Carpe Diem

Just in time for Earth Day, a very inconvenient chart of Great Lakes ice coverage – it’s 15X greater than normal for April

ice1

The chart above is from the Canadian Ice Service and shows the percentage ice coverage of the Great Lakes during the week of April 16 for each year from 1981 to 2014. Almost 40% of the Great Lakes are still currently covered with ice, which is far above the median of 2.7% for this time of year. Global what? 

Update: The chart below shows the total accumulated ice coverage of the Great Lakes over the entire winter season from November to April for each winter season since 1980-1981. For the most recent winter the Great Lakes had ice coverage 42.4% of the time, which is more than twice the median ice coverage of 16.12% over the last 33 years.ice2

 

106 thoughts on “Just in time for Earth Day, a very inconvenient chart of Great Lakes ice coverage – it’s 15X greater than normal for April

  1. Hey, there’s weather and then there’s climate. Just because it’s been cold for a few weeks doesn’t mean that in the long term it won’t be getting warmer. Sooner or later, it’s going to get warmer, then you’ll be sorry.

    • I forgot. It’s not necessarily warming, it’s climate change. It actually could be getting colder and it’s all the fault of electrical utilities and drivers and farting cows, according to computer models, which are used in all kinds important things, like chess tournaments and Netflix suggestions. So pay attention. The climate is supposed to stay exactly as it was at some point in the past. That doesn’t mean that the weather in April will be exactly the same every year, though. There would be some variation. We don’t know how much but it can’t be a lot. Or then there would be climate change. Got it?

    • Cows farting? I think my wife’s farting is driving most of it.

      If you even smell something bad in outside Kansas City you are getting close to my home.

    • It looks more cyclic to me. The mean of the extremes seems pretty steady.

      So, yes, it will get warmer. But then it will get colder again. It seems to be on the getting colder side right now.

    • A few weeks ? Do you know that Michigan set a record for the largest cumulative snowfall this season ? It takes more than a “few weeks “………

  2. AGW predicts extremes. That’s what we see. No scientist would say a single data point proves or disproves a theory.

    But some do. Why? Because they have an ideological agenda. Doesn’t matter what the data show.

    • AGW predicts extremes. That’s what we see.

      AGW does predict extremes, but that is not what “we see”. The data is pretty clear. Average global temperatures have remained flat for the last 20 years, i.e., no warming. The number of extreme tornadoes and hurricanes have declined. The number of deaths due to extreme weather events have significantly declined.

      For someone who supposedly follows the data, you don’t know too much about the data and you make assertions that contradict the data. Why? Because you have an ideological agenda.

      • And we’ve seen plateaus like this numerous times over the last 150 yeas. So that’s not an argument against AGW.

          • 3% of atmospheric scientists say it’s not happening. About the same percentage of scientists who are creationists, or the percentage of priests who’ve molested children.

            YOUR OWN REFERENCE SAYS THIS:

            Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

          • The paper also says this:

            We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

            Last I checked, less than a 3rd does not constitute “Everyone in the world except the American right wing.”

            But hey, I have to live in the real world.

          • Che, you’re right. That 97% number is a little bit of mathematical hand-waving.

            Again, quoting from the paper I cited (and is widely cited for that 97% number)

            Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

            So, in other words, of the papers that determined there was a direct cause to climate change (which, I remind you, was only about 1/3rd of the papers written), 97.1% cited AGW. So, of the minority that says there is a cause, there consensus among them. It is incorrect to say, however, that there is then a 97.1% consensus among scientists (and I am quite ashamed at NASA and others for quoting that number). That would be like saying “25% of scientists believe some divine being created the world. Of that 25%, 97.1% say it was created by the Christian God. Therefore, there is a 97.1% consensus among scientists that God created the world.”

            Statistics can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

          • Your own reference says the consensus is that AGW is real

            NASA presented the warming data in the reference I cited

            And you ignore it

          • It does amaze me how easy it is to fool Bobby.

            Use basic math and he’s as confused as a tourist in London

          • You assert expressing NO opinion is the same as saying AGW isn’t happening

            Your words.

          • Wrong. You said that only 2/3 of scientists agree AGW is happening.

            I showed you were wrong AND distorted the facts since 97% of scientists accept AGW…which is what I said.

            Thanks for the reference, by the way

          • Wrong. You said that only 2/3 of scientists agree AGW is happening.

            Again, your words.

            Thanks for the reference, by the way

            Please. Use it at will. If you’re willing to humiliate yourself, I can go do other things

          • Backpedaling? I said 97% of scientists say AGW is real. You denied it

            Your own reference shows you’re wrong

            Thanks

          • “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the PUBLISHED research.”

