-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.
Whether or not climate change is real, having polluted air caused by carbon emissions cannot be viewed as healthful or helpful. Remember in the Beijing Olympics there was much consternation about the polluted air in that City. To put it another way Darren has it right.
Personanongrata,
What’s an ice core study, then, if not a history of millenniums?
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/about_centre/history/
Started in 1950. So that’s 63 years now, not your claim of 40 years.
Care to explain the CO2 levels of the past millennia and why they don’t count because, “they weren’t observed” when in truth, the evidence is frozen in the ice, itself?
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/environmental-change/measuring-climate-change/ice-cores/
So scientists are now studying 800 thousand years of EVIDENCE and are reaching for 1.4 million years of EVIDENCE.
Again… 40 years of observation?
I call bull…
rafflaw 1, September 14, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Well said Darren. It amazes me that we can give billions to oil companies in corporate welfare, but we can’t play the safe card as you suggested above. You would think that conservatives would try to play it safe and correct the problem now as opposed to trying to find a planet to live on later.
==========================
Yep.
Deniers will come to us and say “I was watching ‘once upon a time in the west’ and shot a hole in my oxygen container when I got excited”.
Then ask “Got another one?”
The answer is “NO. There was only one.”
Bob Kauten 1, September 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Oh, c’mon, Dredd. Work with me, here.
==================
Indeed.
Just sayin …
Bob Kauten 1, September 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Oh, and the common meaning of “extent” is “area.” Groups of scientists, or groups of denialists, can redefine it in their discussions.
But everyone here knows exactly what we mean by “extent.”
==========================
Thank you.
We are so under attack that I get touch about words because they take a ten-year approach, changing words little by little.
Thank you again.
Oh, c’mon, Dredd. Work with me, here.
Oh, and the common meaning of “extent” is “area.” Groups of scientists, or groups of denialists, can redefine it in their discussions.
But everyone here knows exactly what we mean by “extent.”
Bob Kauten 1, September 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
…
Humans, right now, are heating up the environment to the point where they won’t be able to live in it. This experiment …
========================
Wrong word (“experiment”).
The word “torture” is the gravamen of the complaint.
“Enhanced interrogation” is false, “experiment” is false.
The reality is that we are torturing the Earth, and it will come back to us.
Bob Kauten 1, September 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm
It matters not whether we extrapolate over millions of years.
…
====================
Of course it matters if it is in error.
The more millions the more likelihood of error, especially beyond 65 million years.
The current global climate system evolved after that time.
Check out axial precession.
It is a ~13,000 year concept. No millions there!
Millions of years in terms of climate change within our current global climate system is primarily pseudo-science in terms of understanding current climate.
Personanongrata 1, September 14, 2013 at 3:56 pm
@ Dredd 1, September 14, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Your inferences deal with catastrophes that are not related to the global climate system, but rather things that damage it and cause it to become rogue.
What inferences? I stated fact.
Fact, polar geostationary satellites have been in existence for only 40 years.
Fact, it is folly to attempt to extrapolate thousands/millions of year trends based upon 40 years of observable data.
=============================
Bullshit.
Here is you climate ignorance and lie in a nutshell:
Well said Darren. It amazes me that we can give billions to oil companies in corporate welfare, but we can’t play the safe card as you suggested above. You would think that conservatives would try to play it safe and correct the problem now as opposed to trying to find a planet to live on later.
It matters not whether we extrapolate over millions of years. Humans evolved, and flourished, under fairly specific environmental conditions. Don’t change those conditions rapidly and drastically.
Humans, right now, are heating up the environment to the point where they won’t be able to live in it. This experiment has never been done before. There won’t be anyone left to try reproducing it.
We can make the climate unsupportable of human life within a few decades, if we try hard enough. We’re trying really hard, by reproducing like dumbass bacteria on a petri dish. We’ll die in our own waste. Carbon dioxide being one of those wastes.
What’s the use of trying? I dunno. What’s the use of living? You’re just gonna die, anyway.
Do you wanna die soon, or would you like to put it off, for a while?
Why’s it necessary to explain this to an adult?
Denial is not just refusal to face reality.
De Nile is also a river in Africa.
With any luck at all, we can dry the damned river up.
@ Dredd 1, September 14, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Your inferences deal with catastrophes that are not related to the global climate system, but rather things that damage it and cause it to become rogue.
What inferences? I stated fact.
Fact, polar geostationary satellites have been in existence for only 40 years.
Fact, it is folly to attempt to extrapolate thousands/millions of year trends based upon 40 years of observable data.
Otteray Scribe 1, September 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Now … Discovery can move forward.
============================
And discovery is not always a good thing for “incurious dupes, stooges, patsies, pawns, chumps, rubes and suckers”:
(Your link above).
Personanongrata 1, September 14, 2013 at 3:07 pm
This is what happens when you try to extrapolate long term (hundreds of thousands/millions of years) trends using data sets that have only been observed for 40 years.
Polar geostationary satellites have only been in existence for 40 years and any empirical data gathered reflects sea ice conditions on a very short time scale not sea ice conditions over long term geological time scale of which we have very little data.
===========================
Ah, play the doubt card (the old IBM fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) ideology for dealing with competitors).
Can’t explain anything, don’t know anything, gotta be cool in your crowd though, so, play the doubt card.
The tactic of a very insecure and scared person.
You think that will make you more secure and safe?
Records only have to be ~13,000 years old, and less, to be relevant to our global climate system, as modified by cosmic dynamics (A Savvy Ecocosmological Earth Calendar – 2).
Your shotgun approach encompasses the previous 5 mass extinctions that have nothing to do with the global climate system.
Your inferences deal with catastrophes that are not related to the global climate system, but rather things that damage it and cause it to become rogue.
Like the current Anthropogenic Sixth Mass Extinction.
What comes to my mind concerning your assertion is “incurious dupes, stooges, patsies, pawns, chumps, rubes and suckers”.
Bruce:
Is it better to wait until a crisis has arisen before something is done?
Let’s look at this in terms of risk management.
At issue: Is climate change caused by induction into the environment pollutants caused by fossil fuel consumption and / or hazardous material release?
Two answers: Yes || No
If yes, then take action to limit and hopefully eliminate pollutions that case this.
If no, do nothing.
Risk:
If the Yes solution is correct than the damage is mittigated. If Yes solution is wrong than money was spent where it wasn’t needed.
If the No solution is correct then money is saved. If incorrect the only planet for which humans can reside is changed in a manner that might be threatening to life as we know it and possibly might lead to greater extinctions and social upheaval due to resources being scarce and more deaths of people and other living things on earth. More unpredictable outcomes might arise.
The earth has been on a warming trend since the last ice age. So lets not panic yet
This is what happens when you try to extrapolate long term (hundreds of thousands/millions of years) trends using data sets that have only been observed for 40 years.
Polar geostationary satellites have only been in existence for 40 years and any empirical data gathered reflects sea ice conditions on a very short time scale not sea ice conditions over long term geological time scale of which we have very little data.