It’s refreshing to see NSIDC director Mark Serreze coming to grips with his role in stirring up Arctic ice scare stories (like the famous “death spiral”) in 2007:
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
With sea ice levels in the Arctic at record lows this month, a new report comparing scientists’ predictions calls for caution in over-interpreting a few weeks worth of data from the North Pole.
The Sea Ice Outlook, which will be released this week, brings together more than a dozen teams’ best guesses at how much sea ice will disappear by the end of the warm season in September. This year began with a surprise. More sea ice appeared than anticipated, nearing its mean level from 1979-2007. But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June. Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it, and they expect below average ice for the rest of the year.
But looking ahead, the ultimate amount of sea ice melt is hard to determine. Some trends, like the long-term warming of the Arctic and overall decreases in the thickness of sea ice, argue for very low levels of sea ice. But there are countervailing factors, too: The same weather pattern that led to higher-than-normal temperatures in the Arctic this year is also changing the circulation of sea ice, which could keep it in colder water and slow the melting.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
Oh Noes! There goes the ice floes!
Whither hence noone knows
Or if it melts and not re-grows.
Oh cube of ice in my gin so clear
Spare me the agony
Of crying in my beer
Oh! the fear! the fear!
starts off reasonable, ends up with the usual trash that creates sceptics.
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
Fascinating to read the article and then look at the two graphs of sea ice and arctic temperatures. It seems that in the first part of this year, when temperatures were well above average, sea ice was at higher levels than in 2005-2009. Then from the end of April/beginning of May, with temperatures at or below average, the area of sea ice shrank dramatically, the opposite of what one might have expected. Seems to suggest that temperature is not the main driver of the area of sea ice.
“sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected.”
Once more “sea ice free summers” is the cry, tell you what Mark, lets wait and see shall we?
Oh yes and another thing, no mention of the Antarctic, that doesn’t agree with the models, does it Mr. Serreze?
Mind you does any one really give a toss? The Artic Sea ice has fluctuated widely for millenia, as I said, let us wait and see.
I noticed these same “scientists” were dead silent with the record growth this winter of ice. I guess sensationalism every spring will help the cause.
Also adjusting the prediction of ice free.
I’ll add my two cents worth to Athelstan.
Does the Arctic (whatever the scientists mean by that word) being ice-free in the summer matter a great deal in the overall scheme of things? And where is the empirical evidence, or even an estimate of the likelihood, that the global situation is going to continue on its present course ad infinitum? It never has done in the past.
I’m waiting for this to play out in the arctic;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-their-plunge/
Will take a while, though.
OMG!
For a moment there, Mark Serreze started sounding like a real scientist: “We don’t know.”
Of course, he shouldn’t be blamed for the way the article’s writer than goes on with the obligatory warning of gloom and doom about the melting ice.
I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice? It’s ups and downs are extraordinarily noisy and I submit a poor way to track which way the climate is heading. Looking at the total heat content of the oceans with the Argo bouys gives a much more consistent number indicator of the earth’s temperature and where its headed in the future.
We’re All Dumbed.
The gnostics have their secret knowledge and its sources and use their acumen to “predict the futue”.
But, “I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'”
…-
This: “sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. ” dovetails with this:
“Human race ‘will be extinct within 100 years’, claims leading scientist
As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.
And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.
He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and ‘unbridled consumption.’
Fenner told The Australian newspaper that ‘homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.’
‘A lot of other animals will, too,’ he added.
‘It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
What about the previous 100,000 decades? Like during the Roman warm period or the Minoan warm period etc.
Thanks
JK
I don’t see many references to this report though…
http://www.canada.com/Scan+Arctic+dispels+melting+gloom+researcher+says/3175785/story.html
But then this is real observation from ‘close up and personal’ with very accurate technology towed by a very basic aircraft and not based on clever algorithms from extremely expensive satellites.
Perhaps the reason the ice extent is reducing is that it is being piled up into thicker ice?
So now WUWT is agreeing that a few weeks of ice data is nothing to get excited about? What happened to the ice recovery and how we would stay at “normal” levels?
WUWT and Serreze at least agree that we will have ice free summers by the end of the 21st century….Not sure what all the hub bub is about if everyone seems to agree…
As I understand it, new ice melts quickly, old ice melts slowly.
There have been reports that “old ice”, more than 3 meters thick, is prevalent this year.
The predictions are the summer melt will not equal 2007.
I wonder… If Billy Mays were still alive, do you think he might just be able to sell this stuff? You know, “Thats the power of Climate Change!” And if you order before checking the facts, we’ll double the offer!” You’ll get twice the melting for just $19.95!”
After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the death spiral, this admission is too little too late in my view. Where are the TV reporters?
No one has a clue whether the earth will warm or cool over the next decade, but it seems to me that the fix is in… the Kerry Lieberman tax and rape bill…. I mean ‘jobs’ bill is ready to be shoved down our throat next…
Washington is broken.
Sean says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
Because it’s the ‘game changer’, the ice at the poles melt, the albedo of the earth changes, sea levels rise and we all drown in boiling water or something like that.
If the ice at the poles doesn’t melt, there will be no ‘catastrophic’.
I’ve been saying since mid-April that nothing impactful happens May 1-July 1 with arctic sea ice (re eventual extent minimum), so at least I can’t be accused of attempted revisionism after the fact.
Congratulations to Serreze for finding his “humble place” finally.
Sean says: June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
Fat free means No Fat, None.
Peanut free means No Peanuts, None.
Salt free means No Salt, None.
Sugar free then No Sugar, None.
Caffeine free means No Caffeine, None.
Ice free means No Ice, None.
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013. That is the only ‘prediction’ that I am aware of that occurs within the lifetime of any of the ‘predictors’. It is less than three years away.
The ‘prediction’ will likely be observed in the negative.
A Theory can not change its prediction unless the theory changes itself.
On October first 2013, they will have to toss the ‘Theory’ into the dust bin, or admit that it has All been speculation all along, and that they really have no clue about the climate and the affect that CO2 might have on the climate or that the climate might have on CO2.
Let the back-peddling begin, they have three years of publication and front page publicity to erase and less than three years to erase it. The prediction was made three years ago, a six year lead time, if they can not get a six year prediction correct, it says a lot about 100 year ‘projections’.
The clock is ticking.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”: Albert Einstein
To be a theory a conjecture must make at least one definite prediction. The prediction must be verifiable. The theory can not make two opposing predictions. If any one of the predictions is not realized by observation then the theory is discarded or at least returns to be conjecture or at best a hypothesis
That is why.
Having read the linked article now, it says the predictions from the experts for 2010 minimum to be released next week will range from between 1M km/2 to 5.7M km/2. Wheeeeeee. Talk about a graphic exhibition of how immature the understanding of what the important factors are in this area.
There are others-like Joe Bastardi who say that July will tell the tale now that it appears that Nina’s pushed Nino out of the stroller……
“…in the THREE DECADES they’ve been able to measure it”
…that says it all.
Are these people stupid?
Btw, if the experts do as well this year as last year, then reality will pretty much nail Steve Goddard’s prediction of 5.8M km/2. Because last year, the highest of the expert predictions was just below the eventual reality.
I could be reading this wrong but it looks like thier objective is to prove global warming rather than unbiased research.
They claim they are climatologists, not weathermen.
They can’t predict this crap either. Predicting this is no different than predicting the weather……..
….and we all know they can’t do that
David
“It seems that in the first part of this year, when temperatures were well above average, sea ice was at higher levels than in 2005-2009. Then from the end of April/beginning of May, with temperatures at or below average, the area of sea ice shrank dramatically, the opposite of what one might have expected”
I have noted the same observations. Some expert explainations appreciated.
Sean says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
I fully agree with both points. One of the fascinations with sea ice though are its daily extent values and satellite imagery, so it’s one of the few things available to “climatically impatient.” (Personally I revel in the upcoming changes to the Sun in just the next decade or so, and the ongoing changes to PDO and next AMO that weren’t well covered by satellite during their last phase change and don’t have coverage for a full 60± year cycle.)
I look at sea ice extent as something to keep an eye on, with only a little predictive power. Even the extremes have limited predictive power – the 2007 low signalled both recovery in 2008 (regression to the mean) and ice free summers (it’s worse than we thought).
Ice extent is the best refuge for the impatient, but patience remains a virtue.
It’s sort of the same thing with hurricane seasons, every year in the last week of May people get all excited about the start of the new hurricane season. Never mind that June hurricanes are pretty rare and things don’t pick up much in July until the last week or so. The hurricane forecasts from NHC and Colorado State ought to come out a month or before the hurricanes so they aren’t looking like hindcasting and to give people who would otherwise wait until its too late some encouragement to prepare.
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
And this man was promoted??
Of ya, that’s right, he was the perfect one to be promoted. What was I thinking.
“But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June…..“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze”
Any mention of shear? Melt is the reader inference they want.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner.
Huh, I thought we weren’t supposed to have such a focus on Arctic ice and that it’s not worth blogging about.
But they couldn’t pass up they opportunity to scare people, could they!
Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Clearly, the trend over the last 30 years is most important and not what happens during a certain month or even a particular year. Like the stock market, one should not expect ice extent to go straight down or straight up.
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
I’ve been told time and time again by those supporting the alleged AGW hypothesis that weather isn’t climate and that climate is over at least 30 year time scales… which means that they just barely have any data at all on arctic ice area and thickness. Without longer term data it’s not possible to make any sound conclusions regarding the ice data.
One climate data point, comprising the 30 years of weather data, is insufficient for any conclusions at all. This is especially the case when natural cyclic climate patterns have been shown to have 30 year, 60 year or longer cyclic rhythm time spans.
BillD says: June 20, 2010 at 7:07 am
“Clearly, the trend over the last 30 years is most important and not what happens during a certain month or even a particular year”
That sounds like back-peddling.
The Prediction Is: “The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013”.
Ice Free.
I have heard it on the Front Page of every newspaper for years.
They must drop the ‘theory’ if the prediction is not observed.
No changing the prediction without first admitting that the ‘theory’ was just speculation by a few dozen people and admitting that they need to go back to the drawing board and use measurements and observations and do science.
They need to admit that their models are garbage and that they have No Clue.
The whole is more telling than the parts.
The Arctic has been here before and will be here again. Ice is nice but is only a piece of the puzzle.
Suggested Viewing, rated PG for AGW Advocates:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
It depends who is looking: At NANSEN they see more sea ice than in 2007 and 2008:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Why watch arctic sea ice? Because it’s a hoot. Data comes in daily and forecasters are all over the lot and staking out their positions clearly. We get to see who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s like a slow motion horse race, with the leaders changing from time to time to keep it interesting. Of course whether any of the theories underlying the forecasts are correct, well that’s a different matter entirely. But the horse race is a hoot.
Douglas DC says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:22 am
There are others-like Joe Bastardi who say that July will tell the tale now that it appears that Nina’s pushed Nino out of the stroller……
++++
“Tell the tale” of what? Arctic minimum extent this year? So Joe is beginning to prepare a retreat from his former prediction of a larger melt than last year?
I’ve been saying since mid-April that July 1-July 15 is my next major milestone. Steve Goddard has been pointing at August for about as long. I don’t think Steve and I really disagree here. What those first two weeks of July will do is either take a “2007-like” year off the table or not as a possibility. If July 1-July 15 does take 2007 off the table, then August should give us a pretty good look at where the eventual minimum will hit amongst the “non-outlier” years (i.e. excluding 2007) of recent history.
“When this started in 2007, it was pretty scary for a lot of the scientists, putting these numbers out there,” said Helen Wiggins, program coordinator of the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States. “It’s a different way to do science. It’s more a community synthesizing exercise.”
A different way to do science? Whose science? In my scientific community, researchers tend to want to put their numbers out there so that others may validate their work.
I’ve made the same point a number of times in some of the articles here tracking the monthly and even weekly sea ice data. I trust you feel the same way about WUWT sea ice article #1, 2, 3, 4 etc…
Not so. NANSEN is currently (June 18) showing the same sea ice area as 2007. Extent has fallen below 2007 and is now just on the lowest track in the satellite period for this date.
3 other sea ice extent products show extent at clear record lows for this time of year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
ROOS is the youngest producer of sea ice data. They got going in 2007.
But it’s only a few data points. As BillD says, it’s inconsequential in terms of trends.
What calculations can be done that would show what the minimum amount of energy the arctic and antarctic get given the current orbital mechanics of the Earth-Moon-Sol system, the current and historical range of solar energy radiation entering the Earth-Moon system, the seasonal variations, the atmospheric temperatures, the ocean temperatures, etc…?
Scuse me for asking, but even if the Arctic were ice-free in a 100 years or so, why should I give a monkey’s? Nobody lives there apart from polar bears…and they can swim. The ice is floating so no change to sea level would be seen. Why the big fuss? Who cares?
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Was it really that astonishing? Thirty measly years of satellite data, anecdotal historical evidence of Arctic ice cyclical fluctuations, still lots of ice left. These guys “astonish” like they were born yesterday.
“It’s a different way to do science. It’s more a community synthesizing exercise.”
So who authorized these people to do science in a different way? One weeps for the scientific method when one hears such drivel.
First they focused on extent. Then when extent picked up after 2007 they picked up on thickness / volume. Now they are back to extent.
AGW is Anthropogenic Global Wreligion. They predict everythig and blame it on weather, oops, sorry Climate Change. Their aim is to make sure that the ‘theory’ can never be falsified even up to the extent of statistical massaging biased towards the obvious warming. They call this science!!!
Bill Tuttle says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:53 am
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
_______________
Sorry, been off line a few days in San Diego. I’m sure I was missed. This is a well done article, and hits squarely at the need for open data and sharing among groups who are trying to accurately model and predict what will happen to arctic sea ice. Before 2007, the global climate models were showing an ice free summer Arctic anywhere from the year 2100 to 2300. After 2007’s low mark, we saw the range shift down to 2013 to 2150. Some saw 2007’s low mark as a complete anomaly that was not related to any dynamic from AGW, and others saw it as evidence that the Arctic was changing faster than any single model had predicted. I personally still favor this second category. I think 2007 a sign that the Arctic was changing faster than any model had predicted, but I also think it’s far more complicated than simply looking at Arctic air temperatures. The sharing of data from the different models will help to begin getting all the different factors included to paint a much more accurate picture of what is happening. It’s nice to see that my 4.5 million sq. km. prediction, which I made back in March for this year’s summer low is still in the range of this summer’s predictions by the experts. I still don’t quite think we’ll see the low we did in 2007, but it will fall low enough (reversing the so-called “recovery” of 2008-2009) that we’ll see continued downward revisions in the average estimates for when the Arctic will be ice free in the summer. Even though I don’t see a record low extent for this summer, I feel very confident we will by 2015, hitting near the 2.0 million sq. km. in at least one summer between now and then, and I do think we’ll see an ice free Arctic summer before 2030.
What Serreze admitted was pure confirmation bias. While you’d think he would rethink his entire views, instead he reconfirms them but makes sure he won’t get caught again making any predictions.
The intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
Recall the kind of logic used to arrive at some of these estimations (from 2008)…
Estimating September extent based on past conditions (NSIDC, May 5, 2008)
As discussed in our April analysis, the ice cover this spring shows an unusually large proportion of young, thin first-year ice; about 30% of first-year ice typically survives the summer melt season, while 75% of the older ice survives. For a simple estimate of the likelihood of breaking last year’s September record, we can apply survival rates from past years to this year’s April ice cover. This gives us 25 different estimates, one for each year that we have reliable ice-age data (see Figure 4 – notice this goes back to 1985 only). To avoid beating the September 2007 record low, more than 50% of this year’s first-year ice would have to survive; this has only happened once in the last 25 years, in 1996. If we apply the survival rates averaged over all years to current conditions, the end-of-summer extent would be 3.59 million square kilometers (1.39 million square miles). With survival rates similar to those in 2007, the minimum for the 2008 season would be only 2.22 million square kilometers (0.86 million square miles). By comparison the record low extent, set last September, was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles).
Good point! I know the satellite data only goes back to 1979 but in an ideal world it would be better still if we could look at the trend over the past 60-100 years don’t you think. I’ve read plenty of evidence to show me that what has happened to Arctic sea ice over the past 30 years is nothing out of the ordinary. :0)
Correction:
“….don’t you think.[?]”
Arctic sea ice charts and observations have been documented over the last hundred years, while not as accurate as Satelitte measurement they would have picked up some decline, if it had been significant.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:20 am
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
“This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013. That is the only ‘prediction’ that I am aware of that occurs within the lifetime of any of the ‘predictors’. It is less than three years away.”
RESPONSE:
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”. 2020-2030 is. 2013 came from Maslowski whose prediction is an outlier compared to the others. He has now changed his predictions to 2016 +/- 3 years.
Maslowski’s new predictions, in my opinion revised because he knew it was going to fall short, is the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. If it actually were 3 years before 2016 it would verify his original prediction, bit if it were 3 years after it would fall short of 1 year of 2020 which actually seems to be where things are going.
Whether Maslowski is right or wrong, and I believe he’s definitely wrong, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that harrywr2 said is going to come back and haunt him:
“Because it’s the ‘game changer’, the ice at the poles melt, the albedo of the earth changes, sea levels rise and we all drown in boiling water or something like that.”
As the Arctic becomes mostly ice free, which happen in about half the time range of the predictions of TOTAL lack of ice (10-20 divided by two=5-10=2015-2010), It is going to have a massive impact on the weather of the Northern Hemisphere.
Increased torrential rainfall due to the increased humidity that will come from the increased evaporation of an open and warming ocean. There will also be droughts.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:54 am
“Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo”
“blah, blah, blah, blah, blah”
RESPONSE:
What other overwhelming rational arguments can you give us?
Yes, the statement “We don’t know” is strangely reminiscent of Schneider’s back in the late 70’s when the Coming Ice Age was all the rage.
Here’s a picture something that’s worth a 1000 words on the subject:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
So, whatever the Arctic_Antarctic Sea Ice is doing, it’s doing it in harmony.
Nature at it’s finest. We are the bugs in the antfarm of the planet.
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:56 am
What is the trend is this graphic:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
I assume you are proficient in calculating slopes.
villabolo says: June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”
Actually, it is and has been since 2007. It has appeared in the news in Canada anytime the subject of Global Warning has been raised in the news, on television and radio interviews, and in the newspapers.
The prediction is: The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.
BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:07 am
Clearly, the trend over the last 30 years is most important and not what happens during a certain month or even a particular year.
What’s been happening in the ice over the last 1000 years would be better.
If these short term occurrences don’t mean anything then those who began shouting about the end of the world because of what happened in 2007 are profoundly wrong. And to that I’m sure you’d agree.
Jimbo says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:10 am
“How did the Arctic loss of ice reflectivity in September 2007 affect September 2008 and September 2009? Answer: increase in sea ice extent in 2008 and 2009.”
RESPONSE:
I think that a lack of perception of the big picture is what allows you to make very simplistic arguments. First of all, do you actually believe, because you are strongly implying it, that albedo has no affect on heat absorption?
As for 2007, and years prior to it, the increased heat absorption was obviously a contributor to the melting and thinning of the multiyear ice. That ice was being attacked from below. You can see this in the color coded ice thickness images such as:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png
Please note that from 2007 through 2009 there was a massive decrease in the green, which represents 3-10 year ice, in spite of surface area increase with thin 1 and 2 year ice.
Now take a look at what happened to the thickness of the ice from September of 2009, which is the end of summer and beginning of winter, and March of 2010, the end of winter. Please keep in mind that this is HAPPENING IN THE WINTER!:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure6.png
As far as the ice extent you mentioned, keep in mind that it happens in the winter. It was a La Nina winter in 2008 and 2009 which was colder than El Nino. That would affect the thin surface ice that won’t even survive the summer. It won’t affect the persistent and consistent thinning of multiyear ice because, since ice is a good insulator, the warmer waters below that are eating away at it won’t be affected by slightly colder air temperatures.
It is this colder air temperature that affected, in part, the ice extent. And before you tell me that those warmer waters should have eliminated the thin crust of ice extent in the first place let me tell you this. First year ice used to be an average of 3 feet thick up to 5 at times. It no longer is.
barry
June 20, 2010 at 8:23 am
Barry, relax. What happens in a 1 year or 30 year period doesn’t matter.
Let’s look at the bigger picture. For example what happened in Arctic ice from 1945 to 1975?
Let’s keep it is context.
villabolo
my point is that talk of albedo has been beaten to death
There is more ice in the Arctic now than in 2007.
The ‘death spiral’ is not happening.
villabolo says: June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
“As the Arctic becomes mostly ice free, which happen in about half the time range of the predictions of TOTAL lack of ice”
Ice Free means No Ice, None.
Does “mostly ice free” mean not as thick as at the peak of the last Ice Age?
I can not even guess at what the weasel words “TOTAL lack of ice” might mean, but it sounds like it does not mean Ice Free.
The Prediction Is: The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.
R. Gates,
You finally show up. I didn’t see any comments from you in the DC-3 survey thread. There was not one.
The worry is that some poe-dunk little red haired country bumbkin figured this out WHILE the melt was occurring in 2007, and figured out the possibility of re-growth, all based on topographical independent variables, oceanic oscillations, and atmospheric weather pattern variations. None of my 3 degrees are in Arctic Science.
Hell, it even worries me.
The prediction of 2013 for an ice free Arctic ocean in the summer has been the most widely publicized date, but it is NOT the most widely accepted date by the actual experts in the field, nor the mean date given by GCM’s. The media have used it so much because it is so sensational and relatively close, and AGW skeptics love to pounce upon it to show how foolish the AGW believers are and how wrong their models are. It might be helpful if some readers would review these presentation:
http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
ftp://ftp.gfdl.gov/pub/r1m/articles/Wang_Overland_GRL_09.pdf
The second presentation is especially helpful in understanding the varibility within models and how difficult it is to pin down a precise year (or even decade) when the Arctic will be ice free. When I hear or read AGW skeptics as they keep quoting the 2013 date given by Maslowski in December 2007, right after the low 2007 melt season, then I know that they are simply mouthing off and parroting information they get from the rather uneducated media or even worse, from some AGW skeptical pundits, rather than doing any actual research or study of the cryosphere for themselves.
My analysis and study of all the data over the past 20 years– Arctic will see an ice free period in the summers before 2030 and the AGW very likely the cause. After the first few ice free summers, the length of period in the summer of being ice free will increase gradually from days at first and then to weeks and eventually to months.
Some nice movies of future projections, that aren’t too far off my own proejction can be found here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/IDAO/multi.html
And yep, these are CICE/PIOMAS based on not PIPS 2.0!
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”.
At the end of 2008 Al Gore said the Arctic could be ice free in “5 years”. That is 2013. I would link the video from YouTube of him saying it but for some reason, strangely, that video is gone now.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:04 am
villabolo says: June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”
“Actually, it is and has been since 2007. It has appeared in the news in Canada anytime the subject of Global Warning has been raised in the news, on television and radio interviews, and in the newspapers.”
RESPONSE:
It appears, Andrew, that you are confusing what the general Media has to say and what the actual scientists are saying. This is what you originally said:
“This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013. That is the only ‘prediction’ that I am aware of that occurs within the lifetime of any of the ‘predictors’. It is less than three years away.”
And in an earlier post you said:
“I have heard it on the Front Page of every newspaper for years.
They must drop the ‘theory’ if the prediction is not observed.”
I simply quoted your statement about the “CAGW camp”
You do realize that there is a distinction between the Media and the actual scientists (“CAGW camp”), don’t you? The Media in general not only has a tendency to sensationalize things it also has no, or at the best, the most shallow understanding of ANY subject that it covers.
My prediction is 5.5. That is the only number I have given for 2010
jcrabb says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:16 am
Arctic sea ice charts and observations have been documented over the last hundred years,
Could I have a link to that.
Andrew30,
An ice free summer in 2013 was one prediction amongst many. It comes from a single source. By contrast, the IPCC predicted summer time ice-free Arctic by the end of the century. Other predictions I’m familiar with are ~2040 or ~2065. I don’t take 2013 very seriously, though it seems to be popular at skeptical sites.
The 2013 prediction crops up regularly at WUWT. Otherwise, it doesn’t feature too highly in Australia. But you might get different news in Canada – take issue with your journalists.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:37 am
What other overwhelming rational arguments can you give us?
You want rationality? I doubt an alarmist cares for rationality.
Almost all the trolls are back out.
I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points at the Antarctic sea ice and says, “but but look at these charts! Surely they prove that AGW models are crap!”.
What is sad is that many very smart AGW skeptics don’t want to really take a look at the very big differences between the Arctic and Antarctic, with one being essentially an ocean surrounded by land, and the second being land surrounded by ocean, and each having very different dynamics in the annual variability and formation of sea ice. All GCM’s have shown the Arctic to show more atmospheric warming than the Antarctic, but in addition, the Arctic sea ice is much more under the influence of energy transport to the region via ocean currents, with heat measured in terawatts coming from both the Atlantic, via the West Spitzbergen Current for example, and Pacific, with heat coming through the Bering Strait. In the Antarctic, in addition to the thinning ozone layer, which affects wind patterns and thus, sea ice formation, other studies has suggested even more causes of a general trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice on a year to year basis:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Bottom line: For a AGW skeptic to simply point at increasing Antarctic Sea ice as proof that AGW models are wrong tells me they’ve not done quite enough homework yet.
R. Gates
you brought up PIOMAS already. But you didn’t bring it up in the Arctic ice survey thread.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
“Bla bla bla…. rainfall bla bla bla….droughts.”
Typical chicken-bones prediction. There will be rain and droughts.
Meaningless drivel.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:17 am
R. Gates,
You finally show up. I didn’t see any comments from you in the DC-3 survey thread. There was not one.
____________________
I only came back on-line today (6-20) after a much deserved R&R to San Diego. I’ll go look for that thread, and see if there’s anything meaningful I can contribute. Thanks for the heads up…
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:17 am
“Ice Free means No Ice, None.”
RESPONSE:
What I said, to take full context into account was:
“2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”. 2020-2030 is. 2013 came from Maslowski whose prediction is an outlier compared to the others. He has now changed his predictions to 2016 +/- 3 years.”
PLEASE NOTE THAT I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT 2020-2030 WAS THE RANGE THAT MOST SCIENTISTS HAD GIVEN, NOT THE MEDIA AS I ALREADY STATED, NOR MASLOWSKI WHOM THEY WERE QUOTING AND WAS NOT IN THE RANGE OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE SCIENTISTS PREDICTIONS. THEN I STATED THAT WITHIN HALF THAT TIME RANGE THE ARCTIC WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ICE FREE.
I FAIL TO SEE WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT IF SOMEONE PREDICTS THAT SOMETHING, ICE CAP OR OTHERWISE, IS GOING TO SHRINK COMPLETELY BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THEN BEFORE THAT TIME HAS ELAPSED IT’S GOING TO SHRINK PARTIALLY.
“As the Arctic becomes mostly ice free, which happen in about half the time range of the predictions of TOTAL lack of ice (10-20 divided by two=5-10=2015-2010), It is going to have a massive impact on the weather of the Northern Hemisphere.”
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
I really don’t care about who predicted 2013, 2023, 2033 or 2313.
What I would like from you is the slope in the Global Sea Ice Anomaly from thus:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Or an equivalent explanation:
What the hell is going on with Global Sea Ice?
This is so true. Showing global sea ice is a great argument. If all the Arctic ice were gone all year round, but the same amount would grow in Antarctica, there would be no problem whatsoever. Period.
I use the same kind of argument when people whine about world hunger. What world hunger? It is cancelled out by all those obese people in the West. This idea always makes me feel good when overeating. ‘Eat some more, my friend. You’re fighting world hunger, ‘ I like to say to myself on such occasions.
Steve Goddard says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
My prediction is 5.5. That is the only number I have given for 2010
_____________________
Steve, is that from the IJIS/JAXA data, or something else?
Pamela Gray says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:19 am
Yeah, Pam, it is totally weird, is it not?
Does the Earth freeze from the S. Hemisphere going North, or does the Earth melt from the N. Hemisphere going South?
Or, if we had another 30 years of satellite data, would we not be seeing the same trends in reverse from the 40’s to the late 70’s?
Günther, you don’t have to go far to do your cherry picking, do you?☺
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points at the Antarctic sea ice and says, “but but look at these charts! Surely they prove that AGW models are crap!”.
No, just chery-picked data, that is what the models are based upon.
If the Antarctic existed on another planet, and if time began in 1979, you might have a point.
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
“The prediction of 2013 for an ice free Arctic ocean in the summer has been the most widely publicized date, but it is NOT the most widely accepted date by the actual experts in the field, nor the mean date given by GCM’s. The media have used it so much because it is so sensational and relatively close, and AGW skeptics love to pounce upon it to show how foolish the AGW believers are and how wrong their models are.”
Thank you, thank you, R. Gates. And thanks for the links.
rbateman says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:59 am
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
I really don’t care about who predicted 2013, 2023, 2033 or 2313.
What I would like from you is the slope in the Global Sea Ice Anomaly from thus:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Or an equivalent explanation:
What the hell is going on with Global Sea Ice?
_____________________
You seem to think that somehow a chart of Global Sea ice is more meaningful than looking at the Arctic and Antarctic as the separate regions with different dynamics that they are? I don’t happen to think a global sea ice chart is all that helpful as each region’s sea ice grows and expands and has it’s own influences, both long term and short term. Besides, what happens in the Arctic sea ice will be far more influencial to the majority of the worlds population which is in the N. Hemisphere. I guess you must be one of those AGW skeptics I was talking about in my previous post who is determined NOT to see the true different dynamics of the Arctic and Anarctic?
