouldn't be more safe, cheap and effective for people to consider cold fusion research seriously and to keep more oil for future generations? We will need the oil anyway for plastic industry. The contemporary approach of human civilization to the cold fusion finding (including mainstream physics) appears too dull for me for being real... Never in human history the people become so ignorant toward new findings, like just today.

http://www.e-catw...bushnell
Michael_Jones
2.3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
A delay of TWO WEEKS! Well, we'll fix that by adding more and more global warming greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere and eliminate those costly delays. After all two weeks is a great amount of time in terms of geological time frame.
P.S. Does this mean the Arctic Ice Coverage has recovered its 40% melt since the last 50 years?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
The predictions regarding ice loss are for the minimum of the season in Sept. not April. And no scientist has predicted a date of 2012.

"We were told the ice was going to be gone by 2012." - ParkerTard

Currently Northern Sea Ice is 820,000 square kilometers below normal.

Once again, Parker Tard proves himself to be a liar.
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) May 29, 2012
The predictions regarding ice loss are for the minimum of the season in Sept. not April. And no scientist has predicted a date of 2012.


the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012

-- Jay Zwally NASA Climate Scientist.

http://wattsupwit...by-2012/
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 29, 2012

Currently Northern Sea Ice is 820,000 square kilometers below normal.

Once again, Parker Tard proves himself to be a liar.


Ice Extent is right at the 1979-2006 average.
http://arctic-roo..._ext.png

Ice Area is fractionally below normal but still in the grey target zone.

http://arctic-roo...area.png

And remember, the graphs I show are the 1979-2006 average. The average does not include the 2007 low. If they did, 2012 would be above average.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
The predictions regarding ice loss are for the minimum of the season in Sept. not April. And no scientist has predicted a date of 2012.


the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012

-- Jay Zwally NASA Climate Scientist.

http://wattsupwit...by-2012/


And again, I ask --and again, without any hope for a straight answer-- for you to point out just exactly where you see a prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2012 in the above quote?

C'mon, NP, I know that you aren't incapable of distinguishing between "could be" and "will be". Your very own Rapid Response Denialist Database Pick'N'Click citation stands in direct refutation of your claim!

Ben Vincent
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.


Look at our closest planetary neighbour - Venus. It has a surface temperature of 400 degrees. Why do think that is? It's BECAUSE of the CO2 composition of its atmosphere. You sir, are wrong. It's common knowledge that Carbon Dioxide causes rising temperatures. Or are you completely dense?


Mars is 95% CO2 just like Venus. Why isn't Mars hotter than it is if CO2 is the cause? You can't just answer distance from the Sun. The whole point of man made global warming is a runaway greenhouse effect. If there is no runaway then there is a fault in the theory. There is no runaway greenhouse effect on Mars with the same 95% CO2 as Venus.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.


Look at our closest planetary neighbour - Venus. It has a surface temperature of 400 degrees. Why do think that is? It's BECAUSE of the CO2 composition of its atmosphere. You sir, are wrong. It's common knowledge that Carbon Dioxide causes rising temperatures. Or are you completely dense?


Mars is 95% CO2 just like Venus. Why isn't Mars hotter than it is if CO2 is the cause? You can't just answer distance from the Sun. The whole point of man made global warming is a runaway greenhouse effect. If there is no runaway then there is a fault in the theory. There is no runaway greenhouse effect on Mars with the same 95% CO2 as Venus.


Ben,
There are two immediately apparent problems with what you've just said:

1. Venus has an atmosphere millions of times more dense than Mars'

2. Venus receives orders of magnitude greater irradiance than Mars.

So you are arguing apples and oranges.

Just sayin'.
Feldagast
1.2 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
Pollution is bad and to be minimized but CO2 is not pollution.


Newsflash: CO2 *is* pollution. At least, in larger quantities. You obviously know nothing about the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Anything that is NOT natural to Earth's atmosphere and affects Climate directly could be considered pollution. Look at our closest planetary neighbour - Venus. It has a surface temperature of 400 degrees. Why do think that is? It's BECAUSE of the CO2 composition of its atmosphere. You sir, are wrong. It's common knowledge that Carbon Dioxide causes rising temperatures. Or are you completely dense?


