And most of the loss occurred during the winter, not the summer.
[youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuHBPjElHI]
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html
This loss occurred during period dominated by El Nino
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
Let’s give this 25+ years with a now negative PDO. Any predictions Ill Wind?
P.J. says: “Let’s give this 25+ years with a now negative PDO. Any predictions Ill Wind?”
I noticed how “thick ice” is defined as 5+ year old. Why not 6+ or 7+ year ice? It would disappear even quicker. It’s 3+ year ice that is considered “thick”. Either way
As for predictions of ice free summers in the Arctic Ocean. Let me state once more:
The Arctic will be ice free in the summer for a few days initially; then increasing to weeks and months in subsequent years; with the exception of a small band of ice north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland:
1. From 2020-2030 according to previous predictions by Climatologists (Some are beginning to think that is an underestimate.)
2. 2018-2022 by my reckoning. I do have to provide the following caveat. If there is a volcanic eruption approaching, equal to, or greater than Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, then, in my estimate, that will be postponed. I’m guessing by about 4 or 5 years.
3. Admiral Titley, Chief Oceanographer of the US Navy (a perfect Socialist conspirator by skeptic standards) estimates that the Arctic will be ice free for 4 weeks by 2035. But why pay attention to a man who’s been plying the Arctic waters for longer than some skeptics have been alive:
Admiral Titley asked “How do you answer skeptics?”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSc5YImpUkQ
US Navy Chief Oceanographer, Admiral Titley: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4&NR=1
Admiral Titley: Ice free conditions by mid 2030s and for 8-12 weeks by mid century. (1:08 mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY&feature=related
4. Most skeptics will never learn from Admiral Titley because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
From what part of your body does that ill wind blow?
How recently did he convert? It had to be more than 2 years ago. Here’s an interview with NPR from July 2009
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111409977
Plying the Arctic waters for longer than some skeptics have been alive?
Really?
That isn’t true.
You made it sound like he has spent his career in the Arctic. But just a little research shows you are wrong.
Titley has completed seven deployments to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, and Western Pacific theaters. His Belleau Wood deployment included winter-time amphibious operations north of the Aleution Islands. Dr. Titley has commanded the Fleet Numerical Meteorological and Oceanographic Center in Monterey, California, and was the first commanding officer of the Naval Oceanography Operations Command. He served his initial flag tour as commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command. Previous shore tours include assignments at the Regional Oceanography Centers at Pearl Harbor and Guam, the Naval Oceanographic Office, on the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), Office of Mine and Undersea Warfare, as the executive assistant to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) and as chief of staff, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command. RADM Titley also served on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, as Special Assistant to the Chairman (Admiral (ret.) James Watkins) for Physical Oceanography and as senior military assistant to the Director of Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
It looks like a larger portion of his career was spent in an office that what was spent in the Arctic.
http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/profiles/TitleyDavidW/profile.html
What you did ILL Wind, is you exaggerated and then passed that exaggeration off as fact. This is a typical practice of global warming believers.
Well, yes, a change in a couple of oscillating events would cause this………
That would likely be from +PDO.
I agree the 60 year cycles are interesting to think about however the millennial cycles have a greater effect on weather conditions and ice conditions than the multidecadal cycles do. We will not know until after the cycle has completed to know the extent of the current cycle. They are easy to see in historic regional records but vary in length and severity so experiencing one would not give a good idea of future conditions other than to say we are experiencing the current oscillation. We do not know when it started and we may well be at the tail end of the last cycle.
Based on historical long term records we have an idea what to expect but based on those same records we do not know when.
We’re pretty good at hind-casting though, not perfect, but pretty good…………..
Why have you left off years after 2007?
There was a suggestion yesterday that most of the ice went in 2007, Peter.
2/3 of the 5+year old ice was lost between 1988 and 1996. That is what this article is about.
If it’s all due to El Nino, why wasn’t there a similar fall between 1979 and 1985? Why did it actually go *up* between 1981 and 1988?
Perhaps there is some lag?
Well, if you’re specifying an arbitrary amount of lag, you could argue that data any way you like. You’ll know from Fourier analysis that you can model pretty much *anything* as a combination of cycles.
because it’s the end of the world………………………..
It’s hard to get excited about this ice cover stuff. What exactly does ice cover consist of anyhow? Whenever subjectivity is involved, it gives the truth a chance to roam (per the red and pink crayons). As we know very well with these alarmists, it doesn’t even requre subjectivity for the truth to roam!
Shocking evidence. Look what Bush Sr. did! Good thing Clinton was able to stabilize that so well that the effect even carried over into Bush Jr’s term. I assume that Obama has fixed this problem as he heals the climate.
What metrics support the current alarmism on Arctic ice?
