I’ve been so impressed with the recovery thus far for Arctic sea ice, I’ve added a live icon for it in the lower right under the global satellite image. Just click on it to get a full sized graph like above.
Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are back to 2005 levels, and significantly ahead of last year at this time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike (10:45:49) :
“Mary, [snip] What is there about the previous posters words that you don’t understand.”
I don’t understand what you mean about ‘don’t understand’. I understand what they’re saying, just don’t agree with their reasoning. Do you now understand that I understand or don’t you now understand what I understand.
“Do you understand that South America is in the Southern Hemisphere? So is Australia. China is on the side of Asia facing the Pacific Ocean?”
Of course I understand! You do realise that the evidence of cooling in the southern hemisphere happened at different times don’t you?
“Once you’ve perused a globe for a while, then read some of the referenced links, please come back and comment. There are hundreds of records distributed around the world that show a cooling period similar to the LIA. There are very few that show otherwise.”
Your gift of misinformation does you credit, you have learned from your apostles well! There are hundreds of records, unfortunately for your religion they don’t seem to have occured at the same time.
“Mann’s argument that “you can’t prove me wrong, so I’m right” is not scientifically acceptable. The onus on him has been to find evidence that the LIA was regional, not just state that it “might” have been and therefore was. Mann needs to discuss the existing measurements and why we should not believe them.”
Your grip on science methodology is pretty poor though, stick to the misinformation, you do it better.
Mary Hinge (12:33): “Of course I understand! You do realise that the evidence of cooling in the southern hemisphere happened at different times don’t you?”
No, actually it didn’t. Read the inventory on all temperature proxy studies I refered to.
In my reply (at 08:06) I presented the investigatoin of the hundreds of sources of all proxy studies of which 98 percent shows the LIA. You have not replied. You repeat your error, and claim that error to be truth. How come???
–
You have not give us the proof say exist that LIA wasn’t a global phenomenon.
I have gived you the proof that it was av global phenomenon, so please, stop repeat your proven non-true phrases and instead reply on the scientific proof I gave you.
–
Btw, here you can see that Mann created the hockeystick graph in a way one can create a similar hockeystick graph from red noise:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/
Mary Hinge.
1) Why do you refuse to answer the facts I gave you that 98 percent of the proxy studies made globally distinctly shows the LIA?
2) Why don’t you present any proof of your position, which you claim exists?
–
(This follow up question I never have to ask at any Global Warming blog, including realclimate.org, because there my comments about this proof of LIA has consistently been removed…)
Mary.
Again, please give us one (1) — only one — source which proves your comment that LIA wasn’t globally.
All climate litterature in the 20th century I know of claims it was.
It’s not only very annoying that you write something and claims that it is proven when it isn’t and you should know that if you where in the climate science, or that you refuse to reply on the proof I give you, but also repeat your false statement.
Since you claim that your statement (which isn’t supported in scinece or in the litterature) is proven, I think you have to present or refer to some of that proof. All your claims that your statement refer to science is pure arrogance as long as you can’t provide us with any information that counter the inventory of proxy study which is made, or all the climate litterature which shows that LIA was a global phenomenon.
I just love generalizations…. “I know geography isn’t an American strong point “…..as if all Americans are the same, educated the same…sigh.
Interesting graphical depiction. Rapid recovery, but in the scheme of our 29 years of satellite imagery, it really means….what? (stirring the pot)
And since both the LIA and the MWP are myths in the iconography of AGW “theory” – why argue with people who will never see your point of view?
I recommend you reduce your carbon footprint by not getting excited and breathing rapidly. Didn’t you know that arguing about settled science actually contributes to “global warming”? lol
I can rattle off every country on the globe. (Including the teeny ones.)
But, as generalizations go, “geography isn’t an American strong point” is about as dang close as those things can get!
George “And now to Neil Crafter and Katherine; since we seem too be getting pedantic.
I could have said: The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water, and the Northern hemisphere is mostly land; would you both agree to that of do you still have a problem with that ?”
Except you didn’t say that! It would be easier I suspect for people to understand what you are trying to say if you say what you could have said first rather than what you actually said.
