In the latest ARCUS Sea Ice Outlook, WUWT, Stroeve (NSIDC), and Meier (NSIDC) agree at 4.5 million square km. Whether those values turn out to be high due to the recent ice loss as a result of a strong Arctic storm which broke up a lot of sea ice remains to be seen. Here is the storm report from NASA:
==============================================================
Image mosaic of Arctic storm. (Credit: NASA/Goddard/MODIS Rapid Response Team)
› Related image and story from NASA’s Earth Observatory
An unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days.
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this natural-color mosaic image on Aug. 6, 2012. The center of the storm at that date was located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
The storm had an unusually low central pressure area. Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., estimates that there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records. “It’s an uncommon event, especially because it’s occurring in the summer. Polar lows are more usual in the winter,” Newman said.
Arctic storms such as this one can have a large impact on the sea ice, causing it to melt rapidly through many mechanisms, such as tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean.
“It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”
Aqua passes over the poles many times a day, and the MODIS Rapid Response System stitches together images from throughout each day to generate a daily mosaic view of the Arctic. This technique creates the diagonal lines that give the image its “pie slice” appearance.
In the image, the bright white ice sheet of Greenland is seen in the lower left.
===========================================================
My best guess is that because of this storm breaking up ice packs, the September minimum will be lower than 4.5 million sqkm. The median of August ARCUS outlooks is 4.3, but the possibility exists that it will come in lower than that.
The value for the JAXA plot is similar:
And the most recent JAXA value for 8/13/2012 is 5,152,969 sqkm (data source here). More maps and graphs exist on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.
Here’s the August ARCUS report compiled by Helen Wiggins:
With 23 (thank you!) responses for the Pan-Arctic Outlook (plus 5 regional Outlook contributions), the August Sea Ice Outlook projects a September 2012 arctic sea extent median value of 4.3 million square kilometers, with a range of 3.9–4.9 (Figure 1). The quartiles for August are 4.1 and 4.6 million square kilometers, a narrow range given that the uncertainty of individual estimates is on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. The consensus is for continued low values of September 2012 sea ice extent. The August Outlook median is lower by 0.3 million square kilometers than the July estimate, consistent with low summer 2012 observed values. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record behind 2011; the ice extent recorded for August 1st of 6.5 million square kilometers is the lowest in the satellite record. Twelve of the contributions give a value equal to or lower than the 2007 record minimum (monthly average) extent of 4.3 million square kilometers.
Individual responses are based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous rates of sea ice loss, composites of several approaches, estimates based on various non-sea ice datasets and trends, and subjective information.
Again, we are comparing these Outlook values to the September average sea ice extent as provided by NSIDC. NSIDC is not the only data source for ice extent; their estimate is based on a long-term time series and we use their value as an operational definition.
Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
DEVELOPMENT OF SUMMER 2012 SEA ICE CONDITIONS AND RECENT WEATHER
The NSIDC time history for 2012 compared with previous years is shown in Figure 2. As noted in previous Sea Ice Outlook reports this year, sea ice extent in May started higher than several previous years and there were indications of increased thickness on the North American side. But late May and the first half of June had the Arctic Dipole (AD) Pressure pattern that is favorable for ice loss, resulting in a record trend in sea ice loss. At the end of June the AD was replaced by low sea level pressure. At this point, the sea ice loss showed more of a historical loss trend, but because of the low June value it has remained below the previous lowest value from 2007. The sea level pressure field for the second half of July and early August (Figure 3) shows that the low pressure centered along the dateline has persisted for most of the summer. This a a fairly typical historical summer pattern, if perhaps a bit stronger.
The pattern in Figure 3 is favorable for sea ice loss near the Canadian side of the North Pole and in the Kara Sea, but not in the Pacific Arctic as in previous summers. The recent NSIDC sea ice chart from 9 August (Figure 4) shows major open water areas in the eastern Beaufort Sea, East Siberian Sea, and Kara Sea, and a strip of sea ice continuing in the Chukchi Sea. These areas opened up quickly in the last few weeks. Also note the open areas within the ice pack.
