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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chris Alemany:
In between your pointless ‘cut & paste’ of meaningless lists, please find time to answer the question
Why do you want to kill the children?
Richard
Chris Alemany:
At September 10, 2012 at 9:51 am you warn
I write to inform you that – for the same reasons – if you enjoy eating pigs you might have problems finding ones that have not flown away in a few decades. But cows (which are delicious by the way) won’t fly so should be OK.
Richard
From Chris Alemany on September 10, 2012 at 9:26 am:
Can’t make connection. Connection timed out.
No link provided.
Link found: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/Bitz_2008.pdf
The search function can’t find “atlantic” in the paper, thus “atlantic multi-decadal oscillation” isn’t there, thus the AMO was not even considered by this paper.
Paywalled, can’t access, “atlantic” not in Abstract.
“Error – DOI Not Found”
Other link found: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JC8.pdf
Old photocopy. AMO not mentioned.
Paywalled, can’t access, AMO not in Abstract.
Not paywalled, full paper online. And “atlantic” not found.
This is how you seek to prove to Smokey and anyone reading that the loss of Arctic sea ice can’t possibly be tied to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation,
By throwing up a lot of papers that never even looked at the AMO as a possible cause.
Your ability to critically and persuasively argue in a public forum is truly in it’s own class. The political class. With the skills you have, you should run for office. You’d be a great politician, a true and dedicated champion for your cause.
Anthony:
Thankyou for your reply to me that says;
“REPLY: Noted, but also note that we are down one regular moderator since REP died, and I have a business to run during the day. – Anthony”
Thankyou. That is clear, and my post was not intended to be offensive to the Moderators who do a wonderful job.
Also, before, anybody jumps in, no, I could not fill the vacancy for a WUWT Moderator because I would be useless at it.
Richard
On one item I have to agree with Chris Alemany. Loss of Sea Ice- Loss of Albedo-causing a net positive feedback. I have read so many abstracts on this. However, it still is based mostly on linear models. Still some uncertainty. Please, anyone, refer to where the physics contradicts this.
However,
Chris I have a question for you. After WW11 the industrial revolution accelerated and with that the presumed emission of CO2. Yet there are countless records of a net decrease in world temperatures, increases in arctic sea ice and no increases in sea temperatures (that I know of).
There were warnings of the coming ice age. Changes were reported over a thirty year period. The current US Science Czar warned of the possibility of a huge and disastrous tsunami being formed when a huge chunk of ice would break off from Antarctica.
My question is if atmospheric CO2 was increasing and the mechanism by which the atmosphere gains more heat with the increase in CO2 is in play, where did the heat go? It is quantitative and would have to have gone somewhere.
From Chris Alemany on September 10, 2012 at 9:51 am:
Really? Have you read it?
That’s a simulated 50 years of evolutionary responses to predicted circa 2100 levels of CO₂, not “the time it takes for the waters to upwell along the Pacific Coast of NA from wherever they started”.
First an explanation for the ‘thread bombing’.
I did this intentionally because otherwise it is simply too easy, and too often, that actual scientific papers are simply ignored. It’s been demonstrated too many times in this very thread.
The source of my ‘thread bomb’ was, of course, the original link September 10, 2012 at 8:22 am included to the US Army paper on solar heating in the Arctic.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/24-3_perovich.html
It is not my responsibility if the links do not work from that page. The references are still there and valid and would be searchable in any of the many online databases of scholarly articles.
That, ‘my friends’, is scientific research.
As for the personal attacks (time at work, ‘kill the children’, ad nauseum). Whatever. Standard attack-the-person tactic by people who do not have the observational data on their side and so can’t ‘threadbomb’ with actual references to scholarly articles.
Darryl: I do not know the answer to your specific question myself. I would suggest Google Scholar to find more relevant abstracts and hopefully fully published articles that might answer your question. My hunch though is that, given that before 1950 CO2 emissions grew far less rapidly and were of far smaller magnitude, the Earth did not respond strongly to that extra trapped heat. After 1950 though, the increase in CO2 emissions is quite incredible. It doubled from 1950 to 1960… 1970 was tripled the 1950 then it looks like the 70s oil crisis knocked it down a bunch. Very generally, I would say that such a huge increase in such short periods would simply be too short for the world temperatures to respond as quickly. Takes a while to turn the boat even if you have the full throttle hard-a-starboard. Of course… when the momentum finally catches up, the boat really whips around. I personally think we have been experiencing exactly that with the big increases in record high temp anomalies, accelerating sea ice declines, and weather anomalies since perhaps the 1990s, but definitely through the 2000s.
