By Steven Goddard
No matter what happens with the summer Arctic ice minimum, NSIDC will report that the long-term trend is downwards.
Why? Because of mathematics. In order to reverse the 30 year downwards linear trend, this summer’s minimum would have to be nearly 20,000,000 km². More ice than has ever been directly measured.
In other words, we could have a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario, and the mathematical trend would still be downwards.
Conclusion: You can count on NSIDC to continue reporting a downwards trend, regardless of what happens over the next few years. For now, it will be fun seeing what happens over the next eight weeks.
Sorry, the first two comments were quotes from upthread:
The rest of my post disputes those statements.
stevengoddard says:
June 25, 2010 at 9:19 am
The “purpose of this post” is to point out that nothing which happens over the next few summers will change the 30 year trend.
We could have record high minimums for several years in a row, and the widely vaunted “long term trend” would still be downwards.
We could even have an ice free Arctic in 2013 and the “long term trend” would still be downwards.
This post from Steve; which I gather is to make the point; that when you have some sort of long term trend, and things change; even if they have really changed quite drastically, your trend analysis is going to continue to report what was going on before the change happened; by the time you recognize the change (analytically), the change is blatantly obvious to anybody.
A visitor from another Planet; or maybe a parallel Universe, would be quite puzzled at how we humans do Science; you know; the “Science is settled” kind of science. Well as it relates to the science of “Climatology”, at least.
Starting back around 1850 (apparently), someone in Britain measured a Temperature somewhere, and wrote down the number off his thermometer, onto a piece of paper. Aha ! at last some “Scientific datum”. So the next day he repeated the process; and Voilla ! Climate science “data” came to be. Now being a Statistical Mathematics major, our hero now had to “process his data”, so he calculated the average of his two temperature readings, and using the known uncertainty of his thermometer readings, he also calculated a standard deviation for his average, and of course he writes down these new numbers; because; well they are after all “Science”.
So day after day, he continues to read his thermometer, and note the readings, and add to his averaging process, and Standard deviation calculations, which he is now telling his neighbors about since it is “Science”.
By the end of the week, he has enough data to calculate a five day running average, for his Temperatures, so he starts to plot that as well. A neighbor points out that for the first four days, he has no five day running average; so suddenly there is a gap in scientific knowledge. Well he still has perfectly good original temperatures for those four days; but that is not science; that is simply anecdotal observations.
So here we are 160 odd years later, and our hero, has used up quite a few pieces of paper recording his daily tempertaures, and calculating his five day running averages; even monthly running averages, and perhaps even thirteen monthly running averages. The “Science” is now far more sophisticated, than during the first few days. Back then he only had actual real world measured Temperature observations; but he had no science to show for his efforts.
Today, things are much better; apparently; we seem to be told Phil Jones has actually lost a lot of those pieces of paper on which his great grandfather wrote those first four days without a five day running average; and lost a whole lot more Temperatures also; but that is OK, because all that anecdotal recording of real Temepratures, has been replaced by the “Science” of thirteen month running averages; so it is quite ok that the original “Information”; there’s a new word; has all been lost; because now we have science to use instead.
The problem is that our new graphs of thirteen month running averagers, actually contain no “information” at all. No point on the graph represents any actual real world observation that was ever made; it is all a complete fiction that we made up in our heads. Well that is OK too, because ALL of mathematics is a complete fiction; we made it ALL up out of whole cloth; and absolutely nothing in mathematics, actually exists anywhere in the known Universe; or anywhere else; we simply made it all up.
Now if President Obama wanted to ask Phil Jones; what was the actual Temperature of the thermometer, at noon on July-4th 1850, when our hero, took his first reading; well Phil Jones has lost that piece of paper; but not to worry; we have been doing “Science” since so we will just calculate what the temperature was on that day.
OOoops !! it seems like we have expunged all the “Information” we spent Trillions of dollars gathering; and our “Science” that we replaced it with, is incapable of resurrecting what real information we have thrown away.
