NOAA’s Arctic report card released at #AGU17

Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region of recent past decades

Despite relatively cool summer temperatures, observations in 2017 continue to indicate that the Arctic environmental system has reached a ‘new normal’, characterized by long-term losses in the extent and thickness of the sea ice cover, the extent and duration of the winter snow cover and the mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic glaciers, and warming sea surface and permafrost temperatures.

Highlights

  • The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2017 is the 2nd warmest since 1900; however, cooler spring and summer temperatures contributed to a rebound in snow cover in the Eurasian Arctic, slower summer sea ice loss, and below-average melt extent for the Greenland ice sheet.
  • The sea ice cover continues to be relatively young and thin with older, thicker ice comprising only 21% of the ice cover in 2017 compared to 45% in 1985.
  • In August 2017, sea surface temperatures in the Barents and Chukchi seas were up to 4° C warmer than average, contributing to a delay in the autumn freeze-up in these regions.
  • Pronounced increases in ocean primary productivity, at the base of the marine food web, were observed in the Barents and Eurasian Arctic seas from 2003 to 2017.
  • Arctic tundra is experiencing increased greenness and record permafrost warming.
  • Pervasive changes in the environment are influencing resource management protocols, including those established for fisheries and wildfires.
  • The unprecedented rate and global reach of Arctic change disproportionally affect the people of northern communities, further pressing the need to prepare for and adapt to the new Arctic.

Video:

There are several sections of the report, for temperature, sea ice, etc. You can access each section here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017

One graph in the sea ice section caught my eye:

Time series of ice extent anomalies in March (the month of maximum ice extent) and September (the month of minimum ice extent). The anomaly value for each year is the difference (in %) in ice extent relative to the mean values for the period 1981-2010. The black and red dashed lines are least squares linear regression lines. The slopes of these lines indicate ice losses of -2.7% and -13.2% per decade in March and September, respectively. Both trends are significant at the 99% confidence level.

The September rate of loss is about 4 times higher than the March rate of loss. This suggests to me that something I’ve long mentioned – albedo changes which primarily manifest themselves in the summer when there is more incoming solar radiation might be a big part of the issue. Carbon soot, specifically.

This is supported by something I covered at AGU14: satellites detect albedo change in the Arctic, resulting in more absorbed solar radiation

From that study:

Since the year 2000, the rate of absorbed solar radiation in the Arctic in June, July and August has increased by five percent, said Norman Loeb, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. The measurement is made by NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments, which fly on multiple satellites.

sea_ice_fraction_change_and_absorbed_solar_radiation_change[1]

The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed. The increased darker surface area during the Arctic summer is responsible for a 5 percent increase in absorbed solar radiation since 2000. Image Credit: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio/Lori Perkins

While a five percent increase may not seem like much, consider that the rate globally has remained essentially flat during that same time. No other region on Earth shows a trend of potential long-term change.

 

Advertisements

250 thoughts on “NOAA’s Arctic report card released at #AGU17

  1. start at 1979, when sea ice was at an EXTREME HIGH.

    Either they are WILFULLY IGNORANT of the fact that for most of the Holocene, sea ice levels have been MUCH lower than now,

    …, or they are DELIBERATELY LYING to push the AGW socialist global Agenda.

    • Yes, but now it is lower than it was at the low point in the 1940s…

      And historic sea ice lows in the past (e.g. Eemian) were under quite different conditions which do not apply today – yet we still see year on year decline in extent (including winter extent), mass, thickness…

      • No way of knowing what sea ice levels were in the 40s. So don’t make such a dishonest statement Griff.
        2nd world war records are absent, and all other records around that period are manual and/or anecdotal, and very patchy – assuming areas with no records had ice or you can extrapolate – as per the fake record of extent back to 1850 that has been concocted, is also dishonest. But nothing you wouldn’t expect from bad/dishonest ‘climate scientism’. As for rate of change – vast areas of the Arctic can shift climate ‘overnight’ naturally. And both post 1919 and 1979 – this happened suddenly after very cold/high ice years.

      • The Eemian was around 120, 000 year ago (snip). !!

        Current extent is above what it has been for 90-95% of the current interglacial.

        During the first 7000-8000 years the extent was often “summer ice free”

        The extent has been level for the last 10 years…

        (snip)

        Andy, personal insults like this are unacceptable. Stick to reasonable discussion – Mod

      • “Yes, but now it is lower than it was at the low point in the 1940s…”
        Gee, I didn’t know we had satellites in the 1940s

      • Typical Griff, when data is absent, just make it up.
        All we have prior to the satellite era is a handful of ships logs.
        Not enough to say anything regarding the state of the entire arctic. Not that reality ever bothered you.

      • Griff, where is your “year on year decline” ?

        There is considerable year to year variabilty in both directions so that claim in a non starter.

        2016 and 2017 were indistinguishable from ice extent in 2007. That is a decade of NO cumulative change in either direction. No decline on a decadal timescale.

    • the ice will come and the ice will go. we will also wax and wane. we will however never control that which makes the climate and environment function. It is fun to speculate and have interesting things to talk about.

    • Calling recent changes “unprecedented” is clearly lying, deliberate deception. If they mean without precedent in the last 37 years of the current 8000 interglacial they should say so.

      Arctic environmental system has reached a ‘new normal’

      This ‘new normal’ is tacit recognition that Arctic ice is now indistinguishable from where it was ten or eleven years ago, they just try to spin it the same catastrophe they have been wailing about despite the fact the ice loss has ended.

      Nice to see such great minds finally realise what I pointed out some time ago: The Death Spiral is Dead

      https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/the-death-spiral-is-dead/

  2. The large summer sea ice losses – unexpected so soon by the experts back in 2005 – and the lack of equally large declines in polar bear numbers as predicted, is the point of my 2017 polar bear paper that the Polar Bear Specialist Group members are so afraid the public will notice.

    Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3

    Hence, in my opinion, the Bioscience attack paper published November 29 this year https://polarbearscience.com/2017/11/29/polar-bears-refused-to-die-as-predicted-and-this-is-how-the-propheseers-respond/

    • Hi Susan, You are doing great work.. don’t let “them” get to you. 🙂

      I STILL can’t get one single one of the polar bear bed-wetters to explain how the polar bears survived the first 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene, when sea ice levels were MUCH LESS than they currently are.

      • I fully agree. The only answer I’ve ever heard to an early Holocene ice free arctic is that it’s never happened because it isn’t possible that it happened, never mind the inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

        This is kind of a kick-in-the-gut for me because I have profound respect for Ian Stirling. Oh well, even Einstein got things wrong. link

      • AndyG55 – December 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm

        I STILL can’t get one single one of the polar bear bed-wetters to explain how the polar bears survived the first 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene, when sea ice levels were MUCH LESS than they currently are.

        I’m pretty sure that Griffy is fully qualified to explain that to you, ….. and iffen he does, …. I am sure he will attest to his actual, factual knowledge that the Polar Bears have evolved with an “inherited survival trait” that is the same as that which the Ptarmigans and Arctic Foxes possess.

        Griff is likely to claim that at the “start” of the extremely warm 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene “Climate Optimum”, …… when all the Arctic ice and snow began melting away, ….. all Polar Bears began shedding their “white” wintertime fur and replaced it with “brown” fur like that of the Grizzly Bear.