Except for early June, the weather was not particularly favorable for sea ice loss in summer 2012 as it was in 2007 and some other recent years. Given the lack of meteorological support and several indications that the sea ice was rather thin, we note that thermodynamic melting of thin, mobile sea ice is now a dominant process, justifying the low sea ice predictions in the Sea Ice Outlook.
KEY STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTLOOKS
Wang et al, 3.9 +/-0.3, Model
The outlook is based on a CFSv2 ensemble of 40 members initialized from Jul 27-Aug 5, 2012. The model’s systematic bias, forecast RMS errors, and anomaly correlation skill are estimated based on its historical forecasts for 1982-2011. The CFSv2 has shown long-term decrease of sea ice extent during the past 3 decades, as in the observation. The CFSv2 was also found to have some skill in predicting year to year variability at seasonal time scales.
Arbetter, 4.0, n/a, Statistical (updated 13 August)
Using conditions from week 30 of 2012 (ie August 1, 2012), a revised minimum Arctic sea ice extent of 4.03 million km2 is projected for the week of September 7, 2012. This is substantially lower than the earlier estimates, reflecting both lower than average sea ice extent used as initial conditions this summer and a persistent downward trend in sea ice extent over the past decade (and longer). The output continues to suggest 2012 will be at or below the previous record minimum September ice extent, recorded in 2007 and repeated in 2011.
Klazes, 4.0 +/- 0.7, Statistical
Extent is predicted by first estimating minimum ice volume for September. Using a linear minimum ice volume-extent model the extent is calculated. Only data up to 2011 is used. The method is statistical, based on mean September ice extent and minimum September ice volume (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003).
Hamilton, 4.0 +/- 0.3, Statistical
A simple regression model for NSIDC mean September extent as a function of mean daily sea ice area from August 1 to 5, 2012 (and a quadratic function of time) predicts a mean September 2012 extent of 4.02 million km2, with a confidence interval of plus or minus .32. This supersedes an earlier year-in-advance prediction based on a Gompertz (asymmetrical S curve) model that used data only through September 2011.
Beitsch et al, 4.1 +/- 0.1, Statistical
The KlimaCampus’s outlook is based on statistical analysis of satellite derived sea ice area.
We introduced the following method: use of near-real-time (SSMI/S) sea ice concentration data combined with long data sets (SSM/I: 1992{2011), a time-domain _lter that reduces observational noise, and a space-domain selection that neglects the outer seasonal ice zones. The daily estimate of the September extent, the anomaly of the current day and a time series of daily estimates since May 2012 can be found on our ftp-server: ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/prediction/2012/
Folkerts, 4.1 ± 0.2, Statistical
A variety of publicly available monthly data from 1978 forward (including area, extent, volume, regional extent, NCEP Reanalysis Data, and various climate indices) was collected. For each year, monthly data up to 24 months before the September minimum extent was organized and correlated with the minimum extent. Multiple regression analysis was also performed on a variety of combinations of these explanatory variables, seeking sets of data that correlate well with September extent, while trying to avoid overfitting. In addiction, analysis was also performed using the annual change in extent as the dependent variable (which, together with the extent the previous September, also allows predictions of the upcoming minimum).
Andersen, 4.1, n/a, Statistical
Same as last month.
Morison, 4.2, n/a, Heuristic
Same as last month.
Randles, 4.2, ± 0.7, Statistical
I use an average of two methods. One is as used in my previous submissions this year of a linear regression to predict the expected residual from a gompertz fit of September Extent using the residual from a gompertz fit of Cryosphere Today area. The other method is to calculate a weighted average of Cryosphere Today area and NSIDC Extent giving 1.5 weight to area. The difference between this and the NSIDC September average extent is calculated and estimated with a linear trend.
