Sea Ice Open Thread

It looks like we’ll see the 2009 Arctic sea ice melt season bottom out in a few days and it won’t be a record setter. Even NSIDC admits this. Here is a magnified graph of the IARC-JAXA AMSRE sea ice extent plot that is linked in the sidebar of WUWT.

JAXA_seaice_magnified_090609

Click for the source image

Here is the full sized image:

For reference here are some other sea ice graphs:

I made a prediction a few threads back that we’ll see a turn on September 9th. Many others made predictions then. Since JAXA is not on holiday tomorrow like we are in the USA, I expect we’ll see an update for Sept 7th in the next 12-18 hours. We have an update for Sept 6th data now and it is shown above.

In the meantime feel free to discuss the issue in this open thread.

Advertisements

180 thoughts on “Sea Ice Open Thread

  1. Seems Arctic sea ice area will be around 15-18% up on the 2007 minimum then. Looks like the scare stories of Mark Serreze are past their panic by date to me.

  2. All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted.

    REPLY: Then we’ll hear nothing more from you on the subject, since that’s “all you have to say”. – A

  3. Arctic Sea Ice Extent is recovering and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is trending above average:


    The canaries seem to be telling us that it’s getting colder…

  4. Odd. I don’t see anything “unprecedented” or “worse than we thought” about any of these graphs. My only comfort is to be sure that this is exactly what the models predicted, and that any and all claims to the contrary are bizarre, specious, and most certainly not robust.

  5. Flanagan (13:36:28) :

    Did the models predict the change in ocean currents which are the driver behind the reduced ice extents?

  6. As I think I have commented before do wake me up when something interesting happens in the Arctic, like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by the North pole.

    Otherwise the arctic ice is recovering, just as it always does. Nothing to see here people. Keep moving along please, unless you are Secretary General of the UN of course.

    Kindest Regards.

  7. Just the facts:

    Since the subject now changed to Antarctica… Let’s compare the “growth” in the South

    where the “trend” is actually smaller than the error with its Arctic counterpart

    Just the facts… any comment?

    REPLY: Yes true to form, you can’t stop even when you say you have “all I have to say” – A

  8. Hey Flanagan, how about these scary scenarios?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/arctic_icefree.php

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-gone-by-2015-a-challenge-to-david-barber/

    And of course, you can read about all the predictions that were made at Realcliimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/arctic-sea-ice-watch/

    Pretty scary stuff, huh? Why don’t we ever hear about those predictions that never come close?

  9. I predicted 5,100,000 here somewhere and 10th sept (maybe slightly off there).

    IJIS havent updated their data since 3rd Sept. I wonder why. Doesnt seem to be much less since that date – visually

  10. Here’s one look at the 1979-2009 trends.

    2009 is well-below average, with the 3rd lowest extent; 1999 had some big melt days in the next few days and 2005 had a longer melt season than normal so 2009 could end up in fourth or fifth place but probably 3rd.

  11. If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :)

  12. Is this the largest Arctic percentwise two-year ice growth at the summer minimum on record?

    It certainly seems to be for AMSR-E, but is the information from the earlier satellite methods sufficient to answer this?

  13. Not only will it not be a record-setter – –
    But extent is likely to be above almost all projections.

    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_july.php

    This underscores a fundamental issue with AGW science –
    To what degree do researchers allow their expectations to influence their science?

    One of the chief complaints I have had all year is all the talk about thin first-year ice.
    2007 does appear to have been a record low year –
    at least for the past 30 years of records – probably more.

    But thin, first-year ice is a logical necessity for any recovery.
    i.e. if a scenario involves a recovery of ice extent,
    then by definition, there must be significant amounts of first-year ice.

    Such appears to be the case during the summer of 2009.
    The first-year ice did not “behave” as almost all scientists predicted.
    Why? I suggest that these scientists failed to consider the possibility
    that sea ice extent might recover – even if they did not think it possible.
    Any good scientist should have explored the possibility.
    They did not.

  14. Flanagan (13:36:28) :

    All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted.

    ??

  15. There is a probability that the end result would have been more as predicted, as to worse melt than 2007, had the solar cycle restarted on schedule (last year) and had been more normal in intensity.

  16. By the way, what’s up with JAXA? They normally estimate “today’s” sea ice extent about 11pm Eastern time (which is “tomorrow” morning in Japan). This number is finalized some time much later (like the next afternoon eastern time).

    I’ve never seen this late or missed until this weekend. The last update was on Friday (Eastern time) — finalizing Thursday 9/3/09’s number. Is there some huge holiday this weekend in Japan?

  17. Given the way the re-freeze last winter in the Arctic was so dramatic, it is in my view, entirely within reason to expect a similar refreeze this year, given all the below average summer temperatures in the northern states, and various early freeze stories etc.

    That is assuming that this winter will be similar to last winter. One of the other consequences of lots of open water following a melt off, is that there is lots of surface area of the ocean unprotected by an ice layer to lose heat when the freeze starts it is much faster than it would be in a largely ice covered area.

    Since our “historical data” on ice extent is an eye blink in earth climate history we really have no clue how recent years stack up with the long term average. The general assumption of the AGW proponents is that the higher ice extent in the recent past was the normal and the drop in ice cover was a drop below that normal.

    What if that earlier ice cover extent was above normal and the recent drops in ice extent were a return to the long term average.

    Historical records of periodic openings or near openings of the northwest passage would incline me to believe, the recent melt off over the last few years is a completely normal part of the natural cycle.

    If you only started recording tide measurements last week at some location and had no understanding of the long term cycle of tide levels due to the moons position you would have no way of knowing if your recent measurements recorded perfectly normal tide levels or perhaps you started measurements during what was historically high or low tide conditions.

    Ice extent measurements are so new in a historical sense we are very much like the fellow trying to guess next weeks tide from a week old record of daily tide measurements.

    Larry

  18. Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :
    “If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :)”

    Reply: Don’t even joke about it. If the ongoing quiet sun continues for a few more decades then this could be a possibility!!!

    From the direction of the winds seen during this melt season, I think the sea ice could turn out to be much thicker than expected – time will tell.

  19. I’ll go with a minimum on Sept 14. But because I think the bend at the bottom of the curve is already visible, we have a lot more information than a few days ago. The extent isn’t going to set a record unless there’s both an earthquake and windstorm.

    And should this headline actually be “Sea ice open lead”? :-)

  20. bryan (14:37:48) :

    There is a probability that the end result would have been more as predicted, as to worse melt than 2007, had the solar cycle restarted on schedule (last year) and had been more normal in intensity.

    Hard to argue with that.

  21. Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :
    If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :)

    LOL…. terrific observation.

  22. Go Toddler Ice, Go.

    John Egan 14:28:39

    That’s a nice subtle point about ice volume trailing the sea ice extent recovery. I’ve been trying to explain that point to a warmista without a lot of success. I tell him that he is grasping at a desperate straw to hope that the ice volume argument can buy him some time. If the Arctic is freezing back up, volume will inevitably follow along.
    ===========

  23. Just looking at the ice melt patterns a thought occurred to me. Since the warmers seem to be so phobic about warmth, a good way to bring on cooling, and another ice age, would be to block the Berring straights with a few atomic explosions/ dams? No warm water entering there would mean no melting – and you will have another ice age double quick.

    Cheaper than taxing us and closing down electricity production

  24. Flanagan (14:07:06) :

    “any comment?”

    You haven’t refuted my statement in any way. Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently about 1 million sq km above the average and trending higher. Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by more than a million sq km in the last two years and is trending higher. Global Sea Ice Extent is currently about 1 million sq km below average and well within the normal range:

    There is no indication of catastrophic global warming from the sea ice data and yet people like yourself continue to propagate the lie of rapidly melting ice. Why?

  25. Flanagan,

    You might wish to examine sea ice extent for the full year in both Arctic and Antarctic, rather than just picking one month that fits your story.

    The Antarctic sea ice for March for example, shows a 4.7 % pa growth in sea ice over the past 30 years of recording:

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot.png

    The Arctic for the same month shows a rate of decrease of about half the rate of Antarctic increase.

    It is interesting how NSIDC makes finding these archives so difficult and why the Arctic is promoted on their front page, while the Antarctic is so well buried.

  26. Roy is right. Quick, buy a condo in Belize.

    Has anyone been following the conquest of the NW Passage? I mean those who went to see the ice free passages.

  27. Flanagan (14:20:24) :
    Here is a comparison (reality check)

    I note that all the model projections in the graph you offered show relatively stabile ice extent from 1900 to 1950 and beyond. Given recent reports, which support previously available information, that the Arctic was subjected to rapid and dramatic temperature rise in the early years of the century and was probably as warm or warmer in the 30s and 40s as it is at present, wouldn’t that seem to indicate that temp is not a primary driver of sea ice loss, or alternatively, that the models are seriously deficient in their portrait of the Arctic climate?

  28. A lot is made of the Arctic melting but often with very little care in pointing out that it is a Summer event only and as far as the both poles providing cooling for the planet the global sea ice extent seems to hang persistently around the 20m sq/km
    The ice extent for each oscillates between min. and max. accordingly:
    Arctic (approx) 10m sq.km
    Antarctic (approx) 13m sq.km
    Both (approx) 7m sq.km
    Maybe everybody knows this but I think it’s interesting that the ice is going to refreeze once the sun goes below the horizon for the winter, and the Arctic summer melt may have no effect on more southern countries as the they have started to cool before the Arctic has finished its summer melt.

  29. The fact that there is more arctic ice this year, than 2008 and 2008 had more than 2007 is completely lost on Ban Ki Moon (UN Head) as reported by the Australian National Broadcaster (who obviously, and sadly, don’t check their facts…).

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/03/2674961.htm?section=world
    (Thanks to Simon at http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/09/climate-alarmism-in-overdrive.html)

    Also noticed by Christopher Booker as reported by Simon at http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/09/climate-sense-from-christopher-booker.html

    The ongoing disconnect between the main stream media and the actual data/facts is IMHO reaching well into Bizzaro territory.

    The disconnect between alarmism and the facts looks like a rubber band stretched too breaking point that is about to snap with a bang – rather than slowly ease off with a sigh.

