NSIDC Confirms WUWT Ice Forecast

You might be interested in my study of Arctic sea ice extent. I put most of it together some time back when it made a guest post on Air Vent. I finally managed to revisit it adding some of the things that should have been there first time around. The data sources have not been updated since I wrote it originally.
It now contains calculations of difference between the satellites. Whilst the difference trend is a little on the high side, probably due to the apparent more rapid decline in the overlapping time frame, it does suggest that all the apparent Arctic sea ice extent decline might be accounted for by measurement drift.
http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/How_Fast_is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Declining_v2.pdf

It was that record short melting season as we saw in the DMI last summer.
Might be that the feeble warming up there was just enough to consolidate the ice (fill in the air gaps/bubbles), so it’s not quite as ‘rotten’.
So the concern is not with the Arctic Ice, which is doing quite well, but with the cold air that is blowing, and continues to blow, down upon the temperate areas of the N. Hemsiphere.

I would question the word “normal”
As the article from 1969 shows (and similar alarmism in the late thirties) thin ice is not unusual. The peak ice extent probably occurred in the 70s and early 80s when we had all the scares about a coming ice age. So it is extremely unlikely that the reference period of 1976 to 2000 is representative of the long term norm. I would suggest that the period of 1976 to 2006 would make a much better norm given that the PDO/AMO seems to work on this sort of timescale. Using a half cycle period would be perfect. How would today’s extent compare with that norm?

CRS, Dr.P.H. (09:55:21) :
The sunspot cycle ramp seems to have developed a slipping clutch when it comes to the size and contrast of the spots.
I’ll bet Leif has his eye on that, and Bill Livingston is continuing to see the progress of it in his measurements.

In addition, I think we can expect a later maximum this year, due to the extensive snow cover throughout the northern hemisphere, keeping heat reflection high in the surrounding areas. So there might still be room for further growth.
By the way: Al Gore is in town (Oslo) today, selling his new book. The main point of his speech was that it is still not too late to act, and that fortunately – politicians are a renewable resource, meaning of course that politicians who don’t ACT are replaceable. A cleverly concealed threat to the Norwegian political establishment. But the threat was wasted. They all love Gore anyway. They were the ones who gave him a Nobel.
Coincidentally there was a climate debate (!) at our parliament at the same time, where a left-wing radical complained that he actually had to be at parliament debating such settled issues while he instead could be listening to Al Gore!
At the same time, our foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre (who co-presented the infamous report “Melting snow and ice” at Copenhagen) said that there now is a organized, coordinated attack on science, orchestrated by “strong and well funded interests”.
Hm. Sounds almost like CRU!
Støre also managed to state: “The way Al Gore operates, which is very thorough and well-documented, is an important contribution to open eyes to the fact that we have to do something about it and take it seriously”.
Well documented?
I am looking forward to the last chapters of this saga. It could be both bloody and Gory.

The UK met office/BBC/ HMG gov & oppostion parties/chief scientific adviser should have a look at the above graphs. The anthropogenic global warming as promised by governments around the world has turned out to be as false and contrived as the Y2K scare but on a vastly bigger scale.
It seems that mother nature has not read the AAM script and is going on her own multi billion year journey regardless of the antics of our woeful political leaders.
The question of tipping point armageddon and carbon dioxide invoked doom has been answered and now all that remains is where is all the money, who has the vast amounts of money so far squandered on a fools errand?
Those that have peddled the ultimate Brooklyn Bridge scam should be shown the evidence so they can no longer deny the reality.

04Mar2010 18:20 AFP reporting 50 ships stuck in serious ice in the Baltic Sea
Ho hum

Ahhh, the fine art of the cherry-pick.
From the same site you link above (“Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis“):
Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.
In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume.
So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.
Returning to a question I’ve posted here a few times before: on what scientific basis are individual reports that confirm your preconceptions touted while numerous studies that contradict it are discarded.

Talking about ICE; THOUSANDS of passengers, 50 VESSELS is
fozen in, in the Baltic Sea!!
And this happens while Al Gore is in Noway spreading the AGW Carbon Cult Gospel !! LOL !!
http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D597977

At http://climaterealists.com/http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/How_Fast_is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Declining_v2.pdf
there are several charts showing how “Satellite” observations show a very significant decline from previous “Climatic & Observational” & “Hemispheric Observations. These charts show the above C&O and HO observations cease at the moment Satellite observations are available. Is more recent C&O and HO information available for comparison? Or, is it, “It doesn’t match our model again”.

Jeezze that’s three beers I owe the mods – sorry! One of these days I’ll figure out how to bookend my bold formatting, I swear it!

OT but released just yesterday regarding cyclone predictions (fiction) by the IPCC:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/03/03/climategate-more-science-fiction-from-the-ipcc/comment-page-1/

The Arctic ice “death spiral” propaganda is experiencing its own robust and rigorous death spiral.

From the 1969 NYT article linked by Anthony: “About one quarter of the Arctic pack melts each summer, although the percentage varies widely.”
Varies widely, eh? Looks like we still have something to learn from our pre-iPod ancestors.

Mike D., you are so incredibly wrong. One look at this long term trend map:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
Shows there is no end of the “death spiral” for arctic sea ice. Steve’s selective hype, as usual, doesn’t look at the long term facts.

I’ve been looking for an Anthony Watts prediction to add to the list http://expertclimatepredictions.com/home.htm … guess this is a good one to start with

2010 Arctic sea ice is looking like a repeat of 2009, although the currently colder NH may delay the onset of melting. Interesting times!

I wonder if other years previous to 2008 didn’t have solid purple color covering the Arctic. Perhaps it is a valid statement to say the ice is thicker…or may be the instruments measuring the ice weren’t calibrated correctly for all the years with spotty < 100% thickness.

Somehow, oil must be responsible for this horrific, uncontrolled expansion of ice. Because oil is found deep in the earth, which we all know is “millions of degrees”, evil oil companies must be cooling the oil by stealing water from the oceans. This is causing the inner earth to cool, and now we will all freeze to death. Please send 10B, and I will study this further.

Paul Daniel Ash: Who are you to tell us that the 1979-2000 mean is “normal”?
Talk about cherry picking.
That is 21 years and the planet is 5.5 billion years old.
(21/5500000000) * 100 = 0.000000038%
So you are telling me that the average sea ice extent over a 0.000000038% of the earths history is “normal”?
Your entire post is one big balloon of hypocracy.

If we are concerned about Arctic sea ice because of its role in reflecting solar radiation, note that the equinoxes (March and September) are of little consequence becaue the solar angle then is very low. It is at the solstice (June 21), when the solar angle is at its maximum, the atmospheric path is minimal, and the albedo difference between water and ice is maximal, that the ice albedo is most effective in reducing the absorption of radiation by the ocean surface. Both graphs, especially the one indicating ice area, show little change between the average and the last full year (2009) for the crucial midsummer insolation window.

