After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.
Here’s JAXA data plotted to show what has happened:
From the blog sunshine hours, here’s an analysis using NSIDC data:
=============================================================
Today is day 291 in the Arctic. The minimum in 2012 was on day 260 – 31 days ago.
If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by 43.8% since the minimum was reached.
Extents are in millions of sq km.
(And note I am using NSIDC data here and their algorithm is making the refreeze appear slow compared to NORSEX)
| Year | Minimum_Extent | Extent Day | Extent_Change | Extent_Change_Pct |
| 1979 | 6.89236 | 295 | 2.55691 | 27.1 |
| 1980 | 7.52476 | 280 | 0.95144 | 11.2 |
| 1981 | 6.88784 | 284 | 1.71672 | 20 |
| 1982 | 7.15423 | 287 | 2.41499 | 25.2 |
| 1983 | 7.19145 | 282 | 1.70096 | 19.1 |
| 1984 | 6.39916 | 291 | 2.08442 | 24.6 |
| 1985 | 6.4799 | 281 | 1.50769 | 18.9 |
| 1986 | 7.12351 | 280 | 1.8491 | 20.6 |
| 1987 | 6.89159 | 276 | 1.37713 | 16.7 |
| 1988 | 7.04905 | 286 | 1.76783 | 20.1 |
| 1989 | 6.88931 | 296 | 2.70935 | 28.2 |
| 1990 | 6.0191 | 295 | 3.46791 | 36.6 |
| 1991 | 6.26027 | 290 | 2.69726 | 30.1 |
| 1992 | 7.16324 | 282 | 1.67903 | 19 |
| 1993 | 6.15699 | 280 | 1.85199 | 23.1 |
| 1994 | 6.92645 | 279 | 1.1014 | 13.7 |
| 1995 | 5.98945 | 283 | 0.5189 | 8 |
| 1996 | 7.15283 | 285 | 1.77882 | 19.9 |
| 1997 | 6.61353 | 277 | 0.65032 | 9 |
| 1998 | 6.29922 | 291 | 2.35169 | 27.2 |
| 1999 | 5.68009 | 286 | 2.68723 | 32.1 |
| 2000 | 5.9442 | 286 | 2.32372 | 28.1 |
| 2001 | 6.56774 | 293 | 1.95252 | 22.9 |
| 2002 | 5.62456 | 287 | 2.41992 | 30.1 |
| 2003 | 5.97198 | 291 | 2.10126 | 26 |
| 2004 | 5.77608 | 294 | 2.37329 | 29.1 |
| 2005 | 5.31832 | 296 | 3.09221 | 36.8 |
| 2006 | 5.74877 | 288 | 1.72446 | 23.1 |
| 2007 | 4.1607 | 288 | 1.39556 | 25.1 |
| 2008 | 4.55469 | 293 | 3.33615 | 42.3 |
| 2009 | 5.05488 | 286 | 1.45951 | 22.4 |
| 2010 | 4.59918 | 293 | 2.88065 | 38.5 |
| 2011 | 4.30207 | 282 | 1.35023 | 23.9 |
| 2012 | 3.36855 | 291 | 2.62409 | 43.8 |
Source: sunshine hours
===========================================================
Here’s the NORSEX plot and NSIDC plot compared:
See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
In other news. I’ve been in touch with Bill Chapman at UUIC/Crysophere Today to point out this bug:
It turns out to be an accidental issue, and he says:
“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.
I’ll have it fixed by tomorrows update.”
Stuff happens, no worries.
“D Böehm says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Gary Lance says:
“There are plenty of people who agree with me.”
Quite a few legitimate scientists and engineers comment here. Produce one who agrees with your nonsense. And just because you don’t like a chart, that does not mean it is wrong, it just means you have trouble dealing with reality. Look at where the charts came from: R.B. Alley and Leif Svalgaard, for example.
Finally, you’re quibbling about a chart ending at year 2000. But there has been no global warming since well before 2000, so it doesn’t matter. It’s just more of your incessant threadbombing. Try getting out once in a while, because your mom’s basement is no place to spend your life.”
Like has nothing to do with taking data and faking a chart with the wrong date and words claiming present is 2000, when in fact the data from R. B Alley ended in 1855. It’s a proven Easterbrook fake. If you had legitimate evidence, you would tolerate a fake chart and you’ve posted it knowing it’s a fake chart.
I have a copy of R. B Alley’s data, so why don’t you bother to look at the data and prove to yourself the chart is fake? The reason is, you don’t care about posting fake things, because that’s all you have.
Gary Lance:
Your assertions mean nothing. Nothing was ‘faked’. If you have a chart, post it.
