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:
kadaka writes,
“I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?”
I have no trouble fessing up: if that bold sentence is the only one you read, it’s wrong because Kobashi et al. have their own reconstruction that says different. On the other hand, if you don’t cherry pick one sentence out of the paragraph it came with, you might see the paragraph’s lead sentence (like Gail’s post) references Chiefio who was definitely doing the 1855-comparison fallacy (as are thousands of others on the internet, and many on this blog).
And that the sentence after the bold one says again,
“Also for this reason, Alley’s ice core reconstruction by itself cannot possibly show that temperatures in Viking times were warmer than present.”
Which it can’t, because Alley’s reconstruction ends in 1855.
But yeah, if you skip the Chiefio and Alley parts of that paragraph it does fall apart. I shouldn’t have used bold.
You guys continue to argue over trend. Temperature anomalies are caused by weather pattern variations (IE more drought, less drought, more precip , less precip, more cold, less cold, more wind, less wind, etc, etc, etc), which are caused by sustained weather system changes. Period. There is no other source of trend outside what the weather made it do each and every day, averaged, and then anomalized.
So are the weather systems changing? If so what is making the weather systems change? If it is CO2, please provide the mechanism of how this trace gas -and only the anthropogenic addition please- changes weather systems from within the naturally occurring error band, to sustained and/or more frequent and extreme events outside the error band. And speak in terms of calculated energy needed to make these changes compared to the extra energy being provided by anthropogenic CO2 increase, not just that “things are heating up”.
Otherwise your argument about temperature now and then is, IMO silly.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 8, 2012 1:48 pm
From Pamela Gray on August 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm:
For those of you interested, the discussions on the net about the supposed “Great Cyclone of 2012″ is heating up and predictions are being made by a few of complete ice melt. (…)
Cool. Then we can see if the results of the zombie ice study hold up and the recovery will be that quick.
Real observations yielding hard data from a real test in the real world, not just “confirmation by computer model”. What’s not to like?
Rob Dekker
August 8, 2012 2:24 pm
Pamela,
It’s interesting that you start debunking the statements “that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable” amd “never happens in Summer”, but you fail to mention who made these statements in the first place.
Could you please ?
Sure Rob. Here you go. Several comments. Eventually some of these blog statements and conversations will appear in the MSM because we all know they are loath to check out their information. I do enjoy reading this Arctic blog because they all get in such a tizzy over “unprecedented” events. http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-3-detachment.html#more
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 3:42 pm
tjfolkerts, you are correct. We had a dipole event on some of those dates that sent ice scurrying out of Fram Strait. Since then we have gone back to the AO form of pressure systems.
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 4:49 pm
http://foehn.colorado.edu/nome/HARC/Readings/Maslanik2.pdf
Interesting. Back when the AO was trending positive the sky was falling and Arctic Lows were becoming more frequent, all due to global warming of course. However, in this article, they don’t say as much. Serreze was one of the authors. Wonder what happened when the AO started a downward trend?
Rob Dekker
August 8, 2012 6:25 pm
Pamela,
A gentle suggestion :
If you find a comment an a posting on a different blog site, which you find questionable enough to spend brain cycles on, then why don’t you just go there and ask for a reference or clarification ? That way, both the person making the comment and you could learn something.
Instead, by posting a rebuttal here at WUWT to a comment on a blog post at Neven’s site, nobody learns anything.
Rob Dekker
August 8, 2012 7:14 pm
tjfolkerts said
There has been some interest in the Fram Strait, so I went and checked the meridonal winds (NCEP reanalysis for 20W-15E, 75N-85N..
…This certainly seems to present a case for these winds contributing to the lose this season. I’ll look more at the correlations soon.
Thanks tj, for checking these numbers on wind this year.
Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season.
Export out of Fram Stait typically is in the range of 62,000 km^2 per MONTH. (see Fig 4b here) : http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Kwok.2011.PTO.pdf
In comparison, regular melt knocks out that amount every DAY during the melting season..
So, with all respect to Fram Strait, there simple is no way in which it could have contributed significantly to the whopping 2 million km^2 negative sea ice area anomaly this season, and the record low ice area.
