Here's a first open thread for this freezing season, which will be followed by monthly instalments. I apologize yet again for having been so inactive on the blog. I'm the kind of person who shuts off certain activities when being too busy with momentarily higher-priority stuff, but with the exterior of our house now nearing completion and being badgered by a well-respected member of the blog community (you know who I mean ;-) ), I will try and make the blog more interesting again.
As announced in the comment section of the previous blog post there will be a post-season auto-flagellation and analysis forthcoming, and this will probably lead to more speculation of what to expect next year and after.
In the meantime I want to draw some well-deserved attention to the effort made by Jim Hunt of the econnexus blog who has set up a special website called the Great White Con to document the lies and misinformation spread by GWPF operative and Daily Mail 'journalist' David Rose and other British media outlets. Jim is now making videos to highlight the problems with this propaganda. Here's his latest one:
Have at it!
Great video. Maybe turn down the volume on the music a bit, though, so your beautiful voice can be fully heard and understood.
Posted by: wili | October 10, 2013 at 15:03
Nice job Jim! End of video highlights a significant physical event pertaining to refreezing. If sea ice melts not completely sss salinity at sufrace is not as strong as from open water well mixed for months.
The lack of compaction over the larger ice pack may have refroze
easier from within causing the minima number to be greater but with a significant amount of very thin ice. The less saline the sea surface the easier the refreeze, say with temperatures in the -2 to -6 range.
A well mixed sea surface devoid of ice freezes at much cooler temperatures. The refreeze in the "cool area of the Arctic" , the area where it was extensively cloudy and there was a late melt caused by a combination of clouds and anti-compaction winds, is much faster than the warm area. Lower sea surface salinity twinned with the presence of pack ice (reducing mixing by wave action) is making this years refreeze not equal in all parts of the Arctic.
Posted by: wayne | October 10, 2013 at 18:42
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this 'unpredictable climate variability' behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper's authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called 'stadium-wave' signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a 'wave' propagates through the audience. In like manner, the 'stadium wave' climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-stadium-lull-global.html#jCp
Posted by: Colorado Bob | October 10, 2013 at 18:43
@Colorado Bob--Curry, huh? While I hesitate lest I throw the wheat out with the chaff, I have a hard time giving credence to pretty much anything she has to say nowadays, given her more recent outlandish statements about climate change. And Wyatt is an up-and-comer in the denialosphere, with multiple mentions on "skeptic" blogs such as Tallbloke's and WUWT. But I also don't want to appear all ad hominemy, so I'll say that Arctic Sea ice almost certainly didn't reach record lows last year due to their "stadium wave" hypothesis, we're not now headed into a two-decade long increase in ASI because of same, and the pair haven't reversed the findings of the bradn new IPCC report.
Posted by: Jim_pettit | October 10, 2013 at 19:16
Re: the Wyatt and Curry paper, see also:
http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/workshop/Default/program.php?WID=137
See the John Walsh presentation especially. Many of the others are also quite interesting.
Posted by: plus.google.com/109903191953713950842 | October 10, 2013 at 20:13
The 'stadium wave' and Pitcairn man are about on par with each other.
Posted by: TenneyNaumer | October 10, 2013 at 20:15
The Curry/Wyatt paper is interesting and does NOT (and does not attempt to) explain away AGW. It may and does attempt to explain the Pause.
David Rose is going to have hell of a job writing this up as anti-AGW, though I dare guess he will try. (and JC will be very willing to assist).Get yer skewers sharpened, Jim.
"How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation," Wyatt said. "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability."
I also commend the John Walsh paper two comments above, from plus.google.com
Both are very concerned with the AMO, which is a major driver of the NAO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
I see the AMO as a major player and note, if anyone's that bothered that much of the early work to identify it was done by a certain Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann.
And just to say, that the internet is full of several million vociferous ABC (anything but carbon) eejits; and ABC is a right stoopid position. As would be NBC (nothing but carbon), of which the denialosphere (falsely) accuses anyone addressing the science from the IPCC down. Let's not fall into it here.
I do think that Curry is grandstanding it a bit; and that Walsh's work is more relevent to the subject of this blog.
Though, fair warning, part of one of his conclusions reads;
probability of 10- or 20-year increase of Arctic Sea Ice is non-negligible.
Now, this is hot-off-the-press new science, and I've only got his lecture notes, not the full paper, but it looks very possibly sound to me, FWIW. (which is little)
Posted by: idunno | October 10, 2013 at 21:31
I've almost managed to give my cents on the tired old "hiatus" B.S. (=Bad Science) that came up last thread. Now here they are. It also makes the "stadium wave" thing irrelevant (can be cut away by Occam's razor).
First, from a purely data-driven viewpoint there is no (surface temp) warming hiatus, and neither is there not no hiatus. Both is complete bunk statistics, which any amateur can see by eyeballing the data and drawing a straight trend line from 1970-present (or holding a piece of transparent paper to the screen). If you havent looked yet, DO YOUR HOMEWORK NOW. Try e.g. the pictures here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/ See the noise around the line?
Second, from the model-driven viewpoint there's the unsurprising problem of models not exactly matching the (surface) temp data. That's because theres natural variation. E.g. it has been known since ever that El Nino is difficult and very likely impossible to model, because it is sort of a stochastic resonce thingy (cf. e.g. John Baez' TWF307-8 http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/this-weeks-finds-week-308/ ). Now, recently it has been shown that this is the cause of the "hiatus" (from the model perspective)
1) by letting models "predict" past climate with temperatures forced from surface temp data of the ENSO-relevant patch of the Pacific (Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Nature 2013) and
2) from measurements of deep ocean heat content.
In short, if the models "knew" about ENSO in detail (not only its long-term statistics) then they fit measured surface temp data almost perfectly, and there's no model-hiatus either.
Posted by: Martin Gisser | October 10, 2013 at 23:08
P.S. See also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming
Posted by: Martin Gisser | October 10, 2013 at 23:19
TenneyNaumer | October 10, 2013 at 20:15 said:
=
Piltdown dude
Posted by: Wal | October 11, 2013 at 01:44
Except that it does appear as though the Atlantic waters moving north to the Arctic peaked in temperature around 2007.
http://prj.noc.ac.uk/ExtendedEllettLine//research-and-impact
A "recovery' in the ice extent in the Barentz/Kara would make sense, everything else being equal.
Posted by: Pete Williamson | October 11, 2013 at 02:20
Very nice video, well done!
Tenney and Piltdown, giggle ...
Posted by: Susan Anderson | October 11, 2013 at 03:52
idunno,
I fully agree with your comment about AMO and that the Curry/Wyatt paper is interesting and does not explain away AGW.
The most interesting question would still to quantify the contribution of AMO and AGW to sea ice melt.
From the correlation of the Greenland surface temperature record with AMO, I would estimate about 70% of the increase due to AMO.
Part of the remaining 30% would be attributable to black carbon, having about with 2/3 of the forcing of CO2 globally.
But as black carbon is mostly concentrated in the northern hemisphere and because the effect on snow and ice MUCH larger than the global average, I don't see more than 10% of the recent sea ice melt due to the contribution of greenhouse gases.
Posted by: Linda Serena | October 11, 2013 at 05:09
Most of the comments are a good read. The ones based on accepted science and physics. Being quite alarmed myself, I can understand why even more depressing prognoses are made for the future. So I have no problem reading them and evaluating them against my own limited insight.
Sometimes I even like the more cautious contributions; they help me keeping my head cool.
