Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
Thank you to all contributors of the July Sea Ice outlook. We received 16 responses for the Pan-Arctic report (Figure 1), with estimates in the range of 4.0 to 5.5 million square kilometers for the September arctic mean sea ice extent. The median value was 4.6 million square kilometers; the quartile values were 4.3 and 4.7 million square kilometers, a rather narrow range given the intrinsic uncertainty of the estimates on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. It is important to note for context that all 2011 estimates are well below the 1979–2007 September climatological mean of 6.7 million square kilometers.
There continues to be a consensus for continuation of an anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. The data show a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of a weather pattern (the Arctic Dipole) that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.
The Regional Outlook can help shed light on the uncertainties associated with the estimates in the Pan-Arctic Outlook by providing more detail at the regional scale. We received 7 regional outlooks. With the exception of the Greenland Sea, all regions are expected to exhibit below-average ice extent throughout the remainder of the season.
This month’s Outlook reports also include a more detailed discussion of sea ice thickness information provided from field measurements and model results. This year, several airborne campaigns have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Such surveys can help inform predictions of summer and fall ice conditions.
There continues to be a consensus for continued anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. If the observed 2011 sea ice extent is in the range of 2008-2010 values, similar to the 2011 Outlook projections, it would point towards the absence of “tipping point” behavior after the record minimum of 2007, but would not indicate a return to the previous state observed prior to 2007. The data from 2011 shows a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of the Arctic Dipole weather pattern with southerly winds that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.
JUNE 2011 ICE AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
The ice extent through May and June was at or below previous record sea ice extents from 2007 and 2010, and converges towards both values at the beginning of July (Figure 2). According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. Sea ice extent was lower than normal in much of the Arctic, and the Kara Sea region had particularly low ice extent. Ice has also started to break up off the coast of Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These early open water areas absorb the sun’s energy, which will help to further ice melt through the summer.
Normally (i.e., before 2007) light winds prevail during summer in the Arctic. However, throughout the summer of 2007, the persistence of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (AD) sea level pressure pattern, with high pressure on the North American side and low pressure on the Siberian side, contributed substantially to the record low ice extent in September 2007. In June 2011, similar to June 2010, the AD was present in early summer (Figure 3), but in 2011 the pattern is shifted toward the Siberian coast. This is consistent with developing early sea ice losses along the Siberian coast and the Kara Sea.
ICE THICKNESS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND GREENLAND ARCTIC
The importance of the ice thickness field in controlling summer ice evolution has been well established, including by contributions to the Sea Ice Outlook in past years from ensemble simulations with coupled ice ocean models (Kauker et al., Zhang et al.). This year, several airborne campaigns, including the German-Canadian-US collaborative effort PAMARCMIP (see Figure 4), the NASA IceBridge flights, and others have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Figure 4 shows a comparison between this data and model output by Kauker et al. used in their September ice extent prediction. It is noteworthy that the model over-predicts ice thickness along the North American and Greenland shelf margin. It is not clear whether this difference is also connected to the comparatively high prediction for September ice extent by Kauker et al.’s group; the October retrospective analysis will provide more insight into that question. However, it does appear that the band of thick ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has further thinned (see also Figure 5). At the same time, the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is seeing less multiyear ice drifting in from the Canadian Arctic, with more first-year ice prevalent in 2011 than in past years. As discussed in the Regional Outlook, this has implications for the summer ice season in the region. Overall, while we are lacking ice thickness data over the central Arctic (though with Cryosat in orbit this will change soon: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMAAW0T1PG_index_0.html), there is some indication that the regions of the thickest ice may have seen further thinning. However, at present it is unclear whether any of this will manifest itself in milder ice conditions this year, since the ice with thicknesses well above 2 m (where the biggest changes have occurred) will not melt out completely.
