Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is ‘right on time’

UPDATE: see this new article on the issue,

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory
› Hi-res of left image
› Hi-res of right image

I covered this over the weekend when Bill McKibben started wailing about the albedo going off the charts. I thought it might be soot related. The PR below and quote above is from NASA Goddard. I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”,  then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

I’ve sent off a note to the NASA writer, seen here. Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.

That, and they seem surprised that the Greenland ice sheet would suddenly start melting in summer. Though, not every part of the ice sheet is melting right now, so perhaps their calibrations might be a bit off:

There may have been a brief few days of melt, but it appears to be over:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

============================================

h/t to WUWT reader Ole Heinrich

About these ads
This entry was posted in Glaciers, Greenland ice sheet and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is ‘right on time’

  1. richard telford says:

    Why would anybody expect the temperature at Greenland Summit on July 24 to indicate anything about the potential for melt on July 12?

    The temperature on – or just before – July 12 might be slightly more relevant, and is indeed above freezing.

  2. Jan says:

    “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

    So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

  3. Entropic man says:

    The hot high pressure air which moved over Greenland in the second week in July coincided with the close of the US East Coast heat wave, which may be where the hot air came from.
    If this is normally a very rare weather pattern, we probably wont see its like again for some time. If we start seeing repeats every few years, then it may signify a genuine change in North American climate. It does provide an explaination for that sudden drop in albedo.

  4. Just an engineer says:

    Maybe if you click on it instead of posting you would have your answer.

  5. Smokey says:

    richard telford,

    Wrong. Read the article. Max temp was 11ºF — well below freezing.

  6. Bill Illis says:

    The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.

  7. Entropic man says:

    Bill Illis says:
    July 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    “The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.”

    Presumably the amount they saw, unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists who automatically assume Goddard is putting out false data.

  8. Austin says:

    Ice and snow will melt if the solar insolation and air temp combined are above a specified value. A strong sunny day with little wind and temps in the mid 20s are sufficient. If it was 36 degrees on the 12th then that would be a major melt event. My guess would be that you would have snow become slushy to the depth of several feet. Given that the sun just circles the sky for most of Greenland’s latitude, then you would even see melt on all sides of the compass. It would be like a July day at altitude in the Rockies or Sierras.

  9. TomL says:

    So what happens to ice 10’s or 100’s of km from the coast, when it warms up to a couple of degrees above freezing for a few days? I would guess the water would flow a short distance downhill, and then refreeze with a net effect of not much.

  10. Myron Mesecke says:

    NBCNews.com has this up and conveniently left off this part of the quote:
    With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time

  11. Myron Mesecke says:

    Jan says:
    July 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

    You are missing your doom and gloom mantra hat. Anyone wearing one is sure to speak as if things are going to get worse.

  12. Taphonomic says:

    “Unprecedented NASA Press Release”

    Press release events of this type occur about once every week on average. More to come at 11.

  13. Smokey says:

    Myron Mesecke,

    That means of course that this has happened before. And before CO2 was anything near current levels.

    Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.

  14. gator69 says:

    OT – I enjoyed an unprecedented sunrise this morning after an unprecedented nights sleep. And Anthony, as always, keep up your great unprecedented work!

    Unprecedentedly yours, Gator.

  15. Jeff Mitchell says:

    I guess I do mean to be picky, but if this happens once every 150 years, then this one is 27 years early. I guess they have a fairly large range for “on time”.

  16. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    “Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.”

    Watch that sloppy logic. What happened in 1889 and on July 12th were low frequency weather events.
    There is no evident reason to connect them with CO2 levels, or falsify a connection, at present. If, however, these events become more frequent, it may be part of the ongoing changes in Arctic climate.

    The NSIDC tried to correalate changes in the Arctic over recent decades with every variable they could think of. CO2 was the only one that matched, so it may become a candidate.

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/05/16/what-is-causing-arctic-sea-ice-decline/

  17. Smokey says:

    Entropic,

    The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.

    You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.

    And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.

  18. otsar says:

    A random thought:
    If these melting events happen on a regular basis, what effects do they heve on the ice cores?

  19. Alvin W says:

    I really think some scientists should go, on helicopters, and collect
    water and sediment from these pools and bring them back for
    analysis. Maybe they’ll find another WW II plane as well.

  20. Eric in CO says:

    I have trouble believing a scientist can detect one day’s ice melt from a 150 year old ice core.

  21. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    Entropic,
    “The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.
    You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.
    And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.”

    The Null Hypothesis is a convention assuming that there is no correalation between two variables, as an aid to structuring investigations. In your case the null hypothesis would be that there is no connection between weather events in Greenland and changes in CO2. You should then go on to test whether that assumption can be falsified.
    Instead you assert “there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.”. This makes a nonsense of the whole null hypothesis concept.
    Similarly, you assert that the NSIDC data are untrustworthy because it is “adjusted”. Since we are unlikely to make much sense of the raw microwave data some adjustment to convert it into comprehensible ice extent maps would seem inevitable.

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/

    It would probably be pointless to ask where you got the trustworthy data record of Arctic ice dynamics on which your conclusions were based.

  22. Stephen Wilde says:

    Isn’t there always 97% of surface melting across Greenland every year around noon in late July ?

    Would depend on prevailing weather conditions to some degree though and so perhaps in some years it doesn’t happen at all and in other years it happens on varied dates.

    Doesn’t last long or go deep though does it ?

    It is more likely an annual event rather than every 150 years.

    Anyway, how did they observe it in 1889 ?

  23. FerdinandAkin says:

    I think it would be more worrisome if the melting did not occur on schedule. The next glacial period is going to start sometime, but we do not have to worry about it starting this year.

  24. Entropic man says:

    otsar says:
    July 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    “A random thought:
    If these melting events happen on a regular basis, what effects do they heve on the ice cores?”

    Eric in CO says:
    July 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    “I have trouble believing a scientist can detect one day’s ice melt from a 150 year old ice core.”

    A brief melting event would show in the core as a narrow band of relatively bubble free ice where meltwater replaced trapped air.
    The Greenland ice cap accumulates about 2 Metres of snow per year. Depending on the scale and duration of the melt, the effect on the core might vary from the melting and refreezing of a small band within a year’s accumulation, up to the mixing of several year’s snowfall into a single
    mixed band.
    I doubt that a particular melting event could be dated to the day, but a brief event should be datable to the correct year.

  25. Smokey says:

    Entropic,

    Every alarmist hates the Null Hypothesis, because it deconstructs their global warming scare. Everything that is happening now has happened before, in spades.

    Kevin Trenberth, who also hates the Null Hypothesis, writes:

    “…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

    Trenberth wants to put the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. Likewise, Entropic attempts to denigrate the Null Hypothesis [which is actually a corollary of the scientific method].

    But as Dr Roy Spencer explains: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” That is the Null Hypothesis in a nutshell. It can be falsified quite simply: just point to testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that current climate parameters are exceeding past Holocene parameters. It cannot be done, and that is why Trenberth is so exasperated with the Null Hypothesis. We are actually living in a very benign climate right now, but Trenberth is unhappy.

    There are no scientific facts that falsify the Null Hypothesis, which make those denigrating it victims of a reductionist fixation over non-existent facts. Such a reductionist fixation on presumed but non-existent ‘facts’ can lead to the related epistemological disorder, argumentum ignarus res, or argument in defiance of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism [and in the simplicity of the presumed mechanism’s operation in the real world] that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CO2=CAGW is a good example of this.

    Finally, Entropic wants a testable hypothesis. Here is one that has never been falsified:

    At current and projected concentrations CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere

    Have at it.

  26. Oh My Goodness – in summer, who would have thought! What is the world coming to when the sun does this amount of warming?

    Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface,

  27. awwww will it come please…. we will miss you ICE…….

  28. Smokey says:

    I am conflating nothing. You began by arguing that “in the last 100 years CO2 has risen again, by 110ppm from 280ppm to 390ppm”. Now you’re out to 20,000 years. Let’s not move the goal posts.

    As for CO2, I have never taken the position that it has no effect. But that effect is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. Therefore, CO2 can be completely disregarded. There is no scientific evidence showing global harm due to rising CO2, and all the arm-waving over the CO2 rise is simply climate alarmism based on the precautionary principle and confirmation bias, in which any old unrelated events are cherry-picked to bolster the scare.

    Regarding your statement: “Since it may be a long time before a new equilibrium is reached, I would reserve judgement on the ‘no temperature rise ‘ argument until we have a longer baseline than 12 years.” First [ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming], why should we have ‘a longer baseline’? If we go from 15 years with no warming to 17 years, what then? A still longer baseline is required? That’s not a credible argument. Alarmists would be running around in circles, screaming and waving their arms if we’d had 15 years of steady warming… oh, wait, they do that anyway.☺

    The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated, and the ≈40% rise in CO2 has not measurably affected the trend. Therefore, any effect from CO2 is so tiny that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.

    Finally, I note that my hypothesis remains standing: CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More is better. Deal with it, because that is reality.

  29. Entropic man says:

    I’m quite happy with the null hypothesis. Indeed, the null hypothesis that there has been no change in global temperature in the last century has been falsified to the 95% significance level normally regarded as conclusive. Correctly stated, the probability that this null hypothesis is correct is less than 5%.
    The problem of significance bedevills the whole climate change debate. The global temperature change is about the only statement that can be falsified to normal scientific standards. By analogy to criminal law, this would be “proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
    Other aspects of climate change would meet the equivalent civil law criterion, likely to be correct “on the balance of probabilities”
    I would agree with you that, if you apply the strict rule of science, I cannot say that all climate change observations meet the 95% significance criterion. However,nor are you are justified in claiming to be 95% sure that climate change is not happening

  30. RobertInAz says:

    “The NSIDC tried to correalate changes in the Arctic over recent decades with every variable they could think of. CO2 was the only one that matched, so it may become a candidate.”

