I’ve been aware of this for a couple of days on our Sea Ice page, but hadn’t done anything about it since I wanted to see if it might change. When blogger Kate of Small Dead Animals noticed it and published on it, I figured it was time to start asking NSIDC some questions.
Compare this NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice extent chart…
…with this from Cryosphere Today:
The NSIDC plot has since intersected the 2007 line, but CT has no new images up since 10-27-10:
It certainly appears that there is more ice in 2010 than 2007 on the Cryosphere Today page. CT hardly ever responds to email, so I didn’t even bother asking them why the discrepancy. NSIDC’s Walt Meier though, takes our concerns seriously and responded rather quickly to my questions:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Walt Meier
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: you might have a problem
Sent: Oct 29, 2010 8:42 AM
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for the heads up. I looked at it and it doesn’t look like there
is any problem.
As we went through before with Steve [Goddard], looking at the images can be
misleading because they’re not on an equal area projection. There is
more ice in the central Arctic this year, but less in the Beaufort Sea,
Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. These areas roughly balance each
other out.
I also recall Cryosphere Today having an issue of changing their images,
so I don’t know if you can consistently compare them anyway – it looks
like their 2007 image is missing some ice. Attached is our concentration
images from 2007 and yesterday and there doesn’t look like much
discrepancy (apologies for the different image sizes).
walt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I fixed the size differences, and here they are:
Of course we don’t have the daily extent data from NSIDC, since they so far have refused to publish it (they do give monthly though) so, we have to be content with image comparison rather than data comparison with NSIDC.
=======================================
Walt, as I said before, you really should publish the daily data. Consider how this looks: NSIDC director Serreze screams “death spiral” to the media while at the same time holds back publicly funded data. It is the same sort of bull-headedness that got CRU in deep trouble. – Anthony
=======================================
UPDATE: Reader Lee Kington provides this blink comparator version:
Does it really matter when the range of variability is so narrow on the way up or on the way down ?
The significant divergences are at maximum melt and maximum extent. The rest is a product of primarily regional weather conditions.
We’ve seen two years recovery of sea ice at minimum (then a small step back due to an El Nino and residual warmth in the Atlantic from 30 years of positive PDO) but then most likely further sea ice recovery to come.
Let the alarmists hold their comments until we at least match the 2007 melt again. If that happens with a quiet sun and a negative PDO and AMO then even I would be rethinking.
When they have everything to gain by just waiting and watching (and everything to lose) why must we tolerate mere blather in the meantime ?
2010 looks like more ice.
Next time I shall speak out earlier. I noticed this yesterday and thought maybe my thought processes were a bit off then forgot all about it. I said to myself – don’t believe your own lying eyes. :o)
Well it looks to me like there is more ice too particularly at high concentrations but presumably that does not show up in the graph which simply shows the area with at least 15% ice.
So there are two different interpretations but the 2010 ice growth looks much more robust than 2007.
Kindest Regards
Isn’t thes sea ice charts all processed information? I’ve asked repeatedly if anyone has ever had primary data from these satellites so that people can check up on the results. Is the community now going to accept secondary data without complaining about lack of transparency? No point in worrying about it or really discussing it seriously if there is no way to check up on the results.
IJIC also shows that the rate of ice extent increase has slowed considerably in the last 10 days or so.
Their figures for October 29th. :
2007, 7,800,469 km2
2010 7,841,094 km2.
Looks like a “wash” to me.
Thanx Dr. Walt. At least you have the decency to take time to help us understand your processes and viewpoints.
I wish other scientists in the climate field would realize that the general population is quite educated today, as even compared to my parents generation. Take the time to explain in a civil manner and your message will go further!
Interesting discrepancy, and nice of Walt to respond to clarify. NSIDC and IJIS are in agreement. Currently Arctic sea ice is very close to the level of 2007 for this time of year (which was the modern record low for this time of year). Arctic sea ice is still some 1.4 million sq. km. below the longer term (30+ year) running average and has not been above that average since 2004.
I’ve noted that the IARC-JAXA graph has now stopped at 7,635,156 km2 (October 25, 2010).
I’ve been watching for weather conditions up there to be more favorable for Ice growth & a few days ago I started to see consistent colder F-casts for the areas that need to have Ice expansion beginning this weekend into next week.
If what I am seeing is correct then we should see a good upswing in the Graph this weekend but especially early to mid week….I Hope!
Anthony here is a blink comparison gif of the two images:
http://s247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/OctIceBlink2.gif
Would not believe anything except DMI. Anyway OT but is it possible that the constant increase in SH ice extent (5-6 years?) be responsible for the massive cooling occurring over South America for the past 5-6 years and more recently for months now in Australia? Are cold fronts extending colder air much further north (in my view). Could Goddard and/or Tisdale do an analysis of temperatures in these locations for past 5 years?
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp7.html
The SSMI data seems to be telling another story:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
I might not ever get any responses but I’m having fun!
fishnski says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:17 pm
….Meanwhile..The arctic has turned Less cold & from what I can tell will stay that way for a few. I was surprised to see the gain we had yesterday & I hope i’m surprised again tomorrow & the next but i’m thinking not. Any thoughts??
Aren’t we getting a bit paranoid about every little up and down of ice extent…it is getting comparable to the one or two hot days=global warming or one or two cool days=global cooling nonsense! The daily or weekly small ups and downs are irrelevent really!
In the size-adjusted image it also looks like the pixels in 2010 represent higher percentages in many areas than in the older image. Maybe the CT image’s percentage processing is rating higher than it “should” and the NSDIC method is seeing areas with lower percentages of coverage. Yes, I know the NSDIC’s threshold is way below what CT is showing.
Definitely has that old death spiraling look to me…seriously and someone forgot to update the daily numbers at JAXA for the last week. Maybe their hands were occupied elsewhere.
It’s not just this, there was also the divergence between JAXA and NSIDC, regarding the minimum extent. Eyeballing them on the Sea Ice page (what a resource), it looks like 3-400,000km^2, but I’m pretty certain there was a graph posted here showing a difference of 600,000km^2 from nothing in 2006. Sadly, Dr Meier never addressed this in his posting here.
