http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Arctic ice area declined from 1988 to about 2006, and since then has been flat, corresponding to the shift in the PDO.
The amount of multi-year ice reported by NSIDC shows a similar pattern.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/040511.html
The death spiral seems to have hit a brick wall.
Hypothesis-
The mature ice >2 years old always understood how marvelous our president would be.
Observation-
The upturn is stunningly correlated with the 2009 inauguration.
Conclusion-
Obama has started to heal the EAarth.
Action-
Vote for the big null in 2012, or you will be tattooed as a Gaia-hater!
It all depends on what smoothing Al-Gore-Rythm you use to determine the results. With a triple whammy 50 year smoothing you can get any results you want. Just ask the MANN!
Exactly!! All this blathering about old ice is gone, ….well it was all but gone…..past tense!!
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2011&month=5&day=23
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2009&month=5&day=25
Sure looks like its growing to me…… people that see this and still claim old ice is diminishing. What a crock.
If the Arctic sea ice shows recovery in the next 5 years then what will Warmists say? They may have to eat crow. 😉 We live in interesting times.
Jimbo:
That was expected in a warming world and it is a regional event, not global.
Hello folks, The proper way of looking at this is to wait until Minima in mid September, not just any other month in the year. This applies even more so during the early melt season when you still have a lot of thin ice that has yet to melt.
We all know what’s going to happen in the next five years and it ain’t going to be pretty.
Next ten years? I won’t even go there; yet.
is there a pill for this………….
Latitude says:
June 10, 2011 at 12:20 am
is there a pill for this………….”
I took the Red Pill a long time ago..
Ill wind blowing,
“We all know what’s going to happen in the next five years and it ain’t going to be pretty.”
————
There you go again making predictions. The death spiral has, for the last few years, stalled. I don’t know which way it will go, I wish I had your confidence. 🙂
Have you read this?
Or this?
Co2 warming of the Arctic is less than we previously thought?
Where did the positive feedback loop go after this:
Ice free Arctic ocean during the Holocene
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
Does it have anything to do with this?
In the meantime I wait patiently for an ice-free Arctic ocean. 😉
Clearly, you got the placebo.
Jimbo:
You always spoil the fun by reverting to historical facts! 8)
Well that explains your posts, you’re on drugs.
Jimbo. it’s what the models predicted and is worse than we thought.
Steve
Are the anomalies based on miniimum, maximum average?
Continuous
The ice melting ice likely to pick up again if this Standford scientist is correct: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/permanent-hotter-summers-060611.html
Of course, given the record temperatures set in 2/3 of the US during the past few days, it almost seems like its trying to get a head start:)
Ok, I’m confused, Steve you say: Arctic ice area declined from 1988 to about 2006, and since then has been flat, corresponding to the shift in the PDO.
So 2007 didn’t happen? The last few years have not seen September ice extents below the long-term trend line?
BTW…today’s extent is 11.44 million sq-km. On this same day in 2007 it was 11.83.
It’s a shame the history of the Arctic starts in the late 1970’s…..
Julienne, if you have a min, you honest opinion of this::
Report on Study of the Arctic Change Workshop
held
November 10-12, 1997
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
Here’s the last few Septembers….2007-2010 ..http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/image_thumb.png?w=781&h=457
BTW, It has more today than last year………
30 years worth of trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend.
Please write that on the blackboard 100 times.
And don’t misbehave by saying that it’s only 30 years out of a zillion because I keep seeing the opposite strategy being used when there is an expansion or slowdown in decline of a year, a month, a week, or even a day. If 30 years of info is worthless how much more so for a day, week, month . . .
Ill Wind, Are you sure it’s not just part of a cycle????
Ill Wind,
See this:
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic
Ill Wind, see this:
I think that I have now made my point about your trends. You point at trends and I point at cycles and natural variation. We will have to wait and see old boy. 😉
I’ve noticed quite a few things going flat lately. Methane, sea levels, even disasters. Could their be a connection? Only time will tell.
Remember a few years ago, it’s was all about coral reefs…..
I’d hate to think it, but I’m sure there’s some people that are mad the reefs started recovering………
Of course there are. In fact, ….”…….it may take another Katrina, something of that magnitude, but I think they will eventually refocus on this issue, for their children’s sake.’’ ——–RAYMOND Bradley of MBH98 infamy.
Well I know Reef Relief is pissed……….LOL
Some of you have probably read this already but here is a great read. You will need coffee and bisuits because it’s a long read with many references.
Historic variations of Arctic sea ice.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
It’s too bad the link to the pdf is broken, but I will see if I can find the report to read. I know Dr. Mahoney has done some work with the Russian data set and published a paper on how the results from the data he got access to related to the Chapman and Walsh reconstruction of sea ice cover that went into the Had1SST data set, giving ice conditions back to 1870. In that data you do see a decline in Arctic-wide sea ice extent in September for example between the 1920s and the 1940s but the values are still above 8 million sq-km.
In Mahoney’s study they found that since the ice chart record began in 1933 the sea ice has declined, but that there were periods of increase between the mid 1950s to the mid 1980s. The increase is not well-represented in the Had1SST data set.
Mahoney et al. 2008, JGR-Oceans
Here’s the link to the pdf. You don’t really need it. I copied the other one because it’s the same and easier to read. Way down hidden at the very bottom…………
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/Arctic_change/Report_5.html
I know, periods of increase right before we started our histerical measurements…………
The ice chart record began in 1933, this is talking about before then.
1933 could have just as easily missed the ice free arctic………………..
My point is, we don’t know what’s normal. It could just as easily be too much ice in the Arctic, we wouldn’t know.
That’s why I believe it’s so important to record the locals knowledge about ice conditions. That’s the mission of ELOKA (http://eloka-arctic.org/).
Interesting in the PDF they say:
1) Is the Arctic Change part of a cycle or does it represent a climatic shift?
Proshutinsky and Johnson (1996, 1997) argue that the Arctic Ocean circulation can be divided into anticyclone and cyclonic regimes that oscillate back and forth with a 7 – 10-year period. They argue that the present change is simply a large expression of the cyclonic phase. Pisarev reported anecdotal Russian information suggesting a similar warming period during 1920-1940. However, examination of the last 40 years of Russian hydrographic data in the EWG (1997) Atlas shows no deviations of the magnitude described for the 1990s (Steele and Boyd, 1998). The trend of increasing NAO or the Arctic leading EOF since the 1960s suggests a longer term shift. It seems entirely plausible that the present change may be the result of a constructive combination of a long term trend and normal oscillations. This is the appearance of the P1 index in the late 1980s shown in Figure 3, and it would explain the apparent suddenness of the change around that time. If this is so, we can expect to see the conditions of the 1990s reverse somewhat, but to recur and become more prevalent. Obviously only time and long term monitoring will reveal the answer to this question.
So from this summary one may have expected the low ice conditions of the 1990s to reverse, and yet they didn’t, ice loss actually accelerated.
“So from this summary one may have expected the low ice conditions of the 1990s to reverse, and yet they didn’t, ice loss actually accelerated.” until the end of 2007…….
or from that summary you could conclude that we don’t know squat……………..
