by Judith Curry
It looks like the Arctic sea ice is close to reaching its seasonal minimum, reflecting a substantial increase in sea ice relative to the record breaking minimum in 2012.
A year ago, September 2012, the Arctic sea ice extent had already broken the previous satellite-era record set in 2007 and climate watchers were wondering how low it could go. The 2012 sea ice minimum reached a record low of 3. 6 M sq km. What this implied for the future of Arctic sea ice has been the subject of hot speculation. For my own take on this subject, see my post at Climate Dialogue, which was based on several previous posts at Climate Etc.:
- Pondering the Arctic Ocean. Part I: Climate Dynamics
- Likely causes of recent changes in Arctic sea ice
- Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I
- Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II
Usually, I have waited until the NSIDC declares an official end to the Arctic sea ice melt season to write an article on this topic. The timing of my article this year is motivated by David Rose’s article in the Sunday Mail entitled Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year with top scientists warning of global cooling. Apart from the rather lurid title, there is some good material here (including some quotes from moi). Excerpts:
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 49 per cent. UPDATE: David Rose has updated his original article, to fix an error on the NSIDC web page.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
Rose then goes on to discuss the global temperature pause, motivated largely by my previous post Pause tied to equatorial Pacific cooling:
In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.
This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’
She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.
JC note: in response to a specific question regarding what happens when both the AMO and PDO are in the cool phase, I pointed to the previous period 1965-1975 when both were in the cool phase.
Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.
Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.
Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.
Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.
Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.
As per Twitter, Ed Hawkins says that he was quoted correctly. My direct quotes are correct; the statement regarding the period 1965-1975 is put into my intended context in my note above.
In summary, I think the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed in the arcticle; I think we are mostly talking about the absence of the predicted surface warming which has manifested itself in the pause since 1998 and even a slight cooling trend since 2002. But I imagine that it is difficult for a journalist to argue against the overhyping of the pause and the cooling, given the anticipated dismissal of the pause by the IPCC.
Forecasts of the 2013 sea ice minima
The Search Sea Ice Outlook is an international effort to provide a community-wide summary of the expected September arctic sea ice minimum. The average of all these forecasts for 2013 was 4.1 M sq km (compared to an average of 4.4 sq km for 2012).
One of the most sophisticated models used in seasonal sea ice forecasting is the UK Met Office model, which includes the state-of-the-art sea ice model used in climate model applications (CICE). The UKMO forecast (experimental) was for 3.36 M sq km +/- 1.5 M sq km, where the range is provided by an ensemble of simulations (compared to 4.4 +/- 0.9 M sq km for 2012).
As per Cryosphere Today, the current sea ice area is 4.746 M sq km. This is a whisker above the 2009 minimum, which is the highest minimum since 2007.
Natural interannual and multi-decadal variability
So . . . to what extent is the current mini-maxima in the seasonal sea ice extent minimum attributed to interannual variability, or perhaps part of a mini-decadal shift? It is very frustrating not to have adequate sea ice data prior to the satellite record to address this issue. Tony Brown provides a fascinating perspective on historical sea ice variability 1920-1950 in this previous CE post.
In terms of natural variability, I have found it fascinating to watch the regional variation of the sea ice, which is facilitated by a new WUWT reference page on Northern Regional Sea Ice.
- Regions that are anomalously high: Baffin Bay Gulf of St Lawrence, Beaufort Sea, Canadian Archipelago, Chukchi Sea, East Siberian Sea, Kara Sea.
- Regions that remain anomalously low: Central Arctic, Greenland Sea
For geographic reference, see this map (copyrighted so I can’t reproduce here).
In trying to sort out how much of the recent sea ice variability is driven by the atmosphere (weather), the ocean (longer-term variability) and CO2 forcing, I am paying particular attention to regional variability. I think that weather played a major role in the 2012 minima; I am suspecting that the oceans are playing the major role this year in the recovery. In fact, the past year might be associated with a mini climate shift in the ocean circulation regimes, but not on the magnitude of the 1976 and 2002 shifts. Keep your eye on the Kara Sea. And be on the lookout for a new paper that I am co-author on that is hopefully in the final stage of review.
PIOMAS The “best available science” tells us that the multi-decade trend of Arctic ice-mass loss continues and the year-to-year fluctuations are unremarkable.
What is your next question, Judith Curry?
No, it doesn’t. PIOMAS shows Arctic sea ice volume to be 45% higher than a year ago, and 19% higher than 2 years ago.
But it does show it 35% lower than 5 years ago, and 51% lower than 10 years ago. But it’s grown substantially in the last couple of years.
I’m curious if there was a similar rebound after the 2007 low. If not, the increasing volume is a sign of the turning point.
Nicely lagged, I note, from the turning point in the atmospheric record 6-8 years ago.
=========================
David, I’m shocked. You are not allowed expression of disrespect for the Commissar’s Committee.
================
Why is an increase in volume in the last couple of years a “turning point” and not a fluctuation?
I’m getting pretty tired of those making judgements (in either direction) about climate change based on very short-term data. This is a phenomena that takes a century or three to play out, and as much as 100,000 years to come back to equilibrium (according to David Archer).
Stay tuned for the publication of a new paper on which I am a coauthor. I am talking about climate variability on interannual to multi-decadal time scales, which IMO is far more relevant to societies than stuff that happens on time scales of centuries
Was there a similar rebound in volume after 2007? You haven’t answered that question and perhaps you don’t understand my point.
===============
I agree with you on this one David. One year does not make a trend for sea ice. I will not be surprised if it does grow over the next ten years with some ups and downs as there is evidence that it is cyclical. And, you would think that the PDO turning and the very inactive sunspot cycle may also have an affect. But I am willing to wait and see.
Judith said:
“Stay tuned for the publication of a new paper on which I am a coauthor. I am talking about climate variability on interannual to multi-decadal time scales, which IMO is far more relevant to societies than stuff that happens on time scales of centuries.”
——-
Should be an interesting paper, but I would suggest climate change happening over centuries can also be quite relevant to societies, especially if that change is cumulative. One only need to think of many past civilizations that ended because of a century scale climate change, leading to droughts, or changes in monsoon patterns:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044023/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044023.pdf
David Appell: “I’m getting pretty tired of those making judgements (in either direction) about climate change based on very short-term data.
Is the following from your Blog?
By the way, remember all that scoffer talk from a few years ago about the quality of the surface record, that it couldn’t be trusted and that the conclusion of warming based on it wasn’t reliable? Funny how all that has gone away for now, isn’t it? Now the data seems seem just fine to conclude there is a hiatus. Who know error bars could only point upward?
If not please forgive me.
Here is the average PIOMAS volumes for the last several years, in Kkm^3:
2007 15.21 -10.6%
2008 16.39 7.8%
2009 15.87 -3.2%
2010 13.71 -13.6%
2011 12.92 -5.7%
2012 12.35 -4.4%
My figure of current SI volume being 45% above last year’s was for the last few days of August, not a year (or YTD) average.
I don’t recall any substantive skepticism about the robustness of the satellite temperature record beginning in 1979. The instrument record before that point is a vastly different matter with primary difficulties being inadequate surface coverage, proximity to areas of vast land use change, changes in instruments and recording, and using thermometers with one degree gradations to support century-long trends amounting to less than one degree. The criticisms are well founded.
For the year up to August 31st, I find 2013’s average SI volume to be 2.4% above 2012. 2012 got a late start with its big melting, and early this year 2013 was below it (~10%).
David ,
fan’s ability to link to relevant material or his ability to interpret it outside of his particularly fine mesh filters is renowned here at CE.
David…National Snow and Ice Data Center, Figure 3, shows ‘Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent’ with the statement that “…Monthly August ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 10.6% per decade.” So, your statement that it was higher last year and the year before become irrelevant when a decade’s average is computed.
Seems more likely to cool again – at least decadally.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arctictemps_zps395995c2.png.html?sort=3&o=0
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/chylek09.gif.html?sort=3&o=128
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Arcticiceextent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=81
And as Bender might say David Appell can…
David Appell +1 Short term data is no basis for making conclusions.
For making conclusions about what? A long-term trend? On that I would agree. But if people are trying to understand inter annual variability and shifts associated with natural variability, then the recent data (in context of longer term data) is highly relevant.
Judith –
<blockquoteFor making conclusions about what? A long-term trend? On that I would agree.
Nice to see you call our David Rose for writing dreck:
Judith, do you honestly not see that dreck like David Rose writes is just more same ol’ same ol’? The fact that he quotes (accurately) does not make it any less drecky.
When will you call a spade a spade on the “skeptical” side, Judith?
About climate variability Judith. I am looking forward to your paper on interannual and multi-decadel timescale changes.
Judith…” But if people are trying to understand inter annual variability and shifts associated with natural variability, then the recent data (in context of longer term data) is highly relevant.” Agreed. And, maybe I misunderstood the drift of the article, but David mentioned five years, ten years, etc. For purposes of understanding TRENDS, the Fig. 3, that I mentioned clearly shows diminution of ice cover (and lets keep it separate from total ice mass). Inter annual variability is also shown on Fig.3, as it has the typical sawtooth pattern. Do you consider inter annual variability or the trend curve more important for understanding ice coverage in the Arctic??
Good question Walter Carlson. I would be most interested to read Judith’s reply as to whether annual variability or long term trend more important for assessing ice cover in the Arctic.
Well it depends on exactly what you are assessing. As I stated in the main post, it is very tricky to sort out what is weather-driven interannual variability, versus multidecadal internal variability, versus forced change. Unfortunately, we don’t have data to help us assess a long-term trend in the sea ice; since 1979 is not ‘long term’, nor is it sufficient to interpret multidecadal variability.
The significance of this year’s increase relative to last year is to put to rest the ‘spiral of death’ hype about the imminent demise of the Arctic sea ice, which was driven by the 2012 minimum
Judith said:
“The significance of this year’s increase relative to last year is to put to rest the ‘spiral of death’ hype about the imminent demise of the Arctic sea ice, which was driven by the 2012 minimum.”
—-
Talk of the “death spiral” for Arctic sea ice began long before 2012, after the 2007 low. A spiral means just that, it oscillates up and down but ultimately is headed down to an ice free condition, as illustrated quite well in the actual long-term spiral we are seeing with Arctic sea ice:
http://tinypic.com/r/14cz5eh/5
2012’s “recovery” makes no difference to long-term direction or assessment of an ice-free Arctic in the next few decades.
Yes, it is too bad that the measured Arctic Sea Ice only goes back to 1979 and so has insufficient data to make any long term assessment. I wonder whether anyone has compared Arctic sea ice area to Greenland Ice thickness?? Wouldn’t close data results imply that Greenland ice thickness be use to estimate Arctic sea ice area??
I understand that for approximately 70 percent of the Earth’s climate history the poles were ice free and that the antarctic land mass had large stands of forests. So irrespective of whether we are looking at climate variability or long term trends, the data since 1979 is too short term to make judgments in any case?
Walter Carlson,
“Yes, it is too bad that the measured Arctic Sea Ice only goes back to 1979 and so has insufficient data to make any long term assessment.”
They have discovered another magical bristlecone pine on the Yamal Peninsula. It is a highly precise, 500 year proxy for Arctic sea ice by teleconnection, You can read all about it in Pachauri’s steamy new novel:
“AR5 – This time It’s Apocalyptic.”
Funny how “skeptics” don’t have enough data, even going back to 1979 to show the sea ice is in long-term decline, but in just one season of data they can declare a “recovery”. This unequal application of their “skeptical” perception would seem to be not so skeptical. There is a another word for it…
It is interesting though, that global warming theory says that the ice should be melting at both poles, and while the north pole is a bit low right now – the south pole is at record levels – and above the average by over 2 standard deviations. It looks like the ice balance on the earth is about the same.
Interestingly last year for the first time in awhile the oceans apparently receded by 7mm – this compares to an average increase of 7mm per year over the last 18000 years. I am wondering where the water went.
Fan
One years increase doesn’t make a trend and those on the sceptical side who point to this year are being premature in believing arctic ice has turned the corner.
However. this would seem an ideal opportunity to look at last year and this year and try to determine why there seem to be two such different results.
Warm water incursion? More sunshine? More storms. Less wind? Etc. Are their physical causes going on here other than man?
tonyb
That is a good question TonyB!
For the 2013 melt (as compared to the 2012 melt) the observations speak plainly:
• Colder air and hotter water created a larger area of thinner ice.
In balance, the multi-decadal general trend toward decreasing overall Arctic ice-mass — that is, area x thickness — has continued, in that the 2013 Arctic ice-mass stands below long-term trend-lines.
Thank you TonyB!
Tony,
The average ice thickness is at its lowest ever:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff3bbe27970d-pi
Though it is spread out over a larger area than last year, so total volume is up. Certainly natural variability plays a key role in ice from year to year, but the long-term trend remains down until the first ice-free summer. When that summer occurs, it will be a perfect combination of long-term anthropogenic warming of the Arctic, natural cyclic variability in ocean and atmosphere, plus the kicker of perfect weather for ice melt. The bottom line is: it is just as absurd now to try and dissect out anthropogenic factors from ice melt as it is natural cycles and weather. What actually happens is a combination of all three, and the three may impact each other, and trying to talk about relative contribution of each gets to be a meaningless guessing game.
I’ll ask the same hypothetical here I asked on the other thread. If Arctic ice recovers (over more than just a year or two, but actually starts a sustained upward trend), and Antarctic ice begins a concurrent period of decline, will “Antarctic warming” become the new canary in the ACO2 emissions coal mine?
Actually last year it is known that unusual water currents and winds caused excessive break up of the ice in 2012. Those conditions are gone this year.
Also note – no-one is talking about Antarctic ice, which is 2 standard deviations above the normal and at a current observed record. AGW theory says this ice should be melting as well. Seems like there is some kind of balance though keeping north and south pole ice amounts relatively constant (within the normal drawdown which causes about a 3mm /yr year increase in sea level – but even this drawdown has been absent for a number of years – including last year where sea level actually dropped 7mm)
Your cry is the cry of the Alarmist – unless the situation can favor them. Colorado was a 1000 year storm caused by global warming with 7% increase in ferocity due to man – until it turned out to be about the 10th worst storm, in Colorado, still GW was blamed.
And then Sandy was blamed on GW, and every fire we have had this year (even though it is light fire year) is global warming every tornado gets blamed on global warming.
And don’t forget Katrina, the drought in Texas, etc etc.
And here we have a seasonal trend – over a 6 month period, not just a one day storm, and you the temerity to complain that Skeptics are using weather instead of climate.
The large interannual variability now testifies to how delicate it has become, and it is much more sensitive to weather now than it used to be mainly because it is thinner.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along – except that it probably took a lot longer than a few decades to get to this stage.
Yet it seems that people on both sides of the debate try to attach meaning to a few years worth of data, when the increased variability essentially invalidates such inferences
phatboy: Its my experience that both sides will attach meaning to any event they deem worthy. Its a political fight after all.
Global Sea Ice Extent is just fine.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/global-sea-ice-extent-anomaly-percent-mean-for-year-0-9/
Interior Antarctica has warmed by a degree in the past couple of decades. It is one of the fastest warming areas on earth. I am sure AR5 will include a couple of recent studies showing that.
Actually “temperatures in Antarctica have been falling since satellites started to monitor sea ice levels in 1979”.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/antarctic-sea-ice-increases-when-it-gets-colder/
“M. Hastings | September 8, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
phatboy: Its my experience that both sides will attach meaning to any event they deem worthy. Its a political fight after all.”
+ 10 hundred Billion
Steven, Thanks for your suggestion to cut the annual AGW budget…
+10 Hundred Billions. Will the Bill, agree? Let’s all, wait and see.
Jim D, there has be no change in the annual temperature cycle of the Vostok station at all.
Judith
Haley Dixon at The Telegraph jumps on the bandwagon:
Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists
“A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.”
Fox News jumps on the bandwagon: “Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013” citing the Mail.
Conversely it quotes:
Fan, James Hansen Predicted the recovery of Arctic Sea ice didn’t he? Oops, in 2008, he actually predicted that it could be gone by this summer.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-06-23-1642922053_x.htm
Oh, but surely he predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase. Oh, no, he actually predicted a drastic decrease in Antarctic sea ice in a paper that USED to be at the EPA website but can no longer be found there. Fortunately, the Way-Back Machine found this ground-breaking paper and has saved if for posterity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080108204902/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.”
I bet he DIDNT say that (see, not a quote).
But still, written in 2008. 5 to 10 years is 2013 to 2018.
Chuck L: “in 2008, he actually predicted that it could be gone by this summer”
Chuck L surely you play a role of a comedy when you exaggerate in order to accuse others of exaggeration! It’s like irony or something surely!
He might have predicted a downward trend in 2008 when a lot of skeptics were predicting an upward trend. On review, they were wronger, weren’t they.
LOL, if you wish to split hairs, from the article – “Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, SAID that in five to 10 years, the Arctic WILL be free of sea ice in the summer.” Virtually all Hansen’s predictions have turned out to be wrong because he overestimated the sensitivity of global temperatures to CO2 and other GHG gases and almost every week a new peer-reviewed paper comes out with a lower figure for sensitivity. I suppose that it is still possible that that the Arctic could be ice-free by the summer of 2018 but we will know in 5 years, won’t we?
Jim D, I am not defending nor attacking skeptic predictions of Arctic sea ice increasing. The only specific prediction I am aware of, is from Joe Bastardi at weatherbell.com who predicted in 2011 that Arctic sea ice would begin to increase and looks like he might be on to something.
Chuck L, it took 5 years to break the 2007 record and it could take 5 more to break the 2012 one. These were anomalies within a trend. The safer bet is a faster downward trend, just based on the last 30 years where the trend has been accelerating.
Would you buy, hold or sell, Chuck L?
What data show “that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s” in the Arctic? I don’t see that in Polyak et al (2010):
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/Polyak%20etal%20seaice%20QSR10%20inpress.pdf
(Emphasis on the word “massive.”)
Russian sea ice data is very illuminating, best reference i know is the book by Klyashtorin and Lyubushin Fish Productivity and Climate Change. Amazing insights into decadal climate variability in the arctic, not to mention historical sea ice data
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/04/fish-productivity-and-climate-change-new-book-by-klyashtorin-and-lyubushin/
Judith
Earlier this year I published this here.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
As you know, it was part of a very much larger piece of work which included a great deal of Russian sea ice data which, for various reasons, had been excluded from the official data compiled in the 1970’s. Part of the modern narrative has been derived from Kinnard et al who has a curious view of historic sea ice levels and does not begin to portray highly variable decadal ice variations in any meaningful fashion.
As far as can be determined the 1920 to 1940 period had levels of sea ice at times similar to the early 2000’s, but not as low-for whatever reasons- as 2007 or 2012. I offered to share the data I had painstakingly obtained with Neven and to attempt with him -and others- to graph the real sea ice extent of the first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately he was too busy.
The back to 1870 group I referenced in my article is supposed to be looking into sea ice levels back to that date in the light of the vast amount of information since what became CRU first looked at this in the 1970’s at the height of the cold war, which precluded examination of much Russian data.
We can all huff and puff all we like, but the record of the 1920-1940 arctic ice period has not yet been fully told.
tonyb
Thanks Tony, I will add this link to the main post.
Yes, according to the Polyak quantification, the whole period since 1980 seems to have been below their 30’s local minimum. I might not characterize that as massive, unless a bigger word is used for the current situation.
I’m not sure they qualify as massive, but I like: 1956,1954,1930-38,1914,1910
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps/
While you can’t really compare to satellite images, it is obvious that there are cycles of extensive seasonal melting.
https://twitter.com/andrewadams99/status/376766470107443200
Global sea ice is fine. Why ignore Antarctic’s record high ice?.
Look, a penguin-looking squirrel.
Sea Ice is Sea Ice. Why is a record high amount in the southern hemisphere ignored?
The Antarctic one is just natural variation. See, how does it feel when it is called that? Satisfied now?
The topic ain’t ice, Sunshine, but David Rose’s serial misrepresentations.
Naw, Willard.
It’s a baby polar bear (one of the last of its kind).
Max
Dangnabit, Willard.
Thet Rose feller is gittin to be as bad a lieyer as ’em IPCC sigh-yun-tists.
Er is he?
Max
Look, a white squirrel.
(Yes,) but the IPCC.
Heh, the IPCC is gonna “scare” you about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and will make it hard for policymakers to know about the increasing sea ice extent.
==================
Indeed, and imagine all that Koldie can say about Steig,
Pushing the extent of justified disingenuousness.
Steig embarrassed himself over his Nature cover story, but only Nature blushed pink. You want auditing, go see how Steig’s fraud was disassembled at climateaudit.org.
