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:
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.
DirkH wrote:
> It’s important to note that water vapor is, overall, a feedback and
> not a forcing,”
> When people start talking like that you know you lost them.
Actually, you never had me in the first place, as what you’ve written about water vapor isn’t convincing.
With what part(s) of the treatment of water vapor in the GCMs do you disagree? In particular? NASA GISS publishes all the details of their “E” model (I think it is) on their site. Why don’t you tell us what in their theory and code is wrong with respect to water vapor, and you would do it instead.
On other threads on WUWT in the last years, on the topic of Arctic sea ice extent, several points have been made that bear repeating:
1. The 1979-2000 period for establishing a norm is too short, and particularly suspect. It had been cold the prior 3o years, so ice may havrfe been accumulating.
2. For spotting trends, a moving multi-year avg might be more helpful, with 2010 compared with the most recent 20 years (1990-2009), rather than the fixed norm of 1979-2000.
3. Talking about the Arctic changes without including the Antarctic is suspicious as an agenda-driven discussion (I am not counting here those scientists who are genuinely interested in the unique interactions of wind, currents, and temperature in understanding the ice in the Arctic).
My understanding is that by volume, 90% or more of polar ice is in the South. Only the melting of land-covering ice is relevant to sea level changes (melting of floating ice does not change the sea level). If one is concerned about small islands disappearing and flooding of NYC, one ought to be focused on the Antarctic.
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…
First time here, eh, mike?
George E. Smith wrote:
> Some AGW proponents say the short residence time of
> water in the atmosphere offsets any influence compared to CO2
Who argues this? I have never heard anyone do so. Nor have I ever heard any climate scientist claim that water vapor is not the dominant GHG in the atmosphere.
mike roddy spends much of his day making long, hysterical and abusive ad hom attacks on Revkin’s blog. One of his trademarks is that he rarely, if ever, discusses science.
REPLY: Mr Roddy demonstrates the face of environmentalism today, dealing in stereotypes he holds dear and applying it to others he disagrees with…And he’s very serious and determined.
– Anthony
Yes, indeed he is, as evidenced by the serious and determined “Eye-contact of Seriousness and Determination”™ he evinces. But it’s still a better look than the “Head-Tilt of Compassion”™ supercilious twits usually use.
David Appell (14:58:02) :
Since most of the multi-year ice blew out into the Atlantic and melted a few years ago, it will obviously take a few years for it to build back up.
In order to increase ice volume, you of course have to start by increasing area – which is what we are seeing.
Steve Goddard (08:55:12) :
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.
Of course, not everyone is cut out for the careful reading, and disciplined thinking, and years of hard work in a University degree program…
Saying something is possible is not the same as a “prediction”.
And note that he was talking about the North Pole “point”, not the entire Arctic.
Reading comprehension is usually not taught in a PhD program – you have to know that before you arrive.
Rob wrote:
> The Crugate files show evidence of bodged global temperature
> data that is the basis of AGW
Where — specifically — do the files show this, and how?
AndyW (11:33:35) :
I don’t believe that I made any prediction last year of NSIDC extent crossing the mean. However, area did cross the mean in both of the last two years.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
NSIDC extent came very close last year, but never quite made it.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nsidc_extent_n_timeseries_050109.png
I did forecast that it will cross this year.
Anu (12:38:44) :
Mark Serreze posted his ice free North Pole bet on WUWT in 2008.
David Appell (05:27:14) :
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.
(…)
———————
Reply:
So tell me, Mr. Appell, where or to what is this earth tipping to? What are the physical characteristics you have identified as the final destination of being tipped?
And do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past?
If so, what caused the untipping (otherwise a past tipping hadn’t achieved maximum entropy)?
Are you talking about a climate perpetual motion machine of some kind?
Or is it some base state that hasn’t been achieved yet, from which there is no return?
And what law of thermodynamics is the earth disobeying by having not passed through this tipping point?
It generally takes a lot more energy to untip and empty out a canoe than to tip it in the first place. And given earth’s 4.5 billion year age, all the canoes tipped over long ago, never to return to their semi-stable condition naturally.
Could it be caused by higher CO2 concentrations than earth has experienced in the past? No… that’s not reality.
So just what is this tipping point phenomena that you’re expecting? Is it real, or is it fanciful?
And if it is real, please describe it succinctly–how does it apply to climate?
Vincent wrote:
> Is that the same Ben Santer who was conspiring to commit
> an act of extreme violence upon the person of mild
> mannered Pat Michaels?
Conspiring? You have evidence of such a conspiracy? Because if not and I were Ben Santer, I would seriously consider suing your libel for such a claim, even though you are the type of man to make scurrilous and false attacks on other’s while hiding behind anonymity and your mother’s skirt. Why are you afraid to sign your real name to your accusations?
I presume you’re referring to this email stolen from CRU:
—
From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Phil,
I’ve known Rick Piltz for many years. He’s a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
—
Have you, “Vincent,” ever said you wanted to do such-and-such to so-and-so? I certainly have. It’s a stress reliever. Yet I’ve never followed it up with action. Have you?
And for this you want to accuse Santer? Shameful.
PS: I have seen P Michaels in lectures and even spoken to him once or twice. He struck me as anything but “mild-mannered.” When did you meet him?
Steve Goddard wrote:
> Since most of the multi-year ice blew out into the Atlantic and
> melted a few years ago, it will obviously take a few years for it to
> build back up.
In other words: the fact that ice has melted is evidence that… it will be increasing.
You mean this as a joke, right?
Perhaps you could point out a science, any science, that routinely provides all of its “raw data and methodology” on the Internet “as a matter of course” so that the amateur, untrained public can ‘transparently” learn and understand exactly what they are doing, every day, day in and day out. And repeat their experiments at home.
