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.
richardscourtney says:
Answer the question
Why do you want to kill the children?
————————————————————————————————————
So anyone who disagrees with you means they want to kill children. Typical warmist “argument.”
barry,
Check the right sidebar. Scroll down a bit.
Richard Carlson: You have no idea what Mr Courtney was saying. Try understanding his argument.
From Chris Alemany on September 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm:
You’re kidding, right? Nicotine doesn’t cause throat cancer. Doctors recommend nicotine gum for smoking cessation. Nicotine gum is freely advertised on TV. If orally administered nicotine was carcinogenic, all that wouldn’t be happening.
It’s tobacco use which can cause throat cancer, with the addictive properties of the nicotine in the tobacco leading to continued tobacco use.
Now that you have misidentified nicotine instead of tobacco as causing throat cancer, much as CO₂ is blamed for global warming caused by natural cycles, will you admit to your mistake, just as Climate Science™ should admit to theirs?
Smokey,
So no, no one has attempted to make a strong case that sea ice would be gone by 2012. Zwally puts it at the highest end of estimates, and he qualifies it with “could be.” I thought maybe it had been a central estimate from some individual, or a prediction considered most likely by the author.
I suppose your ‘bet’ has rhetorical value.
So, Arctic temperature is a better fit to Arctic sea ice behaviour than any other indicator. Care to comment?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we have a Catch 22 situation here. He can’t admit to all of his mistakes on this thread without thread bombing.
Smokey,
In some regions, temperatures have gone down, too, but the global temperature is up. No one expects uniform behaviour over the globe, and different regions have different dynamics. For Antarctica, there were even predictions of initially increased sea ice in a warming world. Virtually all predictions were that Antarctic sea ice would decline much more slowly than Arctic sea ice, because of Antarctica’s relative thermal isolation form the rest of the planet due to the circumpolar winds and sea currents. If the world was unfeatured, like a billiard ball, then we could expect no regional differences.
Let’s see what the data says.
From a linear regression, I get an overall decline in global sea ice area of 1.3 million square kilometers from 1979 to present, or a trend rate of -400,000 sq km a decade.
barry says:
“…the global temperature is up.”
Since the LIA, yes. Over the past decade and a half, no.
barry, don’t you read?? I told you I was moving on to the ICESAT thread, and invited you to follow. And for the record, global temps have been rising for several hundred years — naturally — at about the same rate. Lately global temperatures have stalled. But the rising temps since the LIA contribute to the Arctic ice situation, and there is no evidence that it is a bad thing.
Nothing you have posted could be considered scientific evidence of human causation. You simply believe it, and that is enough for you. But not for me. I need decisive testable, reproducible, empirical, measurable evidence of AGW. You have produced none, so I am moving on to a newer thread.
Be as upset as you like, but the fact is that your arguments remain unconvincing.
KD: lol. You’re right, not sure why I said nicotine. Yes, it’s tobacco. The point stands.
[Reply: The Policy page makes clear that multiple screen names are forbidden. Second request: Please explain the name “Rob W”. Thank you. ~dbs, mod.]
Looking at the latsest, sea ice melt may have finally turned the corner the last couple of days, but I wouldn’t bet the farm.
Darryl: “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.”
Indeed. That will never happen with places like this which actively promotes no respect to the people in the field. It will also never happen with political entities using it as a political football and fanning the flames for political gain on either side.
It comes down to trust in our scientists to do the job they are payed to do.
On our current course, no matter who is right, the result will be far from the best possible.
Several Things I would like all to consider.
1. Richard Courtney : I read your history of the climate scare as it pertains to Lady (Margaret)
Thatcher and her minor in Chemistry. Thank you for that. Very interesting and informative. I still have it. I wondered if it pertained more, or at least most to the involvement of the UK.
Much can be learned from that info tangentially. One overwhelming fact is that scientists do not venture into politics although engineers sometimes do. Therefore politicians will tend to listen to scientists who may have a slant toward there biases.
