Arctic sea ice continues to rise past the normal peak date

I have the ice graphs as a gadget on my home page so see them every morning. Have been observing the split personalities between the poles as well.
When you say however, Anthony, that the Arctic sea ice is growing beyond its normal historical peak, I am confused. Is it not approaching the average from below?
REPLY: Maybe I should clarify that, I’m talking about the timing of the peak growth curve, not the magnitude. I’ll make a note. -A

You have to be careful with these extent figures because this graph is 15% ice extent. In other words, it includes areas that are 85% water as “ice”. If you look at a graph of more consolidated ice such as this one which shows 30% concentration, you see that the ice is actually declining. What is happening is that the ice edge is breaking up as the ablation season begins and the wind and storms spread it about. This decreases the 30% concentration number but can increase the 15% concentration as the ice is less consolidated around the edges.
I personally see the 15% concentration number as practically useless. It is more of a storm proxy than anything else and the number can vary considerably as ice is broken up and dispersed. The 30% number gives a better indication of ice pack in my opinion.
You will notice in that 30% number that this year was higher than any of the previous 5 years and higher than last year. The 15% number peaked lower than last year. That just means that the storms were farther South this year and didn’t tear up the ice edge as much.
My prediction is that this year’s ablation season will be 2006-ish at minimum.
REPLY: You know, that’s an excellent point, worthy of its own post, and passing on to NSIDC. -Anthony

I am disappointed in both the title for this post, as well as the interpretation of the data. In no way is the arctic sea ice “rising past the normal peak point”, as it has not had a positive anomaly since 2004. To make glaringly wrong statement, shows disregard for honest dialog and reporting.
A quick look at this graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Shows how wrong such a headline in a post is. Arctic sea ice continues below the normal for this time of year, with the normal being defined by the last 30 years of data. A quick look at this graph shows the entire 30 year trend, and it is plain to see by any honest objective observer that arctic sea ice continues to be below the year-to-year norm, and has been since 2004.
In regard to Antarctic sea ice, you did get that part right, as it now has ALSO slipped into a negative anomaly range (and has repeatedly for the past several years. If you look at the Global sea ice chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
You see that beginning in about 2001 or so, we started seeing more negative anomalies (related no doubt to the arctic sea ice going lower), but now, if you look at the very end of the chart, the last few years in particular, you see that globally, sea ice is spending more time in a negative anomaly range than positive. If Antarctic sea ice, over the next few years, should start to decrease, as arctic ice has done, you could see the global sea ice really start to spend nearly all of its time in the negative range.
Again, I’m very disappointed in the inaccurate reporting of the data…as currently negative anomalies exist for BOTH the arctic and antarctic sea ice, and any statement about “rising past” the normal peak is simply inaccurate. For a last look at another chart that ilustrates the inaccuracy of your comment, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
REPLY: You know, jumping all over me and calling it “dishonest” when you misinterpret the headline and the point I’m making isn’t cool. I’ve added a note above for people like yourself that imagined I’m saying something else. My point is about the normal time of the peak, not the magnitude, as anybody can clearly see. I made no claim whatsoever about the magnitude. – A

Slight correction to previous post. Here is the global sea ice chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Oh my, such robust results!
Is there some sort of extra North/South Hemisphere two-way heat channel that is evening things out?

” kadaka (10:59:10) :
Oh my, such robust results!
Is there some sort of extra North/South Hemisphere two-way heat channel that is evening things out?”
Hollow Earth theory with openings at the poles would fit the bill. There are issues with this theory, though – the holes haven’t been observed.

@R. Gates (10:52:25) : Yes, you are right sir but Anthony was very quick to clarify.
While I do watch the ice fairly closely, I do so because of the alarmist claims that the Arctic/Antarctic ice is disappaering at an alarming rate. It is decidedly not doing so, although Arctic ice extent is certainly at a low point for the satellite record era.
But anecdotal evidence clearly indicates periods of reduced sea ice at the poles many times in the past prior to 1979 (will leave others to provide the links – 1922 newspaper articles and 1959 North pole sub surfacings) We could be in one of those variations.
With the .5 to 1 degree per century global warming that is the record, however, we can expect to see reduced sea ice at both poles over time – that is until and unless the cyclical glaciation period begins anew.

An El Nino displaced to the Antartic:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

It should also be noted that WUWT hit stats keep rising and should hit 40 million sometime tonight (the next 12 hours) US Pacific time.
REPLY: Probably around 4-8AM tomorrow PST – A

A quick glance at the CT comparison posted shows that the added snow cover greatly increases the area of Greenland, which, in turn, makes the sea ice appear to be less in later years.
Also, the new earth shadow minimizes the impact of the recent record snow covers.

@ R Gates:
And the final translation:
“Crap!… Ok you WERE right, I was wrong. Next time I will read farther than the Headline. Sorry.”
Sugar and spice,
Doc

There is normally two peaks in the Arctic sea ice area and extent – one on day 58, February 28th and another on day 70, March 11th – not sure why there are two, could just be the lack of data – The Cryosphere Today has the same two peaks if you look closely.
March 24th is usually 150,000 km2 below the peak for ice extent.

Regarding Crosspatch’s comment on concentration –
Here is the most recent NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Concentration map.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration_hires.png
As I have stated all winter, the major areas with ice decline are the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Sea of Okhotsk – neither of which is directly linked with the Arctic Basin. Within the Arctic Basin proper, sea ice concentrations are well above 30%.

