By Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts (based on an email exchange)
This is interesting. NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent. As readers know, late September is typically the time of the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, and this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. Here is the NOAA forecast graph:
UPDATE: I no more than finished this post and NOAA had a new updated forecast for May 23rd, added below. (h/t Ric Werme)
For the last three May 12th forecasts, this year’s forecast for summer is the highest of them.
Source: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Notice how much higher this is than last years forecast at this time:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201305/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
And also higher than in 2012:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201205/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
The CFSV2 forecasting model was not on line before that, but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
![seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/seaice-anomaly-arctic1.png)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It appears that all summers since about 1996 have not had any positive anomalies. (see magnified view below)
At the very least if we get it positive and the melt season is the lowest since the AMO went warm it will be something that goes right at the heart of the arguments that recent Arctic sea ice deviations are entirely human caused.
In addition, given the Southern Hemisphere continues with well above normal sea ice, if it continues, it gives us a shot at a record breaking global sea ice in the satellite era.
On the other hand, it is a model forecast, and may not come to be. It will be interesting to watch though.
As always, check the WUWT Sea Ice Page for the latest information.
Here is the background on CFS:
The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
Please reference the following article when using the CFS Reanalysis (CFSR) data.
Saha, Suranjana, and Coauthors, 2010: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1015.1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1
Please reference the following article when using the CFS version 2 Reforecast model or data
Saha, Suranjana and Coauthors, 2014: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 Journal of Climate J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
dbstealey says:
May 25, 2014 at 7:57 pm
warrenlib says:
The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors.
Warren, pay attention: there is a corollary to the Scientific Method called the Null Hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis of climate science is that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. CAGW not only fails to falsify this hypothesis, its practitioners fail to even understand what a Null Hypothesis is…
Well said. This null hypothesis was elegantly demonstrated in the first and to date still the most important climate simulation done by Ed Lorenz:
http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/lorenz1962.pdf
This “stone that the [model] builders rejected” is the cornerstone of climate science.
Jimbo says:
May 25, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I have seen something resembling that graph before. It really is time it was posted up on WUWT. It puts the 0.8C rise since the second half of the 19th century into perspective.
How alarming does this look? We must act now? How accurate were we at measuring temps between 1880 to 1950? Have we done the measurements properly? Has there actually been a 0.8C rise in rural areas?
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
====
I’ve been trying to post that as much as I can…..without being overly obnoxious about it
Post it every time you get a chance Jim
Found an interesting article that puts the “TWIST” on how to make sea ice and glaciers. And what makes this even more interesting is the current reduction in solar wind/magnetosonic pressures on Earth’s magnetosphere, which will allow for a gradually increasing rotation rate, over several solar cycles to come..
Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth’s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/103
Published September 20, 2013
Simulations support the idea that during past ice ages, a slightly faster rotation rate for the Earth could have increased its magnetic field.
Rock samples show that variations in Earth’s magnetic field over tens to hundreds of thousands of years are roughly synchronized with the ice ages….
…Miyagoshi and Hamano began by simulating 200,000 years of steady rotation, after which they introduced a 2% oscillation in Earth’s rotation rate, equivalent to shortening the day by a maximum of about a half hour. This is much greater than the expected effect of an ice age, which would be about a second per day, but since their virtual Earth rotated a thousand times too slow, they needed to exaggerate the oscillation in order to see some effect. To their surprise, the magnetic field strength oscillated with roughly the same shape as the rotation rate variation (a sine wave) but with a much larger amplitude of 25% . The team says that with the Earth’s faster rotation speed, even a much smaller, more realistic oscillation in rotation rate may have a noticeable effect….
Jessica Thomas Editor of Physics
This one has touched a nerve. The trolls are out in force again.
The State of Climate Science from NASA — http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Certain facts, not in dispute by Scientists:
◾ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
◾ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
The Scientific Consensus:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Summary of the evidence:
Sea level rise–
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Global temperature rise–
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
Warming oceans–
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Shrinking ice sheets–
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Declining Arctic sea ice–
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glacial retreat–
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Extreme events–
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Ocean acidification–
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Warren, I think everyone has tired of your drivel… and moved on. You are only talking to yourself on this old thread. A Klaxon that will not reset is useless. Push your own reset button. GK
Checking to see if you’re still in Denial.