But I feel weary of the ones that pick out details from other posts to engage them in a suggestion that we’re mostly watching ‘natural cycles’. Go enjoy yourself on the many weather sites around the blogosphere.
You are interested in weather? Fine. You argue that fossil fuel burning only has a small impact on change? That’s your opinion.
Do you want to learn? No? Then stop wasting time and space here.
Idunno, I haven’t come around the name of Dr. John Walsh, UAF, during a decade of amateur studies. No problem. I might miss something sometimes. What I haven’t missed, he’s speaking on a Heartland Institute Forum (ICCC).
You see, there’s a lot of ‘playing down’ going around these days. People will not give up their possessions… Not even when they’re in grave danger.
Posted by: Werther | October 11, 2013 at 09:03
Back to the ice….
The shutdown in the USA hasn’t closed ASCAT.
This was the situation yesterday. Enhanced pic with midtones suppressed to show more
detail.
Posted by: Werther | October 11, 2013 at 09:34
Thanks for the mention Neven, and thanks to all for your kind words. Once I'm "back in the office" I'll do a remix especially for you Wili!
In the meantime I am gently sharpening a skewer for Judith Curry. She happily quoted David Rose's "A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year" nonsense on her own blog. For some unexplained reason her "correction" reduces the original "60% increase" to "49%" rather than the Mail's own 29%. My comment pointing all this out remains hidden in her moderation queue.
If she can't even get the basics right I fail to see why anyone (apart from David Rose of course) should place any credence whatsoever in her "Stadium Waves", although I must admit I haven't read the paper yet. I fear it will be a while before it rises to the top of my "to do" list.
Posted by: Jim Hunt | October 11, 2013 at 14:21
I always think it's terribly sad when a study is immediately condemned on the basis of not whether it has been peer reviewed, or methodology, or objectiveness, but on the basis of who wrote it. It's the classic open goal displayed by supporters of the consensus (which includes myself) to anything which may challenge entrenched beliefs. It sometimes feels like the other side of the denials' coin. Good to see you back by the way and hope the house looks good!
Posted by: A Facebook User | October 11, 2013 at 14:57
AFU - If you've read Curry/Wyatt perhaps you could precis the high points for me?
Top of my reading list at the moment are a couple of papers by James Screen. Who's at the top of yours?
Posted by: Jim Hunt | October 11, 2013 at 16:16
Apologies Jim, I've just realised that AFU is me, I'm not sure why it did not print my name as I have contributed to this blog on a few occasions (Garethman) My interest in JC is that she explores issues that challenge my thinking. I may not agree with everything she says, but she seems to agree that climate change has a major human induced element, but also believes there are other factors. Fair enough, time will tell. While the current trend in climate change is patently induced by humans, I don't think it is clear whether background variation enhances or reduces that effect. I think we agree that just because human induced climate change is obvious (to me at least) it does not mean all the other natural variations have stopped, they are just masked or or overwhelmed as it were. I also believe that further study is healthy, even if it runs against my beliefs. Lets face it, none of us forecast this hiatus, I know of no models which predicted it, and as a result it seems reasonable to suggest we are missing something. You may not like JDs paper, but at least she is trying and not sitting back suggesting all is sorted. She does not appear to suffer from magical thinking in other words.
Posted by: A Facebook User | October 11, 2013 at 19:00
AFU I don't see why on this issue you should think that JC is at odds with your thinking. The mainstream seems to, at least in part, invoke 'internal variability' to explain the pause, all the Wyatt paper seems to be doing is trying to put flesh on the bones of that idea. The stadium wave may not turn out to be the explanation but something has to. The present situation where variability is seen as little more than the residual in an analysis has to be put behind us. The pause is going to be the impetous for others to get involved ( actual others are already there)
Posted by: Pete Williamson | October 12, 2013 at 02:34
Hope everyone is well,
I did send detailed email to NSDIC on my theory (IB Ships) with a bunch INTERESTING and data I have collected over the summer looking for some answers.
Just to let you know I am trying to get some sort of Sea Ice Scientists to answer some questions since others I have asked have no idea and said read IPCC reports..
I got 2 responses so far..
*********,Oct 07 19:50 (MDT):
Hi Chris,
I will look into your questions and get back to you tomorrow.
Regards,
***********
__________________________________________________________________________________________
NSIDC User Services
CIRES, 449 UCB
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA
Phone: +1 303-492-6199
Fax: +1 303-492-2468
Email: [email protected]
WWW URL: http://nsidc.org
National Snow and Ice Data Center * Distributed Active Archive Center
Second Response
**********, Oct 08 13:15 (MDT):
Hi Chris,
After fully reading your email, I am going to get some feedback for you from Walt Meier who now works at NASA Goddard. Because he is a NASA employee now he is not able to work due to the government shutdown. So I will get back to you as soon as is feasible.
Regards,
***********
__________________________________________________________________________________________
NSIDC User Services
CIRES, 449 UCB
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA
Phone: +1 303-492-6199
Fax: +1 303-492-2468
Email: [email protected]
WWW URL: http://nsidc.org
National Snow and Ice Data Center * Distributed Active Archive Center
Posted by: NJSnowFan | October 12, 2013 at 02:50
AFU, I don't see any signs of the mean dismissal that makes you sad, certainly not with regard to the Curry/Wyatt paper. People have expressed interest, have offered non-ad hominem reasons to question it, and have expressed wariness. That third point, I would say, is absolutely proper. If, like Curry, you have been spouting ultracrepidarian nonsense for years, you should not get a free pass for your latest efforts and nobody is obliged to put it as high on their to-read lists as work from people who have shown a grasp of the subject.
Posted by: Philip Cohen | October 12, 2013 at 05:47
Actually the Curry paper has some interesting data sources ( Russian ) that I havent come across before..
and an interesting testable prognostication.
"We found that the stadium-wave signal propagates through four different stages of
climate regime evolution. Each stage reflects a particular behavior or a particular set of sub-
process interactions. And at each stage, activity is heightened in a particular geographic region.
600 At all stages, seeds of regime reversal are embedded within the collection of sub-processes
regulating the Arctic freshwater balance, thereby subtly and incrementally imposing ‘curbs’ on
the prevailing trend of sea ice coverage, assuring an inevitable regime reversal years in the
future. These negative feedbacks modify the Arctic freshwater balance through: i) sea ice related
shifts in the Arctic Front and associated zones of precipitation and continental runoff; ii) ice-
605 cover associated sea-level-pressure changes that reorganize winds and thereby direction of
freshwater and sea ice export between the Arctic Basin and marginal seas; iii) modified influx of
warm, saline water into the marginal seas, particularly in the Atlantic sector; iv) and Pacific
atmospheric circulation anomalies negatively feeding back onto the Atlantic freshwater balance
609 through remote modification of precipitation regimes."
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000035525134 | October 12, 2013 at 06:41
Admittedly, shooting from the hip with just exposure what has been presented, the assertions sound suspiciously like curve fitting. I'm also highly skeptical of Curry's conclusions based on my understanding of the raw increase in sensible heat retention globally which which is directly computable from the changes in atmospheric CO2. The "wave" might apply to some glacial and interglacial events suring which CO2 was mostly invariate, and only 2/3rds of current levels. We will certainly see oscillation from changes which will generate positive feedback. That it will lead to a even a mild reversal is a conclusion I find rooted on shaky ground.
Posted by: jdallen_wa | October 12, 2013 at 10:43
@Pete Williamson - I don't get a Barents ice extent recovery from that "extended ellet line" paper you cite, at all. Neither do I see an indication that Atlantic flow north to the Arctic peaked in 2007. If anything both current conditions and recent measured anomalies tend to disagree strongly with that conclusion.
