Ice Reality Check: Arctic Ice Now 31.3% Over Last Year, plus Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’

Sea Ice Extent

10/17/2007 5,663,125 square kilometers

10/17/2008 7,436,406 square kilometers

Δice = 1,773,281 sqkm or 31.3% more than last year

Source data here: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv (Excel file)

UPDATE 10/22: The trend has entered the point where last year’s recovery started to get closer to previous years, and the Δice is now about 21%

You’ve probably heard by now how this new story circulating this week claims “record warmth” and that we are in the peak time of melting. Meanwhile, “back at the ranch”, sea ice extent continues a steady upward climb as shown above.

Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’ – Comprehensive Arctic Data Round Up – October 17, 2008

Claim: Newspaper article claims Arctic Temps Peak in November – Claims Arctic offers ‘early warning signs’ – McClatchy Newspapers – October 16, 2008

Excerpt: Temperatures in the Arctic last fall hit an all-time high – more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Centigrade) above normal – and remain almost as high this year, an international team of scientists reported Thursday. “The year 2007 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic,” said Jackie Richter-Menge, a climate expert at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H, and editor of the latest annual Arctic Report Card. “These are dynamic and dramatic times in the Arctic,” she said. “The outlook isn’t good.” Arctic temperatures naturally peak in October and November, after sea ice shrinks during the summer. [...]  Scientists say these changes in the Arctic are early warning signs of what may be coming for the rest of the world’s climate.


Arctic Reality Check: Why isn’t the cooling Antarctic considered ‘an indicator of what might happen to the rest of the world?’

By Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona is a member of both the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth’s Executive Committee and the Committee on Global Change.

Herman Excerpt: First of all, the Arctic sea ice is at its minimum in September, not October or November as the scientists in the McClatchy article states. As Arctic ice experts, they certainly should have known this. Another point is that the Arctic temperatures do not “naturally peak in October or November”. They peak in mid August generally. Also the article states that since the world’s climates are interconnected, what happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might happen in the rest of the world?

See the full article: Vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels

Reality Check # 2: ‘This is pseudoscience’ – By German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist Rebuts Arctic Reports – October 17, 2008

Excerpt: The annual report issued by researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic. [...] The real averaged temperatures of the whole Arctic circle (70-90 N) can be found in the same data base used by NOAA (CRU, Phil Jones): The graph shows a strong Arctic warming during 1918 and 1960, stronger than today with a rise of about + 4°C up to 1938. Referencing only a rise since 1960 we got the illusion of a dramatic rise in modern times. Conclusion: The news item:” Arctic air temperatures climb to record levels” is selective science and wrong because the Arctic Ocean ( covering an area of more than 50% of the Arctic circle) has been left unconsidered. The NOAA study summarizes: „5°C record levels in temperature in autumn”, presents the averaged temperatures only on land stations and discusses melting sea ice as a cause! This is pseudoscience. In contrast the current Arctic warming mimics the 1920s-1940s event, as a recent study from the Ohio State University reveals. The scientists recognized from using weather station records, maps and photos from the past century that temperatures in Greenland had warmed in the 1920s at rates equivalent to the recent past.

See these articles:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wcmsmimefiles/Arctic_102008e_824.pdf

Get the facts on Arctic ice conditions below:

Latest Arctic Info: Updated October 17, 2008

Update: Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year – still climbing – October 15, 2008

Excerpt: A difference of: 1,576,563 square kilometers, now in fairness, 2008 was a leap year, so to avoid that criticism, the value of 6,857,188 square kilometers can be used which is the 10/13/08 value, for a difference of 1,369,532 sq km. Still not too shabby at 24.9 %. The one day gain between 10/13/08 and 10/14/08 of 3.8% is also quite impressive. [...]  Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are back to above 2005 levels, and 28.7% (or 24.9% depending on how you want to look at it) ahead of last year at this time. That’s quite a jump, basically a 3x gain, since the minimum of 9% over 2007 set on September 16th. Read about that here. Go nature! There is no mention of this on the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news webpage, which has been trumpeting every loss and low for the past two years…not a peep. You’d think this would be big news. Perhaps the embarrassment of not having an ice free north pole in 2008, which was sparked by press comments made by Dr. Mark Serreze there and speculation on their own website, has made them unresponsive in this case.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/15/arctic-sea-ice-now-287-higher-than-this-date-last-year-still-climbing

Alert: National Ice Center says satellites interpreting Arctic ice as open water! – By Andrew Revkin – NY Times Dot Earth Blog – September 6, 2008

Excerpt: And one of the groups focusing most closely on possible Arctic shipping lanes, the National Ice Center operated by the Navy and Commerce Department, says flatly that the satellites are misreading conditions in many spots and that there is too much ice in a critical spot along the Russian coast (highlighted in the smaller image above) to allow anything but ice-hardened ships to get through. In an e-mail message Wednesday, Sean R. Helfrich, a scientist at the ice center, said that ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water, “suggesting areas that have substantial ice cover as being sea-ice free.” The highlighted area is probably still impassible ice, including large amounts of thick old floes, he said. I sent the note to an array of sea-ice experts, and many, including Mark Serreze at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, concurred.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/

National Weather Service: SEA ICE ADVISORY FOR ARCTIC WATERS AS WATER TEMPS DROP 8° IN 2008 – September 22, 2008

Excerpt: SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ALONG THE ALASKA CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEA COASTS ARE 2 TO 8 DEGREES CELSIUS COLDER THIS YEAR THAN AT THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR. [...] SIGNIFICANT ICE WILL BEGIN DEVELOPING ALONG THE ALASKA COAST NORTH OF 70N WITHIN THE NEXT 10 TO 14 DAYS.

http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/marfcst.php?fcst=FZAK80PAFC

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Ice Reality Check: Arctic Ice Now 31.3% Over Last Year, plus Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’

  1. Leon Brozyna says:

    Good summary. Now all that’s left is to see how close the 2008 &2009 lines come to the 2002 & 2003 lines. Or perhaps they’ll even exceed them. That ought to chill the alarmists chatter a bit.

  2. Mike McMillan says:

    . . . ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water

    Once they’ve examined the instrument problems, perhaps we could get a recount for 2007.

  3. Cathy says:

    As this election slides southward I turn my eyes northward for the ‘cold comfort’ of seeing the ice grow and grow.

    The satisfaction of watching the AGW idiocy and its adherents revealed as the global sham that it is – will be one of my few consolations.

    That – and watching the sun specks fizzle out.

    Cold comfort, indeed.

  4. Terry Ward says:

    Now it is cold once more the galciers will again take up the CO2 that they have been giving up to the atmosphere all the time they have been ablating, melting or sublimating as they were retreating in the recent past.

    I wonder how much and for how long? Could I have a research grant please?

  5. Pops says:

    Has anyone told CNN?

  6. Bulaman says:

    The olympics shut down substantial parts of Chinese industry for a long period. Impacts on the “refreeze”?

  7. David Walton says:

    Global Warming junk science like this will be ridiculed at large 20 years from now. I hope I live long enough to see a more than a few careers deservedly self destruct for foisting garbage like the sea ice scare on the public and for completely disgracing the scientific method and the scientific profession.

  8. Alan S. Blue says:

    The slope of the current (fortnight-plus) trend would seem to rank extremely high on the chart of two week ice gains – in satellite recorded history.

  9. Philip_B says:

    I assumed Ms Richter-Menge was some environut masquerading as a real scientist, but she is indeed a real scientist. I can only assume (hope?) she has been misquoted on temperatures peaking in oct/nov.

    http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/richter-menge.jacqueline.html

  10. Pete says:

    Nancy Pelosi just announced (I think today) that Climate Change would be a top priority. Looks like the full blown carbon cap and trade tax fraud is upon us.

    I need to go stock up on firewood, but, I imagine I will need to have allowances to release that carbon dioxide. Perhaps anything cut and split and stacked in a licensed firewood storage area will be exempt, so i better get cutting. (I know. they’ll prevent that by not issuing the firewood storage area regulations until they’ve hired a bunch of EPA firewood storage area inspectors, and then there will be a 2 year wait. What are they going to say to that in Alaska?

    This CO2 fraud is making me sicker every day. Someone mentioned having a Boston CO2 Party. I’ll 2nd that.

  11. Mike Clark says:

    How do you counter or correct these kinds of lies and misleading stories? This is terrible!

  12. MartinGAtkins says:

    Ooops!

    2007 2008
    566.3125 7,354,844 10 16 29.8725%
    578.9688 7,436,406 10 17 28.4423%
    599.1719 -9999 10 18

  13. Pingback: Ice Reality Check: Arctic Ice Now 31.3% Over Last Year, plus Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’ « An Honest Climate Debate

  14. Pete says:

    My day-mare:

    I was visiting my nephew in Alaska on a cold winter night (40 below),
    not a creature was stirring as the fire crackled away,
    keeping us warm,
    when at the front door there arose such a clatter.

    Nancy Pelosi stopped by to check on our carbon dioxide emissions.
    She asked about carbon credits and lo and behold,
    We hadn’t bought any,
    So she put out our fire
    as she left us to freeze.

    She cackled away about Bears and about ice,
    And her Messiah needs money to give to the masses,
    As she climbed in her jet to continue her rounds.
    She blew off our roof,
    Then the polar bears came.

  15. Patrick says:

    I had a question about the chart if someone feels like speculating. You can see a small upward blip right about June 1 in at least 3 of the years that are plotted. Doesn’t seem like there is any weather reason this should happen, seems more like a data collection error, but yet it happened several times. Anyone want to explain that one?

  16. Glenn says:

    “Jackie Richter-Menge, a climate expert ”

    Not meant to be ad hom, I fail to see why a civil engineer who performs measurements and tests on ice should be acknowledged as a climate expert.

    http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/richter-menge.jacqueline.html

  17. Jack says:

    Since NASA claimed 2007 to be the hottest year on record using their fudged data and claiming it was hot due to the artic being hot despite record cold in many places elsewhere in the world, will 2008 GISS data therefore show 2008 to be one of the coldest years on record??? Hmmm

  18. Vincent Guerrini Jr says:

    why is cryosphere today so different?
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    shows nearly record low global ice like 2007. NH = -2 mil, SH = 0 km2

  19. Leon Brozyna says:

    @Patrick (13:30:30)
    That’s a good question; I’ve always assumed, since it appears in such a consistent manner, that it may have something to do with adjustments to the satellite.

    I’ve also noticed that there are consistent periods that lack data every year, mostly during the month of November. I’ll take the IARC-JAXA explanation at face value; “we couldn’t conduct the observation during the period for the reason that the satellite went into constrained operation mode or stand-by mode to avoid harmful effects by meteor showers and solar flares.” I won’t be surprised to see more blank periods this November as well.