I had a look at the sea ice page late last night before I went to bed and noticed that the amount of ice on the satellite image didn’t match what the graph was showing. I was very tired and thought that i would check again today and then email you (I wasn’t sure if my eyes were working correctly).
JAXA shows more or less the same thing, about roughly equally extent. So I think you have the wrong story here.
What I’m wondering about is that the SSMI data shows 2010 with clearly more extent than 2007. This raises some questions about the reliability of the ice cover datasets prior to 2002 and whether data from the newer and older instruments can be reliably compared.
The Canadian Arctic is definately above average, by nearly 16 degrees C in some places.
Taken from Environment Canada charts for week ending Oct 25.
Past 7 Days
Hudson Bay Mean Normal Above Ave
Iqualuit 2.4 -1 3.4
Coral Harbor -0.8 -13.6 12.8
Churchill -1.1 -7.3 6.2
Moosonee 1.4 -0.4 1.8
Inukjak 1.4 -3.9 5.3
Kuijjuaq -5.4 7.4 2
Nain 4.1 -3.6 7.7
E Arctic
Eureka -25.3 -29.3 4
Resolute -7.6 -21.2 13.6
Clyde -4.6 -13.4 8.8
Hall Beach -0.6 -16.3 15.7
W Arctic
Point Barrow -4.8 -15.6 10.8
Inuvik -9 -16.3 7.3
Kugukuk -7.1 -14.2 7.1
Cambridge Bay -3 -18.7 15.7
The E Arctic lost more ice than it gained last week:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCSWCTEA/20101025180000_CVCSWCTEA_0005262801.gif
I don’t get this why would the satellite images be missing any ice for 2007 these images have been posted on the website since 2007 .Why has nobody queried this before now?
Given that the story is always about extent and area one wonders why an Equal Area projection isn’t used in these displays ….
in reply to Mike Sphar @ 2:17pm
“Definitely has that old death spiraling look to me…seriously and someone forgot to update the daily numbers at JAXA for the last week”
They are still updating the numbers in the data file, which can be accessed by clicking “Download data”, just not the main page.
There is no public funding. All money belongs to the government ruling class by definition. They may allow you to borrow it temporarily, but in the end, it is all belonging to the ruling regime and hangers-on.
I think the difference is in the shift in position of the ice formation so far for the season.
In 2007 the lunar declination was starting to drop from a maximum extent, (in 2005) creating a lot of the wind patterns that pushed out a lot of the ice, now in 2010 the declinational extent is down to the average ~23 degrees and we are having a lot of the loopy turbulence patterns in global circulation.
The pattern of the ice formation is more centered in the arctic ocean, from the global wind patterns of this last summer/fall pushing up from the South the remnants of the tropical storms, both warmth and moisture in across the N Atlantic into the Beaufort Sea, Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. With the flow out through Siberia extending the ice extent in that direction, with the advent of NH winter coming on the flows of warm moisture will slow to a crawl, and the ice will continue to grow in this more centered position through spring 2011.
The main difference between the 2007 and 2010 ice formation pattern is the result of where we are in the 18.6 Mn period of lunar declination, and as the declinational angle at culmination drops further to ward the minimum of ~18.5 degrees over the next several years, the patterns of blocking highs will drop off in about two years yielding more robust zonal flow patterns, isolating the polar cold from the tropics more, that will engender more years of increases in total ice cover.
Couldn’t one just do a Hysteresis plot of each image to see if there are measurably more white pixels than blue/grey pixels?
Just a thought..
Regards..
I’ve just made an image analysis comparision, using the free (and great) imageJ package, and Dr. Meier is right. In terms of ice pixel area (considering the full ice pixel spectrum) both images have the same amount. Although, has some people pointed in previous comments, there are more white pixels in 2010 (100% ice) than in 2007.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=27&fy=2007&sm=10&sd=27&sy=2010
I thought everyone knew that UIUC concentration maps were;
“Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images.”
2007’s PDF/CDF != 2010’s PDF/CDF
PDF = Probability Density Function
CDF = Cumulative Density Function
If you don’t understand that different PDF’s/CDF’s can cross over each other, well then, you’ve never looked at soil/sediment/crushed aggregate sieve data sets.
NSIDC uses 15%, again I thought everyone knew that;
15% != 30%
Also, I’ve come to fine UIUC’s daily sea ice areas (100%) at;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
to be the most useful data set of the lot of available Arctic sea ice time series (especially during the growth cycle, when there are no melt ponds on top of the sea ice);
For example, a 7-day least squares fit (last 7 days) of JAXA (15%) is 53.3K/day vs UIUC which is 123.3K/day, or ~2.3X as fast in 100% area vs 15% extent growth.
I’ve also been pulling the graphical dailies from Bremen and NSIDC to plot against JAXA’s digital dailies, all three show a slow down in extent growth.
I too, would very much like for NSIDC to publish their 15% extents and 100% areas on a daily basis instead of just the monthly means of both, there’s some good data mining that could be done as per the UIUC 100% area dailies.
Paul says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:20 pm
JAXA shows more or less the same thing, about roughly equally extent. So I think you have the wrong story here.
What I’m wondering about is that the SSMI data shows 2010 with clearly more extent than 2007. This raises some questions about the reliability of the ice cover datasets prior to 2002 and whether data from the newer and older instruments can be reliably compared.
_____________________________________________________________
When NSIDC switches sensors, as they have to do every several years, they overlap the two sensor data sets by at least a year, you can look back at their sea ice news archives, they switched sensors ~2 years ago, and have several articles there showing their procedures for doing so.
JDN says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Isn’t thes sea ice charts all processed information? I’ve asked repeatedly if anyone has ever had primary data from these satellites so that people can check up on the results. Is the community now going to accept secondary data without complaining about lack of transparency? No point in worrying about it or really discussing it seriously if there is no way to check up on the results.
_____________________________________________________________
You can always work with the gridded dailies from NSIDC, but their in HDF format.
You want raw sensor data?
Well then it takes several passes and you need to know the sensor’s orientation relative to what your looking at and do a whole heck of a lot of geometery and land masking, etceteras.
Good luck with doing that yourself.
I haven’d done so, simply because it’s too muck fraggin’ work!
