Sea Ice News – Volume 3 Number 9

I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast  for August, due Monday August 6th.  Poll follows: 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sea Ice News. Bookmark the permalink.

502 Responses to Sea Ice News – Volume 3 Number 9

  1. Günther Kirschbaum says:

    Never mind. There’s nothing happening in the Arctic any way!

    REPLY: As usual, Günther plays the smart ass with snark. He’s actually Neven. No scruples with this one. – Anthony

  2. Layne says:

    I am wondering if they haven’t fiddled with the algorithm in order to get a lower minimum.

    [REPLY: Some reasoning and/or evidence to support the wondering would be nice, otherwise it is just aspersion-casting. -REP]

  3. Caleb says:

    Did anyone notice the black plume of something (smoke?) on the horizon, in the pictures taken by North Pole Camera #1 Yesterday, (August 3.) It appeared in four pictures. You can see the pictures by Clicking on the “Sea Ice Page,” scrolling down to the “Drifting ‘NorthPole’ Camera” picture, and then clicking the “WebCam#1 Archive” tab to the right, under the picture.

    What’s Up With That?

  4. Camburn says:

    I agree Gunther. There is nothing happening in the Arctic that hasn’t happened in the recent past when looking at the data through climate lenses.

    Now, if you want to talk about weather…..that is a different story.

  5. Caleb says:

    This was over on “Tips and Notes.” It’s curious, as if the guys who drill for oil are saying there’s thick ice where the pictures we look at say there is less ice.

    Mike Lallatin says:
    August 4, 2012 at 2:16 am
    For a valid declaration of current ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea:
    http://gcaptain.com/aiviq-waits-in-dutch-harbor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29

  6. azleader says:

    I find it meaningful that the 2nd largest vote tally comes right around the ARCUS forecast.

  7. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Caleb says:

    August 4, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Did anyone notice the black plume of something (smoke?) on the horizon, in the pictures taken by North Pole Camera #1 Yesterday, (August 3.) It appeared in four pictures. You can see the pictures by Clicking on the “Sea Ice Page,” scrolling down to the “Drifting ‘NorthPole’ Camera” picture, and then clicking the “WebCam#1 Archive” tab to the right, under the picture.

    What’s Up With That?

    That’s Zwally’s soot spray!

  8. Rod Everson says:

    Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean? I think that would be useful given the volume of traffic you get and the many times that various seas are referred to by name in the comments. I just spent several minutes Googling the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and never did get to a map that had the full layout of both seas. Thanks for considering this. (And if it’s already on the site somewhere, could someone will post its location?–If it is on the site already, moving it to the Sea Ice Page, or duplicating it there would seem logical, by the way.)

    [REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]

  9. pjie2 says:

    It’s the edge of a water droplet on the camera lens. Look through the archive, it happens a lot.

  10. Ecco the Dolphin says:

    Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice?
    It would take a sudden and unexpected change of melting trend for that to happen in my opinion.

    To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007, with currently slightly less extent than 2007 and relatively large areas quickly melting in the last few days, it seems it wouldn’t be a pessimistic estimate to vote around 4.0-4.2 M Km2 as a minimum for this year.

  11. Caleb says:

    The four “black plume” pictures will eventually get “bumped” off the photo album you see, when you click “Webcam #1 Archive.” At that point you have to go to the bottom of that page-of-pictures, and click “Webcam #1″ That will give you a list of every picture taken since they set the camera up last April 6. Then you scroll down to August. The last picture from August 3 and first three from August 4 have the odd black plume on the horizon.

    I actually think it is a swarm of migrating penguins moving up from the south pole. (You didn’t know those critters could fly, but this offers proof.)

  12. Caleb says:

    Only the edge of a water droplet? Hmmm.

    Never Mind.

  13. Wagathon says:

    With changes in atmospheric CO2 levels my guess is we will see an end to summer in America as early as this year and with that a noticable global cooling over the entire northern hemisphere.

  14. beesaman says:

    Neven has become so shrill with his warmist agenda that I’ve lost faith in his site’s objectivity so I look elsewhere for the data now…pity really…

  15. Bryan A says:

    Caleb says:

    August 4, 2012 at 7:58 am

    The four “black plume” pictures will eventually get “bumped” off the photo album you see, when you click “Webcam #1 Archive.” At that point you have to go to the bottom of that page-of-pictures, and click “Webcam #1″ That will give you a list of every picture taken since they set the camera up last April 6. Then you scroll down to August. The last picture from August 3 and first three from August 4 have the odd black plume on the horizon.

    This is the first image with the “Plume”
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20120803141154.jpg
    and this is the last
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20120803201639.jpg
    it does appear to be something on the lens

  16. fredb says:

    @beesaman: “Shrill with his warmist agenda”??? Where do you see that on http://neven1.typepad.com? I’ve always found his text refreshingly agnostic.

  17. R. Shearer says:

    Looks like no ice come November. ;)

  18. Sparks says:

    My honest guess is 4.8 million sq-km.

  19. Otter says:

    Neven, you are correct. There’s nothing going on in the Arctic, that hasn’t already happened at least a score of times in the past 10,000 years.

  20. RCS says:

    Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.

  21. kent Blaker says:

    The minimum sea ice area/extent is more dependent on wind than temperature. The minimum for 2007 was almost the same as 2008..9..10..11. Will we see 2012 being the same? We all wait with eager anticipation.

  22. Verity Jones says:

    Re the ice situation in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, NOAA has a new initiative for the oil industry: ERMA from which this image is taken: ice extent map more here

  23. OssQss says:

    Plume or debris ?

    Considering the exact shape of the central bulge of said plume exists 6 hours later unchanged, but the overall size of the item is shrinking, I say melting ice on the lens. How fitting :-)

  24. beng says:

    ****
    Ecco the Dolphin says:
    August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am

    To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007
    ****

    One could easily change “worse” to “better”.

  25. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Yes, it’s very interesting Caleb. I e-mailed the webmaster to ask; not the correct addressee but I couldn’t find a proper one.

  26. Robert of Ottawa says:

    4.8 km^2

  27. P Wilson says:

    Sea ice is a tremendous variable, fluctuating for many different reasons – wind, sea circulation patterns etc. However, it is one of the main signifiers for the AGW crowd, and wrongly so.

    Since it has only been accurately measures since 1979 via satellite, that is not a fair starting point for finding a long term trend, as you would need several centuries at least to find a meaningful pattern.

    to all those who worry about sea ice extent in the Arctic, there is quite a fair amount of observational data pre 1979 which indicates a trend. The arctic warmed, and sea ice vanished rapidly from 1910-1940. As far back as 1922, we have this scenario:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.

    Although we claim that sea ice extent is lower today than the average since 1979, it is likely (without the exact parameters of satellite data) that arctic sea ice was far less in extent that the last 7 years up until 2012

  28. MattN says:

    Meanwhile, Antarctica is having a stellar year for ice. Up almost .9M over normal. But nobody wants to look at that….

  29. beesaman says:

    Shhh, don’t mention the Antarctic, that’s not one of the Warmist’s cherries and besides we all ‘know” that global warming is a local thing…

  30. RACookPE1978 says:

    It is worthwhile remembering that, during the period of minimum ice extent at the equinox of mid-September, removal of the ice coverage of the Arctic ocean water REDUCES water temperatures (evaporation losses from the exposed water surface exceed solar radiation absorbtion of the ice-free compared to ice-covered water) …..

    On land, the opposite occurs (ice-covered land reflects more energy than open/pasture land/tundra), but there is NO land-covered ice left to melt in today’s climate and geography. The ONLY ice left to melt in today’s world is a small near-circular cap between 80 north and the pole at 90 north.

    Therefore, the more ice melts, the lower the air temperatures in the Arctic above 80 north. So what’s to worry? The next ice age from Arctic ice feedback?

  31. nc says:

    In the TV reality show Deadiest Catch about catching crab in the Bering sea, there have been a few comments made about so called global warming considering the harshest conditions in years. Not in support of warming.

  32. John F. Hultquist says:

    Ecco the Dolphin says:
    August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am
    Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice?

    My vote this time was 4.1, but let’s say I wanted to make WUWT look out of phase with the ice and I could do that by making a high estimate. If that high category was >7.5 I think you would find a few votes there also. Thus, rather than looking for your answer in “melting trend” reasons I suggest you look to the psychological mind-set of certain folks.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    REP, Nice map. Equal Area, too. Cool.

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Still predicting 4.5*10^6 km^2.

    As often happens, differences in the assorted Arctic sea ice products are showing up. NSIDC, used for the ARCUS forecast, is 15% concentration for extent. As shown, they’ve been tracking 2012 under the current record low year of the satellite record, 2007. Looks terrifying, doesn’t it?

    But IARC-JAXA (see “all years” version here), also 15%, shows 2012 has been tracking above 2007, barely, for about three weeks now.

    As usual when this happens, the “blame” falls to different satellite sensors used, different processing algorithms (is this spot meltwater or open water?), etc.

    But why does it seem NSIDC keeps showing up on the low end? Has it ever been discussed here that NSIDC was showing high compared to others?

  34. This is a bit off topic but maybe not. It may be a bit on the political WIth the Ice “thinning” (for the moment), Alberta will have a new option for shipping their land locked oil. Obama has blocked the Keystone pipeline to the south. BC has said they have a lot of conditions to be meto for it to go west and the BC natives communities opposition is reportedly funded by many US and foreign foundations But as I said in my post several months ago, that still leaves train transportation like Warren Buffet is doing out of the Nebraska in the absence of a pipeline (wonder which side he is funding); pipelines to the east coast to Toronto, Montreal and the Irving oil refineries in the Maritimes; and the Northern Route through the Arctic into the Pacific. The Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline has finally been approved after decades of opposition. With the low price of gas these days, some northerners are suggesting the flow should be oil north and through the Arctic to Asia rather than gas from the Arctic to the US.
    http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/news-promo/2012/08/04/northwest-territories-offers-alternative-to-northern-gateway-pipeline/

    Maybe this is a straw man, but that is what will happen if the flow south or west continues to be blocked. I wonder how Suzuki and Tides will think of successfully diverting flow from BC and into the Arctic? (Law of unintended consequences But then if they say the arctic will be ice free, then it should be quite safe, shouldn’t it? /sarc off

    By the way, for those who understand inertia and complexity of systems as most here do, the temperatures today and ice extent today are highly misleading since they may reflect things that happened years ago. I fully expect it to be nasty cold in the near future so Alberta oil is a lot more likely to flow east than north if south and west are blocked … and after a few hundred people die in the upcoming cold, I am guessing a route south will be quickly opened for both oil and gas … and due to the time it takes to build projects, a lot of politicians and eco-trusts will be running for cover.

    Nevertheless, if arctic ice trends down, it will bring more pressure to ship north. But personally, I expect a big uptick in ice extent over the next few years based on what I have read on these pages and others. The cycle continues.

  35. Steve O says:

    @RACookPE1978 Hmm. Interesting point. Of course, the cooling effect from evaporation is eventually canceled by the condensation effect when that same water precipitates, so from a global perspective the net should be zero. The evaporative cooling and condensing warming may occur in different locations, causing regional temperature differences, though.
    Solar radiation gains, however, are not canceled, so the system as a whole gains energy from reduced ice cover over water.

  36. Shevva says:

    Warning if you believe that the Arctic will be ice free in the next few years like the models say do not read past the following point or you will be forced to think outside what you believe, this is the point: The Antarctic.

  37. Brian H says:

    Kirschbaum is German for Cherrytree. Picked enough for a big pie yet, Neven?

    LOL

  38. chris y says:

    I voted in agreement with expert Zwally’s ice-free Arctic this year. I have learned from IPCC glitterati that this is the proper response.

    After all, Zwally is the go-to expert on Arctic sea ice, I am paying a portion of his salary to get the science right, and his forecast for an ice-free 2012 Arctic sea ice is right on schedule.

    If Zwally turns out to be wrong, he should be fired for incompetence and wasting everybody’s money on useless climate models.

  39. Smokey says:

    The big picture. Hardly any change in global ice. 23.5 MM km in 2000, about the same now.

  40. DWR54 says:

    chris y,

    Zwally’s comment was not based on climate models. It was based, as he mentioned to the journalist who reported his comments at the time, on extrapolation of the rate of Arctic sea ice melt observed during 2007.

    Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast. He was making an off-the-cuff observation to a reporter from National Geographic.

    So Zwally wasn’t making a ‘right or wrong’ forecast, and he certainly wasn’t reporting a scientific, model-based projection of future Arctic sea ice melt. In the same article, from memory, the journalist in question even made reference to a paper that did give an *actual* projection for summer Arctic sea being mostly absent.

    It think it was around 2030?

  41. Jimbo says:

    It’s finally in runaway mode. ;-) Now let’s look at the the IPCCs early 1970s graph which showed low sea ice extent if I remember rightly.

    It’s actually much worse than we thought.

    It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’
    20th November, 1817
    Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.
    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

    It’s even worse than that!

    Historic Variation in Arctic Ice – Tony B
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

    How certain are Warmists that this isn’t just natural climate variation. The satellite record began in 1979.

  42. Dinostratus says:

    Yep. Trending right between 2007 and 2011. Just as the gradient from 10e6sqkm to 8e6sqkm said it would.

  43. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Rod Everson says:
    August 4, 2012 at 7:48 am
    Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean?

    [REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]

    Thanks for that map, REP! Very helpful indeed!

  44. Bill Illis says:

    NSIDC’s data is really diverging (down) from Jaxa’s trends over the last several days (before that, pretty similar).

    The sea ice extent will be low this year (2011 and 2007 levels).

  45. Smokey says:

    Here is another helpful Arctic map, with interactive goodness:

    http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

    [Click on yellow dots for current weather reports]

  46. Matt says:

    As an amature photagrapher, my oppinion of the plume is debris on the lens. Given the location of the camera, the debris is probably ice.

  47. Bill H says:

    Given the animal actions of the Midwest and western states along with the premature widening of the polar Jet, I would guess the arctic is about to get real cold and the melting will stop much sooner than the norm.

    Just yesterday we had the first cold front of the season which is a full 6 weeks early from the average in Wyoming. If the polar jet is getting up enough speed and width to push the heat bubble across the US things are already changing… and very early to boot..

    will wait and watch along with everyone else..

  48. Gail Combs says:

    -REP, nice map. I would consider the advance and retreat of the tree line a much better indicator of climate than the summer Arctic sea ice melt. The melt is much too dependent on wind and other factors.

  49. Eli Rabett says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel): It;s the difference between area actually covered by ice (sea ice area) and the area where there is significant ice (sort of drawing a line around the ice pack. If the ice is broken up significantly the extent is much greater than the area, but in that case it is much more vulnerable to melting. This very day, the ratio of the area to the extent has hit a new low, which means you can expect both to nose dive soon

  50. Bill Illis says:

    I’ve managed to put together NSIDC’s data in one chart (similar to the ones I’ve been doing for Jaxa).

    NSIDC (climatology average of 1979 to 2000) with all the years shown from 1979 to 2012.

    http://s8.postimage.org/auayvlo91/NSIDC_Daily_SIE_Aug_3_2012.png

    And then the Nasa Team/JAXA sea ice extent to 2012 (average 1972 to 2011).

    http://s12.postimage.org/g6wjujetp/Jaxa_Daily_SIE_Aug3_2012.png

    You can probably open both in a new tab and click back and forth to the difference.

  51. Günther says:

    Here’s a very nifty interactive map with lots of detail.

  52. D. J. Hawkins says:

    I’m sticking with 4.1 million.

  53. Patrick says:

    Your next poll needs an optional response “I have no qualifications to make an estimate, but I want to see the results.” It might be interesting to see how many people like me are following you guys. (Yes, I know you can get to the results without picking, as I did, but it would be an interesting data point to see how many do.)

  54. Scarface says:

    The facts force me to lower my guestimate from 5.9 to 5.1

    And in reply to Günther Kirschbaum a.k.a. Neven (comment 1).
    He’s trolling dutch sites too. Hilarious junkscientific hugger to whom no one listens anymore.

  55. Marcos says:

    Whatever happened with NSIDC saying they were going to change their normals period to run a full 30 years instead of the 21 years they do now? It seems like many months ago that they were saying they were trying to find the right time to make the switch…

  56. Caleb says:

    RE: “Verity Jones says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:44 am ”

    Thanks for sharing the link to that map.

    It’s interesting that the “Cyrosphere Today” map shows no ice even near the coast of Alaska.

    The Canadian Ice Service map shows some ice near the coast.

    I guess we get to pick and chose the map that best pleases us.

  57. Jimbo says:

    RCS says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am

    Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.

    When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief in warm air temperature caused by co2 causing the low ice extent. Never mind natural climate variation, soot, low extent many times befor etc.

  58. Mike H says:

    Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.

  59. Smokey says:

    The map posted above shows ice extent. Green color is ice cover in Greenland, white color is ice cover in the Arctic:

    http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

    No guarantees of accuracy. But that applies to the others, too.

  60. rbateman says:

    Bill H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Considering that freezeup began on the 10-11th of September last year, a full 10 days ahead or normal, I’d say that this year might just as well do the same.

  61. Entropic man says:

    The difference may be in the resolution. The whole Arctic map is derived from microwave data with a resolution of about 50km. The Canadian coast map is based on higher resolution data and shows more detail. Smaller patches which would not be resolved by the former would be identified by the latter. NSIDC had a discussion Icelight on this.

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/07/18/do-satellites-sometimes-see-ice-where-there-isnt-any/

    PS I voted 4.0.

  62. Entropic man says:

    Jimbo says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    RCS says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am

    When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …

    I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!

  63. Gary Pearse says:

    rbateman says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    Bill H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    “Considering that freezeup began on the 10-11th of September last year, a full 10 days ahead or normal, I’d say that this year might just as well do the same.”

    In the polar region NOAA surface temps (colored map on WUWT Sea Ice Reference) are already recording freezing in the high north (link on WUWT not working).

  64. rogerknights says:

    This article says that Alberta oil is being shipped south by rail at nearly the efficiency of the delayed pipeline:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/buffett-railroad-beats-coal-slump-with-75-gain-in-oil-freight.html

  65. pinetree3 says:

    Ecco the Dolphin says:
    August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am

    “To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007, with currently slightly less extent than 2007 and relatively large areas quickly melting in the last few days, it seems it wouldn’t be a pessimistic estimate to vote around 4.0-4.2 M Km2 as a minimum for this year.”
    ====================================================================

    I agree. To me, 2007 looks great compared to the condition of the ice this year, and we still have at least 6 more weeks to go in the melt season. I’m guessing way under 4 million sq/km., and 2012 will easily shatter the 2007 record.

  66. redc1c4 says:

    is it okay to vote for the “ice free” option just because i’m a sarcastic PITA? %-)

  67. James Abbott says:

    Well said Mike H:

    “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”

    The reason for this is that the sceptic/denial community is only interested in finding reasons to undermine the science. So even credible observations showing dramatic decline in arctic sea ice area and volume “must” have an alternative explanation to the mainstrean view – which is that it is largely caused by warming seas and atmosphere and that is largely due to human induced global warming.

    The melt event in Greenland recently was dismissed by some as due to soot from Asia (hilarious) – until it was proven to be due to warm air sweeping over the landmass.

    Many of the comments in this thread now talk of ocean currents being responsible for the melt in the arctic or that “it has happened before”. Well yes, ocean currents play a part and it has happened before – but not in modern history. There is no reliable evidence that there has been such a decline in recent centuries.

    So for example P Wilson says

    “However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”

    Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.17565.png

    If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.

    Maybe by then a different branch of science will be the favoured punchbag ?

  68. pinetree3 says:

    Mike H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Seems like they are whistling while walking pass the graveyard.

  69. Mr.D.Imwit says:

    Just something picked up on the Internet somewhere,sometime.
    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 ( Royal Society Archives).

  70. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Re: Eli Rabett on August 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    *ahem*

    What The F### Are You Talking About?

    I noted NSIDC 15% concentration extent was tracking 2012 below 2007, IARC-JAXA 15% concentration extent was tracking 2012 above 2007.

    You Lobbed Off A Comment That It Was The Difference Between Area And Extent!

    What Sort Of S### Are You Chewing On In Your Garden, little bunny rabbit?

    Wrong Type Of Grass! Bad bunny rabbit! BAD!

  71. Smokey says:

    pinetree3,

    “Shatter” the record? May I point out that the ‘record’ they are talking about only began in 1979?

    I would like scientific evidence presented that the current Arctic fluctuations are anything other than natural variability. The Arctic has been completely ice free before, when humans were still in the hunter-gatherer stage.

    It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet's ice] is steadily gaining ice.

    You can see 30 years of natural variability here, both Northern and Southern Hemispheres. And the late, great John Daly found evidence of open Arctic seas here [read at least the first 2 paragraphs and the conclusion]. There are numerous other reports of open sea at the North Pole, this one from 1926.

    So why all the maniac arm-waving and running around in circles over natural variability? The answer is simple: because every prediction made by the climate alarmist cult has come to naught. But they can point to a completely natural Arctic event, and falsely claim that human activity is to blame. They even cheat. But when all the observations are taken into account, the alarmist crowd is no more credible than Chicken Little [Chicken Licken in the UK].

    The sky is not falling. But maybe the easy grants will start to dry up. And that prospect absolutely terrifies the mainstream climate crowd.

  72. Entropic man says:

    It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)

    All years since 2007 also show significantly low values.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png

  73. James Abbott says:

    Smokey says

    “It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet's ice] is steadily gaining ice.”

    Blimey. That is a major scientific discovery.

    So an icecap several kilometers deep formed in a few centuries – in one of the driest places on Earth – and those ice core drills must be all wrong.

    I blame Superman.

  74. Entropic man says:

    Those interested in the Antarctic might find this of interest.

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/#more-601

  75. Maus says:

    Mike H: “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.”

    And you don’t seem to be alarmed that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently expanding and what the coming Ice Age will due to Argentina.

    The problem here is that both need to be taken in context of cyclical variations throughout a day, year, and at longer terms. But what we lack at this point is enough knowledge of the relevant climate systems to state “We are DOOMED!”. There are simply no accurate and empirically verified models out there to even allow such outside having picnics with the Jonestown folks.

    For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”

    Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.

  76. Jim Petrie says:

    Sea ice correlates with the calender. More sunlight -less ice. There can be slight variation correlating with changes in CO2 but the consistent driving force is the length of the day.
    Temperature is determined by the sun. Greenkouse gases have a very minor role.

  77. Bill Illis says:

    The Greenland melt at summit heights turns out to be not that unusual (ever second year versus every 150 years).

    The Danish DMI posted this on July 28th (and they sound a little p’oed at NASA for the hype).

    Google English Translation and historical data for the summit.

    http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&u=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/t_vejr_pa_gr_nlands_top

  78. James Abbott says:

    This is what the NSIDC say about pre-satellite era arctic sea ice – more reliable than vague ancient maps and newspaper cuttings:

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/

    “Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

  79. Gneiss says:

    Mark Serreze’s colorful 2008 comment increasingly seems prescient: because of positive feedbacks, Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. This year looks very likely to set new record lows for extent, area and volume consistent with a steepening downward trend.

  80. Smokey says:

    Without admitting it, Entropic and Abbott would like everyone to believe that CO2 prefers the Arctic over the Antarctic.☺

    Folks, it’s wind and ocean currents, and a few other factors. The amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability. That’s all. CO2, and especially the tiny amount of CO2 that is human emitted, has nothing to do with Arctic ice.

    We’re talking about global warming of 0.8ºC over a century and a half. Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice cap. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.

  81. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm:

    The reason for this is that the sceptic/denial community is only interested in finding reasons to undermine the science.

    Wow, another blanket insult against the entire grouping, and you just couldn’t stop yourself from slipping in the “d-word” despite the Site Policy.

    So even credible observations showing dramatic decline in arctic sea ice area and volume “must” have an alternative explanation to the mainstrean view – which is that it is largely caused by warming seas and atmosphere and that is largely due to human induced global warming.

    Gee, with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:

    “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

    Wow, NASA is part of the “sceptic/denial community” embracing alternative explanations for a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice. Someone better tell Hansen that NASA-GISS is no longer authoritative outside of the “sceptic/denial community”, maybe the shame will force him to retire.

  82. Gneiss says:

    Maus writes,
    “But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932.”

    But this is far from the truth. Neither 1932 nor any other year in the 20th century, as far as we can tell either from proxies and historical records, had Arctic-wide ice extent nearly as low as it is right now. Anecdotes about one particular coast having low ice don’t tell the story.

    For example, in August 1932 although the ice edge was mostly north of the Siberian coast, there was still much ice in the Kara Sea, while the east coast of Svalbard and all of Franz Joseph Land were surrounded by ice. On the North America/Greenland side the NW Passage was firmly frozen, and there was ice in the Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, and southeast Greenland where we have open water today. Extent then was far greater than it is today.

  83. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    August 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    ” the amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability.”

    You talk a lot about this natural variability. Some peer reviewed evidence for the drivers you regard as causing this variability would not come amiss.

  84. James Abbott says:

    Maus said

    “For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”

    Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.”

    No, I was responding to P Wilson, who said

    “However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”

    It is hardly hysterical to point out that it would NOT have been physically impossible in 2007 to get about that distance from the pole. I am simply stating a fact.

    Try this:

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png

    shows the steady decline in ice extent that set in around the 1970s, on a plot that goes back to 1953 and as previously posted, NSIDC says the current melt is unprecedented in several centuries.

    So thats data produced by a scientific organisation that specialises in arctic research, based on the best evidence they can get from satellites and before that reliable shipping and other observations.

    But you would rather cite a single Russian ice breaker in 1932 (and that assumes that report is accurate) as a better source of data ?

  85. Maus says:

    James Abbot: “…more reliable than vague ancient maps …”

    Based on ships logs.

    “Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. ”

    Based on ships logs.

    “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

    So… like with the Greenland melt ‘unprecedented’ means ‘precedented cycle longer than 150 years’. There’s an apropos bit here: http://xkcd.com/605/

  86. John F. Hultquist says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    “ . . . +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge . . . and so on

    Sorry, I missed the post or comment where the characteristics of the sea ice data is demonstrated to meet the assumptions for application of the statistics being invoked. Can you link to that, please?

  87. Luther Wu says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)

    All years since 2007 also show significantly low values.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png
    _____________________

    Do you have a real point; something meaningful to say?

    In other words, SO WHAT?

  88. Smokey says:

    Entropic posts a link to NSIDC. I guess he missed the link where I showed that NSIDC cheats.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  89. fiatless says:

    “Mike H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”

    Fascinating how we still have the odd “alarmist” heading here to warn us that things are really bad and that we should be doing something instead of nothing. Oh, and to take it serious as well. Well maybe Mike H. could supply us with the facts or is there something that he knows that we don’t. I am all ears, as it is still fascinating to witness the endless alarmism being waived but no specifics offered to support it. Sad really how others who have been waiving the warmist flag are looking to an honourable discharge.

  90. James Abbott says:

    Smokey said

    “Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.”

    And kadaka (KD Knoebel) said

    “with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:

    “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”

    Yes, the wind and water conditions can move the ice and break it up. We know.

    And yes in 2007, as NASA said, wind patterns encouraged an even larger ice melt than the other big melts of the 2000s. We know.

    I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.

  91. Jim says:

    Looks like the arctic has survived another summer, contrary to the expectations of the warmistas.

  92. Gunga Din says:

    Mike H (I think)
    If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.

    ========================================================================
    I thought it was supposed to be this year? Or was it only supposed to be this year last year?

  93. Mooloo says:

    Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice

    The earth has been gradually warming for a couple of hundred years now. That it continues to warm is no surprise. The AGW argument is not proven by warming, let alone less polar ice.

    I suspect warming is a blessing, because on the whole a warmer world is a nice world. So I don’t get alarmed by less ice. It’s hard to see many Canadians and Russians complaining their winters are too mild and they want them colder!

    Even if it is heading towards a “too hot” world, I still don’t think the blame lies with CO2.

    Rather than fret about a minor side-show like polar ice, I am prepared to wait to see what the cause of the long-term warning is. I’m certainly not joining the hair shirt brigade on the off-chance they are right.

  94. Smokey says:

    Abbott says:

    “…it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation”

    BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!

    WRONG!!

    All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now. Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.

    And your silly pseudo-science link has articles like: “It takes a community”, and “how do we ditch fossil fuels?” Anti-science eco extremists belong on the Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site.

    You are way out onto thin ice [intended] by picking an example someone posts of prior Arctic warming, and then arguing with it. That would be fine once, except that the number of examples of past Arctic melt are beginning to bury you. Here’s another one:

    In fact, so little [Arctic] ice has never before been noted

    Scare stories sell newspapers. But only the gullible believe everything they read.

  95. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm:

    “Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

    You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,

    you point to an NSIDC piece, where they admit they don’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, but you decide the NSIDC piece must be able to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, even unto “the last several hundred years.”

    That makes sense to you?

  96. waclimate says:

    Let’s not forget climate change fears in the early 1900s because the Arctic was melting rapidly. For example …

    The North Pole. Causes of Change of Climate
    Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up, with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world?
    Science (says ‘Popular Science’) is asking these questions. 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. etc.
    The Advertiser, 4 April 1923

    http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

  97. Lyle says:

    It’s a local thing but Major ice concentrations in Frobisher Bay (southern Baffin Island) have seriously disrupted shipping to Iqualuit, Nunavut, Canada. A freighter that tried to push through has a bow resembling the side of the Costa Concordia.

  98. Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer says:

    Entropic man says: August 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    Jimbo says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    RCS says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
    When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …
    I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!

    What I can’t decide is if you’re serious, or just trolling. Did you in fact read what the man said? He was engaging in snark, poking fun at your side and what they regularly say. In other words, he was giving your side of things. So, do you really believe what you said, or are you just trolling? I would hope for the latter. Trolls are at least a time honored part of internet discourse.

  99. chris y says:

    DWR54-
    “Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast.”

    I’ll keep that in mind the next time I read any comment from Zwally, or anyone at NSIDC for that matter.
    Now, how about the comments made by the following experts. Which ones can I ignore because they are not giving a scientific forecast?

    Hansen
    Ehrlich
    Schmidt
    Mann
    Trenberth
    Santer
    Jones
    Briffa
    Lovejoy
    Pierrehumbert

  100. pinetree3 says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    “Gee, with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:”
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    I mentioned that to a warmist back in 2007, and they said the wind patterns that summer were caused by man-made global warming.

  101. MattN says:

    If we get wind in August ad September like we had in 2007, we will shatter that record low. And the howling from people like Eli (Halpern) won’t stop until glaciers knock on their front door…

  102. Fred says:

    Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?

  103. Fred says:

    Why does Sea Ice NEws always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?

  104. RDCII says:

    DWR54-
    “Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast.”

    The problem is, a dedicated scientist would never have made such an off-the-cuff statement to anyone, estimating a “trend” based on a singular event. This is, however, what an activist/alarmist might do.

    To show how ridiculous this is, the next year the ice recovered. He could have said, with equal “validity”, that if THAT trend continued, we could be entering a new ice age.

    He’s being held to his off-the-cuff remark to show how wrong it was to use his creds as a scientist to make an unscientific, alarmist and absurd statement as if that statement had any value. He has earned our derision for being more activist than scientist.

    We hope to make him regret that enough that he won’t do that again. Hyperbole does not help his cause, or the discussion. I would hope YOU wouldn’t want him to say such nonsense again.

    But there’s also this observation..if this is the way he thinks, is his science trustworthy, or does it need thorough…auditing? I would propose that the more activist a scientist is, the more important transparency and vetting is to evaluate the work of that scientist.

  105. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    James Abbott says:
    “I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation”:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.

    The abstract of the article at the link you provided:

    Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent (July 26, 2012)

    Abstract
    The observed dramatic decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE) has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. Though there is qualitative agreement between observations and ensemble members of the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), it is concerning that the observed trend (1979–2010) is not captured by any ensemble member. The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability. The latter has received less attention and is difficult to assess using the relatively short observational sea ice records. In this study multi-centennial pre-industrial control simulations with five CMIP3 climate models are used to investigate the role that the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) play in decadal sea ice variability. Further, we use the models to determine the impact that these sources of variability have had on SIE over both the era of satellite observation (1979–2010) and an extended observational record (1953–2010). There is little evidence of a relationship between the AO and SIE in the models. However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

    This abstract provides absolutely zero scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. But from the abstract two facts are clear. To paraphrase: 1) “The observational sea ice records are too short to assess the effect of natural climate variability”, However, 2) “September ice extent correlates well with two natural oscillations, the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.”

    All that’s left are computer models and statistical analyses. Only a Real Climastrologist would try to pass off computer models and statistical analyses as scientific evidence. Feel free to try again, but remember that empirical evidence rules at this site.

  106. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm:

    I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.

    Couldn’t you have managed the direct link?

    Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

    From the Abstract:

    The observed dramatic decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE) has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. Though there is qualitative agreement between observations and ensemble members of the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), it is concerning that the observed trend (1979–2010) is not captured by any ensemble member.

    Translation: The models have fallen and they can’t get up.

    The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability. The latter has received less attention and is difficult to assess using the relatively short observational sea ice records.

    Translation: We don’t know enough about natural variability to work it into the models.

    In this study multi-centennial pre-industrial control simulations with five CMIP3 climate models are used to investigate the role that the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) play in decadal sea ice variability. Further, we use the models to determine the impact that these sources of variability have had on SIE over both the era of satellite observation (1979–2010) and an extended observational record (1953–2010).

    Translation: So we simulated natural variability with models.

    There is little evidence of a relationship between the AO and SIE in the models. However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

    Translation: Our simulated natural variability accounts for this much of the previously totally unaccounted-for model failure.

    Once again, it’s models upon models, models all the way down.

    Thanks for pointing out how easily real natural variability may be quantified by modeling simulated natural variability. At this rate, climate research soon won’t have to deal with the real world at all to understand reality, only models will be needed to tell us what reality really is.

  107. RDCII says:

    Abbott and Mike H.:

    Both of you have failed to address the observation that AGW seems to be only melting one pole. All your other observations about how this can’t possibly be happening with AGW are moot until you explain why Antarctic Ice is above “average” with AGW.

  108. Justus says:

    lol @ 16 people. AGW trolls I tell ya :).

  109. Steve B says:

    Mike H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”

    1. Why should we be alarmed?
    2. What exactly are the implications for the northern hemisphere?
    3. Why is it serious?
    4. What makes it important?

  110. temp says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    “You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,”

    Hey [snip] how about reading the IPCC report… with the section found here…

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1565-jun-02-18-32.jpg?w=640

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

    figure 7.20

    Straight from the churches mouth you [snip]. 1979 was a way high year and dropping below that and even the current drops are completely normal…. according to the IPCC….

  111. rogerknights says:

    What’s happening with the military satellite photos pre-1979? I thought some agency was studying them with an eye to extending our knowledge of arctic ice extent back in time.

  112. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    DWR54 says:

    “… Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast. He was making an off-the-cuff observation to a reporter from National Geographic. Zwally wasn’t … reporting a scientific, model-based projection of future Arctic sea ice melt.”

    And that is exactly the problem!! As Chris Y pointed out, “Zwally is the go-to expert on Arctic sea ice, (and we all are) paying …his salary to get the science right”.

    RDCII correctly points out : “a dedicated scientist would never have made such an off-the-cuff statement to anyone, estimating a “trend” based on a singular event. This is, however, what an activist/alarmist might do.”

    Instead of trying to be the ‘go-to experts trying to get the science right’ on Arctic sea ice, top NSIDC scientists make throw-away remarks and headline grabbing proclamations like: “The arctic is screaming! Arctic Sea Ice is in a Death Spiral!”

    I second Chris Y’s comment: “If Zwally (or any taxpayer funded climatologist) turns out to be wrong, he should be fired for incompetence and wasting everybody’s money…” Hansen, Ehrlich, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, and Jones, et al. should all be fired for shouting alarmist BS to cover up the fact that their predictions/projections have failed to materialize.

  113. Gunga Din says:

    One thing the Abbotts and the Costellos never say is just what the ice caps or the climate is supposed to be. If they want to claim that Man is somehow messing it up then that implies that they must know what it’s supposed to be. If they don’t know or can’t show what is “normal” then how can they possibly tell that Man has made things abnormal?

  114. William Astley says:

    Meanwhile in the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.

    The phenomena where the Arctic warms and the Antarctic cools is referred to as the polar see-saw or as Svensmark call it the polar anomaly.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

    Based on what has happened, the Arctic will cool due to the interruption of the solar magnetic cycle. There is a delay of 10 to 12 years from the abrupt slow down in the solar magnetic cycle to the start of the cooling of the planet.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf

    “The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years….

    ….These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5±2oC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.”

  115. Rick Powell says:

    Big kudos to WUWT for posting evidence that supports CAGW. The sea uce evidence by itself is certainly not conclusive, but by posting disturbing sea ice data, Anthony shows that he’s not just a run-of-the-mill PR spin doctor. Posting the bad with the good is a attribute of true scientific skepticisim.

    If only everyone in this debate acted the same as Anthony Watts.

  116. Smokey says:

    Rick Powell,

    There is no scientific evidence that supports CAGW. But I agree with you about Anthony.

  117. noiv says:

    Fred asks:
    Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?

    Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.

  118. gopal panicker says:

    i have anecdotal evidence that the coal shipping season of the west spitzbergen ports increased from 3 to 7 months in 1919….fairly drastic reduction in ice…is it possible to get the records from what is now called Svalbard?….might be interesting

  119. Mike H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.

    Some of us are concerned that Arctic sea ice loss is the trigger for the next glacial phase. As Arctic sea ice has declined, NH winter snowfall has increased and is now 20% above average.