  20. J.K. says:

    Hi Anthony,
    I just came across a post over at Accu-Weather that, quite frankly, has me stumped. Since you have a way of explaining things to the layperson, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and maybe apply your decoder ring for the rest of us. :) Thanks.

    http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/10/tracking_co2_across_the_globe.html

    REPLY: I’m full up today but maybe somebody else can chime in – Anthony

  21. Funny how the so-called experts can’t seem to explain the data that CONTRADICTS their ‘agenda’….Glenn, I’m with you…what makes that person an ‘expert’…oh, I know…it is their lock-step following of the ‘Gore-on’ crowd.

    http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com

  22. Fernando says:

    Sir Anthony Watts (The Rev.)
    I read this wonderful site every day.
    Really!!! I lost something.
    I have not seen any indication that the coverage of ice in the Arctic, could increase (suddenly) so impressive (31.3%). In a few days (hours).
    Certainly there is a transistor hiding somewhere.

  23. RICH says:

    I am embarassed that this “climate expert” is from my state of NH.

    Any bold predictions for sea ice extent in 2009? I say there will be more sea ice compared to 2008.

    Sound the alarm, here comes the flood!

    I never thought lunacy would surpass insanity so quickly.

  24. J.K. and Anthony…I checked it out and found a very ‘interesting’ paragraph tucked in at the end.

    “Carbon dioxide is difficult to measure and track,” said Moustafa Chahine from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “No place on Earth is immune from its influence. It will take many independent measurements, including AIRS, to coax this culprit out of hiding and track its progress from creation to storage.”

    Moustafa calls it a ‘culprit’…interesting choice of words. This culprit is something we breathe OUT. Guess he prefers we all hold our breath? Dr. Chahine received his post hole digger (Phd) at UC-Berkeley in 1960. Sheeez, that was 48 years ago! He is also studying climate ‘change’ on other planets. Wonder how they will blame that on humans….since they don’t have any! :)

  25. Alan S. Blue says:

    Leon Brozyna,

    “..stand-by mode to avoid harmful effects by meteor showers and solar flares”

    Well. I wouldn’t pin hopes on the solar flares! Even an immediate start to cycle 24 wouldn’t normally be all that interesting in November.

  26. Burch Seymour says:

    Anthony.. I flew from Germany to Chicago yesterday and our flight took us over the southern tip of Greenland. I got some pretty good photos from the plane if you happen to have any interest in them. Lots of snow and ice! Drop me an email if you do, and I’ll be happy to share them with you. I assume you can get my email address from this comment. If not, that’s OK too.

    The cool part is how clear the air was. It’s hard to believe that the plane was 36,000 feet up. It felt like we were really close to the ground when I snapped these.

    -Burch

  27. Steven H. says:

    Hello all- I have been a reader of this interesting blog for some time. Having followed the link to a report on the Ohio study of Greenland in the 1920s to 1940s (highly recommended), I find myself flabbergasted and compelled to comment. Despite the apparent fact having been revealed that, far from being “unprecedented” as has generally been trumpeted, the Greenland melt was precedented indeed, and not too long ago, the only comment on this data by the researchers appears to be even shriller calls of alarm! This is completely astounding, no? Am I missing something. There is not so much an elephant, as a polar bear in the room which they seem to be ignoring. Why on earth not a whisper of comment regarding the fact that the most striking feature of this study is the very real precedence it shows for events which, post 1940, didn’t turn out alarming, at all!

  28. Gramfan says:

    Just wondering if anyone else has seen this site:
    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html

    Apparently Gore,Hansen and Suzuki are saying they exaggerated.

    I am glad you explained the “high temperatures in the Arctic”. I had seen articles about it, but I was sure they were wrong. Just a gut feeling.

  29. Patrick Henry says:

    Within nine months of Obama’s inauguration, he will be taking credit for the Arctic ice recovery and global cooling.

  30. tarpon says:

    Who is going to break it to Al Gore? The modern maxima has ended, about 70 years long, just as the hoaxers were ramping it up.

    We see the product of government schools everywhere we look these days.

  31. Patrick Henry says:

    Burch,

    I flew over southern Greenland in mid-August on a very clear day. What struck me was how little melt there was this year even along the low elevation southwest margins of the ice sheet. Only a few small meltwater ponds were visible. We haven’t seen NASA’s usual Greenland melt map this year, and I’m guessing that is because it hasn’t followed the trend they were claiming over the last two years.

  32. evanjones says:

    Pretty amazing.

    I wonder how many economic growth destroying measures will be put in place as the temperatures continue to drop and the ice spreads.

  33. Ric Werme says:

    Glenn (13:33:55) :

    “Jackie Richter-Menge, a climate expert ”

    Not meant to be ad hom, I fail to see why a civil engineer who performs measurements and tests on ice should be acknowledged as a climate expert.

    http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/richter-menge.jacqueline.html

    CRREL is a pretty neat place. I jumped at the chance to go along as a chaperone with my daughter’s high school chemistry class.

    They do a lot of civil engineering work there with concretes that cure in subfreezing conditions, adding styrafoam beads to make building foundations with better insulating properties, etc. It would be a good place for a civil engineer to morph into an arctic climate scientist.

    They also develop clothing, study ice cores, labs that are essentially walk in freezers, and study arctic biology and chemistry.

    However, it might be worthwhile to hang on to that story on the off chance that some other mainstream media story dismisses some skeptic because she’s not a certified (i.e. degreed), professional (i.e. makes her living from the trade) scientist.

    I didn’t meet Richter-Menge on the field trip, but I might just Email her about the recent ice growth.

  34. bikermailman says:

    CookevilleWeatherGuy, don’tcha know it’s because the eviiile Rovian plants (lizardians in human suits) on those planets?

    Patrick Henry, don’t you remember that at The Messiah’s acceptance in June, he told us that THAT was the point when history would point to that as the time that the oceans would receed, and the temperatures would began to fall?

    /political, I know, but seemed proper response to the comments.

  35. bikermailman says:

    BTW, I got some awesome glacier pictures from Alaska last month, both up close, and flying low over them. Saw some awesome calving too!

  36. Steven Goddard says:

    One thing i have learned from my conversations with Dr. Meier at NSIDC is that a large volume of Arctic ice melted during the winter of 2007-2008. There was a strong trans-polar drift through the winter, which pushed a lot of multi-year ice out into the warm waters of the North Atlantic. As a result, there was a lot of thin ice going in to the melt season this summer.

    This summer, there has been very little drift and the ice is freezing earlier. It is entirely possible that the extent of multi-year ice going into the 2009 melt season will be close to double what it was in 2008. This will depend on the wind, as much as the temperature.

    NSIDC’s early predictions of a possible “ice free pole” were based largely on the age of the ice, which may be less of a concern next summer. It will be interesting to watch NSIDC’s press releases over the next year.

  37. Retired Engineer says:

    If the slope of the ice change continues, there will be a whole lotta ice up there. Looks steeper than any previous year. Another month of this and the poor polar bears will have to stert eating Climate Scientists as they won’t be able to get to any fish.

  38. Pat Gris says:

    My whole family travels to the arctic every November to swim and lay out on the beach. It is a family tradition that began back when George Bush knocked the normal climate out of whack and instituted Global Warming by executive order.

    I dread the day that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama put things back the way they should be. Arctic rates in November are considered out of season! We always get good deals on travel and rooms. Lately we have to haul away the drowned Polar Bears that keep washing up on the beach. But everytime we go back to check, some Eskimo has taken the carcass for its hide. As long as everything is used.

    Oh well. We get one more November in paradise before the do-gooders fix things back. Then we’ll have to find another good vacation deal.

  39. Caleb says:

    I had heard that satellites were misreading melt-water-atop-ice as open-water, but couldn’t confirm it. I was interested to see you mention it. Unfortunately the link to dot-earth seems to bring me to an erased item. Is the problem in my computer, or did the NY Times decide the discussion needed to be “edited?”

    I think this topic is worthy of its own post, at this site, (if you have the time.)

    I was suspicious of the “open water” last summer, while following the postings of two different yachtsmen who were squeaking through the Northwest Passage. The were sweating about floes of ice that didn’t seem to show on the satellite.

    I guess it just goes to show you that things look different when you go out in a sailboat and have a look for yourself.

    I wonder if the captain of the Titanic had just finished reading a NY Times article about ice-free waters, when he hit the iceberg.

  40. John D. says:

    Interesting how so many put so much weight on anecdotes and observations made over such a short time period. Is this not just another example of people confusing weather with climate?
    Just wondering;
    John D.

  41. FatBigot says:

    I’ve only been visiting for a few months and during that time I have read a lot here about the Arctic (which, if my memory is correct, is the bit at the top of the world). Presumably the Arctic has featured because the last few months have been Arctic summer.

    Can I look forward to a series of scare stories about the Antarctic over the next six months or so?

    I can hardly wait. Agog I am, veritably agog.

  42. DocMartyn says:

    Would it no be better to do the plots starting at the spring or autumn Equinox? This way you get an idea whether the system is more responsive to solar input or to heat output. It looks clear to me that the change in area above the June Solstice is much grater than the area below.

  43. TerryS says:

    Leon Brozyna,

    “..stand-by mode to avoid harmful effects by meteor showers and solar flares”

    Isn’t the Leonids Meteor shower in mid November?

  44. TerryBixler says:

    I would like to first thank George Orwell. I must admit that even though he was in a time machine some how he got the date 1984 fixed in his head and it was off by 24 years. Dr. Meier from the ministry and Dr. Menge would have me believe according to orthodoxy without even a doubt. But Anthony keeps publishing confusing data, 30%. I wonder if Dr. Hansen had a chance to infill the proxy data or improve the math. Just random thoughts, where is my time machine? I know it is not all played out but not even a hint, where was George when they needed him.

  45. AnyMouse says:

    The link to the nytimes.com blog has a trailing space which makes it fail.

  46. Pete says:

    John D. (18:16:43) :

    “Interesting how so many put so much weight on anecdotes and observations made over such a short time period. Is this not just another example of people confusing weather with climate?”

    I think we’re just having fun, because that’s what the other side was doing for so long when things were “going their way”. It’s the only language “they” know and at this point we’re near a political tipping point with economic disaster on the other side. If we can’t have fun…?

  47. Leon Brozyna says:

    @TerryS (18:34:22) :

    Leon Brozyna,

    “..stand-by mode to avoid harmful effects by meteor showers and solar flares”

    Isn’t the Leonids Meteor shower in mid November?

    As a matter of fact, it is. It’ll happen mid-November, plus or minus a week. So we can expect to see a break in that fast moving red line some time next month.

  48. Ted Annonson says:

    It says here that polar bears may be in worse trouble with too much ice.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/some_things_we_know_and_don_t_know_about_polar_bears.html

  49. Pingback: It’s getting cold at Hoystory

  50. Jean Meeus says:

    Gramfan wrote:
    Just wondering if anyone else has seen this site:
    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html

    I can hardly believe that Hansen, Al Gore and the IPCC, who have always been so vociferous about AGW, all suddenly say that they exaggerated…

  51. Jean Meeus says:

    Gramfan wrote:

    Just wondering if anyone else has seen this site:
    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html

    I can hardly believe that Hansen, Al Gore and the IPCC, who always were so vociferous about AGW, suddenly admit they exaggerated…!