R Gates: You purport to be a scientist. I am not, but I know enough about statistical analysis to comprehend that 30 years worth of satellite images without any baseline or norm for comparison is interesting but insignificant. As I understand it, no climate trends or conclusions can be determined from 30 years worth of computer generated images derived from satellite sensor data. Isn’t this type of information considered anecdotal ?
You say: “Arctic sea ice is still some 1.4 million sq. km. below the longer term (30+ year) running average and has not been above that average since 2004.”
So what? Even if true, the computer generated images are daily snapshots of but one metric for regional weather conditions. There is no rational basis, much less any evidence, to support a claim that 30+ years of Arctic ice extent images show conditions beyond the scope of natual varibility.
tallbloke says:
October 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“The SSMI data seems to be telling another story:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic“
Interesting TB, DMI also showing the line intersecting 2009, not 2007!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
Pay attention everyone. This is pretty simple thermodynamics and the mechanics of heat dissipation.
Ocean surface temperature below 60N is plunging. Spencer just gave us the latest AQUA sat SST measurements yesterday or the day before.
Q: Where is the SST heat going?
A: It’s being radiated out into space at the pole.
The albedo of the pole is insignificant. Water is a reflector when the sun is low in the sky and it’s always low near the pole. If the ice melts in fact it improves the radiative performance as ice is an insulator.
When the surface at the pole is warmer there is a greater delta T between it and the cold of space (a constant 3 degrees above absolute zero). That indisputably (unless thermodynamic laws stop working) means more heat is escaping into space.
No mystery here. The only mystery is why so many people can’t connect the dots. It doesn’t seem like it should take an engineering genius to figure this out.
It is really good to see a climate blog with a post about climate, congratulations Anthony!
To help us understand what is happening at the moment it would be good to know what is happening with salinity. I presume that all the fresher water has frozen and that the warmer/more saline water is now slowing the freeze-up. Obviously there is also still ice moving through Fram Stait. Your reference page is excellent Anthony, but can you access salinity data and ice pack movement data as well?
Conversely as tropical oceans cool and the arctic ocean warms the delta T between tropics and pole decreases. This delta T is what provides the energy that drives the heat pump moving excess heat to the poles. When water and air are being moved from one place to another that’s work being accomplished. Heat gradients provide that energy. Very simple mechanics here. Everyone should probably take as much time as it requires to learn and understand the operating principles underlying things like Stirling engines, the Carnot cycle, and things of that nature. Without that familiar knowledge little in the way of atmospheric and oceanic physics is going to make any sense.
I agree. The problem is that in this battle for the truth the Warmists do send press releases regarding the “weekly”……. “downs” which you referred to. Never the ups. Have you notice this? Warmists by the way are not allowed to send press releases indicating that Arctic sea ice extent, during the Holocene, has been lower than 2007.
Correction:
Sceptics by the way are not allowed to send press releases indicating that Arctic sea ice extent, during the Holocene, has been lower than 2007.
Low quality comment:
Oh, the ice bears will note have as much ice to crunch and eat this year as last year if the development goes on like this! How will they survive?
Stephen Wilde says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“We’ve seen two years recovery of sea ice at minimum (then a small step back due to an El Nino and residual warmth in the Atlantic from 30 years of positive PDO) but then most likely further sea ice recovery to come.”
——————————————————————
Look at the NSIDC plot of September minima from 1970 to 2010 (http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.) and please tell me where you see any recovery whatsoever.
You seem to inhabit a fantasy world.
Sea ice in the Gulf of Finland on 28 Oct 2010?
Are you sure about that?
SMHI Sea Surface Temperature Issued 2010-10-28
[googlemaps http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Gulf+of+Finland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.984987,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Gulf+of+Finland&ll=60.072633,26.44557&spn=2.675009,7.064209&t=h&z=7&output=embed&w=425&h=350%5D
Guys, I don’t know what the ice situation is in the Arctic right now. But here in Ottawa, exactly 5000 km south of the North Pole, it’s below freezing and snowing hard.
3 years ago, the first snow fell on November 16th. 2 years ago, in 2008, the first snowfall was November 20th. Last year, the first snow fell on December 1st. This year…October 30th.
Yeah, yeah, I know the warmist line – when it’s hot it’s climate, when it’s cold it’s weather. We could sure use more climate and less weather up here.
Walt, you need new glasses.
Dave Springer, thanks!
Sorry about that Googlemaps posting glitch.
Here is the NIC snow & ice map for 28th Oct
Seems to be still mild in Southern Finland tonight.
Tie 7 Box (Helsinkiin)
IJIS and Uni of Bremen are both showing the same profile as NSIDC. ROOS is a bit higher but still shows the same slow-down towards the 2007 extent for this time of year.
The corroboration seems to be robust, as it does for the aerial concentration blink graph. Having found nothing wrong, seems a bit churlish to tick off Walt Meier about something else entirely, particularly considering the time he took to make a post for this site recently.
And lest we forget, we’re talking about weather anomalies here. I suppose if the graphs showed rapid increase instead, we’d be reading comments about how the ice is ‘recovering’, as if it’s a climate issue.
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
What is the HFS format? There are too many acronyms with HFS for me to find it. Is there a simple reader or file convertor?
As for raw data, I don’t want to convert every pass. What I’d like to do is assign the raw data to approximate GPS position over open ocean to correlate it with ocean imaging from planes or ships which might be in the area. Basically, I’d like a spot check on the performance of the satellite and its ability to identify % of ice cover.
NSIDC are continuing to update as the ice coverage increases. ‘skeptics’ update if there’s something to hang their preferred agenda on.
You seem to be suggesting that a tit-for-tat meme-war is necessary, rather than a proper, comprehensive education on the issue. The last time we had that here was in a post from Walt Meier at the NSIDC, while articles like the above continue to propagate, educating no one, but spieling the narrative that gets ‘skpetics’ cheering along.
Boy, have you got that backwards. The ‘press release’ (a blog post) on Holocene minima completely distorted the study it was based on, which was of an area <10% of the Arctic. To find a reference to the possibility of mid-Holocene ice coverage being lower than today – one that doesn't distort scientific papers – you can visit… NSIDC.
