By P Gosselin on 12. September 2021
Norwegian data show September minimum Arctic sea ice has risen over the past 10 years, contradicting earlier predictions of a death spiral
By Kirye
and Pierre
Friday NTZ posted on Arctic sea ice extent. This year Arctic sea ice has just about reached its minimum. and so we plot the new data (see below).
Substantial drop – since 1980
But first, of course there is no denying that September sea ice extent has has fallen substantially over the past 4 decades. Yet, those accusing us of cherry-picking also should read the entire article from last Friday, which shows the real cherry picking is done by the alarmists starting their charts in 1979, knowing full well there’s data going back far beyond that time point.
Again here’s Arctic sea ice volume going back 170 years:
Today’s sea ice volume is similar to that seen in the 1940s.
And as Tony Heller has shown dozens of times, the early 20th century is filled with newspaper clippings of a rapidly melting Arctic, which of course later refroze during the middle of the 2th century.
Rising trend
Now here’s osisaf.met.no data on annual minimum sea ice extent:
OSI Arctic sea ice minimum since 2012 ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod_test/ice/index/v2p1/nh/osisaf_nh_sie_daily.txt
September minimum trend has contradicted Al Gore’s predictions of an ice free Arctic. Whether sea ice has turned the corner and will start a recovery still remains to be seen. One thing is certain: The predictions of an ice-free Arctic soon made a decade ago were flat out wrong.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Give it another 30 years.
[spam comment removed- Anthony]
[spam comment removed- Anthony]
*** MODS … LOOKS LIKE ‘Matty’ IS A SCAMMER ***
[spam comment removed- Anthony]
Absolutely right. At the moment, the downward trend is not broken.
What downward trend?
As always the trend you get depends upon when you start and when you end. If you take the satellite record this technology began in 1979, at a point of maximum sea ice of the last 50y. That is convenient for alarmists and scientifically challenged individuals whose depth of understanding of data analysis ends at fitting a linear trend to everything.
That downward trend is much less now than it was on 2007. That firmly disproves the mantra of “runaway melting” , positive albedo feedback and “death spiral”.
None of this is consistent with the idea that this is primarily caused by AGW. Atmospheric CO2 has been consistently rising in this period , yet the trend has been slowing.
Are you Phil Jones?
Text from article accompanying the image
“Arctic sea ice extent declined more slowly during August 2021 than most years in the past decade, and as a result, this year’s September minimum extent will likely be among the highest since 2007. “
It’s interesting that the sea ice in 2021 was following the trend of the relatively low years 2019 and 2020 up until about mid-July, then the ice decline rate decreased sharply in late July and August, so that this year’s September minimum is one of the highest in recent years.
So we have a month and a half of unusually slow ice melt late one summer, and this is enough to flip the trendline over 10 years from a negative slope to a positive slope.
Which is why we need to look at longer-term data, such as that presented for the 1860-2005 period shown in the article. In that chart, the Arctic ice volume seemed to hit a minimum during the 1940’s. Yet, during the post-World War II economic boom (circa 1946 – 1960) which likely resulted in increased CO2 emissions, Arctic ice volume was increasing. If CO2 emissions were causing Arctic ice to melt, why did the Arctic ice volume increase from 1940 through 1985?
Because it was really cold up there.
Quick! Call the Emergency Adjusters!
Don’t forget the factcheckers, aka factmolesters.
A short example of why using as much of the record as possible counts. One has an idea of the variability, and possible cycles.
And even with this, so what? Regardless of where we are, we have been here before. And while we can make guesses where it’s going based on existing conditions, trends and identifiable cycles (which may turn out to be entirely spurious), nobody really knows what will happen next. As was briefly popular to say in the ‘70s and/or ‘80s, why don’t we hide and watch?
One might even go as far as to say; the Arctic sea ice may be literally re-covering the ocean but not in the sense of recovering from some climate malady. In other words the ice is doing what ice does during an interglacial period. It shrinks and grows according to natural variation … ho-hum.
A Norwegian guided a small ship through the Northwest Passage over a century ago….he actually took 2 years brecause he wanted to spend the winter with the native people to see how they survived the winter…he went from Greenland to Alaska.
RCMP Captain Henry Larsen sailed the schooner St. Roche, West to East, through The North West Passage in 1940 – 1942 then made the return trip, East to West in 1944. She now rests in permanent dry dock in Vancouver B.C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Larsen_(explorer)
Clearly the current sea ice conditions in the Arctic are not unusual. Over the past 10,000 years there were likely ice free Summers.
That is shameful misdirection… there is no comparing that with recent conditions in which commercial vessels and cruise liners have just sailed through.
An ice fortified schooner, which over wintered on first passage and took 86 days on return IS not just like just sailing a cruise ship through, is it?
Especially accommpanied by a large icebreaker, no, it isn’t.
Same lies spewed by the same liar, as usual.
It would have been a lot tougher for the schooner.
Remember, according to foaming at the mouth giffie, it took the schooner two years to cross one way, then an entire season to return the other way.
If an ice fortified schooner actually made the trip. It does sound like giffie is describing an ice breaker.
Correct
but I guess the lovely heat energy exuded into the environment during transit by the 1 or 2 schooners could be less that the fantastic heat emitted into the water and air by the 2 tankers and cruise ships. and some will say its warming up there.
No cruise ships ‘just went through’, griff. Canadian Arctic is closed this year due to COVID and besides, per NSIDC, all the routes are iced up. There is a Canadian navy ship doing a passage, escorted by an icebreaker. You need to get out more…
An ice fortified schooner???
No it was considerably more challenging to do what Captain Larsen did. Conditions will never be exactly the same. You seem to specialize in making a fool of yourself. As a paid troll you’re certainly not giving good value.
You’re a terrible liar, Griff. This is misdirection right here from you in inventing fortified schooners.
Oh?
Then show a list of vessels that transited in 2020 or 2021.
e.g.,
Giffiepoo’s specious claims ignores that 2021 Northwest transits appear to have all been military ships and ice breakers.
The Great White Con website tracked open routes and sea ice all summer 2021.
The routes were not navigable. Let alone continuously open.
Route that did open were frequently closed within days.
Vessels have names and identification numbers. Until you list the vessel name and identification number, it didn’t happen.
Even for schooners fortified for ice breaking. Unlike most ships
Yes and it took him 2 years in a specially strengthened small vessel.
In recent years huge commercial vessels have made it straight through without icebreaker assistance in open water.
With radar and satellites, etc…
List them for us. Oh, yea, you wont. Russia has been using cargo vessels SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in ice choked conditions, and they have a very hard time getting through at midsummer. So, your lie spew is the same as always, just lie spewing.
First off, they were not run of the mill “commercial vessels”, they were specially designed for arctic conditions.
Secondly, the “small vessel” was powered only by wind, whereas the “commercial vessel” was powered by a much larger and more reliable oil fired power plant.
The St Roch did also have a 300hp diesel engine.
The first transit from Vancouver to Halifax took 28 months, but the return journey by the more northerly route took only 86 days.
Grifter as usual shows incredible ignorance of the subject. A few quotes from Larsens journal on the return journey 1944:
“While crossing Lancaster Sound, we ran into a strong south-easterly gale with snow and sleet. Due to the absence of floe ice, a nasty choppy sea came up.”
“The weather cleared after we crossed Maxwell Bay, Devon Island, which seemed suitable for shipping..”
“We left Beechey Island on August 22nd, passed Cape Hotham, Cornwallis Island, and Wellington Channel which was clear of ice to the northward”
“In the early morning of August 26th, we were underway again and heading westward for Melville Island. We enjoyed the first clear weather for days, and saw very little ice.”
“…followed the coast back and entered Prince of Wales Strait. There were only a few small pieces of ice, and wonderful clear weather and sunshine greeted us.”
In conclusion he writes….
“…but one thing is certain; modern ships will have the advantage in power and strength, and if held up will merely have to wait until a little later in the season. To future arctic vessels, the young ice which forms even in open calm water and which stopped us many times will present no obstacle. They will plough right through it.”
The main difference between the St. Roche voyages, and why they took the time they did, and modern passages was; Cptn. Larsen had to explore to find ice free leads. Modern ships just look at satellite pictures, check their radar and/or follow their ice breaker.
In short, Henry Larsen was exploring Terra incognita, unlike modern vessels. People like Griff believe that ships can now make the voyage every year, when in fact they can’t and are often stopped short, forcing them to back-track or abandon the passage entirely.
Indeed, his navigation skills must of been of the highest order, he encountered huge amounts of dense fog and god forsaken weather on his journeys. At one point, and for several days, the ships compass refused to point north.
Not all that surprising when nearly every direction is South, LOL 🙂 Yes Captain Larsen was a fine navigator and a very courageous man as well.
The St. Roche is a wonderful little ship, too. I’ve spent many hours studying her in her dry dock, to build a scale model.
Giffiepoo lied!?
The “fortified schooner”, Giffie claimed made the Northwest Passage transit is the St. Roch back in 1944?
🤣 🤣 🤣
Surely if you reply to Anti-griff you’ll just annihilate each other – or am I missing something.
Thor Heyerdahl sailed
Thor Heyerdahl, another Norwegian, sailed the Kon Tiki, a balsa wood raft, 8,000km across the Pacific.
both expeditions were a bit nuts if you think about it. But they did it!
Thor sailed in the South Pacific.
Not that his vessels sailed well.
Rory
“It shrinks and grows according to natural variation”
Yes it does but what controls the natural variation ?
Why was 2012 the lowest since 1979 ?
And the main post was put together over 10 days before the mean average sea ice low point / date. It is still heading down last time I looked.
That sounds like an interesting research project. Clearly the ‘settled science’ does not give the answer, else you would have pointed us to it. So, why don’t you give it try and set out to find the answer yourself? Could be a rewarding passtime.
“Y” is the last letter in anomaly. Micromanaging causes of idiosyncratic events is rather pointless in a system as complex and variable as weather.
We’ll just have to see what the next ten days has for us, not that it matters a hill of beans.
Have you ever heard of feedback? Feedback in a system means the system can cause itself to vary.
This seems to be something very very few people and certainly not climate scientists, understand.
Worse, from the point of view of comprehension, if feedback is delayed, it can lead to oscillatory behaviour. Cycles.
Even worse than that, if the system is also reasonably non linear, and there are enough feedback paths, the system can become chaotic.
Climate displays all of the above. The conclusion is very simple to express.
The natural state of climate is change, over days, weeks, months, years decades, centuries and millennia.
This change is not caused by anything except the climate itself.
This change is in broad terms, chaotic and therefore completely unpredictable.
As with renewable energy, climate scientists are attempting the impossible.
Billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on trying to do something that it is possible to confirm theoretically cannot be done.
All because climate scientists do it because the maths of ordinary science is too hard.
If your question was serious, you should try and understand this video
which shows how totally deterministic effects can give rise to totally unpredictable and yet totally bounded time series.
In short very simple science can give very complicated and unpredictable outcomes.