rbateman said:
“Now, what do you suppose is the probability of the sea-ice extent running flat and going right through the 1979-2000 +-2 STD come May?”
________
I would say the probability is less than 20% – honestly…so it’s not impossible, but unlikely. I actually thought we’d might get a positive sea ice anomaly this winter, but that chance is decreasing. Based on trends (and partially on AGW models) I would say that more than likely we’ll see arctic sea ice continue in a negative anomaly range, with a summer low that is certainly less than 2009, and probably less than 2008, but not less than 2007. I think between now and 2015 we’ll see a new modern record low summer minimum.
In regards to the arctic, I’ve been waiting to it’s slow year-to-year rise in sea ice extent to flatten and then begin a decline similar to the arctic. This still may be years off, and it really has to do with the strong winds that are keeping warmer air from penetrating all but the most northern areas of the region. But there are early signs that the winds are starting to taper off a bit (related to the ozone layer thickening up a bit down there?). If AGWT is correct, eventually we’ll see the antarctic follow the slow downward trend of the arctic.
Finally, much has been made about arctic sea ice recovering since 2007. And certainly there has been some recovery, especially in the multi-year ice, and the negative anomaly for the region has not been quite as negative. This years very negative AO index helped that as well. I think however, that even this older ice ice still subject to rapid decline, as it may be older, but not necessarily as thick as “traditional” mult-year ice has been. When looking at mulit-year ice, and sea ice in general, it is not just age, but total mass that matters. Total mass of arctic sea ice is still below the long term year-to-year normal. Despite the apparent trend that shows arctic sea ice continuing to grow past it’s normal peak TIME, this is referring to areas of at least 15% sea ice, and so when it starts to melt in the spring (about now) you can get this little “blip” upward, as the ice starts to break up and the 15% sea ice area makes an apparent last expansion, when really it is breaking up. The regions of N. Canada and Greenland saw very warm temps in Jan & Feb, and early March, and these areas are prone to higher melt this spring and summer, so I’m confident in my prediction for lower summer sea ice than last year, thougt not a record low year…maybe 2011 for that. (unless one of these Iceland volanoes decides to really do something major)

@ Smokey
Wait… are you implying that it’s not TEOTWAWKI??
What am I supposed to do with a 10 year supply of MRE’s?
Curse you!
Does anyone know if Skull Island has a wherehouse?
Doc

Doc Navy said:
“Crap!… Ok you WERE right, I was wrong. Next time I will read farther than the Headline. Sorry.”
———
Yep, i jumped the gun, and quickly fessed up, and Anthony was gracious enough to also have made some helpful changes to the post based on my “jump”.
More importantly, as has been discussed, the graph is looking at areas with at least 15% sea ice, and this time of year, when the ice starts to break up, you get a spreading out of the ice and can get this little bump upward in total ice extent. Other posters have spoken to this as well, and if anything, the larger bump up than normal might actually indicate that more areas than normal are spreading out (i.e. melting). Bottom line: The arctic sea ice has passed its winter growth period for this season. Now it will be interesting to see if the greater quantity of multi-year ice can hold on and we get a higher summer minimum, as some posters here suspect, or if we’ll actually see a lower summer minimum than last year, as I suspect. We’ll know by mid-September…

R. Gates,
One thing that is important to remember is that summer temperatures near the pole show almost no year over year variation. The mass of ice and constant low angle sunshine fixes them at close to 1C.
If the summer melt season starts with thicker ice (like this year) it isn’t going to decline as much as years which started with thinner ice.

Oops Mr Gates already caught his mistake. Therefore my abuse was totally uncalled for Please snip
REPLY: we could all do well by backing away from “abuse”. – Anthony

Wondering:
Sorry you’re not impressed with the 2004 “thing” as that anomaly data (based on a 30 year trend) represents the best solid data that we have for the arctic. The 2004 “thing” is the last year that arctic sea ice showed a postive anomaly (again, based on 30 years of solid data). When speaking about climate change, I don’t care about one snowstorm, one winter, or one year. I care about the long term trends, and the 30 year of data with the last 6 showing continuous negative anomalies are the most important we have on the condition of the arctic sea ice. Discount it if you want, as you are likely an AGW skeptic, and this kind of data certainly must cause a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.

Doc_Navy (12:32:12) :
Peace unto thee too sir 🙂
DaveE.

My point is that the natural cycles involved here appear to be at least 60 years in length so even if true, 6 years is nothing. In fact I would expect the bottom of the dip to last a lot longer, wouldn’t you? Couple this with the way they measure ice extent with varying instruments and based on 15% coverage and it just doesn’t look anywhere near as significant as we pretend. Natural variation is still mighty big compared to any trend.

Mr. Watts, yes it does appear the sea ice extent is increasing to previously observed levels. Please remember that the “normal” average is taken from 1979-2000 and is assumed to be the absolute reference for posterity. This is a completely arbitrary selection of data with NO STATISTICAL BASIS for its use.
If I were cynical, I would suggest that this “normal” average (with SD) was selected in anticipation of the expected decline – making it all the more dramatic.
Keep up the good work. It keeps me sane!

OT but interesting…
There is an interesting (almost real-time) discussion over at:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comments
Here’s a quote from Tom Fuller (you know, the guy who co-wrote that book up there on your upper right of the screen, right under the twitter link.) about the discussion:
“And what’s going on on his website is one of the most signficant and unexpected happenings in all the debate on global warming. For three weeks now, a discussion on something as unlikely as statistics is coming close to rewriting climate change history. Because for just about the first time, scientists from all parts of the spectrum are engaging in almost real time on an issue of substance that can actually be resolved in front of the viewing audience. It has engaged the attention of physicists, statisticians, webloggers and an army of viewers. If you read through it you will never think of the term ‘unit root’ in the same way again” (ref: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysis )
Enjoy.
Doc

Or, if it’s something along the lines of an infomercial you want, there’s always the Catlin Arctic Survey 2010. Yep, they’re at it again:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/
with tales of rotten ice, or, in their words, “flippy floppy ice.”

Leon,
Tom Nelson is already poking fun:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/03/catlin-warmists-think-that-we-stupid.html

Wondering said:
“Natural variation is still mighty big compared to any trend…”
Normally, yes. But AGWT is not about what is normal, but about looking for the signal within the natural variation. And for those who think that AGW might be correct are always looking toward the arctic for proof, that’s only partially true. The arctic region is one of the first to be affected by the warming according to all models, and so it should be the “canary in the coal mine.” But other evidence comes from warming oceans, cooling stratosphere, glacial melting, accelerated hydrological cycle, etc.

Anthony:
“I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added…”
Perhaps, the general snow cover of the northern hemisphere has a cooling albedo influence upon the later peaking of Arctic ice extent. Better to continue to show snow cover?