2. Likewise, members of the media will lean toward those who have similar political views.
3. As warned indirectly by former president Eisenhower, scientists will become activists. This happens because governments (through various organizations) control money distributed for research which is done mostly at the University level. Therefore Universities will tend to group think their conclusions. Those with opposing views may become outcasts. Among the in groups I have seen overwhelming arrogance. The former president of Penn State defended Mike Mann because (paraphrasing) ‘He is a good scientist. We know that because he brings in lots of money so he must be’. I wonder what that former president is doing now.?
4. It is happening in other fields as well. Friends of mine who are physicians have said emphatically that the conclusion of a group in a. room is that of the or she who speaks the loudest.
5. Because money can be a driver of science as well as politics, so can science mimic politics
in its acidic nature. (pH dropping) well that was sick.
6. I certainly appreciate what Anthony has done regarding the study of US temp measuring sites.
It was sorely needed. It bothers me that anyone would not consider that there is no or minimal UHI effect. Measurements bare that out. Driving from out of a tiny town in the early evening, one can see a drop in a cars thermometer.
7. Chris A. I appreciate your response to me, and I believe you are sincere. Maybe we can take this to another level. Honestly, ultimately who cares about who wins the argument. It is about the choices we must make that is of concern. So lets look at things another way. There are things
on which we may agree.
A. The population of the world has gone from 2 Billion in the 1920’s to 7 billion. That kind of an increase in that amount of time we might all agree is unprecedented. It happened because there was more food, water, medical help and sanitary conditions available. We also know that much is still lacking in parts of the world. That the basics were more available came about as the result of an industrial revolution that required energy. Without the available energy it would not have happened.
B. Except for Nuclear, Geothermal to a small amount and perhaps gravity to a very tiny amount.
(Like using Tides) we are using solar energy that has been stored over a long period of time or current solar energy (including wind) In a 100 years we have used a great deal of that stored energy. I will not debate whether there is enough left for 50 years or 5,000 years. I do know that it is finite. Also, with more people we are increasing our rate of usage. Energy usage is quantifiable. A discussion can be had on each and every renewable source of energy. As time flies will we need other sources than long time stored energy.
There are positives and negatives to each. Two examples 1. Your food costs have gone up I am sure. Why? Well, I am from a farm community and I can guarantee that some farmers are getting rich (I have a tiny amount) while others are going bankrupts. Crops = money
Meat = bankruptcy. I do not believe in using a food source for energy. However, I will be visiting a company in Florida which may produce a great amount of ethanol from algae, It does so without consuming the algae. I am excited to learn more about it.
2. A great amount of money has been allocated to wind energy. Now consider a bias. Oil companies were fined over $600,000 for some where between 50 and 100 migratory birds getting caught in oil slick in North Dakota. Meanwhile the Department of Natural Resources has estimated that over 500,000 birds and an untold number of bats are killed by windmills annually. Also the count of golden and bald eagles is approaching 1,000. What is the importance of enforcing such a skewed law? Has anyone read anything of it in the news?
Now by comparison, do you think I would make the news if I brought home one bald eagle which I had shot? Maybe I could write a best selling book about it! I might make enough to pay the fine.
7. I would be very willing to discuss categorically the history of any weather event, the intensity of which has been credited to AGW. I have been studying our involvement in the studies of climate change as an illumination of human nature. This statement, I hope, is not offensive to anyone, but I have come to understand witch trials, the believe in eugenics, McCarthyism, racism and much more of the dark side of human nature as a result of how the world has proceeded in the study of climate.
I know that readers from other than the US may question this, but I have come to realize what a radical idea that a three pronged form of government was in achieving balance in a democracy. Now all three branches are have seemed to extend beyond their constitutional power. The need for oversight of all human endeavor is necessary. We are just not that good of a species. I believe the IPCC will eventually change radically or collapse because there does not seem to be any oversight.. They have their own rules, but do not follow them when inconvenient. They were given strong recommendations from comments from within by the IAC, Human nature! A basic requirement of science is to continue to evaluate.
