Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 Next
Comments 118451 to 118500:
-
dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.
NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors. The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade. So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly. -
chris1204 at 01:47 AM on 3 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
CBDunkerson @ 21 I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science. kdkd @ 19 Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well. I note the abstract says as much. -
CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arkadiusz and Ken, a novel approach... as it is clear that the Arctic sea ice is melting now insist that it isn't due to global warming. The problem is that the 'evidence' of this isn't strong at all. You're talking about fragmentary records from a century ago. Nobody was doing surveys of the entire Arctic back then. You can't say that because Spitsbergen experienced a warm period (similar to the recent trend) that this means the entire Arctic basin did. At that we don't have any accurate >ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork. As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming. -
Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Arkadiusz Semczyszak #22 Seems like AS has cited some pretty strong evidence that while the Arctic has warmed - the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago. The most likely global cause 90 years ago was Solar variation and local cyclical warming currents like the AMO. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
@CBDunkerson arctic-warming. 26th June 2009: "The starting point is the extreme warming at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19. The winter temperatures exploded (see Fig. above- http://www.arctic-warming.com/hottopics/20090626/20090626_clip_image002.jpg) only here. The warming was sustained and remained for two decades, showing up in the Kara Sea and eastwards only after 1920. That is an evident aspect that the warming started at Spitsbergen. When Syun-Ichi Akasofu [2009] recently acknowledged that: "The recent rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in 2007, is partly caused by the inflow of warm North Atlantic (Karcher et al., 2003; Polyakov, 2006)", it would be the same situation as during the Arctic warming 90 years ago. An earlier paper by Polyakov et al., [2005], expressed it in this way: "This study was motivated by a strong warming signal seen in mooring-based and oceanographic survey data collected in 2004 in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. The source of this and earlier Arctic Ocean changes lies in interactions between polar and sub-polar basins. Evidence suggests such changes are abrupt, or pulse-like, taking the form of propagating anomalies that can be traced to higher-latitudes. For example, an anomaly found in 2004 in the eastern Eurasian Basin took 1.5 years to propagate from the Norwegian Sea to the Fram Strait region, and additional 4.5–5 years to reach the Laptev Sea slope." Many scientists have shown that the current rapid warming of the Arctic is not much "room" for CO2. For me, the most interesting works are: - Piechura, Walczowski (2009) Warming of the West Spitsbergen Current and sea ice north of Svalbard , - Alekseev et al. (2007) Arctic Sea Ice Data Sets in the Context of Climate Change During the 20th Century, - Chylek et al. (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. -
CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chriscanaris #12, I still can't fathom why 'skeptics' make such a big deal out of ice extent briefly approaching AVERAGE. The mere fact that 'almost hitting average' is such a big deal serves as a tacit admission that ice extent has been BELOW average continuously for years now. In any remotely 'level' system you'd see values going ABOVE average on a regular basis... rather than merely getting CLOSE to average being a rare and noteworthy event. BTW, that report is also a month old. Since then Arctic sea ice extent has plummeted at an unprecedented rate and is now below the level for this time of year in 2007. They should have a new monthly report out by next week, but you can see the current status HERE. -
Alexandre at 20:35 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
John Russel #16 Totally agree. Here in Brazil there´s a nearly-retired meteorologist that has made some late fame among the broader public by making contrarian statements in interviews and right-wing Economy and business conferences. Except for the accent, the tactics are much the same. -
kdkd at 19:16 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
chriscanaris #12 A paper from Nature demonstrates how perturbations in these complex periodic systems are important. In that context, the jury seems may be still out on the Arctic ice extent, but very close to a verdict. Full reference: Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V. et al. (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:12 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