    The NSIDC is quoting from a study by the Max Planck Institute without providing a link. IIRC, The Max Planck institute is one of the major proponents of CAGW and the precautionary principle. Quoting a study author: “We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.

  31. RobertInAz says:

    Almost got it:

    “We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.

  32. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    And on ABC World News (US), they also dropped the ‘1889, every 150 years’ part in favor of just a simple unprecedented. It’s always wonderful when news organization decide to protect viewers and readers from tiny pesky inconvenient inconsequential unnecessary factual details.

    And the Southwestern dust storms (haboobs), as evidenced by video of a single one from today, are now more intense, more frequent, as bad as the 1930’s Dust Bowl era. Scientists won’t say for sure, but it could be due to global warming…

    Looked to me like the one shown last year, when commenters here from the area mentioned they’ve always been a frequent event in those parts… Thankfully we have expert opinion of the esteemed published peer-reviewed climatologist Dr. Diane Sawyer to get the real truth out.

  33. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “…the null hypothesis that there has been no change in global temperature in the last century has been falsified…”

    That misrepresents the situation. Of course there has been global warming. Who disputes that?

    The debate is over whether CO2 causes measurable global warming. Based on scientific evidence, there is no measureable impact from rising CO2.

    That is not to say the planet has not been warming naturally since the LIA. Clearly it has been — and at the same rate, whether CO2 is at 280 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. Thus, CO2 makes no measurable difference in the warming trend. QED, my friend.

  34. Entropic man says:

    Smokey,lets deal with one thing at a time.

    Regarding the supposed stalling of temperature change since 1998. That year would be described statistically as an outlier, a datum point well outside the normal range of variation. By cherrypicking that year for comparison you get the result you want, not necessarily the result which best reflects the data.

    To analyse a trend line like the global temperature data you need to measure three things.
    1) The size of your sample, the number of measurements taken.
    2) The slope of the graph, the rate at which the dependant variable is changing.
    3) The variation either side of the trend line.

    The null hypothesis is that the line is flat, with no trend. To falsify it you nedd to demonstrate a trend to 95% significance by calculation. To be confidence of the absence of a trend you would need a significance below 5%. As a rule of thumb larger sample size, steeper slope and smaller variation all give increased significance. With the levels of variation and the slope seen in the temperature data to date, 15 years is too short a sample to allow calculation of meaningful significance values.

  35. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “The null hypothesis is that the line is flat, with no trend.”

    Wrong. You completely misunderstand the Null Hypothesis, which is is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. That means that to falsify the Null, you have to produce an example of current temperatures, for example, exceeding past parameters. That is not happening.

    Therefore, you must have parameters. And those parameters must be exceeded in order to falsify the Null. One example usually given is that of “accelerating” global temperatures. But all such claims are simply the result of a fictional artifact, which is produced by zero baseline charts. In fact, global temperatures are not accelerating. They are rising along the same trend line and within the same parameters going all the way back to the LIA. The long term trend has not changed.

  36. Entropic man says:

    RobertInAz says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    Almost got it:

    “We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.

    I would agree. Somewhere I have a graph showing a clear correalation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and skirt length.
    To a scientist correalation is a step along the road. When you investigate a process, a good starting point is to look for correalations. Where you see no correalation you can infer that there is probably no causal link.
    The next step is to go through what’s left. You design experiments or observational tests to test for causation. If you find one stands out above the others you test further and look for a physical process to explain it.
    For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2. A correalation can be demonstrated between them, at a higher significance than any of the other possible causes for a temperature rise. The absorbtion and reradiation of infrared radiation in proportion to CO2 concentration gives a physically plausible mechanism linking them.

  37. James says:

    Ice is not white. The older it is the darker it becomes. Then it melts to be replaced by new ice.

  38. Adrian says:

    There are many uses of “unprecented” so far in the comments, but none of them mention the guardian headline, so I will record it here for posterity:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa

    “Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July”

    even though the body of the text quotes the 150 years “cycle”

    “Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years.”.

  39. Entropic man says:

    Smokey

    We may be arguing at cross purposes here. We certainly have different perceptions of how the null hypothesis concept should be applied.

    You also seem to have got hooked on comparing conditions 20,000 years ago with conditions today.

    Then you had a situation in which, at least initially, a forced increase in temperature triggered an increase in CO2.

    In the present the evidence avaliable suggests that a forced increase in CO2 is triggering an increase in temperature.

    While the mechanisms linking CO2 concentration and heat flow are the same, the forcing agents are different. I have difficulty visualising a falsifiable null hypothesis linking the two situations. Perhaps you can find a suitable design. I’m off to bed.

  40. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2.”

    Key word: “recent”. He used it twice, so it must be important.

    “Recent” means very little. The long-term trend is what is important. And that long-term trend shows conclusively that there is absolutely nothing unusual about recent temperatures. Nothing.

    There is something unusual about the run-up in CO2. Basede on a 40% rise in CO2, we should be observing accelerating temperatures. But we are not.

    The corellation between CO2 and temperature is coincidental. It does not hold over longer time frames. And temperatures have done the same thing in the past. Repeatedly, and despite CO2 levels.

    CO2 does not cause measurable global warming. Deal with it. Because that is reality. Everything else is conjecture.

  41. A. Scott says:

    Fear mongering at its best.

    First – the headlines are ridiculous – 97% of Greenland’s ice cap did not melt as the headline and graphics imply. Rather 97% of the ice cap saw “some melt.” … for a couple days … and then it was over and refroze.

    Second, it is not “unprecedented” as NASA’s headline claims. Their own story, and Boresteins, both note that this also happen in 1889. And that ice cores show it happens regularly appx every 150 years – making this one pretty close to right on schedule.

    Third, it has zero to do with AGW if it happened in 1889 and earlier – not many soccer moms and SUV’s in 1889.

    Just more of the same … trying to conflate normal, explainable, known and expected events into sky is falling CAGW non-sense …

  42. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Entropic man says:
    July 24, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2. A correalation can be demonstrated between them, at a higher significance than any of the other possible causes for a temperature rise.
    <<

    There are other possible causes. A better match to the available facts is albedo change. The measured atmospheric warming rate matches better to climate model predictions for albedo change than to the GHE. You apparently can’t see beyond your belief in a CO2 link–or should I say lack of a link.

    That missing tropical hot spot is a big hole in the CO2 caused surface warming “correlation.”

    Jim

  43. Entropic man says:

    Jim Masterson says:
    July 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Links, please.

  44. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “You also seem to have got hooked on comparing conditions 20,000 years ago with conditions today.”

    That is the second time Entropic has stated that I am comparing current conditions with those of 20,000 years ago.

    I am afraid that Entropic is fabricating his ‘facts’. Where did I ever mention 20,000 years ago?

    I’m on to Entropic. I can usually smoke out a member of the hockey ‘team’. No verifiable scientific evidence is ever produced, corellation is the basis of belief, and verifiable facts are never refuted. As for falsifying that hypothesis… I’m still waiting.

  45. A. Scott says:

    Entropic man says:
    July 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm
    Smokey,lets deal with one thing at a time.

    Regarding the supposed stalling of temperature change since 1998. That year would be described statistically as an outlier, a datum point well outside the normal range of variation. By cherrypicking that year for comparison you get the result you want, not necessarily the result which best reflects the data.

    Not even a remotely accurate statement.

    Smokey did no “cherry picking” – he, like many others, used the last 15 years, 1997 to present – as some have said on both sides is the minimum necessary to talk about a trend.

    And that trend is flat: http://goo.gl/x1R2c

    None if by land, none if by sea and none if by air … no warming in these global air, sea or land temp records for the last 15 years.

    The result Smokey “picked” was the most fair there is – use the last 15 years … period.

  46. Correlating CO2 with Arctic sea ice and not Antarctic sea ice is cherry picking, pure and simple.

    And as I pointed out in the earlier thread, darker horizontal bands are clearly visible in Arctic icebergs. So they must be in ice cores. Some will be from volcanic eruptions, but I;d be interested to see a systemic study.

    This is a good paper on recent Arctic ice cores. They find increased melt from the 1990s. They include a core with melt bands shown. Interestingly in the picture these melt bands clearly have a higher albedo than unmelted snow.

    http://arctic.eas.ualberta.ca/downloads/Fisheretal2011onlineGPC.pdf

  47. Billy Liar says:

    This is such extreme rubbish. How did these satellites see through the cloud and freezing fog that was blanketing Summit Camp at the time the so-called ‘extreme melt’ was going on? The temperature at the Camp was only once recorded above freezing, +0.5C at 18:00UTC on 11 July. The weather observer noted that the maximum recorded that day was +1.0C. At no other time is there any note of temperatures above 0.0C. The 12:00UTC temperature was -0.4C with the wind at 11kts from 318 degrees with broken clouds at 1,000ft and overcast at 2,500ft. The 00:00UTC temperature was -2.2C in freezing fog with a vertical visibility of 200ft with an 11kt wind from the north.

    At the time of the record the temperature sensor was directly downwind of the Camp, the wind was 7 knots from 345 degrees:

    http://www.summitcamp.org/static/html/SummitStationSitePlan2011.pdf

    UHI?