Just because someone’s guess based on very little information that is also a guess does not come true, does not make it expected and also questions their examination of the last 40 years of Russian hydrographic data.
If their guess was wrong, based on their examination, then chances are their examination was wrong too.
I don’t find it interesting that some bozo took a guess based on the way he examined someone else’s work, and then got it wrong.
Sergey V. Pisarev is the head honcho, what do you think of what he had to say?
The trend of increasing NAO or the Arctic leading EOF since the 1960s suggests a longer term shift
======================================================================
This is not science, it’s graphics design….
Extending trends
suyts says:
June 9, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“So from this summary one may have expected the low ice conditions of the 1990s to reverse, and yet they didn’t, ice loss actually accelerated.” until the end of 2007…….
* * * * * * * *
Could I quote you on that 5 years from now?
IWB, “Could I quote you on that 5 years from now?”
You certainly may. Though 5 years from now, I’m hopeful that we’ll be sweeping up the pieces of this mess and going on to some other eco-alarm.
It appears that no one can agree on what has happened, even during the recent past. There must be a lot of subjectivity with regard to interpretation of ice cover for people to have such divergent opinions on what has actually taken place. If we can’t agree on what is happening or what has recently taken place, there is certainly going to be no consensus about the future.
There must be a lot of subjectivity with regard to interpretation of ice cover for people to have such divergent opinions on what has actually taken place.”
Subjectivity is a good term but there is another word for it. I’m prohibited from using that word by Posting Rules. 😮 🙂
It’s amazing that in the 21st century, people can’t agree on simple things like temperature, ice cover and sea level. You get wildly different versions depending on whose putting out the information.
If and when the ice is gone, I’ll tip my hat to Ill Wind, but it will have to be from the other side, because I’ll be long gone by then.
Andy WeissDC says:
June 10, 2011 at 1:01 am
“If and when the ice is gone, I’ll tip my hat to Ill Wind, but it will have to be from the other side, because I’ll be long gone by then..”
Only if you’re 10, or slightly more, years away from death Andy.
You only have to wait 10 years before the following (or something very close to that) happens. Ice free in the summer for a few days initially (then weeks, later, months in following years). An exception being a small band of ice north of Alaska, Canada and Greenland.
it’s the end of the world……….
Ill Wind – I see your predictions, but I haven’t seen any of your proposed reasons for such ice minima results. Care to elaborate?
You are aware of recent history regarding arctic ice extents it seems, and perhaps you know the arctic was ice free in summers just 5,000 years ago, and ice free entirely about 3 million years ago, and supported 20 meter pine forest 7 million years ago.
So given those events, I’m curious as to which of the natural arctic climatic variations caused those events in your mind, and what’s transpiring presently??
Ill Wind writes
“You only have to wait 10 years before the following (or something very close to that) happens.”
That is the whole point here. We have already noted several 10 year you-just-wait predictions, waited through them and observed them to have been wrong.
How come your hasn’t-happened-yet 10 years is supposed to be worth something but the previous 10 years that have occurred are not ?
Latitude, it seems that S. Pisarev was summarizing results from others in that section of the PDF, I don’t have links to the studies that summary came out of. I don’t think there is any argument that there was a warming period and that ice conditions were lower on the Russian side of the Arctic between the 1920s and the 1940s. Not sure what you take issue with regarding the summary I pasted.
Julienne, Pisarev reported anecdotal Russian information suggesting a similar warming period during 1920-1940.
“examination of the last 40 years of Russian hydrographic data in the EWG (1997)”
Giving them wiggle room, that’s around1955.
Pisarev reported anecdotal Russian information suggesting a similar warming period during 1920-1940.
……………..that’s 35 – 25 years later
I don’t know why you pulled this out of that pdf, when what I asked you about is down at the bottom of that pdf.
Lat, I’m not sure if you’re aware or not, but the Russian plotted ice formation for years.(early 1900s) I was perusing the maps last night…….sadly I didn’t book mark it, but we(the U.S.) plotted the other side. We can get a pretty good aggregate picture of NH sea-ice if we can find some one good at combining graphics…………(Steve)
I have it James, I’ll get there…………eventually 😉
Right I’m trying to get Julienne to stop beating around the bush and look at what I gave her…………
lol, I should have expected as much. And, at least Julienne speaks to you, ……..:-( …..lol
Sergey V. Pisarev
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology
Russian Academy of Science
Moscow, Russia
1. The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts:
* retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost
* decrease of sea ice amounts
* acceleration of ice drift
* change of cyclone paths
* increase of air temperature
* biological indications of Arctic warming
* ease of navigation
* increase in temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters, entering Arctic Basin.
“and that ice conditions were lower on the Russian side of the Arctic”
It was a local event, just like the MWP and LIA……………….fail
That was the dust bowl…………………
“The Deadliest Heat Wave in History – July 5-17, 1936. Temperatures exceeding 44°C in Manitoba and Ontario claimed 1,180 Canadians (mostly the elderly and infants) during the longest, deadliest heat wave on record. Four hundred of these deaths were caused by people who drowned seeking refuge from the heat. In fact, the heat was so intense that steel rail lines and bridge girders twisted, sidewalks buckled, crops wilted and fruit baked on trees.”
“sailing of non-icebreaking ships along North Sea Route in 1935—no ice met”
Those 30’s were one FUBAR-ed decade in North America!
“Sea ice reached its maximum extent on March 7; extent on this date tied for the lowest winter maximum extent in the satellite record. Air temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean were above normal. ”
This doesn’t sound right. Is this accurate?
Ice melt in St. Paul, MN, where I was born, is only just now ending:
http://www.theuptake.org/2011/06/07/winter-snow-survives-mn-summer/
Global warming scientists are often wrong. I am not paying attention to their Arctic predictions.
There’s more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the last 9000 years. Trying to find global warming in ice on the Russian side, or thinning, or ‘rotted’ ice really is waste of time. Why? Because there’s more ice in the Arctic now than there has been for most of the last 9000 years. Nothing unusual or ‘unprecedented’ is happening in the Arctic.
Speaking of which, how are those crops doing in Greenland? ;O)
Oh wait, an acorn of ice just hit me on the head………….
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
A more recent graph……..try again sparky……
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/image.png
I just realized, that wouldn’t suffice for an alarmist……. here’s the link to my offering…..it provides links to the data……… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/minimum-ice-extent/
That won’t suffice either. Sweating drops of blood won’t do the trick either.
lol, probably not AAM, but its there…..In front of them. They can spin all they want, but reality says …..”No, it doesn’t happen like that.”……. and then they want to shoot the messenger…..go figure.
Suyts; I have the following questions in response to your implicit claim that the NSIDC ice extent graph I cited is useless and that the one you linked to is more recent.
Why do you claim that iyour graph is more recent when it clearly goes to 9/2010, the last Minima?
Where are the dates on your graphs?
What is the origin of your data?
Why do you not use NSIDC’s graph?
Why would yours be superior?
Since you will invariably claim that NSIDC falsifies their evidence, why would they do that and what proof do you have?
Ill Wind
More of your bolds.
PDO shifts and voilà!
How does the graph Steve show link with a shift in PDO, canwe see both PDO graph and the ice area graph superimposed?
