It seems that the Serreze “death spiral” might be on hold. From UCAR/NCAR:
Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again
BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.
The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Rapid melt
Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July. Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.
To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.
The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study. By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.
Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.
“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.
The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.
The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”
About the article
Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world
Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters
Link to the paper is here
I used to be a Foreign Service Officer, you know, what Robert Heinlein called “Striped pants Johnnies.” Reputations in the Foreign Service are made by how well you are able to predict what is going to happen in a particular country as the result of a particular political development. These climatologists must have learned there prediction techniques from the old hands in the Foreign Service who had the CYA methodologies down pat.
When you arrived for your assignment in a new country and you are in the Political Section you write a very astute telegram (State calls them telegrams, not cables) staking out your position. “Because of “X” the situation in the country is likely to improve considerably.” You wait a few months and then write another telegram saying that because of “X” the country is bumping along with no major changes. Lastly you write a third telegram saying because of “X” everything is going to collapse, death and destruction will result, send AID money immediately.
Now your reputation is made. No matter what condition actually obtains you simply write another telegram citing the appropriate clearly prescient view you earlier foretold. Looks something like this: Reftel AMEMB XXXX, dated August 11, XXXX, as clearly predicted by the Mission’s Political Counselor the situation has unfolded exactly as our analysis and observation of the scene foretold. Etc.,Etc.
Promotions all around. Life is good. As an Arctic “Ice Expert,” all you have to do to be thought brilliant is to say in suitably timed separate reports, Arctic ice is expanding, then Arctic ice is stable, and finally Arctic ice is melting away. As soon as the situation is abundantly clear, reference your appropriate earlier prediction and “Bob’s your Uncle.” Hundred percent accurate prediction because hardly anyone looks for other, earlier contrary predictions you made. (Hmm, I bet WUWT readers would be both unkind and rude enough to point to the earlier contrary ones.) Darn.
Cheers,
John
David Falkner says:
August 11, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“Seems like they are admitting they don’t know what is going on.”
Pretty much.
They should get in contact with R.Gates, who seems to know EXACTLY what is going to happen.
““One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author.”
…which lead us to the conclusion that the computer must be kaputt and please send money we need a bigger one.
Brian H,
Are you sure? That graph covers several hundred thousand years, not just 3 years.
Smokey;
Sorry, a different graph and page came up last time I clicked the link. I can’t find it again, so disregard my comment.
It seems to me that the model is an ice model, not a climate model. That is, one of the assumptions is that the atmosphere warms because of CO2. I still think using the output from one model (that has flaws) as the input for another is stretching things a bit. IF the atmosphere warms then it is reasonable to think ice will melt.
Quite funny really…. they can see that their previous projections were wrong, and the Arctic is not thawing as their old models showed, .. so suddenly their new models are projecting “we don’t know” for the next decade, then more thawing away in the future when it can’t be proven until we get there.
So, they have covered their assets for another decade, then they will refresh their models again.
Mills and Boone, anyone ?
Someone needs to inform NCAR that speculation without predictive power is not science. They need a refresher course in science 101 and the concept of hypotheses and theories.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
August 11, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“…
it also doesn’t matter what the models say, outside of their pernicious effect on public policy, insidious criminalization of normal behaviour, and my ever-loving taxes.
…”
Well said!
Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
================================
Can anybody say the term “CIRCULAR REASONING” in all caps?
Maybe R Gates would try to defend this quote but I will give him/her the benefit of the doubt before I jump to conclusions.
But if Gates can not distance him/her self from these comments as being completely loaded and ludicrous, then no more conversation with him /her is needed.
What say ye, Gates?
Or are you so akin to the groupthink phenomenon of circular reasoning that you don’t see the flaws in this “release” too.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Don’t worry, it won’t be too long before the catch words that started as “CO2 causes Catastrophic Global Warming”, and have mutated to “CO2 causes Climate Change”, then to “CO2 causes Climate disruption”……
now at CO2 related Climate, “we don’t have any bl–dy idea, but its CO2 doing it”
next step??… CO2 related Global Cooling… or have a few already tried that one ?
then finally , when the truth dawns on them.. the CO2 related part will get left out……
and they will find another bogie to hang natural climate variability on.. and to make money out of ..
Seems to me those models can be made to sing whatever song climate alarmists request, Taxpayers appear to be funding hi-tech karaoke machines. Who knew?
I have a very sophisticated flight simulator program running on my computer which I love to play with it every once in a while.
But does this make me a certified pilot already? I suppose not – although, if you gave me enough funding, I could start a PR-campaign aimed at convincing enough people that I am, in fact, a certified pilot and will finally be able to get my hands on the controls of a real plane.
But then you better make sure you are not on board. Because I personally wouldn’t dare to be a passenger on board of that airliner I was controlling…
Maybe these people saw this analysis of Australia’s carbon tax and fed it into their model. It makes as much sense.
As it appeared in the Courier Mail on 19 Jul (P67), by Kenmore poet, John Fegan, who sent this best explanation for calculating the carbon tax so far.
Carbon tax in simple terms.
One 44 gallon drum of camel fart methane, washed, sorted and stamped with appropriate health warnings is added to a cubic metre of Bowen Basin coal and chemically fused.
This mixture is then weighed by the Department of Camel Fart Watch, expressed as a fraction against the supply-sided monetarist index and the sequestrated Dow Jones and expressed as a coefficient tangential to the J Curve.
