NCAR develops method to predict sea ice changes years in advance
From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH and the “we know so we’ll put that statement in a press release” department comes this interesting tidbit of modeling certainty.
BOULDER – Climate scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) present evidence in a new study that they can predict whether the Arctic sea ice that forms in the winter will grow, shrink, or hold its own over the next several years.
The team of scientists has found that changes in the North Atlantic ocean circulation could allow overall winter sea ice extent to remain steady in the near future, with continued loss in some regions balanced by possible growth in others, including in the Barents Sea.
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,” said NCAR scientist Stephen Yeager, lead author of the study published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “But we are predicting that the rate will taper off for several years in the future before resuming. We are not implying some kind of recovery from the effects of human-caused global warming; it’s really just a slow down in winter sea ice loss.”
The research was funded largely by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, with additional support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Yeager is among a growing number of scientists trying to predict how the climate may change over a few years to a few decades, instead of the more typical span of many decades or even centuries. This type of “decadal prediction” provides information over a timeframe that is useful for policy makers, regional stakeholders, and others.
Decadal prediction relies on the idea that some natural variations in the climate system, such as changes in the strength of ocean currents, unfold predictably over several years. At times, their impacts can overwhelm the general warming trend caused by greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by humans.
Yeager’s past work in this area has focused on decadal prediction of sea surface temperatures. A number of recent studies linking changes in the North Atlantic ocean circulation to sea ice extent led Yeager to think that it would also be possible to make decadal predictions for Arctic winter sea ice cover using the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model.
Linking ocean circulation and sea ice
The key is accurately representing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in the model. AMOC sweeps warm surface waters from the tropics toward the North Atlantic, where they cool and then sink before making a return south in deep ocean currents.
AMOC can vary in intensity. When it’s strong, more warm water is carried farther toward the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, accelerating sea ice loss. When weak, the warm water largely stays farther south, and its effects on sea ice are reversed. The variations in AMOC’s vigor–from weak to strong or vice versa–occur over multiple years to decades, giving scientists some ability to predict in advance how it will affect winter sea ice, in particular.
AMOC now appears to be weakening. Yeager and his co-authors, NCAR scientists Alicia Karspeck and Gokhan Danabasoglu, found in their new study that this change in the ocean is likely to be enough to temporarily mask the impacts of human-caused climate change and stall the associated downward trend in winter sea ice extent in the Arctic, especially on the Atlantic side, where AMOC has the most influence.
The limits of a short satellite record
The amount of sea ice covering the Arctic typically grows to its maximum in late February after the long, dark winter. The sea ice minimum typically occurs at the end of the summer season, in late September. The new study addresses only winter sea ice, which is less vulnerable than summer ice to variations in weather activity that cannot be predicted years in advance, such as storms capable of breaking up the ice crust.
Despite their success incorporating AMOC conditions into winter sea ice “hindcasts,” the scientists are cautious about their predictions of future conditions. Because satellite images of sea ice extend only back to 1979, the scientists had a relatively short data record for verifying decadal-scale predictions against actual conditions. Additionally, AMOC itself has been measured directly only since 2004, though observations of other variables that are thought to change in tandem with AMOC–such as sea surface height and ocean density in the Labrador Sea, as well as sea surface temperature in the far North Atlantic–go back much farther.
“The sea ice record is so short that it’s difficult to use statistics alone to build confidence in our predictions,” Yeager said. “Much of our confidence stems from the fact that our model does well at predicting slow changes in ocean heat transport and sea surface temperature in the subpolar North Atlantic, and these appear to impact the rate of sea ice loss. So, we think that we understand the mechanisms underpinning our sea ice prediction skill.”
###
About the article
Title: Predicted slow-down in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss
Authors: Stephen G. Yeager, Alicia Karspeck, and Gokhan Danabasoglu
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters
NCAR admits the effects of CO2 are logarithmic….
film at 11……….
Well so they admit they are wrong right off the bat.
The effects of CO2 aren’t Logarithmic. Going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm does not do the same as going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm. So it isn’t logarithmic. It might be non-linear.
That’s actually a fairly safe bet. Pretty much everything in nature is non-linear; but nothing in nature is logarithmic; only in mathematics is anything logarithmic.
g
george, I never ran the MODTRAN line-by-line radiation calculator. But it runs what it believes too…
…I believe CO2 has done about all it can do right now
“nothing in nature is logarithmic”
Consider the Chambered Nautilus for starters.
“Pretty much everything in nature is non-linear”
Consider the time/distance relationship for photons in vacuo. Just drop the 2nd para beginning “pretty” George.
But some phenomena are close enough to logarithmic to be modeled by a logarithmic function. Certainly the in lab CO2 infra red absorption can be modeled as a log curve. That is not to say that in the complex atmosphere, the response is as simple as in the lab.
The better references to the logarithmic effect of CO2 generally point out it’s a rule of thumb and doesn’t apply to “extreme” conditions. Use it for the range of CO2 the planet is likely to see during the interglacial, and maybe during the last glaciation.
“nothing in nature is logarithmic; only in mathematics is anything logarithmic.”
Not certain what you mean by “in nature”, but there are logarithmic distributions found in real world events. Lightbulbs fail in a lognormal distribution, so does routing software. Without looking at the data, it seems presumptious to say nothing in nature is logarithmic.
Air Pressure vs altitude is Logarithmic.
The effect of CO2 is close enough to logarithmic in the range of PPMV CO2 experienced and predicted to be experienced, in the recent comings and goings of ice age glaciations and during the manmade CO2 boost – which I think means 175 to 900 PPMV CO2, maybe holding reasonably true over a wider range.
However, somewhere below this range, the effect changes significantly towards linear, probably gradually over at least an order of magnitude of CO2 PPMV. And somewhere above this range, the effect probably changes significantly to a flattening of effect predicted by a continuation of the logarithmic rate of 3.7 W/m^2 per 2x change of CO2.
With respect George:
Nothing is a very big word.
🙂
The consensus says it is a logarithmic function but they plot exponential curves in their CAGW scenarios.
http://www.hifipage.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/expvslog.gif
Donald L. Klipstein December 10, 2015 at 9:56 pm
The effect of CO2 is close enough to logarithmic in the range of PPMV CO2 experienced and predicted to be experienced, in the recent comings and goings of ice age glaciations and during the manmade CO2 boost – which I think means 175 to 900 PPMV CO2, maybe holding reasonably true over a wider range.
However, somewhere below this range, the effect changes significantly towards linear, probably gradually over at least an order of magnitude of CO2 PPMV. And somewhere above this range, the effect probably changes significantly to a flattening of effect predicted by a continuation of the logarithmic rate of 3.7 W/m^2 per 2x change of CO2.
Actually based on the ‘curve of growth’ above this range you’d expect a transition to a square root dependance.
Scott Scarborough says: Air Pressure vs altitude is Logarithmic.
Atmospheric pressure decreases exponentially with altitude.
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/atp8b/exponentialresource.htm
Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale is roughly logarithmic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_hurricane_wind_scale
The Richter scale, developed in the 1930s, is a base-10 logarithmic scale, which defines magnitude as the logarithm of the ratio of the amplitude of the seismic waves to an arbitrary, minor amplitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
Never sudied chemical kinetics or things like pH did you George?
NEGATIVE logarithmic and our position on the curve is unknown.
. “But we are predicting that the rate will taper off for several years in the future before resuming. We are not implying some kind of recovery from the effects of human-caused global warming; it’s really just a slow down in winter sea ice loss.”
So they’re kicking the can further down the road in order to make it harder to falsify their claims, at least until they’ve had a chance to milk it for all it’s worth. Looking at the ice cover prediction that appears on Anthony’s sea ice page, accurate predictions can’t even be made just a few weeks into the future.
They can try to kick that can but it’s a whiff because the hypothesis of AGW said that ice levels at both poles should be declining NOW and especially so in the Arctic. It isn’t happening at either pole. Thus they are wrong and no amount of trying to say it’s coming later can change that.
rah: “It isn’t happening at either pole.”
If you are convinced it is not happening perhaps you would like to take the bet I offered dbstealey, but he refused. I offer 3:1 odds that the Arctic sea ice minimum average over the next three years will be lower than it was over the last 3 years. I reckon that represents a decline in ice. If you do not believe there is a decline in ice, that is an extemely good bet.
It is actually pretty clear that there is a decline in Arctic sea ice, so in reality it would not be such a good bet for you, which is why I offer it. Only someone that looks at the evidence and fails to see a decline would think it a good bet.
The anonymous ‘seaice’ says:
…perhaps you would like to take the bet I offered dbstealey, but he refused.
That follwed the bet I offered. But ‘seaice’ refused. Hypocrisy, anyone?
And:
It is actually pretty clear that there
iswas a decline in Arctic sea iceThere, it’s fixed.
The recent dip in Arctic ice was a natural, normal, temporary decline no different from numerous similar fluctuations. But ‘seaice’ is trying to turn it into a ‘man-made’ event. But as usual he has not an iota of proof that human CO2 emissions have anything to do with the ebb and flow of polar ice.
Total global ice is very close to its long term average. It’s typical ‘seaice’ cherry-picking that always ignores the Antarctic — as if that doesn’t count, unless ice is declining there, too.
The anonymous ‘seaice’ could not be less credible. He cannot point to any global damage, or harm from the rise in CO2, and he always ignores its obvious benefits:
But DB, this is inconvenient and to be ignored… love your posts!
There are many factors that influence arctic sea ice, such short intervals are meaningless.
Even you should have figured that out by now.
i will take that bet seaice1 . £100 or dollars ,whatever you prefer. nice odds, i win i get £400, you win you get £100. works for me 🙂 . how do you propose to make proper contact ? i am ok with publishing my email here.
