Worst Possible Scenario For Arctic Alarmists

Arctic sea ice volume is fifth highest for the date since 2003, and likely to move into the #3 spot tomorrow. Melt this season has been the slowest on record.

 

Spreadsheet    Data

But here is the really bad news for alarmists. In order to have any hope of a big melt in August, there would have to be lots of warm air and sunshine over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.  But the cold air has shifted away from the North Pole and over the western Arctic. Cold air covers the region which Arctic alarmists need to melt.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Climate Reanalyzer

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Nothing but cold in the forecast.

10-Day Temperature Outlook

Arctic summers have been running consistently below normal temperatures over the past decade, which is causing the ice volume to expand. Summer is the only time when the air is warm enough to melt ice.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

But winters have been getting less cold in the Arctic over the past 20 years..  This is due to large dips in the jet stream, which are bringing cold air south and thus increasing snow cover.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

These same dips bring milder air from the mid-latitudes north.  If it is snowing in Florida, that means the Florida warmth has been displaced by Arctic air, and conversely Arctic air has been displaced by Florida air.  Conservation of mass and heat are two concepts which climate experts appear to be unfamiliar with.

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends – The Washington Post

Climate experts believe the greenhouse effect is making Arctic winters warmer, even though there is no sunshine in the Arctic in winter – making a greenhouse effect impossible.

It is difficult to imagine people stupider than climate scientists, but then there are those who blindly follow them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Worst Possible Scenario For Arctic Alarmists

  1. Psalmon says:

    Hansen et Al predicted +20 degrees at higher latitudes. Looks like +2 at MOST in the Arctic considering Fall and Spring have been mostly average (graph only covers 6 mos range).

    “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

    • Phil. says:

      Hansen et Al predicted +20 degrees at higher latitudes. Looks like +2 at MOST in the Arctic considering Fall and Spring have been mostly average (graph only covers 6 mos range).

      No Fall and Spring have been above average as well, Summer is the only season where it is not above average.

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php

      • Gator says:

        Which average Phil? The last 40 years, or the last 10,000? Or the last 4.5 billion? You’re not a New Earther, are you Phil? Love cherries?

        • Phil. says:

          Which average Phil?
          The same one as Tony referred to in the original post, except he called it normal (you objected to me using that term earlier).
          The normal/average/mean used is 1958-2002.

          • Gator says:

            So, a very short term average. Add to that, this…

            Since 2002, the daily mean temperatures are calculated from the operational atmosphere model at ECMWF, and changes in the operational model over time may affect the resulting temperature trends.

            So no real data for nearly 17 years, and I am supposed to trust a model whose existence depends upon a warming Arctic. A model built by people who believe in CAGW, and whose livelihoods depend on CAGW being real.

            Got it!

          • RAH says:

            Phil
            Now as we know there is no insolation in the winter up there. So why the increase in air temps during the winter when there is not sunshine? I know you’ll probably talk about warmer air migrating north. You’ll think it’s higher than average SSTs. It is NEITHER! The reason for the higher than average temps in the Arctic during the months of no or negligible insolation is primarily the same reason why the SMB of Greenland has been climbing lately. Now what do you think that could be? Hint, it’s the same reason why at night here in Indiana we have pleasant 60 degree temps instead of 40 degree temps and as nothing to do with CO2.

          • Phil. says:

            So no real data for nearly 17 years, and I am supposed to trust a model whose existence depends upon a warming Arctic.

            As they say later on they do use ‘real data’.
            “An NWP analysis is based on vastly more information than available from any single observing system. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites, radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing systems.”

            Since Tony choses to use this data in support of his positions then I’m entitled to use it too. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! I don’t notice you criticizing Tony for using that source.

          • Gator says:

            It’s still a model Phil, in the hands of those who stand to gain if they show warming. It is not data.

            As for Tony, his use of this information is not intended to support alarmism, but to counter it. I applaud him for these efforts.

          • spike55 says:

            Phlop, you do know that Arctic sea ice extent is actually in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years, don’t you.

            Only marginally down from the extremes of the LIA and the late 1970s.

            We get tired of trying to educate IGNORANT Arctic bed-wetters who are DENIERS of climate change history.

          • Phil. says:

            As for Tony, his use of this information is not intended to support alarmism, but to counter it. I applaud him for these efforts.

