I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast for August, due Monday August 6th. Poll follows:
Smokey says: “The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. ”
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
>> The Claim: The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free
>> The Proof: The Antarctic has been repeatedly varying in temperature a few degrees.
Or were you not trying to substantiated your claim, but merely trying to remind us that the “Holocene” lasted about 10,000 years ?
And for the third time (at least) you present this cognitive dissonance: Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing.
Your problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s LAND ice (which seems to be decreasing), and the Antarctic’s SEA ice is UNEVENLY increasing. Overall, Antarctica’s ice (land and sea) seems to be declining. (Getting good info is tough. So many articles that I glanced at seem to jumble together the ideas of land ice, ice shelves, and sea ice.)
Paul K2
August 6, 2012 2:47 pm
It was fun reading this thread, waiting for the “WUWT Arctic ice experts” to wise up to this storm. Here is an abstract of a nice paper by a familiar name, Kerry Emanuel: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.1989.tb00362.x/abstract
Polar lows as arctic hurricanes
ABSTRACT
Satellite observations of the polar oceans have revealed the presence of small, intense vortices that often resemble hurricanes, having clear central eyes surrounded by deep convective clouds. Recent aircraft and dropsonde data also show that these storms, like hurricanes, occur within deep moist adiabatic atmospheres and possess warm cores. We propose that at least some polar lows are indeed arctic hurricanes. Using a recently developed theoretical model of the mature hurricane, we show that the observed difference between the moist entropy of the troposphere and that representing saturation at sea surface temperature can sustain moderately intense hurricanes. Unlike the environments of tropical hurricanes, much of this moist entropy difference results from an air-sea temperature difference. Numerical experiments using an axisymmetric nonhydrostatic model confirm that intense hurricanes can develop in environments typical of those in which polar lows are observed to develop. Due to the relatively large values of the Coriolis parameter, these storms have smaller diameters than do hurricanes. The experiments also show that the deep, cold cut-off lows which create favorable thermodynamic environments for polar lows also inhibit their development because of the large intertial stability of their circulations. Finally, we show that, like hurricanes, surface flux-driven polar lows cannot arise spontaneously, but require an independent and presumably non-axisymmetric dynamical mechanism for their initiation.
And to me more directly on topic, I predict a September average extent of around 4.1 million km^2, based an a wide variety of statistical analyses of the conditions in the Arctic the last year or so.
An exceptionally low extent and area in June & July, coupled with unusually warm temperatures are among the key factors pushing the multiple regression predictions down.
Of course, statistical predictions can be wrong. But all indications are for a record low extent. (Predictions for September, 2013 are also for low extent, but it is way to early to put tight error bars on those numbers).
Paul K2
August 6, 2012 3:06 pm
Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.
Bill Illis
August 6, 2012 3:14 pm
Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
Game over guys.
Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..
—————————————
Just like everything on the warmer side (which Mosher is definitely on now), there is hype and then there is factual evidence.
When was the last time there was a large deep low in the Arctic? Well just 10 months ago so must be really rare. I doubt it. The Arctic has been completely cloud covered for the past two months.
The sea temperatures in the Arctic are between -2.0C and -0.8C (with a few coastal mudflats higher than this).
There is a slightly warmer layer 50 metres down, as much as -0.4C but less than this in most of the Arctic. This layer is thin and at 50 metres down, is extemely unlikely to be brought up by wind and waves (its density would have to change first anyway). It then gets colder again below this thin layer.
The next warm layer is 200 metres to 500 metres down and can get to +1.7C. Of course this is not going to get mixed with the surface either.
Then as one goes lower it gets colder and colder again, maybe down to -1.2C at the bottom.
Salinity follows a similar pattern.
A good reference comes from the Woods Hole Institute which has about 10 active bouys in the Arctic with continuous temp profiles down to 750 metres. (Archives for another few dozen) http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=20781
The temp and salinity profile down to 750 metres for bouy 53 in the (probably melted) Beaufort sea right in the centre of this low. http://www.whoi.edu/itp/images/itp53dat3.jpg
Jeffrey Davis says:
“Testable hypothesis? ‘Harmless’ ‘Beneficial’
Value judgments are testable? How?”
