From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
By Paul Homewood
The Met Office’s website describes the work they do, rambling on about forecasting the weather and world leading science. Nowhere can I find any reference to publishing fake news or disseminating misleading propaganda.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary:
Decline = change to a lower amount
Continues = keeps happening
So the meaning of that headline is crystal clear:
Arctic sea ice keeps getting less.
One look at their graph shows this is patently not true, despite grossly misleading linear fit, intended to fool people.
It is very easy to show that Arctic sea ice has stabilised. As their graph itself shows, there have only been three years since 2007 with lower ice extent than that year, and eleven have had higher extents.
Also the average of the last ten years is higher than 2007’s extent.
In itself, this is too short a period to make any meaningful judgements. But that is no excuse for the Met Office to publish such a manifest falsehood.
I have left a comment on their blog, but as is usual it is blocked. Maybe Richard Betts would care to comment!
Are the Met Office so afraid of the truth?
Here’s the monthly average PIOMAS volume, as you can see it’s consistently dropping. All the months this year are below the July ’79 value, the next ten years should be interesting.
index.php
Does anybody remember the graphs they used to show us a decade or so ago (before the minimum extent levelled off) that showed this same graph with a trendline that was pointing down at a hell of a rate? I bet if we compared that trandline with the one on the graph above we’d see that the trend is getting more horizontal as the years go on.
Yes it’s gone back to the models’ projections.
So nature has already proved that graph to be wrong. Sea ice growth is already above the predicted values and the real growth season hasn’t even begun yet.
Baton posts his standard spaghetti … again.
Yawn.
In a scary, warming world, how could this be happening?
Three More U.K. Power Suppliers Collapse as Energy Crisis Deepens (yahoo.com)
I’m not sure how to reconcile these two sentences.
“It is very easy to show that Arctic sea ice has stabilised.”
and
“In itself, this is too short a period to make any meaningful judgements.”
If it is easy to show it has stablised, then why not do it?
Here’s a graph I made using OSISAF data. Red line is the trend starting in 2007, blue line is trend up to 2006, extended to the current year.
What you should know is that the two things that stand between us and a new glaciation are the polar vortex and Oct-Mar Arctic sea-ice. For a 2 m thick ice layer and a temperature difference of 30ºC between the ocean and the atmosphere the heat loss is around 30 W/m2. Without ice the heat loss is around 250 W/m2 of sensible heat plus 60 W/m2 of latent heat (Peixoto and Oort 1992). That’s over ten times more per m2.
That low Arctic sea-ice is cooling the planet big time (the pause, remember?). If it warms more the ice will decrease until it cools. When the planet cools the ice will increase. There will be no ice-free Arctic this interglacial.
Your own graph does a nice job of making his point. It is obvious at a glance that the trend has moved sideways for the last 14 years.
“obvious at a glance” is not the same as showing it’s correct. As Homewood says, the period is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions.
In fact the trend since 2007 is not significantly different from the trend before it. But the more obvious point is that it is much lower than the previous levels. This doesn’t seem like stabalising to me, rather it still hasn’t recovered from the big crashes in 2007 and 2012.
The minimum ice extent in 2021 is greater than that for 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015-2020, or the last 6 years in a row, and 11 of the past 14 years. How does that constitute “continuing the decline”?
One could use the same data to say that this year’s minimum ice extent was the “fourth highest in the last 14 years”, to postulate that the decline in the minimum ice extent has stopped, or even reversed itself. This may be criticized as cherry-picking, but the trend over recent years (since 2007) is unclear, and we need data from future years to establish a trend.
Misinformation is now everywhere
A recent guest on a radio show here in calgary (that I no longer listen to because of this) was from the U of C, and he proceeded to list all of the worst claptrap without an ounce of pushback from the host:
Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world
The arctic sea ice decline is accelerating
Sea level rise is 5-10x a decade ago
Heat waves and droughts accelerating
All garbage, all easily disproved. I called in but was not allowed to talk to the “expert” so I asked the host to ask him to produce data showing SLR acceleration, never mind 5-10x greater than a decade ago
And bupkuss
Lies everywhere
I think if you Google any country, you’ll find that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!
It’s well known meme.
This is exactly what I was going to say!
Yes, that was my point to these people, every country with an entrenched climate Scientology class ran that meme in 2020, it was the flavor of the day
Endless stupidity
No, but their paymasters are.