            So you have no problem with Tony using that data to show that the winter temperature has increased by ~8ºC and that summer temperature is about ‘normal’, but you object to my using it to show that fall temperature has increased by ~6ºC and spring by ~3ºC. Seems somewhat illogical.

          • Gator says:

            What part of “not supporting alarmism” do you not get? LOL

      • Psalmon says:

        Ok…so Hansen was off by 17.5 degrees…nailed me on that one. Ouch!

        • Phil. says:

          Ok…so Hansen was off by 17.5 degrees…nailed me on that one. Ouch!

          You appear to be confusing temperature scales.
          “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.”

          So the NY Times (not Hansen) reported ~11ºC at higher latitudes between 2025 and 2050. According to the data Tony referred to it is up ~8ºC in winter, ~6ºC in fall, ~3ºC in spring and unchanged in summer over the last 10 years.
          Since we are not yet between 2025 and 2050 it’s not possible to say that Hansen is ‘off’. The data to date is consistent with his prediction however.

          • Gator says:

            Can you show us where Hansen contacted anyone in the MSM to have them correct their stories in order to reduce climate alarmism?

            Was it maybe when he was arrested for the second time outside the White House? Remember? With Daryl Hannah, Adam Werbach the founder of the Sierra Club, Bill McKibben founder of 350.org, Julian Bond former president of the NAACP, and a few dozen eco-activists?

            Or is he simply willfully complicit?

          • Phil. says:

            Can you show us where Hansen contacted anyone in the MSM to have them correct their stories in order to reduce climate alarmism?

            It was Psalmon who was in error not the NYT.
            Looking at Hansen’s 88 paper he says;
            “Although the largest ΔTs are at high latitudes and in the winter , the variability is also largest at high latitudes and in the winter.” Looking at the graph that Tony cited that looks pretty much bang so I guess you’d have to agree that that is a prediction that Hansen got right.
            Also the NYT article appears to be broadly correct in its description of Hansen’s findings.

          • Gator says:

            So no, you cannot.

            Yet I am able to show that Hansen is an activist, alarmist, showman, and wrong.

          • Phil. says:

            Yet I am able to show that Hansen is an activist, alarmist, showman, and wrong.
            Where have you shown Hansen to be wrong?

          • Gator says:

            The planet did it for me Phil. Why don’t you try paying attention.

          • Phil. says:

            So you can’t, I thought so.

          • Gator says:

            Of course I can…

            The trend in Scenario C does not reject against the observed data, in fact the two are about equal. But this is the one that left out the rise of all greenhouse gases after 2000. The observed CO2 level reached 368 ppm in 1999 and continued going up thereafter to 407 ppm in 2017. The Scenario C CO2 level reached 368 ppm in 2000 but remained fixed thereafter. Yet this scenario ended up with a warming trend most like the real world.

            https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/

            Hansen was wrong.

            Now your turn Phil!

          • Gator says:

            Phil?

          • Gator says:

            Where did Phil go? It was his turn next, to show us where Hansen has reeled in the alarmism.

            Phil?

          • Phil. says:

            Where did Phil go?

            Some of us have a life other than posting on blogs.

            Regarding the post from Curry’s blog, Hansen was right. The two authors of that post didn’t know what they were talking about and completely botched it.

          • Gator says:

            Botched it how Phil? Are you a complete moron?

            Analysis please!

          • Gator says:

            Oh and I almost forgot. Where is your example of Hansen turning down the heat of alarmism?

            Still waiting…

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Gator, sorry, Phil had a life. That means he only has time to type a response without any evidence and run away. He’s busy.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            had or has? d & s are too close on these little gadgets …

          • Gator says:

            Phil? I know you are busy scouring alarmist blogs trying to find something wrong with Curry’s analysis, as this is obviously your life, but try and think for yourself for once. Just a suggestion.

            And about Hansen? Where is he to be found tamping down alarmist screed?

            Phil?

          • Phil. says:

            Botched it how Phil?
            They completely misrepresented the paper giving the impression that they hadn’t actually read the paper.
            I gave a detailed critique of this about a month ago on WUWT (as did Nick Stokes). Nick’s comments on Curry’s blog caused the authors to change their presentation. As I pointed out on WUWT it still wasn’t right but it wasn’t quite as bad. See below et seq.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/#comment-2396159

            Note that Curry’s blog did post an update to the original post whereas WUWT still has the original version.

