Remember back in May and early June when the denialists were gleefully proclaiming arctic sea ice had recovered to the 1979-2000 average, and by induction global warming must be over?
Well, gee, I wonder where they are now, now that arctic sea ice this month is near the June 2007 mark. 2007 was of course an historic low, and a dramatic one at that.
This month's numbers reveal nothing about climate change, of course. It does however reveal something about climate denial.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
My first job as an archaeologist in Boston (having moved there from New York) had to do with Deer Island, the northern of two islands that separate Boston's Inner and Outer Harbors. The actual archaeology was uninteresting but the historical research was fascinating. Among the things I learned is…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Sea ice at the north pole recovered a whopping 9.4% from 2007 to 2008 despite the doom and gloom predictions of the alarmists. Yet another…
It has been said that global warming has stopped over the last several years. Some say it has not been happening for 17 years, some say for ten years, some say for 12 years. Let's test these hypotheses
Hypothesis: June, the most recent month with full data, was an average year, not a warm year.…
Earlier in the northern summer, it looked like the rapid melt of Arctic Sea ice we've been seeing over the last several years was happening again, but rather than being a record year, it was merely tracking along the lower side of the distribution of the long term average. Last year, in contrast,…
Easy, now they worship at the altar of this graph.
Not sure why this one is such an outlier, as the JAXA AMSR-E data also shows extent at the 2008 level for this date.
But "obviously" it is more accurate ... and "obviously" NSIDC is "adjusting the data to match the AGW myth" and blah blah blah, you know the drill.
Hmm ... NSIDC did a careful calibration of the new sensor on NOAA-17 before switching, "Artic Roos" doesn't explain their methodology that I see, I wonder if it's a sensor switch issue?
Our Overlords at Greenpeace will no doubt take care of that Arctic Roos "issue" very soon...
Yikes - approaching 2007 levels? - that's really scary. I have a few quick questions:
1) Are we still in the La Nina cycle?
2)Do you know when the next El Nino is expected? That'll probably shatter a lot of records....
PS For any readers who haven't yet checked out my blog, which has to do with climate change in the context of credibility and risk management, I'd love you to do so. Link is on my username.
Kate -
re 1 and 2:
We supposedly entered 'neutral' conditions in May, and should expect El Niño conditions in a few months.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/fxus05.html (first paragraph after the numbered list)
re record shattering:
GISS thinks we might see a new temperature record in the next 1-2 years.
"Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance." (last paragraph)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Here i am.
Was not going to bother posting but then i thought why the hell not. You have picked some pretty big cherries here Coby.
Yikes - approaching 2007 levels? - that's really scary. I have a few quick questions:
1, Does this months numbers reveal anything about climate change? Of course not. It does however reveal something about the believer mindset.
2, I wonder why the believer ignores the Antarctic sea ice extent, it seems to be growing (highest ever recorded) despite all this GW going on. Is this due to
a, Its only weather not climate
b, CFC's or some other pollution
c, Dont worry it will start to melt any minute now........any minute now
d, This topic is taboo like saying Mc Beth in a theatre so we dont talk about it.
e, We are waiting on the model results to explain it
Either way this thread is pretty low even by your standards Coby.
Walter Meier (NSIDC) explained that the ROOS people are still trying to perfect their algorithms (whatever that means). The gist of it is that they're still getting their act together.
In keeping with the theme of the top post: late last year the ROOS (NANSEN) plot did a nose-dive overnight. As this showed less sea-ice extent than NSIDC, WUWT naturally found the change "suspicious", and suggested "sloppy quality control".
When ROOS (NANSEN) adjusted their profile overnight recently, with the result showing more sea ice than NSIDC, WUWT did not question the diligence of ROOS, but rather applauded them for something else.
When ROOS sea ice extent was below NSIDC (sugesting a warmer Arctic), WUWT speculated on their incompetence. When the reverse happened, WUWT did the opposite.
This isn't bias, of course. It's healthy, neutral skepticism.