Naval Research Laboratory, 4.3 +/- 0.6, Model
The Arctic Cap Nowcast Forecast System (ACNFS) was run in forward model mode, without assimilation, initialized with a July 1, 2012 analysis, for nine simulations using archived Navy atmospheric forcing fields from 2003-2011. The mean ice extent in September, averaged across all ensemble members, is our projected ice extent. The standard deviation across the ensemble mean ice extents is an estimate of the uncertainty of our projection given we do not know the atmospheric conditions that will occur this summer. Please note, this is a developmental model that has not been fully validated in non-assimilative mode, but the assimilative system has been validated to provide an accurate ice forecast [Posey et al. 2010].
Netweather.tv, 4.3, n/a, Heuristic
The prediction method was based on a poll of Netweather.tv forum members. The question was “What do you think the MEAN September sea ice extent will be?” The mean (4,338,095km2) of the…votes was rounded to the closest 100,000 and used to form the prediction.
Lukovich et al, 4.3, n/a, Heuristic
It is hypothesized that the 2012 fall sea ice extent will attain values comparable to those of 2011 based on a heuristic assessment of sea ice and surface atmospheric dynamics, with regional losses governed by local wind and ice conditions.
Zhang and Lindsay, 4.4, +/- 0.4, Model
These results are obtained from a numerical ensemble seasonal forecasting system. The forecasting system is based on a synthesis of a model, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data, and satellite observations of ice concentration and sea surface temperature. The model is the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003). The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP/NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate, such that ensemble member 1 uses 2005 NCEP/NCAR forcing, member 2 uses 2006 forcing …, and member 7 uses 2011 forcing…In addition, the recently available IceBridge and helicopter-based electromagnetic (HEM) ice thickness quicklook data are assimilated into the initial 12-category sea ice thickness distribution fields in order to improve the initial conditions for the predictions.
Keen et al (Met Office), 4.4, +/-0.9, Model
Same as last month.
Kauker et al, 4.5, +/- 0.4, Model
Sea ice-ocean model ensemble run – For a more detailed description we refer to our July report. The ensemble model experiments for the August outlook all start from the same initial conditions on July 30th 2012. The simulated daily ice extent for all 20 realizations of the ensemble is shown in Figure 1 from the initialization until end of September. Note that August and September atmospheric conditions similar to 2007 would result in a September minimum of 3.6 million km2 (thick black line in Figure 1). Atmospheric forcing similar to the years 2008 and 2010 would give a September mean of about 4.0 million km2 .The mean September value of the ensemble mean is 4.46 million kmÇ (bias corrected). The standard deviation of the ensemble is 0.38 million km2 which we provide as uncertainty estimate of the prediction.
Meier et al, 4.5, +/-0.3, Statistical
This statistical method uses previous years’ daily extent change rates from August 1 through September 30 to calculate projected daily extents starting from July 31. The September daily extents are averaged to calculate the monthly extent. Rates from recent years are more likely to occur because of the change in ice cover. Thus, the official projection is based on the rates for 2002-2011, yielding a September 2012 average of 4.47 million square kilometers; the range however is still quite large with a standard deviation of 335,000 square kilometers. Using all years (1979-2011) yields a slightly higher estimate of 4.66 million square kilometers, but a similar range of 337,000 square kilometers. Five out of the 33 scenarios (using rates from 1979, 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008) would yield a new record minimum September extent. This suggests the chance for a record low this year is ~15%, though this probably underestimates the probability because recent years have tended to follow faster decline rates.
WattsUpWithThat.com, 4.5, n/a, Heuristic
Reader poll.
Stroeve et al, 4.6, range 4.1-5.2, Statistical
Same as last month.
Tivy, 4.7, +/-0.5, Statistical
A persistence forecast based on anomalies in July extent where the mean period is defined as the average of the previous five years. Persistence is a benchmark for more sophisticated techniques.
Kay et al, 4.7, range 4.0-5.7, Heuristic
An informal pool of 23 climate scientists on June 1, 2012 estimates that the September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent will be 4.68 million sq. km. (stdev. 0.32, min. 4.00, max. 5.70). In 2008, 2009, and 2011, our informal pool estimates of the mean September ice extent were within 0.10 million sq. km. of the corresponding observed value, making our informal method competitive with more sophisticated prediction efforts.
