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.
Craig Moore wrote:
> Speaking of forgetful you failed to respond to my last comment
> above. Craig Moore (07:20:47)
Unfortunately I don’t have time to respond to everything, and your comments didn’t seem to me to be very important. Anyway, your quote is not from Hansen. No scientist in the world would claim that there is a tipping point directly at 2C, nor has anyone ever done a calculation to show as much. It’s just a number based on experience, feelings, beliefs, politics, and intuition. Is the world doomed if we have a 2.2 C increase but not if we have a 1.8 C increase. Of course not.
There is currently no rigorous theory of climate tipping points.
[this flame war stops now. ~ctm]
David Appell-
You continue avoiding our issue. See above. As to your sophistry, no matter how much you push the envelope, it’ll still be stationery.
PS: Paul Brown isn’t a climate scientist, but a former Guardian environment correspondent. He doesn’t appear to be very rigorous on this topic.
David Appell-
One more thing. Don’t join dangerous warmist cults; practice safe sects!
I would imagine that a photon really doesn’t care if the molecule it collides with is named “forcing” or “feedback” by some academic. Nature doesn’t care about climate models or about the substance or polarity of the current climate panic du jour. And blogging has no impact on the climate.
David Appell (17:20:08) :
You say that tipping point theory is partly based on “experience.”
The only tipping point actually witnessed by any climatologists has to do with the declination of their beer bottle.
Most of geologic history has seen much higher CO2 levels than at present, and yet the planet has not turned in to Venus. Quite the opposite.
For Charles, the angry moderator, I heard your rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was a weapon of math disruption.
Reply: Heh! ~ ctam
Steve Goddard wrote:
> You seem to be unfamiliar with how multi-year ice forms.
>
> Year one – first year ice.
> Year two – second year ice – thicker
> Year three – third year ice – thicker
> Year four – fourth year ice – thicker
> Year five – fifth year ice – thicker
N year ice does not necessarily turn into N+1 yr ice. In fact, lately the ice is just melting.
Here’s part (just part) of what is wrong with your argument: Look at Figure 3 on http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ .
By the simplistic arguments presented here, you would have claimed that the 1986 extent data showed that the ice was recovering and that global warming was over. You would have been wrong.
You would have done the same in 1998. You would have been wrong.
What is now so different from those (temporary ) increases? What is different now from those situations?
Interesting. Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen that article/thread before.
I guess identities aren’t “verified” at WUWT, but that certainly sounds like Mark C. Serreze.
Still, a scientist making a bet with 50-50 odds is not really a “scientific prediction” in the formal sense. Einstein predicting that the Sun’s gravity would bend starlight, and working out by exactly how much (which, when observed during a total eclipse, “proved” the General Theory of Relativity) – that is a formal scientific prediction. Einstein betting a friend that quantum physics would one day be proven to be the probabilistic description of an underlying, more fundamental deterministic physics is not – just a gut instinct, or hope.
By the way, that Mark C. Serreze comment you pointed out answers the “5 day moving average” mystery perfectly. Again, thanks.
David Appell (17:32:19)-
Paul Brown mere takes note of what scientists, like the Germans, were saying.
Even Dr. Hansen warns of the “tipping points.”
David Appell (17:54:42) :
Your straw man arguments are highly entertaining.
Not all first year ice turns into second year ice and not all fourth year ice turns into fifth year ice. Much gets flushed out in the North Atlantic. Nevertheless, all fifth year ice is five years old.
And I’m not talking about 1986, I am talking about 2010. The deeply negative AO has caused a lot more multi-year ice to be retained this year, so not only is the ice getting more extensive, it is also getting thicker.
Instead of blasting over here with your astonishingly arrogant tone, how about engaging in civil conversation and serious scientific discussion? (If you think you can handle it.) Your assumption that skeptics are stupid is not very bright.
mike roddy (11:24:34) :
Anthony-
Thanks for the pub! Now, if only someone would buy my script…
I’m selling it cheap.
REPLY: Try Comedy Central, it is perfect for that network – A
South Park might have some fun with it.
Anu (17:59:54) :
There is an interesting by-line to the Serreze story. His theory was that “crusty” first year ice would melt at the North Pole. But it didn’t. That might mean it is impossible to have an ice-free Arctic under current climatic conditions.
Steve Goddard (13:20:51) :
AndyW (11:33:35) :
……lets see if it will be true this time compared to 2009 when the bet failed.
I don’t believe that I made any prediction last year of NSIDC extent crossing the mean…..
While reading that comment from AndyW I didn’t remember you making any bet last year. Did you make that same bet last year?
