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.
Baghdad Bob? Is that you? Have you found a new venue?
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
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
Isn’t a ‘death spiral’ one of the moves from the Will Ferrell comedy Blades of Glory?
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.
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/
Has someone the datas of the 1979 – 2000 average or an idea where to find them ?
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.
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
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
“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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Steve Goddard (13:03:24) :
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”.
scrap that last post – not enough coffee error, I think – you are correct, sorry.
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.
This graph is interesting.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice.png
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 ?
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?
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?
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.