The great imaginary ice barrier

Back on April 2nd, it looked like Arctic Sea ice extent at NSIDC would cross the “normal” line. See: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing

The image then looked like this:

The line hit an “imaginary barrier” it seems, because like an  earthworm trying to tunnel through a sidewalk, sea ice extent took a hard right turn. Watch this 4 day animation from WUWT reader Anthony Scalzi Dave Beal:
click for larger image

Now before anyone starts trotting out claims of “adjustments”, I’ll point out that the independent JAXA data set, done with a different satellite and the AMSR-E sensor shows the same thing:

Note the area I’ve highlighted inside the box. Here is that area magnified below:

The NSIDC presentation is zoomed to show the current period of interest, whereas the JAXA presentation shows the entire annual cycle. So we notice small changes in NSIDC more often.  Also, the NSIDC presentation is a running 5 day average according to Dr. Walt Meier.

Of course whether you are scientist, scholar, layman, casual observer, or zealot, nature never gives a care as to what we might expect it to do.

So worry not, no skullduggery is afoot. Nature is just laughing at all of us.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
433 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 4, 2010 9:20 am

Looks to me like someone is trying to “hide the incline”! I saw that myself and did a double-take.
How do many thousands of square miles of new ice suddenly change their mind and decide not to exist?
I’ve often wondered about the impartiality of the NSIDC site, thanks for posting this, Anthony! I’m still waiting for their narrative to be posted for all of March, 2010….I bet it will be full of spin.
Happy Easter to those who observe the holiday!
REPLY: JAXA says the same thing, and they don’t make monthly editorials on Arctic Sea ice like NSIDC does and use a completely different satellite, sensor, and methodology. While I often don’t agree with what NSIDC says, particularly when the director makes wild claims that are unsupportable, I see no evidence that anyone is trying to hide anything here. – Anthony

A C Osborn
April 4, 2010 9:25 am

Typical, they just can’t leave anything “unadjusted”.

Methow Ken
April 4, 2010 9:26 am

Still well within +/- 2 SD of normal; i.e.:
Still well within real-world normal; i.e.:
Contrary to Gore & Co., actual data continues to show that artic sea-ice ain’t going away any time soon.

Enneagram
April 4, 2010 9:30 am

One more imaginary limit to be crossed over,
One more climate myth to be debunked.
This is ICE-GATE!

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 9:38 am

I love the anthropomorphism…”nature is laughing at us…”
But don’t give up you who are AGW sceptics, it may still cross that barrier. 🙂
As I said yesterday, we saw our maximum arctic sea ice extent for 2010 (based on IJIS data) on March 31 at 14,407,344 sq. km. This despite the fact that on his April 2nd radio show, Rush Limbaugh reported that “arctic sea ice is still growing” later in the year than it normally does.
Really though, we’ve seen a long term downward trend in year-to-year arctic sea ice, and to expect that suddenly, in one magical month, that such a trend would suddenly reverse itself (without any record cold in the arctic even) is not realistic. Even if it did pop into the positive anomaly range for a brief visit, though the event would be much celebrated by AGW sceptics, I would guess it would quickly reverse and continue in the negative anomaly range it has been in.
With the negative AO of this winter, we’ve had warmth and high pressure parked over N. Canada and Greenland for much of the season (though fading now), and we’ve also had some warm Atlantic water near Greenland. Yes, we had less flushing of older ice, but I still maintain that the net effect of all the warmth this winter in parts of the arctic will be too see ice melt faster in these areas and I hold firmly to my 4.5 million sq. km. guess (based on IJIS data) for the summer low sea ice extent in Sept.

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2010 9:38 am

Given the degree of axial tilt, it would be indeed unusual and even miraculous that the downturn would still be ahead of us. I also see no attempt to hide anything at all here.

Dave Johnson
April 4, 2010 9:39 am

Anthony, thanks for bringing this up. It’s thesort of thing that makes this site so special. You would never get something equivalent flagged up at Realclimate or any of the pro AGW sites for that matter

ShrNfr
April 4, 2010 9:41 am

But its flippy floppy water instead of ice.

April 4, 2010 9:43 am

Maybe it’s just reached the point at which it’s starting to become rotten ice.
Or flippy-floppy ice, or ooshy-gooshy ice, or whatever the post-modern scienteriffic term is…

anna v
April 4, 2010 9:45 am

Well, this 15% ice coverage must be a good measure if you are in a boat trying to navigate safely. If there are strong winds the changes seen are probably nothing more than pile up, reducing the area. A wind gauge, so to speak.
One more variable misused from its original purpose.

Richard deSousa
April 4, 2010 9:51 am

Hey, lets not get too excited… after all, if the Arctic sea ice gets too big our poles may flip over!!! 😉 Actually, my comment is a sarcastic jab at Rep. Hank Johnson. Can anyone believe how dumb this guy is???

Ian H
April 4, 2010 9:51 am

It was overdue to start heading down so no real surprises there. A shame though. Ice extent above average would have finally driven a stake through the heart of the drowning polar bear story and I am so – so sick of hearing about the poor cute drowning polar bears.

Frans Franken
April 4, 2010 9:52 am

If NSIDC is a running 5 day average, that means that on April 01 the ice extent has probably been above the 1979-2000 average. Because the day value of that date has been averaged with the lower values of the four previous dates.

WDB
April 4, 2010 9:52 am

I also noticed this this morning and overlayed the April 3rd plot on top of the April 1st plot in photoshop. This is just another reason not to trust the data on global warming.

Jerry
April 4, 2010 9:54 am

There must be some kind of MA filter on that data. The animated like comes very close to the average, almost no gap, then at the end, there is a clearly visible gap. Was past data updated?

RockyRoad
April 4, 2010 9:54 am

R. Gates (09:38:16) :
I love the anthropomorphism…”nature is laughing at us…”
But don’t give up you who are AGW sceptics, it may still cross that barrier. 🙂
(…)
Even if it did pop into the positive anomaly range for a brief visit, though the event would be much celebrated by AGW sceptics,…
——————-
Reply:
Perhaps, but not by Climate Realists. We’re not the celebratory type.
The warmist looks at the glass of water and, gleefully, says it’s half full (and probably caused by CO2); the skeptic looks at the same glass of water and dejectedly says it is half empty (and no way was it caused by CO2). The realist looks at the glass of water, considers it for a while, and says “That glass is twice as big as it needs to be. Now, what materials and expertise do I need to make a glass that fits the circumstances? (And did you notice all that CO2 is making my garden grow better?)”

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 9:55 am

It will almost certainly cross the NSIDC median line over the next few days, because the Newfoundland median line is pulling back quickly this time of year, and because of very cold air over the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 9:57 am

One positive note for you AGW sceptics…the antarctic sea ice continues to creep closer to being normal (though still showing a negative anomaly):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
But alas, global sea ice extent continues below normal (due to the current refusal of arctic sea ice to cross that invisible barrier no doubt).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
I will be watching the Global Sea Ice anomaly chart very closely the next few years. Since 2004, global sea ice has spent far more time in the negative range than the positive, and this chart, more than any other, give one a quick sense for the overall status of the earth’s cryopshere. If AGWT is correct, this chart will become nearly constantly negative in the coming years…

rc
April 4, 2010 9:58 am

I thought the interesting thing was that it only took 2 months to go from an end of the world scenario to a normal/average situation.

Jordan
April 4, 2010 9:59 am

Quite a late peak this year on JAXA. I tend to look at the equinox as the theoretical peak date, and that would have been 20 March.
On JAXA, I recall watching for the summer trough last year. JAXA seems to estimate very recent days, and last summer there was a regular downward correction to my recollection. Not saying that’s skullduggery, but could be more to do with caution.

SandyInDerby
April 4, 2010 9:59 am

The recovery has made it into the UK Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7086746.ece

Pascvaks
April 4, 2010 10:03 am

(Sarc On)
I’m most curious about “How” they* plan on getting down to sub-normal levels in the next 5 months. Will it be a precipitous or gradual drop. Someone has really put the world in a pickle.
* – whoever ‘they’ are
The most likely explainations are that the code was glitched by a gremlin and/or one of the key sensors took a gigawatt hit from an unfortunate lazerlike GRB from the deepest depths of the cosmos. Probably a high dark energy non-photonic anti-light what’ya’ma’call’it.
I’m sure the “peer reviewed” correction will show no such rise ever occured and that the ice curve is actually, and consistantly has been, lower by 3.76589 million square kilometers during the entire 2009-2010 timeframe.
Don’t be surprised, either, if Congress and Parlement don’t have a Joint Committee Investigation into how this ‘hacker-thing’ happened, OR –here’s the real kick in the teeth– if everyone who has ever posted a comment on WUWT ends up in a Canadian Arctic Concentration Camp for the rest of their lives.
(If they can’t ‘convince’ us that AGW is real, they’ll make us pray it was.)
(Sarc Off)

Larry Hamlin
April 4, 2010 10:04 am

The JAXA digital data shows that starting on April 2, 2010 Arctic sea ice extent reached 14,379,531 square kilometers versus the prior high for that date of 14,335,781 square kilometers on April 2, 2003. This trend continues for April 3, 2010 with 14,328,438 square kilometers versus 14,250,469 square kilometers on April 3, 2003. Thus the state of Arctic sea ice extent is now higher than it has been for the last seven years. This is remarkable given that all IPCC Arctic sea ice extent models predict only declines in sea ice extent from 2007. Once again the IPCC climate prediction models have been proven wrong.

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 10:05 am

R. Gates (09:57:13) :
Arctic, Antarctic and global will likely be all positive in a few days. Interesting death spiral.

WDB
April 4, 2010 10:09 am

>>”Jerry (09:54:02) said :
There must be some kind of MA filter on that data. The animated like comes very close to the average, almost no gap, then at the end, there is a clearly visible gap. Was past data updated?”<<
That is what it ;looks like to me, even if the 5 day average plot point for April 3rd is correct, the April 1st point should still be the same but it is not, it is lower now.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 10:10 am

Steve Goddard said:
It will almost certainly cross the NSIDC median line over the next few days, because the Newfoundland median line is pulling back quickly this time of year, and because of very cold air over the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.
____________
Pretty strong words…”almost certainly”. But it could happen I suppose. But how long will it stay, and what will the ice look like in September? Both far more important longer term events I would say…
A great deal of March’s “bump” award has been in the Bering Sea, where persistant low pressure has cold air across the current ice pack and created new ice, (very thin new ice, 4 to 12 in. thick) on the SW side of the Bering Sea ice pack. The sea of Okhotsk is running about normal, and the Atlantic side, New Foundland etc. and Hudson Bay, running below normal. Watch for rapid melt in these areas, and also in the Greenland sea area and over to Siberia.

KevinM
April 4, 2010 10:12 am

I see no conspiracy there. THe sudden change matches the late turning of the season from extra-cold to normal in my distant North Carolina perspective.
Stuff like that just happens.

njm
April 4, 2010 10:13 am

The key here is that if different observation platforms come up with the same information, and those observations can be relied upon with a high level of confidence, that those results be reported as observations.
This is what Anthony has done.
This is what the AGW hypothesis crowd, The Team in particular, would not do.
The integrity contrast is not only of interest, but integral for making progress on the questions about climate change.

April 4, 2010 10:15 am

R. Gates
Actually the number should be more negative regardless of AGWT since there is another theory… One that involves natural cycles.
Now, it may well be that we are entering a new downturn in temperature over the next decade or so, however temperatures have been warmer at times in the last several thousand years so I would expect in general we are still coming out of the last big cold spell we had ( the little ice age ) where temperatures dropped significantly from the MWP ( Medieval Warm Period )
These temperatures have been steadily growing and I bet if you were to look at the warming rationally you would notice no exponential growth in the warming ( as seems to be shown in most models ) However there is warming. Now some of that warming may be attributed to shoddy work in trying to compensate for UHI,
Regardless while AGWT does explain a reduction in ice, so do any number of other competing theories. Do not latch onto only one explanation. It may well be that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming. It may also not be.
Now if the trend continues up does that discount AGWT??? To be honest what the people who believe in it will do is say, “oops, we made a miscalculation… It is still occurring but the melt will not be one of the side effects until such and such a date”
So even IF the chart does not go negative an explanation will arise to keep the theory alive.
Again I am not saying AGWT is wrong, but it is simply a theory and people revise theories all the time as new evidence forces them to analyze the theory. Please just consider that AGWT is not the only ‘theory’ as to what is occurring.

Hockeystickler
April 4, 2010 10:16 am

personally, I am not at all concerned with the way arctic ice extent is going : the JAXA chart shows it right at the top for this time of year (since 2003). like many others here, I will be watching to see how low it goes in september ; unlike mr. Gates, I don’t think it will go as low as 4.5 million sq. km. I see it being somewhere between 5 and 6 million sq. km. but what I will also be watching for, with great interest, is to see where the 2010 line (JAXA) goes in may and november. if like 2009, it goes to the top in may and the bottom in november, indicating a slower decline in the spring and a slower increase in the fall, this will support Svenmark’s theory about cosmic rays and cloud formation. this looks to be a very interesting year.

SandyInDerby
April 4, 2010 10:18 am

R. Gates (09:57:13) :
But alas, global sea ice extent continues below normal (due to the current refusal of arctic sea ice to cross that invisible barrier no doubt).
Normal in this context, sometimes it’s above and sometimes it’s below? Or does normal mean something else here?

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2010 10:20 am

Sea ice extent and area is closely monitored for navigation purposes and the last thing you want to do is adjust/homogenize/sanitize/treering it for one of those ships starting out to sea. Lives are at stake, business dollars are at stake, and expensive ships are at stake, not grant dollars. Because of these cross-check entities, I don’t think we have much to worry about regarding “single adjusted data set” issues.

John R. Walker
April 4, 2010 10:23 am

In Spring the ice stops growing and the grass starts growing…
In Autumn the ice starts growing and the grass stops growing…
They’re almost a mirror of each other… Twas ever thus… When that changes – WORRY!

April 4, 2010 10:25 am

Yes, I’ve been following Arctic ice for a few months. It’s definitely interesting.

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2010 10:26 am

In similar years of winter/spring weather patterns, ice growth within each Arctic zone, and ice flow, summer flush was less than in other years under flush conducive parameters. This year stacks up with lower ice flush and melt for the summer. R Gates, what is your opinion about statistical models of ice flush?

DirkH
April 4, 2010 10:27 am

When i look at the animation where the blue line appears to be touching the long term average and in the next phase of the animation seems to back away from it i have the feeling that this “backing off” seems to be about 1 pixel,
so the visual effect could just be an effect of rounding off a scaled measurement value to a screen coordinate.
You really can’t make out such fine details from such a screen grafic, it has a coarse reolution. It would help to have an interactive zoomable grafics widget. It would also be useful to have the real measurement points marked as dots to differentiate from the linear interpolation by the line drawing algorithm.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 10:29 am

Steve Goddard said:
“Arctic, Antarctic and global will likely be all positive in a few days. Interesting death spiral…”
———-
Now Steve, really. If you know anything, you know that a spiral means subject to natural variability (like this winter’s extreme negative AO). On a longer term basis (longer than one winter), Global Sea ice has spent more time since 2004 in the negative anomaly range than the positve, and this longer term perspective is all that matters. In a “death spiral” you’d expect it to recover, pludge, recover, pludge, with each pludge (over a period of decades) to be lower, and each recovery to be not quite as great, when looked at from a long term perspective.
This months “re-growth” of the arctic sea ice to almost normal (which is nearly all in the Bering sea in March’s bump upward) is certainly related to the negative AO index.
An honest scientist wlll look at the longest trend of reliable data, and so March’s little bump upward, while interesting as an effect of the negative AO index of one winter, means very little to me unless it persists in the longer term…

April 4, 2010 10:31 am

What does the acronym “AGWT” mean?

Anu
April 4, 2010 10:41 am

What ? There’s earthworms tunneling in the rotten ice ?

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 10:42 am

R. Gates (10:29:54) :
OK I get it now. Arctic ice is almost all gone, and is also above normal.

April 4, 2010 10:45 am


REPLY: Note the label in the graph: “The latest date in 2010 is 03/30”. Once they get it updated I think it will look much like NSIDC. – Anthony

April 4, 2010 10:46 am

Smokey (10:31:28) :
What does the acronym “AGWT” mean?
REPLY: I believe it is for “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.”
As far as I’m concerned, theory it remains. The science remains far from settled from all appearances.
AGW proponents would really benefit from toning down the hysteria…vast segments of the world’s population (lately, the Germans!) are checking out on the “commonly held beliefs” including permanent ice-free polar regions, melting glaciers etc.
Also, keep an eye on Mr. Sun (Ms. Sun?) as it appears to be slipping back into a comfortable minimum state once again:
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2010/04apr10/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=bskm9n0gojo6prs85ivcmrlmf3

Alexej Buergin
April 4, 2010 10:47 am

Nansen (Arctic-ROOS) is back online, their curve still goes up, but they have not reached April yet.

A C Osborn
April 4, 2010 10:47 am

Anthony & Pamela Gray (09:38:42) :
What do you mean they are not trying to hide anything, the values from the previous days have been adjusted down. Do they do that on their own then?
Or are you saying they made mistake which they have now corrected?

