Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C – the latest date in fifty years of record keeping

By Joseph D’Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM

The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened. Usually it is beginning to level off now and if it does so, it will stay near freezing on average in the arctic leading to still less melting than last summer which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007.  H/T to FredM and MarcM


image
Data from DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute)

See larger image here. Compare with DMI charts in other years here.

[NOTE: as a second source to Joe’s article I’ve added this weather station data from the “North Pole Cam” operated by NOAA. Link is here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

There is a webcam at the “North Pole” (at least it starts out very near there) that reports via satellite data uplink at regular intervals. They also have a weather station with a once weekly data plot.  Note it is still below zero centigrade there.
Weather plot

Latest data (updated approximately weekly) Readers should note that the station really isn’t at the north pole anymore due to significant ice drift.  – Anthony ]

The AMSR-E shows the ice situation on June 23rd:

image
See where we stand relative to recent years in terms of total extent here. We are using JAXA-IJIS AMSR-E data to track ice as NSIDC is using older satellites and the new director Mark Serreze has proven untrustworthy. The next two months will be interesting. Temperatures usually begin flatlining in late June which would suggest less ice loss, although the water temperature beneath plays a key role and all of the warm water that entered the Arctic when the Atlantic was very warm in the middle 2000s (now is nearer normal) may not have circulated out yet.

The other question is what effect the early spring Mt. Redoubt eruptions may be having. Are the sulfate aerosols trapped in the arctic stratosphere reflecting back some of what sunlight reaches the high latitudes?

image

Along the edge of the arctic, Ross Hays who worked for CNN and then NASA who last year posted from Antartica sent this note to me “They have me working in arctic Sweden until mid July. One of the Esrange staff members told me that so far Kiruna had had the coldest June in 150 years!”

See PDF here.

About these ads

210 thoughts on “Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C – the latest date in fifty years of record keeping

  1. No, the ice is melting. Those nice Catlin people with the drill and the tape measure said so. And then there was that BBC reporter…

  2. The other question is what effect the early spring Mt. Redoubt eruptions may be having.

    Though it is at about 10° of lower latitude than Redoubt it would seem that the eruption of Sarychev may contribute as well.

    It will be interesting to see if the cooler conditions continue into the winter and what the coming winter brings.

  3. Please note that the Danes use 30% ice concentration in their graphs, as opposed to 15% at NSIDC and Artic-Roos.

  4. Bought by ExxonMobil!!

    Really, this is really an interesting thread. This DMI graph and website is one worth bookmarking. I am surprised by this result. I will send the link to Drudge. Every duped (illiterate?) Congressman should read this thread before casting their vote on this largely unread climate bill on Friday.

  5. I just sent the links to this website and the DMI to Drudge.
    I’d say it’s time for the opponents of that Cap and Kill bill to pile on big time. Clearly the Arctic is not melting anymore.
    The CO2 theory is a genuine hoax.

  6. On causation, if models show caps warming the most and quickest during global warming, wouldn’t they also show the caps cooling the quickest and the most during cooling?

    Sure this could all be due to Mt Redoubt, ocean currents or weather patterns. But isn’t it a coincidence that 2008 was the coldest year in a decade, last winter was the coldest in many regions in decades, more frequent La Ninas are occurring all while CO2 continues to rise, but solar activity dropping? Indeed global temps have been dropping dramatically over the last 5 years.
    “Dramatic” a term that I think is not an overstatement.

  7. Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…

    Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top. When ice melts, energy is pumped in the environment (i.e. the process is endothermic) which tends to cool the surrounding atmosphere. If melting is brutal, then a lot of heat will be absorbed and the surface temperature will drop. The April-May melting this year was quite impressive, and we’re now below last year levels. So I think it’s pretty coherent.

    A similar phenomenon takes pace in the winter, but in the other direction. Since we had a lot of open water at then end of the summer, refreeze was pretty quick last year, which freed a lot of heat in the atmosphere – as can be seen on the graph (surface temperatures being higher than normal).

  8. An interesting article, many thanks.
    Just one tiny point, the pedant in me forces me to point out that there are no °K or “degrees kelvin”. To be technically correct (the best kind of correct!) it should be just K or kelvin. It says so in Wikipedia, so it must be true!

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

  9. OT, but relevant question:
    did anybody has ever pressed the AGW folks/promoters/programmers to validate/prove the climate models by going backwards in time?
    What would they say to a challenge like that? What was the climate 40mill years ago? OK too much to ask, how about 100 years ago?
    What was the ice extend back then?

  10. Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    You expanation has a certain plausability, I’ll allow; but I worry when people (I’ve no idea if you are an AGW proponent) start talking “cooling” really means “warming”. There simply is no way to falsify that kind of argument.

    The “heads I win, tails you lose” argument is a non-starter with me.

    If the ice is still covering the pole, it seems that surface atmospheric temperature is due to “lack of heating” from whatever sources of energy heat the atmosphere.

    Be able to falsify your argument and I’ll take another looksee.

  11. Flanagan

    The question is, where is the warm water coming from and how is it created?

    * Through mans activities in warming the atmosphere that is in contact with the ocean surface?.
    * Direct sun heating the oceans? Likely.
    * Direct sun heating the ocerans abnormally through prolonged spells of sunnier than normal weather. Likely.
    * Warmer or stronger than normal currents shifting their position and more directly affecting the ice? Likely.

    I am particlarly interested in the gulf stream effect (looking at this from the UK viewpoint) This link is interesting

    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/

    Click on forecast zones for animation.

    Tonyb

  12. Silly question here: how do you report wind direction at the North Pole ? Every wind is from the South ?

  13. Published yesterday on CCNet

    (8) RE: CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DEMAND CLIMATE ACTION

    Allan MacRae

    Hi Benny,

    The names of these 20 advocates for action on ‘climate change’ (CCNet,
    23 June 2009) are: Dean Abrahamson, Univ. of Minnesota; Robert Costanza,
    Univ. of Vermont; Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute; Richard Houghton, The
    Woods Hole Research Center; Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of
    Oceanography; Donald Kennedy, Stanford Univ.; Thomas Lovejoy, Heinz
    Center for Science, Economics & the Environment; Michael MacCracken,
    Climate Institute; Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State Univ.; Michael
    McElroy, Harvard; Steve Running, Univ. of Montana; William Schlesinger,
    Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies; Stephen Schneider, Stanford
    University; Richard Somerville, Scripss Institution of Oceanography;
    James Gustave Speth, Yale University; Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State
    University; Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research;
    Richard Williams, The Woods Hole Research Center; Timothy Worth, The
    United Nations Foundation; George Woodwell, The Woods Hole Research
    Institution.

    The text of their letter is here:

    They claim: “The time for national action on climatic change is now.
    There has already been too much delay. The stakes are far too high to
    compromise the integrity of, and our responsibility for, prompt national action.”

    One infers “the 20″ mean ‘global warming’, but they are not inclined to
    such precision in their letter.

    But Earth is not warming, it is cooling, and has been for a decade or
    so, despite increasing CO2 levels. It is by now obvious that increasing CO2
    is not a significant driver of global temperature.

    The use of a euphemism such as “climate change” instead of “global
    warming” reflects not only a lack of precision, it reflects deliberate
    obfuscation of the issue, and a lack of integrity. The 20 are, at best, political
    scientists.

    I hope their names are remembered for a long time, as Earth continues to
    cool, and harvests fail due to the absence of global warming.

    Regards, Allan

  14. “which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007.”

    English is not my first language but this doesn’t sound right.
    What about: which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice as compared to 2007 or which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice from 2007.

  15. Anthony,

    Re temp at N pole (approximately!), note that the usual beginning of the year is around -20C but in 2008 it was -27C and in 2009 it was -30. I would add these and other years to the post to show the trend (it shows not just in the single temp at the beginning of each graph).

  16. Jack Hughes (03:08:45) :

    Silly question here: how do you report wind direction at the North Pole ? Every wind is from the South ?

    I was thinking the same thing….

  17. The water below the ice cap is always warmer.
    When the autopsy of AGW is finally and critically done, it will be interesting to find out just how much of the model results were simply made up and tossed at the wall.

  18. Allan M R MacRae (03:10:21):
    “But Earth is not warming, it is cooling, and has been for a decade or
    so, despite increasing CO2 levels. It is by now obvious that increasing CO2
    is not a significant driver of global temperature.”

    Alan, please we are as not buying these arguments of cooling for more than a decade. Yes it has been cooler the last two years or so and before that (5 years or so) the trend has been flat. Plot the data of the last decade and you could even argue for a warming trend, for what it is worth:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/

  19. Physicist grumble: there is no degree sign with Kelvin, 0º C = 273.15 K

    After checking the link, the last data points are slightly over 273.15 K, but still below the green line.

  20. “The ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ argument is a non-starter with me.”

    I agree 100%. Show me where the IPCC specifically predicted lower arctic surface temperatures and I will be interested.

    ‘this is exactly what is to be expected’ is often a prelude to a just-so story.

    Flanagan, if arctic surface temperatures rise and start exceeding 0 C earlier than usual, is that also consistent with global warming? Or would that be evidence against the hypothesis?

    (Actually, I recall a Realclimate piece a year or two ago trumpeting abnormally high temperatures on the arctic island of Svaalbard. )

  21. To the question of where does the hot water come from, I’m pretty sure that “from the South” would be a good answer :0)

    Now, something else is annoying me. If you take a look at the link given by the author

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    It clearly looks like the temperature exceeded 273 K several times around days 160-170, which is the average date for surpassing 0°C it seems. Can anyone else confirm my visual impression? Does anyone know where to get the data?

  22. Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    Actually, if this was really expected then why wouldn’t it have occured greatest in 2007 and then to a slightly lesser extent last year during a similar very large melt.

    Using your own theory, since we actually started with thinner and therefore less total ice this year and therefore less “endothermic reaction” with less ice to melt, it should have been a warmer than normal arctic ?

    Please explain more ?

  23. Interesting graphic. North Greenland coast looks ice-locked. Hudson Bay ditto – is this frequent? Will the AGW promoters simply claim volcanic activity has produced this “slight” cooling of global temps, despite Dr Vicky Pope pointing out that ice decrease could be perfectly natural?

    IPCC spokesmen claimed volcanic activity, plus reduced solar output plus natural variation in the climate system last year caused the cooling temperature, two-faced hypocracy & mendacity clearly sits easy on their minds such is their integrity. I seem to recall from the last two SPM’s that variations in solar output were enphatically not the cause of the modern warming of the climate system. The main reason they gave was pretty much what sceptical scientists were claiming all along, principally “natural variations of the climate system”.

    Allan M R MacRae ;-)
    Climate Change = Head I Win Tails You Lose! Don’t let them off the hook at any stage. The warmers have claimed man has caused Global Warming, so make them eat their words, it might seem irritating to both sides but I always interupt an AGW when they refer to CC, & remind them what they actually mean. Remember, revenge is a dish best served cooling! The Tyndall Centre has records of unofficial discussions where GW is referred to as CC so as to more precisely “reinforce” the message to the public at large, so if the climate system warms it’s CC, if it cools, it’s CC, = HIWTYL!

  24. Lee Kingston: The Mt. Sarychev eruption sent out a much more impressive SO2 plume than Mt. Redoubt. I have been trying to determine whether either of these were large enough to cause significant cooling, and there appears to be conflicting information.

  25. Chris Schoneveld (04:17:18) : “Alan, please we are as not buying these arguments of cooling for more than a decade. Yes it has been cooler the last two years or so and before that (5 years or so)”

    Really? I prefer this plot:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:100/trend/plot/gistemp/last:100/trend/plot/uah/last:100/trend/plot/rss/last:100/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:100/plot/gistemp/last:100/plot/uah/last:100/plot/rss/last:100

    would you like to try for 8 years of cooling?

