Bad news from NSIDC

Last year we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”. As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. Summer 2008 had more arctic ice than summer 2007, and summer 2007 was not “ice free” by any measure.

serreze_2008_forecast

Click to read original story from ABC News

In spite of the spectacular failure of Dr. Serreze’s widely quoted prediction, there were no retractions, no apologies for misleading the public, no admissions of error, and  inaccurate stories like the one above are still in place. So what could possibly be worse news from NSIDC?

The very man who made that ridiculous statement of “an ice free north pole in 2008″  is set to become the “incoming director” of NSIDC. Apparently alarmism pays, especially if you get press.

serreze_talk

Does anybody live in Maryland that can attend this talk? I’d just love to see what sort of “heat” he’s talking about “cranking up”.

Goddard Visitor Center
8800 Greenbelt Road – Code 130
Greenbelt, Md 20771

301.286.3978 – Phone
301.286.1781 – Fax

I wonder what new “forecasts” will be coming in the new Goddard movie “frozen”? Gosh, that spherical screen is really important in getting the science facts across don’t you think?

Frozen interactive image
Interactive Feature: FROZEN – View the trailer, gallery, and more.

Goddard’s New ‘Science On a Sphere’ Movie Opens Nationwide This Spring

In an era when change itself seems to be the subject holding people’s attention, NASA presents a spectacular new movie that depicts the changing Earth. Called “Frozen,” this film introduces the idea of our transitioning home planet in ways that have never been seen before.

“Frozen” brings Earth to life, projecting images of our planet onto completely spherical movie screens hanging in the center of darkened theaters. Turning in space, images on the screen become a portal onto a virtual planet, complete with churning, swirling depictions of huge natural forces moving below. “Frozen” showcases the global cryosphere, those places on Earth where temperatures don’t generally rise above water’s freezing point. As one of the most directly observable climate gauges, the changing cryosphere serves as a proxy for larger themes.

“Frozen” opens around the country and in several locations around the world on March 27, 2009. For a partial list of Science On a Sphere theaters, click here.

About these ads

144 thoughts on “Bad news from NSIDC

  1. I think today’s postings finally confirm that the lunatics HAVE taken over the asylum.
    Trip to Mars, anyone?

  2. Hopefully some of the Catlin crew will be there to talk about their experiences with the -40 degree Arctic springtime heat.

  3. Job requirement must be for that of a contortionist.

    When this summer’s ice exceeds that of last year, the spin that’ll emanate from NSIDC will sound like it’s coming from a pretzel; heck, in a couple year’s time, as the Arctic continues to recover, he may even start to look like a pretzel!

  4. NSDIC — Now into cooking ice. What’s next, cooking cities …

    Need new source of real and accurate data, or we need to do our own ice from raw satellite data software.

  5. I am still waiting for David Barber, of the Univeristy of Manitoba, to respond to my $1000 challenge. He predicted that the arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2015. I proposed a wager. I am still waiting.

    Tom

  6. “When this summer’s ice exceeds that of last year, the spin that’ll emanate from NSIDC will sound like it’s coming from a pretzel”

    We’ve already seen your “pretzel twisting” of the standards happening: Now, it’s the “second year” ice that is threatened -> becuase “second year” ice is “easier to melt” than earlier ice (supposedly longer lived) that is harder to melt.

    So, regardless of whether the overall ice area increased from 2007 – 2008, or from 2008 – 2009, it doesn’t matter because global warming is “a threat to the “easy-to-melt” second year ice. ”

    Next year, it will threaten to even-easier-to-melt third year ice.

  7. It is clear that he was talking of the North Pole itself, not the Arctic Ice Cap in its entirety:

    “There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

    Despite its news value in the media, the North Pole being ice free is not in itself significant. To scientists, Serreze points out, “this is just another point on the globe”.

    So this:

    As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. Summer 2008 had more arctic ice than summer 2007, and summer 2007 was not “ice free” by any measure.

    Has no relation to his actual comment.

    Nor did he “forecast” an ice-free North Pole. A “possibility” is not a certainty.

    REPLY: Bird man, you know nothing about handling the media, what matters is the public perception and headlines, like the one at ABC for which he is directly responsible. The fact that he did NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, to mitigate the error he started in the press, speaks volumes. Spin it however you want, but he did nothing to correct it. A scientist of character would act to correct the misconception he started. Yet here it is, a year later, and the ABC story is still up, unchanged.

    And I should add this comment from Serreze “this is just another point on the globe”. What absolute tripe. It is the only point he is interested and the focus of the story itself.

    I saw Serreze recently ona History channel special and he repeated the same sorts of propaganda in his interview. He knows EXACTLY what he is doing.
    – Anthony

  8. Melting ice, dead trees backlit by a hot orange fireball sun that mercilessly cooks the life out of Earth. Endless desert, death, no water.
    Did I miss anything?

  9. Without intending to insult any person wearing a beard, but Dr. Serreze looks a bit like Santa. You believe in Santa or not.

    NSIDC without a shimmer of a doubt is a warmist platform, shame on them.

  10. Should we continue to trust data coming out of Bolder from now on? Or should we send him a hat as welcoming present on behalf of WUWT for him to eat when the data of his own institute tell him that he’s got it all wrong? To be consumed in the presence of the worldpress?

  11. Why do I have this bad feeling that the new movie “Frozen”, will be effective propaganda? “Cold Matters”… that’s why the 2007 ice melt will be prominently featured as Serreze drones on about our burning, dying planet, as an impressive heartwrenching score makes even the most hard-hearted shed a tear. The polar bears will starve and drown on cue as biologists describe the desperate animals that have even had to resort to cannibalism. We will fly closely over miles upon miles of dry, cracked steaming lakebeds. The sea level rises will be so much better handled than the simple graphics used by AIT. Every scenario that has been credibly discounted and disproven over and over will once again be brought back from the dead. Kilimanjaro is just too good, too cinematic NOT to use. The Hockeystick Graph will be new and improved and even scarier. As the spaghetti lines of the graph move slowly from left to right around the huge sphere, the violins, the timpani, the trumpets will crescendo along with the upturn to our present day. The ocean will boil and churn and acidify before our very eyes. There will even be footage of the tsunami along with the colorful global sea level images. Hurricane Katrina will play a major role as one of the villains of this fraudulent main feature. Of course, the real criminal in this farce is you and me and a way of life that has brought even more life and wealth into this world, because we are the spreaders of the filthy CO2 that has brought our beautiful planet to within a hairsbreadth of destruction. And to prove our culpability the Mauna Loa data along with those beautiful colorful moving images from the AIRS team will put the nail in our coffin…
    Don’t worry if you can’t afford a ticket, it’s free if you just register to vote.

    Almost forgot… you also get your choice of an action figure made of soap. Gore, Hansen, or Mann… which dope on a rope will YOU choose??

  12. These people get there queues from their source of funding. Waxman and Pelosi are not far from the control of the money. Obama and the EPA are writing the script. Science is not part of the agenda. The solar minimum continues and certainly has an impact on the ice in both poles. No word of a connection from NSIDC, maybe it is all just anecdotal. Maybe they could show there is absolutely no correlation. Maybe they are hoping for an Oscar like Al’s after their premier. Science is really all about public awareness in any case, we all know that.

  13. Robert Bateman (16:11:36) :

    Melting ice, dead trees backlit by a hot orange fireball sun that mercilessly cooks the life out of Earth. Endless desert, death, no water.

    Did I miss anything?

    Floods! Oh… and career promotions.

  14. I think you can actually download the movie here. Would take more than a couple of hours to download though given the different options are 1.3 – 1.9 Gig files.

    ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/extras/frozen/

    There is a low-quality introduction version here (108 MB) which I watched. Looks like it will be another of those glaciers are melting, sea level will rise, Al Gore’s new condominium on the ocean will be under water.

    ftp://public.sos.noaa.gov/extras/frozen/media/

  15. It seems that in 1958 the submarine USS Skate became the first vessel to surface at the Pole. How thin would the ice have to be to allow a submarine to break through?

  16. Mark Serreze “incoming director” of NSIDC?

    This is incomprehensible.

    Politics is power.

  17. The fact that he did NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, to mitigate the error he started in the press, speaks volumes.

    Where is the error in his statement that there was a possibility of the north pole being ice free last summer?

