This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.
Here is a graph Anthony Watts @ Watts Up With That? (WUWT) elects to use from the National Ice and Snow Data Center:
Notice anything? Anything missing? Anyone?
Would that be the standard deviations (SDs)?
If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!
Until 2009 the NSIDC used to present the graph without the SDs (hat tip A.Watts!).
If the NSIDC has elected to present information in one format as their preferred means of communication, it is beholden to all of us to follow their model.
That is a reasonable assumption to make. If Mr. Watts is aware they changed this back in 2009, surely his blog needs to mimic their current practice?
Mr. Watts accused me of lacking professionalism. Over to you now Anthony regarding the question of professionalism.
Context matters
If the NSIDC elect to give prominence to the presentation of data in one format it is reasonable to assume we are all beholden to follow their lead.
You could claim they presented their data as such four years ago.
But not now:
Notice anything?
The graph includes the SDs. If you go to their Sea Ice page you’ll see graphs that us the SDs.
So why does this matter?
Because the context in which information is presented matters a great deal in this debate.
And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.
Now it could very well be that Mr. Watts simply needs to bring his images inline with the practices of the NSIDC – if that is the case the opportunity now exits.
We can take data and images from anywhere – from NSIDC, from a government website or the Bureau of Meteorology and present it however we wish.
But what matters more: the thin slice of data you wish to highlight, of the full data set and the contextual information?
Excluding standard deviations in sea-ice graphs @ WUWT: why it matters
You can create the graphs yourself here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
You don’t need to Photoshop the image, thus I’ve withdrawn my throw away comment about Photoshop. Which I note was intended to be satirical, but still I felt compelled to remove it to save people’s confusion or spare them a sense of outrage.
Now given:
- the history of denying the link between human activities and climate change at WUWT
- the long running antipathy towards the work of climate scientists at WUWT
My interpretation remains more than reasonable.
To the general public this may seem an obscure debate over the minutiae of graphs and data. But Mr. Watts content makes its way into the mainstream press via blogs such as Andrew Bolt.
Hence my focus on the use or potential misuse of images, data and information.
WUWT is a site that exists to cast doubt on climate change.
Much of the information presented there is crafted to undermine the scientific consensus.
Thus as a true sceptic – not one who merely adorns the garb of the curious – I will continue to question the use and misuse of information on sites such as WUWT.
Over to you Anthony: if you’re calling me out then likewise
Sceptics here have asked that make an amendment to the original version of this post, which I have.
Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks context. Now is the time for them to admit WUWT uses a presentation format four years out of date.
The record of my transparency, openness and honesty is here for the entire world to see and judge.
Now it is time for Anthony to live by the same standards he demands of others and fix his mistake.
Over to you Anthony.
Watching the Deniers 
for late arrivals
“The original chart Watts was showing actually looked worse and now thanks to this website, he will be showing the one with the 2 sd”
outcome from afternoon shitfight?
willard watts will conform to std practise, well done for accepting that you were wrong willard
It seems more like john byatt can’t admit to obvious errors, proposes remediation involving yet more verbal abuse and childish name calling.
The spot light is on you John… you really want this to be the lasting impression that people have of you?
well willard has admitted to his error carrick by his actions , he has added the graph with 2std dev
what gave me a laugh was that some of you were going on about error bars during the melt season but according to willard posts they are not required during the record ice gain during the winter recovery,
carrik the only name calling here came from you lot
Snafu ” jb you have no testicles”
Snafu” a ventriloquist dummy has a higher IQ than you jb”
bottom ,line carrick is that it was the flying monkeys throwing around the insults and notably willard has fixed his 4 years out of date graph page as was the purpose of the post,
It would also seem that mike had to censor many comments that were just over the top with disgusting insults,
I still don’t get it John. If you include the STD shading it demonstrates that current Arctic ice levels are within the bounds of natural variability and we therefore have nothing to worry about.
Surely if you wanted to scare the bejesus out of people about global warming you wouldn’t want any sort of graph that demonstrates a remarkably un-scary situation?
David a good question, and thanks for the respectful manner you have posed the question.
You’ll note that the 2012 sea-ice extent is not merely below the average, but well below the SDs. This context matters.
Stating 2012 was below average is meaningless unless there is a broader context. How much below the average? What are the long term trends we should be measuring this against? What are the year-to-year variations of sea-ice extent?
Well the SDs are an important way to measure and track this very question.
Excluding the SDs fails to show how much dramatic the decline of sea-ice was in 2012. This is important information about the state of the cyrosphere and the health of the Arctic.
If this years sea-ice extent falls below the average and then plummets below the SDs as well then it tells us – and the world – something important.
A few sceptics have claimed it does not matter – and while it seems a small point to some, the contextual presentation of information matters.
If the NSIDC has elected to privilege the presentation of data in one manner on its homepage and in its communications, then it is beholden to everyone to follow their lead. They have done so since 2009. That’s four years to bring the presentation of data into line with their practice.
Now, I made what I thought was a throw away line about photoshop which Mr. Watts requested I remove and apologise for – I have done both. I’ve admitted my error publically. It was intended as satire but it fell flat, as such things are to do on occasion.
However, how much longer do some people want to stay mired in their sense of outrage?
faux outrage Mike
A sense a great deal of that 😉
Note: that wink was intended to imply I see the funny side in this as well , in case anyone missed the implication 🙂
If he censored boorish stupidity, you’d never show up on his site. Really, you are too dim to breath without assistance.
The graph Watts displayed that caused Mike’s hissy fit is NOT out of date. It’s a current NSIDC product. There’s no “error” to be corrected. Where is it written, “Thou shalt display all graphs with 2SD boundaries”? Who declared 2SD boundaries were “std practise”? Like an indulgent parent, Watts has provided a new toy for the whining children to giggle over.
And now that you have your 2SD boundaries, what of substance do you think it reveals?
another insult,
called it yesterday and was correct
john byatt says:
July 8, 2013 at 8:13 am
they do update it greg just do not use it in the monthly reports, have not done so for years,
once things quieten down willard will do a mea culpa and put up the correct one.
watch that space
yep exactly as predicted
Keenly judged, Mr Byatt. Keenly judged. Watts’ readership will not have noticed.
So John, how many of your posts with disgusting comments were in that group of censored comments?
do not go to watts blog old fella,
This is a pathetic blog full of irrationality and insults and a disdain for facts; and demonstrating a complete inability to engage in civilised debate with those having a different opinion. You house a resident and pampered troll in your comments section and withhold or dissappear comments from people you disagree with. I has been some time since I read a blog quite this bad.
Ten minutes here is probably enough to turn most uncommitted people into committed skeptics. You do nothing but harm to your cause. You won’t publish this. I don’t care. For my own personal satisfaction I just wanted to tell you what I thought of your stupid blog before I left. You are a scary irrational fanatic and I’m very glad I don’t actually know you.
Don’t bother replying. I’m gone. Goodbye.
It is not about opinions Ian, it is about facts. fact is that the Arctic is heading towards a seasonal ice free state and that this already appears to be having an enormous influence on the NH jet stream, suggest you watch jennifer francis videos about how we may have already stuffed up the climate,
no comments are ever disappeared that is a baseless lie from someone claiming the high ground
see it was published , you had your say even though it was just nonsense.
you probably believe that reporting the greatest ice loss last year only in the context of the record winter gain as. but that is what willard is paid to do, has admitted money from heartland, not to do science for which he is incapable but just to spread misinformation and delay the action which will have serious consequences in coming decades as it already has
correction, winter gain was valid
pot meet kettle
Victimhood – check
Concern trolling – check
Lack of self awareness – check
Ad hom attacks – check
Failure to read above comment thread before commenting – check
Bullyng – check
Thanks for playing
It’s pretty amazing to me that you could even make such a mistake since every chart on the Wattsupwiththat.com sea ice page is directly from the source. In the case of the image at hand you can click on the image to be taken directly to the source to see the original.
But to put it in context displaying or not displaying the STD isn’t necessary to understand the current status of arctic sea ice. The chart in question clearly shows the 1981-2010 average, 2012 data and 2013 data up to the date shown. The STD isn’t necessary to know whether the current data is above or below the average. Is the STD useful? Sure. It is dishonest and unrepresentative of the data to not show the STD? Absolutely not. The STD is just more data.
If you don’t like that specific chart there are plenty more to choose from on the sea ice page. It sure would be a lot of work to Photoshop (or MS Paint if you prefer) those images on a daily basis!
It would have taken you only seconds to fact check yourself before accusing someone of dishonesty.
Since you feel so strongly that this chart is “dishonest” and “flagrantly misrepresents data” are you accusing the NSIDC of dishonesty and misrepresenting data too?
A simple “I apologize for my mistake and false accusations” probably would have been better.
you are way behind the comments, why not just read through first before posting this tripe?
Was anything I posted incorrect?
The chart isn’t hosted on WUWT and that is obvious, or should be anyway, to anyone that clicks on the chart and looks at the URL – or even just mouses over the chart.
As I said, if the chart without the STD is “dishonest” and “misrepresents data” then it is NSIDC that is dishonest yet I don’t see anyone making that claim. The chart is simple and clean and clearly represents the data presented. No dishonesty unless you incorrectly believe it’s been changed when it wasn’t.
This blog post still says right at the beginning “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”. Uh no. It’s one chart. It doesn’t deny anything and it’s not cherry picked. It represents the data that NSIDC has chosen to display in a very straight forward and clear manner. Attempting to make it more than it is simply won’t work. Trying to blame WUWT for including it as one of many charts on the sea ice page is ridiculous.
The real tripe here is this blog post. That is obvious.
bill watts has now put up the graph with the 2 std dev shaded,
so mikes post was well worth getting that fixed, what was telling was that most of his followers never having seen them before thought that they were the confidence range or even error bars,
NO NSIDC do not put up their monthly update without the std dev, the only blog which did that was watts and as willard said he just did not update the change four years ago,
seeing you missed it i repeat for your benefit
According to NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier, NSIDC uses what is called a standard deviation, which measures how much the data tends to fall above or below the average. Two standard deviations, what NSIDC uses, encompass roughly 95% of the data. The remaining 5% that fall outside the deviation range are considered outliers, highlighting data that are unusual.
“An outlier could be an error in the data, may highlight a very rare occurrence, or could indicate a trend,” Meier said. “In this case, we conduct quality control to make sure that the data are not in error. So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”
and thus willards claims of recovery are no longer tenable when one refers to the outliers that are confirmed as trend
I didn’t miss it and I understand what the standard deviation represents. Not including the standard deviation on a chart doesn’t change the data plotted and certainly doesn’t make it a “dishonest” chart. The chart still accurately represents the data. The chart with the standard deviation displayed simply conveys more information and indicates whether the data plotted is within the standard deviation (or in this case 2 standard deviations) or not.
For example if you look at the most recent chart with the standard deviation included then you can easily see that although the current data is below the 1981-2010 average it is within 2 standard deviations. The chart also shows that last year’s sea ice extent was outside of 2 standard deviations low which indicates it was unusually low.
Neither chart is “dishonest” or “misrepresents data”. Both are generated by NSIDC.
To claim that showing the chart without the standard deviations included is “denial” or “cherry picking data” (first sentence of this blog post: “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.”) is false and dishonest.
What will be interesting to see is….and this is a prediction… if this years September low is not as low as last year, the Watts, Novas and McIntyres of this world start claiming 2012 as an an anomoly. What will then happen if 2014 is also not as low as 2012, they will start producing graphs with yellow highlighter trendlines claiming the Arctic is growing, conveniently ignoring the significance of 2 standard deviations.
Another interesting thing that your comment touches on, and we have seen this already, is deniers saying the inclusion of the 2 standard deviations shows that it is currently within that band and is therefore not as bad as we are all saying. I can almost guarantee, some nutcase deniers out there, when we inevitably get an ice free summer, will claim it is within 2 standard deviations of the 2005-2015 average and so isn’t serious.
well NSIDC does not give you any support whatsoever
So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”
if you wish to hide the trend dropping below 2std dev, then use the old watts graph
and watts knew about this last year, his claims of you only had to ask are exposed as another watts lie,
you defend the indefensible Bill, your hero is naked and exposed
“NO NSIDC do not put up their monthly update without the std dev…”
Yes they do. Why are you lying about this fact?
here is the public monthly news update
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
What they believe is not important
According to NSIDC research scientist Walt Meier, NSIDC uses what is called a standard deviation, which measures how much the data tends to fall above or below the average. Two standard deviations, what NSIDC uses, encompass roughly 95% of the data. The remaining 5% that fall outside the deviation range are considered outliers, highlighting data that are unusual.
“An outlier could be an error in the data, may highlight a very rare occurrence, or could indicate a trend,” Meier said. “In this case, we conduct quality control to make sure that the data are not in error. So for Arctic sea ice, we actually see the strong trend since the year 2000, which has made Arctic sea ice values in summer to be greater than two standard deviations from the 1979 to 2000 average.”