I’m looking at the AMO, which is said to be a prominent internal driver of North Atlantic and Arctic climate. It appears it may peaked in the positive phase or is close to it. Being a quasi-60 year cycle, we should begin seeing a swing back to the cold phase in the next 5 years or so.
Again, SST and OHC in both regions have stalled and are dropping, so I’m having trouble understanding all this talk about “death spirals” and the like.
It’s as if a few extra molecules of CO2, a flea, has more prominence than the 800 lb gorilla in the room; oceans. That requires a lot of faith I’d say.
Slimething:
“It’s as if a few extra molecules of CO2, a flea, has more prominence than the 800 lb gorilla in the room; oceans. That requires a lot of faith I’d say.”
Actually, it requires Radiative Transfer Equations.
Ill, do you follow the temps in the arctic?
Moderators, I have a comment still in moderation. It’s a long one, so it must have gone into your Spam.
Ill, Steve, (the typical moderator) is off in LA right now, and isn’t probably moderating. I understand he left his son with the keys, but I’m not sure how familiar he is with the blogging tools of wordpress. If the lengthy post has two or more links in them, break the link in all but one and resubmit. Or simply provide the links as replies to your comment.
If it just went to the spam,(happens to me frequently at WUWT) you may be a while before it gets retrieved.
Suyts, thanks for the advice.
NP, I know how frustrating it is to write a lengthy post just to have go down some spam hole…….
MODERATOR; I apologize for the duplicate posts-the original ones are still in moderation. You can delete all of my posts that are in moderation.
P.J. says: “Let’s give this 25+ years with a now negative PDO. Any predictions Ill Wind?”
I noticed how “thick ice” is defined as 5+ year old. Why not 6+ or 7+ year ice? It would disappear even quicker. It’s 3+ year ice that is considered “thick”. Either way
As for predictions of ice free summers in the Arctic Ocean. Let me state once more:
The Arctic will be ice free in the summer for a few days initially; then increasing to weeks and months in subsequent years; with the exception of a small band of ice north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland:
1. From 2020-2030 according to previous predictions by Climatologists (Some are beginning to think that is an underestimate.)
2. 2018-2022 by my reckoning. I do have to provide the following caveat. If there is a volcanic eruption approaching, equal to, or greater than Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, then, in my estimate, that will be postponed. I’m guessing by about 4 or 5 years.
3. Admiral Titley, Chief Oceanographer of the US Navy (a perfect Socialist conspirator by skeptic standards) estimates that the Arctic will be ice free for 4 weeks by 2035. But why pay attention to a man who’s been plying the Arctic waters for longer than some skeptics have been alive:
Admiral Titley asked “How do you answer skeptics?”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSc5YImpUkQ
US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4&NR=1
Admiral Titley: Ice free conditions by mid 2030s and for 8-12 weeks by mid century. (1:08 mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY&feature=related
Ill, all that is very titillating. But here’s the thing I have about all of this.(This may be significantly different than others here.)
First, I posit that it doesn’t matter if the arctic is ice free or not. And I also posit that if it becomes ice free, it will quickly reform(there’s a study I can dig up that affirms this) I also posit that the primary cause of ice movement from the arctic isn’t temps at all, but rather the winds and water currents, (AO and AMO and to a lesser degree the PDO)
So what does it tell us if the ice gets moved to the Atlantic? That we had an oscillating event……so what? I don’t believe this will occur, in fact, I think we’re seeing more thick(older) ice this year than we did last and I predict the minimum will still be quite a bit more than 2007. How many years away from the low point do we have to go before some one decides that it isn’t getting less and less? We’ll be going on 4 years from the low this Sept.
When I speak in the present tense I prefer to have the events about which I’m discussing in the present tense also. To me, this is just as silly as talking about current warming when none such has happened in over a decade.
And yes, I agree with PJ, I think we’ll see a regime change soon that will render all of this moot, but its gonna be a wait and see thing.
Suyts:
1. It does matter. Open oceans have a very different dynamic than ice covered ones. This will scramble our weather which in turn will lead to crop failures.
2. For reasons other than the ones you stated; Strong La Ninas and/or volcanic eruptions; there may be a temporary and partial recovery.
3. What has really been melting the Arctic ice cap are: Several decades of slowly warming oceans which have been melting the ice from below; warmer than average air during the summer.
Also, positive feedback loops from such warming/melting like:
a. Enhanced heat absorption by due to the albedo change increasing number of Polynyas and increasing the surface area of the ocean that surround the ice cap. Both accelerate the melting of the surrounding/bordering ice.
b. Increased “ponding” leading to disintegration of ice resulting in “rotten ice” which melts easier.
c. Thinning of ice allowing winds (at the same velocities) to carry the ice off more easily (due to its lighter weight.
CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS POST:
I have to break up these posts for fear of having them slip through the rabbit hole.