  26. Re: Redoubt, yes it may have resulted in some aerosol-induced cooling. But this is likely have been counter-balanced to a significant extent by the warming it produced via accelerated snow-melt (and thus reduced albedo).
    See e.g.

    http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/07/alaska-hikers-lucky-warmth-ash-speed-snowmelt/

    “…the season’s alpine snow melt — spurred on by the volcanic dust left behind by the eruptions of Redoubt volcano — appears way ahead of schedule…
    …Snowfields, dusted with gray volcanic grit, rapidly disappeared…”

  27. Flanagan: (01:58:17)

    I agree with part of what you said. More heat would come from the sea which has much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. But since the energy expended to melt ice would have come from the ocean, it follows that the ocean would cool, rather than the atmosphere. There remains a frozen barrier between the two.

    Heat would then need to transition the frozen ice sheet to cool the atmosphere, and return heat to the ocean. This seems counter intuitive, except perhaps near the perimeter where the ice is already breaking up.

  28. Silly question here: how do you report wind direction at the North Pole ? Every wind is from the South ?

    True, there is no North, South, etc. at the poles, there is still the 0-360 deg compass rose which is still valid. But now, it refers to the longitude line from where the wind is blowing from or to & everything is referenced to 0 deg Long.

    Jeff

  29. “Along the edge of the arctic, Ross Hays who worked for CNN and then NASA who last year posted from Antartica sent this note to me “They have me working in arctic Sweden until mid July. One of the Esrange staff members told me that so far Kiruna had had the coldest June in 150 years!”

    Was this predicted? In the models from the warmers?
    Joseph Romm tells us cooling and warming, wet and dry are all signs of their friend global warming.

    Warming has become a political movement. One of the ways it breaks down is in it’s prdeiction error.

  30. Flanagan (01:58:17) : “Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top”

    I believe you really mean “warmer” water not “hot” water, as in any water temperature that is warmer than the covering ice.

  31. Alaska Winter Weather Advisory – In the summer!
    INCLUDING…FORT YUKON… VENETIE… CENTRAL … CIRCLE… STEVENS VILLAGE… BEAVER… CHALKYITSIK… BIRCH CREEK… CIRCLE HOT SPRINGS… TWELVE MILE SUMMIT … STEESE HIGHWAY ABOVE 3500 FEET… IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 AM THURSDAY.

    SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW WILL REDUCE VISIBILITIES TO BELOW 1 MILE … THIS ADVISORY INCLUDES EAGLE SUMMIT WHERE AS OF 2 PM WEDS … IT IS MODERATELY SNOWING WITH LIMITED VISIBILITY.

    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=AK&prodtype=warnings

  32. Actually, we don’t say, “degrees Kelvin.” The Kelvin is a unit, not a degree, so it’s 273.15 K.

  33. The question about sulfate aerosols is a good one. There is a need to see if there are more such aerosols around, but don’t sulfates disappear in a week or less? The eruptions stopped many weeks ago, and were intermittent mostly in the winter to early spring, so any effects would have occurred months ago, and wouldn’t explain low temps the last couple of weeks.

    Another intriguing question is the effect of the ash from Mt. Redoubt. The Anchorage papers reported early melting of snow in nearby mountains because of the ash deposited on it. If ash from Redoubt reached the Arctic, it should have fallen on sea ice and thus could accelerate melting, as black carbon does. Did ash from Mt. Reboubt’s eruptions reach the Arctic? Does anyone know?

  34. It’s fascinating comparing this record with previous years. Especially the late 70′s when we were all freezing. Take a look at 1976. Warming? What warming?

  35. Chris: Most sceptics say that is has been a cooling going on since 2002 not a decade, most people in the AGW crowd will probably not admit a cooling trend at all.

  36. James F. Evans (02:42:06) :
    “…I’ve no idea if you are an AGW proponent…”

    For those who don’t know, Flanagan is most assuredly a disciple from the “Dark Side” who pops into skeptic sites with some innocent-sounding comments in order to lure others into a pointless debate. The debate is pointless because Flanagan is wedded to the AGW talking points and won’t budge. Flanagan is a true believer of the AGW religion and will not be swayed. Engage this individual, and you will chase your tail around a tree. Ignore him and he eventually goes away.

  37. “The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K”

    Just a head’s up, there’s no degree symbol in the Kelvin system. It’s just 273.15K. I lost 5 points on a test once for putting that degree symbol in, so it’s a sore point with me :).

  38. will (05:05:51) :
    You just demonstrated the point I made: It all depends…
    Could you do me a favour and post the same temp data but with a starting point somewhere in 1999 (to make it a full decade) and bet we will see a warming trend. But did you note my caveat?: “for what it is worth”

  39. Morgan T (06:02:03) :

    “…most people in the AGW crowd will probably not admit a cooling trend at all.”

    You’re right. It’s even better than that though because the temperature is obviously dropping globally – obvious to me anyway – even with all the thermometers located in places which should be getting hotter! parking lots and roofs and under air conditioning units etc. etc….

  40. Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…

    Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top. When ice melts, energy is pumped in the environment (i.e. the process is endothermic) which tends to cool the surrounding atmosphere. If melting is brutal, then a lot of heat will be absorbed and the surface temperature will drop. The April-May melting this year was quite impressive, and we’re now below last year levels. So I think it’s pretty coherent.

    I agree only in part, but I see the process in a different way.

    When ice melts, it takes energy from the environment to change its physical state, and while ice is melting the temperature in equilibrium should be 0º Celsius. I believe thermometers used to be calibrated by submerging them in a mixture of ice and water and the thermometer should read 0º Celsius in those conditions.

    If melting is brutal, it only means that ice melts faster, not that more heat is taken from the environment and then the environment cools down below 0º Celsius (32º Fahrenheit)

    That is, of course in equilibrium conditions, which I highly doubt they exist in the Arctic, with all those winds and currents and all.

    Morgan T (06:02:03) :

    Chris: Most scepticals say that is has been a cooling going on since 2002 not a decade, most people in the AGW crowd will probably not admit a cooling trend at all.

    Let’s say that you cannot prove there was a warming trend during the last decade. And it is difficult to support AGW when you can prove an increment of GHG but not an increment of temperatures.

  41. To all: the volume of melted ice should be approximately the same as the previous years – only this time it happened quite fast. I also gave an answer to the other questions, but the message isn’t there yet.

    For those who wonder where I got the idea that the sea ice extent is lower than last year, it simply comes from the JAXA results: simply follow the widgets on the right of this page.

  42. Again: the temperature DID exceed 273 K several times earlier this year and is now higher, so why keep this post? It’s totally wrong…

    REPLY: No Flanagan, the post is not wrong, you are. Confirmation bias on your part Flanagan, you see what you want. The title:

    “Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C – the latest date in fifty years of record keeping”

    Refers to the current condition, not the first excursion. The temperature has remained below 0C at this late date, if you go back through previous charts you won’t find a year where it remains below 0°C on Jun23rd. The important thing is that flat top of the 2009 graph hovering right at below 0°C at this late date. You won’t find a similar scenario in looking at every graph since 1958.

    Though I’m sure you will be thrilled to know that with the June24th data update (posted today), it has ticked above 0°C again. Will it stay above, or go back down? It is certainly worth watching. The climate normal line in green doesn’t seem to be followed this year.

    I think I’ll add it to sidebar widgets. – Anthony

  43. will (05:05:51) :

    Try this one, it’s hillarious; (Hint, notice which one of these is not like the others, and notice who would be the soul responsible for THAT data.)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:140/trend/plot/gistemp/last:130/trend/plot/uah/last:140/trend/plot/rss/last:140/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:140/plot/gistemp/last:140/plot/uah/last:140/plot/rss/last:140

    I was having a thought; couldn’t we have some kind of institution who’s members/employees were charged with accurately recording and maintaining data? No punditry or promulgation of ideas allowed; simply record the data accurately and maintain it’s integrity. Wouldn’t that be worth funding, instead of GISS, NOAA, etc?

    Just a thought.

  44. My mistake; I wrote the graph, but I didn’t change the GIS to 140, like the others. The problem still exists where Jim’s data exhibits an opposite trend when it’s corrected, just not nearly as pronounced.

    Here’s the corrected;

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:140/trend/plot/gistemp/last:140/trend/plot/uah/last:140/trend/plot/rss/last:140/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:140/plot/gistemp/last:140/plot/uah/last:140/plot/rss/last:140

    Sorry for the (unintentional) obfuscation.

  45. Tom in Florida,

    No Sir Flanagan does mean ”hot” he is one of those that in 10 years time is going to die from the heat.

  46. Joe D’Aleo’s post is excellent observational science; thanks. Fine addition to my Arctic folders. I have a dear friend trying to build a house in Homer, Alaska. Cooler than usual in the Alaskan sun belt — plus it keeps raining.

    Also, re Alan M R MacRae’s comment (3:10 and 3:30) on the Woods Hole Research Center scientists’ letter demanding action to undo global warming because settled science said we (rich) human’s dunit.

    Anthony, when the names of these Un-scientists are outed on your blog, would you be interested (in your spare time) in some kind of an Unscientist Dumb-A$$ Award? (Sorry, crude I know, but I am not very imaginative at present.) We, your many, many readers could send the Award banner along with article that explains the scientific truths directly to each Un-scientist. In my imagination, their names could grace your award area “permanently”, perhaps recalled with a button on the top. The world should know who, EXACTLY WHO, is altering data, making up analyses, and, in effect, lying to us. These individuals are responsible for attempting to impoverish developed societies and tax its citizens to the hilt for the rich living of “global elites”.

  47. Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    I agree that the majority of melting would occur at the ice-ocean interface at the bottom, although some would still occurr at the ice-air interface on the top. The ice-ocean melting cannot possibly cause below freezing temps in the air (first law of thermo). So it would have to be the ice-air interface. Yes, the process of melting obsorbs heat, but it still has to melt first, so the air has to first exceed 0 deg. C before any melting on the ice-air inteface can occurr. So the endothermic process might explain why the air temps normally go over 0 deg. C then taper off, but it cannot explain why it hasn’t even hit 0 deg. C yet this year.

  48. Will & Bob (Kutz)……

    I guess we should forgive Chris for his Mann’err’isms.

    Bob,… RE: Wouldn’t that be worth funding, instead of GISS, NOAA, etc?

    WE could suggest that to the Obama administration. They would love to establish yet another governmental office (job creation you know). I would not be surprised however if they appointed James Hansen to head it.

    __________________

    The Arctic could yet experience an increase in rate of ‘melt’. I don’t, personally, see any reason to expect it. Should it not occur and multi-year ice levels improve again next year I expect that part of the reason for it will be declared, by some, to be due to the decrease in CO2 emissions during the global economic recession. It will be spun. Count on it.

  49. @Per Strandberg

    Amundsen went throught he NE Passage in the early 1900′s and others went through long before that. The Russians were more of a problem than the ice.

  50. “I was having a thought; couldn’t we have some kind of institution who’s members/employees were charged with accurately recording and maintaining data?”

    There’s a basic conceptual problem here (on the part of almost everyone) that is going to have to change before these biases can be addressed.

    This instant a task becomes taken over by an “institution” it becomes subject to bias and eventual organizational capture by those groups who realize it is in their interest to slant the outcome in a desired direction. Put in a simpler way, all institutions will become corrupted over time, this cannot be stopped. The more money and perks are at stake, the faster they will be corrupted. If those with much to gain are involved at the startup phase, they will be corrupt from the very instant of their creation.