        And when the “Climate Optimum” ended, some 4000 years ago, the Polar Bears switched back to their “white” fur. Like the “seasonal” switch by the Arctic Fox, to wit:

        http://www.factzoo.com/sites/all/img/mammals/arctic-fox-summer-coat.jpg

        Picture caption: “As winter approaches, the arctic fox’s brown fur gradually changes into a thick, white coat.

        Yours truly, …… Eritas Rabuf

        And ps ….. for all you doubters, to wit:

        Polar Bear-Grizzly Hybrid Shot in Canadian Arctic

        TORONTO – A DNA test has confirmed what zoologists, hunters and aboriginal trackers in the far northern reaches of Canada have dreamed of for years: the first documented case of a grizzly-polar bear in the wild.

        Roger Kuptana, an Inuit tracker from the Northwest Territories, suspected the American hunter he was guiding had shot a hybrid bear after noticing its white fur was spotted brown and it had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly.

    • Hi Susan – Thanks for your PB articles. You may wish to note that the UK’s BBC today put out an article highlighted on their front page as Was starving polar bear ‘face of climate change’ – or clever PR?. In the article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42322346), at least they did acknowledge that there was a clever PR argument, but they studiously avoided presenting any information to support it.

      • I guess the ability of Joe Public to double check and find a more rational and reasonable explanation is starting to hit home in the MSM. Times they are a changing.

      • “the UK’s BBC today put out an article”..

        Trump has turned the whole “fake news” thing into a game…..now people all over the world and looking and trying to find all the fake news they can…and it’s backfiring on the media big time

      • This absolutely captures the attitude of the BBC – not just on climate change, but any cause célèbre
        of the morally pompous, disconnected ‘progressive’ bourgeois: they equate lying to the public to ‘clever PR’. I’m looking forward to disconnecting my TV next year and avoiding the license fee..

      • Bill,

        That’s right. The polar bears of 1979 were the same ones which survived the ice-free Eemian Interglacial and Holocene Climatic Optimum. But then they started dying like flies, because man-made CO2.

    • I noted the bullet point:

      Pronounced increases in ocean primary productivity, at the base of the marine food web, were observed in the Barents and Eurasian Arctic seas from 2003 to 2017.

      The apex of any food chain can hardly do anything but better when the base gets more productive. (Technically, polar bears are just below the apex, which is of course Homo Sapiens – but we’ve abdicated that position, at least in the Arctic.)

      • Yep, the opening up of the Arctic would have been a godsend to all life up in that region.

        Humans especially would have benefitted, with travel, commerce, fishing etc all becoming possible for more than a fraction of the year.

        Unfortunately, it looks like the recovery from the extremes of the late 1970s is over, and the re-freeze will gradually start to take place.

      • @Writing
        I don’t know that I’d agree we were ever the apex predator in the Arctic. If’n that polar bear wants the seal you just landed, you’d better be right handy with that ’30-06. If’n you don’t have a ’30-06 or similar hardware with you, you’d better hope your cardiovascular system is in real good shape and the bear would rather chow down on the seal than chase his entree.

      • AndyG55 December 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm

        … travel … becoming possible for more than a fraction of the year.

        Actually, there are places in Canada when travel is easier in the winter. The Hudson Bay Lowlands are a boggy mess and impossible to travel in the summer. In the winter you just hop on your snowmobile and head over to the next town a hundred miles away.

      • D. J. Hawkins
        December 12, 2017 at 8:34 pm

        Canadian Rangers are turning in their antique .303 Lee-Enfields for a locally produced .308 version of the Tikka T-3. With a good hunting bullet, they should be barely adequate for anti-polar bear applications.

      • Apparently the modelers now attacking Dr. Crockford didn’t understand the environment they were modeling.

    • The field studies tend to be published some time after the observations and populations are not all covered….

      Yet there is clear evidence of impacts around the Beaufort Sea, Svalbard and Hudson Bay (also Wrangel and Baffin Islands)

      I continue to be puzzled at your partial recounting of evidence gathered by others

      • Griff – you are aware that polar bears are not immortal and grow old, or get disease, or are out-hunted and die? See http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/co-evolution/pred-prey/co-evolution_predator.html on predator prey relationships. It is not clever to find a dying predator and claim the reason must be warming, and it demonstrates gullibility and confirmation bias to believe a picture like that shows an effect of warming. Starving predators is what will be seen whenever their numbers rise above the level of their prey required for their food.

      • Yeah, that reminds me, have you apologised to Dr Susan Crockford yet, or aren’t you man enough to admit you were wrong.

      • Griff,

        What you keep failing to realize is that polar bear population has increased dramatically since 1979, not fallen. More importantly, you keep not getting that there is no reason to imagine that their numbers should be hurt by lower summer sea ice. They don’t need summer drift ice to survive and thrive. The only sea ice which matters to them is landfast ice in the early spring, on which females raise their pups in snow lairs over holes in the ice..

        Their main prey item, ringed seals, are also thriving.

      • “What you keep failing to realize is that polar bear population has increased dramatically since 1979, not fallen”

        Polar Bears obviously struggle to survive when there is TOO MUCH sea ice 😉

  3. “The sea ice cover continues to be relatively young and thin with older, thicker ice comprising only 21% of the ice cover in 2017 compared to 45% in 1985.”

    Give it at least 15-20 years of cooling to thicken the ice up. It didn’t all melt or thin up at once, and it will take a few decades of further cooling to cycle back to where it was in 1985. But the trend is back to more ice extent, as well as more multi year ice.

    • Check out the time-lapse satellite imagery from late 1984 through 2016 (from about 1:18 through 1:35 of the video). It clearly shows multiyear ice getting pushed into the Greenland sea (between Greenland and Svalbard) by cyclical (annual) storm activity. The multiyear ice is not melting. It’s just getting pushed out of the Arctic by annual storms.

      • Louis
        Wise words.
        The pressure cycle influencing Arctic summer sea ice is now on the decline. While there will be variances 2012 was the summer low point and unlikely to be beaten. Winter maximums will be variable in the short term.

        The ozone hole will also continue to reduce in both area and minimum ozone values, on average.
        Regards

  4. “Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region “

    Nor should it.

    To get back to that stage would mean the world dropping back into Little Ice Age conditions.

    Only the most ignorant of agenda driven fools would want that.

    • That is a great point, Andy. The Earth is warmer now than it was 150-200 years ago – don’t believe that is debatable.

      All things considered, if the Earth remained at it’s current temperature, with minimal fluctuations for the next 100 years, one might expect that we’d continue to see a gradual downward trend in the Arctic sea ice extent – and thickness; same for the size and volumn of other ice sheets and glaciers the world over. Naturally, there’d be some diversity here and there – as there is now; but with the oceans driving normal cycles of decadal weather pattern changes. (Note – one could also continue to shrill for the next 100 years that, ‘this past year was as warm as the past 10, 20, 50, 100 years on record – proof of man-made global warming.’ LOL).

      Conversely, had the Earth remained locked at the temperature it was at during the cold bottom of the Little Ice Age, one could have expected a general trend of the exact opposite.

      • “I’m not sure how many more years or months I’m going to be able to work “

        Is his climate trough drying up? , here’s hoping !!

        Or maybe he is running out of dry bed sheets !!

    • Indeed shouldn’t NASA at the lease acknowledge that as we move away from the last LIA and the world slowly and naturally warm-up again the Arctic ice cap should quite naturally shrink.

