As many readers have noted, one of the Arctic sea ice extent plots on our WUWT sea ice page took a Serreze style nosedive today:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
According to DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute), this is the source of the data:
The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.
And when I backtrace from OSISAF to find what satellite/sensor they used, this is what they say:
Data used: SSM/I (DMSP F15), ECMWF forecast for atmospheric correction
The glitch is reminiscent of the Feb 2009 failure of an SSMI sensor used by NSIDC.
That failure showed up on NSIDC’s plot, and when I pointed it out with a blog post NSIDC responded that it “isn’t worth blogging about“.
Click for larger image
A couple of days later they were forced by the failure of the sensor to take their data offline, so apparently it was worth blogging about after all.
They wrote in the press release at the time:
Last year, F13 started showing large amounts of missing data. The sensor was almost 13 years old, and no longer provided complete daily data to allow us to track total daily sea ice extent. As a result, we switched to the DMSP F15 sensor for our near-real-time analysis.
And as noted above, DMI uses SSM/I (DMSP F15), the same as NSIDC. Is this glitch worth blogging about? I think so since NSIDC was unaware last time that a problem had developed until we pointed it out for them.
This looks like the beginning of the problem on August 6th, as seen at the OSI SAF page:
Source: http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201108061200_pal.jpg
The day before on August 5th:
Source: http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201108051200_pal.jpg
It may be related to the three Coronal Mass Ejections, (CME) that hit Earth about that time. From Spaceweather.com
Earth’s magnetic field is still reverberating from a CME strike on August 5th that sparked one of the strongest geomagnetic storms in years. Registering 8 on the 0 to 9 “K-index” scale of magnetic disturbances, the storm at maximum sparked auroras across Europe and in many northern-tier US states.
It is possible the satellite operator shut down the bird for protection, but nobody got the memo. There’s no mention of data outages on NSIDC’s page or at CT or other ice product websites that I’ve found. Or, the sensor data might be so corrupt as to be unusable, or the sensor has been fried by the CME.
So, like before, I’ll send NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meier a courtesy note on this one and see what he says. NSIDC’s plot averages over 5 days, IIRC, so it won’t show up for a few days and they have time to correct it if in fact it is the satellite sensor data again.
This may be a sensor issue, or it may be an algorithm issue. Since other plots aren’t showing it, we know it doesn’t represent a real loss of ice, just loss of data.
Curiously though, I’ve noted another glitch half a world away:
Source: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
Which looks to be unrelated, since it is the AMSR-E sensor on a different satellite.
Must be the day for glitches in sea ice.
Meanwhile, Row to the Pole‘s progress is slowing to a crawl:
Must be a sea ice glitch of a different kind.
UPDATE:
Dr.Walt Meier of NSIDC responds:
Hi Anthony,
This is quite clearly a data issue. We don’t work with the F15 satellite
anymore – we’ve been using the sensor on the newer F17 satellite, so I
can’t say if it is a a sensor problem or a processing issue at DMI. I
could be the CME, though it doesn’t seem to have affected the F17
sensor. From the image, it looks to be a missing swath of data, perhaps
from CME, perhaps from some other issue. A missing swath is not
particularly unexpected. Sometimes the data can be recovered later and
added in, sometimes not. The AMSR-E issue in the Antarctic also appears
to be due to one or more missing swaths of data on Aug. 5:
In our images, as you point out, we do a 5-day averaging to remove the
noise, often errors due to ephemeral weather effects, from the
timeseries. This avoids the day-to-day ups and downs that can be
misleading and provides a more representative overall trajectory (though
we do get occasional wiggles from the preliminary data used in the 5-day
data that is later replaced).
For the timeseries plot, we also interpolate over missing data (such as
a missing swath) using data for that region from the day before and
(when it becomes available) the day after. However, there doesn’t appear
to be any missing swaths in our F17 data over the last several days.
Info on the sensor we use and the interpolation are explained on our
website here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/disclaimer1.html
You’re welcome to print the above, though if you do, I would appreciate
if you would also add the following links, where we addressed the sensor
issue and made corrections to the near-real-time data.
And also here, where I discussed some the issues dealing with
near-real-time data from satellite sensors:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-on-the-sensor-issue/
These may be useful for new readers or to refresh other readers’
memories, such as some of the readers who posted in the comments section.
walt
——————————————-
Walt Meier, Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
UCB 449, Boulder, CO 80309
I can’t resist … IT IS WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT 😉
NSIDC also seem to be substituting puns for information, http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
sorry to her about the rowers, have they fallen out with each other and started rowing? or are they still paddling away?
Probably a large-scale thermonuclear release to try and get the data back in line with the model.
[Snip. Calling others “deniers” violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
…or maybe they’re using models with the same algorithm, and they both hit a modeling pothole at the same time…
I can’t resist … we finally reached a tipping point!
We have heard from Dr. Meier for a while, it’s about time you contacted him and let him point out all the molten ice.
As for RttP, their latest map shows a good jump. I haven’t figured when each new dot gets added.
Their news feed http://www.rowtothepole.com/latest-news/ does show half a clue of what’s coming up:
They may have to plink a PB or two yet.
i saw that in the middle of the night and was curious as to what was happening.
Does anyone know if any of them went to Eton?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/08/bear-witness.html
Maybe a NASA data reception facility shut down due to glitches in Congress.
That’s not all….I think the Borg got Baffin Island too!
This seems to be the glitch they got….
http://osisaf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201108061200_pal.jpg
Is there nobody in these organisations looking at the graphs they publish? It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to spot that there may be a problem.
WOW, There was three recent coronal mass ejections that hit earth around this time.
the K Index chart for the 6th August shows a very high Geophysical hit for Earth from the recent CMEs Could this be a result of solar activity effecting the satellites?
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/K%20Index%206%20Aug__540x403.jpg
If high solar activity shows up on satellite sensor plots as a lower Arctic sea ice extent then what would this mean?
maybe the blast of solar radiation that hit the earth, first had it’s way with some satellite hardware ?
