Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 14 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever

D Böehm says:
October 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm
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)
I don’t know how many times kadaka and I have posted that raw data, but you can search for it, because even though I have the link in my favorites, I’m not getting it for you. If you would click on links that people post you would know it’s been posted by both of us. I also posted a link to all the ice cores NOAA has. kadaka thought it was a jumbled mess and it’s in alphabetical order. I didn’t have a problem finding the GISP2 data,
So OBVIOUSLY there were times during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice free.
No that isn’t obvious, even if it was warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than today, which it probably wasn’t. That sea ice was really thick during glaciation and oceans don’t warm overnight. We’ll know soon enough if we don’t already have sediment cores in the areas that presently have the sea ice minimum.
Here is a 700,000 year estimate which is the low:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4467/323.abstract?ck=nck
Clark, David L. has a 4 million year estimate.
Well, so much for your obvious, I found some ocean sediment data.
The youngest part of the retrieved sediment record is condensed, but samples taken from close to the surface, representing Holocene and Recent conditions, lack the subpolar foraminifer species and thus indicate a consistent thick perennial sea-ice cover in accordance with present-day conditions (Nørgaard-Pedersen et al. in press)
Source: http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p61-64.pdf
Now you should have learned at least two things. The arctic wasn’t ice free during the Holocene, which is consistent with what is often said and they can determine if an area was ice free from sediment cores.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:06 am
I know the claim is the Minoan Warm Period was at the apex of the MInoan civilization and that was the 16th and 17th centuries BC and before the earthquake.
This article was obtained by reading the sources for google images on Easterbrooks chart, just like I told you to do.
One of the last comments to my “100 years of warming” post suggested that the GISP2 “present” followed a common paleoclimate convention and was actually 1950. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
Source: http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
Here (the person who wrote the articles on Easterbrook) is another case of someone being confused about present, but you keep getting told a Geologist shouldn’t be getting confused. 1950 also was a good date, because it was before all that atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which screwed up the C14 isotope ratio. In the link, the author is actually correcting what he had previously said about the 95 year data meaning 1905.
Easterbrook knew exactly what the data meant. Easterbrook just modified a Cuffey and Clow 1997 chart by cutting out prior data and I believe he even cut off a tail at the present in some versions. All Cuffey and Clow did was plot the data and probably used a smoothing average. The chart was an intentional fraud.
It’s also nonsense that this convention for BP is only used in isotope analysis, it’s even used by Archaeologists using pottery or stratigraphy to date. It’s just common sense that the present changes, so a date was chosen.
This is how we stand on this issue. How long has it been since the Easterbrook chart, over two years? It’s been talked about for two and a half years and you people still can’t figure out what the dates are? That tells me you aren’t interested in facts and will take whatever garbage is out there that suits your agenda.
As previously stated Monckton is another example of a person trained in a field of study, in his case journalism, who abandons the rules by quoting people and changing what they said.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Do you need a search function to use the alphabet? That list works fine if you know the name of the ice core you are looking for and the good thing about it is, it’s all the data of ice cores in one place. The fact is I found the data on that list and posted it too, the first time and several other times. You posted the same raw data with the same link I used, several times.
We’ve already established the “2000″ charts should have said 1950.
We’ve established that a Geologist knows BP means before 1950 and Easterbrook is a Geologist. That didn’t stop him from making a chart that is an obvious lie, nor does it stop you from defending that fraudulent act, because it suits your agenda.
What happened to it all depends on if it’s 2000 or 1950? I knew the answer to that years ago and showed you how to find out for yourself with a simple google image search of sources. If you knew how to use the alphabet, you may have noticed every ice core uses 1950 for BP, so why would Richard Alley change that system? Is there any benefit in changing a system and causing everything written using the old system to be edited? The 1950 date works fine and it predates contamination from above ground nuclear testing.
I said: “I know the claim is the Minoan Warm Period was at the apex of the MInoan civilization and that was the 16th and 17th centuries BC and before the earthquake”.
and you said:
You’re wrong, and I’ll hope you can Google the sources I’ve found that prove you’re wrong. Storm’s coming and I’m short on time.
Let’s run back the clock a little bit! Lamb finds evidence of grape vineyards from Church records and notices the records of grape production stop in the LIA. There are records in Roman times of grapes being introduced to England. There is pollen analysis of grapes growing in England and written records that Roman wine was highly prized, such that an amphora of good wine was worth the price of a slave. I haven’t evidence that grape production stopped between what is called the Roman Warm Period and the Medievel Warm Period. I’ve only seen evidence that wine production in England stopped during the LIA.
There is Roman Warm Period evidence of olive oil presses in SW Turkey, where you can’t even grow olives there now, but I haven’t seen pollen evidence that olives were grown. The issue becomes, were they making olive oil or olive presses. I’m sure there was a market for both. There is nothing remarkable about the Romans taking their winemaking with them, because the areas they conquered were warm enough to grow grapes. I can remember it being very cold when I was a child, but all the Italian farmers had their own vineyards. The point is, what does any of this say, except it was too cold in the LIA to grow grapes in England?
The Roman Warm Period was proposed by Scheidel, Morris & Saller in 2007 and there are earlier proposals. What is the evidence?
Proxies
Glaciers: A 1986 analysis of Alpine glaciers concluded that the 100 AD to 400 AD period was significantly warmer than the immediately preceding and following periods.[7]
Deep ocean sediment: A 1999 reconstruction of ocean current patterns based on the granularity of deep ocean sediment concluded there was a Roman Warm Period that peaked around 150 AD.[6]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
The Roman Warm Period is claimed to be from 250 BC to 400 AD, but the glacier evidence concluded the time before 100 AD was significantly cooler than the period 100 AD to 400 AD. So what happened to the first 350 years of the Roman Warm Period, which is 50 years longer than the Alpine glacier evidence?
It’s little wonder you avoid the question of when these periods existed, you just want to claim a warm period existed, give a broad period of time and claim anything falling into that period is evidence of a warm period existing. It even gets worse when talking about the Minoan Warm Period, because what is the evidence that it’s more than someone just saying it existed? Is it a surprise that Romans brought winemaking with them in a world where winemaking was possible? Is it a surprise that it became cooler than Roman times? It isn’t a surpirse that it was warmer in the past than the LIA. That is totally consistent with slow cooling based on Milankovitch Cycles.
What I see happening is people taking one ice core from Greenland and claiming warm periods based on a few degrees difference in Greenland. They seem to totally ignore the temperatures are in the -30 degree C range and Greenland has major climatic phenomenon and patterns surrounding it.
Here is the link I posted:
http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=517:1:2618943466065395:::APP:PROXYDATASETLIST:7:
The GRIP data doesn’t show your warm periods.