Hello again, crakar
1, Does this months numbers reveal anything about climate change? Of course not. It does however reveal something about the believer mindset.
Perhaps, but Coby (and I) are not of that mindset. I refer you to the top post.
"This month's numbers reveal nothing about climate change, of course."
2, Antarctic sea ice extent, it seems to be growing (highest ever recorded) despite all this GW going on. Is this due to
a, Its only weather not climate
b, CFC's or some other pollution
c, Dont worry it will start to melt any minute now........any minute now
d, This topic is taboo like saying Mc Beth in a theatre so we dont talk about it.
e, We are waiting on the model results to explain it
As I understand it, more heat over the Antarcic produces more precipitation, which means more snowfall. The ice sheet may be growing a bit, which means more ice calves into the ocean. The dynamics aren't the same as the Arctic. The southern pole is an ice-sheet lying on bedrock with large tracts of ocean surrounding, thermally isolated from the weather systems of the world (although GHGs penetrate easily enough). The northern pole is an ice cap floating on the water, with nearby land-masses (land is hotter than ocean) and weather systems penetrating from all sides. And indeed it may be partly a result of Antarctic weather variability. Data is sparse in that part of ther world, so it's difficult to say much with confidence.
Either way this thread is pretty low even by your standards Coby.
Maybe. It's certainly true that the critical milieu made a climatic meal out of what was a weather anomaly. The blogosphere was rife with it for a few weeks; and it doesn't hurt anyone to point out the paucity (or opportunism) of that kerfuffle. What are your thoughts on the topic?
Maybe you should ask Coby to post an update on the Antarctic and we can discuss that topic there?
That was the *point* of the post, silly. The denialsphere was crowing all over the place about the fact that at one point in late winter, ice extent nearly reached the 1979-2000 average. "Sea ice has recovered!" "Global cooling proved!" etc etc.
The fact is that maximum sea ice extent in the arctic is a very poor predictor regarding the summer minimum. In much of the Artic, the maximum extent is constrained by geography (the sea freezes right up to land, and no matter how frigid that land gets, it's not *sea* ice).
Scientists predict that Arctic sea ice extent will shrink much more rapidly in the relatively short term than Antarctic sea ice, which they predict might not shrink at all.
Reality bears this out.
This means the scientists were and are wrong, in Crakar's world.
The second-most annoying thing about the denialsphere (the first being outright lies about science) is the tendency to take successful predictions of climate science as evidence that climate science is a fraud, wrong, etc.
You got the time arrow pointing backwards, bozo.
How are you Barry? All is good i hope.
Number 1 was an attempt to take the pi$$ out of what Coby had said. In other words this topic is very hypocritical or maybe you cant see that.
Number 2 If as you say increased sea ice extent is caused by GW then it should get equal billing should it not?
Now onto your theory, if as you say there is more heat, then were is it? the atmosphere is cooling so it cant be there, the oceans are cooling so it cant be there. Where is this heat you speak of Barry? In fact last week it was -113F which is cold enough to freeze the CO2 out of the air.
Can you explain where this heat is coming from.
Dhogaza,
No i think i got it right, your immediate response to anything proving the theory wrong is "its only weather" and when times get tough your fallback position is always "the models predict...." exactly when they predict things to happen is never mentioned but they do predict things.
Crakar -
Number 1 was an attempt to take the pi$$ out of what Coby had said. In other words this topic is very hypocritical or maybe you cant see that.
The post isn't hypocritical. It very clearly states that June's sea extent don't tell us anything about global warming. The goal of pointing it out is to mock the denialists' predilection for using short-term data inappropriately. Everyone else understands this, are you purposefully dense or do you really not get it?
the atmosphere is cooling so it cant be there, the oceans are cooling so it cant be there.
It's getting very tiresome refuting this claim.
Ocean Heat: http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/global-ocean-heat-content.jpg
Atmospheric temperature: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a/af/Short_Instrumental_Temperat…
It takes literally two minutes to do a google search and come up with these graphs. If I can do it, why can't you?
