By Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts (based on an email exchange)
This is interesting. NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent. As readers know, late September is typically the time of the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, and this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. Here is the NOAA forecast graph:
UPDATE: I no more than finished this post and NOAA had a new updated forecast for May 23rd, added below. (h/t Ric Werme)
For the last three May 12th forecasts, this year’s forecast for summer is the highest of them.
Source: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Notice how much higher this is than last years forecast at this time:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201305/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
And also higher than in 2012:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201205/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
The CFSV2 forecasting model was not on line before that, but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
![seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/seaice-anomaly-arctic1.png?resize=640%2C520)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It appears that all summers since about 1996 have not had any positive anomalies. (see magnified view below)
At the very least if we get it positive and the melt season is the lowest since the AMO went warm it will be something that goes right at the heart of the arguments that recent Arctic sea ice deviations are entirely human caused.
In addition, given the Southern Hemisphere continues with well above normal sea ice, if it continues, it gives us a shot at a record breaking global sea ice in the satellite era.
On the other hand, it is a model forecast, and may not come to be. It will be interesting to watch though.
As always, check the WUWT Sea Ice Page for the latest information.
Here is the background on CFS:
The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
Please reference the following article when using the CFS Reanalysis (CFSR) data.
Saha, Suranjana, and Coauthors, 2010: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1015.1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1
Please reference the following article when using the CFS version 2 Reforecast model or data
Saha, Suranjana and Coauthors, 2014: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 Journal of Climate J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
What will the El Nino contribute to this anomaly?
Thank you for this coverage, it *could get interesting* this next winter if sea ice has normalized and we have another cooler than average winter in the majority of the North American continent.
My only question is when does the Cali drought crack? Its getting hot and dusty again with out any real rain… again.
We’re in a drought for sure. The question again is, “What will the El Nino contribute to this drought —ending?”
That forecast is going to send shivers down some backs.
Off topic, but an unknown meteor shower is forecast for the Northern Hemisphere tonight. Well, we have not experienced it prior. More here.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
‘ … this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. ‘
Define ‘normal’
The “missing heat” is hiding (and very well) in the ice?
Time to move the goal post!
(Or maybe time to re-post the predictions about what the Arctic ice would do because of CAGW?)
View from the Solent says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:12 pm
‘ … this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. ‘
Define ‘normal’
++++++++++
1979 to 2008 mean? You see, that was a period in which the average was anointed with what should be perfect, had man not come to thrive.
Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams is right on track for his ice-free Arctic ocean I see. I can’t help thinking whether he will be just like Dr. David Viner. It will be so sad to see such an esteemed Arctic specialist being ridiculed mercilessly in the years to come. I can understand if he just made a prediction once, but he kept going on and on about it.
I am waiting Peter Wadhams. 2 years and 4 months to go – at most.
Mario Lento says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:15 pm
=====
exactly….the Arctic ocean is about 14 million km2 (I think)….so there’s plenty of wiggle room…
move that normal line down a million km2….and we have too much ice again
and now that they are counting the shoreline….they can count even more melt every summer
Here are a few with some having attached caveats. If there is no ice free Arctic by September 2020 then there will be a lot of blushes.
You may have seen comments about the North Pole being ice free for the first time. This is BS of the highest order – a complete and utter fabrication.
The North Pole has NEVER been ice free before. It really is much worse than we thought. LOL.
Thin, rotten ice above normal ?
And here is something for those obsessed with an ‘unprecedented’ ice free Arctic – it’s not unprecedented at all.
More than likely, the Arctic was ice free in the summer, circa AD 1,000 given the trading posts built by the Vikings so far north.
NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent
======
Does anyone do a forecast for the Antarctic?
Learning from Wall Street. Set an easy target then celebrate beating it.
Does anyone else see a cosine wave with advancing start angle when they look at the arctic ice graphs? It looks to me like the bottom (pi) shifts left for an earlier min and an earlier recovery.
Does anyone know,the value of 0,on an anomaly graph?
If they are guessing that it will be above anomaly September + 2 months 2014 my bet its going to stay that way and go considerably higher next NH winter…2015 and stay there. Thats when AGW will really be impossible to defend on ice melt ect….
.
What has happened to Arctic sea ice volume in recent years? It seems to have bottomed out and is rising somewhat. It really is much worse than we thought. The Arctic is the last line to breach in the climate wars. If they lose this one and global sea ice then the jig should be up. They can then leave Climastrology and get back to doing some real, useful work for humanity instead of wetting their pants while feeding at the trough.
Of course they might change the baseline AGAIN…. LOL
Don’t worry. It will be the wrong kind of ice. The most rotten, thin ice ever! It’s worse than we thought!
Mario Lento! Glad you are back! Good luck at Thunderhill this weekend!!
(FYI — for the WUWTers who don’t know, WUWT regular Mario Lento is not only an engineer, but a professional race car driver, see: http://www.ustcc.com/ (on far right in photo))
#(:))
Good point, Mario (at 4:15 (and nicely confirmed by Latitude at 4:23) — defining “normal” is key.
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth’s climate has been an ice age. *** The climate of the ice ages is documented in the ice layers of Greenland and Antarctica. We have cored these layers, … and studied them in the laboratory. *** We are in a cooling trend. The areal extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean.”
(Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/90-of-the-last-million-years-the-normal-state-of-the-earths-climate-has-been-an-ice-age/)
**************************************
THANKS FOR SHARING THOSE GREAT QUOTES, JIMBO!
************************
In case you come back, Gunga Din — I never got a chance to tell you, but, excellent video with Captain America’s “only one God” (and he doesn’t dress like that, heh).
I became a “denier” when I found out that an “ice free” arctic means less than a MILLION SQUARE KILOMETERS of ice, 900 thousand square kilometers of ice is ALOT of ice. I knew then that word games were being played.
DAS
Oh, the wizards of BS
Re LATITUDE above: if antarctica continues on its current trend it may signal the beginning of a mini or maxi ice age! Very very bad news. MY impression from viewing daily temperatures in last 12 months is that mid and northern latitude surface land temperatures are going down at SH and NH, but tropical and sub-tropical land temperatures appear normal. It could be all nonsense though as I am just guessing…LOL
Without looking at their models, this would be due to a large extent to the development of larger areas of multi-year ice. This reduces the area of thin ice for melting by late summer. The low multi-year ice of recent years is responsible for the skipping-rope ‘sag’ in the plots as we go into the summer season. We have a noticeable increase in 3 to 5m+ ice in the Canadian archepelago that isn’t going anywhere this year and beyond. Indeed, let me forecast with very high confidence that there will be no sailing through the NW passage this summer. It currently has substantial stretches of 3-4m thick ice that isn’t going to melt. This will be added to next year and I’m afraid we could have no such adventure for a generation.
The Ship of Fools may be the last frivolous romp to Antarctica for a long while as well. This will be because of the increasing summer ice, the highly publicized idiocy of the Fool’s voyage to witness global warming there, the cost to and outrage of legitimate polar researchers who were interrupted in their work and the increase in cost for such ventures following the fallout and insurance costs. Maybe we should also add the weather forecasting assistance to the Russian ship captain by hated skeptics Anthony Watts, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo that was spot on an opportunity for escaping the ice. Look for a tripling in chartering costs and bigger ice class ships.
Anthony – Check the NOAA link now – the anomalies have gone higher with the 13 May – 22 May data! 0.2 to 0.4 million km^2 for the three months.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Winters will get much warmer in the Arcitc with global warming. The US government’s top science advisor has told us so. If this is the best that the United States of America has got to offer as the governments chief science advisor then you are in deep trouble.
Dr. James Hansen did come close in absurdity when he said that the oceans would all end up in the atmosphere. He later recanted when he realised he as mad.
Sorry, the sources for my last quote is below.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/02/complete-barking-madness-from-john.html
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3
Advance congratulations to Joe, who predicted this earlier. OK, well it does have to be confirmed by observation, but current trends have Joe looking pretty golden.
Higher ice than “normal” forecasted. Lower number of TS in the Atlantic forecasted. What will they forecast next?
Jimbo says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm
And here is something for those obsessed with an ‘unprecedented’ ice free Arctic – it’s not unprecedented at all. (Go to Jimbo’s link).
The recent study by a Danish group of the perennially ice bound north coast of Greenland found driftwood, sandy beaches with ridges raised by pre-historic wind pushed ice – typical of an open coastal water environment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/inconvenient-ice-study-less-ice-in-the-arctic-ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
Anybody with a brain could see year after year that ice melt was a combination of winds pushing/pulling ice this way and that, and warmer incoming currents from the Atlantic. The only way CO2 could have been involved was if it was sentient.
There’s a whole site worth of NOAA/CFSv2 forecast data, start at http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/
The forecast anomaly and extent for September (with 13 May – 22 May data) is at http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/npsSIChMonL3.gif
Extra ice north of Russia and on either side of Greenland. Less ice north of Alaska.
Looks like the northwest passage may be tricky this year.
July is interesting too, see http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/npsSIChMonL1.gif
So they are forecasting that extent will [be] at the values it was in 1999 and 2000.
20 months ago the CBC told their audience that the arctic would be ice free 4 months from now.
And finally, here is the previous Arctic Warm Period which began around the early 1920s – not as ‘warm’ as today apparently. Nature at work not co2. Ocean currents, wind and soot do their thing. If not then expect Antarctica to be a hot tub soon – it too is a polar region for CAGW effects.
Since that email the anomaly forecast has increased even further!
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
I have been emphasizing in weatherbell.com posts this is not yet the real deal.. that will occur when the permanent flip of the AMO occurs in a few years. It does show though what others have championed, that the arctic sea ice is a function mainly of the amo, ( it is now cooler, I think only for a year or two as its not yet ready to flip completely.. I trust Bill Gray on these matters) and certainly not co2 or the ideas the warming crowd is trying to advance.. pollution, etc. If so, why did they not warn us that the death spiral was alot of nonsense and that in 2014 there would be enough of a flip in the amo to offer this chance.. which until it happens, is really only what it is, but even that is noteworthy given the hype of tripe we have had to put up with!
There is far more multi-year, thicker ice in the Beaufort Gyre this year. Multi-year, thicker ice typically survives the melt season in the Gyre.
There was increase last year as well which lead to the recovery in 2013. Based on the continuing increase in the multi-year thicker ice going into 2014, this year’s extent should be quite a bit higher than last year.
Joe Bastardi says:
May 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm
If the period 2013 to 2046 reverses the trend of 1979-2012, CACA is in deep doodoo. The heat must be hiding in the ice.
I may be missing something from Anthony’s post, but how good were NOAA’s forecasts the past two years? Has someone done an overlay of the forecast on the actual to see if they have any skill? Looking just at the anomaly forecasts for 2012 and 2013 they are pretty flat and don’t seem to reflect the actual numbers shown in the lower figures, but the scales are way off so I can’t eyeball it.
“… even [the above prediction] is noteworthy given the hype of tripe we have had to put up with!”
Joe Bastardi at 5:20pm
Indeed. NOAA is just sick and tired of being wrong — all — the — time, lol.
*********************************
@ Pamela Gray — “sentient” — lol. Yes!
And a mind of its own…, not listening to the High Priest’s of Climate-Baal even though they daily dump their rotting sacrifices of junk science on Climate-Baal’s altar. Maybe, they’ll start cutting themselves with knives (a la the prophets of Baal in I. Kings 18 (see vv. 27-29 esp. “At noon Elijah began to taunt them. ‘Shout louder!’ … So they shouted louder and slashed themselves … and they continued their frantic prophesying until it was time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, … no one paid attention.”)
Sounds familiar.
Listen to us! Listen to us!!! CO2 does things!! IT REALLY, REALLY, DOES!!! Our models can predict…. uh….. the weather …. 3 days in advance, so….. we know EVERYTHING!”
Face the cold hard facts, O Climate-Baal Priests:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
*****************************************
(Hey, Hollywood! YOU ARE MISSING A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMEDY, HERE! — the Envirostalinists (“scientists,” journalists, politicians, etc…) are a laugh-a-minute! The stuff writes itself!)
Bill Illis says: May 23, 2014 at 5:24 pm
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source[/caption]
Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
There is far more multi-year, thicker ice in the Beaufort Gyre this year. Multi-year, thicker ice typically survives the melt season in the Gyre.
Yes, Beaufort Sea Ice appears quite resilient this year:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
@D.I.:
It is the average of a xx-year base period.
It actually depends on the month. You make the xx-year average for January, February, …
For January months, you subtract the January average. For February months, you subtract the February average.
Anomalies are a standard way of removing yearly seasonality.
So , since the missing heat is hiding in the sea ice we can expect greater ice extents. Which requires CO2 driven CAGW to provide the needed energy transfer to cause the accelerated formation of “Hot Ice” at both poles. Global Warming will with 99% certainty cause harsh NH and SH winters for a period after which all the “Missing Heat” will pop out of the Deep Oceans and “Hot Ice” and everything will melt and civilization located below 100ft will be inundated with boiling ocean water. How’s my soft science doing?
sarc/
“The North Pole has NEVER been ice free before. It really is much worse than we thought. LOL.”
Gosh sounds like the stupid mistake Goddard made here years ago.
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
Ice free at the north pole is nothing unique and its not an object of scientific study. ice extent in the ENTIRE BASIN… that’s of interest.
