Sea Ice News #13

Meanwhile, USCGC Healy continues to ensure it’s ‘rotten’ in the vicinity of Barrow.
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP

“Arctic ice behaviour has everything to do with wind”
Everything?

I love watching the play by play on this. BUT … I have to wait until late Augusts or September before I go off bloviating about how real science trumps political activism.
Of course .. I’ll get the usual …. 3 years of data doesn’t make a trend!! .. LOL .. oh yeah it does .. it makes a three year trend. … a trend that .. btw .. has bucked the lack of wisdom held in the poltical activists.

New update means new estimate.
Sea ice extent (mean, 15% cutoff definition per JAXA/NSIDC) = 4.2E+6 km^2 (standard deviation = 0.45E+6 km^2).
Previous estimate was 3.9E+6 km^2 (standard deviation = 0.51E+6 km^2).

N-Icely done update Steve. Very thorough, and it seems you’ve carefully chosen your data to support your final conclusion:
“In other words, the widely claimed polar meltdown continues to be nothing more than bad fiction.”
I hope everyone bookmarks this quote of yours, or cuts and pastes it somewhere with the data of 7-11-2010. It should be forever connected with you, as it seems to be your deeply held belief.
Meanwhile, as Steve has given us a nice update on the Arctic WEATHER, (which reminds me very much of “it’s snowing in Florida, so this is proof there’s no global warming.”of more interest is the long term climate trend in Arctic sea ice. Everyone is well familiar with the longer term charts of Arctic Sea ice, and those who are honest (and not just skeptical) know what has been happening in the Arctic over the past few decades, and especially these past 3 or 4 years. 2010 is showing no recovery from the deep plunge of 2007, and the little wiggles in the trend lines (like the March-April) bump up are nothing more than weather noise riding on top of the longer term decline in Arctic Sea ice. This graph says it all about Arctic Sea ice:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
But if you want the Arctic weather, Steve does a great job. And speaking of weather, as I said in the last of Steve’s updates, look for big spike down later in July and into August in Arctic Sea ice, with particularily strong melt coming from the Atlantic side of the Arctic Basin.

Looks like the ice melt is FLAT LINING!!!!!!!!!
Ok I only believe what I read in the MSM…..
the world is on fire!
Tim

Steve,
Thank your for your work and for the information you present.
I notice that you did not mention Point Barrow in this posting. 🙂

R. Gates says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:33 am
Yeah OK but look at the graph again and tell us what has happened since 2007?
There seems to be an upward trend, therefore the sea ice is recovering, no need to panic………. Arctic basin ice free? = Not in your or my life time mate.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

R. Gates says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:33 am
N-Icely done update Steve. Very thorough, and it seems you’ve carefully chosen your data to support your final conclusion:
“In other words, the widely claimed polar meltdown continues to be nothing more than bad fiction.”
I hope everyone bookmarks this quote of yours, or cuts and pastes it somewhere with the data of 7-11-2010. It should be forever connected with you, as it seems to be your deeply held belief.
Yes and I have bookmarked yours;
“look for big spike down later in July and into August in Arctic Sea ice, with particularily strong melt coming from the Atlantic side of the Arctic Basin.”

Thanks Steven for another good report. ArcticROOS bear out your statements about what’s happening in the Arctic, and it looks like the recovery continues.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Strange how all the global warming we’ve had over the last 15y (NOT) has had so little impact on total global sea ice levels. With the sun still in the doldrums, I think it likely that the recovery seen in 2008/9 is set to continue.

Dirk G. LPG isn’t a bad idea with the new drilling technology the game is about to change:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html
This is from the WSJ May 10th…

jack morrow says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:29 am
“When I arrive in Sargents, CO. in Sept. I hope the Arctic ice is on your forecast and there is still a little snow along the continental divide this year which has been missing for about 3-4 years. This is based on my observation for about 20 years or so. I would feel much better about the climate if these minor things happened.”
What part of the Continental Divide do you visit? I’ve hiked the CD in Summit County every summer for the past five years and see snow fields right up until the September snowfall begins to start the next season’s snowpack. I’ve seen permanent snow fields in other areas of the Rockies every summer. A friend of mine a few days ago skied a couloir with plenty of snow up near the CD. Meanwhile, it’s another cold and rainy day in Breckenridge. I’ve noticed the wildflowers are late in blooming this season. Not much warmth in Summit County this summer.

Douglas DC says:
July 11, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“Dirk G. LPG isn’t a bad idea with the new drilling technology the game is about to change:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html
This is from the WSJ May 10th…”
Thanks for the link. Some test projects in Lower Saxony are underway, there’s some shale at the border to Holland. The companies keep a low profile and it didn’t hit the news big time yet.

Steve,
I think the NSIDC needs to hire you to replace the fools they have now.

Wilky says:
July 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Steve,
I think the NSIDC needs to hire you to replace the fools they have now.
Not likely to happen. But it is a nice wish. The NSIDC is a government agency. Politics control government agencies. To change the NSIDC you need a change of politicians. And that is something that can happen. 🙂

Correction to previous post: We need to wait until July 16 (Friday) when the data for July 15 (Thursady) is available, assuming that the spurious pixels are gone beginning with the map of data for today which will be available tomorrow.

On top of the flat-lining of the arctic ice smelt I notice that AMSU-A has also started to flat-line a bit. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps (near surface layer) is down to 0.53F and http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps (sea surface) is up to 0.37F cooler than 9 July last year. So it would appear that air temperatures are heading downwards and overall sea ice extent is average. Not much sign of a boiling/burning globe (as yet) here.

Ah, Gates. your stained-glass Window view of the world is heart-warming, at least.

Arctic ice is doing this:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/56/dmicloseup2.jpg
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Antarctic ice is doing this:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2739/stimeseries1.png
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Meanwhile the PIOMAS graph is doing this:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9018/bpiomasicevolumeanomaly.png
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(No, the PIOMAS graph is not upside down. It is showing a plunge down.)

It stinks that the world cup ended without 22 players on the pitch. Congratulations to Spain though for finding the back of the net.

Lance, u.k.(us), tonyb, latitude, CRS, Dr.P.H., and everyone else (well, just about everyone else 😉 )
You might like these 2 videos:
“Fred Golgberg, PhD, PART 1, Arctic ice, past, present, future”

donald penman says:
July 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I think that the arctic ice might be increasing on tonights satelite image,hope this continues up to september and your predictions are confirmed
**************************
VILLABOLO:
Which should have precedence, predictions or reality. In Science, one may make as many predictions as desired, but what actually is going to happen should be respected more than the predictions themselves.
Otherwise it becomes obvious, as in this statement by donald, that there is an emotional desire, divorced from objectivity, that is the driving force behind these predictions.

stevengoddard says:
July 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Yup, I am afraid that UK adjudicators, in all forms, appear to have lost the plot. Sadly (to put it mildly) appeasement has become the order of the day.
Well done Spain!
And may I say Mr Goddard that your team is shaping up, defence organised and sound, midfield creative and combative, just have to wait awhile for the forwards to stand up and be counted!
Regards and many thanks for the infotainment.

