U.N. World Meteorological Organization report pans the idea that severe weather and severe weather deaths can be linked to climate change

Flag of the World Meteorological Organization

Flag of the World Meteorological Organization (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They say more complete datasets are needed. They also fail to mention “the pause” of global temperature during the decade of study, using only bar graphs to illustrate temperatures instead of trend lines, while at the same time state that “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.” They also mention “it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change,” and they hint that “some may have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all”, which is just political lip service, and no evidence is cited.

They also cite that expansion of socio-economic assets and infrastructure expanded in such a way to increase risk to lives and property.

The WMO now joins Nature magazine and IPCC SREX in saying extreme weather can’t yet be reliably linked to climate change. Links to the report follow.  – Anthony

Press release:

GENEVA 3 July 2013 – The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analysed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.

Impacts: During the decade 2001-2010, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat waves, cold spells, drought, storms and floods, according to the data provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). This was 20% higher than 1991-2000.  This increase is due mainly to the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2010  in Russia which contributed to an increase of more than 2000% in the global death toll from heat waves (from less than 6000 in 1991-2000 to 136 000 in 2001-2010).

On the other hand, there was a 16% decline in deaths due to storms and 43% decline in deaths from floods, thanks mainly to better early warning systems and increased preparedness and despite an increase in populations in disaster-prone areas.

According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114% globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87% from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192%, in the same period.

Much research is being conducted into whether it is possible to attribute individual extreme events to climate change rather than natural variability. Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. It is therefore important to develop this research to strengthen climate science and to use it to improve climate services to help society adapt to climate change.

###

Full press release here: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

Excerpts from the report:

…the data do not demonstrate that the increase in observed
losses is caused by an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events. Other factors come into play, notably the
increased exposure of people and property to climate extremes and the improved and increased reporting of disasters.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting the very large increase (more than 2 000 per cent) in the loss of life from heatwaves, particularly during the unprecedented extreme heat events that affected Europe in the summer of 2003 and the Russian Federation in the summer of 2010. On the other hand, there
were fewer deaths due to storms and floods in 2001–2010 compared to 1991–2000, with decreases of 16 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively, thanks, in good part, to better early warning systems and increased preparedness.

There were fewer deaths, even while exposure to extreme events increased as populations grew and more people were living in disaster-prone areas. According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114 per cent globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87 per cent from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192 per cent, in the same period.

While the risk of death and injury from storms and floods declined, the vulnerability of property increased. This is because
the expansion of socio-economic and infrastructural assets led to an increase in the amount and value of property exposed
to weather and climate extremes.

No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards. Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.

The report is available here: http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110

Backup PDF here: wmo_1119_en

About these ads

107 thoughts on “U.N. World Meteorological Organization report pans the idea that severe weather and severe weather deaths can be linked to climate change

  1. I’d be curious as to their data set, aren’t most data sets showing a steady or declining temps during the same decade?

  2. Perhaps unusual and extreme weather turns out to be ‘normal weather’, when averaged over thirty years (one normal period). It is very likely that ‘Extreme weather’ only occurs about every thirty years or less per location on earth.

  3. The BBC’s ‘environment analyst’‘, comrade Roger Hampstead’ Harrabin, is at it again, this time bigging-up a new doom-laden report from his common purpose chums over at the World Meteorological Association (yes, the WMO is a UN joint – funded, of course, by taxpayers).

    Climate extremes are ‘unprecedented’ screams the headline.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073

    Are ‘climate extremes’ the same as ‘extreme weather events’ or is that possibly ‘global weirding’..? These days, it gets to so hard to spot the difference (if there is any).

    Nice to know Roger is at least consistent in his ‘impartiality’.

  4. Sounds like a Wet Office type statement after an unpleasant weather event occurs ………………..”No one extreme weather event can be attributed to Climate Change, but yes, this is the sort of even we expect o see more of in the future!” i.e. no it isn’t but yes it is!! Very scientific I must say.

  5. I think skeptics often misunderstand the language of the Alarmists. The purpose of this report is to identify a gap in the literature that needs to be closed. They are blowing the dog whistle to get the climate scientologist to focus on manufacturing papers that say that AGW causes extreme weather. The treemometer hoax didn’t work, the computer models failed, so they need a new strategy.

    Extreme weather is the perfect strategy for the alarmists. Everyday we have an extreme weather event somewhere in the world. A skill propagandist can convince people that these events are now somehow unusual. But they need some folks to manufacture some papers to give it the air of scientific legitimacy.

  6. But I was told the weather is getting kinda crazy maaaan. People were being ripped apart by man’s eeeevil carbon dioxide. I will let the ultra Warmists at the IPCC and Nature do the talking.

    Nature – 19 September 2012
    Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
    But without the computing capacity of a well-equipped national meteorological office, heavily model-dependent services such as event attribution and seasonal prediction are unlikely to be as reliable.

    http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

    IPCC
    FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.

    http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=81852aa9db&e=c1a146df99

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

    Extreme weather and deaths and danger my arse.

  7. Extreme weather and extreme climate. I see that after coming out of the ‘hottest decade on the record we really are doomed. The evidence is overwhelming and we must act right now. The climate and weather is crazy maaaan.

    Abstract – 2012
    Persistent non-solar forcing of Holocene storm dynamics in coastal sedimentary archives

    We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier”

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1619.html

    ——-
    Conclusion – 2011
    Long-term properties of annual maximum daily river discharge worldwide

    Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.

    http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf

    ——-
    Abstract – 2011
    Fluctuations in some climate parameters

    There is argument as to the extent to which there has been an increase over the past few decades in the frequency of the extremes of climatic parameters, such as temperature, storminess, precipitation, etc, an obvious point being that Global Warming might be responsible. Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

    ——-
    Abstract – 2011
    The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project

    It is anticipated that the 20CR dataset will be a valuable resource to the climate research community for both model validations and diagnostic studies. Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

    ——-
    Abstract – 2012
    Changes in the variability of global land precipitation

    We report a near-zero temporal trend in global mean P. Unexpectedly we found a reduction in global land P variance over space and time that was due to a redistribution, where, on average, the dry became wetter while wet became drier.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL053369.shtml

  8. What a Lame Statement from these people. A long and smokescreen-laden way of saying “we don’t know, but we should still be funded and make policy recommendations nonetheless’

    Sure, guys, whatever floats yer boat.

  9. Yet they state: “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “

  10. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 3, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Yet they state: “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “

    Maybe they are right. Maybe they are blowing in the wind. The world ‘probably’ is probably problematical. I prefer to see trends of heat waves from the scientists otherwise I will ‘probably’ not listen to the problem.

  11. The “there is No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level.” is falsi. There is a significant trend of zero slope in the cyclone energy plots.
    The data (evidence) are plotted over time. The plotted data have a slope of zero.
    The inference is that the claims of the UN/WMO/IPCC that cyclones will increase is rejected.

  12. “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.”

    Yet 15 years is still not enough. What about 20, do I have any bidders for 20? How about 25, going once, going twice……..

  13. Coming from Michel Jarraud, anything goes as long as it is alarmist and fits the green business agenda.
    As for the 2003 heat wave more likely in a warming world, only those with an agenda or complete ignorance of the synoptic reality would keep accrediting this fantasy.

  14. “””””….. “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “…..”””””

    Which “scientists” and how many ?

    “Increasingly”; by how much, and what error bars ?

    “likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave”, well we already know that; is was 100% likelihood; it actually happened.

    “Probably substantially increased”; 102% , or 120% , or 200% ; just how substantially ?

    ” increased by rising global temperatures” ; izzat a probably substantially increased likelihood; than it was caused by just local rising European Temperatures ?

