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: “We’ve been talking about forcing/feedback CO2/H2O …
I found an interesting writeup here:
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm”
While Peter Dietz does a good straight forward write up on the doubling of Co2, what is always conspicuously missing is the fact that ALL of the calculations are done in steady state conditions, with either no water vapor or a fixed amount, and also a “profile” atmosphere such as the Satandard 76 US atmosphere. This is also “clear sky radiation”.
A couple of things about the figures. The perceived “forcing” does not calculate atmospheric emission change due to flux divergence or advective changes in vapor concentration, all of which affect the answers.
In the case of CO2, increasing quantity will increase emission in the upper troposphere and limit the optical depth of water vapor, thus reversing the effects of the perceived “forcing”. This is discussed thuroughly in Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi.
Richard Lindzen from MIT also talks about this process as the “Iris” effect of water vapor and cloud.
It is also incorrect to calculate a “sensitivity factor ” to Co2 by using the Stefan Boltzman law by assuming that if surface emission is blocked by inceasing CO2 and making a specific wavenumber more opaque to the atmosphere, that the response from the surface is to emit the IR back to space over ALL wavelengths. The atmosphere is a colored absorber and emitter with respect to the surface, and as such, the integration constant, sigma, is inappropriate for use here in that equation, but is used by “cliamte scientists” unscrupulously regardless.
Steve Goddard (12:33:30) :
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.
But currently the area is decreasing (since March 7th) and the ice is blowing out.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100325-20100331.jpg
mike roddy (13:42:11) :
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.
Reply: And yet you continue with the debate. How inconsistent of you.
MR: 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.
Reply: Denigrate others and affirm next you have “a decent academic record in other fields”. Pray tell, what in; be specific! Me? I’m one of those hated geologists (BS, MS) along with bachelors and masters in mining engineering. I can smell a compromised climate scientist or stock promoter a mile away, having worked with many such people in the past. They have a certain “air” about them; a certain mindset; a specific certainty about their special theories that do not survive discussion, criticism, or reality. I think it’s a mental disorder, to be quite candid.
MR: 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.
Reply: The most arrogant, yet least logical people on the earth are those who call themselves “climate scientists”. Did you know there is no accredited university on earth that offers a PhD in the field, and there are very few that offer even an MS? Most such studies are grouped with Geography departments, and for good reason.
MR: To those who wish to engage in debates about specific scientific evidence of climate change, I recommend Realclimate or Rabettrun.
Reply: Ah, the pirated term “climate change”! That’s something as a geologist I can assure you has been around since the earth formed and will be around long after man is gone. Climate scientists didn’t invent it, they merely hijacked it for their own utilization and deception. I’m sure what you really mean is “anthropogenic global warming”; the acronym is AGW. And I’ve read through the slanted and hypocritical banter that goes on at Realclimate. Now there’s a contradiction in terms. If you want to see some leading edge science, consider the YouTube series The Cloud Mystery. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that have been blackballed by the Hockey Team because to them, the slightest amount of dissent is tantamount to treason to their cause.
MR: 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.
Reply: If you’re counting on any of the corrupted databases to confirm this “substantial warming”, you’re chasing step-wise homogenization factors applied in a methodology that’s all hidden or lost; if you believe human-emitted CO2 is the main cause of this warming you know nothing about cause and effect during geologic history; and if you consider the benefits of warmer temperatures and higher levels of CO2 contributing to the expansion of civilization (and feeding of same) then you’re on the wrong side of the “major hazards” issue. Besides, you apparently failed arithmetic when counting scientists that support AGW and those that don’t.
MR: There is not a cabal fighting for research grants, or scheming to form a world government to transfer wealth to them, either.
Reply: No cabal fighting for research grants? Where have you been? Regarding world government, have you not looked into the forces and wording behind Copenhagen and all previous Kyoto-styled agreements? Wealth transfer was and is a major point, and world government is spelled out. Do some research in this area and you’ll find it.
MR: 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.
Reply: We are not your enemy, you have decided to make an enemy of mankind. Look in the mirror and figure that one out.
MR: BTW, I’m an older white guy, too, as Anthony pointed out with the photo. We finally have an area of agreement.
Reply: I suppose that’s as good a place to start as any.
George E. Smith (14:31:54) :
So I tkae it that the Clausius-Clapeyron equations does NOT apply to CO2, since you mentioned it with regard to water vapor, but not with regard to CO2.
Right George, C-C requires two phases to be present so it applies to H2O on earth and to CO2 on Mars
Also I take it that CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT a function of temperature, since you mentioned that with respect to H2O but not with respect to CO2.