      • Oops typo (again)
        Not —
        “Indeed shouldn’t NASA at the lease…”
        But —
        Indeed shouldn’t NASA at the least…

  5. How can the “global reach” of something “disproportionately affect” a local group of people?

    That is simply nonsense, no matter what you are talking about.

  6. There are arctic ice estimates from before 1978 and the current series of satellites. The real issue is that the current situation might be an artifact of measurement, with good data starting at a high ice year.

  7. Is there any way of detecting higher levels of carbon soot (etc) on the ice, other than by taking its temperature?

    • Mike Jonas

      Is there any way of detecting higher levels of carbon soot (etc) on the ice, other than by taking its temperature?

      Yes, mid-summer and early spring arctic sea ice albedoes are consistently lower today at 0.42 to 0.54 from what the Soviets recorded back in their ice island research papers of 1950-1970, and the 1970-1980 European and Canadian and American polar expeditions. I use J Curry’s 1998 daily SHEBA measurements of sea ice albedoes for my day-by-day heat exchange calc’s – Her lab was on a Canadian icebreaker floating in the sea ice between latitudes 74 north to 79 north from late March to early October. She shows a recent minimum of 0.42 in late July, with one day’s readings as low as 0.38

      Very, very different from the earlier 0.65 and 0.70 average monthly albedoes in mid-summer.

      • I find these figures a little odd. Given that albedo is a dimensionless number scale ranging from a black body at zero to a perfect mirror at 1, I would expect to see a marked visual difference in an albedo shift of effectively one third of the total scale range. Is such an obvious change observed?

      • So much light is reflected by the ice in the arctic in summer that the difference is probably not very apparent to the naked eye. There is always “enough light” or “too much light”. Ever hear of snow blindness?

  8. How does CO2 warm the oceans? They clearly identify warm water as the cause, so how does CO2 warm the oceans?

    • Obviously you did not get the memo that in spring CO2 starts to increase and in fall CO2 starts to decrease. This of course is the cause of oceans warming in spring and summer and cooling in fall and winter.

      • LOL, I thought the seasons were due to the orbit and tilt of the earth relative to the sun. Silly me, CO2 causes the seasons.

  9. As far as I can see , Arctic sea ice is behaving pretty much exactly as you would expect if its main over-riding influence was the AMO.

    Its been level for the last 10 years according to MASIE so the recovery from the extreme high of the late 1970s has most probably stopped.

    https://s19.postimg.org/90mpuhc37/MASIE_Growth.png

    AMO is starting to turn down.

    Interestingly, you can see the affect of the AMO even during the LIA, as shown here on the Icelandic sea ice index.

    https://s19.postimg.org/yc38073hv/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_3.png

    It is going to be HILARIOUS watching the antics of the Arctic sea ice bed-wetters as the extent starts to climb over the next few years. 🙂

      • Tony, as usual YOU are ignoring the main point made here,which is that the last TEN years, it has been nearly flat as your own chart shows clearly for the summer minimum.

        It is no longer going down anymore for the summer minimum,which is no big deal for Polar Bears anyway.

      • It was “clearly” flat between 79 and 88 and went up from 90 to 96., etc. So?
        I’m ignoring the so-called “main point” for a good reason: the overall trend is “clearly” down. As it is with concentration and volume. Look at the mean – if anything the loss is accelerrating. Look at the latest – all three below trend. Sorry but “clearly flat” is rubbish…and it’s now warmer.

        But who cares if its warmer anyway?

      • From Stein et al,. 2017:
        The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be…coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

        It’s still decreasing…so, um…never mind.

      • “tony mcleod December 12, 2017 at 9:23 pm”

        I guess in response to my question. I click on the link, I just see a bigger graph. No source data.No links to source data. I have only your word in that post. Credibility shrinking even more Tony.

      • “The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be…coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.”

        You really have ZERO CLUE what that statements means

        Yes, there was a decrease in solar activity during the Neoglaciation, leading to the Little Ice Age,

        Since then, and particularly during the latter half of last century, there was a Grand solar maximum, with the highest solar activity in many hundreds of years.

        You really need to get passed your kindergarten understanding of things, (snip)
        Real data shows that the average Arctic sea ice has been basically ZERO TREND for the last 10 years,

        (snip) again- stick to reasonable discussion and stop the insults – Mod

        https://s19.postimg.org/90mpuhc37/MASIE_Growth.png

      • “Look at the latest – all three below trend. Sorry but “clearly flat” is rubbish…and it’s now warmer.”

        Actually the graphs, especially the red one, clearly demonstrate a poor fit to a simple linear regression. The points are generally below the line at the start of the series, and at the end, and above in the central section. This suggests that a curved fit would be better than a line. The curve would then probably show a leveling off and potential upswing at the end would be a better fit than a curve with an accelerating decline – but I can’t be sure until I’ve looked at the data – this assuming random normal errors etc.. There is software available to look at this free if you are interested.

      • “tony mcleod December 12, 2017 at 5:46 pm
        HILARIOUS, not.”

        You describe yourself and your actions extremely well, McClode.
        Internet bully shouting with all caps is not a surprise. Not that toddler/adolescent temper tantrums ever work.

        Why does McClode use a graph that cuts off data halfway through 2015?
        It appears there is purpose to graphs that ignore 2017’s very definite Arctic reversal with an early freeze-up and rapid ice gain.

        I checked Nansen’s data and they have Sea ice Area and Extent records right through to December 2017.
        Yet, that graph fails to recognize or illustrate recent ice growth; allowing drama queen trollops, like McClode, it’s fallacious claims.

        Nor is Nansen’s data all that clean with frequent way out of cycle outliers.
        What do that graph’s owners do with single days that show 42% sea ice extent loss overnight with a 171% sea ice extent growth the following day; e.g. February 18th, 2006.

        Or missing data?
        Oddly, those missing days are generally right at peak ice season; e.g. 2012 is missing 9 straight days of peak ice extent.
        How do monthly, seasonal, annual averages work when substantial portions of maximum ice extent are missing?
        They don’t.

        But then, McClode never demonstrates that it reads the links it provides; with the majority of legitimate McClode links proving the opposite of McClode claims.

        Extremely pitiful and disappointing doom-monger groupies like McClode, pretend to swoon while falsely claiming nature suffers from CO2.

        Yet, you overlook or flat ignore Arctic and Antarctic ice trends utter failure to demonstrate any relation to CO2 emissions or atmospheric levels.

        In this thread, McClode appears to not have bothered to read the article or questioned NOAA’s party line activism.

        The question framed in this article asks why Arctic’s sea ice extent has dropped. Especially since temperatures do not support ice melt theory.

        One major question and a very likely culprit is reduced Arctic albedo with known soot deposits.

        Another major point by Louis Hooffstetter describes the simple physical function where winds, storms and currents are pushing ice out of the Arctic.

        What part of McClode’s CO2 doom theory accounts for ice physically moved to warmer seas?
        That claim is bound to be Keystone Kops amusing. Right up there with NOAA’s unscientific activist Arctic ice screed.

      • Over the last 35 years or so (based on your graph), summer sea ice is down by about 1/3 while average extent is down by 15% and maximum extent down by 10%. If you look at the temperature profile in the arctic over the course of the year, it is clear that there will likely always be winter ice cover for the foreseeable future. Why the panic, especially when it is clear we have increased arctic productivity and increased numbers of polar bears. And given that there are observed irregular ~60 year cycles in ice, hurricanes, the AMO, etc., one needs to look at >30 years to see if things are an actual new trend are just part of the next cycle. The AMO for example has 1/2 cycles that range from 25 to 45 years.