4. Winds have always been pushing the ice to the Atlantic but before the ice cap started warming the Arctic was cold enough to restore itself. It can’t restore itself anymore due to the warmer ocean.
5. As far as your asking how many years from 2007 we have to go, the question fails to take into consideration the following:
a. The ice, particularly the 3+, is thinning irrespective of extent.
b. 2007 was a super shrink year due to higher than average winds and atmospheric clarity (not counting the progression of several decades of warming). It’s extent was bound to rebound before continuing its inevitable decline.
Ill, your certitude is unwarranted.
1. There’s no possible way you can know whether the supposed change in weather patterns would be beneficial or harmful. It is pure speculation.
2. Just because you don’t believe a regime change is coming doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It would be nice to see a rebuttal to a change in oscillating events other than “is not!”(though I didn’t give any reasons either)
3. a. Albedo is entirely overstated and, if it were true the arctic would have seen more heat in 2008 than in 2007. (please tell me lack of albedo has a lag) But, in fact, right after the ice minimum in sep 2007, we saw the lowest ebb in temps this decade in a very dramatic fashion. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007.5/to:2008.5/trend Again, evidence that the albedo is entirely over stated. I’ll list the reasons if you desire.
b. isn’t relevant until you show that the ice is relevant.
c. same as b.
To recap, you don’t know what the weather patterns would or wouldn’t do. Two relates to PJ’s posit, but I too believe the confluence of oscillating events are nearing an end. (Mine is based on timing, while I haven’t investigated P.J.’s reasoning.) The albedo isn’t all that its cracked up to be. Again, in the interest of brevity, I’ll leave it at that but would elaborate if desired. And 3b and 3c are circular in the discussion.
suyts
Ill Wind is exaggerating about the background of ADM Titley.
I somehow missed 4 and 5a&b. I’m tired, but …..
4. The arctic can and will restore itself…..http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045698.shtml
5a. Uhhm, no, not its not……link to show the ice actually got thicker this year soon.
b. Yeh, ok, fine.
To see the change in thickness…… the latest compared to a year prior.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2011&month=5&day=23
And here……. Steve does it better with a blink comparison, but ….you get the point.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2010&month=5&day=23
Thanks AAM, but yeh, I’ve seen some try to use him for their propaganda purposes……. I haven’t had a chance yet to check out your link to him……..
Ill Wind
Please explain your immunity to
Most skeptics will never learn from Admiral Titley because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Ill Wind
Can Admiral Titley be relied upon to explain his immunity to Dunning Kruger effect?
Golf charley says:
“Please explain your immunity to “
Most skeptics will never learn from Admiral Titley because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I wouldn’t call it an immunity but rather a strong resistance. The reasons are, and the combination of all three is important:
1. Because I’ve been fooled before, for an extended period of time, by professional mindf***ers. When I finally saw through them, the experience endowed me with a fine tuned crap detector.
2. I do not have a contrarian attitude in general.
3.. I have a political stand that cannot be measured on the Conservative to Liberal spectrum, hence any politically inclined prejudice one way or another.
Keep in mind that General Titley was a skeptic once.
I was a believer in AGW once. However, once I saw how much the AGW side was saying things like, “deniers”, “the debate is over”, “consensus”, etc, I saw a side that was more interested in a political agenda than in scientific truth. It still amazes me the absolute arrogance and contempt that permeates so many who steadfastly believe in AGW (I will exclude you and several other warmists who visit here from that … I must admit, I respect the level of civility you exhibit; it is refreshing to be able to debate this topic with facts, rather than attacks). A couple of books that really opened my eyes: (1) “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon (most of the scientists he profiled for his book are/were giants in their field, unlike men like James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann who are, IMHO, nothing more than irrational green zealots with PhD’s) and (2) “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A.W. Montford (for what he did, Michael Mann should be stripped of his PhD and put on trial for fraud; the fact that he still won’t release his computer code is damning enough on its own). I used to be a very naive person, taking what people said at face value. I am older, wiser, and more skeptical now. Another thing about having once believed in AGW … that was when all my info about it was either from the news or textbooks. Once I started serious reading on the issue, I was angry that my belief in AGW was challenged. However, I kept reading and eventually, like someone who finally confronts the reality that a loved one is going to die, I could not deny the facts any longer. In essence, it was when I believed in AGW that I was really a denier.
PJ, one of the things most alarmists don’t understand is that most skeptics were once alarmists or at least bought what they were selling. This site and WUWT is full of one time alarmists. Its funny how they frame the discussion. I would probably fit their stereotype in many ways. In those ways, I’m one of very few engaged in the climate discussion. They should read up on Sun Tzu. He would have some very helpful advice for them.
Ill wind blowing,
Take a look at these. The “positive feedback loops” were somehow overridden. The next 5 to 10 years should I think settle this matter but it is interesting that the loop stalled after 2007. I am prepared to wait and see.
Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
Here is another:
Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Here is another.
http://www.ebook3000.com/Climate-Change-in-Eurasian-Arctic-Shelf-Seas–Centennial-Ice-Cover-Observations_35204.html
Ill Wind
Admiral Titley seems to rely on appeals to authority. Is this the scientific method that you rely on too?
Ill Wind
Apologies our posts crossed.
1. I have been taken for a fool. It hurts I too have developed a keen bulls1t detector
2.I have learnt that those that want to herd the sheep are the ones to be wary of. Sheep are easy to herd
3 I have learnt to be apolitical. I am from the uk. I mistruste all politicians. A politician will say what is required to get elected next time. The UK system is bad, the US system s farsical.
I am not going to be buying shares in companies seeking to exploit an ice free arctic, are you?
Gulf Charley:
“I am not going to be buying shares in companies seeking to exploit an ice free arctic, are you?”
I won’t buy shares because by then the economy will be thrashed.
However, bets are being taken on this year’s ice extent. If I could understand the gambling rules I would have placed a bet by now. Someone (Pro AGW) on WUWT politely taunted the other posters to put their money where their mouth is.
How about you?
As you noted, by then the economy will be thrashed. I wonder which would be more harmful to both the ecology of the earth and the condition of mankind? A poverty stricken U.S. or another 1/2 degree rise in temps?
But, while we’re playing, how much do you have in mind?
and on that note………..
Dear President Obama:
I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request.
First and foremost, I will be asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state, and you are no longer a citizen.
Cheers,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Priceless!
lmao!!!
Very good Lat! You gave me a laugh before turning in. The day ends on a good note. Nice wit!
And BTW, have you seen this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397
Ill Wind
it is bed time in the uk. As a sailor, yachtie, with a strong Royal Navy influence on my ubringing, I have learnt that on a sailing yacht (US translation sailboat), one of the most useless things to have aboard is an admiral. Retired or not. They have nothing useful to add
golf charley,
Ill wind blowing is exaggerating about the background and Arctic experience of ADM Titley.
Mr. Ill Wind,
I knew a meteorologist who took a course from a professor of radiation theory, back in the 1970’s (before AGW became a politcal football). This professor stated that CO2 had limited potential as a greenhouse gas because at CO2 was going to rapidly reach a saturation point, where added CO2 would simply settle out.
What is your take on that?
Andy WeissDC
I took a little time to look up ADM Titley and I found that Ill Wind is wrong about who he is. Titley has not spent his career in the Arctic as Ill Wind says. The truth is only a small part of his career was spent in the Arctic. His area of education has nothing to do with Arctic study. Basically Titley is unqualified to speak with any authority on the Arctic.
http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/profiles/TitleyDavidW/profile.html
Sorry about my typo, the “at” doesn’t belong there.
CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS POST:
Suyts; please note my continuation above. This is my second continuation.
6. As far as warming not increasing in the past decade the following has to be kept in mind:
a it is the past 35 years that has to be taken into perspective. According to Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH temp chart (1979-2011) and other measurements in the late 1970s, warming has taken two upward stepwise motions. These stepwise motions lurch up all of a sudden then level out for some years before jumping up again. It is not a gradualistic climb. Please make reference to the UAH chart in order to follow the forthcoming points.
b. Other than the past two ‘stepwise’ increases, we appear to be in the beginning of a third rise as of 2010, which approached the temps of the 1998 super El Nino event with only a moderate El Nino.
c. Reinforcing the previous point is the fact that the Sun entered a cool phase starting in 2002 but the temps stayed level. While the Sun cannot be the cause of GW due to its small effect it can raise or lower GW by a small amount. Had the Sun remained steady the UAH data points would have increased (by about 1/2 degree C).
Suyts; I forgot to link to Roy Spencers UAH charts:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2011.gif
Please note the brown trend line in the UAH chart illustrated in the link below, as well as the pink and green lines highlighting the 1995/1998 El Nino/La Nina jump (the previous jump occured in the late 1970s)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg
Suyts; I forgot to link to Roy Spencers UAH charts. You can better visualize some of my points.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2011.gif
Suyts; please note the brown trend line in the UAH chart illustrated in the link below, as well as the pink and green lines highlighting the 1995/1998 El Nino/La Nina jump (the previous jump occured in the late 1970s)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg
Thanks Ill, but as I’ve stated, I’m familiar with both(although sending me a link from scepticalscience would be akin to me sending you a link from ClimateDepot 🙂 ). About the only thing I think we could add here would be about the integrity of Drs. Spencer and Christy. As you are likely to be aware, they both are identified with the skeptical camp. But still, they simply continue to show us their data….. good, bad or indifferent. This is to their credit. There is an interesting divergence between UAH and RSS, but not much in the context you’ve presented.