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg
I can’t see any such link between 1988 and 2006 for the two, perhaps I am looking at it wrong.
I find it very amusing that the skeptics have been saying the ice has been recovering since 2007 only now to find out it has not been recovering but is flat.
Try and be consistent please :p
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/minimum-ice-extent/
Smoke that.
You should be saying Smoke that to Steve as he is the person you are disagreeing with.
How come you didn’t mention this earlier, that according to your own contrived graph that Steve was wrong?
Steve, looks like you are wrong !
ZZZZZzzzzzz……
lol, sorry I went to fast for you. Look to the far right of Steve’s graph……what does that mean to you?
BTW Andy, contrived isn’t a very nice attribute to ascribe to the work I do for people like you. I believe I gave the source of the data, I gave the data, and I gave the method. If you want to refute it, go for it, but please don’t infer that I made something up. It is an insult. And I would have expected more from you. Others, not so much, but you……….. sad.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/relationship-between-pdo-and-enso/
Looking at that, how does the PDO and ENSO explain the last decade? The problem with trying to link any atmospheric mode to a climate variable such as sea ice extent, is that none of them explain 100% of the variance. Even the AO which is the dominant mode of SLP variability in the Arctic explains less than half of the variance.
That is why it is so important to look at the physical mechanisms behind a link. If you plot Arctic sea ice extent versus CO2 you have a nearly perfect linear fit, but does that mean that CO2 is 100% responsible for sea ice loss? Of course not. The climate system is way too complicated. So personally, I think it best to move away from these sorts of simple comparisons because they don’t actually get you anywhere and certainly do not help further anyone’s understanding of what is happening in the Arctic today. BTW…in 2011 the ENSO index is negative, the PDO is negative, the AO has varied between positive and negative values and yet the June ice cover is below that in 2007. So it certainly does not fit with any of the links proposed here.
Well Suyts, when I said contrived I meant not that you made up the data but that you didn’t show the whole picture to give an impression that you wanted, hence contrived.
Basically you replicated this
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
so you managed to waste your own time when the data was already there as well. I commented on your site why I though it was contrived and that it didn’t show much in my opinion.
Don’t be sad though, at least I came up with a clever name for your web blog. Don’t need to thank me :p
Looking to the far right of Steve’s graph means it has reached the latest value, what does it mean to you?
And
PS I can never argue with Steve’s Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .. damn him ! 😀
Yes, I graphed NSIDC’s graph, except it was more current and gives a truer sense of what is happening now as opposed to 1978 or 1990. We speak of ice melt today that didn’t happen 3 years ago or since? K, space that. It is exactly like when we speak in terms of warming……….except the globe hasn’t warmed for over a decade……… I’d be happy to give you a link, but just go to the home page……and then come back with another “contrivance”…… it is what alarmists are good at. Sorry, I like to stay within reality and stay current. If the graph went just a little further back, you’d have sworn we were in an ice age………oh wait, that was what was happening……….lol 🙂
suyts says:
June 10, 2011 at 6:48 am
“Yes, I graphed NSIDC’s graph, except it was more current and gives a truer sense of what is happening now as opposed to 1978 or 1990.”
More current than what? NSIDC’s graph goes back to the last minimum extent in September of 2010. We haven’t reached September 2011 yet. What’s more you don’t have any dates on your graph!
” I’d be happy to give you a link, but just go to the home page……and then come back with another “contrivance”…… it is what alarmists are good at. Sorry, I like to stay within reality and stay current. If the graph went just a little further back, you’d have sworn we were in an ice age………oh wait, that was what was happening……….lol “
Don’t break your arm patting yourself in the back. Andy has presented some good points and I would like an answer to the basic questions I asked above.
AndyW says:
June 10, 2011 at 6:12 am
Well Suyts, when I said contrived I meant not that you made up the data but that you didn’t show the whole picture to give an impression that you wanted, hence contrived.
Basically you replicated this
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure3.png
Ahhhhh, let’s see. Isn’t that the graph that I posted a while back?
Yes, it was. When I stated more current, I meant that it properly reflects what is currently happening in the arctic. Its disingenuous to speak of arctic melt as present tense when its been 4-5 years since the low point in extent. And as Steve points out, the ice is thickening again. Its much like when the alarmists speak of warming….. it did, but the globe hasn’t warmed in over a decade.
Will these trends continue? IDK, but, I think it behooves us to speak in terms that more closely reflect reality rather than babble on about things that happened many years in the past.
More cool reality graphs……..http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/image_thumb5.png?w=862&h=586
My favorite………. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/rss-going-negative
Here is something from last year which look interesting:
Chylek et al. – 2010
“Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures”
Summarised and linked to below:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/new-paper-twentieth-century-bipolar-seesaw-of-the-arctic-and-antarctic-surface-air-temperatures-by-chylek-et-al-2010/
I saw the same thing in the book “The Chilling Stars” (Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder) – when the Artctic warms, Antarctica cools and vice-versa. Cyclical, just like everything else in Earth’s climate system.
The overwhelming evidence of a warmer arctic and ice retreat in the early 20thC surely tells us one thing.
There was no tipping point, no runaway warming. Indeed the region quickly returned to a colder state when the cycles changed.
Why then should the current warmer interlude be any different?
“The overwhelming evidence of a warmer arctic and ice retreat in the early 20thC surely tells us one thing.”
I am underwhelmed. Especially when hearing the example of Amundsen who only took 3 years to do in the early 20th century what he could do now in weeks using the same ship. Yeah, that sure “proves” the claim.
For the last 25 years, we have been bombarded by alarmist’s hysterical predictions of doom and gloom (end os skiing industry, extinction of polar bears, perpetual drought out West, beaches swamped, etc., etc.) As these predictions have failed to materialized, the same prognosticators have come up with some pretty bizzare explanations (warmcold, jet stream disruption, global wierding, etc.).
You can’t disprove a forecast ten years out in time, but if past performance is at all indicative of future results, one shouldn’t be overly confident about an ice-free Arctic.
You are an astute chap.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – not
The ski industry doomed – not
Adult Polar bears drowning – not (1 clocked swimming over 600km in one go!)
Australia perpertual drought – not
Drought west perpetual USA – not
Arctic feedback loop melting – Maybe? 2007 to present day shows no such loop.
Australia corals doomed – not (thrived after bleaching)
Scenario A, B, C – not
The problem with Warmists is they can’t think out of the box. They assume disaster will only go in 1 direction and that nature cannot adapt or compensate for anomalies.
But Jim, that’s the way their science works.
All they can do is extend trends.
Proof is, CO2 fits their trends.
All that is saying is that they know so little about CO2 and climate, both can be so malable they can bend and twist it to fit anything.
They hind=cast with their computer games, bend twist and beat into submission CO2 forcings and past climate until they get what they define as a reasonable fit….and then extend that trend in the other direction.
Watch the catch words “reasonable fit”…….
It’s not science the way most people think about science, it’s more graphics design….
Proof is, their forward forecast don’t fit…………………….
malleable
Beautiful word to describe the state of climatology.
