Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite record

While everyone seems to be watching the Arctic extent with intense interest, it’s bipolar twin continues to make enough ice to keep the global sea ice balance near normal. These images from Cryosphere today provide the details. You won’t see any mention of this in the media. Google News returns no stories about Antarctic Sea Ice Extent.

Here’s the graph, see for yourself.

Here’s global sea ice:

click image to enlarge

Advertisements

218 thoughts on “Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite record

  1. When December arrives in the N. Hemisphere, this is what to expect.
    The stage is set for another round of ‘not to be outdone’ hopscotch effect.

  2. The Antarctic sea ice hasn’t peaked yet and it isn’t close to the record extent. However the sea ice anomoly is current the 3rd highest recorded. Antarctic sea ice typically peaks in September about 3 million km2 higher than it is currently.

  3. I have to ask a question: Why is it, that in the top graph the trend appears to increase, where as the lower graphs the trend appears to be decreasing?
    Weird …

  4. The stability of the global ice is quite astounding.
    Given that the area covered fluctuates by more than a third each year, from about 15 million to about 23 million sq km, it is surprising that the deviation from the recorded average is plus or minus 2 million sq km at the outside. If the expectations of the climate models that indicate maximum impact in the polar regions are correct, the lack of trend n the global ice coverage suggests modest impact to date.

  5. 899:
    The top graph is southern hemisphere sea ice. The bottom graph is global sea ice.

  6. So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.
    BTW how is your temperature station project going?
    will we see results soon?

  7. rbateman says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    ====================
    I bookmarked that one, Robert….thanks.
    It damn sure DOES tell the story.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  8. Harvey – it might be because that’s the subject of several other posts over the last month and more, whereas this post is about the other end of the planet, as hinted at in the title. Nice troll though.

  9. This rbateman graph poses a question that already crossed through my mind several times. The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.

  10. harvey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    “So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.
    BTW how is your temperature station project going?
    will we see results soon?”
    This site has been covering arctic sea ice extent/volume all along.

  11. Are there any reliable measurements of Earths’s nutation? Nutation is a very complex mechanism if conjugated with earth’s internal mass distribution. Surely even slight variations of earths nutation can make some influence, among dozens of other factors, in polar sea ice.

  12. You can observe nutation simulation here. Now imagine that the investigator’s hand acts (in a figured way, of course) as the Moon and Sun conjugated gravity drag…

  13. June monthly data is out and the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Anomaly is the highest on record for the month of June:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
    This offers a good visualization of the current extent and anomaly:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png
    Julienne pointed out in an earlier thread that this might have something to so with the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), which has been in a strong positive state since mid-May;
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
    Here is some background on the AAO:
    http://fp.arizona.edu/kkh/climate/PPT-PDFs-09/indices/AAOReport.pdf
    http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/meetings/annual_seminar/2006/Presentations/Wallace.pdf
    This version of the chart above includes a cross section of the Polar Vortex;
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.aao.shtml
    and here is some background on the Polar Vortex:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
    Here’s are several good visualizations of the AAO and its interrelation with the Polar Vortex;
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
    http://www.cfm.brown.edu/people/sean/Vortex/
    There seems to be some interrelation between the AAO and the ending El Nino (ENSO) per page two of this article;
    http://www.earthgauge.net/wp-content/fact_sheets/CF_Antarctica.pdf
    but my only conclusion thus far it that Earth’s climate system is absurdly complex…

  14. Dear Harvey,
    Perhaps you may not realise the nature of this blog I fear. WUWT is a science blog that deals with the whole planet including the North and South poles and everything in between.
    By my count the number of of posts regarding the Northern polar region have been quite numerous and the Antarctic few. The story about the Southern polar region is interesting to say the least, at least to some. The NPR is certainly interesting but it isn’t telling us the whole story about global sea ice, is it?
    I fully realise that the SPR is a very uncomfortable subject for some right now and they would rather concentrate on variables that may support a certain narrative.
    It’s obvious by now that the polar regions do not opperate in isolation but are somehow linked, the question has to be asked and the evidence looked at, or this blog would simply be just another ‘real climate’ blog peddling a set narrative and excluding dissident voices.
    The Arctic situation is highly fluid, the melt season is by no means certain and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so, let’s wait and see what the next months bring, but in the meantime let’s cast our eyes over the bigger picture.

  15. Interesting that the 2008 record didn’t rate a mention in the MSM yet at the time the bed was very wet from arctic ice melt.
    Anthony,
    Lovely to catch with you in Surfers Paradise and thanks for your great work.

  16. The Artic and Antarctic (besides being at the exteme latitudes of the planet) are vastly different systems. One is sea ice that surrounds a continent and is fully open to multiple oceans, and the other is an ocean surrounded by continents with only a few access points to other oceans. More importantly, Antarctic sea ice has a far less of an impact on our N. Hemisphere weather. Also, while we have seen a general increase in year-to-year amounts in the Antarctic, we have also seen plenty of negative anomalies over the past 6 years:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    But in the Arctic, we’ve not seen any positive anomalies since 2004 (though we came very close to at least to even this spring during the great “bump up”:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    Some of you also ought to read this excellent study for why Antarctic sea ice might increase under AGW: (and it’s got nothing to do with the thinning ozone)
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
    Also, it should be pointed out that because of the large heat sink of the southern Pacific ocean, AGW climate models have long showed that the Antarctic will display far less effects (initially) from any forcings from CO2. This is simple physics, but for some reason, the AGW skeptics love to simply ignore it. Whereas in the N. Hemisphere, with the Arctic Ocean being surrounded by land, there is no real heat sink, and so any warming will be amplified. Again, this has long been forecast by AGW models, but once more, the uninformed or perhaps intentionally ignorant skeptic (and I am NOT referring to Anthony here) always wants to point to the Antarctic as proof that AGW models are garbage, when in fact, the general trends of the Arctic and Antarctic and not out of line with many AGW models.
    Having said that, it is unfortunate that the main stream press doesn’t take a more active interest in the southern sea ice, even though it is not rising in as a dramatic fashion as the the nothern sea ice is declining, is is still worth a mention now and then, and though there may be very few journalists up to the task, it would be nice to see some general education by the main stream press as to the very big differences in the dynamics of southern versus nothern sea ice.

  17. Seems we have seen that the northern polar winds move the polar ice sheet. Thus, and as we have observed, depending on the prevailing wind circumstance, north pole ice can be moved allowing for open water to be exposed. This gives the impression that there is less ice, when in fact the may just be piling up as we see in rivers and lakes. This is not the case for antartic ice. The prevailing winds may change where the ice becomes thicker or thinner; however the winds will not move the antartic ice off the land as we see the ice move about the sea in artic regions.

  18. harvey says: July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    . . . BTW how is your temperature station project going? will we see results soon?

    We’re still waiting to get a survey of Indianola, Iowa.
    Perhaps you could oblige us.

  19. R. Gates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    =================
    The WHAT?
    The AGW models?
    What the hell are the “AGW models”?
    Your incessant, persistent, perpetual, non-stop talking out of your austral end is amusing, but never informing.
    You always refer to the “AGW models” but you are never quite able to identify what they are.
    I had a professor once that said and it stuck with me: “A little knowledge…in the mind of someone who thinks they know much…is a dangerous thing.”
    He was right on!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  20. rbateman said
    July 3, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    “When December arrives in the N. Hemisphere, this is what to expect.
    The stage is set for another round of ‘not to be outdone’ hopscotch effect”
    What does it tell you to expect ?
    Looking at last December
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Extent was pretty low, but then peaked fairly high come March after a late “burst”
    Andy

  21. R. Gates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    As per your interest in the Antarctic Sea Ice, it was a big deal in the 70’s when the ozone hole scare was all the rage.
    Apparently, growing ice is not newsworthy. “We just want the facts, ma’am, the cold facts”.

  22. R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    “The Artic and Antarctic (besides being at the exteme latitudes of the planet) are vastly different systems. One is sea ice that surrounds a continent and is fully open to multiple oceans, and the other is an ocean surrounded by continents with only a few access points to other oceans. More importantly, Antarctic sea ice has a far less of an impact on our N. Hemisphere weather. Also, while we have seen a general increase in year-to-year amounts in the Antarctic, we have also seen plenty of negative anomalies over the past 6 years”
    The fact you are omitting is that a large portion of Antarctic Sea Ice melts each year as you can see in this video;

    thus in a way Antarctic sea ice resets/recalibrates each year, increasing its sensitivity and variability as compared to the Arctic sea ice, which suffers from the impact and memory of major wind/natural sea ice loss events such as occurred in 2007.
    How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?

  23. AndyW says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:57 pm
    For those not paying attention to the increasingly cold winters hopscotching from one hemisphere to the next, that’s what to expect. Cold train.

  24. Spartacus says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    This rbateman graph poses a question that already crossed through my mind several times. The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.
    _________________________________________________
    I suspect it is due to the declination of the outer planets from the ecliptic plane, shifting the flow of the solar wind off of a neutral bias North / South as it passes the Earth headed out to the outer planets. It is on my list of things to graph out to check asap, (on slow speed internet connection for a while yet.)

  25. In his very own “Perry Mason” moment R. Gates has confessed that the climate models are actually “AGW models”. It’s just what the skeptics have been saying all along. Case closed.

  26. So, let me get this straight… you’re saying that all the media hype about global warming is wrong?

  27. Notice how R. Gates left no comment in Flaming the Amazon showing more Warmers adjusted science, but he pops in here.

  28. harvey says: July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm “So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.”
    Dodging? Perhaps it is ironic or simply coincidental, but just to the right of your post and up a couple of inches is a direct link to the Arctic sea ice extent and Arctic temperatures. No dodging here.

  29. harvey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    “So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.”
    VILLABOLO:
    Now, now Harvey, let’s be polite.
    But seriously folks, here are some points to be emphasized.
    In general this is what’s happening. The Arctic Sea Ice Cap, Greenland and the Antarctic are all being effected by Global Warming but not to the same extent. It would further be irrelevant that the Antarctic was not currently being effected because that would only indicate that Global Warming has not had full effects upon every region of the World YET. (That’s for the sake of argument. It is being effected.)
    You have to understand all three ice caps (yes that includes the Arctic) in order to get the big picture. That includes the geographies of Greenland and Antarctica in contrast to each other in order. This is how I see things:
    1) THE ARCTIC. It is melting the fastest because it is the thinnest.
    2) GREENLAND. According to GRACE satellites it lost 137 billion metric tons of ice in 2002 and 286 billion metric tons in 2009. The first figure is a trickle in comparison to both the total amount of ice in Greenland and ocean level rise. The second figure a double trickle. The fact that it doubled is the important figure.
    Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years.
    3) THE ANTARCTIC. It has lost several huge ice shelves in the first decade of this century. The last one was the size of Rhode Island. Nevertheless, it is not going to be effected as fast as the other ice caps for the following reasons:
    a) It is 10 times as large as Greenland and generates its own weather. The larger something is the better it protects itself.
    b) It has cold ocean currents that go around it in a manner similar to refrigerator coils. This enhances its frigidity. This factor is not a small concern when Antarctica’s past is taken into account.
    Once, when the tip of South America was connected to Antarctica, those ocean currents would deflect north, by the west side of South America, carrying its cold water away. It would, at the same time, draw warmer waters south from the east coast of South America. This made Antarctica warmer without the Earth having to have been warmer overall than at present.
    c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.
    d) Don’t look to closely. What it does on a decade per decade basis is what counts not absurd one, two or three year trends.

  30. re R. Gates
    So the models do show an increasing amount of antarctic sea ice in their projections of AGW run away warming. Puh… now we can all sleep safely knowing that the prophets have everything under control.
    No matter the amount of heat sinks the trend should not be increasing during the last years should it? Or is that just short term variability of the earths normal extremely complex and yet to be understood climate system?

  31. In matters environmental, some newspapers seem to suffer from a bi-polar proble; London’s Telegraph, which supports the blogs of Booker and Delingpole, also carries some of the most ridiculous puff-pieces promoting the notion of CAGW. I was amazed to read there just just yesterday that a glacier in tropical Indonesian Papua is “the last glacier in the Pacific, is melting and will be gone in about 50 years”. Having walked on New Zealand’s Fox and Franz Joseph Glaciers and flown over others nearby, I was sure those particular glaciers are still there – melting very slowly as they have been doing (as far as I am aware) since they had a growth spurt in the LIA. I suspect there are a large number of glaciers in the North and South American landmass bordering the Pacific Ocean too as a quick search in Google found 800 glaciers just in the Washington Cascades, in addition to numerous others around the Pacific.
    Why do nutjobs write such blatantly silly stories? I am amazed that a paper which supports Delingpole and Brooker gives space to such badly-written alarmism. Sure the glacier in question may be soon melted and gone but to say it is the last in the Pacific region is beyond nonsense.

  32. R. Gates says: “the uninformed or perhaps intentionally ignorant skeptic always wants to point to the Antarctic as proof that AGW models are garbage, when in fact, the general trends of the Arctic and Antarctic and not out of line with many AGW models.”
    “the uninformed or perhaps intentionally ignorant skeptic” = “people who R Gates disagrees with”
    “are not out of line with many AGW models” = “are out of line with many AGW models.”
    Put another way: “people who R Gates disagrees with always want to point to the Antarctic as proof that AGW models are garbage, when in fact, the general trends of the Arctic and Antarctic are out of line with many AGW models.”
    Thanks R Gates. I’m sure that’ll help clear up any confusion.

  33. There will be plenty of coverage of the Antarctic next March when the Wilkins sheet crack photographs will be recycled again. Ice freezing is not fashionable. Ice melting fits the alarmist narrative.

  34. The difference in ‘performance’ of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice could well be due to volcanic activity. None in the Antarctic right now – the last one was a couple of years ago beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet.
    The volcano in Iceland which shut down most of Europe’s air traffic – another good one from the UK’s Met Office – spewed huge amounts of ash over the Arctic sea ice making it more susceptible to melting. The effect of this must have just about run its course.

  35. Just The Facts says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm………
    villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am ……….
    Just The Facts says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.
    The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice. As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows. In short, the Arctic responds fast, as you can witness, and Antarctica will follow more slowly. In the neantime the Arctic sea ice will have become seasonal.

  36. Why should polar ice have to be used as a ‘proxy’ for determining global ‘temperature and temperature trend’ ? Simply read well-sited thermometers showing air and water temperatures from around the world. Unless, of course, such readings would not be showing the right trend?

  37. Headline; Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite record
    I thought the peak occurs sometime in September. Should that have read “June Antarctic….etc. Half way in the season? If there are predictions on this blog that the current arctic melt will slow, is it not equally possible for the current Antarctic growth to slow? Just keeping an open mind.

  38. Arctic & Antarctic are like mirror images — in March, when the Arctic took that unusual bump increase in ice extent, the Antarctic took a bump decrease. I wonder if it’s more than just a coincidence.

  39. Alexander K says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:15 am
    “In matters environmental, some newspapers seem to suffer from a bi-polar proble; London’s Telegraph, which supports the blogs of Booker and Delingpole, also carries some of the most ridiculous puff-pieces promoting the notion of CAGW. I was amazed […]
    Why do nutjobs write such blatantly silly stories?”
    Incompetence. By sheer accident, the newspaper was the first to hire them; now they anxiously occupy a desk and hope that nobody notices that they’re not capable of doing a decent job. Or maybe they don’t even notice their own incompetence; Dunning-Kruger effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  40. Coalsoffire says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    “In his very own “Perry Mason” moment R. Gates has confessed that the climate models are actually “AGW models”.”
    He should have called them “CAGW models”.
    Isnt it strange how little the world has changed. Some years ago I guy called Alexander went to the “Oracle of Delphi” and asked whether he could conquer the world.
    Now we have the “CAGW models”.

  41. Curious Yellow says:
    “R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.”
    This is news to me. Are you sure that there are seasons where “all the ice melts”? When was the last time that the Ross Ice Shelf melted completely as I seem to have missed it?

  42. R. Gates re; AGW model
    Sounds like the POM model – Ptolemaic Orbital Mechanics
    Just like the AGW model it was tweaked and twisted ad hoc to fit the observations. It did a pretty good job at predicting planetary motions even though its basis was completely wrong. Just like the AGW model.
    Da motion of da ocean is what’s driving all this. It holds 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere. The tail doesn’t wag the dog. Write that down.