Canadian Ice Service, 4.7, n/a, Multiple Methods
As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010 and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end-of-winter Arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC’s September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.
Wu et al, 4.7, +/-0.3, Model
Same as last month.
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al, 4.9, +/-0.6, Model
Same as last month.
Kevin,
I apologize if my post sounded more argumentative than I intended. In long threads it can be tough to keep up with context and all the previous posts, and I was not specifically paying attention to earlier post by Phillip. I agree with you that there is no reason to expect bigger winter declines than summer declines in extent or area — the logic in Philip’s original post does seem rather questionable.
OTOH, disagreeing with Phillip does not mean I completely agree with you. My caution contained several points, which I still think are legitimate.
1) You overstate the low temperatures of arctic winters by around 10C. The numbers I can find list -40C as extreme, with typical arctic winters being more like -30 in most areas. Being off by 10C is worth thinking about.
2) Your “generous” 3.2 C estimate of warming is actually on the low end (compared to NCEP climate reanalysis numbers). They put the warming (for 70N-90N since the 1979 beginning of the satellite ice data) as 3-5 C (depending on which month you are looking at during the winter). Underestimating the warming and calling that estimate “generous” is worth thinking abut. (And finding OTHER sources to compare with would ALSO be worth thinking about — these just happened to be the numbers I had handy).
3) Taken by itself your “That is not going to inhibit winter ice formation except at the very lowest Arctic lattitudes.” is open to mis-interpretation. Warmer winter temperatures will certainly not inhibit the winter ice extent near the pole anytime soon (since it is basically 100% every year) but it will inhibit winter ice volume. Being cautious in wording is always worth thinking about (and something that I could have been a little more careful about to avoid this unnecessarily confrontational side-thread).
My figures were drawn from memory and can, at best, be described as approximations. I intended them to illustrate one thing only – Arctic winters are so cold that warming much in excess of that seen in Arctic summers would not require that the sea ice maximum extent retreat at a greater rate than the sea ice minimum extent – and, given that holds even if we use your figures, I would hold that they were fit for purpose. That said, accuracy and precision are laudable goals and I will seek to ensure both in future.
Again I would stress that context is key, but I agree my wording is clumsy and can be misinterpreted and will repeat my promise of greater precision hitherto.
Jim says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:21 am
Again, catastrophists, an open arctic is bad, how?
Entropic man says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:21 am
Would you regard access to Arctic resources and open sea lanes sufficient recompense if the accompanying sea level rise forced you to evacuate Manhatten?
——————————–
In case you think my question excessive, consider that although Fort Manhatten is 30M above sea level, many lower levels are already vulnerable to storm surges, which any rise in sea level would make worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031061/Hurricane-Irene-path-2011-Flooding-hits-lower-Manhattan-eye-Irene-bears-New-York.html
Entropic man says:
If a significant portion of that ice volume melts, the ensuing sea level rises may be damaging to our civilization based on coastal plains.
——————————–
In case you think my question excessive, consider that although Fort Manhatten is 30M above sea level, many lower levels are already vulnerable to storm surges, which any rise in sea level would make worse.
Your question is excessive, because your scary implications are not quantified. Your vectors have direction, but no magnitude.
What is a significant portion? How long would it take for that that significant portion to melt? What increase in sea level above the long term trend would result? How much of that is attributable to anything which we may consider part of a “trade off”. How much of that is offset by the ooposite occuring at the other pole? Any rise in sea level would make storm surges how much worse?
Scary implications, when you dont put numbers to it. Booo! Give us all your money!
Nothing happenng now will result in any catastrophy that Jim Hansen’s grandchildren’s grandchildren will be able to discern.
And BTW, not all the vectors point the same direction:
What is the sum total of the benefits we should be comparing this against?
tjfolkerts says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“What? Where can you find any paper claiming the earth is flat, or making calculations assuming the earth is flat? ”
See Trenberth energy budget. You can google trenberth & kiehl and have your flat earth.