          • Gator says:

            Wow! That was a lot of hand waving, but totally unnecessary.

            Hansen said that even with no added CO2 temperatures would continue to rise, and temperatures did not follow his prognostication. He was wrong, but the Holy Church of Alarmist infallibility has declared him correct. You and Nick Stokes! LOL

            Scenerio C included very large reductions in CO2 emissions by 2000, with CFC’s (emissions) completely eliminated and trace gas emissions reduced to negligible levels.

            Hansen was wrong, even with multiple predictions upon which he could fall back, and in spite of your and Nick’s excellent hand waving.

            Phil, I’m still waiting for your example of Hansen working to reduce climate alarmism.

            Can’t find one? LOL

          • Phil. says:

            Phil? I know you are busy scouring alarmist blogs trying to find something wrong with Curry’s analysis, as this is obviously your life, but try and think for yourself for once. Just a suggestion.

            Clearly not since I linked to my critique of that post from about a month ago!

          • Gator says:

            Great Phil! Instead of scouring alarmist blogs, you used circular footnotes, and you used your own self-delusions as a rebuttal. Clever little fella! LOL

            Now that we have established that Hansen was wrong (even when given three guesses!), let’s see your example of Hansen not being an activist climate alarmist, and show me where he has critiqued anyone for their alarmism.

            Still waiting…

          • Phil. says:

            Wow! That was a lot of hand waving, but totally unnecessary.

            Really, showing that the posters which you referred to didn’t understand the paper and got it wrong was ‘unnecessary’.

            Hansen said that even with no added CO2 temperatures would continue to rise, and temperatures did not follow his prognostication.

            Evidently you haven’t read the paper. Hansen’s results showed that with no added CO2 temperatures would be constant (fig. 3).

            Scenerio C included very large reductions in CO2 emissions by 2000, with CFC’s (emissions) completely eliminated and trace gas emissions reduced to negligible levels.

            Scenario C was elimination of CFC emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and OTGs to a level where sources just balance sinks by 2000. This actually happened for CFCs and the OTGs but not for CO2. This scenario was characterized as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally be imagined”.
            So CO2 was slightly above B and the rest about C so the result would be expected to be just below B, which it is.

            Based on Fig.2 current forcing should be about 0.7 (0.4+0.3).
            Hansen was therefore right

          • Phil. says:

            Now that we have established that Hansen was wrong (even when given three guesses!)

            Actually we’ve established that he was right and that you have obviously not read the paper and don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, it is your opinion that Curry didn’t understand the paper and got it wrong (and insinuating the DR Judith Curry did not read the paper is laughable, just like your circular defense). The fact remains that none of Hansen’s predictions, not one of them, was correct. I know you guys will never admit any wrong, and it is one of the best ways skeptics have of showing what frauds you alarmists are. All of your attacks are on skeptics, and you never ever find fault with any alarmist screed.

            Phil, your opinion means nothing at this point, as you will never admit any wrong doing on the alarmist side. Just like Hansen, you will always side with alarmists, even when they are proven wrong.

            The reason most of us here are skeptics is because we do read the scientific papers, and we know what they say. Hansen was wrong three times over.

            Still waiting on an example of Hansen being fair and balanced, just one example of him correcting alarmism.

            Still waiting…

          • Phil. says:

            Phil, it is your opinion that Curry didn’t understand the paper and got it wrong (and insinuating the DR Judith Curry did not read the paper is laughable, just like your circular defense).

            Curry didn’t write it McKitrick and Christy did!
            An example of the errors they made which indicated they didn’t understand the paper:
            “Note that Scenarios A and B also represent upper and lower bounds for non-CO2 forcing as well, since Scenario A contains all trace gas effects and Scenario B contains none.”
            Clearly wrong, as Hansen wrote: “In Scenario B……
            The annual growth of CCl3F and CCl2F2 emissions is reduced from 3%/yr today to 2%/yr in 1990….etc.”

            The authors updated the post on Curry’s blog with the comment: “Note: this is a revised version to correct the statement about CFCs and methane in Scenario B.”