  43. re; which pole is a better proxy for the earth’s temperature and trend
    Actually they both suck equally. And why on earth do we need a proxy? We have satellites that tirelessy measure the temperature 24/7 over almost the entire surface of the globe. Surface station thermometers and proxies are obsolete and unreliable at best. As well, we have satellites that measure sea level changes down to the proverbial hair’s width which tells us just about all we need to know about total oceanic heat content and glacier melt.
    The scare mongering is a bunch of crap. The earth’s surface temperature fluctuates slightly as the PDO, ENSO, and AMDO bring more or less of the vast cold deep of the world’s oceans to the surface. The PDO has been in its warm phase for the last 30 years and it appears to have shifted into its cold phase right on schedule. That’s the entire basis for the so-called anthropogenic global warming.
    The gloom & doom control freaks have 30 years at a stretch to work up a good panic about catastrophic global warming or cooling. Nice try this time but no cigar. Time to change over to global cooling. So to all the little boys crying wolf, better luck next time.

  44. Spartacus says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    This rbateman graph poses a question that already crossed through my mind several times. The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.
    _________________________________________________
    Richard Holle says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    I suspect it is due to the declination of the outer planets from the ecliptic plane, shifting the flow of the solar wind off of a neutral bias North / South as it passes the Earth headed out to the outer planets. It is on my list of things to graph out to check asap, (on slow speed internet connection for a while yet.)
    _________________________________________________
    The tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis seem to be long term effects
    * 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
    * 21,000 year cycle: Earth’s combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
    * 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth’s orbit ( tilt )
    * 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity ) click
    Vukcevic has done a lot of work on the changes and shifts in the earth’s geomagnetic field and how it effects sea currents and therefore temperatures.
    Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation & Arctic Ttemperature Anomaly vs. Geomagnetic Field Fz
    NORTH ATLANTIC TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
    This winter we saw there was a shift in NH weather patterns that had a major effect on a large area. This type of shift, caused by shifts in PDO, AMO, ENSO Climate Oscillation Combinations seems to be the immediate cause. The reason for the oscillations is the next step.

  45. VILLABOLO:
    “It would further be irrelevant that the Antarctic was not currently being effected because that would only indicate that Global Warming has not had full effects upon every region of the World YET. (That’s for the sake of argument. It is being effected.)”
    This is an argument based on model projections not on observations. If this “global warming” hasn’t effected the Antarctic then it is neither global nor empirical – it is a belief.
    “Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years.”
    Very amusing. What physical process do you propose that leads to Greenland ice disappearing at a geometric rate? The rate of melting is proportional to the quantity of heat supplied. For your scenario to be true, the amount of heat would have to double every seven years. Do you have a citation for that?
    “b) It [Antarctica] has cold ocean currents that go around it in a manner similar to refrigerator coils. This enhances its frigidity.”
    It’s always amusing the way alarmists come up with the “reason” that parts of the world aren’t behaving according to their beliefs. In this case it’s due to enhanced “frigidity”! Nice one.
    “c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
    Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?

  46. Vincent says on July 4, 2010 at 5:30 am

    VILLABOLO:
    [snip]
    “c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
    Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?

    Probably temperature density: degrees per cubic meter 🙂

  47. 3 July 2010
    Obama commits nearly $2 billion to solar companies
    Obama, under pressure to spur job growth, said today that two solar energy companies will get nearly $2 billion in US loan guarantees to create as many as 5,000 so-called “green” jobs.
    In his weekly radio and Web address, Obama coupled his announcement with an acknowledgment that efforts to recover from the recession are slow a day after the Labor Department reported that private hiring in June rose by 83,000.
    “It’s going to take months, even years, to dig our way out and it’s going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort,” he said. All told, 5,000 jobs are expected to be created through use of $1.85 billion in money taken from the $787 billion economic stimulus that Obama pushed through the U.S. Congress in early 2009 over the strenuous objections of Republicans.
    Obama announced the Energy Department will award $1.45 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa Solar Inc to help it build Solona, one of the largest solar generation plants in the world near Gila Bend, Arizona. Abengoa Solar, headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, is a unite of Spanish renewable energy and engineering company Abengoa SA (ABG.MC). In the short term, construction will create some 1,600 jobs in Arizona.
    “After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America,” Obama said.
    Obama said $400 million in loan guarantees will be awarded to Colorado-based Abound Solar Manufacturing to manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already being constructed and an Indiana plant will be built in what is now an empty Chrysler factory.
    The announcement addresses Obama’s desire to create jobs related to “green” technologies.
    Obama, whose Democrats are anticipating losses in Nov 2 congressional elections because of the weak jobs picture, said the steps he is taking “won’t replace all the jobs we’ve lost overnight” and that “I know folks are struggling.” He accused Republicans of blocking a $33 billion extension of unemployment benefits that failed to pass the House of Representatives on Tuesday. “At a time when millions of Americans feel a deep sense of urgency in their own lives, Republican leaders in Washington just don’t get it,” Obama said.
    ..Yeah, well you said it, O’barmy…
    $1.85 billion divided by 5,000 jobs = a cost of $370,000 per job. With the US already with a debt of $13 trillion, I don’t see how that amount of spending to create a job is either justifiable or prudent.
    One company will be producing power which will probably be government subsidised for every kWh produced – an ongoing cost to the government. The other company will be producing solar panels – if these are marketed at the consumer market, there will not be many consumers queuing to purchase them with the current US economic climate. People have got by without them so far and will perceive them to be a luxury purchase.
    This may well be $1.85 billion of the taxpayers money well spent, but I fail to see how.

  48. re; which pole is a better proxy for the earth’s temperature and trend
    The best ‘proxy’ locations have sparse to nonexistent measured data. Obviously the polar regions are ideal, since there is little measured data. Large or infinite error bars allow lots of shenanigans cloaked as expert interpretation…

  49. @villabolo
    “d) Don’t look to closely. What it does on a decade per decade basis is what counts not absurd one, two or three year trends.”
    Have you even looked at the antarctic data?
    The trend has been increase of ice for decades.
    This is a bit more than a few years and you people use the same timespan when you use arctic as proof for AGW.
    There simply is no downward trend in antarctica if you look at the trend since at least 70s.

  50. Bill Jamison says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:22 pm
    The Antarctic sea ice hasn’t peaked yet and it isn’t close to the record extent. However the sea ice anomaly is current the 3rd highest recorded. Antarctic sea ice typically peaks in September about 3 million km2 higher than it is currently.

    This will make a good talking point if the Arctic ice level is low in that month.

  51. tommy says:
    “There simply is no downward trend in antarctica if you look at the trend since at least the 70s.”
    You are right. The 30 year trend is up, not down. Although trying to get that fact through villabolo’s head is like arguing with a brick wall.

  52. Coalsoffire says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    “In his very own ‘Perry Mason’ moment R. Gates has confessed that the climate models are actually ‘AGW models’.”
    AGW models also have much in common with their human counterparts; just the right ones need to be selected, with considerable lipstick and other cosmetics, primping, staging, lighting, and posing, followed by photo enhancement, and then marketing the product for maximum results and ROI.

  53. VILLABOLO:
    “c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
    Vincent:
    “Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?”
    Actually, I think the physical quantity proposed by VILLABOLO would have to be “temperature intensity”, as in degrees per meter cubed. So one could say the temperatures in the arctic are “brighter”! No wait, that doesn’t work.

  54. Archeopteryx says:
    Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…

    Since “AGW theory” predicts everything (and so, nothing) your statement is rather a null case.
    We’ve got a load of ice forming at the S. pole, and that’s what AGW predicts?, more ice?… OK, can it also predict absolutely normal nothing happening global ice and snow levels? If so, I’m ready to endorse AGW theory as predicting we don’t need to do a darned thing to our fuel usage as everything is staying the same.

  55. Dave Springer said
    “As well, we have satellites that measure sea level changes down to the proverbial hair’s width which tells us just about all we need to know about total oceanic heat content and glacier melt.”
    The sea level satellites are accurate to around 80mm on one pass and around 8mm combined-that is they are inaccurate to a level greater than the amount they are measuring-as confirmed at the end of Chapter 5 of TAR4
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-a-3.html#5-a-4
    Properly maintained tide gauges are a much better way of finding out what is going on in the real world at specific locations.
    Incidentally, the method of estimating historic sea level is bizarre to say the least, relying as it does on three highly truncated northern European tide gauges and extrapolating that to create a global measurement.
    I have no greater faith in the unerring accuracy (or relevance) of satellite global temperatures nor ice area/extent but in any case would point out that they merely record a tiny sliver of our climatic history.
    tonyb

  56. villalobo
    Try looking on the first chart at the minimas. Not only are the maximas increasing, but the minimas are too. How does that work in an AGW world?

  57. harvey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.

    Arctic sea ice has been discussed ad nauseum. We’ve discussed thin ice, thick ice, medium ice, Caitlin survey poorly measured ice, rotten ice, wind blown ice, cracked ice, melted ice, melting ice, volcano affected ice, open ice, dirty ice, Paleozoic ice, Holocene ice, ice bergs, ice cores, O18 ratioed ice, ice calving, bears on ice, faked ice, measured ice, ice volume, Medieval Warming ice, Viking ice, well, you get the point.
    What has not been discussed or explained, as far as I know, is who cares?
    I have asked this question several times and no one seems to know the answer.
    If all the arctic sea ice were to melt next week, would it make any difference?
    I don’t know if it did during the Medieval Warm Period, but it might have. After all, a bunch of Vikings were raising cattle, sheep, wheat, rye, etc. in Greenland. Today the Greenlanders can’t do that. They must import fodder for their sheep and other foods for themselves.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/imports/?country=gl&section=0
    http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/imports/?country=gl
    And look at what they export, fish.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/trade/exports/?country=gl&section=0
    Polar bears, polar foxes, harbor seals, ermine, arctic hares, harp seals, walruses, snowy owls, one and all, did just fine with diminished ice. Or did the arctic sea ice somehow remain during decades of record warmth?
    And while we’re at it, what caused things to warm up in the arctic at that time?
    And why did it cool, forcing extinction on the Vikings of Greenland?
    And if cooling was dangerous, just ask the Vikings, why are we so concerned about warming?
    With all the warming we’ve experienced, my flowers are doing great, the fishing is good, the plains and foothills of Colorado are green like they haven’t been in years, and we’ve even saved the Preble Jumping Mouse. http://gliving.com/prebles-meadow-jumping-mouse-endangered-or-not/
    What’s the problem?
    This is boring. Look at the long term chart for the world’s ice. It looks like the electrocardiogram of an NFL wide receiver. It’s healthy. It’s normal. Get on with your life.

  58. Replying to:
    “Spartacus says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm…”
    Joe Bastardi suggests that, when the AMO and PDO are both warm, the warm belt of air around the equator is displaced north, which results in less ice in the north and more ice in the south. Now that the PDO is colder, (and the AMO is likely to follow in the next few years,) the warm belt at the equator will be budged south, and the ice will shink in the south as it grows in the north.
    I found the idea interesting.

  59. Archeopteryx says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…

    —-
    Reality: Pick a number between one and ten.
    AGW Theory: Seven. No, three. Six! Two, maybe. Eight or nine. It has to be one. Wait … Ten. Yeah, ten. Ten is it. Four? Like I was saying, five.
    Reality: It was two.
    AGW Theory: See, I predicted it. Bow down to my prognostication skills.

  60. Imagine if the March 1980 sea ice extent and concentration was swapped with the 2010 extent and concentration, what do you think Serreze and other alarmists would be saying right now about the shape of the sea ice? People might accuse me of cherry picking so lets look at global sea ice = at around ‘normal’. What about Arctic sea ice? I have pointed out numerous times that if you look to within the last 10,000 years we have seen it numerous times before. We just happen to have satellites and ultra warm exploration ships now. Similar to more hurricanes = better observation equipment which even the warmists at NASA admit. :o)
    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent:
    1980 = 3.5 million sq. km
    2010 = 4 million sq. km
    Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration:
    1980 = 2.0 million sq. km
    2010 = 2.6 million sq. km
    http://tinyurl.com/22wy5g2
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  61. rbateman,
    Re: polar hopscotch, I had this thought in 2007 when the arctic ice reached a minimum and there was substantial snow in Johannesburg, Argentina up to Buenos
    Aires and in Melbourne Oz which hadn’t seen such in a century. I predicted (email to NSIDC) that there would be a rebound in Arctic ice the following winter – one of the steepest re-freeze curves in the record occurred after the record low in Sept in the Arctic and we have seen rebound since (with the DMI temps above 80N below average – see WUWT sidebar, I’m predicting the melt slope will now lessen and the summer low will come in still well above 2007)
    Re Archeopterix (don’t be a dinosaur!), R. Gates (AGW models and the Antarctic) and a few others: If the models are predicting flooding shorelines, drowning islands, 5C increases, etc. where is the water coming from if the warming causes heavy snow in Antarctica and expanding ice. Won’t this also reflate the glaciers in NZ, southern Andes, etc witholding more water? Look, the climate is complex, so lets not be simpletons when looking at it. If warming is inexorably increasing by 3-5C per century, surely the oceans would be the main repository of heat and sea ice would decline at both poles and under warming air all the ice would melt. If not, then the largest polar caps would be on Venus. I know AGWers have been grasping at melting ice floes the last few years but don’t tell me they have stopped believing in a waterworld with islanders swimming and paddling to the remaining landmasses. If so, your dropping of the “C” and “T” from CAGWT was justified.

  62. Dave Springer says:
    July 4, 2010 at 5:15 am
    The scare mongering is a bunch of crap. The earth’s surface temperature fluctuates slightly as the PDO, ENSO, and AMDO bring more or less of the vast cold deep of the world’s oceans to the surface. The PDO has been in its warm phase for the last 30 years and it appears to have shifted into its cold phase right on schedule. That’s the entire basis for the so-called anthropogenic global warming.

    The PDO index is warm at present, and where does the schedule come from?

  63. Spartacus says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    This rbateman graph poses a question that already crossed through my mind several times. The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. …

    See:

    Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures
    “In this paper we show that the 20th century de-trended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures vary in anti-phase seesaw pattern – when the Arctic warms the Antarctica cools and visa versa. This is the first time that a bi-polar seesaw pattern has been identified in the 20th century Arctic and Antarctic temperature records.”
    Ref: Geophysical Research Letters
    Received 3 February 2010; accepted 26 March 2010; published 22 April 2010.
    Citation: Chylek, P., C. K. Folland, G. Lesins, and M. K. Dubey (2010), Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L08703, doi:10.1029/2010GL042793.

    Though they do give the obligatory nod to C02 of course.
    I can see this debate about warming or cooling going on for a very long time indeed!

  64. Jack Simmons says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:56 am
    …Arctic sea ice has been discussed ad nauseum….
    What has not been discussed or explained, as far as I know, is who cares?
    I have asked this question several times and no one seems to know the answer.
    If all the arctic sea ice were to melt next week, would it make any difference?
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Here is your answer to the question of why we discuss Arctic Sea Ice. You may want to bookmark this prediction and keep a hard copy.
    The alarmists predicted Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ “…Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo….”
    Professor Maslowski’s Analysis
    “Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
    Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
    Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss….
    “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
    “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative”

    …Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modeled dates that are in advance of other teams.
    These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.
    But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans….”

    Now you know why some of us would like to see a major recovery of Arctic Sea Ice by 2013. Even though it may mean a reduction in the global food supply now it could prevent deaths from starvation caused by alarmist programs such as bio-fuel and Clinton/Gore’s 25×25 resolution. Diverting 25% of “our working land” into producing fuel instead of food. The USA produces 25% of the world’s grain much of which is exported as food for third world countries.
    “The U.S. Senate today adopted by unanimous consent a resolution calling for a new national renewable energy goal: 25 percent of the nation’s energy supply from renewable sources by 2025… The resolution also reinforces the 25x’25 principle that the U.S. agricultural and forestry industries, while producing renewable energy, will continue to produce safe, abundant and affordable food feed and fiber.”
    Co-sponsor, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), said “addressing the climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges America faces today. Any comprehensive strategy to fight climate change must include a strong renewable energy standard in addition to a low carbon fuel standard, raised fuel economy standards, and incentives to promote efficiency. This bipartisan resolution will make an unprecedented goal for producing 25 percent of America’s energy from renewable sources by 2025….”