So it seems that the total energy of the planet remains unchanged. North sea ice a bit low, south sea ice at a record, record colds in winter and non-heatwaves in summer in NH , cold waves in SH winter and no hot spots recorded during last SH summer. So, I would say that globally its getting a bit cooler, no matter what the politicians, journalists and money-making scientists say.

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm “”
saved it for later 😉
thanks

Charles Wilson says:
July 11, 2010 at 11:06 am
And what of Pips 2.0 ?? Pips shows a huge area, thinning RAPIDLY North of Russia’s Northmost Land & up to 87 degrees North….
__________________________________________________________________
I wonder if that has anything to do with the Russian volcanoes heating up??? (soot & ash any one?) They were quiet the last time I checked a few weeks ago.
” KLYUCHEVSKOY VOLCANO: 56°03’N, 160°39’E; Elevation 4,750 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS ORANGE
Explosive-effusive eruption of the volcano continues. Ash explosions >7.0 km (>23,000 ft)
Seismicity of the volcano was above background levels all week. According to visual data, moderate gas-steam activity of the volcano were observing on Jule 2-4. Sometimes ash columns rose up to 5.3 km (17,400 ft) ASL. Clouds obscured the volcano in the other days.
According to satellite data, a big thermal anomaly was registering over the volcano all week. July A gas-steam plume containing ash extended about 76 km to the south from the volcano on July 02.
SHEVELUCH VOLCANO: 56°39’N, 161°21’E; Elevation 3,283 m, the dome elevation ~2,500 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS ORANGE
Explosive-extrusive eruption of the volcano continues. Ash explosions >10 km (>32,800 ft) ASL could occur at any time. The activity of the volcano could affect international and low-flying aircraft.
Seismicity was above background levels all week. According to seismic data, possibly ash plumes rose up to 7 km (22,900 ft) ASL on Jule 2-6. According to visual data, ash fall was observed on removal 30 km at volcano on July 05. Ash plumes from hot avalanches rose up to 4 km (13,100 ft) ASL on Jule 5, and strong fumarolic activity were observed in the other. According to satellite data, a thermal anomaly was registering over the lava dome all week. Ash plume extended about 20 km (65,600 ft) to the south from the Volcano on July 07.
KARYMSKY VOLCANO: 54°03’N, 159°27’E; Elevation 1,486 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS ORANGE
Explosive activity of the volcano continues. Ash explosions > 6.0 km (or 19,700 ft) ASL could occur at any time. Activity of the volcano could affect low-flying aircraft.
Seismic activity of the volcano was above background levels all week. According to seismic data, possibly ash plumes rose up to 2 km (6,500 ft)ASL on Jule 05. According to satellite data, a thermal anomaly was registering over the volcano five days. Clouds obscured the volcano in the other days of week. Ash plume extended about 20 km (65,600 ft)to the south from the volcano on July 07.
GORELY VOLCANO: 52°33’N, 158°02’E; Elevation 1,828 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS YELLOW
Activity of the volcano is increasing. Probably an eruption of Gorely is preparing. Aerosol plumes from the volcano could affect low-flying aircraft.
Seismicity of the volcano was above background levels all week. Amplitude of volcanic tremor remains on levels 1.7-1.8 mkm/s and at increasing up to 2 mkm/s on Jule 6. Gas-steam activity of the volcano was observing on Jule 04. According to satellite data, the thermal anomaly over the volcano was registering on Jule 3. A gas-steam plume extended about 30 (98,400 ft) km to the south from the volcano on Jule 8. Clouds obscured the volcano in the other days.
BEZYMIANNY VOLCANO: 55°58’N, 160°36’E; Elevation 2,882 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS YELLOW
Grows of the lava dome of the volcano continues and aerosol plumes could affect low-flying aircraft.
Strong volcanic activity of Klyuchevskoy volcano obscured seismic data of Bezymianny all week. According to visual data, clouds obscured the volcano all week. According to satellite data, a small thermal anomaly was registering over the dome on Jule 6-8.
EBEKO VOLCANO,: 50o41’N, 156o01’E Elevation 1,156 m
AVIATION COLOR CODE IS YELLOW
Activity of the volcano increases. Ebeko volcano is not monitored with seismic instruments. KVERT has satellite monitoring and occasional visual messages about this volcano. The danger of sudden ash explosions as high as 3 km (9,840 ft.) ASL as well as ash falls at Severo-Kurilsk, exists.
According to the data by local observers at Severo-Kurilsk, activity on the volcano increases. Ash explosions at the volcano began to occur from 03:53 UTC on July 02. A height of ash column was about 1.8 km ASL. Ash plume extends to the south-south-east – to Severo-Kurilsk. KVERT continues to monitor the
volcano.
http://www.kscnet.ru/ivs/kvert/current/grl/index.html

sod
Why can’t I just be a good boy and believe everything that authority tells me?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
– Richard Feynman

Alex the skeptic says:
July 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
R Gates: it wasn’t snowing in Florida. It was snowing all over the northern hemisphere. This winter we had the largest land snow cover ever between Nov and March. This winter, the sea ice cover at the SP is at an ALL TIME RECORD. Open your eyes and see the light, I mean the snow.
____________
Alex, during this past winter, the Arctic was dominated by two main features: A negative AO index, and an Arctic Dipole Anomaly. Both of these features forced cold air from the Arctic south over the N. Hemisphere. This wind pattern even created the now famous March “bump up” in late season sea ice that got the skeptics all twitter-pated about a “recovery”, but of course that ice vanished rapidly in May. Meanwhile, we had warm anomalies and high pressure over parts of N. Canada and over into the Arctic basin and Greenland. For many weeks I observed temperatures in Greenland in the 30’s, while there were temps in the teens in the deep south of the U.S. and in other places around the N. Hemisphere. We’ve discussed this at length here on WUWT, and the Arctic Dipole Anomaly may become a more permanent feature for the Arctic, which in turn, could lead to colder and snowier winters further south. This seems upside down, and skeptics love to pounce on the irony, but such is the nature of a chaotic system undergoing change. The DA is a wind event that is related to warmer waters in the Arctic, and seems to be self-reinforcing. I would refer you to this basic overview article about what future winters could be like, and you can follow up with your own research:
http://www.physorg.com/news195485722.html
Meanwhile, the first half of 2010 has seen a string of months with record high global temps. Yes, some of this is related to the El Nino, but the El Nino was not as strong as 1998, and we are not even close to a solar max. If we have a decent El Nino near the Solar Max of 2013, global record high temps will be shattered– and you can take that to the bank.

“I would refer you to this basic overview article about what future winters could be like”
Gates, you give Steve a hard time for a prediction, then you link to one yourself.
“could”, what’s this “could” stuff?
Or actually could not – it’s a 50/50 like a coin toss.
Is this prediction from a “top scientist” any better than the prediction from another “top scientist” that snow would be a thing of the past?
Which is it? no more snow? or more snow?
Both top scientists said both.