            Not that there’s any bias is the selection process for what research gets published . . . .

        • At least you’re conceding that extreme weather events aren’t increasing. But, true to form, you insist that the temperature plateau is much ado about nothing. Please ignore the fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been accelerating, thus AGW should predict increasing rates of temperature increases, not just increases. Please ignore all major predictions of AGW never passed.

          Proof that you aren’t an actual scientist. Proof that you don’t understand even the basics about which you speak. Your puppy love for your own intellect is sad, as it’s clear you are one of the weakest thinkers, as well as one of the least educated, commenters on this website.

          • “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers. …” — Politico

          • Robert Psychotic,

            If Obama is responsible for all that oil, then he must be the worst President in history when it comes to climate change.

            Right?

          • Depends. Natural gas contributes alot less than coal. And he has held off on the XL pipeline…

          • We aren’t talking about natural gas, we are talking about all the filthy oil Obama single-handedly pumped out in the past 5 yrs. He’s worse than George Bush in that regard! He hasn’t even killed Keystone. He still may approve it.

          • Lol. And the troll throws out a non-sequitur, as usual.

            Environmentalist or polluter. Which is it, douchebag?

            If he’s a titan of oil production, as you routinely assert, then he’s a traitor to your climate change religion.

          • Heh. Run away, troll. I can picture the smoke coming out of your ears trying to reconcile the obvious contradiction of your claims about your cult leader.

            Let me ask you again: environmentalist or dirty, filthy carbon spewing oil producer ?

          • Paul

            Let me ask you again: environmentalist or dirty, filthy carbon spewing oil producer ?

            How is it possible that morons like this one can continue to flail about in such a pathetic fashion without any embarrassment?

          • Ron,

            It’s even worse than it appears now. Looks like some of his insane comments were deleted.

        • 18 year plates a few times over the last hundred years. That would mean there was little warming over the last 100 years since it was all plateau.

          Thanks for clarifying.

          • Bobby, where are you getting the 2100 number from? It seems suspicious (as do all your numbers, for that matter), because it would mean there were 4x as many papers published in 2013 as there was each year for the past 20 years.

            You must be unemployed to have the time to read 2100 papers over the past 12 months

          • Harold,

            To the contrary, the troll claims to be a chemist AND a physicist. And he even manages to find time to clog the comments section here with jackassery every day.

          • There are 4 traditional areas of chemistry

            analytical
            organic
            inorganic
            physical

            Physical chemistry is the interface of chemistry and physics

          • Paul,

            He has also claimed to work for AT&T.

            My guess is he was laid off (probably for gross incompetence or caught in a lie). Rather than take responsibility for his actions, he blamed his boss, likely a person he perceived to be right-wing. So, he vents his anger at this perceived injustice on an economics blog by just attacking everyone. It’s not very healthy, but it sure as Hell is funny to watch.

          • Like I said, Paul: the dude has an ax to grind.

            By the way, not bad for a shot in the dark. I’m going to start calling myself Sherlock.

          • Yep, you nailed it, Harold. Rarely have I run across someone so pathetically envious of the successful. He really should seek therapy instead of wasting his time here keeping us entertained.

          • Harold

            By the way, not bad for a shot in the dark. I’m going to start calling myself Sherlock.

            Nice work! Impressive!

            That’s the trouble with government created monopolies like AT&T – Uncle Sam giveth, and Uncle Sam taketh away.

          • And regressive Uncle Same dumbeth, and re-regressive Uncle Sam destroyeth

            Exactly. It’s almost as if Uncle Sam is being used to advance some goal other than prosperity.

        • We have also seen rises exactly like that from 1975-1997.
          And those rises ARE an argument against AGW.

          Further the GCM’s do not predict plateaus.
          There is no accepted explanation for the current plateau.
          Even if warming resumed with avengence tomorow, the past 17 years falsifies the current AGW thesis.

    • No scientist would say a single data point proves or disproves a theory.

      You do. Fairly frequently. You did it just the other day, by the way.

      But some do. Why? Because they have an ideological agenda. Doesn’t matter what the data show.

      Ah, finally some self-perception!

    • So AGW has predicted your extreme ignorance and stupidity?

      I’m intrigued, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    • Actually AGW and most of the GCM’s (global climate models) predict that a warmer climate is more moderate and stable, not extreme. However that did nto have the necescary media punch so the warmist high priests deliberately tweaked models to get extreme predictions. But the norm for models predicting warming is a more stable climate, not a more volatile one.