Paul Daniel Ash
I don’t wish to hijack this interesting piece by Anthony and Steve, but we must look at a much broader sweep of history than from the inception of satellite readings in 1979 to understand what is going on here;
The start of Satellite measuring in 1979 coincided with peak ice, which is why they always speak of subsequent decline; History suggests you should look at a much longer time scale than thirty years.
Link 1
http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml
Ice extent maximum- Depends if you are talking winter or summer but ‘decline’ starts around 1979 from a high point.
Link 2 This also shows the same;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
Link 3
The IPCC report confirms this p351/2 figures 4.8 4.9 4.10
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter4.pdf
Link 4
The concerns over global cooling in the 70’s did have some basis in fact. There were a series of low temperatures in many arctic areas during the 70’s which ice would have corresponded to by growing.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
As the IPCC show, the start of the satellite period therefore roughly coincided with a period of peak ice-so it is not at all surprising that as part of its natural cycle it should subsequently decline.
Link 5
The IPCC are not very good at their historic reconstructions and generally view actual observations as ‘anecdotal.’ They seem to believe that history did not start before 1979. This article examines the arctic melting in the period 1810-1860 -see notes at bottom of article with additional references.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#comments
Link 6
These are two good studies showing the arctic melting from the 1920’s to 1940’s posted from elsewhere, which show (a) a warm period during the 1930s and 1940s with temperatures as high as those of today and (b) reduced sea ice extent during this period, which only later returned to the high levels measured at the start of the latest retreating cycle in 1979 (when satellite measurements started), i.e. your point.
ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/pub/users/mtimmermans/ArcticSymposiumTalks/Smolyanitsky.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
Link 7 The melting in the period 1920-1940 is very well documented. I have posted various articles on it here including newspaper stories.
Expeditions to the arctic to view the melting ice became the equivalent of todays celebrity jaunts to the area. The most famous were those mounted by Bob Bartlett on the Morrissey. I have carried extracts from his diary before-remember the observation of the mile wide face of a glacier falling in to the sea?
There are Pathe news reels of his voyages which your parents may have watched in their youth, as well as books on the subject. Here is a bibliography of material relating to him.
http://www.nlpubliclibraries.ca/nlcollection/pdf/guides/NL_Collection_Guide_11.pdf
Link 8
Bernaerts, A. (2007). Can the “Big Warming” at Spitsbergen from 1918 to 1940 be explained? PACON 2007 Proceedings 325-337.
http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/Submitted_conference_paper.pdf
Link 9
This shows a variety of arctic warming events over the last 150 years
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post
Link 10
We have got this far citing instances of warming and not even mentioned the Vikings 1000 years ago…instead let’s finish with another Arctic culture that thrived 1000 years before the Vikings;
From the Eskimo Times Monday, Mar. 17, 1941
“The corner of Alaska nearest Siberia was probably man’s first threshold to the Western Hemisphere. So for years archeologists have dug there for a clue to America’s prehistoric past. Until last year, all the finds were obviously Eskimo. Then Anthropologists Froelich G. Rainey of the University of Alaska and two collaborators struck the remains of a town, of inciedible size and mysterious culture. Last week in Natural History Professor Rainey, still somewhat amazed, described this lost Arctic city.
It lies at Ipiutak on Point Hope, a bleak sandspit in the Arctic Ocean, where no trees and little grass survive endless gales at 30° below zero. But where houses lay more than 2,000 years ago, underlying refuse makes grass and moss grow greener. The scientists could easily discern traces of long avenues and hundreds of dwelling sites. A mile long, a quarter-mile wide, this ruined city was perhaps as big as any in Alaska today (biggest: Juneau, pop. 5,700).
On the Arctic coast today an Eskimo village of even 250 folk can catch scarcely enough seals, whales, caribou to live on. What these ancient Alaskans ate is all the more puzzling because they seem to have lacked such Arctic weapons as the Eskimo harpoon.
Yet they had enough leisure to make many purely artistic objects, some of no recognizable use. Their carvings are vaguely akin to Eskimo work but so sophisticated and elaborate as to indicate a relation with some centre of advanced culture — perhaps Japan or southern Siberia —certainly older than the Aztec or Mayan.
This link leads to the Academy of science report of the same year regarding the Ipiutak culture described above
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1078291
Certain of us seem reluctant to learn the lessons of history-in this case that there are periods of melting and refreeze that appear to follow a roughly 60/70 year cycle. We may or may not be at the low point in the cycle-that will become clearer over the next five years.
Whatever the alarmists may believe, at present our modern era is not displaying any climate characteristics that have not been experienced in past ages of humanity.
tonyb

OT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05methane.html?hp
Study Says Undersea Release of Methane Is Under Way
Climate scientists have long warned that global warming could unlock vast stores of the greenhouse gas methane that are frozen into the Arctic permafrost, setting off potentially significantly increases in global warming.
Now researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and elsewhere say this change is under way in a little-studied area under the sea, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf east of the Bering Strait.
Natalia Shakhova, a scientist at the university and a leader of the study, said it was too soon to say whether the findings suggest that a dangerous release of methane looms. In a telephone news conference, she said researchers are only beginning to track the movement of this methane into the atmosphere as the undersea permafrost that traps it degrades.
But climate experts familiar with the new research, reported in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, said that even though it does not suggest imminent climate catastrophe, it is important because of methane’s role as a greenhouse gas. Although carbon dioxide is a far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere, ton for ton atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat.

CET green line tells a story! http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif

Catlin have disabled the ‘Contact Us’ links. I wonder why?

The question is, who is going to tell Prince Charles? On the one hand he is counting down the last of the five years to an ice free arctic, whilst on the other (together with the toes on his left foot) he is counting down the months in which to save the planet. The other foot is required for the countdown to succession, and one is running out of digits.
What’s a chap to do?

Paul Daniel Ash – real scientists would not extrapolate a trend from three decades of measurement – they would look to the possibility of cycles – long term, such as when the Vikings settled in Greenland 1000 years ago, and during the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, and the rate of recovery from then, plus the shorter term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (30 years) and North Atlantic Oscillation/Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as well as the 70 year Arctic Oscillation – when you combine all of these and look at their phases of teleconnection – THEN you are a real Arctic scientist – like Professor Polyakov at Fairbanks University – who warns about sampling error when you do not take account of low frequency cycles – pointing then to the many station records in 1940. The cycles affect ocean warm water incursion from the Atlantic – melting the ice from below, and clouds from the Pacific, melting it from above – winds do the rest. Summer air temperatures beyond 80N have not varied by much. There is no direct evidence of CO2 driving the ice-loss.