That page hasn’t been updated since Polyak 2010 came out, which indicates Holocene sea ice concentration is likely to be at the lowest currently.
Note the qualification ‘likely’. Think about that, and then consider what you wrote. The study your conception is based on was by no means definitive, never mind that it’s conclusions were blown 900% out of proportion.
BTW, Jimbo, if what you say is true, there should be a number of ‘press releases’ about the slow-down in ice growth leading to sea ice extent similar to the record 2007 for this time of year. By all means demonstrate your ‘observation’ by linking us up to newsy items about that.
This all just navel gazing until we see a full 60 years to account for the PDO (or even longer if we want to factor in the AMO).
The Pacific NW is looking more like the early 1950’s than the 1990’s of late. Even the koolade drinkers are getting a bit antsy about global warming theory now.
For what good they are, charts based on JAXA 15% to 29th:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8949/13day20101029.png
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4182/all20101029.png
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6170/minmaxtime.png
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3756/hyst20101029.png
The cycle is clearly as hysteretic as hell, constrained by geography and zenith angle, attenuated by SSTs, weather, etc. It’s a big noisy heat pump. The important bit is the size of the latent heat suck/blow and how that energy dissipates; about which extent figures tell us nothing reliable. Nit-picking over a mere 30 years or even a century of extent data and drawing trend lines from which to make scary predictions is therefore IMHO half-baked nonsense – the stuff of nut jobs.
JDN says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:18 pm
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
What is the HFS format? There are too many acronyms with HFS for me to find it. Is there a simple reader or file convertor?
As for raw data, I don’t want to convert every pass. What I’d like to do is assign the raw data to approximate GPS position over open ocean to correlate it with ocean imaging from planes or ships which might be in the area. Basically, I’d like a spot check on the performance of the satellite and its ability to identify % of ice cover.
_____________________________________________________________
My bad, it’s called HDF;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Data_Format
Also, after looking at my mish-mash of NSIDC links, I can see that not all gridded datasets are in HDF format.
Here are a few links to the NASA Team and Bootstrap datasets;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice/faq.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html
http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/area_extent.html
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice/pm.html#pm_seaice_conc
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0002.html
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0051.html
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0079.html
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0081.html
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0192.html
To be honest with you, I need to read the NSIDC FAQ.
But AFAIK, all raw data and algorithms/programs/codes are available on NSIDC’s or GSFC’s ftp servers.
I tried very hard to find processed dailies that are current/up-to-date, but the best that I could find were dailies circa 1972-2007 (nothing for 2008-10).
The AO has turned positive recently since then we have seen ice build up to the west of Greenland very quickly looking at the satellite images.
Doug in Seattle says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:57 pm
This all just navel gazing until we see a full 60 years to account for the PDO (or even longer if we want to factor in the AMO).
The Pacific NW is looking more like the early 1950′s than the 1990′s of late. Even the koolade drinkers are getting a bit antsy about global warming theory now.
_____________________________________________________________
I mean seriously, the 60-year cycle canard is getting very old and very tired.
If we just use the ~32 years of NSIDC I see no crest and I see no trough, in other words I don’t see even a half cycle in that data set.
If there is a cycle in that 32-year dataset it’s much longer than 60 years, that’s for sure.
So maybe it’s a 64 year cycle, or maybe it’s a 66.6 year cycle, or maybe it’s a 69 year cycle, I mean who knows, who really knows?
Just repeat the sixties meme.
But wait, we also have satellite data going back to 1972 (and NSIDC is currently working on some satellite data circa 1960’s) and before that sea ice charts that John E. Welch derived sea ice extents circa 1951-78.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=jwalsh
In none of those data sets, combined (grand total of 70 years), is there ANY hint of a proported 60-year cycle with respect to Arctic sea ice extents (and most especially with respect to Arctic sea ice extent minima).
Been there, done that! About sixty ways to Sunday, as a matter of fact.
All sea ice extent data sets show at least a quadratic relationship (negative leading coefficient, meaning concave down).
In fact it looks just like the first drop in a roller coaster ride, except it just keeps on getting steeper and steeper.
In other words, the data to date, for Arctic sea ice extent, shows absolutely no cyclic nature, save for the all too obvious annual cycle, which isn’t going up, long term, if you get my drift.
Now if we have a true Arctic sea ice volume recovery, I’m sure you all will come up with some 140-150 year cycle from Imaginationland or some such.
Star light, star bright,
The first star I see tonight;
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Have the wish I wish tonight.
🙁
And ALL above post have completely forgotten about Antarctic ice extent ABOVE ANOMALY LAST 5 years! its not “global” warming guys, sorry.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Let the alarmists hold their comments until we at least match the 2007 melt again. If that happens with a quiet sun and a negative PDO and AMO then even I would be rethinking.
#########
that leds to an interesting question. what would have to happen to arctic ice for people to change their minds.
Kudos to mr wilde for putting some measure of skin in the game
Looks like the probkem is the problem they have always had, using 15% sea ice extent instead of at least 30% sea ice extent – but don’t expect them to change it now, it will ruin their story!
Could the poorly covered magnetic field and the never mentioned Earth’s thermal heat play a part? I think so and it plays a far more complicated and important part.
“The coinciding periods of correlation between the Earth’s global temperature and the strength of the Earth’s global magnetic field”
http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
Roll on cryosat and a DECADE of data from it, then we can start to discuss sea ice with a degree of seriousness.
You’re linking to sea ice area not 15% extent, but that data does seen to tie in with the CT images.
NSDIC may well be correct looking at the blink comparator it seems that there was a lot more thin ice cover in 2007 and that would come into the 15% calculation. What is clear, even just from eyeballing the images is that there is significantly more area with denser sea ice coverage than there was in 2007.
So, yes it looks like there’s more ice and there almost certainly is more ice (both in thickness and area) but that does not have to be at odds with the NSDIC 15% extent graph.
However, Walt Meier’s equal projection argument seems particularly weak in view of the small range in latitudes and that the distribution if ice is more russian less canadian so not even really biased by any projection shrinkage.
