Look on the bright side. When the arctic fully recovers, the antarctic will be on it’s downward slide and you AGW guys can pretend CO2 is responsible for that. You can say… “hey the antarctic was recently at record ice extent and look now it’s in a death spiral… please ignore the artcic now…” lol
Look on the bright side. When the arctic fully recovers, the antarctic will be on it’s downward slide and you AGW guys can pretend CO2 is responsible for that. You can say… “hey the antarctic was recently at record ice extent and look now it’s in a death spiral… please ignore the artcic now…” lol
Artic recover? Ha. Where’s your evidence to support that concept?
I listed the years that are shown on the graph which are compiled by NSIDC that contain the whole satellite dataset.
I can’t show any more satellite data than that.
In addition I linked to a recent paper that shows the sea ice is currently at a recent geologic low.
You say I cherry pick; wait until tomorrow when Steve once again highlights the recovery rate of sea ice this year, despite it being an expected phenomonon of having more open water.
Ok, so to make sure you aren’t a cherry picker then talk about this study every time instead of that time frame you continually use:
The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.
Ok, so to make sure you aren’t a cherry picker then talk about this study every time instead of that time frame you continually use:
Why? I use a time period that is relevant to AGW, the period of time in which we have been emmitting GHGs.
Sure it’s great to learn from other periods; we know for instance that there’s been warmer climates than today, that climate change has been happening for a long time. None of that refutes the claim that CO2 contributes to the warming we experience today. In fact many scientists study the CO2 of the past in order to work out how sensitive our climate is to a change in radiative force.
I will continue to highlight the entire satellite record because that is current the best record we have of the past 30 years and shows why Steve’s addiction to the last few months of expected ice recovery is of no importance.
If you wish to show why something in the past 9,000 years is also relevant to the conditions we are experiencing now, then by all mean go ahead.
In the Arctic Summer when the surface ice is melting, it is known that the air temperature close to the surface is limited by this ice melt temperature to just above zero degrees C, (Rigor 2000). This is why the Summer air temperatures have not varied much over the entire instrumental period. This maximum temperature “clipping” effect is clearly seen on all arctic data sets from Arctic buoy data to individual station data to satellite data.
Watts looks at this graph of DMI data, a then examines only the high values (summer time), the ones that don’t vary much no matter what the climate is doing.
Looking at the mean or minimum temps shows that the artic is warming.
Once again, by using all of the data, rather than cherry picking out only summer time data, the cooling not only disappears but the warming is shown to be around twice that of the rest of the planet.
I see very little change in that graph. And didn’t James Hansen say the poles is where global warming would be worse? What I see in the graph is a natural variation. All of you cherry pick a warming time and then run around with your death knell.
The earth always warms and cools. Politicians and environmentalists won’t change that.
“And didn’t James Hansen say the poles is where global warming would be worse?”
Did you miss the part about the increase being about double the rest of the world?
“What I see in the graph is a natural variation.”
How can you “see” natural variation in a graph. You can “see” that it varies. More data/analysis is required in order to prove from what source it comes. But at the moment, you struggle to see the incline – what’s the word for not wanting to see something that’s plainly in front of your face?
This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that? And it doesn’t say anything different than global warmers are already saying. It’s just it uses a very select time frame to say global warming is happening.
The graph you link does not show doubling James Hansen talks about.
The paper you link to uses 1979 to 1997 to try to prove the earth is in ‘global warming’. But, if you use a different time period then your ‘global warming’ hypothesis doesn’t have proof.
So is it the graph? Is it James Hansen’s hypothesis? Is it the paper? Is it doubling? What is it you are talking about? Because NONE of these 3 things agree with each other.
No, you are not quoting me. You are jumping from one thing to another.
You know, maybe the problem I am seeing here is that you don’t know that the things you are using to try to prove something to me are not agreeing with each other, but you think they are.
The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims.