    Where was the error in the headline that said exactly the same thing?

    What is there to correct?

    REPLY: Oh puhleeeze. Where is the result of the headline “North pole could be ice free in 2008″? Show me that result, you can’t because it didn’t happen. You are defending scaremongering, and it shows that you have no scruples. What next, defending Waxman? Serreze did nothing; zero, zilch, nada, he let the error he started live on in headlines worldwide. If I had made a statement in error that the media picked up you’d be all over me to fix it, retract it, deny it, whatever, Serreze gets a free pass…because you (and your friends) have no scruples. – Anthony

  18. And our next news item:

    “President Obama Names Trofim Lysenko to Head Department of Agriculture” …

  19. Hmmm …. batting zero and getting promoted. I need to get away from using any sort of logic and rationale, instead go with a feel-good knee-jerk reaction and learn also how to compromise my soul -er- position. I’m just not going to get ahead by adhering to morals, ethics or standards …

  20. “Ron de Haan (16:13:07) : Dr. Serreze looks a bit like Santa.”

    To me he looks like he’s from the 60’s. Same with William Connolley.

    Baby boomer self loathing (as it was put in an earlier thread in WUWT) is in political power. Apparently baby boomers feel that everyone has enough money to pay for their religious feelings of guilt—even the elderly in America’s Northern United States who pay ~$400.00 a month to heat their houses in the winter.

    What will stop all of this???

  21. I just got up from taking a nap to see this—am I still sleeping and having a surreal nightmare??

  22. from 1962.

    Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines.

    Seems to me that it isn’t all that unusual to have no ice at the pole.

  23. This isn’t a nightmare, its a comedy. These people are fast becoming late night jokes. Eventually, comedians will pick up on the discrepancy between warnings and reality. They will start telling jokes about PMS and global warming, global warming and “natural enhancement”, etc. The more science is taken out of the realm of journals and into the media, the more its underbelly (and there is and has been one since science was first practiced) will be known to Joe Schmo and laughed at.

  24. I live in Maryland, in Annapolis, about 30 mintues from Greenbelt and am lucky enough to be self employeed, I am looking into attending this farce of a lecture and will let you know what I find. It appears to be open to the public.

  25. Sorry a bit OT, but I eagerly want to see a graph showing the temporal evolution of man-made CO2 emission, from late 19th century up to as more recent year as possible (e.g., ~2007). This is because I am now beginning to doubt the “reality” of the astonishingly smooth, monotonous increase in Mauna Loa CO2 concentration, as someone pointed out in the Sir Monckton thread.
    Could somebody help me in this? Thanks in advance.

  26. It snowed this weekend (April 26th) across the Snowy Mountains in southern NSW and the Victorian Alps. I don’t think its unprecedented, but its certainly the earliest in a long time. The timing seems roughly in line with the first falls in the last northern winter (mid-October?)

    Since I recently discovered the joys of skiing, I’ve decided this global warming thing is good news: the more the likes of Serreze talk it up, the colder it gets (has someone tried to model that based on the apparent correlations?). It might not be good for agriculture etc, but you have to play the hand you are dealt….and for me, that means more skiing!

  27. Maybe a bit of good news coming from our British brethren. In a thread earlier today on WUWT I highlighted an editorial on solar activity in Sunday’s The Independent that partook in some “denier bashing”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/felipe-fernandezarmesto-its-been-a-long-cold-lonely-winter-but-here-comes-the-sun-and-yes-its-all-right-1674263.html

    However, printing this editorial might have been a bit of CYA (Cover Your Ass) by The Independent in preparation for this article in Monday’s Independent:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html

    This is one of the most factual assessments of recent solar activity that I have seen in the main stream media to date. Cheers to Dr. David Whitehouse for writing a balanced piece on solar activity and to The Independent for printing it. Now if we could just get the Economist and BBC to start reporting the facts, we might be able to have genuine informed debate with our friends on the other side of the puddle.

  28. Just Want Truth… (16:57:37) :

    I just got up from taking a nap to see this—am I still sleeping and having a surreal nightmare??

    SLAP! “wake up and go back to sleep”

    It will all become a big joke soon, just go around the neighborhood and ask.
    people here are starting to laugh at all of it now. (CO2 Warming)

  29. “dhogaza (16:47:07) : Where is the error in his statement that there was a possibility of the north pole being ice free last summer?”

    There’s a possibility the moon could start heading toward earth and crush the United States. There’s a possibility I could marry Halle Berry. There’s a possibility people will start wearing shoes on their hands. So what’s wrong with me saying these dhogaza? Where’s the error?

  30. I had some correspondence with Mark Serreze some months ago. His initial claim was that the radiative forcing of CO2 had been measured. I suspect he may still believe this, even though I pointed out to him that it was not true.

  31. My Father, life long Democrat can only shake his head at what is going on now with Gore, Pelosi, Obama, Biden, Kerry and others.

    Wow, 100 ppm CO2 is going to destory the planet? Give me a break, only fools would buy into that non-sense. It’s all about taxes and more taxes.

    The Government better be finding out how to grow crops in cold climate. If the sun does not wake up soon, it’s going to be very cold soon.

  32. I suggest that warmists share a common affliction – innumeracy. When the temperature data from satellites and radiosondes shows cooling, and arctic sea ice extent is growing, etc., etc., what part of Earth is cooling, not warming, do they not understand?

    Time for young Barack and his science advisors to go back to elementary school, and work on their numbers. Anna 1, anna 2….

  33. This is a very serious issue…for comedians. The ultimate argument against all this “fun stuff” of global warming is to reveal to everybody the laughable, ludicrous, ridiculous, of its real comic nature, which many deep and not less profound thinkers in this blog have described as “the king is nude” state.

  34. crosspatch (17:14:11) :

    HEADLINE :

    “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea”

    Recent news? No

    New York Times, February 20, 1969. From article :

    “In fact Dr. Budyko (Dr,. Mikhail I. Budyko) argues that an ice-free Arctic Ocean is the “normal” situation.”

  35. In Ayn Rand’s, “Atlas Shrugged” a key component was the control of science.

    So “Atlas shrugged” now comes to life.
    We will see how the coddled government science establishment enjoys the new economy.

    US government tax receipts down 27% in March.
    Who is going to pay to perpetuate this myth?

  36. I am in MD. I can probably attend. Let me know if you have found anyone else. If not, I will attend…

  37. I really thought they were intelligent enough to change the tale of “global warming” into “climate change”, as a few did; but now they keep insisting on the same tale!!.
    If your scientists are like those…just Wow!, amazing!…I got an idea: you send us some of those specimens (for free and CIF) and we send you back a few more funny monkeys from the amazon jungle. It´s a win win business!. We´ll positively “feedback” them with a bit of that common sense we are endowed with since birth.

  38. I think that it’s human nature to think in terms of “sinners”. Once you find a sinner, you blame everything on him/it. Now it’s CO2. It seems to be pretty easy to get a lot of people to believe this sort of thing, provided that you can make some sort of a weak case for it. The argument works best when you have lots of sins to connect the sinner with.

    The worst example of this was when substantial percentages of the German population blamed the banks busted in the Great Depression, the starvation blockade after the end of WW1, the threat of societal collapse due to Communism, the hyperinflation of the 1920s, and the unemployment of the 1930s, all on the Jews.

  39. jack mosevich (16:06:11) :

    The last phrase of CATHERINE BRAHIC’s column is “watch this space…”

    Well, I am still watching..

    While trying to find if she did post an update (I could not find any) I came across this: (anti-skeptic “facts”)

    Jack, I particularly like her piece entitled “Climate change: A guide for the perplexed “ where she states “Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

    Could slow or speed up warming? Sounds to me like she should first do a little reading of her own before attempting to write such a guide, perhaps become a little less perplexed herself?

  40. I’m sorry, I guess it was Michael Le Page that actually wrote that, she just linked to it. Apparently Michael is the perplexed one. ;-)

  41. “I am still waiting for David Barber, of the Univeristy of Manitoba, to respond to my $1000 challenge. He predicted that the arctic will be ice free by the summer of 2015. I proposed a wager. I am still waiting.”

    I challenged one of them to a wager about a year ago. He ducked. These folks remind me of the alleged psychics whom James Randi is always trying to debunk:

    (1) They are great at predicting stuff after it’s happened.