    The 25X25 org is a UN NGO masquerading as a “grass roots” American movement. The major goal is implementing UN’s Agenda 21
    the last link has a rather interesting poll on “Should national law be over-ruled by U.N. Agenda 21? “
    Here is the UN’s view of property rights, straight from the horse’s mouth.
    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
    United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report. Preamble

  65. Can you fix the typo in “Antarctic Sea Ice Exent”? And someone else said there was one story, and now there are several in Google News. I’ll point out that Google News servers might have noticed an increased interest in the topic, so might have cast a wider net to find stories relevant to this topic. Now if you put quotes around the search phrase there are two stories found, while without quotes several more are found with varying amounts of irrelevancy.
    [Fixed.]

  66. The large land mass and circumpolar ocean currents and air flow meteorologically isolate the Antarctic from the rest of the world. Its short term climate trends tend to be opposite the Arctic. Svensmark claims that this is because its very white surface reflects sunlight at least as well as clouds. While clouds tend to cool the rest of the world by blocking sunlight, they tend to keep the Antarctic warmer by blocking outgoing IR.
    “The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays”, Henrik Svensmark
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145
    also “The Chilling Stars”, Svensmark and Calder; page 82-92
    I sure wish we had easily accessible global cloud data.

  67. Jack Simmons-
    “What would happen if all the Arctic sea ice melted”?
    Nothing!. Since the ice is floating, melting does not raise sea level.
    One other thing is being missed in the discussion. The Antarctic is more important than the Arctic because it holds 85-90% of the World’s ice.

  68. Dave Springer says:
    Sounds like the POM model – Ptolemaic Orbital Mechanics
    Just like the AGW model it was tweaked and twisted ad hoc to fit the observations. It did a pretty good job at predicting planetary motions even though its basis was completely wrong. Just like the AGW model.
    GeoFlynx –
    Dave – Copernicus also “tweaked and twisted” his heliocentric model of the solar system nearly as much as the Ptolemaic model. Skeptics back then were quick to point this out and were quick to persecute those who would not place the Earth at the “center of all”. It was not until Kepler recognized that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular that the heliocentric theory gained popular acceptance. Global climate models are continuously being improved, but that does not mean that the underlying premise of AGW is incorrect, just like Copernicus.

  69. R. Gates says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
    Here are a few things about your “AGW climate models predict..”

    Failed predictions :o)
    Why Climate Models Lie

    “Modellers have an inbuilt bias towards forced climate change because the causes and effect are clear.”
    (General circulation modelling of Holocene climate variability, by Gavin Schmidt, Drew Shindell, Ron Miller, Michael Mann and David Rind, published in Quaternary Science Review in 2004.)

    Something appears to have changed inside the sun, something the models did not predict. Washington Post

    I could go on and on but it’s good to see that you have more faith in models than I have. I mostly prefer the old method called observation or “measure it” as Monckton would say.
    Gates, you can spin this all you like bu the only model that’s going to count in this debate is called Earth + observations. Nothing else matters.

  70. GeoFlynx says:
    “…that does not mean that the underlying premise of AGW is incorrect…”
    No, but that’s only because you can’t prove a negative. The real problem is that the planet isn’t acting according to the models…
    …so who are you gonna believe? Computer models? Or Planet Earth?

  71. rbateman said:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    “For those not paying attention to the increasingly cold winters hopscotching from one hemisphere to the next, that’s what to expect. Cold train. ”
    You really need to consign you ying yang theory to the rubbish bin because it does not wash. there is no correlation between what is happening in the Antarctic now and what will happen come December in the Arctic.
    I said the Arctic had not much extent last December and you starting going on about it being cold then. But due to the negative AO it was warm last December
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html
    “Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions”
    Andy

  72. “Archeopteryx says:
    July 3, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Ignoring, conveniently that this is exactly as the AGW theory predicts…”
    He He, yup it predicts everything and therefore cannot be falsified. By the most basic definition therefore not a theory at all.

  73. Murray Carpenter says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:01 am
    It appears to ME that there is much more Arctic Sea Ice now than in 2007.
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=03&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=02&sy=2010
    Or am i missing something?

    You’re comparing images produced using two totally different imagers, try comparing like with like.
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2010/jul/asi-n6250-20100703-v5_nic.png
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2007/jul/asi-n6250-20070703-v5_nic.png

  74. No Google News results? Did you spell it right the first time?
    Results 1 – 10 of about 166 for antarctic sea ice extent. (0.15 seconds)

  75. harvey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.

    Wow, why so bitter? If you count the categories of posts (I did, see http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/categories.html ) you’ll note that Arctic posts lead Antarctic 128-48, and some categories, e.g. the new sea_ice_news focuses on Arctic ice. I’d say it’s time for an article on the other pole. Would you rather WUWT stick with just the Arctic until the low point in September?
    (You can find a lot to clean up in the category arena because no one has had a useful way to use it. I’ll volunteer, at least to categorize most of the uncategorized posts.)

  76. Curious Yellow says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am

    The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice. As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows.

    So you are stating on the record that IF Arctic sea ice continues its recovery of September 2008 and 2009 over 2007 then the Earth is cooling? On the basis of you post do you agree that 2008 and 2009 were cooler years than 2007?
    I am not putting words into your mouth, as I would like you to either clarify for me or answer my 2 questions.

  77. Ric
    Thats a useful tool. Is it listed anywhere on this site (under ‘tools’ would be the obvious place.)
    Tonyb

  78. Just the Facts said:
    “How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?”
    ______________
    I’m going to answer this question, but let me first give a bit a background:
    The idea that the Antarctic should repsond exactly as the Arctic does if AGW is in fact happening is a red-herring argument. The only thing they share in common is that they are at the extremes of our planet, but beyond that, as I’ve stated so many times, they are completely different in their dynamics. It is only a casusal observer who might grasp onto the notion that “the polar ice ice caps are SUPPOSED to melt” if AGW is true, etc. and therefore it must not be true This notion is simpleminded at best and is a prime example of how a very little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    In my last post, I have an excelllent example of scientific research that gave reasons why Antarctic sea ice might actually increase under the effects of AGW. This research is based on modeling. I would however, like to refer to the experts, and let them give a far more eloquent answer to the Arctic vs Antarctic differences. From the NSIDC:
    “Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a near-record-high annual minimum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend. To borrow an analogy from sports, one high day, month, or even year of sea ice is no more significant than one early-season win would be in predicting whether the hometown team will win the Super Bowl ten seasons from now.
    Another important point is that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is not surprising to climate scientists. When scientists refer to global warming, they don’t mean warming will occur everywhere on the planet at the same rate. In some places, temporary cooling may even occur. Antarctica is an example of regional cooling. Even our earliest climate models projected that Antarctica would be much slower in responding to rising greenhouse gas concentrations than the Arctic. In large part, this reflects the nature of the ocean structure in Antarctica, in which water warmed at the surface quickly mixes downward, making it harder to melt ice.
    In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.
    The one region of Antarctica that is strongly warming is the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and is thus less protected by the altered wind pattern. The Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.
    Finally, even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature.”
    Here a full link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#wintertimeantarctic
    So, the though I think this question is wrongly thought out, your question as to which represents a more accurate “proxy” for Earth’s temperature and temperatures trend (the Arctic or the Antarctic), the answer would of course be…both. As referenced in the above article from the NSIDC, it was not unexpected that the Arctic year-to-year SEA ICE would decline, while the Antarctic would grow slightly. However, when talking about the continental glacial ice, that is an entirely different matter, as it should show long term melting and decline in the Antarctic and Greenland. But for the common layperson of course, they think of “ice caps melting” and not only do they not understand the differences between the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice and what the experts say (reference the above link) but they can’t understand or know about the differences between the continental ice in the Antarctic and the sea ice…each of which may behave quite differently under AGW scenarios, and indeed, appears to be.

  79. Gail Combs says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Gail, to expand on your ideas on why we must be interested in sea-ice extent may be wandering off-topic, but it seems to me that the question you responded to leads to the need to identify the fundamental problem causes of AGW-alarmism and not merely to an objective examination of scientific facts.
    You correctly point to the UN’s socialist agenda as the driver for AGW-alarmism. Thereby AGW-alarmism, employing many useful idiots, becomes an effective tool for accelerating what Igor Shafarevich (a friend of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who wrote the foreword to Shafarevich’s book ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’) described as follows.
    –quote–
    It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.
    It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:
    * Abolition of private property.
    * Abolition of the family.
    * Abolition of religion.
    * Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.
    The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.
    Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato’s time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.
    Igor Shafarevich
    The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200
    http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_200
    –end quote–
    ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’ is an examination of the predominance of socialism throughout history, invariably involving various forms of totalitarian control in all civilizations throughout history.
    Of course, Igor Shafarevich points to the socialist principle of abolishing private property, of which land ownership is only a small part.
    “Communists are socialists in a hurry.” I don’t know who coined that, but let’s consider what Maurice Strong, the original creator of the UN-driven environmentalism, had to say about his own views in that regard:
    –quote–
    Actually, Strong’s three sources of evil are really just one source — Western civilization. Although he has reaped enormous personal profits from the Western ways of business and life, Strong has been a lifelong biter of the hands that feed him so well. In 1990, he even mused about a possible revolution against “industrialized civilizations.”
    What if it were concluded, Strong romanticized, “that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? … Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
    Strong wasn’t exactly speaking for himself in this daydream. His nightmarish scenario involved a “small group of … world leaders,” gathered together at a semi-private conference, who decide to overthrow the established political and financial orders “in order to save the planet.”
    But he was not speaking for himself, either. Strong revels in telling fawning audiences that he is “a socialist in ideology,” but “a capitalist in methodology.” His socialist core would explain his attraction to revolutions against rich, industrialized civilizations.
    Source: EDMONTON JOURNAL, Maurice Strong & Paul Martin, Part 2, “Champagne socialist full of bubbles: Maurice Strong profits from pushing leftist ideas,” by Lorne Gunter, Friday 18 July 2003, p. A18
    –end quote–
    If anyone wishes to “make the personal political” and make it count, then there is no better tool for him than to fan the flames of AGW-alarmism. A biased perspective in looking only at declining trends of arctic sea-ice extent during a time frame that is too short is just the thing for that. It would not serve the objectives of the socialist ideologists to expand the focus of their attention to longer, more objective intervals.

  80. rbateman says:
    but it sure tells the story.
    It tells *A* story. I think what it says is that we are dealing with a complex system that I don’t understand. If you can get it to explain Antarctic ice and global temperatures and a few other details, I want to read it.

  81. Jack Simmons says:
    “This is boring. Look at the long term chart for the world’s ice. It looks like the electrocardiogram of an NFL wide receiver. It’s healthy. It’s normal. Get on with your life.”
    _____________
    Let’s take a look at Jack’s contention. Here’s the long term chart of Global Sea Ice:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Now, I’m not sure how you want to define “healthy”, but for arguements sake in terms of sea ice extent, let’s say that it means spending equal time above and below the normal line, so that anomalies balance out and the hence, the “patient” stays normal. If you’re honest and look at the chart, you’ll pretty much see that from 1979 to around 2001 or so, this is exactly what happens…a nice “healthy” sea ice line, spending equal amounts of time above and below normal– a good pulse if you would. Then beginning in about 2001, you’ll see that the line starts to waiver a bit more toward the negative side, and this really picks up around 2004 through 2010. A good way to quickly see this is to imaginge the area between the peaks under or over the line, and the line itself. For those who know calculus, this is called the definite integral. If you took the integral of global sea ice up to about 2001, you’d expect to find that it was 0–meaning no change. If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.

  82. rbateman says: July 3, 2010 at 10:45 pm
    “It’s been updated
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    I think you are definitely onto something. In this animation;
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
    note how the Arctic starts out as almost average pressure, and then as the pressure drops (becomes darker blue) over the Antarctic, the pressure increases (becomes dark red) over the Arctic. My understanding of this effect, which is currently speculative at best, is that the Antarctic Vortex becomes very powerful (like a giant ice cold hurricane), creating very low pressure over Antarctica and increasing the pressure around the rest of the globe. If you watch the animation again, between June 10th and 20th it looks like a high pressure pocket of more temperate air over the Atlantic gets pushed into Arctic. So when the Antarctic Vortex is strong/large, the pressure drops within it and increases around it (a positive Antarctic Oscillation) and the increased pressure forces warmer air towards the other pole.
    Can anyone elaborate on or refute this hypothesis?

  83. Add to previous post;
    “Sergio Begue, founder and trip leader for Andes Ski Tours, says, “The South America ski season is looking great after lots of early snow. Our sales are up about 35 percent compared to last year and we have seen an increase in skiers from the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa.””
    I’m looking forward to an early start to the snow season in the Northern Hemisphere again this year. Snow on the pumpkin again this year maybe? I hope the states budgets are up the the task of removing the snow this coming winter. Better stock up on extra salt.

  84. Curious Yellow says: July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    “R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need.”
    If the information I needed was desperate spin and obfuscation;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation
    then R.Gates and villabolo would be spot on, I, however, am seeking the facts.
    “Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.”
    It seems that you also hail from the R.Gates and villabolo school of spin and obfuscation…
    “The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice.”
    Apparently you didn’t watch the animation I posted above;

    as there appears to be multi-year ice in the Antarctic in every year on record. Did you watch the video? Can you confirm that your statement above is erroneous?
    “As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. ”
    Great, at least you have an answer, now let’s see if you can support this assertion with logic and facts.
    “That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows. In short, the Arctic responds fast, as you can witness, and Antarctica will follow more slowly. In the neantime the Arctic sea ice will have become seasonal.”
    The support of your assertion appears to be incoherent blather. The components of it seem oddly unrelated to one another. Since building coherent arguments does not appear to be your strong suit, perhaps I’ll present an argument and you can attempt to disprove it:
    I think that Antarctic Sea Ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s current temperature and temperature trend since a large portion of Antarctic Sea Ice melts each year, as is illustrated in the animation linked above. Thus in a way Antarctic Sea Ice resets/recalibrates each year, offering more accurate readings as compared to the Arctic sea ice, which suffers from the impact and memory of major wind/natural sea ice loss events such as occurred in 2007. Can you explain to us why you think that this hypothesis is false?

  85. The Arctic is sea surrounded by land. The Antarctic is land surrounded by sea.
    When the mid latitude jets move poleward more solar shortwave energy gets into the oceans and in due course more energy from warming seas eventually penetrates into the Arctic ocean to reduce ice cover. That cannot happen in the Antarctic so the continental Antarctic just gets more isolated by the faster tighter run of jets around it and it cools whilst the Arctic warms.
    When the mid latitude jets move equatorward the seas receive less solar shortwave and so cool down and in due course the Arctic cools because it receives less energy from the waters entering the Arctic ocean. However the Antarctic warms because the slacker jets around the poles allow more north/south air flows and more warm air gets into the Antarctic continent.
    Thus the apparent short term stability of global ice cover. Arctic and Antarctic ice cover always moves in opposite directions but of course longer term variability does nevertheless affect global ice quantities for other reasons.

  86. Anthony: Just one friendly suggestion to the headline of this post– it really ought to say:
    “Antarctic sea ice ANOMALY peaks at the 3rd highest in satellite record.”
    For of course, we haven’t yet seen the peak for the actual Antarctic sea ice yet this season.

  87. Just The Facts says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Curious Yellow says: July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    “R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need.”
    If the information I needed was desperate spin and obfuscation;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation
    then R.Gates and villabolo would be spot on, I, however, am seeking the facts
    _____________
    You must therefore consider the information coming from the NSIDC to be desperate spin and obfuscation since it formed the bulk of my answer. This would explain your general perspective, such that nothing we gave you that didn’t support your perspective would satisfy you, and you would think even the NSIDC is up no good. I would think Dr. Stroeve, who comes here occasionally might be a bit insulted by that.

  88. AndyW says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:15 am
    rbateman said:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    “For those not paying attention to the increasingly cold winters hopscotching from one hemisphere to the next, that’s what to expect. Cold train. ”
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html
    “Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions”

    Below normal for both May and June according to DMI:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  89. R. Gates says:
    If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.
    I would have taken the derivative and been of the opinion that the anomaly bottomed in late 2008. Let’s wait a decade or so and see.

  90. R. Gates says:
    If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.
    I don’t know of anything that happened then except for the aftermath of the 1998 El Nino. There would have been a very large slug of hot air sent to the Arctic, so that might be the cause. Can you suggest something else?