In general, Arctic year to year sea ice is decreasing faster than Anarctic sea ice is increasing (year to year), and will continue to do so for the next few decades, until both will show declines from current means. A better chart is really this one:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
The chart clearly shows more negative anomalies since 2000 in Global Sea ice, and the reason is the Arctic has been declining slightly more than the Antarctic has been increasing. Look for that trend to continue…
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
… Increased torrential rainfall due to the increased humidity that will come from the increased evaporation of an open and warming ocean. There will also be droughts.
/sarcasm on
I’m no climatologist… but I think you may have left out a couple of other predictions like:
We will have epic snow storms, or… less snow.
We will have catastrophic heat waves, or… temperatures will be at or below normal.
We will have devastating hurricanes, or they will continue to remain quiet.
(and if these don’t come to pass, see us in 2019 when we revise our timeline and predictions).
/sarcasm off
All smiles! Happy Father’s Day to those who qualify (and in the spirit of my post… and to those who don’t as well!).
JP
villabolo says: June 20, 2010 at 10:37 am
“It appears, Andrew, that you are confusing what the general Media has to say and what the actual scientists are saying”
No confusion here. I do sense some regret on your part that perhaps the CAGW camp ‘did not do a good enough job in communicating’.
Ho, Ho, Ho.
What the masses have been told have been quotations from climate scientologists on video.
I do understand the difference between a scientist and a sensationalist.
One uses real measured data, publishes it, documents and publishes methods, awaits independent confirmation, makes firm predictions and publishes them, understand falsify-ability, the concept of the null hypothesis and the scientific method.
The other works in the realm of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Climate ‘Science’ and is on record as saying “The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013”.
Oh, one other thing; A scientists can generally recognize a sine-wave.
Douglas DC says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:22 am
it appears that Nina’s pushed Nino out of the stroller……
It does appear that way:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/equpacsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
villabolo says:
—
There have always been droughts. Do you mean an increase in the incidence of droughts, a decrease in the incidence of droughts or more of the same incidence of droughts?
Can you see how “increased evaporation of an open and warming ocean” might lead to an increase in albedo?
Richard M says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:59 am
What Serreze admitted was pure confirmation bias……The intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
He is saying what politicians want to hear. He has a government job.
“Richard Lindzen on climate science in the service of politics”
Does the refractive index play any role here or are the laws of physics repealed in climate ? I thought that light was totally reflected in an air to water interface with incidence above 49 degrees. All light would be reflected above 70 degrees latitude at the solstice and at lower latitudes at any other time. Blackness of the surface doesn’t enter the picture. Allowing for atmospheric bending of incoming light does not markedly alter the critical latitude (moving it slightly higher).
Claims of increased albedo due to loss of whiteness are the kind of nonsense that makes a technically educated person (engineering for me) sceptical. The physics doesn’t support the arm waving.
I also don’t understand why commercial enterprise hasn’t taken advantage of the navigation freedom this lack of ice has made possible. If the RCMP could pass through the Arctic in both directions in 1940-44 in a wooden boat http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm followed by the tanker Manhattan (1969) http://sunshiporg.homestead.com/manhattan.html then the route is proved. The present low ice levels must be much more favourable than existed in those two earlier times. Unless, of course, the reality is not being presented.
Regards
Paul Thomas
Steve,
Please explain you prediction of Arctic Sea ice for 2010. You said 5.5 million sq. km, and you’re also on record for saying that Arctic Sea ice volume has increased 25% since 2008. But these two numbers don’t agree too well. Looking at the following summer minimum from IJIS/JAXA:
2006 5.781 million sq. km.
2007 4.254 million sq. km.
2008 4.707 million sq. km.
2009 5.249 million sq. km.
So you say we’re only increasing the minimum by 250,000 sq. km. this year over last? That not even up to the increase between 2007-2008, or 2008-2009. That’s not much of a recovery considering we’ve got 25% more volume now (according to you).
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points at the Antarctic sea ice and says, “but but look at these charts! Surely they prove that AGW models are crap!”.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would certainly say that in this case (and many other cases) that the news is crap.
“As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice”
This and similar statements are always cropping up in the media and give the average reader the impression that both poles are rapidly dwindling away, when the real case is that growth in Antarctic ice is strongly offsetting and balancing the losses in Arctic ice. I see this all the time. Then, if there really must be more than a cursory nod to the Antarctic, the focus will shift to the Peninsula. Hardly any mention at all about all that other bit, the really really big bit that is actually growing. It’s this kind of media blindness which is turning people into sceptics, or atleast sharpening their BS detectors.
This is a great point which should be made to all concerned scientists. That if they really care about how the science of global warming is being presented to the public, then they need to make sure that things (the things they are saying) are being accurately reported- that there is an accurate representation of the general facts.
But all too often it’s the sceptics who are left holding the bag.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:14 am
So tell me Villabolo, do you have a prediction / forecast / scenario for the Arctic seeing as the Antarctic is not doing too badly. I put not doing too badly because you ignored it when replying to my comment. I await your response.
Good point Günther, with the Arctic ice free there be millions of
hectares open to farming. I like to say to myself on such occasions.
R. Gates
“I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points”
Please detail your educational attainments and your field studies in the arctic which enable you to make such superior observations.
This will enable us to judge whether your continued postings on this blog are worth reading in the future or whether you might be the source of the hot air causing global anomalies.
I hope you can appreciate why blogs like WUWT exist now.
barry says: June 20, 2010 at 10:45 am
“An ice free summer in 2013 was one prediction amongst many.”
Quite the ‘robust’ ‘theory’, isn’t it.
Einstein:
Jan 1 1919:
The light from the star will be deflected by 2 degrees; this will be visible during a solar eclipse.
Jan 4 1919:
The light from the star could be deflected by 2.6 degrees.
Jan 16 1919:
The light from the star might be deflected by 11.34 degrees.
Feb 1 1919:
The deflection may not detectable.
Feb 25 1919:
The light from the star should be deflected by 0.1223 degrees.
Mar 13 1919:
The light from the star could possibly be deflected by 4.13 degrees.
Mar 27 1919:
The light from the star will likely be deflected by between 0 and 23.81 degrees.
Apr 11 1919:
The light from the star may well be deflected 3.81 degrees.
May 30 1919:
See I was right!
I am shocked, shoked I tellls ya!!! Why didn’t you say:
“All temperature measurements have shown the Arctic to show more atmospheric warming than the Antarctic, ….”?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”.
At the end of 2008 Al Gore said the Arctic could be ice free in “5 years”. That is 2013. I would link the video from YouTube of him saying it but for some reason, strangely, that video is gone now.
RESPONSE:
This is almost as bad as quoting what the Media has to say. Why don’t you pay attention to what the majority of Climatologists themselves are saying? Al Gore’s statement came from Maslowski whose prediction was that the ice cap would disappear around 2013 a date that was below the predictions of 2020-2030 that
the majority of Climatologists were making.
As for the “prediction” that Gore made, it is available on a Skeptic video below. Please note that Gore said “that there is a 75% chance” of the ice cap being ice free within 5-7 years. That video is the third one down on this link.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/15/gore-derangement-syndrome/
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:49 am
Almost all the trolls are back out.
So you are!
Elizabeth says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:16 am
“When this started in 2007, it was pretty scary for a lot of the scientists, putting these numbers out there,” said Helen Wiggins, program coordinator of the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States. “It’s a different way to do science. It’s more a community synthesizing exercise.”
A different way to do science? Whose science? In my scientific community, researchers tend to want to put their numbers out there so that others may validate their work.
You appear to have misunderstood what is being talked about (not surprising it’s not well written). The different way to do science that is referred to is the consortium getting together and making competitive predictions for the upcoming season, at the end of the season comparing them all. Based on the success (or otherwise) of the various predictions, try to improve the methods during the next year.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:20 am
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp.
It’s also one of those ‘predictions’ which wasn’t actually made!
What Maslowski actually wrote in his presentations in late 2007/early 2008 in reference to the decrease in ice volume was:
“If this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by ~2013!”
I have yet to see this accurately represented when it is ‘publicized’, my emphasis on the missing part of the ‘quotation’, note also “~2013” i.e ‘about 2013’. The ‘!’ also indicates a certain degree of scepticism associated with the statement.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:52 am
‘Any mention of shear? Melt is the reader inference they want.’
Take a look at the Cam 2 animation for this year on the following site:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
The buoy to the left of the yellow one starts running around in the background near the end of the animation. At first I thought perhaps it was the Cailin expedition arriving!!
Villabolo, I have a simple question for you. Bearing in mind that AGW is a theory then what could falsify it? Please provide a time scale if possible.
Sorry ‘Caitlin’ expedition.
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
So you are!
I see you didn’t comment in the Arctic survey post. But here you are now.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Why don’t you pay attention to what the majority of Climatologists themselves are saying?
Would you list these numerous climatologists in that ‘majority’ you speak of and tell everyone what they are saying? Because I think you exaggerating. But if you list all of them, then prove how they are a ‘majority of Climatologists’, and tell what they are saying then you will prove me wrong.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:03 pm
you said ‘widely publicized’. So I brought up Al Gore. No one is more publicized than him. I was responding to something you said. Let’s not change horses in the middle of the stream like the global warming scientists who are constantly changing their predictions.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze
Exactly. Because neither Serreze, nor any of the commenters here on either side (even R. Gates) have much better than a hazy idea how the climate actually works. The Warmists can huff and puff and come out with all the apocalyptic predictions they want.
But the Climate just keeps on doin’ whatta Climate’s gotta do.
And I certainly agree that it doesn’t matter a toss whether the Arctic is “ice free” in 2013 or at any other date. I’ve no doubt it has been ice free many times even in the last 1000 years.
If you want to change the energy that drives the economy of all the developed world and which holds out the only hope for all the poor souls living in grinding poverty in the Third World, then you need to come up with something a lot more scary than a bit of floating ice melting.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says: June 20, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“But if you list all of them, then prove how they are a ‘majority of Climatologists’”
It should not be too hard to come up with ‘a few dozen’ names; and since ‘a few dozen’ is consensus, and consensus implies all, and all is all, then de-facto ‘a few dozen’ is a majority. QED.
PS.
The sun has been out for hours, ‘if this trend continues’ the tooth fairy will never show up.
Some people can recognize a sine-wave, other are not so lucky.
Ice Free in 2013. Tick, tock.
PPS.
CAGW: Models by Revell. Some assembly required. Model may not be as illustrated.
Paul Thomas says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:35 am
Does the refractive index play any role here or are the laws of physics repealed in climate ? I thought that light was totally reflected in an air to water interface with incidence above 49 degrees.
You are mistaken, you are thinking about ‘total internal reflection’ which only applies when light passes from the denser medium, i.e. water to air.
Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Here’s a very recent presentation on the Arctic Sea ice that may have been linked before but I will provide it again:
http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55
Many excellent topics covered here, including the changing nature of multi-year ice, and why measurements to predict it’s volume may be way off due to how it is changing. Steve in particular should pay attention to this. For other AGW skeptics, if you’re really a true skeptic, then you should appreciate the new information here.
Roger, very few posters here have Ph.D’s, though some do. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand and read widely in the field. I don’t recall that the much beloved hero of the AGW Skeptic club, Lord Monckton, having a Ph.D in any climate science related field. All that is personally required to learn is an open mind and a basic understanding of science–and of course lots and lots of time to study. Oh, and of course, lately you need a pretty good BS meter…
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Snow and clouds are white, ice is blue?
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:14 am
You seem to think that somehow a chart of Global Sea ice is more meaningful than looking at the Arctic and Antarctic as the separate regions with different dynamics that they are?
I seem to think that you ducked a simple challenge by practicing a double standard.
You challenged Steve Goddard for his prediction, and he obliged.
I challenged you to calculate a simple slope.
Your response was:
“In general, Arctic year to year sea ice is decreasing faster than Anarctic sea ice is increasing (year to year), and will continue to do so for the next few decades, until both will show declines from current means. A better chart is really this one:”
Well?
Which graphic are you going to calculate the slope on? My composite of N/S from Cyrosphere, or the one you chose?
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Increased surface melting.
So, the term “polar amplification” only applies to one pole … who would have thought. Or, when it doesn’t work like originally thought, just change the definition on the fly.
The fact is no one knows all the factors involved and all the “evidence” provided is over such small time scales that it is basically meaningless. But, that doesn’t stop folks from making predictions. I guess that’s OK, but at Dr. Serreze now admits, he’s often surprised. I’d suggest some of those making strong statements should take a hint.
As far as I can deduce so far it’s far more likely that ocean currents and winds are a bigger factor (in sea ice at both poles) than temperatures. But then, that wouldn’t make for a very scary story now would it?
“Which graphic are you going to calculate the slope on?”
I think if you compare the extent for each pole, and look at the +- 2 standard deviations, you get a better comparison. And of course, it’s mid-season, so… end of season will be much more interesting scientifically.
Well below-
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
A little above-
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
What’s new?
Where’s man’s influence here?
Following are a few extracts from Chapter 2 of “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment” which was referred to in the IPCC Working Group II report on the Polar Regions (Chapter 15 of the WGII report to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007)) as:
“a uniquely detailed assessment of the impacts of climate change in the Arctic (ACIA, 2005), which has been drawn upon heavily in the Arctic component of this chapter …… which has substantially improved the understanding of the impacts of climate change in theArctic, is a benchmark for regional impact assessments, and may become the basis for a sustainable management plan for the Arctic.”
Dealing with the period of the early to mid-Holocene (starting from about 11,000 to 10,000 years ago – ‘11ky to 10 ky BP’) the report says:
• “following the sudden end of the Younger Dryas (about 11 ky BP), the Arctic entered several thousand years of conditions that were warmer and probably moister than today”
• “central Greenland …. did not warm up until after 8 ky BP”
• “by 9 ky BP Spitsbergen glaciers had retreated to or beyond their present day positions”
• “this period was as warm if not warmer than at present”
• “climatic conditions in the early Holocene were significantly warmer than today”
• “marine mammals…were present far north of their present day range”
• “over most of Russia forests advanced to or near the Arctic coastline between 9 and 7 ky BP, and retreated to their present position by between 4 and 3 ky BP”
• “during the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperature along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5 to 7 deg C warmer than present”
• “pollen records indicate a dramatic cooling about 3.5 ky BP”
• “evidence for a mid Holocene thermal maximum in Scandinavia is considerable….summer temperatures were 1.5 to 2 deg C higher than at present”
• “especially severe conditions in northern Swedish Lapland …330 BC…decrease in mean summer temperature of about 3 to 4 deg C”
• “Yamal Peninsula… treeline…by 7.4 ky BP it was located at approximately 69 deg. It remained here until 3.7 ky BP when it rapidly retreated .. to within 2 to 3 km north of its present position” “in the space of only 50 years”
>Paul Thomas says:
>June 20, 2010 at 11:35 am
>
>Does the refractive index play any role here or are the laws of physics repealed in >climate ? I thought that light was totally reflected in an air to water interface with >incidence above 49 degrees. All light would be reflected above 70 degrees latitude at >the solstice and at lower latitudes at any other time. Blackness of the surface doesn’t >enter the picture. Allowing for atmospheric bending of incoming light does not >markedly alter the critical latitude (moving it slightly higher).