    (2) The predictions they do make are chock full of “could” “might” and other weasel words.

    (3) They resist the opportunity to put their claims to an actual controlled, objective test.

    (4) They get very defensive and angry when confronted by legitimate skepticism.

  42. “In fact Dr. Budyko (Dr,. Mikhail I. Budyko) argues that an ice-free Arctic Ocean is the “normal” situation.”

    It depends on the timescale. If you look on a scale of, say, a million years, glaciation is the “normal” state of things and warm interglacial conditions that we are in now are the temporary “blips”. Homo Sapiens have not yet experienced a change from interglacial to glaciation. It is going to be an interesting ride.

  43. All Points Alert: the naif, dhogaza, is missing from institutional care at ‘The Closed Mind’. His caregiver, the firm, silent and patient Tamino worries that he can’t survive outside the soothing echo chambered feedback of that censored environment. Anyone with any knowledge of his whereabouts, please contact authorities.
    ======================================

  44. There is an old sociological saying that each American has only three people between him/her and the President. Over my life I have been able to calculate any number of such links, though many times we don’t know that a person we are talking with has contacts. When I was growing up in Northern Virginia, my Dad pointed out a man walking down an otherwise deserted street; he was both a member of our Church and a Cabinet Secretary.

    If you are willing to state your views to those around you, IT will be heard in the Oval Office.

    On two occasions in my life, I sat listening in a House Member’s Office (one was Gerry Ford when he was House Minority Leader; the other was then the Democratic House Whip) because someone I was with knew someone with close connections to the Congressman. STATING YOUR VIEWS TO THOSE AROUND YOU ARE IMPORTANT!!!! It will make a difference.

  45. New York Times, February 20, 1969. From article :

    “In fact Dr. Budyko (Dr,. Mikhail I. Budyko) argues that an ice-free Arctic Ocean is the “normal” situation.”

    And that is a true statement. Another fact the warmist scaremongers ignore. The fact that the planet has been ice-free for most of its existence doesn’t register with them because — cue the drum roll — “it’s an inconvenient truth!”

    George Carlin put it best. “The planet is fine! The people are [messed up].” (pre-sanitized for a family-friendly blog)

  46. “Mike Bryant (18:20:42) : Does snyone know why the JAXA NH Sea Ice extent is abot the same distance from the 1979-2007 average as NSIDC NH Sea Ice extent is from the 1979-2000 average? ”

    Because the ice is growing fast. It’s not a glitch in the data or something like that.

  47. Can somebody help me. I’m on dial up and large pdfs take 2-4 hours to load.
    I know from validation papers on the NSIDC website that they now use the NASA TEAM 2 algorythm for sea ice because it is more consistant with BOOTSTRAP (used in the antarctic since 1979) and AMRS-E. NASA TEAM 2 shows less ice than the original NASA TEAM but I cannot find the paper which shows the implentation of NASA TEAM 2 and a reanalysis of 1979-2002 data. Namely a recalculation of the 1979-2000 average.

  48. Anthony,

    Apparently, Serreze is traveling around giving this seminar at various locations:

    http://www.ic3.uwaterloo.ca/seminars/2009/serreze_flyer.pdf

    Here’s the abstract:

    Cranking Up the Arctic Heat

    “The concept of Arctic amplification is that rises in surface air temperature in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic compared to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Model‐projected Arctic amplification is focused over the Arctic Ocean. As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea
    ice at summer’s end. Summertime absorption of solar energy in expanding open water areas increases the sensible heat content of the ocean. Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere is delayed. This promotes enhanced upward
    heat fluxes, seen as strong warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Based on the satellite‐derived sea ice record and other data sources, Arctic amplification associated with declining ice extent has emerged in the past decade, and is growing in strength. The extreme Arctic warmth of
    autumn 2007 and 2008 serves as an exclamation point on this trend. Anticipated impacts of continued Arctic amplification include alterations in patterns of atmospheric circulation and precipitation both within and beyond the Arctic, and enhanced warming of Arctic and subarctic land areas that may hasten carbon cycle feedbacks associated with thawing permafrost.”

    It is interesting that his abstract states:

    “Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere is delayed. ”

    That’s not what happened last year!! In fact, I suspect he will avoid talking about 2008 – 2009 altogether…

  49. Oh – and, apparently, Serreze is “a leading expert on climate change” and (drumroll please) one of *** Al Gore’s *** key environmental advisors!

    http://en.sourcews.com/top-climate-change-expert-gore-adviser

    “One of North America’s leading experts on climate change, Mark Serreze, will give a public talk on the sharp loss of Arctic sea ice during a visit next week at the University of Waterloo. One of Al Gore’s key environmental advisers, Serreze is the senior research scientist and Arctic specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, based at the University of Colorado in Boulder. His talk, entitled Cranking up the Arctic Heat, takes place Wednesday …”

  50. dhogaza (16:47:07) :

    The fact that he did NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, to mitigate the error he started in the press, speaks volumes.

    Where is the error in his statement that there was a possibility of the north pole being ice free last summer?

    Where was the error in the headline that said exactly the same thing?

    What is there to correct?

    REPLY: Oh puhleeeze. Where is the result of the headline “North pole could be ice free in 2008″? Show me that result, you can’t because it didn’t happen. You are defending scaremongering, and it shows that you have no scruples. What next, defending Waxman? Serreze did nothing; zero, zilch, nada, he let the error he started live on in headlines worldwide. If I had made a statement in error that the media picked up you’d be all over me to fix it, retract it, deny it, whatever, Serreze gets a free pass…because you (and your friends) have no scruples. – Anthony

    Anthony,
     How is it that so many people are buying into the AGW propaganda?  I am at a loss.

    I showed a Ph.D. physicist a temperature anomaly diagram

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

    where the scales are in tenths of a (single) degree.  His response was, “That can’t be right.  It only shows warming of less than one degree.”

    I was floored.  With all the fear mongering, the perception is that global warming must be more than that.  And this from an educated man.

    You are performing a great service in running WUWT. The worst fear of every con artist is the truth. Please, please, keep it up.

    –Mike Ramsey

  51. Anthony, I see three volunteers to attend the presentation. I would like to see all 3 (or more) reports here, as there may be differences. Your blog, your decision.

  52. Sorry for the multiple posts…even more Serreze…

    http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5042

    2009-02-25 09:28:32
    Top climate change expert, Al Gore adviser, gives UW public talk on Arctic ice loss

    “Levels of sea ice in the region reached a record low in September 2007. The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. The rate of loss has risen sharply since 2002. ”

    Has the arctic really lost *** a third *** of it ice since 1979??

  53. Just Want Truth…

    Since Arctic Roos JAXA, includes 2001-2007 in their average plot, it seems that their 2009 plot would be closer to average than NSIDC appears to be to the average which does NOT include 2001-2007, which had lower summer averages…
    Thanks,
    Mike

  54. Totally OT. Please excuse.

    Recently there was a posting from an Aussie of doggerel. The first two lines were from “A sunburnt contry”, but the last two were a switch to Melbourne and rain.
    My computer wiped out my copy of the poem and I have been unable to find it again despite a lot of looking. If the originator or anyone else knows the poem, kindly send it to imcqueen@nbnet.nb.ca
    I want to send it to some friends in Melbourne and others with Melbourne experience.
    Tks.

    Ian

  55. If the cryosphere is so “directly observable” then why is Caitlin trying to collect data, and why can’t the researchers agree on what is happening around the poles?

  56. Pamela Gray (17:21:26) :

    This isn’t a nightmare, its a comedy. These people are fast becoming late night jokes. Eventually, comedians will pick up on the discrepancy between warnings and reality.

    There’s a ‘comedy’ car insurance ad running in Australia, where the ‘unexplained’ arrival of a flock of black swans is blamed on global warming by a woman making a phone call to her friend. It’s very quick but very significant I suspect. I’m proud to say that I’m insured with the company responsible :-)

  57. A good 1958 newsreel video of the USS Skate. Wherever they surfaced and pushed ice off the sub in the video looks to be not more than a couple feet thick. The report claims they surfaced 10 times.

    http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/chapter/?cuecard=41751

    And from JohnDaly:

    “the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. [...] On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

  58. BTW, tonight’s Bloomberg reports:

    Forest Fires Mostly Overlooked by Climate Modelers (Update1)
    By Jeremy van Loon

    April 24 (Bloomberg) — Forest fires worsen global warming and make it harder for societies to adapt to drought and higher temperatures, scientists said.

