PART1 – (part 2 comes later today is NOW ONLINE HERE)
I’ve been noting with some humor the anticipation of a new Arctic sea ice extent minimum in the Alarmosphere. Yesterday, the frustration that there hasn’t been any major announcement yet bubbled to the surface in the form of a Michael Mann tweet, who was upset that NSIDC is making him wait:
Today though, looking at the NSIDC extent graph, he seems happy, declaring it “official”:
NSIDC made an announcement a few minutes ago, just as I started writing this post (and for that reason I’m publishing this post in two parts, see below):
Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents.
Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).
Here’s the plot, annotation mine:
Predictably, Seth Borenstein is already practicing for the big story he’ll be writing any minute now, and, the money quote he uses is just as predictable:
Data center scientist Ted Scambos says the melt can be blamed mostly on global warming from man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Neither Borenstein nor NSIDC’s current announcement mentions the massive Arctic storm that broke up huge amounts of sea ice, making this new record low possible. NSIDC said on August 14th:
As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss.
Unclear? Hmmph. Further down they dub it: “The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012” and provide this before and after image:
Figure 4. These maps of sea ice concentration from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) passive microwave sensor highlight the very rapid loss of ice in the western Arctic (northwest of Alaska) during the strong Arctic storm. Magenta and purple colors indicate ice concentration near 100%; yellow, green, and pale blue indicate 60% to 20% ice concentration.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy IUP Bremen
Calling the reason “unclear” seems more than a bit disingenuous to me, especially when you don’t mention it again.
It should be noted that in the ARCUS sea ice forecast submitted on August 5th, both NSIDC and WUWT forecasts agreed at 4.5 million sqkm. Clearly NSIDC didn’t expect this storm nor its effects, because if they had, their forecast would have been much lower.
In part two of this post, later today, I’ll share some other interesting things I’ve found that suggests NSIDC and the media aren’t telling you the full story right now.
No, you’re confused, as I demonstrated in my previous post, it is you that makes no sense.
Even if we were to accept that you’re conflicting claims that Arctic sea ice was increasing in 2010 and that there was no Arctic Sea trend in 2010 were both valid and not the arrant nonsense it patently is, your defence is precluded by your own words:
You attribute the 2012 Arctic sea ice loss to an ongoing, but unspecified and unevidenced, warming trend that started at the end of the LIA. Unless you contend the LIA ended in 2011 conditions have not changed.
This must be your favourite goto ad hom when called on a particularly specious piece of reasoning:
You apologised for resorting to ad hom on that occasion, but it appears your apologies are as worthless as your predictions.
vukcevic says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Entropic man says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm
…..
No mystery, temperature changes in the seas north of Greenland – Scotland ridge is not determined by short summer irradiation or CO2, but by the warm currents inflow. In the open seas warm inflow raises air temperature and in the iced area melts ice from below.
Temperature of the inflow is determined by the AMO (N.Atlantic SST) which happens to be at the multi-decadal peak , and may stay at high values for up to another decade (has 9 year short cycle) but it is expected than to fall back due to medium term 64-5 year cycle. Is there a longer centuries long cycle, it is not known.
————————-
Blaming the whole melting on the AMO is a useful hypothesis in the short term, but would require previous warming /cooling cycles to appear on the same timetable. The previous AMO peak would be in the 1950’s and the record should show low ice in the 1950s. Unfortunately the record shows sustained large extents.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png
Based on data from icebreaker observations to PIOMAS models, scientists have been reporting for years that the quality and volume of Arctic ice are declining faster than area or extent, so the latter measures understate the downward trend of arctic sea ice. WUWT writers and readers regularly dismissed or ridiculed such statements (PIOMAS is “only a model”; Barber’s description of “rotten” ice was absurd). But if this August storm so strongly affected the ice area, that gives yet another confirmation that PIOMAS, Barber and most arctic scientists were right all along, while WUWT was wrong. Arctic ice has been weakening faster than even the exponential decline in area suggested.