The science may well be settled, but when it comes to predicting climate, it is absolutely no help at all.
This argument falls flat in face of the continuous input of external energy to the system (0.5 W/m2 is the current lower bound).
Dr. Happer says that “continuous input” you refer to is tapering off and won’t go much higher, even if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase.
Dr. Happer says we have just about reached the limit of CO2 warming now.
Just think: If everyone listened to Dr. Happer we could all dispense with wasting $TRILLIONS on ugly windmills, and other ridiculous things aimed at trying to control CO2 output, and we could all get back to our normal business without fear that the world is going to end next decade.
So case closed? 🙂 Dr. Happer appears to be clueless in this debate, his views have been debunked.
This from the guy who thinks a single pal reviewed paper proves that the AMO doesn’t exist.
A few corrections:
Standard appeal to authority.
1) Publishing for years means nothing. Each paper is to be judged on it’s own merit. The fact remains that they have been publishing junk that has been refuted time and time again.
2) You consider them to be an authority. They proclaim themselves to be an authority. However the fact remains that everything they have published has been refuted.
3) AMO was never suspect, just inconvenient.
4) When you get a bunch of buddies to review each other’s papers, that’s pal review.
5) It will surely inspire future papers. The hero worship is strong with this one.
AMO was Mann’s discovery 🙂 How ironic…
You really do think you can get away with just making things up.
Why not?
Making things up was always the main tool in the climate carpetbaggers toolkit.
The ClimateGate emails lay all this bare.
Yes, alarmist climate science is about making things up.
If they couldn’t make things up, they wouldn’t have anything.
He also discovered that he had a Nobel Prize too.
From wiki:
Evidence for a multidecadal climate oscillation centered in the North Atlantic began to emerge in 1980s work by Folland and colleagues, seen in Fig. 2.d.A.[5] That oscillation was the sole focus of Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994,[6] but the actual term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was coined by Michael Mann in a 2000 telephone interview with Richard Kerr,[7]
Folland et al was 1984, so Michael Mann would have been under the age of 19 when he scooped them.
Talk about gullible.
That’s not fair to the alarmist, phil, you introduced facts into the conversation.
So manniacal claims.
North Atlantic Oscillation has been known and described decades before Mann.
manniacal giving the multidecadal effects a three letter acronym does not mean he discovered it.
“100 scientists against Einstein”
its a good book and a lot can be learnt from it,
ESPECIALLY about your specious claim
(or maybe not)
Einstein’s results were never rejected by the scientific community. This book was a late (30s) thing, and it was widely ridiculed by actual scientists. I don’t know why you deniers are always comparing this to your case. Those 100 were the deniers of that day. You’re not Einsteins for sure. Add these two together.
Ah yes, the standard line that all the scientists agree with you.
The only problem is that you define a scientist as someone who agrees with you.
🙂 Please try to go to a climate conference and speak with a few scientists. You will see for yourself who agrees with whom.
Ah yes, another place where only those who agree are permitted to attend. You really do believe that science is determined by a popularity poll.
At a “climate conference”?
You mean the “climate conferences” held at prime vacation locations for alarmists only?
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
You won’t find any real scientists at most of those. You will find a lot of activists and politicians.
nyicky tried this argument regarding Einstein the other day and lost the discussion badly.
Mostly because nyicky never bothered to learn any real history.
Once again nyolci proves that he doesn’t understand the subject that he is commenting on.
Nyolci is whiten notice the grammar.
A nastier version of the same entity, whiten puts on the facade of being an denizen of Mars.
1850-2012 is not much of a timescale. What did it do the 4.5 billion years. Before that?
“Why was 2012 the lowest since 1979 ?”
For the same reason that 1979 was the lowest since 1944…
Natural cycles and variation.
nsidc isn’t finished yet.
My estimate was end of melting season this weekend becaues of ups and downs the last days.
Except, it has only gotten colder during that period of time.
Any sea ice declines are solely storm related.
NSIDC has been finished for two decades.
It has been quite clear for that period that NSIDC is not unbiased.
These data start 1972:
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_19720101-20191231_amsr2.txt
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_2020_amsr2_smooth.txt
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_n_2021_amsr2_smooth.txt
How exactly do you know what 2021’s minimum is going to be when sea ice is still decreasing? According to NSIDC 2021 is already below 2013 and 2014, whilst the graph in this article shows it as the highest year.
NSIDC is one site and OSIAF (chart) an other.
The actual decrease is at lowest rate, after some major increases in September:
Based on theses given data:
Yes, I know they’re different data sets, but I haven’t checked the one used here yet. The question still stands, why show a trend when you are not comparing like for like? If OSIAF hasn’t reached the minimum yet then 2021 will be biased high.
It would be correct to check the data set before talking about instead of talking about a not discussed one.
It would be more correct to discuss a variety of data sets rather than cherry-pick one.
Not that I think it makes much difference. I doubt they will drop much more, just don;t see the point of rushing to judgement rather than wait till the final minimum is known. The real cherry pick is starting in 2012 and ignoring any uncertainties in the trend over just 10 data points.
Using a 5 day average to determine minimum I make the current trend starting in 2012 for OSISAF to be +17 ± 63 . Whilst the trend since 1980 is -80 ± 6. Figures are for thousand square kilometers per year.
Graph since 2012. Note 2021 based on incomplete data.
Same since 1979.
Look at all of those pauses in that graph. Yet the trend is decisively down.
Your (NSIDC) graph doesn’t even show 2013 and 2014.
Try this one from yesterday. It doesn’t look like the ice is shrinking.
It’s an interactive chart.
What will that chart show us ? Far pissing challenge ? 😀
I was just responding to someone saying the chart didn’t show 2013 and 2014.
Hmmm … clearly for the prurient interests of those who get off on such activities. Is your interest onanistic or do you people prefer groups?
You can download the whole dataset here.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/
Big deal. After 50 years of looking at the absolutely normal, un-alarming data we’re offered, I’m less than impressed with the analytical skills of those pretending that there is something to be concerned about.
Didn’t you people learn anything from “Chicken Little”? How about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf? … no insight there either?
It’s kinda funny, although a bit sad, to watch these people squirm.
They really should be squirming for twenty years but, as compulsive liars do, they trying to pretend they had none of it back around 2012 and 2007 which, in a way is a kind of squirming.
I didn’t see them on here back then. Except for the ones who denied that 2012 was low because of late summer cyclones and blamed carbon dioxide, while bdg whatsit and Banton willingly cheered them on. Now they’re saying that 2012 was low because of late summer cyclones.
You couldn’t make it up.
It’s time for this tribe of fcukwits to pick up their teepees and wigwams and merge into the background.
“A consummation devoutly to be wished … ”
All I can say about those people is; if grasping at straws was an Olympic sport they’d be flashing pure gold all the way.
Yeah, our current crop of useless nitwit trolls will be heading out the back door, without ever even proposing any data showing that CO2 at 420-ish ppm vs. 280 ppm has had any effect on any climate parameter.
How to convince people using the tactical retreat method.
What a bunch of talking vegetables. Blowhards all of them.
🙂
I wasn’t on WUWT in 2012. But if I had been I would have told you that the Arctic Dipole Anomaly that persisted for much of 2012 set the stage for below average sea ice extents. Combine that with the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 which compacted the ice and you get a minimum that is far below the trendline.
Anyway, from the link I provided you should be able to compute the slope of the trendline for the September minimums and tell us how far below the trendline 2012 was and what the recurrence interval of that anomaly is expected to be. What does your analysis of the data say in this regard?
Who the fnck cares and what does it really matter? One year out of thousands is so insignificant it isn’t even vaguely interesting.
You’re getting a bit unhinged, arent’t you?
These things are assessed via proper statistical analysis. Where’s your analysis, can you show us? Scientists say this is not insignificant. They do have an analysis, already published (a multitude of papers). You should show they are wrong (ie. in your faulty usage, you should “falsify” these papers). Along the way, you should show how insignificant this one year is (together with the last decade 🙂 ). Until you have done this, what you’re doing is just having hissy fits in the comment section.
Your proper statistical analyses are useless in case of cyclic behaviour as seaice extend is.
Yep! What do the statistics of a sinusoid look like?
You are again at it, I can see. A little bit of context: Rory, the resident genius (on par with you guys) thinks this is a “One year out of thousands”. Of course it’s not, and scientists have already did their statistical analysis whether it is significant or not.
Once again, nyolci demonstrates that he can’t refute anything. He just declares that anyone who disagrees with his idols is stupid.
This was a simple question. That you can’t answer it says much about what you don’t know.
Statistics on a non-stationary cyclical signal tells you nothing. The values are not independent, they are repeating. Fourier or wavelet analysis are better suited.
There’s that unfamiliarity with English interfering with your grasp of the conversation again.
There you go again. “Scientists say” all sorts of things, most of which are wrong. Logical fallacies like “scientists say” only prove your unfamiliarity with the topic and basic logic.
You still haven’t worked out what falsification means, in a scientific context. It’s you who has the cart before the horse. You must show that a single year is significant among thousands of other years in a coupled, non-linear chaotic system.
By the way, relying on the statistics you recommend is why all climate models fail.
you’re masturbating on a clear misspelling, aren’t you? 🙂 Funny how zealous you are.
What fallacies? 🙂 Really, I’m curious. In a debate about natural science “scientists say” has a pretty great weight. They are the authority, you genius.
🙂 Yep, as you say! BTW Have you checked the Stanford Cyclopedia?
No, I don’t have to. Scientists have done that already. A little help: no, it’s not a single year. (The cold spell in Texas was a single event, I can’t remember anyone here saying that.) Anyway, you have to show they are wrong, at the moment the scientific view is what it is. A falsification would be a sudden, persistent cooling.
Still not getting it, how droll. Of course I’m “zealous” in the cause of science and truth.
The fallacy, “Scientists say” has even less weight in a debate about science, you moron. It’s an appeal to both authority and population without providing any supporting evidence. You’re claiming that “scientists” confirm your assertion without evidence.
There is no such publication.
You’re claiming a specific year has significance. “You must show that a single year is significant among thousands of other years in a coupled, non-linear chaotic system.”
Which “scientists”, when and in what publication? You really don’t know anything about the subject at all, do you? You insist on saying what others know or that others have proven. Prove it. Why would I need to show some unspecified group is wrong. You have provided no evidence of anyone saying anything.
Hell, you can’t even form a proper argument.
https://plato.stanford.edu/
I’m claiming it’s not one single year 🙂
I don’t have to. BTW when actual climate scientists write here and prove things, you can’t understand those.
Exactly, as I said. There is no such publication as ‘The Stanford Cyclopedia‘. You just confirmed it.
Proving you aren’t even capable of following a simple train of thought.
Prove it. Offering a generality in place of a specific is nothing more than hot air. You’re out of your depth and continue to embarrass yourself.
nyolci has a pretty low standard of “proof”. It boils down to anything that he agrees with is proven.
Frankly, I don’t think she has the vaguest idea how science even works. Wikipedia is full of information, but unless one is actually educated it isn’t all that helpful. She mainly relies on credulity and logical fallacies, like most AGW true believers.