    Trees and brush set ablaze, by accident or through slash- and-burn farming in the tropics, fuel hotter weather, said Jennifer Balch, a researcher at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California. That’s because smoke adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

    “We don’t think about fire correctly,” Balch said. “It’s very intrinsic to the planet.” …

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=avUxLQ0scEwA&refer=home

  59. carlbrannen (18:41:58) :

    I think that it’s human nature to think in terms of “sinners”. Once you find a sinner, you blame everything on him/it. Now it’s CO2. It seems to be pretty easy to get a lot of people to believe this sort of thing, provided that you can make some sort of a weak case for it. The argument works best when you have lots of sins to connect the sinner with.

    The worst example of this was when substantial percentages of the German population blamed the banks busted in the Great Depression, the starvation blockade after the end of WW1, the threat of societal collapse due to Communism, the hyperinflation of the 1920s, and the unemployment of the 1930s, all on the Jews.

     For that, you need state sponsored propaganda; i.e. control of the news media, control of education, sanctions against anybody not toeing the partyline, and the “big lie”.

    Hmmm, maybe you do have a point ….

    –Mike Ramsey

  60. Let me add, that if forest fires “worsen global warming”, then why have we entered a cooling period?

  61. We haven’t entered a cooling period. At best we are holding steady-ish. 2009 temps have almost universally been above 2008, but nearly parallel the 06/07 temps.

    I hope and pray that trend continues, or we resume lowering. But I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say we are “cooling.”

  62. theBuckWheat (20:32:27) :

    Let me add, that if forest fires “worsen global warming”, then why have we entered a cooling period?

    Because subsurface materials are absorbing-storing less heat now than in 1998 due to the weakening of solar irradiance.

  63. Re: fires

    Before Europeans arrived here, I believe there would have been absolutely huge fires that raged in the West, the Midwest and up the Eastern seaboard. In periods of drought, lightning and human started fires could have blazed unchecked for months. I have seen fires in Maine and Eastern Canada burn for weeks on end and that is with modern firefighting.

    The Delaware Indians would clear land under the forest canopy with fire. The forests were mostly chestnut which, like Redwood, was very fire resistant. It would be silly to image that some of these fires didn’t get out of control or in periods of extreme drought, become extremely large. Vast areas of the prairies would also have burned. California’s central valley was mostly grasses “as tall as a horse” when Europeans first arrived. In periods of drought, fire from Bakersfield to Davis wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility.

    I expect that there would have been absolutely huge fires on the North American continent before the arrival of Europeans that could have spanned hundreds of miles.

  64. Man, that explains why I always felt Walt Meier was walking on eggs when speaking out to the media and posting here… I always felt some discomfort in his interventions. I posted this thought a while back when the NSIDC sensor failed. I did not know then that Mark Serreze would succeed him but I recall writing that “Serreze must be breathing on his neck”… Yes alarmism pays and perhaps when retired Meier might come clean.

  65. I notice that the NSIDC website at http://nsidc.org/ is down. Let me invoke the conspiratorial side of me and suggest that they are cleansing the site of any hint of contrarian data. It would be wise to capture the data in Google cache before it gets updated too.

    I also wonder if a reasonable guy like Walt Meier who has contributed here at WUWT, would become an “unperson” as a result of this change and be marginalized and then removed.

    This is not good for science.

  66. All Points Alert: the naif, dhogaza, is missing from institutional care at ‘The Closed Mind’. His caregiver, the firm, silent and patient Tamino worries that he can’t survive outside the soothing echo chambered feedback of that censored environment. Anyone with any knowledge of his whereabouts, please contact authorities.

    Well, the last I heard from him, he was continually (one might say almost obsessively) referring to me in terms that I grew to find positively endearing. In fact, he has enriched my vocabulary, as I had never even heard of some of those words before. I think I was his “project” for the week.

  67. John 20:39:50

    The main reason I so confidently say we are cooling is because of the PDO. We warmed from around 1910 to around 1940, cooled from around 1940 to around 1970, then warmed ’til just after the turn of the century. If you watch that curve, it peaked about 2003-2005, and has now turned down. Sure there will be ups and downs, but the trend for at least 20 more years will be cooling. Of course, I’m not 100% sure.
    ==========================================

  68. I chose to grab some data from the NOAA/NCDC sites this week. They have a convenient database (that is of this writing temporarily down…) that you can see, among other things, records of state temperature records going back to ~1895.

    I looked at the full record of each state looking at the temperature trends from 1895 thru 2009 and just for the last ten years from 1999 thru 2009 (to date of course). Given that this data is likely not always the fully raw data and that some is certainly affected by UHI effects, it still is a very telling exercise.

    In general the temperatures for most states have been warming at a full data record rate of ~0.00 to 0.15 degrees a decade. The most interesting piece of information in the long term record was that the SE states of TX, TN, MS, AL, GA and SC have actually been cooling over the last 113 years at a rate of -0.01 to -0.06 degrees per decade. Odd, but that is what the data says.

    But when one looks at the last ten years, there is a dramatic downward trend in most states…especially the Rocky Mountain, Central Plains and Northern Tier locales. In these states the temperatures have been changing (falling) at a rate of ~0.5 to 1.5 degrees per decade…almost ten times the decadal rate of temperature rise of the long term data set. I know the statistics aren’t identical, but the magnitude of the dropping temperatures is striking. CA, the Mid Atlantic and southeast states are the only ones whose temperatures have been moderate or continued to rise in the last ten years. I am WAG’ing that there is a proximity to the high inertia thermal mass of the oceans/wind patterns and the problem of high population density affecting poorly sited temperature gaging stations that could be propping up the temperature data in these areas.

    This is an interesting exercise to pursue. A 1.5 degree temperature drop in the last 10 years in the heartland of America has most certainly shortened the recent crop growing season and limited the per acre crop yields. WUWT noted earlier that the temperatures in Central Canada had experienced a 5 degree plus drop in average temperatures over the last couple years, if I remember correctly.

    Not predicting here, of course, but if the climate continues to cool even another 0.5 – 1.0 degrees over another ten years the effect will be dramatic to say the least…

    Non-sarcastically…in all likelyhood it is a good thing that the CO2 level is up to help counter the reduced biomass effects of the colder weather.

    Jim

  69. John (20:39:50) :
    Maybe the cold hasn’t reached your latitude yet.
    For some of us, it’s already here, and it’s been here 3 years and still continues to cool.
    Maybe you are far enough towards the equator that it will never reach you.

  70. crosspatch (17:14:11) :
    It isn’t unusual to have ice-free patches up there. It’s floating.
    The only thing is that there aren’t enough of us around who remember those things. I was just a kid at the time, but for me it was right up there with Sputnik, Mercury & Gemini. How could I possibly forget?
    The rendezvous at the North Pole in 1962 would make a fantastic billboard.
    Anti-buffoonery at it’s simplest.

  71. “”” Stephen Skinner (16:43:00) :

    It seems that in 1958 the submarine USS Skate became the first vessel to surface at the Pole. How thin would the ice have to be to allow a submarine to break through? “””

    One of my work colleagues is an ex-Navy submariner; as in he actually got to drive the boat. He the went to Scripps,

    He says they don’t like to surface if the ice is thicker than one metre. He also said that on average the overallthickness all over is about one metre. It gets thicker as a result of pileups, but he says that’s about the average over area and season. H ealso said it can come and go overnight at the start or end of the growing and melting seasons.

  72. dhogaza (16:10:44) :

    It is clear that he was talking of the North Pole itself, not the Arctic Ice Cap in its entirety:

    “There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

    Despite its news value in the media, the North Pole being ice free is not in itself significant. To scientists, Serreze points out, “this is just another point on the globe”.

    That’s funny, since the North Pole is just a point, 0 square feet. If Serreze meant what you claim, it was the ramblings of an alarmist buffoon.

  73. John (20:39:50) :

    We haven’t entered a cooling period. At best we are holding steady-ish. 2009 temps have almost universally been above 2008, but nearly parallel the 06/07 temps.

    I hope and pray that trend continues, or we resume lowering. But I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say we are “cooling.”