    It will probably take an additional trigger, GCRs, a major volcanic eruption? Although I could make a case that anthropogenic aerosols do a good just of simulating a major volcanic eruption.

  120. wayne Job says:

    Seems to be a few worryers and trolls out and about when it comes to the state of ice around Santas stables and work shop. Being but a lowly engineer and not a climatologist, it is my custom to stand back, observe and connect the dots. I see first some decades of rampant solar cycles and a warming phase that followed a cooling phase. This warming pumped some heat into the oceans, the southern ocean deals with this heat easily as Antarctica is an island and has a circular current that mixes and dilutes the warm water in short order.

    The arctic is a different case and the warm waters in the northern hemisphere have no particular place to go and the currents and time makes the warm meander northward. Looking at the currant ocean anomalies, the only above average waters are surrounding the Arctic. Thus we have a slow thermostat. The melting of ice and the coming northern winter should deal with any warmth that is left in this anomaly.

    That the sun has gone on holidays and the world has switched to a cooling phase, I do not like the chances of any time soon having an ice free Arctic.

  121. Mike Jonas says:

    Ecco the Dolphin says: “Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice? It would take a sudden and unexpected change of melting trend …“.

    Currents and winds are major drivers of annual ice extent, not just temperature. For any one year, it’s a pure guessing game.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/peer-reviewed-paper-wind-contributes-to-arctic-sea-ice-decline/

  122. Rob Dekker says:

    P Wilson says

    However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.

    It would be nice if you could at least give a reference to your assertion that in 1932 a Russian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North Pole.

    Also, the reference you give to the 1922 sea ice conditions report :

    The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 deg 20 min in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

    Now compare this to the 82 deg North that one could venture north of Svalbard in ice-free conditions, all through WINTER of 2011… Something that has not ever been recorded previously ?

    When do WUWT readers realize that not Anthony’s paper on US land temperature records may be “unprecedented” but also developments in the Arctic ?
    Does it all need to melt away first ?

  123. Rob Dekker says:

    gopal panicker said :

    i have anecdotal evidence that the coal shipping season of the west spitzbergen ports increased from 3 to 7 months in 1919 – fairly drastic reduction in ice – is it possible to get the records from what is now called Svalbard?….might be interesting

    West Spitzbergen (Svalbard) has been open ocean all year around.

  124. Maus says:

    Rob Dekker: “Now compare this to the 82 deg North that one could venture north of Svalbard in ice-free conditions, all through WINTER of 2011… ”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/02/arctic-oscillation-brings-record-low-january-extent-unusual-mid-latitude-weather/

    The NSIDC [snip - "disagrees" would be better]. You better write them a sternly worded letter.

    [Please be more careful in your wording ~jove, mod]

  125. Robin Kool says:

    I understand that the most important factor in Arctic Ice melt is the wind breaking it up and pushing it into the North Atlantic. That ‘s exactly what has happened most of this spring and summer – and even last winter.
    Just look at WUWT’s fantastic Sea Ice Reference Page’s section on Arctic Sea Ice Speed&Drift.

    And I would like to see a study on the influence of soot on Arctic Sea Ice melt. The whole year round, soot rains down on the ice.
    While the sun melts the ice, soot concentrations on the surface become higher and higher, the albedo becoming lower and lower. The warming influence of the sun must be strongly and progressively enhanced by the soot, but exactly how much?

  126. Jesuswept says:

    @Gneiss

    August 1932 Arctic ice state:
    http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1932/1932_08.pdf

    So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.

  127. Jesuswept says:

    @Smokey

    “There are numerous other reports of open sea at the North Pole, this one from 1926.”

    I just cannot help but wonder if the open water they saw were nothing but Polynya…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya

  128. Gneiss says:

    Jesuswept writes,
    “So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.”

    Declarations that Arctic ice extent has been equally low in the recent past, in 1920 or 1940 or 1950s some other recent years have no scientific or historical basis. But people who want to believe this, and don’t grasp the scale of the Arctic, can always pick out anecdotes of open water occurring someplace.

  129. Steve B says:

    Robin Kool says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:45 am

    “I understand that the most important factor in Arctic Ice melt is the wind breaking it up and pushing it into the North Atlantic. That ‘s exactly what has happened most of this spring and summer – and even last winter.
    Just look at WUWT’s fantastic Sea Ice Reference Page’s section on Arctic Sea Ice Speed&Drift.”

    I think Ice-Breakers are a significant factor in breaking up sea ice. How many ice-breakers and trips now versus 30 years ago?

  130. beesaman says:

    How refreshing it must be for the visiting Warmists to come to a site where differing views can be aired without the heavy hand of censorship. Maybe when they return to their usual web spaces they could remember that?

    One thing you can count on, all of the ice that melts, no matter how many ‘millions’ of km2 are left, refreezes, as it always does by midwinter. Maybe AGW only works at certain times in certain places?

  131. J.Hansford says:

    2012………. And the Arctic Ice is still there.

    So much for the catastrophism of the AGW crowd…. So what’s the next date? 2030 now?

    I suppose they’ll try and say that it’s not really ice, it’s gone rotten or something…. It’s ice Jim, but not as we know it…. sigh.

  132. Chris B says:

    Verity Jones says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:44 am
    Re the ice situation in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas…….

    _________________________

    Check our the latest Arcticrow post. LOL

    http://www.arcticrow.com/2012/08/04/a-tough-spot/

  133. Günther Kirschbaum says:

    What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.

  134. Gneiss says:

    beesamen writes,
    “How refreshing it must be for the visiting Warmists to come to a site where differing views can be aired without the heavy hand of censorship.”

    Those of us who post politically incorrect views here find that we quite often get censored, even on technical points like the direction of sea currents. Those censored comments sometimes get re-posted on other sites, but if you don’t venture there you never see the censored posts.

    On the other hand, purely ad hom attacks against this site’s villains are encouraged.

    “As usual, Günther plays the smart ass with snark. He’s actually Neven. No scruples with this one. – Anthony”

    “Kirschbaum is German for Cherrytree. Picked enough for a big pie yet, Neven?”

    [Reply: Gneiss: Site policy is here. That is what commenters get snipped for. That includes mindlessly repeating talking points over and over again or introducing topics to a thread which is devoted to something else. We also do not encourage ad hominem attacks... and your two examples are not examples at all. As the old soldier's saying went: "If you can find a better 'ole, go to it." (The one in Fan-ling Station was always a favorite destination.) Now, if you want to continue falsely griping about moderation policy, that too will be snipped. Capice? -REP]

  135. OssQss says:

    I recall reading this about a year ago. Did it get published?

    General comments linked ~

    http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/C843/2011/tcd-5-C843-2011.pdf

  136. Gneiss says:

    J.Hansford writes,
    “2012………. And the Arctic Ice is still there.”
    Not nearly as much of it, and it seems to be going down fast. Keep watching this month, and see which prediction looks more real: “death spiral” or “recovery.”

    “So much for the catastrophism of the AGW crowd…. ”
    The “AGW crowd” (Arctic scientists, in this case) are not certain, or agreed among themselves, on the exact date that summer ice will be mostly gone. How could they be? But they are agreed on predicting further decline, borne out by the physical reality. The decline is happening much faster than many (such as IPCC 2007) thought it would, and not very much slower than even the more pessimistic projections like Maslowski’s. All gone by 2012? Maybe not, but it’s going.

    “So what’s the next date? 2030 now?”
    Some modelers think so, while others think sooner. Boots-on-the-ice researchers seem to be among the pessimists. So am I.

    “I suppose they’ll try and say that it’s not really ice, it’s gone rotten or something…. It’s ice Jim, but not as we know it…. sigh.”
    In your mind, is all ice the same? In the ocean, it’s not. The thin, fractured and salty first-year ice that dominates the Arctic now is very susceptible to weather. Winds easily blow it around, whether out the door through Fram Strait or just spreading it which makes extent misleadingly look large, It’s more susceptible to both top and bottom melt too, depending on water temperatures and insolation.

  137. Justthinkin says:

    “Günther Kirschbaum says:

    August 5, 2012 at 6:21 am

    What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.

    Neven. Those publicity hounds are not in any danger.Well,yeah.Maybe in danger of having their scam exposed.Arctic Crossing.What a hoot. But then they are using the eco-cultists logic….one record high temp anywhere,AGW…..one open lead in the ice,ice free Arctic Ocean.One would laugh if your religion wasn’t so pathetic.

  138. Chris R. says:

    To chris y:

    Among the so-called experts you cited “Ehrlich”. Would that be Paul Ehrlich, whose predictions of doom since the publication of The Population Bomb have all been false?

  139. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Gneiss says:

    August 5, 2012 at 4:31 am

    Jesuswept writes,
    “So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.”

    Declarations that Arctic ice extent has been equally low in the recent past, in 1920 or 1940 or 1950s some other recent years have no scientific or historical basis. But people who want to believe this, and don’t grasp the scale of the Arctic, can always pick out anecdotes of open water occurring someplace.

    So what use is Arctic ice to the human race?

  140. Gneiss says:

    Kevin Vaughn writes,
    “So what use is Arctic ice to the human race?”

    We seem to be running that experiment to find out. Loss of summer ice will certainly change mid-latitude weather, and ocean circulation, so the rain won’t fall and the winds won’t blow as we’re used to, and our farms and infrastructure expect. Will it stop the Gulf Stream? Modelers aren’t sure. Loss of a thermal shield from sea ice is already speeding the melt of Greenland land ice, which unlike sea ice could substantially affect sea level. Faster effects could be on permafrost, which hold enormous stores of methane and carbon. Or the submarine clathrates, released by warming water. Those are huge possible multiplier or positive feedback effects, that could take Earth’s climate somewhere that most of the human race won’t like at all.

    The most striking thing about current Arctic melting is not just that it’s moving toward a state not seen in several thousand years. It’s that the change is happening so fast, with no external drivers except us.

  141. Griffin says:

    When will the next ice age occur? When will Chicago be covered by an ice sheet? It will happen.

  142. chris y says:

    Chris R.- regarding Paul Ehrlich. Yes, the famous bug biologist.

    Ehrlich’s list of failed predictions is legendary. Remarkably, he was recently interviewed (2011) and asked about his list of failed predictions. He responded-

    “Well first of all, the predictions that most people quote were actually scenarios, little stories about the future we said would not come exactly true…”

    Ehrlich is a morally bankrupt publicity hound.

  143. Jimbo says:

    What matters is not that GLOBAL ice has hardly changed since 2000 but local ice. ;-) Unless of course that Arctic local ice picks up then its off to……………………….another local area. Even one receding glacier will do quite nicely. Next, ignore the tiny, local Antarctic which holds just a fraction of the world’s ice and absolutely ignore all advancing glaciers and soot, then blame a gas called co2.

  144. Bruce Cobb says:

    Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 7:09 am
    The decline is happening much faster than many (such as IPCC 2007) thought it would, and not very much slower than even the more pessimistic projections like Maslowski’s. All gone by 2012? Maybe not, but it’s going.

    “So what’s the next date? 2030 now?”
    Some modelers think so, while others think sooner. Boots-on-the-ice researchers seem to be among the pessimists. So am I.

    By “pessimists”, don’t you really mean optimists? After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact not fiction, which would be cause for celebration, yes?
    But, have no fear; for when the ice does recover you can always claim that it isn’t ice extent that matters but the ice thickness.

  145. Gneiss says:

    Jimbo writes,
    “What matters is not that GLOBAL ice has hardly changed since 2000 but local ice.”

    Not true even with your cherry pick, the GLOBAL ice area anomaly has declined significantly over the whole satellite record, and more steeply (about 70,000 square kilometers per year) since 2000.

    But I’ve never heard any polar scientist declare that Arctic ice did not matter, it’s GLOBAL ice that’s important. Have you?

  146. Gneiss says:

    Bruce Cobb writes,
    “By “pessimists”, don’t you really mean optimists? After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact not fiction, which would be cause for celebration, yes?”

    No, I meant what I wrote. Also, I don’t have a CAGW religion, my views about the Arctic are based on facts, and I don’t view a harder future for my kids as cause for celebration. All this mind-reading is projection.

    “But, have no fear; for when the ice does recover you can always claim that it isn’t ice extent that matters but the ice thickness.”

    More failed mind-reading. Coming back to reality, why not argue with something I actually said?

  147. Rob L says:

    Antarctic area about 14,000,000km², Greenland Area about 2,000,000 km². Sea ice area is about 19,000,000 km² on average, so globally about 35,000,000 km² of ice coverage. And at the moment sea ice is about 1,000,000 km² down.

    So we are talking about <3% reduction in ice cap area in this near low point of the 30 years that we have data for. Or less than 0.2% of earth's surface. All in areas that are get minimal sunlight compared to the rest of the world anyway.

    Big hairy deal.

    Clouds cause massively more global albedo variation.

  148. Kasuha says:

    It would help greatly if a table of values for years at least 2007-2011 was posted for reference. I would vote for something between 2008 and 2011 value, I could even draw it into the graphs on the sea ice page but I really can’t figure out what number should I vote for.

  149. beesaman says:

    My the Warmists get all excited when the ice goes down but we don’t hear a peep from them when it all freezes up again. The influence on the Arctic is far more from weather patterns. They appear to come under the influence of long term ocean cycles, what influences them is far more complicated than mere CO2. Time will prove this and when it does we won’t hear a peep from Neven at al because they will have moved on to the next alarmist fad.

  150. Entropic man says:

    Kasuha says:
    August 5, 2012 at 11:04 am
    “It would help greatly if a table of values for years at least 2007-2011 was posted for reference.”

    This might help

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/10/

  151. Fred says:

    ” noiv says:
    August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Fred asks:
    Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?

    Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.”

    WTF? Isn’t this a comparison to historic norms and not absolute values at each pole? Global warming is not changing the shape of the planet in the real world, or our orientation to the sun. Is it doing that in yours? I guess it must be, as that is the only way your comment makes sense.

  152. R. de Haan says:

    Just watching a movie on a Dutch channel. During the movie a text is blended in: Polar Ice Cap is Melting…
    Something is going on right now. Prepare for a coup.

  153. Gneiss says:

    beesaman writes,
    “My the Warmists get all excited when the ice goes down but we don’t hear a peep from them when it all freezes up again.”
    That is called winter. Scientists watch winter closely, I hear a lot about that. Where are you listening, that no peeps get through? One thing they notice is that winter ice has been declining too, if you compare it with other winters instead of with summer.

    “The influence on the Arctic is far more from weather patterns.”
    Long-term trends are a definition of climate change, not weather.

    “They appear to come under the influence of long term ocean cycles,”
    Wait, long term ocean cycles are not weather either, which is it? And which long-term cycles do you mean? Conditions not seen in several thousand years imply a cycle far longer that the AMO, which is not cyclical anyway; and yet far shorter than orbital, which is. So what *is* your cycle? What’s the evidence, what’s the period, what drives it?

    “Time will prove this and when it does we won’t hear a peep from Neven at al because they will have moved on to the next alarmist fad.”
    Let me offer the opposite prediction that if summer sea ice stabilizes back at 1980s levels, you will hear a tremendous amount about that from scientists, and from people (like Neven) who pay close attention to the research.

  154. Tim Folkerts says:

    Smokey says:

    BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
    WRONG!!
    All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now.

    BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
    WRONG!!
    The original claim may or may not be correct, but your faulty logic doesn’t show anything one way or the other. Just because something has happened in the past due to one cause doesn’t mean that current occurrences are due to the same reason.

    By your logic, the fact that I have been watering my lawn (man-made cause) this year has no effect on keeping it green, since it has been greener in the past (natural variability, AND to a greater extent).

    Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.

    Learn about logic and critical thinking before jumping to conclusions.

    To make your claim, you would have to know what factors play into “natural variability”, how important they are, AND that they can explain the current conditions. Conversely, those claiming man-made causes should rule out that “natural variability” CANNOT explain the changes.

  155. Jimbo says:

    It’s worse than we thought!

    Dr. James Hansen
    “In fact, it’s now driven our climate outside the range that has existed the last 10,000 years, this geologic epoch that we call the Holocene”.

    Does he mean the ice free central Arctic Ocean during some summers in the Holocene? Is he referring to the mega droughts during the last few thousand years? Is he referring to the Holocene Climate Optimum which was warmer than today. Did Eric the Red’s group farm in Greenland or not??? Sheesh!

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/08/priceless-in-new-pbs-interview-hansen.html
    H/T Tom Nelson

  156. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says “It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet's ice] is steadily gaining ice.”

    Have you still not learned the difference between Antarctic SEA ICE (which is unevenly gaining slightly) and Antarctic LAND ICE (which ‘holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice” and most accounts say is declining).

  157. Jimbo says:

    Further to my last comment I have to add about Hansen’s claims:
    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (Sagan)

  158. Gneiss says:

    Rob L. writes,
    “Antarctic area about 14,000,000km², Greenland Area about 2,000,000 km². Sea ice area is about 19,000,000 km² on average, so globally about 35,000,000 km² of ice coverage. And at the moment sea ice is about 1,000,000 km² down.”
    No, we are about 2 million down in the part that gets sun now. You were counting a lot of area in the dark. Also, both Arctic sea ice and Greenland have declining summer albedo even where there’s ice.

    “So we are talking about <3% reduction in ice cap area in this near low point of the 30 years that we have data for."
    We have satellite data for a bit more than three decades, but many other kinds of data before that. The older data tell a similar story: current melting is exceptional on time scales from decades (submarines) to centuries (historical) to thousands of years (proxies).

    "All in areas that are get minimal sunlight compared to the rest of the world anyway."
    Did you forget the midnight sun? In the Arctic that falls mostly on sea ice, which is why the state of that ice kicks off feedbacks. In the Antarctic the midnight sun lights up land ice.

  159. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts,

    Instead of reading into my comment what you want, try to read it literally. It is correct.

    And your confirmation bias leads you to believe baseless hearsay: “Antarctic SEA ICE (which is unevenly gaining slightly) and Antarctic LAND ICE (which ‘holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice” and most accounts say is declining).”

    Wrong.

  160. GeoLurking says:

    East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.

    Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au#ixzz22hkedTnW

  161. u.k.(us) says:

    Gneiss says:

    August 5, 2012 at 9:36 am

    “The most striking thing about current Arctic melting is not just that it’s moving toward a state not seen in several thousand years. It’s that the change is happening so fast, with no external drivers except us.”
    ==============
    Care to back-up this statement with data ?

  162. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts says:

    “To make your claim, you would have to know what factors play into ‘natural variability’, how important they are, AND that they can explain the current conditions.”

    BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!

    WRONG!! But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.☺

    See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans. So the onus to provide convincing scientific evidence is entirely on the alarmists — scientific evidence they have failed to produce.

    As I have shown in numerous links here, the Arctic has been more ice-free than now many times in the past. Claiming that human activity is the now cause of the Arctic ice decline – without a shred of scientific evidence – is preposterous. You want people to actually believe that a 0.8ºC rise in temperature over a century an a half is now melting the Arctic?? Wrong. This is simply natural variability, and it has happened repeatedly in the past.

  163. Gneiss says:

    Jimbo writes,
    “Did Eric the Red’s group farm in Greenland or not???”

    They raised sheep, and sheep are raised near the same area today. It was ice-free when Eric landed, it is ice-free now, and it has been ice-free in all the centuries between, though sometimes rather colder. One advantage that Eric had was that no wood had been cut, and no fields ever sheep-grazed, when he landed. Eric’s descendents did not have those advantages, which made them more vulnerable when the weather got worse.

    One thing that Eric’s experience does *not* prove is that the southern coast of Greenland was any warmer a thousand years ago than today. It may have been about the same, or quite possibly cooler. A toasty 61 F near Eric’s farm tomorrow, sheep don’t mind that.

  164. Chris B says:

    Günther Kirschbaum says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:21 am
    What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.

    ________________________________

    According to their post they are within sight of restaurants and the only thing they are in danger of is looking foolish at not obtaining what they thought was an easy record, blocked by too much ice.

    LOL to your silly comment as well.

  165. Some European says:

    Greatly appreciated. Posting about Arctic sea ice now, when by all measures we are running at or below record levels, isn’t susceptible of accusations of deceit and denial. The numbers are there. Those who predicted sea ice recovery are clearly wrong. The next step for them is to claim fraud for all the different datasets. Or to admit they were wrong and revisit their assumptions…
    This year’s melt was particularly interesting because during the period with maximum insolation (from about mid-May until now), ice cover and area were constantly tracking at or near record low levels. This has important implications for albedo and ocean heat content. With El Niño building and increasing solar radiation, we’re looking at 2013 potentially leaving 2010/2005/1998 in the dust for global warmest year on record.
    Looking forward to more updates in September, thanks!

  166. Gneiss says:

    Smokey writes,
    “You want people to actually believe that a 0.8ºC rise in temperature over a century an a half is now melting the Arctic??”

    That’s not actually what scientists are saying. First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming. And third, we can see that the Arctic *is* melting, including ice shelves that are thousands of years old, and an ice sheet that’s much older.

  167. Gneiss says:

    u.k. (u.s.) writes,
    “Care to back-up this statement with data ?”

    Here is one place your could start. You have probably been told how wrong it is, but have you ever tried to read it yourself?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

  168. Bruce Cobb says:

    Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
    No, I meant what I wrote. Also, I don’t have a CAGW religion, my views about the Arctic are based on facts, and I don’t view a harder future for my kids as cause for celebration. All this mind-reading is projection.
    Interesting, so then your cherry-picked facts and emotion-based fears for your imagined future for your kids are in fact genuine. I was wrong, my apologies.

  169. Bill Illis says:

    First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.

    Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.

    Data here – File with ending of “…nrt.csv” means “near real-time”.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

  170. Smokey says:

    Gneiss says:

    “This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming.”

    Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene — well before CO2 began to rise.

    It is obvious to the most casual observer that Polar ice cover waxes and wanes, just like it is doing today. You’re just needlessly scaring yourself. Relax.

  171. David Gould says:

    1.) Heat melts ice.

    2.) The Arctic has warmed significantly over the last 34 years: 0.53 degrees C per decade, or around 1.8 degrees C according to UAH.

    See here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    Even if you do not believe that humans have caused that warming, surely you must accept that the upward trend in temperatures must be having some causal impact on the downward trend of Arctic sea ice.

    To say that it is wind or ocean currents implies that there has been some trend in wind or ocean currents. While ice is certainly affected by such things and particular years, such as 2007, will have wind patterns that are more conducive to a reduction in ice, the trend is the important thing to consider here.

    What could be causing the decline in sea ice on decadal time scales?

    A decadal trend.

    A decadal temperature trend.

    Heat melts ice.

  172. Jim says:

    Gneiss writes:

    That’s not actually what scientists are saying. First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming. And third, we can see that the Arctic *is* melting, including ice shelves that are thousands of years old, and an ice sheet that’s much older.

    2000 years? That’s not very long. The earth has been here billions of years. It’s been way hotter, and way colder before. You know what? The earth has survived each time. I, for one, am not concerned over a degree temperature rise. It’s way to frigging cold here in Minnesota 9 months of the year anyways.

  173. Gneiss says:

    Bruce Cobb writes,
    “Interesting, so then your cherry-picked facts and emotion-based fears for your imagined future for your kids are in fact genuine. I was wrong, my apologies.”

    Another mind-reading fail. You can’t rise to the challenge of arguing with something I actually said?

    On the thread’s topic of sea ice, I’ve mentioned satellite data, submarine data, historical data, proxy data, time scales from seasons to thousands of years, winters as well summers, Antarctic as well as Arctic, effects on land ice and other latitudes, differences among modelers, the perspective of field scientists, and both history and current weather in south Greenland. All of that I could back up with citations to recent, refereed science articles. To wave it off as “cherry picking” simply demonstrates that you have no concept of what the term means.

    Your two posts on this thread had zero content, and were silly even as insults.

  174. Gness says:

    Smokey writes,
    “Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years”
    Smokey, you’re classic. This technique is called “argument by personal incredulity.”

    “It is obvious to the most casual observer that Polar ice cover waxes and wanes,”
    …true
    “just like it is doing today.”
    …false. It hasn’t waned like this in quite a while, we know at least that much.

  175. u.k.(us) says:

    Gneiss says:

    August 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    u.k. (u.s.) writes,
    “Care to back-up this statement with data ?”

    Here is one place your could start. You have probably been told how wrong it is, but have you ever tried to read it yourself?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
    ==============
    I prefer non-fiction.

  176. Smokey says:

    Gneiss opines:

    Arctic ice “hasn’t waned like this in quite a while, we know at least that much.”

    We “know” nothing of the sort. There is observational evidence that the Arctic has routinely been ice-free thousands of years ago – well before anthropogenic CO2 began to rise. This geologic evidence destroys Gneiss’s hopelessly Gnaïve belief system.

  177. Gneiss says:

    Smokey writes,
    “We “know” nothing of the sort. There is observational evidence that the Arctic was ice-free thousands of years ago.”

    Read your own link, Smokey, that’s not what it says. I can help:

    “The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway.”

    So, 6 or 7 thousand years ago … remember that you were objecting to my comment about *your own claim* regarding the last 2 thousand years. You had to move the goalposts back 4 or 5 thousand years to save that one! And even so, Dr. Lyså specifically states they do not know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, only that there was more open water north of Greenland at that time.

    “This geologic evidence destroys Gneiss’s hopelessly Gnaive belief system.”
    Cute, but wrong.

  178. Smokey says:

    Gneiss,
    Thank you for quoting from the link. It supports the fact that the planet was warmer in the past, meaning the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.

    And it is not my “6 or 7 thousand years ago”. That is the peer reviewed paper’s number. But your cherry-picked “last 2 thousadn years” was just to avoid the scientific evidence showing that the planet was even warmer before that point in time.

    Face facts, what we are observing right now is nothing unusual. It has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater extent. This is simply natural variability. That’s all. No need to frighten yourself.

  179. Gneiss says:

    Jim writes,
    “2000 years? That’s not very long. The earth has been here billions of years. It’s been way hotter, and way colder before. You know what? The earth has survived each time. I, for one, am not concerned over a degree temperature rise. It’s way to frigging cold here in Minnesota 9 months of the year anyways.”

    This thread is surreal. Are thinking skeptics all at the beach today?

    True, the planet has survived through billions of years, asteroid impacts and all. There have been a handful of Great Extinctions along the way, one of them happening right now, but the Earth itself is still here. And will be long after we’re gone.

    Here’s a better answer than I gave, addressing one part of the “So what?” question about Arctic ice. It’s a presentation (J Francis & S Vavrus) made earlier this year at the American Meteorological Society.

  180. Jimbo says:

    Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    ………………

    Take a good read from many papers about the Medieval Warm Period being a global phenomenon.
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Greenland MWP
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N48/C2.php

    Greenland Temperature History
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/greenland.php

  181. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    August 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    ” There is observational evidence that the Arctic has routinely been ice-free thousands of years ago”
    ———————

    This is from your link.

    “However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
    “Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,”

    That was at the peak of the Milankovich warming for this cycle.
    We are now in the cooling phase of this interglacial. Based on your earlier graph linking temperature, CO2 and Milankovich cycles we should be seeing decreasing CO2, a temperature decline of 0.3C per milennium, and increasing ice cover.

  182. michael hart says:

    Hi, Entropic.
    Have you seen the photo of The Skate from the North Pole in 1958?
    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWt6vCq4PwLuKw3Y1IvYfF4eZ39QDCD-q8YB7Wgzf4q7fW3rQoyg

  183. Gneiss says:

    Smokey wrote,
    ““Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years.”

    When I challenged Smokey’s claim he cited a paper that said the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland had less ice 6,000 or 7,000> years ago. But when I pointed out this was 4,000 or 5,000 years earlier than the period he or I had written about, Smokey wrote

    “And it is not my “6 or 7 thousand years ago”. That is the peer reviewed paper’s number. But your cherry-picked “last 2 thousadn years” was just to avoid the scientific evidence showing that the planet was even warmer before that point in time.”

    Very confusing!. But false besides. I had mentioned 2,000 in the first place because I was citing a paper by Spielhagen that said 2,000, no cherry picking involved. It’s what they found.

    Have there been warmer and colder eras farther back in time? Of course there have, no scientist anywhere has ever denied that, so far as I know. Can conditions unseen for at least 2,000 years still be called exceptional, by human standards if not those of real gneiss? I think so. And all the more notable because global systems today are changing so fast.
    +++++
    Bill Illis wrote,
    “First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
    Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”

    If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.

  184. Jimbo says:

    Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 4:31 am
    ………………

    I’m sure you are fully aware of the following papers (abstracts) which show evidence of an ice-free central Arctic Ocean during some of the Holocene summers.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/

    With regards to recent (1920s / 1930s) comparisons it’s very difficult because the Arctic satellite record I recall started in 1979. If there is no scientific basis for such claims then please, please tell the IPCC to stop using grey literature which they still use today. This practice is very dangerous and can mislead policy makers just as Pachauri once tried to mislead people over peer review and the IPCC. Read it from his own mouth below.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf [678-page PDF]

    Pachauri and fairy tales.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/22/pachauris-rhetoric-vs-reality/

  185. Kevin MacDonald says:

    Smokey says:
    August 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene — well before CO2 began to rise.

    I like the bit where you conflate a tiny bit of the planet for the whole planet.

  186. John F. Hultquist says:

    Bruce Cobb says:
    August 5, 2012 at 10:10 am

    “After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact . . .

    I, for one, object to the above statement. The appropriate concept is that of a non sequitur. Melting of the floating sea ice will not prove CAGW to be true – one does not follow the other.

  187. barry says:

    “Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.”

    DMI is a poor metric to match surface temps and melt, as explained by people working there quite a few tmes at this and other blogs. I emailed them two years ago on the matter and got this reply:

    1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become.

    (Indeed, there is a clear warming trend in the cooler part of the year over the decades.)

  188. barry says:

    “All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution”

    All forest fires are naturally occuring. Proof: there were forest fires before humans even existed.

  189. u.k.(us) says:

    Kevin MacDonald says:
    August 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm
    “I like the bit where you conflate a tiny bit of the planet for the whole planet.”
    =====================
    OK, now follow the cash outflows, and tell me about “tiny bits”.

  190. barry says:

    Smokey – “The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans”

    Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth. You introduced the term upthread, seemingly referring to long-term effects. It is the long-term decline, not the interannual variability, that is attributed to AGW.

    No one denies that many factors influence sea ice cover and composition year to year. The ‘warmist’ researchers examine these influences extensively, and talk about them publicly. This allows skeptics to cite them when they speak exclusively about weather influence and then argue that therefore they do not believe AGW has an influence. I’m sure there is a name for that logical fallacy…

    My prediction for this year’s September average is 4.25 million sq/km.

    First time I’ve predicted a record-breaker, and I notice that at the moment it is the most favoured estimate on the poll here. I’ve based my prediction on the June difference beteen area and extent, the trend over the last 3 decades, and some wild guesswork.

  191. barry says:

    “First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.”

    Bill, IIRC, the NSIDC figures for the most recent few days are estimates that usually are amended a few days later after more data comes in. IOW, the most recent few days have huge error bars.

    Smokey provided a graph upthread showing a changing tail over three days (but he attributed it to deliberate deception rather than improved estimates).

  192. barry says:

    Smokey wrote:

    “Thank you for quoting from the link. It supports the fact that the planet was warmer in the past”

    But the quoted excerpt says:

    “The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago.”

    “Northern Regions” = “Planet” ???

    Why do so many ‘skeptics’ have difficulty with the notion of regional climate change and global climate change being different things? Such is readily demonstrated just by paying attention to the timing of the seasons in each hemisphere. And you can see it over the long term in millenial reconstructions, where some parts of the globe are warming while others are cooling over the same centennial time frame. Easily seen in this chart of milennial temp reconstructions made by skeptics.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

  193. Smokey says:

    barry says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm (Edit)
    Smokey – “The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans”

    Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth.

    Wrong, barry. Variability is not quite what your off-the-cuff, made up on the spur of the moment definition says. The term “variability” has been around for a long time. Here is M.I.T.’s Prof Richard Lindzen’s reference from about five years ago:

    The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100-thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat… For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. [my emphasis]

    Natural variability is sufficient to explain all changes since the 1800′s. Occam’s Razor says go with the simplest explanation. There is no reason to add an extraneous variable like CO2 to a simple explanation. And barry can believe that the global temperature is identical everywhere, but it varies. But overall the interactive map that barry linked to [and which I have used extensiviely] shows that generally the entire planet was affected by the MWP and the LIA.

    Finally, barry can be an apologist for NSIDC’s “adjustments” of the record. But since 99% of all adjustments by government climate agencies show either a lowering of the past temperature record [thus making for a scary-looking rise], or higher current temperatures, maybe barry will understand that their motive might have something to do with their budget.

  194. Bill Illis says:

    barry says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm
    “First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.”

    Bill, IIRC, the NSIDC figures for the most recent few days are estimates that usually are amended a few days later after more data comes in. IOW, the most recent few days have huge error bars.

    ——————-

    Sorry, Mr. barry, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Everyone else should make note of this.

  195. barry says:

    In the context of declining sea ice, “variability” refers to short-term effects, while “trend” refers to long-term effects. This is also how the terminology is applied in statistics, BTW. The WMO distinguishes climate variability and change this way:

    4. What is the difference between climate change and climate variability?

    Climate variability is the term used to describe a range of weather conditions that, averaged together, describe the “climate” of a region. In some parts of the world, or in any region for certain time periods or parts of the year, this variability can be weak, i.e. there is not much difference in the conditions within that time period. However, in other places or time periods, conditions can swing across a large range, from freezing to very warm, or from very wet to very dry, thereby exhibiting strong variability…

    For the scientific community to recognize a change in climate, a shift has to occur, and persist for quite a long time.

    If you want to posit some natural mechanism/s that accounts for the decline in sea ice of the last 30 – 50 years, then you need to be a lot more specific than pointing out that climates changes. Assertions so obvious might seem like evidence, but it’s just rhetoric. (As is Lindzen’s utterly fatuous implication that the climate research community thinks that Earth’s climate has been stable until the holocene. Puhhleease!)

    One paper has already been offered in this thread, attributing less than 5% of recent sea ice decline to natural causes. So, what are the natural causes of the 30% reduction in sea ice cover in the Arctic over the last ~30 years? Could you cite a detailed analysis (and not some graph of temps in central England/Greenland/Antarctica/Wazawoo)?

    I didn’t think so. :-)

  196. Smokey says:

    barry says:

    “…Lindzen’s utterly fatuous implication that the climate research community thinks that Earth’s climate has been stable until the holocene.”

    Wrong. Prof Lindzen said just the opposite; that in the past there were alligators in Spitzbergen, etc. Lindzen cited 100-thousand year cycles over the past 700 thousand years. But when someone like barry is ruled by confirmation bias and incurably affected by cognitive dissonance, he becomes ruled by and captive to a belief system, no matter what the planet is telling him.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/8YearTemps.jpg

  197. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From barry on August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm:

    My prediction for this year’s September average is 4.25 million sq/km.

    First time I’ve predicted a record-breaker, and I notice that at the moment it is the most favoured estimate on the poll here.

    Vote leader is 4.5*10^6 km^2, been that way for over an hour now, I checked right after your post showed up.

    After last month’s voting, ARCUS rounded the WUWT submission to the hundred-thousand mark (from 4.55*10^6 to 4.6*10^6) so splitting it to the five-ten-thousands mark doesn’t work, go with the vote leader.

    Just checked again, 4.5*10^6 km^2 still leading.

    Your observation skills are hereby noted.

  198. elftone says:

    barry says:
    August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm
    Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth. You introduced the term upthread, seemingly referring to long-term effects. It is the long-term decline, not the interannual variability, that is attributed to AGW.

    No one denies that many factors influence sea ice cover and composition year to year. The ‘warmist’ researchers examine these influences extensively, and talk about them publicly. This allows skeptics to cite them when they speak exclusively about weather influence and then argue that therefore they do not believe AGW has an influence. I’m sure there is a name for that logical fallacy…

    That would be “phenomena”. As for the ‘warmist’ researchers, they don’t seem to talk about cover and composition in the same breath. Links would be handy, ta, as would be links to peer-reviewed papers regarding observational data that support your – shall we say – argument. Ones without reference to models, for example, as they seem to be merely thought experiments. Love to see those. Empirical data does tend to trump statistics.

    In fact, if you’d be so kind as to provide any kind of evidence that what you say is based on fact as opposed to simply the right words, I would be fascinated. Otherwise, spouting the kind of rubbish (interannual means nothing, ducky, and the “long-term” decline is not shown, either in short- or long-term ['long-term' in the geologic sense of the phrase]) of which you appear to be so fond does no-one any good at all…

  199. alex says:

    Well. It melts down. May be not this year, but in a few years from now it is going to be ice free.
    Not really surprizing!

    Try to explain why it is not CO2. You are going to have hard time!

  200. Gail Combs says:

    It is interesting that the vote is bimodal with 77 votes at 4.5 and 71 at 4.2 and the rest scattered.

  201. Gail Combs says:

    Mike H says:
    August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate….
    _______________________
    MSM alarmist hype is for selling newspapers because Blood sells.

    So why are we not alarmed by all the hype?
    How about this peer reviewed paper.
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
    Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al

    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.
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-all.pdf

    Or this one
    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
    Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    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….”

    or this Graph

    Or this article at WUWT by a Geologist.

    The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer
    …We live today possibly near the end of the most recent interglacial, the Holocene, or the 11,715 years since we melted our way out of the last glacial, the Wisconsin Ice Age, the interglacial in which all of human civilization has occurred. Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle. The precession cycle itself varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years and we are close to the 23kyr point now, making 11,715 years about half……..which is why this discussion has relevance…

    It is a long article with a lot of information.
    Other info:
    600 million year graph of global temperatures – various proxies showing we are at near glacial temps.

