Guest drive-by by David Middleton
NEWS 27 SEPTEMBER 2018
Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral
At 4.6 million square kilometres in coverage, this year’s sea ice minimum is the sixth lowest on record.
Arctic sea-ice cover following this summer’s melt was the sixth lowest on record, the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, announced on 27 September.
[…]
There are 40 September ice extent minima “on record”… How is the 6th lowest out of 40 the continuation of a “spiral” or anything else?
Spiral
Which definition of “spiral” fits this graph?
The “the sixth lowest on record” is the continuation of 12 years of no significant change in the September extent…
References
Fetterer, F., K. Knowles, W. Meier, M. Savoie, and A. K. Windnagel. 2017, updated daily. Sea Ice Index, Version 3. [Indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NSIDC: National Snow and Ice Data Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.7265/N5K072F8. [Accessed September 26, 2018].
- ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis
- ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/Sea_Ice_Index_Monthly_Data_by_Year_G02135_v3.0.xlsx
Middleton, D.H. 2018. Another Dis-alarming Analysis of Arctic Sea Ice. Watts Up With That?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“6th lowest on record”
How long is your record?
From the article:
“There are 40 September ice extent minima “on record”… How is the 6th lowest out of 40 the continuation of a “spiral” or anything else?”
The idea of spiral comes from a polar plot where the accelerating loss until 2007 forms a spiral. It’s a little obtuse to pretend no to know what this refers to. No one is suggesting the graphs presented here look like a spiral.
However, that fact that it has been essentially flat for over a decade now means the spiral is now a going nowhere circle. THE DEATH SPIRAL IS DEAD.
No one seems to making headlines about the decelerating ice loss. No “we must act now” value in that fact.
Any cross-section of a downward spiral would oscillate around a central axis with diminishing amplitude.
It would look like this, except it would be losing amplitude as it spiraled downward…
I think that the definition intended has nothing to do with circular motion. Rather, the def. is one of the definitions presented in the article — “a continuously accelerating decrease”.
And, even using this definition, they clearly do NOT know what it means, because there is NOT any “continuously accelerating decrease” in the ice.
“Downward spiral”, then, should properly be, “normal oscillation” or “oscillation within the norm”.
… which, of course, would make for a really boring headline.
I suppose they’re talking about the modern satellite era.
If you look at proxies going back 1500 years, it appears that modern ice extent is much greater than it used to be, and was for possibly thousands of years. link
Satellites started mapping Arctic sea ice in 1974. 1979 is used as a starting point because 1974 and 1975 sea ice was significantly lower than 1979, as stated in the 1990 IPCC report.
Satellites started mapping Arctic sea ice in 1974. 1979 is used as a starting point because 1974 and 1975 sea ice was significantly lower than 1979, as stated in the 1990 IPCC report.
34th highest on record?
Touche
Six. How so?
Tied for 6th to 8 th place surely ?
” I do not think it means what they think it means.”
Numpty Dumbty Warmunist: “When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
No, not so much a spiral because it never converges to zero or diverges to infinity, regardless of your coordinate system, polar or Cartesian.
Polar would be interesting as it would need be a yearly cycle, that would look like a wobbly elliptical orbit. When over lapped it would be rather obvious that the wobbles in the orbit will lie well within a rather narrow band.
But of course the heart and soul of the issue here is not the scary trends no matter how scary but whether there is evidence that the scary trends can be made less so by cutting emissions.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/04/does-global-warming-drive-changes-in-arctic-sea-ice/
If there are no scary trends, than emissions don’t matter.
Plus cutting emissions will not change anything.
I sarcastically disagree. 😉
Cutting emissions will change a lot of things many for the worse, but climate won’t be one of them.
Fantastic statistical analysis!!!!!! Congratulations for all your long effort. I am sure that Willis Eschenbach will be very interested in this. Williiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis where are you?
Globally, the coolest September in the last 10 years.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2018 was +0.14 deg. C, down a little from +0.19 deg. C in August:
“Oh no. It’s worse than we thought!”
Lack of arctic sea ice seems to have been a constant problem over the years. That the alarmists suggest it’s a “new” one is the bigger problem.
I can’t recall where I came across the link (probably here) but I kept it.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/173619274
any day now the artic will be ice free
Don’t tell these guys:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/10/03/three-arctic-communities-fear-theyve-been-cut-off-from-winter-supplies.html
The art of misinformation. Don’t outright lie but convey a false message.