1.565 ppm - sorry -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ... "Unprecedented" ... Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ... ... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic). March of the first explains: "The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001, 1979-2008). The strongest relationship between the value AMO MSar last year [2008] and the average monthly surface ice occur during the period from December to June - during the polar night, and spring (r from -0.82 to -0.74). The higher the value AMO MSar (ie, the Sargasso Sea SST), including in all months of next year in the Arctic ice surface is smaller." ... and then says the following: "The air temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased over this period (1979-2003, 25 years) to 0.73 ° C, which gives, also lower than in the previous period, [1917-1938 (22 years)] average increase of 0.0292 ° C • year -1. At the same time the growth rate of CO2 concentration was equal to 1565 ppm • year-1 (P <0.00001), almost four times higher than in the previous period of warming, and the same concentration of CO2 in the troposphere was also significantly higher than in the previous period and ranged are between 337 and 375 ppmv." "In the second period of warming (the current), despite the much higher concentration of CO2 in the troposphere (about 27-65 ppmv) than in the previous period, and a much stronger trend in the concentration of CO2, the rate of temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is smaller than during the first warming. If the concentration of CO2 govern the SAT changes, it should probably be different [...]. Presumably, increased concentrations of CO2 have some impact on the course of air temperature in recent years, however, in relation to the role played in shaping the changes in the SAT - scale NH [including the impact on Arctic ice], play AMO changes, the effect of the pCO2 is secondary, and perhaps even TERTIARY." Monckton is wrong (in principle) in detail, but his general conclusions that: the ice there is "nothing special" and even more so "UNPRECEDENTED" (for example, it was a "precedent" - by Marsz - in the years 1917 to 1938) may be the most consistent with the views of (at least) some researchers - Arctic sea research. -
John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making. 1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion. 2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart. 3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo. 4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented. 5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use. 6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly. 7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated). To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said. Hope that helps. -
chris1204 at 18:40 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
From: Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010 While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability. I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out. My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges). Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible. -
daisym at 17:43 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
An article posted on May 29, 2010 in the blog 'Watts Up With That' claims that Arctic ice has increased. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/?utm_source=co2hog . The article by Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts says that, according to the U.S. Navy's PIPS sea ice forecast data, Arctic ice volume has increased by 25% since May, 2008. One of the functions of the PIPS forecasting model is to help identify ice that is too thick for penetration by the Navy's nuclear submarines. PIPS is a computer model, and as such, it could be wrong, but the Navy hangs their hat on it for operational purposes. There appears to be some ambiguity in the way the Navy's model manipulates the data compared to the way the scientist's model does. How can these differences be reconciled? Who's right... the Navy or the scientists? Or is WUWT off the mark? -
Jeff Freymueller at 17:07 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#36, I agree that my speculation about PIPS is speculation. But I'd say it is on you to demonstrate that the older part of the time series of PIPS forecasts tells us anything about anything other than the performance of their forecasts at that time. -
philipm at 17:02 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
This ice thing is really silly. You don't have to be a professor to take it down but thanks anyway for doing so: my point is not that you needn't do this, but that the anti-science is inexpert. You'd think the multi-billion dollar fossil fuels industry would be able to defend its interests better than that. Then again, looking at what BP is currently doing, maybe not. Recently on my blog I did a retrospective of the prediction in The Australian in April 2009 that a big drop in sunspots presaged an ice age. What's so nice about this anti-science stuff is that the predictions are so hard to take down. When they make predictions. What's not so nice is they are still winning the propaganda war, and the Laws of Physics don't play nice with people who violate them. Aside from Arctic sea ice extent (which in the latest data is dipping below the 2007 low), Antarctic and Greenland ice volume are crashing, as reported elsewhere on this site. Even in the Antarctic, volume measures are crashing, indicating area will follow as soon as we have a warmer than average summer because there's less thick multi-seasonal ice. -
chris1204 at 17:00 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
