I don’t know what else to say…
I see this same lack of understanding on weather and climate from AGW skeptics and no one ever corrects them. It drives me insane when AGW supports try to do it because it makes everyone look uneducated.

I wonder what you think of your previous postings now that we know that the temperature reconstructions were based on ‘adjusted’ data.

Thanks. I screwed up by typing too fast. Note that the adjustment is about the same amount as the increase in the reported global increase, which you can find in Figure 1 on the release in which Hansen, Ruedy, Sato, and Glascoe admitted there was no American warming since the 1940s. The divergence between the US and global data is striking but cannot be examined because CRU claims to have lost the unadjusted data set. So while we have a slight decrease in the US data, there is a 0.3C increase since the 1930s in the global data.

Apparently the cycles are modulated by a different and new evolution dat is gaining dominance.

Yes, I am aware of the publication date of the Polyakov article. And I am aware that he has published other articles later and that his conclusions still stand because we have documented evidence of lower ice cover in the Arctic and of rapid melting during previous periods.

From a December 2004 article we read in the abstract, Recent observations show dramatic changes of the Arctic atmosphere–ice–ocean system, including a rapid warming in the intermediate Atlantic water of the Arctic Ocean. Here it is demonstrated through the analysis of a vast collection of previously unsynthesized observational data, that over the twentieth century Atlantic water variability was dominated by low-frequency oscillations (LFO) on time scales of 50–80 yr. Associated with this variability, the Atlantic water temperature record shows two warm periods in the 1930s–40s and in recent decades and two cold periods earlier in the century and in the 1960s–70s. Over recent decades, the data show a warming and salinification of the Atlantic layer accompanied by its shoaling and, probably, thinning. The estimate of the Atlantic water temperature variability shows a general warming trend; however, over the 100-yr record there are periods (including the recent decades) with short-term trends strongly amplified by multidecadal variations. Observational data provide evidence that Atlantic water temperature, Arctic surface air temperature, and ice extent and fast ice thickness in the Siberian marginal seas display coherent LFO. The hydrographic data used support a negative feedback mechanism through which changes of density act to moderate the inflow of Atlantic water to the Arctic Ocean, consistent with the decrease of positive Atlantic water temperature anomalies in the late 1990s. The sustained Atlantic water temperature and salinity anomalies in the Arctic Ocean are associated with hydrographic anomalies of the same sign in the Greenland–Norwegian Seas and of the opposite sign in the Labrador Sea. Finally, it is found that the Arctic air–sea–ice system and the North Atlantic sea surface temperature display coherent low-frequency fluctuations. Elucidating the mechanisms behind this relationship will be critical to an understanding of the complex nature of low-frequency variability found in the Arctic and in lower-latitude regions.

What you are missing is the evidence of the low-frequency fluctuations, which are natural factors and not attributable to man’s emissions of CO2. Also, Polyakov makes it clear that the factors effecting ice cover are numerous and complex, which indicates that trying to argue that man’s emissions of CO2 is a primary factor won’t work very well on the scientific level and can only be an unsubstantiated narrative.

And I hope that you do not believe that Polyakov is the only person finding this natural variability. In the abstract of their 2005 GGR paper, Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas, Dmitry Divine and Chad Dick write, “Historical ice observations in the Nordic Seas from April through August are used to construct time series of ice edge position anomalies spanning the period 1750–2002. While analysis showed that interannual variability remained almost constant throughout this period, evidence was found of oscillations in ice cover with periods of about 60 to 80 years and 20 to 30 years, superimposed on a continuous negative trend. The lower frequency oscillations are more prominent in the Greenland Sea, while higher frequency oscillations are dominant in the Barents. The analysis suggests that the recent well-documented retreat of ice cover can partly be attributed to a manifestation of the positive phase of the 60–80 year variability, associated with the warming of the subpolar North Atlantic and the Arctic. The continuous retreat of ice edge position observed since the second half of the 19th century may be a recovery after significant cooling in the study area that occurred as early as the second half of the 18th century.