No, this is wrong. What you are referring to is called “total internal reflection” and this only occurs when going from a more dense to less dense medium (from water to air NOT from air to water).
Most of the light will be absorbed.
JK says:
“Well below… A little above…”
Doesn’t matter. This is what matters. Global ice cover is above average. See?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Looks bleak, bleary & brutal.
The pull-apart areas look strange. Frozen on land in Greenland, clear sea, then a frozen breccia-like flotilla further out.
Hope that stuff stays up there.
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm
JK says:
“Well below… A little above…”
Doesn’t matter. This is what matters. Global ice cover is above average. See?
Si. Please send warming, the real warming, not the phony AGW stuff that causes freezer-burn.
As for why should we be concerned if the arctic is ice free we can take look at the analogous system of heating a glass of water with ice in it.
As we put heat into the glass, the ice melts, but the indicator we typically look at, the temperature of the water, remains the same, 0C, more heat, more melting, temperature remains the same (but the volume of ice diminishes). Our indicator, is not accurately reflecting the situation. When the ice melts completely, the water begins to heat up and our indicator finally begins to change (but only after the buffering ability of the ice has completely gone).
With the arctic, if we beginning cooling before all the ice has melted, the ice cap will begin regrowing immediately (the water temperature has not changed). If we begin cooling after all the ice has melted, the water will first have to cool to freezing before the ice cap can begin reforming. This puts off the point of ice cap recovery later into the season giving a shorter ice cap ‘growth’ season.
More heat in the atmosphere will affect global wind patterns.
A warmer arctic ocean will increase the melt rate of the greenland glaciers and affect the flow rates and directions of the worlds’ ocean currents.
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Doesn’t matter. This is what matters. Global ice cover is above average. See?
Yeah, I see – but you sure haven’t said _why_ it matters. Ever pondered the seasonality of the Antarctic ice, for one thing…
rbateman says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Looks bleak, bleary & brutal.
The pull-apart areas look strange. Frozen on land in Greenland, clear sea, then a frozen breccia-like flotilla further out.
And that breccia-like flotilla means it’s not solid, thick, old ice. And a surprising amount of snow-free land along shorelines in the Canadian Archipelago, too. Not even that brutal, as the snow is melting off the sea ice.
Georg says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Great analysis. Extend that to the Antarctic, and describe what will happen when the opposing forces meet at the Tropicana.
Is the warm water up around Greenland like El Nino, soon to be replaced with colder water when the supply is exhausted?
There is so much we don’t know that we’d all like answered.
The really hard part is waiting.
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm
And a surprising amount of snow-free land along shorelines in the Canadian Archipelago, too. Not even that brutal, as the snow is melting off the sea ice.
Warm enough to support farming yet?
What melts faster: the Sea Ice or the Snow on the Sea Ice?
There was only 1 scientist among the sea ice community advocating Arctic ice free summers by 2013. The scientist made that prediction because the role that he believes the ocean is playing in thinning the ice, a role he feels neglected in many other studies. The scientist (Dr. Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School) runs a high resolution regional sea ice/ocean model for his assessments (which can model processes such as the inflow of the warm water through Bering Strait, something that global climate models currently do not resolve). His model work shows large bottom melting of the ice by the ocean and he has validated his model with buoy data. To get the 2013 date, he extrapolates. I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable.
The IPCC AR4 models suggest ice-free summers sometime between 2050 and 2100 based on the business as usual GHG scenarios. Thus, that was the range most scientists were quoting in the literature and media (not 2013).
Then I published a study in 2007 that compared the observations from 1953-2006 to those from the IPCC AR4 models. What that study showed is that on average the observations are about 30 years ahead of the climate models in terms of how much September ice there is at the moment in the Arctic. This lead many scientists to believe ice-free summers could happen sooner than the models predict, so that 2030 might be more reasonable.
I don’t think the actual date as to when it happens is all that important. If it happens, the consequences will be the same. It will be a large climate shift for the planet. This is because removal of the sea ice affects the temperatures in the Arctic, which in turn alters the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. It is this temperature gradient that drives our atmospheric and oceanic circulation, the role of which is to transport the excess heat received at the equator to the poles. Thus, you would expect significant changes in our weather patterns as the temperature gradient changes. How this will play out is an active research area at the moment. There is not enough data at the moment do assess this observationally, so climate models are used. At the moment these models are not consistent in their predictions as to how precipitation patterns around the world will change if there is no sea ice during summer in the Arctic.
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
‘Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Increased surface melting.’
—————————–
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
JK says:
“…you sure haven’t said _why_ it matters.”
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious to even the most casual observer: the entire debate is over global warming [more specifically, over catastrophic AGW caused by human emissions of CO2].
By cherry picking only the Arctic, you are selecting a regional climate. Anyone can do that, and it proves nothing. For example, the Gobi desert is fast approaching Beijing, and is now only about 40 miles away. Does that prove or disprove CO2=CAGW? Or is it simply a regional climate change?
[BTW, “climate” has always referred to regional, not planet-wide conditions. But like other definitions, the CAGW crowd has perverted the definition of climate from its original meaning.]
Billy Liar says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
No, and the sea ice isn’t turning blue-gray there yet either (if you looked at the images…)
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious to even the most casual observer: the entire debate is over global warming [more specifically, over catastrophic AGW caused by human emissions of CO2].
I don’t know, I don’t talk about “catastrophic” – I’ll leave that for others… but by global, you seem to be trying to say “all warming all the time? No? Then I don’t believe it.” Fine.
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I like your thinking, pard.
The debate over Global Warming drags Climate Regional into a kangaroo court.
When the real Globe stands up, there is found little warming to write home about.
The concensus finding is overturned due to the charges being framed.
Now it’s time to open up the data and see what’s really going on.
Billy Liar says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
‘Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Increased surface melting.’
—————————–
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
Quite and the ice hasn’t turned blue on http://ice-map.appspot.com/ there yet.
Billy says:
“Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.”
The North Pole webcams show completely waterlogged snow that’s within a week of turning into puddles.
Sarah says:
June 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Billy says:
“Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.”
The North Pole webcams show completely waterlogged snow that’s within a week of turning into puddles.
Probably, there’s already a crack in the ice through the site (late in May http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0528-025222.jpg).
So the buoy in the background is now on a different floe to the rest, hence the movements referred to by Billy Liar:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
fair question:
How low would the sea ice have to go before people agreed it was out of the ordinary
We already see cycling patterns that put the “null” into question
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comments
I think its a fair request to both sides in the debate to put some markers down.
Those who think the ice is vanishing and those who think what we are seeing is ‘ordinary’ or normal.
( you can of course believe that the ice is melting, that it is out of the ordinary, but that GHGs are not the sole cause )
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I do not recall any headlines int 2007, 2008 or 2009 that that indicated that the CAGW people had disowned Dr. Maslowski; or that they thought his pronouncement were unsound, or that they thought he was loose cannon. Nope, just silence in the media, with the opportunists (of all kinds) picking up the ball and running with it. Surely if a few dozen scientists thought such a pronouncements was insane, is would have registered somewhere in the media. Nope, the few dozen scientists were happy to let it slide, that is until the ice began to grow, and the date was seen to be in jeopardy.
So the story you and others have allowed to be presented to the people is that there is consensus (everyone agrees) and that the Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013 (not noticeably contested).
I know that both of these things are false, perhaps you do to, but I think that November 2007 would have been the time to speak up.
Julienne you better drop a note to William Connolly, he needs to update Wikipedia to indicate the irrational nature of the good doctor, because the prediction is still there on the “Timeline of the future in forecasts” page.
Steven Mosher says: June 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm
“How low would the sea ice have to go before people agreed it was out of the ordinary”
I think that a two kilometer thick slab of ice covering all of Canada is just as normal and just as natural as fruit trees, grasses and furry woodland creatures on Elsmere Island.
It has all happened before and it will all happen again, and again, and again until the Sun depletes its’ lighter fuels and its corona expands beyond the orbit of the Earth.
So, I think that no matter what happens, it is ordinary.
I thought you guys at WUWT were telling us that another ice age was coming with all that “the line’s going to touch” and Pips 2.o thick ice etc. Heck, I bought new ice skates and invested in a polar bear herd. Now it doesn’t matter?
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:35 pm
First, I will say that I personally do not consider you a “troll” and you provide a good foil for Steve. Otherwise, He is generally preaching to the choir.
Be sure though, that your comment “Oh, and of course, lately you need a pretty good BS meter…” works both ways. And why is it that you only need a good BS meter lately. I mean, some of the most dire CAGW predictions have already been discredited by the passage of time. And which side has indulged the most in trashing those who are not official “climate scientists”?
Finally, I listened to the presentation by Dr. Barber but I don’t think that I was quite as wowed as you appear to be. The extensive ‘rotten ice” observations are interesting and I am sure that these scientists are gathering valuable observations but it is obvious that the man is a GCM and CAGW believer and allows his bias to show. Barber apparently started his ice study carrier in 1980, coincident with the start of the satellite observation era. Missing is any real discussion of long term climate cycles, cycles that are considerably longer than his involvement in the science. Barber invokes in a nebulous way, the knowledge and wisdom of the Inuit but does not mention the historical knowledge of European peoples. Some anecdotal evidence is sacred and some profane. And he displayed a Hansen chart showing Arctic warming. It is common knowledge here that GISS Arctic temperatures are suspect.
Barber chortled over all the money that they were getting. Okay, we all like money, but he lost me for good when he invoked the polar bears. If only he had just stuck to his specially, ice.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Andrew, I am afraid you are incorrect. If you search on numerous Arctic scientists names and their “predictions” for the future state of the Arctic sea ice cover, you will find their assessments. There is only one name with the 2013 prediction. Regardless of Dr. Maslowski’s statements, NSIDC has stood by a 2030 estimate and the media has reported on this as well.
You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise. It made us realize that the ice pack had gotten thin enough to be vulnerable to weather patterns that favored extensive ice loss. These weather patterns had happened in the past during the observational record, but had not yielded such a dramatic summer retreat of the sea ice.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I do not recall any headlines… So the story you and others have allowed to be presented to the people is that there is consensus (everyone agrees) and that the Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013 (not noticeably contested).
That is pretty much the stupidest pronouncement yet on this post.
Why not read the science, at least, and then get back to us (after you get off the intellectual high horse).
Julienne says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The IPCC AR4 models suggest ice-free summers sometime between 2050 and 2100 based on the business as usual GHG scenarios. Thus, that was the range most scientists were quoting in the literature and media (not 2013).
I think it’s been mainly Al Gore and Mark Surreze that have made in into the media.
The literature is another story, i.e., the average person never reads it. So the only ‘media’ that matters to the average person is what is said on TV and radio. 2013 is the forecast for ice free summers in the Arctic. And Arctic ice is in a ‘death spiral’.
I think it’s important to keep a distinction between what the average person sees and what someone scientifically inclined sees. The scientifically inclined is a small part of the population. In fact, I think even the scientifically inclined, for the most part, has not read the IPCC reports and most science journal.
So 2013 is the only date that matters to most.
Julienne says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
To get the 2013 date, he extrapolates. I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable.
Yes, you’re right. It’s very easy to agree with that.
Julienne,
Thanks for providing some truly expert perspective here. I hope the AGW “warmist” and sceptic alike can appreciate your knowledge, background, and the time you take to post.
JK says: June 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“Derogatory remark … Nothing of substance … Personal slur…”
Nothing out of the ordinary, it has all happened before, it will all happen again, and again, and again, until the CAGW followers gain insight or manners.
There is no predicted date for either of those outcomes or even a model indicating that either outcome is possible.
Julienne
June 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I take it you are alarmed by what you see in Arctic ice because of 2007?
Have you done any study on what Arctic ice could have been like 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period?
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Doesn’t matter. This is what matters. Global ice cover is above average. See?
What you’re doing Smokey is you’re presenting data. And there are some who don’t want data. They want to believe computer climate models rather than the real observations that data come from.
Andrew30
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
What we have here is failure to communicate.
There is a disconnect between what a part of the science world calls the media and what most other people who are outside the world of science(i.e., most of the population), and even others in the science world, call the media.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:20 am
Sean says: June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013.
Spin; Following the unusual large melt in 2007, a speculation was made by one scientist that “if the melt were to continue at this rate, the arctic would be ice free in summer by 2013.
He did not say “the arctic WILL be free in 2013. Neither did the consensus of climate scientists, in fact they said that the arctic would rebound. It did, but only partial and even then in extent only (15% or more ice cover) the ice thickness continued to decline, ergo less volume. As of today the 2010 melt is nearly 800,000 KM2 ahead of 2009. As for publicizing, I thought it was the skeptics making the noise.
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“Andrew, I am afraid you are incorrect. If you search on numerous Arctic scientists names and their “predictions” for the future state of the Arctic sea ice cover, you will find their assessments.”
Perhaps I was not clear when I used the phrases, “silence in the media” and “presented to the people”. It might have been clearer if I had said:
Neither I nor anyone I know has ever seen or heard a news or documentary report on commercial television or radio that indicates that the 2013 date was a childish extrapolation (a wild guess) by a single person and that the persons analysis is contested by all other scientists in the consensus.
One of you said it; the Media reported it; and none of you immediately contested it. You let it slide, for a long time.
PS.
I do not see NSIDC is the TV Guide, did you mean NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, CTV or CNN?
I’m sorry but warmists appointed Al Gore as their spokesman and cemented that appointment when they defended, applauded, and distrubited his “An Inconvenient Truth”. To now say “Al is not a scientist” would have been just as relevant in exploring his many mistakes and exaggerations, but that was not done. Take a poll in America on names people recognize as knowing about Global Warming and Al will top the list. So own him, you created him.
Second, I would bet millions of dollars that if the Antartic was in a downward trend it also would be held up as an example of AGW. To hear this continued nonsense that the North Pole circumstances are due to AGW, but the Antartic’s are due to ozone holes and changing currents smells like bull cookies.
Andrew30
“So, I think that no matter what happens, it is ordinary.”
So basically, there is no evidence you would accept to contradict your belief?
That’s a bullet proof Null. Otherwise known as faith
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I do not recall any headlines int 2007, 2008 or 2009 that that indicated that the CAGW people had disowned Dr. Maslowski; or that they thought his pronouncement were unsound, or that they thought he was loose cannon. Nope, just silence in the media,
Not silent at all, e.g.
From the BBC in Dec 2007, a report on a talk by Serreze:
Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
Julienne;
“I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable”: Julienne
“We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean.”: Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
Apparently neither is a “high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data”
“You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise”: Julienne
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007.” “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” : Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
Did you catch that bit; “is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007”. The 2013 date did Not Include the 2007 minima, he is Not surprised! His CAGW Models predicted it before the 2007 minima, not after.
Are you aware of any other renegade predictions, projections, forecasts or errors that you would like to clear up at this time?