  52. dresi4 says:

    well, that red line is falling now. Increase of sea ice is very small now, compared to other days…

  53. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Watching SST, I see no EL NINO developing. To the contrary,
    compare:
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.18.2008.gif
    to:
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.16.2008.gif

    Looks to me like the equatorial Pacific near South America is getting COOLER!
    Should we be expecting another LA NINA event?

  54. Kean Whelband says:

    Looks like some reports are still highlighting summer melt.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/17/eaarctic117.xml

    On the same page, there is an article on a report predicting Climate change will force refugees to move to Antarctica by 2030.
    These must be some superbly well equipped refugees if they are going to survive unsupported in Antarctica.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/13/eaclimate113.xml

  55. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Steve Goddard,
    Don’t hold your breath!
    What is concluded in research centers and actually released to the press are often in direct opposition.

    But thank God we have websites like Anthony’s who debunk these press releases using information and data the public STILL has access to.

    Access, however, will be severely limited when the Obamanites and Gorites land in Washington. Reality is a terribly inconvenient and embarassing thing for them. Sea íce is expanding! Sea levels stagnating! Antarctica is cooling! EGADS!! Quick! Don’t let the public see this!

    Expect climate information to be either severely restricted, or manipulated in the future. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself standing knee-deep in snow in Texas in 2012 while hearing on the radio the globe has never been hotter.

    They’ve already rewritten Medieval history, at least have tried to. Does anyone believe they’ll simply stop there?

  56. Allan M says:

    Well you find engineers are now climate change experts. Try this one:

    http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2460107.0.Water_hazard_how_global_warming_could_sink_St_Andrews_Old_Course.php

    This ‘professor’ is an accountant!

  57. Mary Hinge says:

    dresi4 (00:12:33) :
    “…..Increase of sea ice is very small now, compared to other days…”
    As you would expect now the ice pack is reaching more land. The previous rapid rate was no surprise considering the summers melt was the first recorded time there was clear water around the ice sheet. Once the ice sheet reached land it obviously can’t extend in that direction! For global sea ice anomolies check these graphs out. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    This is the third post with the same graphic and to be frank smacks of desperation in the quest for global warming. There really is no story here and, as I said before “Move along, nothing to see here”. There really isn’t!

  58. JimB says:

    Ted,
    The link works fine. That’s a great article.

    Jim

  59. M White says:

    For anyone interested in the weather with half an hour to spare

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00f68qv

  60. Svend Erik Hendriksen says:

    >>well, that red line is falling now. Increase of sea ice is very small now, compared to other days…<<

    Don’t worry…the melting season ended midd september and next year beginning March we’ll have a new record.

    Look at the illustration once more….all the newspapers talking about the next largest melting….no one mention we actually also had the next largest iceexpansion i March 2008, for a few days maybe the highest ever recorded

    Best

    Svend Hendriksen

    Kangerlussuaq. Greenland

  61. Burch Seymour says:

    Pat Gris:

    That one made my morning! LOL

  62. Steven Goddard says:

    Retired Engineer,

    The slope of the ice gain will drop off in the next few days, simply because of the geography of the Arctic.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png

    Growth of the ice pack will soon be constrained by the warm waters of the Atlantic on the east, and the Bering Strait on the west. It is too early in the year for much ice to form at lower latitudes, so we can expect the slope to follow the more gentle 2002-2006 path over the next few weeks.
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

    A key thing to watch is the polar drift during the winter. That will largely determine how thick the ice is next spring.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/gifs/DriftMap.gif

  63. Polishbtard says:

    @ Ted Annonson

    It works fine, thanks.

  64. Garrett says:

    I would like to correct dresi4 in saying that the red line is not falling, merely leveling out and if you look at other years nearly all of them do that now just like most of them have a spike on June 1st.

  65. Caleb says:

    Janama,

    Thanks for the link

  66. Mike Clark (12:42:04) : How do you counter or correct these kinds of lies and misleading stories? This is terrible!
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html is an Open Letter in Thinking American from Monckton to McCain – important IMHO.

    Gramfan (15:42:20) : Just wondering if anyone else has seen this site:
    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html
    Apparently Gore,Hansen and Suzuki are saying they exaggerated.

    This is astounding good news, if it is true, which I have no reason at this point to doubt… maybe Monckton’s medicinal letter is seeping through the body politic.

    Austin, thanks for earlier link to Arctic sea ice. I’ve done an animation of last month’s buildup on a Baby Ice page, it’s a really good visual icon to help people get things in perspective: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/babyIce.htm

  67. james griffin says:

    The worrying thing about the cooling is that it is never mentioned…..if that isn’t bad enough they are still trying to tell us it is getting warmer!!!!!!

    This follows the Twin Towers “collapsing” due to ignited kerosene and four commercial aircraft undoing the most sophisticated air defence system in the world by simply turning off their Transponders.

    Given that this is a scientific site…..can anyone tell me is there is a machine that measures b.s.?

    James,

  68. Ric Werme says:

    Pete (19:49:17) :

    John D. (18:16:43) :

    “Interesting how so many put so much weight on anecdotes and observations made over such a short time period. Is this not just another example of people confusing weather with climate?”

    I think we’re just having fun, because that’s what the other side was doing for so long when things were “going their way”.

    There’s some fun involved, but there’s also the Pacific Decadal Oscillation entering a cool phase last year. When it shifted to a warm phase around 1979, there were several sudden climatic shifts, and it appears there are some now.

    The cool summer in Anchorage and unmelted snow at the Juneau Icefields are likely PDO effects, and I’d expect the PDO flip to also have a sizable impact on the Arctic.

  69. kim says:

    Lucy (06:59:50) Are you sure that cj link isn’t a joke. I see there are no links to the stunning quotes from Hansen, Gore, and Suzuki.
    ============================================

  70. XQ says:

    Off-topic, but Science News it at it again:

    See

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_%E2%80%98consensus%E2%80%99_of_1970s_never_was

    and

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37637/title/The_News_Climate

    and

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37758/title/Eggs,_Tea_and_Mr._IPCC

    You can post comments under the articles.

    These stories are very typical of the “new format” Science News. Maybe it’s just me, but seems like when it comes to AGW, they seem to have dropped all pretense of scientific or journalistic objectivity.

  71. kim says:

    Lucy, I hate to criticize, ‘cuz I think you are doing great work, but unverified ‘astounding’ quotes should be a good reason to doubt.
    ===================================

  72. kim says:

    Now, Pachauri, he has publicly wondered if someone ‘got their sums wrong’. He is both an engineer and an economist, and I’ve hopes he may lead the herd out of this stampede before they go over the cliff.
    ======================================

  73. Monckton’s website with Ted’s polar bears ref seems to be down or intermittent – too many responses to his Open Letter? (that is still available at American Thinker)

  74. kim says:

    What fooled you, Lucy, is the excellence of the parody. If Hansen, Gore, and Suzuki were honest men, that is precisely what they should be saying, because it’s the truth. I can’t fault you much for being fooled by the truth.
    ==============================================

  75. kim says:

    Yeah, it’s a joke; read the comments. I ran right on over ‘Pepper Misty Leaf’.
    ========================

  76. John Philip says:

    Looks like the levelling off may have started. I see yesterday’s delta has dropped back slightly to 29.8%. Still a significant and welcome recovery from last year’s record-shattering low, however let us bear in mind that there are only 8 years in this dataset and all of them bar 2007 and 2005 show more ice on this date.

  77. Harold Ambler says:

    I presume I’m not the only one who can see that the retractions article is fabricated. http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html

    We don’t have to lie to advance the cause of true science.

  78. philw1776 says:

    People, the site quoting Hansen & Gore “saying they exaggerated” was an attempt at satire. NOT real quotes.

  79. John-X says:

    Harold Ambler (09:06:05) :

    ” I presume I’m not the only one who can see that the retractions article is fabricated. http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/warmists-and-msm-retract-predictions.html

    We don’t have to lie to advance the cause of true science.”

    I thought the article was excellent.

    Surely you know the fable of Bizarro World…

    ” Concept

    In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!”.

    “In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: “Guaranteed to lose money for you”. ”

    “Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, “Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together”. This is intended and taken as a great compliment.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World

    The excellent article at Celestial Junk shows what WOULD happen on Earth.

    But as we live in Bizarro World on planet Htrae, the opposite in fact is what is happening.

    “Us believe Al Gore!

    “Us believe Global Warming!

    ” Less there is evidence, more us believe! “

  80. Pet Rock says:

    What patterns can we see in 6 to 7 curves? As several have noticed, there is a consistent glitch at the start of June. All the curves are tightly bunched in Dec and from mid-Apr to mid-Jun.

    Looking at the mavericks first, we have 2003 high in spring high in fall, 2008 high in spring low in fall, 2007 low in spring low in fall, 2006 low in spring hi in fall, and 2004 avg in spring high(avg) in fall, 2005 low in spring a bit low in fall.
    There isn’t enough data here to prove anything, but this does seem to show that the max ice extent predicts nothing about the min ice extent.

    Going the other way, fall to spring, it looks like hi-hi, hi-avg, hi-avg, lo(avg)-lo, hi-lo, lo-hi. This is quite well balanced, so again there is no predictive power.

  81. kim says:

    John-X (10:01:36) Yes, I agree it was Prime Parody. And it has become bizarre to believe in the CO2=AGW paradigm in the face of rising CO2 and falling temperatures. When will it ever end?
    ===========================================

  82. Pete says:

    Lucy,

    I believe the Gore, Hansen and Suzuki “good news” is not, but it sure would have made my day. Even if its not true, maybe the statements will form some good talking points for them to parrot.

  83. Pete says:

    Ric Werme (07:20:16) :

    I agree, but i was focused on the fun over the attention paid to the movement of the squiggly line.

  84. Pingback: Wait, Arctic sea ice NOT melting? « Goldwater Girl’s Weblog

  85. sonicfrog says:

    Anthony, I was going to forward that “NewScience” article to you with a WTF sticky on it. Given what everyone else was reporting, I was stunned that someone would come out with this claim. I guess I shouldn’t be.

    Anyway, bravo for setting the record straight, though your efforts won’t stop Rolling Stone from publishing it.

  86. Harold Ambler says:

    I should have read the “article” to its conclusion. What took me in was the seeming acceptance of it here on WUWT by several posters.

  87. Ric Werme says:

    XQ (08:02:37) :

    Off-topic, but Science News it at it again:

    These stories are very typical of the “new format” Science News. Maybe it’s just me, but seems like when it comes to AGW, they seem to have dropped all pretense of scientific or journalistic objectivity.

    Yeah, it’s very sad. I’ve subscribed continuously since 1969 and they are responsible for keeping me current in several fields. The first place I read about AIDS was in Science News, and that was weeks before it was called AIDS.