Posted by: jdallen_wa | October 12, 2013 at 11:03
Poor Judith!
She's apparently been trying for years to be a "bridge" between fake sceptics and "warmists"...
Scrolling through the comments at WUWT on her paper, several of them seem more than happy to build a bridge out of her...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Anyway, I think there's a small danger of this overwhelming this blogpost, so I've opened a Forum thread here for further discussion of it, here...
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,604.0.html
Agreeing as I do with Werther above, that this blog is at its best when focussing on what it says on the tin - Arctic Sea Ice.
Unfornunately, I haven't the foggiest. I rely almost entirely on CT data as the basis of my opinions/observations, and all the other datasets only really make sense to me if cross-compared with CT.
Is there anyone who uses other datasets who could comment on where we seem to be at the moment? Refreeze on schedule, slow or fast, etc.?
Cheers.
Posted by: idunno | October 12, 2013 at 12:48
Tenney states:
The 'stadium wave' and Pitcairn man are about on par with each other.
Philip posts :
AFU, I don't see any signs of the mean dismissal that makes you sad, certainly not with regard to the Curry/Wyatt paper. People have expressed interest, have offered non-ad hominem reasons to question it, and have expressed wariness. That third point, I would say, is absolutely proper. If, like Curry, you have been spouting ultracrepidarian nonsense for years,
Gareth responds: I rest my case, thank you both.
Posted by: A Facebook User | October 12, 2013 at 13:10
I've noticed a correlation between a melting Arctic and an increase in lying snow in Northern Eurasia. It has been suggested that this is related to a warmer atmosphere carrying greater amounts of water vapour leading to increased snow fall. If this process continues (and there is no sign of the Arctic recovering anytime soon) would this increased snow cover affect the albido of Eurasia? And if so, what would be the effects? Complex I know but any directions to papers on this or info would be really welcome.
Posted by: A Facebook User | October 12, 2013 at 13:16
Meanwhile, SIE continues to grow very quickly. If SIE were to reach the average levels for the first decade of this century in October, what would this mean, if anything?
Posted by: Shared Humanity | October 12, 2013 at 16:20
Probably very little, the long term trend would still be sharply down as measured by minimum ice extent, and while Arctic temps are running at average or just below, most of the melting appears to be caused by a warming ocean, which in some ways is why we do not see the worst of it.
Posted by: Garethman | October 12, 2013 at 16:35
I posted the Wyatt/Curry paper, because Wyatt goes way out on a limb in her forecasts :
"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
And :
"The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic," Wyatt said. "Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal."
Seems like a couple of pretty big matzah balls to me .
Posted by: Colorado Bob | October 12, 2013 at 16:40
Forecasts are always a bad mistake, you just hold yourself hostage to factors which you cannot know for sure.
Posted by: Garethman | October 12, 2013 at 17:33
I posted some mishigass about Dr. Curry on idunno's forum and agree that's where further response on this belongs. Jim Hunt, you might better give this one a miss but if not please take a look.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,604.0.html
Posted by: Susan Anderson | October 12, 2013 at 18:03
" If SIE were to reach the average levels for the first decade of this century in October, what would this mean, if anything?"
Just a guess, but I would think that such a large early extent would tend to lock in a lot of energy in the water beneath it that may then be available for faster melt in the next melt season.
Is there good evidence for such 'memory' in the system. Surely one of our intrepid number crunchers around here have checked on this?
Posted by: wili | October 12, 2013 at 19:43
Good evening all!
I’ve read several remarks on the meaning of the ‘rapid’ refreeze this year. In the light of the ASCAT pic I posted yesterday, I’d like to weigh in MOHO (a variant of IMHO…).
I think what’s going on was to be expected. There’s enough fresh top layer water. And even when temps are consistently higher than the climo since the minimum, what freeze is there is enough to produce nilas, grey- and young ice.
When ASCAT is enhanced, the young, irrelevant stuff fades and the structure of what’s relevant is revealed. Essentially, there’s still only 1.8 Mkm2 sustainable ice left against the CAA.
I’m getting more interested by the day how this winter will evolve. With the NOAA sites down, there’s no way of comparing ’13 to ’12 yet. Snow cover is large in Eurasia, indicating lots of moisture, not harsh winter conditions. Could help building up cold for export in January, though.
Open Arctic Ocean is still very large N of Svalbard/Frantsa Yosefa. Interesting in the light of AO/NAO and weird Jet Stream behaviour.
On teleconnection…what do these late season hot Taifoons prelude to? While my thoughts and prayers are with the people enduring their lashes, I wonder what heat transfer they are cooking up.
Posted by: Werther | October 12, 2013 at 21:59
Linda Serena,
Nice try, but wrong.
If the AMO were driving the loss of sea ice then the scatter plot between those two indices wouldn't be a formless splodge. See the graph at the end of this post.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/co2-causes-arctic-sea-ice-loss.html
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 12, 2013 at 22:52
A facebook user,
This graphic is from a paper by Cohen et al. "Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling."
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf
Cohen has been working on the climate/weather impacts of Eurasian snow for years.
Graphic:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7020/6602153213_9000d61e12_o.jpg
From my blog
"In short (read the paper for more details), the process outlined in figure 2 and associated text is as follows:
A) Arctic Temperature increase - There's bit of feedback here as sea-ice loss is a large part of Arctic amplification.
B) As a result of the warming sea-ice declines in volume leading to a decline in September sea-ice extent.
C) Increase in mean lower tropospheric moisture. As the atmosphere warms the Clausius Clapyron relationship allows for a higher level of water vapour to be held in the warmer air. Also increased amounts of open water in the Arctic provide more water vapour as there's more open ocean for evaporation to take place from.
D) The increased atmospheric humidity allows for an increase in October Eurasian snow cover.
E) The increased October Eurasian snow cover causes a decrease in the December/January/February AO index. This then leads to the observed cooling pattern in late winter Northern Hemisphere", as shown in this graphic.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/6602152833_dc5bd3073d_o.gif
This cooling is due to a shift in atmospheric circulation. The purple band in the following graphic shows this shift to an anomalously east to west flow of air.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/10002433646_18a8336ef2_o.png
i.e. cold outbreaks from the Arctic.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 12, 2013 at 23:02
Some comments got caught in the spam filter again. Still not working as it should. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by: Neven | October 12, 2013 at 23:36
"Second, from the model-driven viewpoint there's the unsurprising problem of models not exactly matching the (surface) temp data. That's because theres natural variation. "
The dont match in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons. Here is how they do not match.
1. They get absolute temperatures wrong with a spread of 3K. This means they will get any type of temperature driven process (like melting ice ) wrong.
2. They get the land ocean contrast wrong
3. They get arctic and antarctic amplification wrong.
4. They get the response to volcanos wrong and the rebound wrong.
5. We know that higher sensitivity models are ruled out by observational constraints.
6. They get the tropospheric warming wrong.
Some of these, as you should be able to tell, are utterly unrelated to getting natural variation correct.
At best the models let us know that there is trouble ahead. But we knew that already from simple energy balance considerations. The problem is that people rely on them as some sort of argument closer. They are not.
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000035525134 | October 13, 2013 at 03:58
Neven,
No need to apologise.
Facebook User,
Very well stated.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 13, 2013 at 07:54
Guys, before anyone draws any more conclusions from the claims made in the blogosphere about the Wyatt/Curry paper, let's first read the abstract :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1
Did anyone read anything in there about a 'lull' or a 'hiatus' in the global temperatures ?