Yes you see an example of C-C when you see steam condense for example.
Both CO2 and H2O are emitted to the atmosphere in copius quantities as a result of human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels and other fuels, which contain primarily Carbon and Hydrogen.
Right but the H2O will condense and the gas phase concentration will drop to a value determined by the local temperature. This doesn’t happen with CO2 which mixes throughout the atmosphere (it does on Mars though).
David Appell (14:03:05) :
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.
Reply: So in your own words, you don’t know. You go on and on about a “tipping point” and don’t know what you’re talking about? That’s all I wanted you to acknowledge. Thank you.
> And do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past?
Some think the Younger Dryas is an example of such.
Reply: This is a reverse of your prior statement (not knowing what a “tipping point” is but then seeing it as less than a rigorous science but then giving an example), but what is it about the Younger Dryas that makes you (or anybody) believe it is a “tipping point”—could it have been some volcanic eruption or asteroid strike that caused the planet to suddenly go cold—is that your “tipping point”, because there have been five major life-decimating events over geologic history that correspond to asteroid strikes, and many more downturns to a colder climate corresponding to major volcanic eruptions, yet not one of these was caused by humans. And do you believe suddenly going into the Younger Dryas is an example of a “tipping point”, or suddenly coming out of it?
> 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.
Reply: You state you have no idea what that means, yet you can determine I’m smart enough to know it doesn’t exist. If such a thing as a “tipping point” existed, climate would be the OBJECT of this “tipping point”, not the “tipping point” itself. But this discussion is less than academic. I believe at this point you’re a science journalist who throws around talking points you’re heard in your work but who has no ability to connect them together properly. But I accept your response—I’m as convinced about these “tipping points” and “forcings” of yours as I am about perpetual motion machines.
> 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.
Reply: And how do you know conditions on the earth are such that we have additional “climate forcings” that didn’t exist before? (and what are the original “forcings”?) What comparison would you make to earth’s past climate that had CO2 levels five times the current amount? Would that not have already caused one of these “tipping points” you refer to?
I’m afraid I detect a lot of echos from your “climate scientists” that postulate “tipping points” and “forcings” without evidence of such. The earth is playing the same ball game it has for millions, nay billions of years, and indeed we are now between innings. And man’s ability to alter that reality is woefully lacking. How can man control something he can’t adequately explain?
I respectfully suggest you go back to school. Start with the ice ages and work back from there.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (14:34:20) :
Dr A Burns (14:24:23) :
Once again NSIDC has clearly manipulated the data … compare today with the chart shown http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
The graph is now nowhere near touching the average line.
—-
REPLY: Dr. B, I tend to agree with you! I think that all the attention this graph has received forced the NSIDC folks to “hide the incline,” although Anthony doesn’t think so.
This commonly happens in public health, where statistics are “cooked” in order to justify funding requests for maternal/child health care or other interventions. I was at a UI seminar on this just before Climategate, and when Climategate occurred, I used this as an example of the outcry that is possible when the investigators are caught manipulating data for policy reasons.
I’m still waiting for their April update, let’s keep an eye on this site and compare data to other satellite sources as Anthony recommends!
I tried to prevent this hytseria with my post at 9:15:47 04/01/2010 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#comments
This kind of revision happens all the time, both up and down. Minimums sometimes get revised upwards.
There’s a better explanation upthread here at 17:59:54 on 05/04/2010.
The NSIDC is legit and posting wild fantasies about their methods disgraces this blog.
Phil. (20:16:34) :
“But currently the area is decreasing (since March 7th) and the ice is blowing out.”
i don’t know what the source was for the sea ice drift map you linked, but the DMI has daily drift maps that don’t seem to indicate anything quite so dramatic
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift/index.uk.php
Admittedly they haven’t updated for almost 3 days which, if past history is any precedent, indicates they are probably experiencing instrumental or system difficulties. But since they all seem to use the same AMSR-E data that would suggest caution regarding all of these computer generated fantasies regarding what is happening in the Arctic at the present moment.
Personally I can’t find much to get very excited about in any of these developments in the Arctic, either short or long term. For those who think I’m wrong I’d like to suggest a little thought experiment. Suppose none of these lovely satellite graphics ever existed, that all information about the state of the Arctic for the last 30 years had been successfully embargoed from publication or dissemination to the world. What phenomena in your local environment, or in the rest of the world outside the Arctic for that matter, would allow you to accurately approximate what has occurred with sea ice in the Arctic over that time span?