Glad you asked. Listen up, and I will explain:
The Null Hypothesis states, in effect, that the climate will continue on within its historical parameters, as it has in the past. Now, if those parameters break out to the upside [in other words, if temperatures begin to accelerate above and beyond their long term parameters], then the Null has been tested and is falsified. That is the elevator explanation.
But so far temperatures have remained on their long term rising trend, despite a hefty 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial – prove me wrong] CO2. There has been no acceleration above those long term parameters.
Therefore, the Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternative hypothesis [CO2=CAGW] founders and sinks against the rocks of logic: if a 40% rise in CO2 cannot make a measurable difference in temperature [and it doesn’t], then any effect from CO2 is insignificant, and thus can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
The Null Hypothesis is an accepted corollary of the Scientific Method. That is why Kevin Trenberth is so upset that it does not support his beliefs. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
• • •
tjfolkerts says:
“…all indications are for a record low extent.”
Define “record”.
FYI, the temperature ‘record’ goes back ≈740,000 years in the ice cores. But let’s just look at the Holocene. Do you think maybe the planet was warm enough to make for an ice-free Arctic over the past 10 millennia? Or does the “record” only cover since 1979?
Face it, current Arctic ice cover is nothing unusual. Unless, of course, you limit the discussion to the past 33 cherry-picked years, instead of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene.
climatereason
Editor
August 6, 2012 4:22 pm
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
Sobering to think that William scoresby-the first great arctic explorer-who is buried not 7 miles from my home -recorded great storms and dramatic melting of the ice 150 years before the first satellites, and that the dramatic melting only 80 years ago and captured on pathe news reel for the entertainment of cinema goers seems to have been forgotten as well.
I am working on historic variations in arctic ice part two and was at the met office today collecting archive material for it. It will join the hundreds of papers I have already read. The only conclusion that can be dawn is that arctic ice melts with astonishing frequency and the modern era is by no means unprecedented- just ask any Viking
Tonyb
Jim
August 6, 2012 4:29 pm
Steven Mosher said:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
Game over guys.
The storm over the arctic now will tear the thin ice to shreds. Expect a new Area record ( <2.9) before the end of the month. Extent will drop below the record 4.3.. maybe fall below 4.
Maybe, but not likely.
Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.
Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..
There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.
I’m half inclined to take a flamethrower to the ice, just to put the ice out of its misery. Man, watching ice melt — that’s even worse than watching paint dry! LOL.
Gneiss
August 6, 2012 4:31 pm
Yes, Mosher let the storm-cat out of the bag, folks elsewhere have been wondering how long it would take the WUWT “Sea Ice News” crowd to catch on. Two days, it turns out.
I hinted about this yesterday @5:05pm, in response to Bill Illis’ comical post, but no one picked that up:
+++++
Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Bill Illis wrote,
“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”
If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.
Jim
August 6, 2012 4:34 pm
Smokey wrote:
Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺
LOL. The Day After Tomorrow, maybe?
Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 4:35 pm
tjfolkerts says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”
Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted….. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).
_________________________________
You are not quite correct. (But neither was I , husband dragging me out the door befuddles the brain.) It is a combination of the two.
The 100,000 year stretch: The orbit of the earth gradually stretches from nearly circular to an elliptical shape and back again in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years. This is called the orbit’s eccentricity. During the cycle, the distance between earth and sun varies by as much as 11.35 million miles.[So distance from the sun and therefore insolation does change for the earth as a whole – G.C.]
The 41,000 year tilt: The earth’s axis is never perpendicular to the plane of its orbit; over the course of about 41,000 years the angle varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees. Because of the tilt, the solar radiation striking any point on earth fluctuates during the yearly orbit, producing seasons. When the tilt is greatest, summers are hottest, winters are coldest.
The 22,000 year wobble: Even while the shape of its orbit and the tilt of its axis are changing, the earth wobbles slowly in space, its axis describing a circle once every 22,000 years. Because of this movement, known as axial precession or the precession of the equinoxes, the distance between the earth and the sun in a given season slowly changes. Today, for instance, the shape of the orbit places the planet closest to the sun in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter and farthest away in summer. The combination tends to make winters mild and summers cool — and favors ice-sheet growth. However, 11,000 years ago, the arrangement was just the opposite, setting the stage for the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decay.
