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.
I think we shouldn’t get excited. Remember that our averages are very short-term. If we had a 100 or 200 year average, it would be a little more valuable. But since we don’t, it doesn’t mean much if the arctic ice area and arctic ice extent pass some imaginary “normal” line.
We have no reliable data that shows where the ice was 100, 200, and 500 years ago. Without that data, we can easily obsess over perceived abnormal levels that could be a return to longer-term norms.
Yes indeed, nature is laughing at us. Most people, especially the AGW alarmists can’t see the wood from the trees. If one stands back a little and looks at the history of climate change for our planet, one can only come to the conclusion that climate does indeed change and the current changes are nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, compared to many historical periods, current changes are far more lethargic. Exaggerations by AGW alarmists in particular are so full of themselves. They really should be made either to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt (which they haven’t as yet) or shut up. If they continue to spread their exaggerations they then should be charged with at least disturbing the peace, probably charged with fraud, and possibly put behind bars.
NZ Willy (15:26:29) :
What I said is the text below, which is correct.
Yeah…That’s definitely censored. Do y’all really think that the NSIDC which is a huge enforcer of Glo-bull warming is going to show an above average ice extent on their graphs? They wouldn’t dare! Lol.
Mooloo (15:11:29) :
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.
—————————————
Some verging on loopy?
Is that ‘polite’, to say that?
Words like ‘rot’ and ‘loopy’ are not helpful, or welcome, in my view.
jaymam (17:19:47) :
Is this NSIDC graph using a running average and not plotting actual daily figures?
If so, why does it not state that on their graph?
And why on earth use a running average? Please would everybody stop manipulating data if at all possible. I want to see actual figures that don’t change in a few days, as these ones have just done.
–
REPLY: Thanks for bringing this up! I’ve also wondered why the sea ice extent map shows the “Median,” rather than the “Mean”:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to compare extent to the historical mean, as the graph shows?
Peter of Sydney wrote:
> If one stands back a little and looks at the history of climate
> change for our planet, one can only come to the conclusion
> that climate does indeed change and the current changes
> are nothing out of the ordinary
a) today’s climate changes _are_ out of the ordinary, in that the natural factors present in recent decades cannot explain them. No calculation or model ever proposed by “skeptics” explains them. Climate models explain them when anthropogenic factors are taken into account. (This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs), http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp ).
b) It’s not today’s changes that are really the problem. It’s the projected changes that might well come from the GHGs we have already committed to the atmosphere, and from the fact that we are doing essentially nothing to combat the problem, or plan to combat it.
Don’t worry AGW alarmists, the Times has it covered in their article (as previously referenced by contributor SandyinDerby).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7086746.ece
“Scientists emphasise that the regrowth of ice in the Arctic and the fierce US blizzards are natural variations in weather which have little relevance for long-term climate change.”
Steve Goddard (17:47:19) : “What I said is the text below, which is correct. … ‘At 70N, the sun is now almost 25 degrees above the horizon.’ ”
25 degrees is its current daily high point, so daily mid-height is about 13 degrees. My point is, the Sun is not yet making a big impact, especially when overcast (as our Catlin friends said, “glorious sun”, when at last they got some).
Peter, your glib statements about putting scientists “behind bars” is just whistling past the graveyard on your part. If you want a glimpse of what’s in store for fossil-fueled disinformation lackeys, check out what happened during the liberation of Paris in the heat of August 1944.
For those who don’t know the history, many Nazi collaborators were dragged out into the streets and publicly humiliated … or worse.
Shorn Women of the 1944 Liberation
The lucky [snip] will expire of natural causes before the day of reckoning arrives. I’m only stating the obvious.
.
[Posted for entertainment value. ~dbs]
Craig Moore wrote:
>> David Appell (15:33:14) : “…the science of tipping points is
>> not yet that rigorous, and no scientist is making hard claims about them.”
> Yes they have.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-8,00.html
No, they haven’t.
First of all, the 2C target is not based strictly on concerns about tipping points. Nor it is a scientific target. It’s more a target based on a vast assay of the situation, the projected future, technology, and politics. There is nothing very “scientific” about it.
Mother Nature says, “April Fools!”
Not really on topic but I’ve lost the tips bar so I’ll say it here
I’d like to introduce the skeptics here to John O’Sullivan (just to quote from his bio the first para)
John O’Sullivan was born in 1961 in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O’Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news, commentary and opinion
John has a legal background and used to write interesting articles for Climategate.com. He is a skeptic. He has an easy to understand style and adds humour when appropriate. He is currently writing for suite101.com. and relies on hits to keep him going. I urge the skeptics here to add his space on their favourites bar so you can check on his latest; here’s the link http://international-environmental-affairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/acid-oceans-due-undersea-volcanoes-not-humans
you can get access to all his articles from his bio
Ah, I did not realize that NSIDC is a five day average. Handy info to have. I imagine we’ll get their April report now next week.
David Appell: “While sea ice extent is higher than usual, ice VOLUME is not; and that’s the relevant factor as far as warming goes.”
REALLY? So if IR downwell from Co2 was causing melting, would we expect the ice to shrink and melt at the top or from underneath where you claim it is important to look? Hint: How far can IR radiation penetrate water or ice?
If IR radiation downwell was relevant here, why is the ice cover growing rapidly near the surface?
Chuck Wiese
Winds are driven by pressure differentials, temperatures can be one of the drivers that change pressures, but it is not a one edged sword. That delta T could be due to cooling, causing a differential in temperature and pressure.
Cooling due to evaporation (and resulting density changes) is the driver of out flow winds from thunderstorms, and heating due to release or latent heat of condensation and freezing drive the up drafts.
Wind can be caused by either heating or cooling, it is the change in relative air density, and pressure between two points that drive the winds.