Dear “Gary Lance”:
Only a fool fights in a burning house. I have more pressing business than refuting your false claims and slander again, and again, and again, and yet again. Or at least more interesting things to do.
Enjoy your false victory. May it be as sweet as saccharine on your lips.
Good bye.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 30, 2012 at 2:03 am
Dear “Gary Lance”:
Only a fool fights in a burning house. I have more pressing business than refuting your false claims and slander again, and again, and again, and yet again. Or at least more interesting things to do.
Enjoy your false victory. May it be as sweet as saccharine on your lips.
Good bye.
The fact is you can’t refute the evidence of the Easterbrook fraud and he did what he did to make money for his anti-AGW stance. The fact that you support such behavior shows how weak your position is. No reasonable person would believe a Geologist doesn’t know BP means before 1950. Don Easterbrook was an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, when he was described in a NY Times article in 2007. None of his WWU links were available and he seems to be rather late on the anti-AGW scene. His analysis seems to be based on climate patterns like the PDO and NAO. Surely as a Professor he would have had the chance to educate students about what BP means. Surely both a Geologist and Professor would have the sense to know one ice core doesn’t represent global temperatures and he would have known that the previous GRIP ice core, just a little north of GISP2 doesn’t agree with those findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Easterbrook chose to publish charts showing all the previous data from before the Holocene Climatic Optimum to date was warmer than the present, because he used the end of the LIA as a base for present temperatures. He copied a chart and drew a line so you couldn’t even see the LIA, much below it. Easterbrook is the one who is responsible for the “Coolgate” scandal.
Additionally, it’s just flat out bad science to pick out peaks in GISP2 data and claim them as warm periods.