    “””””…..It is therefore important to develop this research to strengthen climate science and to use it to improve climate services to help society adapt to climate change…….”””””

    Now there’s a rocket science suggestion we can all learn to love.

    You can’t change the climate; so how about adapting to it.

    Surely if tourists will still visit Death Valley, when it is +134 deg. F in the shade ” right over there”, then most people can tolerate the global mean Temperature going from 288 K up to 289 K over the next 150 years.

  15. “Last decade at highest levels since 1850″ is just Newspeak for no statistically significant warming trend into the 18th year…

    I also love it when the MET ranks years. If they want to rank something, one could say that the last 18 yrs rank 1 through 18 over the last 4.5 billion years for the most amount of manmade CO2 emissions with the LEAST amount of warming. 0.98+-0.112C/decade.

    What a joke….

    This whole CAGW scam is starting to implode, hence the haste in which BHO is pushing his Global Warming initiatives through (without Congressional approval) prior to the entire scam becoming yet another scandal under his watch….

    I may be wrong, but the only explanation for all this spending (immigration bill/climate change initiatives/Obamacare/Prism, etc) is that he’s implementing the Cloward & Piven strategy to overwhelm the system and replace it with an EU-styled Big Government socio-economic system.

    I.e.. “Fundamentally change America” as he promised he would do..

  16. When they say,

    “While climate scientists believe that it is not
    yet possible to attribute individual extremes
    to climate change, they increasingly conclude
    that many recent events would have occurred
    in a different way – or would not have occurred
    at all – in the absence of climate change.”

    and then say,

    “Assessing trends in extreme weather and
    climate events requires an even longer
    timeframe because, by definition, these
    events do not occur frequently.”

    This is not “panning”. It is stating that, “while we cannot use statistical analyses to prove the significant effect of climate change, (due to high variability and low frequency of events), it is becoming increasingly clear that climate change is exacerbating the extremes.

    Which makes sence since they say,

    “Nine of the decade’s years were among
    the 10 warmest on record. The warmest
    year ever recorded was 2010″ — Pg 3.

    “The 2001–2010 decade was also the
    warmest on record for both land-only and
    ocean-only surface temperatures.” — pg 4.

    “The largest country in South America, Brazil,
    recorded the continent’s highest temperature
    anomaly value of + 0.74 °C, making the decade
    the warmest on record there.” — pg 5.

    “As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the decade 2001–
    2010 continued the upward trend in global
    temperatures, despite the cooling effects of
    multiple La Niña episodes and other natural
    year-to-year variability.” — pg. 5

    “Canada
    Central Canada experienced its
    warmest and most humid summer on
    record in 2005. 2010 was the warmest
    year on record for the nation as a whole
    since records began in 1948.” — pg 8

    “South America
    As part of a persistent atmospheric blocking pattern,
    an exceptionally hot February affected southern
    Argentina and Chile in 2008. Daily maximum
    temperatures reached between 35°C and 40°C,
    well above the average, which ranges
    between 20°C and 28°C.” — pg 8.

    “intense and long-lasting heatwave that struck
    the Russian Federation in July/ August 2010,
    causing over 55 000 deaths. The WMO
    survey identifies many other abnormally
    high-temperature conditions, heatwaves and
    temperature records around the world.” — pg 8.

    “China and Japan
    The months of August and September 2007 were extremely
    warm in Japan, setting a new national record of absolute
    maximum temperature of 40.9°C. In 2010, Japan and China had
    their hottest summer on record.” — pg 9.

    “Pakistan
    In 2010, a pre-monsoon heatwave
    brought a record temperature of 53.5°C
    to Mohenjo Daro on 26 May making a
    national record for Pakistan and the highest
    temperature in Asia since at least 1942.” — pg 9.

    “Australia
    Several heatwaves affected Australia during
    this decade, with disastrous bush fires as well
    as record temperatures. During summer
    2009, Victoria reached its highest temperature
    with 48.8°C at Hopetown, the highest temperature
    ever recorded so far south anywhere in the world.” — pg 9.

    and finally, (I’m done here)

    “As a result of this widespread melting (and the
    thermal expansion of sea water), global mean
    sea levels continued to rise over the decade
    2001–2010. The observed rate of increase
    was some 3 mm per year, about double the
    observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm/yr.” — pg 13.

    ———–
    If all of this is somehow, “panning” the effects of climate change, then you either,

    a. live in an alternate reality where up is down and “panning” means, “asserts”

    or

    b. are on some kind of payroll to provide biased disinformation about a complex subject so that you can perpetuate the status quo and ensure that, regardless of the actual scientific evidence that you,

    1. ensure that the truly devistating effects of climate change decimates future generations

    and

    2. you continue to make pretty good money until the gravy train runs out.

  17. jai mitchell says:

    “2. you continue to make pretty good money until the gravy train runs out.”

    You self-serving hypocrite. You are in business milking tax money based on the completely bogus manmade global warming scare.

    Your post is simply a regurgitation of cherry-picked nonsense that does nothing to falsify the climate Null Hypothesis.

    Could you be any less credible?

  18. At least with “global warming” there was a putative mechanism. With “global weirding” there is no feasible mechanism. It’s 100% hand-waving and fear-mongering.

  19. I give up……you can’t tell squat from a decade
    Look at all the hundred year periods, going one way (up), when the overall trend is going the other (down)

    and who in their right mind would claim anything is the warmest…..since the little ice age

  20. Jai mitchell, you are a breath of fresh air blowing away the fog of obfuscation. Good on you for trying, anyway!

  21. george e. smith says:
    July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
    ““””””….. “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “…..”””””

    Which “scientists” and how many ?”

    We don’t know who and how many but it’s 97% of them. If you doubt it we can have someone make a paper that proves it.

  22. SAMURAI says:
    July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am

    ….

    I may be wrong, but the only explanation for all this spending (immigration bill/climate change initiatives/Obamacare/Prism, etc) is that he’s implementing the Cloward & Piven strategy to overwhelm the system and replace it with an EU-styled Big Government socio-economic system.

    I.e.. “Fundamentally change America” as he promised he would do..

    I rather doubt that any party can really either claim or be specifically accused of being responsible for this. George W. just chimed in on the NSA eaves dropping issue claiming that PRISM was HIS baby.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/02/dubya_i_introduced_prism_and_i_like_it/

    The original was apparently on CNN. I’m not sure just what the intent was, but it sure looked as if he were volunteering to take pressure off the sitting president. And we should carefully recall that the full name of Obamacare is Obama/Romneycare. O didn’t create it; he just borrowed it.

    I suspect that if you were to dig deep enough – and didn’t come down with a dose of polonium poisoning – that the unelected, bureaucratic watch standers who are there over multiple administrations are the real explanation for a lot of what we like to criticize. Especially where the eroding bill of rights is concerned.

  23. dbsteal,

    Which of these temperature graphs are not like the others? which one is almost exclusively cited here?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend

    The facts are clear. The science is unequivocal. The efforts of the “donor’s trust” to fund climate skepticism is simply a PR stunt.

    we aren’t there yet. We still have alot of work to do to mitigate the threat of runaway global clmiate warming and the global dieoff that it will produce. We can still do this. If we don’t then our grandchildren will live in starvation and societal collapse.

    it begins here: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

  24. For the hard-of-reading alarmists, from the report:

    While databases on disasters are useful for mapping the behaviour and impact of extremes in various regions, the data do not demonstrate that the increase in observed losses is caused by an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events.

