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.
Chris Noble (18:30:19),
You’re the one who’s hyperventilating and misrepresenting by citing “sea ice.”
What you’re showing a Arctic sea ice, and conveniently omitting the other half of the globe.
Since global ice cover is what matters in global warming/cooling, shall we look at the Antarctic?
OK, if you insist: click
AndrewP (10:00:38) :
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.
The same thing probably happened last year:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090603_Figure2.png
Late April, early May was even closer, for a longer period of time, than this March’s little blip towards the 1979-2000 average.
This year will probably have less summer ice than last summer – it has an extra month to fall from “almost normal”.
I think that most of the posters here are wrong about ice volume being related to year. Sea ice volume is more than likely a function of wind pile-up in the context of a negative AO (IE less flush).
Ever been on the shores of the Great Lakes after wind caused a pile up of lake ice that destroyed your nice over-the-water deck? If there were no wind we would be able to fairly accurately calculate ice depth. Why can’t we? Why doesn’t that simple math equation work? The wind gets in there and mucks things up.
Here is a mind experiment. Consider warmer temps. But with wind blowing towards anything other than an Arctic escape hatch. We could have thicker ice this year with warmer temps than we did last year with colder temps. Why? Because the wind kept compacting and ice jamming the sea ice into thicker jumbles. You must take into account wind when considering ice volume. Temperature alone cannot predict ice thickness.
The only convenient omission is that despite the occasional short period of time when the Arctic sea ice extent approaches the 1979-2000 average the overall trend is down.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png
Seriously, how can anyone look at the above graph and claim that Arctic sea ice is recovering?
Nobody is ignoring Antarctic sea ice. This thread is quite clearly about Arctic sea ice.
Pamela Gray (19:15:56) :
Here is a mind experiment. Consider warmer temps. But with wind blowing towards anything other than an Arctic escape hatch. We could have thicker ice this year with warmer temps than we did last year with colder temps. Why? Because the wind kept compacting and ice jamming the sea ice into thicker jumbles. You must take into account wind when considering ice volume. Temperature alone cannot predict ice thickness.
But consider what’s happening this year when the thick multi-year ice is being blown away from the Canadian shore and the transpolar drift out into the Atlantic. Taking that into account we would expect thinner ice this year (coupled with the thinner ice in the archipelago this winter).
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100325-20100331.jpg
Odd how some people have become expert on what Arctic Ice will and will not do, what co2 will and will not do to climate, and exactly where climate is going.
So easy to them. Oh snap! Who knew?
Chris Noble (20:16:06),
How often will you post that Arctic graph, without posting the Antarctic graph that negates it?
Until you convince someone here that CO2 is gonna getcha?
Let us know when you find your first skeptical convert.
Chris Noble (20:16:06) :
The only convenient omission is that despite the occasional short period of time when the Arctic sea ice extent approaches the 1979-2000 average the overall trend is down.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png
Seriously, how can anyone look at the above graph and claim that Arctic sea ice is recovering?
That’s just one graph.
How about these ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/image5.jpg
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
Not so easy to explain those away, is it ?
Anu (00:03:41):
“Not so easy to explain those away, is it?”
Easiest thing in the world, when we’re dealing with cherry-pickers like you and Chris Noble. Tell us, why do you pick only the Arctic? Global totals are what matters.
OK, on to the deconstruction:
You both keep showing the same NSIDC chart of the Arctic, and ignore the corresponding NSIDC Antarctic chart: click. Why is that?
Polar ice is currently a big deal to climate alarmists because they can point to natural changes in the Arctic and say, “Ah-HA! Told ya so! The Arctic proves that catastrophic AGW is finally happening!”
But global ice cover is what matters when discussing global warming. Doesn’t it? From NASA: click
Now that your three charts have been easily explained away, how do you explain your Arctic-only cherry-picking? Why doesn’t the Antarctic data get equal billing? click
Nothing is happening that is not completely explained by natural climate variation.
Further, there’s a lot of “adjusting” being done by various government agencies that rely on alarmism to keep their funding at current levels. Look at this blink gif showing a typical adjustment: click. As soon as the 30 year average was hit, the chart was re-adjusted to show that the average trend line wasn’t really hit.
The same kind of adjustment was done by the NSIDC: click. Note that these “adjustments” are always in the more scary direction.
Your scary charts are contradicted by these un-scary graphs of the Arctic: click1, click2, click3
Nothing is happening that is not explained by normal fluctuations within long term parameters: click.
