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”.
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.
Mike Jonas,
I think it is too early to pronounce any long term recovery in arctic sea ice, as it is still not even into a positivie anomaly range based on the last 30 year running averages. I don’t see any lack of attention on the arctic in the professional circles. In regards to the antarctic, it has been long speculated that the ozone depletion over the S. Pole has had an effect on polar winds, specifically making them block the heat from hitting all but the northern most areas of the region (and the data would support this). However, the ozone layer has been recovering and perhaps now the heat can begin to penetrate more deeply into the region.
Broken down, I would say AGW, the ozone depletion, PDO, ENSO, pacific storms, all play a role in the condition of the antarctic sea ice, but if AGWT is correct, over the next century, we will begin to see the sea ice decline, meaning that AGW will play the biggest role in the condition of the antarctic sea ice and it will join its artic sea ice counter part in a slow spiral down.
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.
It’s in a positive anomaly based upon the 30 million year running average.
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.
Brendan H (11:56:19) :
Climate and trace gases in the atomosphere pre-date the existence of humans, hence they are natural occurences by default until and unless an hypothesis can experimentally demonstrate humans have artificially altered the foregoing default natural occurence of climate and trace gases. Consequently, the prior existence of a natural occurence of climate and trace gases requires no hypothesis to be put forward by skeptical humans. It simply is what it already was until and unless demonstrated to be artificially altered by humans to be otherwise.
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.
Brendan H (11:56:19),
Thank you for quoting me concerning the fact that natural cycles explain the climate, but I cannot take credit for that long established theory.
As climatologist Roy Spencer points out: No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
That long-accepted theory states that the climate naturally fluctuates. The alternative claim that runaway global warming and climate catastrophe will result from a rise in a minor trace gas [CO2=CAGW] is the formal hypothesis postulated by the UN/IPCC and its adherents, such as the discredited CRU, Michael Mann and others.
That hypothesis has been falsified by, among other reasons, the fact that more than a one-third increase in CO2 has not resulted in warming that can not be entirely explained by natural variability, since the same rate of increase in global temperatures has occurred in the past.
Your attempt at twisting the role of scientific skeptics fails for a number of reasons:
First, because you would prefer skeptics to remain silent, and not offer any arguments that contradict the CO2=CAGW hypothesis.
But it is the duty of skeptics to question hypotheses. It is also the duty of those putting forth a hypothesis to question it themselves — something that is rarely if ever done by climate alarmists, because they are true believers in their conclusion, and they adjust their arguments on an ad hoc basis to fit their predetermined conclusions.
Next, the new hypothesis can be challenged by alternative possibilities and explanations that are equally or more plausible, if the promoters of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis make their methods and raw data fully transparent to all who wish to replicate the hypothetical conclusions. That does not make the challenge or explanation a hypothesis.
Challenges and arguments are not hypotheses, unless they are specified as a new hypothesis. Put ‘on the table’ as such, in your words. In your example you have it backward: CO2=CAGW is the new hypothesis that challenges the long established theory. Arguing for that long held theory does not make it another new hypothesis. The argument is used because skeptics have been denied the raw data, code and methodologies necessary to deconstruct the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis.
The data has been “lost.” Or it is kept secret from skeptics based on alleged agreements [but it is shared with like-minded pals]. And the code, paid for by the public, is withheld as being the personal property of the authors. And so on. Transparency is necessary for the scientific method to work. But there is little genuine transparency by climate alarmists, who clearly have an agenda.
Finally, if any and all statements made by skeptics are to be labeled a “hypothesis,” then the word hypothesis has no meaning, which is plainly ridiculous. That argument is simply dissembling, in an attempt to wiggle out of an uncomfortable situation.
If a skeptic says, “I hypothesize that…”, then you can assume he is proposing a hypothesis. Otherwise, comments and arguments are made for the specific purpose of falsifying the stated hypothesis.
If a hypothesis can withstand falsification, it is on its way to becoming an accepted scientific theory. But until the promoters of the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW hypothesis refuse to follow the scientific method by openly sharing all of their raw data and methods, it will never become a theory. Instead, CO2=CAGW has become merely a conjecture; an opinion, which is better explained by the theory of natural climate variability — the theory that CO2=CAGW impotently seeks to supplant.
The fact that the believers in the CO2=CAGW conjecture are so cornered that they feel they must now resort to disingenuous word games in order to support their failed conjecture shows how desperate their position has become.