It’s worse than that MarkW.
It’s anything nyicky either believes or is paid to believe.
nyicky’s argumentive claims have been rapidly deteriorating.
It’s been getting burned on bad claims, worse logic and worst mathematics coupled with an absolute ignorance on history.
When your only argument is that you are right because you are so much smarter than everyone else. Any mistake you make becomes a legitimate target.
Some scientists say one thing. Other scientists say something else. You are the one who repeatedly claims that only those scientists who agree with you are scientists.
Since you can’t answer the question, the only response is to conclude that even you know you can’t.
Once again, the clueless troll declares that only those who agree with him are scientists.
Well, I would start at 2006 and 2007 and it’s already been plotted by Norsex. 2006 is probably a falsifiable hypothesis that would be falsified with respect increase in sea ice extent. 2007 not so much but I don’t know when they will do the plot including 2021, but we can revisit this when they do.
Why start in 2006 or 2007?
To emphasize to people reading this (not you, of course. You’re too chickenshit to admit you’re wrong), that this was when arctic summer sea ice decline turned the corner. This is not a simpleton linear plot.
2006, when Arctic summer sea ice decline turned the corner.
Panic is the word.
The Arctic and Antarctic are very inconvenient and NSIDC has lost all credibility, except with groupie alarmists.
Soon, they will not be able to lie so expansively when all satellite maps show greater and greater levels of sea ice…
Though I’d rather support melting sea ice back to early Holocene conditions.
Well, you are right, but I have to say the the NSIDC is a pretty good site. I go to it every day. It’s certainly better than watching paint dry (just). The powerful El Ninos (is that los ninos?), gave the parrots another 5, 6, maybe more years to be parrots and weaklings.
Meereisportal shows that the bottom is likely close at hand. The upper atmosphere is cooling down over the Arctic, and surface temps are well below freezing as surface winds in the North Atlantic are moving to the south out of the Arctic. …
Current temperatures up there are cold enough to freeze all but the saltiest sea water.
below 2013/14, above 2011/12 – and ? Evidence of what ?
No evidence of what ever., point.
Is this threatening the polar bears, seals, or walrus?
No, they are not linked in any way 😀
Actually, I think they are linked.
As far as I can tell, if the Arctic were frozen solid all year, the seals would have trouble finding somewhere to haul up to have their pups. In that case, the polar bears would starve.
The thing about those species is the length of time it took for them to evolve into the adaptation suitable to that climate plus the period they have existed is very long. Seals are very mobile and polar bears are incredibly bright, so the Arctic would need to freeze solid damned quickly to catch them napping. They’d just move south.
If walrus feel to cold, thy find a new habitat in the North Sea
Rare guest: walrus on the North Sea 7.9.2021
No, but it is threatening the sensitive feelings of AGW true believers.
Micro-aggression alert!
”Is this threatening the polar bears, seals, or walrus?”
No, only the penguins.
Missing a 0.
The 1991-2020 average for August is 6.43e6 km2 and for September it is 5.58e6 km2. The YtD average is 11.88e6. 2021 came in at 5.74e6 km2 for August. September is still pending but currently has a max of 5.1e6 and min of 4.8e6. And the current YtD mean is 11.29e6. In other words, 2021 is still below the 1991-2020 climatological average. And this is despite conditions that are very favorable for ice retention.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/
So bloody what?
Didn’t you people learn anything from “Chicken Little”? How about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf? … no insight there either?
Hm, you are easily triggered lately…
Well, the numbers are kinda really lower than they used to be, so this chikenlittling does have some foundation. Your dead horse in this race seems to be some delusion about natural variability. And you know well that scientists (feel free to think about them whatever you want) say the ice situation is getting worse and your variability-delusions are just that, delusions. Whether you accept it or not, science is against you. Is this the reason why you have a short fuse these days?
Yep … “triggered” to near pant wetting hilarity. You know, your poor English really shows when you can’t grasp comedy.
There you go again. There is no such group who uniformly say anything like that. It’s a logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. It’s as silly as the “97% consensus” ad populum. Clearly you have no idea what the null hypothesis is.
In fact real science is 100% for me. Tossing bad data, failed projections, ridiculous predictions and every logical fallacy you can find at important questions of science is not science. It’s a clown car event … hypocrisy, fraud and actual malfeasance. All the actual science is on my side and always has been. You’re a bunch of mouth breathers and fools.
If you can’t show these fluctuations are not fully explained by natural variations, your offerings are no better than flatulence.
So you gave up “appeal to authority” 🙂 at last.
Well, when something is proven, the null hypothesis is excluded. It has happened here. I wonder whether you know what the null hypothesis in the case of the first law of thermodynamics and whether it is actively researched 🙂 My guess is “no” for the latter.
The latest IPCC report has a nice summary. Please read that first and then you can offer your informed flatulence on the null hypothesis.
IPCC, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the clue is always in the title, it’s a political organisation, not a scientific one!!! If it was free of political interference, it would be called the Independent Panel on Climate Change!!! Having read AR1-4 over recent years (I gave up reading any more as they were so predictable), I read the NIPCC papers which were free of political pandering, & drew conclusions opposite to the “official” A Team!!!
Science has supreme governing bodies whether you like it or not. These are the various academies of science, university boards, the various national and international professional organizations (like the IEEE in my field) etc. IPCC is one of them. These organizations have the last word, and they work pretty well, at least in the STEM fields. They are necessarily “political” having been created via laws and treaties. But apart from that, they are doing science via the scientific method. Whether you like it or not.
Like MIStructE in my field for thirty years!!! I was a Devon & Cornwall Branch committee member for over 20 years, even becoming Branch Chairman during the Centenary celebratory year in 2008!!!
The UNIPCC was set up for the very purpose of creating a scary story as justification for the creation & establishment of a one-World global government, the veritable dream of Socialists the World over!!! The very concept of individuality, independence, freedom, & democracy in alien to them must be destroyed one way, or another!!!
I am still awaiting a reply from Griff the previous 4 Inter-glacials were warmer than today by between 2 & 4 degrees Celcius, with less CO2 than today!!!
“These organizations have the last word”
No, they don’t. Actual facts always have the last word.
Yep. Like accelerating warming, right?
And when you find some, let us know.
First off, the warming isn’t accelerating.
Secondly, the warming started 100 years prior to the run up in CO2 and hasn’t changed in pace since the run up in CO2 started.
The null hypothesis that whatever caused the first 100 years of warming is still in effect stands.
BTW, you can’t prove anything with models. Especially models that can’t recreate time periods in the past, where you have actual data.
Yep. Like accelerating warming, right?
No, wrong! Even if warming was accelerating, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t prove AGW … or even provide a cause.
Really you fell for that lie so easily?
Here is what is really happening:
LINK
This is well below the IPCC .20C/decade rate.
LOL
Another alarmists made the same claims a few days ago.
Maybe that’s the new alarmist meme: Sea level rise is accelerating.
As you show, sea level rise is not accelerating.
Prove temperatures are accelerating! Hint, it’s really hard to do when temperatures are following cycles, even adjusted as they are.
Then you have to prove actual warming.
Including explaining why so many towns, locations and even entire regions show declining temperatures.
they are doing science via the scientific method.
They even don’t know, what the scientific method realy is, else their report would be much different.
Critics, even if evident and proven by facts are not accepted or considered.
In nyolci’s world, the scientific method is whatever method leads to his predetermined conclusion.
Errors: 1. not mine, 2. not predetermined. For the sake of clarity, I didn’t have any predetermined conclusion. I simply did what you can still do, read scientists. I have a STEM MSc, so it’s expected that I can understand (or at least appreciate) a scientific paper even if it’s not in my field. My guess is that you are pretty young and you don’t have any degree (yet?), so it’s up to you now.
Possessing such qualifications doesn’t mean you are actually any good at any of them!!! I never went to university, I came up through the ranks to become a Chartered Structural Engineer in 2003, even teaching others more professionally qualified than me how to detail steel & concrete & timber connections, etc!!! I have taken on & challenged several Oxford/Cambridge “experts” with a qualification list as long as your arm in “Civil/Structural” Engineering, any practical field experience??? Well, not a lot really, but loads of theoretical experience, & you Sir, strike me as someone of similar attitude, you think you know it all & should therefore never be challenged or questioned, which is I am sorry to say, most unprofessional, full stop!!! That Sir, is definitely not the scientific way!!! I will never understand how Institutions like mine offer Honorary Fellowships when they have NEVER sat the gruelling 6/7 hour professional examination to become Associate/Chartered members respectively!!! Read more, & press fewer buttons on your laptop, with respect of course!!! Please I implore you, do not become a climate change denier, by denying that the Earth’s climate naturally changes from time to time, it’s not good for you in the long time!!! Cry wolf & all that!!! ;-)) As I have already said, a modest 1.1 degree rise in the global average temperature over 150+ years, is hardly dramatic, alarming, frightening, or disturbing, at 0.007 degrees per annum!!! Remember, just because sometimes the sun shines, sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes it’s cold, sometimes it’s wet, sometimes as in the UK we can have the sun shining at the same time as rain falls, we call it “weather”, but it’s ain’t climate change, simply weather!!! The only thing Mankind has to fear from a changing climate, is cold, & we are already theoretically overdue for the next Ice-Age!!! (90,000-130,000 years of damned cold terrifies me, how about you???).
Yep, you do look like a self taught one.
I do not belive that Alan was setting a trap for you, but you nevertheless caught yourself in a trap. Practical knowledge almost always trumps credentials.
Really? I’m devastated 🙂 And how about relatively simple things like statistical analysis? These self taught guys usually immediately fail in these. Just like Alan.
Ah yes, the old something is true because I assert it, over and over again, method of proof.
I would bet that you have never designed or built anything that was required to work and last. I’ll bet you are not a Professional Engineer qualified to approve specs for anything that has legal liability associated with it. I learned a lot from my EE professors but the one who was a Professional Engineer taught engineering ethics and taught us things that appliied throughout my career.
As referenced I suspect you are a pure academic with little experience outside academia. Otherwise you would have learned already not to denigrate the knowledge of others.
And you are dead wrong 🙂
The Hungarian system is a bit different. Since one cannot be an engineer without a degree here, we don’t have these supplemental qualifications.
Wrong. I’ve been working in the industry for more than 20 years. I don’t want to be more specific though.
(Could you please tell those others to stop speakin bollocks?)
And you earned your STEM degree when? Within the last five years?
It really is amazing how people who never taken a step into the real world are 100% convinced that they are experts in everything.
???
He claims to be associated with the IEEE, but this is pretty meaningless.
poor little troll. Actually believes the money he spent at college wasn’t wasted.
Bingo! There are lots of PhDs who should have gone into Forestry instead of a technical field.
You always prove to understand null, nada, rien, zero.
Hare Krishna!
No other idea ? Dismal 😀
That’s Numpty teaching the “innocents” how to be bigoted r@cists, all part of his re-education master plan.