These variations were calculated mathematically by several workers during the latter half of the 19th century. Milankovitch used the existing calculations of variations in eccentricity, precession and tilt to calculate how much solar radiation strikes the surface of the earth during each season and at each latitude. He published his first results in 1920, which contained a graph showing how summer radiation at latitudes 55Deg, 60Deg, and 65Deg North varied over the past 650,000 years. His next results were published in 1930, and included radiation curves for each of eight latitudes ranging from 5Deg North to 75Deg North. The curves calculated for high latitudes are dominated by the 41,000 year tilt cycle, while those for low latitudes are dominated by the 22,000 year precession cycle. By 1941 he had finished his calculations. The value of the Milankovitch theory was that it made testable predictions about the geological record of climate….. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
Good animation illustrating eccentricity, precession and tilt here
Roe did the calculations in his peer-reviewed paper. Here is the Graph for June at 65N, insolation varies more than +/- 50Wm2 or The most recent for 11Ka seem to be ~ 110Wm2 not too far from the +123Wm2 in my very rough calculation. (NOTE: The Earth is currently on the extreme right and headed DOWN) This map shows latitude 65N as above the red X. About the graph:
… you clearly get a spectacular agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve (cyan) and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes (white). Moreover, this model requires no lag to be adjusted and no significant CO2 forcing to be added if you want to reproduce the data very well. Roe explicitly mentions – even in the abstract – that CO2 is not needed; moreover, it’s changes are lagging so they are (mostly) consequences, rather than causes, of the ice-volume and temperature changes. ~ Luboš Motl
(Sorry for the goof guys)
Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 5:45 pm
climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he…..
____________________________
I do not know about you guys but I much rather see the Arctic ‘ice free’ in the summer rather than the opposite. A year long solidly frozen Arctic down to 70N or worse 65N is NOT something I am wishing for! ( voted for 4.2 million sqkm BTW)
SteveSadlov
August 6, 2012 5:52 pm
Been hitting the minimum earlier the past few years. That could make a difference.
Paul K2 says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Edit)
Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.
############################################
Paul K2, your writing on the storm is very clear and compelling. I learned a lot from it.
Smokey says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon
##########################
What happens next? Hopefully I win my bets at Lucia !!!
What happens Next? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg
climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm (Edit)
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
##############
Tony? do you see me calling this unprecedeneted? Nope you dont.
Did dramatic events happen before 1979. You BET !
That said. ice is melted by heat. So yes, it is warmer now than in the LIA. and one sign of that is the state of the Arctic. has it ever been warmer? you bet. have we ever had storms like this? You bet we have.
Still for people betting on whether or not this year will set a record, my bet is game over.
decades of decline has left the ice in no condition to weather this weather .
Anybody want to bet extent will be higher that 5M?
jim
“I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.
####
I’m sure the ice will survive as well? where do you see me saying otherwise?
“There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.”
Sure there is evidence of AGW. It may be evidence you dont accept, but there is evidence.
At least you admit that its warmer now than in the LIA.
And yes the ice has weathered wind and waves before. Like duh!. the question for betters is what will happen this fall? my bet says we set a new record.. 8:1 odds.
Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 8:23 pm
While everyone is watching the Sea Ice they are neglecting this news:
AccuWeather: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year Aug 6, 2012
There aren’t many places you can go to in the United States to see snow in August, and usually, even Anchorage, Alaska, isn’t one of them.
But the city is still dealing with leftover snow from last winter in its bordering mountain ranges. The all-time record snowfall of 133.6 inches last winter – just over 11 feet – could give Anchorage an endless winter.
…The combination of heavy snowfall and a cool spring caused the lingering snow, said United States Department of Agriculture Snow Survey Supervisor Rick McClure. He said that it’s unusual to see snow still remaining in some of the mountains that surround Anchorage.
“Most of the time snow melts in the mountains, unless it’s a glacier or snowfield,” McClure said. “We’ve had snow in 4,000-feet elevations that usually melts by early June stay until that time in July. It’s very rare to see snow in the mountains that close to the solstice.”…
May, June and July have all seen colder monthly averages, with July making the cut as the seventh-coldest July in history. There were 24 days in May 19 days in June that fell below the average daily temperature.
Adding the record-shattering snowfall into the mix, it’s possible the melt of last year’s snow could overlap with new snow falls that can occur as early as September. When this happens, glaciers can form by compressing the old snow into ice….
