Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”.

September 9, 2013

For the last decade, according to the denial industry, sea ice has been “recovering”. Which is completely correct, if, by “recovering”, you mean there is 75 percent less ice volume than there was 30 years ago.

Over the weekend the ever-reliable Daily Mail came up with another masterpiece of boneheaded backwardness.  As boring and predictable as this  whack-a-mole is, obviously, readers need some handy links when they get the inevitable triumphant “I told you so” from Aunt Teabag and Uncle Dittohead.

Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham explain:

When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend’s Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraphunfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it’s also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we’re not there yet. And while this year’s minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year’s, that’s not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

“Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There’s a principle in statistics known as “regression toward the mean,” which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence ‘regression towards the mean’ told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.

Last year I created an animated graphic called the ‘Arctic Escalator’ that predicted the behavior we’re now seeing from the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph. Every year when the weather acts to preserve more ice than the previous year, we can rely on climate contrarians to claim that Arctic sea ice is “rebounding” or “recovering” and there’s nothing to worry about. Given the likelihood that 2013 would not break the 2012 record, I anticipated that climate contrarians would claim this year as yet another “recovery” year, exactly as the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph have done.

In short, this year’s higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year’s minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming.

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 “plus or minus three years.” Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summersby 2040.

It’s certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer will occur. While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component involved. The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.

Both articles also claimed that “some scientists” are predicting that we’re headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin,whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis’ co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

“What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions?VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”

Both articles also wrongly claimed that global warming has “paused” since 1997. In reality, global surface temperatures have warmed over the past 15 years, albeit more slowly than during the previous 15 years. It is possible to cherry pick a shorter time frame over which global surface temperatures haven’t warmed, as I illustrated in my other animated ‘Escalator’ graphic.

Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Dec ’86, Sep ’87 – Nov ’96, Jun ’97 – Dec ’02, and Nov ’02 – Nov ’12.

However, the opposite is true of the overall warming of the planet –Earth has accumulated more heat over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years.

Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it’s only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis’ research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.

Both articles also claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report is due out in a few weeks, has been forced “to hold a crisis meeting.” This claim made both articles even though Ed Hawkins noted,

“I told David Rose on the phone and by email on Thursday about the IPCC process and lack of ‘crisis’ meeting.”

Unfortunately that didn’t stop Rose from inventing this meeting, or Dixon from repeating Rose’s fictional reporting in the Telegraph.

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals,particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.

Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they’re misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.

112 Responses to “Another Year, Another Sea Ice “Recovery”.”

  1. omnologos Says:

    Accp -your argument is particularly cretin. The DM fictional piece is still visible in dozens of websites.


    • The amusement was trying to follow what the devil you were talking about. So you’re talking about something on the daily Mail that no longer exists on the daily Mail. Criticizing us because we didn’t criticize a daily mail article on polar bears that had been deleted. Quite right I should call the editor of the daily Mail and demand he removed the article for its obvious flaw’s. Oh wait.

      So your criticize me for not knowing about the daily Mail article when I was only searching the daily Mail for a daily Mail article. Tell me did you ever take a class on logic. If so I was restricting the source to the actual source in this case was the daily Mail. Considering the reputation of the daily Mail it may have been real.

      Cuckoo for Cocoa puffs which has nothing to do with what were talking about but somehow seems relevant.

      So I guess I owe everybody here an apology for assuming we were talking about Arctic sea ice recovery. I assumed you were talking about the medieval warm period temperatures in the Arctic and Arctic sea ice at the time. As well as the Danish meteorological Institute charts of sea ice in the first part of the 20th century. For your response of “scientists refuse to explain …. & magical 1979” Using the daily melt (mail) as your primary source. Next time I’ll ask for more clarification

      I am afraid to ask about magical 1979.

      So Arctic sea ice is making a precipitous decline along with most of the glaciers around the world including Antarctica. We will continue with this denial by deflecting actual informative conversation with nonsensical distractions

      • omnologos Says:

        who’s asking you to do anything? I was talking about scientists, in particular of course UK scientists, and to be precise those UK scientists very vocal nowadays against the DM.


