Last week I mentioned how WeatherUnderground was touting the ‘Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016’ as being a repeat of the ice crusher cyclone in the summer of 2012. People that want to see Arctic sea ice reach new lows, so that they can shout things like “See, told you! Climate change!” were banking on it to bring sea ice extent to new record scarcity, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth, while secretly grinning to themselves “take that, deniers”. It’s a strange bunch of people, in my view, that rally around wanting to see such things happen.
So far, NSIDC hasn’t shown much of an impact from the GAC16, and in the last couple of days, ice has upticked slightly as it regrouped (magnified inset mine):
Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The storm last week, if it had major impact, would have put the plot closer to the green 2012 line. We are now just about a month away from the seasonal minimum, which usually occurs somewhere between Sept 15th and 25th. There’s still the possibility that another cyclone might roar through and save the day for the doomsters, but it looks like NSIDC and NASA could well be correct.
It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it, as there doesn’t seem to be any new mentions of the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016” popping up. Be assured though that we’d never [hear] the end of it had it turned out to beat the Arctic cyclone of 2012 in ice breaking capability. Of course, the caveat here is that weather is not climate.
Meanwhile, Professor David Wadhams doubles down on his “ice free” predictions with a new book: A Farewell to Ice.
Wadhams prediction from June this year contained his usual doominess.
“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said.
“Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low].
“I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.
“Ice free means the central part of the Arctic and the North Pole is ice free.”
But, both NSIDC and NASA have said since then that a record low isn’t likely, much less ice free:
NSIDC: ‘A new record low September ice extent now appears to be unlikely.”
NASA: ‘…highly unlikely that this year’s summertime sea ice minimum extent will set a new record’
But there’s always that hope for doom next year. So far, Wadhams track record on this point has been pretty dismal. Plus, he keeps moving the goalposts.
And, it seems none of Wadhams professional and private peers who made sea ice predictions for the Sea Ice Prediction Network this year agree with his forecast, not one said below 1 million square kilometers:
Source: https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/august
Sad when nature just won’t kowtow to the doomsters, isn’t it? But, human history is fraught with visionaries who said impeding doom is right around the corner. It’s a lifestyle choice I suppose.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
… “It’s a lifestyle choice I suppose.”
One that can pay extremely well….
It might be genetic.
“One that can pay extremely well….”
Really? Know any climate scientists? Theya are not paid well at all. Certainly not in my country.
I think statement “can pay extremely well” refers to large sums of money available to research depts for climate related topics, which would dry up quickly if climate change were found to be not as dangerous or important as politicians currently think. So it is not in these research agencies interest to show that climate change is not an issue as this would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Simon, I don’t know what country you are in, but the main Climate Scientists in the USA are paid extremely well. Their grants run in to the millions of dollars.
“Their grants run in to the millions of dollars.” Their pay and their grants are different things.
Their pay depends on them getting grants.
The more grants they get, the more they get paid by their employer.
MarkW -. Their pay and their grants are different things. Do you agree? That their grants runs into millions of dollars does not say anything about their pay.
Don’t read much on climate funding, eh?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
That’s before we even talk about the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars shoveled at “green” companies.
My prediction a couple of months ago was the season will end up 2 standard deviants below normal.
Prediction still looks good.
A standard deviant? They’ve categorized those already?
Well there’s a whole lot of standard deviants listed on that diagram.
All of those people working on the problem, and no two of them agree with each other.
Well their predictions cover enough territory that maybe one of them will come close.
If I could get a grant, I’d be willing to generate a prediction of my own.
I have figured out how to represent ice area and thickness simultaneously in a single complex number. Then I can use Laplace Transforms to compute the ice area and volume simultaneously for a whole year.
Gotta be some foundation out there who would fund my grant to do that.
g
How many deviants would you have to analyze before you can determine what a standard deviant is?
George E. Smith — Just make a pole-zero plot!
George;
Unless you can prove that the arctic is going to be ice free because of AGW you have no chance at your grant. Sorry
George e.:
You need to call it a model. And you need a lot of waffle words.
Ha! All of us skeptics/deniers are deviants to the deviants. But in any case, here’s some good stuff:
https://steemit.com/science/@freeradical/the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-an-unabashedly-biased-book-reviewhttps://steemit.com/energy/@freeradical/while-hair-on-fire-catastrophist-bill-mckibben-calls-for-a-wartime-government-takeover-of-the-u-s-economy-even-google-admits
“There’s nothing new under the sun…..”
George, you wrote “on that diagram … no two of them agree with each other”. You might want to actually look at the diagram. There are, for example, two predictions for 4.0.