    So is there an answer? YES!! Distributed record keeping with only fractional responsibility spread among hundreds if not thousands of independant agents, all responsible for cross checking each other. The internet now makes this possible.

    Anthony’s surface station project is the perfect example of this concept in action. It is the wave of the future, and the only mode of data collecting that can be truly trusted from now on.

  51. Al Gore will be revising his North Pole melt predictions again. I’m sure he will be lowering the % of probability of an ice free North Pole in 5 years forecast–for the dwindling number of those who are still listening to him.

  52. woodfortrees.org provides good temperature information. I started with the UAH graphs from 1978. The interesting part for me was to see the temperatures rise with a very active sun and now starting to drop with an inactive sun. It also says we are not as cool as the mid 1970s. There is still plenty of reserve heat in the oceans from the warm years. Good thing

    Leif, are you sure there is no correlation between the sun and earth climate?

  53. Pierre Gosselin (01:54:34) :

    On causation, if models show caps warming the most and quickest during global warming, wouldn’t they also show the caps cooling the quickest and the most during cooling?

    Not necessarily. Rectifying the cause of an effect does not necessarily reverse the effect unless you have data or proof to support it. Even if the current data on man-made CO2 were proof of AGW, there is simply no data (that I’m aware of, because how could it be observed?) that reducing CO2 emissions would allow global cooling to occur. We’d be spending trillions of $s on a leap of faith with no scientific basis whatsoever.

  54. “For those who wonder where I got the idea that the sea ice extent is lower than last year, it simply comes from the JAXA results: simply follow the widgets on the right of this page.”

    The AMSR-E data which is used by JAXA does not support this conclusion.

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi

    Therefore, Flanagan is just Making It Up, which is why he won’t show any actual source that makes this claim.

  55. Funny how the largest erruption *this year* could induce the coldest June in *150 years* in some places. Climate is a funny thing, and like Quantum Mechanics, I guess if you are going to understand it, you leave intuition at the door. Or, possibly, people are grasping at straws.

  56. Arctic temps last 3 days:

    Especially, notice fig5.

    Here you see that South East Greenland had much less ice floating down from the Arctic. This indicates that the Arctic is not at all likely to get near record low ice extend of 2007.
    On top of that cold temperatures.

  57. “I was having a thought; couldn’t we have some kind of institution who’s members/employees were charged with accurately recording and maintaining data?”

    In the Dune series, by Frank Herber, I think, the scientific class and the political class were strictly forbidden from interfering in each the other’s domain. This was due to a near apocolypse that resulted from the two meddling in each other’s business. Seems kind of prescient.

  58. “The ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ argument is a non-starter with me.”

    When somebody is wrong on the facts, and refuses to admit it, being confronted with logic often looks like “heads I win, tails, you lose” Checkmate can be “Move here I win, move there you lose.” Of course, checkmate is based on a strict set of logical rules and empirical evidence, not on some model of how you assumed the match would go.

  59. Plot the data of the last decade and you could even argue for a warming trend, for what it is worth:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You need to “include” both the 1998 El Nino and 1999-2000 La Nina IN or include both OUT. A starting point anywhere in between is cherrypicking (Especially from 1999).

  60. A truly hilarious chart with linear trend lines would be to start at different points but end at the same point. It demonstrates cherry picking in such a comical fashion that most people will stop the practice at once. Chaotic systems should NEVER be cherry picked and then visualized with linear trend lines. The trend line means nothing. It is an artifact of chaotic data and provides no information whatsoever and worse, can mislead the researcher to wrong conclusions. If you haven’t studied statistics and its application to chaotic organic systems, you place yourself at risk of basing your assumptions on inappropriate analysis. And this is true for both sides of the AGW/natural climate trend argument.

    This is especially true for the IPCC models. They were built based on the statistical linear trend basis (a wrong assumption because of the misleading artificial nature of a statistical linear trend in a chaotic set of data). It is this premise that is causing the models to fail. They do not model a chaotic system, regardless of whether or not human consumption is causing warming. The risk of a false negative is as high as a false positive. Here is the risk they fail to see: the models can fail to prove their premise, even if they are right.

  61. Lee Kington (07:27:48) :

    ” I expect that part of the reason for it will be declared, by some, to be due to the decrease in CO2 emissions during the global economic recession. It will be spun. Count on it.

    Yup! That’s how they’ll spin it.

  62. Dennis Sharp (07:52:33) :
    Leif, are you sure there is no correlation between the sun and earth climate?
    No, there is certainly one, namely a 0.07 degree solar cycle variation caused by the 0.1% variation of TSI. Even so, this small variation is hard to show because the natural [and other] variability ['noise'] is so high.
    Longer term variations would harder to explain. Take away solar activity altogether and the temperature would drop about half of the 0.07 degrees and would be even harder to detect. Now, people that claim strong solar/climate connections postulate all kinds of amplifiers and feedbacks and lags and such, but have still to make a convincing case. I, for one, would not make such claims.

  63. Heads up to all on WUWT!!!!!

    The Climate denial crock of the week is announcing a new video that “promises to disprove/discredit the negative cloud feedback theory” they say it will be a few weeks before it gets posted.
    Will there be a rebuttal to this?

  64. Flanagan,
    What you are saying does not make sense.
    I posted a link to reputable ice results that shows we are well above last year’s ice.
    What is it with AGW true believers that they cannot accept being wrong?

  65. OT, but Gavin Schmidt is a ‘skeptic’????
    This is from Fox News:

    Global Warming May Be Slowing America’s Winds
    Wednesday, June 10, 2009

    Print ShareThisWASHINGTON — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States.

    And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

    The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening.

    But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

    “It’s a very large effect,” said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University.

    • Click here to visit FOXNews.com’s Natural Science Center.

    In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.

    There’s been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study’s lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.

    Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River.

    Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much.

    Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.

    “The stations bordering the Great Lakes do seem to have experienced the greatest changes,” Pryor said Tuesday.

    That’s probably because there’s less ice on the lakes and wind speeds faster across ice than it does over water, she said.

    Still, the study, which will be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, is preliminary.

    Related StoriesMeasuring Cow Burps in Fight Against Climate Change
    U.N.: Nature Best at Handling Climate Change
    Don’t Play Guilt Card, Environmentalists Told
    There are enough questions that even the authors say it’s too early to know if this is a real trend or not. But it raises a new side effect of global warming that hasn’t been looked into before.

    The ambiguity of the results is due to changes in wind-measuring instruments over the years, according to Pryor. And while actual measurements found diminished winds, some climate computer models — which are not direct observations — did not, she said.

    Yet, a couple of earlier studies also found wind reductions in Australia and Europe, offering more comfort that the U.S. findings are real, Pryor and Takle said.

    It also makes sense based on how weather and climate work, Takle said.

    In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this.

    That means the temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it the difference in air pressure in the two regions.

    Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower pressure difference means less wind.

    Even so, that information doesn’t provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said.

    In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.

    Jeff Freedman, an atmospheric scientist with AWS Truewind, an Albany, N.Y., renewable energy consulting firm, has studied the same topic, but hasn’t published in a scientific journal yet. He said his research has found no definitive trend of reduced surface wind speed.

    One of the problems Pryor acknowledges with her study is that over many years, changing conditions near wind-measuring devices can skew data. If trees grow or buildings are erected near wind gauges, that could reduce speed measurements.

    Several outside experts mostly agree that there are signs that wind speed is decreasing and that global warming is the likely culprit.

    The new study “demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

    ” A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming”.

    He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power.

    But another expert, Jonathan Miles, of James Madison University, said a 10 percent reduction in wind speeds over a decade “would have an enormous effect on power production.”

    Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped.

    But because the research is in such early stages, she said, “at this point it would be premature to modify wind energy development plans.”

    Robert Gramlich, policy director at the American Wind Energy Association, said the idea of reduced winds was new to him. He wants to see verification from other studies before he worries too much about it.

  66. I do not understand why some scientists are doing studies of the effects of global Warming, when they should be doing some real sience to find and understand all of processess that cause variabliity in Earths climate.

  67. Your URL does not want to post on Facebook. It seems that the URL

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%C2%B0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/

    is not nicely formatted for the Facebook script.

    In the future, could you avoid weird character such as the degree symbol, and ellipsis and quote marks?

    It must be those funky characters that screws up the script.

    REPLY: I have no control over this, WordPress.com does this. But you can use TinyURL to convert the long string into a short one, then post the new smaller URL it makes. Try it, http://tinyurl.com/ – Anthony

  68. Flanagan,
    What you are saying does not make sense.
    I posted a link to reputable ice results that shows we are well above last year’s ice.
    What is it with AGW true believers that they cannot accept being wrong?

    They claim their forecasts are more accurate than actual measured data. It must be a perception problem on the deniers end. Hey the thermometers are also wrong suddenly.

  69. Flanagan said, “Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top. When ice melts, energy is pumped in the environment (i.e. the process is endothermic) which tends to cool the surrounding atmosphere. ”

    It sounds like he is claiming there is some sort of thermal pump that transfers energy from the atmosphere into the ice. This “cool(s) the surrounding atmosphere” but melts the ice from below. Because … the “hot” water is somehow the energy behind the pump.

    Hunh ???

    I don’t see how anyone of those who agree “in principle” with him can possibly design a natural physical system that does that. It violates the second law of thermodynamics in several different ways.

    C’mon guys, try a little harder.

  70. The AMSR-E data which is used by JAXA does not support this conclusion.
    Therefore, Flanagan is just Making It Up, which is why he won’t show any actual source that makes this claim.

    Actually JAXA does at present:

    06,23,2008,10198438 (leap year)
    06,24,2009,10171719

  71. All the evidence you need is when the liberals changed Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would you do that? Global Warming is more scary and fear mongering then CC.

    Keep bring up the facts because these Political Scientists can’t dispute facts even though they ignore them.

  72. ” wws (07:58:37) :

    “For those who wonder where I got the idea that the sea ice extent is lower than last year, it simply comes from the JAXA results: simply follow the widgets on the right of this page.”

    The AMSR-E data which is used by JAXA does not support this conclusion.

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi

    Therefore, Flanagan is just Making It Up, which is why he won’t show any actual source that makes this claim.”

    WWS: scroll up this page until you see the orange Sun on the right: two widgets above it is the link to sea ice that Flanagan is referring to.

  73. I went to the link that CPT. Charles provided regarding the missing spring in the eastern Arctic. Birds are not able to reproduce because of the COLD.

    Deep in the article I found this quote. It sent CHILLS up my spine:

    “According to NOAA scientists, although the Arctic is warming, more frequent annual oscillations in temperature are likely to occur, often resulting in late springs.

    “Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.”

    Huh?!

    OMG.

  74. climate change covers every possibility…..global warming was far too constraining for the church of the environment and its high priests….its the biggest con in human history and our brain dead politicians cant get enough of it.

  75. Jack Green (09:20:27) :

    “All the evidence you need is when the liberals changed Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would you do that? Global Warming is more scary and fear mongering then CC.

    Keep bring up the facts because these Political Scientists can’t dispute facts even though they ignore them.”

    When did they change Global warming to Climate Change?

  76. evanmjones (08:27:38) :

    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You need to “include” both the 1998 El Nino and 1999-2000 La Nina IN or include both OUT. A starting point anywhere in between is cherrypicking (Especially from 1999).”

