From the University of Colorado at Boulder, where they are apparently attempting to explain away why Arctic sea ice isn’t living up to previous wild claims such as those made by Dr. Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who famously said that the Arctic is in a ‘Death Spiral’ in response to my writing on WUWT:
Serreze also famously said two years earlier that “The Arctic is screaming,” and a Arctic research associate, Jay Zwally of NASA, said in the same article that summer sea ice may be gone in five years, in an interview with the unquestioning and compliant Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press:
Now, years later, with summer sea ice still there, in a new paper, the terms are “erratic” and “bumpy”…riiiiiight.
As anyone can clearly see, there’s no ‘death spiral’ in Arctic Sea ice extent, it has simply reached a new equilibrium state:
So much for “breathtaking ignorance”.
Press release from the University of Colorado at Boulder
Erratic as normal: Arctic sea ice loss expected to be bumpy in the short term
Arctic sea ice extent plunged precipitously from 2001 to 2007, then barely budged between 2007 and 2013. Even in a warming world, researchers should expect such unusual periods of no change–and rapid change–at the world’s northern reaches, according to a new paper.
“Human-caused global warming is melting Arctic sea ice over the long term, but the Arctic is a variable place, said Jennifer Kay, a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder and co-author of the new analysis out today in Nature Climate Change.
Natural ups and downs of temperature, wind and other factors mean that even as sea ice slowly melts, random weather can mask or enhance the long-term trend. For example, even in a warming world, there’s still a one-in-three chance that any seven-year period would see no sea ice loss, such as in 2007-2013, the new analysis shows. And the chaotic nature of weather can also occasionally produce sea ice loss as rapid as that seen in 2001-2007, even though the long-term trend is slower.
Neither time period should be used to forecast the long-term future of the region, Kay and her colleagues concluded. Some commentators tracking sea ice trends have used the recent “pause” in sea ice loss to claim that human-caused climate warming is not occurring; others previously used the rapid decline from 2001-2007 to speculate about ice-free Arctic summers by 2015. Neither claim is warranted, the authors report.
“To understand how climate change is affecting the Arctic, you cannot cherry pick short stretches of time,” Kay said. “Seven years is too short.”
The research team, led by Neil Swart of Environment Canada, analyzed both long-term records of Arctic sea ice observations and an extensive dataset of results from global climate models. From the model runs, they could calculate the chances that certain types of scenarios could play out in a slowly warming Arctic: For example, just how likely is it that sea ice would not decline during a seven-year stretch?
The team focused on September measurements of sea ice, which is when the extent reaches a yearly minimum. By early October, Arctic sea ice generally begins growing again, a seasonal response to colder temperatures and shorter days.
The researchers determined that a seven-year period is too short to accurately capture long-term sea ice trends in the region. Even given long-term melting, there’s a 34-percent chance of randomly getting an unusual period of no change or even growth in sea ice, and a 5-percent chance of a period of very rapid loss, similar to the decline in 2001-2007.
The team also increased the time period of analysis, to see if longer spans of time would be long enough. In about 5 percent of model simulations, there were even 20-year time periods with no loss of sea ice, despite strong human-caused warming.
“It is quite conceivable that the current period of near zero sea-ice trend could extend for a decade or more, solely due to weather-induced natural variability hiding the long-term human caused decline,” said Ed Hawkins, a co-author and researcher at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading.
“Human caused climate warming has driven a decline in Arctic September sea-ice extent over the past few decades,” the new paper reports, and “this decline will continue into the future.” But understanding how and why natural variability affects sea ice trends should help scientists better predict how sea ice will evolve in upcoming years and decades, with implications for natural ecosystems, shipping routes, energy development and more.
###
CIRES is a partnership of NOAA and CU-Boulder.
Co-authors of the Nature Climate Change paper, “Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends,” include Neil Swart and John Fyfe (Environment Canada), Ed Hawkins (University of Reading National Centre for Atmospheric Science), Jennifer Kay (CIRES, University of Colorado Boulder Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences) and Alexandra Jahn (National Center for Atmospheric Research, now at University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research).