    At least one of the recent articles was due to the annual meeting of The Society of Environmental Journalists which turns out to be a stunningly pro-AGW organization. Janet Raloff, SN’s environment reporter, is an active member and supporter.

    I don’t think there’s anything I can do to straighten out the SEJ, but I’ve been trying to add comments to better balance Raloff’s blog entries and stories.

    I wrote up a nice comment for one of the recent stories, but it evaporated when I submitted it. I think it took me so long that my login session expired and I haven’t had the energy to go back and write it again. For all its warts, WordPress generally doesn’t lose my stuff….

    I suggested to them that this would be a great time for a two-page story titled “Where Have all the Sunspots Gone?” and got a reply back saying that the longer stories are now coming from free-lance writers and that they’d be happy to look over my resume.

    I don’t have time to do as good a job as I expect from SN, actually, I don’t have time, period. I may just go ahead and do it anyway. At least I know two solar scientists I can interview. Yay WUWT.

  88. PeteM says:

    It’s amazing to find that so many people want to hear the global warming is not happening and will find any excuse to back up their prejudice.

    Some climate scientists think there is hope that the human race will take the right actions to avoids its own demise ….a nice quote I heard was ” we can’t be that stupid”. But looking at the comments on this forum I really wonder ….

    Climate changes for a many complex reasons and the results can be draconian ( ice ages or deserts…) . Why play with this sleeping monster by deliberately destabilising the composition of the atmosphere .

    Words about ‘it isn’t a problem’ will count for nothing when change comes ‘
    There is a lot we don’t know … but I know that in my local environment my world is warmer and a few hundred years ago a relative froze to death trying to find the North West Passage.

  89. Nick O. says:

    I suppose, from what I read here, that I should be so relieved that we have nothing to worry about. In fact, one might even argue what a shame last year’s ice minimum wasn’t even LOWER, so that when you do the calculations, the recent percentage increase in the ice could have been even more convincing!! That would’ve shown those ‘Global Warmists’, wouldn’t it. Wow!!!!

    Just suppose last year there had been, like, only a few square kilometres of Arctic ice left? Then you could have claimed a several millions per cent. increase this year so far, which presumably, by the logic of the posts here, must mean we are rushing to a new ice age, to get us all in the big freeze in just a year or two! Wake up World … we’re all going to die of cold in 2011!

    Or maybe not. Maybe what we are actually seeing from year to year is a non-linear response to forcing of a complex system, rather as one gets if heating a solution and a precipitate in a test tube: the mixture ‘bumps’ periodically, so sometimes you get steam and bubbles, and sometimes you get a load of gunk shooting out of the end of the tube. (I’m assuming some of you will remember this well enough from the chemistry you did at school). Overall, however, the mixture in the tube is heating up, regardless. Similarly, the Arctic ice is generally, over a course of years, thinning and melting, sometimes spreading out and breaking up as it does so, sometimes being moved by the wind because it is so much thinner, sometimes seeming to recover a bit one year, losing a bit the next, and so on; the general trend, however, is not one we should be pleased with or complacent about, and there’s plenty of well appraised physics that suggests things are going the same way in other parts of the world, too.

    Maybe a more physics-based analogy would be the difference between boiling and bubbles. If you put a pan of water on the gas to heat up, there isn’t a physicist alive who’ll be able to tell you where all the bubbles will form, or when, or in what number and size. That said, the stuff is going to warm up, and eventually should boil. Likewise, just because we can’t predict exactly how the ice is going to melt, or exactly how and where the extra retained heat from increased CO2 is going to be made manifest in the world, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    So, what do you want to rely on? A ‘bump’ in the system? That this convincingly counters everything else, and we should start investing for a long term dividend from a bunch of fur coat and lined glove factories?

    Boiling versus bubbles, guys, boiling versus bubbles …

  90. Anne says:

    Looking for the prediction of an ice-free North Pole, I come across this statement of Mark Serreze:

    “t’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole”

    From Al Gore and the IPCC I could not find such a claim. Is that true? Did I miss something? And does a “50-50 bet” count as a “prediction” on this blog?

  91. Ric Werme says:

    PeteM (12:54:55) :

    It’s amazing to find that so many people want to hear the global warming is not happening and will find any excuse to back up their prejudice.

    Some climate scientists think there is hope that the human race will take the right actions to avoids its own demise … But looking at the comments on this forum I really wonder ….

    Don’t worry about it! 90% of the posts here come from a computer program written by the few true skeptics. Al Gore says they’re as scarce as Flat Earth Society members, so clearly their computers have to be taking up the slack.

    An alternative possibility is that Al was wrong, but that would raise the possibility that his movie is wrong too.

    -Etaoin Shrdlu

  92. evanjones says:

    Nick O, PeteM: The problem here is that temperatures have gone down over the last decade in spite of a 4% increase in atmospheric CO2 (or from 2001, if you prefer to skip the 1998-2000 El Nino/La Nina). And coincidentally with the PDO flip, they have dropped rather sharply over the last 18 months.

    Six ocean/atmospheric cycles steadily switched from cold to warm phases from 1976 – 2001. The temperature rose. Now the PDO has gone cold and the AMO and AO seem to be shifting cold. The temperature has gone down, and sharply. It is now right around the average of the last 30 years.

    That alone should provide some relief.

    Two other items have emerged. The IPCC grossly overestimated Sea level rise (and has had to revise its 2007 figures), and data from Aqua Satellite has falsified the CO2 positive feedback equation.

    Therefore you may be relieved that global warming is unlikely to destroy up to one half world economic growth.

    You now need only worry that the Kyoto protocols or measures urged by the Stern Review will destroy up to half of world economic growth.

    (And if, like me, you are poor, be VERY worried.)

  93. evanjones says:

    -Etaoin Shrdlu

    Isn’t he registered to vote in Ohio? #B^1

  94. Ric Werme says:

    Anne (13:49:31) :

    Looking for the prediction of an ice-free North Pole, I come across this statement of Mark Serreze:

    “It’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole”

    From Al Gore and the IPCC I could not find such a claim. Is that true? Did I miss something? And does a “50-50 bet” count as a “prediction” on this blog?

    It’s a prediction, but with ass fully covered. Given that the melt became nowhere close to the Noth Pole and didn’t exceed 2007′s minimum extent, I’d say it’s okay to call it a prediction that didn’t verify.

    It’s not in the IPCC documents because the last IPCC report came out before the prediction.

    If you go to the top of this page and enter NSIDC in the search box you’ll find many references to the prediction.

  95. Pingback: Gore Admits: Sign Flipped In Misbehaving AGW Model « Global Warming: A Worn-Out Hoax

  96. Pete says:

    PeteM (12:54:55) :

    “Climate changes for a many complex reasons and the results can be draconian ( ice ages or deserts…) . Why play with this sleeping monster by deliberately destabilising the composition of the atmosphere . ”

    That sounds like the precautionary principle. That was my position in the 1990′s, until I delved further over the last 3-4 years and I came to the conclusion that there is no good evidence for it. Its like a big shell game. Personally I believe that it is even worse than a shell game.

    Don’t forget though, that a lack of concern about CO2, in no way means there is a lack of concern over pollution (the real kind), or energy security, or diversification of sources, or poverty. In fact I would suggest that many who are concerned about CO2 are in fact more concerned in a real and practical sense about those other issues and are therefore extremely frustrated that the CO2 reduction actions will limit our ability to address those things.

  97. picturespotter says:

    All this denilalist talk is pure crap!!!

    [REPLY: Why hadn't I thought of that before? That's it; I'm convinced. We appreciate your input.~Evan]

  98. PeteM says:

    rick werme
    Thanks for the hint about computer programmes and actually I nearly joined the Flat Earth society once :-)
    And for all … As I’m not a US citizen the obsession about criticising Al Gore and his film is not relavent . I try to get my info from a range of sources like scientific organisations, public lectures at universities. environmental groups , climate change researchers, books , internet, and so on . I really hope no one just listens to one film and doesn’t check anything further .

    evanjones
    I realise there is a difference between weather and climate , .. but I can suggest that it is possible to grow plants in many parts of the northern hemisphere (including my garden) that are indicators of a warming climate trend . Of course it maybe plants have rapidly changed 10+ years but it’s simpler to think this as consistent behaviour of a warming world .

    Sea level rises … as someone who lives in a low lying coastal city I can point out the local city engineers are concerned that they now have to cope with higher sea level increase than they expected.. so maybe the IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise .

    I still don’t see why some folks are happy to change the composition of the atmosphere . It’s not a good idea to add unncessary factors a non-linear chaotic system . Are you sure ‘cycles’ will remain if you change the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere ?

    Finally .. I don’t understand the relavence of your reference to Kyoto protocols and Stern . I seem to remember reading an article about the objection to introducing public sewage systems on the basis that this was would destroy the economy and make everyone poorer. Nowadays we think this is an essential service (or in the developing world a desirable aim)

  99. Mike Bryant says:

    “PeteM (12:54:55) :
    It’s amazing to find that so many people want to hear the global warming is not happening… ”

    I believe that global warming has been happening.
    I DON’T believe that the warming is in any way catastrophic.
    I believe that the proposed measures to counter warming WILL be catastrophic.
    Mike Bryant

  100. iceFree says:

    Nick O, PeteM: I just wanted to post this for your reading pleasure. You can read
    all about your favorite environmental organizations and all the good things they do to make our lives better.

    http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/LEM.htm

  101. Mike Bryant says:

    “Nick O. (12:55:05) :
    Likewise, just because we can’t predict exactly how the ice is going to melt, or exactly how and where the extra retained heat from increased CO2 is going to be made manifest in the world, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.”

    Just because there is no evidence of retained heat doesn’t mean it isn’t hiding somewhere.
    Mike Bryant

  102. evanjones says:

    PeteM: I do not dispute that the earth has warmed from 1979-1998. But not for the last decade. And the climate has followed the multidecadal oceanic-atmoshpheric cycles a lott better than the CO2 curve.

    It was warmer that today in the MWP (1000 ya), and warmer still during the RWP (2000ya).

    In 1840 the LIA ended. Since around 1700, there has been a slow, steady warming of c. 1°F per century since. With the falsification of CO2 feedback theory there is no reason to believe that the rate will increase. Temperatures may even decline if, as seems likely, the current Grand Optimum is at an end.

    Killing the economy is not going to help. In fact, if there turns out there is a real problem, after all, it is only a strong economy that will provide us with the technology and wherewithal to counteract it.

  103. Patrick Henry says:

    PeteM,

    You wrote “Why play with this sleeping monster by deliberately destabilising the composition of the atmosphere .”

    Interesting comment. I thought that the industrial revolution was about lifting people out of poverty and squalor, but now you have enlightened me about their true intent. Ben Franklin discovered electricity in order to enable Thomas Edison’s evil scheme to destabilize the atmosphere.

