WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #3

Wikipedia : Traditional Santa Claus

Arctic ice extent continues downwards on the trend line started at the end of March, having lost a little over 1,000,000 km2 during April.  If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011.  That would be a complete disaster for Santa Claus and the billions of people who depend on him.

During the past month, Arctic sea ice has straddled between the NSIDC 1979-2000 average (wide black line) and the NSIDC 1979-2009 average (wide turquoise line.) The composite image below shows all four commonly used extent graphs – NSIDC/NORSEX/DMI/JAXA .  The thin turquoise line is NSIDC 2009.  Note that the melt season is about three weeks behind the 2007 extent (dashed) line.

During the last few days, ice has begun to disappear from the Barents Sea. The modified NSIDC map below shows loss of ice from one week ago, marked in red.  I wonder if any soot from Iceland is dirtying the ice?  Hansen says that soot may be responsible for 25% of all global warming.

The UIUC graph below provides a more detailed blow by blow of what is happening to ice area in the Barents Sea.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html

The modified NSIDC map below shows loss of ice since the first week in April, marked in red.

The modified NSIDC map below shows changes in ice since May 2, 2007.  Green areas have more ice, and red areas have less ice.

The modified NSIDC map below shows areas of above “normal” (green) and below “normal” (red) ice.  The western Arctic is above average, and the eastern Arctic is below average.  Perhaps all the hot air from Copenhagen in December thinned  the ice?

During the past few summers, the low anomalies have been on the western side of the Arctic.  Note in the SST map below, that ocean temperatures are abnormally cold on the western side, which is likely to slow melt this summer.

Current  Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to go negative again, which should inhibit melt in the Arctic and growth in my garden.

Ensemble Mean AO Outlook

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif

We are still about eight weeks away from the beginning of the really interesting melt season. Stay tuned.  The Antarctic remains boring, staying average to slightly above.  No meltdowns or collapsing ice sheets to report this week.

About these ads

157 thoughts on “WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #3

  1. Rotten old ice anyway. Flipping and flopping all the time. Bah!

    More seriously, there are anecdotal reports that the arctic blocks formed on a pretty dependable basis on the downturn of the last AMO in the early 1940s. If so, we could be in for some more interesting weather in Europe and the southern US.

  2. Agree about “8 weeks from the really interesting” bit. July 1-15 is my next significant milestone. Tho to the degree I’m looking at anything between now and then, I’m looking at the concentration levels of the central core. This can be checked vs 2007 and 2008 at Cryosphere, tho alas 2009 is not there because of technical issues they had at the time.

  3. LoL …great line
    .
    “…Arctic ice extent continues downwards on the trend line started at the end of March, having lost a little over 1,000,000 km2 during April. If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011. …”

  4. Santa is OK, he’s preparing. He removed the sled runners and put on pontoons, got some Speedos to wear (imagine red Speedos trimmed with white fur), and traded in his Reindeer for Porpoises. Rudolph will be handing over his lead to Flipper. Mrs. Claus has stopped making hot buttered rum and now has a large blender, keeping Santa and the elves in Pina Coladas. Santa has also installed an inflatable life boat, just in case flipper takes a dive. I hear he’s thinking about installing some of those large stereo speakers and a stereo like the ski boats have, too. The song “White Christmas” will be nixed in favor of Elvis singing “Blue Hawaii.”

  5. The real question is…where can I get a pipe like the one St. Nick is smoking from?

  6. The NSIDC 1979-2000 “average” is perhaps the most insidious of statistical measures akin to only tracking sunspots for half a solar cycle.

  7. The Japan Current looks mighty cold at the source. In fact, the entire N. Pacific looks quite cold.

  8. I’m spacing my garden rows 3 feet apart this year and using soaker hose to water them at the roots. This will keep the intervening paths dry which should absorb solar energy to help keep the garden warmer and more productive. If it isn’t better than last year (which saw only 4 days 90 degrees or above and nothing over 93), there’s no use trying to grow veggies. I’m trying this as an experiment to counter the colder weather. Luckily, I have all the garden space I need, which typically isn’t the norm.

  9. “If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011. ”

    Trend without end, Amen.
    If this trend continues, summer will not get to my place either.

  10. It is a well known fact that the ice from the Arctic migrates every year to the Antarctic… with just a phase change. As you can see, ice is never lost.

  11. Rob Dawg says:
    May 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm:

    Yes! Especially since the climate swamis were proclaiming an ice age was coming absolutely for sure in 1976, so the ice had to be very high in extent and volume during that time frame and shortly afterward, when the measurement “normal” begins to be reckoned. What a scam! Sort of like when stock brokers tell you to buy when the market is high – they still get the high commissions (here, grants) whether the sucker wins or loses. “Keep them grants (commissions) a-comin’ “.

  12. When talking about polar regions, how do you determin what is West and what it East? It seems to be to be like using right and left. The crazy thing about the arctic is that the land masses are centralized in each hemesphere.

    Is it West is considered near 0° and East is near 180° (East and West)?

  13. Rick says:
    May 3, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Where is all that melting ice hiding?

    Now I like that line!!!
    Perhaps we can get a big ol’ gov’t grant to find it!!

  14. This reminds me of the tobacco juice bullet that NYC miraculously dodged early in the last century.
    If the linear trend of sidewalk tobacco juice increase that occurred between Feb. 17, 1870 and July 4, 1905 had continued, New York City’s sidewalks would now be under 3.1415926..etc. feet of that unattractive brown liquid. Wheew!!

  15. I had no idea this had anything to do with gardening. My gardening cycle being a bit unique, I thought I would share it in the event that anyone can advise the best way to proceed based on previous history:

    May – plant garden
    June – weed garden
    July – weed garden
    August – swear profusely at the multitudes of deer which jumped an 8 foot fence to harvest my whole garden in just a 12 hour period a week or so before I would have myself.

    Will the cold cycle mean less garden? Will there be less weeds? Will either the weeds or the deer be hollow? What about the carrots? Or should I watch out for rotten deer and carrots rather than hollow? If I plant no garden, but tell my wife I did, and just mow the garden so it looks like I weeded it, will anyone know the difference? The deer will know, but they have weak language skills, so they won’t tell. Same outcome as planting a garden, and I can maintain that global warming/cooling made no difference, hence the hypothesis is falsified?

  16. If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011.

    Great news for New Year’s Day! Out with the old and in with the new!

    We should check with Josh about doing the appropriate graphics. Since Climategate Phil Jones has been aging a year every month, so he should be ripe for the Old Year. The baby New Year should be, who else, Michael Mann, holding a hockey stick while gnawing on a tree ring. They’re good for teething, right? Don’t forget the official Penn State University security blanket. ;-)

  17. O M F G! S A N T A!!! Noooo

    Grennie lunatics, maybe green piecers, actually use that crap to scare children into believing their garbage, and that’s just cruel.

  18. AW writes:
    The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to go negative again, which should inhibit melt in the Arctic and growth in my garden.

    How do you link a negative AO to less sea ice melt? The negative AO has been linked to a stronger Beaufort Sea High, which actually favors more ice melt in this region and has been explained in a number of papers in recent years, including one of the earlier ones by Rigor and Wallace 2004. And if you’ll note, the BSH has been high the last several years in summer, favoring more ice melt.

  19. @davidmhoffer says:
    May 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    “May – plant garden
    “June – weed garden
    “July – weed garden
    “August – swear profusely at the multitudes of deer which jumped an 8 foot fence to harvest my whole garden in just a 12 hour period a week or so before I would have myself.”

    Hmmm… this sounds like an excellent way to round up some venison. :D

  20. Linear trends are rarely found in nature and almost never where chaotic variables are concerned. To state such is to utter an oxymoron. That said, I want to know what those who make such predictions are smoking. It must be way better then my Amphora and I want some too. ( I believe Brigham in Toronto and Peterson in Copenhagen both make the kind of pipes Santa smokes.)

  21. I would guess otters on a row boat to Santas next mode of transportation.
    Mind you Britain has been naughty this year.

  22. Rick says:
    May 3, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Where is all that melting ice hiding?

    We can’t explain where the melting ice has gone, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.

  23. stevengoddard says:
    May 3, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Steve. I think there you are referring to the winter AO. And yes, a negative winter AO in the past has been associated with more sea ice because of the stronger Beaufort Gyre which causes ice to recirculate in the basin for several years. However, in summer a negative AO pattern has been associated in a number of studies with more ice melt (and especially warmer ice temperatures in the western Arctic). And as you’ll notice from animations of ice age the ice is no longer surviving the Beaufort Gyre in summer like it used to….so a stronger Beaufort Gyre that brings even more of that old ice into the warmer waters is probably not a good thing…

    There is a recent paper by Ohashi and Tanaka (Data analysis of recent warming pattern in the Arctic) that says the positive winter AO trend caused warming before 1989 and the negative summer AO trend since then have caused warming. I’m not convinced their analysis is sound, but it is a paper that says all of it is from the AO (and thus natural variability).

  24. From Lawrence Solomon at the National Post:
    “Arctic ice sets records in April, could auger global cooling”

    http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/05/03/lawrence-solomon-arctic-ice-sets-records-in-april-could-auger-global-cooling.aspx

    “The Arctic ice set 30 records in April, one for each day. According to satellite data received by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the Arctic was more ice bound each day of April than it had been any other corresponding day in April since its sensors began tracking the extent of Arctic Ice in mid 2002.”

