Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators |
|
 |
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006
|
|
|
|
Republicans are launching an investigation into the cozy relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and an environmental lobbying group that has allegedly played a major role in crafting recent global warming rules and stymieing an Alaska mining project.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and California Rep. Darrell Issa sent a letter to the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking for records regarding the environmental group’s role in drafting a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, and blocking a permit for the Pebble Mine in Alaska.
“It appears that NRDC’s unprecedented access to high-level EPA officials allowed it to influence EPA policy decisions and achieve its own private agenda,” Republicans wrote to the EPA and NRDC. “Such collusive activities provide the NRDC, and their financial backers, with an inappropriate opportunity to wield the broad powers of the executive branch.”
“The fact that an ideological and partisan group drafted a rule that places a tremendous cost on everyday Americans through increased electricity prices is harmful and outrageous,” the letter continued. “Accordingly, these practices must cease immediately.”
The Republican investigation comes after a New York Times report detailed the role NRDC lobbyists played in crafting a carbon dioxide regulatory proposal that would become the blueprint for the EPA’s own proposal to reduce power-plant emissions.
In July, The New York Times reported that NRDC lobbyists David Doniger, David Hawkins and Daniel Lashof “worked with a team of experts to write a 110-page proposal, widely viewed as innovative and audacious, that was aimed at slashing planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants.”
“By late 2012, Mr. Doniger, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lashof had finished their proposal and began to travel across the country to present it to state regulators, electric utilities, executives and anyone else they expected to have a hand in shaping the rules,” the Times reported. “In Washington, Mr. Doniger briefed Mr.Goffman
- watsonnostaw[the EPA’s top clean air lawyer] and Mr. Obama’s senior climate adviser at the time, Heather Zichal.”
The EPA has repeatedly denied that NRDC played an outsized role in crafting the agency’s carbon dioxide emissions limits, which aim to cut existing power plant emissions 30 percent by 2030.
But email records show that NRDC President Francis Beineke had access to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s personal email account. An email sent from Beinecke on Feb. 5, 2009 said NRDC “plays a leadership role in the environmental community on matters of environmental health,” and also mentioned that Jackson would meet top NRDC attorneys and scientists in the coming weeks.
Beinecke also attached a document to the email containing NRDC’s top short-term policy priorities for federal agencies, which they were “anxious to brief” Jackson and other top EPA officials on.
The email between Beinecke and Jackson was uncovered by Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner in a slew of EPA records covering Jackson’s use of an alias email account.
“If anyone deserves credit for giving us ideas about how to [regulate carbon dioxide emissions], it’s the states and communities on the ground that are already cutting pollution through the approaches we’re calling for in the proposal – cleaner, more efficient energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy,” an EPA spokeswoman told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Indisputable, however, is that the Natural Resources Defense Council was far ahead of the EPA in drafting the architecture of the proposed regulation,” the Times reported. “EPA officials did not start working in earnest on the rule until fall 2013… Many told the EPA that they wanted to see an innovative plan like the one they had heard about from [NRDC], even if they did not specifically name it as the group’s plan.”
Not long after the Times article, Vitter and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released a landmark report detailing the billions of dollars made available to environmental groups by wealthy individuals and foundations to influence federal policies.
“This report proves that the Obama EPA has been deliberately staffed at the highest levels with far-left environmental activists who have worked hand-in-glove with their former colleagues,” reads the Senate Republican’s report. “The green-revolving door at EPA has become a valuable asset for the far-left and their wealthy donors. In addition to providing insider access to important policy decisions, it appears activists now at EPA also funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues.”
Vitter and Issa also note that NRDC has gotten $1,877,907 in grants from the EPA since January 2009, along with millions in funding from wealthy donors in foundations from New York and California.
“Sen. Vitter, Rep. Issa and their colleagues are acting as if fighting for public health were an un-American activity,” NRDC spokesman Ed Chen said in a statement. “Democratic and Republican presidents dating back to Dwight Eisenhower have worked to curb pollution and protect our natural resources.”
“It is tragic that in 2014, Sen. Vitter and his colleagues fail to understand that Americans want the air they breathe and the water they drink to be clean,” Chen added.
kicksave856
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: sometimes you find a pig hair or two inside.
Joined: 09.29.2005
Friday @ 3:53 PM ET
Republicans are launching an investigation into the cozy relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and an environmental lobbying group that has allegedly played a major role in crafting recent global warming rules and stymieing an Alaska mining project.
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and California Rep. Darrell Issa sent a letter to the EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking for records regarding the environmental group’s role in drafting a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, and blocking a permit for the Pebble Mine in Alaska.
“It appears that NRDC’s unprecedented access to high-level EPA officials allowed it to influence EPA policy decisions and achieve its own private agenda,” Republicans wrote to the EPA and NRDC. “Such collusive activities provide the NRDC, and their financial backers, with an inappropriate opportunity to wield the broad powers of the executive branch.”
“The fact that an ideological and partisan group drafted a rule that places a tremendous cost on everyday Americans through increased electricity prices is harmful and outrageous,” the letter continued. “Accordingly, these practices must cease immediately.”
The Republican investigation comes after a New York Times report detailed the role NRDC lobbyists played in crafting a carbon dioxide regulatory proposal that would become the blueprint for the EPA’s own proposal to reduce power-plant emissions.
In July, The New York Times reported that NRDC lobbyists David Doniger, David Hawkins and Daniel Lashof “worked with a team of experts to write a 110-page proposal, widely viewed as innovative and audacious, that was aimed at slashing planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants.”
“By late 2012, Mr. Doniger, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lashof had finished their proposal and began to travel across the country to present it to state regulators, electric utilities, executives and anyone else they expected to have a hand in shaping the rules,” the Times reported. “In Washington, Mr. Doniger briefed Mr.Goffman
- Doppleganger[the EPA’s top clean air lawyer] and Mr. Obama’s senior climate adviser at the time, Heather Zichal.”
The EPA has repeatedly denied that NRDC played an outsized role in crafting the agency’s carbon dioxide emissions limits, which aim to cut existing power plant emissions 30 percent by 2030.
But email records show that NRDC President Francis Beineke had access to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s personal email account. An email sent from Beinecke on Feb. 5, 2009 said NRDC “plays a leadership role in the environmental community on matters of environmental health,” and also mentioned that Jackson would meet top NRDC attorneys and scientists in the coming weeks.