John, would I be wrong to assume, that this whole thread, is really about the “cherry picking” habits of WUWT ?
No cherry picking is fine as it can be done by both sides, then explained as such
see recent ,the climate sceptics party blog where they choose three calendar years 1990, 1998 and 2010 , draw a straight line between each and declare that it is cooling, not many would be fooled by that stupidity so it is usually ignored
a good site to understand the disinformation of watts is
https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/
another good site that corrects watts tripe is tamino word press,
real climate do not bother but a few comments put up some of watts facepalm posts.
Pretty much 😉
thought that i would cheer them up
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-09/record-low-in-central-tasmania-27like-walking-into-a-freezer27/4807874
lived in tassy for a while, many mornings at minus 10C, wore light thermals under jeans and shirt,
lived in a two story log cabin and was fairly self sufficient, recommend that all do that at some stage in their lives
I worked in Tassie as a freshwater ecologist for a couple of years. Loved traipsing all over the state in pristine first order streams, often having to break the ice to access the water during Winter. I have plans to go back there in about 10 years for good.
Funny during the lemonthyme protests, a lady up the road, activist, asked judy to go along to the protests with her just to see the area, she would not have to do anything and could have a picnic, along judy went.
that night on ABC Tv the protest was in the news, most of the shots were of judy, she looked like she was running the show,
we lived next to mt roland but loved the port sorrel area,
Too funny. I was based in Hobart but spent more than half my time in the field…mostly in the East and North of the state but got to spend some time in the southwest and up on the plateau. When I go back I want to base myself near Deloraine. Just the right mix to go self sufficient.
we had rabbits, poultry pigs and a cow ,
grew winter crops outdoors and a lot of veg under a polyscrim greenhouse, caught trout in the dasher river down the road and every week went to pt sorrel for fishing and collecting oysters , did a bit of landscaping for the local Dr. and built hot drums for sale at the markets each saturday , was great, was time out after cancer most likely from drinking agent orange laced water in vietnam according to the surgeons.
Deloraine is lovely though may be a bit more expensive, we purchased the log cabin on three acres for $49,000 and sold it two years later for $65,000, continued the lifestyle on ten acres in the sunshine coast hinterland,
try truffles, people cashing in on those, amanita muscarii were growing in the pine forest opposite us in tassie but i think most of the druggies were snitching heroin poppies along the roadside,
a good reason why willard should have included the er! “error bars’
http://uknowispeaksense.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/entropic-man-gone.png?w=500&h=483
did I read that correctly? willard knew about this last year, yep he did didn’t he
crash and burn watts
yep
so all the crap about you only had to ask me was just that crap,
eric has stuffed up and watts is forced to fix it,
karma
and he had the hide to make this comment
Anthony Watts says:
July 8, 2013 at 1:59 am
snip.
Until this irrational accusation of dishonesty, nobody has complained. if you wanted it added to the sea ice page, all one has to do is ask nicely.
so
obviously watts had no idea that the proof that it was requested last year was out there waiting for him to tell a lie, it was brought up last year and earned someone a ban
hoist on his own petard
At least now you don’t have to rely on this screen cap from uki you can read all the comments for yourself.
It was ‘Entropic man’ that confused STD with “error bars”. No one asked Anthony Watts to add the NSIDC chart with STD to the sea ice page in that thread despite what you claim. It does show that Anthony Watts was familiar with the chart that included STD but the complaint was about not using it in that specific blog post.
[…] ditto head Eric Worrall spotted an accusation at Watching the Deniers (WtD) that Anthony had doctored an Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph to conceal the fact that the decline in Arctic ice extent was more than 2 standard deviations away […]
ddpalmer says:
July 9, 2013 at 11:17 am
“here is the public monthly news update”
And that is not all of NSIDC’s monthly updates though is it?
then put up the bloody link and lets see what the URL states,
You called me a liar boofhead, now either put the link up or retract your claim
Okay we can officially put this issue to rest courtesy of NSIDC. They have removed the dishonest chart that uses cherry picked data. Now both URLs result in the same chart showing the data with 2 standard deviations:
I suppose we should credit and thank Mike for getting NSIDC to correct their dishonesty.
😉
It was watts being dishonest not NSIDC, their monthly analysis and news update uses the std dev, and has since 2009
your claim of NSIDC being dishonest, even with a smiley is pathetic
now what about your apology for going on and on while having only read one sentence from an entire post
no fool like an old fool Bill, as they say
Yes it’s pathetic to say that a chart is dishonest when it accurately represents the data as intended. I’m not surprised you can’t see the hypocrisy of claiming that Watts was dishonest in showing the chart without the STD from NSIDC even though other charts on the WUWT sea ice page DO show the STD.
I’ve read the entire post john. For example I read this sentence: “If you remove that pesky piece of information that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”. As I’ve pointed out and you either deny or ignore this statement is patently untrue. To know if the current sea ice extent is below average you need to know only two things: current sea ice extent and average sea ice extent. That’s it. The chart in question clearly shows that the current sea ice extent is – and has been all winter – below average. As NSIDC says adding the STD supplies context.
I also read this sentence: “And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.”. Yet WUWT wasn’t excluding anything. The same chart has been on the sea ice page since it’s inception. WUWT didn’t add the newer chart that includes the STD. They didn’t exclude it. Semantics but an important point. In addition WUWT does include other charts that show only 1 STD which makes the current values look even worse than they do when compared to 2 STD. How is that possibly hiding anything? WUWT also provides a direct link to the NSIDC source. Again, no hiding anything.
I also read through all of the posts such as this one of yours john:
“So you believe that Watts has represented the data honestly.
and that the std dev is immaterial, when he had to ignore the news release and hunt through an interactive graph to seek what he wanted to misrepresent”
Do you now admit that Watts didn’t misrepresent anything? He didn’t “hunt through an interactive graph to seek what he wanted to misrepresent”. He linked to the same chart created by NSIDC that has been in use for YEARS. Have you apologized (or simply admitted) that you were wrong in your accusations? No I don’t think you have.
Pathetic to be sure.
finally you agree with the post, even though you still ramble on
Watts is dishonest beyond belief. He had a choice of two graphs, and he chose the wrong one. When confronted with this, he feigned outrage and eventually changed it, giving the impression that it was an honest mistake. However, as mentioned over at my blog, he did exactly the same thing last year, even going to the trouble of banning a commentator who questioned it over at there. He has form on the board in the dishonesty stakes. If you choose to behave like another one of his mindless sycophants, well, that’s your problem, but as long as his echo chamber lives on, those of us who accept the science will continue to call him out on his lies and distortions so that good people can see him for what he truly is…a non-expert peddling garbage to mindless and gullible morons who engage in a bizarre kind of hero worship to satisfy his own over-inflated sense of self.
Wow uknowispeaksense how can there be a “wrong” chart? NSIDC used that chart for years until the created the new one with the STD added. It’s not “wrong” to show the data without the STD. As NSIDC states they added the STD for “context”. That doesn’t make one right or wrong. Other charts on the WUWT sea ice page do include STD.
As far as the comment from ‘Entropic man’ that you reference he doesn’t even understand the difference between “error bars” and “standard deviation”. Maybe you don’t either? Have you seen a chart from NSIDC that includes “error bars” instead of “standard deviation”?
stop being a dill bill
FFS read, absorb
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2013/07/03/what-is-the-arctics-new-normal/
it was the idiot who Uki replied to who thought the shading was error bars
,
Actually I think that someone at NSIDC saw the WUWT new sea ice page, with and without STD dev and decided to stuff him up and look stupid
i can see the funny side of someone doing that
took a screenshot of both graphs making watts look like an idiot , for when he disappears the top one
Dude, you are a first class idiot and really need to get a hobby. Nothing you say is remotely sane. And this comes from a full blown AGW admittist*.
I mean do you really think what you write?
Because if you do, you need help. You are waaaaaaaay to invested in “teh cause”.
A strong trend since the year 2000. Please… 13 years, really? That proves a lot, really. No, it doesn’t.
I really wonder how those Romans managed to plant wine so far north, and how the Chinese managed to develop chrome without good conditions for cultural and technological growth. Or how the Danes, about 1,000 years ago, planted wine and a certain Murasaki wrote the first novel of mankind in Japan.
Let’s see, where’s the wine border in Europe today? Oh, somewhere in Germany. Significantly farther south than 1,000 and 2,000 years ago. Hmmm, what could that mean! Oh I don’t know… maybe that it’s still colder than 1,000 and 2,000 years ago? Even on a global scale? It had to be global, or at least on the northern hemisphere, otherwise we wouldn’t have cultural explosion in Asia and Europe at the same time.
No that can’t be! All the computer models say different! Mann’s manipulated tree ring data says none of this happened!
Oh wait, computer models used to foresee a non-linear, chaotic system. Right.
And then a non-scientist, non-archeologist and non-historian screams murder and all the enviro-nitwits come quick to defend that desk jockey. Hilarious.
Herd mentality, right there.
I’m still waiting for the proof that our CO2, which makes just a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere, causes anything. You know, the factual, scientific proof. Not based on statistics, computer models and falsified data (which is disproved by factual archeological evidence.)
Are you seriously going to move from post to post in here and paste the same garbage each time? A number of us responded to your nearly identical ramblings in the “Six Aspects of Denial” post. Instead of responding, you have decided to do the dishonest and rather childish thing and come and post the same crap here.
Anyone who is interested in the responses provided to this idiot, go here https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/six-aspects-of-denial/
thought i had read that before,
It just occurred to me that you could have used a different title that would have really set the flying monkeys…Anthony Watts – hiding the decline.
suggest that for the new one, great
I had to laugh when I found this old article on WUWT from 2008:
Now keep in mind that this was before NSIDC started generating a chart that included standard deviation:
” I’ve spent a lot of time this month looking at the graph of sea ice extent from the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent. However, there is another website that also plots the same satellite derived data, the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center of Bergen Norway, and they have an added bonus: a standard deviation shaded area.”
That’s right, instead of trying to hide a chart that includes standard deviation (in this case +/- 1 STD not +/- 2 STD like NSIDC displays) Anthony Watts called it a “bonus” to have it included even though it clearly shows how far below the 1 STD range the sea ice extext was in 2007 and 2008. Yes I know the post is bragging because it appeared the sea ice extent was recovering to a point where it would likely fall within that 1 STD.
Next I suppose some of you will claim that Anthony Watts was honest and then he wasn’t. Some of you keep ignoring – or trying to hide? – the fact that the chart in question was the standard NSIDC chart for a long time. It wasn’t until sometime in 2009 (IIRC anyway) that NSDIC started including the STD and WUWT has been reporting on sea ice long before that.
Bill, I love it. So SDs matter… when you want them to matter.
Thanks!
He has unknowingly hung watts out to dry,
watts acknowledges that std dev are a bonus, so when He was asked to include them on NSIDC graph last year he should have been grateful, instead he banned people for it,
wonder why, because the bloody extent had dropped below 2STD dev and he did not want you to know,……. that is effin why
we have a screen shot from last year billy boy
watts graph from that
“see it is nearing the normal std dev, and has already bested last year,
the great 2008 recovery, bet not one of them asked the obvious question,, ?
they were all wondering why this incredible recovery was not headline news
are they really this dumb?
Ralph says:
October 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Boy, talk about cognitive dissonance in the mainstream media. Can anyone direct me to a single article (aside from climate blogs) that discusses this surge in Arctic sea ice?
This isn’t newsworthy – 30% more ice? Gimme a break.
john you might want to try reading the “suggestion” from ‘Entropic man’ in context. He wasn’t asking Anthony to add the chart with STD to the WUWT sea ice page but rather was complaining about a blog post. He also confused “error bars” with STD.
I don’t need a screen shot here is the entire blog post with comments:
Entropic man said “The NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent graph at the top of this post normally has error bars for the 1979-2000 average included on the graph.” which obviously isn’t true. He confuses “error bars”, which indicate measurement uncertainty, with STD which indicates a range of values for the data presented. NOT THE SAME THING. He was responding to someone else that suggested the chart should include error bars to indicate the uncertainty in the data.
bill uki comment about confusing error bars with std dev was to a comment on this blog
keep up
and you think that watts did not really know the difference, a quick look at the NSIDC link would have shown him,?
nice try bill, the guy confused error bars with std dev but here is the link he gave
you got done again
was too funny though watts posts 2012 well before the minimum and then does another post well after the minimum, did he do one on the minimum bill,
please provide link for that
No john I didn’t get “done again”. You’re simply confused again. Read the comments. Someone suggested that the scientists should include measurement uncertainty (error bars) in the chart and ‘Entropic man’ replied with a link to the chart that shows STD. He was confused. Now you are.