Bit chilly. Excellent. I will re-state the terms here. I have stated them extensively elsewhere, but just to be sure we are on the same page. I win if the average of the Arctic sea ice minima over the next three years (2016-2018) is less than the average of the Arctic sea ice minima over the last three years (2013-2015). Odds of 3:1 mean for every $3 I put up, you put up $1. Ice extent is 15% extent reported by NSIDC. The minimum is the lowest extent occurring in each year, usually in September.
I suggest a third part to hold the money until October 2018, when they will adjudicate and pay to the winner. I originally suggested Anthony Watts could act in this role as host of this site, but I have no idea if he would be willing to do so, or even if he would be allowed to do so.
If this is agreeable, then we can decide who should hold the money and decide the winner.
dbstealey. I explained your bet. I agree with what you say therefore I will not bet against it. No hypocrisy. If I say I disagreed, but turned down your bet, then that might be hypocrisy.
You say you are right and I am wrong, but you still won’t take my bet, even with odds of 3:1 in your favour. Yet you accuse me of hypocrisy.
Just to scotch this one, I offer you 5:1 odds that the Arctic will not be ice free by 2019. If it is ice free then you win. If you turn that down, then you have turned down my offer. I would conclude that you think the Arctic will not be ice free by 2019. Since this is exactly what you have said anyway, this proves nothing. We both think this, so not bet is possible.
However, turning down my offer of 3:1 if the ice minimum reduces over the next 3 years is very much at odds with your stated belief that the ice is growing or recovering.
“But ‘seaice’ is trying to turn it into a ‘man-made’ event.” Do you see man made or CO2 in my statement? No, because it is not there. It is you that is reading something I have not said into my comments.
‘seaice’ says:
I offer you 5:1 odds that the Arctic will not be ice free by 2019.
That was my offer, jamoke. I guess you’ll never stop your game playing.
bit chilly,
Make sure you get precise agreement on what data set you agree to use as the gold standard from which these averages are derived.
bp
dbstealey. OK, do you take the bet or not? Or can we acknowledge that we agree on that one and move on? You may get the point that there is no point offering a bet on something we agree about. It proves nothing.
Bit chilly – are the terms OK?
‘seaice’,
You skedaddled from my original offer, so you are no one to talk. I had made an offer to ‘Chris’, when he foolishly tried to argue that Arctic ice would be gone by 2019. You both tucked tail on that offer, in fact Chris disappeared completely. In fact, you’ve adopted my own offer and tried to make it yours! And you’ve been trying to fabricate other kinds of wagers incessantly. You have a serious gambling addiction.
No one else seems very interested in making bets on whether or not natural variability (the cause of changing ice levels) will cause more or less ice in a given year.
Your constant demands for people to take the bets you fabricate indicates a serious gambling problem. I don’t want to be an enabler of your addiction. I’ve told you that maybe a half dozen times now, but you keep trying different bets.
I suggest you take your fixation to a psychologist, or enroll in a 12-step program. You have no credible evidence that changes in polar ice are caused by human CO2 emissions, so your incessant trolling for bets is all you’ve got. If you had any verifiable, measurable evidence, you wouldn’t need to bet on what nature will do next year. You might as well bet if it will rain next week…
…oh, wait. Forget I said that! I don’t want to get you started down that road.
It’s natural variability, it is powered by the ocean and El nino cycles.
‘BusterBrown’ sez:
“…14 years in a row.”
And in bold, yet!
Should we panic now? Just say the word…
As for me, I’ll just keep in mind that during the present Holocene the Arctic was ice free. But since that was ≈6,000 years ago, ’14 years’ doesn’t get my adrenaline pumping. But if it scares you, by all means, panic! That’s what the alarmist clique wants, you know.
(Here’s an interesting map from the 1500’s. No Arctic ice back then. How ’bout that? I guess no one told the Vikings. And here’s James Hansen, predicting that Arctic ice is gonna disappear. He also predicts sea levels will rise by 25 meters.)
BusterBrown@hotmail.com
So, you think (you believe as a matter of faith) that today’s low Arctic sea ice extent is a matter of concern.
Why?
Do you believe that a loss of arctic sea ice extent will warm the earth? If so, by how much? When?
Will a loss of arctic sea ice TODAY – ANY day between mid-September and mid-March – warm or cool the earth?
If YOU are worried about a loss of Arctic sea ice, why are YOU not terrified of a continuing GAIN of Antarctic sea ice?
Does a low Arctic sea ice extent at the September minimum mean a warmer or cooler winter?
If the arctic sea ice sets a record low at minimum, does the following spring sea ice extents higher, or lower, than average?
‘Buster Brown’,
Since you don’t have a clue about what the climate Null Hypothesis is, you don’t belong here except as a reader trying to get up to speed.
RACook is correct: BB takes what he believes as a matter of faith. Notice that his posts are mere assertions, while skeptics post verifiable facts.
Here’s a verifiable fact: Planet Earth is making a fool of people like ‘Buster Brown’. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with ‘the climate’. Even Tighe could tell Buster that fact.
BusterBrown@hotmail.com replying to RACookPE1978
If you think it is a simple calculation, you are woefully ignorant.
But, Yes, I can answer your question. I have calculated the answers. Each question is appropriate to either showing your knowledge of the subject, or your ignorance of the subject. Each accurate calculation, and each assumption or approximation, shows that you are wrong in your simplistic faith-based answer.
But. You have not demonstrated anything yet – not even the basic knowledge of your assumed mastery of the subject of arctic and antarctic sea ice, nor have you shown to what level I need to address my answer.
” What is the probability of the seasonal minimum of Arctic ice to be below the long term average 14 year in a row?”
Depending when, it’s likely near 100% 2, 3 time a century.
What is so difficult about surface weather and Climate that people can’t stop assuming everything is a linear trend?
My assumption is it’s a cycle with a 60-80 year period, which would have decadal upward, downward, and 2 inflection points, with some randomization of all of the above.
We currently have decent measurements and data for part of a rising trend of one cycle, and there is a good possibility of an upcoming downward inflection point, ie it’s going to turn cold. But it is not clear whether we have reached the peak or not.
All that does is reorganize the Earths surface temp, not increase it.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Now it’s hard to tell whether there’s as much melting from the DMI historical charts, since they were mostly measured by boats, and explorers, but there was a lot of melt, and area changes based on ocean currents, not air temps.
Bit chilly – are you interested?
dbstealey. You skedaddled from my offer, which was the same as your offer. I think we have to call that one a draw, since we both stand by the same position.
Meanwhile, you skedaddled from my second offer. We have to say I won that one.
As I think BusterBrown is alluding to, the chances of the current figures occuring from random fluctuations are miniscule. There is a clear underlying trend. I am betting on the trend continuing. Dbstealey (or anyone else it seems) will not take that bet at 3:1, so I conclude that everyone here also thinks that trend will continue. That means that everyone here apparently thinks that by that measure at least, Arctic sea ice is shrinking. So please no more comments about how the ice is growing unless you really believe it. Random would mean 1:1 odds, so 3:1 is an excellent bet, and growing ice would mean greater than 1:1, so an even better bet.
Only if you think ice is shrinking does 3:1 odds in your favor not look good.
Seaice1, Buster Brown
And, there is no doubt that current Arctic sea ice extents are below the “establishment-established “average” of 1979-1999.
But! Is that 1979-1999 “daily average” that “sets” each day’s 0.0 Arctic sea ice anomaly correct?
All we KNOW is that the Arctic sea ice was varying slightly around a “near-steady” approximately +0.5 Mkm^2 anomaly from 1979 through 1997-1999, then it went down to a “new near-steady value” of approximately -1.0 Mkm^2 from 2000 until 2015. AND HAS NOT GOTTEN ANY LOWER.
It is ONLY if you insist on a unnatural, non-cyclical, linear trend that you can create your fanasty of a continuous arctic sea ice decline. Rather, if we are in the middle of a 60-80 cyclical trend, then today’s arctic sea ice value HAVE STEADIED (have already reached their usual minimum of -1.0 Mkm^2 in the proposed 80-year arctic sea ice cycle), and will soon be going back up.
By the way, the Antarctic sea ice anomaly was slightly larger than the ENTIRE AREA of Greenland last June.
But!
Does the arctic sea ice anomaly – REGARDLESS of how big or little it is each day – really matter? When does it matter? How much does it matter to the earth’s heat balance in the Arctic ocean? That question is the one that matters – and it is what BusterBrown refuses to address.
I accept – have long accepted! – that Arctic sea ice is below the “establishment’s daily average.” You can score no debating points by trying to make any issue of the question. On the other hand, for the last 5 years, Arctic sea ice mass has been increasing – thus adding years of weight to any argument against assigning simplistic third-grade linear trends to any natural cycle.
As out past Secretary of State recently challenged Congress, “What difference does it (your much-hyped Arctic sea ice anomaly) make?”
‘seaice’ sez:
“…which was the same as your offer.”
Right, now it’s ‘the same’.
Even with your huge gambling addiction you can’t understand that the one who makes the original offer is either faded, or not.
You chose to skedadddle, rather than fade me. That was before I realized what a major gambling problem you have, so I haven’t made any more offers; I don’t want to be your enabler. You really need to get professional help; the best I can do is to not encourage you.
But there’s no mistake: you’re trying to put yourself in my place now, because you know I was right from the beginning. There is no “draw”, you’re just plain wrong, and pretending to be me is only due to your envy. So NOW you claim to “stand by the same position” as I have, and which was always my position. Glad to see you’ve come around. Maybe now you’re starting to understand that there’s no Arctic ice problem. Or not…
…because you’re a climate alarmist from the get-go, you always have been, and the only thing that would make alarmists happy is a climate catastrophe. But since that isn’t happening and it isn’t going to happen, you will settle for disappearing Arctic ice (again: as if), and malnutrition and starvation among the third of humanity that is currently subsisting on <$2 a day, and thus greatly benefitting from the rise in CO2. To tell the truth, you would prefer that they suffer — if it would allow you to claim that you were right. In your screwed up world that’s a fair trade.