    Quick cooling to glaciation

    Then there is the shorter climate cycles.
    The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

    Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model

    And again we maybe headed into a bond event (COLD) shortly.
    From the historical perspective:
    1/2 bond events
    Of Time and Temperatures

    Given a bit of warming or heading into a major cooling cycle possibly leading to “The big one” I will take melting in the Arctic thank you very much. Growing up during the Ice Age scare with a terminal moraine in the backyard (plus copperheads) makes you very aware glaciation is real.

  202. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says: “See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. ”

    And you are absolutely right. You are free to say “The climate has changed before, and I have no evidence that this current change is anything but natural variability”. But that is NOT the same thing as “The climate has changed before, and I am sure this current change is natural variability”.

    Do you see the difference? As long as you are content to say “I don’t know one way or the other” then you indeed have nothing to prove. But you are making a different assertion … that you do know something, which makes you no longer simply a skeptic. Any time you make an assertion that you DO know something, then you need evidence. Just like proponents of AGW need to provide evidence to support their assertions.

  203. Spence_UK says:

    The driftwood proxies show that sea ice is still well within its range of natural variability, and natural variability extends further than barry would like to admit; see here for more details of Funder’s analysis:

    For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts.

    (This was reported at WUWT at the time)

  204. Rob Dekker says:

    Gneiss said :

    First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming.

    to which Smokey answered :

    Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene – well before CO2 began to rise.

    You reference GISP ice core, which tells something about Greenland’s summit temps up till 1900.
    Do you honestly believe that temps at Greenland’s summit up till a century ago somehow ‘disprove’ Gneiss’ statement, let alone proves your own statement that “The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years” ?

  205. Rob Dekker says:

    Spence_UK said :

    For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts.

    (This was reported at WUWT at the time)

    Could you please provide a reference (WUWT or otherwise) to the claim that “for several thousand years, there was less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts” ?

  206. Kelvin Vaughan says:
  207. Rob Dekker says:

    Gail Combs quotes Müller et al when he writes :

    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.

    If early greenhouse gas emissions (thousands of years ago) prevented the inception of a new glacial, then what would current greenhouse gas emissions result in ? Eocene / Miocene climate ?

    While we are at it, does anyone here on WUWT have any scientific explanation for why glacial periods started at all (during the early Pleistocene) ? Why did the Pliocene/Miocene climate (with much higher temps and much higher sea levels) not persist ?

  208. Rob Dekker says:

    Bill Illis said :

    First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.

    That would be a nice break from the 100,000 km^2/day losses we have been seeing over the past couple of weeks.
    Still, this short-term stall in ‘extent’ reduction can very easily be caused by the initial divergence of sea ice caused by the cyclone that’s moving over the Arctic as we speak.
    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/cyclone-warning.html#tp
    Why don’t we just follow these NSIDC numbers you referred to for the next week or so ?
    Do you want to place any bets that your “positive number” assertion will sustain ?

  209. Ecco the Dolphin says:

    How much of the current arctic melting is promoted by atmospheric particulate matter (light ash from fires, soot from industrialization, volcanic ash from Kamkatcha and the Aleutian arc) ? Coincidentally, I would expect all of this to occur mainly in the Northern hemisphere while it would be almost nonexistent in the Southern hemisphere near the Antarctic. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why despite increasing global temperatures (regardless of the causes), antarctic sea ice does not appear to be affected negatively?

  210. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From tjfolkerts on August 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm:

    Do you see the difference? As long as you are content to say “I don’t know one way or the other” then you indeed have nothing to prove. But you are making a different assertion … that you do know something, which makes you no longer simply a skeptic. Any time you make an assertion that you DO know something, then you need evidence.

    Umm… No. “Within the range of natural variability” is the null hypothesis, which is assumed true until proven otherwise. Like toilets are installed in bathrooms or your cat in your house is alive. If you need to find a toilet in an unfamiliar house, you assume it will be in a bathroom and go looking for a bathroom. You don’t say “I don’t know where a toilet is” and check if one is in the kitchen or the den. While you may be inclined to quip “I don’t know if my cat is alive or dead” you still assume it is alive.

    So you say “I know the toilet is in the bathroom” or “I know my cat is alive” until you find evidence to the contrary. That’s how a null hypothesis works, it’s what you know to be true until it’s proven to be not true.

  211. Juraj V. says:

    Temperature in Arctic per season:
    http://oi56.tinypic.com/vfv70g.jpg
    As “warm” as in 40ties. Is the miniscule rise, half of that from the beginning of the century, really that unprecedented?

  212. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Eli Rabett said on August 4, 2012 at 5:58 pm:

    The really big picture

    The “really big picture” is global sea ice area, ignoring the large ice chunks on Greenland and Antarctica?

    Perhaps you have a problem working directly with datasets. While that “daily global sea ice anomaly” is supposedly scary looking, it really isn’t. To better examine the figures, I went looking for them. Since I couldn’t find the South Hemispheric data on the Cryosphere Today site where that graph comes from, I scraped together the monthly NSIDC info from here:
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

    Goes from 11/1978 to 7/2012.

    After assembling both North and South Hemispherical data into a spreadsheet, then adding them together for Global numbers (blanking out the nulls of course), a linear regression reveals a downward slope for Global sea ice area of -0.816*10^6 km^2 per century. At that rate the area will go to zero late in the year in 4198. Doesn’t seem that scary now, does it?

    Of course linear fits are fraught with hazards, as seen when looking at the extent figures. With those the downward slope is -3.816*10^6 km^2 per century, and will hit zero about midway through 2619. Since it’s difficult to have sea ice area without any sea ice extent, unless the “area” is exclusively calculated from slush under the 15% concentration threshold for extent, it’s most likely that neither zero-point year is correct.

    In any case, by current linear trends there’s at least about 600 years of sea ice left globally. By the sea ice area, subject of your “really big picture” chart, it’ll be around a lot longer that that. That’s a long time off, and there will undoubtedly be changes like natural climate variability and reductions in human GHG emissions from ordinary economics forces in the meanwhile. Those trends won’t last that long.

    So what is there to worry about?

  213. Gail Combs says:

    tjfolkerts says:
    August 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Smokey says: “See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. ”
    ____________________________
    Smokey is talking about the Null Hypothesis in science. From the stand point of the scientific method, skeptics have nothing to prove PERIOD end of discussion. You can not wriggle out of the statement of the null hypothesis with any type of reasoning or rhetoric. It is up to climate scientists to prove the null hypothesis is incorrect and they have not done so.

  214. Gail Combs says:

    rogerknights says:
    August 4, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    What’s happening with the military satellite photos pre-1979? I thought some agency was studying them with an eye to extending our knowledge of arctic ice extent back in time.
    _______________________________
    It did not advance “The Cause” and since they are actual photos they can not fudge the data like they do the temperature record so they buried the results DEEP under the ice.

  215. Smokey says:

    It is clear that Rob Dekker does not understand the concept of the Null Hypothesis. No wonder he is foundering on the rocks of science. He forgets that scientific skeptics – the only honest kind of scientists – have nothing to prove. And the alarmist crowd cannot prove their way out of a wet paper bag.

    Natural variability fully explains the current Arctic ice extent. It has all happened before during the Holocene, and to a greater extent – and prior to the current rise in CO2. It is natural fluctuation, nothing more.

    If it were not for pseudo-science, the alarmist contingent wouldn’t have anything with ‘science’ in it at all.

  216. Gail Combs says:

    noiv says:
    August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Fred asks:
    Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?

    Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.
    _______________________________
    OH? It is summer in the Antarctic? (Do I really need the /sarc?)

  217. Spence_UK says:

    Rob Dekker,

    There is a link in my previous post to a University of Copenhagen press release which is associated with a paper published in Science. The link may not be terribly obvious – just one word is hyperlinked, the word “here”. Paper is at

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.full

  218. Entropic man says:

    Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback. This is the natural trend on which any natural short term variation would be superimposed.
    The problem with the 20th and 21st century changes is that most of those with an informed opinion regard our current situation as an example of unnatural variation.
    This comment from our discussion on another thread seems apposite here too.

    Smokey says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm
    Entropic,

    Not just on timescales of Ice Ages. On time scales of a few decades, too.

    CO2 is a function of temperature. Is there any doubt?
    ——————–
    There is a doubt, or we would not be arguing this point.
    At this time we should be seeing temperature and then CO2 driven down by the Milankovich eccentricity changes presaging the next glacial period.
    Instead we find ourselves in a new situation. The first intelligent organism on the planet is burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide in large enough quantities to raise the level way beyond normal interglacial levels.
    This has reset our climate to a pattern usually seen early in an interglacial as rising insolation triggers increased CO2. We have restarted the positive feedback loop that stabilised some 6000 years ago, with no clear precedent from paleoclimates to guide our analysis of the result.

    .

  219. Gail Combs says:

    wayne Job says:
    August 5, 2012 at 12:01 am

    ….. I see first some decades of rampant solar cycles and a warming phase that followed a cooling phase. This warming pumped some heat into the oceans, the southern ocean deals with this heat easily as Antarctica is an island and has a circular current that mixes and dilutes the warm water in short order.

    …..Thus we have a slow thermostat. The melting of ice and the coming northern winter should deal with any warmth that is left in this anomaly.

    That the sun has gone on holidays and the world has switched to a cooling phase, I do not like the chances of any time soon having an ice free Arctic.
    ===========================
    The real clincher is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) intentionally keep out of the report the fact the energy from the sun was INCREASING.

    IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper

    …Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): “I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight”…

    Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) “manipulated” the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world’s best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Willson: “Fröhlich has made changes that are wrong … He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 … pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes.” [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Willson]

    …Since the appropriate questions were not asked, the IPCC knows little about the sun. While the rest of the IPCC AR4 is rich in graphics, there is not a single graph of cosmic radiation, solar cycle lengths, or geomagnetism – which is very strange because they are important indicators of solar activity…

    On the same subject Luboš Motl comment is even more revealing. It seems the IPCCs pet “Solar Physicist” isn’t even a Solar Physicist!

    Judithgate: IPCC relied on one solar physicist

    (Her CV lists some lower-grade institutions and reveals she didn’t get an academic job at some point. And her education is in environmental and atmospheric sciences only – no solar physics etc.)

  220. Gneiss says:

    u.k. writes,
    “I prefer non-fiction.”

    OK, that’s one way to science-proof your beliefs. Demand to be shown the data, then refuse to look when it’s offered. But you can prove me wrong: show that your reaction was based on knowledge and not a knee-jerk.

    You indicated you knew nothing about the data, so I suggested a good place to start learning. The link you waved away,
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
    is Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, from the WG I report. That’s a bit dated now. We’ve learned a lot about sea ice and other things since 2007, and I could cite newer stuff, but Chapter 9 is still a good place to start. That chapter alone cites results from more than 500 studies. So tell me, what’s the fiction in Chapter 9?

  221. Smokey says:

    Entropic,

    Cutting and pasting your comment from another thread does not make it legit. I showed that on all time scales, from years to hundreds of thousands of years, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Therefore, changes in CO2 are a function of temperature. The only ones who ‘doubt’ that fact have already made up their minds, and are immune to reason and scientific evidence.

    Also, I have not written one word about Milankovich eccentricity. So how do you presume that we agree? Is that yet another baseless assumption, like so much else that eminates from the alarmist crowd?

  222. Smokey says:

    Gneiss,

    Your reference is discredited. Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of the UN/IPCC’s Working Group 3, stated:

    One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

    The IPCC is a political organization, with a thin veneer of pseudo-science. If you are going to cite a source, cite a credible source. The UN is not a credible scientific source, as Edenhofer’s statement makes crystal clear.

  223. Gail Combs says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 6, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback. This is the natural trend on which any natural short term variation would be superimposed….
    _______________________
    It was I who brought up Milankovich eccentricity and you are trying to sneak in agreement with “POSITIVE FEEDBACKS” which has been throughly mangled shredded and disposed of HERE and HERE and HERE

    You are also ignoring the fact that Milankovich eccentricity means the rate at which the ice is melting ACCELERATES (it is the derivative) The article HEREand Paper HERE

    No positive feedbacks from puny little CO2 are necessary and that is why CO2 LAGS the temperature rise.

    From the article:

    …Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake that had previously been done. And a similar mistake is being done by many people all the time – scientists as well as laymen; alarmists as well as skeptics. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.

    In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?

    Nigel Calder knew that this was the right comparison to be made back in 1974….

  224. Entropic man says:

    Nasa has published a report showing a long term solar insolation trend of +0.05% per decade since 1978.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

    By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase at the Earth’s surface would need an increase in insolation of about 0.34%. The observed insolation trend would produce about +0.14C per decade.
    NASA/Goddard’s temperature data show an global increase of 0.7C since 1978 (0.23C per decade). On this basis the solar insolation change would account for 61% of the observed warming.
    This is clearly a back-of-the-envelope calculation, with any number of complicating factors ignored. Would anyone more competent like to critique?

  225. Entropic man says:

    1) Smokey presents a graph showing temperature changes over the very long term, driven by the Milankovich eccentricity oscillations. He uses this to demonstrate that in that context temperature change precedes or marches in step with CO2 change. I agree. Now he says the graph is wrong.
    2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence.Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.
    3) I am not convinced that acceleration is not relevant to this argument. On the milennial time scales of interglacials there is time to reach equilibrium states and the short term rate of change is of lesser importance.
    Over the decadal time scales of recent changes, the equilibrium has been upset, with consequences predicted by both sides, but no resolution yet.
    I keep finding references to accelerating trends on WUWT. The NASA/Goddard temperature graph gradually steepens during the 20th century, indicating that the rate of change is accelerating, but I fail to see why the sceptics are so keen to debunk it.

  226. Gneiss says:

    Smokey, go ahead and take the challenge. What is the fiction, in WG I Chapter 9? It’s a trick question because to answer I’m hoping someone will look at the actual chapter (no sign of that yet), instead of making political declarations or pasting quotes they read on the internets.

    And while we’re chatting … you often lecture scientists about what you think “null hypothesis” means, but in doing so give the impression that you don’t understand the concept yourself. I often test null hypotheses, in fact tested two (no more, no less) for one of my posts in this thread. Can you spot where that happened, and guess what those null hypotheses were? No trick here. I’m pretty sure that Rob Dekker, like most scientists, could answer easily.

  227. Entropic man says:

    “3) I am not convinced that acceleration is not relevant to this argument.”

    Sorry, too many nots. that should be “3) I am not convinced that acceleration is relevant to this argument”
    I am still wrestling with the word processing software.

  228. Gail Combs says:

    I should also note on the Milankovich eccentricity, that we are at the DECELERATION phase. This is a point that is never brought up in the discussions but you can certainly see it in the graphs. Antarctic and Arctic

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
    Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al

    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…

    So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.
    Hansen’s calculations for CO2′s impact is 0.6Wm2 (see here )
    If you go with energy at the surface (and given the Solar Energy interacts with the atmosphere on the way down that is being nice.) Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square meter. So 9% of that is still in the neighborhood of ~ 45Wm2.

    Sorry CO2 is just plain puny.

  229. Entropic man says:

    Smokey says:
    August 6, 2012 at 6:35 am
    ” If you are going to cite a source, cite a credible source.”

    This is part of the reason we seem to spend so much time arguing past each other. The sources I cite are not credible to you, and the sources you cite are not credible to me.

  230. beng says:

    ****
    Entropic man says:
    August 6, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback.
    ****

    Sure, it’s called ice/albedo feedback. In interglacials, that positive feedback has essentially run-out (hence the unusual stability of interglacial temps compared to glacial temps). There’s no ice, including sea-ice, present that’s far enough equatorward to have any more than a local effect.

    How the interglacial degrades to glacial is the question. Something has to “kickstart” the climate into a colder regime first (if not, we’d already be in a glacial regime since the summer sun in the N hemisphere right now is at a minimum). As the ice/snowline gets further equatorward from the kickstart, the positive feedback will come into play, exaggerating the inherent climate shifts during glacials.

    This has zero to do w/CO2.

  231. Gail Combs says:

    Entropic man says:
    August 6, 2012 at 7:28 am

    2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence.Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.
    ________________________________
    HUH??? These are NOT a reputable sources???
    a The Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado
    b Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
    c Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
    d Earth Surface Processes, U.S. Geological Survey, MS-980, Box 25046, DFC, Denver, CO 80225, USA
    e Mainz Academy of Sciences, Humanities, and Literature, IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel, Germany
    f Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada
    g School of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
    h Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
    i Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
    j Geological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350, Copenhagen K, Denmark
    k Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Box 1846, Providence, RI 02912, USA
    l Water and Environmental Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks, Box 755860, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
    m School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4099, USA
    n Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
    o Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1002, USA
    p Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswich, NJ 08901, USA
    q Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, NSIDC, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
    r Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
    s Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Wischhofstr. 1-3, D-24148 Kiel, Germany
    t British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK

    If you want the whole paper it is here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-all.pdf

    Given all the evidence that “left-leaning” Academics block others from the Climategate e-mails, firings of editors and a newer study where they come right out and SAY they block papers from conservatives, Peer-reviewed now means SQUAT! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all#pagebreak

    Yeah it is a news paper. You can go dig out the study since my computer is about to crash if I do not shut down.

  232. Anonymous Coward says:

    Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.

  233. tjfolkerts says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: “Umm… No. “Within the range of natural variability” is the null hypothesis”
    And Gail Says: “Smokey is talking about the Null Hypothesis in science.”

    Yes, I understand the idea of “null hypothesis”, but I think you are all missing an important idea or two about the null hypothesis.

    1) We need to agree on what the “natural variability” is. When rolling dice or flipping coins, that natural variability is. We KNOW the odds of getting 6 heads in a row (1/64) or rolling a total of at least 25 when rolling 5 dice (a little over 3%). This knowledge can be gained by studying the shape of coins or by rolling lots of dice.

    With sea ice, we have only a limited knowledge of what the “natural variability”. There is excellent data since late 1978 from satellites. There is decent data going back 100′s of years (from people living near and traveling on Arctic water. There is various data going back thousands or millions or billions of years.

    2) We need to know what the natural variability is FOR CURRENT CONDITIONS. It is natural for the Arctic to be pretty much ice-free in some natural conditions. It is natural for the Arctic to be pretty much solid ice well beyond the current limits in some natural conditions. Changes in earth’s orbit and plate tectonics have huge impacts. But what happened 5,000 or 5,000,000 years ago doesn’t really matter. We want to know the natural variability for current conditions.

    3) We want to know the natural variability not only of the extent, but of the RATE at which extent changes. That is even less well known. Is it natural for the summer extent to drop from 7.5 to 4.5 million km^2 in 30 years?

    Before we can even THINK about testing a null hypothesis, we need to know what the null hypothesis conditions are. It is one thing to say “we don’t know the natural conditions well enough to state that current conditions are unnatural.” It is a very different thing to say “we DO know the natural conditions, and this definitely is within the natural bounds.”

    Can any of you tell me the probability of naturally getting 4.5 million km or less given current “natural” orbital/geological/atmospheric conditions (eg, for a “natural” CO2 level of ~ 350 ppm)? Can you tell me the odds of dropping from 7.5 to 4.5 million km in 30 years?

    I don’t know either. People study this because they want to know. It seems most of them think the current extent and rate of change are NOT natural. Their expectations of “natural variations without human impact” are not consistent with current ice conditions.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Putting it the other way around, we are not testing if the current condition fall inside a known “natural variability range” (like we might be with dice or medical studies). We are instead trying to decide what those natural variability limits actually are to begin with.

    The “null hypothesis statistical tests” are trivial once the natural variability is known. But either side needs to present evidence for the “natural variability” before coming to conclusions.

  234. beng says:

    ****
    Anonymous Coward says:
    August 6, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.
    ****

    No, it hasn’t been “well established”. Read Gail’s links about Roe’s Milankovitch-cycle analysis above, understand what that analysis means, and you’ll discover why.

  235. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says: August 6, 2012 at 6:20 am

    Entropic,

    Cutting and pasting your comment from another thread does not make it legit. I showed that on all time scales, from years to hundreds of thousands of years, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.

    Similarly, repeating your point does not make it more valid, either.

    The simple truth is that CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of warming.
    * A warming ocean can hold less CO2, and will naturally out-gas in response to warming temperatures (e.g. from changes in earth’s orbit).
    * Conversely, if you raise the CO2 levels, you will reduce IR emissions to space and warm the surface.

    The fact that the first statement is true in no way speaks to the second statement or negates Entropic’s point. In the past, there were ONLY “natural” sources and sinks of CO2. In the last millennium (and especially the last half century), the natural order has been significantly impacted by anthropogenic causes. We have a “new experiment” running where CO2 changes not only in response to trees and ocean, but also gets changes “artificially” by people. The old rules need to be re-examined.
    OLD EXPERIMENT: How does CO2 change in response to natural drivers.
    NEW EXPERIMENT: How does nature change in response to anthropogenic drivers.

    The analysis is complicated by the “old experiment” still running in the background. The analysis is complicated by other feedbacks (eg the water cycle). But you can’t simply quote “experiments” (ie history) done under different conditions and assume a priori that the same results still apply in new conditions.

  236. tjfolkerts says:

    Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”

    Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted. “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present)” means that the distribution of energy in time and space was different. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).

  237. Steven Mosher says:

    Game over guys.

    The storm over the arctic now will tear the thin ice to shreds. Expect a new Area record ( <2.9) before the end of the month. Extent will drop below the record 4.3.. maybe fall below 4.

    Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.

    Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

  238. Bruce Cobb says:

    @tjfolkerts, You appear to be saying that we simply don’t know enough about climate to know what, if any effect we are having on it. Perfect! That, in a nutshell is the skeptics’ stance as well.
    Now, all you need to do is to agree that a cooling climate such as what occurred during the LIA would be what we need to fear, not warming, such as what occurred during the MWP.
    To that end, you might find this interesting: http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155225/

  239. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts,

    Agree, CO2 both causes warming and rises as an effect of warming.

    But the latter effect is large, while the former is too minuscule to measure.

    And as Gneiss hides out from my challenge, he uses his usual alarmist projection to say, ‘go ahead and take the challenge’.

    What a disreputable charlatan. Gneiss knows that my challenge stands unfalsified:

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

    And because Gneiss cannot falsify that testable hypothesis, he prevaricates and dissembles.

  240. re: Smokey (8/6/2012 11:04AM) Testable hypothesis?

    “Harmless” “Beneficial”

    Value judgments are testable? How?

  241. Smokey says:

    Anonymous Coward says:

    “Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.”

    Um… No. It is not. For at least the past 720,000 years, CO2 has risen and fallen as an effect of temperature, not a cause. But thanx for playing.

    .

    tjfolkerts says:

    “Yes, I understand the idea of “null hypothesis”…”

    Quite clearly you do not.

    .

    Entropic man says:

    “2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence. Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.”

    Right there is the basis of your confusion. Peer reviewed papers are not ‘evidence’. And Gail Combs has slaughtered you with her replies.

    Entropic cannot even keep the commenters straight, no wonder he is so confused about the subject.

    The wild-eyed alarmist crowd clings to natural Arctic variability like a drowning man clings to a stick. It is the only one of their endless scary predictions that might support their globaloney nonsense. Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing. Thus, blaming the entirely natural Arctic variability on human activity is a major FAIL.

    Wake me when/if the Null Hypothesis is ever falsified. Until/unless that happens, everything observed is natural. It has all happened before, and to a greater extent. But I don’t expect the handful of cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers to ever accept that, because their minds are already made up and closed tight. Facts do not matter, it’s confirmation bias with them all the way. Leo Tolstoy explains their uncomfortable predicament:

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

    The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. So expect more confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and ignoring facts by the reason impaired. They are driven by emotion, not by logic or facts. Have sympathy for their affliction. But disregard their climate alarmism, because Planet Earth is making clear that we have been through the same thing before. Many times. Naturally.

  242. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Steven Mosher on August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am:

    Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

    Ice thickness: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticictn.001.gif
    Ice concentration: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicen/nowcast/icen2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticicen.001.gif

    With most of the sea ice thicker than 2 meters and 75% or greater concentration, you expect this storm will tear apart this “thin” ice?

    Current weather: http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
    Roughly around the the Beaufort Sea it’s slightly windy. Barrow, Alaska and Resolute, Nunavut, Canada are reporting winds around 17mph with gusts around 23mph. Otherwise the stations around the Arctic aren’t reporting anything noticeable. Where are you getting your info about this “monster” storm over the Arctic now?

  243. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey!

    You are specifically claiming that “All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: … ” This is bad hypothesis testing no matter how you look at it.

    That is simply NOT what you can claim based on hypothesis testing! The best you could possibly claim is “All of the changes are due to consistent with natural variability” which is very different from your claim that there are in fact ONLY natural variations and NO man-made changes. At best, the test can only say we didn’t detect the potential changes.

  244. Paul K2 says:

    Geez… After 240 some comments, someone finally mentions the storm. Talk about some clueless commenters.

    kadaka: The center of the storm is around 80N and 170W, about a thousand miles north of Barrow. Here is a nice site showing the storm:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather_imagecontainer.php
    (note link auto updates)

    But even at Barrow, the storm changed weather fast.
    Here is the weather talk from Barrow today:

    NORTHERN ALASKA FORECAST DISCUSSION
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK
    437 AM AKDT MON AUG 6 2012

    .DISCUSSION… (continued)
    NORTH SLOPE…

    “SCREAMING COLD AIR ADVECTION AND DRYING OF THE AIR MASS BEHIND THE FRONT AS EVIDENT ON THE 12Z BARROW SOUNDING. THE FREEZING LEVEL AT BARROW DROPPED FROM OVER 10K FT ASL AT 00Z/4PM AKDT SUNDAY AFTERNOON TO JUST 200 FT THIS MORNING! IT WAS 60F YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AT BARROW AND THE CURRENT TEMP IS 33F WITH A WIND CHILL OF 22F.”

  245. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says: “The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. ”

    Talk about cognitive dissonance!
    >> The Claim: The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free
    >> The Proof: The Antarctic has been repeatedly varying in temperature a few degrees.
    Or were you not trying to substantiated your claim, but merely trying to remind us that the “Holocene” lasted about 10,000 years ?

    And for the third time (at least) you present this cognitive dissonance: Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing.

    Your problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s LAND ice (which seems to be decreasing), and the Antarctic’s SEA ice is UNEVENLY increasing. Overall, Antarctica’s ice (land and sea) seems to be declining. (Getting good info is tough. So many articles that I glanced at seem to jumble together the ideas of land ice, ice shelves, and sea ice.)

  246. Paul K2 says:

    It was fun reading this thread, waiting for the “WUWT Arctic ice experts” to wise up to this storm. Here is an abstract of a nice paper by a familiar name, Kerry Emanuel:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.1989.tb00362.x/abstract

    Polar lows as arctic hurricanes

    ABSTRACT
    Satellite observations of the polar oceans have revealed the presence of small, intense vortices that often resemble hurricanes, having clear central eyes surrounded by deep convective clouds. Recent aircraft and dropsonde data also show that these storms, like hurricanes, occur within deep moist adiabatic atmospheres and possess warm cores. We propose that at least some polar lows are indeed arctic hurricanes. Using a recently developed theoretical model of the mature hurricane, we show that the observed difference between the moist entropy of the troposphere and that representing saturation at sea surface temperature can sustain moderately intense hurricanes. Unlike the environments of tropical hurricanes, much of this moist entropy difference results from an air-sea temperature difference. Numerical experiments using an axisymmetric nonhydrostatic model confirm that intense hurricanes can develop in environments typical of those in which polar lows are observed to develop. Due to the relatively large values of the Coriolis parameter, these storms have smaller diameters than do hurricanes. The experiments also show that the deep, cold cut-off lows which create favorable thermodynamic environments for polar lows also inhibit their development because of the large intertial stability of their circulations. Finally, we show that, like hurricanes, surface flux-driven polar lows cannot arise spontaneously, but require an independent and presumably non-axisymmetric dynamical mechanism for their initiation.

  247. Steven Mosher says:

    KD.

    have a look at any MODIS imagery and you can see that the ice not in the CAB is broken up.
    The other way to judge this is to do this : area/extent

    Or look at this

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png

    For weather.

    UPPER AIR…A DEEP LOW NEAR 78N 160E EAST WILL CONTINUE TO DEEPEN
    TO OVER THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT TRACKS TO THE NORTHEAST AND JUST
    SOUTH OF THE POLE. ALL OF THE MODELS ALL HAVE AN ANOMALOUSLY DEEP
    SUB 510 DM LOW AT 500 MILLIBARS BY 12Z TUE. A LOW THIS DEEP IN
    AUGUST IS INDEED A RARE EVENT.

    Area currently is at 3.5 Million. see all that 1 meter ice

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticictn.001.gif.

    Now, picture 2-3 meter seas sloshing over that.. The cold fresh water at the top
    will be replaced with warmer saltier water pumped from the depths.
    http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/ekpump.html

    This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html
    gone

    This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
    gone.

    Game over. at 3.5M sq km and 5-6 weeks left in the melt season… say -40-50 days..
    what would be unprecedented is a melt rate slow enough to AVOID setting a record.

    In the end, this ice is all that left is this

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

    and maybe some in the greenland sea.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

    other tidbit

  248. tjfolkerts says:

    And to me more directly on topic, I predict a September average extent of around 4.1 million km^2, based an a wide variety of statistical analyses of the conditions in the Arctic the last year or so.

    An exceptionally low extent and area in June & July, coupled with unusually warm temperatures are among the key factors pushing the multiple regression predictions down.

    Of course, statistical predictions can be wrong. But all indications are for a record low extent. (Predictions for September, 2013 are also for low extent, but it is way to early to put tight error bars on those numbers).

  249. Paul K2 says:

    Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).

    Neven will be sooo… disappointed.

  250. Bill Illis says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
    Game over guys.
    Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
    Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..
    —————————————

    Just like everything on the warmer side (which Mosher is definitely on now), there is hype and then there is factual evidence.

    When was the last time there was a large deep low in the Arctic? Well just 10 months ago so must be really rare. I doubt it. The Arctic has been completely cloud covered for the past two months.

    The sea temperatures in the Arctic are between -2.0C and -0.8C (with a few coastal mudflats higher than this).

    There is a slightly warmer layer 50 metres down, as much as -0.4C but less than this in most of the Arctic. This layer is thin and at 50 metres down, is extemely unlikely to be brought up by wind and waves (its density would have to change first anyway). It then gets colder again below this thin layer.

    The next warm layer is 200 metres to 500 metres down and can get to +1.7C. Of course this is not going to get mixed with the surface either.

    Then as one goes lower it gets colder and colder again, maybe down to -1.2C at the bottom.

    Salinity follows a similar pattern.

    A good reference comes from the Woods Hole Institute which has about 10 active bouys in the Arctic with continuous temp profiles down to 750 metres. (Archives for another few dozen)

    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=20781

    The temp and salinity profile down to 750 metres for bouy 53 in the (probably melted) Beaufort sea right in the centre of this low.

    http://www.whoi.edu/itp/images/itp53dat3.jpg

  251. Smokey says:

    Steve Mosher says:

    “Game over.” Said it twice now.

    So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺

  252. Smokey says:

    Jeffrey Davis says:

    “Testable hypothesis? ‘Harmless’ ‘Beneficial’
    Value judgments are testable? How?”

    Glad you asked. Listen up, and I will explain:

    The Null Hypothesis states, in effect, that the climate will continue on within its historical parameters, as it has in the past. Now, if those parameters break out to the upside [in other words, if temperatures begin to accelerate above and beyond their long term parameters], then the Null has been tested and is falsified. That is the elevator explanation.

    But so far temperatures have remained on their long term rising trend, despite a hefty 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial – prove me wrong] CO2. There has been no acceleration above those long term parameters.

    Therefore, the Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternative hypothesis [CO2=CAGW] founders and sinks against the rocks of logic: if a 40% rise in CO2 cannot make a measurable difference in temperature [and it doesn't], then any effect from CO2 is insignificant, and thus can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

    The Null Hypothesis is an accepted corollary of the Scientific Method. That is why Kevin Trenberth is so upset that it does not support his beliefs. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    • • •

    tjfolkerts says:

    “…all indications are for a record low extent.”

    Define “record”.

    FYI, the temperature ‘record’ goes back ≈740,000 years in the ice cores. But let’s just look at the Holocene. Do you think maybe the planet was warm enough to make for an ice-free Arctic over the past 10 millennia? Or does the “record” only cover since 1979?

    Face it, current Arctic ice cover is nothing unusual. Unless, of course, you limit the discussion to the past 33 cherry-picked years, instead of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene.

  253. Smokey

    My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.

    Sobering to think that William scoresby-the first great arctic explorer-who is buried not 7 miles from my home -recorded great storms and dramatic melting of the ice 150 years before the first satellites, and that the dramatic melting only 80 years ago and captured on pathe news reel for the entertainment of cinema goers seems to have been forgotten as well.

    I am working on historic variations in arctic ice part two and was at the met office today collecting archive material for it. It will join the hundreds of papers I have already read. The only conclusion that can be dawn is that arctic ice melts with astonishing frequency and the modern era is by no means unprecedented- just ask any Viking

    Tonyb

  254. Jim says:

    Steven Mosher said:
    August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Game over guys.

    The storm over the arctic now will tear the thin ice to shreds. Expect a new Area record ( <2.9) before the end of the month. Extent will drop below the record 4.3.. maybe fall below 4.

    Maybe, but not likely.

    Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.

    I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.

    Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

    There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.

    I’m half inclined to take a flamethrower to the ice, just to put the ice out of its misery. Man, watching ice melt — that’s even worse than watching paint dry! LOL.

  255. Gneiss says:

    Yes, Mosher let the storm-cat out of the bag, folks elsewhere have been wondering how long it would take the WUWT “Sea Ice News” crowd to catch on. Two days, it turns out.

    I hinted about this yesterday @5:05pm, in response to Bill Illis’ comical post, but no one picked that up:

    +++++
    Gneiss says:
    August 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Bill Illis wrote,
    “First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
    Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”

    If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.

  256. Jim says:

    Smokey wrote:

    Steve Mosher says:

    “Game over.” Said it twice now.

    So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺

    LOL. The Day After Tomorrow, maybe?

  257. Gail Combs says:

    tjfolkerts says:
    August 6, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”

    Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted….. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).
    _________________________________
    You are not quite correct. (But neither was I , husband dragging me out the door befuddles the brain.) It is a combination of the two.

    The 100,000 year stretch: The orbit of the earth gradually stretches from nearly circular to an elliptical shape and back again in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years. This is called the orbit’s eccentricity. During the cycle, the distance between earth and sun varies by as much as 11.35 million miles. [So distance from the sun and therefore insolation does change for the earth as a whole - G.C.]

    The 41,000 year tilt: The earth’s axis is never perpendicular to the plane of its orbit; over the course of about 41,000 years the angle varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees. Because of the tilt, the solar radiation striking any point on earth fluctuates during the yearly orbit, producing seasons. When the tilt is greatest, summers are hottest, winters are coldest.

    The 22,000 year wobble: Even while the shape of its orbit and the tilt of its axis are changing, the earth wobbles slowly in space, its axis describing a circle once every 22,000 years. Because of this movement, known as axial precession or the precession of the equinoxes, the distance between the earth and the sun in a given season slowly changes. Today, for instance, the shape of the orbit places the planet closest to the sun in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter and farthest away in summer. The combination tends to make winters mild and summers cool — and favors ice-sheet growth. However, 11,000 years ago, the arrangement was just the opposite, setting the stage for the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decay.

    These variations were calculated mathematically by several workers during the latter half of the 19th century. Milankovitch used the existing calculations of variations in eccentricity, precession and tilt to calculate how much solar radiation strikes the surface of the earth during each season and at each latitude. He published his first results in 1920, which contained a graph showing how summer radiation at latitudes 55Deg, 60Deg, and 65Deg North varied over the past 650,000 years. His next results were published in 1930, and included radiation curves for each of eight latitudes ranging from 5Deg North to 75Deg North. The curves calculated for high latitudes are dominated by the 41,000 year tilt cycle, while those for low latitudes are dominated by the 22,000 year precession cycle. By 1941 he had finished his calculations. The value of the Milankovitch theory was that it made testable predictions about the geological record of climate….. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

    Good animation illustrating eccentricity, precession and tilt here

    Roe did the calculations in his peer-reviewed paper. Here is the Graph for June at 65N, insolation varies more than +/- 50Wm2 or The most recent for 11Ka seem to be ~ 110Wm2 not too far from the +123Wm2 in my very rough calculation. (NOTE: The Earth is currently on the extreme right and headed DOWN) This map shows latitude 65N as above the red X.

    About the graph:

    … you clearly get a spectacular agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve (cyan) and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes (white). Moreover, this model requires no lag to be adjusted and no significant CO2 forcing to be added if you want to reproduce the data very well. Roe explicitly mentions – even in the abstract – that CO2 is not needed; moreover, it’s changes are lagging so they are (mostly) consequences, rather than causes, of the ice-volume and temperature changes. ~ Luboš Motl

    (Sorry for the goof guys)

  258. Gail Combs says:

    climatereason says:
    August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Smokey

    My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he…..
    ____________________________
    I do not know about you guys but I much rather see the Arctic ‘ice free’ in the summer rather than the opposite. A year long solidly frozen Arctic down to 70N or worse 65N is NOT something I am wishing for! ( voted for 4.2 million sqkm BTW)

  259. SteveSadlov says:

    Been hitting the minimum earlier the past few years. That could make a difference.

  260. Steven Mosher says:

    Paul K2 says:
    August 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Edit)
    Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).

    Neven will be sooo… disappointed.