Thank you for proving how juvenile you are.
nyolci reminds me of many liberal arts grads. Absolutely convinced they know everything about everything, even things they have never studies.
To much ego to listen to anyone who in their minds, doesn’t have their vaunted education and qualifications.
“Unskilled and Unaware” syndrome.
1) You aren’t the only one in on the scam.
2) Since you know in advance what the correct answer is supposed to be and judge all data as to whether it supports that position, it is indeed your predetermined conclusion.
3) The IPCC was set up to study human caused warming, and has from the beginning focused only on that to the exclusion of any other explanation. The IPCC routinely ignores any study that doesn’t support the conclusion that the politicians are paying it to reach.
I didn’t no.
I have a STEM MSc also. So the f*ck what? And it’s pretty apparent that you may have been the product of the modern educational system and affirmative action.
Then it’s a shame that you’re a denier.
Wrong. We are talking about Hungary, 30 years ago. That’s neither modern nor American. Do you think there was something comparable to affirmative action there? (Reality: I was a kind of geekish nerd or nerdish geek, always a very good student. At that time the education system, especially the secondary level, was world class.)
“placing more emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) in their Masters in Management (MiM) and other masters courses.”
Master’s in science?
Did you graduate at Masters without earning a Bachelor degree?
Which course did you take that taught all about scientific papers?
What’s the matter? You weren’t able to program to meet specifications?
So, you got a job spamming blogs.
We are real impressed…
If you had achieved a real college degree, you would have covered logical fallacies and how to debate legitimately.
You would also have learned how to properly collect and analyze data then write a scientific paper and defend it.
Your professor would have been the hardest reviewer followed closely by your classmates…
If you had actually researched anything in science.
Science has supreme governing bodies? Really?
Isn’t it amazing how progressives always go the dictatorial route.
Now we have an official governing body, that decides for everyone what is and what is not science. Lysenko anyone?
The scientific method includes excluding any study that doesn’t support the position the politicians are paying you to support?
“Isn’t it amazing how progressives always go the dictatorial route.”
Hungarians are kinda nostalgic that way.
Not really. For various reasons. Most people didn’t feel that period a dictatorship at all, and rightly so. Furthermore, they are nostalgic to a better standard of living.
I’ve told you quite a few times I’m not a progressive. FYI The supreme governing bodies are actually using the scientific method.
Lysenko was a denier of his days. His (relatively short) reign was a good lesson to the Soviets not to allow political interference in (at least natural) science. In the US various pressure groups do that interference. No lesson learned.
No, that’s the deniers’ method.
Proof via assertion. That’s all you’ve got.
None of these bodies should pass judgement on theories or hypothesis without physical verification. The IEEE does not pass judgement on theories. They accept papers discussing findings that are reviewed before publication.
They usually don’t pass judgements. These happen during peer review (and much more rarely in conferences). These bodies mostly organize conferences, publish scientific magazines etc. The IPCC has only one regular publication, its report, and it is a meta-study.
Physical verification is always part of the process if applicable.
IEEE magazines do. They are the most important publications in EE.
Well, apparently, we agree.
Then they are not IEEE publications.
Anyone can sign into IEEE.org and read/download the standards they need.
Now you have made it obvious that you grabbed IEEE out of thin air and are pretending knowledge regarding IEEE.
IEEE is strictly a standards organization. Their whole mission is to have members determine electrical and electronics engineering standards, to write up those standards for others to follow and to share their findings.
IEEE stands for “Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers” and was formed just after Marconi built the wireless.
As far as EEs?
EEs are “Electrical Engineers”, and there are a bevy of magazines catering to printing real electrical engineer’s knowledge, not just standards.
And that includes programming and systems and CPU designs.
No judgement. No dictating. No hierarchical organization playing politics or writing disapproval letters.
Members are members and often serve on committees determining new standards or attend conferences showing presentations about standards.
Fraud.
Yeah, of course 🙂 Please at least try ieee.org.
or Eletronics Engineers, we don’t really distinguish those two.
The IEEE is not a “supreme governing bod[y]”; can you come with nonsense to top this one? I think you can.
In reality (de facto) it is. Eg. we had to publish in an IEEE publication for PhD. It was almost a formal requirement.
Dude, your assertions are ridiculous? You are describing administrative and political constructs. Churches have supreme governing bodies, and politics too, but science has no such thing.
Since when is a stadium of appointed bureaucrats (IPCC) going through scientists’ reports line by line sanitizing scientists’ findings & statements to agree political conformity and narrative represent “the scientific method”?
I’ve seen some clueless tosh from you Nyolci, but this one is a corker.
They give you a summary that is based on science. They help you and they help policymakers. This is good for scientists too, they can just look up the relevant chapter and they have a digest, they don’t have to spend two weeks searching for and reading tons of papers. They have the references so they can go deeper in the actual topic they are gathering information for.
Nope!
Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote his seminal work.
And the summary nyicky refers to is the one written by politicians as a summary for politicians.
That summary ignores science to state what the IPCC and their delusional international comrades wants it to say.
Your proof is little more than, we can’t think what else it might be, so it must be CO2.
It really is sad when amateurs actually believe you can prove something with a model.
Even worse when amateurs think they can prove something by hand-waving personal attacks and shouting lies. Scam. Fraud. Lefties.
That isn’t the scientific method – mind, you are only taking after your heroes here Iexpect (Monckton and Heller).
As I keep saying …
If you say so
You are as welcome to your delusions as the QAnoners.
(seeing as I am not a US citizen in that case).
And why are you handwaving all the time ? 😀
What are “QAnoners”?
It’s a fantasy term leftists use against people, including former leftists.
It’s supposed to mean conspiracists who frequent a transient often shut down web site.
Never mind that alarmists are deep in conspiracy. Especially if they’re paid trollops.
Once again, how long has your irony meter been in the shop.
Handwaving and personal attacks are all you have ever had.
But you are a self confessed leftie?
It’s both actually. I simply decided on ad populum because you used the plural, implying all scientists. It’s also a bandwagon fallacy. In other words, only illogical idiots rely on such grandiose hyperbole.
AGW is NOT “proven”. Hell, there isn’t even any evidence. No human signal has ever been found.
No one is questioning the laws of thermodynamics. We are questioning the AGW conjecture and the failed modeling.
No IPCC summary has ever falsified the null hypothesis.It conspicuously avoids that subject. In most cases it doesn’t even claim what you apparently believe it does.
Your answer was a bit milder in tone, I’m surprised.
This is an uphill battle. The scientific community has just published a definite confirmation. As a side note, the general public (who so far haven’t given a damn) started to see the actual effects of AGW. It’s now perceptible.
I remember you once proclaimed everything should be questioned 🙂 Yep, I gave thermodynamics as a sobering example.
Then clearly you failed to understand it.
A “definite confirmation of what? Where have the “scientific community” published anything? That isn’t how science works, you silly credulous child.
Utter nonsense. There isn’t even evidence to support the AGW conjecture, let alone anyone observing it’s effects. You’re once again relying on a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). No human signal has ever been isolated from the background noise.
You offered thermodynamics as a red herring … another logical fallacy. No one is questioning the validity of the Laws of Thermodynamics in this debate.
You’re completely out of your depth here, child. You need to be asking questions, not sharing your ignorance with the many erudite people and scientists on this board.
I mean it wasn’t the unhinged ranting you were doing today.
Warming has anthropogenic origin.
IPCC, I have already told you 1012032032 times. Try to understand it at least once. This is a meta-report, a conclusion that can be drawn from the zillions of published scientific papers.
🙂 It’s funny how you try to bullshit your way out of everything. AGW is now clearly perceptible for the general public so please be prepared for open contempt when you try to do your bullshiting.
I have to quote the definite authority here, a certain Rory, who said everything would have to be questioned 🙂 Okay, while you have really said this, I’m just trolling now. But then we can agree at last in something: there are settled things in science, like the Laws of Thermodynamics. Right?
This is the logical fallacy of <tell me what>! 🙂
As I said, clearly your English isn’t up to the task. You’re the only one here who is “ranting”.
There is no evidence supporting that assertion. That’s what you don’t seem to grasp.
There you go ranting again and relying on yet another logical fallacy. You can’t just offer everything from the “scientific community” as evidence supporting your beliefs.
Since when was “the general public” a reliable source of scientific observation. Just because people observe warming doesn’t inform them of its cause. Your statement is a logical fallacy, as I said earlier. Now you’re ranting even more and swearing as well … silly child.
No one was questioning the Laws of Thermodynamics in this discussion, regardless what I may have said at some other time. And without a direct quote c/w context, your assertion I said anything like that is just a lie. In any event, you mentioning the Laws of Thermodynamics was a straw man (another logical fallacy).
That wasn’t a fallacy of any kind. It wasn’t even an argument. It was a suggestion for you to pay attention to.
You really do believe that it’s possible to prove anything with a model.
“Well, when something is proven”
You need to revise your attitude and knowledge of science. A hypothesis is never PROVEN, only confirmed. That confirmation must include the math and direct physical evidence surrounding it. This far your hypothesis has neither. At best you have some correlation which is far from direct physical evidence. At this point climate science is all about correlation and not physical science! Not even you can name one climate physical experiment with a prediction based upon math and confirmation shown by results.
Think about Einstein’s theories. What if there were NO independent experiments verifying his hypothesis’s and math? Would anyone agree they were still true?
Oh, really? 🙂
It’s not my hypothesis. And it’s confirmed 🙂
Yes, there are a lot. The predictions of the models are confirmed with actual physical data.
Interesting fact: Einstein’s theories had very little experimental confirmation in the first part of the 20th century. Almost solely the perihelium-precession of Mercury, and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Actually Einstein formulated his theories to explain these experiments and observations. Later, in the 50s they could confirm gravitational time dilatation with atomic clocks, gravitational effects on photons, and now we have gravity waves.
Yes, really.
By whom, when and in what paper? Making statements like yours only “confirms” how little you know about science, the method and this subject in particular.
So what? Neither were Alfred Wegener’s theories confirmed until the 1960s, but now they are thoroughly confirmed and part of scientific convention.
Spare us your high school lessons on Einstein. I doubt that anyone here is impressed by your Googling skills.
Huh, you’re getting unhinged again… You deniers come up with Einstein all the time… And the 100 deniers against him… In that post above I was actually answering to Jim’s question. He was it. It wasn’t me 🙂
Now you’re babbling again, child, while demonstrating your limited grasp of English and science.
What “deniers” were against Einstein? You’re talking nonsense.
The deniers of that day who wrote that book you always come up with. Scientists had no problem accepting Einstein’s theories.
Screaming that everyone who matters agrees with him, is still the only argument you have ever managed to produce.
Note that he’s graduated to using the stupid “denier” label.
Null hypothesis puts the ball squarely in your court to prove:
A) CO₂ actual effect on the atmosphere.
B) Every specious claim of your burden to prove.
mann, your love object, runs when he is faced by knowledgeable skeptics. His only response locations are realclimate and obsequious oleaginous alarmist news.