Reference:
Swart, Fyfe, Hawkins, Kay & Jahn, 2015, ‘Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends’, Nature Climate Change, 5, 86, doi:10.1038/nclimate2483
Available at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n2/full/nclimate2483.html
Update: the original article implied that NISDC’s Mark Serreze made the statement about sea ice being gone in 5 years, ending in 2012, when it was actually NASA’s Jay Zwally that made the claim in the National Geographic article. The language has been clarified in the paragraph to reflect this.
For those interested, 2012 came and went without the Arctic being “ice free”. In fact, it touched the “normal line” for that year in April for awhile:
The melt season ended below normal, with a new historic low, but was not “ice free” as his colleague Zwally claimed.
The historical low extent was due to a polar storm, as determined by NSIDC in a paper on the issue.
To my knowledge, Dr. Serreze has never publicly corrected the National Geographic article claim of 2012 being the ice-free year that wasn’t, suggesting he endorsed the idea at the time.
The Warmunists are in full retreat.
irrelevant Arctic Ice Extents were the last line of defense for the Warmunists, yet, alas, even this tired old argument is starting to collapse…
Arctic sea ice extents have shown gradual recovery since 2007. It’s apparent AMO cycles have a large impact on Arctic Ice Extents and the 30-yr AMO warm cycle peaked in 2007. It’s now a slow cool slide down to the next 30-yr AMO Cool cycle, which starts around 2020. Until then, Arctic ice extents should continue to Increas, as we’ve seen for the last 7 years.
CO2 levels have almost nothing to do with Arctic Sea Ice Extents as is becoming painfully clear.
CAGW Is becoming such a joke.
“The Warmunists are in full retreat.”
———————
Au contraire. While the man in the street may now realize that the CAGW meme is full of holes, those wielding wealth and political power are exerting more “climate” influence than ever before.
Alan– political hacks have two primary motivations: 1) getting elected 2) getting reelected. As soon as CAGW advocacy becomes a political liability, it’s dead.
CAGW poll numbers are crashing as people are very quickly losing interest and belief in this scam.
I think everyone will be very surprised at how quickly CAGW will collapse and is laughed, ridiculed and eye-rolled into oblivion…
I don’t see them in full retreat yet. They are having a go at their Battle of the Bulge. They are riding their 2014 hottest year evah meme like the Nazis’ last push with their panzers. But we will see how long until they concede, perhaps career suicide would have been better analogized with the Japanese.
Might I recommend that in addition to a National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) we should enhance our knowledge with Additional Data Depositories (ADD). For instance we could have the following:
A Blowing Underwater Lagging Latent Subsurface Heat Inventory Tool (BULLSH … ok, I’ll skip the acronym on that one.)
Or, howze ’bout a Morning Dew Data Depository (MDDD)?
Maybe a Drizzle Data Suppository … oops, I meant Depository (DDD)?
A Moonbeam Data Depository (MDD)?
A Micro Atmosphere Data Depository (MADD)?
Or, maybe a study of Atmospheric Transgender Effects (ATE)?
Maybe an Environmental Atmospheric Tutorial (EAT)?
How about an International Atmospheric Meteorological And National Independent Depository Incorporating Otherwordly Tools (IAMANIDIOT)?
is it frustrating to anyone else the way they so definitively keep repeating ‘human-caused warming,’ ‘human-caused warming?’
“is it frustrating to anyone else the way they…”
Yep, pretty much everyone, except the Warmists. You must have seen; “repeat a lie often enough…”
Appropriate that Sereze released this press release at this time.
