After a one-month pause in the lengthening of the pause, the lengthening pause is lengthening again
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 17 years 10 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for more than half the entire satellite temperature record. Yet the lengthening Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to June 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.
Yet the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the RSS and UAH monthly satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though numerous more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero trend (bright blue).
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event has begun. The usual suspects have said it will be a record-breaker, but, as yet, there is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015. Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is exaggerated.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 5 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months September 1996 to May 2014 – more than half the 426-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They have known about RSS orbital decay issues since 1998.
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Wentz_Nature_1998_MSU_Orbital_Decay.pdf
Dear Sir Monckton,
..
If there was a dataset that showed 18 years and 4 months of no warming, would you use that data set instead of RSS?
Willis Eschenbach – I have 2 questions for you.
As this thread concerns a record of the Earth’s temperature over time, my questions are off topic in their particulars, but perhaps on topic in general:
1. You recently posted the question of whether anyone could provide any temperature record of any sort that displayed the ~11 year solar cycle. That post seems to be closed to further response, so I respond here. Does this satisfy your quest?:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
The 2 blue graphs display thermosphere density variation over the last 4 solar cycles. The density variation is purported to be the result of temperature variation of the thermosphere caused by the solar EUV flux variation during each solar cycle. Since thermosphere density varies in time with the solar cycle, so must its temperature.
2. Does the annual variation of the Earth-Sun distance show up in any temperature record, or any record linked to temperature?
SR
Ok, I just went back to Willis’ post on the Dalton and Maunder sunspot minima and discovered 2 things.
1. Willis actually asked for a data set supporting a link between climate cooling and sunspot minima, but my response above does address this part of his post:
“Let me digress with a bit of history. I began this solar expedition over a decade ago thinking, along with many others, that as they say, “It’s the sun, stupid!”. I, and many other people, took it as an unquestioned and unexamined “fact” that the small variations of the sun, both the 11-year cycles and the solar minima, had a discernible effect on the temperature. As a result, I spent endless hours investigating things like the barycentric movement of the sun. I went so far as to write a spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric movement for any period of history, and compared those results to the temperatures.
But the more I looked, the less I found. So I started looking at the various papers claiming that the 11-year cycle was visible in various climate datasets … still nothing. To date, I’ve written up and posted the results of my search for the 11-year cycle in global sea levels, the Central England Temperature record, sea surface temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, global surface temperatures, rainfall amounts, the Armagh Observatory temperatures, the Armagh Observatory daily temperature ranges, river flows, individual tidal stations, solar wind, the 10Beryllium ice core data, and some others I’ve forgotten … nothing.
Not one of them shows any significant 11-year cycle.”
2.That post is still taking responses, so I will copy my response above to that post.
SR
I sent this to a mathematician who took an online MIT course on climate. He replied:
“No global ATMOSPHERIC warning. But the ocean is warming.”
mjg0:
re your post at July 5, 2014 at 9:56 pm.
Global warming has stopped. Please explain the relevance of the opinion held by your anonymous “mathematician”.
Richard
Question: Whereas natural variation has been shown to periodically dampen some climate indicators while accelerating others due to various short term heat redistribution mechanisms in the climate system…
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
…why is there an emphasis one one climate indicator (surface air temp trend) and an absence of discussion of the others?
For example, during the latest so called global warming ‘pause’:
There was no pause in ice mass declines in the Arctic and Antarctic.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
There was no pause in the global ocean heat content trend (0-2000 m)
There was no pause in the total steric component of sea level change (0-2000 m)
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
There was no pause in the arctic sea ice extent
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
He said that global warming has not stopped, only ATMOSPHERIC global warming. Also, the article stated clearly that warming will resume – at least temporarily – when El Nino occurs.
Also, why did you put mathematician in quotes? He is a professor of mathematics. He did not give me permission to publish his name because he does not wish to engage in public arguments.
mjg0:
Thankyou for the clarification you provide at July 6, 2014 at 10:03 am. It says in total
Thankyou. Please inform your anonymous mathematician that he is mistaken on two counts.
Firstly, global warming is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). Surface temperature is not ocean temperature and is not atmospheric temperature although they are related. Therefore, suspected ocean warming is not relevant unless it is exhibited as alteration to surface temperature.
Please note that this is a polite explanation that your anonymous mathematician needs to buy a clue.