  10. “In August 2017, sea surface temperatures in the Barents and Chukchi seas were up to 4° C warmer than average, contributing to a delay in the autumn freeze-up in these regions.”…..

    ..and not one word about all the other areas that were colder

    ” thicker ice comprising only 21% of the ice cover in 2017″….

    which is a major improvement over the past few years….

    “slower summer sea ice loss”…..

    and guess what that left over ice is going to be next year?……more thicker multiyear ice

  11. A “new normal”… newer than the last new normal, which was newer than the last new normal, etc. Another new normal soon. No end of short term “new normals” in a longer term cycle.

  12. “Arctic tundra is experiencing increased greenness and record permafrost warming.”

    How are they measuring “increased greenness”? That seems subjective, but maybe there is a paper on it somewhere.

    • Tucker

      “Arctic tundra is experiencing increased greenness and record permafrost warming.”

      That “increased greenness” (darker, more absorptive surface sticker further out of the snow with longer branches and more limbs) is caused by today’s increased CO2 levels in the arctic, and thus more energy absorbed and warmer arctic temperatures around the arctic ocean sea ice.
      But the moss in today’s longer, heavier, thicker, polar bear furs is also greener than before. 8<(

  13. “The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed.”

    Incoming solar radiation isn’t part of the GHG Effect. Their own explanation rules out CO2 unless you can explain how more CO2 allows more visible radiation to reach the oceans.

    • co2islife
      “The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed.”

      Thats the albedo effect, not the GH effect. Two distinct phenomena.

      • tony mcleod, co2islife

        “The Arctic Ocean is absorbing more of the sun’s energy in recent years as white, reflective sea ice melts and darker ocean waters are exposed.”

        However, at the southern edge of the arctic ice cap, the summer sun is only able to warm those newly-exposed Arctic ocean waters 4 months of the year. The rest of the time, less sea ice = greater heat loss from the open waters = a net cooling effect over the entire year if the ice area is less than its “established” averages.

      • McClod, you really should learn at least the very basics before you comment.

        Actually try to comprehend what is being said, for once.

        It will stop you from continuing to make a monumental fool of yourself.

      • Yep, that is my point. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Warm water melts the ice, the ice no longer reflects the heating visible radiation, etc etc. It all has to do with warming water, something CO2 doesn’t do.

      • “but you’ve done me a power of good.”

        Made you realise what a clueless brain-washed twerp you are ?

        Once you realise your inherent ignorance, maybe you can start working to fix it…..

        …. although I see very little progress so far. 1 step forward.. 3 steps back.

      • OMG!! I’m still laughing!! Thanks for gut-buster laugh Tony.

        But okay I’ll give it a stab.
        55-56 Mya… really?? uncertainty abounds. Maybe a sustained volcanic event through shallow water coal beds. Maybe those newly evolved land mammals liked their big SUVs running on extinct dino-juice? Who knows?

      • “Gut-buster”? Soz, I’l try and tone down my comedy a bit for ya.

        No, no I think it’ll be good. It’ll be so much warmer in uninhabitated cold places – so just good all round.

      • I’ve been eyeing some beach front property up on Baffin Island. Whatata think Tony? Should get it and build a liitle tropical style bungalow there?

      • Certainly, that amount of temperature change would have caused the release of a lot of CO2, CH4 from oceans etc

        Only if you believe the unproven myth of the CO2 warming effect are you stupid enough to believe CO2, CH4 actually caused it.

        STILL waiting for a paper proving empirically that CO2 causes warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere.

        You are still and EMPTY SACK, McClod.

      • “I’l try and tone down my comedy a bit for ya”

        Now if only it was intentional comedy, and not just you being McClod the village idiot.

      • And the PETM occurred when earth was already much hotter than now, and on track to get more so after the spike.

      • Tony,

        No they don’t.

        And if there were carbon pulses, the resolution is such so as not to be able to distinguish cause and effect. A hot flash would naturally release more carbon dioxide from the ocean.

        In at least two of the best supported hypotheses, carbon is an effect, not a cause, ie ocean circulation changes and orbital mechanics.

      • IMO oceanic circulation explains Paleocene and Eocene warmth quite well.

        The Arctic Ocean was practically landlocked and much less salty than now.

        https://sites.google.com/site/thepaleoceneeocenethermalmaxim/_/rsrc/1472780986664/2-paleocene-climate/Eurasia%20at%20time%20of%20PETM.jpg?height=420&width=309

        During the Paleocene, a land bridge connected North and South America, as now, but South America was still at least tenuously connected to Antarctica. The Tethys Sea ran from the then narrow Atlantic to the Pacific, between Europe and Asia on one side and Africa and the northward-drifting Indian Plate on the other.

        http://www.scotese.com/images/E060_zonef.jpg

        http://www.scotese.com/images/D050_zonef.jpg

      • “How else do you explain the PETM?”

        Let me see… I can remember the following serious hypotheses:

        1. Impact of a volatile-eich comet
        2. Large-scale Peat Fires
        3. Oxidation of shallow water sediments upraised above sea level by the opening of the North Atlantic
        4. Liberation of Methane from deep-sea clathrates
        5. Large scale ocean overturning
        6. Contact metamorphism of organic deposits during the opening of the North Atlantic
        7. Large scale melting of permafrost in inland Antarctica.

        I gather that you believe in #7. All of them have problems, but #7 at least has the good point is very difficult to disprove, since access to paleocene deposits in inland Antarctica is nonexistant.

      • There was quite a bit of carbon in the air and a peak at around 55 million years ago, I didn’t think that was contraversial as a contributor to the reportred up to 8 degrees of warming.

      • “What you on about bubba?”

        Wrong question, mod…..you should have asked,

        “What are you ON, this time….

        ….. which mind-numbing hallucinogenic of choice, McClod.”

  14. How on earth can we compare ice extent to historical records? it is obvious that with today’s technology that measurements are going to be rather bias, instruments are advanced to such a degree that a slight deviation would show as a massive change, hand written evidence prior to Satellites where hand eye coordination and susceptible to “mistakes” come on guys sensors vs thermometers not a good race is it.
    moan over. next.
    Has anyone actually realised that ice caps move with the magnetic poles! drifting around the Arctic and Antarctic regions since time began, obviously where ice forms in one decade may have “shifted” in the next decade.
    We “Earth” have reached the pinnacle in TSI (total solar irradiance) as of solar cycle 23, we are now in the declining phase of solar activity, we only have to look at previous sun spot history to see that every 206 yrs we slip into a Grand minima, solar cycle 24 was the lowest sun spot activity cycle since cycle 14, NASA changed their graph projections 4 times before reaching a final, prior to this we had the Dalton cycles 5/6 and prior to that the Maunder of 1645-1745.
    Now i am not saying climate change isn’t real, i am saying that yes indeed we did go through a ” warm phase” but we have been here before Medieval, Roman just to mention a few, are we now supposed to ignore proxy data sets, ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, stalagmites.
    Do we not see the correlation between sun/earth climate forcing? low solar activity= more Cosmic rays in turn resulting in cloud nucleation summer rain increases winter snowfall increases, i am leaving it here for now as this ridiculous and totally unfounded idea that a trace gas (CO2) is causing the “Temperature” anomaly is starting to annoy me.
    Please read this on CO2.
    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

    • David, I totally agree. The recent ( in historic terms) slightly increased winter and night time temperatures and slightly lower summer temperatures is caused by variations in cloud cover and the type of cloud cover, which in turn is caused by variations in cosmic rays. The Physics is very clear, radiance does not heat real greenhouses, convection does. The earth has no ‘glass roof’. Radiance in the atmosphere is a net zero effect.
      The rest of the CAGW stuff is numerology, with invented inputs and outputs into ‘models’ that some people worship , presumably because they otherwise have empty lives.