Fallible is another good one…
Unfalsifiable?
julienne stroeve says:
June 9, 2011 at 10:49 pm
. I don’t think there is any argument that there was a warming period and that ice conditions were lower on the Russian side of the Arctic between the 1920s and the 1940s
===============================================================================
The Deadliest Heat Wave in History – July 5-17, 1936. Temperatures exceeding 44°C in Manitoba and Ontario claimed 1,180 Canadians (mostly the elderly and infants) during the longest, deadliest heat wave on record. Four hundred of these deaths were caused by people who drowned seeking refuge from the heat. In fact, the heat was so intense that steel rail lines and bridge girders twisted, sidewalks buckled, crops wilted and fruit baked on trees.
Hottest Day on Record – July 5, 1937. The highest temperature ever recorded in Canada was reached at Midale and Yellowgrass, Saskatchewan when the mercury soared to 45°C.
I love cherry ice cream, don’t you?
Really? Seems like you like exaggeration and alarmism.
Weather and climate are not the same, correct? The 2010 Russia heat wave is also considered an unusual weather event and not long-term climate change, despite the fact that the 2010 heatwave shattered all the records both in terms of the deviation from the average temperatures and its spatial extent. The temperatures — depending on the time period considered — were between 6.7°C and 13.3°C above the average. The heatwave covered around 2 million km2 — an area fifty times the size of Switzerland.
So not sure what point you are trying to make with your above statement.
The heatwave was due to blocking highs. Areas outside the heatwave (ex: Kazakhstan) were below normal.
Julienne, good morning
Of course they aren’t..so we need to stop saying things like ice conditions were lower on the Russian side, which is also weather.
Those are just two examples, “The Deadliest Heat Wave in History” and “Hottest Day on Record’, of evidence that it wasn’t just on one side.
“2010 heatwave shattered all the records”
That’s more then just a little sensationalist…….it broke the 1920 record by 2/10th of a degree……..
Which is also within the margin of error…………
Sure the Russian heat wave was considered unusual by global warmers. It had to be. The list of failed predictions by global warming scientists is getting long. So they have to create fear somehow. So a weather event has to be inflated into dangerous global warming.
BTW, what was the weather in Russia like during the Medieval Warm Period? Cooler than now?
Arctic Ice Decline Stopped Five Years Ago
Jct: They used Mike Mann’s “trick to hide the decline” in global temperature becoming evident with the Arctic Ice Decline Stopping Five Years Ago so the real question is how much of a decline in global temperature did the trick hide?
Yes Mr. Dunning. Anything you say Mr. Kruger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
This describes warmists quite well … thanks for posting!
Yes Mr. Dunning. Anything you say Mr. Kruger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7FdA7af8s&feature=related
Glenn Beck is stupid? You sure?
You know Ill wind, you folks on the left of politics are a bunch of haters.
Yes Mr. Dunning. Anything you say Mr. Kruger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_N0M-cZ55k&feature=related
Did you even watch this? The part that jumped out at me was people who won’t change their mind no matter what. That sounds a lot like most warmists I know. Sea level rise slowing down? 12 year cooling trend? Fewer hurricanes? Toronadoes correlating with the PDO? No problem. Simply ignore all the empirical evidence and shout all the louder that in 10, 20, or 50 years, it is going to be much worse. Why? Because some guy with a PhD and a computer model said so. If you recall, I did change my mind once exposed to both sides of this issue. Which camp do you fall in?
“12 year cooling trend?”
I’ll only bother with this one point. It is typical of all the arguments posted by skeptics.
Can you read a temperature chart? Unlike Suyt’s I don’t home brew mine.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
Since the upper curves are El Ninos and the lower ones are La Ninas; the appropriate way to interpret them is to compare upper curves to each other and lower curves to each other THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 30 YEARS. NO FRAUDULENT AMPUTATION OF THE CHART AT CAREFULLY CHOSEN DATES OR DRAWING OF DECEPTIVE TREND LINES FROM EL NINOS TO LA NINAS AS IF THEY WERE TRENDS.
The chart shows a stair step shaped increase in 1995 for La Ninas and 1998 for El Ninos. This pattern also happened in the late 1970s. That means that there have been two sudden jumps upwards since then. These jumps are followed by temporary flattening, then another sudden jump.
Since this is the pattern of temperature rise, it is misleading to claim that we have a permanent flattening of warming.
Ill Wind
Thanks for not just bolds but caps AND bolds. You weren’t yelling loud enough before to scare people.
Silly boy.
Ill Wind says:-
“Since the upper curves are El Ninos and the lower ones are La Ninas; the appropriate way to interpret them is to compare upper curves to each other and lower curves to each other”
So taking 1998 and 2010 El Ninos there is um… no increase?
Sounds like a flattening of warming to me. Nobody is suggesting that 12 years means this is now permanent anymore than they would suggest a 20 years trend would be significant.
lol, IWB, I’m not feeling well today, so I haven’t commented much,but this is beautiful, so I feel compelled. When you first popped over here, you actually had some interesting things to say albeit wrong on many levels, but some of your arguments were note worthy. And I considered your level of knowledge quite a bit higher than many of the alarmists that come by. But now, here you are, devoid of the ability to make a rational statement in this discussion. You’ve been reduced to name calling. My 8 y/o granddaughter can present arguments of the same caliber. Maybe you should stick around, read more and comment less…….. you may learn something. When one side of a debate is reduced to name calling, the argument is over.
Suyts:
You’ve been reduced to name calling.”
My apologies for my occassional sarcasm. I get that way when sleepless.
IWB, no apologies to me is necessary for sarcasm. Sarcasm is a great tool to use in arguments. However, it carries more weight when applied properly.
Obviously, the Dunning/Kruger effect applies to people on both sides of the argument. However, it doesn’t properly apply to the frequenters of this site on either side. You may have picked up on some subtleties given here. Most of the skeptic commentators here are very well informed, current on the issues and highly educated. The few alarmists that frequent here are, also. Dr. Stroeve being a semi-frequenter. We also get a Dr. Heyhoe from time to time, but she’s awfully thin skinned, so she may not come back. Which is interesting to me. It is one of the reasons I gravitate to this site. I’ve others that I frequent, but often it boils down to parroting each other, which I find tedious. This site is free-wheeling and allows for a free expression for both sides. We do engage in name calling here, I just like to point out the lack of content from time to time when it occurs.
I may have a different perspective than many skeptics and alarmists. I encourage disagreement. It is only through dialogue that we can move forward. This world has been stuck on this issue for far too long.
You’re a doodoo head……………………….;-)
Ill wind blowing says:
June 10, 2011 at 12:12 am
30 years worth of trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend, trend.
Please write that on the blackboard 100 times.
And don’t misbehave by saying that it’s only 30 years out of a zillion because I keep seeing the opposite strategy being used when there is an expansion or slowdown in decline of a year, a month, a week, or even a day. If 30 years of info is worthless how much more so for a day, week, month . .
Isn’t it odd that it only took zero 0 () none nada zip ziltch years of negative Arctic ice trend before Fast Jimmy Hansen declared the Earth a meltin before Congress, complete with gimmicked air conditioners in Washington DC July.
Check the chart first before you spout. !988 is the operative year.