PS: From The National Snow and Ice Data Center: 'Arctic sea ice extent averaged 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 square miles) for the month of April, just 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was also close to average, at 41,000 kilometers (16,000 square miles) per day. As a result, April 2010 fell well within one standard deviation of the mean for the month, and posted the highest April extent since 2001. Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter.' All sounds pretty average to me. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 16:53 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Berenyi Peter> I agree, a forecast for tomorrow is probably not completely off from data for today. But this is a rather clumsy way to get at todays values. According to the NSIDC page I linked to before, they are continuously improving the quality of the microwave data. That could possibly account for the "gradual fix" you mention. But there are still huge error terms. I feel that there is so much uncertainty about these data, that the burden of documentation is on whoever wants to use them. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:46 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Riccardo, that note at the Register is quite remarkable, not the least for me because it was mostly Steven Goddard's thoughtless accusations of fraud and the like at "El Reg" that shifted me into prattling at RealClimate and (later) here. I'm married to a scientist, my dad was a scientist, many of my friends are as well. They all have in common regardless of other faults (my wife of course is faultless) a strongly inculcated attachment to following facts wherever they may lead, stacking bricks of information no matter the shape of building emerging from that work, indeed that appears largely the entire fascination of the process. Putting together a jigsaw puzzle is no fun if you trim the pieces to fit with scissors. Goddard's infamous articles at The Register irritated me in large part because of his strange belief that scientists are inclined to shape their work around ideology or some other distorting influence. I never knew Goddard and The Register published that retraction. For what it's worth, I corresponded with Goddard at the time and I actually concluded he was sincere in his odd way, not that it excused his departures into unfounded accusations. Perhaps he learned his lesson; I've largely avoided reading what he writes these days so I wouldn't know. Anyway thanks again for pointing out the retraction, it leaves me feeling as though The Register has some shred of integrity, nice because I'm fond of their over-the-top headlines and ledes. -
Berényi Péter at 16:31 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#31 Jeff Freymueller at 10:54 AM on 2 June, 2010 these plots are NOT DATA. I'm not sure why you seem to be interpreting the older forecasts as if they were data They are not data, agreed. But these are 24 hour forecasts and for immediate physical reasons neither sea ice extent nor volume can change much in a day. Therefore the numbers depend on the realtime data assimilation procedure used and the very quality of data assimilated. If this system was faulty before 2003, gradually fixed from 1998 on, it would explain the divergence. However, at least some hint of a documentation is needed for this kind of reasoning to be satisfactory. -
Riccardo at 16:18 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
doug, i already noticed in a comment in the other post that more than ice extention it is critical thinking that is falling below the absolute low in human history. Indeed Goddard knows very well that his pixel counting technique is bogus, given the full retraction he was forced to make not so long ago (scroll down here to editor's note). Neverthless he used it again and some people followed suit, blindly I'd say. (Thanks to Phil Clarke in a comment here for reminding us). -
KeenOn350 at 16:06 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Just want to say thanks for excellent, painstaking, detailed refutation of Moncton's materials/presentation. -
sailrick at 15:47 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Humanity Rules If I'm not mistaken, St. Paul IS in the Pribiloff islands. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:14 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Lot of that PIPS going around. Berényi, I'm surprised, usually you don't go in for fads of this kind. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 15:04 PM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
The way I understand this, the PIPS system directly uses passive microwave satellite data, as discussed here. Then they run some algorithm to check if the ice is growing or shrinking. So the actual data on ice extent trends which powers PIPS is from the SSM/I satellite data. The PIPS forecast can't be better than those (but it could be worse). However, these data are subject to really great uncertainty, as explained the section of error sources here. I think it would be unwise if anyone seriously used the PIS maps directly to estimate ice trends, at the very least that would require a lengthy discussion of the possible error. -
chris1204 at 15:01 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
WUWT vs Skeptical Science - the battle of the graphs! -
NewYorkJ at 13:47 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
I'm perhaps pointing out the obvious here, but the main problem with Monckton's presentation of the data (at least it appears to be accurate in this case) is that the graph he uses is not really useful in showing trends from year to year or over a decade. It's meant to show the path of Arctic sea ice extent over the course of a single year, and compare the path with a relatively few recent years. It's rather difficult to sort out all those lines/colors for each year to discern where the trend is at the decadal level. The NSIDC graph is an obvious solution. Since we're on the topic of obfuscating with graphs, here's a similar one by a Willis Eschenbach. It makes Monckton's presentation look almost reasonable on comparison: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-graphs/ The WUWT alter ego site puts it nicely... http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/lies-damned-lies-statistics-%e2%80%a6-and-graphs/ -