Talking of Mark Serreze, his name came up in a very recent radio show featuring Greg Laden and John Abraham:
http://mnatheists.org/content/view/633/163/
John Abraham: “I’ve got the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s ice data on my shortcuts or bookmarks recorded on my iPhone, and I check it periodically, and you can actually watch – you can go to their website, it’s NSIDC – just search that and you’ll get to the website – and you can follow the ice extent in the Arctic today. And you can compare it with past years. And there’s a clear, clear and continuous decrease in Arctic ice. In fact, it’s so severe that the director of NSIDC, Mark Serreze, said, quote, “Arctic ice is in a death spiral.” Now for a scientist to use a phrase like “death spiral”, especially reserved scientists, you know it’s pretty serious.”
Full transcript here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20110731_mn
REPLY: Problem is, Serreze is hardly “reserved”. More like “activist hippie”. You should see some of the things he says in historychannel.com documentaries. – Anthony
Serreze will get a death spiral somehow — even if he has to redefine what the satellite sensor data is!……….;-)
isn’t this convenient………………….
Paul Deacon says:
August 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Sure there is. However, there are also automated systems that collect the data, generate the images and uploads the data.
You have a choice of
1) Not seeing the data until it’s well vetted (and even then it may not be right).
2) Not seeing the data until someone has glanced at it during regular work hours, possibly minus sick days, vacations, and gov’t shutdowns.
3) Seeing data nearly as soon as it’s available, recognizing that’s is not product quality and may be badly flawed.
4) Not seeing the data until it comes out on paper.
Personally, I’ll go for 3).
Arrrhhhh….. never should have believed all you skeptics. R Gates is right.
Head for the hills…..
The Black Hole at the Pole has got too hot and just exploded, obviously.
James Allison says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Arrrhhhh….. never should have believed all you skeptics. R Gates is right.
Head for the hills…..
____
While the sea ice extent has indeed turned down pretty dramatically since Anthony posted his “turn to the right” article, we’d better hope this huge of a drop is some crazy sensor error (maybe related to the solar flare?), or indeed, things will be “worse than we thought.”
As it is, some areas of high pressure and a nice little dipole settling in over the Arctic for an extended August visit. Expect a lot of export from the Fram and a lot of melting in place during this time. By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!). With the warming still in the pipeline, we’ll have a virtually ice free summer arctic by the time most of you are gumming your oatmeal at the retirement home.
According to the Moscow Neutron Monitor ( http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm ) the Forbush event lasted almost an entire day, pausing for night. Might be worth the while to get some current hourly on the South Pole/Hemisphere.
James Allison says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Arrrhhhh….. never should have believed all you skeptics. R Gates is right.
Head for the hills…..
===============================
R. Gates constructed a strawman recently, complete with wacky example where skeptics, according to him, would still not believe that the data had gone beyond the null hypothesis if the climatic event in his example came to pass.
If this is not a glitch or a bribe, R. Gates, I’ll concede here.
Ric Werme – I agree, but it would be nice to see a data blip of this kind recognised by its producers sometimes before it is spotted by its users.
Must be hard to row across ice. Would love to see some pics!
At least it is making my prediction for a record low look right.
I used to be suspicious of this ice data. Now I don’t believe it at all. It’s the attitude of the people on the analysis end that disturbs me. ‘Doesn’t deserve to blog about(!)’ What a inarticulate, unprofessional thing to say. From our “friends” in the government!
We used to have, what, almost 6,000 temperature collection points throughout the world? Now we have 1,200, 1,300? And all the one’s that were dropped were in cooler places, all the one’s kept were in predominately urban areas, airports, parking lots.
To paraphrase: ‘First they came for the temperature data… then they came for the ice data.’ What’s next, the CO2 data, aerosol data… LOL!?
Seriously!!!
Tweaking AGC can cause a precipitous drop in signal level when the signal drops below detector amplification sensitivity.
@R Gates, what pipeline is this you are sure there is “warming” in? Where is this “warming”? Nobody can find it yet, and it has been a “travesty” that we cannot for a long while now. Are you sure it exists? Is it possibly just a convenient way to explain the lack of current warming, just as aerosols are being used for?
Lotsa questions. Few answers…..
Don’t these data sites file minority reports?
Seems they are now climbing out of one hole just to fall into another.
I’m sort of wondering about how do they calibrate the satellites to real ice? I.e., have they had anybody actually go out there and check to make sure there is open water where the satellites say there should be? My doubts stem from the rather stark difference between the ice area given by Alaskan weather service and the AMSRE satellites — see links below. This difference has persisted for several years in the late summer period, and emails to both providers produced very emphatic assertions that their view of ice limit is the accurate one.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=fullice
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
R. Gates
everyone knows that these days all them old farts have their own set of removable snappers.
If you are suggesting that toothless retired people living in homes drives sea ice levels, I have a satellite to sell you.
“By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!).”
Did we have satellites during the Climate Optimum? More likely the least amount recorded since we started worrying about warm weather. Prior to then the average person had enough common sense to recognize that except for a narrow band in the tropics, the earth is too cold for human survival without fire. There was actually a time when people dreamed of an ice free arctic and how it would revolutionize global trade and commerce. Now the mice that inhabit this planet can only see it as yet another thing to fear.
A new climate worry. Nuclear subs under the Arctic are responsible for melting 40,000,000,000 tonnes of arctic ice.
http://www.sciencefile.org/SciFile/forum/The-h-Bar/168449-Nuclear-power-plants-beneath-the-Arctic-ocean
Perhaps some of the mice are less timid than others?
Russia says high ice melt opens Arctic trade routes
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-high-ice-melt-opens-arctic-trade-214152102.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Arctic ice cover receded to near record lows this summer, opening elusive northern trade routes from Asia to the West, Russia’s climate research agency said on Wednesday.
After the third hottest year on record since 1936 in the Arctic last year, ice cover has melted as much as 56 percent more than average across northern shipping routes, making navigation in the perilous waters “very easy,” it said.
“Since the beginning of August icebreaker-free sailing is open on almost all the routes,” the climate monitoring agency said on its website http://www.meteoinfo.ru.