  2. Classic omnology: lots of hand waving and distraction techniques to get everyone to not talk about what clearly is happening (to wit, the polar caps are melting away).

    I can’t imagine the juvenile mentality that finds engaging in such a thing compelling.


  3. Kenny–read the SkepSci link. Sea ice isn’t really the more important issue there, as LAND ice melting into the sea means, you guessed it, rising sea levels.

    And it’s actually the warming planet that’s causing sea ice to grow.

    In terms of total ice mass, yes, it’s decreasing.

    Thanks for playing.

  4. Kenny Mathis Says:

    So let me get this straight before I leave……If the earth heats up…its AGW. If the earth cools…It’s AGW. If ice melts or grows…it’s AGW.

    “And it’s actually the warming planet that’s causing sea ice to grow”

    But I thought the warming planet was melting the polar ice caps?

    (to wit, the polar caps are melting away).

    Thanks for letting me play.


  5. Who said the earth is cooling?

    Get back to us after you watch the video get yerself some edumacation, hon.

    • Kenny Mathis Says:

      ok…..just a different opinion. But i guess thats not welcomed here. Good luck this winter….its going to be a bad one

      • omnologos Says:

        if Arctic sea ice were increasing and Antarctic sea ice decreasing, an AGW explanation would still be possible


        • I realise that the fact the winter maximum Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing in line with climate models projections at the rate of 1% per year might be confusing to someone who is ignorant of climate science basics so here is a little help for you…

          From Judith Curry’s research paper:

          Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice

          “The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century.

          Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall.

          The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak.

          With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected [long term] decline of the Antarctic sea ice.

          http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/09/1003336107


      • Climate deniers wonder why their “opinions” aren’t welcome…have you stopped to wonder why Creationist “opinions” aren’t welcome in science class or astrologers’ “opinions” aren’t relevant to cosmology 101?

        What you’re doing is like having the opinion that vaccines cause autism or that the earth is 6000 years old.

        Think it if you must, but pretending that it’s a position deserving of recognition or acceptance is just silly.

        • omnologos Says:

          in the real world the same people hate Gmo science and embrace Agw science. I think chemtrailers don’t believe in AGW. Etc etc. There are all sorts, beyond your puerile words.


          • Not sure what’s puerile about not giving GMO hate much of a passing thought, since the existence of those isolated folks is hardly relevant to the anti-science campaign the denialists are running. I’m sure you’re sure you had a point, but it probably was better left unsaid.

            But by all means, have at the ant-GMO crowd. I’m sure the scourge that is organic food markets and granola munching ranks right up there with the threat of climate change.

      • MorinMoss Says:

        A bad one where? Remember this is GLOBAL warming but winter isn’t likely to disappear everywhere unless another supercontinent forms at the equator.

        And it depends what you mean by “bad”.
        Lots of snow, freezing rain, hail?
        These are all forms of condensing precipitation from evaporation which requires – you guessed it – heat.

        In the Northern Hemisphere, a lot depends on the behavior of the Jet Stream.
        If slows down and forms deep troughs then a lot depends on which side of the ridges and troughs you’re on.

        So tell me, if this winter is mild, is that proof of global warming?
        If not, does that mean we’re descending into another ice age?
        Or does it mean something else entirely.

  6. Kenny Mathis Says:

    I never wrote that I was a denier. Just curious. I also believe the sun may play a role in all this. No dought that the earth is in a heating pattern. The question is…why? Is it because of the CO2 we are pumping into the air. If thats the case, then why are we in what the AGW people call a “pause” in the warming trend? We are putting more CO2 in the air now than we ever have before and yet we are not heating at the rate they told us we would. Oh I forgot….it’s the Pacific Ocean keeping us cool…right?
    One more thing…..I thought we were going to be ice free in the Arctic this summer.