    I scanned the report and was unable to find a mention that the deaths during the 2003 European heatwave were caused by serious flaws in the European healthcare systems, in which virtually all of the senior healthcare professionals take the month of August off on holiday. July 2006 was even hotter than August 2003, but resulted in fewer deaths due to the timing; the French government changed their healthcare holiday rules as a direct result.

    Also, the Russian heatwave is a once-in-thirty-year event, so comparing decade to decade in that regard is a little peculiar. Were there fewer or more deaths than the last comparable heatwave (which I think was in the 1970s)? The report is strangely unhelpful in that regard.

  25. If all of this is somehow, “panning” the effects of climate change, then you either,
    a. live in an alternate reality where up is down and “panning” means, “asserts”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well by golly gee, I think you hit the nail on the head. After saying they can NOT tie any specific event to global warming, they proceed to provide a list of those events as if they CAN be tied to global warming. When a list of things that someone just said can’t be proven to be a result of global warming is used as evidence of the thing that can’t be proven, then yes, that fits the very definition of an alternate reality.

    I notice a few things missing from that list of yours though. Like records in Canada being post 1948 when the documented evidence is substantial that the dirty 30’s were considerably warmer, so let’s just leave them out of the reality, right? Of course the record lows last winter in Asia aren’t mentioned, it was so cold in Siberia that natural gas froze solid in the pipelines, but hey, that doesn’t fit the narrative, so skip it. Ice extent in the Antarctic setting an all time record high doesn’t fit the narrative either, so let’s skip it as well. We need not even mention that it is on track to hit an even bigger record this year:

    Nor should we have in the list that temps in the arctic circle this year are barely above freezing 25 days later than usual, remarkable when one considers that the summer melt season there is only 60 days long in the first place, but it doesn’t fit the storyline, so skip it.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Now I could make a lot longer list of such events and claim they are signs of an impending ice age, but that would make no more sense than your list and your claims.

    As for your alternative “b”, I think it is a subset of your alternative “a”. You live in an alternate reality where you ignore your own income from the global warming gravy train while accusing those not on it, without evidence of same, as being the ones on it. Alternate reality indeed.

  26. “more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat waves, cold spells, drought, storms and floods,

    CO2 it didn’t invent weather, it just makes weather weathier; cold colder, warm warmer, storms stormier, rain rainier, droughts droughtier, etc. etc.

    If it can’t be falsified it’s not scientific.

  27. jai mitchell,

    Your cherry-picking ignores the fact that 16 – 17 years is the time necessary to determine if there is global warming. Your short time frame disregards that requirement.

    And your incessant cherry-picking, this time in your link selecting Canada, is no different than if I selected only the U.S.

    Your constant, selective cherry-picking extends to polar ice cover, where you select only the Arctic — while disregarding the Antarctic, which more than makes up for Arctic ice loss [the red line is global ice].

    Note that Arctic temperatures are below their 50-year average. That cooling is why Arctic ice is recovering.

    davidmhoffer says: As for your alternative “b”, I think it is a subset of your alternative “a”. You live in an alternate reality where you ignore your own income from the global warming gravy train while accusing those not on it, without evidence of same, as being the ones on it. Alternate reality indeed.

    That is my problem with jai mitchell. He is financially self-serving, promoting his scare with baseless comments such as: We still have alot of work to do to mitigate the threat of runaway global clmiate warming and the global dieoff that it will produce. We can still do this. If we don’t then our grandchildren will live in starvation and societal collapse.

    That kind of scientifically baseless climate alarmism is tantamount to falsely shouting “Fire!!” in a crowded theater. In mitchell’s case, the result he wants is more financial income for himself. Sadly, that is not any different motivation than many other climate false alarmists.

  28. ‘The WMO now joins Nature magazine and IPCC SREX…….extreme weather can’t YET be reliably linked to climate change’, notice the word YET! Well it its not far away before they can!

  29. “[jai Mitchell's] scientifically baseless climate alarmism is tantamount to falsely shouting ‘Fire!!’ in a crowded theater.” [D. B. Stealey, a.k.a. "Smokey" -PERFECT analogy :)]

    Nice refutation of jaimitchell (and use of David Hoffer’s observation) above.

    LOL, fortunately, since our histrionic actor, jai, leapt onto the stage yelling, “Fire!” while wearing his Duke of Wellington costume and brandishing his fake sword, all the audience will do is laugh.

  30. @jai mitchell

    “””””…..“The 2001–2010 decade was also the
    warmest on record for both land-only and
    ocean-only surface temperatures.” — pg 4……”””””

    Seems to me that the decades of the 60s, 70s, and 80s had high sunspot count cycles: 1957/8 highest ever. Also was an interval where warming seems to have occurred; maybe getting back to the high temps of the 1930s.

    But that all stopped in 1995 (1997/8 el nino was anomalous), and it has been basically flat since (17 years).

    Ergo, the decade of 2001-2010 can reasonably be described as akin to the summit of a mountain.

    It has been observed, that some of the highest altitudes on earth seem to occur near the summit of mountains.

    It would be a surprise if the 2001-2010 decade DID NOT contain many of the highest year Temperatures on record.

    Incidently, reliable ” ocean only surface temperatures”, only go back to around 1980.

    In 2001 jan Geophysical research letters (I believe), John Christie (sp) showed from simultaneous ocean surface water Temperatures (-1 metre) and ocean near surface air temperatures (+3 metres) from ocean buoys, that ocean surface water temperatures for about 20 years increased about 40% more than near surface ocean air temperatures; and furthermore, the two are not correlated.

    So all of the previous oceanic temperature data ( from buckets of water from unknown depth, or ship cooling intakes at various depths), which covers 70% of the global surface are bogus, as proxies for lower troposphere air temps, to couple with land tropo temperatures. And the lack of correlation means all that water data is not correctible to recover global tropo temps for 70% of the global surface prior to about 1980.

  31. jai mitchell says:
    July 3, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    We still have alot of work to do to mitigate the threat of runaway global clmiate warming and the global dieoff that it will produce. We can still do this.

    If “we” doesn’t include Asia and other developing countries–and it won’t–then what “we” do is futile feel-goodery.

    Well, OTOH, maybe “we” could have funded cold fusion research when the AGW scare got started and maybe we’d have developed Rossi’s E Cat gadget long ago. That would have been embraced worldwide.

    But that would have been a verboten attempt to cure the ills of technology with more technology, according to supposedly “deep” ecologists. (It would have been like handing an idiot child a machine gun, according to one of them.) So no wonder we didn’t fund such an un-PC thing then,

  32. “Your constant, selective cherry-picking extends to polar ice cover, where you select only the Arctic — while disregarding the Antarctic, which more than makes up for Arctic ice loss [the red line is global ice].”

    Actually, I don’t think that graph supports your claim that the Antarctic makes up for it. The global sea ice anomaly appears to me to trend down too, just not as much as the Arctic. I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?

  33. “All over the press now in Europe, radio, television, MSM: … They never give up.” [R. de Haan 10:07AM]

    But, their volume betrays them; they are getting desperate.

    “When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have neither, holler.” Al Gore*

    Sounds familiar.

    *Note: Algore was paraphrasing an old trial lawyers’ saw, “When you have the law… law. … facts… facts. … When you have neither … pound the table.” — Al Gore never invented ANYTHING, not even that saying!

  34. Craig;
    Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Right on the WUWT mast head, click “Reference Pages” and then “Sea Ice”.

    All the, uhm, cold hard data, you could ask for.

  35. Craig says:

    ” I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?”

    Be glad to help. Check out these links:

    Since you did not appear to click on the link I provided above, here it is again.

    And here is another Antarctic ice chart.

    Here is another one.

    Here is a chart showing the past few decades.

    And here we see that Antarctic ice cover is well above average.