I take a daily trip to IARC-JAXA to watch Arctic ice grow/decline. Was enjoying the approach of Spring, seeing open spaces that had been solid white. Then I could not get the site. When it favored my computer again, the open spaces were mostly filled in. Now I know — it is slush that is spreading out into open water creating the appearance — only the appearance — of more Winter.
Smokey, thanks for setting the record straight over and over (and over) again. Always great graphs.

Over two THOUSAND hits on WUWT while I was reading this thread!
Mr. Watts, very well done indeed! It is a result which is most well deserved.

Earliest ice-out ever recorded (since 1851) on Lake Winipesaukee, New Hampshire:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Lake+Winnipesaukee+ice-out+is+earliest+on+record&articleId=2242ab22-323d-4c3e-8753-8f8549617a30
Ice-out was declared yesterday (the 24th) afternoon, four days ahead of the previous record of March 28th, in 1921.
The lake iced in fine, and on schedule, and was black, and sturdy enough to support the usual winter activities. However, the winter storms went south in February, with a big mostly-rain with high winds event in mid-Feb., doing a number on the protective snow cover. The sun was then able to work freely on the ice. March was warmer than usual, with still no further snow, and had another rain event, as well as more high winds.
The Warmists will no doubt try to blame this on global warming.

The sea ice comes and goes and sometimes it goes far, carried and melted by warm currents to oblivion. And as the sea ice comes and goes and comes again, cyclically and historically going back 100 years, a great many frightened folks tear their hair out, ignoring historic observations, proclaiming that if the trends continue, precious fragile Gaia will die screaming with a C02 knife in her heaving bosom…
Empirical evidence cannot sway a Green/religious viewpoint because Green people have their minds closed to alternative viewpoints that come from, of course, Mother Earth hating skeptics. I first noted the existence of this religious fervor when I pointed out to a “believer” that millions of acres of land where I grew up had certain so-called “endangered” species that were no more “endangered” than, say, pine trees or grass. The “believer” I spoke with wasn’t interested in the obvious falseness of an “endangered” species that was in vast abundance around him and, in fact, in all of eastern Oregon, Washington and Idaho – he DEFENDED the scientists’ position with this chestnut: “They are the experts – they’ve figured these things out and you are foolish to question them.” He may as well have called them, ‘the anointed ones” and called me a heretic.

Natural variability. Sadly not strong enough, or in the right direction, to knock the eejits off their hobby horses.
We are in for a rough ride. The world is going to warm up for a couple of years before it cools down appreciably. The re-invigorated screeching of the hysterical clerics will be painful to listen to. Almost as painful as watching smug return to their physogs.
Sorry to break this news. It is written in the stars(read planets). I wish I could place a sarcasm off sign here but I have seen the forecast and have no reason to disbelieve that which has provided proof sufficient for this sceptic to be amazed.
We should be thankful that Earth based “forcings” are mostly of opposite sign to extra-terrestrial influences right now (for the next 3-4 years) as the signals would be very strong without this offset.

Antonio San said:
“Where is the 100y old, 50 y old, 20y old ice?”
Answer: There is no arctic sea ice that old (or if there somehow is, it is such as small amount as to be too to measure…
And, what exactly is the “old multi-year ice” argument? More multi-year ice built up this past year because less melted last summer (relative to the extreme melt of 2007)
BTW: For a bit of trivia: Multi-year (older ice) has been the source of drinking water for arctic expeditions because of its lower brine levels.

He he….what’s the saying, even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. I figured you were aware of it, but thanks anyways

From elsewhere:
For the period covered by the satellite 2002 to 2010 the change in extent on a particular day of the year is plotted as a linear trend.
It is interesting that just before the summer melt (May) the area increases by 5000sqkm over the 9 years.
There is then a sharp fall to 20,000 sqkm loss per year in october.
The area change over the remaining year seems to be about 5000sqkm/year
Is the rise from April to may due to delayed melt? or is it spreading of melting ice?
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3148/deltaseaiceaveragearea.png
In other word the melt seems to be starting later but diving deeper
/Harry

“once again forget” , not once again for, oops

Late to the party, again. Sorry.

There’ll be a historically record low winter Arctic Oscillation come next week, it’s running close to -2.5 so far since new year:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml
It’s a cycle.

John F. Hultquist (said)
“Most mom’s have a reprimand for their children when they behave in this manner. Perhaps R. should visit mom for a refresher course.”
——-
John,
This, and your other personal comments about me I find offensive. I apologized to Anthony quickly and directly, and he even graciously edited his post to reflect some of my concerns. I’m actually surprized your post about this issue made it through as I thought Anthony had pretty much said for everyone to move on. So I would ask you: What kind of person makes such a comment once an apology has already been issued and the everyone else has moved on?
Be that at it may, I’m not here about the politics or the personal stuff (except to defend myself), I’m here about a dialog on the issues, as I think this is a great forum (perhaps the best) for intelligent dialog on AGW and other issues.
Back to the science now…several posters including myself have cautioned about reading too much into a short term extention of the “peak” arctic sea ice, as the charts in question show areas with at least 15% sea ice, and these kind of areas can show a brief blip upward as the spring melt begins. Also, other charts that follow areas with more than 15% sea ice show that we’ve passed the peak a week or so ago. That may or may not be the case, but caution is warranted. The issue does merit watching, and I look forward to following the course of the summer melt. The most important thing however is the long term trend, and we’ve still not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, depite the long and deep solar minimum, increased GCR’s, etc. This is exactly the condition that AGWT would suggest, as the GH gases overwhelm the other natural variations.

Nickname (16:20:42) : Nail => Head.
The Arctic was a guessable variable. That is why their models said it will warm up up there.
FergalR (16:29:51) : From the site:
“Bith curves are standardized using 1950-2000 base period statistics.”
I have seen agnostic paperwork dismissed for much less obvious spelling mistakes – notably John Nicol’s paper on CO2 lasers showing that the first, and most important “doubling” took place at 22ppmv..
http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc

The ASMR-E sea ice extent graph, linked by the graphic on this web site, shows a current decrease in extent (with a tiny uptick at the end) – while the above article shows a sustained climb for all of March. WUWT?

I could be a about a week from signing-up for the Steve/Anthony summer minimum forecast.

