By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
In making a couple upgrades to the Sea Ice Page, I made a few observations, and a few questions arose.
Firstly, several weeks ago the following exchange occurred on a Sea Ice News thread:
Rod Everson says: August 4, 2012 at 7:48 am
Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean? I think that would be useful given the volume of traffic you get and the many times that various seas are referred to by name in the comments. I just spent several minutes Googling the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and never did get to a map that had the full layout of both seas. Thanks for considering this. (And if it’s already on the site somewhere, could someone will post its location?–If it is on the site already, moving it to the Sea Ice Page, or duplicating it there would seem logical, by the way.)
[REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]
As many of you know, WUWT moderator Robert Phelan, aka REP, passed away less than a week later. It is with honor and appreciation that I’ve added the map Bob suggested to the WUWT Sea Ice Page at the head of the Northern Regional Sea Ice section and tagged it accordingly. Thank you for your many contributions REP.
Secondly, I’ve added the following Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly map;
to the Sea Ice Page and noted that there are some quite large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic at present. They appear to centered in four primary areas, the coasts of the Beaufort, Laptev and Kara Seas, as well as the middle of Baffin Bay. There are a multitude of potential explanations these anomalies, let’s take them individually.
1. There’s Less Sea Ice in these areas at present. Both Arctic Sea Ice Extent:
and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area;
are currently at their lowest points on the 34 year satellite record. Any areas that were partially or completely were covered with sea ice in prior years, and have now become ice free, would be more likely to have positive Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. It is not clear from the NOAA/ National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction Sea Surface Temperature website what the base period for the Real-Time Global (RTG) Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies show above is. Bob Tisdale notes that, “NOAA uses the base period of 1971-2000 for sea surface temperature anomalies for its ERSST.v3b and Reynolds OI.v2 data.” If you know what base period is used for the Real-Time Global (RTG) temperature anomalies, please post a link to it in comments below. Base period aside, viewing this Arctic Sea Ice animation;
it appears that most of the areas with large anomalies, were reasonably ice free during this time-frame in the majority of years of the 34 year satellite record, however there are places like the Kara Sea;
which appears bereft of Sea Ice this year. Per the animation above, sea ice clearly encroached much more into many of these areas in prior years, and thus the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice is likely a factor in the current large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
2.An “Unusually Strong Storm” that;
“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.”
“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.'” NASA
Interestingly, Beaufort Sea Ice Extent;
appears to have dropped precipitously between August 14th and 19th, and Chukchi Sea Ice Extent;
appears to have dropped precipitously between August 25th and 28th, both drops being the steepest in the very brief 5 year record. This lends some support to the potential influence of the storm. However, Beaufort Sea Ice Area;
and Chukchi Sea Ice Area;
appear to have experienced a reasonably precipitous summer decline each year of the prior decade, casting doubt on the degree influence of the 2012 storm on the precipitous declines it the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Regardless an “unusually strong storm” that was “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” is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies we currently see.
3. Albedo Feedback is another possible factor in the large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic:
“Viewed in its simplest sense, initial warming will melt some of the Arctic’s highly reflective (high albedo) snow and ice cover, exposing darker underlying surfaces that readily absorb solar energy, leading to further warming and further retreat of snow and ice cover. This feedback can work in reverse whereby initial cooling leads to expansion of the Arctic’s snow and ice cover, leading to further whereby the loss of high albedo/solar energy reflective sea ice exposes low albedo/solar energy absorbing sea water.”
“However, as developed below, Arctic amplification as is presently understood has a suite of causes, operating on different temporal and spatial scales. Prominent among these are expansion or retreat of the Arctic sea ice cover altering vertical heat fluxes between the Arctic Ocean and the overlying atmosphere (Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a,b), changes in atmospheric and oceanic heat flux convergence (Hurrell, 1996; Graversen et al., 2008; Chylek et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2010), and changes in cloud cover and water vapor content that affect the downward longwave radiation flux (Francis and Hunter, 2006) arising from processes either within the Arctic or in response to alterations in atmospheric energy flux
convergence (Abbot et al., 2009; Graversen and Wang, 2009). Other studies point to impacts of soot on snow (Hansen and Nazarenko, 2004) and of heat absorbing black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere (Shindell and Faluvegi, 2009). Different processes can work together. For example, a change in atmospheric heat flux convergence that leads to warming may result in reduced sea ice extent that furthers the warming.” Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis – Mark C. Serreze and Roger G. Barry
Regardless of the other factors involved in Arctic Amplification, Albedo Feedback is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic.
4. Anthropogenically Warmed River Discharge is another potential factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic. For example, a portion of the Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly in the Beaufort Sea;
appears to be coincident with the Mackenzie River delta. A satellite image from June 13th, 2012;
shows tendrils of runoff from the Mackenzie River reaching out into the Beaufort Sea. It is possible that River Discharge from the Mackenzie River has been warmed by anthropogenic influences, e.g.;
“As of 2001, approximately 397,000 people lived in the Mackenzie River basin”
“the heaviest use of the watershed is in resource extraction – oil and gas in central Alberta, lumber in the Peace River headwaters, uranium in Saskatchewan, gold in the Great Slave Lake area and tungsten in the Yukon.”
“Although the entire main stem of the Mackenzie River is undammed, many of its tributaries and headwaters have been developed for hydroelectricity production, flood control and agricultural purposes.”
“The river discharges more than 325 cubic kilometres (78 cu mi) of water each year, accounting for roughly 11% of the total river flow into the Arctic Ocean. The Mackenzie’s outflow holds a major role in the local climate above the Arctic Ocean with large amounts of warmer fresh water mixing with the cold seawater.” Wikipedia – Mackenzie River
“Oil and gas development is already extensive in the basin, primarily in the Alberta and BC portions, and much more is expected in the future. For example, a proposal to develop the vast natural gas reserves that are found in the Mackenzie Delta is currently being evaluated. This will require the development of a pipeline along the Mackenzie, which will also facilitate development of gas resources in NWT (GNWT 2007). Perhaps the most significant current fossil energy development at this time is the oil sands (also known as the “tar sands”) in Alberta, near the City of Fort McMurray (Figure 1). An estimated 300 billion barrels of recoverable fossil energy is found in these deposits (MRBB 2003). Development is proceeding rapidly. At the end of 2009, four mines were in operation, with three additional mines approved or under development. In 2008, these projects were producing 1.3 million barrels/day. Production of 3 million barrels/day is expected by 2018, with 2030 production levels reaching 5 million barrels/day by 2030 (Holroyd and Simieritsch 2009; Government of Alberta 2010).”TRANSBOUNDARY WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE MACKENZIE RIVER BASIN, CANADA – Rob C. de Loë –
It is also of note that;
“The Beaufort Sea contains major gas and petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope.[12] The Beaufort Sea was first explored for sub-shelf hydrocarbons in the 1950s and estimated to contain about 250 km3 (60 cu mi) of oil and 300,000 km3 (72,000 cu mi) of natural gas under its coastal shelf. Offshore drilling began in 1972; about 70 wells were set up by 1980s[28] and 200 wells by 2000.[29]” Wikipedia – Beaufort Sea
In terms of the Laptev Sea
“The mighty Lena River, with its great delta, is the biggest river flowing into the Laptev Sea, and is the second largest river in the Russian Arctic after Yenisei. Other important rivers include the Khatanga, the Anabar, the Olenyok or Olenek, the Omoloy and the Yana.”
