Millions of square kilometres of Arctic Sea Ice - it has been declining steadily, and continues to do so, in both winter and summer.
By the way - the fact that the winter figure shows a less obvious downward trend than the summer is simply explained:
The measurements are area under sea ice, not the total quantity (volume / mass) of ice. In winter, the Arctic Ocean still freezes over, although the southern-most latitude of freezing is tending to retreat, which is where the reduction of area under ice is observed. However, the winter ice is also thinning significantly, and less and less winter ice survives each summer to form the base of the next year's ice pack. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...20090707r.html
Well, we can add another junk article to the Australian's long list. No wonder circulation and advertising revenue are collapsing.
But it's an old story... if you can't dispute the physics, dispute the measurements, either way, the skeptics are hopelessly out of their depth.
Perhaps they need reminding of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, the one partly funded by oil, led by a guy who was at the time a vocal skeptic who had gullibly swallowed Climategate whole, and the one the skeptics promised to accept the results of...
Of course, when BEST found the same as all the other temperature series, guess what the so-called "skeptics" did? Did they accept it? Or did they start attacking the messengers?
I am also curious about the claim that climate scientists forecast the arctic ice to be gone by 2014. I'm aware that the bottom of the lower error bar on the single most pessimistic projection (nowhere near the average forecast), included this year (it was maslowski's 2016 +/- 3). However, Renato is fond of (mis)quoting the IPCC, so perhaps a reference to a general agreement that arctic ice wouldn't last until 2020 from one of the recent WG1 Assessment Reports can be found? I look forward to seeing it!!
That Mars will appear as big as the Full Moon on August 27th ... definitely this year, go look!!!!
Or that there is somehow a massive green conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of scientists , every national science academy , and the world's governments to fake the whole concept of global warming, presumably with the aim of putting those poor, honest oil and coal companies out of business and raise taxes?
I've responded to both this lunchtime, and I can't decide!
That Mars will appear as big as the Full Moon on August 27th ... definitely this year, go look!!!!
Or that there is somehow a massive green conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of scientists , every national science academy , and the world's governments to fake the whole concept of global warming, presumably with the aim of putting those poor, honest oil and coal companies out of business and raise taxes?
I've responded to both this lunchtime, and I can't decide!
Funny thing about your fixation with the Arctic ice which hasn't disappeared as previously predicted, is that when one looks at the yearly maximum Arctic sea ice extent, there hasn't been much change at all in the last 15 years http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ge/sea_ice.php
Renato
My "fixation" is not on Arctic ice, its morbid fascination over why you cant seem to read a graph. I provided 3 in a previous thread, extent, density and volume, (just to cover all bases), in answer to your comments regarding the disappearance of Arctic ice, and the pretty pathetic attempt you made to try to convince us that the losses in previous years were reversing. Of course the "corner turning" referred to in your post represented a miniscule bump in 2010 (?) from memory and you neglected to show the data for the next 4 years. You also seem to be able to convert a clear negative trend into a positive one. I'd fail a year 8 student for that kind of response.
The new line you push is that the data was wrong, yet current satellite data confirms it. Its pretty apparent to most people that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about so I imagine you are trying to justify something you've done, something you're involved in or the idiocy of a political party you support. Either way, when someone seeks to misrepresent the Science in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, there's is an obligation to name it up. I don't have an issue with that.
Well that's interesting, but I'll add it to what it says is
"More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots."
That makes it more than a dozen theories plus one, and quite a few of the previous ones claim to be definitive - and peer reviewed too.
Oddly enough the study seems to be using the term "deep sea" to refer to depths of 2000m where Argo measures to - but that's the upper ocean, not deep sea. I guess they may be saying that their studies show heat being funneled to the deep ocean below 2000m - but there aren't systemic measurements down there to prove it.
Cheers,
Renato
I saw the article in the paper on the weekend, and in particular the graph which the OP has appended to the first post.
It is IMMEDIATELY obvious when looking at the raw data that there is a step-shift downwards in 1980 - obviously, "something" changed with the way the raw data was being collected in about 1980. You have to adjust the data for this "something" before you can attempt to analyse for underlying trends.
Neither of the segments left or right of the step shows any apparent downward trend. If you instead fit a straight line by eye to each of the two segments, what do you get? Two upward trending lines which are roughly parallel with the trend-line in the homogenised data.
It looks like the person who created the graph simply fitted a linear trend-line to the complete data set, including across the step-change, in order to support a claim that temperatures are dropping. The sole basis of the claimed downward trend is a spurious step-change in the data which is being "analysed".
Pseudo-science of the worst kind!
