Mark told us recently that the August storm didn’t have much effect on ice extent.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 yearsâ
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earthâs hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- 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
Recent Comments
- arn on Up Is Down
- Luigi on Up Is Down
- Tel on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- dm on The Clean Energy Boom
- arn on Up Is Down
- Bob G on Up Is Down
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on The Clock Is Ticking
- conrad ziefle on Climate Change In Spain
After the week we have had, you know Mark had to really knuckle drag and get his stupid on to win this dishonor.
Um, Steve, try fitting a straight line to the two weeks preceding the storm, and overlay it on the graph. Yes, the storm produced an immediate dip (at least in part due to clouds obscuring the sensor), but within a week the graph had pretty much returned to its previous trend. The same applies to the IJIS, NSIDC and NORSEX extent graphs, and to the NORSEX and Cryosphere Today area graphs.
There’s some residual loss that may be attributable to the storm, maybe 0.1 million square kilometres. That’s of course quite large in terms of Manhattans, but pretty much irrelevant in context given that the record’s going to be broken by around three quarters of a million.
What are you talking about? There is at least a half million km^2 step function in there.
pjie2 And if this recent record is broken , what does that indicate ? I say it is a repeat of natural variation as it has happened before and to a greater degree . We are still waiting to see the Greenland that the Vikings saw so I wouldn’t get too excited . And if we are fortunate enough to finally see the Greenland that the Vikings saw I will be excited to go see it . It’s natural variation as CO2 has nothing to do with it . And don’t forget the growing Antarctic ice as CO2 has nothing to do with that either . It is pathetic to see the extent to which you warmists have blinded yourselves .
Variation of what?
David Appell , come back when you are sober .
How about answering the question….
David,
Variation of what? Ice cover, be it area, extent, volume. There now, you made me put words in his mouth.
If I could figure it out, surely you being much smarter, could as well. Perhaps my assessment deserves re-evaluation.
The Beaufort Sea went from 700 km^2 to 350 km^2 over a four day period that coincided with a major storm. Note the trend lines for the other 4 years and the rest of 2012. Isn’t it obvious that this was due to a storm? and it was 350 km^2 that was due to the storm? If it wasn’t the storm, then there should have been record temperatures recorded in that area because it would take about 40C to melt the ice that fast.
As the storm moved East, the East Siberian Sea shows a large drop of about 225 km^2 starting two days later
Just saying.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r01_Beaufort_Sea_ts.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r03_East_Siberian_Sea_ts.png
Before you spout off next time, do your homework.
Temperatures were below normal during the storm.
“David Appell says:
August 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Variation of what?”
Spoken like a true denier. đ
I wonder if he has found those historical documents yet?
Yes, the ones that show that the icecap’s ice varies naturally over historical time.
Papers like these?
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2007GL032507.shtml
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Summarized here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/
These documents?
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2007GL032507.shtml
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Summarized here:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/
Dave do you have any knowledge as to when the Arctic was free of sea ice during any part of summer? The papers you provide only cover the last 1450 years so it would be further back in time than that.
Steven,
I suppose it makes you and your followers feel better to call scientists like Mark Serreze a buffoon? Seems like the more the sea ice declines the stronger the invective gets. What is it that makes you political conservatives so angry? Whether most of the Arctic sea ice is gone at the end of the summer in 2012, 13, ….or 2020 doesn’t really matter, it is declining faster than most scientists thought just a few years ago from models of the impact of climate warming. The sea ice is definitely responding to climate warming from increasing GHG’s, and the open water absorbs more heat which increases the climate warming in the Arctic. Grasping at straws and nit-picking about the facts or what “ice free” means isn’t going to change that. But I doubt you will believe, even after the last piece of ice is gone.
Cheers,
Jay Zwally
Jay,
In 2007 you said that the Arctic might be ice free by 2012. Has that happened?
ACTUALLY what Zwally said in his 2007 statement after an unusually sharp drop in ice extent (and this point has been repeated on your blog many times) is “AT THIS RATE, the ice could be gone by 2012. . .” Of course, the rate changed as expected (winter came, variation in the weather, etc.)
Steven, why do you persist in twisting such an obvious truth?
When you put things in context they sound just as bad… It was a stupid thing to say. Should never have been said.
If you really think all the ice will melt, then you are in the same category.
Oh, and I know what “ice free” means.
How does being a scientist prevent one from being a buffoon?