“The Laptev Sea is a major source of arctic sea ice. With an average outflow of 483,000 km2 per year over the period 1979–1995, it contributes more sea ice than the Barents Sea, Kara Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea combined. Over this period, the annual outflow fluctuated between 251,000 km2 in 1984–85 and 732,000 km2 in 1988–89. The sea exports substantial amounts of sea ice in all months but July, August and September.”
“Most of the river runoff (about 70% or 515 km3/year) is contributed by the Lena River. Other major contributions are from Khatanga (more than 100 km3), Olenyok (35 km3), Yana (>30 km3) and Anabar (20 km3), with other rivers contributing about 20 km3. Owing to the ice melting seasoning, About 90% of the annual runoff occurs between June and September with 35–40% in August alone, whereas January contributes only 5%.”
“The sea is characterized by the low water temperatures, which ranges from −1.8 °C (28.8 °F) in the north to −0.8 °C (30.6 °F) in the south-eastern parts. The medium water layer is warmer, up to 1.5 °С because it is fed by the warm Atlantic waters. It takes them 2.5–3 years to reach the Laptev Sea from their formation near Spitsbergen.[3] The deeper layer is colder at about −0.8 °С. In summer, the surface layer in the ice-free zones warms up by the sun up to 8–10 °С in the bays and 2–3 °С in the open sea, and remains close to 0 °С under ice. The water salinity is significantly affected by the thawing of ice and river runoff. The latter amounts to about 730 km3 and would form a 135 cm freshwater layer over the entire sea; it is the second largest in the world after the Kara sea. The salinity values vary in winter from 20–25‰ (parts per thousand) in the south-east to 34‰ in the northern parts of the sea; it decreases in summer to 5–10‰ and 30–32‰ respectively.”
“Sea currents form a cyclone consisting of the southward stream near Severnaya Zemlya which reaches the continental coast and flows along it from west to east. It is then amplified by the Lena River flow and diverts to the north and north-west toward the Arctic Ocean. A small part of the cyclone leaks through the Sannikov Strait to the East Siberian Sea. The cyclone has a speed of 2 cm/s which is decreasing toward the center. The center of the cyclone drifts with time that slightly alters the flow character.” Wikipedia – Laptev Sea
“Ye et al. (2003) and Yang et al. (2004) recently studied the effect of reservoir regulations in the Lena and Yenisei basins. They found that, for instance, because of a large dam in the Lena River basin, summer peak discharge in the Vului valley (a tributary in the west Lena basin) has been reduced by 10%–80%, and winter low flow has been increased by 7–120 times during the cold months. They also reported that, because of influences of large reservoirs, discharge records collected at the Lena and Yenisei basin outlets do not always represent natural changes and variations; they tend to underestimate the natural runoff trends in summer and overestimate the trends in both winter and fall seasons. Operations of large reservoirs may also affect annual flow regime particularly during and immediately after the dam construction (Ye et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2004).Discharge Characteristics and Changes over the Ob River Watershed in Siberia
In terms of the Kara Sea;
“The Ob and Yenisei Rivers in north-central Russia are among the larger rivers that drain into the Arctic Ocean, though past research suggested that they do not necessarily carry as much organic matter and sediment as other rivers. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard the Aqua satellite acquired this image of the rivers as they dumped tan sediments and dark brown dissolved organic material (DOM) into the Kara Sea on June 29, 2012.” River Outflow to the Kara Sea
The Yenisei;
“is the largest river system flowing to the Arctic Ocean. It is the central of the three great Siberian rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean (the other two being the Ob River and the Lena River).”
“The upper reaches, subject to rapids and flooding, pass through sparsely populated areas. The middle section is controlled by a series of massive hydroelectric dams fueling significant Russian primary industry. Partly built by gulag labor in Soviet times, industrial contamination remains a serious problem in an area hard to police. Moving on through sparsely-populated taiga, the Yenisei swells with numerous tributaries and finally reaches the Kara Sea in desolate tundra where it is icebound for more than half the year.”
“The Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam is located on the Yenisei River, near Sayanogorsk in Khakassia, Russia. It is the largest power plant in Russia and the sixth-largest hydroelectric plant in the world, by average power generation.”
Another tributary, the Tuul passes through the Mongolian capital, Ulan Bator while the Egiin Gol drains Lake Khövsgöl (500 km) downstream, where the 124 m (407 ft) dam built in the 1960s produces 4500 MW. The resultant reservoir is nicknamed Dragon Lake because of its outline. The tributary Oka and Iya rivers, which rise on the north slopes of the Eastern Sayan Mountains, form the ‘jaws’ and 400 km (250 mi) of the Angara forms the ‘tail’. There are newer dams almost as large at Ust-Ilimsk 250 km (155 mi) downstream (also damming the tributary Ilim river) and Boguchany a further 400 km (250 mi) downstream (not operational). Further dams are planned but the environmental consequences of completely taming the Angara are leading to protests which may prevent funding.
Angarsk, the center of the expanding Eastern Siberian oil industry and site of a huge Yukos-owned refinery, lies 50 km (31 mi) downstream of Irkutsk. A major pipeline takes oil west, and a new one is being built to carry oil east for supply to Japan from the Sea of Japan port of Nakhodka. The exact potential of Eastern Siberia is unknown, but two new major fields are the Kovyktinskoye field near Zhigalovo 200 km (125 mi) north of Irkutsk and the extremely remote Verkhnechonskoye field 500 km (310 mi) north of Irkutsk on the Central Siberian Plateau.Wikipedia – Yenisei River
The Ob is used mostly for irrigation, drinking water, hydroelectric energy, and fishing (the river hosts more than 50 species of fish).
The navigable waters within the Ob basin reach a total length of 9,300 miles (15,000 km). The importance of the Ob basin navigation for transportation was particularly great before the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway, since, despite the general south-to-north direction of the flow of Ob and most of its tributaries, the width of the Ob basin provided for (somewhat indirect) transportation in the east-west direction as well. Until the early 20th century, a particularly important western river port was Tyumen, located on the Tura River, a tributary of the Tobol.”
“The Trans-Siberian Railway, once completed, provided for more direct, year-round transportation in the east-west direction. But the Ob river system still remained important for connecting the huge expanses of Tyumen Oblast and Tomsk Oblast with the major cities along the Trans-Siberian route, such as Novosibirsk or Omsk. In the second half of the 20th century, construction of rail links to Labytnangi, Tobolsk, and the oil and gas cities of Surgut, and Nizhnevartovsk provided more railheads, but did not diminish the importance of the waterways for reaching places still not served by the rail.
A dam was built near Novosibirsk in 1956, which created the then-largest artificial lake in Siberia, called Novosibirsk Reservoir.”Wikipedia – Ob River
Lastly, in terms of Baffin Bay , it is an;
“arm of the North Atlantic Ocean with an area of 266,000 square miles (689,000 square km), extending southward from the Arctic for 900 miles (1,450 km) between the Greenland coast (east) and Baffin Island (west). The bay has a width varying between 70 and 400 miles (110 and 650 km). Davis Strait (south) leads from the bay to the Atlantic, whereas Nares Strait (north) leads to the Arctic Ocean. A pit at the bay’s centre, the Baffin Hollow, plunges to a depth of 7,000 feet (2,100 m), and the bay, although little exploited by humans because of its hostile environment, is of considerable interest to geologists studying the evolution of the North American continent.” Wikipedia – Ob River
The lack of apparent River Discharge and human influence on Baffin Bay Sea Surface Temperature aside, Anthropogenically Warmed River Runoff is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies seen along the coasts of the Beaufort, Laptev and Kara Seas.