Serreze is talking about weather here, not climate. Weather is more chaotic than climate and therefore more difficult to predict a few months out. By analogy, I can tell you with great confidence that December will be hotter than June in the southern hemisphere – it receives more sunlight in December. That’s climate. But I can’t tell you what the maximum temperature will be on any given day – that’s weather.
Steven Mosher says at 7:35 pm:
“So basically, there is no evidence you would accept to contradict your belief?
That’s a bullet proof Null.”
Sorry, that’s wrong. And it is not a ‘belief.’
The null hypothesis encompasses past parameters. Unless the current climate exceeds those parameters, it can not be argued that anything now occurring is out of the ordinary.
Show that the climate is acting unusually, and you will have my complete attention.
Otherwise, natural climate variability is a sufficient explanation.
Steven Mosher says: June 20, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“Otherwise known as faith”
No. You asked what would be ordinary.
Is an Ice Free Arctic ordinary? Yes.
Is an Ice Age ordinary? Yes.
Are satellites falling out of the sky ordinary? Yes.
Is poorly written software ordinary? Yes.
Volcanoes, starvation, disease, earthquake, extinction, evolution, lightning, mountains rising, the Mediterranean drying up completely, rift valleys splitting, they all have happened more than once; they are all ordinary event in the history of this temporary collection of interstellar dust.
Perhaps if you had asked what would be Extraordinary you might get have got a different response. Extraordinary would be difficult to answer because I would have to think of something that has not already happened lots of times but is physically possible.
Faith? I don’t think so.
“So 2013 is the only date that matters to most.”
________________
Matters to most of the uneducated and ignorant. And it is not a crime to be either, nor is it a personal attack. The bulk of the population get what little they do know about the Arctic and specifically, about the state of the Arctic cryosphere from the news or from their favorite pundit. They would do well to do more research and then they’d see that 2013 is far from the mean prediction by the experts as to when the Arctic might be ice free in the summer. They’d also learn that there may be a long period when the Arctic is virutally ice free in the summer (1 million sq. km. or less) before finally seeing absolutely no ice at all in the Arctic during the summer low.
Phil. says: June 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
If I ask someone, “Do you agree”, and they say “Yes, but”, it means that they do not agreed, the yes is just being deceptive.
That said, you were a little to quick with the cut-and-paste, you could have had a good cherry if you left out the sour grape at the end.
“I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections”
That is cherry, and then the sour grape
“But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
If that is what passes as a rebuttal between CAGW believers, it explains a lot about the peer review process.
“Not silent at all”, perhaps you are right, I should have said; supportive and reinforcing.
Ice Free in 2013, even Dr. Serreze would not even be surprised.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I am not a modeler nor a paleoclimate scientist. I primarily work with satellite data. Thus, I have not done any studies of what the sea ice may have looked like in the MWP. From the papers I’ve read there is no conclusive evidence that the Arctic was ice free during the MWP. There are scientists who are experts at such studies and if you’re interested I can direct you to some of their publications.
Andrew30, you are correct that Dr. Maslowski initally forecasted 2013 before the record minimum of 2007 happened. He has been looking into the role of the ocean in melting the ice from below, the contribution of which has been substantial (hence the reason for his aggressive projections).
Andrew30, you should understand that predictions are made by running models and making assumptions about future forcings, or by using statistical/empirical relationships and assuming these relationships will hold in the future (stay constant). Of course they are not going to be perfect because they are based on assumptions about the future, which may or may not turn out to be true. What they do is give an idea of an outcome given a certain set of constraints. And they should be treated as such.
Phil, thank you for pointing to other news reports that show differences of opinions from that of Dr. Maslowski.
Phil.
June 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Am I right to guess you had to do a search and you found a transcript that shows Surreze said those things? I don’t remember the buzz about Mark Surreze saying those things. Pretty aware of that ‘death spiral’ though.
Also, I don’t see Surreze mentioning 2013 in the quote, specifically. It looks like Andrew30’s comment was about “I do not recall any headlines int 2007, 2008 or 2009 that that indicated that the CAGW people had disowned Dr. Maslowski;”. Surreze does not mention him or the 2013 prediction made famous by Al Gore. The listener would have make the mental leap to put the two together to arrive at the conclusion you seem to be implying is clear without the mental leap. Also, to make a blanket statement about all global warming scientists from what Surreze said in this bite is unfair. Or does Mark Surreze after all really speak for all global warming scientists?
What Andrew30 said is easily true—the general population has only heard impending doom from global warming scientists in the media and there is no effort from this other group that you are trying to pointing out to clear up that supposed misconception.
From looking at the poll numbers for a few years now I don’t think many are even listening to global warming scientists anyway. 🙂
> rbateman says:
>June 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm
>
>Georg says:
>June 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm
>
>Great analysis. Extend that to the Antarctic, and describe what will happen when >the opposing forces meet at the Tropicana.
A similar analysis would be difficult to apply to Antarctic because so much of the ‘ice’ area is made up of land based ice. (14 million sq
“natural climate variability is a sufficient explanation”
Q. So why is the climate doing {fill in the blank}?
A. Natural variability.
Oh. Gee, who needs science anyways. Saying that has whatever happened in the past, no matter the current context, is ‘natural’, well…
“I’m sorry but warmists appointed Al Gore as their spokesman”
Get real! You just use (tiresomely!) Gore as a bludgeon to say “I’m an ultraconservative Bush Republican anti-global warming ideologue”, as a badge of proclamation. I’ve never seen his movie, or read his stuff, and I find all the AlGore-ism pathetic.
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:42 pm
the uneducated and ignorant
Projecting?
“The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.”
“POLES” – plural! How can a publication with ‘science’ in its name ignore half of the data? Per the NSIDC Antartic ice is running 1 million km2 above average.
If the “firmest” predictions are this far off, how can the model be considered robust enough to generate anything useful? (Other than grant funding, that is.)
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“Andrew30, you are correct that Dr. Maslowski initally forecasted 2013 before the record minimum of 2007 happened.”
So when you wrote:
“You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise.”
Was that was just an attempted excuse/diversion or did it have some reference to the preceding sentence.
“There is only one name with the 2013 prediction. Regardless of Dr. Maslowski’s statements, NSIDC has stood by a 2030 estimate and the media has reported on this as well.”
It is the ‘also’ (meaning: in addition to the prior item) that implies that the two items are related (2013 prediction, 2007 minima); we know that they are not.
So, why the ruse, or did you believe the 2013 Ice Free date and the 2007 minima were related two hours ago?
The collective will have to work much harder to move this goal post.
R. Gates says: June 20, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“They’d also learn that there may be a long period when the Arctic is virutally ice free in the summer (1 million sq. km. or less) before finally seeing absolutely no ice at all in the Arctic during the summer low.”
They’d also learn that it has happened before and what it was like in the past:
—
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291255 (APR 28, 2010)
“Researcher Tom Andrews put together a team and got funding from the International Polar Year in order to study eight identified ice patches in the MacKenzie Mountains, striking archaeological pay dirt. The team found and recovered a variety of ancient hunting tools, all of different ages.”
“The searches of the melting ice patches have yielded up 2,400-year-old spear throwing tools, a 1,000-year-old ground squirrel snare, and bows and arrows dating back 850 years. Andrews said, “The implements are truly amazing. There are wooden arrows and dart shafts so fine you can’t believe someone sat down with a stone and made them.”
“The Canadian Arctic is normally covered by ice and snow, but climate change has been changing that fact. The ice melt has allowed for ancient artifacts to be recovered.”
—
Trees, grasses, squirrels, bows, arrows and hunters, in the Arctic; 1,000 years ago. Sounds like a nice place.
Then the “uneducated and ignorant” would not fear an Ice Free Arctic in 2013, they would understand that it is normal and has all happened before. They would understand the Arctic’s natural climate, warm and woody. Then all the “uneducated and ignorant” would vote.
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“Andrew30, you should understand that predictions are made by running models and making assumptions about future forcings, or by using statistical/empirical relationships and assuming these relationships will hold in the future (stay constant). Of course they are not going to be perfect because they are based on assumptions about the future, which may or may not turn out to be true.”
I do, and you have explained exactly why they fail to predict. A model must be based on an understanding of the past, not on an assumption about the future, physics does not change.
You can not train a model to do something that you yourself do not understand. First learn what has already happen in the past, do not cover up or omit inconvenient details since they often contain the most challenging parts of the problem.
One small group of people can not know everything about the past. There are many people who have ideas, physicists, chemists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, biologists, volcanologists; to name a few. Include all the knowledge, data and scientific work available.
Let everyone know what you are doing and how you are progressing. If the model can not make sense of the knowledge then the model is not ready and you need more ideas and more basic science, with real data and real experiments.
Take time, get it right. When the model can predict the past 150 years based on an initialization of the state of the system 1350 years ago, then and only then is it ready to begin to predict the near future. If the model misses a significant event then the model is wrong and throw all the perdictions in the bin and you start over.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:53 am
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
=====================
Five hours ahead – well done!
It is exactly past natural variability that is the most worrying aspect of Global Warming.
There is nothing unnatural about industrial civilization. We as human being are part of Nature, and everything we create comes from Nature, using Natural laws to make it work. “Artificial” versus “Natural” is simply a mindframe, as faulty as the duality of body and mind. There is no such separation in reality.
Therefore, we know that natural events can trigger runaway global warming, and that can cause mass exinctions. See the Permian Extinction Event.
So if volcanoes, or asteroids, or solar radiation can cause a mass extinction or a serious change in the planetary ecosystem’s balance, why can’t industrial civilization? It is but another natural input – and an extremely large one. Just look at a night picture of Earth to see the kind of impact human civilization has. You cannot deny that.
It was recently discovered that digging for geothermal energy plants can cause earthquakes. It happened in Switzerland. So discounting AGW because its effects are within natural variability makes as much sense as continuing geothermal digging because earthquakes are within natural variability.
The wiping out of 90% of Earth’s lifeforms is perfectly within natural variability. It happened 5 times already. There would be nothing strange with a sixth event. The only difference being that unlike an asteroid or a volcano, we can STOP our harmful input and keep the ecosystem in an equilibrium that is favorable to us – at least untill an asteroid hits or the Yellowstone caldera erupts or what have you.
Btw, folks, whether an ice-free Arctic is naturally re-occuring or not has nothing to do with how much destruction a much warmer planet can cause *today*.
The estimate is in 1000, world population was something on the order of 400M. Now it is 6.6B.
Markedly higher sea levels, natural or not, would be quite a different impact 75 years from now than then –no matter how “naturally” they came about.
While it might be unintentional, Mr. Gates’ comments highlights the difficulty in accepting their propositions without skepticism: “The sharing of data from the different models will help to begin getting all the different factors included to paint a much more accurate picture of what is happening.” Data? What data? A model’s output is NOT data! It is the result of modeling. Data is an INPUT, or used to adjust parameters within the model. The inability to distinguish between a calculated output (based on calculations and assumptions that is most published models have been demonstrated to REQUIRE a warmist outcome) is, at best, disturbing. At worst…
An editorial correction:
The inability to distinguish between a calculated output (based on calculations and assumptions that is most published models have been demonstrated to REQUIRE a warmist outcome)—AND DATA, I.E., FACT,— is, at best, disturbing.
A reply to Robert Austin’s comment
June 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm
__________
I don’t disagree with most of what you said. Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm
You are mistaken, you are thinking about ‘total internal reflection’ which only applies when light passes from the denser medium, i.e. water to air.
hmmmm, you’re telling me light doesn’t reflect off the water? Refraction goes both ways when changing from between mediums.
we can STOP our harmful input and keep the ecosystem in an equilibrium that is favorable to us
humans have always worked on reducing pollution. to say they haven’t is to ignore history.
man is not causing disasters on the earth from co2. the sky is not falling.
geo says:
June 21, 2010 at 6:18 am
Markedly higher sea levels,
I see you have not checked the data. there is no level rise you speak of and not even the IPCC is talking about what you are saying.
the sky is not falling
Hypnos says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:54 am
So if volcanoes, or asteroids, or solar radiation can cause a mass extinction or a serious change in the planetary ecosystem’s balance, why can’t industrial civilization? It is but another natural input – and an extremely large one. Just look at a night picture of Earth to see the kind of impact human civilization has. You cannot deny that.
Not a good comparison. Volcanoes, asteroids and solar variability are have vastly greater impacts than man’s puny effects on climate. Hence the need for invoking “tipping points” by alarmists. The night sky does show the spread of modern industrial society, and while dramatic and picturesque, still reveals much more dark area than light. Past warming were good things for life, the major state being the ice age and the warm interglacials being the anomalies. Basically, you are invoking the “precautionary principal”. I vote we study this thing for another 50 years before shouting that the sky is falling.
Excerpt from: Hypnos on June 21, 2010 at 2:54 am
No we don’t.
Here, I found you a nice National Geographic article on the Permian Extinction. Major Thing Number One, no one knows for sure what caused it. The science is not settled. Asteroid, ongoing massive volcanic eruptions, etc.
What is known? Something happened. Whatever happened threw a lot of fine particulates up high into the air. There were noxious clouds, large amounts of acid rain and snow. The sun was blocked out. There was global cooling, increased glaciation. Nearly all the trees were killed. At some point oxygen levels were exceedingly low, seas went anoxic. With so much of the photosynthesizing organisms killed off, with rotting biomass all over the globe, the levels of atmospheric CO2 (and methane) grew.
‘And of course the massive CO2 levels must have caused tremendous Global Warming.’
Seems to me you really got the cart in front of the horse that time, bud. 🙂
Sean says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice? It’s ups and downs are extraordinarily noisy and I submit a poor way to track which way the climate is heading. Looking at the total heat content of the oceans with the Argo bouys gives a much more consistent number indicator of the earth’s temperature and where its headed in the future.
____________________________________________________________________
We look at Arctic sea ice because the predictions were for an “ice free” Arctic in the very near future and that was going to be proof of AGW.
“They” were betting that the earth would see an “ice free” arctic during the peak of the 60 year cycle, since an “ice free” Arctic has happened before at the temperature peak of the 60 year [ocean] and 200 year [sun] cycles. Now the sea surface temperatures are headed back down, the cloud cover has increased and the sun is in a funk. If we do not see the arctic free of ice this year or next, chances are it is not going to happen during my life time at least.
BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:07 am
Clearly, the trend over the last 30 years is most important and not what happens during a certain month or even a particular year. Like the stock market, one should not expect ice extent to go straight down or straight up.
