Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:
DMI also shows it…
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceBut JAXA does not….suggesting a difference in sensors/processes.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.
More at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page
Friends:
I do like a good laugh so I always enjoy the ‘logic’ of warmist zealots.
Chris Alemany called for actions to benefit the children of the future, so I pointed out that what he calls for would kill billions of children in coming decades. He answered my point by not disputing it and, therefore, I asked him why he wanted to kill the children.
Answer came there none.
barry is told
and he replies
Clearly, barry thinks the Olympic gold medal was won the guy who came sixth in the 100m final.
And they think they are kidding people who read the thread!.
Warmers and their arguments are priceless. They are comedic gold.
Richard
[Snip. You were warned to abide by site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
From Chris Alemany on September 9, 2012 at 2:14 pm:
I take it those other sites never told you much about how CO₂ has a well-known logarithmic effect. There is increasing evidence the effect is saturated. Thus the expected further increases will yield minimal increases in global temperatures, if any.
Richard:
“Friends” So you talk like you’re in a court too? Or are you a politician?
And hey, two can play the game… why didn’t you answer my question… I’ll post it again for you in case you missed it:
If I am wrong (along with every national science academy in the world). then yes we will have spent much money and suffered unnecessary hardship. (THough in our current world economic state how much worse can it actually get). Yet we will also have a system of economy that is itself sustainable. Not reliant on external regimes. And not polluting our atmosphere.
If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.
You tell me which scenario you would apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to. It is a choice between money, and life.
And my bad.. that should have said ‘the Northern Hemisphere’ not just North America.
Alemany, you are not on trial. But your anti-science comments are on trial, such as your recent nonsense that we can’t have oysters because of acidifying oceans. That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked right here. Search the archives, you will certainly learn that you are wrong regarding the ‘acidifying’ nonsense. Here, I’ll even do your homework for you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/17/2012-the-year-greenland-melted-aka-alarmists-gone-wild
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/chicken-little-of-the-sea-visits-station-aloha
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/the-fishes-and-the-coral-live-happily-in-the-co2-bubble-plume
You really need to get up to speed. The articles above have plenty of comments, and both the articles and comments thoroughly deconstruct the “acidification” nonsense, and the rest of your pseudoscience climate alarmism. Really, instead of posting your easily debunked talking points, learn something for a change. There is a lot of knowledge there, by peer reviewed writers.
And you falsely claim:
“Your testable, falsifiable hypothesis is totally meaningless because “beneficial” is a subjective term.”
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!! WRONG.
But Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
You’re just hiding out from answering again. “Beneficial” is certainly quantifiable. It’s antonym is “harmful”. Show us global harm due specifically to anthropogenic CO2, if you think you can. Make sure it’s per the scientific method. Or, continue to hide out by claiming that “harm” is meaningless, too. You’re good at hiding out instead of answering.
Alemany preposterously writes:
“If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.”
Utter nonsense. Cities will have to be relocated? Nations will have to be relocated?? Outright lunacy. Where will Italy be relocated to? Where will we put Mexico?
Fact: if the planet warms another degree or so, it will be entirely beneficial. Millions of arable acres will be opened to farming in places like Siberia, Mongolia, Canada and Alaska. Evaporation will increase, providing needed rainfall.
No one will relocate over 1ºC. They won’t even notice, since the warming will take place at night, and low temperatures – not high temperatures – will rise, and the higher latitudes will benefit; there is ample evidence that the Equator has remained within ±1ºC for the past billion years — even during the great stadials. But as we see, Alemany lives in fear. It is his primary motivation.
So more warmth is all good. The only scary scenario is if temperatures decline. That would hasten the killing of billions of people, on top of the billions that Richard Courtney shows that the alarmist policies will certainly kill.
From Chris Alemany on September 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm:
Indeed. Anthony was told it’d be an honest scientific evaluation of the temperature records.
Instead we got a circus, science by press release, as Richard Muller coughed up four unpublished un-peer reviewed papers (that were subsequently rejected for publication), and to much fanfare Muller went on to another career as a “converted climate skeptic” making speeches and many media appearances. Co-author Dr. Judith Curry quickly distanced herself from the mess.
Did you know this about his daughter?
Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy. Just how impartial was BEST?
If global warming was confirmed by BEST to be a serious problem, then “Muller & Associates” was ready to profit from it by promoting the reduction of “carbon footprints” with alternative energy. Can you say “conflict of interest”?
Seeing where BEST and Muller were heading, with that steaming pile of self-aggrandizement and highly questionable evaluation practices, Anthony decided he did not want his name and reputation attached to it and walked away from his endorsement.
What his choice told, was that Anthony Watts is an honest and honorable man.
Chris Alemany:
re your question to me at September 9, 2012 at 2:56 pm: viz.
I have repeatedly answered both issues.
The scenario is yours; i.e. constraining the use of fossil fuels and I addressed it at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am. Importantly, I want to save the lives of the children.
You don’t slip away from my question that easily. It is a simple question, and I ask it for the third time.
Why do you want to kill the children?
Richard
Chris, Kevin,and barry. I completely understand that your academic careers are based solely on you toeing your professors’ line of thinking (or if you are an academic toeing the Uni’s line). If you think any other way, it will be game over. That should be a clue that academia is NOT the bastion of free thought they would like you to believe. Quite the opposite. It has hobbled science and innovation incredibly. Perhaps one day you will look closely at what has been thrust upon you and you will see the giant holes in your arguments. Or not.
Try picking apart the papers that support your worldview, as that is what a skeptic would do. We try to find the problems in all papers, pro or con. If you hang around you will see that. Stop thinking emotionally if you can. And stop hating.