Smokey (12:06:23) :
As always, Smoke…..damn well said.
Chris

OT: Lots of mentions of Anthony and WUWT by Bob Zimmerman on John Batchelor’s excellent radio program tonight (the John Batchelor Show, 9 PM – 1 AM on WABC, NYC, streamed if it’s not in your area). Zimmerman and Batchelor pretty much ran through the latest bunch of posts, including Joe Bastardi, the fragrance-depleted flowers, and the British Museum backdown off the AGW bandwagon. Fun to hear—”Hey, I read that!” Good recognition for WUWT.
/Mr Lynn

Paying attention to every little bump on the time scale of months and ignoring the long term trend!
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png

Hi Smokey,
Karl Popper gets a mention in the AR4 The Physical Science Basis, but no clear grounds for falsification are described at all. He’s there to add some weight by association, as if describing the scientific method is the same as using it. Don’t get me wrong I know that a lot of clever people have done a lot of work, but if that work is only there to back-up the political agenda it counts for little.
AGW is what it is. It is a conjecture for political ends. The need for calamity leads to the ‘science’ not the other way round.
The way to defeat this conjecture is to reveal it for what it is, and prediction is a key tool in the skeptics arsenal. Let me make it clear, I have no ability to predict which way the climate will move, that is completely impossible. What can be predicted very accurately is the response of the climate community(political and ‘scientific’) to future deviations from the calamitous AGW story.
IF ocean temperatures fall IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF sea level rise does not accelerate IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF Antarctic temperatures fall dramatically IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF the US has five bad winters in a row IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF the start of Spring gets later in Europe IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF it starts snowing every June in Florida IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
I choose the term ‘counter indicate’ with care. There is no AGW thesis, so falsification is impossible. The best that you can hope for, is the introduction of doubt, but even this is far too much. No eventuality can undermine the AGW, because all eventualities are there to support it, never to undermine it. In a world of wonderful ever changing climate if one of your totems isn’t useful any more, you discard it for another.
I missed one … and this one is so important, because for most members of the general public it is seen as the absolute acid test, even though it is nothing of the sort. It is just another disposable totem ..
IF Arctic sea ice extent returns to ‘normal’ (1979-2000 average) IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
Please … do as I do … tell people what is going to happen before it does, then they’ll see it for themselves, the nature of the lie.

Antonio San said:
“As for the decline since the 1970 inflexion point, it is dynamic and due to atmospheric circulation as discussed by Leroux back in 2005. So the recent paper does confirm his findings.”
__________
Nope. Any models that don’t take into account the increased tropospheric temperatures and warm currents flowing into the arctic regions are incomplete at best, and based on chaos theory, bound to be wildly wrong at the end (in regards to whatever state the arctic is headed for if AGWT is correct. (i.e. ice free summers). There is no doubt that changes in wind patterns affect arctic ice, but all the other variables also affect the ice. Also, while SOME changes in wind patterns are undoubtedly part of natural cycles, some changes may indeed also be part of AGW, so even the argument by AGW skeptics that “it’s all the wind”, are incorrect due to lack of being the whole story and may also not allow for the fact that some of the changes in wind patterns could also be part of AGW.

Nickname,
You are mistaken on several points, but the one in particular is that a warming arctic and lower sea-ice on a year-to-year basis is not an “acid test” for AGWT. Indeed it is, and if somehow the arctic sea ice begins to show a long term recovery (i.e. consistently back to showing positive anomalies), then it would be major blow for AGWT, and I’m am sure that the majority of climate scientists would agree. The arctic has been touted as the “canary in the coal mine” for a long time by AGWT and I think all eyes are on this region. So far, the predicitons are pretty much holding true, if not even happening earlier than predicted, but I well understand that AGW skeptics refuse to accept that these changes, who doubt the science data, despite first hand direct impacts and reports by the people who actually live in arctic region.

Mr Gates
‘Acid test’ is a term that comes from testing gold. In modern times, it is used as a metaphor for describing processes that are absolutely conclusive.
Are you saying
1) A thesis exists for AGW (if so, please state it)
2) The nature of Arctic sea ice is at the core of the theory
3) The thesis is falsified by Arctic sea ice extent returning to 1979-2000 averages

We start our measures of Arctic sea ice in 1979. 1979 was a relative high in sea ice and a relative low in global temperatures. It is not a great place to start graphs about what is happening. If you graph temperatures starting at midnight, at noon you will all be sure we will be dead in 24 more hours.

“”” crosspatch (10:50:00) :
You have to be careful with these extent figures because this graph is 15% ice extent. In other words, it includes areas that are 85% water as “ice”. e is less consolidated around the edges……
…..
I personally see the 15% concentration number as practically useless. “””
Well Crosspatch, if you are in a racing sailboat; say doing the Volvo Round the World race, and it is a dark moonless night while you are racing around in the southern ocean, heading for the Horn; you would likely not have clean underwear to change into; if you got a report saying not to worry, because the sea ice was only 15% of coverage, and 85% was good open water.
These ice reports, are not generated for the curiosity of bored climate science students; who somehow think it has somthing to do with earth’s climate, and might lead to some taxpayer funded grant money.
There’s money involved in shipping and shipping safety; and 15% of sea ice coverage, is not safe boating conditions.

At this time, Arctic ice extent according to ASMR-E is at its highest level for the day since 2003. 2nd and 3rd place belong to 2008 and 2009. According to Arctic Roos, the 2010 area is almost equal to the 1979-2006 mean — well within one std. deviation. (I wonder what would happen if the mean included 2007?) Of course, this proves nothing, except to suggest that any concerns about alarming Arctic ice developments are premature.

R. Gates (10:43:14) :
[….]
Currently, arctic sea ice has been in a negative anomaly range since 2004, and shows no sign of going into a positive anomaly range for any extended period of time.

Arctic sea ice is and has been in a positive anomaly since long before humans inhabited the Earth. So, your claim of a negative anomaly is cherrypicking of the data. In other words, you are selecting only the data which you believe will support your argument of permanent declines, whereas most other selections of data for shorter and longer time periods will depict no such negative anomaly.