North pole: uninteresting
Entire basin: interesting
Write that down and tell goddard
Also, Central Arctic Sea Ice looks solid:
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source[/caption]
Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
I bet they are wrong in their forecast. 97% chance they are wrong. I see it being around 4.8/4.9 in September
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/multi-year-ice/
“2011’s vomiting cow doesn’t look all that smaller (the brown colour represents the multi-year ice), but this year’s genetically modified mouse is still a tad bigger, with a large bulk of multi-year ice taking up position in the Beaufort and even some of the Chukchi Sea. Whether this will prove to be a protective barrier, as witnessed in 2010 and 2011, remains to be seen.”
The back peddling has started. It’s here or almost here. The start of global cooling.
It will be interesting to hear the excuses and creative theories to explain away significant, unequivocal cooling. The question is not if there will be cooling but rather how much and how rapid. Based on what has happened in the past – paleoclimate record – (there are for example 342 warming and cooling cycles recorded in ice cores from the Antarctic peninsula in the last 240,000 years with a mean time between cycles of 1500 years and 400 years) when there was a Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling event due to a special Maunder like minimum change to the solar magnetic cycle, the warming in the last 150 years will rapidly reverse.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
The high latitude regions will be significantly colder than the 20th century average (reversal of the regional warming we saw in the last 70 years) and there will be less frequent and lower magnitude El Niño events, both changes will cause the global temperature anomaly to be less than the 20th century average.
Nir Shaviv’s conservative estimate based on past climate cycles is that almost 60% (0.47C of say 0.8C) of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Based on my understanding of the mechanisms Shaviv’s estimate is too low. Roughly 90% of the warming (0.7C) in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
“CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19C, while
the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.”
Here’s what may be the biggest whopper of arctic ice forecasting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/arctic-sea-ice-decline-in-the-21st-century/
The ending is just rich.
“5) Have we crossed a tipping point?
I don’t think we have yet. If we fix the greenhouse gas and aerosol levels at year 2000 values and run the model into the 21st century, the sea ice retreats for only another decade or two and then levels off (some of the ensemble members even recover a little bit). So according to our model, the sea ice does not appear to have passed a threshold yet. We have not done an exhaustive study of any years beyond today, so unfortunately we cannot say with certainty that no tipping points exist. The bottom-line: The retreat can be surprisingly rapid even without clear evidence of a tipping point.”
How are they/you predicting this? Is the ice that much thicker than usual for this time of year?
Or is it strictly the northern Atlantic/Pacific temperatures are cooler?
Looking at the sea ice graphs, I’d say it could be anywhere between the 2012 and 2013 minimums…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
LOL.
Would you please redefine poverty so I don’t have to pay taxes.
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
“The North Pole has NEVER been ice free before. It really is much worse than we thought. LOL.”
Gosh sounds like the stupid mistake Goddard made here years ago.
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
Soon after the IPCC AR4 Himalaya Fiasco a group of Climate Zealots ganged up and called themselves “Climate Rapid Response Force” or some such nonsense.
No doubt the Zealots will demand that NOAA “adjust the data accordingly” so that a big negative anomaly in September is maintained for the sake of the precious bodily fluids of Obama.
Ha ha
From Dr. Strangelove 😉
I’ll be watching.
Interesting that you mention summer of 1996. Global sea ice is on track to have the highest May average anomaly since 1996: http://climatenerd.com/global-sea-ice-stats-averages.php?data_calc=avg_an&mva=10&yrb=1950&yre=2014&mnb=5&mne=5
Though that’s mostly thanks to the Antarctic. Arctic is still hugging 6th lowest ever and quite a bit less than last year at this point. But anything can change.
Another Obama “adjustment” hit the U.S.A. on Wednesday.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dream-of-us-energy-independence-was-just-revised-away-2014-05-22
Wow ! 96% downgrade and all gone !
Maybe Obama should call the U.N.U.S.N. SeaView and her Nobel winning crew to travel to the Arctic Ocean and launch an attack on the Van Allen Radiation Belt amongst other targets of interest (Kerry’s beloved Ukraine for one … Shelf life up to the Dem Pres Conve in 2016).
Ha ha
JTF, if I may translate those graphs:
Cold,,, with a Tisdale Burrrrr, and light winds…….
Those winds can play havoc on ice.
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011.html
Sea ice at both poles had an upswing in recent days. I wonder if that is what is driving this announcement? Maybe they are trying to show that they are on target with their predictions. The Antarctica anomaly started backsliding off of it,s high point in late April. It then slowly descended until several days ago, where a fresh uptick has taken hold. The high anom had been around 1.6 mil and it had dropped close to 1.0 mil. It is now back up to 1.365 and climbing. I see a good possibility for a new record this breaking the 2 mil point for the first time. Every time that the sea ice anomaly receded, the jet stream had broken up, and moved away from the continent. Then when the ice starts a fresh round of increase, the jet stream has once again closed in closer to the continent. That is exactly what the jet stream has done down there over the last 3 days.
The Arctic anomaly is still a good bit away from the median. I think they will be wrong on their prediction.
“Does anyone know the value of 0,on an anomaly graph?”
The value of zero on an anomaly graph is “nomalous” or “having a name” because it is somehow expected and normal. Anomalies have no name because they are deviant and this sort of unacceptable behavior cannot be countenanced with a name.
It can be expressed by the mathematic equation 0=N, where N is what you expect, what you wish for, or what you have cherry picked.
Must be all that extra northern hemisphere rain and humidity due to global warming that is causing an extra large flush of fresh water in the Arctic which freezes at a higher temperature than salt water.
The CFS v2 paper says the prediction is biased high:
“For sea ice thickness, there are no data available for assimilation, and we suspect there is a significant bias of sea ice thickness in the CFSv2 model that causes the sea ice to be too thick in the IC. For the sea ice prediction, sea ice appears too thick and certainly too extensive in the spring and summer. Figure 10 shows themean September sea ice concentration from 1982 to 2010, and the bias in the predicted mean condition at lead times of 1 month (15 August IC), 3 months (15 June IC), and 6 months (15 March IC). The model shows a consistent high bias in its forecasts of September ice extent.”
REPLY: Right, but the last two years were lower than this one, so the increase is representative of a real increase in the model, though the magnitude may be high. It still points to improved ice conditions in the summer, assuming the model is worth anything at all. – Anthony
Never forget/ignore that 1979 was the coldest year in many decades, so all slopes from then are necessarily positive.
ossqss says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Off topic, but an unknown meteor shower is forecast for the Northern Hemisphere tonight. Well, we have not experienced it prior. More here.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
ossqss,
Thanks for the reminder! Had heard this was set for 2-4am EDT. In a meteorological rarity, we have CLEAR skies here (just S of Seattle) at 9:30pm PDT! I think I’ll have to get a small fire going down by the water and do a little ‘hot toddy and star watch’ tonight!
Regards,
Mac
ossqss says: May 23, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) – HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Those winds can play havoc on ice.
Yes, but note on the following Beaufort Sea Ice Thickness animation that 4 meter thick Sea Ice is much more resistant to fracturing by wind than is 2 or 3 meter thick ice:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]
It will be interesting to see how far the thick sea ice in the Beaufort Sea travels this year.
Tim Palmer can explain everything…to Bloomberg:
headline on Sustainabiliity homepage is: “Extreme U.S. and U.K. Winters Linked to CO2”
23 May: Bloomberg: Justin Doom: Extreme U.S. and U.K. Winters Linked to Greenhouse Gases
The severe snowstorms that battered much of the U.S. and the U.K.’s wettest winter in almost 250 years were at least partially caused by rising greenhouse-gas emissions, a University of Oxford researcher said.
Rising sea temperatures in the tropical Western Pacific also exacerbated last year’s typhoon season including Haiyan, which killed more than 6,000 people in the Philippines, and heat waves in Australia, said Tim Palmer, a professor of climate physics whose findings appear today in the journal Science…
“The sea temperatures in that crucial region of the west Pacific, which are some of the warmest ocean temperatures anywhere in the world, have reached these all-time record warmings through an additional effect, which is man-made climate change,” Palmer said in a telephone interview. “The water’s already warm there, and it’s just taken it over the brink to create conditions last winter and into this spring that were unprecedented.” …
“There are various links in a long chain, and part of my message is that climate is a complex system,” Palmer said. “Interaction between natural climate variability and man-made climate change are coming together in a perfect storm.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/extreme-u-s-and-u-k-winters-linked-to-greenhouse-gases.html
You see? Man made CO2 is causing Climate Change. Now we have more than normal Arctic ice!
We’re doomed.
I’m still blown away by how much ice remains on Lake Superior….shipping out of Duluth harbor is slowly catching up to where it should be, and other businesses are being impacted.
http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/Lake-Superior-Ice-is-Costing-Duluth-Charter-Comapnies-Thousands-in-Revenue-260486711.html
Funny that.
Now, 1.0 Mkm^2 of sea ice represents the entire area between the North pole and latitude 85 north. (84.9 to be precise).
2.0 Mkm^2 of sea ice is everything between 83 north latitude and the pole. (82.8 latitude)
3.0 Mkm^2 of sea ice covers everything between 81 north latitude and the pole. (81.2 latitude)
So who declared this arbitrary “fact” that an “ice free Arctic” can be declared when sea ice still covers everything between 85 north and the pole? Do you still hold that old claim that increased sea ice loss from today’s minimum sea ice extents in mid-September causes increased ocean water heating due to solar absorption into the darker ocean waters?
Jimbo says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm
If they lose this one and global sea ice then the jig should be up. They can then leave Climastrology and get back to doing some real, useful work for humanity instead of wetting their pants while feeding at the trough.
OMG NO Jimbo. You can’t be serious. We can’t let these f*ckw!ts loose in society. Can’t we have something akin to the Monty Python Ward for Overacting, and let them wonder through it spouting their cliches for the next 50 years (no access to the internet of course). I’m pretty sure it would be less expensive than trying to rehabilitate them.
Looking at the 2012 May projection , they modelled at flat summer at around -0.9.
When we look at what happened it was the low point of the whole record. A massive negative spike to about -2.7.
On that basis I would say their model has near to no skill at predicting ice cover.
You may as well go over the excitables on the Arctic ice forum and join in their guessing games.
To heck with the models!
At the end of April, LAKE SUPERIOR was still 60% ice covered!
There were reports of ice 8 feet thick……
http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/minnesota/2014/04/26/lake-superior-ice-delaying-great-lakes-shipping/8202049/
But I suppose that would be considered ‘ice free’ by some who can’t face the reality of 60% ice covered and 8 feet thick ice remaining on the Great Lakes heading into May.
Per my post above. Dare I say it – a “Model” for a future hospital for climate scientists:
I wrote the following on May 12, just a few days after the Antarctic Sea Ice anomaly this month was “only” 97% the size of Greenland. The Antarctic sea ice anomaly is a little smaller today (May 24) at 1.38 Mkm^2. But the lesson remains. Arctic sea ice extent at minimum is not only misleading and a false indicator of the planet’s heating (or cooling) trends, but is the WRONG indicator to watch. But, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly is the ONLY thing the CAGW religion has left.
Submitted on 2014/05/12 at 2:39 pm
All data from last week’s WUWT (May 8) Sea Ice Page. (Today’s values (May 12) are slightly lower. Then again, we are 5 days closer to the maximum solar exposure in the Arctic. Thereafter, the arctic gets less sun every day.) But the Antarctic gets more sunshine everyday after June 22 as well.)
1. “Excess” total sea ice area anomaly is now (May 8) greater than 1.050 million sq km’s.
Hmmmn. An “excess” total sea ice area anomaly (which combines both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas together) approaching the size of Hudson Bay.
2. “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area is now 1.67 Million sq km’s (May 8)… Or 97% the area of the entire Greenland ice cap. (A fact which 97% of government-paid climate scientists in the Obama administration will chose to ignore.)
3. By itself, “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area is now back over 1.67 Mkm^2 … a level only reached 5 times before.
A level NEVER reached between 1979 and 2007 in the entire modern (global warming) era, but a level that has been passed five times in the 7 years between 2007 and 2014. Obviously, the more CO2 is in the air, the more Antarctic sea ice area keep increasing, right?
Combine this with the “Inconvenient Fact” that actual measured satellite global temperatures have NOT increased since 1996 … Makes Obama and NASA and NOAA and the NSIDC seem a bit – “premature” maybe in claiming that global warming is a national crisis?
4. “Excess” Antarctic sea ice area in 2014 is now (May 8) about 1.0 Mkm^2 GREATER than 2013′s sea ice area on this date last year. And 2013 set a record-breaking maximum Antarctic sea ice area in late December. Makes you wonder what will come later in this year.
5. And the Great Lakes sea ice – which is NOT included in the NSIDC’s “sea ice area” calculations! – has not yet melted away – but we are now in the second week in May. Steel, iron ore, coal production are already being affected, companies have already announced second quarter incomes and jobs are being affected in the Great Lakes region.
Now, Arctic sea ice is of course melting, and Arctic sea ice area has been dropping since early April as it does every year. Total sunlight onto the Arctic is increasing, and will increase until June 22 – about 5 weeks from now. Arctic sea ice will continue melting through the long summer days up north. But Arctic sea ice will continue decreasing its albedo until late July – decreasing from its present 0.93 to towards its low of 0.45 or so in July. But by mid-September when Arctic sea ice is at its minimum and Antarctic sea ice will be near its maximum, the Antarctic sea ice edge will be irradiated by five TIMES as much solar energy per square meter than the Arctic sea ice edge.
So, if 5 times the solar radiation falls on 1.67 million “extra” square kilometers of newly-frozen “excess” Antarctic sea ice than falls on a missing 0.4 Mkm^2 of Arctic sea ice, what happens to the planet’s total heat balance?
Do we not cool off even more?