But G. Karst, it’s so fun ‘n’ easy to debunk warrenlib’s wrong True Beliefs. Don’t deny us our pleasure in showing what a dunce we’re dealing with. For example, warren says:
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.
Yes. But so what?? I have been asking and asking for specific scientific measurements showing how much warming was caused by AGW. Never an answer. I think it is 0.001ºC. Prove me wrong, warren. Be sure to use testable, empirical raw data, now.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels.
Same question: HOW MUCH warming is due specifically to GHG levels? Testable, verifiable raw data, please.
The Scientific Consensus…
^Stupid oxymoron.^ Emphasis on: Moron.
What, exactly, do “97%” of scientists agree on? List their names and degrees, or STFU. I’ve listed the 31,000+ co-signers of the OISM statement, by name and by degree in the hard sciences. So put up or shut up, warrenlib.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
And every century before that. Next, warrenlib asserts:
The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Flat wrong. Where do you get your misinformation, warren?
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions… blah, blah&etc. WRONG again. And satellite measurements — the most accurate data — show no global warming, even as harmless CO2 continues to rise.
… the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees…
Wrong AGAIN! WHERE are you getting your misinformation?? ARGO buoys show ocean cooling.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass.
Wrong yet again. As of today, global ice cover is above its 35-year average [the red chart line]. *Sheesh!* warren, you are SO misinformed.
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world
And they have been ever since the Little Ice Age. Like sea level rise, glacial retreat is not accelerating. It is simply a continuation of a centuries-long process.
Extreme events– The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing… &blah, blah, etc.
Who told you that nonsense? Temps in the 1930’s were much higher than now. Tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming milder. Extreme weather in general is steadily declining.
Ocean acidification…
…is not happening. Learn something right for a change. Do a keyword search here for “pH”. There have been numerous articles pointing out facts such as the Monterey Bay aquarium’s intake pipe, from a mile out, has shown no rise in ocean pH. None. You are being lied to.
warren, you don’t even know enough to be dangerous. You get your misinformation from climate alarmist propaganda blogs like SkS. They are lying to you, warren.
But I’m afraid their lies have colonized your mind. It’s too late for you. You cannot think for yourself, any more than a parrot can. Sucks to be ignorant. But there you go.
@Stealey: You call these scientific arguments? You make unfounded assertions against NASA’s facts, and argue principles at odds with the findings of Science, such as ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’. Yours are more typical of arguments that someone with a technician’s education, not a NASA PhD, would use.
warrenlb says:
May 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm
@Stealey: You call these scientific arguments? You make unfounded assertions against NASA’s facts, and argue principles at odds with the findings of Science, such as ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’. Yours are more typical of arguments that someone with a technician’s education, not a NASA PhD, would use.
=====================================
What a useless POS strawman that is warrenlb. He said no such thing.
Why don’t you post a single fact showing that atmospheric CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has had any measurable effect on any climate parameter.
You’re not going to are you ? Of course not, because there isn’t one.
You’re going to make up another stupid f-kin strawman aren’t you ?
Yes …. here it comes ……
warrenparrot,
I have posted numerous links to back up what I am trying to teach a youngster like you, but your mind is closed tighter than a drumskin. AGW is your fact-free religion. You have never responded to my requests that you post verifiable, testable data, specifically quantifying measurements showing the degree of global warming that human emissions cause.
You don’t answer that, because you can’t. All you can do is parrot SkS misinformation, which is all wrong — as I have repeatedly proven.
Yes, greenhouse gases have a minimal effect, as you said. It is too small to measure, and you are incapable of posting any verifiable measurements. Don’t feel bad, chump, no one else can post those measurements either, because AGW is too small to measure.