Hockeystickler
April 4, 2010 10:48 am

R. Gates – pludge ? I am unable to find this word in either the oxford or webster’s dictionary ; surely you mean plunge.

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 10:48 am

R. Gates (10:10:22) :
I make predictions for a few days, weeks or months. If I am wrong, you can call me on it in the near future.
Some climate people make their predictions for 100 years out, knowing that they can inflate their numbers to whatever value they want, and never be held responsible.
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 10:53 am

A C Osborn (10:47:38) :
Ice extent varies a lot from day to day because of wind and the way that extent is calculated. Ice area is less volatile and is above normal.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

DirkH
April 4, 2010 11:01 am

Smokey’s right.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Importantly they say we are above the 1979-2006 average.

Stephan
April 4, 2010 11:01 am

Anthony this happened everytime ice went up before and the changes are documented at this site.
http://mikelm.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-image-was-downloaded-from.html
However, in this case I suspect no fowl play as the ice is in fact staying “normal: and follows DMI closely. It is precisely because people have taken notice of past changes that these sites may be quite careful about what they are doing these days with the graphs re adjustments etc…

Leon Brozyna
April 4, 2010 11:01 am

Check back in about thirty years, when the priests … I mean scientists … after studying the entrails … I mean data … discover that there’s been a nice upward trend in sea ice extent and will require more funding to figure out what’s been happening and, after another couple decades, will discover that the ice extent is cyclical in nature.

April 4, 2010 11:01 am

The report I am waiting for is the NSIDC one, early this week; Monday or Tuesday most likely. So far as I can see, Mark Serreze has nailed his colors to the mast in predicting that Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summer in the near future. Now that idea seems to be in jeopardy. I suspect he has two alternatives. He can gamble that he will be shown to be right in the end, and continue with the line that Arctic sea ice is still on track for an ice free summer in the near future. Or he can start hedging his bets, and realize that he might just be wrong. We will see, very shortly.

Stu
April 4, 2010 11:04 am

I’m going to lock myself in to a 5.9 million sq. km. prediction for this summer- the attraction of extrapolating a short linear trend is too great 😉 – also, I’m an optimist.
Of course, anything could happen- look at the huge variation between summer 2006 and 2007! Proof that the Arctic is capable of losing a hell of a lot of ice over a very short time. Still, we seem to be steadily climbing back to fairly ‘normal’ levels- and comparing the latest satellite images to early 80’s ones, the ice looks in much better shape all round (nice and purple). That’s my very non complex assessment of things anyway.
Who’d have imagined 20 years ago that a large portion of the general public would become so interested in tracking sea ice extent?

rbateman
April 4, 2010 11:04 am

A digital look at the JAXA data:
03,25,2003,14800781 – 03,25,2010,14282344 – 518437
03,26,2003,14771094 – 03,26,2010,14264688 – 506406
03,27,2003,14755781 – 03,27,2010,14256719 – 499062
03,28,2003,14718594 – 03,28,2010,14299219 – 419375
03,29,2003,14647031 – 03,29,2010,14363438 – 283593
03,30,2003,14533906 – 03,30,2010,14405781 – 128125
03,31,2003,14428281 – 03,31,2010,14407344 – 20937
04,01,2003,14409219 – 04,01,2010,14395000 – 14219
04,02,2003,14335781 – 04,02,2010,14379531 – -43750
04,03,2003,14250469 – 04,03,2010,14328438 – -77969
10 days ago, 2010 was a half million sq km behind the Arctic of 2003.
Today, it is 77,000 sq km ahead.
That’s quite a change.

Allan M
April 4, 2010 11:05 am

CRS, Dr.P.H. (10:46:38) :
Smokey (10:31:28) :
What does the acronym “AGWT” mean?
REPLY: I believe it is for “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.”
As far as I’m concerned, theory it remains. The science remains far from settled from all appearances.

How about a new word for it? Hypreposterothesis.

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2010 11:05 am

A flat running average will stay flat as long as the running data are flat. A rising set of 5-day data will average up. A falling set of 5-day data will continue its downward slope. Doing a mind experiment, what do you think a turn will look like, all the way through the turn, using 5-day data sets that have a mix of rising, flat, and falling sets?

Richard111
April 4, 2010 11:07 am

R. Gates (10:29:54) :
I like your explanation for “death spiral”.
One would expect a longish time scale.
Why have there been claims the Arctic will be “ice free” by 2013?

ScottR
April 4, 2010 11:07 am

R. Gates said:
Global Sea ice has spent more time since 2004 in the negative anomaly range than the positve, and this longer term perspective is all that matters.
———
Hmmm… I look at the data and it shows a bouncing decline from 2004 to 2007 (3 years), and a recovery from 2007 to 2010 (3 years). Pretty much equivalent, but I admit that it depends on what happens in September 2010. Overall, very little trend that I can see. Probably ought to get data for 30 more years to have any real understanding. All the data collected so far (since 1979) argues strongly for natural variation and “the usual noise”.

Bill Hunter
April 4, 2010 11:09 am

“This months “re-growth” of the arctic sea ice to almost normal (which is nearly all in the Bering sea in March’s bump upward) is certainly related to the negative AO index. ”
Anybody else notice how statistical certainty standards change according to one’s perspective?

stephen richards
April 4, 2010 11:10 am

This years min will be greater than last years’. Why? La Niña !! No El Niño.
Incidently, the french academie de science will be holding a ‘debat’ this october on AGW. M. Allegre and M. Courtillot will be there. Why them. Well, M.Courtillot was the scientist/mathemeticien who asked for the british and american unadjusted data, Mr Gates? and was refused. So he painstakingly picked all the raw data from every reporting weather station in europe and plotted over time. Guess what? He found no hockey stick, he found no exceptional warming.
The big difference here in france is that there isn’t the old boys club tie of the UK. There are however a lot of state funded scientists who don’t want the debate. With the la niña in place and the ice extent min at its max it should be très intérèssante

stephen richards
April 4, 2010 11:13 am

ScottR (11:07:49)
and if you go back to the 1930’s it becomes ever more clear that its natural variation. Submarines at the north pole, on the surface, in march.

Jimmy Haigh
April 4, 2010 11:18 am

Hockeystickler (10:48:25) :
“R. Gates – pludge ? I am unable to find this word in either the oxford or webster’s dictionary ; surely you mean plunge.”
I like the word ‘pludge’! It’s what climate ‘scientists’ do. They ‘pludge’.

hunter
April 4, 2010 11:21 am

The true believers will explain it all as part of the AGW climate crisis, no matter the evidence, or lack of evidence.

Roger Knights
April 4, 2010 11:22 am

It’s CYrosphere!!
(for crying out loud)

Leon Brozyna
April 4, 2010 11:34 am

Forgot to add — my guesstimate for Arctic sea ice minimum extent this September is approx. 5.95 m km²; not quite ready to call it for 6 m km².

Rhys Jaggar
April 4, 2010 11:35 am

It’s actually not that surprising, when you think that this year the ice has continued increasing two or three weeks longer than the norm.
It has to turn the corner sometime, just so happens that it happened just before the extent crossed the ‘normal’ line.
Is does, though, suggest a significant increase again at ice minimum this September, barring strange incidents.
It will be interesting for scientists and others to see how many more years the increase goes on. Perhaps from that we will start to understand decadal and multidecadal oscillations in arctic sea ice extent??

April 4, 2010 11:38 am

[snip – off topic, even if it is Easter]

April 4, 2010 11:41 am

Wind shifts, ice drifts, extents come and go,
it’s been cold I know, more ice and snow,
Spring has sprung, the bouquets been flung,
AGW is married to arctic ice extent it seems,
the sun has gone back to sleep and dreams.

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 11:42 am

At 70N, the sun is now almost 25 degrees above the horizon. In June it will be almost 45 degrees above the horizon. Ice is going to start melting quickly.

rbateman
April 4, 2010 11:52 am

The global seaice anomaly at cyrosphere today shows:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
A roll down at 2007/8 that is on the upswing returning to normal.
That’s not a straight line, and neither is the big roll in Sunspot/10.7cm flux, or anything else nature does. Probably because we live on a squashed sphere and run in an elliptical orbit around another squashed sphere. Nothing in nature or in or Solar System or Galaxy or Galaxy Cluster runs in perfectly straight lines.
Why should we all succumb to computer modeled pencil line fever?

Stephen Wilde
April 4, 2010 11:52 am

Funny how readily the warming proponents accept that the increase in ice now is due to a negative AO even though that allows warmer air into the most poleward areas as the cold air sinks more frequently into the mid latitudes in winter.
But wait a mo, didn’t we have 30 years of largely positive AO resulting in the eventual ice minimum of 2007 ?
Does logic work in only one direction for them ?

Jordan
April 4, 2010 11:58 am

SandyInDerby (09:59:49) : “The recovery has made it into the UK Sunday Times”
Thanks for the link Sandy. It gave me a good laugh.
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.
We can therefore conclude that “scientists” were wrong when they took earlier episodes of ice loss and warm winters as indicators of long-term climate change.
“Records kept by Nasa show that in January and February global average temperatures were actually well above the long-term average by around 0.7C,” Serreze said.
But “scientists” dismiss individual months as meaningless weather fluctuations. So what is the point of mentioning these particular months?
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.
The “reactions” to the 2007 melt placed too much emphasis on insignificant data. That was wrong, and ultimately damaging.
Scientists have made mistakes over other short-term trends such as increases in tropical storms. In 2004-5 an increase in the number and severity of storms, including Hurricane Katrina, prompted some researchers to suggest a link with global warming — but this was then followed by a decline in storms.
Other “scientists” who read too much into insignificant events, and it was wrong to do so.
Similar fears were raised in 2005 when scientists at Southampton University published research showing that some deep Atlantic Ocean currents, linked to the Gulf Stream, had slowed by a third. They issued a press release entitled “Could the Atlantic current switch off?” which suggested that circulation in the ocean, which gives Europe its temperate climate, might shut down. But more recent studies have shown that such currents slow down and speed up naturally, so short-term changes cannot be seen as evidence of global warming.
More people who like to call themselves “scientists”, and making exactly the same mistake.
“The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this,” Pope said.
Err, a tad late, but thanks for the dash of common sense Vicky. I suppose that’s why the MET Office stopped its seasonal forecasts which had factored-in global warming trends. They also fell victim to the same affliction.
Now, according to the article, Vicky Pope is saying “On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”
That places her forecast into my “insignificant basket”.
I always said that it would only take one or two bad winters to bring some sanity back into the discussion. And it did!

Hockeystickler
April 4, 2010 12:00 pm

Jimmy Haigh – perhaps R. Gates has invented a new word – pludge- climate scientists fudge when they show a plunge : therefore they pludge !

Tom in Florida
April 4, 2010 12:00 pm

Everyone is trotting out the words “average” and ‘normal”. I will once again remind everyone that the “averge” and “normal” is simply based on an arbitrary baseline period from 1979 -2000. Nothing more, nothing less.

April 4, 2010 12:01 pm

R. Gates (09:57:13) :
I will be watching the Global Sea Ice anomaly chart very closely the next few years.
REPLY:
You aren’t the only one who will be watching with bated breath! R. Gates, this one’s for you!

BTW, we welcome your input to the discussion, thanks for contributing!

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 12:01 pm

Stephen Wilde (11:52:25) :
AGW logic is based on the idea that trace amounts of CO2 controls the universe.

Stu Blu
April 4, 2010 12:05 pm

S. Gates:
“One positive note for you AGW sceptics…the antarctic sea ice continues to creep closer to being normal (though still showing a negative anomaly):”
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Given the fact that the anomaly was positive for the bulk of the 2-year period in the graph, and previously recovered from any negative period (except for the slight one now), what does this graph do to support AGWT? I thought the whole world was warming, ice shelves were breaking off Antactica, and there was not return.
I guess I’m just not smart enough to get it?

Gary Pearse
April 4, 2010 12:06 pm

R. Gates,
Thinking sceptics (TS) accept that there has been a degree or maybe two increase in earth temps since the 1850s, what one would expect climbing out of the Little Ice Age. Your estimate could be right on and it wouldn’t bother most of us one bit. Our objections have been to the egregious erasure of the MWP and earlier warm periods, reduction in the drop of the LIA temps, depressing of the 20Century record highs, choice of a cold period for the 30 year base for claiming the hottest days on record, and the numerous deliberate statistical gamesmanship maneuvers with tree rings, raw temp data….etc. etc. Of course NSIDC has been trying spin results for many years and they would have had us already surveying beach front properties in Greenland and Antarctica, but I see there is some moving away from their earlier outrageous prognostications and insulting remarks about the people who turned out to be right.
You’ve been coming here long enough to not categorize sceptics into a monolithic lump . We can’t help being joined by bandwagon sceptics (BS) like Limbaugh or anyone else who has nothing to offer to the debate. You have seen the fine work done here by TS. Surely, you rejoice that real scientific sceptics put a stop to the unholy alliance of politicized, the-science-is-settled, the-world-is-spiraling-into-disaster, fraudulent scientists, environmental organizations, 19th Century marxist iconoclasts and politicians, and they did it by application of science, not money and advertizing. I think you’ve found that there is a core classy bunch here who, unlike the other half of the blogosphere, accept your thoughtful offerings whether one agrees with you or not.

Stu Blumenstock
April 4, 2010 12:08 pm

S. Gates:
Regarding the recent buildup in the Bering Strait, can you please point to documentation on what the Bering Strait was like during the 1979-2000 period, and, if possible, what it looked like from, say, 1000-1978?
Without this data, why specify a buildup that you consider unusual?

April 4, 2010 12:10 pm

Richard111 (11:07:20) :
R. Gates (10:29:54) :
I like your explanation for “death spiral”.
One would expect a longish time scale.
Why have there been claims the Arctic will be “ice free” by 2013?

In part because of data (incl. submarine) from the likes of Maslowski such as shown here:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Maslowski_Page_16.jpg
ICESAT data since then has shown a continued decline in thickness at a slightly slightly faster rate since 2004. So despite hedging of bets etc. the data still points to around that time. With the declining thickness the rate of drift would tend to increase too.

John G
April 4, 2010 12:12 pm

Doesn’t matter, once it breaks the plane of the normal it’s a score . . . Realists 6, Warmists 0.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 12:15 pm

Richard111 asked:
“Why have there been claims the Arctic will be “ice free” by 2013?”
—————–
I think to understand this prediction in context, you should read this BBC article from 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
The 2013 prediction was not made by a large group of scientists, but a single scientist. Prior to the record low of 2007, the consensus had been that the sea ice would be gone by 2100. Even after 2007, the consensus was not 2013 (that was just one scientist), but more in the range of 2030 for the arctic to be ice free at the summer low. I believe the date of approximately 2030 for an ice free summer arctic remains the consensus, and nothing seen so far in 2010 would change that.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 12:22 pm

Speling haz neber bin my stronge sute…
And many thanks to the excellent editors I’ve had over the years!

rbateman
April 4, 2010 12:25 pm

Stephen Wilde (11:52:25) :
Does logic work in only one direction for them ?

A neurological diode is indicated, and thier trendline theory operates in a physical vacuum in which Newton’s 1st Law of Motion does not apply.
In that computer-generated world, the primary force is Carbon Dioxide, and all others are either subjugated or void.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 12:29 pm

ScottR said (regarding global sea ice):
“I look at the data and it shows a bouncing decline…”
———–
Hmmm…what would another phrase for “bouncing decline” be….just on the tip of my tongue now, oops, now I’ve lost it, okay, now it’s back, now I’ve lost it again, only worse this time…okay, now back again, but not quite as strong…oh, darn, now lost it again, really far down this time…oh well…sorry.
(guess I’ll just go read about death spirals instead…)

bruce ryan
April 4, 2010 12:32 pm

looks like the sea ice is trying to match up with the “average”. Just under reached its goal. It may be thinking 2003 was an outlier and shouldn’t be considered part of the average. In which case it has done a magnificent job. Well done arctic sea ice.

Kate
April 4, 2010 12:36 pm

Don’t worry folks! Ms. Pope at the Met Office says all this so-called new ice is all just a pause in the Earth’s upward temperature trajectory:
“The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this,” Pope said.
“Instead you have to look at long-term trends. These show that Arctic summer sea ice is decreasing by 232,000 square miles a decade, nearly 2.5 times the area of Great Britain.
“On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”
Get that? “Ice-free” in 2060; long after she’s gone, and been forgotten.
Does she think the more she repeats it the more likely we are to believe it? Even Phil Jones from CRU was forced to publicly admit that there has been no warming for the past 15 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Wilde (11:52:25) :
“Does logic work in only one direction for them?”
…Yes, it does. When the weather is hot (like in Summer) they all start screaming and wailing that it’s “proof of man-made global warming”. But when half the World seems to be under ice and there are record low temperatures and 130,000 Americans are dying of cold-related ailments, they declare that “weather is not climate”.
Weather is only climate when it’s hot.
When it’s cold, it’s just weather.
There was a demonstration of this very thing today on the BBC’s “Broadcasting House” program. They had AGW fanatic Nobel Laureate Professor Sir Martin Evans reviewing the papers, and he declared the past winter was “a little bit colder” and the CRU emails were “this silly little email thing” which doesn’t alter the fact that “global warming is going on because burning fossil fuels throws carbon up in the air”, etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rqkr3

NZ Willy
April 4, 2010 12:43 pm

If the NSIDC graph is using a 5-day running average, then they have a problem to reconcile data latency with data creep. I assume the average looks ahead 2 days and back 2 days. Therefore their final figure will be 2 days late, so each datum “creeps” for 2 days. They have the alternative of not displaying a datum until 2 days later, but then everyone would look elsewhere for the latest update. So they accept the data creep, and this is what we see here.
Steve Goddard (11:42:21) : “At 70N, the sun is now almost 25 degrees above the horizon.”
At it’s daily high point. Midpoint (of the day) more like 13 degrees above the horizon.