  25. @davidmhoffer: I think mamapajamas has an excellent idea, although deer harvest may not be as free as veggie harvest; beware the game warden! But on the topic of weeds, this is the first in 10 years I’m planting a garden and I engineered a solution–got me a Cub Cadet tiller because it’s the proper balance between capability and cost. I’d love a new BCS but they’re about $2600–three times the Cub Cadet. This cheaper unit is big enough w/ a 5hp Honda motor to till if you make 2 passes each way at 3″ and 2 more passes at 7″, with a plastic bucket (not included) tied to the handle stem for collecting rocks and added weight. Running the tines backwards works the unit against the forward-rotating tires which makes tilling easier.

    Plant the rows far enough apart that the tiller can move between them without damaging the plants and later on shift the tines to forward and move the depth up to 3″ for taking out the weeds. I’m also looking at a high-wheel cultivator for closer weeding and soil breakup. This will still require some back-breaking row weeding, but that’s not as bad as trying to weed the whole bloomin’ plot all summer. For bird control, hang a bunch of useless CDs on surrounding trees or your fence posts with shoe strings, but to control deer the only effective deterrent is a taller fence.

    If my garden fails, I’ll join the Warmers and pretend it was warm and productive.

  26. I would take the forecast with a pinch of salt. It just looks like a proxy for solar activity over the last few months to me.

  27. “Perhaps all the hot air from Copenhagen in December thinned the ice?”

    Nope. It’s those hot Norse girls!

  28. Wonder how the earthquake in the Bering Sea affected things?
    Were there any Iranian women visiting Kamchatka at the time?

  29. Thanks for that nice update Anthony. I personally would like to not only have Santa’s pipe, but what’s in it that makes him so Jolly.

    You are right about it being too early in the season to say anything, except more for historical and statistical reasons. The artic was not exceptionally cold this winter, and the negative AO both kept the ice from moving in large amounts through the Fram strait, but also the high pressure from the neg. AO also made Greenland and N. Canada made those areas very warm as you know. A negative AO in the spring and summer has a whole different set of effects, that would not necessarily mean a slowing of ice melt at all–in fact, the higher pressure could lead to more insolation with clearer skies, and certainly warmer temps in the arctic as the colder air is pushed out of the region. I don’t see the AO going exceptionally negative anyway.

    A few things for people to watch in the next week: 2010 arctic sea ice dropping below both 2009 and 2008 levels for this time of year.(it’s already below 2009). Statistical point yes, but of interest as we head toward the real melting months. Look also for continued rapid melt in the Barents Sea (but slowing down from the cliff it’s falling off now) and a pick up in melt in Hudson Bay.

    Finally, just because someone else mentioned this a few months back because the ice was slightly above normal there at the time, the ice on the Tanana River in Nenana AK has broke up (on April 29), actually a few days earlier than normal, and earlier than in 2008 or 2009, but not as early as 2007.

    http://nenanaakiceclassic.com/

    Some lucky person or persons will make a nice bit of money off their bet, and most people probably bet the ice would break up on a later date as it was higher than normal during the same time as that March “bump up” in arctic sea.

  30. “Arctic ice extent continues downwards on the trend line started at the end of March, having lost a little over 1,000,000 km2 during April. If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011″

    Conversely, temperatures here in central west Florida are rising. If that linear rate continues, the water in the lakes will start to boil by the end of October 2010.

  31. PaulH says:
    May 3, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    From Lawrence Solomon at the National Post:
    “Arctic ice sets records in April, could auger global cooling”

    ——–

    Too bad Mr. Solomon’s article is completely missing one thing– the truth. He uses the 8 years of JAXA data, completely ignoring the longer 30+ years available through NOAA. If he used that data, he’d of reported the startling headline:

    “April Arctic Sea ice comes close, but never quite reaches the long term average…”

    But it didn’t suit his political agenda to report this more truthful headline…and with such a lack of attention to the broader truth, I can think of at least one network he could probably get a job with…

  32. R. Gates says:
    May 3, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    “Some lucky person or persons will make a nice bit of money off their bet”

    Grab it while you can, once enough people know the agenda, the bet is off for sure!

  33. R. Gates says:
    May 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    For you, once again:

    It’s nothing more than part of a cycle with the Antarctic competing with the Arctic, where global sea ice is concerned.
    Once the Antarctic stop growing more ice year on year, and the Arctic starts growing more ice, then I’m quite sure the alarming news will shift polarity. I’d say that point has just about arrived.
    Climate hysteria has it’s origins in the widespread use of thermometers.
    Before that time, man adapted best he could.
    Now, he’s prodding into freaking out at each turnabout of the trend line.
    You’d think that, after 4 episodes of climate hysteria changing polarity, the message would sink in.

  34. R. Gates says:
    May 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm:

    “…I can think of at least one network he could probably get a job with…”

    MSNBC? Or perhaps he could join RePower America?

  35. Rick,
    I think you will find that the melting ice is gyreing and gimbling in the wabe.

    And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
    Come to my arms my beamish boy.
    Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    He chortled in his joy.

  36. jeff brown says:
    May 3, 2010 at 3:55 pm:

    Jeff:
    The Ohashi and Tanasha paper is heavy on “associations” but light on (actually devoid of) significance. The word “correlation” never appears. Statistics are not presented, typical of almost all climate “science” papers, unless weak correlations (like 0.6=r) are found. The word “association” and “trend” are used dozens of times in the O&T paper and false color maps and pretty graphs with many lines are used to show “associations”.

    These scientists are really at a disadvantage; I commiserate with them. They are trying to deduce true statistical correlations and trends in a complex, hopelessly multivariate system.

  37. bubbagyro…I completely agree. I think this paper is not an example of good science. I just thought skeptics might like the paper since it says it’s all due to natural variability and not at all from human activities….

  38. The rate of ice loss (and increase) is approximately equivalent for every year in the chart. That means someone somewhere is going to claim we’re having the greatest ice loss by volume in recent record. It will be seen as more evidence of man made warming. Nobody will think ice breakers have a thing to do with it.

  39. A skeptic is another word for scientist. I am a scientist and I know good science when I see it. I am opposed to AGW because it is not backed by science. That does not excuse contrary papers that also use bad science. An hypothesis that cannot be properly formulated and then cannot be falsified, is not science at all, but a type of storytelling – fiction.

  40. Feeling the brunt of that cold North Pacific now, snow in the hills, high winds and
    below freezing temps in NE Oregon’s Blue mtns. tonight..
    Got a crackling fire going as we speak. Also, three roses, several Delphiniums,
    and Lilacs await planting-when and if it stops hailing,snowing,and blowing….

  41. jeff brown says [ ... ]:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm,

    You just haven’t been around here long enough to understand. Skeptics don’t say “it’s all natural variability.” That is a strawman argument that you set up. Now you’ve knocked down that particular strawman, and you think you’re on the right track. Think again.

    When you understand scientific skepticism in the context of the scientific method, you will see that what skeptics are pointing out is that the climate is well within its long term parameters. The climate is acting entirely normally. Nothing unusual is happening. The null hypothesis is natural climate variability. Falsify that, and you will be famous. But so far, no one has succeeded in quantifying human influence, outside of very limited UHI effects. There is no global evidence you can point to showing any specific, quantified, testable effect of human CO2 emissions that shows we are changing the planet’s temperature, either up or down.

    It is up to the promoters of the scary CAGW hypothesis to show, through testable, empirical raw data, that anything unusual is occurring. So far, they have failed.

    That being the case, alarmists always fall back on their scare tactics, pointing to the Arctic [while studiously ignoring the Antarctic], and anything else they can try to pin on what they believe to be a looming climate catastrophe caused by human activity. The problem is that it’s all in their heads, not in the data.

    The CO2=CAGW hypothesis is not based on any falsifiable empirical evidence. We can see, for example, that although the very minor trace gas CO2 has risen, nothing unusual is occurring as a result. The GCMs all fail to accurately predict the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. Climate alarmism is rank speculation, based on the evidence-free belief that human activity measurably changes the global climate.

    It is up to the purveyors of the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis to falsify the null hypothesis, or to show that their new conjecture has any predictive value. So far, they have come up empty handed.

    If you discover convincing, reproducible and testable evidence showing that human activity is leading to runaway global warming, I will change my mind. Until then, I’m skeptical of wild-eyed climate alarmism.

  42. Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    please explain the reason why the Arctic sea ice has been declining during the satellite data record and why it has accelerated the past decade. Name the natural variability affects that explain this decline, the percentages of how much of the decline is due to solar variability, the PDO, the AO, etc. etc. etc. You should be able to do that right?

  43. Anu says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    That # (1294171 for 05,03.2010) is provisional.
    As for the 3rd lowest in IJIS history:
    05,03,2003,12742969
    05,03,2004,12358750
    05,03,2005,12574063
    05,03,2006,12191094
    05,03,2007,12550000
    05,03,2008,12802969
    05,03,2009,13031875
    05,03,2010,12941719 *provisional*
    Your numbers don’t add up. And you cannot compare to other data sets without calibrating first.
    Lot’s of work.

  44. Sorry, Anu… Ice doesn’t die; it simply melts away–typically to form another day. Just like the earth isn’t going to die, however we are–we’re mere specks along for the ride; the earth is largely oblivious to our presence; it neither cares nor considers who or what we are.

    I know that might make you feel insignificant, but that’s the way it is. There are about as many stars in the universe as there are sand grains on all of earth’s seashores–I know, because I’ve calculated it (with a generous confidence interval for both numbers, of course). But if it makes you feel any better, you have more atoms in your body than both of those numbers combined. So cheer up–the earth isn’t going anywhere; we are. We humans are the temporary sojourners. And it is far more important that we strive to be honest, upstanding, helpful neighbors and friends than waste our time chasing some enigmatic theory about which we have no significant impact.