    ############################################

    Paul K2, your writing on the storm is very clear and compelling. I learned a lot from it.

  261. Steven Mosher says:

    Smokey says:
    August 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (Edit)
    Steve Mosher says:

    “Game over.” Said it twice now.

    So what happens next? Thermogeddon

    ##########################

    What happens next? Hopefully I win my bets at Lucia !!!

    What happens Next?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg

  262. Steven Mosher says:

    climatereason says:
    August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm (Edit)
    Smokey

    My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.

    ##############

    Tony? do you see me calling this unprecedeneted? Nope you dont.
    Did dramatic events happen before 1979. You BET !

    That said. ice is melted by heat. So yes, it is warmer now than in the LIA. and one sign of that is the state of the Arctic. has it ever been warmer? you bet. have we ever had storms like this? You bet we have.

    Still for people betting on whether or not this year will set a record, my bet is game over.
    decades of decline has left the ice in no condition to weather this weather .

    Anybody want to bet extent will be higher that 5M?

  263. Steven Mosher says:

    jim

    “I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.

    ####
    I’m sure the ice will survive as well? where do you see me saying otherwise?

    “There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.”

    Sure there is evidence of AGW. It may be evidence you dont accept, but there is evidence.
    At least you admit that its warmer now than in the LIA.

    And yes the ice has weathered wind and waves before. Like duh!. the question for betters is what will happen this fall? my bet says we set a new record.. 8:1 odds.

  264. Gail Combs says:

    While everyone is watching the Sea Ice they are neglecting this news:

    AccuWeather: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year Aug 6, 2012

    There aren’t many places you can go to in the United States to see snow in August, and usually, even Anchorage, Alaska, isn’t one of them.

    But the city is still dealing with leftover snow from last winter in its bordering mountain ranges. The all-time record snowfall of 133.6 inches last winter – just over 11 feet – could give Anchorage an endless winter.

    …The combination of heavy snowfall and a cool spring caused the lingering snow, said United States Department of Agriculture Snow Survey Supervisor Rick McClure. He said that it’s unusual to see snow still remaining in some of the mountains that surround Anchorage.

    “Most of the time snow melts in the mountains, unless it’s a glacier or snowfield,” McClure said. “We’ve had snow in 4,000-feet elevations that usually melts by early June stay until that time in July. It’s very rare to see snow in the mountains that close to the solstice.”…

    May, June and July have all seen colder monthly averages, with July making the cut as the seventh-coldest July in history. There were 24 days in May 19 days in June that fell below the average daily temperature.

    Adding the record-shattering snowfall into the mix, it’s possible the melt of last year’s snow could overlap with new snow falls that can occur as early as September. When this happens, glaciers can form by compressing the old snow into ice….

    Looks like the Sea Ice has sprouted feet and walked inland.

  265. Smokey says:

    Steven Mosher,

    Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺

    And you write:

    “Sure there is evidence of AGW.”

    “Evidence” in science has a specific meaning. It means testable, falsifiable data.

    Please post your evidence of AGW. I am especially interested in exactly how much each unit of CO2 will raise the global temperature by X degrees [I prefer my CO2 units in Olympic-sized swimming pools. "X" can be any fraction of a degree you want].

    When posting your evidence, keep this in mind. Thanx in advance.

  266. jeez says:

    I’ll take that bet Mosh just for the hell of it. 125 dollars says no record set this year.

  267. Gail Combs says:

    HMMmm, I just saw something really funny (weird) on the Environment Canada website (White/light grey is old ice near 10yrs old) Look at the animation. There is a real jump between the end of July between August 1 and August 2 in the ten day animation.. http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/?lang=En&n=CE69E4DD-1

  268. Steven Mosher says:

    Smokey

    “Steven Mosher,

    Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺

    ##############

    you should watch the whole hour. you will learn how thick the ice was back in the 50s
    you will learn how thinner ice is more susceptible to wind and currents.

    You can ignore everything you want to about AGU, but you will actually like the data and pictures and movies.

    here is a nice movie on ice age

    http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic

    So you see as the older and thicker ice moves out of the arctic and you are left with thinner ice
    winds matter more. When Ice was thicker it wasnt as susceptible to changing winds.

    Also, smokey, how do you expect to test your null if you wont even consider data.
    not very skeptical..

  269. Steven Mosher says:

    Gail, see the video I posted. its about 90 minutes.

    Question: how can losing all that ice NOT effect the weather.

  270. philincalifornia says:

    Sure there is evidence of AGW. It may be evidence you dont accept, but there is evidence.
    ==========================

    Could you post this evidence please Steven

  271. jeez says:

    guys guys guys, cut Mosh a break, There is lots of evidence for AGW and it is annoying to even be asking for it WHEN YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF IT..

    The behavior of CO2 in the lab is evidence.

    Rising temps are evidence.

    Sea ice, sea levels are evidence.

    Even really bad evidence like citing Hurricane Katrina is evidence.

    Whether or not any of this is conclusive evidence is the question, not whether there is any evidence. There is also lots of counter evidence.

    The logical gaps of those arguing with Mosh are painful to read. Please understand the difference between evidence and conclusive and irrefutable evidence. They are not the same thing.

    Some of you spewing this tripe are scientists and should know better.

  272. jeez says:

    But I still want to bet.

  273. Mike H says:

    It’s hard to educate a person who maintains that just because in the last 4.5 billion years the earth has seen the extremes of a molten surface and a snowball, anything in between is “natural variability”.

  274. Rob Dekker says:

    Gail,
    The animation you present from Environment Canada shows ice concentration (ice extent divided by ice area), not the “age” of the ice. It would be very hard to find any 10 year old ice in the Arctic these days. The majority of ice is FYI (First Year Ice) which is thinner, and more saline (melts at lower temperature) than older ice.

    The ice concentration in the area (in the Northern Canadian Archipelago) that you refer to simply reduced from larger than 90 % to smaller than 90 %.

    Also note that large area of open water just south of it : that is the North West Passage, which has been open for a few weeks now. For centuries, mankind has attempted to cross that passage, to no avail until Roald Amundsen finally manages to do so in 1906. It took him 3 years.
    Nowadays, small vessels attempt races to circumnavigate the Arctic in one season, through BOTH the North West AND the North East passage.

    How times have changed…

  275. Rob Dekker says:

    Bill Illis,
    Seems that your +60 km^2 ice extent was short-lived.
    NSIDC reports a whopping 187,400 km^2 reduction in ice extent today (is that an all-time record daily reduction for August?) :

    2012, 08, 02, 6.23881
    2012, 08, 03, 6.06293
    2012, 08, 04, 6.06299
    2012, 08, 05, 5.87559

    Thus, as “barry” already suggested, (and despite your assertion that barry does not know what he is talking about) there are huge error bars on these daily numbers.

    Let us just follow these numbers for a couple of days and see where the average goes, OK ?

  276. barry says:

    How the interglacial degrades to glacial is the question. Something has to “kickstart” the climate into a colder regime first (if not, we’d already be in a glacial regime since the summer sun in the N hemisphere right now is at a minimum).

    The big question that needs answering is how North and South Poles can warm at roughly the same time, while orbital variation (Milankovitch cycles) increases insolation in only one of them. How does the Earth warm all over, instead of getting colder at one pole when the other is receiving more sunlight? GHG increase seems to provide a pretty good answer to that conundrum.

  277. Rob Dekker says:

    Spence_UK, thank you for your reference to Funder et al 2011.
    Here is the paper without the paywall :
    http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/science-sea-ice-seesaw.pdf

    Now, I appreciate the postings by Smokey and Gail and others that the current Arctic summer sea ice decline is not “unprecedented” in the history of this planet, or even over the Holocene, but I would also like to point out that nobody actually claims that.

    In fact, the only hard claim regarding “unprecedented” sea ice decline was made by Gneiss, who stated that “This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years”, a statement for which NOBODY here provided any counter evidence .

    Funder et al 2011 in fact is a bit more specific :

    The general buildup of sea ice from ~6 ky B.P. agrees with the LOVECLIM model, showing that summer sea-ice cover, which reached its Holocene maximum during the LIA, attained its present (~2000) extent at ~ 4 ky B.P. (fig. S3)

    IOW, summer ice extent around 2000 matches with summer ice extent at around 4,000 before present.

    Since summer ice extent reduced another 25 % or so since 2000, Funder et al supports the assertion that current summer ice extent is unprecedented since at least 4000 years.

    Now, we know that the decline in temperatues during the Holocene is caused by orbital variations (I think that Gail mentioned a 9 % increase in insolation during summers of the early Holocene). So does anyone have a physical explanation for why this reduction in insolation over 8-4 thousand years suddenly (over 150 years or so) is irradicated and replaced by a significant warming trend ?

  278. Warm says:

    Two fundamental recent papers about the history of arctic sea ice:

    History of sea ice in the Arctic
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf

    “The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”

    Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
    http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf

    “Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. “

  279. Rob Dekker says:

    Gail said :

    The 100,000 year stretch: The orbit of the earth gradually stretches from nearly circular to an elliptical shape and back again in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years. This is called the orbit’s eccentricity. During the cycle, the distance between earth and sun varies by as much as 11.35 million miles. [So distance from the sun and therefore insolation does change for the earth as a whole - G.C.]

    Gail, did you calculate the how much the insolation changes for the earth as a whole due to these pertubations ?

  280. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From jeez on August 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm:

    guys guys guys, cut Mosh a break, There is lots of evidence for AGW and it is annoying to even be asking for it WHEN YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF IT..

    The behavior of CO2 in the lab is evidence.

    *snort*
    *snort*
    Heh heh heh heh…

    We have an incredibly complex climate system, with many forces at play, numerous feedbacks, with the distinctions between cause and effect often blurred.

    CO₂ in the lab is a known GHG. You wish to extrapolate that is evidence of AGW? You are assuming a LONG chain of causality without sufficient proof, where many things currently unknown and unproven must be assigned values, possible mechanisms assumed to exist as proposed and created as needed to fill gaps…

    You fail to acknowledge there is far too much guesswork between CO₂ in the lab and possible AGW in the real world to substantiate your “evidence” claim.

    You have also not acknowledged that global temperatures have ceased rising while the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have kept rising, which is clear evidence that CO₂ alone does not control global temperatures.

    And you are complaining about the “logical gaps” of others?

  281. Rob Dekker says:

    Gail, let’s be skeptical for a moment, and take a slightly closer look at the Roe analysis In defense of Milankovitch

    For starters, there is not a lot of doubt in the scientific world that Milankovitch cycles (orbital pertubations) determine the glacial/inter-glacial cycles. Short of bizarre theories of 100k yr cycles of our solar system through the galaxy and even more unsubstantiated theories about clouds forced by cosmic rays causing glacial/interglacial cycles, Milankovitch theory on orbital pertubations is the most accepted theory around. A ‘consensus’ if you will.

    Second, their assertion that “This implies only a secondary role for CO2″ is nothing new either. In fact, there is not a single scientific paper that asserts that CO2 is the primary driver of glacial/inter-glacial changes.

    So short of their paper’s somewhat “strawman” title, what Roe actually proposes is not directly related to Milankovitch, but more to the process by which ice sheets melt. In their own words :

    available records support a direct, zero-lag, antiphased relationship between the rate of change of global ice volume and summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes.

    Of course, this relation between rate of change and ice volume makes perfect physical sense, and also the observations they present support their hypothesis. No problem there until they start to quantify the relation. For that, they use two ice volume reconstructions : SPECMAN and HW04.

    Here, they point out that SPECMAN “The SPECMAP record [Imbrie et al., 1984] assumes a priori that ice volume and orbital forcing are related” which thus implicitly is tuned to their original hypothesis. They realize this and state “Because of this tuning procedure, it is likely that variability at orbital frequencies is overestimated” and “Huybers and Wunsch have recently developed a record (HW04) that is independent of any such orbital-tuning assumptions.”

    Following their hypothesis that insolation and rate of volume are related, they conclude :

    Figure 2 compares June 65N insolation to dV/dt from the SPECMAP and HW04 records. The maximum correlations
    are 0.8 and 0.4, and occur with no lag and a lag of 1 kyr,r espectively.

    That’s interesting, since the the difference between these two correlations is a factor 2.
    Where would that come from ? Why is it that the HW04 record of ice volume reconstruction is a factor 2 less sensitive than the SPECMAN record which has a built-in assumption about volume-loss versus insolation, and why does HW02 have approximately a 1 ky delay in response ?
    In other words, which physical effect has a factor 2 amplification effect on warming and shows about 1 ky delay in response to orbital temperature changes ? Mmmmm. The CO2 record between glacial/interglacial temperature changes caused by Milankovitch cycles does show that 1 ky delay, and basic physics estimate that the amplificantion effect of temperature-induced CO2 variations observed is about a factor 2, in full compliance with theory and paleo-climate analysis.

    Another indication that Roe overestimates the effect of orbital pertubations is in this statement :

    The concentration of CO2 varied between about 200 and 280 ppmv over the last several ice age cycles, and
    caused approximately 2 W/m^2 variations in surface longwave radiation forcing [e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001]. Comparisons of the impacts of shortwave and longwave radiative forcing appropriate over the ice sheets are not straightforward, but taking summer half-year insolation variations in shortwave (Figure 3), and assuming an albedo of 0.5 for melting ice, variations in summertime shortwave forcing exceed the direct CO2 radiative forcing by about a factor of five.

    This statement would be correct under clear skies. However, the Arctic in summer is under an 80% cloud cover (albedo similar to snow), which reduces the influence of insolation pertubations over the Arctic by a factor of 5. Thus, CO2 influence of 100-280 ppmv is in the same ballpark as orbital pertubation, which explains the factor 2 I mentioned earlier that we need to explain the temperature swings between glacials and inter-glacials.

    Darn. Maybe CO2 DOES conform to the laws of physics, and maybe it DOES comply with Milankovitch.
    And in fact, it would be very hard to explain the extremes in temperature between glacials and inter-glacials without CO2, as is confirmed by pretty much every paleo-climate analysis of glacial/inter-glacial temperature swings.

  282. jeez says:

    I feel the need to expound on my above rant.
    Skeptics are always crying out for rational debate.
    Rational debate happens when both sides’ evidence is presented, weighed, evaluated, and the preponderance of evidence favors one side.
    For so-called AGW skeptics to keep spewing “what evidence? there is no evidence?” while at the same time calling for debate is both inane and insane.

    I feel the preponderance of evidence is for negative feedbacks in the climate system and we have little to fear from increased CO2 from fossil fuel use.

    HOWEVER, there are massive amounts of EVIDENCE for AGW and even CAGW. Much of this evidence is flawed, inconsistent, and self-contradictory, BUT there is LOTS and LOTS of evidence.

    You folks insisting Mosh provide “the evidence” are personifying the denier label. Seriously, get a grip, Grow up. Do something to stop me from being embarrassed for being on the same side as you. It’s extremely disheartening. It keeps me from participating and helping.

  283. jeez says:

    Kadaka,

    You missed the point completely. Try a reading comprehension course.

  284. Venter says:

    Jeez, yelling about ” lots of evidence ” does not make evidence or fact. Please provide empirical testable evidence that human emitted CO2 has caused unprecedented warming with catastrophic consequences. Hint, model outputs are neither data or evidence.

  285. Mosh said to me

    ‘Tony? do you see me calling this unprecedeneted? Nope you dont.
    Did dramatic events happen before 1979. You BET !’

    err mosh….I didn’t mention that you said this was ‘unprecedeneted’ (or even unprecedented) I said it has happened frequently in the past, so todays events are not that unusual

    tonyb

  286. Gneiss says:

    Rob Dekker writes,
    “In fact, the only hard claim regarding “unprecedented” sea ice decline was made by Gneiss, who stated that “This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years”, a statement for which NOBODY here provided any counter evidence.”

    And just to clarify where my 2,000-year figure came from, I was referring specifically to warming water:
    “Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming.”

    I have the papers by Polyak, Kinnard and others, but based this statement about water temperatures on Speilhagen et al (2011, Science):
    “We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.abstract

    That inspired a flurry of smoke on this thread about much earlier times.

  287. Gneiss says:

    climatereason writes,
    “I am working on historic variations in arctic ice part two and was at the met office today collecting archive material for it. It will join the hundreds of papers I have already read. The only conclusion that can be dawn is that arctic ice melts with astonishing frequency and the modern era is by no means unprecedented- just ask any Viking”

    Since you’re working so hard on historical research, I gotta ask … Which Viking did you ask?
    And what did he tell you, about the Arctic Ocean?

  288. Bill Illis says:

    This new low pressure system is called a “Polar Low” or polar “Cyclone”.

    The occur most frequently in the winter but also in the summer.

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

    There was even a “European Polar Low Working Group” at one time.

    The NSIDC says that up to 6 can occur in the Western Arctic in July alone.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/cyclones.html

    So let’s have more research from now on before people start calling a low pressure system something special.

  289. philincalifornia says:

    Venter says:
    August 7, 2012 at 3:16 am
    Jeez, yelling about ” lots of evidence ” does not make evidence or fact. Please provide empirical testable evidence that human emitted CO2 has caused unprecedented warming with catastrophic consequences. Hint, model outputs are neither data or evidence.
    ===================

    Seconded. Please do.

    No debate required.

  290. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Rob Dekker on August 6, 2012 at 11:44 pm:

    Bill Illis,
    Seems that your +60 km^2 ice extent was short-lived.
    NSIDC reports a whopping 187,400 km^2 reduction in ice extent today (is that an all-time record daily reduction for August?) :

    2012, 08, 02, 6.23881
    2012, 08, 03, 6.06293
    2012, 08, 04, 6.06299
    2012, 08, 05, 5.87559

    You’re using strange numbers for the daily extent. Try the NSIDC-MASIE extent file (last 4 weeks):
    http://nsidc.org/data/masie/
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/masie_extent_sqkm.csv

    “Day of year” is used, e.g. 2012218 is August 5, 2012 (218th day of 2012). Northern Hemisphere and individual region figures are in the file.

    date, Northern Hemisphere extent, difference from previous day
    8/1/2012, 6503888.13
    8/2/2012, 6558378.42, +54490.29
    8/3/2012, 6499522.69, −58855.73
    8/4/2012, 6498851.02, −671.67
    8/5/2012, 6471961.20, −26889.82

    Nope, no “whopping 187,400 km^2 reduction in ice extent” there.

    Ah, found your numbers! You used the Near Real Time (nrt) info:
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv

    Do you know you have to be careful with those?
    http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/#daily_data_files
    Processing Steps
    1. Obtain input data

    The near-real-time data files (hh_seaice_extent_nrt.csv) have extent numbers derived from the Near-Real-Time DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations (NRTSI product). These daily fields do not have missing data filled by interpolation; grid cells missing data are simply flagged with a value for missing. Before we compute extent from these daily fields, the Sea Ice Index processing code fills missing data in a way similar to that used for the GSFC product — by interpolating data from the day before and day after. The exception is at the beginning and end of the time series, when only the day after or the day before, respectively, are available.

    Basically your “astonishing announcement” is coming from incomplete data.

    Search that page for “masie” and see why that’s a superior product for tracking day-to-day variations.

  291. Spence_UK says:

    Rob Dekker,

    Your claim that the present conditions have prevailed for the last 4,000 years is wrong. From the paper:

    This period comprises half of our driftwood finds, but the high frequencies are punctuated by woodless periods at 2.5 to 2 ky B.P., 1.7 to 0.9 ky B.P., 0.5 to 0.3 ky B.P., and probably since ~1950.

    This para shows that within the last 4,000 years, these sub-periods were particularly cold and ice-locked the beaches; note the medieval warm period and roman warm period visible in the “gaps”. During this time, there was less ice than at present. (Note the “woodless periods” are exceptionally cold, as the beaches are too frozen for driftwood to land)

    This is not a story of consistent sea ice over the last 4,000 years. Even within that time frame, there have been several century-scale periods with considerably less ice than the last 60 years or so. Also, it is quite inappropriate to compare annual- and decadal- scale measurements directly to centennial and millenial proxies, for obvious reasons. Proxy-to-proxy and measurement-to-measurement comparisons are safest without VERY careful calibration specifically for the task of comparison.

    The point of my post was to underline the magnitude of natural variability on longer timescales, which need to be understood before any type of assessment can be made as to whether this is anomalous with respect to natural variability or not. Without understanding these things – that nature’s variability is greater on longer timescales – it is easy to arrive at a wrong conclusion about the causes of the present changes in arctic sea ice (and the consequences, too).

  292. Spence_UK says:

    Just to clarify on my last comment to Rob Dekker:

    Since summer ice extent reduced another 25 % or so since 2000, Funder et al supports the assertion that current summer ice extent is unprecedented since at least 4000 years.

    Absolutely no, Funder et al does not support this. Funder et al can tell us nothing about changes at the 1-2 year scale AT ALL because their data would not support it. On the longer scale, they show there were many periods in the last 3,000 years that had considerably LESS ice than the last 60 years (a measure for which they can provide reasonable estimates). For the reasons above.

  293. Bill Illis says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 7, 2012 at 6:29 am
    ————————————

    I’ve been tracking the Masie sea ice data since day 82 (it only shows the last 30 days but I’ve got the last 138 days).

    It is quite a bit different than the Near Real Time data that the NSIDC also uses. I think all their charts and quoted data are the Near Real Time ones (even though Masie could be superior). They are diverging by a large amount in recent days.

    Charted here.

    http://s13.postimage.org/6mrt7fzgn/NSIDC_Masie_NRT_Daily_SIE_Aug_6_2012.png

  294. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gneiss on August 7, 2012 at 4:45 am:

    I have the papers by Polyak, Kinnard and others, but based this statement about water temperatures on Speilhagen et al (2011, Science):
    “We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.abstract

    Why not toss in Hald et al 2011?
    A 2000 year record of Atlantic Water temperature variability from the Malangen Fjord, northeastern North Atlantic
    Abstract (bold added):

    A high-resolution sedimentary record from the subarctic Malangen fjord in northern Norway, northeastern North Atlantic has been investigated in order to reconstruct variations in influx of Atlantic Water for the last 2000 years. The fjord provides a regional oceanographic climatic signal reflecting changes in the North Atlantic heat flux at this latitude because of its deep sill and the relatively narrow adjoining continental shelf. The reconstructions are based on oxygen and carbon isotopic studies of benthic foraminifera from a high accumulation basin in the Malangen fjord, providing subdecadal time resolution. A comparison between instrumental measurements of bottom water temperatures at the core location and the reconstructed temperatures from benthic foraminiferal δ¹⁸O for the same time period demonstrates that the stable isotope values reflect the bottom water temperatures very well. The reconstructed temperature record shows an overall decline in temperature of c. 1°C from c. 40 bc to ad 1350. This cooling trend is assumed to be driven by an orbital forced reduction in insolation. Superimposed on the general cooling trend are several periods of warmer or colder temperatures. The long-term fluctuations in the Malangen fjord are concurrent with fluctuations of Atlantic Water in the northern North Atlantic. Although they are not directly comparable, comparisons of atmospheric temperatures and marine records, indicate a close coupling between the climate systems. After ad 1800 the record shows an unprecedented warming within the last 2000 years.

    What’s not to like? There’s unprecedented warming. Sure, there is a long cooling trend attributed to insolation changes, just natural variation.

    But there is that alarming “Arctic amplification of global warming” you’re so worried about.

    Around 200 years of sudden alarming Arctic amplification, apparently.

  295. Gneiss says:

    Bill Illis writes,
    “So let’s have more research from now on before people start calling a low pressure system something special.”

    Unintentionally humor from someone who didn’t see the storm coming and reached for a conspiracy theory instead of physical reality when NSIDC nrt numbers (what kadaka, wrongly attributing the nrt discussion’s origin to Rob Dekker, dismisses as “incomplete data” above) jumped around. Zero research skills there!

    But sure, I’m in favor of more research. Cyclones have occurred before in the Arctic, no one doubts that, but the summer ones tend to be relatively week. This summer cyclone is quite strong. And it is tearing up a thin and fractured ice pack that had was already at record low area and volume for the date, because of the warming trends discussed much above. Sounds newsworthy and scientific research-worthy indeed.

  296. Crito says:

    How many scientists does it take to demonstrate that you cannot stick your leg into the same river twice? Everything is flux.

  297. Gail Combs says:

    Rob Dekker says:
    August 7, 2012 at 12:52 am

    ….Now, we know that the decline in temperatues during the Holocene is caused by orbital variations (I think that Gail mentioned a 9 % increase in insolation during summers of the early Holocene). So does anyone have a physical explanation for why this reduction in insolation over 8-4 thousand years suddenly (over ~150 years or so) is irradicated and replaced by a significant warming trend ?
    _________________________
    A) It is not “significant” There are other trends like the ~1470 yr Dansgaard-Oeschger /Bond events. fromWIKI (It is so well known it did not get torpedoed by warmists.)

    Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events….

    In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland icepack warmed by around 8°C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see [2], Stewart, chapter 13) – 5°C change over 30-40 yrs more common.….

    So warming of 5-8°C in Greenland is not ‘Unprecedented’. Also if there has been no “warming for 2000 yr” then we were due for a Dansgaard-Oeschger event (rapid warming) over the last 500 years were we not?
    Bond events are cold and /or arid (Drought) events and the last one was ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1)
    The sequence seems to be A cold spike, then a warm spike, then a few hundred years of cold. We had the cold spike (LIA) then a warm spike (Modern Optimum) so we are due for a few hundred years of cold.

    What do the graphs say?
    Greenland
    Vostok, Antarctica
    If nothing else they tell us the temperature swings at least (+/-)2°C

    B) So what about any other Physical evidence?

    OCEANS:
    (Oscillation): AMO & NAO the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and The North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) The NAO is closely related to Arctic oscillation (AO)
    more graphs on AO

    SUN:

    NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

    Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere….

    The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

    NASA: Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (Sorce)

    Analyzing the Sun and its affects on climate, however, is further complicated by the fact that the amount of radiation arriving from the Sun is not constant. It varies from the average value of the TSI—1,368 W/m2—on a daily basis…. Variations in TSI are due to a balance between decreases caused by sunspots and increases caused by bright areas called faculae which surround sunspots. Sunspots are dark blotches on the Sun in which magnetic forces are very strong, and these forces block the hot solar plasma, and as a result sunspots are cooler and darker than their surroundings. Faculae, which appear as bright blotches on the surface of the Sun, put out more radiation than normal and increase the solar irradiance. They too are the result of magnetic storms, and their numbers increase and decrease in concert with sunspots. On the whole, the effects of the faculae tend to beat out those of the sunspots. So that, although solar energy reaching the Earth decreases when the portion of the Sun’s surface that faces the Earth happens to be rife with spots and faculae, the total energy averaged over a full 30-day solar rotation actually increases. Therefore the TSI is larger during the portion of the 11 year cycle when there are more sunspots, even though the individual spots themselves cause a decrease in TSI when facing Earth….

    Physics World: Solar activity reaches new high Dec 2, 2003

    Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique – is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

    …The sun’s activity waxes and wanes on a cycle that averages roughly 11 years, though cycles as short as nine years and as long as 14 years have been observed. Chinese astronomers were already tracking the sun’s activity using sunspots more than 2,000 years ago; the modern record of solar output starts in 1755, with cycle 1, and runs through cycle 24, which began in late 2008. Generated by intense magnetic fields, sunspots have proven one reliable indicator of the sun’s overall output and its production of solar storms.
    SOURCE

    …The Chinese have been keeping both sunspot and climate records for more than 2,000 years. They have recorded three periods of high to extremely high sunspot activity. The first was about the time Hadrian built a wall across England, roughly 150 AD. The second was some 900 years later, around 1050 to 1100. The third?

    That waited another 900 some years, starting in the mid 1940′s and lasting at least until the end of the current sunspot cycle….
    Press Release

    paywalled paper abstract: Solar observation in ancient China and Solar Variability

    Historical Sunspot Observations: A Review

    …Nagovitsyn (2001) and Vaquero et al. (2002a) used catalogues of naked-eye observations of sunspots to construct time series showing the behaviour of the solar activity during the last two millennia. Figure 1a was constructed by calculating the 50-year moving average of the series. The strong 250-year period reported in Vaquero et al. (2002a) now stands out far more sharply, as do the known minima of Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder, and Dalton. The Maunder and Dalton Minima are somewhat displaced from their original positions due to the moving average procedure. One also observes the Medieval Maximum centred in the first half of the 12th century….

    Are the historical naked-eye observations useful for space climate studies then? The high resolution of these observations, compared with other proxies, can be used in a coherent form by space climate researchers. Willis and Stephenson (2001) show evidence for an intense recurrent geomagnetic storm during December in 1128 AD using historical aurorae and naked-eye sunspot observations. Moreover, Willis et al. (2005) recently used a comprehensive collection of catalogues of ancient sunspot and auroral observations…

    Conclusions
    We have reviewed historical evidence concerning the number, positions, and areas of sunspots during the last centuries. From this data, various authors have extracted some very important results for astronomy and geophysics in general, and for space climate in particular, about the long-term variation in solar activity….

    So how is this type information handled by the IPCC?

    On the basis of this “consensus of one” solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal. Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): “I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight”…

    SOURCE

    And who is this great ‘solar’ physicist?

    Mr Vítězslav Kremlík (Czechia) discovered an interesting fact. The analyses of the influence of the Sun on the climate in the latest IPCC report relied on one solar physicist, Dr Judith Lean….

    Her CV lists some lower-grade institutions and reveals she didn’t get an academic job at some point. And her education is in environmental and atmospheric sciences only – no solar physics etc….
    SOURCE

    Of course the WUWT resident solar physicist is still insisting the sun is completely constant….
    Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society citing corruption (Resignation Letter)

    There are also albedo, clouds, relative humidity, Cosmic Ray/Solar Wind/Geomagnetic… and I do not want to write a book (or at least any more of one)

    However trying to say CO2 is some sort of Climatic Control Knob is laughable ESPECIALLY since the relative humidity has DECREASED so you can forget the multiplier effect that is the underpinning of the IPCC reports of CAGW. That is inadition to logarithmic effect

  298. barry says:

    Is anyone still expecting arctic sea ice to “recover” to pre-90s extent/area? That kind of prediction was all the rage here only a couple of years ago.

  299. Warm says:

    “What’s not to like? There’s unprecedented warming. Sure, there is a long cooling trend attributed to insolation changes, just natural variation.”

    Yes, the recent reverse of the long term cooling in the arctic has been confirmed by the multi-proxy study of Kaufamnn et al (2009) (caution ! hockey stick inside ! :-) )

    Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.short
    http://denverclimatestudygroup.com/OTHER-MISC/ArcticCoolingScience200909041236.pdf
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Kaufmannetal.2009.png

  300. Gneiss says:

    kadaka writes,
    “Why not toss in Hald et al 2011?”

    Thank you, I had not seen this interesting paper. Let’s quote from it a bit more fully, in that part where the authors discuss what their data says about recent warming. I’ll add some emphasis too.

    “Most of the records in the North Atlantic region (Figure 3) indicate a warming trend during the last 200 years, but they do not indicate that the recent warming is larger than during RWP or MWP. The pollen-based composite temperature record does not show any temperature peaks during the MWP either (Bjune et al., 2009). In contrast, the present study clearly shows that the warming during the last 100 years stands out as an unprecedented warming for the last 2000 years. Terrestrial records from the Northern Hemisphere also show that the last 50 years were the warmest in the last 2000 years (Kaufman et al., 2009) suggesting a close atmosphere–marine coupling. Compared with the Holocene temperature record from the Malangen fjord of Hald et al. (2003) and Husum and Hald (2004) the bottom water temperatures in the Malangen fjord during the last century are the warmest interval over the last 6000 years. This apparently different trend in recent warming may reflect the so-called polar amplification of the global warming as the present study represents the northernmost location of the records compared in Figure 10. Recent observations indicate that warming of the high latitudes is stronger than at mid and lower latitudes.”

  301. Gneiss says:

    Another quote from the Hald paper. The Little Ice Age stands out in their data, but they did not find much of a Roman Warm Period, and no Medieval Warm Period.

    “The reconstructed climate changes in the Malangen temperature record can be compared with the informal historical time intervals commonly used in discussing the upper Holocene climate history: the ‘Roman Warm Period’ (RWP, 50 bc–ad 400), the ‘Dark Ages Cold Period’ (DACP, ad 400–800), ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (MWP, ad 900–1300) and the ‘Little Ice Age’ (LIA, ad 1300–1900). In the Malangen record the RWP was characterized by a period of stable warm temperatures, although not as warm as the temperatures during the last century. The DACP is reflected in the Malangen record by the temperature minimum around ad 400 and ad 600–800. The MWP is reflected as a period of rather stable temperatures with a cooling leading to the start of the LIA. The LIA is clearly reflected as a cold period in the Malangen record. A cooling leading to the LIA started around ad 1250 and a number of multiyear periods with unprecedented cold temperatures of the last 2000 years occurred until ad 1800.”

  302. Smokey says:

    Gneiss says:

    “The MWP is reflected as a period of rather stable temperatures with a cooling leading to the start of the LIA.

    Well, DUH.

  303. Steven Mosher says:

    Bill Illis.

    “This new low pressure system is called a “Polar Low” or polar “Cyclone”.”

    Actually not. It’s too large for a polar low at more than 1000km in size.

    This kind of weather has happened before. There is nothing special about it.

    We conclude from that this this weather has nothing to do with the state of the ice.
    Something else must have caused the loss of about 500km of ice.

    skeptic logic.

    The ice loss isnt unprecedented, the weather isnt unprecedented. nothing is unprecedented because it’s all happened before. Our explanation is “natural variation” which explains everything and can not be contradicted by any evidence, kinda like belief in god.

    Anyway, I hope to win some quatloos over at Lucia’s

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png

  304. Gail Combs says:

    Gneiss, kadaka Whell I certainly hope you guys are correct because the record snowfalls that are not melting in Alaska could be a bit of a problem since that is how glaciation starts and we are at the end of the Holocene.

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
    Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    “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….

    I still can’t figure out why anyone in his right mind prefers blizzards and ice to luxurious plant growth, rain forests teaming with life and sunny beaches. Perhaps you two need to pack your bags and move to Anchorage where the record snow fall is refusing to melt so you feel more comfortable. Or better yet Norilsk, I am sure they can use more labor in their mines. Me I left the north and moved south so I will not have to shovel the white stuff as often.

  305. Gneiss says:

    smokey writes,
    “Well, DUH.”

    Well said, Smokey.

    In Hald et al’s reconstruction the MWP shows up as a period of stable temperatures well below those of the past 200 years. And by “past 200 years” they mean 1800 to 2000. And the trend was going up over those past 200 years, so the last 100 are warmest. And, stepping outside this paper to find more recent data (the authors mention no further fjord measurements), mean air temperature at Tromso for the decade 2001-2010 were the warmest in that station’s records. There’s just no way to get their data to say what you want it to say.

  306. Smokey says:

    Gneiss says:

    “And the trend was going up over those past 200 years, so the last 100 are warmest.”

    Well, DUH.

    As anyone can see, the planet has been naturally warming since the LIA. So of course current temperatures will be warmer than past temperatures. DUH.

    But as we see, the warming is not accelerating. Therefore, CO2 has had no measurable effect. DUH, and QED.

    It’s fun ‘n’ easy falsifying all the CO2=CAGW nonsense.☺

  307. Gail Combs says:

    For a decent study of the subject of climate and civilization, E. M. Smith has done a bang up job. He shoots this study completely out of the water. (Tony B. probably could too.)

    Of Time and Temperatures: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/of-time-and-temperatures/

    Dry China: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/dry-china/

    Intermediate Period Half Bond Events: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

    All of past history show:
    A) the earth was warmer during the holocene
    B) Civilization flourished when it was warm
    C) Civilizations collapsed when it was cold

    And his real zinger

    8.2 Kiloyear Event and You
    …It misses our slow decline from the Holocene Optimum into ever lower optimums. So much so that the Modern Optimum hardly shows on the Ice Core at all (and Greenland is colder than it was when the Vikings landed there (on that peak about 1000 BP). We had a lower Little Ice Age compared to the prior 1/2 Bond event of about the time of Christ, even though it was only a 1/2 Bond Event, due to the lateness of the hour in this interglacial. That would imply that THIS Bond Event, that I’ve taken to calling Bond Event Zero (c) will likely be worse than the last one we had. The Dark Ages. It ought to be worse than the Little Ice Age too. It ought to have made the first stirrings of the turn about 2005, and be well underway about 2035. That this is in agreement with the projected depths of the present Solar Grand Minimum does not give me cheer…

    I really wish he was a nutter but I am very very afraid he is not.

  308. Gail Combs says:

    OOPs wrong threat on my last post should be in: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/07/mit-the-economic-cost-of-increased-temperatures/

    [REPLY: Gail, I don't think you were threatening anybody, but your last comment definitely was on the wrong thread. We can't move comments, but if you resubmit to the correct thread I will be happy to remove the comment that is in the wrong thread. -REP]

  309. Gneiss says:

    Gail Combs writes,
    ” ‘So much so that the Modern Optimum hardly shows on the Ice Core at all (and Greenland is colder than it was when the Vikings landed there (on that peak about 1000 BP).’
    I really wish he was a nutter but I am very very afraid he is not.”

    And yet, you’ve just approvingly quoted Chiefio declaring one of those “zombie arguments” that has been debunked a thousand times but never dies. The Modern Optimum does not show in the GISP2 ice core reconstruction for one very simple reason: because the ice core reconstruction ends in 1855, during the Little Ice Age and before the modern warming even began. Also for this reason, Alley’s ice core reconstruction by itself cannot possibly show that temperatures in Viking times were warmer than present. It does suggest that at Summit, Greenland, medieval times were warmer than the Little Ice Age, which I don’t think has ever been disputed by anyone.