It added that the mild conditions would last through September on shipping lanes that are tens of thousands of kilometers shorter than southern alternatives.
With retreating ice opening new strategic trade routes, Russia hopes to make Arctic passage a competitor to the Suez Canal, profiting from taxes and the lease of its unique nuclear icebreaker fleet to escort cargo ships along its Siberian coast.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2091224/arctic_sea_ice_may_be_melting_slower_than_thought/index.html?source=r_science
Arctic Sea Ice May Be Melting Slower Than Thought
“Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years,” Svend Funder, team leader of the study, said in a press release.
“During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record.”
That looks just like an upside down Hockey Stick.
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Mikey Mann and does he have access to this data ?
Looks like a CME caused satellite problem.
As an aside, the Artic has been naturally near ice free prior to 20th century. I am sure no one got excited when that occurred. Hardly anyone noticed it.
John
We all better hope it is a glitch…
REPLY: You forgot to add, Best, D
Is it just me, or does it look like sensor “errors” are of only a particular sign? That is, underestimating extent. Can anyone give an example of a failed sensor producing erroneously high extent values at some point?
It’s an honest question, since I really do have to wonder how this system works that could make it the case that “errors” are one sided. Perhaps in such cases the appropriate term would be “bias”, as the technical definition of “error” usual refers to situations were the inaccuracies go up or down. A bias is inaccuracy in a particular direction.
Of course, sense these incidents seem to be a result of sensor defects, perhaps someone can figure out a way to engineer sensors less prone to failure? I assume someone is probably working on this.
“With the warming still in the pipeline, we’ll have a virtually ice free summer arctic by the time most of you are gumming your oatmeal at the retirement home.”
Anthony, why are you allowing this ‘toothless’ post-normal student, to let fly with this sort of very cheap incivility?
The Goracle has come true…… /sarc
Negative sign failure mode?
Oh how convenient….just turn the sensor off once in a while, and hope nobody notices.
But TWO sudden drops at opposite ends of the earth at the same exact time? Major anomalies, no less. What are the odds of that happening? This is a screaming example of let’s see the raw data before it gets “adjusted”.
It could be a manipulated sensor data Al Gore ithm !
ttca;
I think this is more along the lines of sensor failure, or dropout. CME victims.
Lol…right after you pointed out that sea ice extent had taken a left…uh…right turn. Are you sure it’s not just another convenient “data adjustment”?
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I am not aware of Putin claiming to be pumping hot crude under the Arctic Ice, so exactly when & where did this pipeline stuff come into being?
Let’s hope it’s only a glitch in instrumentation, not the sign of a larger scale data alteration fraud scheme suddenly gone out of control…
It’s either a CME blast that did it, or the Aliens abducted another sensor mistaking it for a lifeform.
I’ll go with the CME.
timetochooseagain says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Is it just me, or does it look like sensor “errors” are of only a particular sign? That is, underestimating extent. Can anyone give an example of a failed sensor producing erroneously high extent values at some point?
=================================================================
It doesn’t happen, underestimating is build in to the day to day….
……keep in mind, CryoSat-2 is only one year old, and just produced it’s first data a few weeks ago.
CS-2 is tuned to Envasat, which is tuned to Jason 1 – 2, which are all tuned to the computer climate models when they deviate from what the computer climate models say they should say……
“The primary instruments aboard CryoSat-2 are SIRAL-2,[18] the SAR/Interferometric Radar Altimeters;[12] which uses radar to determine and monitor the spacecraft’s altitude in order to measure the elevation of the ice.”
“A careful analysis of satellite radar altimetry echoes can distinguish between those backscattered from the open ocean, new ice or multi-year ice. The difference between the elevation of the echoes from snow/sea ice and open water gives the elevation of the ice above the ocean; the ice thickness can computed from this.[4] The technique has a limited vertical resolution – perhaps 0.5m – …………….
……………………..and is easily confused by the presence of even small amounts of open water.”
Gareth Phillips says: “…sorry to her about the rowers, have they fallen out with each other and started rowing?…
Oar-able pun, simply oar-able, Gareth.
Athelstan. says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I like reading Mr R Gates’s comments. He appears to have extensive knowledge of the Arctic and short term weather patterns and so I appreciate his views. That his view happens to be from the other side of the climate fence should not be held against him. And the poking fun comments are part of what makes Anthony’s site so good to visit.
GogogoStopSTOP says:
August 7, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I used to be suspicious of this ice data. Now I don’t believe it at all. It’s the attitude of the people on the analysis end that disturbs me. ‘Doesn’t deserve to blog about(!)’ What a inarticulate, unprofessional thing to say. From our “friends” in the government!
We used to have, what, almost 6,000 temperature collection points throughout the world? Now we have 1,200, 1,300? And all the one’s that were dropped were in cooler places, all the one’s kept were in predominately urban areas, airports, parking lots.
####
there are 77,000 stations in GHCN daily supplying a wide variety of parameters
Not all of these are temperature stations of course, but 10s of thousands are.
From the change log
Effective January 24, 2011, the number of GHCN-Daily stations will
increase by 325 to a total 76671 with the addition of new U.S. Cooperative
Observer and CoCoRaHS stations.
1. Data from approximately 17000 Australian stations will be added on
20 September 2010. These data, supplied by the Australian Bureau
of Meteorology, replace any previous data for Australian stations
and will be updated monthly. The new total number of stations in
GHCN Daily is 75239.
Recently I downloaded 7676 stations from Environment canada.
Dont mistake GHCN for all the data.
Here is the funny thing. If you look at global coverage from UHA or RSS you see the whole planet and you can look at the trend since 1979. Now, pick 200 surface stations at random from around the world.
Pick stations not at airports, pick stations at rural locations. calculate the average. Guess what?
It’s substantially the same as UHA or RSS and CRU and GISS.
Athelstan. says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“Anthony, why are you allowing this ‘toothless’ post-normal student, to let fly with this sort of very cheap incivility?”
R Gates is to be ignored. He likes to come here with nothing but Gatesisms and to poke around with barbs and needles. After a while you just don’t read what he types.
