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.
Smokey says: “In addition to the dozens of eye witness observations that the Arctic was nearly ice free in recent times
————
Smokey may be referring to William Parry.
http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?BioId=38245
As you can read, locally ice free conditions encountered by an earlier expedition were used by Parry. He argued that the whole NW Passage would be ice free, to encourage the Admiralty, They took the bait and financed another try. It failed.
tjfolkerts says:
August 25, 2012 at 8:13 am
“So a few 1000 years ago, the insolation to the Arctic in the summer was higher and there would be good reason to expect less summer ice. But that is not the case today. You can’t appeal to “cycles” causing changes in the past when those cycles are not occurring now. That is logically equivalent to saying “day and night are cyclic, so daylight is perfectly natural and seeing sunlight at midnight could be attributed to natural cycles”.”
1) I will politely point out that (assuming) Arctic sunlight (insolation) has dramatically changed in the few years since Perry’s and other’s recent Arctic explorations is incorrect. We have NO data about the real Arctic ice cycles: length of the period, amount of the oscillation, most recent max – or minimum points, etc. You are projecting your “hopes” for Arctic warmth onto the sea ice area because that is the only remaining “evidence” you can use to further your CAGW agenda of catastrophic change.
But Arctic ocean temperatures where the sea ice edge is present have NOT changed, They are NOT increasing by 3 and 5 degrees as Hansen wants in his exaggerated projection of central Canada’s point measurements over the tundra out over the Arctic ocean.
See, what we DO have is a day-to-day measurement of temperatures by the DMI that proves there has been not only NO increase in Arctic summertime temperatures at all, but a slow DECREASE in Arctic temperatures up where the ice actually is: at 80 north.
2) Please be careful of your analogies. I will also point out that the sun DOES shine at midnight over the Arctic Ocean. Very cyclically. It also DOES NOT shine over the Arctic Ocean at noon. Very cyclically. 8<) You only need to be willing to look for the cycles.
Greenland’s melting seems to be following the Arctic sea ice into the record books.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/ccon-gmb081412.php
The press release is interesting, though it would have been better to see the data.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:27 am
“But Arctic ocean temperatures where the sea ice edge is present have NOT changed,”
——————–
Of course not. The sea ice edge follows the contour of air and sea temperature at which ice melts or forms. This will be pretty much the same wherever or whenever you look.Advance and retreat of the icepack takes place as this temperature contour moves with the seasons, with long term warming trends and weather producing long or short term variations.
Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Phil,
In addition to the dozens of eye witness observations that the Arctic was nearly ice free in recent times,
You have not shown any that demonstrate this.
there is evidence that the Arctic was periodically ice free 6,000 – 7,000 years ago.
Not quite, what your link actually says is: (their research) “suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.”
Not quite what you claim is it?
So forget your 800,000 year fantasy, it isn’t true. You cling to that preposterous notion because it supports your belief that humans are the cause of the current natural Arctic ice decline. The only problem with your belief is that it is wrong, as I’ve shown in the peer reviewed link above. I have more such links if you’re interested in learning.
It’s not my belief nor my fantasy but a quotation from a peer reviewed article which I linked. By the way what you linked to was a publicity piece not a peer reviewed article, but they will no doubt publish it sometime.
You are also wrong about the default position. Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis would help you understand. If you need yet another explanation of either one or both, just ask. I’m patient, and I’m here to help make the scales fall from your eyes.
If I needed a lesson on either the evidence on this site is that you are not qualified to give one.
You’ve yet to define a falsifiable null hypothesis on the subject of Arctic sea-ice despite repeated requests. Actually since the melting you refer to around 7,000 years ago occurred at a time when the summertime insolation in the Arctic was about 10% greater than now, Occam’s razor would suggest that an additional parameter is required to explain the present melting.
I’m also here to keep new readers from being swayed by anti-science, which is what you’re preaching. Anyone who looks at Holocene temperatures knows that prior warming episodes have been hotter than now, and thus Arctic ice would have receded more than currently.
I hardly think that’s your rôle here, rather the opposite!