They don’t matter. They add context. Or as Anthony put it it’s a “bonus”. The point is WUWT didn’t hide any charts because they included the STD. The WUWT sea ice page included the chart mentioned in that post.
Mike I can’t help but notice your blog post still says “If you remove that pesky piece of information [STD] that indicates that sea-ice decline is below average you remove the problem!”. That’s obviously not true. The NSIDC chart without STD included still shows the average and the current data which is all you need to see that the current sea ice extent is below average. The truth is that ALL of the arctic sea ice charts shown on the WUWT sea ice page clearly show that current levels are below average just as they have been for the last decade.
People on WUWT may try to argue that it doesn’t matter or debating the cause of the decline but I don’t see anyone denying that current sea ice extent is below the 1981-2010 average.
In the post from 2008 I linked there is a link to updated charts (updated meaning later that season) and in that blog entry Anthony even notes that they use a different base period for computing average that includes 2007 which makes the average lower than it would have been otherwise:
“Of course the fact that the 2007 data is included in the average line, means the average is a lower than usual target than one might expect. If we compare to ice area over at Cryopshere today, they use a 1979-2000 mean, which is higher. Still the rebound we are seeing is impressive.”
and look at the link, sea ice continues rebound,
but they bill cannot see any trend in extent nor volume,
how do you deny your own eyes bill?
Bill the mathematician cannot see a trend in the NSIDC extent data so probably will not see a trend in the PIOMAS data
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/_/rsrc/1359893289843/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png?height=360&width=480
should have gone to Spec savers
john do you ever understand the purpose of that chart? I have a feeling you don’t.
Look out John! He’s got you! He’sgoing to tell you that PIOMAS is one of those pesky models! Nevermind that that despite most observers concerns that PIOMAS was overestimating loss it now appears it is now underestimating. Regardless, here is some real data. http://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/images/362.jpg
so you cannot see a trend bill?
wrong reply box, yes i was reading something similar, next month may reveal the better data
Nice try but it seems like you don’t understand the purpose of that chart either. It’s PIOMAS data but it’s not their chart. Do you know what the purpose is?
In case YOU don’t know what PIOMAS is you can read all about it:
“PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. For the ice volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates and SST data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis are assimilated in the ice-free areas. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis SST data are based on the global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations (Reynolds and Marsico, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North.”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
yep….it’s a model. Pretty sure I said that. This is tiresome. Why can’t you people ever go to the original source? DOI: 10.1029/2011JC007084
“so you cannot see a trend bill?”
haha so you DON’T know the purpose of that chart?
There are 5 trends shown. Which one, if any, is right?
tiresome alright , forget the sts lines look at the bloody plots, you cannot be this stupid,
again can you see a bloody downward trend?
john are you unable to see the 5 trend lines displayed? Are you really unable to understand the purpose of that chart?
Here’s a hint: there’s a reason the chart goes down to zero.
c’mon buddy if you don’t understand it just admit it. Stop pretending.
you are ignoring the plots, , look at the plots
is there a trend?
It’s a lot easier if you view it at full size
enlarging removes the trend , too funny
No enlarging makes it easier to read the annotation so you can figure out what is displayed on the chart. It really is that simple john.
so you claim no trend?
It’s okay john, if you don’t understand what the purpose of that chart is simply admit it and I’ll explain it. As I said that chart displays 5 different trend lines.
ignore the bloody lines look at the plots, is there a downward trend,
yes or no ”
is it in a death spiral, yes no?
Do you understand how to calculate a trend? Yes the trend is downward. DUH. That’s obvious. As I’ve stated a couple of times already there are 5 trends displayed on that chart. What I haven’t stated – because I thought it was blatantly obvious – is that all of them are downward. As I said…DUH.
My repeated question to you which you keep avoiding is: Do you understand the purpose of that chart??? No it’s not to show that you can compute a trend 5 different ways.
Maybe you should read up on calculating a trend johnny boy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation
bill i did not even mention the different trend lines just the bloody plots , the look squirrel crap you are going on with is boring
so is it in a death spiral?
yes or no
john you asked if there is a trend. The answer is yes. The chart shows 5 trends as I’ve stated a couple of times already. Do you not know how to read a chart? There are 5 trends computed using different formulas and all are down.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/choosing-the-best-trendline-for-your-data-HP005262321.aspx
Maybe you should try playing with trendlines in Excel to help you understand them. You can’t just look at data and say what is the trend? Unless of course you want to be simplistic and just want to know if the trend is up or down.
It’s become obvious that you really don’t understand the purpose of displaying 5 different trends on that chart. That’s a shame. I would have explained it to you if you had simply asked or even just admitted your ignorance instead of trying to bluff.
here bill
PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 103 km3 . Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011 and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)
john the chart you linked uses PIOMAS data but it isn’t generated by that group. Did you know that? I haven’t questioned the purpose or validity of PIOMAS data.
yes bill it is as you say PIOMAS data and the bloody navy did a similar graph of the data, probably in on the hoax as well
If you are going to post its purpose then why post something else/
Purpose
Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continous basis. Volume estimates using age of sea ice as a proxy for ice thickness are another useful method (see here and here). Comparisons of the model estimates of the ice thickness with observations help test our understanding of the processes represented in the model that are important for sea ice formation and melt.
Seems obvious that you had never seen the PIOMAS website until I provided the link. I’m glad I could help educate you. I provided information on what PIOMAS is since uki mentioned that it’s a model.
god i check it out every month to see if there are any updates to validation
you are a fool
“its a model” has been going on for years.
it is validated, extensively , read
It’s a model. That’s what I said. I never said the data is invalid or suspect or anything else. In fact I never commented on the data. I’m trying to discern whether you understand the purpose of the chart you linked. You keep avoiding the question.
we are not talking about who understands what we are showing that the Arctic trend (from the plots) whether it be extent, areaa or volume is all headed to zero,
do you agree
bill it is the PIOMAS data , it is validated, it is confirming that the trend as you finally fess up to is down, not just down but off a cliff.
we have known it is a model since it began, see uki comment, he could see you coming
all branches of science use models , my life was just saved by one,
I didn’t say “it’s just a model” as if to imply the data is invalid. I didn’t say or imply that the data is invalid or incorrect or anything else. Try reading. Nice of you to call me a fool though when you’re the one that can’t answer a simple question. It’s okay I’m used to people like you that bluff and bully to try to hide their ignorance.
So, did you read the paper, the citation of which, I gave you? It’s curious that you haven’t responded to that or to the answer to the question you asked at my blog. You must have been satisfied with my answer or disappointed I didn’t bite.
The question I asked really has nothing to do with PIOMAS and isn’t a comment about the validity of PIOMAS data. I’ve made no comment about PIOMAS data. I asked a question to john about the chart he linked. He obviously doesn’t understand it. Hopefully you do.
none of the trends beyond the last plot are valid bill especially for arctic sea ice , it could all effin melt to zero at anytime, it is not going to last very long , as i said i could not give a shit about the different trends , it is the easiest one to find for me as i follow neven arctic ice blog every day as do NSIDC
Here’s a tip for you john: don’t cite a chart when you don’t understand what it represents. You might get called out and embarrassed again. At least here not many people will actually see your comments.
try this bill, any trend?
I’ll give you another shot john:
In the following chart what do the trends attempt to predict?
Maybe now you’ll get it.
as i said a fool a typical DK personality
You provide a link to a chart that you don’t understand and then you call me a fool. Nice.
Shit how long did that take?
we got there, usually do,
Bill Jamison says:
July 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
Do you understand how to calculate a trend? Yes the trend is downward. DUH. That’s obvious. As I’ve stated a couple of times already there are 5 trends displayed on that chart. What I haven’t stated – because I thought it was blatantly obvious – is that all of them are downward. As I said…DUH.
Now I feel bad for you john. You really don’t understand why that chart shows 5 different trends or even the purpose of the chart.
Would you like me to explain it? I promise you’ll like the answer. In fact you’ll like the chart even more once you know what information is being conveyed.
you are an idiot,
Wow MIke didn’t like it when Anthony Watts called him an idiot but you think it’s okay to call me a fool and an idiot? Not very classy johnny boy.
It would have been a lot easier if you just admitted your ignorance and let me explain the chart to you. It sounds like uki might understand it so maybe he’ll explain it to you. Like I said you’ll like the chart better once you know what it’s showing.
billy we have been trying to get you to accept the downward trend in arctic extent area and volume for 2 days now, you finally agree that volume trend is down,
you have twisted, look squirrel’d but eventually you accept the reality for volume,
seeing that it is the real story then we are all pleased that you have come here and learned something
john if you think you’ve been trying to “get me to accept the downward trend in arctic extent” for 2 days then you need to go back and read all of these comments. I never claimed the trend wasn’t down. I never even started talking about the trend until you posted the link to the chart you don’t understand. We never talked about sea ice volume until PIOMAS was brought up but again I said several times the trend is down. It is. There’s no denying it. That would be silly. It’s extremely clear.
I really think you’re just trying to deflect now to get me to stop mentioning that chart you don’t understand. I get it. It’s okay johnny boy.
“I never even started talking about the trend until you posted the link to the chart ”
we were talking about the extent trend yesterday, have you forgotten already ?
are you eric?
this will be good
Hey uki will you explain the chart for john? I would but I don’t think he’d believe me. He’s too busy getting defensive and posturing, puffing out his chest and calling me names.
uki reckons you are an idiot as well
and bill now that we have finally got here do you now accept that the trend in extent has been down since 2000 or are you still confused with temperature trend validity ?
Geez john I said that a while ago:
but that isn’t the question and that’s not the purpose of the chart you linked. Anyone that has been paying even a little attention to arctic sea ice over the last decade knows the trend is down. That’s not a question.
I have no idea what you’re referring to by “temperature trend validity” since we haven’t discussed that at all. I know I haven’t mentioned it. Are you trying to distract from the fact that you still don’t understand that chart?
you were talking about volume read comment again.. extent
BTW john the trend in the minimum sea ice extent hasn’t just been down since 2000 it’s been down since 1980. There were a few years there in the early 90’s where it recovered pretty well it continued the trend down. Recently the trend increased (meaning it went down faster). That’s clearly shown on this chart from the WUWT sea ice page:
get your short term memory checked you said that the NSIDC data did not confirm trend since 2000 yesterday
BS. If I said that you should be able to provide a link to that comment but you can’t because I never said it. Here’s what you said john:
“if you wish to hide the trend dropping below 2std dev, then use the old watts graph”.
That simply isn’t true. The chart that shows last seasons data, current data, average data, and 2 STD doesn’t show the trend at all. You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average.
Let me give you an analogy you can understand: Let’s say the current winter in Melbourne is running 2c colder than average. That’s interesting but it certainly doesn’t tell you whether the long term trend is toward warmer or colder winters in Melbourne. Just knowing the current data compared to average doesn’t indicate ANYTHING about the trend. You need to look at all the data for Melbourne and then calculate a trend. That’s how you determine if winters are getting warmer or colder not by looking at a single data point.
If you want to visualize the trend then you need to look at more data preferably all available data – like this one:
It’s becoming obvious that you lack basic understanding so you accuse me of not understanding.
yes i know that is where i got it from about an hour ago,
you also stated that there was no trend in the extent data NSIDC from 2000 using the chart
I posted the graph of the data and it shows a clear downward trend since 200, so why then did you deny it ?
so yes or no extent trend since 2000
Please don’t lie john. It’s not becoming. First you call me a fool and an idiot and now you lie about what I said. If you think you’re telling the truth then simply provide a link to my comment and I’ll apologize.
And to answer your question AGAIN: There is a clear downward trend in both arctic sea ice extent and sea ice volume, not just from 2000 on but from 1980 until now. It’s a CLEAR downward trend. The chart I provided shows it CLEARLY.
Still deflecting huh?
finally, thanks GN bill
“You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average:. you were referring to current data as being from 2000
crap, you can then plot the current data as grant has done here
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/extent_anom1.jpg?w=500&h=322
trend from 2000 is down do you agree?
“You can’t infer anything about the trend from the current data”. Maybe I should have said “from the only the current year’s data” to be more clear.
What Grant plotted is ALL the data not just the current data. The NSIDC chart in question shows only last year’s data, this year’s current data, and the average. You can’t infer a trend from those 3 things you need more data.
You really don’t understand, do you john?
Let me put it another way: 1980 sea ice data is not “current data” it’s historical data. Current data is the latest data. The point of the NSIDC chart we’ve been discussing is to show the current data.
Wow this is getting silly.
Okay I’m going to apologize john. I see how you misunderstood what I said. You claimed the STD was needed to show the trend and I said it wasn’t. The NSIDC doesn’t show the trend and it doesn’t have enough data to infer a trend. It shows the current year’s data and last year’s data. Regardless of whether the STD is included or not you can’t tell the trend from just that limited data.