IMO incontrovertible evidence of an unproven hypothesis is a paradoxical statement.
Sorry for rambling on so much in the previous statement. Should have read it!
[Snip.]
………
Darryl:
7. Chris A. I appreciate your response to me, and I believe you are sincere. Maybe we can take this to another level. Honestly, ultimately who cares about who wins the argument. It is about the choices we must make that is of concern. So lets look at things another way. There are things
on which we may agree.
A. : Agreed
B: Agreed
B–> Two examples 1. Your food costs : Agreed
B–> 2: All laws should be applied equally. All taxes (or lack of, or subsidies) should as well under the same principle. Much is skewed in many ways when it comes to the various energy sources currently under development.
7. Sounds exceptionally interesting and relevant.
You’re right on people outside the US questioning your love of 3 three pronged government. I personally think it’s a terribly inefficient and wasteful construct that works terribly for all involved citizens, governance and executive perspective and has been shown to benefit pork barreling and special interests. But that’s not really worth discussing here.. nor perhaps anywhere. 🙂
“IMO incontrovertible evidence of an unproven hypothesis is a paradoxical statement.”
Are you saying the IPCC have suggested their conclusions are incontrovertible? I would strongly speak against that viewpoint if only for the fact that as an international body their conclusions are, by design, exceedingly watered down. I’ve also heard that from a lead author of the IPCC report. They have also clearly indicated in their own reports that they are not happy with how uncertainties are being related in their reports nor the accuracy of how models are being presented.
Chris Alemany:
At September 10, 2012 at 9:04 pm you make the ridiculous assertion
In reality, the IPCC assertions are biased and exaggerated.
If you care to dispute the bias and exaggeration then you need to explain, for example, the infamous ‘Chapter 8’. Assuming you are as ignorant of that subject as you are of the rest of the AGW issue, I refer you to the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/madrid-1995-was-this-the-tipping-point-in-the-corruption-of-climate-science-2/
Richard
PS And I still await your apology or, alternatively, your answer to the question, “Why do you want to kill the children?”
“Ok people, move along. There’s nothing to see here”. No records will be broken and all will be fine eventually when the ice recovers, as it does every winter.
Nisse- yep I agree.
I have to mention that regarding the IPCC and the report summaries made for policy makers, it is all politicians will ever read. To support both of what Richard and Paul have said, it has become quite well known that the summaries are not written by the scientists involved, but by others with a vested interest. Everything in the summary seems to be negotiated. Many authors in the IPCC have expressed frustration that the conclusions for policy makers are not what they have said.
Chris, I would agree and clarify that the IPCC has not made that statement as such. (that I know of)
Some leaders of scientific organizations and others have made the statement.
It is interesting that leaders of several scientific organizations have made that kind of a statement and that it caused in return a strong backlash against the leadership. It might be that this separation of thought should be investigated further as to why it exists.
Also, Chris, by their actions I have lost trust in some of our scientists. I would argue with anyone that Mr. Hansen as gone off the deep end.
most of us can write a book about trust in the media. They have to make a profit and too often bad news is good news and good news is no news. (I heard that somewhere)
There are over 40 magazines in which scientific studies can be published. Results abound on all sides of the climate issue. The media without a doubt chooses results of a certain nature.
Some of the Journals like ‘Nature’ have lost some of their esteemed quality IMO because of their selection bias.
““Ok people, move along. There’s nothing to see here”. No records will be broken and all will be fine eventually when the ice recovers, as it does every winter.”
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not… the records Have been broken. The ice has not recovered. Merely freezing over the top is not the same when the mass is gone from underneath.
Darryl: Losing trust in one individual is natural. But it does not change the conclusions of the science. Many people seem to think that because they personally dislike Hansen, or Gore, or whoever… then they do not have to believe the science. That is a false assumption. The science does not change just because one guy has gone nuts because of what he feels are the consequences of societies inactions.