    ===============================================
    Even though you appear in the right camp…wrong conclusions do not help anyone.

    If I am not mistaken there has been only 3 months of Temp data for 2009 and January 2008 was in the middle of a major La Nina event that continued for months, with January 2008 being a major anomaly. Are you contending that a fluctuation monthly on a year over year comparison concludes there is no cooling? Seriously?

    On Topic: Advancement in Government Sciences is dependent on political affiliation and the party in power rather than achievement. It is very incestuous, all hail the new NSIDC and toss out the links.

  74. Watts, “The fact that he did NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, to mitigate the error he started in the press, speaks volumes”.

    This is a salient point.

    Another premier example of this problem was when Dr. Jane Lubchenco (new head of NOAA) wrote a report last year that suggested a connection between AGW and ocean dead zones.
    In her report, her research group cautioned they could not establish the extent of the link, if any, to climate change.
    Her reported suggestion of a link circled the globe and Lubchenco did NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, to mitigate the error she started in the press.

    And as the ultimate demonstration of how these “errors” become known facts,
    I posted the Lubchenco story to CA last week. One of the regular contributors responded that the link between ocean dead zones and AGW had been established. So there was CA regulars convinced the link had been.
    They didn’t read any peer reviewed, published research making the link because there is no such thing.

    And the punch line is Gavin let that error ride on his “science” blog CA.

    On that same thread there is at least a half a dozen equally in error claims and not one of them did Gavin correct.

    In fact I have never seen Gavin correct any baseless claim.

    Isn’t it interesting that Gavin only scrutinizes and critiques comments and claims that are from the skeptic’s side while allowing every bizarre claim from warmers?

    Pretty darn scientific.

    Then to exacerbate the matter, after responses make all those crazy baseless claims he blocks rebuttal.

    Over and over again academia send reports into the media

  75. theBuckWheat (20:27.03), I read something similar cobbled together by the Australian ABC http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/24/2550891.htm?site=science&topic=enviro
    This article seemed so full of inconsistencies that it really needed its own segment on WUWT.
    For example 1. “marked reduction in forest fires since 1870 have increased fire loads”- yes ,but wouldn’t new fires just release carbon already stored by this reduction in forest fires?

    2.”deforestation fires result in 20% of human caused CO2 emissions”.-are they ALL caused by humans?

    3.”smoke plumes inhibit convection”-have you ever seen or flown through Pyrocumulous clouds?…..I have, descending into Canberra from Melbourne at the start of the 2003 bush fires when 500 homes and many lives were lost.
    It was a rough descent with ascending smoky cloud peaks to 25k ft.,certainly no lack of convection there.

    It just went on and on, it is a shame that articles like this are presented without judgement.

  76. John H (22:25:31) :

    Uh…. John, Dr. Schmidt runs RC (Real Climate), not CA (Climate Audit). The Good Doctor wouldn’t be caught dead in THAT sort of establishment. So, did you post your comment at CA or RC? If the CA crowd let the error get by then we are all doomed…

  77. hereticfringe (20:14:33) :

    Yes, now that you mention it, I’ve been trying all day to access the site and couldn’t. I thought maybe I was just incompetent. Oddly enough you can access the CIRES pages just fine, but when you click on the NSIDC links, you can’t get there from there. Or anywhere. Earlier I was finding I could not get into NASA or JPL links cited on another, archived, WUWT thread. WUWT? Maybe some of our readers might want to check out NASA, NOAA or JPL threads from some old threads and see if they are still active.

  78. I for one am getting tired of the word games. Melting at the pole, define pole. Define melting. Define ice free… Oh that not what he meant. GEEEEEEEZEEE!!!!! Is it me or whenever an argument fails due to lack of evidence the supporters of said argument fall into the define the word game.

    Well guess what. The time for that has come and gone. No more shades of grey crap. Like Ive told all my state reps and the stinkin governor too. You are either on the right side, or you are against us. If you’re against us. Don’t expect reelection. Even non action is a choice. Its about time to hold peoples political feet to the fire. If you want this Co2 crap to stop, make your representives stop it. They may be too gullible to understand the science but they certainly understand job security.

  79. Re the article in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html Did Hathaway really say this
    “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

    Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.

  80. A retraction about what, exactly? About stating that north pole COULD be ice free? I really don’t see the problem here.

  81. carlbrannen (18:41:58) : The worst example of this was when substantial percentages of the German population blamed the banks busted in the Great Depression, the starvation blockade after the end of WW1, the threat of societal collapse due to Communism, the hyperinflation of the 1920s, and the unemployment of the 1930s, all on the Jews.

    This is the real danger behind. Hope this time the same good people is not chosen in the end to be blamed, because all this nonsense is reaching fantastic levels.

  82. Crosspatch – re, pre-Colombian fire events in North America:

    I believe that fire would have been common, but I think that extremely large fires (ie, covering hundreds of miles) would have been extremely rare.

    Reason: without modern fire control efforts, every fire that started would have used up whatever fuel was available to burn, thus constantly depleting that available fuel. The land would *never* be in a condition where decades of dry fuel had built up on the ground, which has been the case in most of the great western fires in recent decades. If the available fuel is minimal (not living trees, but dead) then the burn from each individual fire will be quite limited – dying out as soon as it ran into a nearby burn scar.

    There would have been far, far more small fires – in fact, during dry months they would be an almost constant occurence – but no great, hundred mile long fires.

  83. I find it telling that no one mentions that winds caused the massive ice loss in 2007. Since then it has been slow recovery which is exactly what one would expect. Why is it that these guys now *conveniently* forget to mention these facts?

    BTW, now that the IPCC reports have been falsified by their own choice of words isn’t it time for them to admit their failure? They claimed that no natural cause could be identified that could impact the rise in temps so it must be CO2. However, now we’ve 7-8 years of flat to lowering temps. This is proof by example that there DOES EXIST natural climate forces just as strong as CO2 and hence, their premise has been falsified.

  84. Oldjim, yes, the article is written by Dr David Whitehouse, a skeptic. what is remarkable is that the Independent (normally on the extreme hysteria end of the climate spectrum) chose to publish it.

    By the way it wasnt just Serreze who said the arctic would be ice-free in 2008. Somewhere on Andy Revkin’s blog he talked about a team of “experts” who predicted this would happen.

  85. Flanagan (05:19:03) :

    “A retraction about what, exactly? About stating that north pole COULD be ice free? I really don’t see the problem here.”

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004065899_webarctic11.html

    Published December 11, 2007
    ‘The Arctic is screaming’ — summer sea ice could be gone in five years

    “The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

    This, my friends, is the scientific tone adopted by the incoming *** director *** of the NSIDC (and currently one of Al Gore’s top climate advisors)! What more can I or anyone say? This statement (and the rhetoric surrounding it, as established in the linked article) speaks for itself.

    We can thus be assured that the materials and data products provided by NSIDC will not be influenced by anyone’s political or personal views on AGW…

  86. OMG! , rephelan (23:43:49)

    Yes, I meant Gavin at RC not CA. I can’t believe I did that.

    I apologize and retract my reckless and grotesque error in my John H (22:25:31) post.

    I won’t repeat that mistake.
    The rest of the post is accurate but my error ruined it.

    Now if the head of NSIDC, head of NOAA, Hansen, Gore and Waxman could grasp the concept of correction and apology.

  87. Adolfo 05:56:11

    Don’t worry, this time we are going Blame Canada.
    ================================

  88. The NSIDC site see,s to be back up, but now I’m a bit confused. It is displaying a graph for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent showing 2009 YTD sea ice as being less than that for 2008. I was under the impression that 2009 has been greater than 2008. I tried to check previous graphs here in WUWT, e.g. Steve Goddard’s post of 12-20-2008

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/20/polar-albedo-feedback/#more-4618

    but the graph seems to be displaying the same one as at NSIDC. More effort than I wanted to put in here. Is the current NSIDC graph correct?

  89. It turns out that the Arctic really WAS screaming back in 2007. An audio tape was recently released in which it screamed, “WOW, IT’S GREAT TO GET OUT FROM UNDER ALL THIS ICE!!!”
    Recently the Arctic was quoted as saying, “Well man, when I screamed back in 2007 it had been awhile, now, I’ve kinda chilled and I really don’t mind another 30 or 40 years of ice…”

  90. NSIDC appears to live on a steady diet of crow, as their dire predictions never come true, and this season despite their April 6 proclamation of thin ice and rapid melt, NSIDC continues to munch on crow.