HenryP says:
October 30, 2012 at 11:32 am
I believe in real science which is something you people will never understand. Real science identifies a period called the Holocene Climatic Optimum and a modern period that is warm. Real science can read a thermometer and observe ice melting around the world. It can remember finding fossils of mammoths and trees near the Arctic Ocean and well beyond the present treeline. Real science sees evidence beyond doubt that it was warm, then became colder and has returned to warm. Does a treeline farther north mean the global temperatures were warmer in the past? No, it means it was warm long enough to convert tundra, wet and barren lands to taiga and the fact that the treeline moved south means it became colder for a long enough period. The fact that some of you people have pointed to a treeline being farther north as proof of a past being warmer than today only proves you don’t know what real science is. Even common sense says it not only has to be warm enough, but warm enough for enough time is required.
Such facts would produce something like a hockey stick pattern. On most places on Earth, I’d expect the local climates to have variability during a long decline. I’d also expect noise, if I was using a proxy to reconstruct past temperatures. GISP2 is one ice core that took something like 4 years to drill. It shows a pattern of warming with a sharp decline for Younger Dryas. The pattern returns to a period for the Holocene Climatic Optimum and then declines. Here is the original Cuffey and Clow (1997) as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif
The chart only identifies Younger Dryas, the MWP and the LIA. Here is the source of this information:
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Alley, R.B. 2000.
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:
Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet
elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition.
Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP – present
DESCRIPTION:
Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Here is version of Cuffey and Clow (1997) that isn’t the original:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/–Pkh3YnMDwY/TyPtQaLsRUI/AAAAAAAAAXI/aHtN0trPdvw/s1600/Natural_global_warming+over+last+10+000+years.jpg
Did you notice the present global warming isn’t the present and is 1855? Did you notice the MWP and LIA are shown in the wrong periods? The original Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart listed the MWP and LIA at the correct times, but this chart, which claims to be based on Cuffey and Clow (1997) doesn’t.
Just how could such a chart be so widely published and be so wrong? I looked up Cuffey and Clow (1997) chart in google images and went to the NOAA site to find the original. The original is in google images, but it’s buried with these bogus charts. From there the pseudo-science even gets worse, because there is an obvious attempt by Easterbrook to only go back about ten thousand years and point to the LIA as the present temperature in his original chart.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbrook_fig41.jpg
Since that pseudo-science worked so well, because people don’t know how to read a chart, know the science or the history of when events happened, let’s just lie about the dates and pick peaks claiming it was prior warm periods. This chart uses a scale from the original data for dates and has Years Before Present (2000 AD) below the dates. It changes the color from blue to red from the LIA to the most recent data of 95, which is actually 1855 AD and not 2000 AD. It scales up the x axis to exaggerate peaks based on temperature and picks every peak as some prior warming period. Only warming events are mentioned, like well known cooling events aren’t important. There is no consideration that these peaks and valleys in temperatures could just be noise in the O18 proxy for one ice core in Greenland. There is no consideration that a Greenland proxy is only a representation of that place in Greenland. That data isn’t present on the GRIP ice core that was drilled not very far away. Does a Minoan Warm Period even exist or is it just a name given for a peak in one proxy from one site? If someone believes such a warm period exists, why can’t a period have a defined period of time, like it’s suppose to have? I’ve read that the Minoan Warm Period occurred at the apex of the Minoan civilization and know that was in the 16th and 17th centuries BC. Something is wrong when the proxy says it was in the 13th century BC. The same objections can be said about the Roman Warm Period. At least the Romans expanded to England which was closer to things affecting the climate of Greenland, but what evidence is there that the Roman Warm Period existed? There is evidence of Alpine Glaciers showing warming in the 100 AD to 400 AD period, but I’ve seen proxy data showing the RWP was in the BC times. The introduction of grapes to England only means the Romans showed up. Olive presses in SW Turkey don’t grow doesn’t mean they once grew. Where is the pollen evidence? How do we know they weren’t just making olive presses because they had good wood for doing so, like the famous cedars of Lebanon?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2012-10-06_at_11.14.04_AM.png

Gary LANCE says
I believe in real science which is something you people will never understand. Real science identifies a period called the Holocene Climatic Optimum and a modern period that is warm. Real science can read a thermometer and observe ice melting around the world.
Henry says
Did you read all the graphs?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
I did use thermometers, and took the results of measurements from 47 weather stations, every day for the past 38 years. In the case of the maximum temps. that was about 650000 results.
This is my summary of those results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The blue line is the one that is coming down (to the present). I pray to God that I am right with that fit and that we are now nearing the bottom of the curve. If my sine wave is not right, we could be plunging further down, probably towards a much cooler world, like another little ice age.
So please, do stop worrying about the arctic ice. It will all be back in 2 decades from now. I promise you. Stop worrying about the carbon. Start worrying about the coming common cold.

