And higher modern Winter temperatures would most likely be tainted by UHI more often than the other seasons All that warmth generated by modern humans.
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by sunshinehours1
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by manacker
Mosh
Goddammit, it has nothing to do with skeptics claiming their “science is settled”.
Tony’s study shows JUST THE OPPOSITE.
Get it into your head:
We DON’T KNOW whether increased GHGs have caused recent Arctic warming, which has resulted in loss of late-summer Arctic sea ice – BECAUSE we have apparently seen similar Arctic warming in the past, which also resulted in loss of sea ice – prior to any real increase in GHG concentrations,
IOW – the science is NOT settled!
Duh!
Don’t make stupid statements. I know you aren’t stupid.
Max
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Wagathon
<em>It is also shown that various cryosphere phenomena, including glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age, began to recede after 1800 and are still receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.
The second one is oscillatory (positive/negative) changes, which are superposed on the linear change. One of them is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is a natural change. This particular natural change had a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975 <strong>(positive from 1910 to 1940</strong>, negative from 1940 to 1975), and is thought by the IPCC to be a sure sign of the greenhouse effect of CO2. However, the positive trend from 1975 has stopped after 2000. One possibility of the halting is that after reaching a peak in 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation has begun to overwhelm the linear increase, causing the IPCC prediction to fail as early as the first decade of the 21st century...
Indeed, the inflow of warm North Atlantic water shown in 12a and 12b can be one such process that can melt sea ice from below (Haas et al., 2008). Further, it is well known that winds or ocean currents can also move sea ice once it is broken up (Zhang et al., 2008). Thus, it may be concluded that processes other than the CO2 effect have a greater influence on sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean is special in this respect. In fact, as mentioned earlier (Section 2.1), sea ice around the Antarctic continent shows no clear sign of a similar decrease, and is actually growing a little.f</em>
(See: Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming), and; (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming). by Syun-Ichi Akasofu,International Arctic Research Center,University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska)
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by sunshinehours1
The data was from the 2011 Arctic Report Card. 2013 is not out. 2012 did not have a temperature grid.
2011 report here (p 119) :
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report11/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by manacker
Joshua
If you read Tony’s post you will see that he is arguing the case for UNCERTAINTY (i.e. the “science is NOT settled” that GHGs are the principal cause for the recent loss of Arctic sea ice) – NOT the case for “CERTAINTY”.
Mosh has fallen into the same silly trap.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by miker613
“Arguing that I should believe a second stupid argument because somebody else made a first stupid argument is well, less than smart.” I made no such suggestion. All I’m saying is, you’re off topic. Let those who think this is important argue about it. Or if you’re contributing (I myself have no clue if it’s important or not!), work within the flow of the argument, and with what Tony is trying to demonstrate. Which is, “Christy did not lie” – and that much he did show, even if he maybe overstated his case.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by NevenA
Please, keep us up-to-date as soon as you learn more!
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Tonyb
NevenA
I admire your blog but fear that perhaps you have read the article too quickly.
Early on in the account I use the phrase ‘Nevens respected arctic sea ice blog’ those words lead directly to the article you mention. Only The second link gos to kinnard.
Please direct me to where I suggested there were similar melts to 2012. Please read the conclusions carefully as I say the exact opposite.
2012 and 2007 were exceptional. I will leave others to determine why they were apparently lower than the period I reference.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by sunshinehours1
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by lolwot
“dont you find it funny that the warming of the 20′s and 40s causes ice melt, but that the warming from 1979 to present doesn’t according to the FOS (Fans of Soot).”
ah good spot! I am disappointed that I didn’t notice that one.
Also the other excuses would apply too, not just soot, ie: wind changes, storms.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Wagathon
<em><strong>Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?</strong>
Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.</em> ~Dr. Roy Spencer
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Joshua
manacker -
Life is not so binary – even when you use all caps.
Yes, in some ways, tony is “arguing the case for uncertainty.” But in the statement mosher highlighted, he states conclusions that dismiss uncertainty.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by lolwot
“but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007″
Not really a peak, it’s already been beaten by 2012!