Skepshasa
April 4, 2010 12:46 pm

The story as I hear it from the within the gov is that the sea ice is just thin and spread out. Sea ice extent is, as per NSIDC definition, at least 15% to count. So, as the wind causes the ice to be more spread out it is also thinner (wind more easily pushes thin ice around) and less concentrated ~~ therefore it is more susceptible to melting.
SO…most people who are fully bought into the Climate Change “system” expect this thinner and more spread out sea ice to melt quickly and continue the death spiral… That’s the story and you’ll hear it again! Mark my words!
The interesting aspect is that this scenario could go either way given he uncertainty associated with the current understanding of what drives Arctic sea ice formation and melt. Most research states the mechanisms for influencing sea ice formation are poorly understood…at least the connections and dynamics are…
Any way the more ice (even if it’s spread out) increases albedo and decreases sea surface absorption, which leads to more ice over time, BUT if we’ve crossed the tipping point it’s too late anyway and it will just melt and continue down the death spiral… There you have it, The executive summary of “The Party Line.”
The Wild card in all of this, and the one that happens to be the one that is the most poorly understood in all of this is THE WIND!!!

April 4, 2010 12:51 pm

CRS, Dr.P.H. (10:46:38) :

Smokey (10:31:28) :
What does the acronym “AGWT” mean?
REPLY: I believe it is for “Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.”

Thank you for your response. Actually, I was hoping R. Gates would answer, because he sneaks the “T” in at the end of AGW all the time without explanation, even though I’ve asked before. I knew it had to mean either theory or thermogeddon.
Catastrophic AGW [and AGW] are not theories and never were, as desperate as Gates is to label them theories.
AGW doesn’t even matter at this point. Few people on either side of the debate say there is no effect at all from human activity [although there is zero empirical evidence that human emissions of CO2 have any measurable effect on the global temperature]. Here’s the problem with plain old AGW:
If the tiny fraction of human CO2 emissions [click] causes any global warming at all, the effect is so small and insignificant that it can be completely disregarded. The human component on temperature is certainly too small to be measured, despite the one-third increase in CO2. And that is assuming that CO2 caused all or most of the 0.6° warming over the past 150 years — a big assumption.
So the climate alarmists have painted themselves into a corner with their scary CO2=CAGW hypothesis: the trace gas carbon dioxide must cause catastrophic global warming. Otherwise, there’s no sense in throwing good money after bad, when so many other areas of science are in need of the immense funding being sucked up every year by the climate science clique.
So they are forced to speculate on imagined “tipping points,” and blame sea level rises, ocean acidification, frog extinctions, changes in sea ice, receding glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and anything else that comes to mind on a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been many times higher in the past without causing runaway global warming.
But CO2 causes none of those things, because on all time scales, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature; effect cannot precede cause.
There is a specific meaning to a scientific theory. The hierarchy is: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory and Law. Only Theory and Law are widely accepted as science [although nothing is entirely safe from falsification, as Einstein repeatedly stated regarding his Theories of Relativity].
CO2=CAGW is not even a true hypothesis, because much of the raw data, code and methodologies purporting to support it are either missing, or kept secret. That makes it simply a baseless conjecture. I’m being polite when I refer to AGW and CAGW as hypotheses. They are not, really.
For a scientific explanation of what constitutes a Theory vs a Conjecture, see here: click

Magnus A
April 4, 2010 12:56 pm

Oh, good grief… graph… very good graphs!
This one at Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center shows we just had a 5 year Arctic ice area record…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
But due to the error range in projections we can have more ice for, say, 20 years or so before we are outside error margins. The AGW bAndWaGon will “confidently” refer to this graph:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_54-lzQmrpB4/SrSZdKWIFQI/AAAAAAAAAFs/nuOIEWti6S4/s1600/icemin2009.JPG

April 4, 2010 1:01 pm

R. Gates (12:15:38)
Phil. (12:10:15)
Will you two please get your stories straight? You’re scaring the horses.

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 1:03 pm

NZ Willy (12:43:30) :
The formula for midsummer noon solar elevation above the horizon = 90 – latitude + 23.5 degrees.
At 70N that is 43.5 degrees above the horizon. At 90 degrees it is 23.5 degrees above the horizon. At the Tropic of Cancer, it is 90 degrees above the horizon.

Mike McMillan
April 4, 2010 1:03 pm

If it’s a 5-day trailing average, then the present can affect the past plotted positions. They should borrow one of Dr Hansen’s computer models; then they could have a 5-day leading average.

From Holland
April 4, 2010 1:09 pm

I spotted the same thing, the NSIDC curve really almost hit the average gray line, and now as of 4th of April it is clearly ADJUSTED . downward.
sorry chaps, but we from Holland like to say it as it is. (my grandmother even spotted this one 😐 )

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 1:13 pm

One thing that keeps cropping up on thread about arctic sea ice, especially by AGW skeptics is “the wind”. It’s really important to keep in mind that AGW
AGW is all about energy…energy flows, energy balance, etc. and energy on earth shows up in many different ways, and one of them is…WIND. If, as AGWT would posit, there is more net energy in the oceans, atmosphere etc. it would certainly stand to reason that one of the ways that energy would show up would be wind. Whenever there was wind, there was heating of the earth somewhere, and of course, all that energy came from the sun initially. In short, saying the ‘wind’ did it, does not in any many disassociate the wind from warming (for we know warming caused the wind initially) nor by extention, disassociate it from AGW.

Filipe
April 4, 2010 1:14 pm

“If it’s a 5-day trailing average”
It looks more like a 5-point typical median filter function that generally doesn’t affect the last 2 points. So any given value should change 2 days later and then remain stable.

April 4, 2010 1:17 pm

Someone is responsible for this. That person is a propagandist. That was a deliberate act.
Who did this? What is his name?

April 4, 2010 1:19 pm

Magnus A (12:56:18)
Just put “ant” in front of “arctic” in the address bar, and you get the Cryosphere chart of the Antarctic: click
Not nearly so alarming, is it?
Here’s Cryosphere’s global ice extent: click
Reverting to the mean: natural variability.
CO2CAGW

Manfred
April 4, 2010 1:22 pm

of course, the current increases make “experts” like serezze, loudspeakers like gore or spamposters like gates look stupid. they will look even more stupid in the future as they still deny the existence of the upwards leg before 1979 due to ocean current cycles. sea ice today may be not much different from the 1930s or 1940s and in 1957 projections were then, that it would have disappeared by 2000.
http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpg
(though in 1957 scientists knew, that even temperatures with ice free arctic would have been still lower than 2000 years ago.)
however, any projection for next september is nothing but a wild guess, as nobody knows what the dominant factors – wind and ocean currents – will do this year.
looks like just another “see, I was right” chance, for those who were wrong in general and particularly for the last 2 years and those who made already disproven doomsday predictions in the past.

James F. Evans
April 4, 2010 1:23 pm

Being an objective scientist, or for most of us, being an objective scientific observer, means, first, acknowledging the existence of evidence, second, considering the evidence by applying reasonable skepticism and an open-mind to the evidence at hand.
Failure to acknowledge and consider evidence plays into the hands of those that may foist faulty evidence, or even valid evidence, but which is not relevant to the proposition the evidence is purported to support, or does not support the proposition as strongly as its proponents claim.
And, yes, scientific evidence may emerge that goes against previously held understadnings. How we react to evidence adverse to our previous understadings is the test of objective scientific observers.
Hiding from evidence does not help anybody’s cause.
In Science “truth for its own sake” is the aspiration. Correct understanding of physical relationships is the goal.
Thanks, Anthony, for bringing this to the readers attention.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 1:24 pm

Nah, it’s just tipping over and ready to capsize from so many people looking at it.

Pat Frank
April 4, 2010 1:27 pm

Smokey (12:51:09) is right. AGW is not a theory, because climate models are unphysical. They are untestable in the scientific sense because the change in any climate observable in the last 130 years is smaller than their uncertainty limits.
AGW rests entirely on false precision; not only in climate model output but also in proxy thermometry and in the surface temperature record. No professional has seen fit to honestly propagate the errors in any of these fields. The whole business is the most shameful display of willful scientific negligence ever.

pwl
April 4, 2010 1:29 pm

Always with the statistics, damned lies and statistics. A five day running average – sheesh who needs that and why? I gather that I’ll have to plot my own without statistics assuming the data file they let you download hasn’t been polluted by their math. I want RAW DATA please. Sigh.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 1:31 pm

I clicked on the Meg Witman ad. Maybe there is a future for California.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 1:38 pm

Manfred,
I have admitted several times that I am only 75% convinced that AGWT is correct. I may appear as “spamster” because I certainly am among the minority here on WUWT, and so I have lots of gist to respond to. I will stay right here, and watch the trends of the arctic sea ice this year (and the next, and the next…) right along with the rest of you. If some long term positive arctic sea ice anomaly starts to emerge over a period of years, not days or months, then I’ve already admitted that I’ll begin to question the validiity of AGWT and models.
I should think that all the AGW sceptics here find my posts of service, in the same way that honest climate researchers should appreciate honest sceptics making them prove what they say. I think there is a lot of nonsense on this site that passes for science fact, and I think it is healthy to be sceptical about the facts that sceptics put forth.
I also, don’t have much of a life…but I consider being called a “spammer” as quite rude as well as wrong. I do tend to post more when the thread is about sea ice as it is my ‘acid test’ for my overall belief in the validity of AGWT. I could generally care less about the political and other social commentary that goes on here, and I would think a “spammer” would really care about that sort of rot…

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 1:39 pm

It would be hard for NSIDC to get away with some monkey business in the graph because so many people are watching Arctic (North Pole) Ice and they have other graphs to compare theirs to and keep them honest. So the data (in this case anyway) has to be accurate.
But how the data is spun, well, that’s another story.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thanks Anthony Scalzi for the neat-o animation! 🙂

pwl
April 4, 2010 1:39 pm

It’s not that it’s necessarily not a good idea to make calculations on the data, that is needed for various analysis of course. However, to not give up the RAW DATA and to not clearly spell out ALL THE MATH used in the construction of a particular visual representation is a form of at least deceit by omission – even if unintentional, fabrication of data is fabrication of data, statistics mess up the data.
Please scientists stop presenting statistical analysis as if it’s real. It’s not, it’s abstract. Running averages alter the graph. Stop it. USE THE REAL DATA. At least present TWO GRAPHS, one with the RAW DATA plotted unadjusted in any way and one with the lies, damned lies and your pet that obeys your bais, statistics.
If you can’t see the raw data next to the analysis you can’t see how the analysis distorts reality. Analysis is supposed to show you aspects of the data that might otherwise not pop out, to use it as if it’s what is really happening is fraud, intentional or otherwise. Provide and plot the REAL RAW UNADJUSTED DATA please as the FIRST PRIORITY for HONESTY and INTEGRITY and AUTHENTICITY. If it’s not raw, they don’t pretend that it is. Tell it like it is and as a scientist you’ll at least have integrity even if your analysis method is bunk.
Please inform people that they are only seeing an analysis, one possible visual representation of the data adjusted by statistical means (spelling those out in detail with all source codes and raw data so we can run the program to verify it for ourselves or make changes to the program to validate or improve the representation).
Thanks.

Grant
April 4, 2010 1:48 pm

R. Gates-
“With the negative AO of this winter, we’ve had warmth and high pressure parked over N. Canada and Greenland…”
“..we’ve also had some warm Atlantic water near Greenland.”
“..the net effect of all the warmth this winter in parts of the arctic..”
With all that “warmth” in the arctic the Inuit will be cutting their lawns much sooner this year…

D. King
April 4, 2010 1:57 pm

R. Gates (13:13:27) :
In short, saying the ‘wind’ did it, does not in any many disassociate the wind from warming (for we know warming caused the wind initially) nor by extention, disassociate it from AGW.
Do you consider the Earth and corresponding atmosphere
spinning at over a 1000 MPH; wind? Or is it relative, and is
the moon raising the oceans energy, or is everything caused
by my SUV?

Manfred
April 4, 2010 2:01 pm

R. Gates (13:38:43)
that posting is appreciated. replace spam with frequent.

April 4, 2010 2:10 pm

R. Gates (13:38:43) :
Manfred,
I should think that all the AGW sceptics here find my posts of service, in the same way that honest climate researchers should appreciate honest sceptics making them prove what they say.

Your explanation of the way modelling works *was* of service. It took a bit of cogitation to follow you through unfamiliar territory, but at the end, I understood both methods you addressed.
Thanks.

joe
April 4, 2010 2:13 pm

boing!

rbateman
April 4, 2010 2:14 pm

R. Gates (13:13:27) :
AGW as the ‘irresistable force’ that cannot be acted upon externally, continues to circulate with ever-increasing amounts of energy, melting everything in it’s path but never using a drop of it’s energy?
Sounds like a death sentence for civilization.
Seems to me that the AGW Energy is getting rather exhausted or unplugged from it’s infinite power source.

ThomasR
April 4, 2010 2:14 pm

AGW-alarmists will change their story:
No more “Arctic will lose all of its ice next summer” but “Record low ice conditions off the Canadian east coast” (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html).
Seems to be easy: Just take the right part of the whole and you see what you want to see:
“… average ice conditions off the east coast of Canada were at record lows during the first three weeks of February. Sea ice charts prepared by the Canadian Ice Service show that ice coverage in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence was the lowest for that time period since analysts started charting the region in 1969.”
Probably no more ice bears at the east coast of Canada …

Laura S.
April 4, 2010 2:16 pm

Anthony says:
“REPLY: Note the label in the graph: “The latest date in 2010 is 03/30″. Once they get it updated I think it will look much like NSIDC. – Anthony”
I think you’re missing something important. Smokey posted a graph of Sea Ice Area. That’s the relevant distinction, not that the area data covers only up to 3/30; therefore the answers won’t look similar for the reason you suggest. The big story here is not the sea ice extent right now. Sure, that’s mostly due to fringe issues.
The big story is that the ice remains very densely packed in the Beaufort Sea. Ice concentration is very high, which is why the sea ice area is now well above the median. This is true throughout the arctic basin and nearly all of the surrounding seas.

Frederick Michael
April 4, 2010 2:19 pm

I had hoped, when I predicted this, that people would not make wild accusations. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#comments
4/1/10 at 09:15
Unfortunate.

April 4, 2010 2:21 pm

R. Gates (13:38:43):

I do tend to post more when the thread is about sea ice as it is my ‘acid test’ for my overall belief in the validity of AGWT.

Since you deliberately ignore the fact that AGW is not a scientific Theory, then as Manfred points out, you are just spamming the thread for your own amusement.
It is no different than if you constantly insisted that the study of stars and galaxies was astrology, or that science is based on Scientology.
This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. Astrology, chemtrails, HAARP, etc., are not acceptable. Improperly mislabeling AGW as a Theory, when it is not, is just as inappropriate. Further, it is dishonest. You have repeatedly been given the correct definitions of scientific Theory, Hypothesis, Conjecture, and Law, but you continue to misuse the terms.
Words have meaning. Deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of a scientific Theory is pseudo-science. It doesn’t belong here.
If you refuse to use the correct terminology, you are simply trolling. That may work at realclimate, climate progress, tamino, etc. But they are unconcerned with scientific accuracy because they are alarmist propaganda blogs. That’s why they have the same small group of posters, and why their traffic numbers are so low.
Go back to one of them if you insist on deliberately misusing the proper terms. Here, it is simple courtesy to use correct scientific terms.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 4, 2010 2:29 pm

Smokey:
Our little shack in the Internet does not have the privilege of stifling debate with semantics. If the rest of the world considers AGW a theory, then there is nothing wrong with someone coming here and expressing that opinion or working from that premise. This does not meant that that opinion cannot be challenged or debated, but to dismiss based on “Does it meet the definition of a Theory”, while setting the terms for that definition in a potentially straw man manner is not really what we should be discussing here.
Theories may be falsified, but it is silly to debate whether it is a theory or not.

pwl
April 4, 2010 2:26 pm

Oops. “If it’s not raw, they don’t pretend that it is.” is supposed to say “If it’s not raw, THEN don’t pretend that it is.”

April 4, 2010 2:33 pm

jeez-
I provided a link to support my position.
If there is a credible alternate definition of a scientific Theory, which can be based on secret data and methods, please post the link.
But it sounds like a conjecture to me.

u.k.(us)
April 4, 2010 2:36 pm

If i’m not mistaken, most commenters on this site disagree with the “catastrophic” part of AGW.
IMO, the word “catastrophic” should always be used (and spelled out), in the discussion.
I’m pretty sure the “catastrophic” part, has been invalidated.

Craig Moore
April 4, 2010 2:36 pm

Smokey (14:21:20) : “Here, it is simple courtesy to use correct scientific terms.”
With the ice doing much better than expected and dashing the hopes of warmers to celebrate, does the term “awsheet” count?

Antonio San
April 4, 2010 2:38 pm

OT:
In France, the “climatecensorship” discipline has been added to the wide array of climate science disciplines linked to the IPCC.