Beinecke also attached a document to the email containing NRDC’s top short-term policy priorities for federal agencies, which they were “anxious to brief” Jackson and other top EPA officials on.
The email between Beinecke and Jackson was uncovered by Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner in a slew of EPA records covering Jackson’s use of an alias email account.
“If anyone deserves credit for giving us ideas about how to [regulate carbon dioxide emissions], it’s the states and communities on the ground that are already cutting pollution through the approaches we’re calling for in the proposal – cleaner, more efficient energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy,” an EPA spokeswoman told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Indisputable, however, is that the Natural Resources Defense Council was far ahead of the EPA in drafting the architecture of the proposed regulation,” the Times reported. “EPA officials did not start working in earnest on the rule until fall 2013… Many told the EPA that they wanted to see an innovative plan like the one they had heard about from [NRDC], even if they did not specifically name it as the group’s plan.”
Not long after the Times article, Vitter and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released a landmark report detailing the billions of dollars made available to environmental groups by wealthy individuals and foundations to influence federal policies.
“This report proves that the Obama EPA has been deliberately staffed at the highest levels with far-left environmental activists who have worked hand-in-glove with their former colleagues,” reads the Senate Republican’s report. “The green-revolving door at EPA has become a valuable asset for the far-left and their wealthy donors. In addition to providing insider access to important policy decisions, it appears activists now at EPA also funnel government money through grants to their former employers and colleagues.”
Vitter and Issa also note that NRDC has gotten $1,877,907 in grants from the EPA since January 2009, along with millions in funding from wealthy donors in foundations from New York and California.
“Sen. Vitter, Rep. Issa and their colleagues are acting as if fighting for public health were an un-American activity,” NRDC spokesman Ed Chen said in a statement. “Democratic and Republican presidents dating back to Dwight Eisenhower have worked to curb pollution and protect our natural resources.”
“It is tragic that in 2014, Sen. Vitter and his colleagues fail to understand that Americans want the air they breathe and the water they drink to be clean,” Chen added.
For all you who actually believe the Hoax, that Human activity is the PRIME driver of Global warming, I would suggest that the BEST thing you can do to prevent more HUMAN caused Global warming is to BOYCOTT all products made with Oil & Petroleum to decrease the demand, and thereby force these companies out of business.
Here is partial list of products made from Oil & Petroleum
Agriculture
•
plastic ties
•
row cover
•
irrigation piping
•
polyethylene
•
polypropylene
•
bags and packaging
•
pesticides and herbicides
•
food preservatives
•
fertilizers
Clothing and Textiles
•
ballet tights
•
nylon cord
•
everything polyester: blouses, pants, pajamas etc.
•
everything permanent press: shirts, dresses etc.
•
beads
•
bracelets
•
pantyhose
•
nylon zippers
•
plastic hangers
•
purses
•
thongs and flip flops
•
earrings
•
ribbons
•
fake fur
•
windbreakers
•
sandals
•
garment bags
•
shoe laces
•
rain coats
•
iron-on patches
•
sneakers
•
sweaters
•
sofa pillow material
•
tote bags
•
umbrellas
Around the Office
•
ball point pens
•
diskettes
•
thermometer
•
Ink
•
computers
•
business card holders
•
copiers
•
waste baskets
•
calculators
•
printer cartridges
•
microfilm
•
name tags
•
binders
•
erasers
•
rulers
•
scotch tape
•
magic markers
•
telephones
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
backpacks
•
fishing lures
•
air mattresses
•
cameras
•
beach balls
•
fishing poles
•
hang gliders
•
vinyl cases
•
footballs
•
glue containers
•
puzzles
•
darts
•
Frisbees
•
golf ball and golf bags
•
shotgun shells
•
ear plugs
•
knitting needles
•
waterproof clothing
•
stadium cushions
•
earphones
•
yarn
•
kites
•
tennis racquets
•
fabric dye
•
decoys
•
lifejackets
•
nylon strings
•
face protectors
•
volley balls
•
model cars
•
plastic water guns
•
fishing bobbers
•
soccer balls
•
oil paints
•
parachutes
•
fishing cylume
•
light sticks
•
earphones
•
playing cards
•
photographs
•
monofilament fishing lines
•
diving boards
•
poker chips
•
goggles
•
rollerskate and skateboard wheels
•
whistles
•
guitar strings
•
picks
•
rafts
•
ice chests
•
tents
•
sleeping bags
•
pole vaulting poles
•
motorcycle helmets
•