The paper you link covers 1979 to 1997. It shows (seemingly) that what James Hansen said was true. But what James Hansen said doesn’t cover just that time period. So it doesn’t show what James Hansen said. Unless he meant global warming happened only from 1979 to 1997.
The DMi graph and the paper cover two different time periods.
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It establishes that summertime temps stay relatively stable, usually just above zero, because of the melting ice.
Amino says: “So is it the graph? Is it James Hansen’s hypothesis? Is it the paper? Is it doubling?”
LOL. You are getting confused now aren’t you.
The graph – shows the temp doubling what the rest of the planet is. It also shows the mean temp is increasing, whilst the “Watts cherry picked summer temps” show slight cooling.
The paper – see above.
Hansen – you tell me, you’re the one getting side-track on what Hansen might think.
Amino says: “No, you are not quoting me. You are jumping from one thing to another. ”
See all those “””””” -< they are quotation marks used when quoting people. 😉
Amino says: "The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims."
So what? I'm not claiming it has anything to do with Hansen.
Amino says: "The DMi graph and the paper cover two different time periods."
Correct!!! See above again!!!
Amino says: "So, what you doing man?"
Trying to teach a zebra algebra by the looks of it.
Amino says: “This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that?”
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It is trying to establish if summertime temps change much, or if they stay relatively stable because of the melting ice.
You use that saying “Repeat something thrice, that makes it true.”
You use a short time period to try to prove something you claim will happen on a long term basis. You global warming believers go in these same circles, every time.
Hey, if you want to believe you should base everything in climate by what happens during a +PDO when the earth is dominated by el Nino, that’s ok for you. But it’s not ok for me. And it’s not correct scientifically.
I don’t want to continue to go in this same circle with you. I get it, I don’t need to have it repeated to me. I know already now what you will say, I mean saw and saw.
Amino says: “You time period of 1979 to 1997 is when all of your Arctic ice projections are based on? Is it also what James Hansen bases his on?”
OK, but that had nothing to do with Steve’s post or my comments. Have a search on this page and the first time Hansen is mentioned is out of the blue by you.
Amino says: “It was just moments ago you were using all three to prove global warming.”
No, I never used the paper in that way. If I did, please post a reference to my post.
I assume Steve is going from DMI looking at the graph. I get 2010/2007 ~ 1.35 looking at the graph, which is about what Steve is reporting here. I still want to know why DMI has this year’s performance being so much better than all the other databases. EFS_Junior and I started a discussion on it at WUWT, but it never went anywhere (yet).
Amino says: “This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that?”
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It is trying to establish if summertime temps change much, or if they stay relatively stable because of the melting ice.
Ok, so the graph you link covers 1958 to 2010 and the paper 1979 to 1997.
What happened from 1958 to 1979? What happened from 1997 to 2010? What happened from 1958 to to 1983? What happened from 1983 to 2010?What happened from 1958 to what ever year? What happened from what ever year to what ever year??? You don’t care. Just 1979 to 1997 is all you want to use to prove your point.
Yet still well below the 1979-2000 average if you look at the whole satellite dataset.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
And near the lowest in recent geologic history.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602193423.htm
And still likely to be ice free in summer in perhaps as little as 30 years.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf
Look on the bright side. When the arctic fully recovers, the antarctic will be on it’s downward slide and you AGW guys can pretend CO2 is responsible for that. You can say… “hey the antarctic was recently at record ice extent and look now it’s in a death spiral… please ignore the artcic now…” lol
Artic recover? Ha. Where’s your evidence to support that concept?
As for Antarctic sea ice, perhaps you need some more reading.
Brendon says:
October 19, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Yet still well below the 1979-2000 average
You continue to cherry pick that time frame.
I listed the years that are shown on the graph which are compiled by NSIDC that contain the whole satellite dataset.
I can’t show any more satellite data than that.
In addition I linked to a recent paper that shows the sea ice is currently at a recent geologic low.