“if the trend continues”
Coming from the same people that have not been able to predict a “trend” yet.
What are they measuring up there anyway?
At one time we were told all the ice would be gone by now.

I like the way that you point to the commentary from an obviously biased site which is promoting Man Made Global Warming, they actually say so on the right hand side.
This “obviously biased site” is the source for Anthony’s post. Again, why do you only accept research that bolsters your preconceptions and discard everything else?
The CAGW predictions were Continued Reduction leading to No Ice at the Pole in a few Years.
It is proved WRONG.
First: what predictions? Name them.
Second: What is “a few?” Ten years? twenty? fifty? a hundred?
Third: what is your standard of “proof?” If you believe two years of recovery after thirty years of decline means that sea ice will return to its historical averages, what support do you have for that belief?
Again, again, and again: can someone explain to me how this is not just cherry-picking research that you think supports your conclusions?

kwik (10:35:10) :
And this happens while Al Gore is in Noway spreading the AGW Carbon Cult Gospel !! LOL !!
——-
Was/Is Gore really in Norway yesterday/today?
———–
Gore is in Norway today.
So am I.

I find it truly alarming and astounding how few of the average population understands the scientific method or what science even actually is. To even see anyone claim that 30 years constitutes any sort of discernable “trend” beyond the normal “noise of the earth” is simply laughable. The only trend that matters is for 100,000 years or so, the earth is so cold that many of us would not be able to inhabit the areas which we currently inhabit, and then for about 10,000-15,000 years it gets nice enough that plants and animals can survive and thrive in most places on the earth.
I, for one, am thankful that we are in one of the 10,000-15,000 year periods as opposed to being in one of the 100,000 year remarkably inhospitable to life periods.
Perhaps those of us with any real understanding of science should simply start making the fantastic claim that the global warming “true believers” (that would be the opposite of “denier”, yes?) actually seem to want the earth to pass whatever tipping point is required to send us into a new ice-age.
All one really has to do is look at how humans of the past have characterized certain periods. For example:
“Medieval Climate Optimum” it was HOT. Most people think that it was probably hotter than 1998-2006 for a significant period of time!!!! (and yet the world didn’t end). In fact, not only did the world NOT end, the period was called an OPTIMUM (please look up the word optimum if you are not familliar with it).
“Maunder Minimum” It was COLD. Darned unpleasant. The other big problem with cold and darned unpleasant is this naturally led to food shortages and rampant disease. Definitely a MINIMUM.
Warmth leads to abundant food, healthy plants, healthy animals, and expanded area that is habitable. Cold leads to food shortages, increased disease, and less area which is habitable without significant engineering. Hence why the warm times are called “optima” and the cold times are called “minima”.
/rant off

“Paul Daniel Ash (12:41:05) :
[…]
Again, again, and again: can someone explain to me how this is not just cherry-picking research that you think supports your conclusions?”
Ah the AGW people, always weaseling out of their failed projections (they don’t make predictions. Predictions can be validated.). It’s always “we didn’t say that.” Can’t you for once stand by your word? No i don’t mean you personally, it’s a plural “you”, but i know the answer: Research is ongoing, that’s the nature of science… The ever changing, never falsifiable hypothesis, the million headed hydra of mock science…
Which reminds me of Reptilicus.

Spoiler: It attacks Copenhagen.

The Catlin link is interesting. They correctly point out that cold water absorbs more CO2 and can become more acidic, but don’t mention that warmer water due to global warming should cause less CO2 to be absorbed.

Frank,
Good questions. There is very little correlation between winter sea ice extent and summer extent. In the JAXA graph, 2006 was the lowest in winter and one of the highest in summer.
Also, winter ice levels off Eastern Canada or in The Sea of Okhotsk have little or no bearing on the summer minimum.

PeterB in Indainapolis (12:23:53) :
Your arguments are so ho-hum that they defy reply
They’re not my arguments, but thank you for rousing yourself to reply (is it late in this strange land of “Indainapolis?”)
As I’ve noted before, the source of those statements was the same source Anthony used to write this post. Are they only wrong when they disagree with your preconceptions? if so, why?
Typical warming or cooling cycles last around 30 years.
An interesting assertion. Your source?
The art of the cherry-pick is your side claiming that 1979 was “normal” just because that is when satellite data started being collected
Who claims that? According to the information available from the pre-satellite era, ice extent was greater before 1979.
Geologically speaking, an ice-free arctic ocean is thought to be not terribly unusual.
O RLY? What’s your source for that? Overpeck et. al. said that there was no evidence for an ice-free Arctic in the past 800 millennia, even during periods when it was warmer than it is now. Is that incorrect? Please explain your evidence.
1979 was pretty darn cold.
Source? Not even Anthony thinks 1979 was especially cold.
The science in that article was better written and better thought out than a lot of science going on about the same subject matter today.
I’m not sure how one “writes” science, but I’m sure you’ll enlighten me. I generally look first to people who are actually doing science to try and understand natural phenomena and trends. You may have a better way. More power to ya.