For reference here’s a graph from the World Resources Institute on world CO2 emissions from 1900-2004.
http://www.wri.org/chart/global-emissions-co2-from-fossil-fuels-1900-2004
Smokey: The data for the chart should be available here
KD: If you read my whole post you would have realized I made a typo
“that is also where the 50 years came from.”
Should read “this is where the 50 years came from”…
The link and quote was directly below.
WOW … what a lot of heat (and little light) lately!
A couple quick comments:
Smokey says: “Thus, an ice-free Arctic is routine, natural, and normal. Any claims that “this time it’s different” require scientific evidence. “
This time IS different! I didn’t see the link to the “15 papers”, but almost certainly they are to a time 5,000-10,000 years ago. The orbit of the earth changes in ways that are confirmed by both theory and observation. 5,000 – 10,000 years ago, there was significantly more sunlight in the Arctic summer. More sunlight = warmer = less summer ice.
Unless, of course you don’t count Milankovitch cycles and changing insolation as legitimate scientific factors that affect temperature.
Pamela Gray says “Consider this: Warmed pools of water from ENSO pattern oscillations, riding on the surface conveyor belt, spills (part of it) into the Arctic where it warms the undersurface of the ice, melting it away. “
I have looked extensively at statistical correlations between Arctic ice and various climate parameters. SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) and MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index) are among the WORST correlations with ice extent. Even up to 24 months later, there is very little correlation between ENSO and ice. On the other hand, PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) does have some strong correlations, especially with a 1.5-2 year lag. AMO (Atlantic Multiodecadal Oscillation) also has some good correlations (but thisis off the top of my head without access to my data atm).
Of course, it might take even longer than 2 years for the warming to reach the Arctic from ENSO events, but 1) by that time it would seem the heating/cooling from an event would have greatly dispersed and 2) other factors in the meantime could mask the effect, making it hard to see.
(More details are available if people are interested.)
It may take several trips in the conveyor belt to release all the heat accumulated during equatorial warming oscillations. We could be seeing the previous stacked up La Ninas finally getting rid of all the heat that accumulates in the ocean at the equator during these events. Those stacked warmed pools periodically make it to the Arctic, probably crowding up against each other as the current tries to squeeze through the narrow openings. But not all of it gets in so takes another ride round the world. You might want to look for almost an echo affect, which would be much longer than 1 or 2 years.
Tim Folkerts says:
“This time IS different!
Not really, Tim. Sure, there are always minor differences, even from day to day. But the current climate is routine and normal for the Holocene. It is amusing to see the alarmist crowd frightening itself over natural fluctuations. And the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.
[More charts are available if people are interested.]
Smokey — let me get this straight. You are saying a 5-10% change in solar input to the Arctic is “not really” different??? You maintain that the energy input from the sun during the Arctic summer could be different by 10’s of W/m^2 and that would be “minor”???
I’d love more charts — how about one showing mid-summer insolation in the Arctic for the past ~ 10,000 years?
tjf,
I will defer to Dr. Svalgaard, the resident solar expert:
“…what was solar activity during the Maunder Minimum? Schrijver et al. suggest it was on the level of what we have seen in 2008-2009. If so, the difference in the total solar energy we would observe during a ‘Maunder Minimum’ of any duration [50+ years, 500 years, 5000 etc] would be 0.05% of the average over the past 40 years. Such a deficit would lower the temperature 0.04C.”
So during the Maunder — one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene — solar influence caused only a minuscule 0.04ºC difference.
Your confirmation bias sure has you under control, and you don’t even realize it.
• • •
Only 12 days to go before Arctic ice essentially vanishes! Or so the alarmist crowd claims.
Chris Alemany:
I see you continue to obfuscate.
I will not bother to address each of your excuses at September 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm, but I write to address this piece of nonsense in your post
The “personal attacks were from you; e.g.
Importantly, you raised the issue about sacrificing “the children” and I explained how your accusations against realists are not valid but they do apply to you and your assertions. You have not addressed my explanation and have persisted with those assertions.
Please note; the claim that climate realists are sacrificing “our children and our children’s children” is a common smear used by warmists. It needs to have an end put to it and, therefore, I intend to challenge it whenever it is presented.
So, I again request
Why do you want to kill the children?
That question is not a “personal attack”. it is a reasonable request in the light of what you have said. Either answer the question or admit you were wrong when you made your assertions and you were also wrong when you made your accusations that we – not your assertions – were sacrificing ”children”. And apologise for the untrue accusations.
Answer the question
Why do you want to kill the children?
or admit you were wrong and apologise.