I think things will continue pretty much the same as they are, (temp wise) but again, we’re going to have to wait and see.
Ill, thanks for getting back. I’m familiar with Dr. Spencer and his posits. I disagree with the arbitrary 30 or 35 year posit. History tells us a much different story. I do agree we have seen steps up in dynamic manners. However, the posit about 2010 approaching (I should let Latitude answer this one)…… or even being equal to 1998 is a bit strange to me. Its getting warmer because it almost got as warm as it was 12 years prior? If the same dynamics caused both 1998 and 2010 (obviously El Nino played a great part on both) then it would mean that it has stopped getting warmer. See the other prominent El Ninos in the last 40 years or so and note how much warmer they were than the last. This time, it did not occur.
Ill, let me be clear, I’m not arguing that we didn’t warm, we did.(How much and from what time period is debatable.) I’m not arguing that we won’t warm more…… I think we’ve peaked, but we’ll see. Causation, I would argue. Whether it is harmful to humanity if we warm or not, I will argue. The proposed solutions to an unproven problem, I will argue vehemently. Most of the posits presented towards the CAGW/CC debate, I don’t have an opine to offer one way or another. It isn’t why I engage. But if the solutions to the imagined problem require a regression of mankind’s progress, I will demand more than speculation from totalitarian Malthusian misanthropists with Luddite leanings. I’m not saying you would fit in that category, but many people that argue the same points do.
James
“But if the solutions to the imagined problem require a regression of mankind’s progress, I will demand more than speculation from totalitarian Malthusian misanthropists with Luddite leanings.”
I couldn’t have said it better … and this is why I am in this debate. History is full of examples where dictators fully believed that what they were doing was absolutely right, and so many people suffered as a result. Their desire to right a perceived wrong, to fix a problem that wasn’t broken, to supposedly make everyone equal but in the end make everyone equally miserable. We are never very far from that happening again.
Other than the past two ‘stepwise’ increases………..
==============================================
Correct, only the two increases were from 1700 – 1800, flat from 1800 – 1900, up again from 1900 – 2000, then flat again…………
It’s called coming out of the LIA……………..and looks exactly like you would think it would look.
A big fast jump in temps on the first one, and a slower jump on the second one.
http://www.plusaf.com/pix/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg
I mean some people are wetting their pants over less than 1/2 a degree…
coming out of the LIA
Get a grip people
Would these morons rather be freezing their butts off?
And, as you have pointed out in the past, no one would have ever noticed had it not been for some one saying “Look!!!! We’re getting warmer!!”…………. 1/2 of a degree where most of that is supposedly in the polar regions where no one lives……… and no thermometer exists.
Why is it that I rarely see a chart from a primary source instead of a secondary source with an axe to grind?
I checked out your global temperature chart and compared it to your statements. Please note the hockey stick shape. Of course, it will be claimed that the temperatures are lower than the Medieval Warm Period (by less than .1C not including the brief fluctuations).
You state that it flattens out in 2000 and compare that to 1800-1900. Very sloppy analogy since we’re only 12 years into 2000. Of course you will bring up the flattening since 1998 but in case you didn’t notice there is another one of roughly 25+ years in mid century, yet it resumes again to rise sharply. Of course, you can assume (wish) that nothing more will happen and that all of a sudden that red line will turn hard right and stay that way for the next several decades. Other than trend charts a helps to look around at other factors coming into play that will undeniably raise that red line straight up.
Here’s the bad news. Assuming no further increase in Carbon Dioxide, as of tomorrow, we are still due another .5C rise in the next 30 years (thermal lag). How will that look on that chart? Since there will be further increase in CO2 . . .
If and only if CO2 is the actual causation of the temp rise. And if and only if the equilibrium seeking body….(earth) doesn’t engage another mechanism to seek the equilibrium (assuming it is out of equilibrium)…… and all of this you assume is a detriment. Why? Earth’s history is replete with examples of civilizations thriving much better in warmer climates. Warmer has always been beneficial to mankind.
Secondary? Is that what you call graphics made by people that haven’t drank the koolaid?
Ok then….
Which part of that temperature rise is natural, and which part is because of CO2?
Temperatures rose faster and higher in the first step, slower and not as much in the second.
Keeping with the same global warming rules, we can say that CO2 caused cooling and temperatures to rise slower…………………..
Suyts: “PJ, one of the things most alarmists don’t understand is that most skeptics were once alarmists or at least bought what they were selling.”
You hit the nail on the head. I don’t know of too many skeptics who went the other way. The part that bothers me the most as a science teacher is the students I teach have, for the most part, heard only the AGW side of the argument, though most have tuned it out by the time I get them in high school. Recently I started teaching climate change to my grade 10 class and one student moaned, “Sir, we have heard this every year since grade 2”. It was, however, the first time they heard the skeptical side. Many couldn’t believe that Al Gore actually said things in “An Iconvenient Truth” that weren’t true. If I get dragged before the school board for teaching heresy, I will let you know :).