EFS_Junior,
Here’s something cyclical for you—as the Arctic is doing that the Antarctic is doing this:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
North Pole ice head one way South Pole ice heading the other. You forgot about the South Pole, huh—doh!
Are your long comments intended to inform others or to reassure yourself?
Extents are down, areas are up, consistently. So, there is recovery in the Arctic as the current ice is thicker.
NSIDC should be publishing its data. Really should be paying attention to the details that are going to make a big difference in the next Congress when it comes time to decide who’s worth the precious budget funds and who’s not.
Take note, Dr. Meier, NSIDC is not putting its best foot forward.
Ice Ice Baby..Coming to an Arctic near you!…The graphs won’t be able to hide the Spike that is starting & will continue for awhile….
PS..I report the Ups & the Downs…Nuttun but the tooth!
Coordination, after¨”Climate Gate” it is troublesome, can´t communicate “tricks” through email now!…we´ll fix it right away by applying the same convenient adjustments…
“Owen says:
October 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Stephen Wilde says:
October 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“We’ve seen two years recovery of sea ice at minimum (then a small step back due to an El Nino and residual warmth in the Atlantic from 30 years of positive PDO) but then most likely further sea ice recovery to come.”
——————————————————————
Look at the NSIDC plot of September minima from 1970 to 2010 (http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.) and please tell me where you see any recovery whatsoever.
You seem to inhabit a fantasy world”
The recovery is from the minimum of 2007. I judge that 2007 marked the bottom or near bottom of the downswing of a natural sine wave.
Steve Mosher says:
“that leds to an interesting question. what would have to happen to arctic ice for people to change their minds.”
———————————————————————-
That should be an uncomfortable, soul-searching question for many on this blog.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen no evidence that the skeptic/denialist position would change in the slightest if the entire arctic ocean were ice-free in the summer by, say, 2020. They would simply say it is natural causes, it happened before, etc. For most of the commenters on this and other such blogs, theirs is a true denialist position, and the data be damned, along with the scientists who collect it.
Does it really matter, it appears it has all happened before.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/03/is-chu-for-real/
“Look at the NSIDC plot of September minima from 1970 to 2010 (http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.) and please tell me where you see any recovery whatsoever.”
Lets look at that a bit more closely:
i) The period from 1978 to nearly 1998 shows virtually no trend at all over a period of some 20 years.
ii) Around the time of that 1998 El Nino which was a culmination of 30 years of successive strong El Ninos the Arctic sea ice started to fall.
iii) Then we see a fall for about 10 years as the 1998 El Nino and the effect of all those El Ninos leading up to it steadily filter into the Arctic Circle melting sea ice in the process.
iv) We now have the beginning of a negative PDO phase and the residual heat in the northern oceans is disappearing fast with little or no immediate prospect of a repeat of that 2007 ice melt.
So all we have supporting all the panic is a ten year trend with a likely cause readily available and that causative factor no longer being in place the most likely trend for the next ten years at least (possibly 30 years) is for a slow erratic sea ice recovery.
The evidence available for a human impact is heavily over egged.
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm
re; cycles in sea ice extent
Pay attention now junior as obviously you weren’t paying attention in history class.
Roald Amundson navigated the Northwest Passage in 1906 in a 70 foot fishing boat. That feat wasn’t possible again until 2007.
Ya think it was anthropogenic CO2 that opened up the passage in 1906?
The 60-year AMDO is but one cycle but it’s an easy one to see in land temperature records. There is also PDO and ENSO cycles that beat at different frequencies. Sometimes they are out of phase and sometimes the phases line up. Since none of them are exactly the same length on each cycle it makes forecasting much into the future difficult but in the near term they can all be seen and it appears they are all lining up on the cold side of their cycles (in phase) as we speak. Global warming alarmism will probably morph into global cooling alarmism by 2030 (20 years from now) just like it was the rage in the 1970’s. Climate alarmism is a 60 year cycle too.
Just to confirm the eyeballing, here are the histograms of the 2007 & 2010.
http://i56.tinypic.com/e6xapc.jpg
I did a manual capture on the values from 115 through 125, and values 246 through 255 for each image, to catch the mid-range and high-end extents for each, that is, the middle and far right spikes in each histogram. For 2007 the high-range has 2341 pixels, mid-range has 60,066 pixels. For 2010 the high range has 3553 pixels and mid-range 57,268 pixels.
Barry Day says:
October 31, 2010 at 3:32 am
“Could the poorly covered magnetic field and the never mentioned Earth’s thermal heat play a part?”
Yes and no. The earth’s crust is a very very good insulator. The average amount of heat escaping from the hot interior is just a few milliwatts per square meter. So on average it is insignificant and seldom mentioned.
However secondary effects can be brutal when the interior heat builds up close to the surface in hot spots and comes out in violent volcanic eruptions. Supervolcanoes (Yellowstone is one of the largest) can devastate a continent wide area almost overnight covering it in a thick layer of ash and send global average temperatures way down for at least several years by injecting particulates into the stratosphere possibly triggering an ice age.
@ EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Thanks. One more question. Usually with these huge packages there is a workflow that they never tell you about. Something like: Put all raw data in some named directory, Run some pre-processing program to stitch everything together, Run a big script which actually calls the main programs, Look at some new directory with several output formats plus error logs. If you could comment on that, it would make things easier.
Owen says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:04 am (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“that leds to an interesting question. what would have to happen to arctic ice for people to change their minds.”
———————————————————————-
That should be an uncomfortable, soul-searching question for many on this blog.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen no evidence that the skeptic/denialist position would change in the slightest if the entire arctic ocean were ice-free in the summer by, say, 2020. They would simply say it is natural causes, it happened before, etc. For most of the commenters on this and other such blogs, theirs is a true denialist position, and the data be damned, along with the scientists who collect it.
#######################
I see denialism on both sides. More importantly, there is no “skeptical/denialist position” there are a variety of positions, stances, arguments. Just as there is no real consensus. Nevertheless, unless a person can clearly state what evidence it would take to change their position then it’s quite impossible to insure a rational debate. The grounds of argument will shift, and then mistrust is created, and then it goes personal. The pattern is pretty clear.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:17 am
“So all we have supporting all the panic is a ten year trend with a likely cause readily available and that causative factor no longer being in place the most likely trend for the next ten years at least (possibly 30 years) is for a slow erratic sea ice recovery.”