Everyone here that isn’t an alarmist has you marked for frequent use of multiple logical fallacies.
Indeed, your endless use of logical fallacies should form the core of a level 301 class.
Could you please cut and paste the words that made you believe something was proven in an IPCC report.
“Whether you accept it or not, science is against you.”
So why don’t you show us some, instead of chanting crap like a parrot?
Show us, using standard scientific methods, any global climate parameter that has been shown to change by CO2 going from 280ppm to 420-ish ppm
They’ve got nothing and they know it. That’s why their leaders and the media strive to close down all dialogue, in the same way they’re now doing with the kungflu.
You like conspiracies, don’t you? 🙂
Trump Russia colluuuusion 😉
I have said this many times before, conspiracies are undertaken behind closed doors & in secret, the manmade globul warming scam is being carried out right before our very eyes, sadly too many people just cannot see it, others just don’t want to see it!!!
Ever notice how leftists always define a fact that they can’t refute as a conspiracy.
You like conspiracies, don’t you?
Al least you’re acknowledging it is a conspiracy, but where did you get the idea that I like them? You’re still missing the subtleties of English.
In science you don’t have to show that every time if it has been already proven. Please read the IPCC report.
The IPCC have “proven” absolutely nothing, they merely claim, nothing more nothing less!!!
The IPCC gives a meta-study, they summarize the state of the art in the field. So they don’t have to prove anything. Their report is based on papers, those have the proofs.
Sadly all too many of these so called “proofs” are nothing more than programmed computer models, programmed to show whatever the programmers want them to show!!! Nothing more, nothing less. We know a lot more about the Earth’s climate today than we did 30 years ago, but we still know very little as we do not truly understand the features that drive climate changes, we only have theories that fit the observed facts!!! Many of these so called climate scientists get their panties in a heck of a twist if one dares to question the validity of their beloved “models”!!!
I also find it very difficult to believe, t0 put it mildly, that the big shiny ball thing in the sky that possesses more than 99.9% mass of the Solar System, & it being a massive fusion reactor converting Hydrogen into Helium, has no effect on the Earth’s climate!!! Oh & while we’re at it, why have the icecaps on Mars been visibly receding over the last 30 years or so, with it’s atmosphere of 95% CO2???
??? Why do you think it has no effect? Scientists say we have a continuous additional energy input from the sun (at least 0.5 W/m2 on average). That incidentally dwarfs any other external input, like change in solar output (very small, the last decade produced the quickest warming with decreasing sun activity).
Ah, so you think that Solar output changes are instantaneous in their effect upon the Earth, whereas I don not, they are gradual but worryingly sometimes fairly instantaneous!!!
??? No one said that.
Pure sophistry and meaningless.
Additional energy can not be created.
Either it comes from the sun, or exothermic sources or it doesn’t exist.
This shows your profound ignorance in programming… You deniers are getting really pathological in your non-understanding of these fairly simple things. Models are approximate, stepwise solutions to (very complicated) differential equation systems. But there’s more to it. It’s very interesting from the point of psychology that you’re always ranting about models while your image of the Satan, Mann, is doing reconstruction, without modelling. The famous hockey stick was made completely without climate modelling. Your inability to understand it must be some psychological thing ‘cos it’s been explained to you numberless times.
This is called science. We have (mathematical) theories that fit the observed facts (with n digit precision).
If it were true how would you deniers be so sure about your assertions? FYI it’s not true, scientists have a fairly good understanding now.
Listen numbskull, I have written structural computer programs on several occasions, in some instances I have had to derive beam deflection formulae from first principles by hand using Integrational Calculus, when the “solitary” office (1980s) computer was being hogged by the “star” graduate, so I do have a good understanding of computer programming, & I have also had to correct one or two “graduates” when quoting their “puter” output, because I have known that the beam size they have arrived at just didn’t “feel” right, as all engineers of any discipline, must & have to develop “feel” for when something is right or worst still, “feels” wrong!!! Please try to be more professional, for your own benefit if nothing else!!! HAND!!!
It doesn’t mean you really understand this. If I told you I had calculated beam deflections myself thus I was a structural engineer, would you believe me? “Computers can only calculate what their programmers put into them” is a very problematic assertion. In a sense it is a tautology (a truism you can’t have any good use of, see, Rory?). But especially nowadays with the “deep learning” bullshit you really have things that seems like computers have inductive power. So I would be very careful with statements like this. Structural calculations (especially in the 80s) are nowhere near this.
It never ceases to amaze me how many things nyolci believes, that simply aren’t true.
Like electrical engineer and now structural engineer…?
Seems like his MSc grew to a PhD in about a day too
As someone who has spent my entire professional career doing “programming”, you are spouting nothing but bullsheet.
There are so many things wrong with your description of models, that one has to wonder if you are being paid to make a fool of yourself.
You can only model what you understand.
Even if you do understand something, if you don’t have the computer horsepower to run all of the equations, you have to resort to parameterizations. Get the parameterizations wrong, and your “model” quickly runs off into the weeds.
Even if you do understand something and do get the parameterizations right, you still have to run your models with sufficient resolution that the results actually mean something in the real world. Having cells that are hundreds of miles on a side means that the results are meaningless.
When there are multiple theories that all explain the facts, then you don’t get to just choice the one you like and ignore all the others. This is what you have been doing, while mistakenly calling it science.
If the scientists have such a “good understanding” why are they daily finding things they didn’t know before?
Most programmers I know don’t really understand the business field they are in. They just try to follow the domain experts.
Serious climate modelling is done with supercomputers now.
That’s why they always compare the results to the real world. Models turned out to be very accurate. FYI these things are improving every year.
What multiple theories?
So all the programmers you know, admit they don’t know what they are doing.
You really have blind faith, don’t you. Even the most powerful super computer would have to be several million times more powerful to run a full scale model of the climate, even with all the parameterizations in place.
Where are these accurate models. Every single one predicted 2 to 3 times more warming than actually occurred, even after careful tuning of the parameters to try and get them to reflect reality.
What multiple theories? Are you really this dumb, or is someone paying you to make a fool of yourself?
Programmers who don’t understand the field they’re writing programs for don’t make very good programmers.
Tell them. Okay, the “don’t understand” is not entirely true. They are not eager to understand the actual field and try to minimize this kind of understanding. I can’t tell you how often I hear from them (including close workmates) that they (we) need an exact written specification so that they (we) can write the program. I always tell them they won’t ever get this and we have to immerse ourselves in the field and least a bit.
Tell them.
Sure.
They are not eager to understand the actual field and try to minimize this kind of understanding.
Ok, I take back what I said. That attitiude makes for absolutely crappy programmers. Bottom of the barrel code monkeys AT BEST.
Perhaps. Anyway, this attitude is widespread, at least I face it very often.
My experience is that they make horrendous programmers as experts have to debug every datum, database, line, paragraph, and program in it’s entirety.
Which makes ignorant programmers superfluous.
No. “Most”, not “all”, and this is a bit of an exaggeration too. But the actual domain is quite often alien to them during even a long running project. I can’t tell you how without giving actual examples but that would lead too far.
Again, you are pontificating here without much knowledge. Models were surprisingly accurate even in the 90s. Analogy: opinion polls usually ask a minuscule fraction of the population and give surprisingly accurate results. Climate models, regardless of their low resolution could successfully capture quite a few macro features of climate. Like thermodynamics with Pressure and Temperature. These are very broad averages of the extremely diverse behavior of numberless molecules. Nevertheless, thermodynamics can describe extremely well a lot of real world phenomena.
No. Read.
There are no competing theories. What deniers come up with is always some incoherent mishmash.
Again, flaunting your total ignorance!
Opinion polls are not models!
They are statistics engines.
And as many opinion polls have proven, they can be corrupted by devious questions.
e.g., Polls that include climate as a significant worry without giving respondents a chance to identify significant worries.
Most of these polls place climate dead last or near the bottom when the pollsters include a lot on non-worry subjects.
Which climate models have failed repeatedly!
“This is called science. We have (mathematical) theories that fit the observed facts (with n digit precision).”
There are no mathematical theories that fit the facts. If you’re speaking of the math that models have, they can’t even agree on what ECS is. The uncertainty from models is enormous. If you think otherwise, tell which model has the correct answers and prediction. This will let me lobby to remove funding from all the others.
Yes, there are. The F=m*a thingy is part of the mathematical theory called the Newtonian Mechanics. It is a falsified theory of Physics but still so accurate it’s used in practice ‘cos mathematically it is much simpler than the other two theories.
No.
Oh, I’m horrified 🙂
I kindly refer you to the latest IPCC report, they should have a nice summary about this.
That would be very stupid for various reasons.
The famous hokeystick is modeling!
It turned random noise into hockeysticks. It certainly was not verifying or validating science.
I programmed for over two decades, including models.
I would’ve been fired for programming some of the trash climate researchers are passing off as models.
They’re not models properly as they do not really “model” the atmosphere.
The pseudo models have never been accurate. Instead they take many inputs making them a classic ‘not only make an elephant, but can make the elephant wiggle his trunk and wag his tail’. They’re fantasies.
This is simply false. And a good illustration how out of touch you are with these topics.
I have to say I have doubts about this assertion. Likely there’s some truth but on closer inspection this would turn out to be something much less serious than what you claim. I’m curious though. Some details?
Based on preselected papers, that you didn’t mention. 😀
You forget, it’s only science when it’s done by “scientists” that nyolci approves of.
Khm, can you show me a published and peer reviewed paper that contradicts the IPCC report? Fringe magazines don’t count!
Don’t have to. The IPCC has already admitted that accurate forecasts are not possible. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Can you imagine anyone paying attention to Einstein if he had said the math behind relativity couldn’t be used to make predictions?
Exactly. Weather is such. They try to understand climate.
IPCC never addressed weather.
Exactly. They addressed climate.
And by definition, any “magazine” that publishes something nyolci disagrees with, is a fringe magazine.
A paper is either true, or it isn’t. Where it is published only matters to those who are trying to hide from the truth.
Hm, I have seen quite a few partially true papers 🙂
Uh, an ugly Hungarism, sorry. “Scientific publication”
Which IPCC was it that was found to have included a press release from an NGO on the future of Himalayan glaciers?
Khm, sources please. I know what you talk about, this is a real nothingburger when someone looks at the facts. (For the rest: not NGO, not press release, a single sentence outside the glaciers’ section. The shit storm was about an alleged conflict of interest.)
You are far away from facts, as usual – Grey literature was a subject of a lot of discssions around IPCC credibility, later stating not to use it anymore.
The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now admitted its goof-up on the ‘deadline’ on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
The panel, headed by Rajendra K Pachauri, had claimed that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035, causing a lively furore . “The clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” said IPCC in a statement on its website, accepting the error.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said such forecasts were alarmist and without scientific basis.