  30. Looking through Cryosphere Today chart from 1980 there are plenty of times between 1980 and 2007 where sea ice increased for a few years in a row, before larger decreases happened the next year.

  31. Flanagan.

    It’s a good idea not to confuse computer model projections with hard data.

    Go to the facts. The arctic is not in a “death spiral” as is evidenced by the ongoing recovery of ice extent.

  32. “There is a probability that the end result would have been more as predicted, as to worse melt than 2007, had the solar cycle restarted on schedule (last year) and had been more normal in intensity.”

    Perhaps you are right, of course that’s assuming there is a consistent SCHEDULE in how the sun behaves, we’re not exactly talking about what time you catch the morning bus to work.

    There is also a probability that a volcano or two could have thrown a wrench in the works, among other things.

    All of which points to forces beyond our control being in charge of the “big picture”, and frankly I don’t mind humanity being a bit player on this stage, we’re not smart enough to get the toaster back together yet.

  33. OT – The Observer newspaper – 06/09/09 Page 20
    Melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters
    Scientists at a London conference next week will warn of earthquakes, avalanches and volcanic eruptions as the atmosphere heats up and geology is altered.
    With article two pictures are shown, one of Sumatran refugees after the tsunami of 2004 and one of Iceland’s Kirkjufell volcano erupting in 1973. (caption) Researchers warn climate change could trigger disasters like these worldwide.

  34. What is inherently magic about the 1979-2000 average? For all we know, these numbers may well be “above” the norm (if such a thing as “norm” exists). But this seems to be the typical tact taken these days: select some arbitrary boundary of years, then measure your “problem-of-choice” against this arbitrary boundary and start running around like a chicken-with-its-head-cut-off because the present day exceeds (or doesn’t measure up to) the arbitrary measurement. It is completely insane.

    Neil Boortz, a conservative talk show host in the Atlanta area brought up an interesting question about the question of man-made global warming:

    “What is the ideal temperature of the earth”?

    No one can answer of course. What is termed “ideal” depends on what the measurement is. For plant life, possibly warmer temperatures are best. For insects? I have no idea. For humans? I have no idea. But, for all we know, a few additional degrees might be a good thing. What the AGW-paranoid seem to see as the problem is any deviation from what has occurred during their short lifetime.

  35. Flanagan (14:20:24) :
    Here is a comparison (reality check)

    So all of the models are wrong.

    They’re wrong about Arctic ice extent. They’re wrong about Antarctica ice extent. They’re wrong about the current 10-year global hiatus in warming. They’re even wrong in their hindcasts, as per Dave Wendt’s comments above.

    Reality check indeed. Let’s not bet the farm just yet, hmm?

  36. Flanagan (14:20:24)

    Reality check?

    Doesn’t your graphic show that the models are wrong as they do not accurately show ice extent from 1975 on?

    Doesn’t this suggest poor algorithms and/or calibration?

    What were the observations prior to 1950 – do they match todays model runs?

  37. Flanagan

    At least you get to put your views on WUWT which is very far from what happens on tamino’s open mind ( a total misnomer) and on RealClimate where if you disagrree you are not published. The attitude on those blogs is one of smug self satisfaction that AGW is the only possible reason for climate change.

  38. I mentioned in the Tips section a couple days ago after reading the Ban Ki Moon drivel that we should offer to help him return there to witness the “rapid melting” firsthand right before the Copenhagen assembly. With any luck he can experience the true arctic conditions instead of cherry picking the height of the summer melt for his photo op. I would just love to watch the spin for Copenhagen if the Norwegian Coast Guard had to rescue the esteemed secretary general from the rapid anti-melting delaying his opening remarks in Denmark.

    JM

  39. Flanagan (13:36:28) :

    “All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted.”

    NASA stated winds caused the low 2007 levels. Do you agree or disagree with this fact? And, if you agree, your statement makes no logical sense.

    Of course, the models missed the 2007 low. That’s why models aren’t very useful at short term predictions. As I’ve stated many times. The OHC will determine the average level of the sea ice over time. We’re experiencing regression to the mean this year. The ice extent will increase again next year given the current trend for OHC unless unusual weather events change what happens next.

  40. I believe those models do not take into account weather/wind variations and trends. They are based on greenhouse gas warming the air (certainly not the water since greenhouse gas warming of water cannot be justified as a viable mechanism scientifically). Warm air is not what melts ice in place. The Sun’s rays melt stationary ice. The rest of the ice that melts is pushed out of the Arctic where of course it melts. Their models are wrong if based on in-situ melting. This is probably why they don’t hindcast very well.

  41. Good time to remember the quote John L Daly used, to begin his discussion about whether the north pole was melting:

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

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

    It is interesting to note that Franklin’s first expedition, to map the northwest passage, happened only two years later, in 1819. Ten men died of cold as they marched back south from the arctic shores. (Franklin should have learned his lesson.)

    The more things change the more they stay the same. We had a mild spell 2007, and now, two years later, we can check the blogs of gutsy sailors trying to get through the “ice free” passage on a daily basis. It really makes for interesting reading, and we see it isn’t as “ice-free” as some expected.

    I don’t expect the arctic ice to fully recover until the current warm phase of the AMO ends. However I see no signs that the permafrost in the Viking graveyards is melting, or that they are planting crops up there in the Viking fields of Greenland, so I have grave doubts the current mild spell is anywhere near being as mild as the MWP was.

    Therefore I can only conclude that much of the hype about “unpresidented” warming at the poles is sheer bunkum, motivated by politics.

  42. So, 15 establishment predictions just three months ago, and instead of bracketing the right answer they’ll all be low. No, no evidence of warmist bias there. . .

  43. They’re baaaack. IAARC/JAXA’s 0300Z interim update shows Sept 5th still 25,000 km^2 above the 2005 min. The final number for the day is available just after 1400Z.

  44. As I have also said before the day that Greenland once again becomes a green and pleasant land, on the coastal plains at least, where agriculture can flourish and settlements be built then indeed we shall be as warm as they were over a thousand years ago.

    And very nice too. But alas it is not to be it seems.

    Kindest Regards

  45. Flanagan -I Got scrubbed again from the “scientists” over at RC for suggesting to look at the Rimfrost Arctica Average (average Arctic land station records for the past 50+ years).
    http://www.rimfrost.no/
    Or maybe it was for suggesting to look at the Upernavik (NW Greenland) data from 1873. That data show a higher temperature in the mid 1940’s then now. Nothing like a free an open discussion.

  46. Something fishy is going on at the IJIS website.

    1. They have only just posted the Sept 4 data, 5,365,781sq Kms.

    2. Their first Sept 3 data showed ice at 5,363,594 sq kms. With this extent the ice would have shown its first increase of the season by 2,187 sq kms.

    3. On the 4th they upped the 3rds ice extent to 5,379,844 sq kms. With this it now it shows a decrease by 14,063 sq kms.

    4. They are still 3 days behind.

    Hmmm….

  47. Polar Bears and BBQ Sauce (15:21:20) :

    That really happened (winter of 1977) and with a neutron monitor count plateau significantly lower than the one we are working on. I cannot forget that time, it was no fun even out West.
    So, even though the next winter brought relief as the Solar Cycle kicked in, here we sit with a dead duck Sun.
    We should get Leanord Nimoy to pay a visit.
    btw… how’s Baffin Island these days (ice age focus)??
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html

  48. Flanagan:

    Pick your poison, which do you prefer the climate change to..
    a.) Global Warming or
    b.) Ice Age
    We cannot expect the climate to stay put forever.

  49. 2008 arctic sea ice minimum was greater in extent than 2007. However, the trend got steeper (downwards). Can anyone figure out what the extent minimum this year needs to be in order to make the long-term trend shallower? Not that that will say much about the future, but at least its a start on something more robust than a couple of years. Interannual and weather variance is still being discussed as if it is climate.

    It looks like we’ll see the 2009 Arctic sea ice melt season bottom out in a few days and it won’t be a record setter. Even NSIDC admits this.

    Why ‘admits’, as if the information has been grudgingly conceded? I thought NSIDC was considered to be a reputable outfit.

    The weather dynamics leading into melt are still interesting, though – winds, ocean currents, surface temperatures etc. My June guess for this year’s minimum extent was 4.8 mil sq/klms. No idea on a final date for melt, but I’d hope it was a week or two off to grab the sweep!

  50. Hi everybody,

    2007 was indeed very low because of some wind pattern – but this pattern took place before without leaving such marks. Did you take a look at the 2006-2007difference? I can only imagine what would happen if the same wind pattern would tale place with the present-day state of the ice.

    About the Antarctic: what models suggest is that the Antarctic should NOT start decreasing in extent before mid-21st century. That’s mainly because it is protected from “hot” waters and winds thanks to the westerlies, and because the thermal inertia of the Southern Hemisphere is quite high (more water than NH).

  51. Adam Grey (21:25:17) : 2008 arctic sea ice minimum was greater in extent than 2007. However, the trend got steeper (downwards).

    Can you explain the mathematical logic of how, if the last years ice extent was larger (upwards), the trend would get steeper downwards?

    As a matter of curiousity I plotted the trendline of the the total ice (every day from 1st June 2002 to 4th Sept 2009), using IJIS data. It was dead flat at about 10.5 million sq kms.

    Is the minimum arctic ice extent trending downwards – yes.

    Will summer artic ice eventually disappear – it is possible, though I think improbable, because I think the climate will turn colder before that. It is also very probable it has disappeared in the past 10,000 years.

    And I dont think, if it does, it will matter very much.

  52. Just The Facts (15:38:55) :

    “Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently about 1 million sq km above the average and trending higher.”

    Can I ask where you are getting your figures from? The only links you have put in are for area and they don’t show anything much above average currently.

    Regards
    Andy

  53. Hotrod,

    “Ice extent measurements are so new in a historical sense we are very much like the fellow trying to guess next weeks tide from a week old record of daily tide measurements.”

    Exactly so. Although anecdotally there has been even less Arctic ice than the most recent minimum if you read historical accounts. Inconveniently, said tales all occurred before man made climate change was invented.