From today’s sea ice extents, the following general statements remain true:
1. Annual Arctic average air temperatures have risen, as predicted by CAGW theory, but ONLY when the following are done to the air temperature records:
1A. Annual averages only are displayed or graphed or used. (This is because Arctic high and Arctic low temperatures are behaving differently (for example, the DMI daily average SUMMER temperature at 80 north latitude has remained not only near-datum steady since 1959 with a very, very small std deviation, but is actually declining slightly. Arctic daily average WINTER temperatures are swinging in broad +/- 5 jumps weekly, and very often, are above average by more than 10 degrees. But there is no solar energy in the Arctic across the winter, the entire Arctic ocean is covered in sea ice during the entire time that no solar energy is present, and there is no measured change in winter Arctic storm frequency or intensity up at 80 north. Odd, isn’t it?)
1B. Annual Arctic air temperatures are presented, not for the Arctic ocean itself – which has no thermometers or weather stations above it! – but for the “arctic” as a tundra and steppe and tioga and permafrost swamp and forests. That is, the AREA of the “Arctic” between 60 north and 70 north latitude is reported, NOT the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean – broadly speaking – is all between 72 north and the pole. The tundra (land. forest, trees, swamp, permafrost, tioga, etc) is between 60 north and the edge of the Arctic Ocean at (roughly) 72 north.)
Land and plants ARE darkening due to the extra CO2 in the air, and the LAND areas ARE getting warmer as the LAND albedo decreases due to more bushes, more leaves, early-season blossoms and sprouts, etc. The sea ice? Not so much.
2. A. Polar amplification may, or may not, be correct in theory, but the Arctic sea ice “death spiral” theory of “Warmer arctic air melts sea ice into open water, which has a lower albedo than sea ice, which then absorbed more solar energy which then heats up the air more, which leads to more sea ice loss” can be falsified. But Sereze’s death spiral is ONLY falsified for 9 of the 12 months in the Arctic! May, June, and July? Sereze IS correct. There IS more solar energy absorbed than lost – but only then! ONLY in those three months.
We will be doing just those calculations of heat gain, and heat loss this year as we calculate the monthly heat energy absorbed and reflected from the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice on the 22nd of each month.
Bottom line? “From today’s Arctic sea ice area, increasing sea ice loss means more open Arctic Ocean water for longer periods between August and April every year, which means increased heat loss from the newly exposed ocean waters into space.”
2B. Note that the “theory” of “a sea ice death spiral feedback” IS VALID for the Antarctic. More Antarctic sea ice IS reflecting more solar energy into space and that effect IS cooling the planet every month of the year. Again, we will be showing that difference each month through the year on the 22nd of each month. Again, that effect is NOT what Sereze wants to discuss.
Bottom line? “From today’s Antarctic sea ice area, increasing Antarctic sea ice area over longer periods of time all months of the year, means significantly more immediate heat loss by reflection into space.”
3. However, the premise of “Arctic amplification” also amplifies the assumed heating effect of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” … This occurs because today’s CO2 increase is assumed uniform around the world and pole to pole. However, in the polar areas, air temperature is much lower on average, thus at the same relative humidity levels above the oceans, the actual humidity (water vapor levels) are much less, and so there is no (or much less) water vapor feedback due to the CO2 effects of heating the air. The result (according to their theory at least) is that the increase inCO2 worldwide is much more important in the Arctic because there already is so little effect from everything else (methane and water vapor and CFC’s) that “CO2’s effect is much greater proportionally when CO2 is increased.” Confused enough? Yeah – It’s tricky.)
In order to compare the magnitude of flying insults, let’s for the moment assume that Romm quoted Serreze accurately – admittedly a big IF!
IMHO “breathtaking ignorance” still trumps “previous wild claims” by a good margin.
On the factual front, it would appear that Mother Nature has been with Anthony for the last number of years. She’s a pretty big player in this and will ultimately decide the winner.
Mother nature bats last. And she owns the stadium.
…and she is the umpire.
“…and she is the umpire.”
If only!