Get it? No, you don’t. You fall back on your impotent Appeal to Authority fallacy. That’s your whole narrative: “Everyone says…”. Everyone said Albert Einstein was wrong, too.
Only a fool would disregard the mountains of loot being shoveled into the pockets of the global warming propagandists. And they in turn have colonized your mind, to the point where you can’t think for yourself, you can only parrot.
So instead of emitting your SkS nonsense, pick any of the points I’ve refuted, and I will take pleasure in ramming it so far up your fundament that you will have to gargle to get it out. Pick any one. That will be fun.
You can phone a friend warren …
… or ask the audience
Good luck with that.
Tick tock, tick tock ….
warrenlb says:
May 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm
++++++++++Warrenb: I tried to read through your diatribes, but this one is really sickening. Warren wanta cracker? You don’t understand the extent to which you are a useful idiot. Your mind is under the control of other people… You are not free, and suffer from having no opinions of your own. You’re lost in a sea of other people’s fodder. Of course, the more you write the sillier your words read.
Thank you dbstealey Just the facts and Jimbo (others) for trying to clarify what we know and what we don’t!
[Snip. Use of the pejorative “denialist” is prohibited here. ~mod.]
[Site policy requires you only use one on-line ID. Please decide which one you prefer. .mod]
@Stealey:
Let’s finish the accounting:
1) You reject the Facts and Science from NASA
2) Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources
3) Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect
4) Use trash talk as a debate technique
What are we think of your Professionalism?
@moderator:
Are you serious? Have you actually read the posts by DBStealey and others and their personal attacks? Isn’t it the responsibility of the Moderator to assure civil discourse on both sides? You’re not doing your job.
————————————————————-
REPLY: perhaps if you stopped calling people here “denialists” you might get some respect. Too bad if getting snipped for using that word upsets you, but it earns no sympathy from me – Anthony
P.S. ‘Greenhouse gases have a minimal effect’ is supported by the logarithmic calc which even the IPCC embraces in their report.
The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.
A different formula applies for some other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O (square-root dependence) or CFCs (linear), with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
warrenlb says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:23 am
Let’s finish the accounting:
1)
You reject the Facts and Science from NASA(You reject my priesthood.)2)
Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources(Post links to outside sources that my priesthood doesn’t like.)3)
Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect.(Reject my religion.)4)
Use trash talk as a debate technique(Use talk I don’t like.)warrenlib/wlbeeton says:
1) You reject the Facts and Science from NASA
2) Post links to pseudo-science and non-peer reviewed sources
3) Reject the established science of the Greenhouse Effect
4) Use trash talk as a debate technique
1) NASA is not the old NASA that I grew up with. Now they alter the temperature record, and ‘Muslim Outreach’ is their new priority. You don’t like it that I question them? Tough noogies.
2) You seem to be unaware that the UN/IPCC has used up to 40% of their ‘non peer reviewed’ misinformation from groups like the World Wildlife Fund for their reports. Yet you still believe the IPCC is credible? Why?
3) No one is arguing that there is no greenhouse effect. My consistent position is that it is minuscule, and it should be disregarded for all practical purposes.
4) I am courteous when others are courteous. Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse. You began posting here with ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton, and with comments like this:
@ur momisugly Bastardi and Watts: You think you can disprove the multi-decade phenomenon of AGW with THIS?… @ur momisuglydbstealey: I have no doubt that if one were to post evidence that supports AGW on THIS website, it would be a first… Checking to see if you’re still in Denial… If you have more arguments like this, I would not be posting them lest you cause intense fits of laughing… there’s not much left for you to assert, except perhaps that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that Aliens populated it a million year go… This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers. And so on.
You also post preposterous comments like this:
I once again dispel the persistent myth of a pause in global warming, because the Earth has actually continued to warm faster in the last 16 years than it did in the preceding 16 years.
When verifiable facts and unimpeachable data are posted showing that statement is complete nonsense, you just move on to another fact-free assertion. Most of us reply to you not because you can be taught anything — obviously, you can’t. We reply in order to set the record straight for any new readers, who might think that what you post is anything but anti-science, cut and pasted from alarmist propaganda blogs.