Entropic man says: August 28, 2012 at 3:48 am
Blaming the whole melting on the AMO is a useful hypothesis in the short term, but would require previous warming /cooling cycles to appear on the same timetable.
Hey slow down, this is not melt of one year ice only, there is also multidecadal factor.
For the 1950’s melt (lower layers) were built up in previous decades since 1920s which were colder than 1970s from which some of the present ice may date.
N. Atlantic SST on average was 0.2C higher in 1970s than in 1920s, and same is now SST in 2010s is 0.2C higher than in 1950s. We know about 9 year and very probable 64-65 year cycle, but it is not known if there is some longer term natural oscillation.
In next 30+ years we could expect the SST to drop by about 0.5C to bring it to 0.2C above 1970’s level, and then again in following 30+ years i.e. around 2075 to be a 0.2C above present values.
If you are concerned about future you should be more concerned about prospect of 0.5C fall in the next 2-3 decades, than a rise by 0.2C in 65 years time. The AGW believers recognize the existence of the AMO cycle, but to their peril they ignore its consequences.
What happens when ice over underlying warmer water get broken up by a strong storm and is transformed into ice slush?
It cools down the temperature of the water. Heat content doesn’t increase.
http://pulverizedtonearpower.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/pulverized-to-near-power/
Gneiss says:
August 28, 2012 at 4:49 am
The problem is, the leap to “Co2 and fossil fuels are the cause” happens to be over a shark.
Entropic man, your analogy statement re: belief in God is not appropriate in this debate and earns you no marks for the effort. You could restate the series of sentences with “snake oil” instead of God and “not get healed”. Read that way you get my meaning of why the belief in God statement does not fit the current debate in any way that would earn marks.
Building backyard underground nuclear shelter fortresses popular in the 40’s and 50’s would make a good analogy. And we all know how that turned out. The vast majority of folks did not build shelters but the government had nuclear signs all over the place and had school children hiding under their desks during drills designed to simulate a nuclear bomb emergency. Wonder why they did all that now that we know the real risk of such an attack was knowingly way over-stated by said government.
What happened to my post? It may be in the junk bin because of my mention of nuclear emergencies.
David Ball writes:
“The problem is, the leap to “Co2 and fossil fuels are the cause” happens to be over a shark.”
For as long as I’ve watched WUWT, people here have been confidently predicting global cooling, or arctic ice recovery, warning sternly about cycles and the danger of a coming ice age.
Most scientists have been predicting further greenhouse-induced warming, led by arctic amplification.
Warming has continued, led by arctic amplification. Who jumped the shark?
Gneiss:
For as long as I’ve watched
WUWTRealClimate and its clones, people there have been confidently predicting catastrophic runaway global warming, or complete arctic ice disappearance, warning sternly about the danger ofa coming ice agehuman-caused thermageddon. [There. Fixed it for you.]The difference is that WUWT allows all points of view, while the alarmist blogs censor the views of scientific skeptics. Thus, they are feeding their echo chamber readers false alarmist propaganda. But as readers here know, ALL the scientific evidence supports the skeptical position. NONE of the scientific evidence supports your false climate alarm. Only your discredited belief system keeps you going. That is not science, that is mindless partisan advocacy. You’re good at it. But it is about as scientific as Scientology.
Gneiss says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:27 am
………
Not necessarily, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is another AMO mini-cycle of 9-10 years of warm water inflow into the Arctic ocean, which could mean even lower Arctic summer ice coverage (since the old ice is now melting too), after that the AMO will be on its way down, and the new ice will increase rapidly.
Humanity would more benefit from less summer ice in the Arctic than from a permanently frozen one.
Smokey writes:
“The difference is that WUWT allows all points of view, while the alarmist blogs censor the views of scientific skeptics.”
Untrue, I and many others have been censored on WUWT, as you well know.
But a real difference between WUWT and the science blogs is that so far as I know, only on WUWT is a moderator’s sock puppet one of the highest-volume posters.
Gneiss,
Quit misrepresenting. You’re not very believable as it is.