He also took a dig at the comments made by IPCC chairman R K Pachauri, who had dubbed the Union environment ministry’s report, which stated that global warming is not the only reason for glaciers melting, as ‘voodoo science’
Climate change: The controversy over ‘Himalayan blunder’
So no NGO, no press release (this was one single sentence in an otherwise unrelated chapter, ie. the whole thing was irrelevant). The glaciers’ chapter didn’t have this. Actually, the real reason for deniers’ wanking was an alleged conflict of interest regarding Pachauri ‘cos he was the directory of an energy research institute so (after a comedic amount of twisting) he may have had financial interest in personally inserting this single, out of place sentence. The Telegraph had to pay 100000 pounds for this bullshiting ‘cos the whole allegation was so outlandishly stupid.
In a 3000 page report there were a few errors like these, but nothing more serious which is impressive. So we have a big-big nothingburger. Actually, the whole episode was so embarrassing to deniers that they quickly forgot it save for a few bona fide idiots.
However, the changes were backed this week by a senior IPCC scientist, Thelma Krug, a Brazilian co-chair of the panel’s task force in greenhouse gas inventories. Speaking at a side event at the Rio+20 environment conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, she said the changes will correct geographical biases that have skewed past assessments.
Grey literature was responsible for several embarrassing errors in the 2007 report. These included the false claim that the Himalayas could be ice-free within 30 years and the assertion that African farmers could suffer yield losses of up to 50 per cent by 2020 because of climate change. The latter claim was formally corrected at this month’s Geneva meeting.
Climate panel adopts controversial ‘grey’ evidence
Yep, I’m talking about these. Inconsequential one liners. No wonder this is not mentioned much nowadays.
First you declare that everything in the IPCC is authoritative. Then when that is prove false, you declare it was only one source in an unrelated area.
Is there no end to the excuses you will drag up?
No, it isn’t proven false. There were a few inconsequential errors in a very big work. This is exactly the opposite, it shows high quality.
And nyicky calls the gray literature as one-liners… True ignoramus. It’s dug it’s idiocy hole so deep it’s near Earth’s center.
nyicky’s response was pure bafflegab trying to hide his ignorance. Instead it is another flaunting of the ignorant.
When a “meta-study” deliberately excludes all papers that don’t support the pre-determined conclusion, it proves nothing.
“they don’t have to prove anything”
They do if they want it to be real science, which of course they don’t.
The sad thing is that you actually believe that a politically motivated report that only looks at one side of the argument actually proves something.
Once again, only those papers that reach the correct pre-determined conclusions are science.
You do have to show it each time. To be considered science, there needs to be math that defines how a hypothesis works. The math must predict verifiable physical facts. Thus far mathematical models can predict nothing and even the IPCC verifies this. The best they can do is project a possibility and these have failed also.
At this point, most folks on this blog are simply saying “the science” is not science. You are trying to convince them that isn’t true with no real physical science to back you up.
Do you show the law of energy conservation each time? “Settled” means you can use it without masturbating around it.
Nichi the Nasty–you ran away from all of Jim’s points, what a surprise.
At this point nyicky’s bullshitting has ruined nyicky’s credibility for all time.
A meta study of all papers that agree with the conclusion that CO2 controls climate proves that CO2 controls climate.
I’m sure you at least are impressed.
Well, therein lies the problem, but you won’t be able to see it.
“It is likely that ….” isn’t real science it’s voices in the collective heads science
If it was real science it would read “The data is shown in Figure X. Here you can see (whatever the data shows), but it will never show any causation of any changed climate parameter by CO2 levels above 280ppm. The reason for that is that there isn’t any, so they have to dupe you and people like you with weasel words, and you keep falling for it. Get a spine.
Total bull feces.
In science you must prove your case.
Especially when people come in with extraordinary claims, they must have extraordinary evidence.
What do alarmists have for proof?
Zilch! Nada! Zero! Not a single thing.
That political summary you claim gives evidence does nothing of the sort.
At it’s best it assumes coincidence, association and correlation all mean causation.
There is no proof in the ‘summary for policymakers.’
Especially since every interested country forced their opinions into the findings.
etc. etc., The full list is very long and delusional alarmists whinging about it nonstops.
Yet alarmists and their alleged scientists are unable to disprove any of the natural causes.
This inability is so profound that alarmists lie constantly and pretend these problems with their deity molecule do not exist.
The numbers are lower than the highest point in the last 100 years. Big whoop.
They’re grasping at smaller and smaller straws to stay afloat, don’t you find? They’re rooting around in a steaming cesspit of discarded trash to find some little factoid they can worry away at so they can announce, “eureka … here’s a promising turd I can polish.”
I’m kinda shocked to see how far you can get in rejecting reality.
I’m totally unsurprised to find out that you no longer have any clue as to what reality is.
You never did have a grasp on reality. You believe the AGW conjecture is a proven fact.
Pure projection by a trollop unable to realize that it’s specious claims have ruined all nyici credibility for all time at WUWT.
I think you’ve just destroyed climate science as we know it with you deep insight 🙂 Now really, haven’t you thought about why the extremes seem to happen in the last decade? * There is record breaking in almost every year. FYI I’m not trying to prove it to you, scientists have already done that. I’m just illustrating how delusional you are.
(*) The 40s were similar, for known reasons, so please spare the digital ink.
And you know and don’t care about scientist just declaring with reasons the opposite based on observations and not on models running to hot.
“Now really, haven’t you thought about why the extremes seem to happen in the last decade? *”
I think the arctic extremes of today happened for the same reason they happened when we had similar extremes in the Early Twentieth Century, and that was because the temperatures in the Early Twentieth Century were just as warm as they are today.
The year 1940 = CO2 at 280ppm in the atmosphere
The year 2021 = CO2 at 420ppm in the atmosphere
It’s not any warmer today than in 1940, yet there is much more CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Conclusion: CO2 has little to do with controlling the Earth’s temperatures.
You are kindly referred to the relevant pages like RealClimate. This is perfectly in line with climate science.
In other words you have no idea what pages refute Tom and likely you have no idea where to find such information.
nyolci only looks at what he considers reputable sources. Like realclimate and the IPCC. Everything else is just industry paid propaganda.
That’s how he protects his mind from any fact that might contaminate him and make him unworthy of his idols.
And nyicky is doing exactly what Rory describes, nyicky assumes these two pathetic sources have imagined proof.
Completely unable to cite a reference, link, paper name, etc.
Going to be like silly simian and giffie, will cite papers that have nothing in the way of claimed evidence/proof.
The problem for the alarmists is they don’t have any evidence to cite.
There are no pages that refute my claim that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. All the written historical records show this is the case.
The alarmist wants to ignore these written records and pretend that only computer manipulation of the written record will give the correct temperature.
The written record does not agree with the computer-generated record. The written record shows we have nothing to fear from CO2. The computer-generated record is just pure climate change propaganda.
The more of nyolci’s remarks I read, the more I realize she isn’t even reading her own sources. She has no idea what the real data is. When someone cites an entire body of work or a meta-study as their source you know they’re just blowing hot air.
Facts have a way of doing that.
If it’s well known why the 40’s were similar, please let us know. As usual, you are just blowing smoke in a desperate attempt to hide how little you actually know.
Climate science destroyed itself decades ago.
There are records broken every year in the recorded history of weather. You would need to be omniscient to know what extremes have occured since mankind entered the picture on this old world.
What if I’m omniscient? 🙂 You are usually religious folks. What if I’m God? What if I know where you left your eyeglasses you’re searching for in panic? You have to worship me! Okay, just kidding, I’m just the Holy Spirit. And I have to tell you, we are breaking records almost every year in the modern era when we have pretty good records (or pretty good reconstructions).
In other words, you can’t refute anything Jim wrote, but your ego won’t let you slink off in shame, so you will just insult anyone who dares to disagree with you and your idols.
Almost everything you say is worded in the form of a fallacy. You can’t seem to separate argument from fallacy, or fact from your own fancy. You need to learn something about logic.
That is utterly meaningless. Records are broken every year in every era. All weather, therefore all climate, is variable; which means it is subject to constant change … from extremes of cold to extremes of heat and everything in between.
Can you provide some evidence? 🙂
Are you suggesting something to the contrary? The fact there are both warm and cold extremes in every series of measurements (a beginning and an end) is tautological … true by virtue of its logical form alone.
In the last few decades those records are broken almost annually that are showing a consistent and accelerating warming. Climate science has demonstrated that this warming is due to anthropogenic reasons, not some cyclic fluctuations.
Which records have been broken annually. Be specific or go away?
Which “climate science” has “demonstrated” any such thing? You’ve got nothing … just flatulence, a typical warmist science illiterate.
Falsify the null hypothesis.
“In the last few decades those records are broken almost annually that are showing a consistent and accelerating warming.”
You must be talking about the NASAClimate/NOAA fraudulent, bastardized, temperature charts, that allowed them to claim that 12 of the 16 years in the 21st century were the “hottest year evah!”.
The only problem with that argument is the UAH satellite chart shows that no year in the 21st century was warmer than the year 1998, until we get to the year 2016, where 2016 is statistically tied with 1998, for the warmest year in the last few decades (0.1C warmer).
So, the NASAClimate/NOAA data manipulators are lying to the world with their bastardized temperature charts.
The Weather Balloon data correlates with the UAH satellite data at about the 97 percent level.
The Weather Balloon data does not correlate with the bastardized NASAClimate/NOAA data.
If NASAClimate/NOAA were restricted to using only the UAH satellite chart then they could not have declared any year between 1998 and 2016 as being the “hottest year evah!”
Look at the UAH chart and see the NASAClimate/NOAA Big Lie. They are manipulating the surface temperature record for political purposes, to scare people into regulating CO2, at a ruinous cost to the people of the world. They are creating a problem where there is none.
Why!?
It is a normal occurrence. You can check to your heart’s content and find plenty of evidence, often daily.
Welcome to the Holocene Inter-glacial, around 2-4 degrees C cooler than the previous four Inter-glacials going back over half a million years!!! Who is the science against now???
Lol…triggered indeed.
Rory Forbes said: So bloody what?
My point is this. The same dataset that shows no decline since 2012 also says that the sea ice extents have a lot of variability with many ups and downs. So if you’re going to accept that sea ice extent minimums are still higher than in 2012 then you have no choice but to also accept that the long term trend is decisively down despite the recent uptick which BTW is still below the 1991-2020 average. And that’s with near record low pressures and geopotential heights in 2021 that would typically be expected to yield near record highs in sea ice extent. Yet here we are…sea ice extents are STILL well below average.
More blather based on selective sampling (cherry picking). It’s all meaningless bloviating unless it provides a cause. For some empirical evidence go to Tony Heller’s site realclimatescience.com for an update of ice conditions in early 20th century, long before there was any significant human CO2 emissions. Sea Ice is cyclical; temperatures are cyclical and present conditions have been repeating themselves throughout the Holocene. The AGW religion has nothing to offer. It cannot even be considered science because it’s faith based.
See? This is it. When someone provides evidence, you start ranting incoherently. When I say read the IPCC reports, you accuse me for not providing evidence.