Once again we have researchers noting the existence of natural variability of long duration, which means that looking at any short period of time is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, we could look at the short period that you are probably talking about but even there we see no dangerous trend. While there was a low in 2007, the data only runs a very short period of time and has ice cover is now recovering strongly. And as Anthony points out, if you look at the reporting by NANSEN, NSIDC, Cryrosphere Today, and DMI you see the use of SSMI data, which has reliability problems due to sensor drift, malfunctions, and outright failure. If you look at data from the newer AMSRE sensor, which does not have those problems, you see that 2009 ice cover is in the middle of the range not far from the eight year average. How you can interpret that data as some crisis is beyond me.

Then there is the SH data, which clearly shows that this year’s ice melt was the lowest in thirty years and, once again, ice cover not far off the mean. While you might feel comfortable jumping up and down because of short term trends that are indistinguishable from noise some of us are actually interested in seeing what the signal is telling us. And as Polyakov, Divine and Dick point out, there is nothing much to see other than the natural variation due to low frequency oscillations. With the ice cover increasing and NH temperatures falling I believe that your side is about to drop this argument very soon.

Four years? That is entirely meaningless. We need accurate and complete data over several cycles to find anything meaningful. The simple fact is that we have seen low ice cover before and will see it again because the natural oscillations are the drivers of thickness. Until those natural oscillations are no longer in place the planet will work pretty much as it has.

Here you go:

Expected thickness (from satellite data) — two meters.

Measured thickness (Polar 5) — four meters

Of course, this is all BS because you do not have sufficient satellite data points over several cycles to come up with anything definitive about the long term trend. And if you look at the entire data set and go back far enough you find no evidence of statistically significant changes. Below is the abstract from Polyakov, 2003: Long-term ice variability in arctic marginal seas. J. Climate, 16, 2078–2085.

Examination of records of fast ice thickness (1936–2000) and ice extent (1900–2000) in the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas provide evidence that long-term ice thickness and extent trends are small and generally not statistically significant, while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude low-frequency variability. The ice variability in these seas is dominated by a multidecadal, low-frequency oscillation (LFO) and (to a lesser degree) by higher-frequency decadal fluctuations. The LFO signal decays eastward from the Kara Sea where it is strongest. In the Chukchi Sea ice variability is dominated by decadal fluctuations, and there is no evidence of the LFO. This spatial pattern is consistent with the air temperature–North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index correlation pattern, with maximum correlation in the near- Atlantic region, which decays toward the North Pacific. Sensitivity analysis shows that dynamical forcing (wind or surface currents) dominates ice-extent variations in the Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas. Variability of Kara Sea ice extent is governed primarily by thermodynamic factors.

Please note the evidence that natural oscillations dominate the ice extent and thickness observations.

Exactly. I was going to get to the accuracy part and the “relentless decline” part once we had established a volume number. bill (10:02:53), I suppose it’s too early for Kwok et al., to have published a calculation for the 2009 minimum volume ??

Of course, yes Antarctica too. How come the Catlin crew haven’t gone swimming down there yet ??

It does? Where exactly is it? And how does it measure up when compared to an alternate number using another method? What exactly are the size of the error bars?

These are important questions to answer at a time when the data is affected by splicing and sensor failures. And they are certainly important given the revelation that the Polar 5 measurements showed that the expected ice thickness provided by the satellites was off by 100%.

You might want to reconsider this last statement. For one, duration matters a great deal. A reduction of thickness in one short period of time in one part of the sheet is meaningless just as an increase in thickness is meaningless because an ice sheet may be far more complex than the people studying it realize and because there are natural variations that tell us very little about the trend.

For example, we know that parts of the Greenland ice sheet increased by 50 feet over 50 years. We know this because the Greenland Society of Atlanta found two B-17 Flying Fortresses and several P-38 fighters 250 feet below the surface on which they landed during WWII. Does this mean that there was a massive build-up of ice across the entire region? Perhaps, but we do not have enough data to make a claim one way or another. But the event should clearly make us question the alarmist claims made by the warmers, particularly when the measurements they come up with come from questionable methods that are not supported by other means.

As far as I am concerned, the ice volume data is even less reliable than the global temperature data. It is made up of splices from different sensors and compilation algorithms and has yet to be shown to be accurate enough to tell us anything about the long term trends. Of course, even if it were accurate we would still need to go through several cycles to ensure that the long term trend is visible.

“and the whole dendro community has been totally discredited.”
Dendrochronology for dating is unquestioned, it’s just the idea that trees are a temperature proxy which is silly.