But that isn't happening; you were wrong. The world's poorest have more food specifically because of more CO2 in the air. Their food costs are being held down due to fossil fuel use. The misguided and scientifically ignorant alarmist cult tries to demonize fossil fuels, but you can't show any downside to more CO2. Your futile efforts to try and connect the temporary, natural dip in Arctic ice with human CO2 emissions is no different from any other scientific illiterate. There is no connection, except in your imagination.
Trot along now, and find a professional for the help you need. Five (5) times above you've written about gambling odds. Your gambling addiction is out of control, but you can't see it. Every comment you make is about your gambling, and bets offered. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
“There is a clear underlying trend. I am betting…” …&etc.
Get help. You need it. And FYI, the trend has reversed. heh. The real world is debunking you again. ☺
‘BusterBrown,
RACook and I are on the same page, which means you are the odd one out. You simply lack understanding. You cannot understand what “natural climate variability” means, or even what a “theory” is.
I recommend reading the WUWT archives for a few months. Try to get up to speed here; because right now you come across as a newbie without a clue.
This is a science site, it isn’t realclimate. Try to pay attention, and learn something.
BusterBrown@hotmail.com
??? Mr Stealey and I have disagreements, but not about this!
“Natural Variability” includes ALL natural cycles and changes: Just as today’s Modern Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, the earlier Medieval Warming Period, The Dark Ages, and the Roman Warming Period, and the Minoan Warming Period were natural evidence of the long-term 1000 year cycle, and the 1880-1910-1940-1970-2000 peaks and valleys are evidence of the 60 year short cycle superimposed on the longer-lived 1000 year cycle. Only a person propagandized and pasteurized by their CAGW religion (er, indoctrination) assumes that the yearly pressure, temperature, winds, and humidity and their decades-long “averages” are a “straight line.
The AMO, the PDO, the ENSO and (theorized) the Arctic Ice Oscillation are all natural variability. All affect the the “daily weather” and all are the effect of the “daily weather”.
And Buster still doesn’t understand the climate Null Hypothesis!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/10/ncar-winter-sea-ice-could-hold-steady-in-the-next-several-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2096746
‘BusterBrown” <–(that's known as a 'anonymous coward'),
When you show that you understand the climate Null Hypothesis we can have an intelligent conversation. But right now you're not up to speed.
‘BusterBrown’ sez:
… the “climate null hypothesis” has nothing to do with a description of “natural variability.
That is such a woefully ignorant statement that it’s probably useless to continue. The Null Hypothesis has everything to do with natural variability. Only the most ignorant of commenters would post what BB did above. Buster probably gets his ‘science’ from Scientology.
As RACook says:
You have not demonstrated anything yet – not even the basic knowledge of your assumed mastery of the subject of arctic and antarctic sea ice…
That’s what BB always does. He makes his baseless assertions, then sits back and thinks, “Boy, I sure showed them!”
BB doesn’t even understand the difference between the climate Null Hypothesis and the Alternate Hypothesis. He’s so far from being up to speed here it’s like trying to school a 7th grade dropout.
Is he stupid? Or is his mind made up and closed tight? At this point it’s hard to tell…
‘Buster Brown’ still doesn’t understand the climate Null Hypothesis.
No wonder he’s so confused about natural variability.
BusterBrown@hotmail.com, replying to RACookPE
What? Natural variability includes and all natural changes in “weather” (or in any other process) measuring or being measured by a large number of individually random events through one or more cycles or process changes that themselves require one or more sequences of random events. In climate changes, we have some 10^36 to 10^40 number of individual random “events” (molecules and their motion and their energies and their reactions), but that does not change the definition. We use “anomalies” to measure the difference between any single day, hour, minute, or year and some established “average” for that same seond or hour or day or month or year. Or decade or century or millennium.
The difference (anomaly) between any two centuries comparing average or specific data is “natural variation”. The difference of the pressure anomaly between any two “days-of-the-year” is natural variation. The difference between any two days measured at the same point in time in the same season is also “natural variation”.
But, since days are usually naturally also warmer than nights, the measured difference between day and night is also “natural variation” . We (humans) did not cause the difference in the wild. We “might” have a variation in human environments, but that change between an untouched environment and the measured environment is NOT “natural variation” either.
Is English your second language?
[We have thousands of international readers (and writers!) whose ability to read and write and understand their “second language” of English far surpasses most modern US college graduates think they understand. do not insult their abilities here with your assumptions and your prejudices. .mod]
‘BusterBrown’,
Are you really a 7th grade dropout?
The Null Hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis which states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. The Null Hypothesis in climate science states that climate is always changing in a log-log fractal manner due to normal chaotic-nonlinear oscillation. Natural variability is inherent, and has not been separated from the claimed effect of “carbon”.
You fail to understand what the climate Null Hypothesis states. So I’ll try and school you, but I don’t have high hopes:
The Null Hypothesis states that any changes due to an extraneous forcing like CO2 must be observed and measurable. There may be minuscule changes that are too small to measure, but they do not falsify the Null Hypothesis. Only a difference between observed and expected behavior can do that, but there are no such differences. Everything currently observed has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — before CO2 began to rise.
Climatologist Roy Spencer has written that the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. If you disageree (assuming you understand the Null Hypothesis, which I doubt), then you will understand that AGW may exist, but it has never been proven, or even measured. It makes no observable difference.
Think about it for a while, maybe it will sink in. If it does, you will understand that the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare is no more than a hoax intended to get carbon taxes passed.
‘BusterBrown’,
You started this debate by questioning my comment on natural climate variability and implying English is my second language. But so far, you have not provided one verifiable fact showing that what we’re observing is anything else. Every comment I’ve made gets a quick post from you, with your assertions — but with very little substance. Your opinions are fine, but when they’re contradicted by the real world they’re just nonsense.
And as I predicted, you cannot be schooled for the simple reason that you are either ignorant, or your mind is closed tighter than a submarine hatch and no new information can enter. I’m still not sure which it is.
What you originally claimed was that “natural variability” is undefined. So I explained that past parameters must be exceeded in order to falsify the Null Hypothesis — and then you went and linked to Wikipedia, as if that ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy shows you understand anything. You don’t understand the Null Hypothesis.
You certainly didn’t understand my explanation, dismissing it as ‘fluffy words’. If you had simply admitted that the explanation went over your head, you would at least be teachable. I have patience when someone is interested in learning.
But it’s still not very clear where you’re coming from. I suspect it’s as a defender of the failed ‘man-made global warming is making Arctic ice disappear’ narrative. If that’s your belief, then support it with evidence=based measurements showing the human ‘fingerprint’. If that isn’t where you’re coming from, then you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, which I can believe since your comments appear all throughout the normal workday. If you’re unemployed and on the dole, my condolences. But really, I think Hotwhopper is where you would be the happiest. Why not pester them for a change?
Don’t use my post to justify your probabilities. 14 years in a row is quite likely in the natural variability of a cycle, in fact it’s pretty much required to happen, 2 or 3 times every 100 years, all very naturally.
BusterBrown baselessy asserts:
That is NOT natural variability
Not to BB, of course, because BB doesn’t understand the Null Hypothesis. For those of us who do, we know that there have been periods much longer than 14 years during which Arctic ice has declined. And that happened well before industrial CO2 was emitted, so once again Buster is flat wrong. So much for Buster’s failed assertion.
I’ve posted links to other periods during the Holocene when the Arctic was ice-free for a lot longer than 14 years. But it would be a waste of time to post them again, since BB’s mind is immune to any real world facts that contradict his belief system. Maybe he’s just unhappy that he’s out of work?
And I’m still waiting for Buster to say if he believes that human CO2 is the cause of anything happening climate-wise.
Hey, ‘Buster Brown’ can do arithmetic (11:38 am above).
However, I asked for a fact-based observation. And as usual, BB failed.
That’s the central problem with climate alarmists: the real world doesn’t agree with them. But NO global warming for almost twenty years is a pretty big hurdle. So I guess they’ll say anything.
BB,
No one with any common sense could try and wing it like you do. Everything is an assertion with you, while skeptics of the silly “dangerous AGW” nonsense post facts and evidence. And the language you’re so huffy about was on Dr. Briggs site a while back. Wake me when you’re on a par with his statistical knowledge. I might add that unlike you, Briggs has enough common sense to be a scientific skeptic.
Buster is wrong again, but by now I’ve stopped counting.
If a climate cycle was “predictable”, then all the failed climate predictions would be coming true; the alarmist contingent would have been right. MiCro is right about cycles. But BB is flat wrong about the climate being “predictable”. And since current climate parameters have never exceeded past climate parameters, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified: it’s all natural variability. QED
Fact: No alarmist predictions have ever come true.
Not a single one. So much for being “predictable”.
Buster sez:
this makes the process “predicable” and therefore NOT “natural variability”
^Hoist by your own petard.^ ☺ Too easy by half.
But if you’re moving the goal posts now and saying that the climate is not predictable, then the Null Hypothesis has not been falsified and the “carbon” scare is baseless…
…oh, right. You still don’t understand the Null Hypothesis, and why it debunks the climate scare.
I did say a cyclic PROCESS is predictable, but I never equated that to “climate”.
I suppose now you will say the climate isn’t a “process”.
It’s only “fluff” if you don’t know what you’re talking about. And the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
In even more simplistic terms, you’re an alarmist dunce subject to the Dunning-Kreuger error.
BB:
Just giving back tit for tat, sonny. Remember, you started this.
