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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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