5. Northern Polar Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies;
have increased by .343K/C per decade, and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies appear to have been more than a degree K/C warmer than average for much of this year’s melt season. However, heat exchange between cold dense ocean water and a warmer much less dense atmosphere, would occur at slow pace, and it is inconceivable that a degree C or so anomaly in Atmospheric Temperatures could result in 6, 7 and 8 degree C Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies. With this said, increased Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies are likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
6. Tundra Vegetation Feedback. Bhatt et al. “Circumpolar Arctic Tundra Vegetation Change Is Linked to Sea Ice Decline (2010)”;
“show that pronounced warming has occurred along Arctic coasts between 1982 and 2008. The terrestrial warming, argued as a response to removing the regional chilling effect of sea ice and expressed in terms of a summer warmth index, has had an impact on tundra vegetation as demonstrated by increasing values of the satellite-derived Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). NDVI represents the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by the plant canopy. There has been a 10–15% increase in maximum NDVI along the Beaufort Sea coast of northern Alaska where sea ice concentrations have strongly declined during 1982– 2008 (Fig. 10). Note that altered vegetation may itself contribute to Arctic warming through impacts on surface albedo and the sensible heat flux (Foley et al., 1994; Levis et al., 2000). Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis – Mark C. Serreze and Roger G. Barry
Tundra Vegetation Feedback, is likely a minor factor, if one at all, in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, though interesting to think about.
Question
Beyond the conjectures above, can anyone offer further factors that might explain the large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies currently seen in the Arctic, as well as the precipitous declines in Sea Ice Extent that occurred the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during August? Also, if you can offer any evidence that supports or refutes the possible factors posed above, please present them in comments below, preferably with links/data in support.
For more information visit the WUWT Sea Ice Page and other WUWT Reference Pages. If you have have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the WUWT Reference Pages, please let us know in comments below.
MASIE for 9/2 shows 3.9 million km^2 sea ice extent.
http://nsidc.org/data/masie/
Henrythethird,
I commented on the Sea Ice page in response to barry. Some of my thoughts apply to tamina and his alarmist crowd.
Justthefacts, thanks for the note. Whatever questions there may be about the effect of changes in river discharge, I feel answering them would give us much more insight into arctic ice conditions than, say, musing about the influence a trace gas might have by absorbing a few more 15-micron photons in the brighter tropics, given that nothing much seems to be happening in the tropical troposphere.
“Schitzree says:
September 2, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Steve Mosher said: In a warming world we expect there to be less sea ice at the north pole, not more.
——–
Actually, in a warming world I would expect there to be less sea ice at BOTH poles. Thats the thing about AGW, the G is suposed to stand for Global.”
You are aware, I’m sure, that there is no sea at all within about 12 degrees of latitude of the south pole? And only the Ross Sea and Weddell Sea within 20 degrees latitude??
The arctic is landbound open sea, surrounded by land at about 10-15 degrees altitude.
The Antarctic is land, much of it high elevation, surrounded by seas starting at 10-20 degrees latitude, which are not landbound at lower latitudes.
There is nearly no overlap in the latitude of the sea ice at the two poles. To a rough approximation, antarctic sea ice begins at the latitude where arctic sea ice runs into land and ends.
Why one would expect sea ice at the two to be subject to the same mechanisms, or to respond the same ways, entirely escapes me.
To clarify – when I say ’10-20 degrees latitude’ I’m referencing degrees latitude FROM the pole – ie, 90 minus actual latitude. Makes it easier to understand that these are distances from the poles.
I apologize for the bluntness, but unfortunately all the selected graphs in this article combined are just extremely misleading compared to the following, giving the illusion of sophisticated knowledge while missing the big picture:
As an annual average without cherry-picking a particular moment (month) in weather oscillations, the last couple of years have had just as much sea ice as the mid-1990s.
And, in the mid-1990s, the arctic had less warm temperatures than in the late 1930s.
Aside from any deviations away from ice being proportional to temperatures, there was less arctic ice in the late 1930s than now.
In other words, the whole special hype about declining arctic ice is ludicrous compared to the 1930s, without cherry-picking a single month instead of an annual average, without cherry-picking the past 3 decades, without cherry-picking only half of a 60-year ocean cycle. (I don’t think the author of the article personally intended to cherry-pick, but, when you just use the sources most publicized by CAGW proponents precisely because they are the most misleading, that’s what you get).
And the preceding can be proven very simply. Just look at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif (for the late 1930s versus the mid 1990s), and then look at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo which is a verifiable archive of http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png before the inconvenient latter had to get deleted (for recent years compared to the mid 1990s). Combined, one can see the big picture of how recent years compare to the 1930s.
I’d like again to point to this highly interesting article about the Yamal peninsula and its surroundings: http://met.no/Forskning/Publikasjoner/filestore/Ealat_Yamal_climaterep_dvs-1.pdf
Their figure 5 is from Polyakov et al 2003 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C2078%3ALIVIAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2) and clearly shows that Kara sea ice has been low before – in the 1940s.
Venter says:
September 3, 2012 at 3:03 am
Mosher again comes out with sins of omission. He said
If you add more GHGS the temperature will trend upwards over time, not downwards ”
===========================================================
He forgot the qualification needed here that ” provided all other feedback mechanisms in a chaotic system like earth stay the same”. he also forgot to state that ” all feedback mechanisms the affect temperatures are not well understood and do not stay the same “
—————————————————————-
Venter, there are also some unquantified direct cooling affects.of CO2, before feedbacks.
How else does heat get radiated to space from the atmosphere to cool the planet?
Curious question indeed.
A radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from CONDUCTED energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system.
I am simply observing energy content of any system as a function of time, i.e. how long that delivered energy stays within a defined area. In regard to our planet the defined area is broadly the land surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere. How long the solar insolation, entering or leaving a defined area, stays before exiting determines T. and or heat content. This leads to a law. “At its most basic only two things can effect the heat content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system.”
When I heard of AGW theory I was rather surprised to learn that the only molecules (GHGs) which allow energy to escape into space, (cooling) somehow net heat the system above non radiationg (at common T) atmospheric gases.
Supposedly a non GHG atmosphere, mostly transparent to incoming insolation, allows the bulk of the insolation to reach the surface, where it the radiates back to space, again for the most part, bypassing the non GHG molecules. Of course this ignores conduction, convection and evaporation. In such a world the non GHG molecules would warm by collision, or conduction from the surface, which would then conduct to more non GHG above them, which would allow the surface atmospheric molecules to then receive more energy from the surface, etc, until convection, further conduction etc basically caused an expanding thermal dynamic equilibrium with a gravity induced lapse rate.