RACook: “On the other hand, for the last 5 years, Arctic sea ice mass has been increasing –And, there is no doubt that current Arctic sea ice extents are below the “establishment-established “average” of 1979-1999. ”
It is quite simple. I am not talking anomolies. I am talking extent in sq km. I am not talking etsblishment establ;ished averages, I am talking the average of the last three years compared to the next three years.
I don’t know what you say. You say the ice has now switched to a different phase of the cycle or something. If that is so then the next three years should be bigger or equal to the last three years. If you believe that 5 year increase will continue, then say so, and we can see if it does over the next three years. If not, then stop making meaningless claims.
dbstealey. You do not understand. I explain things to you time and again and you just repeat the same nonsense. My position is and always has been that the arctic will not be ice-free by 2019. That is also your position. There is no disagreement over that. We disagreee over whether the ice extent is increasing or decreasing. I say decreasing, you say increasing. Yet you will not stand by your claim even at 3:1 in your favor. You then excuse your lack of confidence in your assertions by claiming you are helping me. That is very, very weak and I hope everyone here can see that. Ok don’t make a bet, just say you think the extent will be greater or equal over the next three years, or agree with me that it will probably be less.
I expect it to start increasing, and I would expect if that is true, over the next decade there will be a clear trend of increasing extent, but will it wander around no or a decreasing trend during that period I don’t know yet.
I can say that Co2 has not decreased the amount of night time cooling at the surface since 1940. It’s possible that day time highs are slightly higher, but that is dwarfed by the heat stored by roads and buildings (20-30F warmer than air temps). I also know that come winter time, any excess surface heat has been lost to space.
‘seaice’ says:
I am not talking anomolies. I am talking extent in sq km. I am not talking etsblishment establ;ished averages, I am talking… …&etc.
You are always talking about ARCTIC ice. Not global ice. Not Antarctic ice. Arctic ice.
“My position is and always has been that the arctic…” <–see what I mean?
You're fixated on the Arctic for only one reason: the Arctic has just gone through a natural fluctuation in which ice cover dipped temporarily. But Arctic ice is now recovering, and the trend in global ice has not changed.
So what's your point in always cherry-picking only the Arctic? I think it's because the alarmist crowd has been completely wrong in all its scary predictions. The Arctic is the only regional area where they can claim that human CO2 emissions are causing observed changes.
But that is nothing more than a temporary coincidence, and you have no proof, or even convincing evidence that human emissions are the cause of the changes in Arctic ice. If the alarmist clique was honest, they would just admit that they were wrong about their version of "climate change". But they're not, so they won't.
And I'm glad you've come around to my own view that Arctic ice won't disappear by 2019. In fact, I'll bet… no, strike that. I don't want to enable your gambling addiction, so I will say that not only will Arctic ice not disappear, but global ice will remain close to its long term trend line.
From now on, let’s confine the discussion to global ice. The debate has always been about global warming, so picking the Arctic is just deflection. From now on, let’s just discuss global ice. Agreed?
Planet Earth will decide who’s right. But so far, it’s not looking good for your side. Because you haven’t been right yet.
Now you’re just parsing words to be dramatic, if the average extent starts increasing it’s recovering, It’s not recovered until it’s tracking in the standard variability margins.
No one else but ‘Buster Brown’ believes that Arctic ice hasn’t been recovering:
Arctic ice could recover to the point that it moves south and covers Chicago again a mile deep. But ‘Buster’ would still be parroting his ‘no recovery’ nonsense.
Those of us living in the real world know what ‘recovering’ means. The recovery in Arctic ice is right there in the graph. Rational folks see it. But not everyone is rational.
It would be recovering. See I can bold text too.
http://pasttenses.com/recover-past-tense
Who said a year? but didn’t the El Nino in 1997 which lasted a little more than a year made a big impact to the surface record? I’m sure you include that one year when you’re calculating trends.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Buster Brown says:
We’re discussing “Arctic ice”.
That’s the problem: cherry-picking one region only because it confirms your alarmist bias isn’t science, it’s your eco-religion.
The
issuescare is over global warming. So the only applicable argument about “ice” is global ice, which hasn’t done anything unusual, or unprecedented. What we are observing is natural regional variability, nothing more.The ‘climate change’ scare is a false alarm. A hoax; a scam on the taxpaying public, promoted by self-serving rent-seekers, and parroted by head-nodders who have no understanding of the Scientific Method, or of Occam’s Razor, or of anything in the hard sciences. Every change between two points that shows warming (or declining Arctic ice) is extrapolated to the point of wild-eyed terror, and every change that refutes warming is completely ignored.
As for Arctic ice, it is recovering:
Only eco-religionists believe Arctic ice has not been recovering. Their religion tells them what to believe, so rational thought is unnecessary. In fact, it’s a problem for them.
It has recovered once it’s in 2stddev, that’s the range we know about, right?
We also have almost no satellite data, but we do have a lot historical nautical charts, which show large areas with significant melting, so there’s zero reason to believe the recent trend in ice extent is abnormal, and since co2 isn’t warming anything (why I included my link, if you want to know what I think, look at the data), it’s pretty darn likely it’s not doing anything to the arctic, so, we must be in a temporary warming trend (like the one in the 30’s and parts of the 50’s), and it looks to me like most of the accumulated heat is being rapidly radiated out to space through open arctic waters.
And it’s about run it’s course. Right in timing with the AMO/PDO changing again.
Sure that’s fine, but you have no real context to compare that value with, so you don’t know what the distribution of annual extent is over history, so at a minimum it will be wrong half the time, right?
I think it’s self-regulating ocean temps, regardless of how much heat within reason accumulates.
regardless of how much heat (within reason) accumulates.
that’s better.
Now that’s a silly comment.
How many billion of thermal nuclear bombs are going off non stop, it’s night half the day, the orbit wobbles, and over 100+ year’s now many kg of land, oceans and air are regulated to an average annual temp within a degree or 2?
I might have broke the threading…..
micro6500 says:
Now that’s a silly comment.
This one is even sillier:
one can safely assume that in any given year, the probability of exceeding the average would be equal to the probability of not exceeding the average.
Buster posted another cherry-picked region to support his confirmation bias. In addition, Buster cherry-picked one particular month, instead of showing year-over-year changes. What a scary chart showing only September produces! But just for some balance, here’s the other end of the planet:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot.png
Same-same, see? That’s why the global ice trend is not changing (and remember that the Antarctic has 10X the volume of ice that the Arctic has). The Antarctic ice is increasing because the South Polar region is getting colder:
And of course, rational folks know the Arctic ice has been RECOVERING. Here is a year-over-year chart showing not just the month of September like BusterBluster’s cherry-picked chart, but annual changes in Arctic ice:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-12-02-53-45.png
Notice that the Arcitic ice has been strongly recovering. Here’s another view:
And last year (2014) set an all-time record high for Antarctic ice growth:
The result? GLOBAL ice has been steadily rising:
That makes sense, because there has been no global warming for almoist 20 years now. And as Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer shows, the Arctic is subject to the natural AO oscillation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AO-DJF-cumulative-since-1900.png
Here’s another view of the rise in Antarctic ice:
Note the ‘polar see-saw’, in which Arctic ice changes are the opposite of Antarctic ice. The result is shown in the top graph: there is no change in global ice:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Finally, for those interested in a rational explanation of the Arctic ice claims, the late, great John Daly has an excellent analysis:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
What’s the direction between 2012 and 2014? 2015?
Does not any inflection point have to start changing the direction of a existing trend to cause it to change direction?
So the last 3 years are a pretty big increase in the extent of sea ice you would agree, right? It’s plain as day on your chart.
If the decline in ARCTIC sea ice (you conveniently omitted the ‘arctic’) is unprecedented in the past 1450 years, that means that before 1450 years ago, the decline was greater. That was before any industrial CO2 emissions.
Thanx for the amusement. I always enjoy out-thinking climate alarmists. Actually, it’s easy-peasy.
I see that BusterBluster is avoiding the fact that “before 1450 years ago, the decline was greater.”
He’s got no answer to that, so he makes another baseless assertion falsely claiming that Arctic ice hasn’t been recovering.
“Arctic ice is recovering” is a true statement. At least to rational folks.
And:
Focus on the Arctic, not the other end of the planet.
Why? Because you like your cherry-picking? The issue is global, not regional variability.
BB loves to ignore both the Antarctic, and global ice levels. Why? Because they both debunk his ‘Arctic ice’ argument.
Ah. Another baseless assertion that takes the place of facts and evidence. Nice try, Buster Bluster.
Once again for the slow learner here: you ignore the Antarctic, and you ignore global ice, both of which debunk your nonsense.
Buster Bluster,
You’re just full of baseless assertions, among other things. They take the place of rational arguments, or data-based evidence, or even an awareness of the real world. It’s amusing to watch someone desperately assert contrary to real world evidence that Arctic ice is not recovering, when it’s so easy to post empirical evidence showing exactly that. But that’s what your eco-religious belief does: you make preposterous assertions that are just silly to normal folks. Arctic ice ‘not recovering’ is just one example of the nonsense you emit.
And you constantly ignore the fact that global ice has not changed. That fact alone completely debunks your argument, which is why you always cherry-pick the Arctic, and ignore any other facts contrary to your belief system.
You are hopelessly outclassed here by skeptical commenters. I suggest you lick your wounds and hightail it over to hotwhopper, or some other alarmist blog. They really enjoy comments that make no rational sense, and yours fit the bill.
Wake me when you’re willing to discuss why global ice is on the same long term trend line. Or, keep cherry-picking your favorite region, the Arctic, while ignoring any other region that doesn’t conform to your eco-religion. Because when you do that it provides amusement to skeptics. Keep it up, you’re amusing if nothing else.