The resulting figure is then aligned with our closest neighbour’s currency, the Indonesian rupiah and the New Guinea cowrie shell and integrated into the Hang Seng, The One Hung Low, the NASDAQ, the Paddy Whack and the Nicky Nacky Noo, cut into 10 roughly proportionate pieces and immersed in boiling oil.
This figure will then be referred to as the Surplus Funding Applicator or SFA. The SFA is based on the Hebrew cubit and rod system and closely allied to the Armenian shekel. It embraces all accepted Australian terms of measure – smidges, bee’s dicks, tads and country miles. It is always expressed in running writing so accountants and brothers-in-law can understand it.
The SFA is now an internationally recognized measure and ratified by the IMF, the MBF and RAAF but totally ignored by the US, Great Britain and China. A large Labour government department will now multiply this figure by the rise and fall of the left-hand ball, divide it by Julia Gillard’s inside leg measurement, add the age of the third son of the current Government Whip, present it to a focus group and divide it by six, resulting in a figure of 3/5ths of the aforementioned SFA, which I think is about all we can expect from this Government.
I do, however, think there is merit in exploring camel fart home heating.
NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay said”… Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, ….”
If ice loss peaked in 2007 then for 4 out of the last 10 years the observed ice loss has not accelerated, it has not even stayed the same, it has reversed. I am astounded that a trained scientist can misrepresent such facts. Accelerating means getting faster each time period, such misuse of scientific terms betrays poor scientific rigour and further confirms my doubts about the credibility of so many climate “scientists”.
“lthough Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.”
Sounds to me like they are covering their bases in case the sun does go into a solar minimum…
Just saying.
John Trigge says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:47 am
I do, however, think there is merit in exploring camel fart home heating.
I’d recommend termites instead. They might be small but there’s quite a few of them around and apparently they produce more methane than any other species.
[Note to anyone from the UK – that came from QI so it’s obviously 100% accurate … ]
I always enjoy R Gates’ contributions. If anything he is consistent in his belief in CAGW and the end is near if we do not shut down our industrialised society.
“R. Gates says:
August 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Well, since skeptics don’t believe the models anyway, it doesn’t matter what they say the ice will do.
As it is, we’ve got no sign of expansion and the arctic will be ice free in the summer sometime this century, probably eariler than later. No models needed to see that…”
Not sure if “sceptics” don’t believe in models. Dr Spencer is supposedly a “sceptic” but he has recently produced work using simple models. It is rather the type of models and input that is subject to debate. Another point I would like to make is the constant obsession with Arctic ice extent and thickness with the rare mention of Antarctica. Sea ice is currently (slightly) above the 1979-2008 mean down there. If the CAGW supporters are concerned with the lack of albedo surely they should worry about the south pole area as well although there seems to be little to worry about. I actually think individuals such as “Just The Facts says: August 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm” and what he refers to are much closer to the facts (excuse the pun) about what is happening. In the absence of any significant global warming since 1998 it is probably much more down to wind and currents. I really do not subscribe to the summer ice free Arctic any time view soon or at all. The socalled “warmists” really need to come up with more convincing arguments to convert somone like me to their “beliefs”.
They are hedging their bets, which makes good economic sense on the part of the prophets. In the economic circumstances that we have dug ourselves into, it can be expected (with the beloved 95% certainty) that funding for all research, globally, will significantly reduce over the next few years. Those who cannot see a likely opening for themselves outside of academia need to position themselves so that they are able to switch horses at a moments notice. Nice for them to be able to say in their c.v. “I drew attention to some of the uncertainties back in 2011.
This new investigation and simulation helps to illustrate the problem caused by advocate scientists and conniving politicians. The death spiral gained traction with politicians as a justification for more legislation, more interference and more taxes.
Can anyone tell me how certain or uncertain the original claims of a death spiral were? Is it likely to be a case of certainties expressed in a summary that are not supported by the body of the paper and state agents exploiting the summary rather than the science?
😀 Nice allusion to Groucho: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. Thx for the chuckle.
_______
John Peter;
There’s another of those inconvenient negative feedback thingies in play, too. The dark water left after the ice melts shines heat rays off into space unimpeded by a warming, frozen, white blanket! So the warmer it gets, the faster it gets colder. That, btw, is a layman’s summary of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
What about the contention that it is the Arctic Ice VOLUME that is declining? Isn’t this more important than the extent of ice coverage? Or am I missing something.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html
Tired of the whole name-calling from both sides.
There are a few obvious questions here:
1. If we only have accurate records since 1979, what sort of records exist before that? In particular, do we have detailed records of when the NE and NW passages were open and if so, where is the data?
2. From such anecdotal evidence, is there any indication of cycles/beats in arctic ice extent oscillation, since beats/cycles for harsh winters in the UK undoubtedly exist.
3. What evidence do we have that 1979 ice extent was ‘normal’, as opposed to the maximum of a 30 year/70 year cycle?
4. Do we have any evidence that 30 years of solar quietness can affect arctic sea ice extent? If so, what is it?
5. Is there any evidence that the Medieval Warm Period showed significantly less arctic sea ice than during the Little Ice Age? If so, how in heck did the ice recover if we are now into ‘irreversible’ loss of Arctic Ice?
Look forward to suitable experts educating/enlightening us……
Smokey says:
August 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Here’s a link for R Gates, and it’s not a model: click
#####
Actually smokey that is a model as well.