Secondly, the cessation of global warming may end with additional warming or with cooling. The suspected El Nino is not materialising.
Richard
“Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
This definition of global warming is more accurate no? Since the effect of the radiative imbalance (root cause), as measured by CERES satellite, is increased heat content, which causes the rise in temperature in key components of the climate system. It allows for short term events that redistribute heat like ENSO and THC, which may periodically dampen or enhance the continual GHG forcing.
mjg0:
At July 6, 2014 at 10:09 am you ask me
I answer.
I put mathematician in quotes because I was quoting a claim that he is a mathematician. And the claim is from an anonymous source about an anonymous person. And you now add that he is not willing to put his name to his words but uses you as his minion to speak for him. Need I say more.
Richard
Thus the cessation of global warming is best determined at least by the cessation of ice mass melt.
katatetorihanzo:
You answer your own question at July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am when you write
As you say “NO”. It most certainly is not a “more accurate” definition.
It is a moving of the goal posts by warmunists who cannot face the reality that global warming has stopped.
Global warming is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
And that is why so much time, money and effort has been invested in determinations of GASTA by GISS, HadCRU, RSS, UAH, etc.
Richard
“Warmunist” is one of the more humorous ad hominems I’ve heard.
But seriously, it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
The effects of global warming don’t appear to be pausing along with the official declaration of the end of global warming. No more so than the Iraq war ended with the posting a banner saying “Mission Accomplished”.
It’s difficult to support an extraordinary claim like GW cessation on a short term temperature plateau especially since we’ve seen such plateaus before in the longer term temp record.
Lets recall that, unlike the ocean, surface air is a medium with low heat capacity. That means relatively moderate short-term heat transfers result in relatively large temp variations.
For example, a surface trend that starts with a strong El Niño (heat transfer from ocean to air) and ends with La Nina (heat transfer from air to ocean) is simply gonna look flattish.
At some point we will need to reconcile our intuition about periodic short term variations with the effect of long term trends.
In the short term we have weather and seasons and a rotating tilted Earth. As a consequence, some part of the earth always experiences more heating than others and heat redistributes in many ways.
For example regional differences in temperature may cause winds that accelerate evaporative surface cooling in some regions (impacting sea extent) while redistributing heat to others. All of this is intuitive and supported by observation. And yet all of this occurs under the steady drumbeat of heat content rise, which is the longer term signal. One reliable indicator is ice mass decline.
If we exaggerate the relevance of short term stochastic variations, we’ll underestimate the impact of the only signal that’s relatively steady in the industrial era: GHG forcing causing radiative imbalance (more incoming solar flux than outgoing IR flux), causing increased climate heat content.
mjg0 says:
I sent this to a mathematician who took an online MIT course on climate.
When questioned, your mysterious mathemetician now becomes a “professor of mathematics.”
Appeals to authority are bad enough. But that is an appeal to an anonymous authority, who just receved a promotion. Well, that convinces me!
[/sarc]
@katatetorihanzo: Thank you for providing those informative links.
Oops. That was a spurious post. I was trying to change my user name from mogur2013 to garyseymour. I signed on to woodpress using a pseudonym since originally I was posting to really weird sites. Anyway, I recently was accused of being an anonymous troll. I am not a troll, I am trying to have an honest discussion of climate change, and I never chose to be anonymous on this site. That was simply a hangover from an earlier signup.
My name is Gary Seymour. I live on Whidbey Island, Washington, in the United States of America. I would give out my land line number, but anyone can google the white pages for that. They also can probably figure out where I live. If you choose to call me, please do it a three in the morning, Pacific Time, so that I don’t answer. Just kidding. Anyway, I am not a troll. I am not anonymous. I will use an avatar of a leaping orca, not because I am green (like Tony Heller), but because I like them.
hanzo says:
…it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
When in doubt, empirical evidence trumps all else. Global warming has stopped.
As I have been futiliely trying to tell you, ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.
But you refuse to learn, because you are riding that grant/gov’t gravy train. When someone’s income depends on him believing in nonsense, then he will belive in nonsense.
Global warming stopped 17+ years ago. Deal with it.
hanzo says:
…it’s simply hard to reconcile global warming cessation with accelerated ice mass loss at both poles.
Response:
…ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.