I bet there would be an overabundance of pledges supporting the creation of the Nick Stokes Ward ….
or its a straw man -“look the ice is EVEN worse than what the models predicted we must act now” line? truth is a moving target in this game.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
So far Arctic ice extent 2014 has been running notably lower than it was in 2012.
Bearing in mind it tends to show an anti-correlation at a lag of one year (ie it tends to alternate from year to year) it may be expected to be lower than 2013. That’s not a hard cast rule but it’s a very strong pattern.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
We’re still on the rising part of the circa 5 y pattern I found but the _anomaly_ will probably peak after the annual minimum in Sept. similar to 2008.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/art_nh_ice_area_short_anom_2007_detail.png
That last cycle was sloping down, the current one will tend upwards (by a similar amount if I’m correct).
Also last year’s marked increase in ice volume may start to reduce the large magnitude of the annual variability we have seen since 2007.
It seems unlike to me on the basis of several indication above that Arctic ice extent anomaly will be higher than last year by Sept., though it may peak later than that.
I expect Sept to be lower than last year but a disappointing year for those who are so concerned about the future of our climate that they are cheering it on every time ice melts.
mosher: uninteresting
RACookPE1978 : interesting
RACookPE1978 says:
May 23, 2014 at 10:09 pm
RACookPE1978,
Solid argumentation!
Mac
Also note that the Cyrosphere Today anomaly graph that WUWT posted at the top and my work are based on ice area , not ice extent which is the subject of the model.
It’s not quite the same thing , so best not to confound the two.
BTW the anti-correlation I mentioned indicates the presence of a fast acting negative regional feedback. None of the models have such a feedback and none work. Coincidence? I think not.
Open water apparently provides a stabilising effect, not a “tipping point”.
If there was positive feedback, even a mild one, last year would not have been possible. Once you are into a down trend due to a positive feedback you don’t come back out without a massive input.
There is no evidence of any massive change in forcing so last years increase in ice extent and above all the 50% increase in ice volume totally negates the hypothesis that the 1997-2007 slide was “run away melting” due to a positive feedback.
That was a reasonable hypothesis in 2007 when the down turn did look close to quadratic : the form created by a +ve feedback. Fortunately for the planet that pattern stopped in 2007. There is now enough data to say categorically that is not happening.
That’s an engineering analysis. The idiots will be flapping their arms for another 10-15 years until the extent is the same it was in 1997 and will then be wailing about something else.
See here, up to 2007 each segment was getting steeper. The data was short but one explanation could have been “run away melting”.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
However, the last segment sees that backing off. That’s 5 years with less slope. That fundamentally incompatible with the quadratic model.
The rebound of 2013 was not even included in that last segment. 2007-2012 was already showing slower melting.
This suggests either the exposed water and the larger annual swings provided a negative feedback that slows the melting, or some long term external driver has changed direction.
The sea ice may be a bit higher this year than last year. I see a possibility for a cooler period starting towards the end of July and into September, which would help maintain the existing Arctic sea ice through the minimum. ENSO should be back to minus by then also.
Jimbo says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:30 pm
The North Pole has NEVER been ice free before. It really is much worse than we thought. LOL.
I think you will find that the events you discuss in your in post have little or nothing to do with the ice melting, or the pole being ice free. What you are talking about is “polynyas.” They are naturally occurring gaps in the ice and have nothing to do with the poles melting or otherwise. Certainly the USS Skate surfaced through one of these. So to imply the Skate just popped up because there was no ice around is misleading. Have a look at this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/nasa-and-multi-year-arctic-ice-and-historical-context/#comment-909588
If there is so much worry about an ice-free Arctic, isn’t an ice-breaker cruise ship a bit of an embarrassment?
ossqss says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:08 pm
ossqss,
Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!
Clouds closed in about 11:50pm PDT – No meteorites for you!
Didn’t see anything significant……. but it was real nice, just listening to the frogs!
Mac
philincalifornia
STOP putting Monty Python sketches on here, I’ve just spent the last 140mims surfing through 97% of them & remembering my youth…..often wonder what happened to him ???
North Pole Camera One fell over yesterday, which annoys me hugely, as it had a wonderful picture of a nearby lead which had opened, frozen over, crushed shut to form a pressure ridge, reopened, and again frozen over. I was looking forward to studying that lead all summer, and then some stupid bear (I imagine) decided the camera looked like an interesting toy. The same thing happened last year, though not until early August. Those bears have no respect for taxpayers.
RE: Just The Facts says:
May 23, 2014 at 9:37 pm
That is an excellent animation, which shows how even in the Spring the Arctic Sea cracks up and freezes over. My suspicion is that every time the water is exposed it loses heat, until air temperatures get warmer than water temperatures for a seven week window between mid June and early August. In other words, for 45 out of 52 weeks open water enhances cooling. Also exposing the sea allows churning to disturb the stratification of the Arctic Ocean into interesting layers, wherein warmer, saltier water can lurk beneath colder, more-brackish water.
The past two winters have seen a lot of cross-polar-flows and even polar gales, which have smashed and crashed the ice a lot. Alarmists initially thought the cracking ice was a sign that we were in the last stages of the “death spiral,” and I think they are in shock about ice increasing. They felt any open water would suck up sunshine and lead to more melting, unaware that may be the case in July, but the rest of the year open water leads to cooling.
I don’t trust the model Mr. Bastardi is looking at, because I think it fails to factor in everything. The more I observe the arctic the more I am in awe of how many subtle factors you need to consider. For just one example, this spring seems stormier than past springs, which leads to more clouds, and clouds warm the air temperature while reducing the warming of direct sunshine….so is a stormy spring warming or not?
My own guess (and it is a sheer guess) is that, because the ice is so smashed up, we will see water absorbing more sunshine during the seven week summer-thaw window. Also the PDO temporarily switching to a “warm” phase will temporarily reverse the build-up of ice on the Pacific side. However the water under the ice is likely colder, which should resist melting-from-beneath. I imagine ice-levels will approach normal, but not get above normal.
I am aware of Polynyas. My point was to address those who tell us that it has never been ice-free – or for a million years etc.
Furthermore, there were non-Polynya induced ice-free periods during the Holocene. You may have missed my peer reviewed references HERE.
As you can see such claims of shock and horror about the North Pole ice free is basic drivel.
I didn’t believe forecasts of doom and I don’t believe this one. We are likely on the way to recovery but it won’t be that fast.
Did I imply that. I have seen the photos many times before AND I have seen the surrounding ice. The POLE is the POLE and not the Arctic. If it’s ice free then it’s ice free, Polynya or not. Please re-direct you misleading allegation to the Warmist side who make misleading and false statements about past Arctic sea ice conditions. If they are aware of Polynya’s then why make such claims?
Thanks. Now please run along and tell that to the Arctic specialists and climastrologists who raise alarm on this very issue. Please do you homework next time before coming out with “stupid” responses. PAY ATTENTION.
As you can see it has happened before and it’s nothing unusual. So why does Mosher attempt to insult and talk utter garbage. Look back at what you said Mosher.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/globalsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Middle of May, Atlantic on the equator, something happens.
Any idea what???
Here is something from sunshinehours yesterday. Is it worse than we thought?
Caused some real problems
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/alaskan-polar-bears-threatened-too-much-spring-ice-0
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
———————————————
I expect if it gets down to 1.5 million sq km, then that will be considered ‘close enough’ (for government work).
And then, shortly after, another bunch of eejits in canoes will have to rescued from the ice.
To what purpose does NOAA produce such forecasts? The Arctic is virtually uninhabited, and I can’t imagine the few people who live there are on NOAA’s distribution list.
NOAA’s forecast helps no one. It is useless. Consider this: who will be hurt if they are wrong?
One thing I like about Arctic ice is the way it makes fools out of all, who try to predict it.
With increasing global ice and flat GMT, greening deserts, increasing food production, no acceleration of SLR, decreasing severe weather… what is left for the catastofarians to complain about.
I guess, they were right, when they constantly broadcast “It’s worse than we thought!” Naked men throughout the community are realizing that they have no clothes. How embarrassing for them all. GK
An Ice free Arctic would be a HUGE benefit to those nations that border the Arctic Ocean. Imagine for a moment that the Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian Oceans were frozen over and what this would mean for the bordering countries.
Unfortunately, the doom and gloom crowd only see change as a portent of disaster rather than what it is – an opportunity. Yet the evidence argues strongly otherwise.
Human beings are perhaps the most opportunistic animal on the planet. In large part we exploit change. For example, Gore, Hansen, Mann and others have exploited climate change to gain fame and fortune.
Yet those same individuals would have us believe that while they have done very well as a result of climate change, the rest of us will do very poorly. This contradicts the evidence. Since climate change has been beneficial to those studying and promoting climate change – then the rest of us stand to make out like bandits doing the same.
The only group that has suffered as a result of climate change so far are those hapless taxpayers like those in the EU and BC that have had to pay carbon taxes that, unlike more typical other taxes, were subsequently traded away outside of EU and BC.
The billions in euro’s that went to India and China, those are gone. The hundreds of millions diverted from BC’s ratepayers and the public sector to Pacific Carbon Trust, again this money is gone. The true victims of climate change.
Ditto.
Ditto.
but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
Not really, the model uses a different baseline. http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/
You’re not very good with baselines are you?
I emailed the good Prof with these quotes and the NOAA forecast…can’t wait to hear from him but I will not hold my breath!
Jimbo says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm
NOAA forecasts above normal Arctic ice extent for summer 2014
Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams is right on track for his ice-free Arctic ocean I see. I can’t help thinking whether he will be just like Dr. David Viner. It will be so sad to see such an esteemed Arctic specialist being ridiculed mercilessly in the years to come. I can understand if he just made a prediction once, but he kept going on and on about it.
h/t to Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts!
Keep them honest and they will respond. To be honest, they have no choice if you can hold them to the science.
So, we all knew the satellite observation began close to the beginning (bottom) of the cycle. All the rhetorical warming news occurred during the rise to this topping pattern. Warming gave way to Climate Change as we approached the top of the cycle and we can expect the cycle to complete in the next ~20 years when they will resume to chat Warming.
Assuming satellite observation continues over the next few decades (they’re killing the economy so we may not be able to afford replacements), it will be fascinating to watch global sea ice changes and refined models which replace educated guesses with factual observations.
LOL, Surfs Up – catch the wave.
Thanks to Nick Stokes quoting of the CFv2 paper we see that:
– models do make predictions and forecasts
– models can be compared to observations
So, is the some official climate “science” notification that indicates which models can be compared to observations and which cannot?
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Gosh sounds like the stupid mistake Goddard made here years ago.
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
=====
Gosh, sounds like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard….
Only in agenda driven “science” would something the size of Egypt…be considered “ice free”
…try walking across Egypt Mosh….and then get back to me and tell me it’s “land free”
I don’t know why anyone has a problem with defining Arctic meltdown as reaching an extent of 1 million km^2 or less. I’m quite happy to give the warmists that much leeway. In a can’t-lose situation like this, I’m more than willing to be generous. In fact, this takes care of any issues of definition in the future. Even these guys are unlikely to turn around and say, “We now think that 1 million as a criterion is too severe; 2 million is more sensible.”
correction to my last post:
~20 years
s/b
~30-45 years
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm . . . . .
Mr. Mosher, many times, you seem to be have useful things to say and useful insights to consider; however, you poison your own well with posts like your May 23 posts. Yes, it is easily understood in the “skeptic” community that ice-free north pole does not equal ice-free arctic basin. However, that does not seem to be well understood in the “believer” support community. Numerous, numerous times experts in the believer community have forecasted upcoming unprecedented ice-free north pole. And the believer community accepts them and spreads those forecasts and fears. Believers do not reject them — or even clarify them. The believer community could be much more credible if they had a Gerald Ford moment. When David Duke tried to join the Republican Party, Gerald Ford rejecting him — saying that he had no place in the GOP. The believer community would not have such a hard time and would not have so much egg on its face if it rejected the unprecedented catastrophic predictions that characterize it.
The fund of respect that Mosher built up for his role in Climategate, and exposing Peter Gleick is now well and truly exhausted.
I can imagine the conversation:
Scientist #1: “Where the hell is CO2? It’s becoming an irritating habit showing up for work too lazy to do anything! And we still haven’t put this film in the can yet!”
Scientist #2: “I hear ya. We may have to call in our CO2 standins cuz the bossman don’t want us to fire its lazy ass. At least not yet.”
Scientist #1: “Look man! We have a contract that says its gotta work whenever it shows up! A CONTRACT!”
Scientist #2: “Simmer down. We can always photo splice it in and not tell anyone.”
Scientist #1: “Okay, if you say so. But this is getting harder and harder for us to make a good film!”
Scientist #2: “Listen. I’ve talked with Ed and Mariel. They both back us on this idea. Photo shopping is the way to go. If we stick together and keep our mouths shut no one will ask any questions about CO2. We’ll make it look like it is still actually working hard as ever. Trust me. I’ve done this kind of thing before when I was involved with the medical insurance group.”
(then scientist #2 is later seen taking off his lifelike mask, tearing it away revealing a sly toothy grin as he makes his way back to the Oval Office)
Actually, this is very possible
Right now slightly most of the negative anomaly in the Arctic is coming from the Barents (-0.26), Bering (-0.06), Chukchi (-0.06) and Okhotsk (-0.06) seas. These always melt or nearly melt away anyhow, so no matter what, soon the anomaly from them will be 0. Which will bring the negative sea ice anomaly in the Arctic closer to zero.