2011 NORTHERN SEA ROUTE THROUGH SIBERIAN ARCTIC OPENED FOR ICEBREAKER-ESCORTED SHIPPING
On the 30 June the 2011 Northern Sea Route (NSR) “opened” for icebreaker-escorted sea transit along the northern shore of Russia. The nuclear powered icebreaker NS Yamal, with shark’s teeth painted on her bows, left Murmansk to rendezvous with the oil tanker MV Perseverance and escort her along the NSR to her China destination. This year the arctic sea ice is melting so rapidly that the NSR is opening earlier than ever. Updated from: http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/2011-Northern-Sea-Route-n….
CHANGES IN OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE?
The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean—the warmest water in at least 2,000 years—are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. http://dirwww.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
KEY STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTLOOKS
Key statements from the individual Outlook contributions are below, summarized here by author, organization of first author, Outlook value, standard deviation/error estimate (if provided), method, and abstracted statement. The statements are ordered from highest to lowest outlook values. The full individual contributions are available in the “Pan-Arctic Individual PDFs” section at the bottom of this webpage, and provide more detail.
Kauker et al. (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research); 5.5 ± 0.5; Model
For the present outlook the coupled ice-ocean model NAOSIM has been forced with atmospheric surface data from January 1948 to June 22, 2011. This atmospheric forcing has been taken from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis (Kalnay et al., 1996). We used atmospheric data from the years 1991 to 2010 for the ensemble prediction. The model experiments all start from the same initial conditions on May 22, 2011. We thus obtain 20 different realizations of sea ice development in summer 2011. We use this ensemble to derive probabilities of ice extent minimum values in September 2011.
WattsUpWithThat.com (Public Contribution-Poll); 5.1; Heuristic
Website devoted to climate and weather polled its readers for the best estimate of 2011 sea ice extent minimum by choosing bracketed values from a web poll (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/july-arcus-forecast-poll-what-will…). 15.38% chose 5.0 to 5.1 million km2, with second greatest vote of 11.17% choosing 5.4 to 5.5 million sq km2.
Morison and Untersteiner (Polar Science Center, APL-UW); 4.8; Heuristic
The ice extent was below the extent at the same time in 2007 but is now even with 2007. As we argued in June, if loss rates don’t become anomalously large in the next couple of months, the ice extent should be a little greater than the extent in 2007.
Stroeve et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7; Statistical
This estimate uses the same approach as last year: survival of ice of different ages based on ice age fields provided by Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik (Univ. Colorado, Boulder). However, this year we are using a revised ice age product, one based on a 15% sea ice concentration threshold rather than the earlier version, which used a threshold of 40% [see Maslanik et al., in review for more details]. The use of a 15% threshold on sea ice concentration captures greater detail within the marginal ice zone, matches NSIDC’s threshold used for mapping overall sea ice extent and should therefore provide a better estimate of the September 2011 ice extent.
Meier et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7 ± 0.6; Statistical
This statistical method uses previous years’ daily extent change rates from July 1 through September 30 to calculate projected daily extents starting from June 30. The September daily extents are averaged to calculate the monthly extent. Rates from recent years are more likely to occur because of the change in ice cover. Thus, the official project is based on the rates for 2002-2010.
Beitsch et al. (University of Hamburg); 4.7 ± 0.5; Statistical
The estimate is based on AMSR-E sea ice concentration data derived using the ARTIST sea ice (ASI) algorithm (Spreen et al., 2008; Kaleschke et al., 2001). To obtain an estimate, the ice area from a central Arctic subregion is regressed with the previous years and their September mean extents. Daily updates can be found here: http://icdc.zmaw.de/cryosphere.html?&L=1
Note (7/13): During the past few days, the estimate dropped to a value of 4.1 +- 0.2 Mio km.
Canadian Ice Service; 4.7 ± 0.2; Heuristic
Since Arctic multi-year ice (MYI) did not experience free passage through Nares Strait throughout the winter of 2011 as it did in 2007 and 2010, a normal concentration of MYI currently exists in the Lincoln Sea area and north of Ellesmere Island at the beginning of July 2011. This factor may be just enough to prevent record-breaking minimum ice concentrations and extents in the Arctic Ocean in 2011.
