Premature chill in the Arctic?

It is still quite cold in the Arctic, with below normal air temperatures and sea surface temperatures surrounding the ice pack between around 2-4°C. Much of that has to do with meltwater. I’ve added this image to our new WUWT Sea Ice Page tonight.

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

But looking at another product from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) there’s an indication of even colder temperatures, now hitting the freezing line in the middle of the Arctic summer.

While this most certainly could be a temporary blip, it seems the temperature in the arctic above 80°N as calculated by DMI has steadily declined and hit 0°C a bit early (just past midway) in the Arctic melt season.

See the graph below:

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Here’s the 3x magnified view of the top of the graph:

Much of the melt season so far has been below the green “normal climate” line. While it is just another data point (i.e. weather) , it is a curious and interesting development worth watching. The past few days melt has been accelerating, a bit, but with a dropping Arctic core temperature it would seem to suggest perhaps this is limited to some traditional melt zones for this time of year, such as near the Chukchi sea.

Look for more in WUWT Sea Ice News #15 this weekend.

h/t to WUWT reader phlogiston

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “Premature chill in the Arctic?

  1. I think we should collect a lot of firewood this summer. If Bastardi is right, this winter will be very cold and snowy 🙂

  2. I’ve noticed this, too. If temperature in the Arctic will decrease below 0°C before August, that would be an interesting development, indeed. Ice melt could practically stop prematurely.
    As Pink Floyd used to whisper: “Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun…”

  3. Hmmm…our friends at NSIDC say this on their current website posting for July 6, 2010:
    “Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace. June saw the return of the Arctic dipole anomaly, an atmospheric pressure pattern that contributed to the record sea ice loss in 2007.”
    Like, WUWT?? Inland temps in Alaska were a bit higher than normal, but the Arctic seemed to be doing just fine, and judging by this latest data, should result in a nice consolidation of the ocean ice mass.
    Just in time to cause a lot of red faces in many university offices, I might add! To quote Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

  4. Alexander Feht says: “…If temperature in the Arctic will decrease below 0°C before August, that would be an interesting development, indeed. Ice melt could practically stop prematurely.”
    Very unlikely. About as likely as your glass of iced tea dropping below zero. Melting ice absorbs heat, lowering adjacent air/water temperatures. The blip could just be a temporary shift in radiative relative to convective heat transfer due to Arctic wind patterns or cloud cover.

  5. How does DMI’s data collection for sea-ice extent differ from the rest? It seems the only one that has taken a severe u-turn in the last few weeks..

  6. I am somewhat concerned that this situation (if it continues) will affect the health and wellbeing of all those scientists who’s models contradict this trend. Once again AGW (as predicted) is becoming a health hazard.
    Hopefully, the scientists will be able to manipulate, (oops i mean adjust) the temperature, in order to minimise the risks to the health of the overwhelming majority of scientists for whom, the science is settled.
    Note to Dr Pachouri:
    I sincerely hope that this trend is temporary but in the event that it persists, GET WELL SOON

  7. The air temperature difference between 2 °C and 0 °C (or a summer average of 1 °C) will hardly affect the ice much. The differences are ten times bigger during the winter, and even then temperature is only one factor determining ice cover and thickness. The other main factors are wind and currents.

  8. Interesting, in 2007 there was also a sudden dip in temperature around the same time as this one. WUWT?

  9. Goes along with the recent happenings in S. America and Antarctica.
    What do your instincts tell you? A big Cold One coming on?

  10. Theres still a fair amount of ice to be lost in the East Siberian Sea and when it goes it normally goes quite quickly. Most other areas outside of the Arctic basin have either already lost their ice or at least lost as much as theyre likely too. The Arctic Basin doesnt normally lose ice as fast as outer areas.
    I can see ice loss being fairly high for the coming week but will slow down again towards the end of the month.

  11. The Danish Meteorological Institute Polar Temperature graph in the right hand navbar used to give access to a very interesting comparator with previous years going back to the sixties. Since the new Sea Ice page was created we no longer have access to that and have to manually go to DMI to get it. Could someone take a look at fixing this?
    REPLY: The link is available on the sea ice page, in links at the bottom there’s nothing to “fix”. But, you can also now click on the temp graph inside the sea ice page. – Anthony

  12. Off topic news
    NGO promotes ducks as solution to global warming, rice insufficiency
    CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY—While the world’s leaders are scratching their heads and expensive think tanks wrack their brains trying to find answers to global warming and food security, a nongovernment organization here is propagating a solution that hit these two problems at one go, but has not talked much about its successes.
    Instead, the Philippine Agrarian Reform Foundation for National Development (Parfund) Inc. is letting its ducks do all the “quacking.”
    Through its Rice-Ducks Integrated Farming System (IRDFS), Parfund is slowly spreading the gospel that rural Filipino rice farmers can feed the nation with its staple diet and help save the planet from the effects of global warming.
    “The Integrated Rice-Duck Farming System is a proven organic-farming technology that is being propagated by Parfund to improve rice-production performance and ensure rice self-sufficiency in the country,” said Jose Noel “Butch” Olano, Parfund executive director.

    http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27825:ngo-promotes-ducks-as-solution-to-global-warming-rice-insufficiency&catid=53:agri-commodities
    ?!?WHAT?!?

  13. Just reported on the evening news. Charlotte Pass in OZ had the third lowest reading since settlement of -20C. But it is only weather, sorry for the excitement.
    regards

  14. Welcome to the wonderful world of latent heat.
    It was latent heat released by freezing ice, which caused the arctic temps during early last winter to stay relatively high until around soltice, when the real cold finally set in.
    Now, it’s again the latent heat needed to melt the ice, which is responsible for cooler temps in the Arctic.
    All this leads to one, and only one, viable conclusion: Substantial cooling has set in and will continue, as well as deepen, for a long time to come.
    The temps in the northern Hemisphere will continue to drop not in a straight line, but in steps. But each new year will be a little colder than the year before, now – moderated by the storing and release of latent heat in the slowly growing arctic sea-ice cover.
    Time to start knitting warm socks and pullovers, folks!

  15. Once more me.
    Two more maps would be of interest to WUWT readers. First is Jet Stream map
    http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_norhem_00.gif
    which clearly shows how continental heat air is reaching Arctic region.
    The second map (two “submaps”) proves the first one and shows daily prevailing winds:
    http://www.goes.noaa.gov/WINDS/AVHRR/windsAVHRR_N_N15.html
    http://www.goes.noaa.gov/WINDS/AVHRR/windsAVHRR_N_N16.html
    What I suggest is to show not only resulting maps but causing factors as well.
    There was a lot of discussions going here recently talking over the Arctic Sea Ice from nearly all points of view. It should find its presentation on the famous yet(?) “Sea Ice Page” page I think.
    Any short descriptions linking the atmospheric and oceanic phenomena (plus NHemisphere indices) influencing present Arctic Sea Ice conditions would be advisable.
    Best regards

  16. All this is very interesting but it’s not what the models are telling us, so how can it be true?

  17. Interesting, but in the big picture, the decline of Arctic sea ice extent seems pretty consistent:
    Jan: -3.2% per decade.
    Feb: -2.9% per decade.
    Mar: -2.6% per decade.
    Apr: -2.6% per decade.
    May: -2.41% per decade.
    Jun: -3.5% per decade.
    Jul: -6.1% per decade.
    Aug: -8.7% per decade.
    Sep: -11.2% per decade.
    Oct: -5.9% per decade.
    Nov: -4.5% per decade.
    Dec: -3.3% per decade.
    None of those negative trends show any sign of changing, as far as I can tell.

  18. Temperatures are quite warm over the East Siberian Sea, which is where most of the melting is occurring now. We may see an increase in the rate of ice extent loss later this week.

  19. Look at the NOAA forecast for both poles this winter. Bastardi has said:

    “I mean both poles cold and then 75% of the earth under normal? Geez, I know there is cooling that is going to go on, but this is a bit drastic.
    …….
    If it’s the almighty climate models that are the reason to keep forecasting warm, and they are showing this kind of crash ( such an event could take the running 13 month temp of the earth next year to -.2 or -.3…as this La Nina, low solar cycle and cumulative volcanic activity means business, then things may be quicker than I thought.”

    http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/noaa-forecasts-great-drastic-cooling/
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif

  20. …and yet, despite all the candid observations noted above, despite all the rational, real time discussion and exploration of scientifically recorded fact….we have the Daily Telegraph publishing this only a short while ago…..
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7899939/World-on-course-for-hottest-year-since-1880.html
    Time to crank up the “Truth Machine” a few further gears whilst the Institutional warmistas are on the ropes.

  21. Icarus says: July 20, 2010 at 3:09 am
    “Interesting, but in the big picture, the decline of Arctic sea ice extent seems pretty consistent”
    8,000 years ago Toronto, Canada was covered by a one km thick slab of ice; one km is about twice the height of the CN tower.
    Clearly the ice has been receding since that time, but has slowed its retreat in the last few hundred years.
    A one km thick slab of ice covering all of Canada is just as normal and just as natural as fruit trees, grasses and furry woodland creatures on Elsmere Island.
    It has all happened before and it will all happen again, it is normal, it is natural.
    Warmer is better
    PS.
    Interesting, but in the big picture, the cycle of Arctic sea ice extent seems pretty consistent.