            In the comments section McK responded to Nick:
            “Nick- you are correct that B includes CFCs and methane, but not the other non-CO2 GHG’s. I missed that detail. I have revised the text above accordingly.”
            So contrary to your assertion one of the authors admitted his mistake. He still didn’t get it right however.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, you are a treasure! You can find the smallest and most insignificant “fault” that still does not change the fact that Hansen struck out three times in one at bat. But you cannot see that Hansen is wrong! LOL

            Typical faithful climate clown.

            Care to try even once to find any evidence whatsoever that Hansen actually cares about correctly communicating climate as a science and not as an alarmist fantasy?

            Or, you could show us where you have criticized an alarmist.

            One way street much?

          • Phil. says:

            Phil, you are a treasure! You can find the smallest and most insignificant “fault” that still does not change the fact that Hansen struck out three times in one at bat.

            Completely misunderstanding the basis for two of the scenarios is not an insignificant ‘fault’, it shows a failure to understand the paper and renders the post useless. Hansen did not ‘strike out’ as you put it, it turns out that his Scenarios formed an excellent basis for his calculations and have held up remarkably well for 30 years.

            The reason most of us here are skeptics is because we do read the scientific papers, and we know what they say.

            You’re clearly not skeptical because you uncritically accept the blog post by McK & C despite the fact that any skeptic who had read the Hansen paper would see the mistakes made and acknowledge them. They even admit their mistakes in an update and you still don’t believe it! You didn’t even know who the authors of the blog post were. So much for ‘reading the papers and knowing what they say’.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, your opinion is not fact. The best you can do is cite your own biased comments in a blog comment section. Zzzzzzzzzz….

            None of Hansen’s predictions allowed for a pause. Now shock me and claim there was no pause. LOL

            Still waiting for you to show us all where Hansen has worked to subdue alarmism. Ever wonder why you cannot? Is it because he is a zealot, an activist, and an enabler of alarmism? Hmmmm?

            You guys really do make me laugh. When predictions go awry, you claim that we did not understand the predictions, and then you go and replace actual data with artifacts.

            Phil, you are a man of great faith, and little understanding of science.

          • Phil. says:

            Phil, your opinion is not fact. The best you can do is cite your own biased comments in a blog comment section. Zzzzzzzzzz….

            Not opinions, facts, acknowledged by the authors of the blog post!

            None of Hansen’s predictions allowed for a pause. Now shock me and claim there was no pause.

            Actually they did, but since you haven’t read the paper you don’t know that.

          • Gator says:

            Phil, the “blog post” (Dr Judith Curry et al) still shows Hansen was incorrect. I know you cannot accept that because it does not suit your world view, but the rest of us understand it just fine.

            Why do you keep avoiding my query? Where has Hansen ever worked to subdue alarmism?

            And we know your opinion, you ignore the beam in your own eye, so enough already.

            Science please!

          • Phil. says:

            Phil, the “blog post” (Dr Judith Curry et al) still shows Hansen was incorrect. I know you cannot accept that because it does not suit your world view, but the rest of us understand it just fine.

            The blog post is indeed still incorrect. I don’t accept it because it’s full of mistakes. You’ve already proved that you don’t understand it.

          • Gator says:

            Clearly Phil, I understand it better than you do.

            But keep the faith, it is all you have.

          • Phil. says:

            Clearly Phil, I understand it better than you do.

            In your dreams.

            But keep the faith, it is all you have.
            I don’t need faith, the science is on my side.

          • Gator says:

            The science is on your side? LOL

            I just love it when you believers think the science backs your goofy religion.

            So you and Nick Stokes have it all figured out? Great!

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            PS – Where is your example of Hansen chiding the press for their alarmism? I cannot seem to find it, Dr Phil.

          • RAH says:

            “I don’t need faith, the science is on my side.”

            97% of scientists eh? LOL!

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “Forcings? We ain’t got no forcings! We don’t need no forcings! I don’t have to show you any stinking forcings!”

      • pmc47025 says:

        According to DMI Arctic average temperatures remained relatively flat from ~1958 to ~1995 (CO2 up by ~45ppm). From 1995 to 2018 Arctic average temperature increased by ~3K (CO2 up by ~45ppm).

        FWIW:

  2. Griff says:

    Still nonsense.

    Extent still at 5th lowest and extent is still declining…

    concentration low on the Pacific side…
    https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Ms Griff is back …

      … She will show you!

    • Gator says:

      Apparently she has as much trouble reading a calendar as she does graphs.