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. (University of Washington); 4.6 ± 0.5; Model
Our forecast uses a state-of-the-art General Circulation Model (GCM) initialized with average May 2011 sea ice area and volume anomalies obtained from the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The GCM used is the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)’s Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4) [1] at 1_ resolution in all components.
Lukovich et al. (Centre for Earth Observation Science, U. of Manitoba); 4.6; Heuristic-Dynamics
Spatial patterns in difference maps for springtime stratospheric relative vorticity and winds in 2011 relative to 2007 highlight a westward shift in anticyclonic/cyclonic circulation and significant differences over the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago, with implications for stratosphere-surface coupling and thus surface winds in this region. A combined lack of coherence in ice drift fields and reduced ice concentrations in April 2011 relative to April 2007 suggest that springtime ice dynamical contributions to fall sea ice extent may be associated with sea ice deformation and ridging within an increasingly mobile and fractured ice cover.
Hamilton (University of New Hampshire); 4.4 ± 0.9; Statistical
This is a naive, purely statistical model. It predicts September mean extent simply from a Gompertz curve representing the trend over previous years. Estimation data are the NSIDC monthly mean extent reports from September 1979 through September 2010.
Randles; 4.4; Statistical
A Gompertz fit of the NSIDC September extent figures is used as a starting point. Multiple linear regression is then used to predict the residual from the Gompertz fit. Two predictors have been used which are:
a) The residual of the end of June Cryosphere Today area numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June area numbers.
b) The residual of the end of June PIOMAS volume numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June volume numbers.
Arbetter et al. (National Ice Center) 4.3; Statistical
In the July update, using sea ice conditions from the end of May (June used end of April) as well as air temperatures and sea level pressures, the timing of the minimum is moved forward two weeks, although the value remains the same as before. This is because the update predicts slightly lower ice extent through July and August, which does not decelerate until the second week of September, rather than the first as in the June Outlook. The minimum forecast value may be constrained by observations. That is, since the projection is based on the previous 10 years’ observations, the value can be no higher than the highest ice amount and no lower than the lowest ice amount in the past 10 years. The forecasts so far are robust in predicting close to near-record minimums. It must also be noted that the Outlook does not project conditions in the Canadian Archipelago; it has not been determined how much lower the ice extent is because of this. Since the July Outlook also suggests a delayed refreezing of the ice compared to June, the possibility exists that a record low could be seen. In 2010, the July Outlook was the lowest projected value and too low compared to the actual value. A thorough re-examination of ARIFS over the past 10 years could better characterize error in the model.
Zhang (Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington); 4.3 ± 0.5; Model
This is based on numerical ensemble predictions starting on 7/1/2011 using the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP/NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate.
Folkerts 4.2± 0.2; Statistical
Various single and multiple regression results with r2 > 0.6 suggest that the September extent will be close to, or perhaps below, the minimum value set in 2007. Analyses based on extent, area, and volume.
Lindsay and Zhang; 4.1 ± 0.4; Statistical
This is quite a bit lower than the prediction from last month.
Peterson et al. (UK Met Office); 4.0 ± 1.2; Model
This projection is an experimental prediction from the UK Met Office seasonal forecast system, GloSea4 (Arribas et al., 2011). GloSea4 is an ensemble prediction system using the HadGEM3 coupled climate model (Hewitt et al., 2011). A more complete description of the GloSea4 system can be found in the June report and accompanying references (http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/06/pdf/panarctic/…)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John B,
Flat wrong about Trenberth. You’re presuming to interpret what he said – while I provided his verbatim quote. There is no wiggle-room in it. He wants nothing less than to upend the scientific method by forcing scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientist] to prove a negative. That is why Trenberth is mendaciously attempting to put the onus on skeptics, instead of frankly admitting [contrary to your assertion] that the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. It is based on wildly inaccurate computer models. [Chart on request.]
And your claim that Mann’s Hokey Stick [and its equally bogus spaghetti chart imitations] represent reality enters the realm of pseudo-scientific true belief. Even the journal Nature has backed away from MBH98. And the UN/IPCC will no longer publish Mann’s original Hockey Stick chart; they can’t, because it has been so thoroughly debunked by McIntyre & McKitrick.