  22. Joe Bastardi
    MONDAY 11:30 PM
    GLOBAL TEMPS GO BELOW LAST YEAR!
    For the first time this year, the global temps have retreated below last years level.
    REMEMBER WHERE YOU HEARD ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING.
    For quite a while now, I have doing a lot to show how the models are now seeing what I started forecasting several months ago, as far as the La Nina and the coming global cooling. Well I see a former employee here is now blogging on AOL about the same thing.
    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

  23. I looked at the latest forecast, and NCEP is forecasting above normal temperatures for the East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea for most of the next two weeks.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZqLo4VKgCE]

  24. I’m a not-a-clue amateur here, but i managed to google this gif animation of the ice temperature according to DMI between 1952 and 2009:
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/arctic52.gif
    I think zero degree C has not been hit this early between 1958 and 2009. As I watch the animation also my impression is that the summers of 72, 76, 78, 00, 05, 06 and 07 were “quite cold”.

  25. Dave from the “Hot” North of Scotland
    July 20, 2010 at 3:53 am
    Interesting article from the Daily Telegraph. I wonder what Goddard’s take is on this:
    World on course for hottest year since 1880
    Arctic ice cover – another critical yardstick of global warming – had also retreated more than ever before by July 1, putting it on track to shrink beyond its smallest area to date, in 2007.
    I hope this becomes “snowfalls are just a thing of the past.”

  26. O/T:
    From the following BBC news report they don’t back up the Global Warming claim, I wasn’t aware that there was any proof that global warming was causing a meltdown on the mountain.
    Sherpas tackle Everest ‘death zone’ rubbish dump
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10691316
    “The team filmed its expedition before showing footage to the Nepalese Tourism Board, to illustrate how junk is becoming exposed as global warming causes snow to melt.”

  27. I think it is worth noting that salt water has a lower freezing point then fresh water, that means somewhere below zero., minus 3-4C I belive it is. So the focus on zero degrees is misplaced.
    At the same time, as we have seen, the ice does not melt due to an average temperature, but melt accrding to local temps, wind, sun, clouds, currents (as water has higher density, I would suspect that the temp of the seawater and currents play a greater role than say air temps).
    Rgds
    Troels

  28. “GLOBAL TEMPS GO BELOW LAST YEAR!”

    Global temperatures often go below the previous year, as a result of ocean circulation, the solar cycle and so on – i.e. natural interannual fluctuations which happen all the time. This is superimposed on the current anthropogenic warming trend of ~0.2°C per decade. You can easily see this short-term variability here.

  29. Anthony, Steven,
    Many factors have to be looked at to find out what is actually happening with the warming and cooling effects generated by the sun.
    Density of molecules would inhibit more sunlight from travelling through than less densite molecules through refraction.
    With sunlight, the further the object, the less molecules of sunlight concentrations as they are dispersed.
    Tilting of sun’s axis would be extremely important to our planets position as with this planet, the equator would output more energy than if the sun was tilted slightly.
    Studying rotation has shown how the different densities on this planets surface has generated the wobble that science has yet to figure out. The mechanics of rotation actually shows that planet and suns were infused with energy and the slowing of planet is the natural use of the energy and not the moon slowing the planet like science figures now due to the moons distruption of the atmosphere and ocean surface.
    Mechanics is the last thing science wants to look at as it crosses too many areas of study and would interfere with the grants all these scientists are recieving.

  30. Jimbo says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Joe Bastardi
    MONDAY 11:30 PM
    GLOBAL TEMPS GO BELOW LAST YEAR!

    Bastardi has nailed this all along.
    I would have to say it is going to get colder.

  31. If this is cooling, it can be caused by some extensive wind pattern. That means it could also warm up some more before continuing to drop.

  32. Icarus says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:09 am
    Interesting, but in the big picture, the decline of Arctic sea ice extent seems pretty consistent
    It’s easy to talk about a “decline” when your starting point happens to be a time of relatively high extent. Say you’ve climbed a hill, and have started down. Now, technically, you would still be at a higher point than you were when you started, and technically, you could speak of an overall upward “trend”, if you wanted to deny the reality that you were, in fact going down the hill. I think they have pills for that.

  33. Sorry to go off topic but there are two real warmist articles on the current Daily Telegraph site in the “Earth section”
    “World on course for hottest year since 1880” Quotes from UEA and the Met office so no bias there then…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7899939/World-on-course-for-hottest-year-since-1880.html
    “Britain at risk of being left behind in low carbon future” conclusion … more taxes needed
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7898979/Britain-at-risk-of-being-left-behind-in-low-carbon-future.html

  34. No Northwest Passage For You!

    I seem to recall lots of discussion last year about boats sailing through the Northwest Passage.
    Has this stopped this year, or am I just missing the sailing of the flotillas?

  35. Chuck Wiese says:
    July 19, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    Where is all that CO2 downwell radiation when you need it?? 😀
    Good idea. That could make it colder. 🙂

  36. Not a problem. GISS will simply extrapolate the Arctic temps from stations located in Phoenix, AR or perhaps Death Valley, CA. There are no low temps in the Arctic, its just ‘weather’ after all.
    Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the Government?

  37. rbateman says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:34 am
    Goes along with the recent happenings in S. America and Antarctica.
    What do your instincts tell you? A big Cold One coming on?

    Joe Bastardi and Don Easterbrook are both saying winter 2010/11 is going to be a very cold one.

  38. @ jimbo
    As far as I can see the ASU temps have been below last year every day in July. This is a radical change from the direction for almost a year. I believe that almost every day from Jan – Jun the temps in 2010 virtually every day was reported higher than the same day in 2009.
    While this is admittedly ‘raw’ data (adjustments made) , it is nonetheless an interesting change.
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/data/amsu_daily_85N85S_chLT.r001.txt

  39. Michael Schafer says:
    July 20, 2010 at 1:43 am
    Time to start knitting warm socks and pullovers, folks!
    As long as Pachauri has his women under his quilt and Al Gore has his masseuses at his ocean view mansion heated by solar all is right with the world and the rest of us can eat cake.
    sarc off

  40. Anthony,
    I haven’t heard from you if you want to use
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.png
    Currently Cryosphere seems to be updating things at 1024 CDT, and I’m currently fetching them at 1145 EDT.
    REPLY: Hi Ric, sorry. My Inbox is like a firehose. Is there a chance you could convert the compare.png to a JPEG? The PNG file is so large that it will really hose people on dialup. (Yes we have readers on dialup still).
    Thanks for your efforts and consideration – Anthony

  41. Well that is simply because melting is endothermic, so the air just above a melting ice will be colder if there’s more melting. It will also depend strongly on air movements and the location of the sensor.

  42. Interesting, but in the big picture, the decline of Arctic sea ice extent seems pretty consistent:

    None of those negative trends show any sign of changing, as far as I can tell.
    —–
    I don’t know how those numbers are calculated, but I look at the IARC-JAXA graph and I see positive trends, roughly speaking from a 2006 low, from January to May
    for 2007 to 2010. I also see a positive trend emerging from July to Nov, since 2007 if 2010 continues as expected.
    Those trends, when subsumed in the larger calculations for decadal trends are not enough to change the sign, so you are right to point out we should not expect to see a change in sign. In fact, if 1979 is (presumed to be) the high ice mark across a year, and the decadal trends are calculated from that date, then there never would be a change in sign until that year is matched (over a period of time), now would there, and even then the trends would be only be zero? But all during that time the percent change in those monthly trends would be getting smaller and smaller, until they were zero.
    I look forward to another 15 or 20 years of people saying “None of those negative trends show any sign of changing, as far as I can tell” until we are back where we started. With any luck 1979 is a high mark in an even greater past period of time than mere satellite data and we can look forward to an almost constant period of negative trends.

  43. Molon Labe says:
    July 20, 2010 at 1:02 am
    Is Stephen Schneider dead?
    Yes go to WUWT home page and scroll down

  44. stevengoddard says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:38 am
    “Temperatures are quite warm over the East Siberian Sea, which is where most of the melting is occurring now. We may see an increase in the rate of ice extent loss later this week.”
    ————————————————————————————-
    And quite a big one too.

  45. “None of those negative trends show any sign of changing, as far as I can tell.”
    The sticky thing about trends is knowing when they change.

  46. Jimbo says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:04 am
    Joe Bastardi
    MONDAY 11:30 PM
    GLOBAL TEMPS GO BELOW LAST YEAR!
    For the first time this year, the global temps have retreated below last years level.

    And yet Spencer’s AQUA channel 05 data is showing the hottest day in its record (since 02) and it’s hotter than his record value for the day (78-98). So that should mean it’s the hottest day in the satellite record if you believe Spencer’s inter satellite ‘adjustments’.

  47. With four and a half full cords of fire wood cut, split and drying in the tepid Washington sunlight, I’m adding more. Making firewood heats you many times, before you burn it! It takes you outside for a full body workout and leaves you with an immediate sense of accomplishment as the wood pile grows. And, better than money in the bank, it is right there next to the house and available for immediate withdrawals anytime, day or night and regardless of what the climate models are predicting. When the winter storms knock power lines down, the house is always warm and inviting, with no worries about freezing water lines and no annoying thutter from an ’emergency generator’ . I take pride in telling greenies ‘My house is heated with sustainable biofuels. How about yours?’. Granted, it is a bit difficult to haul a cord of cut block wood in a Prius, or the lumber to build a base for their yurt, but that was their choice.
    I think I’m getting the ‘hang’ of this sustainable lifestyle thingy…..