So you thought I meant that you can’t tell if the trend is down or not but that’s not at all what I meant. I was speaking specifically about the ability to discern any trend using the NSIDC chart showing current season and previous season data plotted against the average.
If you want to identify the trend then plot all of the data like Grant did. Notice he didn’t include any SD? It’s not necessary when showing a trend or computing one. There are several charts on the WUWT sea ice page that show all of the historical data available and some include trendlines. All show that the trend in the arctic is down.
Clear?
BTW I thought it was clear that “current data” meant “this year’s data”:
“The chart that shows last seasons data, current data, average data, and 2 STD doesn’t show the trend at all. You can’t infer anything about the trend from current data. It simply shows you where the current data is in comparison to the average.”
Since you’re familiar with the chart in question you should know what data is plotted. No where do I say or infer that “current data” means data since 2000 although you obviously thought I did:
“you were referring to current data as being from 2000”.
To be clear when I say “current data” I’m referring to the most recent data for this year. Everything else is historical.
bill creationists read everything as a literal statement, like you they can see only one meaning for a word, so you believe that current can only ref to things like current news when it clearly from the NSIDC quote refers also to current in the context of the
“to allow NSIDC to match current National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard baselines of 1981 to 2010 for weather and climate data”
the baseline from 1981 to 2010 and the 2std dev is current
the temperature data graph for the period from 1890 is also current,
you may need to do a course in logic .
You have a strange personality bill, here we find that the Arctic is in a death spiral due to humans, we both know that watts does everything he can to distort the facts and to deny the reality of that and what the loss of summer ice will mean.
and yet you come here to defend him for choosing a graph which hid the 2012 minimum going beyond the boundary of 2stddev, as if it was useless information,
NSIDC,. obviously after reading mike’s post decided to add the shading and make willard look stupid with identical graphs
thanks for explaining to us that you cannot get a trend from one year plot,.oh dear
Oh john there you go again trying to deflect from the fact that you can’t read a chart. You and Mike claim that by not including STD it prevents someone from seeing the trend “If you remove them, you cannot perceive the trend.” This is clearly a false statement. The current year’s data plotted with the average and/or STD tells you NOTHING about the trend. Are you incapable of understanding that? Your boorish behavior is here for everyone to see and it’s clear then when you can’t justify your statements with fact you insult and attack. That’s unfortunate. You continue to try to make a big deal out of the fact that Anthony Watts didn’t update his sea ice page to include 1 new chart when there are 40 charts on the sea ice page including ones that show the STD. To continue to harp on that is silly. It’s a non-issue.
I love how you use the term “death spiral” as if it’s a scientific fact or even that humans have caused the reduction in sea ice. Do you really think it’s that simple? Are you really that ignorant of the science that shows how complex climate is? There are ocean currents, weather patterns, wind patterns, etc. all at work. But that isn’t the point of this thread – you’re just trying to deflect from the fact that you don’t understand standard deviations, trendlines, or even how to read a chart. And when you’re called out on your failure to understand you choose to attack and insult and deflect instead of just admitting the truth. It’s all here for anyone to see john and it sure doesn’t make you look good.
so watts did not update his sea ice page by adding the NSIDC 2std dev,
oh yes he did bill,
Oh I see you take the “all to complicated for us mortals to understand, denial position”
that is just you bill, we understand it perfectly,
bill there are research papers that put human contribution for the Arctic sea ice loss at 75% to 95%
give watts the flick and try reading scientific papers,
Hey john how much of observed warming in the arctic is thought to be due to black carbon? Or do you even know about that issue? Are you aware that the extremely low sea ice minimum in 2007 was due to unusual wind patterns that blew the ice out of the arctic via the Fram Strait?
“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Did you know that johnny boy? Or did you just assume that all that sea ice melted because it was hot?
bill there is so much misunderstanding in that comment,
it is not even wrong bill,unless you believe that such wind patterns and atmospheric conditions are new to the Arctic?
see how silly your understanding is ?
So NOAA doesn’t understand the unusual wind patters in the arctic? Really?
Well then how about a peer-reviewed paper john?
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011.html
Fromyour reference.
The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is clearly related to increased long-wave radiation caused by ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase, but other factors have
also contributed (Smedsrud et al. 2008). Once the ice thick- ness decreased substantially a number of feedback effects may have contributed (Perovich et al.,2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds ,2010).
crash and burn bill
NSIDC
June is a transition period for Arctic sea ice as 24-hour daylight reigns, and melt reaches towards the North Pole. Thus it is an appropriate time for NSIDC to transition to a new 30-year baseline period, also called a “climate normal.” The satellite record is now long enough to allow NSIDC to match current National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard baselines of 1981 to 2010 for weather and climate data.
now do you understand current?
Oh I understand it john but obviously you don’t. Earlier you claimed that the average should be based on 1979-2000. It’s obvious you don’t know that the WMO standard baseline period is 30 years not 20.
You post something as a “gotcha” and all it does is show your ignorance john. That’s sad.
Current data is just that – current. It’s not the last 13 years of data or the last 30 years of data. To claim otherwise is foolish. In fact the only time the word “current” is used in your post is when it’s used to describe the “current” WMO standard baseline. Not the one from 13 years ago but the most recent one. The current one.
what are you on about ?
” Earlier you claimed that the average should be based on 1979-2000″
you may be confusing uki typo, I read it and knew that it was a typo,
john byatt wrote “use 1979 2000 average”
John do you not know that the WMO defines “climate normal” (or average if you prefer) as a 30 year period?
“Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.”
So why do you claim we should use a 20 year period for average instead of the 30 year period now used by NSIDC?
Okay john I’m going to try to educate you here so you can comprehend the chart you linked with the PIOMAS data. The purpose of that chart is to use different mathematical formulas to compute trends as a way of extrapolating future results of sea ice volume. In this case they specifically are trying to extrapolate when (meaning which year) the sea ice volume will reach zero.
Here’s a little write up about trend forecasting that might help you:
http://www.mnfuturists.org/Tuturials/TrendForecasting.htm
Now go back and view the chart and notice where the colored trend lines intersect the X axis which indicates zero sea ice volume.
What you should see is that the range of forecasts is from 2014 to 2020+. Does that mean sea ice volume will definitely reach zero (meaning an ice free arctic in the summer) by 2020? Nope it doesn’t. These are simple mathematical trends using different formulas. They don’t take physics into account they are simply based on numbers. The arctic *may* be ice free next year but I don’t think it will be. By 2020? Sure it’s possible. If the current trend continues then it will be likely.
Only time will tell if the arctic will end up ice free in the summer any time in the next 20 years or not. Even scientists can’t agree on when or if it will happen. It’s not as simple as just plotting numbers on a chart and making assumptions. Climate never is.
no shit sherlock and as I told you yesterday , any trend projections beyond the last plot has no predictive power for Arctic sea ice summer end date whatsoever, even Gavin Schmidt from NASA agrees with me on that point, you just repeat my point and claim it as yours,
we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics, you do not choose to be an honorable ancestor i see,
The simple fact is that the Arctic is poised to hit at least a one day zero any year from now, for the first time since humans walked upon the earth.
it all seems to be beyond your comprehension .
Really john? You’re not aware of the science that shows that arctic was probably ice free about 6,000 years ago? It’s not based on model simulations but actual physical evidence.
“Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
So unless you believe that man wasn’t walking on the earth 6,000 years ago your statement can’t be supported by the physical evidence and science.
You really should try to educate yourself before you post on a subject like this and display your ignorance.
bill that paper has been doing the rounds of the sceptic sites for years, will just explain it thus, sea ice along the greenland coast is not a proxy for a total ice free state,
go to the paper then read all papers which cite it,
much better proxies are ocean bottom dwelling creatures which are different during ice covered and ice free Arctic, leave you to follow up on that,
Is it a proxy for significantly reduced arctic sea ice?
bill as i said, follow it up and new research shows that when the Greenland side has low sea ice opposite side has been high and vice versa
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
Have been following Fram all season, Nares is the interesting development at the moment with lots of MYI about to depart, Must be unusual again?
still looking bill?
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
No john I’m not “still looking”. So are you claiming that NOAA doesn’t know what they’re talking about?
It’s not unusual that SOME ice exits the Fram Strait. That’s normal. But trying reading what they wrote about how 2007 specifically compares to previous years and even decades and how the wind patterns were unusual.
So do you admit that much of the sea ice that was lost in 2007 didn’t simply melt in the arctic because it was warmer than usual?
This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?
i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.
impacts due to arctic cyclones atmospheric conditions and wind have not had the impact in the past which they now have due to the weak thin and broken up ice
as I stated before the current conditions in the arctic are due 75% to 95% human caused global warming and arctic amplification from that
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
I like your new name AKINICE KICI GNAYE.
No not new just looks better in lakota, seeing it is my indian name
h/t ?
yes uki people like john are saying exactly that: “we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics”
Sure blame “people like me” whatever that means. No I’m not trying to convince anyone that changes we have witnesses are purely natural. You keep assuming you know my intentions and then you turn out to be wrong. Just like with PIOMAS.
But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.
“But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.”
So, you are opposed to namecalling in this so-called debate?
missed
read it again, select each part that is evidence for the above load of tripe
uknowispeaksense says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:09 am
This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?
i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.
it’s gotta be eric
He’s not Eric.
what he said
uknowispeaksense says:
July 12, 2013 at 3:29 am
From your (bill) reference.
The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is clearly related to increased long-wave radiation caused by ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase, but other factors have
also contributed (Smedsrud et al. 2008). Once the ice thick- ness decreased substantially a number of feedback effects may have contributed (Perovich et al.,2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds ,2010).
you should read what you ref bill
put it back up as he seems to have ignored it
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
try reading again
uknowispeaksense says:
July 12, 2013 at 4:09 am
This is painful. Nobody is saying the ice reduction is purely from melting however, the ice being pushed around in the Arctic is due to it being much thinner and at the mercy of changed weather patterns. Hmmmmm, now I wonder why the weather patterns are different? Could it be due to increased energy in the system? Could it be an anthropogenic feedback loop? Maybe the Arctic climate is complex and multiple forcings and feedbacks, many of them anthropogenic are affecting ice, air and water?
i think I know what you are trying to do, but if you are going to try and convince anyone here that what is going on is purely natural, you are barking up the wrong tree. All natural forcings and feedbacks have been examined in great depth and cannot account for the loss. Even the changes in weather patterns you have mentioned have been attributed to extra energy in the system as an indirect result of anthropogenic CO2 increase. If you are able to provide some other mechanism, I am pretty sure the actual experts would love to hear about it, although I am confident they have ruled out anything you can think of.
lots of small pieces of evidence for the Arctic conditions over millions of years
here is one such small piece for past 800,000 years
http://www.vliz.be/imis/imis.php?module=ref&refid=206080&pp=print
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
I wrote a post that apparently got disappeared. I simply linked to all of the charts on the WUWT sea ice page that DON’T show the STD.
Is someone going to notify all those groups that their charts are “dishonest” “cherry picking” and “misrepresenting data”?
they are multi year graphs , don’t waste our time and they did not disappear , read again it will probably say in moderation due more than one link
sorry forgot i was talking to mister literal ,
probably say ” in moderation ” due to having more than one link
This is a multi year graph john and yet it shows STD:
In fact the chart that Mike original complained about is a multi year graph too – it shows last year and this year.
I noticed you never admitted your mistakes in all of this john as you accused Anthony Watts of using the interactive graphing facility to generate a custom chart.
What an asinine statement to make, “Is someone going to notify all those groups that their charts are “dishonest” “cherry picking” and “misrepresenting data”? If you believe that’s true, that’s your job.
So repost the “post that apparently got disappeared”
Is it an asinine statement? People here have claimed that it’s necessary to include STD on charts to provide context. Of course some have erroneously claimed that you need the STD to be able to see the trend which is untrue and shows a lack of understanding.
The first sentence of this blog entry is “This is how you do denial and flagrantly cherry pick data.” referring to the chart that doesn’t include STD. If that were true then DMI, JAXA, NORSC-ROOS, etc. are guilty since their charts don’t include STD.
What you don’t seem to understand Gregory is that the chart without STD was the only chart produced by NSIDC initially. They added the STD in 2009 to provide additional context yet they continued to produce the original chart. The sea ice reference page was never updated to include the new chart yet other charts on the WUWT sea ice page do show the STD. Anthony Watts didn’t cherry pick data and didn’t customize a chart to hide the STD. Yet that’s what people claimed
Later in the blog entry Mike wrote “And when you exclude something, it is because you may not want it to be seen.” Do you really think that those other agencies are hiding something? WUWT didn’t hide the new chart in fact a link was provided to NSIDC where viewers could get all of the data first hand. Nothing hidden.