    Want to try an interesting experiment? Try not building any power plants for the next twenty years and watch the US and western Europe descend into poverty as third world countries.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/19/renewable-energy-greenhouse-carbon-emissions

    I have noticed that in all of my childhood pictures the sun was always shining and the sky was always blue. This proves your assertion that the atmosphere used to be stable. In fact we never even used to have night, much less weather or seasons.

  104. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Cognitive Dissonance will ensure that the Alamists become even more defensive as the evidence of cooling mounts.

  105. PeteM says:

    evanjones
    Interesting point .. but regarding the thought on post-1998 warming ( and again I am aware of the difference between local weather and climate) , in my local region it is possible to grow plants that would have died of cold 10 years ago . There has been some local warming in the past decade – and I see this pattern from anecdoctal conversations with many of my colleagues in all parts of Western Europe .
    Curiosuly at the same time we see record ices lows for Arctic ( 2007 ) , glaciers retreating ( in the past decade) , more extreme rainfall patterns (in the past decade) , melting tundra ( in the past decade) … humph is the world really cooling ?

    If (big if) in 5 years time it is cooler (including in my garden) – your thoughts will be correct . But if it’s warmer then what …

    Iceman – none of these are my favorite enviromental organisations and sorry – I don’t wear sandals . A few years ago I saw an article suggesting ‘conservatives’ are natural environmentalists but they just don’t know it …:-) .

    Mike Bryan – Fair enough – it may not be catastrophic. I really hope you’re right but I don’t see this in the information I’ve looked at . I’m not going to put a bet on it .

    Pete – I think I agree with your idea that many folks are concerned about energy security , diversefication and poverty which skews the responses about global warming and CO2 and ….
    I also care about these points but in addition I separate AGW. If the predictions are correct we’re rerunning an Easter Island scenario on a planetary scale . Looking at the information accumulated over several decades including Artic Ice levels , my view is that there will not be a good outcome unless we change our addiction to burning fossil fuels.

  106. Anne says:

    It’s a prediction, but with ass fully covered

    That’s your characterisation. Mine would be that he meant to indicate his words were not to be interpreted as a firm prediction.

    Now my question remains: why did the hoax about them retracting their predictions include Al Gore and the IPCC? After all they didn’t make such a prediction. The usual Al Gore/IPCC bashing?

  107. PeteM says:

    Patrick Henry
    You said … ‘ Interesting comment. I thought that the industrial revolution was about lifting people out of poverty and squalor’
    > There were a lot of people put into poverty and squalor during the industrial revolution. Not that I’m suggesting life was a bed of roses before hand ….

    Your point about not building any power plants is based on the assumption that there isn’t a better way to do anything . Err … How did humans manage to put a man on the Moon without destroying the economy ?

  108. swampie says:

    SwampMan was commenting this afternoon that he doesn’t remember an October day in Florida feeling so chill for 30 years. I informed him that there was a reason for that…..

  109. OldManRivers says:

    Once I believed that Cognitive Dissonance was a, purely, man-made pollutant. Recently, however, my belief in ACD has wavered and died. The Science is just not stacking up and I’m currently hovering between heretical and sceptical!

    Much is made of the relationship with the solar-clock-cycle to climatic conditions on earth: Yes, there does seem to be a certain degree of causality with the solar clock-tick and climate. Solar-Ticks do appear to matter but IMHO they are secondary!

    Is it just me (yup- almost certain) or has no one else noticed just how little attention has been placed on the alarming non-appearance of Lunar Activities recently?

    The Lunar-clock-tick level (for the non-scientific- the annual rate of lunar flares) has diminished to its lowest level since 1998!

    May I throw out a challenge Anthony? Can anyone here disprove my Hypothesis that Global warming and ACD is directly attributable to Lunar-Ticks?

  110. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  111. Patrick Henry says:

    How did humans manage to put a man on the Moon without destroying the economy ?

    Which one is more complex, sending a dozen men to the moon – or changing the entire energy and transportation infrastructure for 300 million people spead out over 5 million square miles using not yet existent technology and undiscovered natural resources?

    Gordon Brown commited the UK to unrealistic carbon goals last week, and already even the stalwart Guardian is in panic mode – recoginizing that it can’t be done. Someone at The Guardian actually tried doing some analysis, rather than relying on the “audactiy of hope” (aka “the hatred of Bush”) A new concept for the fuzzy headed leftists taking over the world.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/18/ice-reality-check-scientists-counter-latest-arctic-record-warmth-claims-as-pseudoscience/#comments

  112. Mike Bryant says:

    PeteM (15:18:16) :
    “…glaciers retreating ( in the past decade)”
    The glaciers have been retreating for alot longer than the last decade.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/14/alaska-glaciers-on-the-rebound/
    “When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.
    That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.”

    It seems like the recent warming has been good for your garden…
    Mike Bryant

  113. Harold Ambler says:

    PeteM comments: Sea level rises … as someone who lives in a low lying coastal city I can point out the local city engineers are concerned that they now have to cope with higher sea level increase than they expected.. so maybe the IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise.

    Perhaps the engineers have been frightened by the alarmists rather than by the rising water. Would you care to point us to some actual measurements rather than this hearsay?

    Dangerously rising sea levels is one of the biggest of the AGW bogeymen. Blaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!

  114. old construction worker says:

    evanjones (14:02:43) :

    -Etaoin Shrdlu

    Isn’t he registered to vote in Ohio? #B^1

    Yes, but he lives in NH.

  115. Ric Werme says:

    PeteM (14:39:15) :

    Ric Werme

    Thanks for the hint about computer programmes and actually I nearly joined the Flat Earth society once :-)

    When I first heard of them I thought they were a humor society. I made the same mistake with the folks who think NASA faked the Moon landings.

    I realise there is a difference between weather and climate , .. but I can suggest that it is possible to grow plants in many parts of the northern hemisphere (including my garden) that are indicators of a warming climate trend . Of course it maybe plants have rapidly changed 10+ years but it’s simpler to think this as consistent behaviour of a warming world .

    Well, we’ll see. My firming as a skeptic came from “discovering” that the CO2 IR absorption window is saturated. Joe D’Aleo’s correlation studies showing a better link with temperature from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation than from CO2 is pwerful support. Enough anecdotal evidence, some pushing into empirical evidence, has supported all that.

    Keep coaxing what you can out of your garden, a few more years of cooling may “restore” your classic garden.

  116. G Alston says:

    PeteM — “…my view is that there will not be a good outcome unless we change our addiction to burning fossil fuels.”

    Well, good for you.

    Currently thousands of scientists and engineers are busy working for places trying to do precisely what you ask for. The first one to market with a new working green technology would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. One has not appeared. It is not because of a lack of motivation. It is not because of a lack of money (funding cash has this amazing tendency to appear when there’s a promise of making a fortune from the investment.) It is not because evil agents of evil oil companies are shooting the developers of 250 mpg car engines or motors that run on seawater. It is because we simply don’t know how to do this.

    Although it’s popular to imagine that all you have to do is throw a lot of smart people in a room full of money, bear in mind that the Manhattan Project was about engineering, not discovering fundamental properties. And largely, it’s the latter that we lack. Not the engineering.

    That said, politics does stifle development of important things. For example, the people I imagine you look up to, the greens, have worked very diligently to divert funds to chimera like windmills and such whilst projects like Dr. Bussard’s fusion system gather dust. Shameful. I expect that you will agree that the first thing that should be done IMMEDIATELY is to drop all funding and effort and so on to that which has proven that it can’t work, and by that I mean rubbish like wind generators, and embrace that which DOES work, like nuclear power. That and disbanding all green orgs would at least be a positive step toward actual progress.

    As for automobiles, I think almost everyone agrees with you to a certain extent. I certainly do: oil is too useful as a feedstock for plastics and other cool things to simply burn it. Wasteful! Were every automobile to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow, there would still be an overwhelming demand for oil, so if your argument was somehow predicated on the silly assumption that (evil) oil companies are standing in the way of “progress” you’re sadly mistaken.

    I’d like to see automobiles converted to LPG type of fuels and then have the energy companies figure out how to convert Methyl Hydrates to do the job. As I understand it there’s enough of that stuff to power the USA for hundreds of years sitting off of North Carolina.

    Now, which one of these initiatives did you have specifically in mind? Or were you making a blanket run of the misanthropic mill type of statement?

    We don’t have an energy problem. We have a political problem.

    “Those who don’t understand technology are destined to repeat nonsensical platitudes.”

  117. Flanagan says:

    Well, I suppose you guy have noticed (as I said before btw) that the different ice extents tend to come back together by the end of november. The anomaly is strong in the summer, but not very impressive in the winter (see the cryosphere today graphs).

    The funny thing is that the sea ice increase seems to have peaked by now and the 2008 curve simply, calmly goes to the 2000-2007 average. this is due to the fact that open water over Siberia/Canada is already almost completely ice again. After that, ice extent increases only slowly due to gains in ice on the grounds and along greenland/northwestern Russia.

  118. Pingback: ------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------ - Page 307 - The Environment Site Forums

  119. David says:

    Pete M

    Please spend some time at the web site CO2 science. It may explain more about your garden doing well, warmer or not.

  120. Pingback: Climate Research News » Arctic Sea Ice Recovery Underway - Updated

  121. Frank Lansner /Denmark says:

    Steve Goddard:

    Yes, off course the curves will level off when reaching the warmer waters of the atlantic and the pacific, and sure the extrarordinary cooling, freezing of ice this fall is remarkable still! True.

    You write:
    “A key thing to watch is the polar drift during the winter. That will largely determine how thick the ice is next spring.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/gifs/DriftMap.gif

    This is interesting. But when looking at the map, first you see quite long drifts but what is normal and what is extraordinar? How do we recognice a drift that is bigger or smaller than normal?

    Antother thigng: The early freezing so far obviously gives possibility for thicker ice in the end.

  122. Lansner, Frank says:

    Steve Goddard:

    Yes, off course the curves will level off when reaching the warmer waters of the atlantic and the pacific, and sure the extrarordinary cooling, freezing of ice this fall is remarkable still! True.

    You write:
    “A key thing to watch is the polar drift during the winter. That will largely determine how thick the ice is next spring.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/gifs/DriftMap.gif

    This is interesting. But when looking at the map, first you see quite long drifts but what is normal and what is extraordinar? How do we recognice a drift that is bigger or smaller than normal?

    Antother thigng: The early freezing so far obviously gives possibility for thicker ice in the end.

  123. Lansner, Frank says:

    BINGO!

    The SOI has today been above 6 for 8 weeks in a row, and we should therefore see a new La nina, if these currents behave as normal, Check out:
    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi&p=weekly

  124. Bruce Cobb says:

    PeteM: It’s amazing to find that so many people want to hear the global warming is not happening and will find any excuse to back up their prejudice.
    Actually, Pete, it isn’t about “wanting to hear” anything – that would be irrational, which is the way the AGW alarmists are. All we want here are facts. It is amazing so many, like you, have fallen for the AGW alarmist hype and propaganda, and not bothered to, or have not wanted to, investigate on their own. You might be surprised to learn many of us used to believe that garbage. I did, up until just about 2 years ago, and only started looking into it in order to counter some anti-AGW arguments I was seeing in letters to the editor. Try this site: Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?. You will find that the more you learn, the more you will realize you have simply been duped by the AGW hype.