R. Gates
What if changes in Arctic temperatures had nothing to do with CO2?
Do you see any correlation?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Breckite says
Around Monarch pass . We hunt in mid Sep. right up to the divide markers. No snow where I at one time would sit and have lunch with snow all around.

Tony B 2:30
Wow! Fascinating!

R Gates said:

Meanwhile, the first half of 2010 has seen a string of months with record high global temps. Yes, some of this is related to the El Nino, but the El Nino was not as strong as 1998, and we are not even close to a solar max. If we have a decent El Nino near the Solar Max of 2013, global record high temps will be shattered– and you can take that to the bank.

Wasn’t that supposed to happen in 2007 and 2010? Pretty soon it will be “just wait until 2016, just wait and see!”
How many decades must we wait for Greenhouse to kick in?
So when weather metrics (SST, SAT, LT, Arctic, Antarctic, ENSO et al) tumble in the next 12 months, very possibly below that of 1999, and since El Nino will rear it’s ugly head again in 2-3 years, it will make 1998 look like a blip on the radar?
Historically, an El Nino Modoki (which is 2010) results in a neutral SST, yet looking at the latest SST indicates it is plummeting.
I don’t know, it just seems like with each El Nino since 1998, the outcome is earth losing more and more heat, quite the opposite of what we’ve been told the last 20+ years.

“‘DR says:
How does the Arctic continue to warm unabated when OHC continues to drop?””
DR, the New Scientist article that Gates linked said it was the last warm spell before another ice age/glaciation.
quote
“”At that time, CO2 levels are thought to have been close to current levels – around 390 parts per million – but global temperatures were around 2 to 3 °C warmer than today. It was the last warm period before the onset of the Pleistocene glaciation,””
Even though they think CO2 levels were about where they are now, and think global temperatures were +2-3 degrees warmer……
……..we still went into another ice age
I think they are agreeing with you.
I don’t think Gates meant to.

OK totally OT but Steve G did mention the world cup.
After Nigeria was eliminated from the world cup The Nigerian goalkeeper has personally offered to refund all the expenses of fans who travelled to South Africa.
He said he just needs their bank details and pin numbers to complete the transaction.

James Allison
Good one!

R. Gates says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“AGW skeptics should pay no attention to these kinds of recent studies:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19155-soaring-arctic-temperatures–a-warning-from-history.html”
================
Now I’m worried. You link “newscientist”
You need to convert to “the dark side”, before it’s too late.

R Gates,
You know, I think I’m getting it now….because of this trace of CO2…. The arctic is/will be warmer, except when it isn’t…. and Ice will… diminish, except that it won’t…. and we’ll see greater NH snow extent….but none of the children will know what snow looks like….maybe because they’ll be drowning in a hurricane storm surge.. which is…. also a heatwave/drought…..?
A couple tabs of LSD and it will be crystal clear!

latitude,
Thanks.
Ok, now I’m confused. 2010 is being hailed as the resumption of global warming as predicted by climate models, yet NOAA climate models show blue covering both Poles. When was the last time that happened?
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif
Joe B is toying with the idea by next summer, temps will descend deeper than 1999. Looking at daily UAH satellite data, SST are about cross over into 2007 territory; quite a steep drop occurring.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Any thoughts?

Steve, if you look closely at the NSIDC graphs from today you will notice that there are some bad scans that caused that uptick in the SH and the NH today (take a look at the actual spatial extent of the NH and SH ice—it’s particularly bad in the SH). I’ll have to look more into this problem tomorrow, but the data definitely have a problem today.
In the meantime, I will point out that ice divergence happened in 2002 and 2003 (and I think also in summer 2004), and yet the first record low extents were observed. While ice divergence does spread the ice extent out, helping to slow down the ice extent loss, it can also cause open water areas to develop within the icepack, enhancing the ice-albedo feedback. Thus, at some point it could be that the ice divergence will actually hurt the extent by exposing the ice not only to warmer ocean temperatures (by pushing it southwards) but also cause enhanced lateral and basal melt from open water areas forming withing the icepack. Paper by Serreze et al. 2003 details how ice divergence led to the minimum of 2002…If the ice is indeed thin like the PIOMAS model suggests, I would expect to see an acceleration in ice loss in the coming weeks…This was especially true in August 2008 when it was clear the ice began to run out of thickness and the fastest rate of ice loss in 2008 actually occurred in August (and was the fastest on record).

stevengoddard says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:32 pm
R. Gates
What if changes in Arctic temperatures had nothing to do with CO2?
____________
Then my 25% skeptical side will feel validated. Though my 75% AGW side believes this is very unlikely. I expect at least one, and possibly several new record lows in arctic sea ice extent between now and 2015. We should see lows hitting in the 2.0 million sq. km. extent in this time frame. This is based on the increasing influence of the Dipole Anomaly as well as the increasing solar irradiance and decreasing GCR’s we’ll see between now and the Solar Max of 2013. Should we get a strong El Nino in 2012-2014, we could see even lower than 2.0 million sq. km. In this time period, I expect that the Arctic Dipole Anomaly will become stronger and and even more self-reinforcing. The only change strong enough to have created this new chaotic attractor is CO2. Solar Irradiance doesn’t explain it, PDO doesn’t explain it, NAO doesn’t, ENSO doesn’t. They all have their influence, but compared to the 30% increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution, these other naturally occuring oscillations are simply not strong enough. The polar amplification of AGW, now being reflected in the increasingly frequent chaotic attractor known as the Dipole Anomaly is most likely related to CO2. All other known natural cycles are simply not strong enough. This does not preclude the discovery of some as yet unknown cycle that is longer than our current accruate measurement of these other cycles. It is this type of potential discovery (though unlikely) of an unknown natural cycle that my 25% skeptical side looks out for.

James Allison says:
July 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Mr Gates
For my edification would please show this layman the evidence that proves recent increases in atmospheric CO2 has caused the Arctic sea ice extent to be in a state of steady decline since the LIA.
Also would you please explain to me why the same CO2 increase is causing a observed dramatic increase in Antarctic ice during the recent past.
___________________
There are dozens of excellent books, articles, and studies on the predicted effect of CO2 on the climate and specifically on how it will be reflected first and most extremely at the polar regions, but all AGW/GCM’s show the N. Pole to be warming more and earlier than the S. Pole. This has to do primarily with the large heat sink that is the S. Pacific ocean, as well as the fact that Antarctica is covered with a pretty large piece of ice that will keep the region somewhat immune from the full effects of AGW at first. Greenland provides some level of buffering, but no where to the same extent as the Antarctica, plus of course, the Arctic has no large Southern Ocean to act as a heat sink, and with the relatively smaller volume of water in the Arctic ocean, we are seeing that the extra heating of the open water will actually work as an amplifier of warming, releasing heat later in the season, and creating positive feedback effects.
For a very interesting paper of why the sea ice might actually grow (for a few decades at least) during AGW, I would suggest you read:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