Anyone with knowledge of Holocene temperatures will tell you that the graph that you linked is incorrectly labelled, the time axis should be with reference to 1950 not 2000 and that therefore the most recent 160 years aren’t included on it. Perhaps if you use it again you will point that out?
Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 8:47 pm
tjfolkerts,
Phil claims that the Arctic was never ice free over the past 800,000 years.
No I linked to a peer reviewed site which I quoted: “There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia”.
You seem to have reading comprehension problems Smokey.
You say: “Yes, there have been times when the Arctic truly was nearly ice-free — perhaps 10,000 years ago.”
So we are in agreement, and Phil is wrong as I made clear in my link to a peer reviewed study.
No you disagree with the peer reviewed link that I gave, but did not present a peer reviewed study, just a publicity article.
The fact is that Arctic ice cover comes and goes. It is cyclical.
On a multi-millennial timescale yes, but you have failed to demonstrate cyclical behavior on the recent timescale that we are addressing here.
And human activity has nothing to do with it. If I am wrong, then provide chapter and verse – per the scientific method – showing conclusively that human emitted CO2 is causing Arctic ice decline.
We are still waiting for the evidence which you claim exists in support of your position.
tjfolkerts says:
August 25, 2012 at 8:13 am
Smokey says: “Phil claims that the Arctic was never ice free over the past 800,000 years. ”
1) I looked back briefly thru this thread and found nothing to support that claim. Where does he say the Arctic has never been nearly ice free in the summer in the last 800,000 years? What “peer reviewed study” are you referring to?
Correct, see above.
2) You still are side-stepping any effort to support your claims that the Arctic has been nearly ice free any time within the recent past based on all those “eye witness reports.” Which specific year was nearly ice free? What reports show extensive melting over the entire Arctic basin?
Welcome to the Smokey two-step!
3) If you refer to “cycles” then you are referring not to random variations, but to specific cycles with specific causes. Nature is not simply random, after all. Climate does not change for no reason. So a few 1000 years ago, the insolation to the Arctic in the summer was higher and there would be good reason to expect less summer ice. But that is not the case today. You can’t appeal to “cycles” causing changes in the past when those cycles are not occurring now.
Quite so. However Smokey has been known to post in the same post that global temperature is falling but that CO2 is increasing in response to increasing global temperature!
RACookPE1978 says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:27 am
See, what we DO have is a day-to-day measurement of temperatures by the DMI that proves there has been not only NO increase in Arctic summertime temperatures at all, but a slow DECREASE in Arctic temperatures up where the ice actually is: at 80 north.
That temperature is not a “day-to-day measurement” rather it is calculated from a model: “The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area.”
RACookPE1978 says: August 25, 2012 at 9:27 am
“1) I will politely point out …
I’ve read the paragraph several times and I am still not sure what your point was. I’m not the one claiming there are “natural cycles” controlling the ice that have made it larger or smaller in the recent past. There are certainly long-term cycles in the orbit that have important effects, but those are not currently favorable for decreasing ice area.
“that proves there has been not only NO increase in Arctic summertime temperatures at all …”
Could you back those claims up with numbers? All I see is an unsupported claim. For example, here are the regression fits for surface temperatures (NOAA NCEP reanalysis results) from 70N-90N (larger than your restricted 80N-90N).
T_1 = - 224 + 0.0994 YEART_2 = - 166 + 0.0705 YEAR
T_3 = - 199 + 0.0883 YEAR
T_4 = - 281 + 0.133 YEAR
T_5 = - 175 + 0.0847 YEAR
T_6 = - 62.0 + 0.0316 YEAR
T_7 = - 56.2 + 0.0299 YEAR
T_8 = - 87.2 + 0.0447 YEAR
T_9 = - 208 + 0.102 YEAR
T_10 = - 333 + 0.161 YEAR
T_11 = - 291 + 0.136 YEAR
T_12 = - 256 + 0.116 YEAR
All of the slopes are statistically significant at the p<0.001 level. Clearly the summer slopes are smaller than the rest of the year, but the region IS still warming in the summer. It is possible that for your narrower region the summer temperatures are not rising, but I doubt that too (in fact I seem to recall doing that analysis too, and that the summer slopes were still upward, but not always statistically significant.)