Mike finished up by saying “Now it is time for them to acknowledge the information presented in the graphs at WUWT lacks context. Now is the time for them to admit WUWT uses a presentation format four years out of date.” The format wasn’t “four years out of date” the chart was still current. Just because NSIDC created an additional chart that showed STD it didn’t make the original chart out of date. This claim is pretty silly considering there are 40 different charts and graphics on the WUWT sea ice reference page that clearly show all of the data. Some charts include STD most do not. But WUWT doesn’t generate any custom charts they simply link to publicly available charts from various groups. It’s a reference page where interested parties can access a ton of information, nothing hidden, nothing photoshopped, nothing modified.
Nah load of codswallop, watts last year presented his no std dev graph to show the increase in winter ice but never acknowledged how far the minimum went below the 2std dev because he wished to hide that fact,
yet he knew of the udpdated graph,
it was only coming here that you even knew of the updated graphs existence,
most of watts flying monkeys thought that they were error bars or a confidence range,
you probably did also until we educated you on that.
Actually john some of us can read and since it says right on the chart +/- 2 standard deviation range it was pretty clear what the gray shaded area represents.
Anthony Watts has been using the same chart consistently for YEARS. It doesn’t hide anything. It clearly shows that recent years have been well below average. That’s what the chart shows whether it includes the STD or not. Neither chart is hiding anything despite your repeated claims. Otherwise every other chart created by all of those other organizations are hiding something too. You wouldn’t possibly be dumb enough to claim that JAXA, DMI, etc. are hiding something would you?
From this post it appears that YOU are the one initially confused about the STD thinking it was error bars:
“what gave me a laugh was that some of you were going on about error bars during the melt season but according to willard posts they are not required during the record ice gain during the winter recovery”
Of course you never provide a link when you refer to something so no one could ever actually verify your claims. Intentional john?
“Actually john some of us can read and since it says right on the chart +/- 2 standard deviation range it was pretty clear what the gray shaded area represents.”
watt’s graph did not have a grey are nor the +/- 2, you only saw it for the first time when you came here, probably read through the post and comments to get the understanding what the shaded area meant.
if you knew about the std dev why didn’t you inform watts, you comment there all the time
the reason that you did not comment on it was because you did not even know about it.
so you have learnt something new at least
john you really like to make assumptions don’t you? I’ve seen the chart many times before because I often read the monthly sea ice news from NSIDC. As you know they’ve been using the chart with STD since 2009.
I love how you think you can tell me what I’ve seen before. What arrogance. In addition other charts on the WUWT sea ice page have included the 1 STD range for a long time. Please don’t pretend to school me. It makes you look like a arrogant fool.
Remember this?
“uknowispeaksense says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:31 am
“But what it does come down to is that we can’t prevent these changes going forward. It’s too late. We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact. Or we can continue to call each other names and disparage people in the hopes of silencing them.”
So, you are opposed to namecalling in this so-called debate?”
We both know why you aren’t answering. Couldn’t have you looking like a hypocrite. Let’s see? It was over at WUWT in a comment about Peter Gleick that you made a comment about “alarmists” wasn’t it?
Do you consider the term “alarmists” to be name calling? If I called someone a name then please provide a link.
With all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. However, given the context of your comment about namecalling, I will assume you are opposed to it.
I will answer YOUR question though. Collectively labelling a group of people is namecalling. Personally, I don’t have a problem with being labelled anything. I have a very thick skin and like to call things as I see them. Idiots are idiots, deniers are deniers. Hypocrites are hypocrites.
So you don’t see a difference between saying “some idiots” and “you’re an idiot”?
Really?
How many threads did you have to search on WUWT to find that? Did you first try to search for my name and idiot or fool to see if I had called anyone those names?
If it matters I disagree with you. If I say “some alarmists look foolish” it’s not name calling any more than saying “some skeptics look foolish”. Specifically in this context we’re talking about referring directly to another poster and calling them names. It should be easy to understand the difference.
Uh huh. I had a private bet on how you would answer. Thanks for the pub lunch.
and to answer your question, I searched your name and whatsupwiththat. I have a pretty good handle on you now. When you tell Anthony Watts to “keep up the good work” well…..what can I say? If you think the work of spreading disinformation, insulting people, producing an echo chamber of ignorance, lying and being a sanctimonious arsehole is good, well, so be it.
Wow uki I’m honored (or scared?) that you would bother to spend time reading my comments over on WUWT. At least it didn’t take a lot of time since I don’t comment over there frequently.
So if saying “some alarmists” is name calling then what do you call someone saying “most of Watt’s flying monkeys”…? Apparently you condone it since you haven’t called john out on it.
What you should have noticed based on my comments on WUWT is that I’m pretty moderate in my opinions. I don’t go off half cocked attacking people or insulting them. I can tell which blog entries are a load of garbage and which ones are reasonable. I don’t drink the Kool Aid like some.
You must have trouble reading. I said…
“Personally, I don’t have a problem with being labelled anything. I have a very thick skin and like to call things as I see them. Idiots are idiots, deniers are deniers. Hypocrites are hypocrites.”
Hey uki did you see this comment from me on WUWT?
“Anthony I agree with your conclusion but I have an issue with your use of the nickname “moonbeam”. It’s ugly and reminds me of grade school. After all, he is the governor. Just as I detest the use of “deniers” I also detest the use of intentionally mean nicknames here.”
It looks like I have more posts here than I have on WUWT in the last year!
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Collective terms like “alarmists” is ok but referring to someone as an alarmist isn’t? You see, what I got from you is that you are opposed to singling out individuals for namecalling. So referring to the governor as “moonbeam” was wrong for Anthony to do. However, in your post to Anthony you also said you didn’t approve of the word “deniers”, which is collective. From this, it looks like you are opposed to namecalling when it is directed at individuals from either side of the “debate” or groups of deniers. A very interesting position to take.
The other possibilities are that you weren’t clear enough in your response to Anthony or you just talk shit, the colour of which, depends on which blog you happen to be visiting.
Whatever…. I must say though, I am impressed with the latest bit of passive-aggressiveness you displayed to JB in threatening to comment here often. Personally, I hope you do. I like to be reminded that it takes all sorts of people to make the world go around and you certainly are appearing to be all sorts of people.
I disapprove of the word “deniers” because of the pejorative connotation. It’s also not specific. For example if you label me a “denier” then what am I denying? That the world has warmed? Nope, I know the world has warmed. That man has contributed to that warming? Nope, I agree that man has contributed to the warming. That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world? Nope, I understand the physics behind it (or at least enough to understand the concept I’m not a physics expert by any means).
I’m a skeptic. I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs. I’m skeptical of plans to tax carbon to reduce usage and lower emissions. I think that technology is the solution not higher taxes. I’m FOR green energy and a sustainable future.
I don’t see the term “alarmists” being pejorative in the same way as “deniers”. And I’m not referring to everyone that accepts the theory of AGW as an alarmist. I’m specifically referring to people that try to alarm others to goad them into action. In some cases they don’t care if what they’re saying is true or not as long as it gets people to act. I disagree.
In the post I assume you’re referencing I said “It really is mind blowing that some alarmists fall for this kind of stuff.” referring to Peter Gleick posting a picture of a melted streetlight and blaming it on global warming when it was actually due to a fire near the streetlight. As if streetlights would start melting – and only half of it! – because it’s 110F when it’s not unusual for temps to hit 120F in Kuwait. It was a silly thing for him to say, wouldn’t you agree? It questions his credibility IMO.
But the issue about name calling was regarding these forums and trying to intimidate and insult someone – silence them? – by calling them names. I think that’s inappropriate and not conducive to intelligent discussion. But then neither is trying to play games with people instead of just being honest and clear.
I will let uki respond to the bulk of this but peter’s traffic light melt was tongue in cheek played up by morons like nova as only half tongue in cheek, yes peter thinks about 115F will melt a traffic light, you could only get a denier to think he believed that
so scratch that example of alarmism, you claim to be sceptical, but are really quite gullible
No john it wasn’t tongue in cheek he really believed it. That’s obvious by the fact that he had a follow up tweet explaining that it was a fire that caused it. The same thing happened last year when Stephen Lacey tweeted that “In Oklahoma, it’s so hot the streetlights are melting”
When people post such stupid claims it hurts there credibility and makes them look either really dumb or really gullible. Take your pick. But to excuse it as “tongue in cheek” is ridiculous. If Watts did the same thing you’d jump all over it.
Bill Jamison says:
July 12, 2013 at 6:05 am
yes uki people like john are saying exactly that: “we have buggard the Arctic due to the failure of people like you to understand even the basics”
I have said that the current situation in the Arctic has a 5% to 25% weather contribution,
BUT
that 5% to 25% would have had no influence whatsoever if it was not for most of the warming being due to humans, so the bottom line is we have buggard the Arctic
“We can only hope to adapt and mitigate their impact.”
mitigation, you mean like drastically reducing greenhouse emissions ?
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
no john simply reducing GHG emissions won’t be enough now. Plus you’ll never convince China and India to reduce their emissions. DId you know that the US pretty drastically reduced emissions over the last couple of years and yet globally emissions increased? The US is switching to from coal to natural gas for electrical generation because it’s cleaner and cheaper and easier to meet emissions goals. Plus we have a massive amount of reserves. That helps reduce GHG emissions. But it’s not enough. You can’t expect third world countries to go without when they see first world countries enjoy all of the benefits of cheap plentiful energy.
So by mitigation I’m referring to lessening the impact of rising seas and higher temperatures. Maybe you’ve heard the term “the warming is in the pipeline”?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Search-For-Missing-Heat-Confirms-More-Global-Warming-In-The-Pipeline-.html
Are you only chance is to adapt and learn to live with it.
“. Please don’t pretend to school me. It makes you look like a arrogant fool.”
“Maybe you’ve heard the term “the warming is in the pipeline”?
AKINICE KICI GNAYE
In case you didn’t twig billy boy, i was playing with your mind in above comments to get exactly that response, lesson learnt?
So you were trying to look like an arrogant fool john? In that case you succeeded.
Fail
No, really, you succeed! Maybe you normally fail but this time you were definitely a success.
No i assure you that you came across as an arrogant fool so i decided to play with your mind until you responded and understood just what an arrogant old fool you were,
you obviously are a selfish old buggar who does not give a hoot about future generations, quite happy to leave others to suffer the consequences of inaction, that is really i suppose why i detest, loathe and in general find you and the flying monkeys a load of self serving old and arrogant hypocrites.
that is just me though i suppose,
Ah yes so you’re playing the self-righteous I’m holier than thou card.
So what exactly are YOU doing to stop GHG emissions besides posting on this blog that almost no one reads? Do you drive an electric car? Anthony Watts does. Do you have a house with solar panels? Anthony Watts does. Have you helped local schools install solar panels? Yep, Anthony Watts has. What exactly have YOU done to be so self-righteous?
I feel so much more powerful now that I know my few posts on WUWT will have such a substantial impact on the world in the future. Butterfly effect?
I take your criticism to heart john and I promise that from now on I will post more on this blog so I can prevent our children from suffering!
interesting piece on “we should adapt at ABC,
this person agreed,
is this the idealogy of that position?
One item that writers utterly refuse to distinguish is that there is climate change which is created by our Creator, not mere puny mans’ overall doing. It is arrogant and ignorant to even imagine that the dramatic climate change that is coming can be pinned or blamed on mankind. Global emissions is just a small selection compared to all of the relative laws in the universe known to man and you are most correct to state it is a pipe dream of seriously mitigating climate change. The sceptics are correct in the sense that climate change is happening but not from man. It is from our Creator and the laws, rules, rhythms, rules and principles both known and unknown. There has been unmistakeable clap-trap and pseudo-science created by the corporate press and media to collude with those that are ‘installing’ a $trillion dollar annual system of taxing its citizens without democratic representation.
The pagan Gaia myth of ‘Mother Earth’ is trying to replace or counterfeit the real true worship of our Creator. There has been recently many articles worldwide entitled ‘God’s Judgements or Climate Change’ comparing God’s faithfulness is greater than humanity’s greed and destruction that seems to continued unabated. Our human failure to govern ourselves peacefully and respectfully is waning quickly and people are searching for the divine promises instead of fear, destruction and excessive taxation.
Bill I will bet you right here and now that my carbon footprint is less than half of Willards. In fact I will bet you that me and my wife together have only half the carbon footprint that watts has
While willard is trying to spread denial, i have been door to door explaining that we need action, Last election Larrisa Waters, Greens QLD was given little chance of securing a senate position,
I am not a member of the greens but i knew that if we were to have any chance at getting an ETS and action in this country then we needed the Greens in the senate, I therefore spent two months prior to the vote electioneering for her along with many others throughout the state,
she did win a senate position and the greens managed to get the action required started due to the minority government.The rest is History
All it takes is people like mike and Uki to expose the likes of willard, as many do,
Blogs like this do their small but vital part, not for cash, adulation or fame like willard but because they wish to leave a better planet for their children,
unlike you they understand the science and the possible consequences of inaction.