The ice in the Arctic Basin is trending very slightly above normal right now. In late summer, the size of the Arctic basin sea ice is really the one to watch and will decide if the Artic sea ice goes positive or not.
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:55 am
…
(then scientist #2 is later seen taking off his lifelike mask, tearing it away revealing a sly toothy grin as he makes his way back to the Oval Office)
=======
Ouch!
Scientist #2: “Simmer down. We can always photo[shop] splice it in and not tell anyone.” — brings up an interesting point as we’ve all seen poor polar bears dropped from helicopters and dancing on ice cubes but scientists don’t do this.
Pamela, I think you’ve got the wrong targets in your sites.
John, using your logic, so which scientists are either dumb and should not be working in the field, or are willingly engaging in biased research just for money and prestige?
Do you remember the suffering wrought by scientists claiming that autism was caused by “cold mothering” syndrome? I suppose mothers were wrong to shine a spotlight on them and the sloppy research and conclusions they forced on these children and their mothers.
By the way, guvmnt went right along with this research regarding autism. And in several cases, forcibly removed children from their mothers.
When it comes to sloppy research, I think the net should be wide when clearer heads finally prevail.
Joe Bastardi says:
May 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm
What signal do you look for to determine when the AMO has flipped to cold.? Thanks
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:19 am
By the way, guvmnt went right along with this research regarding autism. And in several cases, forcibly removed children from their mothers.
=========
We could fill the Library of Congress with examples of foolish legislation and scientific research gone wrong. Hindsight/Insight should be a tool for change but its not getting much traction on the Climate Policy front. Hmmm, actually Australia is making some needed changes.
All scientists are not responsible for the antics of a handful of Climate zealots and NGOs who alter/craft research results to fit their aims. Its sad to see what the UNFCCC has become but there’s only so far a Cargo Culture approach can take them.
Handful is sadly an understatement at this point but its getting better as the public understands the abuses.
To be honest, a virtual museum documenting the mess makes sense to ensure the future never forgets.
Malpractice with punishment in research is rare. We worry that it will stifle important and real advances. And many complain of the slow pace of research here in the US, often turning to other countries without such restrictions in order to seek desperately desired cures. However, for something as global as this current debate, and its potential to harm millions, laws that lead to restrictions on any further tax payer funding of individual researchers should be enacted. Over exaggeration of research results and the use of deceptive practices with intent to force a desired outcome should be outlawed when research is on the tax payer’s dime. Our house and senate should not wait for the need of such legislation and should enact it now.
Greg Goodman says:
May 23, 2014 at 10:22 pm
“So far Arctic ice extent 2014 has been running notably lower than it was in 2012.”
Greg, the factor that decides most of the extent in the summer minimum is the amount of multi-year ice. The one year ice can go as quickly or as slowly as it likes but look at the amount of 2m+ ice, look at the 3m-5m+ice in and around the Arctic Archipelago. It is higher than in more than a decade. Look at the 3-4m ice in the NW passage. I’m predicting no sailing it for a generation to come. Predicting higher minimum is a no-brainer this year.
rw says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:21 am
I don’t know why anyone has a problem with defining Arctic meltdown as reaching an extent of 1 million km^2 or less
=====
Two reasons rw….letting them define what’s normal….and basing their science on their definition of normal
I see no point in discussing some “science” that has it’s very roots in temp reconstructions that have been “adjusted”…..discussing what CO2 does or does not do, based on adjusted temps…..and discussing some science that declares an area the size of Egypt does not exist
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:58 am
=======
IMHO, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
The true cause of the problem(s) isn’t the research. Research to understand climate should be ongoing as should factual accounts of what actually occurs over time. The research simply shouldn’t be narrowly defined to support a predetermined conclusion.
There’s nothing wrong with scientific research nor a scientific debate related to results and the state of understanding.
The true cause of the problems is the assumed need for policy decisions which are based on wild assumptions.
Policy decisions should be put in the penalty box until the game is understood.
I wrote a correspondence to “Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams” and he actually responded; Here is my email to him;
“Good day professor….. do you still stand by these words? Because in light of NOAA’s forecast for above average ice this coming Aug and Sep it appears your time is running out. That’s the problem with being an Alarmist, you’re usually if not always WRONG!” (and I pasted in all the JIMBO quotes/links along with the email.)
To which he responded; “Dear Mr Skinner, I think you should wait until September 2015 before you assert that I’m wrong, since that remains my prediction. Yours sincerely, Peter Wadhams”
And I replied; “It’ll be my complete pleasure. I’ll hand you a napkin over the ‘pond’ so you can wipe the egg from your face Sept 2015. What a ridiculous prediction you make. You’re a Doctorate? My oh my….computer models are not reality ‘doctor’. Your prediction is fanciful. See you in Sept 2015.”
Ok a bit harsh but dang it, this stuff infuriates me. Sept 2015 can’t come soon enough!
“Gosh, sounds like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard….
Only in agenda driven “science” would something the size of Egypt…be considered “ice free”
…try walking across Egypt Mosh….and then get back to me and tell me it’s “land free””
Actually not. If you look at the reason why folks would say 1 million was effectively ice free youd understanding.
1. If you said no ice whatsoever was “ice free” you can imagine the games people would play
A) they would argue that satillites have poor resolution ( say 10km)
B) they would point to fast ice that hugs the shore partly in water partly on land.
C) they would hunt for a picture and piicture of 1 sq foot of ice and say ‘not ice free’
2. At 1 million sq km you’d be left with just the ice hugging the land at the northern most
latitudes.
3. When people ask for clarification of what we mean by ‘ice free’ we are free to make
an operationally sensible definition.
So,
A) we dont have the physical means to sense the artic to say that every sq millimeter is free of ice.
B) that means we have to choose an operationally sensible definition.
C) 1 million sq km was chosen. yes it is somewhat arbitary, one could have said 900K or 873K
or 42K or 1.1114 million or 0 meters or zero millimeters, or not a single ice crystal.
The definition is an operational one, so its best if you remember that when talking to people.
If you want a different definition, say 0 km, then you have to propose a method to determine
that. 0km measured how, with what accuracy? When you see that any definition requires operational decisions and operational choices, you’ll understand the importance of setting out those criteria.
But here is the clue. Ice free at the north pole is bad definition. do you mean exactly at 90,0?
one millimeter of open water? 1 meter? suppose 1 meter were ice free and the entire basin was not?
ice free at the north pole wouldnt mean much would it? suppose 100 meters were open and the rest of the basin wasnt. Suppose the rest of the basin was ice free and there was 10 meters of ice at the north pole, exactly at 90,0.
John, I disagree. The medical community has learned its lesson. That same lesson needs to be extended to educational research and climate research. Why? Because the cost of getting it wrong due to bias or sloppy research methods is high and potentially significantly injuriously harmful to a great many people.
Climate research should be aware that a time will come when their efforts are investigated with the same tenacity, depth, and endurance seen in this case:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
tom s says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
=======
Your email to Dr. Wadhams is an example of the type of email Dr. Bengtsson received.
IMO, the tone of your email serves no purpose and is counter-productive/harmful.
If his prediction turns out to be incorrect, it would be interesting to welcome him to debate the cause. Predictions have rarely proven to be accurate unless they are extremely general. “above normal” has a good chance of success.
By the way, I reserve such investigations to the ones truly involved in such unethical practices, not honest attempts to research climate and weather pattern variations. Eventually the climate will prove stable and weather pattern variations shown to be intrinsically driven and wholly natural and CO2 beneficial. Which will leave all research to the contrary open to scrutiny, especially those that included scary far-fetched results.
ferdberple says:
May 24, 2014 at 6:58 am
An Ice free Arctic would be a HUGE benefit to those nations that border the Arctic Ocean. Imagine for a moment that the Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian Oceans were frozen over and what this would mean for the bordering countries.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah, Alberta could ship it’s oil up the Mackenzie River by barge or in the already approved pipeline route.
However, that won’t happen. This week the CEO of TransCanada Pipelines announced their participation in the rail load out facility being constructed in Edmonton to take oil to the US by rail until/IF KXL is every approved. Happy Warren. Obama – who knows? Next – finish pipeline to the east coast refineries that import oil from the Middle East and would love to be refining cheaper Canadian oil.
People in BC are asking that the National Energy Board Consider Climate Change in their evaluation of the increase in capacity of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. However, I suspect, as the State Department discovered on KXL, stopping the pipeline will INCREASE carbon dioxide emissions and not change fossil fuel use one iota. However, fossil fuel use in vehicles will likely decrease. The price of fuel has gone from 8 cents a litre when I was a kid on the farm to C$1.20 to C$1.50 per litre in Western Canada.
An Arctic with safe shipping and offshore drilling will be a benefit. But having been involved in infrastructure in Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk and other northern communities many years ago when normal steel beams would crack in the cold; I won’t be holding my breath.
Don’t think we need to worry much about Polar Bears either – unless the spring ice gets too THICK. That is their big problem – it’s tough on everything when it gets too cold.
Sorry for the ramble, but so much is interconnected.
Nick Stokes says: May 23, 2014 at 8:41 pm
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
The CFS v2 paper says the prediction is biased high:
“For sea ice thickness, there are no data available for assimilation, and we suspect there is a significant bias of sea ice thickness in the CFSv2 model that causes the sea ice to be too thick in the IC. For the sea ice prediction, sea ice appears too thick and certainly too extensive in the spring and summer. Figure 10 shows themean September sea ice concentration from 1982 to 2010, and the bias in the predicted mean condition at lead times of 1 month (15 August IC), 3 months (15 June IC), and 6 months (15 March IC). The model shows a consistent high bias in its forecasts of September ice extent.”
Last year they were low, i.e. “CFSv2 underestimated sea ice extent in the prediction from Jan – Aug 2013 initial conditions.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_assessment/CFS_assessment.html
Here’s their September 2013 forecast versus actual:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
Sea Ice Melt Enthusiasts;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/tough-times-for-sea-ice-melt-enthusiasts/
could be in for another tough year…
Greg Goodman says:
May 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm
“This suggests either the exposed water and the larger annual swings provided a negative feedback that slows the melting, or some long term external driver has changed direction”.
Two things you appear to have missed: a) The 2007 “surprise melting” was actually a huge August cyclonic storm that broke up a large tract of the ice and whirled it out the Fram Strait (actually the same in 2012- google animations). This of course will confound a forecast but not necessarily invalidate it. b) Your measurement of decline slopes aren’t sufficient to appraise the minimum. First measure the 2m+ ice area. This is has a good chance (barring august cyclonic storms of course) of surviving the minimum and this is what is being relied on for the forecast. You are otherwise ignoring a prime parameter and basing your speculation on a secondary one.
What was the actual for 2013 in the graph? I don’t see it.
Oh. There it is.
Wayne Delbeke says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:06 am
==================
Amen! Refineries in Charleston or Savannah or Jacksonville are of great strategic importance to the U.S. Yet Washington is clueless.
John McClure says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:00 am
tom s says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
=======
Your email to Dr. Wadhams is an example of the type of email Dr. Bengtsson received.
IMO, the tone of your email serves no purpose and is counter-productive/harmful.
I fight fire with fire sir. His statements are ridiculous. He’ll never be persuaded so I shove it in their face. It’s what I do and I do it well.
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:01 am
By the way, I reserve such investigations to the ones truly involved in such unethical practices, not honest attempts to research climate and weather pattern variations.
=========
I completely agree regarding delivery to the K-12 classroom. Our educational system generally requires teaching materials to be properly edited and fact checked before entering State school systems. NASA as well as other teaching materials are entering the classroom via a back door which circumvents the normal process. Teachers have the opportunity to add materials to make coursework appropriate to their classroom but poorly crafted NASA materials and NGO propaganda are a huge problem as are poorly crafted NASA press releases.
Research Scientists have delivered on their respective grants. The problem, as Dr. Curry pointed out to a Congressional Sub-Committee years ago, was the narrow UN focus to find human impact on the environment. IMO, that is where the research went haywire. But, it didn’t stop the UN from using it to justify the creation on the UNFCCC.
If you want to hold “them” accountable, start with the UN and work your way down to governments. Other than a handful of climate scientists, the blame belongs to UN policies and member states.
Not an easy situation to fix.
I just don’t think there’s any way this is going to happen. Due to last year’s large increase in the Sept minimum and favorable winds over the winter, we have a lot more of the >1-yr ice in the western Arctic this year, which will help. But temperatures over the winter weren’t that great. Basically, we’d be looking for as much of an improvement from last year as last year had over the average of 2011-2012.
Just doesn’t seem plausible to me. And even if it happens, the Arctic as an indicator is pretty overrated IMO.
-Scott
Gary Pearse says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:17 am
Greg Goodman says:
May 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm
“This suggests either the exposed water and the larger annual swings provided a negative feedback that slows the melting, or some long term external driver has changed direction”.
Two things you appear to have missed: a) The 2007 “surprise melting” was actually a huge August cyclonic storm that broke up a large tract of the ice and whirled it out the Fram Strait (actually the same in 2012- google animations). This of course will confound a forecast but not necessarily invalidate it. b) Your measurement of decline slopes aren’t sufficient to appraise the minimum. First measure the 2m+ ice area. This is has a good chance (barring august cyclonic storms of course) of surviving the minimum and this is what is being relied on for the forecast. You are otherwise ignoring a prime parameter and basing your speculation on a secondary one.
====
Gary , two things you appear to have missed.
a) I’m not really interested in playing betting games on one day per year ice levels. The ice classic is much more fun for that. When people look at the ice minimum, they usually are trying to imply something (incorrectly) about the general state of the ice sheet and long term trends. We have daily data , so I use ALL of it, not just one day per year and ignore the rest.
b) I’m interested in understanding the physical processes and what this tells us. Of course decadal trends don’t tell you what will happen in any one year, let alone on one day of one year.