Right. Neither did I.
Now let's compare that with the claims made in the blogosphere, which start with statements like this :
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-stadium-lull-global.html#jCp
So, what we have here is a paper that puts forward a theory that explains an effect that is not even shown to be real.
Which makes me agree with Colorado Bob when he writes : "Seems like a couple of pretty big matzah balls to me".
Posted by: Rob Dekker | October 13, 2013 at 09:18
AFU/Garethman - I note you haven't yet answered either of questions I posed a couple of days ago. Not content to rest my case I now have a third one for you. Would you like to play "Spot the Difference" with me?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-david-and-judy-show/
Posted by: Jim Hunt | October 13, 2013 at 13:15
Hi Jim, another paper for you to dismiss out of hand. It's really annoying when these researchers publish peer reviewed studies which are off message. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2013GL057877/asset/grl51043.pdf?v=1&t=hmq6j6vx&s=6630d12f688e25bea82d1c51f59edf152e8fa112
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 13:21
Hi Jim, I am deeply touched by you using my posting in such an interesting article. Do I get referenced? The point I am trying to make is not that these studies are 100% accurate, they are not, and neither are they 100% wrong. But if we immediately jump on them to find the mistakes and ignore any useful research, we are behaving in a manner we decry as denialist.
As someone with a background in qualitative and phenomenological study my main bugbear with climate science is this reductionist black and white thinking. It's a plague in the science well illustrated by WUWT on the one side and Skeptical Science on the other. Currys papers may have strengths and well as weaknesses, but all we often see is one site picking apart any mistakes and the others celebrating the valid areas. There are very few sites that manage to avoid this reductionist pigeonholing, tedious for those interested in the science, but damaging to the cause in the eyes of the public. It would have interesting to see some objective analysis of this papers,looking at all aspects. But all we see is the usual sites supporting it, while the other side condemn it. Now think about this Jim, is the paper completely invalid? If you believe so, well we live in different worlds. But if there are positives as well as negatives how about addressing both aspects?
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 13:35
Garethman
"As someone with a background in qualitative and phenomenological study my main bugbear with climate science is this reductionist black and white thinking. It's a plague in the science well illustrated by WUWT on the one side and Skeptical Science on the other."
Your minimal claim to authority above is pretty thin compared to the norm on this forum so don't be too upset when it does not carry much weight. Your apparent lack of authority, or ability to perform logical thought processes, is well demonstrated when you consider two sources equal when one of them is incapable of getting even straightforward science correct while the second has a long track record of being able to explain even the most difficult science successfully. Such obfuscation is a hallmark of the denier camp. The plague you refer to is not as you state, but is instead demonstrated by your attempt to portray non-science and science as opposite sides of the same coin. Did you perchance used to work for the folks who were paid to tell us that tobacco is not dangerous? Or do you still work there?
JimD
Posted by: James Dunlap | October 13, 2013 at 16:40
Picked from your link’s peer reviewed article:
“a noticeable flat trend over the past decade” (Northern Hemisphere mean temperature). It is exactly this sort of claims that make these articles prone to be misunderstood or misused.
The authors refer to Keenlyside et al 2008, Easterling and Wehner 2009, Swanson an Thonis 2009 and Solomon 2010. Most of the mediagenic claims in these researches have been debunked on FI Real Climate, while the line of study in itself is not particularly wrong.
So what is the reason you keep pushing these articles on supposed natural variance and stalling warming?
Their content is interesting to understand our biosphere. They are much less relevant to assess the future trend in AGW. None of these variances will have a large impact on the sensitivity by forcing through GHG’s.
Or do you have another opinion? Then share it with us please.
Posted by: Werther | October 13, 2013 at 16:51
Chris......
Could this NH Fall snowfall increase and associated mid-latitude cooling in the winter, caused to a large extent by Arctic warming and sea loss, be a significant negative feedback? This feedback may have no real effect on sea ice loss but it may serve to limit, for an extended period, the overall warming trend in the highly populated mid latitudes.
I am also interested in how the rapid snow cover losses in the Spring will impact NH warming. Obviously these rapid losses are, in part, related to the Fall snow increase. What impact do they have on the overall seasonal NH temperature anomalies? Could we expect to see these seasonal temperature and weather anomalies develop a persistent trend due to the NH snow cover and Arctic sea ice cover(e.g. low summer sea ice = hot summers, low fall sea ice = heavy fall snowfall, heavy winter snow extent = cold winters, rapid spring snow melt = mild springs)?
Posted by: Shared Humanity | October 13, 2013 at 18:24
@Garethman: False equivalence is never pretty, but placing WUWT and SS on opposite ends of the same balance beam is one of the most hideous things I think I've ever seen. As James Dunlap said a few comments back, the two are nowhere close to being equally credible; your comparison is about as valid as placing Charles Darwin on one end of a playground see-saw and some anonymous high school dropoout Creationist on the other, and proclaiming, "See? They weigh about that same, so they're both right!" To paraphrase Jules Winnfield: the two aren't in the same ballpark; they're not in the same league; they're not even in the same sport.
With that in mind, then, go ahead and troll this forum all you wish. But I, for one, will be tuning you out. Not because, as you may choose to believe, I'm guilty of "reductionist black and white thinking", but because I know a fake skeptic when I encounter one.
Good day...
Posted by: Jim_pettit | October 13, 2013 at 18:30
The stadium wave paper is garbage, as will soon be seen.
I am not a betting person as I only bet on sure things. I am willing to bet real money on this one.
@Susan, thanks, yes "Piltdown" man, not "Pitcairn" (turns red).
Posted by: TenneyNaumer | October 13, 2013 at 18:41
People love Skeptikalscience because they are seen as a good ally in the battle against denial.
Still, they are guilty of much the same one-eyedness as f.ex WUWT.
It is clear to see for anyone who tries to read with a minimum of objectivity.
Which unfortunately is quite rare these days.
Posted by: Ostepop1000 | October 13, 2013 at 18:52
Calm down Jim, keep things in perspective :) If my post is the most hideous thing you have ever seen, I suspect you have led a very gentle and care free life. Good on You.
I like to think that just because someone has a view you disagree with on scientific methodology , that does not make them a troll or a denier. It just makes the point that they are thinking along different lines, I think that's healthy.
My point about comparing WUWT to Skeptical Science is not the validity of their arguments, read the post again, I did not say that. I mean on their debating style. If you say anything counter to the approved science on Skeptical Science you will be shot down in flames and labelled a denier or troll. If you comment on WUWT in support of the consensus you will be labelled as a catastrophist or chicken little. While their goals are quite different, do you see the similarity? Try it, post a query which runs counter to the established philosophy of a site on both Dana Ns thread on Skeptical Science and Willis Es thread on WUWT. Compare the reactions. Hopefully you will understand what I am trying to say, it's not the truth or error of any scientific process which I find destructive, but the black and white thinking involved, which in most individuals is a cognitive problem, but seems to infest any reasonable discussion on climate change. Apologies in advance if you view this as trolling or denial or whatever. It really is not my intention, I had hoped to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of climate change science debate, but I feel like I've been run over by a hit and run driver while discussing road safety!