    Ok Evanmjones: I selected (cherry picked) a range which includes both El Nino en La Nina you asked for and what do you see? A warming trend. So let’s stop this silly cherry picking and forget plotting trends over such short time intervals

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend

  77. I would expect that, even with the present surface air cooling, sea ice extent will continue to be below “normal” for the next few years, due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans. Depending on how one interprets the data, the peak “plateau” of global temperatures occured from 1998-2007, a span of 9 years. The sea ice extent didn’t start to really noticably decline until 2005, continuing to stay below normal up to the present. So if in my overly-simplistic way, we deduce there is a 7 year delay between global air temperatures and arctic sea ice extent, we won’t be back “in the black” with regards to sea ice until 2014.

  78. Forgive me if someone else has already posted this link in the comments. The North Pole cam also reports temperature data which is available here. It actually has been above 0C at times. It was for most of the 23rd.

    REPLY: thanks, hadn’t seen that data link, all I knew about was the weekly updated graph. Also so everyone is clear, that buoy is not at the NP but has drifted on the ice about 160 miles SSW last time I checked. – Anthony

  79. “They have me working in arctic Sweden until mid July. One of the Esrange staff members told me that so far Kiruna had had the coldest June in 150 years!”

    Thats probably correct since the average for sweden is the clodest june in 50 years.
    I live in southern sweden and we finnaly got our first real summerdays in june this week.

  80. wws: here’s the link to the data I’m referring to

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

    I think things cannot be clearer than that.

    About the post title: I think it is misleading. Many people here clearly think it means 273 K hasn’t been reached yet this year. The expression “is still not above 0″, in my sense, means that it hasn’t done it, not that it did but isn’t anymore. Moreover, in 2006 it hit 0 even later. 1992 was even worse.

  81. Cathy (09:42:05) :

    I went to the link that CPT. Charles provided regarding the missing spring in the eastern Arctic. Birds are not able to reproduce because of the COLD.

    Deep in the article I found this quote. It sent CHILLS up my spine:

    “According to NOAA scientists, although the Arctic is warming, more frequent annual oscillations in temperature are likely to occur, often resulting in late springs.

    “Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.”

    Huh?!

    OMG.

    I find more disturbing the two sentences that follows what you quoted:

    Vegetation is also impacted upon by late Arctic springs, with green-up about three weeks late this year. Consequently, herbivorous animals have delayed breeding

    “People often confuse climate with weather, and this spring is a weather phenomenon,” said an Environment Canada spokesperson.

    Again, the two mantras are repeated over and over.
    If temps go up its AGW, if temps go down, it is also AGW.
    And if not, it is weather, you silly, don’t confuse climate with weather.

  82. I think the red line is average polar temps, seemed to be well above average at the beginning of the year.

    Also on the forecast maps provided by Intellicast, it seems it’s still getting cold enough to snow in parts of the Canadian Rockies and other small parts of Canda and Siberia, we’re under a heatwave (despite falling short of 100 for the past 3 days) that’s supposed to disapate in a few days, India will get a nice temp. drop after being hot all year, Europe warms up, parts of the US (other than the already cool’ish Pacific Northwest) will cool off with Pheonix forecast to fall below 100 again sometime soon.

    SST-wise, the SST comparison plot with last year seems to show El Nino falling apart before it got anywhere if you go by the actual shading and not the lines (which the lines are pretty close to the front page plot but SST shading colors are somewhat different.)

  83. Phil. (09:16:17) :

    Actually JAXA does at present:

    06,23,2008,10198438 (leap year)
    06,24,2009,10171719

    The key to your analysis is using the 366th day, since 6/24/2008 was 10112031 in Jaxa’s data.

    One way to consider 365.24 days in a year is to do a weighted average of the 6/23 & 6/24 days from 2008. The weighted average is 10132769.

    A longer term average would be more meaningful, but the latest single day number does show a tiny bit more ice this year than last.

  84. Any democrats on this site? You have to be proud how they are picking our pockets, ramming bills through without being read, now this, health care etc. How’s that change thing working out for you.

    The thing that absolutely amazes me about the democrats, not one of them has decided enough is enough and decided to switch parties.

    [REPLY - Yes, there are some democrats on this site. Yes, there are those who have had enough and decided to switch parties. There are also some liberal republicans. There are believers in AGW and skeptics. All are welcome. And, no, this is not On Topic. So, having been informed, no more on this subject, please. ~ Evan]

  85. I am reading Watts right here on the shore of the Arctic Ocean at Prudhoe Bay (vacation?). Despite 24-hour daylight, I can agree that the water is extremely cold (and an eskimo confirmed that this past winter had been one of the snowiest ever).

  86. Lee Kington 7:27, TJA 8:01;

    I was being sarcastic. I would think that the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, GISS, etc. would already perform this function. At least two of those institutions have been involved in data scandals that should’ve warranted an absolute (figurative) French Revolution in management. Any organization dedicated to science for the sake of learning and understanding does not tolerate or accept willful data manipulation for purposes of proving the hypothesis. Too many mistakes have been made in the same direction for it to be an accident. They are either corrupt or incompetent. Take your pick, but the leadership of these organizations is due for replacement. They no longer represent science, but rather a political advocacy in the name of science that should not be tolerated by scientists (or honest politicians, either for that matter, if there is such a thing).

    Pamela Gray, 8:31;

    I know you can pick the data and make it look as you want it to. I understand the difficulty (in some limited way) or modeling chaotic systems. My experience is in the financial arena. Do you know how many models have been pitched in this industry in the last two years?

    Now; you have a great understanding of statistics. Look at that graph, and tell me; five different people randomly sample the same infinite data set for 10 years. I wont comment on the sampling methodology or the composition or analysis as that makes this exercise too difficult. 4 of them establish negative trends based on their sample. 1 of them comes up with a positive trend line. Tell me what are the odds that the 1 is correct and the others are incorrect. (Assume statistically significant samples and similar/accurate data interpretation methods.) Is there a statistically significant chance that he’s sampling correctly and that his methodology is untainted?

    As to the point that you cannot use trend analysis on a chaotic system; I think there’s a whole bunch of climate “scientists” out there right now who’s carrers are dependent on that very notion. Without that simple positive sloping line based on a bunch of squiggles, they don’t have any point in their arguments whatsoever.

    Thank you for your continued patience with a very simple laymen.

  87. “When did they change Global warming to Climate Change?”

    http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming%2C+climate+change&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

    Seems that “climate change” became more common in news articles starting in around 2007.

    I would hypothesize that was right about the time people started to notice that global surface tempertaures had been treading water for a few years.

    By the way Flanagan, you never answered my question:

    If arctic surface temperatures rise and start exceeding 0 C earlier than usual, is that also consistent with global warming? Or would that be evidence against the hypothesis?

  88. brazil: well I never said it was consistent with global warming, only that it is consistent with the rapid melting of the last months. Please don’t extrapolate…

  89. Why does the Danish page say the data comes from a MODEL?

    I nearly always prefer my data to come from a Danish model.

    I would hypothesize that was right about the time people started to notice that global surface tempertaures had been treading water for a few years.

    Actually, Jan. 2007 was when climate began an abrupt change — in a generally downward direction.

  90. “Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.” — Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center

    “People often confuse climate with weather, and this spring is a weather phenomenon,” said an Environment Canada spokesperson.” — Environment Canada spokesperson.

    So which is it, proof the the ‘predicted’ “bumpy ride to global warming” that is to say “Climate” or proof of nothing, that is to say “Weather”. The warmies are always good for a laugh.

  91. evanmjones, my thoughts exactly on Jan. 2007. The slow pumping temperature stagnation with some evidence of decrease was, in my opinion, the echo of El Nino warm phase oceanic conditions. The sudden sharp change was the onset of the flip to La Nina cool phase conditions. My hunch is that the Earth has an equilibrium to its current oceanic, geographic, and atmospheric conditions and that oceanic oscillations around the globe build up, release, and cool down Earth’s global temperatures in a noisy chaotic pattern of steps above, below, and around that equilibrium, burying any kind of different driver signal such as Solar or CO2.

  92. crosspatch (10:10:57) :
    Forgive me if someone else has already posted this link in the comments. The North Pole cam also reports temperature data which is available here. It actually has been above 0C at times. It was for most of the 23rd.

    REPLY: thanks, hadn’t seen that data link, all I knew about was the weekly updated graph. Also so everyone is clear, that buoy is not at the NP but has drifted on the ice about 160 miles SSW last time I checked. – Anthony

    NP-36 was above 0ºC on 6/11 & 12 and at 0ºC on 6/08 & 09 when it was closer to the NP than the ‘North Pole Cam’ now is.

  93. timetochooseagain (10:50:58) :
    Why does the Danish page say the data comes from a MODEL?

    Well there aren’t many weather stations north of 80ºN to get data from.

  94. For the past 30 years, a certain faction has said “look at the signs, here comes disaster! The Earth is on fire!”

    Of course, they were fabricating the “signs” and hyping things that were not relevant leading indicators of climate change in the warm direction.

    Now, here we are, with real, relevant, leading indicators of actual climate change in the cold direction.

    Not a word in the MSM. Many establishment organizations try to down play it.

    Oh and by the way, we now have an all time record both quantity and percent wise of starving people on Planet Earth. Nothing to see here, move along.

  95. TJA (11:22:52) : One might add that the rules are:

    1. Cold Weather is Weather

    2. Warm Weather Is AGW

    3. Lots of Cold Weather Is Climate Change

    4. Non Temperature Weather Is Climate Change During Winter, AGW During Summer

    5. There Is No Mild Weather, Only Extreme Weather. Only Hot Sauce Is Mild.

  96. I’ve lived in Colorado Springs for 19 years, and this is the first year we’ve had snow cover on Pikes Peak this late into the summer. We’ve had brief periods of new snow, but the existing snow usually melts first. It hasn’t this year. Tell me it hasn’t been cooler. I’ve got a bridge for sale, too…

  97. Jack green wrote:

    All the evidence you need is when the liberals changed Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would you do that? Global Warming is more scary and fear mongering then CC.

    Jack, if you’d investigate that you would soon find that it was actually the Republicans who forced this change in description.

    “The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.”

    And here it is:

    “The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says.”

    Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
    You can watch Mr Luntz confirm it in person here from 2.03 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w

    ON-TOPIC

    Like tulbobroke said: Can someone explain what happened in the beginning of the year? What does that jagged red line above the green one mean? The one that is 5-15K above the green line.

  98. “The *average* arctic temperature is still not above” — D’Aleo

    “I think it is misleading. Many people here clearly think it means 273 K hasn’t been reached yet this year. The expression “is still not above 0″, in my sense, means that it hasn’t done it, not that it did but isn’t anymore.” — Flanagan.

    I guess that Flanagan is right. The huge number of readers who come here and comment, and haven’t read the first sentence of the post are definitely being misled. Thank you Flanagan for shining the light of truth for that misbegotten horde.

  99. JLKrueger (06:16:58) :
    Ignore him and he eventually goes away.

    You have just defined the anti AGW camp with this statement. Unfortunately if you ignore the science the problem will not go away. Try listening and reading reliable papers rather than the usual blogosphere pseudoscience…you might learn something.

  100. “”” Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…

    Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top. When ice melts, energy is pumped in the environment (i.e. the process is endothermic) which tends to cool the surrounding atmosphere. If melting is brutal, then a lot of heat will be absorbed and the surface temperature will drop. The April-May melting this year was quite impressive, and we’re now below last year levels. So I think it’s pretty coherent.

    A similar phenomenon takes pace in the winter, but in the other direction. Since we had a lot of open water at then end of the summer, refreeze was pretty quick last year, which freed a lot of heat in the atmosphere – as can be seen on the graph (surface temperatures being higher than normal). “””

    How do you go about making this stuff up ? Floating sea ice, is 9/10 or 10/11 or some such factor underneath the water, so the surface area in contact with the sea water is huge compared to what is in contact with the atmosphere. So the source of the energy (80 cal/gm) to melt that ice, is the ocean, and not the atmosphere, and the resulting ocean cooling causes the sea level to fall.