      • This whole AGW BS story will some day be looked back upon as the Dark Ages of scientific inquiry, right up there with Eugenics and Lysenkoism.

    • Yes, indeed David I Birch,
      but what also tends to be overlooked, is the upper stratospheric warming that happens over the poles, not only during solar coronal mass ejections but also when there is an Earth facing solar coronal hole.
      Isn’t awful to think that when the next Carrington event happens we will not have the technology to see how much of the Arctic ice is left.

  15. It’s pretty dark up in the Arctic right now. As in no sunlight at all just like it has been for 4.4 billion years.

    Assuming this situation continues for another several billion years, …

    … The ice ain’t going anyway any time soon no matter how much climate scientist need to be taught about the tilt of the Earth.

  16. Time series trends have no meaning as the least squares trend is made only for dependent x and y variables. For a line it is y = mx + b, a variation of y = f(x), y is a function of x. Since sea ice is not a function of time, this trend is garbage and is statistically illiterate. Also, for the past 8 years, the trend has been flat. Since NASA is saying time makes ice in this trend, the only solution we have to raise sea ice thickness is go back in time. This makes sense to NASA’s greatest scientists. In the meantime, no experienced trader of commodities uses time series trends of commodity prices to predict the future price. They only look for breakouts from the trend. They never attempt to time breakouts. This means that our brightest statisticians go into commodity trading, and the idiots go to work for NASA.

    • +1,000 LMAO.

      As I like to say, “the “trend” is meaningless without EVIDENCE of CAUSATION,” for exactly the reason you (indirectly) discuss. The trend will change at the whim of the causes. And the causes ARE UNKOWNS in the field laughably called “climate science,” which at this stage cannot even explain past, KNOWN climate variability with any confidence.

      Note the same sort of “argument from ignorance” is put forward above, i.e., “How else do you explain the PETM?”, as in, “if you don’t have an explanation, it must be what I THINK it is.” Or as Piers Corbyn so eloquently expresses this logical fallacy, “If it’s not a dog, then it must be a cat.”

      • Until you look at a graph of CO2 and there it is; a ramp up with a spike. How much of 5-8 degrees is attributable to that is another question.

      • NONE. There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming

        Produce that empirical evidence if you think there is..

        Or remain, as always , an empty sack.

      • NONE. There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes greening,

        Produce that empirical evidence if you think there is..

        Or remain, as always , an empty sack.

      • Plenty of evidence, you pathetic anti-science non-entity.

        It has been presented to you MANY TIMES..

        You choose to remain WILFULLY IGNORANT of it.

        DENIAL of the most extreme kind.

      • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

      • Tony,

        That more CO2 has greened the earth isn’t an hypothesis. It’s a fact, ie a scientific observation.

        How could it not have greened the earth? By the immutable laws of physics, chemistry and biology, it has to do so. Past high CO2 regimes have also been more verdant, for obvious reasons. CAM and C4 plants, efficient in hot, dry climates, evolved in response to low CO2 epochs and periods, yet with higher than present levels of the life-giving gas.

        When air is enriched in the essential trace gas CO2, C3 plants, ie the vast majority of crops and all trees, need keep their stomata open less time to get the amount of CO2 they need to make sugar. Thus, they lose less water and can live in drier areas, like the Sahel, and grow more lushly in areas where they already exist, but on a starvation diet, as before recent fertilization by human activity.

        Hard to believe that anyone can be so blinded by false dogma as to d@ny such elementary science.

  17. > “The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2017 is the 2nd warmest since 1900”

    The North Pole wasn’t even reached until 1908-09.

    Busted.

    • There were weather stations around the Arctic circle during the late 19th century. There has never been any fixed records of temperatures above 85 N even since the satellite era, only weather buoys.

    • “The North Pole wasn’t even reached until 1908-09.”

      And probably not even then as Peary almost certainly didn’t reach the Pole. The Papanin expedition that flew in in 1937 were the first (though still about 20 km from the Pole).

      And there is not a single weather station on the Antarctic continent older than 1957.

  18. When Anchorage, AK, and Helsinki, Finland, are in the “Arctic” there is bound to be an UHI effect with some land station temperature data. Using 60 – 90N as a definition for the arctic places a very large area under consideration. Does anybody know if this area has always been used by NOAA to define arctic, or did it change at some point in the past?

  19. Since the year 2000, the rate of absorbed solar radiation in the Arctic in June, July and August has increased by five percent, said Norman Loeb, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. The measurement is made by NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments, which fly on multiple satellites.

    Then can Norman explain why are we not seeing an increase in temperature during those months?
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    (June 1 =152, August 31= 243)

  20. “The unprecedented rate and global reach of Arctic change … “

    Unprecedented?

    What’s the matter with these people? Seriously. You would think scientists would be obsessively precise in their statements. But no, they’re as reckless with their claims as a circus barker.

  21. “Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region of recent past decades”

    It will do when the AMOC slows down and the AMO becomes negative again like recent past decades.

  22. The DMI algorithm for sea ice extent 15% has given out again and is starting to go up. Time for a break in data for 6 weeks while they force a new adjustment through.
    Or will it [ever] go into a steep upcline?
    Fingers crossed, warm in Aussie today so should be absolutely freezing up north.

  23. “The September rate of loss is about 4 times higher than the March rate of loss. This suggests to me that something I’ve long mentioned – albedo changes which primarily manifest themselves in the summer when there is more incoming solar radiation might be a big part of the issue.”

    I think it is basically geometry. In summer, most of the sea ice border is away from land (passages are open, or nearly), and can move either way. Change in area is distance advanced by perimeter. In winter, the openings are narrow in the Pacific, and pretty much limited to the North Atlantic. In Canada and Siberia, the ice front in March is hard against the land.

      • If ice advances 1 km over a 100 km front, area gained is 100 sq km. If it is over a 400 km front, area gained is 400 sq km. Sea ice can only advance where there is open sea.

        • If ice advances 1 km over a 100 km front, area gained is 100 sq km. If it is over a 400 km front, area gained is 400 sq km. Sea ice can only advance where there is open sea.

          And thus, Arctic sea ice cannot expand too much past its current March-April maximums of 14 – 15 Mkm^2 sea ice. The Hudson Bay is completely covered. Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea are small areas each, and are now right at half covered by sea ice at maximum. Not much left to expand there. The total Arctic Ocean is 14 Mkm^2 – but there is only a little room around the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. Atlantic openings are very, very far south and will melt too fast.

      • And by the same argument, it can’t diminish much, until things change a lot. It doesn’t thaw at the top Canada and Siberian shores until summer. That’s the geometric argument why March area is more stable than September.

      • “until things change a lot”

        And they haven’t……

        Arctic sea ice extent is still above what it has been for some 90-95% of the Holocene.