skis, water skis
•
rubber cement
•
plastic flowerpots
•
hot tub covers
•
sails
•
snorkels
•
monkey bars
•
photo albums
•
wet suits
•
flippers
•
tennis balls
•
boats
•
insulated boots
Infants and Children
•
acrylic toys
•
baby oil
•
laundry baskets
•
waterproof pants
•
baby aspirin
•
bath soap
•
mittens
•
pacifiers
•
baby blankets
•
bibs
•
rattles
•
doubleknit shirts
•
baby bottles
•
disposable diapers
•
baby shoes
•
teething rings
•
nipples and binkies
•
dolls
•
stuffed animals
•
baby lotion
Sports, Hobbies and Games
•
allergy medication
•
cotton-tipped swabs
•
inhalers
•
liquid Pepto-Bismol
•
aspirin
•
first aid cream
•
lancets
•
pill cases
•
band aids
•
first aid kits
•
latex gloves
•
prescription bottles
•
burn lotion
•
glycerin
•
mosquito spray
•
rubbing alcohol
•
chap stick
•
heart valve replacement
•
nasal decongestant
•
surgical tape
•
syringes
•
Vaseline
•
antiseptics
•
hearing aids
•
anesthetics
•
artificial limbs
•
eyeglasses and sunglasses
•
antihistamines
•
cortisone
•
vaporizers
•
denture adhesives
•
laxatives
•
Bactine
•
oxygen masks
•
stethoscopes
•
prescription glasses
•
cough syrup
•
hearing aids
Kitchen and Household
•
vinegar bottles
•
egg cartons
•
meat trays
•
trash bags
•
breadboxes
•
freezer containers
•
melamine dishware
•
tumblers
•
cake decorations
•
jars
•
microwave dishes
•
utensils
•
candles
•
freezer bags
•
milk jugs
•
vacuum bottles
•
coasters
•
gelatin molds
•
nylon spatulas
•
wax paper
•
coffee pots
•
ice cream scoops
•
oven bags
•
mops
•
drinking cups
•
ice trays
•
plastic containers
•
fabric softener
•
detergent bottles
•
plastic table service
•
drain stoppers
•
dish drainers
•
lunch boxes
•
pudding molds
•
sponges
•
dish scrubbers
•
brushes
•
baggies
•
drinking straws
•
Styrofoam
•
paper cup dispensers
•
measuring cups
•
Teflon coated pans
•
table cloths
•
refrigerator shelves
Beauty
•
cologne
•
hair brushes
•
lipstick
•
permanent wave curlers
•
perfume
•
hair color
•
mascara
•
petroleum jelly
•
comb
•
foam rubber curlers
•
shampoo
•
contact lenses and cases
•
hair spray
•
hand lotion
•
shaving foam
•
hair dryers
•
shoe inserts
•
dentures
•
body lotion
•
face masks
•
skin cleanser
•
deodorants
•
moisturizing cream
•
soap holders
•
disposable razors
•
leather conditioner
•
mouthwash
•
sunglasses
•
facial toner
•
lens cleanser
•
nail polish
•
sunscreen
•
tooth brushes
•
toothpaste tubes
•
vitamins
•
synthetic wigs
•
bubble bath
•
soap capsules
Furnishings
•
carpet padding
•
Naugahyde
•
Venetian blinds
•
TV cabinets
•
extension cords
•
picture frames
•
flocked wallpaper
•
shower doors
•
Formica
•
refrigerator lining
•
vinyl wallpaper
•
curtains
•
kitchen carpet
•
shag carpet
•
welcome mats
•
fan blades
•
lamps
•
shower curtain
•
patio furniture
•
swings
•
linoleum
•
upholstery
•
rugs
Building and Home
•
caulking material
•
light switch plates
•
plungers
•
faucet washers
•
clotheslines
•
measuring tape
•
polyurethane stain
•
water pipes
•
electric saws
•
paintbrushes
•
propane bottles
•
wood floor cleaner/wax
•
vinyl electrical tape
•
plastic pipe
•
shingles (asphalt)
•
light panels
•
garden hoses
•
plastic wood spackling paste
•
awnings
•
glazing compound
•
Plexiglas
•
spray paint
•
enamel
•
epoxy paint
•
artificial turf
•
folding doors
•
floor wax
•
glue
•
house paint
•
paint rollers
•
toilet seats
•
water pipes
•
putty
•
solvents
•
roofing material
•
plywood adhesive
•
sockets
•
propane
Automotive
•
antifreeze
•
flat tire fix
•
street paving (asphalt)
•
car battery cases
•
coolant
•
motor oil
•
tires
•
loud speakers
•
bearing grease
•
sports car bodies
•
traffic cones
•
car enamel
•
brake fluid
•
dashboards
•
windshield wipers
•
visors
•
car sound insulation
•
oil filters
•
car seats
•
convertible tops
•
fan belts
•
gasoline
Miscellaneous
•
ash trays
•
dog food dishes
•
toolboxes
•
CDs and DVDs
•
balloons
•
dog leashes
•
tape recorders
•
synthetic rubber
•
bubble gum
•
dog toys
•
flashlights
•
nylon ropes
•
bungee straps
•
flight bags
•
disposable lighters
•
cassette player
•
flea collars
•
flutes
•
lighter fluid
•
cigarette cases
•
electric blankets
•
tool racks
•
name tags
•
cigarette filters
•
ammonia
•
newspaper tubes
•
calibrated containers
•
insect repellent
•
phonograph records (vinyl)
•
crayons
•
ice buckets
•
dyes
•
pillows
•
credit cards
•
flashlights
•
fly swatters
•
plastic cup holders
•
dice
•
movie and camera film
•
k-resin
•
rain bonnets
•
luggage
•
video cassettes
•
charcoal lighter
•
rayon
•
safety glasses, gloves, hats
•
shoe polish
•
signs
•
cassette tapes
•
toys
•
watch bands
•
waterproof boots
•
shopping bags
•
bedspreads
•
checkbooks
•
covers
•
tobacco pouches
•
clothes hangers
•
flea collars
•
flavors
•
masking tape
•
safety flares
•
flags
•
butane
- Doppleganger
kicksave856
Philadelphia Flyers
Location: sometimes you find a pig hair or two inside.