Doug Bostrom at 13:40 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
HR, we often don't agree but I concur w/you on your third paragraph. I actually don't think most politicians are in significant disagreement with scientists on this matter, Monckton and the rest of the seemingly anti-science troops don't seem to have much real pull. Not to say there's no effect from all the chatter, more that responding to the climate issue mainly falls in the same vein as other nebulous threats such as future possible earthquakes. Our politics are dominated by short wavelength matters unpredictably spaced, "noise" as we'd call it if looking at a graph. -
HumanityRules at 13:30 PM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Eschenbach would have it that the difference in Monckton and John's graphs is the scale. Lord M seems wrong but you'd have to put that sentence in context. If it is in connection with 'death-spirals' or ice-free arctics this decade then there may be some justification for the use of steady (in that sort of context). Let be clear the data he presented isn't fake, it's just what conclusion he draws from it. Just as an aside. I have a bit of trouble with the focus on sceptics as the biggest barrier to moving forward on climate change. While mainstream politicians might talk up climate change I don't really see any great enthusiasm to turn that into action, especially the sort of real action needed if the alarmists are to be believed. The Labour Party in Australia dropped thier ETS fairly sharpish once it appeared to have little upside for them politically. -
Jeff Freymueller at 10:54 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#29 Berényi Péter, given that PIPS is a forecasting system (see #24), these plots are NOT DATA. I'm not sure why you seem to be interpreting the older forecasts as if they were data. Perhaps the reason that the PIPS forecasts track IJIS so well after 2003 is that the forecasts may have been initialized based on the same data that IJIS used? If the PIPS forecasts were not so accurate prior to 2003, that was a concern for the Navy at the time, but it doesn't matter now. (The captains will be happier now than they used to be). -
Mythago at 10:30 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Thank you John for the take down on Lord Monckton. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated. One little bit you may like to add to the Greenland ice sheet altitude increase section to explain the increase in height is the reflex action of land masses when the load of glacial ice has been removed. The landmass will rise once this has happened and this alone would explain the altitude increase. It happens to all large landmasses and may also influence sea level rise to the negative a little. I haven't read the paper by the Danish scientist yet but will when I get time. Apart from that you might also like to add the Hadley Institute in the UK as a source of reliable data regarding climate change. Looking forward to the next instalment. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:07 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Picking Arctic ice as a point of contention is a mystifying choice on Monckton's part, truly, especially compounded with the attached requirement of "don't believe your lying eyes." Others have said that Monckton's appeal and reach here in the U.S. is partly down to his accent. I think it's also about his title, reverberations of our special relationship w/Great Britain. An eye-catching feature of the graph John reproduced is Monckton's own choice of adding an oversized crowned portcullis on the graph. It's suggestive, but of what? An official imprimatur? Here's some information on that symbol, including guidelines on appropriate use. Suffice it to say, Monckton's use of the crowned portcullis is dodgy in its own right, quite apart from the content it adorns. He's not a member of either House and his communications have no official status but he's certainly trying to convey -some- impression by his selection of decorative artwork. -
CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Leo G, and any others who might find Monckton to be amusing, I have a problem with much more than Monckton's 'content', as I fail to find humor or entertainment value in a someone who employs deception and subterfuge to create misunderstanding. Climate change is a serious topic that demands serious and honest dialog. Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it? And why does he retain credibility with so many people despite having a terribly biased agenda, and--in my best Queen's English--an unfortunate proclivity to dissemble. It is these questions--and not issues of science--that lie at the heart of AGW Denialism. Thanks to Prof. Abraham for patiently addressing Monckton's misinformation. I will again refer SkS readers to an informative set of exposes on Monckton, including an amusing discussion of the hot pink portcullis appearing on the top slide of this post. Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 and Debunking Lord Monckton Part 2 -
Doug Bostrom at 09:38 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Hot link to johnd's article: Winds from Siberia Reduce Arctic Sea Ice Cover, Norwegian Researchers Find Conclusion of article, in concert w/recent emphasis on volume as opposed to area: However, [Dr. Sorteberg] emphasizes that he and his colleagues do not reject the assertion that climate change is affecting Arctic ice cover or that the IPCC is wrong when it states that the Arctic may be nearly ice free in summer towards the end of this century. "There is no doubt that the Arctic sea ice has become thinner in recent years. The thickness of the sea ice is a much better indicator than the extent of the ice cover if we want to study how climate change may affect the ice in the Arctic," says Mr Sorteberg. -