It took Big Jim less than 12 years of suspected warming to declare catastrophic warming was in the pipeline.
Ill Wind Blowing:
When the Arctic region achieves the climate conditions it experienced during past warm periods for a similar length of time then we should talk about a possible condition existing in that regin that shows a reason for concern. Trees can not grow today were forests existed for hundreds of years at times in the past as the climate is not warm enough to support them. They are uncivering farms under ice where crops can not be grown today because of perma frost.. We should be gratefull the globe has warmed somewhat from the conditions experienced during the coldest portion of the LIA but the conditions of the warm periods have not been reached yet so warming should be welcomed as the continuation of colder than normal conditions restricts biological activity. The very existence of ice shows a problem.
Ill Wind:
Go back and find 20,000 years of climate data and study peak to peak and trough to trough conditions. 30 years is no better than 10 years or even 150 years for that matter. Even a thousand years does not convey the entire story that can be seen in 800,000 years of records.
I do not care if the sea level rises 100 ft or even 100 meters as those would be an indication the globe is returning to optimum conditions for biological activity. The less ice cover over regions of the globe the more room for growth. Warmth promotes life and cold restricts life. It is that simple and you want to restrict life. It could be because you are afraid of living. It is actually disturbing to read what the members of the Chicken Little Brigade write because even if the population of the globe was reduced to one million people living in preindustrial conditions it would not change future weather variations that have existed since the planet had an atmosphere.
Because the planet is so cold at this time a warming of even 10C would be overall beneficial for the entire globe and any warming towards that outcome should be welcomed and adapted to. The globe has been there before and the biosphere was richer for the experience.
Your arguments show a lack of understanding of past conditions and lack of understanding of the biosphere. You have joined the climatologists as a member of the Chicken Little Brigade but they seem to do it as a method of finding work.
I spent my working life as a trouble shooter and analyst. One of the first things I learned is to find out if a problem exists before attempting to fix it. Climate change is caused by long term regional weather patterns. Long term weather patterns are not caused by climate change.
Once you get over your backward thinking you might be able to see what the real world is experiencing.
Even a thousand years does not convey the entire story that can be seen in 800,000 years of records.
I don’t think the Hockey Team can afford to wait 1000 years to get their grants, Mike.
Paul H:
Environmental disciplines such as climatology should be declared in the same category as Palm Readers and other fortune tellers and regulated as such. I do not believe at this time there are many others in the prognostication business receiving government grants to read tea leaves, planetary alignments, bumps on heads, number configurations, and such.
Hockey teams should not be funded by taxpayers but should vie for their share of the entertainment dollars like other wanna be rock stars and entertainers.
Right TonyD?
@ IWB, sorry I didn’t catch your questions from your comment here….http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/arctic-ice-decline-stopped-five-years-ago/#comment-63278
I’ll respond, although, most of the questions you asked are answered in my post.
“Why do you claim that iyour graph is more recent when it clearly goes to 9/2010, the last Minima?”
The whole point was to measure trough trough. Those are the most recent troughs. I’ll update it after this years trough. The entire yearly horse race following ice extent is incredibly tiresome and meaningless. For example, Dr. Stroeve points out that this year, today, we have less ice than in 2007. But I point out we have more than last year which finished significantly more than 2007. It doesn’t mean any thing. Minimum and Max are what people need to watch if they hold the ice means anything……. I don’t.
“Where are the dates on your graphs?”
lol, as I explained in my post, I’m not sure if it was formatting or beer consumption but the dates didn’t want to cooperate, but they are easily discerned, so I left it at that. Each bar represents one day. So 1 would be 1 Sep, 2007. there are 30 days in Sep, so 60 would be 30 Sep 2008. You can easily discern the year by gong peak to peak.
“What is the origin of your data?”
Again, this is covered in the post. My data is from AMSRE. The links are provided in the post, I’d put them here, but I’ve already posted one link and Steve takes his time checking posts stuck in moderation.(I do too so it isn’t a criticism.)
“Why do you not use NSIDC’s graph?”
By that I assume you’re referring to the graph you presented. It does give us a good 30 year trend, but it is a poor graphic to illustrate what is currently happening. One of the biggest problems I have with many of the climate discussions of today is that they fail to address the change in the trending that is going on today. Yes, I understand the 30 year significance, but it is arbitrary.(If not purposeful.)
“Why would yours be superior?”
Because it accurately depicts current information. As Steve’s post points out, we haven’t had extent loss since 2007. How does one discuss ice
meltloss in terms of today when it hasn’t happened in several years?“Since you will invariably claim that NSIDC falsifies their evidence, why would they do that and what proof do you have?”
IWB, this bothers me a bit. I’ve made no such claim. Why do you believe I would make such a claim? I am, however, keenly aware of their advocacy. I attempt to use data produced by neutral entities to avoid thumb scaling. Still, I am forced, from time to time, to use advocates’ data, such as HadCrut and GISS.
I hope this has properly addressed your concerns and questions.
Heh, it just occurred to me that our alarmists friends may not be aware that NSIDC gets much of their ice data from AMSRE. I should have explained that. This is one of the problems with climate science. With the many different agencies and entities, it is often the misconception that there are many sources of data that come to the same conclusion. This really isn’t the case. Its all very incestuous.
James, NSIDC archives and distributes satellite passive microwave data from SMMR, SSM/I and AMSR-E. This includes brightness temperatures and derived sea ice concentrations and extent from the NASA Team and Bootstrap algorithms. Other groups may use different sea ice algorithms, but use the brightness temperatures produced and distributed by NSIDC in the sea ice algorithms. Differences in the algorithms as well as differences in handling weather effects and the land-ocean spillover effect result in differences in both the ice concentrations and the ice extent between sea ice algorithms. In looking at trends in ice extent for example, different algorithms give similar trend results even if the absolute magnitude in extent differs among sea ice algorithms.
Dr. Stroeve, as stated in response to your other comment, thanks for the clarification. I was aware though that some people use different methods(or algorithms) in handling the data. However, it is my understanding that they are in close agreement with the minimums of our ice extent. And, I agree, absolute magnitude may differ…..but the trending looks pretty much the same to me.
It is worth noting, that while there are many arguments about temp data sets……( I have a visceral reaction to GISS’ handling of the data.) I’m not aware of any serious argument over who’s ice data is more valid. Though, there are some when declarations are made by one entity or another. (Declaring a maximum too early…..etc.)
Dr. Stroeve, I’m sure you’re aware, but because other people read these comments, I think it appropriate to note the limits in the value of trending. I believe I (and IWB) have easily shown how trends can be shown to support pretty much anything. But, more importantly, and subtly, we’ve shown where the 30 year trends are just as limited.
For those wondering how this is shown, there are many oscillating events that naturally occur. Some occur longer than 30 years, others less. The AMO and PDO are great examples. We came out of a cooling trend 30 years(or so) ago. Warming is what one would expect. 30 years is arbitrary and holds as much meaning as decadal.
One of my biggest irks is people talking about trends when they don’t see a recent change in the trend. And speak of these things as if they were current events. Politics is great at this. The lowering of the unemployment rate, the rebound of the stock market, housing….etc. Warming, …….. it hasn’t since 2001, not significantly.(Yes, depending on data and whose handling them.) The arctic “melt”……..not since 2007. Does that mean it won’t warm later or ice diminish later? No, what it means, is that it isn’t now.