    Here we see the Arctic/Antarctic divergence; what the North loses the South gains.

    This chart shows the same divergence.

    Here is another chart showing the rapid rise in Antarctic ice cover.

    Another view of the rise in Antarctic ice.

    Here is more data showing the rise in Southern Hemisphere ice cover.

    Ask yourself: why would someone show only the Arctic? Do you think they might have an agenda? They are hiding the Antarctic for a reason. They are trying to convince you that the planet is losing ice. But that is not true, as you can see in the first link above. Global ice extent remains right at it’s long term average. There is nothing unusual happening.

    Polar ice cover is largely determined by ocean currents, and precipitation on land, not by temperature. Ice loss is not caused by warming of the Arctic, as we see here. Note that the Arctic’s temperature has remained unchanged for many decades. Thus, the implication that the Arctic is “warming” is an alarmist canard.

    I am glad you want to see these facts, and to do your own analysis to decide for yourself. I have more charts and peer reviewed papers if you’re interested; just ask.

  36. Jai Michell says:

    If all of this is somehow, “panning” the effects of climate change, then you either,

    a. live in an alternate reality where up is down and “panning” means, “asserts”

    or

    b. are on some kind of payroll to provide biased disinformation about a complex subject so that you can perpetuate the status quo and ensure that, regardless of the actual scientific evidence that you,

    1. ensure that the truly devistating effects of climate change decimates future generations

    and

    2. you continue to make pretty good money until the gravy train runs out.

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

    Wow,

    You are gone. I think only the left hires people to post/troll at websites/blogs/forums.

    The rest of us have real jobs to do, so can’t be arsed.

    Goodbye, Jai!

  37. Craig,

    Steve Goddard provides plenty of historical documentation showing that the current situation in the Arctic is nothing unusual. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and not very long ago. We are simply observing the ebb and flow of polar ice cycles.

    Unfortunately, some in the climate alarmist crowd like to cherry-pick this particular instant in time, and then extrapolate the current temporary changes in order to frighten people. They do this in their own self-serving way, because they lack the actual scientific evidence necessary to be convincing. It is effective, if someone simply looks at, for example, a chart of the Arctic. That would be scary — IF the same thing was happening in the Antarctic.

    But as we see, total global ice is unchanged, and nothing unusual is happening historically. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, which means that current climate parameters have happened before, and to a greater degree [and when CO2 was much lower].

    So take the scare stories with a real big grain of salt. Because when you investigate, you will find that nothing either unusual or unprecedented is happening with polar ice, or with the climate in general.

  38. The decade 2000-2010 was clearly a transition year when a warming planet switched to a cooling planet.When there is more global cooling , there will be a greater incidence of warm and cold fronts clashing at the jet stream inter face regions bringing a higher probability of bigger and more frequent storms. There will be more severe and sometime extreme weather with the cooling globe. The best example of this is the increase in tornado size during a colder than normal spring like in 2013 in United States where cold and warm fronts clash more often due to the existence of cold fronts from the west or Canada and warm fronts coming from the Gulf of Mexico. It has nothing to do with global warming. I think we are seeing more extreme weather due to global cooling rather than due to global warming because there has been no additional warming for 16 years .In United States, during the last 16 years , the winters and autumns are getting cooler and the spring and summers are getting warmer so when these seasons transition from one to the other,, there is a greater temperature difference or zones that clash..

  39. dbstealey,

    Thanks. But I’ve seen all the graphs, with the exception of this one: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg. That is the only one I have seen that quantifies the divergence in km2 rather than in percentage from the mean. From that graph I draw the same conclusion — Arctic sea ice cover has decreased significantly more than Antarctic sea ice has increased over the same time period. Based on the graph alone, I conclude that global sea ice coverage has shown a net decrease over the time period shown. But basing that conclusion on a graph alone is dangerous.

    So what I was hoping to get were the the DATA so I can graph it and analyse it myself, not more graphs. It’s the data that goes into the graphs that I can’t find. Can you or anybody point me to the data that went into that divergence graph?

    For all the hew and cry from the skeptic side that it is GLOBAL sea ice we should be looking at, not just Arctic sea ice (which I wholeheartedly agree with), I find it odd that I can’t find a single graph that Global sea ice cover. Why is that? Why is there not, even on this site, a plot that shows global sea ice coverage?

    If there is and I have missed it, a thousand apologies in advance.

    Disclosure: I’m a climate skeptic. But I seem to find almost as much disinformation from climate skeptic sources as I do CAGW sources. For me at least, data rules, regardless of what it points to.

    Craig

  40. I actually heard Rajendra Pachauri (Chairman IPCC) say, not ten, not 20 but 40 years before they would consider that there was no warming! One needed bother to say that in 40 years many who proposed this hair brain scheme will not reside in the boundaries of this planet. They would probably be burnt out anyway!

  41. “Ask yourself: why would someone show only the Arctic? Do you think they might have an agenda? They are hiding the Antarctic for a reason. They are trying to convince you that the planet is losing ice. But that is not true, as you can see in the first link above. Global ice extent remains right at it’s long term average. There is nothing unusual happening.”

    Both sides have an agenda. At least some people on both sides do. The CAGR crowd is not unique in that respect. To me at least, it SEEMS like the “look at the Global sea ice cover” side of the argument is engaging in their own obfuscation. For instance, I ask for data and I get a whole bunch of graphs, none of which tell the whole story. And yet it would be so simple. Why?

    At any rate,

    1) The graph at the first link above http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_146-mar-12-07-52.jpg only shows the Antarctic. But from the trendline I conclude that Antarctic ice cover has increased by about 500,000 km2 since 1979. Reasonable or no?

    2) I just googled around and found this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/07/Figure3.png. From the trendline of THAT graph I conclude that Arctic sea ice cover has decreased by about 1,500,000 km2 over the same time frame. Reasonable or no?

    3) 1,500,000/500,000 = 3. Reasonable or no?

    4) In area, Antarctic ice cover has increased by 1/3 the amount that Arctic ice cover has decreased over the period 1979 – present. Reasonable or no?

    5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?

    6) From this figure, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif, the global mean over that time period is about 22,300,000 km2. Reasonable or no?

    7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?

  42. “Right on the WUWT mast head, click “Reference Pages” and then “Sea Ice”.

    All the, uhm, cold hard data, you could ask for.”

    No need to be a smartass. I looked there, but I did not see what I was looking for, which is global sea ice coverage over time. If it’s there and I missed it, I apologize.

  43. U.N. World Meteorological Organization report pans the idea that severe weather and severe weather deaths can be linked to climate change

    Somebody please get this memo sent over to the leftist NBC owned and operated “The Weather Channel” because they are clearly working off an older release. Naturally if this UN report trumpeted a link between the two, it would find its way on the air immediately. Congratulations to you leftist kooks who have brazenly turned some TV shows into Pravda like propaganda outlets.

    Anyway, I had the Weather Channel on today just to see how they missed the clear and sunny day we had that completely obliterated their forecast of more endless rain. Couldn’t really determine what happened though because they were way too busy fretting over sea level rise, summertime in the desert southwest and pending tropical formations.

    “Extreme weather” events does seem to be regularly scheduled programming on there. It’s pathetic really. Out of all the hundreds of channels on cable, somehow NBC has turned The Weather Channel into the most consistent AGW kook propaganda outlet on the air.

  44. “Steve Goddard provides plenty of historical documentation showing that the current situation in the Arctic is nothing unusual. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and not very long ago. We are simply observing the ebb and flow of polar ice cycles.”

    I know that. But that is not my question. My question is: “Has global sea ice cover decreased over the last 43 years or has it not?”

