Antarctic sea ice peaks at third highest in the satellite record

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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…

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.

savethesharks says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm
It damn sure DOES tell the story.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Yer welcome.
It’s been updated
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Anthony: you can copy or link that into your topic above if you want.

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

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.)

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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”.

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.

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.

Is there any sense in watching polar ice?
I mean, the world has gone competely mad anyway?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/study-shows-global-warming-impact-of-anesthetics-one-common-anesthesia-agent-is-greatest-potential-contributor-to-climate-change

Dave Springer says:
July 4, 2010 at 5:15 am
Nicely put!

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.

@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.

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.

Villabolo & Harvey : good cop / bad cop?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

2010 curve creeping up closer to 2006 curve now;
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

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.

R. Gates says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Here are your failed predictions. :o)
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

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

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.

Did anyone see this story yet?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/autosub_in_pig_melt_clue/
“British and international boffins, having probed an Antarctic glacier which is thought to be a major cause of rising sea levels worldwide, report that increased polar ice melting may not be driven by climate change.”

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.

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.

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.

South America Kicks Off Ski Season With Powder Conditions; Strong Bookings
“Ski and snowboard conditions in Chile and Argentina are reportedly good with up to 218cm of snow at this point, and the majority of lifts already in operation. All ski resorts were open by early-to-mid June.”
http://www.onthesnow.com/news/204/a/12453/south-america-kicks-off-ski-season-with-powder-conditions-strong-bookings

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.

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

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?

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.

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.””

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!”

DirkH says:
Can you name me one nondeterministic effect in the macroscopic world?
I’m not R.Gates’s advocat, but have you heard about a stochastic process?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

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.

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?

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!

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Katey Walter again, she explains a little and they blow up more methane bubbles:

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.

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

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

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!

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.

Lighten up, Villabolo.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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 ?’
but
‘Is it to be followed by another warming phase or will the next drop be the big one into the next Ice Age ?’ .
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/global_warming_seen_before/

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.

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.

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?