Two standard deviants….
Would that be two Clintons below normal?
Sorry…couldn’t resist.
1981 to 2010 average = normal? The only thing normal about that average is that it is comprised of a large subset of the short set of satellite era data.
This always bothered me. Why not used the ENTIRE data set to determine the “baseline” average, then update that baseline as each new year of data is added? Instead, we’ve artificially chosen a subset of the data to represent some “normal” condition. How do we know that particular subset doesn’t represent “abnormal” conditions? Truly shoddy work.
We know that there are multi-decadal cycles out there. Shouldn’t “normal” be calculated from a base at least as long as the longest cycle known?
Looks like that major increase in ice volume over the past few years does make a difference. In line with Archibald’s post yesterday, the trend in now cooling and the ice volume will continue its saw-tooth ascent back towards “normal.”
Well… the ice has been trying to recover since 2007.
There were a couple of icelandic volcanoes. Which dirtied up the snow until 2012. Then the late 2014/2015/2016 El Nino.
We could set a record for volume increase this winter.
This year is going to be the 3rd to 6th lowest minimum. Starting from the lowest maximum.
I could forecast an ice-free arctic this year, and it would not hurt a bit. So far, every prediction I have made about climate has been exactly wrong, so one more is no big deal.
Prof Wadhams does not need any more ink around here. The fellow seems to have “issues”, so maybe we could let it go.
Agreed
Yeah, an ice free arctic during the summer has zero effect on anything.
No one except warmunists gives a rat’s *ss if the arctic is frozen in the summer.
Perhaps someone can explain why an ice free arctic gets warmunits so excited? Do they want to pay for arctic ice? Do they hate waterskiing? Are they lousy swimmers? What is their issue?
As someone who lives, by preference, in the tropics, I frequently ask, and no-one ever answers, what’s so good about ice.
Are those warmists simply crazy?
Are those warmists simply crazy?
Yes, Warmunists are simply crazy. That is the best explanation I’ve heard so far.
“As someone who lives, by preference, in the tropics, I frequently ask, and no-one ever answers, what’s so good about ice.”
It keeps my tropical drinks cold! 🙂
Hey, TonyL, you likely will never read my comment in this thread (to Anthony, below), but, in case you do, I wanted to tell you that by that affirmation of the article as a whole, I did not mean to contradict your assessment of Wadhams. I think you are right. Not a pretty sight.
And so, farewell to Wadhams.
While I don’t recall the details of the storm of 2012 I noticed that the event this August was associated with a deep cold upper level low over the Canadian Arctic Islands (CAI). And noticed that surface temps were near or below freezing at the several at the relatively few stations I could access! So I am wondering if the difference between 2012 and 2016 is that even though both were “windy” at the surface the surface temperatures were lower in 32916?
2012 flushed ice out Fram Strait. 2016 just sat on the North Pole.
Hey! Bad enough the alarmists make claims out to 2100, but you have to go all the way to 32916?
Hey, I have a completely accurate model of 32916 that says temperatures will definitely be higher than 0 degrees Kelvin and very likely less than one million.
Thick ice does not blow around as easily….and it’s a whole lot thicker..temps have been below normal mostly too
The Atlantic is not going to help them either.
1 million km2 is an odd metric in the first place….the size of Egypt…or Texas and New Mexico combined
Seems if you wanted to know how much…you would measure volume
Volume is harder. The first ‘good’ observational data will come on the next ice monitoring satellite equiped with laser altimetry. It will be able to measure how high above water the ice rides, and then convert that to thickness which, when combined with extent, gives a volume estimate. IIRC scheduled to launch before 2018.
So what are they going to compare the data coming out of this new satellite to? Since it will (hopefully) be the most accurate, is it going to become the standard? And if so, how many years do we go before we get a baseline? Inquiring minds want to know.
In areas where ice coverage is complete (IE no open water) how do you determine sea level?
Just assume the satellite is a constant height above sea level?
RB, nothing. What they have now is modeled by DMI or guestimated from ice ridges/visual roughness. MW, thats pretty much it. But they know the orbit rather precisely, and orbital drift is a slow process. Shouldn’t be a big problem. After all, despite waves and geoid sat alt of sealevel is good to less than a millimeter accuracy.
Satellite data to measure thickness should be a great contribution to tracking the volume of Arctic ice. I recall the Wegener Institute performing instrumented flyovers (in 2009 I think) with a DC-3 and finding much thicker ice than expected.