    “Unfortunately, some in the climate alarmist crowd like to cherry-pick this particular instant in time, and then extrapolate the current temporary changes in order to frighten people. ”

    I’m well aware of their tactics.

    “But as we see, total global ice is unchanged.”

    Please explain your basis for this statement. I show the linear least-squares trendline to have decreased by about 4.5%. Where 4.5% over 43 years falls within the margin of error is a different debate, and I make no claims about that. I’m just trying to get at a simple fact. Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?

  45. The idea of Climate is a human construct based on statistics. Ergo, it is absurd to think of “Climate Extremes”, as outliers (ie noise) is generally filtered out. Weather is what “is”. That is, from a statistical point of view, it is “noise”. Therefore, it is absurd to talk of Climatic Extremes. There are absolute extremes, that is, weather extremes. Or more explicitly, a single point in time of a weather event.

  46. Craig,

    It may be because you are obviously capable of googling for info yourself. Do your own research.

    Then tell us the simple fact. You would save yourself a lot of typing.

    Global sea ice area is currently the same as it was in 1980.

  47. Craig, a certain blog author who specializes in statistical analysis has links to the data pages you are looking for at Cryosphere today. Another well know climate blog has links to the same data sources plus many others. You might try those…

  48. Billy Liar,

    You are correct as usual. Craig can get the answer to his question by simply looking at the link you posted. Which I also posted for him — twice.

    The red line is the global average ice cover, and the flat black line it straddles is the 30-year average. We can see that global ice cover is nothing to be concerned about; it is almost exactly at its long term average.

    What I wonder about is this: why is Craig apparently not concerned at all about the very blatant cherry-picking of only Arctic ice, when the Antarctic has ten times more ice, and which has been gaining ice for decades? Why are some folks so unconcerned over the dishonest spin that others use to promote their false alarm?

  49. dbstealey,

    There seem to be an increasing number of people on climate skeptic blogs whose purpose appears to be to disrupt by asking questions they could easily answer themselves.

    They might be trying to make blogs unappealing for regulars to frequent.

  50. Norway Rat,

    I and others have posted plenty of charts, graphs, and other documents, including those of Cryosphere Today, which you referenced; we’re way ahead of you. There are also more available, as I have offered. The information is out there, and it shows conclusively that there is no crisis whatever regarding Arctic ice cover. Arctic ice is a non-issue; the last desperate attempt to salvage a correct prediction out of reams of flat-out wrong climate alarmist predictions.

    The Arctic has not warmed, as I showed in one of my many links above. Therefore, the cause of declining Arctic ice is due to shifting ocean currents, changes in precipitation, and similar events. Arctic temperature is not the cause of declining ice, which will anyway go through its current cycle in its own good time. The hand-waving over this natural event is nothing but Chicken Little histrionics. It is certainly not science.

    Finally, this site has won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” Weblog Award — for the third year running — for a very good reason: it does not censor skeptics’ comments like the un-named blogs you mentioned. With very few exceptions, alarmist blogs typically censor opposing points of view. They have to. If they did not, then the truth would emerge: that there is no global warming crisis. Nothing either unusual or unprecedented is occurring.

    We are actually fortunate to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate. Only self-serving rent seekers keep the climate scare alive. That is reprehensible. But fortunately, there are sites like this one, which do not censor opposing points of view, thus the truth gets out. And as we see, the truth is winning. Your side is not.

  51. @craig

    “””””….. Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?……”””””

    Based on your post, and the inanity of your question; we don’t think you would be able to understand the answer.

    After you learn how to serf, you will be able to find your answer out there somewhere.

  52. craig;
    Nobody on this board so far seems to want me to do so. How come?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    How come people keep trying to help you and you keep whining that you aren’t getting what you asked for? Every graph on the sea ice page has a notation as to the source of the graph. All you need do is visit the source site to see their data. Here, I did the first one for you:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/

  53. dbstealey said :

    Finally, this site has won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” Weblog Award — for the third year running — for a very good reason: it does not censor skeptics’ comments like the un-named blogs you mentioned.

    1) Winning a blog award is an indication of how many readers a blog has, and not of the scientific quality of the blog

    2) WUWT often censors comments from people who support the professional, expert understanding of science rather than the pseudoscience that is favoured here.

    3) Allowing the comments of sceptics who are very disproportionately uneducated, uninformed, and/or ideologically motivated is no recommendation.

    4) In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.

    Just saying.

  54. You people would do well to stop being so paranoid. Really. Billy Liar especially. Jesus.

    The graph at this link http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg is the graph that caused me to ask for the actual data in the first place (which STILL no one has posted a link to). Because from the appearance of the graph, it *appears* (to me) that there is more red above the “trendline” (implied by the file name) at the left end of the graph than to the right. In fact, to me it doesn’t look like a trendline, but simply a horizontal line drawn at the 1979-2013 average. But as I said earlier, appearances can be deceiving. I just thought somebody on this board, which is ostensibly meant to educate idiots like me, could point me to the actual data, since I don’t spend my life on this topic. One would think if you really wanted to get your message out, you would just point me to the data, rather than say “do your own research”. Or concoct some silly conspiracy theory about making skeptic blogs “unappealing”.

    Sheesh.

    I posted seven observations above. Does anybody disagree with any of them?

    Craig

  55. Been there. Perhaps you should actually click on the links and see where they point. None of them give a time series of global sea ice extent.

    Craig

  56. George E Smith:

    “Based on your post, and the inanity of your question; we don’t think you would be able to understand the answer.”

    What is inane about my question? The fact that no one can answer it? I ask again:

    Can anybody point me to the raw data that were used to make this graph? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Or perhaps your are referring to one or more of my 7 observations listed above? Care to refute any of them? Anyone? Bueller??

    “After you learn how to serf, you will be able to find your answer out there somewhere.”

    I know how to “serf”. I simply thought somebody here might be able to find what I had no success at finding. At any rate, you clearly don’t know how to spell.

  57. dbstealy,

    You say

    “The information is out there, and it shows conclusively that there is no crisis whatever regarding Arctic ice cover. Arctic ice is a non-issue; the last desperate attempt to salvage a correct prediction out of reams of flat-out wrong climate alarmist predictions.”

    You go on to say basically the same thing in the ensuing paragraphs. And I don’t disagree with you. But in the original post, it is stated in unequivocal fashion that the increase in Antarctic ice since 1979 had “more than made up for” the decrease in Arctic ice. I am questioning that. My basic question is, “How has GLOBAL sea ice extent changed over the period 1979-2013?” The answer is out there somewhere, and it is a simple number. It’s not open to debate. But so far, for answers, I’ve been told to figure it out myself, to learn how to “serf”, that there is no crisis in the Arctic, insinuations that I’m an Alarmist in disguise, and most hilariously, that my question is a part of a larger conspiracy to make skeptic blogs “unappealing”. Which basically makes you guys no better than your opponents in the alarmist camp. Somebody earnestly asks a simple question that (I must assume) is inconvenient, and you run them out on a rail? Really? This is scientific dialog?

    Again, based on the data I HAVE been able to find, I conclude that GLOBAL sea ice area has DECREASED by about 4.5% since 1979. Anybody got data to refute that? Anybody even got the balls to address my 7 observations above, and show me which one(s) is wrong?

    So sorry if that is an inane question.

    Craig

  58. Bernard J.

    You say: “4) In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.”

    Really? I would hate to think that. I’ve always respected this blog. Just the same, I have screen-captured the entire thread.

  59. Craig, George pegged you and you don’t even get it. 8^D

    You’ve got 30 years of data. Yawn.

    Great that you screen-capped it. (boring and paranoid).