    My advice to the folks at NSIDC: Buy a case of ketchup, you will need it!

  91. rephelan (00:03:34) :

    hereticfringe (20:14:33) :

    Yes, now that you mention it, I’ve been trying all day to access the site and couldn’t. I thought maybe I was just incompetent. Oddly enough you can access the CIRES pages just fine, but when you click on the NSIDC links, you can’t get there from there. Or anywhere. Earlier I was finding I could not get into NASA or JPL links cited on another, archived, WUWT thread. WUWT? Maybe some of our readers might want to check out NASA, NOAA or JPL threads from some old threads and see if they are still active.

    Yes the NSIDC pages were unavailable through most of yesterday. Having worked in large data centers I doubt it is anything to worry about. All large data centers go through patch cycles where they do up grades, and repairs, and install necessary security and fix patches for the operating systems and key applications. In American that is almost always done very late in the evening on Saturday night and allowed to run into Sunday if they have problems.

    Every once in a while patch changes go bad and totally muck up the system and they need to rebuild data bases and sort out what went wrong and sometimes back out the change to get things working again. The majority of changes I have dealt with take about a 4 hour window, with a few requiring 6-12 and a small number required a “scheduled” down time of over 12 hours.

    Since the ice links are running this morning I would be inclined to think they had a long running patch/change cycle last night , and perhaps some large upgrade that required the data bases to be pulled down for a while. That typically requires them to write a full backup (can take hours) then pull the data bases down and do the changes, then bring everything back up and test. If the tests fail, they would need to back out the changes and restore the backed up data bases and plan a new maintenance cycle at some later date.

    Looks like everything is up right now as I can get to links.

    Larry

  92. As of April 26, 2009, the Global sea ice area is about 270,000 sq. mi. above the 1979-2000 average. That is an area that would cover the state of Texas.

  93. Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?

    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.
    Their graph of Arctic sea ice extent had showed the ice approaching the 79-00 average, nearly meeting it, then a clear turn down showed up.
    Today it appears the turn down was softened by revising previous days resulting in the turn away from the average being gradual over along period of time.

    My cynicism has me imagining the fear of ice returning to the average motivated a turn down adjustment that hadn’t happened. The next day it was softened to better conceal the more obvious turn, or adjustment.

  94. After viewing the NASA “FROZEN” trailer – I note that half way through, there is a short clip animating what appears to be mass glaciation of Western Europe. Doesn’t last long but shows ice forming from north to south into the Med. Could it be that NSIDC et al are preparing to pitch a new ice age “Climate Change?”

    Or is more likely that any new ice and cooling is still related to the inimitable villain CO2? Made, of course, by man. The shame if it all!

  95. Keith Minto (22:32:09) :

    theBuckWheat (20:27.03), I read something similar cobbled together by the Australian ABC http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/24/2550891.htm?site=science&topic=enviro
    This article seemed so full of inconsistencies that it really needed its own segment on WUWT.
    For example 1. “marked reduction in forest fires since 1870 have increased fire loads”- yes ,but wouldn’t new fires just release carbon already stored by this reduction in forest fires?

    2.”deforestation fires result in 20% of human caused CO2 emissions”.-are they ALL caused by humans?

    3.”smoke plumes inhibit convection”-have you ever seen or flown through Pyrocumulous clouds?…..I have, descending into Canberra from Melbourne at the start of the 2003 bush fires when 500 homes and many lives were lost.
    It was a rough descent with ascending smoky cloud peaks to 25k ft.,certainly no lack of convection there.

    It just went on and on, it is a shame that articles like this are presented without judgement”.

    Keith Minto,

    This is what they call AGW/Climate Change Alarmism.
    It’s a combination of semi science, manipulation and fraud combined with biased journalism.

    Both scientists and journalists involved have sold their scientific hence journalistic integrity in support of a very dirty political scheme.

    The sinister part of this scheme is that many of the alarmists involved really believe they are doing “the right thing saving the World” but in realty they help an Authoritarian Elite into power and it’s populations in “Green Shackles”.

    The question I often ask myself when dealing with those kind of people is the following.

    You have studied, you have acquired a degree, but…do you have any common sense?

    The World is not suffering from Runaway Global Warming, the world is suffering from
    Runaway Global Stupidity!

  96. John H.- 55 (09:59:24) :

    Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?

    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.
    Their graph of Arctic sea ice extent had showed the ice approaching the 79-00 average, nearly meeting it, then a clear turn down showed up.
    Today it appears the turn down was softened by revising previous days resulting in the turn away from the average being gradual over along period of time.

    My cynicism has me imagining the fear of ice returning to the average motivated a turn down adjustment that hadn’t happened. The next day it was softened to better conceal the more obvious turn, or adjustment”.

    John,

    This is what they call fraud and manipulation.

    It must be clear by now that the current NSIDC is serving a political agenda.

    Therefore, get your data somewhere else until scientific integrity has been restored, hence, the hoax is over.

  97. Today (4/27/09), the NSIDC arctic sea ice extent appears to be tracking very close to the 1979-2000 average. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png I didn’t check it over the weekend, so I didn’t see the adjustment, but right now it seems to be closer to the benchmark than it’s been for a while. And the sun continues to sleep, it looks so comfortable (I don’t blame Sol for snoozing, I certainly felt like sleeping in today.) Also, Could the massive volcanic eruptions in alaska and the accompanying natural aerosols be slowing the melt?

  98. I don’t know, but I’m starting to doubt my skepticism. Friday morning at 6am I was surrounded by ice. Ice on my windschield, ice on the grass and ice on my roof. Now it’s all gone, melted away in just a few hours as the mercury, i mean red alcohol, kept climbing right on up into the 90s this weekend. I’m pretty sure that there was heavy shore traffice on Friday afternoon and all of that excess CO2 from the SUVs must have heated things up. If only Al Gore had visited the area this past weekend, things would have been different.

  99. Yeah I agree ClimateFanBoy (11:13:24) :, but my point is that 2 or 3 days ago it was approaching even closer to that average line in a gentle arc less curved than the average line.
    The next day it showed a significant turn, curve down, change.
    Today that curve is gone and a gentle, longer arc (seemingly going back a week) is in it’s place.
    My cynisism could be getting the best of me but that’s the impression I got and have.
    So I wish I had those daily graphs.

  100. Ron de Haan (10:50:14) :

    John H.- 55 (09:59:24) :

    Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?

    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.
    Their graph of Arctic sea ice extent had showed the ice approaching the 79-00 average, nearly meeting it, then a clear turn down showed up.
    Today it appears the turn down was softened by revising previous days resulting in the turn away from the average being gradual over along period of time.

    My cynicism has me imagining the fear of ice returning to the average motivated a turn down adjustment that hadn’t happened. The next day it was softened to better conceal the more obvious turn, or adjustment”.

    John,

    This is what they call fraud and manipulation.

    It must be clear by now that the current NSIDC is serving a political agenda.

    Therefore, get your data somewhere else until scientific integrity has been restored, hence, the hoax is over.

    Ron, John H. notices something he thinks might odd and requests the information that would be needed to even seriously suspect a real problem. You don’t produce that information but instead immediately respond that what he sees is fraud and manipulation. On what are you basing this? Your gut feelings? I’m growing a bit weary of constantly hearing your gut feelings and instinctive reactions. Don’t become the very problem we all see.

  101. John H.- 55 (09:59:24) :
    “Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?
    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.”

    I saw it too. I looked at NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice Extent Graph on Thursday eve and it looked like we were on an imminent collision course with the 1979 – 2000 average and I looked again on Saturday early AM and it appeared that we were tracking at a decent distance below and parallel to the 1979 – 2000 average. The current graph at http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png seems to have arrived around the midpoint of my two observations. I understand that there are data corrections occurring on a regular basis and IARC-JAXA graphs showed a reasonable drop in the last few days http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png, but the change I saw on NSIDC seemed to be a longer term shift in the essence of their graph.

    Perhaps Dr. Walt Meier can let us know if there has been a significant revision to their data set, adjustment to their reporting methodology, or otherwise?

