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?

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

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

Compare the AMSR-E and NSIDC graphs.

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

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

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.

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.

DaveE.

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.

===

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

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.

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.

> 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.]

~~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Harvard 1978 commencement address

~~Albert Einstein

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