Now, as I understand it, if we add a so named GHG molecule to such an atmosphere, according to climate scientist, it will redirect some of that surface LWIR energy back to the surface, thereby increasing the residence time and heat content of the atmosphere, as solar insolation continues unabated and the system will gain heat while energy escaping is delayed. My point is very simple. Assuming (for now) the climate scientist are correct That single GHG molecule is also receiving conducted energy from the surface, which now has the opportunity to accelerate the loss to space of said conducted energy, which formerly, in the non-ghg molecule, could not radiate to space, thereby GHG molecules accelerate the loss of conducted energy, and delay the loss of LWIR radiated energy
I leave it to physics to determine what percentage of the energy in the atmosphere from the surface is conducted and how much is radiated, and to determine how often newly excited surface molecules , both atmosphere and ground, lose their energy via radiation, or via conduction. But the fact remains, a radiating GHG molecule, receiving its vibrational energy from conducted energy, accelerates the loss of that energy from the earth’s system
Henry Clark says: September 3, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
I apologize for the bluntness, but unfortunately all the selected graphs in this article combined are just extremely misleading compared to the following, giving the illusion of sophisticated knowledge while missing the big picture:
No need to apologize for bluntness, but I disagree about the “extremely misleading” part. The data is what it is, if one is mislead by it, it’s not the data’s fault. If you want to see the “big picture” read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012
As an annual average without cherry-picking a particular moment (month) in weather oscillations, the last couple of years have had just as much sea ice as the mid-1990s.
It’s not really cherry picked in the sense that the “particular moment (month)” you reference is the present, and no data has been intentionally excluded/picked. Also, the claim that “the last couple of years have had just as much sea ice as the mid-1990s” seems erroneous, i.e.;
both Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
and Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
appear to be greater than the mid-1990s. Per the MET data you cite here;
I am not sure of the source of their data, as NSIDC maximum for 2012;
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source[/caption]
[/caption]
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) – Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
was nowhere near as high as the one shown in the MET graph.
In other words, the whole special hype about declining arctic ice is ludicrous
Now here is where we agree, i.e. claiming that the declining minimum is somehow an accurate proxy for runaway global warming, when global temperatures show nothing of the sort, i.e.:
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578" caption="Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) - Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) - Click the pic to view at source"]
However, I believe the way to dispute this is not to claim that the current data has been “cherry-picked” but rather to study why the Arctic Sea Ice minimum may not be a good proxy for global temperatures and understand what other factors may be influencing the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice, especially during minimum. If you look at the following comparison Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]
it is apparent that minimum is declining at a much more rapid pace than the maximum or mean. If one could demonstrate that the more rapid decrease in Arctic Sea Ice minimum is occurring for reasons disassociated with global temperatures, e.g. Wind, Atmospheric Oscillations, an Unusually Strong Storm, other Local Anthropogenic influences, etc., then it might help to undermine the perception that Arctic Sea Ice minimum is an accurate proxy for changes in “global temperature”.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
“No need to apologize for bluntness, but I disagree about the “extremely misleading” part. The data is what it is, if one is mislead by it, it’s not the data’s fault.”
If someone assumes a source would present a non-misleading picture (as many readers would in this case), they can be misled by only some data being presented.
As a little thought experiment example, if I was trying to be misleading, I could give a hypothetical individual with absolutely no prior background knowledge (an imaginary space alien, for instance) the false perception that the Allies were the bad side killing innocents enmasse in World War II, making the Axis regimes falsely seem like relatively the more moral faction, without a single direct lie, just with extreme enough uneven selection of some data plus omission of vast amounts of other info.
If you would like to not heavily mislead readers, post the two graphs mentioned in my prior comment within the article itself:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
and
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
via the image from http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
Else, for every rare reader who scrolls down through a hundred comments and clicks on the links in my comment (with generally at most 1% to several percent of viewers clicking on a text link to a graph, almost never seen compared to graphs displayed visibly), there will be dozens, hundreds, or more simply falsely misled in practice.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
“If you want to see the “big picture” read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-2nd-quarter-2012“
The only plots in that article link which depict temperatures at the century level are two versions of a CRU plot of land temperatures which has been adjusted to eliminate the bulk of the inconvenient decline after the late 1930s. CRU and GISS are not trustworthy sources; the former is infamous for Climategate, and the latter is headed by Hansen who is an extremist activist barely bothering to even pretend to be an objective scientist (repeatedly arrested for actions at protests). One simple smoking gun example with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. Overall Northern Hemisphere data and global data is fudged too by such sources, like http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering illustrates.
Anyway, for a specific example on the CRU plot, it depicts temperatures around 1940 as being colder than those around 1980. (Such is labeled as land temperatures, but, with your article giving it is as the only plot over that period, readers will interpret it as representative of global temperature trends; besides, the fudged CRU data on global temperatures is a similar idea too). In utter contrast, an example of data published before enviro-activists reached a level of dominance where they could get away with almost anything shows global mean temperatures around 1940 were warmer than those around 1980.
The plot in your articles makes a 1940->1980 temperature decline look like a 1940->1980 temperature rise.
To make that extra blatant and also show the real picture of far less warming post-1980 too, I quickly drew a few lines on some respective plots:
http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
“The claim that “the last couple of years have had just as much sea ice as the mid-1990s” seems erroneous, i.e.;
both Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly
and Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly”
When two data sources are contradictory, as in this case, where one has to be in error, past experience finds that errors are by far most often in the CAGW-convenient direction, and, sure enough, the graphs you are posting are from Cyrosphere Today. How Cyrosphere Today presents untrustworthy fudged data was illustrated in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ (particularly the notes on figures 17 and onwards to the end of article summary).
The Met Office isn’t really trustworthy either, but at least they are extremely unlikely to intentionally error greatly in a CAGW *inconvenient* direction, so when they posted http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png (which was up for months at least until deleted within the past several days since my usage of webcitation) showing there was as much arctic ice in the past couple of years as an annual average (the red line) as in the mid-1990s as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo , that is vastly more likely to be true than your Cryosphere Today plots.
As an analogy in other context, even if unintentionally, you’re doing the equivalent of responding to me posting a temperature graph properly showing the MWP and LIA in the past thousand years by posting a graph of Mann’s hockey stick and automatically assuming the latter disproves the former. Sources are contradictory, and typically the largest contradictions are because some are dishonestly fudged.
So far I don’t think you are an undercover CAGW supporter mole, but one of the unfortunate aspects of discussions which can border on argument is that usually people get mentally increasingly tied to supporting what feels like their original position, so trying to argue and convince usually simply backfires. But, if we are both true fellow skeptics, we are just aiming to educate people. If you wouldn’t want to post the http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo graph alone, that would be no problem. I’m not even arguing for posting that alone — just it in addition to the other plots. What you could best do is post both it and, if you want, the Cyrosphere Today graphs too. Let people see the blatant contradiction. That’s the real world. Sources don’t remotely match. The CAGW side likes to pretend they all do (down to the 97% consensus BS based on two trick questions with one really being if temperatures warmed at all since the LIA), but they don’t. Mainly it depends who is collecting the data, their biases, and, if pro-CAGW, what they feel they can get away with at the moment.
Learning just how much contradictions exist is one of the most useful things anyone can learn, as it is the start of true critical thought and proper skepticism.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
I am not sure of the source of their data, as NSIDC maximum for 2012;
was nowhere near as high as the one shown in the MET graph.