Rud, You generally know what you’re talking about, but I think you may be a bit optimistic on this one. AFAIK satellite orbits are known to about 2cm rms and current Arctic ocean sea levels are not well known at the cm scale. Moreover, a 1cm error in sea ice surface elevation estimation must, I should think, lead to a much larger error in ice thickness estimates. I’ve been looking through the NASA ICESat2 requirements document http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/project/ICESat2_program_level_requirements.pdf and I can’t find a sea ice thickness estimate specification. The closest thing I’ve found is 3cm accuracy along a 50km track for ice freeboard under clear sky conditions when a reference (i.e. an open water lead) is available. I suspect that might translate to a 20-30cm uncertainty in estimating ice thickness … on good days.
I could be way wrong. Hope I am.
If they are going to measuring changes in sea ice volume, they are going to need to be able know the exact height of the satellite not just now, but over months and years.
To be a little more explicit. An error of only a cm or two between the assumed height of the satellite between now and say 10 years [from] now, would be a non-trivial fraction of any gain or loss the satellite would otherwise have measured.
That 1 cm change in orbit over ten years could be simply due to atmospheric drag as well.
I’m perfectly willing to go along with the million square kilometres criterion. If it ever reached that level, I would have second thoughts. This is one issue where climate realists can afford to be generous.
It doesn’t matter whether the doomster predictions pan out – they get the press about the doom; this alone reinforces the ‘believers’ thought and will do its part to implant the incessant repetition of doom into those sitting on the fence.
The AGW enthusiast are grasping at straws it is over for them. I am being rather bold in making this statement but the cooling has began and it started when the recent El NINO ended and now we have to see how it evolves.
The Arctic region is now showing below average temperatures for the first time in quite sometime and this could be significant as we move further.
Antarctica showing warmth of late but it does not matter since the temperatures there are so far below the freezing mark regardless. I think the climate engine as far as change goes comes about in the N.H. mainly in the Arctic region and North Atlantic Ocean.
This period of time in the climate not unique at all.
Arctic Ice will recover as we move forward.
Yet, Earth continues to warm as the Sun cools.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1972/scale:200/plot/gistemp/from:1972/trend/scale:200/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1972/offset:-320
Sorry Jim the earth is only warming because of the NASA and GISS adjustments to the record. Without the adjustments it has only warmed 0.8 degrees C since 1885.
With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.
“the earth is only warming because of the NASA and GISS adjustments to the record.”
Really?
If you are so sure that the uncorrected data is more accurate than the corrected data, publish your findings in Nature and plan a trip to Stockholm to collect a Nobel prize.
“With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.”
Wrong
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2014/plot/uah/from:1986/to:1996/trend/plot/uah/from:1996/to:2014/trend
No “taint” of Dr. Hansen here.
Note that the satellite record shows cooling from 1986-1996.
Jim Y,
MarkW is correct. The satellite record shows the recent ≈20 year ‘Pause’:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
There is no convincing evidence that global warming is anything but the planet’s natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.
dbstealey
Your graph conveniently stops in 2015, which is not just a cherrypick of the start date but of the end date, as well. Here is the actual graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
Jim Y,
First, I was just using a chart I had handy to show that MarkW was right. When you figure out how to find the provenance of a chart, you’ll see that I was just being lazy.
Until then, thanx for posting the WFT chart above showing the recent, unusually large El Nino. It’s just deflection, but it gives me a chance to show what’s been happening since the recent, big El Nino peaked.
I used your own chart. Just moved the start date up.
And MarkW was correct:
“With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.”
dbstealey and MarkW. With the exception of the recent temperature rise there has been no warming. Can’t you see how ridiculous that sounds?
If you are avoiding El Nino years then you must start after the 1998 one, otherwise you are cherry picking.
seaice1,
It’s very easy to understand, if you read the entire quote instead of misrepresenting it.
Here on the eastern side of the N. Atlantic, it has gotten appreciably cooler over the past ten years or so. I first noticed it 7-8 years ago, but I suspect the cooling began around 2005. This is also how I knew that the N. Atlantic was cooling even before I read any reports on the matter.
The Eastern side of the North Atlantic is not the whole world.
the only real warming in the northern hemisphere that has taken place since the 80’s has been in winter,mostly in the temperate areas. anyone that thinks warmer winters in places like scotland,denmark etc is a bad thing is a complete idiot.
“It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it, as there doesn’t seem to be any new mentions of the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016” popping up. Be assured though that we’d never here the end of it…”
Should be “hear” sir!