Steven and Anthony: Add this to the forecast ledger, mine of 2007- 2008 (Note that the earliest emails are at the bottom:
Dear Ms Leitzell
Its me again. I read the news release for Oct 2nd. I’m sorry but the
conclusions appear determined to ignore the alternative possibility
supported by the evidence of the past year that we may be witnessing a
rebound (even if we may not believe it will be long lived). Two factors
suggest that we will have greater ice extent next year:
1) The first year ice that survived will become 2nd year ice for the 2009
melt season.
2) Recall my observation about the steepness of the re-freeze curve in 2007
and the terribly cold winter and cool summer that followed. I note that
already the refreeze curve appears to be even steeper at this early stage.
If this is a harbinger of another cold winter (and it is only 6 degrees C
here in Ottawa this morning), then we will indeed have a significant
rebound. Thermodynamics insists that if the ocean water was cooler in 2008
summer and a cold winter follows then we will likely see not just a “mere”
10% rebound (which I still insist is significant following a summer of warm
ocean) but an exponential growth in ice extent survival.
I accordingly forecast a 15 to 20% rebound in survival ice for 2009 and
challenge NSIDC to reply that this is not possible. If it is possible, then
the unequivocal conclusions of the Oct 2 News Release should have been much tempered. If it happens, I would be pleased to be cited as having made the prediction. Keep an eye on the refreeze curve – it might be a valuable additional factor to put into the equation.
Sincerely,
Gary Pearse, P.Eng
Ottawa
—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: {nsidc-170961} Re: Second lowest extent indicating continued
decline
> Dear Mr. Pearse,
> Thanks for your comments, and I hope my responses were helpful. Please let us know if you have any more questions.
> Regards,
> Katherine Leitzell
> equapolar@bellnet.ca wrote:
>> Dear Ms Leitzell
>> Thank you for your patience in responding to my curmudgeonly diatribes. I am not a “denier” (science chose a very unbecoming word in denier- it has a medieval religious inquistition-like tone) , but rather a searcher of loose threads. I trust science still finds adversary views useful in sharpening its tools.
>> Sincerely,
>> Gary Pearse,
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From:
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:37 PM
>> Subject: {nsidc-170961} Re: Second lowest extent indicating continued
>> decline
Dear Mr. Pearse,
Thank you for your input regarding Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis. I
will pass your comments on to the authors.
Regarding your comment on previous eras when the Arctic may have been
ice-free, NSIDC scientists have addressed this briefly in a Frequently Asked Questions page on Arctic sea ice. I’ve pasted their answer at the
bottom of this email.
Also, since you are a scientist, you may find the peer-reviewed
literature on the topic of sea ice decline to be helpful. Below are several
citations of articles by NSIDC scientists on the topic. Obviously, discussion of
the 2008 melt season is preliminary. NSIDC will release a more detailed
press announcement in the beginning of October, and I expect that you will
see more peer-reviewed research on the topic in the months to follow.
Articles:
Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze. 2007.
Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research
Letters 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.
Serreze, M. C., M. M. Holland, and J. Stroeve. 2007. Perspectives on
the Arctic’s shrinking sea-ice cover. Science 315(5818): 1533-1536,
doi:10.1126/science.1139426. (review article)
Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, A. G. Slater, M. Steele, J. Zhang, and
K.
E. Trenberth. 2007. The large-scale energy budget of the Arctic.
Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D11122, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008230
From the FAQ (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html:
Has the Arctic Ocean always had ice in summer?
We know for sure that at least in the distant past, the Arctic was
ice-free. Fossils from the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago,
indicate a temperate climate with ferns and other lush vegetation.
Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last
warm period in the Arctic was about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called
Holocene Thermal Maximum. However, NSIDC scientists are not aware of
direct evidence that the Arctic was free of sea ice in summer during
that time.
The last time that the ocean was likely free of summertime ice was
125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period,
known as the Eemian. Sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher
than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets had
partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during
the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above tech highest levels
during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.
According to analyses at NASA, 2007 was the second-warmest year
globally
in the instrumental record; the Arctic was especially warm.
Regards,
Katherine Leitzell
equapolar@bellnet.ca wrote:
Dear Ms Leitzell,
Thank you for your quick reply and I stand corrected on NSIDC’s not
noticing the steep refreeze curve of fall 2007. I guess the crux of my
long-winded email was that NSIDC was in fact drawing a strong negative conclusion from the fact that there was “only” 10% rebound (you should have been at least neutral in your conclusions). I think given the warmer ocean of the previous year, the 10% increase is rather remarkable and a similar refreeze this winter would result in an even greater increase in sea ice extent (thermodynamics would demand it). I am a scientist myself –
geological and a mathematician. 15,000 years ago, 50 million cubic kilometres of ice melted off the polar – temperate regions in a relatively short time (when we numbered perhaps a million or so people). There were also several other ice advances and even an era when the Mediterranean went dry. This gets elliptically referred to but by and large is glossed over. I think one of the problems with todays climate science is its conclusions are based on too short a time frame. I also think with the cooler ocean this summer, that if the refreeze is steep, NSIDC will likely take this more into account than previously regardless of the long term data.
Sincerely,
Gary Pearse,
Ottawa, Canada
—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: {nsidc-170961} Re: Second lowest extent indicating continued
decline
Dear Mr. Pearse,
Thank you for your comments regarding Arctic Sea Ice News &
Analysis. The content is intended to offer a scientific analysis of current
conditions in the Arctic compared to last year (the record low), and the long
term 20 year) average. In response to your specific questions:
Yes, we noted the strong recovery of sea ice extent during winter 2007,
in a posting dated April 7, 2008. Please see http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html. However, we do
note in that post that much of the ice was rather thin, first-year ice. This may
have contributed to the faster melt over the summer.
You also note that a 10% recovery seems significant. However, this year’s
minimum is still 33% below the 1979-2000 average. NSIDC scientists, the
authors of this site, focus on the long-term trend rather than year-to-year variations. Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.Please let me know if you have any other specific questions.Regards,
Katherine Leitzell
NSIDC Communications
equapolar@bellnet.ca wrote:
Greetings,
I wish to dispute your conclusion regarding the second lowest
extent in 2008. I have a post on the “Sea Ice Outlook Report” with some ideas
on forecasting (Harper Pearse) see also Gary Pearse – I lost my password and
had to register with a new name and email. I mentioned my
observation in mid 2007 that the southern hemisphere winter in 2007 was cold with rare snowfall in Johannesburg, cold temperatures in Argentina, Australia etc. I predicted a very cold arctic winter from this and we got the
coldest winter in many years in most of the Northern Hem. (500 deaths from freezing in Afghanistan, China’s cold New years holiday, Tehran’s heavy snow, etc). The arctic refroze with a vengeance – your own melt-refreeze curve showed the steepest refreeze (see your 2007 rising ice extent
in the fall) perhaps in decades – you noted the steep decline for
August 2008 but did you remark on what must have been the steepest refreeze curve in fall 2007? It is agreed that this one year ice was vulnerable to rapid remelt, and we did get this particularly in August 2008. The 2008 ice was vulnerable also because we were starting with a warmer ocean after the summer of 2007. Despite this, we ended up with 300,000-400,000sqkm of ice added to the 2007 extent which will become 2-year ice by next summer. Observation is important but a little thermodynamics can take you a
lotfarther. I suspect that the ocean is cooler now than at the same time last year. If the refreeze curve is also a steep one like last
year – say greater than the long term average, then there is a fair to high probability that we will add further to the ice extent. Let us say for argument we were to have as cold a winter as last year – then I would predict we would add more to the extent than in 2008, say 500,000sqkm or more. I believe your half empty vs half full bias toward an iceless arctic is showing in your interpretation of this years results. If other of nature’s systems are instructive at all, even a scientist committed to global warming would lean toward some recovery from an extreme condition in the following year or two.
“Despite overall cooler summer temperatures, the 2008 minimum extent is only 390,000 square kilometres…more than the record-setting 2007 miniumum.” This season does not in anyway reinforce the long-term downward trend. A 10% rebound is very significant and is the result of the overall cooler temperatures.
Sincerely,
Gary Pearse,

real scientists would not extrapolate a trend from three decades of measurement
No, and nobody does. The data since 1979 is better, but scientists have made what efforts they can to compile information from previous years based on shipping records and other proxy data. No, I’m sure it’s not perfect. Do you have a better method?
Again folks: I am referring to the link Anthony provided. Nothing else. Why do you believe the part that you think validates your preconceptions and not the rest?
That is a question. Why?