  91. R. Gates says:
    “The patient’s looking a bit sick,” paraphrasing Al Gore’s “The Earth has a fever,” and just as plainly ridiculous.
    The Earth is acting completely normally. Nothing is out of the ordinary, except for the deluded ravings of Al Gore’s acolytes. Dr Spencer puts things in perspective with his hypothesis:
    No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
    That hypothesis is testable. As soon as the planet’s temperature goes above or below its historical parameters the hypothesis will be falsified. But that has not happened, and in fact the current temperature is just about in the center of its range.
    On the other hand, the CO2=CAGW hypothesis conjecture, based upon always-inaccurate computer models rather than on raw data, has been repeatedly falsified. The planet itself refuses to conform to the alarmist climate models. Which one should we believe? The Earth, or the models?
    If the alarmist crowd followed the scientific method they would have already admitted that their conjecture has failed miserably. But being true believers, rational thought isn’t important to them. They are ruled by their emotions, not by logic.
    They are still trying to convince the rest of us that what is being observed is out of the ordinary. It is not; the climate fluctuates, the temperature fluctuates, and sea ice fluctuates. Everything goes in natural cycles, and all these cycles are well within the historical norm.
    As Prof Lindzen observes:

    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

    When listening to the petrified ravings of the alarmist contingent, it is also wise to keep Marcus Aurelius’ dictum in mind:
    The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

  92. This graph:
    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
    By the way, pretty much says everything you need to know about both the AGW models and the reality of Arctic Sea ice. We’ll all watch this years final September low with much rather trivial interest… will it be 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 5.5, or even 6.0 million sq. km. Any of those would still be well BELOW AGW models, and hence, why the models are still not getting the positive feedback elements completely correct, however, as the models can begin to include feedbacks such as the ArcticDipole Anomaly, spoken about so eloquently by Julienne here a few weeks back, then the models may begin to be closer to reality of the Arctic Sea ice diappearing in the summer far sooner than 2100. The DA was one of the chaotic elements, not predictable, but still deterministic.

  93. Smokey says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
    R. Gates says:
    “The Earth is acting completely normally.”
    ______________
    Me and Smokey are buddies. But if this graph:
    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
    Tell you that Artic Sea ice is acting normally, (note: declining even faster than those “pessimistic” AGW models), then I suppose that your definition of normal is far different than mine.

  94. R Shearer says:
    The mainstream media just rubs me the wrong way.

    Maybe you need professional help in the rubbing department, I understand AlGore knows some folks…
    Spartacus says:
    The short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.

    Don’t know what causes it, might just be where the oceans slop the warm bits, but I’ve noticed the same thing in the global temperature data. When I was doing my marathon dT/dt graphing session (still recovering from that one 😉 I was “up close and personal” with the data from each country and Antarctica. Tables of temperatures, tables of anomalies, and graphs. I repeatedly noticed that there was a N.H. / S.H. oscillation. For example the warm 1934 record in N. America was a cold time in parts of the S.Hemisphere ( I think it was Antarctica and some where like Argentina and Chile, but I’d have to look it up again and check).
    My conclusion is that any talk about any SINGLE pole is just asking to be fooled by a regular swapping of hot ends of the planet (which also answers the question of which pole to look at for GAT trend: only BOTH together).
    This also means that the temperature series (such as GHCN) is fatally flawed as they are woefully deficient in Southern Hemisphere data in the early years. Not enough places to know the global trend. All you really get is a Northern biased wobble of very long duration… Or, put more directly, a Hot Europe or N. America could be offset by a cold mid south Pacific or Indian Ocean and nobody would have noticed. Same thing for cold but with the signs reversed.
    Spartacus says:
    Nutation is a very complex mechanism if conjugated with earth’s internal mass distribution. Surely even slight variations of earths nutation can make some influence, among dozens of other factors, in polar sea ice.

    I suspect it also will cause some variation in ocean currents. The bathtub is going to slop a little as it gets rocked…
    ThousandsOfMilesAway says:
    So, let me get this straight… you’re saying that all the media hype about global warming is wrong?

    That pretty much sums it up. Yup.
    Best I can peg it down, with the “unadjusted” GHCN data and a very clean ‘self to self’ thermometer anomaly process, it is a result of mixing two things.
    1) Putting the baseline at the bottom of a cold half of the PDO (so it would take 60 years to get back to NORMAL and you could never get a cold anomaly unless a non-cyclical cold wave hit). Good for warming all the way to 1995 or so (take the baseline of 1951-1980, divide in half, subtract from 1980 gives 1965 mid point, add 30 years gives 1995). The baseline does sit rather nicely centered over the cold half cycle.
    2) Instrument and process artifacts. Starting in 1990 (plus or minus about 3 years) there is a ‘kink’ in the data. A ‘hockey blade’ forms to the upside. This is not the result of CO2, as CO2 has been around and growing since the industrial revolution, not just since 1990. There was The Great Dying of thermometers then, and those with the best potential to give low going excursions were dropped, while those located at airports and especially near bodies of water were kept. You don’t get much low going temperature excursions at those places. Compare SFO to Lake Tahoe for record lows compared to AVERAGE lows. The deltaT at Tahoe is much greater to the downside. There are other aspects of this process error, such as a very suspect QA process on the USHCN data that lets airports be the Procrustian Bed for all other thermometers and chops them to fit, then if it can’t make a fit, replaces the data with an average of nearby ASOS stations (ie airports). Just averaging like that will induce a clipping of the low going excursions. And the low going excursions ARE clipped and with a very defined start point of about 1990. That’s not CO2, that’s process change.
    When you look at real world events for confirmation / negation, what you find is a warming planet to 1998, but NOT warmer than in 1934 during the last hot phase, followed since then by a run to the cold side. (There is a very cold start to this winter in the southern hemisphere with iced coffee in Brazil, South African snow for the World Cup, and a very cold Australia as noted in a WUWT article.)
    For those of us under the “cold blob” side of the jet stream in California, we’ve had a cold spring and it’s even cool today. July 4 th is often about 100 here. (Usually about 90 F) . It’s presently 82 F on the patio. Probably hit 86 F at the peak in 3 hours or so, though I’m sure the airport will report higher… All that tarmac in the sun.
    So instead of running around doing things to control heat gain in the house (shutting windows and blinds, etc.) I’m enjoying a pleasantly cool morning. But my tomatoes are not ripening nearly as fast as in prior years. All hard and green. I usually get my first red ripe tomato about the 4th of July. Not now.
    (If you are on the “hot blob” of the jet stream where tropical heat is headed to the poles to be vented, like the East Coast, you are feeling the heat. It will stay that way for a few years until the oceans cool. Figure about 5 ? or so. But the temperatures don’t tell the whole story, it’s the heat flow that matters. And what we have is a very large increase of heat flow out of the ocean, to the poles, off planet. Then the cold air lands on my head… I imaging Pamela is getting it worse…)
    So my expectation is for a net normal world for about 5 years. After that, IMHO, it will all depend on if we are really entering a Grand Solar Minimum or not. Yeah, I know the sun causality thesis rests on correlations and not mechanisms, but the grain production history matches it nicely. And frankly, I trust plants not to lie or make an error more than I trust people. Plants don’t have an agenda and don’t fool themselves.
    BTW, there are already starting to be reports of crop failures and losses due to “unexpectedly cold and wet weather”…
    “Use the Barley, Luke!” 😉

  95. Tom Jones says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:12 am
    R. Gates says:
    If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.
    I don’t know of anything that happened then except for the aftermath of the 1998 El Nino. There would have been a very large slug of hot air sent to the Arctic, so that might be the cause. Can you suggest something else?
    ___________
    I can’t, but many others have suggested an idea… it’s called anthropogenic global warming, and since the climate is a chaotic system, the smallest of factors, so I’m told, could take the system out of equalibrium and create unforseen and unpredictable effects. These are NOT random, but are deterministic. Many would suggest that the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice extent is one of those effects, and the fact that even the bulk of GCM’s didn’t forsee the more rapid downturn in Arctic Sea ice that we’ve had the past 10 years, shows the chaotic nature of the effects–unpredictable but quite deterministic.

  96. R Gates
    I am continually surprised as to why you firmly believe the very limited 30 year Satellite record should be seen as clear evidence of a substantially changing climate. By so doing you ignore the plethora of records we have stretching back into the far distance that illustrates that what we are seeing now is merely the latest manifestation of Arctic warming.
    Article: The Great Arctic warming in the 19th Century. Author: Tony Brown
    This long article -with many links- examines the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
    Article: Arctic warming 1919-1939. Author: Dr Arnd Bernaerts
    This free online book by Dr Arnd Bernaerts examines the last great warming -prior to the modern one- in great detail.
    http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
    I have often written short pieces on the frequent episodes of Arctic warming back to the Ipiatuk some 3000 years ago, and one day will work them up into a longer piece. In the meantime please state your evidence demonstrating that the current episode is unique.
    To stay on topic, Hubert Lamb clearly believed that in general the pole at one hemisphere had a great deal of ice, whilst the other warmed.
    tonyb

  97. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:29 am
    ….If you’re honest and look at the chart, you’ll pretty much see that from 1979 to around 2001 or so, this is exactly what happens…a nice “healthy” sea ice line, spending equal amounts of time above and below normal– a good pulse if you would. Then beginning in about 2001, you’ll see that the line starts to waiver a bit more toward the negative side, and this really picks up around 2004 through 2010…..
    I am sorry if this seems a bit picky, and I am entertained by your posts, however I have seen on numerous threads recently (Arctic sea ice ones) where you have been explicit in the assertion that if someone sees a recent “trend” they should look over a longer period. You have also argued that short term trends mean nothing. Why do you look at the short term trend in the Antarctic but do not allow others to look at short term trends with regard to the Arctic?
    There’s letters seal’d, and my two schoolfellows,
    Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d—
    They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
    And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
    For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
    Hoist with his own petard, an’t shall go hard
    But I will delve one yard below their mines
    And blow them at the moon.

  98. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
    A tentative step in the right direction.
    Even finishes with:
    “But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.””

  99. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:37 am
    “[…] effects. These are NOT random, but are deterministic.[…]”
    Can you name me one nondeterministic effect in the macroscopic world?
    wikipedia:
    “Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is causally determined by previous events.”
    That sounds correct. Good work, wikipedia.

  100. Ken Hall says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:26 am
    There will be plenty of coverage of the Antarctic next March when the Wilkins sheet crack photographs will be recycled again. Ice freezing is not fashionable. Ice melting fits the alarmist narrative.
    ************************************************************************
    Peter Miller says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:32 am
    The difference in ‘performance’ of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice could well be due to volcanic activity. None in the Antarctic right now – the last one was a couple of years ago beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet.
    The volcano in Iceland which shut down most of Europe’s air traffic – another good one from the UK’s Met Office – spewed huge amounts of ash over the Arctic sea ice making it more susceptible to melting. The effect of this must have just about run its course.
    ************************************************************************
    VILLABOLO in eternal exasperation says:
    Remember that midget in Fantasy Island who used to announce “the plane, the plane”?
    Well, listen carefully, “THE TREND, THE TREND!”

  101. artwest says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:53 am
    “[…]Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. […]”
    Interesting. It means different groups try different approaches, seeing that the state-of-the-art models don’t cut it. Cracks in the orthodoxy.

  102. Gail Combs says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:01 am
    Yes Gail, I ‘know’ why this is being discussed. Some people are hysterical or stirring hysteria in others. I was asking in real terms what the impact would be, not how political types with agendas want to use a ‘crisis’ to achieve their ends.
    I just wanted one of those types to explain why it would be bad to have the arctic sea ice disappear. They can’t, as we can see from the next response…
    BTW, thank you.
    Jim Macdonald says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:24 am
    Jack Simmons-

    “What would happen if all the Arctic sea ice melted”?
    Nothing!. Since the ice is floating, melting does not raise sea level.

    I know nothing would happen, except good things, which I have listed earlier.
    Oh to be sure, they might be some negatives, but the benefits would far out weigh the drawbacks.
    I’m just annoying the alarmists is all.
    R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Jack Simmons says:

    “This is boring. Look at the long term chart for the world’s ice. It looks like the electrocardiogram of an NFL wide receiver. It’s healthy. It’s normal. Get on with your life.”
    _____________
    Let’s take a look at Jack’s contention. Here’s the long term chart of Global Sea Ice:

    If you’re honest and look at the chart, you’ll pretty much see that from 1979 to around 2001 or so, this is exactly what happens…a nice “healthy” sea ice line, spending equal amounts of time above and below normal– a good pulse if you would. Then beginning in about 2001, you’ll see that the line starts to waiver a bit more toward the negative side, and this really picks up around 2004 through 2010. A good way to quickly see this is to imaginge the area between the peaks under or over the line, and the line itself. For those who know calculus, this is called the definite integral. If you took the integral of global sea ice up to about 2001, you’d expect to find that it was 0–meaning no change. If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.

    No, my NFL receiver is just going to sleep…
    And you still haven’t answered my question. Go back and look at my question.

  103. Roy UK said: (about R. Gates)
    “Why do you look at the short term trend in the Antarctic but do not allow others to look at short term trends with regard to the Arctic?”
    __________
    Roy, I use the longest term reliable data that I have access to, and for both the Arctic and Antarctic it is the same source:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
    Which we all know so well. I truly have no agenda but to know the scientific truth of what is happening, both to the polar regions, but to the planet as a whole. Being a chaotic, yet determinstic system, both the weather and climate are only predictable within a narrow range, but that range is different for both. As I stated in Steve G’s Weather vs Climate posting, I look at weather as ripples in a much larger ocean of bigger waves, with the bigger waves being the climate. Sometimes, for example, a small ripple could have a peak in the valley of a much larger wave, and visa versa. This larger ocean of “the climate” has many influences, from solar output to Milankovitch cycles and also includes the level of GHG’s in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution, the increase in CO2 has been (geologically speaking) very rapid. Chaos theory would seem to indicate the small nudges in a system otherwise in general equalibrium could send the system into a whole new and unpredictable state– in search of a whole new “attractor” or point of equalibrium. Changes curently happening in Arctic sea ice could be signs of that the equalibrium of the Earth’s climate system are being “tipped” into a new state. In short, we know the weather changes in the short term, but it appears that is might be possible that the climate does as well when those “tipping points” are reached when a chaotic system is sent toward a whole new attractor or point of equalibrium.

  104. tonyb says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:49 am
    R Gates
    I am continually surprised as to why you firmly believe the very limited 30 year Satellite record should be seen as clear evidence of a substantially changing climate. By so doing you ignore the plethora of records we have stretching back into the far distance that illustrates that what we are seeing now is merely the latest manifestation of Arctic warming.
    ____________
    I have no doubt that there have been periods of warming in the Arctic in the past but nothing that would seem to show that we have had a completely ice free Arctic. If I’m in error in this, please give me the references.
    I’ve state for many months here on WUWT with that, that I am a 75% believer in AGW theory, but reserve 25% for being skeptical. If the Arctic Sea ice were to turn around (over a period of years and even decades) then I would definitely lean away from thinking that AGW theory has it right. However, if the trends continue, we’ll see an ice free Arctic in my lifetime (though I may be 70 or 80 when it happens!). Again, this hasn’t happened in recorded human history, so why wouldn’t I think it would be a very unique situation that a scientifc minded person would look for a cause of?

  105. Villabolo, the guy who strangely writes in the third person [“VILLABOLO in eternal exasperation says…”] makes a big deal out of trends.
    That is misdirection; there are always trends. In everything. That is how the Universe is constructed.
    The real question is: are the trends/cycles/fluctuations caused by the ≈3% of total CO2 emitted as a result of human industrial activity?
    Dr Roy Spencer’s hypothesis states that what we observe is not caused by human activity, and that the climate is entirely explained by natural variability.
    It is a testable hypothesis. Unlike the CO2=CAGW conjecture, it makes verifiable predictions. And it explains reality much better than any alarmist scare.
    Falsify it, if you can. Otherwise accept it, if you’re rational.