=======================
Here’s my favorite bit of the Antarctica saga:
> End of story.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13691877650
You might do as the Auditor did and silently move on to the next story, Koldie.
kim, Steig is comic relief. He does have the world record most out of context climate science quote evah though.
Since you’re a regular guy, Cap’n, I’d like a cite for that.
***
In spirit of free trade, here’s a related quote up front:
> Ryan: Unlike most of your fellow bloggers, you have been very gracious in your communications with me. They could learn something from you.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6723495740
You might like reading this thread, Cap’n.
I think it will do you good, willard, to read early, and later, StevieMac.
=================
Heh, your Steig quote about Ryan is pretty amusing. Do you know how graciously Steig responded in peer review of Ryan’s paper?
==================
> [R]ead early, and later, StevieMac.
I did and I will, Koldie.
How much can you afford to lose?
Read more. What have you got to lose?
========
Get out of your evil klown outfit, Koldie.
Give me some URLs to read.
I’ll pull a moshe and tell you to start at the beginning and read it all. You’ll find much kim inaninity here and there.
=================
I thought it was Bender who kept telling that.
You’re no Bender, Koldie.
Fershur, and you’re not much of an auditor, either.
===========
Here’s the omen you’re searching, Koldie:
> Re First Submission SI – version attached to first submission is now online (dated 20100121).
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/steig-this-is-not-complicated/#comment-715
Some background:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/on-revealing-the-identity-of-reviewers/
Not that complicated.
You might benefit, willard, by understanding the Steig Saga, but you’ve got to read something other than your usual censored sites.
=================
Some eminent scientists maintain that this would not be a bad idea:
Notice the first sentences from Steve on Steig’s comments on tAV:
> Steig has made a few comments at Jeff Id’s. He makes some bitchy comments.
Here is the link to Steig’s first comment on tAV:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/#comment-41569
Notice the first sentences.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3052688162
***
That Jeff’s is moderation free would be a myth for two reasons.
First, there are other means to moderate.
Second, Id can lose his temper:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/my-apologies-to-readers/
With such a nickname, who could blame him?
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know. It’s the concatenation of cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations and the Cheshire Cat sunspotting grins.
=========================
You are cooling Kim? Sorry to hear it.
R. Gates
Of course, neither you nor kim is cooling (unless you’re suffering from hypothermia).
But the “globally and annually averaged land surface temperature” (CRUTEM4) around both you and kim has been cooling slightly over the past decade.
As has the “globally and annually averaged sea surface temperature” (HADSST2).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2003/trend
(Unless you live in the deep ocean, in which case you may have warmed by 0.00001 degree C over the past decade, although no one has measured this).
Max
Good, Kim: I actually understood that. Keep it up! :-)
https://twitter.com/andrewadams99/status/376751059357933568
Let’s brace ourselves, Andrew Adams is upset.
Willard
Tell angry Andrew to pop an anger management pill. He’ll cool down and get over his tantrum, like all little boys eventually do.
Max
Willard
Who is Andrew Adams?
tonyb
willard, have you noticed that Andrew is a tad redundant?
TonyB,
A more important question would be:
who is John Galt?
the twitter exchange on this one, even last week, has been highly entertaining
Indeed:
https://twitter.com/andrewadams99/status/376799922613673984
After reading both David Rose’s piece and the HotWhopper rebuttal, it becomes quite clear that David Rose is a journalist and whoever wrote the HotWhopper blurb is simply a crank.
Max
https://twitter.com/SouBundanga/status/376684837102292994
“It’s not a high-brow blog, it’s rife with bad puns and sarcasm and snark. But the science it refers to is solid.”
“And to Anthony Watts and other climate science deniers, fake skeptics and sexist oafs everywhere, shrinking though your numbers be: HotWhopper just wouldn’t be the same without you.”
The Hot Whoppers own words above.
She recently criticized the Daily Mail story.
Summarized to some extent:
It’s a Rag
David Rose makes stuff up
Judith Curry will watch as the Earth boils
Tsonis had too much credit on the subject of ocean cycles when he was quoted
She did clarify this so called crisis meeting:
“The UN climate change body that David refers to would be the IPCC. It is not to my knowledge holding any crisis meeting. I expect David is referring to the long-scheduled meeting to consider the final draft of WG1. The 36th session of the IPCC is scheduled to take place in Stockholm from the 23 to 26 September. It would most likely have been in the IPCC calendar for years.”
The above explains why that part of the Daily Mail story wasn’t supported by other sources. Thank you Hot Whopper.
Tomas Milanovic on Tsonis:
“However the general paradigm to consider the Earth system as a finite network of coupled (chaotic) oscillators is a good one and if one had the idea of the number of the oscillators, their average frequency and especially of the laws that govern them, it would certainly have some predictive capacity.
The problem, that I have also already elaborated on, is that these oscillators are in reality not causally independent but they are ALL just emergent local manifestations of GLOBAL dynamics of the system.
The coupled oscillator model is just an approximation which would be probably valid only for short term predictions (decades or so).”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/
As I’ve said before, though Milanovic’s tone above sounds a bit less than neutral, he is giving the best description of the theory that I’ve found. Does Tsonis et al deserve credit regarding ocean cycles? I think so, but I am just an accountant.
Andrew Adams is one of the most civilized consensus commenters in the blogosphere. A really good person and extremely temperate in what he says. If he’s this upset I’ll bet there’s a good reason.
A second British paper picked up on the Daily Mail’s recent story and Dana Nuccitelli has commented:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions
I don’t know what to make of this Nuccitelli?
“…both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties.” Nuccitelli.
I think we have pot, kettle, black moment here. “…has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties.”
That sounds to me like an indictment of the warmists. The future is uncertain, and we’re not sure what the sensitivity is, but we might tip over soon, if we haven’t already.
Dr. Curry is climate scientist, yet it is claimed, since there is at least one attribution paper out there, all climate scientists without a similar paper are not experts in attribution. We can now dispense with all this 97% consensus nonsense. Thank you Mr. Nuccitelli, we have our answer boiled down for us in terms we can understand.
Willard,
Haha, well I doubt the denial-o-sphere is quaking in its collective boots at the thought of me being on the receiving end of my rage.
And Rose of course has his platform in one of our biggest selling and most influential newspapers, so he wins just by getting his stuff published. It doesn’t matter, and he obviously doesn’t care, whether it’s true. And if it upsets people like me he probably sees it as a bonus.
You might very well have a point, Andrew:
https://twitter.com/DavidRo21545155/status/376640000126775296
To be fair, I guess that many of us have occasionally gained some satisfaction at seeing our opponents get outraged at one thing or another.
If you’re saying he doesn’t care that he’s telling the truth, I agree. You don’t care that you’re telling lies. Suck it up, buddy: the tide is turning. How does it feel to be on the receiving end for a change? It’s bloody wonderful to watch.
When will willard wonder well?
============
> Suck it up, buddy: the tide is turning.
JOIN THE BANDWAGON!
Michael Larkin,
I mean David Rose doesn’t care whether the stuff in his articles is true or not. The point is the message he is pushing – ultimately for people like Rose it’s just words, designed to have a particular impact on the audience and couched in terms that give the illusion of having some kind of relation to things actually happening in the real world. But any resemblance to such is purely superficial.
There’s a lot of that kind of stuff in the blogosphere and I’ve mostly given up caring but unfortunately when it is in a national newspaper which actually has influence it does matter. The truth is still important sometimes.
You might want to suck that up, or not.
Andrew,
You may be spot on with regard to David Rose. Try to imagine what it
is like when those on the other side of the debate who have the same disregard for accuracy outnumber him by a factor of 10 to 20.
timg56,
I would very much dispute that that is true.
Adams is 95% sure that Rose is misusing statistics.
But there’s always that 5% uncertainty.
Nah, Rose’s pieces are always settled anti-science.
Well, that’s settled then. Congratulations, aa, for the achievement; there is so little settled in this debate.
==================
Many eminent scientists agree with Andrew.
The thing is Kim, however much in the wider debate is “unsettled”, and there is a lot, we don’t have to worry about error bars on claims which are patently untrue.
Hide the decline, Andrew!
Toes have been seriously stepped upon.
I have dogs that seem to prefer sleeping in hallways and other places where they must carefully be stepped over. It’s all fun and games until someone gets a paw stepped on…
David, don’t mention the paws, you might upset true believers.
Faustino +1 Paws indeed!
Good one. :-)
Obviously, this topic is going to create lot’s of heat, but probably not much light. We need another 5 years or so to see if this ice behavior is meaningful.
At least 5, more likely 15.
========
And hoping it isn’t 300 years.
For some Japanese soldiers living on isolated islands in the South Pacific the war wasnt over for 40 years. I suspect it will take that long for some in this war too.
Dennis is the rational Adams brother. The other one is, of course, the dummy.
Try 100 years jim2!
Hoping it isn’t 100 years.
I posted this a minute ago on the Green in denial post, but this is what I think of the non-recovery of the sea ice this year.
Hindsight is always perfect, but the Northwest passage adventurers should have all gotten together and rented one of those dam ships and tried to sail to the north pole, odds are they would have made it.
dam ship = Rotterdam, Amsterdam Westerdam etc.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff3bbe27970d-pi
It may look like a recovery, but
The linked graph shows Ice volume divided by ice area which gives an estimate of ice thickness, which appears to be continuing to decrease.
And you can use CT side by side ice area comparison tool to compare ice area from different years to this years, and what I find as new this year is that there is more 60-80% ice area just north of Baffin Island, which used to be the hold-fast of the ancient multi-year ice.
It appears to be that the ice extant and area has increased this year at the expense of the old thick multi-year ice. And funny thing is DMI temperature is back above normal.
Bob Droege, “It appears to be that the ice extant and area has increased this year at the expense of the old thick multi-year ice. ”
Out with the old in with the new. That old ice had soot and bear poop all in it anyway.
Your graph shows a loss of thickness of roughly half a metre per decade.
That would be 5 metres per century, or 1000 metres over 20,000 years – which is around the end of the last ice age.
Sounds about right.
If there was more than 5 meters of ice to melt, you might have a point.
My point is, can you show that the rate of loss is now statistically greater than it has been since the end of the last ice age?
And if it is, what could possibly have caused that huge thickness of ice to melt so quickly at the end of the IA? Stone-age SUV’s, perhaps?
Coincides with man’s invention of the wheel (suggesting an anthropogenic link)…
phatboy,
Do we even know anything about the sea ice extent during the last “ice age” or glaciation? And the ice didn’t melt all that quickly at the end of the last glaciation which was caused by slight orbital variations, hint milankovitch cycles.
Bob, the ice was thousands of metres thick twenty millennia ago. At the apparent current rate of 5 metres per century, how long would it have taken to melt? You do the math.
phatboy,
we are talking sea ice not glaciers, do you have any evidence of glacial ice sheets thousands of meters thick where the arctic ocean is?
dreadful
The winter time ice has been decreasing at a rate of 2.5% per decade so is down less than 10% over the last 30 years.
The variable melts even though “massive” in some years in the summer may not be all that meaningful. We will know more in a few years.
Well, it’s meaningful because it’s a positive feedback – melting summer ice means more open water, which is darker than ice, so more sunlight is absorbed, which warms the water more.
In the winter, there’s no sun up there, so that doesn’t really matter so much. Melt it all or don’t, it won’t have as much of an effect on the climate.
It’s also interesting as a divergence from the models, which almost all show a much slower summer ice decrease than we’re actually seeing. It’s another example of the wide uncertainties in the models, I think — but it’s evidence that those uncertainties cut both ways. If they go too cold at some times/areas, they go too hot at others.
“Well, it’s meaningful because it’s a positive feedback – melting summer ice means more open water, which is darker than ice, so more sunlight is absorbed, which warms the water more. ”
There’s far less positive feedback than you might imagine. The Sun only shines on a small area at the moment, much of the rest of the ocean is at a large enough angle that much of the light is reflected off into space. Plus all of the open water will then radiate from the higher temp water than the much colder ice.
http://www.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf
> I think the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed in the arcticle;
Coldly put.
Gad, I hope we warm a coupla degrees over the next half millenium.
=============
Brrr…..
I perceive very little difference between “scientific climate forecasts” and fairy tales. Alice in Wonderland is less pretentious and more readable.
I am not saying it has to stay that way forever, but with many inept “scientists” on a climatology bandwagon the progress is bound to be slow.
Alice’s Wonderland was less absurd, too. Carroll had rulz; who rulz this unruly lot?
=======
CG, and the Tenniel graphics are better.
When it comes to climate-change:
• Less-global measures are generically more variable (Arctic ice-area, land temperatures)
• More-global measures are generically less variable (Arctic ice-volume, sea-level rise, global heat energy)
That is the common-sense reason why “the best available scientists” — young scientists especially! — preferentially focus their research upon global measures (such as ice-volume).
And that is the common-sense reason why quibblers, deniers, contrarians, and just-plain-timid folks effectively make common cause with the gleeful yahoos who are destroying the planet, and the mindless oafs who abet them … by imprudently restricting their scientific attention to less-global measures of climate-change.
Conclusion Science that focuses upon less-global measures of climate-change is generically mediocre-to-weak.
Ain’t that evident to the entire scientific community, Judith Curry … young climate-change researchers especially?
It’s not the color of your grin, it’s the content of your commentary.
H/t kim
=====
The wailing of tuchas pain can be heard in the furthest corners of the innernet and beyond.
David Appell says:
“What data show “that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s” in the Arctic? I don’t see that in Polyak et al (2010)”
No, but if you take the trouble to locate actual historical data rather than the pretty but largely imaginary graphics in Polyak et al, the melt is obvious.
For example check here:
http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/resources/historical-ice-chart-archive
Or check when was the first time anyone ever circumnavigated Franz Josephs land, or Severnaya Zemlya, or the first time the Northeast Passage was completely ice free in the autumn or the first time anyone sailed through McClure Strait (I don´t think anyone has done that again without icebreaker assistance to this day).
The three-person sailboat Belzebub II traversed the M’Clure Strait in 2012. For sure though, the M’Clure passage ain’t easy even nowadays!
Fan
This was the boat with sonar, radar and GPS wasn’t it?
tonyb
Fanny, last week you were heaping praise on the pope, and this week you’re heaping praise on Belzebub.
What gives? Trying to hedge your bets both ways? Allah won’t be pleased.
I suppose OTOH, anybody tempting fate in a boat named Belzebub was bound to end up between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Climate Etc readers might possibly enjoy reading the single most famous (and enthralling!) attempt at the M’Clure Passage: the 1952 attempt by explorer/scientist T.H. Manning to circumnavigate Banks Island (whose northern coast is the M’Clure Strait) in a canoe.
Manning’s deadpan-but-thrilling account is available on-line as the (peer reviewed and free-as-in-freedom) scientific article Narrative of an Unsuccessful Attempt to Circumnavigate Banks Island by Canoe in 1952. Here “unsuccessful” means “My graduate student and I got iced-in on the north coast with winter coming on, and to survive we had to hike-out overland 150 miles, across unmapped territory, wearing home-made rabbit-skin shoes, hunting musk-ox for calories, racing against the unsurvivable polar darkness.”
Manning was accompanied by a zoology graduate student named Andrew Macpherson. I have often wondered whether this graduate student had even the faintest idea what he was getting into … not for nothing was Manning nicknamed “the Lone Wolf of the Arctic!”
“My graduate student and I got iced-in on the north coast with winter coming on, and to survive we had to hike-out overland 150 miles, across unmapped territory, wearing home-made rabbit-skin shoes, hunting musk-ox for calories, racing against the unsurvivable polar darkness.”
You should see the risk assessment exercise I have to fill out to be allowed to use hydrazine sulphate.
Can you imagine HR’s reaction to a proposal for a middle age prof going out on a boat, for weeks, with a graduate student?
They would go mental.
I believe Manning and the grad student deserve a Darwin Award honorable mention.
This can’t be an easy time to be a warmist. I really can’t think of anything going their way these days. And yet, how surprising, not one of them has backed off the slightest fraction of an inch. Some like lollywot, are still not even conceding the pause. Others, like Gates, are desperately trying to change the rules of engagement.
Let’s see where we are in another 5 years. Should be interesting…
…to say the very least.
Earth’s energy storage system remains at record levels and has been climbing for 40+ years. What is there to concede? The fact that the oceans have been giving up a little less energy to the troposphere, and so those who “doubt” the fundamental alteration of Earth’s energy balance by greenhouse gas additions have been given some reason to hope the laws of physics have been changed.
You “checked the meter” on the ole “energy storage system” did you?
Where is that meter, in your kitchen or something? Can anyone else look at it, or just you? Oh, you say it doesn’t really exist anywhere but in your fevered brain? I’m shocked.
Don’t worry R. Gates, we know you will never concede anything.
Gate’s, I am an atheist so you ‘tremble mere mortals’ speech doesn’t really cut it.
You are going to be somewhat uncomfortable for the next 15 years with your cAGW. However, I suggest given the events in Syria I suggest that you get in on the ground floor with the ‘running around like headless chickens’ bit and give the ‘bioweapons/molecular biology’ thing a shot. What with SARS and the popularity of ‘The Walking Dead’, it should tide you over until the start of the next part of the rising cycle.
pokerguy,
With the exception of Australia, the warmists/progressives control virtually every other western government. The U.S. EPA is busy crafting decaronization regs to implement with or without congressional approval.
Agreed Gary. I try to focus on the positives. But you’re right. The politics remain depressing.
However, Canada did back out of the Kyoto protocol and as some European countries experience the realities of inconsistent energy sources, particularly in winter months, there may be more pressure at various times and places to reduce attempts to meet certain requirements.
I’ve written my Congressman and Senator about the EPA and asked them to do something. Sadly, not much else I can do.
Well, it gets easier and easier to have a huge % rebound off of lower and lower levels.
If the climate predictions are right, we’ll see *more* articles like this, not fewer. What’s the percentage increase the first year after we hit 0 summer sea ice? “Infinity %”?
Remember after the Dot-com Bubble, when stocks that had fallen 95% then proceeded to rebound 100% or 200%? But a rebound like that, after you’ve fallen 95%, means you’re still down 90% or 85% from your starting point. Sucks to you, if you bought Lucent or Nokia at the peak, even after the rebound.
Percentage-based rebounds are deceptive, particularly over the short-term trend. Look at the actual trend, the actual absolute numbers, not percentages, unless you want to be taken for a ride.
Good point. I’m not giving up hope for an ice-free Arctic one of these years.
“Well, it gets easier and easier to have a huge % rebound off of lower and lower levels…
…What’s the percentage increase the first year after we hit 0 summer sea ice? “Infinity %”?
You’re right. If we approach an ice out condition, the percentage change approaches infinity and as we go through the change, cross the threshold, it comes back from infinity sort of.
Are such binary changes allowed a flirtation with infinity? It reminds me of my favorite theory.
Bob Droege says:
“The linked graph shows Ice volume divided by ice area which gives an estimate of ice thickness, which appears to be continuing to decrease.”
Ah yes, the volume is the important thing. And the beatiful thing about it is that it is impossible to measure, so it can be anything you want it to.
“what I find as new this year is that there is more 60-80% ice area just north of Baffin Island, which used to be the hold-fast of the ancient multi-year ice.”
For Your information the area just north of Baffin Island (Lancaster sound), is normally completely ice-free in the autumn. Not this year though, as the prospective NW passage voyagers are finding out..
US Navy nuclear submarines have been sailing under the Arctic ice since the 1950s, tracking the ice-thickness continuously and in-detail with up-looking sonar.
That’s why the US Navy’s hard-nosed admirals have long taught that global warming is real
It is a pleasure to increase your knowledge of Arctic ice-science, tty!
Arctic warming is real. Arctic warming is not global warming. Non sequitur.
Most of the Navy’s hard-nosed Admirals are soft-squishy politicians. That’s how most Admirals get to be Admirals. Career advancement in the military is not promising for those who don’t pay lip service to the whims of the C in C. You wouldn’t expect to find a skeptic Admiral Oceanographer serving under the current C in C, would ya fanny? How do you think the brass really feel about having to spend their hard earned appropriations on green bullets and green jet fuel?
Fan,
are you that ignorant of the services or just dishonest?
David Titley was the Navy’s top meteorologist. To describe him as a hard nosed Admiral (singular not plural fan) is a joke. Try looking up Line Officer. No disrespect to Admiral Titley, but
it would be surprising if he ever captained a barge, let alone any other type of vessel.
As for what the Navy knows of Arctic ice thickness, I would give credence to Bob Doege, a fellow sub sailor, however you are unlikely to know the first thing about submarines.
Timg56, by the time you’ve finished the knee-jerk smearing of the senior officers of the US Navy, the Vatican, the scientists, the farmers, the Greens, the conservationists, the hunters-and-fishers, the unions, the progressives, the writers, the poets, and the plain ordinary grandparents … who’s left?