Gary Lance says:
“I’ve looked at few hundred glaciers…” Bullshit. You cherry-picked only those glaciers that are receding, and ignored those that are advancing. And no way did you ever observe “hundreds of glaciers.” Quit trying to pass yourself of as some kind of expert. You admittedly had never even heard of Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, an internationally esteemed climatologist, so you are clearly a noob at this, cutting and pasting your talking points from alarmist echo chamber blogs.
You write: “Melting of ice throughout the world is proof of global warming for reasonable people.”
Show me where anyone has said that global warming doesn’t exist. Scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists — and you are no skeptic] know that the planet has steadily warmed since the LIA — naturally. Your red herring arguments are just a lame attempt to re-frame the debate into something you can win. But since I am holding your feet to the fire, you lose the debate: the planet has warmed at the same rate since the LIA. I have stated that for the past five years here. You will not get away with pretending that I or anyone else disputes natural global warming. You lack the talent to paint me into that corner.
Regarding your wrongheaded belief that the Arctic has never been ice free, there are peer reviewed papers stating that the Arctic was likely ice free during the Holocene. No one was there to report back, but the evidence is there. And no credible scientist disputes the ice core record, which shows that the planet was considerably warmer than now at times during the past ten millennia. So naturally Arctic ice would have disappeared.
And your deluded insistence that the Holocene never had warmer temperatures than present is easily debunked. You are just an ignorant puppy who jumped on the catastrophic AGW bandwagon, and you get your talking points from discredited blogs like ‘Fake-skeptical Pseudo-science’ — the only blog that has the dishonor of its own category on the WUWT sidebar.
Finally, you are the only one falsely claiming that Dr Easterbrook’s charts are “lies”. Easterbrook is a well known and respected climatologist. When you can produce other climatologists like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen or Miskolczi saying that Easterbrook’s charts are wrong, I will listen. But so far all you are doing is engaging in ad-hom character assassination. Grow up.

D Böehm says:
October 31, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Easterbrook is so respected you can’t get a copy of his papers from his university which had them.
Post where I said it was warmer today than any time in the Holocene! Just how could someone reconstruct global temperatures that accurately to make such a claim? I said we don’t know, but global temperature is just a proxy of warm. I believe our present warming is forceful enough to exceed the conditions of the Holocene Climatic Optimum and just hasn’t had the time to play it’s hand. It can easily be warm enough in our present to eventually melt the tundra and get warmer by adding trees. That doesn’t happen when it’s warming quickly and our present warming hasn’t maxed out, like the warming trend that produced the Holocene Thermal Maximum did. Elephants live in our zoos and there is no reason an elephant couldn’t visit the Arctic Ocean in the future or trees could be planted in areas losing permafrost. Forests in tundra areas will add to global warming.
I posted evidence from sediment cores proving that the arctic wasn’t ice free in the Holocene.
The youngest part of the retrieved sediment record is condensed, but samples taken from close to the surface, representing Holocene and Recent conditions, lack the subpolar foraminifer species and thus indicate a consistent thick perennial sea-ice cover in accordance with present-day conditions (Nørgaard-Pedersen et al. in press)
Source: http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p61-64.pdf
What source of data do you have beside talk?
It’s not hard to find 300 glaciers, if you go to blogs reporting on glaciers. I’d post links, but it would be a waste of time, so google it! Advancing or retreating isn’t imporant and mass balance is. I’ve seen glaciers advance so fast you had to walk quickly to stay in front of them. Advancing like that doesn’t mean it’s a healthy glacier. What planet do you live on if you don’t know the world’s glaciers are losing mass and there will always be an exception due to increases in precipitation? The world has plenty of glaciers and I’ve found some that currently aren’t in danger and are maintaining mass balance. About 98% of the glaciers in temperate areas aren’t.

D Böehm says:
October 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Why would I need scientific evidence to prove a forest doesn’t grow overnight? Melting permafrost means at some point it has melted allowing forests to grow. You can’t compare warming over millenium to warming over decades.
This idea that warming is such a great thing is ridiculous. The areas that will benefit from warming aren’t inhabited and the areas that will lose from warming are. People who have to suffer from exceptional weather aren’t going to think warming is good. To claim nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening is pure nonsense.

kadaka,
Lance is currently emitting his alarmist nonsense on this thread, among others:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements
He is as wrong as always, but that doesn’t stop him. And he still has no clue about the Null Hypothesis, as we see from his last sentence above.