There is a big difference between having your comment snipped or deleted for violating site Policy, and the outright censorship that RealClimate, ClosedMind, tamina, and similar blogs practice. The reason that WUWT leaves them in the dust is exactly because WUWT does not censor contrary points of view. As we see in your comments here.
Of course the Arctic sea ice is going to recover. That’s why all the major oil companies are investing billions of dollars in prospecting for oil and gas in the arctic ocean.
Please pull you head out of the sand…
Entropic man says:
August 28, 2012 at 11:41 am
The record shows there was no 1950s melt.
Do you have records going back to 1920s, or are you saying that prior to 1950 the Arctic ice was always constant regardless of the SST?
If so, than your reasoning does not make much sense. Even the ‘hockey stick’ Mann recognizes fact that 1920s SST was 0.5 -0.6C lower than in 1945
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
noticeable higher than my own reconstruction would have it, but then he went ‘nuts’ with his reconstruction in the late 1980s.
I wander how the Lord will spin this in his presentations. It has been in the past “arctic ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”, perhaps it will change to “Arctic ice is just fine, returning to its normal 73.2 year cycle level”.
@ur momisugly Smokey
I have been reading your posts on this thread to also other people. You are constantly talking about science and the scientific method:
“But as readers here know, ALL the scientific evidence supports the skeptical position.”
Tell me where are your scientific sources when people ask you to proof your claims. You haven’t been able to show us one shred of scientific evidence for your claims so far. And the “proof” you give us contradicts your claims as I have clearly shown you.
Once again: What does Astrid Lyså think which forces could be responsible for the current trend in the Arctic Ocean? Please show us the scientific evidence that the current trend is entirely natural and that Lyså has it all wrong?
Robbie,
I guess I will have to hand-hold you. Here is solid, empirical evidence showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow temperature changes. That chart is much more than a “shred” of evidence; it deconstructs the entire CAGW myth. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore that chart is scientific data-based evidence proving that rises in CO2 are the net result of warming, not the cause. And that same cause and effect is seen on all time scales, out to hundreds of millennia.
You can reject all such real world evidence. But if you do that means you are operating on belief, not on science.
Finally, neither I nor most scientific skeptics are claiming to know all the causes of Arctic ice fluctuations. You simply have it backward: it is the alarmist crowd that is claiming that human-emitted CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice declines. Since that is your conjecture, prove it. Or admit you don’t know the reasons, either.
Smokey writes:
“I guess I will have to hand-hold you. Here is solid, empirical evidence showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow temperature changes. That chart is much more than a “shred” of evidence; it deconstructs the entire CAGW myth.”
Smokey, the reason you are not a “scientific skeptic,” and your condescending polemical style gets no respect at more science-aware sites, is that you have no knowledge of or interest in the actual scientific research, which does not consist of waving internet graphs and blog talking points.
The feedbacks between temperature and CO2 suggested by paleo data, including those antarctic ice cores, have been analyzed and discussed by scientists in many research papers. If you knew that you would also know that scientists have not rejected the antarctic data, and its findings in no way challenge the evidence for modern greenhouse-driven change.
Very briefly: other things beside greenhouse gases affect the climate. Volcanic, solar, orbital and geographic factors can be important as well, which all scientists know. Those factors cannot account for the rapid modern change, but certainly played roles in past change (such as ice ages). Once climate starts warming for any reason, greenhouse gas release (from ocean degassing, permafrost thaw, for example) tends to kick in as a positive feedback, so there is more warming than orbital etc. factors could produce alone. In some paleo episodes, massive greenhouse release apparently was the kickoff factor; in other instances it simply followed and extended warming that initially began for other reasons.
Steven Mosher said
You will know your are struggling with that fact if you.
1. start to question every metric you’ve relied on in the past.
2. change the topic to the south pole.
3. Blame things that cant melt ice ( like wind). heat melts ice.
4. search around feverishly for one chart that supports your position.