D. Patterson,
Show me the credible, peer-reviewed arctic sea ice data for the past 2 million years, and I’d be glad (and very interested) to look at it. The arctic sea has not been 100% ice free in recorded human history, and if you have data (not photographs of submarines coming up in an area of open arctic water!) to show that the arctic ocean has been 100% ice free in the past 20,000 years, please let me see it!
AGW models show the arctic will be ice free in the summer by the end of this century. That’s a very specific prediction. I like specfic predictions from models based on theories…that’s some of my favorite aspects of science. Much better than the mud-slinging garbage of the political world!

Smokey (11:36:34) :
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Arctic at the very North Pole has been completely ice free in 1958, 2000, and a few other times over the past century.

For the sake of accuracy, it is necessary to correct one statement. The photographs of the nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole do not represent “the very North Pole has been completely ice free….” The icecap remained “at the very North Pole” was interrupted by a sea ice feature known as leads. Submarines like to surface in the location of leads because there is a temporary area of open water or the temporary area of open water is refrozen with only a much thinner covering of ice which is non-damaging to a surfacing submarine.
Leads of open water and thin ice do not represent an ice free North Pole, because they are a fracture in the surrounding ice cap. Leads exist in the icecap due to pressures acting upon the sheets of ice by winds and Arctic Sea currents. Leads exist in any icecap without regard for changes in the climate. Icebreakers use the major leads (fractues in the icecap) to navigate their lengths for distances up to hundreds and thousands of kilometers in different locations and seasons. The Russian nuclear powered icebreakers used leads to make passages through the icecap and reach the North Pole with scientific researchers and tourists as passengers.
When looking at NASA satellite photographs of the Arctic Sea, you can see vast networks of leads and large polynya throughout much of the Arctic Sea, in all seasons, and in warmer and colder climates.
The pictures of submarines and Russian icebreakers in patches of open water at the North Pole are interesting, but they really don’t indicate an ice free North Pole or any changes in Climate in one direction or another.
Only the retreat of the outer margins of the icecap past the location of the North Pole will indicate an ice free North Pole.

Smokey said:
“PG sharrow also makes a good point. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Arctic at the very North Pole has been completely ice free in 1958, 2000, and a few other times over the past century.”
———-
As I pointed out many times before, If this is true, it is also proves nothing. The exact condition of the ice at the N. Pole is not necessarily indicative of the extent, depth, mass, etc. of the entire arctic sea ice pack. There is nothing magical about the N. Pole, and open areas of ocean can open up virutually anywhere in the ice pack. Even pointing this out as a bit of evidence for anything scientific is no different than talking about your spring snowstorm as proof that there can’t be global warming…both are quite unimportant to the debate on AGW.
You’re one of my favorite posters here on WUWT…I just want you to know that, as you provide some interesting, albeit lengthy, commentary.

Anthony- I think CT actually added snow cover fall of 2005, Oct. 20th has it. I did a pixel count of the two seas, with/without snow and found about a 500K sq km difference. It is interesting that the above discussion brought forth the negative anomaly since 2004, coincident with the addition of snow cover.

Roger said:
“I have never written a paper, but I ran a company for 30 years by making the right calls based on available evidence.”
——–
That’s fantastic Roger, and it sounds like you were very successful–congratulations. However, AGW is one the “calls” we can’t afford to get wrong, and no amount of political maneuvering or hot air from the pundits on either side of the issue should dissuade everyone who is truly concerned to get it right.
In regards to the arctic sea ice, and changes in the arctic and antarctic in general, this is such a huge issue because it is one the earliest signs where AGW models predict warming will show up. If, over the next few years, we see the arctic sea ice recover to pre-2000 levels (when it really started to fall off), and hits positive anomalies on a consistent basis, and the permafrost begins to recover, etc. then I personally will begin to have serious doubts about the validity of AGW models. Right now though, we’ve not had a positive anomaly since 2004, and that is a big deal, as the sea ice couldn’t even recover during the longest deepest solar minimum in a century. All the “everything is caused by the sun” crowd were sure we were headed for some real cooling period from this, but the global temps have held their own, and signs are strong that 2010 could be warmest year on instrument record. All this is predicted by AGW models–and though I’m only 75% convinced that AGWT is probably right, I’ve seen no evidence to reduce that amount or increase my amount of skepticism. Any increase in my skepticism, or in my belief in AGWT, will come most likely from trends in the arctic and antarctic.

Mr. Gates, I should have added to try to do the exact same expirement, when the outside temps are say 15-20*C cooler, again notice the time. You may have to wait til next winter, unless of course you are in the SH.

Let’s not jump to conclusions about weather phenomena, people. We’ve seen a study come out recently, posted here, that winds in the Arctic may account for a third of the overall decline. A paper by the same lead author from 2008 postulated that Arctic winds account for about 30% of the year-to-year variability.
The late peak this year says nothing about trends. For that you need much more data.
For the Arctic, the time of year of both the maximum and minimum ice coverage is occurring slightly earlier (i.e., negative slopes) but neither trend is significant at the 2 sigma level although the slope for the time of occurrence of the ice maximum is almost significant at the 1 sigma level (p-value=0.66).
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/temporal-trends-in-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-maximum-and-minimum-areal-extents/
This is by no means a rebuttal to Anthony’s post, which doesn’t make any diagnosis of timing trends. However, the door has been left open for less cautious people to make all sorts of wild assumptions about climate trends in the Arctic. and not just in the comments here. It would help relieve ignorance if some care was taken with purely observational posts here (and anywhere in the climate wars), to caveat them assiduously. Without caveats, as we can see from the comments above, a simple observation can easily become distorted into evidence for a given agenda. Feeding people’s confirmation bias, however innocently, is not the way to enlighten them. And it should be very clear to readers here that readers jump to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.
Steve Goddard (12:25:19) :
If the summer melt season starts with thicker ice (like this year) it isn’t going to decline as much as years which started with thinner ice.
I refer you to the comment above re winds. There have been numerous posts and comments at WUWT regarding sea ice extent (the topic of this thread) being largely or partly a product of wind influence. I dimly remember you aligning with that view in the past ( I could be wrong). Do you believe that wind patterns are not much of an influence on year-to-year sea ice extent?