Slightly OT…. Interesting thots by CH 13 weatherman in Tampa FL today. High records set all month in Tampa, but always 5+ deg higher than I see at my home. 95+ compared to 90+ almost always! He is suggesting it “may be” because the thermometer is next to the Tampa airport!! He doesn’t really believe all the records. Should I refer him to Anthony and his study? The weatherguy said they [area weathermen] even conferenced about it.
Yeah, I watch that channel every morning for local news, traffic and weather. The temps are at the airport and always read higher than the surrounding area, sometimes by 4-5 degrees F.
ROTFLMFAO @ur momisugly Middleton…
..
..
Posts a graph from 2007 to 2018 (11 years) and thinks it indicates a “trend.”
…
Maybe Middleton should investigate the meaning of the word “trend” (in climate terms) instead of posting a bunch of gibberish about “spiral.”
…
Next time post 30 years worth of data so we can determine a “trend.”
Where did I say it was a trend? I see your grasp of the English language hasn’t improved.
Where you put “y=0.0005x=0.6701, R2=0.0029” in your graphic.
…
LOL @ur momisugly you, too much sniffing that drilling mud.
y=0.0005x=0.6701, R2=0.0029 = No trend
Check your local community colleges… There should be some affordable ESL classes. Once you have a moderate grasp of English, take a basic math classs.
C. Paul Pierett,
The graphic and the equation “y=0.005x=0.6701” [sic] were clearly noted as an indication that there has been no significant change from 2007-2018, not an indication of a trend.
Did you eat lead paint chips as a child?
Middleton and Jankowski ,
…
Both of you seem to have missed the point, so let me put it in simple terms so that both of you can understand how ridiculous your argument is.
…
SEVEN YEARS OF DATA IS NOT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE A TREND OR ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT.
…
You both flunk basic climatology 101.
Hence the lack of assertion of a trend. Really dude… Seriously look into ESL classes.
Putting a linear regression line into seven years of data is pointless Middleton. There could be a trend in the data, and there could not be a trend. You’re wasting your time.
I’ll type this slowly… R2=0.0029 = No trend.. Do you have a native language? Maybe I can get a translation.
Basic English for Mr. Mud Sniffer:
..
Your time interval is too short to discern a trend.
…
Are the words “interval” and “discern” too big for you to comprehend?
Middleton asks: “Where did I say it was a trend?”
..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/02/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-downward-spiral-warmunists-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-they-think-it-means/#comment-2476319
…
I respond, every time you post no trend in these comments.
You respond like someone who doesn’t speak, read or write basic English.
[Seven] years of data is much much better than one tree (YAD061).
[And seven years of severe data is much more series than one severed tree. .mod]
OMG………
…
LOOK AT THE PAST SEVEN YEARS:
.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2011/plot/uah6/from:2011/trend
…
0.4C in SEVEN years.
…
By 2100, it will be 4.5 C warmer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
…
Get it?
ESL is your friend.
https://teach.com/become/what-can-i-teach/tesol/
https://youtu.be/GDkVjsSSDbg
Then you can move on to remedial artithmetic. 2007-2018, inclusive, is 12 years… out of a 40-yr “record.”
30 years doth make a trend/and or significance Mr. Drilling Mud Sniffer. Putting that linear regression line in your graphic, and claiming “no change” makes you the person in need of remedial climatology 101.
I can’t more highly recommend ESL than I already have. The Nature article clearly, and in English, said “Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral’… It hasn’t continued the “downward spiral” since 2007.
Since 2007, Artic sea ice extent has hovered around the low-end of natural variability.
C. Paul Pierett
Thirty years doth suffice to make a trend – for someone trying to avoid having to face the reality of what a 65 year data set would show (a 65 year pseudo-sine wave).
What is the 65 year ice coverage trend?
It is not correct that there is only 40 years of data. There are 46 years of data, however as discussed by a contributor on another thread, the early years they reported 10% ice instead of 15%. As a result there was “a drop” in sea ice coverage in the 1980’s when they moved from reporting 10% to 15%, which of course was a smaller number.
This trick is covered in the book “How To Lie With Data When Lying With Statistics Isn’t Enough”.
I will bet you a box of Smarties that the Arctic 15% ice coverage minimum area next September will be greater than it was this September.