  54. AndyW (22:36:52) :

    “Can I ask where you are getting your figures from?”

    Would you agree that, based on NSIDC’s data, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently about 1 million sq km above the average and trending higher?

  55. I see a suggestion that wind patterns could effect the outcome. We would need some intense lows to achieve that. Are they possible during the Arctic winter?

    Wind certainly seems to have effected ice breakup during the year resulting in build up of ice blocks many meters thick at choke points. These will be incorporated into this winter’s freeze. Will need much warm water next year but reports are that the global seas are slowly cooling.

    Whatever this years minimum will be, I predict it will have an impact at Copenhagen.

  56. Can you explain the mathematical logic of how, if the last years ice extent was larger (upwards), the trend would get steeper downwards?

    I can’t do that mathematically, but someone here will be able to.

    The data is non-linear. If the last two consecutive values are exceptionally lower in data of sufficient population, the trend can get steeper, even if the second value is slightly higher than the first (the trends I’m referencing above are least squares analyses).

    As a matter of curiousity I plotted the trendline of the the total ice (every day from 1st June 2002 to 4th Sept 2009), using IJIS data. It was dead flat at about 10.5 million sq kms.

    Yes, you get surprising results with small sample sizes. Just to be clear, the trend I was talking about is sea ice minimum (September extent, usually), not annual coverage.

  57. Scott A Mandia posting on open minds has this to say about Anthony Watts about Arctic cooling

    “This latest post by Watts is fairly typical. He does NOT read the journal article but he still attempts to discredit it. He posts the abstract but then, in his own words with a reply to RW, he states that he is really criticizing the press release of the article where there is an obvious typo (mid 1990’s instead of mid-1900s). Furthermore, his analysis is flawed – a common occurrence on WUWT”.

    In response to a question Tamnio who runs “)pen Mind”

    states

    “[Response: I haven’t read the Kaufman et al. paper, so I don’t know whether or not it’s a reconstruction of summer temperatures only

    But I do know (from their abstract) that Kaufman et al. look at the area 60N-90N while the data in this post are for Lat. 80N-90N (’cause that’s what Watts did). The NCEP/NCAR data for 60N-90N show greater warming in July than the 80N-90N data, at 1.0 deg.C/100yr, but they also show less January warming, a “mere” 3.9 deg.C/100yr. And even though the July warming 80N-90N is muted (due to the phase change from melting ice), it still turns out to be significant at 0.6 +/- 0.5 (2sigma) deg.C/100yr.]

    Scott A Mandia of course has nothing at all to say about that.

    So OK for Tamino to blog on the abstract of a paper but not OK for WUWT. Typical of AGW proponents. What is also typical is that I can’t reply to Scott A Mandia on Open Mind as all my posts to that blog are deleted. Open Mind my foot.

  58. Pamela Gray (19:52:23) :

    I believe those models do not take into account weather/wind variations and trends. They are based on greenhouse gas warming the air (certainly not the water since greenhouse gas warming of water cannot be justified as a viable mechanism scientifically). Warm air is not what melts ice in place. The Sun’s rays melt stationary ice. The rest of the ice that melts is pushed out of the Arctic where of course it melts. Their models are wrong if based on in-situ melting. This is probably why they don’t hindcast very well.

    That’s an excellent point and one that is not appreciated by many people on both sides of the AGW debate. Even the NSIDC now explains the annual Arctic ice melt in terms of atmospheric circulation patterns and cloudiness. (In particular see their most recent report dated 8/18/08 at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.)

    Furthermore, the excellent animation of DMI Arctic Temperature graphs recently posted by Anthony seems to prove that trends in Arctic air temperatures cannot possibly explain recent ice melt trends since the air temps during the critical annual melt periods have been unusually close to normal over the entire 1958 to 2009 data range. (See https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif.) If the DMI data is correct, and if there is some question about that somebody please fill me in, it totally demolishes the scare stories about the Arctic getting hotter and causing the ice to melt. Global warming may influence Arctic ice melt, but only indirectly and to the extent that it affects regional atmospheric circulation patterns and cloudiness.

  59. [i]”All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted” [/i]

    That is the standard argument of the warmaholics when people find out that the arctic summer ice is increasing. Well, we know that there was a decrease in summer ice in the last ~10 years until 2007. At the beginning of this phase, the climate scientists (alarmists) made a forecast about decreasing summer ice. It was wrong like all of their forecasts, but this time the forecast was less alarming than the reality, so they are shouting: Oh, look, the ice is decreasing even more than we predicted! They use this argument until summer ice is back to average, which can take several years.

  60. The IJIS data for the 5th and 6th have just been posted. Sea ice decreased by 2,343 and 14,375 sq kms on the 5th and 6th. The melt is definitely slowing down. I predicted a low of 5,100,000 sq kms and the minimum on the 10th of Sept

  61. Flanagan (14:20:24) :

    Here is a comparison (reality check)

    The models are thoroughly falsified by this. How can they be used for forecasting anything 100 years in the future

  62. Johnny Honda (00:28:28) :

    [i]“All I have to say is: the extent is already lower than the linear projection and lower than what the most pessimistic long-term models predicted” [/i]

    That is the standard argument of the warmaholics when people find out that the arctic summer ice is increasing. Well, we know that there was a decrease in summer ice in the last ~10 years until 2007.

    That standard argument is simply the fact.

    Did you know arctic summer ice was at a record low level in 2008, not in 2007? Yes, the area-extent was a little larger last year, but the volume – that is, the total amount of ice – was record low.
    Last year half the remaining multiyear ice, this is the thicker ice, disappeared.

  63. Mike Abbott (00:07:08) :

    Furthermore, the excellent animation of DMI Arctic Temperature graphs recently posted by Anthony seems to prove that trends in Arctic air temperatures cannot possibly explain recent ice melt trends since the air temps during the critical annual melt periods have been unusually close to normal over the entire 1958 to 2009 data range.

    The Arctic ice melt can directly and fully be attributed to global warming. It is very simple. Over two thirds of the melting happens from below, caused by warmer sea surface water.

  64. Folks, let’s all chip in and buy Flanagan a glass navel so he can see where he’s going. Y’all know the rest of the joke. Winter is coming on and we’ll all get to see a little further into the future. Patience, people, patience.

  65. newbie question, sorry … I have seen solar activity credited as having a trivial contribution to the climate temp and yet I have recently seen several references to the unprecedented (is it) solar minimum masking AGW. I don’t get it, if it doesn’t have an effect then how could it mask, or is it a short term masking ? Does anyone know ?

    PS I do worry about the research and science as my understanding is that work should be published in full so it may be challenged which ultimately leaves it discredited, revised or proved.

  66. Rocky (01:46:01) : for now, this ‘solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.

  67. The arguments implying that sea-ice recovery would not happen is rather like saying that a woman won’t have periods after giving birth. For sure, she didn’t for 9 months, did she? And I’m sure a few unfortunate women miraculously enter the menopause immediately after giving birth. [They are probably limited to the over 40s]. But they are the minority, not the majority.

    If climate scientists would start studying real, self-regulating dynamic systems they would see a set of characteristics totally different to linear ‘closed’ systems which apparently obey Newtonian Mechanics.

    Then they might start understanding the nature of climate systems.

  68. Adam Grey (23:50:37) : “If the last two consecutive values are exceptionally lower in data of sufficient population, the trend can get steeper, even if the second value is slightly higher than the first”

    Well I tried it and you are right. I think the trend will get steeper if the last larger value falls below the original trend line (without the last value) and it will get less steep if it goes above that line.

    The trend from 1979 to 2007 is -7.2% and that from 1979 to 2008 is -7.8%.

    “Can anyone figure out what the extent minimum this year needs to be in order to make the long-term trend shallower?”

    Yes I can. If the ice extent were 5.7 million sq kms the trend would become -7.7%

  69. RR Kampen (02:13:36) :

    [unacceptable language, try again. ~ ctm]

    I won’t, my point would be lost. I understand why it was unnacceptable on this forum though (no name-calling as in ‘denialists’). Sorry for that.

  70. Looks like sea ice thickness peaked in 1980 so it was thinner before then. So when satellite records began sea ice was reaching a peak. Sounds like a cycle to me.

    “During the Cold War, the submarines collected upward-looking sonar profiles, for navigation and defense, and converted the information into an estimate of ice thickness. Scientists also gathered profiles during a five-year collaboration between the Navy and academic researchers called the Scientific Ice Expeditions, or “SCICEX,” of which Rothrock was a participant. In total, declassified submarine data span nearly five decades—from 1958 to 2000—and cover a study area of more than 1 million square miles, or close to 40 percent of the Arctic Ocean.
    Kwok and Rothrock compared the submarine data with the newer ICESat data from the same study area and spanning 2003 to 2007. The combined record shows that ice thickness in winter of 1980 averaged 3.64 meters. By the end of 2007, the average was 1.89 meters”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm

  71. Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :

    If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :)

    Extrapolations can sometimes be dangerous, but also very funny.

    From Mark Twain’s
    Life on the Mississippi

    Therefore, the Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. It was eleven hundred and eighty after the cut-off of 1722. It was one thousand and forty after the American Bend cut-off. It has lost sixty-seven miles since. Consequently its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.

    Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and ‘let on’ to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor ‘development of species,’ either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague–vague. Please observe:–

    In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,’ just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

  72. Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :
    If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :)

    ……………………………

    It’s worse than we thought.

  73. Flanagan (14:20:24) :

    Here is a comparison (reality check)

    Computer models clearly indicated Madoff investors should be wealthy now, based on the trends seen over the last two decades.

  74. RR Kampen (02:15:49) :

    “for now, this ’solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.”

    And in August? Those who get excited about one month temps are bound to see disappointment in their futures.

  75. Flanagan (22:24:23) :

    “Hi everybody,

    2007 was indeed very low because of some wind pattern – but this pattern took place before without leaving such marks.”

    Ok – Please list the dates of the specific events you claim took place….

    Jeff

  76. Another crisis bites the dust. Next year there will be even more multi-year ice. How can Gore et. al. spin panic tales when nature refuses to cooperate?