If you say one thing and mean another, you can’t accuse Katherine and I of being pedantic. If you say Antarctic but really mean Southern Hemisphere, why not just say Southern Hemisphere in the first place? I don’t think anyone would argue with you that there is more land in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern, if thats what you meant to say.
Neil,
I agree completely with you (and Katherine), and it certainly was to distinguish the land water assymmetry of northern/southern hemispheres; but not just for the whole hemispheres but for the remoter regions.
Antarctica is almost entirely within the Antarctic circle, except for the Antarctic peninsula, but even that is within the 60 degree south circle, so the Antarctic (beyond -60) is in fact completely surrounded by water, while the arctic beyond +60 is almost completely surrounded by land.
The whole point of course was that ocean circulation effects are quite different in the Arctic, and antarctic.
And for the record; I in no way was being critical of your and Katherine’s comments; more explanatory ; not critical.
But now that my quick map check seems to indicate there actually IS more land in the Arctic, than the Antarctic, now I have to do some actual calculations and digging.
George
PS That reference to being pedantic, was also not aimed at you or Katherine; merely a comment that the whole issue was in need of clarification. and in the end, the intent was to say that no one should expect the Arctic and the Antarctic to communicate with each other and behave the same way; the global climate is too chaotic to expect anything like that.
[…] Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic added I’ve been so impressed with the recovery thus far for Arctic sea ice, I’ve added a live icon for it in […] […]
Bill Marsh,
Sorry about that. I made a mistake with the site. It’s this one.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
George E. Smith (11:55:12) :
The Dalton Minimum is generally listed as 1790 to 1830, so 1816 was 26 years in, 14 to go, so not quite smack in the middle. Napolean’s disastrous march on Russia was in 1812, with some 570,000-685,000 men going out, and only 31,000-36,000 returning.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/minard
[…] is the original post: Comment on Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic … Tags: announcements, Climate Change, Dalton Minimum, education, global-warming, science, […]
this graph AMSR shows 7 million Km2 Cryosphere today only shows 4.5 million km2 something is way off
Mary H:
Notice that the AMO regularly sends warm water north and melts the ice:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/amomgris.jpg
Nobody says there has not been a down trend in arctic ice extend, but right now its interesting to study what happends as the sun suddently slows down. This happends NOW and not ten years ago. Therefor we examine the effect NOW. The sun is truly in a quiete motion period in the centre of the solar system, exactly as it was in the Dalton minimum. The effect of the dalton minimum was deep and its not responsible that humanity closes our eyes for thes. “it probably wont happen this time”… That argumentation is not good enough.
AND, speaking of Dalton minimum.
There is a dipute about the Medieval Warm Period. The disagreement came along just when this period was a problem for AGW hypothesis.
Here are facts about Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/mwpquantitative.gif
Best regards, frank Lansner
Bruce Cobb (11:42:19) :
“Notice the slope of this years’ refreeze.”
Brce, stop grabbing at this small anecdotes. You remind of Brian’s followers in Life of Brian, this seems to be your ‘sandle’ to follow. Look again, the freeze is below average. Stop clutching at these straws, you make yourself look desperate.
tty (11:33:15) :
“The LIA even shows up in the southern hemisphere. For example Lake Malawi waters in the 1680’s were the coldest since the ice age”
This was also in the middle of a particularly long ENSO event and about 30 years after the end of the European cold spell.
George E. Smith (11:55:12) :
“For Mary, “The Year Without a Summer” was actually the year 1816 which is smack in the middle of The Dalton Minimum; and if you want to include that in the LIA…..”
I don’t! 1816 was also the year after the Tambora eruption, this is credited with the cooling that caused this event.
Neil Crafter (12:03:24) :
I come on this blog to put the other point of view across, this blog would be a bit boring if it only consisted of back slapping Joes congratulating each other on their next anecdotal triumph! There are many people who take the trouble to write on this blog who welcome a test for their arguments, it makes it interesting and lively. If you don’t like it then too bad, I couldn’t care less, there are many more who do.
To go to your comment that puts words in my mouth. I’m not suggesting there was no change in global temperature until recent times. I’m merely pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence of a ‘global’ LIA. The evidence suggests that it was a series of local and regional anomolies taking place at different times around the globe.