David Appell: “Mr Wiese, this is fascinating supposition. Where has it been published? I’d love to read its details.”
David; These are not suppositions. They were peer reviewed and published in every dynamic meteorology textbook printed through the 1970’s. What has changed is that your “climate scientists” supplanted this work with their own unprovable and incorrect assertions that they currently tout as fact. This is not how science works, and it is not following the scientific method.
Thanks — it’s been fun. But I am unable to keep up with the comments here and still get my work done.
Perhaps I’ll be back.
— David
Amino Acids in Meteorites (18:29:45) :
I wrote a piece last year which observed that the trajectory was headed towards an intersection with the mean on May 1, but I didn’t make any prediction. This year convergence is happening a month earlier and I believe is going to intersect.
mike roddy (13:42:11) :
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.
So I’m supposed to trust the ‘science’ of the ClimateGate scientists? I know you’ll be concsending in a reply to this, if you do reply at all.
But people are smarter than you are giving them credit for. In thinking that people are supposed to overlook the conniving of the ClimateGate scientists and still think they are the ones we are supposed to trust you are showing, unknowingly, that the average person is smarter than you.
Anu (16:54:42) :
CRS, Dr.P.H. (14:12:25) :
REPLY: We do this all the time in public health. Population demographics, incidence/prevalence of disease, risk factors etc. This is available for analysis and discussion amongst scientists, policy-makers, politicians, advocates etc.
Here, help yourself: http://app.idph.state.il.us/
Thanks for the link to the slow, toy site concerned with some “Project for Local Assessment of Needs”. Oh look, last updated May 22, 2009 – I’m sure it has provided some useful information for a few PTA members here and there.
http://search.state.il.us/search97cgi/s97is.dll
Search Results
Your keyword(s), autoimmune, appeared on the following pages:
Sorry, no pages were found with your keyword(s).
Does this site run on some old PC in your office ? .dll ?
What if someone in Illinois were interested in the autoimmune epidemic going on (diseases like lupus, autism, psoriasis, diabetes – type 1, juvenile arthritis and multiple sclerosis) and were worried that their children might be exposed to unusually high levels of autogens in the vicinity of their neighborhood, schools and typical weekend trips. Let’s see the “public health science” website that would allow them to pull up maps of the incident levels of lupus at 10 miles, 20 miles and 50 miles from their house, and overlay that with maps of Federal and State tracked hazardous waste sites. Let’s see the top 10 immunologists who are consulted yearly by the Illinois Department of Public Health, and get their raw data and methodology for the last 20 years.
I’m just one person spending 5 minutes on this.
Imagine a few dozen websites hosting thousands of angry parents hectoring the Public Health “scientists” who should have been working on cleaning this stuff up, and educating the public on what toxins businesses had leaked into the State since 1990. I bet just one dozen parents of autistic children could tie up a publicly employed MD all year on FOI requests.
But thanks for attempting a reply.
BTW, don’t send your kids to University of Illinois, I doubt they’d cut it.
We’re expecting they will go to better schools, like their parents did.
But there are certainly worse schools than U of I out there.
——
REPLY: You wanted an example, and I provided one. I’m also frustrated with the slowness of the IPLAN data set, but it is much harder to collect human health data than temperature readings from sondes.
The data you mentioned above (regarding location of hazardous materials etc.) is widely available via state and federal EPA databases, it is called the Toxic Release Inventory. See: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
The point is, compare the openness of these data sets and regulatory agencies to the closed-mouth, wrapped-in-an-enigma world of the climatology community. Briffa, with his single ancient pine tree, Jones with his messy office full of misplaced notes that cannot be found even under subpoena etc.etc.
Learn something and then come back to discuss.
This is interesting.
I am being reminded just WHY I was able to see through the warmists. It’s the entire combination of arrogance, condescension, manipulation and deceit that has been so amply demonstrated in this thread.
But hey, nobody’s buying.
I sent this link to an acquaintance who has not been following, and his comment back was “right. who are these [snip]s and why are they so full of [snip]?”
I don’t think I have to name names…
David Appell (18:37:42) :
[stopping flame war ~ ctm]
We’ve been talking about forcing/feedback CO2/H2O …
I found an interesting writeup here:
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm
Richard North gives Mark Serreze’s predictions and pronouncements a working over here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/death-spiral-for-warmists.html
Steve Goddard (18:54:22) :
Thanks for the reply.
AndyW had said you lost a bet last year:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
AndyW (11:33:35) :
Steve Goddard bets again in 2010 the NSIDC ice extent will hit the 1979 to 2000 average, lets see if it will be true this time compared to 2009 when the bet failed.
Andy
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
So, he is wrong.