If you were interested in having a rational conversation, everyone would benefit. Instead, you are a major time sink, parroting your pseudo-science to folks who know better. Please stop it.
Warren reminds me of a high school principal I met at a graduation party recently. I overheard him saying that “Hotels” should be forced to pay people a living wage. I questioned him. He said they pay low wages, and they represent one of the biggest problems. I countered, with, “You can’t be suggesting that literally anyone with a hotel business is crooked. He said, “Actually, everyone in the business is in the wrong” He said that businesses in general are greedy.
I asked if he thought the problem had anything to do with intentional prevention of enforcement of immigration laws because of political agendas. He said, “No it’s the hotel industry, and there’s no way politicians should stick their neck out and try to enforce the laws, because they would never get votes. He just suggested there should be laws that force what he believed was a living wage. I had no idea how to proceed.
He spoke in code words that made him unable to partake in cogent discussion.
Warren is no different.
Mario,
That’s funny, coming from someone who lives 100% on taxpayer loot. As a taxpayer, I think the government .edu industry is greedy. They certainly are a failure at education.
I say that even though my wife was a middle school Principal for many years [she’s retired now]. I have seen it from the inside, and I know what you’re talking about re: ‘code words’. The whole gov’t education business is nothing but a giant parasite on society.
And it certainly fails at teaching critical thinking skills to the kidz, as we’ve seen in this thread.
dbstealey: I think your posts are very good, coming from an informed person such as you. OK – I love reading your posts!
I have given several talks to a local college (Oakland), through the local AWS chapter (American Welding Society) of which I am not a member – and as a non licensed welding professional. (Long story but I developed a unique hotwire welding process for remote automated welding systems my last company designed for spent fuel canister closure). The audience is college students and professors. And the messages are well received. I stick to what we know about the physics of welding and tracking control… joules input, deposition, shape of puddle based on Volts/amps and travel and pulsing of parameters based on position of the torch.
I ask them questions to get them involved and insist today’s students learn to be critical in their thinking because the fate of the future of our country demands this! After I get into the “state machine” coordination of process and motion control, they are deeply interested. They want to know how the $600K welding machines we designed and sold outperform all machines made by welding companies. After they are impressed with what good engineering technology can accomplish, I lead the discussions so that they ask why we toss our nuclear fuel away (into $500,000 canisters) after only being 20% spent. I tell them outright – “Because nuclear is evil” Then I pause… Immediately, they become critical – and the discussion leads to great skeptical discussions. Of course nuclear is not evil… it just is – and it’s a gift if wielded properly! I first tell them they should seek truth and not go around telling everyone “it’s because Mario explained why.”
“Go out and be skeptical and questioning… do not appeal to authority – but respect it.”
It’s a whole lot of fun – and I let the discussion meander within bounds… I conclude that I make a lot of money because of fear based on misinformation. The answer, “We don’t reprocess like they do in France, because one needs extract one of the things U235 decays to — Plutonium — from the spent fuel to re-enrich it… and that can be used to make bombs. We’d have 1/5 of the “waste” if we were not politically handicapped. And the expense would turn into a highly concentrated asset. Not simple – but obviously doable with our 40 year old technology. Today in the US, for safety reasons, our fuel only lasts 5 years before no longer being efficient enough to generate energy – because we only enrich it enough so that it can’t go critical.
This always leads to “Think about what’s being said about climate change”.
Seed planted hopefully!
warrenlb says: The Scientific Consensus:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
+++++++++++
That you spew this nonsense makes you look AGAIN like a parrot, When will you grow a brain and question what you hear – and learn to think for yourself? Do you even have a clue where the 97% came from? Please stop looking like a dumbass. If you have real information or a valid argument, you would resort to facts – not obfuscation. And – you would have nothing to say… since facts are damning to you case.
philincalifornia says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:27 pm
You can phone a friend warren …
… or ask the audience
Good luck with that.
Tick tock, tick tock ….
————————-
Case closed then.