________________________________________________________________________
WRONG, Wrong, wrong. The trend over the last 30 years can be made to look like a straight line. However the real trend is actually a cyclical sine wave over 60 – 70 years
“..The P Gosselin NoTricksZone corresponded with Dr Oleg Pokrovsky, the Russian scientist who was widely quoted by international newswires 4 days ago about his statement that the Arctic is cooling, not warming. Dr. Pokrovsky replied and provided a link to his recent powerpoint presentation. He bases his analysis partly upon the cyclical nature of the AMO and PDO, as shown in his wavelet analyses below. The simplistic explanation for interpretation of the wavelet analysis is to look for dark red horizontal bands, which show the primary cyclical component for both the AMO and PDO to range between ~60-70 years …” More On the 60 Year Climate Cycle
Bill Tuttle says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:53 am
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
_______________
……Even though I don’t see a record low extent for this summer, I feel very confident we will by 2015, hitting near the 2.0 million sq. km. in at least one summer between now and then, and I do think we’ll see an ice free Arctic summer before 2030.
_______________
Is it me or did R. Gates just move the goal posts ???
First “The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models:” …….. and then “That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.”
So which is it? If predicting change in the Arctic is immensely difficult, how can summer sea-ice be one of the firmest predictions of climate models? These are not mutually exclusive, as the accelerated loss of sea ice mainly depends on the feedbacks.
I love the “sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner” quote however. I can picture the error bars in my head.
roger says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:55 am
R. Gates
“I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points”
__________________________________________________
Please detail your educational attainments and your field studies in the arctic which enable you to make such superior observations.
This will enable us to judge whether your continued postings on this blog are worth reading in the future or whether you might be the source of the hot air causing global anomalies.
_________________________________________________
If you want to see R. Gates, without his “party manners” check out his comment here
“….When the ice cap melts completely, you can be certain that RAPID global warming is immenent. An ice free arctic will mean massive warming from the loss of temperature control (like breaking the thermistat in your home), as well as the POSITIVE FEEDBACK of releasing massive amounts of methane from the arctic region.
All this is assured, and already too late to stop.. .and still the fools are arguing about who will get all their precious oil reserves from the arctic…as though it will be business as usual in the future…such a foolish, blind, narrowminded, and selfish species.
Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon.
God Bless you all.
R. Gates”
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“Get real! You just use (tiresomely!) Gore as a bludgeon to say “I’m an ultraconservative Bush Republican anti-global warming ideologue”, as a badge of proclamation. I’ve never seen his movie, or read his stuff, and I find all the AlGore-ism pathetic.”
Please point out to me where I bashed Gore? Please reconcile “ultraconservative” and “Bush” (hint bush is/was not a conservative). Please point out where I declared my political position, leanings and/or philosphy?
In fact you are the one that attacked Al Gore. Since you ignored my points and then attacked me and the person you accused me of attacking, I’ll just ignore you in the future as having nothing meanigful to say.
Hypnos says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:54 am (Edit)
It is exactly past natural variability that is the most worrying aspect of Global Warming.
There is nothing unnatural about industrial civilization. We as human being are part of Nature, and everything we create comes from Nature, using Natural laws to make it work. “Artificial” versus “Natural” is simply a mindframe, as faulty as the duality of body and mind. There is no such separation in reality.”
I love this argument. So did de Sade. hehe.
Looking at Cryosphere and Terra sat images, they are way off base on concentrations in the Arctic basin. I’m not sure if they are mistaking meltwater for open water, or what, but even a regular joe can see they are wrong. The Laptev and Siberian seas are especially off. Even the area on the Canadian side with lower concentrations is way off.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=73.190674&lon=-137.618661&yir=2010&day=161
Steve Mosher said:
“There is nothing unnatural about industrial civilization.”
___________
This is true…in the sense that it came from humans who are part of nature, but then, the black plaque, small pox, and cancer are “natural” too. More accurate is to talk about things that are harmonious to the whole web of life. An asteroid striking earth is a natural event, but may not be too beneficial for many life forms.
R. Gates says: June 21, 2010 at 10:01 am
“An asteroid striking earth is a natural event, but may not be too beneficial for many life forms”
That is a statement one would expect from someone who promotes the fear of change and maintains the idea that the current state is the optimum state.
An asteroid striking earth likely brought down the dominance of the dinosaurs; those that could not fly and able travel great distances became extinct. This opened up a whole set of empty biological niches that through natural selection became the domain of mammals. Like you.
It would appear that “An asteroid striking earth” was an absolute necessity for you, if it had not occurred you would not be.
Whether that consequence of the “An asteroid striking earth”, your existence, is “beneficial for many life forms”, is not something that I am qualified to comment on. 😉
geo says: June 21, 2010 at 6:18 am
“The estimate is in 1000, world population was something on the order of 400M. Now it is 6.6B.”
A few million hectares of farmland opening up in the North would help a lot, wouldn’t it?
A longer growing season thought the temperate zone would help a lot, wouldn’t it?
An increase in rainfall to recharge aquifers and push back deserts would help a lot, wouldn’t it?
Warmer is better, unless you feel that moving is more of an inconvenience that starvation.
Brian D says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:40 am
Looking at Cryosphere and Terra sat images, they are way off base on concentrations in the Arctic basin. I’m not sure if they are mistaking meltwater for open water, or what, but even a regular joe can see they are wrong. The Laptev and Siberian seas are especially off. Even the area on the Canadian side with lower concentrations is way off.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=73.190674&lon=-137.618661&yir=2010&day=161
——————————
Brian, it is important to understand what sea ice concentrations mean during summer. As soon as melt water appears, the passive microwave sea ice algorithms underestimate the sea ice concentration because that melt water “appears” as open water, thereby reducing the ice concentration (even when that pixel may still be 100% ice). That is why it’s better to focus on extent during the melt season if you want to know the area of the ocean surface covered by ice. If you are interested in albedo feedback issues, then the ice concentration provides a valuable metric.
Gail writes: since an “ice free” Arctic has happened before at the temperature peak of the 60 year [ocean] and 200 year [sun] cycles.
I’m not sure what you’re saying, but it seems that you’re saying the Arctic Ocean was ice free not too long ago. Yet there is absolutely no scientific evidence of this.
Andrew30 said: (about R. Gates)
“That is a statement one would expect from someone who promotes the fear of change…”
________________
Those are pretty powerful words Mr. Andrew30, and I hope you have equally powerful proof that I “promote fear of change,” othewise, I consider you to be someone not worthy of any further discourse with.
RGates you keep posting up barbers video, but anyone with a little education and some mild curiosity will see right through the man. barber may be an arctic expert, but he betrays his hack propagandist priorities in the first few minutes.
he sounds the usual dire ‘ice free arctic warning’. but then he says something like, “we can argue whether it’s been 1 or 14 million years since that happened.”
if he wants to argue that an ice free arctic is due to warming, than he omits the obvious recent periods when it was much warmer that today, and the therefore the arctic should have been ice free. Medieval optimum, warmer than today. Roman optimum, warmer than the medieval. holocene optimum, warmer than roman, etc. If we go back another 100ky, you have the previous interglacial. it was so warm that northern europe was under the ocean, forests grew above the arctic circle, and hippos swam in the rhine. do you suppose the arctic was ice free then?
R. Gates says: June 21, 2010 at 10:01 am
More accurate is to talk about things that are harmonious to the whole web of life.
So tell us, rgates, what is more harmonious to the world wide web, increasing the numbers of polar bears, or killing a few off to increase the seal population? I remember the pictures of bloody seal cubs with their heads bashed in by humans trying to survive. Is it more harmonious to kill them with one blow or let polar bears gnaw’em to death. What is the ideal numbers of each of these species, bear/human/seals. Why don’t we ship some polar bears to the S Pole and let them harmonize with the penguins. I’ll admit, I just don’t know what the “more accurate” harmonious balance is. Fill me in?
R. Gates says: June 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I hope you have equally powerful proof that I “promote fear of change,”
—
I did not say that you “promote fear of change”. I said “That is a statement one would expect from someone who promotes the fear of change”.
You might have indicated that such a statement could have another purpose, was naive in its scope, had an egocentric or hidden meaning, or that I misunderstood what you meant.
Instead you seem to have self indentified with what was actually written, odd choice.
That said, from above:
Gail Combs says: June 21, 2010 at 9:20 am
“….When the ice cap melts completely, you can be certain that RAPID global warming is immenent. An ice free arctic will mean massive warming from the loss of temperature control (like breaking the thermistat in your home), as well as the POSITIVE FEEDBACK of releasing massive amounts of methane from the arctic region.
All this is assured, and already too late to stop.. .and still the fools are arguing about who will get all their precious oil reserves from the arctic…as though it will be business as usual in the future…such a foolish, blind, narrowminded, and selfish species.
Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon.
God Bless you all.
R. Gates”
The above could possibly be interpreted by someone as a dire warning about the consequences of change, in this case warming; as an attempt to instill fear in the mind of the reader.
Of course it is possible that “releasing massive amounts of methane from the arctic region” was meant as a comforting statement to indicate that an new energy source would be available; and that “Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon” simply neglected to mention that the Malaria Virus was the sole target of the “Culling”, and thus the “Culling” was a good and beneficial thing.
R. Gates says: June 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm
‘othewise, I consider you to be someone not worthy of any further discourse with.”
Just to clarify that.
Do you mean that if I write something you will not respond to it? Or do you mean that you will write a response to someone else with the preface or “Please write this to Andrew30, because I’m not taking to him”.
Whether that is a threat or a promise, I don’t see the down side.
Gail Combs says:
June 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
BillD says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:07 am
Clearly, the trend over the last 30 years is most important and not what happens during a certain month or even a particular year. Like the stock market, one should not expect ice extent to go straight down or straight up.
________________________________________________________________________
WRONG, Wrong, wrong. The trend over the last 30 years can be made to look like a straight line. However the real trend is actually a cyclical sine wave over 60 – 70 years
Too bad for you they actually have satellite data back to 1972:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
It’s now a 39 year downward trend on your imaginary “cyclical sine wave”. Since the rate of summer sea ice loss is not slowing down and bottoming out, and in fact is speeding up, that means we are still on the first quarter of your sine wave, starting satellite measurements at peak – care to re-wager on a 156 year “cyclical sine wave” ?
That way you might be able to put off admitting you are completely wrong for another 10 or 15 years – all the bad news is just part of your 156 year cyclical sine wave “real trend”. Of course, when the Arctic goes ice free one summer before that, you’ll have to come up with a different “explanation” in your spare time. Perhaps neutrinos from a massive solar flare are causing the temperature of the Earth’s core to increase rapidly – yeah, that sounds vaguely plausible…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film)
Well we never seem to hear the end of people trying to apply Total Internal Reflection to rays incident on a media boundary; from the low index side of the boundary.
And we seem to have a surfeit of statistical mathematicians here trying to prove MMGWCC using averages, and standard deviations, and trend lines, and regressions and other sleight of hand stuff. So try your hand at some real maths, and see if you can get TIR from air into water.
So here are the Fresnel Polarised Reflection and Transmission formulae. These are for field amplitude quantities, not squared intensity values. (of the Electric Field Vector)
A, A’, and A” are the Amplitudes of the Incident, Refracted, and Reflected Electric Vector (at the boundary); phi, phi’ and phi” are the incident, refracted and reflected angles (relative to the surface normal), and the (n) and (p) subscripts refer to the case of the polarisation components that are normal(n), and parallel(p) to the plane of incidence (the plane containing the incident, refracted, reflected rays, and the surface normal).
phi, phi’, and phi” are of course all related by Snell’s law and the refractive indices on the two sides of the boundary (say 1.0 for air, and 1.333 for water).
So we have:- Rn = (A”/A)n = -sin(phi-phi’)/sin(phi+phi’)
Rp = (A”/A)p = tan(phi-phi’)/tan(phi+phi’)
Tn = (A’/A)n = 2sinphi’.cosphi/sin(phi+phi’)
Tp = (A’/A)p = 2sinphi’.cosphi/(sin(phi+phi’).cos(phi-phi’))
There you have it plus Snell’s law N.sinphi = N’.sinphi’
So have at it; work it out for yourselves, and stop talking about TIR for light incident from the low index side of the media boundary.
But remember that this is only for simple cases where the refractive index is treated as a real number; and not a complex number. I’m sure that is good enough for IPCC work with their =/-50 % error tolerance bands.
And yes I wish we had a proper math editor too so it would be easier to input stuff.
Probably if you are google savvy you might be able to find these Fresnel formulae somewhere; I’m sure they must be in standard high school science text books; but I’m not up on modern text books; so I can’t refer you to any real text book that I know would have them; but I’m pretty sure I have them right; or else there’s a whole lot of my stuff out there that isn’t working properly.
Then maybe we can stop hearing about TIR stopping sunlight from entering the Arctic Ocean.
R. Gates – the black plaque ? Are we talking arterial plaque, dental plaque or the kind of plaque that you’re wanting to put on your wall ? Perhaps you meant the Black (bubonic) Plague that devastated Europe after the Medieval Warm Period. Warmer is better. Cheers.
Tim Clark says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I’ll admit, I just don’t know what the “more accurate” harmonious balance is. Fill me in?
___________
For a complete explanation of ecological balance and ecosystems in general, I suggest you take one or several classes in the subject offered at your local college or university. When the ecosystem changes, some species will adapt and thrive and some will go extinct. The greater and swifter the change, the more that will become extinct. Questions to be answered:
1) Is AGW bringing about climate change?
2) How swift and how severe will that change be?
3) If there is AGW induced change happening, what will it mean for humans?
4) If the conseqences of AGW change are likely to be overall negative for humans, what if anything can and should be done to prevent or mitigate that change?
5) Might any geoengineering efforts to mitigate climate change actually be worse than the change itself?
6) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Anu says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Do you accept that there might be ANY cyclical climate phenomena?
Do you consider the climate of the early 20th century to be (as Lindzen puts it) “climate perfection”? Has the climate in your view ever been different to this in the last 4 billion years? Do you believe in past (and future) ice ages or consider them as denialist myths?
BTW the funniest idea in the 2012 film for me was the phenomenon of neutrinos “evolving”. Compared to 2012, “the day after tomorrow” was a much more plausible disaster B-movie (except for the short timescale).
Hockeystickler says:
June 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Warmer is better. Cheers.
________
Define better and how warm? The gazelle as a species needs the lion to prevent overpopulation by the gazelle’s who would graze until all the grass was gone and you’d have ecosystem collapse, but obviously the gazelle as a species doesn’t need the lion eat all gazelles. Everything has a balance point and a tipping point.
As a confessed “warmist” I happen to be 75% convinced that AGW is causing the troposphere and oceans of the planet to warm. I reserve a 25% skeptical status to keep my intellect in balance so that I don’t become blind to other possibilities. Since the warming of the Arctic and the eventually melting of the sea ice in summer has long been a key prediction of AGW models and is readily verifiable and it remains for me a tipping point in my beliefs. Either I will go “all in” as 100% convinced that AGW in happening or I will back away and become 50% or less convinced based on what happens in the Arctic. This change I expect in my own beliefs in the next few years. Personally, I think the long and deep solar minimum as the sun switched from Cycle 23 to 24 had more to do with the so-called “recovery” of sea ice in 2008-2009– mainly through the slight reduction in Total Solar Irradiance during the solar minimum, the effect of which (like AGW warming) is amplified in the Arctic region. Added to this was a slight increase in cloud cover due to the increase in GCR’s during the same time period. This so called “recovery”, which was very very modest, and non-existent when looking at actual sea ice volume (and mass) is now over, and so, 2010 continues the downward trend in extent. With the run up to the next Solar max event in 2013, we’ll see continued increases in Total Solar Irradiance, not to mention increasing GHG’s, and decreasing GCR’s, such by 2015 at the latest, if the pre-solar minimum trend continues, we’ll see a new record minimum in Arctic sea ice extent at around 2.0 million sq. km. We could then see a few years of 1.0 million sq. km. summer minimums (considered by some to be “virtually ice free”) until we see a completely ice free Arctic ocean in the summer sometime before 2030 at the latest.