    Some climate scientists think there is hope that the human race will take the right actions to avoids its own demise ….a nice quote I heard was ” we can’t be that stupid”. But looking at the comments on this forum I really wonder ….
    Is it really wise to take actions based on unsound science and rampant alarmism which will have very serious financial and sociological consequences? We certainly hope that mankind isn’t that stupid.

  125. Kean says:

    Some highly selective data looks like it is being used in a WWF report just released.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/3226747/Climate-change-is-faster-and-more-extreme-than-feared.html

    I’m highly sceptical of the 1979 image shown in this article. Not sure if it has been added by the news paper or was released as part of the WWF report.
    1. The detail around edges of the 1979 Ice sheet are incredibly similar to the 2007 image.
    2. The colour and resolution of the 1979 and 2007 satellite image are the same, which seem unlikely due to the changes in imaging technology.
    3. Why compare 1979 with 2007, rather than 1977 and 2007. Perhaps the date in 1977 did not look so dramatic?
    4. Since Arctic ice is normally at its lowest in September, so the 1979 image is rather surprising.
    5. As shown here, 2008 ice sheet is 31% greater than last year. I suppose that doesn’t fit with the WWF message either. So they have used 2007.

    Sea ice is unlikely to affect sea level. When you have ice in your beverage and the ice melts – does the beverage overflow?

  126. PeteM says:

    Ric Werne
    PDO – how long will we have to wait for the evidence on this idea ?

  127. MartinGAtkins says:

    BBC World News.

    Our World: The Cold Rush.

    “David Shukman in Alaska discovers that the massive melt of arctic ice is opening up new opportunities to exploit the natural

    resources of this northern wilderness. But it’s also raising fresh tensions over international boundaries in the arctic circle”

    For those who can receive BBC World, you can find the Scheduled viewing times for your country here.

    http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Schedules.asp

    Perhaps the “new opportunities” may prove to be short lived.

  128. John Philip says:

    Evan

    I do not dispute that the earth has warmed from 1979-1998. But not for the last decade.

    Try a least-squares fit of the last 120 months in the UAH satellite record. Do share with us what you find!

    JP

  129. Mike Bryant says:

    Does anyone know why the Jason 1 sea levels have not been updated and published? The reason on the website seems a little nebulous.

  130. Bruce Cobb says:

    I suppose, from what I read here, that I should be so relieved that we have nothing to worry about. In fact, one might even argue what a shame last year’s ice minimum wasn’t even LOWER, so that when you do the calculations, the recent percentage increase in the ice could have been even more convincing!! That would’ve shown those ‘Global Warmists’, wouldn’t it. Wow!!!!
    Nick, Your sarcasm is completely unwarranted, and simply shows that you are angry. You might want to search within yourself to discover the source of your anger. Often, it stems from fear. My guess is that it is the fear that a belief system, which you apparently hold dear, that of Catastrophic AGW is under threat, and is in fact crumbling. The antidote is knowledge.

  131. David says:

    Regarding the original report, specifically soil temperatures here

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html

    They show the increase in permafrost temperatures at a depth of 20 meters over the past 25 to 30 years. The increases range from 0.5 to 2.5 degrees.

    I’m having a real hard time believing that we could have warmed the atmosphere enough over the past 30 years to cause even a 0.5 degree increase in the temperature of anything 20 meters below the surface.

  132. Dan McCune says:

    Has anyone read the CV of Ms. Richter-Menge?

    http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/richter-menge.jacqueline.html

    It’s all about the money. Twenty jobs, 80 projects and $5.5M. And I always thought it was Big Oil ;-)

    “In association with her research, Ms. Richter-Menge has gained significant first-hand Arctic experience leading or participating in more than 15 field programs . From 1997-2006, Ms. Richter-Menge served as Chief, Snow and Ice Branch. In this capacity she supervised a diverse research staff of over 20 people and oversaw the execution and development of a research program that, on an annual basis, was composed of over 80 projects and totals $5.5M.”

  133. Jeff Alberts says:

    Sea level rises … as someone who lives in a low lying coastal city I can point out the local city engineers are concerned that they now have to cope with higher sea level increase than they expected.. so maybe the IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise.

    I also live in a low-lying coastal area, Whidbey Island. Actually my house is on one of the higher points on the island at about 220′ above sea level. No such alarmist engineers live here, apparently. If sea levels had risen several feet in the last 100 years, the NAS would be underwater right now, and Whidbey would be three or four islands instead of one.

  134. Jack Simmons says:

    While we’re talking about predictions (or scenarios if you will), I am going to go out on a limb and publish the results of several hypothetical runs regarding the outcome of an ongoing, chaotic process.

    These are the results:

    Denver Broncos will have a record of 8 and 8, plus or minus 5 games.

    That should just about cover it, shouldn’t?

  135. John Galt says:

    There you go again, using facts to refute what everybody knows to be true. Well, if your facts are right, then how come everybody knows differently?

    Well?

  136. Mary Hinge says:

    Kean (05:28:24) :
    “Sea ice is unlikely to affect sea level. When you have ice in your beverage and the ice melts – does the beverage overflow?”

    It actually goes down a little due to the water in the beverage cooling.

  137. Marcus says:

    From the tone on this website, you’d think that there was evidence that Arctic ice was somehow recovering to 1970s levels.

    http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png

    I believe the question after 2007 was whether the shockingly low minimum extent was an anomaly or a start of a new, worse trend than the blue line. Well, 2008 certainly didn’t return to the blue line. It is quite nice that it wasn’t _worse_ than 2007, but the extent was certainly not large enough to be real cause for celebration. The blue line trend itself is disturbing, and while 2 years is not long enough to define a new trend, Bayesian analysis indicates that these 2 data points suggest more likelihood that we’re worse than the blue line rather than better. Anyway, it will be interesting to see the 2009 data point when we get there – will it continue the 2007-2008 trend of being below the blue line, or will it be higher than the blue line?

  138. PeteM says:

    I’ve asked several times about why anyone thinks changing the composition of the atmosphere is OK – I’ve not heard a good response about this .

    I’ve heard several interesting attempts to explain (a) that the world is not getting hotter (b) artic melting is a natural occurance (c) and nothing can be related to the concept of MMGW/AGW (d) we will destroy the economy if we change anything (e) all problems are the fault of ‘the greens’

    Since most folks on this foruim aren’t satisfied about the information on AGW perhaps they would like to define why there is no other risk about changing CO2 levels .

  139. Mike Bryant says:

    What will the risk be when lower temperatures cause CO2 levels to drop? CO2 is hardly a poisonous trace gas. It is introduced into greenhouses at app 1,000 PPM with no harmful effects to nursery workers, and tremendous beneficial effects to the plants. Any increase in CO2 levels attributable to man have been dwarfed in the past by nature. It’s a very complicated relationship, ask Al.

  140. Anne says:

    @Kean

    I hope I can answer a few of your questions about the WWF report.

    1. The detail around edges of the 1979 Ice sheet are incredibly similar to the 2007 image.
    2. The colour and resolution of the 1979 and 2007 satellite image are the same, which seem unlikely due to the changes in imaging technology.

    These images do not look like photo’s to me, but are almoste certainly computer generated images, based on arctic ice extent data. Like these images from the Cryosphere Today. Everyone judges for himself which ones look more palatable.

    3. Why compare 1979 with 2007, rather than 1977 and 2007. Perhaps the date in 1977 did not look so dramatic?

    Satellite data on arctic sea ice started in 1979, before that there were no satellites of gathering accurate sea ice data.

    4. Since Arctic ice is normally at its lowest in September, so the 1979 image is rather surprising.

    No, as you can see from my link, that actually WAS the extent in september 1979. Is that a shock to you?

    5. As shown here, 2008 ice sheet is 31% greater than last year. I suppose that doesn’t fit with the WWF message either. So they have used 2007.

    When was this report created? Usually these things tend to take some time to prepare, and it may be the 2008 data was not yet available at the time the report was created.

  141. Mike Bryant says:

    PeteM,
    From Anthony’s latest article:

    An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

  142. jonk says:

    Mary Hinge (11:01:46) :

    “It actually goes down a little due to the water in the beverage cooling.”

    The colling effect on the water levelis so minimal, you wouldn’t be able to detect it. The water level goes sown because ice is less dense than water and takes up more space than a like volume of water. Try putting a full water bottle in your freezer and see what happens.

  143. Anne says:

    Some more comparisons:

    september 20, 1979 vs september 20, 2008

    october 19, 1979 vs october 19, 2008

    Everyone judge for himself how solid the 31% larger extent compares to other years than 2007.

  144. Craig D. Lattig says:

    “PeteM (11:57:50) :

    I’ve asked several times about why anyone thinks changing the composition of the atmosphere is OK – I’ve not heard a good response about this . ”

    -Pete, as a Biologist, I know that increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 is a wonderful idea. Plants evolved when the level was much closer to 1000 ppm than the 370ish ppm we have today. Since dropping the level to about 200 ppm would pretty much wipe out all of the higher plants on earth…and everything that depends on them…basically the entire ecosphere as we know it…I would greatly prefer that we get a little further away from the lower limit and closer to a more optimum level. This would significantly increase plant growth and provide more food for all of us.

    -In addition, a slighly higher global world temperature would, overall, improve our quality of life. Humans do better when the world is warmer. This is a historical fact. And no, I don’t want to hear how everyone will die in the resulting flood. If we could cope with the world wide distruction caused by WWII, we can certainly cope with loosing a few islands and a bit of coast line.

    - Also, please don’t tell me we will all end up starving in the desert…this is a water world…more heat means more clouds and more rain…can you say tropics?

    “I’ve heard several interesting attempts to explain (a) that the world is not getting hotter (b) artic melting is a natural occurance (c) and nothing can be related to the concept of MMGW/AGW (d) we will destroy the economy if we change anything (e) all problems are the fault of ‘the greens’”

    a-OK, the world is getting hotter..or at least it was until a year or two ago. It had been getting hotter since about 1970…it will probably now get colder for about 30 years. This is the cycle that this planet has been following since the last ice age. Odds are good that the pattern will repeat until the next ice age…..

    b -Yes, artic melting is natural…it happens every summer…and it freezes again every winter. Longer term it melts and freezes as the world warms and cools. This pattern will continue until the next ice age.

    c.-Yes, humans are releasing CO2 that has been trapped in the earths crust for millions of years. Everyone agrees that is happening. Everyone agrees that it has SOME effect. Most of us understand that the human caused increase in atmospheric CO2 can be calculated…and that the calculated result is too small to measure with current technology. The assumption is that the effect on climate is also too small to measure…or at least too small to be significant.

    d-We will only destroy the economy if we do some really, really stupid things. Not building more carbon fueled power plants, not building more nuc plants and trying to meet our energy needs with ethanol, windmills and solar are SOME of the dumber ideas being promoted.

    e-No the problems are not all the fault of the greens. Politicians who are LISTENING to the greens are at the root of our current situation. The greens, in and of themselves are fairly harmless…implementing their IDEAS however are frequently very harmful to society. I’ve lived in several 3rd world countries. Living the way the greens promote is NOT FUN.