D. Patterson (12:56:09) :
Climate and trace gases in the atomosphere pre-date the existence of humans, hence they are natural occurences by default until and unless an hypothesis can experimentally demonstrate humans have artificially altered the foregoing default natural occurence of climate and trace gases. Consequently, the prior existence of a natural occurence of climate and trace gases requires no hypothesis to be put forward by skeptical humans. It simply is what it already was until and unless demonstrated to be artificially altered by humans to be otherwise.
And since the trace gases have been demonstrated to be artificially altered by humans then the onus is upon you.
Smokey: “Finally, if any statement made by a skeptic is to be labeled a “hypothesis,” then the word hypothesis has no meaning, which is plainly ridiculous.”
As I said, your claim: natural cycles explain the climate, “sounds” like a hypothesis. If that claim is no better than “any statement”, fine, but I note you elevate the hypothesis in your oft-repeated claim of the “theory” that natural fluctuations can explain the climate.
So if this theory just amounts to “any statement” then it doesn’t amount to very much.
By all means make claims about the climate. But don’t then scuttle behind the defence of “just asking questions”. It looks like special pleading.
Phil. (14:23:05),
I’m a little surprised. You usually don’t employ strawman arguments, in fact your posts are much better than the average warmist’s.
But no one said human activity has no effect on trace gases: click.
Out of every ≈34 CO2 molecules emitted annually in total, only one (1) comes from human activity. So we do have an effect, although it is too small to be measurable. It is down in the noise of year-over-year variability.
But the real question, the money question is: will the addition of one molecule of CO2 out of 34+ cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe? So far, the planet says no.
If the evidence shows that it will, then we must act. But if not, then we should stop wasting more $Billions every year on a non-problem. Or at the very least, we should hold off on precipitous action for the next decade or two, until a clearer picture emerges. Wouldn’t you agree?
Brendan: Bad reading comprehension. As I explained in my first two paragraphs, that is not my theory [although I agree with it], that is the accepted climate theory according to Dr Spencer, an eminent climatologist. I note that it is you who labeled AGW a “theory.” It is certainly not a scientific theory: click
And it can never be a scientific theory — until its promoters follow the scientific method, instead of hiding their raw data, their code and their methodologies.
If Climatologist Brendan H wishes to be the authority over Dr Spencer, who am I to argue? I’m not a climatologist. If it makes you feel superior to say that natural climate variability is not a theory but a hypothesis, that’s OK with me.
But when/if you read a real scientist’s explanation of a “conjecture” in the link I provided, you will see that CAGW fits that scientific definition, because without the raw data and methods, the conclusions cannot be replicated.
And if you want to continue arguing about it for the sake of arguing, first make a note of Dr Glassman’s CV at the end of the article, and post your own CV. Because it is you who are promoting the CO2=CAGW conjecture, not skeptical scientists.
Smokey: “As I explained in my first two paragraphs, that is not my theory [although I agree with it]…”
Parse it how you wish, but you have several times offered this “theory” of natural climate change.
Semantics aside, you are dodging the substantive issue, your claim: (1) “we have no hypothesis to believe in or to defend.”
You have in fact offered not just a hypotheses but a “theory”. So you do indeed have something to “to believe in or to defend”. Therefore, your original claim at (1) is false.
In that case, you have not justified your desire to claim immunity from questioning. The burden of proof is on the claimant, regardless of the label the claimant might wish to appropriate.
Smokey (15:45:41) :
Phil. (14:23:05),
I’m a little surprised. You usually don’t employ strawman arguments, in fact your posts are much better than the average warmist’s.
And I’m not doing so here.
But no one said human activity has no effect on trace gases: click.
Out of every ≈34 CO2 molecules emitted annually in total, only one (1) comes from human activity. So we do have an effect, although it is too small to be measurable. It is down in the noise of year-over-year variability.
This is absolutely not true, a simple mass/elemental balance shows that ~half of the CO2 produced annually by fossil fuel consumption and emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the biosphere/ocean consequently all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity.
R Gates – You say “I would say AGW, the ozone depletion, PDO, ENSO, pacific storms, all play a role in the condition of the antarctic sea ice, but if AGWT is correct, over the next century, we will begin to see the sea ice decline”
If you look at the graph of Antarctic sea ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
it is clear that the combination of “the ozone depletion, PDO, ENSO, pacific storms” has outweighed AGW over the whole of the satellite era. AGW is GLOBAL. This shouldn’t happen.
Examination of global sea ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
shows the same up to 2004, then a decline to 2007 followed by partial recovery. This bears no correlation at all to atmospheric CO2 (not in itself proof or disproof of anything, but certainly food for thought).