So stop breathing it out. It was never a pollutant until the EPA under Obama declared it so. If we had half the rainforest and forests back from 50 years ago co2 wouldn't even be an issue.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
So stop breathing it out.
Why not, but it's still more effective to sacrifice one person, who is using a car - than one hundred of people, who are just breathing CO2 out. You should be more careful with such an arguments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
The contemporary approach of human civilization to the cold fusion finding (including mainstream physics) appears too dull for me for being real... Never in human history the people become so ignorant toward new findings, like just today.
Hey jigga - what do you think about these LENR wannabees?
http://www.brillo...gy.com/#
http://www.youtub...=related
Caliban
not rated yet May 29, 2012
The contemporary approach of human civilization to the cold fusion finding (including mainstream physics) appears too dull for me for being real... Never in human history the people become so ignorant toward new findings, like just today.
Hey jigga - what do you think about these LENR wannabees?
http://www.brillo...gy.com/#

Caliban
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2012
Nice link, Ghosty-O

I hope that Brillouin Energy is for real.
It would be a boon to all of us if BigFossil got knocked off the throne.

I have no idea where the double post came from.

Ben Vincent
1.8 / 5 (5) May 30, 2012

Ben,
There are two immediately apparent problems with what you've just said:

1. Venus has an atmosphere millions of times more dense than Mars'

2. Venus receives orders of magnitude greater irradiance than Mars.

So you are arguing apples and oranges.



Actually you have helped prove my point. It is atmospheric pressure not CO2 content that is responsible for temperature. Venus has an atmosphere much thicker than Earth's, Mars has one that is thinner than Earth's. Both Venus and Mars have CO2 levels of 95%, Earth has very little CO2 by comparison. If you could put Venus and Mars in the same orbit as the Earth, Venus would not cool to Earth's temperature and Mars would not warm to Earth's temperature. Pressure, not CO2.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) May 30, 2012
Ben, if you left earth's atmosperic pressure as is but substituted all GHG's for non GHG's, would the earth's temperature go down? Yes. GHG's in the atmosphere cause a planets surface temperature to be warmer. CO2 is a GHG. Higher atmosperic content of CO2 means a warmer planet.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 30, 2012
Ben, if you left earth's atmosperic pressure as is but substituted all GHG's for non GHG's, would the earth's temperature go down? Yes.


If you were standing in a desert with zero humidity and 400ppm CO2 and the sun went down, would it stay the same temperature. No. In fact it would cool
as much as 30C.

If you were standing in a jungle with 100% humidity and 400ppm CO2 and the sun went down, would it stay the same temperature. Almost. In fact it would cool very little.

CO2 is wimpy GHG.

rubberman
2.5 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
"Lets see. Parker Tard proclaims that we are in an ice age.

Then he states that we are in a natural cycle of warming.

Then he spends months claiming that the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that the 1930's were part of a little ice age.

Then he claims that the 1930's were warmer than today.

Then he claims that over the last 15 years the earth is warming.

Then he claims that over the last 13 years the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that over the last 12 years the earth is warming.

Then he claims that over the last 9 years the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that the earth is warming by .009'C per decade."

Credibility = Zero
Go back to your little fantasy land.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) May 31, 2012
"Lets see. Parker Tard proclaims that we are in an ice age.

Then he states that we are in a natural cycle of warming.

Then he spends months claiming that the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that the 1930's were part of a little ice age.

Then he claims that the 1930's were warmer than today.

Then he claims that over the last 15 years the earth is warming.

Then he claims that over the last 13 years the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that over the last 12 years the earth is warming.

Then he claims that over the last 9 years the earth is cooling.

Then he claims that the earth is warming by .009'C per decade."

Credibility = Zero
Go back to your little fantasy land.


References?

Greenland was warmer in the 20s/30s/40s.

http://www.nature...-1.10725

rubberman
2.1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2012
References? Your posts.
Credibility value...pushing into the negative....somehow.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
References? Your posts.
Credibility value...pushing into the negative....somehow.


I supplied references to everything I inform people of.

Where are the references to your claims about me?

For example, I've said many times the 20s/30s/40s were warmer in Greenland than now. I've supplied at least two references.

Here is another:

"Over the past century, years in Greenland that register as abnormally warm, 1929, 1932, 1941, 1947, and 1960 are outstanding, having temperatures warmer than observed recently. Increases in GrIS melt and runoff during this past century warm period must have been significant and were probably even larger than that of the most recent last decade (1995-2006)."

http://www.arctic...nna.html
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (7) May 31, 2012
After reading your link in it's entirety...thank you once again for validating what I quoted above. I need not post further.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 31, 2012
After reading your link in it's entirety...thank you once again for validating what I quoted above. I need not post further.


Its good of you to finally concede that I am right.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
We were told the ice was going to be gone by 2012.