You let the cat out of the bag when you admitted not having a clue about who Ferenc Miskolczi is. He is well respected internationally, and quite well known in the field of climatology. His name comes up regularly here. So we know you’re just winging it, with talking points you get from alarmist echo chambers. And you are far from being up to speed on the subject.
Friends:
This is number 4 in my series of posts refuting nonsense from Gary Lance.
At October 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm GL types saying of a graph
He provides no evidence for this assertion and this omission is not surprising because his claim probably results from a confusion: i.e. he was thinking about himself and not the graph when he typed.
Richard
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm:
From Gary Lance on October 24, 2012 at 3:33 pm:
I’ve got Alley’s GISP2 data too. From the Alley 2000 paper “present” is 1950.
But the NOAA page where one can get the data clearly says:
Start Year: -107175 AD End Year: 2000 AD
The XML file puts the end of the data at “-50 cal yr BP”, which would be 2000AD.
So if you go by what NOAA says, it’s an understandable mistake when those charts say “Years Before Present (2000 AD)” as the Alley GISP2 data goes from 95 BP and NOAA says 2000AD.
The graphs themselves are not in error, certainly aren’t fake, the numbers and lines match the Alley data. The error is limited to a number in parentheses in the X-axis label, should be 1950 instead of 2000.
This is discussed in a January 2011 comment to an Easterbrook article on WUWT. Which documents how NOAA was contacted about the “2000” issue on that page and “Bruce” said it’d be fixed. As clearly seen, it still hasn’t been fixed.
I know who Gary Lance is. His name is Stephanthedenier. I think he is a doctor, actually. But I already told him he should try and rid himself of all the demons that possess him. (schizophrenia)
“D Böehm says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Gary Lance:
Your assertions mean nothing. Nothing was ‘faked’. If you have a chart, post it.
You let the cat out of the bag when you admitted not having a clue about who Ferenc Miskolczi is. He is well respected internationally, and quite well known in the field of climatology. His name comes up regularly here. So we know you’re just winging it, with talking points you get from alarmist echo chambers. And you are far from being up to speed on the subject.?”
When Easterbrook was told the data was misrepresented on his original chart, he kept on using it, just like you do. You don’t care if it’s a lie as long as it suits your agenda.
I say use it and let people know your character!
I’ve posted the proof so here it is again:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
Why does this chart keep getting posted when it’s been proven wrong?
http://www.climategate.com/wp-content/uploads/greenland-ice-core-10000.jpg
or this:
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
Gary Lance:
At October 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm you say to D Böehm about a graph
I say to you about your ridiculous assertions, answer the questions.
I remind that they are
1.
Please educate me on how “an ice free arctic … will be the most pivotal event related to the Earth that man has ever witnessed”.
This will be more “pivotal” than the exit from Africa, than the end of the last glaciation, than the invention of agriculture, and than the industrial revolution? How?
2.
You tell me, “The areas that will benefit from that change are not well populated and the areas who will be losers are well populated.”
Why is such a coincidence likely? And why will people not move if it happens?
Failing your answer, I will continue my series of corrections as you add to your list of daft assertions.
Richard
Gary Lance,
You have posted no “proof”. Kadaka clearly explained why you are confused, but you give your usual Gary Lance response.
You don’t want to learn, your mission is to be a site pest.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm
I have Alley’s report.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
The data starts at age 0.0951409 and age being defined in thousand years before present. Present is defined as 1950 and it’s done that way so it doesn’t have to be changed. I’ve seen recent ice cores with negative age, meaning after 1950. The point is simple and the youngest data in GISP2 is 1855. The GISP2 site was chosen to give a long record of the past. There are plenty of Greenland ice cores with modern data. If you go to NOAA, you can even find a comparison of modern ice cores. One of the ones I found had about 6 modern ice cores, but the data was still in O18 measurements. I thought about converting the data to temperature and figured it would just be a waste of time. What impressed me was these measurements were made on ice cores where the year could be positively identified by the rings and the data showed large variation for the same year. I was interested in how accurate O18 analysis was and it’s not accurate enough to treat a single ice cores as gospel.
This is the link I use to find any NOAA Paleoclimatology Ice Cores Data Sets:
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:537703002861230:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:
From Gary Lance on October 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm:
But the report only says “before present”, the definition is not given there. The data references the Alley 2000 paper, which is normally paywalled but I supplied a link to a free copy. By the incorrect NOAA page and the paper’s date it is easy to think 2000 is “present”.
To find out that “present” is 1950 for the dataset needs the paper, where it’s mentioned.
I’ll take this as confirmation you really do want me to think you are that stupid.
You’ve been throwing around a link to this paper at Leif’s site as “proof” the Easterbrook charts are wrong.