  45. The arctic sea ice extent seems to have a multi-decade correlation with the AMO which seemingly peaked this past decade. It tends to have a shorter term (year to year) correlation with the AO/NAO. If you notice during past years, the lowest fall minimum extents have occurred after heavily +AO winters such as 1988-1989, 1994-1995, and 2006-2007. The higher minimum extents in recent years have been occurring after -AO/NAO winters such as 1995-1996 and 2000-2001.

    Both of those factors have generally been hostile to arctic sea ice the past couple decades. The AMO is still in positive mode but its past its peak and declining now. The AO/NAO decadal cycle appears to be going back negative. This would argue that we’ve seen the bottom for sea ice extent minimums for the time being. I’d expect another rebound this year given this past winter’s conditions. But nothing is ever set in stone.

  46. nedhead says:

    “Name the natural variability affects [sic] that explain this decline…”

    This is so exasperating. For the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove. Why does the alarmist contingent keep turning the scientific method on its head?

    It is the job of the alarmist crowd to falsify natural climate variability: the null hypothesis. So far, they have failed. The null hypothesis stands.

  47. RockyRoad@1:38pm

    Some serious cold weather gardening tips. We all may need them soon.

    Buy some cheap black plastic sheeting. Thin guage is fine but you have to weigh it down with rocks. Don’t we all have too many of those in our garden!! Ideally you will lay it down before you plant your seedlings, putting the seedlings in X’s cut in the plastic, but if you don’t piece and fit it around the existing plants . This needs more rocks. [Hummm, maybe rocks aren't so bad in a garden].

    What the black plastic does is trap heat if you are lucky enough to have sun, always a problem for a cold weather gardener. If it does trap heat it creates a ground bubble of warmer air at the critical night hours. There is an informal competition among Southern gardeners for the earliest juicy ripe tomato; more often then not this strategy has helped.

    Spreading the plants out does not help. Bunched plants survive better in very cold weather.

    Nothing in this comment will help you deal with the birds or, in my case, the cottontails who will demolish your juicy ripe tomatos. No amount of black plastic will help you there. Everybody who reads WUWT knew a bird would get here somehow!

  48. “Ulric Lyons says:
    May 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm”

    The dominance of 17yr weather/climate events, including the Cicada, on this list:

    http://holyhormones.com/uncategorized/hundred-of-natural-cycles-documented-by-the-foundation-for-the-study-of-cycles-3/

    Would be due to the coronal hole cycle:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p00955r885255112/

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SoPh..183..201J

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.517..275G

    It produces the the strongest monthly string on CET that you will find.
    Take a look from July 2006, July 1989 and every 17th July for a really good example.
    Restart at July 1852 to go back further.

    Some folks thought it was Moon doing it.

  49. Ulric Lyons says:
    May 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    Thanks for that. It’s hard to believe that, with all the advances in computer software, something as commonplace as a natural cycle eludes the programmers of GCM’s running on the world’s greatest supercomputers.

  50. nedhead says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    please explain the reason why the Arctic sea ice has been declining during the satellite data record and why it has accelerated the past decade. Name the natural variability affects that explain this decline, the percentages of how much of the decline is due to solar variability, the PDO, the AO, etc. etc. etc. You should be able to do that right?

    No, you fail to understand the null hypothesis: 1] the modern Arctic sea ice satellite record is not long enough to establish what average or “normal” is. Therefore, 2] it is up to the CO2AGW hypothesis and science itself to give all the mechanisms and percentages you refer to including soot, wind and currents, then say how CO2 climate physics is actually explanatory for any unexplained residual ice decline during this short period of the Earths’s climate; while also explaining 3] the fact that a “death spiral” in Arctic sea ice did not occur as a result of the 2007 decline as predicted by CO2AGW, and other things such as why Trenberth is now urgently looking for the “lost heat”.

    So it is instead the CO2AGW hypothesis and science itself which needs to explain things such as any satellite era Arctic sea ice decline, especially since what we are seeing here is not known to be “abnormal”. And the CO2AGW hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, among the other requirements of the Scientific Method.

    Or do you not support the idea that Climate Science should be based upon the Scientific Method?

  51. nedhead says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    please explain the reason why the Arctic sea ice has been declining during the satellite data record and why it has accelerated the past decade. Name the natural variability affects that explain this decline, the percentages of how much of the decline is due to solar variability, the PDO, the AO, etc. etc. etc. You should be able to do that right?

    You must be joking – Smokey never “explains” what it is in nature that is causing the varying. He plays the “natural variability” card like other people play the “it is God’s will” card or “the gods are toying with us” cards. He has no idea why things are happening, so assumes nobody has any idea why. If, in the last 4.6 billion years, any climate has happened before, this is part of “natural variability”. Anything between new, molten surface Earth and snowball Earth is all “natural”, and thus no cause for alarm. If some scientists predict the Arctic will be ice free in the summers by 2020, and, what do you know, that happens…

    That’s nothing. It would have happened anyway.
    Natural variability.

    What if something that never happened before happens – thermonuclear war, leaving a radioactive wasteland on the Earth ?
    Well, nature has just entered a new realm of variability.

    “Natural variability” explains everything.
    It’s the “null hypothesis” – whatever you predict, would have happened anyway.

    The Big Bang ? Hey, that cosmic microwave background radiation was there already, it’s natural. I don’t have to explain what caused it, you do. But your explanation is wrong.
    It’s just natural variability in background radiation.

  52. ” stan stendera says:

    RockyRoad@1:38pm

    Some serious cold weather gardening tips. We all may need them soon.

    Buy some cheap black plastic sheeting. Thin guage is fine but you have to weigh it down with rocks. Don’t we all have too many of those in our garden!!”

    I have enough rocks to use as a border, weighing down plastic, throwing at the
    infernal Eastern Red Squirrels that infest the yard. NE Oregon is cold weather
    gardening most of the time…. Good advice….

  53. Anu says:
    May 3, 2010 at 9:13 pm:

    “Smokey never ‘explains’ what it is in nature that is causing the varying. He plays the ‘natural variability’ card like other people play the ‘it is God’s will’ card or ‘the gods are toying with us’ cards. He has no idea why things are happening, so assumes nobody has any idea why.”

    As we can see, Anu still does not understand the scientific method, or scientific skepticism; a failure that is emblematic of the alarmist contingent.

    Once again: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the purveyors of the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis who have the burden of showing that their new conjecture explains reality and makes better predictions than the null hypothesis. They have failed.

    Since the alarmists have failed, being humans with sensitive egos, they mendaciously turn the Scientific Method on its head and demand that skeptics must, in effect, prove a negative. But that is not the Scientific Method. That is nothing but shamanism.

    Anu’s fantastic assertions that the minuscule human fraction of a very minor trace gas, comprising only one molecule out of every 2,600 in the atmosphere, is the principal driver of the climate is not only preposterous, but there is zero empirical evidence backing up that ridiculous conjecture. It is rank speculation, nothing more.

    When Anu or any other climate alarmist can show that CO2 drives the climate, wake me. Until then, the alarmist case is nothing more than hand-waving.

  54. stevengoddard says:
    May 3, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    Anu,

    You forgot to mention that current extent is well above 2003, which was the highest in the AMSR-E record.

    2009 was well above 2003 on this date as well, but finished up well below in the summer minimum. 2008 was above 2003 on this data also, and finished even lower than 2009.
    Clearly 2003 is old news – the climate has changed. Current ice extent is dipping below 2009, and almost below 2008.
    And just like that, the race is on.

    (it’s hard to make 5 month races sound exciting…)

  55. We’re losing about 80k sq km per day mostly from the Barents sea. This is kinda predictable because the ice there didn’t form until late winter and couldn’t have been thick. This rapid drop won’t stop until the Barents sea melts back to where it was at New Year’s. However, when that’s done, the remaining parts are not so thin and the extent will start gaining on the previous years.

    But it may be playing catch up from last place. Still, the summer minimum looks strong.

  56. What happens to the rotten ice if it doesn’t melt this year? Does it just lurk in the wings, waiting?

  57. Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    I realize some people mistake failure to understand as an understanding of failure.
    That’s just natural variability.

    And you’re right: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove.
    Nobody is waiting for the results of your skepticism. No deadlines, no pressure, no need to explain yourself. No papers, no work. Just sit in a room, have a beer, and be skeptical.
    Or on a patio. Wine. Sake. Whatever.

    I myself am skeptical of the Large Hadron Collider finding a Higgs boson – I’ve had about 30 skeptical drinks in the last year, and plan on being skeptical until they find one.

  58. rbateman says:
    May 3, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    Its a pleasure. I do my research on a 233MHz Pentium 2 that cost 50 quid,
    Piers was on a scientific calculator when I first met him, maybe the more lost you are, the bigger supercomputer you need??

  59. I disagree that the Antarctic is boring at the moment, the past trend has been for much increased ice gain from the minima due to wind patterns associated with the increased southern ocean wind circulation, see

    for a snap shot. This has not happened this year.

    Andy

  60. The Big Bang ? Hey, that cosmic microwave background radiation was there already, it’s natural. I don’t have to explain what caused it, you do. But your explanation is wrong.
    It’s just natural variability in background radiation.

    I suppose this is meant to prove something, but I blowed if I can work out what.

  61. nedhead says:

    “Name the natural variability affects [sic] that explain this decline…”

    Our theory is that the PDO was in a 30-year warm cycle, and other multi-decadal oceanic cycles were also warming. Now the warm is turning.

  62. I Always read Smokey’s posts, and most times agree. Smokey, I think that ANU looks at your posts but does not know how to read.

  63. Arctic ice extent continues downwards on the trend line started at the end of March, having lost a little over 1,000,000 km2 during April. If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011. That would be a complete disaster for Santa Claus and the billions of people who depend on him.