David Horton at 09:18 AM on 2 June 2010Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
Perhaps this could be shown to politicians? The gradual change is very evident. The "hot spots" in Indonesia, West Africa, and the Amazon basin I assume are due to the clearing and burning of forest? -
Berényi Péter at 09:08 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#27 Marcel Bökstedt at 08:41 AM on 2 June, 2010 They would't really care about consistency between older and newer data Of course. But they do care about consistency between data and reality. Captains tend to get annoyed by running into one million km2 of ice missing from the map. -
Dennis at 08:57 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
While some may find Monckton entertaining, I do not. He has been invited repeatedly to testify on the subject of climate science before committees of the United States Congress. His testimony appears in the record and is used by some members of the Congress to justify their beliefs that global warming is not real. Monckton's testimony has contributed to the fact that the United States has yet to pass legislation to reduce is CO2 emissions. John Abraham, if you have time, perhaps you could watch Monckton's most recent testimony and provide the same excellent scientific critique to that as you have done above. You can find a video of his testimony here: http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0018#main_content -
johnd at 08:54 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
A recent study by Norwegian researchers as part of the Norwegian Component of the Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas (NESSAS) project, has found wind patterns contributing to the Arctic sea ice loss and help explain the recent steep loss. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100427111449.htm Interestingly fishing vessels in the Bering Sea have in recent seasons experienced pack ice pushing further south than normal and at times finding ports in the Aleutian Islands being blockaded by such ice. -
muoncounter at 08:44 AM on 2 June 2010Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
That carbon tracker video is hypnotic. #3: "slow increase is another matter, but its visual representation is poor. " Indeed, the inexorable drift of the color bar, as Peter H. points out, is a sure sign of the long term increase. And the linked video ends in 2008. 2009 seasonal highs over 390 ppm; preliminary seasonal highs approaching 395 ppm are already showing up in the IADV online records. See: BMW, RPB, AZR, ICE, etc, etc. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 08:41 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Pips is not principally intended for discussing trends since it is a forecasting system. They would't really care about consistency between older and newer data. I don't know if NOAH uses a reanalysis (reexamination of old data with newer methods) as PIOMAs does? A reanalysis would make no sense for forecasting, so PIPS would certainly not do this. Could those difference explain the discrepancies between PIPS and NOAH before 2003? -
GFW at 08:18 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
I'm not an ocean current expert (someone go get Bob Grumbine :) ) but my understanding is that all the warm currents of the North Atlantic are fed by the Gulf Stream, so the temperature down by Cuba etc., and the speed of the Stream are factors in play. The Stream feeds at least three warm currents, one up the west side of Greenland, one aimed at Reykjavik, and what I think is the largest is just the continuation of the main stream direction north of Scandinavia. That last area is where the biggest negative ice anomaly is right now. -
Berényi Péter at 08:06 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
#22 Peter Hogarth at 07:15 AM on 2 June, 2010 where does the PIPS system have numerical files of area, thickness or volume? I could not find any either. Just took plots and reverse engineered data from color codes with a quick-and-dirty perl script using Image::Magick. If they have got ice right, it would explain a lot about the scary downward trend seen in NOAA Arctic Report Card 2009.
Divergence before 2003 is remarkable. It's unkikely PIPS 2.0 24 hour forecast have missed September ice by 1 million km2 in 1999. After all it is used for operational purposes.
-
GFW at 07:51 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Er, I'm not sure those PIPS graphs show anything important. Certainly the last one shows that PIPS in May is well correlated with PIPS in Sept - not too surprising. Plus, I don't think PIPS for extent is really a predictive model in the way we think of that term. I think it gets ongoing corrections from reality. If so, it's hardly surprising if it matches IJIS well. Yes, from an official description of PIPSForecasts of ice conditions are produced by numer- ical ice-ocean models that use these observations to help specify an “initial” state and then run forward in time. The length of the ice forecasts depends on the atmospheric forcing that drives the model. Usually, the forcing is derived from an atmospheric forecast model, and extends about seven days into the future. Longer forecasts (to 30 days) are sometimes generated using persistent atmospheric conditions.