  48. So Phil, where do you think all this heat is coming from? Trapped above and “back radiated” or from below where heat is actually absorbed, stored and released?
    Have you looked at the OHC and SST data the last 8 months?

  49. Robert says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:46 am
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
    “Switch it to anomalies and suddenly goddard’s analysis doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t you show the anomaly map instead of the absolute temperature map. Is it because one shows warmth in the arctic and the other gives the impression of cooling?”
    Anomalies are for trends. Temps are for how cold or warm things are. Trix are for kids.
    If the anomaly is +10.5C and the temperature is -40C, the ice she aint’a gonna’ melt, eh?

  50. Jack Simmons says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:58 am
    No Northwest Passage For You!
    I seem to recall lots of discussion last year about boats sailing through the Northwest Passage.
    Has this stopped this year, or am I just missing the sailing of the flotillas?

    A bit early yet, for example last year Fleur Australe left Greenland on 28th July heading west. Indications so far are for a clear passage possibly by both routes.

  51. Mike Haseler says:
    July 20, 2010 at 1:05 am
    Off topic news
    NGO promotes ducks as solution to global warming, rice insufficiency…..
    ?!?WHAT?!?
    _____________________________________________________
    It is nothing really new. Actually it is the reapplication of old technology. The “Green Revolution” promoted monoculture farming, machines, pesticides, herbicides, patented seed… to replace the older more labor intensive methods (and make boodles of money for banks and corporations)
    Murrary McMurray Hatchery has been selling “weeder” geese for years. They used to be used to weed cotton fields.
    People now build chicken trackers for their garden plots to improve the soil and eat bugs.
    Guinea Fowl are great for insect control especially ticks and normally do not eat plants though they will eat weed seeds. They are also very good at “raising the alarm” (very loud buggers)
    Pigs used to be run in orchards to eat the dropped fruit that was full of bug larva. An ancient method for clearing a field of stumps was to take a crow bar and poke holes around the stumps, fill the holes with corn and turn the hogs lose. In rooting for the corn the hogs would dig up and push over the stump. However you have to build a hog proof fence or have “trained” hogs, so a bulldozer or stump grinder is easier. (bulldozers strip of the topsoil so a stump grinder is preferred but again more labor intense)
    Goats are used to clear out under brush and weeds from pastures.
    Horses are used to “timber” on fragile soil to prevent soil erosion. A good timber horse will snake a log through the woods without human attendance. Some farmers with clay soil do not use anything but horses, mules or ox because tractors compact the soil.
    This, more labor intensive type of farming (organic) is the type of farming now promoted as “low carbon” I prefer a mix of technologies – whatever works best starting with the traditional solutions and using the modern solutions where the older solutions do not work. For example running goats and sheep in my pastures to eat the plants the cows and horses would not. Spot spraying 2-4D or round-up on whatever no one will eat like sicklepod or jimsonweed.

  52. Robert says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:46 am
    Your temperature guage does not register anomalies.
    Water does not necessarily freeze at an anomaly of -2C, but it does at a temperature of 0C.

  53. The timing of maritime activity in Eastern and Northern waters of Canada is effected by sea ice so they monitor the conditions very carefully. They maintain very detailed charts including values for multi-year ice and thickness.
    Latest sea ice conditions are here:
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=D32C361E-1
    Here’s a July 1, 2010 look at the Northwest Passage:
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=0417829C-1&wsdoc=101D083D-C46A-4627-BF5A-CED5B8CE08E8
    Here’s a look at July ice break-up and extrusion into the Nares Strait. The compression is pretty amazing:
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=D32C361E-1&wsdoc=C06B577B-1BC0-4C77-8F5D-5CAD406EEBB2
    Path of the Petermann Ice Island as its carried down the coast toward the Grand Banks oil platforms and shipping lanes:
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=D32C361E-1&wsdoc=781FADE2-8FE7-44F4-9A2B-A9222ECB9E8D

  54. Isn’t this just wiggle watching?
    Seeing a climate-sceptic blog (weather is not climate, repeat after me) give prominence to an ‘event’ having a timescale of 1 week (yes, so far) seems a little, well, desperate.
    Dermot
    (AGW faith devotee index: zero)
    REPLY: Not desparate, just interesting. Many people have been mentioning it in comments.
    And I will add this. As a former TV meteorologist, I spent every day for 25 years “wiggle watching” (weather watching) to the delight and fascination of thousands of people. Just because I run a blog that is now the most visited climate related blog in the world, does not mean that I’ll give up weather watching. Please note the masthead.
    Don’t underestimate the weather watchers. They have a better feel for wiggles than most scientists at the top of the climate food chain. Sites like Weather Underground and weather.com live for the “wiggles”.
    – Anthony

  55. I wish summer would start here.
    We’ve had maybe 5 days so far this year that you could call “summery”, and in all cases it cooled off quickly in the evening.
    Maybe if you’re in one of those red-tinged zones currently experiencing warmth it’s easy to believe in the warming/melting boogie man, but here in the blue-tinged zone it doesn’t seem very probable.
    It’s freaking COLD… and a cooling world is NOT good for anyone or anything.

  56. Tenuc says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Interesting, in 2007 there was also a sudden dip in temperature around the same time as this one. WUWT?

    The Arctic is a bunch of ice floating in salt water. That can easily get below 0C if the ice is melting fast. That seems to be the case right now.
    Note, if it was sunny, that would overwhelm the cooling effect of the melting. Unfortunately, the weather data for latitudes >80 is sparse. See:
    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
    (The camera lens is frosted/snowed over but you can tell it’s not sunny.)
    http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
    (click on Alert and read a detailed weather report — partly cloudy as of 1200Z)

  57. Robert says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:46 am
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
    Switch it to anomalies and suddenly goddard’s analysis doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t you show the anomaly map instead of the absolute temperature map. Is it because one shows warmth in the arctic and the other gives the impression of cooling?
    So Robert, what’s the difference beetwen your map and the one shown at the start of this thread?

  58. Icarus says: July 20, 2010 at 4:17 am
    “There is no reasonable doubt that this anomalous and dramatic recent warming is due to human activity since the industrial revolution.”
    First of all, you are misinformed, but anyway;
    We can pretend that you understand that the ice comes and goes, sometimes it covers much of the land in Northern Hemisphere with km thick ice and sometimes there is no ice at all.
    If (as you believe) human activity melts all the ice in then next 5 years (8,005 year total) instead of the next 200 years (8,200 year total), what does it matter, really, what does it change, what affect would it have in 5 years that it would not have in 200 years. It is going to happen no matter what.
    What difference would it make? None. The only people really worried about the Arctic ice are the people who think that the Earth should be an unchanging environment, or that it has not happened before, or have placed bets on it.
    The vast majority of species alive today have lived through an ice free arctic, including humans like you and the polar bears.

  59. Yeah, I’ve been watching this too the last few days.
    Spent your whole life in Chico, Anthony? I lived 20 years in Sacramento, but another 20 split between Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Turns out ice will still slowly disappear when it is below freezing, particularly on sunny days. Tho I grant you it happens slower. . .

  60. “While this most certainly could be a temporary blip, it seems the temperature in the arctic above 80°N as calculated by DMI has steadily declined and hit 0°C a bit early (just past midway) in the Arctic melt season.”
    ____________________________________________________________
    Actually we are not just past the half way point to the Arctic melt season.
    If we use the actual dates of the maxima and minima of sea ice extent, based on JAXA data (2003-2009 inclusive, then we are through to 70% of the melt season.
    70% != 50% (and some loose change)
    REPLY: I’m referring to the green line in the DMI plot. Where it exceeds 0°C. You missed that. – Anthony

  61. If we were just past midway through the Arctic melt season, sea ice extent area-wise, than;
    14.41E6 km^2 – 2*(14.41E6 km^2 – 7.78E6 km^2) = 1.15E6 km^2 (a new Arctic sea ice minima record by almost a factor of four)
    w00t!

  62. So, in summary, whether we use date-wise or extent-wise, we are at least 70% through the melt season, since these are the metrics we’ve all been using, sea ice extent maxima/minima, we’re talking actual observational data on sea ice extent, not some spurious “I decide subjectively when the halfway point is.”
    REPLY: We aren’t talking about sea ice extent here, we are talking about temperature above the melting point. – Anthony

  63. For Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and other northwest states, this could be a very, very cold but very dry winter. The year the cold froze my sewer system (which is very hard to do if you think about it), there was hardly any snow. Remember, cold also means dry with drought knocking on the door if the Pacific stays cold through the spring and summer.

  64. NOAA seems to sense the onset of global cooling:
    http://www.glgroup.com/News/NOAA-Global-Temperature-Data-Reveals-Both-Warming-and-Cooling-Trends-49535.html
    They report:
    “The sea ice data needs to be placed in the context that the data set is limited, only going back to 1979. Nonetheless, it presents a problem for weather forecasters and climatologists because the Antarctic sea ice coverage indicates a cooling of ocean temperatures and a reversal in the climate trend. Large portions of the South Pacific and South Atlantic reflect this reversal, too, as sea surface temperatures dip below normal.
    It won’t be known until November if the cooling trend will also begin in the Northern Hemisphere.”