In spite of what this article says, N. Hemisphere Sea Ice area is at 3rd lowest ever, and N. Hemisphere 30% extent is at all time record low for this day of the year, and yesterday too I think.

Do not confuse one REGION in the arctic as representative of the global trend or the trend within the entire n. hemisphere.

Volume is likely at or below all time daily record lows right now, but the data usually takes a few weeks to process, so we'll see.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
We were told the ice was going to be gone by 2012.


In spite of what this article says, N. Hemisphere Sea Ice area is at 3rd lowest ever, and N. Hemisphere 30% extent is at all time record low for this day of the year, and yesterday too I think.

Do not confuse one REGION in the arctic as representative of the global trend or the trend within the entire n. hemisphere.

Volume is likely at or below all time daily record lows right now, but the data usually takes a few weeks to process, so we'll see.


Ice Extent is fractionally lower than the long term average which is the dotted line and well above every recent year.

http://arctic-roo..._ext.png

And glaciers melted more int he 20s/30s/40s so we can sume the arctic melted more then as well. But no satellites were around to confirm.

Lurker2358
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012
Ice Extent is fractionally lower than the long term average which is the dotted line and well above every recent year.


1, That is the 15% extent line, not area or 30% extent.
2, That is normalized to period ending with year 2006, which is well into the present melting. Claiming it is "near normal" is bullshit, since almost every year for the past 30 years has been an average net decrease, excluding a few minor rebound years.

http://ocean.dmi....r.uk.php

That is 30% extent, but I see my eyes missed the yellow line, so there is one year which was lower, which was 2011, so I was wrong about the record thing, but this year is almost as low.

http://arctic-roo...n-arctic

Ice area is roughly tied with 2010 and 2011 on the same date.

And glaciers melted more int he 20s/30s/40s so we can sume the arctic melted more then as well. But no satellites were around to confirm.


More soot back then.
Lurker2358
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012
*ahem*

In the 1800's and well into the early 1900's the majority of trains and ships used coal fired or wood fired steam engines which were only about 6 to 10% efficient, and produced tremendous amounts of soot and ash which we know about, which would have been deposited on all snow packs, sea ice, glaciers, and ice shelfs, greatly increasing the albedo and melting ice more rapidly.

Albedo change is more powerful than greenhouse effect in mid latitudes anyway.

Diesel engines did not actively compete with steam until early 1900's and did not totally replace steam engines in commercial trains and ships until around the 1940's, which is a fact of which most people are not aware.

http://www.locomo...ive.html

note the bottom paragraph.

"By the middle of the twentieth century, Diesel engines had effectively replaced steam engines." - excerpt from article.

Both melting periods were caused by man made pollution, Parker, just different.
mrtea
5 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2012
"...at first sight this recent data might appear to buck the trend towards an ever shrinking Arctic ice cap, the center cautioned that a plot of April data over that 34 year period still indicates an ice cover decline at a rate of 2.6 percent per decade. And although this years ice cover is relatively broad, the ice is relatively thin, so that the ice will likely melt quite quickly as Arctic temperatures rise during the spring and summer."

http://www.petrol...86.shtml
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012
Both melting periods were caused by man made pollution


Sulphate emissions climbed steadily until about 1980 or so.

See page 11:

http://www.certi-...ions.pdf
But I agree that the small recent warming was caused by cleaner air.

"A major clearing of the air has occurred in
the Netherlands in the past few decades.
These changes are so large that they have
become very obvious when looking at the
data of individual stations. Strong indications
can be found linking human emissions of
aerosols to the visibility changes. Coincident
with the visibility changes, large trends in
cloud cover, sunshine duration and temperature
are found, in particular during daytime
in summer, showing that these tiny particles
might have a significant influence on regional
climate."

http://www.staff....hine.pdf
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
since almost every year for the past 30 years


You do know that 1979 was the coldest winter in US history. The modern satellite record began at the coldest winter in US history. It would coincide with the most ice.

The Winter of 1979 averaged 27.29F in the US. 10F colder than the warmest.

The warmest period in US history also coincides with more melting in Greenland than today.

1936 was the warmest summer in US history.

And glaciers melted more in the 20s/30s/40s so we can assume the arctic melted more then as well. But no satellites were around to confirm.


More soot back then.


More sunshine. Record temperatures on land too.

More news stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Patent talk: Google sharpens contact lens vision

(Phys.org) —A report from Patent Bolt brings us one step closer to what Google may have in mind in developing smart contact lenses. According to the discussion Google is interested in the concept of contact ...

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.