Look closely at the data markings on the graphs: The NSIDC plot starts in 1979, but the http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo plot starts a few years earlier.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:21 am
Now here is where we agree, i.e. claiming that the declining minimum is somehow an accurate proxy for runaway global warming, when global temperatures show nothing of the sort, i.e.:
RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present
However, I believe the way to dispute this is not to claim that the current data has been “cherry-picked” but rather to study why the Arctic Sea Ice minimum may not be a good proxy for global temperatures and understand what other factors may be influencing the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice, especially during minimum. If you look at the following comparison Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum;
it is apparent that minimum is declining at a much more rapid pace than the maximum or mean. If one could demonstrate that the more rapid decrease in Arctic Sea Ice minimum is occurring for reasons disassociated with global temperatures, e.g. Wind, Atmospheric Oscillations, an Unusually Strong Storm, other Local Anthropogenic influences, etc., then it might help to undermine the perception that Arctic Sea Ice minimum is an accurate proxy for changes in “global temperature”.
I must disagree. That is of little real threat to the CAGW movement. Presenting their fudged graphs alone without questioning them plays utterly into their hands. Sooner or later, they will fudge their favorite graphs still more, and, unless my attempt at suggesting otherwise here is surprisingly successful, you’ll keep presenting them alone without showing others that contrast…
Ice is not just proportional to temperatures; wind and storms do affect it too. However, in multi-year averages (more so than such as a single month figure after a storm), it is greatly influenced by them on average over the years. Look at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ for the true history of arctic ice distributions (unlike the fudged Cyrosphere Today “data”) and compare to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif . One can see, for instance, “the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921” fits when arctic temperatures were warming greatly in the 1920s through and until the late 1930s.
“””””…..Maus says:
September 3, 2012 at 2:25 am
John Brookes: “And people have done. And they get results like, …”
And I would like to expect that. Perhaps you could provide the relevant argument or a citation to (accessible) papers that do. Apologies for missing your post earlier.
george e smith: “So let’s not crow about high albedos in the arctic. Nearly 100% of nearly zero irradiance, is still nearly zero reflected energy.”
And yet this interesting and counterintuitive result of ‘nearly zeroes’ still accounts for a 20K noon-time difference in a field in which we regularly speak of 0.000055K daily trends. Do I correctly understand your position to be that since 20K is an utter nonsense for smallness than 0.000055K is 363,636 times more utter nonsense?……”””””
Well Maus I would like to address your query (assuming it WAS directed to me), but you did not include enough information for me to comment.
Is your 20K (or izzat 20 deg C) the difference in surface Temperature, with a sun incidence angle of 89.9622 deg; or is that the air Temperature differential; and incidently what ARE the two different conditions for which this 20 deg difference is observed.
I don’t recall using the term “utter nonsense” or anything which could reasonably be considered synonymous with that term.
When you say you “regularly speak of 0.000055K daily trends”, are you suggesting that you can measure a “daily” Temperature to that sort of precision, or are you simply citing the result of some statistical calculation. Given that over reasonably short times, Temperatures change from clearly upward trends (say pre 1995 for example) to clearly downward trends (post 1998), then one could easily do a computation for some similar time interval, near the peak, where the daily trend might calculate as 5.5 E-12, or even 5.5 E-43. Surely, no one would offer such statistical results as “significant.” so what is the error bar spread for your 0.000055K daily trend example ?
I do wish people would reserve the use of “K” for ABSOLUTE thermodynamic scale Temperatures, and use “deg C” when they mean differences in Temperature. NO information is added by using “K” instead of “deg C”, since the difference; 97 K – 96 K is EXACTLY one deg C, as is;
97 deg C – 96 deg C.
The term “albedo” is used to represent the fraction of solar spectrum EM energy that is returned to space SPECTRALLY UNCHANGED. It is a single number for the entire planet; it is not a local variable. Reflection coefficient IS a local variable, but albedo is not.
Some quick additional notes on my prior comment:
1) In reply to the NSIDC graph, I mentioned the start while forgetting to add that yes it is contradictory to the U.K. government data for recent years — but see the prior discussion regarding contradictions.
2) Part of the evidence supporting how temperature data showing early 20th century rise followed by major decline 1940s->1970s is more plausibly correct (as in, for instance, graphs in http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG ) than the CRU/GISS graphs is the pattern in sea level rise rates. Such supports 1980s -> late 1990s warming not being very special:
Sea level rise was slower in the latter half of the 20th century than the first half: “1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ as http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml notes.
Other evidence includes that the 1970s global cooling scare did not occur for such a next to nil cause as recent fudged data would pretend (much like one of the problems with the hockey stick is it makes MWP and LIA historical events seem to have occurred without cause).
There is even a pattern in tree rings, the famous “hide the decline.” They diverged heavily from the *fudged* instrumental temperature record. Tree rings are not perfect by any means as a temperature proxy, but they do fit non-fudged instrumental temperature data more.
Groups can fudge some data readily but not everything at once, and that is why the secret is cross-checking against other data.
Not sure what to make of this: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/canadas-mackenzie-river-needs-aid-as-climate-refrigerator.
Henry Clark says: September 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm
UK MET Office – Formerly – http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png [/caption]
NASA[/caption]
Compiled by Henry Clark[/caption]
If someone assumes a source would present a non-misleading picture (as many readers would in this case), they can be misled by only some data being presented.
As a little thought experiment example, if I was trying to be misleading, I could give a hypothetical individual with absolutely no prior background knowledge (an imaginary space alien, for instance) the false perception that the Allies were the bad side killing innocents enmasse in World War II, making the Axis regimes falsely seem like relatively the more moral faction, without a single direct lie, just with extreme enough uneven selection of some data plus omission of vast amounts of other info.
If any aliens have swung by this thread, my apologies to them if they were misled. For the rest of WUWT readers, my role here is to present data and yours is to consider it skeptically and argue it vehemently.
If you would like to not heavily mislead readers, post the two graphs mentioned in my prior comment within the article itself:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
and
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
via the image from http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
I’ve inlined the images below, however, I wouldn’t post them unless I had more background on them. Per my comment on the Sea Ice News thread, do you have any background on the graphs, i.e. what data sets are they based on, what percentage of ice coverage does the MET graph use, etc.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]
Else, for every rare reader who scrolls down through a hundred comments and clicks on the links in my comment (with generally at most 1% to several percent of viewers clicking on a text link to a graph, almost never seen compared to graphs displayed visibly), there will be dozens, hundreds, or more simply falsely misled in practice.
You’d be surprised, many WUWT readers are quite judicious, read through entire threads, and click on links they consider worthy of further investigation.
The only plots in that article link which depict temperatures at the century level are two versions of a CRU plot of land temperatures which has been adjusted to eliminate the bulk of the inconvenient decline after the late 1930s. CRU and GISS are not trustworthy sources; the former is infamous for Climategate, and the latter is headed by Hansen who is an extremist activist barely bothering to even pretend to be an objective scientist (repeatedly arrested for actions at protests). One simple smoking gun example with temperatures is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif versus http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif where the former shows shows the 5-year mean of U.S. temperature in the high point of the 1980s was 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler than such in the 1930s but the latter is fudged to make the same less than 0.1 degrees Celsius apart. Overall Northern Hemisphere data and global data is fudged too by such sources, like http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering illustrates.