I think this year’s minimum will be interesting. If it ends lower than 2007, there will be much hyperbole over the ice extent. If it falls between 2007 and 2010, the alarmists will still scream about “melt”, if it falls between 2010 and 2009, the yammering will be the same. If it is more than 2009, much gloating will occur by the skeptics.
@Ill Wind: “Can you read a temperature chart? ”
What do you think? That is such a stupid question, I won’t even bother answering it.
“http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif”
You act like I have never seen this before. I included that very same chart in a case study I prepared for my grade 10 class on Earth’s Climatic History.
“it is misleading to claim that we have a permanent flattening of warming.”
I am getting really fed up with you putting words in my mouth. I made a claim of a 12 year cooling trend. In my haste to post it (late at night and all), I did 2011-1999 (which is NOT an El Nino year … 1998 was) to get 12 years (it is only 11.5 – my mistake) but it has cooled since 1999. Nowhere did I say this was permanent. What I am getting at (and what everyone else here seems to get but you) is that alarmists keep making claims of horrific temperature rises by 2050 or 2100 and that the current state of affairs clearly shows claims that like are ludicrous.
“the appropriate way to interpret them is to compare upper curves to each other and lower curves to each other THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 30 YEARS”
Let’s do that. In the last 30 years, we have gone up 0.13oC. Project that over 100 years, and you get 0.43oC per century, which is lower than the 0.6oC that occurred in the 20th century. In other words, what are you alarmists so alarmed about?
P.S. Phil Jones of CRU just made a claim of statistically significant warming by ending off with 2010 – a strong El Nino. Without it, there was no statistically significant warming in the same time frame. I hope you will afford him the same courtesy as you did me and go accuse him of cherry picking too.
“Phil Jones of CRU just made a claim of statistically significant warming by ending off with 2010 – a strong El Nino.”—————– And started in 1995 a La Nina year. I’m sure IWB will join us in disputing the data presented by Dr. Jones in that he obviously cherry-picked his data.
“I’m sure IWB will join us in disputing the data presented by Dr. Jones ”
I sure hope so! I can’t wait 🙂
Suyts:
June 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I haven’t seen what Jones did but I can guess. He surely did not do a Lord Monckton pseudo analysis where a trend line goes from a peak to a trough. In order for Jones to do what you implied he’s doing he would have had to have drawn a trend line from a trough to a peak. He did not.
I have a feeling he did the same thing I did when I methodically brought out the difference between post 1995 El Ninos/La Ninas and pre 1995 El Ninos/La NInas. The difference, as I previously stated, shows a staircase style jump, with a temporary flattening afterwards. It also happened in the late 1970s which makes for 2 such jumps in the last 35 years.
And it seems that it’s happening a third time as of 2010 with both El Nino and to a lesser degree La Nina. However time will tell what shape the temperature rise will take in the future.
The UAH chart which I linked below indicates, in the pink and green lines, the stair case jump I verbally explained above. You can also look at the overall trend of the general temps, El Nino and La Ninas combined, by looking at the brown line. It obviously rises from 1979-2011.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg
The warming trend indicated is obvious. It seems that you guys are stuck in short window mode. The 30 year graph is not something to be acknowledged with a crumb of recognition but rather acknowledged as the trend itself.
IWB….. here’s the story. It was indeed trough to peak. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/06/global-warming-since-1995-statistically-significant
As far as short mode vs 30 year trend, ……. I acknowledge that 20 years ago, or so, we were going through a warming period. It ended 13 years ago. But I find this conversation a bit humorous. In case you haven’t picked up on it, I’m a skeptic of the “C’ in the CAGW hypothesis. I’m one that hopes the arctic melts. (In order to show it isn’t something of which to be afraid.) I believe history provides us ample proof that mankind thrives better in a warmer climate. (Skeptics are skeptical for many reasons. There may be many that don’t hold these views.)
If alarmists can’t convince a guy that cheers for the warming, the argument is weak…..to say the least. What I do, for the most part, is try to show how the proposed solutions to this imagined problem would be worse than the problem. (The cure will kill the patient.) And, if we were to expend our resources, (energy, time and money) in a more positive direction, we could make significant progress in advancing the human condition. Were it not for the proposed solutions, I would not be engaged in this conversation.
…and they don’t stop to consider the Arctic ocean will be a lot more productive with less ice
Not that that’s really going to happen
Latitude you write:
Of course they aren’t..so we need to stop saying things like ice conditions were lower on the Russian side, which is also weather.
Remember my comment was in reference to lower ice conditions in the 1920s-1940s as documented by Russian ice charts during that time, agreeing with a point that you were trying to make that there was less ice during that time. 🙂
James, I should also point out that NSIDC in their sea ice news and analysis do not use AMSR-E, but instead continue to use SSM/I sensors since that provides the most continuous long-term record. The AMSR-E data, while at higher resolution, is a short data record. NSIDC is reporting on the longer term changes based on a consistent algorithm, processing stream and sensors.
Dr. Stroeve, thanks for clarifying….. ….. assumptions being what they are…..At any rate, this page seems to indicate NSIDC believes AMSR-E to be valid and use it to some extent. http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/
Mike Davis says:
June 11, 2011 at 10:43 am
“When the Arctic region achieves the climate conditions it experienced during past warm periods for a similar length of time then we should talk about a possible condition existing in that regin that shows a reason for concern.”
The conditions that are leading to Arctic ice cap shrinkage are not going away. Regardless of what one believes about the source of Global Warming, these conditions should be acknowledged and spoken about NOW, not when it reaches that stage. We’re talking about major population displacement within this century.
“Trees can not grow today were forests existed for hundreds of years at times in the past as the climate is not warm enough to support them. They are uncivering farms under ice where crops can not be grown today because of perma frost..”
Mike, in the past when trees grew in the tundra, most of the southern portion of the North American continent was semiarid. What is now their corn/wheat belt would not have sustained the quantity and quality of cropsWhat is the purpose of shifting ecozones northward when that will destroy the farming ability of nations that currently have billions of inhabitants.
Furthermore, any farmable areas in Siberia because most of it will turn into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ
“The conditions that are leading to Arctic ice cap shrinkage are not going away.”
Climate is cyclical. This point, more than any other, is something warmists consistently ignore. The way you talk, it sounds like the Earth will never go into another cooling phase again and we are all doomed. I’ve heard enough … the sky isn’t falling.
In the natural scheme, climate is variable though not cyclical in the original sense of the word. Climate acts in the same way that Mark Twain said human history progresses: “History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme”.
However we are not in a nature induced situation. I will give a short, sloppy list of the reasons why (sorry but I’m rushed):
1. The sun’s fluctuations, approximately 1/10 of a degree are too small to effect our rise in temps in the past 30 years. (54F according to UAH) let alone the overall 1.4F rise. That that small rise is significant in the way that it effects weather systems which in turn effects our crop growing potential where most people live.