On the other hand, you could make a case that winds in the Arctic this melting season (combined with the thinning ice due to warmer winters) may be responsible for the highly fragmented ice pack. The thin ice is simply crunched up under wind stresses.
David Gould
August 8, 2012 7:25 pm
Pamela,
The article that you quoted above (http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf) states the following:
“A horizontal grid of 300 km300 km is used as unit area
for the statistical computations. A unit area experiences
about 20 cyclone passages per year (range 5±40). On the
average, six cyclones occur simultaneously in the Arctic
region. Lifetimes vary from 6 h to 15 days.
The annual cyclone activity over the 5-year period is
nearly the same. Cyclones are more frequent in summer
(about 94 per month) than in winter (77 per month). In
general summer cyclones are weaker than winter cyclones.
On the average, the minimum central pressure during
the lifetime of a cyclone is about 1000 hPa (typical range
980±1020) in summer and about 988 hPa (typical range
940±1030) in winter.”
My suspicion is that when they are talking about cyclones here they are not talking about anything like what we are seeing at the moment. There most definitely have not been 94 (three every two days?) of these kinds of events per month in the last six summers (2007 to 2012)! I have been watching over that time, and I have seen nothing like this.
This cyclone has had a minimum central pressure of 965, outside the normal summer range mentioned in the article and at the low end of the winter range.
tjfolkerts
August 8, 2012 8:30 pm
Rob Dekker says: “Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season. ”
I am arriving at that same conclusion — at least as far as wind is concerned. The correlations look OK by themselves, but when you include other parameters (like temperature or PDO), then the winds tend to drop out of the multiple regressions.
Pamela Gray
August 8, 2012 8:31 pm
David, I don’t think the group of folks over at that blog would be interested in being educated. Belief trumps data. If they are interested in debate, they need to come over here.
As for this Arctic cyclone, extremes and catastrophies happen in nature. All the time. Sometimes they happen more frequently, sometimes less frequently. Sometimes they become more extreme for a while and sometimes less extreme. I was driving through the extreme NE corner of Oregon on July 4th back in 76. It snowed. Right down to the valley floor. That was when folks thought for sure we were slipping into an ice age and everybody got their knickers in a twist. Except my grandparents. They had seen it all before.
I am willing to bet that way in the past, before satellites, there have been folks near the edge of these Summer cyclones and they were just as big. But they didn’t know that because they were at the edge of it, not in the middle like we have now with our eye in the sky.
David Gould
August 8, 2012 9:57 pm
Pamela,
As someone from that group of folks, I am interested in being educated. But I do not think that that paper is evidence that supports your case. It is clearly not talking about the same thing as what we are seeing at the moment. It says that on average in the Arctic there are 94 cyclones in each month of summer. Did you see 94 cyclones like the one we can observe at the moment in the Arctic during July just passed? Did you see one? Did you see one in June? The paper is not talking about events like this one.
And sure, big things happen all the time – the law of large numbers sees to that. But some big things are rare. And when one thing in a system changes – like, for example, the rapid increase in temperature that the Arctic has seen over the satellite era – you can expect other things to also change. Such as the frequency, intensity, location or timing of big things.
dave
August 8, 2012 10:35 pm
The one thing that appears missing from the recent discussions is the fact that the “rules” that Pamela and Gail refer to don’t seem to apply anymore. There was a paper a year or two ago from James Screen that stated a correlation between summer cyclones and sea ice, such that during years with more cyclones the September extent tended to be higher than during years with less summer cyclones. However, this isn’t the case as the ice has thinned. 2002 is a good example of this since the persistent low pressure over the central Arctic in JJA actually led to a record September low that year. This is because as the ice cover thins, it doesn’t matter so much what the weather patterns do, the thin ice will still melt out. I believe Holland and Stroeve (2011) had a paper in GRL that discussed the changing correlations between September extent and summer circulation as the ice cover thins.
The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink. It’s consistent with what one would expect in a warming world. The bumps and wiggles along the trend don’t matter, it’s the “trend” that matters, and there is no denying that the ice cover is showing a negative trend, and not just in summer, in all calendar months. Why else would Shell be spending billions to drill in the Arctic? They obviously believe the climate scientists who say that the ice will continue to shrink in the future.