Crakar,
Things are middling well for me. Thanks for asking. Hope you've got more ups than downs in your life.
That would have worked a bit better if you had quoted Coby instead of Kate @ 4.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The Antarctic is *relatively* stable. It appears to have warmed a little bit over the last 50+ years (a WUWT piece criticising the recent Steig paper confirms warming over that period, just not as much). Sea ice area/extent has shifted only a little. The major changes are happening on the Antarctic peninsuala, which protrudes beyond the winds circling the Antarctic that thermally isolate it from the rest of the globe. That gets some 'billing'.
IPCC projects little change over the major portion of the Antarcic in the short-term, so unless significant changes occur, there's not much to report. And ther Antarctic is not as well-monitored as the Arctic, so obs are heavily qualified (as they are in Steig's paper, for example). apart from the Western peninsula, there's not much going on that is statistically significant at this time. That's not unexpected, and I guess it doesn't make for interesting headlines.
Well, you're talking about short-term stuff. Trends are measured out over decades. Also, you're conflating global obs with regional. We need to prise these things apart to speak usefully on the subject. Even then we'll not likely come to any firm conclusions about this remote part of the world. I'm not much for topic digression, but as long as Coby's okay with it we can explore that here.
Is an open thread a possibility, Coby?
In the Antarctic? Well, GHGs penetrate the Antarctic winds easily enough. That doesn't mean the Antarctic's weather patterns won't produce very cold days/weeks as well as hot ones. -113F would have occured in a specific location I'm thinking, over a very short time scale. In the last six years, at various locations around the globe there have been record-breaking hot and cold days - that's weather. But, as you might expect, there have been more record-breaking hot than cold days, which is an indication - but not 'proof' - of a warming world. This is even the case for the relatively cold 2008. Again we need to look at longer term trends. If I have it right, precipitation --> ice-sheet thickness --> sea ice may increase with temperature. I'd need to read up on it more, though.
Re the upward trend in winter extent of Antarctic sea ice, is it not the case that the current Milankovic insolation matrix favours more intense south polar winters?
If so, then winter Antarctic sea ice expansion does not invalidate greenhouse induced warming, it just counteracts it at the moment.
barry, I started a open thread, good luck!
Jim, You may be right about that, I am only aware that globally MC should have us very slowly cooling for the next few 10`s of 1000`s of years. Regardless, I would expect that influence to be much too subtle to detect in a human lifetime.
Hi Jim,
The shortest periodicity in orbital variation might be 19 000 years (but more obvious at approx 26 000, 41 000 and 100 000 year intervals). The globe exited the last quaternary ice age ~11 000 years ago. The recent few years of slightly increased winter Antarctic sea ice wouldn't be dependent on orbital variations. Other forcings and weather patterns dominate over decadal/annual time frames.
The next glacial period isn't due for at least 23 000 years according to orbital mechanics, or possibly a lot longer (the intervals aren't symmetrical).
Primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Barry, I'm aware of the periods and nature of the three Milankovic Cycles, and that we passed peak northern hemisphere summer insolation sometime prior to the Holocene Climate Optimum, but all of the plots of the Milankovic insolation matrix that I have found are for the **northern** hemisphere summer, typically at 65 degrees north. But I have encountered statements that the insolation matrix for the **southern** hemisphere (65 south) currently yields at least a mild negative winter forcing due to precession + orbital aphelion, although eccentricity is currently very slight.
This sounds correct, since if currently northern hemisphere solstice takes place at aphelion, favouring milder summers, then southern hemisphere solstice must also be taking place at aphelion, favouring slightly colder winters.
I'm trying to get confirmation of this, and wondering if it has been considered as one of the factors for why southern hemisphere response to greenhouse warming lags behind the northern. (Other factors being far more ocean & less land mass in the southern, that the geographic position of the Antarctic land mass allows for strong circumpolar ocean currents and air circulation, the altitude, mass and thermal inertia of the ice cap, the ozone hole, etc.)