  65. Considering the weather pattern lately, it would seem we are getting colder air off Greenland being brought in across the North Pole. With lower pressure in the Basin, and higher pressure over Greenland (air flows from high to low pressure) that would be one of the possible causes for the well below normal temps. And the forecast trend for the rest of the month is for the same.

  66. REPLY: I’m referring to the green line in the DMI plot. Where it exceeds 0°C. You missed that. – Anthony
    __________________________________________________________
    I’m not aware of anyone using temperature data north od 80N as a metric for the Arctic melt season, you are the first, and only person, to do so AFAIK.
    Melt season has always been defined as from maxima-to-minima of the Arctic sea ice extent.
    Also, unless you have an 100% accurate weather crystal ball, there is nothing stopping that red line from exceeding 0C at a later (future) date. If that happens will you revise your “just past midway” remark? I doubt it.
    REPLY: Uh junior, this post was about the temperature plot, not extent. In fact the article doesn’t even contain the word “extent”. You are arguing extent. That’s fine if the post was about extent. The green DMI climate normal line goes above zero, stays above zero, then goes below zero. Above zero = melt, and lots of people scream about “melt” when in fact much of the melt is caused by wind patterns pushing ice out of the Arctic, where it does melt.
    Argue semantics and misdirections all you want, but that’s what I was referring to. Yes, you can define melt season via extent also. I’m really not interested in what you think I should have said, when the post is clearly about temperature, not extent. – Anthony

  67. Its interesting to see both how both alarmists and sceptics have been led into a blind alley of sorts, I watch with fascination the graphs every day but they mean little on their own other than short term variation based on short term weather patterns. Our esteeemed resident alarmist R Gates for example was himself trapped by a short term heavy melt at the start of the melt season and extrapolated from that a record low minimum stating confidently that it would be “one heck of a melt season”.
    On both sides the lure of predicting the minimum is very appealing not least to myself but isnt it strange that both sides focus has become narrowed onto this tiny time frame as though it was the superbowl final?
    We know the MSM will provide cover for the alarmist cause should the coming minimum be higher than usual and provide a platform for a mass of hysterical scare stories should the minimum be lower so either we get a media silence or a media frenzy. FWIW & IMHO we will not fully know which way the cookies are crumbling untill the 2011/12 maximums at least.
    What we do know is that when an ice age comes it comes fast and furious within a couple of years so stock up on essentials now just in case eh?

  68. I too am fascinated with weather events. I also statistically understand that every data point that makes up a climatological trend came from weather events. Every single one of them.

  69. Zero degrees isn’t all that magic. I am willing to bet that most of the melt happens from the bottom up. The air temperature can be considerably below zero and the ice will still melt because the water beneath it is above freezing.
    I used to be part of a crew that camped on the ice starting when the sun came up and left when the ice got too thin to land the DC-3 that would take us out. IIRC (it was nearly forty years ago), we were always gone by the end of May. A bright sunny day with a temperature of -15 deg. F was considered warm! Since the air was well below freezing, there were no puddles but the ice was thinning nevertheless. (We were measuring it carefully because it mattered a lot.)
    Why did we camp on the ice? All supply was by air and we had flights every couple of days because our helicopters used a lot of fuel. There was never a place on land that was flat enough to make an airstrip. It was always possible to find a suitably flat strip of ice.
    I can’t remember the exact numbers but we would start with an ice thickness of 3X where X was the minimum thickness to land a DC-3 or Twin Otter. Once or twice we had to lie to get the plane to come because the ice was thinner than X. The bottom line is that most of the ice melt is invisible from the surface.

  70. REPLY: Uh junior, this post was about the temperature plot, not extent. In fact the article doesn’t even contain the word “extent”. You are arguing extent. That’s fine if the post was about extent. The green DMI climate normal line goes above zero, stays above zero, then goes below zero. Above zero = melt, and lots of people scream about “melt” when in fact much of the melt is caused by wind patterns pushing ice out of the Arctic, where it does melt.
    Argue semantics and misdirections all you want, but that’s what I was referring to. Yes, you can define melt season via extent also. I’m really not interested in what you think I should have said, when the post is clearly about temperature, not extent. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________________
    You do realize that your spurious “temperature” definition is based on MODEL data? Not actual 100% in situ observational data.
    Note also that this MODEL data has not yet passes the zero mark, the red line is still above the zero line, ever so slightly;
    Do you see red BELOW blue? I don’t. So you’re jumping the gun as it were.
    You are the one who initiated the misdirection by your spurious “just past halfway” statement.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Medium-Range_Weather_Forecasts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMWF_re-analysis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERA-40

    REPLY:
    Junior, I know, yes that’s why it says ERA40 and T1279 in the legend. Short term models and model output, I use them every day for weather forecasting. So, do you have a point? I think not. I also realize that when you couldn’t win the extent semantics argument, you shifted it to something else. Also note that on the left hand side of the 3x magnified graph, when the red crosses the blue line, it goes behind it, not on top of it. So, your zero line argument is FAIL.
    Instead of playing these games, wouldn’t it simply just be more direct to say: “I don’t like you or anything here at WUWT”? Then you’d be honest about it. I pointed out something interesting. Get over it or get off. Not interested in anonymous troll bait. – Anthony

  71. REPLY: Junior, I know, yes that’s why it says ERA40 in the legend. I also realize that when you couldn’t win the argument, you shifted it to something else. Also note that on the left hand side of the 3x magnified graph, when the red crosses the blue line, it goes behind it, not on top of it. So, your zero line argument is FAIL.
    Instead of playing these games, wouldn’t it simply just be more direct to say: “I don’t like you or anything here at WUWT”? Then you’d be honest about it. I pointed out something interesting. Get over it or get off. Not interested in anonymous troll bait. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________________
    No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.
    Heck look at 2009, where the red linw is below the blue line for the first ~3rd, what’s up with that?
    Also look at 2003-2010 inclusive, denote a trend? It’s almost all below the green line, which is not so for almost the entire rest of this model’s time series. This suggests an inverse correlation between Arctic sea ice extent minima and temperature above 80N.
    80N occupies just 3.87E6 km^2, yet almost all the melt season occurs BELOW 80N.
    I could go on, but why bother, the ad hominem appears to be the SOP at WUWT.
    REPLY:
    “No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.”
    You didn’t look at the previous point closely. Junior, your argument about the red and blue line is still FAIL
    Junior FAIL
    You can’t see the red line under the blue on the left, what make you think you can see it on the right?
    And we aren’t talking about 2009 in this post, we are talking about 2010, July 19. Why do you keep shifting your losing arguments? – Anthony

  72. Remove the word “inverse” from “inverse correlation” should be “direct correlation” (positive slope), temperature above 80N goes down, Arctic sea ice extent also goes down.

  73. “….Antarctic sea ice coverage indicates a cooling of ocean temperatures and a reversal in the climate trend.”
    This is the really the interesting story at the moment. The NOAA are talking about a reversal in the climate trend!!
    So they are reiterating the much criticised Joe Bastardi and contradicting James Hansen. Note climate trend not weather.
    Everyone’s focused on a few hundred km of ice at the North Pole when it can easily change a million or two from year to year, and last year there was a warm El Nino, well let’s focus on the real story and see what happens in November, because according to NOAA (hardly a skeptical organisation) that’s when the fun “might” begin, i.e. a climate trend reversal.
    Personally I hope they’re wrong, because the warming over the last 30 years has done nothing but good!! lets face it.

  74. I’m just curious how this supposed “premature chill” corresponds with this map, showing above average SST’s for much of the Arctic:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    And it’s been this way for quite some time.
    Also, looking at this charts would also seem to show warmer anomalous temps in and around much of the Arctic:
    http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Ocean_Temp/Weekly_Anomaly.html
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
    Right at the ice edges where the ice is melting and turning to water of course you’re going to get colder water, but further out, around Greenland Sea, in the Beaufort Sea, in the Barants Sea you see plenty of warm water where the ice melted weeks ago.
    Sorry, don’t see any “premature cooling” going on here.

    REPLY:
    So, your argument then is that the DMI temperature plot is wrong? Note it is 80N and greater. Not the Greenland, Beaufort, or Barents Sea.

  75. Phil. says:
    July 20, 2010 at 7:33 am
    And yet Spencer’s AQUA channel 05 data is showing the hottest day in its record (since 02) and it’s hotter than his record value for the day (78-98). So that should mean it’s the hottest day in the satellite record if you believe Spencer’s inter satellite ‘adjustments’.

    Weren’t you the bugger dissing me for following DMI on Sea Ice #3? Yet here you come with the UAH when all along you’ve been hyping GISSTEMP. What a hypocrite. Pick your source and live or die.

  76. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php on the Danish site it looks like their temperature model had dips to the blue line (0 C) during the melt season in at least 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 (almost), and 2009 (I only looked back to 1998). Really, it bounces all over, so I don’t see anything unusual at all this year.

