If you are going to have anything to do with trying to understand weather or climate, you need to be humble, because the Creator has a habit of astounding. Even if you try your hardest to never forecast, thinking you may thus avoid being wrong, you expect certain things, perhaps because you learned them as “facts”. Soon you learn that “to expect” is in a sense “to forecast”, and you will be humbled, because what you expect doesn’t occur.

When this occurs you should be glad, for you are not as stupid as you were before. When mistakes are made they offer an opportunity to learn. Which would you rather have? A fat ego, and to walk about with an erroneous belief and not even know it? Or to be humbled, but walking closer to Truth?

I think Hudson Bay is pointing out some errors this summer, simply by retaining its ice a bit longer than usual.  For example the way the University of Illinois gathers its data creates a graph showing there is 0.7 million km2 ice left, while the Canadian Ice Service shows 1.7 million km2, and this quite obviously will create two very different graphs.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS (Below average ice )Hudson Aug 13 A recent365.anom.region.13

CANADIAN ICE SERVICE  (Above average ice.)Hudson Aug 13 B 20150810180000_CVCSWCTHB_0008414299

When you ask for an explanation for such glaring differences, you can get more explaining than you bargained for, involving the different ways and means of measuring, and in the end you discover the graphs are in some odd way measuring different things. One is measuring sea-ice and the other is measuring cabbages, I suppose. All I am certain of is that one says there is less ice than normal, and the other says there is more, and you can’t have it both ways. One is wrong, or perhaps wronger, and I doubt it is the Canadians, because it is their Bay and they have the most to lose if their data is incorrect.

What this would mean is that the University of Illinois is being shown a correction they need to make, due to the kindness of Mother Nature and the Creator. They should be flattered by the attention, and glad they will soon be improved.

The problem with being a sensitive poet (like me) is that sometimes improvement hurts your feelings. Rather than stand corrected you fall prey to self-pity. Rather than improve you glower about how you are misunderstood.  Actually you are the one in error, and therefore the misunderstanding is yours, but the ego has a marvelous ability to blame everyone else, and never the man in the mirror.

The next problem develops when you cling to flawed concepts, and use them to build further concepts, which then have flawed foundations and must necessarily be flawed. As mistakes increase the glaring nature of the incorrect results gets larger, but you can be so blind that you think the results are correct. For example, look at the current NOAA map for whether Sea Surface temperatures in Hudson Bay are above or below normal. Hudson Aug 13 C color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0 This map shows the entire Bay is above normal, and the water choked with sea-ice is above normal, but less above normal than the rest of the Bay. And we know this must be correct because, after all, it is NOAA talking, so we post this map to our friends stating it proves Global Warming has heated the Bay.

Then a friend replies, wondering how ice-water can be above normal. After all, water cannot get any colder than that, and still be liquid. He is so rude as to question NOAA. You reply that if NOAA says the water is above normal it must be so, and that must mean the ice has actually melted.

Then the friend goes to Joseph D’Aleo’s blog at the Weatherbell site and snips a picture Joe. D’Aleo snipped from Dr. Roy Spencer’s site, of what the Bay looks like from outer space, and sends it to you. (Click to enlarge, or open to a new tab, and click again to enlarge further, to give your lying eyes a feast.)Hudson Aug 13 D MODIS-Hudson-Bay-ice-8-8-15

After a brief argument about how the heck the Canadians can keep those huge letters from drifting out of place, and whether they are made of ice or vinyl, you will likely agree that besides some white down in James Bay and a small area to the right of the word “Hudson Bay”,  (which are likely clouds), all the other swirls are sea-ice.

Then you will look back at the NOAA map that says that water’s temperature is above normal, and a light bulb will go off in your head. You will realize how embarrassed they must be, for if they call ice-water above normal, when it can’t get any colder, then it also means all the other red areas of the map hold the same error.

In conclusion, what really should be red is their faces.



  1. Thanks Caleb, as always very interesting observations. There is another Hudson Bay puzzle:-

    On the 21st July the Coast Guard’s assistant commissioner was reported as follows:-

    “…..Contrary to predictions made earlier this year, Leclair said, the sea ice in the bay has not been melting.

    That, in combination with southeasterly winds, has meant that Frobisher Bay has not been able to “flush” its remaining ice. Instead, a large compacted pan of thick, first-year and multiyear ice has formed in the bay.

    It’s so thick that icebreakers and commercial ships alike have no choice but to skirt around it, which has led to delays……”

    If the bay melts out every year where did the ‘multiyear ice’ come from?

    • Even when called “ice free” those waters can have a few bigger bergs drifting about. Tourists actually go up to Newfoundland to watch the bergs, at a time all maps call those waters “ice-free.” I suppose some of those old bergs got mixed into the mass of first-year-ice that seemed to get compressed against the southeast coast of Hudson Bay last winter, due to strong and persistent northwest winds.