  60. As of 2008, according to cryosphere:

    Arctic: “Trend, 1979-2008 Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade”

    Antarctic: “Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 42,000 mi2) per decade”

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

    So as of 2008, the Antarctic had only “made up for” 1/5 of the ice lost in the Arctic.

    Still looking for same data through 2013.

    Craig

  61. “You’ve got 30 years of data. Yawn”

    Actually, 44 years according to the two graphs I posted links to above. But again, that is only graphical data. I can’t seem to find the raw data. And the time period that the discussion has been about from the very beginning is 1979-2013. I have been more than clear on that.

    Here are the graphs on which I base my argument again, in context:

    1) The graph at the first link above http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_146-mar-12-07-52.jpg only shows the Antarctic. But from the trendline I conclude that Antarctic ice cover has increased by about 500,000 km2 since 1979. Reasonable or no?

    2) I just googled around and found this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/07/Figure3.png. From the trendline of THAT graph I conclude that Arctic sea ice cover has decreased by about 1,500,000 km2 over the same time frame. Reasonable or no?

    3) 1,500,000/500,000 = 3. Reasonable or no?

    4) In area, Antarctic ice cover has increased by 1/3 the amount that Arctic ice cover has decreased over the period 1979 – present. Reasonable or no?

    5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?

    6) From this figure, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif, the global mean over that time period is about 22,300,000 km2. Reasonable or no?

    7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?

    And the original statement that I am questioning is that since 1979, the Antarctic ice has gained more ice than the Arctic has lost.

    Maybe I was snotty or something in my very first post? Here it is again:

    “Actually, I don’t think that graph supports your claim that the Antarctic makes up for it. The global sea ice anomaly appears to me to trend down too, just not as much as the Arctic. I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?”

    Yep. Obviously a know-nothing, alarmist troll.

    I note that my 7 observations continue to go unchallenged by the objective folks on this board. Will have to go elsewhere to find the answer I guess. Or perhaps the owner of this blog will weigh in. His objectivity has always seemed pretty good to me. I doubt he would take my questioning his assertion personally.

    Craig

  62. “Craig, George pegged you and you don’t even get it. 8^D”

    David, George can’t even spell. 8^D.

    Craig

  63. Craig;
    I just thought somebody on this board, which is ostensibly meant to educate idiots like me,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ah, I see the problem. Thanks for sharing. Sorry to hear that.

    BTW, as of current reporting:

    Arctic -877k
    Antarctic +678K

    Since you’ve been pointed at it many times in this thread, no value telling you where that comes from.

  64. Found it!!

    Northern Hemisphere: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
    Southern Hemisphere: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

    I used the “final” versions. They are daily measurements of NH and SH sea ice extent going back to 1979, through present.

    I summed them, plotted them in Excel, and fit a least-squares line. The equation of the line is:

    y = –0.0001105672x + 23.779

    x = days, y = km2 x 1,000,000

    Over the 10,855 days beginning on 10/26/1978, the linear least-squares fit has decreased by

    (-0.0001105672) * (10855) = 1.200 * 1,000,000 km2 = 1,200,000 km2. That is pretty close to what I state up above:

    “5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?”

    The y-intercept is 23,770,000 km2, so a decrease of 1.200,000 km2 works out to be about 5%.

    Again, from above:

    “7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?”

    So I was pretty darn close.

    So — based on all of the data I can find, no thanks to anybody on this board, I think it is *not fair* to say that global sea ice extent has remained constant, or that Antarctic ice gains have “more than made up for” Arctic ice losses in the period 1979-2013. In fact, the data indicate that global sea ice extent has decreased by 5% over that time period.

    Is that a crisis? Not in my opinion. At least not yet. And of course it depends on your point of view. But even if you’re a polar bear it doesn’t seem like a lot.

    By 2050, assuming the rate stays the same, it would be down 12% from 1979. Is that a crisis? It’s sure no where near the projections of most of the alarmists.

    By 2079, assuming the rate stays the same, it would be down 17%. Is a loss of 17% of the global sea ice over 100 years a crisis? I don’t know, but it’s a far cry from what the alarmists claim it will be. Then again, I am assuming zero non-linearities, the effects of which, in my opinion, are impossible to predict.

    Anyway, I’m not here to debate what it might mean. All I wanted to know was the answer to my original question. And the answer is: -5%.

    Craig

  65. “BTW, as of current reporting:

    Arctic -877k
    Antarctic +678K”

    Not over the 1979-2013 time frame, which is the time frame I made crystal clear that I was referring to.

  66. David:

    “Craig, he can but you missed his meaning”

    Given that “surf” in this context is a verb, and “serf” is a noun, I doubt it.

  67. Craig says:
    July 3, 2013 at 11:21 pm
    “BTW, as of current reporting:

    Arctic -877k
    Antarctic +678K”
    Not over the 1979-2013 time frame, which is the time frame I made crystal clear that I was referring to.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Those are current anomalies calculated against the 1979 to 2008 average. So yes, right now today, the antarctic increase is almost what the arctic decrease is. A few weeks ago the antarctic increase actually exceeded the arctic decrease.

  68. Craig,

    1) Are you calculating mere area of ice (re: your -5% result above)? What about the total volume of ice? Or is the volume irrelevant?

    2) I read your comments above and the pompous, arrogant, demanding, tone was exceptionally shrill. Who are you to demand answers of anyone here?

    You may or may not have proven anything useful about sea ice. You have, however, CLEARLY proven that you are jerk.

  69. davidmhoffer:

    “Those are current anomalies calculated against the 1979 to 2008 average. So yes, right now today, the antarctic increase is almost what the arctic decrease is. A few weeks ago the antarctic increase actually exceeded the arctic decrease.”

    Thanks. Well OK, but I don’t know that that is a fair comparison. You’re comparing an instantaneous value from a highly-volatile dataset with a 39-year average. Are you not?

    It is equally true that since 1979, the trend of global sea ice extent is linear, and that linear trend line is 5% lower in 2013 than it was in 1979. In my *opinion*, that is a fairer and more accurate description of reality.

    Again, dbstealy stated that Antarctic gains more than made up for Arctic losses, and he pointed to this graph as evidence: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    I *politely* took issue with that — the graph didn’t seem to support it. And being unable to find the raw data that went into the graph, and not wanting to base my conclusions on a picture, I *politely* asked if he could point me to it. And that’s when the shitstorm started. Why? Because I disagreed. Respectfully.

    That’s not science guys. Those of you who have attacked me are no better than your alarmist counterparts that you disparage. And you’re certainly not helping your “cause”.

    A little more disclosure for those who seem to think I’m an idiot. I have a BS (summa cum laude) in Geology from Bowling Green State University (85), and a MS in Geophysics from Purdue (87). I have worked as an exploration geophysicist for the last 26 years. I am VP of a small company of 100 employees in the Silicon Valley.

    I practice science on a daily basis, and I’ve made a damn good living at it. I doubt most of my attackers can say that.

  70. Craig, “I…. I…….. I………… I………… .”

    And one more thing…. you have an arrogant, repulsive, personality.

    Must be absolutely LOVELY working in a small company with an angry, paranoid, narcissist like you.

  71. Hi Janice,

    “1) Are you calculating mere area of ice (re: your -5% result above)? What about the total volume of ice? Or is the volume irrelevant?”

    Of course the volume is *not* irrelevant in a general sense, but it is in *this* discussion. The graph that dbstealy pointed to to support his assertion was a graph of aerial extent, and that is what I have been questioning from the start. BTW, dbstealy is not one of the people who attacked me. Evidently, HE wasn’t threatened by my question.