Thanks Anthony,
Firstly let’s all peruse this August 2008 article from Reuters, shall we?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/27/us-arctic-ice-polarbears-idUSN2745499020080827
“No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it’s just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral,” said Mark Serreze, a scientist at the center. The Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030, Serreze said by telephone.
Discuss!
“There are now elements in the environmental movement who are so worried about the state of the planet that they have lost all sense of proportion. This is alarming for those at the receiving end of their mindless wrath. It does not help to protect the environment either.”
h/t Richard Tol (IPCC lead author).
Nobody disputes that Serreze has ignored his past predictions and pushed the alarm out another two decades. But a quick google search reveals Serreze telling anyone and everyone that the North Pole might be ice free back in 2008.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html
Google is your friend! I found countless interviews with the same message of a possible ice free north pole.
The North Pole being ice-free is not unusual and happened even before 1970. See here.
Jim Hunt, what is your point? Go to the National Geographic article and read it. I have. Nat Geo said:
So I don’t understand what you mean by “his account differs from yours in certain aspects?” Also why the question mark?
To clarify. Nat Geo did not say Serreze said it could be gone in 5 years. He then changed his mind to 2020. It mentioned Jay Zwally. So what is your point???
So what is your point???
==========
the point is that all you’ve shown is that Serreze is so sure of his predictions they change with the telling. Like a politician promising to tax the rich when talking to poor people, and promising tax cuts for the rich when hosting $1000 a plate dinners.
why not simply say the ice could be gone in 2016, 2017, 2018, … 2030,2031,… 2099,2100, …3100, …etc.etc.
Without a doubt, my prediction above is going to be correct. Climate science is doing the same thing. Changing their predictions all the time, which means their previous predictions were wrong and thus worthless, which means that their current and future predictions are more than likely also wrong and equally worthless.
no one in their right mind would risk their future to a that sort of nonsense. thus, it isn’t logic, it is fear driving the debate. fear is driving the crowds to behave irrationally. fear of harm from global warming has inflated the risk all out proportion to reality, to the point where worry over a future problem has paralysed us from solving todays problems.
Well spotted Jimbo!
Unlike you and I it seems Anthony has NOT read all of the article he links to. Mark Serreze never said that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2012. If Anthony had moved the lower edge of his screenshot a bit further down the page the truth would have been revealed. Why do you suppose he neglected to do that?
Where is your evidence that Mark Serreze ever “changed his mind”?
Jim Hunt,
My small error on changing minds. My mind was partly on Wadhams at the time of typing.
Nowhere has Anthony asserted that Serreze claimed ice free in 5 years.
By 2030? I will have my kayak out of layaway from Dick’s Sporting Goods by then, I have been keeping in shape, but now I know I can ease of the training for a bit, and enjoy a pizza now and then. and maybe hit the gym in 2018 again. Rowing machine, you know.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/01/Figure41-350×233.png
The actual data does not fit the models well. Notice that the models start around 2007 and the data is smoothed to hide the problem.
The historical record doesn’t seem to be consistent with news reports either.http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62428921
“….it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet.” Large error bars and its sea-ice extent but surely a 30-50% drop in thickness would also show up in the ice extent? The NYT also had a ’58 report of 50% decrease in volume over the past 50 years.
Looks like it was put in to lengthen the x axis and make it less obvious there is a problem with the models
Observations and Patterns on Sea Ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
1. Arctic sea ice anomaly trends.
The Arctic sea ice area was broadly decreasing, but it remained within 2 std deviations of the average daily area for the entire 1979 through 2005 satellite period. Declining certainly, but declining slowly and steadily. Remaining within “natural patterns” if you use the usual” +/- 2 std deviations” is “normal” in natural systems.
(Arctic sea ice area changes from low to high each year, but the plots show two std deviations are between 0.75 to 1.0 Mkm^2)
Then, after 2004, sea ice oscillated wildly. 2007 and 2012, sea ice anomaly dropped very low, but then immediately re-bounded (as the newly exposed ocean water cooled and re-froze) back up to almost 0.0 anomaly in the next 3-4 months! A high sea ice area (a low, near-zero anomaly) lead into more melting the next season, and a unusually low sea ice area.