Nothing in our thirteen month running average graphical plot is of any consequence or use to any real actual person anywhere, because they can do nothing with it to find out anything real.
You see, we have NOT actually been doing “Science” at all.
Now:- E = m.c^2 = 1/2 .mv^2 = h.(nu) = k. T What about that; maybe THAT is “Science”. We can actually use that to to tell us the results of experiments that nobody ever actually did. How cool is that; to replace a whole museum full of stacks of old yellowing papers with Temperatures scribbled on them; with a few words that anyone can remember in their heads; and use to figure out what they really wanted to know.
So when the IPCC says; and your Government in action tells you, that “The Science is settled.” Why don’t you try asking them WHAT SCIENCE ?
There isn’t any “Climate Science”. Well there is a lot of gathering of anecdotal data on pollens, and ancient microbe species; and isotopic nuclide distributions of trace gases; all manner of interesting information, that fills volumes of encyclopaedic proportions. but so far there is no known method of retracing our steps to find out what that first thermometer reading was; or to determine the outcome of an experiment never yet performed.
Don’t even think of making any predictions; especially about the future; because you might actually need some Science to do that; and so far there is none.
Of course they will report that the trend is down. Because that is the truth and what the data display. To say anything other than a downward trend would be lying.
Did somebody know how was the artic during the LIA?
If that trend continued into the past, then all life on the Earth froze to death, therefore we do not exist.
That contradiction demonstrates how the 30 year trend only speaks of it’s own span, and says little about before and after.
bob says:
June 25, 2010 at 10:25 am
…Do you have any evidence for more compaction this year than any other year?
But what you do not understand is the magic of the arctic.
Ice in this region can be compacted by south winds
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/the-great-2007-ice-crunch/
and simultaneously be pushed out of the Fram strait
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/watching-the-2007-historic-low-sea-ice-flow-out-of-the-arctic-sea/
and simultaneously pushed out of the Nares strait:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/jpl-missing-ice-in-2007-drained-out-the-nares-straight-pushed-south-by-wind-where-it-melted-far-away-from-the-arctic/
An not only a pushmepullyou ice dance but also under watre melting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
But it is never because the world is warming. Magic!!
Jack Simmons says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:02 am
[–snip–]
Can someone, please, tell me why I should be concerned about any trends in the Arctic ice.
Well, Jack, it’s sort of like this: YOU are supposed to be ‘concerned’ because you’ve been ‘instructed’ to be such, if only that’s what your public school teaching was supposed to have imparted to you.
YOU are NOT supposed to be questioning things. Rather, you’re supposed to simply accept what you’ve been programmed to accept.
Now, I see you’ve dropped your ‘programming,’ and you’re going to have to be ‘re-educated.’
Pity.
Tommy,
Thank you. Steven I believe we have a winner here.
899 says
“So if you’re basing your predictions on broken mechanisms, then I’d have to say that your declaration is —given the current down-turn in global temps— morally broke and mentally bankrupt”
Looking at the following sources for the current down-turn in global temperatures, I find
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
and
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
the anomaly for the months March, April and May of this year to be the highest ever recorded, although one tied for the highest.
Does that look like recent cooling to you?
But in order to post on topic, didn’t Al Gore predict a 75% chance for an ice free arctic in 2013, and really isn’t the trend in that direction, maybe a few years after 2013, but he didn’t say 100% for sure.
Smokey said:
Aren’t you forgetting 967 A.D., and 1016, an 1124, 1125 and 1126 A.D., when the Arctic was completely ice free?
_________
What about 1959? That year too, right? :))
Mike Ozanne says: “And don’t forget, that when the trend starts to bend it can still be dismissed as a ‘blip’ ”
Or “a cold snap.”
You can pick your nose, you can pick your starting data point … can’t eat you starting data point.
Enneagram says: June 25, 2010 at 10:50 am
Did somebody know how was the artic during the LIA?
I assume there must be some records somewhere.