    That right hand panel of the figure is a joke. The 12:00UTC temperature at the Camp was -0.7C and although the cloud was broken at 12:00UTC, it was overcast at 18:00UTC and still overcast at 00:00UTC on the 13th. Temperature was -1.8C at 18:00UTC and -2.1C at midnight.

    Were they measuring the temperature of the cloud tops?

    Summit Camp had 12 hours of light snow on the 6th July.

    Looking through the 8 years of temperature records they have for Summit Camp it would appear that temperatures only ever get close to freezing for very brief periods in July. All other months are much colder.

  48. John M says:

    Regarding Entropic’s claim that the 1998 El Nino was an “anomaly”…

    Odd, but when it was happening, climate scientists were telling us that these types of El Ninos were here to stay.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/25433.stm

    This is typical of the kind of stuff that was being said:

    It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino.

    Hmmm…”a decade or so”…

    …1998….

    Hmmmm… Anomaly indeed!

    But hey, this is climate science.

  49. RoHa says:

    How deep does the melting go? One millimeter? One centimeter? One decimeter? One whole meter, maybe? That would be 0.0003333… of the icecap. Those recurring threes look dangerous to me.

  50. SteveSadlov says:

    Got corn? Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
    (he cried out as he helicoptered … total hot dogger … )

  51. Interested says:

    Recent comments here have once again raised the point that CO2 is thought to have climbed from about 280ppm to 390ppm during the industrial era – a roughly 40% increase.
    But can we be confident of even these widely accepted figures? There is evidence that ice core CO2 measurements may understate past atmospheric CO2 levels by 30-40ppm, when compared to plant stomata counts (C3 type plants have fewer stomata, or openings, on the underside of their leaves when CO2 levels are higher). Pre-industrial CO2 levels, as estimated by stomata counts, probably averaged around 310ppm, with a range of 250-350ppm.
    The stomata-based CO2 variability is supported by controversial wet chemical measurements of CO2 in the air, which were undertaken from the early 1800s. They show variability peaking at around 410ppm in 1825 and show an average for the 19th century of about 310ppm – again in keeping with plant stomata data.
    If ice core measurements are indeed giving us an erroneously low pre-industrial CO2 level, we may have to re-evaluate our estimates of the rise. It may well be 80ppm or less, rather than 110ppm, i.e. an increase of about 28% not 40%.

  52. H.R. says:

    Entropic man says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:54 pm
    “I’m quite happy with the null hypothesis. Indeed, the null hypothesis that there has been no change in global temperature in the last century [...]“

    ???????? Where have you been? You’re singing from the wrong page of the hymn book. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the climate is doing nothing out of the ordinary. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic runaway global warming and we have to act now or WAGTD!!!!!

    BTW, Climate Change is merely a distraction; a mincing of terms. Climate has always changed, is always changing, and will always change. The evidence is in my back yard where glaciers have cut grooves in the limestone that settled out from the shallow seas that were there before. Right now, my back yard happens to be a pleasant place to kick back and relax. If the glaciers return or the seas rush in during my lifetime, I’d like to think I’m smart enough to abandon my backyard and move. Now as for stopping the glaciers or holding back the seas? Well, I won’t claim to be that bright; I haven’t a clue how to do that.

  53. Ric Werme says:

    Austin says:
    July 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    > Ice and snow will melt if the solar insolation and air temp combined are above a specified value. A strong sunny day with little wind and temps in the mid 20s are sufficient.

    I assume you’re talking Fahrenheit.

    > If it was 36 degrees on the 12th then that would be a major melt event. My guess would be that you would have snow become slushy to the depth of several feet.

    Feet? I think that’s way, way, way beyond anything reasonable. The fastest snow melt I’ve seen was 8″ on an April day at latitude 43.74N with a high temp of 80°. Real snow sops up a remarkable amount of water, corn snow much less so, but that would require a lot warm temperatures or time.

    If the dew point is below freezing, then snow stands up pretty well to sun and temperature. Even at 50° it does pretty well. Dew points well above freezing of then bring the “snow eating fogs” (that have cause and effect reversed) that can melt a lot of snow at cool temperatures.

    > Given that the sun just circles the sky for most of Greenland’s latitude, then you would even see melt on all sides of the compass. It would be like a July day at altitude in the Rockies or Sierras.

    I’ve only been in Colorado in December, April, and May, so you may have more experience than I do. According to http://www.summitpost.org/pikes-peak-weather-statistics/337874 an average July day has a high of 47.6°F, low of 33.7°F, and a 25% chance of snow. Not very good melting weather, I think. The thin air will further suppress melting by air and condensation.

    From the lat/long at http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/04416 , the mid-July maximum solar elevation is 39°, so insolation is sin(39) = 62% of what the sun would overhead. At Pikes peak, its latitude of 39 degrees means elevation 73° and maximum insolation of 96% of overhead. The 24 hour sunlight at Summit certainly helps. I might even exceed Pike’s Peak, Steven Goddard had a fairly snarky post about that ages ago.

  54. 1889 + 150 = 2012??? Interesting maths Anthony. The thing that is worrisome about this is that it has come very early, some 27 years early. One can only wonder how bad the melt will be in 2037 which will be “right on time”, when the natural melt cycle is overlaid on the anthropogenically induced melting we are seeing now. Interesting to note that albedo on Greenland is also at an all-time low as well. http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=532

  55. pinetree3 says:

    Only the warmists could claim that something that happens every 150 years is unprecedented while keeping a straight face.

  56. Robert says:

    NASA used to stand for greatness, now it’s been reduced to global warming lies.

  57. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From uknowispeaksense on July 24, 2012 at 8:07 pm:

    1889 + 150 = 2012??? Interesting maths Anthony.

    Take it up with “Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data”. ‘About every 150 years’ has some wiggle room there.

    Interesting site you have, following the link at your name.

    Denier comment of the day July 22, 2012

    A new twist on the “CO2 is plant food” canard, courtesy a commentator at WUWT.

    Then you provide a crappy image hacked-up from a screenshot without any link to the post or the specific comment.

    “You know I speak sense”? After perusing your site, noting your enthusiastic use of the “d-word” and heavy derision of skeptics (mentally unbalanced, paid shills for polluters, etc), I Know You Speak Hate Speech, are incapable of being reasoned with, and unsuitable for engaging in polite reasoned discussion such as found on skeptic blogs.

    Now feel free to return to your tiny blog and write a detailed post about how those mean climate deniers deliberately and callously hurt your sensitive feelings. Don’t forget to fill out the relevant internet abuse complaint form. You may return here and ask where you can file the completed printed-out form.

  58. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Sorry, messed up the complaint form link. Here it is. Enjoy.

  59. This is just another example of lunar declinational tidal effects, the moon was crossing the equator headed North on the 8th, of July, was Maximum culmination North on the 16th. The relatively warm humid air mass that was pulled North off of the great lakes area may have been responsible for the surface layer of snow melting to slush due to condensation of the warm moisture onto/into the snow surface.

    At lower latitudes we often get snow eating fogs as these same type of tidal effects surge into snow covered areas in the spring, when the dew point of the air is above the soil temp, then rapid condensation onto/into the snow/soil, roads, driveways, and can be seen on garage floors at the same time.

    It is one of the ways that latent heat of condensation can be pushed into the soils, at the same time it increases the moisture content of the soil, there are a lot of lunar phase attributed old wives tales about planting times and the phase of the moon.

    Small seeded shallow planted crops benefit from the additional moisture of this mechanism and it protects new grass seedlings from dying from rapidly drying out, as this tidal feature is often accompanied with fog and clouds for most of the day as seen in the Greenland summit station records.

  60. Oh KD, I have much thicker skin than that and if you think “skeptic blogs” are full of “polite reasoned discussion” then you are kidding yourself. Was your little rant just now an example of “polite reasoned discussion”? Perhaps you need the form since you seem to be so hurt.
    Now for the polite reasoned discussion, I am fully aware that the comment was made Lora Koenig, I just found it interesting that Anthony didn’t try and make a comment about it. After all, aren’t all the climate scientists wrong about everything all the time? Why not then mention the “wiggle room”? That would further strengthen the …… “skeptics” side of the argument but of course that might have also meant having to include the rest of Lora’s statement too. Nope, just easier to overlook these things when you’re quotemining. By the way, thankyou for doing exactly the same thing other …..”skeptics” do at places like Bishop Hill and Climate Audit when they can’t address the actual comment being made. Its an interesting pattern of behaviour that is all too predictable.

  61. johnmcguire says:

    Yo kadaka ( KD Knoebel ) , when you wash the head of an ass you lose both your time and your soap. You did clean him up as for as this post goes though. And he is still ugly inside. And I see Smokey smoked another one by ripping entropic man . A good deed done there too. These alarmists are used to bulldozeing people with a lot of verbage but when they come on Anthony’s site their stuff turns to garbage thanks to the efforts of the knowledgeable crew that hangs out here !

  62. barry says:

    The title begins “Satellites see…”

    Unless there were satellites around for the last similar melting event 150 years ago, then this view of the extraordinary melt is indeed unprecedented. All we know is that melt events like this one seem to occur at 150 year intervals. This is the first time we’ve observed such large-scale surface melting, and it is ‘unprecedented’ by that metric. That is – we’ve never observed this much surface melt before.

    It’s easy enough to find sensational headlines, but this one is hardly worth the comment.

  63. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ uknowispeaksense on July 24, 2012 at 9:50 pm:

    Thank you for supplying an additional demonstration.

    Have a nice day.

  64. @kakada (KD Knoebel) on July 24, 2012 at 11:04 pm:
    Thank you for again failing to address my questions.
    Have a very nice day.