That’s a fools game. A propaganda exercise for alarmists. It’s highly variable so you can make a fuss in years when it’s low and then go all quiet when it isn’t. Go and look at the fools on the Arctic Sea Ice blog. They all went very quite once they demonstrated to the world they had no idea about Arctic Sea Ice.
c) The fundamental question is whether the Arctic ice is in “run away melting”, a “death spiral” decline driven by AGW, or is it long term natural variability.
Now if you’d like to come up with something based in 2m+ ice, I’d be interested to see what it tells and discuss any differences to the detailed work I did.
Until you do that I don’t see much value in your popping up and telling me what you think I’ve missed and how I should have done it.
CRS, DrPH says:
May 23, 2014 at 9:50 pm
I’m still blown away by how much ice remains on Lake Superior…
======
I completely agree and the effort by Coast Guard ice breakers to speed the break-up was amazing.
Other aspects which are frequently overlook in the Arctic are the fresh water budget and Pacific Ocean salinity entering the Arctic Ocean.
I still contend it was salinity which dropped the Arctic Ocean out from under the ice sheet which caused the broken up of old ice. Wind just flushed it out in 2007. Call it a theory ; )
yikes!
Other aspects which are frequently overlook
s/b
Other aspects which are frequently overlooked
I still contend it was salinity which dropped the Arctic Ocean out from under the ice sheet which caused the broken up of old ice. Wind just flushed it out in 2007. Call it a theory ; )
s/b
I still contend it was salinity which dropped the Arctic Ocean out from under the ice sheet which in turn caused the old ice to fracture in 2007. Wind simply flushed the pieces. Call it a theory ; )
as I was saying…
we are (globally) cooling from the top (and bottom) down (and up)
why?
could it have something to do with the ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides manufactured at the TOA?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
footnote: has 3D imaging improved since 2007 or are we all still stuck with a 2D charting perspective?
Just The Facts says: May 24, 2014 at 11:11 am
“Here’s their September 2013 forecast versus actual:”
First, that’s a forecast made in July. The lead post gives their May forecast, which looks like about 5.4 M sq km; actually a closer forecast, but definitely high. Their forecast in 2012 was similar, and over by more than 2 M sq km.
Second, if it’s Wang’s submitted forecast, it is almost certainly bias-adjusted. Their paper explains:
“Therefore in the CFSv2, when the sea ice predictions are used for practical applications, bias correction is necessary. The bias can be obtained from the hindcast data for the period 1982– 2010, which are available from NCDC.”
HenryP says:
May 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm
=======
Not until you can point to repeated atmospheric anomalies, in the chaotic climate system, which drive the creation of Kelvin waves (as well as other anomalies), which in turn create ENSO (as well as other significant influences on the system), which in turn…?
Good luck with that given Al Gore or the UN as the spokesperson ; )
The recent post on Climate Etc. is fascinating as it points to localized weather events are triggers of extended change in the climate system.
Bottom up cooling made me chuckle, the Earth’s core bottom up?
climatebeagle says: May 24, 2014 at 8:11 am
“Thanks to Nick Stokes quoting of the CFv2 paper[1] we see that:
– models do make predictions and forecasts
– models can be compared to observations
So, is the some official climate “science” notification that indicates which models can be compared to observations and which cannot?”
Yes, of course they can predict. We see that every day with numerical weather prediction. You can compare with observation.
And yes, there is is “official” notification of what constitutes a prediction. They tell you if they are predicting. You’ll find very few of these posts claiming discrepancy between GCMs and observations that actually quote a prediction. Mostly they are plots of model runs, which are quite different.
GCMs are NWP programs explicitly run beyond their predictive range. They have all the physics of weather, but not the timing. Their point is that they respond to forcings as real weather would. So if you average over a long enough period that weather averages out, you find out how the climate will change. That’s what they are for.
Greg Goodman says:
May 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Gary Pearse says:
May 24, 2014 at 11:17 am
Greg Goodman says:
May 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm
Fair point. On re-reading it was “popping up” to be sure. Mine was much more limited in focusing on why one might expect a positive ice anomaly for 2014 minimum. Re the 2m+ ice, no deep analysis in this selection. The quick melt has been the 1-2m annual ice that starts to freeze up in October and in earlier years, the multi-year stuff survived. After 2007, it became clear that multi-year ice is occasionally vulnerable to cyclonic storms that break it up and flush it out into the Atlantic. Since there was up to 25m thick ice that was even lost (apparently a new island was also discovered), this was probably aided by a warm decade of the 1990s that saw the melting of buttressing less thick ice adjacent to the thicker stuff.
The 2007 and 2012 August cyclones gave us the record minimums and were what led to alarmist and perhaps reasonable thoughts that positive feedbacks (lowered albedo, expanse of sunwarmed water) could accelerate a “death spiral” for the arctic ice cover in summer. In this status of learning while doing, we have begun to see that such feedbacks are either not very strong, or are easily overwhelmed. I won’t attempt a statistical analysis to support my earlier forecast for the one day. Probably time will be quicker than I am in putting it all together. The minimum this year could be another useful lesson in the unfolding of theory. If a significant increase in extent of the minimum proves to be the case, I would more boldly expect that next years will be new steps in the recovery of the arctic ice (granted probably see saw as you note). Its coincidence with the AMO turning cooler could be a nice piece of the puzzle.
Ultimately, an ice extent model will probably incorporate global warming and cooling (in response to AMO, PDO, ENSO, GHG perhaps for some of it, or whatever) the possibility that the cyclonic storms are a feature of the end of a warming period (I’m not sure whether we have kept much track of past cyclonic storms in the arctic – this would be an interesting statistic- look for them in 30s-40s weather data? fewer in the tropics, more in the arctics?), extent of multiyear ice would certainly not be excluded in an ice extent model. The beauty is we can probably end up over the next few years with a fairly skillful model for this compared to the poor skill of the full climate models. Being the cool end of the engine, it is likely also to be a good piece to add to a real climate model, improving it.
Finally, I have come to appreciate the prodigious work, knowledge and thought you contribute to the scientific discussion here and elsewhere. No put-downs intended.
Jimbo,
That was a hilarious prediction by Paul Beckwith [@4:35 pm above].
I have yet to see Beckwith or anyone else ever admit that they were wrong. For Nick Stokes’ benefit, Beckwith states that he was making a “prediction”.
But they all make predictions, whether they call them that or not. Catastrophic AGW [CAGW] is a flat out prediction, for the simple reason that no catastrophe is currently happening. For that matter, AGW is also a prediction, because there is no measurable scientific evidence confirming that AGW exists.
The total failure of all climate alarmist predictions is a good reason to suspect that their entire premise is wrong. When someone makes multiple predictions that all turn out to be flat wrong, the only rational course of action is to assume their belief system is wrong.
What say you, Nick Stokes? What will it take to get you to admit that the AGW scare is a false alarm? Or will you never admit it, no matter what?
dbstealey says: May 24, 2014 at 1:52 pm
“For Nick Stokes’ benefit, Beckwith states that he was making a “prediction”.”
Beckwith was a PhD student.
I wonder if we’ve entered a mode of periodic clearing of black carbon with every melt:
Black carbon accumulates on the surface.
The darker surface warms and melts, dropping the black carbon into the ocean.
Fresh ice reforms.
Repeat.
GCMs are NWP programs explicitly run beyond their predictive range. They have all the physics of weather, but not the timing. Their point is that they respond to forcings as real weather would.
=========
uh Nick???…I thought getting a GCM to model “all” of the forcings was the whole problem.
We don’t even understand all of the forcings.
Latitude says: May 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm
“I thought getting a GCM to model “all” of the forcings was the whole problem.”
GCMs don’t model the forcings, they respond to them.
And yes, GCM results aren’t perfect, and uncertain forcing is part of it. Of course, we have explicit uncertainty expressed in the GHG emission scenarios (and also volcanoes etc).
Beckwith was also a “……part-time professor in climatology/meteorology at the University of Ottawa.” Maybe he should be the student of his own classes. In the link above he goes on to say:
Peter Wadhams is not a PHD student and he says it will be gone latest September 2016 “….except perhaps for small multiyear remnant north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island…..”
“GCMs don’t model the forcings, they respond to them.”
====
I’m confused….how does something respond to something it doesn’t know exists?
.
.
.
.
“And yes, GCM results aren’t perfect, and uncertain forcing is part of it. Of course, we have explicit uncertainty expressed in the GHG emission scenarios (and also volcanoes etc).”
======
Since no one knows which part is uncertain….
Is that a fancy way of saying …. they are worthless? 🙂
What say you, Nick Stokes? What will it take to get you to admit that the AGW scare is a false alarm? Or will you never admit it, no matter what?
Sam Carana is a contributor on the Arctic News Blog along with with Beckwith. In 2012 Sam said the Arctic sea ice will be gone in 2014. I am not sure who Sam is. Maybe another PHD student or just your regular blogger. If at first you don’t succeed, predict, predict, predict again and again. I PROJECT that the Arctic MIGHT be ice free in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and every year up to 2100 – and all other years hence. / sarc
Jimbo says: May 24, 2014 at 2:37 pm
“Beckwith was also a “……part-time professor in climatology/meteorology at the University of Ottawa.””
Here is the lab describing its staffing. Maybe he’s predicting.
“Maybe he’s predicting”…….social media climate change advocacy
Current research interests
Abrupt climate change (system analysis)
Arctic sea-ice behaviour
Methane and carbon dioxide concentrations
System feedbacks
Regional geoengineering
Climate change education and presentations
Social media climate change advocacy
Steven Mosher says: May 24, 2014 at 10:46 am
Actually not. If you look at the reason why folks would say 1 million was effectively ice free youd understanding.
That’s the same BS as went into defining the “Ozone Hole”, i.e.:
“A ‘hole’ is arbitrarily defined as an area where the volume of ozone is less than 220 Dobson units, a decrease of about one-third of the normal value”:
http://books.google.com/books?id=I-Br1CEx8fcC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=220+dobson+arbitrary+ozone&source=bl&ots=Q4I0b1Cr0D&sig=laqwocak0P_l2xyb6ZotyUMonZw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y3EmU93WIaOf0AHekoGQCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw
“We noted that the ozone hole is not actually a hole but a region of heavily depleted ozone in the atmosphere this is defined, slightly arbitrarily, as region where the total ozone column (TOC) is less than 220 DU”
http://books.google.com/books?id=YZzGFPnaEv0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=220+dobson+arbitrary+ozone&source=bl&ots=k2RAuouiqu&sig=Nr_-3cXmDDTvxNCAUiRdKWjUGb0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y3EmU93WIaOf0AHekoGQCA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=220%20dobson%20arbitrary%20ozone&f=false
“The value of 220 Dobson Units is chosen since total ozone values of less than 220 Dobson Units were not found in the historic observations over Antarctica prior to 1979.”
http://earth.rice.edu/earthupdate/atmosphere/topics/ozone/topic_01.html
Ice Free, is ice free. Less than 1 Million Sq km of sea ice is clearly not ice free.
The definition is an operational one, so its best if you remember that when talking to people.
If you want a different definition, say 0 km, then you have to propose a method to determine
that. 0km measured how, with what accuracy? When you see that any definition requires operational decisions and operational choices, you’ll understand the importance of setting out those criteria.
Operational definition? The operation definition of ice free is when the measurement device no longer measures any ice. The objective definition of ice free is when there is no longer any ice. Less than 1 Million Sq km of sea ice is neither of these.
But here is the clue. Ice free at the north pole is bad definition. do you mean exactly at 90,0?
one millimeter of open water? 1 meter? suppose 1 meter were ice free and the entire basin was not?
ice free at the north pole wouldnt mean much would it? suppose 100 meters were open and the rest of the basin wasnt. Suppose the rest of the basin was ice free and there was 10 meters of ice at the north pole, exactly at 90,0.
Suppose the entire basin was ice free…
Nick Stokes says: May 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
First, that’s a forecast made in July. The lead post gives their May forecast, which looks like about 5.4 M sq km; actually a closer forecast, but definitely high. Their forecast in 2012 was similar, and over by more than 2 M sq km.
I agree on both accounts, but it still invalidates the statement that CFSv2 model “prediction is biased high”. It was biased high based upon hindcasts, but is has made two sets of predictions thus far with one biased high and one biased low. It will be interesting to see what occurs this year.
Also interesting is that the CFSv2 is highest of the Nino forecasts:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
Second, if it’s Wang’s submitted forecast, it is almost certainly bias-adjusted. Their paper explains:
“Therefore in the CFSv2, when the sea ice predictions are used for practical applications, bias correction is necessary. The bias can be obtained from the hindcast data for the period 1982– 2010, which are available from NCDC.”
They are definitely bias adjusted, I am just not sure if the “bias adjustment [is] based on 1997 ‐ 2010 hindcasts”;
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/SIF/docs/Seasonal_Sea_Ice_Forecasting_from_CFS2-Wanqui_Wang.pdf
or “obtained from the hindcast data for the period 1982- 2010” as you and the passage below suggest:
“Sea ice Sea ice prediction is challenging and relatively new in the context of seasonal climate prediction models. Sea ice can form or melt and can move with wind and/or ocean current. Sea ice interacts with both the air above and the ocean beneath and it is influenced by, and has an impact on, the air and ocean conditions. The CFSv2 sea ice component includes a dynamic/thermodynamic sea ice model and a simple assimilation scheme, which are described in detail in Saha et al. (2010). One of the most important developments in CFSv2, compared to CFSv1, is the extension of the CFS ocean domain to the global high latitudes and the incorporation of a sea ice component.