  64. stevengoddard says:
    May 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    Anu

    The climate has changed. Chicago is no longer buried under a mile of ice.
    —————-
    Reply: Not only that, but someday, in the not too distant future (I’m SWAGing between 500 and 5,000 years from now) it will AGAIN be buried under a pile of ice. Now that’s (climate) change you can believe in.

  65. slightly off topic, but it seems rather funny to me …

    from the catlin arctic survey 2010 ( http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/news.aspx?newsId=112 )

    “1. 03/05/2010 – Explorer Team position at 12:00 BST: 88.36.35 N / 63.00.48 W.

    2. The team decided to call it a night and decide what to do the next morning. In the clearer light of day, seeing there was no obvious route around it, they had no option but to try and cross, giving Ann another opportunity to climb into her immersion suit and test her “jelly baby crawling skills” across the thin ice”

    I’m no specialist, but … “clearer light of day” ?

  66. It appears my mind experiment about winds producing those cold waters off the Bering Strait has been thought of before. It has been proposed that wind patterns encouraging upwelling of cold waters in the Northern Pacific is causing the SST’s to precipitously drop in the regions along the coastal Northern, Western and Eastern upper Pacific. It is not ice melt.

    http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/HsO/PDF/peterson%20schwing.pdf

  67. addendum

    It is certainly true that as these icy waters lose their ice to the Sun’s warmth, the seas are cold. However, these heavy waters normally sink as they melt. Under warm conditions, the cold water drops below the surface layer. The only thing that can keep them at the surface are winds that promote upwelling. Papers I have recently read propose that this contributes to, or is even the cause of, the decadal shift between warm and cool phases of the PDO.

    I wonder if the shift in winds in this interesting area could be due to shifts in the AO. Might the AO have a multi-decadal position shift regardless of whether it is positive or negative? So far, pressure changes from positive to negative don’t seem to have a multi-decadal or even decadal oscillation but the PDO does. I wonder if the position of the AO pressure cell changes on such a time scale.

  68. addendum

    Would be interesting to compare AO data to PDO data (which would include AO cell location as well as pressure changes) to see if there are correlations. Maybe ENSO has less influence on the PDO than the AO does, or that some combination of the two produces phase changes in the PDO.

  69. The cover story about Santa’s workshop being at the North Pole is obviously misdirection, for security purposes. Let’s just say that one pole has land under it, while the other does not. Santa’s been a little sloppy, letting photos like this one leak out:

  70. #
    Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    nedhead says:

    “Name the natural variability affects [sic] that explain this decline…”

    This is so exasperating. For the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove. Why does the alarmist contingent keep turning the scientific method on its head?

    It is the job of the alarmist crowd to falsify natural climate variability: the null hypothesis. So far, they have failed. The null hypothesis stands.

    .

    Oh wait, I get it. Because you cannot explain it with any of your natural variability tenets, you don’t actually have to educate yourself on the processes at work, or think outside the box. It’s like shutting yourself in a closet with the lights off and telling everyone to go away because you don’t understand what’s happening.

    Maybe someone else out there can explain why when you run climate models with the observed record of GHGs you are able to simulate the observed warming trend and the trend towards reduced Arctic sea ice cover, but when you don’t put the observed GHGs in and instead leave them fixed at pre-industrial warming, none of the models show any decline in Arctic sea ice whatsoever.

  71. stevengoddard says:
    May 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

    jeff brown

    This graph shows AO negative for all months in the early 1980s, not just winter.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AO_NAO

    Steve, all I’m trying to say is that during summer a negative AO state actually favors ice loss, and since a negative winter AO tends to be followed by a negative summer AO, it is likely we’ll have a negative summer AO state.

    Some reasons why this matters more now than it did in the past. If you go back to the 1980s during the thick ice regime, anomalously warm temperatures (ocean or air) could cause a lot of ice melt, but the ice was still rather thick, so that melt was expresses as anomalous volume loss, not as extent loss. Today because the ice is thinner, similar anomalously warm conditions will actually be expressed as ice extent loss as the thinner ice melts out entirely.

    The Rigor and Wallace 2004 paper discusses the warming in the Beaufort during a negative AO summer. Also recent papers by Overland et al. also discuss the summer AO and its impacts on the ice cover…

  72. #
    Roger Knights says:
    May 4, 2010 at 3:30 am

    nedhead says:

    “Name the natural variability affects [sic] that explain this decline…”

    Our theory is that the PDO was in a 30-year warm cycle, and other multi-decadal oceanic cycles were also warming. Now the warm is turning.

    Ok…well then I guess this summer is an important one for you to watch then. Solar activity is also low so it should be cold too right, further helping to keep the ice around.

    I have a bad feeling that won’t be the case because of how thin the ice is, but we’ll all know by the end of September….Happy watching!

  73. Joe Bastardi – AccuWeather prediction: SUNDAY MAY 2

    Ice melt forecast idea for summer.

    I have been making a big deal about the arctic sea ice returning to levels that are more comfortable, and yet I see people simply in denial over it. I try to be objective about it. I will tell you this. It should be a big summer for ice melt, and while I dont expect it to reach levels we saw in 007, my forecast is for it to bottom out lower than it did last year. We have had an el nino, and the summers after that are the big ones for ice melt. However we are starting at a higher level than we did in 07.

    The increase in the ice cap will be a 1 step back, 2 step forward function in the cold PDO. I fully expect by 2020 the low points we see to be running near the 30 year means, in other words its almost always above, rather than below, as the PDO rules.. When its warm there is a step down, when its cold, a step up, we just have not been able to observe it yet because we did not have a cold PDO develop until after the last warm Nino. But I have given you the sites to look at, so you can watch for yourself. Just understand… the product of the past years el nino should mean this does comes down more than it did last year, but the cold PDO overall will take care of that with bigger rebounds next year and the year after.

    So the forecast is for summer ice to be bottom out lower than 09, but not as low as 07, however winter ice next year will be higher than it peaked at this year.

  74. stevengoddard says:
    May 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    Anu

    The climate has changed. Chicago is no longer buried under a mile of ice.

    I’m glad to see you agree with me now :-)

    Dropping. Like. A. Rock.

  75. How does arctic average sea-ice extent for April compare with last 8 years?
    Using AMSR-E data…

    April averages…
    2003 14.332Msqkm
    2004 13.918Msqkm
    2005 13.512Msqkm
    2006 13.320Msqkm
    2007 13.438Msqkm
    2008 14.085Msqkm
    2009 13.935Msqkm
    2010 14.368Msqkm

    2010 has highest average in 9 years. And from what I’ve seen of 2002 data, it’s very likely the highest in 10 years.

    Anyone else doing averages so we can compare?

  76. Awesome! After I posted, I realised I hadn’t updated my data since 26th April, so the 2010 average was likely wrong due to missing data. Groan. So I updated the data, re-ran my averager and got the same result ( to 5 sig fig )! kudos to my extrapolator which automatically estimated the missing data and got the right answer. Bit lucky.

  77. Bah. Knew it was too good to be true. Re-ran it a 3rd time after I decided a 5 sig fig equality was far too unlikely, and that 0.03Msqkm didn’t seem to corelate with the Jaxa graph. There was another error. Which I’ve fixed now.
    Final average for April arctic sea-ice extent.

    2003 13.366Msqkm
    2004 13.153Msqkm
    2005 13.319Msqkm
    2006 12.981Msqkm
    2007 13.036Msqkm
    2008 13.533Msqkm
    2009 13.588Msqkm
    2010 13.836Msqkm

    2010 is now by far the highest average in 9 years, and is a 4th consecutive growth year.

  78. Is it my monitor, or ancient eyes, but the colors in the SST graphic appear to repeat. +6 is about the same as -6.

    Or have we uncovered “minusgate” ? (re: Finland or at least something up there)

  79. nedhead says: [ ... ]
    May 4, 2010 at 8:08 am,

    The models don’t do what you’re claiming they do. Further, the issue is global warming. By cherry-picking only the Arctic, while ignoring Antarctic ice cover, which is trending higher, you are simply selecting a convenient regional climate change.

    The natural cycles you are selecting happen routinely, and are not indicative of catastrophic AGW. In fact, it refutes AGW, which by definition impacts global temperatures.

    Climatologist Roy Spencer says: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis. Unlike CAGW, it has never been falsified. The null hypothesis is the skeptical position in climate science.

    The null hypothesis does not require a complete understanding of every facet of the climate in order to be the accepted theory, any more than the ancient Romans needed to understand nuclear physics in order to predict that the Sun would rise in the East every morning.

    That is why the null hypothesis causes such consternation among alarmist contingent. They can not falsify it, so they try to belittle scientific skeptics — who, unlike the alarmist crowd, are operating according to the scientific method.

    CAGW is as relevant to science as Scientology is. They are both driven by money, not by the scientific method.

  80. nedhead says:
    May 4, 2010 at 8:17 am

    “Maybe someone else out there can explain why when you run climate models with the observed record of GHGs you are able to simulate the observed warming trend and the trend towards reduced Arctic sea ice cover, but when you don’t put the observed GHGs in and instead leave them fixed at pre-industrial warming, none of the models show any decline in Arctic sea ice whatsoever.”

    Your main argument is that climate computer models do not work without incorporating estimated effects of GHGs. Are you serious?
    And the Arctic sea ice is not declining.

  81. Smokey, science is not driven by money. Post-docs stand to make only 40K after 10 years of college. Scientists do not go into this field because they stand to make a lot of $. Most do it because they are fascinated by how things work and want to understand them further.