Unlike your analysis of the 1979-2010 September sea ice data, the linear regression line through the data is an ideologically unbiased estimation of trend. And that trend is clear – sea ice has steadily decreased from 1979 to the present. Your recovery (I assume you were talking about 2009) gave a value that was only ca. 70% of 1979-80.
The average ice age is dropping, as is the PIOMAS estimate of ice volume (I know you don’t trust it because its a model). All indicators point to an ongoing process of dramatic sea ice loss in the arctic, your analysis notwithstanding.
Owen – { Nevertheless, unless a person can clearly state what evidence it would take to change their position then it’s quite impossible to insure a rational debate.}
OK here’s mine, anyone with half a brain can understand that the artic should warm up the most of anywhere on the planet. It’s simple, heat rises! Ergo, with the arctic being at the top of the planet, aqll the heat should go there. So if the artic heats up and becomes tropical, then i will believe in AGW!
🙂
The current ice edge and areas of coverage are nothing out of the ordinary given the conditions on the ground. Both wind, pressure systems, and SST’s, which all collide at the Arctic, appear to be consistent with current ice conditions. This is nothing that cannot be explained by natural weather pattern variation and oceanic circulation of equatorial-birthed ocean temperatures.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
The ice in 2010 is showing more concentration over most of the area. This ties in nicely with reports that winds had compacted the ice. It would appear the recovery is proceeding nicely even though the extent did not go up significantly this year.
Dave Springer says:
“Roald Amundson navigated the Northwest Passage in 1906 in a 70 foot fishing boat. That feat wasn’t possible again until 2007.”
According to my count at least 12 ships passed through the Northwest Passage 1940-2006. Since nobody tried it between 1906 and 1940 it is hard to say whether it was possible or not. It almost certainly was possible in the (warm) 1930’s when the Hudson Bay Company routinely ran supply ships to Cambridge bay both from west and east.
Anthony Watts, maybe you have already answered this, but I don’t have the time to read everything here.
I was wondering if you could explain what happened in that other blog post (Sea Ice News #27) where you also questioned a difference between datasets, but made a crucial (though relatively simple) mistake in the spreadsheet. How did the mistake come about? Is it possible that you make more mistakes every time you cast doubt on extent numbers from various datasets?
A part of this sentence
“same time holds back publicly funded data” is unecessary to state the issue.
Holding back publicly funded data is unacceptable.
same time holds back publicly funded data
I’ve asked Walter Meier about this once and he gave me a very straightforward answer, not at all evasive. I’m sure Anthony could ask him that too and then tell us what the answer was. NSIDC has good reasons for publishing data on a monthly basis, instead of daily.
Ill doers are ill deemers?
Gunther, I agree that those who focus their rebuttal on the person instead of the scientific argument they disagree with, argue from a position of weakness to such a degree that often as not, a point is earned for the other side. Who’s side are you on? I would offer a suggestion that you re-post your rebuttal in a way that earns points for your side.
I love that book, “All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten”. I am reminded of my rule with 5th graders. In the day to day behavior of life at school, only tattle on yourself (hurting of any kind is the exception).
http://www.kalimunro.com/learned_in_kindergarten.html
Günther Kirschbaum says:
October 31, 2010 at 2:24 pm
…………..”Ill doers are ill deemers?”
=============
Quite the accusation you threw up, trying to get a reply.
Maybe you could reproduce your correspondence with Walt, for all our benefit.
Owen says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:04 am (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“that le[a]ds to an interesting question. what would have to happen to arctic ice for people to change their minds.”
———————————————————————-
That should be an uncomfortable, soul-searching question for many on this blog.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen no evidence that the skeptic/denialist position would change in the slightest if the entire arctic ocean were ice-free in the summer by, say, 2020. They would simply say it is natural causes, it happened before, etc. For most of the commenters on this and other such blogs, theirs is a true denialist position, and the data be damned, along with the scientists who collect it.
Let me answer then:
If lowering ice extents is a symptom od a warming planet – and ALL skeptics see a constantly warming planet since the mid-1650’s – then is it not logical to EXPECT lower ice extents?
Who is denying anything?
We are seeing the natural results of a 400 year warming up-half-cycle since the 1650’s. It is reasonable, expected, and a completely foreseen observation to witness lower Arctic ice extents. Now, what YOU need to do is to establish that today’s lower ice extents – of a 400 year long term cycle combined with a short 60 year cycle – are ENTIRELY due to the recent rise in CO2 levels between 1950 and 2010.
And you cannot do that.
Global temperatures have risen while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have fallen while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have been steady while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have fallen while CO2 levels rose.
Global temperatures have been steady while CO2 levels rose.
Global temperatures have risen while CO2 levels rose.
Now, just what relationship do you propose exists between global temperatures and CO2 levels?
You cannot argue ice extents are lower DUE TO recent CO2 levels being higher. You can only argue (with no evidence) that global temperatures have influenced ice extents. Of course, any prior evidence that earlier ice extents were lower than today – while CO2 levels were assumed lower – invalidates your theory.
—
As an aside, you must also establish some link between a disappearing Arctic ice extents for 1-2 months in the summer will lead to the NSIDC’s “panic” about death spirals. However, since all measured daily Arctic summer temperatures by DMI since 1958 above 80 north latitude have consistently DECREASED at the same time that ice extents have lowered AND CO2 levels have increased, you will fail there as well.
How’s this for starters?
Stephen Wilde,
Transport data into Excel and run linear regression.
The trend in sea ice loss is 40 000 sq/km/year for the period 1979 – 1998 (there is no September data for 1978 – the satellite record begins in November or December).
By 2010, the trend for the period has doubled. Both results are statistically significant.
iii) Then we see a fall for about 10 years as the 1998 El Nino and the effect of all those El Ninos leading up to it steadily filter into the Arctic Circle melting sea ice in the process.
Do you have any basis for the idea that accumulated el Nino heat is transported Northwards with a ten year lag?