Aside from short-sighed (and childless!) eccentrics of one variety or another, that is?
Have a look at the year that the USN altered is design to place the diving planes from the sail to the pressure hull in its SSN’s. Hint the 688i USS San Juan (SSN-751)
Fan,
I haven’t smeared anyone, with the possible exception of you. You are dishonest. You provide links that have little to do with your claims. You misrepresent repeatedly. It is one thing not to be credible. It is something else not to be honest. When you are called on it you either reply with a repeat, as if being called out never happened or you respond as you did here, with an untrue attack. A person with integrity should be ashamed. I doubt if you understand the meaning of shame.
Don,
Commander in Chief is a short term position. Career military don’t kowtow to the CinC because he won’t be there long and the CinC has no authority to drum anyone out of the service on a whim. He can reassign them but that reassignment is as temporary as the elected office.
Please don’t try to tell me about politics and the military, springer. You really don’t have a clue. Obama will be C in C for 8 years. That is a big chunk of a military career. And if he is followed by a fellow traveler, well that could be another 8 years. Starting to get it yet?
I get that you’re a thin skinned moron.
Tty,
thanks for the correction, I meant Ellesmere Island
The skeptics like Rose usually like to point out when the IPCC models have been falsified, but they didn’t show this example. It’s worse than we thought. I will put it here for balance.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-12.jpg
Yep, one of the very few predictions that have come true and in this case were worse than predicted. But then the alarmists had to go and exaggerate even these results.
It shows they can’t get anything right, Jimmy Dee.
Do you have graph for the Antarctica prediction or global sea ice prediction?
JimD
I see the data in the chart was compiled by Julienne Stroeve. Can you point to the actual data from the 2007 IPCC report that mirrors the information?
I contacted her prior to writing my article. Did you ever read her explanation of what constituted ice?
tonyb
Lost in this discussion is the Antarctic, which as I understand it is a veritable ice making machine these days.
Climate scientists treat the Southern Hemisphere like a mad aunt and keep it chained in the basement.
Of course, hemispherical warming just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
I just hope it’s not too late to buy a house in south Florida.
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
“US Navy nuclear submarines have been sailing under the Arctic ice since the 1950s, tracking the ice-thickness continuously and in-detail with up-looking sonar”
How many thousand traverses per year have they done on average? The Arctic Ocean is a rather big place You know. And of course they have used the same type of sonar all the time. Because if they used lower definition sonars back in the 1950s than they do now, the ice thickness will seem to have decreased since they can now distinguish the keels below pressure ridges, which they couldn’t back then.
Nautilus’ sonar saw ice-keels plainly in 1958 … and subsequent submarine voyages employed equipment of every-increasing sophistication.
That’s the common-sense reason why there are no Arctic ice-melt deniers among submarine navigators.
Fan,
Navigators are Line Officers. Admiral Titley is not. More dishonest linking by you.
Have you ever met a submariner?
He’s met a few on line.
Bob,
It hasn’t improved his knowledge base.
fan is not stupid (he Is university professor), which means he is dishonest. To state he knows the views of Navy leadership based on a link to a presentation by Admiral Titley, who is now retired, is obviously dishonest.
I strongly doubt fan has ever served his country (though I will hold out the possibility of his being Peace Corp volunteer, in which case I will apologize for being wrong on his not serving). As a vet and a Catholic, his frequent misrepresentative reference to both goes from tiresome to insulting.
Timg56,
So all university professors are dishonest?
Can you prove that?
Also can you show that Fan has misrepresented the views of senior navy leadership on the changes that are occurring in the arctic?
I was assigned to a new construction sub, and in a quirk of timing and naval detailing, our engineering crew was composed of fresh meat and refugees from the “bus.” Our unofficial motto, and we got in big trouble about it once,, was “from the first and the worst to the latest and the greatest” I learned a lot from those guys, had no choice.
We went under the ice during an august to november deployment and the ice was nothing like it is now. A 688 class submarine lacks vertical fairwater planes and thus is not capable of surfacing through any thickness of sea ice. Needless to say the guys from the bus took going under the ice very seriously due to this and their history, as most of them had been there before.
Admiral Titley served as a navigator, how do you figure he wasn’t a line officer? Ring thumper he is not, but that doesn’t always preclude one from command, even though it is true the Admiral never had command.
The only thing you have on fan is whether or not Admiral Titley is hard-nosed or not.
And which way is the scuttlebut going, from CinC to the Admiralty or the other way round?
Bob,
Where have I claimed all University professors are dishonest? fan is the only person I’ve said is dishonest. He refers to the same set of links over and over, regardless of whether they have any applicability to the topic under discussion. He has on more than one occasion posted links that he claims represent the viewpoint or position of the military services, when in fact he has taken them completely out of context. One to a speach by Victor Kulak comes to mind. Even when presented with evidence that directly contradicts his comments, he simply repeats the BS or replies with different nonapplicable BS.
The Navy issued a position paper on climate change not that long ago. The first thing to note is that they were directed to assume the projections of ice melt and SLR from the IPCC as being their starting point. The Navy did exactly what you would expect them to do – said aye, aye and proceded to produce a report in accordance to the directions they were given. If you are told “Assume a SLR of 3 – 30 feet and tell us what impacts that would have to operations and infrastructure” what would you do? Tell them that 10 inches by the turn of the century is well within the Navy’s ability to plan for?
Arctic ice melt is an issue the Navy has an interest in. Why, because they (and to some extent the Coast Guard) are the branch of service who will be tasked with keeping whatever new SLOC’s develop. I’d wager their primary concern is impact on existing operational tempo and budgeting. (The services most likely having the greatest concern are the Canadian & Russian Coast Guards and the Russian strategic submarine force. The former will be responsible patroling for most of any new open ocean area, while the latter will have to deal with a declining deployment area. )
If one wants to get a true idea of what the services think of “green”, go read the GSA report on alternative fuels. (If I can find the link I’ll post it.) The Readers Digest version of the report – they are a White Elephant, far more costly than the fuels they are meant to displace, with the added burden of requiring their own specific materials procurement and supply chain. While fan may not be able to understand this, you at least should recognize how unwanted this really is, particularly in light of declining budgets.
Regarding Admiral Titley – I was unaware he started out as a Line Officer. Therefore I will retract my comments to fan on this score. That still leaves intact his taking the comments of a single individual and claiming they represent the views of multiple individuals in the service. I call that misrepresentation. Feel free to explain how it isn’t.
Regarding your deployment comments – I also deployed north of the Arctic circle (came with 40 or so miles of doing it twice – with the near miss being a Med cruise). However it was in Sept and we didn’t get far enough north to go under the ice. If you tell me that you have it on good authority that boats going under today face considerably different conditions than you did, I can take that on face value. fan doesn’t get that benefit and his links don’t back up his claims. I know the Navy has survey records from deploying under the ice. In fact I would expect them to have more than one study based on those records. Referencing something like this would be a valid supporting point. It is notable that fan didn’t.
Finally there is fan’s unsupported accusation of my “smearing” various parties. It is another example of his dishonesty.
fan is immune to criticism so engaging with him has always been a stretch. He is at the point now that any honest debate is unlikely. I appreciate you correcting me regarding Titley being a former navigator (though not you putting words into my mouth regarding my opinion of professors – my Uncle was one, as well as a serving naval officer). But that is a single point and fan has overstepped on numerous points.
Timg56,
First I may have misunderstood how you wrote your sentence, it is not clear that you did not mean Fan is dishonest because he is a university professor when you actually meant he is dishonest because he is not stupid.
You need to write more clearly.
If you have a cite for the navy’s or the pentagon’s position paper on climate change, I’d like to see it, my google fu is not so hot tonight.
You know the IPCC is on the borderline of being too low on SLR.
You will have to provide a cite for the Navy following the IPCC on climate change, I may have some misplaced confidence that the Navy would figure it out themselves.
The faster the world as a whole can reduce the use of fossil fuels, the more will be left for more strategic uses, such as the Navy and a personal favorite of mine, pharmaceuticals.
Things are much different in the arctic compared to when I was last there.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=01&fy=1983&sm=09&sd=02&sy=2013
The narrative that Fan posted on the voyage of the Nautilus rings true to me, as from discussions with those sailors from the Nautilus that I served with on the question of whether it was possible to transit the arctic. They seemed to think that although it was possible and that it had been done before, it was no sure thing and it was possible or likely that you could get stuck between the ice and the sea floor, or blocked by ice forcing you to turn around. Which could mean you could back into the ice keels, which would not be good.
This year, it looks like there would be lots of places to surface.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
You might try a little harder to understand the few warmists who do post here regularly, you might learn something. And spend more time reading Hansen and less time on wuwt.
I am not sure why this year’s recovery is a big deal. Everyone seems to agree that the Multi-Year Ice is gone gone and what’s left is pretty thin. It all freezes over in the winter, and in the summer it either mostly melts (if conditions are right) or doesn’t quite (like this year). It’s interesting that the swing is so large. And of course there is still a pretty striking trend line downward. Even if the Pause continues, that doesn’t mean we’ve reached equilibrium yet for the polar ice; the new equilibrium might well be that there isn’t any in the summer.
Stay tuned. We’ll know a lot more in about five years.
Nice comment.
Ranks high on the skeptic scale, and conversely, low on the scale of “skepticism.”
Global climatic indices are shifting from warming to cooling, one by one. For those of us who think that multidecadal climatic and solar variabilty is the knob, as expected. Arctic ice may decrease next year, but long term it will increase.
Edim, you are a perfect example of how denialism leads to wishful thinking.
RG,
Think it’s likely the other way around. At least skeptical wishful thinking to the extent it exists, makes sense. Warmists OTH, seem actively to be rooting for a cataclysm. How perverse is that?
“Warmists OTH, seem actively to be rooting for a cataclysm.”
Rahm Emanuel (and about a thousand other progressives before him) – “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Catastrophes are a progressives’ best friend. People look for someone to turn to, and the progressives offer government. That is why they not only look forward to crises, but will create them if not are happening on their own.
Obamacare is specifically designed to cause a crisis in health insurance by making it impossible to provide government mandated coverage without massive premium increases. The increases will then be used as another crisis, and blamed on the insurance companies. The solution that will be offered by the progressives is…ta da! – “universal,” “single payer” health care. In other words, socialized medicine.
This is also the real agenda (for the progressive leadership) of the CAGW/decarbonization movement. Make energy so expensive people can’t afford it, blame it on the energy companies, and use the manufactured crisis to engineer government cont4rol of the energy economy.
It is a tried and true practice of progressives/statists the world over. Which is why the history of their movement is never taught in progressive run public schools.
Pokerguy,
I don’t let what I wish for get in the way of facts. As a skeptic, I am not married to the cause of anything. If the data didn’t support global warming I wouldn’t hold it as likely. This is a long term issue and one season
means nothing. If Arctic sea ice climbed over a period of five or 10 years and ocean heat content declined over that period, while at the same time tropospheric temperatures were flat or even declining, I would swing to being skeptical about global warming because there would be weak evidence of increases in Earth’s energy system.
GaryM and his pals immorally gamble the environment, and justify that by pretending that those warning of danger are engaged in a grand conspiracy.
loony.
no gates, that’s just my evaluation. AMO (or better GMO) will ‘shift’ and low solar activity will cool global climate. That’s almost common sense.
A “common sense” forecast for the climate? Call me skeptical.
R. Gates – The Skeptical Warmist | September 8, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
“Edim, you are a perfect example of how denialism leads to wishful thinking.”
And you Gates are a perfect example of how ideology leads to bandwagon science composed of just-so stories.
So there.
lolwot,
Nice to see you signing your comments “loony.” Always wondered what the first l stood for, though I suspected…
Keep it up. Truth in advertising is our friend.
Edim: “AMO (or better GMO) will ‘shift’ and low solar activity will cool global climate.”
Yes any day now global cooling will kick for sure! It’s a wonder it hasn’t kicked in already given the last quiet solar cycle and the negative PDO switch. Things I am sure climate skeptics were citing at the time would cause global cooling.
But obviously not just yet. But eventually. Just you see! Falling PDO and solar output haven’t had the expected effect, but we still have AMO on the wishful thinking list!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/mean:132/normalise/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:132/normalise/from:1980/plot/uah/mean:132
I mean the only other alternative is that there’s some kind of ever increasing warming effect going on. Can’t imagine what though! Maybe we could ask those know-it-all climate scientists if they have any ideas what could be causing warming!
In the meantime
lolwot, it has kicked in already – the trailing 30-year linear trend peaked in ~2005. The fluctuation is 50 – 70 years long, it takes time. By ~2020 there will be no warming for 30 years.
“Everyone seems to agree that the Multi-Year Ice is gone gone”
It hasn’t struck you yet that all the ice that hasn’t melted this year is going to be multi-year ice next year? And what makes You think there is going to be an “equilibrium”? There hasn’t ever been one before, there has always been good and bad ice years (Note: in the benighted past a “good ice year” was one with little ice).
Submariners in the 1950s and 1960s saw ice-keels hundreds of feet thick. Those ice-keels are gone now. That’s a first-person reason why naval navigators say climate change is real.
It’s a pleasure to increase your knowledge tty!
“Submariners in the 1950s and 1960s saw ice-keels hundreds of feet thick. Those ice-keels are gone now. ”
Citation for this claim please. And not just anecdotal opinion. I’d like to see the peer reviewed study that confirms you claim as made, in detail.
Be sure to include the proof that there were “ice keels” hundreds of feet thick, and that “those ice keels are gone now,” meaning all of them, right? Because that’s what you just said.
However, it’s still worth pointing out that there was a pronounced period of global cooling during the 50’s and 60’s – so much so that there was a great scare raised about it, including Nat Geo cover stories etc.
Bottom line, you’re cherrypicking your time periods anyway. But still…
show me the study please.
>It is my pleasure to scientifically oblige you, tomdesabla!
The unity of scientific knowledge is impressive, eh?
Don’t know much about it, but I don’t think they mean that. There hasn’t been an ice-free year yet, but I guess there used to be a lot of really thick ice that had been there for as long as they’d been measuring it.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/multiyear.html
Apparently it’s quite different from the regular stuff.
Yes, and there is map evidence that there was less ice for a time.
See: Was the Northeast Passage first navigated in 1660?
As for the “equilibrium”, again I’m just guessing, but if surface temperatures are somewhat higher than they had been, it makes sense to me that the ice might just keep melting. You wouldn’t need more of a temperature rise to melt more ice, it could just happen that the temperature is now too high to keep summer ice in the long term. Or not.
I have no opinion on whether no ice is a good thing or a bad thing. I do think that running massive open-ended experiments on the earth’s climate is probably a risky idea. ‘Course, we may not have a choice.
Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.
Why?
No doubt Arctic Sea Ice (minimum) extent is an important metric.
No doubt Arctic Sea Ice minimun is an indicator to watch.
As quoted, the statement places far, far too much importance to one noisy indicator.
It reminds me of a story from “Failure in Not an Option” where Dick Koos in the final simulation for the White Team threw a 1201 computer alarm at them. The Team aborted the simulated landing. In the debriefing,
We measure thousands of climate parameters over time. Some are more important that others. Arctic Ice Minimum is one of the important ones even though we don’t have causality nailed down. It might be CO2, soot, ocean cycles, even more ice breakers running around, or some of the above. But to call it the crucial measurement renders all others insignificant.
Judith Curry: “As per Cryosphere Today, the current sea ice extent is 4.746 M”
No. That is Sea Ice Area, not extent.
NSIDC Sea Ice Extent is 5.3 million.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/two-increases-in-a-row-for-arctic-sea-ice-extent/
thx, fixed in main text
By the way, “Global Sea Ice Extent Anomaly % from 1981-2010 mean for the year” is +0.9%.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/global-sea-ice-extent-anomaly-percent-mean-for-year-0-9/
I was trying to find the Arctic Sea Ice news article by David Rose from last year 2012.
Can’t find it for some reason.
Strange.
I was looking for info on record ice in Antarctica, but the AGW cult ignores or makes up excuses.
A fan of *MORE* discourse says:
“Submariners in the 1950s and 1960s saw ice-keels hundreds of feet thick. Those ice-keels are gone now”
If true that is extremely strange, because we still have them in the Baltic where the ice is almost never more than 3 feet thick and melts every summer.
For your information, the size of pressure ridges and their keels is not dependent on ice thickness, once it has reached a minimum thickness of 6-8 inches. Incidentally the keel is about 90% of the total depth, so a 100 foot keel is approximately equivalent to a 10 foot high pressure ridge.
You are entirely correct tty!
Now ask: “Other than sonar observations from the US Navy’s nuclear submarines, is there any independent scientific confirmation that ice-keels hundreds of feet deep existed in the Arctic in the 1950s and 1960s?”
Yes there is such independent confirmation!
That very day the two-person Manning expedition abandoned their (ludicrously tiny) open canoe, and began their epic trek across Banks Island to safety.
Conclusion In the early 1950s, the official reports of trained scientists described mobile ice-floes four hundred feet thick in the M’Clure Strait. Nowadays the (incredibly massive!) ice-floes of the 1950s have entirely vanished from the 21st century Arctic.
It is a pleasure to help further augment your scientific understanding, tty!
“The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.”
Of course the BBC hadn’t reported that.
David Rose has a fine habit of making little mistakes like that.
“Of course the BBC hadn’t reported that.”
Oops.
“‘Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,’ the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
‘So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
lolwot is correct. The BBC reported that the prediction of an ice free Arctic by 2013 “is already too conservative.”
The BBC reports: “Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.”
Let’s quote a bit more:
Some may think that David Rose’s reported that global warming would leave might overplay BBC’s arcticle.
Hey, the Arctic could be ice free in summer next year. It could be ice free in five years, of forty. Or it could not be ice free until…who knows when. Fact is, in this skeptic’s opinion, no one can model the climate so no one knows with any real certainty or precision what the weather will be in the Arctic at any particular time in the future.
It’s just fun talking about Chicken Little’s lengthy bibliography of unfulfilled predictions of doom and gloom.
One does not simply equivocate would and could, unless one is a serial misrepresenter like David Rose.
“One does not simply equivocate would and could….”
Assuming you mean equate:
One apparently doesn’t read many comments by Mosher or the other CAGW obscurantists around here.
Gary,
I think he does mean ‘equivocate’.
And you think this is OK because……Mosher made him do it???
Michael,
No, he almost certainly meant equate, as in conflate. His point was that Rose was taking the “could” in the BBC piece and acting like they wrote would. At least it makes sense that way.
And do I think that’s “alright?” It’s better to be more accurate. Though I don’t much care, but I didn’t defend it. I just pointed out that the article, even while demonstrating a lesser degree of certainty on the part of the author, showed than some in the “consensus’ were predicting the ice would be gone before 2013.
But I’ll take your and lolwot’s concerns much more seriously when I see you start responding similarly to the warmist’s constant use of “equating,” or equivocation for that matter. Instead, you divert the discussion as often as possible from the embarrassing fact that the Arctic death spiral – unspiralled, at least for this year.
Face it, alarmism is suffering a death spiral of credibility. AGW is real and apparently too weak to do us much good, but whatever it does is more good than bad. This goes double in a cooling world, like ours.
==========
I meant equivocate, as in to commit the fallacy of equivocation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
At the very least, that’s what many eminent scientists should read.
Let’s put the “spiral” thing this
way, GaryM: would you buy,
hold or sell that ticker?
No, I don’t equate ticker and thicker.
willard bought a pig in a poke with his usual sources. His loss.
=============
Gary –
Tell me, do you see any problem with the “Mommy, mommy, they did it firrrrrrst” form of justification?
Willard,
Not to be the Climate etc. school marm, but if you meant equivocate, then you misused it. One does not equivocate words. One uses words to equivocate on ideas or the truth. One of the ways one does that is by equating words that are not, in fact, equal.
It should read:
“One does not simply equivocate [by equating] would and could, unless one is a serial misrepresenter like David Rose.
Here endeth the home school, or should I say blog school, grammar lesson.
Willard,
“would you buy,
hold or sell that ticker?”
If you mean do I buy that there is an Arctic ice death spiral? Or that the one year recovery somehow “disproves” such a spiral? Or that the Arctic is soon to be ice free because of the increase of ACO2?
You can be cryptic, or you can get an answer to a question. but my answer is pretty much the same no matter what you mean.
I don’t think anyone, consensus, skeptic, lukewarmer or jehovah’s witness, can model the climate. Therefore I don’t think anyone can make any long range prediction about any large scale climate phenomenon with any precision.
I predict that 50 years from now, summers will be warmer than winters, days will be warmer than nights, and the tropics will be warmer than the poles. And I qualify all three of said predictions with – all other things being equal. I can’t predict anything beyond that, and I don’t much credit the ability of anyone else, human or computer, to do so either.