It’s the Linear Response, No Threshold Problem. The world is a nonlinear place widower and upper thresholds. Climate skeptics fall into this error as well. Straight lines are so simple! Like unitary solutions (abandon fossil fuels/nuclear power.)
The ice data has at least two patterns. The early decine and the recent pause. Neither is a determination for the future. But that precludes immediate public policy and excitement.
Why do we fall into this error also? It boggles the mind.
Aside from the fact there is no longer a mile of ice over NYC so “Global Warming” happened long before Man began to use “evil” fossil fuels, didn’t Al Gore use CGI from a movie in his “Inconvenient Truth”?
He lied and misled.
Aside from what the multiple renaming of “The Existential Threat”, what’s changed beside the goalpost?
“Aside from the multiple renaming of “The Existential Threat”, what’s changed beside the goalpost” Absolutely nothing at all – ‘The Science’ the CAGW crowd love to reference is still exactly the same as the 1979 JASON report on “Long term impact of atmospheric CO2 on climate.” Nothing whatsoever has changed in the last 42 years.
DMI is showing robust sea ice growth. … http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years_en.png
I bet that we will see strong growth in the sea ice over the next 5+ months. There was a similar spike in volume in 2015.
Arctic sea ice is turning around. It will be the climate change index that will break the AGW camel’s back. Even NSIDC noticed in 2019 that the 13-year trend is the flattest on their record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/Sep_monthly_extents13yr.png
Now we have the flatest 15-year trend and positive 12-year trend (Septembar daily minimum).
I suggest you all have a look at my commentary on this post:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/09/30/one-look-at-a-graph/
Tamino
Good to see you commentating
However
The April time series (Fig 8) for both data sets have no apparent trend over the past 11 years. Comparing this with the 43 year 1979-2021 time series highlights the importance of natural variability in relatively short time series such as currently available from CS2.
“Apparent” is not very “scientific”. Have you done the same sort of statistical analysis as Tamino on the PIOMAS volume data?
The sort of analysis that Paul Homewood neglected to do for extent!
The reason Arctic sea-ice appears to have “recovered”, is because of the influence of just 2 summers.
2007 and 2012.
2012, as often is regaled here – was a “freak” year when …..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/
“The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.”
And 2007 ….
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
“One factor that contributed to this fall’s extreme decline was that the ice was entering the melt season in an already weakened state. NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “The spring of 2007 started out with less ice than normal, as well as thinner ice. Thinner ice takes less energy to melt than thicker ice, so the stage was set for low levels of sea ice this summer.”
Another factor that conspired to accelerate the ice loss this summer was an unusual atmospheric pattern, with persistent high atmospheric pressures over the central Arctic Ocean and lower pressures over Siberia. The scientists noted that skies were fairly clear under the high-pressure cell, promoting strong melt. At the same time, the pattern of winds pumped warm air into the region. While the warm winds fostered further melt, they also helped push ice away from the Siberian shore. NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent.”
This is all akin to Monckton’s “pauses” in GMST in UAH TLT V6, whereby you look at an extreme high (which will always be in an El Nino year ) and then sell the delusion that it has been “cooling” since.
It hasn’t – it is just the overwriting of natural variability onto the AGW warming trend.
In that case a La Nina should cause an actual cooling of GMST.
Time was it did, now it can’t overcome the AGW trend, and just gives the illusion of a “pause”.
The delusion that the Arctic sea-ice has recovered, stems from those 2 exceptional (one a “black swan”) event.
Were those 2 years merely normal for sea-ice melt and those 2 data points moved back towards the linear long-term trend there would be nothing to see.
So in short not only is the period of “recovery” way to short to signify anything but it comprises just those 2 years in order to achieve it.
Put a pin in this discussion right here Mr. Banton and we’ll revisit it in a few years time (up to about 10 should more than suffice I’d say) when the sea ice has recovered to the point where pre 1990 levels are the norm, then we’ll continue the discussion. Until then we can both shut up and keep our powder dry, as it were.
Stabilized does not equate to recovered.There is no doubt the rate of loss has significantly changed since 2007. Recovery will take a number of years of increasing sea ice extent/volume.
The April time series (Fig 8) for both data sets have no apparent trend over the past 11 years. Comparing this with the 43 year 1979-2021 time series highlights the importance of natural variability in relatively short time series such as currently available from CS2.