As I have patiently explained to you numerous times now, Mann’s bogus ‘Stick is a fabricated artefact of the improper methodology he used. When the proxy data is corrected, and the true proxy record is used, the sharp upswing in temperature vanishes and the MWP reappears. When the proper trend line is used, the sharp upswing in temperature vanishes completely. Mann’s Hokey Stick is pure bunkum. [Corrected charts on request.]
Your claim that “the climate is now changing outside of that range and at an unprecedented rate” over the Holocene is equally bunkum. No temperature or trend parameters have been exceeded. None. You are simply wrong about that. [Charts on request.]
Folks in the CAGW cult are no different than Harold Camping’s followers. They operate on blind faith, not on verifiable facts. So, should we listen to evidence-free true believers? Or should we listen to credible climatologists like Dr Spencer and Prof Lindzen? I, like most thinking skeptics, prefer to look at the facts, instead of trying to argue using evidence-free PNS rhetoric. [Charts and backup statements on request.]
John B says:
July 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm
” As another example, when talking about gravity, general relativity has become the null hypothesis.”
There should be something akin to Godwin’s Law in regard to bringing up Relativity to give your arguments a patina of scientific respectability, attempting to borrow against the gold standard of arcane physics it represents. When you do so, you automatically lose the argument at hand. I humbly suggest we call it “Bart’s Law”.
Especially since, it’s a major fail in any case. General Relativity is known to be incomplete, because it does not mesh with the much more thoroughly vetted Standard Model. So, the account is actually overdrawn from the get go.
@Bart “Especially since, it’s a major fail in any case. General Relativity is known to be incomplete, because it does not mesh with the much more thoroughly vetted Standard Model. So, the account is actually overdrawn from the get go.
Which actully makes the alalogy even better, to anyone who understands science. Yes, relativity is incomplete, but it is the best explanation of gravity we have got and it is darn useful (think GPS for example). Ditto our knowledge of AGW.
@Smokey, IPCC no longer publish Mann’s hockey stick because they publish a chart containing dozens of similar plots, Mann’s being one of them. You know that. And what is it makes Lindzen and Spencer “credible” in your eyes, other than that you like their conclusions? [We’ve all seen your charts]
C’mon, John B, admit that the IPCC cannot use Mann’s original Hokey Stick chart because it was debunked. Admit it! What’s losing one small argument, compared with forfeiting probity?☺
Smokey, what nonsense. The Mann plot is still there. It is now portrayed amongst all the other similar plots to show that whenever you look at paleoclimate, the same picture emerges.
Show me where the IPCC admit they cannot use Mann.
John B says:
July 17, 2011 at 1:22 am
“Which actully makes the alalogy even better, to anyone who understands science. Yes, relativity is incomplete, but it is the best explanation of gravity we have got and it is darn useful (think GPS for example).”
Your cutoff for where the theory is useful is entirely arbitrary, based on the application on which you are focused. At high energy and small scales, it is useless.
But, at least it does have confirmational real world evidence backing it up in a specific regime. AGW, not so much, so the analogy is completely irrelevant. You might as well say, Volta showed frogs legs are stimulated by electricity, therefore AGW is correct.
You are trying to hijack the subtle reasoning which went into the construction of the General Theory of Relativity for your own ends on a completely independent topic. It doesn’t wash. Epic fail. Move on.
Science is not about constructing a plausible narrative, and declaring it Truth without supporting evidence. You do not understand Science.
@Bart
I understand science pretty good. No, you can’t just make up a narrative, there has to be supporting evidence. AGW does have supporting evidence, lots of it, you know where to find it. Many here just choose to ignore it. Mainly it seems because they don’t like the political consequences of accepting it (IMHO).