    When the re-freeze happens, the freezing water does not “give up heat” to the atmosphere and thereby warm the atmosphere; the atmosphere first cools until it is below the freezing point, and then energy starts flowing from the water into the atmosphere to be lost to space; but the atmosphere does not warm up, in fact it keeps on getting colder, as the sunlight goes away.

    True the rate of cooling of the atmosphere slows because of the energy flow from the water, and the water temperature basically stops dropping while it freezes; but at no time during the freezing process does the atmosphere warm up because of the energy loss from the sea water. That would only occur if the sun changed course and started to supply my solar energy.

    Is this some sort of “Green” disease ? Increased carbon dioxide causes the temperature to rise 800 years beforehand; high cold low pressure low mass clouds emit vast amounts of infra-red radiation downwards, to warm the denser more massive warmer solid earth surface (or oceans); the higher and less dense, and colder the clouds, the warmer they make the higher heat capacity earth. Sea ice melts and delivers vast amounts of “heat” to the atmosphere making it warmer.

    Do you guys ever put the horse in front of the cart to pull it, like normal human beings do, instead of trying to push everything ?

    And they actually teach this stuff in schools ?

  101. From the original piece

    ” leading to still less melting than last summer which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007.”

    2008 saw more melting than 2007 because it was starting off from a lot higher extent value over winter.

    Regards

    Andy

  102. pyromancer76 (07:23:56) :
    Anthony, when the names of these Un-scientists are outed on your blog, would you be interested (in your spare time) in some kind of an Unscientist Dumb-A$$ Award? (Sorry, crude I know, but I am not very imaginative at present.) We, your many, many readers could send the Award banner along with article that explains the scientific truths directly to each Un-scientist. In my imagination, their names could grace your award area “permanently”, perhaps recalled with a button on the top. The world should know who, EXACTLY WHO, is altering data, making up analyses, and, in effect, lying to us.

    I hereby nominate Lord Monkton as the inaugural winner.

  103. So let’s stop this silly cherry picking and forget plotting trends over such short time intervals

    Well, if you want to take the longer view, for the last century, raw data shows under 0.15C warming. With TOBS, c. +0.3C. Fully adjusted, c. +0.7C (which number I doubt, considering they adjust station history UPWARD).

    In any case, it would seem obvious from this trend that we are in absolutely no danger, whatever.

    The IPCC average projection for the 21st century is around five times the fully adjusted amount. Temps are already off from 2001 (technically the beginning of the 21st century) by around 0.15C, so that has to be made up, and the rest done in around 90 years.

    So we need to warm by around 0.4C/decade to catch up.

    Oh and by the way, we now have an all time record both quantity and percent wise of starving people on Planet Earth.

    Not by percent. Probably not by numbers, either. In 1970, nearly all of China and India were starving (by today’s standards).

    (But I agree that today’s situation is not good.)

  104. evanmjones (12:18:15) :
    “In any case, it would seem obvious from this trend that we are in absolutely no danger, whatever”

    Here I fully agree with you. As a geologist I know very well that a warmer world with higher atmospheric CO2 can only be good for the biosphere.

  105. AKD (05:15:58) :

    Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…

    If I had a dime…

    Heck, even a penny and you’d be richer than Midas!

  106. evanmjones (12:18:15) :

    In any case, it would seem obvious from this trend that we are in absolutely no danger, whatever.

    O, I beg to differ. We are in terrible danger from Al Gore, Pelosi, Obama, the IPCC and so on and their global warming hysteria. That’s the trend we’re in danger of.

  107. About this Global warming becoming Climate Change… 2 supplementary questions…
    When was the IPCC set up?
    What does the CC in IPCC stand for?

    Answers: 1988 and Climate Change

  108. Just so you know, I easily understood the opening sentence. A moving type average of Arctic temps demonstrates that it is not warming up as quickly this year. And it may not period this year. We have passed the Summer Solstice June 21st. From here on out Summer days and Summer sun gets shorter. The only way we will get significant melt that equals previous years (IE 07 and 08) is if anomalous wind patterns blows the ice out. Given the HUGE and rather sudden downward trend in wind in the Arctic I suspect that that wind will not materialize.

  109. Flanagan (10:25:04) :

    Just to make sure, you meant this data set, right?

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

    The data set that says the Ice extent on 6/24/09 is greater than the corresponding date in ’08,’07,’06 &’05?
    Claiming 6/23/08 is what we should be comparing against is unsupportable data analysis unless you want to run the numbers all the way back to when we started (’78?). Anyway, it’s a irrelevant, as there have been only 19 days in the last 85 that the ice extent has been less than ’08, or 27 if you adjust for leap day as you seem to want to do.

    Other interesting factoids from your data set.
    Average Ice Extent for June to date is greater than the equivalent period in ’08,’07,’06 & ’05.
    The April Ice extent decrease was less than ’08,’07,’06, ’05, ’04, & ’03.
    Even with the “precipitous” decrease of April & May (really only May) there was still more ice extent on June 1st than the same date in ’07,’06, ’05 & ’04.
    Also, with the exception of a about 10 days the ice decrease in April & May trends almost perfectly with the previous years, with it typically being much less.

  110. Joe, an interesting side shoot off of this article would be a look see at the wind strength and patterns since 2002. Who turned the wind off???? Back up the finding with Arctic jet stream data of the same period and we will have a winner!

    She aims, she shoots, she scores!

  111. Mr Smith: well tried, but you won’t catch me misunderstanding thermodynamics. When ice melts, a lot of heat from oceans is used, which tends to cool sea surface temperatures. This, in turn, will in any case modify the flow of heat between water and air in the favor of liquid water. All in all, the surrounding atmopshere will tend to cool.

  112. Scott: very interesting analysis. Do you realize the years you mention as references would have been considered as “anomalously low” only ten years ago?

  113. Jack, if you’d investigate that you would soon find that it was actually the Republicans who forced this change in description.
    George Bush did it. LOL

  114. @ AndyW35 (12:14:09) :

    2008 saw more melting than 2007 because it was starting off from a lot higher extent value over winter.

    Now Andy you forgot the warmist argument that the ice was thinner in 2008 than in 2007, remember? So go factor that into your calculation and get back to us on whether more or less ice was melted in 2008 and don’t forget to include leap year!

  115. Anthony: There is a Naval Postgraduate School program called the Autonomous Ocean Flux Buoy Program which takes measurements in the arctic ocean under the ice cap. The link is here:

    http://www.oc.nps.edu/~stanton/fluxbuoy/deploy/deploy.html

    The raw data is available along with various plots. According to the website, the buoys “are designed to directly measure the turbulent fluxes of momentum, heat, and salt using the eddy-correlation technique.”

    (But since it is Navy, maybe they track submarines too?)

  116. “All in all, the surrounding atmopshere will tend to cool.”

    So if surface (air) temperatures in the arctic increase, that’s inconsistent with global warming, right? Right?

  117. Sooooo . . . check me on this; warm water under ice, ice melts. This causes the air to cool.(Hmmm. . . .endothermic, you say). But, (scene 2) water’s not as warm, less ice melts, so the air cools a little less and is therefore warmer? (I think you are confusing endotherm, heat being converted in to chemical potential energy and heat transference . . . more heat down a larger gradient, and so forth).

    Wouldn’t the air being in contact with the (presumably colder) ice cool more than the air in contact with the (necessarily warmer) water?

    I am confused; You are saying you believe that the air is warmer, because it’s in contact with ice instead of water . . . is that really what you are saying?

    To say it differently; The air was cooler because the warmer water melted more ice, but now the air is warmer because the surface of the ocean is colder and is frozen.

    I think I’m beginning to understand where you AGW people are coming from; tell Alice I said hello.

    And now I think I also understand why you think the first sentence is misleading. You might want to look up the definition of ‘average’. ( A definition is the words that tell you what the word you don’t know means).

    And you might want to get your money back on your Intro to Therm. text and class. It didn’t work out too well for you. Check out the zeroth law, I think that really covers this scenario. Equilibrium and such.

    But go on, tell me more about how coconuts migrate then.

  118. Isn’t leap year just a reconciliation of the calendar to the natural cycle? 365.25 days a year? So it wouldn’t need to be corrected for, right? Or do the seasons operate on a calendar year, ignoring a quarter of a day until the fourth year? Miniscule argument anyway, but still.

  119. brazil: what’s your problem with global warming? We’re only talking about some seasonal observation, right?

  120. FWIW….
    I live in Phoenix and this June has been the coolest/mildest June since 1913. We had a stretch of almost three weeks without going over 100. Unfortunately, it hasn’t lasted and things are back in triple digits

  121. So if surface (air) temperatures in the arctic increase, that’s inconsistent with global warming, right? Right?

    No. That would be climate change.

  122. The ocean has some very interesting characteristics around the -2.0C to 1.5 temp range. Water is a very strange chemical. Most chemicals just become more and more dense as they get colder. Not water.

    Here is the temp range for the lightest ocean water (always on-top) to the most dense ocean water (always on the bottom or in process of sinking to the bottom).

    -2.0C and colder (frozen sea ice and always on-top).
    +5.0C and warmer (after 5.0C, ocean water becomes lighter and lighter as it warms up and will always form the top layer other than sea ice).
    -1.5C; not frozen but the lightest ocean water under 5.0C.
    0.0C and 3.0C; more dense than -1.5C.
    +1.5C; most dense salty ocean water and is either in the process of sinking or is already at the bottom of the ocean.

    The polar ocean will stratify into these layers which makes it a strange beast in that it will always be on the verge of freezing since the ocean water on top will always be frozen or just warmer than -2.0C (except for the very height of the summer when the ocean can warm up to 0.0C or so and in those rare events in Earth history when the polar ocean warms to above +5.0C even in the cold six months of winter darkness season – otherwise it is always on the verge of freezing).

  123. All that snow and cold is caused by global warming?

    Big chill in Churchill Winter grips 90 per cent of north, migratory birds can’t breed

    Recent late springs in the Hudson Bay area have been more frequent than normal: 2004, 2002, 2000 and 1997.

    According to NOAA scientists, although the Arctic is warming, more frequent annual oscillations in temperature are likely to occur, often resulting in late springs.

    “Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.”

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/big-chill-in-churchill-47992231.html

  124. Kevin, Merrick, et al,

    “Actually, we don’t say, “degrees Kelvin.” The Kelvin is a unit, not a degree, so it’s 273.15 K.”

    Got no problem understanding that “kelvin” is a unit, not a scale. Not so sure about “Kelvin” (with upper case ‘K’). How do you read it? “273 Kelvin”? “273 kelvins”?
    “273 kelvins Kelvin”? (by analogy with 32 degrees Fahrenheit)

    John the Linguist not the Physicist

  125. Flanagan (01:58:17) [his first post in this thread]

    You do point to a scientifically-interesting component of the overall equilibrium-equation that would (if we could fully know it) determine the extent & survival of the Arctic Icecap. I.e., when ice melts, it absorbs heat from the environment.

    Although it is true that exposed arctic water can release heat into the atmosphere, raising air-temperatures (as last year’s records appeared to document), the major melting mechanism(s) aren’t likely to conversely lower atmospheric temperatures. That’s because, as you point out, the melting occurs at the interface of the underside of the ice & the water, taking heat directly from the ocean – not the atmosphere.