STOCKHOLM (AFP) – Around 50 ships, including large ferries carrying thousands, were stuck in the ice in the Baltic Sea Thursday and many were not likely to be freed for hours, Swedish maritime authorities said.
Isn`t it great…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100304/ts_afp/swedenfinlandshippingweatherstorm

The AO is getting less negative every day for the last 7. It did occur to me to wonder if the recent sharp uptick and the change in the AO were related –less “packing” pressure, so extent is increasing?

Oh whatever shall the warmists cry chicken little about if the sea ice doesn’t melt as forecast? It will be time to sweep their former alarmist statements under the rug, thrust their hands in their pockets, and slowly walk away whistling while hoping nobody notices…

Edda,
Summer minimums increased by 33% from 2007 to 2009.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
We have been forecasting summer sea ice at WUWT for two years and have done pretty well. At least as good as NSIDC – in 2008 Mark Serreze bet on an “ice free north pole.” Check back in September and let us know how we did.
BTW – I don’t get paid to write, but if you know where I can get some of that “oil money” please let me know!

Gotta love NSIDC’s parsing of words. What they are really trying to say is that one must not use the word “recovering” except in a historical backwards-looking fashion. By their theory, you must not say the pack is recovering until the pack has *completely* recovered. Until that has been achieved, there is just no knowing if it is “recovering” or not.
Well, I sort of understand their point, but real people live in the moment and like to discuss these issues using current data to speculate on future trends, and how is one to have that kind of discussion if one gets ones knuckles rapped for using understandable words like “recovering” to do it? Perhaps the arctic pack will have a relapse over the next few years and crash back thru the 2007 low –who knows? But until it does, “recovering” is a perfectly appropriate word to use in a loose sense to describe what we’ve seen the last two years (and, perhaps, this year as well –tho I’m not convinced on that score yet).
Surely NSIDC cannot be claiming a unique and exclusive right to speculate forward (which they do all the time) based on their view? People who disagree with them get to speculate forward too, don’t they? And use words like “recovering” to do it with?

The great thing about making short term predictions like this is that you are proven right or wrong in a reasonable time frame. The experts who predicted 2008 and 2013 end dates for the Arctic aren’t looking too good right now, but at least they made a verifiable prediction.
Seems more honest than people who forecast the demise of ski areas 60 years from now.

@PeterB in Indainapolis (12:23:53) :
Yes, it is unfortunate that the satellite records coincide with only half –and the warmer half– of the 60 year cold/warm cycles that are pretty obvious in the records. I think there is very little reason to doubt that if we’d had satellite coverage of the arctic in 1945 that the “normal” we’d be using for arctic extent would be significantly lower than what we have today using 1979 as the starting point.
As I said, that part is unfortunate. However, what is really. . .uhhh. . . something beyond unfortunate. . . is that NSIDC, who must know that is true –even if unquantifiable– acts like they are unaware of it and that their current baseline is somehow a holy grail of comparison.

Paul Daniel Ash
Why don’t you go back to the Wikipedia page you linked to and see who the author is? Yes its william Connelley himself.
Now go and check the actual real references given to you by a number of people here including myself-these include the Hudson Bay Co, The Board of Trade, Newfoundland records amongst very many others.
Sea ice has huge variations which can be traced back for 3000 years. The low points in the 1920’s are particularly well documented-there is even newsreel as well as newspaper reports.
Why don’t you actually read the material people have bothered to find for you instead of persisting in quoting figures from a very short 30 year satellite record then point us towards a William Conelley article?
tonyb

Slightly OT and weather not climate, but I’ve been watching http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.php for the last few weeks, wondering when ships would begin to get stuck. The BBC have just reported:
“Baltic Sea ice traps passenger and cargo ships”
A number of ships, including ferries with more than 1,000 passengers on board, have become stuck in ice in the Baltic Sea, officials say. The ferries are stranded in the waters between Stockholm and the Aland Islands, while cargo boats are stuck in the Bay of Bothnia…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8550687.stm for full text.

geo (14:11:02) : :
“”Yes, it is unfortunate that the satellite records coincide with only half –and the warmer half– of the 60 year cold/warm cycles that are pretty obvious in the records. I think there is very little reason to doubt that if we’d had satellite coverage of the arctic in 1945 that the “normal” we’d be using for arctic extent would be significantly lower than what we have today using 1979 as the starting point.””
Thank you geo.
That is a fact, and a fact that too many people on both sides keep ignoring.

In reply to PeterB in Indainapolis (12:31:44) :
Peter, I’ve never said whether I think a warmer world would be better or worse, as that hasn’t really seemed to be important…but since you asked:
Fire and Ice
FIRE AND ICE
by Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
_________________
I’m simply looking at the true longer term trends (longer meaning in this case more than one or two winters, as some would like). For the past severa decades arctic sea ice has been trending down on a year to year average. This is the data. If continued, the arctic will be ice free in the summer before too many more decades have passed. Would this be good or bad for humanity? Who knows? Has this been caused by AGW? That is the trillions of dollars question.

Mike M,
You would probably appreciate this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/

Heres a plot of AMSRE data which to me looks interesting?
For the period covered by the satellite 2002 to 2010 the cahnge in extent on a particular day of the year is plotted as a linear trend.
It is interesting that just before the summer melt the area increases by 5000sqkm over the 9 years.
There is then a sharp fall to 20,000 sqkm loss per year in october.
The area change over the remaining year seems to be abuot 5000sqkm/year
Is the rise from April to may due to delayed melt? or is it spreading of melting ice?
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3148/deltaseaiceaveragearea.png
Any comments
/harry

Edda,
NSIDC says second lowest February extent, and on March 3 DMI shows nearly the highest extent in their six year record. Go figure.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
Anyway, the prediction was about the summer minimum. You are talking about February.
I pulled a hamstring playing soccer a few weeks ago. In last night’s match I was about 50%. But I “continue to recover.”

Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC told me to be careful making comparisons vs. ice from the late 1970s and early 1980s, because ice extent was “unusually high” at that time. Remember the “ice age scare” in the mid 1970s?
Not surprising that ice extent has decreased since then.

This chart tells the whole story…
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
Everything else is short term fluctuations that amount to nothing signficant. Arctic sea ice continues a downward trend over the long term, as the chart and data quite clearly show and no positive anomalies since 2004.