Joined: 09.29.2005
Friday @ 3:55 PM ET
When will the Summer Arctic be Nearly Sea Ice Free? James E. Overland,1,3 and Muyin Wang 2 1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, WA
The observed rapid loss of thick, multi-year sea ice over the last seven years and September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are: 1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, 2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and 3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most Global Climate Models results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two. 1. Introduction
The large observed shifts in the current Arctic environment represent major indicators of regional and global climate change. Whether a nearly sea ice free Arctic occurs in the first or second half of the 21st century is of great economic, social, and wildlife management interest. There is a gap in understanding however, in how to reconcile what is currently happening with sea ice in the Arctic and climate model projections of Arctic sea ice loss. September 2012 showed a reduction in sea ice extent of 49 % relative to the 1979-2000 baseline of 7.0 M km2 (Figure 1 and 2a). Further, the extent of thick multiyear sea ice has been reduced by the same percentage (roughly a reduction from 4 M km2 for 2000 through 2005 to 2 M km2 in 2012; Kwok and Untersteiner, 2011-updated, Comiso 2012). It is difficult to reconcile this current rate of loss with climate model projection dates of summer sea ice loss of 2070 (IPCC 2007) or 2100 (Boe et al. 2009a) made just a few years ago. The question, however, is not as straight forward as simply comparing data timeseries with model results. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are often run several times, referred to as ensemble members, with slightly different initial conditions to simulate a possible range of natural variability in addition to steady increasing greenhouse gas forcing. Data, in contrast, is a single realization of a range of possible climate states. Observations confound signal (global warming forcing) and noise (natural variability). Thus it is not completely valid to compare the ensemble mean of a model or several models, which could be considered the expected value of the climate state, with the single data realization. A better approach is to look at the range of ensemble members and to determine if the data timeseries could be considered a possible member of the population of ensemble members. Unfortunately, there are seldom enough ensemble members to test this hypothesis. The science question becomes: is the observed rapid loss of sea ice in the real world consistent with model ensemble members with the fastest rate of loss? Multiple Groups (AMAP, WCRP, various national programs), as well as the climate research community and the general public, are interested in this question for adaptation planning and as a popular indicator of climate change. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? A first issue is the phrase, gnearly.h It is expected that some sea ice will remain as a refuge north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland at the end of summer. Thus the practical limit for sea ice loss is arbitrary, but several sources have converged on 1.0 M km2 as a minimum transition point. There are three scientific approaches to the posed question in the scientific literature. The first is based on extrapolation of sea ice volume data. The second considers that it will take several more rapid loss events such as the losses in 2007 and 2012 to reach the minimum. The third approach is to base predictions on fast track model ensemble member projections. We refer to the three approaches as, trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040, as discussed below. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as it depends on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use and purpose of model projections. The next sections address these three approaches. 2. Trendsetters
Two groups are most active in this approach which extrapolates sea ice volume (Schweiger et al. 2011, Maslowski 2012). Their main points are that sea ice volume is decreasing at a rate that is faster than sea ice extent, and that volume is a better variable than extent to use for sea ice loss. Schweiger and Zhangfs group uses the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which assimilates sea ice concentration and sea surface temperature and hindcasts using NCEP Reanalyses into a high resolution sea ice model. PIOMAS results have recently been confirmed by satellite ice thickness measurements (Laxon et al. 2013). PIOMAS monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3 (Figure 2b). This value is 72% lower than the mean over 1979-2012 and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2012 trend line. September 2012 ice volume was about 800 km3 less than the prior minimum in September 2011. In contrast to the dramatic reduction in 2012 sea ice extent, the 2011 to 2012 change in sea ice volume was similar to the volume losses that occurred in the previous two years. The long term trend is about -3.1x103 km3 decade-1. While the PIOMAS team does not directly extrapolate, the already major volume loss of 70-80 % and recent losses suggest that extrapolation into the future from the current volume amount shows that Arctic sea ice is vulnerable within the next decade. Monthly mean Arctic sea ice volumes from the NAME model and recent satellite estimates show sea ice volume changed little during the 1980s through the mid-1990s (Maslowski et al. 2012). After 1995 one can estimate a negative trend of -1.1x103 km3 yr-1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October.November 1996.2007. Given this estimated trend and the volume estimate for October.November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project a nearly ice-free summer Arctic Ocean before 2020 (Maslowski et al. 2012). 3. Stochasters
In the recent half decade young, melt-prone sea ice has come to dominate the Arctic sea ice pack which supports the arguments of the trendsetters. However, the paper of Kay et al. (2011) suggests that there can be a modifying influence from natural variability especially for the timing of sea ice loss. They show a widening of the distribution of possible ten and twenty year trends in sea ice extent in the Community Climate System Model 4.0 (CCSM4) model due to increased vulnerability of sea ice to large meteorological or oceanic events. Kay et al. (2011, their Figure 3) show that over a future 20 year period, sea ice loss can vary over a range of 0-80 %. Both CCSM3 and CCSM4 models show rapid ice loss events with different timing in different ensemble members (Holland et al 2006, Vavrus et al. 2012). The key argument of the Stochasters is that it will take several rapid loss events such as occurred in 2007 and 2012 to reach the 1.0 M km2 sea ice extent threshold. If we select the 5 yr interval that occurred between the 2007 and 2012 sea ice loss events as an expected value, then three more events puts a nearly sea ice free timing at 2028. Serreze (2011) states that we should be looking at sea ice-free summers only a few decades from now. Holland et al. (2006) and Wang and Overland (2009, 2012) show a large range of timing of sea ice loss for different ensemble members of the same GCM. Based on a subset of available GCMs, Wang and Overland (2012) estimated the time for a nearly sea ice free summer Arctic to be reached starting from a value of 4.5 M km2 (the observed 2007 value) ranged from 14 years to 36 years with a median of 28 years based on individual ensemble members, which puts the loss event in the 2030s with a large range Given that most sea ice trends in models are slower than observed trends for 1979-2011 (Stroeve, et al. 2012, their Figure 3, see next section), we should select a value at the earlier end of this range, i.e. 2030
Stochasters are further supported by recent papers that suggest that there is no tipping point associated with sea ice loss, again based on modeling studies (Amstrup et al. 2010, Armour et al. 2011, Ridley et al. 2011). Tietsche et al. (2011) suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice.albedo feedback is alleviated by large]scale recovery mechanisms. That is, continued sea ice loss requires continued increases in green house gases. However, consensus is not universal, as adequately representing cloud feedbacks in GCMs may be placing too much faith in them (Lenton 2012). Thus it is suggested that the stochasters would require 20 years or more after 2007 or around 2030 with a wide range of uncertainty to have several rapid ice loss events occur and to reach nearly sea ice free conditions. While not unreasonable, stochasters is the most ad hoc of the three approaches. 4. Modelers GCMs are major quantitative tools available to provide future climate projections based on physical laws that control the dynamic and thermodynamic processes of the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice. Recently, modeling groups around the world have improved their GCMs and made their results available to the wider scientific community through the archive at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI). This constitutes the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) following the successful third phase (CMIP3). Typically, results from more than twenty models are available. All models show loss of sea ice as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and that Arctic warms faster than lower latitudes. Multiple models simulations are particularly useful in assessing uncertainty due to differences in model structure, natural variability, and different greenhouse gas emission scenarios (Hodson et al. 2012).
A first major difficulty is the wide spread of model hindcast results; they vary by model, location, variable and evaluation metric (Figure 3, Overland et al. 2011, Kwok 2011). Figure 3 is based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario (Moss et al. 2010). A second major difficulty is that 80 % of 56 CMIP5 ensemble members have trends for 1979-2011 that are of less magnitude than the two standard deviation bound for the observations (Stroeve et al. 2012, their Figure 3). Thus, there is no ideal all purpose model for the Arctic. It is difficult to pin down the reasons for these two difficulties (Walsh et al. 2008). For example DeWeaver et al. (2008) , Eisenman et al. (2008), Hodson et al. (2012) and Holland et al. (2012) note that the Arctic radiation budget results from complex balances and tradeoffs between sea ice amounts, albedo parameterization, and cloud properties. Another issue is that real world Arctic conditions (sea ice, snow cover) are evolving substantially faster than ensemble means of models (Stroeve et al. 2012, Dirksen et al. 2012). The time series of the grand mean of CMIP5 ensemble members based on the high greenhouse gas emission RCP8.5 scenario for September sea ice (yellow line in Figure 3) never reaches the nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2 by 2100. Winton (2011) shows that climate models underestimate the sensitivity of Arctic sea ice cover to global temperature change. Further, Boe et al. (2009b) conclude that GCMsf Arctic response to anthropogenic forcing is generally too small. Thus there is ground to consider that models provide a range of projections based on their individual assumptions, rather than providing a collective definitive Arctic climate prediction.