R. Gates
The position you take on the Popperian falsifiability of AGW – and the defining of an ice-free Arctic as a testable / falsifiable prediction, is to be commended – such honesty and directness is refreshing. I am also impressed with your well-informed engaging with posters on various questions. In marked contrast to hit-and-run tactics from some AGW-ers here. However I find some inconsistencies and problems with some of your arguments.
In order to reference a falsifiable AGW claim, you quoted the WUWT post by William DiPuccio, whose chief conclusion was that the oceans have been cooling since 2004. But earlier you cite “warming oceans” as a proof of AGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
WUWT?
Further, you hold on to the AGW claim that Arctic ice is undergoing sustained decrease, and yet at the same time in answers to questions about absence of multi-decade ice and periodic recent episodes of an ice-free North Pole, acknowledge and even assert that the polar ice rapidly fluctuates – such that multi-decade ice cannot be expected. So your position on Arctic ice is far from clear. If it is so variable how can one talk about sustained change indicative of climate warming?
Earlier still you state:
“The most important thing however is the long term trend, and we’ve still not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, depite the long and deep solar minimum, increased GCR’s, etc. This is exactly the condition that AGWT would suggest, as the GH gases overwhelm the other natural variations.”
The AGW position on the solar minimum is something of an about-face – prior to 2006, the AGW community uniformly ridiculed the suggestion of solar forcing of climate. Now however any signs of warming-related phenomena are “remarkable in the face of the solar minimum.” Its standard sporting psycology to present oneself as the underdog – has solar cycling transitioned from being irrelevant to climate to now being the Goliath against AGW’s herioc David? (BTW I dont believe in direct solar forcing of climate, but it must have some entraining influence.)
You refer in another posting to ocean acidification:
“Personally, I’d take a bit of warmth over cold any day, but there are other ramifications to global warming besides heat..much bigger ones, like the acidifiication of the oceans”
However this is also highly problematic as an AGW predicted outcome. Continuing the sporting analogy, ocean acidification is a reserve disaster on the subs bench for C-AGW should global temperatures fail to rise as promised. However for a start, the oceans are alkaline – so the discussion should be of neutralisation, not acidification. But the biggest problem is the palaeoclimate record. We are led to believe that CO2-related decrease in oceanic pH will quickly harm the sensitive and soluble corals, which are already suffering and will soon fizz away like an Alka Seltzer if CO2 emission goes unchecked. But how does that fact correspond with the history of, for example, the Ordovician era around the mid 400 million years ago, when (a) atmospheric CO2 was 8-20 times higher than at present, but (b) corals did the opposite of going extinct – they evolved and appeared – in exuberant abundance – in the fossil record for the first time?
It is clear from more recent climate records over the last millenium that oscillations of natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, while not sticking to a 60 year period as sometimes claimed, show continuous multi-decadal oscillation of substantial amplitude. This post by Bob Tisdale is informative on this:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
Resolving an AGW signal in the face of such steep natural cycles is a tall order indeed. This is one of DiPuccio’s main points.
The figures in Bob Tisdale’s post point to the period around 1960 as an exceptional low in ocean driven climatic cycles. This makes it less remarkable that the period of intensive recent climate monitoring since the 60s-70s shows rising temperatures. However it looks increasingly like we are over the top of the rollercoaster and slowing ready for a downward plunge.
The article by DiPuccio that you helpfully cite indeed concludes that if climatic temperature and in particular ocean heat contine to decline for a few years then AGW will be completely refuted.

barry (19:35:56)
The central empirical fact of AGW theory is that increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere in the lab increasingly absorbs infrared radiation passing through that volume. This has been tested, reproduced thousands of times, and is axiomatic. It takes a feat of cognitive dissonance to be unaware of this foundational, well-tested evidence that has been reproduced countless times, particularly when someone has been engaged in the subject as long as you have.

So, how do you propose to explain the means by which any increased carbon dioxide is supposed to absorb further infra-red energy when the available frequency band of infra-red energy was already absorbed by the first meters of carbon dioxide?

Smokey (11:36:34) :
“””As someone who has followed this site from when it emerged from Surface Stations, I have seen so many commentators post their experiences of the time they changed their minds, due to the rational arguments and facts presented here, that it fascinates me when a few cling to their belief system in the face of voluminous evidence to the contrary. A six year anomaly at one of the Poles, from 2004, is cited as some sort of proof of …what, exactly?
We have seen the progression of those claiming an imminent ice age [when I was a young buck in Viet Nam], to the approaching global warming debacle that never happened, and which then morphed into anthropogenic global warming [AGW], and from there to “climate change” [as if it doesn’t always change]; runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, in which the seas will rise eighty feet — complete with maps of the future showing submerged cities. The fact that the rise in sea level is moderating is ignored, as is all other contrary evidence.
Most people begin by accepting what the media tells them, and those with an interest [and especially those with a background] in science look more closely, and find that nothing unusual is occurring, and so become skeptical of the claims of impending doom. “””
———————————-
My addition to your astute observation;
As the grass roots people, who can think clearly, spread the realization of the depths of the AGW back ground scam, it becomes as natural as the turning of the tide, to go from the anger of being scammed, to the realization that only clear truth, and a good fund of well rounded knowledge will save us, from the future scammers that will pray upon the ignorance of our children.
Richard Feynman was a unique mind as a result of the way he was trained from a child, on how to look at things from many angles, all of the time and to gather depth as well as breath, about the common environment around him, as he took daily nature walks with his dad.
I grew up in a similar vein, with both parents sharing the training, I have worked at stressing the training of my kids on having a curious open mind, that accepts what they see as the surface, then by critical thinking expand their perspective on to the interactions with all of the other influences in the immediate area, and by extrapolation the rest of the world.
When they were old enough to hold their head up 3 – 6 months, I would set them on the top of my arm and fly them around to view all sorts of natural things, before every nap /bed time. Lines of ants going up a tree, butter flies on flowers, bees and wasps at work, birds hunting worms, something different all the time. To top off the visual stimulation they got so they would sleep better, and have interesting dreams storing all of the new visual stimuli into memory. 25 years later they know enough to not be fooled by BS and cons, now working on grand children, not programing preset values or ideas, but allowing them to think and question on their own before they learn to walk.
What I see as the solution to the AGW religion, is to make these cognitive impaired people aware of the import of the process of photosynthesis as the supporting driver of all live on earth, and that having the goal of doing things of a better directed habit, that increase the rate of capture of solar energy to the conversion of food, as a continual landscaping of as much of the earth as possible, to effect a better net environment, as a real direction to take their religious feelings and energies rather than send monies to inefficient corrupt foundations.
If every one were to contribute to the improvement of the food generating capacity of their local environment, the over all carrying capacity of the earth will increase, along with the quality of life for all.
If the research funds were to be directed toward solving the real weather forecast problems, and by extension the on going climate, and the disaster mitigation efforts were truly international, instead of each region to itself, we could maybe heal some international conflicts, by working together on real solutions, that are not just hidden agendas, for the ripping off the rest of the world.
I could see something positive coming out of this, rather than just give all monies to ineffective companies, and governments, run by an elitist self destructive agenda. Reducing the size of useless government, instead of the world’s total population by mindless genocide, seems a much better answer
The basis of all religions is the placing of focus on the greater good of all by virtue of a right lifestyle, while expanding the support of the common flock, if that could be seen as all of the earth with out political factionalism, we could solve most problems.
I see an increase in technology, especially communications between diverse individuals, as key to understand the viral nature of human intelligence, and the potential of common growth by sharing ideas that work on real resource problems, I plan on doing more blogging, less complaining, being more open to ideas, while staying critical in my evaluations, searching for honesty.