@Edda (15:10:29) :
Edda, it is the oldest (or perhaps second oldest after ad hominem) trick in the debating book that when presented with a question you don’t like, pretend the question was something else and answer that instead.
Which is what you’ve been doing in criticising this article.
The context of this article is clearly and tightly predictions for the 2010 arctic minimum extant. Quoting of NSIDC’s site is also in that context. The title of the article is “NSIDC Confirms WUWT Ice Forecast”. What WUWT ice forecast? Why the one for summer 2010 Arctic minimum, which is helpfully linked at the beginning.
The quote from NSIDC is quite straightforward and unambiguous:
” The pattern of winds associated with a strongly negative AO tends to reduce export of ice out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. This helps keep more of the older, thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years.”
Now, if you can bring something from NSIDC’s page that contradicts that *regarding the likely September minimum for 2010* then you’ve got an arguement, and I’m sure Anthony or Steve would be happy to address it.
But until then, you’re just acting like a common internet troll trying to thread crap by changing context and then attacking it (aka “straw man”).

Interesting idea Carbon Dioxide, but doing some quick googling, it appears the answer is generally “not so much” re manned polar orbits prior to 1979.

Certainly a very interesting read the 1969 article. Note what was considered the typica extent of the ice pack in 1969, and compare to what is considered average today. Also interesting to note opinions in 1969 on climate change, and what role Co2 and other factors played in this.

Smokey (13:56:00) :
It is up to you to show that what is occurring now is due to human emitted CO2, because that is the hypothesis the entire global warming scare is based on.
Well, that’s a fairly dramatic move of the goalposts.
My only point has been that the source Anthony used for this post contradicts his conclusion. My comments have been in support of this, and I have not seen a refutation of my point. Now I’m being called on to defend the whole body climate change science taken as a whole.
OK, fine. Let’s give it a shot. It will be an interesting exercise.
Keep Occam’s Razor in mind when you try to gin up your explanation of why this isn’t ordinary climate variability, no more and no less.
William of Ockham said “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Isaac Newton formed it as: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Cool.
Appearance: warming has occurred in the 20th century. Anthony Watts says “Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century. I surely don’t.”
Appearance: CO2 has increased from an historical average of 275 to 285 parts per million to about 387 ppm in 2009. CO2 is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared, so it traps heat, as do other “greenhouse gases.” The levels of these gases are all rising
Appearance: the planet appears to have an energy imbalance (solar heating absorbed and not radiated out to space ) of 0.77 ± 0.11 W/m−2, which is roughly equal to the radiative “forcing” effect of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
Cause: the greenhouse gases – primarily CO2 – are causing the heating.
I think that’s a pretty simple explanation. Other simple explanations – that it’s the sun, or water vapor, or albedo, or ocean cycles – have all shown to be lacking.
Now, you can point out the holes in this theory, and I’d be very interested in that. I’m just learning this stuff, and I’d rather not be stuck with a wrong headed notion.
Just to say that you’re not convinced, though, simply won’t do.

Jack Simmons,
Thanks for that. I have always found NSIDC to be very responsive to queries and questions.

“”” Spector (15:49:33) :
RE: Paul Daniel Ash (13:38:05) : “If something happened once due to natural variation then if it every happens again it has to be as a result of natural variation, for ever and ever, world without end amen? That’s weird logic.”
“I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major climate driver since most of the effect of any new parcel of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is masked by that already there. Looking at the absorption spectrum of CO2, I see a scarf (or series of scarves) not a blanket. The recent cold weather extremes in the face of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere seem to be showing this fear false. “””
Well how about the even more important concentration of atmospheric water vapor, which not only renders any increases in CO2 inconsequential; but also makes the entire current resident CO2 entirely inconsequential.
Earth currently enjoys the lowest levels of CO2 that it has seen in the last 600 million years, including values 25 times the present CO2 levels and maybe 32 times the lowest ever levels.
I believe even the dryest of tropical deserts have more water vapor than CO2 above them.
I haven’t actually calculated the factor between saturation vapor pressure in the atmosphere, and molecular abundance of H2O, so I am not quite sure of H2O abundances over the polar regions (in the vapor phase) but it seems that cloud formation in the polar regions is quite common, so it wouldn’t surprise me if H2O still exceeds CO2 over the polar regions. Maybe one day I’ll do the calculation to satisfy my curiosity.
But I still believe; “IT’S THE WATER, SILLY !”

The unproven (and, in my mind, laughable) assertion that human-generated increases in CO2 – a miniscule atmospheric gas — will cause the planet to warm, leading to climate catastrophe is a sure sign of hubris gone crazy. Not surprisingly, many of the people promoting it were out front in the 1970s issuing dire warnings of an approaching ice age.
(Former NASA researcher Dr. Ferenc Misckolzci, by the way, has produced research allegedly refuting this “theory.” See news article – http://bit.ly/dgjBSO; his actual paper – http://bit.ly/bmtWp8.)
For billions of years, the sun has done a good job all on its own of heating and cooling planet earth. It surely doesn’t need any help from the insignificant creatures, called humans, inhabiting the place.
Sadly, many global warming alarmists — pro-AWG scientists, in particular — seem hell-bent on defending their sacred theory until the bitter end. Reputations are at stake; Huge research grants depend on the theory’s continued acceptance.
As the theory continues to disintegrate (and the process is now picking up speed) and falsified beyond redemption, how many scientists will be courageous enough to step forward and admit they devoted their lives to promoting and defending a theory that was the climate-change equivalent of “Piltdown Man”?

Jeez all these posts Paul Daneil Ash, and you still haven’t answered my question as to what is the “normal” level of arctic sea ice?

@Steve Goddard (16:59:21) :
Like many referees, I’m willing to turn a blind eye to the occasional elbow to the solar plexus as long as both sides are engaging in it. But wholescale persistent “missing the point” just irks me.
Yes, good point –NSIDC not only tentatively confirms your conclusion, but also replicates your thought processes in arriving at it.
I understand that WUWT threads often go “beyond context” in the reply thread, and I’m comfortable with that and have partaken myself (and will again). Several people do so upstream, and without agreeing or disagreeing with their train of thought, I don’t have a problem with that. The difference with them vs Edda is they either state or give clear implication they know (and expect others to recognize) they are doing it. It’s one thing (and sometimes correct) to argue the context is too narrow to draw larger conclusions from (which this article makes no attempt to do) –it is something else to argue that the context is something else entirely.
The older I get, the more I recognize the importance of recognizing and respecting context.