Arctic sea ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
shows decline over the whole of (or most of) the satellite era, followed by partial recovery.
These patterns suggest very strongly to me that atmospheric CO2 is of no significance wrt polar ice. If it was, then ice at both poles would be showing declining trends by now – the satellite era is 30 years old.
Rather than wait 100 years to see if your AGWT prediction is correct, wouldn’t it be sensible first to consider the possibility that AGWT is incorrect and that other factors control the polar ice (and hence probably the planet) ? In particular, shouldn’t we be asking why the situation appears to have changed abruptly in 2007? That change may be short term or long term, but we should be trying to know what is going on.
I’ll go further, and put this in a proper scientific perspective (as others have already) : we should stay with the null hypothesis, that climate is driven by natural forces, until it has been disproved by AGWT.
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.
There is a major problem with the arguments posed by both Phil AND Brendan H,
The MWP!
How do the models cope with this? As a sceptic, I am able to see that I don’t know everything, the alarmists among us had to marginalise the MWP by the use of dodgy statistics.
Anyone saying the MWP was regional for 400+ years is merely delusional.
How do they explain the suspension of atmospheric circulation to maintain that for that length of time>
Why should I trust ANYTHING they say?
DaveE.
Phil – you say “half of the CO2 produced annually by fossil fuel consumption and emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the biosphere/ocean consequently all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity.”
Although I do think that your conclusion may be approximately correct, your logic is not. There is far more CO2 sloshing around than comes from fossil fuels. You must therefore first eliminate the possibility that it is primarily the natural system which sets the CO2 level. ie. the atmospheric CO2 content might not be very different now if none of the fossil fuels had been burned.
Mike Jonas (18:20:08) :
Phil – you say “half of the CO2 produced annually by fossil fuel consumption and emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the biosphere/ocean consequently all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity.”
Although I do think that your conclusion may be approximately correct, your logic is not. There is far more CO2 sloshing around than comes from fossil fuels. You must therefore first eliminate the possibility that it is primarily the natural system which sets the CO2 level. ie. the atmospheric CO2 content might not be very different now if none of the fossil fuels had been burned.
Do the mass balance, this is nonsense!
David Alan Evans (17:58:30) :
“There is a major problem with the arguments posed by both Phil AND Brendan H…”
Apparently, more than one problem.
When I commented:
Phil replied:
“This is absolutely not true…”
“Absolutely” is a big word for Phil. Too big. He’s not providing empirical evidence, he’s describing a correlation. Here’s another temperature/CO2 correlation: click
Mike Jonas (18:20:08) understands the situation better than Phil.
And Brendan H is still saying that black is white, down is up, evil is good… and skeptics emit unintended hypotheses with every CO2-laden breath.
By definition, skeptics do not make hypotheses; their job is to falsify a specific hypothesis.
When a skeptic simply refers to a long held theory such as natural climate variability, in response to a defender’s claim that their new hypothesis – CAGW – explains reality better, the skeptic is not creating a new hypothesis by citing the original theory. But Brendan doesn’t understand that concept.
This isn’t the “Daily Astrologer” blog. This is the “Best Science” site: we’re discussing scientific definitions, not some colloquial use of “theory,” such as, “I have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese.”
In scientific terms, when someone proposes a hypothesis, it follows after observation, which is followed by conjecture, then by a stated hypothesis. Unless it is made clear that a comment is specifically intended to be a scientific hypothesis, then it is only meant to be part of a skeptical argument, intended to falsify the hypothesis under attack. If the hypothesis under attack survives the assault, it becomes stronger.
That is the scientific method at work, and it is nothing but a rhetorical trick to complain that anything said by a skeptic to falsify the CAGW hypothesis becomes its own hypothesis to be defended — at the sole option of the promoter of the CAGW hypothesis.
For the umpteenth time: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the purveyors of the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis, to show that it explains reality better than the theory of natural climate variability.
They have failed, so now the dissembling word games begin, and the false claim is made that every point raised, every comment made, every fact cited, every question asked, every analogy compared, every deduction presented, is automatically its own new hypothesis that must be endlessly defended by the skeptical scientist.
Wrong.
That has been eliminated, Mike. Fossil fuel CO2 has a different isotopic ratio to naturally occurring. The measured change in ratio in the atmosphere is exactly in line with what is expected from the estimated amount that has been burned. It’s also indicated by ocean CO2 changes. This is one of the things that is ‘settled’.