I post the current graphs that are available. If you don’t think they’re accurate, find data, build a website, and post your own graphs like Ole Humlun does;
http://www.climate4you.com/
and I will consider and use them accordingly. Or, like Anthony, try to demonstrate that a data set is inaccurate, and, if successful, it will be tagged as such, or removed completely.
To make that extra blatant and also show the real picture of far less warming post-1980 too, I quickly drew a few lines on some respective plots:
http://img133.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG
That’s interesting stuff, inlined below for reference, but it’s also confusing in layout and delivery. Have you considering starting a website, or submitting an article, that lays out your thoughts in a more coherent manner?
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
When two data sources are contradictory, as in this case, where one has to be in error, past experience finds that errors are by far most often in the CAGW-convenient direction, and, sure enough, the graphs you are posting are from Cyrosphere Today. How Cyrosphere Today presents untrustworthy fudged data was illustrated in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ (particularly the notes on figures 17 and onwards to the end of article summary).
There are 6 different sources of Sea Ice data on the WUWT Sea Ice Page and all of them contradict the MET chart that was removed for some reason. Until shown otherwise, the weight of evidence says that there’s something wrong with the MET chart.
The Met Office isn’t really trustworthy either, but at least they are extremely unlikely to intentionally error greatly in a CAGW *inconvenient* direction, so when they posted http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png (which was up for months at least until deleted within the past several days since my usage of webcitation) showing there was as much arctic ice in the past couple of years as an annual average (the red line) as in the mid-1990s as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo , that is vastly more likely to be true than your Cryosphere Today plots.
The MET Office is impressively incompetent, I wouldn’t discount the possibility of a careless error.
So far I don’t think you are an undercover CAGW supporter mole
Yes, my dastardly plan exposed. Devote time to the most effective skeptic blog, and write articles like this;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
in order to further my Warmist goals…
But, if we are both true fellow skeptics, we are just aiming to educate people. If you wouldn’t want to post the http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo graph alone, that would be no problem. I’m not even arguing for posting that alone — just it in addition to the other plots. What you could best do is post both it and, if you want, the Cyrosphere Today graphs too. Let people see the blatant contradiction. That’s the real world. Sources don’t remotely match. The CAGW side likes to pretend they all do (down to the 97% consensus BS based on two trick questions with one really being if temperatures warmed at all since the LIA), but they don’t. Mainly it depends who is collecting the data, their biases, and, if pro-CAGW, what they feel they can get away with at the moment.
As I said above, I need background on the graphs before I’d consider using them in an article.
I must disagree. That is of little real threat to the CAGW movement. Presenting their fudged graphs alone without questioning them plays utterly into their hands. Sooner or later, they will fudge their favorite graphs still more, and, unless my attempt at suggesting otherwise here is surprisingly successful, you’ll keep presenting them alone without showing others that contrast…
That’s part of the reason I’ve helped collect the data in the WUWT Reference Pages;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
and post updates regularly, it makes it that much harder to fudge data when their are many eyes on it. Furthermore, when data is altered, as in the case of University of Colorado Sea Level, I note the change on the charts on the reference pages, i.e.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-655192
In terms of what’s a “real threat to the CAGW movement”, I am not going to argue tactics with you, but I’ll note that at minimum our CAGW friends seem to take notice:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-light-of-day/#comment-62739
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-light-of-day/#comment-62744
clipe says: September 4, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Not sure what to make of this: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/canadas-mackenzie-river-needs-aid-as-climate-refrigerator
Thank you. Interesting, on one hand it says that;
on the other that:
justthefactswuwt,
Looks like 2 of the 3 images didn’t come out in this comment …
Here is what I see …
1st … no good. The URL is a webpage address (http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php). The image URL in the caption shown below it is also wrong as it returns a white rectangle (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png)
2nd … okay
3rd … no good. The image at the URL is not found (http://img133.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-25828/loc109/80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG)
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“There are 6 different sources of Sea Ice data on the WUWT Sea Ice Page and all of them contradict the MET chart that was removed for some reason.”
Let’s go through the graphs on the page quickly:
Graph #1 = Cryosphere Today. Known dishonest source; see discussion and link in my prior comment.
Graph #2 = Let’s draw some lines on it to make it easier to read in part exactly:
http://img190.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=39199_seaice_122_12lo.JPG
As seen zooming to full size and looking at the lines, peak arctic ice in 2012 was essentially identical to in 1996.* Such is not the type of graph which allows reading overall annual averages as readily as http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo , but that’s of interest. I don’t really trust the NSIDC necessarily, but that plot’s not too bad there.
* And http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif shows average arctic temperatures in the 1990s were cooler than in the 1930s.
Graph #3 = not a time series at all
Graph #4 = One could discuss it more, but it is a different type of graph anyway, just showing their particular favorite several months of two years plus a claimed average.
Graph #5 = Again, it is a different type of graph than http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo although it does at least show 2012 was above most recent years in March ice extent, less in August especially with the storm, but there is no reason to consider the latter month alone while ignoring the former month.
Graph #6 = Claims the 2000s average was less than the 1990s average. One could aim to compare the exact numbers with enough work (complicated by them being different types of graphs), but, short of any exact numerical difference, that is not contrary to http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo which also implies so. The latter also shows trends within the decades, though.
Graph #7, graph #8, and beyond:
To speed up this writing, I’m going to stop talking about every graph individually. Most show different topics, such as just depicting a few years at a time in a different manner. Finally one comes to a graph (other than those of Cryosphere Today) blatantly claiming otherwise than the http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo plot: The NORSEX graph.
Continuing looking, one other graph later is also clearly in contradiction to “mine”: But that one is just another Cryosphere Today chart.
The preceding is a quick glance at apparently all the arctic sea ice plots of relatively related type in http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
In summary, it looks like there are several graphs from the same single source of Cryosphere Today (a known-dishonest source as my prior comment discussed) in substantial contradiction, and there is also one from NORSEX in substantial contradiction. If NORSEX is the one and only big overall contradiction of http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo within the graphs on your page other than Cryosphere Today, perhaps I could dig around for proof NORSEX is dishonest. There may be other graphs on the page less obvious on first glance, but if so you would need to point them out directly and specifically. As illustrated, I’m not sure if the NSIDC plot should count as more opposing than supporting it in much of the overall picture (as in when the lines are drawn to highlight at http://img190.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=39199_seaice_122_12lo.JPG ).
Besides, truth and validity is not determined by whether a majority of enviroactivist-dominated institutions claim something. If someone believes it is, they can’t really be a skeptic at all, for most promote CAGW in general.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“Furthermore, when data is altered, as in the case of University of Colorado Sea Level, I note the change on the charts on the reference pages, i.e.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/#comment-655192”
Well, you could post in a historical data section the http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png ( http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo ) plot with a note too, as in a note that Cryosphere Today and NORSEX depict such differently, and the Met Office is removing / adjusting it until it will not countradict the others.
There is nothing wrong with showing multiple sources and teaching someone one of the most important facts of all: Not all sources do or have matched.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“I’ve inlined the images below, however, I wouldn’t post them unless I had more background on them.”
I see by now the Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 thread has been updated on that by other posters posting such as http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
I appreciate that you inlined the graphs here.
As Blade’s comment noted, a couple did not appear right here, but that is no big deal, as I see you displayed the two official ones within the more recent Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 thread.