We have a statistically significant downward trend for the first 20 years, and a steepened trend for the whole period. There is no scientific basis for the proposition you consider to be ‘likely’.
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/ ~nigam/ Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
Here’s a clickable version of the link above.
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
racookpe1978 says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“Now, just what relationship do you propose exists between global temperatures and CO2 levels? You cannot argue ice extents are lower DUE TO recent CO2 levels being higher. You can only argue (with no evidence) that global temperatures have influenced ice extents. Of course, any prior evidence that earlier ice extents were lower than today – while CO2 levels were assumed lower – invalidates your theory.”
————————————————————————
Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis. Both can have major effects, either cooling or warming. Both however occur on far longer time scales that we are dealing with in the current warming. When such long-term but powerful forcings cause warming, increases in CO2 follow as a positive feedback. At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2. The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing. Top of atmosphere satellites clearly document a net energy accumulation of energy, and the TOA IR spectrum shows that the CO2 absorption band is responsible for an increasing reduction of outgoing radiation in the wavelength range of 15 microns.
You need to actually read some science (try Spencer Weart on the American Institute of Physics website: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm ). Scientifically, your last sentence above is utter nonsense.
Dave Springer says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:30 am
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm
re; cycles in sea ice extent
Pay attention now junior as obviously you weren’t paying attention in history class.
Roald Amundson navigated the Northwest Passage in 1906 in a 70 foot fishing boat. That feat wasn’t possible again until 2007.
Ya think it was anthropogenic CO2 that opened up the passage in 1906?
The 60-year AMDO is but one cycle but it’s an easy one to see in land temperature records. There is also PDO and ENSO cycles that beat at different frequencies. Sometimes they are out of phase and sometimes the phases line up. Since none of them are exactly the same length on each cycle it makes forecasting much into the future difficult but in the near term they can all be seen and it appears they are all lining up on the cold side of their cycles (in phase) as we speak. Global warming alarmism will probably morph into global cooling alarmism by 2030 (20 years from now) just like it was the rage in the 1970′s. Climate alarmism is a 60 year cycle too.
_____________________________________________________________
With respect to Amundson, he took the most southerly route possible, and it took him more than one season to transit, three winters, in fact, started in 1903 ended in 1906.
“The Northwest Passage was not conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who had sailed just in time to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed a three-year voyage in the converted 47-ton herring boat Gjøa, after three winters trapped in ice.”
“After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage.”
“Due to water as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could never have used the route.”
And yes, Larsen completed the NWP in 1944 in 86 days travelling 7,300 miles.
The current NWP record is 12 days by one person in a sailboat set this year.
http://www.astralexpress.com/press-release.htm
“The Northwest Passage has only recently become a navigable reality with the aid of satellite technology, which has given sailors the ability to monitor ice flows, and therefore a safe passage during the months of August and September. Warmer Arctic conditions have also contributed to making this milestone achievable.”
Though we’ll never know what would have been possible in the past given today’s technologies.
“Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis. “
Who I listen to (on the radio) is irrelevant.
I could (should ?) claim you are listening to too many hysterical liberals such as Al Gore, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Sharpton, …. – the first who failed even his theology classes and the second who never took a science class in his life. (Assuming anybody ever saw his transcript – of course.) But my courses in heat transfer, thermodynamics, chemistry, electron diffusion, fluid flow, calculus, differential equations, numerical analysis, computer modeling, 3D modeling, FEA, physics, nuclear physics, general and special relativity, nuclear core analysis, neutron flow, activation, deacy and reactivity, statics, mechanics, dynamics, failure analysis, statistics, etc, etc are also irrelevent if I draw the wrong conclusions from the data. But I don’t.
We are discussing 800 year cycles over a 2400 year period. Your attempts to distract people’s attention by repeating abstract feedback terms and long-term sunlight deviations (120,000 and 25,000 year orbital periods) are worthless to the discussion.
“At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2. The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing. “
And the past 2000 years of evidence shows that your CAGW theory of “forcings” by CO2 is dead wrong. There is no evidence that your CO2 theory is good for anything but increasing the heartbreak and death of millions by artificially increasing energy prices worldwide – only to increase the money, power, prestige, and “feel goodness” that liberals desire. And provide the trillions in money that corrupt world politicians and liberals want.
There is no indication that your theory of radiation “forcings” is correct; worse, all of the actual data shows it to be, at best, a mere simplification of what actually happens that cannot predict even short-term conditions.
In the 1920’s, geologists “knew” how the world worked – until a single man was willing to challenge the system and propose that continents drift. Physics was “finished” and “all things are known” – according to the head of the Royal Society – just before radioactivity was discovered. That same Royal Society was dead wrong (politically and morally) about Longitude calculations, chronometers, magnetism, physics, astronomy, the globe, and every other discovery made since Newton. We “knew” the structure of the atom – until a few randomly scattered alha particles rebounded directly back at the observer. We “knew” how medicine and illness worked – an few dared challenge the established experts and “invented” germ theory. Do not claim “experts” or “accepted theory” to me – “accepted theory” merely means that the experts are wrong, and they have NEVER been proven right when even one “inconvenient” fact shows otherwise.
Do not tell me to “read science” – I have read science for a hobby, for a business, for safety, and for knowledge for longer than you have been able to read. Show me some facts that prove your theory. There are none: A single 25 year period in history when both CO2 and global temperatures rose at the same time tells me nothing but that you (climate “scientists”) don’t even know why there is 60 year short cycle. Nor can you tell me why there is a 800 year long cycle. Find out those reasons – then we can discuss what influence man has had on recent temperatures.
Until then, you have nothing but Mann-made global warming.
“There is no evidence that your CO2 theory is good for anything but increasing the heartbreak and death of millions by artificially increasing energy prices worldwide – only to increase the money, power, prestige, and “feel goodness” that liberals desire. And provide the trillions in money that corrupt world politicians and liberals want.”
That’s what I thought this was all about.
I don’t have much time these days, but a quick check of the actual CT numbers shows that Anthony is right in that there is a big difference in CT’s area and NSIDC’s extent comparisons:
10/29/2010: 6580593.1 km^2
10/29/2007: 5737530.7 km^2
2010 is currently 14.7% higher in area than 2007, agreeing with CT’s images that 2010 is well ahead of 2007 – so no, it’s not a projection issue or anything like that.