The deniers hate me bill, tough titty, i write letters which are printed in regional papers and members of parliament.
I wear their hatred and ridicule as a badge of honor
damn john they were simple questions: do you drive an electric car and have you installed solar panels?
Instead you make a claim that can never be proven or disproven.
So that’s all you’ve done – gone door to door telling people they need to take action? What action would that be john? Should your neighbors go door to door telling more people they should take action?
Bill,
Saying “you will never get India and china to reduce emissions is in my view disingenuous. First of all you don’t know that and second of all you ignore the fact that BECAUSE the US has refused to do much of anything to limit CO2, they are easily able ot use that as an excuse. Also you ignore that China DOES consider ACC to be a serious problem and are implementing many more resources to solving the problem. Most “deniers” don;t acknowledge that Solyndra went belly up, because standard Solar cells had a huge price drop BECAUSE of Chinese solar cells.
Also deniers ignore that US CO2 emissions went down because of the RECESSION, not because of any policy changes.
And like deniers you say that we can’t expect third world countries to go without when they see us enjoying all the benefits of cheap energy. Well you CERTAINLY can’t expect them to try to cut CO2 emissions through public policy when we are not doing so.
and deniers also say our only chance is to adapt and learn to live with it. You are certainly partly right about the first part. We need to adapt for the effects that are definitely going to happen, but it is just foolish to then do nothing about preventing possibly much worse effects that we would have to adapt to, if we can do much more to prevent those effects from happening.
I admit I have not been able to read all 500+ comments on here, but i want to let yu know that I ONLY use the term denier to people who have clearly shown that they are only interested in facts that either deny the reality of ACC or only are interested in undermining a realistic understanding of the science.
I certainly don’t call Pilke a denier, he and in a different way Curry, is an opportunist, both of whom do present some important issues.
WUWT< Goddard, Jo Nova, Bishop Hill, Heritage. qualify as deniers because I don;t see any interest in anything but an agenda to undermine actual knowledge of the science.
You’re right Tony I can’t know for sure if China will reduce their emissions. I can only go off projected scenarios from experts such as this one that shows continued emissions growth through 2025 or 2030:
Click to access LBL_4472E_Energy_2050.April_.2011_1.pdf
While I agree with you that the recession played a part (possibly a large part) in the reduction of GHG by the US, the IEA credited switching from coal to natural gas for electrical generation due to low natural gas prices:
“According to figures in the IEA’s report “Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map”, the nation has cut its carbon dioxide emissions in four out of the last five years, largely by switching from coal to natural gas – a cleaner fuel.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23687-us-emissions-hit-first-low-since-mid1990s.html#.UeM4Lm1upNZ
You make it sound like China and India will simply agree to lower emissions or at least cap growth if the US does. What is there incentive? Are you aware that they were not covered by treaties such as Kyoto?
Bill,
those are of course projected scenarios that come from a history of the US refusing to implement international agreements about climate change, and in likely being shown to have bribed and arm twisted countries to lessen standards for treaties the US did not implement. This of course reinforces my point that without the US taking an aggressive stance on this issue internationally it will be almost impossible to get other countries to do much about it.
it is kind of like NAZI’s complaining that they have significantly cut down on their extermination policies, while other countries increase their exterminations, but the NAZI decrease was because there are less jews and not because they are trying to cut back. and that the NAZI’s have been shown to actually trying to coerce other countries into not making extermination cuts mandatory. Not really going to fool anyone. (yes I like flouting Godwin’s law when it is analogous even if quite inappropriate).
I have no doubt that switching to natural gas had an impact and I am all for reasoned economically sensitive approaches to decreases CO2.I am pretty sure that this was an economic change and had little to do with policy to decrease CO2, though I am sure that that it played some role.
Yes, I am aware of the exceptions for developing countries in Kyoto. Are you aware that when Kyoto was drafted The US had MUCH higher CO2 emissions than either country when Kyoto was drafted?
You are of course not accurate when you say developing countries were not “covered”, the actual truth is that they were not subject to mandated cuts, but still committed to decreasing emissions.
I do not at all believe India and China would just do what the US wants them to do if we changed out policy. I am SURE it would put much more pressure on both of them. as well as make it much easier for the rest of the world to promote increased reduction sin CO2
I assume you are aware, as I pointed out in my last comment that china is putting MUCH more effort into renewables than the US is. Why is that?
I also assume you are aware that much of the industrial base that is the source of the extraordinarily high CO 2 emissions is for economic activity that produces products for the west including the United States.
You are of course aware that on a per capita basis the US still has a much higher carbon foot print than Either china or India and will for many years to come.
Tony I never claimed that the reduction was due to a desire to reduce emissions instead of purely economic incentive. But when gas is cheaper and cleaner then there is an obvious incentive to convert.
Do you have a link to any studies showing that China would reduce their emissions (or at least not increase them at projected rates) if the US agrees to reduce emissions? I haven’t seen any yet that’s the claim you seem to be making. I don’t think China cares about US emissions or global treaties.
Yes I am aware that some (don’t know any details) of China’s emissions are from economic activity producing goods for the west. That’s obvious. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t think things like a carbon tax will work in the long run. We simply shift the emissions off shore. If we reduce coal use in this country then we’ll just ship it to China, India, or even Africa when they’ll burn it and they’ll do it without the emissions controls required in the US.
Bill,
Not sure how you imagine i or anyone would have a link to a study that shows China and India would cut emissions if the US aggressively initiated emission cut policies on CO2. There are historical examples of analogous situations.
But your argument seems to be that even though the US has been historically by far the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, and even though the US has done almost nothing as far as policy is concerned until recently to limit CO2 emissions. And the only way to make any progress toward cutting emissions is for the entire world to do so, we should NOT bother policies for cutting OUR emissions because it might not have any effect on those other countries.
I have an idea, why don’t we TRY a serious policy of reducing emissions, TRY pressuring China and India into international agreements that cause then to limit their emissions, and if after 5 years they just thumb their noses at us and the rest of the world, we can go back to pumping as much of the stuff as we want, DAMN the consequences, and we will show the Chinese just how stupid they are !!!!
Tony my argument is simple: If the US drastically cuts emissions it will have little to no effect on global emissions. If we spend billions of dollars and get no return then it’s wasted money and effort. On the other hand if we spend that same money on mitigation, new technology, etc. then the money is an investment in the future.
Everything I’ve read says that we’re in for further warming. We need to prepare for that warming and that needs spending billions of dollars on things to mitigate damage from rising sea levels and other impacts of warming. That’s where I think we need to spend the money.
I read recently that the recent increase in GHG emissions from Asia is more than the total emissions of the US. In other words just the increase exceeds the total output of US emissions. That’s the real battle that is being faced in trying to reduce emissions.
There comes a time where you have to face facts and realize what the real battle is. IMO that battle is dealing with climate change. Some don’t see it that way obviously. But all one has to do is look at the inaction and lack of treaties to know it’s true. How many Kyoto signatories met their required emission reductions?
Bill,
I have no problem putting resources into mitigation. I am not sure I have seen anyone except deniers argue against mitigation efforts. The only way i see a supporter of ACC NOT support mitigation, is if they think we should suffer for our sin of creating the problem> something that is widely touted by deniers but not something I have seen expressed in the blogs and articles that I have read. I have always assumed that after there was no way to deny ACC that deniers would switch over to mitigation and adaptation as a continued excuse not to do anything about increase in CO2. since it has been a core argument that reducing cheap energy would result in with there not being any problem because ACC is either a fraud or will cause little increase in temp. They will continue arguing that cheap energy would allow mitigation to make the effects unimportant, without bothering to do a serious cost benefit of transition from fossil fuels that includes the possibility of 2-4°C increase in temps.
The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that there will not be sufficient global action to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, so that therefore there should be NO reduction in CO2 emission, regardless of the consequences, that mitigation will, no matter what, be sufficient to prevent any problems from being to bad.
now, I acknowledge that is a logically viable position to take. and while possibly correct, I must say I consider it verging on insanity. BUt what if it turns out that the effects of the temp increases overwhelm any real possibility of mitigation. What if we find out in 2035 that there is some massive environmental effect that we can’t prevent coral reefs, or plankton. and it need not be ONE thing that is so particularly devastating. the stresses for overpopulation, land use, etc coupled with ACC could lead to numerous. there are a number of scenario’s with impacts that are at least somewhat understood that could lead to this sort of problem and almost surely unexpected issues that could take us completely by surprise.
in your concluding paragraph you completely ignore the point i have been making. the fact that the US has not ratified and in fact has in some ways helped to torpedo the international treatise is a very powerful explanation for the lack of international action. And once effects of ACC become indisputable there will be strong motivations both for governments and private parties to rapidly increase efforts to decrease CO2 and the pressure to develop effective economic policy will become stronger and stronger.
I am actually pretty optimistic that within 10-20 years of destructive events that cannot be denied, there will be a massive transformation of society, in the same way that countries mobilize for war, and I am confident that there will be incredible technological developments that will help as well as a powerful conservation of energy movement.
you insisting that this is not possible and a waste of time is just, in my opinion, either a cynical assertion, or a ruse to prevent action against climate change.
But as long as you are advocating immediate actions toward mitigation, I am happy to join you in efforts against those who feel it is a waste of resources to do anything at all. Things like the NC legislature saying there is no need to worry about increasing sea levels to the short term benefit of real estate interests.
Tony I doubt that bill understands what mitigation means, getting most of his understanding of the science from Watts, he believes that the planet is a self regulation system which always returns to the temperature ideal for human civilisation, a perverted understanding of Gaia hypothesis?.
Bill is a perfect example of the result of watt’s misinformation blog of nonsense. ill informed and lacking even a basic logical analysis of the science
a recent post at WTFIUMA likened Mann to a creationist which brought Watt’s creationist followers out of the woodwork, he immediately backtracked realising that a large number of his followers were insulted by the remark,
Tony you said:
“The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that there will not be sufficient global action to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, so that therefore there should be NO reduction in CO2 emission, regardless of the consequences, that mitigation will, no matter what, be sufficient to prevent any problems from being to bad.”
I never said that. Never implied it. It’s not my position and never has been. I’ve also never believed that mitigation will be “sufficient to prevent any problems from being bad”. Not sure where you came up with those.
I’m FOR green energy. I’m strongly for nuclear energy particularly some of the newer technologies such as molten salt and pebble bed reactors. I believe we can build safe nuclear plants that produce significantly less waste. I’m confident that we’ll continue to make big gains in efficiency of solar panels while at the same time the cost comes down. It won’t be long before it’s a no-brainer to install solar panels on homes because it will be affordable and efficient. The remaining problem is energy storage but progress is even being made there.
We can dramatically reduce energy consumption through improve insulation and efficiency of everything from light bulbs to automobiles to windows. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Not a new concept but still very valid. I don’t know about where you live but I see so much waste around me that it’s ridiculous. We can do better, we MUST do better. Less energy usage results in lower emissions. Pretty simple concept especially when combined with an increase in renewable energy.
I said we should focus on mitigation because I don’t believe simply taxing carbon and other expensive schemes aimed to reduce emissions will have a noticeable impact particularly long term. If that’s true – and there is definitely reason to believe it is since developing countries have increased their emissions dramatically – then we are in for warming. Since there’s only so much money to spend we can either spend it on a possibly futile effort to prevent the warming or we can spend it on mitigation. If nothing else spending on mitigation may buy us time to develop real solutions for climate change.
Notice that I never suggest we “do nothing”.
Just in case anyone doesn’t understand what “mitigate” means:
mit·i·gate
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile
2: to make less severe or painful : alleviate
So when I suggest we invest in mitigation efforts I’m suggesting we invest in things such as sea walls that will lessen the impact of rising sea levels. It’s not about mitigating higher temperature but rather mitigating the impact of those higher temperatures.
bill,
well that makes much more sense. you can disregard some of my points in another part of this thread.
I still think you are making an unnecessary and possibly dangerous assumption that because world CO2 emissions are increasing now that international co-operation and public policy, including things like taxes will not be valuable and important means of decreasing the cause of ACC. As I said, I believe that once the effects are undeniable there will be rapid movement toward decreasing emission AND mitigation.
HT robert http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/us-energy-experiencies-natural-gas-to-coal-whiplash-natural-gas-bridge-to-sustainability-collapses-yet-again/
Arctic certainly not conforming with denier expectations
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/arctic-misrepresentations/
So take a look at this post of ‘Sea Ice News’ on WUWT from last year. Notice anything about the NSIDC chart used? Maybe something that isn’t hidden on one of the charts?