I will bet you another box of Smarties that the GAST will be lower next year than it is this year, even after adjustments.
That’s a sweet offer.
Seems that Mr Drilling Mud Sniffer has no comprehension of what 2-sigma means. Now he’s telling me I should attend ESL classes.
…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
…
Does Mud Sniffer understand what “standard deviation” means:
LOL, glass houses.
..
ROTFLMAO
Dude… Learn how to read.
In French…
Dude, leare hoe’t jo lêze.
What’s dude in French?
What your funny little graphic with the regression line (y=0.0005x-0.6701, R2=0.029) fails to show is that 2012 has the lowest extend for the entire satellite record.
Dude, you are picking cherries out of the mud you are sniffing…..I know how to read.
You got one right!!! Treflik!
The lowest value of the 40-yr satellite record, the bottom of the spiral, occurred 7 years ago.
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017… 2018.
Since 2007, there has been no trend.
Again, “Since 2007, there has been no trend.”
…
You can’t say that, you don’t have a long enough time interval to determine it.
…
Remember you said: “Where did I say it was a trend?”
…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/02/arctic-sea-ice-continues-its-downward-spiral-warmunists-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-they-think-it-means/#comment-2476319
…
Make up your mind
Hello C. Paul Pierett
Have you ever read anything about the German 1938-39 expedition to Antarctica? It is fascinating, and unlike the modern “ship of fools”, they did not get stuck in the ice.
They brought along two large float planes that could land on ice. They photographed areas of the coast line and compared what they found from previous German expeditions. You really should examine those too.
In the meantime, relax have good drink, Antarctica is not trending downward. nor is it in a death spiral. The Germans placed marks to claim their part of the continent and documented the locations. Many were at the limit of their aircraft’s range. No you will not find them, but they were replaced by markers of other nations.
Guess the rest.
michael
Dude, you are picking cherries out of the mud you are sniffing…..I know how to read
from reading your replies in this thread, it’s pretty conclusive that you do not.
We get it. You were made to look foolish and don’t know how to handle it. Nobody made a claim about a trend in the data, and now you are making trends with short-term data to show how silly making trends with short-term data is.
By the way, 2007-2018 is seven years in your language, dimension, or IQ bracket?
John, it’s not that he doesn’t know how to read, but rather he’s desperate to discredit any claim that goes against his religion.
As a result he has to result to ever more ridiculous and unsupported claims.
His goal is distraction and delay, not education.
C. Paul Pierett October 2, 2018 at 5:53 pm
Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, so clearly, CO2 increase had no effect there.
Arctic sea ice fell from 1979 to 2012, but has risen since then. It fell from 1979-88, from 1989-98 and from 1999 to 2008, but it has stayed flat for the past decade, bottoming out in 2012. Based on observations over the past few centuries, we know that Arctic sea ice extent fluctuates naturally on about a 60-year cycle, so we should expect 2009-18 to average higher than the past decade.
Paul,
The 5th Assessment report evaluated the temperature haitus from 1998 to 2012, and calculated its trend.
I suggest you do a little reading before posting nonsense.
@C.P.P.
Dude, I would buy you a clue, but it looks like it would be wasted, so I will save it for a beer to toast that the ice has not had a significant change since 2007. It just doesn’t fit the agenda of some though.
AK, do you know what 2 standard deviation means?
nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
We could probably all agree on beer… or at least adult beverages in general… 🙂
@cpp
Well I suppose I do know what 2 standard deviations is since I work with GPS static data and have done so since the 1990s. So I I’ll buy another beer on that failed attempt.
But enough feeding the trolls for now
Isn’t this the point of the article.
My article or Nature’s piece of schist?
The first chart is 40 years, the second chart 12 years.
Most of the ice extent decline appears to occur over the 1998-2007 decade. 40 years ago, the ice was at or near the maximum for the last 100 years IIRC.
Maybe close to the maximum for the last 10,000 years.
2007 to 2018, inclusive, is 12 years. Again, empahsising the fact that you don’t seem to speak English, the Nature article asserted that, “Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral”… It hasn’t continued the “downward spiral” since 2007.
Take an ESL class and get back to me.
Moderator, if Middleton continues with this ESL thing, is it OK for me to call him an arse-hole?