You say I cherry pick; wait until tomorrow when Steve once again highlights the recovery rate of sea ice this year, despite it being an expected phenomonon of having more open water.
Ok, so to make sure you aren’t a cherry picker then talk about this study every time instead of that time frame you continually use:
The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/
Amino says:
Why? I use a time period that is relevant to AGW, the period of time in which we have been emmitting GHGs.
Sure it’s great to learn from other periods; we know for instance that there’s been warmer climates than today, that climate change has been happening for a long time. None of that refutes the claim that CO2 contributes to the warming we experience today. In fact many scientists study the CO2 of the past in order to work out how sensitive our climate is to a change in radiative force.
I will continue to highlight the entire satellite record because that is current the best record we have of the past 30 years and shows why Steve’s addiction to the last few months of expected ice recovery is of no importance.
If you wish to show why something in the past 9,000 years is also relevant to the conditions we are experiencing now, then by all mean go ahead.
Youre just an advocate. Science doesn’t mean a damn to you.
From the abstract (how ironically appropriate)
“Several studies project…..”
Models, models everywhere and nary a fact in sight!
(I realize the plagiarism implications but consider it to be public knowledge so….;-)
PJB writes,
“Models, models everywhere and nary a fact in sight!”
Arctic scientists generally have far more facts than models these days. Even bloggers seem to know that, hence the blizzards of data graphs.
With temp data showing recent cooling global warming needs Viagra:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/josh-mikes-nature-trick.jpg
DMI trend summer (north of 80N) 1991-2009: COOLING
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com/
Hi, Captain obvious here.
That’s SUMMER Temperature.
Why is this important? Perhaps you & Watts should have read the SS article a little more closely.
Then you would have learned:
Watts looks at this graph of DMI data, a then examines only the high values (summer time), the ones that don’t vary much no matter what the climate is doing.
Looking at the mean or minimum temps shows that the artic is warming.
Once again, by using all of the data, rather than cherry picking out only summer time data, the cooling not only disappears but the warming is shown to be around twice that of the rest of the planet.
I had this ridiculous idea that Arctic ice melts in the summer.
I had this weird impression too that global warming means the earth warms.
So what? Why would you limit a study of Artic temps to just summer when looking at climate trends?
ya Brendon, so what to everything,
I see very little change in that graph. And didn’t James Hansen say the poles is where global warming would be worse? What I see in the graph is a natural variation. All of you cherry pick a warming time and then run around with your death knell.
The earth always warms and cools. Politicians and environmentalists won’t change that.
stevengoddard says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:25 am
I had this ridiculous idea that Arctic ice melts in the summer.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
LOL!
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:23 am
the high values (summer time), the ones that don’t vary much no matter what the climate is doing.
Would James Hansen agree with that?
“And didn’t James Hansen say the poles is where global warming would be worse?”
Did you miss the part about the increase being about double the rest of the world?
“What I see in the graph is a natural variation.”
How can you “see” natural variation in a graph. You can “see” that it varies. More data/analysis is required in order to prove from what source it comes. But at the moment, you struggle to see the incline – what’s the word for not wanting to see something that’s plainly in front of your face?
Brendon (or is it straw man?) says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:56 am
But at the moment, you struggle to see the incline
I see it. And it is natural variation. I already said that.
You created a straw man.
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:56 am
Did you miss the part about the increase being about double the rest of the world?
I didn’t miss anything. This thing you claim isn’t happening. Only in James Hansen’s data set would that happen.
Amino says: “Would James Hansen agree with that?”
You’ll need to ask him. The SS article provided the paper from which supports that principal.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/RigorEtal-SAT.pdf
Amino says: “I didn’t miss anything. This thing you claim isn’t happening.”
I’m using the exact same data that you and Watts used. The only difference is that I don’t cherry pick Summertime temps.
What, exactly, is the point you were trying to make from that paper you linked?
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 5:03 am
Amino says: “I didn’t miss anything. This thing you claim isn’t happening.”