Well, I have looked at that graph again and fail to see the "step" you see.
To reject data one needs to statistically analyse it and see if it falls outside confidence intervals - and go investigate the cause at the time.
Your dismissal of the Raw data seems quite spurious to me, as are your subsequent comments.
Regards,
Renato
Figures show the rate of ice loss from Greenland has doubled since 2009 so using the current rate of melting to predict anything is deliberately misleading and dishonest.
Which Climate scientists predicted that? Reference please.
What about predictions of sceptics though? Here's where your beloved sceptic Bob Carter predicted global cooling and stated that it "has been cooling since 2002". http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/01/...lobal-cooling/
Of course he was completely wrong.
No comment yet on the fact that Maurice Newman (whose opinion on renewables you previously lauded) has deliberately misrepresented the work of scientist Mike Lockwod? That makes Newman a liar and fraud.
As for surface temperatures, sceptic blogger Anthony Watts has repeatedly claimed that the US surface temperature record is unreliable and has been manipulated but investigation after investigation (Menne, 2010, Muller etc) has shown him to both wrong and quite dishonest.
In your world only scientists have to be perfect I guess whereas deniers can trot out any old garbage and you'll believe them.
It's darn hard to use future rates of ice loss - because you'd have to guesstimate those future rates based on such things as atmospheric warming - which isn't happening lately.
If you plot the data in the table, you get a clear downward trend in both the winter and summer measurements - although the trend is MUCH stronger in the summer figures.
Also, the averages over time are quite significant:
Winter average - 1979-2000: 15.7
Winter average - 2001-2014: 15.1
Summer average - 1979-2000: 7.0
Summer average - 2001-2014: 5.5
Only the wilfully blind would argue that this data doesn't show a clear trend!
I made comment the comment that there hasn't been much change at all in the last 15 years in the winter average.
You claim that a simple plot shows a clear trend, and that I'm willfully blind
Only problem is the trend is tiny - which is entirely consistent with what I stated.
The summer average has dropped 21.4%.
The winter average has dropped less than 4% - that's not much change in my book.
Millions of square kilometres of Arctic Sea Ice - it has been declining steadily, and continues to do so, in both winter and summer.
Perhaps you are arithmetically challenged?
You unambiguously state that millions of square kilometers of Arctic sea ice disappeared in winter.
By your own figures
15.7million - 15.1 million = 0.6 million
So where are the winter "millions"?
Regards,
Renato
Well, we can add another junk article to the Australian's long list. No wonder circulation and advertising revenue are collapsing.
But it's an old story... if you can't dispute the physics, dispute the measurements, either way, the skeptics are hopelessly out of their depth.
Perhaps they need reminding of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, the one partly funded by oil, led by a guy who was at the time a vocal skeptic who had gullibly swallowed Climategate whole, and the one the skeptics promised to accept the results of...
Of course, when BEST found the same as all the other temperature series, guess what the so-called "skeptics" did? Did they accept it? Or did they start attacking the messengers?
I am also curious about the claim that climate scientists forecast the arctic ice to be gone by 2014. I'm aware that the bottom of the lower error bar on the single most pessimistic projection (nowhere near the average forecast), included this year (it was maslowski's 2016 +/- 3). However, Renato is fond of (mis)quoting the IPCC, so perhaps a reference to a general agreement that arctic ice wouldn't last until 2020 from one of the recent WG1 Assessment Reports can be found? I look forward to seeing it!!
Hi Andy,
Now, you now you are being naughty claiming that Muller who did the BEST study was a climate skeptic - he was on record before doing the study saying it was okay to lie to get the AGW message across. The co-writer of that study, Judith Curry, immediately disagreed with Muller's pronouncements about the study's supposed conclusions, which he made before it was even released.
And exactly how does citing the Berkley study address anything in the Australian article about raw temperature data being altered? It doesn't.
And your comment that I have misquoted the IPCC is quite frankly offensive, and demonstrably false. To misquote means to alter the quotation of what they said. In previous threads, I went to great effort to scrupulously cite/quote items from AR5, by cutting and pasting sections in their entirety, and putting them between quotation marks and putting them in italics.
Not once in all those posts did you say "Hey- You've misquoted them".
But now, after those previous discussions you say they I routinely misquoted them.
My "fixation" is not on Arctic ice, its morbid fascination over why you cant seem to read a graph. I provided 3 in a previous thread, extent, density and volume, (just to cover all bases), in answer to your comments regarding the disappearance of Arctic ice, and the pretty pathetic attempt you made to try to convince us that the losses in previous years were reversing. Of course the "corner turning" referred to in your post represented a miniscule bump in 2010 (?) from memory and you neglected to show the data for the next 4 years. You also seem to be able to convert a clear negative trend into a positive one. I'd fail a year 8 student for that kind of response.