[No. But thank you for asking. .mod]
That might earn a wee bit of respect from me… 😉
If I am not mistaken, you are more or less a contemporary of the current nominee for SCOTUS. Did you ever run in to him in one of your drunken stupors while you were at SCSU in New Haven?
I graduated in 1980. His freshman year at Yale was a couple of years later. I wouldn’t be surprised if we frequented some of the same bars… But SCSU drunks generally stuck to the inexpensive dive bars near our campus (Keg House, Malone’s West, Village Pub).. $0.25 drafts and $1.50 pitchers were our economic guidlines. Yalies could usually afford Toad’s Place and other “high-dollar” establishments… bottled domestic beers and imports like Heinekin and Moosehead.
LMAO, you talk about ESL for me, but you don’t deny my insinuation that you’ve had “drunken stupors.” Ha ha ha ha ha
…
If the word “insinuation” too big for you, Mr. Google will provide you with a definition.
[Cut it out. Now. Address the math, address the science, address the conclusions. Nothing else. .mod]
Your ESL issue is independent of my sobriety, or lack thereof… particularly regarding my Animal House antics in the late 1970’s.
Maybe you like four letter words better.
..
..
Can you spell L-U-S-H?
…
Especially since you can recall the prices of beer so well…
[Cut it out. Now. Address the math, address the science, address the conclusions. Nothing else. .mod]
Dude… Economic geology is what I do for a living. The math of volumetrics and product prices works just as well for beer as it does oil.
🍻
The definition of lush in 1970 isn’t that much different than the definition of lush today.
If you contend I have an “ESL” issue, I’ll contend you don’t have a clue what the word “trend” in climatology means. Especially your silly graphic posted in the article.
In the actual post, I never used the word “trend”… because there hasn’t been a trend since at least 2007.
However, here’s where the ESL bit comes in… “Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral”… was the headline of the Nature article that I was ridiculing.
Again… [pruned] You continue to [pruned also] argue against your own discombobulated version of what I posted.
Seriously Mr. “mod” I would appreciate it if you’d get on Middleton’s case about this “ESL” thing. I know you have to defer to him because of his status as someone that would give Willard a blow job and I would not, but come on why can’t you be “fair?”.
English is my primary language, or at least American English is. So, the mod’s don’t need to get on my case about ESL. Although, some of the mod’s are even more fanatic about grammar than I am.
Maybe I can help. From the NATURE article that David M referenced in his article:
“The most recent calculations, from 2017, show that Arctic sea-ice coverage each September has declined by 13.2% per decade. A relatively cool July helped to slow this year’s rate of loss.”
If there were any “spiraling” going on, then this percentage would not have been reported like this, but rather as a percentage of accelerating DECLINE. But NO mention of “accelerating decline” was made, … just a straight percentage of 13.2% per decade.
Now note the part of the NATURE quote about how the “cool July helped to slow this year’s rate …” . If the rate SLOWS, then it is NOT accelerating downward, which means NO “continuing spiraling downward.”
Another quote from the NATURE article:
“Since satellite records began in 1979, the 12 lowest extents have all happened in the past 12 years. The record low came in 2012, at 3.39 million square kilometres.”
So, NATURE seems to think that twelve years is an adequate frame of reference within which to notice low patterns. It just so happens that these 12 years constitute NATURE’s frame of reference within which the 12 lowest extents in all previous data have occurred. NATURE thinks this is enough time to note that 12 lows have happened, compared to the forty or so over which data has been consistently gathered, with little consideration for the greater expanse of geological time that came before this meager 40 or so. NATURE chooses twelve years out of forty or so, because these twelve years show what is desired — LOW points. But again, these low points are NOT ACCELERATING LOW POINTS. Hence, there is positively zero “spiraling downward”.
The NATURE headline is a lie. Simple as that.
Paul,
30 years of climate data is what’s considered a climate “normal”. There is nothing restricting calculating a trend of a lesser time period in climate studies.
In fact, the last IPCC assessment report examined a temperature haitus from 1998 to 2012 and gave its trend.
I suggest you read a little more before posting nonsense.
Speaking of cherry picking, why not go back several hundred years or even several thousand years.
Why is the last 30 so special?
Oh, this is exciting. Your Johnson is out and your bladder appears to be full to overflowing. We haven’t had a good pissing contest around here for 2, maybe 3 hours.