But I thought Anthony was trying to hide the fact that the sea ice extent was more than 2 STD below normal!?! Why would he include a chart that specifically shows that not only was 2012 greater than 2 STD below normal so were 2005 and 2007. If he’s trying to hide that data then he did a REALLY poor job of it!
classic, while the leading scientists of the world report the lowest extent for thousands of years Watts reports it as ALL gain from here,
the link proves that watts knew of the right graph and put it up as a one off post instead of updating his sea ice page, as we saw most of the monkeys thought that it was error bars or a confidence range,
so you reject what i tell you but fully accept anything that watts tells you.
I have a lower footprint than watts , so why does a denier drive an electric car and have solar panels,
too save money of course, we would love all deniers to do the same , but what is his footprint,? because he would not give a dam about it, so don’t come here telling us that watts is trying to save the planet when he is just saving money,
give the deniers a good reason like saving cash and they do what we need to do even in denial,
“it’s all gain from here”
John did you really not understand that Watts was referring to the fact that the sea ice reached it’s annual minimum and that it would be increasing (gaining) from there?
Really?
How can your reading comprehension be that poor?
Can you provide a link to anyone that thought the STD was error or confidence bars as you claim?
all spin
If I said “the sky is blue” you would have a rebuttal john. Ridiculous.
It was Dr Walt Meier of NSIDC that said “In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will climb through autumn and winter.”
aka “it’s all gain from here”
You’re really starting to look dumb john.
About this post of Sea Ice news from June?
Yep Anthony Watts referenced the NSIDC chart with STD shown.
look at this comment earlier on
janama says:
July 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm
No one is claiming that the arctic is not receding. But it’s not receding at the predicted rate and there is no evidence it’s receding because of global warming.
that is the understanding of someone who has spent their science research time at watts
absolutely pathetic
brought this down and removed the rambling
Bill Jamison says:
July 13, 2013 at 9:07 am
I agree that man has contributed to the warming
. That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world? Nope, I understand the physics behind it (or at least enough to understand the concept I’m not a physics expert by any means).
. I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years
or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs. I’m skeptical of plans to tax carbon to reduce usage and lower emissions. I think that technology is the solution not higher taxes. I’m FOR green energy and a sustainable future.
I don’t see the term “alarmists” being pejorative in the same way as “deniers”. And I’m not referring to everyone that accepts the theory of AGW as an alarmist. I’m specifically referring to people that try to alarm others to goad them into action. In some cases they don’t care if what they’re saying is true or not as long as it gets people to act. I disagree.
“It really is mind blowing that some alarmists fall for this kind of stuff.” referring to Peter Gleick posting a picture of a melted streetlight and blaming it on global warming when it was actually due to a fire near the streetlight.
As if streetlights would start melting – and only half of it! – because it’s 110F when it’s not unusual for temps to hit 120F in Kuwait. It was a silly thing for him to say, wouldn’t you agree? It questions his credibility IMO.
bill this ( MELTING TRAFFIC LIGHTS) makes you appear to be gullible rather than skeptical
i AGREE That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world?
THEN
I’m skeptical of claims that we can know or predict with any degree of certainty what will happen in 50 or 100 years
or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs
you contradict yourself and think that uncertainty only works one way
gullible and naive
are you a fundamentalist christian bill ?
Actually I’m an atheist john. Does that matter?
I didn’t contradict myself. Just because CO2 is GHG doesn’t mean we can predict how the climate system will react. We certainly can’t predict the global temperature in 100 years IMO. We don’t know all of the feedbacks in the climate system. For example clouds are still a big uncertainty.
If the climate system was really well understood then we could accurately model it. But with any chaotic system prediction is difficult even when you know all of the variables. In the case of the climate system we have a long, long way to go before we’ll truly understand it – assuming we ever do.
yes you did “That CO2 is a GHG and increassing CO2 will result in a warmer world
then “or how the climate system will react to an increase of CO2 and other GHGs”
hint read your first sentence
now cloud feedback is uncertain.
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=climate+sensitivity+cloud+feedback&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
the models are projecting warming due to greenhouse gases and the feedbacks such as
changes to albedo and increased water vapor,
water vapor is a greenhouse gas so will also increase the initial warming
the likely increase for doubling CO2 is between 2DegC and 4.5DegC,
these values not only come from physics bit also paleoclimate studies
had to break this link to post re clouds
.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101122172010.htm
again you cannot point to any time in the past when clouds have maintained a global temperature purely what is suitable for humans, if climate sensitivity was low then the climate would never change.
your old ” we cannot know anything until we know everything ” canard is only a level of your own understanding it is an insult to both researchers and modelers
john your reading comprehension isn’t very good, is it?
In general GHG will result in warming. Feedbacks could negate that warming. We don’t know. From research into the past there’s never been a case of runaway warming. Regardless of how warm it got there was never a tipping point that resulted in runaway warming. That *could* be because the climate system is self balancing. That warming results in some feedback mechanism that cools.
My point was simple yet you missed it: We don’t know. Even scientists admit that. You should too.
what feedbacks will negate the warming bill?
why has the warming not been negated to date
at what temperature rise will these negative feedback kick in because the warming to date is in line with projections
do you have a clue?
an atheist and you post this nonsense about a self regulating planet
“That *could* be because the climate system is self balancing”
John,
I agree with most of your “discussion” with Bill, but homeostatic regulation is a quite valid scientific and ecological principle. And the fact that we have not had either runaway warming or cooling indicates that it is a real and vital element of the climate.
of course Bill seems to ignore that the “current” temps are going to increase significantly and go much higher than any time in the holocene, and even during the holocene we have witnessed numerous crisis that probably were precipitated by climactic events. We are probably seeing the beginnings of them again and it is likely that they will get worse
john it should be obvious even to you that the earth has never had a completely stable climate. It varies. There are positive and negative feedbacks at work. To ignore them is folly. That doesn’t mean they are instantaneous and can be immediately measured. Only time will tell.
For now you keep going door to door thinking you’re making a difference.
bill “We don’t know. Even scientists admit that. ”
This is what the scientist’s admit to
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/02/234291/royal-society-7f-4c-world/
” the earth has never had a completely stable climate. It varies.”
not at the current rate it doesn’t unless forced as it is with increasing greenhouse gases
“could* be because the climate system is self balancing”
well put up your papers for this drivel
Hey john are you familiar with the recent hockey stick paper Marcott et al 2013?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
One of the things they say in their abstract: “Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values”. In other words it’s been this warm before and life survived. The truth is that life flourishes where it’s warm. Haven’t you noticed that?
Anyway back to Marcott et al and there notes about smoothing and resolution:
(2) the median resolution of the datasets (120 years) is too low to statistically resolve such an event,
(3) the smoothing presented in the online supplement results in variations shorter than 300 yrs not being interpretable
Do you understand what that means and how it relates to presumed knowing of exact temperature and rate of warming in the past?
Is that all you got out of Marcott et al
that humans can survive the current temperature, sheesh
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130307145303.htm
” the median resolution of the datasets (120 years) is too low to statistically resolve such an event,”
watt idiot told you that?
see below
this was the first post by grant foster and the one i wanted
and this one is also relevant
and this one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
so to answer your question YES I am familiar with the paper,
only one link per post is allowed
john I’m glad you’re familiar with the paper – as I expected you to be. I asked because you claimed that the “climate doesn’t vary at the current rate”. I was simply trying to point out that you can’t know that for sure since paleo reconstructions don’t have the resolution necessary to determine it – just as Marcott says here:
Q. Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A.Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/
That’s why I brought up the issue of resolution and smoothing.
exactly , the study did not address the question, grant foster did if you had of read further and looked at the links
more than one way to skin a stat
Grant foster, bottom line “What happened in the past is most definitely not like what happened in the 20th century. In spite of the low time resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, the variations (even — perhaps especially — without the smoothing induced by the Monte Carlo procedure) are just not big enough to permit change like we’ve seen recently to be believable. In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years. And the fact is, we already know what happened in the 20th century.”
So Marcott says that they couldn’t analyze it because the resolution “precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.” and yet you think that Grant Foster could analyze their data?
So Marcott doesn’t know how to analyze their own data? Is that really what you’re telling me? So you accept a blogger’s results over peer-reviewed science?
Bill , there is NOTHING in Marcott’s paper to suggest what you are saying. Marcot said that they can’t rule out the possibility of spikes because of the resolution, but that is not the only research on the issue. and even if it was, your arguing of what “could be” is just speculation and certainly not anything to base ones perspective on ACC .
We know for a fact that Earth global tempos have fluctuated by over 10° over periods of millions of years. We are now seeing the possibility of a fluctuation of 2-4° in a couple of hundred. Even without knowing what the actual temperatures are going to be pretending that there is NO cause for worry is, in my view, insane.
Tony I quoted Marcott on the subject. Is there another study that has a higher resolution that could detect increases lasting less than 100 years? It’s easy to claim “there’s never been this rate of increase previously” but I don’t think we can know that with any degree of certainty because of the necessary smoothing and lack of resolution of proxies. If you can provide a link to a study that claims otherwise I’d love to read it.
bill,
i do not know. i have read a number of different articles that mention many different uses of proxies to determine temperature. among other variables. saying that ther MIGHT be spikes similar to what we are seeing now, is not scince and certainly nothing to base policy one.
We have some understanding of the factors of changes in temperature. CO2, Other GHG’s, volcanoes, Solar radiation, orbital cycles, large changes of the relation between land masses and sea currents, etc and we know of factors that influence those factors like weathering and biotic impacts. Do you know of any factor that it is reasonable to believe had as big an effect as is happening now in such a short period of time that would not leave some evidence over the last 12,000 years?
bill I can see no further point in debating someone who has a default position
“could* be because the climate system is self balancing”
sorry, that is it i am over you
I’m not surprised john. It’s obvious you’re used to bullying anyone on this blog that doesn’t agree with you and since it gets so few readers you get to be the top dog. I can tell how much it bothers you to have someone point out your mistakes and ignorance.
Bill,
I have seen you point out little in the way of mistakes and ignorance. John clearly has a lot of knowledge about the issue and has, in my view, presented you with very clear rebuttals of many of your points. I have seen you both go off into meaningless irrelevent issues on this thread that that is common for emotional issues
I have my doubts Bill will read either yours, Tony, or my posts. But I agree with you, Tony. Bill is accusing John of bullying. John isn’t bullying. But his arguments are clearly overwhelming Bill’s. And that can make one uncomfortable.
It seems Bill would rather not believe in the hockey stick and its implications. I’d rather not as well. But it has been replicated so often, by so many proxies, in so many ways, it’s a sad fact.
Bill, with all due respect, you’re not winning the debate. Nor are you conceding with grace or dignity.
John when you start responding to someone by calling them a fool and an idiot it doesn’t add to the conversation. You’d have to read all of john’s posts to understand what I’m talking about. Any time I made a point john refused to acknowledge it and instead attacked and insulted me. That’s typical internet bully behavior. Another example is john referring to people that read WUWT as “flying monkeys”. It’s just another way of dehumanizing your opponent.
I want to clarify that it was john calling me “idiot” and “fool”. And you say I’m not conceding points with grace and dignity?
I don’t like people calling people names regardless of the provocation or situation. insulting people does not advance any positive outcome (except occasionally as a therapeutic tool) I do use labels that I consider descriptive, such as fanatic and denier in this context, but i am quite willing to change my assessment if something changes. i would have gladly accepted being called a “warmist” 5 years ago, but I think skeptic is more accurate now.
Calling someone an idiot or fool, as BIll states does not add anything constructive. Above I stated that I thought BIll approach might be insane, for the reasons I spelled out, but that is a critique of his position not a judgement of his mental abilities.
BUt BIll, in your interactions I saw many times that John answered your points with reasonable evidence that is in line with my understanding, so I don;t think you are being accurate when you say “Any time I made a point john refused to acknowledge it and instead attacked and insulted me”
John mashey puts it into a logical appraisal ,. this is apart from Grant Foster’s analysis and statement
Grant foster, bottom line “What happened in the past is most definitely not like what happened in the 20th century. In spite of the low time resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, the variations (even — perhaps especially — without the smoothing induced by the Monte Carlo procedure) are just not big enough to permit change like we’ve seen recently to be believable. In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years.
John Mashey says:
31 Mar 2013 at 4:19 PM
.
I’d seen tamino’s nice post, but I still haven’t seen a good analysis of possible forcing changes and causes to raise the temperature equivalent to the modern rise, and then nullify enough of it to escape notice by the higher-resolution proxies. I understand that spikes are not ruled out by the statistics of the proxy-resolution they used, but I’m trying to understand a combination of events that could produce such a spike.
The thought experiment would be: take the modern rise, place that anywhere on the Marcott, et al curve, with start at the lower uncertainty edge, and propose a model for what could have caused an upspike, and then enough of a downspike to get back to the line in a way that doesn’t contradict the ice-core records.
Offhand, I can only think of:
1) Major state change gyrations like Younger Dryas (before this) or the 8.2ky event … but they show strongly in ice-core CH4 2 records, and seems like it would be very noticeable in a set of marine records. And we certainly know that isn’t what’s happening now, i.e., the upswing at end of YD.
