ANOTHER BOLD PREDICTION OF AN ICE-FREE ARCTIC
Guest post by Mark Johnson
Al Gore trumpets the latest conclusions of Climate Change Advocate David Barber. “Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting more quickly than anyone expected,” says University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System study released Friday. Barber is the lead investigator in the largest climate change study done in Canada. Barber said before the expedition, scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly.
It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.” “We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.
When you read the article, notice a few things:
1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.
2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.
3) The Inuit population are starting to chase the cash cow as well: “There’s also the need for economic development,” Hmmmmmm.
We have finally heard from the Great Climate Change Advocate Al Gore. On his obscure blog, Al says “Its worse than we thought.” Are you kidding me?
=====================
Obscure blog? Let’s look at the numbers for Al Gore -vs- WUWT and find out.
Yup.
In fact, WUWT does pretty well when you look at the entire family of web offering by Gore’s enterprises:
Keep those hits and links coming folks. Thanks – Anthony
NOTE: In the Alexa generated graphs above, the lower number the better for traffic rank. For example in the top graph, WUWT is around the top 10,000 trafficked sites on the web while alogore.com is in the top 100,000 trafficked sites on the web. It’s RANK not HITS.
Since some commenters are confused, here is the description from Alexa:
What is Traffic Rank?
The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and data obtained from other, diverse traffic data sources, and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach). As a first step, Alexa computes the reach and number of page views for all sites on the Web on a daily basis. The main Alexa traffic rank is based on a value derived from these two quantities averaged over time (so that the rank of a site reflects both the number of users who visit that site as well as the number of pages on the site viewed by those users). The three-month change is determined by comparing the site’s current rank with its rank from three months ago. For example, on July 1, the three-month change would show the difference between the rank based on traffic during the first quarter of the year and the rank based on traffic during the second quarter.
How Are Traffic Trend Graphs Calculated?
The Trend graph shows you the site’s daily traffic rank, charted over time. The daily traffic rank reflects the traffic to the site based on data for a single day. In contrast, the main traffic rank shown in the Alexa Toolbar and elsewhere in the service is calculated from three months of aggregate traffic data.
Daily traffic rankings will sometimes benefit sites with sporadically high traffic, while the three-month traffic ranking benefits sites with consistent traffic over time. Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site’s value, we’ve chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site’s overall popularity. We use the daily traffic rank in the Trend graphs because it allows you to see short-term fluctuations in traffic much more clearly.
It is possible for a site’s three-month traffic rank to be higher than any single daily rank shown in the Trend graph. On any given day there may be many sites that temporarily shoot up in the rankings. But if a site has consistent traffic performance, it may end up with the best ranking when the traffic data are aggregated into the three-month average. A good analogy is a four-day golf tournament: if a different player comes in first at each match, but you come in second at all four matches, you can end up winning the tournament.
Bart (23:43:13) :
“Sorry, no points awarded. To calculate a trend is to apply a 1st order polynomial model to the data set.”
Oh, please. While that is in some sense true, we all know that an extrapolation of a trend (with perhaps some gut feeling tossed in, who knows) is not exactly what is meant by “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.”
It’s hard to even figure what all the conclusions are, given that all we have from the seminar is a handful of quotes.
Martin Mason (17:30:22) :
“Carrot eater, please quantify the net “forcing” of CO2 over the last 10 years and the effect that it has had on surface temperatures.”
You can get a decent estimate of the change in CO2 forcing over some period by using a simple formula; it has the form of 5.35*ln(current conc/previous conc).
As for short term trends: I have said it before. In the absence of any forcing, the surface temperature record would still show a lot of noise. When you add a forcing in, you superimpose some trend on that noise, but unless the forcing is very strong, the trend will not be apparent unless you look over a number of years. Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years. This is not inconsistent with the models; they show the same sort of behavior.
“carrot eater (04:22:07) :
[…]
Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years. This is not inconsistent with the models; they show the same sort of behavior.”
And where do the models hide the accumulated energy in the meantime? I mean, it must be somewhere. Where?
Oh i forgot i asked carrot the same question before and he doesn’t have an answer. I surely don’t want to intimidate anyone. I guess i’ll just have to take silence for the answer. Fine with me.
Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.689 (million sq. km) of the 1979-2008 mean:
021710: -.757
021810: -.726
021910: -.689
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day
68,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days
Robert (10:33:07) :
At less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, an increase in c02 doesn’t affect the density of the atmosphere – atmospheric density is the sole argument of the air affecting temperatures, which has nothing to do with a “greenhouse effect”. Changes in density and air pressure are alas not human induced
carrot eater (04:22:07) :
Martin Mason (17:30:22) :
“Carrot eater, please quantify the net “forcing” of CO2 over the last 10 years and the effect that it has had on surface temperatures.”
carrot answers:
“…unless the forcing is very strong, the trend will not be apparent unless you look over a number of years. Given the current forcings, that number of years is 15-20 years.”
