Sea Ice Open Thread

Do I see the effects of perfectly natural cycles here?

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

It would be interesting to see how it lines up against the 1979 – 2008 average.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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”? 🙂

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.

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.
===========

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

No need to worry Flanagan, our Czars and politicians
are on cruises to monitor Climate Change. We’re going
to be OK.
http://www.youtube.com/user/megwhitmanonvanjones

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!

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).

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

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.

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 http://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.

Flanagan (14:20:24) :
Here is a comparison (reality check)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
The models are thoroughly falsified by this. How can they be used for forecasting anything 100 years in the future

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.

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.

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.

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.

Flanagan (14:20:24) :

Here is a comparison (reality check)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png

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

There is an international competition for experts about prognosticating sea ice extent in September:
http://www.damocles-eu.org/artman2/uploads/1/Sea_ice_outlook_2009_AWI_FastOpt_OASys_contribution.pdf
The experts do not seem to be any better than we are, and the main reason may be that nobody knows enough about ice thickness.

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

“Here is a comparison (reality check)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
”
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)

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

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.

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..

Thanks, Richard.
Sea ice extent is currently near 5.3 million sq/kms. What would the trend be now?

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.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/npseaice_ssm_200902.png
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.
—

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.

Please send Flanagan an ice pick – he needs to dig himself out of his hole!

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.

Reversion to the mean is a powerful force.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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).
http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view&current=GISP2_VOSTOK_INTERGLACIAL.jpg
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

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)

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.
==========================================

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?

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

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

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.

“”” 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

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.

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?

“”” 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.

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).