This is an interesting hypothesis. Any evidence? We need calculations etc. And how about the null hypo… 🙂
If anyone is “incoherent” it’s you. Saying “read the IPCC reports” is not evidence of anything. It’s suggesting an opponent find his own evidence. You must provide the evidence yourself or direct us to precisely where it can be found.
There are at least 3 graphs showing the cyclical nature of ice on this page alone. You’re being childishly irrational again.
In the IPCC report 🙂
This is simply not true (I hope you’re not talking about seasonality). The graphs show consistent loss.
AR6 is thousands of pages long. Cite the specific papers and text.
See, we can see loss. The buildup in the mid 20th century is not a contradiction, not a result of cyclicity, it is well known and fits the picture, and it’s due to aerosol pollution. You’ve been told 101010 times this already.
“and it’s due to aerosol pollution.”
More evidence-free claims. When it’s cooling it’s aerosols, and when it’s warming it’s CO2. Life is so simple for some Mother Nature naysayers.
I think Climate Crackpots is the phrase you were really looking for
So… rising CO2 correlates positively to rising sea ice levels? I’ll wait for griff’s explanation. I’m sure it will be a good one. 😜
–
–
–
P.S. I also like Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Global warming causes Global Cooling is right up there in worthiness with those fairy tales. The Brothers Grimm probably aren’t spinning in their graves, but the thumps heard are them kicking themselves for not thinking of that one.
Hansel and Gretel was pretty close. Two kids left to fend for themselves as Germany plunged into the LIA and parents couldn’t feed their offspring.
They all lived happily ever after, even though, it seems, they didn’t have a socialist nitwit Utopia. They ran off with the wicked witch’s treasure after killing her. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has ever studied that cautionary tale?
Ice cream from her $25,000 refrigerator/freezer and twice-baked little children?
What’s not to like?
That wasn’t a cautionary tale. It was a recipe book.
Oh, I don’t know – 2 delinquent kids run away from home then mug a little old lady for her retirement fund before spinning a yarn absolving themselves of all responsibility when caught. It’s a cautionary tale all right – always try to look at both sides of the narrative, not just the story you like the look of!
Well, that did make me laugh, but it wasn’t a modern story set in a US inner-city. It truly was set in an era (the little ice age, which I assume was super-prominent in Germany)) where kids had to go off and fend for themselves because the parents couldn’t afford to feed them.
We’re going there again too, but at least we have technology and we know CO2 is too useless to have an effect so we don’t need to waste any time there, although some of the nitwits on this thread would still probably think so if it happens in their lifetimes.
and all the variable years of measurements show that the arctic is not melting….there is a tremendous amount of ice around the North Pole….the edges are ebbing and flowing…as has alway been the case. AGW is not evident as so forcefully predicted 20 years ago.
Deacon – CO2 goes steadily upwards and sea ice goes up and down, up and down, up and down.
If I turn a control knob to 11, I expect things to go W-A-A-Y up.
CO2 disappoints.
I blame gremlins; much more believable.
“If I turn a control knob to 11, I expect things to go W-A-A-Y up.
CO2 disappoints.”
Good point. CO2 is looking puny.
CO2 isn’t the only thing modulating Arctic sea ice on any timescale. How does you perception of the variability of Arctic sea ice change if you consider all modulating factors?
Among other things, when you look at the AMO, you find that the ups and downs of arctic sea ice levels match very well with the AMO cycle.
Through in the impact of El Ninos and La Ninas, and much of the remaining record is explained.
There really is very little variation left for CO2 to explain.
“There really is very little variation left for CO2 to explain.”
There you go again.
Try a multi-variate analysis and not just the one you prefer because its ABCD.
First off there would be some correlation as that (a little) warmer Atlantic water gets swept into the Barents and E Siberian seas by the NAO.
However, it’s the same situation as with ENSO.
There is a NV on TOP of the AGW warming trend.
We would not have this (below) if the warming was solely due to warmer waters intruding …… Winter temps rising markedly at a time when sea-ice is a max (insulation from water temps) and solar zero.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plus80n/anoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png
Then why are we concentrating on removing CO2 rather than the other things. If CO2 isn’t the most important control knob you have already lost.
bdgwx: “How does you perception of the variability of Arctic sea ice change if you consider all modulating factors?”
I do perceive myriad other factors as being more important than CO2 to the ups and downs of Arctic sea ice coverage.
Read again. I am attempting to change the perception of those who believe CO2 to be the Climate Control knob. How can it be the control knob when CO2 is steadily increasing and Arctic sea ice is so variable?
When I turn a control knob up, I expect more of whatever the knob controls.
When you turn a volume knob up, you expect more volume, not maybe less or maybe more or maybe for the volume to stay the same. In such a case, person might reasonably conclude that what they are turning up isn’t the control knob for volume. Something else is going on.
How can CO2 be the control knob when CO2 is steadily increasing and Arctic sea ice is so variable? If you consider all the other modulating factors, CO2 seems to be at best, maybe, possibly a bit player, swamped by the other factors, if CO2 is a factor in Arctic sea ice change at all.
CO2 is an important factor on the long term trend because it’s perturbation of the planetary energy imbalance, though small relatively speaking, is persistently positive thus its integrated effect accumulates over time.
Your volume knob is a really good illustration of this effect. When the knob is fixed in place the volume output in decibels is variable as the music goes through periods of crescendo and fade. Now as you slowly turn the knob up over a period of years the same crescendos and fades in the music are still there, but overall the volume is increasing. At some point the fades in the future will be louder than the crescendos in the past.
But play the same piece of music repeatedly, each time increasing the volume control knob, and the crescendos and fades should both increase proportionately.
I look at the steadily increasing CO2 shown in the Mona Loa record and then look at not only the satellite record, but historical accounts** of Arctic sea ice, and fail to see any relationship.
Correlation is not causation, but no apparent correlation is definitely a sign to look elsewhere.
–
–
** In this WUWT article, arctic sea ice was noted to be extremely low, yet CO2 was also much lower. How does low CO2 cause low sea ice and 100 years later, higher CO2 levels see recovering sea ice levels?
You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. – Watts Up With That?
But unlike the music analogy there isn’t just one control knob. There are dozens. They all have to be considered. The fact that other control knobs exist does not in any way remove the fact that when the CO2 control knob moves by +1% the radiative force increases by +0.05 W/m2. I encourage you to read through IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 8 and see for yourself the dozens of control knobs that scientists consider and that’s just for the planetary energy balance. There are dozens if not hundreds more that are considered in regards to the movement of energy to/from the cryosphere that also modulate sea ice extents on month-to-month timescales. All of these are considered.
bdgwx: “There are dozens of control knobs.”
–
–
Exactly. That’s implicit in my original comment. I was not pointing out what all of those are, I was pointing out what was not the control knob. I think perhaps you didn’t catch that which was not explicitly stated?
Yet the YSM and our aspiring Overlords insist CO2 is the control knob. Therefore, we should eliminate fossil fuel use, raise taxes, stop eating meat, and form a One-World government.
They, the Overlord wannabes, are fiddling with the wrong knob on purpose, and they know it. If we really could do something about Arctic sea ice extent we should be looking at the dozens of other interconnected factors that actually determine Arctic ice conditions. CO2 ain’t it.
“When you turn a volume knob up, you expect more volume, not maybe less or maybe more or maybe for the volume to stay the same. In such a case, person might reasonably conclude that what they are turning up isn’t the control knob for volume. Something else is going on.”
I love it!
We keep turning that CO2 knob up and instead of warming, we are getting cooling, 0.5C since the year 2016, the “hottest year evah!”.
It looks like turning up the level of CO2 is not the temperature control knob, as you so eloquently say.
How does CO2 going from 380 ppm to 400-ish ppm melt Arctic sea ice anyway. What is the physical mechanism? You can take it slowly.
Could one of you dorks on here explain the physics here, and also explain to us knuckle-draggers why it doesn’t do it in the Antarctic?
There is ice extent…dependent on winds and currents …and there is ice thickness and volume…go with the Dane’s no.s…Polar Portal…shows ice thickness and volume already turned upward.
Just been watching an excellent mini-series on BBC I-player – ‘North Water’ (set in the 1860s & a lot of the filming was done in Svalbard ) well worth seeing, it conveys the hard life the greens want us to revert to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p09mqzmq/the-north-water?seriesId=p09mqzrs
recommend viewing it.
[ BBC have always been good at making believable & convincing drama from a fictional source, in the entertainment, reporting & news depts !!! ]
Ever noticed that the greens themselves don’t aspire to subsistence living – that’s only what the developed nations populations should be sentenced to.
The greens love to live in comfortable inner-city digs, with all conveniences at hand or nearby.
Oh, and free charging stations for their EVs.
Thoughts from a sea ice novice.
These arctic sea ice graphs are a good visual for the layman or novice, but surely they don’t tell the real picture.
Shouldn’t alarmists be able to link each years sea ice data with actual CO2 induced weather phenomena?
Every spring, CO2 takes a small down move due to plants soaking up CO2 for the greening…but temp keeps rising for the spring thaw. The correlation between CO2 and temp must be man created….in hockey puck graphs. In other news, the demrats want to give $12,500 to new EV buyers….and it appears auto makers make more profit on EVs than IC vehicles….go figure…they don’t care whether CO2 is causing any warming…there’s money to be made.
Tesla makes more money selling “credits” to ICE car makers than selling EV’s.
This CO2 scam is turning the Free Market upside down.
That’s what it was designed to do in the first place.
In Biden’s new “infrastructure bill”, there is a provision to increase the subsidy for EV’s by $4500, but only for cars built in union shops.
No reference to what effect Iceland’s active volcanoes (Hekla, Geldingadalir) will have on the increase in ice volume? I’m disappointed! But that’s just me. 🙂
The idea that the presented data show an increase is absurd.
There is NO increase, just a lot of variation.
I agree the sea ice is just doing what it’s always done – no need for any global warming BS
“Again here’s Arctic sea ice volume going back 170 years:
…
Today’s sea ice volume is similar to that seen in the 1940s.”
It isn’t. The Belgian paper cited is a model study of variability, not observed data. The caption to the tableau from which the posted plot fragment is taken starts:
“Figure 1. Wavelet analysis applied to the Arctic sea ice volume anomaly over the pre-industrial (200 years preceding the historical integration) (a), historical (1850–2005) (b) and future (2006–2100) (c) periods.”
One clue is to the status of the “data” is that it extends to 2100. It is a model simulation.
So you have a problem with model simulations now?
Actually it’s this place that hates models …. when it’s used for climate projections (seeing as the projections are for more warming).
One just notes the hypocrisy of some denizens here, that’s all – that dont murmur when the outcome fits their bias.
Hypocrisy meter in the shop?
Interesting. Most who post here state observations trump computer models. and simulations. So far, computer model simulations do not match observations.
The graph shows ice extent 1850-2005. Thought you loved models
Good news….we have so much warming now that you don’t need that extra blanket you wrote about.
You’ll note the wavelet analysis. This is not a statistical analysis. It is an analysis using periodic mathematical formulations. Think Fourier analysis. A time – frequency analysis is a whole new ballgame for periodic phenomena like ENSO, etc.