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 19:06
@ Werther "“a noticeable flat trend over the past decade” (Northern Hemisphere mean temperature). It is exactly this sort of claims that make these articles prone to be misunderstood or misused"
Hi Werther, thanks for responding. Are you saying that there has been no flat trend over the past decade? Are the IPCC wrong on this? I agree that we are still warming, but are you denying the hiatus in that trend? I thought there was fairly good consensus that the warming trend measured over the longer term continues, but in the short term there has been a hiatus. If there are peer reviewed studies ( as opposed to blogs) showing this hiatus to be a misused and invalid claim I'd be happy to read it.
Quote from National Geographic:
Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.
"Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor," states Arthur Petersen, chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and part of the Dutch delegation that is reviewing the IPCC report.
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 19:27
Shared Humanity,
Yes I think so, I've said as much somewhere recently but can't remember where. The major factor in the recent hiatus of warming is ENSO, but Cohen's Boreal Cooling (sea ice -> snow related) is likely to persist and could take the edge of land warming across a band of the winter NH. Then there is also the issue of sulphate aerosols, which aren't going to decline any time soon.
Garethman,
I agree with regards the knee-jerk dislike of certain papers, it's unsound. I've recently come down on the side of Barnes against the Francis/Vavrus paper, despite beig aware Barnes is from the Pielke stable (same university at least). Many have disagreed, but with respect to them, I don't think they have properly read the Barnes paper, it's really rather clear and damning, especially when considered with Screen & Simmond's contribution to the debate.
However the Curry/Wyatt paper on stadium waves is far less convincing to me, and here I will copy what I put on the forum just now:
That paper is highly speculative and IMO lacks rigourous mechanistic underpinnning. They give a lot of suggested mechanisms, but I'm suspicious of such reasoning with so many datasets used. I once came up with a water-tight explanation for some atmospheric event (can't remember what now). Then I found I'd missed the date off while using NCEP/NCAR, so I was seeing the weather for that year on the same day, not the previous year I was studying. I'm sure you can appreciate my point. Anyway, as the method is far too complex for me to spend that much time on I can't investigate it, so I will wait and see if it is accepted by the scientific community, or rejected.
One thing I would say is that without the vociferous denial lobby, reactions would tend to be far less agitated. There are oddballs in other fields (I work in electronics - we have them) but they don't get press coverage because they don't serve vested interests. I would suggest people just adopt a dismissive attitude to the denialists, but I am aware that some believe that they can stop the current course. Seeing opponents as impediments to an achievable goal does raise emotions.
You linked to a paper that you suggested Jim could have a go at. Unfortunately I can't get that link to work so don't know what the paper is.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 13, 2013 at 19:41
Garethman, please cut down on the concern trolling. It's perfectly legitimate to be wary of J. Curry et dona ferentes. Although that doesn't make her paper automatically wrong, I don't see why it should be elevated above other research, just because she carved herself a niche where she can entertain old, white, risk-averse men. If it weren't for that, nobody'd be even mentioning her work.
For the hiatus to persist up to 2030 we'll be needing a lot of stronger La Niñas, next to zero sunspots, a negative PDO+AMO and lots of aerosols.
Posted by: Neven | October 13, 2013 at 19:44
Thanks shared humanity for your well thought out response. My points on the validity of the paper are pretty close to most posts here, I laughed out loud at Werther's comment on another site stating "Keep ‘m busy as long as you can. By the time they get themselves together, we, the Very Important People, will have made nice profit and provided ourselves a nice technological shelter that we can sustain against a wasted Mother Nature." which I thought was a great point. It's reassuring though that you understand my point about knee jerk reactions, I was beginning to feel very isolated. I'll try and get the dead link fixed.
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 19:48
Neven,
Can't add anything about Curry, but she does somehow still manage to be involved in useful science (e.g. Liu et al).
I am equally sceptical of the notion that the hiatus will persist. Just as I'm sceptical of claims of an imminent recovery, especially ones based on May 2013 and the following season.
Garethman,
To avoid conclusion, I think you're addressing me, the first part of my post was addressed to SH.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 13, 2013 at 19:58
Hi Chris, see this link. http://tinyurl.com/l8j54kn fingers crossed!
Neven I really don't see why reasonably polite posts are considered to be trolling? I have not commented on the validity of the paper or it's contribution to the body of knowledge, but I was highly criticised by a couple of people for expressing concern over knee jerk reactions. Others seem to have understood the thrust of my argument without getting upset. Do I really not have the right to respond on an open thread within the rules of the forum without being accused of being a troll?
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 20:03
Don't be silly (and score an own goal). You're sitting in the hot tub with the Arctic Sea Ice Blog family!
Posted by: Neven | October 13, 2013 at 20:04
@Neven I was beginning to feel very isolated
Don't be silly (and score an own goal). You're sitting in the hot tub with the Arctic Sea Ice Blog family!
LOL ! ! Can I add a small Malt and a piece of our ever decreasing ice to that situation :)
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 20:33
Garethman,
No, it's because you're linking to the pdf, and it won't give me access. Who's the lead author and what's the title of the paper? I'll probably know what it's about - likely even read it given how obsessed I am.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 13, 2013 at 20:35
Yes, because of the way you expressed it. If you're going to say for instance that WUWT and SkS are two sides of a coin, then you should expect a reaction to that and not make a fuss. However, making a fuss, is getting you very close to concern trolling.
No, I'm sorry, you don't have that right. No one has. I'm going to take the time to re-read your comments and copypaste the sentences that could easily be read as concern trolling:
Based on one (1!) comment by Tenney Naumer? Send her an e-mail or a letter! Why waste time on it here?
This is classic concern trolling.
Jim didn't dismiss anything out of hand. He just said that it isn't on the top of his list because he doesn't really trust what JC has to say because of the things she has said in the past.
That 'off message' remark is again a provocation from the troll handbook.
This is classic concern trolling. 'We shouldn't behave as we do. What will people think?'
Concern trolling. 'All I want is the best for us, but everyone is so mean!'
And then we're back to discussing the hiatus. There are much better places to do this than the Open Thread on the ASIB!
So, these are my examples. Concern trolls say something about how we should act or what we should do to further our cause, and then whine when getting pushback on that. It's a classic tactic. If you don't want people to react to you like you are a (concern) troll, then stop acting like one.
Either way, this is completely useless. We're having this meta-discussion, just because of some paper Curry co-wrote? Curry is a scientific nobody who enjoys feeding quotes to David Rose. Let's try and keep the discussion centered on sea ice somewhat, or else go to the forum.
Posted by: Neven | October 13, 2013 at 20:40
Garethmabn
"...It really is not my intention, I had hoped to have a reasonable discussion on the issue of climate change science debate,..."
"Neven I really don't see why reasonably polite posts are considered to be trolling?"
Politeness does not mean you are not trolling. Anyone who has been following the science of AGW for any meaningful amount of time knows the difference between what appears on WUWT and what the actual scientific data says. They are also fully aware that there is no meaningful debate on the science. Thus any time someone pops up on Skeptical Science or here who brings up the nonsense used at WUWT to question the science is going to get an abrupt response. If you have been around you have no excuse not to know the status of the science. If you don't know the status of the science you will get directed to the beginners sections of Real Climate and Skeptical Science where you can learn all the reasons why WUWT and their allies have not come up with any new counter ideas in many years and why all their counter ideas do not hold scientific water. The philosophical discussions of the AGW debate took place years ago and are long settled. To try and rejoin them is a standard trolling tactic as is promoting any one of the dozens of counter arguments disproved many years ago.
If you truly are so new to these discussions that you are not aware of the above then please take yourself to the beginner sections and spend some time reading up before you jump in like you have done. We enjoy this no more than you claim to be and would appreciate not having to go through it all the time (you are hardly the first to approach the discussions this way). Alternately, if you are not new to these discussions then you do fit the definition of troll like behavior and should not complain if you are treated as such.
