By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
If you zoom in far enough, most anything looks scary, like this picture of a human head louse.
But when you look at it in the scale of our normal experience, not so much.
Be it lice or ice, the scale of presentation matters.
There is often criticism of cherry picking when it comes to time scales of climate data. In the case of satellite sea ice data presentation, both time scale and vertical scale are magnified. There’s only about 30 years of satellite ice data, whereas Arctic sea ice has been around for millions of years. Vertical scale is magnified to show the smallest fluctuations. Willis Eschenbach made and excellent point about scale when he comparatively demonstrated the scale of ice melt in Greenland in his essay: On Being the Wrong Size. When compared to the bulk volume of ice, the current Greenland melt is statistically insignificant.
There has been a lot of talk about commercial shipping opportunities through the “soon to be ice free” Arctic. These are normally based on highly magnified graphs published by organisations like NSIDC, similar to the one below.
A different view emerges when you take the raw data from NSIDC’s web site and plot it on graphs with a more appropriate vertical scale. Done that way, the downwards trend for April ice is 0.039 million km²/year.
The surprise of scale?
When you calculate the slope, it suggests that April sea ice extent won’t reach zero until the year 2385.
Oh, that can’t be right. How about May? May will be ice free in the year 2404, only 394 years from now. (The US is 234 years old. Copernicus was placed on the “Catholic Forbidden index” 394 years ago.)
June will be ice free in the year 2296.
July will be ice free by the year 2151.
August will be ice free by the year 2103
September will be ice free by the year 2065. (Note that September 2009 was right on the trend line.)
All of the data and plots are available here in this Google online spreadsheet.
September is the minimum and ice starts to freeze up again. No chance of an ice free Arctic in October. But something must be wrong. The experts said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2008, and that it would be ice free by 2013.
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly”
NSIDC director, Dr. Mark Serreze also says this in this 5/20/10 Globe and Mail article:
“We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can’t go back.”
Dr. Serreze is still on the ‘death spiral’. He hasn’t changed his tune.
While skeptics see cycles, by saying “we can’t go back” Dr. Serreze apparently assumes the linear trend will continue to zero.
You can see from the graphs above how ridiculous those claims are. Even if the current trends continue, there is no reason to expect an ice free Arctic anytime in the next 50 years. And even more interesting to me is the fact that September, 2007 was really not that interesting. It was only 1.5 standard deviations off the trend line, i.e. almost following the 30 year trend.
All of the the main Arctic ice experts underpredicted the 2009 minimum, except for WUWT – which predicted it correctly and early.
—————————————————————-
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts
-Richard Feynman
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:10 am
Well, if pre-satellite anecdotal evidence is to be inadmissible, I think it is logical to proscribe the use of the word “normal” as defined by R. Gates (“with normal being based of the last 30+ plus years of reliable data, and not pictures of submarines coming up”). There is no scientific basis for deciding that the observed period is “normal”.
For gosh sakes folks this is just geometry.
Think of the ice as a wedge. During ice formation, the wedge extends outward at the thin end, but it gets thicker at the thick end. The faster the ice grows over a given period, the more the thin part extends.
When conditions reverse, the thin part retreats. The faster it grew, the greater the stretch of the thin part of the wedge, so the faster it retreats. The thick part gets thinner too, but we’re not measuring that with extent. However, since it is a wedge, as the thin part retreats it starts to get to a thicker part of the wedge, so the retreat has to slow down.
We just saw a very sharp advance in extent, meaning an out of proportion increases in the length of the tin edge of the wedge, so we should see a very sharp fall back now. Don’t forget however that the thick part got thicker, so as the retreat runs into that, the retreat will slow.
I believe that the arctic ice extent will hold up better than people think here. the ao is still going negative at the moment as it has been doing all spring.Every year we are told that the ice extent will crash ,this year is no different then.I will wait until September and see what happens.
barry says:
May 24, 2010 at 10:46 am
“……Yet Gail asserts with confidence that there are 200-year solar cycles – something I’ve never heard of, and assume comes from, at best, some obscure paper…..”
___________________________________________________________________________
I am amazed! You really were not aware of the 200 year solar cycles?!? It is called the the Wolf-Gleissberg cycle.