Rob Dekker
August 8, 2012 11:10 pm
Pamela said :
Back when the AO was trending positive the sky was falling and Arctic Lows were becoming more frequent, all due to global warming of course.
These are some pretty explicit statements. Do you have any references to publications that claim that “the sky was falling” when the AO was trending positive, and that this was “all due to global warming of course” ?
“The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink.”
Yup.. it has been warming since the LIA stopped.. what else is new? Oh, are you suggesting that our SUVs are causing it?
But we are slowly sliding back into a major ice age, are we not? Temperatures were higher 10,000 years ago. Will our SUVs stop that slide?
I await your wisdom!
Pamela Gray
August 9, 2012 7:11 am
Rob, you are kidding, right? The trending up AO was being suggested by many in climate science to be caused by anthropogenic global warming, until it began to trend down (I’ve been following climate science for decades). And the 70’s brought on the broadly reported suggestion that we were entering a very cold period that could be related to massive glaciation, all due to AGW. Even Hansen went there. I take it you are new to this ever changing story.
Pamela Gray
August 9, 2012 7:19 am
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990603071210.htm
One of hundreds of articles about the positive AO trend of the 70’s thru 90’s connection with AGW. That hypothesis has gone down the hole, as have many others. Yet the search continues for a weather pattern variation that will stay around long enough to undergird the watermelon desire to reduce humans to cave dwellers.
Entropic man
August 9, 2012 7:23 am
With all these graphs purporting to prove/disprove accelerating temperature change, I thought I’d go back to the raw data and try my own back-of –the–envelope calculation.
Method
I am using the NASA/Goddard data. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
To damp out at least some of the short-term variation I’ll use 5-year averages.
This allows three intervals of 42 years, between 1883, 1925, 1967 and 2009. I’ll calculate the decadal warming rate for each interval.
A reduction from one interval to the next would indicate deceleration.
An unchanged rate would indicate a constant rate of change.
An increased rate would indicate acceleration.
Results
Raw data:-
Year_______________Temperature anomaly 5-year average
1883_____________________-0.27
1925_____________________-0.15
1967_____________________-0.02
2009_____________________ 0.54
Intervals and rates:-
Interval_____________Change ____________Decadal rate(C per 10 years)
Pre 1883____________0.0________________0.0*
1883-1925___________0.12_______________0.028
1925-1967___________0.17_______________0.04
1967-2009___________0.56_______________0.133
Conclusion
Each 42 year interval shows a larger rate of change than the one before. The rate of temperature change is accelerating.
*tjfolkerts-“(1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat”
eyesonu
August 9, 2012 7:30 am
I’m a newbie to the Arctic cyclone issue here. I’ve got a good grasp on tropical cyclones and hope someone here can help me out a bit.
Would this current cyclone be dumping huge amounts of snow and ice over the entire Arctic region?
Would it be transporting a considerable amount of heat energy to high altitudes (vertical) that would be released to space via radiation?
Is there a link that I could find satellite views showing infrared of the top of this cyclone?
Is the “fuel” of this cyclone similar in nature to a tropical cyclone in that it is driven by surface heat?
This is all very interesting and I await any reply. Thanks in advance.
Tim Folkerts
August 9, 2012 7:31 am
Donald Penman opines: “I am not sure who is telling the truth here. …they give vastly diferent pictures.”
Have you considered that they might be plotting vastly different things? The “edge” of the ice is not a sharp line and people chooses different boundaries: regions with at least 10% ice, or 15% ice, or 30% ice. (Kind of like you could map a coast line at high tide or low tide or mid tide and get different looking shorelines). Could you research what criteria each of the different maps use and then report back as to whether the maps do indeed give a consistent description of the polar ice? Perhaps you could tell us specifically who you think is not telling the truth.
Pamela Gray
August 9, 2012 7:33 am
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/tag/ice-age/
The ice age cometh decade. All scientific and human-caused of course. And down the hole of human-caused global cooling/disruption/extremes/weirding/and soon to be warming wild-ass guesses.
AGW scientists are searching in a pile of elephant poo for the mouse that caused all the poo, ignoring the elephant entirely. Which IMO, are natural intrinsic drivers that are part and parcel of a highly variable planet.
kadaka writes,
“I clearly linked to how you yelled at Gail, in bold, that the GISP2 ice core reconstruction ended in 1855, which is in error. You gonna fess up, or wuss out?”