Thank you, grammar whizz.
Here’s a note in return:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/one-does-not-simply-walk-into-mordor
Many eminents scientists have studied the use of metonymy to shorten memes.
> If you mean do I buy that there is an Arctic ice death spiral?
Thank you for playing dumb, GaryM.
I thought the word “ticker” provided the cue, but perhaps populists are not used to financial terms. So let me try to clarify:
Take an arctic ice index, any index that you please, as long as it’s annual. Consider it as an index you could buy, as any other index.
Would you buy, hold, or sell?
Don’t hesitate to play dumb again,
Hope this helps,
w
Gary –
I think you should write a comment addressed to other commenters to respond to my pointing out your mommymommyism.
You know, because you don’t want to respond to me because that might encourage me.
So, you know, your way around that is to respond to others as a way of responding to my comments.
willard,
I answered your poorly constructed question. Don’t play dumb. I wouldn’t play the market, because none of you know what the hell you are talking about. And I won’t pretend to. No matter how much you try to disguise poor writing with supposed crypticism.
You two(J&w) should peek at GG’s curves @ 11:06 this AM.
=============
It’s not even good crypticism, just garden variety sophistry. I believe those two still believe in the Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Stick. Well, do you?
=======================
Many eminent scientists would propose we could turn ALL THE INDICES into a market.
Some other eminent scientists would also propose we publish who buy, hold, or sell.
> I answered your question.
No, you did not, GaryM. You refused to answer it.
The choices were buy, hold, or sell. There was no “screw you guys, I’m going home”.
Thank you for not playing.
Well, willard, what do you make of GG’s curve showing shortening melt season, and the additional fact of presently increasing ice volume not present after the ’07 season? Granted it’s early times, but you might consider selling.
==================
I’m sure some eminent scientists would, Koldie.
Pretty sad, pretty obvious, deflection, willard. You have eyes and a brain, right?
======
Polar bear in mind, Koldie,
that more ice means a buy, not a sell.
But to answer your question more generally,
here’s what Vaughan thought of GG’s trendology:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/#comment-275434
Deflection of a deflected pass; interception by the home team. Still can’t bear to look at it, eh?
==============
That some eminent scientists “might consider selling” is kinda obvious, Koldie, don’t you think?
But now, if by “recovering” David Rose means we’re in a rebound, why won’t you buy some instead?
willard spends an hour fumbling the ball. I wanna instant replay.
===========
Koldie gives no links, no light, no love, but plays Monday morning quarterback all afternoon.
Gaia is a lenient mother.
윌러드
If the ice continues to recover at this rate the whole planet will be covered in ice in like 500 years.
ㅎㅎㅎ
Well if we’re talking about projections for arctic sea ice let’s see what the IPCC said in AR4
“In some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century.“[my italics]
Given how David Rose likes to talk about inaccurate IPCC projections it’s odd how he failed to mention this one.
AA, you consider a 40 to 90 year error a hit?
Do you think they would have made the same predictions had they known more than pathetically little about the sea ice at the time?
In fact the BBC HAD reported that….
Funny to watch Alarmists in such a frenzy about another discredited scare story.
The BBC headline of 12 December 2007 did indeed say “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′”
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
“Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007”
It was a story reporting that the Arctic could go ice free by 2013. It’s interesting you describe that as a “scare story”.
It implies, assuming you aren’t being a disingenuous berk, that you found the prospect of the arctic going ice free by 2013 scary, whether or not you thought it could happen. Can you explain why that would be scary? I would find that interesting coming from a climate skeptic.
Also tell me, was there something especially scary about the year 2013 specifically? I imagine not, so do you not also find the prospect of the Arctic being ice free in 2014 scary? What about 2015? 2020? At what point wouldn’t it be scary? Perhaps 2030? 2100? You tell me.
David rose made a similar claim. He reported: “THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007”
Chaos! I mean the BBC only reported the Arctic could be ice free by 2013. David Rose has therefore associated an ice free Arctic with chaos.
So it’s a wonder he hasn’t penned an article warning the public that there could be chaos in the Arctic by 2020! Certainly he’s penned BS “could bes” about an ice age.
Or if he doesn’t think the Arctic could be ice free by 2020, why doesn’t he report a reassuring story that “scary chaos” in the Arctic won’t happen?
lolwot:
I’d say that steeper trendlines are more scary and flatter ones less so. But it depends on the situation.
It would be nice to see a steeper incline to the unemployment rate, the GDP, my bank account …
Miker613 says:
“There hasn’t been an ice-free year yet, but I guess there used to be a lot of really thick ice that had been there for as long as they’d been measuring it.”
No there wasn’t. Multi-year ice is simply ice that has survived a melting season. This means that most of the salt has been flushed from it, changing its mechanical and dielectric properties.
There has never been large amounts of very old ice in the Arctic Ocean, except for the so-called “Shelf Ice” north of Ellesmere land. This wasn’t really shelf ice but rather very old fast ice. To judge from the age of driftwood inboard from it, at least some of it had remained in place since the end of the Medieval Warm Period. However it was already breaking up when discovered by the Nares expedition in 1874, and most of it is gone now. Most of it broke up in the 1940’s (the so called “Ice Islands”) and much of the rest during the last 20 years.
In the Eastern Arctic ice older than 3-4 years has always been rare. Remember that a number of expeditions (starting with Fram in 1893-96) has drifted across from Siberia and they always exit through Fram Strait after about 3 years.
Scientific correction added [by me!] per A millennial-scale record of Arctic Ocean sea ice variability and the demise of the Ellesmere Island ice shelves (England et al., 2008).
Conclusion Whatever happened to the world’s 5000-year-old high-Arctic ice shelves, it sure was more than Judith Curry’s “climate variability on interannual to multi-decadal time scales”.
That’s scientific common sense!
It is a pleasure to share increased scientific knowledge of Arctic warming with you, tty!
Professor Peter Wadams says: “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”
Quite important point in bold!
David Rose reports: Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’. He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’
Hmm where’s that bold point?
David Rose: THERE WON’T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007
Take away point: Arctic ice free = Chaos
David Rose reports: “Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century”
That’s fantastic news David Rose! A full 37 years of cooling. Can’t wait to hear which eminent scientists are predicting this!
David Rose: “Judith Curry said…the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.”
But that’s only 10 years David Rose! I thought you said middle of the century?
Professor Anastasios Tsonis: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least”
I am confused David Rose, 15 years is 22 years short of middle of the century!
Apart from all these one directional exaggerations in your article, excellent journalism David Rose! No idea why some people accuse you of being deliberately misleading!
Bottom line:
It’s too early to tell if 2013 ice extent is a fluke or a turn-around in the trend.
One thing is for sure though – if you’re a skeptic the data this year supports the skeptic position and if you’re a warmist the data this year detracts from the warmist position.
This year’s data neither supports nor detracts from any position. It is consistent with the generally low sea ice of the past decade when allowing for short-term natural variability.
Of course the warmists don’t see it that way. They are cognitively immune to anything remotely unfriendly to their most cherished beliefs. Anyone doubting this, simply ask the warmists here if they’ve become even a fraction less sure of themselves over the last few years, during which we’ve seen an unrelenting stream of empirical evidence that does not support them, along with a spate of papers lowering the bounds of atmospheric sensitivity…
Not at all,
recent empirical evidence confirms my most cherished, holy, dogmatic and unshakable beliefs. The recent paper discussed here on natural variability confirms that the so called “pause” or slowdown in the short term rates of global warming is due to ENSO pushing the global average temperature down about 0.2 C, which coincidentally also puts the model projections back in line.
And the recent papers on climate sensitivity do not lower the bounds, they just are on the lower end of the range, ie they are still within the IPCC range of 3 +/- 1.5.
thanks for playing though
Bob, so around 0.2 deg C up too? In the AGW phase (1950-present).
Over the last few years?
No, give me a 25+ yr trend and I’ll buy you a beer and sing your praises.
And an ‘unrelenting stream’. Ohh, linkies please, lots of them!
It’s a little amusing how Michael rationalizes the recent sensitivity articles. Very convincing to the ignorant. But is he ignorant, or does he hope readers are? Always the same question, the same question.
===========
Oh, blah, it was Bob with the ingenuous interpretation.
=======
Thanks for making my point, Bob. Also Michael. All we need is polyglot to check in with another chart proving the pause is a conspiracy, a conspiracy so wide it even includes most warmists.
Climate zombies walk among us. The cognitively undead who feast on the living flesh of anything that threatens their core beliefs.
MIght make a good TV show.
Me, I like definitions.
Again I’ll ask the wrong-siders here to define the pause.
Pretty please with sugar on top.
I’ll give you more slack than Michael, I wont require definitions that include periods of 25 years or more.
And Kim, I’m glad you find my interpretation ingenuous, you know sometimes kids nail it.
So what’s your argument, do you confront the idea that extended periods of La Nina or ENSO in its cold mode causes natural variability in the cool direction, or is that all a conspiracy too.
Here are the readings from the current arctic buoys. Frankly I can’t think of any way to establish an accurate figure for ice thickness. The variation is too great and the sample too small. Most buoys are currently in areas where the temperature is cold enough to freeze sea water. I wouldn’t be surprised if today is ice minimum.
Buoy#, Latitude, Longitude, temp, Ice thickness
2013H, 80.43 N, 156.67 E, -11.54 C,127 cm
2013G, 75.57 N, 141.62 W, -9.22 C, 259 cm
2013F, 76.11 N, 139.50 W, -11.49 C, 134 cm
2013E, 83.96 N, 1.72 E, -4.65 C, 139 cm, (last measured 06/17/2013)
2013C, 81.13 N, 65.96 W, -1.18 C, 266 cm
2013B, 85.48 N, 3.89 E, -6.26 C, 157 cm
2012M, 78.35 N, 18.04 W, -1.77 C, 121 cm, (last measured 08/14/2013)
2012L, 74.01 N, 150.53 W, -1.89 C, 157 cm, (last measured 08/28/2013)
2012J, 87.58 N, 9.65 E, -1.17 C, 139 cm, (last measured 06/19/2013)
2012H, 73.03 N, 141.25 W, -7.75 C, 127 cm
2012G, 80.72 N, 122.06 W, -2.79 C, 216 cm
Data from: http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoysum.htm
I was under the impression that ice floats and that satellites equipped with radar could determine altitude to 1/10th of a mm.
I have some land to sell Doc.
DocMartyn “I was under the impression that ice floats and that satellites equipped with radar could determine altitude to 1/10th of a mm.”
Amazing ain’t it, sea level to +/- 0.001 meters and Polar Bears to +/- 5000
Well, whatever the Arctic ice may be doing (and whatever the cause), it is worth noting, as Susan Crockford has observed, that the polar bears are doing just fine!
Although, as Crockford has also noted, there may well be a “good” reason that you are highly unlikely to hear this great news from the MSM:
Source
Judith Curry, it would be a great pity if this non-scientific personal value were to guide your professional scientific judgement!
Aside from science, a great many farmers, conservationists, religious leaders, and (most common of all!) plain ordinary grandparents all have cogent, rational reasons to disagree utterly with your non-scientific value judgement!
That is why (needless to say) farmers, conservationists, religious leaders, and grandparents (and many just plain ordinary citizens) — and young climate-change researchers too! — rationally prefer strong climate-change science based upon global measures to mediocre “computer-model-science” and/or flimsy “cycle science”.
Judith Curry, please enlarge your too-narrow scientific focus to reflect more fully the broader-ranging and longer-term interests of the community that supports that science, and of the younger climate researchers whom you help teach and train!
That, or risk doing/teaching/training an idiodyncratic brand of climate-change science that is “not even wrong.”
This is ordinary human common sense, eh Judith Curry?
Fan
A couple of months ago I posted an article here on ‘noticeable climate change’ which showed the enormous changes we experienced on a annual and decadal basis.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
This is a real world time scale which affects everyone from farmers to tourism and picks up on climate change that longer time scales fail to see, as per the examples given as to the coarse sieve of fifty year smoothing which misses many events important to humans and nature.
Of course these shorter time scales are important to us. Please actually read the article and instead of spouting James Hansen tell us in your own words why these shorter time scales are non scientific?
Tonyb
TonyB, not even you would be so rash as to assert that inter-annual and decadal time scales are — in Judith Curry’s (ill-considered?) phrase — “far more relevant to societies” than longer time-scales.
Observation Jared Diamond documents in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, that crucial societal time-scales typically are multi-generational.
Conclusion Judith Curry’s scientific judgment is conditioned by her idiosyncratic personal aversion to scientific considerations relating to sustainment
In science especially, narrow judgment is poor judgment, eh TonyB?
Please respect broader, longer-term perspectives, Judith Curry!
Fan
I take exception to your initial comment ‘not even you…’ It is rude. I read your cites and respod with my own, I am not irrational.
You have this habit of citing links you do not appear to have read. or perhaps cite in the belief that n one else will read them. Here is the book you referenced. It is well worth a read.
http://www.e-reading.by/bookreader.php/133781/Collapse%253A_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed.pdf
There are a number of factors that cause societies to collapse decline or adapt. War is obviously one and environmental change and natural disaster one of a number of others. Javed Diamond brings many examples together but they mostly support Judith’s case not yours.
Annual and decadal changes are highly important especially in civilisations or communities already living in a marginal land. The inhabitants of Petra are a good example as their ability to store water changed overnight due to an earthquake which then directly impacted on the travellers that relied on them for water and the Roman Empire that had absorbed the city precisely because of its ability to harvest water. It is a large book (which starts with my favourite poem) which I have linked to above, so of necessity I am taking a chunk out of its full context.
Starts.
“Climate change was even more of a problem for past societies with short human lifespans and without writing than it is today, because climate in many parts of the world tends to vary not just from year to year but also on a multi-decade time scale; e.g., several wet decades followed by a dry half century.
In many prehistoric societies the mean human generation time—average number of years between births of parents and of their children—was only a few decades. Hence towards the end of a string of wet decades, most people alive could have had no first hand memory of the previous period of dry climate. Even today, there is a human tendency to increase production and population during good decades, forgetting (or, in the past,never realizing) that such decades were unlikely to last.
When the good decades then do end, the society finds itself with more population than can be supported, or with ingrained habits unsuitable to the new climate conditions. (Just think today of the dry U.S. West and its urban or rural policies of profligate water use, often drawn up in wet decades on the tacit assumption that they were typical.)
Compounding these problems of climate change, many past societies didn’t have “disaster relief” mechanisms to import food surpluses from other areas with a different climate into areas developing food shortages. All of those considerations exposed past societies to increased risk from climate change.
Natural climate changes may make conditions either better or worse for any particular human society, and may benefit one society while hurting another society. (For example, we shall see that the Little Ice Age was bad for the Greenland Norse but good for the Greenland Inuit.) In many historical cases, a society that was depleting its environmental resources could absorb the losses as long as the climate was benign, but was then driven over the brink of collapse when the climate became drier, colder, hotter, wetter, or more variable.
Should one then say that the collapse was caused by human environmental impact, or by climate change? Neither of those simple alternatives is correct. Instead, if the society hadn’t already partly depleted its environmental resources, it might have survived the resource depletion caused by climate change. Conversely, it was able to survive its self-inflicted resource depletion until climate change produced further resource depletion. It was neither factor taken alone, but the combination of environmental impact and climate change, that proved fatal.” ENDS
So Fan, What do we fear as modern societies, gradual changes over centuries (which can be mitigated) or decline if say there was a severe decades long drought or an enormous increase in rain and a drop in temperature over a similar period (as per Judith’s hypothesis? )
Many modern societies live in a marginal manner with excessive use of water ,a large population, and a ‘just in time’ mentality regarding the growing, gathering, storage and distribution of food and water.We are pretty vulnerable to annual and decadal changes, wouldn’t you agree?
tonyb
When using the word “recovery” to describe ice floating on the sea in the region of the North pole, it would help if people said how much ice they would like to see.
To add to what Stephen Rasey said up-thread, I’m not sure what it proves, and I’m not sure why I should give a toss. If I want to see sea ice, I’ll look at a web-cam. If I want to touch sea ice, the journey will be shorter in March.
Last year’s very low minimum and this year’s much higher minimum have something in common with the low and high minima of the past. They have always occurred and they imply absolutely nothing. People shrieked when Arctic ice advanced after the big temp plunge of the 1960s and they shrieked as it dwindled in recent years. Till we have something called Climate Science (we don’t now, duh) to explain what exactly is happening, commonsense will have to suffice.
First inquiry, then knowledge. Oh, and it helps to step outside occasionally.
But what will everyone blog about?
I estimated 5.7 million square metres ice minimum based on the Arctic Oscillation and the Pacific sea state – and comparison with previous years.
Here’s Arctic temps from Ole Humlum’s site.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arctictemps_zps395995c2.png.html?sort=3&o=0
It seems quite likely there are decadal (and longer) factors in play.
I have not seen anyone else make this point. One year does not MAKE a trend, but one year can BREAK a trend. And the short term trend towards ever decreasing amounts on Arctic sea ice at minimum, has been broken.
No-one, and I mean no-one, has the slightest idea what the long term trend is. This is clear from the fact that no-one has consistently predicted Arcitc sea ice minimum extent in recent years. I have no predictive capability; I can only go on hope. But I am prepared to bet, no money just prestige, that next year at minumum there will be a greater Arctic sea ice extent than this year. Anyone care to take the bet.
“One year does not MAKE a trend, but one year can BREAK a trend.”
I don’t think that is true either. The overall trend of decreasing arctic SI volume and area has not really been broken despite a few years, here and there, that were greater than the year before. You would have to have many years of increases to show the trend is broken. I wouldn’t bet on long term arctic SI growth, but it doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I don’t see how it will based on the last 20+ year trend.
Interestingly, few people actually have ’20/20 vision’.
That’s just a somewhat arbitrary screening cut-off point.
Young healthy eyes typically have better acuity than that, with measures as high as 20/8 recorded.
Jim Cripwell, it will be one h*ll of a long time before the 400-foot-thick ice floes of the 1950s return to M’Clure Strait
That’s plain common sense, eh Jim Cripwell?
Gee fan of more trolling, you link just points to another one of your posts, which quotes a “narrative” not a study, and that narrative simply said that
“An ice island about half a mile long and an estimated 40 feet high [and thus, 400 feet thick] could be seen 3 or 4 miles north of the west point of Mercy Bay [in M’Clure Strait].”
So we are talking about an estimate of the height of something, viewed from a distance of miles. Doesn’t seem very scientific to me.
I guess, whenever you want it to, anything at all can magically become “Strong Climate Science.”
LOL … tomdesabla, my spouse and I commonly observe eaglets in their nest from a distance of half-a-mile. Given that the west point of Mercy Bay stands 150 feet above sea level (thanks Google Earth!), pretty much any experienced naturalist appreciates that the scientist/explorer T.H. Manning enjoyed quite-sufficient visibility of this near-shore (and absolutely gigantic!) 1950s Arctic ice-floe.
It is a pleasure to augment your scientific understanding, tomdesabla!
Whoops! My bad! The elevation of the West Mercy Bay headlands exceeds 150 meters (not feet).
Check for yourself at 74°11’15.53″N, 119°10’13.06″W … what a stupendous view Manning and his student had of the now-vanished ice-islands of M’Clure Strait, eh tomdesabla?
Also, maybe people might not realize that you altered your quote by adding this part “[and thus, 400 feet thick]” in yourself. I know you used the correct square style parenthesis to show that you added it, but still, since you added it in, I took the precaution of checking your math. Since I know nothing of sea ice thickness computations, I checked with Wiki, and they said that 7/8ths of the total height of sea ice is below the surface. Using the 40 foot estimate (again just an unscientific, un-strong seat-of-the-pants guess with no instruments) I come up with a underwater depth of 280 feet
1/8th equals 40 feet, so 7 times 40 equals 280 feet – not 400 feet.
So you can’t even do the math behind your own ice keel depth measurements? Again, doesn’t sound like “strong climate science” to me.
At all. added it in, I took the precaution of checking your math. Since I know nothing of sea ice thickness computations, I checked with Wiki, and they said that 7/8ths of the total height of sea ice is below the surface. Using the 40 foot estimate (again just an unscientific, un-strong seat-of-the-pants guess with no instruments) I come up with a underwater depth of 280 feet
1/8th equals 40 feet, so 7 times 40 equals 280 feet – not 400 feet.
So you can’t even do the math behind your own ice keel depth measurements? Again, doesn’t sound like “strong climate science” to me.
At all.
And, Fan of more Trolling, just because you and your spouse can observe eaglets from half a mile doesn’t mean you can accurately measure their size – and certainly not with “strong” scientific certainty.