        Above the extent of the MWP, and FAR above the extent of most of the first 3/4 of the last 10,000 years.

  24. Did they seriously say that this has been the second warmest September since 1900?!!!
    Because like they would know that…how? I don’t generally use profanity when I comment but on this occasion I will make an exception.
    NOAA is a f”cking disgrace and should be defunded immediately.

  25. There estimate of Greenland total mass loss seem suspect and I wonder if the failing GRACE2 satellite had any impact. 2014-15 and 2015-16 were estimated to have lost 190 Gt. During 2014-15 the surface mass only gained 200 Gt. From that we can estimate that Greenland must gain about 400 Gt each year to stay in equilibrium with glacier discharge.

    However in 2016-17 Greenland had gained 550 Gt of ice. That would suggest Greenland gained ice. Yet despite adding 300 GT more than previously, they estimate based on GRACE that Greenland ice loss had increased to 232 Gt .

    To be valid, that means 2016-17 had to discharge and extra 300 Gt, but that doesn’t jive with the trends in discharge the last 3 years.

  26. What “reliably frozen region”? That stuff blows around up there; any “reliably frozen region” isn’t likely to stay in the same place.

  27. My findings show that, on average, there has been zero warming in the SH, over the past 40 years.
    All warming took place in the NH.
    At the same time we see that over the past the (magnetic) north pole has been moving.

    https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.qQvtyZa9CbJcYpQNLgAe0AFHC-&w=200&h=105&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2

    Quite fast, actually, when you compare its position change over the past 50 years with that of a 100 years ago.
    I am sure this has to do with the magnetic stirrer effect that sun’s magnetic field has on the planets.
    Come down 1 km into a gold mine here (in South Africa) and learn how big the elephant in the room really is.

  28. A small wooden ship, the St. Roch, sailed through the Northwest Passage and across the high Canadian Arctic twice, in 1942 and 1944. Try doing that today.

    These voyages followed soon after the global warming period that ended circa 1940. What was the ice extent and thickness then? Probably less than, or no greater than today.

    Starting one’s graph on Arctic ice extent in 1978, after the ~35-year global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975 is dishonest – “loading the dice”” , a standard tactic of global warming fr@udsters.

    https://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/permanent-exhibit/st-roch-national-historic-site

    THE ST. ROCH – A TRUE CANADIAN ADVENTURE.

    Built in British Columbia, named after a parish in Quebec, captained by a Norwegian immigrant, crewed by farm boys from across the country, and helped by the Inuit, the St. Roch was the first vessel to sail the Northwest Passage from west to east (1940-1942), the first to complete the passage in one season (1944), and the first to circumnavigate North America.

    One of the only ships in service in the Arctic in the early part of the 20th century, the St. Roch is made of an unusual design of thick Douglas Fir planks reinforced with heavy beams to withstand the ice pressure and an outer shell made of some of the hardest wood in the world, Australian Eucalyptus ‘iron bark’.

    Between 1928 and 1954, St. Roch logged tens of thousands of miles crossing and re-crossing the Arctic, acting as a floating detachment of the RCMP in the North. At various times a supply ship, a patrol vessel and a transport, the St. Roch was the only link between the various scattered northern communities. Yet it had not yet accomplished the feat for which it would become famous. For many years, it had been the dream of Captain Henry Larsen to cross the Northwest Passage, just as Amundsen had done for the first time in the Goja in 1903. But time and time again, the dream had to remain a dream.

    Finally, with the outbreak of the Second World War and the Nazi invasion of Denmark (Greenland), the opportunity presented itself. Launched on its famous voyage on a secret mission to cross the Arctic during the war, this amazing vessel traveled through treacherous and uncharted waters to cross the Northwest Passage and the High Arctic, with only a small crew of steadfast men who had just their skill, talent and no small amount of luck to rely on. Incredibly, they managed to make the crossing not just once, but twice, and in only 86 days the second time!

    • “Less ice-cover in September gives more heat loss.”

      Less ice-cover gives more heat loss …. period. And when you look year to year at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php the increase of temperature and therefore the increase of heat loss has been happening almost exclusively in the winter.

      There does not appear to be any evidence that summer albedo has any significant affect on arctic air temperature.

    • Interesting plots, thank you. What is your source and your process (the ads.nipr.ac.jp (japanese ?) address I have not seen before..

      But your projected linear trend from 2002 through 2017 would be only be informative IF the sea ice were linear. And there is no specific reason to assume ANY linear relationship for sea ice (with date, CO2 levels, or the price of tea in China). If you wish to curve fit, even a crude sine wave fits the data better.

      Specifically, since “climate” is the most recent 30 years of data, the “classic CAGW arctic sea ice areas of 1979-1987 must be removed from your linear projection.

      Further, if a sine wave is assumed the three periods of interest then become :
      1986-1996 (Arctic decreasing, but when the Antarctic began its decades-long increase towards record high sea ice areas in 2014!),
      1996-2006 (decreasing but with a decreasing slope, as fits a sine wave nearing the minimum,
      and 2007-2017 (generally increasing since the low point of 2007).

  29. This report is nothing more than propaganda, as ice extent melt, etc has nothing to do with atmospheric conditions in the arctic ….. but rather is controlled by the rate of influx of warmer water from lower latitudes.

  30. The linear fit to the September min extent becomes less convincing with each passing year. It’s bottoming out. Time to try a polynomial or something.

    • Since retirement my goal has not to SEE ice unless it is floating in a beverage glass.

      We spend summers where glaciers define recent geology.

      Warmer is better,

  31. NOAA predicts Greenland’s Ice Mass will increase by about 44 Billion tons this year after losing about 150 Billion tons/yr since the AMO started its 30-yr warm cycle in the early 1990’s.:

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/greenland-ice-sheets-2017-weigh-suggests-small-increase-ice-mass

    AMO’s 30-year cool cycle starts from the early 2020’s, and many scientists expect Greenland’s Ice Mass to again increase. The weakest solar cycle since 1790 starts from 2021, which will also likely add to cooler global temps and added Greenland Ice Mass.

    Once Arctic Ice Extents start to show gradual increases, Greenland’s Ice Mass trends upwards and Antartica’s Ice mass continues to increase (as it has since 1992), ALL of CAGW’s dire predications will be busted: rapid global warming, Sea Level Rise, Ocean acidification, severe weather trends, etc.

    I really think we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of the most expensive political ho@x in human history.

    • yep, but as with all bitcoin-type bubbles the true cost is determined in the final increments of the hyped spike.

  32. NOAA still sounds like so many technical chart “experts” in the investment world of retail stock brokerage accounts. That requires a lot of chart watching and trend extrapolation indefinitely into the future with a noticeable lack of fundamentals involved.

  33. most of you are still clueless about the reason for the arctic melt
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/12/noaas-arctic-report-card-released-at-agu17/#comment-2691902

    In the 16th century my country man Willem Barentz went looking for a passage to east Asia via the north pole. Unfortunately they died trying to find it…
    Do you think they would have tried trying to find it unless there was some persistent evidence in history that it existed/?
    There is a 1000 years Eddy cycle
    http://euanmearns.com/tag/eddy-cycle/

    and if we count back 1000 years we find the reason why the Vikings thrived: when they are found to have landed even in Canada and started settlements in Greenland that only now are becoming visible due to the melting of the ice/snow….

  34. Just want to say I love reading the comments as much as I love reading the articles; also thank you to those who add additional info in the comments.