@Bart, again
And that is why there are no relativity “skeptics”, because it has no ideological consequences. Which sciences do attract “skeptics”? AGW, obviously, but also evolution and geology. In those two cases the reason is religion, though the “skeptics” try their best to look like they have scientific objections. I think “skeptics” are divided into those who know what they are doing and those who genuinely believe the science is faulty. Of course, on the AGW side there are many who believe the science is sound without understanding it, perhaps also for ideological reasons. There are cranks on both sides, but eventually the truth will out, hopefully before it is too late. If the “skeptics” are right, that means before we waste trillions of dollars. If AGW is right, it means before really bad things happen to the climate.
John
John B says:
July 17, 2011 at 10:41 am
At least select some of the evidence that convinced you of AGW so we can see where you are coming from and are not just a useful fool.
John B says:
July 17, 2011 at 10:41 am
“I understand science pretty good.”
It would be better if you understood it well.
“AGW does have supporting evidence, lots of it, you know where to find it.”
So does the hypothesis that the Sun revolves around the Earth. So does phrenology. The difference between Science and Pseudoscience is in the predictive value and lack of difficult-to-resolve inconsistencies in the former. Science does not seek out confirmational evidence to the exclusion of contradictory evidence. Science is open in its methods and sharing of information, so that others may readily replicate the findings. Science does not mock unbelievers, nor label them “deniers” to associate them with the most heinous acts in all of recorded history, nor issue other juvenile taunts. Science does not rely on consensus or other irrelevant logical fallacies – it rests on the evidence.
We have experienced a greater than 10 year hiatus in the upward march of global temperatures recorded in the latter couple of decades of the 20th century. Moreover, there are reasonable and readily observable natural cycles evident in the data which explain not only the upward march, but the recent hiatus. By any reasonable standard, the AGW hypothesis has failed.
The fact, which is beginning to dawn on everyone, is that the seemingly unusual short term rise was part of a ~60 year cycle in globally averaged temperatures which recently reached its peak, and will soon accelerate its decline, as it has in temperature records spanning the last two millennia. AGW is a dead man walking. We’re just waiting for the final collapse and death rattle.
John B says:
July 17, 2011 at 10:55 am
“And that is why there are no relativity “skeptics”, because it has no ideological consequences. Which sciences do attract “skeptics”?”
John, seriously… stop talking about Relativity. You only reveal you know nothing about the subject. Relativity was met with some of the most ferocious skepticism imaginable in its day. It survived the tests, which is why latter day skeptics can be relegated to the status of cranks. Will AGW survive the tests, and be looked back upon similarly in 100 years? No. It has already failed the tests.
Geology, too. The theory of plate tectonics took decades to be accepted. Lots of theories, which were accepted by the “consensus” view, were swept away by that.
“If the “skeptics” are right, that means … we waste trillions of dollars.”
And, you think this would have no deleterious impact? It means war, famine, and upheaval across the globe. Other than that, I guess no big whoop.
“If AGW is right, it means before really bad things happen to the climate.”
Hardly. It means longer growing seasons, less severe weather, and maybe Al Gore has to move his California coastal domicile a few meters inland. Maybe.
Gary Pearse said “At least select some of the evidence that convinced you of AGW so we can see where you are coming from and are not just a useful fool.”
OK, start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html
Yes, it is the IPCC report summary for policymakers. If you haven’t read it, do so. But don’t stop there, as it only summarises the research. It’s not hard to drill down to the next level.
The whole point of the “consensus” view, is that there is weight of evidence, not just cherry picks. I am loath to link to specific charts for fear of accusations of cherry picking myself, but here is one that is relevant to Smokey’s claim that Mann has been rebutted and can no longer be used by the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-6-10-l.png
Note that the “M” of MBH1999 is Mann. He is still in there, amongst a dozen or so other plots that show the same thing when compared to the instrumental record.
And so on…
@Bart
You misunderstood my point. Those who still criticise geology and evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific reasons (e.g. they believe in Genesis and the flood). Many, perhaps not you, criticise AGW because they hate Al Gore.
And yes, wasting trillions of dollars would be a very bad thing – if you are right. Not doing anything would be a very bad thing – if AGW is right. Surely we can both agree on that.