An Inquirer says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Gates, perhaps you know how ironic it is that you chastise skeptics for looking at weather rather than climate, when it has been CAGW advocates who have been claiming weather events to be their proof of CAGW. Whether it was 2005 hurricances or 98 El Nino or 2010 summer Eastern heat wave or 2003 European heat wave or 2006 Canadian cold wave or 2009 above normal precipitation or 2007 droughts or 1993 Iowa rains or . . . these weather events are given as evidence of CO2-induced climate change.
________________
First, I am not a C-AGW believer. I’ve never talked about catastrophe’s or any such thing. First, I simply want to understand what is happening and why. What it means, in term of the implications for ecosystems, food supplies, species survival, etc. is something I’ll leave for the next few years of study. I know lots of work is being done in this area, but it’s not my main focus at the present time.
Second, I try to (though I’m not perfect) look at the longest term of reliable data we have. Short term weather events are interesting, but tend to noise. Even events such as ENSO, solar cycles, the PDO, etc. are also noise, and must be carefully accounted for to see the longer term signal underneath the noise. When people talk about any specific snowstorm or heatwave or cool spell, or whatever, it is only weather noise. However, as one begins to track the frequency of certain types of weather anomalies over the longer term, how those frequencies change over time (i.e. droughts, extreme rainfall or snowfall) can tell you something about climate change….but any individual event is simply weather noise.
Finally, one poster was mentioning the chaotic nature of both weather and climate, and that is true. But it is actually more difficult to predict the weather than the climate, because individual weather events seldom leave much in the way of a long term record, whereas the climate leaves us lots of clues in ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, etc. I like the example of boiling water to understand the difference between weather chaos and climate chaos. When you put a pan of water on a hot burner, you can predict that the water will boil at some point, and even predict with reasonable accuracy when that water will reach a full boil, if you know variables such as the conductivity of the pan, atmospheric pressure, purity of the water etc. This is like predicting the climate. However, you can’t predict exactly where the first few bubbles will appear or where subsequent bubbles will appear except until a few seconds before they actually appear. This is like predicting the weather.

An Inquirer says:
July 11, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Gates, perhaps you know how ironic it is that you chastise skeptics for looking at weather rather than climate, when it has been CAGW advocates who have been claiming weather events to be their proof of CAGW. Whether it was 2005 hurricances or 98 El Nino or 2010 summer Eastern heat wave or 2003 European heat wave or 2006 Canadian cold wave or 2009 above normal precipitation or 2007 droughts or 1993 Iowa rains or . . . these weather events are given as evidence of CO2-induced climate change.
*******************************
VILLABOLO:
An Inquirer, do you know the difference between “advocates”, as you call them, (I refer to them as those who are uneducated and slightly educated on the subject) and the actual Climatologists and those who know enough to speak carefully on the subject.
It is when these events are taken collectively that they constitute proof of Global Warming. Once you give the big picture you can then highlight specific events.
For example. 2003 was one of the hottest years GLOBALLY in record, along with a rise in temperatures that started in 1998 and has not reversed since. Once you give that type of overview you can then highlight the “European heat wave of 2003”
It is the Skeptics who are always failing to give the big picture in both time and space making them perpetual cherry pickers.
Bottom line, according to Climatologists 30 years minimum is what makes a trend as far as the Arctic Sea is concerned.

R. Gates says:
July 11, 2010 at 4:32 pm
____________
Alex, during this past winter……….,
R. Gates, the link you provided got me to a report headed: “Europe, US to see snowy, cold winters: expert”. You see, that is why I am skeptical about AGW or, as it is now being called ACC. Because AGWers are always changing the goalposts to suit the erratic antics of climate change.
During the nineties, snow was very lacking in Europe. In 1994, in Denmark 6 year old kids did not know what snow was. IT HADN’T SNOWED FOR YEARS. So, AGWers took this 5 year old graph and extrapolated it into the future, telling us what we have been hearing since then, such as, ‘children will not know what snow is’ etc etc. But climate being climate, chaotic and all that, we are now having record snow covers, low temperatures etc etc. This proves one thing at least: That climate is UNPREDICTABLE and no computer model will be able to predict it.
My point: 15 years ago we had low or no snow in Europe, now it has returned with a bang. 15 years ago we were told children will not know what snow is, now we are being told to prepare for snowy, cold winters. How’s that for integrity?
One other point: Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers have been monitored for only a few decades, since we started putting satellites in orbit and I think that there cannot be any proxy measurements of past sea ice cover anomalies. However I have seen photos taken by submariners during the 50’s that show a near ice free sea at the north pole. That was when CO2 level increases were still insignificant.
Then there are other reasons why we should be skeptical about AGW, such as peer reviewed scientific reportson:
Solar influence
Cosmic radiation
CO2 resident time = 15 years
Anthropogenic component of CO2= 5%
90% of Greenhouse effect due to H2O molecule
Negative cloud feedback not positive
No temperature rise detected in oceans
No temperature rise detected in upper atmosphere
These last two were supposed to be the smoking gun of AGW.
And much more.
AGW theory rests on one single parameter: Increase in CO2=Temperature rise, which, in my opinion, is a very simplistic theory that does not take into account the other forcings and parameters and the chaotic climate

Villabolo
Reality is more important. What happens is more important than what was predicted .I cannot change what will happen this September by hoping some outcome will occur , I don’t have to accept your model of what will happen this September I would rather wait and see what happens.

Harvey
You know, I missed that symposium. Please detail which papers disprove my conclusions.

tonyb,
NSIDC keeps telling me that the PIPS ice thickness data is not accurate, and at the same time they tell me that PIPS is constantly updated with the best real time data.
Go figure. The PIPS data seems to be working extremely well as a predictor of trends, particularly the current similarity to 2006.

Global warmers, just know I have a bag full of ‘shhh’ with your name on it.

Alex the sceptic said:
” One other point: Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers have been monitored for only a few decades, since we started putting satellites in orbit and I think that there cannot be any proxy measurements of past sea ice cover anomalies. However I have seen photos taken by submariners during the 50′s that show a near ice free sea at the north pole. That was when CO2 level increases were still insignificant”
Alex,
Much work has been done to hindcast the arctic sea ice volume before satellite records. The following graph on the retro page of the Polar Science Center Retro page illustrates the estimated thin ice during the 1950’s and the rapid growth during the sixties.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice
The main PIOMASS page starts in 1980 I think in order to make the current sea ice volume look worse.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
The current estimate of the sea ice volume from PIOMASS as Steve points out is suspect. They made the estimate without the use of the iCESAT satellite to keep them honest. I think Steve is dead on with the PIPS data and will be vindicated from CryoSAT 2.

From: harvey on July 12, 2010 at 6:48 am :

This paper may be of interest to you:
http://www.igs2010.org/Abstracts/57A042.html

Which is actually a brief abstract with no link to an actual paper and really nothing that says it was anything more than a presentation.

also this talk which points out that the ice that is present is not very solid ice 🙂
http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55

Which looks like the presentation by the esteemed Dr. David Barber of “rotten ice” fame that various Arctic Ice Death Spiral proponents have been posting links to on WUWT for well over a month now.
In other words, you have supplied nothing of interest.

the rotted ice thing isn’t panning out.
have you watched the presentation? he is talking about high temperatures (-2°C) on the sea and ice, when land based stations are reporting very low temperatures (-20°C).
some of us are simply a little bit sceptical about Steven being better informed than the guys who have been out in the ice this year, and for 30 years.

sod
I guess we will know in about seven weeks.