And finally, you falsely claimed that you didn’t omit the “arctic”. May I quote you? Thank you:
I like the part that says: “both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented…
No “Arctic” there. So as always, I’m right, and you were just winging it.
@BusterBluster:
I’ve posted plenty of data-based charts, and I have plenty more. But ignorant assertions are all you have. Nothing you write makes rational sense, it’s just you parroting your eco-religion. And as always, you tuck tail and run away from anything the real world shows that debunks your “ice” nonsense, like global ice, or the Antarctic. No wonder alarmists have lost every debate with skeptics.
I read your self-serving propaganda piece, ‘scuse me, I mean the ‘paper’ that only talks about ARCTIC ice, just like you do. You both avoid anything else, even though the debate is, and always has been about global warming.
When Antarctic ice and global ice are part of the discussion, your regional variability is shown to be cherry-picked carp. So you still hide out from discussing the Antarctic and global ice — which is still at its long term trend line. That fact completely debunks your globaloney nonsense. You’ve got nothin’.
And yes, you are completely outclassed by skeptical commenters here. You hide out from discussing anything but the one particular region that you cherry-pick because you actually seem to believe that area represents the globe.
You are amusing to the intelligent readers here. The only real Authority is Planet Earth. And she is making a fool of you. Not skeptics: PLanet Earth is making a fool of you. We’re just observing it.
So who should we believe? You? Or Planet Earth? Because you can’t both be right.
Micro6500. “I expect it to start increasing, and I would expect if that is true, over the next decade there will be a clear trend of increasing extent”
You must consider my 3:1 odds an excellent proposition. Nobody else here really believes that Arctic sea ice minimum will increase over the next 3 years.
Everybody is talking past eachother about “natural variation”. Buster is talking about random variation that is as likely to be up as down. Everyone else is talking about any process that is not man-made. So winter / summer cycle is natural variation by one definition, but not by the other. This is similar to the discussion I had about Occam’s Razor – just saying something is “natural” is not an explanation. “Natural” cycles such as winter / summer do in fact have a cause; the tilt of the Earth axis and the orbit of the sun in that case. We can certainly say the winter summer variation is “natural”, but we do not usually say that it is hotter in July than in December due to “natural variation” – we say it is because of the annual cycle.
Once you understand that you can cut through much of the above discussion. It would be pretty impossible to look at the sea ice extent graph posted by Buster and conclude that it was random variation. The probability of such a pattern is pretty much impossible. So Buster is right by his definition.
dbstealey and RACook on the other hand mean anything that is not man made. I do not think they deny the obvious downward trend, but say it is the downward part of a natural cycle that has now entered the upward phase. I do not know of any actual evidence to support the hypothesis that sea ice has entered an upward part of a cycle.
When dbstealey and others say the ice is recovering or increasing, by any sensible definition that means trend has altered from the obvious downward trend to an upward trend. That is what Micro6500 says he believes will happen.
However, a much better explanation applying Occam’s Razor is that things are carrying on just as they were. The downward trend will continue and future points will regress to the mean. Any other explanation requires an extra assumption – that things have changed. My proposition is simply that things have not changed, and the long term trend will continue in its downward trajectory, and by regression to the mean the next few years will likely be smaller than the last.
Since this is the most sensible interpretation of the data, and there is no actual evidence against it, no-one so far has been willing to bet against it.
All we get is distractions and subject changing – tap dancing as dbstealey likes to call it. All we get are distractions about the Antarctic, about CO2 levels, about short term fluctuations, name-calling, about other things entirely.
The past 3 years would have won your bet, but that (just because I think it likely the overall trend is going to change direction, it will wander around that trend), and we’ve just had a big El Nino which ought to effect the circulation at the pole for the next bit of time, plus the last 3 years pulled all of the slack out of the system. So, the next 3 years in my opinion is too close to call (for me anyways, maybe I need to research El Nino Arctic impact more).
10 years I’d be more likely to expect high probability of a neutral or increasing ice extent, but I don’t think I want to take a 10 year bet over the internet.
But, there’s no loss of night time cooling, nightly cooling tracks the length of day, and over a large collection of surface stations it’s slightly colder tomorrow morning than it was today, with measurement uncertainty it’s average 0.0F+/-0.1F
seaice is still fixated on gambling. He won’t get the help he needs, poor fellow.
Next, ‘seaice’ (the name says it all; his mind is made up and closed tight) says:
just saying something is “natural” is not an explanation.
For the umpteenthtime: skeptics have nothing to prove.
The onus is on you to prove, or at least to demonstrate convincingly with data-based measurements, that changes in sea ice (and at only one pole!) are caused by human CO2 emissions.
To point out that you have failed miserably is an understatement. Your conjecture is based 100% on your personal, evidence-free opinion. You have no measurements, or any other convincing evidence showing that the 3% or so of total CO2 emitted annually by humans, out of all CO2, is what caused Arctic sea ice to decline between about 2006 and 2012 — but without affecting the Antarctic!
Furthermore, you never acknowledge that Arctic ice has been recovering, despite the steady increase in CO2. Instead, you always make lame excuses for the real world observations that everyone can see. You’re making the same excuses again here.
Your entire argument is based on simpleminded assertions that cannot withstand even the mildest scrutiny. You write your baseless, uneducated opinions, which you get no doubt from People magazine and similar pop culture media, parroting of the prevailing narrative.
You are correct when you quote me: all we get as ‘explanations’ are distractions like your uninformed speculation above. It is verbal tap-dancing around the plain fact that what we are observing has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. Polar ice has fluctuated more than this before human CO2 was ever a factor. So there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. You’re just trying to argue that what we observe is now due to human emissions, when exactly the same thing has happened before, and to a much greater degree. Your arguments could not be less convincing.
You have never been able to refute those facts. I assume you’re just an uneducated member of the public who stumbled on this award-winning science site, where you express your juvenile opinions. But if not, then you’re deliberately trying to spread misinformation. In either case, your time would be better spent getting help you need for your gambling addiction.
Perhaps you should change your source of information on the topic and go to the Sea Ice Prediction Network to see what scientists are actually predicting based off of various methodologies.
I know what “based on various methodologies” means, because I know that “based” means “is on or in a base”, and can be used metaphorically. But I don’t understand “based off of various methodologies” means. Does it mean “not based on the methodologies”?
Koop,
The predictions of real climatologists as opposed to GIGO computer gaming “climate scientists” have already been shown valid, ie that first Antarctic ice and next Arctic ice will grow with the solar cycle. By contrast, all predictions by the gamers have already been shown laughable, miserable failures.
The climastrologists got a lucky break in that 1979, when dedicated satellite coverage began, was at or near the high for Arctic sea ice for the past century. The subsequent “loss” was no different from that in the 1920s and ’30s.
Real scientists predicted at least 20 years ago that the Arctic would gain sea ice again in the 2020s, if not before, thanks to natural cycles.
I was going to say the same thing, but you got there before me.
And you said it a lot more fluently than I would have done…
My comment could have been aimed at BDTP or rah.
sorry, i only get £300 . will we have someone hold the money or just pay up after the end of the third melt season ?
Right. Randomness is the rule of both atmosphere and ocean.
Totally absurd.
Tony Heller has earlier shown that the NCAR was able to report a decline in Arctic ice because they cherry-picked the starting date as 1979 and that earlier satellite data showed levels similar to today’s.
Does anyone have a link to this – a full plot that is? Back to 1972 if I’m recalling correctly, but I’ve never seen the graph plotted in the same continuous format we can find in the sidebar.
[Note: If you delete everything after the ‘.jpg’, your image will appear. I deleted those characters for you here. ~mod.]
Yeah, I was aware of that one, just wondered if anyone had got hold of the data and been able to put it into this format:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This is from a 2012 WUWT post. Both records are spliced together. Note the baseline change on the Y axis.
but in that format it says we’re right back where we started from….. 😉
You can get the daily data back to 1972 here. This was calculated from satellite pictures by the NasaTeam algorithm which is still used today by Jaxa for example. The NSIDC uses a slightly different one but refuses to use the older data. North and Southern hemisphere.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/total-ice-area-extent/esmr-smmr-ssmi-merged/
If you match up this data to Jaxa’s current numbers, it looks like this (from 1972 to the end of Sept 2015)
http://s11.postimg.org/vi9yuxk5f/Daily_NH_SEI_1972_2015.png
But as philincalifornia shows in the graph of global sea ice above, the long term trend has not changed. The issue is ‘global’ warming, right?
Yes, Arctic ice dipped for a few years, and that is reflected in the global graph. But it is recovering now, and global ice is just about at its long term average.
What we are observing is natural variability in action. If human emitted CO2 was causing ice to decline, then the decline would also be observed in the Antarctic. But the Antarctic has been on a decades-long uptrend, so the ‘AGW’ argument fails:
Didn’t the era of satellite observation start in 1979? How is the start of the better observation method cherry picking?
We have satellite data going back about 7 years sooner. It is not used because the graphic is not PC.
You might find this entry from Wiki of interest, especially this quote. ‘During a narrowing window of opportunity for data archaeology, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NDISC) and NASA were able to recover data that allowed the reconstruction of high-resolution Nimbus 2 images from 1966 showing the entire Arctic and Antarctic ice caps’
Here is 1990 IPCC report where Steve pasted the Arctic graph from. On page 224. Take a little while to load.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
Thanks for this.
Knowing and understanding, are two completely different things.
I call this win-win outcome for the global warming agenda. They observe that arctic sea ice is increasing and could be used to reject global warming theory. Recall that decline in arctic sea ice was the “canary in the coal mine” to proponents of global warming. Now they can “explain” increasing sea ice, and continue to claim that global warming will continue. Question for those who have read the paper rather than the press release: do they suggest anywhere that the decline in sea ice might have been caused by AMOC.