  65. Richard111 says:

    No mention of the term ‘heat capacity’. Warm air can melt ice. But not much. To melt enough ice to be ‘worrisome’ and raise global sea levels by say just one metre, something like 400,000 cubic kilometres of land borne ice must melt. Work out the heat energy needed which can only be delivered by the atmosphere. The sea does not melt land borne ice directly.

  66. 97%………oh dear, here we go again…..

  67. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From uknowispeaksense on July 24, 2012 at 11:18 pm:

    Thank you for again failing to address my questions.

    The only part of your first post that was a question, with a question mark, was addressed at the beginning of my reply post.

    You also noted the Greenland albedo thing, which was already noted and discussed days ago.

    What hidden questions were there in your first post that you feel should have been noticed?

  68. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt.

    That title is meaningless. It is not complete. It could be followed by this week, this month, this year, this decade, this century, this millenium, ever etc.

    It’s like saying “My car is 20!”

  69. “Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

    I think she is saying that 150 years is their statistical frequency, not that there is some cycle involved. Which is not to say there isn’t.

    Although, she does seem guilty of the Gambler’s Fallacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

  70. pax says:

    “Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.” Maybe, maybe not. I saw the story in the Danish on-line news (main story), and immediately went here to get the full truth. The point is that the NASA press release has already done its job, spawning head-line stories around the globe – nobody will check the details. They can change the headline all they want, it doesn’t matter now – minds and hearts have already been captured. The Danish story was accurate, but as is always the case, didn’t contain the full truth. And so it goes.

  71. Baa Humbug says:

    Interesting to note a paper by Pedro et al studies what’s called the ‘Bipolar seesaw’

    http://www.clim-past.net/7/671/2011/cp-7-671-2011.pdf

    We present a new composite record made from five well-resolved Antarctic ice core records that robustly represents the timing of regional Antarctic climate change during the last deglaciation.
    Using fast variations in global methane gas concentrations as time markers, the Antarctic composite is directly compared to Greenland ice core records, allowing a detailed mapping of the inter-hemispheric sequence of climate changes. Consistent with prior studies the synchronized records show that warming (and cooling) trends in Antarctica closely match cold (and warm) periods in Greenland on millennial timescales. For the first time, we also identify a sub-millennial component to the inter-hemispheric coupling.
    Within the Antarctic Cold Reversal the strongest Antarctic cooling occurs during the pronounced northern warmth of the Bølling.

    The Arctic may be warming, but we see that the Antarctic is cooling, even though CO2 is supposed to be well mixed and its rise global.

    Pedro is in the news currently with his new paper claiming that CO2 lags temperature by ~400 years as opposed to the previously thought ~800 years.
    Jo Nova has a post about it

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/spinning-more-bad-news-to-pretend-it-answers-skeptics-when-400-equals-zero/

  72. Peter Plail says:

    uknowispeaksense – What questions did you ask – I see only inaccurate comment? Reading your first post I see clear misunderstanding of how this blog works. You see, Anthony simply posted something that somebody else wrote. The 150 year claim was not his, he simply reproduced what Lora Koenig wrote: her research and her maths.Before wasting peoples’ time here, please try to engage brain before touching keyboard.

    A brief look at your unsavoury blog seems to suggest that you see rising CO2 as a problem. My question to you is, do you see any link between CO2 concentration and Greenland’s albedo, since you imply that the albedo is related to the melting. If so, perhaps you would explain it and also explain whether it is the CO2 or the albedo that is causing the transient surface melt.

    For the record, I am happy to accept that carbon particulates are affecting albedo over all ice-covered areas in the northern hemisphere and may indeed cause problems if not addressed. What I fail to understand is how cutting CO2 levels affects this directly, especially in developed countries where there are widescale and effective measures in place to limit particulate emissions. Much better to channel the vast amounts of money currently spent in cutting CO2 emissions to supporting developing economies in cleaning up their domestic and industrial energy generation and production processes. Now there is a green initiative that I could get behind and would love to see Greenpeace, IPCC etc actively promoting.

  73. helmutU says:

    Are these NASA-guys gone mad? Ice melt in the sun even in wintertimes, when the temperature is far below 0°C. You can see this in your on garden, 1° or 2° C above 0 °C the melting of ice with acloudy sky is far lower than in the direct sun. Its just another scare mongering of the warmist.

  74. The 1889 event was viewed only on a small area. No aircraft, or satellites then to reveal the total surface melt, balloons were available but driven by wind alone.
    But given the low coverage 150 years ago, and that our satellite observations started in 1980 we cannot be confident that it is only a 150 year cycle, it could be more frequent and probably is.

  75. Kevin MacDonald says:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming

    Wrong!

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated

    Wrong!

  76. Wayne2 says:

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!” — Inigo Montoya

  77. Phil. says:

    According to the GISP2 data such melting events are far from a regular 150 year event although the occurrence over the last couple of thousand years is around that value. On the timescale from 1950 it occurred once in the last century but you have go almost a thousand years back to find the next event. Then there’s a cluster of 4 then a reduction in occurrence and so on…….

  78. Ric Werme says:

    Kevin MacDonald says:
    July 25, 2012 at 3:35 am

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming

    Wrong!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997.5/plot/wti/from:1997.5/trend reports:

    #Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012.25
    #Selected data from 1997.5
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00152459 per year
    1997.5 0.14243
    2012.25 0.164918

    I don’t know about you, but I’d be happy to call 0.00152459°C per year flat or in the noise.

    You’d be a lot better off griping about the influence of the 1998 El Niño. In my experience, I’ve found it exceedingly hard to pick dates to avoid cherry picking, the data is just too noisy.

    E.g. 10 years:

    #Selected data from 2002.5
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00378016 per year

    (I’d call that more than 3 times lower. Your colloquialism may vary.)

    Or the Ben Santer 17 years is enough:

    #Selected data from 1995.5
    #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00855425 per year

    (We’re all going to fry. Well, less than a degree per century, so it might take a while.)

    The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated

    Wrong!

    You might have a better case on that, though lately I’ve been more intrigued with the Tibetan tree ring study at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/
    and its projection that 2006 was the peak in Tibet.

  79. Ole Heinrich says:

    From NEEM (lower elevation than Summit)”

    “A core from the CO2 firn-air sampling site at NEEM was retrieved in July 2009, and the physical properties of the firn have been analyzed. In the 81m of analyzed firn core, two regions containing ice layers were identified at depths of 29m and 46m. Isotopic analysis provides a depth-age scale that dates these layers to be from 1935 and 1879, respectively.” So it also happened in 1935!

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.C33C0661K

  80. TomRude says:

    For maximum effect, the French newspaper “Le Figaro” doesn’t hesitate to go for it:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2012/07/25/01029-20120725ARTFIG00343-groenland-sa-calotte-glaciere-a-presque-entierement-fondu.php

    “Greenland: The Ice Cap has almost entirely melted!”

    “Selon les données de trois satellites analysées par la Nasa et des scientifiques universitaires, environ 97% de la calotte glaciaire avait dégelé à la mi-juillet, a indiqué l’Agence dans un communiqué.
    L’expert précise avoir remarqué la disparition de la majorité de la glace du Groenland au 12 juillet en analysant les données d’un premier satellite. Les résultats des deux autres satellites ont confirmé cette découverte. Les cartes satellitaires de la fonte montrent que la calotte glaciaire avait fondu à 40% au 8 juillet et à 97% quatre jours plus tard.”

    Incompetence, sensationalism… It must be a candidate for the Friday Laugh.

  81. Pamela Gray says:

    So, while this percentage of ice melt, which is mostly temporary, is such an infinitely small percent of the total ice on that island, I need to be twisting my knickers in a bunch? Sorry. No can do. Now when the ice begins to melt in my drink, diluting the flavorfull elixer, I will get much more tizzied.

  82. Pamela Gray says:

    can’t spell today…must be thinking of fishing

  83. Barefoot boy from Brooklyn says:

    Someone is not seeing the horror in this release, now posted on the NYTimes in glorious color. The average man in the street is going to read the deep pink area as indicating that Greenland is now pretty much ice free. Is that the right way to read the graphic? Or does the deep pink just mean some surface meltwater? What actually is going on there?

  84. Barefoot boy from Brooklyn says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/science/earth/rare-burst-of-melting-seen-in-greenland-ice-sheet.html?hp

    This is how the caption on the NYTimes graphic reads: “The extent of Greenland’s ice sheet surface, in white, on July 8, left, and July 12, right, based on measurements from three satellites, which pass over at different times and whose data are combined and analyzed. The deepest pink areas reflect maximal certainty that the ice has melted.” Not exactly internally consistent, and certainly not the same as the caption on the NASA news release, above.

  85. Owen says:

    More unprecedented BS from NASA.The organization is a disgrace.

  86. Phil. says:

    Ole Heinrich says:
    July 25, 2012 at 7:44 am
    From NEEM (lower elevation than Summit)”

    “A core from the CO2 firn-air sampling site at NEEM was retrieved in July 2009, and the physical properties of the firn have been analyzed. In the 81m of analyzed firn core, two regions containing ice layers were identified at depths of 29m and 46m. Isotopic analysis provides a depth-age scale that dates these layers to be from 1935 and 1879, respectively.” So it also happened in 1935!

    No, it didn’t, because in 1935 there wasn’t a melting event at Summit!
    The data at Summit is given by GISP2 as I pointed out above.
    The rate of occurrence there is ~15/4000 years, since it’s such a rare event it’s reasonable to
    model it as a Poisson process, with a λ of 0.375 (per century). Over the last 4000 years that’s a mean expectation of 0.375/century with a variance of 0.375.
    From a Poisson analysis you’d expect ~27 centuries without a melt, ~10 centuries with one melt year, ~2 centuries which is in reasonable agreement with the data.