I stopped reading there.
OK. Seriously… using 10 years of data (is it even a full 10?) to criticize theory on climate… Am I eating crazy pills?

Where did you get 10 years of data out of the statement? I am talking about all of the American data set. If you look at the instrumental record you find that, “the U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.” If the warmest decade in the US was the 1930s and 1934 was the warmest year, then where do you get off arguing that the data is showing dangerous warming? (I guess that your conclusion comes from the crazy pills you seem to be eating.)

I have been trying to find a generally accepted time scale of climate that distinguishes it from weather.
This is basic, but close: Read “How does climate differ from weather? ”
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_2_1.htm

I don’t know what else to say…
I see this same lack of understanding on weather and climate from AGW skeptics and no one ever corrects them. It drives me insane when AGW supports try to do it because it makes everyone look uneducated.

How convenient that we use a 30 year period when that is the length of a PDO cycle and you are at the end of a warm phase. And how convenient to make ‘adjustments’ to the raw data that add about 0.6C to current temperatures when compared to the last warm cycle. Of course, when we look at the actual data we don’t see any warming.

That is the problem with your side of the argument. The only way to get warming is to ‘adjust’ the data by adding a signal that is about the same size as the claimed warming. But fudging data is hardly the way of science and claiming that original data and the methods used to change it are unavailable does little for your side’s credibility. The latest Yamal chronology fiasco is the latest of a series of blunders that have cost your side credibility. Briffa’s use of such a limited set in violation of his own stated principles and the use of a single tree that provides most of the warming signal is a disgrace to both the authors of the articles that used the chronology, the reviewers that missed the problems in the articles, and the journals that published them. The previous fiasco was the dropping of the Polar Urals chronology when the updated set showed that there was no warming signal in the data. That was preceded by the revelation that researchers were unable to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mountain results. Add to that the use of the upside down Tiljander proxies and the use of inappropriate bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies that ignored the effects of changes in precipitation and CO2 fertilization and the whole dendro community has been totally discredited.

So where exactly does that leave you? For one, you do not have complete, reliable and accurate surface records that can be independently reviewed and verified as required for the results to be scientifically acceptable. For another, we have an independent audit by Anthony that shows that around 90% of the US surface stations are biased by 2C or more, a fact that was missed by NASA/GISS. That is a serious problem because the claimed global warming is only 0.6C and that is equivalent to the adjustment made to the raw data. That leaves you with warming that comes from data that is biased to the high side AND gets an adjustment that makes it warmer by the amount claimed by the AGW proponents.

How are any of the adjustments scientific? How can we trust people that were incapable of spotting that the warming bias from the stations was around three times higher than the claimed warming? And where is the credibility in hiding the surface data when every time other data sets were allowed to be examined the reviewers find no warming signatures and improper methodologies?

[REPLY - Note the NOAA adjustment graph is in °F, not °C. Even so, the adjustment almost doubles the warming trend. ~ Evan]

I think that he is referring to many of the anti-SM people who take shots by using others and do not respond directly to the issues that are being debated. Mann is a clasic example of someone who has been running from debate. The same is true of Phil Jones, Briffa, and others that refuse to show the data they use in their papers even though the journals have strict rules about transparency.

I also think that it is very revealing to see so many former NASA employees step up in the debate after they retire. They seem to have been unwilling to risk their positions and funding by speaking out against the warmers while they were employed and could only say what they believed after they were no longer employed by the agency and were assured of receiving the pensions they were entitled to. If you have paid attention you should have noticed that the warmers have been very careful to avoid actual debates because they could not really defend their claims with anything other than predictions coming from unverified models.

This argument could be about the number of coins in danappaloupe’s pocket yesterday versus today.

I agree with your statement but point out that accuracy and relevance also matter. In the case of the AGW proponents, they are unable to show that their global average has either accuracy or meaning. And when I look to their ice data I see very similar problems. For one, they seem to forget that the planet has two polar regions. For another, they quote thickness data even though it doesn’t seem to be very accurate and cannot be independently verified by other means.

Yes, That state-of-the-art, peer reviewed study, from the Catlin Arctic Ice expedition.

“U.S. Navy submarines provide a long-term, high-resolution record of ice thickness over only parts of the Arctic. The submarine data agree with the ICESat measurements, giving us great confidence in satellites as a way of monitoring thickness across the whole Arctic Basin,” said Zwally.