ABSTRACT (from Nature International weekly Journal of Science)
“Many palaeoclimate records from the North Atlantic region show a pattern of rapid climate oscillations, the so-called Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a quasi-periodicity of ~1,470 years for the late glacial period. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain these rapid temperature shifts, including internal oscillations in the climate system and external forcing, possibly from the Sun. But whereas pronounced solar cycles of ~87 and ~210 years are well known, a ~1,470-year solar cycle has not been detected. Here we show that an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard–Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean in cycles of ~87 and ~210 years. We attribute the robust 1,470-year response time to the superposition of the two shorter cycles, together with strongly nonlinear dynamics and the long characteristic timescale of the thermohaline circulation. For Holocene conditions, similar events do not occur. We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/full/nature04121.html
180 to 200 year cycles (Burroughs 1992) http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
Shahinaz M. Yousef of Department of Astronomy, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, forecast, in 1995 and 1996, that cycles 23 and the following two to three solar cycles are expected to be weak cycles similar to those cycles that occurred around 1800 and 1900. http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html
Implications of Gleissberg cycle http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR02/01487/COSPAR02-A-01487.pdf
On the subject of choosing appropriate scales for data display we generally select a scale that most clearly displays the range of the data we are working with. Certainly some climate data are displayed on scales that are purposely meant to exaggerate the effects which can be misleading if not properly explained. We seldom use scales that encompass the total possible range of data as this would often squash the results we are tying to display. A good example is our regular thermometer. We do not use a scale of absolute zero (0K) to say 500K as this would not give us a very good display of our normal daily experienced temperatures.
Whether the variations in a plot are significant depends on the situation. For the NSIDC data is a 1% or 5% or 10% change significant, I don’t know, I am not an ice expert. But just because a variation is small compared to the absolute range certainly does not imply that it is insignificant. A 4 degree temperature variation on a scale of 0K to 500K may not seem significant most of the time. However, it may be extremely critical at other times. Ask any gardener or fruit grower how important a temperature difference between +2C or -2C is.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23535 I think this is relevant to this discussion. We are well within the normal range, as Dr. Lindzen has said.
Good, I’m glad to see you’ve noticed. There will be more, as your MO is pretty transparent as well. And while you wait to see if this year’s Arctic sea ice gamble will be as lucky as last year’s, I will wait for all of your papers that support the extraordinary conclusions that were pre-released many, many moons ago.
REPLY: Yes the paper is coming, and in the meantime, you’ve accomplished nothing. You simply hurl insults while hiding behind anonymity, which makes you and your opinion of little value. Be a man, if you believe in what you write, step up there in Passau, Neven and put your name to it like I do. – Anthony
lichanos said on May 24, 2010 at 6:02 am:
In ancient times it was an accepted practice to anoint the head with oil. While this has been given religious significance by biblical references, oil is actually quite effective at blocking the respiration passages along the sides of these tiny critters, like lice and fleas. A few drops of olive oil is an effective treatment of ear mites with cats, for example. Thus oily hair, although preferably regularly combed, is better at keeping lice infestations away than regularly washed clean hair. Our obsession with bodily cleanliness to avert disease is inviting this head lice epidemic.
Then there is the hair shirt, an uncomfortable itchy garment made from coarse animal hair worn next to the skin. Likewise dating from ancient times, it has been characterized as an instrument of penance, of self-induced suffering for religious purposes like fasting or even self-flagellation. Yet back then, people had to cope with body lice, fleas, ticks and the like, besides dirty and dusty living and working conditions. A hair shirt would seem to be a good counter-irritant that keeps one from noticing the sensation of all those wee beasties crawling on your skin, thus its possible historical use as such deserves consideration.
The ability of “educated experts” to miss The Big Picture by using our current conditions as a reference frame has many examples and seemingly no upper limit. Speaking about Arctic sea ice…
Joe Bastardi says:
May 24, 2010 at 3:48 am
Nature abhors straight lines, and there’s no extra charge for the noise embedded on the resultant sine wave.
“There has been a lot of talk about commercial shipping opportunities through the “soon to be ice free” Arctic.”
This same sort of talk was around about, oh, 160 years ago.
Dashing off in anticipation of the Northwest Passage being open at last and all the great benefits of that.
stevengoddard says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:08 am
Mark Serreze has apparently placed his bet for 2010
May 24, 2010 Mark Serreze of the center forecast the ice decline this year would even break 2007’s record.
Except there is no direct quote, no link – where did they source it?
@Ed Caryl says:
May 24, 2010 at 7:21 am
The solar wind was really quite slow for a couple of years, with some large gaps in coronal hole activity last winter; http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
in the last 2 months it has picked up to levels not seen since late 2007.
Anthony, I am surprised at your downgrading comments towards Neven. Why resort to such tactics? Can’t we just discuss the observations? And what those observations imply? The reality is that Steve was wrong in his earlier posts about this “grand” recovery. The negative AO did not bring about the recovery he had hoped for. Obviously we would all hope for a recovery, but that is not the direction the Arctic sea ice has taken in recent years, nor is it true for most climate state variables in the Arctic. The continued evidence of warming in the Arctic is clear, you see it in all the major climate variables. Why not focus on what is causing this warming instead of putting each other down.