I’m not sure what you did differently there versus here on http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo but perhaps you noticed something I did not mention before: While webcitation may not work for image inlining directly, the UK Met Office graph is also at http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png
As for my large composite graph at http://img133.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-18671/loc109/80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG I was not expecting you to inline it. That one was just something I made real quickly with casual comments. I think it is too wide in pixels for inlining here anyway.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“If any aliens have swung by this thread, my apologies to them if they were misled.”
Long ago, for years, I once myself assumed the warmist side was mostly correct, as a naive default assumption, falling for the superficial appeal to authority. That was even after visiting some skeptic sites briefly, including, IIRC, some of the WUWT reference pages at some time (which were not particularly convincing otherwise, having predominately such as a whole redundant bunch of post-1979-only graphs in a row, mixed with an occasional rare graph going further back but from fudged sources like the CRU data).
Of course reading enough assorted WUWT articles over time would be quite a different matter, more educational. But just seeing such as post-1979-only ice graphs like mainly the same ones which alarmist sites favor would do little good. And, aside from such as the core of regular visitors here, of people already skeptics, most people in the general public, a state I originally was in for years, do not spend more than minutes to a few hours or less reading up on the particular topic of global warming.
Why I so love the http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif graph is that such is something which, if I had seen earlier, would have raised gigantic red flags instantly compared to the warmist narrative, even down to fighting authority with authority as in being nasa.gov (which would have mattered back when I was naively trusting such as government sites most). It would have immediately sparked me to plan on doing further investigation.
It is far from the only such graph. Another quick example is the following (the CO2 part not extending up to the most recent century but showing a lot):
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
which is plotting data from
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
and
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt
Anyway, eventually I did do further investigation on climate topics, but sparking such came from a particularly roundabout approach. After seeing how dishonest most hardcore environmental activists are on nuclear power, I started to wonder why on earth was I auto-trusting those people and their allies on other topics, when they flock to and dominate environmental studies institutions. For instance, the foundation of great harm imagined from long-lived isotopes in nuclear waste, which has guided the policies of multiple nations, is a mixture of lies and breathtaking ignorance plus careful lack of reporting of the most basic true quantitative aspects of the matter. Such includes how there are around 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium (plus other natural radioisotopes) and associated decay chains in the crust’s 3E19 ton mass. (Over a timeframe of thousands of years, after the most active short half-life radioisotopes decayed, burying U.S. nuclear waste, which does not contain more than thousands of tons or less of actual radioisotopes themselves, would increase the radioactivity in the top couple thousand feet of rock and soil in the United States by only about 1 part in 10 million over the cumulative amount of natural radioisotopes in such a volume; http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/Perspectives_on_HLW.htm ).
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Yes, my dastardly plan exposed. Devote time to the most effective skeptic blog, and write articles like this;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
in order to further my Warmist goals…
I didn’t say you were, but, as implied, I consider possibilities. Frankly, what has most counted in your favor from my perspective is that you inline-displayed those two graphs. What would be about utterly convincing is if you posted one in the reference page, as they are seriously CAGW-movement inconvenient, since the reference page is seen by vastly more people than the comments in a transient thread. Still, like I say, I appreciate that you inlined them in comments at least.
Meanwhile, though, I apologize for the bluntness again, but, in contrast, the article you link above prominently once again displays only a graph of warming since 1979 (not showing much before 1979 which would break the CO2-consistent warming illusion, like http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif ). Almost everyone knows that, if temperatures actually rose enough, sooner or later far more ice would melt overall on average, even with other influences like winds and storms. Text making small points about that or not does not determine someone’s overall picture. A far bigger matter is temperatures will not actually so rise and are cooler now than they have been in prior history (like, for example, the Holocene Climate Optimum).
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“In terms of what’s a “real threat to the CAGW movement”, I am not going to argue tactics with you, but I’ll note that at minimum our CAGW friends seem to take notice:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-light-of-day/#comment-62739
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-light-of-day/#comment-62744 “
The “taking notice” is the following comment?:
“Seriously – “it’s the wind”?! Well, at least the Skeptical Science crew will have a new canard for their list.”
That’s not a major threat to them. If I were on the CAGW side and the best counterargument presented was that, frankly I’d be laughing too because it is a small detail compared to the big picture. Does almost anybody really doubt that if arctic temperatures rose by an imaginary huge X degrees there wouldn’t tend to be less ice, even with wind fluctuations impacting it too? In contrast, more powerful is to show that the arctic temperature pattern is not continuous temperature rise, to avoid just showing solely 1979-start cherrypicked temperature graphs.
You inlining the two better graphs in the comments of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/ seems to already be having a major effect on most warmists tending to flee or avoid the thread afterwards; I doubt you will find warmist sites tending to link to *that* thread now because it shows major info nobody is supposed to ever see. Seeing that the region trumpeted as of greatest warming on Earth (the arctic, more so than nearer the equator or Antarctica by far) had greater and faster temperature rise in the 1920s-1930s than in the late 20th century, despite human emission rates being >= 5+ times less in the former case, almost by itself blows CAGW alarmism out of the water. About the closest counterargument the Skeptical Science site tries on something related is blaming the mid-century temperature decline on aerosols (since they can’t admit the importance of the 60-year ocean cycle and solar/GCR change), but that graph shows far greater decline than any of the fudged data they ever show; plus such is an exceptionally weak tactic in the falsehoods used (even down to the side effects, like if someone believed slight fluctuation in aerosol to CO2 emission ratios were that powerful at cooling, even under non-deliberate trospospheric dispersion of aerosols orders of magnitude less effective per ton than stratospheric dispersion in residence times, then they could favor geoengineering instead of orders-of-magnitude more crippling CO2 cutbacks, defeating the anti-industrial real goal of the core of the movement).
justthefactswuwt says:
September 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“That’s interesting stuff, inlined below for reference, but it’s also confusing in layout and delivery. Have you considering starting a website, or submitting an article, that lays out your thoughts in a more coherent manner?”
That was just a quickly made casual illustration. I know the layout is low quality.
In principle, I would be happy to do more of higher quality, totally unlike that in terms of a professional nominally objective style in utter contrast. But, of course, spending the time depends on how much it really matters or not.
I appreciate you responded to my comments. At this point, there are probably two paths:
1) If you post, for instance, any one of the http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif , http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png ( http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo ), or http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif plots on one of the reference pages, such as by creating a subcategory for historical reference data separate from continuously-updating plots, I’d be happy to subsequently work on submitting a list of references for some other exceptionally educational plots in case some more could be considered.
For instance, the NASA century-level arctic graph matches one by a Russian source, starting with P-something, to which I have a reference saved somewhere to find more specifically and exactly down to web links and all.
That does, of course, require different than a policy of only publishing continuously-updated graphs alone as the only category. Else such a policy makes the real past gone unfortunately, for then almost only the most highly-funded public education (propaganda) sources can be shown, for such as scientific papers and their results are not individually constantly updated.
For example, there are a number of 20th-century temperature reconstructions (especially of the Northern Hemisphere although some of the Southern Hemisphere or global too), but the two that are so funded as to nominally cover the whole century globally while being updated continuously are the unworthy CRU and GISS plots.