Jonathan (11:45:25) :
“So, Mary, have you read Moberg et al. yet?”
Yes I have and did you notice where the measurements were taken? It is very heavily biased around the North Atlantic.
Magnus A (14:20:20) :
“Again, please give us one (1) — only one — source which proves your comment that LIA wasn’t globally.”
You show an ignorance of scienific methods if you believe one source can ‘prove’ a comment. The evidence suggests events happened at different times.
“All climate litterature (sic) in the 20th century I know of claims it was.”
Mabe you should read more widely.
evanjones (15:09:56) :
“I can rattle off every country on the globe. (Including the teeny ones.)”
I belive you can! It was a generalisation of course and apologies to those who know their Abkhazia to Zimbabwe!
Steve (from way back up there) – just a quick point about the WoodForTrees ice data. It is up to date (to September), but the “mean 12” operation removes the first and last 6 months because there is no valid central point running mean for them (as was discussed here recently).
I’ve added the unsmoothed data to your graph to demonstrate this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2005
Another interesting way of looking at this is in the derivative:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/derivative
The maximum rate of change in both directions seems greater recently, which seems to match Anthony’s point.
The shape of the curves is interesting, I think:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/derivative
(lower plot is derivative = monthly rate of change of ice extent)
Mary Hinge said
“I see the freeze at below average levels for the time of year.”
When you say below average what timespan are you taking? If you use the values from the graph from 2002 onwards quoted in this blog then you will see it is a lot larger.
Regards
Andy
AndyW (03:14:41) :
“When you say below average what timespan are you taking? If you use the values from the graph from 2002 onwards quoted in this blog then you will see it is a lot larger.” ??
The ice extent is still well below average using the period from 1979 to 2000 as the mean http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
From the graph above the melt is almost exactly at the mean for 2002 onwards. Only last years record melt is significantly lower, the ice is now at 2005 levels but well below 2002 to 2004 and 2006.
There is no news here so please kindly move along, nothing to see…..
Mary, I apologize for overreacting to one of your previous posts. I rarely post and just blew up at your use of inappropriate put-downs rather than scientific discussion. There’s really no excuse for me to drop to your level.
That said, I think you wordsmith too much. For example Mangus A. was clearly asking for you to post supporting evidence and not saying that any one point would prove anything. He was reacting to the fact that you tend not to supply any evidence. Can you come up with *any* evidence other than bristlecone pines or Gaspe cedars that support the “Hockey Stick”? If you can, then we can try discussing that. The weather and climate dynamics of the White Mountains are very interesting, interesting enough that trying to connect global climate to them is a curious process.
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (02:18:41) :
The shape of the curves is interesting, I think:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/derivative
(lower plot is derivative = monthly rate of change of ice extent)
That derivative plot can’t be right the NH sea-ice index just went through a minimum, the derivative should be positive!
woodfortrees (Paul Clark)
Thanks, I’m still learning to use the woodfortrees site.
Bruce Cobb (11:42:19) :
“Notice the slope of this years’ refreeze.”
Brce, stop grabbing at this small anecdotes. You remind of Brian’s followers in Life of Brian, this seems to be your ’sandle’ to follow. Look again, the freeze is below average. Stop clutching at these straws, you make yourself look desperate.
Mary, no one is “clutching at” anything but you. Yep, just keep repeating your ridiculous little mantras of “the freeze is below average”, and “nothing to see here”.
Desperate? Pot, kettle, black. Ring any bells? LOL!
Mary, you are missing a point of weather discussions. I know of a farm service in Tangent, Oregon that installed a very expensive weather station and software program that allows them to more accurately measure both weather and weather trends from year to year so that farmers can make good decisions about what to plant, where to plant, when to plant, and when to harvest. Not news? I beg to differ when it comes to the agricultural economy and community. For long range planning (a must for farmers who grow just about anything), the Arctic is a pretty good marker. The trend, regardless of any kind of average, is that temps are cooling through each season. Farmers need this information, sans the spin one way or the other, to make decisions.
Yup, sounds exactly like all the AGW sites I’ve visited.