  87. SanityP says:

    The Greenland summit webcam, look at all that melting … the horror

    http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

  88. jayhd says:

    Has anyone actually been on the ground to verify the melting? Interpretation of satellite imagery can sometimes be a little too subjective.

  89. GeoLurking says:

    jayhd says:
    July 25, 2012 at 9:36 am

    “… Interpretation of satellite imagery can sometimes be a little too subjective.”

    True.

    Snow eventually becomes ice if you get enough of it.

    Taking the snow cover for North America, and subtracting the Snow Cover for North America w/o Greenland, gives you Greenland’s snow cover. (yeah, I actually figured that out – :D)

    It looks a bit like this.

  90. Gail Combs says:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Entropic says:

    “For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2.”

    Key word: “recent”. He used it twice, so it must be important.
    ____________________________________

    Of course “Recent” is very important. You can only scare the c^@p out of the ignorant masses if you ignore the past. Since we are talking Greenland this graph is appropriate. As is this peer reviewed paper:

    Arctic temperatures falling

    The reconstruction shows lower summer temperatures from A.D. 1630 to 1840, a subsequent warming up to the mid-20th century and a cooling trend afterwards. According to our data, a temperature increase is observed during the past decade. The good coherence of multi-decadal to secular trends of our reconstruction and series of observed solar activity indicate that solar activity may have been one major driving factor of past climate on Kola Peninsula.
    600 million year graph of global temperatures – various proxies showing we are at near glacial temps.

    Or we can go further back in time with this paper.

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    ..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…”

    This paper indicates we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age. The biggest question of course is why we are not covered in ice yet.

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

    At least some have taken note that the climate alarmism might be in the wrong direction.

    Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

    Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade….

    But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…”

    Here is the “climate can shift gears within a decade”
    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades (see the core photograph in Fig. 4), demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416Wm22, which is the 658N July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428Wm22. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” ~ Sirocko, et al, Vol 436|11 August 2005|doi:10.1038/nature03905. Source

    That author is taking it that there is absolutely no variation in solar insolation which is now known to be a false assumption NASA and TSI monitoring by satellite experiments

    A couple questions to think about.
    If you knew we were headed into glaciation, as one of the movers and shakers in world politics, would you tell everyone? Or would you “adjust” the world’s economy to move industry from the northern latitudes (the EU, USA, Australia, Canada and Russia) down to the southern latitudes (Brazil, India, Mexico, southern China and northern Africa, SE Asia)

    Would you “adjust” the world’s economy (wealth redistribution) so as to develop the equatorial belt, and would you buy up large tracts of land in that belt?

    Would you “adjust” the world’s politics to shut off the energy, especially for transportation, in the norther countries and herd those people into “compounds” so as to prevent them from using up soon to be scares resources. More importantly would you pick and choose those selected (DNA testing) to live while preventing those selected to parish from having the means to immigrate?

    See: link

    Do I think a glaciation is going to happen NOW? Of course not, but the movers and shakers of the world are long range planners they think in terms of the continuation of their families and keeping those families firmly in control of world politics. The Rothschild Dynasty is a good example.

    I very much doubt that those Movers and Shakers believe in the drivel they are feeding to the general public. I can also see a shift in the attitude towards the industrial development of the USA in the 1970’s when the question of when the next glaciation would start was brought to the attention of the Movers and Shakers.

  91. Phil. says:

    jayhd says:
    July 25, 2012 at 9:36 am
    Has anyone actually been on the ground to verify the melting? Interpretation of satellite imagery can sometimes be a little too subjective.

    There are people on the ground there, the first instincts were to question the data as indicated in the report: “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”
    Here’s a video of the effects of the melting in Greenland, this bridge was taken out! This was an exceptional event.

  92. Gail Combs says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    July 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Correlating CO2 with Arctic sea ice and not Antarctic sea ice is cherry picking, pure and simple.

    And as I pointed out in the earlier thread, darker horizontal bands are clearly visible in Arctic icebergs. So they must be in ice cores. Some will be from volcanic eruptions, but I;d be interested to see a systemic study….
    ____________________________
    Philip, How about this:

    Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

    “The research, published in a paper in the May 15 [2002] issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots — blemishes on the sun’s surface indicating strong solar activity — do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences.

    It is the first time that volcanic eruptions have been identified as the atmospheric event responsible for the sudden and baffling reversals that scientists have seen in correlations between sunspots and climate…

    “By carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate,” said Ram.

    A chart in the paper shows how six major volcanic eruptions between 1800 and 1962 occurred during precisely the same years when there were reversals in the correlation between sunspot activity and climate….

    According to Donarummo, it long has been known that volcanoes add more dust and more sulfates to the atmosphere.

    The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain.

    “During these times of high volcanic activity, the sunspot/climate correlation reverses and dust levels rise, even in the absence of high sunspots,” explained Stolz.

  93. Gail Combs says:

    Interested says:
    July 24, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    Recent comments here have once again raised the point that CO2 is thought to have climbed from about 280ppm to 390ppm during the industrial era – a roughly 40% increase.
    But can we be confident of even these widely accepted figures?….
    ____________________________
    HECK NO! link

    The temperature records as has been proved many times over have been tampered with. The CO2 measurements are just as bad. The worst is the ASSumption that CO2 is well mixed. (I fight with F .Englebeen on this point all the time. He can not distinguish between point results and averages over time and space it would seem)

    Lucy Skywallker has gathered together much of the skeptic information.

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm

    Discussion at Physics forum The great CO2 swindle?

    After 1985 only the CO2 in the bubbles is reported while the data before 1985 (Higher results) also looked at the CO2 in the ICE SURROUNDING the BUBBLE. see: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf (Jaworowski & Segalstad)

    Also link and a WUWT discussion.

    Hope that helps.

  94. Gail Combs says:

    Owen says:
    July 25, 2012 at 8:43 am

    More unprecedented BS from NASA.The organization is a disgrace.
    ______________________________
    At this point, since we no longer have a Space Program, it sounds like time to de-fund NASA. I really do not want my taxes funding Muslim outreach instead. Actually it is time for a severe pruning of all the DC bureaucracies.

    This type of propaganda needs to stop, and the best way to stop it is to cut off the money supply.

  95. tommy says:

    Meanwhile we have yet to have a SINGLE summer day here in middle of Norway. The hottest day was in may with 24c and since then it has been shit. We had a few days here and there over 20c, but then next day it is back to 10-12c again.
    This might be the first summer at least in my lifetime with not a single day with 25c or higher.
    We even had snow in middle of june at sea level and this is after several shitty summers and extreme winters in a row.

  96. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gail Combs on July 25, 2012 at 10:05 am:

    Philip, How about this:

    Gail, your link is this WUWT article. I found that’s something that wordpress does if you miss a doublequote in the “href=” link, defaults to the page the link is posted on. I’ve noticed you’ve been doing that a lot lately, when your links show up with the “recently viewed” coloration and I check them.

    You’re good, you can do better. Please doublecheck before posting. Thank you.

  97. Smokey says:

    Kevin MacDonald,

    I see what you did there. You cherry-picked increasingly short term trends to make believe temperatures are accelerating. They are not. And the same thing has happened before, irregardless of CO2 levels.

    “Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.”
    ~ Leon Trotsky

    And Ric Werme, you are correct as usual. Most of the claims of recently rising temperatures are based on noise. This is the right way to look at the global warming scare.

  98. Kevin MacDonald says:

    Smokey says:
    July 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Kevin MacDonald,

    I see what you did there. You cherry-picked increasingly short term trends to make believe temperatures are accelerating. They are not.

    Wrong!

    You can’t even read a graph, The trends all cover the same time span, they show centennial trends since the end of the LIA and the centennial rate of warming has doubled.

    Smokey says:
    July 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    “Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.”
    ~ Leon Trotsky

    Ooh, an ad hom, first reply and you’ve immediately segued from basic factual errors to logical fallacies. Well done!

  99. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    “ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming”

    This must be the graph you use to reach that conclusion.

    From the graph:-
    Date Temp. anomaly Change to 2011
    1996 +0.29 0.51 – 0.29 = +0.20
    1997 +0.41 0.51 – 0.41 = +0.10
    1998 +0.58 0.51 – 0.58 = -0.07
    1999 +0.33 0.51 – 0.33 = +0.18
    2000 +0.35 0.51 – 0.35 = +0.16
    2010 +0.62
    2011 0.51

    You, sir, have been caught cherrypicking data.
    You were most insistant that the measured temperature change for recent years counted from 1998.
    It is surely not a coincidence that your chosen year in the latter 1990s is the only one giving a negative temperature change to 2011.
    This deliberate obfuscation is exactly the sort of data misuse that I see sceptics complaining about. How do you expect to be taken seriously in debate when you cannot not even meet the standards you would demand of your opponents.

  100. Smokey says:

    Kevin MacDonald,

    The Trotsky quote was poking fun, my bad. But you are still cherry-picking, as your newest WFT graph shows. It is you who has a problem with reading graphs. Using your zero baseline graphs always produces a fake artifact. See my previous charts to understand why.