Richard
Chris, have to challenge that. A heat gain would be measured (by some means or some place) immediately-like pouring water into a glass. That is what I meant by heat is quantitative. no cause and effect lag time. Other effects may lag.
Also, just to clarify, I am sure you meant the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, the Increase in the % of C-12 compared to C-14 would suggest a significant (loose term) contribution from fossil fuel sources. However, as a caveat to the last sentence, the science community is finding an increase in the flow of CO2 in and out of sinks. My point is there are just too many variables to have a high degree of certainty and in the upcoming IPPC-5th report there are hints that there will be noted more uncertainty of attribution.
After giving myself a headache for the last several years trying to be objective in studying the various models and the science behind each, (my background is chem,physics and math) I have come to be in agreement with many scientists who have come to the conclusion that climate science is in a period of negative discovery. We are learning that there is so much we don’t know.
Also, many of the models (which still have to be considered hypothesis) have predictions which have been contradicted; to which the response from some in the climate community is that (at least in part) there is something wrong with the observations.
The ad hominem attacks have gone both ways and are pathetic. ‘Climate Change denier’ is IMO by far the worst, not because it is an arrogant, I know better than you term, but one that some Journalists originated by making comparisons to those who would deny the slaughter by the Nazi’s. To make that comparison is offensive and shows disregard for the magnitude of a tragedy.
I believe that one thing that is lacking and very unusual, is that there really is no discourse among scientists with varying viewpoints –and quite honestly it is more so by those who strongly believe in AGW
In general, that are choosing not to have that discourse. There has been more of a circling of the wagons and that shows a lack of integrity.
Everyone should realize that it is not about winning an argument but about serving humanity.
The title of Michael Mann,s new book says it all in referring to the climate wars. I personally find him disgusting in that he seems to make everything about him. Each, and all of us need to reflect on what we are doing and accept the fact that we may be wrong to some degree.
I am sure that you are aware that most of the IR frequencies that can be absorbed by CO2 are mostly absorbed. That was known a hundred years ago in lab experiments.
It was some of those German scientists during world war 11 that developed the atomic model that deals with the absorption and emission in all directions of small amount of energy, millions of times in a second. It is believed to cause a positive feedback of water vapor. Unlike the GH effect which is due to preventing convection, it is convection that would cause warming.
It should by called the Tyndall Gas effect instead of the green house effect/ To Date predictions from the models have been shown to be not well observed. .
My own believe (currently) is that there may be a small amount of AGW, but a larger amount of any warming is from natural variations. I can give you at least six regarding solar or cosmic radiation.Trying to sequester a fundamental component of life would IMO be a serious mistake.
The trouble is when the IPCC was formed the wrong question was asked. “Is CO2 causing warming” Answer to the positive and there will be more money for more study, A career is made. Answer to the negative and find something else to do. The question should have been “What are possible causes of a change in climate” and give consideration to all. There have been and are many studies that various solar changes may be the greatest cause. In any case correlation does not prove causation.
Pamela says: ” You might want to look for almost an echo affect, which would be much longer than 1 or 2 years.”
Unfortunately, there just isn’t that much good data. With ~ 35 years of satellite data, it would be reasonable to look for 1-2 year lags, since there could be many of these in the course of 35 years. But if the lag is 5-10 years (or longer), then it would only potentially have happened a couple times in the data set. Statistical analysis is not going to find weak signals with only a few occurrences in the data set. With 1000 years of good data, then such effects could be sought and found, but we have to work with what we have.
Smokey says: “Your confirmation bias sure has you under control, and you don’t even realize it.”
In some cases that might be true, but here it is your ignorance that is showing. The fact that you can never counter my facts with anything other than irrelevant charts and irrelevant quotes (Maunder Minimum has NOTHING to do with the current discussion) does not bode well for you.
(For what it is worth, I do agree with you on a few points. Everything else being equal, more CO2 will tend to make plants grow better. And too much reliance is often put on the output of models. And predicting the effects (both positive and negative) of warming are tough. So I tend not to discuss the effects, but rather the basic science of IR radiation and insolation and thermodynamics.)
Tim, go argue with Leif. That I would like to see.
And for anyone still interested in the complete debunking of the ocean acidification myth, this site has more info.
Here is a chart of measured ocean pH levels. Thus, the claim that pH is being affected is bunkum.
Here is a pH chart going back to the 1700’s. As usual, there is nothing alarming.
And this source shows that rather than harming shellfish, a less alkaline ocean actually promotes shell growth.
Next, this chart shows that CO2 has no effect on calcification of organisms.