  35. Mod (or at least someone who passes as one).

    There is a certain Andyg55 who inhabits these threads, trolling/flaming anyone who dare go against the dominant denizen opinion
    If not Nick Stokes, then it is Griff or, as in this case, Tony McCleod.
    Oh, and me of course, as I am in the (overwhelming) minority here as well as the above. Mind I have learned that the only way to survive is to brush off such a this poster in brevity as it will be me that gets “snipped” otherwise.
    Here are a few of the person’s so scientific and insightful reposts to Tony – mostly – (on JUST this thread), and per post.

    “Again, we not the abject propaganda from McClod.”

    “But real data is an enema to you, isn’t it McClod.”

    “I see a clueless Clod.”

    “Made you realise what a clueless brain-washed twerp you are ?”

    “Poor phil.. all we get from him is a single chihuahua yap.
    So insignificant.”

    “You are still and EMPTY SACK, McClod.”

    “Now if only it was intentional comedy, and not just you being McClod the village idiot.”

    “What are you ON, this time… which mind-numbing hallucinogenic of choice, McClod.”

    “Or remain, as always , an empty sack.”

    “Plenty of evidence, you pathetic anti-science non-entity.”

    “DENIAL of scientific studies is the ONLY way you can keep your BASELESS CO2-HATRED going, isn’t it McClod.”

    Yet what reponse is met to the above by a mod when Tony makes a light hearted response to this trolling? …..

    “Gabro says

    “Tony,

    No they don’t.

    And if there were…”

    Lol

    [??? .mod]”
    …………………………
    “C’mon mod…

    I didn’t rob the bank…
    …but if I did…

    [What you on about bubba? . . . mod]
    ……………………………..
    Now I’ve aid this before, but if you really what a pure echo-chamber here then this is precisely the way to go about it.

    Your “Rules” ( in part ) as stated in your “Policy” section ….

    Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

    Publishing comments in SHOUTING MODE (all caps) is not acceptable.

    Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling.

    …attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted.

    And a perceptive comment at the bottom …..

    “The idea of the blog is to learn, discuss, and enjoy the interaction. Please try to keep that in mind when making comments.”

    Precisely.

    Reply: I’m just waking up and getting a read on this ~ctm

    • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

      • The so-called rules are a joke and I have come to realize that if you want to proffer anything here that contradicts the echoing you can expect abuse.
        Having said that my feeling is that individuals like our Parrot are just an embarrassment to the more moderate posters and they almost have my sympathy.
        I submit he does more harm to his cause than to anyone else’s. So in lieu of any action to prevent the abuse we should just thank him for exposing himself as a crank with nothing to add but peurile shouting who inadvertantly bolsters the arguments in favour of AGW.
        Thankyou Parrot and a merry christmas to you.

      • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

      • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

      • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

    • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

      • [Snip. Attacks too personal, you’re going to have to stop. Tone it down and discuss or argue calmly. And the last thing I want to hear is he/she/Ze/Zi/They/His majesty, started it first. ~ctm]

        [AndyG55 is now on moderation, all comments will need to be approved – Anthony]

    • Toneb
      December 14, 2017 at 2:18 am

      What’s your problem with my showing that even hypothetically Tony is wrong?

  36. Thank you for your (lack of) response moderator.

    Speaks volumes.
    You plainly only enforce your “policy” when perpetrated by the “other side”….

    As the childish comeback from the poster being allowed has shown.

    (Only two Mods can ban or put them in moderation bin,the rest of the mod team can snip,unapprove or trash comments. I have asked Andy several times to back off on his inappropriate words. One of the mods got tired of it to inform CTM about it. Appreciate your effort to expose it) MOD

    • Toneb, just got on and saw this. I checked Andy’s posts on this thread and edited a few. Hopefully he will get the message. If not we’ll take other steps.

      • Thank you DC Cowboy.

        And Gabro.
        Your definition of “proving wrong” is not mine, and also (mostly) not science’s either.
        This is a Blog.
        Also if he at least tried to provide “scientific evidence”, rather than do for the vast majority of his posts, what I have posted examples of … then I would indeed have no problem.

        It is the double standards that grates. If I or Griff or Tony or Nick were to do a fraction of what this “poster” does then we would be out. And quite right to as it is a plain violation of the stated posting requirements.
        I believe you have one poster who (quite naturally) responded to his goading and was banned for a time ….. quite right too as it happens, as it was over the top. However it was the trolling that made him do it.
        The freedom extended to this poster (and others not so bad) encourged him to do more – but then to come back to the other party just because he said “lol” begars belief quite frankly.

        You will not have intelligent discourse if you only operate in such an evironment, and a pure echo-chamber will be the result. What use is that except to vent anger, and it is apparent that this poster is very angry ….. or a child.

        Thanks again for response and I am heartened by it and the allowing of my thoughts on it.

        We may differ in thinking on the subject, and the Interrnet does many good things, but can also polarise if allowed.
        To much of that in the world just now.

        Reply: I’m not around much. I was pointed to this kerfuffle by an email from another mod who was not sure how to handle it. Blog policy. Do not directly insult another commenter in an argument. ~ctm

      • Yes. I also wanted to say that we are students and teachers to each other,
        so this is like a lecture room [in class/ university]
        it is a sacred place. Do not make it your toilet.

        One can always be polite whilst you make your point?

      • Toneb,

        Hilarious that you presume to lecture me on what is science, when you misquote me, while at the same time showing yourself clueless as to what the process in fact is. Science doesn’t do “proof”. That’s math.

        What I said is valid. I showed Tony wrong.

      • “What I said is valid. I showed Tony wrong.”

        Like I said Gabro.
        Your idea of “showing” is not mine or indeed science as QED this blog exists to gainsay it.
        Sorry, I take experts, especially a consensus, to be vastly more likely to be correct than wrong.
        And I said “consensus”, not daft individuals who shot their mouth’s off and got quoted in the sensationalist media, to remain for all time in the anals of contrarian myth.

        Is all of it wrong or just the bits you dont agree with? Because this blog makes it out to be ALL wrong….. unless the likes of Leif or Nick intervene, and an odd couple others intervene.
        Like when peple used to say to me as a weatherman. “The forecasts are always wrong”. My reply being, “That’s just as mpossble as being always correct”.

        And QED as to why denizens here come to get further polarised, whilst a tiny, tiny minority who can be bothered with the antics of certain “posters” make an effort to correct the misconceptions that get carted out in every thread.
        So, so many that the echo-chamber applauds. Not least the Sky-dragn Slayers …. also verboten (allegedly), in the “Policy”.

        Yes it’s a website my friend, and not science, no matter what you and denizens may think, and comes nowhere near the consciousness of climate scientists. Matters not a jot.
        If stuff is wrong it will be found out by others coming along with later papers.
        It doesn’t end at peer-review.
        Nor is it the “get of jail free” card of a “fraud”.

      • “Reply: I’m not around much. I was pointed to this kerfuffle by an email from another mod who was not sure how to handle it. Blog policy. Do not directly insult another commenter in an argument. ~ctm”

        Thank you.

        Indeed as you said blog, policy.
        Are you around enough to know that it is only applied to “warmunists”?
        The said poster has been at it long enough getting some banned by retaliation to the incessant goading?
        There are others – but not so bad.
        How about you email mods the “policy” for them to read, learn and inwardly ingest.

        Thanks again.

