I was reminded by Richard North via email today of this grouchy wordplay from NSIDC when Joe Romm wrote up a piece last year on this subject:
Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
Climate Progress, June 5th, 2009
Okay, let’s compare that to what Dr. Serreze said this week in an interview with The Sunday Times:
“In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event,” Serreze said.
Source: The Sunday Times – Arctic ice recovers from the great melt
A timeline for the “breathtakingly ignorant” follows.
2007: record Arctic ice minimum in 2007 – big news, unprecedented, shocking, Navy postgraduate school scientist says Arctic summers to be ice-free ‘by 2013′
2008: ditto, this year’s ice recovery is just a blip, it’s really caught in a “death spiral”
2009: ditto, this recovery for a second year means nothing – Arctic continues death spiral, you people are breathtakingly ignorant
2010: Arctic sea ice approaches normal for this time of year, first time since 2001 – “…reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated…we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”
That’s sooooo precious!
Maybe we should get this guy to make a statement to the Climategate Whitewash Squad.
Would not be surprised if arctic.roos.org has been pulled. indefinitely. its too important for AGW to show this ice extent (they are the ones to have a normal average graph which has been “crossed” excuse the pun
JAXA nows shows ice extent highest on record for the date.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Amino Acids in Meteorites (23:20:52) :
Are they taking the focus off North Pole Ice??
Only until August, when they’ll point to the decrease in ice cover compared to March as proof that the death spiral is worse than we thought.
Why is it that every time i see “death spiral” I picture a planet-killing pinwheel?
Ice recovers! Polar bears, penguins, and Santa breathe a sigh of relief.
Scientists emphasise that the regrowth of ice in the Arctic and the fierce US blizzards are natural variations in weather which have little relevance for long-term climate change.
Pay no attention to that
man behind the curtainmeaningless ice data. Look instead at our calamitous computergamemodel projections.Maybe OT but this might make Dr Serreze feel a little better (I’m unusually charitable this evening, must be the wine).
Was browsing through Frazer’s “The Golden Bough” today, first published in 1890…
“The slow, the never-ending approach to truth consists in perpetually forming and testing hypotheses,accepting those which at the time seem to fit the facts and rejecting the others. The views of natural causation embraced by the savage magician no doubt appear to us manifestly false and absurd; yet in their day they were legitimate hypotheses, though they have not stood the test of experience. Ridicule and blame are the just meed, not of those who devised these crude theories, but of those who obstinately adhered to them after better had been propounded.”
Like I said, I’m feeling charitable… 🙂
Whats wrong with this graph?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Here they do the opposite to the temp “adjustments (ie GISSTEMP) they make the past “higher” so the present looks “lower” LOL You see up to1979 to 1995 ALL years above then after ALL below.
Is it possible that with this statement
2010: Arctic sea ice approaches normal for this time of year, first time since 2001 – “…reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated…we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”
That the good DR has learnt a painfull lesson about AGW?
This reminds me of the famous titles in “Le Moniteur” after Napoleon’s escape from Elba, starting with:
“The beast has escaped its lair” (March 10)
and ending with:
“His Imperial Majesty is to enter the city today”
timeline is here:
The whole amusing series is here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9eheqm
But they need solid ice to perform their death spiral.
Am I going to trust Jonathon Leake to accurately quote Dr. Serreze? Nope. I’ll wait and see what comes up on the NSIDC website tomorrow.
Noted that The Profit, AlGore did not allow the media to cover his speech at
Duke University. He’s beginning to realize he is ah, naked?.
Or simply afraid…
In spite of all these arguments only one Member of Parliament had enough guts and common sense to vote against the white wash. We are told that this is a Democracy and by using our votes wisely we can change things. When practically all the candidates appear to be brain dead what the Hell are we supposed to do?
Really unfair the way you quote their own words back at them. It so spoils the hyperbole.
DoctorJJ.
Very funny. Maybe just a micro-ice age, of duration 3-5 years, and Wikipedia would be forced to declare “climatology as-we-know-it” amongst the dead languages.
I think Anne Cross unknowingly has drawn a historic parallel in American pop-science, albeit in it’s advanced stage, that we skeptics may use as a model to confidently predict the future of AGW-ology.
The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers
Abstract by Anne Cross, Department of Social Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Stout, 334G Harvey Hall, Menomonie, WI, 54751-0790
“The case of ufology demonstrates that cultural packaging—a sort of once-removed indication of scientific authority—can be key in creating knowledge accepted as scientific. This adds a new dimension to the argument that scientific legitimacy is constructed, not just from scientific methodologies and institutional location, but also of language, culture, rhetoric, and symbols. Fringe researchers can make their cases for legitimacy using a variety of strategies—few of which involve actual research. Outside of the scientific community, scientific-sounding explanations and proclamations of expert statuses hold sway. Ambiguities about what constitutes science can be capitalized upon by groups like the UFO research community that assembles shards of legitimacy using science as a cultural template.”