    “Since most folks on this foruim aren’t satisfied about the information on AGW perhaps they would like to define why there is no other risk about changing CO2 levels .”

    -Well, changing the CO2 level DOWN, will kill us all. Not usually concidered a great idea. Raising it slowly, over time, will increase food supplies in a growing world. More food is a very good idea. Slowly increasing levels of CO2, even if they result in a slow increase in world wide temperatures of a few degrees a century, are also more benificial that harmful…the primary negative effect will be a greatly increased level of AGW hysteria!

    OT-we here in Florida, point out that we can go out into our yards and look down and see seashells…from where our yards were once under a few hundred feet of sea water. A rise in ocean levels of a few inches does not seem very impressive.
    cdl

  145. Anne says:

    @Craig D. Lattig:

    Some of your statements puzzle me, could you please have a look at my questions?

    Since dropping the level to about 200 ppm would pretty much wipe out all of the higher plants on earth

    This is the first time I hear about dropping the CO2 level to 200 ppmv, since 280 ppmv is generally accepted as the ‘natural level’ for the world we currently live in. Where does that number come from? Who suggested that?

    Most of us understand that the human caused increase in atmospheric CO2 can be calculated…and that the calculated result is too small to measure with current technology.

    Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising around 2.5 ppmv/year. Where does this CO2 come from?

    We will only destroy the economy if we do some really, really stupid things. Not building more carbon fueled power plants, not building more nuc plants and trying to meet our energy needs with ethanol, windmills and solar

    You are sounding rather alarmist. Any numbers to back up your opinion?

    Slowly increasing levels of CO2, even if they result in a slow increase in world wide temperatures of a few degrees a century

    What is your definition of ‘slow’? 1 ppmv/yr? 1 ppmv/century?

  146. Anne says:

    @Mike Bryant:

    explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration

    I can not understand how he got to that number. Total atmospheric CO2 is 3,000 gigatonnes. Total human CO2 emissions are around 30 gigatonnes of CO2. That roughly 1%. Who is right and why?

  147. PeteM says:

    Craig Luttell
    As you are a biologist – have you heard of a recent experiment where an animal species was exposed permamently for decades to doubled or tripled levels of CO2 (levels far higher than their recent evolutionary path) .
    If so , what were the results ?

    I keep seeing lots of appends on this and similar forums from folks determined to show that AGW is a mistaken ( or maybe over positioned) theory.

    However I don’t see any doubt or thought in those same appends that changing the composition of the atmosphere may carry risks from many (probably unforseen) sources. I really can’t believe there is only good news from doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

    Who exactly is guarenteeing that there are no serious risks or downside from higher levels of CO2 ?

    ( Your answer about decreasing the CO2 levels didn’t really answer my question as this is currently not occuring and probably not an option with our current technology)

    Finally , I certainly don’t agree with your assertion that local solar or industrial scale solar is a dumb idea . Seems a pretty good idea if you can afford it .

  148. Mary Hinge says:

    David (06:59:11) :
    “I’m having a real hard time believing that we could have warmed the atmosphere enough over the past 30 years to cause even a 0.5 degree increase in the temperature of anything 20 meters below the surface.”

    Maybe this will make it easier. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=9&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

    When you consider that permafrost coverage is approx 24% of the northern hemispheres land areas, thats a lot of perafrost thawing!

  149. Mike Bryant says:

    Anne, I think your numbers are closer than his.

    Pete M.

    “What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in carbon dioxide gas?

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%. Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. ”

    http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html

    Sorry not too much there on levels of 1,000 to 1,200 PPM.

  150. SteveSadlov says:

    RE: Melt ponds as open water.

    Yes, this has been a very difficult issue, since satellite measurements started.

    Also, you have the seasonal change in sun angle and hence, refraction and reflection characteristics.

    Also, you have the issue of the fudge factor that is used to subtract out a thin strip of ice along the coasts, which is a brute force work around to deal with inability to distinguish certain sea ice from snow cover on land.

    Then there are the many different surface characteristics of sea ice, including how much snow is on it, and the characteristics of that snow.

  151. Steve Keohane says:

    Anne, PeteM; Here is a geologic timescale plot of CO2. Presently, CO2 is about as low as it ever gets. Life forms developed and flourished under much higher concentrations than present. Regarding Craig’s minimum CO2 level for plants, I have heard it is about 150 ppm so it seems there is a minimum. Greenhouses use CO2 concentrators to increase the levels of CO2 for plant growth. Our planet has supposedly ~6% more vegetation due to CO2 increase. The current interglacial period probably won’t last more than a couple of centuries, my guess, so maybe we can extend it. That sure beats dealing with glaciers.
    http://i36.tinypic.com/2en8d48.gif

  152. PeteM says:

    Mike Bryant
    I wasn’t thinking of levels as high as 2-3 % CO2 .
    So, it seems no one has actually tested the impact of living in an atmosphere of .05% CO2 for years or decades at a time ?
    Well , during the next few decades we’re about to run this experiment on the entire planet with no real ‘get out’ option – and maybe we’ll discover we ( or something we depend on) is not so well adapted to this new atmosphere. (How long does it take for the long term effects of smoking to show up ?)

    And we’re also running another experiment – finding out if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere really causes global warming (and the current signs are not good despite all the enthusuasm here to find some piece of information that magically disproves MMGW)

    I’ve decided not to append again on this forum

  153. Pingback: Good news about global warming! « Fabius Maximus

  154. Phil. says:

    Mike Bryant (12:25:23) :
    PeteM,
    From Anthony’s latest article:

    An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

    Unfortunately Mr Myers is unaware that global warming has nothing to do with the absorption of solar radiation, he’s wrong about the concentration too, even though he does quote it to 3 sig figs!

  155. John M says:

    Re: CO2 as part of the atm calcs:

    Looks like that may have come from the site linked by Ron de Haan (17:47:33) : .

    The 0.0168% refers to the 110 ppm increase in CO2 form anthropogenic sources as a percent of total atmospheric mass.

  156. John M says:

    Well, that didn’t work too well (typos and all).

    Here’s the direct link

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/calcs.html

    and the direct quote

    “Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2 and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere. “

  157. Ric Werme says:

    PeteM (05:55:00) :

    > PDO – how long will we have to wait for the evidence on this idea ?

    There’s probably no good answer I can give that will not cause someone to squawk. The PDO went negative last fall, and there are signs of it taking impacting climate already, especially along the southern Alaskan coast that is exposed to the cold current, see http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    James Hansen went to Congress in 1988 to warn of the coming catastrophe, that was 9 years into the warm PDO phase, so that would be a time period with some precedent. I expect the next few years to document a number of PDO-related cold events, but it will take a number of them to be good evidence. More convincing data will come from the satellite temperature measurements, and that’s one reason readers here fall all over each other to post a new month’s value.

  158. Pamela Gray says:

    Hey, I’m willing to live in a pumped up CO2 environment. While I can grow an outdoor veggie garden with the best of them, I kill all indoor plants. So I’ld be willing to let more CO2 into my home. I’ve heard that houseplants are green. Who knew?

  159. JimB says:

    “I’ve decided not to append again on this forum”

    Did PeteM do a driveby? ;*)

    Anyway…
    “As you are a biologist – have you heard of a recent experiment where an animal species was exposed permamently for decades to doubled or tripled levels of CO2 (levels far higher than their recent evolutionary path) .
    If so , what were the results ?”

    Why do people ask questions when they already know the answer? Why not just make the statement that you question the effects of this?

    PeteM:
    “And we’re also running another experiment – finding out if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere really causes global warming (and the current signs are not good despite all the enthusuasm here to find some piece of information that magically disproves MMGW) ”

    I’ve been reading articles on this site for a few months now, and I don’t believe that if anyone is looking for something “magical”, it would be the PROponents, not the OPponents of AGW, since the current stance is “Well…nothing else explains it, so it MUST be man-made C02.”

    I believe there are many “pieces of information” that quite handily disproves it, and that what happens here is science, not magic.

    Talk about cut ‘n run…sheesh.

    Jim

  160. JimB says:

    should say “DO believe”…darn that missing preview function ;*)

    Jim

  161. JimB says:

    Pamela,
    You’re likely over-watering :)

    Jim

  162. Anne says:

    @Phil

    Unfortunately Mr Myers is unaware that global warming has nothing to do with the absorption of solar radiation

    Nice one. Seems this scientist is a bit sloppy. Lessons to be learned: stay skeptic to anything anyone says on either side of the debate. Don’t be intimidated by a person’s title. Everyone makes mistakes (including the ‘good guys’).

  163. Pamela Gray says:

    Pete: Ask greenhouse workers if exposure to CO2 is not good for them. Ask the recipient of mouth-to-mouth if they were killed or saved by an increase of CO2 as a byproduct of the procedure. We breath in a substance every day known collectively as a gas. Don’t get caught up on the emotional memories of the term, “gas”. It is a neutral term and we breath a mixture of gaseous chemicals everyday. Without them we would die rather quickly.

  164. deepslope says:

    Regarding perspectives on longer-term Arctic ice fluctuations: Interesting new paper on low ice coverage 6000 to 7000m years ago…

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

  165. hereticfringe says:

    Has anyone noticed that the NSIDC arctic sea ice extent graph hadn’t been updated since 10/16/2008, then suddenly it was updated to day with a very suspicous looking plateau in the ice growth that does not match what the AMSR-E graph shows? This looks like data manipulation to fit an agenda to me!

    REPLY: Let’s not jump to such harsh conclusions, let’s find out first. – Anthony

  166. hereticfringe says:

    LOL! So I emailed the NSIDC about their funny looking graph and suddenly it matches the UAF.EDU graph! Now I wish I had saved a copy of their obvious data manipulation for posterity!

  167. PeteMAgain says:

    Pamela Gray

    Still ignoring the point – this will not be a short term or temporary change -you will find CO2 concentration of 450 ppm 24 hours per day , 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year with no escape .
    Have you checked up on (for example) the effects of minor ( but long term) alteration of CO2 level in the human blood stream on basic functions like the immune system ?

    Chemical and drugs companies would have to go through significant investigations and research before being allowed to introduce a basic change of this amount to any human environment.

    But as global warming theory is involved … well, then we can ignore all these normal recent quaint conventions … and just focus on proving mankind will be perfectly OK buring fossil fuels .

    And lets not try to consider anything else as a consequence of higher CO2 levels .. like maybe the effect on ocean acidity .