JimD
Posted by: James Dunlap | October 13, 2013 at 20:55
Hi everyone, thanks for all the comments. My main interest in climate science is not the science itself, because I think that is pretty well sorted. It's how people react to information and beliefs: thats my speciality. Beliefs can be based on any issue, valid or not, but a belief is very precious to the person who has ownership of it. To challenge that belief in any form can produce a quite unexpected response varying in severity. It's fascinating how severe this reaction can be when discussing climate change. I agree Neven, I should not explore those issues here, but unfortunately my curiosity sometimes overwhelms my caution. I'll try and avoid thin ice in future! For those of you who may be interested in why [people behave as they do in the face of all the evidence see this as a good primer "The Psychology of Climate Change " Rchlinski, J. http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/ESSAY2001/globwarm.pdf
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 21:14
Hi Chris, not sure why you can't access a pdf, but try a search on these guys. Cheers G
NAO implicated as a predictor of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability
Jianping Li1*, Cheng Sun1*, and Fei-Fei Jin2
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 21:18
Thanks Garethman,
Interesting paper. I can see why you 'suggested' it to Jim. It's been spun as showing that the NAO has driven NH warming, yet figure 3b implies that the NAO drives variability around a clear upwards warming trend.
It will be interesting to see whether the prediction comes through. I must admit that my hunch is that warming will pick up, but perhaps at a lesser rate than 1975 to 2002.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 13, 2013 at 21:32
I agree Chris, we may have a hiatus in warming , but temps have not gone down either.We may on future see this flattening as a base line for increased temps rather than a genuine hiatus. I suspect many of these papers are picking up evidence of natural variation which has been overwhelmed by anthropogenic warming. At the moment that variation may be modifying temp increase, when it changes to potentiating things could be very grim indeed.
Posted by: Garethman | October 13, 2013 at 21:47
That Li paper is also under discussion here...
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/watt-about-a-cessation-of-global-warming/
In the comments, Dana suggests that Kosaka and Xie is better.
It also shows how denialists are seizing on some apparently genuine peer reviewed science about "variability around a clear upwards warming trend" to say " see, there is no 'clear upwards warming trend', it's all due to variability."
I'm starting to regret setting so much of a hare running here.
Echoing Neven's
"Let's try and keep the discussion centered on sea ice somewhat, or else go to the forum." - where there are live discussions of this on a couple of threads
Posted by: idunno | October 13, 2013 at 21:59
Since stadium waves have actually overwhelmed the thread, I'll go ahead and point out that Curry's pet uncertainty monster seems to be selective in who it bites.
Posted by: Dave Leaton | October 13, 2013 at 22:18
My read on Curry Stadium Waves & Uncertainty Monster has less to do with "... 'clear upwards warming trend', it's all due to variability."" and more to do with how much of 1970 - 2000 was really CO2.
Posted by: plus.google.com/101562951993832819426 | October 14, 2013 at 02:42
Garethman said
Here at Neven's, nost people are actually more interested in the science itself, but since you expressed that you are more interested in how people react to information and beliefs, you raise an interesting issue.
For example, you state :
OK. Where did the IPCC state that there was a "flat trend" over the past decade ?
and
Huh ? So there was no flat trend after all ?
Then what exactly do you mean with "the hiatus in that trend" ?
and
I really am quite confused by now which 'hiatus' you are talking about.
Are you refering to the reduced rate of warming over the past decade, which was pretty well explained by a multitude of papers, including Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
as being caused by known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability).
Your remarks, such as
seem to suggest that you are not just unaware of the science itself (I know, you already said that is not your main interest) but in fact you seem to be clinging to the belief that there exists some unexplained 'hiatus' in trend, and you are already indirectly accusing other people of denying what you belief in.
If you are genuine, Garethman, then please explain exactly which 'hiatus' you are talking about, and if that 'hiatus' is not explained by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 analysis, then please enlighten us.
Posted by: Rob Dekker | October 14, 2013 at 07:47
Shared Humanity said
Thanks for bringing up this issue.
As Rutgers snow lab data indicates, snow cover in winter and early spring is increasing, while snow cover in late spring and summer is vastly decreasing.
What is the overall feedback effect of this snow cover trend ?
Well, in winter and early spring the sun is low while in late spring and summer the sun is high in the sky over the Arctic. So one would expect the snow decline in late spring and summer to have a larger (positive feedback) effect than the (negative feedback) snow increase in winter and early summer.
Which feedback wins ? Tamino did a pretty good 'rough' estimate of the snow albedo effect, as in this post here :
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/snow-2/
which shows quite convincingly that snow cover is a positive feedback.
If we also include ice cover, the picture becomes even more convincing :
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/snowice-by-request/
"In this case the net change is about 1150 TW. If spread over the entire surface of the earth, and if the difference in TOA albedo between snow/ice-covered and uncovered regions is 0.2, this accounts for a total climate forcing of about 0.45 W/m^2."
Posted by: Rob Dekker | October 14, 2013 at 08:10
@ Dave: exactly!
Posted by: TenneyNaumer | October 14, 2013 at 08:20
Sorry, but I've been ropeable (lovely Aussie expression) about this 'hiatus' rubbish.
Here is the global average temp (in degrees F) from 1990, sourced from NASA's Goddard Institute. You will see that 2005 and 2010 both beat 1998. And remember that 1998 was an EXTREME outlier, and 2005 and 2010 were both neutral or La Nina years, where global temps should be cooler.
1990 57.90
1991 57.87
1992 57.52
1993 57.54
1994 57.70
1995 57.96
1996 57.78
1997 58.01
1998 58.30
1999 57.90
2000 57.92
2001 58.14
2002 58.28
2003 58.26
2004 58.14
2005 58.37
2006 58.26
2007 58.32
2008 58.08
2009 58.26
2010 58.39
2011 58.17
2012 58.21
If you graph these figures, and take out 1998 as an outlier (I've put it at 58.00F, so consistent, but still a warm 1990's year) what you get is something more akin to a step-change from 1990's to 2000's, where the 1990's were quite flat, and the 2000's are quite flat, but consistently up by about 0.4/0.5F.
I am no scientist, nor a statistician, but it seems that this is a total furphy (another great Aussie expression, meaning an improbable story) and I'm utterly amazed at the reporting and the fact that it seems some mainstream scientists are giving it some credence.
Posted by: Dan Ellis-Jones | October 14, 2013 at 08:55
Thanks, Rob, for stepping in on the hiatus-trend useless semantic debate.
I had some riposte in the making, but decided not to post. There’s enough room on the Forum.
This is a hibernating thread and I’d like to keep it focused on the ice.
Since we’re missing NOAA, CT, PIOMAS eso, there are limited sources to do so.
From what we’ve got, SIE seems to develop like ’10, ’08 and most like ’04. Due to rapid expansion in the ESAS, Laptev and Kara Sea. Since Mid/North Siberia is still up to +4 dC compared to the climo (BTW most Octobers through the last few years did!), I look for the extended splinter zone to have caused a widespread kick-off this fall.
The ECMWF forecasts generally place SL lows centered over Novaya Zemlya. These are accompanied by low geopotential heights on 500Mb, slowly shifting towards Svalbard and Northern Greenland . This is contrary to my expectations from the last few years. No ‘Kara Bulge’ this time. No relation to the supposed large pool of warm water in the Barentsz Sea.