Frederick Michael (21:32:04) :
The NSIDC is legit and posting wild fantasies about their methods disgraces this blog.
————–
Pardon my skepticism! I’ve seen this type of thing done before to justify continuation of funding streams, that’s all.
The arctic ice cap recovery seems to be Ground Zero in the ongoing battle between advocates of, and critics of, AGWT. This is in the international press, so the pressure on the NSIDC reporting and analytical groups must be profound. This has all happened in a matter of weeks.
Statistically speaking, the sea ice extent is essentially at normal, so the graphic is not all that relevant. However, we have been sold so many bills of goods in many areas (WMD, bird flu, climate, etc.) that we scientists have every right to harbor doubts. It is the professional thing to do.
Nice article by Dr. Lindzen:
http://www.modbee.com/2010/04/04/1114073_p2/climate-change-is-simply-natural.html
Anu (23:11:52) – Thanks.
The military buoys send in some measurements, but most seem not to be working decently as to what regards ice thickness.
David Appell (14:48:21) :
“Area cannot increase without volume increasing. Volume is currently decreasing. ”
Ergo, area is decreasing? Are we looking at the same data?
I know there are other considerations, such as multi-year ice, but using fourth or fifth grade geometry only, you can decrease volume and increase area (2 dimensions) provided you decrease the third dimension (be it height, which will be thickness on this subject).
RockyRoad (21:16:15) :
Nice one, I think that is called “Being put in one’s place”.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (23:13:51) :
The arctic ice cap recovery seems to be Ground Zero in the ongoing battle between advocates of, and critics of, AGWT.
This is a very important point. The sea ice data from all these different sources agrees quite well and is beyond argument. This is in strong contrast to the surface temperature data. With the Polar bears now on some kind of silly death watch, the arctic sea ice extent has become “the canary in the coal mine.”
The sea ice data will be the death of CAGW.
That said, we must not forget that the recovery from the little ice age has not ended. The skeptics position is that we are not hitting some tipping point but rather that a gradual warming is not a bad thing. We must avoid claiming that it’s getting cooler; that sets us up.
As the poor skeptic from Colorado who posted the original curiosity about the display of data, I’m mildly amused at the little flame war that’s ensued over it all. I was curious about this, and was mildly disappointed when the “daily” plot didn’t cross the “normal” line, although statistically, we’re well within the normal range. I’m not one of the educated elite. Just curious – but I believe I brought up the possibility in my first post about the subject that the data was being smoothed by a boxcar average of some sort.
I was hoping somebody here had evidence from previous minima and maxima that demonstrated the same shift in previous days’ data, but that seems irrelevant, at this point.
What is relevant is this: Whether you’re one of the elitists who think education is bottled and sold at only the finest institutions, or a pragmatist who simply wants to simply make educated decisions about how to live life and how to vote, keeping an eye on these things is a worthwhile endeavor. Personally, I prefer to hear from kids like Kristen Byrnes on these things than anybody more politically “entrenched”. At least whatever axe she was grinding in high school when she wrote “Ponder the Maunder” was likely more related to boys than funding. I’ve worked with those folks at NSIDC (NOAA) in spectroradiometric analysis; and ten years ago, they would chuckle into the backs of their hands about climate change. Today, I think they’re rewarded only for “certain” results, and sent back to the fields for others.
This was no big deal. Even without previous evidence of smoothing, I’m satisfied that this is a totally legitimate presentation of NSIDC data. But I won’t stop watching their work, and involving myself in the discussions that lead to gigantic energy grabs and decisions that ultimately affect us all.
I bet if you did a daily anomaly, instead of a five day average, one of the days might have been above the ’79-’00 average. Someone should do the calculation! If it did it must be the first time in a long time.
Frederick Michael (07:06:32),
Polar bears are so in danger of going extinct that 500 a year are deliberately killed: click
NSIDC finally published their March 2010 report, it is quite balanced and low-key:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
At American Thinker today, Randall Hoven asks the following question:
Was the Arctic Ice Cap “ADJUSTED”!
Read here why he thinks this could be the case!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/was_the_arctic_ice_cap_adjuste.html
R. de Haan (10:57:45) :
At American Thinker today, Randall Hoven asks the following question:
Was the Arctic Ice Cap “ADJUSTED”!
Read here why he thinks this could be the case!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/was_the_arctic
Unfortunately what he thinks isn’t worth much, he appears to think that the difference between ‘area’ and ‘extent’ is the size of the polar hole. All his analysis rests on that erroneous point.
Larry Hamlin (10:04:26) :
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.