Quality — It’s job # 832! We’ll get to it eventually. Maybe
Steve Mosher said:
Hmm. Why would anyone think near surface temperatures should match satellite?
TheTempestSpark says: August 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm
WOW, There was three recent coronal mass ejections that hit earth around this time.
the K Index chart for the 6th August shows a very high Geophysical hit for Earth from the recent CMEs Could this be a result of solar activity effecting the satellites?
The magnetosphere has been buffeted over the last couple days, the action starts 32 seconds in:
Fred in Canuckistan wrote:
That looks just like an upside down Hockey Stick.
Only if you’re in the Northern hemisphere… 😉
“A careful analysis of satellite radar altimetry echoes can distinguish between those backscattered from the open ocean, new ice or multi-year ice. The difference between the elevation of the echoes from snow/sea ice and open water gives the elevation of the ice above the ocean; the ice thickness can computed from this.[4] The technique has a limited vertical resolution – perhaps 0.5m – …………….
……………………..and is easily confused by the presence of even small amounts of open water.”
In their response to my question about the differences between their ice estimates and those based on radar data, the Alaskan weather service said they based their analysis on satellite pictures. Could somebody who has access to the data (Anthony?) compare radar-based ice estimates with pictures?
DR.
DR says:
August 7, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Steve Mosher said:
It’s substantially the same as UHA or RSS and CRU and GISS.
Hmm. Why would anyone think near surface temperatures should match satellite?
###########
trend matches. The absolute numbers are of course different.
Look at it this way. If you saw the air above the surface (2m) trend up by 1C per decade, what would you expect for LTL? more trend? less trend? or about the same?
Now if the surface measurements were wildly corrupted and you saw 2C at the surface and 1C aloft, then you’d have a nice clue that measurements at the surface were biased.
But that’s not what we see. We see a trend at the surface and we see substantially the same trend aloft. That similarity gives us some measure of confidence that the surface measurements, on the whole, are substantially correct. Or you can look at it this way. There are now 5000 canadian stations sitting on my computer. WAYYY more than GHCN has for canada.
When I calculate the average for canada using 5000 stations do you think it will be
1. Higher than GHCN
2. Lower than GHCN
3. About the same.
“timetochooseagain says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Is it just me, or does it look like sensor “errors” are of only a particular sign? That is, underestimating extent. Can anyone give an example of a failed sensor producing erroneously high extent values at some point?”
But did you mean “high” values or values that do NOT support CAGW?
See the following:
http://boballab.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/lake-michigan-temp-july-4th-2010-489-2f/
“Lake Michigan Temp July 4th 2010: 489.2°F ?”
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Steve Mosher,
Aside from the missing “hot spot” debate, shouldn’t the satellite data show more warming than the near surface during the same period due to moist convection amplifying the warming with height? It seems like basic physics to me.
I’m just sayin’
Hey Mr. Gates, what was 15% ice extent on this date in1956, 1935 or 1750?
Anthony says “REPLY: Problem is, Serreze is hardly “reserved”. More like “activist hippie”. You should see some of the things he says in historychannel.com documentaries. – Anthony”
Wow, for a guy living in the Peoples Republic of Chico that is some kind of funny. Just imagine how far out Dr S has to be when you are surrounded daily with aging activist hippies that comprise ‘normal’ in the neighborhood.
Look, sometimes Viagra fails.
.
(62 comments and no one had cracked a joke like that? It was just sitting there, waiting)
August 4, 2011, 9.3 CME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvXqL7RmcN0
Steven Hoffer says:
August 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm
R. Gates
If you are suggesting that toothless retired people living in homes drives sea ice levels, I have a satellite to sell you.
___
Currently CO2 is more of a driver of climate change than methane.
Athelstan. says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“With the warming still in the pipeline, we’ll have a virtually ice free summer arctic by the time most of you are gumming your oatmeal at the retirement home.”
Anthony, why are you allowing this ‘toothless’ post-normal student, to let fly with this sort of very cheap incivility?
____
Don’t know from whence you come to cast your barbs in my direction, but I suspect I may not like you very much.
Grant says:
August 7, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Hey Mr. Gates, what was 15% ice extent on this date in1956, 1935 or 1750?
_____
You can be 99.9% certain it was more than it is on this date…especially as the NE and NW passages are virtually once more open, and they certainly were not on any of those dates.
James Allison says:
August 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Athelstan. says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I like reading Mr R Gates’s comments. He appears to have extensive knowledge of the Arctic and short term weather patterns and so I appreciate his views. That his view happens to be from the other side of the climate fence should not be held against him. And the poking fun comments are part of what makes Anthony’s site so good to visit.
____
Thank you James…perhaps its my Norwegian and Swedish heritage. I know enough about the Arctic to absolutely bore most my friends to death with it, so I’ve agreed to not talk about it anymore around them. WUWT and other sites help me keep my promise and give me an outlet. I’ve got the Humboldt Glacier (the widest tidewater glacier in the world by the way, and yes, it’s losing mass) as a background on my computer…what a nerd!
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!). With the warming still in the pipeline, we’ll have a virtually ice free summer arctic by the time most of you are gumming your oatmeal at the retirement home.
=====================
Only in your make-believe cartoon, milk-toast, smooth-handed, never-swung-a-hammer-before cyber world, GATES!
You can not prove or even BEGIN to predict ANY of the above….right down from the oatmeal (where will you be???) to the “least amount of sea ice on record”.
PROVE IT!
Arwww…I thought so. You can’t prove anything.
Time to press the REJECT button.
Next?????
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
First, kudos to Walt Meier for his willingness to discuss the issues. Next,
Ric Werme says:
August 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Fallacy of the excluded middle. You left out
5) Someone at NSIDC actually takes a quick glance at the data, and finds the error before Anthony does. How much time did it take you to spot the problem, Ric? One second? Two? You seem to think that taking two seconds to glance at a chart is somehow impossible during regular working hours … but since that’s what we’re paying them for, why can’t they do it? Most everyone on the planet finishes their jobs during their work hours, and I doubt greatly that the NSIDC folks are that overworked. Take a few minutes off from issuing alarmist predictions and actually look at the data … is that too much to ask?