2. ENSO, PDO their siblings and cousins do not have the ability to create such rises. If they did we would note a cyclical rise and fall throughout the millenniums. Anyone who see’s a temp chart (derived from tree rings) of the past 2 millenniums will note way too much randomness in temp fluctuations.
3. No to cosmic rays. Even the authors of the cosmic ray theory state that it only applies in the time span of millions.
“2. ENSO, PDO their siblings and cousins do not have the ability to create such rises. If they did we would note a cyclical rise and fall throughout the millenniums. Anyone who see’s a temp chart (derived from tree rings) of the past 2 millenniums will note way too much randomness in temp fluctuations.”
IWB, perhaps you would want to re-word. Or clarify. There’s a couple of different ways to interpret what you stated. One is entirely incorrect, and the other is subject to more interpretation. But, for the record, uhhmm, we do see a cyclical rise and fall of temps. Or are you one that holds because a tree ring says so, all of the historic, archeological and geological evidence to the contrary must be thrown out?
Tree rings…..numerology combined with a strange form of phrenology.
P.S. I was showing my three young children old Sesame Street clips this morning (ex: Grover showing “near” and “far”) and I came across this one – I remember it well. Watch it and learn its lesson … I don’t know of any warmists who have:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz-wf0Wpjig
Climate change skeptics keep saying that although the Arctic is losing sea ice coverage the Antarctic is gaining. If that’s the case and assuming the Arctic has bottomed out like Steve claims then total sea ice coverage should be going up, so is it?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
It seems 2011 might be the first year in the last 40 that the total never gets above the average, so is negative through the entire year. How can that be given Steve’s claims and the claim the Antarctic is getting more sea ice?
Seems to me the Arctic is below normal for 2011 and the Antarctic is just average.
1) 2006 and 2007 started off in as bad or worse shape than 2011.
2) “It seems 2011 might be the first year in the last 40 that the total never gets above the average” … Might, might not. Give it the full year.
3) Another graph starting in 1979 … just when a 30 year cooling trend was ending – how convenient!
Andy
I really thought you were more intelligent than to use one year’s ( or half for that matter) to sound alarm bells.
Please tell me you are only being sarcastic.
Andy, it’s the end of summer and a La Nina year for the Antarctic. That would be the lowest, and the Antarctic should have lost all of it’s sea ice.
The chart you posted says global is almost to the normal line, and the Antarctic should start adding sea ice now.
@Ill Wind: “http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAH-C1-screenshot.jpg”
After all that preaching and you go from the end of a long cooling (late 1970’s) to the end of a strong El Nino (2010). Pot-kettle.
You still don’t see the staircase-temporary flattening of the past 35 years. It doesn’t matter that it ends on Nov 2010 because that is the month that chart was generated.
It’s irrelevant that the chart ended in Nov of 2010 in a moderate to strong El Nino (moderate compared to the super El Nino of 1998). When you generate a current chart from Roy Spencer like this one, which I previously linked to on this thread, you get the inevitable La Nina:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
It seems that you’re not paying close attention to the multi colored lined link that I provided which shows two distinct types of colored lines. The BROWN LINE indicates the GENERAL TREND which combines BOTH El Ninos and La Ninas taken TOGETHER.
You will not see any trend line(s) on that chart going from a La Nina, whether they be pink, green or the general brown trend line which always goes through the middle of whatever variables happen to have been measured.
1. General trend line of the entire 30 years. Brown line.
2. To illustrate the sudden 1995/1998 jump I included El Nino to El Nino lines in pink. Also La Nina to La Nina in green.
(Sigh) Stop taking me for an idiot. I looked at all that. Climate goes in cycles. The PDO has positive and negative phases that last 25-30 years. The UAH chart (above) is for a 30 year period in which the PDO was positive until about 2008. That means that the trend is biased toward your argument because the PDO was (mostly) positive. If this argument was taking place in the late 1970’s (near the end of approx. 30 years of a negative PDO), I could have said the trend was toward cooling, look at the brown line, blah, blah, blah, with the implication that a new ice age is coming. You keep saying that the trend is toward warming (yes, that is what the trend is, based on those 30 years in the UAH chart), but with the implication that it will keep doing this until all the arctic sea ice is gone. It is becuase of people like you that I end up having to teach students that are either paranoid about AGW or have had the alarmist position flogged like a dead horse for so many years that they just don’t care anymore.
By the way, if you really and truly believe that it is going to be as bad as you say it is, then please tell me exactly what it is that YOU are doing to prevent it (other than hanging out here). How energy efficient is your home? How many cars do you drive and, if so, are they SUV’s, hybrids, or electric? Etc, etc, etc. The reason I ask is that I have found that too many greenies follow a “do as I say, not as I do” approach (ie: Al Gore – 4 mansions, lavish lifestyle but says it is “carbon neutral”). In other words, they want us (the common folk) to make sacrifices and live with less, but they (rich, elite, champagne socialists like Gore, James Cameron, George Soros, Prince Charles, etc) live in luxury and won’t give up any of it. For them I say practice what you preach!
@Ill wind: More reading for you:
http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007.pdf
http://nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/1jun2011a5.html
All warmists-catastrophists keep ending up looking naive, gun-jumpers, misinformed, marble-losers and/or dishonest. Discuss.
The Arctic will never be “ice free”, it might have a little less, but it will never be open for water skiing….
Sigh, ok, then I’ll cancel my vacation plans. But I had a great deal!!!
stop it….we’re both to old for water skiing…
om, said discuss, so here’s my shot….
…what kind of morons were talked into a few degrees warming is going to be some disaster…
when in a normal world, we would all be talking about what to do with all that extra productivity
and what kind of morons believe climate science and all the other sciences that have jumped on the gravy train with their hands out….
….has progressed enough to make any predictions at all
These are glorified weather men you dolts!
lol, well, if Om says discuss, discuss we will! Actually, you can tell this was a great post of Steve’s by the comments it generated! But, given the to a fro of the conversations, Om may be correct in his assessment, though, I may not have worded it that way.
Now, your comments, while a bit more poignant, I reject! I reject it because I refuse to accept that my age would hinder my water skiing! It just so happens that my back would, but surely that’s not age related! I had a family reunion today. At this particular one, we play basketball. That never was my forte, (my side is decidedly football) but we play. Another side is decidedly basketball. We always play young against old……….oh my, the young has surpassed at least my old, in spite of my competitive nature. We learn things every day. Smoking beer drinkers’ capacity for physical endurance diminishes noticeably on a year to year basis. We preserved, but only because of the small college ball experience of my cousins. We’d have lost if one of my nephews had shown.
In this particular thread, naive…..yes. Gun-jumpers….yes. I’d say ill-informed as opposed to misinformed. Marble-losers……..given. Dishonest…….well, many are. I don’t believe Dr. Stroeve or IWB are. I would expound, but I’d end up making assumptions that aren’t true.
Lat’s points about increased production are spot on. Imagine how shipping would benefit and what that would mean to oil consumption and prices at the end! Imagine the sudden flourishing of biological events in the arctic! Imagine the reclaimed soil we could use for several benefits of mankind!!
Please note, I said reclaim. There once was a time in Greenland when they grew grain for their livestock. There was advancement to a culture and civilization there. When Greenland can do this once again, ……raise crops to feed their cattle, enough to support that area, then, and only then, can we say the arctic is as warm as it was……… but who knows what happened prior to then?