  3. Don’t forget about the increased amount of hurricanes that are due to climate change… Last year was suppose to be a record year… Oh, wait… Last year was a complete bust…Hmmm, well, what happened there? Oh, yeah, climate changes lowered the number of hurricanes. Sounds like we could use some more climate change. I am turning on my toaster now!!!

  4. “… it’s not just Republicans who don’t believe in evolution: most Democrats and Independents don’t believe in it either … there is zero correlation between saying one “believes” in evolution and being able to give a passable (as in pass a high school biology test) account of the modern synthesis (natural selection, random mutation, genetic variance) account of it. Those who say they “believe” are no more likely to have even a rudimentary understanding of how Darwinian evolution works than those who say they “don’t believe” it.

    In fact, neither is very likely to understand it at all. Those who say they “believe in evolution” believe something they don’t understand.” — The Washington Post

    I think that we all know which camp Robert falls into.

  5. “… before you can be pro- or anti-anything, you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. This is where most Democrats fall short, to an astonishing degree. A National Science Foundation survey conducted in 2012 found that 51% of Democrats do not know that the Earth goes around the Sun, once a year!

    Keep that nugget in mind for the next time someone tries to tell you how smart liberals are.” — Powerline

  6. “The retreat of the world’s glaciers has slowed, not accelerated, since 1950, according to a new study. A study published in The Cryosphere found that glaciers retreated faster during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half of the century, contradicting mainstream theories about global warming. This is the opposite of what scientists argue is happening due to man-made global warming.” — Daily Caller

    • YOu stick with newspapers

      I’ll stick with the 2100 research papers showing that AGW is happening, published just last year.

  7. “Environmentalism has “become a religion” and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock. The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that “it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as wind farms.” — The Guardian

  8. “Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates. Now, as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gather in Sweden this week to approve portions of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report, they are finding themselves pressured to explain this glaring discrepancy.” — The L.A. Times

  9. earth day doesnt even have anything to do with climate; it was started by anti-war activists in 1970 before greenhouse gases were even a public issue

  10. First he denied there WERE 2100 papers. NOW he attacks the evidence with ad hominem insults“…

    Oh dear! puharic poor boy can’t seem to discern the difference between the delusional world he and his fellow travelers live in and the real world…

    Dude how come all you lefties start whining ad hominem attack when the facts of life are laid out on you?

    How many of those 2100 papers would people stand in line to purchase with their own money?

    As Its Global Warming Narrative Unravels, The IPCC Is In Damage Control Mode

  11. With all due respect, this proves nothing. Global warming is about average global temperatures and tells you nothing about what is happening in a particular region at a particular time.

    I’m a big critic of climate change science because the science is still not very good. Sound theory requires the ability to make predictions, and the current models suck at making predictions. There are other things worthy of criticism too, such as corruption and flawed methods. However, I felt that we should be fair and not make illogical criticisms of climate change science such as the one in this article.

    I thought this comic was appropriate here:

    http://i.imgur.com/1B74lCV.jpg

    • Mark

      With all due respect, this proves nothing. Global warming is about average global temperatures and tells you nothing about what is happening in a particular region at a particular time.

      You,re absolutely correct. Of course average global temperature is a meaningless statistic, because all anyone cares about is what is happening in a particular region at a particular time.

      And of course, dwindling ice cover in the arctic and retreating glaciers are often called evidence of global warming, so pointing out a counterexample seems appropriate. If great lakes ice cover means nothing, then perhaps arctic ice cover means nothing.

      I’m a big critic of climate change science because the science is still not very good. Sound theory requires the ability to make predictions, and the current models suck at making predictions. There are other things worthy of criticism too, such as corruption and flawed methods.

      Not to mention the lack of accurate historical temperature data and the sad failure of most proxies.

      Based on those serious problems, and the impossibility of performing actual experiments to test our theories, we should probably not, at this time, assign much importance to dire warnings that the small amount of CO2 added by humans to the global carbon cycle will shortly lead to disaster.

      Available evidence tells us that Earth has been in an ice age for the last several million years since the closing of the Isthmus of Panama, and is currently experiencing the latest in a series of periodic, relatively short warm periods between much longer cold periods, during which mile high sheets of ice cover most of the land mass of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years.

      During the current, relatively short interglacial period, there have been several shorter cycles of warming, boasting temperatures higher than those we are currently experiencing. All indications point to a colder future, not a warmer one.

      However, I felt that we should be fair and not make illogical criticisms of climate change science such as the one in this article.

      Heh! Is pointing out greater ice cover less logical than point out decreasing ice cover?

      I thought this comic was appropriate here:

      That comic is a moronic attempt to ridicule those who would adhere to the scientific method of skepticism in the face of outlandish and unsupported claims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>