    But if you compare real data from measured modern temperatures at Summit with the ice core reconstruction, it suggests the opposite: modern temperatures at Summit are warmer. Every graph you’ve ever seen showing the GISP2 temperature curve alone, and claiming this demonstrates that medieval times were warmer than the “present,” has been wrong in this way.

  310. Pamela Gray says:

    We may have a test case on our hands. Wang has hypothesized that the Arctic Dipole Anomaly is the cause of rapid ice loss. He found that the DA (negative West and positive East dueling dipole pressure systems) explains the majority of the ice loss variance out Fram Strait, and was true for 2007. Since we are tracking along the (eh em) catastrophic “dotted line” I pose the question: Do we have the same DA set up that we had in 2007 regarding the atmospheric pressure systems responsible for sending ice out of the Arctic? Or is Mother Nature shooting the bulls eye out of another catastrophic wild ass humans are to blame guess?

    http://neven1.typepad.com/files/2009-wang-et-al—dipole-anomaly.pdf

  311. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gail Combs on August 7, 2012 at 9:48 am:

    Gneiss, kadaka Whell I certainly hope you guys are correct because the record snowfalls that are not melting in Alaska could be a bit of a problem since that is how glaciation starts and we are at the end of the Holocene.

    It’s not that I want to be correct, however… They scream “Arctic Amplification!” and I can’t find it in the temperature records (such as they are). It’s natural for the Arctic to occasionally be low on sea ice, so I’m not worrying about it. As far as human influence goes, we’ve already seen assorted papers placing about half the Arctic warming as caused by soot (black carbon).

    Which puts me somewhat at odds with Smokey, as while what is happening is within natural variability, the extra human-caused warming from the “dirty” burning of fuels in China and elsewhere that is making the soot is making the current Arctic warming somewhat un-natural. Due to the soot, humans in general are causing more Arctic sea ice to be lost than would otherwise naturally happen.

    But that’s a temporary effect. Nature has a simple way of dealing with it, let the dirty ice melt away, dump the soot into the water, and make clean fresh ice. When China and the rest clean up their emissions, and the natural cycles are in generally favorable phases, the sea ice will recover quite nicely.

    Meanwhile it’s fun to watch the warm-mongers freak out over some melting ice cubes and demand sacrifices of blood and treasure at the Temple of Mann lest the terrible demon CO2 ravages the Earth unto seventy generations yet to be born.

    It’s tough to find info on historic North Atlantic sea temperatures. I stumbled across Hald et al 2011, noted by the Google results it had already been mentioned at assorted warmist sites. I’m surprised Gneiss didn’t already know about it. It’s already out there, so mentioning it here now didn’t matter. It was amusing watching them hold it up like they miraculously found one of the Lost Books of The Prophet Hansen.

    (It was also interesting how quickly Gneiss got through the paywall to a paper that they’re charging $25 a day for mere access. Someone’s got connections… And then he didn’t play fair! Throwing out cherrypicked parts from his side of the paywall while we don’t have access… How rude!)

    It also makes a nice contrast to an earlier freely-available 2009 paper Hald co-authored:
    A Late Holocene climate history from the Malangen fjord, North Norway, based on dinoflagellate cysts
    http://www.geologi.no/data/f/0/19/91/0_2401_0/Rorvik_print.pdf

    Abstract:

    The periods from c. AD 500 to 790 and c. AD 1500 to 1940, stand out as cold periods. The period from c. AD 790 to 1500 is characterized by warm saline water, whereas the period from AD 1940 to present is characterized by decreasing inflow of warm, saline water.

    The Dark Ages Cold Period was the coldest in 1500 years. Warmer stable conditions during the Medieval Warm Period, which is suggested to be a global phenomenon, Medieval optimum appears split into two maxima by a cooler phase.

    Bottom water temperatures in the Malangen fjord rose sharply around 1800 and continued to rise up to the Recent (Hald et al. in prep.)

    Shockingly, “unprecedented” was not used once in this paper.

  312. barry says:

    Gail:

    you embolden this quote from a study, approvingly,

    “…anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started..”

    then you comment,

    I still can’t figure out why anyone in his right mind prefers blizzards and ice to luxurious plant growth, rain forests teaming with life and sunny beaches.

    So you are agreeing that anthro-added CO2 is powerful enough to prevent an ice age. This is at odds with your previous comments that CO2 can’t be some sort of climate “control knob” etc.

  313. tjfolkerts says:

    Things that make you go “hmm” …

    Smokey says: “As anyone can see, the planet has been naturally warming since the LIA. “

    How many mistakes are packed into one sentence? The graph in his link …
    1) .. not “anyone can see” what the graph is presenting, since neither axis is labeled.
    2) … is NOT “the planet”. It skips both poles (although this is admittedly a minor problem).
    3) … says nothing about the cause of the warming. That requires assumptions.
    4) … is NOT “since the LIA”. The trend on the graph says 0.14 K/decade. The change is from ~ -0.1K to ~ + 0.3 K for a change of ~ 0.4K. At 0.14 K/decade, the graph apparently only covers about 3 decades. (In fact, the big spike is pretty clearly the 1998 El Nino warming and the tick marks are years).

    As anyone can now see, Smokey’s link is COMPLETELY unable to make the point he was trying to make.

    Continuing: “But as we see, the warming is not accelerating. ” The graph in his second link …
    1) … is also not “the planet” (it is a small triangle in England)
    2) … IS accelerating!. Acceleration is the second derivative with respect to time of a function (usually “position”, but in this case “temperature”). No acceleration would mean a straight line with no curve. The data is clearly above the linear fit at the very beginning and at the very end, which is a hallmark of “acceleration”! (A quick statistical analysis of the annual CET temperatures shows the acceleration of the warming is highly statistically significant.)

    You’re right, Smokey, it IS “fun ‘n’ easy falsifying all the CO2=CAGW nonsense.”

  314. Smokey says:

    I used to think tjfolkerts was a smart guy, but clearly his mind has been warped by the CAGW religion.

    Although Tim is afflicted by serious cognitive dissonance, I don’t want someone reading this to conclude that tjfolkert’s response holds water. It doesn’t.

    So, may I deconstruct? Thank you:

    1. Neither axis is labeled in that particular graph, but I have posted dozens of graphs like this one showing the axes. Note the green line [the long term trend], which clearly shows that the natural warming trend is moderating. No acceleration there].

    2. Agreed, that particular graph was not of the entire planet… as the graph made clear. Reading comprehension, Tim, me boi. You needs it.☺

    3. Neither tjfolkerts or anyone else “knows” the cause(s) of the natural warming since the LIA. But the planet has been steadily warming. There is no doubt. And the warming is natural, because it has been along the same trend line whether CO2 was low or high. Thus, the one assumption we can make is that any effect from rising CO2 is insignificant; it is too small to even measure.

    4. There are numerous temperature records from around the world, and all of them show the same gradual, natural warming. Some records are older than others. But ALL of them show the same non-accelerating trend.

    Next, tjfolkerts says that my link is “… COMPLETELY unable to make the point he was trying to make.”

    Plenty of others obviously understand, so for Tim’s sake, I will explain. Listen up, Tim:

    1) See my link in #4 above. That is not “a small triangle in England”, that is observational corroboration from around the globe.

    2) There is no acceleration of the global warming since the LIA. How manyy times do I have to post this chart? Or this chart? If there was any acceleration in the warming trend, recent temperatures would be breaking out above the long term parameters. As everyone but Tim can see, they are not.

    Conclusion: there is no acceleration in warming, therefore ipso facto CO2 does not have the claimed effect. Even worse for the alarmist argument, CO2 follows rising temperature; it is not a cause of temperature rise.

  315. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gneiss on August 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm:

    And yet, you’ve just approvingly quoted Chiefio declaring one of those “zombie arguments” that has been debunked a thousand times but never dies. The Modern Optimum does not show in the GISP2 ice core reconstruction for one very simple reason: because the ice core reconstruction ends in 1855, during the Little Ice Age and before the modern warming even began.

    GISP2 Ice Core 4000 Year Ar-N Isotope Temperature Reconstruction

    Abstract and data:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.xls
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt


    ORIGINAL REFERENCE:
    Kobashi, T., K. Kawamura, J.P. Severinghaus, J.-M. Barnola,
    T. Nakaegawa, B.M. Vinther, S.J. Johnsen, and J.E. Box. 2011.
    High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the
    past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core.
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444.

    GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
    PERIOD OF RECORD: 4000 YrBP – present

    Listing:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049444.shtml
    Leif has a copy:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

    Note how the reconstruction data with all fields (Mean temp, 1 sigma, High band, Low band) extends to 1950. That’s where they switch from the “Gas Method” to the “Forward Method”. That’s why from 1951 to the end of the data file at 1993 there is only the Mean temp listed.

    From the Abstract:

    The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long-term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.

    So in the past it was nearly 1°C warmer than current for about a century at a time, and the ice is still there. Natural variability has not been exceeded over the past 4000 years.

    But the climate models warn us that natural variability could be exceeded if anthropogenic GHG emissions continue. Sometime before 2100. You better take heed, as we all know just how finely tuned and perfectly accurate those climate models really are.

  316. Gneiss says:

    kadaka writes,
    “And then he didn’t play fair! Throwing out cherrypicked parts from his side of the paywall while we don’t have access… How rude!”

    This is a good example of something we keep seeing: people using the term “cherry picking” without understanding what it means. They know it means something bad, perhaps even something they have been accused of themselves, so they toss it around as a general dismissal whenever data (or in this case, Hald’s paper) doesn’t show what they wanted it to show.

    What cherry picking actually refers to in this context is arbitrarily picking an unrepresentative subset from the available data, that is contradicted by the rest of that data but in isolation seems to support the point you want to make. Classic cherry picks around here include “no warming since 1998″ (a starting point chosen because a “super El Nino” made it a warm outlier, especially if you pick certain datasets) or “ice recovery since 2007″ (likewise, a starting point chosen because it’s an outlier). On this thread we saw one failed attempt to do that with global sea ice since 2000. On the other hand calling satellite data since 1979 a cherry pick shows confusion; that’s how much satellite data we have. (And its trends are supported by other longer-term but different kinds of data.) Or Smokey saying my “2,000 years” was a cherry pick; that’s how much data Spielhagen had. (And again, the conclusion has been supported by many other kinds of data.)

    If kadaka understood what the term meant, then his statement that I cherry picked those quotes from Hald’s article would imply him believing that I picked out unrepresentative pieces, instead of the main things the authors said on these topics. And that if kadaka could see the whole paper, he’d find a bunch of other comparisons of historical with modern temperatures that lead to opposite conclusions. But that would be a pretty foolish claim for him to make, still without having seen the paper, so it’s easier to believe that kadaka just doesn’t know a cherry pick when he sees it.

    For a more complicated test of understanding we might try to figure out whether Rorvik et al (2009), where kadaka is happy not to find the word “unprecedented”, or Hald et al (2011) where he is unhappy to learn that word occurs, present more extensive data and analysis about that fjord.

  317. tjfolkerts says:

    Gail says: “You are not quite correct. (But neither was I …)” [about solar energy to the arctic]
    And she also quotes a paper:

    The 100,000 year stretch: The orbit of the earth gradually stretches from nearly circular to an elliptical shape and back again in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years. This is called the orbit’s eccentricity. During the cycle, the distance between earth and sun varies by as much as 11.35 million miles. [So distance from the sun and therefore insolation does change for the earth as a whole - G.C.]

    I don’t think either of us was 100% clear about what we were saying, but I still think that I was “quite right”. It comes down to what exactly we mean by “insolation does change for the earth as a whole”
    1) The insolation for the earth decreases and then increases again each year. Currently the earth is closest to the sun in January and farthest in July, so the sun sends the most energy in January and the least in July. But this is not what the original paper was talking about, nor is it what the quote above is describing,
    2) Precession leads to changes for when during the year we are closest to the sun. 13,000 years ago earth was closest in July and farthest in January (the reverse of now). This is the “9%” change in the original paper.
    3) Precession doesn’t change the average distance, so therefore insolation AVERAGED OVER A YEAR does NOT change due to precession.
    4) Changes in eccentricity (as discussed in your quote at the start of this post) affect the maximum and minimum distances during the year, but do not affect the average distance (the semi-major axis). This affects how much the solar energy input swings during the year, but does not affect the average solar energy input.

    So if you meant “So distance from the sun and therefore MONTHLY insolation does change for the earth as a whole due to eccentricity” then you were right.
    But if you meant “So distance from the sun and therefore MILLENNIAL insolation does change for the earth as a whole due to eccentricity CHANGES” then you were right.

    But the eccentricity changes do NOT lead to a net change in the annual incoming solar energy, so a NET change in incoming solar energy cannot be the cause of net warming or cooling (which seems to be what you were implying). On the other hand, the LOCATION where that same solar energy falls can matter, which IS the point of the original article you quoted.

  318. Pamela Gray says:

    The above arguments around temperature lack mechanism. For those of you arguing AGW Arctic ice loss you will need to tackle the atmospheric conditions that set up extreme ice loss through Fram Strait and Arctic current conditions that bring in warm ice-edge melting oceanic sea surface temperatures, and then mechanistically connect these changes to increased anthropogenic CO2. That’s where the discussion and debate should be. The temperature trend, by itself, demonstrates nothing in terms of CO2 connections.

  319. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey, I am happy that you NOW provide better evidence (at least I will assume it is better — I don’t have time to fact check it all for you).

    But no matter how much you try to redirect, you can’t change that fact that the evidence you originally presented was either irrelevant or contradictory to the point you were trying to make.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I shouldn’t have, but I decided to fact check one of your follow-up claims, since it repeats the claim I refuted before: ” If there was any acceleration in the warming trend, recent temperatures would be breaking out above the long term parameters. “
    Did you not look at the graph you linked to? It shows EXACTLY what you claim it doesn’t show! The long-term linear trend is the center line. The top and bottom line are simply guides, arbitrarily added by whoever made the graph — they are not any sort of calculated “top and bottom limits of the long-term trends. (And the vertical scale is artificially manipulated to make the changes look small, but that is a different issue).

    But strip that away and look at the actual data and the actual linear fit, and it is plain as day that there is an upward curve to the data = a positive acceleration!

    Or we could be mathematical about it. The regression equation for the (offset) HADCRUT temperature points in YOUR plot) is

    TEMP = 36.82 – 0.03274 YEAR + 0.000010 YEAR**2

    Source DF SS F P
    Linear 1 23.4856 63.71 0.000
    Quadratic 1 2.7768 7.68 0.006

    Note that the quadratic term is
    1) positive, indicating a positive acceleration
    2) highly significant (P=0.006) indicating the acceleration is real.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You are now 0/3 at providing evidence that actually supports your claims.

  320. Entropic man says:

    Sorry, I suffered a senior moment. My solar insolation post should have read:-

    Entropic man says:
    August 6, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Nasa has published a report showing a long term solar insolation trend of +0.05% per decade since 1978.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

    By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%.

    The insolation change between 1978 and 2011 would be 3.3 * 0.05 =0.165%.

    The observed insolation trend would produce a temperature change of about 0.165/0.35 = 0.47C between 1978 and 2011.

    NASA/Goddard’s temperature data show an global increase of 0.7C since 1978 (0.23C per decade). On this basis the solar insolation change would account for 0.47/0.7 *100 = 67% of the observed warming.

    This is clearly a back-of-the-envelope calculation, with any number of complicating factors ignored. Would anyone more competent like to critique?

    -

  321. francois says:

    For crying out loud, as you say in your language, could we please have a couple of dates regarding the “medieval warm period” (i.e. beginning and end), alongwith possibly an idea of the extent of that phenomenon geographically wise? After all, you tend to beleive that an obnormal warm period during the 30′s, in the US, is of global interest. Whatever might be the -rather small- area covered by your Nation, that period does not seem to be commensurate with what was observed in the rest of the western hemisphere. Perhaps you did not take notice of a few incidents which occured earlier : the quasi-annihilation of the local population (Injuns), the quasi-disappearence of some species such as pigeons, bisons, and so forth, the huge progress in “industrialised farming” (whatever that means ploughing, dusting,pest-killing, fertilizing…). Maybe some local consequences were felt then, and there.

  322. tjfolkerts says:

    Entropic man says: “By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase from 288K to 289K at the Earth’s surface would require extra energy proportional to the change in Absolute temperature and need an increase in insolation and other energy inputs of about 1/289 * 100 = 0.35%. ”
    Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K

  323. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts,

    Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating.

    So you look at a four century long chart like this and simply change the subject, because you know that it shows no acceleration in modern temperatures.

    Then, when I post a long term trend with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again.

    It is clear that your mind is made up and closed tight. You just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted. Their CO2=CAGW predictions have all failed.

    In science, when your conjecture is falsified, you reset and start over because the real world observations have shown you that your conjecture was wrong:

    “If it disagrees with… observation… it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” ~R.P. Feynman].

    The CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong. That’s all there is to it.

  324. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey, this is getting almost comical.

    “Rational folks understand that global temperatures are not accelerating. [Link to yet ANOTHER graph, hoping, I suppose, that eventually one of the graphs will support his conclusions.]”
    1) OK, I will admit that you found a downward trend. In fact, I would bet that an analysis of that data would actually show accelerated cooling! Unfortunately, the graph only covers 7.5 years — not NEARLY long enough to determine a climate trend (let alone “acceleration” of a trend”).
    2) And why THOSE 7.5 years? It turns out we now have a classic example of cherry-picking. If the graph went a year or two earlier, the slope would be upward, not downward. If the graph extended to the present, the trend would pretty close to flat (maybe a bit upward).

    “Then, when I post a long term trend [link to a graph] with long term parameters that are not being exceeded, you change your arguments again. “
    1) That is not the graph I was commenting on (although it is rather similar). So you are the one “changing arguments”.
    2) That graph ALSO shows clear acceleration term (ie upward curve).
    3) The data on that graph is cherry-picked. They left off the first 3 decades of the data set (1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat. With this data included, the acceleration is even more obvious.
    4) The 95% prediction interval (ie your “long term parameters”) ARE exceeded! The data is too high once near the beginning and once near the end. The data is too low once (maybe twice) in the middle. That is a CLASSIC indication of “acceleration”.
    5) The regression for the data in THAT new set you gave is
    Temp = 193.1 – 0.2047 Yr + 0.000054 Yr**2
    Where both the linear term and the quadratic term (ie the “acceleration”) are statistically significant at the p = 0.000 level!

    you are now 0/5 on the graphs I looked at.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I have never changed my argument — it has always been that the information you have presented does not in the least show what you think it shows. Your certainty in the face of clear contrary evidence only shows that you are not a “skeptic” at all.

    Furthermore, I never once addressed whether CO2 is causing the slopes and accelerations that are painfully clear within YOUR evidence. Now, it is always possible that your conclusion that “the CO2=CAGW conjecture is wrong.” is correct DESPITE your incorrect arguments trying to back up your beliefs.

  325. Girma says:

    When are they going to start to plot the trend since 1940s instead of 1970s?

  326. dave says:

    [SNIP: Rephrase that and it will get approved. Site policy is here. -REP]

  327. Eli

    Just for the record, I note that the link you made regarding ‘stuck’ weather patterns includes an observation I made on that very thread some months ago.

    Why not go and reread it and you will see that weather getting ‘stuck’ can be observed throughout the history I have examined which goes back 1000 years

    tonyb

  328. dave says:

    Smokey says: “you just cannot accept the obvious fact that the rise in CO2 is simply not doing what the alarmist crowd predicted”

    Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now. Temperatures continue to rise (and I’m not talking about the bumps and wiggles, but the long-term trend), the amount of snow and ice covering the planet continue to decline (Arctic sea ice, glaciers, snow cover), permafrost temperatures continue to warm, etc. etc. Seems you are the one not accepting the evidence that humans are impacting climate.

  329. Smokey says:

    Dave says:

    “Not sure what you mean by the alarmist crowd, but it is doing exactly what climate models have been predicting for decades now.”

    The alarmist crowd is the same wild-eyed, unscientific gang that confidently predicted 20-meter rising seas, Manhattan under water, runaway global warming, etc., etc., for [in Dave's words] “decades now”. The trend falsifies the models.

    Lately the alarmist crowd has been backing and filling, and moving the goal posts, and calling their endless predictions of ‘runaway global warming’ by another name: “climate change”. Could they be any less credible?

    Folkerts is going nuts nitpicking occasional tiny, insignificant fluctuations and going, “AHA!!”, as if he’s found anything other than natural fluctuations. If it were not for pseudo-science, the alarmist crowd would have no ‘science’ in their failed conjectures.

    And I note tha no one ever responds to the Null Hypothesis – a corollary of the scientific method. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified – which deconstructs the alternate hypothesis that human activity changes global temperature. It does not, and there is zero scientific evidence that it does. Do you understand “zero evidence”, Dave? From your comment, I don’t think so.

    • • •

    Girma,

    Good point. Here is a chart showing the decades long cooling around the 1940′s. Rising CO2 is entirely coincidental with the natural recovery from the LIA.

    Like all the other charts I’ve posted, that one also destroys folkert’s alarmist conjecture. Global temperatures have been rising along the same trend line for more than four hundred years. There has been no recent acceleration, as I’ve shown repeatedly in numerous links. But Folkerts is ruled by his incurable cognitive dissonance, and he just cannot accept the plain fact that there is zero testable, empirical evidence supporting the failed CO2=CAGW conjecture. None. Global temperatures have always changed, naturally. The current natural variability is nothing new or unusual.

    The alarmist crowd clings to the natural ebb and flow of polar ice because that is the very last [entirely natural] event they can point to that they believe supports their failed conjecture. But as tonyb and many others have pointed out, the current Arctic ice cover has been lower in the past, before CO2 ever began to rise. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. Changing polar ice cover is a natural occurrance. And the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

    Finally, once again I note that no one in the climate alarmist contingent is willing to try and falsify my easily testable hypothesis: that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. They cannot falsify it, so they hide out, and change the subject instead. The plain facts are that CO2 has no effect on polar ice, that the Arctic has gone through its current fluctuations repeatedly in the past and to a much greater degree, and that global temperatures are not accelerating. Thus, all the unscientific, wild-eyed conjectures over normal sea ice variability are nothing but a desperate attempt to salvage something of the original alarmist predictions of runaway global warming and climatte disruption. But those predictions have all been falsified. Sorry about the alarmist crowd’s religion. But they have been worshipping false gods.

  330. rogerknights says:

    jeez says:
    August 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    I’ll take that bet Mosh just for the hell of it. 125 dollars says no record set this year.

    You can get approximately even odds on that bet at:
    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=758776

  331. rogerknights says:

    Crito says:
    August 7, 2012 at 8:32 am

    How many scientists does it take to demonstrate that you cannot stick your leg into the same river twice? Everything is flux.

    The version I read (the original?) was, “You cannot go down twice to the same river.” That sneakily implies that “you” have changed too.

  332. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gneiss on August 7, 2012 at 5:15 pm:

    If kadaka understood what the term meant, then his statement that I cherry picked those quotes from Hald’s article would imply him believing that I picked out unrepresentative pieces, instead of the main things the authors said on these topics. And that if kadaka could see the whole paper…

    Ah, but that’s the crux of the issue, you sneaky little bastard. You’re hiding behind an access wall, using materials not available to those arguing with you.

    While I, following the principles of openness and honesty and the promoting of greater knowledge and understanding among all who would learn, use freely-available materials with links to the sources.

    Since it is the nature of combat to use all available resources to one’s best advantage, I must assume you are cherrypicking, you are selectively presenting the bits of your hidden resource that best advance your cause. Further, I cannot assume that anything that you say is in the paper is true, beyond the freely-available abstract, as I cannot verify it, from the context to the content. “Quote” as much of it as you want, it makes no difference until I can confirm it myself.

    My oh my, you got riled up over such a small part of a big comment, even resorting to “third person singularly personal”. Are you upset that, thanks to me, you owe Gail Combs an apology for yelling at her when it was you who was mistaken?

  333. Gneiss says:

    kadaka writes,
    “With most of the sea ice thicker than 2 meters and 75% or greater concentration, you expect this storm will tear apart this “thin” ice?”

    Now there’s a hypothesis we can test in real time. Let’s watch and see what happens to the ice.

  334. Pamela Gray says:

    Once again. Cherry picking does not matter. Temperature trend does not matter. They are symptoms of a cause that needs mechanisms, not just correlations. Step up. Ice loss is a mechanized event having to do with seasonal melt, and atmospheric and oceanic naturally occuring patterns and oscillations. What are these mechanisms?

    To the point: How are they teleconnecting with the teeny tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 ppm to make these mechanisms worse than they otherwise would have been? I have not seen a single piece of work that outlines these mechanisms with math proof (particularly regarding the anthropogenic sourced energy needed to worsen and sustain natural weather pattern and oceanic pattern variations that lead to ice loss). However I have seen plenty of speculative papers and presentations that say the teleconnections are there, we just have to find them. I remain unconvinced by low hanging fruit effort masquerading as high level science.

  335. Gneiss says:

    kadaka writes,
    “I must assume you are cherrypicking,”
    Like your hypothesis that the storm will not tear up ice because it’s too thick, this is testable in real time.

    And the blog post by Chiefio that Gail quoted with approval makes exactly the mistake I describe, comparing Little Ice Age (1855) summit temperatures with older to declare “There is no hockey stick here.”

    “you got riled up”
    This internet mind-reading works poorly. I wasn’t riled but did laugh.

  336. Entropic man says:

    tjfolkerts says:
    August 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm
    Because the power is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, a 1% increase in temperature corresponds to ~ 4% increase in power. So you need to divide your result by 4, so the insolation change only accounts for (0.47 K) / 4 = 0.12 K

    Thank you, tjfolkerts. That makes the contribution from increased solar insolation 0.12/0.70 * 100 =17% of the total warming.

  337. Pamela Gray says:

    Many warmers are predicting catastrophic sea ice loss due to the current unusual low parked over the Arctic. But a low pressure cyclonic system over the Arctic does not transport ice out Fram Strait. However, it can make for a shaken martini or even a margarita if we can ship some vodka and lime up there in a tanker. I predict that ice is being whirled around and around, changing both the extent and area but not much in the way of melt. Now if we have a dipole set itself up after this low moves a bit and the wind carries this shaken, not stirred ice straight across the basin and out Fram Strait, we might see some spectacular ice loss. However, the low would have to reverse course and go back the way it came in, plus a high would have to set up over Greenland.

    On the other hand, a cyclone this big can bring in warmer air from outside the circle and push warmer oceanic currents further into the circle.

    That said, I predict a flattening out of the rate of melt through the rest of the season as we are now past the peak high angle of the Sun.

  338. Rob Dekker says:

    Spence_UK said :

    This period comprises half of our driftwood finds, but the high frequencies are punctuated by woodless periods at 2.5 to 2 ky B.P., 1.7 to 0.9 ky B.P., 0.5 to 0.3 ky B.P., and probably since ~1950.

    This para shows that within the last 4,000 years, these sub-periods were particularly cold and ice-locked the beaches; note the medieval warm period and roman warm period visible in the gaps. During this time, there was less ice than at present.

    But Spence, isn’t the “woodless period” from 0.5-0.3 ky BP known as the LIA ? And doesn’t the “woodless period” from 1.7 to 0.9 ky BP covers much or the RWP and the MWP ?

    And where is your evidence that “During this time, there was less ice than at present.”, because Funder et al certainly does not claim that at all.

    And this :

    This is not a story of consistent sea ice over the last 4,000 years. Even within that time frame, there have been several century-scale periods with considerably less ice than the last 60 years or so.

    is also not at all sustained by Funder et al. Where do you get this stuff from ?
    The point is that you are seeing things in Funder et al that are simply not there.

    In fact, the only “reconstruction” of Arctic sea ice that Funder et al performed is a model run using three runs of ONE model (LOVECLIM) which, using Funder’s words “are the most similar to our observations [experiments E3 to E5 (3)andfig.S3].”.
    Here are these simulations (Figure S3) from the supplemental material of the paper :
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/08/03/333.6043.747.DC1/Funder.SOM.pdf

    Which clarifies their statement that :

    summer sea-ice cover, which reached its Holocene maximum during the LIA, attained its present (~2000) extent at ~ 4 ky B.P. (fig. S3)

    Now, we can debate weather a simulation of one model is relevant and significant for a multi-millennial reconstruction (I think not, especially since the LOVECLIM simulation is unable to reproduce the maximum driftwood landings on Ellismere Island during the HCO) but even if you take the simulation as is, you will notice that the natural variability is realistic, and that the sea ice decline from the past few decades is unprecedented w.r.t. the 4000 year record, as Funder et al clarifies in their statement above.

    Spence_UK wrote :

    The point of my post was to underline the magnitude of natural variability on longer timescales, which need to be understood before any type of assessment can be made as to whether this is anomalous with respect to natural variability or
    not.

    Now that you had a chance to look at Funder et al supplementary material, and the basis of their claims regarding Arctic summer sea ice extent (the LOVECLIM model runs), do you want to argue the natural variability in the LOVECLIM model, or do you want to discard Funder et al altogether as a politically motivated “alarmist” paper ?

    Let me know, either way….

  339. Pamela Gray says:

    To clarify, the low itself is not unusual for the Summer season. More lows appear in the Arctic Circle during Summer than they do during Winter. What is unusual about this one is the extent of the low. It was LOW! But is beginning to weaken. These strong cyclonic winds can do all kinds of damage to ice, no matter how thick it is. And if Fram Strait opens up again (winds are currently blowing the OTHER way and has closed down this ice exit), we could see a major flush.

  340. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way, the media reports of this being an unusual Summer event because these events don’t usually happen in Summer are wrong. Summer lows are more frequent than Winter lows basin wide. But not by much.

    http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf

    “Cyclones in the Fram Strait are studied in more detail
    because of their special impact on the ice export from the
    Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. On the average, there are
    5 cyclones per month. the cyclone frequency in the Fram
    Strait is higher during the winter period than during the
    summer period. This is in contrast to the overall Arctic
    frequency which is higher in summer than in winter.
    Cyclogenesis predominates in winter and cyclolysis in
    summer in the Fram Strait. The most frequent direction of
    motion is from SW to NE.”

  341. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gneiss on August 8, 2012 at 9:58 am:

    kadaka writes,
    “I must assume you are cherrypicking,”
    Like your hypothesis that the storm will not tear up ice because it’s too thick, this is testable in real time.

    So you have a free-access link to the paper so I can verify the contents? Where is it? A pre-print will likely be good enough.

    And the blog post by Chiefio that Gail quoted with approval makes exactly the mistake I describe, comparing Little Ice Age (1855) summit temperatures with older to declare “There is no hockey stick here.”

    You’re as sneaky as an elephant hiding behind a corn stalk. I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?

  342. Pamela Gray says:

    For those of you interested, the discussions on the net about the supposed “Great Cyclone of 2012″ is heating up and predictions are being made by a few of complete ice melt. Plans are even afoot to get the MSM to start pumping out ALARM sound bites. Should get interesting. The claim that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable. Gear up to hear that this is a drastic unprecedented change and that cyclones are increasing in the Arctic due to CO2.

  343. Gneiss says:

    kadaka writes,
    “I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?”
    I have no trouble fessing up: if that bold sentence is the only one you read, it’s wrong because Kobashi et al. have their own reconstruction that says different. On the other hand, if you don’t cherry pick one sentence out of the paragraph it came with, you might see the paragraph’s lead sentence (like Gail’s post) references Chiefio who was definitely doing the 1855-comparison fallacy (as are thousands of others on the internet, and many on this blog).

    And that the sentence after the bold one says again,
    “Also for this reason, Alley’s ice core reconstruction by itself cannot possibly show that temperatures in Viking times were warmer than present.”
    Which it can’t, because Alley’s reconstruction ends in 1855.

    But yeah, if you skip the Chiefio and Alley parts of that paragraph it does fall apart. I shouldn’t have used bold.

  344. Pamela Gray says:

    This is too easy. Found another reference for polar lows in Summer, this one in July. So much for “never happens in Summer” aka JJA.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=-tBa1DWYoDIC&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false

    page 228

  345. Pamela Gray says:

    You guys continue to argue over trend. Temperature anomalies are caused by weather pattern variations (IE more drought, less drought, more precip , less precip, more cold, less cold, more wind, less wind, etc, etc, etc), which are caused by sustained weather system changes. Period. There is no other source of trend outside what the weather made it do each and every day, averaged, and then anomalized.

    So are the weather systems changing? If so what is making the weather systems change? If it is CO2, please provide the mechanism of how this trace gas -and only the anthropogenic addition please- changes weather systems from within the naturally occurring error band, to sustained and/or more frequent and extreme events outside the error band. And speak in terms of calculated energy needed to make these changes compared to the extra energy being provided by anthropogenic CO2 increase, not just that “things are heating up”.

    Otherwise your argument about temperature now and then is, IMO silly.

  346. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Pamela Gray on August 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm:

    For those of you interested, the discussions on the net about the supposed “Great Cyclone of 2012″ is heating up and predictions are being made by a few of complete ice melt. (…)

    Cool. Then we can see if the results of the zombie ice study hold up and the recovery will be that quick.

    Real observations yielding hard data from a real test in the real world, not just “confirmation by computer model”. What’s not to like?

  347. Rob Dekker says:

    Pamela,

    It’s interesting that you start debunking the statements “that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable” amd “never happens in Summer”, but you fail to mention who made these statements in the first place.
    Could you please ?

  348. tjfolkerts says:

    There has been some interest in the Fram Strait, so I went and checked the meridonal winds (NCEP reanalysis for 20W-15E, 75N-85N http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Meridonal+Wind&level=2000&lat1=75&lat2=85&lon1=-20&lon2=15&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries)

    The rankings for 2012 (for southerly wind compared to the last 65 years) are impressive
    April #3
    May #1
    June #11
    July # 5

    For these months overall, this it the windiest spring/summer on record. (2007 was the third windiest for this period).

    This certainly seems to present a case for these winds contributing to the lose this season. I’ll look more at the correlations soon.

  349. Pamela Gray says:

    Sure Rob. Here you go. Several comments. Eventually some of these blog statements and conversations will appear in the MSM because we all know they are loath to check out their information. I do enjoy reading this Arctic blog because they all get in such a tizzy over “unprecedented” events.

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-3-detachment.html#more

  350. Pamela Gray says:

    tjfolkerts, you are correct. We had a dipole event on some of those dates that sent ice scurrying out of Fram Strait. Since then we have gone back to the AO form of pressure systems.

  351. Pamela Gray says:

    http://foehn.colorado.edu/nome/HARC/Readings/Maslanik2.pdf

    Interesting. Back when the AO was trending positive the sky was falling and Arctic Lows were becoming more frequent, all due to global warming of course. However, in this article, they don’t say as much. Serreze was one of the authors. Wonder what happened when the AO started a downward trend?

  352. Rob Dekker says:

    Pamela,

    A gentle suggestion :

    If you find a comment an a posting on a different blog site, which you find questionable enough to spend brain cycles on, then why don’t you just go there and ask for a reference or clarification ? That way, both the person making the comment and you could learn something.

    Instead, by posting a rebuttal here at WUWT to a comment on a blog post at Neven’s site, nobody learns anything.

  353. Rob Dekker says:

    tjfolkerts said

    There has been some interest in the Fram Strait, so I went and checked the meridonal winds (NCEP reanalysis for 20W-15E, 75N-85N..
    …This certainly seems to present a case for these winds contributing to the lose this season. I’ll look more at the correlations soon.

    Thanks tj, for checking these numbers on wind this year.

    Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season.

    Export out of Fram Stait typically is in the range of 62,000 km^2 per MONTH. (see Fig 4b here) :
    http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Kwok.2011.PTO.pdf

    In comparison, regular melt knocks out that amount every DAY during the melting season..

    So, with all respect to Fram Strait, there simple is no way in which it could have contributed significantly to the whopping 2 million km^2 negative sea ice area anomaly this season, and the record low ice area.

    On the other hand, you could make a case that winds in the Arctic this melting season (combined with the thinning ice due to warmer winters) may be responsible for the highly fragmented ice pack. The thin ice is simply crunched up under wind stresses.

  354. David Gould says:

    Pamela,

    The article that you quoted above (http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf) states the following:

    “A horizontal grid of 300 km300 km is used as unit area
    for the statistical computations. A unit area experiences
    about 20 cyclone passages per year (range 5±40). On the
    average, six cyclones occur simultaneously in the Arctic
    region. Lifetimes vary from 6 h to 15 days.

    The annual cyclone activity over the 5-year period is
    nearly the same. Cyclones are more frequent in summer
    (about 94 per month) than in winter (77 per month). In
    general summer cyclones are weaker than winter cyclones.
    On the average, the minimum central pressure during
    the lifetime of a cyclone is about 1000 hPa (typical range
    980±1020) in summer and about 988 hPa (typical range
    940±1030) in winter.”

    My suspicion is that when they are talking about cyclones here they are not talking about anything like what we are seeing at the moment. There most definitely have not been 94 (three every two days?) of these kinds of events per month in the last six summers (2007 to 2012)! I have been watching over that time, and I have seen nothing like this.

    This cyclone has had a minimum central pressure of 965, outside the normal summer range mentioned in the article and at the low end of the winter range.

  355. tjfolkerts says:

    Rob Dekker says: “Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season. ”

    I am arriving at that same conclusion — at least as far as wind is concerned. The correlations look OK by themselves, but when you include other parameters (like temperature or PDO), then the winds tend to drop out of the multiple regressions.

  356. Pamela Gray says:

    David, I don’t think the group of folks over at that blog would be interested in being educated. Belief trumps data. If they are interested in debate, they need to come over here.