Lat’s last point was also spot on. Climate science hasn’t progressed since Hansen’s “scenario” paper. Oh sure, things have been tweaked here and there, but nothing has changed. All of the dire prognostications have failed and they keep moving the bar back. But CO2 is still the boogyman. Warm still= bad in their world even thought there’s little evidence that its true. Sea levels…..ahahahhahahahaha!!!! The number of pirates still correlate better than CO2. But, this is what happens in science when we study questions under errant assumptions. The science can’t progress because the assumptions are wrong…….models.
@Ill Wind: “Anyone who see’s a temp chart (derived from tree rings) of the past 2 millenniums will note way too much randomness in temp fluctuations.”
1) Tree rings are poor indicators of temperature, due to effects of precipitation, CO2, strip barking, etc. Even the IPCC warned against this.
2) The randomness in temp fluctuations over the past 2000 years would work against your argument. If temps have been all over the place over the past 2000 years, then a few tenths of a degree in 30 years is nothing.
Latitude:
I guess I will have to cancel the purchase of my beach front Arctic property. They told me Water Skiing is the current IN-sport there. I suppose you are also going to tell me not to expect sun bathing during November,December, and January.
Omno:
Warming would be a good thing for the planet so I prefer Chicken Little wannabe! Our visitor Ill Wind provides an excellent example of a full blown Chicken Little. AndyW is also a member of the club!
Disagree here. I’m unimpressed with IWB, but don’t have a problem with AndyW…he seems pretty reasonable. Just because many here disagree with him doesn’t make him unreasonable.
-Scott
lol, Scott, this has to be one of Steve’s lengthiest threads. We’ve had IWB and AndyW, and even the good Dr. Stroeve giving back and forth to some very good discussions. We’ve had cherry-picking, temp discussions and much to say about ice extent and thickness. We had civil parts of this discussion and other parts, not so much. We’ve had accusations, insults, and even apologies. I’m assuming you’ve read much of this thread, and the only comment you have is this?………lol
Much to the pity, your knowledge and demeanor would have made a positive contribution to the discussion, IMO.
Scott:
The point was rather than use Alarmist of even the kinder term of warmist I prefer Chicken Little for those that promote catastrophe waiting around some corner driven by imaginary human induced climate change. It is the claims that what we are experiencing is in any way exceptional related to past events and that natural causes have been somehow over ruled by human contributions. It is the lack of understanding of long term weather patterns that can be seen in ALL types of historic records. I personally am not even impressed with luke warmers because they appear to want the science to be right but the methods applied to prove it are sloppy. There is no science behind catastrophic global warming / Climate weirding / Climate disruption. They are for the most part reasonable and some even believe what they repeat.
Sort of like tainted food, they take in the information and have to spew it out at others because of the bad taste left in their mouths.
suyts says:
June 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Maybe, hard to say. I can be a real butt sometimes. 😉 However, I’ve been really busy the last few days and have only been able to read, not post. Didn’t even read all of this thread. But since I’ve had good interactions with AndyW in the past, I thought I’d defend him here.
More seriously, I do really wonder about the Arctic ice. The losses in the 2000-2009 decade were indeed considerable, and I completely understand why people worried about CAGW use it as an example of “look, it’s observable!”
What I really want to know is if the loss in the Arctic has actually been shown to be due to CO2…has this ever been done? I just wonder because I’d heard in the past that black carbon (BC) might be causing a significant portion of the loss, but I hadn’t really thought about it in detail. Recently, I was at a conference (climate-related, though nothing to do with the Arctic) and saw an image taken from ~30k ft from an airplane in the Arctic. The amount of BC present was so much that you couldn’t even see the surface! Measurements showed it to be comparable in concentration to that in the LA boundary layer too! That’s about all that was said with respect to the Arctic, b/c it wasn’t at all the focus of the conference. However, it really got my brain to spinning. Clearly, there would be two effects – local atmospheric temperature increase from the increased light absorption by aerosols, and also increased melting due to ice albedo changes from adsorption (and later absorption) of the aerosol by the ice. And remember, this BC would likely be worse than fresh BC because it would have been cloud processed and thus be a mixture of BC and sulfate (which absorbs more than pure BC aerosols). Now, the BC can be traced back to both North American and Asian sources. I haven’t seen emission numbers, but I’m guessing North American emissions of BC have not increased much in the last 20 years, whereas Asian ones probably have substantially. To me, this could be a major player in the game. (Full disclosure – I’m an academic working in the field of aerosols, so clearly this link could get me more funding.)
So the way I see it, we might have some sort of nice mixture of GHG warming, warming from the LIA, natural cycles, BC emissions, and other factors affecting the Arctic Ice. Thus, I think it’s foolish to point to a single cause and blame it, and that’s why I’m curious to see if there are any studies definitively showing it to be due to GHG changes and not the others of the above. Maybe someone can point out something I’m missing.
-Scott
What I really want to know is if the loss in the Arctic has actually been shown to be due to CO2…has this ever been done?
======================================================================
Nope, none of it has been proven and probably can’t ever be……..
Right now, it’s all only a guess/hypothesis
Scott:
Add in wind blowing the ice out of the region, currents pushing it out and guess at percentage of cause for all the above. If the ice melt is due to aerosols then an ice free surface would be more reflective than a BC covered surface. Due to the angle of incidence an ice free ocean reflects more light that an ocean covered by packed ice any way but adding soot it make the ice even more susceptible to sunlight when it shines. The majority of old ice is pushed out of the region when the sun does not shine.
You also left out dust from arid regions of the northern hemisphere that would also play a part. Dust from the Gobi Desert has been found in parts of North America as well as soot from natural occurring forest fires.
I understand about being crazy busy. …….Given this statement by Dr. Stoeve, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/arctic-ice-decline-stopped-five-years-ago/#comment-63320 I’d say no such tie to CO2 has been made……. only a correlation. Which is funny, because temps correlated until this last decade. Now, the ice, this decade correlates……yes, obviously there are other factors running our climate.
I’d be shocked to see that BC is abundant over the arctic on a regular basis. That wasn’t my experience there. But that was quite some time ago…….
Ill Wind:
You are FOS!
Well, Saturday nights, being what they are, nothing but crickets chirping now…….sigh.
Ill Wind Blowing
there is a person that went by different ID’s at WattsUpWithThat. He used Villaboolo and Mecago as names. His writing style is in-aesthetic like you with lots of bolds and caps. and know-it-all demeanor. Yet he was wrong all the time. He exaggerated.And when it was pointed out to him by using data in what ways he was wrong he wouldn’t face up to it but would talk about something else. You are like him.
Are you Villabollo/Mecago?
Its not surprising that people might become depressed during stressful times –
such as going through a divorce, caring for a sick relative
or financial problems. It needs to be rushed to
a medical facility which is capable of handling
emergencies. At the end of the meeting it was announced that he was
to enroll in a dental college. Some conditions affect
basically one organ or tissue type, others are more widespread.
And just think how great you’ll look and feel when you are consistently doing 100 ab exercises a day.