  106. R Gates
    There was a thread on this very subject not long ago. Here it is.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/21/researchers-find-arctic-may-have-had-less-ice-6-7000-years-ago/
    There has been regular melting of the ice to a greater or lesser degree that we can trace back to the last ice age. The Ipiatuk and then the Norse periods showed probably the greatest warming since then, although (shorter) periods in the 1500’s and 1700’s were also of note.
    The age of which I wrote concerning the 1820’s and the one of which Dr Bernaerts wrote concerning the 1920’s were probably less warm than during the Ipiatuk and Norse but were certainly no less warm than today.
    A 30 year satellite record is a blink of an eye on which to base a trend. I intend also to live to 100 so I can see who is right 🙂
    tonyb

  107. R. Gates says: July 4, 2010 at 11:03 am
    “You must therefore consider the information coming from the NSIDC to be desperate spin and obfuscation since it formed the bulk of my answer. This would explain your general perspective, such that nothing we gave you that didn’t support your perspective would satisfy you, and you would think even the NSIDC is up no good. I would think Dr. Stroeve, who comes here occasionally might be a bit insulted by that.”
    My comment in terms your “desperate spin and obfuscation” was in reference to many of your prior posts, but not necessarily your most recent post, as I had not read it before I wrote the “desperate spin and obfuscation” comment. I did see your response before I hit submit, but I read first sentence of the background, i.e. red herrings, etc. and figured that I needed a shower and a drink before I dealt with it. I address you most recent comment below.
    R. Gates says: July 4, 2010 at 10:12 am
    “I’m going to answer this question, but let me first give a bit a background:
    The idea that the Antarctic should repsond exactly as the Arctic does if AGW is in fact happening is a red-herring argument. ”
    Agreed, then why are posing this red-herring argument? I have not read a claim on WUWT that “Antarctic should respond exactly as the Arctic” nor even that they should respond in a similar manner. The point we considering is whether they are interrelated, such that what occurs at one pole can have a significant impact on the other and vice versa.
    “The only thing they share in common is that they are at the extremes of our planet, but beyond that, as I’ve stated so many times, they are completely different in their dynamics. It is only a casusal observer who might grasp onto the notion that “the polar ice ice caps are SUPPOSED to melt” if AGW is true, etc. and therefore it must not be true This notion is simpleminded at best and is a prime example of how a very little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
    Inconsequential filler.
    “In my last post, I have an excelllent example of scientific research that gave reasons why Antarctic sea ice might actually increase under the effects of AGW. This research is based on modeling. I would however, like to refer to the experts, and let them give a far more eloquent answer to the Arctic vs Antarctic differences. From the NSIDC:
    “Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability in the time series. While Antarctic sea ice reached a near-record-high annual minimum in March 2008, this does not indicate a significant long-term trend. To borrow an analogy from sports, one high day, month, or even year of sea ice is no more significant than one early-season win would be in predicting whether the hometown team will win the Super Bowl ten seasons from now.”
    We are not talking about “one high day, month, or even year of sea ice” we are talking about an Antarctic Sea Ice Extent and Area uptrend since 1980:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
    “Another important point is that the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is not surprising to climate scientists. When scientists refer to global warming, they don’t mean warming will occur everywhere on the planet at the same rate. In some places, temporary cooling may even occur. Antarctica is an example of regional cooling. Even our earliest climate models projected that Antarctica would be much slower in responding to rising greenhouse gas concentrations than the Arctic. In large part, this reflects the nature of the ocean structure in Antarctica, in which water warmed at the surface quickly mixes downward, making it harder to melt ice.”
    Seems like desperate spin and obfuscation to me. The whole cold means warm meme is a sorry construct of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. Climate models will project whatever you want them to, ice however tends not to be so cooperative…
    “In terms of sea ice, climate model projections of Antarctic sea ice extent are in reasonable agreement with the observations to date. It also appears that atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone, have acted to increase the winds around Antarctica. Perhaps counter intuitively, this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.”
    We are in agreement that there appears to be an “increase the winds around Antarctica” and that “this has further protected the Antarctic from warming and has fostered more ice growth.” However, attributing this to “atmospheric greenhouse gases, as well as the loss of ozone” seems like little more then flimsy guesswork by Warmist study manufacturers like Jinlun Zhang and Jianli Chen.
    “The one region of Antarctica that is strongly warming is the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and is thus less protected by the altered wind pattern. The Antarctic Peninsula is experiencing ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.”
    More desperate spin and obfuscation. Highlighting a tiny and inconsequential part of a huge continent, in order to be able to include the terms, “ice shelf collapse and strongly reduced sea ice.” Simple diversionary tactics, which likely only work on the faithful…
    “Finally, even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature.”
    The question isn’t whether an increase or decease in Antarctic sea ice would have a huge impact on the climate system. Rather the question is whether sea ice, Antarctic, Arctic or Global offers an accurate “proxy” for Earth’s temperature and temperatures trend.
    “So, the though I think this question is wrongly thought out”
    How can one wrongly think out a question?
    “your question as to which represents a more accurate “proxy” for Earth’s temperature and temperatures trend (the Arctic or the Antarctic), the answer would of course be…both.”
    R.Gates, I think you are right. It is silly to look at just the Antarctic or Arctic sea ice in isolation, as they are both part of the same dynamic global climate system.
    Thus as Anthony pointed out, this Global Sea Ice Area chart might offer us our best view of Earth’s temperature trend:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    “As referenced in the above article from the NSIDC, it was not unexpected that the Arctic year-to-year SEA ICE would decline, while the Antarctic would grow slightly.”
    I wonder why the National Snow and Ice Data Center doesn’t offer a Global Sea Ice Extent chart on their website:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
    On the right, under “About the Sea Ice Index” there is a drop down to see Arctic and Antarctic trends, but no Global trend. Why?
    “However, when talking about the continental glacial ice, that is an entirely different matter, as it should show long term melting and decline in the Antarctic and Greenland.”
    Diversion and obfuscation, lets leave glaciers and Greenland for another discussion.
    “But for the common layperson of course, they think of “ice caps melting” and not only do they not understand the differences between the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice and what the experts say (reference the above link) but they can’t understand or know about the differences between the continental ice in the Antarctic and the sea ice…each of which may behave quite differently under AGW scenarios, and indeed, appears to be.”
    I think you underestimate the common layperson. I think that the vast majority of people can understand the basic concepts here. If Earth was experiencing runaway catastrophic global warming, one would anticipate a decrease in Global Sea Ice Area, which clearly isn’t happening…

  108. Smokey said:
    “The real question is: are the trends/cycles/fluctuations caused by the ≈3% of total CO2 emitted as a result of human industrial activity?”
    ______
    This is the kind of inaccuracy that really really irks me. If the pre-industrial level of CO2 was appoximately 270-280 ppm and had been fairly steady at that level for the past 10,000 years (verified through many different techniques) and now since that time, or coincident to the start of the industrial revolution they have risen to approximately 390 ppm, that would mean that far more than 3% has been the result of human industrial activity. More like ten times as much, or around 30%.
    Falsifiy if you can, otherwise accept it, if you’re rational.

  109. Vincent says:
    July 4, 2010 at 5:30 am
    [–SNIP–]
    “Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years.”
    “Very amusing. What physical process do you propose that leads to Greenland ice disappearing at a geometric rate? The rate of melting is proportional to the quantity of heat supplied. For your scenario to be true, the amount of heat would have to double every seven years. Do you have a citation for that?”
    VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
    As far as the first doubling is concerned, that was based on the measurements taken by the GRACE satellites that have been in operation since 2002. Apparently you don’t want to believe that the quantity of heat between 2002 and 2009 has increased but you know what? It is irrelevant.
    The obvious reason being, if you were to think about it, that even if the level of heat were to hold steady, it would take time for it to melt the ice. I’m sorry if you missed such an obvious fact but most things in Nature have a time lag.
    A boulder dislodged from a mountain top will not fall to the valley floor instantaneously, but rather take some time. An Ice cube placed on a hot sidewalk may melt fast but it won’t turn into a puddle of water in a millionth of a second. It too takes a certain amount of time. Same thing with Greenland melting assuming no further heat input.
    One needs to factor in both Time and Space (i.e. physical effects)
    As for the crude doubling guesstimate I gave, it was for speaking purposes only. The actual rate of increase is likely to be worse for several reasons which, based on how you’ve responded, you neither understand nor care to admit. Reasons such as thermal lag; increased CO2 emissions; feedback loops from Methane out gassing of the melting permafrost and the increased heat absorption of an open ocean; etc..
    **********************************************************************
    [–SNIP–]
    “b) It [Antarctica] has cold ocean currents that go around it in a manner similar to refrigerator coils. This enhances its frigidity.”
    “It’s always amusing the way alarmists come up with the “reason” that parts of the world aren’t behaving according to their beliefs. In this case it’s due to enhanced “frigidity”! Nice one.”
    Vincent, if you can’t understand why different geographic features such as having 10 times the bulk of something, and the effects of ocean currents, can cause a difference then you can’t give a meaningful rebuttal to anything.
    ***********************************************************************
    “c) Temperatures are more concentrated in the Arctic region, including Greenland, than in Antarctica.”
    “Confused or what! What, in your opinion, are concentrated temperatures? Is that measured in degrees per meter square?”
    Ahhhh, errrr . . . Let’s see. How about Global Warming effecting the Arctic regions out of proportion to the rest of the world?

  110. Just the Facts said:
    “If Earth was experiencing runaway catastrophic global warming, one would anticipate a decrease in Global Sea Ice Area, which clearly isn’t happening…”
    _____________
    I gave a very long post on this earlier today. Essentially, look at this graph of Global Sea ice:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    If take the intergral of the anomaly of global sea ice (plot the the area below or above the line) since 2001 you’ll see there is indeed a negative global anomaly. The reason for this is simple– Arctic sea ice has had a larger and more continual negative anomaly than the Antarctic has had a positive one. So before you say there is no trend in Global Sea ice, study the charts.

  111. R. Gates says:
    “Falsifiy if you can, otherwise accept it, if you’re rational.”
    Falsified. And by the IPCC, no less. The human contribution to total CO2 is only about 3%. Another nail in the coffin of the CAGW conjecture.
    Sincerely yours,
    ~ Mr Rational

  112. tonyb says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Thats a useful tool. Is it listed anywhere on this site (under ‘tools’ would be the obvious place.)

    Thanks. I think the only references at this point is http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt-6/#comment-403453 and http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt-6/#comment-408692
    The better starting point is http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/ , my Guide to WUWT. The category stuff is new, and comes from having to revamp my code to handle the “new style web” pages. While I was at it, everything goes through a database now, making the category stuff easy to do.
    It’s attracted Anthony’s attention (before I got the category stuff going), once he gets settled state-side again (I figure that could take a month!) I’ll pester him about access to the inner sanctum or what ever makes sense.

  113. Jack Simmons says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:56 am
    What has not been discussed or explained, as far as I know, is who cares?
    I have asked this question several times and no one seems to know the answer.
    If all the arctic sea ice were to melt next week, would it make any difference?
    ***********************************************************************
    VILLABOLO REPEATS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/the-trend/#comment-418293
    “Just ask and ye shall receive”, but Jack, you have to keep your eyes open!

  114. Smokey says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    R. Gates says:
    “Falsifiy if you can, otherwise accept it, if you’re rational.”
    Falsified. And by the IPCC, no less. The human contribution to total CO2 is only about 3%. Another nail in the coffin of the CAGW conjecture.
    Sincerely yours,
    ~ Mr Rational
    _______
    Uh, Mr. Rational, you are confusing the total addition to the atmosphere for a short period versus the total CUMMULATIVE addition since the start of the industrial revolution. We’ve gone from 270-280 ppm to 390 ppm, and that difference is the cummulative addition from human caused activities.

  115. “and since the climate is a chaotic system, the smallest of factors, so I’m told, could take the system out of equalibrium and create unforseen and unpredictable effects”
    Gates, since the fact is that the climate is extremely chaotic, that just will not happen.
    No one knows how or why, if we did, we would be able to predict future climate, which we most certainly can not.
    Everything else is just a bunch of paranoid hand wringing…………

  116. “We’ve gone from 270-280 ppm to 390 ppm, and that difference is the cummulative addition from human caused activities.”
    Gates, here you go again…
    Using parts per million, tons, billions of tons, sure does sound impressive and scary, doesn’t it?
    But ‘climate’ does not care how many ppm’s, tons, pounds, jar fulls……..
    Climate only cares about the percentage, and the percentage is so small even you couldn’t find it.

  117. Bad reading comprehension as usual, Gates. But I understand how cognitive dissonance works: you see what you want to see, even when it’s not there. Fortunately, skeptics are largely immune from CD because we simply ask questions, such as: do you have any testable, empirical evidence showing how much warming, if any, is attributable to human CO2 emissions?
    Well? Do you? If so, you will be the first one to show real world evidence. That will also settle the climate sensitivity question, and put you on the short list for the now worthless Nobel prize.
    I had referred specifically to the IPCC’s stated figures, nothing more. Their figures show that for every 34 molecules of CO2 emitted in total every year, *one* molecule is of human origin [actually, less than one]. If you want to discuss CUMMULATIVE [sic] additions instead, fine. I might even agree, even though that hypothesis is still being debated by others.
    Finally, your constant carping about what we have to do to save the world loses sight of the fact that the rest of the world’s countries are not going to hobble their own economies in order to keep the U.S. eco-wacko contingent happy. Here’s the proof.
    Unless all countries agree to reduce CO2 equally, then it makes no sense for the U.S. to commit national suicide over a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects. The people who propose that are from the ranks of the insane.
    The insiders like John Kerry who are pushing Cap & Trade are lying through their teeth. They want C&T for the immense transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens into the government’s pockets. They certainly know, as we scientific skeptics do, that if the U.S. unilaterally reduces CO2, it will make no noticeable difference.
    The problem is the crowd of deluded folks who believe we should drastically reduce our standard of living in order to slow emissions of a completely harmless trace gas, when the rest of the world will not go along.
    Happy 4th of July.

  118. latitude says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    “No one knows how or why, if we did, we would be able to predict future climate, which we most certainly can not.”
    VILLABOLO:
    I think that statement is more psychologically based than factually or logically based.
    There are many disciplines dealing with chaotic elements that do pretty well in figuring some things outs. It seems that some do not want to acknowledge that Climate can be, within reason, predicted well enough to reach certain conclusions.

  119. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    “Uh, Mr. Rational, you are confusing the total addition to the atmosphere for a short period versus the total CUMMULATIVE addition since the start of the industrial revolution. We’ve gone from 270-280 ppm to 390 ppm, and that difference is the cummulative addition from human caused activities.”
    It’s a change. Therefore, according to you, it is anthropogenic, all 100 percent of it. Can you provide a citation that will back up that unsubstantiated assertion?

  120. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    “[…]I think that statement is more psychologically based than factually or logically based.
    There are many disciplines dealing with chaotic elements that do pretty well in figuring some things outs. It seems that some do not want to acknowledge that Climate can be, within reason, predicted well enough to reach certain conclusions”
    I think that statement is more psychologically based than factually or logically based.
    There are many disciplines dealing with chaotic elements that do pretty well in figuring some things outs. It seems that some do not want to acknowledge that the current breed of Climate models fall short in this respect.

  121. latitude says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    “and since the climate is a chaotic system, the smallest of factors, so I’m told, could take the system out of equalibrium and create unforseen and unpredictable effects”
    Gates, since the fact is that the climate is extremely chaotic, that just will not happen.
    No one knows how or why, if we did, we would be able to predict future climate, which we most certainly can not.
    Everything else is just a bunch of paranoid hand wringing…………
    ___________
    I think you are confusing chaotic with random. Chaotic systems seek equalibrium or an attractor, and while they are dynamic, they don’t behave in random ways. Everything that happens to the climate happens for a very specifc large set of reasons, i.e. they are deterministic (unless you believe in magic). But most salient to the AGW discussion is how sensitive is the climate to the additional forcings from human created green house gases– that is, how much will it change for a given input. Because the climate is chaotic, it means there is some unpredictable and deterministic point (but not random) at which the climate will jump to seek a new equalibrium point. I’ve seen many posts looking at CO2 increase from a completely linear perspective. This is simply not accurate. The recent (2000) beginnings of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (completely unpredictable and chaotic) is good example. This positive feedback event seems to be increasing the temperatures and wind patterns in the Arctic. AGW models did not predict it, but that doesn’t mean that it is not related to AGW, and if fact, in retrospect, most likely is. Chaotic systems behave in non-linear ways, jumping unpredictably, but deterministicly to new states. It is possible that other surprizes are ahead.

  122. “Climate can be, within reason, predicted well enough to reach certain conclusions.”
    Villa, what makes you say or think that when none of the big boys have gotten it right yet? What is actually amazing about it, is that they continue to make fools of themselves by making predictions. Seems that they would have all learned that lesson already.
    This one we will have to disagree on. Predictions on chaotic systems are nothing more than a guess – coin toss. Getting one guess correct out of two guesses is just the odds.