From the Times Online about Captain Cooks logs:
“The log from HMS Isabella, which set out in 1818 to seek the fabled Northwest Passage, reveals that there was a small but significant decline in the sea ice in Baffin Bay over the past 190 years. Until now, scientists tracking sea ice formation have largely relied upon observations from satellites. However, some of the logs suggest that there has been little or no change in sea temperatures elsewhere in the Arctic. Climate change sceptics are likely to seize on these records as evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are having less impact than many scientists have claimed. “

Peter, I disagree with you that Barber completely destroys his credibility by saying “we can argue whether it’s been 1.4 or 5 million years since that happened.” The reality is we don’t know with certainty when the last time the Arctic Ocean was completely ice-free in summers. I would think if the Arctic Ocean was completely ice-free during summers in the Medieval Warm Period, there would be evidence (stories,songs,writings, etc.) that talk about people sailing across the Arctic Ocean. Dr. Barber has done a lot of great work in regards to sea ice, and I don’t see how this statement makes all of his work invalid.
I also disagree with the statement that temperatures were warmer in the MWP than today. Northern Hemisphere reconstructions do not show that (nor does it appear that the Roman warm period was warmer than today). Of course you can argue about the accuracy of such reconstructions, but doing temperature reconstructions is not my field of expertise, so I’ll bow out of those arguments and leave it to the experts working in that field.

Djon
All of the graphs show the same thing. Flattening since July 1.

Gates, every time you bring up CO2 related changes in the Arctic Dipole my opinion of your posts plummets, but when you bring up anything related to some kind of solar max connection to all this my opinion disappears all together.
But just to give you the floor, explain what you mean by “chaotic attractor” as it relates to weather events (and make no mistake about it but atmospheric dipoles are weather related events) under your CO2 scenario. That phrase is meant to sound scientific. So explain it in scientific terms instead of tossing it around like salad croutons.
And you still haven’t explained how CO2 is related to dipoles. Dipoles are not caused by warm water. They are caused by warm and cool ocean pools setting up next to each other. How in the heck can CO2 set that up? Longwave infrared cannot force ocean pools to warm up. So what is your mechanism? And don’t refer to a paper. Tell me exactly what the CO2 mechanism is that can powerfully and sustainably set up a dipole. I know how trade winds and oceanic current oscillations set up dipoles. And I don’t need to just refer to a paper. I can tell you how it happens AND refer to references. Please do the same.

Notice Gates that I didn’t ask you to explain your solar max comment somehow being connected to strengthening the effects of El Nino’s which are somehow strengthened by CO2 in the atmosphere. Please don’t explain the solar max connection to me. It won’t help your response in this debate in my opinion.

Hmmm, 2010 is close to 2006 on JAXA…. Interesting!
Maybe there is natural cycles after all?
Will someone inform Hollywood, Al Gore and the IPCC, please?
hehe.

I think that it is clear that the models predict that this information will be homogenized by The Warmists Consensus.

Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Gates, the frequency of dipoles have not risen when referenced to the long term reconstructed record.
———-
Pamela, what long-term reconstructed record of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly are you referring to here? R. Gates is specifically talking about the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, perhaps you do not understand how this is computed?

Steven,
Your response “All of the graphs show the same thing. Flattening since July 1.” is plainly incorrect. The 2010 line in the chart at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png was clearly declining less steeply on July 1 than it has been since. In my version of English, “steepening” is the opposite of “flattening”. I expect that is the case in your version as well.

Julienne, take the time to read Polyakov’s research on oscillation (both long and short term) interactions in setting up ice build up and ice flush. The “Arctic Dipole” is nothing new. The pressure gradients necessary to set up the “Arctic Dipole” can be done with modeling of the various reconstructed records of atmospheric positive and negative pressure systems (AO, NAO, etc), including their short, noisy fluctuations and long term oscillations, without regard to CO2. The system being talked about in AGW circles as the “Arctic Dipole” is not new nor is it increasing in frequency because of CO2. It has been demonstrated in the records and modeled, to be a naturally occurring event caused by the unique parameters of the oscillating oceanic and weather pressure systems that press upon the Arctic Circle and it’s ice behavior.
“Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability”
Igor V. Polyakov
International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Mark A. Johnson
Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Hi Anthony, I see that Walt replied to you directly. I’ll include his response here so that your readers can see it as well (note I also mentioned the bad scans earlier in this posting):
“Hi Anthony,
It was an error in the source data we use in the sea ice algorithm we run. We have an automated QC that will take it out, but it requires data from the following day. We can QC manually too, but since it happened on a Sunday no one was around to address it. It did get corrected automatically when processing occurred this morning.
We generally don’t post a notice for isolated incidents like this since it is just a part of routinely dealing with near-real-time data. We do a general discussion on our FAQ: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#quality_control “

Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Pamela, I have read all the papers on the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, some more than once. I simply am unaware of anyone providing a long-term data record on the Arctic DA. I suppose by here you mean the work by Polyakov that goes back to 1880? I thought you were talking about longer term work.
BTW..the DA is the second EOF of SLP north of 70N (so it does not take into consideration exchange of atmospheric mass between the mid and high latitudes) that the AO index does. I’m not sure if you’re suggesting the AO has become a dipole pattern. That is not the case. The dipole pattern has become more prevalent in recent years, with some indication that it’s not more common into spring than previously. It also seems that the dipole is simply one finer-scale component that combines with others to manifest as the annular mode. Any interpretation that the AO as become a dipole is a complete misunderstanding of the literature.

Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I would say that the greatest driver is one step back from wind. The drivers are atmospheric pressure gradients driven by SST changes that contribute to land and surface air temperatures.
___________
You’ve just described the behavior of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly exactly.

Pamela, it’s a matter of linkages and it seems you don’t want to examine those. Any impact from increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases starts first in the atmospheric temperatures, which can then also affect atmospheric circulation and oceanic circulation, distribution of snow/ice, precipitation, clouds, etc. etc.
Take a look at the Arctic for example:
By having more open water in September, there is a new heat source to the atmosphere. Observations show clear autumn temperature anomalies in recent years of > 1C well up into the lower troposphere. These higher temperatures decrease the atmospheric air density and raise the height of upper-air-constant-pressure levels over the Arctic Ocean. These increased heights north of 75 °N weaken the normal north-to-south pressure gradient that drives the normal west-to-east airflow in the upper troposphere. In this sense, the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes. For example, Honda et al. (2009) suggest a remote connection between loss of Arctic sea ice and colder temperatures over eastern Asia. See Francis et al., 2009 for more discussion.
The bottom line: changes in air temperatures influence atmospheric circulation. You can argue how much a change in CO2 has affected a change in air temperature, but to argue that air temperature changes do not influence atmospheric circulation has no basis in reality.