    But, for one, these are secondary, not the primary effects. Secondly, there is a cascading and ‘inbreeding’ series of such effects, bifurcating into ever more-minute components of the overall process, compared with the dominant effects. Bifurcating elements of the whole are not linearly additive, they are (vanishingly) logarithmic, and thus will never ‘conspire’ against the main factors. This is why water never jumps out of the glass (or ocean…), though by invoking random thermal motion of the molecules, one could (try to) make a case that it might, sometimes. [I do see a new Maxwell's Demon story on PhysOrg.com, but haven't read it yet ...] It’s a case of chasing and putting too much weight on too small a part of the overall dynamic.

    For example, what is the surface area of the underside of the ice? It is of course often/usually very much larger than the upper surface. What does this mean/why does this occur? It means that ice is both melting and forming on the under-surface, at the same time. It occurs because (among a myriad of factors) there has been salinity-differentiation within the ice-cake. Salinity-’tears’ & ducts provide penetration-paths for the warmer ocean-water, once they become exposed at the bottom. There arises a micro-thermohaline convection just under the ice (often, within the fluid mechanic “boundary layer”), which sets up circulation-circuit (similar to galvanic corrosion), eating into (higher-freezing/melting) saltier ice in some points, chilling adjacent water & ice at other points, and depositing new (lower-freezing/melting) normal-salinity ice nearby.

    The underside of the ice thus becomes a bizarre landscape of hanging stalactites, sheets & curtains, honeycombs, recesses, pitting … amounting to orders of magnitude more surface area than on the surface. Add to that the far greater thermal capacity of water than air, and the role of the atmosphere in transacting the endothermy of melting is much reduced.

    For another example, the thermal properties & structure of ocean waters are not homogenous. The existence of well-known large-scale thermohaline dynamics makes this clear even to the consumer public. Within the ocean water column there are commonly layers or sheets or interfaces with sharp thermal or other density gradients. Sounds that enter or occur within these thin layers can undergo lossless refraction at the upper & lower boundaries resulting in transmission across oceanic distances (a phenomenon directly analogous to fiber optics communication).

    These discontinuity-layers within the ocean are barriers to all normal macro-mixing mechanisms. They are part of what ‘sets up’ large thermohaline potentials. They also mean that much of the heat of the Arctic Ocean will be unavailable to help melt the ice, because the water has been compartmentalized into non-mixing zones. The structure of an ocean always acts to reduce the rate and amount of circulation that would cause it to be more homogenized. In the case of melting the icecap, it means 1.) that much of the thermal energy that enters the Arctic will never gain access to the ice, and 2.) that the water near the ice is will generally be colder than the average temperature of the ocean.

    “Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em,
    And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
    And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
    While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.”
    ~~ Augustus De Morgan

    To my eye, the most telling proxy for predicting whether the Arctic icecap is going to recede dramatically is the U.S. military posture & policy in the north polar region – a first-order strategic & security concern. The Navy knows more about conditions under the ice than NASA can even guess at. Military satellites render NASA’s obsolete by 15-20 years. If the Pentagon’s understanding of the Arctic Ocean indicated to them that a major trend toward seasonally open waters was in the offing, I believe that our (and the Russian’s) activities & relationships (i.e., with Canada et al) would be an easily-discernable give-away.

    The Pentagon has a laison embedded in the White House who consults & advises the President every single day. How often does Obama sit down with NASA? In fact, he studiously & assiduously ignores NASA like the plague. It’s the Pentagon who knows, who has access to the Man … and they don’t seem concerned about the icecap. Ergo, I’m not either.

    The Pentagon has, however, published concerns about global cooling.

  126. Flanagan (13:49:10)

    Hey, it was your data set, want to provide with a larger one (or show me where I can go get one) and I’ll give you a more detailed analysis. I’d certainly love to analyze a dataset that included the early 1900s so that we could begin to be looking at a dataset that was large enough to provide a bit of perspective. As it is, we don’t even know what we don’t know.

    Anyway, bottom line is that the data you provided did not back up what you were saying.

  127. Bill Illis:

    Congrats. Going through this thread I was beginning to wonder if nobody was aware that dear Flanagans “warm water” is actually below 0 centigrade.
    As a matter of fact the ice sometimes grows thicker in early summer when fresh water from snowmelt seeps down and re-freezes on contact with the subzero salt water.

  128. Bill Illis (15:11:51) :
    The ocean has some very interesting characteristics around the -2.0C to 1.5 temp range. Water is a very strange chemical. Most chemicals just become more and more dense as they get colder. Not water.

    Seawater does however, the maximum density is at the freezing point, typically -1.9ºC.

  129. juan (15:27:11) :
    Kevin, Merrick, et al,

    “Actually, we don’t say, “degrees Kelvin.” The Kelvin is a unit, not a degree, so it’s 273.15 K.”

    Got no problem understanding that “kelvin” is a unit, not a scale. Not so sure about “Kelvin” (with upper case ‘K’). How do you read it? “273 Kelvin”? “273 kelvins”?
    “273 kelvins Kelvin”? (by analogy with 32 degrees Fahrenheit)

    John the Linguist not the Physicist

    It’s 273 K which is the abbreviation for 273 Kelvin, the proper abbreviation being K to avoid confusion with the lower case k which is the prefix for ‘kilo’. So the statement: “The temperature was 273 Kelvin.” is linguistically correct just like saying “The length of the bar was 1.2 meters.

  130. only_truth (14:40:00) :

    Don’t curse the triple digits, bless them. The thermals generated play a key role in monsoon rains. A good temperature range for Phoenix in regards to producing the monsoon storms seems to be about 100° to 108°F. Here in Tucson the range seems to be a bit lower.

    The rising hot air from the desert floor will create a thermal low (pressure) area. Hence, when the clouds are moving in, its hot, and the humidity is uncomfortable; watch the barometer. If the pressure is falling…. good chance of a storm, falling rapidly… possible strong storm, not falling… most likely a dry run. Naturally watch the dew point as well.

    Some stats for you:

    The wetest Monsoon on record: 9.38 in 1984
    The driest Monsoon on record: 0.35 in 1924
    The earliest Monsoon Start: Jun 16th, 1925
    The lastest Monsoon Start: Jul 25th, 1987
    Greatest number of Monsoon Days: 99 in 1984
    Least number of Monsoon Days: 27 in 1962

    Those are actually some interesting numbers and dates.

    Keep in mind that with a negative – PDO, +AMO , and state of the ENSO we should be expecting a drier than average season.

  131. Flanagan (13:37:58) : Mr Smith: well tried, but you won’t catch me misunderstanding thermodynamics. When ice melts, a lot of heat from oceans is used, which tends to cool sea surface temperatures. This, in turn, will in any case modify the flow of heat between water and air in the favor of liquid water. All in all, the surrounding atmopshere will tend to cool.
    Well Flanagan you’ve taught me something. I notice you prelude your science with “you won’t catch me misunderstanding thermodynamics”. In future when I see other AGW’s using a similar prelude, like “we are committed to transparency” I shall now hear it as a wool-over-eyes-pulling announcement, nicely dividing the appeal-to-authority sheep from the think-for-yourself goats.

  132. Scott, Flanagan and Shawn

    Below is an extract from my recent article -carried here- on arctic ice variation for the last several hundred years. The last three links towards the end show records of arctic ice levels dating to 1760

    Extract;

    “A new book contains the following extract;

    http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_7.html

    Comment by author; Although Polyakov et al. meanwhile published their recent findings (as follows):

    “We document through the analysis of 2002-2005 observational data the recent Atlantic Water (AW) warming along the Siberian continental margin due to several AW warm impulses that penetrated into the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait in 1999-2000. The AW temperature record from our long-term monitoring site in the northern Laptev Sea shows several events of rapid AW temperature increase totalling 0.8oC in February-August 2004. We hypothesize the along-margin spreading of this warmer anomaly has disrupted the downstream thermal equilibrium of the late 1990s to earlier 2000s. (Polyakov, 2008);”

    Comment by author:

    ‘It is astonishing a bit that the early Arctic warming has never seriously been evaluated in conjunction with the warm Atlantic Water branch before or at the time it enters the Polar Sea.’

    IPCC do not mention the variability and movement of the Gulf stream as being a major factor, and the studies referenced above were too late to get into the latest assessment (even though the information has been around for nearly 200 years).

    The full IPCC section on arctic ice in Assessment 4 is under.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter4.pdf

    Page 352 graphic picture 4.10 shows a steady decline of ice from a high point in 1860, the exact time when contemporary observations were being made that the ice was increasing again following a long period of low levels. So if you were to incorporate that sharp dip in levels from 1815 to 1860 into the graph it would put the 60 year oscillations into a better context and the entire series would not be seen as a steady decline at all, but a series of peaks and troughs. The reconstructions given earlier in this article -and repeated under- provides a better understanding of clear evidence of an arctic oscillation.

    The following is a modern day reconstruction of sea ice around Newfoundland from 1810 to 2000 demonstrating the huge variability (which compares with modern times) and perhaps illustrates the 60/70 year arctic oscillation amongst other cycles. (under the heading “195 years of sea ice ice off Newfoundland”)

    http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx

    Even more remarkable in this relatively recent document (drawing on historic sources) are the annual indices of summer sea ice from 1750 to 1870 on page 122 fig2

    http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic38-2-121.pdf

    This is an additional study;

    http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_1/poster_s1_027.pdf

    where researchers have looked at 44 ships log from around 1818 to 1910 and concludes;

    ‘the distribution and thickness of annual sea ice, monthly air surface temperatures, and the onset of melt and freeze were within the present range of variabilty. “ and that;

    “paleoclimate reconstructions based on ice core stratigraphy suggest that exceptionally cool conditions prevailed in the 19th century. Analys of first hand observations such as monthly mean temperatures, the onset of the melt season and the onset of freezing are not consistent with the hypotheses. “

    All the above certainly illustrate the post made by Shawn;

    “Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.”

    Tonyb

  133. Neven (11:55:37) :

    Jack, if you’d investigate that you would soon find that it was actually the Republicans who forced this change in description.

    Ah yes, the old “they made me do it” routine that has surprising play as a “talking point” among warmers. Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me, but I guess warmers don’t do those, do they?

    Anyway, been there done that.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/windy-citys-climate-plan/?apage=2#comments

    Relevant discussion starts at comment 42.

    I left Dano with this bone to chew on, which I guess left him speechless:

    Anyway, I will yield to your impeccable interpretation of the totem (Luntz) in question’s role in leading to the prevalent use of the phrase “climate change”. So now, the next time I hear the term “climate change”, I can be sure that the purveyor of the phrase is a Frank Luntz disciple who is hell-bent on misinforming the public.

    I, for one, will continue to use “global warming”.

    Thanks for clearing all that up!

    I trust we won’t find you ever using that brainwash-induced-term, now will we?

  134. pyromancer76 (07:23:56) : Anthony, when the names of these Un-scientists are outed on your blog, would you be interested (in your spare time) in some kind of an Unscientist Dumb-A$$ Award?… The world should know who, EXACTLY WHO, is altering data, making up analyses, and, in effect, lying to us.

    Phil. (12:16:46) : I hereby nominate Lord Monkton as the inaugural winner.

    Cripes Phil, here I was thinking Monckton’s latest piece “Global Warming is no Global Crisis: major talking points” could be the starting-point of a well-referenced set of FAQ’s for AGW’s – a skeptic version of “how to answer a Climate Septic”. Please give me all the refs you can, showing how badly Monckton references his statements. I need to know.

  135. Phil. might also be interested in the well deserved public spanking that Monckton gives to Gavin Schmidt: click

    [OTOH, Gavin probably secretly enjoys it. Win-win.]