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Journal: Qualitative Sociology
Date: Nov. 3, 2004
ISSN: 0162-0436 (Print) 1573-7837 (Online)
I’ve been to Joe Romm’s site a few times and one thing that has always struck me as being very annoying is that every article he links to goes directly to another article in his blog. It’s like he’s such a control freak that he refuses to link to an off-site article unless it has been thoroughly vetted by his minions. Contrast that with the WUWT policy of regularly linking to external off-site resources (from all sides of the climate change debate) and it becomes increasingly clear which site is more open and honest.
One of the conclusions made by APL Univ. Washington is that the 2007 event and Arctic sea ice in general is driven by wind patterns. They conclude that those patterns have not been favorable for the growth of sea ice in the Arctic since the 1980s.
I quote:
“The thinner ice is more easily compacted and is flushed out of the basin more quickly. In addition, winds favorable for sequestering multiyear ice within the basin have been rare since the 1980s.”
So, we pull the thread and find out that yes it is the wind but no we don’t know why… So we just don’t know…yes?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/pdf_files/Lindsay%20etal%202009%20JClim%20-%202007%20follows%20thinning%20trend.pdf
Lindsay, R.W., J. Zhang, A. Schweiger, M.A. Steele and H. Stern,’ Arctic Sea Ice Retreat in 2007 Follows Thinning Trend’, J. Clim., 22, 165-176, doi: 10.1175/2008JCLI2521., 2009.
JOE romm is a control freak. He of course deletes comments that include truth and quote his defective claims. Seems like the ignorance of the warmists has been breathtaking. Like he says, they need to ramp up their narrative. We used to call that spin.
Romm was the one that blamed an air disaster on global warming and lied when he said droughts in the Southwest are permanent.
I love the internet! It makes comments by public figures permanent. Just do a little searching and you can catch them making a fool of themselves so easily.
Cryosphere Today and others present a history (time series) of Arctic ice extent. An important topic is, how did they create their reconstruction?
Technology has changed dramatically over the decades. The ways of interpreting data have also changed. These are true even during the satellite era.
So, somehow the ice scientists have combined ice estimates based on varying technology and algorithms. That can be a daunting task, even for statistically-trained people.
How did they do that? it’s an important question.
I suspect that the time series for the last ten years are so are OK. Prior to about 2000 the grafting and shifts in methods become important, such that I imagine the error ranges for the 30-year time series are quite wide.
The story of ice reconstructions may be as interesting as the story of global temperature reconstructions.
For those interested in exploring a part of the mystery, look at the step change in ice extent in the late 1970s, as satellite data replaced aircraft and ships. What that real or was it the result of a change in technology?
Re: Amino Acids in Meteorites (Apr 3 23:20),
The link to Al Gore speaking in Germany in December 2008 used to be
Now we get
“This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. “
In the video, he said: “The *entire* north polar ice cap may well be *completely* gone in 5 years”
Hey buddies: Have you noticed that, instead, your economy has been steadily melting away, and all your factories now work in the third world and your money is in less pockets, save in fiscal paradises, while you are worried about the polar bears´ice?.
Skepshasa (05:36:42), the wind change was pointed out by Pamela Gray last fall. I made a mental note because that seemed to me like a reasonable reason the ice would become more concentrated and thicker.
Now I’m starting to believe it is even more important than small changes in ocean temperature that I previously thought was the main contributor to the Arctic sea ice volume. Although, I still think both are relevant.
The problem with statements such as “death spiral” is that time will either show you to be right or wrong. So far it has shown the fear mongers to be wrong. Futhermore, according to NASA, the so called melt of 2007 was mostly due to wind and currents with aerosols having played a part since 1979.
Now here’s deliberate ingnorance for you! IF AGW is false then time and the weather are on the side of the sceptics.
Wind and currents
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Soot influence since 1979
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm
Normal sea ice extent April 2009
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (06:31:31) :
Re: Amino Acids in Meteorites (Apr 3 23:20)
The link to Al Gore speaking in Germany in December 2008 used to be
Now we get
“This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. “
In the video, he said: “The *entire* north polar ice cap may well be *completely* gone in 5 years”
It looks like the only site that hasn’t taken the video down is TED’s — a collection of video seminats.
You can catch Uncle Albert in all his glory at
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis.html
The video was shot in March 2008 — after the obligatory exhortation to strive to live carbon-free, the relevant “The ice cap will be gone in five years” spiel begins at 05:17 into the tape.
Comment from the only other occupant in the hootch (who couldn’t see my screen from behind his interior blast wall) was, “Who’s that idiot? He sounds exactly like Al Gore…”