Goodness. Do not put words or sentences or assumptions in my writing. I have never indicated in any post that the AO has become a dipole. All I am saying is that dipole pressure gradients have been a component of the Arctic for as long as we have records of ice behavior. A dipole is simply two different pressure gradients next to each other. Sometimes it physically shifts so that only one is prevalent over the area in consideration, or sometimes the strengths between the two are weaker or stronger. Atmospheric dipoles are in places other than the Arctic as well and also show no influence from CO2.

Further, I do not disagree that changes in air temps influence circulation patterns (I am all too aware of thunderheads and storm cells occurring around rising warm air), but large pressure gradients between warm and cold fronts are dictated by oceanic parameters in the area we are considering, and it is that interaction that determines air temps. Topography comes into play over vast land tracks but even then, oceanic influences are strong. Greenhouse gasses and aerosols affect air temps, but only a bit and only temporarily. To state your anthropogenic case, you must correlate CO2 with oceanic SST oscillations. And you cannot. Period. End of argument.

Julienne says, “Any impact from increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases starts first in the atmospheric temperatures, which can then also affect atmospheric circulation and oceanic circulation, distribution of snow/ice, precipitation, clouds, etc. etc.”
Julienne, I have to say that your comment about CO2 affecting weather related precip, clouds, etc, means that you are saying CO2 affects weather. Right? That is quite a statement.
Have you ever lived on the coast? Air temps do not affect ocean temps. It is the other way around. There are books and books of research that shows that oceanic temperature is the beginning of weather in coastal areas. If we go back a step from oceanic temps we are left to discuss ENSO, trade winds and the Coriolis affect. So now you must tell me how CO2 changes have affected ENSO, trade winds and the Coriolis affect.

Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Those recent increasing tropospheric temps welling up are most likely the result of warm Atlantic currents invading the Arctic, not CO2.
_______________
Pamela,
Do have any research to back this up? I would tend to doubt this from several perspectives as:
1) It is the late season release of heat from open water that seems to be a key factor in the SLP changes.
2) The location of inbound warm Atlantic currents would not seem to match of with areas of open water.
3) Finally, even if some additional TW of heat is coming in to the Arctic from the Atlantic (and also from the Pacific), we know that there are some who would state that even some of this heat is coming from the additional forcing from the 40% additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1700’s.
But provide some links to research, and I’d gladly read up on this conjecture.

What does the data show about the troposphere? Global warming is not adding up:

Willis Eschenbach
part 2

RGates..
3) Finally, even if some additional TW of heat is coming in to the Arctic from the Atlantic (and also from the Pacific), we know that there are some who would state that even some of this heat is coming from the additional forcing from the 40% additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1700′s.
But provide some links to research, and I’d gladly read up on this conjecture.
=========================
No the burden of proof is upon you to provide your references to real-world, scientifically proven evidence for your theory.
But you won’t becuase you can not. You are as slippery as the jellyfish they are catching in our starving seas.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Pamela Gray,
I saw this in video from one of the presenters at the 4th Conference. It’s an interesting way to think of smaller oscillations that happen in climate within larger warming or cooling changes in climate. I also, like you, don’t think co2 is the larger arm.

You’re right, the cyclical solar influence (via solar cycles) is far smaller than the steady 40% increase in CO2 we’ve seen since the 1700′s– so don’t compare the two.
===================================
Red Herringus Maximus.
Not even worth responding but I will anyways. You are gonna be a lot harder pressed to show any (zero zilch nada) correlation with Co2 whatsoever., than you are maybe making a link with the thing that takes up 90% of the mass in the solar system and may just affect our climate.
The worst part about this debate is not dealing with logic but with your constant spin, R.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

I post this one more time. Will he have honor enough to respond thoughtfully?
July 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm
RGates..
3) Finally, even if some additional TW of heat is coming in to the Arctic from the Atlantic (and also from the Pacific), we know that there are some who would state that even some of this heat is coming from the additional forcing from the 40% additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1700′s.
But provide some links to research, and I’d gladly read up on this conjecture.
=========================
No the burden of proof is upon you to provide your references to real-world, scientifically proven evidence for your theory.
But you won’t becuase you can not. You are as slippery as the jellyfish they are catching in our starving seas.
Explain (and back up with evidence) what you said in number 3 above.
We’re waiting.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Actually there is correlation with the sun and climate. I’ll post two videos of Nicola Scaffeta. I wasn’t aware that the IPCC had used a solar proxy starting in 1975 instead of instrumental reading for their solar data until I saw these videos. The proxy shows no increase in solar activity from 1975 onward. Instrumental readings do. Now I understand how they claimed there had been no increase in solar activity. “Trick”y, huh.
And, by the way, I don’t know what the mechanism is between sun and climate. But I can see the graphs and I see that the sun does influence climate. I don’t know the mechanism that makes a woman smile when I compliment her or what makes her frown when I criticize. But I do know my compliments and criticisms are the driver. 😉
Nicola Scafetta
PART 1

Pamela Gray,
In posting these videos on the sun I’m not trying to find difference with you because I do respect your viewpoints. But there is a relationship in the sun/climate graphs. And I want to pursue where they are going. What do you think of this one? I am interested to know:

Gates: “However, as one begins to track the frequency of certain types of weather anomalies over the longer term, how those frequencies change over time (i.e. droughts, extreme rainfall or snowfall) can tell you something about climate change….but any individual event is simply weather noise.”
That does sound reasonable, and that is one reason why I no longer am a believer in CAGW. Increased frequency of adverse weather is not there. And I do not see anything unusual in temperature trends or sea level trends, especially when you consider long term trends that started before CO2 became an issue.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“…the chaos is illusionary, and if they are deterministic then they can be accurately modeled.”
________
This quote alone shows me that perhaps you don’t understand the nature of chaotic attractors as well as you think. Chaos theory is not about randomness, but about unpredictable but determinisitic factors, i.e. real causes that have real effects at very specific threasholds, but none that we can predict exactly. Put a pan of water on a hot burner and I can tell you that it will come to boil, and if you tell me exactly how hot the burner is and the heat transfer properties of the pan, and the purity of the water, and the atmospheric pressure, etc. I can tell you reasonably well when the pan of water will reach the boiling point…however, I can never tell you exactly where and when the first few bubbles will form– this is the heart of chaos theory. Deterministic and unpredictable and leads to real effects. Chaos is not illusionary, it is simply not predictable, and certainly NOT random.

savethesharks says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I post this one more time. Will he have honor enough to respond thoughtfully?
July 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm
RGates..
3) Finally, even if some additional TW of heat is coming in to the Arctic from the Atlantic (and also from the Pacific), we know that there are some who would state that even some of this heat is coming from the additional forcing from the 40% additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1700′s.
But provide some links to research, and I’d gladly read up on this conjecture.
=========================
No the burden of proof is upon you to provide your references to real-world, scientifically proven evidence for your theory.
But you won’t becuase you can not. You are as slippery as the jellyfish they are catching in our starving seas.
Explain (and back up with evidence) what you said in number 3 above.
We’re waiting.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
______________
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37812221/
And hundreds of others that you can easily google and find for yourself. If you really actually read the literature and research, it is not an issue of whether or not the oceans have been warming and acidifying, (with CO2 as the culprit) it is really that they seem to not have warmed as much as the should (i.e. the travesty of the missing heat from Dr. Trenberth). But I’m quite aware that nothing I post shall satisfy you for you are a true believer.