    You say models don’t do what I say they do. Well, there was a paper by Stroeve et al., 2007 that looked at the IPCC models versus the observations in regards to the Arctic sea ice cover. It was only when the models were forced with the observed record of GHGs that the models showed a decline over the period of sea ice observations. When you use pre-industrial levels, NONE of the model show any decline. So despite the fact that each model could be in its own phase of natural variability and could be showing an increase or a decrease, the fact that they all show a decrease implicates GHGs as playing a role in the current decline.

    And by the way, the Antarctic ice cover is responding exactly the way climate models have predicted it would respond. There is not discrepancy there. Note that Antarctica is surrounded by the ocean, and the ocean’s thermal intertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. Circumpolar currents around Antarctica act as a buffer, preventing warm water from the tropic from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that doesn’t exist in the North. The fact that the Arctic and Antarctic are currently showing different responses to warming temperatures makes complete sense from a physical standpoint.

  82. Exam question: If Arctic ice finally disappears by New Year’s Day, calculate how long it will be at the current rate of warming until Arctic Sea comes to the boil. (Show all working)

  83. Wilfred, Smokey said CAGW is driven by money as opposed to science, which I agree is driven by the fascination of searcing for the truth.

    Can you give references to papers reporting computer models predicting Antartic ice increasing?

  84. wildred says:

    “Smokey, science is not driven by money.”

    What? In the USA alone ≈$2 billion a year is funneled into the pockets of CAGW promoters. It may be that post docs don’t get the big bucks, but those higher up the food chain, including their employers, certainly do.

    And that immense annual flow of grant money into the pockets of selected scientists and their employers does not include the constant, targeted grants from pro-CAGW entities like the Joyce Foundation, George Soros, the Grantham Foundation, the Heinz Foundation, and numerous others that pay universities and individual scientists to arrive at scary CAGW conclusions. Climate science has been corrupted by big money. The result is unscientific propaganda, parroted by a complicit news media.

    He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the tune is catastrophic AGW caused by human CO2 emissions. The government and these foundations get exactly what they are paying for: Catastrophic AGW propaganda.

    Really, you should take off the blinders and see what’s happening in the real world. If it were not for the huge amounts of money corrupting science, the over-hyped and scientifically discredited CAGW conjecture would have been long forgotten by now.

  85. jobnls says:
    May 4, 2010 at 10:01 am

    My main point is that you don’t see the sea ice to decline in these models unless you put in the observed record of GHGs. Same with the warming. It doesn’t happen in the models if you assume preindustrial levels of GHGs. So you can run climate models with preindustrial levels of GHGs and run them out several hundreds of years. Natural variability should cause ups and downs, right? i.e.warmer temperatures for a while, colder temperatures for a while, more sea ice for a while, less sea ice for a while, etc. And while you see wiggles of this, the steep decline in the Arctic ice cover over the last 50 years is not captured by such simulations. But when you run the models with the observational record of GHGs (i.e. that what has been measured with instruments), you do see the decline in the ice cover. Maybe not as fast as it is currently happening, but you do get a decline that is significant (and not seen in the pre-industrial simulations). So I am asking why this is?

    And yes, the sea ice is declining and will continue to do so as temperatures continue to warm.

  86. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Dang…I must be doing something wrong. I haven’t seen a single scientist getting rich off of this grand scheme you are claiming it to be. Guess it must be the universities getting rich though, except they keep cutting the budgets and not giving out raises.

  87. Dang, I must be doing something wrong. I don’t know of any scientists getting paid the big bucks…I wonder where they are? Perhaps it’s the universities getting rich since they take at least half of science $. But dang…they keep cutting the budget and not giving out raises. I really wonder who is getting rich off of this because I don’t know of any scientists who are.

    But hey…Chevron pays big bucks for me to come talk to them. Guess I should spend more time with the oil companies. Yeah…that’s where the $ lies.

  88. Roger Clague says:
    May 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Yes Roger, here are a few that may help.
    Turner et al., Antarctic sea ice extent increases as a result of anthropogenic activity, Nature
    Zhang, 2007, Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions
    Lefebvre and Goosse, 2008. An analysis of the atmospheric processes driving the large-scale winter sea ice variability in the Southern Ocean.
    Lefebvre et al., 2004. Influence of the Southern Annual Mode on the sea ice-ocean system.

  89. nedhead says:
    May 4, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Maybe someone else out there can explain why when you run climate models with the observed record of GHGs you are able to simulate the observed warming trend and the trend towards reduced Arctic sea ice cover, but when you don’t put the observed GHGs in and instead leave them fixed at pre-industrial warming, none of the models show any decline in Arctic sea ice whatsoever.

    Well, instead of CO2 concentrations, I could probably just as well fill in my personal body weight numbers over this last ~30yr. time period of time and “explain” the Artic sea ice decline. The fact that the CO2AGW models cannot explain any Artic sea ice decline without using CO2 concentrations does not in itself prove that increasing CO2 concentrations are causing any sea ice decline in a physical way.

    I showed above [JPeden says: May 3, 2010 at 9:12 pm] that it is up to those who advocate the CO2AGW “hypothesis” to do the work necessary to show that the null hypothesis, involving all the factors involved, cannot explain any Arctic sea ice loss.

    In response, you have not admitted this apparently inconvenient fact concerning the use of the Scientific Method. All you have done is repeat the same question, which btw is a known rhetorical tactic of cynical propagandists. Ignore, deny, repeat, repeat, repeat.

    The fact is that the pre-postmodern Philosophers such as myself easily see that the way the Warming Models operate in the case of the CO2AGW Postulate is a case of “begging the question”, a logical fallacy in itself but also a fallacious way of approaching reality: its practitioner operates essentially by assuming the validity of that which s/he should instead be trying to prove [the CO2AGW hypothesis] then s/he simply adds and adjusts various “fudge factors” as needed in order to keep the basic Postulate intact/alive, while ingoring any really inconvenient empirical facts.

    There’s nothing enlightened about these tactics. Anyone can use them if they are cynically inclined to, for whatever other reasons, or if they are in effect simply in a strong state of psychological denial, or if they are thinking “religiously”.

    By this technique, all you have to do is to simply not let your Postulate be disproven, exactly as people do in the case of the kind of Conspiracy Theory which is progressively force-fit by any means necessary to be consistent with any state of affairs whatsoever, but which therefore says exactly nothing new at all about empirical reality.

    However even at that, objective problems with the CO2AGW Postulate still persist, some of which are: the Models cannot model the effect of clouds; they have an abysmal record as to their predictions – some of which actually falsify CO2AGW; Trenberth admits that Climate Science cannot find the heat which should be there according to the Postulate; and the CO2AGW Climate Scientists refuse both to follow or even to support the use of the Scientific Method when doing “Climate Science”.

    That’s your problem, nedhead, you do not want to support the use of the Scientifc Method as necessary in doing real Science. You want to instead wage an easily recognized Propaganda Operation as a substitue for doing real Science, something which I’m sorry to say tends to make you a subrational throwback, at best, to the kind of thinking characterizes the pre-Scientific Method ages.

  90. fascinating. Type “the ocean’s thermal intertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat” into your Google search bar and whaddaya get?

    http://www.grist.org/article/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing

    http://www.care2.com/news/member/255488890/501168

    http://pudgyindian2.blogspot.com/2009/12/hey-climate-change-deniers.html

    http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum?cdPage=120&cdThread=Tx2EUFV3IDN0T8E

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing.php

    Why, you get wildred’s May 4, 2010 at 10:02 am talking points verbatim. I guess this must be one of those cases where truly great minds think alike.

  91. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Climatologist Roy Spencer says: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis. Unlike CAGW, it has never been falsified. The null hypothesis is the skeptical position in climate science.

    Unlike Smokey, Dr. Roy Spencer realizes that waving your hands and saying “natural variability” is no explanation at all. Dr. Spencer sets out to explain the recent century plus of global warming by presenting a hypothesis that it has been caused by clouds – the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been creating the right clouds at the right heights at the right places for the last 120 years. And hey, those chaotic, internal natural cycles might flip any moment now, you never know, and the clouds will start to cool the planet – it has nothing to do with CO2.

    Not a hypothesis with a lot of predictive power, but hey, it’s a start.

    At least Dr. Spencer has thrown an explanation in the ring, and it can now be examined and critiqued by real scientists, unlike Smokey, who thinks “natural variability” is the explanation.

    [snip] Once again, “denialist” is unacceptable here, even when quoting others. ~dbs, mod.]

  92. Rob Dawg says:
    May 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    The NSIDC 1979-2000 “average” is perhaps the most insidious of statistical measures akin to only tracking sunspots for half a solar cycle.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Very good analogy, I like it. I have been trying to find a way to get that point across concisely and that does it.

  93. JPeden says:
    May 4, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Instead of attacking what you think Climatology is, why not see if you can understand a few dozen pages of an actual Climatology textbook ?

    http://tinyurl.com/338zuqo

    If you can understand all of this free Google textbook (many pages are left out), congratulations – you understand Climatology as well as an undergraduate student. Another 5 or 6 years of study, and you would be qualified to start research in the field. Another 40 years of real world experience, and you would understand the Earth’s climate as well as Dr. Hansen.

    Better, in fact, since it would be 2055 by then. Whether the climate was going to be changed in a negative way (for human agriculture) by human CO2 emissions by 2100 should be pretty well understood by then. Perhaps fusion power would be cheap and plentiful by 2055, and the point would be irrelevant, anyway.

  94. RockyRoad says:
    May 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    I’m spacing my garden rows 3 feet apart this year …. If it isn’t better than last year (which saw only 4 days 90 degrees or above and nothing over 93), there’s no use trying to grow veggies. …
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Tell me about. In 2004 we had a mean for April of 85F and 6 days above ninety, since then the mean is around 73 to 76 and a total of five days above ninety for the entire half a decade. On top of that when it finally warmed up this year it quit raining for going on three weeks. GRRRrrr. I hate watching the thunderstorms drench the other side of the county but not us.