6) Someone writes a bozo simple computer program that checks the data to see if it’s gone off the rails, and if so, it holds the data release up until someone can look at it when they get back. Duh …
Personally, I’ll go for 6). The code needed is trivially simple, and if NSIDC were a business they’d have done it the first time Anthony found an error. Businesses have to correct their errors or they go out of business. NSIDC just repeats their errors, as there is no penalty for mistakes. So no, 3) is not acceptable.
w.
Werner Brozek-I was referring to sea ice, so your comment is kinda not remotely relevant! It’s okay though. Wow, now that’s a high temperature! Perhaps it was a fluke and they were meaning to report in the Rankine scale 😉 Oh wait, then it would be below freezing which doesn’t make sense either. Hm…
steven mosher-“Look at it this way. If you saw the air above the surface (2m) trend up by 1C per decade, what would you expect for LTL? more trend? less trend? or about the same?”
I think it is reasonable a priori to expect that the lower troposphere should have a trend of the same sign. Quantitatively what one expects has to be determined either through some kind of “physics model” as you like to call them, or some kind of comparison of how the series relate to one another in ways independent of their long term trend, making the (seemingly reasonable assumption) that the same physics that applies to the fluctuations should apply to the long term trends. From the former approach, we get the answer that the “amplification” of TLT relative to the surface should be a factor of about 1.2, while from the latter, I get substantial the same answer:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/relating_lower_tropospheric_temperature_variations_to_the_surfac/
In other words, yes, it looks like there should be more warming aloft than at the surface. Funny thing is, the trends are “about the same” (and actually, for UAH at least, a little less). So when you say:
“That similarity gives us some measure of confidence that the surface measurements, on the whole, are substantially correct.”
You are, in fact, incorrect. While not as troubling as a complete lack of trend in the TLT data would be, the fact that the trend is not greater, means that the satellite data does not give anyone who actually understands these data additional confidence that the surface data are “substantially correct.” Note I am being generous: I am not saying that the TLT trend being only about the same as the surface raises questions about the accuracy of the surface data, only saying that they do not eliminate or lessen concerns about the surface data. The satellites are not confirmatory evidence of the surface data in any meaningful sense.
Something wrong with my understanding here. (as usual 🙂 ) During an ice age the Arctic Ocean must be free of ice so as to provide sufficient water vapour to allow the snow accumulation to build up towards New York.
DR says:
August 7, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Steve Mosher,
Aside from the missing “hot spot” debate, shouldn’t the satellite data show more warming than the near surface during the same period due to moist convection amplifying the warming with height? It seems like basic physics to me.
I’m just sayin’
#######
Of course, thats why, if you read my words when I talk about the trend, I say it should be roughly similar. But If you want to talk about Santer et al we can. And further, remember, we are talking about the trend. So, if the surface warms by .45C over 40 years, what is your expectation for warming aloft?
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Thanks, R. Gates. Could you please cite your sources for the claim that the NE and NW passages were not “virtually open” in 1750?
Also, what does “virtually open” mean? Because to me it means that the passages are open in a virtual world, say a climate model. For you it clearly means something else, but what? Perhaps you mean that satellite images show an opening for at least one day or something like that … but if so, how can you compare that satellite data to pre-satellite years?
Finally, could you list for us the number of vessels that made the NorthWest Passage this year? I can’t find any indication that anyone made the passage (or is even trying) this year, and as of August 7th the NWP was not open … and (as far as I know), zero passages this year is the same number of boats that made the passage in 1935, 1956, and 1750. If the NWP is “virtually open” now, so far it’s only virtual boats that have made it this year.
I also note that Amundsen made the first traversal of the NW Passage in 1902, when the world was colder than now. I note that the Coast Guard Cutter Storis made the passage in 1957 … was the NWP “virtually more open” or “virtually less open” in 1957 than it is now? Victory Adventure Cruises (perhaps buoyed by your optimism) was taking reservations for their NWP trip … which was supposed to complete the passage by the 30th of this month. Near as I can tell, it never even started the trip, I can find no further mention of the voyage.
So is that what you meant by “virtually open”? It’s kinda sorta open, but only virtual boats can make the passage?
w.
Didn’t I tell you they forgot to “adjust” it?
Oh goodness! Quick, someone call Prof. Flannery and tell him to sell his two waterfront houses NOW! \sarc
Don’t Hide the Decline………Never!!
It’s back up again now. Looks like it’s the sun!
Athelstan. says:
August 7, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I have to disagree. I almost never agree with R Gates, but you have to admit he (/she/it) is always very civil, despite the great many taunts thrown in his direction.
I appreciated Walt Meier’s response. We should all behave likewise and, as at Anthony’s request, ‘Keep it nice’.
Dr Walt Meier,
Thank you for your communication.
Anthony, thanks for asking him & your WUWT site to see and discuss it all.
John
Make a note in your diaries everybody. R Gates has finally made a verifiable prediction on Arctic Sea Ice.
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!).
No mention of “Extent” though.
CNN reported record lows in ice on the arctic in July.
Is this not true?
Exactly how far back do those records go? Do we have sea ice records (for both area and volume) for the Holocene Climate Optimum but not the Roman Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climate Optimum?
And where exactly, is the warming still in the pipeline?
By the way
it is still cold here/
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/winters-are-getting-colder-in-pretoria-bring-back-the-global-warming-please
I do not consider R. Gates to be knowledgable to the point of being boring. He is an armchair scientist somewhat like many of us here. However, I consider him to be not as versed in the scientific method as most of us are here. To wit: his assurance that there is warming in the pipeline. He speaks of it as if it were the null hypothesis. Anyone putting out peer reviewed papers says no such thing. Until it is found, it is decidedly not the null hypothesis. Given that gaping hole in R. Gates’ understanding (among many such holes) of current research, his hubris is either feigned and meant to rile feathers at best, or is his own over-estimate of his knowledge at worst.