    And re: Ric Werme’s comment about Tibetan tree rings, see here;

    Liu Yu, Director of Earth Environment Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was interviewed about his paper by the South China Morning Post (Dec 4, 2011):

    Where did you find trees more than 2,000 years old in a country with a long history of systematic logging? I need luck to find a tree more than 100 years old in the lowlands. But on some mountains of the Tibetan Plateau, where the altitude reaches up to 4,000 metres, I have run into forest after forest of Qilian junipers that have remained undisturbed for thousands of years.

    How does a tree survive in that kind of harsh environment for so long? The Qilian juniper is one of the oldest surviving tree species on earth. In the high altitude of the eastern Tibetan Plateau, where poor soil, little rainfall and low temperatures make it impossible for other trees to survive, the juniper has perfectly adapted to the harsh environment by growing very slowly. We recently found one that is close to 2,000 years old, but less than 8 metres tall. In the study of tree rings, slow-growing trees provide information on variations in climate over a long period. Qilian junipers grow only in China.

    Is the study of tree rings popular in China? Chinese researchers have studied tree rings for more than seven decades, and some scientists have produced original studies containing a trove of important data on the climate. But due to historical reasons, their research methods did not quite fit with international mainstream thinking, and therefore not widely recognised. Since the 1990s, as climate change has become a political and diplomatic issue, the study of tree rings has received increased government funding, allowing Chinese researchers to use the best tools and methods and produce well-received results.

    Are the field trips fun? To collect samples, we sometimes need to dance with death. At altitudes of more than 3,500 metres above sea level, my research team has to combat low air pressure, a lack of oxygen, headaches and sometimes life-threatening illnesses. The best Qilian junipers for our purposes often stand alone on a cliff, where they can be fully exposed to the elements. We have to watch our step when approaching such trees. Some researchers from overseas have slipped and died in less-perilous situations. Most virgin forests of Qilian junipers are in areas inaccessible by road, and are barely, if ever, visited by humans. The remoteness turned each of my more than 20 data-collection trips over the past 10 years into unforgettable adventures. Standing so high up, with an ancient tree, one has the opportunity to enjoy some of the most breathtaking landscapes on earth.

    Do you need to cut down a tree to take samples No, we do not cut down trees. Once a tree is selected, we use a long, fine tube similar to a chopstick to bore through the trunk and reach the core. It’s standard practice used by scientists for a long time and does not cause the tree any serious damage. In the laboratory, all the samples must be polished with sandpaper. The work is time-consuming because the samples cannot be used for measurement until they are smooth enough that, when put under a microscope, we can see a perfect outline of their cells.

    What do you do with the data? Using a set of scientific techniques, we measure the width of the rings and convert the variations into changes in annual temperatures. We have published two papers in the English versions of Science in China – Series D: Earth Sciences and in the Chinese Science Bulletin.

    What have tree rings told us about climate change over the last two millennia? Popular belief is that industrialisation has led to the fastest rate of warming witnessed by humans; that we are at the warmest time of the modern era; and that we are causing global warming by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. None of that fits the records in tree rings. In northern China, the warmest period occurred from AD401-413, which had an annual mean temperature 0.16 degrees Celsius higher than today’s. Other periods, including 604-609, 864-882 and 965-994 had temperatures higher than in recent decades. Our results are supported by historical documents from the period. Archaeological records in Loulan , Xinjiang , show that pomegranate, a fruit rich in vitamin C, was used as currency during the Eastern Jin dynasty (AD317-420). The fruit could not possibly have appeared in northern China without a climate much warmer than today’s. And we are not experiencing the most dramatic climate change in recent history, either. Over the past 2,485 years, the biggest climate change took place during the Eastern Jin dynasty. The period had two stages, with the temperature plummeting first and then soaring. In the warming period, the mean temperature [in the Tibetan Plateau region] increased suddenly from 1.66 degrees to 2.67 degrees in 30 years. In the cooling period, the mean temperature dropped to below that of the Little Ice Age [an abnormally cold period that lasted from about 1550 to 1850]. The coldest years, with a mean temperature of 1.38 degrees, occurred from 362-369, and the temperature was about 1.5 degrees lower than the mean temperature of the late 20th century.

    So what causes climate change? We believe that the sun and atmospheric circulations play a vital, if not decisive, role in this. The millennial cycle of solar activity determines the long-term trends of temperature variations. Almost all sunspot minimums [periods of sometimes several decades when sunspots become rare] correspond with low-temperature intervals. Meanwhile, atmospheric circulations affect temperature changes from decade to decade. To quote Professor Zhu Kezhen , the father of climate change studies in China: “The big changes in the earth’s climate have been controlled by solar radiation, but the small changes by atmospheric circulation.”

    Can tree-ring records tell us anything about the future? Our results show that the temperature continued to increase until 2006, and will now decrease until about 2068. After 2068, the temperature will increase again until 2088.

    Do you think your research will help Beijing gain ground in climate negotiations? I am a scientist, and I know nothing about politics. But the climate- change debate, in my opinion, has more political significance than scientific. Diplomats can sit at negotiating tables talking about carbon caps while scientists have not reached an agreement on the role of carbon dioxide in global warming. But political decisions must be based on sound scientific foundation, or they will be useless, if not dangerous.

  101. Smokey says:

    Entropic,

    Since I smoked you out, you are getting a bit defensive:

    “You were most insistant [sic] that the measured temperature change for recent years counted from 1998.
    It is surely not a coincidence that your chosen year in the latter 1990s is the only one giving a negative temperature change to 2011.”

    Choose 2002 then, and see what happens. Even less warming. None, in fact.

    You are losing the debate, Entropic. Go back to RealClimate where you belong.

  102. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Kevin MacDonald on July 25, 2012 at 4:15 pm:

    Wrong!

    You can’t even read a graph, The trends all cover the same time span, they show centennial trends since the end of the LIA and the centennial rate of warming has doubled.

    Cool your jets. You switched graphs between your earlier post and this one. Complete url from previous post:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1865/to:1965/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1895/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1905/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:2010

    Last element is 1860 to 2010, only 50 years long.

    Now let’s shorten up that last graph to 50 year periods, starting with 1901-51 and ending in 1961-2011: graph.

    Looks a lot different now, doesn’t it? Voila, we’ve discovered the effect of the PDO. Positive phase with high rates of warming, negative phase with greatly reduced rates, then positive again and a return to high rates.

    And where is the “acceleration in warming”? When the 1998 Super El-Nino gets worked into the trends. And even then, the steepest earliest rate is the first, 1901-51, 0.0100724 per year (click on “Raw Data”). The first with 1998 included, 1951-2001, is slightly less, 0.00998399 per year, effectively the same.

    The “acceleration” comes as more of the step change in temperatures due to 1998 gets incorporated into the rates. It’s not real.

    Move along now, nothing happening here….

  103. Mike says:

    Unprecedented = 150 years average cyclicality

    I wonder what the cycles are attributed to ?

  104. Ric Werme says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    From Kevin MacDonald on July 25, 2012 at 4:15 pm:

    Wrong!

    You can’t even read a graph, The trends all cover the same time span, they show centennial trends since the end of the LIA and the centennial rate of warming has doubled.

    Cool your jets. You switched graphs between your earlier post and this one. Complete url from previous post:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1865/to:1965/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1870/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1895/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1905/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:2010

    Last element is 1860 to 2010, only 50 years long.

  105. Why is history as recorded by newspapers being ignored? Remember, newspapers used to report relevant, important facts and scientific advancements instead of the puerile lifestyle entertainment that dominates our modern media.

    Newspaper stories were hinting at a warming climate, particularly the Arctic and Greenland, in the late 1800s and into the 1900s. For example, from the Examiner newspaper dated 26 May 1906 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689):

    “IS THE EARTH GETTING WARMER? That the earth is growing temporarily warmer is shown by the mountain glaciers. These are made by varying temperature and moisture to increase and diminish in size during periods of years that may be found to be more or less regular cycles, and a period of quite general decrease began about 45 years ago. This has continued, with many local interruptions, as in the case of Glacier Blanc, which advanced from 1889 to 1896. The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are growing smaller. In the Savoy Alps and the Pyrenees small glaciers have quite disappeared.”

    Or extracts from The Advertiser dated 4 April 1923 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74081229):

    “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface.”

    “The United States Consul at Bergen, Norway, Mr. Ifft, also reports the recent extraordinary warmth in the Arctic. He quotes incidentally the statements of Captain Martin Ingebrigtsen, a mariner who has sailed those seas for 51 years. The captain says that he first noted an unusual warmth in 1918; and since then temperatures have risen steadily higher. Today the eastern Arctic is ‘hardly recognisable as the same region of 1868 to 1917′.”

    “Many of the old landmarks are greatly altered, or no longer exist. Where formerly there were great masses of ice, these have melted away, leaving behind them accumulations of earth and stones such as geologists call ‘moraines.’ At many points where glaciers extended far into the sea half a dozen years ago they have now entirely disappeared.”

    There are dozens of examples at http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html with reports in those days suspecting that global warming began around 1850.

  106. waclimate says:

    Why is history as recorded by newspapers being ignored? Remember, newspapers used to report relevant, important facts and scientific advancements instead of the puerile lifestyle entertainment that dominates our modern media.

    Newspaper stories were hinting at a warming climate, particularly the Arctic and Greenland, in the late 1800s and into the 1900s. For example, from the Examiner newspaper dated 26 May 1906 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689):

    ”IS THE EARTH GETTING WARMER? That the earth is growing temporarily warmer is shown by the mountain glaciers. These are made by varying temperature and moisture to increase and diminish in size during periods of years that may be found to be more or less regular cycles, and a period of quite general decrease began about 45 years ago. This has continued, with many local interruptions, as in the case of Glacier Blanc, which advanced from 1889 to 1896. The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are growing smaller. In the Savoy Alps and the Pyrenees small glaciers have quite disappeared.”