[fixed, thanks =mod]
The cyclone may have had one small impact, it appears that the Northwest Passage is a bit more clogged than it was 2 weeks ago, just as the Crystal Serenity clears Nome and heads northward to the Beaufort Sea. As long as everyone is making predictions I will boldly predict that the Crystal Serenity will run into some nasty conditions and waste 5 or 6 days waiting for the ocean going tug that is accompanying it to clear a path.
Depends on which route they take, northern or southern. Northern is where the storm pushed in ice. Dont know enough about southern route depths to know if it is feasible for such a large vessel.
The planned route is the southern one. There is some sea ice here but it should be okay for a big ship with an ice-breaker accompanying them.
The southern route into Cambridge Bay is very shallow and is full of many shoals. They will have to go very slow and use sonar/radar to avoid running aground. Apparently, the ship has tons of this technology but it is still risky.
A neighbour of mine is the master of Canada’s second largest ice breaker and is up there right know.
His ship/crew had to come to the rescue of a similar “expedition” a couple of years ago that ran aground on a shoal. He thinks the tug/research vessel may be able to help under light/moderate conditions, but told me that if the cruise ship runs into anything like the conditions that prevailed last year they’ll wind up in trouble.
Can’t beat “boots-on-the-ground” info and experience..
Bill, thanks for that info. Now I know how to research it more.
Crystal Serenity has a draft of 29.6 feet, so about 9 meters. The 3A route they are taking has a published draft limit of 10 meters in the Ross Strait portion coming into Cambridge Bay. Even with side thrusters there is very little margin for error. And RRS Shackleton (aka BoatyMcBoatface), the brand new UK Arctic research vessel, doesn’t look powerful enough to be a significant aid if they ground.
The interesting question concerns Northabout, the small sailing ship doing the Polar Ocean Challenge. They are presently some ways from Beaufort, but the terms of the challenge are to forego assistance from icebreakers. I’m guessing they won’t be disappointed for a huge cruiseliner to go through the passage ahead of them.
Here an update today on Arctic Ice, Cyclone and ships
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/update-aug-23-arctic-ice-cyclone-and-ships/
Winds and currents close-up those leads within hours.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(sea_ice)
I follow Northabout (aka the Arctic Ship of Fools) via the ships log (see the link below), which gives the lat/long in each report, they have had to go South (from 76N to 70N) to go around some ice, which of course slows their progress in longitude. Looks like this expedition is just encountering conditions that were found 130 years ago, but no doubt this will be spun to produce the desired conclusion, but will they risk entering the NW passage in late Aug/early Sept?
http://polarocean.co.uk/ships-logs/
They are racing against time and needing the weather to work for them, but not hinder them. The wall of ice in Laptev put their objective in doubt early on. For all we know, future years may make such an attempt impossible. The cruise line is hoping otherwise.
Northabout is about a week ahead of Ouslan’s successful circumnavigation of 2010 so seem to be in good shape to complete their voyage. Regarding the reference to ‘130 years ago’, if that’s a reference to the Vega expedition which was first to traverse the NE Passage, they took two years and were trapped in ice in September short of the Bering Strait.
Phil, right now it looks good for them, with the southern route through the Archipelago open. Serenity is at Ulukhaktok, and Northabout should get around the tongue of ice north of Alaska.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/serenity-nearing-ulukhaktok-aug-25/
Crystal Serenity is here http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=C6SY3 and their escort seems to be waiting for them here http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=ZDLS1
According to ‘Cruisin‘; Crystal Serenity hasn’t reported their position recently; at least not since August 14th near Juneau.
Ship Tracking puts them somewhere near Nome; but without a definitive position/
At least the Crystal Serenity is transmitting from their shipboard cameras.
http://legacy.crystalcruises.com/cache/cybridge2.jpg
Such a nice view and weather.
Tried to post link but I guess lost to moderation. Try sailwx(dot)info Crystal Serenity C6SY3 and their escort RRS Ernest Shackleton ZDLS1. Mike
Theo, see link above (The cruise ship is identified as “passenger ship” but not by name.)
What percent of capacity do they have on board, or is it a ghost ship?
Not many people taking advantage of the pool 🙂
Plus many. Wonder why?
My prediction was 4.1 ( the seventh from left) and it seems to me: a bit too low. 🙂
“disappear” equals “less than one million square kilometres”?
What am I missing (besides brain-numbing stupidity)?
“…brain-numbing stupidity”
This daily “brain-numbing stupidity” foisted upon us by the Global Warming industry is the main reason I have begun switching OFF the mainstream media. I’m sure some “honest” scientists lament that their research and observations are being highly distorted by our modern media, but I place the blame squarely upon THEIR shoulders for NOT pushing back on the inane and often bizarre claims made by many of the nutcases that make up the Global Warming industry (which includes certain “scientists” in government and academia).