Your post is confusing in that, besides on blogs dominated by right wingers, the arctic sea ice is understood to be well below the 1979 to 2008 mean for this time of year. Antarctica is another matter but your post doesn’t address that.
Actually, Antartica is not another matter. Quite obviously, Antartica and the Arctic are connected physically.
Since, as we all know here – the earth is in fact a toroid.
And they are both remarkably cold, which can hardly be a coincidence.
Hence should a person foolishly attempt to journey to the north pole, they will eventually find themselves travelling away from the south pole, across the freezing wastes of Antartica.
Of course, Government Scientists, NASA, the Kremlin and the U.S. Navy have all been sitting on this secret for years.
It’s because of the huge hole in the donut – I mean, Earth – I mean, conventional theory, that people are unable to trust anything that they are told by official scientists.
Stephan Lewandowsky has been fully involved in the cover-up operation. By labeling conspiracy theorists as climate change skeptics, so as to prevent anyone from questioning Status Quo.
Status Quo also discovered the toroidal shape, whilst they were Rockin’ all over the World.
Happy Christmas, Mr Lewandowsky – the game is up.
So why does the left wing establishment ignore Antartica, Koop? Any insight there?
Yes Koop, but the loss of ice correlates perfectly with the AMO including the recent increases in volume.
He was perhaps refering to more recent history. Arctic sea ice may well be below the 1979 to 2008 mean (it is), but it’s now 2015 and ice levels have been rebounding for several years. The cherry picking will only serve you for so long.
Sea ice is well below the highs it achieved during the last PDO cool cycle.
But then that is to be expected.
What is it about left wing sites and an inability to understand basic science?
Clearly, that is valid point. If they didn’t cover it in the paper, then they are being unscientific. However, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they ignore it.
Models are NOT science. They do what they are programmed to do. Just because the model has been massaged to back-predict (mimic) the past, basically by an algorithm, it does not mean that it contains the factors what will accurately mimic the real world of the future. That is why the global climate models have failed so miserably, they assume that CO2 drives climate and ignore over 50 other major factors that should and need to be included.
Since 2007, sea ice in the Arctic has rebounded quite nicely and continues to get thicker and more extensive almost every year. You have no reason to predict that it will go down in the next three years, particularly as two ocean cycles have gone to their cooling phases at the same time and the sun is going into a grand minimum. You simply cannot trust models and definitely should NOT trust anybody who says that they KNOW what will happen. They have faith in what they “know,” and that’s not science.
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,” said NCAR scientist Stephen Yeager
Really, do we now? If you make statements like that, please prove them, Stephen.
The prove is obvious … “simply because.”
“We know”??? Could somebody please ask them to help me pick my stock market portfolio?
Buy shares of companies you think are ripping you off and collect the dividends.
Five years ago they “knew” that the arctic was going to be ice free by now. They always know-it’s what they know that changes.
The day that NCAR can look into the future and predict the track, frequency, intensity and duration of Arctic Cylones, will be the day that they can predict ice extent, thickness or location…….
Or to put it more succinctly; never.
As the sun grows quiet again and we have colder planetary weather, they will desperately cook the data and tell more contradictory stories explaining why we are in yet another Little Ice Age like I remember so well years ago when we were up to our armpits in snow and it would be way below zero and windy much too frequently.
There is the belief that many proxies evidences says there were warm periods, the Minoan, the Roman, the Medieval, that were significantly warmer than today. These occurred around ever 1000 years. The above average warmth lasted for several hundred years each time. As seen from human made records during the past several hundred years or so, when it was generally cooler, there are also significant up and down variations lasting decades, even though the overall temperature trend might be higher (Medieval) or lower (LIA).
There are various theories about why this has happened. Most suggest it has not been totally random, that there are some general, reoccurring mechanisms that underlay such patterns. If that be correct, the current time period should fit into that pattern to be a general warming one.
If previous occasions were warmer than now, so far, why should this occasion not also become warmer still? If the other warm periods have lasted several hundred years or more, why should this one be much shorter? That is to say, why might it not continue warming for the next two hundred or more years? Might there also not be short term (e.g. 30 or 40 year) cooling interrupting the general warming (or warming interrupting the general cooling) as seems to have happened many times before?
The LIA ended in the 19th century. The warming has already been going on for a couple hundred years. We may not be lucky enough to see much more. The 1000 years is kind of an average but if you look closer, the interval has been getting shorter each time and the amplitude lower as well.
“So, we think that we understand the mechanisms underpinning our sea ice prediction skill.”
So, that makes one of you. Rational people would call that hubris.
Yes, if they understand the underpinnings, they should also be aware of its cyclicity. There’s more money in a trend than in a cycle these days, no matter what field you’re in.
I read an article a while back that suggested (if I understood it correctly, and that’s a legitimate “if”), that Earth’s excess heat collects in the tropical water which migrates to the poles, where it melts the ice, and thus Earth basically “burps” the excess heat out into space. Once the excess is eliminated, the ice reforms, protecting the Earth from losing too much heat, and the cycles repeats. For billions of years.
Basically, the Earth takes care of itself.
I have that theory too….
Plus they are not predicting Arctic Ice, 8f they can’t predict the ocean, and they aren’t predicting the ocean unless they can figure the decadal cycles out.
” the Earth takes care of itself.”
It used to, when it was young. But it is getting a bit old, now, and can’t manage everything by itself.
Yes, that’s why Gaia now goes to the Pope for advice.
😉
Sounds like confirmation that the assumption used in my polar bear attack novel (EATEN, set in Newfoundland in 2025) – that eastern NA sea ice could remain as extensive as it has over the last 2 years – is even more plausible.
And as a consequence, even more scary.
Canadian Ice Service prediction for extensive winter ice off Newfoundland concurs: http://polarbearscience.com/2015/12/03/spring-sea-ice-prediction-for-next-year-off-newfoundland-extensive-ice-coverage/
Still time to buy paperback copies of EATEN for Christmas gifts at Amazon and Barnes & Noble! Often special discounts this time of year.
Susan Crockford
Just ordered a copy in support of your excellent work on Poley Bears.
Thanks Robert – I think you’ll enjoy it!
Don’t forget to go back after you’ve read it and write a brief review. It helps.
Susan
Are you aware of this novel, which also contains a scene involving a polar bear attack?
Apart from the polar bear attack – the book’s events are remarkably similar to the sinking of the Titanic.
Name of ship, size of ship, shortage of lifeboats, deemed “unsinkable”, location of sinking, speed of collision, number of passengers/drowned.
This alignment with the details of the sinking of the Titanic is made significantly more interesting due to the fact that the book was written fourteen years before the Titanic sank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan
“The sea ice record is so short that it’s difficult to use statistics alone to build confidence in our predictions,”
NCAR speak for we just make it all up anyway no matter what the observations say!
“The sea ice record is so short that it’s difficult to use statistics alone to build confidence in our predictions”
Den1alist! Polar ice could collapse any time now, ask Al Gore who represents the consensus 97%.
Seriously, they are changing the story which will be the future purported consensus. CC/GW/AGW/DAGW/CAGW just won’t go away, it adapts.
I like the fact that they know it will continue to decline in the future, after the pause.
So NCAR says any warmth is man-made, any cooling is natural. What are these people 5 years old?
Exactly: Heads I win, Tails you lose.
Exactly, the AMO can cause a “pause” in ice loss, but not have caused the ice loss. Yhe 30 percent sea ice growth graphic is breaking all records… http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-10-06-11-27.png
Here is the AMO graph. http://s19.postimg.org/eteoqkhpv/Amomeandmi.jpg
Note the red dot showing where we are in the AMO. The pause in ice already happened, we are just now entering very positive arctic sea ice growth as the AMO declines.
Right David, and you should the denial when I mention this theory to AGW true believers. They go ballistic. But now, we have another paper that tells us this is a consideration. Should be interesting to watch them squirm.
Ask them if they are prepared to put their jobs on the line.
The answer is no. If they were, they would do real science and get their buts fired when it didn’t comply to the warming crisis myth. The fact that they are defending the myth even as it fails to adhere to reality, is proof that they care about their jobs more than the science. Can’t blame them really. I might do the same thing in their shoes, especially if I was still raising a family.
I think the better question is who is willing to put their electoral future on the line. Conservatives are betting their entire future electability on the majority of scientists being wrong on this topic. While I still self-identify as a conservative (social libertarian/fiscal conservative is what is more historically accurate), it pains me that essentially “we” are betting the future electability of conservatives on this.
The crowd here obviously pays more attention to it than the run of the mill conservative but it must be admitted that when you go to a more political based websites that run denier/skeptic articles on AGW the reasoning of the conservatives is piss poor and reflects a shallow understanding of skewed right wing clap trap. But I’m pretty sure we disagree.
I think this issue is a solid one for them, so no need to worry. If their reasoning isn’t the best, that doesn’t really matter, because they happen to be right. The “reasoning” of Progressives/Liberals/Democrats on the other hand…
Social Libertine/fiscal Conservative.
So yes you are not a conservative.
Of course, you Koop in VA, took the time to correct their views and point them to accurate sources?
I for one, avoid political websites. The concept of talking solely politics is either seeking confirmation of one’s views or seeking conflict over their views.
You know, the reason my gag reflex is invoked each time climate change is mentioned is more due to the nasty totalitarian politics involved than the dubious nature of at least vast swaths of the science… And that the proposed solutions all involve paying higher taxes or prices for goods (or borrowing more money from the largest CO2 producing country, just so that the politicians can enrich themselves with power and control. A good majority of the people in the IPCC simply do not care what happens or if the problem is ever solved, they just want a big paycheck.
You’re damm right we disagree, Koop!