R. Gates says:
July 13, 2010 at 8:53 am
We are all still waiting for your 25% skeptic side to show, but still 100% of your posts are from your 75% CAGW side. You are in cheerleader territory at this point.

Jon P says:
July 13, 2010 at 9:08 am
R. Gates says:
July 13, 2010 at 8:53 am
We are all still waiting for your 25% skeptic side to show, but still 100% of your posts are from your 75% CAGW side. You are in cheerleader territory at this point.
_____________
I’ve listed my areas of skepticism (where’s the missing heat? for example), but the basic science of increased radiative forcing from increased CO2 I believe is pretty rock solid. Some have suggested that CO2 is purely a logarithmic effect, but chaos theory would preclude that assumption even if it looks good on paper. It seems a lot of time is spent by some skeptics talking politics, which interests me not in the least. In total, of the thousands of pages of research that I’ve read, it’s made me a (75%) believer in the overall AGW hypothesis, and the Arctic sea ice, in my estimation, is the best single place to put my interest in moving that percentage significantly one way or another.
I don’t for example, happen to believe that the Arctic has been ice free in recorded human history. Yes, parts of Greenland were warmer during the MWP, but nothing that I find credible would indcate that one could sail across the Arctic at any time during recorded history without encountering ice.
Could the current downtrend in Arctic Sea ice be from some natural variation, and not caused by the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. It is possible, of course, and, so I’ll gladly read any scientific study that could suggest some other reasonable natural forcing agent that could be warming the Arctic and melting both sea ice and permafrost in the ways we’ve seen the past decade or longer. Historic accounts are interesting, but hardly comprehensive, and leave me rather skeptical about their credibility for documenting the climate of the entire Arctic.
What probably turns me away from skeptics in general is their only looking at some relatively short term trend, (such as weather), or denying basic facts such as the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s. These basic scientific facts are really not in dispute,(though the causes might be for some) but unless they are recognized as such, then I tend to shy away from certain skeptical types. A true skeptical friend of mine, who has a bit less grasp of the science in my estimation, but loves Rush Limbaugh, was crowing and was beside himself with glee this past spring during the March “bump up”. And then when we had the cold spell in the deep south this past winter, I again had to endure the daily “some global warming!” comments from him. I tried to explain about the AO index and how Greenland had been unusually warm while the cold air was forced south, etc. but he simply said I was “holding on to a dead theory.”
It is this kind of skepticism that I have no time for. There’s real mysteries to figure out, and that to me is the fun of science, but spending time listening to recycled talking points from some skeptics who would know the first thing about how CO2 really behaves in the troposphere doesn’t interest me.
So looking for the very best and truly knowledgable skeptics does interest me, as it give me a chance to actually learn something. Hence, why I make WUWT part of my daily routine, and frequently applaud Anthony for providing this excellent forum. But you’ll note, I rarely comment about things political, as that side of the skepticism I find quite uninteresting…

Pamela,
Thanks for the link on DLW radiation and the ENSO cycles. Very interesting. I would also like to direct you to a few links showing a general increase in DLW radiation over the past few decades and a link to the increase in CO2 and other GHGs:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034842.shtml
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml?fb_page_id=11296750277&
Thus, if there is a link between DLW radiation and ENSO, and there is a link to increased CO2 and increased DLW, then it stands to reason that there is some linkage between increased CO2 and ENSO events, though I would guess it is more complicated than it would first appear (i.e. because it is a dynamic chaotic system, it is certainly far from any linear type of relationship and probably involving multiple feedback loops, both positive and negative).

Julienne says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:13 am

I suggest opening up any atmospheric text book to educate yourself on ALL the factors that control atmospheric circulation.

I was unaware that humans undertstood ALL the factors controlling atmposheric circulation, or ALL the factors for any real system for that matter. And people don’t seem to grasp why people are becoming more sceptical of scientists these days…
-Scott

Scott says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Julienne says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:13 am
I suggest opening up any atmospheric text book to educate yourself on ALL the factors that control atmospheric circulation.
I was unaware that humans undertstood ALL the factors controlling atmposheric circulation, or ALL the factors for any real system for that matter. And people don’t seem to grasp why people are becoming more sceptical of scientists these days…
-Scott
_______________
Scott, I find your comment spurious, especially as some justification for why “people are becoming more sceptical of scientists.” This was a discussion about SST’s and their influence on global circulation and Julienne was making the valid point that all factors should be considered, not just SST’s. The additional adjective “known” is obviously implied in her comment, as you can’t consider what you don’t know, nor can you find it in textbooks. Any implication that there is any cause to be skeptical of scientists for trying to look at ALL factors (obviously known ones) is ludicrous…for that is what science is all about, and even more so, the most exciting thing about science is to be on the cutting edge where unknown factors are discovered and moved into the category of the known.

Julienne,
Thanks for your in depth response. Some great points for me to follow up on. I take it you are familiar with this research:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039810.shtml
By Ian Simmonds and Kevin Keay? We certainly know the term “anomalous” and the phrase “we simply don’t know” will apply to much that goes on in the Arctic for many years, and certainly as long as it is undergoing such rapid changes. An exciting time to be studying the cryosphere!

R. Gates, yes my paper is basically a follow-up to the Simmonds and Keay paper, though I reach slightly different conclusions. My conclusions are:
Recent increases in autumn cyclone associated precipitation (CAP) are clearly associated with a shift in atmospheric circulation, with the 2004-2008 pentad characterized by anomalous low pressure over the Barents Sea extending eastwards into the E. Siberian Sea. This is reflected in regional increases in cyclone frequency and cyclone intensity, as well as an Arctic-wide increase in column water vapor. The latter two changes are consistent with the tendency for higher precipitation efficiency of cyclones for most (not all) areas in which CAP has increased. The tendency towards regional increases in cyclone intensity is consistent with findings from Simmonds and Keay (2009).
But, even though these results are consistent with physical reasoning and with expectations of 21st century changes from climate model simulations (e.g., in accord with Finnis et al. (2007) and other efforts, a greater precipitation efficiency of cyclones attends an increase in column water), I do not find a compelling reason to attribute them to reduced sea ice extent. The results may be more simply interpreted in terms of a circulation shift independent of any forcing by sea ice change. Note in this regard that while the most pronounced open water anomalies in September in recent years have been north of Alaska and eastern Siberia, in turn associated with strong positive autumn anomalies in sensible and latent heat fluxes as well as column water vapor, positive precipitation anomalies have actually been largest in the Greenland, Norwegian, Barents and Kara seas.
Nevertheless, cause and effect cannot be separated from a purely observational perspective; the possibility that altered sea ice cover has in fact forced part of the observed circulation change should not be dismissed. It is notable in this regard that at least two recent observational studies besides Simmonds and Keay (2009) cite evidence of circulation anomalies following Septembers with low ice extent (Francis et al., 2009; Overland and Wang, 2010). .
Another issue is that apart from a general increase in high latitude precipitation, there is limited agreement between existing modeling studies as to the changes in circulation, cyclone frequency, intensity and cyclone associated precipitation that can be expected in a warmed world, let alone signals linked to attendant changes in sea ice. An effective comparison between observed and expected change will require a coordinated set of simulations with different models each adopting the same experimental design.