  77. “Here is a comparison (reality check)

    Looks like the models don’t fit the observations. Where have we seen that before? Wonder if they also don’t fit the observations in the pre-observation period? What was sea ice like in the 1930’s? According to the models it held steady forever (cough cough BS)

  78. RR Kampen (01:09:25) :

    Did you know arctic summer ice was at a record low level in 2008, not in 2007? Yes, the area-extent was a little larger last year, but the volume – that is, the total amount of ice – was record low.
    Last year half the remaining multiyear ice, this is the thicker ice, disappeared.

    Source?

  79. Even NSIDC admits this

    Admits what? You make it sound like they are guilty of something.

    REPLY: They are, hype. For example last year’s Serreze gems “the North pole could be ice free this year”, and “Arctic ice is in a death spiral”. This year, while they didn’t admit those statements to be wrong, at least they admitted that there would be no record event this year. It’s progress. – A

  80. RR Kampen (01:09:25) :

    Did you know arctic summer ice was at a record low level in 2008, not in 2007? Yes, the area-extent was a little larger last year, but the volume – that is, the total amount of ice – was record low.
    Last year half the remaining multiyear ice, this is the thicker ice, disappeared.

    Could you point me to the source of your Arctic ice thickness data?

  81. R R Kampen,

    “Rocky (01:46:01) : for now, this ’solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.”

    Sorry, R R Kampen, but you haven’t answered Rocky’s question at all. The question he asked is not about the duration of the solar masking but how solar activity can mask AGW and at the same time have an insignificant effect on climate change.

    Sorry about your second point as well, but this is understandable since it is a common mistake that warmists make. ENSO events do not change the gross energy planet of the earths climate system, they only redistribute energy. You say that El Nino has raised the global temperature of July, but you forgot to mention that this energy will simply be redistributed from the oceans to the atmosphere. In other words it tells us nothing about whether or not CO2 causes global warming. All references to ENSO events that are used for or against the “CO2 is causing global warming” notion are complete non sequitar’s and are only relevant in discussions of ocean/atmospheric circulation models.

  82. R R Kampen,

    “The Arctic ice melt can directly and fully be attributed to global warming. It is very simple. Over two thirds of the melting happens from below, caused by warmer sea surface water.”

    But is the global warming directly and fully attributed to CO2? Answers with citations please!

  83. rr kampen,

    the bouys didnt show the ice is less thick, and radar measures didn’t show
    the ice was less thick. so where is the data?

    same goes for your “solar masking” i thought warmist didnt believe in a influence from the sun..
    Futher more over Europe there is a very strong solar brightning (page 43 of de NCDC state of the climate 2008) >2% increase (>10W/m2) And climatologists claim that only caused less the 0.1C of the warming, SO that can’t be it..
    and as far as i understand La Nina doesnt have a cooling effect in the acrtic..

  84. RR Kampen (02:15:49) : Sorry that confuses me even more and sorry if I am off topic but what is unique in the last 3 years that allows the lack of solar effect to be included for this period but apparently (I may be very wrong here) discounted as trivial for all other periods ?

    I’m just starting out trying to understand some of this stuff so apologies if I am being a bit dumb.

  85. Flanagan (14:20:24) :

    . . . (reality check)

    Since the melt has exceeded the worst prediction of GCM models, has it occurred to you that the models are not including key variables for the Arctic Ice phenomenon and are therefore not reliable? Like the medicine chief complaining that the volcano is worst than predicted by models driven by virgins sacrificed — we need to sacrifice more virgins! But wrong input or deficient models lead to bad policy decisions.

  86. Re: Vincent (05:59:15) :

    “The question he asked is not about the duration of the solar masking but how solar activity can mask AGW and at the same time have an insignificant effect on climate change.”

    A look at the news about solar activity and it’s stated influence should suffice. It’s effect on climate is less than half that of ENSO (0.1-0.2° C vs. 0.3-0.4° C).
    The idea that this solar low is the sole culprit of the masking of GW as of about the year 2000 (or 2006, considering the heat of 2005) is nonsense; it is not. ENSO en a very strong La Niña in particular are the main reason, then solar low, then two mediocre volcanoes.
    Remark that all this will not keep a year from coming into the top ten warmest since 1900 (like 2007 and 2008 did).
    At present the temperature is rising again; there is all reason to expect that 2010 will break the 1998-2005 records notwithstanding the solar dip. Nowadays a medium Niño is enough for the record.

    “Sorry about your second point as well, but this is understandable since it is a common mistake that warmists make. ENSO events do not change the gross energy planet of the earths climate system, they only redistribute energy.”

    They may redistribute in the vertical, that is: according to ENSO-phase warm surface water is more or less heaped up in a small area (that is: the warm water layer is more or less deep). This obviously makes a difference for air temperature, as the special year 1998 shows very clearly.

    Re: 3×2 (05:55:35) :

    Key is the multiyear ice. It is the thicker ice.

    from http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html .

    Re: Vincent (06:00:57) :

    Answer to your query is threefold: yes, partly and no. It depends a bit on who attributes. For most profs in this field the answer is yes. Start with IPCC-scientists and -reports. Remark though that I used the abbreviation ‘GW’ instead of ‘AGW’ to forestall this discussion.

  87. Re: Rocky (06:33:56) :

    I am to blame, Vincent (05:59:15) was correct in asserting I didn’t adress your question properly. I tried in RR Kampen (07:00:59) .
    Unfortunately I can’t discuss media misunderstandings ref scientific articles. One of these misunderstandings would be that the solar dip is the sole culprit for the warming stagnation of the past couple of years.

  88. Richard (22:26:54:

    Yes, this is the point. The present ice fluctuations are not significant and if they became more significant that would be good. People are getting awfully worked up over something not shown to be important.

  89. Re: Vincent (05:59:15) : another detail,

    “All references to ENSO events that are used for or against the “CO2 is causing global warming” notion are complete non sequitar’s and are only relevant in discussions of ocean/atmospheric circulation models.”

    They are not, for two reasons:

    1) (A)GW can change ENSO climatology/oceanology and vice versa, which is to say that they might interact in interesting ways, which means events in the one may explain events in the other realm;

    2) If e.g. an El Niño-event of 2020 gives a year a positive temperature anomaly a, and a comparable event in 2010 gives a year a positive anomaly of 0.7a, then one has to consider GW (from whatever cause!!) over the period 2010 to 2020.

  90. ****************
    Flanagan (14:20:24) :
    Here is a comparison (reality check)

    **************
    Hmmm … the models are worse than we thought!

  91. My own theory from following daily wind patterns and ice behavior over the course of 5 years. Arctic wind circulation, duration, direction and speed out the Fram Strait is the cause of significant Arctic melt and the opening of passages. The opposite causes ice thickness buildup (even in one year) to multi-year dimensions and the clogging of minor exit routes.

    There is likely a connection for this in oceanic sourced weather behavior and Jet Stream parameters that circulates just within and outside the Arctic Circle. Rapid melting can only be mechanized by this set up, since in-situ rapid melting would have to coincide with relatively alarming Arctic SST temperatures combined with extravagant amounts of infra red shortwave bombardment, which it does not. What would be extremely interesting to me would be to compare previous years ice measures with Jet Stream patterns. My hunch is that ice buildup and rapid melt is caused by Jet Stream behavior, and not extravagantly changed SST, air temps, or Sun spots. The physical mechanism can be readily diagrammed. It would be too funny to discover this rather simple cause of ice behavior.

    In reality, it kinda works like a flushing toilet versus one that is plugged up. No swirling air leading to the drain, ice stays in the toilet, with more ice being added to it over time, till the Jet Stream unplugs it once again.

  92. Flanagan

    Can I remind you of historic precedence with regards to arctic ice, which I highlighted in a recent thread here.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688

    There was a great deal of warming during the period 1815 to 1860 and ice levels were low. There was a similar warming spell during the period 1915-1940. I am currently writing an article on this. There are other warm periods prior to 1815 of which the most famous were the Viking and the Ipiatuk. I am also writing an article on that.

    It appears that arctic sea ice peaked around 1979 at just the time satellite measurements started, hence your belief they coincide with c02. However, as you can see the arctic warms and ices up with amazing regularity so the current episode is by no means unprecedented despite what you have read- or perhaps want to believe.

    best wishes

    Tonyb

  93. R R Kampen,

    “At present the temperature is rising again; there is all reason to expect that 2010 will break the 1998-2005 records notwithstanding the solar dip. Nowadays a medium Niño is enough for the record.”

    What temperature are you referring to? Is this the July land temperature, August land temperature or what? I’m not trying to be picky, but . .

    warmists continually point to a months land temperature to “prove” that global warming is continuing. Maybe it is, but is this caused by CO2 rather than natural cycles? I’ve gone over the following points so many times that it’s becoming tiresome, yet here we go:

    AGW predicts a radiative imbalance due to CO2 forcings. This is supposed to increase year on year, so that by 2010 Hansen tells us that this imbalance will reach 0.85 watts per metre squared, and that this imbalance will “melt the ice, warm the atmosphere and warm the oceans.” He made this statement in 2001, yet the predicted warming of the oceans has not occured since 2003.

    Now you can argue about El Ninos and record breaking land temperatures as much as you like but until that missing energy is accounted for then the predicted radiative imbalance is not happening. And if the imbalance isn’t happening then there is no forcing. Where is this missing energy? No one can tell me. Hansen can’t tell me – he thinks the datasets are wrong. What do you think?

  94. R R Lampen,

    ““All references to ENSO events that are used for or against the “CO2 is causing global warming” notion are complete non sequitar’s and are only relevant in discussions of ocean/atmospheric circulation models.”

    They are not, for two reasons:

    1) (A)GW can change ENSO climatology/oceanology and vice versa, which is to say that they might interact in interesting ways, which means events in the one may explain events in the other realm.”

    No, that’s not what I meant. I should have parsed my posting more carefully. I am saying that warmists say things like “The recent El Nino has raised temperatures so global warming is continuing”. But this is not an argument that the globe is warming and more than a cooling La Nina is an argument that the globe is cooling – they simply redistribute energy. Now, I take your point that IF AGW is happening then it WILL warm the globe and alter the ways that the ocean may interact with the atmosphere, but it does not tell us if AGW is happening.