  102. Well thank you, just the fact, I knew I saw what I did.

    When I first saw the significant turn down a few days ago I thought, Oh of course that had to happen just before it colided with the average.
    But I thought it was to severe, especially given the stubborn cold in the Actric and people would find it curious.

    But then low and behold the severity of the down turn, away from coliding with the average, has been replaced with a minor arch going back a week or so.
    I never bought some of the earlier mid winter hard curves, downward, down on the graph. Especially with the problems they had. It seemed every time the gradual expansion of ice continued ramping up for a while a sudden significant drop appeared out of no where. To correct it?

    I’m not all the way to the fraud and manipulation labels yet but in totality the agressive nature of the ASG movement of late has been distrubing and eye opening.
    If you know what I mean?

  103. Mike Bryant (20:03:39) :

    It could be that JAXA being more modern is more accurate. That could account for some of the differnce you are talking about. It could also be that when 2001 – 2007 is averaged in there isn’t a big difference from when it is not added in– I haven’t taken the time to do the math on it, sorry.

    But it still could be that I misunderstood your question.

  104. “Flanagan (05:19:03) : A retraction about what, exactly? About stating that north pole COULD be ice free? I really don’t see the problem here.”

    I could marry Halle Berry. The moon could crash in to the earth. People could wear shoes on their hands. Should I retract any of that? I don’t see a problem here. ;)

    BTW, Flanagan, when your with your family do you talk like this? Let’s say one of your relatives at a family gathering said at the dinner table, “Some nut scientist said the Noth Pole could have been ice free last year. We’ve been having record cold two winters in a row. What was that nut thinking?” Would you then say to him, at the dinner table, the same things you are saying here?

    Because the truth is I think you feel less accountable to what you say because you’re annonymous here on a blog.

  105. “Flanagan (05:19:03) : I really don’t see the problem here.”

    It’s anything goes here on the internet, hey Flanagan!

  106. If I remember correctly we were told by Dr Meier that NSIDC does average out over several days at least to minimize problems that might show up in the data capture. Nothing unusual going on if that’s true.

  107. Re: Bill Illis (16:42:23) :

    “I think you can actually download the movie here. Would take more than a couple of hours to download though given the different options are 1.3 – 1.9 Gig files.”

    I downloaded the Hi Quality (1.867GB) file. It took about 27 minutes at about 850kb/s on my PC. The video clip is 11.57 minuutes long. The quality of the graphics was good even on my 19 inch display. The message was “shock and awe.”

    Needless to say, I didn’t save the video to My Library.

  108. Richard,

    That sounds plausible and likely.
    But I still want that average line touched by this year’s ice line.
    Even if Dr. Meier has to help it along. 8:)

    Hey, I’m a comedian.

  109. John H.- 55 (09:59:24) :

    Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?

    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.
    Their graph of Arctic sea ice extent had showed the ice approaching the 79-00 average, nearly meeting it, then a clear turn down showed up.
    Today it appears the turn down was softened by revising previous days resulting in the turn away from the average being gradual over along period of time.

    My cynicism has me imagining the fear of ice returning to the average motivated a turn down adjustment that hadn’t happened. The next day it was softened to better conceal the more obvious turn, or adjustment.

    This is NOT bogus. They do this all the time and sometimes you can see the apparent contradiction in two graphs on the same page. This page:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    will usually include a graph of sea ice extent in the analysis section. A couple of days after the next update, you can compare the current graph to the graph in the commentary and may see a few days retroactively adjusted. The data is jumpy enough to look “fishy” about half the time.

    The NSIDC graph uses a smoothing algorithm which can even affect a couple of days retroactively. This is a valid technique. The AMSR-E simply uses a 2 day running average and it is more jagged. Since the definition of sea ice extent is the area with more than 15% sea ice, it is inherently volatile — a little smoothing makes sense.

    Personal note: I figured this out by watching the data over the last few years. My day job has nothing to do with climate, though my education and experience allow me to read the papers. I do not have a dog in this pony show, though I’d like to make enough money betting that AGW is a hoax to buy a boat.

  110. Do Not Post – Internal Communication

    In terms of the validity of NSIDC’s recent data, I delved into NSIDC’s data library (publicly available, but not easily found):
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02158/
    and it seems that they have continuous daily records going back to 3/1/09 in this particular folder, but the files for 4/24 through 4/26 are missing. Could be many explanations, but its certainly interesting. Anyone have the capability to open a .tar file?

  111. AKD (12:36:39) :

    Ron de Haan (10:50:14) :

    John H.- 55 (09:59:24) :

    Does anyone save NSIDC daily Arctic sea ice extent graphs?

    Because the last two days I saw something peculiar.
    Their graph of Arctic sea ice extent had showed the ice approaching the 79-00 average, nearly meeting it, then a clear turn down showed up.
    Today it appears the turn down was softened by revising previous days resulting in the turn away from the average being gradual over along period of time.

    My cynicism has me imagining the fear of ice returning to the average motivated a turn down adjustment that hadn’t happened. The next day it was softened to better conceal the more obvious turn, or adjustment”.

    AKD,

    This is what they call fraud and manipulation.

    It must be clear by now that the current NSIDC is serving a political agenda.

    Therefore, get your data somewhere else until scientific integrity has been restored, hence, the hoax is over.

    Ron, John H. notices something he thinks might odd and requests the information that would be needed to even seriously suspect a real problem. You don’t produce that information but instead immediately respond that what he sees is fraud and manipulation. On what are you basing this? Your gut feelings? I’m growing a bit weary of constantly hearing your gut feelings and instinctive reactions. Don’t become the very problem we all see”.

    AKD,
    You are right, I should not have made the remark about the change in data John has observed. But that is it.

    There is no reason to suspect that the NSIDC is fumbling with it’s data.

    The NSIDC is a brilliant example of unbiased scientific representation of the facts, worth every cent of tax money they receive.

    Even the inventor of the F15 sensor system that provided the basic ice data until February of this year stated that they have made a mistake to provide the NSIDC access to the technology.

    As I said before, GET YOUR DATA SOMEWHERE ELSE.

    In regard to this remark:
    “I’m growing a bit weary of constantly hearing your gut feelings and instinctive reactions”. please explain yourself!

  112. Hank McCard (14:29:39) : “shock and awe.”

    You meant that NASA’s message about global warming is shock and awe?

    So is it safe to say that James Hansen’s message about global warming is NASA’s message about global warming?

  113. Just The Facts (15:06:32) :

    In terms of the validity of NSIDC’s recent data, I delved into NSIDC’s data library (publicly available, but not easily found):
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02158/
    and it seems that they have continuous daily records going back to 3/1/09 in this particular folder, but the files for 4/24 through 4/26 are missing. Could be many explanations, but its certainly interesting. Anyone have the capability to open a .tar file?”

    Ya tarballs are not difficult, download WinRAR

  114. “The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”

    ~~Albert Einstein

  115. “Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.”

    ~~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Harvard 1978 commencement address

  116. arctic-astronomy (08:54:38) :

    > There’s an awful lot of light in the “17 March 1959″ north pole picture, given that the sun is still about 1.5° below the horizon and hasn’t yet risen at the north pole on March 17.

    According to my software, the Sun’s declination was -1.53° on that date. Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure which hour that’s for (hey, I wrote it in 1980 or so!) The declination is changing about 0.40° per day then. American sunrise/sunset is defined as the moment the upper limb of the sub is on the horizon. Given the the size of the Sun and refraction, that moment is close to when the center of the sun is about 0.5° below the horizon.

    Civil twilight is defined as the period when the Sun is between -0.5° and -6°, so if the photo was taken right at the North Pole, it would be during bright twilight. At temperate latitudes, civil twilight lasts for about a half an hour, during this period in the US most states (all?) permit drivers to drive without headlights on.

    N.B. I’m trying to get degree symbols with ° commands, apologies if it didn’t work.

    [Reply: With a mac the degree sign is opt+shift+8. Another is option+0. Maybe that will help. I don't speak PC. ~dbstealey, mod.]

  117. Just the facts said,
    “but the files for 4/24 through 4/26 are missing.”

    Hmm? Well that would be exactly when I saw the curious adjustments happen.

    In looking over the graph for this winter I suspect the line should be smoother and much of the fluctuations are probably errors.
    For my own consideration I tend to assume the graph should show a smoother and overall higher level of sea ice extent.