Looks like the Sea Ice has sprouted feet and walked inland.
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺
And you write:
“Sure there is evidence of AGW.”
“Evidence” in science has a specific meaning. It means testable, falsifiable data.
Please post your evidence of AGW. I am especially interested in exactly how much each unit of CO2 will raise the global temperature by X degrees [I prefer my CO2 units in Olympic-sized swimming pools. “X” can be any fraction of a degree you want].
When posting your evidence, keep this in mind. Thanx in advance.
I’ll take that bet Mosh just for the hell of it. 125 dollars says no record set this year.
Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 8:34 pm
HMMmm, I just saw something really funny (weird) on the Environment Canada website (White/light grey is old ice near 10yrs old) Look at the animation. There is a real jump between the end of July between August 1 and August 2 in the ten day animation.. http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/?lang=En&n=CE69E4DD-1
Smokey
“Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺
##############
you should watch the whole hour. you will learn how thick the ice was back in the 50s
you will learn how thinner ice is more susceptible to wind and currents.
You can ignore everything you want to about AGU, but you will actually like the data and pictures and movies.
here is a nice movie on ice age http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic
So you see as the older and thicker ice moves out of the arctic and you are left with thinner ice
winds matter more. When Ice was thicker it wasnt as susceptible to changing winds.
Also, smokey, how do you expect to test your null if you wont even consider data.
not very skeptical..
Smokey says: “The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. ”
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
>> The Claim: The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free
>> The Proof: The Antarctic has been repeatedly varying in temperature a few degrees.
Or were you not trying to substantiated your claim, but merely trying to remind us that the “Holocene” lasted about 10,000 years ?
And for the third time (at least) you present this cognitive dissonance: Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing.
Your problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s LAND ice (which seems to be decreasing), and the Antarctic’s SEA ice is UNEVENLY increasing. Overall, Antarctica’s ice (land and sea) seems to be declining. (Getting good info is tough. So many articles that I glanced at seem to jumble together the ideas of land ice, ice shelves, and sea ice.)
It was fun reading this thread, waiting for the “WUWT Arctic ice experts” to wise up to this storm. Here is an abstract of a nice paper by a familiar name, Kerry Emanuel:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.1989.tb00362.x/abstract
Polar lows as arctic hurricanes
ABSTRACT
Satellite observations of the polar oceans have revealed the presence of small, intense vortices that often resemble hurricanes, having clear central eyes surrounded by deep convective clouds. Recent aircraft and dropsonde data also show that these storms, like hurricanes, occur within deep moist adiabatic atmospheres and possess warm cores. We propose that at least some polar lows are indeed arctic hurricanes. Using a recently developed theoretical model of the mature hurricane, we show that the observed difference between the moist entropy of the troposphere and that representing saturation at sea surface temperature can sustain moderately intense hurricanes. Unlike the environments of tropical hurricanes, much of this moist entropy difference results from an air-sea temperature difference. Numerical experiments using an axisymmetric nonhydrostatic model confirm that intense hurricanes can develop in environments typical of those in which polar lows are observed to develop. Due to the relatively large values of the Coriolis parameter, these storms have smaller diameters than do hurricanes. The experiments also show that the deep, cold cut-off lows which create favorable thermodynamic environments for polar lows also inhibit their development because of the large intertial stability of their circulations. Finally, we show that, like hurricanes, surface flux-driven polar lows cannot arise spontaneously, but require an independent and presumably non-axisymmetric dynamical mechanism for their initiation.
KD.
have a look at any MODIS imagery and you can see that the ice not in the CAB is broken up.
The other way to judge this is to do this : area/extent
Or look at this
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png
For weather.
UPPER AIR…A DEEP LOW NEAR 78N 160E EAST WILL CONTINUE TO DEEPEN
TO OVER THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT TRACKS TO THE NORTHEAST AND JUST
SOUTH OF THE POLE. ALL OF THE MODELS ALL HAVE AN ANOMALOUSLY DEEP
SUB 510 DM LOW AT 500 MILLIBARS BY 12Z TUE. A LOW THIS DEEP IN
AUGUST IS INDEED A RARE EVENT.
Area currently is at 3.5 Million. see all that 1 meter ice
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticictn.001.gif.