I have no trouble fessing up: if that bold sentence is the only one you read, it’s wrong because Kobashi et al. have their own reconstruction that says different. On the other hand, if you don’t cherry pick one sentence out of the paragraph it came with, you might see the paragraph’s lead sentence (like Gail’s post) references Chiefio who was definitely doing the 1855-comparison fallacy (as are thousands of others on the internet, and many on this blog).
And that the sentence after the bold one says again,
“Also for this reason, Alley’s ice core reconstruction by itself cannot possibly show that temperatures in Viking times were warmer than present.”
Which it can’t, because Alley’s reconstruction ends in 1855.
But yeah, if you skip the Chiefio and Alley parts of that paragraph it does fall apart. I shouldn’t have used bold.
This is too easy. Found another reference for polar lows in Summer, this one in July. So much for “never happens in Summer” aka JJA.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-tBa1DWYoDIC&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false
page 228
You guys continue to argue over trend. Temperature anomalies are caused by weather pattern variations (IE more drought, less drought, more precip , less precip, more cold, less cold, more wind, less wind, etc, etc, etc), which are caused by sustained weather system changes. Period. There is no other source of trend outside what the weather made it do each and every day, averaged, and then anomalized.
So are the weather systems changing? If so what is making the weather systems change? If it is CO2, please provide the mechanism of how this trace gas -and only the anthropogenic addition please- changes weather systems from within the naturally occurring error band, to sustained and/or more frequent and extreme events outside the error band. And speak in terms of calculated energy needed to make these changes compared to the extra energy being provided by anthropogenic CO2 increase, not just that “things are heating up”.
Otherwise your argument about temperature now and then is, IMO silly.
From Pamela Gray on August 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm:
Cool. Then we can see if the results of the zombie ice study hold up and the recovery will be that quick.
Real observations yielding hard data from a real test in the real world, not just “confirmation by computer model”. What’s not to like?
Pamela,
It’s interesting that you start debunking the statements “that a cyclone has never occurred in the Arctic Summer (JJA) prior to 2006 should be searchable” amd “never happens in Summer”, but you fail to mention who made these statements in the first place.
Could you please ?
There has been some interest in the Fram Strait, so I went and checked the meridonal winds (NCEP reanalysis for 20W-15E, 75N-85N http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Meridonal+Wind&level=2000&lat1=75&lat2=85&lon1=-20&lon2=15&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=0&iarea=1&typeout=1&Submit=Create+Timeseries)
The rankings for 2012 (for southerly wind compared to the last 65 years) are impressive
April #3
May #1
June #11
July # 5
For these months overall, this it the windiest spring/summer on record. (2007 was the third windiest for this period).
This certainly seems to present a case for these winds contributing to the lose this season. I’ll look more at the correlations soon.
Sure Rob. Here you go. Several comments. Eventually some of these blog statements and conversations will appear in the MSM because we all know they are loath to check out their information. I do enjoy reading this Arctic blog because they all get in such a tizzy over “unprecedented” events.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-3-detachment.html#more
tjfolkerts, you are correct. We had a dipole event on some of those dates that sent ice scurrying out of Fram Strait. Since then we have gone back to the AO form of pressure systems.
http://foehn.colorado.edu/nome/HARC/Readings/Maslanik2.pdf
Interesting. Back when the AO was trending positive the sky was falling and Arctic Lows were becoming more frequent, all due to global warming of course. However, in this article, they don’t say as much. Serreze was one of the authors. Wonder what happened when the AO started a downward trend?
Pamela,
A gentle suggestion :
If you find a comment an a posting on a different blog site, which you find questionable enough to spend brain cycles on, then why don’t you just go there and ask for a reference or clarification ? That way, both the person making the comment and you could learn something.
Instead, by posting a rebuttal here at WUWT to a comment on a blog post at Neven’s site, nobody learns anything.
tjfolkerts said
Thanks tj, for checking these numbers on wind this year.
Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season.