Perhaps you mean ‘refraction’?
No. Light reflection increases very much with the small incidence angle on water.
“Well, that would be because back-radiation and insulation are two different things. Have you ever seen insulation being replaced with sunlight? Or insulation being replaced with an electric heater? It’s not done because it would be incredibly bad engineering! ”
I see tjfolkerts for you back-radiation is like electric heater or sun radiation.
If the atmosphere is backradiating 333 W down, is it also radiating 333 W up? So to say losing 666 W? Where does it come from? Please do for me the heat transfer calculation with back radiation numbers, would be very interested to understand.
To put it more clearly tjfolkers, the sun radiation is net energy inflow.
When talking about radiation and backradiation in the earth system you need to take into account the t1 and t2 temperatures of the 2 reference points and do a proper energy transfer calculation.
If at the north pole the atmosphere radiates 80 W/m2 you cannot make the calculation as the warmists do: take the soil at the temperature t1 and add to it 80 W/m2. This is no net transfer.
If t1 of the soil is higher then t2 of the atmosphere the net energy transfer will be from soil to atmosphere. One needs to calculate the energy transfer based on t1-t2 temperatures.
But this is no thread dedicated to this discussion so actually we should discuss this if there is an open thread if you are still confused.
JJ says:
August 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Your question is excessive, because your scary implications are not quantified. Your vectors have direction, but no magnitude.
———————————
How to quantify damage due to increasing sea level? Here are a few numbers to play with.
This is the NOAA report on Hurricane Irene. It includes data on the storm itself, the disruption and the economic damage done. I’ve lifted two short extracts.
http://www.noaa.gov/images/Hurricane%20Irene%20by%20the%20Numbers%20-%20Factoids_V4_083111.pdf
“Stations from New York City to Woods Hole, Mass., had max storm surge values between 3 and 5 feet above predicted tide levels, with the highest preliminary measurement of 4.77 ft. recorded at
Providence, R.I.”
“Hurricane Irene will be the 10th billion dollar disaster in 2011.”
Though some damage was done by wind, most was due to a 3 1/2 foot storm surge which put Soho, Queens and other low lying areas of New York city, plus rural areas of the state underwater.That’s about 1 metre above normal high tide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/28/nyc-hurricane-flooding-in_n_939543.html#s341847
If 1.0M is the level at which this much damage occurs, how long will it be before this happens every tide? If the North Carolina state commission on flood prediction are right, about 90 years.
The scientists on the North Carolina state commission were asked how much sea level rise to expect in the 21st century, with members opinions varying between 18″ and 55″. The politicians, not accustomed to uncertainty, insisted on a single figure and got 39″. That’s permanent flooding on the scale of Hurricane Irene by 2100.
I find the reaction of North Carolina to its own state commission predictions interesting. It sums up quite well in microcosm how political this whole debate has become.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/24/nation/la-na-sea-level-20120624
Entropic man says:
How to quantify damage due to increasing sea level? Here are a few numbers to play with.
What happened to Arctic ice? That was what we were talking about. Started with your spooky response and blood curdling follow-ups to the question: “Again, catastrophists, an open arctic is bad, how?”
Now you are changing the subject. Bringing up undocumented scary stories told by some nut jobs in North Carolina about unspecified sources of sea level rise, giving rates that are two to three times higher than even the habitually scare mongering IPCC was willing to get behind in AR4 That was 18-59 centimeters for the 21st century, not inches. Hint: That is why that North Carolina commission’s horror stories were panned by the public.
You did that, instead of responding to any of my questions regarding your own scary stories about Greenland ice melting.
Why is that? Certainly, you are capable of googling up some more or less arguable estimates of the potential for Greenland ice melt, how much sea level rise would occur if it all melted, how long it would take to melt it all even at the worst of the hair pulling alarmist rates, how much of that might be expected to occur during any relevant time frame, etc. You can do that. But you didn’t.