Co2 cannot cause runaway warming on earth:
Excerpt from: R. Gates on June 21, 2010 at 2:44 pm
You need to specify the size of the pin. Please use appropriate SI units. Also specify what type and specific shape of pin. A measured drawing would be helpful. When you learn about industrial-type mechanical engineering, you find out about different machinery parts than can be identified as pins, and some of them can be quite large. Oh yeah.
Gail Combs says:
June 21, 2010 at 9:20 am
If you want to see R. Gates, without his “party manners”
Thanks for that link Gail. 🙂
Apparently R Gates lets his hair down there:
In addition to the complete destruction of the ecosystem going on in the Arctic…. you can be certain that RAPID global warming is immenent….. All this is assured, and already too late to stop….. Gaia will be bringing on the culling soon.
http://www.climateark.org/blog/2008/08/arctic_going_to_hell_in_a_hand.asp
He sounds nutty.
R Gates,
You are gone, waaaay over the edge. So it now it makes sense to me why you are so persistent in arguing with Steven Goddard. I also understand now why you didn’t comment in the Arctic survey thread. It looks like reality is no good for you. You are hardcore. You’re not just an ordinary, garden variety global warming believer. You are in the far out extreme of global warming. You are a zealot of the Gaia religion. And you are defending your religion with zealotry.
But you’ve been hiding what you really are. Why?
Also, are you one of those people that marches in the street?
R Gates,
this video is especially for you:
“Climate Crisis Comfort Zone”
R. Gates says:
June 21, 2010 at 10:01 am
This is true…in the sense that it came from humans who are part of nature, but then, the black plaque, small pox, and cancer are “natural” too.
So you compare humans to horrible disease. Should all humans be culled by Gaia? And if so would you be part of the culling?
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:31 am
“They need to admit that their models are garbage and that they have No Clue.”
They did, in the climate gate e-mails they admitted they have no idea what is happening to the earth’s heat budget and called it a travesty. The MSM just ignored it for the most part.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 pm
R Gates,
You are gone, waaaay over the edge. So it now it makes sense to me why you are so persistent in arguing with Steven Goddard. I also understand now why you didn’t comment in the Arctic survey thread. It looks like reality is no good for you. You are hardcore. You’re not just an ordinary, garden variety global warming believer. You are in the far out extreme of global warming. You are a zealot of the Gaia religion. And you are defending your religion with zealotry.
________________
1. I’ve never personally posted on the site you gave the link to, but it seems someone likes to keep linking my name to this posting.
2. I’ve never heard of the Gaia “religion”, but generally am not terribly into that sort of thing.
3. I’ve noticed that when things get tough or weak ideas get challenged, the ad hominem attacks increase.
4. I challenge Steve Goddard because (though I think he’s obviously very smart) I think he cherry picks data, and then draws very wrong conclusions from that cherry picking.
5. I was out of town last week during this Arctic Survey thread, but would be glad to comment on any topic or study related to the Arctic.
6 I am “hardcore” about the cryosphere. I read everything and anything I can get my hands on, from research that if far over my head, to simple observations of the changes made my the local Arctic peoples. I study detailed satellite pics of the Arctic for hours, noting the smallest changes. I’m a cryo-junkie…a cryo-nut…(perhaps my Nordic heritage?:)
7. I don’t have a Ph.D. in the field, but I highly respect those who study this topic for a living, as I think they are studying a very important facet of the planet that could very well be the biggest “canary in the coal mine” that we’ve ever seen.
8. I don’t know what an “ordinary” AGW believer is, because none of my friends or family could especially care about the topic, and (understandibly) get bored with me talking about the Arctic all the time.
9. I look forward to the data beginning to flow from CryoSat 2, as it will fill a much needed void in real data, though not one person I know, with the exception of those on this site, know what CryoSat 2 is nor why it is so important.
10. I will continue to post here on WUWT to counter the prevailing AGW skeptical viewpoint with a contrary opinion. It’s get boring watching everyone here agree with each other…
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Excerpt from: R. Gates on June 21, 2010 at 2:44 pm
6) How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
You need to specify the size of the pin.
_______________
And of course, the size of the angels.
R. Gates says: June 21, 2010 at 5:42 pm
You claim that the post attribute to you by Gail Combs is not something that you wrote. I can find no reference in other places that you clearly have posted to support the idea that you were the author of the posting. I should have checked the web for myself before accepting something that, upon reflection, is very much out of character for you.
I apologize to you for perpetuating the false attribution of those comments. I should not have done it. I shall not do it again. I am sorry.
I do not however retract my posting of June 21, 2010 at 10:40 am. I feel that you present only the possible negative outcomes of what I feel are natural changes in the climate. Since you feel that these changes are the biggest “canary in the coal mine”, your focus is understandable.
Clearly we disagree on the cause and the outcome of the changes that are before us, and no doubt that is something that may change at a slower rate than the climate.
However no amount of disagreement excuses my use of unsubstantiated information to portray your character in manner that I did.
I am sorry.
phlogiston says:
June 21, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Anu says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Do you accept that there might be ANY cyclical climate phenomena?
Obviously.
Do you accept that climate forcings can cause Earth’s climate to flip from one metastable state to another ?
Things like the 1% brightening of the Sun every 100 million years, continental drift changing ocean circulation patterns (e.g. South America colliding with Central America), the development of oxygen breathing lifeforms (O2 used to be a major waste product in the atmosphere) causing vast changes to the biosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
The forcing of half a Milankovitch cycle.
Or the much, much faster acting doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Do you consider the climate of the early 20th century to be (as Lindzen puts it) “climate perfection”? Has the climate in your view ever been different to this in the last 4 billion years? Do you believe in past (and future) ice ages or consider them as denialist myths?
Have you ever “gone hungry” ? Do you even know what that feels like ?
Did you know that all of Agriculture, all of Animal Husbandry, has occurred during the Holocene, after the end of the last Ice Age ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
If the Earth’s temperature anomaly goes up even 3° C in the next 90 years, your descendants will be living in a world not seen since the development of Agriculture. Whether global civilization will survive widespread changes to precipitation patterns and droughts and temperatures remains to be seen. If farming is wiped out in the US, will Canada develop quickly enough to replace the production ? If China cannot grow enough food, will Russia pick up the slack, or will global War break out when prices are too high, or production too low, or the shifting balance of power too fast for human institutions ?
It’s quite the interesting problem, with the survival of Civilization depending on the answers.
But I’m sure a few million hunter-gatherers will survive any climate flips – unless the transition is too ugly, and nuclear war breaks out. Then all bets are off.
BTW the funniest idea in the 2012 film for me was the phenomenon of neutrinos “evolving”. Compared to 2012, “the day after tomorrow” was a much more plausible disaster B-movie (except for the short timescale).
Yeah, the techno-babble setup comes in different qualities.
But I think a good end-of-the-world movie should have better women involved – I like Dennis Quaid and John Cusack just fine, but when it’s-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, I’d rather be on the run with someone like Kira, not Amanda Peet (who gives me a headache):
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3533869312/nm0165413
Andrew30:
Thanks, and apology accepted.
and you also said:
“I do not however retract my posting of June 21, 2010 at 10:40 am. I feel that you present only the possible negative outcomes of what I feel are natural changes in the climate. Since you feel that these changes are the biggest “canary in the coal mine”, your focus is understandable.”
______________
This is a fair statement, and I do believe there are natural cycles and variations in the climate, from the relatively short term such as ENSO, AMO, etc. to the longer term Milankovitch cycles. But as a 75% “warmist” my years of independent analysis and study have obviously led me to believe that it is more likely than not that the AGW signal has been seen in the data, once all the natural variations are filtered out.
Is it possible that the current downtrend over the past 10 years especially in Arctic Sea ice and volume are related to some natural variability and cycle not yet fully understood? Of course. But it would then just happen to be a natural cycle or variability that just happens to fit with the the general AGW models that have predicted such a downtrend for many years. If this downtrend was to suddenly and significantly reverse over a period of 5 or 10 years (not the short 2 years during the prolonged solar minimum), then I would begin to suspect that perhaps the AGW hypothesis is wrong. Or if Kevin Trenberth’s famous missing heat is somehow not accounted for over the next few years with better data from the deeper oceans or other currently unsuspected sources, then one might begin to suspect that it is not just missing, but simple not there, which would also be a big blow to AGW theory. As it stands right now in June of 2010, I suspect that the downtrend will continue with the Arctic Sea ice and that the “missing heat” will be found through even better data gathering. Beyond that, I’ve rarely or perhaps even never discussed here on WUWT whether a warmer ice free Arctic will be “good” or “bad” and certainly I’ve never talked in catastrophic terms. As with all changes, there will be winners and losers, and to really understand the details of that one would have to grasp the biological connections and other climate teleconnections between the Arctic and the rest of the planet. Perhaps that will be my next 20 years of study!
It appears that a pin can support an infinite number of angels, plus an equal number of devils:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/resultoftheweek/2005/dzero_5-12_big.jpg
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 21, 2010 at 5:00 pm
R Gates,
But you’ve been hiding what you really are. Why?
Also, are you one of those people that marches in the street?
_______________
Last I checked my DNA, I’m a male member of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens, resident of the great (though sadly oceanless) State of Colorado, graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and a member of the tax paying working class.
I’ve only marched once (during my college years) and it had nothing to do with the climate, though I’ve walked, run, biked, swam, and even played a bit of guitar for several charity causes.
But I am a admitted cryo-nut, so watch out and lock your doors…
It amazes me to see how certain people, they know who they are, can make the most irrational and asinine arguments.
I’m referring to the “We have to be judged by what the SFB Media has to say” and the “It’s our fault we couldn’t correct the Media to represent Scientists more accurately” posters. Next you’ll be telling rape victims it’s their fault.
Those posters, one in particular, were told the blatantly obvious. THE MEDIA HAS IT’S OWN AGENDA! How would you like it if the Media misrepresented you and then someone blamed you for the misrepresentation?
Then there are the incomprehending ones who think it’s funny to mention torrential rainfall and drought in one sentence. Hey dudes, we have deserts in some places and rainforests in others, ON THE SAME EARTH! Isn’t that amazing! If you can understand that concept then what is so amazing about droughts and torrential rains in different parts of, let’s say, a single continent?
As for the Arctic Ice Cap opening up, do you really think you can take that casually? Of course, goes the rationalization, it has not been thinning drastically and consistently for the past 30 years. Even if it has, it can be magically contradicted by 2 years of pathetic thin ice surface expansion while it’s still losing thickness and volume anyway.
While we’re at it, why stop there? Since many here don’t seem to believe in the heat retaining abilities of CO2 then it must be propaganda to raise our taxes. Albedo is Socialist nonsense. Evaporation is for Fascists.
Now try to project yourselves into the future. When the ice cap does shrivel up, what are the “talking points”, to be euphemistic, going to be? Are you going to abandon “Global Cooling” for “Natural Global Warming”? Yes, I know that some believe in that but I’m predicting that nearly everyone in the “No Man Made Global Warming” side is going to switch to Natural Warming regardless of what ideas they had in the past.
The bottom line is, that many are going to rationalize themselves into oblivion.
In broad brush terms:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas – confirmed by experiments in radiative physics
2. Greenhouse gases have a significant effect on Earth’s temperature – black body radiation experiments show the temperature would be a lot lower without them
3. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising – thankyou Mr Keeling
4. Mankind is responsible for the rise – the signature of the C in the additional CO2 points to burning fossil fuels
5. Doubling CO2 will raise temperature by around 3 degrees Celcius – numerous independent paleo studies give positive ranges centering on this figure
6. There are no GCM’s in any of the above
Adding energy to a complex system generally significantly increases the number of states it may occupy. It is in the nature of complex systems to exhibit intricate and often counter-intuitive behaviour (and yes, tipping points – transitions from one state to a significantly different one), so some estimations and predictions are bound to be inaccurate.
Is the general thrust of AGW being supported by the evidence? The planet is warming despite a quiescent sun, ocean heat content is rising, nighttime temps are rising faster than daytime temps, winter temps faster than summer, polar faster than equatorial, new highs are being made on three of the four main global temperature measurement systems, ice volumes are falling across the continent of Antartica, the Greenland ice sheet and the world’s mountain chains – all stuff on the grand scale. Focussing excessively on statements from a single scientist or data for a single month etc runs the risk of missing the big picture. I am as fascinated as any by the unfolding processes in the Arctic and expect that one or both of the North West or North East passage to open by September, but whether yes or no it is the longer term progression that is significant. The odds are stacked against summer Arctic ice.
R. Gates
if that comment is not you why haven’t you had it removed?
JK says: June 20, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Get real! You just use (tiresomely!) Gore as a bludgeon to say “I’m an ultraconservative Bush Republican anti-global warming ideologue”, as a badge of proclamation. I’ve never seen his movie, or read his stuff, and I find all the AlGore-ism pathetic.
Perhaps you see it as pathetic because you have not seen how pathetic Mr. Gore is. Pathetic is, after all, a relative term, so one must venture farther afield to grasp the scope of ‘pathetic’.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:56 am
R. Gates
if that comment is not you why haven’t you had it removed?
__________
Whom would I ask for such a removal? I didn’t know I had the option. There seems to be lots of what I would consider ad hominem attacks that slip through the moderators. It would be nice if there was a zero tolerance for any ad hominem attacks. Stick to ideas, concepts, science, data, models, or anything else so long as it doesn’t involve personal attacks. If Ms. Combs et. al. want to scour the internet and post things here from other web sites and claim they are something I actually wrote or sentiments I’ve expressed, rather than talk science, data, and issues, it seems the moderators are only happy to accomodate it.
In point of full disclosure: I was aware that someone on several other sites was using my name to post things (from several years ago, and even somewhat recently). I even have a good idea of who this person is. They were out to make me look like someone that I am not in order to destroy any credibility I had, or perhaps just for their own entertainment. Since I do not derive my living from climate studies, and it is only a hobby of mine, I pretty much ignored them.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:56 am
R. Gates
if that comment is not you why haven’t you had it removed?
If it’s not his then he has no standing to have it removed! R Gates is hardly a unique name, there was even a US Secretary of State by that name.