I’m using the exact same data that you and Watts used. The only difference is that I don’t cherry pick Summertime temps.
You are jumping around in the points you are making.
What’s up wit you man?
You losing it? You asked “Would James Hansen agree with that?” in reference to the summertime temps not changing much around the sea ice.
This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that? And it doesn’t say anything different than global warmers are already saying. It’s just it uses a very select time frame to say global warming is happening.
And you know what they call that? Cherry picking.
Amino says: “You are jumping around in the points you are making. ”
I am quoting you each time so you wouldn’t get confused. The rest is up to you.
The graph you link does not show doubling James Hansen talks about.
The paper you link to uses 1979 to 1997 to try to prove the earth is in ‘global warming’. But, if you use a different time period then your ‘global warming’ hypothesis doesn’t have proof.
So is it the graph? Is it James Hansen’s hypothesis? Is it the paper? Is it doubling? What is it you are talking about? Because NONE of these 3 things agree with each other.
No, you are not quoting me. You are jumping from one thing to another.
You know, maybe the problem I am seeing here is that you don’t know that the things you are using to try to prove something to me are not agreeing with each other, but you think they are.
The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims.
The paper you link covers 1979 to 1997. It shows (seemingly) that what James Hansen said was true. But what James Hansen said doesn’t cover just that time period. So it doesn’t show what James Hansen said. Unless he meant global warming happened only from 1979 to 1997.
The DMi graph and the paper cover two different time periods.
None of these things agree.
So, what you doing man?
Amino says: “The graph you link does not show doubling James Hansen talks about.”
It’s listed on the graph as “0.376 degrees C per decade”, that’s about double what the rest of the planet experienced.
James Hansen is not involved in the DMI data. What Hansen might think is a completely different argument.
Amino says: “The paper you link to uses 1979 to 1997 to try to prove the earth is in ‘global warming’.”
I don’t think you read my post.
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It establishes that summertime temps stay relatively stable, usually just above zero, because of the melting ice.
Amino says: “So is it the graph? Is it James Hansen’s hypothesis? Is it the paper? Is it doubling?”
LOL. You are getting confused now aren’t you.
The graph – shows the temp doubling what the rest of the planet is. It also shows the mean temp is increasing, whilst the “Watts cherry picked summer temps” show slight cooling.
The paper – see above.
Hansen – you tell me, you’re the one getting side-track on what Hansen might think.
Amino says: “No, you are not quoting me. You are jumping from one thing to another. ”
See all those “””””” -< they are quotation marks used when quoting people. 😉
Amino says: "The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims."
So what? I'm not claiming it has anything to do with Hansen.
Amino says: "The DMi graph and the paper cover two different time periods."
Correct!!! See above again!!!
Amino says: "So, what you doing man?"
Trying to teach a zebra algebra by the looks of it.
You time period of 1979 to 1997 is when all of your Arctic ice projections are based on? Is it also what James Hansen bases his on?
Amino says: “The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims.”
So what? I’m not claiming it has anything to do with Hansen.
It shows a longer time period than 1979 to 1997. That longer time period show to use 1979 to 1997 is cherry picking.
It was just moments ago you were using all three to prove global warming.
Amino says: “The DMi graph you link goes from 1958 to 2010. It does not show what James Hansen claims.”
So what? I’m not claiming it has anything to do with Hansen.
Ya, I suppose you wouldn’t want to since it shows Hansen is wrong.
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 5:33 am
I don’t think you read my post.
You say that, then you link to this:
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 5:12 am
Amino says: “This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that?”
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It is trying to establish if summertime temps change much, or if they stay relatively stable because of the melting ice.
You use that saying “Repeat something thrice, that makes it true.”
You use a short time period to try to prove something you claim will happen on a long term basis. You global warming believers go in these same circles, every time.