        [Your reply is noted. .mod]

        [I’ll send an email out later today reminding mods of how we like to see the policy implemented. I apologize again. I’m generally not around much and one always hopes things are going smoothly when unattended. ~ctm]

      • Toneb
        December 14, 2017 at 9:44 am

        Again, you display your fundamental lack of understanding of what science is. The consensus is always wrong until, as with the heliocentric theory, it is shown objectively true.

        I guess I need to quote Feynman to you: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” So your misconception of science is 180 degrees off.

        You really ought to study science before presuming to comment upon it, particularly to those who practice it daily.

      • “You really ought to study science before presuming to comment upon it, particularly to those who practice it daily.”

        LOL

        I worked for the UKMO for 32 years my friend (and not as. TV weatherman).
        And such have forgotten more Meteorology than you know.

        But, if it makes you feel happy, and I say to the “poster”.

        If you say so.

        Oh, and Charles.
        Your intervention is very much appreciated.
        Thanks again.

      • Well said Toneb.

        Mod said: “I have asked Andy several times to back off on his inappropriate words.”
        [snip]

        Just so I have this clear – my posts are flagged for moderation and this individual is only having his more abusive filth gently snipped, retrospectively?

        (His future posts are now going into moderation,no more abuse will show up) MOD

        Reply2: You should tone it down as well. ~ctm

      • After months of open sluice gates, snipping that out is a breathtaking double-standard.

        [you’ve got your own set of problems with commenting sir, don’t elevate yourself further – Anthony]

      • Toneb
        December 14, 2017 at 11:46 am

        Not surprised in the least, since the UKMO quit practicing science long ago.

        Government science is activist bureaucracy, not science. Engineering is another matter, as with the A bomb program and NASA moon shots.

        You still haven’t replied to the fact that science is not the consensus of self-styled experts. It’s testing hypotheses by showing them false of confirming them based upon falsifiable predictions.

  37. NOAA and NASA Admit the Sun NOT CO2 is Causing the Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear
    NOAA and NASA appear to understand the real cause of the loss of Arctic Sea Ice, incoming solar radiation. The one thing they don’t and can’t do is explain how increasing CO2 can somehow make more visible radiation reach the oceans and surface of the earth. If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t blame CO2. If people want to know the truth about Climate Change and its causes, they simply have to watch NOAA’s videos and NASA’s graphics and take them at their words. Visible radiation is warming our oceans, no more explanation needed. CO2 simply isn’t involved.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/noaa-and-nasa-admit-the-sun-not-co2-is-causing-the-arctic-sea-ice-to-disappear/

    • co2islife
      “NOAA and NASA Admit the Sun NOT CO2 is Causing the Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear”

      Except thats not what they said. Thats just what you’ve made up.

    • Co2is
      From your link…

      “NASA’ Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies explains that the warming of the Arctic is due to 5% more solar radiation being absorbed since 2000. CO2 is transparent to the incoming warming visible radiation that warms the earth and oceans. CO2 traps a small amount of outgoing IR between 13 and 18µ, wavelengths that don’t penetrate or warm the oceans.”

      I would suggest that the “5%” more solar being absorbed since 2000″ is due to less ice extent …. in turn due to GW of any cause (+ve feed-back).

      CO2 “traps” a whole lot of outgoing LWIR, near the Earth’s emission of max lambda – ~15 micron……

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/Images/greenhouse_gas_absorb_rt.gif

      Doesn’t don’t penetrate far, but enough to warm the surface mm or so (the ocean surface is not a mirror, so some turbulent mixing). So then we have a surface/air interface that has a smaller deltaT to the warmer waters below. So what happens, as we do know how the 2nd LoT works?
      Less heat-flux from lower down to be able to transfer to the atmos.
      Reduced cooling and the effect is shown on the steady rise of OHC.

      • “Doesn’t don’t penetrate far, but enough to warm the surface mm”

        WRONG !

        LWR causes evaporation. This drags latent heat from the near surface, which actually COOLS the top 1mm or so by about 0.3ºC. (proven by actual measurement)

        Atmospheric CO2 acts purely as another conduit for surface cooling, transferring any absorbed energy directly to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere, where CONVECTION rules in the lower atmosphere.

        There is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming in our convective atmosphere. Has never been measured. It is a figment……… Produce such proof if you think there is.

      • Nice graph.. Shows the skin effect is NEGATIVE.

        Well done.. 🙂

        The WUWT link also shows a net flow of energy FROM the surface upwards.

        You are doing very well today 🙂

      • Toneb you say:
        ‘CO2 “traps” a whole lot of outgoing LWIR, near the Earth’s emission of max lambda – ~15 micron……’

        Are you aware that this is a minute amount of energy relating to a temperature of -88C?
        Are you also aware that CO2 has major absorption in the 1-2 and 4-5 um region, thus back radiating a considerable amount of incoming sunlight, so much so that we can pick it up and measure this radiation via the moon coming back to earth? So, how much cooling does the CO2 cause?

        Did you already check the temperature trend in your own back yard? You might get a surprise. Just use the results of a weather station nearby you.Here is a summary of my investigation:

        Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
        I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
        https://i1.wp.com/oi58.tinypic.com/2mnhh74.jpg
        The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
        I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
        https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg
        Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
        Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..

      • henryp December 14, 2017 at 7:14 pm
        Toneb you say:
        ‘CO2 “traps” a whole lot of outgoing LWIR, near the Earth’s emission of max lambda – ~15 micron……’

        Are you aware that this is a minute amount of energy relating to a temperature of -88C?

        A temperature of -88ºC has nothing to do with it. CO2 absorbs approximately 10% of the outgoing IR emitted by the surface.

      • And immediately passes the energy to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere.

        CO2 acts just as another energy conduit to the upper atmosphere, which is controlled by convection.

        It does not “trap” energy, or act like a blanket. The atmosphere COOLS the surface, no blanket does that.

        There is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming in our convective atmosphere.

        The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, nor in the Earth’s atmosphere, nor anywhere else in the solar system. It is an unproven FANTASY. !!

      • henryp:
        “Did you already check the temperature trend in your own back yard? You might get a surprise. Just use the results of a weather station nearby you.Here is a summary of my investigation:”

        FYI:
        I spent a sig portion of my career “check(ing) the temperature trend”
        In close monitoring of RST’s (road surface) during wintertime re ice formation.
        Does that count?

        “Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..”

        Yes I know that. It is the classic “Sky-dragon slayer” psychopathy.
        And beggars belief.

      • AndyG55 December 14, 2017 at 6:31 pm
        Nice graph.. Shows the skin effect is NEGATIVE.

        Well done.. 🙂

        The WUWT link also shows a net flow of energy FROM the surface upwards.

        And as Willis points out in that post:

        “And in both cases, this DWIR leaves the underlying water warmer, despite the fact that the IR is absorbed in the skin layer.”

      • AndyG55 December 14, 2017 at 9:51 pm
        And immediately passes the energy to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere.

        Instead of allowing it to pass directly to space therefore retaining the energy in the earth’s system.

        CO2 acts just as another energy conduit to the upper atmosphere, which is controlled by convection.

        It does not “trap” energy, or act like a blanket. The atmosphere COOLS the surface, no blanket does that.

        Except for electric blankets they all do that, the blanket is cooler than your skin, therefore it cools your body, however because of its heat transfer coefficient you cool down more slowly than if you were exposed directly to the air.

Comments are closed.