Climate Etc readers can do their own science tomdesabla!
Forty feet at four miles is the same opening-angle as 1/8″ inch at six feet (the closest distance that typical binoculars can focus). So I put a dot of white-out 1/8″ wide on a ruler, and looked at it from six feet away.
• No binoculars: the 1/8″ ruler-marks and the white-out dot both were easily resolved at 6 feet.
• With binoculars: seeing even the 1/64″ ruler-marks was utterly trivial.
Conclusion T. H. Manning’s 1952 report of multi-hundred-foot-thick “ice-island” floes in M’Clure Strait is scientifically credible.
“Seeing is believing”, eh tomdesabla? Try it yourself! Yeah SCIENCE!
Oh, and don’t overlook Frank Debenham’s 1954 article Ice Islands of the Arctic: an Hypothesis, which provides proof-positive (from the US Air Force, no less) that H.T. Manning’s observations were accurate.
We are all learning a lot, tomdesabla! Thank you for your sustained spirit of Arctic inquiry!
Fanny,
No need to do experiments with white out
at 20/20 vision the human visual system has about 1 arc minute of resolving power. So take your 40 foot image at at 3 or 4 miles calculate the subtended angle.
of course this will depend on the back ground color to some extent and wether or not the observer had 20/20 vision.
Long ago we had to build a visual detection model for air craft.. whether a pilot could see an opposing plane. fascinating stuff. My boss had 20/10 vision. on the golf course he never lost sight of the golf ball even if I blasted a drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity
“My boss had 20/10 vision. on the golf course he never lost sight of the golf ball even if I blasted a drive”
Work on your swing.
‘Stay tuned for the next update by October 5th to see where the MEI will be heading next. El Niño came and went last summer, not unlike 1953. We have just witnessed our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04 (2005-06 was an ENSO-neutral winter, but much closer to La Niña, and dipped into La Niña rankings during March-April). Of the six similar ENSO-neutral cases before 2012-13 shown here, two ended up as full-blown El Niño events by the end of the second year shown in this graph (1991 and 2002), while three remained more or less ENSO-neutral, and one drifted into weak La Niña territory (1967). We have now reached the time of year when drastic transitions are much less common than during boreal spring, and the MEI has dropped back to weak La Niña conditions, albeit not consistently across all of its features. Either continued weak La Niña or ENSO-neutral conditions remain more likely for the remainder of 2013 than a return of El Niño.’ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Claus Wolter is as usual almost certainly correct.
The AAO say so.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
The SOI says so.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
The state of the AO suggests cooler Arctic temps.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-ao.shtml
I’d suggest 6 million square km for next year.
Anyone beat 5.7 this year?
Jim C try 100 y ears for starters! Climate’s been going on for 500 million + years.
GaryM writes: “Hey, the Arctic could be ice free in summer next year. It could be ice free in five years, of forty. Fact is, in this skeptic’s opinion, no one can model the climate so no one knows with any real certainty or precision what the weather will be in the Arctic at any particular time in the future.”
That’s quite an admission. I suspect that’s not just your opinion either, but the opinion of most climate skeptics.
Read what you’ve just written. You have just admitted that the arctic could be ice free in five years (or next year!). Why is it when you state such a thing it’s OK, but if a scientist states it, or the media report it, suddenly it’s alarmist and wrong?
Before you dismiss what you’ve said as a kind of “anything is possible”, bear in mind that you would never say Greenland could be ice free in five years, or even forty and I doubt you would state Antarctic sea ice could be ice free in five years.
Yet with the Arctic situation I detect a certain fear by climate skeptics. They aren’t willing to go on record and state that the Arctic will still be full of ice in five years, ten years or even forty years. Climate skeptics recognize along with everyone else watching the climate that the Arctic is on a knife edge with regards to sea ice. They don’t want to put their necks on the line knowing that if it does go ice free in say 2018 they’ll be roundly pointed at. Too risky, they’d rather just be able to say “we didn’t predict it wouldn’t happen”
Yet despite realizing the all too real prospect of an ice free Arctic in five years, they’ll scream bloody murder if a scientist or journalist dares point out such a possibility.
Nonsense. I wrote the Arctic could be ice free in a year because no one I have read, consensus or skeptic, has written that it is impossible. Every thing I have read by consensus and skeptic alike about the Antarctic, to the contrary, indicates it is not possible.
Now those are examples of a consensus.
Why don’t skeptics predict precise figures for future Arctic ice extent/ Because we don’t think we can model the climate. Well, I don;t anyway. I am sure there are some delusional “skeptics” who think they can. But I’m not one of them.
I said nothing about probable. I leave it too you progressive obscurantists to pretend to not know the difference between possible and probable. It’s like measure vs. estimate. Pretend there is no difference, except when you think it advances your argument to tell the truth.
Exhibit A for the prosecution:
“Yet despite realizing the all too real prospect of an ice free Arctic in five years, they’ll scream bloody murder if a scientist or journalist dares point out such a possibility.”
“[P]ossibility” substituted for probability.
You come up with a quote from a prominent skeptic saying it is impossible for the Arctic to be ice free in summer in five years, and I’ll join you is saying he/she is almost as vain as your typical CAGW alarmist. You know, folks like you.
You’ve admitted the Arctic could be ice free in five years. Ten years ago you’d have scoffed at that idea, just as today you laugh at the idea of Antarctic sea ice reaching zero anytime soon. Scientists would have scoffed at it too. The evidence back then was that it would take decades, even longer, for an ice free Arctic.
Your admission aligns with scientists who have recently warned the Arctic could be ice free a lot sooner, within years. You, like them, realize this possibility because of updated observational data in recent years. You admit an ice free arctic is possible, but you complain when they report that in the media! Not just directed at you, it’s pretty much all you skeptics. I mean it’s crazy it’s like skeptics legitimately think it would be okay for the media to NOT report such news and if it happens we’d just be blindsided by it.
Oh we didn’t know it could happen! Oh wait, we DID, but climate skeptics said we shouldn’t report it because it was “alarmist” even though they admitted it could happen.
Come on! If you want to enjoy the fruit of climate science and know that Arctic free of sea ice could be very near, then at least allow the public know too!
“You admit an ice free arctic is possible, but you complain when they report that in the media! ”
I could say that is a bald faced lie. But I won’t. Because you know it’s not true, and are just being a typical progressive. Say anything to try to win the debate of the moment.
For a normal person, it would be a lie. For you, it is more like progressive Tourettes.
Decadal cooling and ice extent recovery seem more likely than not.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and
without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
The failure to understand this is the biggest failure of the green denial machine.
whoops sorry for the redundant text. Browser got weird. Like FOMT’s calculator I guess.
Dr Curry, i picked up the local Chinese-language newspaper today in Taiwan,, page 4 big story on Arctic sea ice expanding, with maps for 2013 and 2013, and in all the Chinese characters, I spot your name wirtten in roman lettters, JUDITH CURRY. want clippings? link http://www.libertytimes.com.tw
全球冷化？ 北極冰層面積年增6成
肯定態度，從前一次二○○七年報告的九十％增加到九十五％。但美國氣候學家柯里（Judith Curry）說，現在學術界對此越來越不肯定，顯然預測模型對二氧化碳太敏感…
5th paragraph scroll down to see JUDITH CURRY name in English letters —
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2013/new/sep/9/today-int3.htm
Arctic ice like everything else in climate responds to global energy budgets.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ AR4 WG1 3.4.4.1
The Willis Ocean heat content referred to above (and shown in the graph below) is consistent with the independent TOA flux anomaly datasets. ARGO after 2003 is far more relevant.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=133
The big changes were in shortwave. 0.7W/m^2 cooling in IR, 2.1W/m^2 warming in SW between the 1980′s and 1990′s. The anomalies changed in the 1998/2001 climate shift with more cloud reflecting more energy back into space. MODIS/CERES shows a modest decrease in cloud and and SW last decade. There were negligible changes in the IR anomaly last decade.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=91
Palle and Laken (2013) spliced the two using SST to validate.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=21
It seems utterly impossible that global energy content is higher today than it was in 1998. The obvious corollary is that recent warming and cooling was mostly cloud changes.
Chief Hydro-fabricator said:
“It seems utterly impossible that global energy content is higher today than it was in 1998.”
—-
To you, with your unusual perspective on ocean heat content perhaps it does seem “utterly impossible”. For every major study coming out in the past few years on the subject and every expert on the subject, 1998 was just a step along the way of over 40 years of increases in ocean heat content, which of course makes up the vast majority of non-tectonic solar derived energy stored in the Earth system.
It is impossible according to Chief because he considers himself “an excellent driver”.
Seems the Chief might have a perception vs. reality problem:
http://www.blogs.va.gov/vacareers/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DoVA_PerceptionReality_blog.jpg
Gates, Chief
This could make an interesting wager. The Southern Hemisphere standard error for 1997/98 is pretty large. The ARGO data is nice and all, but the pre-ARGO data sucked big time. So bad that the ocean heat content could have increased, stayed the same or decreased. Short term trends in noisy data are not generally something to bet the farm on, but I think y’all could find something appropriate.
Captn.,
I simply would like the Chief to put up actual data that shows 1998 was the peak of ocean heat content. As a true skeptic I would love to see such data. Given that I have looked at every study from the past five years on long-term ocean heat content and have never seen such data nor 1998 mentioned in such a way, I am reasonably confident he can’t produce such data. He keeps referring back to 2003 data that showed heat flux from the ocean over a short time frame, but this said nothing about ocean heat content. Maybe he is confusing flux with actual contrnt? Of course heat poured out of the ocean in greater amounts than normal during the 97/98 El Niño, but this was hardly the peak year for ocean heat content, as in fact, the best available data and estimates say was actually 2013, with even higher levels ahead as GH gases continue to accumulate.
I think the Willis graph used by Wong is for the upper 750 meters.
R. Gates, The data his is providing doesn’t prove that OHC isn’t higher than 1997/98, but it does tend to indicate that if it is higher, it is not due to radiant forcing but internal mixing. Based on sea level rise, I would believe it has slightly increased, but not enough to write home about.; Trenberth was reaching a bit and he is not exactly known for being super accurate though he is pretty free with “almost unbelievable confidence intervals”.
I think it would be a good wager since you do know that SSW events carry a bit of weight :) I am sure someone as we speak is working on another OHC paper to resolve the miraculous warming of the upper half of the oceans.
The vehemence of the reaction is an obvious indication of a hot button space cadet topic. That is – the surface is not warming but the ocean continues to warm. Even if it had – it had little to do with CO2. The reality is that cloud changes overwhelming drove the TOA flux variations. But it hasn’t.
BTW gatesy – power flux over time is energy. An positive power flux into the ocean and the ocean is warming and vice versa. So we can say – as both Takmeng Wong and the IPCC do – that it shows anomalies in ocean heat content. Which peaked in 1998.
‘The time series of globally averaged heat content contains a small amount of interannual variability and implies an oceanic warming rate
of 0.86 ± 0.12 watts per square meter of ocean (0.29 ± 0.04 pW) from 1993 to 2003 for the upper 750 m of the water column.’
This really wasn’t an issue until the top 700m stopped warming – most of the warming still happens there but it is mixed with higher volumes of cold abyssal water since the 1998/2001 climate shift.
Dallas – the Wong et al graph shows ERBS net flux at TOA peaking in 1998 – along with OHC. The flux of energy into the ocean is increasing to 1998 – and decreasing thereafter. Therefore ocean heat content and cloud radiative forcing peaked in these datasets in 1998. Nothing to do with internal mixing at all – other than that the cloud changes are caused by changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Trenberth’s ‘missing energy’ that was in CERES but not in oceans or atmosphere – that which had disappeared from the top 700m – was all in SW as well.
BTW – JASON sea level rise is about 4 times the steric rise shown in ARGO. In the same period that shows a declining freshwater content in ARGO. That’s the real mystery.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=46
I keep asking gatesy to put up annual ocean heat content data pre ARGO to show to show ocean heat content didn’t peak in 1998. There is none. Instead we have this for instance.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Chief, “JASON sea level rise is about 4 times the steric rise shown in ARGO. In the same period that shows a declining freshwater content in ARGO. That’s the real mystery. ”
It is almost like we don’t have the accuracy to make very strong conclusions one way or another :)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vAnz_kWElWc/Ui3GsVKjRfI/AAAAAAAAJbk/XYLERZuMRbY/s912/sh%2520sst%2520v%2520do%2520700.png
Looking out the window.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8724580.png
it looks like a horse race to me.
You should really provide some evidence Gatesy – or I will be entitled to ignore you.
1. The satellite data is what it is – it agrees with ocean heat data.
2. It was all SW.
3. It shifted in 1998/2001 to more cloud as seen in ISCCP-FD and ERBS.
4. The shift in 1998/2001 was observed in Project Earthshine.
5. What little warming last decade was SW counteracting the SORCE TSI downturn and all of it was consistent with ARGO.
6. All the data on cloud is consistent with SST.
7. It all agrees with surface observations of clouds.
8. Surfaces haven’t warmed since the 1998/2001 climate shift.
9. Pre-ARGO data peaked in 1998 in the Willis data – consistent with what is inferred in the energy budget.
Willis used a number of sources including satellite altimetry to build a consistent database with annual resolution. Levitus in comparison uses 5 year averages made necessary by limited data but is useless for high resolution analysis.
Pre-ARGO data is a bit dodgy – especially to depth. The coverage was not anywhere near adequate.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanHeatCoverage_zps6cb294af.png.html?sort=3&o=1
Nonetheless the REP ocean heat content here – black solid line – does show heat peaking late last century in a new Lyman and Johnson study. Panel (d) is 0-1800m. These are annual values – annual values are critical – in ZJ or 10E+21 J.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanHeatCoverage_zps6cb294af.png.html?sort=3&o=1
This is Figure 4 from – http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_v3.pdf
It all strongly suggests that the 1998/2001 climate shift involved a shift in cloud cover than reduced the quantum of energy reaching the surface.
I guess I would rather be an idiot savant than just a plain old idiot like gatesy and his sidekick webnutcolonoscope. The latter so called because he inevitably has his head up his arse. They both seem more into cult of AGW groupthink space cadet science than real science.
This is ocean heat content from Lyman and Johnson.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Quoting 0.86 watts/m^2 coincides with the expected uptake given the GHG forcing.
It is all self consistent.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif
‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
Entirely consistent with cloud radiative forcing.
“Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University… admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.”
How can he be so sure? THC has a cycle of about 1,000 years. Is it coincidence that the 20th century, Medieval warm period (ca. 1000 AD) and Roman warm period (ca. 100 AD) are separated by approximately 1,000 years?
Cycles such as the interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (folland) have measurable effects in the pacific.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/climate-change-effect-impacts-assessments-may08/images/figure-3-4.gif
Strange Dr. “How can he be so sure? THC has a cycle of about 1,000 years. Is it coincidence that the 20th century, Medieval warm period (ca. 1000 AD) and Roman warm period (ca. 100 AD) are separated by approximately 1,000 years?”
Simple, you let people who are not paleo-climatologists make the paleo reconstructions using novel methods and then history is what you wish it to be. I was pretty surprised at the number of real paleo guys that tend to be somewhat skeptical. One Kari Lawrence had some neat things to say about the hemispheric see saw driven by the precessional solar cycle instead of obliquity. Transitioning from a 41ka world to a 100ka world then just maybe a 21ka world. Stott also has some interesting ideas on CO2 and deep ocean mixing interrupted by undersea volcanic activity.
Forget the Arctic ice. Where have all the hurricanes gone?
“The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which forecasters had predicted would be more active than normal, has turned out to be something of a dud so far as an unusual calm hangs over the tropics.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-weather-hurricanes-idUSBRE9860AY20130907
Where have all the hurr’canes gone, long time passing?
Where have all the hurr’canes gone, long time ago?
Where have all the hurr’canes gone?
Warmists predict’d them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where have all the warmists gone, long time passing?
Where have all the warmists gone, long time ago?
Where have all the warmists gone?
Gone for Warsaw everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where has all the heating gone, long time passing?
Where has all the heating gone, long time ago?
Where has all the heating gone?
Gone deep’n the sea everyone
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where has all the sea ice gone, long time passing?
Where has all the sea ice gone, long time ago?
Where has all the sea ice gone?
Back to th’arctic, everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
(With insincere apologies to Peter, Paul and Mary)
I see no one wanted to touch it, so I will. Good Job. And I will add, where have they gone? Answer- same place all the other wrong predictions went.
Ice breaking news:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/09/08/daily-mail-website-to-be-given-moral-panic-button/
For any global warming researchers that get trapped in ice that’s not supposed to be there, perhaps they can request a green rescue by a wind or solar powered helicopter. It’s sort of embarrassing to be rescued by an oil tanker.
Heh.
Rather tepid, I’d say, Judith. But I guess it’s better than nothing.
After a few years of warming, the then “skeptics”, if any are left, will throw this back at us and say, look, the scientists were predicting another ice age in 2013.
You have to give them credit for creating arguments that aren’t falsifiable.
Really? Why, exactly, would be “difficult” for a journalist to approach his craft with integrity?
And I love the new twist:
“Mommy, mommy, I think they’re about to do it toooouuuuuuu.”
“The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.”
This shows how wrong the IPCC and models have been ib predicting future climate. For those of us who have aiways maintained that climate sensitivity to CO2 was far too high, this is good news. Indirectly it adds credibility to my claim that total CO2 is is unimportant and that the proportion of new hot CO2 in the troposphere is the important parameter that can maintain the ‘pause’ or end it.
Actually it is probably easir for the world to manage the proportion of hot CO2 rather than total CO2, For example, increased efficiency in machines will reduce hot CO2 as will nuclear power or the proposed hydrogen economy, although I am not suggerting the latter is easy.The easy part is simply replacing old inefficient machinery.
There is a lot of difference between ‘would’ and ‘could’, as has been gone through above, but perhaps Rose’s English comp isn’t so good.
Also, the IPCC models underestimated the melt rate it in general for AR4.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-12.jpg
Stroeve: ““The Antarctic sea ice has been seeing a slightly positive trend for the last few years. But if the planet continues to warm, we may also have reductions in the Antarctic sea ice and that will surely affect the penguin population.”
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20120620_emperorpenguins.html
“a slightly positive trend for the last few years”
Stroeve appears to be a liar. The trend has been positive for 30 years.
Quite extremely rude of you to call Dr. Stroeve a liar. The modifier of “appears” does not soften your rudeness,
We could give him the benefit of the doubt; perhaps he didn’t look back thirty years. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
============
“If warming trends in global climate continue, thinning and shrinking Antarctic sea ice could push Emperor penguin populations toward extinction, says a study published today by the journal Global Change Biology. NSIDC scientists Mark Serreze and Julienne Stroeve contributed to the study”
Antarctica is cooling
Antarctic Sea Ice has been growing for 30 years
What a grotesque abuse of science. And R Gates approves.
Oops, ‘she’ not ‘he’. Always the same question, the same question: Ignorant, or disingenuous?
Heh, ‘appears’ to be an easy answer this time.
==============
Guys,
on the topic of Dr Stoeve and Antarctic ice melt, it appears to me all of you have missed an important missed prediction.
Anyone want to show how penguin populations are threatened? Last I read they are half again larger than previously believed.
The reality is that low climate sensitivity is good news. For everybody. Unfortunately, some people can’t handle good news. Good news really harshes their buzz.
I’ll leave it to others to say what those people are called.
Looking at the chart, the trend looks like open water before too long:
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/04/Sea-Ice-Volume-2013.png
This is not to say some unclear enough momentum or change in process, or change yet to arrive is going to bend the trendline back up.
I’ve read somewhere that, if we go open water in September, so what? Is it really that different from down to ½ million cubic kilometers of ice each September? Is ice gone a threshold? It doesn’t look like it.
It’s been said the albedo part of it should show positive feedback. I’d say maybe it is. The Sun’s still pretty high and the way I read the chart is 10 million less square kilometers of high albedo ice that we had in about 1993. I understand the Antarctic is doing something else, looking at the Arctic, I’ll ask, is it positively feeding back?
And which part of the above graph to look at? The bottom part shows the greatest percentage change while the top shows the least.
So trying to understand the regime change theory of climate, do particular geographical areas change regimes?
The Antarctic is gaining albedo, that is, one attribute is the other sign than the Arctic has.
Why does the North Pacific seem to lock into its PDO, a local regime?
Perhaps it’s slight longterm positive feedbacks the keeps it in its loop until it swaps regimes?
I sure have a lot of questions. So if enough local regimes shift in short order or couple and strengthen we get a big change?
After the first zero-ice days, the next metric to track would be number of days of Arctic clear water which would expand gradually to perhaps several months by 2100. The winter matters less because in the dark the albedo effect is not important.