JustPassing
April 4, 2010 2:39 pm

There is nothing wrong with your computer. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Barrier Limits.

April 4, 2010 2:41 pm

Craig Moore (14:36:42),
Since it’s not a recognized term in science, it doesn’t seem discourteous to me. More like something a warmist would mumble when he sees this graph: click

pat
April 4, 2010 2:42 pm

u.k.(us) –
u make a point that concerns me most. aren’t there any avenues that can prevent the media from using generic ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ as synonyms for CAGW? it is the same as ‘misleading advertising’ and leads to madness such as der spiegel’s claim recently that: ““(Steve)McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change” to suggest this means he believes in CAGW!
somehow the media must be stopped.
Al Gore knows how to control the message, AP assists!
WRAL: AP: Gore gets camera-shy for N.C. speech, limits media
PIC CAPTION: Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore holds his medal and diploma at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway on Dec. 10. Gore was awarded the prize for sounding the alarm over global warming and spreading awareness on how to counteract it. (AP Photo/Odd Andersen)
A Gore aide said Tuesday that media members will only be allowed to record video and audio of the first five minutes of Gore’s talk at Duke University on April 8. Photography will also be limited. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said the restrictions are standard for his talks but she wouldn’t say why they are in place..
Duke spokeswoman Scottee Cantrell said Gore will speak for about 45 minutes and take questions collected from students.
Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his advocacy of environmental issues, particularly his push to highlight global warming.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7330903/

D. Patterson
April 4, 2010 2:50 pm

R. Gates (09:38:16) :
As I said yesterday[….]

Baghdad Bob? Is that you? Have you found a new venue?

dr.bill
April 4, 2010 2:57 pm

re: R. Gates (13:38:43)
To All:
R. Gates is just trying to be helpful,
and now your uncooperative bickering
has gotten her all upset.
You should be ashamed of yourselves!
/dr.bill

David Appell
April 4, 2010 2:58 pm

While sea ice extent is higher than usual, ice VOLUME is not; and that’s the relevant factor as far as warming goes.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/04/animation-of-decreasing-arctic-ice.html

Nick Name
April 4, 2010 3:02 pm

Isn’t a ‘death spiral’ one of the moves from the Will Ferrell comedy Blades of Glory?

Pamela Gray
April 4, 2010 3:03 pm

R Gates, you have just stretched beyond the theory you agree with. Global warming has caused an increase in wind in the Arctic? Not based on the historical record. You haven’t even come with a good mechanism for this connection.
But let me guess. You appear to postulate that increased warming at the Equator oceans caused by longwave radiation due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere which has then moved this warming to the Poles resulted in increased wind there. I can’t even begin to tear apart your theory because it is wrong in so many areas and at all levels.
For the record I don’t consider you to be a spammer at all. But I question your understanding of Earth’s dynamic atmosphere very much.

jorgekafkazar
April 4, 2010 3:03 pm

R. Gates (10:29:54) : “Now Steve, really. If you know anything, you know that a spiral means subject to natural variability…”
RG, I’ve checked the origin and definition of “death spiral,” the term Steve Goddard used in his comment. There are several definitions, all derived from the same aviation origin. None of them say anything about “subject to natural variability.” Those are your words and yours alone. Here is the true definition:
graveyard spiral: n. originally, an inescapable winding descent of an airplane that leads to a crash; (hence), the rapid decline or devaluation of something, such as a career, a company, etc. Subjects: English, Aviation, Slang. Editorial Note: Synonyms are dead man’s spiral and the far more common death spiral.
In other words, a death spiral is a one way plunge. Or pludge, if you prefer. Nothing to do with variability.
http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/graveyard_spiral/

April 4, 2010 3:05 pm

Has someone the datas of the 1979 – 2000 average or an idea where to find them ?

jorgekafkazar
April 4, 2010 3:06 pm

David Appell (14:58:02) : “While sea ice extent is higher than usual, ice VOLUME is not; and that’s the relevant factor as far as warming goes.”
Nope. Warmists made the claim that reduced ice area would lower the net albedo of the Earth and create a tipping point. They said it, and they’re stuck with it.

April 4, 2010 3:08 pm

dr.bill (14:57:26)
My apologies if I upset Ms Gates. But by not using accurate scientific terms that are understood by everyone to mean the same thing, where does that lead?
It leads here —> click

Ian George
April 4, 2010 3:10 pm

David,
I’ll go along with you et al if you agree that this decade’s ice extent and volume is no worse than the 1920’s.
There are many references to this report in November, 1922 – here’s one.
http://olehgirl.com/?p=2860
Of course you can dismiss it like you do with the MWP.
Now look at the most recent sea ice extent. Might not reach that magic average level.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

DirkH
April 4, 2010 3:10 pm

“David Appell (14:58:02) :
While sea ice extent is higher than usual, ice VOLUME is not; and that’s the relevant factor as far as warming goes.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/04/animation-of-decreasing-arctic-ice.html

Nice giant cockroaches there. And more assorted drivel. Amonst others the video says that a decline of sea ice area is relevant due to that albedo stuff. Are you sure the video says what you wanted it to say?

Mooloo
April 4, 2010 3:11 pm

Since you deliberately ignore the fact that AGW is not a scientific Theory, then as Manfred points out, you are just spamming the thread for your own amusement.
This sort of trolling in reverse is entirely unnecessary.
R. Gates is allowed to post here. He is polite. He offers reasoned argument. He does not flame. Really your only problem can be that he doesn’t agree with you.
If only the rest of the AGW crowd were like him.
There are plenty of “sceptics” here who are far less reasoned. Some verging on loopy. Have a crack at them instead, as they do the sceptic cause no end of damage with their ravings.

Philip Mulholland
April 4, 2010 3:16 pm

From the NIC IMS Homepage, the animation for the last 30 days of the sea ice extent for the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea areas north and west of Alaska

rbateman
April 4, 2010 3:18 pm

David Appell (14:58:02) :
Yes, and pay attention to where that Red Ice is going….out along the East Greenland Coast mixing with the warm current.
And what happens when that body of warm water cools off, as it has now, flipping state?
The ice grows faster, longer, and the melt season is shorter, like it was last year.
The Global Sea-Ice anomaly takes a curvaceous dip and swings through it’s low point and proceeds to rise right back where it came from.
Go ahead, make the day, FREEZE that trend right where it currently points, up, and by 2013 we’ll have the Ice Cap all the way down to N.Y.
And that might just be as ridiculous as Mr. Serreze’s assumption.
Hey, let’s do something really scary: 750 yrs. ago, Johannes Freide said this:
When nights will be filled with more intensive cold and days with heat, a new life will begin in nature. The heat means radiation from the earth, the cold the waning light of the sun. Only a few years more and you will become aware that sunlight has grown perceptibly weaker. When even your artificial light will cease to give service, the great event in the heavens will be near.
Is that what we are doing here? Substituting predictions for prophecy?

D. King
April 4, 2010 3:20 pm

Smokey (15:08:00)
LMAO
I see what you mean. I had to watch it three times
before I got it. But then again, I understand AGWT.

Tsk Tsk
April 4, 2010 3:23 pm

R. Gates (12:29:58) :
ScottR said (regarding global sea ice):
“I look at the data and it shows a bouncing decline…”
———–
Hmmm…what would another phrase for “bouncing decline” be…

First you trot out a quote from Limbaugh to demonstrate the absurdity of the skeptic position, then you dismiss an ice free arctic by 2013 as the opinion of one scientist when Mark Serreze has warned of an ice free north pole as well. Yes I understand the difference between just the north pole and the arctic as a whole but Serreze has certainly made some spectacular non-predictions along with your “lone” scientist.
But now you’re just being disingenuous. You took a partial quote from Scott out of context to support your point. His entire sentence was:
Hmmm… I look at the data and it shows a bouncing decline from 2004 to 2007 (3 years), and a recovery from 2007 to 2010 (3 years).
The reason the phrase kept escaping you was that death spiral doesn’t describe a multi-year recovery.

April 4, 2010 3:25 pm

Steve Goddard (13:03:24) :

The formula for midsummer noon solar elevation above the horizon = 90 – latitude + 23.5 degrees.
At 70N that is 43.5 degrees above the horizon. At 90 degrees it is 23.5 degrees above the horizon. At the Tropic of Cancer, it is 90 degrees above the horizon.

I have to assume you are confusing the equinox with the summer solstice (midsummer noon) here. The sun will only be 90 degrees above either of the the tropics at the relevant equinox.
Your friendly neighbourhood pedant.

NZ Willy
April 4, 2010 3:26 pm

Steve Goddard (13:03:24) : “The formula for midsummer noon solar elevation above the horizon = 90 – latitude + 23.5 degrees.”
Yes, but you said “now”, not “midsummer”.

April 4, 2010 3:27 pm

scrap that last post – not enough coffee error, I think – you are correct, sorry.

James F. Evans
April 4, 2010 3:27 pm

James F. Evans (13:23:27) wrote: “Being an objective scientist, or for most of us, being an objective scientific observer, means, first, acknowledging the existence of evidence, second, considering the evidence by applying reasonable skepticism and an open-mind to the evidence at hand…”
I failed to include the third step: Response.
After careful consideration a response is in order. Silence acts as an implicit admission that the evidence for the proposition was “unanswerable”, or, in other words, the evidence supported the proposition the proponent offered the evidence in affirmation of and the opponents had no arguments to counter it. If such should be the case, the better more forthright alternative to silence (ignoring the evidence) is to state what weight, if any, the evidence should be given.
But I see that other readers did not, as R. Gates has been responded to a plenty.
My response is that it is too early to tell as ice extent was a minor deviation from normal.

Invariant
April 4, 2010 3:31 pm

Climate Quiz
What is the relationship between this, and the quote by Dr. Brooks in Climate Through the Ages (1950) pp. 286-287?
The weather of one year differs from that of another year, the weather of one decade from that of another decade ; why should not the climate of one century differ from that of another century ?

David Appell
April 4, 2010 3:33 pm

jorgekafkazar wrote:
> Warmists made the claim that reduced ice area would lower
> the net albedo of the Earth and create a tipping point. They said it,
> and they’re stuck with it.
Obviously reduced ice area decreases albedo. It might create a tipping point or it might not — the science of tipping points is not yet that rigorous, and no scientist is making hard claims about them.
In any case, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is: is the Arctic ocean warming or not? If you want to measure that via ice, you need to consider the total volume of ice, not just its surface area. It’s very relevant that the yearly ice is getting younger, ie thinner.
If you want to drive across a lake, do you care only if there is ice on the surface. Or do you also care about how thick it is?

David Appell
April 4, 2010 3:40 pm

DirkH wrote:
> Amonst others the video says that a decline of sea ice area is
> relevant due to that albedo stuff.
Of course it’s relevant with respect to the albedo. But that is a _feedback_ effect. The direct effects shows that, overall, the Arctic continues to melt. A few years of increased Arctic albedo is hardly enough of a forcing to overcome all the other existing anthropogenic forcings that exist.
Let’s say you freeze a glass of water. Now take it out of the freezer. If all the ice melts except for a thin surface piece, would you conclude that overall the room is warmer or cooler than the freezer?

April 4, 2010 3:46 pm

David Appell (15:33:14):
“It’s very relevant that the yearly ice is getting younger, ie thinner.”
Do you have a credible source for that? Because it appears that Arctic ice is growing substantially, as pwl posted above:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice.png
…the Catlin crew’s assertions notwithstanding.

David Appell
April 4, 2010 3:47 pm

Invariant wrote:
> What is the relationship between this, and the quote by Dr. Brooks in
> Climate Through the Ages (1950) pp. 286-287?
>
> The weather of one year differs from that of another year, the
> weather of one decade from that of another decade ; why should
> not the climate of one century differ from that of another century ?
Of course the climate varies naturally. No climate scientist has ever said it does not. (Indeed, they are the ones who has discovered and detailed this.
But the relevant question is: what happens when _new_, nonnatural forcings enter the picture? What is the cumulative effect of NATURAL + MANMADE forcings?
Left alone, a child on a moving swing will eventually come to rest. But a swing that also receives pushes from the child’s father will not necessarily come to rest.

Craig Moore
April 4, 2010 3:49 pm

David Appell (15:33:14) : “…the science of tipping points is not yet that rigorous, and no scientist is making hard claims about them.”
Yes they have.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-8,00.html

Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.
All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren’t terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.
For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
‘Clearly a Political Goal’
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

David Appell
April 4, 2010 3:51 pm

Smokey wrote:
>> “It’s very relevant that the yearly ice is getting younger, ie thinner.”
> Do you have a credible source for that?
See the sources in the animation given at
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/04/animation-of-decreasing-arctic-ice.html
> Because it appears that
> Arctic ice is growing substantially, as pwl posted above:
No, it does not. It appears that the _area_ of the sea ice is growing in the last year or two. It does not say anything about the volume.
Also, be sure to read this paper:
Kwok, R., G. F. Cunningham, M. Wensnahan, I. Rigor, H. J. Zwally, and D. Yi (2009), Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C07005, doi:10.1029/2009JC005312.
It’s abstract is given here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/07/arctic-sea-ice-decreasing-in-volume.html

dr.bill
April 4, 2010 3:55 pm

Smokey (15:08:00) :
dr.bill (14:57:26)
My apologies if I upset Ms Gates. But by not using accurate scientific terms that are understood by everyone to mean the same thing, where does that lead?
It leads here —> click

Love that one too. 🙂  All my students get a copy of it in their “deprogramming package”.
/dr.bill

James F. Evans
April 4, 2010 3:57 pm

I see David Appell is commenting; I recognize the name as he’s from my neck of the woods.
Apparently, the turn of public opinion has had an effect as he seems less conclusionary than when I read his comments in the past.
Welcome aboard.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 4:03 pm

Steve Goddard (13:03:24) :
NZ Willy (12:43:30) :
A simple geology lesson on the sun and the seasons:

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 4:03 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites (16:03:03) :
opps…
geography, not geology

rbateman
April 4, 2010 4:08 pm

Submarines at the North Pole in March, 1959 and again in 1963 show varying conditions from patchy open water to a couple of feet.
So, no, I don’t see anything going on right now that is really catastrophic with ice thickness.

Bart
April 4, 2010 4:10 pm

This is a stupid metric to be concerned about. Sea ice already crossed into the “normal” zone at the beginning of March. This AGW icon has fallen. End of discussion.

Mike
April 4, 2010 4:21 pm

I guess it depends on how you look at it.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
Of course the main measure of interest in ice mass.

Bill Illis
April 4, 2010 4:32 pm

Phil. (12:10:15) :
In part because of data (incl. submarine) from the likes of Maslowski such as shown here:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Maslowski_Page_16.jpg
ICESAT data since then has shown a continued decline in thickness at a slightly slightly faster rate since 2004. So despite hedging of bets etc. the data still points to around that time. With the declining thickness the rate of drift would tend to increase too.

Phil, is there a spreadsheet of this data? The seasonality of the sea ice thickness measure looks different at the end of the chart than at the beginning. In 1985 and 1986 for example, the ice thickness increases during the year to nearly 2.7 metres at the ice minimum in September. There is a mistake in this model.

timetochooseagain
April 4, 2010 4:40 pm

R. Gates (09:38:16) : Funny, I seem to recall that advocates made rather a big fuss over the 2007 minimum. That too was a “blip” not a trend, it should be clear by now. So why exactly is it that you think such sanctimony is justified? It seems to me that noting that Arctic ice is not going away quite so quickly as some suggested it would is worthwhile.
Not to mention that, unless my eyes deceive me, we hit maximum pretty late in the year, so I don’t exactly see how, by parsing over a handful of days, you think that Rush was wrong.
Oh, I forgot, the left hates him so much that even if he was accurate to within 1.0*10^-99 , he’d still be “wrong”.

suricat
April 4, 2010 4:41 pm

Anthony.
“Nature is just laughing at all of us.”.
Yep! Sun’s up!
Best regards, suricat.

Enneagram
April 4, 2010 4:42 pm

As springtime goes on…IPCC, Al “Baby”(aka “ElGordo”), JH “Coal trains”, CRU aka “Climate Gate” Jones, XXX novels writer “Patchy”(aka “Train engineer”), et al. should be preparing all their paraphernalia to scare to death innocent people of the whole world, next summer, in their final attack before Mexico´s next jamboree, so beware!

pft
April 4, 2010 4:45 pm

The funding for NSIDC and JAXA come from the same place, national governments of developed countries who put global interests (control) ahead of national interests (ie, the citizens, not the national elite who have global interests) .
Satellite measurements are all converted to data using algorithms that can be tweaked for good reasons, or not so good reasons.
“Japan’s Cabinet has endorsed a climate-protection draft law today (march 12)that would cap industrial emissions and thrust the second-biggest economy into the $125 billion market for trading carbon credits.”
1+1 +1= 3
This AGW fraud is global in scope. Think big, they do.
The absence of direct evidence is not disproof of a plausible hypothesis.

kadaka
April 4, 2010 4:56 pm

Of course, all these old records will soon be meaningless.
In the continuing effort to save the dangerously endangered polar bears and stave off the great calamitously catastrophic permafrost melting, they are about to deploy the massive steel cables across the straits alongside Greenland that will catch the ice before winds blow it out of the Arctic waters. The expected massive ice buildup is also expected to stop and possibly reverse the Greenland glacier ice melt, thus saving the Maldives from drowning in devastatingly sudden sea level rises.
So soon they will have to start constructing a brand new dataset that documents the new precipitous decline in line with the climate models.
Quite a bargain too on that project, will only cost $349.68 billion of someone else’s money…

CodeTech
April 4, 2010 5:03 pm

Apparently in climate circles “average” doesn’t mean what it does everywhere else. If it was “average”, each year’s extent would be folded into the “average” line. Using an arbitrarily chosen “baseline” is ridiculous, no matter what it shows.
The assumption seems to be that they are showing changes caused by AGW. The reality is not even close. What they are showing is that the last few years are the trough and their cherry picked baseline was a peak. I’m pretty sure they’ll change the methodology once we have a few years that match or exceed the baseline.

