I’ve been watching this NSIDC graph for a few days, figuring it was just noise. Now, it looks like “something worth blogging about“. The Arctic sea ice extent is continuing to grow past the normal historical peak which occurs typically in late February/early March. [Note: I added the following sentences since at least one commenter was confused by “peak point” in the headline above, which I’ve now changed to “peak date” to clarify what I was referring to. -A] Of course it has not exceeded the “normal” sea ice extent magnitude line, but is within – 2 STD. The point being made is that growth continues past the time when sea ice magnitude normally peaks, and historically (by the satellite record) is headed downward, as indicated by the dashed line.
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
To be fair though, the Earth seems to be suffering from “bipolar disorder” as we have a similar but opposite trend in the Antarctic:
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
If we look at Cryosphere Today’s dandy sea ice comparator tool, and choose a standard 30 year climatology period span, it looks like we may actually be ahead this year, compared to 30 years ago. Certainly the arctic sea ice today looks a lot more solid than in 1980. I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added (which was added in 2008) so as to not be visually distracting.
We live in interesting times.
h/t to WUWT commenter “Tommy” for the “tipping point”.
Phil. (08:05:09) :
>>NZ Willy: the 15% and 30% graphs… are both rising at the mo — Jack Frost’s last hurrah.
>Actually they’re both going down, slowly.
If you look right now, you’ll see they are both upticking for the past 1-2 days.
Doc_Navy (12:54:35) :
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
I read through some of the posts here and agree this is very interesting. It highlights exactly what Smokey (11:36:34) quoted:
“Show [the CD afflicted person] facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see your point… Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief… finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
You can see this happening in real time on this blog. When believers are presented with factual evidence that the temperature record does not support the AGW conjecture, they start rambling on. They completely fail to accept the truth. It’s like the Wizard of Oz after the curtain is pulled back. They just want the curtain to be pulled over again so they can continue their old behavior.
Has R.Gates had a paper peer reviewed?
If not, all opinions are worthless according to his AGW masters.
I have never written a paper, but I ran a company for 30 years by making the right calls based on available evidence.
If I was running a shipping company, no way would I be banking on the North west or east passage being open this summer even if it were a peer reviewed forecast.
All the graphs show the ice extent and area increasing since 2007 – it’s time he got over it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……
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.
I vaguely remember something about seasons shifting in a changing climate. Does this shifting ice peak have anything to do with that?
PS Anthony made an excellent general point further up when he said that “jumping all over [xxx] and calling it “dishonest” when you misinterpret the headline and the point [xxx is] making isn’t cool”. Good for us all to remember that one.
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.
The NSIDC plot peaks about March 8th too. The upward sloping line is visually misleading. Look very closely and count pixels.
D. Patterson (12:44:10),
When we write, we know exactly what we mean. I knew just what I meant… but it didn’t come across accurately. Thank you for pointing that out.
What I meant was that there have been recent times when the North Pole was open water. Now it is frozen over, indicating that ice forming conditions are again present.
This article by the late, great John Daly gives a much better overview of the polar ice situation than I ever could. There are also some excellent pictures and graphs: click
[Note the last sentence, which sums up the entire situation.]
Mr. Gates, try this expirement for me, if possible. Turn the heat on in your house to get it to say 22*C. Check the outdoor temp. When the house has gotten to 22*C, turn your heat off and see how long it takes for your home to get to the noted outside temp.
Then do this again, but this time set your temp to say 30*C. Again allow your home to go to the same value as previously. Please report back the time it takes for the 2 scenarios to reach equalibrium.
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.
OK Mr. Gates, just thought of an easier and cheaper expirement.
Get 2 ice trays, 2 temp probes and a data logger. Fill one tray with 50*C water. Fill the other with 100*C water, put probes in and start data logger. Deposit trays into your freezer and do not open the door until BOTH trays read -1*C.
Check data logger as to times from freezer insertion until tray cold/hot temp hit -1*C.
Report back with your findings.
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?
Smokey (17:06:12) :
That’s a good article. When we were overflying the Arctic Sea and Greenland in the 1970s, the ice extent was greater than now; but even then you could always find good sized patches of open water at the polynya and the leads going out past the horizons. It is remarkable how the margin of the icecap bordering Asia-Alaska came amazingly close to the North Pole in 2007. Even more amazing and laughable are the statements by NASA scientists claiming it was the lowest extent in 5,000 to 7,000 years. They seem to lead sheltered lives despite any of their trips to the ice.