    • arn says:

      Oh damned – we already have September??
      Welcome back Griff-noone missed you here.
      I knew your word means as much as the predictions of climate scientists= nothing.
      You need to thank god that you are not Pinnochio
      because then you would no longer be alive as your nose would have sorrounded the earth and crushed the back of your head.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Yes, arn, of course it is September. Why would you doubt Ms Griff? She promised to come back only once, in September, to set us fascists straight—one last time!—and then leave forever.

        I’m sure you know that the Great October Socialist Revolution started on November 7.

        • Gator says:

          Upon reflection, I’m pretty sure she uses the Holy Gaian Church of Doomers Calendar, which of course begins in 1979. A few years back, the Profits of the HGCD were enlightened and rightly shortened June, July, and August to just two weeks each. Now that September has arrived, it will go down as the warmest ever, and will of course validate the calendar adjustments.

    • tonyheller says:

      Thin ice around the edges gets blown around, but has no long-term significance. Sea ice extent is a fairly useless metric for comparison.

    • Taphonomic says:

      Griff being gone until September; another failed alarmist prediction.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I know we were promised a grifffree August. She tried, she really tried but even her comrades told her to sod off.

    • spike55 says:

      WRONG as always.

      Arctic sea ice extent is in the top 10% of the Holocene

      Only marginally down from the anomalously high LIA and 1970s.

      I see you are still a manic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, griff.

    • TimA says:

      What a liar…. you gave up posting remember? What else are you lying about?…. Oh yeah everything! Do you have any credibility with anyone?!…..Your family?
      (BTW….These are known as rhetorical questions)

    • Robert Austin says:

      Griff,
      Arctic ice still declining in early August? That is normal, is it not?

    • Alan Tomalty says:

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180806.png

      griff You will notice that the volume is at its 2nd highest level in 5 years and is higher than the 2004-2013 average. So no global warming for the Arctic. Since Greenland is close to there, no global warming for Greenland either. As for Antarctica; East Antarctica has never been close to 0 degrees for millions of years. An engineer calculated that it would take 34000 years to melt Antarctica even if you had all the worlds blowtorches melting the ice. You alarmists dont realize how stupid you appear to us skeptics.

      • spike55 says:

        “You alarmists don’t realize how stupid you appear to us skeptics.”

        Pretty sure griff DOES know how stupid he looks.

        He THRIVES on looking stupid.

        Its such a big step up from his actual abilities.

  3. Lasse says:

    Oden a Swedish icebreaker is heading north.
    Last year and this Years ice cover is much different.
    https://oden.geo.su.se/map/

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Good link Lasse & thanks. I wonder how accurate the presentation is? No matter, as u say much more ice this year with consistent ice coverage to the pole. Don’t let the Griffturd see this or she will post again a month early ;-)

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Interesting. The legend says that the Sea Ice chart is based on Satellite imagery, and is from The University of Bremen.

      Right now, the ship is not making very much headway, and has interesting humidity readings. See the attached pic.

  4. Josh says:

    In 2012, we were warned how Greenland/Siberia were finished and that Siberia would be a fertile ground soon. Now that those regions are no longer warm, the alarmists seem to focus on the European Arctic. Sucks for them since Siberian part of Arctic was colder than the European part of Arctic. :) Seems like whenever something not ordinary occurs, the alarmists will try using that region as climate change. When the region is back to normal, no sound again.

    • RAH says:

      Those canaries they keep claiming are dying just keep flying off to somewhere else and they have to chase them all over the globe to try and keep their myth of global climate change alive.

  5. Gerald Machnee says:

    The sailors north of Alaska reported 70 cm of rotten ice on day 48. They have not got to the good stuff yet. However, they will be pushing and pulling over the ice.
    Meanwhile, the Amundsen is on the south of Greenland. It is supposed to be in Resolute in about a week. we need a verification of the rotten ice.

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    DMI Sea Ice Volume factoid for the day:

    The value yesterday declined less than the averages of the overall 16-year and 10-year comparison groups. Ergo, the % above average increased, to 117.61% and 119.42%
    respectively, above the 1-sigma line in both comparisons, in the 2nd std deviation.

    Cheers!

  7. g says:

    Wow August already (not September…) and still a massive volume of ice in the Arctic even with CO2 at over 400ppm. That CO2 better get to work melting that ice; time is getting short.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.