“If I get dragged before the school board for teaching heresy, I will let you know.”
==================================================================
You do exactly that, and not only me, but the rest. But this is exactly why the skeptical movement has picked up. They’ve inundated the young people for so long that they’ve heard it all before(except they move the goal posts from time to time) and they don’t see it.
More, what did they think our youth would do when they’ve reached the age of rebellion? They’re younger versions of us. We’ve heard it all before, from one eco-disaster to another and nothing has ever happened. The world continues to rotate. Dems and Repub continue to pretend there’s a difference between them. The media picks the issues. The polar bears still thrive, and the earth continues to spin.
I’m glad you feel you can teach an alternate view. It does my heart good to know at least some of our youth will hear truth.
It would have been harder to teach the skeptical view even just 5 years ago. However, the average person is starting to realize that the sky isn’t falling. It is hard to get alarmed about a sea level rise of 1.8 mm/yr when gas is $1.30/litre, and your weekly grocery bill keeps going up.
PJ, file this away in your asbestos file….
The kids around here are sick and tired of all this doom stuff. They have completely tuned it out.
They’ve lived long enough now to see that not one bit of it has, ever will, come true.
Start teaching the “good news”, that’s what they want to hear and then they listen..
Does anyone ever wonder where or how they come up with the magical precision of a 10th of a millimeter? We can’t measure a bathtub full of water with that precision. Not even with a laser. One day, generations from now, people will laugh at the people that thought it was possible and wonder why anyone took them serious.
@Latitude: Will do.
Andy WeisDC:
“I knew a meteorologist who took a course from a professor of radiation theory, back in the 1970?s (before AGW became a politcal football). This professor stated that CO2 had limited potential as a greenhouse gas because at CO2 was going to rapidly reach a saturation point, where added CO2 would simply settle out.
What is your take on that?”
Andy; sorry for the delay, I’m in and out a lot as well as jumping between three different sites. That’s a real simple question to answer although proving it requires some basic research in Paleoclimatology and or Geochemistry.
Basically, your professor’s assumption is flat out contradicted by evidence that Carbon Dioxide was much higher in the ancient geological past than now. Even skeptics acknowledge that, indeed they try to use it in order to giive the false impression that it would not have a negative effect today in the same amoounts (Hint: the sun was colder thus requiring more CO2).
Carbon Dioxide levels were around 4,000 ppm during the Ordovician 450 million years ago. What saturation was in effect back then.
Carbon Dioxide levels rose to around 1,000 ppm during a 20,000 year period which began the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago. Temperatures were around 11F higher than today. What “saturation”?
By the way, a Meteorologist is to a Climatologist what a nurse is to a doctor. They don’t even take CO2 into account in making weather predictions let alone learn much geology.
“By the way, a Meteorologist is to a Climatologist what a nurse is to a doctor. They don’t even take CO2 into account in making weather predictions let alone learn much geology.”
===========================================================================
lol, and I was going to let that one go until you spewed that. First of all, a climatologist is an ambiguous term that doesn’t mean crap towards what the person actually studied but rather what field they are trying to carve out a niche in. I suspect they are rejects from various fields of real science. Secondly, meteorologists have the advantage as they are correct way more often than any “climatologist”.
What about responding to the point about Carbon Dioxide “saturation” and how it did not level off in the past?
IWB:
It is the effect of CO2 that saturates not the concentration and the past levels of CO2 prove that CO2 does not have much to do with global temperatures. The temperature is controlled by the restrictive nature of the atmosphere. During the weak sun paradox the atmosphere was less restrictive allow more energy to enter the system.
ou provide evidence that you actually do not have a clue about weather and that puts you in the same place as most of the climatologists that predict some catastrophic result of human induced CO2.
The long term weather conditions are well within historic bounds and are evidence that CO2 is not having an effect on current or future climate.
You have a low opinion of meteorologists but to compare them with climatologists. A meteorologist studies weather and weather patterns define climate which Climatologists attempt to understand. However it is obvious that Climatologists do not understand weather and that makes them not qualified to be meteorologists. A meteorologist is over qualified to be a climatologist and becoming one would be a downgrade in their profession.
James:
you are correct in your assumption about Climatologists being rejects or failures in other fields. If you look long enough you will find more evidence to support that statement.
The sky is not Falling but merely continuing to follow the same patterns as it has since the globe had an atmosphere.
I would place Climatologists in the same category as Snake Oil Salesmen.
IWB…….I want to thank you for dropping by. Its been a pleasure. I do hope you remain to be a regular here or at least an occasional one. You’re a bit more congenial than most alarmists that drop by and your information is current……..albeit limited in scope and interpretation. At the very least, we’ve exchanged thoughts that otherwise don’t get shared because of the vitriol that surrounds the issues.