Phil. says:
June 22, 2010 at 8:43 am
I think you mean Secretary of Defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
But I doubt this R. Gates is out to cast doubt on climate change in his spare time, since the Pentagon is well aware of the potential catastrophe this can cause:
R. Gates says:
June 21, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Or if Kevin Trenberth’s famous missing heat is somehow not accounted for over the next few years with better data from the deeper oceans or other currently unsuspected sources, then one might begin to suspect that it is not just missing, but simple not there, which would also be a big blow to AGW theory. As it stands right now in June of 2010, I suspect that the downtrend will continue with the Arctic Sea ice and that the “missing heat” will be found through even better data gathering.
From the folks that bring us PIOMAS, here is a new ocean sensor you might be interested in reading about – gliders that can operate under sea ice, unlike the current Argo sensors:
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=49154
BTW, the PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume graph was just updated, in case you haven’t checked recently:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Wow, that PIOMAS chart is scarier than evah!
How alarming. They better be careful, or their computer model might blow a fuse.
R. Gates says:
“Whom would I ask for such a removal? I didn’t know I had the option.”
You always have the option of asking. And if I were you I would ask for that comment to be removed. It is just too close to your 75% for comfort. ☹
Smokey says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
Maybe you can ask for these to be removed:
http://tinyurl.com/y97sbbd
http://tinyurl.com/2a4sr94
It’s hurting your “credibility”. ʘ_ʘ
Since I have excess credibility those don’t hurt. In fact, I like them! Thanx for the effort, and you oughta take a break and get out of your mom’s basement for a change. 🙂
Smokey,
Yes, I suppose you could say the PIOMAS graph is “scary” if it’s close to reality. While we don’t have any observational data at the moment to compare their modeled values of ice thickness with, the ice extent remains the lowest during the time-period they ran their model for (so the ice volume graph is at least consistent with less overall coverage of sea ice).
We know that the summer circulation pattern remains the key wild card in defining how much ice will be left at the end of the melt season (sometime around mid-September). But given the atmospheric circulation pattern that has been setting up this summer (which is similar to that in 2007), I would place my bets on having another anomalously low September ice extent. Still too early to tell if it will be a new September record low, but it will be for June. (and when I talk about record lows, I am referring to the 1953-present time-period for which we have the most reliable observations).
Oh Arctic Sea Ice news update, wherefore art thou…?
Julienne says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
We know that the summer circulation pattern remains the key wild card in defining how much ice will be left at the end of the melt season (sometime around mid-September).
Julienne, in particular the strong outflow of the old ice through the Nares strait, reminiscent of 2007, suggests a significant loss of thickness this summer.
But given the atmospheric circulation pattern that has been setting up this summer (which is similar to that in 2007), I would place my bets on having another anomalously low September ice extent. Still too early to tell if it will be a new September record low, but it will be for June. (and when I talk about record lows, I am referring to the 1953-present time-period for which we have the most reliable observations).
I certainly wouldn’t bet against it.
R. Gates says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:21 am
__________
Whom would I ask for such a removal?
I am talking about the comment that you say keeps showing up. The comment about being past tipping points, Gaia culling. Why not try to get it removed if it is not from you? Then you dont have to see it come up again.
jakers says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
Oh Arctic Sea Ice news update, wherefore art thou…?
____________
It takes a while to artistically weave the record low June 2010 extent into accepted AGW skeptical paradigm. Give him time, this is a very creative process…
R. Gates,
some comments you have made in other threads could make it appear you are a troll, and that you could have made the comment found in that other blog. For example, you have said the Arctic enjoyed warm conditions this past winter. That makes no sense no matter how you try to explain it. It was -55 on some days instead of -51. That is above normal. But it cannot be construed as enjoying warm conditions. Also in another thread I asked you to provide proof the Navy had stopped using PIPS 2.0. You didn’t do it but you did keep insisting they did. You provided links and said I had to read between the lines at those links to see they did stop using it. These comments make you appear to be a troll and that you could have made that bizarre comment from that other blog.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It is true that the PIPS 2.0 web sites is old and cheesy looking. But there is no indication anywhere that the Navy has stopped using PIPS 2.0. It is clear they say they still do use it. When they do stop using you will not have to read between lines anywhere to find out they did.
typo
It was -55 on some days instead of -51.
should be
It was -51 on some days instead of -55.
Smokey says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:15 am
Wow, that PIOMAS chart is scarier than evah!
Man o’ man, you’re right. If that graph is right then 2010 will be worse than 2007!!
That graph is getting laughable. Catlin better be careful walking on the thin ice!
Amino,
If you think PIPS 2.0 is the best the Navy’s got, then you don’t think much of the Navy. If you think the Navy would put it’s best tool for Arctic navigation on the web, then you don’t think much of the Navy. If you think the Navy would tell us or show us the best it has, then you don’t think much of the Navy. You can believe what you want, but I provided plenty of links (yes, you had to read between the lines, because that’s the nature of looking for that which is not acknowledged yet). By the time the “latest” military technology makes it to the public, in addition to being “down scaled” for public consumption, the U.S. Military is already using at least one generation better in daily operations, is testing 2 generations better in the lab, and has 3 generations better on the drawing board.
PIPS 2.0 was only brought up here becasue Steve used it to make his analysis that the Arctic sea ice was 25% greater in volume now. You heard from at least one expert in the field, right here on WUWT, a Ph.D in sea ice related analysis, that professionals in the business don’t put much credibility in PIPS 2.0.
But continue on your quest to validate PIPS 2.0 as the “best” the Navy’s got…you sure must not think much of the U.S. Navy.
ARCUS’ Sea Ice Outlook collection is up.
Bizarrely, neither of the two predictions from UW Polar Science Center foresee a record low despite their scary PIOMAS graph.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june
R. Gates said on June 21, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Ah, I was going to refer to the chart for average sizes per classification. If that breakdown looked too fine then I would’ve gotten a general number by using the population estimates, provided the spread wasn’t too great.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june
R. Gates says:
If you think PIPS 2.0 is the best the Navy’s got, then you don’t think much of the Navy
You changed the topic. This is more evidence you are a troll.
R. Gates
you diverted away from what was really being talked about.
It is clear you are not making an attempt to be unbiased.
“”” Ammonite says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:18 am
In broad brush terms:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas – confirmed by experiments in radiative physics
2. Greenhouse gases have a significant effect on Earth’s temperature – black body radiation experiments show the temperature would be a lot lower without them
3. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising – thankyou Mr Keeling
4. Mankind is responsible for the rise – the signature of the C in the additional CO2 points to burning fossil fuels
5. Doubling CO2 will raise temperature by around 3 degrees Celcius – numerous independent paleo studies give positive ranges centering on this figure
6. There are no GCM’s in any of the above “””
Well thanks for the list Ammonite; I have always wondered what the essence of the settled science of MMGWCC atually was; and now you have given it to us ; well in “broad brush terms”.
Trouble with broad brush terms is they have a habit of hiding the details; wherein may lie the truth.
So to your points; well I suppose we should call them “blotches” from your broad brush.
#1 CO2 is a green house gas; not disputed, regardless of how “confirmed”; but then so is H2O and in every single region of earth’s atmosphere where any “greenhouse effect” could be consequential, H2O always vasly outnumbers CO2. Now Stephen Schneider; the father of “Climate Sensitivity” asserts that H2O is a very weak GHG compared to CO2. Despite his assertion; that does not prevent his disciples in the AGW camp from asserting that H2O is a major positive feedback enhancer of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Nor does his assertion explain the apparent anomaly that in high arid deserts, where scorching daytime surface temperatures are found; the nighttime temperatures plummet despite the unchanged CO2 amount; which is Schneider’s major GHG to his “weak” H2O. Make up your minds; whether H2O is a weak GHG or whether it’s atmospheric warming effect clearly puts that of CO2 to shame; as evidneced by the plummeting nighttime temperatures when H2O is relatively absent.
#2 “”” Greenhouse gases have a significant effect on Earth’s temperature – black body radiation experiments show the temperature would be a lot lower without them. “””
True, and also poppycock. GHGs do have a significant effect on Earth’s Temperature; but absolutely no black body radiation experiments have ever been carried out in the atmosphere without GHGs to show that the temperature is lower without them.
Maybe some BB radiation CALCULATIONS have been done to assert that; and maybe even some Laboratory BB radiation experiments have been carried out; which hardly mimic what happens in the atmosphere. If you can cite me a reference to a peer reviewed Scientific paper, which describes the results of ANY laboratory Black Body Radiation Experiments; that have EVER beeen carried out using a 288 KELVIN OR CLOSE TO THAT BLACK BODY RADIATION SOURCE; I am sure we would all be interested in reading that. No I don’t mean GHG lab sample experiments carried out with any high temperature Infra-red radiation sources like Incandescent lamps. The GHG effect in earth’s atmosphere occurs with radiation sources having source temperatures of maybe +60 deg C to perhaps below -100 C for high altitude events, but down to -90 deg C for spoats like Vostok Station. So let’s not have any 600 deg C Black body radiation sources; that do not simulate real world GHG effects.
#3 “”” CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising “”” again; undisputed; but then in all of the instrumented measurement history, the measured amount of that rise is less than 1/3 of a single “Doubling” of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; and since the mean global surface Temperature goes as the Logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance per the assertion of Stephen Schneider’s “Climate sensitivity” thesis; that would hardly be a singificant amount of temperature change on a planet that can have about a 150 deg C total daily temperature range.
#4 “”” Mankind is responsible for the rise – the signature of the C in the additional CO2 points to burning fossil fuels “””
Not so fast. Long term Geologic history going back well 600,000 years for ice core proxies, shows that CO2 rises historically follow about 800 years after Temperature rises; and we are just 800 years beyond the Mediaeval Warm period, when Temperatures rose to higher than they are today. So you have not yet eliminated natural variability as a perfectly normal explanation for today’s CO2 rise. And don’t try to sell that CO2 fossil fuel signature too hard. That notion is predicated on the unproven assumption that CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is “Well Mixed”.
We know from pole to pole annual CO2 cycling of cO2 in the atmosphere, that CO2 is anything but “Well mixed”; exhibitinh an 18 ppm P-P cyclic amplitude in CO2 at the North Pole, versus a 6 ppm P-P cyclic amplitude at Mauna Loa, where the longest term data has been collected, and a paltry -1 ppm P-P (out of phase) cyclic variation at the south pole. So NO; CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere; so local variations of nuclide differences in composition; are simply that local variations; and besides if there is any “Fossil fuel signature”; it is merely a signature that fossil fuel CO2 is being released into the atmosphere; which nobody disputes. It is not proof that fossil fuel CO2 comprises all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 content. Adn experts in botany assert that the CO2 isotopic signature of supposedly fossil fuel is not all that it is cracked up to be, since different plant meabolisms process carbon isotopic composition diferently. So a very weak claim for fossil origin of the increase.
#5 Well I love this one “”” Doubling CO2 will raise temperature by around 3 degrees Celcius – numerous independent paleo studies give positive ranges centering on this figure “””
First of all; what about those numerous paleo stuadies that show without any ambiguity, that maybe that 3 deg Celsius Temperature change is what caused the doubling of CO2 about 800 years later. Why don’t you sort out the cause and effect timeline; before claiming causality ? But now we have the Crown Jewel of Climate Science; Dr Stephen schneider’s “Climate Sensitivity.” which in one fell swoop asserts that the earth’s mean surface Temperature varies as the Logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; and establishes the slope of that stright line relationship at +3 deg C per unit increase in Log CO2 abundance (base 2 Logarithms).
Well I know that Phil says that for LOW CO2 amounts the Temp/CO2 relationship is LINEAR. For MEDIUM values of CO2 it is Logarithmic; while for HIGH values of CO2 the relationship is square root of CO2 abundance.
Now I actually have a degree in Mathematics; both Pure and Applied; and I know what the Logarithm function is; and I also have a considerable real world experience in Solid State Physics; and particularly in the Physics of Semiconductor devices; so I know when two variable parameters exhibit a Logarithmic relationship; as does the forward Voltage/Current relationship of a Semiconductor Diode Junction, at Constant Temperature.
Now the IPCC have been great promoters of Schneider’s Climate Sensitivity; and they place the value of that fundamental Constant of climate Science at 3.0 deg C =/- 50 %, whcih gives it a 3:1 range from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per CO2 doubling.
May I suggest Ammonite; that when you plot two variables against each other, and you cannot determine the slope of the best fit line to that data; to better than a 3:1 ratio of slopes; that you have not a shred of a basis to claim that you know the mathematical functional relationship exhibited by that data. Virtually any continuous function coulod be made to fit your scrambled data at least as well as either a LINEAR, or a LOGARITHMIC, or a SQUARE ROOT relatiosnhip as Phil claims is the case. I couold give you 100 fundamentally different mathematical relationships that would fit your data as well and maybe better than any one of those three. I have a fondness for the relationship y = exp (-1/x^2); and I bet I can fit the cO2 data to it at least as well as Schneider’s Logarithmic function.
MY function has the value of zero at x = 0, and it has the value 1/e or 37% for x = 1; so yes I am sure I can fit it to your data.
The derivative (slope) of that function also happens to be zero for x = 0, so the graphs starts off at zero velocity as well. Actually every derivative of exp(-1/x^2) is zero for x = 0.
So we start off at zero, at zero velocity, with zero acceleration; and zero rate of increase of acceleration, and no change in that either; yet somehow we manage to struggle up to 37% by the time x = 1 Who do you know that ever had a worse start off in life as that. Yet I am quite sure that somewhere along that curve is a very good fit to the global mean surface temperature, and atmospheric CO2 abundance plot; at least as good as any cuves ever promoted by Stephen Schneider or the IPCC.
Well I would be suitably impressed; even in the absence of any empirical data fit to better than a 3:1 uncertainty; if there was some Physical process that theoretically relates the mean global surface Temperature to the Logarithm of the Atmospheric CO2 abundance. Sadly there is none. We can surmise that the atmospheric heating energy caused by CO2 trapping of LWIR radiation emitted by the earth surface might be linearly proportional to the amount of atmospheric CO2; I suppose the Climatologers refer to that as a “Forcing”; but now we have an enigma; because the very amount of that LWIR radiation that is available to be trapped by the increasing CO2, is itself likely proportional to the fourth power of that very surface temperature, that the CO2 trapping is supposed to cause. Moreover since actual earth surface temperatures cover the ranbge from over +60 deg C to about -90 deg C, the total range of that W/m^2 “forcing” that is driving the CO2 “Forcing” of the atmospheric heating energy, varies by more than a factor of 11:1.
That is some kind of fundamnetal constant, that varies over a range of 11:1 depending on where you are on earth.
Well at this point I just give up; because I don’t see what other physical mechanisms one can add to the LWIR radiation/CO2 trapping process/Atmospheric heating process/ Surface reheating process from the warm atmosphere; that somehow reduces to a log base 2 relationship between the abundance of atmospheric CO2 and the mean Global Surface Temperature. That is just plain silly.
#6 We are in agreement on this one; absolutely no GCMs were used in the above detailing of your broad brush strokes; by the way; just exactly what is it that the GCMs DO explain; if anything ?