Gerald Machnee
April 4, 2010 5:04 pm

It’s a “clever trick” by nature.

Invariant
April 4, 2010 5:05 pm

David Appell (15:47:50) : Of course the climate varies naturally.
You did not answer the quiz, you gave a good answer to another question!

old44
April 4, 2010 5:12 pm

In all probability, the severe fluctuations in the area of sea ice in all the graph lines are the result of measurement error.

April 4, 2010 5:17 pm

CodeTech (17:03:35),
Exactly right. As David Appell’s abstract shows, the paper is, in it’s own words, simply an estimate. Coming from GISS, the paper in question should probably be taken with a grain of salt:
“We present our best estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean ice cover…”
In addition, that paper is getting old. It recounts 2005 – 2009 ice extent. We are discussing 2010 events here, which show a large recovery in Arctic ice.

NZ Willy
April 4, 2010 5:17 pm

Bill Illis (16:32:08) : “In 1985 and 1986 for example, the ice thickness increases during the year to nearly 2.7 metres at the ice minimum in September. There is a mistake in this model.”
Intuitively it makes sense. At the ice minimum, only the thicker multiyear ice should remain, so with good average thickness. Between seasons, the average thickness is lower because of large areas covered by thin ice. Intuitively speaking.

jaymam
April 4, 2010 5:19 pm

Is this NSIDC graph using a running average and not plotting actual daily figures?
If so, why does it not state that on their graph?
And why on earth use a running average? Please would everybody stop manipulating data if at all possible. I want to see actual figures that don’t change in a few days, as these ones have just done.

kwik
April 4, 2010 5:22 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites (16:03:03) :
Mr Amino, thanks for the repetition!
It is indeed a very nice representation. Ah, youtube is great.

Kitefreak
April 4, 2010 5:27 pm

Jees R Gates, Why’d ya have to go and spoil it? I was starting to like ya:
I could generally care less about the political and other social commentary that goes on here, and I would think a “spammer” would really care about that sort of rot…
Rot? There is a very significant political and social dimension to all of this. You do realise that, yeah?
Rot indeed!

April 4, 2010 5:30 pm

I think we shouldn’t get excited. Remember that our averages are very short-term. If we had a 100 or 200 year average, it would be a little more valuable. But since we don’t, it doesn’t mean much if the arctic ice area and arctic ice extent pass some imaginary “normal” line.
We have no reliable data that shows where the ice was 100, 200, and 500 years ago. Without that data, we can easily obsess over perceived abnormal levels that could be a return to longer-term norms.

Peter of Sydney
April 4, 2010 5:32 pm

Yes indeed, nature is laughing at us. Most people, especially the AGW alarmists can’t see the wood from the trees. If one stands back a little and looks at the history of climate change for our planet, one can only come to the conclusion that climate does indeed change and the current changes are nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, compared to many historical periods, current changes are far more lethargic. Exaggerations by AGW alarmists in particular are so full of themselves. They really should be made either to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt (which they haven’t as yet) or shut up. If they continue to spread their exaggerations they then should be charged with at least disturbing the peace, probably charged with fraud, and possibly put behind bars.

Steve Goddard
April 4, 2010 5:47 pm

NZ Willy (15:26:29) :
What I said is the text below, which is correct.

At 70N, the sun is now almost 25 degrees above the horizon. In June it will be almost 45 degrees above the horizon. Ice is going to start melting quickly.

Garrett
April 4, 2010 5:51 pm

Yeah…That’s definitely censored. Do y’all really think that the NSIDC which is a huge enforcer of Glo-bull warming is going to show an above average ice extent on their graphs? They wouldn’t dare! Lol.

Kitefreak
April 4, 2010 6:00 pm

Mooloo (15:11:29) :
Since you deliberately ignore the fact that AGW is not a scientific Theory, then as Manfred points out, you are just spamming the thread for your own amusement.
This sort of trolling in reverse is entirely unnecessary.
R. Gates is allowed to post here. He is polite. He offers reasoned argument. He does not flame. Really your only problem can be that he doesn’t agree with you.
If only the rest of the AGW crowd were like him.
There are plenty of “sceptics” here who are far less reasoned. Some verging on loopy. Have a crack at them instead, as they do the sceptic cause no end of damage with their ravings.
—————————————
Some verging on loopy?
Is that ‘polite’, to say that?
Words like ‘rot’ and ‘loopy’ are not helpful, or welcome, in my view.

April 4, 2010 6:02 pm

jaymam (17:19:47) :
Is this NSIDC graph using a running average and not plotting actual daily figures?
If so, why does it not state that on their graph?
And why on earth use a running average? Please would everybody stop manipulating data if at all possible. I want to see actual figures that don’t change in a few days, as these ones have just done.

REPLY: Thanks for bringing this up! I’ve also wondered why the sea ice extent map shows the “Median,” rather than the “Mean”:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to compare extent to the historical mean, as the graph shows?

David Appell
April 4, 2010 6:04 pm

Peter of Sydney wrote:
> If one stands back a little and looks at the history of climate
> change for our planet, one can only come to the conclusion
> that climate does indeed change and the current changes
> are nothing out of the ordinary
a) today’s climate changes _are_ out of the ordinary, in that the natural factors present in recent decades cannot explain them. No calculation or model ever proposed by “skeptics” explains them. Climate models explain them when anthropogenic factors are taken into account. (This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs), http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp ).
b) It’s not today’s changes that are really the problem. It’s the projected changes that might well come from the GHGs we have already committed to the atmosphere, and from the fact that we are doing essentially nothing to combat the problem, or plan to combat it.

John of Cloverdale WA
April 4, 2010 6:06 pm

Don’t worry AGW alarmists, the Times has it covered in their article (as previously referenced by contributor SandyinDerby).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7086746.ece
“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.”

NZ Willy
April 4, 2010 6:12 pm

Steve Goddard (17:47:19) : “What I said is the text below, which is correct. … ‘At 70N, the sun is now almost 25 degrees above the horizon.’ ”
25 degrees is its current daily high point, so daily mid-height is about 13 degrees. My point is, the Sun is not yet making a big impact, especially when overcast (as our Catlin friends said, “glorious sun”, when at last they got some).

April 4, 2010 6:17 pm

Peter, your glib statements about putting scientists “behind bars” is just whistling past the graveyard on your part. If you want a glimpse of what’s in store for fossil-fueled disinformation lackeys, check out what happened during the liberation of Paris in the heat of August 1944.
For those who don’t know the history, many Nazi collaborators were dragged out into the streets and publicly humiliated … or worse.
Shorn Women of the 1944 Liberation

The lucky [snip] will expire of natural causes before the day of reckoning arrives. I’m only stating the obvious.
.
[Posted for entertainment value. ~dbs]

David Appell
April 4, 2010 6:17 pm

Craig Moore wrote:
>> David Appell (15:33:14) : “…the science of tipping points is
>> not yet that rigorous, and no scientist is making hard claims about them.”
> Yes they have.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-8,00.html
No, they haven’t.
First of all, the 2C target is not based strictly on concerns about tipping points. Nor it is a scientific target. It’s more a target based on a vast assay of the situation, the projected future, technology, and politics. There is nothing very “scientific” about it.

Mike Maxwell
April 4, 2010 6:20 pm

Mother Nature says, “April Fools!”

Val Majkus
April 4, 2010 6:21 pm

Not really on topic but I’ve lost the tips bar so I’ll say it here
I’d like to introduce the skeptics here to John O’Sullivan (just to quote from his bio the first para)
John O’Sullivan was born in 1961 in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O’Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion
John has a legal background and used to write interesting articles for Climategate.com. He is a skeptic. He has an easy to understand style and adds humour when appropriate. He is currently writing for suite101.com. and relies on hits to keep him going. I urge the skeptics here to add his space on their favourites bar so you can check on his latest; here’s the link http://international-environmental-affairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/acid-oceans-due-undersea-volcanoes-not-humans
you can get access to all his articles from his bio

geo
April 4, 2010 6:25 pm

Ah, I did not realize that NSIDC is a five day average. Handy info to have. I imagine we’ll get their April report now next week.

Chuck Wiese
April 4, 2010 6:32 pm

David Appell: “While sea ice extent is higher than usual, ice VOLUME is not; and that’s the relevant factor as far as warming goes.”
REALLY? So if IR downwell from Co2 was causing melting, would we expect the ice to shrink and melt at the top or from underneath where you claim it is important to look? Hint: How far can IR radiation penetrate water or ice?
If IR radiation downwell was relevant here, why is the ice cover growing rapidly near the surface?
Chuck Wiese

hotrod ( Larry L )
April 4, 2010 6:33 pm

R. Gates (13:13:27) :
One thing that keeps cropping up on thread about arctic sea ice, especially by AGW skeptics is “the wind”. It’s really important to keep in mind that AGW
AGW is all about energy…energy flows, energy balance, etc. and energy on earth shows up in many different ways, and one of them is…WIND. If, as AGWT would posit, there is more net energy in the oceans, atmosphere etc. it would certainly stand to reason that one of the ways that energy would show up would be wind. Whenever there was wind, there was heating of the earth somewhere, and of course, all that energy came from the sun initially. In short, saying the ‘wind’ did it, does not in any many disassociate the wind from warming (for we know warming caused the wind initially) nor by extention, disassociate it from AGW.

Winds are driven by pressure differentials, temperatures can be one of the drivers that change pressures, but it is not a one edged sword. That delta T could be due to cooling, causing a differential in temperature and pressure.
Cooling due to evaporation (and resulting density changes) is the driver of out flow winds from thunderstorms, and heating due to release or latent heat of condensation and freezing drive the up drafts.
Wind can be caused by either heating or cooling, it is the change in relative air density, and pressure between two points that drive the winds.
You have to allow for the possibility that those winds are driven by cooling as well as heating.
Larry

April 4, 2010 6:37 pm

Smokey, I love your posts (and your vast library of clickable charts), but it is really picayune to hector R. Gates because he dignifies AGW as a ‘theory’, rather than an ‘hypothesis’ or a ‘conjecture’, or for that matter, a ‘wild-eyed fantasy’. There really are no understandings of these terms that are both (a) hard-and-fast and (b) universally accepted.
It doesn’t matter whether AGW is a ‘theory’ or a ‘conjecture’, or some collation of propositions that partake of both. What matters is whether AGW best explains the facts on the ground (and in the air, and in the sea) as we learn them, according to time-tested methods of science.
As far as I can see, it fails miserably. Whether that makes it a lousy conjecture or a worse theory is really immaterial. What matters is that it is wrong.
/Mr Lynn

Slabadang
April 4, 2010 6:42 pm

AGW theories total collapse!
The gulf stream were slowing down……WRONG!
Antarctic ice melting…………………………WRONG!
Arctic ice in a “death spiral…………………WRONG!
The earth is warming…………………………WRONG!
More severe storms and hurricanes……..WRONG!
More flooding…………………………………..WRONG!
The sealevels are raisng more rapidly…WRONG!
Glaciers melting faster than previous….WRONG!
Amazonas……………………………………….WRONG!
Kilimanjaro………………………………………WRONG!
Dutch area under water……………………..WRONG!
Scientific consensus about global W/co2…Thats more a joke??? WRONG!
Winter snow a thing of he past…. another joke!!! WRONG!
“Barbecue summer” …………………………another joke!!! WRONG!
There will be a hotspot in the atmospfere…………………………….WRONG!
When co2 inreases warming accours…. WRONG!
African harvests………………………………………………………………..WRONG!
Polarbears dying by global warming……a pure lie by WWF………WRONG!
Low summer ice extent arctic 2007 =global warming……………..WRONG!
Mediaval coooler than today ……oh yeah? say that to the vikings and the 400 published papers on the matter……an embarrasing intellectual insult..WRONG!
The hockeystick…….falsification in its bluntest form………………..WRONG!!!
How can anybody still belive in this crapscience??? On drugs???

Marlene Anderson
April 4, 2010 6:43 pm

R.Gates (and anyone else so inclined) please stop throwing out the word ‘consensus’ without defining who the consenting group is. That word has been so often used and misused in all things related to global warming that it’s meaningless. I speak for myself but undoubtedly there are others who see the word ‘consensus’ and automatically conclude the speaker is trying to shore up a weak argument. We’re well aware of the type of consensus coming from the climate scientists working for the IPCC.: they had a consensus to actively silence any voices that questioned AGW.

Anthony Scalzi
April 4, 2010 6:45 pm

I’d like to point out that the animation used in this post is Dave Beal’s, not mine.
As to the subject of this post, I’m glad that there’s a reasonable explanation for the apparent adjustments.

Francisco
April 4, 2010 6:46 pm

There are no measurements of average sea ice thickness for the whole Arctic,–especially going back to the start of the satellite data for sea ice surface. However that may be, there certainly must be a direct relation between total ice cover and total ice *volume*, I should think. The more ice cover there is, the more ice volume there is. Unless you believe that an increase in ice cover causes the older ice to get thinner as well.
The “thinner ice” argument seems to be brought up only when ice cover goes up. I suggest that the “thicker ice” argument be brought up when ice cover goes down, since the remaining ice must be thicker on average, it being concentrated on higher latitudes.
In any case, since no real data exists for average ice thickness that is not heavily dependent on modeling games, the argument is clearly a fall back safety net. The next step in this fall back process is “ocean acidification,” which is even harder to measure with any historical depth than ice thickness.
Global sea ice is virtually unchanged since measurements began in 1979, and attributing the insignificant changes to any particular cause is a guessing game not worth paying the slightest attention to.

April 4, 2010 6:53 pm

Gary Pearse (12:06:22) (addressing R. Gates):
. . .Surely, you rejoice that real scientific sceptics put a stop to the unholy alliance of politicized, the-science-is-settled, the-world-is-spiraling-into-disaster, fraudulent scientists, environmental organizations, 19th Century marxist iconoclasts and politicians, and they did it by application of science, not money and advertising. . .

Did this really happen? “O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! /He chortled in his joy.” But alas, I fear we should not yet chortle. Even as we speak the heads of finance in the Western World are meeting in London, planning resurrect in Bonn this summer the faltering financial scams based on apocalyptic ‘global warming’.
The skeptics have won a battle or two, but the alarmists have vast resources and large armies at their command. It won’t be over until they admit defeat, or (more likely) are driven from power by an outraged and overtaxed public. Where’s our vorpal blade?
/Mr Lynn
.

JackStraw
April 4, 2010 6:59 pm

R. Gates (13:38:43) :
>>I have admitted several times that I am only 75% convinced that AGWT is correct.
If you are only 75% certain then you are by definition skeptical. All you are arguing over is a matter of degrees. I’m only 2% certain that AGWT is correct but whether you like it or not you are closer to me than to Phil Jones who is 100% certain and admits to no chance of being wrong.
Perhaps you should stop addressing others as skeptics and start with something like “We skeptics…”. Embrace your skepticism.
>>I could generally care less about the political and other social commentary that goes on here,
That’s a shame. If you had been following this theory since it’s inception you would know that at the core it has always been more about politics and social commentary than science. I would have thought that obvious when the emails were exposed and the raw manipulation of the peer review process was exposed. Without political support, this theory would never have gotten off the ground and would have gone the way of the dodo years ago.
I’m enjoying watching honest scientists who have been slimed and muzzled for years batter the consensus of AGW but truthfully it really doesn’t need some of the complexity that people are using to destroy it. Once the curtain was pulled back on the methods and shoddy science behind this scam, much like the Wizard of Oz, the game was over. AGW supporters have not responded with calm, logical presentations of their data and methods but just the opposite, more hiding, more shrillness, more relying on their political masters who believe that islands can capsize for cover. The only death spiral we are witnessing is the slow but inexorable decline in the belief of AGW. Unlike sea ice, it is unlikely to rebound.
You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

April 4, 2010 7:03 pm

Mr Lynn (18:37:07),
You’re right, I over reacted. Not everyone thinks words are important. Next time I’ll try to be nicer to Ms Gates. Thanks to you & Mooloo for the feedback.

rbateman
April 4, 2010 7:07 pm

Plenty of shakin’ going on is So. Calif/Baja Calif.

April 4, 2010 7:07 pm

David Appell (18:04:23) :
a) today’s climate changes _are_ out of the ordinary, in that the natural factors present in recent decades cannot explain them. No calculation or model ever proposed by “skeptics” explains them. Climate models explain them when anthropogenic factors are taken into account. (This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs), http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp ).