  95. Oh I forgot to mention I am in mid North Carolina so we usually see 90 to 95 and above from the first of May on rather frequently.

  96. If you’d like to read more about why humans putting gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is no problem at all, check out Dr. Spencer’s Marshall Institute:

    http://www.marshall.org/board.php

    More recently, the Institute has focused on disputing mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Funded by ExxonMobil and chaired by a former official of the American Petroleum Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a “clearinghouse for global warming [anti-alarmists]“, and by Newsweek as a “central cog in the [anti-alarmist] machine.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

    Of course, opinions vary.

  97. Anu might be coming around. He is starting to understand that clouds are natural.

    From Anu’s link:

    Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earth’s climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.

    In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. [my emphasis]

    Anu should keep reading WUWT. He will discover that there is no empirical basis in catastrophic AGW claims.

    And there is plenty of predictive power in natural variability. Only CAGW True Believers fail to see it. [source]

    Finally, let’s hear from Dr Spencer himself. Note his use of the term “slightly.”

    We now return the alarmists to their default panic mode.

  98. davidmhoffer says:
    May 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    I had no idea this had anything to do with gardening. My gardening cycle being a bit unique,…..

    Try TWO eight foot fences (angled at the top) about 20 ft apart. Put a pack of BIG dogs in between the fences. Smile.

  99. jeff brown says:
    May 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    bubbagyro…I completely agree. I think this paper is not an example of good science. I just thought skeptics might like the paper since it says it’s all due natural variability and not at all from human activities….
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Jeff, skeptics dislike bad science. This paper does harm to the null hypothesis or natural variability because it is an example of bad science.

  100. The null hypothesis, simply worded, is “This is natural.”

    Anu, nedhead, et al are giving Smokey grief by saying “Oh yeah, well you tell me what is natural!”

    Before you can blame CO2 for the warming, first you have to show the warming is un-natural. Before you can show it is un-natural, you have to show what is natural.

    Thus until Anu, nedhead, et al can show what is natural and thus what is un-natural, they don’t even have the bare groundwork to establish that rising CO2 emissions are a problem.

    Why are Anu, nedhead, et al insisting that Smokey does their work for them? Can’t they figure it out for themselves?

  101. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    You shouldn’t expect too much from magazines and newspapers for scientific understanding. For example:

    That Professor Goddard, with his ” chair ” in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
    — “Topics of the Times.” New York Times. (13 January 1920)

    http://physics.info/newton-third/

    This was the famous NYT Editorial explaining to Dr. Goddard that rockets could not work outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, so forget about going to the moon…

    As for your link:

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032305H

    “Even if the popular version of global warming theory is right,”
    — Dr. Roy Spencer
    Yeah, the world’s top climate scientists might be right…
    But, maybe technology will save us. Whatever you do, don’t worry, Dr. Roy has a calming answer for you.

    As his book title says:
    The Great Global Warming Blunder
    How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

    this implies that he realizes he himself is not one of the world’s top climate scientists.
    Which is why he, and Smokey, were never fooled. QED.

  102. Smokey says:
    May 3, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Anu says:
    May 3, 2010 at 9:13 pm:

    “Smokey never ‘explains’ what it is in nature that is causing the varying. …

    As we can see, Anu still does not understand the scientific method, or scientific skepticism; a failure that is emblematic of the alarmist contingent.

    Anu’s fantastic assertions that the minuscule human fraction of a very minor trace gas, comprising only one molecule out of every 2,600 in the atmosphere, is the principal driver of the climate is not only preposterous, but there is zero empirical evidence backing up that ridiculous conjecture. It is rank speculation, nothing more.

    _______________________________________________________________________

    What is worse in my book is they ignore the real catastrophe. If CO2 decreases by as little as 1 molecule of CO2 in ten thousand then plants will stop growing and most will die killing most of the life on earth too. Talk of death spirals. The natural sequestering of CO2 in limestone, coal and oil was heading us for the real catastrophe. Luckily humans liberated life giving CO2 saving the planet and the environment.

  103. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Smokey, why do you keep talking about alarmists on this site? Where is Anu, nedhead or anyone else being alarmist? Just because they believe that human activity is leading towards a warmer planet, I don’t take that as being alarmist. No one really knows what the outcome of this experiment will be since we have nothing to compare it with.

    But since humans have been here (probably at least 3.2 million years according to the last fossil found), CO2 levels have never been as high as they are today, and our activities are responsible. Seems to me it’s important to understand what impact an increase like that will have on the planet. Why you consider it alarmist to investigate it, is beyond me.

  104. JPeden says:
    May 4, 2010 at 11:39 am

    It must be frustrating to you that none of your natural variability ideas (e.g. PDO, AMO, AO, solar variability, etc. etc.) can explain the continuing decline of the Arctic sea ice, but when you include GHGs the trend is explained.
    Where are the science papers that explain the decline by natural variability? There are plenty that explain it from GHGs. Time to not be so narrow-minded and open up to the possibility that natural variability is no longer cutting it…

  105. Gail Combs says:
    May 4, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    The natural sequestering of CO2 in limestone, coal and oil was heading us for the real catastrophe. Luckily humans liberated life giving CO2 saving the planet and the environment.

    Are you serious?

  106. jeff brown says: May 4, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Jeff, you are aware that plant life shuts down when CO2 in the atmosphere hits 200 ppm. I wonder if today’s plants are feeling like we would feel if we were trying to breathe 5% oxygen….

  107. Roger Knights says:
    May 4, 2010 at 3:30 am
    “Our theory is that the PDO was in a 30-year warm cycle, ”

    Its just a theory, one that does not fit the oberverved cycle of 90 years for the AO, and which is also so blatantly obvious in World temeperatures. Look, The last full cycle was from 1900 to 1990. The positive phase being 1900 to 1945, ok, so the center of the positive phase was 1922.5. Take off 90yrs = 1830`s = warm. Take off another 90yrs = 1740`s = warm. You can`t repeat the 60yr cycle hisorically with any success, It is an illusion. 1922.5 + 90yrs is 2012.5, so we are in the middle of the positive phase now, and it will be just turning negative by 2035/6. If you study the AO sequence: http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/ you will see some massive exceptions to the cycle in certain years. I can give deterministic forecasts to the exact years that cooler years/seasons will be occurring through this period, but the general phase is clearly positive. Get over the 60yr cycle, it doesn`t work, this is not Chinese astrology!
    its Gleissberg.

  108. kwik says:
    May 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    Anu,
    you seem to think Jim Hansen knows his climate science.

    I hope he wont start pushing the idea that CO2 will cause a new ice age.

    I dont think anyone will buy it this time;

    Those same tired old deceptions raise their ugly head from time to time.
    They’re still not true!

  109. skye says:

    “Smokey, why do you keep talking about alarmists on this site?”

    Because I don’t want to talk about bed-wetters?

    From the April 16, 2007 issue of Newsweak, an op-ed by Prof Richard Lindzen:

    There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators — and many scientists — seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes… Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature — a climate at which everything is just right.

    A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now… There is no evidence… that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way…

    Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.

    Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down — not up — the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere…

    Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

    Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem.

    The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle — Al Gore’s supposed mentor — is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action, unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

    Skye doesn’t like the term ‘alarmist.’ But that is exactly what the purveyors of CAGW are doing. Because if the total effect of human emitted CO2 is so insignificant that it can not even be empirically measured, which is in fact the case, then nothing except baseless alarmism justifies the demands for $trillions to mitigate a non-problem.

    And regarding Anu’s hand-waving over the relatively tiny assistance given to the GMI by the e-e-evil Exxon-Mobil, I note this in the Wiki [always questionable] link that Anu posted above:

    In 2002, the GMI received $80,000 from Exxon-Mobil, up from $60,000 in the previous year. Since 1998, the institute received a total of $715,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil.

    So what? Since 2002 the George Marshall Institute was supported with $715,000 from Exxon-Mobil. Well then, let’s contrast that with this.

    Government grants for alarmist climate studies are about 10,000 times greater than Exxon-Mobil’s contribution. And the government rarely funds universities and scientists whose research shows that CO2 isn’t a problem; the greater the scare, the greater the funding. And rich foundations and individuals with a CAGW agenda are also fanning the flames by funding scientists who sound the CO2=CAGW alarm.

    When you throw out bread in the public square, you get pigeons. When the gov’t throws out $billions in AGW grants, it attracts climate alarmists.

    Finally, jeff brown, the fact that you ask “Are you serious” regarding Gail Combs’ statement [you only quoted the last part, BTW], indicates that you still have a mental block that doesn’t allow you to see that, at atmospheric trace gas concentrations, CO2 is entirely beneficial, not harmful. You need to work on that.

  110. nedhead says:
    May 4, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Roger Knights says:
    May 4, 2010 at 3:30 am

    nedhead says:

    “Name the natural variability affects [sic] that explain this decline…”

    Our theory is that the PDO was in a 30-year warm cycle, and other multi-decadal oceanic cycles were also warming. Now the warm is turning.

    Ok…well then I guess this summer is an important one for you to watch then. Solar activity is also low so it should be cold too right, further helping to keep the ice around.

    I have a bad feeling that won’t be the case because of how thin the ice is, but we’ll all know by the end of September….Happy watching!

    If this year does uptick, as it seems to be doing, it’ll be a “Last Hurrah.”

  111. @Ulrich Lyons:

    The 60-year PDO cycle I cited is a simplification. It does not occur in regular 60-year cycles, and other oceanic multi-decadal cycles play a role as well. My impression from comments here is that the PDO has entered a cool phase (one in which La Nina events outnumber El Ninos).