    “2) I read your comments above and the pompous, arrogant, demanding, tone was exceptionally shrill. Who are you to demand answers of anyone here?”

    I suggest that you go back and read it objectively. And then look up “shrill”. An objective read will show that I asked a question in a very polite fashion and was immediately and rudely (and shrilly) attacked. And please point me to anywhere that I *demanded* anything.

    Your can call me a jerk, I guess I could call you a nasty name back but I’m a gentleman, so I won’t. But what you, too, seemingly *can’t* do is address in any way a single aspect of my argument. All anybody seems to be able to do (with a couple of exceptions) is call me names, call me stupid, or set up straw-man arguments and knock them down. I can only take that to mean that you know you are wrong.

    Enjoy your little groupthink circle jerk.you’ve got going here.

  72. dbstealey said at July 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Ice loss is not caused by warming of the Arctic, as we see here

    .

    I’m curious about this claim of no Arctic warming. What is your explanation for reconciling the graph to which you link, with the GISS data for the same period?

    Also, do you think that it is valid to compare Arctic sea ice with Antarctic sea ice, given that Arctic sea ice is surrounded by and floating on liquid water, where the Antarctic sea ice is protected by a very large continent called Antarctica (a land body that is not similarly found in the Arctic)?

    Further, given that a lot of the Antarctic sea ice originates from land-based snow fall, and that the overall increased humidity of the planet’s atmosphere is resulting in ‎increased snowfall over parts of the Antarctic, do you not think that altogether you are comparing apples and coconuts?

    And to preempt any misunderstandings, more snow in a polar region does not indicate global cooling. Rather, it indicates increased atmospheric moisture resulting from lower latitudinal evaporation resulting from global warming: even if the polar region is itself warming it can still snow more heavily there, as long as its overall temperature is below the freezing point of water. Just in case anyone misunderstands…

  73. [Snip. WUWT is...] “…a so-called science website…” ?

    Take your insults elsewhere. We are not obligated to put up with them. — mod.

  74. I’m with Craig on this one. Saying that the gain in the Anctartic “more than made up” for the loses in the Arctic is not just misleading, it is wrong. We can discuss about the significance of the fact of the ice loss, about whether it is unprecedented or not, whether the very small trend matters or not, and whether it is misleading or not to only show the arctic loss. But we cannot and should not pretend that sea ice is not being lost. It is.

  75. Nylo,

    If you have verifiable facts, post them here. But you are only emitting your personal opinion. This is the fifth time this chart has been posted. It is produced by the University of Illinois. We see that global ice cover is right at its long term average, no matter what you may personally believe. The Antarctic contains ten times the amount of ice in the Arctic. I have provided numerous charts showing that the Antarctic ice cover is growing. Neither you, nor Craig, nor anyone else disputes that fact. Your quibbles are an effort to support your belief system. That is not science, that is tantamount to religion.

    Next, any and every chart from SkS is suspect. GISS is notorious for altering the temperature record. If you trust the government to tell you the truth, you are being credulous. Their primary interest is to alarm the populace, then present themselves as the savior of humanity… for a very stiff price: taxing the air we breathe, forever. But in reality, there is no crisis.

    The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Until/unless it is, that means that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented occurring. Nothing. What is observed today has happended repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree — and during times when CO2 was much lower than now. Thus, the whole manmade global warming argument fails.

    If the alarmist crowd used rational thought, logic, and followed the Scientific Method instead of repeating wild-eyed scare stories, we would all be better off. Until then, the best we can do here is set the record straight.

    Finally, I have tried to help Craig several times now. But all I get are claims of ignorance, from someone who toots his horn and claims to be smarter than the rest of us. The information Craig seeks is out there, and easily found. But his tactic of constantly asking, “But why…?” is juvenile and non-productive.

    Craig needs to understand that the onus is entirely on those claiming there is a runaway global warming problem, to provide testable, verifiable scientific evidence of any claimed problem. But they have failed, so they try to put scientific skeptics into the position of essentially having to prove a negative. They need to go back and study the Scientific Method and its corollary, the Null Hypothesis. Otherwise, they are no different than the old time believers in witch doctors, praying to the moon [ie: paying more taxes] in order to stop the feared eclipse [non-existent runaway global warming].

    Ignorance is hard to overcome, because it is based on emotion. But skeptics are trying. And amazingly, the public is beginning to see the light: the whole global warming scare is a trumped-up, grant fed scam.

  76. dbstealey, my facts are extracted from the same chart that you link and the fact that the anomaly is, during the last 6 years of data, approximately 85% of the time negative, which means that total sea ice area is below average most of the time. Only sporadically it becomes positive. So perhaps today the anomaly is not negative, but this doesn’t invalidate the fact that total ice area has been going down, in the same way that today we may have below average temperatures but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that temperatures have been getting warmer in the last century and are therefore, most of the times, above the average, even if today in particular they happened to be below the average.

  77. I think the discussion of the Arctic sea ice has gotten out of hand. I didn’t get the feeling that Craig was doing anything but looking for good data. I have a feeling that having to deal with people like Jai Mitchell have led some folks to being overly defensive.

    It appears Craig has found the data and, like him, I accept that global sea ice has had a slight downward trend if you cherry pick the start date to the peak of the Arctic sea ice. Naturally this selection of dates is not all that informative to long term trends.

    Finally, the key to Arctic sea ice loss is the AMO. It switched to warm mode in the mid 90s. After a lag of a few years the sea ice started to melt. The AMO is currently at its peak warm values which should continue for another 5-10 years. We are likely to see little change until that time although it might start heading down from this peak in a few years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-how-much-of-an-impact-does-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-have-on-arctic-sea-ice-extent/

    Also keep in mind that the Antarctic sea ice that increased over the same time also correlates to the cooling of the Southern Ocean. It’s pretty clear to me that it is nearby ocean temperatures that control the amount of sea ice at both poles.

  78. dbstealey, regarding your claim that
    The Antarctic contains ten times the amount of ice in the Arctic

    We are talking about sea ice here. Antarctic sea ice varies seasonally between a maximum of around 15 million km2 and a minimum of 2. Arctic sea ice varies seasonally between a maximum of around 14 million km2 and a minimum of 5 (or 3, more recently). Therefore could you please explain your claim that I have cited above? It certainly is not derived from the data published in Cryosphere Today.

  79. Craig says “I’m a climate skeptic” then proceeds to reveal that to be a lie.
    He also says, “I have read WUWT for a long time now” then proceeds to show that he is ignorant of sea ice information that is discussed over and over on this site.
    Serial liar and useful “serf”. Hilarious.

  80. Craig, can you tell me how often the Arctic has been ice free over the last 13 million years? Oh yeah, this time it’s different. Evidence please.

  81. Craig says:

    “…being unable to find the raw data that went into the graph, and not wanting to base my conclusions on a picture, I *politely* asked if he could point me to it.”

    As I noted above, that graph was produced by the University of Illinois — something you could have determined as easily as I did. It took me all of about five seconds. And I am also being polite, but the hand-holding is getting to be a bit much. I suggest that you take a few months and read the WUWT archives, keyword: ice. You need to get up to speed yourself, instead of asking us to do your homework.

    Hi Nylo:

    During the Holocene the Arctic has been ice-free. This was at a time when CO2 was very low, and human activity was negligible.

    Apparently you prefer to believe that the current fluctuation in Arctic ice is caused by human activity. If so, the onus is on you to prove it — or at least to provide solid, testable and measurable scientific evidence showing that your conjecture is valid.

    But so far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide any such measurements that are testable per the Scientific Method. You are looking at a natural event that has happened many times before, and to a greater degree, and then making the assumption that human activity is the cause. That is not nearly good enough. If those are our standards, then we are back into witch doctor territory.