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.
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. Skeptics simply question.
Obviously not. Your following comments:
Testable, reproducible evidence. That’s what it takes. And that is what is missing from the CO2=CAGW hypothesis/conjecture.
Apart from that being wrong, it is an assertion – an hypothesis you have clearly not tested.
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.
One may argue about how this translates to the real-world atmosphere, but to claim that ‘testable reproducible evidence’ is ‘missing’ from AGW theory is just plain wrong.
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?
D. Patterson, that is orthogonal to my point, but to answer, Gilbert Plass in 1956 showed that “the available frequency band of infra-red energy” is wider than that part which is saturated, (and that there is only partial overlap between water vapopur absorption and CO2 bands when you resolve to the micron level). This has been confirmed ever since.
Furthermore, the saturation argument assumes that nothing else goes on after saturation occurs in the first few meters of atmosphere. But the saturated band keeps on emitting in all directions. Infrared radiation doesn’t get swallowed by GHG molecules never to be seen again. In the upper layers of the atmosphere, re-emitted IR eventually escapes to space. Even with complete saturation in the first few meters, if the upper layer gets more CO2 (and it does) then the escape window closes. This is true even if saturation occurs across the CO2 spectrum in the first few meters of atmosphere.
I think some people have the idea that energy/heat transport stops at the saturation level, that it’s a kind of shield that prevents any more IR going upwards. What they don’t get is that the ‘shield’ is also an emitter.
This, by the way, is another testable, reproducible conclusion. It requires no global climate models, just obs and calculation. Furthermore, this has been observed by satellites, which have measured spectral darkening of the atmosphere in the bands absorbed by CO2 over time. What was anticipated has been verified.
(Some of the terminology I used is imprecise here – I’m trying to be economical for clarity)
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.
The denser the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere the more random the exit path of the IR energy, until it coverts to heat of motion, and become the background temperature of the atmosphere, assisting the convective forces that move it, and the water vapor to the tops of precipitation events, where it is lost back to space.
There is thus a negative feed back the more warming in the lower atmosphere from the absorbed IR changing to heat, the greater turn over of the atmosphere via storm actions, the strength of which is what in numbers of relative increase in convective forcing totals? I would hazard a guess, both too small to be of a measurable difference in the total amount of precipitation in any one storm.
But overall a bigger turn over of warm air mass regardless of relative humidity, not necessarily affecting an increase or decrease in precipitation as a result, just taking a free ride to the cool zone. To be immediately reabsorbed into the condensing water vapor for return to the surface as acid rain. Placing it in the local area where plants can sequester it away till the seasons change again.
R. Gates (08:08:17) : “[..] a warming arctic and lower sea-ice on a year-to-year basis [is] an “acid test” for AGWT, 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.”
Correction: all eyes were on this region. But now that the polar see-saw has flipped, the attention will miraculously and seamlessly leave the Arctic and concentrate vociferously on the Antarctic. Indeed, the transfer has already started – there was an Antarctic melt story in The Australian today:
“Ice sheet vital sign for rising sea levels
Antarctica’s ice sheets, once considered to be almost immune to global warming, are now key indicators of change.”
About the polar see-saw :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/resolveuid/86c49eb9229b3a7478e8d12407643bed
The Antarctic tends to warm while the Arctic cools, and vice versa.
For evidence that the polar see-saw has flipped : see –
– Arctic ice recovering rapidly after 2007:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
– Antarctic ice disappearing rapidly after 2007:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
OK, it has only been 2 years, so maybe more time is needed to be sure, but the flip is expected about then (based on PDO phases).
There is no escape for sceptics from this nightmare – even in the severest imaginable global cooling there will always be somewhere at some time getting warmer.
Clear evidence that those so called scientist just make stuff up for grant money.
Jack Frost thumbs his nose at the Warmers one last time:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
barry (21:13:37) :
It is especially revealing for you to talk about someone else’s supposed cognitive dissonance in one comment and then make the statement, “What was anticipated has been verified,” in another comment. Plass made a model which failed. His illustrious successors made models that failed. To the present day, all of the models relying upon that work are failures. It is very interesting to see you say what was anticipated without inclusion of a multitude of mid-term variables is nonetheless verified without inclusion of those variables. Inclusion of the missing variables appears to indicate what was anticipated and verified was in fact an illusory confirmation bias insofar as they omitted a multitude of factors which can only change the results from what was verified.
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.
Don B (12:35:23) :
Thanks for the link!