The planet is not static and never has been. Imputing normal climate variations to changes in a minor trace gas by pointing to only one hemisphere loses the debate. But when temporarily declining Arctic ice is all you’ve got, you’re forced to ignore both the Antarctic, and global totals. That selective cherry-picking debunks your argument.
The Arctic will be ice-free in the summer way before Antarctica – the climate models predict that. Once the albedo changes, the ocean heating and northern permafrost melting will speed up. All part of the unfolding 21st century climate change.
It sounds like you didn’t bother to read how NSIDC calculates the 5 day moving average – search above.
I realize you’re upset that the “normal” line wasn’t reached. Hey -that’s how it goes.
“temporarily declining” – you sound hopeful, almost desperate.
Too bad the climate doesn’t care what you hope.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
It will continue “normally fluctuating” downwards, until the death spiral of ice-free summers.
Then you can move on and turn your attention to the next “normal climate variation”, like the steady temperature increase for the planet, or the inexorable ocean warming. There’s many years of opportunity for misunderstanding the data and/or hoping these are just “temporary”, even though it unfolds exactly as predicted.
Oh look, Prof. Jones is still getting the same salary, for much less work – that will teach him to, uh, do science.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/
If that multi-million pound book deal comes through, people like you will get what they want – Prof. Jones dropping out of science.
Yay.
Oh wait, Is Dr. Phil the Director again ?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp
I wonder if he will put photovoltaics on his new country mansion, after the book advance…
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/23/article-1028758-030884970000044D-612_468x311.jpg
Smokey, while many of the posters here are still denying the blatantly obvious downward trend in Arctic sea ice there is very little chance that I or anyone else will be able to convince them about anything. This is the difference between a skeptic and a denialist.
This whole post is about a small bump in the March Arctic sea ice extent where it came close to touching the 1979-200 average. The same thing happened last year when various bloggers started hyperventilating and predicting a recovery or claiming that briefly reaching the 1979-200 average Arctic sea ice extent somehow refutes AGW. However, when the same downward trend seen from 1979 continues there is a deafening silence or a range of deflections such as yours about Antarctic sea ice.
Anu (14:16:59) :
The Arctic will be ice-free in the summer way before Antarctica – the climate models predict that. Once the albedo changes, the ocean heating and northern permafrost melting will speed up. All part of the unfolding 21st century climate change.
Even though the Antarctic has a 1.5 million km^2 headstart you’re probably right! Of course there’s very little multiyear sea ice there so it has an advantage, which is rapidly diminishing however.
Anu (14:16:59) :
Chris Noble (16:19:16) :
Phil. (17:43:10) :
I had some choice responses, but I’m sure they would be snipped. So, let me just say, keep watching those trends, guys, and be prepared for the inevitable.
6th April was a hit at the “normal” ice extent measurement by the Norwegians:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
and a barrier breach at the ice “area” measurement:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Pete (06:26:15)
What’s your point ?
That the summer melt ice area and extent might be somewhat above the 3 lowest of the satellite era (2007, 2008, 2009) ?
We’ll know by October.
Chris Noble (16:19:16) :
First, you don’t get to re-define scientific skepticism. That definition has been long established, and is a central requirement of the scientific method. And you’re lucky you didn’t get snipped for repeatedly using the d-word.
Scientific skeptics, who comprise most commenters and readers of this “Best Science” site, can easily be convinced of any scientific hypothesis. All it requires is empirical, testable evidence that human produced CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. [Keep in mind that computer models, besides being usually wrong in their predictions, are not evidence.]
Because no empirical evidence has been produced, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis has no valid real world basis in fact, and your complaint that you can’t “convince” skeptics of that failed hypothesis is simply a complaint that you have to abide by the scientific method in order to be convincing.
Also, “blatantly obvious” is in the eye of the beholder, not in the data, since you give no time frame. For example, here is a cooling trend. And it’s a nice long time frame. If you want to see shorter time frames showing the same thing, just ask and I’ll provide them.
Anu (14:16:59),
You win the smokey award for successfully avoiding the reality that global ice extent is all that matters; regional fluctuations are just that, regional. The Arctic is a region. To signify that you are the recipient of the award, you may append an “s” to your name.
By focusing exclusively on the Arctic, believers in the conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause any measurable global warming are tacitly admitting that their catastrophic CO2 conjecture is debunked: click
By ignoring my links and hoping they will go away, I understand that you’re incapable of adequately answering them, and ignoring them is the least painful option.
Finally, you’re getting Phil all excited when you speculate that…
“The Arctic will be ice-free in the summer way before Antarctica – the climate models predict that.”