SIE is still very low North of Svalbard/Frantsa Yosefa. Since winds are North, temps are dropping to normal levels over there. Together with the extended axis of low Geopotential I have a feeling that we’ll see release of heat soon followed by refreeze there too.
On the other side, this set-up leaves room for influx of anomalously warm air over Alaska. The open Ocean stretch from Banks to Wrangel Island looks to hold out well. Maybe the warm phase of PDO in the Northern Pacific makes its influence felt.
As for now, nothing really extreme or unexpected seems to be going on up North….
PS Dan, I just saw your post and what you bring up goes through my mind too. But I'm not debating further in what I perceive as distraction.
Posted by: Werther | October 14, 2013 at 09:15
@ Rob
If you are genuine, Garethman, then please explain exactly which 'hiatus' you are talking about, and if that 'hiatus' is not explained by Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 analysis, then please enlighten us.
Hi Rob, happy to oblige, but I'm not sure I have the detailed knowledge to enlighten you. We have a flattening of the warming curve over the last few years. However, if you look at my posts I point out that the long term trends are still up, and that increase is likely to return in the near future. Have a look at this BBC report, they are usually pretty reasonable on these things. It seems to me that there is no reason why we cannot acknowledge the fact that there has been a flattening in rise of the curve, or a hiatus in the trend, while fully acknowledging the long term trend and likely future. If we deny the observed data we could be undermining our own case for honesty based on good science, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
Posted by: Garethman | October 14, 2013 at 09:29
You're doing it again (concern trolling). There's no 'we' here. No one is denying a hiatus or plateau, but most have expressed irritation at a lack of explanation. Take for instance your quote from National Geographic:
Well, duh. 2002 experienced an average (or slightly above it) El Niño. 2012 wasn't, to put it simply. Why doesn't NatGeo mention that? Why don't they refer to Foster et al. or put up that graph that John Nielsen-Gammon made?
Even if things were to stay as they are, there's a good chance that in a decade or so La Niña years will start to break records from the last 15 years with El Niños. And then what?
Posted by: Neven | October 14, 2013 at 09:43
Few more links you may find useful Rob.
http://www.nature.com/news/ipcc-despite-hiatus-climate-change-here-to-stay-1.13832
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-hiatus-unlikely-to-last-ipcc-united-nations
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-global-hiatus-climate-scientists.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029371.900-climate-report-lull-in-warming-doesnt-mean-were-safe.html#.UlufyRY9jzI
I suppose the idea of a hiatus may be a seen as a distraction from the essential point of this blog, ie Arctic sea ice, but if the theory that the hidden heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans, that warming of the deep may well have an effect of the rate of ice cap melting. Paradoxically, the longer the hiatus continues, the worse the outlook could be for the Arctic ice cap.
Posted by: Garethman | October 14, 2013 at 09:47
@Werther
I was of the same mind, but the conversation went on too long, so I took the bait. I did try to refrain from commenting on this!
At least I've put some real facts out there on the 'hiatus'. You never know who might be reading this blog! :)
It's a pity that the shutdown is stopping some timely data on the refreeze. I read somewhere that it'll be hard for the USA to know what the economic impact of the shutdown was because no one's collecting the economic data at the moment!
Posted by: Dan Ellis-Jones | October 14, 2013 at 10:10
Hi Dan,
As a European I am envious for the richness and accessibility of science, data, innovation coming from the United States (on the cultural/art side too). As always there’s a flip side to the coin, because there seems to me to be an awful lot coming out too that doesn’t appeal to me.
But it worries me that the political stalemate cripples even an amateurs’ entrance to reliable data and information.
I’m not aware of European sites providing what I got used to in an accessible manner. I haven’t really covered what DMI’s got, just a flimsy layer of PIK Potsdam, Alfred Wegener Insitute and only the name of ‘Mercator’ for some French contributors. I like the Wetteronline continental maps, but they tell noting about both Polar regions.
Maybe someone could elucidate us on the alternatives?
Posted by: Werther | October 14, 2013 at 11:01
Don't know if this site is useful, werther...
http://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Posted by: idunno | October 14, 2013 at 11:39
Thanks Idunno, really useful stuff. It may be a distraction as already mentioned, but I'll be very glad to see the return of the NSIDC when the tea bag party finish their little tantrum. It will be fascinating to see how much has changed over the time they have been absent.
Posted by: Garethman | October 14, 2013 at 11:54
@Garethman - Take a look at this report on some recent BBC reporting:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/broadcasting-houses-million-square-kilometre-blunder
As you can no doubt instantly spot, even the Beeb isn't always "pretty reasonable on these things", when the things in question are lots of little bits of Arctic sea ice. I suppose I shouldn't take them seriously either?
Posted by: Jim Hunt | October 14, 2013 at 12:38
@Werther - I don't know if any of these fit your bill? A very brief extract from my long list of European resources, which I don't think are mentioned on the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs site:
http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?ech=6&code=code&mode=0&mode3h=0&runpara=0&carte=1
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/wetterk_arctic_world-e.html
http://myocean.met.no/ARC-MFC/
http://www.meereisportal.de
ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/AMSR2/
Posted by: Jim Hunt | October 14, 2013 at 13:01
Thanks Jim,
I'll give 'm a better look this evening. What I'm missing most is a link to ocean salinity and something like NCEP/NCAR.
Posted by: Werther | October 14, 2013 at 13:24
Oh, sigh. I'd better delurk and deal with Judith Curry -- as quickly as possible, so we can get back to real issues like volume trends.
There has been extensive discussion of Curry over at climateprogress (and, of course, real climate) over the last 4 years. She is a climate denier pure and simple. Her value as a researcher is best summed up by a study that found that she and others like her were publishing few if any studies that passed peer review in a reputable journal -- although they were able to pass muster in "front" journals set up to foster climate denial. In other words, their data was bad and/or selective and their analysis was bad and consistently ignored contradictory valid research.
Contrast James Hansen's recent magnum opus. Although it has not yet been peer reviewed, it clearly draws extensively on superb research from a wide body of researchers, it does the same kind of analysis that in the past has passed the peer review test, and it focuses on vital research issues with regard to climate change.
Now back to real discussion: I am getting a sense that one possibility that we are discussing for the unusual volume increase at low point this year is that decreasing ice has triggered interactions with weather further south (e.g., a wider fluctuation in the jet stream) that in turn are (a) putting the NAO in the wrong mode during summer months and (b) keeping worldwide weather in la Nina rather than el Nino mode -- both of which hinder melt during summer months. In turn, it is possible that this state of affairs will continue (with volume being "flat") until the underlying increase in worldwide and Arctic air temperatures reaches a level high enough to begin to drive the volume down again. Is my understanding of this being a possible analysis of what's happened correct?
Posted by: Wayne Kernochan | October 14, 2013 at 14:57
@John Hunt @Garethman - Take a look at this report on some recent BBC reporting:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/broadcasting-houses-million-square-kilometre-blunder
As you can no doubt instantly spot, even the Beeb isn't always "pretty reasonable on these things", when the things in question are lots of little bits of Arctic sea ice. I suppose I shouldn't take them seriously either?
Thanks John, indeed, they are not perfect, but they are on the right side and if we dismissed anything the Beeb broadcast on Arctic ice I suspect we would be missing a lot of useful stuff. I won't pursue this hiatus issue because as has been mentioned, it's a bit of a distraction.