That’s not quantifying, but anyway, according to that answer CO2 forcing is not very strong. If it was significant, like a large volcano eruption, it would be easy to spot.
And since CO2 forcing is not very strong, there is no need to continue spending mountains of tax money on superfluous global warming “studies.” The AGW effect is insignificant, and every dollar spent on studying just how insignificant it is, is a dollar that could instead be spent on legitimate science that actually results in benefits for humanity — which AGW studies do not.
Scientists in other fields starved of funding should be up in arms over the profligate waste of grant money on CAGW, which has been debunked so often.
carrot eater (04:13:27) :
“While that is in some sense true,…”
You mean, in the sense of being precisely correct and valid?
…we all know that an extrapolation of a trend (with perhaps some gut feeling tossed in, who knows) is not exactly what is meant by “1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.”
With which part of “1st order polynomial model” do you have a problem? It is a model. If you seek to make a prediction from extrapolating it, you are basing your prognostication on a model, and one of the worst sorts of models from which to extrapolate behavior of a complex system, at that.
I, personally, would find a 30 year prediction based on complex climate models with a mediocre-at-best track record merely troublesome. A 30 year prediction based on linear trending, on the other hand, I would find preposterous.
DirkH (04:48:08) :
Good grief. I’m sorry I don’t notice every comment headed my way.
It doesn’t have to ‘hide’ it anywhere. If you run a model with no forcing at all, a single run will not flatline. It’ll show El Nino-like bumps and dips. Put in a forcing, and you’ll get a trend superimposed on those bumps and dips.
Smokey (10:52:51) :
Just for you: Taking the 2009 CO2 conc as 387.4, and the 1999 as 368.1, you get 0.27 W/m^2. Not sure what you’d want to do with that number.
“according to that answer CO2 forcing is not very strong. If it was significant, like a large volcano eruption, it would be easy to spot.”
Yes, a large volcanic event like Pinatubo has a big enough forcing that you can easily see its effect, despite the underlying noise of ENSO, etc. Happily those events are sporadic, and the dust clears.
Otherwise, yes, the increase in total forcing (CO2+CH4+solar+aerosol+black carbon+etc, etc) is weak enough that you need to look at periods of at least 15 years in order to see a significant warming trend. You’re catching on.
“And since CO2 forcing is not very strong, there is no need to continue spending mountains of tax money on superfluous global warming “studies.””
How on earth does that follow? Yes, the trend in forcing is weak enough that you can’t necessarily see the impact in a ten year span, amidst ENSO and whatever else. But it’s strong enough that you’ll see it over 30 years, 100 years..
Bart (11:13:02) :
One could ask the author to speak for himself, but I would hazard a humble guess that by climate model, he meant something a bit more sophisticated than a linear extrapolation or guesstimate.
carrot eater (16:57:23) :
“…he meant something a bit more sophisticated than a linear extrapolation or guesstimate.”
Like a model? Come on, just say it. You’re only digging a deeper hole.
“… and the dust clears.”
Wow, you mean it’s temporary and not cumulative? Who’da thunk it? But, anthropogenic CO2 is magic CO2. Like the guest from hell, it never seems to know when its time to go home, and just lingers on and on.
carrot eater (16:57:23)
these sprious relations based on unverifiable, yet result fixed computer models are just so absurd that they hardly deserve any comment.
Carrot eater, you forget the other dreadful possibility. CO2 forcing is in reality nowhere near as strong as the theory says and there’s actually nothing hiding it, it just isn’t there in any significance. That is what current and historical observations show in spades. Obviously actual observations are nothing compared to the output of simplistic models though and basing climate science on a single period of 20 years when ST and CO2 showed an apparent linkage. Possibly the only period on record.
Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports for Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Data provided by NSIDC: NASA SMMR and SSMI
17 February, 2010: There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.757 (million sq. km) from the 1979-2008 mean. So I thought it would be interesting to see where we top in relation to past years.
M/D/Y Posted Value Comment
021710: -.757
021810: -.726 (31,000 sq. km increase)
021910: -.689 (37,000 sq. km increase)
022010: (no data available when I checked – 2010 daily readings aren’t posted)
022110: -.597 (92,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days | 160,000 to-date)
022210: -.684 (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday)
From 02-17-2010 to the present:
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day
68,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days
(no data when I checked) ? sq. km increase in the past 3 days
160,000 sq. km increase in the past 4 days
73,000 sq. km increase in the past 5 days (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday – odd, the positive trend was accelerating for the last 4 days and this is double the trend in the opposite direction – did someone goof?)
Admittedly, a visual 1 day timeframe is pretty silly use but this looks like ice growth.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=21&fy=2010&sm=02&sd=22&sy=2010