-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.
Gene,
No, as I stated far above, the winds are caused by trees waving back and forth.
I dont think anyone is saying that earth’s climate doesnt change. We just dont believe it is all due to man. Maybe a small portion is, after all a volcanic eruption changes the climate for a few months. So it is rather silly to think that we dont have some effect. But to say we are going to completely change the climate and destroy earth is silly.
I think we better figure out how to get to other planets before our sun burns out. That is the real problem.
How do we know the scientists have that time span right?
Stronger winds explain puzzling growth of sea ice in Antarctica . . . hmmmm. I wonder what could be causing stronger winds. Couldn’t be adding heat to a system that is essentially a thermodynamic engine, could it? Why . . . that’s just crazy talk.
I’m sure you’ve got some theory.
Gene H:
You do know there is a mistake in what you wrote above, right? I know I am splitting hairs but I know you like to be accurate.
lottakatz:
I dont give too much stock to what Pat Buchanan has to say.
Bob K.,
There is sometimes a fine line between rhetorical questions and inane or obtuse questions, but I don’t know if that counts as sarcasm as sarcasm is generally meant to jab another rather than poke one’s self in the eye. As for the purpose, I submit that it is an attempt at sarcasm that backfired in that most people took it as non sequitur or simply a sign of ignorance on the speaker’s part. Or both.
Gene,
I didn’t answer that one because I couldn’t figure out the purpose of the question.
If Bron asked whether the earth is flat, I wouldn’t know how to answer that, either.
Those questions are as silly as “Is global warming happening, and are humans responsible for it?”
Is that a rhetorical question, coming from an adult? Sarcasm?
Bron,
Of course a tree falling in the forest makes a sound regardless of whether anyone hears it or not. Physics is not suspended simply because it is unobserved. Now whether that sounds is a part of the objective past depends upon which explanation of quantum mechanics one subscribes to. For example, the collapse of the wave function is mandatory for the Copenhagen interpretation but optional (more accurately redundant) in the Many Worlds interpretation.
bigfatmike 1, September 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
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.
=====================
I met Joe Blow once.
When I first came to Texas.
I asked him “what kind of climate do you have around here?”
He looked me in the eye, spit out some bakky onto the dry ground, and replied “boy, I don’t rekkon we got any kind of climate around here … alls we got around here is weather!”
Reductionists like Joe Blow are obviously intellectually lazy.
JB: “If you don’t record the daily weather you CANNOT determine weekly avgs which turns to monthly then yearly. IT ALL STARTS with the recording of daily weather to determine what the long term trends are.
Weather= Climate.”
This clearly confuses the data points with the trend. The fact that we use data points, in this case data about weather, in order to calculate trend, which tells us something about climate, doe not imply the two are the same.
The statement “weather = Climate” clearly confuses two very different concepts.
It is not really confusing or hard to understand – unless one is trying to miss-lead those less well informed.
You keep copying and pasting stuff without having a clue as to what it means. But then, you are not here to discuss rationally, you are here to misinform and attempt to make the thread unreadable. Sad. Maybe this will be your own front yard one day. Is the money really that good? Is this what you want for your kids and grandkids?
Big Fat Mike they also have a climate prediction page. Notice the lengths of time in the forecast and the association of the word CLIMATE
From the National Weather Service Climate Prediction
Long range forecasts across the U.S.
Local 3-Month Outlook
Climate Prediction Web Sites
Climate Prediction Center (CPC)
Climate Diagnostics Center (CDC)
Week Two Forecasts (6-14 days)
6-10 Day Temperature Forecast Map
6-10 Day Precipitation Forecast Map
8-14 Day Temperature Forecast Map
8-14 Day Precipitation Forecast Map
6-10 Day & 8-14 Day Forecast Discussions
U.S. Hazards Assessment
Monthly (30 day) Outlooks
CPC Monthly Outlook
Monthly Outlook Discussion
Monthly & Seasonal Outlook Maps
Seasonal (90 day) Outlooks
CPC Seasonal Outlooks
Seasonal Outlook Discussion
Monthly & Seasonal Outlook Maps
Joe, You reeeelly want to talk about who and what is polluting south Louisiana, got it right here for you. First of all, that story and video news report from al Jazeera just above, then there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaTdbwpPEjE
Does anyone remember my story on the oil leak at Mayflower, Arkansas?
Here is more. Revisiting cancer alley and Bayou Corne in south Louisiana.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/9/12/in-louisiana-s-canceralleyhugesinkholecreatesmoreconcerns.html
Big Fat Mike EVERY National Weather Service offers a Daily Climate Report. If you don’t record the daily weather you CANNOT determine weekly avgs which turns to monthly then yearly. IT ALL STARTS with the recording of daily weather to determine what the long term trends are.
Weather= Climate
From the National Weather Service
DAILY CLIMATE REPORT – issued daily:
Detailed daily weather statistics (usually for yesterday), including temperature, precipitation, degree days, wind, humidity, sunrise/sunset, and record temperature data for the following day. Precipitation data includes both calendar year and water year totals, percent of normal values, and comparisons to normal. This product is available for up to 2 months.
Your cite: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
which is an entire web page largely devoted to carefully distinguishing the concept of weather from the concept of climate.
Anyone interested in this topic should compare the discussion on that
web page which clearly discusses and distinguishes two concepts with your claim that “weather = climate” which you have made .
Here:
Joe Blow 1, September 17, 2013 at 11:23 am
Weather= Climate
When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.
Here:
Joe Blow 1, September 17, 2013 at 11:34 am
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
And here:
Joe Blow 1, September 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Big Fat Mike EVERY National Weather Service offers a Daily Climate Report. If you don’t record the daily weather you CANNOT determine weekly avgs which turns to monthly then yearly. IT ALL STARTS with the recording of daily weather to determine what the long term trends are.
Weather= Climate.
The only question in my mind is whether you have difficulty with basic concepts or whether you are intentionally trying to miss-lead those who may not have the time or interest to actually read the web pages and news reports.
When we talk about climate science, we are talking about a SYSTEM called The Global Climate System which functions according to the laws of system science.
Yeah kinda like your beloved James Hansen is a scientist that has failed in his predictions of just about everything.
Big Fat Mike
NOAA SAYS
Climate is the “average weather” over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. Climate Change is a departure from the expected average weather patterns, which are also known as the “climate normals”.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story1.html
Joe Blow 1, September 17, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Dredd and the government says they don’t read e-mails texts and track phone calls. Hows that working out for you bud.
============================
Not everyone in the government is of the same mind.
Some are deniers who work for Oil-Qaeda as you do.
Others in government, such as those who did the report I cited, are scientists.