You have to allow for the possibility that those winds are driven by cooling as well as heating.
Larry
Smokey, I love your posts (and your vast library of clickable charts), but it is really picayune to hector R. Gates because he dignifies AGW as a ‘theory’, rather than an ‘hypothesis’ or a ‘conjecture’, or for that matter, a ‘wild-eyed fantasy’. There really are no understandings of these terms that are both (a) hard-and-fast and (b) universally accepted.
It doesn’t matter whether AGW is a ‘theory’ or a ‘conjecture’, or some collation of propositions that partake of both. What matters is whether AGW best explains the facts on the ground (and in the air, and in the sea) as we learn them, according to time-tested methods of science.
As far as I can see, it fails miserably. Whether that makes it a lousy conjecture or a worse theory is really immaterial. What matters is that it is wrong.
/Mr Lynn
AGW theories total collapse!
The gulf stream were slowing down……WRONG!
Antarctic ice melting…………………………WRONG!
Arctic ice in a “death spiral…………………WRONG!
The earth is warming…………………………WRONG!
More severe storms and hurricanes……..WRONG!
More flooding…………………………………..WRONG!
The sealevels are raisng more rapidly…WRONG!
Glaciers melting faster than previous….WRONG!
Amazonas……………………………………….WRONG!
Kilimanjaro………………………………………WRONG!
Dutch area under water……………………..WRONG!
Scientific consensus about global W/co2…Thats more a joke??? WRONG!
Winter snow a thing of he past…. another joke!!! WRONG!
“Barbecue summer” …………………………another joke!!! WRONG!
There will be a hotspot in the atmospfere…………………………….WRONG!
When co2 inreases warming accours…. WRONG!
African harvests………………………………………………………………..WRONG!
Polarbears dying by global warming……a pure lie by WWF………WRONG!
Low summer ice extent arctic 2007 =global warming……………..WRONG!
Mediaval coooler than today ……oh yeah? say that to the vikings and the 400 published papers on the matter……an embarrasing intellectual insult..WRONG!
The hockeystick…….falsification in its bluntest form………………..WRONG!!!
How can anybody still belive in this crapscience??? On drugs???
R.Gates (and anyone else so inclined) please stop throwing out the word ‘consensus’ without defining who the consenting group is. That word has been so often used and misused in all things related to global warming that it’s meaningless. I speak for myself but undoubtedly there are others who see the word ‘consensus’ and automatically conclude the speaker is trying to shore up a weak argument. We’re well aware of the type of consensus coming from the climate scientists working for the IPCC.: they had a consensus to actively silence any voices that questioned AGW.
I’d like to point out that the animation used in this post is Dave Beal’s, not mine.
As to the subject of this post, I’m glad that there’s a reasonable explanation for the apparent adjustments.
There are no measurements of average sea ice thickness for the whole Arctic,–especially going back to the start of the satellite data for sea ice surface. However that may be, there certainly must be a direct relation between total ice cover and total ice *volume*, I should think. The more ice cover there is, the more ice volume there is. Unless you believe that an increase in ice cover causes the older ice to get thinner as well.
The “thinner ice” argument seems to be brought up only when ice cover goes up. I suggest that the “thicker ice” argument be brought up when ice cover goes down, since the remaining ice must be thicker on average, it being concentrated on higher latitudes.
In any case, since no real data exists for average ice thickness that is not heavily dependent on modeling games, the argument is clearly a fall back safety net. The next step in this fall back process is “ocean acidification,” which is even harder to measure with any historical depth than ice thickness.
Global sea ice is virtually unchanged since measurements began in 1979, and attributing the insignificant changes to any particular cause is a guessing game not worth paying the slightest attention to.
Did this really happen? “O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! /He chortled in his joy.” But alas, I fear we should not yet chortle. Even as we speak the heads of finance in the Western World are meeting in London, planning resurrect in Bonn this summer the faltering financial scams based on apocalyptic ‘global warming’.
The skeptics have won a battle or two, but the alarmists have vast resources and large armies at their command. It won’t be over until they admit defeat, or (more likely) are driven from power by an outraged and overtaxed public. Where’s our vorpal blade?
/Mr Lynn
.
R. Gates (13:38:43) :
>>I have admitted several times that I am only 75% convinced that AGWT is correct.
If you are only 75% certain then you are by definition skeptical. All you are arguing over is a matter of degrees. I’m only 2% certain that AGWT is correct but whether you like it or not you are closer to me than to Phil Jones who is 100% certain and admits to no chance of being wrong.
Perhaps you should stop addressing others as skeptics and start with something like “We skeptics…”. Embrace your skepticism.
>>I could generally care less about the political and other social commentary that goes on here,
That’s a shame. If you had been following this theory since it’s inception you would know that at the core it has always been more about politics and social commentary than science. I would have thought that obvious when the emails were exposed and the raw manipulation of the peer review process was exposed. Without political support, this theory would never have gotten off the ground and would have gone the way of the dodo years ago.
I’m enjoying watching honest scientists who have been slimed and muzzled for years batter the consensus of AGW but truthfully it really doesn’t need some of the complexity that people are using to destroy it. Once the curtain was pulled back on the methods and shoddy science behind this scam, much like the Wizard of Oz, the game was over. AGW supporters have not responded with calm, logical presentations of their data and methods but just the opposite, more hiding, more shrillness, more relying on their political masters who believe that islands can capsize for cover. The only death spiral we are witnessing is the slow but inexorable decline in the belief of AGW. Unlike sea ice, it is unlikely to rebound.
You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Mr Lynn (18:37:07),
You’re right, I over reacted. Not everyone thinks words are important. Next time I’ll try to be nicer to Ms Gates. Thanks to you & Mooloo for the feedback.
Plenty of shakin’ going on is So. Calif/Baja Calif.