    Either produce testable measurements showing that human activity is the reasoin for the current decline in Arctic ice, or accept the climate Null Hypothesis — which has never been falsified.

  82. Hi dbstealey, with all due respect, you are obcecated and paranoid asuming ideas in other people that have not been said nor implied in anything they wrote. I see that I am no exception to this. Nowhere have I made any claim about who is to blame regarding the situation in the Arctic, in fact, I have specifically said that the significance of the event is perfectly debatable. Also I have not ever argued against the possibility that the Arctic has been ice free, probably several times in the Holocene before now. I have absolutely no need to show any proof that the current fluctuation in Arctic ice is caused by human activity, because I have not made nor implied such a thing. My only claim has been that the data shows, without a doubt, that ice has been lost in the Arctic during the satellite era, and that this loss, contrary to your assertion, has not been more than countered by an increase in the antarctic. It’s a plain assertion of a true fact which YOU DENIED, and I claim it without entering into which causes or consecuences the fact may have.

    Yes, when looking at the fact that ice is being lost, I am looking at a probably natural event that has probably happened many times in the past. So I see no need to DENY this fact the way that you do. And I make no assumption that humans are the cause, that’s only in your imagination, it doesn’t exist in any of my posts in this or in other threads. And as I see you deny the simple true fact that ice is being lost, I accuse you of being misleading. What are you afraid of? If you are sure that the truth is on your side, why are you denying facts? Do you perhaps think that people cannot handle the facts without some convenient dressing of them? If so, then you are not very different from the warmistas, and your attitude weakens the position of true sceptics of CAGW like me.

  83. Nylo says:

    “My only claim has been that the data shows, without a doubt, that ice has been lost in the Arctic during the satellite era, and that this loss, contrary to your assertion, has not been more than countered by an increase in the antarctic.”

    If your position is that the decline in Arctic ice is not due to human activity, then my apologies, we are on the same page.

    However, I posted data from the University of Illinois showing that Antarctic ice cover compensates for the loss of Arctic ice; global ice cover remains at its long term average.

    Also, I regard selectively separating sea ice from total ice cover to be unreliable. There is no accurate way to determine total ice volume. Thus, the best we can do is to use satellite data to compare the poles. And that data shows that global ice cover is average.

  84. Craig says:

    Bernard J.

    You say: “4) In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.”

    Really? I would hate to think that.

    As would I. So I challenge Bernard J. to show us which threads have been “censored whole”. I am aware of a couple of threads over the years which have been terminated ["Comments Closed"] when they got down to a few diehards incessantly arguing and nitpicking over obscure, irrelevant points. But to the best of my knowledge, threads have not been completely removed or deleted — and never for the reasons given by Bernard J.

    This site takes pride in promoting all points of view. That is a basic reason for its popularity. Readers can then decide for themselves the truth of the matter under discussion, and make up their own minds. Frank and open discussion is the best way to sift the wheat of truth from the chaff of climate propaganda. For that reason, many, if not most alarmist blogs censor inconvenient facts and skeptical comments.

  85. Univ of Illinois data (via cryosphere today site) shows the global sea ice area very close to the 30 year average. The data table shows the approx global sea ice area since 1979 is about 20 million square kilometers. The last value for the anomoly is -0.35 so thats under 2 percent below the 30 year average. Just a couple months ago the anamoly was positive. The 30 year anomoly trend line looks completely flat.
    That ignores the multi-decadal polar oscillations. Anecdotal ship observations suggest that arctic sea ice has been variable at multi-decadal time scales with the 1920s and 30s being similar to the current decades.
    I’d agree with dbstealey, there is nothing unusual about global sea ice area in 2013, and nothing to suggest that the future global sea ice area will change in the 21st century.

  86. This report has a graph on page 4 that shows a 0.21° temperature rise in the decade 2001-2010. Yet I understood that there had been no statistically significant increase in temperature for 14/15 years. Seems to be a bit of difference in the two positions, anyone know why?

  87. bw,

    Thanks, you explained it better than I did.

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

    Bernard J. wrote:

    “In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.”

    So I challenged Bernard J. to show us which threads have been “censored whole”. But rather than accepting the challenge, Bernard has apparently skedaddled.

    It’s easy to make accusations. Backing them up with chapter and verse is the hard part.

  88. “Chapter and verse”?

    Try this:

    http://www.webcitation.org/6H83F9g4X

    For the second part of my point 4, perhaps you could explain when the promised following-up post will be published on how the urban heat island effect is raising remote rural Chinese temperature. Also, isn’t “Watts et al 2012″ a little overdue?

  89. For those who can’t work it out, the WUWT post linked to in my previous post now displays only this:

    http://www.webcitation.org/6HyMgStma

    The reason the original post was removed? According to Anthony Watts himself – “serious [scientific] errors”, just as I observed on 3 July 2013 at 8:37 pm.

    And dbstealey, I am still waiting for a considered response to my question of 4 July 2013 at 12:14 am regarding the validity of comparing Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and their ætiologies.

  90. Bernard J., the more you post the less sense you make. Maybe that is why I disregard your demands. You write:

    “I am still waiting for a considered response…”

    Keep waiting. Your question was from back on July 4th. If you didn’t get an answer by now, sorry about that; but it doesn’t mean you’re right. Also, your webcite link does not prove what you were alleging, which was specifically “censorship”. Anthony has closed out articles and threads before, and they have nothing to do with your belief system, or with “censorship”. It really has nothing whatever to do with you, as far as I can see.

    I have also been busy in this thread responding to other commentators, as can be seen in my comments above. Like many folks, I prioritize my comments, sorry you didn’t make the cut. If you get off your high horse and quit demanding, you might get some results. In your case, try the hat-in-hand approach. Also, your link above goes nowhere. Suggest you give it another try. And forget webcite, it is full of malware.

  91. dbstealey.

    I originally said:

    In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.

    [My latter emboldened emphasis]

    You asked for me to back up my comment that threads are “censored whole”. I gave you an example of a thread that was removed on the basis of egregious scientific errors, just as I said in my original comment. This might not be censorship in your semantic world, but most people would regard the removal of material as censorship. When such occurs on other blogs it is certainly regarded as such by the regulars here.

    Further, you said on 4 July 2013 at 2:44 pm:

    I am aware of a couple of threads over the years which have been terminated ["Comments Closed"] when they got down to a few diehards incessantly arguing and nitpicking over obscure, irrelevant points. But to the best of my knowledge, threads have not been completely removed or deleted — and never for the reasons given by Bernard J.

    The example I gave was not a simple closing of comments to which you referred, but a removal for the reason I gave and which you claimed to be unaware of.

    I am not sure why this appears so difficult for you to acknowledge.

    On the matter of my basic question regarding your confabulation of the different contexts/ætiologies of Arctic versus Antarctic sea ice, you are of course quite entitled to avoid answering the matter. Your home-blog, your prerogative. It’s curious though, and telling, that you don’t answer what are very fundamental points. The regulars here might not understand the significance of your dodging, but the rest of the world knows why you don’t answer – to do so would negate your entire argument on sea ice dynamics.

    And with respect to my “demanding” nature, why are my questions “demanding” where the well-documented ‘sceptic’ requests for data and correspondence from climatologists are not?

  92. Bernard J.,

    I originally said: “If you didn’t get an answer by now, sorry about that; but it doesn’t mean you’re right.”

    Global ice cover is right at its 30-year average. Most folks accept the fact that CO2 is not the cause of Arctic ice decline. You can believe what you want, but like all the predictions of runaway global warming due to “carbon”, your belief is wrong.

Comments are closed.