As JoNova remarked on the funding slant:
“# The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
# Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. [For example, only such found the huge blatant errors in Mann’s hockey stick, not peer review]. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
# Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for [long ago] paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
2) If no to showing any of those graphs there, then tapering this discussion down would be best to save time.
Edit to my prior comment:
Actually, checking out records from such as 2008, the “IIRC” (“if I recall correctly”) was not entirely accurate here:
Where I said: “including, IIRC, some of the WUWT reference pages at some time (which were not” … such should be rather “including some resource or reference pages”, and, in comment on WUWT, the “were not” should be “are not.”
That is since actually the WUWT reference pages in anything much like their current form did not exist back then after all.
The rest of the point is the same, though.
One way or another, though, whatever websites I had glanced at initially then, they were not prominently showing arctic graphs with data before the past 3 decades or so. I had to do more work to find that myself, only done later. If there had been prominent presentation of such as http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif , that would have been vastly more useful.
Blade says: September 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Looks like 2 of the 3 images didn’t come out in this comment …
1st … no good. The URL is a webpage address (http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php).
Not sure what’s up with it, sometimes it appears, sometimes not, must be something to do with webcitation.org. Henry, perhaps you should save this image as a tinypic so that it’s easier to inline?
The image URL in the caption shown below it is also wrong as it returns a white rectangle (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png)
Per comment from Henry Clark;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/#comment-1070956
it appears that the MET has recently removed the image from their site.
3rd … no good. The image at the URL is not found (http://img133.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-25828/loc109/80717_globalwarmingusualdishonesty_122_109lo.JPG)
Again, this is an image format/size issue, Henry you might want to try out tinypic.
Henry Clark says: September 5, 2012 at 5:13 am
Let’s go through the graphs on the page quickly
None of the graphs indicate or previously indicated a large positive anomaly in 2012, like the MET chart does. I am thus still highly skeptical of the MET chart, per this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1071501
Well, you could post in a historical data section
The MET graph needs to be validated, and then, depending on how it came to be, it is probably better as an article, than on a reference page. I address the historical data page below.
Blade’s comment noted, a couple did not appear right here, but that is no big deal, as I see you displayed the two official ones within the more recent Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 thread.
Replaced the webcitation image above with the iceage one and understood on the composite image.
1) If you post, for instance, any one of the http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif , http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png ( http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo ), or http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif plots on one of the reference pages, such as by creating a subcategory for historical reference data separate from continuously-updating plots, I’d be happy to subsequently work on submitting a list of references for some other exceptionally educational plots in case some more could be considered.
I am open to building a historical climatic reference page, post whatever references you’d like in this thread, and I will review and build the page in the coming weeks when I’ve got time.
Crashex says: September 5, 2012 at 8:02 am
Your discussion on”currents” is a distraction, red herring argument. Currents do not increase the temperature of the water. They may redistribute the relatively warmer water to different areas and cause bumps in an anomaly map as the relatively warm water is transported to a region of typically colder water, but the currents do not increase the the measured temperature by 8 to 10 C.
It’s not a red herring, its a potential explanation for why a river discharge might result in warming some distance from the river delta. Per this entire article and thread, I am not saying that any individual factor, i.e. river discharge, is the cause of the large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, rather that there are a multitude of factors that may be interacting to cause the anomalies.
If you cannot present a natural cause for a 20F spike in water temperature in a small local area without known volcanic activity than any logical assessment would lead you to suspect bogus data from a failed sensor or a software masking fault. Yes, it would be nice to be able to point to a specific sensor data record; but the mapping software and data is a black box that only NOAA knows for sure.
I sent an inquiry to Mr. Grumbine, but have not gotten a reply to date. I’m likely relegated to a spam folder. Someone at NOAA has likely seen the blog post, maybe they’ll mention it to him.
Don’t give up on this, sensor failures are a viable explanation for some or all of the anomalies. If I rewrote this article I would include sensor failure high on the list of potential factors. I will keep an eye on the NOAA images and if that hotspot doesn’t disappear I may write an article specifically challenging its source. If you learn any more on this front, please post it to this thread.
To Justthefactswuwt,
I received a polite, professional response from Mr. Grumbine today. He agrees that it’s a data error and traced it back to July. He’s working to resolve the problem and thanked me for the feedback.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“None of the graphs indicate or previously indicated a large positive anomaly in 2012, like the MET chart does.”
The biggest point is suggesting showing both:
(a) The NSIDC plots … where I was just noting in the other thread how http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif shows arctic peak ice in 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012 was equal within 1 pixel on its scale, which would be within 0.1 million square kilometers — where such is an absolute extent plot like the MET plot and different from an anomaly plot
(b) The repeated collection of Cyrosphere Today plots (not that such are good but with me not minding even false data being shown as long as true data is shown too beside it — since only the CAGW side must utterly prevent certain types of data from being ever seen by large numbers of public viewers; nothing told me more the CAGW side was not the side of light than seeing how absolutely fanatically they would fight at all costs to prevent having some info appear in Wikipedia pages anywhere where many viewers would see it for long, even just as a mere quote of what some skeptic scientists believe)
(c) the misc other plots mostly not of multi-decade ice trends
(d) the MET plot.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“I am thus still highly skeptical of the MET chart, per this comment: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1071501
You can show the MET plot and by it quote their stated reason it is no longer valid according to them. That would be fair enough to them and just showing history.
Every single time data is revised for political or ideological or financial purposes, the responsible party always makes up a creative excuse of another reason officially. That is so in cases of revisionism of temperatures, sea level, solar activity, ice extent, or anything else. A scenario otherwise is simply inconceivable with about any organization of any kind; it would be like a corporation or politician advertising to customers or voters by literally saying “we are trying to rip you off.” The day, for instance, that Mann or Hansen would stop saying their adjustments were for scientifically justified reasons is the day pigs fly. I already know the MET Office fudges temperature data, but ideological polarization and confidence tends to increase over time, so chances are they didn’t originally fudge ice data as much or like they will be doing in the future later after seeing other groups (i.e. Cryosphere Today) were daring, unquestioned, unpunished, and successful in first taking it to the next level.
Anyway, though, I just posted in that http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/ thread a moment ago, so we can discuss there the implication that Cryosphere Today charts are more trustworthy. As always, I’m not even arguing for presenting the MET chart instead of the Cyrosphere Today charts but just showing both.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Replaced the webcitation image above with the iceage one and understood on the composite image.”
Thanks.
————-
However, if necessary, let’s for the sake of discussion for the moment skip over the MET graph entirely:
justthefactswuwt says:
September 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm
I am open to building historical climatic reference page, post whatever references you’d like in this thread, and I will review and build the page in the coming weeks when I’ve got time.
Well, how about posting in such a the reference page the http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif plot and/or http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif ?
If any one of those was posted, I would know then that you do post really CAGW-inconvenient plots. At that point, I would greatly thank you and would be happy to then invest substantial time over subsequent days or weeks assembling quite a list of graphs and references where you might choose some of them (not all of them, of course, as I realize, especially considering practical limits for conciseness — but potentially some).
Regarding the latter plot, the data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt and ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt could be linked for it. The title could clarify it is of 200 to 11000 years ago (not up to the present day in CO2 — even though really everyone knows what recent CO2 is anyway).
Tiny correction: I referred to the MET plot as an absolute extent plot in the last comment. It is rather an anomaly plot.