Fortunately, it’s quite easy to block or remove nauseating media sources like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO, Twitter, Instagram etc. from your computer browser, smartphone, and pad device. You can also block these clowns on Facebook (if you still use it). And you can take the major step (as I have) of “cutting the cord” – i.e. removing premium or enhanced cable channels from your home, and simply getting an internet feed. Finally, it goes without say that you should avoid purchasing any of their “products,” be they newspapers, magazines, books, or other related publications.
You CAN do something…
That reminds me of the other big scientific “issue”, the ozone hole. You may think that the hole is defined as a zone with no ozone (sorry for the alliteration) but you would be wrong, the ozone hole is defined as a zone with less than 800 Dobson units of ozone, or a number close to that. I am too lazy to find the correct one and does not change the point, which is that they change the definitions to scare people.
Whether a hole is a hole or not a hole:
Your comment makes me wonder if the “window” of my room is the hole in the wall or the glass in the hole. If I slide the glass in the hole our of the way and look through a screen, am I looking through a window?
When Soothsayer/Seer David Wadhams changes the definition of “ice free” to 2 M sq. km., we will know what sort of hole he is.
Just to be contrary, a hole in my back yard doesn’t have to go all the way through the earth to qualify as a hole.
Actually below 220 Dobson, actual values usually hit about 100 Dobson at the minimum. There is a real ‘Hole’ though since the column ozone drops to such low values because the ozone maximum between ~15 and 20 km is destroyed leaving a ‘hole’ where there was previously a ‘peak’.
E.g.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-10-18.21.png
Well there is another would be ship of fools out there to prove that the ice is all gone this year. Let;s hope they are not too disappointed.
http://polarocean.co.uk/
Never underestimate the Russians. They are offering tours to the North Pole aboard a nuclear powered icebreaker, three trips during a summer (too late now for 2016.)
Yeah, there’s another happy bunch.
Perhaps better than yesterday?
Maybe not as good as yesterday, “last shot of vodka…”
Interesting way of measuring…”amount of ocean with at least 15% of sea ice”. What happens if a bunch of the ocean has 14% sea ice and the rest of it gets twice as thick? What if the part of the ocean with 15-20% sea ice is smaller but the extent of the ocean with 10% is twice as big?
The more I learn about this stuff the less impressed I am by the way things get measured.
Now perhaps two decades ago, an Austrian friend took the Russian nuclear ice breaker tour to the North Pole. Don’t see anything particularly noteworthy about it.
measurement in climate science appears to be a philosophical process at times.
I prefer the site not associated with the NOAA http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
Somehow I just think they are more honest.
At least give credit to Prof. Wadhams for nailing his colours to the mast and making a prediction realisable within the life span of almost everybody (3 months). What courage when one might expect failure to endanger his reputation, his tenure and mark him as a delusional idiot to be mocked. Oh, hang on though………….
“It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it…”
Doesn’t matter, the damage in the minds of men has already been done.
What about women? Oh wait, there was that ‘feminist’ take on science…. yep, the damage is already done!
Nah!
Those touters were already damaged.
Lost in their delusional dreams of ice free Arctic and snow free winters…
Why less ice is bad and more ice good is a bit of mystery, anyway.
Neither polar bears nor their ringed seal prey are the least bit endangered. A NW Passage clear in summer would be a good thing, would it not?
+1
Exactly what I always say.
Someone tell this ignorant truck driver how arctic ice being broken up or concentrated by WIND and/or WAVES supports the AGW meme of melting Arctic ice? I just can’t see how less ice extent, area, or volume due to wave and wind action supports AGW at all for any HONEST evaluator.
CO2 causes wind and waves. Duh.
RAH!
This is your sister: I do not want to EVER hear you call yourself “ignorant”** again. You have proven by your comments on WUWT over the years that you grossly mischaracterize that brave, skilled, truck driver when you call him “ignorant.” I have found myself asking the question, “RAH reminds me of my brother (an engineer who drives a big truck for a living because of wanting to live where tech jobs are scarce); he, too, must have earned a college degree, he is so well-informed and insightful. I wonder what it is?” many times. You may have used your fine mind to educate yourself only informally. Whatever! You are the functional equal of many here WITH degrees! And yes I am finally done! 🙂
Oh, one more thing: STAY SAFE OUT THERE. I pray for you (and some other professional drivers) every day.