  123. Sorry Dirk! the sugar rush from eating Oreos got me again!
    I apologize, I didn’t go up far enough to see your name….
    ….I’m going for milk now

  124. Smokey said: (to R. Gates)
    “Finally, your constant carping about what we have to do to save the world…”
    ________________
    Please give me one single post that I made here on WUWT about what we have to do to save the world. Just one…
    You are confusing a believer in AGW theory with an “alarmist” or one of the other pet names AGW skeptics have for those who think it likely that AGW theory is correct. Or perhaps you’re not confusing anything, but would simply like to lump me into some convenient category to minimize your own cognitive dissonance so as to prevent you from coming to terms that there can be those who know the science well enough and believe AGW is likely occurring, but aren’t wild-eyed “alarmists” or doom-sayers.

  125. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    “[…]
    VILLABOLO REPEATS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/25/the-trend/#comment-418293
    “Just ask and ye shall receive”, but Jack, you have to keep your eyes open!

    Methanocalypse Now! Hey, Villabolo, you’re a full-blown catastrophist. Simple question to you: Why has there been no warming in the past 10 years when the methane release is already happening?

  126. Smokey says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    “Unless all countries agree to reduce CO2 equally, then it makes no sense for the U.S. to commit national suicide over a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects. The people who propose that are from the ranks of the insane.”
    VILLABOLO:
    How sane is the idea of increasing 20 times the amount of CO2 in our present Earth? How sane is it to make judgments about the ancient Earth when you have not learned the most basic facts about the extreme geologic past?
    You know, like the fact that our SUN WAS COLDER REQUIRING THAT WE HAVE MORE CO2 TO MAINTAIN TEMPERATURES AT OUR CURRENT LEVELS OR EVEN WARMER!
    You are comparing apples and coconuts when you make such frivolous parallels between Ancient Earth and Modern Earth.
    Also, the fact that you hold on to the TRACE GAS argument shows an ignorance of an elemental part of Nature that we all should understand. It’s not how large in size or quantity something is, but how POTENT it is relative to an equal proportion of something else.
    The commonly used example is that of poison. It comes in a wide range of lethal dose per gram, milligram or microgram. Who would be foolish enough to believe that a Neurotoxin cannot have a harmful effect because it is so tiny a dose by his reckoning?
    The beneficiality of something, within a certain situation, is irrelevant. It should be common sense to realize that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
    For example, take that other gas, Oxygen. Let’s start with the obvious according to your view. Oxygen is good for animals therefore more is better. OK, just double its percentage in the Atmosphere and you will get a situation where everything flammable on Earth will burn down in short order.

  127. DirkH says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    “There are many disciplines dealing with chaotic elements that do pretty well in figuring some things outs. It seems that some do not want to acknowledge that the current breed of Climate models fall short in this respect.”
    VILLABOLO:
    Many Climate models have indeed fallen short. I’m referring to the estimates of when Arctic Ice Cap would be ice free during the Summer. It was not due to “chaotic” elements but to the simple fact that the Climatologists were not able to take every factor of Global Warming into account.
    Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted. I have a feeling that is not the type of model failure that you would like to emphasize.

  128. Smokey said:

    The problem is the crowd of deluded folks who believe we should drastically reduce our standard of living in order to slow emissions of a completely harmless trace gas, when the rest of the world will not go along.

    The problem is those, like Al Gore, who believe that some of us should reduce our standard of living so they can continue to live the high life.

  129. R. Gates says: July 4, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    “If take the intergral of the anomaly of global sea ice (plot the the area below or above the line) since 2001 you’ll see there is indeed a negative global anomaly. The reason for this is simple– Arctic sea ice has had a larger and more continual negative anomaly than the Antarctic has had a positive one. So before you say there is no trend in Global Sea ice, study the charts.”
    It looks to me that there has been a slight uptrend in the last several years, after a slight down trend that preceded it. In terms of the overall trend, maybe a very slight downtrend (possibly related to the warm phase of the PDO or continued recovery from the Little Ice Age), but it’s certainly not indicative of alarmingly catastrophic runaway global warming…

  130. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    “[…]Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted. I have a feeling that is not the type of model failure that you would like to emphasize.[…]”
    I’m not unfair, i won’t expect GCM’s with a raster width of 100 miles to model local circumstances like how much ice is pushed out of the Bering strait. The Arctic melts partially each year, then it freezes again, who cares, no, let’s concentrate on “global warming” for the moment, that’s where the models at least have no principal problems with their coarse resolution, right?
    You’re a methane-head so let’s take this from the wikipedia:
    “NewScientist states that “Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought.”[19]”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
    Ok.
    ^ Pearce, Fred (28 March 09). “arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity”. newscientist. Reed Business Information. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity.html?full=true. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
    “I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”
    Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. “Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It’s unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing.” […]

    So that was written in 2009, the Methane is blubbering out there like crazy. Shouldn’t we feel the effects of a mightily enhanced greenhouse effect already? Like, some warmth, maybe?
    Why is all that we see an ordinary El Ninjo? Where is all the heat retained by the thick blanket of CO2 and methane?

  131. Mr Grant, let me join the list of questionsers
    One piece of hard evidence that any current warming is not caused by natural variation.
    If it is then one piece of credible evidence to show that it will result in catastrophe rather thean the very gentle and beneficial effects we are seeing now given that there is no evidence of positive feedback now or in history.
    What would be the benefit for the Western economies to commit economic suicide by reducing CO2 emissions when their competitors will quite rightly have no part of it?

  132. Curious Yellow says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    Just The Facts says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    R. Gates says: July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm………
    villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am ……….
    Just The Facts says:
    July 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    How about an answer to the question you dodged last thread, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.
    The land-locked arctic ice is different because unlike Antarctica it can build multi-year ice. As to your question which is a more accurate proxy for the earth’s temperature, I’ll answer that it is the Northern hemisphere arctic region. That is in the short to medium term; for as long as the winter vortex of Antarctica blows. In short, the Arctic responds fast, as you can witness, and Antarctica will follow more slowly. In the neantime the Arctic sea ice will have become seasonal.

    Well, no, they did no such thing. Not at all did they.
    Rather, what both of them have done is push yet MORE ‘CAGW’ propaganda.
    So, DO TELL us –once again– how it is that CO2 causes anything, save for the burp upon being consumed?
    You know: It’s trapped in the ice, the water, and in the air above both, and yet there’s no temperature increase in any of those.
    Once again: IF CO2 is supposed to be any kind of agent of so-called ‘CAGW,’ then PUH-LEEZE inform the rest of us why the ice doesn’t melt and flash into a steaming hot vapor upon being exposed to Sunlight?
    Why isn’t the water ROILING, and why isn’t the air verily flooded with hot, steaming vapors?
    You’ll be ‘splain’n that, won’t you? Real soon now, right? Because to date, you have not.

  133. “Therefore the Arctic was melting faster than predicted.”
    Villa, the models do not have a clue what they are predicting. If the Arctic was melting faster, or slower, the models being right is just a coin toss. A 50/50 chance of being right.
    With the claims that are being made based on these computer programs, models, I would think they would be claiming in the high 90% right on their computer games.
    Gates, I’m not confused about anything. The climate is too extremely chaotic for “the smallest of factors” as you put it, to take the system out of equilibrium.
    The more chaotic a system is, the less it is effected by small changes. A chaotic system has to deal with too many small changes of it’s own all the time. It take a major whack to adjust an extremely chaotic system.

  134. Relax, Villabolo, no need to SHOUT. Emotion blocks knowledge uptake, didn’t you know that?
    OK, first, there is no possibility of CO2 rising to twenty times current levels. Or ten times, or six times, or four times. None. Too much has been sequestered. It’s very doubtful that CO2 can even double from current levels. Besides, most of the warming effect has already happened.
    And your faint Sun argument is destroyed by this chart, showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature. A rise in CO2 doesn’t cause a measurable rise in temperature. Rather, a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2. Didn’t you know that?
    And if CO2 is so “potent,” it seems to need some Viagra. It really gets way more respect than it is entitled to.
    Next, look at this chart, and compare the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O [and methane, for that matter]. You will see that water vapor has a much greater “greenhouse” effect than puny little carbon dioxide. And water vapor comprises up to 4% of the troposphere, while CO2 is only 0.00039 of the entire atmosphere. But water vapor can’t be regulated and taxed. CO2, on the other hand, is very easy to regulate and tax.
    Equating CO2 with poison is one of the more recent alarmist arguments. But it fails badly. My boy spent 6 years on the Helena [SSN-725, a nuclear attack submarine]. The U.S. Navy allows CO2 concentrations up to 5,000 ppmv for extended periods; months. So at 390 ppmv, or even double or triple that, no one but plants would even be able to tell the difference. And there is not enough fossil fuel available to even double atmospheric CO2 from current levels.
    CO2 is no more a poison than H2O. Both can kill in sufficient amounts; you can drown in six inches of water. But at the levels we’re discussing, bringing up the ‘poison’ argument only means that’s the best one you’ve got.
    So to recap: CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas that has been demonized in order to transfer wealth on a scale that would be totally resisted if it were a proposed tax. That is the central purpose of the CO2 scare: to separate the citizens from a large chunk of their earnings by making everything across the board much more expensive — with the government collecting the difference, while insisting it’s not really a consumption tax.
    It’s just sad that so many gullible folks are taken in by the scare tactics, and still believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that a minor trace gas can cause a climate catastrophe.
    But if they had told us that doubling CO2 from here might lead to only another 0.6° or 0.7° of warmth, the populace wouldn’t be nearly alarmed enough to go along with the immense cost of Cap & Trade. So their scare stories ratchet up and up, endlessly repeated by people who should know better.

  135. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
    This graph:
    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
    Do you think for 1 second that IF ALL the ice melted in the Arctic in September I would switch over to the Warming side? The answer is NO because I have seen plenty of evidence that shows drastic Arctic sea ice melt in the past as well as swings in fears of warming and cooling over 150+ years. I don’t want to waste moderators’ time by re-posting info again and again and again…
    Show me 1 piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates that man-made co2 was responsible for MOST of the warming in the last 3 decades of the 20th century. Melting Arctic ice is not evidence, it has happened MANY time before!!! Sheesh!

  136. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
    This graph:
    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
    By the way the graph you provided includes something very contentious indeed: future projections / predictions / scenarios [take your pick, I don’t care].
    Have you ever thought about how ‘strong’ c02 forcing really is? Within the past year we have some good news:
    “Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
    “Temperature and CO2 feedback ‘weaker than thought'”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483722.stm
    “Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

  137. Smokey: “But I understand how cognitive dissonance works: you see what you want to see, even when it’s not there.”
    I think you mean cognitive bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
    Are climate sceptics “largely immune” from cognitive bias? Not on the evidence. See these comments from the recent Spanish “bomb threat” story.
    “Calzada messed with the Family, and if he keeps it up, he gets to swim wit’ da fishes. Capice?”
    “And then they wonder why scientist not swallowing the AGW scam are not coming out in the light… those are still dangerous times to speak out, it seams.”
    “Blacklists,bombthreats,these are acts of terror and not a peep from MSM !!”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-%e2%80%a6-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/#more-21015
    A number of WUWT posters were suitably sceptical of this story. But by no means all. So at least some climate sceptics are susceptible to cognitive bias. What proportion? Hard to say, but I doubt that a general claim of “largely immune” is supported by the evidence. And of course our susceptibility to cognitive bias depends very much on the subject in question.
    REPLY: Maybe you could write a paper judging the published skepticism of …oh wait… that’s been done. -A

  138. Smokey says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    @ RGates
    “Bad reading comprehension as usual, Gates. But I understand how cognitive dissonance works: you see what you want to see, even when it’s not there. Fortunately, skeptics are largely immune from CD because we simply ask questions, such as: do you have any testable, empirical evidence showing how much warming, if any, is attributable to human CO2 emissions?”
    “Well? Do you? If so, you will be the first one to show real world evidence. That will also settle the climate sensitivity question, and put you on the short list for the now worthless Nobel prize.”
    ==============================
    He won’t present the real-world evidence…because he can’t. There is none.
    Plus, his incessant use of the term “AGW models” rather than “General Circulation Models” shows that he simply knows some things, but in the long run, hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.
    As I said before…”A little knowledge….in the mind of someone who thinks he knows much…is a dangerous thing.”
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  139. Jimbo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    @ R. Gates
    “Show me 1 piece of evidence that clearly demonstrates that man-made co2 was responsible for MOST of the warming in the last 3 decades of the 20th century. Melting Arctic ice is not evidence, it has happened MANY time before!!! Sheesh!”
    =============================
    Exactly!

  140. latitude says:
    July 4, 2010 at 5:58 pm
    “Gates, I’m not confused about anything. The climate is too extremely chaotic for “the smallest of factors” as you put it, to take the system out of equilibrium.
    The more chaotic a system is, the less it is effected by small changes. A chaotic system has to deal with too many small changes of it’s own all the time. It take a major whack to adjust an extremely chaotic system.
    ______
    I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.

  141. DirkH says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    “Methanocalypse Now! Hey, Villabolo, you’re a full-blown catastrophist. Simple question to you: Why has there been no warming in the past 10 years when the methane release is already happening?”
    VILLABOLO:
    First, Dirk, why did you respond to the “Secondary Effects” of the Arctic Sea being ice free when the “Primary Effects” are predicted to be much closer in time and based on simple laws of physics? You know, warmer water evaporates more; more evaporation leads to more intense rain activity; more warmth leads to altered weather systems etc..
    Furthermore what does it matter whether you or I believe that it’s AGW, NGW or whatever, that is causing it when it’s obvious that it’s happening, happening quick, and that the Corn in Kansas is not going to be too happy about it.
    It’s like worrying whether Martians or natural Cosmic forces sent a small asteroid our way. Don’t you think that preparing for it is a far more fruitful endeavor?
    As far as Methane is concerned, oh, never mind! Methane being a greenhouse gas that
    –oh, whatever! I forgot that the Principles of Nature are being rewritten by the Gods themselves. What’ the name of one of them? Lord . . ., Lord . . ., Lord something or other.
    Tell me, Dirk, what will punishment in school be like in a Skeptic world? I can see little Timmy, in the library, hunched over a piece of paper. In it you see written over and over and over again:
    Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
    There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
    Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
    There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
    Methane is not a Greenhouse Gas.
    There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Gas.
    Now for the simple (minded) question you posed about Methane not contributing to Earth’s warmth which you state has not gone up in the past 10 years. First the temperatures have gone up in the past 30 years, starting in 1995 with the La Ninas and 1998 with the El Ninos. What’s more, this year, 2010, has had the hottest Jan through May records. But don’t take my word for it, just check Roy Spencer’s reproduction of Nasa’s UAH Satellite Temperature Chart. It’s right at the top of one of this site’s posts: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/june-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-44-deg-c/
    Simply because simple minded people expect hyper gradual increase on a yearly basis doesn’t mean that reality has to oblige. The are plenty of Stops and Goes and Roller Coaster fluctuations in the SHORT TERM.
    As I explained, in a previous post, the Earth would have to be an artificial planet made smooth as a bowling ball with lakes and oceans in exact geometric shapes and spaced equally apart. Only in such an artificially smooth world would you have an artificially smooth temperature rise.
    Finally, as for your implication that Methane is not increasing the heat of our Earth that only shows a combination of ignorance and lack of deductive abilities with arrogance as the foundation.
    When have YOU figured out the amounts of Methane and it’s heat insulating capacities? So far it’s not that much. What is worrisome is the fact that it is beginning to exponentiate, that is increasing more out of proportion to the previous years. This obviously implies that it will become a problem in years to come.

  142. Richard Sharpe says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    The problem is those, like Al Gore, who believe that some of us should reduce our standard of living so they can continue to live the high life.
    VILLABOLO:
    Tell that to Hex-Onmobil and the Kock Sisters who have spent 10s of millions in propaganda to maintain their Plutocracy. Yes, go ahead and hallucinate make believe conspiracies and money making schemes while being blind to the sight of your masters.