    In the arena AGW where all sorts of supposition is used as science this layperson will go ahead and suppose that the line should be a smoother curve passing near the high points just prior to the few drop off curves.
    My version of a corrected graph would place the whole season’s line very near the 07-00 average line and possibly having crossed that line within recent weeks.
    But I’m just supposing.
    Not unlike many of the observations attributed to AGW with nothing more than supposition.
    Unfortunately, and unlike this layperson, there are many professional scientists and professors also using science by supposing to find links to AGW where none exists.

    Ultimately I can imagine some hefty pressure applied to some of the institutions such a NSIDC to not infringe upon the desired objectives of the AGW movement. Couched in the justification that the creative adjustments
    aren’t very egregious and it’s better to avoid handing the opposition data that will be misused and become fodder for skeptics.
    So in a creative end justifies the means thinking the adjustments of the sea ice graph would actually be an action to prevent skeptics, paid by oil, who don’t understand the science from misusing the data.

    In their hands a season long line of near or at average sea ice extent would not be very helpful to the AGW cause.

  118. Y’all just aren’t listening. The NSIDC makes these adjustments all the time; it’s part of their smoothing method. Some of the adjustments are up, some are down.

    Watch this closely for about a while (including saving images and overlaying them) and you’ll get it. It isn’t biased; it’s just a way to smooth out very noisy data.

    Oh, and the two lines should touch (or even cross) pretty soon anyway as the 1979-2000 average in the sea of Okhotsk melts away. But later, the 2009 will fall back considerably.

    Spend more time watching the data and less time posting comments.

  119. 2021 – Scientists looking at current Arctic conditions decry the lack of 14 year sea ice in the Arctic. They note that ice 12 years and younger is more fragile and subject to melting than ice older than 14 years.

    ===

    On another note: normally the flu season is over by now. I wonder what is delaying the onset of spring?

  120. “Ric Werme (19:00:32) :

    N.B. I’m trying to get degree symbols with ° commands, apologies if it didn’t work.”

    On a PC º is 167

    ñ is 164

    DaveE.

  121. Frederick,

    I can’t speak for anyone else but I have followed the data and I get that.
    And as I stated up thread, that is likely the case.

    However, there are other significant down turns through the winter on that graph and in the totality of the AGW movement there are abundant, and growing reasons to be cynical.

    So as I have not yet jumped to any conclusion about Dr. Meier’s handling of this data, it is certainly not a stretch to imagine great motivations and pressure to help sustain the movement and the many reputations, jobs, livelihoods and agendas at stake.

    Especailly when jumping to conclusions is such a widespread occurance on the AGW side.
    I would think the occasional pondering of curiosities by skeptics is entirely justifed.
    At this point that is all that is occuring regarding the NSIDC graph.

    In many cases such pondering by consensus team members is skipped over in the rush to gin up new signs of urgency.

    Tomorrow is another day and the graph moves on.

  122. John H.- 55 (23:22:25) :

    Compare the AMSR-E and NSIDC graphs.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    The AMSR-E is showing about 1.15 million sq. km. of melting so far this spring and a gap of about 0.62 sq. km. between the current 2009 extent and 2007. (Graphs dated 4/28/09 — presumably due to the data coming from Japan. That’s why this updates around 11pm eastern time.)

    The NSIDC is showing about 1.04 million sq. km of melting so far this spring and a gap of 0.71 sq. km. between 2009 and 2007 as of today. (Graphs dated 4/27/09.)

    This is actually one of the few times I’ve noticed this much disagreement between the two data sets. The last time it was larger (and in the other direction) and the NSIDC has a busted sensor issue and had to make a big correction. I haven’t bothered to post anything on this because I don’t think it’s big enough to be fishy.

    But I sure as heck don’t think the NSIDC is understating the current sea ice. If there’s an error, I’d guess it’s AMSR-E’s. They might have a sensor just beginning to go on the fritz.

  123. Yikes! I left out the word “million” in my description of the gaps. It ain’t often I make a million-fold error.

  124. Anthony,

    I would like to point you to this article I found today in the net pages of the biggest Norwegian dead trees daily; VG:

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/klimatrusselen/artikkel.php?artid=542650

    From the article (my translation):

    “Climate Scientist: Ice Free Arctic by 2100

    BERGEN (VG): The experienced climate scientist Ola M. Johannessen (70) was baffled when he calculated when the Arctic Ocean will be ice free year round.

    “- It shows, if we put the numbers into that formula, that we are going to have an ice free Arctic – summer as well as winter – already in this century”, says Johannessen.

    Now, it is not just any kind of formula the Research Director at the Nansen Center for Climate Research has developed.

    He has compared the annual ice extent in the Arctic Ocean with the annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    AND THE RESULT IS FRIGHTENING:

    “In the beginning of the century we have some natural variations we cannot account for. But the last five decades there is a very strong statistical correlation between the measured CO2 concentration and the actual measured ice extent.”

    BAFFLED

    “Yes, if we put the graphs of the ice extent and the CO2 content on top of each other – then the connection is apparently striking.”

    “- I was certainly quite baffled when I saw it,” says Johannessen to VG.

    His analysis shows that the increase in CO2 alone may account for as much as 90 per cent of the ice decline in the Arctic.

    On this basis, he has simply been able to construe a formula which suggests how much a given increase in CO2 content in the air affect the ice extent. Thereby he can simply enter both values into the formula on his PC, and look at when this formula says there is no more ice left:

    “- If we use my statistic formula, all ice will be gone, even in winter, when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 765 parts per million (ppm). Today the concentration is about 385, but 765 will most probably be reached by year 2100, if we don’t execute drastic cuts.”

    Photo captures (top): “Arctic – without ice. If the shocking calculations of research veteran Ola M. Johannessen is correct, Arctic will be without ice by year 2100. Summer as winter.” (bottom): “WARMER: During the last ten years sea level has risen by about 3 centimeters.”

    Anthony, I don’t know if this is the right thread, but I think this deserves some attention. It looks like we have another contender for the prize of the boldest ice prediction for the Arctic.

    We have previously Dr. Serreze with his prediction of an ice free North Pole in the summer of 2008. Then we have big Al with his prediction of an ice free Arctic by 2013.

    However, I think Johannessen is in a class of his own. Please notice, he not only predicts an ice free Arctic in summer, he predicts an ice free Arctic in WINTER.

    It is conceivable that an ice free Arctic in summertime may occur if the atmosphere and the oceans warms by a few degrees C. This has probably also happened earlier in Holocene, according to archeological evidence. However, in the wintertime, there is bitter cold and darkness 24/7 all over the Arctic for the good part of 6 months. Thanks to the invaluable research efforts by the Catlin Arctic Survey team, we now know that temperatures in the Arctic, even in March/April, are between -25 and -40 degrees C. How is a doubling of CO2 concentration going to increase temperatures enough to avoid freezing of sea water in Arctic winter?

    According to reasonably accepted science, a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by about 1.2 C, give or take a few tenths. Even if we accept the baseless and highly unlikely assumption of a climate sensitivity of 3, the temperature increase will not be more than 3.6 C. So how exactly is this temperature rise going to stop water from freezing in the Arctic during the 6 months of winter temperatures below -20 or -30 degrees?

    What this exercise in statistical extrapolation shows, is how absurdly out of reality it is possible to end if you just extend short time trends to infinity.

    Anyone who thinks he can up the predictions even more?
    Do we have a winner?

    Regards
    JAN

  125. JAN,

    Maybe you should write a letter to the editor, for publication, pointing out that by simple hindcasting, there should have been about 30% more sea ice when CO2 was more than a hundred ppmv lower than it is now.

    Since it can be shown that this was not the case, then the model has been falsified; it is no good and should be discarded.

    If they need a global warming model, this on is better for predicting global temperatures: click

  126. Smokey,

    Yes I could do that, but then the warmers would probably counter with the evidence that when CO2 was two hundred ppm lower than it is now, the ice extent was 1000% higher.

    Then we would be back to algorean correlations. As we know, this is the kind of correlation where the future is allowed to come back with a vengeance and cause the past.

    Nice correlation you got yourself there, Smokey. Have you considered that if you updated your graph up to 2009, then you might find that the recent surge of piracy outside Africa has already caused the global temperatures to drop significantly the last couple of years?

Comments are closed.