Smokey (19:33:22) :
David Alan Evans (17:58:30) :
“There is a major problem with the arguments posed by both Phil AND Brendan H…”
Apparently, more than one problem.
When I commented:
Out of every ≈34 CO2 molecules emitted annually in total, only one (1) comes from human activity. So we do have an effect, although it is too small to be measurable. It is down in the noise of year-over-year variability.
Phil replied:
“This is absolutely not true…”
“Absolutely” is a big word for Phil. Too big. He’s not providing empirical evidence, he’s describing a correlation. Here’s another temperature/CO2 correlation: click
Mike Jonas (18:20:08) understands the situation better than Phil.
I’m not describing a correlation it’s a mass balance and Jonas doesn’t understand how they work. The 1 in 34 argument is rubbish.
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.
That only holds true if what I have some knowledge that what I’m saying is false and I believe it regardless. If you think I’m mistaken that satellites have observed spectral changes in the atmosphere concordant with absorption from increased CO2, then demonstrate it. There are a slew of studies confirming this, so I’m intrigued to know how you will proceed.
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.
What ‘mid-term variables’ are you talking about?
Plass made a model which failed. His illustrious successors made models that failed.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned Plass, who is largely famed for his model work. The preliminary work for his models – what I’m talking about – was better resolution of absorption bands in gases. Prior to the fifties there was poorer resolution on absorption properties of gases. It was thought, for example, that CO2 and H2O absorption overlapped. As instruments allowed scientists to drill down toward the micron level, it was discovered that there was not much overlap, and that CO2 had many bands of absorption outside the saturated zone. This is not in question – and is more empirical evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to increased temperatures.
This all, of course, goes far beyond my original rebuttal – that there is empirical evidence for AGW. To suggest that there is none is entirely ignorant. To say that this evidence is not enough is a different matter – and is the context in which you are arguing about satellite obs.
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.
There is a major problem with the arguments posed by both Phil AND Brendan H,
The MWP!
Let’s say the MWP was warmer than current temps. This does not prove that natural variability is responsible for current warming.
The MWP issue is a political, not a scientific argument.
harrywr2 (17:57:33),
Yes, Prof Lindzen is correct. Al Gore has been proven wrong so consistently that he is now a contraindicator. A somewhat warmer planet is better for everyone — except those personally profiting from the global warming scare.
And Phil, ‘rubbish’ isn’t as big a word as ‘absolutely.’ More wiggle room, too. But the natural warming of the planet has been followed by a rise in CO2, not vice-versa. The “greenhouse” effect is motivated by grant money. Do you get paid with any public money, Phil? University? Government? I have the feeling your ox is being Gored.
Also, the claim that carbon dioxide can increase the air temperature by “trapping” infrared radiation [IR] like a blanket traps heat ignores the fact that physicist R.W. Wood falsified the hypothesis that a greenhouse stays warm by trapping IR.
Unfortunately, the general public is unaware of Wood’s published experiment.
Wood was an infrared expert. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV photography.
Wood conducted an experiment by constructing two identical greenhouses. Wood’s experiment indicates the type of structures that gardeners refer to as a coldframe; a small greenhouse.
He lined the interior with black cardboard, which absorbed IR radiation and converted it to heat, which then heated the air through conduction and convection.
Wood covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt, and the other greenhouse with a sheet of glass. The glass blocked the IR, and the rock salt allowed the IR to pass through.
During the first experiment, the rock salt greenhouse heated faster, due to IR from the sun entering it. The glass greenhouse stayed cooler, because glass does not pass IR.
Wood then set up another pane of glass over the salt pane to filter the IR from the sun before it reached the interior of the greenhouse.
The result from this experiment was that the greenhouses both heated to 50° C, with less than one degree difference between the two. A slight difference in the amount of heat transferred through the sheets by conduction explains the minor difference in temperature; also the doubled sheets did not conduct heat at exactly the same rate.
Wood’s experiment demonstrated conclusively that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining air heated by conduction and convection, rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn’t cause higher air temperature, then CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures; the atmosphere doesn’t have a heat trapping pane at the top.
The glass/rock salt experiment has been replicated by skeptics and shows the same results. However, perception is the driver in society, not experiments. The false perception that the Earth’s atmosphere is an enclosed greenhouse has remained in the public’s consciousness, primarily due to the incessant 24/7/365 drumbeat of “global warming.”
It is only recently that the public has started to awaken to the fact that the climate is well within its normal, long term parameters, and that nothing unusual, such as runaway global warming, is happening.