The initial condition (IC) for ice in the CFSv2 hindcasts is from CFSR as described in Saha et al. (2010). For sea ice thickness, there are no data available for assimilation, and we suspect there is a significant bias of sea ice thickness in the CFSv2 model that causes the sea ice to be too thick in the IC. For the sea ice prediction, sea ice appears too thick and certainly too extensive in the spring and summer. Figure 10 shows themean September sea ice concentration from 1982 to 2010, and the bias in the predicted mean condition at lead times of 1 month (15 August IC), 3 months (15 June IC), and 6 months (15 March IC). The model shows a consistent high bias in its forecasts of September ice extent. The corresponding predicted model variability at the three different lead times is shown in Fig. 11. The variability from the model prediction is underestimated near the mean September ice pack and overestimated outside the observed mean September ice pack. Although the CFSv2 captured the observed seasonal cycle, long-term trend, and interannual variability to some extent, large errors exist in its representation of the observed mean state and anomalies, as shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Therefore in the CFSv2, when the sea ice predictions are used for practical applications, bias correction is necessary. The bias can be obtained from the hindcast data for the period 1982- 2010, which are available from NCDC.
In spite of the above reported shortcomings, when the model was used for the prediction of the September minimum sea ice extent organized by the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) during 2009 and 2011, CFSv2 (with bias correction applied) was among the best prediction models. In the future we plan to assimilate the sea ice thickness data into the CFS assuming that would reduce the bias and improve the sea ice prediction.
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2014/04/01/7755461.htm
Here’s a good visual of the CFS model;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
which can be found here:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ost/climate/STIP/seaice.htm
I think this sums it up well, i.e.: “It is easy to identify some large errors in sea ice coverage and variability and it is obvious that a lot more work needs to be done in this area of sea ice modeling.”
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2014/04/01/7755461.htm
rw says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:21 am
…Even these guys are unlikely to turn around and say, “We now think that 1 million as a criterion is too severe; 2 million is more sensible.”
I think they will do exactly that.
No mention of this at the arctic sea ice blog (Neven) no talk of fractures in the ice and no forecast yet of minimum arctic sea ice volumes. It all seems to have frozen up over there. Unfortunately each time one is tempted to gloat the data goes the other way. Also it is only a model forecast and the models have not been well programmed in the past.
Fingers crossed it proves right
Thanks Latitude for showing us part of his current research interests includes “Social media climate change advocacy“.
Beckwith is an alarmist of the highest caliber. You will find him on the Sierra Club, the Arctic Methane Group, Arctic News and so on spreading his garbage and alarm. He will make a great climate scientist. / 😛
Just The Facts says:May 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm
“I agree on both accounts, but it still invalidates the statement that CFSv2 model “prediction is biased high”. It was biased high based upon hindcasts, but is has made two sets of predictions thus far with one biased high and one biased low.”
You are quoting, I think, bias-adjusted predictions. Yes, they should, by definition, not be biased high. But we don’t know a bias-adjusted CFSv2 prediction for 2014. We only know the raw model output, which Wang et al tell us needs bias adjustment for practical prediction, else it will be too high.
It will be interesting to see their SEARCH prediction for 2014. I predict it will be a lot lower than 6.5 M sq km.
Here is some clarification on what is “ice-free” from Judith Curry. I can live with it, though I doubt we will get there anytime soon.
Judith just said…..they changed the definition of drought…to mean when it’s just not wet enough
@ Bastardi and Watts
You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?
You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?
===
well damn…and to think, they almost got away with it
tom s says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
——————————————
Nice going!!!
Nick Stokes says: May 24, 2014 at 5:49 pm
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
You are quoting, I think, bias-adjusted predictions. Yes, they should, by definition, not be biased high. But we don’t know a bias-adjusted CFSv2 prediction for 2014. We only know the raw model output, which Wang et al tell us needs bias adjustment for practical prediction, else it will be too high.
You could be right, but I interpret from “III. Bias adjustment based on 1997 ‐ 2010 hindcasts” on slide one of this pdf;
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/SIF/docs/Seasonal_Sea_Ice_Forecasting_from_CFS2-Wanqui_Wang.pdf
that the Sea ice extent and concentration forecasts on this page;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml
have already had bias adjustments applied. I don’t understand why they would post data that is not useful for “practical purposes”, since as you noted “when the sea ice predictions are used for practical applications, bias correction is necessary.”
It will be interesting to see their SEARCH prediction for 2014. I predict it will be a lot lower than 6.5 M sq km.
I have no way to guess whether their prediction will change, but I will predict that the prediction they submit to SEARCH will be the same as the prediction posted on the CFSv2 Product page:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml
Also for reference, here is CFSv2’s Concentration Forecast for September 2014:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="632"]
warrenlb says: May 24, 2014 at 6:55 pm
You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?
No, the lack of any warming after 1998, and the fact that during “the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different”, when there wasn’t sufficient Anthropogenic CO2 between 1910-40 to be a significant cause of the warming disproves the “multi-decade phenomenon of AGW”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/
Arctic Sea Ice returning to “normal” will just put a fork in the whole Arctic Sea Ice “Death Spiral” meme:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/06/05/204201/nsidc-director-serreze-death-spiral-arctic-ice-wattsupwiththat/
I see the sea ice minimum as coming close to 6.0 mil. The sst anomalies in the oceans have changed quite a bit in the last year. Especially due to the cooler sst trend from last year in Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes, the eastern Arctic, and Baffin Bay. That will help bring the ice minimum close to the median, but there is still some warmth in the top of the Atlantic that will hold back the ice recharge cycle.
warrenlb says:
@ Bastardi and Watts
You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?
As usual, you get the Scientific Method backward. AGW is unproven. It is a conjecture. Skeptics have nothing to prove.
AGW may well be true. But if it is, it is much, much smaller than the climate alarmist contingent thinks it is. There has been no global warming for more than 17 years, by satellite measurements.
It is up th those promoting the AGW conjecture to produce testable, measurable evidence showing that it exists. So far, there is no such evidence. If you think there is, post it here. You will be the first.
Steven Mosher on May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
“The North Pole has NEVER been ice free before. It really is much worse than we thought. LOL.”
Gosh sounds like the stupid mistake Goddard made here years ago.
If this year’s September minimum comes even close to this astonishing above-normal prediction, it would be a massive reversal of the recent trend of Arctic ice loss and would start to look like recovery.
It would also show Steve Goddard’s 2010 prattfall in a more favourable light. His prediction of recovery based on multi year ice survival would be vindicated, except that he was a few yesrs too early.
Just wondering about the apparent conflict created by this post:
Scientists Renew Their Warning of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt
http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2014/05/scientists-renew-warning-rising-oceans-polar-melt.html
@dbstealey: No, disproving an established theory requires contradictory evidence to invalidate it. This particular discussion on arctic ice does nothing of the sort.
I have no doubt that if one were to post evidence that supports AGW on THIS website, it would be a first. If, however, you’re interested in finding some of the overwhelming evidence that supports AGW, you know where to find it: The IPCC 5th Assessment, sketpticalscience.com, or peer-reviewed journal papers.
Gary Pearce; “Finally, I have come to appreciate the prodigious work, knowledge and thought you contribute to the scientific discussion here and elsewhere. No put-downs intended.”
thanks for your comment and the more detailed post.
@JusttheFacts:
Nope.
There are two global temperature satellite datasets, only one of which indicates no warming over that time period. Moreover per the head of the team that maintains the satellite dataset that shows warming – prominent global warming “skeptic” Roy Spencer – the satellite dataset that shows no warming may be biased against actual warming because it uses old satellites that are decaying in their orbits.
There are also multiple surface global temperature datasets, all of which show warming over that time period. This data shows that each of the last 3 decades were warmer than the prior decade. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Most (over 90%) of global warming happens in the oceans in any event, and the oceans show warming over the past 17 years: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/.
Finally, the process that drives warming of the planet continues, unabated: CO2 continues to rise each year as man burns fossil fuels, and thus the greenhouse effect continues to increase.
@JusttheFacts
More details on the Ocean’s uptake of energy over the so-called ‘period of no warming’:
‘Because the oceans cover some 71% of the Earth’s surface and are capable of retaining heat around a thousand times that of the atmosphere, the oceans are where most of the energy from global warming is going – 93.4% over recent decades. So greenhouse gases emitted by human industrial activity not only cause more heat to become trapped in the atmosphere, they also cause more of the sun’s energy to accumulate in the oceans.
Long-term the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, although this has increased over the last 16 or so years to around 4 per second. In 2013 ocean warming rapidly escalated, rising to a rate in excess of 12 Hiroshima bombs per second – over three times the recent trend. This doesn’t necessarily mean we are entering a period of greatly accelerated ocean warming, as there is substantial year-to-year variation in heat uptake by the oceans. It does, however, once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.’
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/oceanheat-NODC-endof2013.jpg
The Alarmist crowd will never give up, so above normal or even record high Arctic ice won’t persuade them.
1st – They will go to their old standby, “It’s weather not climate” and add on “it may be above normal but the longer term trends show a decline” or “The Ice is less than 5 years old”
2nd – If it continues to be above normal, then come the excuses. Like “The land around the Arctic is melting and the freshwater is lowering the salinity of the Arctic which is cause the freezing point to go up”* or “The heat is hiding at the bottom of the Arctic ocean” or something else unfathomably lame “but some day soon the heat is going to come back and you will be sorry”.
* They use this one today on the record Antarctic sea ice. But when questioned on why the same is not happening in the Arctic or why this didn’t happen from 2000 – 2007 when the sea ice was shrinking and the 2007 IPCC report predicted it would continue to shrink, they go silent.
3rd – Change their story/ revise history. “The high/record ice in the Arctic is because climate change is causing extremes just like we said it would”, “Very few scientist were predicting an ice free Arctic, the media was just hyping the few”
@KenMcMurtrie;
Yes, more research linking ice loss with AGW. What is the conflict you’re concerned about?
warrenlb says:
… disproving an established theory requires contradictory evidence to invalidate it….
There is no “established theory” of anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a conjecture, not a theory. Learn the difference.
To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure. The log effect makes the curent addition of completely harmless CO2 unmeasurable regarding global temperatures. But the effect is not unmeasurable regarding agricultural production, which has risen due to CO2. The biosphere is benefitting, and greening the planet.
Finally, the alarmist contingent is wrong because they got their causality backward. CO2 does not measurably affect global T as they incorrectly believe. Rather, global T causes CO2 changes. That is the only measurable causation: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no empirical data showing that CO2 causes T.
When you begin with an incorrect premise, your conclusion will be wrong. That is what happened, and that is why every prediction made by the climate alarmist clique has been wrong.
Global warming has stopped. What will it take for you to admit you have been wrong all along? Or, like a Jehovah’s Witness, are you incapable of admitting your error?
Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is proving skeptics right, and alarmists wrong. Sorry about your “theory”.
@Qam1:
Yes, you’re correct that the Science does explain why Antarctic sea ice has increased, while the oceans surrounding the Antarctic sea ice have warmed.
Your assertions on Arctic Sea ice are wrong. It’s not at all at a record high, rather Satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice extent reveal a rapid decline over the past 30 years, particularly at the end of each year’s annual melt season. The downward trend and the increasing difference between seasons are in keeping with predictions of the effects of global warming. For details, and graphs, showing the downward trend including a recent uptick reminiscent of past upticks followed by much larger decreases, go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm
Also you didn’t mention that while there have been times in the distant past when Arctic sea ice extent was lower than today’s, the current sea ice extent is the lowest in the past several thousand years: http://www.skepticalscience.com/past-Arctic-sea-ice-extent.htm
And you didn’t mention the shrinking Antarctic land ice:
Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr).
Or losses from the Greenland ice sheet:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
Or from Glaciers, of which 90% are in retreat around the world: http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
The data shows ice on earth is in rapid decline.
WarrenLB: “Moreover per the head of the team that maintains the satellite dataset that shows warming – prominent global warming “skeptic” Roy Spencer – the satellite dataset that shows no warming may be biased against actual warming because it uses old satellites that are decaying in their orbits.
There are also multiple surface global temperature datasets, all of which show warming over that time period. ”
No , you’re wrong. Spencer’s data show a small but insignificant warming. You are wrong to infer his being a skeptic has anything to do with that other than that’s probably one of the main reasons he is skeptic of AGW failed hypothesis.
There is another dataset derived from the SAME data that _does_ show a slight cooling : RSS. Nothing to with Spencer and Christy.
@GregGoodman:
‘Small but insignificant’ is materially different than the word ‘None’? I don’t think so.
And the data indeed shows atmospheric warming since 1998:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
And combined with the data showing oceanic warming, previously posted, shows that the planetary system continued to absorb heat energy in the period.
DBStealey:
When 113 Nations signed on to the 2007 IPCC assessment, and all 200 of the top Scientific Academies and Professional Organizations of the World have published reports or statements concluding that the earth is warming, Man is the cause, and the net effects are very likely to be strongly negative, vs an assertion from you that AGW is not an established theory, I don’t think many will have trouble deciding whether AGW is established or not.
“To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure” is fallacious. The logarthmic relationship between CO2 ppmv and greenhouse effect is well know in Science and fully accounted for in AGW Science and in all work of the IPCC, and by all Climate Scientists.
