Well, it is that time of year again, the sea ice in the Arctic has reached its minimum extent.
So how's that "recovery" coming along? According to NSIDC, this year's September minimum is the second lowest in the satellite record.
Peter, over at Climate Crock of the Week, presents his latest video on that topic, a very sober and sobering placement of this year in its long term context:
Once again, the choice is between the "climate skeptics" and your lying eyes...
Oh, an interesting side note: at least one analysis [PDF] found that this year was in fact a new record, exceeding the 2007 low. What? Didn't the "alarmist liberal media" make sure you heard about that?
You should see the comment thread over at Wattsup about this. That it might be *only* the second lowest extent is taken as disproof of "alarmism"--that and exultation over free shipping lanes in the Arctic.
you see, it's the sun (+a couple of other things, better to be left mentioned unless one really wants to claim ENSO produces energy. though volcanos could be mentioned) that warms the planet.
I thought that was a very interesting video in the sense that it portrayed the depressing sea-ice levels in every way possible. It gave the viewer graphs, observations, analytical problem solving: anything you could think of to relay this information to the public. What I found surprising in this tangle of data was that there was not one shred of hopeful information (except for when the AccuWeather guy made a false prediction that the 2005 inclination would be a reoccurring trend- too bad that didnât actually happen.) This is where I come in. Just a few days ago, I stumbled across a hopeful, yes hopeful, article about the Arctic and its tragic state. Now I am well aware that this article doesnât have any direct correlation to the sea-ice situation, but I think the first step to solving this crisis is to realize that every single one of the Arcticâs problems are all very connected. This article, posted to National Geographic website, talks about how increased rainfall (result of global warming) is actually raining out the soot in the air; which, over time, could mean cleaner air in the polar region. As an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah, Timothy Garret, said, âPrecipitation is the atmosphere's single most efficient way of removing particulate pollution," more and more people are questioning the results of global warming: can they ever be considered good? Soot (particles released from smoke and exhaust), is only second to CO2 emissions in encouraging global warming. This means by the transitive property of cause and effect, if raining soot out of the air (which can be removed within weeks) lowers global temperature: maybe sea-ice melting can be reversed. My solution: get more people around the world to be more conscientious about their CO2 emissions and with the natural soot removing process already underway- I think we can reverse the damage weâve already done.
"As an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah, Timothy Garret, said, âPrecipitation is the atmosphere's single most efficient way of removing particulate pollution,""
This is why geoengineering won't work: putting up sulphates to block out the sun will be just as rained out.
Note that soot isn't changing the thickness of ice, fallen down to less than 90cm now. That's due to a warm ocean. An ocean warmed by the rest of the globe.
Wow, that's not the reason geoengineering wont work. The people working on it aren't idiots, and they know the particulates would be rained out if they were injected into the troposphere. That's why they're looking at injecting them into the stratosphere, where they'd have a siginificantly longer lifetime.
Not that I'm in favour of geoengineering.
Most of us never realised how important it is to start protecting the environment.
I've mentioned in my blog that Earth Hour isn't really helping. The hour may be helpful, but it's just an hour. That should be brought to our daily lives and only through that, it will help change the world.
> The people working on it aren't idiots
You don't have to be an idiot to push a bad idea.
> and they know the particulates would be rained out if they were injected into the troposphere.
So why do they insist that it will work?
> That's why they're looking at injecting them into the stratosphere, where they'd have a siginificantly longer lifetime.
Which will be weeks or scant months.
Colour me unimpressed.