Chris, you are the most naive person I have ever met when it comes to science. And you must be quite young. Here is an example of common folks questioning accepted science:
Autism used to be thought of as the result of “cold mother syndrome”. And there was scientific consensus on this point. It even justified children being removed from the care of their mothers, sometimes forcibly. However, when the internet came along, mothers started comparing notes across the US. Through their efforts, substantial efforts, the trumpeters of consensus started to question and doubt. Thank God for common folks watching the hen house.
The risk of scientists being wrong (and even unethical to one degree or another) is quite substantial, as history as demonstrated time and time again. Are you willing to ignore that risk? It seems apparent you are. You would have been an easy mark for snake oil salesman of old.
the cold mother syndrome was dispelled as a manifestation of racism and classism when REAL data and real understanding of the human brain was actually introduced into the science IN THE 1970S!. It had NOTHING to do with the mothers on the Internet. Wow.
It is the data that shows us the truth. It did so with Autism, and it has with climate science since the first measurements 120 years ago!
REPLY: OK Enough of this, it is getting wildly off-topic. Further similar discussions will be snipped. – Anthony
From Chris Alemany on September 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm:
Driver: That car had no right to pull out in front of me. Everyone knows that Spruce Street goes straight through town with neither stop signs nor red lights.
Officer: But this is Walnut Street, you should have stopped at that sign right there.
Driver: I had intended to be on Spruce Street. My point still stands.
Officer: And the other driver is still dead.
Chris, you may have assumed that I did not make apparent. I said it was because of the actions of some scientists. They have formed a first reaction ‘team’ to put out fires in response to the ’cause’. On balance, they do not consider anything which, in fact, disproves the hypothesis.
If they were seeking the truth, they would welcome the contrary information.
At one time I had cursory info, you know ice melting, polar bears drowning etc.
I told this to my daughter who has degrees in biology and environmental science.
She asked me where I had gotten the info, I said “They Said” at which point she chimed in
“They?” She had me dead to rights, because she knew that I would never except “they”
That was about four years ago. That was when I went about trying to prove her wrong.
********I want to emphasize this. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE THAT I HAVE BECOME QUITE SKEPTICAL. I used to use a quote by Mark Twain which was approximately ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets a wholesale return of conjecture on a very small investment of fact’
I have not found anything that merits an incontrovertible characterization. and, I think I have studied it more in the last years than the amount of study I did for my undergraduate degree,.
including most of what is in working group 1 of the last two reports of the IPCC.
I would look at anything that is absolute evidence. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere does not count as evidence. I would suggest though, that it would indicate that further study should be made.
That is, I would never ACCEPT ‘they’
Smokey says: September 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm
“Tim, go argue with Leif. That I would like to see.”
Actually I would enjoy seeing someone like Leif comment on your disbelief in the hypothesis that the (more summer Arctic insolation 5-10 thousand years ago) = (less summer Arctic ice 5-10 thousand years ago). Invite him over! 🙂
You keep arguing that it is all “natural cycles” yet when such an actual cycle surfaces, then you argue like mad AGAINST it!
Tim Folkerts,
Why don’t you move your fixation with me to the ICESAT thread? It is much more current.
And I posted Leif’s quote because it deconstructed your claim regarding the sun. Go argue with him if you’re unhappy, don’t try to put it back on me. Personally, I think you’re afraid to challenge Leif. Now, on to ICESAT.
Only 11 more days until the Arctic is essentially ice-free! ☺
Smokey says “Personally, I think you’re afraid to challenge Leif”
There is no NEED to challenge him. I don’t disagree with what he said! In fact, the quote and the paper he is referencing actually AGREES with my point and argues against your point!
TSI is not a major factor in climate, since TSI hardly changes (as noted in the quote you gave). However, the DISTRIBUTION of insolation DOES matter — and several thousand years ago the North Pole got more summer sun and hence would be expected to have less summer ice.