Posted by: Garethman | October 14, 2013 at 15:05
Two thoughts:
Saw a recent paper (then lost it) which linked AMOC and Greenland, but not sure whether it linked it with temperatures, SMB or Glaciers... Can anyone find it? Saw another paper drawing attention to considerable increases in Arctic water export via the Fram Strait, both very recent. Question: if AMOC is weakening, reducing heat to the Northern Oceans, and ABW export increasing, does this suggest the possibility that Greenland temperatures may show a slower trend on a decadal scale?
Point 2. Understand the problem of concern trolling completely, but worried that there is a danger of assuming that someone who is not a scientist and expresses uncertainty over the science is ipso facto a concern troll. Sometimes genuine people really do want help understanding the science. IMO it's not in the best interests of those who do understand to isolate those who don't, because the latter will end up being another spice in the curry recipe...
Posted by: Fwmbrown | October 14, 2013 at 15:06
Even if things were to stay as they are, there's a good chance that in a decade or so La Niña years will start to break records from the last 15 years with El Niños. And then what?
Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability
. Here we show that there are in fact robust projected changes in the spatial patterns of year-to-year ENSO-driven variability in both surface temperature and precipitation. These changes are evident in the two most recent generations of climate models13, 14, using four different scenarios for CO2 and other radiatively active gases14, 15, 16, 17. By the mid- to late twenty-first century, the projections include an intensification of both El-Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific Ocean and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12580.html
Posted by: Colorado Bob | October 14, 2013 at 15:24
Climate change will intensify El Nino, Bureau of Meteorology warns -
"This study finds that both the wet and dry anomalies will be greater in future El Nino years. "This means that ENSO-induced drought and floods will be more intense in the future." -
See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-change-will-intensify-el-nino-bureau-of-meteorology-warns/story-e6frg8y6-1226739539585#sthash.2sIezKwQ.dpuf
Posted by: Colorado Bob | October 14, 2013 at 15:28
I've been reading the back and forth (tedious I might say) and, while Neven has already pointed it out, I thought I would add my observation.
There is one feature of a post that will always cause me to discount what is said. This is when a poster is always using "we" in their comments. This device is designed to create a sense of agreement on the point to be made and to create some sense of collaboration among posters.
I've been visiting this site for nearly 2 years and the contributors that I learn from express personal viewpoints, supported by relevant research. Others will agree, agree in part, further illuminate or disagree completely supported by other research. This kind of discussion helps me learn.
If you quickly review this thread, a pattern emerges. Those arguing against the validity of the "stadium wave" theory use "I" and link to research to support their opinion. One poster, however, is constantly using "we", speaking for himself while also suggesting that he speaks for others. This alone has caused me to dismiss the theory even as I continue to struggle to understand the linked research.
This should not be seen as criticism of "stadium waves". I once attended a baseball game with my two young sons. A stadium wave started that lasted for more than 5 minutes and circled the stadium at least 10 times. It was impressive! ;-)
Posted by: Shared Humanity | October 14, 2013 at 16:30
Just to make clear, I don't have much of a problem with what Garethman has said or is saying, but rather the way he went about it, and all because of one commenter that a priori dismissed the stadium wave paper because of Curry's involvement.
Other than that there is no problem whatsoever.
Posted by: Neven | October 14, 2013 at 18:24
How long will the increased volume due to the summer of 2013 last?
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 14, 2013 at 19:20
Chris, I think that would qualify as the nr. 1 question at the moment.
Posted by: Neven | October 14, 2013 at 19:33
Twas why I asked it... ;)
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | October 14, 2013 at 19:42
A point has been made about a lot of snowfall already in Europe. Just a an observer in Canada, if the snow is early and thick and stays, that can mean a colder winter, and increase albedo effect, but when the spring hits that snow tends to get lost very fast because the ground is still warm from the fall. Where the snow sticks around is when you have had enough cold weather before the snow hits to get deep into the ground. I have seen winters where there has ended up with gaps between the ground and the snow blanket and the ground has never really frozen. Also a big item is the type of snow. If it is heavy and full of water then that takes a long time to go. On the other hand I have known snow that was light and cold and several feet thick, but when the temps got to the 10-15C range disappeared within days.
Posted by: LRC | October 14, 2013 at 20:41
John Walsh Presentation Bah! I can't abide someone who shows future projections and how they compare with 'current' SIE values but only shows 2010 as 'current'. Looking at slide 11 of the linked presentation one can see that we are at a similar pattern that was found in 1995-2001.
With regard to the curry paper, this seems to be another gross attempt to grasp at a theory to describe an observed event. Well, that isn't exactly science, it IS closer to 'curve fitting'.
WUWT should only be seen as a propaganda portal, heavily redacted and subsidized by the coal industry. Any attempt to claim scientific relevance there is totally unfounded. Believe me, I have tried, and have been censored mercilessly.
If one was to perform curve fitting, then one could just as easily describe 800millibar altitude south-east Asian sulfate emissions drifting down to pacific tropics and rising into the upper Stratosphere where they cause an anomalous cooling effect. A kind of Geoengineering process that Kevin Tremberth is absolutely SURE isn't happening, though he has no empirical evidence to that fact. However, observational data this year (as well as the abnormally low hurricane season due to dry air) and the plethora of 450millibar mid-latitude precipitable moisture indicates its potential.
I have posted here on several occasions that this mid-altitude precipitable moisture and associated cut-off lows, are responsible for transporting moisture into the arctic and driving cyclonic activity through the melt season this year. (see graphs on slide 10 from [Sorteberg and Walsh 2009])
Posted by: Jai Mitchell | October 14, 2013 at 21:22
Posted by: Neven | October 14, 2013 at 18:24
I do.
I like this blog because of the knowledge and insight displayed on an immediate basis. I think it was A-Team (or else it was Beckwith) who said that's the value of the blog - NSIDC level (or more) knowledge and insight but not offered late and bland.
It's not my blog, but if it was, when some wanker comes on and clogs up the threads with what smells at first stink like crap, I'd ban them immediately.
Posted by: Wal | October 14, 2013 at 21:40
@ Jai Mitchell
Citing Walsh et al 2009, at the end of your post as part of a rationale for disregarding Walsh 2013 at the beginning seems, er, flawed.
"When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?"
Agree with CR:Neven:CR exchange above.Volume is key, particularly the persistence of the misbehaviour of the volume trend lines.
And on the censorship debate, I'm against.
If anybody here really wants to start off ranting about how its all a cospirizzy by the gubmint to fake the data to raise taxes, that imho just helps to remind us...
Posted by: idunno | October 14, 2013 at 22:37
Hah… I’ve found ‘m again! Of course, NASA’s Aquarius satellite, data not shutdown (don’t tell Tea Party members..).
This is week 40 Sea surface salinity 2012:
And here’s 2013:
Eyeballing the difference, some indicators give a sense of what to expect further on refreeze.
The Kara Sea has a ‘sweeter’ top layer. Could freeze tight very fast.
The Baffin Bay looks slightly more saline, in line with a more saline Labrador Sea. Depending on other factors, freeze could be slow(-er).
Through the Norwegian Sea, a more saline influx into the Barentsz Sea is visible. Could that say anything on the state of the AMOC?
LBNL, the Bering Sea looks a tad more saline, even a triangle in the Chukchi. What about the PDO?
Posted by: Werther | October 14, 2013 at 22:42
BTW It just got to me that the difference around Greenland COULD be related to less icesheet mass loss this summer?
On the details: what does that red blur near Churchill Hudson Bay represent?
And the one on Greenlands'SE cosat?
Sorry to bother... but there's also a remarkable blue/saline spot SE of Wrangel Island...
Posted by: Werther | October 14, 2013 at 22:46