Janice
** Yes, yes, I realize simple (as opposed to willful or neglectful) ignorance is not, per se, anything to be ashamed of, but, you get what I mean, DON’T YOU! 🙂 (others might not, thus, I write to close off, at least, THAT hole in the fence for the critics to charge through onto the road, heh …. and they’ll find another one, nooo doubt)
Janice Moore
One reason I use “ignorant” and “truck driver” is because I read a comment making fun of the fact that this blog has a “truck driver” making comments here. That very stereotype shows the ignorance of others and I make light of it with sarcasam. Another reason is the simple fact is that I am ignorant when it comes to a whole lot of math and science. Ignorance is just the state or condition of having not learned. The definition of the term in no way indicates a lack of intelligence or a lack of the ability too learn. IOW Ignorance and Stupidity are not the same thing.
At 03:00 this morning I depart Anderson Indiana pulling a 53′ foot dry van trailer. I will drive 220 mi up to Elk Grove Village on the NE side of the greater Chicago metro area. I will make 6 stops at different places to deliver and pickup and then return to Anderson. I have never done this run before but am expected to complete it in the maximum allowable 11 hours driving time and maximum allowable 14 hours total on duty time. Not a job for a dummy nor for a person that does not move with alacritous efficiency.
[And we here thank you for your work ethic and safety record. PS. The government thanks you for the taxes you pay. .mod]
Dear RAH,
Praying for you today (as always). Yes, indeed, ignorance is in itself not stupidity.
And GOOD FOR YOU to pick up that cretin’s empty epithet and wear it as a badge of honor!
(thanks for coming back across the “airwaves” with that reply)
Take care,
Janice
“Someone tell this ignorant truck driver how arctic ice being broken up or concentrated by WIND and/or WAVES supports the AGW meme of melting Arctic ice? ”
Simple.
1. C02 is GHG.
2. Increasing GHGs ( c02, methane ) and other forcings, like black carbon and land use) changes
the radiative balance of the planet.
3. The systems warms in response to this forcing.
4. That means, over time, warmer SSTs and warmer atmosphere.
5. This warming is NOT uniform or monotonic.
6. In the north pole we can expect– warmer SSTs ( over time ) and lower snow cover.
7. Over time warmer SSTs will lead to less ice cover and lower Ice volumes.
8. This decrease will not be uniform and will not be monotonic.
9. As the ice becomes thinner it is more prone to
A) being exported
B) being broken up
1) brokenn up ice has a larger surface volume and melts faster
10. As the the arctic become more open— wind blowing over the surface
induces ekman pumping… basically upwelling that exacerbates the melt
So.. the warming of AGW is just one of the contributing factors
Figuring out what portion of the loss is directly attributable to AGW?
not very important. c02 warms the world and eventually the ice will melt as the result of a combination of factors– c02 being just one… the one we can control somewhat
So, Steven Mosher, what happens during the seven months of the year when LESS arctic sea ice means MORE cooling of the arctic ocean due to increased evaporation losses, increased long wave radiation losses, increased convective losses and increased conduction losses from the upper ocean surface?
Ah, SM. Your point 3 is a bit weak. Polar amplification. And your point 6 ignores that models said polar– not just north pole. And your point 10 is hilarious. Please point to Exkman cipurrent papers in the Arctic Ocean.
C’mon Steven, you portray CO2 and Temp in a linear relationship with your points. That ain’t right and you know it. Perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts on ECS too? Maybe even talk to us about saturation levels as it relates to CO2 and varied IR aspects in physics. The BEST is behind us bro.
Bookmarked for future reference. Time will tell. Maybe. I’m just a passenger and I don’t know the driver.
Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm: No 11. and yet it moves… and some have noticed the refreeze has started already
12. The Atlantic Cod have been returning south for some years.
13. The AO is negative.
14. The northward deepwater flow is cooling rapidly as measured ad 59N, Barents.
Mosh,
I can control my direction of pissing in a rainstorm gale too. Recommendation is to piss in downwind direction. But regardless, My piss though won’t matter much in a rainstorm. Same with human CO2 emissions.
Yeats,
“he best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”
The Alarmists will win if good men sit idly by and do nothing.
Thank you Christopher.
Joel
I will not sit idly by.
“So, Steven Mosher, what happens during the seven months of the year when LESS arctic sea ice means MORE cooling of the arctic ocean due to increased evaporation losses, increased long wave radiation losses, increased convective losses and increased conduction losses from the upper ocean surface?”
Not much. the final state of the planet is determined by the radiation leaving at the TOP… n
“Mosh,
I can control my direction of pissing in a rainstorm gale too. Recommendation is to piss in downwind direction. But regardless, My piss though won’t matter much in a rainstorm. Same with human CO2 emissions.”