If even a slight Milankovic insolation forcing is part of the mix, I would think it should be openly included in discussions to counter the "yeah, but Antarctic sea ice is growing" meme.
Re post #12
Barry,
Point taken on #1, will work on that thanks
#2 We are told that GW is causing Arctic to melt, it is splashed all over the world on average about once a week. There is even a thread here where it can be discussed.
The Antarctic is increasing and 2007 was highest ever recorded, i am told by all that this caused by GW. If so then this is an untapped source of more evidence of GW so my question was why does Coby not have a topic especially for this?
In regards to "Can you explain where this heat is coming from" i may have confused you a little there, i am about to respond to another of Adams colorful posts so you can read that for a more detailed explanation OK.
To Adam re post #11
I am getting tired aswell Adam, this link shows the oceans are cooling albeit slightly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
Quote from Willis
"Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis has stated."
Now we could argue over the temps but in an effort to progres the debate shall we both agree on these terms, both atmospheric and oceanic temps have not risen since the early 2000's (2001/02) yes?
Now according to the AGW theory (IPCC)as CO2 rises there will be a slight increase in temps (doubling of CO2 280-560 ppm will create about +1C), this increase of 1C will then cause more water vapour via evaporation (+feedback) this will then cause the temps to increase by up to another 2 to 6C by 2100. This heat will be retained mainly in the atmosphere and the oceans.
Now lets look at reality, CO2 is still rising but the atmospheric and oceanic temps are not, but according to your theory they should why is this not the case. In other words where is all the increased heat. Now this is a legitimate question to ask and i have asked it in the past and all i get as a response is "Aw gee shucks thats just weather".
It is never explained what weather is or what drives it, is it a case of if the temps go up its CO2 and when they go down its weather. Does this not prove that weather is a stronger climate driver than CO2? This is never discussed.
Well after 8 years of the temps proving the AGW theory wrong you need to come up with another answer, so i will ask you one more time. Where is all the heat?
Here is a link that explains this post in more detail,
climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
have a read of it and try and come back with a logical rebuttal that does include the statements "computer models predict" or "Aw gee shucks its only weather".
By the way was it you or POUGH that called me "Dense", to whoever it was heres a tip, the next time you call an Australian "dense" you might want to try one of these alternatives;
a, Thick as a brick
b, Thick as two short planks
c, (my favourite)Thick as pig shit
Crakar -
I am getting tired aswell Adam, this link shows the oceans are cooling albeit slightly
From the article that that quote references:
"Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."
Which is what everyone has been saying for a long time.
It is never explained what weather is or what drives it, is it a case of if the temps go up its CO2 and when they go down its weather. Does this not prove that weather is a stronger climate driver than CO2? This is never discussed.
No, this is discussed constantly. Increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause increasing temperatures. Superimposed over this are weather effects; meaning, temperatures can either rise or fall more or less than the average. Long-term increase due to increasing greenhouse gases. Short-term increase or decrease due to weather.
As Coby stated in another thread, weather doesn't drive climate. Climate is average weather.
Well after 8 years of the temps proving the AGW theory wrong you need to come up with another answer, so i will ask you one more time. Where is all the heat?
It takes more than eight years, as previously discussed.
climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
have a read of it and try and come back with a logical rebuttal that does include the statements "computer models predict" or "Aw gee shucks its only weather".
They erroneously assume that the increase must be monotonic. This is sufficient to counter their argument.
Crakar asks: "so i will ask you one more time. Where is all the heat?" It is most likely that the unaccounted for heat is accumulating in the abyssal depths of the oceans. Researchers are only beginning to study what is going on deep down in the oceans, below the depths to which the ARGO buoys are employed. Preliminary results show that the abyssal depths are increasing in temperature.
See this paper by G C Johnson and coworkers:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/gcj_3f.pdf
A search on Google Scholar will find other papers by Johnson describing this new finding.
Thanks for the open thread, Coby.
crakar, I'll reply to you there.
To Ian,
Is it possible that "lost" heat has transferred to the deep ocean below the 700 meter limit of our measurements?
