Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is 'right on time'

UPDATE: see this new article on the issue,

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory

› Hi-res of left image

› Hi-res of right image

I covered this over the weekend when Bill McKibben started wailing about the albedo going off the charts. I thought it might be soot related. The PR below and quote above is from NASA Goddard. I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”,  then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

I’ve sent off a note to the NASA writer, seen here. Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.

That, and they seem surprised that the Greenland ice sheet would suddenly start melting in summer. Though, not every part of the ice sheet is melting right now, so perhaps their calibrations might be a bit off:

There may have been a brief few days of melt, but it appears to be over:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

============================================

h/t to WUWT reader Ole Heinrich

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
richard telford

Why would anybody expect the temperature at Greenland Summit on July 24 to indicate anything about the potential for melt on July 12?
The temperature on – or just before – July 12 might be slightly more relevant, and is indeed above freezing.

Jan

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

Jan

Looking at the averages for the mentioned period it shouldn’t melt all that much.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2012/7/8/WeeklyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Entropic man

The hot high pressure air which moved over Greenland in the second week in July coincided with the close of the US East Coast heat wave, which may be where the hot air came from.
If this is normally a very rare weather pattern, we probably wont see its like again for some time. If we start seeing repeats every few years, then it may signify a genuine change in North American climate. It does provide an explaination for that sudden drop in albedo.

Just an engineer

Maybe if you click on it instead of posting you would have your answer.

richard telford,
Wrong. Read the article. Max temp was 11ºF — well below freezing.

Entropic man
Bill Illis

The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.

Entropic man
Entropic man

Bill Illis says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.”
Presumably the amount they saw, unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists who automatically assume Goddard is putting out false data.

Austin

Ice and snow will melt if the solar insolation and air temp combined are above a specified value. A strong sunny day with little wind and temps in the mid 20s are sufficient. If it was 36 degrees on the 12th then that would be a major melt event. My guess would be that you would have snow become slushy to the depth of several feet. Given that the sun just circles the sky for most of Greenland’s latitude, then you would even see melt on all sides of the compass. It would be like a July day at altitude in the Rockies or Sierras.

TomL

So what happens to ice 10’s or 100’s of km from the coast, when it warms up to a couple of degrees above freezing for a few days? I would guess the water would flow a short distance downhill, and then refreeze with a net effect of not much.

Myron Mesecke

NBCNews.com has this up and conveniently left off this part of the quote:
With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time

Myron Mesecke

Jan says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm
So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

You are missing your doom and gloom mantra hat. Anyone wearing one is sure to speak as if things are going to get worse.

Taphonomic

“Unprecedented NASA Press Release”
Press release events of this type occur about once every week on average. More to come at 11.

Myron Mesecke,
That means of course that this has happened before. And before CO2 was anything near current levels.
Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.

gator69

OT – I enjoyed an unprecedented sunrise this morning after an unprecedented nights sleep. And Anthony, as always, keep up your great unprecedented work!
Unprecedentedly yours, Gator.

Jeff Mitchell

I guess I do mean to be picky, but if this happens once every 150 years, then this one is 27 years early. I guess they have a fairly large range for “on time”.

Entropic man

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm
“Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.”
Watch that sloppy logic. What happened in 1889 and on July 12th were low frequency weather events.
There is no evident reason to connect them with CO2 levels, or falsify a connection, at present. If, however, these events become more frequent, it may be part of the ongoing changes in Arctic climate.
The NSIDC tried to correalate changes in the Arctic over recent decades with every variable they could think of. CO2 was the only one that matched, so it may become a candidate.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/05/16/what-is-causing-arctic-sea-ice-decline/

Entropic,
The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.
You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.
And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.

otsar

A random thought:
If these melting events happen on a regular basis, what effects do they heve on the ice cores?

I really think some scientists should go, on helicopters, and collect
water and sediment from these pools and bring them back for
analysis. Maybe they’ll find another WW II plane as well.