Besides, why are you only interested in the summer? Why skip the entire "refreezing" season? warmer winter temperatures will reduce winter freezing, which in turn will allow easier summer melting. Melting is only 1/2 the story when it comes to the amount of ice around!
"2) Please be careful of your analogies…." I could point out that "midnight" means "middle of the night, so there would be no 'mid-night" if there is no night. But that sort of semantics is pretty pointless, as is your objection. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills will understand the intent and the appropriateness of the analogy.
Has anyone else put these together? One paper describes a decrease in Antarctic bottom water (AABW) in recent decades. The other describes a correalation between decreased AABW and hot arctic conditions in past interglacials. Together they provide a possible explaination for the successive record low ice extents in 2005, 2007 and 2012.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120320_antarcticbottomwater.html
Sorry, they should both work now.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120320_antarcticbottomwater.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/22/1102148/-Shocking-Interglacial-Shift-to-Hot-Arctic-Tied-to-Rapid-Antarctic-Ice-Melt
PS. Those fits above are by month.
>> T_1 = Temperature in January
>> T_2 = Temperature in February
I happened to choose dates starting 11/1978, when the satellite records of arctic ice started. I am sure other periods would show slightly different results.
Each month individually shows an upward trend, averaging close to 0.1 C/year, or about 3 C in the last 3 decades. The trend is lowest in summer and highest in fall.
I was one of those who mocked the prediction of an ice-free Arctic this summer. Now I’m wondering if the prediction was only one year off. When the melt starts next spring, the vast majority of the ice will be very thin first year ice, and will vanish quickly. I’m seriously starting to think that next summer at this time there will be nothing but open water in the Arctic. Zero ice.
Entropic, folkerts, phil., carlson, etc.:
Provide verifiable documentation/scientific evidence showing conclusively that human activities are the direct cause of declining Arctic ice…
…or admit that your impotent arm-waving is baseless conjecture. Running around in circles and exclaiming, “The sky is falling!” was already done by Chicken Little [Chicken Licken to our Brit cousins].
But it turned out that it was only an acorn. So go and try to scare someone else, it isn’t working here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. Because what you’re trying to sell isn’t science at all, it is simply baseless alarmist nonsense.
Prove me wrong! Post verifiable evidence showing conclusively that human actions are the cause of Arctic melt. Or admit that, like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you have no such scientific evidence at all, and that debunked alarmist conjecture is your only stock in trade.
Smokey says:
“Provide verifiable documentation/scientific evidence showing conclusively that human activities are the direct cause of declining Arctic ice…”
This is actually the best point you have made. When you are linking to questionable newspaper articles or mis-interpreting graphs, you are pretty much shooting yourself in the foot. When you insist that “natural cycles” are the cause, then you are making claims that you can’t substantiate. We quickly point out that you never follow up to support those claims. But as long as you are asking for evidence, then you are forcing others to make their case, rather than giving us the easy job of refuting your claims or pointing out glaring problems in the graphs you post. .
Frankly, I don’t know that there is simple conclusive proof to present you (especially since you acknowledge limited knowledge of physics and statistics). The arguments are subtle. The data is less complete than anyone would like. There is no single “smoking gun”. There are simply lots of pieces that (mostly) fit together, pointing to CO2 as a significant cause of warming, and that warming being a significant factor in the disappearance of the ice. (BTW, even if “soot” is a major cause, that is still at least partly “human activities”.)
Determining how MUCH of the effect is from human CO2 or human soot is a more challenging scientific problem. Determining how “catastrophic” it might become is an even more challenging scientific (and political and economic) question. Here I have a lot of problems with much of the “alarmist” crowd.
“Or admit that, like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you have no such scientific evidence at all, and that debunked alarmist conjecture is your only stock in trade.”
