[Vision2020] Military Rethinks Polar Command as Ice Caps Melt

Wed Apr 20 07:33:03 PDT 2011

Wow, Ted.  Calm down, man.

I wasn't trying to mis-represent what you said, I just couldn't remember 
exactly what you had said and paraphrased as best as I could remember.  
Since I'm not writing a paper for peer review, only responding to a 
comment on a public mailing list, I figured it was good enough because 
interested parties could go find the post in question if they really cared.

Is it that much different saying that some month had the lowest extent 
for all years for that month since at least 2002 (which is what I was 
trying to get across) as opposed to the maximum extent for that month 
since satellite records began?  I was looking at a chart that showed 
data since 2002, which is why I said "since at least 2002".  It doesn't 
matter to my main point, which is: "it's already changed enough that 
it's no longer near the minimum amount for this time of year, so I 
wouldn't make a big deal out of it since the arctic sea ice extent is 
highly variable year-to-year, month-to-month, and day-to-day."  That 
same reasoning would apply if it moved up to being the highest extent 
for that time of year.

But then, I'm not trying to save the world - so I guess my perspective 
is a little skewed.

Paul

On 04/20/2011 03:29 AM, Ted Moffett wrote:
> If the "Ted" you refer to is moi, and the post you are referring to is
> this ([Vision2020] 2011 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Maximum Tied for Lowest
> on Recordhttp://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-April/075959.html
> )
> don't misrepresent what I post to Vision2020, please!
>
> I have to waste time correcting your errors, so that your mistakes
> don't mislead other people!
>
> The maximum winter Arctic sea ice extent for 2011, which has already
> happened of course, tied (with 2006) for the lowest winter maximum
> extent on record since at least 1979 (beginning of satellite record,
> if I understand correctly), not just the lowest for a month, and not
> just since 2002.
>
> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-April/076009.html
> "For example, Ted posted a while back about how the
> extent of arctic sea ice tied for the lowest amount for (I think) the
> month since at least 2002."
>
> -------------------------
>
> Below is an excerpt from what I recently posted on this subject.  As
> can be seen on the graph at the National Snow Ice Data Center website
> given, the trend in Arctic sea ice extent since 1979 is a dramatic
> decline:
>
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-April/075959.html
> [Vision2020] 2011 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Maximum Tied for Lowest on Record
>
> > From NOAA/National Climate Data Center:
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110414_globalstats.html
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
>
> Earth had 13th warmest March on record
> April 14, 2011
>
> The Earth experienced the 13th warmest March since record keeping
> began in 1880, as the climate phenomenon La Niña continued to be a
> significant factor.  The annual maximum Arctic sea ice extent was
> reached on March 7 and tied with 2006 as the smallest annual maximum
> extent since record keeping began in 1979.
> -------------------------
> National Snow Ice Data Center:
>
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
>
> > From website above:
>
> "Sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 7; extent on this date
> tied for the lowest winter maximum extent in the satellite record."
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 4/18/11, Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> I can't speak for the conservatives, because I don't think of myself as
>> one, but I would hope that if the Arctic melted enough that ship travel
>> through it became routine that they would take that into account in
>> their strategic planning.
>>
>> Most skeptics I've seen, myself included, believe that the earth is
>> indeed warming, some minor inconsistencies between the various data sets
>> aside.  Has been for a couple hundred years or more.  What we are
>> skeptical of is the amount of warming attributed to CO2, and are
>> skeptical of many of the scarier predictions of the effects of the
>> steady increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.  We also disagree on what our
>> priorities should be right now as a country and as a global population.
>>
>> The arctic is fluctuating quite a bit year-to-year, month-to-month, and
>> even day-to-day.  For example, Ted posted a while back about how the
>> extent of arctic sea ice tied for the lowest amount for (I think) the
>> month since at least 2002.  If you look at it now, you'll see that it is
>> now about dead even between the highest and lowest extents for this time
>> of year since 2002.  I wouldn't put much stock in the arctic is melting
>> away theory right now, just as I wouldn't suggest that it's on it's way
>> back to pre-industrial levels of ice (if we can even guess what those
>> levels were).  What seems more likely to me is that it fluctuates
>> dramatically all the time.
>>
>> Arctic sea ice extent link:
>> http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 04/18/2011 07:30 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> Maybe if we can get the military to admit to global warming, the
>>> conservatives will believe it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Tom Hansen<thansen at moscow.com
>>> <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      Courtesy of the April 25, 2011 edition of the Army Times.
>>>
>>>      -------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>      Military rethinks polar command as ice caps melt
>>>
>>>      WHAT’S UP: Melting polar ice caps are prompting the military to
>>>      redraw its
>>>      map dividing the globe into combatant commands. Pentagon
>>>      projections show
>>>      new shipping lanes will appear around the North Pole during the
>>>      next 20 to
>>>      30 years, a senior defense official said. Previous master plans
>>>      essentially ignored the Arctic region, technically chopping it up
>>>      among
>>>      U.S. Northern Command, U.S. European Command and U.S. Pacific Command.
>>>      “Before, to be honest, I’m not sure who had the lead on it,” said one
>>>      senior defense official.
>>>
>>>      WHAT’S NEXT: NORTHCOM will take over the Arctic area, and EUCOM
>>>      will be
>>>      responsible for Russia’s mostly frozen northern border. PACOM was
>>>      squeezed
>>>      out of the region, according to the new Unified Command Plan. The
>>>      plan,
>>>      approved by the White House in early April, has no immediate impact on
>>>      troops and bases. Any further shift in strategy will “depend on how
>>>      climate change continues,” the senior defense official said.
>>>
>>>      -------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>      Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>>
>>>      TomHansen
>>>      Moscow, Idaho
>>>
>>>      "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>>>      changeand the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>
>>>       - Unknown
>>>
>>>
>>>