  136. Am I having a complete “brainlock,” here, or shouldn’t 06-23-08 be compared to 06-22-09?

    If I’m “Crazy” be gentle (yesterday, I was trying to claim it was Thursday.)

  137. “a skeptic version of “how to answer a Climate Septic””

    Why would we want a version of a set of rhetorical arguments designed to disguise the true issues, and containing false facts. Last time I checked, they were claiming that the climate never changed in Greenland during the MWP, despite the extensive contemporaneous writings on the subject from across Europe, not to mention ice core data.

    I think their basic advice was to shout louder if you weren’t getting through to a skeptic. Maybe the site has improved, but I ain’t going back to find out.

  138. Kum Dollison (17:26:55) :
    Am I having a complete “brainlock,” here, or shouldn’t 06-23-08 be compared to 06-22-09?

    If I’m “Crazy” be gentle (yesterday, I was trying to claim it was Thursday.)

    No, 06-23-08 was the 175th day of the year whereas 06-22-09 was the 173rd day of the year.

  139. Yeah, so am I. You added a day at the end of 2008. Wouldn’t you subtract one from the beginning of 09?

  140. Lucy Skywalker (16:39:36) :

    Phil. (12:16:46) : I hereby nominate Lord Monkton as the inaugural winner.

    Cripes Phil, here I was thinking Monckton’s latest piece “Global Warming is no Global Crisis: major talking points” could be the starting-point of a well-referenced set of FAQ’s for AGW’s – a skeptic version of “how to answer a Climate Septic”. Please give me all the refs you can, showing how badly Monckton references his statements. I need to know.

    That’s easy, he doesn’t reference them at all!

  141. Nah, I just realized, the best is to go out 365 days from the 23rd of June, 08; and that would be 23 June 09. Just can’t do anything with that 1/4 day.

  142. Change is opportunity in disguise. Let’s forge forward and truly leave the 20th century in our dust! In the meantime let’s not wreck every ecosystem in our wake — especially the few remaining old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.

    http://DrReese.wordpress.com

  143. Bob Kutz (14:32:47) :

    But go on, tell me more about how coconuts migrate then.

    African swallows (laden, of course). They grasp them by the husk when they migrate.

  144. irishspecialistnurseries (12:01:40) :

    JLKrueger (06:16:58) :
    Ignore him and he eventually goes away.

    You have just defined the anti AGW camp with this statement. Unfortunately if you ignore the science the problem will not go away. Try listening and reading reliable papers rather than the usual blogosphere pseudoscience…you might learn something.

    And you have just beautifully demonstrated the typical AGW proponent argumentative style. Namely cherry-picking and taking a statement totally out of context to buttress the rest of your weak argument.

    My statement was in specific response to:

    James F. Evans (02:42:06) :
    “…I’ve no idea if you are an AGW proponent…”

    My comments were specifically about Flanagan, his stated beliefs (made clear here and on other blogs), and the typical result based upon experience of what happens when reasonable people attempt to discuss climate with him.

    BTW — When did Flanagan become a reliable paper, let alone a voice of scientific authority?

    You, like Flanagan often does, are using argument from authority, yet another AGW proponent argumentative technique and logical fallacy.

    I give Flanagan credit for being generally polite and avoiding ad hominems even when others occasionally throw them at him (I’m certain that’s why Anthony allows him to post here). He’s also usually wrong and often demonstrates weak understanding of the studies he’s putting forth to support his position, but that’s ok even if annoying and requiring endless tail chasing.

    You mean I should be reading reliable papers like the recently falsified Steig Antarctica study that was published in the vaunted peer-reviewed “Nature” in January? The study where the vaunted and incestuous referees failed to recognize that the base data was flat wrong, but a blogger caught it within days of publication? (The British Antarctic Survey corrected the data about three weeks after publication.) The same Steig study that has so many statistical problems and methodological errors that an “amateur” was able to falsify it? The same study that the great and all-knowing Gavin Schmidt could no longer reasonably defend over on “Real Climate” that he simply killed the thread? Puleeeze!

    Blogs like this one are far more scientific, polite and welcome well-reasoned and even poorly reasoned counter-argument than your side provides. So-called “reliable scientific” blogs like Gavin Schmidt’s “Real Climate”, Tamino’s “Open Mind”, Joe Romm’s “Climate Progress” are flat anti-intellectual. Blogs like this one provide links to our opponent’s blogs, your side does not. Many of us here have been banned from the aforementioned “reliable scientific” blogs, not for breaches of etiquette, but for disagreeing with the “high priests” and daring to present reasonable counter-arguments. (We mustn’t confuse the masses, you know.)

    Whereas Gavin, Tamino and Romm allow any amount of scurrilous comment, invective and ad hominem directed against a skeptic; Anthony, Steve McIntyre and the higher-profile blogs on our side usually snip, and in extreme cases, ban commenters who do the same towards AGW proponents.

    Finally, you know nothing about me. You have no idea what I’ve read. I suspect, based on your inane comment, that I have more AGW proponent studies by people like Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Santer, Kiehl, Trenberth and others on my hard drive than you’ve ever read.

    Don’t lecture me about what I should be reading when you don’t know me.

    This concludes my rant.

  145. Joe Miner (13:59:48) :

    We are talking about the JAXA graphs here, which is extent not volume. Nobody knows accurately the volume of ice melt in 2007 compared to 2008 so it is rather pointless bringing it up.

    Regards

    Andy

  146. Lucia: err, could you point me where I was wrong exactly? In any case, this experiment is quite easy to do. Just put some ice cube in a glass half-filled with (salty if you like) water and measure the temperature of the air above it while it’s melting. Remember also people where “teaching” me and other how we were wrong to say CO2 couldn’t solidify in the Antarctic. Ice pumps heat from water when it melts, water slightly cools and atmosphere is kept at a very low T.

    Don’t forget that thermal equilibrium would mean here that nCpDt should be equal – and the heat capacity of aire is very low, implying large vairations in T. Of course, this is an open system so differences in pressure will remove the cold air if warmer air s not far.

    REPLY: Flanagan, wrong blog/thread, go to bed and quit bothering us here with insomniac thinking – Anthony

  147. Flanagan’s original hypothesis that the lower Arctic temperatures are due to more melting ice is complete bunk and absolutely unprovable.

    All one has to do is look at the Arctic temperature record. According to Flanagan, during times of rapid ice loss, Arctic temperatures should have cooled. This is NOT apparent in the record at all. Start with 2007.

  148. Alan the Brit

    “revenge is a dish best served cooling!”

    LOL!

    WRT the ‘hot water’ under the ice, that seems a reasonable conclusion, since if it wasn’t hotter, it wouldn’t still be liquid…

  149. Re Phil. (16:07:53) :

    All SI units are written in lower case, unless the word would be capitalised anyway, e.g. at the start of a sentence. Kelvin temperatures should be written as 273 kelvin. If the unit is named after a person, as kelvins are, the abbreviation is captitalised, so we write 273K, 10Hz and 20W, for temperature, frequency and power, but 10m, 30s and 27g for displacement, time and mass.
    HTH.

  150. Thanks andy, sometimes I feel desperate in front of the certainty with which some people tend to affirm completely false stuff. So now, it’s not only me it’s also the whole NSDIC who’s wrong? As I said, the temperature problem is just a question of simple thermodynamics – applied correctly of course.

    Anthony: I’m not insomniac, thanks. Don’t forget we don’t live in the same country :0)

  151. James P

    The water beneath the ice in the Artic can have a temperature between 0°C and -4 °C. The ice above (depending on air temperature, thickness, composition) between 0°C and -4°C

  152. Since Flanagan never answered my question, I will answer it for him.

    I asked if higher artic surface temperatures would be consistent with global warming. The answer of course is “yes.” If surface temperatures in the Arctic rise significantly, the warmists will say “that is exactly what is to be expected.”

    And that’s one of my bigger philosophical problems with the global warming hypothesis. It’s often like astrology or bible codes. It doesn’t rule anything out in advance, it just explains things after the fact.

  153. RE: “Given the HUGE and rather sudden downward trend in wind in the Arctic I suspect that that wind will not materialize.”

    That sudden downward trend in wind is in and of itself highly disturbing.

  154. brazil, you’re talking with yourself and are getting excited about nothing. I never even tried to relate this to global warming… So why should I justify I did so?

  155. The water beneath the ice in the Artic can have a temperature between 0°C and -4 °C. The ice above (depending on air temperature, thickness, composition) between 0°C and -4°C

    The ice can get a lot colder than that, surely? I’m not sure about the supercooled water, either, although I’m open to persuasion.

  156. It’s not so complicated. The Arctic is in a cooling trend and the ice will increase.

    Who can explain the large difference between JAXA and Nansen data?
    Where does Nansen get their raw data from?

  157. “brazil, you’re talking with yourself and are getting excited about nothing. I never even tried to relate this to global warming…”

    That wasn’t the impression I got. The original blog post was pointing out colder temperatures in the arctic, the obvious implication being that it’s evidence against the global warming hypothesis.

    You seemed to be offering an alternate explanation — warmer water and/or increased melting, which would be consistent with global warming.

    But if I misunderstood you, of course I apologize.

  158. Flanagan (23:20:57) :

    In any case, this experiment is quite easy to do. Just put some ice cube in a glass half-filled with (salty if you like) water and measure the temperature of the air above it while it’s melting.

    Remember that you would need to have the thermometer well away from any artificial heat sources like, oh, for example, tarmac roads, airport runways, jet engines, air conditioners…

    My dear old Mum was a grat fan of yours when you worked with Chesney Allen.

    All together now: “Underneath the arches…”

  159. Phil – here are some of the references from Moncton’s paper:

    LORD MONCKTON
    Global warming’ is No Global Crisis – Major Talking Points
    Thursday, June 25th 2009, 4:37 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    The warming effect of greenhouse gases is less than one-tenth the UN’s central estimate.

    Spencer et al. (2008, cloud albedo); Douglass (2008, tropical mid-troposphere temperature change); Lindzen & Choi (2009 in press, outgoing long-wave radiation); and Armstrong, Green & Soon (2009 in press, zero-change benchmarking of climate forecasts) empirically confirm theoretical demonstrations (Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Monckton & Evans, 2009 in draft) that climate sensitivity – the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, not just of CO2 – is less than one-fourth of the UN’s current central estimate. A CO2 doubling would cause just 1.5 F warming, not the 5.9 F imagined by the UN.

    See http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3636

  160. brazil, you really misunderstood me. I was just trying to give an explanation for the presently observed situation.

  161. Quote: Johnny Honda (12:35:23) :

    Look at that:

    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_june.php

    Most models predict very small arctic sea ice extent (3 of 4 a smaller extant than 2008), heuristic models predict more ice than last year.

    I assume that in September we have maybe the proof, that all of these stupid computer models are WORTH NOTHING :End Quote

    Your right Johnny, the models are rubbish.

    That’s what comes of using linear methodologies to try and model a massively chaotic system like our climate. One day I’m sure we’ll have the capability of being able to build a good non-linear climate model, but not in our lifetimes I think.

  162. “”” par5 (04:01:52) :

    Jack Hughes (03:08:45) :

    Silly question here: how do you report wind direction at the North Pole ? Every wind is from the South ?

    I was thinking the same thing…. “””

    Well both of you are thinking wrong; unless you can come up with a really neat explanation for what the hell happens to all of the extra atmosphere that come pouring into the north pole from the south, and never ever leaves.

    Is there a Kirchoff’s law for air currents like there is for electric currents ?

    There has to be some huge surplus of airt at the northpole; so just what is the atmospheric pressure right at the north pole where all that air stops.