  143. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    It’s like worrying whether Martians or natural Cosmic forces sent a small asteroid our way.
    ==========================================
    NO.
    [And lets leave the “Martians” out of this]
    Its like….um…..questioning whether or not the “small asteroid our way” is even real at all….since it has only been modeled….and not observed.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  144. R Gates says
    I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.
    Coals asks: Isn’t the classic dictum of the chaos theory a declaration of sensitive dependence on initial conditions? That is, the first breath of air from the butterfly wing is important. I don’t think it postulates that after the hurricane gets roaring and the chaos is in full flower that the butterfly updraft has any effect. Just asking, because the climate surely is well established as a chaotic system is it not with multiple feedbacks that tend to keep the chaos within certain limits regardless of how many or how few butterflies flap their tiny wings? Just substitute C02 for “butterfly” if you want. I guess I need a lesson in chaos theory.

  145. DirkH says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:54 pm
    “So that was written in 2009, the Methane is blubbering out there like crazy. Shouldn’t we feel the effects of a mightily enhanced greenhouse effect already? Like, some warmth, maybe?”
    villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    When have YOU figured out the amounts of Methane and it’s heat insulating capacities? So far it’s not that much. What is worrisome is the fact that it is beginning to exponentiate, that is increasing more out of proportion to the previous years. This obviously implies that it will become a problem in years to come.

  146. savethesharks says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    Its like….um…..questioning whether or not the “small asteroid our way” is even real at all….since it has only been modeled….and not observed.
    VILLABOLO:
    The extensive and consistent thinning of the Arctic Ice Cap is a model? As opposed to something that has been observed?

  147. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    Finally, as for your implication that Methane is not increasing the heat of our Earth that only shows a combination of ignorance and lack of deductive abilities with arrogance as the foundation.
    I would refer you to this work
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
    The authors used spectral analysis of downward longwave radiation at the surface to attempt to quantify the contribution of of the various atmospheric component gases to the “greenhouse effect”. Given the data they gathered, their conclusions seem fairly overwrought, but wrt your comments on methane the data are quite interesting. Neither the predictive model they used to construct a historical record for comparison purposes nor their actual observations indicate that methane ever produces even 1% of DLR at the surface. The data also suggest that when DLR from H2O exceeds 200W/m2, as it does over most of the globe most of the time, the contribution of the nonH2O GHGs is dramatically suppressed, though that suppression is much more evident for CO2 than for CH4.

  148. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    The extensive and consistent thinning of the Arctic Ice Cap is a model? As opposed to something that has been observed?
    ====================================
    So what?? Is the sky falling?
    Big f-ing deal.
    I believe you know exactly what I am referring to in your little asteroid analogy.
    Cheer up. There is no bl**dy asteroid.
    The Arctic Ocean opens up every now and then. The Earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.
    The Arctic has probably done this a few [many] times before. Mother Earth ain’t worried.
    Its only our relatively young hand-wringing chicken little amygdala-driven species, that is.
    Fight or flight. Fight or flight. Fight or flight.
    Wring wring. Sweat sweat. Pant pant.
    What do I do??
    The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  149. Dave Wendt
    Isn’t it more realistic instead of looking at downward radiation at the surface to look at the radiation balance to and from space to see what the real forcing and feedbacks are?
    I’ve just read Dr Rooy Spencer’s book on this and it seems to be a sensible way of looking at it?

  150. Coalsoffire says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    R Gates says
    I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.
    Coals asks: Isn’t the classic dictum of the chaos theory a declaration of sensitive dependence on initial conditions? That is, the first breath of air from the butterfly wing is important. I don’t think it postulates that after the hurricane gets roaring and the chaos is in full flower that the butterfly updraft has any effect. Just asking, because the climate surely is well established as a chaotic system is it not with multiple feedbacks that tend to keep the chaos within certain limits regardless of how many or how few butterflies flap their tiny wings? Just substitute C02 for “butterfly” if you want. I guess I need a lesson in chaos theory
    _________________
    I could use more than a few lessons myself. It is as complex field with many implications and special applications. However, in regard to chaotic systems, CO2, and increases in the atmosphere over the past few hundred years, there are a few things to keep in mind:
    1) I’m not so sure the “butterfly effect” is all that appropriate when applied to CO2, but it could be roughly so if you allow that each flap takes decades (i.e. CO2 has been building up slowly since the beginning of the industrial revolution). Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 averaged about 280 ppm for the past 10,000 years or so. So the rise to 390 ppm could be seen as a few hundred flaps (i.e. years) that the butterflys wings have been flapping.
    2) The big issue is how sensitive is the climate to the flapping wings. Chaos theory is about unpredictable but deterministic systems– systems that can change rapidly with a nudge in the right direction. These rapid changes create a whole new “attractor” or state of equalibrium which become self-reinforcing through positive feedback. These are not random changes (chaos theory is not about randomness) but again, they are unpredictable– hence, for example, no climate model predicted the advent of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, yet, it is having a significant affect on the Arctic, and may be one of the reasons that perhaps we’ll see an ice free Arctic far sooner than climate models forecasted we would before the DA occurred. I think the Artic Dipole Anomaly could be one of those unpredictable yet deterministic effects of the flapping of the CO2 butterfly’s wings. And keep in mind, the wings are still flapping, (CO2 is still rising) so other unpredictable effects, and new attractors are probably “out there” someone, waiting for the right nudge to send the system toward them.
    For your own research on Chaos and climate, I really like this link as a good general starting point:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm

  151. savethesharks says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    Nothing in particular that has any relevance to the specific facts that have been mentioned. Not any one of you have responded to the dynamics of how the weather would change as the Arctic Ice Cap melts and exposes more open water.
    All one hears is meaningless ridicule about the sky falling and other nonsense. There isn’t even a response, meaningless or not, directed towards the statement savethesharks quoted from me.
    You could tell yourself what the big deal is going to be when the Arctic does open. As for its opening in the past (though not in the historical past many here assume), to that I DO DECLARE, BIG DEAL!
    You have been told over and over again that AGW is happening far faster than NGW. It has been emphasized how this will create a situation where this civilization will not be able to adapt. Yet you make mindless mention of Nature, that I suspect many people don’t even care about in the first place, as if this decrepit, Rube Goldbergian civilization we live in could withstand a fraction of what Nature has taken.
    So let’s see if any of you have the guts to respond to the SPECIFICS of the issues that have been brought up. At least have the spherical, testicular flesh to say something like:
    1) No, Villabolo, open blue water will not change the rate of evaporation because . . . (insert voodoo physics of your choice here)
    2) It doesn’t matter how many will die during a massive phase transition in the Northern Hemisphere’s weather because, I’m a Misanthrope.
    3) The Rapture is coming! The Rapture is coming!! Why fix your house when it’s going to be demolished!!!

  152. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    “[…]You have been told over and over again that AGW is happening far faster than NGW. It has been emphasized how this will create a situation where this civilization will not be able to adapt. Yet you make mindless mention of Nature, that I suspect many people don’t even care about in the first place, as if this decrepit, Rube Goldbergian civilization we live in could withstand a fraction of what Nature has taken.
    […]”
    We have been told again and again, but so far, it doesn’t seem to happen, so the people who told us must be wrong, sick or dense.
    “So let’s see if any of you have the guts to respond to the SPECIFICS of the issues that have been brought up. At least have the spherical, testicular flesh to say something like:”
    VILLABOLO, spherical, testicular flesh? Maybe you stem from a different culture than i so i won’t comment on that.
    “1) No, Villabolo, open blue water will not change the rate of evaporation because . . . (insert voodoo physics of your choice here)”
    Why should it matter.
    “2) It doesn’t matter how many will die during a massive phase transition in the Northern Hemisphere’s weather because, I’m a Misanthrope.”
    People die and people will continue to die, but this will not be a reason.
    “3) The Rapture is coming! The Rapture is coming!! Why fix your house when it’s going to be demolished!!!”
    That’s your words, Villabolo.
    Thanks for this insight into your mind.

  153. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    “[…]
    VILLABOLO:
    Tell that to Hex-Onmobil and the Kock Sisters who have spent 10s of millions in propaganda to maintain their Plutocracy. Yes, go ahead and hallucinate make believe conspiracies and money making schemes while being blind to the sight of your masters.”
    That cuts both ways, Villabolo.

  154. Dave Springer says:
    July 4, 2010 at 5:15 am
    “The earth’s surface temperature fluctuates slightly as the PDO, ENSO, and AMDO bring more or less of the vast cold deep of the world’s oceans to the surface. The PDO has been in its warm phase for the last 30 years and it appears to have shifted into its cold phase right on schedule. That’s the entire basis for the so-called anthropogenic global warming.
    The gloom & doom control freaks have 30 years at a stretch to work up a good panic about catastrophic global warming or cooling. Nice try this time but no cigar. Time to change over to global cooling.”
    Here it comes:
    “The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.”
    http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting2010.html

  155. Martin Mason says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    Dave Wendt
    Isn’t it more realistic instead of looking at downward radiation at the surface to look at the radiation balance to and from space to see what the real forcing and feedbacks are?
    Longwave radiation emitted from the surface and intercepted by GHGs and re-emitted toward the surface should not be significantly different from that re-emitted out to space, as the interactions are theoretically random. The few sources I’ve found that attempt this type of spectral breakdown for TOA data have used methods that are model based and not instrumental measurements. And while the ERBE and CERES data for the TOA energy balance may be the best we have, they really aren’t that great and at this point probably aren’t up to the task they’re trying to complete.
    I wouldn’t claim and do not think that E&P proves anything, but it does raise significant questions, in my mind at least, about the entire logic of the role of NonH2O GHGs in the climate and in this particular case about the potential for CH4 to create catastrophes without undergoing increases that are extremely unlikely in even the worst case scenarios. AFAIK, no one has done any work that contradicts their data, which I have always found interesting because one of my first thoughts when I came across this paper was “at last we have an experimental methodology to give us hard data on the contributions of he various atmospheric gases to the “greenhouse effect””.
    Since E&P did their experimental work more than a decade ago, I fully expected to be able to find numerous studies that expanded on their methodology, but in several years I’ve only come across one other, done at the South Pole. It’s almost as if the people doling out the grant money for climate studies don’t want to know what this technique could tell them.

  156. Dave Wendt says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    Martin Mason says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    Dave Wendt
    Isn’t it more realistic instead of looking at downward radiation at the surface to look at the radiation balance to and from space to see what the real forcing and feedbacks are?
    Longwave radiation emitted from the surface and intercepted by GHGs and re-emitted toward the surface should not be significantly different from that re-emitted out to space, as the interactions are theoretically random.
    Not necessarily.
    Longwave (IR) radiation within the very narrow window that interacts with CO2 can interact in 2 ways: (1) absorption resulting in heat energy deposition, or (2) scattering at a (presumably) randon angle.
    If all interactions are type 1 heat depositing, then CO2 absorbs all photons within about 10 m, and thus the saturation argument, CO2 cannot be a factor in atmosphere heat.
    However for longwave IR to penetrate a long distance through the atmosphere, most interactions must be of the scattering type, resulting in a diffusive movement of IR photons.
    In principle the direction of this “diffusive radiation” should indeed be random, EXCEPT for one factor: the exponential reduction with height in air density.
    An analogy: a one-celled animal – the paramecium – swimming in a pond homes in on food items in the following way: if it “smells” in the water an increasing food concentration, it reduced the number of times it changes direction (randomly) and if the food smell gets weaker, it increases the frequency of (random) direction changes. The result of this is, on statistical average, swimming toward higher food concentration and finding the source of the food smell.
    So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.

  157. “”R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm
    I don’t know what an “extremely chaotic” system is, but Chaos theory does indeed say that the smallest of “whacks” can send a system into a whole new arrangement, seeking a new attractor or state of equalibrium. A big whack simply destroys the system entirely and that’s not what we’re talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.””
    Well at least you got the last part right.
    It’s NOT what we are talking about with CO2 and earth’s climate.
    Our planet has had major catastrophic events that obviously have not ‘destroyed the system’. Each time the climate has re-set and gone back to it’s “normal” whatever that is, we don’t know.
    Chaos and chaotic are just words we use to describe something we don’t understand.
    Obviously if we understood it, it would no longer seem chaotic to us.
    Major events have not ‘destroyed the system’, the ‘system’ has dealt with many times higher CO2, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, ice ages, heat waves, etc etc and each time the system was not destroyed, the system went back to where it was…
    A sensible person would realize that after all of those major events did not “whack” the system, the extremely small percentage of CO2 would obviously have little effect……..
    ….and it all looks chaotic to us simply because we don’t have a clue how it works
    Until we understand how it works, all of these computer games mean nothing, have absolutely no accuracy, and are just mind fodder for the paranoid.

  158. Just The Facts says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Curious Yellow says: July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    You’ve just proven it false.
    If you don’t realise this, I won’t bother try preaching to the converted.
    This blog is losing the arguments about the arctic, the writing is on the wall and now there is an attempt to switch attention to the Antarctic. Already voices are raised about the arctic having melted before. A reality check? Is that the fall-back position?
    Well, the Antarctic will buy you some time. like your life time?

  159. Jimbo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
    Curious Yellow says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    I am not inferring anything of the kind. Global warming does not mean that every inch of the world will warm, some places may be colder. The dynamics of the arctic and Antarctica are very different and this fact is very well explained by a number of posts. Warmer air temperatures may not affect Antarctica within the vortex but the GRACE satelites through gravity measurements, show that Antarctica is losing ice mass from melting below and glacial flow. Sea ice growing in winter and melting in summer are relatively irrelevant to the land based ice. The ice shelves are of more concern though.

  160. Jantar says:
    July 4, 2010 at 4:44 am
    Curious Yellow says:
    “R.Gates and villabolo provided all the information you need. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal ice, e.i. 1 year ice that accumulates in winter melts in summer. Can we always determine the the actual melt potential for Antarctic sea ice? No. There will be seasons when all the sea ice has melted before the melt season ends, so it could have melted more.”
    This is news to me. Are you sure that there are seasons where “all the ice melts”? When was the last time that the Ross Ice Shelf melted completely as I seem to have missed it?
    ——————
    Stay real, the Ross Ice Shelf is not part of the seasonal sea ice. Just look at historical minimum Antarctic sea ice charts. Remember Larssen A and B 1995? From ice shelf they’ve mostly turned into seasonal ice. The Larssen A shelf was about 4000 years old and the B shelf about 12000. The ice was some 220 metres thick. Would you call that seasonal sea ice? Perhaps the Ross ice shelf, the size of France, several hundreds of metres thick. Yes, you missed a non-event, keep waiting.

  161. Jimbo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
    Curious Yellow says:
    July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    So you are stating on the record that IF Arctic sea ice continues its recovery of September 2008 and 2009 over 2007 then the Earth is cooling? On the basis of you post do you agree that 2008 and 2009 were cooler years than 2007?
    I am not putting words into your mouth, as I would like you to either clarify for me or answer my 2 questions.
    —————–
    No the earth is not cooling, the twelve warmest years occurred in the last 14 years. The exceptions were 1995 and 1997. Slightly less warming one year is not cooling unless you are splitting hairs. It’s the trend, and 2010 is shaping up to set a new record. So your question is a moot one? You will see fluctuations between years but if the overall trend is warmer, is there any point in identifying if one year was a little less warm than another? It doesn’t prove a thing, most certainly the claim of “global cooling”. When 2010 becomes the warmest year on record doesn’t that end the 2008/2009 “cooling” argument? Perhaps you can speculate, 2011 may be a little less warm than 2010, ad infinitum.