    “2) If e.g. an El Niño-event of 2020 gives a year a positive temperature anomaly a, and a comparable event in 2010 gives a year a positive anomaly of 0.7a, then one has to consider GW (from whatever cause!!) over the period 2010 to 2020.”

    Yes, of course, but if that were the case then this would likely be corobarrated by the argo network showing ocean warming, which brings me to the point I was making in my last post.

  95. R R Lampen,

    “Start with IPCC-scientists and -reports. Remark though that I used the abbreviation ‘GW’ instead of ‘AGW’ to forestall this discussion.”

    This is an appeal to authority. I want YOU to tell ME why you think CO2 is heating the globe catastrophically. I’ve already read IPCC reports and if you think this is an open/shut case, it shouldn’t be too difficult to explain.

  96. What some REAL experts prognosticated in June 2009:
    “With a probability of 80% the mean September ice extend will be in the range between 3.6 and 5.0 million km^2.”
    Looks like they are going to miss by more than 1 standard deviation (especially as it is the September MEAN).

    So I do not understand why Flanagan takes it so badly. Show some savoir vivre (as the French would do), gracefully admit defeat (for this year), and start hoping for 2010.

  97. I am at a loss to understand how warmer air can cause warmer oceans to the extent that this air warmth is absorbed and moved around by the oceans. Longwave radiation (the kind that is re-emitted by greenhouse gases) is TERRIBLE at warming oceans and cannot account for SST increases. It simply hits the water’s skin and is almost immediately evaporated back into the atmosphere. The mechanism is just not there for longwave radiation powerful enough to change SST at depths that then do influence land temperatures. Shortwave infrared radiation, when allowed unfettered access to the ocean surface, is VERY good at increasing SST and cares not one bit for the presence or absence of greenhouse gases. So please provide the calculations you have that demonstrates greenhouse warming of oceans.

  98. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.

    Too bad the concept of a “global temperature” is completely meaningless.

  99. La Nina and El Nino events are related to tradewind dynamics. For a CO2 mechanism to cause such events you must demonstrate how CO2/greenhouse gasses can change tradewinds. A possible connection would be only over land causing changes in both direction and speed of tradewinds that then, when blowing over the oceans, leave the ocean surface calm or its warm skin peeled back.

  100. hmmmmm (04:34:31) :

    Looks like the models don’t fit the observations. Where have we seen that before? Wonder if they also don’t fit the observations in the pre-observation period? What was sea ice like in the 1930’s? According to the models it held steady forever (cough cough BS)

    LOL! Thanks for the laugh, and the sanity!

    Flanagan? Any comments?

  101. Ian (17:36:26) :

    Flanagan

    At least you get to put your views on WUWT which is very far from what happens on tamino’s open mind ( a total misnomer) and on RealClimate where if you disagrree you are not published. The attitude on those blogs is one of smug self satisfaction that AGW is the only possible reason for climate change.

    If they were so smug & confident, they would have no need to censor.

    Douglas DC (17:54:18) :

    500 quatloos on the 15th of September.2009 finishes well above 2008…

    I’ve got 2500 IPCC drongos on September 2015 when the ice disappears up it’s own vortex.

    I don’t mind losing as the World would be a better place without those IPCC drongos ;-)

    DaveE.

  102. If you look at 2005 and 2006 you see that it was also botteming out but then a small bumb down. Big change happening again but it wont make a difference in the big picture.

  103. Adam Grey (06:46:33) :Sea ice extent is currently near 5.3 million sq/kms. What would the trend be now?

    -7.9%/ decade

    Tim McHenry (07:06:17) :
    Richard (22:26:54:
    Yes, this is the point. The present ice fluctuations are not significant and if they became more significant that would be good. People are getting awfully worked up over something not shown to be important.

    Significance is not solely dependent on mathematics and statistics. It has to be interpreted by evidence and intelligence depending on what is meant.

    In my opinion if the summer ice disappeared eventually it would not be “significant” as it probably did during the last 3-4 thousand years.

    A linear trend (least squares fit) is not significant as it tells you nothing of the future. IF that trend continues THEN the ice would eventually disappear, but a trend makes no predictions about the future.

    It is useful in disproving a hypothesis though.

  104. If you subtract the average (for this data set) daily freeze-melt curve from the IARC-JAXA, AMSR-E data curves and then plot them end-to-end rather than overlapping, one can see a modest, but not necessarily conclusive average annual ice-extent increase of about 580,000 km2 since the record low of 2007. It is possible to say that there is no longer appears to be any evidence of a run-away Arctic ice-melt. Perhaps this recovery reflects the greatly reduced solar activity we have seen for the past two years.

  105. Flanagan:
    I think it is clear that the Arctic models aren’t adequate to model whatever processes actually govern the Ice Extent in the Arctic
    – they just don’t seem to be in the right ball-park from the get-go

    – also, the large spread in the ‘steady-state’ ice coverage (before 1950) seems to indicate that there is no real concensus on what the actual physical processes are even without AGW induced melting

    – so I don’t see why we should believe what the models also say about the Antarctic
    – they’re basically not modelling the physical processes correctly, and so can’t be considered to offer meaningful predictions of ice coverage in 2050, or at anytime past or present……

    Of course, one of the things that puzzles me about the General Climate Models is that they too do not agree on what the stready-state temperature of the globe should be
    – I think there’s about a 2oC spread even in the steady-state
    – which also indicates that they too are not modelling the physical processes correctly……

  106. TonyB and Ed: see the Science publication last week where some researchers show the Arctic has been growing over the last 2000 years.

  107. PS IJIS have adjusted their data again.

    Now, as per their new data, on Sept 4th the ice grew for the first time by 8,125 sq kms, followed by falls of 24,531 and 14,375 sq kms the next two days.

  108. Flanagan

    Both WUWT and CVA have run extensively on this. There were 220 comments over on the CA about the study. Curiously I saw nothing from you. Lucy Skywalker neatly summed up the absurd study;

    “Climate data analyst Steve McIntyre who publishes Climate Audit and is known for his research discrediting Mann’s original “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, weighed in on the new Arctic study. “Amusingly, the [Arctic study’s lead author] Kaufman Team perpetuates Mann’s upside down use of the Tiljander proxy,” McIntyre wrote on September 3, 2009. “You can readily see that this closely matches the Mann version,” McIntyre noted. “The most cursory examination [of the study] shows the usual problem of seemingly biased picking of proxies without any attempt to reconcile proxy conflicts,” McIntryre wrote”

    Why do you want to disbelieve actual observation made by real people at the time?Why do you want to rely on more hockey sticks?

    The answer is plain. If the MWP and LIA are proven to exist they were caused without current levels of co2. Therefore co2 is not a primary driver that facilitates dramatic temperature shifts. However, if the MWP and LIA are minimised that enables you to say that they were small natural variations that took place at a constant co2 level of 280ppm but with enhanced levels we are affecting the planet. There was a MWP. THere was also a Roman optimum and Holocene warm periods

    You are letting your idealogy show Flanagan. Look at the evidence, temperatures do fluctuate in mans recent history to temperatrures greater than now, without enhanced (or reduced) levels of co2.

    tonyb

  109. If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century.

    You may be exagerating a tad.

    If you look at the latter half of the Forties when the Arctic cooled it quite rapidly froze over. The Hudson Bay company was closing outposts since they could no longer supply them. Resolute was intended to be many miles farther West. That was as far as a US icebreaker could penetrate the Northern Route of the NW Passage that Larsen had so easily travelled a couple years before. As always history is repeating.

  110. Shawn Whelan (12:44:56) :

    You may be exagerating a tad.

    I think Dr. Spencer knows he is exaggerating ;-)

    The point is to highlight the absurdity of trends I think.

    DaveE.

  111. DaveE and Shawn

    Speaking of trends, I live next to the sea in South Devon. Two foot of water has disappeared in the last hour!!! I predict that the English channel will be drained within 18 hours. Help! what shall I do to avert disaster?

    tonyb

  112. Flanagan,

    Re Antarctic:
    “What models suggest …” you obviously don’t understand that models suggest whatever their programmer wants them to suggest. It is easy to build a model to suggest anything you want.

  113. TonyB (14:31:11) :

    DaveE and Shawn

    Speaking of trends, I live next to the sea in South Devon. Two foot of water has disappeared in the last hour!!! I predict that the English channel will be drained within 18 hours. Help! what shall I do to avert disaster?

    Eye balling historical data I believe it could be some kind of natural cycle. Geo-engineering could solve the problem though – we could pipe water from the Atlantic (where there is plenty) to the Channel thereby maintaining levels at their historical mean.

  114. Flanagan,

    I would agree that on average there probably has been a long term gain in ice in the Arctic. The average global temp has been decreasing for ~3500yrs (at least if you average Vostok and GISP2 to estimate global for this interglacial).

    But, one has to mention trends of all intervals within that time frame (otherwise you’re cherry picking). See graph. Overall increase in ice for ~3500yrs (entering the next ice age), shorter term trend of decrease in ice from LIA recovery (minimum of 6200yr cycle present in 10be and C14 records at LIA), coinciding with an even shorter trend of decrease in ice which should extend to ~2200yrsAD (~1186yr cycle of probably solar origin, though time will tell, the last was the MWP).

    Let’s be honest. There are fluctations at all time scales.

    Unfortunately the model doesn’t show that, or any influence from solar, PDO, AMO, AO, nothing but the CO2 hockeystick.

    As Horton’s buddy used to say…Hhhmpph!

    Ed

  115. Speaking of trends, I live next to the sea in South Devon. Two foot of water has disappeared in the last hour!!! I predict that the English channel will be drained within 18 hours. Help! what shall I do to avert disaster?

    tonyb

    Send all your money to Algore. That is the solution to climate change.

    Do it before the tide comes in.

    (I am just joking, DaveE)

  116. Vincent (09:03:48) :
    “And if the imbalance isn’t happening then there is no forcing. Where is this missing energy? No one can tell me. Hansen can’t tell me – he thinks the datasets are wrong. What do you think?”