Hey, if you want to believe you should base everything in climate by what happens during a +PDO when the earth is dominated by el Nino, that’s ok for you. But it’s not ok for me. And it’s not correct scientifically.
I don’t want to continue to go in this same circle with you. I get it, I don’t need to have it repeated to me. I know already now what you will say, I mean saw and saw.
Look out for those acorns Brendon. Night.
Remember, think 3 times, post once. 😉
Amino says: “You time period of 1979 to 1997 is when all of your Arctic ice projections are based on? Is it also what James Hansen bases his on?”
OK, but that had nothing to do with Steve’s post or my comments. Have a search on this page and the first time Hansen is mentioned is out of the blue by you.
Amino says: “It was just moments ago you were using all three to prove global warming.”
No, I never used the paper in that way. If I did, please post a reference to my post.
You asked if Hansen would agree that summertime temps didn’t vary much
I said … You’ll need to ask him. The SS article provided the paper from which supports that principal. .. and I linked to the paper
Amino says: “Ya, I suppose you wouldn’t want to since it shows Hansen is wrong.”
He may well be (I don’t even know what Hansen quote you’d be referring to) but that’s an entirely different argument.
Amino says: “You use that saying “Repeat something thrice, that makes it true.””
No I repeated it so perhaps you might actually read it.
“I don’t want to continue to go in this same circle with you.”
I haven’t been in a circle although it appears you are dizzy.
Your/Watts attempt to use summertime-only temps is cherry picking data that varies little.
The use of all-seasons data showed warming.
Amino says: “Night.”
No it’s not. 😉
Brendon says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:23 am
Looking at the mean or minimum temps shows that the artic is warming.
Depends on the time frame.
I’m referring to the exact same time period that you and Watts are referring to.
But if you look at the end of the graph you’ll see cooling.
And it’s a shame the graph doesn’t go back to Medieval times. You’d see so much cooling that you alarmists would scream bloody ice age.
Amino says: “But if you look at the end of the graph you’ll see cooling.”
What specific cherry picked years are you referring to?
“And it’s a shame the graph doesn’t go back to Medieval times. You’d see so much cooling that you alarmists would scream bloody ice age.”
I’ll stick with actual evidence rather than imaginary data.
It is not imaginary that it was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warm Period than now, as you so flippantly claim.
Amino says: “It is not imaginary that it was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warm Period than now, as you so flippantly claim.”
You just said “the graph doesn’t go back to Medieval times”.
Arguing with yourself now?
And if you want a warmer MWP, be careful what you wish for
Man dude, what are you talking about???
From Jaxa
2007 =6041719
2010 =7276563
So it is 20% and not 37%
Where did you get your figures from Steve?
Andy
CT area shows 2010 up by just 24% on 2007.
I assume Steve is going from DMI looking at the graph. I get 2010/2007 ~ 1.35 looking at the graph, which is about what Steve is reporting here. I still want to know why DMI has this year’s performance being so much better than all the other databases. EFS_Junior and I started a discussion on it at WUWT, but it never went anywhere (yet).
-Scott
Amino says: “This paper you link to covers only 1979 to 1997. Did you know that?”
The paper isn’t trying to look at the same period. It is trying to establish if summertime temps change much, or if they stay relatively stable because of the melting ice.
Ok, so the graph you link covers 1958 to 2010 and the paper 1979 to 1997.
What happened from 1958 to 1979? What happened from 1997 to 2010? What happened from 1958 to to 1983? What happened from 1983 to 2010?What happened from 1958 to what ever year? What happened from what ever year to what ever year??? You don’t care. Just 1979 to 1997 is all you want to use to prove your point.
Amino asks: “What happened …?”
To what?
You planning on updating this post Steve? Just eyeballing it; no longer 37% higher.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://www.livescience.com/researchinaction/ria-101008.html I thought Jellyfish where made by climate change, now they are good for it LOL
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCTIC.pdf
Nice summary, looks like the satellites just went up during a major climatic shift