First of all, we are well aware that your ‘majority of scientists’ doesn’t exist … it’s a myth based on, if not dishonest, at least error-ridden surveys … and that citing them to bolster belief is a fallacious argument (appeal to authority).
Secondly, are you seriously proposing that we accept AGW, in spite off all the evidence to the contrary, in order to win elections? (Another logical fallacy … appeal to popular opinion.) Whatever happened to being honest with yourself and others, and standing up for what you believe?
I’ve heard both arguments before, more times than I care to mention. It seems to me that in both cases, you (and your ilk) refuse to do your own research … your own critical thinking … and simply accept a current and/or popular theory, in order to be on the winning team, to be accepted, or to be ‘one of the gang.’
It is YOUR reasoning that is ‘p*ss poor’ and typifies the ‘shallow understanding of skewed left-wing clap trap.’ I’m conservative and I don’t form my opinions by sticking a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. You, Koop, are no conservative. And you’re not qualified to speak on scientific issues if you base your opinions on which side you THINK has the most followers.
More than that Koop. Surely conservatives have an interest in not seeing civilization destroyed, the world’s poor made more miserable and a bunch on non-elected EuroCentric elites running the world through further evolution of the UN into a non representative government. Most of the big people who matter in this picture don’t believe the CO2 or don’t care. They are using it and the useful idiots to effect a coup. I number the government and academic scientists as cynical and corrupted into doing bread and butter science in one of the more immoral periods of the West. Conservatives won’t be wrong./
I love it when liberals:
1) try to hide who they are
2) buy into any lie that advances their cause.
So, Koop, your alarmism so complete, it runneth over from CAGW to politics. “[T]he future electability of conservatives” will be better preserved by opposing the CAGW lie and, particularly, the silly socialist “fix” to save the planet, and we’ll still be there for ya when you realize how childish is “social libertarianism”. Keep thinking!
the entire reason this crap even got off the ground is politics. this is a clear issue of right or wrong, politics should have no place in it. it is pity people still do not see that every single situation where politicians get involved gets completely messed up. they are a complete and utter waste of space,every single last one of them of all persuasions.
Excellent. Are they also predicting exactly how long those “several years in the future” are supposed to be?
If not, they’re predicting nothing, only throwing in an excuse for an indeterminate period, that’s what they are doing.
Several years until after they retire.
Wow, that long? Lead author Stephen Yeager joined NCAR’s oceanography section in 1998 after getting his M.Sc. in Physics from Brown University.
Is it three decades in the future or something, then?
And moreover, this is what arctic ice has been doing since 2007, pausing and recovering. They see a decade of recovery and have caught up with the parade to march in front of it. Nothing like predicting what the ice has already been doing.
Yep, in about 30yrs the AMO/ PDO will both be in or about to enter another warming phase, as usual….
Jobs for wordsmiths in climate science are abundant.
“More research”
Response to Climategate by two politicians who spent many years directing the funding.
I wonder if there was less ice in 1930-
“North-West Passage
THREE SHIPS GET THROUGH
For the first time in its history
three ships of the Hudson’s Bay
Company have made the hazardous
North-West Passage in one season.
They are the Fort James, a stout
little schooner of 130 tons with a crew
of fewer than 20 souls, the even
smaller Macpherson, which is perman-
ently stationed in the Arctic seas, and
the Baychimo, a vessel of 1,500 tons”
No there wasn’t, that’s a nice story but it didn’t happen.
Baychino for instance only made it to Cambridge Bay and abandoned the attempt due to a propellor being broken by the ice.
Don’t know about the Baychimo but the St Roch did the passage in one season in 1944.
Robert Austin December 10, 2015 at 6:44 pm
Don’t know about the Baychimo but the St Roch did the passage in one season in 1944.
Yes, that’s true, the first ship to do so. The three ships mentioned above didn’t do so however.
From Doug Gray’s R.M.S. Nascopie: Ship of the North
“At the end of her stay, the schooner Ft. McPherson, bringing supplies from the western Arctic, had rendezvoused with her there, thus setting a precedent of sorts. That is the official story, mainly because it coincided with Ft. James’ original orders. However Len managed to meet with her Chief Engineer who told him the following. During her time in Gjoa Haven, the ship had stopped maintaining her log. This was acceptable because technically she was laid up. In the spring of 1930, she didn’t want to wait around for Fort McPherson, so she sailed to Cambridge Bay to intercept her. Having taken her stores from McPherson, the Fort James headed back, resuming her log opposite Gjoa Haven. She arrived back in St. John’s in the fall. In the spring of 1931, she sailed for the west coast via the Panama Canal and thence up into the Western Arctic to Cambridge Bay. In effect, she had completed the North West Passage, albeit in two stages. However, as she had both broken official orders and not kept a log while underway to Cambridge Bay and back to Gjoa Haven to do it, she could never admit to that fact. When deciding which version to accept, bear in mind that the two places are only 400 km, or two days’ steaming apart and that the crew were a bunch of Newfoundlanders who were obliged to spend a second year locked into the frozen North who were running short of grub and just wanted to pick up some and get the hell home.”
But what we really want to know is; did they use canvas pails or wooden buckets to sample for temperature and pH?
there is a painting celebrating two hudson bay ships meeting in the north west passage , one from the east , one from the west and exchanging cargo, can’t remember the names , this happened in 1936 or 1937. Internal company policy was not to continue the route.
to 2007 ???
Do we really need to ask how their predictions have done 2008-2014?
Their predictions sound like they’re from George Carlin’s Hippy-Dippy Weatherman comedy routine.
man down the pub says;” these losses seem to be in lines, could they follow some geological feature like seabed venting of hot stuff ?”
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,”
How so Stephen? How do you KNOW THAT?
“it’s really just a slow down”………………..right mate and pray tell me, is it the runes, the casting bones that lead you to this assumption or, is it the
the Delphic OracleNOAA’s IT department………….?No worries there then – eh Mr. Yeager.
The model presumably predicts ice cover given some other climate parameters. Hindcasting could be good given knowledge of what’s happened in the past. But the predictions about ice cover in the future can only be as good as the predictions about other climate parameters.
It’s worse than we thought.
The graphic in the post is misleading. It is labeled observed v. predicted. They predicted nothing. They tuned a new sea ice model to reasonably HINDCAST this result compared to observation. Hindcasts are not predictions. They are not even projections. And, as the pause has shown for CMIP5 climate models that were tuned to reasonably hindcast from 2005 back to 1975, they are not model validations, either. Validations still need to be out of sample.
This looks like a way to soften the coming warmunist Arctic ice meme blow, as Artic ice sure looks to be well into a roughly 30-35 year recovery from a nadir in 2007 (excepting the 2012 cyclone) as part of a natural roughly 70 year cycle. Satellite ice coverage coincidentally began in 1979, roughly around the natural sea ice peak based on DMI and Russian summer ice observations going back to the 1920’s.
I will have to review the paper to see:
Does their model accurately “predict” the 2011-2012 dip, and the subsequent recovery after 2012?
If so, can they parse whether that dip was due to their variables representing man-made global warming, or to this multiyear periodic oscillation? Or both?
If they say that the dip was largely due to ocean currents, then they are saying something heretical to all of their fellow warmista-cult-members – that the dip was a sure sign that the arctic sea ice would be gone in a matter of a couple or a few years.
I, and anyone else who felt that the dip was in the normal range of variation were oil-industry-shill deniers.
Now, are we vindicated by this paper? Can we expect an apology?
[BTW: Mann finished his dissertation on a DOE post-doc.]
Now we can safely bet that Arctic sea ice will expand quite a bit.
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,”
We? How do we know this, exactly?
He means “we” in the majesterial sense. It is from on high. Not to be questioned, without fear of losing your head anyway.
Here’s a prediction: 20 years from now, after an extended period of global cooling, the left will take credit for this cooling, despite the fact that CO2 emissions continued to increase unabated. They will claim that the cooling was the result of their genuine concern for the planet. They will also ignore the increased misery that the cooler weather is causing around the world, blaming the misery on Bush.
This prediction is not from a computer model, but from pattern recognition, which is the only type of long-range prediction shown to have any kind of success with chaotic, non-linear systems.
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,” Really? You mean winter ice will retreat in summer? Gotta be a Nobel Prize in that chunk of science!
These people say the warming contiues but the data from satellites and balloons say it isnt. I get very confused. If they are wrong about the warming they will also be wrong with their predictions will they not?
It looks like they have crawled out of one hole, only to fall back into another one. The inconvenient temperature pause was adjusted away, only to find that sea ice also paused. If you dig any deeper, you might not like what you find.
Whilst 2015 was somewhere in the middle for summer sea ice minimum extent, over the last 10 years, the recovery has been stark.
So far 2015 is suggesting above ‘normal’ winter sea ice maximum extent. This no doubt will lead to an increase in multi year sea ice.
See, generally:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
I did not express myself well, but a picture is worth a 1000 words.
You can see from the above plot that 2015 (black line) in September was somewhere in the middle of the sea ice extent, whereas now in December it is tracking (slightly) above the maximum for any of the last 10 years.
Of course, it is difficult to say how things will shape up through to February/March 2016, and only time will tell. Nonetheless the recovery over the last 3 months has been stark suggesting that it is cold up there.
It will be interesting to see what it is like in Canada, and the Great Lakes.
Richard, I think we get played on the sea ice extent too. If it were measuring anything else, you would never measure the extremes…..you would measure around May and Jan when it’s tightly bunched together….where it’s been practically the same every year
But the graphs on “Cryosphere Today” show this year’s Arctic ice well below last year’s and about 4th lowest in their whole 36-year record.
Does this graph come from a different source?
DMI says this plot is bogus. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php says:
The proper plot matches the WUWT Sea Ice page:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Nothing to get excited about….
Also that first graph uses a threshold of 30% coverage whereas their current graph uses the 15% threshold (like the other sites).