Now, picture 2-3 meter seas sloshing over that.. The cold fresh water at the top
will be replaced with warmer saltier water pumped from the depths.
http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/ekpump.html
This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html
gone
This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
gone.
Game over. at 3.5M sq km and 5-6 weeks left in the melt season… say -40-50 days..
what would be unprecedented is a melt rate slow enough to AVOID setting a record.
In the end, this ice is all that left is this
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
and maybe some in the greenland sea.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
other tidbit
And to me more directly on topic, I predict a September average extent of around 4.1 million km^2, based an a wide variety of statistical analyses of the conditions in the Arctic the last year or so.
An exceptionally low extent and area in June & July, coupled with unusually warm temperatures are among the key factors pushing the multiple regression predictions down.
Of course, statistical predictions can be wrong. But all indications are for a record low extent. (Predictions for September, 2013 are also for low extent, but it is way to early to put tight error bars on those numbers).
Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.
Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
Game over guys.
Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..
—————————————
Just like everything on the warmer side (which Mosher is definitely on now), there is hype and then there is factual evidence.
When was the last time there was a large deep low in the Arctic? Well just 10 months ago so must be really rare. I doubt it. The Arctic has been completely cloud covered for the past two months.
The sea temperatures in the Arctic are between -2.0C and -0.8C (with a few coastal mudflats higher than this).
There is a slightly warmer layer 50 metres down, as much as -0.4C but less than this in most of the Arctic. This layer is thin and at 50 metres down, is extemely unlikely to be brought up by wind and waves (its density would have to change first anyway). It then gets colder again below this thin layer.
The next warm layer is 200 metres to 500 metres down and can get to +1.7C. Of course this is not going to get mixed with the surface either.
Then as one goes lower it gets colder and colder again, maybe down to -1.2C at the bottom.
Salinity follows a similar pattern.
A good reference comes from the Woods Hole Institute which has about 10 active bouys in the Arctic with continuous temp profiles down to 750 metres. (Archives for another few dozen)
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=20781
The temp and salinity profile down to 750 metres for bouy 53 in the (probably melted) Beaufort sea right in the centre of this low.
http://www.whoi.edu/itp/images/itp53dat3.jpg
Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺
Jeffrey Davis says:
“Testable hypothesis? ‘Harmless’ ‘Beneficial’
Value judgments are testable? How?”
Glad you asked. Listen up, and I will explain:
The Null Hypothesis states, in effect, that the climate will continue on within its historical parameters, as it has in the past. Now, if those parameters break out to the upside [in other words, if temperatures begin to accelerate above and beyond their long term parameters], then the Null has been tested and is falsified. That is the elevator explanation.
But so far temperatures have remained on their long term rising trend, despite a hefty 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial – prove me wrong] CO2. There has been no acceleration above those long term parameters.
Therefore, the Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternative hypothesis [CO2=CAGW] founders and sinks against the rocks of logic: if a 40% rise in CO2 cannot make a measurable difference in temperature [and it doesn’t], then any effect from CO2 is insignificant, and thus can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
The Null Hypothesis is an accepted corollary of the Scientific Method. That is why Kevin Trenberth is so upset that it does not support his beliefs. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
• • •
tjfolkerts says:
“…all indications are for a record low extent.”
Define “record”.
FYI, the temperature ‘record’ goes back ≈740,000 years in the ice cores. But let’s just look at the Holocene. Do you think maybe the planet was warm enough to make for an ice-free Arctic over the past 10 millennia? Or does the “record” only cover since 1979?
Face it, current Arctic ice cover is nothing unusual. Unless, of course, you limit the discussion to the past 33 cherry-picked years, instead of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene.
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
Sobering to think that William scoresby-the first great arctic explorer-who is buried not 7 miles from my home -recorded great storms and dramatic melting of the ice 150 years before the first satellites, and that the dramatic melting only 80 years ago and captured on pathe news reel for the entertainment of cinema goers seems to have been forgotten as well.
I am working on historic variations in arctic ice part two and was at the met office today collecting archive material for it. It will join the hundreds of papers I have already read. The only conclusion that can be dawn is that arctic ice melts with astonishing frequency and the modern era is by no means unprecedented- just ask any Viking
Tonyb
Steven Mosher said:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
Maybe, but not likely.
I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.
There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.