2) A strong volcanic period, followed by a period with none.
3) A BIG boost in solar insolation.
4) A big rise in CO2 … but the ice cores rule that out.
Anyway, the question remains: what combination of events could cause a current-equivalent spike and escape the higher-frequency proxies?
It is not guesswork, you need a mechanism as well,
There ain’t one
It takes about two years to fully assess each countries greenhouse emissions for any year
claims in july 2013 about 2012 per capita emissions are still non supportable and subject to a full audit
we will have a full appraisal about may 2014 for 2012 year
“Thousands of years of rising seas”. Mitigation is the only option if continued sea level rise is inevitable.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517246/thousands-of-years-of-rising-seas/
bill, again you are ignoring the possibility of a sudden change in either antarctica and or greenland. we know greenland’s ice sheet is changing in a number of different ways and it is not possible to predict with any real confidence what will happen in the next 10-100 years.
What you seem to be saying is that mitigation is necessary and you are making very good points about that, but I do not see that you are making a reasonable case for NOT doing anything about decreasing CO2 emissions. If sea leverl rise will be 2-4 MM /yr steadily and we knew that for sure, and that was the ONLY potentially serious problem, yes then mitigation would make more sense. but what if we do nothing and CO2 goes to 700ppm by 2050 and that difference causes an increase of 20MM/ year. the costs of mitigation might increase exponentially and dwarf the cost of emissions cuts now.
As I said in my previous post Tony, I have never said that we shouldn’t reduce emissions. Why do you claim that I say we should NOT do anything about decreasing CO2 emissions?
That link is just another example of scientists claiming that we are in for warming regardless of whether we reduce emissions or not.
Scientists said what? Arctic sea ice reduction could be largely natural???
“The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.”
Click to access sr05-02.pdf
But we have 30 years of satellite data that PROVES it’s man’s fault, right?
non-reviewed opinion based solely on correlations between not necessarily related observations. I have a manuscript that shows a correlation between global warming and the number of pirates.
1 citation in eight years and we have later peer reviewed science which attributes 75% to 95% of the Arctic death spiral to human caused global warming and the verified polar amplification for the Arctic.
wasting your time though
See here’s a perfect example of the difference between what john posts and what I post. I quote an article and provide a link. John makes a claim, in this case ” later peer reviewed science which attributes 75% to 95% of the Arctic death spiral to human caused global warming and the verified polar amplification for the Arctic”, but fails to provide any citations, links, sources, etc. So all you’re left with is his vague statement.
logic tells me that export through Fram would be governed more by wind conditions than anything else as long as the ice is in a condition favoring export, ,
The Nares express left the stn a few days ago
Did you notice it was published by the Danish Meteorology Institute? These aren’t just some hacks – or deniers lol – trying to find some way to attribute the reduction to nature instead of man.
I too am a scientist and I say global warming is due to a lack of pirates if I choose to examine only the correlation between the number of pirates and global temperature increase.. Maybe I can get that published in a peer reviewed journal….or not. That would make me a little like other scientists..e.g McIntyre, Michaels, Christie, Pielke, Carter.
What you are suffering from is called confirmation bias where you choose to find the one or two “papers” that suit your position while completely ignoring the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed and published papers. That is of course your right to do but don’t expect anything resembling respect for your position. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Ooh . . Look, a squirrel.
You do know that McIntyre is a publish author and a IPCC reviewer, right?
Are you?
Appealing to authority?
To answer your question, yes, I have published numerous times in my field. While I am not about to reveal my identity publicly, both John Byatt and Mike can verify that much for you.
McIntyre published a widely rubbished climate paper in E&E which is hardly a reputable journal and anyone can be an IPCC reviewer. http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer
Nope just pointing out that McIntyre is actually a published author in the field of paleo reconstruction. I take it you aren’t. Of course you disparage the publication.
BTW apparently you missed McIntyre’s other published papers/letters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre#Selected_publications
I’m not the only one by any stretch. Most scientists are disparaging of dodgy journals.
Is the AMS Journal of Climate dodgy too? Atmospheric Science Letters? Geophysical Research Letters? PNAS?
He probably holds the record for most debunked papers
McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) “Corrections to the Mann et. al.(1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series” [Abs]
Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” [Abs, Full]
von Storch & Zorita (2005) “Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick” [Abs, Full]
[M&M reply]
Mann et al. (2007) “Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
McIntyre & McKitrick (2005) “The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications” [Abs, Full]
Juckes et al. (2007) “Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation” [Abs, Full]
Wahl & Ammann (2007) “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” [Abs, Full]
McKitrick & Michaels (2007) “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data” [Abs, Full]
[BLOG] Skeptical Science
Actually Bill, I’m glad you brought this “paper” up and something was niggling away at me in regards to what it says…and in the context of what you have said about 30 years of satellite data it came to me. Did you actually read it? From the abstract….
“We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD.”
The data doesn’t actually include the last 30 years. I love irony. Your hero Watts has conveniently selected a “paper” that says nothing about the last 30 years. Why would he do that I wonder? Hmmmmmm maybe because he has no “natural cause” explanation for the recent and extreme loss of sea ice? More dihonestyfrom the slippery Mr Watts and you suckers all lapped it up. I can’t wait for your next “paper”…or should I say the next “paper” your hero posts about.
The paper is interesting because it attempts to build a much longer sea ice history than normally available and looks at the correlation between the sea ice and solar cycle. THAT is why it’s interesting.
as seen from the shoreline in Iceland…. can we spell extraordinarily ridiculous extrapolation? I saw two lorikeets from my balcony. Last year I saw 10. I suspect that lorikeet populations across my entire suburb are in decline and given the presence of a feral cat I saw, they are definitely the reason. I might write a “paper” about it.
Re the 70% to 95% attribution to human cause of arctic ice loss.
it was one of the deniers who linked to the paper somewhere above . J Day et al
do we need to repeat it again?, why do people demand links when obviously they have not even read those from their own side?
70% not 75% correction
So you make the claim that more recent research attributes “70% to 95% to human cause” yet the paper you mention claims that up to 30% could be due to natural variability.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/50436
Combine those results with the results of the new paper I linked below and it starts looking like natural cycles play a large part of the loss. Obviously it doesn’t account for all of the loss or even most of the loss but certainly not 5% which you claimed.
bill,
you are clearly being disingenuous here. John making an offhand remark, and you faulting it because it is somewhat of an exaggeration is meaningless. Arctic ice loss might be 70% natural, and it would STILL be a problem. it would STILL disappear in the summer and have a big impact on NH weather patterns, as we may already be seeing. The fact sea ice has fallen WAY faster and lower than all but the most extreme predictions suggested is a clear concrete indication of ACC and one that deniers have ben trying to make go away since 2007. I didn’t read ANYONE in 2008 say well maybe this gives some credence to ACC, no they said. A-HA 2008 is the start of the recovery there IS no problem with sea ice it is ALL natural. In 2012 that idea was blown away, but people are STILL inventing explanations that are natural. It is the AMO, or something else.
john then corrects himself to a number that is very close to the range he mentioned and you take exception to that as if it means something?
NO natural cycles do NOT play a large part in the loss, even if they are 70% of what is going on. The arctic probably has not been this low in 1500 years, so clearly natural cycles have had almost no impact on the current state of the ice and in the blink of an eye, 20 years, it will very likely be the lowest since the last interglacial , if not longer.
How about a brand new paper indicating the strong correlation between the AO, AD, and PNA on arctic sea ice minima?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3767/abstract
You are really wasting your time mike, he aint got a bloody clue what he is on about
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-climate-is-changing-the-arctic-dipole-emerges
So you agree with Jeff Masters that it’s the change in circulation that is causing the dramatic reduction in sea ice and not increased CO2 levels?
It’s pirates. I reckon E&E will be happy to publish a paper claiming pirates are responsible. Anything but anthropogenic CO2 induced warming given the editorial bias.
there are at least two idiot denier comments of the day in his last three replies,
one “So you make the claim that more recent research attributes “70% to 95% to human cause” yet the paper you mention claims that up to 30% could be due to natural variability.”
two
“So you agree with Jeff Masters that it’s the change in circulation that is causing the dramatic reduction in sea ice and not increased CO2 levels?”
facepalm
something tells me he’d enjoy it. Funny how he triesto give theimpression he doesn’t visit WUWT all that often but spits out the un-reviewed Danish study on the same day as the crybaby. While also trying to give the impression that he accepts AGW (to some degree) he spits out the usual crap about temperature records. Dishonest or confused?
When have I ever tried to imply that I don’t visit WUWT regularly? I don’t comment there regularly. I believe I have more comments in this thread that I do in total on WUWT. I’ve never made any other claim.
Which “usual crap” about temperature records have I spit out? Can you quote me?
make that three idiotic denier comments of the day
“Whew over 0.2C higher than the previous record? I guess the new normal isn’t that bad. At this rate the new record will be 23.5C in 2051!”
Is that statement wrong? Of course not. It was 0.2c higher than the previous record for July set in 1975. At that rate it will be 2051 before the next record is set.
Aren’t you smart enough to figure that out for yourself john?
How come no one noticed the error in the title for that blog post? July hasn’t been 10C warmer than average. Or didn’t you notice that either? Only yesterday was 10C above average. Pretty obvious mistake yet none of you regulars noticed.
Strange but then apparently you only watch the deniers and don’t pay attention here.
it was pirates watt dunnit……oh, were we meant to be taking you seriously?
asks if his statement is wrong, does not do logic
2011,
Burlington hit 36 C, up from the previous record of 31.5 set in 2005.
” so at this rate the next record will be set in 2017 and will be 40.5C the next will be
in 2023 and will be 45C. etc etc
I did not say his statement was wrong i said it was idiotic.
So now you want to talk about Burlington? I thought this whole thread was about Melbourne? Moving the goal posts again john?
Can you not see and understand what causes the quick increase in temperature before the cold front moved in? Or are you just ignorant about weather processes such as LL WAA? It’s not like it was a HOT day in Melbourne yesterday. It was slightly warmer than normal then it warmed up quickly as the prefrontal WAA pushed in then the temperature dropped dramatically after the cold front. That’s all WEATHER. Are you too stupid to understand that???
The problem is that some of you want to try to make more out of this event than it was. If you want to talk about long term warming trends then that’s a different issue. Melbourne is on track to set a new record for warmest July. That has some significance. A one-day hour long burst of warm air isn’t significant. Try to understand that, it’s not that complicated.
A couple of years ago San Diego (where I live) had it’s coolest summer in about 65 years. What did it mean? Nothing. Well it meant we had an unusual persistent weather pattern that kept water temperatures down and that resulted in thicker than normal clouds (we call it the marine layer) that suppressed temperatures for most of the summer. Most people were smart enough to know it didn’t mean anything.
Read it again john – Weather is not climate
Now try to understand the difference when it comes down to single day events.
Bill,
so the response to ad hominem attacks on yourself is to spit them back?
of course everyone here knows the difference between weather and climate. Record high temps are weather but they also define the boundaries of climate, as do record lows. ALL “events” are weather including your san diego low temp. having an area break a record by more than 4*C is pretty amazing, and is certainly an indication of a changing climate, though of course one incident is proof of nothing
Tony sometimes it seems the only way to get through to some people is reply back using the same type of language they are familiar with. Sorry I had to stoop to the same low level but if that’s what it takes to try to get my point across then that’s what I’ll do.
bill,
I understand. I tend to respond in the same tone that I find from the people I am commenting with, but I always refrain from ad homs.
Though, I often use sarcasm
san diego/lin
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425722900000&dt=1&ds=14
most people are smart enough to see a trend
GISS!? They have the most compromised temperature data of them all, only UHA and RSS has kept them honest since 1979..
uknowispeaksense
What does this strawman’s argument have to do with censorship on WUWT site. Your whole argument was based on the tobaccos executive denials on cancer sticks.
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/they-dont-like-being-called-deniers-but/
John Byatt.
Even the referenced Google site shows temps have flattened and global ice has increased, especially in the Antarctic.
The Arctic is a poor canary standard as it sea ice subject to the cyclic ADO and PDO currents, and storms which can bunch up the ice making it appear that the sea ice has decreased. So much for the SD 2.
Infact the whole CO2 AGW claim is crap:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gloplacha
With all due respect Scottar, if you are referring to something I posted, waaaaaayyyy up near the top of the comments, the polite thing to do is to respond directly to that comment rather than just posting a question and making people have to go searching. That said, I don’t have time to explain to morons how my post is relevant. If you don’t understand it, that is your problem and I don’t care. Feel free to feel offended.
“only UAH and RSS are honest
UAH projections and realizations
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/uah.jpg?w=500&h=322
“global ice has increased, ”
2012 record low global ice area for yearly maximum