Looks like there’s a corresponding instrumentation spike in the SORCE TSI measurements, courtesy of Leif’s solar page, with TSI dropping a full 1 watt in the space of a few days.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
agreed R.Gates is hopeless (as witnessed on other threads).
he does not want to step off his high horse
he should read and try to understand
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said
I’m still trying to find out if the wrong sensor caused inaccurate reports by CNN?
A. C. Osborn says:
August 8, 2011 at 6:39 am
Make a note in your diaries everybody. R Gates has finally made a verifiable prediction on Arctic Sea Ice.
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!).
No mention of “Extent” though.
#######
Volume is the killer. You can see how it takes year after year of battering away and multi year ice to finally get to a point where a huge portion of the basin is at concentrations of less than 80%. and its only august. , losing all this volume looks like a turning point.
Willis says:
Thanks, R. Gates. Could you please cite your sources for the claim that the NE and NW passages were not “virtually open” in 1750?
Also, what does “virtually open” mean? Because to me it means that the passages are open in a virtual world, say a climate model. For you it clearly means something else, but what?
____
Willis, this term “virtually” ice free, when referring to anything related to ice coverage in the Arctic has a very specific meaning, which has nothing to do with imaginary, but rather can be translated as “for all intents and purposes”. But I suspect a very smart man such as yourself knows this, and is simply trying to make some obtuse point. When an area is “virtually” ice free is doesn’t mean that every bit of ice is clear from any area, but rather that the area, when looked at in total, has more open water than ice. In the coming years and decades, you can expect to hear this term a lot in the NH summer. When looking at the Arctic as a whole, for quite some time there may be areas such as along the Northern tip of Greenland or along the Northern Canadian Archipelago where some thicker older ice may cling throughout the year. In such cases we may see the Arctic sea ice area fall to less than 1 million sq. km., and it would be “virtually” ice free and quite navigable. Right now, MODIS shows that, while there is some broken ice in the area and clouds block a completely clear view, you could navigate both the NW and NW passages (i.e. there are no large chucks of thick multiyear ice blocking your passage):
NW passage: http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2011-08-07/7-N77.069199-W112.186825/Canada-Inuvik
NW passage: http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2011-08-07/7-N75.183286-E146.895908/Russia-Sakha-Republic
The NE passage has been declared “officially open” by the Russian’s:
http://gcaptain.com/arctic-melt-record-northwest-passage?28769
And I suspect, I may be a bit ahead of the “official” announcement, the NW passage will be declared “officially” open as well in the next week to 10 days, as the clouds and slushy ice will delay the official announcement for a bit…
To your question regarding how I “know” these were not open in say, the 1700’s. Well, I must trust those who’ve studied this a bit and documented the logs from ships as well as other scientific proxy research that strongly indicates that the open of the NW and NE passages is something that hasn’t occurred in at least a thousand years:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110000429
http://hal.univ-brest.fr/docs/00/48/20/53/PDF/Masse_Resume.pdf
BTW, this second study seems to hint that clearly the NE and NW passages were not open in 1750, but perhaps during the MWP, the NE and NW passages might well have been open, which should bring some delight to a few readers here on WUWT.
Nuke says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:16 am
R. Gates says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm
James Allison says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Arrrhhhh….. never should have believed all you skeptics. R Gates is right.
Head for the hills…..
____
While the sea ice extent has indeed turned down pretty dramatically since Anthony posted his “turn to the right” article, we’d better hope this huge of a drop is some crazy sensor error (maybe related to the solar flare?), or indeed, things will be “worse than we thought.”
As it is, some areas of high pressure and a nice little dipole settling in over the Arctic for an extended August visit. Expect a lot of export from the Fram and a lot of melting in place during this time. By the time the September low comes around, we’ll end up with the least amount of sea ice on record by area and volume (or at least since the Holocene Climate Optimum!). With the warming still in the pipeline, we’ll have a virtually ice free summer arctic by the time most of you are gumming your oatmeal at the retirement home.
Exactly how far back do those records go? Do we have sea ice records (for both area and volume) for the Holocene Climate Optimum but not the Roman Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climate Optimum?
And where exactly, is the warming still in the pipeline?
_____
1) We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.
2) Just in terms of ocean heat content, which has risen in the past few decades (and yes, it’s leveled off recently, but it hasn’t subsided). The bulk of the heat (and CO2) from anthropogenic sources has gone into the oceans. If the ocean heat content had fallen over the past few decades as atmospheric temperatures have risen, we be hard pressed to say there is still heat “in the pipeline”
Taken together, the continued elevated CO2 levels and clear long-term trend in ocean heat content, means there’s more warmth ahead in the long-term, with steady upward trend in global temps for the next century when looked at on a decade by decade average, as the yearly temps can wiggle up or down from ENSO, volcanoes, solar cycles, etc. CO2 is a stronger long-term forcing than these…and thank god it is.
Do we have “catastrophic” amounts of heat already in the “pipeline”. That’s the question, really, isn’t it?
steven mosher says:
August 8, 2011 at 8:27 am
“Volume is the killer”
_____
Indeed.
R Gates, your pronouncements boggle the mind. And it appears, negates your 75%/25% (or there abouts) wriggle room you used to give yourself. May I say that virtually, you have drunk the koolaid and have laid down to await the end of the world.
REPLY: Exit question for R. Gates. Are you one of Al Gore’s trained presenters? – Anthony
R.Gates says:
We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.
Henry@R.Gates (again)
1) the exact amount (of the increase in CO2) is 0.01%, namely from 0.03% (280 ppm’s) in 1960 to 0.04% (390 ppm)now. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
2) the tables (with verifyable results from weather stations from all over the world) show that the warming of the last 4 decades is due to natural causes and not by an increase in GHG’s
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
3) It is getting cooler now, especially if you start looking at weather stations from 2005 onwards
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/winters-are-getting-colder-in-pretoria-bring-back-the-global-warming-please
Do we have “catastrophic” amounts of heat already in the “pipeline”. That’s the question, really, isn’t it?