Edda – just quickly my friend, 30 years does not a baseline make. If you have read the comments you KNOW that there has been periods of ice thinning in the very near past, just like now. You accuse Anthony et al of cherry picking, well I accuse your vaunted scientists of cherry picking by not accessing the historical data to build their baseline. In reality, there really is no “average” ice extent, and I feel that you really know this yourself. 🙂

“It wasn’t very long ago when experts were forecasting the demise of Arctic ice somewhere between 2008 and 2013”
————-
The given link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
says Arctic **summers** ice-free ‘by 2013’, not Arctic winters.
Notice that it is 2010: There are four years left for the “aggressive prediction” to come true.
—–
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”

Richard M (20:10:55) said:
“Would you mind providing the evidence that says the Arctic has NEVER been warmer than the last 20 years?”
When did I make this assertion? I don’t think I ever did, in fact I KNOW I never did, or would have because it is false. Certainly the Arctic has been warmer in the past than it is right now, but this is not the point or even important. What is important is detecting a sign or evidence that AGW Models say should be there. AGW models clearly state that global warming will be most pronounced in the Arctic region, and will lead to the melting of polar sea ice. The trend over the past 20 years certainly is in line with those models (but does not prove that AGW is to blame of course). If the Arctic had been colder over the past 20 years and sea ice had grown, then there would be scant evidence that AGW theory is correct. What is happening to Arctic sea ice is exactly what AGW models say should be, albeit a bit faster than expected so far…
savethesharks (20:41:10) said:
And the crazy thing about your ad hominem slip-up here, she happens to be one of the “honest, dedicated, intelligent scientists”.
She very well may be, but she seems not to want to look at the whole gestalt of causes of the loss of arctic sea ice. Not to mention the record temps in the region is akin to saying that only cold weather causes snow. Nope, it takes moisture, and whole host of other ingredients. Wind was just one of many factors for the loss of sea ice, and certainly not more important than the very warm temps seen over the arctic.

Smokey,
I certainly love this site, and have saluted Anthony many times for providing an excellent forum for intelligent conversation about climate and other interesting issues. In regard to your assertion that I have no knowledge of the fact that the southern hemisphere has sea ice, and that is has been trending upward in general over the past several years– I hate to contradict you assertion, but of course I am well aware of that, and certainly many climate experts have offered reasons for that positive anomaly trend. Does it contradict AGW models? Yes, some, but not all. Some models that take into account the effects of the ozone whole on the storm patterns around Antarctica seem to suggest a relationship between the ozone whole , sea ice, storms, currents, winds, etc. But despite the positive anomaly trend in the S. Hemisphere sea ice, even as recently as a few weeks ago, the Antarctic sea ice saw a NEGATIVE ANOMALY, and has several times since 2004, while the arctic sea ice has not seen a positive anomaly in the same time frame. The jest of this is that the arctic trend line down over the past few decades is far more pronounced than the antarctic trend line up. A quick review of the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Is well worth the time, and the various charts, when studied with a keen and unjaundiced eye reveal a great deal.
Finally, since January 2010 was one of the warmest Januarys on record globally, and especially in the S. Hemisphere, it will be interesting to see how much longer the positive anomly trend line for S. Hemisphere sea ice continues up. AGW models suggest it will flatten and then follow the same trend line down into the negative side as arctic sea ice. If this happens, it will be another bit of data confirming the potential correctness of AGW theory and models.

Much to my surprise top news today is that 10 ships are caught in ice in the baltic , even a ferry from stockholm is stuck in an area of sea-ice that cryosphere today is reporting to be 30 to 50% coverage , green colored , are again agw-fatalists manipulating the data ?

R. Gates: What is happening to Arctic sea ice is exactly what AGW models say should be, albeit a bit faster than expected so far…
But it’s also exactly as expected if you think that the Arctic temperatures are subject to multidecadal natural variations (see e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4°c/), so there is no convincing “anthropogenic footprint” so far.
Let’s see in 2 or 3 years who is right…

cal: I would suggest that the period of 1976 to 2006 would make a much better norm given that the PDO/AMO seems to work on this sort of timescale.
That’s exactly what NANSEN uses. And according to them, ice area today is almost within +/-1 STD again..

savethesharks (22:14:56) :
“Ummm….nobody is saying its just the wind. DUH!!
Actually you are wrong, I’ve seen more than one comment saying that ice reduction in the Arctic, either in general or for exceptionally low years like 2007, was wind caused and not melt. I’ve seen this in posts here and at ClimateAudit. Wind as a factor gets massively overplayed and melting caused by high temps underplayed.
Andy

It doesn’t seem likely that either of the last two caused the changes in the temperature record, but Urban Heat island effects might well have.
that’s an interesting hypothesis. Has it been tested?

Paul Daniel Ash,
According to Keven Trenberth, climate scientists have no idea how to properly balance the energy budget of the earth. Since that is the case, I am very curious as to how you came up with your exact figure on the energy “imbalance”, since the climate scientists themselves admit that their models cannot possibly account for every variable in climate, and they do not even know what all of the interractions between variables actually are.
For example, ALL of the models assume postitive water vapor feedback, but several recent studies have shown that water vapor feedback is probably negative, and possibly strongly negative.

Smokey (05:44:00) :
The original hypothesis stated that a rise in human produced CO2 would lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Clearly this has not happened.
The hypothesis is that greenhouse gases, would produce warming. There has been warming commensurate with that which would be expected from the additional GHGs in the atmosphere. Other posited causes have not been borne out by research.
The hypothesis also says that if current trends continue that there may be serious effects in the future. Obviously, there is no empirical evidence for this or any other projection of future events, like the heat death of the universe, Africa crashing into Eurasia or the cancellation of American Idol. No hypothesis can be validated or invalidated on the basis of predictions about the future that have not taken place in the present. This is self-evident.
However, there is no empirical, measurable evidence validating the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. None.
What would represent “empirical, measurable evidence” to you? This is a very serious question. Since temperature increases do not come with a label saying “I am ninety percent due to natural variation and ten percent due to radiative forcing!” then you have to look at the possible causes and rule them in or out.
If not proposing a description of how the greenhouse effect works and showing how it accounts for the observed warming so far, then what would be “empirical” and “measurable” in your estimation?

Thank you Steve Goddard, I looked at your http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/and it is exactly what I was speculating about.
Richard M (05:15:26) :
Many are skeptics because of this lack of understanding, not that they view AGW as an impossibility.
Skeptics like me do NOT view AGW as an ‘imposibility’; I understand it for what it actually is, a THEORY foisted by people who have provided zero evidence over the last ~30 years that it has any measurable significance. Thank God the earth stopped warming enough over the last 15 years to give honest scientists at least a purchase to undermine a 79 billion dollar government funded hoax based on faulty modeling, corrupted data and politically motivated obstruction of the peer review process. If there had never been any government/UN interest to stack the deck with all that money to exploit climate science for a political agenda, the silly notion of AGW would have died a long time ago.