An important consideration when discussing “Arctic” ice is that the Sea of Okhotsk is usually included as part of the Arctic calculations. This artificially reduces recent year estimates since the Sea of Okhotsk accounts for a significant percentage of total ice loss.
opluso December 11, 2015 at 7:12 am
An important consideration when discussing “Arctic” ice is that the Sea of Okhotsk is usually included as part of the Arctic calculations. This artificially reduces recent year estimates since the Sea of Okhotsk accounts for a significant percentage of total ice loss.
Well the winter maximum there is ~1million sq km out of a total of ~14million sq km, annual loss is about 10 million sq km.
So, strong AMOC = “climate change” and weak AMOC = natural variation.
Got it.
Strong AMOC = “climate change” and weak AMOC = “still climate change” but with natural variability.
Yeager missed his chance.
AMOC is turning negative and all of that warm water will stay south near the tropics. Sounds like hurricane generating conditions to me.
After so many years of a placid Atlantic, it will be interesting to return to hurricane conditions experienced in past decades; e.g. 1920s, 1930s, 1950s.
All of those Spanish galleons laden with gold were not sunk by conditions like the mild zephyrs of the last few decades.
spot on there a theok ,and of course all those storms use huge amounts of energy,leading to more cooling. we should really be asking what pulls us out of ice ages ,not worrying about what keeps us warm and well fed.
in saying that ,a nice ice age would bring some humility to the first world problem crowd that suffer delusions of grandeur due to never having to endure any form of hardship in their entire life. the second half of this uk winter may start focusing minds when the lights go out and the heating goes off .
“NCAR: winter sea ice could hold steady in the next several years”
Yep, and it could go through the roof! Who the hell knows?
And back to the surface stations (slightly off topic): their decreasing number and NOAA’s inclusion of only a fraction of them in its Climate Reference Network indicate that NASA and NOAA do not trust the surface stations themselves (despite the warmist claims to opposite).
So these alarmists are saying ice loss will slow down because the ocean temps are going down? But i thought their other alarmist friends proved the temps were going up? Boy am i confused
But, but, but… I thought the Arctic would be “ice free” by the summer of 2015????
Before that, an ice-free Arctic was predicted to occur in: 1980, 1990’s, 2000, 2008, 2013, 2015 and 2030…
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Arctic sea ice is sinusoidal in nature and follows closely the 30-year PDO and AMO warm/cool cycles…
A 30-year PDO cool cycle already started in 2008 and the Western Arctic sea ice is already close to the 1980~2012 average. The 30-year AMO cool cycle starts around 2020, so the Eastern Arctic sea ice will continue to slowly recover as it approaches 2020…
Arctic sea ice over the next 5~7 years will be VERY interesting to watch as we enter a La Nina cycle in 2016, the PDO cool cycle continues to cool, the AMO gets closer to starting its 30-year cool cycle in 2020, the sun enters the tail-end of its weakest cycle since 1906 and the next solar cycle starts around 2022, which is expected to be as weak as the Dalton Minimum, which started in 1790…
NCAR is just trying to get ahead of the curve as they realize they also FUBARed Arctic sea ice projections…
And so it goes…
I’m not as hard on these scientists as some have been. Clearly, they cannot just come right out and say the ice is a function of natural cycles and AGW never was a big player. They’d lose their jobs. So, they try to do the science as best they can and candy coat the narrative to please the bosses. Eventually, the science will win out.
Or as some else put it, “No problem? No funding”
That’s a straw man. There’s a middle ground, where they don’t have to say that, but neither support cAGW pseudoscience. But, that would mean having a modicum of moral scruples, gumption, and cajones, which I guess is too much to ask.
i would be much harder richard, much, much harder. big proclamations leading to huge amount of peoples earnings being spent on pipe dreams that in some cases led to premature deaths during winter should carry a large responsibility. these scientists have no sense of responsibility at all. the longer this goes on, the bigger the backlash will be, hopefully anyway.
the most unfortunate side effect will be science in general will tainted leading to problems for most disciplines ,not just the alarmist climate lot.
This seems just one more example of an organization that’s been consistently wrong in all of its predictions for decades coming up with the news that they’re revised their predictions and the new ones are right.
I don’t want to give the impression I don’t think research in the fields of climate and weather should stop, but someone needs to explain that these predictions shouldn’t be used to make economic or technological policy. Maybe someday they’ll know what they’re doing but they don’t now.
Oh never mind that double negative. I don’t want to give the impression I think research should stop.
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat…”
Yes, yes…we all “know” by now. You have recited the usual prayers and sacrificed the usual goats. Your ensuing text will be free of heresy, if a little unsettling. We are familiar with the code.
My God, how we are familiar with that code.
Richard M
December 10, 2015 at 9:03 pm
The LIA ended in the 19th century. The warming has already been going on for a couple hundred years. We may not be lucky enough to see much more. The 1000 years is kind of an average but if you look closer, the interval has been getting shorter each time and the amplitude lower as well.
It might. It might not. I’m too lazy to search for it at the moment but I’m pretty sure in was a guest post in Judith Curry’s blog, written by a fellow who has been “adding” to the front end of the Central England Temperature record through proxies and historical data. He pointed out various interesting things in the data.
Temperatures were all over the map as the decades went by. The LIA was far from an always cold time. One of the things he pointed out, and I’m pretty sure more than one of these periods was in the actually measured temperature data, people sometimes lived, to what in those days was the ripe old age of 65 (assuming some people did live that long during these particular stretches), where the temperatures increased, bit by bit, throughout their entire life.
Seems like “it isn’t likely to keep warming for quite some while yet”,
CO2 or not aside,
would be a hard proposition to falsify before at least another hundred years go by.
It shouldn’t need saying but. a “hindcast”, is not a prediction.
You can tune you models to perfectly replicate the past but that doesn’t mean they will be any good at forecasting the future.
From AndyG55: Periodical:
http://s19.postimg.org/4crolmgmr/amo_vs_NHice.jpg
“We know that over the long term, winter sea ice will continue to retreat,” said NCAR scientist Stephen Yeager, lead author of the study published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “But we are predicting that the rate will taper off for several years in the future before resuming. We are not implying some kind of recovery from the effects of human-caused global warming; it’s really just a slow down in winter sea ice loss.”
*************
I reject this prediction as unfounded in science.
I have a different prediction. I say that following the current El Nino, global cooling will resume by ~2020 or sooner, and so Arctic Sea Ice extent and thickness will increase with time.
Antarctic ice has already increased to record levels in the modern data-collection era.
As usual with my global cooling predictions, I hope to be wrong. A cooler world is a crueler world.
Now let’s wait and see who is correct. Ladies and germs, faites vos jeux!
Regards to all and Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays!
– Allan
.
We are not implying some kind of recovery from the effects of human-caused global warming; it’s really just a slow down in winter sea ice loss.”
FAIL
until that is proven beyond all doubt, anyone who keeps spouting this rhetoric has ZERO credibility.
It appears to me that climate science is desperately in need of an explanation for the Atlantic oscillation which has recently led to diminished arctic sea ice conditions. I don’t have the benefit of a super computer or massive government resources to create “data” to order, but I do have a brain with which I analyze and reason. Accordingly, I am prepared at this time to offer up a hypothesis ( also known as a theory to AGW proponents) that I feel is worth testing. Since the Southern and Northern Hemispheres of our little planet are quite distinct as far as seasonal warming is concerned, it seems to me that the Southern Hemisphere having more ocean area has a different heating trend. Because the equatorial winds tend to contain the heat generated in the Southern Hemisphere- it builds up heat which it periodically “dumps” Northward via ocean currents as evaporation causes the water to become more dense, sink, and be replaced by colder water from the North. This could be a very long cycle ( in human terms) with a massive amount of heat flow that exhausts itself and then stops, whereafter the arctic sea ice begins to increase and the Antarctic sea ice begins to diminish as the South starts to warm again. I base this on ship intake temperatures adjusted for the assumed length of their transit through the warm engine room and this hypothesis is offered only minimally in jest as I really do believe this is what we are seeing.
John, it is good that you are trying to unpuzzle the Arctic situation but you lack some basic information which the greenhouse warning gang does not disclose. You will find this information in my paper in E&E 22(8):269-283(2011). First, Arctic warming started at the turn if the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. Its start was sudden but it was then interrupted by a mid-century cold wave which lasted thirty years. Warning resumed in 1970 and has been active ever since. There is no way to turn greenhouse warming on and off as happened three times during the twentieth century. It follows that the cause of warming must be a change in the North Atlantic current system which started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. It is the presence of this warm water that accounts for the differences between the north and south polar freezing history. It Its most visible effects are the opening up of the Northwest Passage and of the Eastern Passage from Russia to the Bering Strait area. In the overall picture it has probably reduced the North Polar ice cap by approximately a third of what it would have been without the Gulf Stream contribution. What worries me is the cold snap in the middle of the twentieth century. Should it return we can expect a blockage of Arctic transportation and development like we had before the Arctic warming started.
Much of their “confidence” is based on their understanding of a mechanism totally unrelated to any effect of CO2. Can we put any reliance on this, when they fail to say their confidence is “robust”?
Talking of ice, this is just in time for Paris:
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/must_see/35082541
Looking at the graphs for Northern and Southern Hemisphere Sea ice there is a pattern of around 80% loss during their respective melting seasons of Spring and Summer. But we don’t even notice it.
However if the remaining 20% goes we are expected to believe that sea levels will rise around 30metres.
Makes no sense…logic fail.
Now that’s a silly comment.
How many billion of thermal nuclear bombs are going off non stop, it’s night half the day, the orbit wobbles, and over 100+ year’s now many kg of land, oceans and air are regulated to an average annual temp within a degree or 2?