I’m half inclined to take a flamethrower to the ice, just to put the ice out of its misery. Man, watching ice melt — that’s even worse than watching paint dry! LOL.
Yes, Mosher let the storm-cat out of the bag, folks elsewhere have been wondering how long it would take the WUWT “Sea Ice News” crowd to catch on. Two days, it turns out.
I hinted about this yesterday @5:05pm, in response to Bill Illis’ comical post, but no one picked that up:
+++++
Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Bill Illis wrote,
“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”
If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.
Smokey wrote:
LOL. The Day After Tomorrow, maybe?
tjfolkerts says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”
Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted….. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).
_________________________________
You are not quite correct. (But neither was I , husband dragging me out the door befuddles the brain.) It is a combination of the two.
Good animation illustrating eccentricity, precession and tilt here
Roe did the calculations in his peer-reviewed paper. Here is the Graph for June at 65N, insolation varies more than +/- 50Wm2 or The most recent for 11Ka seem to be ~ 110Wm2 not too far from the +123Wm2 in my very rough calculation. (NOTE: The Earth is currently on the extreme right and headed DOWN) This map shows latitude 65N as above the red X.
About the graph:
(Sorry for the goof guys)
climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he…..
____________________________
I do not know about you guys but I much rather see the Arctic ‘ice free’ in the summer rather than the opposite. A year long solidly frozen Arctic down to 70N or worse 65N is NOT something I am wishing for! ( voted for 4.2 million sqkm BTW)
Been hitting the minimum earlier the past few years. That could make a difference.
Paul K2 says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Edit)
Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.
############################################
Paul K2, your writing on the storm is very clear and compelling. I learned a lot from it.
Smokey says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon
##########################
What happens next? Hopefully I win my bets at Lucia !!!
What happens Next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg
climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm (Edit)
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
##############
Tony? do you see me calling this unprecedeneted? Nope you dont.
Did dramatic events happen before 1979. You BET !
That said. ice is melted by heat. So yes, it is warmer now than in the LIA. and one sign of that is the state of the Arctic. has it ever been warmer? you bet. have we ever had storms like this? You bet we have.
Still for people betting on whether or not this year will set a record, my bet is game over.
decades of decline has left the ice in no condition to weather this weather .
Anybody want to bet extent will be higher that 5M?
jim
“I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.
####
I’m sure the ice will survive as well? where do you see me saying otherwise?
“There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.”
Sure there is evidence of AGW. It may be evidence you dont accept, but there is evidence.
At least you admit that its warmer now than in the LIA.
And yes the ice has weathered wind and waves before. Like duh!. the question for betters is what will happen this fall? my bet says we set a new record.. 8:1 odds.
While everyone is watching the Sea Ice they are neglecting this news:
Looks like the Sea Ice has sprouted feet and walked inland.
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺
And you write:
“Sure there is evidence of AGW.”
“Evidence” in science has a specific meaning. It means testable, falsifiable data.
Please post your evidence of AGW. I am especially interested in exactly how much each unit of CO2 will raise the global temperature by X degrees [I prefer my CO2 units in Olympic-sized swimming pools. “X” can be any fraction of a degree you want].
When posting your evidence, keep this in mind. Thanx in advance.
I’ll take that bet Mosh just for the hell of it. 125 dollars says no record set this year.
HMMmm, I just saw something really funny (weird) on the Environment Canada website (White/light grey is old ice near 10yrs old) Look at the animation. There is a real jump between the end of July between August 1 and August 2 in the ten day animation.. http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/?lang=En&n=CE69E4DD-1
Smokey
“Steven Mosher,
Thank you for the YouTube video. I got thru 51 seconds of the 1+ hours.☺
##############
you should watch the whole hour. you will learn how thick the ice was back in the 50s
you will learn how thinner ice is more susceptible to wind and currents.
You can ignore everything you want to about AGU, but you will actually like the data and pictures and movies.
here is a nice movie on ice age
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/video/2011/old-ice-becoming-rare-in-arctic
So you see as the older and thicker ice moves out of the arctic and you are left with thinner ice
winds matter more. When Ice was thicker it wasnt as susceptible to changing winds.
Also, smokey, how do you expect to test your null if you wont even consider data.
not very skeptical..
Gail, see the video I posted. its about 90 minutes.
Question: how can losing all that ice NOT effect the weather.