    Or extracts from The Advertiser dated 4 April 1923 (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/74081229):

    ”Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface.”

    ”The United States Consul at Bergen, Norway, Mr. Ifft, also reports the recent extraordinary warmth in the Arctic. He quotes incidentally the statements of Captain Martin Ingebrigtsen, a mariner who has sailed those seas for 51 years. The captain says that he first noted an unusual warmth in 1918; and since then temperatures have risen steadily higher. Today the eastern Arctic is ’hardly recognisable as the same region of 1868 to 1917’.”

    ”Many of the old landmarks are greatly altered, or no longer exist. Where formerly there were great masses of ice, these have melted away, leaving behind them accumulations of earth and stones such as geologists call ’moraines.’ At many points where glaciers extended far into the sea half a dozen years ago they have now entirely disappeared.”

    There are dozens of examples at http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html with reports in those days suspecting that global warming began around 1850.

  107. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Ric Werme on July 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm:

    True. My mistake, should have caught it.

    I’m going to bed now.

  108. Rhys Jaggar says:

    What’s required is to criminallise headlines which are in direct contradiction to the body of the article.

    That means if you lie in a headline, you can only do it if you lie in a consistent manner in the main body text.

    Would be rather difficult for extreme right wing newspapers and websites, that, of course.

    They’d be in court every day.

    So you’d have to have a ‘three strikes and you’re out!’ rule for the media too.

    Three ridiculous lies and you’re shut down.

    Soon clear up the cesspit of lying, distortions and chicaneries going on, wouldn’t it?

    What would the investment gurus do with their time then, eh??

  109. Robert says:

    Smokey says:
    July 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    So you’re now in favor of Tree Rings when they support your conclusion but you’re against them when Mann uses them? Cognitive bias is an interesting thing isn’t it… Tell me – why is this study any more reliable than any other tree ring study? Did they run into divergence? Which detrending technique is used? It’s funny that when you find something that you wanna see you end up supporting it – if they said CO2 has a major role you’d just say the study was a garbage tree ring study. I’m right about this.

  110. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Ric Werme on July 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm:

    Although it’s not “the full temperature record” as HADCRUT3, “variance-adjusted global mean” as was selected, goes back to 1850, not 1860:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl

    Which I find suspicious as NCDC GHCN only goes back to 1880:
    Datasets here near bottom: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
    Select equivalent dataset, The Monthly Global (land and ocean combined into an anomaly) Index (degrees C)

    Thus the temperature “data” in HADCRUT3 from 1850 to 1879 seems questionable at best and that range should be avoided without an overriding reason to use it.

    Now I’m going to bed now.

  111. Kevin MacDonald says:

    Smokey says:
    July 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    Kevin MacDonald,

    The Trotsky quote was poking fun, my bad. But you are still cherry-picking

    Wrong!

    The terms of reference were yours:

    Smokey says:
    July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated

  112. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    July 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    Entropic,

    Since I smoked you out, you are getting a bit defensive:

    “You were most insistant [sic] that the measured temperature change for recent years counted from 1998.
    It is surely not a coincidence that your chosen year in the latter 1990s is the only one giving a negative temperature change to 2011.”

    Choose 2002 then, and see what happens. Even less warming. None, in fact.

    You are losing the debate, Entropic. Go back to RealClimate where you belong.

    You have helped make my point. By choosing dates to suit, you can make a case for cooling, warming or stasis, all from the same data. It rather makes the whole exercise pointless arm waving.

    Why go back to Realclimate where people agree with me? This is much more fun! I’ve more geniune discussion points here than my limited time can address.
    Rather than incestuous agreement with other sceptics here, you, Smokey, and others should be on Realclimate arguing your case against genuine opposition.

    [REPLY: Nice try, Entropic, but you are aware that the moderation policies at those other sites are not as, uhhh, liberal and conducive to fair, comprehensive discussion than here at WUWT. That's why you are here, to argue your case against genuine opposition, which you can't get at Real Climate. -REP]

  113. BIGTIXBIGTIX says:

    Just a reminder:
    1. NULL HYPOTHESIS: Statistics the residual hypothesis if the alternative hypothesis tested against it fails to achieve a predetermined significance level.
    2.ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Statistics the hypothesis that given data do not conform with a given null hypothesis: the null hypothesis is accepted only if its probability exceeds a predetermined significance level.
    3. Statistics the theory, methods, and practice of testing a hypothesis concerning the parameters of a population distribution (the null hypothesis) against another (the alternative hypothesis) which will be accepted only if its probability exceeds a predetermined significance level, generally on the basis of statistics derived from random sampling from the given population Compare statistical inference.

  114. ACCKKII says:

    Here it seems there is no place for two issues to discuss:
    1. The amount of carbon dioxide in the current situation is not alarming. Yes, in future, this value may change for any reason.
    2. Some natural events are reversible. This could be due to their oscillatory nature.
    The important thing was that in a short time 40% of Greenland ice was melted.
    Only the combination of soot and solar radiation could cause such dramatic effects.

  115. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Kevin MacDonald on July 26, 2012 at 5:47 am:

    Nah, you’re still cherrypicking. Or perhaps you just don’t understand the mistake.

    The effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the temperature record is obvious. It’s approximately a 60 year cycle, which includes one positive and one negative phase. By choosing a 100 year span for the trends, your most recent trend, 1911-2011, incorporates the positive phase that just ended, the preceeding negative phase, and the positive phase before that. Thus the appearance of accelerating warming was built-in to your selection.

    So examine the rates on a 60-yr span: graph.

    Again, the first period to incorporate the 1998 Super-El Nino, in this case 1941-2001 at 0.00697957 per year, is beaten by earlier periods, like 1891-1951 at 0.00725121 per year, and 1901-1961 at 0.00765395 per year, and 1906-1966 at 0.0070212 per year. The “acceleration” comes from incorporating more of the temperatures after the 1998 step change in global temperatures.

    Also, while not the best of presentations as ever-shorter periods are used, the trends from 1998 to now (end of 2011) should be examined: graph.

    Starting in 2001 the trend went negative according to HADCRUT3. Thus it sure looks to me like cooling from 2001 to 2011, not warming.

  116. Entropic man says:

    [REPLY: Nice try, Entropic, but you are aware that the moderation policies at those other sites are not as, uhhh, liberal and conducive to fair, comprehensive discussion than here at WUWT. That's why you are here, to argue your case against genuine opposition, which you can't get at Real Climate. -REP]

    Perhaps you should tighten your moderation policy. A lot of the “evidence” presented here would never pass peer review, regardless of which side of the debate it supported.
    Could you suggest the best way of compiling data tables in posts here. The word processor collapsed my last table, at July 25th 4.43pm, against the left margin.

    [REPLY: Our commenters are quite capable of exposing shonky evidence for what it is and have no compunction doing so. Many are emminently qualified to do so. Exposing bad ideas is as much a service as presenting good ideas. WUWT moderators don't need to be the arbiters of what is good or bad science.

    As for your table problem, I have the same problem. Perhaps one of our commenters can offer a solution. -REP]

  117. Entropic man says:

    Mike says:
    July 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    Unprecedented = 150 years average cyclicality

    I wonder what the cycles are attributed to ?

    I doubt its a 150 year cycle, just a weather event which shows in the ice core about 15 times in 4,000 years . You might get none for a milennium and then two in 100 years. Phil summed it up well:-
    The rate of occurrence there is ~15/4000 years, since it’s such a rare event it’s reasonable to
    model it as a Poisson process, with a λ of 0.375 (per century). Over the last 4000 years that’s a mean expectation of 0.375/century with a variance of 0.375.
    From a Poisson analysis you’d expect ~27 centuries without a melt, ~10 centuries with one melt year, ~2 centuries which is in reasonable agreement with the data.

    I find the timing interesting. It occured downwind of the United States East Coast just at the end of their heatwave. Consider the possibility that the jetstream steered all that hot air northeast. It’s also a warm year in the Arctic, from the ice extent and snow cover data, which would make a transient melting event like this more likely.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/07/

  118. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    As for your table problem, I have the same problem. Perhaps one of our commenters can offer a solution. -REP]

    Use the “code” HTML tag, which sets all characters at the same width. Space out entries with underscores as needed instead of multiple spaces as multiple spaces are auto-collapsed into one space. Due to quirks displaying, it works best with start tag on same line as beginning of content, with a return between end of content and close tag. From Entropic Mann comment, replace brackets with left/right arrows:

    (start)

    Date Temp. anomaly Change to 2011
    1996 +0.29 0.51 – 0.29 = +0.20
    1997 +0.41 0.51 – 0.41 = +0.10
    1998 +0.58 0.51 – 0.58 = -0.07
    1999 +0.33 0.51 – 0.33 = +0.18
    2000 +0.35 0.51 – 0.35 = +0.16
    2010 +0.62
    2011 0.51
    

    (end)

    Result:
    (start)
    Date Temp. anomaly Change to 2011
    1996 +0.29 0.51 – 0.29 = +0.20
    1997 +0.41 0.51 – 0.41 = +0.10
    1998 +0.58 0.51 – 0.58 = -0.07
    1999 +0.33 0.51 – 0.33 = +0.18
    2000 +0.35 0.51 – 0.35 = +0.16
    2010 +0.62
    2011 0.51

    (end)

    Although I think it should have been:
    Year__Anomaly °C__Difference from 2011
    1996__+0.29_______+0.22
    1997__+0.41_______+0.10
    1998__+0.58_______-0.07
    1999__+0.33_______+0.18
    2000__+0.35_______+0.16
    2010__+0.62_______-0.11
    2011__+0.51_______+0.00

    …or whatever the heck it was he was trying to show.