I thought I was told, this was a positive feedback, the albedo. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, it’s happening now?
Definitely. In the summer the pole is tilted towards the sun, so the whole Arctic Circle contributes to the albedo almost all day.
What do you say? Going, going, going………
Is it positive feedback as it goes, before our eyes?
Place your bets.
When you look at the volume trend it appears to be accelerating, so it looks like it has a positive feedback on itself. I would say 2015-2020 for the first ice-free one, and that is just by extrapolation of the minimum ice volume.
I admit, if it keeps decreasing, Ocean circulations up there, might change.
http://www.ok4me2.net/wp-content/uploads/image/2010_07ok/ocean-circulation.jpg
They’d be more subject to wind which is one driver.
JimD, by mid-August the length of day in Nome Alaska is 16.5 hours and the sun is 39 degrees above the horizon at local noon. The end of August the day length drops to 14.7 hours and the sun is 34 degrees above the horizon. I believe that Dr. Curry has mentioned that because of the angle of the sun that arctic ocean albedo is just a tad less of an issue in the “unprecedented” melt than weather and ocean oscillations like the AMO which is near a maximum and likely turning to neutral or downward.
Just saying
Difficult not to factor in clouds as well.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-clouds.shtml
Jim D
Let’s do a quick check on your estimate.
Excluding this year, the end-September sea ice extent trendline according to NSIDC data is:
y = -0.0902x + 8.0198
So if “zero sea ice” is defined as 1.0 million square km, we have
1.0 = -0.0902x + 8.0198
0.0902x = 7.0198
x = 78 years
2012 + 78 = 2090
Looks like by extrapolating the NSIDC end-summer trend line you arrive at the “zero” level of 1 msk by 2090, not 2015-2020.
Go back and do your arithmetic, Jim.
Max
It’s not linear Max,
try a quadratic
I agree it’s roughly quadratic. The minimum (dy/dx = 0) is at x = 2010s (roughly) and ymin is at around 2010s decadal average.
The Arctic ocean in July receives more solar insolation that the Sahara desert. Currently the Arctic ocean is still largely covered in ice in July, but that may change if a period of ice free develops each year and starts expanding.
That would not only mean a hell of a lot more solar radiation absorbed than has been the case so far, but more of that solar radiation would go into heating water, whereas currently a great deal of it is expended melting ice.
The sea ice up there turn out to have been a huge buffer that has been limiting the full influence of the summer sun.
“The Arctic ocean in July receives more solar insolation that the Sahara desert. ”
I’m not sure I believe this, I presume you have some evidence?
this is correct: 24 hours of sunlight at the highest latitudes.
@curryja
” this is correct: 24 hours of sunlight at the highest latitudes.”
But Sun light is not insolation, much of the sun will be reflected off the water, and all of the water will be exposed to space to cool, if the sky is clear.
huh?
With regards to the Arctic vs the Sahara. Just using the solstice as an estimate, the NP should be getting 24 hrs of sunlight at sin(23.45 degrees), which equates to 9.55 hrs of direct sunlight (assuming no reflection due to angle of incidence change). The Sahara includes the Tropic of Cancer, so an estimate of that would be sin(45 degrees) for 12 hrs, which computes to 8.49 hrs of direct sunlight. Clearly, I’d need to do the integrals to know for sure. I’d never heard that claim before, but my quick estimate has it as reasonable. However, which is cloudier during that time of year?
-Scott
@Scott,
” I’d never heard that claim before, but my quick estimate has it as reasonable.”
I’ll accept this as true. I’m still not sure about the amount of energy when you account for the elevation of the Sun, reflection, and increased radiation of water vs ice.
The Arctic might get more hours of daylight, but I think you’ll find that the insolation it receives, in terms of W/m2 is very much smaller.
Let’s look at some actual radiation readings from the USCRN network using Barrow Alaska 71.3N and Everglades City 25.9N
The average daily total solar energy received, in MJ/meter^2, during
the month. This value is calculated as the average of daily total solar radiation.
June 2013 average daily radiation.
Barrow Alaska 18.4 MJ/meter^2 (24 daylight hours)
Everglades City Florida 19.5 MJ/meter^2 (13.6 daylight hours)
Additional to my above comment.
Station, March & September (12 hrs daylight each on Sept. 22nd)
Barrow, 7 & 3.8 MJ/meter^2
Everglades, 19.5 & 16.2 MJ/meter^2
Looking at this on temperatures North of 70-90 N:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT4%20Since1900.gif
Especially 1940 to 1950.
And this one from Tisdale on the PDO:
http://i53.tinypic.com/jb6wph.jpg
It seems that in around 1940 to 1950 a PDO change occurred and a trend change occurred in the Northern temperatures.
Maybe the thinking is a PDO locked in its warm phase will bring the ice back, reverse its decline.
That events now are going to be similar to 1940-1950.
The graph from climate4you was pointed ouf by the Chief. Just wanted to mention that.
warmer = more ice: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/
“The average ice thickness is at its lowest ever:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff3bbe27970d-pi
Though it is spread out over a larger area than last year, so total volume is up. Certainly natural variability plays a key role in ice from year to year, but the long-term trend remains down until the first ice-free summer.”
=====
Global average temps stopped rising: ah yes but the arctic ice cap is in catastrophic collapse.
Ice area starts to recover: ah yes but the volume is still dropping. Then there’s an increase in (modelled) volume: ah yes but the _thickness_ is still at an all time low hence death spiral …..blah….
And if the thickness were to increase I suppose we’ll still have to worry : ah yes but it’s not a white as it used to be.
Here is the full daily time-series filtered with a low-pass filter to remove short term ‘weather’ noise. This gives a clearer picture of how successive years compare.
First graph is just the two years that are closest to this years: 2008 and 2009. This years has run between those bounds so far.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=439
Here is the same graph will all years since 2005. It is interactive so you can click on the years in the legend to toggle them on/off to concentrate of years of interest.
http://piments.com/svg/arctic_ice_annual_smoothed.svg
Left mouse click anywhere on the graph turns on coordinate read out if you want to pick out numbers.
Also SVG is scaleable graphic , so you can zoom in with your browser for more detail.
(interactive svg produced by gnuplot)
So far since 2005 , 05,06,09 had more ice than 2013, 08,11,12 had less.
This is a far more objective assessment of inter-annual change than the usual bed-wetting exercise based on one data point in September and ignoring the other 364 days of the year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Thanks CH, I hadn’t seen that , It’s a very similar presentation. Rather sluggish compared to my SVG but I guess it’s live date pull on each click.
Inter-annual comparison is still somewhat hindered by the short term variation. The main point of my graph was to remove that variations to facilitate assessment of how various years compare.
Since this is what most people seem to be mainly interested in, I think my processing is more helpful to visualising that.
Sometimes noise is information.
Chief
With your interest in water, have you ever looked at the fantastic water harvesting and storage of the Nabataeans of Petra in Roman Times?
tonyb
Chief Hydrologist | September 9, 2013 at 5:31 am |
“Sometimes noise is information.”
Indeed, which is why I put the word in quotes. I have been studying the high frequency end of the data in some detail too. However, it is a distraction if we want to look at inter-annual variations.
If there’s some short term variations that make the 21 Sept dip a bit more, (or the opposite) it will give a falsified impression of how a particular YEAR was shaping up.
That is why it is totally unscientific to obsess about one day per year that is highly dependant on short term fluctuations and ignore the other 364 days.
The main shouting match for the last several years is basically to take the one-day annual minimum as the best indicator of inter-annual variability. That is little short of stupidity.
My graph makes clear that this year lies somewhere between 2008 and 2009. Whichever way the wind blows next week that is unlikely to change.
Pingback: As Arctic Ice Rebounds, Top Scientists Predict Period Of Global Cooling | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Dear deniers – these latest Arctic ice data were brought to you by – climate scientists. So you believe them now, but you didn’t last year?
– said George , Durham, United Kingdom, 09/9/2013 10:17
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eNzZ2wwB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ooooh, Cogent George, a bloomin’ genius.
==============
Of course, it snows more when oceans are warm and wet and cooling follows. I have been telling this story since before I joined Climate Etc.
This is in the data. There is a modern ten thousand year cycle with an upper bound and a lower bound that does not get violated. Look at Actual Data. Model Output goes out of bounds. Actual Data Stays in bounds. The snow falls in the warm times to cause cold times. The snow don’t fall in cold times and that allows warm times.
In a rapidly warming world one would expect the maximum sea ice area to be seriously affected. The data appears to indicate that there is no statistically significant change?
Given the historical evidence it is clear that sea ice minimum is not a relevant metric. Fortunately NSDIC and their fellow travellers do not like humble pie otherwise there would be non left for decent people to accept their errors?
Stacey,
Maximum sea ice which occurs of course around late March would be less affected initially then the minimum, as we’ve seen. Once more and more open water occurs in the summer, more solar SW will penetrate the Arctic water and thus more will have to leave that water when the Arctic winter sets in. The heat flux from water to atmosphere can occur rapidly, and the sooner the water cools, ice can reform. Eventually, the water could be so warm that it begins to impact the sea ice maximum in significant way, but this would probably not be for several decades. Look for the sea ice minimum and sea ice volume to continue to be the best metric for overall sea ice decline for quite some time, even after we get our first ice free summer Arctic.
Stacey,
Look for whatever suggests any warming at all to be considered “the best metric” for determining the catastrophes we are experiencing as a result of the ongoing thermageddon. If land surface temperatures “pause,” all focus shifts to the ocean. If the upper oceans don;t show sufficient warming, then the focus shifts to the (primarily unmeasured) deep oceans. If Arctic ice recovers, you can bet the focus will shift to glaciers or islands that continue to recede as the “best metric.”
“Best” is a useful term for progressive warmists. It’s like “fairness.” Or “for the children.” Vague, impossible to disprove, virtually content free, but oh so important sounding. Just look at all the bastardized misquotes posted by fan of MORE obscurantist dialogue as “best science available” for examples.
In the 1950s US military researchers were amazed to discover that the high Arctic oceans supported more than 50 gigantic “ice islands”, with each island of many square miles in area, and of ice-thickness 150 feet and more.
Among the more celebrated was Fletcher’s Ice Island, which slowly drifted counter-clockwise around the North Pole, while supporting (at various times) teams of researchers. Until Fletcher’s Ice Island melted away.
We know know that these dozens of ice-islands formed more than 5000 years ago … and we know too that today they are all gone: melted-away by the secular increase of Arctic-ocean heat-content.
Conclusion Whatever forces have acted to melt-away the world’s 5000-year-old high-Arctic ice islands, those forces surely were more than Judith Curry’s “climate variability on interannual to multi-decadal time scales”.
The sobering destruction of the high-Arctic ice islands is yet another reason why, for young scientists, admirals, and Popes, and farmers, and grandparents, and many other ordinary folks, it is rational to prefer strong climate-change science that is founded upon global measures and that focuses upon long-term outcomes to mediocre “computer-model-science” and/or flimsy “cycle science” that focus upon short-term outcomes.
Fan
Wait a minute here. Surely 5000 year old islands in the 1950’s that have melted now are excellent examples of multi decadal changes?
Please see my earlier reply re javed diamonds excellent book
Tonyb
Hey, Tony, the Gods walked.
========
Hey, if the Himalayan glaciers can melt by 2035, surely some little islands of ice can melt in their entirety in a couple decades. The warming since the LIA had nothing to do with it, surely.
Maybe multi decadal millennial changes
5000 years of cold 60 years of warm and back to 5000 years of cold, is that the kind of decadal variability you think is going on?
Whatever happened to the high-Arctic ice islands was unique in the last 5000 years … hmmmm … TonyB, yah got any idea as to what has changed uniquely and recently?
The world wonders!
Fan
The LIA was the coldest period during the Holocene. We can see a temperature rise in CET since 1690. Glaciers have been melting since 1750. Where do those warming events appear on the co2 charts you linked?
tonyb
TondyB, the effects you describe are minor bends in a climate-change hockey-stick handle … whose 21st century blade is lengthening appallingly.
Fan
I wrote about these islands several years ago.
Here is an illustration from 1818
http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/titlepage.htm
one of many references;
“As additional background to the period, linked below are the annual Board of Trade journals dating back to 1676, covering Newfoundland.
http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/nfld_history/CO194/index.htm
This extract here;
“…preventing the construction of non-fishery related buildings near the water, no officers are employed in the fishery, explanation given to the catching and curing of fish, mentions “ice islands” which impeded the ships on the seal fishery,” (T Duckworth CO194/49 Reel B-682 5 June 1810”
These are not the same as the large chunks of ice used as floating research stations by the Russians amongst others.
tonyb
Fan
Would you like to link to the source of your ‘blade’ graphic.
A highly variable instrumental record has been spliced onto a non variable paleoclimate record. Then it has been Extrapolated vertically to 2100!! I showed exactly how this worked with my article ‘noticeable climate change.’
You can see it again here on this one directly referencing the hockey stick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
In particular I would refer to figure 2 and 4.
tonyb
Hey, where are lolwot and Michael?
Here we have fanny bleating about “a climate-change hockey-stick handle … whose 21st century blade is lengthening appallingly.”
But Marcott et al. admitted that “the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
And the bulk of the rest of the supposed “lengthening hockey stick” is the result of projections of one of the IPCC’s more alarmist GCMs. You know, the suite of GCMs whose most modest projections have vastly over stated 21st century warming so far.
I await with eager anticipation the biting deconstructions to come from our progressive protectors of honesty and integrity.
In December of 2008 Al Gore said, “Arctic would be ice free in 5 years.”
There seem to be some 30 vessels which have visited the NW Passage this year. See
http://northwestpassage2013.blogspot.ca/2013/08/northwest-passage-2013-arctic-boats.html
What they are doing in this harsh environment, I am not sure; they seem to be adventurers who like a challenge. The boats do not seem to have been especially equipped to handle ice conditions. Precisely what is going to happen to them this winter, I am not sure. There is a piece at
http://northwestpassage2013.blogspot.ca/, which is the current page of the web site, which seems to give information about the current status, but I am not sure I undertand what it is saying.
The point I am making is that there seem to be some adventurers who have come into Canadian waters this year, and put themselves at risk; if not their lives at risk, certainly their pocket books. If they do get stuck, who pays to help them get out? What if the NW Passage does not open up at all next year, except for icebreakers?
I suspect that these people believed the myth that the NW Passage was going to be open for business to anyone, propogated by the hoaxsters of CAGW. Now, it appears, we here in Canada, are going to be stuck with a problem we did not start. How much of a problem is not clear. But we did not sow the wind, so I hope we dont have to reap the whirlwind.
It WOULD be an interesting trip. Lot’s of new and unusual, for most, to see.
Fixed it for `yah, Jim Cripwell.
Fan
you quote the NW passage then run a link to an article on the North East passage aka the Northern route. They are in different places you know.
tonyb
fan is in different places. Isn’t it obvious?
========
A fan in search of roadapples travels much.
‘Climate scientists’ ignore the data we have from real scientists like geologists who have shown a consistent pattern of climate change over the last 40 million years with its limited interglacial window of global warming every 100,000 years..
..we have been cooling since the Holocene Optimum, centuries tell the real story.
Unless climate has a higher sensitivity to AnthroCO2 than seems evident now, it will be impossible to again reach the heights of the Holocene, even if we tried.
Jeez, I’d settle for the depths of the Holocene rather than the end of it.
====================
Any day of the week. The real denial is the refusal to consider that a mere 20,000 years ago my house in New England would have been covered by ice a mile thick. The other side of that grim coin is that it soon will be again. It’s a form of insanity, this fetishistic terror of a few precious degrees of life sustaining warmth, which it’s beginning to look like is the most we can expect.
It’s madness, alright; a madness of the crowd stampeded. And who bellowed alarum?
==================
Kim erroneously proclaimed:
“Unless climate has a higher sensitivity to AnthroCO2 than seems evident now, it will be impossible to again reach the heights of the Holocene, even if we tried.”
_____
The best paleoevidence from Lake El’gygytgyn is Siberia would indicate that we’ll quite easily exceed the Holocene Optimum as CO2 levels go over 400 ppm. It should be as toasty as it was in the Pliocene.
It’s called positive feedback.
Consider it evidence.
David Rose writes a “technically true” article in The Mail which millions of voters will read, and become less alarmed and more dubious about the spectre of “global warming” as a consequence….Nuccitelli writes a bitter and twisted faux-rebuttal in the obscure sections of the loss-making Guardian….
I will settle for that!
Some eminent scientists might appreciate the scare quotes around “technically true”.
willard starts, and looks around. There is something happening here but he don’t know what it is, does he, andrew adams?
========================
Some eminent scientists might wish that Koldie would never overplay hands.
We don’t know about Gaia, though.
Some eminent scientists wish the Piltdown Mann hadn’t drawn red scary lines.
=========
Indeed, and don’t forget about Galileo.
Galileo correcting a misapprehension about man’s place in the universe had vast intellectual ramifications, but correcting a misapprehension about man’s role in climate will have far greater immediate social implications than his correction did.
==================
Kim ironically stated:
“…correcting a misapprehension about man’s role in climate will have far greater immediate social implications than his correction did.”
____
You are correct. Once the full scope of man’s impact on both the climate and the planet at large is fully brought into the social consciousness and the term “Anthropocene” if fully embraced across all branches of science, the true role of humanity and stewardship of the planet will be recognized.
Meanwhile,down South:
Antarctica temperature and sea ice trends
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
It appears that the temperature in Antarctica is cooling slightly on average, although the Arctic Peninsula (a thin sliver of land extending northward toward South America and comprising less than 4% of the total surface area) has warmed.
A study by Doran et al. 2002 concludes:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Antarctic sea ice extent (data from NSIDC) has grown consistently since measurements started in 1979 (end-winter +4%; end-summer +23%, above 1979-2000 baseline).
A study by Comiso 2000 analyzed Antarctic temperature data obtained from 21 surface stations and from infrared satellites operating since 1979:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013%3C1674%3AVATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
So, taking into consideration the paucity of data from the interior of the continent, it appears very likely that the overall temperature trend in Antarctica has been one of very slight cooling, with stronger regional warming in the Antarctic Peninsula.
Max
Now, now, Max, Steig straightened that all out by smearing the Antarctic Peninsula data temporally and spatially across the rest of Antarctica, and critically over the WAIS, so we could be properly alarmed about it.
You’ll soon see what policymakers will buy.
===========
kim, I think that was Mann, Steig was not the “Stats” guy.
Couldn’t a been Mann, he’s a fraud.
===============
Mebbe I mean he’s afraid. With his history, he wouldn’t dare try such an obvious trick.
==========
That would be remarkably stupid. Just begging for discovery. Mebbe I can scare willard with ‘discovery’.
======================
kim, I know it is a shocking thought, a Mann of unimpeachable credentials with a prolific peer reviewed publishing record that rivals the great masters of science could never make an error that cascades through climate science, could he?
Precipitation over the Antarctic Peninsula is now to be called “Steig Hail”
Good one, Doc.
Sizzling summer:
South Pole experiences more record heat in August
to end warmest winter ever
Hmmm … the same “strongest available climate-change science” that predicted Arctic warming, also predicts that Arctic warming will be followed (later) by Antarctic warming.
Is that starting now, do yah think kim and captdallas and manacker?
An average winter temp of MINUS 53.3C is what you term “sizzling” hot??
Funny, Alarmists are beyond embarrassment, beyond shame…..
Skiphil, you ain’t been lookin’ at the ice-mass data for Greenland and Antarctica, have yah?
Fan
Are your graphics for land ice? If so where is the melt water going to as the giant sea level rises you were extrapolating for James Hansen a few months ago seem to have reverted to trend again.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
tonyb
Maybe I should add another verse to “Where has All the Warming Gone.
Where has all the sea rise gone, long time passing…
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/08/arctic-sea-ice-minimum/#comment-377086
If things don’t warm up soon, it’s going to turn into an opera.
Are you wrong-siders math challenged or what, look at the graphs Fan posted and calculate the sea level rise for now and through to the end of the 21st century and tell me when it will show up on the graphs posted by the good guys in Colorado.
Again its not linear, use a quadratic and write that down.
In your free time, can you demonstrate that Hansen was wrong about anything?
As discussed before, passive microwave sensors understate the amount of sea ice during the melting season, due to difficulties discerning melt water on top of ice. I am more trusting of the NIC reports as they also include analyses of satellite imagery and reports from vessels in the Arctic Sea.
As of yesterday, the ice extent continued its normal decline, reported by NIC at 5.82 M Sq. Km, with the packed ice portion (8/10ths) at 4.83 M. In 2012 the extent at this date was. 4.88 M, and the 8/10ths part was 3.13 M. The difference between the years is significant.
