-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
A recent article in the Daily Mail, and picked up by other media, claims an increase in Arctic ice foretells a cooling trend. The article boasts of a 60% increase in sea ice over the minimum that occurred in 2012. While the actual numbers from IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS) show, as of yesterday, only a 50% increase, this is still a significant expansion.
Professor Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, referred to the title as melodramatic and said of the content of the article: “the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed.” Last year, University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins predicted that “there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”
An important tool used in analyzing random data is the statistical phenomenon known as reversion to the mean, or regression to the mean. The extent of sea ice at the end of the annual melt, mid to late September, set a extreme minimum in 2012. Using reversion to the mean, it is more likely that the the extent in 2013 will be larger. Exactly what happened. The following graph indicates the variability of sea ice extent and the clear downward trend.
Cherry picking short-term results while ignoring long-term trends is a hallmark of misleading climate reporting. Long-term data needs to be analyzed to average out cyclical dependencies. There is a strong natural variability in sea ice extent and separating the natural from the greenhouse gases requires decades long timescales.
Climate science is an undertaking fraught with complex interactions and unknown cycles with unknown effects. It will take time and money to improve our understanding. However, improvement is mandatory if we are to be responsible conservators of our world.
Climate scientists estimate the amount of sea ice loss due to greenhouse gasses is between 50-70%.
H/T: Dana Nuccitelli, Steven Novella, Climate Dialogue, Alexis Sobel Fitts, Phil Plait.
Big Fat Mike
NASA SAYS
When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Right. that cite carefully distinguishes weather and climate.
They do not by any stretch claim that “weather = climate”.
By continuing to argue that “weather = climate” you distinguish you credibility for anyone to see.
Oh ok so water doesn’t get stored in lakes and reservoirs just goes right back into the sea. Especially when the Army Corp of engineers decides it needs to be done.releasing BILLIONS of gallons of polluted water that now is headed back to the sea. Got it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/us/lake-okeechobee-in-florida-a-polluted-bubble-ready-to-burst.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
rafflaw 1, September 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Dredd,
Stop bringing facts into this discussion of corporate power.
==============================
Yep.
The Joe Blow hard has a constitutional right to lie, and we have the right to not lie.
Here is what he is really saying:
Dredd and the government says they don’t read e-mails texts and track phone calls. Hows that working out for you bud.
Joe Blow:
Riddle me this. if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
I don’t know why I need to explain eighth grade science to somebody who is trying to pass himself off as some kind of expert on climatology. Water cycle. If you can’t read it, you can at least look at the nice picture brought to you by the National Earth Science Teachers Association.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/water_cycle_climate_change.html
“If you want to talk about sea levels, one year does not at trend make.”
We are not talking about one year we are talking about since the inception of Satellite measurements of the GMSL not local tide gauges.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262
“The report’s focus was mandated by legislation of the U.S. Congress, and was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
The law specified that major reports were to be produced periodically …”
The current report says:
(Government Climate Change Report, quoting and linking to official report 2013).
Dredd NAL and I already covered it
Nal 1, September 17, 2013 at 10:45 am
For those interested in the facts of tornado frequency:
Historical Records and Trends:
The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
If you look at the bar chart, “little trend” appears to be an accurate assessment.
From NALS Link
” With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number EF1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”
“Irrelevant. Rain is part of an endless water cycle. No new water is created and no old water is lost. Totally irrelevant.”
So if water evaporates from the ocean and gets dumped back on land all the rain that occurs over land goes right back to the ocean ? Is this what you are saying ?
I guess that’s why they call it Global Mean Sea Level, to remove local anomalies.
From JB’s linked article:
Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
JB’s article is another debunking of a climate change denier’s talking point.
If you want to talk about sea levels, one year does not at trend make. If you want some real data, here is the official US NOAA chart on measured sea levels since 1880, complete with explanations, not that I expect you to actually, you know, read and understand it. At least there is a nice picture. Notice a trend there sport?
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Dredd,
Stop bringing facts into this discussion of corporate power.
There were 206 tornadoes in 1950.
There were 1777 tornadoes in 2012.
The upward trend in average tornadoes per year per decade since 1950 is:
(On The Origin of Tornadoes – 3, citing NOAA data).
A record F5 event took place this year, 2013:
(ibid).
JB,
I hope you are at least getting paid for this stuff.
“I hope you are at least getting paid for this stuff.”
Raises the interesting question of which party is getting ripped off: JB for what they pay him or his employer for the quality of his work?
Consider: “The point is without the DAILY RECORDING of different WEATHER statistics you CANNOT define what the CLIMATE is over the long term trend. ….Therefore Weather=Climate”
Is JB really claiming that data points are used to calculate trend therefore data points = trend?
JB even cited “Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.”
and: ” climate is the description of the long-term pattern”.
Irrelevant. Rain is part of an endless water cycle. No new water is created and no old water is lost. Totally irrelevant.
Lets see how smart you guys really are.
Riddle me this. Does rain affect the rise or fall of sea level ?
REALLY REALLY you guys really are a bunch of dupes
The point is Sea Level has been rising by HOW MUCH ?
The observed rate is a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year since the launch of the satellites used to track it. At the current rate it would take 120 years to rise one foot.
Land sinking can give the appearance that sea level rise is occurring at a faster pace at certain locations such as New Orleans.IN FACT most locations on the East Coast of the United States that are experiencing sea level rise is not because the sea is rising but the land is sinking. This is why it says,
“and so they see a much higher rate of sea level rise that has nothing to do with climate change.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-262
OS,
🙂
Maybe JB is the higher quality troll. When your roster is full of no-legged place-kickers, a one-legger is a stand out.
Nal,
Rank amateurs. This is a prestigious blog. We really deserve a higher quality troll than this. With all that money, you would think they could do better than send a one-legged place-kicker onto the field.