The fact is, as Dendro Ed Cook so eloquently pointed out in the UEA Emails, we know virtually nothing with any certainty of climate variablility >100 years. So there’s no way anyone can say that modern climate is out of the ordinary (and you’d have to define “ordinary” in any case). And the point of Climate Audit’s findings largely shows that the proxies for past temperatures are wildly inconsistent. One has to do some extreme cherry-picking to get what you want.

Patrick Davis
April 4, 2010 7:25 pm

Slightly OT however, I was fortunate to have a chat with a young man last night while at some friends celebrating Easter who was convinced Arctic/Antarctic ice was melthing and that AGW was as real as his soccer desires. He kept using the word “believe” when talking about “global warming” and “climate change”, which to me implies factless faith, and was all due to C02 emissions etc (We both agreed that “cleaning up” consumption was a good thing). I asked where he was getting his “information”. School was the answer. Just out of interest I then asked him how much CO2 he thought was in the air. He said about 40%, according to his teachers. That worried me a bit, but was not a surprise really. He was quite shocked when I said the actual concentration of CO2 was only 0.0385%, or as we say here in Aus, 9 10ths of bugger all!
This is what is being taught in schools in Aus.

Craig Moore
April 4, 2010 7:44 pm

David Appell (18:17:44)
I agree, except those claims about the 2C degrees were made by scientists as their official offering of their professional craft. You correctly state such claims were bogus, however that did not stop those scientists from delivering the expected answer for the politicians. As the article I quoted stated: “To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.”
That is capturing the essence of a tipping point. Therefore, I cannot accept you original statement (“…the science of tipping points is
not yet that rigorous, and no scientist is making hard claims about them”) being valid.

Craig Moore
April 4, 2010 7:46 pm

note to moderators: Is there a way to have a review feature added before posting a comment? I didn’t mean to bold the last paragraph.
[Reply: Fixed. Sorry, but WordPress does not provide a preview function. ~dbs, mod.]

Phil's Dad
April 4, 2010 7:56 pm

“Back on April 2nd, it looked like Arctic Sea ice would cross the “normal” line.”
Depends which normal you normaly use!
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

rbateman
April 4, 2010 8:02 pm

Jeff Alberts (19:07:47) :
I agree that station records < 130 years are insufficient to show what is really going on with climate, local, regional or otherwise.
However, there are a fair number of such station records, and they need to be kept up. Also, there are plenty of stations nearing 90 years that need to be looked after, and in some case, put back on line. You don't want to be saying 40 years from now how much we regretted not staying with it.
In the current situation, with stations of record being shut down or moved too far, the institutions are heading in the wrong direction 3/4 through the race.
This is no time for quitting.

Chuck Wiese
April 4, 2010 8:11 pm

David Appell: “I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that ice is being melted directly by infrared radiation, but by warmer air and ocean water.”
This demonstrates a lack of understanding radiation basics. IR transfer by CO2 at LTE does not warm the atmosphere, infact the upper troposphere is cooled by the 15 micron emission reaching a peak at upper tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. Kirchhoff’s law holds in the troposphere and what is absorbed by Co2 becomes the IR downwell to the surface. Theoretically, it is the downwell that reduces surface cooling and allows the SURFACE to warm. ( although I seriously question the importance of this with the window and the bulk of H20 absorption being at shorter
wavelengths ) The only way the troposphere is warmed is by dry and moist convection from water vapor, as well as conduction from the surface, although that is a minor process.
If Co2 radiation is contributing to arctic melting, then it makes no sense that ice growth as we are seeing would be possible as CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere.

Steve Oregon
April 4, 2010 8:13 pm

Why is this Appell guy trotting out all this old nonsense.
“No calculation or model ever proposed by “skeptics” explains them. [Only]Climate models explain them when anthropogenic factors are taken into account.”
The so called “explanation” is nothing but therorizing in an environment of vast unknowns and many errors and does nothing to provided evidence of AGW.
Yet Appell appears thoroughly convinced of all things AGW.
I see he also picks and chooses what to respond to. Leaving the more cogent and debunking responses to his claims unanswered.
Apparently he reads what he wants to read.
His preference for truncating a conversation when it becomes problematic for his case is common practice among the more aggresive and fanatic warmers.

Craig Moore
April 4, 2010 8:14 pm

Every time I look at the animated chart above with the frisky blue line, the imagine of nurse Ratched threatening with a cold spoon comes to mind.

jorgekafkazar
April 4, 2010 8:28 pm

David Appell (18:17:44) : “First of all, the 2C target is not based strictly on concerns about tipping points. Nor it is a scientific target. It’s more a target based on a vast assay of the situation…”
More accurately yet, it’s based on a half-vast assay of the situation from Herr Dr. Schnellhubris.

jorgekafkazar
April 4, 2010 8:33 pm

David Appell (15:33:14) : “In any case, your comment is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is: is the Arctic ocean warming or not? If you want to measure that via ice, you need to consider the total volume of ice, not just its surface area. It’s very relevant that the yearly ice is getting younger, ie thinner.
No, the discussion at hand is the Arctic ice extent.
“If you want to drive across a lake, do you care only if there is ice on the surface. Or do you also care about how thick it is?”
A false analogy. Nor is the thinner ice established as factual.

Geoff Sherrington
April 4, 2010 8:41 pm

R. Gates (09:38:16) : I love the anthropomorphism…”nature is laughing at us…”
Maybe the formal reference is from Einstein – “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.”

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 4, 2010 8:54 pm

Steve Oregon (20:13:28) :
I guess he doesn’t know this about climate models:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
On the credibility of climate predictions (peer-reviewed)
Abstract
“Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4364173/On-the-credibility-of-climate-predictions
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
and I guess he doesn’t know about this:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (peer-reviewed)
Abstract
“We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
and, he doesn’t know about this, I guess:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations (peer-reviewed)
The warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen’s ‘‘infrared iris’’ hypothesis of climate stabilization. (i.e., clouds have a negative feedback)
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Ira
April 4, 2010 9:11 pm

According to Accuweather, and Eurekalert, Danish scientists claim that algae and plants play a critical role in creating clouds.
“The reason for the lack of clouds back in earth’s childhood can be explained by the process by which clouds form. This process requires chemical substances that are produced by algae and plants, which did not exist at the time.
The Danish scientists were trying to explain why the Earth was not covered by ice around 4 million years ago, when the Sun was 25-30% fainter than it is now. Their explanation is that the lack of algae and plants, prior to the origin of life on Earth, reduced cloud formation and therefore allowed the faint Sunlight to reach the surface and warm the Earth.
Prior to this new theory, scientists had explained the lack of ice as due to CO2 concentrations as high as 30%. New data indicates CO2 was less than 0.1%, only three or four times current levels.
I think this finding is important in the global warming debate. Greater cloud cover has a net cooling effect. Chemical substances released by the Biosphere have a positive effect on the formation of clouds. Therefore, warming of the surface that increased algae and plants would release more of these chemical substances and create more cloud cover, thereby moderating the warming. (The Biosphere effect would be in addition to the increased water vaporization due to warmer surface temperatures which would also increase cloud cover.)
Has the Biosphere has evolved to self-regulate and stabilize surface temperatures by modulating cloud cover? If so, this would explain a rational, science-based “Gaia” effect.

April 4, 2010 9:15 pm

[Reply: Fixed. Sorry, but WordPress does not provide a preview function. ~dbs, mod.]
Then why do other wordpress blogs have it?
Example is JoNova’s blog
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/greenpeace-are-coming-we-know-where-you-live/#comments
You can ask her about Steve LeMaster who fixed it up for her.He used to be the owner of the forum I now own.
REPLY: If you operate a blog on your own server, you can add such plugins. WUWT operates on wordpress.com as does climateaudit.org. They don’t allow the preview plugin for some reason. – Anthony

Ira
April 4, 2010 9:18 pm

[revised to change “million” to “billion”] According to Accuweather, and Eurekalert, Danish scientists claim that algae and plants play a critical role in creating clouds.
“The reason for the lack of clouds back in earth’s childhood can be explained by the process by which clouds form. This process requires chemical substances that are produced by algae and plants, which did not exist at the time.
The Danish scientists were trying to explain why the Earth was not covered by ice around 4 billion years ago, when the Sun was 25-30% fainter than it is now. Their explanation is that the lack of algae and plants, prior to the origin of life on Earth, reduced cloud formation and therefore allowed the faint Sunlight to reach the surface and warm the Earth.
Prior to this new theory, scientists had explained the lack of ice as due to CO2 concentrations as high as 30%. New data indicates CO2 was less than 0.1%, only three or four times current levels.
I think this finding is important in the global warming debate. Greater cloud cover has a net cooling effect. Chemical substances released by the Biosphere have a positive effect on the formation of clouds. Therefore, warming of the surface that increased algae and plants would release more of these chemical substances and create more cloud cover, thereby moderating the warming. (The Biosphere effect would be in addition to the increased water vaporization due to warmer surface temperatures which would also increase cloud cover.)
Has the Biosphere has evolved to self-regulate and stabilize surface temperatures by modulating cloud cover? If so, this would explain a rational, science-based “Gaia” effect.

Ryan C
April 4, 2010 9:20 pm

R Gates: What exactly, is the “normal” global sea ice average extent?

Ryan C
April 4, 2010 9:21 pm

Or do you think that a 21 year average from 1979-2000 on a planet that is approx. 5.5 billion years old is a large enough sample?
21/5500000000…. Think about it.

R. Gates
April 4, 2010 9:28 pm

In response to many posts:
Sorry if the use of the word “rot” has insulted some, regarding my own lack of caring about the political side of the AGW debate. It simply does not interest me in this particular venue. Trust me, in my work-a-day life, I get plenty of politics, and you’d probably be surprised where I stand on issues. Be that as it my, I come here for the scientific discussions, really want and need to get a break from the politics, and simply was responding to the suggestion that I am a “spammer”.
And Smokey, I’m here for the long haul. I won’t go away just because you think I should, and I’ll keep calling AGW a theory in the general sense of the word, and I think the meaning is quite clear. You can give me all the reasons you want for me not using the word, but I think you are splitting hairs and simply don’t like the fact that I’m one of the few AGW “warmists” who won’t go away when challenged with what I consider nonsense.

GaryT
April 4, 2010 9:44 pm

Ice! Ice! My kingdom for some ice!
For a movement hellbent on change (the progressives), they sure don’t walk the talk when it comes to the Earth. They are so sure of what the Earth’s climate should be (though none will tell us), that it can not “change”. They want to look at a piece of ice and proclaim that if anything happens to that ice, we are all going to perish.
Here is what I say. Find and use all of the energy possible to help make life work for your nation. Allow prosperity and intellect within the society. Have faith that a new energy source will be discovered before society folds. If you worry; do not have children. We (people) have as much right to this planet as Ebola, AIDS, or bubonic have. But stop herding the people. Leave that for cattle and sheep. We are, after all, smarter then they are.

Roger Carr
April 4, 2010 9:45 pm

Thanks for bringing this to Anthony’s attention in Tips & Notes, Dave.
It has produced a very interesting thread.
(Tips & Notes. Dave Beal (07:45:06) 🙂

Hockeystickler
April 4, 2010 10:38 pm

R. Gates – continue to post on on this site ; I find your comments to be an interesting challenge to my beliefs. I do not consider you to be a spammer, but someone who, like the rest of us, is looking for the truth. I may not agree with your views, but I am willing to hear them. cheers.

Anu
April 4, 2010 10:40 pm

Tom in Florida (12:00:29) :
Everyone is trotting out the words “average” and ‘normal”. I will once again remind everyone that the “averge” and “normal” is simply based on an arbitrary baseline period from 1979 -2000. Nothing more, nothing less.

Climate “averages” are usually based on some 30 year period.
Now that the sea ice data started with satellite observations in 1979 have a 30 year dataset, some sites are starting to use those averages:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
You’re right, in some sense this “average” is arbitrary.
But in another sense, non-cyclic climate trends are significant, especially if they were forecast as the early stages of a dangerous century-scale planetary climate change. Since the average human life expectancy is 67.2 years these days, climate change on time scales of 50,000 years, or 50 million, will not get much attention or worry. But for people with children and grandchildren, or corporations and countries looking ahead to the 22nd century, time scales of 100 years is serious.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
People can explain a 30 year trend like this differently (part of a 60 year ocean cycle ? An unusual statistical fluke ? Measurement/analysis errors ? Changes in wind patterns because of deforestation ? Who cares ? ), but it was one of the early (1980’s) climatologist predictions as to what would happen because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. They don’t get $billions in funding to study this stuff because of their good looks.
If the trendline were to reverse, that would be a big surprise to many climatologists. Some say they expect the trendline to nosedive down (nonlinear), because of endgame effects in the Arctic (ice thinning, faster summer heating with low albedo water vs. high albedo ice/snow , methane outgassing from permafrost melting, whatever). That’s the basis for those “ice free in the Arctic summers by 2013” predictions.
Could it drop 3 million sq km of sea ice area lower than summer 2007 that quickly ?
Very few scientists say yes.

April 4, 2010 10:41 pm

I am not convinced that there is no fudging here. On the amplified animated gif, which you see by clicking on the gif, if you put the point of your cursor on the end point on March 31, then on April 1, the line has dropped by one pixel. Okay, let’s assume some kind of rounding error is to blame. But then, on April 2, it drops by yet another pixel. No kind of rounding error can take you from N to N-2. If the graph is done automatically by computer, this just cannot happen (assuming there is a data point each day, which there is). So no, I cannot agree that this has not been fudged, unless someone can explain clearly a mathematical mechanism – any mechanism – that results in rounding skipping an integer.
The same pattern repeats for the pixel appearing on April 1. The April 2 pixel is the maximum point of the graph – on April 2. But on April 3 the point has dropped below March 31, which now becomes the (lower than it was on March 31!) maximum. The curve resembles most a piece of rope being pushed forwards and flopping over, it doesn’t have any hallmarks of a record of fixed historical events at all.
I have prepared a modified graphic showing all four curves for easy comparison:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/was-data-manipulated
To me this has fraud written all over it. BTW, if anyone thinks WUWT is just a “shill for Big Oil” or some such, Anthony’s reticence to point the finger at this strange sequence of graphics should change their minds.
What we really need is the actual data – no, not as it can be downloaded today, but as it was on the server at the same time each plot was put up. But unless someone has done this, I don’t see how we can trust NSIDC.

April 4, 2010 10:53 pm

R. Gates (09:38:16) :
I love the anthropomorphism…”nature is laughing at us…”
But don’t give up you who are AGW sceptics, it may still cross that barrier. 🙂
REPLY: Actually, the 2009-2010 line is well within one standard deviation of the 1979-2000 average, so for all practical purposes, it has crossed the barrier. 😉
Anthony, considering all the publicity that the NSIDC graphs have had over the past few days, don’t you think they might try to dress up their upcoming report for damage control? The Telegraph story was a killer, and there are tons more online.
We shall see!

Steve Oregon
April 4, 2010 11:01 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:54:46) :
“Steve Oregon (20:13:28) :
I guess he doesn’t know this about climate models”
I predict Appell will not reply to your post.

Anu
April 4, 2010 11:11 pm

Francisco (18:46:25) :
There are no measurements of average sea ice thickness for the whole Arctic,–especially going back to the start of the satellite data for sea ice surface.

They have declassified US Navy submarine sonar measurements of ice thickness over 38% of the Arctic from about 1975-2000, and ICESat satellite laser altimeter measurements of ice thickness for 2004 to 2009 over 100% of the Arctic (minus the Pole Hole, which is not observable because of the details of the polar orbit).
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
Recent estimates of Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry show a remarkable overall thinning of ~0.6 m in ice thickness between 2004 and 2008 (Figure. S4a).
The last ICESat laser failed on 11 October 2009, and the satellite was retired in Feb 2010. The US has plans to launch an ICESat II perhaps in 2015. Europe has plans to launch a similar CryoSat this week (April 8).
Yes, climatologists are very interested in the thickness of ice – too bad the data is relatively recent, or only part of the Arctic. That’s the problem with continual improvements in monitoring the planet’s climate – the best data is the most recent.

Anu
April 5, 2010 12:00 am

Ron House (22:41:27) :
I am not convinced that there is no fudging here. On the amplified animated gif,

http://peacelegacy.org/articles/was-data-manipulated
To me this has fraud written all over it.

Like the article above says, and which is explained here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/about_images.html
the graph of Arctic sea ice extent is a 5 day moving average.
Daily Sea Ice Extent Graphs

The daily extent graphs provide a snapshot of changes in ice extent for the last five months. A five-day running average is used to smooth insignificant day to day changes. We assume the area around the pole that the satellite does not image is covered by ice. The graphs show a time series for each hemisphere for the last four months (solid blue line). Both graphs also include a comparison line for the 1979 to 2000 average (solid gray line). As of February 2010, we have added the range of standard deviation to our daily extent chart. The light gray area around the 1979 to 2000 average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data, which serves as an estimate of the expected range of natural variability.

Roger Carr
April 5, 2010 12:50 am

Craig Moore (19:46:44) : note to moderators: Is there a way to have a review feature…
Greasemonkey will add this feature to WUWT if you run Firefox, Craig.
Anthony: This ap takes over the comments box on WUWT and makes it into a fully fledged preview panel.