Eric in CO

I have trouble believing a scientist can detect one day’s ice melt from a 150 year old ice core.

Entropic man

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Entropic,
“The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.
You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.
And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.”
The Null Hypothesis is a convention assuming that there is no correalation between two variables, as an aid to structuring investigations. In your case the null hypothesis would be that there is no connection between weather events in Greenland and changes in CO2. You should then go on to test whether that assumption can be falsified.
Instead you assert “there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.”. This makes a nonsense of the whole null hypothesis concept.
Similarly, you assert that the NSIDC data are untrustworthy because it is “adjusted”. Since we are unlikely to make much sense of the raw microwave data some adjustment to convert it into comprehensible ice extent maps would seem inevitable.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/
It would probably be pointless to ask where you got the trustworthy data record of Arctic ice dynamics on which your conclusions were based.

Stephen Wilde

Isn’t there always 97% of surface melting across Greenland every year around noon in late July ?
Would depend on prevailing weather conditions to some degree though and so perhaps in some years it doesn’t happen at all and in other years it happens on varied dates.
Doesn’t last long or go deep though does it ?
It is more likely an annual event rather than every 150 years.
Anyway, how did they observe it in 1889 ?

FerdinandAkin

I think it would be more worrisome if the melting did not occur on schedule. The next glacial period is going to start sometime, but we do not have to worry about it starting this year.

Entropic man

otsar says:
July 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm
“A random thought:
If these melting events happen on a regular basis, what effects do they heve on the ice cores?”
Eric in CO says:
July 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“I have trouble believing a scientist can detect one day’s ice melt from a 150 year old ice core.”
A brief melting event would show in the core as a narrow band of relatively bubble free ice where meltwater replaced trapped air.
The Greenland ice cap accumulates about 2 Metres of snow per year. Depending on the scale and duration of the melt, the effect on the core might vary from the melting and refreezing of a small band within a year’s accumulation, up to the mixing of several year’s snowfall into a single
mixed band.
I doubt that a particular melting event could be dated to the day, but a brief event should be datable to the correct year.

Entropic,
Every alarmist hates the Null Hypothesis, because it deconstructs their global warming scare. Everything that is happening now has happened before, in spades.
Kevin Trenberth, who also hates the Null Hypothesis, writes:
“…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
Trenberth wants to put the onus on scientific skeptics to, in effect, prove a negative. Likewise, Entropic attempts to denigrate the Null Hypothesis [which is actually a corollary of the scientific method].
But as Dr Roy Spencer explains: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” That is the Null Hypothesis in a nutshell. It can be falsified quite simply: just point to testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that current climate parameters are exceeding past Holocene parameters. It cannot be done, and that is why Trenberth is so exasperated with the Null Hypothesis. We are actually living in a very benign climate right now, but Trenberth is unhappy.
There are no scientific facts that falsify the Null Hypothesis, which make those denigrating it victims of a reductionist fixation over non-existent facts. Such a reductionist fixation on presumed but non-existent ‘facts’ can lead to the related epistemological disorder, argumentum ignarus res, or argument in defiance of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism [and in the simplicity of the presumed mechanism’s operation in the real world] that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed, in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CO2=CAGW is a good example of this.
Finally, Entropic wants a testable hypothesis. Here is one that has never been falsified:
At current and projected concentrations CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Have at it.

Oh My Goodness – in summer, who would have thought! What is the world coming to when the sun does this amount of warming?
Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface,

awwww will it come please…. we will miss you ICE…….