Apart from the fact that they’re not IPCC models, none of them predict a monotonic decline as you claim. Check this out:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Maslowski_Page_02.jpg
Clearly you’re talking nonsense.
JAXA shows that 2010 has, indeed, crossed over the 2003 line.
to David Appell 10:01:56
Thanks for correcting me. I’ve found a few different sources on percentages and was hoping that I hit an average. I also misplaced a decimal point. But, aside from that, I am stating a limit to the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. An effect that is nowhere near catastrophic and in most ways, is beneficial and in any case, is not causing “climate change.”
And I can’t believe you are trying to justify Santer’s email about beating the crap out of someone. Whether it was just venting some steam, as we all do, though I don’t make threats, I make promises, is that a hill you want to die on? Really? Or is Santer just so perfect? You can’t accept that some of the people in the AGW “a-team” are human and make bad mistakes, either in analysis or casual conversation?
By the way, I still haven’t seen scientific proof of how CO2 is going to drastically warm up or how it affects the water vapor cycle ( I don’t think that it does and I haven’t seen proof that it does) or how the laws of thermodynamics or even the directionally random nature of particle radiation are suspended just for bad little ole’ CO2.
What I do know is that CO2 was given bigger weight in the GCMs not because of empirical or experimental evidence but “just because.” It’s akin to saying that Nike shoes can make one fit. The reality is that a number of trained, professional athletes wear Nikes, a coincidence, with no specific causality between the shoe and one’s muscle-fat ratio. Yeah, I get it, the globe warmed from 1979 to 1995. And then no more, in fact it has cooled. Even Latif at the IPCC says it’s cooling. Even Phil Jones has stated that he can find no statistical warming since 1995. At the same time, human CO2 output increased. But one didn’t necessarily cause the other and computer games at East Anglia don’t make it so. I’m still waiting for the actual scientific explanation, complete with repeatable labs, to show how this effect is happening.
Also, no one has proven that clouds and water vapor are not negative feedback. And simply stating that they are positive feedback doesn’t make it so. It has to be proven by data from repeatable experiments. That’s called science and I learned that method in 8th grade. Of course, that was back when they taught science and not politics. Our overhead projector was hand shadows on the cave wall in front of the fire.
Smokey (14:21:20) :
replying to R. Gates (13:38:43):
You said that AGW is not a theory. That statement confuses me quite a bit.
As such, I think you are riding R. Gates pretty hard here. S/He (I haven’t followed closely enough or simply don’t consider gender when reading, usually) has at a minimum been respectful, and states here position with a considerable amount of humility. S/he has put up with a lot of abuse from people who don’t seem to return the favor, and is one of the few AGW proponents who admits to the fallibility of the theory. Most just defer with something like ‘even if it’s wrong, conservation is still a good idea’, which is true but still a b/s retort in the debate. So, in short, at least treat her with with the level of tolerance she has shown to all of us, who are still rather outnumbered among those who truly count in this debate (I am speaking of academics and legislators).
Now; if AGW is not a theory, what in bloody ‘ell is it then?
Here is an analysis of the NSIDC report for March 2010 as well as comparisons with reports of the past and the sensational headlines. There is also a plea for rational humility, which I think is a cry into the darkness.
http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-shows-extensive-growth-in-march-2010/
Bob Kutz (15:07:02),
You obviously haven’t seen the background to this. Gates has moderated his comments quite a bit lately, as you will see if you go through the archives.
A while ago I provided him with a comprehensive definition of the differences between a Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory and Law, as they are applied in science [as opposed to a casual comment such as, “My theory is that toads cause warts,” or “My theory is that the moon is made of green cheese.”]
Following my posting of that link, Mr Gates used the acronym “AGWT.” So I re-posted the link. From then on, Gates began using AGWT all the time. He was needling me, and I was responding by holding his feet to the fire regarding the proper scientific definitions.
This didn’t just start in this thread, and I take some of the credit for the improvement in Gates’ willingness to at least say, if not really believe, that he is 25% skeptic [either you’re a scientific skeptic or you aren’t. Skeptics can always be convinced. But it takes falsifiable and testable evidence, something the AGW crowd lacks.]
Words matter, especially in science. I recommend Dr Glassman’s paper showing the differences between the hierarchy of scientific proof to everyone. Once it is clear that AGW is not a Theory [in part because the raw data, code and methodologies presumably supporting it are kept secret from the hated skeptics], then we can deal with it properly: as something between a hypothesis and a conjecture. When it’s called a theory, we’re being sold a bill of goods.
Has everybody stopped hyperventilating and claiming that sea ice is recovering?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png