REPLY: Neven is part of a small group of people who “play nice” here, then say the most horrible things about me elsewhere. Troll doesn’t do his MO justice as a description. Like many of his ilk, he does so anonymously, spewing his poisonous opinions without fear of being held accountable. Thus, he gets the label of “coward” and I make no apologies for doing so. He libels me elsewhere, but wants respect for his opinions here. This is the distorted self important view that he carries. I refuse to give him any respect until he debates on the same plane that I operate on, with the same risk of putting your name to your words. If you’ll read my policy page, you’ll see that I describe this as “my home on the Internet”. He’s not the sort of person I would invite into my home again because he has no honor and acts boorishly. – Anthony
rbateman said on May 24, 2010 at 12:43 pm:
Eh, that’s history. There are many willing to risk repeating the mistakes of the past, since obviously they are vastly smarter than those before them thus they are clearly incapable of making those same mistakes. 😉
R. Gates says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Gail, I really resent being accused of “twisting facts”, but I do appreciate you providing links to fables and stories of the past. There is nothing in any of what you gave me that proves or refutes the scientific claim that an Ice Free Arctic would be a unique event in recorded human history.”
Gail is correct, you are twisting the facts by omission.
It is ridiculous to deny the evidence from many sources that the North Pole has been free of ice on occasion in the past, and to assert that only the modern satellite record has any worth. Next you’ll be claiming that the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age did not exist in your efforts to support your failing beliefs.
There are no linear trends regarding climate metrics which are the output of processes driven by deterministic chaos. The amount of Arctic sea ice will continue to oscillate up and down in the future as it has in the past, despite your CAGW inspired prophecies of doom.
The quasi-cyclical nature of Earth’s climate is well illustrated here:-
1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
stevengoddard said on May 24, 2010 at 11:37 am:
Right church, wrong pew.
🙂
Steve, thank you so much for showing a view of this data as it actually is. Just keep putting it up in articles like this, intellegent people will draw the correct interpretation.
Interesting to see that the most anomalously warm temperatures for the month of May (7oC) are actually in the Laptev and E. Siberian seas whereas most of the “rotten” ice seems to be in the Kara and Barents Seas. Yet there is a large polynya forming in the Laptev Sea right now. Given that temperatures in this region are approaching 0C, I think the melt season is going to start to advance even quicker…
A good cherry pick is this one:
“It has been cooling since 2002!”
Considering that, of the last four decades, each one has been warmer than the previous.
stevengoddard says:
May 24, 2010 at 4:45 am
Ric Werme says:
May 24, 2010 at 5:49 am
it’s warmer in alaska than it is in california, where we just got 6-8″ of global warming.
yes, we are in the mountains, but that forecast is ~30F below normal. all of april and may have been a steady 20F below normal with clouds and wind, with the occasional day near normal. the local lakes were persistently frozen a full 4 weeks more the usual, and we have another 6-12″ of snow in the forecast. it’s nearly june.
but nasa reassures me that it was the warmest april and may on record… after they took my local temps, and than ran them through their algorithm matching them to a station on the tarmac in san jose, no doubt.
wayne says:
May 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Steve, thank you so much for showing a view of this data as it actually is. Just keep putting it up in articles like this, intellegent people will draw the correct interpretation.
————————————
It’s good to show the data as it actually is, but too bad Steve drew the wrong conclusions from it. BTW Steve, there is actually less multiyear ice in the Beaufort Sea this year than in 2007…so it’s not likely that the Beaufort Sea will be seeing any recovery. Perhaps the Chukchi Sea might…but then again, having old ice that far south is probably not a good thing.
@Gail Combs says:
May 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Gleissberg is more like 89.8yrs, but like the 179yr cycle, it has a slip, so it only runs typically a few steps before it fades, and pops up later on a longer cycle. 1475yrs is bogus, c.1150yrs fits observed warm and cold periods over the complete Holocene far better, and is 1 quarter of the time between Heinrich events, at 4627.33yrs astronomically. There a large number of papers on 204yr or 206yr solar cycles, 204yrs is more relevant astronically, and also is in tune with the 17yr coronal hole cycle {12x17yrs} ;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SoPh..183..201J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.517..275G
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p00955r885255112/
I can see some people have their “satellite era” blinders on. It is a meme that is consistent among pro-AGW posters. Focusing on a minute section of a sine wave will not help you see what the sine wave looks like.
wayne says:
May 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Spot on, Wayne !!
Tenuc says:
May 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm
R. Gates says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Gail, I really resent being accused of “twisting facts”, but I do appreciate you providing links to fables and stories of the past. There is nothing in any of what you gave me that proves or refutes the scientific claim that an Ice Free Arctic would be a unique event in recorded human history.”
Gail is correct, you are twisting the facts by omission.
It is ridiculous to deny the evidence from many sources that the North Pole has been free of ice on occasion in the past….
_______________
First of all, nope, I’m not “twisting” anything by any errors of omission. Secondly, an ice free North Pole, is an entirely different circumstance than an ice free Arctic, and there is not one shred of scientific evidence to show that the ENTIRE ARCTIC was ice free in recorded human history, as there would be no way of knowing that until the modern satellite era.
Thirdly, I think it will be most interesting to see how the AGW skeptics spin the story if the 2010 sea ice continues on its current trajectory…and goes back down towards the low set in 2007. What will they come up with this time?