From :
https://paos.colorado.edu/research/wavelets/bams_79_01_0061.pdf
“Wavelet analysis is becoming a common tool for analyzing localized variations of power within a time series. By decomposing a time series into time–frequency space, one is able to determine both the dominant modes of variability and how those modes vary in time.”
NSIDC records the sea ice extent as lower than the record minimum (2012) in the first half, and higher in the second half to date. If the trends persists, we will record a return to “normal” over the next decade, then presumably back again.
Arctic sea ide highs, lows, in-betweens
None of it matters unless there is an explanation for the highs and lows.
Surely if CO2 were to blame there would be no lows as long as CO2 continues to rise and is the control knob of warming/climate?
That would be the logical conclusion. Since it is not doing that, the logical conclusion is that CO2 is not much of a factor as a temperature control knob.
You can see most alarmists don’t live in England. How do we know what the weather is…we look out of the front door….why?…because nobody can forcast our weather or climate more than maybe three hours in front with any certainty…( and even then they are often wrong) I can’t tell you how many weather forcasts get changed on the BBC app every day……yet these gits pretend to forcast 30 years from now…..
‘And as Tony Heller has shown dozens of times‘ that’s the Tony Heller that Anthony Watts himself said was telling lies about arctic sea ice? Really, you are quoting Heller as any kind of reference or authority?!
If you want to look at some other measures of the ice like extent, area, thickness and age, they are all on a downward slope.
I am going to take a look at some reliable measures of volume and minimums… because this IS cherrypicking and not very good cherries at that…
Thanks a lot Simon.
“…they are all on a downward slope.”
Extent will probably be around 1.4 million km² MORE than the low minimum of 2012.
That’s not down that’s up!
It’s also ABOVE the 2010’s average extent, and over a million more than last year.
I don’t even like cherries.
And yet more lies from the lying lie spewer. Arctic is covered with ice just as it will be for the foreseeable future. Tell some more lies, it is all you can do.
I think Tony and Anthony have kissed and made up.
The controversy was whether it got cold enough in Antarctica to cause CO2 to freeze solid there. Tony was not telling lies about arctic sea ice, or anything else.
You need to get the facts about your personal attacks straight.
It’s always personal attacks and character assasination with Griff. Alarmists do this when they don’t have any facts to offer, so as a substitute, they try to personally smear those they can’t refute, hoping this will cause a casual reader to dismiss those arguments without considering them.
“that’s the Tony Heller that Anthony Watts himself said was telling lies about arctic sea ice? Really, you are quoting Heller as any kind of reference or authority?!”
Yes it certainly is Griff.
The very one that does not answer criticisms except by way of ad hom (rather like the entitled snake-oil seller actually).
But has denizens enthralled with his bias confirming graphs, especially his US ones – deceitfully produced by dint of comparing “all stations that have a long data base” (paraphrase) —- which of course usefully omits the many stations that have ceased to report in the meantime. The majority of which are in the western US … which just happens to be the warming part of the country.
SO he has a built in cold bias.
Well done Denizens … so, so sceptical of you that you let that glaring statistical, erm error, get by you.
“https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/07/fake-charge-of-tampering-in-giss.htmla plus for your critics.
You know, with people like him and Monckton, that’s actually a plus for your opponents – as only the desperate and deluded take any heed, so egregious are their doings.
TONY HELLER IS DOING A GREAT JOB REVEALING noaa FRAUD…noaa SHOULD BE SUED FOR FRAUD.
Bless
Keep taking the meds
Bless your heart you really should keep your meds up.
just curious do you climastrologists huff paint before looking at the garbage spewed by Mike Mann and the other high priests of the climate doom cult? or is it the lack of any grasp on reality there that sends your minds on a trip through the void?
NOAA has a more alarmistic view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbmoIWD95d0
She refers to Polarstern a ship that was used to see how ice is melting but found it did not.
It moved!
“The predictions of an ice-free Arctic soon made a decade ago were flat out wrong.”
Not the IPCC ones they aren’t.
Of course the ones you concentrate on here are as they highlight the idiocy of individuals, whether scientists or not.
They are opinions stated by politicians coming from a few (eg Wadhams) shooting they big mouths off
They were made against consensus science and took into account only the current (at the time) anomalous rate of decline.
This is the IPCC projection for Arctic sea-ice decline ….
What’s more apparent than the stabilisation of the Sept minima is the delay in the rate of refreeze. This because of the warmth of the seas, particularly the Kara & Laptev …..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ek8Bo8qVcAEJ7gQ?format=jpg&name=medium
In f.e. 2004 or 2005, refreeze started around 18th or 20th of Sept. the last years the restart was about 9th or 10th of Sept. (NSIDC) Where is your problem ?
You talk BS and you know it.
What is the relevance of you “observation” to the graphs above?
Hare Krishna!
What’s more apparent than the stabilisation of the Sept minima is the delay in the rate of refreeze.
Just an answer to the faulty argument by AB.
Better read and unsderstand the comments.
I’m some decades elder then the wrongly named orange wearing people of earlier times, so what was your intention other than an personal insult ?
Oh look, Nickleci the Nasty is a racist.
What a surprise.
It seems to be a requirement for progressives these days.
While labeling anyone who rejects their horrible ideas as “racists”.
??? wtf? Making up bullshit again? BTW this particular Krishna is German.
Try being a little less literal.
Obviously it’s not the point at which the extent curve reaches the point of inflection.
I mean, to think that would just be stupid as the vernal equinox is at the same time each year (last time I checked anyway).
What I obviously meant was the TARDINESS to the refreeze ….
“You talk BS and you know it.”
I talk real world data.
That you don’t believe it does not make me the BS merchant.
You will have to better … like stop handwaving and give some data.
Past refreezing starts NSIDC
9/13/20
9/17/19
9/16/18
9/13/17
9/07/16
9/08/15
9/16/14
9/13/13
9/16/12
9/08/11
9/19/10
9/12/09
9/18/08
9/14/07
9/14/06
9/20/05
9/18/04
9/17/03
9/18/02
9/19/01
9/11/00
You would data ? You get data. 😀
The data is depicted on the graphs just above.
But thanks anyway
So, where is your “TARDINESS” ?
What exactly is this spaghetti that you are so fond of supposed to illustrate?
See, same lies different name.
And just what would that be?
With evidence of course.
Like a graph of Arctic sea temperature to show that the ones posted above are “lies”.
You may not need it.
But in parts not down a rabbit-hole it is.
It’s actually called hand-waving (D) word
Take your time, it doesn’t matter, as the scientific world is taking no notice of you, You are just another of the psychology of the Qanoners.
God help them.
Nothing you screech proves the Arctic is ice free, or that it will be, ever. Just the same lying crap you greentards are always spewing. Oh, and anyone honest can simply look at the satellite images to see ice all over the Arctic and Antarctic. But hey! You got your leftist agenda and that is all you need, isn’t it? Tell u8s again how the world is ending and we are all gonna die, love laughing at that mentally damaged stupidity.
(You need to stop the insults) SUNMOD
“Tell u8s again how the world is ending and we are all gonna die, love laughing at that mentally damaged stupidity.”
No one is saying that … just another example of the CAGW meme that is entirely of *your* making.
The science is undeniable that humans have/are causing warming in the climate system – and the Arctic is just the canary in the goldmine.
It is just a very slow warming process that will continue for centuries.
There are actually people who are not selfish and see the trouble ahead in that time-frame for humans. If it is to be mitigated (to late to stop) then we need to stop polluting the planet ASAP.
Politics is stopping it of course.
The US seems to be particularly rabidly polarised and of course Putin earns money for himself via fossil. China has taken over from the US in world supremacy and is cocking-a-snoop at the world. Meanwhile the rest do what they can.
It is going the right way but too slowly for those living in the next century (cost/disruption NOT armageddon ).
SO the wailing and gnashing of teeth here at every dog-whistled post makes it enormous fun to post up the reality science — when especially all you can do is hand-wave “lies”.
If you say so.
It bothers me not a jot
Twirl&spin, spin&twirl, your continuous morphing from point to point is quite entertaining. Oh, yea, Arctic is still covered with ice no matter how many lies you tell.
Like I said.
If you say so
I do, because the Arctic is covered with ice, and your feelings don’t matter.
I love the way Banton keeps pulling in the same old charts over and over again, even after it’s been explained to him that they don’t show what he wants to see.
For example, the first chart uses the dramatic drop in sea ice in 2012 that was caused by an unusual late season storm, as proof that CO2 causing the the loss, and then uses that point to create a prediction line. And then totally ignores the subsequent recover in sea ice.
You mean the one (graph) that shows that that this last decades annual sea-ice declines were WELL ahead of the IPCC projections?
You seem to have some difficulty in understanding my posts.
Maybe it’s me but when I counter someone saying that the “Alarmists” are wrong etc etc when they said the ice would be gone by 2009/2012 or some such ridiculous early date – then I would have thought that showing that the “alarmists” weren’t wrong with that graph of IPCC sea-ice decline projections and that the decline to an ice free late summer Arctic is way off …. err, it should have clicked.
Anyway the rest is just diversion as that is not what I was implying, even if you think so.
You’re welcome MarkW
They were ahead, now they aren’t.
When the AMO was ramping up and we had several strong El Nino’s, sea ice dropped rapidly. No matter how desperate you are to believe that CO2 must be responsible, the data simply doesn’t support your beliefs.
The proof of that is what has happened to sea ice in the last 10 years.
“They were ahead, now they aren’t.”
You noticed that.
And it was unfeasibly to quick to be maintained (as the consensus well knew and published) – so now the trend has regressed to the mean.
claiming scientific methos and talking about consensus,
you fool around 😀
Science is done by many researchers in the field.
would you prefer that the IPCC toss a coin to choose the science with the strongest support.
oh, silly me that’s here isn’t it.
Instead the IPCC sides with the governments that pay their bills and slant the report to what their pay masters want to see.
It’s interesting that the only bias objective observers could show was from the deniers. This bias was indirect and it was due to the constant harassment from them and it resulted in reporting broader estimates with less warming.
“highlight the idiocy of individuals”
Are you suggesting Professor Peter Wadhams is an idiot? tut tut…
He’s human as well as a scientist.
It doesn’t preclude him from making idiotic statements
I mean, you probably are too.
If only we were all as perfect as Antony Banton what a wonderful world this would be….
if you say so LOL
This is a good example of why everyone gets to review research before it is broadly accepted. If it can survive review by the entire world’s population without having any egregious errors identified then we consider it credible (though not necessarily right). On the other hand, if it cannot be replicated or egregious errors are identified then we don’t consider it credible and it is discarded. Wadhams’s prediction definitely falls into the later category. No one except the uninformed media and blogosphere took it seriously. At the same time the IPCC and the rest of the academic community advocated for the first ice-free Arctic summer not occurring until the second half of the 21st century. Even today the latest IPCC AR6 report gives a 66% chance by 2050.