James Sexton
Thanks Mike,
It disturbs me when people put a group of people on a pedestal when at best they have only exposure to all of the fields necessary to understand our climate. Then suddenly they are perceived as some sort of science/math deity. When the reality is, they’re not statisticians, they are not typically great physicists, nor great geologists nor meteorologists, nor biochemists nor astronomers, nor archeologists, nor……. and the list goes on……all the things necessary to understand our climate. What magnanimous egos! And they boil it down to a little molecule and believe that’s that. Meteorologists have to deal with reality on a daily basis. Typically a person that calls themselves a climatologist has yet to deal with reality.
Ill Wind,
Thanks for your answer. I don’t think the professor in question had an ax to grind at the time, but based on the historical record presented, it would appear he was incorrect for whatever reason.
While there was general warming in the 20th century, there was a definite cool period from 1960–1980, thus it appears that much of the 1980-1998 rebound was simply a return to pre 1960 levels.
There appears to be too much empirical evidence out there that the warming is not catastrophic. For example, Des Moines, IA has not set a July daily high temperature record since 1955 and Waterloo, IA has set only one since 1940. Chicago’s warmest month was way back, during July 1955. Minneapolis back in July 1936.
Columbus, OH only set 7% of their high temperature records between 2001 and 2010, which is exactly what the percentage should be with a stable climate for the last 140 years.
The high temperature record for Washington, DC duirng the month of June was set during 1874, in July during 1930, in August 1918 and September 1881. That is an average of 110 years ago for the four hottest months.
If you take the number of 100 degree days in cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, Des Moines during the summers of 1930, 1934 and 1936, it dwarfs the number of 100 degree days for the same places during the last 20 years.
Before we take the legs out from under the fragile economy, my belief is that we need better evidence to make it worth our while. There just isn’t enough going on in the real world to make it appear like this present period is that different from other periods where humanity thrived.
You will no doubt state that the data is cherry picked and not representative, but Steve and others on this site has pointed out on numerous occasions that global warming is missing an awful lot of places. My belief that if warming were truly catastrophic, something that required immediate, costly. drastic action, that the weather records would show it far more plainly.
Ill wind blowing
You say Titley has spent his career in the Arctic, i.e., you say, “a man who’s been plying the Arctic waters for longer than some skeptics have been alive”. WHAT A LIE! WHAT AN EXAGGERATION! He has not. The truth is only a small portion of his career was spent in the Arctic. His area of education has nothing to do with Arctic study. Basically, Titley is unqualified to speak with any authority on the Arctic.
Your ilk of global warming proponents have a continual stream of exaggeration. The farrago of global warming is built on half truths, and sophistry. But with just a little research anyone can find the truth and be set free from people like you Ill Wind.
Nice to see so many comments! How’s the page hits Steve, or whatever you measure your blog in?
Must be more traffic?
Keep up the good work, even though we sometimes disagree ( ie I write crap apparently :p )
Andy
There was a paper shown where this loss of ice in that time period occured, I think it was a PDF on a presentation for SEARCH.
Now the question is what caused it? As someone mentioned before if it was El Nino then it doesn’t always fit the pattern and if you then introduce “lag” is the lag always the same? Interesting question.
Normal long term weather patterns would be the ultimate “Cause”. They are evident in the historical records repeating somewhat on a variable basis and have been doing so for millions of years. El NINO is an effect / symptom / manifestation. Just as the other ocean atmosphere weather patterns are. There is a lag of response to all forcings in regional weather patterns. What we are experiencing now may be the result of an event started twenty thousand years ago such as the end on the last glacial maximum. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction which becomes the action leading to the next step. Nothing in nature stands alone. An ocean atmosphere pattern set up that forced ice out of the Arctic region. It is seen in long term geological and biological records that have been found there by researchers. It is a regional situation and probably a delayed reaction to events elsewhere on the globe. The ultimate cause may well be a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon! That scenario is based on as much logic as the CO2 driver of climate change is. Regional temperatures are the result of regional weather patterns not the cause of them.
Unfortunately Steve’s posting (or his son’s posting) that most of the old ice was lost when the AO was positive is out of date. There are actually 4 periods that you can look at in terms of change in ice at least 5 years or older (so the oldest and thickest ice). We define these using piecewise linear fitting and break-point calculation method of Tome and Miranda (2004) to the winter 5+ year ice extent. Doing so you find that there was a general pattern of increasing 5+ year ice through the late 1980s, followed by a period of loss through the 1990s, stable coverage through the early 2000s and then a period of accelerated decline since 2004 that resulted in more 5+ ice loss than the period Steve is referring to (and this period has no statistical link to the AO or ENSO). I’m curious how Steve (or his son) would explain the last 6 years of accelerated loss of 5+ ice?