Pavlova et al. (2011) note that the multi-model ensemble mean is closer to the data curve for the late 20th and early 21st centuries for CMIP5 relative to CMIP3 results. However the spread of hindcasts and future trajectories remains large in CMIP5 models (Figure 3, also see Figure 1 in Massonnet et al. 2012). Boe et al. (2010), Hodson et al. (2012) and Massonnet et al. (2012), among others, note that the rate of sea ice loss in models depends on the amount of sea ice present. Thus there is concern with projections from models that do not simulate the amount of observed sea ice near the end of the 20th century. There are four major evaluations of sea ice projections in the set of CMIP5 GCMs: Pavlova et al. (2011), Stroeve et al. (2012), Wang and Overland (2012), and Massonnet et al. (2012), and one detailed review for the CCSM4 model (Vavrus et al 2012) and the EC-Earth model (Koenigk et al 2012). The median value for each year of all available CMIP5 ensemble members (blue line in Figure 3) reaches the nearly sea ice free condition near 2060 based on a nearly sea ice free definition of 1.0 M km2. But given the large observed rate of sea ice loss, we are primarly interested in those model ensemble members with the most rapid sea ice loss. The ensemble members of seven models which track closely to recent observed sea ice extents (Wang and Overland 2012) had their earliest nearly sea ice free dates occurring in 2027, 2033, 2035, 2045, 2048, 2049, and 2060, with a mean of 2042. Some individual ensemble members in Figure 3 reach the nearly sea ice free threshold at earlier dates, but many of these ensemble members start with unrealistic low sea ice extents for the late 20th century. Several of the ensemble members of CCSM4 reach the sea ice loss threshold near 2060; this was ten years later than their previous model CCSM3.The EC-Earth model also becomes nearly sea ice free near 2060, but the authors suggest shifting this to 2040 based on the modelfs overestimate of the amount of sea ice in the twentieth century. Thus we put the early limit for sea ice loss based on GCM projections near 2040
This paper should not be used as an argument against further modeling, but quite the opposite. The Arctic community needs credible quantitative climate projections with multiple ensemble members. As noted above, the spread in Figure 3 is not only due to sea ice physics but is related to treatment of clouds, radiation, and atmospheric and ocean dynamics. For the next round of model results, CMIP6, the major goal should be reduction of model uncertainty. Perhaps more model intercomparisons would be a way forward, rather than results provided from a large number of modeling centers produced under short time schedules. 5. Discussion and conclusions We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. At present it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another, as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. Models are quantitative, based on physical understanding, and can provide estimates of uncertainty. They all predict an eventual sea ice free Arctic based on increases in greenhouse gas forcing. Modelersf projections for a nearly sea ice free Arctic summer, are mostly in the range of 2030-2060 or later, with a composite of earliest removals near 2040. Yet it is not clear that the observed rapid sea ice loss is represented in the range of model GCM results. Extrapolating current sea ice volume trends seems to capture the influence of the recent rapid loss of multi-year sea ice, yet it will be hard to remove the last sea ice near the North Pole; in 2007 removal of this sea ice required a strong atmospheric and sea ice advection event (Zhang et al. 2008).
Direct extrapolation of sea ice volume, by trendsetters, gives loss projections of 2016 (Maslowski et al 2012, Peter Wadhams 2012, personal communication), which may be minimizing the potential effects of year to year variability. Stochasters acknowledge current conditions and the range of projections suggested by model results, yet point to the lack of being able to forecast the next rapid sea ice loss event. They are saved in part as it will possibly take several such events to reach the nearly sea ice free threshold, thus adding some averaging to the final date prediction (hence stochastic). Observations and citations in this article support the conclusion that current rapid Arctic change, especially loss of multiyear sea ice, is likely out of sample for most CMIP5 models. Thus time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Predictions depend on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use of model projections. It is reasonable to conclude Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st Century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two. The title of this paper is certainly one of the major questions of interest to Arctic and non-Arctic science and management communities. Large shifts in the Arctic environment represent major observed indicators of global climate change. Available evidence suggests that scientists have been conservative in their climate projections, with a late bias in dates for change (Brysse et al. 2012). Ignoring the rate of observed loss of multi-year Arctic sea ice in favor of multi-model results primarily from GCMs may be a further example. The possibility of a nearly sea ice free Arctic within the next three decades, in addition to the precautionary principle, supports the Duarte et al. (2012) conclusion that society should start managing for the reality of climate change in the Arctic.
Acknowledgment. The work is supported by NOAA Arctic Research Project of the Climate Program Office and by the Office of Naval Research, Code 322. Impetus for this article came
Accepted Article
- the_cause2000
List of Stanley Cup championsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 21 April 2014.Jump to: navigation, search
The Stanley CupSee also: Stanley Cup Winning players
The Stanley Cup is an ice hockey club trophy, awarded annually to the National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs champion at the conclusion of the Stanley Cup Finals. It was donated by the Governor General of Canada Lord Stanley of Preston in 1892, and is the oldest professional sports trophy in North America.
- BingoLady[1] Originally inscribed the Dominion Hockey Challenge Cup, the trophy started out as an award for Canada's top-ranking amateur ice hockey club in the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada. In 1915, the two professional ice hockey organizations, the National Hockey Association (NHA) and the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA), reached a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Stanley Cup. After a series of league mergers and folds, it became the de facto championship trophy of the NHL in 1926. The Cup later became the de jure NHL championship prize in 1947.