      • Thanks Caleb, that makes sense.

        This year’s conditions in the Bay obviously came as a surprise to the Coast Guard’s assistant commissioner and his team, and they must be no fools when it comes to handling sea ice.

      • I am not sure that Hudson Bay or its contents can be seen from Newfoundland, unless you have a really powerful telescope and some sky-mounted mirrors. Sea-ice is the ice that forms on the sea; icebergs, particularly in the Arctic, tend to be ice that has broken off a glacier – there actually is a clue in the name, “berg” being Scandinavian for mountain. The icebergs off Newfoundland are actually a spring/summer event, as they spend the winter trapped further north by the sea ice – to help, what month in 1912 did the Titanic sink?

      • Sorry if I seemed to suggest that Hudson Bay could be seen from Newfoundland.

        However the export of ice is not merely a summer event. Things do not come to a standstill during the winter. I watched one Mass Balance Buoy break free from the north coast of the Canadian Archipelago in early autumn, and come south through Nares Strait and down the west coast of Baffin Bay during the coldest part of winter, finally running along the coast of Newfoundland and out to sea before spring.

        So powerful is this flow that even when air temperatures are at minus forty, areas of open water can appear at the top of Baffin Bay in the dead of winter, because all the local ice is heading south.

        The biggest bergs break off glaciers, and they persist longest and sink ships like the Titanic. They are also far more common along the coast of Newfoundland than in Hudson Bay, but some do get into the Bay.

        If we say only the big icebergs can be called bergs, because “berg” means “mountain”, what do you propose we call all the smaller things?

        I should add that even the sea ice can, on occasion, pile up into pressure ridges that stick up over 20 feet above the water and, because 9/10th of an iceberg is above water, they stick downwards over 180 feet. However they tend to fall apart more easily than glacier-created bergs, because they are made of a jumble of smaller bergs, only tenuously glued together.

        Thanks for taking the time to comment.

      • Sorry to have discombobulated you, Caleb; I had a feeling my brief comment might induce some pedantry – that is often the result of keeping a comment brief. I was not challenging your knowledge, as it will greatly exceed mine, but was merely trying to help with any confusion that your comment might have caused with any readers who may not be quite as au fait with the area or situations as yourself.

        I have no idea when icebergs cease being “bergs”, but do know that many of the smaller bits can be known as “bergie bits” or “growlers”, and remain as dangerous to shipping is the bigger bits. The ridges, ravines and leads of pack-ice no doubt have their own nomenclature.

        Somewhat off-topic, but out of interest, do you know what has happened to that chappie who was going to live on an iceberg to highlight the dangers of its loss to global warming, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah…?

      • No problem. It doesn’t hurt me, to spend a little time going over what I think I know.

        I remember hearing about the fellow who talked about living on an iceberg. It was a crazy idea of course, as those things are unstable and can roll right over. I can only guess he got talked out of the idea, but not before he milked it for all it was worth and got lots of media attention.

        The idea of bobbing about on an iceberg does have a certain charm, provided you had a lifeboat and could get off if you had to. It sure would beat working in a hot kitchen washing dishes during a summer heat wave. The problem is finding someone to fund such projects.

  2. i have been in a confused state regarding this very topic for a number of weeks now caleb . looking at the weather locally ,we had a nice warm day today,around 20 c in my garden, rain tomorrow ,then a similar day wind and clear sky wise on saturday. the only problem is from saturday onwards,despite the weather looking ideal to see over 20 degrees c daytime temps,it looks like it will not break 16 c.

    now i know i live in scotland ,but we do get some nice weather from time to time,yet this summer has been dire in terms of temperature ,even when the weather apparently plays ball. looking at the monthly global temperature “anomalies” all being positive for summer,some people ,somewhere in the northern hemisphere, must really be hogging all the heat.

  3. The global warming/climate change crowd is only interested in doing or saying whatever is necessary to keep the gravy train of Government grant money flowing. They are nothing more than a corrupt political lobby, rotting the scientific and political process to its very core. Any connection with truth or actual science is completely coincidental.

    • I know it looks bad, but try to have some hope. Money is not the root of evil. Love of money is the root of evil. There are some climate scientists who love truth, and only deal with filthy lucre because they have to.

      I am a poet, but had to lower myself and work some rotten jobs, because my poems didn’t sell. It always seemed a bad compromise to wash dishes or gut fish or clean stables, rather than write beautiful poems. It must seem like the same thing, when climate scientists have to work for idiots.

      • a hard days work is never lowering yourself caleb. lots of people do what has to be done to put food on the table while they would much rather be doing something they actually like doing.

  4. Pingback: ARCTIC SEA ICE —Spreading Ice— | Sunrise's Swansong

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s