    Here’s the link (which I’m sure you’re familiar with) to some background on the subject: Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):

    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

  112. kwik says:
    May 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    Anu,
    you seem to think Jim Hansen knows his climate science.
    I hope he wont start pushing the idea that CO2 will cause a new ice age.
    I dont think anyone will buy it this time;
    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html

    Yes, I heard of this story two years ago when it was first debunked.
    Try to keep up – the links are old now. Here’s what I copied from IBD two years ago:

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290

    On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist <b<S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.

    The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

    Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

    Here’s the Washington Post article the intern at The Washington Times (the Rev. Sun Myun Moon’s vanity newspaper) dug up:

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids=144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS

    Dr. Hansen was not a co-author, he did not agree with the results, and there is no indication he even *knew* what Dr. Rasool’s was going to use his code for – Dr. Hansen was still working on Venus at this time (he did not write his first paper on Earth’s climate until 1976). It is common for researchers to use software developed by others at the same University – this does not make the software developers ‘co-researchers’.

    If Osama bin Laden used Microsoft Word to write letters to his supporters, does that make Bill Gates a co-terrorist ?

    Here’s more info on the Dr. Rasool paper that The Washington Times dug up, and IBD parroted, because it included that mention of Dr. Hansen:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080101072141AAUf90w

    Here’s Dr. Hansen explaining the code that Dr. Rasool used:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070924_Grandfather.pdf

    Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and “Mr.
    Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program
    developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.”
    What was that program? It was a ‘Mie scattering’ code I had written to calculate light
    scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.

    I bet you feel foolish now.

  113. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    I’m glad to see you respect professors from my alma mater, MIT.
    Why not listen to Professor Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Director of the Center for Global Change Science, and the co-Director of the Joint Program on Science & Policy of Global Change? One of Prof. Lindzen’s overachieving faculty colleagues at Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate:

    http://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/topic.asp?Topic=PAOC

    Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says.

    The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    Do you think Lindzen is the only one at MIT that knows how to do science ?
    Care to hear about the work of a dozen more colleagues of Dr. Lindzen ? Why do you think Lindzen is the only one ever quoted by people like you ?

  114. Anu says:

    “Do you think Lindzen is the only one at MIT that knows how to do science?”

    It seems that way, doesn’t it? Considering the “warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100″ horse manure being shoveled by his ankle-biters.

  115. Anu

    So the MIT study clams 7C warming in the next 90 years, after 0C warming during the last 15 years and 0.6C warming during the last 120 years. Hopefully you are a little embarrassed by your alma mater?

  116. Smokey says:

    Anu says:

    “Do you think Lindzen is the only one at MIT that knows how to do science?”

    It seems that way, doesn’t it? Considering the “warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100″ horse manure being shoveled by his ankle-biters.

    Wow, that would be better than 2C cooling. More moisture in the atmosphere, plants growing better because of temp and CO2 levels, we could sure feed a lot more people. May 10-15 Billion. Nothing to worry about, really.

  117. Robert E. Phelan says:
    May 4, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    What does 200 ppm have to do with anything? Do you think we’re going to get to 200ppm anytime soon? Do you know what the ppms were 150 years ago when there were only 1 billion people on the planet compared to nearly 7 billion today?
    Are you up to speed on the latest CO2 research regarding plants? Do you know that too much CO2 also kills plants?
    But more importantly, where do you get the idea that CO2 levels are going to drop to 200 ppm where plants will be negatively affected?

  118. stevengoddard says:
    May 4, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Would raising taxes 20,000 years ago have stopped the ice sheet from melting?

    No, and I sure am glad that during the “Coming Ice Age” scare cooler heads prevailed.
    The only heating of the planet going on right now is the feverish itch to conduct Frankenstein Monster experiments on the Climate based on the whim of idiots armed with straight-edge pencil lines. And, of course, all the sweaty greed that comes with the high-pressure sales pitch. They want to trade CO2 into another economic bubble.

  119. From jeff brown on May 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm:

    Are you up to speed on the latest CO2 research regarding plants? Do you know that too much CO2 also kills plants?

    From the Wikipedia(!) Carbon Dioxide article, “Agricultural and biological applications” section:

    Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis. Greenhouses may (and of large size – must) enrich their atmospheres with additional CO2 to sustain plant life and growth. A photosynthesis-related drop (by a factor less than two) in carbon dioxide concentration in a greenhouse compartment would kill green plants, or, at least, completely stop their growth. At very high concentrations (a factor of 100 or more higher than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life, so raising the concentration to 10,000 ppm (1%) or higher for several hours will eliminate pests such as whiteflies and spider mites in a greenhouse.

    First part, a drop by a factor less than two can kill green plants. March 2010 atmospheric CO2 concentration was 389.44 ppm (according to the World Climate Widget), half of that is 194.72 ppm, and the mentioned amount was “a factor less than two”. So 200 ppm sounds about right.

    BTW, that was just confirmation of the “plant death” number.

    Second and main part, in greenhouses they are running up the concentrations very high to kill animal life without harming plants, over that duration of exposure. Here 1% was mentioned for killing certain bugs in greenhouses. Now let’s check out the “Toxicity” section:

    Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health[48] although physiological experiments show that such levels can be tolerated for some time [49].

    Healthy adults are “rated” for only 5000 ppm over 8 hours, while plants can handle twice that much for “several” hours. Interesting. Let’s look at the next piece of that section:

    Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[49][50] However, it should be noted that submarines have carbon dioxide scrubbers which reduce a significant amount of the CO2 present.[51]

    For some reason, you’re talking about how too much CO2 can kill plants. Yet green plants can tolerate about 25 times the current atmospheric concentration, for at least several hours. Humans can adapt to higher CO2 levels, with 50 times the current atmospheric concentration suggested for closed air spaces.

    I think it’s a given that we won’t be seeing atmospheric CO2 levels high enough that plant death from too much CO2 will ever be an issue, barring sudden planetary catastrophes that wipe out all biological conversion of CO2 to something else thus levels from natural sources like volcanoes would be allowed to rise practically unchecked, and in that case we and all the plants will be dead anyway.

    So why mention it?

  120. jeff brown says:
    May 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Gee, Jeff, you’re reading an awful lot in to a simple comment.

  121. #
    Roger Knights says:
    May 4, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    @Ulric Lyons:

    “The 60-year PDO cycle I cited is a simplification. It does not occur in regular 60-year cycles, and other oceanic multi-decadal cycles play a role as well. My impression from comments here is that the PDO has entered a cool phase (one in which La Nina events outnumber El Ninos).

    Here’s the link (which I’m sure you’re familiar with) to some background on the subject: Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):
    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

    Roger, I don`t buy the 60yr cycle, as I have already explained, I consider it an illusion, a misinterpetation of temperature history, due to outliers, exceptionally warm or cold years/seasons that are completely contrary to the particular phase of the cycle at the time, causing distractions. Just look at the magnitude of these exceptions, they of greater magnitude than the cycle itself. The 60yr cycle makes no sense historically, globally or locally, it doesn`t work backwards, period.
    Its simple, if you want a reliable Climate Change Index, well use the Arctic, you can see the cycle lengths far clearer there, its a really good thermometer.
    What about integrating other KNOWN cycles (big up rbateman), for example the 17yr coronal hole cycle that is clearly visible in weather, precipitation, tree rings, the life cycle of the Cicada, and that produces the strongest monthly temperature string on CET? Flood/drought cycles of 18yrs that coincide with peaks of world temperature?
    We clearly are dealing with a number of cycles that may be factorised and identified,
    but need to be re-synthesized to effectively reproduce or hidcast past observations,
    and hence predict with any certainty.
    Surely a London cabbie could appreciate that.

  122. “Anu says:
    May 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm”

    “nedhead says:
    May 4, 2010 at 2:29 pm”

    Ignore, deny, repeat, repeat, repeat. QED

  123. Ulric Lyons says:
    May 5, 2010 at 4:23 am

    What about integrating other KNOWN cycles (big up rbateman), for example the 17yr coronal hole cycle that is clearly visible in weather, precipitation, tree rings, the life cycle of the Cicada,

    Really, care to explain how that works?

  124. #
    Phil. says:
    May 5, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Ulric Lyons says:
    May 5, 2010 at 4:23 am

    “What about integrating other KNOWN cycles (big up rbateman), for example the 17yr coronal hole cycle that is clearly visible in weather, precipitation, tree rings, the life cycle of the Cicada,

    Really, care to explain how that works?”

    Curiously, short term solar activity, such as incresed solar wind velocity from coronal holes for example, will return to cause a positive temperature feature in the same month, every 17yrs. A number of 17yr years strings can be found in the same, and other months. This creates a repeating pattern of weather types in the seasons of certain years, and a different pattern in other years. Changes of temperature, relative to the seasons, cause a direct effect on precipitation. Heat in summer creates dryness, while a temperature drop in the summer causes a jump in rainfall. This first bit I got from Erl Happ. I then worked for myself that the inverse of this occurs in winter, when cold is dry, but a rise in temperature in winter will cause a precipitation event.
    The Equinoxes are more complicated.
    The Cicada are working with a temperature/rainfall pattern that returns fairly reliably every 17yrs in certain years. Typically 12 out the 17 possible years are more ideal for their needs, the number of brood years.
    Other monthly strings have noted by many people, such as the 23yr string. Look at every 23rd November going back from 2009 for example, on CET or any other N.H temperature series.