Ah you think that your science is settled..
its so funny to read skeptics who are CERTAIN that c02 has no effect.
me? I am skeptical… doubling c02 gives you from 1.5C to 4.5C of warming
LOTS of room in that range to be a skeptic, lukewarmer, or alarmist.
but very few people are CERTAIN that the value falls below 1.5 or above 4.5
I take it you think the science is settled and certain that the effect of c02 is tiny..
Go get your nobel
“C’mon Steven, you portray CO2 and Temp in a linear relationship with your points. That ain’t right and you know it. Perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts on ECS too? Maybe even talk to us about saturation levels as it relates to CO2 and varied IR aspects in physics. The BEST is behind us bro.”
Not linear. dope. which syllable of NOT monotonic slipped by you.
ECS… between 1.5 and 4,5C
Saturation.. not an issue… ERL
“c02 being just one… the one we can control somewhat”
You are kidding right? We produce maybe less than 5% of total. El Nino caused a spike in CO2 growth.
We have no control over atmospheric CO2, almost none, 1\10000th of control
How does calling someone a “dope” win the debate?
Elsewhere, here is how Sea Ice 2016 is being spun
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/08/22/global_warming_has_allowed_easier_access_to_the_northwest_passage.html
The entire obsession with Arctic ice requires human culpability for global warming, speciously rechristened as “climate change.” Take the accusatory guilt of GHG emissions out of the equation, and what is left?
Dr. Wadhams would be left with saying, well, the recent warming due to natural variation has reduced the amount of Summer Arctic ice to rather less than the late 20th century average.
Whoop-de-do. His work is suddenly bereft of its perfervid meaning. Who’d pay attention to him?
Hence the death-grip enviro-weenies have on climate models and their projections. Climate models are the deus ex machina of human guilt.
Absent them, and the E-weenies are lost. Life has no focus, no meaning, no excitement, no emotional highs, no good-guys, no bad-guys, no deep social alliances, and no certainties of self-righteous moral superiority. Just the banalities of getting on with life.
The biggest fallacy of the “climate weenies” and their disciples is their unwavering belief that the amount of sea ice in the Arctic is an accurate indicator of global temperature.
I knew that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas before anyone talked about models.
If models are wrong, which I don’t dispute that they probably are, it could be worse than model predictions.
And it could be better than model predictions. And monkeys could fly out of my butt. See what a weasel word :”could” is
Before models all that could have been known is that CO2 converts 15-micron radiant energy into kinetic energy. That’s all anyone knows now, too.
No one knew then, nor knows now, how the climate responds to a CO2 increase. There may be no detectable warming at all.
im Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm; Pity you hadn’t started by learning the gas laws, then studied Maxwell’s treatises on heat, and done some experimenting in atmospheric physics. But wait, you ‘just knew’, you said….
Temperature increases are less than the models predict, but Jim is still holding out hope that the models could be wrong on the cool side.
Sad really, the way warminsts go out of their way to beclown themselves.
Brett Keane
What makes you think I don’t understand gas laws; like Peng Robinson and Benedict–Webb–Rubin equations.
Jim Yushchyshyn: “like Peng Robinson and Benedict–Webb–Rubin equations.”
Wow, you know how to use Google too!
Dear Dr. Wadhams,
The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.
Kind regards,
Milton Friedman
OK! We will see in a hundred years.
Dear Mr. Yushchyshyn,
Good news! Your wait is over. The GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have been proven unskilled, unfit for purpose, i.e., “junk,” for several years, now. Here is a book:
(found here, https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/ebooks-by-bob-tisdale/ )
and a lecture:
“No Certain Doom: On the Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures”
(Dr. Pat Frank)
(youtube)
Welcome to WUWT (yes, it is pretty obvious that you are new (smile)). In the search box in the upper right of this page, type “climate models” or similar search terms to find many WUWT articles about the GCMs.
Janice
Nice use of The Imperial We.
My model claims anyone reading this post today will not see in a hundred years.
But the Global Warming conjecture is already more than 100 years old yet still unproven despite decades and hundreds of billions of dollars spent trying.
If more time is the answer, then the oldest predictions should be the most accurate. So in 1965 when the top alarmists predicted 7 degrees warming by the year 2000 accompanied by a 10 foot rise in sea level, how that that pan out?
Notice how the warmists wants to ignore all of the failed predictions made to date. History always starts with today for these guys.
Janice
If you read my original comment, you would know that I question models.