That’s the Kobashi et al 2011 paper, describing another GISP2 reconstruction. Here’s the links to that dataset:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.xls
That GISP2 data runs to considerably younger than 1855.
Damn, that’s a confused jumbled mess. Found the Alley listing, says most recent year is 2000AD.
Look for Greenland ice core data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
For the rest, try the “Ice Core Gateway”:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/current.html
LOL!
Snicker.
heh
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 25, 2012 at 2:39 pm
What is so hard or confusing about doing this?
“There was a follow-up U.S. GISP2 project, which drilled at a glaciologically better location on the summit of the ice sheet. This hit bedrock (and drilled another 1.55 m into bedrock) on July 1, 1993 after five years of drilling,”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GISP2
Compare GRIP to GISP2!
“Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used in archaeology, [b]geology[/b], and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation “BP”, with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as “Before Physics”; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[1][2]”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
1950 is always used because time changes if you don’t set a date for BP. You can always use negative BP for something after 1950.
1950 – 95 = 1855
The first report referenced in 2000 is only the date of the report and is about Younger Dryas, which was approximately 12,800 and 11,500 years BP (1950). The second report has data going back to 49,003.4 BP. The only thing that reflects is time to do the analysis and a specific interest in Younger Dryas, hence writing a report when the data was available.
If you read what Easterbrook originally did, he edited the data, too, by leaving some data towards the end out and claiming the dates were to the present. Don Easterbrook is a geologist, so he knows what BP means. That means it can’t be a mistake.
Another thing that is commonly done is to claim a long period for LIA and MWP and take any peak in those centuries as confirmation. What about the rest of the time? What about specific dates for these periods and matching it to the data with the right dates for the data? A Geologist ought to be able to do what a freshman student does.
The data starts in 1855. There is plenty of data that has yearly rings to bring the GISP2 ice core up to date. Like I’ve said, the GISP2 site was chosen for the past and not the present. I’ve seen comparisons of recent data to see how accurate the O18 measurements were and they aren’t accurate enough to make these all these claims with only one ice core. The site also has instrumental data for temperature.
A person who believes in a cause should hold others believing in that cause accountable and not embrace their misbehavior. I have seen videos on Lord Christopher Monckton who was a Journalist and it showed him misquoting people over and over again. The man knows if you put something in quotation marks and claim someone says it that you aren’t suppose to change it to your words. To make a mistake is one thing, but to make a habit of doing it is another. I understand he continued to misquote others even when corrected.
Friends:
Gary Lance says;
“To make a mistake is one thing, but to make a habit of doing it is another.”
Yes, Gary Lance – who has yet to make a demonstrably true statement in this thread – said that!
Richard
From Gary Lance on October 25, 2012 at 4:49 pm:
You mean changing the subject so you don’t have to admit you’re wrong? Not my style, but if you feel you have to try it, well, we’ll see how it goes.
Why and how? I don’t see any GRIP temperature reconstructions at the Greenland repository. Alley2000 mentions using GRIP data, but the temperature/accumulation dataset says GISP2.
Going by the NOAA sources, from 2000 is an easy mistake.
What are you smoking? The “first report” is the Alley2000 paper. There is no second report, only the dataset arising from the Alley2000 work.
Plus you need to actually start reading what you are referencing. The Accumulation rate part of the Alley dataset runs to 49,003.4BP, but the Temperature part goes all the way back to 49,981BP. Easy mistake to make when you don’t know what you are reading and just zoom to the end, with the Accumulation rate section being at the end of the file.
In the dataset Description section it says: Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
The Cuffey and Clow 1997 Accumulation rate dataset runs to 49,972.5BP, note it is specifically called out as before 1950AD to avoid confusion, and is found here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/physical/accum.txt
Can’t find the temperature data.
That Alley2000 covered the Younger Dryas doesn’t mean much, as the Alley dataset merely runs to the end of the dataset it came from.
Since you haven’t provided links to what Easterbrook allegedly did, I followed the internet squawking. Of which there was very little, Googling “easterbrook alley gisp2” only gets four hits total. The graph you’re griping about is from this WUWT guest post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/
…
…
I have no idea WHAT THE HELL you’re talking about. It’s a mix of data from different sources. Figure 1 goes to 2000, data source unspecified, looks like the instrumental record. The rest don’t get near 2000, unless you want to argue that for the small grainy Figure 4 where it can’t be determined where it ends.
Regurgitate whatever the professor thinks are the facts on demand as often as needed?