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Joshua
And tony –
I have no theories of my own about climate.
FWIW, that does not seem plausible to me. You seem to have a number of theories about climate – one of which is that the evidence you’ve collected necessitate a conclusion that “…warming was more widespread in the Arctic… than is currently noted in the official sea ice data bases covering 1920-1945/50″
It seems that you have at least one other theory about climate: That the evidence you’ve collected necessitates a conclusion that “the official records appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent during this period.”
That second one is a bit tricky, however, because I can’t quite understand what it means to say that we “must” conclude that something “appears” to be overstated.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by NevenA
Indeed you did, I thought it linked to the blog’s main page. Because the link under ‘article’ led to the graph instead of the article/blog post, I assumed you didn’t properly link it. Thank you for linking to the piece where I accuse Dr. Christy of lying.
Please direct me to where I suggested there were similar melts to 2012.
I was mostly alluding to Dr. Christy, although I was under the impression that your piece was meant to go somewhat in that direction, although it’s easy to lose track of what you’re trying to say with that multitude of copied quotes.
Saying for instance that the 1920-1940 period is controversial in the discussion about Arctic sea ice, is in my view not even exaggerated, as there is nothing to exaggerate in this respect.
This paper provides evidence that supports a conclusion that the official sea ice data bases covering 1920-1945/50 appear to very substantially overstate the ice area extent.
It would be most useful if you could quantify this (even just an approximate number would do), or like I said, produce a map of sorts, so I and your other readers could compare and judge.
I will re-read your piece tomorrow.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Chief Hydrologist
I will have to save the bulk of this for later Tony.
Here is a graph from Polyakov whom you reference – hey there is a spell check in IE10 yee hah -who uses from memory Russian sources of sea ice data. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/arcticice-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=92
Decadal changes can clearly be seen consistent with decadal changes in Arctic temperature.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/chylek09.gif.html?sort=3&o=91
Which are again consistent with global atmospheric and ocean patterns. We can be sure that these shifts are emergent reorganisations of the climate system because of, inter alia, associated shifts in global fisheries ecologies.
We do appear to be in a period of rapid fluctuation. This is a worry in itself in the theories of coupled non-linear systems. Are we in the midst of tipping point whose outcome is entirely unpredictable? If so – did we bring it on and is it too late to worry now? What happens if the MOC shifts abruptly and Europe and America are plunged into a deep chill? Will there suddenly be a big demand for those 4th gen nukes? If I deluded myself that I was a futureologist I would have the answers to these and many other questions.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Tonyb
NevenA
In the supplementary information is a link to frank lansners article in which he makes an effort to quantify the extent. It seems fairly reasonable to me.sorry I can’t provide the link for you but my connection tonight is decidedly intermittent and I have had to change devices twice already.
Wouldn’t it be a great bit of science if a couple of us from climate etc and a couple of you from your blog made a serious and objective attempt to quantify the real ice levels of that period? Because of space I had to severely curtail the amount of evidence I could include In the article but it would provide a good basis for estimates.
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by sunshinehours1
The thing about using Yachts with strengthened hulls as proxies for negating the warmth in the Arctic in the 1930s is that it makes you look extra dumb.
It was as warm in 1929/1932 in Greenland as it was in 2011.
↧
Comment on The Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study and misprocessing of data – an update by Wayne2
Fan: I hope you hold the feet of Tamino, Mann, Hansen, etc, and websites like SkS, etc, to the same fire. I know I’m naive in that regard, but here’s hoping.
I find it especially interesting that you’re tolerated here and perhaps in other skeptical blogs — as low as your noise-signal ratio is — but you wouldn’t last more than a single posting as a skeptic at anti-skeptic blogs like SkS or Tamino’s.
↧
Comment on Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950 by Beth Cooper
Guess this is a kinda intemperate assertion, should have said
‘confirmation bias seemed less likely…’ ‘ climate change was,
perhaps, a less political issue …’ Guess I could learn from
Tony’s careful evaluation of the data available.
A serf.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