I’m trying to understand your alternative explanation for accelerating global ice mass loss. Modify or pick the one that’s most correct from your POV and we’ll discuss which scenario is best supported by observation.
1) Let’s assume that an event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014. Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) of pre-2000 global warming, therefore, effects of the unknown cooling forcing should be manifest in the future resulting in a colder arctic and global sea ice mass build up after the heat in the pipeline is consumed.
2) Let’s assume that an event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014 and increases winter Antarctic sea ice extent. Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) of antarctic sea ice extent, therefore, effects of the current Antarctica sea ice extent increase should be manifest in the future resulting in sea Antarctic ice mass build up.
Dbstealey said
“…ice mass is a lagging indicator. With the much colder Arctic, second and third year [and older] ice will build up, increasing the ice mass.”
I think dbstealey was proposing the following:
Some event or unknown natural forcing is exerting a cooling influence such that the SAT trend plateaus from 2000-2014.
Dbstealey asserts that Ice mass is a lagging indicator (delayed response) for something.
Lets assume ice mass lags “antarctic sea ice extent” based on his earlier posts.
Or perhaps the accelerated ice mass loss is due to pre-2000 global warming, before something purportedly shut AGW off.
So ice mass lags something.
In either case, to assume that lost ice mass would increase after a SAT plateau…
“… is like putting a frozen pizza in the oven at 200 ºC, turning the heat down to 180 ºC a few minutes later,
and expecting the pizza to re-freeze because the rate of heating has slowed down. “
katatetorihanzo:
At July 7, 2014 at 6:26 am you say
Yes, I know it is really, really hard for warmunists to accept the reality that global warming stopped because that reality plays havoc with your political objectives so you squirm about “ice mass loss” and other irrelevances.
But you are going to have to come to terms with the reality that global warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
Sorry that I cannot help you to cope with reality however “hard” you find it to be.
Richard
Hanzo, you bring up an important concept, that of energy balance. Earth’s energy balance is a model with a calculated output. It is not directly measured. Even satellites designed for such purposes only sample top of the atmosphere incoming solar insolation and outgoing longwave radiation, which is then used in, and is only a part of, the model to calculate the energy balance. Do you know what the error bars are? It is reasonable to conclude that the real incoming and outgoing processes that results in a plus, minus, or balanced energy budget is naturally very noisy and that the model does not accurately reflect all the natural mechanisms that create that noise or the trends. It is also important to note that the model includes assumptions that are represented by estimates called fudge factors. Models cannot therefor be used to prove that we have the mechanisms right. Why? Because in nature, what we think is causing a certain thing is OUR assumption. And history proves our assumptions have not always been right.
Do you want to edit and re-submit this? Sentences are duplicated and make little sense as written. Also, who are you responding to, and what areas are you claiming have “accelerated” ice mass loss?
The GRACE satellite “data” cannot establish whether Greenland OR Antarctica continental ice mass or rock mass elevations are gaining, losing, or steady, much less whether either mass is “accelerating” in either direction. Your claim is early propaganda from NASA, and the latest basic research papers from GRACE do not support your claim. Greenland ice cap elevations have been increasing, Antarctic sea ice is in a 7 year continuous increase, and Antarctic shelf ice is stable (or increasing in depth) depending on which glacier-fed shelf ice mass is studied. Antarctic continental ice is stable (or increasing) across the East ice cap, and is decreasing only in three glaciers that drain the West ice cap. And, as mentioned, the shortening of those three glaciers can be better explained by an increase in rest ice depth rather than melting glacier toe depth.
So: CO2 levels have continuously increased since 1996.
Every assumption you make above is wrong at any “lagging factor” ….
Satellite air temperatures have been demonstrably stable for now 17 – 10 months.
Antarctic sea ice has been continually increasing for 7 years, and will threaten to block shipping around Cape Horn within 8-12 years if the long term increase continues.
Antarctic sea ice anomalies have setting record high extents beginning in 2007, and set even higher record this past week.
Arctic sea ice extents were declining, though they have increased from record low minimums in 2007 and 2012. Even if they continue declining from today’s levels, more heat energy is lost from the open Arctic ocean between September and March than can be absorbed from what little solar heat energy is available those 7 months of the year.
There is NO “positive arctic feedback” of disaster. We have tested that theory, and the test shows It cannot happen.