    As for this Arctic cyclone, extremes and catastrophies happen in nature. All the time. Sometimes they happen more frequently, sometimes less frequently. Sometimes they become more extreme for a while and sometimes less extreme. I was driving through the extreme NE corner of Oregon on July 4th back in 76. It snowed. Right down to the valley floor. That was when folks thought for sure we were slipping into an ice age and everybody got their knickers in a twist. Except my grandparents. They had seen it all before.

    I am willing to bet that way in the past, before satellites, there have been folks near the edge of these Summer cyclones and they were just as big. But they didn’t know that because they were at the edge of it, not in the middle like we have now with our eye in the sky.

  357. David Gould says:

    Pamela,

    As someone from that group of folks, I am interested in being educated. But I do not think that that paper is evidence that supports your case. It is clearly not talking about the same thing as what we are seeing at the moment. It says that on average in the Arctic there are 94 cyclones in each month of summer. Did you see 94 cyclones like the one we can observe at the moment in the Arctic during July just passed? Did you see one? Did you see one in June? The paper is not talking about events like this one.

    And sure, big things happen all the time – the law of large numbers sees to that. But some big things are rare. And when one thing in a system changes – like, for example, the rapid increase in temperature that the Arctic has seen over the satellite era – you can expect other things to also change. Such as the frequency, intensity, location or timing of big things.

  358. dave says:

    The one thing that appears missing from the recent discussions is the fact that the “rules” that Pamela and Gail refer to don’t seem to apply anymore. There was a paper a year or two ago from James Screen that stated a correlation between summer cyclones and sea ice, such that during years with more cyclones the September extent tended to be higher than during years with less summer cyclones. However, this isn’t the case as the ice has thinned. 2002 is a good example of this since the persistent low pressure over the central Arctic in JJA actually led to a record September low that year. This is because as the ice cover thins, it doesn’t matter so much what the weather patterns do, the thin ice will still melt out. I believe Holland and Stroeve (2011) had a paper in GRL that discussed the changing correlations between September extent and summer circulation as the ice cover thins.

    The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink. It’s consistent with what one would expect in a warming world. The bumps and wiggles along the trend don’t matter, it’s the “trend” that matters, and there is no denying that the ice cover is showing a negative trend, and not just in summer, in all calendar months. Why else would Shell be spending billions to drill in the Arctic? They obviously believe the climate scientists who say that the ice will continue to shrink in the future.

  359. Rob Dekker says:

    Pamela said :

    Back when the AO was trending positive the sky was falling and Arctic Lows were becoming more frequent, all due to global warming of course.

    These are some pretty explicit statements. Do you have any references to publications that claim that “the sky was falling” when the AO was trending positive, and that this was “all due to global warming of course” ?

  360. donald penman says:
  361. Ed_B says:

    “The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink.”

    Yup.. it has been warming since the LIA stopped.. what else is new? Oh, are you suggesting that our SUVs are causing it?
    But we are slowly sliding back into a major ice age, are we not? Temperatures were higher 10,000 years ago. Will our SUVs stop that slide?
    I await your wisdom!

  362. Pamela Gray says:

    Rob, you are kidding, right? The trending up AO was being suggested by many in climate science to be caused by anthropogenic global warming, until it began to trend down (I’ve been following climate science for decades). And the 70′s brought on the broadly reported suggestion that we were entering a very cold period that could be related to massive glaciation, all due to AGW. Even Hansen went there. I take it you are new to this ever changing story.

  363. Pamela Gray says:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990603071210.htm

    One of hundreds of articles about the positive AO trend of the 70′s thru 90′s connection with AGW. That hypothesis has gone down the hole, as have many others. Yet the search continues for a weather pattern variation that will stay around long enough to undergird the watermelon desire to reduce humans to cave dwellers.

  364. Entropic man says:

    With all these graphs purporting to prove/disprove accelerating temperature change, I thought I’d go back to the raw data and try my own back-of –the–envelope calculation.

    Method
    I am using the NASA/Goddard data.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

    To damp out at least some of the short-term variation I’ll use 5-year averages.
    This allows three intervals of 42 years, between 1883, 1925, 1967 and 2009. I’ll calculate the decadal warming rate for each interval.
    A reduction from one interval to the next would indicate deceleration.
    An unchanged rate would indicate a constant rate of change.
    An increased rate would indicate acceleration.

    Results

    Raw data:-

    Year_______________Temperature anomaly 5-year average

    1883_____________________-0.27
    1925_____________________-0.15
    1967_____________________-0.02
    2009_____________________ 0.54

    Intervals and rates:-

    Interval_____________Change ____________Decadal rate(C per 10 years)

    Pre 1883____________0.0________________0.0*
    1883-1925___________0.12_______________0.028
    1925-1967___________0.17_______________0.04
    1967-2009___________0.56_______________0.133

    Conclusion

    Each 42 year interval shows a larger rate of change than the one before. The rate of temperature change is accelerating.

    *tjfolkerts-“(1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat”

  365. eyesonu says:

    I’m a newbie to the Arctic cyclone issue here. I’ve got a good grasp on tropical cyclones and hope someone here can help me out a bit.

    Would this current cyclone be dumping huge amounts of snow and ice over the entire Arctic region?

    Would it be transporting a considerable amount of heat energy to high altitudes (vertical) that would be released to space via radiation?

    Is there a link that I could find satellite views showing infrared of the top of this cyclone?

    Is the “fuel” of this cyclone similar in nature to a tropical cyclone in that it is driven by surface heat?

    This is all very interesting and I await any reply. Thanks in advance.

  366. Tim Folkerts says:

    Donald Penman opines: “I am not sure who is telling the truth here. …they give vastly diferent pictures.”

    Have you considered that they might be plotting vastly different things? The “edge” of the ice is not a sharp line and people chooses different boundaries: regions with at least 10% ice, or 15% ice, or 30% ice. (Kind of like you could map a coast line at high tide or low tide or mid tide and get different looking shorelines). Could you research what criteria each of the different maps use and then report back as to whether the maps do indeed give a consistent description of the polar ice? Perhaps you could tell us specifically who you think is not telling the truth.

  367. Pamela Gray says:

    http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/tag/ice-age/

    The ice age cometh decade. All scientific and human-caused of course. And down the hole of human-caused global cooling/disruption/extremes/weirding/and soon to be warming wild-ass guesses.

    AGW scientists are searching in a pile of elephant poo for the mouse that caused all the poo, ignoring the elephant entirely. Which IMO, are natural intrinsic drivers that are part and parcel of a highly variable planet.

  368. Pamela Gray says:

    eyesonu: The terms “Arctic cyclones” and “Arctic lows” are easily searched using any standard search engine technique. You will get lots of links to good information.

  369. Entropic man says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 9, 2012 at 7:33 am
    “natural intrinsic drivers that are part and parcel of a highly variable planet.”

    Which drivers do you have in mind?
    What evidence can you show us regarding the existance and amount of warming attributable to each driver?

    Remember the old scientific adage that you dont really understand something until you can discuss it with numbers.

  370. Pamela Gray says:

    Entropic man, we live on an atmospherically leaky planet but with tremendous storage capacity for heat energy (which should always be calculated in joules) in our oceans. The oceans, our main joule storing body, are a huge, teleconnected with the atmosphere and land masses, driver of climate over short and long term time spans.

    How do we leak? Of the solar SW infrared joules that are absorbed into the atmosphere and below instead of reflected back to space, the water cycle, teleconnected with both the oceans, land forms, and the atmosphere, forms the main source of leakage of left over joules (mostly from LW infrared) into the upper troposphere and eventually out to space, especially as a result of storm systems.

    How do we store? During trade wind events driving La Nina-choppy oceanic conditions, the surface wind over the ocean sends warm layers westward as well as mixing it into deeper layers, and the ocean surface absorbs lots and lots of joules deep into the churned seas, even though SST’s are colder than average. Why? The surface is not in evaporation mode. As the event dies down and the oceans calm, these warm pools of water slosh back over the surface and send stored joules back out of the oceans (those warm SST’s are evaporating stored heat like gang busters). When the trades pick back up again, what is left of the warm water gets sent back up against the western land masses. This is the cool part (or warm part). This cycle of trades versus no trades over the equator produces a series of warm pools that can be tracked as they meander through a fairly well defined highway of ocean currents, ending up at the poles. The same is true for cold pools. It can take decades for these original pools to completely go away.

    How do we trend up or down? For some reason, episodes of ocean warming or cooling (due to changes in El Nino versus La Nina versus Neutral cycling patterns driven by trade wind changes) have long term oscillations where we have a series of warm pools meandering around with smaller, fewer cooler pools in the highways. And then the reverse will happen, providing us with more cooler pools versus smaller, less frequent warmer pools. These pools affect our weather pattern systems in fairly well-understood ways at regional scale and over short and long term time spans.

    Each one of these systems can separately be calculated in terms of joules under ideal conditions (IE “clear sky” conditions, etc) but the teleconnected real-time mathematical formula is filled with variables (some constant, some not) with few actual absolute numbers. The Sun is one of the few pieces of the formula that provides a fairly absolute number. The separate math formulas are easily obtained on the internet.

  371. Pamela Gray says:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2366.1

    A more recent article on climate change and Arctic cyclones. Haven’t read it yet but the abstract is interesting. Last paragraph:

    “Interannual variations in Arctic cyclone numbers are closely related to the Arctic Oscillation (AO index in the full reanalyses records. An even stronger relationship is found between the AO and the number of deep cyclones. These relationships have still held in the last decade when the AO has returned to more normal values but the summer and fall sea ice extent has continued to decrease.”

  372. Smokey says:

    More bad news for the believers in scary Arctic melting.

  373. Entropic man says:

    Good, Pamela, you’re starting to get the idea. Earlier on this thread I calculated the contribution of increasing solar insolation myself, with some help from tjfolkerts and NASA data. (it was 17% of the observed warming.
    Show me numbers for these El Nino/ La Nina changes. What % do they contribute?

  374. Pamela Gray says:

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Oceans/Radiative_Transfer_Ocean.pdf

    Above is a very good paper on radiative heat transfer into the oceans. Complicated enough but one of the more straightforward pieces of the “everything” real-time mathematical formula. The formula for how much shortwave infrared gets through the atmosphere to the ocean surface on any one day, week, month, year, decade, is waaaayyyy more complicated and depends on several atmospheric variables.

  375. donald penman says:

    Tim Folkerts
    In reply I think that the noaa and nsidc map might be telling the same story for ice concentration but the cryosphere map is saying there is no ice there 0% ice level and it has broken up which cannot be true if either of the noaa and nsdc map are correct.

  376. Pamela Gray says:

    http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html

    A very good engineer’s chapter on solar input. Lots of formulas. And lots of caveats to consider when applying these formulas to non-clear sky conditions when developing solar-powered systems or needing to take solar joules into consideration in other application areas.

    Provides one of the best descriptions of why we call solar radiation the solar constant.

  377. dave says:

    Smokey says:More bad news for the believers in scary Arctic melting.

    Does this mean you think the sea ice isn’t melting, or at record low extent at the moment? Cherry picking 5 years of data actually doesn’t help make your point, since what it does suggest is that the Arctic is in a new climate state where the summer sea ice extent drops below 5 million sq-km every September. Pretending that the ice cover isn’t melting makes you look somewhat foolish in my opinion. The debate centers around what is causing the ice to decline (and the background warming of the planet). Your argument is consistently that it has been warmer in the past so it’s 100% natural. But that argument lacks logic. Human activities are increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Both of those are true statements. The problem is how much of the warming we’re seeing is a result of that increase in CO2 versus natural climate variability. Observational and modeling studies continue to agree that CO2 is a factor, but it remains unclear exactly how much is from CO2.

  378. Pamela Gray says:

    Entropic man, I’ve been asking those who say that CO2 is causing these changes to back that up with math for quite a while, so no I am not just getting the idea. I’ve been waiting for the AGW crowd to show me the math for their assertions. And waiting. And waiting.

    Blocking highs are characterized by heat and lack of precipitation. These things explain why we have heat waves. It takes quite a bit of energy to keep a normal, natural blocking high in place or drive it away. How much energy do you think you need to make blocking highs occur more frequently, last longer or heat up more? And does the anthropogenic portion of greenhouse gases have enough energy to be that source?

    Let’s just take this last one that happened in the US (or you could use the one over Russia–oh wait, they already figured that one out and it could not have come from anthropogenic sources). Show me the math.

    Step one: Figure out how much energy was needed to sustain that particular pressure system.
    Step two: Figure out how much extra energy we have from anthropogenic greenhouse gases capable of interacting with the location of that system and explain just how it does that. Better practice on the one that happened in Russia first.
    Step three: subtract the results from the two calculations. Good luck proving your hypothesis. If you cannot come up with a verifiable mechanism that considers all the insitu variables, the null hypothesis remains.

    Look folks, the mathematical formulas for the major parts of the natural climate system we have in place have been put to paper for many years. The rub is the variables (many and complicated) at any given moment and that interact with each other to produce more variables. Very few pieces are absolute numbers and the variables range all over the place, some randomely, some with various rhythms. The entire formula, starting at the Sun’s rays and ending at the temperature outside my door on any given day, with all its representative variables, would take several volumes. The CO2 formula piece is incredibly tiny compared to the major parts.

    But it’s your hypothesis and it is up to you to present where and how CO2 interacts with those intrinsic natural drivers and their mathematical formulas to make a blocking high worse than it would ordinarily be. Or a Summer Arctic low worse than it would ordinarily be. Or an El Nino worse than it would ordinarily be. Or a hurricane worse than it would ordinarily be. So start cracking.

  379. Entropic man says:

    Your radiative transfer paper gives relative absorbtion rates,not absolute figures. . With the solar input around 880W/M2.and some 480W absorbed, the high reflectance means that the amounts of energy absorbed by the oceans are relatively small, about 5% or 25W/M2. This is one reason why sea level temperatures are rising more slowly than air temperatures, lagging up to 100 years behind land equilibrium temperatures for the present level of direct and back radiation insolation.
    This gives some feel for the energy flow involved. Note particularly the 324W back radiation in the infrared, which Smokey does not think exists, but which actually exceeds the direct solar insolation reaching the surface.

  380. Spence_UK says:

    But Spence, isn’t the “woodless period” from 0.5-0.3 ky BP known as the LIA ? And doesn’t the “woodless period” from 1.7 to 0.9 ky BP covers much or the RWP and the MWP ?

    Ermm.. yes, 0.5-0.3kyr is the little ice age. Woodless mean cold. No, the 2.0kyr to 1.7kyr period which is “not woodless” sits towards the back half of the RWP, and the “not woodless” period from 0.9kyr bp to 0.5kyr bp sits in the back half of the MWP. One presumes that this is because iced over beaches take time to respond to warming, and take time to ice over again – which also seems to be true of the modern warming.

    As for LOVECLIM, do you not understand that models are not evidence? Climate models do not capture natural variability accurately at all for the simple reason that they are set up to model natural variability as a Markov process, but the hydrological cycle (including ocean circulation and sea ice) is not a Markov process, it is a Hurst process (ref below), and until models are fixed to correctly represent this they will ALWAYS fail across scales to correctly mimic natural behaviour.

    Of course, by choosing deteriministic models which demonstrably fail to model natural variability as our null hypothesis, we can show anything we like.

    ref: Koutsoyiannis, D., Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as a result of extremal entropy production, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 390 (8), 1424–1432, 2011, preprint available at http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1102/

  381. Smokey says:

    dave says:

    “Human activities are increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, and CO2 is a heat trapping gas.”

    Well then, CO2 had better get to work, because it’s falling down on the job.

    Instead of running around in circles waving your arms, get a little education on the null hypothesis and its implications. You will see that there is nothing to worry about.

    And FYI, the models are completely wrong.

  382. Spence_UK says:

    Just to add to the above: Rob Dekker, if you read the Funder paper you will see the explanation of the woodless period is because the beaches are ice locked and the driftwood cannot reach them. So the beaches were ice locked during the LIA and between the RWP and MWP; they were not ice locked during the “back end” of the RWP and MWP. Simples!

  383. dave says:

    Smokey, you continue to link to graphs that show a handful of years. Why do you keep cherry picking, do you not understand the difference between weather and climate? None of the links you post to contradict CO2 warming the atmosphere. And you also haven’t shown that climate models are wrong. Seems to me many of their predictions are panning out.

  384. Smokey says:

    dave,

    Since I have posted numerous charts showing the same thing, covering time spans from months to hundreds of years, it is hardly cherry picking. And worse than cherry picking is someone who posts no supporting links, making his comments just baseless opinion.

    Instead of getting your talking points from the television set, get some real education: do keyword searches in the WUWT archives. You will learn a lot that you don’t know, such as the fact that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. That blows a big hole in the CO2=AGW conjecture, no?

  385. dave says:

    Sorry Smokey, but I prefer to read the scientific articles rather than rely on a blog for expert advice. While I do appreciate Watts efforts to discuss scientific papers/results and his work on the station temperature data set, comments from those not directly involved in doing climate science don’t carry as much weight as those papers from folks actively engaged in climate science. If you could instead link to published papers that you feel support your view, I will read those. And you should know that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature is well-understood and does not in any way refute that CO2 leads to warming of the atmosphere. Seems you are the one who needs to get an education outside of blogs and the TV

  386. Entropic man says:

    Dave, I have tried repeatedly to get across to Smokey the differnce between the temperature-driven CO2 changes driving interglacials and the CO2 driven temperature changes of the last 60 years. It doesn’ get past his cognitive dissonance.

  387. Smokey says:

    Entropic is another one who relies on always-inaccurate models, but disregards charts based on empirical evidence. No wonder he is so confused that the planet is not doing as he expects.

    As I have often pointed out, CO2 has an effect — a minuscule effect, which is too small to show up in real world measurements. But the rise in CO2 due to the rise in temperature does show up in measurements, as I have repeatedly shown.

    Inescapable conclusion: CO2 is a non-problem. It is entirely harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. And most of the rise is the result of natural warming, not vice-versa. But the CAGW lunatic contingent has their collective minds made up, and no scientific evidence will convince them otherwise.

  388. James Abbott says:

    Looks increasingly like the arctic ice is headed for a new record melt in the satellite record.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    is showing the anomaly in ice area is now – 2.2 million km2 cf 1979-2008 base and tracking below any other year for date.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    has the ice extent tracking below the record year of 2007.

    Several on this thread rely on weather patterns to explain the ongoing decline. There is evidence to support a contribution, which was an agreed feature of 2007.

    But presumably if this trend continues with new records set repeatedly, unless those patterns can be shown to be ever more extreme forcing events, there must be a point at which the “anything but warming” camp will have to think again ? If so, can they say what that point might be ?

  389. Entropic man says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    “It takes quite a bit of energy to keep a normal, natural blocking high in place or drive it away. How much energy do you think you need to make blocking highs occur more frequently, last longer or heat up more? And does the anthropogenic portion of greenhouse gases have enough energy to be that source?”

    The energy content of air or water is proportional to the Absolute temperature. To raise the temperature of either from, say, 288 to 289K you have to add about 0.35% extra heat. For water that,s 1Joule/gram. For air its a lot less.

    Second stage is to look at the influence of CO2.
    This gives a rough heat flow budget for Earth.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/earth_radiation_budget.html&edu=high

    Note the 168W/M2 from direct insolation and the 333W/M2 from back radiation due to water vapour, CO2 etc; 501 W/M2 in total. To increase the equilibrium temperature by 1C would need an increase of 0.35%, an extra 3W/M2.

    By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

    water vapor, 36–70%
    carbon dioxide, 9–26%
    methane, 4–9%
    ozone, 3–7%

    For CO2 we’ll assume a conservative 10%. 10% of the back radiation is 33W/M2, CO2 is providing about 7% of the total ground insolation, and enough energy to directly contribute 10C to the temperature.
    Increase CO2 form 0.035%( in 1957) to the 0.004% due soon, an increase of 14% would add 4.6W/M2, equivalent to an increased temperature of 1.53C. Since the sea and the Arctic are still warming, the observed temperature change so far should be less. The 0.54C shown in the NASA/Goddard data since 1957 ( 1/3 of our calculated increase) suggests that we have another century before the effect of the CO2 released to date is fully apparant in the temperature record.

    This is my own back-of -the envelope calculation, done to show how to do it yourself.. All of my starting figures are checkable in the literature.

    The key points:-
    1) The amount of energy needed to drive temperature and weather changes is a relatively small proportion of the total energy in the system.
    2) Changes in CO2 since 1957 are sufficient to account for the changes we are seeing.

  390. Entropic man says:

    I always taught my pupils to check for themselves, and do so myself. Hence my 2.57pm calculation, and others before it.
    Waving charts at me without bothering to explain them properly is following the “appeal to authority” fallacy, especially since you do not always seem to understand them yourself.
    I liked the picture. Two small changes. My glasses are silver, not green, and you forgot the Campbell tartan on my kilt. :)

  391. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says: August 9, 2012 at 10:06 am

    More bad news for the believers in scary Arctic melting Smokey.

    The linked graph is woefully short on information (what sort of melt season is being plotted?).
    The linked graph is woefully short on time scale (7 years).

    Here is a BETTER graph of the melt season ( [date of minimum sea ice area] – [date of previous maximum sea ice area] showing 30+ years of data. No trends at all in the start, the end, or the length of the sea ice area melt season. https://sites.google.com/site/sciencestatsandstuff/misleading-graphs

  392. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says: “Since I have posted numerous charts showing the same thing … ”
    Yes, they all seem to show incorrect data and/or incorrect interpretation.

    “Folkerts is going nuts nitpicking occasional tiny, insignificant fluctuations and going, “AHA!!”, as if he’s found anything other than natural fluctuations.”
    No, I am pointing out HUGE errors. Would you consider it “insignificant” if an “AGW activist” mistook decades for centuries? Or said a graph was linear when in fact it was parabolic? Or said that data agreed with expectations when it actually fell outside expectations?

    And now, even after having the obvious short-comings of a graph pointed out to you, you re-post the same flawed graph as if you had learned nothing from this thread.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    This new graph (http://i27.tinypic.com/25fuk8w.jpg) is interesting — could you explain what it means and where it comes from?
    * Why does the horizontal axis (CO2) suddenly seem to change near 400 ppm (from numbers with odd decimal places to nice round number)
    * Why does the “expected logarithmic warming trend line for CO2″ switch from curving upward before 2007 to a straight line after 2007? What method is used to generate these expectations?
    * The “IPCC projected warming trend” seems to be exponential, but I have always heard it should be logarithmic. Which specific projection is this based on?

  393. James Abbott says:

    tjfolkerts says

    “Here is a BETTER graph of the melt season ( [date of minimum sea ice area] – [date of previous maximum sea ice area] showing 30+ years of data. No trends at all in the start, the end, or the length of the sea ice area melt season. https://sites.google.com/site/sciencestatsandstuff/misleading-graphs

    So what does that prove (assuming the plots are accurate) ?

    The melt season in the high arctic essentially follows the height of the Sun above the horizon.

    So (stating the obvious), The Sun sets for 6 months at the North Pole at the autumnal equinox and then at progressively lower latitudes until the winter solstice when the Sun is on the horizon around the arctic circle at noon.

    So (again stating the obvious) without the Sun, it gets very cold and the sea freezes in the high arctic winter and will continue to do so unless or until sea and air temperatures get substantially higher than now. At lower latitudes where more marginal ice forms in the winter, rising sea and air temperatures are having an effect.

    The dominant decline trend is the summer melt, which is highly likely to be largely due to human induced global warming because (a) it fits with the physics and (b) its unlikely that other mechanisms could produce the observed decline trend.

    So the winter maximum trend is showing a smaller decline than we are seeing in the summer minimum trend. There are ever bigger summer melts (2012 looks set to beat 2007), but the ice returns during the winter, albeit thinner, so the volume decline is an important indicator.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

    shows the annual range and the trend in maximum and minimum area.

    The widely circulated “arctic sea ice recovers” story earlier this year followed the ice area anomaly briefly approaching the 1979-2008 mean at the end of the winter, but in absolute terms it was a smaller area rebound than most of the years in the satellite record. A classic piece of cherry picking by sceptics.

  394. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts,

    As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused.

    This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.

    Carry on.

  395. Smokey says:

    Entropic says:

    “Changes in CO2 since 1957 are sufficient to account for the changes we are seeing.”

    It is really, really scary knowing that you teach people misinformation. The comment above can be so easily deconstructed a sixth grader could do it.

    What you are claiming is that all of the change since 1957 is due entirely to CO2. Preposterous. Do you even think before hitting the keyboard? Let me point out the obvious: there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes anything [I happen to think it has a slight effect, but too small to be measurable].

    I understand that the climate alarmist crowd automatically rejects out of hand every chart that deconstructs their belief system. But charts like this are unarguable. It demonstrates conclusively that CO2 is an effect of temperature, not a cause. Only in the pseudo-science world of climate alarmism does effect precede cause.

  396. tjfolkerts says:

    @ James Abbott August 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Sorry if I confused you. I agree with your comments. I was refuting Smokey, who was posting an unreferenced short-term decline in some unspecified melt season as if it showed the world was cooling and the ice was recovering (at least, I assume that was his point … I can never be sure. Care to explain WHY you posted that graph, Smokey, and what it means and where it comes from?).

    So just to be clear,
    * the melt season is not particularly changing in LENGTH (being governed rather strongly by the length of the year), no matter what Smokey’s graphs might imply.
    * the melt season is getting more intense over the last few decades as the Arctic temperatures rise.

  397. David Gould says:

    Smokey,

    Regarding CO2 following temperature in the recent few decades, do you seriously suggest that the dramatic increase in the burning of fossil fuels by humans has not been putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere? We *know* how much coal, oil and gas is burnt each year. We *know* how much CO2 that burning creates – it is simple chemstry. That CO2 goes somewhere. That somewhere is the atmosphere and the oceans, plus some land sinks. To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.

  398. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey says:
    As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW.
    I keep pointing out specific errors you make, yet you come back with vague replies. Where SPECIFICALLY did I confuse “normal variability” with “Chicken Little scare of CAGW”?

    “Because you are confused.
    Where SPECIFICALLY have I misinterpreted a graph or data within this discussion? What specific claim have i made that you think is mistaken?

    “But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. “
    Where SPECIFICALLY did I “scream and shout”? In fact, pretty much all I have done in this whole thread is clearly and specifically refute your mistakes and misunderstandings. (Oh, and I made a specific, statistically based prediction of 4.1 million km^2 for September. I’ll even add in +/- 0.2 to that estimate — ie i am quite sure there will be a new record low.)

    “But charts like this are unarguable.”
    So tell us, what specifically is that chart showing? What is plotted on the axes? What SPECIFIC mathematical relationship is “inarguably” connecting CO2 and Temperature?

    “There is only your bluster.”
    So show us there is more then bluster to you. Actually DISCUSS the meaning of the graphs you post rather than reverting to “bluster” and scurrying off to post yet another unexplained (and typically faulty) graph.

  399. Smokey says:

    David Gould says:

    “To claim that the recent temperature rises are causing the CO2 rise when we can measure where the rise is coming from is odd to say the least.”

    I don’t disagree that we are putting harmless, beneficial CO2 into the air. That’s a good thing. The biosphere needs more CO2, not less. But that was not what I was responding to. I was pointing out the unassailable fact that rises in CO2 follow rises in CO2. There is absolute empirical evidence verifying that fact.

    That evidence cannot be denied by any rational observer. Tjfolkerts dismisses all the charts I post, but that is only because they deconstruct his belief system. If you look closely at that chart, you will see the evidence: changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature, not vice-versa. QED

    The major hallmark of the alarmist crowd is their refusal to accept empirical observations and scientific evidence over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no?

  400. David Gould says:

    Smokey,

    Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.

    The graph that you link to does not show what you think it does. We know, with absolute certainty, that the temperature rise is not causing the CO2 rise, because humans are causing the CO2 rise, not temperature.

    Therefore, if there is a correlation, it is either:
    1.) Coincidence; or
    2.) CO2 causing temperature rise.

    The rejection of empirical evidence is by you: the empirical evidence of our measured fossil fuel usage, the simple chemistry of the amount of CO2 released when fossil fuels are burned and the measured additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Your statement that CO2 is ipso facto a function of temperature is not sensible.

    That is not to say that CO2 cannot be a function of temperature; indeed, we know that it most certainly is, as when temperature rises there are releases of CO2 from various sources, which further cause the temperature rise and so on. The causal relationship runs both ways. It is unlikely, however, that such CO2 feedbacks have started operating at a significant level yet, given – as I have repeatedly stated – that we can measure how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.

  401. dave says:

    Smokey, your charts do not in any way contradict that human activities lead to increases in atmospheric CO2 that in turn lead to amplified warming of the planet. You seem confused by what the past climate signal is telling you. I don’t think anyone on here doesn’t believe that in the past climate record, the planet warmed from changes in solar insolation that in turn caused the oceans to release more CO2 which in turn (this is the point you seem to reject), further warmed the atmosphere. While you think high levels of CO2 are beneficial to the planet, paleoclimate record shows how warm the planet can be under such elevated CO2 concentrations. Please show me how such elevated temperatures will be beneficial to the current species on this planet (including us).

    btw…you might want to ask yourself why industry is so quick to believe the climate model projections, but you are not. Capitalism is on board and ready to make huge profits from a warmed world.

  402. eyesonu says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 9, 2012 at 11:22 am

    http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html

    A very good engineer’s chapter on solar input. Lots of formulas. And lots of caveats to consider when applying these formulas to non-clear sky conditions when developing solar-powered systems or needing to take solar joules into consideration in other application areas.

    Provides one of the best descriptions of why we call solar radiation the solar constant.
    ============================

    Thanks for the link.

  403. eyesonu says:

    Smokey says:
    August 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    tjfolkerts,

    As usual, you confuse normal variability with the Chicken Little scare of CAGW. Why? Because you are confused.

    This has all happened before, and recently. It is completely normal. But by all means, run in circles, scream and shout. It won’t make any difference to the planet, and it won’t provide any scientific evidence that people are responsible. Why? Because there is no scientific evidence. There is only your bluster.

    Carry on.
    =============================

    Your link to Real Science shows the current Arctic melting is just a normal natural variation. It should set any reasonable person’s mind at ease unless they just want to believe in something different. CO2 has caused more psychological destruction than physical by the mere mention of its name.

  404. Smokey says:

    dave,

    You are fixated on human emissions. Wake up! I already pointed out that human emissions add beneficial CO2 to the atmosphere. That is not the question; that is misdirection. Quit harping on it, we both agree.

    My central point is that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. They do not measurably cause temperature to rise. I have provided real world, empirical evidence demonstrating that fact.

    Furthermore, there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of global warming. None. There is, however, observed evidence showing that CO2 rises after temperature goes up.

    I base my conclusions on real world observations, not on always-wrong models. When you fatuously write that I have ‘no way to contradict’ your belief system, you forget that your conjecture is not based on real world evidence.

    As a scientific skeptic, I have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those claiming that CO2=CAGW. But there are no observations showing conclusively that CO2 causes warming. None. Thus, it is a baseless conjecture with no supporting scientific evidence. The scientific evidence shows conclusively that CO2 follows temperature. If that fact ever sinks in, maybe the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will finally see the truth.

    .

    David Gould says:

    “Your argument seems to be that yes, we are putting CO2 in the atmosphere, but we are doing it after temperature goes up. That is not a sensible claim.”

    It doesn’t seem sensible because you are misrepresenting what I wrote. CO2 does not go up after temperature rises because humans are doing it, it rises as an effect of rising global temperature. The only effect from human activity is very long term accumulation. That is a very steady process, as shown in the MLO graphs.

    What you are seeing in this graph is the response of the oceans to global warming anomalies, per Henry’s Law. As water warms CO2 outgases, the same way CO2 outgases from a warming Coke. Thus, as global temperature rises and falls, CO2 lags those changes. Simple physics.

    Note that the effect from the global oceans is easily measurable. But the effect from human emissions is too small to measure, thus it is only a conjecture. It may be true, but it is insignificant.

  405. Pamela Gray says:

    Entropic man, you are making the mistake models make. Which is why they so poorly model intrinsic variability. You cannot use absolute values. Else you are taking a single moment picture. There is no such thing as a single moment picture that is representative of the joule budget. Your second mistake has to do with your lack of mechanism related to how an increase in the anthropogenic portion of CO2 ppm can effect weather pattern variations towards more frequent, longer, stronger oceanic and atmospheric drivers of storm creating pressure systems, temperature extremes, and precipitation events. Solar enthusiasts make the same mistake when they confuse correlation with mechanism. Yes, you can take a snap shot of anthropogenic CO2′s potential to increase temperature, but that is not mechanism in real-time events here on Earth. Else we should already be on a runaway daily increasing temperature trend with no “noise” and that matches Hansen’s worst case scenario. The very fact that we have noise says the null hypothesis has not been refuted, and with regard to CO2, we haven’t gotten that formula right either.

  406. Pamela Gray says:

    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/RigorEtal-SAT.pdf

    An older paper about temperature increase in the Arctic. Blanket statements (as in, “The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe”) often do not reflect the nuances of research findings. This article also gives caution to absolute calculations. Obviously there are natural variables at play here that make absolute calculations of what CO2 should be doing a serious mistake in climate science. Wonder what the buoys have shown since this article was published?

  407. Rob Dekker says:

    Guys, Smokey is right. CO2 always follows temperature, and (to stick to the subject of this thread) it’s all caused by ice.

    The empirical evidence simply cannot be denied :

    If I put ice in my beer-cooler, the temperature of my beverage is always cooler than without the ice.
    So ice is the main driver of temperature, which is the main driver of CO2.

    Thus CO2 is ipso facto a function of Arctic ice content, not visa-versa.

    QED

    The major hallmark of the scientists is their refusal to accept empirical observations over their belief in models. That is not science, that is religion, no ?

  408. Smokey says:

    Rob Dekker,

    It is typical to resort to sarcasm when you do not have the facts to refute my argument. And your own argument fails, because the ice gets warmer. Admit it, you are just a pretend scientist.☺

  409. dave says:

    Smokey you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence? The curve of CO2 and temperature from ice cores? or do you have an additional line of evidence? And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role? Are you capable of answering these questions?

    Second, if we use your line of reasoning, then there is empirical evidence that humans are contributing to warming. First line of evidence, observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities. Second, satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths (evidence that CO2 is absorbing IR radiation), and thirdly, surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet. then of course there are the climate model results, which you don’t trust unless they give the result you want. You are one of the best cherry pickers out there.

  410. Smokey says:

    dave,

    May I deconstruct your unscientific nonsense? Thank you:

    You say:

    …you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?

    Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down. Next, you say:

    And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?

    First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down. Next, you say:

    …observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.

    They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down. Next, you say:

    …satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…

    Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down. Next, you say:

    …surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet.

    Wrong again. Five down.

    dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.

  411. Pamela Gray says:

    Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!

  412. tjfolkerts says:

    Pamela Gray says: August 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    “Actually the model scenarios are showing EXACTLY what sceptics have hypothesized they would show. And we been sayin it for YEARS!”

    I am curious. Which models are you referring to, and what have they been showing. Since “the models” often don’t agree with each other especially well, I can’t see how they can show EXACTLY any hypothesized results.

  413. dave says:

    Pamela, what climate model results are you referring to? The first computer models predicted that increased atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming.

  414. dave says:

    Smokey, instead of keeping a closed mind, try reading some of the scientific papers out there that contradict everything you just said. You can start with Seidel et al, Climatological characteristics of the tropical tropopause as revealed by radiosondes, J. Geophys. Res., 106, which indicates that the lower atmosphere – where most CO2 accumulates – is warming, but the upper atmosphere is not. This is what we would expect if heat was being trapped by CO2. If the warming was caused by increasing solar energy we would expect all of the atmosphere to warm. (see Santer, et al. Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes, Science 301 July 2003).
    Also, Matthew et al., (Nature, 2009) show that carbon emissions are linked to global warming, and Cherubini, et al. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x directly link the increases in CO2 to human activities.

    Your turn to link to scientific papers that support your 5 points. I will at least read them. Will you read papers that disagree with your belief system?

  415. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts,

    Unless models are based entirely on testable, reproducable data, they are nothing but opinion: Garbage In, Gospel Out. And very few models limit their input to raw data.

    Here is a typical comparison of models versus reality. One of the many failed predictions of the alarmist crowd: the tropospheric hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming” never appeared as endlessly predicted. Radiosonde balloons and satellite data show that those predictions were flat wrong.

    In fact, the models and predictions based on them have all failed. Every one of them. Where are the 20-meter sea level rises? The sea level rise is decelerating. Manhattan is not under water, as endlessly predicted. The Arctic is going through its natural cycle, just as it has repeatedly throughout history. Two-headed frogs are not caused by “carbon”. The oceans are not acidifying. The temporary, coincidental corellation between CO2 and the natural recovery from the LIA is now decisively broken. There is no testable, measurable data showing that human CO2 emissions cause any warming at all. In fact, the Earth is currently in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too cold, not too hot, but just right. A change of only 0.8ºC over a century and a half is astonishingly flat compared to the past — before CO2 began to rise.

    Face it, you and dave believe, so your confirmation bias causes you to pick out anything that confirms your belief system. But the fact is that the default climate for the Holocene is close to what we have now [actually, we are somewhat colder than the Holocene average].

    When you respond, keep in mind that you are basing your opinion on your unscientific beliefs, while scientific skeptics base their opinions on hard empirical data. And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.

  416. Phil. says:

    Smokey says:
    August 10, 2012 at 11:44 am

    “…you mention you have empirical evidence that CO2 follows temperature warming. First off, what is that empirical evidence?”

    Ice core evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence [and be aware that computer models are not evidence]. One down.