4) Global cooling is coming. Better be prepared for that. Follow this graph. It shows we should soon be back to where we were in the 70’s……
http:/wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/global-cooling-is-coming
Interesting & pertinant post over at Mr Goddard’s place!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/1947-temperatures-in-the-arctic-have-increased-by-10-degrees-fahrenheit-since-1900/
http:/wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
there was a fw slash missing
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Clearly an issue with the data.
I think you forgot to answer this question, which was really the salient question:
Exactly how far back do those records go? Do we have sea ice records (for both area and volume) for the Holocene Climate Optimum but not the Roman Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climate Optimum?
I’m sure that was just an oversight on your part.
Does anyone know what the official word is on the “dead sector”?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration_hires.png
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 9:58 am
R.Gates says:
We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.
Henry@R.Gates (again)
1) the exact amount (of the increase in CO2) is 0.01%, namely from 0.03% (280 ppm’s) in 1960 to 0.04% (390 ppm)now.
_____
Sorry Henry, but the figure is 40%…from 280 ppm to 390 ppm is a 40% increase in the total amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. No matter how you want to try and rework the numbers or use some odd metric, the truth is that by abosolute total tonnage or the total number of molecules, each with it’s own little greenhouse properties is 40%. Until you agree this is the true state of affairs, you and I cannot agree on anything else and there’s very little reason for continued discourse. Good day sir…
Anthony says:
REPLY: Exit question for R. Gates. Are you one of Al Gore’s trained presenters? – Anthony
___
? “Exit question”? Are you kicking me off of WUWT?
But to answer the question: No, and hell no.
REPLY: No, “exit question” to the point made, could have just said “post script” – Anthony
Thanks to Walt for the update, and to Anthony for posting it.
…just to let you know we do watch!!
John B.:
That is a missing swath of data. As I mentioned in my comment that Anthony posted, these happen from time to time, either due to errors, processing issues (sometimes all the data doesn’t get downloaded from the satellite for some reason), or satellite operations (sometimes they have do an orbit manuever, load software updates, etc. and they don’t collect data at those times).
For our timeseries plot, we interpolate so that we don’t get sudden drops in the timeseries line.
Walt Meier
NSIDC
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
And how much cooling is caused by the CO2 by taking part in the life cycle? – I hope you do know that plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow?
(don’t even bother to reply unless you have the exact figures + the details of how the experiments were done)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
DJ says:
August 8, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thanks to Walt for the update, and to Anthony for posting it.
…just to let you know we do watch!!
+1
I’m still trying to find out if it was the wrong sensor or the inaccurate data reporting that caused inaccurate reports by CNN? Or was the CNN report correct?
BTW
I think there is a lot of information in Dutch history that suggests that the sea farers in the 15th and 16th century knew or were led to believe from “their ancient history” that there was a northern passage (to the other side of the world) . Many, like Barentzen (the most famous) lost their lives trying to find that northern passage.
Sorry, history is not my greatest subject.
that Dutch explorer’s name was Barents
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/53182/Willem-Barents
they named the Barents Sea after him.
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
——————–
When you accept that the increase has been 40% “of the CO2”, maybe you will deserve some sort of answer.
@waltmeier,
Many thanks.
John B
John B and R Gates,
You’re both quibbling. I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but Henry P clearly explained how he arrived at his .01 figure, and it’s as legitimate as the 40% number.
I understand why the 40% number is used: it sounds scarier. Even though the evidence [or lack thereof] indicates that more CO2 isn’t a problem. Same with quoting the amount of CO2 in billions of tons — it’s much more scary sounding than saying that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ≈0.01%. Alarmists rely on spin because they lack evidence of global harm from CO2.
Likewise, showing only the Arctic sea ice concentration is more alarming than showing the Antarctic, which isn’t scary at all:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_concentration_hires.png
Smokey,
If I were to buy a pint of beer at 3% alcohol, and another at 6% alcohol, that’s twice as strong, in anyone’s book. It’s not “3% stronger”, it’s twice as strong. If you don’t believe me, have a couple of them and argue it out with the traffic cop!
It’s not about being scary, it’s about being accurate.
And the Antarctic is a whole different story, as well you know.
R.Gates says:
“We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.”
A big if that there is more CO2 than anytime during the past 800,000 years. With temperatures at times being much higher than now, therefore you don’t have to worry about it then as it has made virtually no difference. If it had made the difference during these past many thousands of years, we would be a few degrees higher now if it was only CO2 that counted. This simply proves that the higher CO2 levels now have made no noticeable difference over this time scale or it would now be the warmest over the past 800,000 years too.
John B says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
#########
well the physics doesnt care about the percentage. The physics cares about the parts per million. The outgoing long wave radiation cares nothing for the percentage. So the percentage doesnt matter. What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling. And, if you believe that feedbacks are unknown ( could be positive, could be negative) then your best estimate would be about 1-1.2C per doubling. That’s just basic engineering. if you want to understand feedbacks, well then, that more uncertain . But if you want an estimate thats based only on well worn physics and engineering.. 1-1.2C
I will assume that “the increase of 0.01%” is the total increase of GHG as water vapour makes up about 95% of the effect, and all other GHG’s, including CO2 make up the rest. So even doubling CO2, has only a small effect.
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
So what was the problem? Was the sensor bad, did the sun somehow mess with data transmission, what?
Pamela Gray says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
——————————————————
Yep, linear, logarithmic – who cares. They both start with an”l”, right ?
steven mosher says:
August 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm
What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling. And, if you believe that feedbacks are unknown ( could be positive, could be negative) then your best estimate would be about 1-1.2C per doubling.
=====================================================
Steve, if this is not asking too much, could you point me to the very best reference, or references (non-paywalled) that give the number of 1 – 1.2C per doubling, preferably with high humidity in the tropics clearly taken into account.
I’m not doubting that this is the calculated number, just want to stay current on how it is derived.
A nuclear ice crusher Russian ship is taking tourist to North Poll every second week. Because the whole mass of ice moves clockwise = after 2 weeks, they can’t use same corridor. Therefore they slice another… and another… Those slices float south and melt = much less ice left. Plus, when sliced, ruff water brakes much more. But that is good for the Warmist. They know that: ice is white – reflects the sunlight – minus white ice, hopefully a small GLOBAL warming; to get them out of trouble…?!