RACookPE1978 presents an interesting alternative explanation for GRACE satellite observations of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica. It’s not ice mass loss, it’s rock mass loss.
If the mass loss were ice, one could do a mass balance with run off water & sea level rise. Assuming ~1500 Gt of Greenland didn’t just disappear, it would be interesting to speculate where did it go? I look forward to the peer reviewed article that describes the evidence supporting this remarkable discovery.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5955/984
“abstract: Mass budget calculations, validated with satellite gravity observations [from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites], enable us to quantify the individual components of recent Greenland mass loss. The total 2000–2008 mass loss of ~1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics. Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise). The seasonal cycle in surface mass balance fully accounts for detrended GRACE mass variations, confirming insignificant subannual variation in ice sheet discharge.”
katatetorihanzo:
Your posts are on par with those of RMB.
You both refuse to accept physical reality.
Global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago. That is physical reality.
Richard
Richardscourtney said “Your posts are on par with those of RMB.”
Yes, our posts are similar in intent. RMB provides an explanation, Hanzo provides an explanation. The explanation that is most consistent with observations usually inspires the most confidence and is persuasive.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:58 am
Not to mention volcano under West Antarctica ice sheet.
Not to mention…please don’t mention…volcanoes under WAIS don’t generate enoufht heat to explain magnitude of ice melt and run off.
This fact tortures hanzo. Polar ice is growing. This year it shot up.
That means that next year and the year after, ice mass will increase as more second and third year ice accumulates. Even a simple-minded person can understand that.
Ice mass is a lagging indicator. But hanzo will not admit that plain fact, because if he did, then his last, very weak argument would be thoroughly debunked — just like every other argument he tries to make.
hanzo still claims that global warming is continuing! It is hard to convince someone of a fact, if that fact affects that person’s income. hanzo is feeding at the public trough. If he admits what everyone else knows — that global warming stopped many years ago — then he jeopardizes his taxpayer-provided income.
That income is built on the false alarm of the “carbon” scare. But we know that CO2 has no measurable effect on global T at current concentrations. Every empirical measurement shows that to be the case. But when your paycheck depends on perpetuating a lie, then lots of folks will tell tall tales.
I got peer-reviewed documented Gt of ice mass melting. Show me Gt of ice mass increase. Lets compare data.
Onlookers, please note I provide: no ad homs, no conspiracy, no novel ‘physics’, no vagueness. Just citations, data, error bars and plausible explanation.
“In Greenland, the ice mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
In Antarctica the ice mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
What is it about “lagging” that hanzo cannot understand?
As the graph I posted above shows, Arctic ice has made a massive recovery this year. That empirical evidence contradicts the pal reviewed assertions made.
Next year and the year after will reflect the additional second and third year growth in ice mass.
Hanzo’s argument is that it doesn’t show an increase right now. That is desperation. What will his excuse be next year?
The fact is that global warming has stopped. It may resume, or not. We don’t know. But since hanzo believes that global warming is continuing, it is clear he is looking for anything he can find to support his belief.
Science is based on skepticism. But there is none exhibited by hanzo.
Dbstealey said “Ice mass is a lagging indicator”
Hanzo asks: ice mass is a lagging indicator of what exactly and what is the magnitude and significance of this lag?
Hanzo is concerned that
1) global ice MASS is declining fast. This requires heat.
2) Warming up the growing area of ice-free arctic ocean in Summer trumps increased area of thinning sea ice in Antarctic winter.
3) Keeping the clathrate gun in its permafrost holster is very important. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate-gun_hypothesis
hanzo says:
… please note I provide: no ad homs, no conspiracy, no novel ‘physics’, no vagueness. Just citations, data, error bars and plausible explanation.
What hanzo neglects to mention is that his link is from 2009, five years ago.
As repeatedly pointed out, Arctic ice rapidly increased this year, after several years of cyclical decline. So naturally a 5 year old paper will show something completely different.
hanzo was cherry-picking old news.
Dbstealey said: “What hanzo neglects to mention is that his link is from 2009, five years ago.”
More recent (2011) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.U7y-ZGt5mSN
“As repeatedly pointed out, Arctic ice rapidly increased this year,”
What are we talking about? Area? Extent?
This graph showing arctic sea ice extent is trending down
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
This graph showing arctic sea ice mass is trending down
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-terrcryo/gis-fig56-big.jpg