I am conflating nothing. You began by arguing that “in the last 100 years CO2 has risen again, by 110ppm from 280ppm to 390ppm”. Now you’re out to 20,000 years. Let’s not move the goal posts.
As for CO2, I have never taken the position that it has no effect. But that effect is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. Therefore, CO2 can be completely disregarded. There is no scientific evidence showing global harm due to rising CO2, and all the arm-waving over the CO2 rise is simply climate alarmism based on the precautionary principle and confirmation bias, in which any old unrelated events are cherry-picked to bolster the scare.
Regarding your statement: “Since it may be a long time before a new equilibrium is reached, I would reserve judgement on the ‘no temperature rise ‘ argument until we have a longer baseline than 12 years.” First [ignoring the fact that it is 15 years with no warming], why should we have ‘a longer baseline’? If we go from 15 years with no warming to 17 years, what then? A still longer baseline is required? That’s not a credible argument. Alarmists would be running around in circles, screaming and waving their arms if we’d had 15 years of steady warming… oh, wait, they do that anyway.☺
The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated, and the ≈40% rise in CO2 has not measurably affected the trend. Therefore, any effect from CO2 is so tiny that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.
Finally, I note that my hypothesis remains standing: CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More is better. Deal with it, because that is reality.

Entropic man

I’m quite happy with the null hypothesis. Indeed, the null hypothesis that there has been no change in global temperature in the last century has been falsified to the 95% significance level normally regarded as conclusive. Correctly stated, the probability that this null hypothesis is correct is less than 5%.
The problem of significance bedevills the whole climate change debate. The global temperature change is about the only statement that can be falsified to normal scientific standards. By analogy to criminal law, this would be “proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Other aspects of climate change would meet the equivalent civil law criterion, likely to be correct “on the balance of probabilities”
I would agree with you that, if you apply the strict rule of science, I cannot say that all climate change observations meet the 95% significance criterion. However,nor are you are justified in claiming to be 95% sure that climate change is not happening

RobertInAz

“The NSIDC tried to correalate changes in the Arctic over recent decades with every variable they could think of. CO2 was the only one that matched, so it may become a candidate.”
The NSIDC is quoting from a study by the Max Planck Institute without providing a link. IIRC, The Max Planck institute is one of the major proponents of CAGW and the precautionary principle. Quoting a study author: “We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.

RobertInAz

Almost got it:
“We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

And on ABC World News (US), they also dropped the ‘1889, every 150 years’ part in favor of just a simple unprecedented. It’s always wonderful when news organization decide to protect viewers and readers from tiny pesky inconvenient inconsequential unnecessary factual details.
And the Southwestern dust storms (haboobs), as evidenced by video of a single one from today, are now more intense, more frequent, as bad as the 1930’s Dust Bowl era. Scientists won’t say for sure, but it could be due to global warming…
Looked to me like the one shown last year, when commenters here from the area mentioned they’ve always been a frequent event in those parts… Thankfully we have expert opinion of the esteemed published peer-reviewed climatologist Dr. Diane Sawyer to get the real truth out.

Entropic says:
“…the null hypothesis that there has been no change in global temperature in the last century has been falsified…”
That misrepresents the situation. Of course there has been global warming. Who disputes that?
The debate is over whether CO2 causes measurable global warming. Based on scientific evidence, there is no measureable impact from rising CO2.
That is not to say the planet has not been warming naturally since the LIA. Clearly it has been — and at the same rate, whether CO2 is at 280 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. Thus, CO2 makes no measurable difference in the warming trend. QED, my friend.

Entropic man

Smokey,lets deal with one thing at a time.
Regarding the supposed stalling of temperature change since 1998. That year would be described statistically as an outlier, a datum point well outside the normal range of variation. By cherrypicking that year for comparison you get the result you want, not necessarily the result which best reflects the data.
To analyse a trend line like the global temperature data you need to measure three things.
1) The size of your sample, the number of measurements taken.
2) The slope of the graph, the rate at which the dependant variable is changing.
3) The variation either side of the trend line.
The null hypothesis is that the line is flat, with no trend. To falsify it you nedd to demonstrate a trend to 95% significance by calculation. To be confidence of the absence of a trend you would need a significance below 5%. As a rule of thumb larger sample size, steeper slope and smaller variation all give increased significance. With the levels of variation and the slope seen in the temperature data to date, 15 years is too short a sample to allow calculation of meaningful significance values.