Since the 1914–15 season, the trophy has been won a combined 95 times by 18 teams now active in the NHL and five defunct teams. Prior to that, the challenge cup was held by nine different teams. The Montreal Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times and made the finals an additional ten times. There were two years when the Stanley Cup was not awarded: 1919, because of the Spanish flu epidemic, and 2005, because of the NHL lockout.
Contents [hide]
1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
2 NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)
3 NHL champions (Since 1927)
4 Appearances
4.1 Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)
4.2 Stanley Cup Finals era (Since 1915)
4.2.1 Active teams
4.2.2 Defunct teams
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Challenge Cup era (1893–1914)[edit]
The first Stanley Cup Champions: The Montreal Hockey ClubSee also: List of Stanley Cup challenge games
The origins of the Challenge era come from the method of play of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada prior to 1893. From 1887 to 1893, the league did not play a round-robin format, but rather challenges between teams of the association that year, with the winner of the series being the 'interim' champion, with the final challenge winner becoming the league champion for the year. The Stanley Cup kept the tradition going, but added league championships as another way that a team could win the trophy. If a team in the same league as the current champion won the league championship, it would then inherit the Cup, without a challenge. The only time this rule was not followed was in 1904, when the Ottawa Senators club withdrew from its league, the CAHL. The trustees ruled that the Cup stayed with Ottawa, instead of the CAHL league champion.
During the challenge cup period, none of the leagues that played for the trophy had a formal playoff system to decide their respective champions; whichever team finished in first place after the regular season won the league title.[2] A playoff would only be played if teams tied for first-place in their leagues at the end of the regular season. Challenge games were played until 1912 at any time during hockey season by challenges approved and/or ordered by the Stanley Cup trustees. In 1912, Cup trustees declared that it was only to be defended at the end of the champion team's regular season.[3]
In 1908, the Allan Cup was introduced as the trophy for Canada's amateurs, as the Stanley Cup became a symbol of professional hockey supremacy.[4]
This table lists the outcome of all Stanley Cup wins, including successful victories and defenses in challenges, and league championships for the challenge era.
Date Winning team Coach Losing team Playoff format Score Winning goal
March 17, 1893 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) 1893 AHAC champions, no challengers
March 22, 1894 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC) Harry Shaw (mgr.) Ottawa HC (AHAC) Single-elimination
(1894 AHAC championship playoff) 3–1 Billy Barlow (9:00, third qtr)
March 8, 1895 Montreal Victorias (AHAC)[A] Mike Grant (capt.) 1895 AHAC Champion
March 9, 1895 Montreal Hockey Club (AHAC)[A] Harry Shaw (mgr.) Queen's University(OHA) Single-elimination 5 – 1
February 14, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Single-elimination 2–0 Jack Armytage (10:00, first half)[5][6]
February 29, 1896 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Jack Armytage (capt.) 1896 MHA champion[7]
December 30, 1896 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Single-elimination 6–5 Ernie McLea (28:00, second half)
March 6, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) 1897 AHAC Champion
December 27, 1897 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Mike Grant (capt.) Ottawa Capitals (CCHA) Single-elimination[B] 15–2
March 5, 1898 Montreal Victorias (AHAC) Frank Richardson 1898 AHAC Champion
February 15–18, 1899 Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Frank Richardson Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Two-game total goals 5–3 Robert MacDougall (second half)
March 4, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1899 CAHL Champion
March 14, 1899 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Queen's University (OHA) Single-elimination 6–2 Harry Trihey
February 12–15, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Harry Trihey (second half)
March 7, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy Halifax Crescents (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe McKenna
March 10, 1900 Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Barney Dunphy 1900 CAHL Champion
January 29–31, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Montreal Shamrocks (CAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Dan Bain (4:00, OT)
February 19, 1901 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Winnipeg HC (MHA) Single-elimination
(1901 MHA championship) 4–3[8]
January 21–23, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) Toronto Wellingtons (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Fred Scanlon (9:00, second half)
March, 1902 Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Dan Bain (capt.) 1902 MHA Champion
March 13–17, 1902 Montreal HC (CAHL) Clarence McKerrow Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Jack Marshall (first half)
January 29–31,
February 2–4, 1903 Montreal HC (CAHL) D. Browne Winnipeg Victorias (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1[C] Tom Phillips
March 7–10, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Montreal Victorias (CAHL) Two-game total goals
(1903 CAHL championship playoff) 9–1 Suddy Gilmour (4:34, first half, second game)
March 12–14, 1903 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith Rat Portage Thistles (MNWHA) Two-game total goals 10–4 Frank McGee (8:20, first half)
Dec 30, 1903, January 1–4, 1904 Ottawa HC (CAHL) Alf Smith-playing Winnipeg Rowing Club (MHA) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee (11:00, second half)
February 23–25, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Toronto Marlboros (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Arthur Moore (9:38, first half)
March 2, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Montreal Wanderers (FAHL) Two-game total goals [E]
March 9–11, 1904 Ottawa HC[D] Alf Smith-playing Brandon Wheat Cities (MNWHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (18:00, first half)
January 13–16, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Dawson City Nuggets Best-of-three 2–0 Harry Westwick (12:15, first half)
March 3, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing 1905 FAHL Champion
March 7–9-11, 1905 Ottawa HC (FAHL) Alf Smith-playing Rat Portage Thistles (MHL) Best-of-three 2–1 Frank McGee
February 27–28, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Queen's University (OHA) Best-of-three 2–0 Harvey Pulford (10:00, second half)
March 6–8, 1906 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Alf Smith-playing Smiths Falls HC(FAHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Frank McGee (17:45, first half)
March 14–17, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Two-game total goals
(1906 ECAHA championship playoff) 12–10 Lester Patrick