And then you revert to your old ways, making a wild unsupported claim using a false dichotomy (ie that if the evidence is not 100% conclusive in your reckoning, then the only other choice is for it to be “debunked alarmist conjecture”. )
PS. Your OTHER good point is that (everything else being equal) more CO2 is general good for plants.
Smokey says:
Entropic, folkerts, phil., carlson, etc.:
Provide verifiable documentation/scientific evidence showing conclusively that human activities are the direct cause of declining Arctic ice…
————————————————————————————————————-
Huh??? I don’t believe man-made co2 is the cause. I don’t know how many times I have to say that. Maybe it’s soot from China’s coal mills. But it’s STILL alarming whats happening in the Arctic.
And we have to remember the melt started slow this season. If it had gotten off to as fast a start as it usually does, the Arctic would look a lot worse than it already does, which is already bad.
So much melting confusion……the extend of the Arctic/Antarctic melted down in the
18/19/20 century, because of 300 years of temps higher than the LIA. There is a
threshold of temperature: If we are globally above as has been for 300 years, this
extend MUST melt back, which we witness….
Let’s all wait for next LIA and the ice extent will get larger again…
Smokey says:
August 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Entropic, folkerts, phil., carlson, etc.:
Provide verifiable documentation/scientific evidence showing conclusively that human activities are the direct cause of declining Arctic ice…
Why, we’re not making that assertion here? You came on this thread running round in circles and making unsupported, baseless assertions such as “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.”
In response to that several of us pointed out the error of your ways and that the cites which you claim supported your position do not do so, in fact you frequently misquoted them.
Because what you’re trying to sell isn’t science at all, it is simply baseless alarmist nonsense.
I’m not trying to sell anything, just rebutting your fallacious arguments, that is science!
Prove me wrong!
We already have, your repeated assertions that the current melting is cyclical and part of ‘natural variation’ have been shown to be false. Your references to evidence “that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s. have been shown to be baseless. So yes you’ve been proved wrong, and when pressed on certain statements have consistently failed to do so (usually you just ignore them or try to change the subject).
Post verifiable evidence showing conclusively that human actions are the cause of Arctic melt. Or admit that, like the rest of the alarmist crowd, you have no such scientific evidence at all, and that debunked alarmist conjecture is your only stock in trade.
Why? We’ve proved you wrong, we don’t need to rub it in! You’ve failed to make a case for your assertion so try to make a better case for it next time. Scientific evidence presented here shows that orbital variations would be expected to lead to a reduction in Arctic sea-ice now not an increase, also those who posit a link between solar activity (aka sunspots) would expect a current cooling, and yet the sea ice continues to decline to record lows. Eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic sea-ice has never been seen to be this low before.
Phil. says:
“You came on this thread running round in circles and making unsupported, baseless assertions such as Arctic temperatures average far below freezing.”
So then Phil’s position is that Arctic temperatures average above freezing? Phil appears to be nuts.
And note that it is the alarmist crowd that is making the unsupported, baseless assertions without any scientific evidence. Their belief in CAGW is sufficient. Skeptics, on the other hand, only say: “Prove it.” Or at least provide convincing scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. But there is no such evidence. There is only true belief.
Smokey says: “So then Phil’s position is that Arctic temperatures average above freezing? Phil appears to be nuts.”
Smokey, once again you display a lack of critical thinking skills and/or ability to understand the context of your own statements! In context, here is the statement.
In context, you are rebutting the idea that ” increased temperatures melt sea ice”. Your argument seems to be:
1) Arctic temperatures are still well below freezing on average, even with global warming (which is true).
2) Since the average temperatures are still well below freezing on average, it is nuts to believe that ” that minuscule change is melting the Arctic ice cap” (which is false).
For one thing, the change is greater near the poles. For another, those small changes reduce the freezing around the edge, and reduce the winter thickness. Those small changes will melt the ice more quickly in the spring and summer, too. Those small changes will bring warmer water up the Gulf Stream to melt the ice from below. These effects are cumulative, so small, consistent change can eventually bring large results.