Caleb
April 5, 2010 1:16 am

R Gates,
Could you repost the link you gave to the article about how indigenous tribes have been affected by climate change? I’ve been trying to find where you gave it in a past WUWT posts, and can’t locate it.
I was interested in the third culture it mentioned, which was down in southern Mexico and affected by “unseasonable frosts” or “untimely frosts.”
I was also interested in the Inuit culture mentioned, as I enjoy studying how peoples (such as the Greenland Vikings) have adjusted to changes in the climate.
One thing that has become obvious to me is that “indigenous tribes” tended to live very “close to the edge,” and had a sort of love-hate relationship with nature. A single “bad year,” in terms of weather (or insects or blight,) could reduce the population by more than half, and at times could inspire an entire population to pack up and move.
Until quite recently there was no rescue from outside, or helicopters dropping food. No welfare. No checks in the mail. No UN. No one to blame, unless you were in the mood to blame a neighbor for offending the gods.
Once you start looking at things in terms of hundreds of years, rather than decades, it becomes fairly obvious that “indigenous tribes” don’t remain “indigenous” forever. If nature doesn’t evict them, another tribe comes along and evicts them. The people get told to “move along; nothing to see here,” and become “indigenous” to a new area.
One interesting people to follow are the Goths. They started out around the Baltic, but were driven south to the Caspian, where they formed Caspian Kingdoms which lasted over two hundred years, (as long as the USA has existed.) The Romans warred with them from the west, and unnamed peoples warred with them from the east. Eventually they packed up, likely due to climate change as well as pressure from the east, and headed west, sacking Rome and other European cities, with the Visigoths (West Goths) heading all the way to Spain, and then across the Straits of Gibraltar to Morocco and heading back east nearly to Egypt. In other words, a people “indigenous” to the Baltic wound up “indigenous” to the Sahara.
Sadly, when looking at these mass migrations it is not possible to blame nature alone. Man’s inhumanity to man often plays a large part. It appears in the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” and in Scotland’s “Highland Clearances.” It appears in the Navaho “Long March” and in the “Irish Potato Famine.” It appears in Hitler’s, Stalin’s and Mao’s ways of “relocating” people.
When one has an awareness of how some can dress-up the forced relocation of thousands and even millions in sweet-talk, it is impossible to accept Cap and Trade without a deep sense of unease. After all, I have known environmentalists who strongly believe reducing the worlds population by a couple billion is not only necessary, but urgent.
What is most amazing to me is to hear such people speak with deep concern about “indigenous tribes” one moment, and then of a “population reduction” of two billion the next.

Allan M
April 5, 2010 1:19 am

Craig Moore (19:44:10) :
David Appell (18:17:44)
I agree, except those claims about the 2C degrees were made by scientists as their official offering of their professional craft. You correctly state such claims were bogus, however that did not stop those scientists from delivering the expected answer for the politicians. As the article I quoted stated: “To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.”
The Holocene Optimum and the Eemian interglacial were both before the beginning of industialisation. It would be a big job to get warmer than those times.

Roger Carr
April 5, 2010 1:23 am

Preview panel: Read about it here.
It appears to have been made for Climate Audit, but works fawlessly on WUWT

Freddie
April 5, 2010 2:35 am

What would happen when the “normal average” would include the whole time of satellite measurements? My guess is that we would be save in average territory??
Regrards from the Swiss mountains where it is still snowing??

From Holland
April 5, 2010 2:45 am

The comment on the standard deviation in above reply, AGAIN show many people do not understnad statistics. Let me EXPLAIN:
the standard deviation is the variability of the population of data points, i.e. it shows the variability of the measurement sequence, which is from 1979 to 2000 . A mere 20 year period!
The thus established shown standard deviation does say nothing, but absolutely NOTHING about the varibaility in ice extent over 100 or even 1000’s of years, hence it is meaninless when used in variability type claims.
NB What’s happend with school levels in the US.. Damn some of you’re guys are stupid.

April 5, 2010 2:57 am

Caleb (01:16:21) :
What is most amazing to me is to hear such people speak with deep concern about “indigenous tribes” one moment, and then of a “population reduction” of two billion the next.
Welcome to the Court of the Green Queen, where it is mandatory to believe ten contradictory things before breakfast, and words only mean what Her Extremeness says they mean. But don’t bother memorizing the definitions — they’ll have changed before suppertime.

anna v
April 5, 2010 4:31 am

Re: sunsettommy (Apr 4 21:15),
There exists a plug in for Firefox that works and give a preview function to this board. It was developed for Climate Audit and it works here and at Lucia’s.
Go to http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/
and follow instructions.
What this provides today:

– Comment ‘Tag’ buttons above the Reply box
– Comment preview (click to toggle between preview/edit modes)
– Replies include thread links; “Paste Link” feature also provided for referencing multiple comments
– Comment sorting and thread enable/disable – new comments always collected together, even if nested!
– Color-coding of newer comments, and/or hiding old comments
– Ability to update to new CA Assistant version within the script (see the Settings popup)
– Works on all Open Science Web Ring blogs
– (new!) Reorganizes “Recent Comments” list to more easily see which topics have been updated
– (new!) Lucia’s blog has faster/better support
– (new!) Hides old comments while retaining their (author/date) context (on RomanM and Lucia’s blogs)

It works.
Reply: It works really well. I strongly recommend it birthday buddy. ~ ctm

Chris Wright
April 5, 2010 4:33 am

Jordan (11:58:08) :
You quoted Vicky Pope of the Met Office:
“The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this,” Pope said.
Well, that’s a bit rich. I heard her on the BBC Today program about a year ago. She was asked what was the proof of AGW. And her answer was the heat wave in France! Perhaps she should listen to her own advice.
About the ice graph:
I think some people may have missed the real point. It was not curious that the trend might start to flatten or even go down. What was curious was the way this flattening trend seemed to have gone backwards in time.
It’s obvious that if the line went through the long-term trend then it would be of great political significance as well as a victory for the sceptics. The temptation to ‘adjust’ the trend downwards would be enormous.
But I’m not saying that’s what happened. There’s an obvious question: do these backward adjustments occur all the time? It would be really great to see a similar animated graph over a few months. Is that possible? Then it would be easier to judge whether a suspicious and unusual adjustment had occurred just before the line broke through the barrier.
Chris

David S
April 5, 2010 4:39 am

Seems the NSIDC are still struggling to find words to express how scary a return to normal ice levels could be, or maybe delaying their report a few days in the hope that there will be a sudden melt to save their blushes

Reply to  David S
April 5, 2010 4:48 am

David S,
Uh it’s still Easter Sunday Weekend here in the US. Have a little patience. I’m sure the doublespeak will emerge soon enough.

John from CA
April 5, 2010 5:04 am

sorry to ask such a silly question:
– most of the images I’ve seen refer to sea ice in terms of concentration or extent. Are the two terms intended to mean the same thing and do either account for concentration in terms of ice depth?

Gary Pearse
April 5, 2010 5:15 am

Nansen ice area and ice extent was off line for several days but they still come up now with a major rise above the long term average – and Norwegians invented the arctic didn’t they?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Jimbo
April 5, 2010 5:15 am

4 April 2010
From what I can see the sea ice extent for this time of the year is ahead of all the years since 2002.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Sea ice area seems ‘normal.’
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

David Appell
April 5, 2010 5:27 am

Craig Moore wrote:
> As the article I quoted stated: “To avoid even greater damage to
> human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature
> on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than
> it was before the beginning of industrialization. ”
>
> That is capturing the essence of a tipping point.
No, it is not.
A “tipping point” is the point at which a physical system needs no further input to continue to change.
You can rock a canoe back and forth, but as long as it is below some critical angle the canoe won’t tip over. But if the rocking canoe passes a certain angle, it will flip over, regardless of whether you instantly cease your rocking motion or not.
Your quoted statement says nothing about any tipping points. It speculates about risk and damage. It’s like saying we really ought not tip this canoe past 10 degrees, because someone might hit their head on the gunwale or fall out or it will scare the children. That’s very different from saying you should not rock the canoe past some critical angle because the whole thing will tip over.

Steve Goddard
April 5, 2010 5:30 am

NZ Willy (18:12:00) :
Arctic ice always starts a rapid decline this time of year, because the sun is getting up high in the sky and is warming temperatures.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

geo
April 5, 2010 5:31 am

“Long-time baseline”. 21 yrs. Yawn. Worse, so far they have made a conscious decision to not increase the baseline to 2009 and get a 30 year baseline, which they admit is a standard thing to do as 30 years is one of those baseline periods that has traditional useage in science. They claim to be afraid of “confusion” if they change the baseline. Well, it’s pretty clear what “confusion” they are afraid of –for them, “confusion” means “if the comparisons look better, we’ll confuse our message of trying to scare people”. Here we are arguing about whether it is important to be above that line –if it was a 30 yr baseline, it’d already be significantly above that line.
The other reason this is so objectionable, is there is significant reason to think there is a real natural variability cycle of two 30 yr 1/2 cycles making a full 60 yr cycle, and that the start of the satellite age is roughly analgous with the start of the warmer 1/2 of that cycle.
We know there’s some lag in the reaction of the ice pack to changes in climate. It doesn’t happen overnight, it takes years –decades even.
Look at that submarine ice thickness data from the mid 70s to the early 80’s, at the tail end of the last 30 year cool period transitioning into the early part of the warm cycle. You’ll see that it is ramping upwards quickly at that point. Extend the trend it shows backwards and I wonder what you’d get around 1945? Maybe something that looks a lot like 2007? Could be.
But anyway, there are multiple credible reasons why NSIDC should be using a 30 year baseline instead of their “musn’t give skeptics any ammo” decision to stick with the 21 year baseline. Tho they are probably feeling pretty good about their decision right now –because here we are arguing about whether it has any meaning that we are dancing around the higher one they have artificially chosen to stick with, even when they admit the decsion was political rather than scientific.

April 5, 2010 5:53 am

anna v (04:31:37) :
Re: sunsettommy (Apr 4 21:15),
There exists a plug in for Firefox that works and give a preview function to this board. It was developed for Climate Audit and it works here and at Lucia’s.
Go to http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/
and follow instructions. . .

According to the comments on CA, the plugin doesn’t work with Safari. Do you know if it will work with Camino, which is also a Mozilla product, and which I prefer to Firefox on the Mac?
/Mr Lynn

April 5, 2010 5:54 am

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/news.aspx?newsId=40
So the catlin picnic
uses a “cool box” which is of course
a heated hot box
to keep samples from freezing–
and they expect the heated samples will
not show any increase in
biological or chemical activity from
the heat–
and they boast about heating the
samples -seeking praise for
imbecility.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/news.aspx?newsId=40

Tom in Florida
April 5, 2010 5:58 am

Anu (22:40:37) : “But in another sense, non-cyclic climate trends are significant especially if they were forecast as the early stages of a dangerous century-scale planetary climate change”
How would one know when the baseline is only 21 years? If one were to project this information onto a graph covering the last 12,000 years how would it look? Not so dramatic? Not so scary? So why is it done this way? See below.
“They don’t get $billions in funding to study this stuff because of their good looks”
They get funding because their published results agree with and help promote the political positions of the fundor.

John from CA
April 5, 2010 6:18 am

Thanks Gary Pearse (05:15:43) :
The link explained area, extent, and concentration.

April 5, 2010 6:22 am

Anu (00:00:24): Like the article above says, and which is explained here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/about_images.html
the graph of Arctic sea ice extent is a 5 day moving average.

How does a 5-day moving average change this? If they are putting up data for yesterday, then either the five days must be trailing days, because tomorrow hasn’t happened yet and today isn’t complete, or the last few plotted points are not five day averages.
If the data averages five days ending on the day plotted (trailing), then future data can not change the plotted point for a past day, and the graphs shown are fudged. If the last few points are not five day averages, then their description which you quote is incorrect. Either way there’s something amiss.

David Appell
April 5, 2010 6:36 am

So let’s look at the paper reference above
> On the credibility of climate predictions (peer-reviewed)
> … Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas
> a common argument that models can perform better at larger
> spatial scales is unsupported.”
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/4364173/On-the-credibility-of-climate-
> predictions
No climate scientist I know has claimed that today’s climate models work on regional or local scales — indeed, I see this goal as on their To Do list for this coming decade. So the Koutsoyiannis paper (hereafter “Kout”) seems to be a lot of words and charts about something that was not claimed in the first place.
It’s silly to compare models of water resources engineering to global climate models. The former will obviously be much, much simpler than the latter. Climate is an enormously complex phenomenon, and modeling it, with the state of today’s technology, is very very difficult. It is not expected to be accurate on small spatial scales. For example, Kout Table 1 looks at Albany NY, while climate models have a resolution (Kout Table 2) of about 2.5 deg x 2.5 deg. 2.5 degrees on the globe is about 173 miles, so the grid goes from about the NY/Vermont-Canadian border to central NJ. And from Rochester, NY to Boston. 30,000 sq miles. And they choose one station (Albany) as representative?
Likewise, looking at 30-yr averages of one solitary point (Albany) for a grid this large proves nothing.
On the other hand, the long-term, global accuracy of GCMs is discussed in great detail in the IPCC 4AR. Even Hansen’s 1989 climate model for BAU was not that far off, when projected to today. And that was a model run 20 yrs ago on vastly smaller computers with much less climate knowledge.
This is getting afield, anyway. The concern over AGW is that, based on fundamental physics, GHGs warm planets. Climate models concur (as they must), and as far as I know no calculation or model has ever shown anything different. THAT’s what all the big fuss is about, not whether 20-yr old climate models correctly predict the decade-to-decade conditions in Albany NY. Will global temperatures be 2 C in 2100, or 6 C? No ones knows (and, you’ll notice, IPCC composite models have rather large error bands that far out, and the scientists have never claimed otherwise). Could it be 2 C? Perhaps. It could equally well be 6 C. It could be higher. Do you want to just wait and find out? We can’t afford that. 2 C (4 F) would be bad enough. 6 C could well be devastating.
At some point (and we’ve passed this point) this ceases to be a scientific problem and becomes an environmental problem. That is, there is only so much science can currently predict (and this may not necessarily change in the future due to the underlying dynamics of complex PDE equations), and while research certainly needs to be done in that area, we need to accept that there will _always_ be uncertainties with things we don’t know or cannot project. SO WHAT?” GHGs warm planets. We keep emitting GHGs. And, to no one’s surprise, the planet is warming.
-=-=-
The Douglass et al paper was shown to be wrong by Santer et al. This has been discussed all over the Web and you can look this up for yourself:
“Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere,” International Journal of Climatology,
Volume 28, Issue 13, Date: 15 November 2008, Pages: 1703-1722
B. D. Santer et al.
Besides, Douglass’s strong ideological bent (as evidenced by his op-eds) concerns me.

A C Osborn
April 5, 2010 6:44 am

Slabadang (18:42:24) :
I agree with your list except I think this
The earth is warming…………………………WRONG!
Should have been
The earth is showing Unprecedented warming……WRONG!
Also you missed –
Coral dying from Heat – (actually dying from cold) …..WRONG!
More Animals dying from Heat – (actually dying from cold) …..WRONG!
More Collateral Damage from weather extremes………..WRONG!
US Lakes Drying up…………………………WRONG!
Spring Coming earlier…………………………WRONG!
More Humans dying from Heat – (actually dying from cold) …..WRONG!
Frogs extinct fro AGW – (actually a virus) …..WRONG!

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 5, 2010 7:13 am

Steve Oregon (23:01:35) :
Amino Acids in Meteorites (20:54:46) :
“Steve Oregon (20:13:28) :
I guess he doesn’t know this about climate models”
I predict Appell will not reply to your post.

Is that a 5 year forecast? Will he still be ‘reply free’ in 5 years? 50? 100? And has that been peer-reviewed?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 5, 2010 7:17 am

David Appell (06:36:03) :
The Douglass et al paper was shown to be wrong by Santer
Did he find it in a dark alley?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 5, 2010 7:19 am

David Appell (06:36:03) :
Dave, it’s good that you have long comments so we can see how much you know.

Craig Moore
April 5, 2010 7:20 am

David Appell (05:27:14)
The German scientists don’t agree with you. Nor does Dr. Hansen. SeeThe Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/18/bookextracts.books

The phrase “tipping point” is heard a lot more from scientists. This is where a small amount of warming sets off unstoppable changes, for example the melting of the ice caps. Once the temperature rises a certain amount then all the ice caps will melt. The tipping point in many scientists’ view is the 2˚C rise that the EU has adopted as the maximum limit that mankind can risk. Beyond that, as unwelcome changes in the earth’s reaction to extra warmth continue, it is theoretically possible to trigger runaway climate change, making the earth’s atmosphere so different that most of life would be threatened.