If and when oyster, crab, shrimp and lobster prices all begin to rise together, I will take another look. But right now the iron law of supply and demand falsifies the ‘disappearing oyster’ nonsense. Empirical evidence always trumps pay-to-play papers. Thus, another baseless CO2=CAGW claim is falsified.
Finally, here is a good chart of the AMO Index. Further proof of natural variability.
From Chris Alemany on September 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm:
Thus you have not verified the links, thus you have not checked out the work at the ends of the links. Thus you’re just regurgitating a long list of references without any real knowledge of what they are really and fully discussing.
And what does this Great Important Paper say?
This is a plain dry description of conditions, such as would be expected from the US Army Corps of Engineers (not exactly the same as the US Army). There is nothing alarming here.
The closest thing to controversial is: “While there may not be a tipping point for Arctic sea ice cover, positive feedbacks do contribute to rapid changes.” But this is true. When the waters coming into the Arctic have more heat, more sea ice melts from underneath, reducing the insulating ice cover, which allows more heat to be radiated into space. The feedback is, the ice albedo effect adds some more heat, removing some more ice, thus increasing the cooling.
When the Arctic has more heat to dump to space, it dumps it faster. That’s it.
I have now looked through the paper, read a lot of it. Did you? There is no blaming of “anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions”. “Global warming” isn’t in it. “Climate change” has two mentions:
That’s it. And as used, “climate change” can refer to warming or cooling.
The entire paper is a dry description of conditions and a presentation of relatively-recent Arctic sea ice history. No blame is assigned. It is noted the decline indicates a warming trend, that’s all. It is not controversial.
If you were believing this was some searing indictment of human CO₂ emissions loudly proclaiming the immediate need for worldwide societal and energy technology change, you are wrong. It is nothing.
And by threadbombing the references of this Great Important Paper that is nothing alarming, you have made much ado about nothing.
But at least you are being consistent.
Smokey,
The time series of my share portfolio has an uncanny resemblance to the GISS global temperature record. Generally there is a rising trend, with 2005 being a high point, whereupon my shares flatline, with a bit of a dip in 2008.
I conclude, therefore, that my share portfolio either causes global temperature to change, or that global temperature change is responsible for my changing fortunes.
Where is your data? I have several graphs, and some long term data and none show a step change in the mid-1970s.
You link to a graph of the Arctic Oscillation. I think this is what you actually mean.
The AO fluctuates randomly, on daily, weekly and monthly time scales. The trend in sea ice has been much more consistent. However, if we are to imagine that the AO has a longer term cycle, and if we assume that it has a strong impact on sea ice coverage, then let’s see what the data tells us.
There is no step change in the early 70s. There are strong positive anomalies around 1990, and strong negative around 2010. There are quite a few graphical representations. If you compare all these with Spencer’s graph, his is the odd one out. Perhaps that’s because his analysis, alone of all the indexes, omits March anomalies.
I think there is a much better index that fits with Arctic sea ice behaviour – Arctic temperature anomalies
There is a warm phase in the late 30s coincident with a period of low sea ice coverage, and a strong warming trend starting from about 1970, coincident with the strongly trending sea ice decline since then.
The sea ice fit to Arctic temperatures is MUCH stronger than with the AO index.
And it is intuitively obvious. Why wouldn’t Arctic sea ice repond strongly to temperature changes? We see it happen on a massive scale every year.
Seems to me people are grasping at straws to refute the obvious. The best correlation for Arctic sea ice behaviour is Arctic temperature. By far.
Definitely. I’ll bet you $1000 (US) that there will be more than a million sq km of Arctic sea ice (extent, any index) in 12 days time, or at any time this year.
Darryl:
Your sanity is appreciated. And your last post is a great one.
As a layperson I try very hard not to pretend to know much of anything, which is why I generally refer to the big data stores of knowledge and to the research that has been actually published.
However, I am also quite fed up with the notion that some peoples views should be taken as legitimate or in any way convincing simply because of some ‘right’ to free speech and equal time. I know enough to know it does not work that way in any field of science.
If I walked into my Doctors office and declared that There is “no scientific evidence” that nicotine is at all related to the (hypothetical) cancer in my throat my Doctor would either laugh at me, or sit me down and explain why I was wrong, or both. Either way, I’d be wrong because the mountains of evidence say so and my Doctor is the one with the years of experience and access to that research, not me.
It should be no different with Climate science.
The only reason it is different is because of the political and economic ramifications of what they are saying. And that has led to a general and targeted vilification of anyone in the profession. One of the chief cheerleaders of that vilification is, of course, this website.