“Welcome to WUWT”
I always knew that WUWT is a popular site with global warming deniers. And I will find out about climate models from more reliable sites than WUWT, such as NASA and NOAA.
No, I don’t expect to convince everyone; just those who want to know the truth.
And, it is easy to know when I win an argument here; people call the temperatures “adjusted,” or resort to ad homs.
I didn’t say that you don’t want to know the truth.
I will know whether or not you are when I read your reply.
Jim Y says:
“I always knew that WUWT is a popular site with global warming deniers.”
Please explain: what are readers here denying?
I’ve known that global warming is happening since before this site began. I’ve also repeatedly posted my own opinion; that AGW probably exists. But there must be a difference, or you wouldn’t feel compelled to label readers here as “deniers”.
Here’s the difference:
Climate alarmists have made lots of scary predictions over the years—very alarming predictions, based on their belief that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe (I know, I know; now it’s “climate change”). But not one of those scary predictions has ever come true; no exceptions.
So in response, skeptics say: “Show us. Produce verifiable, testable, scientific measurements, quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming, including the planet’s natural warming from the LIA, and from ocean effects, from solar effects, from Milankovitch cycles, etc.”
But no one has ever been able to quantify AGW in a way acceptable to scientists in general. There is no measured “Fingerprint of AGW”. In fact, guesstimates for 2xCO2 by reputable scientists range from more than 6ºC, down to 0.00ºC, and just about everything in between (and some scientists say that rising CO2 has a net cooling effect).
The standard response from the alarmist crowd is to label everyone who disagrees with them as “deniers”. And we see it again today:
“…global warming deniers.”
If you can’t do better than that, you’ve lost the science debate. Politics is another story. In politics, ad hominem attacks are typical. But here, ad-homs like that just mean you have no measurements. But you have your belief, and you call people names if they question it, or if they ask you to quantify your assertions with testable measurements.
That’s one big difference between scientific skeptics and climate alarmists.
Jim Yushchyshyn: “I didn’t say that you don’t want to know the truth.”
Jimbo you sad, patronising, pig ignorant, scientifically illiterate little troll, you wouldn’t recognise the truth if it scuttled under your slimy, noisome bridge, jumped up and bit you on the snout.
So take your denier schtick and stuff it where the sun don’t shine, you adolescent little nobody.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
SHOO!
I suspect the inflection will be early this year. Perhaps within the next 3 weeks.
Time to fire up the annual Minimum extent/date contest.
we could wait till after the minimum, that way we could all be Texas sharpshooters.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Evangelical climate change orgs, experts and mainstream CAGW-sympathetic media: BBC, National Geographic, Sierra Club, ABC, The Guardian, Whadam and Al Gore et al., assured us (prayed for) that Arctic summer sea-ice would have disappeared by 2014.
Despite record and increasing CO2 emissions, sea-ice levels in the Arctic have remained largely the same for nearly a decade.
Just don’t mention the other pole, the Antarctic, which continues to expand at record levels, setting record low temps as it grows. Inconvenient realities contradictory to what climate ‘experts’ and those billion dollar computer models predicted. Sshhhh.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/you-were-lied-to-about-arctic-sea-ice-dissapearing/
A paper just out tries to explain the lack of polar amplification in Antarctic that models predicted. Another model failure. As Arctic ice continues its cyclic recovery, it will be even more embarassing when in a few years they have to publish on Arctic ice recovery.
“As Arctic ice continues its cyclic recovery”
What recovery? Trends in minimum sea ice extent are continuing downward. If you don’t agree then take my offer.
seaice1
Remove the 2012 Arctic cyclone caused outlier minimum and you’ll see that the turning point in Arctic ice loss was 2007. 2012 aside, the other seven years since have had minima above 2007 -and there is now growing evidence of an increase in multi-year ice.
Without getting lost in semantics, ristvan is correct: an increase [ever so slight] in both extent and volume qualifies as a recovery.
Whether that observation fits with your narrative is another matter all together.
tetris: Take out the 2012 minimum and 2016 is the minimum for volume and probably extent.
Please remember that weather is not climate.
Anthony,
As always, a worthwhile, informative, article, but, this one, with its forthright, take-no-prisoners, strong, writing style, brought a smile to my face as I thought, “Anthony’s back.”
So glad that the mighty ship Watts has finally made it through stormy, narrow, Devastation Pass into the deep, wide open, sunlit, sound. Full ahead!
Looking forward to more fine writing,
Janice
P.S. And the thread reflects your bold and powerful fact-driven tone — GREAT COMMENTS, so nicely stated with gusto. What a great bunch you all are, you WUWTers!