Jack Frost thumbs his nose at the Warmers one last time:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

David Alan Evans (12:03:55) :
Wouldn’t it be quite interesting if worldwide data showed that the decade of the 1930’s was warmer than 2000-09? It would be nice to be rich enough to pay a group of scientists who are known to be from both sides of the global warming issue to study that.

Mauibrad (12:44:51) :
Graham on Global Warming bill
It appears that whatever Pr. Obama wants to do he is going to do it regardless if the people want it and regardless of any rules that will be violated in the process. So Cap N Trade is on the way.
But America can rise and change things:
“…..endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
So maybe a third party will arise in America to do the will of the people.

Regarding “R. Gates (08:43:50) : I think it is too early to pronounce any long term recovery in arctic sea ice . . .”
Yes, and also it is way too early to sound any alarms about long term trends in Arctic sea ice. Many believe that there is 60 year PDO cycle that affects Arctic sea ice as well as an AMO and . . . . Not to speak of any consideration we should give to possible century trends driven by recovery from the LIA. (And perhaps we should be more concerned about soot falling on Arctic ice than CO2 effects.)
Regarding the canary in the mine analogy. A couple of decades ago, I was a bonafide member of the AGW communtiy. Back in the 80s, our canary in the mine was the frequency of strong thunderstorms. Then it was drought — such as in Georgia. Then in 2005 it was hurricances. Then it was the Artic ice. Then it was tornadoes. Now it has become . . . ? Obama has even used floods from melting snow in the Dakotas and Minnesota as proof of AGW.
It seems that whatever event is noteworthy of media attention — that is the canary du jour.

Smokey (12:41:11): “By definition, scientific skeptics are pretty much immune from cognitive dissonance, as we have no hypothesis to believe in or to defend.”
Yes you do. Here’s one: Smokey (12:06:23): “…natural cycles – not a minor trace gas – explain the climate…”
This claim definitely counts as a hypothesis, and the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Therefore:
– The implied claim that the category “scientific skeptics” is synonymous with the category “climate sceptics” is false
– The implied claim that [climate] sceptics are “by definition” immune from cognitive dissonance is false.

D. Patterson: “Consequently, the prior existence of a natural occurence of climate and trace gases requires no hypothesis to be put forward by skeptical humans.”
We’re talking about now, not then. There is a theory on the table: AGW. The assertion that natural cycles explain the climate is a counter-claim to AGW. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

barry (19:35:56) :
“The central empirical fact of AGW theory is that increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere in the lab increasingly absorbs infrared radiation passing through that volume.”
And it’s been found that a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560 ppm will result in 1.2 degree warming all other things being equal. This can quite easily be calculated.
The premise then becomes will 1.2 degrees of warming make a difference, as it’s less then the natural year to year variation observed variation.
Or possibly, all other things aren’t equal.
Lindzen and Hansen are in absolute agreement as to what an atmospheric doubling of CO2 all other things being equal will do.
Lindzen believes
A) 1.2 degrees won’t make any difference
B) All other things will remain roughly equal and life won’t change much.
Hansen believes
A) 1.2 degrees will make a massive difference
B) All other things will spin out of control and we will all burst into flames.
The Ocean Heat content stopped rising and the arctic sea ice began recovering.
How much do we spend on searching for Hansen’s missing heat? $20,000 per float x 3,000 floats. $60 million for instruments to measure ocean temp.
Then another $20 million a year to maintain them. SInce they stopped showing ‘warming’ they must be broken.
How much did we spend on satellites to measure warming? They don’t show as much as warming Hansen predictedeither, so they must be broken too.
Maybe Lindzen was right, we would get a small warming and everything would roughly stay the same.

And it’s been found that a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560 ppm will result in 1.2 degree warming all other things being equal. This can quite easily be calculated.
I completely agree with that statement. And it shores up my rebuttal that there is repeatable, testable evidence for AGW. Thanks for the comment.