5. Forget your own mistakes and focus on others.
A real skeptic would shrug his shoulders and say.. “Sure there is less ice, sure warmer temps plays a role, but we have no knowledge about why its warmer” That’s at least a defensible position. No knowledge is a standard skeptical position. But if you find yourself twisting and turning to reject the fact that there is less ice, well then..you might want to consider.. what would you say if there was zero ice. You better think about that argument because you’ll have to make it in the not too distant future.
————————–
The strange thing is that i have also said for the past few years that there is less ice and also I don’t know what causes it, possibly man made CO2 helps, and yet, although i am just interested in ice melt, because i post that people claim I am an AGW activist and then put spin on my words.
I have a liking for scientists. I think they do a good job, I find it great with the web and them posting on web sites lots of charts and posting on blogs, so when I defend them on allowing me to partake in a little hobby then once again I am an AGW alarmist.
I really resent that.
Andy
Gneiss says:
“…there is more warming than orbital etc. factors could produce alone.”
Absolutely, provably false. And cherrypickig “orbital factors” is a typical strawman fallacy: I never wrote about orbital factors. But you set that strawman up and knocked him right down, you brave strawman killer.
The natural warming observed today is very mild by Holocene standards. The planet has warmed – and cooled – <imuch more in the past, when CO2 levels were much lower. Thus, CO2 is not the cause. I have posted scientific evidence showing conclusively that changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature, while you have only posted your personal beliefs.
And I liked your “kickoff factor”. Where’d you get that, from a comic book? The fact is that nothing observed today is any different from past observations. Therefore the reasonable explanation is the null hypothesis: what is happening today is what has happened in the past. Your true belief in “carbon” as a cause is just that: a belief. It has no credible scientific evidence to support it. But beliefs do not need evidence. The belief is fully sufficient in itself.
Finally, you do not even understand what a scientific skeptic is, therefore you have no authority to label anyone else. Skeptics simply say: “Prove it.” Or at least provide solid, verifiable and testable scientific evidence showing that human produced CO2 causes global warming. Your abject failure in that regard is evident in the lack of scientific evidence supporting your beliefs. But as I pointed out, beliefs do not require evidence.
“ALL the scientific evidence supports the skeptical position. NONE of the scientific evidence supports your false climate alarm.”
Really? Out of all the thousands of paper’s that have been published on the subject, not a single one contradicts your position? Such blind certainty must be comforting.
Let’s ignore the obvious non sequitur (just because increasing temperatures cause CO² levels to rise, it does not follow that Increasing CO² levels cannot cause temperatures to rise – a thing can be both a forcing and a feedback – you might as well argue that because eggs are a product of chickens, chickens cannot be a product of eggs) and ask a question:
IF, as you contend, rising CO² levels are a product of increasing temperatures AND, as you also contend, there has been no warming for 15 years, THEN, bearing in mind your “solid, empirical evidence” does not show any 15 year lags, HOW do you explain CO² levels rising for the last 15 years?
Black carbon linked to half of Arctic warming
Oh, soot!
New Earth-Moving UN Study Says Half Of Arctic Warming Caused By Soot (And Not CO2)!
Impure as the Driven Snow
*sigh*
Such moaning about the melting ice cubes. Such whining about Smokey and others being unscientific and ignoring the literature for not admitting the Arctic sea ice loss is due to greenhouse gases, as in CO₂ (with its positive feedbacks).
So many moaners and whiners who won’t accept or even recognize the literature showing the importance of soot in the Arctic sea ice losses. If there is a “tipping point” causing increased losses, soot is it, pushing the Arctic off of what would otherwise be the natural cycles.
Except soot is largely only a temporary problem, that’ll mostly go away when Russia and Asia clean up their emissions from fuel burning, leading to much more favorable conditions for sea ice accumulation.
But the narrative is human GHG emissions are to blame, namely CO₂, and costly alterations to society, losses to freedom, and massive wealth transfers are immediately required to save the entire planet.
So the moaners and whiners will come here, ignore the scientific literature laying the blame on soot, and claim we are the ones rejecting the science.
Oh well. Guess I’ll just write it off as a tribute to the popularity of this site that they consider it worthwhile to come here to attempt to proselytize the heathens into the CAGW faith. Hooray for us.