Or you did, but aren’t really excited about reporting what you found…
It isn’t the least bit scary, is it?
Entropic,
After you finish with your LA Times and the Huffington Post citations, maybe you could link to the Weekly World News for your next scare tactics. [BTW, the NOAA isn’t much more credible.]
If you really believe there will be “permanent flooding on the scale of Hurricane Irene by 2100”, you will believe anything. This has all happened before, repeatedly. It is routine natural climate variability, and nothing more. Get up to speed on the null hypothesis, then maybe you will begin to understand.
JJ said
JJ, you are not making any sense in this paragraph.
Maybe you could give a reference to the North Carolina commission report, and point out for us exactly where they messed up entimeters and inches ?
Smokey said
Smokey, which scientific assessment did you use to conclude that “permanent flooding on the scale of Hurricane Irene” is “routine climate variability” ? And where is your evidence on WHEN and WHY that happened ?
Now, to get back to the subject of this thread, NSIDC reports 4.63991 million km^2 extent for August 17.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv
which is well below the 2007 extent record low for the date. In fact, it is by now almost certain that 2012 will break ALL satellite records of extent and area, and this while neither wind patterns nor Fram Strait ice export have been unusual this year, and WUWT reported extensively on the harsh past Alaskan winter. None of this seems to matter now. What’s up with that ? Could maybe increased temperatures melt sea ice ? Nah. Saying that would make me an alarmist. It must be the sun… Right ?
Never mind, JJ. I found the report by the Carolina
http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/slr/NC%20Sea-Level%20Rise%20Assessment%20Report%202010%20-%20CRC%20Science%20Panel.pdf
and there was no confusion about centimeters versus inches.
The report is pretty clear that 39 inch SLR on the Carolina coast is “likely” just like the LA Times reported.
Of course, the commission was working with IPCC AR4 data, which will have to be adjusted by AR5 data pretty soon.
How will that change the estimate ?
Rob Dekker asks:
“…which scientific assessment did you use to conclude that ‘permanent flooding on the scale of Hurricane Irene’ is ‘routine climate variability’? And where is your evidence on WHEN and WHY that happened?”
Dekker could not have the scientific method more backwards. Skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely upon the alarmist crowd, which has failed to provide any scientific evidence for its strange beliefs.
Dekker then asks:
“Could maybe increased temperatures melt sea ice? Nah. Saying that would make me an alarmist.”
Exactly right. ‘Global warming’ amounts to only 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. Anyone who believes that minuscule change is melting the Arctic ice cap is nuts. Arctic temperatures average far below freezing. And eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920’s, and in the 1800’s. We are observing routine climate variability, nothing more. And CO2 had absolutely nothing to do with it, either then or now.
Rob Dekker says:
JJ, you are not making any sense in this paragraph.
Yes, I am.
<i/.Maybe you could give a reference to the North Carolina commission report, and point out for us exactly where they messed up entimeters and inches ?
I didn’t say that they messed up centimeters and inches. Their estimate, as reported above by Encino Man (at least that is how I picture him when I read his posts) was 18- 55 inches. I think those nut jobs said what they meant: 18-55 inches.
On the other hand, I reported that AR4 estimates a range of 21st century sea level rise of 18-59 centimeters. I think that those nut jobs also said what they meant: 18-59 centimeters.
My clearly stated point was that the North Carolina Nutjobs came up with a scary story that was two to three times higher that what the International Nutjobs were willing to put their names to, and those nutjobs will say damn near anything.
And Encino Man, rather than going with the Globally Certified, Nobel Prize winning, International Nutjobs talking about global sea level rise, decided to base his non-response to my questions on the local nutjobs in North Carolina talking about local sea level rise.
It is all non-responsive to the point of the discussion, which was Greenland ice melt, how fast that might occur, what would be the effect on sea level if it did, how much of that would be anthro, what would the concommitant benefits be, etc.