    Not on the scale of years, wrong again.

    “And where have you proven that once CO2 is released from the oceans and temperature continues to rise that CO2 is not playing an additional role?”

    First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The unscientific alarmist crowd constantly tries to push skeptics into that corner, but the fact is that the alarmist crowd is the one making the claim that CO2=CAGW. I have provided verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause those changes. Anyone with normal intelligence can understand that. Next, if human emitted CO2 is causing any global warming, it is too small to measure. How many times does that fact have to be explained to you? Two down.

    Wrong again you proved nothing of the sort, ocean [CO2] is increasing inline with atmospheric pCO2, which is exactly what is required by Henry’s Law.

    “…observations of atmospheric CO2 show that the increase over the last 100 years if due to human activities.”

    They show no such thing. That is simply an unscientific assumption on your part. Three down.
    Actually it is, the increase in pCO2 corresponds to about half the fossil fuel emissions, also carbon isotopes indicate the source.

    “…satellite and surface measurements find less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths…”

    Wrong. The planet has been cooling. Four down.

    Not an answer, however it completely contradicts your earlier statement that the rise in temperature causes the rise in pCO2 which would be expected to be a decrease if your idea were right (it’s actually increasing). You can’t have it both ways, make up your mind!

    “…surface and ocean measurements indicate the planet continues to gain heat – i.e. there is an imbalance in the net heat gained by the planet.”

    Wrong again.

    Indeed you are wrong again Smokey, as usual.

    dave, you are simply expressing your opinion here. It is based upon zero empirical [real world, testable] evidence; my links are based on scientific evidence. You are entitled to your opinion. But Planet Earth flatly contradicts your belief system.

    Hardly, especially when you cite Steve Goddard’s cherry-picking as evidence for your opinion.

  417. Phil. says:

    Smokey says:
    August 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    And the null hypothesis has never been falsified.

    Your null hypothesis is unfalsifiable which is why it it isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis.

  418. Smokey says:

    Earth to Phil.:

    You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis, as I have explained to you repeatedly. You just will not listen. Fine. Ignorance is bliss. The null hypothesis can be falsified by simply showing that the global temperature has accelerated above its long term parameters, in line with rising CO2.

    But since the global temperature has not accelerated, you claim that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Listen to someone who knows a lot more than you do: No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
    ~ Climatologist Roy Spencer

    Kevin Trenberth knows about the null hypothesis, too. And he doesn’t like the fact that it falsifies the CO2=CAGW conjecture.

    You really need to start thinking about your crazy comments, because just saying something does not make it true. You are winging it. Instead, admit what the evidence clearly shows: the global temperature is not accelerating. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed. It was always complete nonsense anyway. Only the scientifically illiterate believe in it.

  419. Phil. says:

    Mods, my response to this post hasn’t shown up, any chance you could find it, thanks?

    [Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]

  420. Pamela Gray says:

    Let’s go the warmers’ camp and have a look. Their conclusion is that everything is just as predicted. Except the travesty part. Remember that Trenbreth laments the fact that he can’t find the heat that should be there in the temperature trend, sea level trend, etc, this past decade. And let’s not forget the unresolved issue of homogenized data in the temperature record. But even the now obvious attempt to warm the data does not make it match the model averages. Maybe their models got hacked too. /sarc

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

  421. dave says:

    Smokey, I will ask you one more time, please point to published papers that support your point that there is no way that CO2 from human activities leads to increases on atmospheric CO2, and that there is no way that increases in atmospheric CO2 lead to warming in the atmosphere.

  422. Pamela Gray says:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ModelTraces.png

    Spaghetti version of IPCC model runs overlayed with NOAA data in the lower left corner. The sinking gray data matches the sinking feeling Trenbreth is likely feeling.

  423. Smokey says:

    dave, I will tell you one more time: your Appeal to Authority fallacy is worthless when compared with real world data. The planet is falsifying the entire CAGW conjecture.

    As for ‘published papers’, two things. First, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] have nothing to prove. It is entirely sufficient for skeptics to demonstrate conclusively that the only measurable evidence shows that CO2 changes lag temperature changes. You cannot accept what that means, but that is your problem, not the problem of skeptics. It is not our fault that you cannot understand the implications of the null hypothesis.

    And second: the climate pal-review process has been thoroughly corrupted by ever present and growing government money. What, you think someone is going to get a grant if they tell the truth, and say that nothing unusual is happening?? If so, you don’t understand human nature. Money doesn’t talk, it screams.

    Despite your misleading comment, I have been entirely consistent in saying that I think CO2 causes some warming. But it is clearly far smaller than predicted. This is provable: there are no empirical measurements that show X amount of temperature rise per Y amount of human emitted CO2. That is all conjecture, lacking any empirical data.

    Finally, I suggest you click on A.W. Montford’s book on the right sidebar: The Hockey Stick Illusion. Read it. It is heavily annotated and footnoted. It shows without any doubt how very corrupt the climate peer review/journal system is. Honesty is not in them. You can probably find a used copy online for a few dollars.

    For a taste of Montford’s writing, here is a short example:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

  424. tjfolkerts says:

    Smokey,

    Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form? Then we could know precisely what you mean. For example:

    “But since the global temperature has not accelerated”, but I have explained to you repeatedly using math that it IS accelerating. What numbers would you give for the equation of the fit for (any commonly recognized) temperature as a function of time (over any period going back at least 30 years from the present), and what is the value of the “acceleration” term? Can you show that it is not statistically different from zero, as you are specifically claiming?

    “You can very easily falsify the null hypothesis” [that everything is within "natural variability"]. OK … could you state your null hypothesis in mathematical terms? Not “natural variability”, but a quantifiable expression for some particular parameter(s) that would have to be exceeded to nullify your null hypothesis. After all, to “easily falsify” a null hypothesis, we need to know exactly what circumstances you believe would lead to a falsification.

  425. Rob Dekker says:

    I owe Bill Illis an overview of NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent (which is also interesting for the Arcus forecast).

    2012, 08, 04, 6.06299,
    2012, 08, 05, 5.87559,
    2012, 08, 06, 5.81533,
    2012, 08, 07, 5.67377,
    2012, 08, 08, 5.47461,
    2012, 08, 09, 5.23462,

    828k km^2 over 5 days, 165k km^2/day average, with a whopping 249k km^2 in the last day.

    2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007, and has already now surpassed the first 4 catagories in the WUWT Arcus forecast for the September minimum (a total of 122 votes, or 15% of the votes).
    Let’s check again in a couple of days.

  426. Smokey says:

    Rob Dekker,

    What is your point? Do you actually believe that CO2 congregates in the Arctic, causing ice melt? That is crazy. The Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles. This happens regularly, and it is due to factors like wind and ocean currents. Running around in circles and waving your arms over a completely natural occurrance is irrational.

    .

    tjfolkerts says:

    “Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form?”

    I prefer the use of charts and graphs, because mathematics make most readers’ eyes glaze over. Visual aids tell the story at a glance: nothing unprecedented or unusual is happening. Everything observed now has happened countless times before CO2 began to rise, and to a much greater degree. Therefore, more CO2 has had no measurable consequence.

    My links show conclusively that there has been no acceleration of warming, or of sea level rise, etc. Following a 40% rise in CO2, there certainly should be ample verifiable evidence of accelerating warming, but there is no such evidence. None.

    tjfolkerts then asks about the null hypothesis, which he does not understand. The definition of the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. Understanding that concept takes some thought. I will let tjfolkerts try to work out what it means. But Kevin Trenberth understands what it means, and he doesn’t like the implications. Trenberth 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 turn the scientific method upside down, and put the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. That is because Trenberth cannot get around the fact that the null hypothesis has never been falsified. That means the alternative conjecture of CO2=CAGW is deconstructed, because they cannot both be correct. The large increase in CO2 certainly should have caused a rapid acceleration of global temperatures – IF CO2 had the claimed effect. But based on real world observations, CO2′s effect on temperature is so minuscule that it does not even show up in temperature measurements.

    At some point most folks who study the situation conclude that the CO2 scare has been wildly exaggerated. The fact is that CO2 is completely harmless [if not, show the harm], and is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. Only those with a religious belief in the non-existent “carbon” threat believe otherwise. But they have no testable, empirical evidence supporting their false beliefs. Whatever they believe, it is not based on science or the scientific method.

    CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. That is reality.

  427. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Kelvin Vaughan says:

    August 6, 2012 at 1:07 am

    Comparing last weeks Arctic photo to yesterdays the pool of water has shrunk a bit. Refreezing has begun at the webcam.

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120806004130.jpg

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120729003243.jpg

    Still shrinking!

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120809123432.jpg

  428. Smokey says:

    Kelvin Vaughn,

    It is interesting that real world observations contradict the NSIDC’s numbers.

    Who to believe? Planet Earth, or humans who get paid to exaggerate?

  429. richardscourtney says:

    tjfolkerts:

    It seems to be a false meme of warmers that global warming has accelerated recently. For example, you say to Smokey at August 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm;

    Could you please put your claims into a mathematical, numerical form? Then we could know precisely what you mean. For example:

    “But since the global temperature has not accelerated”, but I have explained to you repeatedly using math that it IS accelerating. What numbers would you give for the equation of the fit for (any commonly recognized) temperature as a function of time (over any period going back at least 30 years from the present), and what is the value of the “acceleration” term? Can you show that it is not statistically different from zero, as you are specifically claiming?

    This meme that global temperature has recently accelerated seems to be a use of the Big Lie propaganda technique (i.e. proclaim an untruth often in hope that people will come to believe it). For example, Jan P Perlwitz tried to make the same silly claim recently in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/

    I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.

    I also pointed out that there were two periods of warming in the global temperature data sets; i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000. These two periods show the same rate of global temperature rise. So, even if one selects the trends in recent periods of global warming then there is no observed “acceleration” of their warming trends. And I added that more than 80% of anthropogenic GHG emissions were after 1940.

    This resulted in Perlwitz providing a ‘master class’ in obscurantism, but I refused to be overcome by repeated torrents of b**l s**t.

    Eventually, he admitted that there has been no statically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years. Of course, there was such a statistically discernible rise in the previous 15 years.

    So, the statistically significant global warming for the 15 year period prior to 15 years ago stopped 15 years ago. This cannot be equated with an acceleration of global warming. Indeed, it denies such acceleration.

    I now await your attempt at obscurantism. Please feel free to read the link I have provided so you can see how I dealt with Perlwitz’s attempt at it. And, to save you time, please don’t claim that 15 years is not sufficient time to discern a statistically significant rise: the fact is that the period from 30 to 15 years ago did show such a statistically significant rise.

    Richard

  430. richardscourtney says:

    Smokey:

    In your post at August 11, 2012 at 5:35 am you addressed the issue of the Null Hypothesis and Trenbeth’s attempt to reverse it. I recently addressed that same subject in another thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/video-john-christys-stellar-testimony-today-the-recent-anomalous-weather-cant-be-blamed-on-carbon-dioxide/

    To save you and others finding that comment I copy it here.

    Richard
    ________________________
    richardscourtney says:
    August 6, 2012 at 2:36 am

    macnmat:

    Dr Christy was presenting scientific information.

    Your post at August 5, 2012 at 10:45 am goes to the heart of a difference between science and the Precautionary Principle. It says;

    Dr. John Christy:
    “Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”
    * * *
    If we all just say “we do not know” . . .
    A starting point on the end. . .
    In nature, everything has happened in the past, do not hesitate, but not always for the same reasons.

    The Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of science. It says that
    It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.

    In the case of climate behaviour,
    the Null Hypothesis decrees that the cause of an observed climate change is the same as the cause of similar previous climate changes unless there is evidence to the contrary.

    Dr Christy was pointing out the scientific conclusion that the Null Hypothesis decrees that – at present – there is no evidence that climate behaviour has changed since the industrial revolution: this is because there is no observed climate behaviour since the industrial revolution which did not happen before the industrial revolution.

    This conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion concerning the cause(s) of recent climate changes. And the fact that this is the only valid scientific conclusion on the matter is why Trenberth infamously attempted to reverse the Null Hypothesis as it applies to climate change.

    The conclusion informs that we need research intended to determine the cause(s) of climate change because, as Dr Christy says,
    “Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.”

    The Precautionary Principle says the industrial revolution may have changed climate behaviour so we need to reverse the industrial revolution in case it has. This is the antithesis of science.

    Science has given us many benefits. The Precautionary Principle has yet to provide any benefits.

    Richard

  431. tjfolkerts says:

    Richard,

    Thanks for engaging in a discussion of data and numbers. You said:
    “I then pointed out that “there has been no statistically discernible rise in global temperature for 15 years”. And I pointed out that “a cessation of global warming cannot be an “acceleration in the trend” of global warming”.

    The trends obviously depend on the time-frame you are looking at.
    * for 1-10 year time-frames it is easy to find positive, negative, or flat slopes, as well as positive, negative or zero acceleration in the temperature record (or just about any other climate variable). The recent slope has been close to zero for global temperature (and can easily be positive, negative or zero depending on exactly what interval you select) . This also implies the calculated acceleration can also positive, negative, or zero. One of Smokey’s graphs showed a pretty clear negative acceleration in recent temperature (2003-2009 IIRC). But these trends are often not statistically significant, due to large pseudo-random fluctuations and small amounts of data.
    * for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important. One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.
    * 50+ year time-frames reduce random fluctuations even more, but there is rarely consistent data covering more than 1 or 2 50-year time-spans.

    There are two other challenges
    1) is that is is hard to be patient enough to wait for 50 years to be sure of the true trends. It is easy for people on either side to watch some short-term data (eg the huge lose of ice in 2007, or the relatively flat temperatures since the 1998 El Nino spike) and think that this is the “new normal” when in fact it could easily be an outlier.
    2) there is no easy way to distinguish what specifically is causing the trends. We only have “one experiment” and we don’t get to reset it or to control the various “knobs” (CO2, earth’s orbit, solar output …) independently. That means we are stuck using theory and historical data to try to “hindcast” past climate and to use that knowledge to try to predict the future.

  432. tjfolkerts says:

    Richard says: “It [hypothesis testing] says that It must be assumed that a change has not happened unless there is evidence that a change has happened.”

    You (and Smokey) are both making a fundamental misinterpretation here.

    It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).
    Wikipedia

    (I would find more references, but I am suddenly short on time.)

    The point is that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, we can’t assume that the null hypothesis is correct. (Much like the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”. Many people found “not guilty” by the evidence, but who are, in fact, not innocent. )

  433. Smokey says:

    It almost seems like tjfolkerts is seeing the light. However, being a student of human nature, I predict he will revert to his contrary belief system

    As folkerts admits, the only trend that matters is the long term trend, which is clearly not accelerating. Short term temperatures have not increased in that time, much less accelerated.

    Looking at the long term trend [the longest data base that the Wood For Trees site has], we see that the long term temperature trend [ the green line] is gradually coming down from prior levels. No acceleration observed.

    Furthermore, the past decade, and the past two years, also show declining temperatures.

    Thus, the conjecture claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disrruption is shown to be the nonsense that it is. When a conjecture like CO2=CAGW is so thoroughly falsified in so many ways, honest scientists will reset, and think about why they were so wrong. Only in climate pseudo-science does one side dig in their heels, and refuse to admit what everyone else knows: their CO2 conjecture is pure, unadulterated bunkum.

  434. Smokey says:

    tjfolkerts says:

    “the null hypothesis can never be proven.”

    Well, true. No hypothesis can be proven. [The exception being in mathematics.]

    But a hypothesis or conjecture can be disproven, just as the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been disproven. And that is the whole point of the null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis or conjecture: the one that is disproven is rejected. CO2=CAGW is disproven, and therefore must be rejected. The null hypothesis remains unfalsified.

  435. dave says:

    Bottom line, Smokey cannot point to a single publication to support his climate views. That leads me to conclude that he has a very limited education on climate issues, but instead regurgitates what he reads on skeptic blogs.

  436. tjfolkerts says:

    I seem to have forgotten to specifically say it in my 10:15 AM post, but the “acceleration” term would indeed be negative for a 20 year temperature trend .. maybe even a 30 year trend (I would have to crunch the numbers,) But for the 100+ year trends in the graphs that Smokey has posted, the overall acceleration is still positive and statistically significant.

    So this could mean:
    1) there has been a recent switch (say in the last 10 year) in the long-term acceleration, but there simply isn’t enough data to be sure.
    or
    2) this is a temporary fluctuation, but the long-term acceleration will continue, and we will have to wait for more data to show the original trend is indeed continuing.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Of course, no acceleration can continue forever for temperatures — that would lead to temperatures getting wildly hot or cold in a few centuries. So at some time the acceleration of the last ~ 150 years must stop. Perhaps that was 10 years ago already.

    So the null hypothesis that “there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years” has been show to be false (p<<0.05 for the quadratic term in the fit), and the acceleration is confirmed. The NEW null hypothesis would be "the observed conditions (of positive acceleration) continue". Countering this hypothesis would require applying a statistical tests to see if the acceleration for the last "x" years is different from the acceleration for the previous 150 years. We cannot refute the continued acceleration until a statistical test is failed. Heck .. maybe it has failed already! Do you want to give us some numbers, Smokey, for the p values of some statistical test you conduct?

  437. dave says:

    It’s not unexpected that the temperatures cool for a decade or even longer even as CO2 increases. That is because natural climate variability and CO2 warming are both happening at the same time. Sometimes they are in phase with each other, sometimes they oppose each other. Pamela, the IPCC models also show time-periods of cooling along the overall positive trend. It’s the long-term trend that is of interest, not short time-periods where natural climate variability dominates.

    Note the same is true for the sea ice cover. Even when models show all the ice gone in summer, they may still show periods of recovery.

  438. Smokey says:

    dave‘ is a textbook example of psychological projection: imputing his own faults onto others. Aside from his endless appeals to authority [ie: regurgitating talking points], he appears to be an uneducated noob. I have closely followed this forum since it began, posting more than sixteen thousand comments in the process. I know the argumets backward and forward. ‘dave’ has been posting for a couple of days. Clearly he is far from being up to speed on the subject.

    .

    tjfolkerts says: “So the null hypothesis that ‘there has been no acceleration in warming over the last 150 years’ has been show (sic) to be false…”

    That is not the null hypothesis, it is only a corollary. And it is astonishing that tjfolkerts is able to look at a graph of the long term temperature trend – and see something that is just not there. There has been no acceleration of warming, much as folkerts wishes there was. We have seen it all before, during times when CO2 was ≈280 ppmv. CO2 has now risen to ≈393 ppmv – and the trend from the LIA remains the same. No more, no less. Thus, CO2 has had no measurable effect.

    It must be wonderful living in a bubble, insulated from reality. The rest of us see the CAGW scam for what it is: a deliberate scare tactic, based on debunked pseudo-science, used to accumulate money and political power. That is why its promoters hide out from any debate, and never practice scientific transparency.

  439. richardscourtney says:

    tjfolkerts:

    Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 10:15 am in reply to me. I especially appreciate the tenor of your reply. If you did read the “discussion” I had with Perlwitz then you will understand why my post to you erred on the side of petulance, and I apologise for that.

    We learn from disagreement with each other but suffer from being disagreeable with each other.

    To begin, I stand by what I wrote concerning the Null Hypothesis. I have written much that is similar on previous WUWT threads. Our disagreement is that you say;

    The point is that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, we can’t assume that the null hypothesis is correct.

    Sorry, but No!
    It is a scientific principle that when the null hypothesis is not rejected, then it must be assumed the null hypothesis is correct whilst remembering that this is an assumption.
    Anything else is not science. And the knowledge that this is an assumption is a spur to further research to determine whether or not the assumption is correct.

    Indeed, this spur to further research is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis caused such anger: he was attempting to inhibit the most needed research in climate science.

    Having said that, and assuming you are not offended, I do not intend to debate that matter here because I think the issue of ‘accelerating global warming’ is both more important and more pertinent to existing discussions of climate change e.g. across the web.

    I strongly agree with you when you say:

    The trends obviously depend on the time-frame you are looking at.

    Indeed, this was one of my major disagreements with Perlwitz. He refused to agree that in the global temperature time series (i.e. ice-core, surface ‘measured’, MSU determined, etc.) the observed trend – positive or negative – depends on the selected time period. But, as you and I both say, it does.

    And you say;

    for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important. One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.

    This quote is two statements. And I address them in turn.

    The first statement is that “for 10-50 year time-frames, the short-term fluctuations become less and less important”. However, this demands an answer to the question ‘important for what?’.

    In this case, we are considering if the data indicate that the rate of rise to mean global temperature is increasing (e.g. in response to anthropogenic GHG emissions) . And, as I said, more than 80% of those GHG emissions have been after 1940. If the putative acceleration in global warming is happening then decadal trends should be becoming progressively larger since 1940. They are not.

    Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend.
    This indicates no acceleration to the warming.

    Furthermore, if global warming is accelerating (e.g. in response to the anthropogenic emissions) then the greatest warming should have been recently. But there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years and there was statistically significant global warming in each of the two previous 15-year periods.
    This indicates a deceleration (n.b. not an acceleration) to the warming.

    The second of your statements says;
    “One these scales the trend is almost always positive for the slope. And the slope tends to be getting higher — the very definition of “positive acceleration”.”
    No! Absolutely not!

    That “the trend is almost always positive for the slope” merely indicates that there was net warming for the period, and that is not in dispute.

    And the slope does not “tend to be getting higher”. I repeat, in the two periods of warming since the nineteenth century the slope was the same, and the slope has reduced to be indistinguishable from zero in the most recent 15 years.

    These facts do not indicate an acceleration of the warming, and they imply a recent deceleration of the warming.

    With respect, your other two points are irrelevant. What happens over the next 50 years is not pertinent to whether global warming is accelerating now or has accelerated recently.

    However, I agree with you when you say

    there is no easy way to distinguish what specifically is causing the trends.

    Indeed, as I say above in this post, this is why Trenberth’s attempt to reverse the Null Hypothesis was so very, very wrong.

    In conclusion, I again thank you for a sensible debate of these issues. I enjoy sensible debates and I needed a bath after each interaction with Perlwitz on the matter.

    Richard

  440. dave says:

    Smokey, why are you unable to to point to publications, or perform a simple statistical test such as tjfolkerts suggests?
    btw, just because you have posted numerous comments over the years does not mean that you are in any way educated on the subject. I have gone back to see some of your comments and your talking points have remained exactly the same. I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view because I do believe in being educated on both sides of the issue.

  441. Smokey says:

    richardscourtney says:

    “Indeed, as I said, the data indicate two periods of global warming since the nineteenth century (i.e. 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000). And, as I also said, these two periods of global warming show the same trend.
    This indicates no acceleration to the warming.

    Exactly. This chart shows those warming trends. Their slopes are identical.

    .

    dave, be careful what you ask for. I can post plenty of sources. Here you go. You say you are willing to read “any” scientific papers. There are more than two hundred papers right there. Better get cracking. When you’re done, let me know; I have plenty more.

  442. D. J. Hawkins says:

    tjfolkerts says:
    August 11, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Do you understand the difference between acceleration and velocity? Let’s try an analogy.

    If I stand still, my displacement as a function of time (velocity), or position (temperature?) anomoly is zero. A plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a horizontal line, if we take position as the y-axis and time as the x-axis. Now I start walking, each step the same distance in time and space. I have constant velocity, and a plot of my position in one dimension vs time will be a straight line of constant slope “m” (steadily rising temperature anomoly). Now I start to alter the tempo of my stride, decreasing the time between each step at a constant rate. I am accelerating and the rate at which I change my velocity is constant, but my displacement is increasing in a non-linear fashion at some power greater than 1. For this case, each year of the temperature anomoly would have to show a larger interval than the previous year. The plot now shows a distinct upward curve.

    At zero velocity, every year shows the same temperature anomoly. Say, the current value 0.37 shown on the Climate Widget on the right hand side of this page. It’s 0.37 this year, next year, forever and ever, amen.

    If CO2 causes the global temperature to rise in proportion to its concentration then all other things being equal (which we know they aren’t, but work with me here), for a constant rise in CO2 we’ll see a constant rise in temperature anomoly: 0.37 this year, 0.375 next year, 0.380, 0.385, 0.390, 0.395 and so on, each year being .005 warmer than the last until you reach some limiting case, whatever it may be.

    However, if you’re correct and a steady increase in CO2 leads to accelerated warming, then this year is 0.370, next year is 0.375, then 0.381, 0.388, 0.396, 0.405, and so on, each year being .005 than the last, and an additional .001 added cumulatively each year due to acceleration.

    So, is the final case behavior what you intended to claim?

  443. dave says:

    Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post. That is what I’ve been asking for and you continue to skirt the issue. You have to base your beliefs on something besides blogging as anyone can post on a blog with or without any scientific knowledge. I would hope you’ve actually read some peer-reviewed literature to base your beliefs on.

  444. tjfolkerts says:

    DANG! I seem to have erased my comments, Richard, so here is the short version.

    * Here is the HADCRUT3 data since 1850 with 10-yr, 30-yr, and 50-yr slopes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgM8XE4GABYQdFBCNXdNWmh1Q3l1dWk3c2tsWHRkUmc

    * the 50-year slope has some major oscillations, but the steepest 11 of the 50-year slopes occurred in the last 11 years. The over all trend in the slope is upward (ie the slope of the slopes is rising, so the “50-year acceleration” is confirmed.

    * the 30-year slope has dropped fairly steadily since 2004 (although it is still positive – still warming, just at a slightly reduced pace). But since similar temporary declines have happened before, this doesn’t necessarily indicate a change.

    * the 10-year slope has been declining, and is indeed actually negative this past year (ie the world had a cooling decade)! If you believe that a 10 year trend is enough to portend a change, then maybe we have entered a period of cooling. But I would not bet on it based on a SINGLE cooling 10-year period.

    * Statistically speaking, the case for global warming was probably stronger in 2006 or 1998 than it is now. The warming trends have been slowing. It would have been much easier to make the case for CO2 without the last couple years. But given the plethora of others climate drivers (eg soot or a quiet sun) that can affect yearly or decadal trends, this short pause in the previous upward trend is not enough to “put the nail in the coffin” of CO2 as a cause (among others) of climate change.

  445. Smokey says:

    dave,

    You do not assign homework, puppy. I have read more papers than you have by far. Most all of Lindzen’s, Christy’s Spencer’s, etc., etc. The only reason I respond is to make certain that new readers don’t read only your human-caused Arctic melting nonsense. After reading both sides they can make up their own minds. The alarmist crowd always loses in open debate. I’m just making sure our record remains unbroken.

    Why do you think RealClimate, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, Closed Mind, and the rest of the alarmist blogs heavily censor the comments of scientific skeptics? They censor because if they didn’t, they would quickly be laughed out of the blogosphere for their anti-science views. The truth is not in them, and they cannot abide the scientific method, with its requirement for transparency.

    You stated above: “I told you before, I am willing to read any scientific papers that support your view”. So I provided you with a reading list. Now you are weaseling out. Typical of the closed-minded alarmist nonsense cult.

  446. dave says:

    Smokey, you only provided a CV, that is not a reading list of papers to support the 5-points you raised. Since you have read as many as you say you have, it should be easy for you to simply point to papers that make your 5 points. You keep stalling.

    just so you know, I’m not an alarmist, I’m a conservative who believes that human activities are helping the planet to warm further and I stand to profit off of that. Just because someone admits that increases in CO2 from human activities leads to warming does not in anyway mean that I’m an alarmist. Not at all. that is a tag you blindly apply to all those you disagree with your narrow point of view. The fact that you will only read papers from climate skeptics and no papers from any other scientists show you are one of closed mind.

  447. tjfolkerts:

    Thankyou for your post at August 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm.

    It admits that global warming has not been accelerating – indeed, it has been decelerating – in recent decades. And I thank you for your honesty in this correction to your earlier statement.

    As you say, what this deceleration means is a different matter which cannot be resolved at present.

    Richard

  448. Rob Dekker says:

    Smokey said :

    What is your point? Do you actually believe that CO2 congregates in the Arctic, causing ice melt? That is crazy. The Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles. This happens regularly, and it is due to factors like wind and ocean currents. Running around in circles and waving your arms over a completely natural occurrance is irrational.

    When I factually report NSIDC’s Arctic sea ice extent over the past 5 days, relevant both to the subject of this thread and the Arcus forecast, and suggest we check again in a couple of days, I seem to have caused enough “waving arms” and “irrational” behavior by apparently “running around in circles” and apparently have suggested that “CO2 aggregates in the Arctic” for Smokey to present this knee-jerk response.

    While my notion that currently “2012 is now cruising well below the curve of the previous record 2007″ means to Smokey that “the Arctic is going through one of its routine melt cycles”.

    Who is “irrational” now ?

  449. Rob Dekker says:

    Smokey said :

    Admit it, you are just a pretend scientist.☺

    The question is not who I am, Smokey. I explained many times who I am and I post with my full name.
    You on the other hand are hiding under a pseudonym, suggesting you are reluctant to reveal your identity.

    Let me ask you a simple and direct question : [snip - such speculation is inappropriate here ~jove, Mod]

  450. Smokey says:

    tim folkerts says:

    “The warming trends have been slowing.”

    Thank you for that. No acceleration of warming is occurring. Therefore, human emitted CO2, which has only ramped up significantly since WWII, cannot be causing the claimed effect.

    Further, most of the 0.8ºC rise happened from about 1910 – 1940. That does not support the conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause measurable global warming. It now appears that the rise in 20th Century CO2 was largely the result of warming, not the cause. The ocean outgases CO2 as it warms the same way that a warming Coke outgases CO2. The natural recovery from the LIA resulted in higher CO2 levels. Human activity adds some CO2, but it does not add any measurable warming.

    Regarding the natural Arctic variability we are observing, this is completely normal. Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years, and throughout the Holocene. The Arctic is often ice free in the summer. That is a fact, as eyewitness reports show. And since many of those observations happened when CO2 was well under 300 ppmv, the obvious conclusion is that CO2 has nothing whatever to do with the ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover.

  451. Gail Combs says:

    dave says:
    August 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Smokey, please list papers that are directly relevant to the 5 points you made in your earlier post….
    _______________________________
    If you want peer-reviewed papers you can sift through Pop Tech’s list of 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm for those on the Arctic and on Smokey’s 5 points.

  452. James Abbott says:

    Arctic sea ice area now appears to be in freefall.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

    shows current area already close to the record melt years recently, except its not yet the middle of August.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.23518.png

    shows comparison with 2007 for date – concentration is way lower this year with a lot of weak ice still vulnerable to melting.

    Smokey says “Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”.

    Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?

    And where is the reliable documented evidence that “The Arctic is often ice free in the summer” in modern history ?

    Its total **** Smokey – its not true.

    The C19th expeditions to try to get through the North West passage resulted in many deaths due to ships being ice bound (sometimes for years, with ships sometimes crushed) and crews having to try to survive on land, or expeditions turning back – all well documented. In the C20th many early attempts were made to get to the north pole by submarine, air and walking/sled – some successful – but all finding the arctic was iced.

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/

    explains that reliable ice charts back to the 1950s and shipping logs back to the 1700s, published in research papers, show that

    “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

  453. James Abbott:

    At August 12, 2012 at 11:44 am you say

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/

    explains that reliable ice charts back to the 1950s and shipping logs back to the 1700s, published in research papers, show that

    “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

    I sincerely doubt that the assertion you quote is correct. However, for sake of argument, let us assume it is correct.

    Assuming the assertion is correct then
    1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
    2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?
    3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?
    and
    4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?

    I await your answers to these questions with interest.

    Richard

  454. Smokey says:

    James Abbott says:

    “Can we have some hard evidence for that claim ?”

    Sheesh, how many links do I have to post before the alarmist crowd stops acting like this?? History is filled with accounts of a warming Arctic.

    And what is the problem, anyway? The alarmist cult clings to normal Arctic variability like a drowning man clings to a stick. But there is NO scientific evidence linking Arctic ice melt with human activity. None.

    As Abbott writes : “However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

    So think about it: that means that several hundred years ago the same thing happened. Thanx for pointing out that this happens routinely.

    And the null hypothesis has never been falsified…

  455. James Abbott says:

    richardscourtney

    Its not my “assertion” that the current melting is unprecedented in several hundred years – it comes from the NSIDC as quoted.

    and Smokey

    thanks for accepting that fact because it means that your earlier assertion that

    “Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.

    1. Why does it matter if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?

    Because the arctic ice cap is an important regulator in the climate. The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams. Lose the ice and the arctic will warm even faster as the albedo changes. We don’t know the exact impacts, but it is likely that weather patterns could change dramatically, affecting large parts of the northern hemisphere.
    Less ice in the arctic will speed up the melt of the Greenland ice cap, accelerating sea level rise with obvious risks to coastal cities and communities in the future.
    Major impacts to arctic species that rely on the ice.

    2. Why should anybody care if the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years?

    See 1 – most people will care.

    3. Would there not be a benefit to shipping and trade if the current decline continues?

    Yes. No doubt there will be a rush to exploit the arctic and damn the consequences.

    4. What problems could there be if the current decline continues?

    See 1. Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level. Yes it has happened before, many thousands of years ago, but that was before millions of people were living in low lying areas and coastal cities. If (as the scientific evidence strongly suggests) human induced global warming is the primary driver of a warming arctic, surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?

    Smokey your “alarmist cult” phrase may suit your purpose, but (a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do and (b) cults don’t usually base their position on science. The only “cult” I can see in this debate is that of the sceptics, who circulate the same flakey stories around the internet so often they actually believe them and who denounce mainstream scientists in religious terms.

  456. Smokey says:

    James Abbott says:

    ““Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years” must be wrong.”

    Thanx for your personal opinion. I have posted numerous links in my comments, but your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing. Here is another one. And as we see from the ice core evidence, the Holocene was routinely warmer than now. Anyone with common sense can understand that there would be less Arctic ice than now. You are only fooling yourself.

    Abbott says: “Single biggest impact is long term melting of land based ice, raising sea level.:

    Well then, let’s look at the sea level. So much for that scare tactic, eh?

    Abbott continues: “…(a) to sound an alarm when a threat could occur is a sensible thing to do”

    Don’t be silly. I can sound an alarm when you are getting in your car: an accident could kill you. The only time to sound an alarm is when there is credible evidence of fast approaching danger. In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free in the past, with no problems. Therefore, to ‘sound an alarm’ is alarmist hyperbole.

    And: “…(b) cults don’t usually base their position on science.” Which is exactly why the runaway global warming scare is anti-science.

    In order to be convincing, you will have to provide solid testable evidence, showing conclusively, per the scientific method, that human activity is the driver of Arctic ice melt. Good luck with that; if you can do so, you will be the first. That is why the basis of this particular scare is “people will care”. Well, some people care about astrology. That doesn’t make it valid.

    This Arctic scare surfaces regularly. It sells newspapers. But when it comes to testable science, it is sadly lacking.

  457. James Abbott says:

    Smokey

    I looked at your links. They relate to many thousands of years ago. I agree that there is evidence that after the most recent ice age and during previous interglacials there may well have been less arctic ice.

    But you stated, and I was commenting on:

    “Arctic ice melt has happened repeatedly over the past 150 years”

    You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?

    And instead of chucking phrases like “baseless opinion” around (which you are guilty of re the 150 year claim), have another look at my posting. I quoted the NSIDC – so its not my opinion, its their conclusion. Unless you are saying that the NSIDC are guilty of “baseless opinion ” ?

    You have a point re absolute proof linking human induced global warming to ice loss. It probably is the major driver, but I agree its too early to be 100% sure. Its the most likely explanation.

    The alternative sceptic explanations such as soot and icebreakers are barking. There is about as much emperical evidence for those reasons as there is for alien canals on Mars (and some people once believed in those).

    Finally, you say that a melting is arctic is OK because

    “In the case of Arctic ice cover, we see that it has been like today, and even ice-free, with no problems”.

    No problems ?

    The Holocene Thermal Maximum that you like to refer to was in an era of still recovering sea level post the last ice age. It was also an era when there were about 5 million people on the planet (less than 1/1000 of the current world population).

    But from

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#summer_ice

    we learn that

    “The next earliest era when the Arctic was quite possibly free of summertime ice was 125,000 years ago, during the height of the last major interglacial period, known as the Eemian. Temperatures in the Arctic were higher than now and sea level was also 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than it is today because the Greenland and Antarctic ice
    sheets had partly melted. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”

    So are you seriously saying no problem if sea level rises 4 to 6 meters ?

  458. James Abbott:

    Thankyou for your answers to my questions which you provide at August 12, 2012 at 2:20 pm .

    Frankly, if that is all you can say about consequences of total loss of the Arctic ice cap then I can see no reason for any concern.

    (a) The Arctic ice is not “an important regulator in the climate” as you assert. On the contrary, it is a consequence of climate.

    (b) As you say, “The temperature gradient between the equator and poles drives weather systems and the jet streams.” Indeed so. And, therefore, a reduction to that temperature gradient would decrease the frequency and magnitude of weather extremes (e.g. storms). I fail to see how that would not be a net benefit.

    (c) Melting of the Greenland ice sheets would take millenia (even if Greenland were transported to the tropics) so the putative melting would have no problematic increase to the rate of sea level rise which has been happening for the last 10,000 years.

    (d) I would welcome knowledge of the species which “rely” on the existence of the Arctic ice cap. I doubt any exist.

    Considering my rebuttals (a) to (d) of your points, I cannot agree that many people would care if the Arctic ice cap disappeared. In fact, few people would notice .

    And I must say I am surprised at your immoral assertion statement that increased trade and shipping are damning “consequences”. Such benefits should be celebrated.