    George

  163. “”” James P (10:08:41) :

    The water beneath the ice in the Artic can have a temperature between 0°C and -4 °C. The ice above (depending on air temperature, thickness, composition) between 0°C and -4°C

    The ice can get a lot colder than that, surely? I’m not sure about the supercooled water, either, although I’m open to persuasion. “””

    Well James, there isn’t any supercooled water below the arctic ice, and I wouldn’t bank on finding much 0 deg C water there either (at the north pole).

    Salt water freezes well below zero C, so sub zero water is not supercooled if it is salty enough. If it is about 2.47% salinity, it freezes at its maximum density and at about -2.5 deg C. But sea water is typically 3.5% salinity, so it never has a maximum density before freezing and it freezes below -2.5 C

    The floating ice however is largely fresh water, so it does melt at around zero C, so there is a temperature hysteresis, between freezing, and melting; once frozen the ice is stable till it gets heated back to zeroC.

  164. “”” Dr Reese (19:14:00) :

    Change is opportunity in disguise. Let’s forge forward and truly leave the 20th century in our dust! In the meantime let’s not wreck every ecosystem in our wake — especially the few remaining old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.
    http://DrReese.wordpress.com “””

    Just clicked on your link Dr Reese. I’m not sure I would go on about the carbon credit of old growth forests.

    If I am a forest left to my own ends; it seems to me that one of three things can happen to me.

    The first possibility is that I can continue to gather carbon and other materials and turn them into wood; until I am just one solid block of wood.

    The second option is that I could continue to lose carbon to the atmosphere, in decay, or fire, and simply evaporate and disappear.

    A third option is that I could continue to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and build wood, but that rot and decay, could continue to return that carbon to the atmosphere, so that there was no net gain or loss of carbon.

    Neither of the first two options has ever been observed to happen; and we have many examples of the last case; they are called “Old Growth Forests”.

    Old Growth Forests, Dr Reese, are carbon neutral; unlike tree farming programs, which are net carbon sinks. Fortunately, the USA has so much tree farming; and other agriculture, that the entire USA is a net carbon sink; the only land based carbon sink on the planet (of any size).

    But I am on your side; I too favor the conservation of old growth forests; but don’t try to sell that on the basis of carbon footprint; it just ain’t so.

  165. “”” Flanagan (13:37:58) :

    Mr Smith: well tried, but you won’t catch me misunderstanding thermodynamics. When ice melts, a lot of heat from oceans is used, which tends to cool sea surface temperatures. This, in turn, will in any case modify the flow of heat between water and air in the favor of liquid water. All in all, the surrounding atmopshere will tend to cool. “””

    Nor I, Mr/Mrs/Miss/MS Flanagan.

    You may have noticed Flanagan, that I said in my comment, that MOST of the ice surface is underwater in contact with that water.
    I did NOT say that ALL of the ice surface is under water, or in contact with that water. Ergo, some of the ice surface is above the water, and is infact in contact with the air; and yes; during the period of ice melting, it is common to have the air temperature warmer than the ice; and it not unreasonable for some of the thermal energy required to melt some of the ice to come from the atmosphere, so that the atmosphere like the sea water also cools when the floating sea ice melts.

    I invite your consideration of the following two part experiment; better yet, you could carry out such an experiment. the needed equipment is a thermometer to record the temperature, and a stop watch.
    A good place to carry out such an experiment would be a winter/spring lake in Michigan or Wisconsin for example, and the selection of a lake, with a water temperature near zero, having floating ice on the water (broken),a nd an ambient air temperature of zero deg C. The experiment is best conducted at night so extraneous sorces of energy are absent.
    Having confirmed that the water temperature, is about zero, and that ice is present, and that the still (no wind) air is also zero deg C, perform part one of the experiment.

    Strip off all of your clothes, and start the stop watch. time how long it takes you to freeze to death; or get so cold that you are forced to abandon the experiment. Record that time (in the event you do survive).

    Part two of the experiment is similar to part one; do all of the steps required in part one of the experiment, except before you start the stop watch; why don’t you just go and jump in the lake.
    File a report here, on which stop watch reading is the smaller number.

    I have already done this experiemnt; but not in Wisconsin; so I know the answer; so no cheating.

    George

  166. James P

    “I’m not sure about the supercooled water,

    I don’t think it’s correct to view sea water at -4 °C as “supercooled” as that’s the temerature at which sea water freezes. (Unless I’m wrong of course, and the salt is rejected in the cystalisation process and sea water freezes to fresh water ice.)

  167. The air temperature and Sunlight are not going to melt the ice in near polar regions unless it is much warmer than freezing (say >10 deg C) due to the high surface albedo (reflection) and long wave radiation out dominating low insolation Solar absorption and air to snow heat transfer (with the exception if it gets very dirty, this may critically lower the albedo). The water temperature and flow rate under the ice totally dominate the melting. I assume if the air is especially cold (below 0 deg C), that it also implies the nearby water is also very cold, so the ice would not melt.

  168. TJA (17:29:57) : [quoting me saying] “a skeptic version of “how to answer a Climate Septic””

    Why would we want a version of a set of rhetorical arguments designed to disguise the true issues, and containing false facts. Last time I checked, they were claiming that the climate never changed in Greenland during the MWP, despite the extensive contemporaneous writings on the subject from across Europe, not to mention ice core data.

    I think their basic advice was to shout louder if you weren’t getting through to a skeptic. Maybe the site has improved, but I ain’t going back to find out.

    TJA, I totally agree with you, perhaps I worded my post badly. I was being sarcastic to Phil but aiming to get him to respond, which he did. However, what I would genuinely like to see is web pages that systematically deconstruct at least ONE of the key sets of “answers to skeptics” web pages that warmists keep referring to. There is no systematic deconstruction except Warren Meyer’s Sceptical Layman’s Guide to AGW Chapter 9. But IMHO, Real Climate (info pages especially Responses to Common Contrarian Arguments), Skeptical Science, Coby Beck at Gristmill, New Scientist, Royal Society, and the Met Office all have “answers to skeptics” pages that deserve clear, simple, sourced, clinching answers from the skeptics’ community; IMHO this would seriously help us get taken seriously; IMHO this would help turn the tide and help throw out the abominable pending legislation.

  169. Jim (12:01:16) :
    Phil – here are some of the references from Moncton’s paper:

    LORD MONCKTON
    Global warming’ is No Global Crisis – Major Talking Points
    Thursday, June 25th 2009, 4:37 PM EDT
    Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
    The warming effect of greenhouse gases is less than one-tenth the UN’s central estimate.

    Spencer et al. (2008, cloud albedo); Douglass (2008, tropical mid-troposphere temperature change); Lindzen & Choi (2009 in press, outgoing long-wave radiation); and Armstrong, Green & Soon (2009 in press, zero-change benchmarking of climate forecasts) empirically confirm theoretical demonstrations (Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Monckton & Evans, 2009 in draft) that climate sensitivity – the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, not just of CO2 – is less than one-fourth of the UN’s current central estimate. A CO2 doubling would cause just 1.5 F warming, not the 5.9 F imagined by the UN.

    None of those are references, nowhere is there a bibliography telling us where they’re published or where we can read them. In any case of the 7, 3 are said to be in press or not yet drafted and of the remainder one is a reference to his own ‘work’. It’s just a list of unsubstantiated assertions.

  170. The point bears repeating–
    These low temperatures are UNPRECEDENTED –
    in the past 50 yearas of recording –possibly longer–

    and are supported fully by CURRENT
    functioning US Army buoys
    which likewise correlate and remain at or below 0 degrees C
    (unless someonr clues the US Army to
    start fudging)

    and some 2008 buoys have sunk–

    archived

    all graphs from –

    http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoysum.htm

    (which also shows increased ice thickness
    at 4 out 5 buoys)

    compare with-

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  171. Sorry, this report is complete rubbish (I bet). I’m not an expert, but there was something immediately fishy with the smoothness of temperature data for the early years of this 50 year period.

    The reason (I think) is that the data is derived from weather models!

    Prior to 2002, the data relies on the ERA40 reanalysis (putting all known data into a weather model and assuming the areas you don’t have data from are “average”). Hence some of the early years (eg. 1970) are so close to the mean over summer to be unrealistic.

    Obviously, the satellite era brings in better observations of high latitudes, and so weather variability is more accurately reflected in the later years.

    It is pretty poor that a weather expert can represent these results as “data” without explaining how they were derived.

  172. noiv, that is way cool. All this handwringing over the Arctic melting as if some giant thing is standing over it with a blow torch. The alarmists are beginning to sound like a bad B movie complete with giant CO2 molecules taking the place of the giant ants. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that weather and water melts ice. We have no wind and very cold water and air temperatures in the Arctic circle. That ice ain’t goin nowheres.

  173. Long time lurker here on this excellent educational site.

    I notice today 2nd July that it still seems to be not above zero and appears to be at least a one in 50 year event.

    The slow start to solarcycle24 also appears to be a 1 in 50 year event.

    Could they be connected?

  174. This is quite impressive:

    Flanagan (01:58:17) :

    Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…

    Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top…

    Flanagan (05:34:06) :

    Thanks andy, sometimes I feel desperate in front of the certainty with which some people tend to affirm completely false stuff.

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen the likes of that.

  175. Do we have a Watts effect (or more precisely a Joe D’Aleo) effect? Since this was posted, Arctic temperatures have shot up close to their average. You need to quiet about announcing things like this lest the curse of Al Gore be upon you!

  176. I am not a high caliber scientist.
    My question concerns the the ocean’s salinity. In regards to municipalities storing large amounts of water(maybe we could even include those who have stored bottled water for emergencies) , could this have changed the salinity of the oceans and the thermal belt in the atlantic? I do know if i add salt to water it changes the temperature that it freezes and boils at( I add salt to ice to help freeze ice cream and salt to pasta water to cook it quicker).
    First law of thermal dinamics: If i place an ice cube in a glass of water in a room, at room temp the ice cube will melt and the water will eventually become the temperature of the room. increase the temp of the water or temp of the room the ice melts faster. But, if i put an ice cube in a glass of saline solution at room temp what is the rate of melt? What does increasing or decreasing the salinity of the water do to the rate of melt.
    Matter can neither be created or destroyed: If storing h2o affects the total available h20 on planet earth; the salt content in the oceans does not change however water levels do. Could this cause the oceans salinity to change or polar precipitation to change. I think if we have to factor el nino’s and volcano’s into the equation we have to factor everything before we pass things like cap and trade to control co2 emmisions….. maybe free the h20. :)
    Global climate change is the new buzz word. It incompasses all thing climate and weather …..if you are hot today or cold tomorrow maybe there is a flood in your state or drought; it’s a great catch all phrase. No one has yet prove to me that I am the cause, cigarettes cause co2 emmisions not to mention cancer and heart disease but they are still legal . Heck people cause co2 emmisions by breathing. Plant more trees.
    It seems the non believers have become quite cynical (myself included) about theories with no data to back them up. They “cherry pick” years to prove the CC religion. Some don’t include data after 2003. It’s 2009. Our legislators are about to pass a bill that will tax you on your co2 emisions based on incomplete and sometimes misrepresented data. Does anyone know how much co2 is produced making a Burger king flame broiled burger?
    Does anyone remember methane emmisions(cow farts) causing this ?

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cow_emissions_more_harmful_to_the_environment_than_car_emissions/

    however i recall some article in the news about this causing holes in the ozone, but that was before Al Gore invented the internet.
    If MY thoughts on this are way off base please politely inform me that i don’t know my butt from a whole in the ground. I will accept that and move on. I am sure this is all high school physics to you gusy but I have questions. Could someone answer them?

Comments are closed.