December 27–29, 1906 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford-playing New Glasgow Cubs (MaHL) Two-game total goals 17–5
January 21–23, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Two-game total goals 12–8 Roxy Beaudro
March 16–18, 1907 Kenora Thistles (MPHL) James Link Brandon Wheat Cities (MPHL) Best-of-three
(1907 MPHL championship) 2–0 Fred Whitcroft (19:00, first half)[9]
March 23–25, 1907 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Lester Patrick (capt.) Kenora Thistles (MPHL) Two-game total goals 12–8 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
January 9–13, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Ottawa Victorias (FAHL) Two-game total goals 22–4 Frank Glass (25:00, first half, first game)[10]
March 7, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) 1908 ECAHA Champions
March 10–12, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Winnipeg Maple Leafs (MPHL) Two-game total goals 20–8
March 14, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Toronto (OPHL) Single-elimination 6–4 Ernest "Moose" Johnson
December 28–30, 1908 Montreal Wanderers (ECAHA) Cecil Blachford (capt.) Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 13–10
March 6, 1909 Ottawa HC (ECAHA) Pete Green 1909 ECAHA champions
January 5–7, 1910 Ottawa HC (CHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Two-game total goals 15–4 Bruce Ridpath (second half)
January 18–20, 1910 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Edmonton Hockey Club (AAHA) Two-game total goals 21–11 Bruce Stuart (23:45, first half)
March 9, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) 1910 NHA Champion
March 12, 1910 Montreal Wanderers (NHA) Frank "Pud" Glass (capt.) Berlin Dutchmen (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–3 Harry Hyland (22:00, first half)
March 10, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green 1911 NHA Champions
March 13, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Galt HC (OPHL) Single-elimination 7–4 Marty Walsh (5:00, third)
March 16, 1911 Ottawa HC (NHA) Pete Green Port Arthur Bearcats
(New Ontario Hockey League) Single-elimination 13–4 Marty Walsh (4:30, second)
March 5, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nollan 1912 NHA Champions
March 11–13, 1912 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Charles Nolan Moncton Victorias (MaPHL) Best-of-three 2–0 Joe Malone (18:00, first)
March 5, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) 1913 NHA Champions
March 8–10, 1913 Quebec Bulldogs (NHA) Joe Malone (capt.) Sydney Millionaires (MaPHL) Two-game total goals 20–5
March 7–11, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Two-game total goals
(1914 NHA championship playoff) 6–2 Scotty Davidson (2:00, third)
March 14–17-19, 1914 Toronto Hockey Club (NHA) Scotty Davidson (capt.) Victoria Aristocrats (PCHA) Best-of-five 3–0 [F] Harry Cameron (6:00, third)
Notes
^ A. Although the Montreal Victorias won the AHAC title in 1895, the Stanley Cup trustees had already accepted a challenge from the 1894 Cup champion Montreal HC and Queen's University. As a compromise, the trustees decided that if the Montreal HC won the challenge match, the Victorias would become the Stanley Cup champions. The Montreals eventually won the game, 5–1, and their crosstown rivals were awarded the Cup.
^ B. Intended to be a best-of-three series, Ottawa Capitals withdrew their challenge after the first game.
^ C. The January 31 (a Saturday) game was tied 2–2 at midnight and the Mayor of Westmount refused to allow play to continue on the Sunday. The game was played on February 2 (a Monday) and the January 31 game was considered to be void.[11]
^ D. For most of 1904, the Ottawa Senators were not affiliated with any league.
^ E. The Montreal Wanderers were disqualified as the result of a dispute. After game one ended tied at the end of regulation, 5–5, the Wanderers refused to play overtime with the current referee, and then subsequently refused to play the next game of the series in Ottawa.
^ F. During the series, it was revealed that the Victoria club had not filed a formal challenge. A letter arrived from the Stanley Cup trustees on March 17, stating that the trustees would not let the Stanley Cup travel west, as they did not consider Victoria a proper challenger because they had not formally notified the trustees.[12] However, on March 18, Trustee William Foran stated that it was a misunderstanding. PCHA president Frank Patrick had not filed a challenge, because he had expected Emmett Quinn, president of the NHA to make all of the arrangements in his role as hockey commissioner, whereas the trustees thought they were being deliberately ignored. In any case, all arrangements had been ironed out and the Victoria challenge was accepted.[13][14]
Sources
Coleman, Charles L. (1964). The Trail of the Stanley Cup, vol. 1, 1893–1926 inc. Sherbrooke, Quebec: Sherbrooke Daily Record Company Limited.
Montreal Gazette
Ottawa Citizen
Ottawa Journal
Winnipeg Tribune
NHA/NHL vs. PCHA/WCHL/WHL champions (1915–1926)[edit]Several days after the Victoria Aristocrats challenge of the Toronto Hockey Club, Stanley Cup trustee William Foran wrote to NHA president Emmett Quinn that the trustees are "perfectly satisfied to allow the representatives of the three pro leagues (NHA, PCHA, and Maritime) to make all arrangements each season as to the series of matches to be played for the Cup."[15] One year later, the NHA and the PCHA concluded a gentlemen's agreement in which their respective champions would face each other for the Cup. Under the new proposal, the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules.[16] The Cup trustees agreed to this new arrangement, because after the Allan Cup became the highest prize for amateur hockey teams in Canada, the trustees had become dependent on the top two professional leagues to bolster the prominence of the trophy.[17] After the Portland Rosebuds, an American-based team, joined the PCHA in 1914, the trustees issued a statement that the Cup was no longer for the best team in Canada, but now for the best team in the world.[16] Two years later, the Rosebuds became the first American team to play in the Stanley Cup championship final.[17] In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first American team to win the Cup.[18] After that season, the NHA dissolved, and the National Hockey League (NHL) took its place.[16]
In 1919, the Spanish influenza epidemic forced the Montreal Canadiens and the Seattle Metropolitans to cancel their series tied at 2–2–1, marking the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded.[19]
The format for the Stanley Cup championship changed in 1922, with the creation of the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL). Now three leagues competed for the Cup and this necessitated a semi-final series between two league champions, with the third having a bye directly to the final.[20] In 1924, the PCHA folded and only the Vancouver and Victoria teams entered the WCHL. With the loss of the PCHA, the championship reverted to a single series.[21] After their win in 1925, the Victoria Cougars became the last team outside the NHL to win the Stanley Cup.[22] For the 1925–26 season the WCHL was renamed the Western Hockey League (WHL). With the Victoria Cougars' loss in 1926, it would be the last time a non-NHL team competed for the Stanley Cup.
Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1915 Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing Ottawa Senators (NHA) Frank Shaughnessy (mgr.) 3–0 Barney Stanley (5:30, second)
1916 Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing Portland Rosebuds (PCHA) Edward Savage (mgr.) 3–2 George Prodgers (17:20, third)
1917 Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon Montreal Canadiens (NHA) Newsy Lalonde-playing 3–1 Bernie Morris (7:55, first)
1918 Toronto[23] (NHL) Richard Carroll Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Corb Denneny (10:30, third)
1919 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) vs. Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) – Series cancelled after the fifth game because of the flu epidemic – Stanley Cup not awarded
1920 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Seattle Metropolitans (PCHA) Pete Muldoon 3–2 Jack Darragh (5:00, third)
1921 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Jack Darragh (9:40, second)
1922 Toronto St. Pats (NHL) George O'Donoghue Vancouver Millionaires (PCHA) Frank Patrick-playing 3–2 Babe Dye (4:20, first)
1923 Ottawa Senators (NHL) Pete Green Edmonton Eskimos (WCHL) Ken McKenzine 2–0 Punch Broadbent (11:23, first)
1924 Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand Calgary Tigers (WCHL) Eddie Oatman-playing 2–0 Howie Morenz (4:55, first)
1925 Victoria Cougars (WCHL) Lester Patrick Montreal Canadiens (NHL) Léo Dandurand 3–1 Gizzy Hart (2:35, second)
1926 Montreal Maroons (NHL) Eddie Gerard Victoria Cougars (WHL) Lester Patrick 3–1 Nels Stewart (2:50, second)
NHL champions (Since 1927)[edit]The WHL folded in 1926, and its assets were bought by the NHL. This left the NHL as the only league left competing for the Cup. Other leagues and clubs have issued challenges, but from that year forward, no non-NHL team has played for it, leading it to become the de facto championship trophy of the NHL.[21] In 1947, the NHL reached an agreement with trustees P. D. Ross and Cooper Smeaton to grant control of the cup to the NHL, allowing the league itself to reject challenges from other leagues that may have wished to play for the Cup.[24][25] A 2006 Ontario Superior Court case found that the trustees had gone against Lord Stanley's conditions in the 1947 agreement.[26] The NHL has agreed to allow other teams to play for the Cup should the league not be operating, as was the case in the 2004–05 NHL lockout.[25]
Since 1927, the league's playoff format, deciding which teams advanced to the Stanley Cup Finals, has changed multiple times. In some systems that were previously used, playoff teams were seeded regardless of division or conference. Since 1982, the Finals have been played between the league's conference playoff champions.
Year Winning team Coach Losing team Coach Games Winning goal
1927 Ottawa Senators (C) Dave Gill Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0–2 Cy Denneny (7:30, second)
1928 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick-playing Montreal Maroons (C) Eddie Gerard 3–2 Frank Boucher (3:35, third)
1929 Boston Bruins (A) Cy Denneny-playing New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 2–0 Bill Carson (18:02, third)
1930 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Boston Bruins (A) Art Ross 2–0 Howie Morenz (1:00, second)
1931 Montreal Canadiens (C) Cecil Hart Chicago Black Hawks (A) Richard Irvin 3–2 Johnny Gagnon (9:59, second)
1932 Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–0 Ace Bailey (15:07, third)
1933 New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Bill Cook (7:34, OT)
1934 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Tommy Gorman Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams 3–1 Mush March (10:05, second OT)
1935 Montreal Maroons (C) Tommy Gorman Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–0 Baldy Northcott (16:18, second)
1936 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Pete Kelly (9:45, third)
1937 Detroit Red Wings (A) Jack Adams New York Rangers (A) Lester Patrick 3–2 Marty Barry (19:22, first)
1938 Chicago Black Hawks (A) Bill Stewart Toronto Maple Leafs (C) Richard Irvin 3–1 Carl Voss (16:45, second)
1939 Boston Bruins Art Ross Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–1 Roy Conacher (17:54, second)
1940 New York Rangers Frank Boucher Toronto Maple Leafs Richard Irvin 4–2 Bryan Hextall (2:07, OT)
1941 Boston Bruins Cooney Weiland Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–0 Bobby Bauer (8:43, second)
1942 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Pete Langelle (9:48, third)
1943 Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams Boston Bruins Art Ross 4–0 Joe Carveth (12:09, first)
1944 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Chicago Black Hawks Paul Thompson 4–0 Toe Blake (9:12, OT)
1945 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Jack Adams 4–3 Babe Pratt (12:14, third)
1946 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Dit Clapper 4–1 Toe Blake (11:06, third)
1947 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–2 Ted Kennedy (14:39, third)
1948 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Harry Watson (11:13, first)
1949 Toronto Maple Leafs Hap Day Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan 4–0 Cal Gardner (19:45, second)
1950 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan New York Rangers Lynn Patrick 4–3 Pete Babando (8:31, second OT)
1951 Toronto Maple Leafs Joe Primeau Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–1 Bill Barilko (2:53, OT)
1952 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–0 Metro Prystai (6:50, first)
1953 Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin Boston Bruins Lynn Patrick 4–1 Elmer Lach (1:22, OT)
1954 Detroit Red Wings Tommy Ivan Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Tony Leswick (4:20, OT)
1955 Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner Montreal Canadiens Richard Irvin 4–3 Gordie Howe (19:49, second)
1956 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Jimmy Skinner 4–1 Maurice Richard (15:08, second)
1957 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–1 Richardie Moore (0:14, second)
1958 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Boston Bruins Milt Schmidt 4–2 Bernie Geoffrion (19:26, second)
1959 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–1 Marcel Bonin (9:55, second)
1960 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach 4–0 Jean Beliveau (8:16, first)
1961 Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Ab McDonald (18:49, second)
1962 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Chicago Black Hawks Rudy Pilous 4–2 Richard Duff (14:14, third)
1963 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–1 Eddie Shack (13:28, third)
1964 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–3 Andy Bathgate (3:04, first)
1965 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Chicago Black Hawks Billy Reay 4–3 Jean Beliveau (0:14, first)
1966 Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake Detroit Red Wings Sid Abel 4–2 Henri Richard (2:20, OT)
1967 Toronto Maple Leafs Punch Imlach Montreal Canadiens Toe Blake 4–2 Jim Pappin (19:24, second)
1968 Montreal Canadiens (E) Toe Blake St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 J. C. Tremblay (11:40, third)
1969 Montreal Canadiens (E) Claude Ruel St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 John Ferguson (3:02, third)
1970 Boston Bruins (E) Harry Sinden St. Louis Blues (W) Scotty Bowman 4–0 Bobby Orr (0:40, OT)
1971 Montreal Canadiens (E) Al MacNeil Chicago Black Hawks
- the_cause2000
okay? |
|