Over the past several years, the minimum has occurred on day 265 +/- 1 day (Sept. 21 to 23). For example, last year on Sept. 21, NIC showed ice extent at 4.2 M. Sq. Km., with the 8/10ths portion at 3.3 M.
A remarkably narrow range in the past several years. What would be the meaning of an early minimum, well outside +/- 1 day?
================
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=206
I’ll update this graph for 2013 near the end of October when there is enough data beyond the min to run the filters.
Ooh, nice GG; apparently the range is greater than 2 days, and also apparently, there was weather outside the usual range in 2012.
===================
I have not been able to find a daily time series from NIC. I’d certainly be interested in Ron can provide a link. It sounds like such a dataset would provide a useful second opinion, which has some ground truth added in.
+/- 1 day sounds pretty surprising to me but I can’t comment further without seeing the data.
From NIC Arctic Daily Archives:
Arctic Min Date M.sq Km
21/09/2012 4.20
20/09/2011 5.27
22/09/2010 5.66
21/09/2009 5.84
23/09/2008 4.93
18/09/2007 4.61
Thanks Ron , but I was not asking for five numbers, I want a link to a time series of daily data. And I don’t want to be unpacking 432 .nc files and stringing them together.
I guess you could not find one either, or else you would have provided it.
That’s correct Greg. The numbers I find are attached to the charts
h/tip to Kim:
No one knows what’s going to happen to Arctic ice.
Except maybe the polar bears.
But they are not talking.
Except of course to the admen at Coca-Cola.
You know, I once passed on the opportunity to buy a gel of an early Coca-Colar Bear; it was out of my range already.
============
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.…
…and yet we hear the Leftists with Gore Warming Disease continue top say the oceans are not cooling… as a big part of Alaska descends into an Ice Age and the most part of the North American continent approaches a colder than usual 2013/4 winter.
The ice islands were not frozen sea ice but remnants of land fast ice at the north coast of Ellesmere Is. When the land based glaciers receded, the shelves were left hanging on the coast with nothing to renew them. They were often covered with wind blown dust from the newly exposed land and have been disintegrating for hundreds of years. Moira Dunbar thinks the ice islands were first described by Parry in 1819-20.
After entering the sea ice pack, they drifted around the Arctic basin finally exiting through the Greenland Sea where they melted. Please read “Arctic Ice Islands” by Koenig et al in “Arctic” mag. July 1952 online.
Fan
Just thought Id save you the trouble of posting the latest ‘Hot whopper’ about David Rose by doing it for you.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/david-rose-and-his-tabloid-reporting-of.html
Its ok, don’t thank me
tonyb
To find out more about David Rose and how is rather “loose” reporting of the “facts” has in fact done some harm, google his name and “Iraq war” reporting. It was truly a very sad moment for so-called “journalism”.
Here’s David Rose in action
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/663378/posts
“Iraq is close, he says, to achieving a long-range missile capable of hitting the capitals of Turkey, Egypt, Cyprus, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. He has supplied new information about how the country has built a network of front companies, controlled by its intelligence service, to evade Western sanctions, and identified seven sites where chemical and biological weapons are designed, manufactured, and tested, and an eighth where nuclear weapons are again being developed. With evident pride, he describes the success of his scheme to build a fleet of virtually undetectable mobile biological-weapons trucks, indistinguishable in appearance from the vehicles used to carry chilled or frozen food.”
But maybe he’ll be right about climate change!! :D
Iolwot
Hold on there. Your Govt and MY Govt and around 20 other govts believed this sort of misinformation. It should be the politicians who are held to account not the journalist
tonyb
Tony,
You need to read a bit more about the reporting by David Rose and the events leading up the attack on Iraq. His reporting played a bit role in influencing policy makers in your country. He did not vet facts, yet reported them as “true”. It was a shameful moment for journalism. Read up on it. You won’t be proud of his behavior as a Brit.
‘ As the defector and I spoke, over two long days in March 2002, the debate in the West on what, if anything, to do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein was feverish. Once President Bush had described Iraq as part of an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address, some kind of intervention seemed inevitable. At the same time, there were powerful voices urging restraint: in the liberal media; in the capitals of Europe; in the State Department and C.I.A.
The defector’s information only intensifies the dilemma posed by the persistence of Saddam Hussein. This account of the ease with which Iraq appears to have evaded U.N. sanctions to date does not make one confident that the so-called smart sanctions now being proposed as a means of curbing Saddam’s military ambition are any more likely to be effective. At the same time, Saddam’s alleged willingness to use a nuclear weapon against Israel before the invasion of Kuwait suggests that the global strategic threat that his possession of weapons of mass destruction represents is not theoretical, but real.
But how far have the Tammooz missile and other programs progressed? How effective are his chemical and biological weapons? How ready are his regime’s servants to activate a strategy that might see the Middle East afflicted with biblical destruction in the event of a U.S. attack? On an accurate Western assessment of such questions much may depend.’
‘Saddam Hussein enjoyed U.S. support in his long war with Iran in the 1980s — even after Iraq repeatedly used chemical weapons. Iraq used mustard gas against the Iranians in 1983, with no objection from the Reagan administration. In 1987, Foreign Policy magazine reported last week, the U.S. gave Saddam intelligence that an Iranian invasion was imminent at a hole in Iraq’s defenses. “An Iranian victory is unacceptable,” President Reagan wrote on an intelligence report. In response to the U.S. warning, Saddam repeatedly attacked Iranian forces with sarin, killing more than 20,000 and injuring thousands more. He later used sarin to kill more than 5,000 Kurds to put down an uprising in northern Iraq. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks, told Foreign Policy that the U.S. chose to ignore Saddam’s use of chemical weapons because Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas,” Francona said. “They didn’t have to. We already knew.” http://theweek.com/article/index/249224/a-brief-history-of-chemical-warfare
Top five crimes of Sadam Hussein>
http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm
Hussein executed 600,000 Iraqis.
‘Make no mistake: The ouster of Saddam Hussein was a victory for human rights, and if there is any silver lining to come from the brutal Iraq War, it is that Hussein is no longer slaughtering and torturing his own people. But we should fully recognize that every indictment, every epithet, every moral condemnation we issue against Saddam Hussein also indicts us. We should all be ashamed of the atrocities that were committed under our leaders’ noses, and with our leaders’ blessing.’ http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
‘As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.’ http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
Hussein had and used chemical weapons and stockpiled nuclear materials – and threw out UN inspectors.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.Ui5Kej_4JmN
Operation desert fox?
‘Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to “degrade” Iraq’s ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:[5]
“I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.”
The main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and the barracks and command headquarters of Saddam’s elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam’s lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi air defense batteries, unable to target the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success. U.S. Special Forces members who had been on the ground in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish settlements from retaliation withdrew, and the air strikes ended.’
So what happened to the stockpiles? Perhaps they are coming back to haunt us in Syria.
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/the-unresolved-mystery-of-syrias-iraqi-chemical-weapons/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/072612-619904-obama-discovers-how-hard-mideast-politics-can-be.htm
Rose’s words seem far too moderate to do full justice to the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s reign. The progressive agenda here is utterly repulsive.
And now he’s wailing about global cooling just as he wailed about WMD in Iraq.
It is cooling and there were WMD.
Clouds cause net cooling.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23
And Hussein used chemical weapons and stockpiled nuclear materials.
There’s not any doubt about either. The only mystery is why it is so difficult for progressives to admit.
“It is cooling and there were WMD.”
Ocean heat content is rising.
“”The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” Bush told ABC television in an interview scheduled for broadcast last night. “I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.” But he followed that moment of candour with an attempt to try to deflect charges that the White House misled Congress and the public to build a case for war, arguing that there had been widespread belief that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal.
“It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence.””
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview
R Gates
You said;
‘His reporting played a bit role in influencing policy makers in your country.’
You wildly overestimate the influence of a hack and wildly underestimate the culpability of govts who were desperate to go to war, mine being one of the ringleaders. Blair needed no words from Rose to convince him that he needed to take action.
What evidence have you got that Blair and Bush were greatly influenced by Rose?
tonyb
‘Saddam Hussein enjoyed U.S. support in his long war with Iran in the 1980s — even after Iraq repeatedly used chemical weapons. Iraq used mustard gas against the Iranians in 1983, with no objection from the Reagan administration. In 1987, Foreign Policy magazine reported last week, the U.S. gave Saddam intelligence that an Iranian invasion was imminent at a hole in Iraq’s defenses. “An Iranian victory is unacceptable,” President Reagan wrote on an intelligence report. In response to the U.S. warning, Saddam repeatedly attacked Iranian forces with sarin, killing more than 20,000 and injuring thousands more. He later used sarin to kill more than 5,000 Kurds to put down an uprising in northern Iraq. Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 attacks, told Foreign Policy that the U.S. chose to ignore Saddam’s use of chemical weapons because Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas,” Francona said. “They didn’t have to. We already knew.” http://theweek.com/article/index/249224/a-brief-history-of-chemical-warfare
There were chemical weapons, he did use them and there were several large stockpiles of nuclear materials. He did stop UN inspectors. I don’t know this is so difficult for you numbnut. Where did the chemical weapons go? Were they blown up in Operation Desert Fox? Did they go to Syria? I don’t know but they were there and they were used – along with all the other atrocities of Saddam Hussein.
“Where did the chemical weapons go? Were they blown up in Operation Desert Fox? Did they go to Syria? I don’t know”
It’s a travesty you can’t account for the lack of WMD.
RGates
Here is a list of witnesses to the hugely expensive and exhaustive British Judicial inquiry into the Iraq War .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_witnesses_of_The_Iraq_Inquiry
A little way down is a useful ‘timeline.’
Can you perhaps clarify where Rose is seen as having any sort of influence whatsoever into the decision to go to war?
tonyb
Even George would not pull the chain of causality too hard:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science
Some eminent scientists might surmise that David Rose’s writing has no influence whatsoever over reality.
‘It’s a travesty you can’t account for the lack of WMD.’
Again it is a fact that there were chemical weapons and they were used.
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-gas-iraq-iran/25098713.html
So what happened? Were they destroyed by Sadam Hussein – after throwing the inspectors out – or in Operation Desert Fox?
‘Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation limited and later halted their work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to Syria.
No information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”’ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/#.Ui5guD_4JmN
lolwot revises findings of most intelligence units at the time. Kind of like revising the tree ring record, or “tuning” models.
It was a ‘slam dunk’ that Saddam had WMD, straight from the mouth of the head of the CIA to Dubya’s ears. The Russians may be momentarily removing the evidence.
===============
Nuttercelli’s article on Guardian:
“The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.”
Giving himself “a few decades” to be proven right or wrong he’s not taking any risks like the alarmists who foolishly committed themselves to saying something concrete, like ice-free by 2013.
But how scientific is it to suggest, based on 30 years of data, what the ice cover will be in “in a few decades”. Not a decade or a couple of decades but “a few”. That sounds a lot like extrapolation of at least 100% beyond the end of the data. That’s about a non committal as you can get about making a definite prediction.
Well, I’m so sure that he’s wrong I’m going to say today that there will still be ice in the Arctic “in a few decades”.
Greg G. said:
“Well, I’m so sure that he’s wrong….”
____
Then you are not a skeptic but a “true believer”, for skeptics are never sure they are right or that someone else is wrong, but only speak as something being “more likely”. True believers go around with 100% certainty.
Well, it’s pretty likely that you missed the joke.
================
Now that’s spoken like a true skeptic (at least in this case)!
It’s literary technique called ridicule by parody. Sorry if it was a bit above you intellectual capabilities. But seeing the rest of your abusive rants above that does not really surprise me.
Next time I’ll put “joke” in brackets after it so you don’t get confused.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378712033843/A-lone-polar-bear-walks-o-002.jpg
Great little image from the Guardian for the Nuttercelli article.
Either it’s Jesus H. himself come back as a polar bear or a very good demonstration of the problems of measuring sea ice extent from space. Melt pools.
Of course it could also be photoshopping a polar bear in from somewhere else. ;) Ursa Bogus lives!
If Jesus has indeed chosen ursine, rather than primate, flesh for his second visit to Earth then I hope he keeps clear of Iceland.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Guardian : ” Receding North Pole ice is diminishing their hunting and mating grounds and jeopardising their survival.”
Must be why their numbers are increasing massively.
Sad about this individual being shot but now we can rejoice for the hundreds cuddly sea cubs that won’t get ripped to bits to feed him.
Temperature trends are certainly coming down — witness all the articles about lowered CO2 sensitivity, the columns Judith has written about the subject. Will Arctic Sea ice follow the same path, or not?
If Arctic sea ice is going to go in the opposite direction, then perhaps we should look for a cause different than CO2: how about black carbon, which has major warming effects when falling on white snow and ice?
I don’t know what direction the Arctic Sea ice trend is going to go in, but I actually don’t quite understand how major an issue this would be, if it is the product of black carbon and not a manifestation of high climate sensitivity to GHGs. The big issue would be local, land erosion from large waves not present when ice covers the Arctic ocean. But even then, there are so few people and communities affected, this would have to be part of any cost/benefit analysis, and the lowered costs of shipping would certainly go in the other direction, benefit not cost.
So I want to wait a bit and see in which direction the trend will break, and I want to wait and see a bit to see if temperature trends continue their neutral trajectory.
You know the old phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? Well, temperatures are indeed higher now than 50 years ago, but they’ve been flat for 15 years. Sea level rise (once you subtract the recent trend of 2 inches per century due to groundwater depletion ending up in the oceans) isn’t much different than during the previous century. Hurricanes and tornados aren’t increasing in number or intensity (once the effects of increased detection capabilities are taken into account).
The kind of fix that the IPCC and others willl want will be very expensive: are thinks broke enough that we want an expensive fix?
Another interesting thought experiment:
https://twitter.com/wottsupwiththat/status/376808316824850432
I’ve seen fine 4/5ths scale models, but what do you mean by ‘fine’.
==================
“Think of it as a stock, dennis. In your portfolio, stock S loses 50% of its worth on the first year. On the second year, it regains 60%.”
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Some eminent scientists might agree with you, Ragnaar.
Gaia sure knows her Dutch book well.
If 80% is fine then cool. But I think not. Was that meant to be a brain teaser?
Yep, for a stats guy like willard it was.
===============
Think of it as a stock, dennis. In your portfolio, stock S loses 50% of its worth on the first year. On the second year, it regains 60%.
How much have you won exactly?
See?
====
Exactly.
To help David Rose understand what the word “recovering” means, some eminent scientists might try what it mansplain it to him in terms of ROI.
If he’s too thick, they would point him to this resource:
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-recovery-wtf/
Some eminent scientists might try
what itto mansplain, of course.You know, willard, that the world was warming until recently, though we don’t know why.
================
Some eminent strategists don’t know where’s Damascus either:
http://usvsth3m.com/post/59778656173/the-us-department-of-defense-isnt-sure-where-damascus
A ticker is a ticker is a ticker.
Wait for Web to do a first order fit.
When he doesn’t get what he wants?
David Rose would prefer the Aristotle way.
From first principles of yellow journalism.
that sounds like the sustainable energy investment portfolio.
If depends, if a democrat was in office it would be called a recovery.
Be fair Steve, regardless of the party ID it would be called a recovery; politicians are unable to stop global recessions, but can engineer a national recovery.
Technically, most of the Great Depression was in ‘recovery’. Recovery is simply when the derivative is zero or positive. That happens most of the time simply because of inflation.
Cold comfort if you’re out of work.
For serious scientific discussion, Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice weblog is almost always better.
Needless to say, David Rose’ rantings receive zero respect from Neven!
Fan
Yes, I like Neven. Shame he was too busy to help with constructing the real 1920-1940 sea ice levels from the mass of data I had accumulated.
Did you see that I had also helpfully posted the latest sea level rise data?
tonyb
Chief Hyrdo:
Anyone following our exchanges over the past few days should recognize that your credibility is zero. Your claim that ocean heat content peaked in 1998 is not supported by any current (2012 or 2013) study, no current data, and no expert in the area of ocean heat content.
Yet you continue to spout off and call others names. Pitiful.
Gatesy,
You are simply repeating nonsense yet again. Claims but no data or science.
We probably know what the energy anomalies were.
Here is a 2013 cloud cover graph.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23
Clouds cause a net cooling – but we can see this directly in the radiant flux data.
Here’s the peak in the energy flux and the peak in ocean heat content.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135
Again – power flux over time is energy. Hilarious boner you made there.
Here’s a 2013 study with annual values of ocean heat content that puts the ocean peak a little later. A link to the study has already need provided.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0
You could try putting up or shutting up – because the ongoing space opera is hugely stupid.
Chief Hydrologist, the last graph that you linked to shows ocean heat content increases very fast after 1998 and until 2003, then dips just a little and climbs back to 2003 values around 2012. And this is supposed to support your claim that temperatures peaked in 1998?
The global energy content peaked in 1998.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_TOTnet_toa.gif
The period is not arbitrarily chosen – it occurs at the 1998/2001 climate shift and is shown in 3 different datasets. One by an entirely different methodology.
I did say that the Lyman and Johnson showed ocean peak heat happening a little later. Here’s the coverage for heat content.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanHeatCoverage_zps6cb294af.png.html?sort=3&o=1
For measurements to 1800m it is less than 20%. How accurate doyou think it might be?
But if we look at the moderate increase in ARGO last decade – it was all SW in CERES. Clouds caused modest warming last decade – you can see it in Palle and Laken. But here’s another from – http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=93
The climate shift is the important idea. A cooler mode for 20 to 40 years. The data just confirms that cloud is involved.
환풍기
I like nevens place but this past season lots of folks ended up hoping for a disaster ( huge ice loss) with more concern about being right than concern for the planet. weird
Mosh
I think certain people here are disappointed there has been some sort of recovery.
Tonyb
I true skeptic is never disappointed in any data that comes in, and in fact, seeks out data that might refute whatever they hold to be provisionally true so as to avoid confirmation bias. Those who are either glad or disappointed in the outcome of any actual event cannot count themselves as true skeptics, but would be true believers of one sort or another.
I agree with R. Gates. We should always be open to new data, always be skeptical, always question our own position, always question theory, and always question models.
Sorry, fella, your ‘skeptical’ is a pose. You trumpet alarum at every opportunity.
============
Sure, jim2; he mouthed a platitude. May it reach his ears.
========
S.M.,
Some climate alarmists remind of certain religious types who hide their true natures behind a veil of piety.
Gatesy is more aligned with space cadet science than real science. They are sceptical of objections to space cadet memes.
Jim2: We should always be open to new data, always be skeptical, always question our own position, always question theory, and always question models
Which is the point at which you really must question the reasoning of people who say “it’s worse than we thought”….
All we know is that the models didn’t predict the rapid ice loss from 2005-2012.
Since the models failed to predict it, this reduces confidence in the attribution with warming temperatures, rather than boosting confidence that warming temperatures are responsible for the increased ice loss (at least until you can eliminate other plausible explanations, which we really can’t).
What one should say is “we knew less than we thought.”
People who overplay the certainty of uncertain knowledge will get burned the majority of time. That’s how reality actually works. If they could accurately predict based on an absence of knowledge and an absolute certainty in their own beliefs, empirical science would be unnecessary.
My comment was es to a bit unfair. ‘some folks’ not “lots of folks’ is more accurate.
Watching the ice is very interesting. The data is mostly meaningless when it constout itraining our understanding.. which means that it fits all hypothesis and folks will say all manner of stupid things ab
Kim,
I do not trumpet “alarm”. Talking about warming is not talking about catastrophe. Big difference…do you get that?
Chief Hydro:
Anyone following our exchanges over the past few days should recognize that your credibility is zero. Your claim that ocean heat content peaked in 1998 is not supported by any current (2012 or 2013) study, no current data, and no expert in the area of ocean heat content.
Yet you continue to spout off and call others names. Pitiful.
@Carrick Talmadge | September 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
Good points. People who are certain about their models should model the stock market, then invest their own money accordingly. We’ll see how long they are wedded to the models – and it won’t be long, I’m bettin’.
Needed to say it twice gatesy?
You are simply repeating nonsense yet again. Claims but no data or science.
We probably know what the energy anomalies were.
Here is a 2013 cloud cover graph.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23
Clouds cause a net cooling – but we can see this directly in the radiant flux data.
Here’s the peak in the energy flux and the peak in ocean heat content.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135
Again – power flux over time is energy. Hilarious boner you made there.
Here’s a 2013 study with annual values of ocean heat content that puts the ocean peak a little later. A link to the study has already need provided.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0
You could try putting up or shutting up – because the ongoing space opera is hugely stupid.
Chief Hydrologist:
Is this childish level of dialog on your part really necessary and do you actually think it makes you look somehow clever or intelligent?
Seriously, grow up.