I get so confused. The ‘scientists’ sneer at the Bible crowd for having claimed that the earth is only 4500 years old (sure that claim was over a hundred years ago but it still makes a good story) while we all know that the earth has at least 4 Billion years of history.
And yet, the Warmists insist on only using 40 years of that 4 Billion year history and extrapolating doom in the future from it.
Am I wrong to think this ridiculous? It is worse than watching a 2-second clip of a 3-hour football game and predicting the winner based on that.
No you aren’t. What jumps out about climate “scientists” is the short attention span they have. There are in geology numerous models that agree reasonably well for planetary climate and atmospheric content that span hundreds of millions of years. No serious geologist, paleontologist, or archaeologist would call any record spanning a period of a mere 2,000 years from the present “paleo-” anything. That’s “historical.”
There’s a big gray area betwwen 1978 and the Early Holocene between present and paleo. Our side notes this, their side obscures it.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
This is what Global Warming looks like.
Warning – may cause nightmares.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-like
You purport to show theoretical global warming since 1880. In that case, most of your temperature map should be colored in grey, i.e., no data.
You show no grey at all.
Big fail, followed by, so what? Few deny the earth had been warming since the end of the little ice age, but few believe there is justification to extrapolate that warming into the far future.
Perhaps you should finish your education before going further.
Satire. An acquired taste, I know.
Yes – I see it now, the corkscrew pattern, swirling, swirling, downward, and going faster and faster, like the water in a toilet after it’s been flushed. Oh wait, sorry, that’s climate science I’m describing. The ice is fine.
Nah… I just opened a bottle of wine.
…and flat for the past 3 years
The whole time while China is cranking it out
It seems like yesterday.. sigh… the Arctic was suppose to be ice free by 2008…
I thought I once read on this site that the NSIDC was going to recalculate the way they measure the ice. I also recall them saying in the same article that the new way would result in slightly lower ice area.
Am I nuts?
Area vs extent… They still rely on extent.
They changed the method they used to calculate the monthly mean from the daily values to make it more intuitive (the previous method did not match the average of the daily extents). The monthly values did decrease slightly, the daily values did not.
The satellite arctic sea ice record started in 1979, a year in which the arctic ice extent was the highest since the hot 1930’s. Remember, we are in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s, and the arctic sea ice was building to a peak in 1979 as the temperatures cooled off. Then in about 1979, the temperatures started to increase and the arctic sea ice started melting.
Starting a chart in 1979 does not give the entire picture of arctic sea ice.
Unfortunately, that’s where the official satellite record begins.
What about the earlier 1973-1979 satellite data? What is that not in the “satellite era”? I assumed “they” picked the 1979 starting point because that was the recent maximum area. If you were to point out that ice extent increased from 1973-1979 that would imply that the Arctic region was cooling, which if course it was for the previous 3 decades.
It is interesting, given the comments above about 7 years as a data set, that the Climategate emails show Phil Jones et al worrying about a 7 year temperature pause. It shows that 7 years is a significant length of time to have a major prediction of CAGW fail.
I also think it is hilarious that the warmists assume the Earth is 150 or maybe 1000 years old, and therefore data can’t be older than that, while complaining about creationists saying it is 6500. The Alarmed could improve their presentations by agreeing with the creationists that the Earth is at least 6500 years old then plot the sea level, temperature proxies and CO2 over that time frame. T’would be interesting to see.
OT: A great lady just up the road in Waterloo won the Nobel Prize for Physics this week for her work on femtosecond lasers. Congrats.
“The satellite arctic sea ice record started in 1979, a year in which the arctic ice extent was the highest since the hot 1930’s.”
why would it matter that the 30s were hot? do you think there would have been less ice. why?
This is what I love about Mosh… The trick questions.
Arctic Sea Ice Reconstruction
It occurred to me that there might just be a relationship between the temperature anomaly and the Arctic sea ice extent. So I went to Wood for Trees and downloaded the historical NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Index. Then I cross plotted an annual 13-month running average of the sea ice index against the average of the station anomalies and the GISP2 reconstruction (Kobashi et al., 2010) and found a pretty good correlation (R-squared = 0.67)…
Fig. 4) Warming Island Temperature Anomaly vs. NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Index.
Using the equation “Sea Ice Index = (-0.5976 * Temp. Anom.)+12.374” I calculated a Model Sea Ice Index.