However, JAXA 15% extent paints a very different picture:
10/30/2010: 7965156 km^2
10/30/2007: 7883594 km^2
By JAXA, 2010 is only 1.0% ahead of 2007. And given the small discrepancies between databases and also NSIDC’s moving average plot (which presumably boosts previous years’ performance on any given current day during the refreeze period), there’s nothing too surprising about NSIDC appearing above 2010 right now. 2010’s extent performance has been quite poor the past few weeks, and I expect it to get passed by 2007 in JAXA soon.
Again, haven’t had much time lately, so I’m sorry if this is rehashing anything that has already been said above.
-Scott
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Does NSIDC classify this as ice, or just frozen foam?
There is a problem in the 10/28/2010 NSIDC image. There is absolutely no ice whatsoever in the Gulf of Finland, other than maybe someone tipping over on the deck of a cruise ship and turning a watered down Whiskey on the Rocks into a Really Watered down -version.
This is a minor problem as such BUT casts a big doubt as to how these images are made and how reliable they are. The gulf will possibly freeze in January but now the temps have been about 5-10C aroubd the clock for about a week and there’s still a lot of circulation going in the watermass – no freezing in sight.
wayne says:
November 1, 2010 at 3:34 am
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Does NSIDC classify this as ice, or just frozen foam?
=======
It’s under 15% but a great point : )
JDN says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:45 am
@ EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Thanks. One more question. Usually with these huge packages there is a workflow that they never tell you about. Something like: Put all raw data in some named directory, Run some pre-processing program to stitch everything together, Run a big script which actually calls the main programs, Look at some new directory with several output formats plus error logs. If you could comment on that, it would make things easier.
_____________________________________________________________
It’s been a long time since I’ve been on *NIX systems, and AFAIK most of the NOAA/GSFC/NSIDC is targeted towards *NIX systems.
If there are *NIX scripts used for instillation (make files, etceteras) and you’re on a Windows system you may have to manually install all files AFAIK.
Source codes in C/Fortran need a compiler, gcc for Windows x64/x32 is available, and you can get the latest gfortran builds for Windows, again x64/x32.
I’ve never used any of the NSIDC gridded data, so I don’t know firsthand what all is involved in their instillations.
But some of their stuff is geared towards Matlab and R.
My mistake Wayne,
Your Barrow webcam is current conditions and NSIDC runs a day behind. Their current chart (Oct. 31) confirms ice off Barrow. The growth on the west side of Greenland has been pretty dramatic over the last few days; see the sea ice reference page and the Environment Canada chart.
Owen says:
>Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis.
++++++++
Owen, those two are as you know, irrelevant to the present hysteria about CO2. Will you admit that it has reached lunatic proportions? If America objects to spending 80 billion $ a year to have health care for the poor, do you think they will $100 trillion in the coming 90 years to overcome the effects of precession and orbital changes?
++++++++
>…At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2.
Accepted by whom? There are MANY other forcings! And you are directing others to read! Dang. Have you heard of Svensmark?
It may not have come to your attention that many of the previously monomaniacal Climate Taliban are changing their tune when it come to all things solar. Why? Because of the egg on their faces. Because it is becoming as plain as the warts on their arguments that the Sun affects cloudiness by mediating the GCR flux. This is hardly news, dating back to 1971, prior to the modern frenzy of cartoon CO2 science.
>The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing.
The physics of CO2 absorption have to be read in conjunction with the physics of H2O absorption or you have a meaningless mind-model. There is hardly any IR left to absorb with “all that” CO2. And in case you didn’t hear, the model solidly predicts that where the incoming solar radiation strikes the earth most squarely, the tropics, it will have the greatest heating ‘greenhouse blanket’ effect. Are you aware that this is the prediction/calculation? It is supposed to be like a greenhouse glass trapping the heat in the atmosphere – particularly, according to the physics of the theory, in the mid-altitudes at the equator. You may be interested, then, to know that there is absolutely no such heating to be observed in the atmosphere (the real one, not the theoretical one). None at all. Zilch. No CO2 or any other heating. The physical model is quite specific: CO2 will heat the 8-16 km altitude range 3 times faster than the surface. Because of the complete failure of that model (which you may not have read about) a new version was typed up saying it will heat at the surface faster. That version is not so solidly based on the physics of CO2 you refer to.
>Top of atmosphere satellites clearly document a net energy accumulation of energy(sic), and the TOA IR spectrum shows that the CO2 absorption band is responsible for an increasing reduction of outgoing radiation in the wavelength range of 15 microns.
It shows no such thing. Prove your assertion. The heat is not accumulating in the atmosphere (to everyone’s disappointment), it is not accumulating in the oceans (to everyone’s further disapointment) so where is this putative accumulation? If it was accumlating because of CO2 then according to the physics it would be heating at least SOME part of the atmosphere, especially the part where the theory says it will ‘trap the heat’. If it is not heating that part of the atmosphere where the heat is supposed to be accumulating? What is it heating, pray tell? It is not heating my back yard. It is not heating the Arctic enough to account for its supposed additional effect.
>You need to actually read some science …
Good heavens.
If one looks at long-term trends, heat is accumulating in both the atmosphere and the oceans. One can only see no warming if one considers short-term, data, but then we’re not discussing climate – just weather effects, and we can make this observation throughout the global temperature record, while the globe has warmed over the long-term.
The WMO posits 30 years as a climate-significant period, but 20 years is a good minimum to work with to get statistical significance for any period in the surface data sets. The atmosphere and the oceans have warmed over the last 20, 30, 40 years etc. One can select 2002 as a start date, and for some data sets there is no warming to present, but the trends are not statistically significant – weather noise overwhelms the underlying signal and gives spurious results.
(Similarly, but with the opposite result, one can select 2006 or 2008 and derive an extraordinarily positive trend, but then this is simply compounding the original error even further. Eg, the linear trend from 2006 using UAH data is 0.5C per decade, and the trend since 2008 is 2.6C per decade! Lesson: deriving trends from short-term, noisy data tells you nothing about climate)