“…the climate models predict…” heh! Thanks for making me snicker: click
So, care to put a specific date on that prediction? One year? Five years? Maybe an AlGorithm of 4 years? Or a time frame so far in the future that it can never be verified that your prediction is wrong?
[Before making your WAG [wild-ass guess], note that Arctic summer sea ice doesn’t seem to be declining at all: click. Who are you gonna believe, NSIDC? or your lyin’ eyes?]
Since you will have to pick something like A or B [or your prediction is unverifiable and therefore completely worthless], look at this handy Vostok chart again, showing the long-term global cooling trend: click. Note that there are warm spikes. But the long term trend is clearly negative.
Finally, to you I sound ‘desperate.’ That’s called “psychological projection,” and the alarmist crowd is generally afflicted with it from top to bottom. A couple of fine examples of appearing desperate are your strange assertions: “the steady temperature increase for the planet, or the inexorable ocean warming…”.
Show us your ‘steady temperature increase’ here: click. Hey! Where’d it go? And the ARGO deep sea array does show ‘inexorable’… whoops… cooling: click. Seems you’re wrong about most everything.
When the Antarctic starts emulating the Arctic, wake me. Because citing only the Arctic is typical alarmist cherry-picking.
Anu (17:59:54)
Mark C. Serreze said: “we do a modified 5-day mean by projecting values forward by 1 or 2 day based on the slope over the past few days” “it was a decision based on simply trying to improve presentation of the results”
I’m quite happy to have a jagged graph of the actual daily results, without any averaging. Unnecessary data manipulation should be avoided, or it makes people suspicious of the figures when they change retrospectively. If the NSIDC just plotted the actual figures we would not be discussing the odd behaviour of their graph here on WUWT.
jaymam (20:49:31) :
I’m quite happy to have a jagged graph of the actual daily results, without any averaging. Unnecessary data manipulation should be avoided, or it makes people suspicious of the figures when they change retrospectively. If the NSIDC just plotted the actual figures we would not be discussing the odd behaviour of their graph here on WUWT.
I agree.
Far too much time is spent arguing about trivialities like you mentioned.
This could all be avoided if NSIDC, and the other sites, had better presentation graphics, maybe a nice web interface to “build your own” graphs.
Show me the data without smoothing.
With smoothing.
Show me the 1979-2000 average.
OK, now with the 1979-2008 average.
Overlay the 1 std dev gray area on the average line.
OK, now 2 std dev. 3 std dev.
This could all be done pretty easily, but it might take some programmers a few weeks, or months, whatever.
I think the problem is just funding – 20 years ago, there was no need to put data up on the web. Even 10 years ago, there was probably not much “public” interest in this data. As the internet gets faster, as the PC’s get much more powerful, and as certain sciences become “public interest”, existing public websites are revealed to be inadequate.
They aren’t going to spend $50,000 making the Web interface to permafrost data more flexible, if only 400 people in the world are even looking at that data on the web…
I wonder if hundreds of “scientific” sites could make their data available in some kind of standard XML format, and let the interested citizen buy some PC program that lets them slice/dice the data however they want. Because whatever they made available on the website, some people would push the envelope and demand more. Or just not like what is available, for some reason.
@Smokey (10:25:20) :
Thanks for giving me an award, but I prefer my trophies, medals and cash – maybe one day you’ll win an award, too. You seem like an optimist.
If you get liver cancer, will you brag about how healthy your heart is ? Systemic problems usually start in one “region”. Once the Arctic is ice free in the summer, the planet’s albedo will have changed, and the ocean warming will speed up. Things don’t happen all at once – that’s why there’s such a thing as “time”.
Perhaps in your amateur “studies”, nobody has told you that the Arctic summer minimum is in September, not June:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
Try to figure out the trend in this graph. Note that once the “death spiral” starts, the linear trend will no longer apply.
I’m glad Vostok data suggests one part of Antarctica might get 0.001° C cooler during the next century of global warming – that should help the global temperature, although insignificantly. But you seem fond of insignificant data, so enjoy.
I’m glad you’re aware of the concept of psychological disorders. This might prove useful to you in the years ahead, when the Arctic becomes ice free in the summer – some people are going to have severe cognitive dissonance and other afflictions, and not even be aware what is happening.
If your busy “amateur studies” schedule allows some time for finding out what is happening with the Argo buoys, read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/#comment-349454
I know you’re fond of your little “friendsofscience” unlabeled, uncredited graph, but you might want to find out what’s really going on.