  162. Curious Yellow says:
    July 5, 2010 at 8:12 am
    No the earth is not cooling, the twelve warmest years occurred in the last 14 years. The exceptions were 1995 and 1997. Slightly less warming one year is not cooling unless you are splitting hairs. It’s the trend, and 2010 is shaping up to set a new record. So your question is a moot one? You will see fluctuations between years but if the overall trend is warmer, is there any point in identifying if one year was a little less warm than another? It doesn’t prove a thing, most certainly the claim of “global cooling”. When 2010 becomes the warmest year on record doesn’t that end the 2008/2009 “cooling” argument? Perhaps you can speculate, 2011 may be a little less warm than 2010, ad infinitum.
    =========================
    The past 14 years of the past 150 years of the “record”?
    And the earth is 4.6 BILLION years old.
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
    Calm down, Chicken Little (and the other chicken littles in this thread).
    And after this bubble of warmth works its way out of the atmosphere from this past Nino, you will see a major downturn in global temps.
    It has already begun….
    And, years from now, when you and the rest of us are struggling to get enough food because of crop failures, famine, and killing frosts, you will be reminded of the tomfoolery of the BILLIONS of taxpayer money that has been wasted on a silly little myth about runaway catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
    When those monies should have been spent on real environmental issues such as ocean and waterway pollution, shoring up coastlines like the Dutch have known for years, stopping overfishing, R&D for more “clean” energy, and last but not least and until then…..failsafe and environmentally safe oil drilling which is free of Big Oil special interest shortcuts and the SAME bl**dy special interests in our broken, shoddy, over-reaching, bureaucratic government.
    In other words, and on all counts, learning as a species, to live WITH nature….rather than against it.
    Yeah….you heard me right: In their current states, Big Oil, Big Government, and Big Science are all (in reality) very similar, and its time people start kicking in the legs of the behemoths and starting from scratch again.
    You chicken littles would really have a stronger argument if you focused on the foregoing REAL environmental concerns rather than focusing on your tired and used up tenets of your dying faith: The International Church of the CAGW.
    But I guess everyone needs a crutch for something to believe in!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  163. phlogiston
    I don’t think that IR scattering vs. absorption is correct. An IR photon is either absorbed or it isn’t. There’s no deflection. It it’s absorbed it’s quickly reemitted in a random direction. Thus CO2 acts as a layer of insulation slowing down the transport of heat from higher to lower temperatures in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It accomplishes this through absorbing IR photons coming from the direction of the higher temperature and reemitting them in a random direction. It doesn’t actually trap heat like a pane of glass in a greenhouse but rather simply slows down the transport like a layer of fiberglass insulation between wall panels.

  164. Curious Yellow says:
    July 5, 2010 at 7:09 am
    Just The Facts says:
    July 4, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Curious Yellow says: July 4, 2010 at 3:42 am
    You’ve just proven it false.
    If you don’t realise this, I won’t bother try preaching to the converted.
    This blog is losing the arguments about the arctic, the writing is on the wall and now there is an attempt to switch attention to the Antarctic. Already voices are raised about the arctic having melted before. A reality check? Is that the fall-back position?
    ***********************************************************************
    VILLABOLO: AMEN!

  165. johnh says:
    July 5, 2010 at 11:12 am
    “The current warming phase which is a rebound from the LIA is now stabilising before in the near future starting its drop, question is not
    ‘Is it caused by extra CO2 in the atmosphere ?’”
    VILLABOLO:
    Why a rebound from the Little Ice Age? Why not from the end of our last Ice Age or 2,000 years ago? This is an arbitrary statement.

  166. savethesharks says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
    [–SNIP–]
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
    Calm down, Chicken Little (and the other chicken littles in this thread).
    And after this bubble of warmth works its way out of the atmosphere from this past Nino, you will see a major downturn in global temps.
    It has already begun….
    And, years from now, when you and the rest of us are struggling to get enough food because of crop failures, famine, and killing frosts, you will be reminded of the tomfoolery of the BILLIONS of taxpayer money that has been wasted on a silly little myth about runaway catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
    [–SNIP–]
    ***********************************************************************
    VILLABOLO:
    And you call us Chicken Littles?

  167. phlogiston says:
    July 5, 2010 at 2:46 am
    “So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.”
    An interesting argument and comment. So interesting that I think you should repost it with the lads over at RC, with cc to all the folks on the Climategate email list. If you can get them to buy it, we can all get back to our lives and forget about this CAGW nonsense.

  168. GeoFlynx says:
    July 4, 2010 at 8:48 am
    [–snip–]
    Dave – Copernicus also “tweaked and twisted” his heliocentric model of the solar system nearly as much as the Ptolemaic model. Skeptics back then were quick to point this out and were quick to persecute those who would not place the Earth at the “center of all”. It was not until Kepler recognized that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular that the heliocentric theory gained popular acceptance. Global climate models are continuously being improved, but that does not mean that the underlying premise of AGW is incorrect, just like Copernicus.

    You proceed from the false premise that the so-called ‘AGW’ models are essentially correct when no such thing is true.
    Not one of them –NOT A SINGLE ONE– has produced a useful and decently accurate product worthy of being referred to as ‘accurately predictive.’
    Hell, they can’t even predict the weather a week in advance, much less months or years in advance.
    What you’re engaging in is making excuses for people who’ve made more excuses for themselves than than the worst sort of sociopath.
    Just as with the stock markets, the only people who KNOW what’s going to happen are the ones who MAKE things happen because they have insider knowledge of events long before they occur.
    I don’t know of anyone in the climate prediction business who’s got a unique inside knowledge of the future.
    Certainly there are those people who have whole teams of researchers perusing all of the past historical records, combing through those to glean whatever small and pertinent fact might be useful to posit a claim, but virtually none of them knows what the Sun is going to do on the morrow, nor what other effects –internal and external– might present themselves and complicate matters beyond the ken of any mere human.
    Therefor and therefore, what the ‘climate modelers’ are practicing is essentially the same thing as the alchemists of old: Divination, or the ‘reading of tea leaves.’
    Good luck with that!
    There is simply NO WAY that ANY climate model is going to foretell the future of climate, and that’s so for just this reason: Things change.
    A climate model might be useful for several months at best, but that model would have to take into consideration the ENTIRETY of every geophysical nuance of the world as we know it, which includes what’s happening outside the Earth as well as what’s happening here.
    So, until THAT happens, the ‘model’ business is a patent fraud.

  169. R. Gates says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:37 am
    Tom Jones says:
    July 4, 2010 at 11:12 am
    R. Gates says:
    If you took the intergral of global sea ice since 2001, the anomaly has gone to the negative side. So, back the analogy of a healthy wide receiver– the patient’s looking a bit sick.

    I don’t know of anything that happened then except for the aftermath of the 1998 El Nino. There would have been a very large slug of hot air sent to the Arctic, so that might be the cause. Can you suggest something else?
    ___________
    I can’t, but many others have suggested an idea… it’s called anthropogenic global warming, and since the climate is a chaotic system, the smallest of factors, so I’m told, could take the system out of equalibrium and create unforseen and unpredictable effects. These are NOT random, but are deterministic. Many would suggest that the downward trend in Arctic Sea ice extent is one of those effects, and the fact that even the bulk of GCM’s didn’t forsee the more rapid downturn in Arctic Sea ice that we’ve had the past 10 years, shows the chaotic nature of the effects–unpredictable but quite deterministic.
    So then –and according to yourself– the Earth itself could never possibly contribute to its own heat?
    Nothing volcanic, nothing produced by the massive natural deserts, nothing at all in the way of the oceanic expanses which might cause in any way, manner, fashion, shape, or form a change in the energy values associated with either warming, or cooling?
    And you’ve still not gotten back on how it is that what with all that CO2 locked into to matrix of the ice –both north and south– and the CO2 captured by the oceans, and verily floating above both in the atmosphere, that the ice isn’t changing into a bubbling, roiling mass of fiery hot water, that the waters themselves haven’t flashed into a steaming hot cauldron, and the atmosphere hasn’t turned into a seething expanse of hellishness every time the Sun shines …
    You’ll be talking about that, won’t you?

  170. villabolo says:
    July 5, 2010 at 11:50 am
    And you call us Chicken Littles?
    ================================
    Correct. I do.

  171. VILLABOLO:
    Why a rebound from the Little Ice Age? Why not from the end of our last Ice Age or 2,000 years ago? This is an arbitrary statement.
    And your point is ?
    I notice you have no comment on the link I posted, a peer reviewed scientific study that refutes AGW, that would be much more interesting than a silly statement like above.

  172. Dave Wendt says:
    July 5, 2010 at 11:56 am
    Thanks for the +ve feedback. I’m not sure how important it is to the AGW argument that IR “radiative diffusion” should be either isotropic or downward. The latter seems very unlikely for the reasons discussed. These are my thoughts from first principles, I would have to research the subject more deeply before coming to more general conclusions.

  173. Dave Springer says:
    July 5, 2010 at 10:20 am
    phlogiston
    I don’t think that IR scattering vs. absorption is correct. An IR photon is either absorbed or it isn’t. There’s no deflection. It it’s absorbed it’s quickly reemitted in a random direction. Thus CO2 acts as a layer of insulation slowing down the transport of heat from higher to lower temperatures in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It accomplishes this through absorbing IR photons coming from the direction of the higher temperature and reemitting them in a random direction. It doesn’t actually trap heat like a pane of glass in a greenhouse but rather simply slows down the transport like a layer of fiberglass insulation between wall panels.
    I’m sure that CO2 does slightly warm the atmosphere / climate. It cant not. Its a question of the significance. One can use the same argument that Leif Svalgaard uses about solar TSI – its changes are too small to affect climate (UNLESS an amplification mechanism can be found). The question of the pattern of IR photon radiative diffusion is also one of degree – however it seems clear to me that, in the open atmosphere >50% of IR propagation must be upward.
    The best way to look at the significance of CO2 to climate is look at the climate history over the whole earth’s history, e.g.
    http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
    and
    http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B9p_cojT-pflYzNhMTc3NzktMWYyOS00ZTRkLWI4YjgtNzgzY2JiOTNkZWNl&h
    Essentially, two things transformed climate, (a) big glaciations around 6-700 MYA and and the end Ordovician, combined with (contributory to) the evolution of land plants, generated soils (silicate weathering) which combined with the plants and trees themselves, retained more water at the land surface and sharply reduced global temperature by creating the hydrological cycle. At this point any influence on climate that CO2 might previously have had, was completely overwhelmed by the hydrological cycle and clouds. CAGW is only true on an arid bare rocky lifeless planet.

  174. villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Jack Simmons says:
    July 4, 2010 at 6:56 am
    Villabolo,
    When I ask why I should be concerned, I want real physical proof that all the bad things being predicted by computer models are, in fact, going to happen.
    Have they happened in the past? What happened to all the methane and positive feedbacks during the Medieval Warming Period, a period much warmer than today?
    Obviously, nothing too serious, because we are all still here, including the fauna of the far north.
    Computer models and conclusions drawn from same are not evidence. They are too susceptible to the biases and assumptions of the programmers. I could take the same models used in the models you refer to, make some adjustments to the parameters, and come up with a completely new set of projections. Nice quiet boring projections.
    Why don’t we all sit back for a few decades and see if the models are correct?
    We will find out. China, India, and others will do nothing to stop their production of CO2. Their scientists are telling them there is nothing to worry about.
    The CO2 is going to increase, like it or not. The grand experiment continues. We will see the effect of increased CO2 on world temperatures and the consequences.
    I am very sanguine about the relationship. See http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#CO2 montly since 1958
    Read the whole thing. Increases in CO2 do not lead to increases in world temperature. Obviously, something else is driving the climate.

  175. Jack Simmons says:
    July 6, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Or this http://tinyurl.com/29q9fzd
    How do you propose to say that there’s any degree of correlation, when in fact at several points along that graph, the temperature proceeds to seriously depart from any possible relatedness?
    The old saying ‘correlation does not equal causation’ fits there in spades.
    Oh, and there’s that other thing regarding the siting of the various weather stations.
    Was that factored into the graph to eliminate any and all possible siting biases? If not, then the graph is essentially meaningless.
    And finally, just how much of that temperature record was –ahem– ‘homogenized,’ to produce ‘likeable‘ results?

  176. 899 says:
    July 6, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Jack Simmons says:
    July 6, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Or this http://tinyurl.com/29q9fzd
    How do you propose to say that there’s any degree of correlation, when in fact at several points along that graph, the temperature proceeds to seriously depart from any possible relatedness?
    The old saying ‘correlation does not equal causation’ fits there in spades.

    899, that is the reason I pointed everyone to climate4you.
    The author assumes all the temperature datasets are what they claim to be; even those ‘massaged’ such as CRU and GISS. BTW, even with all the massaging, all the datasets pretty much follow each other in trend.
    He then shows how all the data sets demolish the notion CO2 increases are paralleled by temp increases. They don’t. Which is why I’m not worried about increasing CO2.
    As you properly observed, correlation is not necessarily causality. In this case, there is not even correlation.

  177. The temperature of the South Pole has been declining over the last half century. And the ice Mass Balance of Antarctica keeps increasing. So, what if some ice is breaking loose at the Penninsula? What do you expect with warming oceans and underwater volcanoes nearby!
    Meanwhile at the other pole, here’s something to ponder. The Arctic Sea Ice Thickness divided by it’s extent is equivalent to a film of ice with the thickness of a sheet of paper covering the area of about 4 football fields, oscillating with the seasons. With this thickness to area ratio the Arctic Ice Cap should disappear and re-appear often and chaotically, due to the smallest upset in conditions. It is obvious there is a powerful dynamic keeping this delicate film of ice intact.

  178. Jack Simmons says:
    July 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    899, that is the reason I pointed everyone to climate4you.
    The author assumes all the temperature datasets are what they claim to be; even those ‘massaged’ such as CRU and GISS. BTW, even with all the massaging, all the datasets pretty much follow each other in trend.
    He then shows how all the data sets demolish the notion CO2 increases are paralleled by temp increases. They don’t. Which is why I’m not worried about increasing CO2.
    As you properly observed, correlation is not necessarily causality. In this case, there is not even correlation.

    My apologies then, for my misunderstanding of your post.

  179. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    July 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    The temperature of the South Pole has been declining over the last half century. And the ice Mass Balance of Antarctica keeps increasing. So, what if some ice is breaking loose at the Penninsula? What do you expect with warming oceans and underwater volcanoes nearby!
    Meanwhile at the other pole, here’s something to ponder. The Arctic Sea Ice Thickness divided by it’s extent is equivalent to a film of ice with the thickness of a sheet of paper covering the area of about 4 football fields, oscillating with the seasons. With this thickness to area ratio the Arctic Ice Cap should disappear and re-appear often and chaotically, due to the smallest upset in conditions. It is obvious there is a powerful dynamic keeping this delicate film of ice intact.

    Oh, really now? Just “4 football fields” with the thickness of a sheet of paper?
    Enquiring minds would like to know: Precisely HOW THICK is that ‘sheet of paper’ of yours?
    Since a football field is 120 yards long and 160 feet wide, then 4 times that dimension equals: 480 yards by 640 feet, or 1440 by 640 feet.
    That’s akin to the flight deck surface of 4 modern U.S. Navy aircraft carriers …
    Do tell: May you present a picture of such a minuscule piece of ice in any satellite data from any modern period?
    And one other thing: Aren’t you forgetting that the thickness of the ice varies with its seasonal movement?

  180. The highlight of this thread was comments sparked by rbateman’s graph http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg .
    Some have overgeneralized (suggesting reliable anticorrelation). Note what happens around ~1998. Cross reference with AAO, SAM, Barkin, and
    Vershovskii, M.G.; & Kondratovich, K.V. (2007). South Pacific subtropical anticyclone – intensity and localization. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 32(12), 738–742.

  181. I’m surprised the title of this article hasn’t been corrected yet since Antarctic ice hasn’t peaked but rather the ice extent anomoly has. And it’s still increasing. The Antarctic sea ice extent doesn’t peak for another month or so….

  182. “”” villabolo says:
    July 4, 2010 at 1:00 am
    harvey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    “So why the dodging of the arctic sea ice extent/volume.
    Nice try at forcing focus away from anything that does not suite your agenda.”
    VILLABOLO:
    Now, now Harvey, let’s be polite.
    …………………….
    2) GREENLAND. According to GRACE satellites it lost 137 billion metric tons of ice in 2002 and 286 billion metric tons in 2009. The first figure is a trickle in comparison to both the total amount of ice in Greenland and ocean level rise. The second figure a double trickle. The fact that it doubled is the important figure.
    Doubling in just 7 years indicates, that in just 10 doublings, there will be a 1024 fold increase. That is no longer a trickle. Assuming that the same 7 year period is taken into account this increase will take 70 years. “””
    Well now I’ve heard everything.
    Just where is that peer reviewed paper that says that melting of ice caps is exponential with time. So in 70 years we have 1000 times the recent loss, and in 140 years it will be a million times.
    I haven’t heard about that before. So the earth Temperature goes as the Logarithm of the CO2, and the ice melt goes exponentially with time .
    We really are in big trouble.

  183. Graphs measuring ice in area from satellite images are meaningless. They say nothing about the amount of ice present and are analogous to a Hollywood set background. Mass or volume measurements/estimates are needed.

  184. Although this is true, it’s important to look at the big picture. It was also the warmest land-surface July on record, the second warmest global year-to-date, a year of many all-time extreme highs and the second lowest Arctic sea-ice level on record.
    Here’s your original source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100813_globalstats.html
    While cherry-picking may convince some onlookers, it blindly overlooks the fact of how dynamic the Earth’s systems are in reality.

Comments are closed.