Storms caused much of the movement (the loss of sea ice from sheltered north Canadian islands) down into the warmer meltwaters off of Greenland, but the pattern was significantly different after 2004-2005.
But, 2012’s record-setting low sea ice area was followed by now the third year of sea ice growth as anomalies go back towards a positive Arctic sea ice. In fact the Arctic sea ice anomaly has been within 2x std deviations (below “average” sea ice levels, but well within “natural changes” movement) almost ALL of the past two years.
So, in the arctic, we are looking for some change that happened in 2004-2005 to ‘stop the decline” AND “cause the 2005 – 2012” oscillations; or
Something that changed the gradual decline between 1979 and 2000, into a a sharp decline between 2000 – 2005 AND the subsequent oscillations between 2005 and 2012.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
2. Antarctic sea ice anomaly trends.
Antarctic sea ice WAS declining gradually slightly from the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (and maybe BEFORE that!) up through 1992. then, 1992, something changed that long pattern.
Antarctic sea ice ROSE steadily the ENTIRE time between 1992 and 2010. Nothing fantastic, nothing ominous or threatening, just a steady, gradual increase the entire time CO2 was rising. Antarctic continental average AIR temperatures have NOT risen during any part of the satellite Antarctic sea ice record; They HAVE REMAINED STEADY.
From 2010 through today’s latest 2015 data, Antarctic sea ice has grown quickly, fast, and much more rapidly than before. If Antarctic sea ice extents continue grow as they have the 3-1/2 years, and if that sea ice growth expands uniformly around the continent, Antarctic sea ice extents could block sea traffic around Cape Horn in as little as 8 – 12 years.
3. Antarctic Sea Ice Growth: Excuses or Explanations.
Two excuses (not theories even, but they are excuses) have been used to explain this growth of Antarctic sea ice.
Neither is justified by measurements, only hand-waving comments and generalities.
3A. There has been no continent-wide measured increase in uniform off-land wind speeds to “blow the sea ice away from land” that would uniformly increase the sea ice area at every latitude, across every longitude, and during every season of the year.
3B. There are claims of Antarctic land ice melting, and this meltwater is diluting the sea water around Antarctica enough to allow the extra freezing. Even IF one accepts the very “generous” assumptions of Antarctic land ice loss from GRACE satellite modelling, there is not enough Antarctic land ice mass loss to dilute enough southern ocean water enough to freeze. To repeat, the “excess” Antarctic sea ice is occurring at ALL latitudes around Antarctica during ALL seasons of the year at ALL longitudes around Antarctica and ALL sea ice edge distances away from the continental land masses.
To explain:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
When it is “hot” across continental Antarctica (meaning the daily high temperatures “almost” get above freezing during the long summer days near the coast),
when the edge of the Antarctic sea ice areas are getting closer to the continental edge,
when the amount of southern ocean water to be diluted is at its minimum for the year, the Antarctic sea ice excess anomalies expand at the SAME RATE as they do when the Antarctic continental air is
well below -30 deg C,
when the Antarctic sea ice edges are their furthest ever from the coastal zones,
when meltwater cannot exist in quantity,
when the edge of the sea ice extents is both increasing distance and decreasing distances the assumed meltwater must flow, and
when the “excess” Antarctic sea ice extents cover six times the volume of diluted ocean water as they cover (and thus dilute) at minimum sea ice extents!
In fact, cherry-picking through the last four years of the Antarctic sea ice anomaly, you can call out several times when the greatest increase in Antarctic sea ice extents is when the assumed seawater dilution effect MUST BE at its least possible amount (lowest air temperature, greatest distance from the coast, most area of ocean water covered (or the greatest rate of growth): and the small anomalies (least dilution effect) is when the sea ice is closest to the coast and sea ice area is the least amount and coast land temperatures and solar exposure near their annual highest point.