Chris Alemany says:
“You tell me which scenario you would apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to. It is a choice between money, and life.”
Ok, I caution you from choosing between money and life.
Chris, did you look at Vukcevic’s post. Looks like a sine wave and it fits right over your satellite graph, except it doesn’t have your 34 year blinders on.
Thanks for the assist Vukcevic.
Only 13 days to go until Arctic ice nearly disappears!☺☺☺
That will be another one of the literally hundreds of alarmist predictions that never happened. In a couple weeks the Arctic will begin its annual re-freeze.
In fact, exactly none of the climate alarmist predictions since the 1970’s have happened. Faced with that epic failure, any honest scientist would be forced to conclude that the AGW conjecture has been falsified, or at least rendered irrelevant.
Only cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers will look at their record of total failure and keep insisting that climate disruption is right around the corner. Pure delusion. But their minds are made up and closed tight, so what are you gonna do? They believe their nonsense, and belief is comfortable. So they appeal to corrupt, self-serving authorities, and stop thinking for themselves. They would certainly make lousy skeptics, since they are incapable of changing their minds.
To all. You know that I was being overly simplistic regarding the flow of heat to the poles. I was trying to state a complex idea in a clear and simple manner. I have looked at Chris and Kevin and barry’s stuff (which has all been posted here before), but I do not see that they looked at anything that was posted in rebuttal. The evidence for that is in the repeated mantra.
“But your anti-science comments are on trial, such as your recent nonsense that we can’t have oysters because of acidifying oceans. ”
LOL. So are you disputing the fact that shellfish farmers here are unable to grow their oysters in ocean water due to the acidity? Shall I give them your phone number so they can tell them yourself, would that be good enough?
But oh yes, CO2 cannot be harmful to anything because you say so…
To quote Gene Roddenberry; Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins to not just tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms.
“Ok, I caution you from choosing between money and life.”
Seems to me to be a pretty obvious choice. Richard seems to think spending money kills children. I tend to think that mass migrations, war, drought, and unprecedented weather kills children.
I certainly agree that BEST should not have done their PR before the stuff was properly published. However, the likelihood of it changing the actual data or conclusions is quite slim. Anthony knew this of course… so all his hissy-fit did was make it look like he just didn’t like the result of what will stand as the most comprehensive study about the link between CO2 and AGW that there is.
It is crystal clear that Alemany did not read a single one of the nine links I posted for his edification. His response is typical cognitive dissonance. His belief in his oyster nonsense is too comfortable to expend a little effort to get some real knowledge. Typical of the blinkered climate alarmist true believers.
And just so no one has any misconceptions… I don’t have an “academic” career. I’m a computer technician by trade. That is why I listen to the experts (the people who actually do the work), like Weaver and others who have been published on the subject as well as the many compendia of all of the actual literature including but certainly not limited to the IPCC reports.
“It is crystal clear that Alemany did not read a single one of the nine links I posted for his edification.”
Who exactly are you talking to? Is it normal for people on this website to talk as if they’re in a stadium?
Plus, along with your ability to totally ignore actual published science, you also seem to be performing some sort of telepathy?
I did actually click on all your links. I especially like the first one though that declares “CO2 MAKES OCEANS MORE NEUTRAL” by… posting on a blog…. scientific method be damned. Peer review be damned. Just put it up there, it must be true.
The same blog, by the way, who’s owner walked away from BEST because they released their results before being reviewed and published.
So… “friends”… as you can see. These people are ignorant hypocrites that likely wouldn’t know a oyster larvae from the stuff left on their kleenex.
No misconceptions here, none at all. It is clear that Alemany has never had an original thought; he only repeats nonsense talking points that are spoon fed to him by others with an alarmist agenda. BEST, for example, is nothing but bogus propaganda, as this corrected chart makes clear. It has always been all about the money, but some folks don’t understand that.
Run along now back to RealClimatePropaganda, you need some new talking points to replace all the debunked nonsense that we have been correcting. Since you admit you don’t think for yourself.
Oysters, heh.
The pH changes claimed for human CO2 [and which are rank speculation] are less than 0.2. But oceans typically vary between a pH of 7.7 and 8.2 on a daily basis, as this Willis Eschenbach chart of Monterrey Bay intake water shows. Oysters are grown in Monterrey Bay, and they thrive in big pH changes, making complete nonsense of the claim that “acidification” of the oceans is eliminating oysters. That is just one more preposterous scare tactic that credulous believers like Alemany fall for.
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“And just so no one has any misconceptions… I don’t have an “academic” career.”…..
=============
Now you’re talking.
And gaining listeners.
Oh but Smokey, you seem so concerned about having empirical data… so why pray tell do you not agree that shellfish farmers might be having a bit of an issue with any assertions that rising CO2 has no effect on them when they have the data right there in front of them every day.
And while you are at it, please let me know why the British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association, who represent the working lives of nearly 1000 people in my region would be ‘spoonfeeding’ anyone anything.
All they care about is their livelihoods after all. Oh, but all you can do is chuckle. Glad you’re not concerned for them.
Alemany, you are a hopeless believer. You refuse to read the articles I posted that debunk your oyster nonsense. Most folks like to hear both sides of a debate. Not you. Your mind is made up and closed tight, and you admittedly let others do your thinking for you.
Try reading the links I helpfully posted. They will explain in detail why your belief in dying oysters is complete nonsense. And being someone who regularly enjoys oysters, I note that prices have not changed at all, further debunking the dishonest claims of paid scientists who sound a false alarm because it is self-serving. If you were to start thinking for yourself, you might understand that your “studies” are all about the money, and the truth is not in them.