  119. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Re my last comment:

    My example using brackets is appearing on my end like code on line printer greenbar paper. (Ah, how I miss having yards of continuous code with plenty of space for scribbled corrections and notes…) Must be a new wordpress thing, it shows up as a page element with clickable options on mouseover.

    So here is the example using braces:

    (start)
    {code}Date Temp. anomaly Change to 2011
    1996 +0.29 0.51 – 0.29 = +0.20
    1997 +0.41 0.51 – 0.41 = +0.10
    1998 +0.58 0.51 – 0.58 = -0.07
    1999 +0.33 0.51 – 0.33 = +0.18
    2000 +0.35 0.51 – 0.35 = +0.16
    2010 +0.62
    2011 0.51
    {/code}
    (end)

  120. Entropic man says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    Thank you for the table idea. I’m afraid I gave up programming in the 1980’s when it became obvious that I could be a science teacher or a programmer, but did not have time to be both.

    As for my purpose, Smokey claimed that the apparant cooling observed by comparing the global temperatures for 1998 and 2011 showed that global warming had stopped.
    My table, before it got squashed, demonstrated that if he had taken any of the two years before or after he would have seen continued warming. Whoever chose 1998 was cherrypicking a date which gave the desired anti-warming result.

    Date_ Temp. anomaly_Change to 2011
    1996 ____+0.29____ 0.51 – 0.29 = +0.20
    1997 ____+0.41____ 0.51 – 0.41 = +0.10
    1998 ____+0.58____ 0.51 – 0.58 = -0.07
    1999 ____+0.33____ 0.51 – 0.33 = +0.18
    2000 ____+0.35____ 0.51 – 0.35 = +0.16
    2010 ____+0.62
    2011____+0.51

    Incidentally, if you end on 2010 instead of 2011, all the changes show warming.

    Since you can show the 21st century as warming, cooling or static by picking the combination of dates that suits your desire, this technique is useless as a serious analytical tool. Something more sophisticated, and independant of observer bias, would be needed. Statisticians to the fore, please.

  121. Kevin MacDonald says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 26, 2012 at 10:40 am
    @ Kevin MacDonald on July 26, 2012 at 5:47 am:

    Nah, you’re still cherrypicking. Or perhaps you just don’t understand the mistake.

    The effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the temperature record is obvious. It’s approximately a 60 year cycle, which includes one positive and one negative phase. By choosing a 100 year span for the trends, your most recent trend, 1911-2011, incorporates the positive phase that just ended, the preceeding negative phase, and the positive phase before that. Thus the appearance of accelerating warming was built-in to your selection.

    Wrong!

    There are 13 series in this graph, only one ends in 2011 and it is you that is cherry picking it so you can throw out nonsense about positive, negative, positive PDO phases and step changes. Nine of those series terminate before 1998 (so the step change is not a factor), the end dates are evenly spaced between 1951 and 1996 (so they can’t all benefit from positive, negative, positive PDO phases) and each series shows a greater rate of warming than those prior to it. You can hide behind the noise and cherry pick all you want, but the fact remains: the rate of warming is accelerating.

  122. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Entropic man on July 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm:

    As for my purpose, Smokey claimed that the apparant cooling observed by comparing the global temperatures for 1998 and 2011 showed that global warming had stopped.

    Umm… No. No he didn’t.

    From Smokey on July 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm:

    (…) First [ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming], (…)

    He linked to a graph showing the WoodForTrees Temperature Index from 1997.5 to current end of records. If you would have clicked his link then clicked on “Raw data” you would have seen this:

    #WoodForTrees Temperature Index
    #Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
    #See http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes for details

    #Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012.25

    It’s a composite index.

    And from that, you’ve dreamed up that Smokey compared the 1998 annual number to 2011’s, and proceeded to “disprove” your imaginary situation by manipulating individual annual figures, during which you claimed Smokey used GISTEMP then drew your “proof” from those numbers.

    (And twice now you’ve claimed 0.51-0.29 = 0.20, not 0.22. I corrected that once for my “should be” example. Don’t you check your math?)

    So you set up a falsehood, disproved the falsehood, gave that as “proof” Smokey was cherrypicking.

    There must be very low standards for evidence against skeptics at ReallyRealClimate if you think “proof” like that is acceptable.

    Since you can show the 21st century as warming, cooling or static by picking the combination of dates that suits your desire, this technique is useless as a serious analytical tool. Something more sophisticated, and independant of observer bias, would be needed. Statisticians to the fore, please.

    Or… You could simply look at the trends.

  123. phlogiston says:

    Entropic man says:
    July 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    kadaka (KD Knoebel)


    As for my purpose, Smokey claimed that the apparant cooling observed by comparing the global temperatures for 1998 and 2011 showed that global warming had stopped.

    If we were talking about the period 1975-2000, rather than 2000 onwards, there would not be a discussion of trend or no trend based on including or excluding a year or two at either end. The warming at the end of the 20th century was steep and uncontroversial. But since 2000 it has levelled off so that now we can have these arcane arguments about cherrypicking years.

    Can you help us by explaining why the above is clear evidence for the acceleration of global warming, since the AGW camp, not satisfied with arguing the uncontroversial and trivial fact that climate has warmed in the last 40 years, now need it to be accelerating to further their alarmist goals.

  124. phlogiston says:

    The indication from the Greenland ice core of a periodic 115 year interval sharp melting on Greenland, is incredibly interesting. What mechanism can cause this? Does it point to astrophysical or orbital alignments, in which case it opens the possibility of other decadal and century scale climate oscillations being astrophysically forced. This has huge implications for climate science. Or is there some other explanation? How good is the evidence for the 115 year periodicity? Is it by chance over the last few centuries or is it a real phenomenon?

  125. Brian H says:

    The retro-temporal causal consequences of that CO2 stuff is trooly confounding!

  126. Smokey says:

    Kevin MacDonald says:

    “…the fact remains: the rate of warming is accelerating.”

    That is not a “fact” at all. That is an artifact of a zero baseline chart.

    That is not science, that is pseudo-science. Big difference.

  127. Entropic man says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm
    “Or… You could simply look at the trends”

    No, that’s not enough!

    A couple of days posting here has shown me why the sceptics have made so little progress against the climate change consensus.
    You can’t just look at the trends. You have to show that the trend you claim to see is there to the standards demanded by peer review. That means well designed experiments, valid statistics and significances as good as your data will allow.
    Advice from a decrepit old scientist; put aside the conspiracy theories, snide remarks and junk science which permeate these pages. If you are correct, you should be able to show it because your science fits the data better than theirs.
    Take this claim that there has been no warming for 15 years. Show me a proper peer reviwed statistical analysis giving a better than 50% probability that this null hypotheses is correct. That would do more to convince me than any amount of arm waving.
    This is not a debate to be won by the man with the best soundbites. It is a scientific study won by the hypotheses best shown to fit reality.

  128. Brian H says:

    Entropic man says:
    July 27, 2012 at 8:02 am
    … a decrepit old scientist;

    Show me a proper peer reviwed statistical analysis giving a better than 50% probability that this null hypotheses is correct. That would do more to convince me than any amount of arm waving.

    Decrepit, indeed. Trying the Trenberth Twist, are we? News Flash: the Null is assumed until disproven. There is no onus on anyone, skeptics or other, to “prove” the Null.

  129. macnmat says:

    Entropic man says:
    July 24, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    The hot high pressure air which moved over Greenland in the second week in July coincided with the close of the US East Coast heat wave, which may be where the hot air came from.
    If this is normally a very rare weather pattern, we probably wont see its like again for some time. If we start seeing repeats every few years, then it may signify a genuine change in North American climate. It does provide an explanation for that sudden drop in albedo.
    * * *
    You correctly point out; “sudden drop in albedo”.
    If a marginally snow-covered area warms, snow tends to melt, lowering the albedo, and hence leading to more snow melt. (the ice-albedo positive feedback).
    Cryoconite, powdery windblown dust containing soot, sometimes reduces albedo on glaciers and ice sheets.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/melt-zone/balog-photography

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/greenland-ice-sheet-albedo-drops-off-the-bottom-of-the-chart-but-look-closer-as-to-why/

  130. Gail Combs says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    July 25, 2012 at 11:58 am
    ….if you miss a doublequote in the “href=” link, defaults to the page the link is posted on. I’ve noticed you’ve been doing that a lot lately, when your links show up with the “recently viewed” coloration and I check them.

    You’re good, you can do better. Please doublecheck before posting. Thank you.
    _________________________
    We found the internet connection has been dropping “packets” recently so what I write and send are sometimes two different things. But yes I will try double checking more.

    I am mentioning this because I am sure we are not the only people with the problem.

    (My computer is a real dinosaur and I can not run a word processor and look at the internet at the same time which makes editing a real bear.)

  131. Brian H says:

    Gail;
    Re editing, etc.: acquire (~$35) ClipMate. Its main function is to save copied material for re-use for as long as you want (I’ve set mine for about 8 yrs!), but it also permits direct creation of a new “Clip” which can be edited and then pasted by the usual keystrokes wherever you want.

    It is without exception the most used and useful internet and word processing tool I have ever come across.
    clipmate.com, 30 day free trial.

  132. Michael says:

    94% of the ice has melted? This statement does not mean that 94% of the ice is gone. No, 94% of the surface is seeing melt.

Comments are closed.