  77. richcar 1225 says:
    July 20, 2010 at 8:55 am
    “NOAA seems to sense the onset of global cooling:
    http://www.glgroup.com/News/NOAA-Global-Temperature-Data-Reveals-Both-Warming-and-Cooling-Trends-49535.html

    I don’t think that NOAA has written this; rather a guy analysing the NOAA data. It doesn’t matter in the end, but i don’t think NOAA is prepared yet to announce a cooling trend publically. They will only be allowed to do that after the congress elections when it will not matter anymore, one way or the other.

  78. Since pure water, compared to sea water, is the first to freeze and the last to thaw, it that not exactly one major ways thick multi-year clear ice with very low salt content is accumulated? The rain in the arctic has recently been reported and it accumulates in the melt ponds and freezes near 0ºC instead of -3ºC or -4ºC. That is just a logical observation but I don’t know if that actually occurs to any great extent.

  79. Agile Aspect says: July 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
    vukcevic says: July 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    Arctic is still science enigma .
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-factor.htm
    Regarding the second URL, what does CET denote and why does the data stop at 2006?

    If I did work correctly data should stop at 2006, up to June and 2005 for the rest. Temperatures and AMO are charted as 10 year moving average, e.g. temperature for 2005 is ( 2001+2002+ …. +2010)/10.
    MS Excel can plot directly moving averages, but it gives an inaccurate reading since moves whole plot to the right by half of the selected period.

  80. Moderator said:
    “REPLY: So, your argument then is that the DMI temperature plot is wrong? Note it is 80N and greater. Not the Greenland, Beaufort, or Barents Sea.”
    ___________
    Actually, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and in fact, when you switch over to the “anomalies” on the DMI parameter, it doesn’t show premature cooling, but actually more warm anomalies, just as the other links I posted showed. From all these charts, including the DMI (anomalies), there is no premature cooling going on in the Arctic, so I’m not sure why you would post that, and if you’re point is to show how there is colder water near the edge of ice where the ice is melting…well, calling that “premature chill” doesn’t seem to be a very scientific way of looking at it
    REPLY:It’s an interesting note, with a question mark, nothing more. And yet you don’t complain when heat waves are pointed out as evidence of AGW. Shall we not ever discuss anything of interest then because it may offend? ~mod]

  81. I notice on the arctic sea-ice anomaly plot that there is a large, short-lived positive spike that shows up in the NSIDC data around 1996. I wonder if this was a real cold-summer melt-failure event or if this might be an error of one in the most or next-most significant digit column.

  82. Temperatures are cold near the pole, and warm near the East Siberian Sea.
    There isn’t any conflict, except for people who assume that the whole Arctic can be defined by one data point (i.e. GISS.)

  83. stevengoddard says:
    July 20, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Temperatures are cold near the pole, and warm near the East Siberian Sea.
    There isn’t any conflict, except for people who assume that the whole Arctic can be defined by one data point (i.e. GISS.)
    _____________
    Taking a look at the DMI anomaly map shows more anomalous warmth in the region then cold– the pretty red colors tell you that. Yes, there is colder water near the melting ice edges (as there always is), but no “premature chill” going on.

  84. There appear to be several “lagoons” in the ice sheet. The largest being East of Greenland. Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya appear to have quite profound effect on how the ice near them melts.
    Interestingly whilst a roughly circular set of islets can be seen on other maps to the West Severnaya Zemlya the same does not appear to be the case East of Novosibirskiye Ostrova. There dosn’t appear to be any land between Vilkitskogo Island and the mainland.
    Maybe things correspond better with a lower sea level, possibly submerged “islands” melt the ice better than ones which go through it…

  85. Steven,
    Why don’t you state that R. Gates last name is “Gates” so we can all watch R. Gates argue with you about it. 🙂

  86. R. Gates, is it the case that the data source has used the same methods to draw its graphs since way back when? Are they recording temps around the edges of the ice only or are they using other methods such as buoy’s? If so, then I would have to say that the source is reporting a true difference in temperature, since ice melts every year and according to your argument, should make the edges cold every year. However it appears that there have been times when the edge temps have been warmer and times when it has been colder. So the ice has melted like this in times past in the record. Therefore the current temp is not much different, nor is it unprecedented, nor is it very anomalous, or indicative of a warming trend.
    The fact that temps are colder right now seems normal to me and would not tell me much about an AGW trend. It might tell me something about current conditions. And as you would agree, current conditions cannot inform us much about AGW or cooling.

  87. REPLY:
    “No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.”
    You didn’t look at the previous point closely. Junior, your argument about the red and blue line is still FAIL
    _____________________________________________________________
    No, you are still wrong.
    As you used the word “cross” as in + meaning that you would have to see red on both sides of the blue line.
    That is not the case, the red line has not crossed the blue line.
    At best it could be called a union.
    To repeat is not a cross as in + it is a union at best, even then, we still can’t decern if July 19th is the last visable red pixel or the first red pixel under a blue pixel.
    REPLY: Gosh Junior, you are stubborn. The point is that you can’t tell if the red line is under the blue line right now. So if it has crossed on the right side, at present, nobody can tell until it steps down 1 pixel. The same would be true on the left side, as I pointed out. Your fluffed up argument is moot anyway, since I never used the word “cross” in the original article. This is what I actually said in the article, emphasis mine:

    …from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) there’s an indication of even colder temperatures, now hitting the freezing line in the middle of the Arctic summer.

    I only used the word “cross” in a comment to describe the left hand side of the graph, when the temp in fact crossed the 273.15K line early in the season, to show you that you can’t see the red line crossing under the blue. You are the one insisting I said “crossed” on the right side, you are the one putting words in my mouth, and you are the one who is clearly in the wrong on this issue that you morphed from your original complaint about melt season > extent > pixel crossings. Still FAIL on your part, but entertaining FAIL. What next, argue about colors? Heh. – Anthony

  88. Pamela Gray says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:28 pm
    R. Gates, is it the case that the data source has used the same methods to draw its graphs since way back when? Are they recording temps around the edges of the ice only or are they using other methods such as buoy’s? If so, then I would have to say that the source is reporting a true difference in temperature, since ice melts every year and according to your argument, should make the edges cold every year. However it appears that there have been times when the edge temps have been warmer and times when it has been colder. So the ice has melted like this in times past in the record. Therefore the current temp is not much different, nor is it unprecedented, nor is it very anomalous, or indicative of a warming trend.
    The fact that temps are colder right now seems normal to me and would not tell me much about an AGW trend. It might tell me something about current conditions. And as you would agree, current conditions cannot inform us much about AGW or cooling.
    ___________
    I completely agree that current weather conditions don’t tell us much about long term warming or cooling. The only interest to me related to AGW is anomalies over the longer term, as they inform us that something different is happening. This year’s melt is right in line with the longer term lower Arctic Sea ice downward trend. It is the most interesting (to me) of the frontline indicators the AGW might be happening. High or low Arctic SST’s, whether or not we have melt ponds, when Pt. Barrow short-fast ice breaks up, etc. are just weather curiousities– interesting in their own right and great for weather triva, but it is the longer term trend (10+ years) that means the most when if comes to looking at AGW.

  89. “REPLY: In questions like this, it is always useful to visit the front page of WUWT first and use the amazing tool called the scrollbar. – Anthony”
    I checked the front page of WUWT. I only saw an article referring to Schneider as having “jumped the shark”. Surely, I thought, no one would be a big enough cad to report his death under that headline. So I didn’t even read it.
    REPLY: The article appeared the day before, and then when I learned of his death, I made the announcement there. Catch 22 whether I left it as it was or amended it as I did. – Anthony

  90. Once more, look at this very accurate map of Arctic SST anomalies, and tell me that you see a “premature chill” going on:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    Don’t think so…
    REPLY: But see Gates, that’s the thing, the headline is not about your plot, but is about the DMI graph, which was curious to me. I don’t write posts for consensus, I don’t write posts in a way that can’t possibly offend warmists, I write them as I see them, and a number of commenters saw the same thing before I made a post out of it.
    Be as upset as you wish. If I paid attention to such complaints, I’d never get anything done. You’ve made your point, you don’t like the headline, move on to something else. – Anthony

  91. NOTE: Using Photoshop CS5 64-bit I have determined that the last red pixel, which is ABOVE the blue line, does indeed represent July 19, 2010.
    Therefore the 19th is still above the blue line.
    The 19th is the date shown on the graph.
    Upper right; x =61 (pixel) = zero (Julian date), y = 13 (pixel)
    Lower left; x = 579 (pixel) = 365 (Julian date), y = 347 (pixel)
    Last red pixel; x = 345 (pixel) = 200 (Julian date), y = 63 (pixel)
    Blue line; y = 64 (pixel)
    REPLY: Which is what I said in the first place, that it was “hitting the freeze (blue) line”, You are the one that put words in my mouth insisting that I said I said it was crossing on the right. Still FAIL on your part. – Anthony