“Human-caused global warming is melting Arctic sea ice”
At least only the human-caused warming is melting it, if any other warming such as natural variability was to melt it as well we would be well in the shit! / sarc.
Fundamental theorem of my new climate model, submitted for your review: =RAND()-0.5
One thing that’s always bothered me about sea ice extent statistics is that “extent” is defined by as little as 15% ice cover. What if variations in density occur, and are they even meaningful? In any case, it looks like Arctic ice is starting off on a low trajectory for 2015:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
Barry,
If you’re thinking the last two weeks of January are an indication of a trajectory, what do you make of the flight-path of 2012?
Are you sure about that Barry? That’s not the implication in this recent review of the state of the sea ice:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/state-of-the-sea-ice-january-2015/
One of those is Professor Peter Whadams who said there would be an ‘ice-free’ Arctic in 2015 OR 2016 but no later. He then changed his mind to 2020.
See my references for Wadhams.
The Arctic sea ice wasn’t screaming, it was LAUGHING. At him!
TRM
You are too cruel.
Readership Alert!! The above statement was being said sarcastically.
Eugene WR Gallun
“It’s quite conceivable that the current period of near zero sea ice trend could extend for a decade or more soley due to weather induced natural variability hiding the long term human caused decline “. Hilarious. Is this like the heat is hiding in the ocean? If everything is “hiding” human causation maybe there is no human causation. Someone robbed my house last night and replaced everything with exact duplicates.
Good grief!
What a flaming mess of a paper, and this passed pal review!? Somebody sure got more than a kiss as payment.
Of course they want money, for a government funded, government supported research effort.
However, the much too clever scientastrologists included a supplementary PDF, obtainable from their abstract page, that lists their processes of data abuse in order to cause it too confess.
After reading through all of the effort to compare observations against to multiple model runs, there is really only one conclusion.
‘The authors knew what result they desired before they started torturing an data’.
I love the way they decide data validity using overlapping pentads whilst evaluating seven years periods after applying their quadratic detrending.
This smelly mess looks to have Gavinmater’s thumbprints all over it. RealClimate must love it.
How do you paste figures into posts at this site?
Usually with a simple link. RACook above used this one. “http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png”
I believe he meant the Tagging needed like ( text ) or or ( /text ) to have the image properly displayed in the post rather than just a link to the image source
(I’ve been curious about this myself)
Hmmm, I’ll try a few things over on the Test Page…
Joe Romm is blessed- if ignorance really took away one’s breath his would have left him breathless years ago..
Non falsifiable science: a contradiction of terms.
Unless I’m missing something, the benchmarks for Arctic ice extent are based on a multi-decade average and graphed or enumerated as a flat line. Yet the AMO is a multi-decade cycle that is anything but flat and even the long cycles are not regular or even numerous for effective use by models. This is another system short coming that any other discipline would readily acknowledge to observers and policy makers as a problem.
The climate scientist promoting AGW ,have been wrong on each and every prediction they have put forth and it will only get worse going forward. A bunch of Bozos.
Yes there is annual variation in arctic ice extent and volume but the downward trends in both measures over the past 30 years are clear.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/10/
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
I am willing to bet that the 2011-2020 average in both extent and volume will be lower than the 2001-2010 average. Anyone want to want to take me up on that?
Our host says no betting if I’m not mistaken. Try Notrickszone, he’s already in a bet.
How about extending your graph back to 1940 and allow us to make a considered judgement.
In response to old44: Unfortunately, there are no satellite estimates prior to 1979. Kinnard et al. 2011 have estimated arctic sea ice extent using robust proxies and their conclusion is “both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
I guess there is a no betting policy on this site so I take back my offer.
Yes, but you need to look at the annual trend, not just spring and summer. According to NORSEX (and who wouldn’t?), annual ice loss is ~3.9%/decade since 1979, while summer ice loss is ~9%.