“You misunderstood my point. Those who still criticise geology and evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific reasons (e.g. they believe in Genesis and the flood).”
I don’t misunderstand it. I don’t see any point at all. If you’ve got a chip on your shoulder about religious folk, that’s your own neurosis with which you have to contend.
“Many, perhaps not you, criticise AGW because they hate Al Gore.”
You have to admit, that’s a pretty compelling reason.
“Surely we can both agree on that.”
No, we don’t. I frankly do not see any net ill consequence of more uniform and life-friendly temperatures around the globe. If we had it in our power to induce global warming, I would be in the “pro-” crowd. Unfortunately, it is clear we presently can have virtually no impact on the vast regulating feedback network which comprises our climate system.
Bart, It seems you hold both the “it’s not happening” AND the “it won’t be bad” positions. Most skeptics pick one or the other.
Your comments regarding Al Gore appear to indicate that your position is not scientifically motivated, which is sad.
John B says:
“The Mann plot is still there.”
No it isn’t. The chart posted about was called Dr. Mann’s “original” hockey stick chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
That chart isn’t used anymore because it used cherrypicked proxys. The more accurate proxies were hidden in a file called Censored. Dr. Mann’s chart cut out the medieval warm period and little ice age too. So the ipcc stopped using it.
If you think the ipcc still uses Dr. Mann’s chart tell us where we can find it in their latest report. And some advice, if I was you I’d stop debating Bart. He’s running circles around you.
Bart, The authors of the paper you link to, that supposedly will lead everyobne to realise “AGW is a dead man walking”, conclude that:
“Depending upon the assumed importance of the contributions of ocean dynamics and the time-varying aerosol emissions to the observed trends in global-mean surface temperature, we estimate that up to one third of the late twentieth century warming could have been a consequence of natural variability.”
Up to one third due to natural variability. i.e. at least two thirds not a consequence of natural variability.
And the authors also provide this clarification on Judith Curry’s blog (emphasis mine):
“Therefore, the estimated global warming due to human activities over the past 25 years ranges from about 0.10 K to about 0.15 K per decade, depending on the assumed partitioning of the MDV between natural and anthropogenic aerosol-forced variability” refers to the past 25 years, also referred to as “the past few decades” in our article.
Our ST component accounts for a larger component of the 50-year trend. Our intent was not to contest the IPCC’s attribution of the “late 20th century” (i.e., 50-year) trend, but, rather, to question whether the acceleration in the rate of greenhouse warming was as pronounced as implied by results presented in AR-4, and particularly by the graph showing linear trends for the most recent 100, 50, and 25 years. The papers of Delsole and Shukla and by Semenov et al., referenced in our paper, makes the same point, but based on different kinds of evidence.
.
Since there are people who will read about our article on your web site who do not have direct access to our article (or are not likely to take the time to access and read it carefully), it might be worth your making this clarification on your blog.“
So, even if they are right, it’s not much of a coffin nail, is it?.
@Franklyn Durilla H
I said the Mann “plot” is still there. It is, on the IPC 4AR chart I linked to, as the line labeled “MBH1999”. They don’t use the original chart because there are now so many other studies to show. Hence the “spaghetti chart”. Why would they continue to show only Mann when all the other corroborating studies became available?
If you can show me where the IPPC state that they had to stop using Mann, as you and others assert, I would like to see it.
John B says:
July 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“Bart, It seems you hold both the “it’s not happening” AND the “it won’t be bad” positions.”
No, I hold the “it’s too bad it isn’t happening” position.
“Your comments regarding Al Gore appear to indicate that your position is not scientifically motivated, which is sad.”
Lack of a sense of humor is often associated with zealotry.
“Bart, The authors of the paper you link to, that supposedly will lead everyobne to realise “AGW is a dead man walking”, conclude that…”
John, learn to think for yourself. These guys are several years behind on the learning curve. Plus, they don’t want to be sent to the back of the line at the gravy train.
What is portentous is that the dyke is developing cracks. It doesn’t take long after that for the whole works to crumble.