Julienne,
I didn’t say anything about the AO, and it is quite clear that most of the thick ice was lost during a predominantly positive ENSO period.
Steve, there are a number of papers that discuss the impact of the positive AO during the late 1980s, early 1990s on the ice cover. The AO is the dominant SLP pattern in the Arctic, not ENSO. ENSO just happened to be high during the same time the AO was strongly positive at that time, but it’s the AO, not ENSO that explains enhanced transport of ice out of Fram Strait during that time-period. If you believe it is ENSO and now the AO, what is your mechanism for how ENSO caused loss of multiyear ice?
Also, please see Maslanik et al. 2011 in GRL for an update of ice loss as a function of ice type. Results from that paper demonstrate that more old ice was lost post 2004 than during the 1988-1996 time-period.
There is ~7 year lag in +/- PDO effect on Arctic ice. There is a nice match then.
oops, I meant “If you believe it is ENSO and “not” the AO…”
I can send you an updated figure of pixel count of 5+ ice if you like 🙂
Julienne,
Thanks, Are Fowler and Maslanik’s maps archived online somewhere? I’d like to see their most recent maps.
As far as ENSO goes, I’m just pointing out the correlation, not proposing a mechanism.
I don’t think they have them on a public ftp site, but you can go to the SEARCH June 2011 outlook report and see the latest ice age maps there.
Sorry, not Steve, but it seems to me, at least this year, things have turned around a bit.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2011&month=5&day=23
Compare to, http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2010&month=5&day=23
Here are the ice extents for Week 11 for your years, plus 2011 for 5+ ice (note this is for the Arctic Basin only)
Note…I also exclude 1981 since you haven’t had enough time for the ice to age at least 5 years yet. Instead I give the value for 1984
1984 = 2.29 million sq-km
1988 = 2.60
1996 = 1.40
2004 = 1.50
2007 = 1.02
2011 = 0.30
How would you explain the continued decline?
Are you reporting extent or area? It seems to me that area is a much more interesting metric. Regardless, your numbers confirm my claim that most of the 5+ ice was lost between 1988 and 1996. Most of the period since 1996 has been predominantly positive ENSO, including the very large El Nino in 1998.
Drop from 1988 to 1996 = 1.20
Drop from 2004 to 2011 = 1.20
What’s your definition of “most”, because it doesn’t seem to be the normal one?
If there’s anything unusual there (i.e. not just reading too much into random variation), then it’s the period of apparent stasis between 1996 and 2004. Doesn’t seem to correlate with anything particularly interesting in the ENSO record. If you hypothesise a few years’ lag, I guess you could pretend that El Nino is protective of Arctic ice, and the the string of El Ninos in the early 90’s is what prevented multi-year ice dropping in the late 90’s – however as I said earlier, if you’re allowing yourself an arbitrary lag period, you can fit any story you like to the data.
Right – no correlation other than near continuous El Nino, and it stopped when ENSO went negative.
If there’s anything unusual there (i.e. not just reading too much into random variation), then it’s the period of apparent stasis between 1996 and 2004.
You raise an interesting point, Peter.
I think the only thing we can deduce is that there are still plenty of things that climate science does not understand about how our climate works.
Extent. Notice that the ice age product does not provide area, but maps if a pixel is of a certain age. It is actually a very conservative estimate since a pixel could contain only 15% 5+ ice and the rest be first-year ice and yet it is mapped to 5+ ice.
The numbers I posted to not confirm your claim. Look to the Maslanik et al. 2011 GRL paper. There you will see the statistical technique used to determine the break points (not just choosing random years). And notice that ENSO has been predominantly positive since the mid-1970s, so this argument does not explain the changes in ice age. And in fact the ENSO index is smaller this past decade than during the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s.
Whatever happened in 2007 happened. We clearly now have to wait until 2013 to see what has happened to 5 year old ice since 2007.
In the meantime though Julienne, what data do you have about 3 year old ice? Does this show any ongoing decline?
Hi Paul, there has been some recovery of the 3 year old ice after the 2007 and 2008 record lows of ice of this age category, this is discussed in more detail in the Maslanik et al. 2011 GRL paper.
It will be interesting to see if that ice can continue to stay in the Arctic Basin and become 5+ ice. One of the things that is changing is the ability of the ice to survive in the Pacific sector, so that if you bring old ice into that region, it tends to melt out during summer. Today more multiyear ice is now being lost in the Pacific sector (Beaufort/Chukchi seas) than is being exported out of Fram Strait (which was the cause for the late 1980s/early 1990s reduction in multiyear ice).
Do we know why?
Paul, that’s a line of research we are currently investigating 🙂
Steve, Can you tell me the source of your Enso 5 year running mean graph?
I have many times
I would go here for the ENSO index: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/