Maybe it’s time for you to admit your high school teachers were right, and you have no aptitude for science. Just accept it, and move on – don’t waste your time trying to prove real scientists wrong. I have little aptitude for music – I’m not wasting my time recording songs in my garage and complaining about how real musicians don’t know what they’re doing.
jaymam (20:49:31)
Right as usual. NSIDC won’t “open the books” regarding their raw-to-adjusted data methodology, and since their funding depends in part on keeping the AGW scare alive, it’s best to not accept their charts without question.
Anu obviously accepts their version of reality without question, although he lacks the empirical evidence to back up his assertions. This is his retort to me when I ask for evidence: “Maybe it’s time for you to admit your high school teachers were right, and you have no aptitude for science.”
Funny, that. Can I play too? OK:
Anu is so easy to debunk because he is a true believer. How do we know that? Because he states, with absolute assurance, his unequivocal prediction about an ice-free Arctic that he knows is fast approaching. But he won’t give a time frame when that will supposedly occur.
Instead, Anu rationalizes: “Things don’t happen all at once – that’s why there’s such a thing as ‘time’.”
Yes, let’s discuss the time question. In my post above, I challenged him: So, care to put a specific date on that [ice free Arctic] prediction? One year? Five years? Maybe an AlGorithm of 4 years? Or a time frame so far in the future that it can never be verified that your prediction is wrong? I couldn’t hear his answer over the sound of the crickets.
But he still won’t give his time frame. Anu needs the courage to put a date on his ice-free Arctic prediction. Al Gore isn’t afraid to say we have four years until the Arctic is ice free. Why is Anu afraid to predict the date? As Dan Rather used to say: “Courage.”
And regarding that repeatedly posted chart of the Arctic: every time someone posts that same chart, I post 4 or 5 or different charts refuting it, including the graph of the Antarctic, which is practically its mirror image: as the Arctic loses ice, the Antarctic gains ice. Where’s the global warming? Hiding in an invisible pipeline? And to refute Anu’s misrepresentation about the ARGO buoys: they don’t just take the temperature at 6500 feet, they take it from the surface all the way down. The 3,351 ARGO buoys show that the oceans are cooling.
I posted seven charts in my last comment, and others posted theirs, too. But like any blinkered alarmist, Anu ignores all contrary evidence, and instead engages in psychological projection by accusing skeptics of cognitive dissonance. He apparently missed the discussion here where it was pointed out that skeptics are immune from CD, being the opposite of true believers. Skeptics need evidence; true believers have faith – and if the flying saucers don’t arrive on the predicted date, the CD afflicted simply re-set the date of arrival. Because they have faith in their belief.
Next, the University of Bremen chart showing increasing Arctic ice was for June of 2007, 08 & 09. Sorry I don’t have the September pics [Anu thinks September isn’t Summer; three-quarters of it is]. My reason for posting that ice extent map was to show that maybe the NSIDC chart might be a little less credible than people think.
NSIDC routinely re-adjusts its numbers [and always in a way to show alarming warming]. Their chart should be taken with a grain of salt. The U of Bremen chart is based on physically measured ice cover, pictured on a map — much more credible, no?
I don’t mind Anu disparaging my education [I’m certainly not a climatologist, my degree is in electronics. But I worked thirty years in a metrology [no, Anu, not meteorology] lab, designing, testing, calibrating and maintaining weather related instruments such as dew/frost point instruments, R.H. meters, gas sniffers, temp recorders, etc.]. I’m not ashamed that I don’t have an advanced degree. But in a move worthy of the most self-absorbed alarmist, Anu cites his own self as his authority in his link.
Inquiring minds would like to see Anu’s C.V., since he writes so condescendingly about another poster’s “amateur” studies. So how about it, Anu? What’s your specific expertise? We wouldn’t want to think we’re dealing with an amateur here.
I don’t like to waste time posting when only Smokey will read my work, but I have 8 minutes to spare.
Al Gore isn’t afraid to say we have four years until the Arctic is ice free.
You realize this is a lie, right ?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims-dont-add/
Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr. Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Gore.
could be
75% chance by summer 2014 or 2016
Try to stick to facts. And while you’re at it, try to find graphs that are labelled.
I did read some about that Long Bets site you mentioned once, that looks interesting. I usually like to win bets within a year or so, but I’ll keep it in mind. I saw Ted Danson won a bet there.
It doesn’t matter when I predict the Arctic to be ice free – I would just do it to win money, not as a formal scientific prediction. There’s a big difference, as I pointed out on another thread.