It is, in my view, unfolding to be one of the great tragedies of human intellectual development stunningly (truly) led by the US, one of the most developed and advanced nations In the world.
Richard: I believe my scenario would both put far less in danger and end up with far fewer deaths than yours. And nowhere did I ever suggest or asked whether YOU wanted to kill any children. Only you did that (which is a smear btw)… And then accused me of smearing you when I called you on it. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that, I can’t do much for you.
barry,
Yes, of course I’ll wager. And let’s make that $10,000.
However, you are trying to fade my side of the bet. Doesn’t work that way. I offered to wager that ‘essentially no Arctic ice in 12 days’ is wrong.
But nice try. If you’re still interested, then we’ll have to define ‘essentially’. Because 1,000,000 sq km is far more than ‘essentially ice free’. About one-tenth of that is where I would draw the over/under line. See how it works?
Actually, I just posted that to ridicule the handful of nutty true believers who try to sell everyone on the false conjecture that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. They are not, as I have shown many times. See, the Arctic is a region. It has a regional climate, as does the Antarctic. So global ice cover is pretty much unchanged, because the Antarctic is adding ice. If CO2 was the cause, the Antarctic would also be losing ice. QED
Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to check out the new ICESAT thread, which debunks yet another warmist myth. Feel free to join me there.
The whole of the climate debate would be better if we all showed each other the respect that comes from a quality of character that causes us to state our concerns, whatever they may be, as opposed to getting stoned with a who cares attitude.
First, we must carefully consider each and all points of view.
That said; Barry, I would not bet the barn and the kitchen sink.
Well, I agree with you. Has anyone tried to make a strong case along the lines of what you’re saying?
I’m sure there must be some people in the world saying that current sea ice extent is unprecedented in the history of the planet, but I’m not sure i’ve come across them. Still, there are always people making over-confident, unfounded remarks. I’m chatting to one just now.
It’s possible there was ‘essentially’ no sea ice coverage in the Arctic at the holocene thermal maximum about 8000 – 9000 years ago, but I’m not sure what that tells us about today. The Arctic was receiving stronger insolation back then, and the melt seasons were longer – due to orbital dynamics. Orbital dynamics should see the Arctic cooling over the long term, but the temperature has jumped by a 2 degrees C over the last 100 years, most of that in the last few decades. Something is making Arctic temps buck the long term trend.
As for ‘unprecedented’, it would appear that the decadal rate of summertime sea ice decline of is unmatched over the observational record.
To Richard S. Courtney,
You might as well save the electrons and the wrist strain. Chris Alemany has Noble Cause Blindness, takes a while to recover from it, sometimes years. Some people never realize they have it.
“It’s for the greater good.” Which by definition is not for individual good. Same as when justifying the launching of wars, it is acceptable that individuals be lost, collateral damage, as after the defeat those remaining will be better off under the enlightened leadership of the victor.
Besides, it is unimaginable that we allow these needy people of the world the same cheap energy that we of the Western world built our civilization on, as they wouldn’t know how to handle it. As has long been ingrained into the human consciousness from A Man Called Horse to Pathfinder, from the European colonization of the Americas to the British occupation of India, only white people can save brown people, they can’t save themselves.
Brown people are not wise enough to handle cheap readily-available energy. They are not smart enough to comprehend how damaging fossil fuels are to the planet. Sure, it might seem like a good idea to we skeptics to let them have it, to build their own wealth, then they too can afford to adapt to and cope with whatever damaging effects may arise from global warming.
But those who are convinced of the certainty of CAGW know this cannot be allowed to pass. The brown people need to be looked after, they cannot be allowed that cheap energy. It is up to the wise white people, the scholarly scientists and learned politicians, to chart their future for them. White people must give them clean sustainable energy, so they don’t carelessly pollute their environment, nor damage the lives of white people with their carbon pollution. There must be global treaties to restrict carbon, with payments to the governments of the brown people so they keep their own kind controlled.
And if more of the brown people than the white people become collateral damage in the war against carbon, even many many more, that’s just the vagaries of war, can’t be helped. The wise white people are building a better future for both brown and white, the descendents of the surviving brown people will be grateful for the better world that was crafted for them.
For the greater good, done to them for their own good. This is what Chris Alemany and his fellow “acceptors of the science” are certain must be done. They have Noble Cause Blindness. Before you can get them to accept that what they believe is wrong, they must first be willing to see what they have truly been advocating. Not only can this take awhile, sometimes, despite all attempts to help them, the condition is permanent. As is said, there’s none so blind as those who will not see.