You know, one of the “trusted” sciences.
I look forward to your reply – maybe I can skip sending my kids to college.
Anu,
“Saying something is possible is not the same as a “prediction”.
Of course, now that the “prediction” has failed, it has been downgraded to a mere possibility. It may also be a possibility that Serreze doesn’t know what he’s talking about – but that’s not a prediction.
To those who prefer to get in a debate about climate related scientific issues with me, there are two reasons why I decline: you, and me.
I know some climate scientists personally, but none who contribute to blogs like this one, so can safely assume that the commenters here are not trained in climate science. It may have been an exaggeration to assume that your typical scientific education level is junior high school. I would guess that most posters here have degrees in fields such as Business, Economics, and pre law, which is slightly better than a junior high education.
I am also unqualified for most detailed evaluations, though I do have a decent academic record in other fields and have published articles for magazines and professional journals- including one on CO2 and the terrestrial carbon cycle. I have also read IPCC IV, which is a good start.
To those who wish to engage in debates about specific scientific evidence of climate change, I recommend Realclimate or Rabettrun.
My style on Dot Earth and elsewhere is not to engage in ad hominem attacks, but to point out the lack of qualifications and the distortion of evidence from those who question these assumptions: it’s getting substantially warmer, human emitted CO2 is the main cause, and the probability of major hazards in the future is high. The number of people who are well qualified to evaluate these issues who dispute these three conclusions is extremely small.
There is not a cabal fighting for research grants, or scheming to form a world government to transfer wealth to them, either.
Goddard, I may as well come here instead of Dot Earth, since contrarians have succeeded in hijacking that blog. So I am here in enemy territory, and will visit for a while if I am allowed to do so. Take your best shots, I’ve got a thick skin.
BTW, I’m an older white guy, too, as Anthony pointed out with the photo. We finally have an area of agreement.
Mr Wiese wrote:
> If Co2 radiation is contributing to arctic melting
Mr Wiese, melting is a local phenomenon. No one has ever claimed that it is the very same IR photons redirected immediately from CO2 scattering that is melting arctic ice. That’s being done by the warmer air and water immediately surrounding the ice.
[stopping flame war ~ ctm]
I’ve seen you make too many bone-headed mistakes to take your claims on face value, especially your claim (that you copied from the National Post) that a 6th order polynomial fit to recent temperature data predicts a drastic and clownish drop in temperatures. You remember; see
http://is.gd/bg0uI
By the way, how did that prediction work out??
Steve Goddard (13:23:05) :
Anu (12:38:44) :
Mark Serreze posted his ice free North Pole bet on WUWT in 2008.
I read about that “widely quoted prediction” here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/bad-news-from-nsidc/
It referenced his comments in the ABC News/Technology article I cited.
Do you have a better link ?
David Appell (13:32:35) :
It takes five years for ice to become five years old. First year ice from 2008 can’t become fifth year ice until 2012.
It is not really that complicated, for most people who have reached the age of five.
To R.Gates
You have mentioned that you are particularly interested in the changes in Arctic Ice cover in connection with AGW(T?). I take it that your reasoning can only be as follows (and in the given order!!):
1.If the ice the Arctic recedes over a long period, that can only happen because the whole earth is warming;
2. the whole earth can only be warming because of the increase of CO2;
3. CO2 can only increase because humans are emitting it.
Could you please explain why other explanations of
a) point 1 are impossible
b) point 2 are impossible
c) point 3 are impossible
David Appell
“Why so serious?”
All of your complaining is not going to change what is happening in the Arctic. You might want to save your breath.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Anu wrote:
> Perhaps you could point out a science, any science, that routinely provides
> all of its “raw data and methodology” on the Internet “as a matter of course”
> so that the amateur, untrained public can ‘transparently” learn and
> understand exactly what they are doing, every day, day in and day out.
> And repeat their experiments at home.
Anu is right. Everyone is still getting used to this Web thing, and archiving all data is new to everyone. Frankly, I’m amazed at how much raw climate and weather data is already on the Web. It’s evolved tremendously in just the last 5 years. No other science is at this level, except for maybe genomics, whose data requires specialized understanding anyway.
But, keep clamoring for such data, and even more — it’s a useful impetus to both journals and scientists to make it available. We live in a very interesting time.
Steve Goddard: “In other words: the fact that ice has melted is evidence that… it will be increasing.”
David Appell (13:32:35) : “In other words: the fact that ice has melted is evidence that… it will be increasing.
You mean this as a joke, right?”
Jeez you are deceitful little …… aren’t you? Steve’s entire quote “Since most of the multi-year ice blew out into the Atlantic and melted a few years ago, it will obviously take a few years for it to build back up.
In order to increase ice volume, you of course have to start by increasing area – which is what we are seeing.”
Wow just wow. I’ll pretty much dismiss anything else you add to the conversation due to this obvious deceit.
RockyRoad wrote:
> So tell me, Mr. Appell, where or to what is this earth tipping to?
I don’t know. I’m a science journalist, and as far as I can ascertain the science of tipping points is just not that rigorous yet.
> And do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past?
Some think the Younger Dryas is an example of such.
> Are you talking about a climate perpetual motion machine of some kind?
I have no idea what this means. And anyway, you should be smart enough to know that “perpetual motion machines” do not exist. Nor could climate serve as one.
> Could it be caused by higher CO2 concentrations than earth has
> experienced in the past?
It could be, yes, and that’s a very interesting idea. On the other hand, we now have new, additional climate forcings that did not exist prior to about 200 yrs ago. (A few think 10,000 yrs ago.) These change the ball game.