The new line you push is that the data was wrong, yet current satellite data confirms it. Its pretty apparent to most people that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about so I imagine you are trying to justify something you've done, something you're involved in or the idiocy of a political party you support. Either way, when someone seeks to misrepresent the Science in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, there's is an obligation to name it up. I don't have an issue with that.
Hi Rom,
You keep trying to change the subject. You attack me for my criticism of the dud Arctic Ice free by 2013 predictions made 2006, by showing me graphs which show that there is plenty of ice still there
May I suggest that as the ice is still there, around 5 million square kilometers in summer and 15 million square kilometers in winter, and as your graphs confirm that the ice is still there, either you had an extremely faulty memory of the predictions, or you are defending the indefensible dud predictions made by climate scientists which your own graphs prove were wrong.
And you have the audacity to claim I don't have a clue what I am talking about?
Regards,
Renato
Well that's interesting, but I'll add it to what it says is
"More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots."
That makes it more than a dozen theories plus one, and quite a few of the previous ones claim to be definitive - and peer reviewed too.
Oddly enough the study seems to be using the term "deep sea" to refer to depths of 2000m where Argo measures to - but that's the upper ocean, not deep sea. I guess they may be saying that their studies show heat being funneled to the deep ocean below 2000m - but there aren't systemic measurements down there to prove it.
Cheers,
Renato
Thank you for your polite reply.
It does appear there are a few theories on this matter so I am not surprised you have noted them.
I seem to detect a hint of scepticism as to their reasonableness and indeed the peer review process
Unfortunately one must publish ones own theory and have it reviewed to supplant a theory. Until then one can't pass the level of sceptic and the sceptics hold the lower ground Still I do enjoy the discussions I witness here knowing at this level it is belief against belief with no prospect of victory for either side
The BEST project was even sponsored by the Charles Koch foundation and denialist blogger Anthony Watts claimed at the time:
"the BEST result will be closer to the ground truth that anything we've seen".
Of course as soon as Muller found that the IPCC was indeed correct Watts rapidly changed his tune as like all deniers he's not interested in real scientific evidence.
The BEST analysis is important because exactly the same claims about the US surface temperature record that have been debunked over and over are now being made against the Australian surface temperature record despite it being created via the same methodology that has been used elsewhere and proven to be robust.
Hi Andy,
Now, you now you are being naughty claiming that Muller who did the BEST study was a climate skeptic - he was on record before doing the study saying it was okay to lie to get the AGW message across.
*citation needed
Perhaps you are thinking of a different Richard Muller than this one, who around 2011 was spewing just about every climate myth under the Sun? And being extremely offensive about various climate scientists too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
And exactly how does citing the Berkley study address anything in the Australian article about raw temperature data being altered?
Preferring the opinion of a random non-expert over professional Met Offices and independent data analyses does your 'skepticism' no favours. Marohasey is totally wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
And your comment that I have misquoted the IPCC is quite frankly offensive, and demonstrably false.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings but the IPCC doesn't agree with you about much. Can you show me where the IPCC actually supports your views, rather than cherry-picking snippets out of context, such as claiming the existence of a global warming (ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere) "pause" while ignoring repeated references to both continued ocean heat content rise (>90% of GW) and short-term heat exchange oscillations like ENSO (why IPCC warning against using short-term surface temperature trends).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
The 2006 Arctic Ice Free predictions - which everyone here seems to have forgotten about except for me...
And there was me thinking you all though the ice was supposed to be gone in 2013 Even assuming you meant 2016:
Well, your sources:
Goddard (seriously, he's too cranky even for WUWT), and you believe him? Where is your skepticism? Do you believe everything on the Internet?
A BBC news article (great science source, that...) about Maslowski's 2016 +/-3 prediction I referenced earlier. The earliest published prediction of a sensible scientist, but much earlier than most cryosphere specialists expect. On what planet is a 2016 +/-3 prediction falsified by 2014?. If in 2020, Maslowski is shown to be wrong, does that invalidate the rest of the cryosphere science community forecasting closer to mid-century?
And on what planet is Al Gore a cryosphere scientist?
I asked you for a scientific source which suggested that climate scientists in general were forecasting ice-free conditions by 2014. IPCC would do! Not a news article about the bottom error bar of the single most pessimistic projection... Where is your skepticism of the junk you're reading? I'm trying to help you here!