    • 1) There is no variability in solar activity that would explain warming.
      2) We actually ARE seeing the warming you’d expect.
      3) Yes, the ocean is absorbing a lot of the earth’s radiative imbalance.
      4) Why did you think that?


    • Just curious?
      Let see do you understand why? in the northern hemisphere in winter, We (earth) get more energy from the sun, the sun is bigger angular as a bigger ball, and we are closest to the Sun 91.402 million miles; while in the summer the sun appears smaller, less energy from the sun, and we are the farther from the sun at 94.508 million miles. But yet it get cold in NH winter. Using you just curious reasoning how does that work? It more of a question knowledge and knowing what you really know. Just like if I ask the question to the enlighten group here what causes a meteor burn (heat up) entering the earth’s atmosphere most will be wrong and say it is air friction. It is air pressure or compression of the leading edge (friction is near zero once the bow shock forms in comparison). If it was friction then the Apollo capsule would burn up or it would have to have a heat shield all over the capsule (it was only at bottom).
      It requires work to get a good understanding not options.

    • MorinMoss Says:

      Let’s start with the Arctic ice cover. There have been various forecasts from sometime int the near future to well past 2050 or even 2080 is some IPCC reports – I find those latter ones very unlikely.

      Admiral Titley gave a talk a few years back where the projection was for ice free conditions in the summer by approx 2030.

      More aggressive projections call for ice-free conditions by 2016-17 ± 3 yrs.
      It’s clear that’s not going to happen this year and probably not next but that margin of error, that still gives until 2020 for an ice-free Arctic in the summer.

      Now, what does “ice-free” mean? All the ice has to be gone?
      No. The figures I’ve seen vary but let’s say that if the average coverage of the entire Arctic ocean falls below 15%, that’s ice-free.

      Arctic winds will probably pile up a considerable amount of ice along the Canadian coastlines and that would be very difficult to melt and flow out.

      • Kenny Mathis Says:

        Some aspects of climate appear not to have changed and, for
        some, data inadequacies mean that it cannot be determined if they
        have changed. Antarctic sea ice extent shows inter-annual variability
        and localised changes but no statistically significant average
        multi-decadal trend, consistent with the lack of rise in near-surface
        atmospheric temperatures averaged across the continent. There is
        insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in some other
        variables, for example the meridional overturning circulation (MOC)
        of the global ocean or small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes,
        hail, lightning and dust storms. There is no clear trend in the annual
        numbers of tropical cyclones.


    • “Just curious?”
      Looks more like a copy job, form a denial website as opposed to someone who is actually looking for information.
      Let’s look at some of the aspects of climate that has changed or indicate warming of the last 3 to 4 decades.

      1) Air near surface temperature a.k.a. tropospheric temperatures both from balloon (Radiosonde) and satellite data show a warming trend.
      2) Tropospheric heights have increased more so in the Arctic region. This is consistent with the warming troposphere.
      3) Stratospheric temperatures dropping an indication that heat is building up in the troposphere that is escaping less through the stratosphere.
      4) The increase in water vapor in the troposphere
      5) Energy Imbalance increasing.
      6) Over ~90% of the observed glaciers are showing decline including Greenland and Antarctica (including satellite data)
      7) A very significant downward trend in snowfall cover summertime. It’s becoming more common to have no snow all the way up to the Arctic Ocean in late summer.
      8) Sea surface temperature shows a warming trend.
      9) Land surface temperature shows a warming trend.
      10) Global surface temperature shows a warming trend.
      11) Overall full ocean heat content is up including Deep Ocean.
      12) Sea level rise consistent with terminal expansion and melting glaciers.
      13) Jetstream waviness has increased in the last 15 years (a.k.a. a blocking patterns) but questionable statistically significant trend.
      14-15-16) Arctic sea ice area, extent, and volume extreme downward trend.
      17) Ice sheets (ice extent over the sea but connected to ice on the land) have also decreased. Recent decrease in Antarctica Ice sheets particularly West Antarctica.
      18) Warming Trend in Southern Ocean over the Last 50+ Years is up.
      19) Permafrost retreating poleward.
      20) Tundra wildfires increasing due to temperatures and low moisture content

      In the area of biological indicators:

      1) tree-lined shifting poleward
      2) tree-lined shifting upslope
      3) Large area of forest are under insect infestation due to warmer temperatures.
      4) Species migrating poleward.
      5) Species migrating upslope.