What they don’t know is: water has mirror affect reflection also. 2] for 6 months in a year, there is no sunlight to reflect. 3] white ice is full of air, makes the ice perfect insulator. 4] minus ice; during the winter the water absorbs much more coldness. 5] with that extra absorbed coldness + the normal winter coldness; with double strength radiates south and intercepts the moisture = drops double amount of snow in Europe /USA = no moisture left for replenishing the ice on arctic ocean = domino affect. 6] that ice seats on salty seawater and constantly melts from below – needs replenishing every winter.
That was giving the big surprises to the shonky experts for the last 3 northern winters. The morons were expecting warmer, because of less ice – instead everything is opposite than their mythology /predictions. It means: the chain reaction was already triggered by those ice crusher ships; to take the shonky climatologist / bias media and other spectators further north. Less ice means colder northern winter. Because is colder there – the air shrink extra – to avoid vacuum – from the southern hemisphere lots of air goes north = on the southern hemisphere simultaneously record hot days. To learn how the climate function and much more http://www.stefanmitich.com.au
Back on July 28, 2011, I quipped
“I previously predicted “the arctic ice mass minimum will be more than enough to make a proper gin and tonic….. “. There was! And the G & T was delicious! I just wanted to warn you all – I’m going back for more ice…. and I’m quite thirsty! ”
Bloody hell! I must have been thirstier that I thought!!!! I promise I will NOT go back for any more ice! I’m sorry – truly! It won’t happen again…..
John B says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/arctic-death-spiral-or-dead-sensor/#comment-714700
1) you cannot work in ppm’s because you have to put the increase in Co2 in context (i.e. next to)with the gases that also absorb at between 14 and 15 um which is mainly water vapor and oxygen. Nobody knows exactly how much water vapor is floating around in the atmosphere, it could be anything between 0.5 and 1.2%. We are not talking about clouds here. That is still separate. Oxygen also absorbs (very weak) at 14-15 but its % is very high, almost 21%. It appears to me man is adding a lot more water vapor in the air than CO2.
So the 0.01% increase in CO2 is very little compared to H2O and O2 and we don’t know if it is even a GHG, i.e. that the net effect of an increase in the CO2 is warming rather than cooling.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
2) As to the answers of my questions that you think I do not deserve: There are no answers. Nobody tested it….Tyndall and Svante A made big mistakes which they could not have foreseen because they could not look at the whole spectrum of the molecule. What the IPCC did, is look at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed that global warming is caused by an increase in CO2 (even though not everybody agreed with this at the time) and made an allocation (forcing) largely based on the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gas noted since 1750. None of the IPCC “profs” ever seem to have realised that CO2 also causes cooling…..it appears that this was simply forgotten or ignored. ….
It is the worst mistake a scientist can make.
steven mosher says:
well the physics doesnt care about the percentage. The physics cares about the parts per million. The outgoing long wave radiation cares nothing for the percentage. So the percentage doesnt matter. What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling
Henry@steven
Steven, when I ask for test results I mean test results.
I am not interested in the “calculations”.
You have to come to me with the experiment’s method and an answer like:
radiative warming: W/m2/M3/0.01% CO2/24 hours
radiative cooling: W/m2/M3/0.01%/24 hours
biological cooling (due to the increase in greenery and forestry) : W/m2/M3/0.01%
If we have these 3 results, then we can actually determine what the net effect of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
As it stands, the science on the CO2 has not gone much further then when I finished here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I suggest you study that and let me know if there is something that you don’t understand.
Pamela Gray says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
—————-
Sorry you didn’t like my analogy. If not, try Stephen Mosher’s explanation. Either way, there has been a 40% rise in CO2 and a doubling is estimated to cause a 1-1.2C rise in temperature (pretty uncontroversial), or 1.5 – 4.5 with feedbacks (more arguably).
JohnB says:
and a doubling is estimated to cause a 1-1.2C rise in temperature (pretty uncontroversial),
HenryP says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/arctic-death-spiral-or-dead-sensor/#comment-715021
Jake says:
August 8, 2011 at 8:35 pm
So what was the problem? Was the sensor bad, did the sun somehow mess with data transmission, what?
If the sun is directly behind a satellite looking from a receiving dish, the sun will swamp any signal coming from the satellite. My guess is that the signal was lost in reflected solar noise.
Or it could have been a spurious transmission from earth. At the satellite station where I worked one of our transponders was put out of service by an Italian station carrying out test transmissions on the wrong polarity.
The graph apparently was in error. As of this morning, it’s showing no such drop:
MADeLuca2 says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/arctic-death-spiral-or-dead-sensor/#comment-715260
You forgot to give the link?
Does this mean that CNN reported on wrong figures for the July ice?
Yep, I included it as an image tag and seem to have mucked that up. The source is the one shown at the top of the page under the graph with the defective reading. Here it is again: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
Thanks.
august 9, 2011.
DMI has corrected it now, so it was some sort of error.
Looks like it now has a small spike instead.
Mistaken identity old luv.
@HenryP
You can’t just go making up your own science.
Trust me, you are not Gallileo 🙂
Sorry John, maybe you are still stuck in Galileo’s days and the science of their time,
Trust me, more than Galileo was here
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation
Try following my arguments on the principles and let me know if there is anything that you don’t understand.
Henry,
The important thing about Gallileo was not that he was persecuted, it was that he turned out to be right. If you turn out to be right, meaning that all of mainstream radiative physics is wrong, enjoy the Nobel prize that will inevitably come your way. On the other hand…
John B
Henry@JohnB
I know there are a few of us who have figured it all out.
I remember thinking about it during a few sleepless nights.
I am actually not aware of saying something new but if you think it is new and if it is true (which you can easily check) then perhaps, indeed, it should be getting more attention…
But it is not worth a Nobel prize.
The images continue to show large satellite swaths missing. That means that graphs are missing data and are relying on fill ins from other grids. Any update?
@Walt Meier
Any news, Walt?