    Didnt yah hear…. its hiding in a pipeline somewhere.(probably one o “big oils” pipelines) And its just biding its time, and is going to jump out and bite us on the bums at some yet to be determined time in the future when we least expect it… yup(nods sagely to self)

  117. A lot is made of the Arctic melting but often with very little care in pointing out that it is a Summer event only

    This is true. Something is causing additional summer melt, but has no effect on winter freezing.

    Global warming (of the atmosphere) is primarily a winter phenomena according to the global temperatures from HadCRU etc and according to the climate models. Hence a warming atmosphere should cause the opposite of what is observed, ie it should cause less winter freezing and have little impact on summer melt.

    The obvious candidate for the cause of more summer melt is particulate air pollution deposited on the ice causing increased melt through reduced albedo.

  118. Re Philip_B (20:54:55) :

    A lot is made of the Arctic melting but often with very little care in pointing out that it is a Summer event only

    This is true. Something is causing additional summer melt, but has no effect on winter freezing.

    If average January temperature over the Arctic would rise from -30° C to -20° C, this warming would be absolutely dramatic. But the sea would freeze over every winter nevertheless.
    This happens even though surrounding SST’s increase – most of the melt of the Arctic ice (particularly the multiyear ice) happens from below. But the surface meter of Arctic water is sweeter than the sea water below it (by runoff from the Siberian rivers mainly) so it freezes at temps only slightly below zero.

    If average July temperature over the Arctic would rise from 0° C to +1.0° C, it would be almost immeasurable warming. But this, in combination with increasing SST’s, will gradually erode the ice until a first ice free Arctic summer.

    Imo it’s pretty obvious why the melt should be a summer event.

  119. @rr Kampen your last post is all speculation.. !
    furthermore you dont take into account winds and humidity
    .. there can be an increase in icethickness even when temps are above 0 C.
    temperature alone means so little.

  120. RR Kampen,

    I’ve heard the theory that changes in distribution in freshwater from Siberian rivers is bringing more heat to the ocean surface and melting the ice from below.

    If it is happening (has happened) then it could produce a short term (say 2 to 4 year) change in summer ice extent. But can not possibly cause a longer term trend.

    So as an explanation for the 2 to 4 years of summer ice melt up to 2007 it’s plausible.

    However, to claim this mechanism could produce an ice free Arctic Ocean is fantasy.

    But this, in combination with increasing SST’s, will gradually erode the ice until a first ice free Arctic summer.

    You completely misunderstand. On an inter-annual basis the ice isn’t being eroded. That’s what no changes in winter sea ice extent means.

  121. Re: Philip_B (05:06:24) :

    “I’ve heard the theory that changes in distribution in freshwater from Siberian rivers is bringing more heat to the ocean surface and melting the ice from below.”

    I don’t know this theory and offhand I consider it to be weak. The Siberian fresh water distributes over the Arctic ocean in a thin layer and freezes up every autumn, which means that a positive temperature anomaly of this bit of water always vanishes in October.


    “You completely misunderstand. On an inter-annual basis the ice isn’t being eroded. That’s what no changes in winter sea ice extent means.”

    If more than half of the Arctic sea was covered with ice of five years and older until about 2004, whereas today virtually all ice three years and older has gone, we have to talk erosion. More ice disappears in summertime than freezes in winter. Imo this is rather easy to understand – I must be missing your subtle point?

    The sea ice extent is NOT the important parameter, it is only part of it. VOLUME is the thing to watch. Once average thickness drops below a breaking-up threshold (about 0.5 metre) extent vanishes in no time flat. See day to day devastation on e.g. ‘Cryosphere Today’.


    Re: rtgr (03:01:28) :

    “furthermore you dont take into account winds and humidity”

    Correct, my arguments filter out meteorological variability. I look at trends, not extremes.

  122. Caution to Kampen, Flannagan, et al. Your names are being taken down for a review of these times in the future. Remember the “Consensus” back in the 1970s who had the world freezing to death, crops failing and mass starvation in Asia and Africa by 2000!

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=dddc4451-802a-23ad-4000-a9b55ed9489a&Issue_id=

    “……Of course Newsweek essentially retracted their coming ice age article 29 years later in October 2006. In addition, a 1975 National Academy of Sciences report addressed coming ice age fears and in 1971, NASA predicted the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.”

    Gee whiz, maybe NASA’s ice age prediction just got interrupted by a brief warm spell (that of course they had expected to happen)

  123. Re: Gary Pearse (07:11:10) :

    “Caution to Kampen, Flannagan, et al. Your names are being taken down for a review of these times in the future. Remember the “Consensus” back in the 1970s who had the world freezing to death, crops failing and mass starvation in Asia and Africa by 2000!”

    Thank you, but I remember no such consensus. The consensus was that increasing CO2-levels would lead to increased heat content in the lower atmosphere; the questions then were:
    – Is it already measurable?
    – Or might there be negative feedback-effects, e.g. increased cloud cover that keep global temperatures down?

    Apparently the temperature-CO2-correlation works out pretty straightforward so for now both questions are answered (respectively yes, and no). Modulations on the trend are explained by ENSO, volcanoes, industrial dust and solar variability.

    The modern myth of ‘ice age’-consensus in the 70’s relates to a single, rather non-scientific book by Nigel Calder called ‘The Weather Machine’. This book was fantastically popular with the general public but not in the scientific community.

  124. I believe the current period of extended minimal solar activity should give us a unique opportunity to determine the effect, if any, that solar variability has on climate change. I do not think we have seen such a deep solar minimum in over 150 years.

    As yet, I believe the jury is still out on this question. Looking at my chart of AMSR-E data with the average annual freeze-melt cycle subtracted out, I see that data for this year to be averaging about 580,000 sq km above the average for the whole year of 2007. For now, this is inconclusive as it is still within the range of similar re-growth episodes evident on the old NSIDC monthly ice-extent plots from 1979.

    I presume that Arctic ice-extent changes are also affected by weather-related cloud-cover and wind flow. I would think that a run-away greenhouse effect would show up as progressively less arctic ice frozen each winter and increasing ice melted each summer as ever more of the Arctic Ocean is exposed to direct solar heating. It may take several years more before a clear trend is observable. Perhaps the modest Arctic ice-extent increase of the past two years indicates that we do not need to sound the klaxon of alarm just yet.

  125. Kampen me boy, you need a course in logic. Or maybe you’re just too young to remember.

    There is no cause and effect between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and global temperature. None. So please stop misrepresenting the situation. Falsely claiming there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature doesn’t make it so.

    Note the [non] correlation below the chart: click. If you limit your comments to verifiable facts, you will be forced to conclude that any effect from increasing CO2 is extremely minor, and can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. Accepting that fact will help you to avoid looking foolish: CO2 rising from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand is not going to trigger runaway global warming. And that, my friend, is exactly what the climate alarmists are trying to sell. A pig in a poke.

    Sorry, but the facts completely debunk the alarmist position. That’s what planet Earth is telling anyone who has the common sense to listen.

  126. Funniest thing about the global cooling thing is that Stephen, (Scary scenarios), Scheider was one of those on the Earth is cooling bandwagon LOL

    DaveE.

  127. Smokey 7:51:39

    I agree that the correlation stinks, but there may yet be a CO2 signal in the temperature record. I don’t think it is big enough to be detected yet, or if it is big enough to be detectible and present, we haven’t figured out what it is yet.
    ==========================================

  128. Re: Smokey (07:51:39) :

    “Kampen me boy, you need a course in logic. Or maybe you’re just too young to remember.”

    Newsweek is hardly scientific. The article mentions no greenhouse gases. Just a question: do you think they don’t exist? Do you think an atmosphere of pure N2 and O2 and no trace gases would have the exact same temperature as we have now? Shall I dump a thousand articles about CO2 and AGW as of the fifties of last century on you, then?

    “There is no cause and effect between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and global temperature. ”

    You may need a course in nineteenth century radiation physics. Or are you trying to deny conservation of energy?

    “CO2 rising from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand is not going to trigger runaway global warming. ”

    ‘Runaway’ global warming was of course never predicted. A climate change is. The change will have to continue until the CO2-content levels off; then climate and oceans will take a few years to settle in a new equilibrium. No ‘runaway’ – that is popular gibberish (as is the article about ‘tsunami’s in England’ discussed elsewhere on this site, of course).

    If you doubt the impact of very small concentrations of stuff, try a little cyanide.

    As long as global temperature is still rising in combination with the rise of CO2-levels, there is logically no debunk of the AGW (not ‘alarmist’, please) position – even if the two are correlated along some other variables. Unless no other cause of GW is found the AGW-position remains. Hyperesoteric, immeasurable solar variation will not do! Mystical propositions like ‘naturally coming out of the Little Ice Age’ will not do! Science, please.

  129. kim,

    That’s why I wrote that “any effect from increasing CO2 is extremely minor, and can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.”

    There were several obvious errors in RR Kampen’s (07:20:48) post. If CO2 had the effect claimed, the planet would warming significantly as CO2 increased. But the planet is cooling, not warming. Any effect from CO2 is so minor that it is overwhelmed by other factors. There is nothing to be alarmed about regarding carbon dioxide, which is entirely beneficial.

  130. Re: Smokey (08:28:33) :

    “There were several obvious errors in RR Kampen’s (07:20:48) post. If CO2 had the effect claimed, the planet would warming significantly as CO2 increased. But the planet is cooling, not warming.”

    If CO2 had the effect claimed, how much would you expect the atmosphere to have warmed? About 25° C maybe?

    “Any effect from CO2 is so minor that it is overwhelmed by other factors. There is nothing to be alarmed about regarding carbon dioxide, which is entirely beneficial.”

    Other factors (deep solar minimum, extreme La Niña, two volcanoes) would have brought the years 2007 and 2008 near the coldest on record. Instead they tipped into the top ten warmest.

  131. For those who keep claiming the global cooling fears are myth, go back and read the time magazine article.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    It is interesting that in the 70’s, they said:

    “Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”

    Are these facts correct? Why are we always looking at data from 1978 forward?

  132. RR Kampen, just about everything in your (08:18:02) post is wrong for one reason or another. For example, your statement:

    “Unless no other cause of GW is found the AGW-position remains.”