Here is some quotes from from Hansen, Willis, schmit et al
"Confirmation of
the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained
by measuring the heat content of the
ocean, which must be the principal reservoir
for excess energy"
"On average for the five simulations, 85% of
the ocean heat storage occurred above 750 m,
with the range from 78 to 91%"
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf page 1432.
According to the models this deep ocean heat theory is not possible, of course the models could be wrong.
The deep ocean theory is also debunked by Cazenave et al as deep water heat should produce thermal expansion. This thermal expansion peaked in 2005 and has decreased steadily since then.
etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf
So deep ocean heat is not the answer.
To Adam,
Since the levels of CO2 is on the rise, the overall accumulation of heat in the climate system, measured by ocean heat, should be fairly steady and uninterrupted (monotonic) according to IPCC models, provided there are no major volcanic eruptions.
According to the theory, major feedbacks in the system are +ve, so there is no mechanism in the theory that would cause a suspension or reversal of overall heat accumulation. So to casually dismiss erroneous theory and model predictions with its only weather is not acceptable Adam.
In fact any suspension or reversal would suggest that the heating caused by CO2 can be overwhelmed (-ve feedbacks)by natural forces (what you call weather i assume).
In summary to both of you i will ask the question again where is all the heat? If you cannot account for this lost heat then i suggest the models and the theory needs to be looked again because obviously it is wrong.
Jim,
But I have encountered statements that the insolation matrix for the **southern** hemisphere (65 south) currently yields at least a mild negative winter forcing due to precession + orbital aphelion, although eccentricity is currently very slight.
They may be so on centennial/millenial scales (I don't know), but doesn't have much bearing within the context of crakar's queries. I doubt we could identify an orbital signal in the climate over less than 30 years, and certainly not over two or three. Weather patterns dominate millenial-scale forcings. Same goes for any forcings that operate on decadal time scales.
An interesting (but orthogonal) question is whether anthropopgenic GHG increases might prevent or mitigate the next ice age some tens of thousands of years from now.
Crakar -
In summary to both of you i will ask the question again where is all the heat? If you cannot account for this lost heat then i suggest the models and the theory needs to be looked again because obviously it is wrong. incomplete
Fixed it for you
Barry wrote: "They may be so on centennial/millenial scales (I don't know), but doesn't have much bearing within the context of crakar's queries."
My posts had nothing to do with craker's.
"I doubt we could identify an orbital signal in the climate over less than 30 years, and certainly not over two or three..."
Sigh. No where did I suggest that we could. But we *can* calculate a long term semi-permanent* reduction in southern hemisphere insolation from the orbital mechanics alone, and then point to it as yet one more reason why southern hem warming lags northern hem. (*At least on a human time scale.)
As for your last question, see Berger & Loutre, Weaver & Hillaire-Marcel, and Ruddiman.
I wrote: "As for your last question, see Berger & Loutre, Weaver & Hillaire-Marcel, and Ruddiman."
And Archer & Ganopolski, G3 2005
Adam,
Looks like we are finally making progress, you now consider the theory to be incomplete.
Every theory in science is incomplete, if we knew everything, science would disappear.
However despite incompleteness, science can tell us many useful thing. The fact that we can't nail down every bit and piece of the ocean system that leads to ENSO doesn't mean we can't recognize ENSO or ENSO's effect on the distribution of ocean heat, or the exchange of heat with the atmosphere.
And it certainly doesn't lead to your fallacious thinking - "we don't know everything about the ocean, therefore everything we *do* know about climate, including the fact that increasing CO2 increases the energy in the system, is wrong".
Crakar -
I never claimed climate science was 100% understood. I also consider the theory of gravity to be incomplete, the theory of evolution to be incomplete, the theory of quantum mechanics to be incomplete and the germ theory of disease to be incomplete. That does not mean, as dhogaza says, that we know nothing about these topics.
However, many of the things we do know, you still seem completely incapable of understanding, so I expect to keep playing whack-a-denialist with you for quite some time.