  92. REPLY: Gosh Junior, you are stubborn. The point is that you can’t tell if the red line is under the blue line right now. So if it has crossed on the right side, at present, nobody can tell until it steps down 1 pixel. The same would be true on the left side, as I pointed out. Your fluffed up argument is moot anyway, since I never used the word “cross” in the original article. This is what I actually said in the article, emphasis mine:
    …from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) there’s an indication of even colder temperatures, now hitting the freezing line in the middle of the Arctic summer.
    I only used the word “cross” in a comment to describe the left hand side of the graph, when the temp in fact crossed the 273.15K line early in the season, to show you that you can’t see the red line crossing under the blue. You are the one insisting I said “crossed” on the right side, you are the one putting words in my mouth, and you are the one who is clearly in the wrong on this issue that you morphed from your original complaint about melt season > extent > pixel crossings. Still FAIL on your part, but entertaining FAIL. What next, argue about colors? Heh. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________________
    See my post above with the irrefutable and objective pixel counts.
    The red linn is NOT “hitting” the blue line as of July 19, 2010, the red line is one pixel ABOVE the blue line on July 18, 2010.
    Like I stated from the beginning, you jumped the gun, no getting around that one.
    I do find it greatly entertaining and highly amusing reading WUWT, also known as Bizzaro World (left is right, up is down, + is -, you get the drill).
    I’d use your FAIL word here, but it seems as if you, and only you, are the perfect example of that word.
    REPLY: Oh puhlezze Junior. Not content with the fact that you’ve been called out on continually morphing the argument, and making a claim about something I never said in the original article, now you are down to arguing over the word “hitting”? Really? OK let’s call this “Junior’s morphed argument number 4”.
    Hitting means “to come into contact with”. Will you now argue that? The blue line and red line pixels are not in contact? OK if “hitting” offends you I’ll let you pick any of these words: grazes, contacts, touches, meets, adjoins, reaches.
    At least I have the courage to put my name to all this, while you whine from the safe comfort of anonymity, calling names like “bizzaro world”. Yeah, real class there, Junior. Have a look at XKCD and realize what you’ve been doing here. Still FAIL, and hilariously so. – Anthony

  93. EFS_Junior says:
    July 20, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    Wow just wow. IMO you are one disturbed individual.

  94. REPLY: Which is what I said in the first place, that it was “hitting the freeze (blue) line”, You are the one that put words in my mouth insisting that I said I said it was crossing on the right. Still FAIL on your part. – Anthony
    __________________________________________________________
    Perfect example of my previous post.
    The RED LINE is ABOVE the BLUE line. By one FULL pixel to be EXACT.
    Which happens to be a differential of +0.13C.
    So in the end you are the one who has failed.
    See ya, don’t want to be ya.
    REPLY: So, you are saying the red and blue pixels don’t touch? Clearly and indisputably they are. My point in the original article was that they touched or “hit” each other, you keep morphing the argument to suit your purpose, which started out on an entirely different subject. You lost all the previous ones. This one is still FAIL Junior. – Anthony

  95. “ABOVE the blue line on July 18, 2010”
    next to last post should be;
    “ABOVE the blue line on July 19, 2010.”
    typo, my bad.

  96. REPLY: Oh puhlezze Junior. Not content with the fact that you’ve been called out on continually morphing the argument, and making a claim about something I never said in the original article, now you are down to arguing over the word “hitting”? Really? OK let’s call this “Junior’s morphed argument number 4″.
    Hitting means “to come into contact with”. Will you now argue that? The blue line and red line pixels are not in contact? OK if “hitting” offends you I’ll let you pick any of these words: grazes, contacts, touches, meets, adjoins, reaches.
    At least I have the courage to put my name to all this, while you whine from the safe comfort of anonymity, calling names like “bizzaro world”. Yeah, real class there, Junior. Have a look at XKCD and realize what you’ve been doing here. Still FAIL, and hilariously so. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________________
    ROTFLMFAO!
    They are one pixel APART. EXACTLY one pixel apart.
    If they were zero pixels apart there would be no meaning to the y-axis. as they would be the EXACT same temperature.
    They are NOT the EXACT same temperature, the red line is 0.13C ABOVE the blue line.
    The red line is not zero, not on July 19, 2010 at least, the date of said graph.
    But you know what?
    It’s been fun proving you 100% WRONG!
    REPLY: Rrrrrright these red and blue pixels aren’t touching?
    That was my original point in the article, I never made any claims of numbers, I simply said “…now hitting the freezing line…”, based on the red and blue pixels touching. Unless you are prepared to say the pixels do not touch, you have no argument. And how much time have you wasted over that argument. ? – Like I said, you are amazingly stubborn, and hilariously confused over semantics.
    Oh and I should add, that without knowing what the precision and resolution of the model is, you can’t really get into a numerical argument about 0.13C That may be below the resolution of the model output. – Anthony

  97. At least I have the courage to put my name to all this, while you whine from the safe comfort of anonymity, calling names like “bizzaro world”. Yeah, real class there, Junior. Have a look at XKCD and realize what you’ve been doing here. Still FAIL, and hilariously so. – Anthony
    ____________________________________________________________
    My real name is Everett Francis Sargent, Jr. you want a street address also?
    REPLY: Nope, but welcome to the light, Frank. That’s the first classy thing you have done. – Anthony

  98. [snip – you can attack the argument, but I won’t have you attack me personally, really low Frank. Feel free to resubmit without the personal attack- Anthony]

  99. Getting a bit flustered I see.
    You need to stop repeating yourself, as it theds to make you look rather …….

  100. To close this case permanently and forevermore.
    The graph is shown with one pixel thick lines.
    The red pixel is one FULL pixel above the blue pixel.
    Therefore if the line was 0.1 pixels wide, the red line and the blue line would not be “hitting” or “touching” as someone here has tried to claim, using the ad hominem repeatedly as their main line of attack, an all too obvious logical fallacy.
    The width of the line has nothing to do with the actual values, which are definitely apart from each other, otherwise the red pixel would be beneath the blue pixel, clearly that is NOT the case.
    The red pixel is 0.13C above the blue pixel, centerline-to-centerline distance is EXACTLY one pixel.
    The width of the line is arbitrary, they are not “touching” or “hitting” one another in the actual engineering sense.
    Real units which are measurable in the engineering sense.
    Real units that some people refuse to see, but they are right there for anyone truly qualified.
    REPLY See response below, which was here, but now placed there for correct timeline order. – Anthony

  101. Simple question Frank: Do the red and blue pixels touch? Yes or No?
    See previous post, the width of the line, obscures your ability to see that they are in fact different values.
    There can be absolutely no dispute on that one single salient FACT!
    The lines ARE different, by one pixel, do you doubt that the two lines are one pixel APART?
    Clearly you do.
    And just as clearly, you are WRONG!
    REPLY: I’m not arguing values. I said “hitting the freezing line”. Touching, etc. Why can’t you simply answer the question Frank. Do the red and blue pixels touch, yes or no? – Anthony

  102. Cassandra King says:
    July 20, 2010 at 9:04 am
    Its interesting to see both how both alarmists and sceptics have been led into a blind alley of sorts, I watch with fascination the graphs every day but they mean little on their own other than short term variation based on short term weather patterns. Our esteeemed resident alarmist R Gates for example was himself trapped by a short term heavy melt at the start of the melt season and extrapolated from that a record low minimum stating confidently that it would be “one heck of a melt season”
    __________
    “Resident Alarmist”….so anyone believing the AGW might actually be occurring is now an “alarmist”– is that right? How very sad for you that you see the world in such extreme black and white terms. It is not possible to believe in AGW and not be an alarmist about it? Or believe it is occurring but it will not necessarily be a catastrophe? Hmmm… well at least you have me as an “esteemed” resident alarmist, if I must be classified as an alarmist simply because I believe that AGW is likely occurring.
    But you next point– about my very early forecast of 4.5 million sq. km. for the summer minimum. I made this during the much trumpeted (by skeptics) March bump up. As certain skeptics were giddy with glee over the short-lived March “bump up” in sea ice, I had made my projection of a 4.5 million sq. km. summer minimum. I did not base my forecast on the heavy sea ice melt we saw in May and June, as my forecast preceded it and I knew the March bump up was truly just weather (as are most, if not all of Steve’s sea ice updates) and not a change in any longer term Arctic sea ice dynamics. My forecast is well documented as such here on WUWT.
    In regard to the rest of the season, I applauded Steve many times for getting the slowdown in extent correct. But I disagree with him on the cause, and I still am keeping with my 4.5 million sq. km. minimum this year. Nothing has happened to change my projection, and the current placement of the sea ice extent curve, from JAXA et. al, shows that we are exactly where I’ve suggested we’ll end up at the end of the season– less than 2008 or 2009, but more than 2007.
    I’ve also already given a long-term forecast that we’ll hit 2.5 million sq. km. in minimum sea ice extent some year before the ice begins to refreeze in the fall of 2015. If we get a good sized El Nino in 2012-2013 on top of the increasing total solar irradiance as we approach the solar max in 2013, we could even see lower than 2.5 million– but I’ll stick with 2.5 for now.