The “Model Sea Ice Index” (white curve) is very similar to the measured sea ice index (cyan curve)…
Fig. 5) Arctic Sea Ice Extent Model: 1880 AD to present.
Using the same equation, I extrapolated the Model Sea Ice Index back to 1000 AD using the GISP2 temperature data from Kobashi et al., 2010…
Fig. 6) Arctic Sea Ice Extent Model: 1000 AD to present.
The model suggests that Arctic sea ice had been steadily expanding from ca. 1150 AD up until ca. 1800 AD and has been declining since ca. 1800 AD.
Next, I carried the model back to the Early Holocene using the Alley, 2000 GISP2 reconstruction…
Fig. 7) Arctic Sea Ice Extent Model: Holocene
This suggests that the sea ice contraction during the instrumental era (1979-2011) is not particularly remarkable.
Calibrating the Model
Realizing that my model has been extrapolated about 8,000 years away from real data, I decided to compare it to some real data. McKay et al., 2008 demonstrated that the modern Arctic sea ice cover is anomalously high and the Arctic summer sea surface temperature is anomalously low relative to the rest of the Holocene…
Fig. 8) Chukchi Sea Ice Extent: Holocene.
My GISP2 (Alley, 2000) sea ice model is generally consistent with McKay et al., 2008…
Fig. 9) Comparison of Arctic sea ice extent model to Chukchi Sea ice cover.
Conclusion
“Move along, there’s nothing to see here.” The Arctic sea ice has “been there and done that” many times over the last 10,000 years without any anthropogenic assistance.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/warming-island-greenland-sea-regional-climate-and-arctic-sea-ice-reconstruction/
You even made a constructive comment…
+100
For me or Mosh?
For you Dave ofc
It fell under the wrong comment
Sry
Thanks for the excellent comment and charts, David. You provided what I was looking for: The longer-term picture about arctic sea ice.. As you said, “there’s nothing to see here” with regard to human-derived CO2.
Kudos to you David. You put in a lot more effort than was necessary (certainly more effort than I’d have bothered) to respond to a Mosh drive-by. Pity he’ll not respond to a word of it, and if he ever does reply to it, it’ll be just another of his patented drive-by postings.
The “effort” was in 2011. I just copied part of one of my early WUWT posts and one of his comments… “Same as it ever was”… 😉
David, even just copy/pasting a 2011 comment is more effort that his drive-by’s are worth. so well done for going even that little bit extra.
After digging up that old post… I think I’m going to see if I can improve on that reconstruction.
steven mosher, In reply to Tom Abbott.
The highest Arctic Sea Ice average levels (across the entire year, and for the Jan-May growth period) are NOT 1979, but 1982-1983.
Arctic sea ice extents (average for the year) were growing from 1979-1983.
The Arctic sea ice has a negative feedback that is ignored by those proclaiming their “Arctic death spiral” for friends and profits.
Less Arctic sea ice means more heat is absorbed between mid-April to mid-August each year into the newly exposed Arctic Ocean. There is no doubt about that. But less Arctic Sea Ice ALSO means more heat is lost from that same exposed Arctic Ocean over the remaining 7 months of the year (and, indeed, over the 5 months of continuous arctic sunlight) than is lost from an equal ice-covered surface.
So, less Arctic Sea Ice (at minimum in Sept) means more heat lost from the Arctic Ocean =
A colder Arctic Ocean surface in Jan-Feb-Mar =
More sea ice gain the next March-April-May.
“Too much” sea ice through the summer =
Less heat lost from the Arctic Ocean +
More heat energy reflected from the ice-covered areas =
A warmer Arctic Ocean upper surface =
More melting in mid and late summer =
A smaller Arctic Sea Ice minimum in September.
Two points,
1) Absence of ice does allow the water to absorb more energy from the sun, however at those low angles, the amount of extra heat is small.
2) Even in the summer, absence of ice allows more heat to escape from the water.
Whether the extra heat being lost is more or less than the extra heat being absorbed is a question I can’t answer.
“2) Even in the summer, absence of ice allows more heat to escape from the water.”
Not true.
This study …
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/2006JD008230.pdf
Shows that in July there is 122 W/m^2 of SW entering the Arctic ocean domain and just 19 of LW leaving.
Therefore a net solar warming (for July).