    That is a perfect example of an “argumentum ad ignorantiam”: The fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false.

    I do agree with you that Newsweek is not scientific. Not at all. But that article quotes numerous actual scientists and their organizations on their belief that the planet could be entering a new Ice Age. Re-framing the argument to make Newsweek the issue deliberately disregards all the scientists being quoted. It’s a red herring argument.

    It’s understandable that you would be uncomfortable with an R^2 [non] correlation of .001 between CO2 and temperature; a number so tiny it is indistinguishable from noise.

    And appealing to nineteenth century radiation physics is no doubt a reference to Arrhenius — who recanted his 1896 paper that alarmists like to quote, and replaced it with his 1906 paper showing a much lower sensitivity [which has been shown to still be much too high].

    Finally, we constantly witness backing and filling by the alarmist contingent over their warnings of runaway global warming leading to climate catastrophe. But that is the position that they must take, because as stated above, if the result of higher CO2 concentrations is only a couple of tenths of a degree change in temperature, then there is no justifiable reason to pay another dime of grant money toward any “mitigation,” or global warming studies, or first-class trips to Copenhagen courtesy of unwilling taxpayers. A couple of tenths of a degree toward a more comfortable, agriculturally beneficial climate is a non-problem. That’s why the warmist folks absolutely must sound their false alarms over runaway global warming: because if a CO2-caused climate catastrophe isn’t right around the corner, then there are much better things to spend all that wasted money on; things that matter. So they are forced to be climate alarmists. They have no choice, see? Once they start crying “Wolf!”, they can’t stop.

    It’s either alarmism 24/7/365, or kiss all that grant money goodbye.

  133. RR Kampen said;

    “If you doubt the impact of very small concentrations of stuff, try a little cyanide.”

    Co2 is the very stuff of life, cyanide isn’t. Quite what was your point?

    tonyb

  134. RE: Smokey (08:57:57) :

    “It’s either alarmism 24/7/365, or kiss that grant money goodbye.”

    There is no grant money for bona fide climate specialists then? Only for the ‘Alarmists’? I must become one!


    ““Unless no other cause of GW is found the AGW-position remains.”

    That is a perfect example of an “argumentum ad ignorantiam”: The fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false.”

    I think you have missed out on most of the argument. Look carefully. Suppose we have
    – Observation: X and
    – Hypothesis: ‘A causes X’.

    Without any further research, claiming the truth of the hypothesis fails to your argument. But, of course, research STARTS at a hypothesis, it does not end with it.
    Now all possible causes for X, that is A, B, C, D, E et cetera shall be inspected for existence.
    If B, C, D, E et cetera are not found, but A is found, the hypothesis remains.

    That is the situation here.
    Of course, one could try to deny the hypothesis A causes X itself, but in the GW-case this would violate conservation of energy. CO2 traps heat as a matter of fact.
    Of course, one could try to deny X itself. Well: http://agwobserver.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globalcooling.gif?w=514&h=409


    “I do agree with you that Newsweek is not scientific. Not at all. But that article quotes numerous actual scientists and their organizations on their belief that the planet could be entering a new Ice Age. Re-framing the argument to make Newsweek the issue deliberately disregards all the scientists being quoted. It’s a red herring argument.”

    The Newsweek article is like https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/07/guardian-global-warming-to-trigger-earthquakes-tsunamis-avalanches-and-volcanic-eruptions/ . How do you regard that text, containing as it is references to numerous actual scientists?

    As for consensus, observe http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif
    from http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm .


    “It’s understandable that you would be uncomfortable with an R^2 [non] correlation of .001 between CO2 and temperature; a number so tiny it is indistinguishable from noise.”

    I sure would, knowing the correlation is so big climate models since the early eighties can’t do without it.


    “And appealing to nineteenth century radiation physics is no doubt a reference to Arrhenius ”

    And earlier, including Fourier.


    “Finally, we constantly witness backing and filling by the alarmist contingent over their warnings of runaway global warming leading to climate catastrophe.”

    Let’s please dismiss alarmism like those dumb Britisch tsunami’s and ‘runaway warming’ and stuff like that. GW is serious as it is, but the idea it will end the world or humanity is plain nonsense. It WILL, however, pose some serious difficulties.
    Maybe you would like to know that I also abhor Kyoto and emission rights and nonsens like that. If we stop emitting CO2 now, it wil take half a millenium to have the CO2 back to the 1900-level. We have to take GW for granted and anticipate on possible consequences. Big deal.

  135. Smokey

    I have had this discussion numerous times with Brendan H. Below is the convoluted series of posts. It is nonsense for others to suggest that the theory of cooling in the 70’s was limited to a very few articles-most of them emanating from Nigel Calder. I see I will have to put these posts into a proper sequence at some point as no doubt they will be needed again.

    “Brendan H at 02 51 57 said
    “As for William Connolly, the paper he co-authored on the myth of the 1970s cooling consensus presents a persuasive and well-supported argument. I think you should give it another chance.
    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
    ****
    I have seen this article before in another form- the three authors are interesting including William Connelly-on whom I did a long and thorough piece about his personal agenda as a member of the UK Green party and as gatekeeper of wikipedia climate section (my 01 14 54 earlier today addressed to Joel and Smokey)

    The second author was Thomas Peterson, who Anthony has met;

    http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xpjH07lfElgJ:wattsupwiththat.com/2007/06/30/+thomas+peterson+noaa+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

    Thomas Peterson is the keeper of weather records including weather stations at NOAA. Anthony records being co interviewed with him
    When trying to continue his surface stations project shortly after this meeting he found;

    “You are not authorized to view this information. Your IP address has been logged”

    When it came back up Monday afternoon, the “managing parties” field identifying the location of the weather station was gone. I would note that I shared a radio interview with Dr. Thomas Peterson of NCDC last week, so I am certain NCDC is aware of the effort. No notification was given, nor even a professional courtesy to advise of the change, nor any notice on the website.”

    The Row over access was repeated in more detail here
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879848/posts

    The third author of the piece you cite is John Fleck who is a competent science writer on the Albuquerque journal- he reported his own involvement in the article here;
    http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/1897180018opinionguestcolumns02-18-09.htm

    His politics are left wing -which is his own business- but the reports he co authors need to be seen against that background.

    The original report you cite is rebutted here
    http://www.openmarket.org/2008/12/09/the-new-ice-age-continued/

    For my part I had an involvement, in as much back in the 70’s I was asked to write a piece on climate change and being unaware at that time what was being referred to collected material from both ‘sides’. There were undoubtedly far more pieces citing cooling rather than warming-whether they survived as digital copies anywhere –and therefore are still being cited-depends on who the record keeper was at the time. I threw away my files years ago and recall the flimsy folder with warming material and the very thick bunch of folders on cooling.

    The article you cite makes some interesting comments including;

    “Scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell’s temperatures found it (cooling) was not necessarily a global phenomenon.”

    Mitchell had based his calculations on 200 weather stations for his 1963 treatise. Interestingly this was the same number (and appears to be the same ones) that G S Callendar based his work on when he came up with the seminal document on AGW being caused by rising co2 levels back in 1938. He had based his own work by backtracking to 1850 to show rising temperatures and found only 100 weather stations of which some 50 were flawed and unreliable. Interestingly Charles Keeling admitted to being influenced by Callendars work so based his own hypotheses on the basis that temperatures were rising and so was co2-this latter supposition based on Callendars cherry picking of historical co2 data.

    It is certainly untrue to rewrite history and claim global cooling was a myth. It wasn’t. To base a new world order on a tiny number of historical temperature records- many of which were known to be flawed then and are flawed to this day- is clearly absurd.

    Sorry Brendan, but the report you cite could easily be rewritten to show a diametrically opposite view and if anyone here would like to fund it I shall be happy to oblige 

    TonyB

    Sorry, but I was in a hurry this morning so did not post my full reply. (00 46 39)
    You said earlier that the report you linked to demolishing the myth surrounding Global cooling;
    “…As for the opinions and activities of the report authors, I don’t see where they are relevant to my claim that their report “presents a persuasive and well-supported argument”.

    I had made some very detailed anaysis suggesting that two of the three authors had an acknowleged warming agenda and the third-the keeper of the weather records- certainly did not appear as objective as he might, if the experience of others is anything to go by.

    You then said;
    “The authors identified seven papers claiming global cooling, 44 papers claiming global warming, plus a number of neutral papers. In other words, if there were any scientific consensus, it was in favour of warming. This finding is supported by an opinion survey carried out in 1977 of top climate scientists, who narrowly favoured warming over cooling.”

    With respect Brendan the two statements do not correlate.
    Let us for the sake of advancing the arguement (only) accept the poll at the time showed a narrow consensus in favour of warming, and for the sake of easy maths accept it was around 5%

    Yet by the figures you cite around 80% of papers the thre authors ‘found’ supported warming. Surely it is more reasonable the figure would represent around 50/55%?

    This suggests a number of possible explanations.
    * The coolers didn’t write much
    * The coolers documents were never digitised or became lost over time.
    * The authors didn’t dig hard enough to find the true representation of papers that the poll shows should have been there.

    Are you seriously saying a group of objective authors seeking to present a well balanced argument found only around 15/20% of cooling papers, when it should have been at least double or triple that number? In doing that is it really correct to say that they are presenting ‘a persuasive and well-supported argument?”

    I suggest that the authors well known sympathies have prevented them from delving far enough to present anything that is balanced.

    This is also so far from my own direct experience at the time as to exist in a parallel universe. Finding papers without the internet back in the 70’s was not easy and my own memory of writing my own article at the time is that I subsequently threw away far more than 7 cooling papers, and far fewer than 44 warming papers!

    We will each continue to believe what we want Brendan, but it is only fair to point out that an important and widely cited report of this kind does need to be put into the context of the agenda behind those writing it.

    Tonyb

  136. Re: TonyB (09:19:31) :

    “Co2 is the very stuff of life, cyanide isn’t. Quite what was your point?”

    (I can’t survive on CO2)

    My point is that the well-known argument that CO2 exists in such low concentrations it can’t possibly make a difference is rubbish. I chose the easy way to show this.