  103. REPLY: Rrrrrright these red and blue pixels aren’t touching?
    That was my original point in the article, I never made any claims of numbers, I simply said “…now hitting the freezing line…”, based on the red and blue pixels touching. Unless you are prepared to say the pixels do not touch, you have no argument. And how much time have you wasted over that argument. ? – Like I said, you are amazingly stubborn, and hilariously confused over semantics.
    Oh and I should add, that without knowing what the precision and resolution of the model is, you can’t really get into a numerical argument about 0.13C That may be below the resolution of the model output. – Anthony
    ___________________________________________________________
    You posted the misleading article, it’s something in sociology called “intellectual ownership” whereby the author of said statements/blog posts invests there intellect in said arguments, and refuses to ever give up, even once they’ve clearly shown to be completely wrong.
    Your posts are an excellent example of this sociological process called “intellectual ownership” you own it so that you must defend it at all costs. Again your posts clearly show and bear this out.
    I post BECAUSE you post. Not the other way around.
    You are wasting your time, but you are not wasting my time.
    As to the resolution issue, it’s there, otherwise all their values would be postes at a courser granularity.
    In fact, since I’ve run numerical models on supercomputers at the USACE ERDC, they could show 15-digits of precision, because that is the accuracy needed for numerical stability.
    REPLY:
    “You posted the misleading article, it’s something in sociology called “intellectual ownership” whereby the author of said statements/blog posts invests there intellect in said arguments, and refuses to ever give up, even once they’ve clearly shown to be completely wrong.”
    But Frank, you started out arguing on an entirely different subject, and you kept morphing it to a different argument when you lost the first ones. Look at my other post reply. – Anthony

  104. REPLY: I’m not arguing values. I said “hitting the freezing line”. Touching, etc. Why can’t you simply answer the question Frank. Do the red and blue pixels touch, yes or no? – Anthony
    ___________________________________________________________
    The lines are 0.13C apart, that is the resolution of said graphic, the width of the line is arbitrary, it has no bearing on the difference and spacing of the two lines, which happens to be EXACTLY one pixel.
    End of discussion.
    REPLY:Still can’t answer the question directly can you? Yes or No will do nicely. Comments passed in the ether, see above. And it’s my blog, so I get to choose when a discussion has ended, not you. Sorry. – Anthony

  105. Icarus says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:17 am
    Andrew30: If only normal and natural factors were involved (i.e. no human influence), we would expect the continuation of a long and gentle decline in temperatures, but this is not what we see –
    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/Fig.final_11.jpg
    There is no reasonable doubt that this anomalous and dramatic recent warming is due to human activity since the industrial revolution.
    ______________________________________________________
    YES BUT
    Trenberth said in an e-mail
    ♫♫♫ “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ♫♫♫
    So Hansen made the warming up and up
    “Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!
    The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990’s were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!
    It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).
    click GRAPH showing 6 adjustments in 1934 vs 1998 temperatures

  106. Some comments from Frank, EFS_Junior passed in the ether, they are out of order above. So I’m moving here:
    Replying to EFS_Junior @
    July 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm (Edit)
    REPLY See the image below Frank. Red and Blue pixels clearly touch, that’s indisputable. That’s where my “…hitting the freezing line…” came from.
    touching pixels

    “Real units that some people refuse to see, but they are right there for anyone truly qualified.”

    Frank posted a must nastier version of this swipe earlier, which I snipped. He claimed I have no expertise.
    Frank, do you see the computer graphics on the right sidebar? Sat/radar/widget etc?. I make these, with software I custom design. I work in pixels everyday, I make rendering systems, software, content, and display systems specifically about computer graphics for weather. I’d venture that you have no expertise in how to take raw weather data and make it into images like these, just like I’m not an expert in dynamic flow. But I’m not going to insult you because your chosen field is different than mine.
    In retrospect, I think this argument boils down to what fields we work in. In my field of computer graphics for weather, two adjacent pixels touch each other as shown in the image.
    In Franks engineering work, a difference of 0.13 (in any unit) could mean the difference between success and failure depending on what that unit and situation is. He thinks numerically, assigning a zero thickness to a pixel whereas I have to remember and deal with pixel thickness in all my programming, or graphic lines or objects don’t join or antialias correctly. The result is FAIL when viewed. In my world, line pixels have a physical size, depending on the rendering resolution, in Frank’s world they do not, they are points with no size or line thickness. When I have two weather images I combine, rendered at different resolutions, I have to match pixel sizes, and pixel aspect ratios to get things to line up correctly.
    So I’ll give him his 0.13 if he’ll concede that in my world, which has a different set of definitions than his for the work I do, that the red and blue pixels “touch”. Which was my original point when I said “…hitting the freezing line…” Frank took that to be numerical, but I was talking graphical.
    If you don’t want to say the pixels touch, and thus one line graphically “hits, contacts, etc. to the other” then I see no point in continuing. – Anthony

  107. Gail …. when Steve MacIntyre showed Hansen that these small changes were introducing a bias … he redid it from the start, congratulated Steve, and had to defend his accepting Corrections from Outsiders ever since (HE says it means his OPPONENTS verify his Final Result & criticizes “Europe” for hiding Methods, source Code, refusing to hear Outsiders, never admitting any Error, etc. – – Naturally, when he said all this on Letterman recently — and Denounced Cap & Trade too – – so Naturally, Limbaugh crowed about it, & then said “But I still think he is in Cahoots with the University of East Anglia [Frauders]” Does not anyone recognize SCIENCE when they see it ? It’s all about giving the Victory to those Theories — NOT theorists – – who are actually RIGHT. The sad thing is his own Center — GISS — puts out World Maps using the Euro Data because they have none other for Surface Stations. Again, on Letterman, Hansen HISSED: “tenths of a degree, TENTHS OF A DEGREE !” … which kind of shows he trusts the Satellite data over the GISS maps of only Surface Stations, for Global anyway.
    Please try to remember this is COMPLICATED, and make your deductions SPECIFIC.
    So what if they changed something 8 or 800 times, if they Corrected it based on an ENEMY’s objection ? Hansen is Honest. Or Hansen PLUS MacIntyre, TOGETHER, are … not Perfect, but as true as REAL Science can get. Trust GISS for USA temps & forget it for Global, it’s Polluted by the Euro Frauds — trust the Satellites instead. Hansen does.
    REPLY: Hansen trusts the satellites? News to me. Why does he need GISS then that only uses surface data?- Anthony

  108. If I can squeeze in a word or two about different images….
    Ric Werme says:
    July 20, 2010 at 5:24 am
    …if you want to use….
    REPLY: … Is there a chance you could convert the compare.png to a JPEG? The PNG file is so large that it will really hose people on dialup. (Yes we have readers on dialup still).
    – Anthony
    Can do, and done. Cryosphere used to create .png files for the cryo_latest files, I was a bit surprised they didn’t create .jpgs for the compare files. Maybe they figured each would be seen about once.
    At any rate – my files are now at:
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
    I’d still like to upload them to WUWT per Email.

  109. Mr Pawelczck & R. Gates – – WOW to your Graphs & Charts finds ! !
    But … can you give any guide to the symbols ? especially Cloud Cover :
    http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif
    PS: apparently the Arctic’s Resident Meterologist had it all figured out – –
    the SEA is warm – – from the El Nino,
    the AIR is COLD — from the La Nina
    BOTH happen at the same time (PPS this is what made the 2007 Melt so Big)
    (the pokey water flows at 3 mph all the way round Africa &/or the Horn so it will STILL be arriving for Months after the Air has already turned Chilly – – get it ? )
    http://www.eh2r.com
    If this had happened sooner in the year I’d be getting a Visa for Brazil.

  110. OK … we can discuss temperature graphs ad infinitum. But previously there have been discussions that the temperature is really not the main driver of ice melt but wind and ocean currents probably are.
    And if you go back and look at the DMI temperature archives, you will see that the temperatures during the melt season are all over the place and from my limited review, they have little or no correlation to ice extent or volume in the arctic. But as we have seen, the wind and currents sure do.
    And I bet the PDO and NAO have a lot more long term impact than short and highly variable melt seasons.
    Weather (sic) the red and blue pixels touch is most likely irrelevant. Just weather – see below.
    Wayne
    PS – Some of my friends had to be helicopter out of the mountains near Jasper, Alberta on July 14 due to heavy snow trapping a bunch of European climbers in the mountains – see also http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=jaspersnow_13_07_2010

  111. Anthony,
    EFS didn’t have anything of substance to say. His petty argument brought out the true colors of global warming for all to see clearly, i.e, they have nothing of substance, so they distract people to try to keep them from looking at the real science. And Arctic ice is not doing what they couldn’t stop themselves from saying a month ago it was going to do. They are feeling deep defeat now and being sore losers. Those graphs are killing them!! So what does one of them do? Try to make up arguments about lines in graphs being on top or behind another line
    WHILE NEVER, NOT ONCE EVER, TALKING ABOUT WHAT THAT GRAPH IS SHOWING.
    They don’t want people looking at what is happening in Argentina. They don’t want anyone to know about the below normal cold in Australia. The Southern Hemisphere, about 1/2 of the world, is colder than normal. And Antarctic ice is growing at an unprecedented pace (for the satellite record). Not a peep from them. But heat in a small portion of the world, the Northeast US and Southeast Canada, well, they couldn’t magnify that enough.
    In June Arctic ice suited their global warming so everything was great for them—and they let us know it. Now their hopes are destroyed in July and they only have a losers limp. They have no substance. Their smoke screen can’t work and they know it.
    Winter will be cold. Poll numbers will be worse for them. Elections in November will hurt them even more because Americans want the left out of Washington. Global warmers don’t a very easy road ahead of them.
    They can always join the winning side though. 😉

  112. Charles Wilson says:
    July 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    Gail …. when Steve MacIntyre showed Hansen that these small changes were introducing a bias … he redid it from the start,
    Huh, ya, you’re right: he’s been redoing things. Hey, would you know Charles, that correction, 1998/1934—-is 1934 still warmer than 1998 in James Hansen’s record?