Unless there is a issue with the sensor, we are going to shatter the 2007 record. Prepare to hear continual wailing and teeth gnashing for weeks, while a near-record high extent in Antarctica is completely ignored…
MattN says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:56 am
Unless there is a issue with the sensor, we are going to shatter the 2007 record. Prepare to hear continual wailing and teeth gnashing for weeks, while a near-record high extent in Antarctica is completely ignored…
With good reason, it’s barely above average! In the Arctic -2.258 Msqkm vs in the Antarctic +0.305 Msqkm. Unlikely to be an issue with a sensor since the same one is used in each case.
Smokey says:
August 19, 2012 at 8:04 am
Arctic temperatures average far below freezing. And eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s. We are observing routine climate variability, nothing more.
Actually to the contrary, eyewitness accounts confirm that Arctic seaice has not been observed to be as low as it now is, and certainly not at the dates you claim.
Phil. neglects to mention that the Antarctic holds more than ten times the Arctic’s ice.
There is no testable evidence that the current Arctic ice decline is anything other than natural variability and a continuing natural recovery from the LIA. The same thing has happened before, in the late ’50’s, in the 1920’s, and in the 1800’s. There is zero evidence that human emissions have any effect whatever on polar ice cover. There is only the alarmist crowd’s scientifically baseless religious belief that humans are the cause of Arctic [but not Antarctic] ice decline. It’s crazy, really.
Wrong again, Phil.
Smokey says:
August 20, 2012 at 10:02 am
Phil. neglects to mention that the Antarctic holds more than ten times the Arctic’s ice.
Not sea ice it doesn’t which is what I specifically referred to.
There is no testable evidence that the current Arctic ice decline is anything other than natural variability and a continuing natural recovery from the LIA. The same thing has happened before, in the late ’50′s, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s.
Repeating the same incorrect statement over and over doesn’t make it true!
Smokey says:
August 20, 2012 at 10:11 am
Wrong again, Phil.
Really, there’s nothing in that outdated site that supports your claims. Just some unsupported assertions and of course no data from the last ten years.
Smokey says:
August 20, 2012 at 10:02 am
Phil. neglects to mention that the Antarctic holds more than ten times the Arctic’s ice.
There is no testable evidence that the current Arctic ice decline is anything other than natural variability and a continuing natural recovery from the LIA…..
__________________________________
I still do not see why these people want to see glaciers and sea Ice increase and if it does will they then start screaming about the coming Ice Age as they did before?
Phil says:
“Really, there’s nothing in that outdated site that supports your claims.”
Outdated? John Daly rcounts the historical fact that the Arctic lost sea ice in the 1800’s, just like today. I understand that the alarmist crowd “adjusts” the temperature record. But since they cannot “adjust” John Daly’s site, they resort to labeling the historical record “outdated”. Lame.
And of course the entire site supports my position: everything we observe now is simply natural variability. There is no testable scientific evidence that supports the climate alarmist, CAGW conjecture. None. So the alarmist contingent resorts to psychological projection, blaming scientific skeptics for their own lack of evidence.
As John Daly states in his CONCLUSION:
In 1817 CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of declining sea ice, and all the wild-eyed arm waving and running around in circles by the alarmist crowd is simply misdirected: natural variability and the recovery from the LIA are fully sufficient to explain everything observed.
As Occam’s Razor warns, do not add extraneous variables such as harmless, beneficial CO2 to any explanation. Those extraneous variables give unscientific, and thus predictably wrong answers.
Smokey said
‘permanent flooding on the scale of Hurricane Irene’ is ‘routine climate variability’
Dekker asked :
Which Smokey answered with :
No, Smokey. By definition, I cannot have the scientific method backward by asking a question. That’s not how the scientific method works.
Self-proclaimed “skeptics” would have nothing to prove if they would only ask questions, and not make any statements. But in fact, even you make an enormous amount of statements which are not backed up by any evidence.
For example, even in that single post where you made the assertion that skeptics have nothing to prove, you said :
Neither which you back up by scientific evidence and thus, according to the scientific method, each of your statements can be discarded. THAT is how the scientific method works, and you know that, Smokey.