If correlation as shown in here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
is indeed real, than it is possible to speculate what the Arctic’s LIA temps would have been.
There are geo-magnetic data available, I would hazard to guess that estimate I graphed should be as ‘reliable’ as any other, excluding the ice core data, so if someone knows of a data set I would appreciate a link.
Here we go then, this is my guess what the Arctic’s LIA temps were:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC9.htm
On bases of above one could ‘speculate’ that the Arctic’s LIA temps were about 2.5 to 3 degrees C lower than at present, and that is precisely the same anomaly for the CET winters for which there are records.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1.gif
Dave Springer says:
June 25, 2010 at 4:18 am
It appears to me from the satellite record there was no downward trend in arctic sea ice from 1979 to 1996 then in 1997 something happened that started a downward trend that lasted for about 10 years then leveled off.
CO2 emissions didn’t skyrocket in 1997 did they?
Dave:
Maybe someone has already pointed out that 1997 is an outlier and that regression would find a highly significant trend from 1977-1997.
Steve G points out that the trend would be downward, even if a miraculous and drastic increase in ice extent occurred. That’s true. The more likely scenario is, however, that 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 will show the four lowest minimal ice extents on record.
bob says:
June 25, 2010 at 7:35 am
At what point are you skeptics going to admit that the AGW proponents made a prediction that came to pass?
_____________
They might eventually admit it came to pass, but it will be billed as simply a “coincidence”, or natural variation. The AGW models will be said to just happened to have got it right. But having said that, I hope the skeptics stay right on the heels of the “warmists”, making them prove everything they say. This is a most valuable function in the advancement of true science, and one of the main reasons I’m here on WUWT. Yes, I’m pretty sure AGW theory has pretty much got it right (though all the feedback loops, negative and postive, need much more work), but blessed are the skeptics!
bob says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:18 am
Looking at the following sources for the current down-turn in global temperatures, I find …
Yes, you find that because you unquestioningly believe in a completely discredited source, that you much now resort to cleaning your plexiglass belly button, lest you run into someone and cause your head to be shoved deeper into that cavity where it now resides!
Thank YOU, Bob!
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:56 am
They might eventually admit it came to pass, but it will be billed as simply a “coincidence”, or natural variation.
Okay, smartass, WHEN was the last time =ANY= of the models predicted the weather with =ANY= degree of certainty?
Did they predict Washington, D.C.’s snow storm last winter? NO.
Did the predict Jokenhagen’s snow storm last winter? NO.
Did the predict the U.K.’s COMPLETE snow coverage? NO.
Gee, so far that’s batting 1000.
Shall we continue with =>YOUR<= sterling record of 'forecasting?'
Wouldn’t everyone be happier if that nice warm North Atlantic Current were warming Europe instead of a bunch of uninhabitable ice-wasteland?
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:56 am
Eventually the Earth will be much warmer and inhabitable as well as much colder and uninhabitable than it is right now.
Irregardless of how much belief one has, it has happened before and will surely happen again.
Question is: will we be around to witness it, or are we just going to go on and on with Sing Along with Trend Thriller?
There’s always a bunch that either wants to rule the world or lord it over the rest of us.
There needs to be an all out effort to try and extend the baseline back at least 100 years. Of course that would mean dreaded proxies. But something is needed.
Please remember, all arguments you are using against the ”trend going down” will also be used against the ”trend going up”.
Damn… it’s melting year after year, what do you expect the graph to show if it’s melting.
It’s sometimes worthwhile looking back into time to see how precedented the recent ‘melting’ is. :o)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
vukcevic says:
June 25, 2010 at 11:49 am
Thanks Vuk!
899, I hate to break this to you –but not all global temperature data sets are discredited by the sceptics. Dr Spencer’s satellite readings, for example, show a rise in global temperature over the last 30 year time frame. Dr Spencer, of course, is a sceptic himself and has an adoring sceptic fan base akin to Sarah Palin’s
Please provide evidence of a global data set showing a decline in global temperature. Go on, enlighten us.
MJK