  113. To those few who are trying to hurt Anthony over Stephen Schneider’s death:
    Anthony said he was saddened to hear about Stephen Schneider’s death. And it was sad news. Anthony offered his condolences. And he shut down the QOTW thread on Stephen Schneider. It is indecent to try to make Anthony look bad now because he had a thread about Steven Schneider. Hind site is 20/20. And in this case hind site is cruel. Please remember that Stephen Schneider had a vital role in the blacklist. That blacklist put some scientists into a bad light. If Anthony had intentions of harming Stephen Schneider in reaction to the blacklist he would not have offered his condolences. Please show some decency and stop these cruel snipings.

  114. Anthony, your patience is truly astounding. There are people commenting in this thread who I would cheerfully strangle if my arms would reach, and all I did was read it. I bow in your general direction, sir.
    REPLY: Thanks, it’s hard to teach the dead, so please lay off the idea of strangling somebody.
    I prefer live interaction in the hope that I can reach people. – Anthony

  115. I’m a lurker, but I figure I need about 3 to 6 months of lurking before I can begin to intelligently comment and also figure out the players. But, I must say, it was painfully obvious that Francis (I won’t call him Frank. Think of the movie Stripes. Sgt. Hulka: “Lighten up Francis!”) was simply out to waste the blog’s and Anthony’s time. Anthony showed remarkable restraint, even offering an olive branch, to agree to disagree over their differences; and Anthony turned this teaching opportunity: “How to handle a warmist troll who’s trying to waste your time and turn it into a teaching exercise.”
    Splendid work Anthony! Keep it up. I couldn’t do it, but you are a great credit to freedom fighters everywhere! Good on ‘ya!
    REPLY: Thanks, may you find a free “Hulka-Burger” in your future. – Anthony

  116. Can we have “EFS_Junior” put on hold until he’s at least a Senior? I know high school is a hard time, but sheesh, a dozen or so posts about the semantics of ONE PIXEL?
    I’d rather talk about what it means in terms of physics to have the arctic temps at zero now (and I don’t care if it’s -0.00001 or +0.00001 or which pixel of the two is ‘on top’!)
    Is it because of air mass shift, winds, currents, ice melt absorbing heat via latent heat of fusion, or cloud cover blocking sun?
    There’s a world of more interesting stuff to look at here…
    (Maybe R. Gates could take him ‘under wing’ and teach him how to use the daily talking points and scripted arguments… at least it would be more interesting than pixel semantics…)
    And I really need to take meditation lessons from Anthony. I’d have busted a gusset long ago…

  117. Look at summer 2007. It was cold there too, in a way that resembles this year. In fact, during the phase of fastest melt it was coldest. Though never below the freezing point of sweet water, of course (sea-ice is predominantly sweet water).

  118. Mr Anthony Watts,
    Mr Everett Francis Sargent, Jr.
    et al.
    Gentlemen,
    Mr Sargent looked at the graph from mathematical point of view where two lines are only abstract objects. When one line “hits” (touches) the other it means the two variables represented by the two lines have equal values at the “hitting point”. If there was a “gap” in values for a given time the two line were unable to touch or hit themselves. So says mathematics.
    Mr Watts, probably, looked at the graph from meteo-maps point of view, where front lines are “hitting” one another on constant basis. There mathematical precision does not matter. Alas, Mr Watts described the DMI graph which was (is) mathematical representation of real physical variables and used unprecise “common” language.
    From what I said, Mr Everett Francis Sargent, Jr. was right.
    My best regards

  119. The Gates and the Juniors et al on here are reduced to semantics, which shows they are confused by the contradictory weather data flooding their belief systems. The not to subtle shift of scientific data that is now flooding the climate community with alternate possibilities, that are based on real science, must give rise in these people to a feeling of trepidation, and an unease in their rabid certainty.
    Advice would be hope that the arctic does not melt this year, Southern and tropic oceans have plunged in sub surface temps and the surface is below normal. The only warm water is impinging on the arctic ice, such that it will also plunge in temp. Our immediate future with the sun on holidays is bloody cold! Get over the CAGW it ain’t happening.

  120. wayne Job says:
    July 21, 2010 at 4:24 am
    The only warm water is impinging on the arctic ice, such that it will also plunge in temp. Our immediate future with the sun on holidays is bloody cold! Get over the CAGW it ain’t happening.

    So how come Niña-year AND sunspotminimumyear 2007 still made it to the top 10% of warmest years AND that melt in the Arctic Sea, please? Wouldn’t we have expected 2007 to arrive in the 10% coldest?
    No better proof for GW than 2007!

  121. RR Kampen says:
    July 21, 2010 at 6:13 am
    wayne Job says:
    July 21, 2010 at 4:24 am
    …So how come Niña-year AND sunspot minimum year 2007 still made it to the top 10% of warmest years AND that melt in the Arctic Sea, please? Wouldn’t we have expected 2007 to arrive in the 10% coldest?
    No better proof for GW than 2007!
    ________________________________________________________
    Your viewpoint is way too narrow It takes a heck of a lot longer to turn an ocean liner than it does a sport car. You expect something with a heat capacity as large as the earth’s to change on a dime? If climate was that sensitive we would be flipping in an out of Ice Ages every time we turned around.
    NASA solar scientist, Dr. Hathaway stated the last five solar cycles had been amongst the strongest in recorded history, that is over 50 years of strong solar cycles.
    The influence on air temperatures by Multidecadal Ocean Oscillations is finally acknowledged in a 2008 study: “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008) click
    “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”
    Or as some here have repeatedly said the oceans act as a giant heat capacitor. You have fifty years of active sun dumping energy into the oceans, it is going to take time for it to dissipate. (Think hot water bottle) and while you are think about this statement from a peer reviewed paper:
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado states: “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) not, vert, similar11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes.”
    and this peer reviewed paper were the title says it all: Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
    Do you REALLY want the present warming to go away? Be careful what you wish for you might not like the result.

  122. Bob from the UK says July 20, 10:11am
    This is the really interesting story at the moment. The NOAA are talking about a reversal in the climate trend.
    If Arctic recovery continues this fall of which there is a reasonable chance, then we will have the interesting situation of ice gain at both poles simultaneously, rather than the reciprocity that is supposed to be the norm. Interesting times indeed.

  123. Gail Combs says:
    July 21, 2010 at 9:17 am
    Gail, fabulous response. The carbon dioxide freaks are either unable or unwilling to get it through their thick skulls that: 1) the sun’s radiation increases or decreases and 2) the oceans react to this increase or decrease in radiation with about a 10-year lag. And CO2 has next to nothing to do with it! I LOVE OCCAM’s RAZOR! I admit that it’s really not that simple and that clouds and volcanoes and cosmic rays and planet alignments and even solar system positioning in the galaxy or stray galactical objects probably have influences. But this piss-ant Civil Engineer, with a fabulous liberal arts foundation (although I paid little attention) intuits that Old Sol and Neptune are in cahoots on our near term climate future.

  124. Amino:
    last I heard, 1934 was fairly secure, but a year in the 1920s switches back & forth with 1998 for #2 USA temp.
    They argue about every single weather station AND its history for the last 100 years.
    (when did they install an air conditioner exhaust next to it, change the Parking lot to Asphault = black, so it HEATS, etc.)
    Part of it is the USA/Hansen still includes the “urban Heat Island” adjustment that the IPCC & its clones have Eliminated.
    It was proposed last year that we Stop, but a Dr. Roy Spencer study refutes that & suggests an EXPANSION of the effect to include downgrading FARM temps.
    He claims there may be NO temp rise in Non-farm/non-city areas GLOBALLY. See hi8s site http://www.drroyspencer.com

  125. Howdy HO!
    Have you seen the DMI graph lately?
    Well if you haven’t, let’s recap the time series from July 17, 2010 through July 21, 2010 inclusive, pixel-by-pixel, shall we?
    7/17/2010,+0.54C
    7/18/2010,+0.34C
    7/19/2010,+0.13C
    7/20/2010,+0.07C
    7/21/2010,+0.27C
    7/21/2010,+0.27C
    You will notice that all temperatures were ABOVE 0.00C, from 7/17/2010 through 7/21/2010 inclusive.
    Buy you say, but wait Mr. Sargent, of those three pixels, next to, but not equal to, the blue line, perhaps there is actually one or more additional companion pixels lying under the blue line?
    Yes, you would be most correct, there could be one on more pixels under the blue line.
    Thus, I’ve even included that possibility and assigned it to July 20, 2010, which would be the average of the two verticle pixels, or +0.07C.
    As anyone can plainly see, I was right all along, from beginning to end, inclusive.
    I rest my case.
    Have a nice day.

  126. Thank you , Gail Combs those are my sentiments exactly, one can only hope that those mired in the religosity of CAGW can come to terms with reality.

Comments are closed.