Julienne says:
July 12, 2010 at 8:59 pm
You keep saying that CO2 can in no way affect atmospheric circulation. By saying that you are saying that CO2 has no effect on air temperature, and that air temperature does not influence atmospheric circulation. You are also saying that the location of the ice edge does not influence atmospheric circulation, or that more open water influences the transfer of latent and sensible heat fluxes, or that a change in distribution of snow cover can influence atmospheric circulation, etc. etc. I do not agree.
So we can start with the basics. Show me how CO2 does not affect atmospheric temperature and how atmospheric temperature does not affect atmospheric circulation. That would be a good place to start in order for you to prove your point.
______________________________________
I am going to wade in here. After my knock-down, drag-out fight with Willis about CO2 measurements, for the sake of this argument let’s say that he was right, and accept the premise that CO2 has been accurately measured since the 1950s and is uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere. If CO2 is uniformly distributed then the effect of CO2 is also uniformly distributed. Since air circulation is caused in part by temperature gradients and the resulting pressure differentials (and not by the absolute temperature) the net effect of CO2 on air circulation is thus zero.
If on the other hand Willis was incorrect and I was correct, then CO2 is not uniformly distributed and the nice neat curve put out by Mauna Loa Observatory and the others is a farce, Ernest Beck’s collection of historic CO2 measurements varying from 250 to 500ppm was correct, and CO2 varies all over the place. Even then if we are talking a doubling of CO2 causing a localized increase in temperature of 0.6C, this is hardly a drop in the bucket when compared to the increase in temperature from 60F to 90F I saw in four hours this morning from the sun’s insolation.
Oh, and if CO2 is such a big player, how come we tend to see more thunderstorms building in the afternoon after the sun has caused a rapid temperature increase, instead of at night when photosynthesis has stopped and plants are actually releasing CO2 instead of absorbing it.
Sorry you can not have it both ways. Either CO2 is uniform (giving the possibility of accurate global measurement) or else it varies greatly across the earth’s surface and over short time intervals, making an accurate global measurement extremely difficult, and making all historic global data (except for satellite data) useless.

Gail Combs says:
July 13, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Ug. Not “Beck’s collection of historic CO2 measurements” again! But even Beck had those measurements at Mauna Loa in his graph as the average global concentration from the 1950s on (which looks pretty weird tacked on to all the other spliced-together measurements from various Northern European cities). But he says “During time after the 1942 CO2 peak the CO2 concentration dropped down in the 50s to values around 320 ppm.” And, you can get his conspiracy theories, too! (http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf)
Besides, they take measurements at many more places than Mauna Loa.

Gail, have you forgotten that global warming is not global? Have you missed the part where warming in larger in the Arctic than at the equator? Do you understand that it’s the sun that is the primary input to the climate system and that the fact that the equator receives more solar input than the poles is what drives the Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic circulation? Change the equator to poles temperature gradient and you change atmospheric and oceanic circulation. It’s basic physics. No CO2 induced warming is going to be uniform because of all the feedbacks in the climate system.

From: jeff brown on July 13, 2010 at 10:25 pm

CO2 is a known gas that traps infrared radiation.

Yes, CO2 has been identified, way back around 1630 by Flemish scientist Jan Baptista van Helmont, thus it is a known gas. In that you are correct.
CO2 absorbs and then radiates infrared, but only a few wavelengths, and in the atmosphere it only radiates about 50% of the time in a direction that could be said to be inward to the Earth rather than outward to space. If I designed a device that would catch mice, but only a few select sizes, and half the time it would let them go unmolested, do you think I’d be successful selling it as a mouse trap? Do you work in advertising?

CO2 has increased due to human activity and will continue to do so.

Excellent point! The increase is ongoing, will not stop, thus adaptation to whatever effects result from increased CO2 levels is the logical thing to do.

The idea that human activities do not have an impact on the planet (not to mention how we’ve completely altered the land-cover of this planet, the climatic impact of which is not insignificant), is arrogant and dangerous.

Exactly! Just look at how mankind has completely altered the land-cover of Death Valley, it used to look so much different before mankind mucked around with it. And then there’s Antarctica. Have you seen the tremendous land-cover changes man has wrought in Antarctica? Shameful!

I for one am glad there are people on this planet who do understand and who do care to preserve this amazing place we live in.

Indeed, and here on WUWT you will find a truly impressive collection of individuals who care deeply for the environment and work hard to preserve and even improve it. Why, I myself use both the curly fluorescent light bulbs and the canvas shopping bags! I am growing my own vegetables right now!

Per:
#
Nightvid Cole says:
July 11, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Yes, the SSM/I sensor is showing many spurious ice pixels for July 10, so for the time being we should not trust the NSIDC data. Since they take a five-day moving average, if the problem goes away we will need to wait until July 13 (Tuesday) for the average to “roll” past the bad data.
#
Nightvid Cole says:
July 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Correction to previous post: We need to wait until July 16 (Friday) when the data for July 15 (Thursady) is available, assuming that the spurious pixels are gone beginning with the map of data for today which will be available tomorrow.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Yes, that Five-Day Average for a plot-prediction is a good point.
http://i28.tinypic.com/2co31gi.gif

R. Gates says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm

Scott, I find your comment spurious, especially as some justification for why “people are becoming more sceptical of scientists.” This was a discussion about SST’s and their influence on global circulation and Julienne was making the valid point that all factors should be considered, not just SST’s. The additional adjective “known” is obviously implied in her comment, as you can’t consider what you don’t know, nor can you find it in textbooks.

I don’t know what definition of spurious you’re using here, so I’ll assume you’re just saying it’s a false premise, and with that, I couldn’t disagree more. A very big part of the increased scepticism of science in recent years is the scientists’ overconfidence and claims of being absolutely certain of something or understanding something completely. And no, “known” is definitely not implied in Julienne’s comment. Perhaps if she hadn’t CAPITALIZED the word “ALL”, then maybe I’d buy that, but the tone implied by the capitalization takes away that argument in my book.

Any implication that there is any cause to be skeptical of scientists for trying to look at ALL factors (obviously known ones) is ludicrous…for that is what science is all about, and even more so, the most exciting thing about science is to be on the cutting edge where unknown factors are discovered and moved into the category of the known.

These sentences here make it clear that you didn’t properly interpret my first comment. I should have been more clear. I did not mean people should be sceptical of scientists for searching for/looking at all the factors, but for claiming they know all the factors involved in something (or worse, that all those factors are in a textbook). Huge difference there, and I would think that the majority of sceptics here at WUWT think that climate scientists focus too much on CO2 causing warming and not looking at other sources (both natural and anthropogenic). Is that not Dr. Pielke, Sr.’s viewpoint as well?
-Scott