Tree cores show annual rings. Ice cores have annual layers. If you’re going to continue pretending to be scientific, please at least get the nomenclature right. Actually reading the “proof” you’re flogging would help as well.
kadaka,
Thanks for an excellent and thorough deconstruction of Gary Lance’s comment. It is clear that Lance is new to this subject, and that he has plenty of idle time on his hands to post his alarmist carp. His comments come from someone who admittedly had never even heard of Dr Miskolczi, an internationally recognized climatologist. And now you show that Lance has not even read his own links. There is a huge gap between Mr Lance and scientific credibility.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 26, 2012 at 10:37 am
Do you think a Geologist can read? Did they just hand the Geologist Don Easterbrook a diploma for paying his tuition or did he find it in a Cracker Jack box?
Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events in the past occurred. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the origin of the age scale, reflecting the fact that radiocarbon dating became practicable in the 1950s. The abbreviation “BP”, with the same meaning, has also been interpreted as “Before Physics”; that is, before nuclear weapons testing artificially altered the proportion of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[1][2]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
I’ve had courses in archaeology, geology, paleontology and anthropology. How can someone get a degree in geology and not know BP means before 1950? Doesn’t it make sense if a date isn’t set then it will be confusing, because present is always changing?
Just how far are you people willing to go to support this fraud? The Geologist Don Easterbrook intentially lied when he made those charts.
If you post a chart that says it has data up to the year 2000 and it doesn’t have that data, it’s a lie. If you quote someone and change their words, it’s a lie.
Of course, normal people can make a mistake, but these aren’t normal people. Easterbrook and Monckton are frauds. A geologist knows what BP means and a journalist knows what the requirements are to quote someone. A journalist knows you can’t quote someone and change their words. The excuse that it basically means the same thing doesn’t cut it, because if that were the case, there wouldn’t be any sense in changing it.
Gary Lance:
At October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm you say
Were the courses in Readers Digest?
Richard
It appears that “BP” refers specifically to radiocarbon dating and sediments. Ice cores are not mentioned. BP literally means “Before Present”, and that is how that acronym is often used, the fake authority of Wikipedia notwithstanding. Conventions are not laws, nor are they requirements. Ice cores go back more than 700,000 years. But radiocarbon dating goes back only a small fraction of that.
And the scurrilous assertions that individuals committed “fraud” with no supporting evidence only reflects badly on Gary Lance. I have been reading this blog and commenting for five years, and this is the first time I have seen anyone accuse Dr Easterbrook of “fraud”. So consider the source.
From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm:
You’re complaining about this chart, which comes from this WUWT post, which clearly starts the X-axis at 95 years before present, and in no way “says it has data up to the year 2000”.
So what does that make you?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm
From Gary Lance on October 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm:
If you post a chart that says it has data up to the year 2000 and it doesn’t have that data, it’s a lie. If you quote someone and change their words, it’s a lie.
You’re complaining about this chart, which comes from this WUWT post, which clearly starts the X-axis at 95 years before present, and in no way “says it has data up to the year 2000″.
So what does that make you?
That isn’t the original Easterbrook chart. Look it up in google images by using GISP2 charts! You can find the chart and sites discussing how Easterbrook manipulated the data.
The chart says years before present (2000) at the bottom of the years listed. You have been told any Geologist knows BP is before 1950, but obviously nothing is what it is around people like you. Your agenda controls reality, right?
Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.
Gary Lance says:
“Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.”
Yet another baseless assertion. You need to post solid, convincing evidence showing the raw data and the resulting chart. A link to another blog will not do. Prove your assertion. Otherwise, it’s just hand waving.
D Böehm says:
October 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Gary Lance says:
“Anyone who has been on any forum that discusses climate knows the GISP2 charts are routinely manipulated.”
Yet another baseless assertion. You need to post solid, convincing evidence showing the raw data and the resulting chart. A link to another blog will not do. Prove your assertion. Otherwise, it’s just hand waving.
The raw data has been posted many times.
http://allegedlyapparent.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/gisp2-temperaturesince10700-bp-with-co2-from-epica-domec_annot_notunprecedented.jpg?w=640&h=357
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig41.jpg
Doesn’t Easterbrook’s chart say present temperature?
BTW, the Minoan warm period is supposed to be the 16th and 17 centuries BC.
Gary Lance,
That is not raw data as you claim, that is a chart. And I told you not to cite blogs as scientific evidence. That said, your linked chart shows that current temperatures are far from unprecedented. So OBVIOUSLY there were times during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice free. It is a natural occurrence, which causes no harm. In fact, it is more beneficial now than having to put up with an arctic ice cap.
Regarding your fixation on “BC”, kadaka already explained that to you more than once. It simply does not matter in the context of the current discussion. No doubt you cling to that because you have nothing worthwhile to submit.
I have to take care of an invalid wife, but I wonder: what are you doing posting here time after time on a Saturday night?? And posting nonsense, no less.
Get a life. <—(good advice)