Anthony Banton
Absolutely. No question that the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean (if sea ice is below “average” ) will absorb more solar energy between mid-April and mid-August than is lost by the increased heat loss from that same area of ocean. And the Arctic sea ice anomaly IS CONSTANT all year for all practical purposes. The Arctic sea ice anomaly does not decrease in the fall, winter, or spring.
Now. What are the net heat exchange values for every month between mid-August and mid-April?
Careful.
We “use” 1979 as the start date for the satellite record of Arctic Sea Ice Extent (and Area).
The first number was recorded for 26 Oct 1978.
However, the first 6 years of the satellite record, the values are written for alternating “days”. Tuesday would be recorded, then Thursday, then Saturday, then Monday …
So, for the month of September, there are only:
36 “years” of values for Sept 2,
36 for Sept 12,
36 for Sept 22, etc.
For Sept 2, we only know 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1986. ’87 on is continuous.
For Sept 3, we only know 1979, 1980, 1982, 1985. Skipped ’86, then ’87 on is continuous.
For Sept 4, we repeat Sept 2’s years. Up until ’87 again, when the record becomes continuous.
For Sept 5, again – 1979, 1980, 1982, and 1985.
So, we have “as much as” 36 year’s of arctic sea ice values. For many dates from 001 to 366, we only have 32 records! (And even fewer for leap years).
Now, 32 years’ of data is “more than” Mr C. Paul Pierett’s “much-hyped 30 years of climate data… Even if non-continuous years can be included in that series.
However, for Arctic sea ice minimum – which IS across the month of September , we actually have:
18 years (1979-1996) of near-steady high arctic sea ice extents. Yes, average Arctic Sea Ice was higher in Sept 1996 than in Sept 1979!)
Only 9 years of steady decline (1997 – 2006) – Yes, only 9 years of decline!
And now 12 years (2007-2018) of steady (not increasing, not decreasing) Arctic sea ice minimum extents.
However, since 2012, Arctic sea ice minimums have generally been increasing – and 2018 is greater than 8 of the past 12 years.
Increasing definitively since 2012? Not really.
But no longer decreasing.
Now, what “trend” should be developed for Arctic Sea Ice minimums in September?
Arctci sea ice maximums show a general decline – there is little to show a cyclic pattern. But the Arctic Sea Ice minimums show a cyclical 60-70 year cyclical trend. And with only 9 years of decline out of 36 years of recorded sea ice extents? What evidence – other than a straight line – shows a continuing decline in future Arctic sea ice minimums.
Besides, Over the entire year, less Arctic sea ice over the entire year means “More heat energy is lost from the exposed Arctic Ocean to the infinite blackness of space than is gained in the five months of excess sunshine on that same Arctic Ocean.”
Test
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/04/09/scientists-just-figured-out-whats-causing-earth-to-wobble.html
I think that’s just another exhibit for the prosecution in the trial of “The Science Is Settled™”! The science is never settled!
Think your right considering the wheel weights on a tire.
I need a bumper sticker that reads: “Avert the next ice age – burn more coal!”
Instead of a serial, perhaps it is shaped more like a slinky stepped on by an elephant.
One Aussie politician, albeit a backbencher, talking sense.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fossil-fuels-craig-kelly-liberals-climate-20181003-p507ia.html
I do not know for sure but in 1979 we were still in a time when “Climate” scientists were predicting a coming ice age. I would be it was also a time of increased artic ice so that a chart starting then would be cherry picking. Can someone with more knowledge in the area confirm or deny my thoughts. I remember the time frame because I was a working applied mathematician in space sciences and was a contrarian even then because i was predicting the global warming.
Oooops, anybody seen my figures for 1949-1979?!
That change from 10% to 15% ice cutoff point in 1978 is real weird, because sea-ice has ”always” been recorded/reported in 10% increments (the international 10-ball scale where 0-ball is ice-free and 10-ball compact/fast ice).
That change in one fell swoop made all older sea-ice records incompatible and impossible to recalculate to the new standard. It also makes any current ice-reports intended for practical use (like e. g. Canadian, Danish, Norwegian or Russian ice service data) incompatible. There is no “1.5-ball”.
Incidentally 1-ball is usually regarded as maximum for pure sailing vessels and small craft without icebreaking capabilities.
So one can only wonder was this a very unthinking or a very deliberate decision?