(Sloop) John B, of course you’ll be pleased to know that none of the paleoclimate temperature reconstructions which show a pronounced hockey stick shape can be validated prior to 1500ce without the use (and abuse) and severe overweighting of questionable, or outright invalid in the case of stripbark pines, proxies. Not to mention that most proxies haven’t been validated as accurate temperature proxies in the first place. So we essentially have nothing which tells us that today’s temps or rates of change are unprecedented during this interglacial (Holocene). Without validation, agw alarmism is no better than telling me it’s going to flood because it’s been raining for a day.
Bart, you cited the paper as evidence. I show you it’s nothing of the sort, so you trash it. If it is rubbish, as you now seem to think, then it doesn’t represent a crack at all. Which is it?
Jeff, So all the paleoclimate reconstructions are rubbish, but “facts” like Eric The Red calling the place Green-land (yes, people really cite this as evidence) is a slam dunk for the world being warmer in the past. A hint of double standards, maybe?
You guys seem to have turned cognitive dissonance into an artform 🙂
Regardless of what Eric the Red might have called it, the fact is they did settle there for quite a long time. Couldn’t have done so if it wasn’t warmer than it is now. Also, I didn’t use the word rubbish, please don’t put words into my mouth, or include arguments I didn’t make (re: Greenland). I submit there is no research which says tree rings, lake sediments, etc, make good thermometers. If you know otherwise, please enlighten us.
John B says:
“I am loath to link to specific charts for fear of accusations of cherry picking myself, but here is one that is relevant to Smokey’s claim that Mann has been rebutted and can no longer be used by the IPCC…”
And:
“I said the Mann ‘plot’ is still there. It is, on the IPC 4AR chart I linked to, as the line labeled ‘MBH1999’.”
Probity is your weak point, John B. Using devious rhetorical gimmicks like now claiming “plot” means something other than Mann’s explicit, original hokey stick chart, which was what you responded to, puts you in the Steven Schneider category: misrepresent, lie, deceive; say anything in order to promote the CAGW agenda. In this case you were trying to imply that Mann’s original chart is still being used by the IPCC. It is not, and you’re fooling no one.
The fact is that the UN/IPCC loved Mann’s original hockey stick chart! It was more visually arresting, and much more alarming than it’s pale imitations that the IPCC now uses. Any fool can see that this chart is scarier than this confusing mess, which is in direct violation of the K.I.S.S. principle. Compared with Mann’s original chart, what the IPCC now uses tends to make peoples’ eyes glaze over. Unlike Mann’s first chart, the current mishmash has to be studied before any alarm sets in.
Yes, the IPCC absolutely loved Mann’s original chart. How many times did they publish it before it was debunked? Six? Seven? Maybe more. But now they can no longer use their beloved Michael Mann chart. And since the IPCC’s stated agenda is to confiscate the West’s wealth under the false guise of “climate disruption,” they would certainly continue using Mann’s frightening [but bogus] chart — if they could.
But they can’t. Why not? Because MBH98 and Mann’s hokey chart have both been debunked. If that is not clear to you, maybe that explains why you’re impotently arguing your bogus ‘facts’ with everyone else here.
If you’re not being a willing fellow traveler and useful idiot, wake up, and look at the true UN/IPCC agenda:
Smokey,
My first mention of Mann was directed to you:
“@Smokey, IPCC no longer publish Mann’s hockey stick because they publish a chart containing dozens of similar plots, Mann’s being one of them. You know that.”
Nothing devious about that. They no longer publish his original chart but they still publish his results. Perhaps their intention is to inform, not alarm. The new chart says, “look, a dozen hockey sticks, all pointing in the same direction”.
This idea that the IPCC cannot use Mann’s original chart. Did you make that up yourself? I don’t think I have come across that particular argument elsewhere.
None of those reconstructions are really independent. They all rely on the same bad proxies, with no research to back up the claim that they accurately represent temperature as opposed to a number of other factors. Take a look at Mann 2009, without Bristlecone pines and upside down Tiljander varves, there is no hockey stick.