    Jim B

    There are some interesting thoughts in this forum but I will not trust the information as without intent. I can’t see any major article here that suggests global warming might be correct … which speaks volumes.

    It is also interesting analysing the language of many of the appends on the forum – a lot of ‘key manupulation’ words are worked into the comments
    ‘scare , scam , hysteria , chimera like windmills , garbage … ‘.
    It’s a well know technique in certain circles ….

    That why I’m agoing to avoid appends here

  168. Peter Pond says:

    In line with the comments by hereticfringe about changes to the NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent graph, I have been looking at the NSIDC Antartic Ice Extent graph (because I live in the Sthn Hemisphere). A few days ago it showed the 2008 line breaking above the 1979-2000 average line with a strong uptick. When I checked today, the 2008 line has moved down and now merely touches the 1979-2000 average, with the previous uptick now becoming a downtick?

  169. Jeff Alberts says:

    Still ignoring the point – this will not be a short term or temporary change -you will find CO2 concentration of 450 ppm 24 hours per day , 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year with no escape .
    Have you checked up on (for example) the effects of minor ( but long term) alteration of CO2 level in the human blood stream on basic functions like the immune system ?

    non-issue. We’re currently at about .045% CO2 in the atmosphere, I believe. This study, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2252131 shows negligible effects for concentrations of .7% and 1.2%

    Even if it got that high, we’d most likely have adapted long before then.

  170. Pingback: Global Warming? Where? | Democrat=Socialist

  171. Pingback: ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING-AL GORE « Ragamuffin08’s Weblog

  172. Steve Keohane says:

    PeteMagain (15:21) The “occupational safety standard” for CO2 exposure 40 hrs/week is 5000ppm, 1000ppm for schools and 800ppm for offices, from this reference:
    http://www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/techbrf/co2.htm

  173. Phil. says:

    Arctic ice now 21% more than last year.

  174. PeteMAgain says:

    Jeff Alberts
    Where do you get information showing that we are at 0.045% now ?
    The 2008 measurement from Hawaii are around 387 ppm and we seem to be adding a couple of ppm each year . So (unless something changes) I think we’ll have to wait until about 30 years or more to find out if we’re OK at 0.045%

    The article show that for a maximum of 23 days at .7% and 1.2% (in the experimental constraints) there appeared to be no immediate problems – I’m not sure if there was any longer term post experiment monitoring .

    But … this isn’t the experiment we’re going to run .
    We’re going to permamently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurabley different concentration of CO2 .
    What are the long term effects ? (Smoking doesn’t seem verey harmful until you continue for many years )

    “Even if it got that high , we’d most likely have adapted by then”
    If we go as high as .7% (assuming 2 ppm added to the atmoshpere) and starting at about 390ppm then we’re talking about 150 years . I doubt that humans evolve that rapidly (the space of 4 to 5 generations) without some significant factor that forcibly removes certain genes from the n pool.

  175. Terry Ward says:

    PeteMAgain (15:21:05) :

    We would prefer these guys to be awake, unimpiared and aware:

    “Data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003)”

  176. Terry Ward says:

    my previous at 04:21:23- “unimpaired” (rather obviously bad smelling mistake)

    less so-

    PeteMAgain (02:51:01) :

    “We’re going to permanently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurably different concentration of CO2 .”

    If we burn all the easy and all the hard to get fossil fuel we will approach 0.09% concentration in the atmosphere in around 250 years from date at current progress if there is no increase in uptake by the oceans, which will then be a minuscule amount less alkaline than at present, or other sinks such as increased biomass and increased biomass extent. Contrary to what gore and hansen would like to have you think the air and oceans have both been there before.

    If we don’t crush our economies and fail to research our next “fuels” in the line reading; sticks/dung, coal/oil, oil/nuclear…..

    The above figures are rough due to government burying of data, estimated fuel usage, projected time to new energy technology and my general mean streak.

  177. Caleb says:

    Regarding the effect of higher CO2 levels:

    It is my understanding that there is a lot of chemical data which shows CO2 levels were above current levels in the 1940′s. However this data was thrown out, because it was collected too close to urban areas.

    This suggests to me that people in urban areas have been living their lives breathing air with 450 ppm CO2 for several generations.

    The question then becomes: Have such people suffered any sort of brain damage?

    Let us begin by examining who they vote for, and whether they believe in Global Warming…

  178. PeteMAgain says:

    Terry Ward , Caleb

    Thank you – these answers are helpful in the context of my question about where have we seen long term exposure to raised CO2 levels.
    I now have some ‘pointers’ for where I can search for further real information.

    Although , Caleb, I would point out that global warming has occured over the past decades . It’s the cause that is the issue of the debate on this forum .

  179. To PeteMAgain:

    You are ASSUMING somehow CO2 will continuing to increase for hundreds and hundreds of years: It is now going up at about 1% per year – from what we were TOLD was a pre-industrial average of 280 ppm(volume) to today’s 370 ppmv. But actual pre-industrial revolution CO2 measurements were all over the graph (from 150 ppm to over 380 ppm), and it was the AGW (or MMGW) propagandists were decided that 280 was the right value.

    So, how many years will it take for CO2 to increase to problematic level?

    Well,
    you are assuming today’s CO2 increase is almost entirely man-made.
    You are assuming that today’s fossil-driven energy systems will stay the same for hundreds of years into the future.
    You are assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing increase in temperatures.
    You are blindly assuming that an increase in CO2 is “bad” – ignoring the 17% – 27% INCREASE in plant growth (food, fodder, fuel, furniture, framing, and paper) caused by today’s higher CO2 levels.
    You are deathly afraid of some “poisonous” effect in higher CO2 levels that has NOT been found in ANY cases where actual CO2 levels have been lived in for for long periods of time.
    You are ignoring the KNOWN deadly effects of colder weather, less fuel, less clothes, poorer economies, poorer food, and less energy on PEOPLE’S LIVES. (Do you want thousands of REAL PEOPLE to DIE in order that CO2 levels be artificially reduced by politicians – for no scientific reason?

    How many people should be immediately killed to reduce your groundless fears?

    A few hundred? A few thousand? How many million do you want to die in the cold and dark, seeing their children starving to death needlessly because you fear CO2 for no reason? Is 6 million enough? 16 million? 160 million? 1600 million?

    Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 27 years (1908-1935) – while CO2 increased steadily.
    Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1935-1945) – while CO2 increased steadily.
    Temperatures decreased roughly 2/5 of ONE degree in 27 years (1945-1972) – while CO2 increased steadily.
    Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 24 years (1974-1998) – while CO2 increased steadily.
    Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1998-2008) – while CO2 increased steadily.

    That ain’t much of a correspondence between CO2 increases and temperature. And 1/2 of ONE degree ain’t much of a temperature increase.

    Technical progress:
    By the way, if in 1908, you told me to build a runway for an airplane, I would have told you it was stupid: Airplanes could just barely turn in a controlled circle, could only fly for 20 minutes, could land in any 200 foot straight spot on any farmer’s grassy pasture anywhere in the country, and could carry (at best!) one passenger. And that one passenger was himself killed a few weeks later in a crash.

    But 45 years later, I needed a 12,000 foot runway, with an 8 foot thick reinforced concrete foundation 300 feet wide, graded and grooved absolutely flat just so a 300,000 pound bomber capable of flying non-stop around the world at close to the spped of sound could land.

    But you ASSUME that we will still need fossil fuels 400 years from now, and you FEAR highly exaggerated effects from continuously burning fossil fuels based on computer predictions so wrong that their results are invalid two, ten, and twelve years in the future – but are somehow magically correct 400 years in the future, and you IGNORE all benefits from higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

  180. PeteM says:

    Robert Cook
    How long will it take to get to a problamatic level ? This is a very good question – we don’t know BECAUSE no-one has actually researched this .
    I am not assuming CO2 is bad (I like the greenhouse effect that keeps this planet from freezing) . However IGNORANCE of the effects of long term exposure to doubled CO2 concentrations is bad . And since the whole world will be involved in this experiment then the Precautionary Principle should be the starting point .

    Unfortunately you are just plain wrong when you assert there is no correspondence between CO2 and temperature. There is definitely some sort of correspondence between CO2 levels and temperature (and has been for many millions of years ) – however I believe the ‘sceptics’ agument is that this is a lagging indicator. Just because it doesn’t jump to your immediate requirement that everything has to happen in your immediate time frame this doesn’t mean much.

    1/2 of one degree ain’t much of a temperature increase – again you are just plain wrong here . A small number don’t sound much unless put in context of the enormity of the change. Please lift Mount Everest by an half an inch …

    I highlighted earlier the ‘use of language’ on this forum – your arguments follows the same pattern of trying to ‘win by denegration’ . Simply add some of the usual ‘bullet words’ like propoganda ,poverty , ‘ignore benefits’ and this makes appends sound like credible information or that there is a logically connected argument. For someone so quick to expose MMGW propoganda I’m suprised you are not aware of your own contribution.

    I’m simply asking a stright forward question – who can show me why having more CO2 in the atmosphere for the whole world is not something to worry about . (Backed up by good long term research and data – not by arguments about world poverty, no global warming , collapsing economy , IPCC conspiracy, sunspots, and Elvis-Presley-isnt-dead… )

  181. Terry Ward says:

    PeteM (11:20:05) :

    The onus of evidential expression of your hypothesis lies with you. It is your hypothesis. Claim it with research and proclaim your findings by publishing.

  182. PeteM says:

    Terry Ward

    No

    it’s up to those changing my environment in a non reversible way global to prove that this won’t harm me.

    I’d be making the same point is someone was suggesting hte price of nuclear power was small regualr increase in background radiation.

  183. Terry Ward says:

    PeteM (09:57:21) :

    No.

    You are entitled to hypothesise. Until you provide evidence it remains a hypothesis.

    Your claim that the most crucial component of the carbon cycle upon which all life on our planet depends is dangerous at levels above where we currently are (this has not killed us but has increased the biomass of the planet by over 6% since measurements began) and “non reversible” (though its concentration in the atmosphere has been up to 10 times higher in the past) is beginning to appear political to me.

    I suggest that you do some research and you counter with your opinion. Again.

    No one need prove that levels of CO2 many times higher than those of the present, regardless of origin, may kill any form of life on Earth as those levels have been achieved many times and sustained for geological epochs. The varied fauna and flora that surround us are testament to its efficacy, vitality and utter necessity. We are still here and able to reap its benefits.

    My hypothesis is the exact opposite of that which you fear. I believe CO2 may be at an extremely dangerous low level and as temperatures continue to drop there may be a further loss which may endanger humanity through its impact on foodstuffs. I do not ask for proof of this conjecture from any entity.

    Fear is the little death.

  184. Pingback: 2008 has been a great year for Polar Bears! « An Honest Climate Debate

  185. barbee butts says:

    Anthony,

    I’ve meen monotoring this graph regularly. It looks like you may soon need to add more historical data to keep it relevant!

    Thanks, barbee

Comments are closed.