Export out of Fram Stait typically is in the range of 62,000 km^2 per MONTH. (see Fig 4b here) :
http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Kwok.2011.PTO.pdf
In comparison, regular melt knocks out that amount every DAY during the melting season..
So, with all respect to Fram Strait, there simple is no way in which it could have contributed significantly to the whopping 2 million km^2 negative sea ice area anomaly this season, and the record low ice area.
On the other hand, you could make a case that winds in the Arctic this melting season (combined with the thinning ice due to warmer winters) may be responsible for the highly fragmented ice pack. The thin ice is simply crunched up under wind stresses.
Pamela,
The article that you quoted above (http://dvfu.ru/meteo/library/00750233.pdf) states the following:
“A horizontal grid of 300 km300 km is used as unit area
for the statistical computations. A unit area experiences
about 20 cyclone passages per year (range 5±40). On the
average, six cyclones occur simultaneously in the Arctic
region. Lifetimes vary from 6 h to 15 days.
The annual cyclone activity over the 5-year period is
nearly the same. Cyclones are more frequent in summer
(about 94 per month) than in winter (77 per month). In
general summer cyclones are weaker than winter cyclones.
On the average, the minimum central pressure during
the lifetime of a cyclone is about 1000 hPa (typical range
980±1020) in summer and about 988 hPa (typical range
940±1030) in winter.”
My suspicion is that when they are talking about cyclones here they are not talking about anything like what we are seeing at the moment. There most definitely have not been 94 (three every two days?) of these kinds of events per month in the last six summers (2007 to 2012)! I have been watching over that time, and I have seen nothing like this.
This cyclone has had a minimum central pressure of 965, outside the normal summer range mentioned in the article and at the low end of the winter range.
Rob Dekker says: “Fram Strait ice export is important for long-term inventory of MYI and fresh-water balance in the Arctic, but it does not significantly contribute to the ice area lost in any specific melting season. ”
I am arriving at that same conclusion — at least as far as wind is concerned. The correlations look OK by themselves, but when you include other parameters (like temperature or PDO), then the winds tend to drop out of the multiple regressions.
David, I don’t think the group of folks over at that blog would be interested in being educated. Belief trumps data. If they are interested in debate, they need to come over here.
As for this Arctic cyclone, extremes and catastrophies happen in nature. All the time. Sometimes they happen more frequently, sometimes less frequently. Sometimes they become more extreme for a while and sometimes less extreme. I was driving through the extreme NE corner of Oregon on July 4th back in 76. It snowed. Right down to the valley floor. That was when folks thought for sure we were slipping into an ice age and everybody got their knickers in a twist. Except my grandparents. They had seen it all before.
I am willing to bet that way in the past, before satellites, there have been folks near the edge of these Summer cyclones and they were just as big. But they didn’t know that because they were at the edge of it, not in the middle like we have now with our eye in the sky.
Pamela,
As someone from that group of folks, I am interested in being educated. But I do not think that that paper is evidence that supports your case. It is clearly not talking about the same thing as what we are seeing at the moment. It says that on average in the Arctic there are 94 cyclones in each month of summer. Did you see 94 cyclones like the one we can observe at the moment in the Arctic during July just passed? Did you see one? Did you see one in June? The paper is not talking about events like this one.
And sure, big things happen all the time – the law of large numbers sees to that. But some big things are rare. And when one thing in a system changes – like, for example, the rapid increase in temperature that the Arctic has seen over the satellite era – you can expect other things to also change. Such as the frequency, intensity, location or timing of big things.
The one thing that appears missing from the recent discussions is the fact that the “rules” that Pamela and Gail refer to don’t seem to apply anymore. There was a paper a year or two ago from James Screen that stated a correlation between summer cyclones and sea ice, such that during years with more cyclones the September extent tended to be higher than during years with less summer cyclones. However, this isn’t the case as the ice has thinned. 2002 is a good example of this since the persistent low pressure over the central Arctic in JJA actually led to a record September low that year. This is because as the ice cover thins, it doesn’t matter so much what the weather patterns do, the thin ice will still melt out. I believe Holland and Stroeve (2011) had a paper in GRL that discussed the changing correlations between September extent and summer circulation as the ice cover thins.