  137. Sorry, I can’t be bothered any further by statements like: “If we stop emitting CO2 now, it wil take half a millenium to have the CO2 back to the 1900-level.” As Prof Lindzen would say, that conjecture is so bad, it’s not even wrong. It is a falsified invention. Prof Freeman Dyson provides solid evidence that CO2 persistence is around 12 years. Repeating an insanely wacky number for CO2 persistence of 500 years means you’re listening to people who wouldn’t know the difference between their ankle and an adiabatic chart.

    Do your homework, get up to speed on this subject, stop repeating ridiculous talking points like that, and accept the fact that the entire basis for the CO2=AGW scare comes out of always-inaccurate GCMs, and accept the fact that the real world contradicts the computer models.

    Then we can talk.

  138. Well I’m still back at the Arctic ice, and as of this morning 09/08/2009, looking at the 09/07 IARC-JAXA graph, it looks to me like it has hit bottom; and earlier than last year; which itself was earlier than 2007.

    Just a wild guess it won’t go below 5.25; maybe 5.20, but so what ? It’s not back to 2006 or the long term (since 1979) average, but 2005 looks a lot like 2007 timing wise, and since then it has been starting the refreeze earlier.

    Well another exciting year of watching the grass grow. I like the increased information on the JAXA site. Not also the Arctic temperature is now in full crash dive mode.

    Yes I know it’s just weather; but the trend is not conducive to AGW theorists getting a lot of sleep.

    Between watching the ice, and the sun, I haven’t even noticed that my front lawn has grown to where I need to mow it sometime this week.

  139. Re: Smokey (09:49:50) :

    “Then we can talk.”

    I don’t think so. You are trying to force arguments on me in an ad hominem, authoritarian way. ‘Accept the fact…’ which is a non-fact, but even if it were, you know: just mind your language please.

  140. “”” Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :

    If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. :) “””

    So where is the exaggeration; I think Roy is correct. Might I suggest that people consult their OED and look up the word ( if ) .

    And “if not”, then I don’t see any near term return of the Wisconsin Glaciation.

    George

  141. Why does the Climate Change ‘debate’ sound ever so much like the Kevin Bacon Game with an ever increasing number of degrees/steps?

    (How do we make responsible and punish some capitalist American for the environmental effects causing the deaths of untold lesser Borneo frog limpets in Mesopotamia?)

    Sea ice coverage isn’t *now* as important as sea ice volume. “Second and third year ice is much lower than ever!” (well, duh, there wasn’t as much ice last year or in ’07). But how do we tie that to AGW? While the IPCC ‘reports’ do contain a number of facts, the leap of logic from those facts into conjecture – and the rather psychic ability to identify a single cause in a complex system – is what is alarming.

  142. As there appears to be an open debate as to whether the melting trend observed so far is due to unusually high solar activity in the last thirty years or if this is due to man-made industrial pollution emitted in the same period, I do not think the degree of melting is relevant as long as the cause of that melting is subject to question. The recent and sudden reduction of solar activity as determined by sunspot count and the indications that this may not be temporary should give us a clear way to settle this question.

    As yet, the data is still inconclusive. It may take several more years before can we say for sure that the previous trend really has been broken. We should not expect to recover from thirty years of melting in a single year.

  143. Ian (00:03:29) :

    ** [snip] **

    So OK for Tamino to blog on the abstract of a paper but not OK for WUWT. Typical of AGW proponents. What is also typical is that I can’t reply to Scott A Mandia on Open Mind as all my posts to that blog are deleted. Open Mind my foot.

    If you want a post to appear on Tamino’s website, you must open it with “Wonderful, Tamino. Very enlightening, as usual” or “Nice summary and quite elegant” or “Illuminating, as always” … anything that will get your nose burrowing into the crevice of acceptance.

  144. IJIS have not updated their data, but just visually the ice on the 8th appears to be more than that on the 7th.

    I had forecast 5,100,000 earlier then upped it to 5,277,000 later on Climate Audit. Now methinks it may even be over 5.3

  145. John Goetz (19:32:04),

    Excellent point. Too true.

    On the plus side, “Tamino” never made the cut in the Weblog Awards or the Wikio top Science sites. No wonder, as insecure as he is. Real science encourages contrary opinion and facts. We get that on WUWT. But not on the censorship-prone AGW sites.

  146. IJIS have just posted their data 5,308,594 sq kms. Melt 20,312 compared to yesterdays 16,250, but my prediction – expect an update, just like yesterday, when they reduce this melt figure and up their ice extent. Visually the ice seems more in the animation here : http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php choose a select time step and toggle between the 7th and 8th.

  147. I run into warmers every day and I always shut them up by asking them if the city they live is has gotten warmer in the last 40 years and by how much? The info is available to everyone with a few clicks on the weather underground. If they don’t know , tell them about your city, If you are lucky enough to live in a town in the usa chances are your city has cooled or stayed about the same. They can’t preach al gore’s gospel if they don’t know what is happening in their own backyard. We are in a street fight for our freedoms with these moroooooons and we are trying to debate them with data they controlllll. Ask them how much sea levels have risen on Lower Matecumbe in the Florida keys? If levels are not rising in the keys how can a rise anywhere else in the world have meaning? I have not met one warmer that can deal with this type of debate. I don’t want to hear that coral is dying on some remote island in the middle of the pacific, show me on maui,or key west , with bouy temp data that proves your theory. Next time you see your congressman ask him if his city is warming , You know what his answer will be, he will look like a fool too.. We have to stop this soon or we will all be pushing our electric cars our of snow drifts in a few years.
    The warmers know this has nothing with the facts, they don’t care about facts or the truth,they never have.It is about cap and trade, the green movement and every other liberal idea they have come up with since the late sixties,they are getting old and losing their power, Ozone holes didn’t work,nuclear power gonna kill us all of the 1980’s, didn’t work,acid rain didn’t work,ice age of the 1970’s didn’t work.If we can stop this global warming crap they can all retire and move to Florida and leave us alone . 30 years of ice data has no meaning , talk to me in another 250 years then you might be able to show a trend.

  148. Re: jim (21:27:52) :

    “acid rain” – That would be China’s largest ecological disaster. Solved partly in the US, wholly in Europe by taking sulphur out of gasoline and implementing filters in chimneys. Why forget the work put into solving this serious problem?

  149. For all that it’s worth, which is not much, but it looks if the 2009 ice extend is going to beat the 2005 ice extend, somewhere around the 15th of September.
    Or not.

  150. ” Richard (20:39:11) : IJIS have just posted their data 5,308,594 sq kms. Melt 20,312 compared to yesterdays 16,250, but my prediction – expect an update, just like yesterday, when they reduce this melt figure and up their ice extent. Visually the ice seems more in the animation ”

    Sure enough they have posted an update and guess what! This time it has gone up by a whopping 21,875 sq kms! and the ice extent is now not less by 20,312 sq kms but it has INCREASED by 1,563 sq kms the second time it has done so. (The first on the 4th of Sept)

  151. Smokey (09:26:04) : RR Kampen, What does acid rain have to do with global warming?

    Smokey I’m amazed at your ignorance. Everything has got to do with (anthropogenic- dont forget that will you? normal warming is ok) global warming- hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, mosquitoes, pollution, general motors, toyota. You just dont “get it” it seems.

  152. Richard,

    All skeptics are ignorant. Just ask any climate alarmist [you can easily tell an alarmist from a normal person: alarmists are the ones who are afraid of CO2 and debates].

  153. Ice from the 8th to the 9th. Again visually it seems to have increased, everywhere except off the East coast of Greenland and the NW coast of greenland. Overall I think it has increased a smidge. Methinks IJIS will again show a decrease followed by an update increasing the extent.

  154. “”” Smokey (09:26:04) :

    RR Kampen,

    What does acid rain have to do with global warming? “””

    Well I thought that was well understood. Acid rain is caused by acid and rain.

    The acid arises from sulphur aerosols (from volcanoes) and those sulphur aerosols gather water, and form sulphuric acid, and those acid droplets grow into bigger water droplets, and form clouds, and eventually the aciedic water droplets are large enough to precipitate out as acid rain. In the process, the rain clouds reflect and block solar energy from reaching the ground, so the surface temperature cools.

    That is what acid rain has to do with global warming; acid rain is a negative forcing (hate that word) that helps combat global warming; even the natural global warming, as well as the man made global warming; whatever that is.

  155. According to my Excel calculations, the Arctic sea-ice extent average anomaly for this year to date is 86,930 sq km above the average curve (the daily average sea-ice extent for the whole AMSR-E record.)

    The average anomaly for 2008 was 3,120 sq km below average and for 2007 it was 487,230 sq km below average, the lowest value in the AMSR-E record. The highest anomaly was for 2003 at 386,080 sq km above average.

    The total ice extent variation each year has averaged about 8,540,000 sq km, a typical melt of 61% of the winter maximum. These are all my own unofficial calculations. I believe it is far too soon to draw any conclusion from this data related to the current period of minimal solar activity.

  156. Re: Richard M (04:26:16) :

    “And in August? Those who get excited about one month temps are bound to see disappointment in their futures.”

    August top 5-percentile over past century, a bit down from July.
    According to AMSU-A September is scheming for #1. Warmest, of course.


    Re: Smokey (09:26:04) :

    “What does acid rain have to do with global warming?”

    Please ask/re-read jim (21:27:52).

  157. Hello,

    I just thought I’d stick my head in.

    I doubt that the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free by 2011. I think it is likely that a small permanent ice base will always exist, or at least will last a lot longer than the rest of the surrounding ice. In other words, I think that the last bit of ice will take a lot longer to melt, if it ever does.

    I am fairly confident that shipping lanes will be open every summer from now on. Within ten years it will be evident that this is a permanent feature of the new climate of the north. By then there will be many other observable changes to that region. Startling changes when compared with the late 1970s.

    We are three decades past that point with profound changes to report, and many more to come. At some point even the most stubborn will have to admit that we live on a warming planet.

    I would say that the above is slightly more important than the eventual correctness of that prediction you quoted, but I would like to thank you for quoting it, which led me here to respond in more detail.

Comments are closed.