Garrick – I am so tired of know nothing little twits with smarmy gotchas and irredeemable ignorance. Sit on it and spin.
Chief Hydrologist:
Seems like it’s your own behavior that is the irredeemable part. If your goal is to ignored, this is a good approach.
You two should write a paper together.
===========
Feel free to take your slighted dignity and moralizing homilies and ignore me as you like – but remember I will still be here tomorrow talking science and you will still be stupid.
Chief Hydro blathered:
” but remember I will still be here tomorrow talking science and you will still be stupid..”
—-
Translation: But remember, I will still be spewing my nonsense tomorrow, and if you fall for it you will be stupid.
Listen here, Pal, Carrick is not stupid. I can’t count the number of times he’s straightened me out. I’m serious about the paper; you have complementary strengths.
Heh, heh.
======
It is the clouds, sunny.
===========
So gatesy progresses from being a warminista twit, to troll to cyber stalker.
Not a surprise really. Challenge their core notions and they go all apesh_t.
Unusually warm oceans at the moment. More so as we aren’t in an El Nino.
Oceans are being selfish with their energy at the moment, so ocean heat content has been soaring to the highest recorded. The relationship between the two (cooler troposphere/warmer oceans) seems lost on most of the so-called “skeptics”.
That’s true, R. Gates, however lolwot was referring to sea surface temperatures. They also are unusually high right now in spite of ENSO being in a rather cool phase.
According to Norman Loeb and colleagues El Nino cause planetary cooling – oceans and atmosphere – and La Nina warming.
However – the oceans haven’t warmed for a decade at least following the cloud changes at the 1998/2001 climate shift.
e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23 – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=135 –
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=0
This is something that is lost on space cadets.
As Pierre points out I was talking about SST, but coincidentally NOAA updated the OHC today
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Looks like there was a peak around 2003/2004. But that is now being passed?
I can’t see any updates – and I assume you are talking 0-700m. Hilarious.
lolwot,
That’s some fine ocean heat content charts ya posted there. Scary stuff. Out of curiosity, what is the coverage for the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s, particularly to 2000 meters?
I also don’t notice any error bars. Whatever happened to open admissions of scientific uncertainty?
Chief Hydro,
Glad you mentioned Norman Loeb,as he is quite clear that the energy has been going into the oceans:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120127173235.htm
The essential point is 1998 does not represent any sort of peak in ocean heat content as Chief Hydro keeps trying to get everyone to believe, even though no data supports it and no expert has stated it.
Coverage?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanHeatCoverage_zps6cb294af.png.html?sort=3&o=1
Please explain this “coverage” chart. What is the y axis?
I mention Norman Loeb quite a lot – this has been my favourite study all year.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/OceanHeatCoverage_zps6cb294af.png.html?sort=3&o=1
This is a figure from there.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=93
Here’s another.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=56
Here’s one with trend lines.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=124
Here’s ARGO.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=46
Yep – found the (modest) missing SW energy.
It still doesn’t change the 1998/2001 climate shift seen from 3 sources.
Out up or shut up gatesy. As it is you are behaving like a mad ferret.
Chief,
You still have not provided the essential proof to back up your contention that ocean heat content peaked in 1998. All your blathering and arm waving might give you some much needed exercise, but is quite a bit of smoke and no fire.
Which bit didn’t you understand gatesy. I will talk slow and in little words.
It is actually cloud rather than smoke – but don’t let that confuse you.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23
Your cloud data is completely insufficient and not one expert would suggest it can be used as a better proxy for ocean heat content than actual physical measurement.
You’re a nutter Chief, pure and simple.
R. Gates:
How about this for Ocean heat content?
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2011-ocean-heat-content
and:
http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/fig3.8_OHC1993-2011.gif
Seems flat from 2004 on.
Chief is really emblematic of the denialosphere, clutching at straws and oblivious to logic and reason.
Gatesy,
ISCCP-FD flux
Cooling in IR
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_LWup_toa.gif
Warming in SW.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an9090_SWup_toa.gif
ERBS – same.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/WongFig2-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=55
The climate shift in Project Earthshine – blak ISCCP, blue Earthshine, red CERES.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html
Ocean heat peaking in 2004 instead of 1998 – although the XBT/ARGO splice is always a bit of a worry.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/oceanheat_zps2cb4a7a1.png.html?sort=3&o=1
How much freakin’ science do you want? I have to admit I’m all out of ideas. I combine clouds, radiation, Earthshine observations and ocean heat and they all seem to be saying the same thing. Climate shifted – with more cloud – in 1998/2001. Now we know that climate did shift – the effects are everywhere. Now we know there is a little more heat in ARGO and CERES. But this just reinforces the point that clouds are really important in the recent global energy budget.
I still have not seen any science from you gatesy – apart from an article about missing SW CERES heat found in ARGO. Webby is a notoriously science free zone. Understands nothing at all – and I am beginning to think that might apply to you gatesy. But call me nuts and I fell obligated to call you a freakin’ little ratbag with zilch integrity.
Ragnarr,
Thanks for that. That is a bit dated (2011) and you realize that the chart shows the difference from the average, not the raw increase. The authors state that at the time of this article (2011) ocean heat content was at it highest level. Now, here in 2013, we know that heat content continued to rise since then, setting new high marks in 2012 and 2013.
Chief Hyrdo’s claim of ocean heat content peaking in 1998 are complete nonsense, as even the link you gave from 2011 clearly shows. His physics is completely backward in trying to measure heat content of the oceans from clouds. Clouds might dictate how much shortwave is going into the ocean (along with aerosols of course) but they don’t dictate how much energy is leaving the ocean, as that is dictated by natural variabiliity of the ocean currents, winds, and of course, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Be extremely skeptical of Chief’s claims on ocean heat content, and his perspecitve on ocean to atmosphere energy flux. He’ll use a lot of smoke and mirrors and handwaving, but in the end, you’ll find his claims are baseless.
For all your handwaving and gyrations Chief, and trying to prove you unproveable point by using inappropriate proxies, we can just measure ocean heat content directly and don’t have to fabricate your house of smoke and mirrors. The over 3500 ARGO floats worldwide are measuring the ocean directly and that data and other direct measurements quite clearly show that ocean heat content did not peak in 1998 as you keep blathering on about. You are way off base on this Chief, and I hope those who are uncertain about you, do a little research themselves and realize you are more fluff and bluster (and nuttery) than substance.
Clouds change the energy balance of the planet – this is what determines the changes in energy content. Clouds are net cooling reflecting sunlight into space and allowing less IR out. So the clouds tell an interesting story – and in this they allow a comparison between instruments using SST to validate. I doubt even Palle and Laken would bet the house on it.
The critical period is the 1998/2001 climate shift. Here it is in Earthshine (blue), ISCCP (black) and CERES (red).
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=0
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Here’s the shortwave changes in ISCCP-FD
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/SWupnotes_zps3f1ab841.jpg.html?sort=3&o=41
Here’s the ERBS record – which stops at a critical point.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/WongFig2-1.jpg.html?sort=3&o=56
Here’s CERES for good measure which doesn’t cover the critical period.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=57
Clouds and the energy budget seems to have change in 1998/2001. Surface temperature peaked in 1998 – clearly seen in monthly records. Willis et al show an ocean energy peak in 1998. Lyman and Johnson (2013) put it at 2003 using annual values. Ocean heat content before ARGO may be at least as reliable as the cloud data.
The flux record suggests the world stopped warming after 1998. This change was captured by two instruments and a totally different method. Recent warming seems almost irrelevant – however – if all of it was caused by cloud.
‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
ARGO got up to speed in 2005. There was some cloud related warming in ARGO – so what? Tell me what happened before that.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=47
An ‘innappropriate proxy’ measured by satellite and presented in peer reviewed science.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=23
‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
It fact tell me what it matters if the warming was all cloud? You’ve behaving like a crazy weasel gatesy.
“The graph shows one analysis of ocean heat content anomalies since 1993…”
I read the graph as little change from 2004-2011. But perhaps I can’t read it correctly?
I have found I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty and work to do.
“There remain substantial issues over balancing the global energy budget: achieving closure (Kevin Trenberth)”
“Budget closure is achieved in several studies, but only within uncertainties, which are still very large. What interdisciplinary work is need to obtain more information on uncertainties, and ideally, to achieve improvement?”
– Clivar/ESA Scientific Consultation Workshop July 3-4, 2013
It’s not a paper I know. Seems credible.
I think I understand using TOA, current Atmospheric temperatures and solving for the Ocean heat content, but that might not even be the point. But if it is the point it is just accounting, by looking at what seems to me, the 2 variables that we we have the best information on, and solving for the third. It’s what an accountant would do.
Some help with the basic figures here, please.
According to nsidc.org, the extent of arctic sea ice on 8 Sept 2012 was 3.523 mill km2. On the same day this year it was 5.179 mill km2.
I make that a 47% increase.
Where’d this 60% figure come from, and why hasn’t JC or anyone else checked it?
It’s near enough, same order of magnitude
Not quite the same size but they are on the new adjustment as I type.
Sorry I left something out, it seems…
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/treasury-debt-0-august-cbo-deficit-was-146b
what is in a number today?:o)
Adjustments to follow
Tom Yulsman steps in:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction
Some eminent scientists might prefer to say that David Rose overplayed his hand a bit.
Willard
He had a reasonable hand in the first place but that he overplayed it is not an unreasonable thing to say.
tonyb
Some eminent scientists do not find double negatives unsexy, TonyB.
Willard
I thought it was quite good for 1am or so.
tonyb
Conclusion After 506 Comments:
The same conclusion as the *FIRST* comment!
“the principles of journalism”
You should do stand-up, I nearly wet myself
David Rose might even say I would, Doc.
‘Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.’
This comes from a radio interview I believe – but there is no doubt that with this Tsonis has definitively crossed the line into denier scumbag.
There is no doubt that the warming – oceans and atmosphere – has stopped. The energy budget says so. Clouds shifted in the 1998/2001 climate.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=23
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
The natural temperature variations are amplified in the Arctic. There is every reason to think that natural variability will lead to cooler temperatures in the coming decades – and none at all to be certain that it won’t.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arctictemps_zps395995c2.png.html?sort=3&o=2
First Australia. Now Norway.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e953b5a4-195b-11e3-83b9-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eRjuGbLZ
“The Conservatives want to debate a potential break-up of the country’s $750bn oil fund – the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund – as well as using the money for long-term investments and tax cuts. Many state-owned companies could be part-privatised.”
Amazing what a pause here, a little rebounding ice there, and a lack of hurricanes over yonder will do for a movement built on hysterical predictions of thermal catastrophe.
To Bumfistan … and beyond!
The global mean temperature pattern since 1850 shows it is at its cooling phase as shown:
http://bit.ly/15Lnr0t
As a result, expect recovery of Arctic Ice in the next ten to twenty years.
Pingback: Anybody still believe in global warming ? - Page 46
Carrick: “Since the models failed to predict it, this reduces confidence in the attribution with warming temperatures, rather than boosting confidence that warming temperatures are responsible for the increased ice loss (at least until you can eliminate other plausible explanations, which we really can’t).”
That’s a very good point. Alarmists last stand, the Arctic, is also a massive failure for the modellers, not the last bit of proof that they may be correct.
Steven Mosher | September 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm
“I like nevens place but this past season lots of folks ended up hoping for a disaster ( huge ice loss) with more concern about being right than concern for the planet. weird”
Yes, that was my impression earlier this year, though I don’t know whether it was ever any different. They rub their hands together when there’s dramatic ice loss and regard this years melting season as disappointing rather than being the best news they could hope for.
I think this is typical of a lot of enviros generally. They need the climate to fall apart so that everyone else has to do as they say. Then and only then will they be wishing things to go the other way.
In their own private mental world they are quite happy to (temporarily) throw the climate under a bus in order to gain a voice in how we should do things in the future to fix it.
It a bit like hoping for another gas attack in Syria so that we can do something to stop it happening again. It’s all rather perverse.
I really don’t think I want people with that sort of dysfunctionality to have any say at all.
Greg:
I think you have nailed why they are so interested in it being “worse than we thought”. Little else is going “right” at the moment with the exaggerated predictions, so as I see it, they are very invested in having the arctic ice go bad, in a very bad way.
NIC reports a very slight decline in Arctic ice extent yesterday, to 5.81 M Sq. Kms. Interesting to note that the packed ice extent that had gone as low as 4.5 M early in Sept. has now built up to show 4.9 M now.
FYI re Ice Extent Records
“Differences between the NIC ice chart sea ice record and the passive microwave sea ice record are highly significant . . . We find a baseline difference in integrated ice concentration coverage north of 45N of 3.85% ± 0.73% during November to May (ice chart concentrations are larger). In summer, the difference between the two sources of data rises to a maximum of 23% peaking in early August, equivalent to ice coverage the size of Greenland.”
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=usdeptcommercepub
Pingback: Explaining Extreme Weather Events of 2012 - Page 2 - MyLesPaul.com
” A fan of *MORE* discourse says
“An ice island about half a mile long and an estimated 40 feet high [and thus, 400 feet thick] could be seen 3 or 4 miles north of the west point of Mercy Bay [in M’Clure Strait]. At one time when the pack was comparatively loose it moved nearly opposite our camp; then returned with a northwest wind.”
Conclusion: In the early 1950s, the official reports of trained scientists described mobile ice-floes four hundred feet thick in the M’Clure Strait. Nowadays the (incredibly massive!) ice-floes of the 1950s have entirely vanished from the 21st century Arctic.
Since you are always boosting about increasing my knowledge of the Arctic you might consider learning the basics yourself. “Ice Islands” like the one described above aren’t ice-floes, they are broken-off pieces of the Shelf-ice north of Ellesmere land. A lot of that shelf broke away during the very warm 1940’s, though the breakup had apparently already started when the Shelf-ice was disovered by the Nares expedition in the 1870’s.
However since CAGW wasn’t invented yet it did not get much press, but here is an interesting review of the “Ice Islands”, their discovery and movements including a number of probable records before the 1940’s:
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic5-2-66.pdf
Incidentally I’ve seen any number of 600 feet thick “Ice Islands” in the Antarctic, though they are known as “Plateau Icebergs” there, but I don’t think anyone has ever been stupid enough to think that they are ice floes
Pingback: Start of another swing of the media narrative – to global cooling? | Fabius Maximus
So what caused the Medieval and Roman warm periods. Wonder how the Arctic was doing then. Them there poor bears must have been warm.
The Ice Man cometh and goeth.
When the Ice Man goeth, climate alarmists winneth.
When the Ice Man cometh* climate alarmists loseth.
As do serfs, wot with crops failing and glaciers
wiping out entire villages.
A serf.
Those who raise chinchillas and minks for fur will do quite well in the coming NeoPleistocene era. Oh, and rabbits. Don’t forget rabbit ranchers.
Lord knows Beth.
The ice recovery this year is all the more remarkable as Cryostat 2 reports that the ice volume last winter was the lowest recorded. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23964372
I was not aware of the seasonal patterns in recent trends:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/nhem_smooth.jpg
I find it very interesting. Any comments?
I discussed this on my previous post
Pondering the Arctic Ocean. Part I: Climate Dynamics
(link in the main post)
Gary Sharp of the Salinas, CA ‘Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study’ has been associated with VNIROV scientist Leonid Klyashtorin in Moscow for years.They met on their common interest of climate regime issues, fishery ecosystem and fisheries consequences. Both scientists are strong proponents of the 60-70 year climate cycles. Klyashtorin’s forecasts are Right On Track: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59135553/Lyubushin-Klyashtorin-Global_dT_60years%20cycle-E&E.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_paper_on_SPPI.pdf
Drinkwater: “Fish species, including spawning sites for some species, move northward during warm periods and retreat during cold periods”:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=drinkwater+cod+the+ecological+response+to+the+mid-20th+century+warming+and+comparisons+with+the+more+recent+cooling+and+warming+periods&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbarecore.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FBarEcoRe%2BPresentation%2BKenDrinkwater.ppt&ei=9CvlUdW2FMXV0QWipoCgCw&usg=AFQjCNFlC6Y8a0q9tLUT5FIhZlcQngKf5Q
“Analysis of the satellite data shows a statistically significant cooling trend for the past 12 to 13 years, with it not being possible to reject a flat trend (0 slope) for 16 years. This is a length of time at which disagreement with climate models can no longer be attributed to simple LTP. On the other hand, studies cited herein have documented a 50-70 year cycle of climate oscillations overlaid on a simple linear warming trend since the mid-1800s and have used this model to forecast cooling beginning between 2001
and 2010, a prediction that seems to be upheld by the satellite and ocean heat content data. Other studies made this same prediction of transition to cooling based on solar activity indices or from ocean circulation regime changes. In contrast, the climate models predict the recent flat to cooling trend only as a rare stochastic event. The linear warming trend in these models that is obtained by subtracting the 60-70 yr cycle, while unexplained at present, is clearly inconsistent with climate model predictions
because it begins too soon (before greenhouse gases were elevated) and does not accelerate as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate. This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy.” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/05-loehleNEW.pdf
“The 60-year cycle recorded in solar activity and Earth’s rotation [22,27] must also have affected the oceanic circulation, judging from its recording in the marine environments [71,93,94] and in sea level changes [92]. The data from the Arctic [71] are especially relevant, because they seem to confirm the proposal by the present author that the Gulf Stream distribution of water is subjected to a beating activity due to the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and the solid earth [2,5-6,8-10,24]. In the Northwest European and Northeast Atlantic region, Mörner [5,6,8] identified six periods of alternating cooling and warming over the last 200 years; i.e three cooling/warming cycles of about 60 years. The periods correlated well with the decadal changes in LOD; coolings at accelerations and warmings at decelerations. The warming phases were linked to periods of sea level rise, and the cooling phases to periods of stability or fall in sea level. The same mechanism seems to be recorded by Klyashtorin et al. [71], though they interpret
the correlations observed in terms of temperature forcing. The situation is as follows: the stocks of herring and cod in the Barents Sea fluctuates with a 60-year periodicity (the cods lagging by 8-10 years), which correlates with the changes in Arctic temperature, in ocean water temperature and in ice cover conditions in the Barents Sea (with a lag-time of 8-10 years); all exhibiting an ~60-year periodicity. The authors note that the changes in ice cover reflects the “delivery of warm Atlantic water to the region” and that “the main source of heat delivered to the Arctic basin is warm water inflow from the North Atlantic Stream” as
recorded by Nikolaev and Alexeev [95]. This implies that the Gulf Stream system must exhibit beating cycle of 60 years, just as the LOD cycle and solar activity cycle, in full agreement with the proposal of Mörner [2,9,24]. http://www.taccire.suanet.ac.tz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/151/solar%20wind.pdf?sequence=1
“Herein I propose a multi-scale dynamical analysis to facilitate the physical interpretation of tide gauge records. The technique uses graphical diagrams. It is applied to six secular-long tide gauge records representative of the world oceans: Sydney, Pacific coast of Australia; Fremantle, Indian Ocean coast of Australia; New York City, Atlantic coast of USA; Honolulu, US state of Hawaii; San Diego, US state of California; and Venice, Mediterranean Sea, Italy. For comparison, an equivalent analysis is applied to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) index and to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index. Finally, a global reconstruction of sea level (Jevrejeva et al. in Geophys Res Lett 35:L08715, 2008) and a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (Luterbacher et al. in Geophys Res Lett 26:2745–2748, 1999) are analyzed and compared: both sequences cover about three centuries from 1700 to 2000…….the tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.”http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1771-3
….going into La Nina phase ? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82041
When the chart here (http://www.worldcomplex.blogspot.ca/2012/10/september-arctic-sea-ice-chart-buster.html) is updated the new point will be only a little below the 2009 point. But several more observations will be needed before we can know whether we are in a new regime of stability.
Summers with low Arctic sea ice extent all have negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, 2012, 2007, 1962, 1958, 1816-1818 etc.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
This is a cooling signal and not a warming signal, whereby the temperate zone is cooler, but the Arctic warms due to a weak vortex, exchange of Arctic and temperate air, and increased transport of warmer sea water further north, which is evident at monthly scales in the UAH north pole ocean data:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.lt
Summer 2013 had more positive NAO conditions, hence the greater sea ice extent.
This differential between the temperate and frigid zones also operates on the long term. Read this and the following comments of mine here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577
Pingback: The David and Judy Show | The Great White Con
very nice site good looking your site thanks for sharing information i enjoy this blog.
Cigarette smoking – Cigarette smoking may aggravate heartburn in some folks.
Some of the popular compositions are lansoprazole, pantoprazole, omeprazole, and esomeprazole etc.
If you are taking this medication by mouth, empty the
contents of the medication packet into a container with 1
tablespoon (half an ounce or 15 milliliters) of water.