The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink. It’s consistent with what one would expect in a warming world. The bumps and wiggles along the trend don’t matter, it’s the “trend” that matters, and there is no denying that the ice cover is showing a negative trend, and not just in summer, in all calendar months. Why else would Shell be spending billions to drill in the Arctic? They obviously believe the climate scientists who say that the ice will continue to shrink in the future.
Pamela said :
These are some pretty explicit statements. Do you have any references to publications that claim that “the sky was falling” when the AO was trending positive, and that this was “all due to global warming of course” ?
I am not sure who is telling the truth here.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
or
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
or
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
they give vastly diferent pictures.
“The reality is that the planet is warming and this is causing the amount of snow/ice on the planet to shrink.”
Yup.. it has been warming since the LIA stopped.. what else is new? Oh, are you suggesting that our SUVs are causing it?
But we are slowly sliding back into a major ice age, are we not? Temperatures were higher 10,000 years ago. Will our SUVs stop that slide?
I await your wisdom!
Rob, you are kidding, right? The trending up AO was being suggested by many in climate science to be caused by anthropogenic global warming, until it began to trend down (I’ve been following climate science for decades). And the 70’s brought on the broadly reported suggestion that we were entering a very cold period that could be related to massive glaciation, all due to AGW. Even Hansen went there. I take it you are new to this ever changing story.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990603071210.htm
One of hundreds of articles about the positive AO trend of the 70’s thru 90’s connection with AGW. That hypothesis has gone down the hole, as have many others. Yet the search continues for a weather pattern variation that will stay around long enough to undergird the watermelon desire to reduce humans to cave dwellers.
With all these graphs purporting to prove/disprove accelerating temperature change, I thought I’d go back to the raw data and try my own back-of –the–envelope calculation.
Method
I am using the NASA/Goddard data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
To damp out at least some of the short-term variation I’ll use 5-year averages.
This allows three intervals of 42 years, between 1883, 1925, 1967 and 2009. I’ll calculate the decadal warming rate for each interval.
A reduction from one interval to the next would indicate deceleration.
An unchanged rate would indicate a constant rate of change.
An increased rate would indicate acceleration.
Results
Raw data:-
Year_______________Temperature anomaly 5-year average
1883_____________________-0.27
1925_____________________-0.15
1967_____________________-0.02
2009_____________________ 0.54
Intervals and rates:-
Interval_____________Change ____________Decadal rate(C per 10 years)
Pre 1883____________0.0________________0.0*
1883-1925___________0.12_______________0.028
1925-1967___________0.17_______________0.04
1967-2009___________0.56_______________0.133
Conclusion
Each 42 year interval shows a larger rate of change than the one before. The rate of temperature change is accelerating.
*tjfolkerts-“(1850-1880) where the data is pretty flat”
I’m a newbie to the Arctic cyclone issue here. I’ve got a good grasp on tropical cyclones and hope someone here can help me out a bit.
Would this current cyclone be dumping huge amounts of snow and ice over the entire Arctic region?
Would it be transporting a considerable amount of heat energy to high altitudes (vertical) that would be released to space via radiation?
Is there a link that I could find satellite views showing infrared of the top of this cyclone?
Is the “fuel” of this cyclone similar in nature to a tropical cyclone in that it is driven by surface heat?
This is all very interesting and I await any reply. Thanks in advance.
Donald Penman opines: “I am not sure who is telling the truth here. …they give vastly diferent pictures.”
Have you considered that they might be plotting vastly different things? The “edge” of the ice is not a sharp line and people chooses different boundaries: regions with at least 10% ice, or 15% ice, or 30% ice. (Kind of like you could map a coast line at high tide or low tide or mid tide and get different looking shorelines). Could you research what criteria each of the different maps use and then report back as to whether the maps do indeed give a consistent description of the polar ice? Perhaps you could tell us specifically who you think is not telling the truth.
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/tag/ice-age/
The ice age cometh decade. All scientific and human-caused of course. And down the hole of human-caused global cooling/disruption/extremes/weirding/and soon to be warming wild-ass guesses.
AGW scientists are searching in a pile of elephant poo for the mouse that caused all the poo, ignoring the elephant entirely. Which IMO, are natural intrinsic drivers that are part and parcel of a highly variable planet.