====================
Now if that is not what those scientists intended, why have they sat silently for over 10 years regarding the 2C tipping point?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 5, 2010 7:21 am

A C Osborn (06:44:27) :
The long list of ‘wrong’ won’t phase the believers or those with ulterior motives. Heck, look at Dave Appell; nothing is phasing him.

ron from Texas
April 5, 2010 7:27 am

It was noted in one post that new sea ice in the Bering Sea was 4 to 12 inches, not considered a great thickness, but there, nevertheless. Now, as some of you will know from living in northern climates where you have plenty of snow and ice (though, after this winter, I could almost add Texas to the list), you know of the practice of salting the sidewalk, driveway, even the roads. This is because adding any particulate or object, be it salt, CO2, or the latest cd from Scorpions will “lower” the freezing temperature of the medium, namely water. Actually, what is happening is not that the freezing temp of 32 F has magically been lowered, but the presence of a physical body interferes with the freezing process. But the effect is less than a 2 degree difference. Sea water is salt water, simplistically, though there are many other compounds in their, as well. It is thought that lesser winds in the Bering Sea are allowing the ice to pile up. So, it is wind that is helping to determine the ice cover, as well. But the temps are still cold enough to freeze sea water, which is my point.
Further I would propose that CO2 amounts do not drive the winds, specifically the jet stream. I would also propose that CO2 is incapable of re-emitting it’s absorbed radiation in one direction only, name toward the troposphere. Also, in the process of convection, which is how an air conditioner works, a heated object will not release heat to an object the same temperature or higher than itself but will release to a cooler region or object. This is why a hot air balloon works. The ouput of a burner on a balloon is CO2 and it should be more properly called a hot CO2 balloon. The heated gas causes the balloon to rise until it meets a cooler layer of atmosphere and then it begins to transfer heat, hindered only by the material of the balloon. In fact, you get the balloon to descend by allowing it to cool, with intermittent heating to keep it from cooling too fast.
Couple that with the limited response range for CO2 per density, and there could be no more than a degree or two of warming at its theoretical limits. Most of the calculated warming of CO2 is in the first approx 50 ppm. The calculated load in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was around 280 ppm, if I remember correctly. Which means that the largest part of the warming is in the natural signal, with or without Man’s output. Any increase is logarithmically smaller and smaller, as in fairly indetectable.
CO2 total load is .038 percent of the total atmosphere. Man’s contribution is, on average, .03 percent of the total carbon load. Which makes Man’s contribution .00113 percent of the total atmosphere. And that .00113 percent is supposed to cause a 10 to 15 F rise?
All a gas does is vary the heat exchange rate until the system reaches equilibrium. This is why a pot of water boils. The water temp is truly controlled by the heat of an external source, such as a stovetop burner. That is analgous to the Sun warming the planet. Or, more accurately, how much other additional radiation reaches the Earth pass the magnetic field provided by the Sun, which varies by the strength of solar flare activity. That is, other sources outside the planet turn the heat up and down, not the gases in our fluid atmosphere.

ron from Texas
April 5, 2010 7:34 am

My bad. I should also add that an air conditioner works by using the Ideal Gas Law. Namely, changing pressure. Gas is pressurized from the compressor and goes to the evaporator coils in the central air handler. Warm air drawn in through the return air plenum is pulled across the cooled evaporator and heat moves from hot to cold. Now, the heated refrigerant gas is pushed along to the outside unit that has condenser coils. The condenser coils are lower in pressure and a gas that goes through a drop in pressure readily gives away its heat as the molecules are now allowed to escape from each other. This heat is transferred to the condenser coils and that blower motor out there (called a condenser motor by HVAC techs) pulls the air that has been heated by the condenser coil giving away its heat away and out to other cooler regions of air. Technically, any air conditioner system is a “heat pump” as all you are ever doing is allowing heat to pass from hot to cold (the law of thermodynamics.)

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 5, 2010 7:47 am

David Appell (06:36:03) :
Dave,
you did know that Santer is one of the ClimateGate scientists, didn’t you?

Frank K.
April 5, 2010 7:55 am

David Appell (06:36:03)
Hmmm… on the one hand we have David Appell saying…
“No climate scientist I know has claimed that todays climate models work on regional or local scales indeed, I see this goal as on their To Do list for this coming decade…”
…and on the other we have esteemed climate scientist Heidi Cullen with…
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/the_future_of_freezing
???

mike roddy
April 5, 2010 7:56 am

David Appell, thanks for posting here. The skills needed are really those of a junior high science teacher, since the regulars on this blog do not even know the basics, but you have shown much needed patience and perserverance.
Most won’t listen, since they are mostly older white men, who get their information from Fox, and whose views are set in concrete, but a few will. That makes it worthwhile.
REPLY: Mr Roddy demonstrates the face of environmentalism today, dealing in stereotypes he holds dear and applying it to others he disagrees with. Since he labels WUWT readers as “mostly older white men” I felt it valuable that our readers get a perspective on Mr. Roddy’s claim. Here’s a publicly available photo from another blog of him:
Mike Roddy
“older white men”, heh.
The blog post that accompanies the photo says:
Climate activist Mike Roddy of Yucca Valley, California, sets sights on powerful global warming movie set in year 2112 A.D.

He plans to call the movie “2112”. And he’s very serious and determined.

– Anthony

mike roddy
April 5, 2010 8:03 am

sustantia8, thanks for the film clip.
Most of the contrarians will be dead or forgotten by the time the everyday evidence of global warming becomes so obvious that it will make their notions sound like comedy pieces. Oops, maybe they already are (google my [snip]). Or, they could be so old that shaving their heads could cause injury. I suggest public dunce caps instead, required to be worn for 30 days.
Anthony, I hope you’ll have a sense of humor about your upcoming appearance in the sequel. I’ll tone down the comeuppances next time.

The original David S
April 5, 2010 8:10 am

The graph shows the ice extent right now is well within the normal range for this time of year. But if I want to be a nitpicker I’d have to point out that during the animation the 2010 graph touched the average line somewhere around April 2 to 4, but then pulls away. In other words the ice extent on that data touched the average but a few days later the ice extent on that same day was less by a tiny amount. So they are changing history …again!

Richard M
April 5, 2010 8:15 am

Mike (16:21:46) :
Of course the main measure of interest in ice mass.
I’m not 100% sure of that. Clearly it is important but I think another important factor that is often ignored is ice concentration. If the ice is not well concentrated the warmer water can come into contact with more ice surface and lead to increased melting.

Anu
April 5, 2010 8:36 am

Ron House (06:22:32) :
How does a 5-day moving average change this? If they are putting up data for yesterday, then either the five days must be trailing days, because tomorrow hasn’t happened yet and today isn’t complete, or the last few plotted points are not five day averages.
If the data averages five days ending on the day plotted (trailing), then future data can not change the plotted point for a past day, and the graphs shown are fudged. If the last few points are not five day averages, then their description which you quote is incorrect. Either way there’s something amiss.

It looks like “the last few plotted points are not five day averages” (the two most recent). I imagine some people demanded that the most recent data be displayed (people are impatient), along with the 5-day moving average (leading, non-smooted data). Otherwise, the April 5 graph would not be showing data from April 4:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
it would be showing the last 5-day averaged datapoint for April 2 (while not reporting known data points from April 3 and April 4).
I’m not sure if they explain all that somewhere in here:
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/interpretation.html
I think these graphs have been around for a long time, so I’m sure someone has noticed this before, so maybe it’s in some linked FAQ. They have contact information for NSIDC people, so maybe someone at WUWT is interested in confirming this.
When something in the data doesn’t make sense to me, my first instinct is that I don’t understand it fully, and should dig into this if it is interesting. Not that some scientist is fudging his data to trick the public. There are actually Universities where you can study this stuff full time, for years – you can learn a lot from public websites, but to really put it all together and make sense of it, nothing beats learning from Professors that understand it all. Self-teaching takes a lot of work, digging and discipline, and there are always nagging questions that cannot be resolved without finding someone who knows the answer. Some of the people on this site, non-professionals apparently, have built up an impressive knowledge of climatology and really know their way around public websites. Such a thing would not have been possible even 20 years ago – the Internet is truly a revolutionary tool, perhaps as much as printing was.

DirkH
April 5, 2010 8:51 am

“David Appell (06:36:03) :
[…]
project. SO WHAT?” GHGs warm planets. We keep emitting GHGs. And, to no one’s surprise, the planet is warming.”
David, if you boil it down to such a blunt statement, i feel the need to point out that H2O is a far more potent and far more ubiquitious GHG than CO2.
So reducing CO2 emissions will probably not have a measurable effect.
To your “GHGs warm planets”. Well. Mars has an atmosphere made of 95% CO2 but it’s not warm. It has no H2O in the atmosphere.
Obviously, H2O is the thing that’s important here, not CO2.
I know what comes next, the alleged H2O feedback through CO2 enrichment.
This is obvious bunkum. Otherwise H2O itself would lead to H2O feedback as it is the more potent GHG. This is not observed.
The positive feedback “tipping point” mechanism posited by the AGWer’s is therefore obviously false.

ray mahr
April 5, 2010 8:51 am

Some comments re Arctic ice from Oleg Pokrovsky in his Clivar July 2009 paper about the 60 year-cycle of arctic ice fluctuations.

Pamela Gray
April 5, 2010 8:53 am

My mind wonders. Sea ice thickness, when it grows and when it thins, could well be a function of AO oscillations. In its negative phase, ice builds up along the Pacific side. Jammed up ice gets VERY thick and tangled together. In its positive phase, ice does not build up as much and spreads out towards the Atlantic. When melt season comes along, this relatively flat ice breaks away and rides the Fram Strait. But the ice jammed up and intertwined along the Pacific side does not break up as easily. This thick ice, given the right conditions, again gets jammed up along the Pacific side. Eventually the end of the jam edge moves further and further towards the Atlantic side if the AO continues to be neutral/negative. Once it is close enough to be flushed out Fram Strait, it does not easily disentangle and flush.
What we could be seeing is an occasional natural concurrent oscillation that flushes out the Arctic ice pack to near open water conditions during the summer, and then slowly builds up again through this jamming process as the AO returns to neutral/negative territory, which could be its normal phase interspersed by these anomalous positive AO flushes that occur over a 5-8 year period.
Comments?

Steve Goddard
April 5, 2010 8:55 am

Anu (08:36:47) :
Mark Serreze is a “Professors that understand it all.” He said that the Arctic is in a death spiral and the North Pole will probably be ice free by the summer of 2008.
Using your criteria, his predictions must be true, and WUWT’s predictions of increasing ice over the last three years must be wrong.

Frederick Michael
April 5, 2010 9:03 am

Ron House (06:22:32) :
Anu (00:00:24): Like the article above says, and which is explained here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/about_images.html
the graph of Arctic sea ice extent is a 5 day moving average.
How does a 5-day moving average change this? If they are putting up data for yesterday, then either the five days must be trailing days, because tomorrow hasn’t happened yet and today isn’t complete, or the last few plotted points are not five day averages.
If the data averages five days ending on the day plotted (trailing), then future data can not change the plotted point for a past day, and the graphs shown are fudged. If the last few points are not five day averages, then their description which you quote is incorrect. Either way there’s something amiss.

Yes describing their smoothing algorithm as a 5-day moving average is clearly an oversimplification. However, if you watch their plot “evolve” for a long time you’ll see that this algorithm works the same as always. I can’t say what it is but here’s my guess.
It’s a 5 day moving average for all days more than 3 days old but for yesterday and the day before they just use that day’s number. That’s close — but only a guess. Things do get revised retroactively but after one revision, they’re fixed.
It is unfortunate that people think this is fishy. The NSIDC does a wonderful job of producing raw data. Raw data is always messy and the NSIDC data is MUCH better than most. (You should see what military logistics data looks like!) They may be the ultimate source of the data that kills CAGW once and for all. They have earned my trust over the years.

April 5, 2010 9:09 am

From Holland (02:45:10) :
The comment on the standard deviation in above reply, AGAIN show many people do not understnad statistics. Let me EXPLAIN:
the standard deviation is the variability of the population of data points, i.e. it shows the variability of the measurement sequence, which is from 1979 to 2000 . A mere 20 year period!
The thus established shown standard deviation does say nothing, but absolutely NOTHING about the varibaility in ice extent over 100 or even 1000’s of years, hence it is meaninless when used in variability type claims.
NB What’s happend with school levels in the US.. Damn some of you’re guys are stupid.
——
REPLY: I’m a doctorate epidemiologist who specializes in biostatistics, Hans. Standard deviation applies to either the population data set, or the sample taken from the population data setc.
I stand by my assertion that, as graphically represented and reported, the line for 2009-2010 is so close to the mean that, considering all the variability in the calculations, data collection etc., the fact that the two lines haven’t actually intersected it meaningless.
If NSDIC would provide more data, we could analyze this further. I like how AGW types twist their statistics, tag regressors onto regression curves and do other things that guys like MacIntyre can disassemble!

Richard M
April 5, 2010 9:22 am

Pamela Gray (08:53:15),
Comments?
As I stated earlier I think you are on to something. This also agrees with the paper (lost the reference) tying Arctic sea ice to the AO.
This summer should be a good test.

RockyRoad
April 5, 2010 9:30 am

Average CO2 in the atmosphere is currently at 390 ppm, whereas H2O concentrations average around 10,000 ppm (~1%). Even if they had equal impact, the ratio of the two gasses is 25.6:1 in favor of H20. Or put another way, CO2 is just 0.039 (3.9%) as prevalent as water vapor; hence water vapor far outweighs CO2 as a greenhouse gas. When water vapor’s superior characteristics compared to CO2 are considered, the impact of water vapor is even higher. Yet even with water vapor’s greater concentration and superior thermal characteristics, it isn’t considered properly in equations that quantify thermal characteristics of the atmosphere by the AGW crowd. No wonder there’s such a divergence between thermal characteristics of the globe and the steady increase in CO2.
Some AGW proponents say the short residence time of water in the atmosphere offsets any influence compared to CO2 which has a much longer residence time, but that is complete bunk–what matters is the instantaneous concentration of the two gasses, since neither has a memory.

An Inquirer
April 5, 2010 9:33 am

R. Gates: “Global Sea ice has spent more time since 2004 in the negative anomaly range than the positve, and this longer term perspective is all that matters.”
R. Gates, since you are courteous in your postings, I hesitate to add a comment that might appear to be “piling on.” However, it would be good for you to know that anomalies here are derived from a base for years which may contain abnormally large extent and area. To compare anomalies to such a base is quite unscientific — although it is tempting to do so given those are the years for which we have some sort of scientific measurements. Even so, there is little justification for stopping the base in 2000, and not all scientists do.

Tenuc
April 5, 2010 9:39 am

Re: CRS, Dr.P.H. (Apr 5 09:09)
“…If NSDIC would provide more data, we could analyze this further. I like how AGW types twist their statistics, tag regressors onto regression curves and do other things that guys like MacIntyre can disassemble!”
I’m surprised that NSDIC don’t provide a link to the raw data and methodology used to adjust it for graphing as a matter of course. Good science depends on transparency and repeatability, attributes which NSDIC apparently feel have little or no importance?
Clarity of information would have prevented any doubts about NSDIC’s motives, which have been expressed on this thread. Perhaps little wonder that many sceptics have little trust in climate scientists?

R. Gates
April 5, 2010 9:40 am

Can you spot the irony here:
“Damn some of you’re guys are stupid.”
—–
To the more important point on sea ice statistics– it really doesn’t matter whether or not the current arctic sea ice crossed that running mean line or not. More important to the scientific types would be that it came close in March 2010, which would lead the curious to wonder as to the causes. Perhaps more important is what it will continue doing over the next few years. If we don’t see a new arctic summer sea ice minimum set by 2015, my own personal faith in AGWT would be diminished. AGW is about the longer trends, and this little “bump” upward over one month, is really insignificant, as it whether or not that bump crossed or didn’t cross the 30 year line…

April 5, 2010 9:41 am

mike roddy (08:03:05),
Your post contains the typical science-free juvenile schoolyard taunts regularly seen on realclimate, tamino, climate progress, etc.
That’s why the traffic is so much higher here on WUWT than at the alarmists’ echo chambers, where most of the traffic comes from a handful of runaway global warming true believers like yourself.
Now that Anthony has pointed out your hypocrisy, will you stick around and actually discuss the evidence-free claims of catastrophic AGW? Or will you put your tail between your legs and hide out, showing at least some shame for the fact that you’ve been caught red-handed, spouting a mendacious accusation based on your own psychological projection?

anna v
April 5, 2010 9:46 am

Re: Mr Lynn (Apr 5 05:53),
No idea, mr Lynn. I am a Windows XP user. Maybe you could ask over at CA?Re: <a

anna v
April 5, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Pamela Gray (Apr 5 08:53),
Sounds reasonable.

RockyRoad
April 5, 2010 9:58 am

mike roddy (07:56:55) :
David Appell, thanks for posting here. The skills needed are really those of a junior high science teacher, since the regulars on this blog do not even know the basics, but you have shown much needed patience and perserverance.
Most won’t listen, since they are mostly older white men, who get their information from Fox, and whose views are set in concrete, but a few will. That makes it worthwhile.
————————
Reply:
That’s interesting, Mr. Roddy…
First, your accuasation that most who post here get their information from Fox News may have merit–I watch Fox as well as the other stations and the ONLY one that carries substantive information regarding both sides of the argument is Fox; the others have their heads in the sands of AGW.
Second, most of the AGWers will be dead or forgotten by the time the everyday evidence of the next Ice Age becomes so obvious that they will be scorned as the agenda-driven, non-scientists that they were.
You can cast dispersions on people who are not kool-aide drinkers of an agenda that is far more political than scientific, based on such thin evidence that the crimes of fudging and homogenization are obviously transparent now. But far more than public dunce caps, these villains should be stripped of all funds made by distorting and hiding the truth about the climate, and penal sentences of 30 years should be a minimum.
For mine is not a sense of humor to see the poor throughout the world starving because of your demented drive to prevent the use of fossil fuels when additional CO2 in the atmosphere is actually beneficial to mankind. But as the public moves from indoctrination to an educated position, it will be you who will be eating global warming crow.
Comeuppances, indeed!

An Inquirer