    Anyway, this is all moot because we are not likely to gain the great benefits from total loss of the Arctic ice cap. Such total loss is very unlikely to happen before the next Ice Age commences. Of course, this does lead to your question to me; viz.
    “surely only the most careless people would advocate doing nothing ?”

    I answer that we could cover the Arctic ice cap with dark material to assist it to melt and thus gain the benefits of its total loss, but I have little hope that this would be sufficient to obtain the total melt.

    Richard

  459. Smokey says:

    James Abbot says, regarding my comment that Arctic ice has been as low as it is currently within the past 150 years:

    “You were wrong – why not admit it instead of flailing around with different epochs ?”

    No, I was correct. Plenty more links here showing recent Arctic ice declines. It is a routine occurrence.

    Next, I give no reasons for Arctic ice decline, other than changing wind and ocean currents. Soot and other factors may be relevant, but my intent is to show that the current Arctic is no different that in the past, when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of Arctic ice decline because CO2 levels make no difference, either in the Arctic or the Antarctic.

    Abbott quotes a source that claims: “Because of the burning of fossil fuels, global averaged temperatures today are getting close to the maximum warmth seen during the Eemian. Carbon dioxide levels now are far above the highest levels during the Eemian, indicating there is still warming to come.”

    That is pure speculation. There is zero testable evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of Arctic ice decline. If it were the cause, then the Antarctic, with more than ten times the amount of Arctic ice, would be declining. It is not. So much for that alarmist conjecture. But I suppose it sells magazines.

    There certainly would be a problem if sea levels rose 4 – 6 meters. But that is not happening. Quite the opposite. I already provided two charts showing multiple satellite sea level data. The sea level rise is decelerating. Thus, the sea level scare – a corollary of the Arctic ice scare – is debunked. So relax, this is completely normal. It has happened repeatedly in the past, including the recent past. There is nothing to be alarmed about. It is just natural variability, nothing more.

  460. Rob Dekker says:

    Smokey said

    ‘dave‘ is a textbook example of psychological projection

    he appears to be an uneducated noob

    It almost seems like tjfolkerts is seeing the light. However, being a student of human nature, I predict he will revert to his contrary belief system

    NSIDC cheats

    As usual, Smokey plays the smart ass with snark. [*Snip* That will do. ~ Evan]

  461. Rob Dekker says:

    Richardcourtney said

    This meme that global temperature has recently accelerated seems to be a use of the Big Lie propaganda technique (i.e. proclaim an untruth often in hope that people will come to believe it). For example, Jan P Perlwitz tried to make the same silly claim recently in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/

    Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?

  462. Warm says:

    “There certainly would be a problem if sea levels rose 4 – 6 meters. But that is not happening. Quite the opposite. I already provided two charts showing multiple satellite sea level data. ”

    Plesase update your sources:

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel3/sl_ns_global.pdf

  463. Rob Dekker:

    August 13, 2012 at 12:46 am you ask me:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/

    Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?

    I answer: At August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm.
    Subsequent to that his entire discussion with me was about that fallacious suggestion.

    Please explain why you asked instead of reading the discussion in the thread.

    Richard

  464. Warm says:

    “Soot and other factors may be relevant, but my intent is to show that the current Arctic is no different that in the past, when CO2 was much lower.”

    But summer insolation much higher…

    http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/milankovitch-cycles-and-the-arctic-climate-in-the-early-holocene/

  465. richardscourtney says:

    Warm:

    re. your comment at August 13, 2012 at 2:14 am.

    Please remember that the Arctic region is a net emitter of radiation. It obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months.

    The Arctic region obtains most of its energy from ocean currents that transport energy from warmer regions, and the Arctic region radiates much of this transported energy from its surface. Importantly, the Arctic ice cap inhibits the emission of energy from the Arctic ocean. Simply, the ice cap is an insulator that keeps the heat in the ocean.

    This ‘insulating’ effect of the ice cap is counterbalanced to a small degree by the albedo of ice being greater than that of water: ice reflects more solar radiation than water surface. However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation. Absorbtion of solar radiation by the Arctic waters requires surface waves which provide absorbing regions over some of their surfaces. Hence, reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.

    Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.

    Hence, it seems very unlikely that “summer insolation” being “much higher” in the Arctic region would have any discernible effect on temperatures and ice cover in the Arctic region. Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.

    Furthermore, variations in winds are by far the most important observed cause of variations in Arctic ice cover.

    Hence, variations to summer insolation may be significant to the degree of polar ice cover, but it is very probable that they are not relevant.

    Richard

  466. richardscourtney says:

    Warm:

    As an afterthought to my post addressed to you, I think I should have explicitly stated that “insolation” is the solar radiation received by the region. However, the important point is how much of that radiation is absorbed by the region: if all the radiation is reflected then none is absorbed whatever the insolation.

    Richard

  467. Warm says:

    “Existing data is not sufficient to determine if loss of the Arctic ice cap would warm or cool the Arctic ocean, but – on balance – it seems likely that loss of the ice cap would cool the Arctic ocean by reducing the ‘insulating’ effect.”

    Please read the recent litterature about “polar amplification” before building “innovative” theories.

    http://scholar.google.ch/scholar?as_ylo=2008&q=%22polar+amplification%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0

    Among others:

    The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic
    temperature amplification

    http://earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~ihs/publication_pdfs/screen_simmonds_arctic_amplification_nature_2010_with_supplementary_info.pdf

    “Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the
    surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with
    reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast,
    have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in
    atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced
    sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the
    atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that
    diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature
    amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong
    positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic,
    increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss,”

    Effect of changes in insolation in a complex climate model
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072025/pdf/1755-1315_6_7_072025.pdf

    “In boreal summer stronger insolation leads to a strong warming of North America
    and Eurasia. [...]. In the vicinity of the Arctic ocean the reduction (and thinning) of Arctic sea ice leads to warmer surface air temperatures over the ocean and in adjacent land areas. The warmer summer temperatures lead to northward shift of the tundra/taiga boundary. The albedo effect further amplifies Arctic summer warming.”

    Evolution of the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient Holocene
    simulation: orbital forcing and sea-ice

    http://www.clim-past.net/7/1139/2011/cp-7-1139-2011.pdf

    “Changes in the Earth’s orbit lead to changes
    in the seasonal and meridional distribution of insolation.
    We quantify the influence of orbitally induced changes
    on the seasonal temperature cycle in a transient simulation
    of the last 6000 years – from the mid-Holocene to today
    – using a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation
    model (ECHAM5/MPI-OM) including a land surface model
    (JSBACH).
    The seasonal temperature cycle responds directly to the insolation
    changes almost everywhere. In the Northern Hemisphere,
    its amplitude decreases according to an increase in
    winter insolation and a decrease in summer insolation. In the
    Southern Hemisphere, the opposite is true.
    Over the Arctic Ocean, decreasing summer insolation
    leads to an increase in sea-ice cover. The insulating effect
    of sea ice between the ocean and the atmosphere leads to
    decreasing heat flux and favors more “continental” conditions
    over the Arctic Ocean in winter, resulting in strongly
    decreasing temperatures. Consequently, there are two competing
    effects: the direct response to insolation changes and
    a sea-ice insulation effect. The sea-ice insulation effect is
    stronger, and thus an increase in the amplitude of the seasonal
    temperature cycle over the Arctic Ocean occurs. This
    increase is strongest over the Barents Shelf and influences
    the temperature response over northern Europe.”

    “Perhaps an increase to “summer insolation” in the tropics might significantly increase the transport of energy to the polar regions, but there are reasons to doubt this, too.”

    Does not compute… Strictly speaking, no summer in the tropics.. It’s a symmetrical band on each side of the equator.

  468. richardscourtney says:

    Warm:

    I take severe exception to your post at August 13, 2012 at 5:10 am which says to me

    Please read the recent litterature about “polar amplification” before building “innovative” theories.

    Firstly, I am certain I am more familiar with the literature than you because I was answering (at August 13, 2012 at 3:39 am and August 13, 2012 at 4:04 am) your post (at August 13, 2012 at 2:14 am). And your post I was answering cited – and linked to – the argument on a web site where the writer did not know the difference between “insulation” and “insolation”: he had to correct his error in the light of comments on his silly argument.

    Anybody familiar with the literature would not have provided a link to that web site in support of a claim.

    Secondly, I did not “build” any “innovative theories”. I only stated clear facts which are known to everybody familiar with the literature.

    Thirdly, your post then cites two climate model studies. I have published on climate models in the peer-reviewed literature. Each climate model emulates a different climate system and there is no known way to discern which one of them – if any – emulates the climate system of the real Earth. Hence, the outputs of the models which you cite are evidence of nothing except the opinions of the teams which constructed those models.

    So, in summation,
    I took the trouble to explain the issues to you when you had demonstrated you did not know them. My explanation presented you with clear, unambiguous facts which included what is known, what cannot be known, and what is probable. Thus, I offered you the opportunity to discuss and/or dispute those facts. Your answer consists of unfounded insults and mere opinions; nothing else.

    Please post something sensible or go away.

    Richard

  469. Warm says:

    “Secondly, I did not “build” any “innovative theories”. I only stated clear facts which are known to everybody familiar with the literature.”

    Really ? Please provide links to studies which demonstrate that higer summer insolation has no effect on arctic temperature and sea ice extent…

    “Thirdly, your post then cites two climate model studies. I have published on climate models in the peer-reviewed literature. Each climate model emulates a different climate system and there is no known way to discern which one of them – if any – emulates the climate system of the real Earth. Hence, the outputs of the models which you cite are evidence of nothing except the opinions of the teams which constructed those models.”

    So… It could be possible to find “modeling” studies that support yours claims.

    “My explanation presented you with clear, ous facts which included what is known, what cannot be known, and what is probable.”

    My explanation is: more sun, higher temp, less sea ice… It is supported by basic physical assumption, not by complex modeling. And it is supported by paleoclimatic data.

    “reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.”

    Real data to support your claim ? Here is a recent study that clearly shows the very intense warming of arctic ocean by the sun in the arctic bassin.

    Sunlight, water, and ice: Extreme Arctic sea ice melt during the
    summer of 2007
    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Perovic%20ice%20cover.pdf

    ” An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in
    solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo
    feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat.”

  470. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:39 am
    Warm:

    re. your comment at August 13, 2012 at 2:14 am.

    Please remember that the Arctic region is a net emitter of radiation. It obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months.

    Some misinformation here: Near the North Pole in June the surface receives about 300 W/m^2 for 24 hours/day.

    This ‘insulating’ effect of the ice cap is counterbalanced to a small degree by the albedo of ice being greater than that of water: ice reflects more solar radiation than water surface. However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation.

    Again incorrect, this is only true at sunrise or sunset. At an angle of ~20º above the horizon less than 20% of the incident light is reflected. Of course this is only true for calm water, rough water would reflect less of course.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Water_reflectivity.jpg/800px-Water_reflectivity.jpg

  471. Warm:

    Your post at August 13, 2012 at 8:33 am asks me

    Please provide links to studies which demonstrate that higer summer insolation has no effect on arctic temperature and sea ice extent…

    I made no such assertion so I do not need to provide links to prove something I did not say. At August 13, 2012 at 3:39 am I wrote and explained

    Hence, reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.

    “very little difference” is not “no effect”.

    Then you claim evidence for your assertion is provided by the paper at
    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Perovic%20ice%20cover.pdf

    It does not provide such evidence. It says

    This observation indicates that bottom melting was a major contributor to the 2007 ice loss in the Beaufort Sea. Details of the Beaufort results are presented in Figure 2, which shows the annual cycle of temperature and mass balance from August 2006 through December 2007. For the most part, conditions were typical of thick (3.2 m) multiyear ice in this region: minimum winter air temperatures of 45 C, snow depth of 0.4 m, winter ice growth of 0.33 m, and onset of melt in early June. What was extraordinary was the rapid bottom melting. In the month of August, bottom melting averaged 4 cm per day and reached maximum values of 11 cm per day in the last week of August, compared to characteristic averages of about 1 cm per day for this region [Perovich et al., 2003]. [9] The extreme amount of bottom melting observed in 2007 required considerable heat from the upper ocean.

    Earlier work has established the importance of solar heating of open water on bottom melting of the ice [Maykut and McPhee, 1995; Perovich, 2005]. We believe that solar radiation deposited in areas of open water was a primary source of the large amount of ocean heat in 2007. Open water reflects only 7% of the incident solar radiation, compared to 85% for snow-covered sea ice and 65% for bare sea ice. As the ice cover decays, highly reflecting ice is replaced by highly absorbing ocean, resulting in more solar heat absorption and more melting. Furthermore, an ice cover thinned by excessive bottom melt transmits more solar radiation directly to the ocean than the original thicker ice cover. This is the classic ice–albedo feedback mechanism.

    (my emphasis RSC)

    So, the ice melted from the bottom because of greater heat content in the water below the ice and they say they “believe” this was because of reduced ice albedo.
    Well, I could offer you my beliefs: do you want a sermon?

    I think the greater heat content in the water had nothing to do with the ice: most of the heat obtained by Arctic water is acquired in warmer regions of the planet (I suggest you do some study on the thermohaline circulation), and it probably varied at some distant location. But that is only my opinion so it cannot be taken as being more valid than their “belief”

    In support of your assertion you previously cited opinions, and now you have cited “belief”. I am at a loss to decide which is the less cogent of these unconvincing papers.

    At least you are honest enough to admit

    My explanation is: more sun, higher temp, less sea ice… It is supported by basic physical assumption, not by complex modeling.

    So, in support of your admitted assumption you have only offered insults, opinions and belief.

    When assessing the physical world I prefer scientific data to assumptions, opinions and beliefs.

    Richard

  472. richardscourtney says:

    Phil:

    re. your post at August 13, 2012 at 8:57 am.

    Please explain why it is cold in the Arctic in the summer.

    Richard

  473. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 13, 2012 at 10:55 am
    Phil:

    re. your post at August 13, 2012 at 8:57 am.

    Please explain why it is cold in the Arctic in the summer.

    Why? Like you ” I prefer scientific data to assumptions, opinions and beliefs”, which is why I corrected your errors above.

  474. richardscourtney says:

    Phil:

    I apologise that I made the mistake of thinking you were attempting to engage in a scientific discussion. In the light of the history of your posts on WUWT, my mistake was foolish.

    I made no errors.

    I draw your attention to the primer from the US National Snow & Ice Snow Data Centre (NSIDX) at
    http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/temperature.html
    and especially to its illustration titled
    “Surface air temperature over the course of a day (data from drifting station NP-30). Top: Temperature on the day of the summer solstice, under constant sunlight. Middle: Temperature at the spring equinox. Diurnal variation is evident. The maximum occurs at about 2 p.m. local time (or 0040 GMT in this case). Bottom: Temperature on the day of the winter solstice, under constant darkness.”

    Its text says

    Over the course of a day air temperature usually rises from an early morning minimum to an early or midafternoon maximum. This typical pattern can change, however, if an influx of cold air occurs during the same period. Depending on how cold the incoming air is, air temperatures may climb more slowly than usual, may remain steady, or may even fall during daylight hours. Air temperatures may climb through the evening hours as a consequence of strong warm air advection or if cloud cover increases.

    And concerning summer temperature

    Over the Arctic Ocean, temperatures are close to zero. This occurs because the sea ice cover is at its melting point, which keeps air temperatures near freezing. The autumn months illustrate the transition back to the winter pattern, with higher temperatures over the Atlantic and south of Alaska, and low temperatures over Siberia and the Greenland ice sheet.

    We are discussing albedo effects over the Arctic ice cap region. In this context I think you will find this paragraph in the primer is especially instructive

    A daily pattern of rising and falling air temperature only holds true during the period of the year when the Arctic receives sunlight. Diurnal temperature variation is most pronounced around the equinox, when the differences in solar radiation from day to night are greatest. The figure below shows the daily cycle of temperatures at three times of the year, using data from a Russian drifting station in the central Arctic Ocean. Note the near-constant temperature of 0 degrees Celsius in midsummer. On bare land, solar radiation is absorbed by soil and re-radiated as heat, but in the Arctic Ocean, energy from solar radiation is spent melting ice and snow, and the air temperature stays near freezing. During polar darkness, when solar radiation is absent, air temperature is strongly controlled by cloud cover. It tends to be colder under clear conditions and warmer under cloudy conditions. Advection of warm or cold air, however, can change these relationships.

    It is “colder under clear conditions and warmer under cloudy conditions” in winter because the clouds inhibit radiation from the surface.

    Importantly, variations in albedo from ice cap cover are so insignificant that NSIDC does not consider they warrant mention in the primer.

    I explained why they are insignificant.

    Richard

  475. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Phil:

    I apologise that I made the mistake of thinking you were attempting to engage in a scientific discussion. In the light of the history of your posts on WUWT, my mistake was foolish.

    I made no errors.

    As pointed out you did!

    I draw your attention to the primer from the US National Snow & Ice Snow Data Centre (NSIDX) at
    http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/temperature.html
    and especially to its illustration titled
    “Surface air temperature over the course of a day (data from drifting station NP-30). Top: Temperature on the day of the summer solstice, under constant sunlight. Middle: Temperature at the spring equinox. Diurnal variation is evident. The maximum occurs at about 2 p.m. local time (or 0040 GMT in this case). Bottom: Temperature on the day of the winter solstice, under constant darkness.”

    Why do you draw attention to it, there’s no mention of the two errors you made which I drew your attention to, namely:
    ” It (the Arctic) obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months”, as I pointed out it’s actually measured at ~300W/m^2 in June near the Pole.
    and “However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation” again incorrect, data was provided for the reflectivity of water as a function of incident angle.

    So yes you did make errors, and obfuscating in an attempt to cover up is getting you nowhere.

  476. richardscourtney says:

    Phil:

    I never obfuscate. Please do not attribute your behaviours to others. My purpose in raising those points was to engage you in serious discussion of the pertinent issues. It seems your purpose is your usual snark and knit-picking. So, I write to address your two specific points in hope that serious discussion may ensue.

    You claim I made an error because I wrote

    It (the Arctic) obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months

    You do not dispute that the Arctic region obtains no energy from the Sun in the winter months but you say

    it’s actually measured at ~300W/m^2 in June near the Pole.

    So, your claim amounts to dispute of the meaning of the word “little” in my statement that the Arctic region “obtains little energy from the Sun in the summer months”.

    You say the maximum insolation is typically ~300W/m^2 in June near the Pole. However, this is the maximum, it is less than this in other summer months (n.b. it is zero for half the year; i.e. the winter half). And average insolation over the entire Earth throughout a year is ~1,000W/m^2 at sea level.

    Hence, I see no reason to think my statement is an “error”: the word ”little” is appropriate.

    And you also claim I made an error because I wrote

    However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation

    and you kindly provided data for the reflectivity of water as a function of incident angle which you think refutes my statement. It is this graph
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Water_reflectivity.jpg/800px-Water_reflectivity.jpg

    You are right in that my word “all” should have been “most”. But that “error” is merely an unintended minor exaggeration which does not alter my argument.

    This is because in the Arctic

    Open water absorbs the most radiation of all arctic surfaces. With an albedo of about 0.08, it reflects only 8 percent of the incoming radiation. However, the variation of albedo with solar altitude is especially pronounced for the surfaces of oceans and lakes. The albedo of a water surface increases with decreasing solar altitude and approaches a mirror-like 100 percent near sunrise and sunset, or when the sun is low in the arctic sky.

    Ref. http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html

    In the real world Arctic ocean surface is very rarely calm so the fact that it does reflect “100 per cent when the sun is low in the Arctic sky” means that if it were calm then it would reflect 100 per cent when the sun is higher in the Arctic sky. And it is not high in the sky for much of the time.

    So, in this case I think you are knit-picking because my unintended exaggeration does not destroy my argument. My entire statement said

    This ‘insulating’ effect of the ice cap is counterbalanced to a small degree by the albedo of ice being greater than that of water: ice reflects more solar radiation than water surface. However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation. Absorbtion of solar radiation by the Arctic waters requires surface waves which provide absorbing regions over some of their surfaces. Hence, reduction of the polar ice cap makes very little difference to the absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean.

    I twice attempted to engage you in serious discussion. Perhaps you will now have such a serious discussion now I have refuted one of your accusations and I have agreed that I erroneously made an unintended trivial exaggeration.

    Richard

  477. Smokey says:

    Give it up, Phil. The Arctic has gone through exactly the same ice melt in the historical past, most recently in the 1920′s — when CO2 was much lower than now. Here are a few dozen eyewitness accounts.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented going on. This has all happened repeatedly in the past. So why all the red faced, spittle-flecked, wild eyed arm waving over natural variability? There is no testable scientific evidence that human activity is the cause of Arctic ice melt. None. So get over it. It’s nature at work, nothing more.

    Prove me wrong, using the scientific method and testable raw data. Good luck with that; if you can falsify the null hypothesis, you will be the first.

  478. Rob Dekker says:

    richardscourtney says :

    Rob Dekker:

    August 13, 2012 at 12:46 am you ask me:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/

    Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?

    I answer: At August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm.

    Please explain why you asked instead of reading the discussion in the thread.

    Courtney, what a lame lie to blame your own mistakes on somebody else.

    Perlwitz does NOT write (nor suggest) that “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that thread.
    You just made that up all by yourself.

  479. Rob Dekker says:

    NSIDC record : Arctic sea ice lost 1 million km^2 in one week :

    2012, 08, 04, 6.06299,
    2012, 08, 05, 5.87559,
    2012, 08, 06, 5.81533,
    2012, 08, 07, 5.67377,
    2012, 08, 08, 5.47461,
    2012, 08, 09, 5.23462,
    2012, 08, 10, 5.24234,
    2012, 08, 11, 5.09222,

    Did this ever happen before in satellite recorded history ?

  480. Rob Dekker:

    Your post at August 14, 2012 at 12:35 am is a lie. I never “make things up”: please to not attribute your behaviours to others.

    The relevant discussion in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
    was about the egregious Perlwitz’s attempt to refute Smokey’s assertion that “global warming has not accelerated recently”.

    As I said, in that thread at August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm he quotes my statement saying:

    Simply, Smokey is right that “the trend [in global warming] is not accelerating”, and Perlwitz’s claim that Smokey used the wrong data set merely distracts from the fact that Smokey is right.

    The entire discussion was concerning dispute of that statement.

    Your assertions are wrong and I am certain you know they are wrong. In the unlikely event that somebody wants to check the matter then they only have to click the link and read the thread. So, go away and do your trolling elsewhere.

    Your nonsense is not relevant to this thread and it is a disruption. I shall ignore any more of it.

    Richard

  481. richardscourtney says:

    Smokey:

    The problem is more serious than you state at August 13, 2012 at 6:28 pm.

    It is clear that Warm, Phil, Rob Dekker, etc. want to avoid discussion of the science by any means they can. And you are attempting the impossible when you ask these people to use “the scientific method and testable raw data”. They refuse to do it even when provided with the scientific information to use.

    The behaviour of Phil is especially informative of their refusal.

    August 13, 2012 at 8:57 am Phil attempted to demean (by use of snide and knit-picking) my summation of the science provided to Warm at August 13, 2012 at 3:39 am.

    I replied (at August 13, 2012 at 10:55 am) by inviting Phil to have a serious discussion of the issues. I ignored his snide and knit-picking points, and I directed him to the main problem with examination of the subject; viz. the lack of adequate empirical data to determine the relative magnitudes of processes affecting temperature, ice cover and their interaction. I said

    Please explain why it is cold in the Arctic in the summer.

    This was a direct invitation for him to emphasise the uncertainties which apply to my views.

    But Phil ignored that invitation and at August 13, 2012 at 11:07 am he made a silly snide response devoid of any content.

    So, at August 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm, I bluntly refuted that I had made errors and I patiently spelled out the issue which supports his views by providing him with direct quotes from NSIDC. For example, this

    Over the Arctic Ocean, temperatures are close to zero. This occurs because the sea ice cover is at its melting point, which keeps air temperatures near freezing.

    The item I quoted from NSIDC was addressing Arctic temperatures and I conclude my post by saying

    Importantly, variations in albedo from ice cap cover are so insignificant that NSIDC does not consider they warrant mention in the primer.

    Well, of course this insignificance must be true when “the sea ice cover is at its melting point, which keeps air temperatures near freezing”. And I wrongly assumed Phil would jump on this point so a discussion of the pertinent science would ensue.

    But even when deliberately offered this opportunity to proclaim science which supports his view Phil was more concerned to demean science which does not support it by use of insults snide and knit-picking. And that is what he did at August 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm.

    I gave up my attempt to engage him in a scientific discussion of the issues and addressed his knit-picking at August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm.

    Clearly, Smokey, you are attempting the impossible when you ask these people to use “the scientific method and testable raw data”. They refuse to do it even when provided with the scientific information to use.

    Richard

  482. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    Phil:

    I never obfuscate. Please do not attribute your behaviours to others. My purpose in raising those points was to engage you in serious discussion of the pertinent issues.
    Well you did on this occasion by raising issues not pertinent to the points I raised.
    It seems your purpose is your usual snark and knit-picking.

    Your one-line, non-responsive challenge to explain the temperature of the Arctic in summer seemed more like snark than a serious attempt to discuss the science. It’s ‘nitpick’ by the way, ;-)

    So, I write to address your two specific points in hope that serious discussion may ensue.
    Good.
    You claim I made an error because I wrote

    It (the Arctic) obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months and none in the winter months

    You do not dispute that the Arctic region obtains no energy from the Sun in the winter months but you say

    “it’s actually measured at ~300W/m^2 in June near the Pole.”

    So, your claim amounts to dispute of the meaning of the word “little” in my statement that the Arctic region “obtains little energy from the Sun in the summer months”.

    You say the maximum insolation is typically ~300W/m^2 in June near the Pole. However, this is the maximum, it is less than this in other summer months (n.b. it is zero for half the year; i.e. the winter half). And average insolation over the entire Earth throughout a year is ~1,000W/m^2 at sea level.
    Actually it’s more like 250W/m^2, the solar constant is ~1370, Bond albedo ~0.31 and to allow for the surface area of the Earth divide by 4. Say a typical value in the tropics of 600W/m^2 for 12 hours compared with 300W/m^2 for 24hrs in the Arctic, so clearly you were in error when you said “that the Arctic region obtains little energy from the Sun in the summer months”.

    Hence, I see no reason to think my statement is an “error”: the word ”little” is appropriate.
    Then we agree to differ, I find it to be inappropriate when the actual situation during the melt season is a solar contribution comparable with the tropics! Not to mention that your knee-jerk response was to deny that you’d made any error at all, it took three posts to admit to a minor error!

    And you also claim I made an error because I wrote

    “However, water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation”

    and you kindly provided data for the reflectivity of water as a function of incident angle which you think refutes my statement. It is this graph
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Water_reflectivity.jpg/800px-Water_reflectivity.jpg

    You are right in that my word “all” should have been “most”. But that “error” is merely an unintended minor exaggeration which does not alter my argument.

    We obviously speak a different language, a “minor exaggeration” is not describing the situation as 100% (all) when it’s actually more like 20% (a small fraction)!

  483. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:39 am
    August 13, 2012 at 8:57 am Phil attempted to demean (by use of snide and knit-picking) my summation of the science provided to Warm at August 13, 2012 at 3:39 am.

    No I didn’t, I spelled out two errors in your summation I’m sorry if having your errors pointed out to you is ‘demeaning’.

    I replied (at August 13, 2012 at 10:55 am) by inviting Phil to have a serious discussion of the issues. I ignored his snide and knit-picking points, and I directed him to the main problem with examination of the subject; viz. the lack of adequate empirical data to determine the relative magnitudes of processes affecting temperature, ice cover and their interaction.

    You did no such thing! You said:

    “Please explain why it is cold in the Arctic in the summer.”

    This was a direct invitation for him to emphasise the uncertainties which apply to my views.

    Really, apart from the fact that they had already been pointed out to you, it appears as a snarky remark not an invitation. Your views were flawed because they were based on the following incorrect premises: that the Arctic “obtains little energy from the Sun in the Summer months”, and “water has little ability to absorb solar radiation near the poles because the angle of incidence is such that calm water would reflect all solar radiation” both wrong.

    But Phil ignored that invitation and at August 13, 2012 at 11:07 am he made a silly snide response devoid of any content.

    I asked you ‘Why?’, because it has no relevance to the errors I pointed out to you. Your argument that the surface of the ice is at its melting temperature therefore change in albedo must be insignificant is a non-sequitor.

    When presented with the data on light reflectivity by water you don’t address the point, rather you make semantic arguments and still don’t accept your error. Discussing the science with you is very difficult because you refuse to do it!

  484. tjfolkerts says:

    richardscourtney,

    You make some good point, but you don’t help the discussion by misquoting.

    The relevant discussion in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
    was about the egregious Perlwitz’s attempt to refute Smokey’s assertion that “global warming has not accelerated recently”.

    No, what Smokey said is

    “Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating.”

    Your version of Smokey’s position — with the word “recently” is correct. But his original statement is wrong, Quite simply, the Central England Temperature record (from its start in 1659 through 2011) does indeed show a long-term acceleration.

    TEMPERATURE = 38.6 - 0.0348 YEAR + 0.000010 YEAR^2

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant 38.64 11.60 3.33 0.001
    YEAR -0.03478 0.01267 -2.75 0.006
    YEAR^2 0.00001018 0.00000345 2.95 0.003

    In fact, the “acceleration” ( the quadratic term”) is more significant than the slope! Sure there are short periods within the record that have decelerations, but unequivocally, the long-term CET shows a positive acceleration.

    For the last 100 years, there is larger, statistically significant acceleration (1.7E-4 vs 0.1E-4).

    TEMP_1911 = 650 - 0.662 YEAR + 0.000171 YEAR^2

    Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
    Constant 650.3 256.8 2.53 0.013
    YEAR -0.6616 0.2620 -2.53 0.013
    YEAR^2 0.00017073 0.00006680 2.56 0.012

    When you stop looking at “long term trends” in the CET, the results change a bit. For the last 30 years or 10 years, the quadratic term is negative (a “deceleration”) but the results are not statistically significant. So, yes, when looking at SHORT-TERM data, there is a (statistically questionable) deceleration.

    Richard closes:

    Clearly, Smokey, you are attempting the impossible when you ask these people to use “the scientific method and testable raw data”. They refuse to do it even when provided with the scientific information to use.

    All of this was presented earlier, but Smokey refused to get engaged at a mathematical level (“I prefer the use of charts and graphs”). It is pretty hard to “prove” anything when people refuse to acknowledge mathematics and statistics.

  485. richardscourtney says:

    tjfolkerts:

    Thankyou for your post at August 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm.

    I wish it to be clear that I was NOT including you in those who run from scientific discussion. On the contrary, earlier in this thread I thanked you for such a discussion that we had so I am surprised that you thought I was linking you with those I named.

    As for the CET, I did not discuss that data set with the egregious Perlwitz. I only put the same points to him that I put to you in this thread. And I thought the honesty of your response in presenting your analysis of running means was an admirable contrast to the behaviour of Perlwiyz in that other thread. Indeed, I thought I had made that clear and I apologise if it was not clear.

    That said, I have doubts about the CET and would not choose to defend any argument based on it. My point in the other thread was that Smokey had made a correct assertion and Perlwitz had obfuscated the issue when he jumped in to say Smokey had used the wrong data set. I argued that Smokey’s assertion was correct and that Perlwitz must have known it was correct. Perlwitz refused to agree that Smokey was correct (although it became clear that he did know) and his responses were longwinded examples of pure evasion and obfuscation attempting to suggest that Smokey’s assertion must be wrong.

    And I am sorry but we now have a semantic disagreement. As you say, Smokey said

    “Here is the long term trend from the LIA. Notice that the trend is not accelerating.”

    I understand “is not” refers to the present so the acceleration must refer to recent times. Indeed, my use of the word “recently” states this is my understanding “is not”.

    Indeed, Smokey’s assertion – like all his comments – was presented as lack of evidence for AGW. In that context, and if one accepts the validity of the CET, then the fact of acceleration from centuries before the industrial revolution is evidence that the observed rise is not induced by AGW. Indeed, I suspect this is why Perlwitz jumped in to say Smokey had used the wrong data set before anybody could point that out. But I ignored it because I don’t trust the CET.

    Just to be clear this time, I thank you for a proper provision of data and your interpretation of it. In my opinion, this is how our discussions should be conducted.

    Richard

  486. richardscourtney says:

    Phil:

    re your latest post.

    I offer some advice.
    When you have something to say then say it. Until then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Richard

  487. tjfolkerts says:

    Richard,

    I was not trying to lump you into the same category as Smokey, and you & I have had some civil and informative discussions. I heartily agree that this is the only way to really approach the “science”.

    I also distrust the CET, since it is so localized. I was simply refuting the incorrect conclusion that (for the data set as s whole) there is no acceleration.

    You also say “In that context, and if one accepts the validity of the CET, then the fact of acceleration from centuries before the industrial revolution is evidence that the observed rise is not induced by AGW. “
    Interpreting this is a bit tricky. I tried running 100 year trends starting every 50 years. Here are the “accelerations” (in microKelvins/year^2) and the p-values for the quadratic term.

    1659-1750 +173 0.11
    1700-1800 -70 0.37
    1750-1850 +21 0.79
    1800-1900 -23 0.79
    1850-1950 +160 0.23
    1900-2000 +58 0.37

    So there was a large acceleration early (perhaps due to the end of the Maunder Minimum, or perhaps simply due to poor quality data that early on — but that is purely speculation at this point).
    Then there was basically no acceleration for a good 100 years.
    Then there was a large acceleration starting around 1850 (the beginning of the effects of the industrial era?)

    I was surprised at the small acceleration for 1900-2000, since I remembered posting about a large acceleration in the last century. So I double checked:
    1911-2011 +171 0.01.
    Rather surprisingly, adding in the recent years with no strong trend makes the long-term acceleration MUCH stronger and MUCH more statistically significant! The lesson seems to be that the “acceleration” term is quite sensitive to the endpoints and all results should be interpreted with care.

    (I suspect that using a more global temperature index would produce a more consistent acceleration term, but it is tough to find other good temperature records going back so far.)

  488. Rob Dekker says:

    richardscourtney said :

    Rob Dekker:
    Richard, where exactly did Perlwitz suggest that the “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that threat ?

    I answer: At August 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm.

    Rob Dekker:
    Perlwitz does NOT write (nor suggest) that “global temperature has recently accelerated” in that thread.
    You just made that up all by yourself.

    Your post at August 14, 2012 at 12:35 am is a lie. I never “make things up”: please to not attribute your behaviors to others.

    The relevant discussion in the thread at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/04/weekend-open-thread-2/
    was about the egregious Perlwitz’s attempt to refute Smokey’s assertion that “global warming has not accelerated recently”.

    No Courtney, Perlwitz did not “attempt to refute” Smokey’s argument, but instead showed that his argument is flawed (a strawman, if you will) :

    Now, I’m glad that Mr. Courtney emphasizes this point, since it makes clear what Smokey and he believe what the alleged contradiction between empirical data and theory was. They believe, if CO2 accelerated after 1940, the global temperature should have accelerated too, if the CO2 increase caused global warming. Only, this argument is logically flawed…

    After which he explains exactly WHY Smokey’s argument is flawed.

    Now, if the text in that thread no longer seems to support your statements, I’m sorry. But if you really feel you did not make up your allegation against Perlwitz, then please show where Perlwitz suggests that “global temperature has recently accelerated”.

    Courtney, you can’t change facts after the facts. That’s not how facts works. No matter how much you try to bluff your way out of this one.

    richardscourtney said :

    Your nonsense is not relevant to this thread and it is a disruption. I shall ignore any more of it.

    Then why did you bring it up in the first place ?

  489. Smokey says:

    Dekker, like Perlwitz, believes that “theory” trumps empirical evidence — a hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd. Of course, it is exactly the reverse: “If it disagrees with [observation] it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    ~ R.P. Feynman

    Perlwitz wouldn’t know a logicql argument if it bit him on the a… nkle.

  490. richardscourtney says:

    tjfolkerts:

    Thankyou for your informative post at August 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm.

    I agree that

    The lesson seems to be that the “acceleration” term is quite sensitive to the endpoints and all results should be interpreted with care.

    Indeed, end points are not the only problem with these long data sets. Perhaps the most important issue is the complete impossibility of data validation and lack of knowledge of calibration. As I said, I don’t trust the CET.

    There are several other long data sets, notably the Armagh data set, for temperature: Smokey linked to some of them on the other thread. I distrust them all and for the same reasons. An advantage of the CET is that it is not derived from a single location but others are.

    Tonyb has done an immense amount of work on these long data sets. And his work comparing historical information to variations in these data sets is both fascinating and astonishing.

    I think it would be valuable if you and Tonyb could make contact. The two of you are near opposite ends of the ‘AGW-debate’, you share an interest in the same data, and neither of you addresses the subject in an adversarial or bigoted way.

    Richard

  491. richardscourtney says:

    Rob Dekker:

    I said I would ignore any more of your nonsense but – being of a kindly disposition – I make this single response to you so I can draw your attention to my last post addressed to Phil. And I say to you “Ditto”.

    Richard

  492. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    Phil:

    re your latest post.

    I offer some advice.
    When you have something to say then say it. Until then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Interesting post, I present actual data refuting your statements and instead of the promised “serious discussion of the pertinent issues”, this is what you come up with. I will take your failure to address the points as an acceptance that the data is correct.

  493. Phil. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Importantly, variations in albedo from ice cap cover are so insignificant that NSIDC does not consider they warrant mention in the primer.

    No, your assumption is that the variations are insignificant because they didn’t mention it (actually they do, I assume that you missed it). In fact even the variation in ice albedo is significant and wrt water even more so:
    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html
    http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=514

Comments are closed.