Entropic says:
“The null hypothesis is that the line is flat, with no trend.”
Wrong. You completely misunderstand the Null Hypothesis, which is is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. That means that to falsify the Null, you have to produce an example of current temperatures, for example, exceeding past parameters. That is not happening.
Therefore, you must have parameters. And those parameters must be exceeded in order to falsify the Null. One example usually given is that of “accelerating” global temperatures. But all such claims are simply the result of a fictional artifact, which is produced by zero baseline charts. In fact, global temperatures are not accelerating. They are rising along the same trend line and within the same parameters going all the way back to the LIA. The long term trend has not changed.

Entropic man

RobertInAz says:
July 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Almost got it:
“We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.” Emphasis is mine (if I have the correct syntax). As we all know, correlation is not causation.
I would agree. Somewhere I have a graph showing a clear correalation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and skirt length.
To a scientist correalation is a step along the road. When you investigate a process, a good starting point is to look for correalations. Where you see no correalation you can infer that there is probably no causal link.
The next step is to go through what’s left. You design experiments or observational tests to test for causation. If you find one stands out above the others you test further and look for a physical process to explain it.
For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2. A correalation can be demonstrated between them, at a higher significance than any of the other possible causes for a temperature rise. The absorbtion and reradiation of infrared radiation in proportion to CO2 concentration gives a physically plausible mechanism linking them.

James

Ice is not white. The older it is the darker it becomes. Then it melts to be replaced by new ice.

Adrian

There are many uses of “unprecented” so far in the comments, but none of them mention the guardian headline, so I will record it here for posterity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/24/greenland-ice-sheet-thaw-nasa
“Greenland ice sheet melted at unprecedented rate during July”
even though the body of the text quotes the 150 years “cycle”
“Lora Koenig, another Goddard glaciologist, told Nasa similar rapid melting occurs about every 150 years.”.

Entropic man

Smokey
We may be arguing at cross purposes here. We certainly have different perceptions of how the null hypothesis concept should be applied.
You also seem to have got hooked on comparing conditions 20,000 years ago with conditions today.
Then you had a situation in which, at least initially, a forced increase in temperature triggered an increase in CO2.
In the present the evidence avaliable suggests that a forced increase in CO2 is triggering an increase in temperature.
While the mechanisms linking CO2 concentration and heat flow are the same, the forcing agents are different. I have difficulty visualising a falsifiable null hypothesis linking the two situations. Perhaps you can find a suitable design. I’m off to bed.

Entropic says:
“For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2.”
Key word: “recent”. He used it twice, so it must be important.
“Recent” means very little. The long-term trend is what is important. And that long-term trend shows conclusively that there is absolutely nothing unusual about recent temperatures. Nothing.
There is something unusual about the run-up in CO2. Basede on a 40% rise in CO2, we should be observing accelerating temperatures. But we are not.
The corellation between CO2 and temperature is coincidental. It does not hold over longer time frames. And temperatures have done the same thing in the past. Repeatedly, and despite CO2 levels.
CO2 does not cause measurable global warming. Deal with it. Because that is reality. Everything else is conjecture.

A. Scott

Fear mongering at its best.
First – the headlines are ridiculous – 97% of Greenland’s ice cap did not melt as the headline and graphics imply. Rather 97% of the ice cap saw “some melt.” … for a couple days … and then it was over and refroze.
Second, it is not “unprecedented” as NASA’s headline claims. Their own story, and Boresteins, both note that this also happen in 1889. And that ice cores show it happens regularly appx every 150 years – making this one pretty close to right on schedule.
Third, it has zero to do with AGW if it happened in 1889 and earlier – not many soccer moms and SUV’s in 1889.
Just more of the same … trying to conflate normal, explainable, known and expected events into sky is falling CAGW non-sense …