I bet you are right that the 2010 – 2020 period will see lower levels of ice compared with 2000 – 2010. But overall loss annually should be lower than the graphs you post imply.
Betting is okay. But gentlemen bet a plugged nickel over things like this: the objective being to be right, not to make money.
Funny how all the doomsday charts start in 1978 immediately following 38 years of cooling.
Luke;
So they say, and is another ‘cherry pick’ on behalf of the ‘97% consensus’. Satellite observations of sea-ice extent have been used since the early ’70’s (~1972) and were used in the IPCC’s 1st report;
IPCC FAR (AR1) Chapter 7, page 224:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/SeaiceextentIPCCAR1_zps93416e03.jpg
Another set of ‘revealing’ graphs used in chapter 7 of the AR1 are those of ‘pre-hockey stick’ global temperatures:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/IPCC-FAR-Tempgraphs_zpsd2950099.jpg
NOTE: Neither of the above graphs have been used in any IPCC reports since the AR1.
Satellites were picturing the Arctic sea ice back in the 1960s.
Jimbo,
Thanks for digging up the info on satellite records in the arctic. Of course you failed to share a key quote from the CIRES page “In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said.
They make it clear that the satellite data were very sporadic during that period and some of the data were discarded or placed in storage and forgotten. There is no evidence of data suppression as you and some others have suggested.
“When NASA launched Nimbus-1 50 years ago, the agency’s key goals were to test instruments that could capture images of clouds and other meteorological features, Gallaher said. The Nimbus satellites dished up such excellent observations, NASA eventually handed over key technologies to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for use in weather forecasting, including hurricane forecasts. But even with such success, data tapes and film that recorded Nimbus observations slipped through the cracks.“At the time, the satellites’ real-time observations, including clouds, for example, were what people wanted most of all, for weather forecasting,” Gallaher said. He and colleagues with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, tracked down old Nimbus film to a NOAA facility in Suitland Maryland, where they were stored for about 25 years, and then Asheville, North Carolina. There, hundreds of 35-millimeter film reels lay in an old storage facility.”
As for your references from 1887 and 1965 using land and sea-based observations to estimate sea ice cover, you must be aware that such observations are subjective and very prone to error. The estimates of sea ice cover based on surrogates (Kinnard et al. 2011) do not support the observations in the documents you cite.
“The end is nigh”
If the predictions fail make some new ones.
The money will still keep rolling in.
haha — perfect!
Eugene WR Gallun
The end is Nye?
Rapture? Still looking for a thing already happened. To be sure, some were taken and some were left behind. The ones that were taken went to Heaven, via Auschwitz. It was an unpleasant journey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
They merely posit an unestablished premise as ‘a priori’ true when it is not shown by open science to be significantly observed. Namely they falsely premise that there must be significant “human caused climate change”.
They are not capable of critical epistemological self-analysis. I say that because they have still not realized that the climate debate is finally now evolved into an open science process. There is finally an open science process where the institutional science orgs and bodies have lost their ‘argument-from-authority’ attempts to silence critics through ‘consensus’ and ‘settled science’ strategies.
John
It looks like the only way to get an ice-free Arctic is to manipulate the satellite data, although I wouldn’t want to give anybody any ideas.
The S.H. sea ice volume /extent is higher this decade versus last decade which makes the point about Arctic Sea Ice volume/extent quite meaningless when applied to AGW as the reason which it is not.
You could get warmer temps and still get ice expansion if the warming is during winter (which it is) and precipitation picks up.
I notice the 7 years/34 percent statistic and couldn’t help but compare it to the “1 chance in 27,000,000” statistic (for higher temps being so closely spaced), and which was thoroughly and eloquently debunked on this site recently. It seems they can’t get their story straight!
“In 5% of models” – Getting desperate aren’t we.
” Could be 20 year periods of no loss of sea ice” – Should keep my grants coming until 1935.