Only if they are “a professional climate scientist”. Cause they are trying to save the world, so they get extra credit for their efforts.
Jay, I enjoyed reading the Antarctic ice mass balance reanalysis paper you wrote with Giovinetto. Any updates from 2009 in the pipeline?
Is likely that the warming from the declining sea ice is increasing the probability of more storms like the one in early Aug. see:
05 Mar 2012: Analysis
Linking Weird Weather to
Rapid Warming of the Arctic
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather.
by jennifer francis
at http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/
Jay Zwally
Or maybe it’s just weather. đ
The sea ice is definitely responding to climate warming from increasing GHGâs, and the open water absorbs more heat which increases the climate warming in the Arctic.
Definitely?
Wow.
?
Someone needs to Nuke the arctic now and make it ice free so we can watch it all refreeze in the next few months…. and we can watch as not one single other consequence occurs.
That would be a perfect demonstration, if only we had enough nukes. Even at the summer minimum we couldn’t melt the Arctic down to liquid.
What is astounding is that these warmie psychopaths actually think a few extra molecules of CO2 and maybe a degree can somehow achieve it.
This AGW psychosis does serve one good purpose and that is as a kind of Rorschach test. If someone looks at an ink blot and always sees something creepy or fatalistic you might want to keep an eye on them. Normal people would do well to identify these kooks in their day-to-day lives, when you interview someone to hire as an employee, a babysitter, to shovel your driveway, to fix your car, be your doctor or pediatrician, etc.
You can’t put a price tag on rationality and common sense and these kooks fail at both.
AGW is based on empirical evidence, principles of physics, etc. It is not a delusion.
The relatively low volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2nd only to water vapor as the strongest greenhouse gas. It currently accounts for roughly 15% of the total greenhouse effect, so raising its percentage is bound to have an increased effect. Simple physics.
A very distant second.
Don Sutherland says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:48 am
“AGW is based on empirical evidence, principles of physics, etc. It is not a delusion.”
No, it is based on manipulated data and misapplied principals of physics, by delusional people.
“AGW is based on empirical evidence…”
NOTHING could be further from the truth. Don, you have permanently damaged your credibility with me.
And you wonder why we call some scientists buffoons.
Remember the Australia permanent drought? All the hand-wringing and building of desalination plants because it was never going to change? At one time, there was hand-wringing going on because the ice was accumulating too fast and it wasn’t melting enough. Now it’s the opposite. Whatever direction it goes, so does climate science.
Please note that this post by Steven Goddard is based on data from passive microwave sensors.
On September 2nd 2012 Steven Goddard made the following statement concerning exactly such data:
âI learned. â Passive microwave sensors are crap.â
Consequently this post by Steven Goddard is based on data he himself has deemed to be âcrapâ.
In fact there are numerous posts here on Real Science where Steven Goddard is using such âcrapâ data to draw all kinds of conclusions.
When alerted to this, Steven Goddard responded with the following statement:
âGo be a moron somewhere else.â
The above statements can be found in the thread below the post âAlarmists Are Incapable Of Learning From Their Own Mistakesâ.
Permission is granted to copy this comment – thank you for your kind attention.
So you are calling Steve a hypocrite because he criticizes the shortcomings of the passive microwave method yet he shows a plot from one? That makes no sense at all and identifies you as completely without logic.
Even old or failing equipment is still capable of displaying the existence of an anomaly. It clearly shows an event during the storm’s timeframe. For you to be making any sense *you* would have to now be agreeing with his original criticism, that “Passive microwave sensors are crap” and are prepared to say that the event seen on the plot is not really there! Doh. Put another way, remember Hubble without the mirror corrections? Even with blurry vision if it were aiming at the same place over a period of time it would still be able to record the existence of an anomaly! You apparently do not realize the concept that equipment with consistent error can still be useful.
Anyway, anyone can see your agenda is just searching for references to data derived from passive radar methods and then cut and paste your feeble propaganda attempt.
So Climate Nemesis, why don’t you put your big-boy pants on and explain what’s in it for you? What would cause you to troll around bottom-posting stale threads in this manner? I find it hard to believe that Mark Serreze has groupies who are this twisted and desperate. Wouldn’t your time be more satisfyingly spent twittering about President DingleBarry or Linsey Lohan?
Clearly he got that reference right if you do not even know what hypocrisy is!