Jim Masterson

>>
Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 4:38 pm
For recent climate change there is a demonstrated recent increase in temperature and a demonstrated recent increase in CO2. A correalation can be demonstrated between them, at a higher significance than any of the other possible causes for a temperature rise.
<<
There are other possible causes. A better match to the available facts is albedo change. The measured atmospheric warming rate matches better to climate model predictions for albedo change than to the GHE. You apparently can’t see beyond your belief in a CO2 link–or should I say lack of a link.
That missing tropical hot spot is a big hole in the CO2 caused surface warming “correlation.”
Jim

Entropic man

Jim Masterson says:
July 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Links, please.

Entropic says:
“You also seem to have got hooked on comparing conditions 20,000 years ago with conditions today.”
That is the second time Entropic has stated that I am comparing current conditions with those of 20,000 years ago.
I am afraid that Entropic is fabricating his ‘facts’. Where did I ever mention 20,000 years ago?
I’m on to Entropic. I can usually smoke out a member of the hockey ‘team’. No verifiable scientific evidence is ever produced, corellation is the basis of belief, and verifiable facts are never refuted. As for falsifying that hypothesis… I’m still waiting.

A. Scott

Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Smokey,lets deal with one thing at a time.
Regarding the supposed stalling of temperature change since 1998. That year would be described statistically as an outlier, a datum point well outside the normal range of variation. By cherrypicking that year for comparison you get the result you want, not necessarily the result which best reflects the data.

Not even a remotely accurate statement.
Smokey did no “cherry picking” – he, like many others, used the last 15 years, 1997 to present – as some have said on both sides is the minimum necessary to talk about a trend.
And that trend is flat: http://goo.gl/x1R2c
None if by land, none if by sea and none if by air … no warming in these global air, sea or land temp records for the last 15 years.
The result Smokey “picked” was the most fair there is – use the last 15 years … period.

Correlating CO2 with Arctic sea ice and not Antarctic sea ice is cherry picking, pure and simple.
And as I pointed out in the earlier thread, darker horizontal bands are clearly visible in Arctic icebergs. So they must be in ice cores. Some will be from volcanic eruptions, but I;d be interested to see a systemic study.
This is a good paper on recent Arctic ice cores. They find increased melt from the 1990s. They include a core with melt bands shown. Interestingly in the picture these melt bands clearly have a higher albedo than unmelted snow.
http://arctic.eas.ualberta.ca/downloads/Fisheretal2011onlineGPC.pdf

Billy Liar

This is such extreme rubbish. How did these satellites see through the cloud and freezing fog that was blanketing Summit Camp at the time the so-called ‘extreme melt’ was going on? The temperature at the Camp was only once recorded above freezing, +0.5C at 18:00UTC on 11 July. The weather observer noted that the maximum recorded that day was +1.0C. At no other time is there any note of temperatures above 0.0C. The 12:00UTC temperature was -0.4C with the wind at 11kts from 318 degrees with broken clouds at 1,000ft and overcast at 2,500ft. The 00:00UTC temperature was -2.2C in freezing fog with a vertical visibility of 200ft with an 11kt wind from the north.
At the time of the record the temperature sensor was directly downwind of the Camp, the wind was 7 knots from 345 degrees:
http://www.summitcamp.org/static/html/SummitStationSitePlan2011.pdf
UHI?
That right hand panel of the figure is a joke. The 12:00UTC temperature at the Camp was -0.7C and although the cloud was broken at 12:00UTC, it was overcast at 18:00UTC and still overcast at 00:00UTC on the 13th. Temperature was -1.8C at 18:00UTC and -2.1C at midnight.
Were they measuring the temperature of the cloud tops?
Summit Camp had 12 hours of light snow on the 6th July.
Looking through the 8 years of temperature records they have for Summit Camp it would appear that temperatures only ever get close to freezing for very brief periods in July. All other months are much colder.