  125. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 5, 2010 at 1:47 am

    Some recent tree mortality numbers:

    in the southwestern US, more than 12,000 square km have seen increased mortality rates, killing 40-97% of trees in some sights in less than 3 years [Breshears et al., 2005; McDowell et al., 2008]. This die-off was more severe than mortality events of the 1950s.

    in western Canada, millions of trees across 130,000 sq-km of pine forest died in 6 years [Kurz et al., 2008]. Reports of extensive tree mortality have been reported in Africa, Asia, Australi, Europe and South America [Allen et al., 2010].

    Most of the above are insect-driven mortality that is related to increased drought conditions and warmer temperatures. Note that models under increased GHGs predict large changes in temperatures and precipitation across the globe (with the largest uncertainties in the precipitation).

    Besides the insect-driven mortality, over the past few decades old forests of the western US have shown doubled tree mortality rates (probably related to temperature increases, see van Mantgem et al., 2009). Long-term data from pan-Amazonian forest surveys recently documents effects from a severe drought in 2005, with reduced growth and increased tree mortality driving a marked shift in forest carbon balance [Phillips et al., 2009].

    Studies are currently focusing on the mechanisms causing these large tree die-outs. It is unclear if starvation occurs from reduced photosynthesis or a water-stress-induced inability to use stored carbon. Increased temperatures enhance the proliferation of tree-pests which also kill the trees.

    With large forest die-outs, the impact of forests as a carbon sink can change. Right now, terrestrial ecosystems absorb 33% of anthropogenic carbon emissions during the 1990s [Bonan, 2008]. It could be that this sink is going to change. For example, in British Columbia, beetle outbreaks reduced the carbon sink by 270 megatons over 20 years. This even reversed the carbon sequestration gains of the previous 20 years across millions of hectares of forest [Kurz et al., 2008]. Chapin et al., 2008 suggest that CO2 released following forest die-out could easily exceed carbon sequestration enhancements from elevated CO2 promoting forest growth.

    It is way more complicated than what you found in Wikepedia…

  126. Re: jeff brown on May 5, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    It is way more complicated than what you found in Wikepedia…

    This does happen, but still…

    So to recap:

    You say “Do you know that too much CO2 also kills plants?”

    I respond by showing how atmospheric concentrations are unlikely to reach levels where the plants need to worry about it.

    Your next post, you’re talking about forest die-offs, which have naturally happened for many millenia, and how they can be related to bug infestations, higher temps, and drought conditions, all of which have occurred naturally for many millenia.

    Thus I will conclude we are in general agreement that the plants have nothing to worry about concerning elevated atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Now that was a productive discussion! It’s been nice talking with you.

  127. Looks like the Arctic sea ice is taking a sharp turn downwards. The idea of a recovery that has been floating around this blog site might not hold up for much longer…

  128. Ulric Lyons says:
    May 5, 2010 at 11:21 am
    #
    Phil. says:
    May 5, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Ulric Lyons says:
    May 5, 2010 at 4:23 am

    “What about integrating other KNOWN cycles (big up rbateman), for example the 17yr coronal hole cycle that is clearly visible in weather, precipitation, tree rings, the life cycle of the Cicada,

    Really, care to explain how that works?”

    Curiously, short term solar activity, such as incresed solar wind velocity from coronal holes for example, will return to cause a positive temperature feature in the same month, every 17yrs. A number of 17yr years strings can be found in the same, and other months. This creates a repeating pattern of weather types in the seasons of certain years, and a different pattern in other years. Changes of temperature, relative to the seasons, cause a direct effect on precipitation……
    The Cicada are working with a temperature/rainfall pattern that returns fairly reliably every 17yrs in certain years. Typically 12 out the 17 possible years are more ideal for their needs, the number of brood years.

    So why does it effect those cicadas on the East coast (Brood X) differently from those in upper NY state (Brood VII) so that they’re three years out of sync? And why doesn’t it effect the cicadas in the southern states (Brood XIX) at all since they have a 13 year cycle?

  129. Cicada broods hatch based on a Fibonacci number of years. It has to do with avoiding predators. You could even look it up. ☺

  130. Smokey says:
    May 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm
    Cicada broods hatch based on a Fibonacci number of years. It has to do with avoiding predators. You could even look it up. ☺

    Missing the point as usual Smokey.

  131. Phil. says:

    “Missing the point as usual Smokey.”

    Really? All you had to do was google: cicadas, fibonacci. Simple.

    But as usual, your preconceived alarmist notions override your presumed attempt at understanding nature, due to your closed mindset.

    Even though you refuse to learn some facts, others who are inquisitive will do the same search and discover some interesting science, which is what this site is all about. Too bad your own biases preclude your learning the same things.

    There are quite a few interesting hits when searching “cicadas, fibonacci.” Open minded folks will find some fascinating information: ["Most of the cicada predators have small life cycles of 2-5 years and so firstly, these predators cannot evolve themselves to eat cicadas, secondly, the life cycles of cicadas (being in primes) rarely coincides with their predators’ life cycle and thus helps them in preserving their species."].

    You really should join those open minded folks, and learn more about our wonderful universe, instead of worrying about an insignificant trace gas that harms no one.

  132. Smokey says:
    May 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm
    Phil. says:

    “Missing the point as usual Smokey.”

    Really? All you had to do was google: cicadas, fibonacci. Simple.

    But as usual, your preconceived alarmist notions override your presumed attempt at understanding nature, due to your closed mindset.

    Why on earth would I do that in connection with 17 year cicadas, with your usual accuracy you claimed that 17 was a Fibonacci number which of course it isn’t!

    The original post, which I queried claimed that solar events such as coronal holes had a 17 year period and these events effected the weather and thus the hatching of the broods of the 17 year cicada. I asked why if this was so, that different broods of the 17 yr cicada hatched in different years in different parts of the same state. Also why in the southern US is the period is 13 years (13 is a Fibonacci number), do the coronal holes that effect the south have a different period? Of course then Smokey came in with his usual misinformation.
    Here’s some genuine information about the 17 yr cicada, they were the inspiration for Dylan’s ‘Day of the Locust’ following his experience of their swarming at a degree ceremony at Princeton University.

  133. Phil, they hatch based on prime number years. I had remembered reading about it a few years ago, and made my original brief comment so anyone could do a search to learn the details.

    The Fibonacci number was inadvertently inserted after having a few beers with a friend, when we had been discussing how Fibonacci numbers arrange the seed patterns in sunflower heads, etc. Glad you’re paying attention, and looking up what I post to make sure it’s accurate. We all need that. Best of all, you learned something, too.

    However, since you didn’t catch the mistake for two hours, and after making another comment, you certainly can’t claim to have had the facts at your fingertips, can you? No doubt some furious googling led to your a-HA! moment. Surely you would have instantly pounced on one of my rare mistakes, rather than having to take off your shoes and socks and count the Fibonacci numbers up to 17, if you’d had first hand knowledge about it. [I can outsnark anyone.☺]

    So I did some good by prompting you to look up what a Fibonacci number is, and I’m also glad you’re paying such close attention to my posts. Now, Grasshopper, if you can get up to speed on the climate null hypothesis, and start to follow the scientific method like a true skeptic for a change, my mission will be accomplished.

  134. Phil. says:
    May 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Well there are 5 years out of the posible 17 that none of the broods seem to like. If you wanted guarantee good conditions, you could choose a 17yr emergence cycle, and you would have 12 better years to choose from. There may be local variations in microclimte between the 17yr broods that favour different 17yr monthly anomaly strings, or it may just chance. When I searched for monthly temperature strings, I found 23yr, 17yr and 13yr strings, with the 17yr string being the least broken (less exceptions), and the 17yr string continues longer than the others without fading. I guess the southern Cicada may find the 13yr string suitable enough for their purpose, in that location.

  135. Smokey says:
    May 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    It seems that way, doesn’t it? Considering the “warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100″ horse manure being shoveled by his ankle-biters.

    You’re getting into dangerous territory there Smokey – actually making a prediction.

    Until now, you’ve been saying whatever happens, it’s all “natural variability”. Which, of course, you are under no obligation to explain or understand. Now you’re implying that even “natural variability” wouldn’t be so mischievous as to make the planet warm 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. If it does start down that path when you are still alive, your prediction will be on its way to being falsified.
    Can you live with that ? Or will “natural variability” still be your dying words, when the planet has only warmed 2 or 3 more degrees C ?

    What about the summer arctic ice gone in a decade or two ? Still going to go with “natural variability”, or are you going to go out on a limb and declare “horse manure” right now, that such a thing will never happen ?

  136. stevengoddard says:
    May 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    So the MIT study clams 7C warming in the next 90 years, after 0C warming during the last 15 years and 0.6C warming during the last 120 years. Hopefully you are a little embarrassed by your alma mater?

    The study projects a median surface warming of 5.1° C by 2100, from 1861:

    http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf

    Since the planet has already warmed 0.9° C since 1861, only 4.2° C more warming is needed.

    As for your ” 0C warming during the last 15 years”, surely you are getting confused by the widely misunderstood Dr. Phil Jones quote about “no statistically-significant global warming” ? I suggest you re-read the interview:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    The warming trend in the last 15 years is 0.18° C – he did not say “no warming”, he said this was “not significant at the 95% significance level” (if temperature values jiggled around randomly, a string of increases all in a row could barely explain the observed warming, without it being a “significant” trend). He also said that the last 35 years of warming, at 0.16° C/decade, was statistically significant.

    The expected warming in the 21st century will not be a simple linear extrapolation of the warming seen so far – the next 4.2° C will come faster. Look to the Arctic for the most dramatic early stages of warming.

    Yes, I’m slightly embarrassed by Dr. Lindzen, but he’s entitled to his opinions and his speaking fees – he’s put in his dues.

Comments are closed.