Will you make a prediction on minimum sea ice area in the Arctic ? Your take on things is “natural variability” or “cooling”, right ? So what is your prediction of minimum ? Never below summer 2007 for another 1000 years ? Now that’s something that could be a good bet in a decent timeframe…
No, the Argo buoys show the ocean is warming. Yes, they profile the temperatures from the surface down to 2000 meters. Your plot is for only the top 700 meters. Read my link again – not because I’m an “authority”, but because I am organized and have the comment # and don’t want to type it all out again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/the-current-el-nino-still-hanging-on/#comment-349454
If you saved your comment #’s you could do the same.
And I said when the Arctic becomes ice free in the summer – some people are going to have severe cognitive dissonance and other afflictions. Not “now”. Try to follow the details.
the Arctic summer minimum is in September, not June
Clear enough.
And yes, NSIDC gets data in image form as well:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_conc.png
I don’t want to get into details of radar imaging and sea ice algorithms here – go search the actual science website. Read about the satellites used. Dig into it, rather than use innuendo to imply NSIDC is lying.
I didn’t disparage your education, but your aptitude for science. It shows in most of your comments.
You’ve just admitted you’re an “amateur” in climate science, so why is it condescending when I say it? Some of the amateurs here are rather impressive with their interest and knowledge in the details of climate science – you are not.
I didn’t say I was an expert in climate science, but yes, my aptitude for science is larger than yours – I started my MIT studies in physics, as a sophomore, when I was 16. A long time ago. Even my less able classmates who flunked out and had to go to weaker schools had stronger minds than you. As for CV, I prefer to remain anonymous, for the benefit of my company. Honesty makes many enemies.
[snip]
Now I see you are average for this crowd.
[snip]
Anu (08:17:39) :
I was just sharing information on some observational data.
But since you asked I might have a point: from the looks of it year 2010 seems to become the third year in a row with increasing arctic ice extent, are we looking at a new trend?
In the end of October we’ll only know a slightly more but most likely it will be truly inconvenient for the AGW alarmists among us.
Yeah, mine’s bigger, too. When I was 10, I was given books on electronics, including the latest (then) stuff on solid state, and the newest developements from the space program, VLSI. When I was 11, I was learning single-variable differential and integral calculus and the rudiments of quadratic equations. I still like Heinlein’s idea of requiring a voter to solve a root of a quadratic before being able to vote. Also, when I was 11, I was given a high school level primer book on Einstein’s theories of Relativity, Special and General. But cursed be my step-grandfather for teaching me that stuff in a way that can’t be documented or proven.
Sorry, Anu, I’m afraid it sounded a bit condescending when you mentioned your age while attending MIT. Well, I was 18 in 1982, attending UT @ur momisugly Arlington, Texas, considered to have an engineering department on par with MIT. The Aerospace Engineeering program there had their own wind tunnel.
In the end, it won’t matter where we got our education and whether it was accredited or not. Results matter. Creds don’t make good science. Sticking to the scientific method makes good science.
Anu (22:30:23) :
“No, the Argo buoys show the ocean is warming. “
Actually, that is not what the most recent data show at all. Initial data from Argo showed a distinct cooling. This was ascribed to errors in pressure sensors, and the data were “corrected” to show an increase in ocean heat. But, in recent years, even the corrected measurements show a distinct downward trend.
Such corrections illustrate one of the ways in which confirmation bias plays such a heavy role in AGW research. The data disagreed with their assumptions, so they sought out what they considered to be a plausible mechanism for a cold bias. But, had the data been hot biased, they would not have questioned it at all. Whether the “corrections” are valid or not in this instance, applying the same type of confirmation bias to all incoming data inevitably skews the big picture to the side of the predetermined verdict.
“Even my less able classmates who flunked out and had to go to weaker schools had stronger minds than you.”
And, you believe this nonsense adds to your credibility, do you? Color me unimpressed.
Bart (01:11:22) :
Such corrections illustrate one of the ways in which confirmation bias plays such a heavy role in AGW research. The data disagreed with their assumptions, so they sought out what they considered to be a plausible mechanism for a cold bias. But, had the data been hot biased, they would not have questioned it at all. Whether the “corrections” are valid or not in this instance, applying the same type of confirmation bias to all incoming data inevitably skews the big picture to the side of the predetermined verdict.
A bit like Spencer and Christy who were quite happy that their UAH MSU data showed a negative trend and were very reluctant to admit their errors. However, they all turned out to be real and led to a positive trends, sometimes ‘corrections’ really are corrections!