Anyone who
believesDOUBTS that minuscule change is melting the Arctic ice cap is nuts. (Other factors like soot could ALSO be contributing, but the warming is clearly a major factor in how well water will melt and freeze!)Looks like you struck out again. And you STILL haven’t even tried to defend your assertion that “eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s. ” Where are all those eyewitness accounts that both the NE and NW passages were open in 1958? Where are the reports that all of those Russian islands north of Siberia were completely ice-free? Where are the reports that almost the entire Arctic Ocean south of 80N is open water?
T. Folkerts says:
“…you STILL haven’t even tried to defend your assertion that “eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s.”
I have repeatedly posted the link to Steve Goddard’s article, in which he linked to literally dozens of independent eyewitness observations of previous Arctic melting. Go find them, I’m not going to keep linking for someone with incurable cognitive dissonance to complain about. If it was one or two newspaper accounts, you might have a credible argument. But there are scores of accounts, and I have even more if that would convince you. Fat chance, eh? Beliefs are tough; martyrs die for them. So a few dozen observations will never convince you of anything, your mind is made up.
I have also linked to peer reviewed papers reporting evidence of an ice-free Arctic during the Holocene. Go find them, too, and argue with the authors. Your baseless belief system is too strong for me. A new Ice Age could begin, and you would be making the same arguments.
I agree that the planet is warming — naturally. It is still emerging from the LIA. What I do not accept is the central argument: that human CO2 emissions are the cause. As I have repeatedly shown, CO2 is an effect of warming. The net effect of global warming is the emission of more CO2. Any minuscule warming that might be caused by CO2 is far outweighed by the effect of rising temperature, which causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans just like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke. But there is no grant money in that explanation, so the alarmist crowd flogs an explanation that is not supported by any verifiable data.
An ice-free Arctic is not unusual. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it. That is simply a religious belief with no verifiable, testable evidence to support it. Wind, waves, warmer ocean currents, and storms are the primary causes of cyclical sea ice.
I will think differently only if and when you can post testable, measurable raw data showing that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of declining Arctic ice. Beliefs do not work here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. We need testable evidence, per the scientific method. But all the available evidence shows that the planet began to naturally warm following the LIA, and it has continued to warm at about the same rate ever since. There is no room for anthropogenic CO2 in the data. It is a bogus explanation invented to support taxes on “carbon”.
And until/unless Phil. admits that on average the Arctic is below freezing, I will assume he’s nuts, and therefore not worth debating. Phil can believe that nonsense, but those of us who haven’t gone off the deep end know there is Arctic ice because the average temperature there is below 0ºC. Freezing temps = ice. See?
And finally, a question for Richard Carlson:
What’s the problem?
“I have repeatedly posted the link to Steve Goddard’s article, in which he linked to literally dozens of independent eyewitness observations of previous Arctic melting. Go find them”
That’s not my job! That would be like me saying “the evidence for AGW is posted all over the internet — go find it”. You can’t just blast 100’s of articles and say “somewhere in there is the required information — maybe — I hope”. I KNOW there are “literally dozens ” of reports of SCATTERED, LOCAL, TEMPORARY melting. YOU are claiming that there are patterns of ice melt in the last few centuries that match current conditions, yet out of all YOUR reports, you can’t find the information to back your claims.
“But there are scores of accounts, and I have even more if that would convince you. ”
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are too lazy to make your own point! Go for it — convince me! Read your own links; condense out the best articles; show us documentation from ONE YEAR that was “nearly ice-free” as you have claimed repeatedly. Then we all can examine the evidence and look for further evidence to support or refute your claim. 1958 seems to be a favorite year — what evidence do you have for the Arctic being “nearly ice free” for that year?
“An ice-free Arctic is not unusual. It has happened before”
Yes! But that was thousands (or millions!) of years ago when conditions were different (insolation and/or CO2 specifically). No one is arguing with you that such a condition has occurred occasionally LONG BEFORE YOUR “EYEWITNESS” accounts”. If 1958 was indeed “nearly ice free” then the current conditions would be less impressive. What convinces you that 1958 was nearly ice free? (And complaining about Phil being wrong about something else is not evidence that you are right on this issue. 😉 )