-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.
The poles are shifting the poles are shifting….. Oh my, what does that mean….. The equator is moving, the equator is moving…. I guess that explain the weather changes…..
Read a book back in the early 80’s by Waite….
The IPCC launched satellites in 1975 the NSIDC 1979 if one was to go back JUST 4 YEARS PRIOR to 1979 using the first satellite measurements by the IPCC your graph would look very different, talk about cherry picking.
Speaking of the IPCC their new assessment is coming out and it is worse than we thought.
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming
The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
The short-term thinking of some folks is staggering. The climate is warming, the earth is being stripped of natural resources, pollution is getting worse, and all the while deniers are whistling past the graveyard.
When I first started flying well over a half-century ago, the haze layer was not as thick, or as high, as it is now. A few years ago, I flew from Natchez to Jackson, Mississippi, and although it was a sunny day with not a cloud in the sky, I had to use instruments just to keep the plane right side up and navigate….yet it was a VFR flight. I found Hawkins Field in Jackson by radio navigation, because I couldn’t see it until I was almost over it. From the ground, tit didn’t look that bad, but when you were in it, the visibility was lousy through the brown haze.
Instead of denial, the proper attitude is to assume the worst case and prepare for it. The analogy is rather like landing at Hillary-Tenzing airport in Lukla, Nepal. Screw up the first time and there will be no go-around or second chance.
Bron,
Radon is a naturally occurring gas that when inhaled over long periods of time within a home, can cause illness and death. Should we not do something to prevent homes from high levels of radon? If there is too much carbon dioxide, it is not a good thing, no matter if it is naturally occurring or not.
We’ll save a lot of aggravation once we understand the Daily Mail is a lousy paper.
Bruce,
Good idea! That’s exactly the level of reasoning we’re looking for in deniers of human-generated climate change! You passed the test!
Darren, you better get home and open the refrigerator door that’ll cool down the world
Bron,
What investment do you have in polluting the very definition of ‘pollution’?
pollution (pəˈluːʃən)
— n
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted
2. harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment
pol·lute [puh-loot]
verb (used with object), pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing.
1. to make foul or unclean, especially with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke.
2. to make morally unclean; defile.
3. to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.
4. Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company’s service.
ANY TIME something is introduced into an ecosystem that poisons it and causes ill effects… IT IS A POLLUTANT!
Excess CO2, methane and other hydrocarbons introduced to a closed system (our earth’s atmosphere) is a threat to all life that depends upon that ecosystem for survival. This is why I posted the Hawaii clip… molasses! It shows how, when introduced into an ecosystem, seemingly benign substances ARE a threat and ARE pollutants.
max-1:
many things will kill which are naturally occurring, it doesnt make them pollution. The concentration and/or dose is the thing. If you drink enough water it will kill you.
You really havent proven anything except that large amounts or heavy concentrations of something can kill you.
p.s.
Bron,
Hemlock is natural, too… drink up!
Did you hear about the molasses spill in Hawaii?
Natural die off or pollutant caused?
Methane is natural, too…
Why do I even bother with flat earthers?
Bron,
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? Not hardly. It is a naturally occurring gas.
TAKE THE TEST:
Place a plastic bag over head, tie off so as to block any CO2 escaping, and report back in 24 hours…
NOAA’s Geostationary and Polar-Orbiting Weather Satellites
http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/genlsatl.html
p.p.s.
Personanongrata,
The Polar geostationary satellites you refer too…
Which ones? The polar OR the geostationary? They can not be the same…
Satellites geostationary and polar – an introduction.mov
max-1:
it was hotter at the high point of Rome than now. Look at the graphs I linked to above. It shows a trend of warming for the last 3,000,000 years.
The graphs also show steep inclines and declines in short periods of time.
Anyone who looks at 50 or even 100 year periods and says they can know what is going on with the climate is not a real scientist or has an agenda.
Is it getting hotter? It sure seems like it is, is this unnatural for earths climate? Not in the least, it has been going on for at least 3,000,000 years.
Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? Not hardly. It is a naturally occurring gas.
Anyway technology will take care of it in the near future. If it isnt destroyed by the chicken littles among us.
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html
Dredd,
Your talking about natural cycles.
Scientists are certain what we’re experiencing is NOT a natural cyclical event but rather, man made. There is no precedence for this… Just buckle up cause human kind is on a head on crash with destiny…
From July, 2013
I hope Santa has a sleigh boat and that he’s teaching Rudolph to swim…
Darren Smith 1, September 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Let’s look at this in terms of risk management.
…
=========================
Too late.
Triage is all we have now.
Max-1,
Good points.
Our current global climate system has formed since the last mass extinction event (the 5th Mass Extinction Event) 65 mya.
That said, that was an event more than just a global climate event, which does not entail mass extinctions.
The global climate systems between each mass extinction event were victims every bit as much as the flora and fauna that were made extinct were.
One thing that has been a part of every one of the 5 or 6 global climate systems that existed between each extinction event, was the axial precession effect.
It generates climate change in a ~26,000 year cycle, in two parts of ~13,000 years each.
That global climate change is not catastrophic, it is gentle in the sense of taking enough time to allow abundant amounts of time for adaptation.
Bron
1, September 14, 2013
I even posted the video for you… are you saying the scientists that are doing the research, the drilling, the observing of the past millenniums are lying? 800,000 years of observable data… not your 30 years.
p.s.
Above I also linked to one of the earliest studies done… in 1950.
Is it the ’80s still?
It’s Hammer Time…