Ref – Paul Daniel Ash (17:07:23) :
Smokey (13:56:00) :
“Just to say that you’re not convinced, though, simply won’t do.”
______________________________
Beg to differ. For most of the folks on this planet, that is more than sufficient and will do.
Ref – geo (20:37:29) :
@Steve Goddard (16:59:21) :
“The older I get, the more I recognize the importance of recognizing and respecting context.”
_________________________
Agree! Isn’t it the most fascinating aspect of blog comments? Almost every comment assumes so much, leaving so much unsaid, while begging the question: “Don’t you agree?”
Ref – savethesharks (21:01:40) :
Paul Daniel Ash: “I’m just learning this stuff, and I’d rather not be stuck with a wrong headed notion.”
“..if that’s the case then perhaps you would do well to keep your mouth shut more (and keyboard silent) and listen more to the experts on here,…”
_____________________
Plato’s 1st Rule – “Comments Personal Counterproductive Are”

PeterB in Indainapolis (06:03:54) :
According to Keven Trenberth, climate scientists have no idea how to properly balance the energy budget of the earth.
My guess is that this statement is based on something Trenberth said in one of the CRU emails. I have to guess, and Google, because you provide no source for your claim. It would be really helpful if you would do so.
The email, as I read it in context, refers to a paper Trenberth wrote about the inadequacies in the various observation systems of air, land and sea temperature. This is addressed openly, not “hidden” as reports about the emails tend to indicate.
Scientists responding to the controversy about this statement have referred to von Schuckmann et. al. saying that it gives support to the notion that there is warming occurring in the deep ocean. I’d be interested if someone with better understanding than I could point to any errors or inconsistencies in the paper.

Looks like Arctic ice extent may break the all-time DMI record tomorrow.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
DMI uses 30% concentration compared to NSIDC at 15%, so this demonstrates Anthony’s point that concentration is high this year.

R Gates,
Read the NSIDC newsletter linked in the article. They make it quite clear that Antarctic ice is increasing and Antarctica is cooling.

Ref – R. Gates (07:13:42) :
Espen said:
“Let’s see in 2 or 3 years who is right…”
“..AGW as a theory makes specific predictions, and if these predictions do unfold then perhaps the reasonable “middle” ground of people will listen less to the extremes at either end and chart a reasonable course of action (if any action is possible).”
___________________
Understand what you’re saying and “hope” along similar lines. However, I hope more that the “Scientists” tell the “scientists, quacks, witchdoctors, politicians, media hypers, lawyers, bankers, and money makers” to take a hike; that they listen to each other and not to the two extremes, pro and con, or the middle among the people; and that they all write a report (each and every one of them). I also hope the Nobel Committees keep their bloody noses out of it for 30 years while the dust (or snow) is slowly falling to the ground.
PS: Would it be too “too” to hope that some of the ‘dokters’ in the frontlines of the climate riot today have a stroke or coronary? Or that our children and grand kids get to have a decent education and the teacher’s unions dry up and blow away?… Ok, nuf said

Steve Goddard (07:17:20) :
Looks like Arctic ice extent may break the all-time DMI record tomorrow.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
———
Are you sure the Danish Meteorological Institute has only been looking at Arctic Ice since 2005 ? I know they are a tiny country (5.5 million people), but they have a higher per capita GDP than the United Kingdom.
I’d be very surprised if the Danes have not been studying this metric since the advent of satellite coverage of the Arctic.

I personally despise the use of “all time record”. I don’t care which “side” uses the term.
In the history of the earth, the all time low record for Arctic ice cover was most likely zero, and the all time high record was probably 90-95% of the entire globe was covered in snow and ice.
People should put strong qualifiers on what the heck they are talking about when they claim an “all-time record”.

Smokey said
“PDA posts all over the intertubes. He already has over 2,400 posts at Salon alone, arguing with just about everyone about anything.
How can one person write so many posts, from 5 in the morning until past midnight at WUWT – plus all those other blogs, including his own? I can think of four possibilities:”
I tend to like people like Paul-they are the grit in the oyster-wouldn’t it be dull if there were no contrarians here to argue in favour of post normal science and everyone sang from the same song sheet?
By the way, what’s happened to Joel Shore, Brendan H and Scott Mandia-they were always good for a well reasoned argument. Come back you guys all is forgiven.
Tonyb

R Gates: Unfortunately, even if we see new modern era temperature records, and new summer arctic sea ice minimums, increasing severe weather events, and even the shrinkage of southern sea ice, tI think those who are skeptical of AGW will never concede anything.
I’m skeptical of the magnitude of AGW since so much of the theory rests on faulty temperature reconstructions and temperature records of questionable quality. I’m also skeptical of the severity of the consequences, since the WG 2 of IPCC has presented a very weak case for its alarmist scenario, including promoting the questionable claim you repeat above about severe weather events. Basically, though, I remain open-minded, since the science isn’t “settled” at all. My “gut feeling” though is that in 10 to 20 years scientists may conclude that climate is basically unpredictable, and that the claims of CO2 feedbacks were wildly exaggregated. And that the little warming and the significant plant fertilization we get from anthropogenic CO2 may, all in all, not be dangerous at all, quite the contrary.

Smokey (09:00:36) :
Your assertion that the hypothesis holds that “X increase in CO2 causes Y increase in temperature” is incorrect. This is an assertion you and only you made. It is, in other words, a straw man.

Gerald Machnee (09:22:06) :
Where is the proof? Where is it MEASURED?
I guess one reason that I might appear like a “know-it-all” is because people keep asking me these kinds of questions, which I go out and try to find answers for.
I’m not trying to present that I just know these things off the top of my head, or that I think the answers are unassailable, just that there are answers to the questions. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’d like to know what the problems/flaws/errors are in the answers I present.
Anyway, as to measurement:
Murphy et. al. presented an analysis of Earth’s “energy budget”: how much is received, how much is absorbed, and how much is reflected back to space. to do that, they used buoy data of ocean heat content from the upper 700m, heat content from deeper waters down to 3000m, computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere, and used the same data to determine land and ice heat content.
So I’ll return to my perennial invitation: what does this miss? What is faulty? Is there another way to measure global warming (or its lack)?

so-called “greens” want everyone to revert to the endless drudgery
Well, that’s pretty alarmist talk, though I grant you your central point. Reducing carbon is a really thorny problem that I don’t think anyone has solved to my satisfaction. The only feasible solution seems to be a huge increase in nuclear power generation, which seems to be replacing one problem with another.
So I agree that the evidence needs to be overwhelming. Part of why I’m here is to try and understand the state of the science – including dissenting science – better, and how best to communicate that.
My assertion is that most people on both sides of the debate come to their understanding of the science from pre-established prejudices. For every “the greens just want us to go back to the Stone Age” knee-jerk there’s a “debate is manufactured by the oil companies” knee-jerk.
The science is hard, but not impossible, to understand. I’m not saying I understand it, but I’m trying, as best I can, to step outside my prejudices.