“Finally, the alarmist contingent is wrong because they got their causality backward. CO2 does not measurably affect global T as they incorrectly believe. Rather, global T causes CO2 changes. That is the only measurable causation: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes T.”
In this statement, you exhibit a complete lack of knowledge about the Greenhouse effect. No Scientists think what you say at all. They KNOW global temperature rise drives CO2 from the rest of the Earth’s system, mainly from the oceans. The evidence for this is that ice core and other proxy data shows that rising atmospheric temperature leads CO2 rise. What you’ve missed, and what all Scientists KNOW, is that increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect– the absorption of infrared thermal radiation trying to leave Earth’s system –thus causing the equilibrium temperature of Earth’s system to rise. This greenhouse effect amplified the original temperature rise in cycles of the past several hundred thousand years, and is the CAUSE of Earth’s temperature rise in the industrial age. And modern temperature and CO2 data show this — rising CO2 leads temperature rise, in reverse sequence from the Milankovitch cycles.
My responses to your incorrect assertion that warming has stopped appears in other posts on this page.
Finally, your argument that YOU know that temperature rise caused CO2 to increase, while Scientists do not — is ludicrous. If you have more arguments like this, I would not be posting them lest you cause intense fits of laughing.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 7:37 am
Nope.
There are two global temperature satellite datasets, only one of which indicates no warming over that time period.
Here’s the period of each record for which the slope that is at least very slightly negative:
For GISS, the slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since August 2000 or 13 years, 9 months. (goes to April) The latest spike caused the time to start after the 1998 El Nino.
For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 5 months. (goes to April)
For UAH, the slope is flat since September 2004 or 9 years, 8 months. (goes to April using version 5.5)
For RSS, the slope is flat since August 1996 or 17 years, 9 months (goes to April).
Per the Economist, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’”
You can hand wave all you want about whether the Pause is 9 years and 8 months, 17 years and 9 months or somewhere in between, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is no observation evidence of the rapid warming claimed by AGW fanatics…
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 7:54 am
Skeptical Science – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
More details on the Ocean’s uptake of energy over the so-called ‘period of no warming’:
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/oceanheat-NODC-endof2013.jpg
Yes, all of those imaginary kitten sneezes must be really adding up…
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
warrenlb says:
May 25, 2014 at 9:46 am
@Qam1:
—————————————
You have misinterpreted what Qam said. He does not claim that the Arctic sea ice is at record levels. Your preconceived thoughts are showing and they are clouding your reading comprehension.
@JusttheFacts. Here’s the full quotation from Hansen, May 17 2013:
“It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades.”
Since 1998, when the Niño climate phenomenon caused global temperatures to soar, the rate of increase in warming has slowed, causing some sceptics to suggest climate change has stopped or that the effect of rising carbon dioxide levels on climate is not as great as previously thought.
Prof Hansen, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, rejected both arguments. “In the last decade it has warmed only a tenth of a degree compared to two-tenths of a degree in the preceeding decade, but that’s just natural variability. There is no reason to be surprised by that at all,” he said. “If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn’t mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability.”
@Warrenlib
>>Yes, you’re correct that the Science does explain why Antarctic sea ice has increased, while >>the oceans surrounding the Antarctic sea ice have warmed.
And their excuse is just silly
If melting land ice causes record sea ice, then why isn’t the same thing happening in the Arctic? We always hear about how Greenland & Alaska are melting, so why isn’t there record ice around them?
I guess to the alarmist Physics work differently depending on what side of the earth you are on
How come they couldn’t predict this would happen beforehand? Where are the predictions that the Antarctic sea ice would hit record highs before Antarctica sea ice hit record highs?
In fact they predicted the opposite.
From 2000 – 2007 sea ice around Antarctica was declining. This prompted the IPCC in their 2007 report to predict that due to Global Warming, the sea ice around Antarctica will continue to decline and maybe soon accelerate and the penguins were going to die. Of course, almost on queue, the sea ice rebounded and since then the opposite happened.
So, if Global Warming is causing record sea ice now, it can’t explain decline from 2000 – 2007 (or the other previous declines seen in the satellite record). If Global Warming caused the decline then, it can’t explain the growth now (or the other previous growths seen in the satellite record).
Also, look at the where the record sea ice is round Antarctica. The western peninsula is where pretty much all of the melting of land ice is happening, so you would expect the sea ice around it to be the most, but the record sea ice area is spread all around Antarctica. Actually some area around the Western Peninsula are even slightly below averages.
So it’s pretty clear you/they are just lying and making S^# up as they go along.
@Warrenlib
>>Your assertions on Arctic Sea ice are wrong. It’s not at all at a record high,
I never made such an assertion.
My post was about predicting the excuses the alarmist are going make when the Arctic sea ice goes above normal as predicted.
And looking at their excuses for the pause in warming seen and the record sea ice no doubt what they come up will be a doozy.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 11:29 am
Here’s the full quotation from Hansen, May 17 2013:
“It is not true that the temperature has not changed in the two decades.”
January 15, 2013 Hansen et al. wrote;
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”
it can be found at the end of the first paragraph here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
warrenlib says:
The data shows ice on earth is in rapid decline. Wrong.
And:
When 113 Nations signed on to the 2007 IPCC assessment, and all 200…&etc. That is nothing but the old Appeal to Authority fallacy. Planet Earth is proving every one of them wrong.
“To the extent that AGW might exist, its effect is minuscule. It is too small to measure” is fallacious… Man is the cause, and the net effects are very likely to be strongly negative…
Man is the cause? Prove it. Post real world evidence that conclusively quantifies the amount of global warming you assert is caused by human activity, as opposed to natural global warming. Enough of your baseless assertions. Post verifiable, testable evidence. If you can.
And note that “evidence” consists of raw data. Pal reviewed papers and computer models are not scientific evidence. So far, you have posted no evidence at all.
I challenged you before to post measurable, testable scientifc evidence proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. Instead, you merely asserted your opinion. That amounts to one big FAIL here at the internet’s Best Science & Technology site. And there is a reason the traffic at WUWT swamps SkS: SkepticalScience is a propaganda blog that heavily censors contrary opinion. It is completely unreliable and dishonest. Nothing posted there can be relied upon as being accurate.
Finally, your argument that YOU know that temperature rise caused CO2 to increase, while Scientists do not — is ludicrous.
Nonsense. I have repeatedly posted empirical data showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I challenge you to post empirical data showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. If you cannot do that, your entire argument fails. Just like your silly assertion that global warming hasn’t stopped. Of course it has, even NASA/GISS acknowledges that. Here is real world data.
warren says the heat is hiding in the oceans….
…can anyone explain why all of a sudden the oceans decided to do that?
@DBSTEALY:
Appeal to authority? That’s the oldest semantic trick in the book. I cited COMPETENCE — the world’s PhD Scientists– in response to YOUR claim that AGW is not established. By your criteria, NO Scientific theory could be called ‘established science’
In response to your implication that the world’s ice is not declining, I showed you comprehensive, sourced data that shows arctic sea ice, Antarctic land ice, glacial ice, and the greenland ice sheet all in decline, and all you can do is post an unattributed graph for sea ice only?
You now say “I have repeatedly posted empirical data showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I challenge you to post empirical data showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. ”
So you argue that CO2 causes Temp rise, then challenge me to post data showing it? Really?
And then you argue that increasing CO2 has no measurable effect on atmospheric temperature. No doubt you’ve looked at the standard Science, and empirical data on the topic, such as here, but deny it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
The summary of our final exchange is you play semantic tricks, post unattributed graphs that don’t address the question, contradict yourself within the same paragraph, and claim Scientists are wrong to attribute atmospheric temperature rise to CO2 rise. There’s not much left for you to assert, except perhaps that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Aliens populated it a million year go.
People require a common language of science to discuss. You don’t have it, so lets end the discussion here.
Some humour for those receptive to it:
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD * bad science
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a “settled fact.” The evidence for a “warming” planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.
This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.
Associated B.S. argues that the famous “hockey stick” graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
To the winners: congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognized for what it is – bad science.
And to the public and the media: be forewarned: all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
What theory? CAGW has not reached the stage of speculation let alone hypothesis. Established means TIME. 30 years of hysteria is not enough.
warrenlib says:
I cited COMPETENCE — the world’s PhD Scientists– in response to YOUR claim that AGW is not established.
More assertions based on an appeal to authority. Warren cannot comprehend the fact that the planet is falsifying those so-called authorities. Who ya gonna believe, them, or your lyin’ eyes?
Regarding global ice cover, I posted a chart showing that global ice is above its 30-year average [the red line]. *Sheesh*, it’s hard geting past the religious convictions of the True Believers in the catastrophic AGW nonsense. Next:
So you argue that CO2 causes Temp rise, then challenge me to post data showing it?
Wrong again. As goldminor says above: Your preconceived thoughts are showing and they are clouding your reading comprehension.
I never said that ‘CO2 causes Temp rise’. That is your position, and the position of every other climate alarmist. My position has always been that any global warming from CO2 is simply too minuscule to measure. I stated that there is ample empirical evidence showing that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. That is exactly the reverse of the alarmist claim.
Next, warrenlib’s SkS link is simply an assertion that CO2 is the cause of most global warming. But there is no testable, measured raw data quantifying the amount of warming due to human emissions. Please don’t rely on SkS. They are not credible. SkS is a propaganda bvlog, nothing more. WUWT is where you will find the real science.
Per the Scientific Method, skeptics have nothing to prove. AGW is a conjecture, which might turn out to be true. But if so, CO2 is a *very* minor, 3rd-order forcing. Further, there is no evidence of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. Therefore, for rational, honest readers, the default position must be that CO2 is “harmless” [no harm = harmless]. We know that the added CO2 is greening the planet, because there are direct measurements of agricultural output, which are in lockstep with the rise in beneficial CO2. Cause and effect, my friend. It’s there.
Finally, I play no ‘semantic tricks’, as you falsely allege. You have simply lost the debate. You are the one bringing up aliens, allusions to creationism, etc. Those ad hominem attacks against me are your last resort, since you are incapable of making a credible case. You incorrectly assert that:
…the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.
Maybe on your planet. But here on Earth, global warming has stopped.
Finally, global T has been both higher and lower than now during the Holocene. Nothing happening now is unusual, or unprecedented. It has all happened before, and to a much greater degree.
Only in your fevered, religious-based Belief is a climate catastrophe happening. The rest of us know better. The natural fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree have been part of our ‘Goldilocks’ climate for the past century and a half. The alarmist cult is trying to scare the public. It isn’t working. Crying “Wolf!!” only works for so long. Then folks realize that they are being swindled. Only those who have repeatedly told the scare story remain convinced of their nonsense:
A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged and the less it is understood, the more tenaciously it is held.
~ Georg Cantor
Warren is exemplified by the great writer Leo Tolstoy:
Warren is that guy.
warrenlib needs to take a reality break. Leave your religion, open your eyes and ears and the truth shall enter you. Otherwise, I feel for you. The truth is a bitch.
I have seen something resembling that graph before. It really is time it was posted up on WUWT. It puts the 0.8C rise since the second half of the 19th century into perspective.
How alarming does this look? We must act now? How accurate were we at measuring temps between 1880 to 1950? Have we done the measurements properly? Has there actually been a 0.8C rise in rural areas?
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
warrenlib, here are some reading materials from the peer review.
Holocene climate extremes
Great storms of the Little Ice Age
US droughts and mega-droughts during the Holocene
I have lots more and there are more on the net.
warrenlb says: May 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Some humour for those receptive to it:
AND THE WINNER OF THE 2010 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARD * bad science
First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.
Sad, you cannot provide any facts, thus you are stuck trying to hand wave with rhetorical “humor”. Do you agree or disagree with Hansen et al., 2013, i.e. “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team
Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, John Cook, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.
That’s funny stuff, it’s like the Climate Science Keystone Kops…
warrenlib says:
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors.
Warren, pay attention: there is a corollary to the Scientific Method called the Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis of climate science is that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. CAGW not only fails to falsify this hypothesis, its practitioners fail to even understand what a Null Hypothesis is.
The climate Null Hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. Thus, if past climate parameters exceed current parameters, then the effect of CO2 does not appear. It is simply too small to measure. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
Despite your baseless assertions, the planet’s climate is not changing significantly, or changing fast, or changing due to human factors.
Deconstruction of your assertions by the numbers:
…the Earth’s climate is changing significantly…
The current global climate has remained within a few tenths of a degree for the past century and a half. Preceding the Holocene, global T varied by TENS of degrees, within a decade — and during times when CO2 was very low. Even during the present Holocene, global T has fluctuated much more than it has over the past 150 years. The current global climate is simply not changing significantly, so that false claim is debunked.
…changing fast…
You assert that the current climate is “changing fast”. According to all available data, that is simply not true. Where do you get that nonsense? From SkS? All current climate parameters, from global temperature, to extreme weather events, to relative humidity, and specific humidity, etc., are very moderate. They have all been more extreme in the past. So your claim is flat wrong.
…and changing due to human factors.
You assert that the climate is changing due to human factors. During this entire debate I have been challenging you to post testable, measurable, empirical evidence, quantifying the change in global T attributable specifically to human emissions. But you have religiously avoided that challenge, instead relying on numerous baseless and wrong assertions.
It is always that way with the climate alarmist crowd. When it is time to put up or shut up, you do neither. That’s why you lost the debate.
dbstealey says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:57 pm
warrenlib says:
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors.