Smokey, the MWP is a red herring. It’s not the foundation-stone for AGW theory. People bicker over a graph in one of the reports and whether or not a team of scientists used data appropriately. Over a dozen studies since that graph have roughly borne out the conclusions. Discard Mann et al and nothing much changes. Discard the rest of the studies and nothing much changes. Whether it was warmer or not in the MWP simply doesn’t undercut AGW theory. The world has been warmer and cooler before now. All that tells us is that there is natural variability. It says nothing of attribution. The central period of reference for the theory is the 20th century.
And despite there being many corroborative studies to Mann et al, which should render the argument moot, and despite it not mattering if it was half a degree warmer for some time in the last millennium, this issue gets trotted out as if it’s the lynch pin to the whole shebang.
The reason it’s political is that, where skeptics should be assessing the wide body of literature on millennial reconstructions to arrive at informed opinion (applying vigorous skepticism to the notion of a big fat conspiracy amongst paleoclimatologists), they instead home in on a couple of twelve year old studies – not so much to assess its validity, as to provide ammunition for charges of fraud in order to besmirch the reputation of people who have has senior participation in the IPCC.
Some politicians in Canada brandished the Mann et al 1998 graph, which appeared prominently in the TAR. It appeared in schools and the media in that country, and Canadian Steve McIntyre got suspicious, audited the paper, and has been rattling on about it ever since, while science has continued to shore up the basic conclusions, and when it is not central to AGW theory. The graph has been used politically, and the response has been, at heart, political ever since. Which is why there was a government investigation, for goodness sake.
Now, let me just stop there. A government investigation of a scientific paper because it may contain flaws? Why is the government involved? Because the science is not sound? No, because the paper has political significance, obviously. That is the heart of the matter, not science.
12 years and more than a dozen studies later, anyone banging on about Mann et al’s hockey stick and ignoring or waving away the reconstructions that have emerged since, is demonstrating neither skepticism nor interest in science. It’s pure point-scoring. And that’s politics.
Mann et al isn’t central anymore but it remains a passionate obsession for point-scoring types. If Mann et al retracted now, it wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference to scientific understanding of millennial temps. But it might make a difference on the political front.

barry, you misunderestimate badly the degree to which subsequent millenial reconstructions are corrupted by the same or similarly bogus data as that of the Piltdown’s Mann. Sure the statistics improved marginally, but the cherry-picking continued.
And heh, the presence or absence of the MWP is the important point. Almost everyone agrees with some sort of blade or another. We have a temperature record after all. Or thought we did.
===========

barry, you misunderestimate badly the degree to which subsequent millenial reconstructions are corrupted by the same or similarly bogus data as that of the Piltdown’s Mann.
Subsequent millennial reconstructions use varying data, some not even tree-rings. Is there a hockey stick in borehole reconstructions? Yes. Is there an MWP? Yes, as there is in all paleoreconstructions, including Mann et al (he discusses its magnitude, after all). In ice-cores? Yes. Throw out tree-ring proxies altogether – nothing much changes.
There is proxy overlap between various studies, and there are reconstructions with completely independent data.
Some of these studies have been picked over on blogs, but there has not been a corresponding bunch of serious papers addressing them. McIntyre and others have gone looking for problems – not because of any curiosity about the science, but because it is necessary now to take these papers down and imply that the scientists are incompetent, or victims of groupthink, or involved in a conspiracy, and for what? To try and say that the MWP was warmer? It doesn’t dent AGW. To call into question the honesty of the scientists? Well, that’s why you analogise with the Piltdown hoax, isn’t it? You are casting the scientists – all of them – as deliberate fraudsters, so AGW can be attacked. This is the point of the exercise, not fixing the science.
Hop many millennial reconstructions have you done?
Why do so many people who have no idea how to centre principal components take a couple of outlying studies on faith against the great majority that speak against their views. Why do skeptics emphasise outliers on any topic over the full body of literature? Because the science doesn’t interest them. It’s enough for them to read on some blog a rebuttal to a formal study that supports the mainstream conclusions, and hey presto! Without the qualifications to assess for themselves, they accord this paper a high standard against which the others must be measured. A real skeptic would simply not do this. They would say, “I’m not qualified to judge.”
Proving alleged dishonesty isn’t possible. Yet it’s the meme-de-decade. Because insinuation gets the job done. There’s no effort to redeem paleoclimate science here, but to tarnish it and its practitioners. Since M&M 05, skeptics have largely abandoned trying to reconstruct Northern Hemispheric millennial temps. It’s a similar story for the global instrumental record. Years of talk about bias and no skeptic bothered to get all the freely available online raw data and off their own bat and properly plot a global temp profile. Anthony Watts still hasn’t plotted a US profile from his nominated good weather stations. This quantitative work just hasn’t been done. The exercise has become one of tearing down, not advancing science. So if skeptics have abandoned advancing science? What are they doing? Politics.
A warmer MWP doesn’t scotch AGW. AGW is not built on the premise that the medieval warm period was cooler than today.

“barry (07:08:21) :
[…]
12 years and more than a dozen studies later, anyone banging on about Mann et al’s hockey stick and ignoring or waving away the reconstructions that have emerged since, is demonstrating neither skepticism nor interest in science. It’s pure point-scoring. And that’s politics.”
Studies like this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/

Having read again, that Spencer needs to detrend the data to find a correlation, suggests to me that we’re now looking at interannual small-scale modulations rather than long-term trend. Spencer is only looking at ‘the last few decades’, too. I also would be interested to know how he gets around the fact that the oceans have been, and are currently, a net sink, not source of CO2. There was an article here a while back on a paper showing the airborne fraction of emitted CO2 hasn’t changed – that the oceans are a net sink of CO2. A post from an AGW skeptic rebutting Spencer’s thesis along those lines was also posted at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption/
I doubt Spencer will publish his thesis.

DeNihilist (14:32:58) :
Bravo!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

We do know that CO2 follows warming. It does not cause measurable global warming [prove me wrong, if you can – using empirical, testable, reproducible evidence, please].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
These tests are repeatable. There have been thousands like them, as well as calculations done from spectral analysis in the lab. The correlation of temps to CO2 for the 20th century (as well as interglacials) is a pretty good (using 2nd or 3rd order polynomial fits – better than linear regression for the temp data in this comparison).
(Yes, I know, correlation doesn’t prove causation. But that rebuttal not only wipes out much of the skeptical literature as well as mainstream, it wipes out a large swathe of science in general (medical studies for example). Correlation is but one piece of the jigsaw puzzle)

Smokey: “And exactly as I predicted, Brendan H takes any and all statements skeptical of CAGW, and preposterously claims they are new scientific hypotheses that must be defended.”
A successful prediction requires evidence. So let’s see your evidence. Remember that you bear the burden of proof for the above claim.

Ah, it’s been allowed. I think it’s to do with the queuing. – please delete this and the previous post, and apologies.