So if you get to make extent predictions 7 days out, continually updating with new real data, of course you do pretty well. -
muoncounter at 07:41 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Argus #15: Sorry, I didn't mean anything offensive, ironic or otherwise. John Cook: "fortress of solitude at the south pole?" Ha! Like everything else, there's disagreement on that. However, traditionalists go with the Action Comics June, 1958 original location: in the Arctic. #21: "Re SST vs ice extent. There is good (though not excellent) correlation between North Atlantic spring SST and summer ice extent." Now that's interesting: I've been looking at annual temperature averages; will go back at look at seasonals. "When the drift is strong, the ice flows down the Greenland current to melt near Iceland where the water is warmer." I assume that the Gulf Stream has a hand in that. The Gulf of Mexico and related tropics are unusually warm (and oily) this year. Is there any correlation between seasonal ice melt and temperature in those waters? "As for whether to expect acceleration of the decrease in summer extent ... it depends" Based on Hogarth's sea ice minimum graph, acceleration is not to be expected, its already happening. -
Leo G at 07:33 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Thanx John. I love Lord Monckton's talks. His delivery is very good. I let myself enjoy his jokes and his excellent connection with the audience. I just have problems with his content. No biggy though. If taken for entertainment sake only, a very positive experience. -
Jim Eager at 07:31 AM on 2 June 2010Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
Prof. Abraham, I watched your entire take-down of Monckton's nonsense and disinformation. Well done, sir! -
Peter Hogarth at 07:15 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Berényi Péter at 05:04 AM on 2 June, 2010 PIPS is a forecasting system, fed with SSMI data for predictions of extent, so difficult to figure why any discrepancy in area looking back in time. I agree March values would be better! "the Ice Concentration page has an archive comparing previous PIPS 2.0 forecasts with actual conditions plotted from SSM/I data" Note they regard SSMI as actual data. Out of interest, where does the PIPS system have numerical files of area, thickness or volume? I can only find polar plots? -
Peter Hogarth at 06:55 AM on 2 June 2010Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
3.Berényi Péter at 06:17 AM on 2 June, 2010 Indeed, the whirling patterns are atmospheric, no-one said otherwise, but they have as little to do with plant life as they do to anthropogenic causes. It merely shows how the CO2 is mixed by atmospheric circulations. Are you doubting that the 3rd visual shows almost exclusively anthropogenic high concentration sources (red)? Sinks of plant life (green) are not balancing this, in the US or globally. Personally I think the relentless increase underlying the seasonal variations is captured very well by the sliding colour bar. -
Berényi Péter at 06:17 AM on 2 June 2010Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
The CO2 weather from CarbonTracker movie is beautiful. However, the whirling patterns you see are not anthropogenic, they are due to plant life cycles and weather. The slow increase is another matter, but its visual representation is poor. -
GFW at 05:38 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Some things to note: John, you're right. While winter extent is declining, that decline is slower than summer decline, and we are indeed seeing record extent increases in fall. That trend is likely to continue until summer extent basically hits zero. Then the extent increases will fall slowly as winter ice extent falls slowly. There will be winter ice for centuries unless we really screw up. Re SST vs ice extent. There is good (though not excellent) correlation between North Atlantic spring SST and summer ice extent. Sea current flow volumes between the Arctic and the Atlantic utterly dwarf those between the Arctic and the Pacific. A large factor in summer melt is ice export through the Fram Strait by the trans-arctic drift. When the drift is strong, the ice flows down the Greenland current to melt near Iceland where the water is warmer. As for whether to expect acceleration of the decrease in summer extent ... it depends what you think is more important and likely to come into play. If you believe the PIOMAS model will continue with the current linear trend, extent loss has to accelerate because volume will be zero by 2030. If on the other hand you think average summer latitude of the icepack boundary is linearly correlated with temperature anomaly, then the extent decline will decelerate. What physically happens depends on whether the ocean currents continue basically as they are, or change in response to overall warming. -
Berényi Péter at 05:04 AM on 2 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Well, the difference between Navy data and the rest is still not explained. My confidence in PIPS 2.0 is raised by this figure:
There is a reasonable match between IJIS (IARC-JAXA Information System) sea ice curves and US Navy PIPS (Polar Ice Prediction System) data for the period IJIS has some as well.
However, prior to 2003 PIPS differs from anyone else.
On top of that the sea ice volume story told by PIPS is absolutely inconsistent with the current scare.
Looks like PIPS end-of-May sea ice volume is a pretty good predictor for their minimum ice volume in September. If we go with this observation, PIPS sea ice volume must exceed their figures for 1998-2000 in September, this year.
I try to pull March maps from PIPS to make comparison easier.
Prev 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 Next