Warren, pay attention: there is a corollary to the Scientific Method called the Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis of climate science is that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. CAGW not only fails to falsify this hypothesis, its practitioners fail to even understand what a Null Hypothesis is…
Well said. This null hypothesis was elegantly demonstrated in the first and to date still the most important climate simulation done by Ed Lorenz:
http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/lorenz1962.pdf
This “stone that the [model] builders rejected” is the cornerstone of climate science.
Jimbo says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I have seen something resembling that graph before. It really is time it was posted up on WUWT. It puts the 0.8C rise since the second half of the 19th century into perspective.
How alarming does this look? We must act now? How accurate were we at measuring temps between 1880 to 1950? Have we done the measurements properly? Has there actually been a 0.8C rise in rural areas?
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
====
I’ve been trying to post that as much as I can…..without being overly obnoxious about it
Post it every time you get a chance Jim
Found an interesting article that puts the “TWIST” on how to make sea ice and glaciers. And what makes this even more interesting is the current reduction in solar wind/magnetosonic pressures on Earth’s magnetosphere, which will allow for a gradually increasing rotation rate, over several solar cycles to come..
Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth’s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/103
Published September 20, 2013
Simulations support the idea that during past ice ages, a slightly faster rotation rate for the Earth could have increased its magnetic field.
Rock samples show that variations in Earth’s magnetic field over tens to hundreds of thousands of years are roughly synchronized with the ice ages….
…Miyagoshi and Hamano began by simulating 200,000 years of steady rotation, after which they introduced a 2% oscillation in Earth’s rotation rate, equivalent to shortening the day by a maximum of about a half hour. This is much greater than the expected effect of an ice age, which would be about a second per day, but since their virtual Earth rotated a thousand times too slow, they needed to exaggerate the oscillation in order to see some effect. To their surprise, the magnetic field strength oscillated with roughly the same shape as the rotation rate variation (a sine wave) but with a much larger amplitude of 25% . The team says that with the Earth’s faster rotation speed, even a much smaller, more realistic oscillation in rotation rate may have a noticeable effect….
Jessica Thomas Editor of Physics
This one has touched a nerve. The trolls are out in force again.
The State of Climate Science from NASA — http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Certain facts, not in dispute by Scientists:
◾ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
◾ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
The Scientific Consensus:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Summary of the evidence:
Sea level rise–
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Global temperature rise–
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
Warming oceans–
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Shrinking ice sheets–
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Declining Arctic sea ice–
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glacial retreat–
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Extreme events–
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Ocean acidification–
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Warren, I think everyone has tired of your drivel… and moved on. You are only talking to yourself on this old thread. A Klaxon that will not reset is useless. Push your own reset button. GK
Checking to see if you’re still in Denial.
But G. Karst, it’s so fun ‘n’ easy to debunk warrenlib’s wrong True Beliefs. Don’t deny us our pleasure in showing what a dunce we’re dealing with. For example, warren says:
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.
Yes. But so what?? I have been asking and asking for specific scientific measurements showing how much warming was caused by AGW. Never an answer. I think it is 0.001ºC. Prove me wrong, warren. Be sure to use testable, empirical raw data, now.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels.
Same question: HOW MUCH warming is due specifically to GHG levels? Testable, verifiable raw data, please.
The Scientific Consensus…
^Stupid oxymoron.^ Emphasis on: Moron.
What, exactly, do “97%” of scientists agree on? List their names and degrees, or STFU. I’ve listed the 31,000+ co-signers of the OISM statement, by name and by degree in the hard sciences. So put up or shut up, warrenlib.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
And every century before that. Next, warrenlib asserts:
The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Flat wrong. Where do you get your misinformation, warren?
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions… blah, blah&etc. WRONG again. And satellite measurements — the most accurate data — show no global warming, even as harmless CO2 continues to rise.
… the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees…
Wrong AGAIN! WHERE are you getting your misinformation?? ARGO buoys show ocean cooling.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass.
Wrong yet again. As of today, global ice cover is above its 35-year average [the red chart line]. *Sheesh!* warren, you are SO misinformed.
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world
And they have been ever since the Little Ice Age. Like sea level rise, glacial retreat is not accelerating. It is simply a continuation of a centuries-long process.
Extreme events– The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing… &blah, blah, etc.
Who told you that nonsense? Temps in the 1930’s were much higher than now. Tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming milder. Extreme weather in general is steadily declining.
Ocean acidification…
…is not happening. Learn something right for a change. Do a keyword search here for “pH”. There have been numerous articles pointing out facts such as the Monterey Bay aquarium’s intake pipe, from a mile out, has shown no rise in ocean pH. None. You are being lied to.
warren, you don’t even know enough to be dangerous. You get your misinformation from climate alarmist propaganda blogs like SkS. They are lying to you, warren.
But I’m afraid their lies have colonized your mind. It’s too late for you. You cannot think for yourself, any more than a parrot can. Sucks to be ignorant. But there you go.
@Stealey: You call these scientific arguments? You make unfounded assertions against NASA’s facts, and argue principles at odds with the findings of Science, such as ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’. Yours are more typical of arguments that someone with a technician’s education, not a NASA PhD, would use.
warrenlb says:
May 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm
@Stealey: You call these scientific arguments? You make unfounded assertions against NASA’s facts, and argue principles at odds with the findings of Science, such as ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’. Yours are more typical of arguments that someone with a technician’s education, not a NASA PhD, would use.
=====================================
What a useless POS strawman that is warrenlb. He said no such thing.
Why don’t you post a single fact showing that atmospheric CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has had any measurable effect on any climate parameter.
You’re not going to are you ? Of course not, because there isn’t one.
You’re going to make up another stupid f-kin strawman aren’t you ?
Yes …. here it comes ……
warrenparrot,
I have posted numerous links to back up what I am trying to teach a youngster like you, but your mind is closed tighter than a drumskin. AGW is your fact-free religion. You have never responded to my requests that you post verifiable, testable data, specifically quantifying measurements showing the degree of global warming that human emissions cause.
You don’t answer that, because you can’t. All you can do is parrot SkS misinformation, which is all wrong — as I have repeatedly proven.
Yes, greenhouse gases have a minimal effect, as you said. It is too small to measure, and you are incapable of posting any verifiable measurements. Don’t feel bad, chump, no one else can post those measurements either, because AGW is too small to measure.
Get it? No, you don’t. You fall back on your impotent Appeal to Authority fallacy. That’s your whole narrative: “Everyone says…”. Everyone said Albert Einstein was wrong, too.
Only a fool would disregard the mountains of loot being shoveled into the pockets of the global warming propagandists. And they in turn have colonized your mind, to the point where you can’t think for yourself, you can only parrot.
So instead of emitting your SkS nonsense, pick any of the points I’ve refuted, and I will take pleasure in ramming it so far up your fundament that you will have to gargle to get it out. Pick any one. That will be fun.
You can phone a friend warren …
… or ask the audience
Good luck with that.
Tick tock, tick tock ….
warrenlb says:
May 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm
++++++++++Warrenb: I tried to read through your diatribes, but this one is really sickening. Warren wanta cracker? You don’t understand the extent to which you are a useful idiot. Your mind is under the control of other people… You are not free, and suffer from having no opinions of your own. You’re lost in a sea of other people’s fodder. Of course, the more you write the sillier your words read.
Thank you dbstealey Just the facts and Jimbo (others) for trying to clarify what we know and what we don’t!
[Snip. Use of the pejorative “denialist” is prohibited here. ~mod.]
[Site policy requires you only use one on-line ID. Please decide which one you prefer. .mod]
@Stealey:
Let’s finish the accounting:
1) You reject the Facts and Science from NASA
2) Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources
3) Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect
4) Use trash talk as a debate technique
What are we think of your Professionalism?
@moderator:
Are you serious? Have you actually read the posts by DBStealey and others and their personal attacks? Isn’t it the responsibility of the Moderator to assure civil discourse on both sides? You’re not doing your job.
————————————————————-
REPLY: perhaps if you stopped calling people here “denialists” you might get some respect. Too bad if getting snipped for using that word upsets you, but it earns no sympathy from me – Anthony
P.S. ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’ is supported by the logarithmic calc which even the IPCC embraces in their report.
The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
A different formula applies for some other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
warrenlb says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:23 am
Let’s finish the accounting:
1)
You reject the Facts and Science from NASA(You reject my priesthood.)2)
Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources(Post links to outside sources that my priesthood doesn’t like.)3)
Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect.(Reject my religion.)4)
Use trash talk as a debate technique(Use talk I don’t like.)warrenlib/wlbeeton says:
1) You reject the Facts and Science from NASA
2) Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources
3) Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect
4) Use trash talk as a debate technique
1) NASA is not the old NASA that I grew up with. Now they alter the temperature record, and ‘Muslim Outreach’ is their new priority. You don’t like it that I question them? Tough noogies.
2) You seem to be unaware that the UN/IPCC has used up to 40% of their ‘non peer reviewed’ misinformation from groups like the World Wildlife Fund for their reports. Yet you still believe the IPCC is credible? Why?
3) No one is arguing that there is no greenhouse effect. My consistent position is that it is minuscule, and it should be disregarded for all practical purposes.
4) I am courteous when others are courteous. Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse. You began posting here with ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton, and with comments like this:
@ Bastardi and Watts: You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?… @dbstealey: I have no doubt that if one were to post evidence that supports AGW on THIS website, it would be a first… Checking to see if you’re still in Denial… If you have more arguments like this, I would not be posting them lest you cause intense fits of laughing… there’s not much left for you to assert, except perhaps that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Aliens populated it a million year go… This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers. And so on.
You also post preposterous comments like this:
I once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.
When verifiable facts and unimpeachable data are posted showing that statement is complete nonsense, you just move on to another fact-free assertion. Most of us reply to you not because you can be taught anything — obviously, you can’t. We reply in order to set the record straight for any new readers, who might think that what you post is anything but anti-science, cut and pasted from alarmist propaganda blogs.
If you were interested in having a rational conversation, everyone would benefit. Instead, you are a major time sink, parroting your pseudo-science to folks who know better. Please stop it.
Warren reminds me of a high school principal I met at a graduation party recently. I overheard him saying that “Hotels” should be forced to pay people a living wage. I questioned him. He said they pay low wages, and they represent one of the biggest problems. I countered, with, “You can’t be suggesting that literally anyone with a hotel business is crooked. He said, “Actually, everyone in the business is in the wrong” He said that businesses in general are greedy.
I asked if he thought the problem had anything to do with intentional prevention of enforcement of immigration laws because of political agendas. He said, “No it’s the hotel industry, and there’s no way politicians should stick their neck out and try to enforce the laws, because they would never get votes. He just suggested there should be laws that force what he believed was a living wage. I had no idea how to proceed.
He spoke in code words that made him unable to partake in cogent discussion.
Warren is no different.
Mario,
That’s funny, coming from someone who lives 100% on taxpayer loot. As a taxpayer, I think the government .edu industry is greedy. They certainly are a failure at education.
I say that even though my wife was a middle school Principal for many years [she’s retired now]. I have seen it from the inside, and I know what you’re talking about re: ‘code words’. The whole gov’t education business is nothing but a giant parasite on society.
And it certainly fails at teaching critical thinking skills to the kidz, as we’ve seen in this thread.
dbstealey: I think your posts are very good, coming from an informed person such as you. OK – I love reading your posts!
I have given several talks to a local college (Oakland), through the local AWS chapter (American Welding Society) of which I am not a member – and as a non licensed welding professional. (Long story but I developed a unique hotwire welding process for remote automated welding systems my last company designed for spent fuel canister closure). The audience is college students and professors. And the messages are well received. I stick to what we know about the physics of welding and tracking control… joules input, deposition, shape of puddle based on Volts/amps and travel and pulsing of parameters based on position of the torch.
I ask them questions to get them involved and insist today’s students learn to be critical in their thinking because the fate of the future of our country demands this! After I get into the “state machine” coordination of process and motion control, they are deeply interested. They want to know how the $600K welding machines we designed and sold outperform all machines made by welding companies. After they are impressed with what good engineering technology can accomplish, I lead the discussions so that they ask why we toss our nuclear fuel away (into $500,000 canisters) after only being 20% spent. I tell them outright – “Because nuclear is evil” Then I pause… Immediately, they become critical – and the discussion leads to great skeptical discussions. Of course nuclear is not evil… it just is – and it’s a gift if wielded properly! I first tell them they should seek truth and not go around telling everyone “it’s because Mario explained why.”
“Go out and be skeptical and questioning… do not appeal to authority – but respect it.”
It’s a whole lot of fun – and I let the discussion meander within bounds… I conclude that I make a lot of money because of fear based on misinformation. The answer, “We don’t reprocess like they do in France, because one needs extract one of the things U235 decays to — Plutonium — from the spent fuel to re-enrich it… and that can be used to make bombs. We’d have 1/5 of the “waste” if we were not politically handicapped. And the expense would turn into a highly concentrated asset. Not simple – but obviously doable with our 40 year old technology. Today in the US, for safety reasons, our fuel only lasts 5 years before no longer being efficient enough to generate energy – because we only enrich it enough so that it can’t go critical.
This always leads to “Think about what’s being said about climate change”.
Seed planted hopefully!
warrenlb says: The Scientific Consensus:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
+++++++++++
That you spew this nonsense makes you look AGAIN like a parrot, When will you grow a brain and question what you hear – and learn to think for yourself? Do you even have a clue where the 97% came from? Please stop looking like a dumbass. If you have real information or a valid argument, you would resort to facts – not obfuscation. And – you would have nothing to say… since facts are damning to you case.
philincalifornia says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:27 pm
You can phone a friend warren …
… or ask the audience
Good luck with that.
Tick tock, tick tock ….
————————-
Case closed then.