      Let’s consider what you apparently listed.
      1) Hail, Lightning, tornadoes, and storms dust storms showed no global correlation to warming but may exhibit regional shifting. Insufficient data to draw any trends or correlations.

      2) Tropical cyclones are supposed to decrease in number but increase in intensity. Statistical significant trend is not available.

      3) Antarctica data set to short and too few to show up a good trend line. Most everyone is in agreement there (more than 40+ years). Interestingly for the data available shows that the temperature reading are showing warming in the waters off Antarctica, but sea ice has increased about 1% (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/aheat_printres.0005_web.jpg )

      So here’s the real question “just curious”. How is it that the greenhouse effect first identified in the Napoleonic era before the identification of greenhouse gases? Later physics of greenhouse gases in the last part of the 19th century and the first part 20th century came fully documented and even projections of a warming planet due to increased greenhouse gases were also published at that time. And how is it? That you somehow think physics will stop working for you because of your ignorance, your opinion, and or your beliefs. A good indication of how far out of touch you are on this topic Is to consider that they are National Academy of Sciences around the world as well as every major scientific organization that deals with this topic around the world are all in agreement that we are warming the planet and we are the primary driver. (Including the scientific journals)

      So what’s your reasoning? Just curious? Why do you think you are right and all the experts around the world are wrong? Why should physics stop working because you wish it too?
      Conspiracy right!

      • omnologos Says:

        Can’t you speak in any other way than ranting, ACCP? So the planet’s been warming, some indicators showing it more than others. A scientifically minded person would question why it would be so, and what it means.

        Likewise I cannot believe you’re still at the most ancient “greenhouse effect” debating point. So what if it operates some way in the lab! There are other things that operate very well in the lab, but not exactly like that in the open world.

        If the lab were the end of it all, there would be no need for clinical trials.


        • A list of items that you can look up in Nature, AAAS, PNAS, etc. is not a rant but in your reality who knows.

          The point of greenhouse effect above you moron was the fact that it was observed (not in the lab) but by Joseph Fourier that the earth was hotter than it should have been. To Paraphrase; after working on the physics of the earth’s temperature he realized that it was as if some invisible thing in the air that was trapping the heat.

          If you’re just now coming to the conclusion that somehow the physics of the Earth’s atmosphere mainly the physics of greenhouse gas are somehow not real then truly you are a Moron. Did you read this without drinking a cup of coffee or something, I expected better from you! But I can always lower my expectations you’re only an epsilon (Infinitesimal) from zero are ready.

          Go back to reading your mysteriously deleted Daily Mail to see if you can find the article about the pink unicorn at Buckingham palace. I really don’t have the voice to continue with your rantings of delusion. Good day


          • Was kinda wondering what about your posts could be described fairly as “ranting” myself. But alas, once again Mo succeeds–his endgame isn’t to get anyone to actually consider science, but instead wants to derail the conversation down a rabbit hole of picayune semantic quibbles and endless squabbling about his faux-policing of nonexistent deductive errors he’s sure people who accept scientific reality must be making.

            Peter is one tolerant dude for putting up with it here. 🙂

          • omnologos Says:

            it’s far more likely that you two are absolutely clueless on how to conduct a conversation among adults, as evident by the absolute lack of any awareness about the underlying scientific questions. somehow it all ends up in a declaration of Belief.

            just like we have the resident preacher, I shall nominate you two as Antiscientists. Go play with the latest papers.


          • Dude you’re an international Internet troll, and a lousy one at that. You’re not in a position to be the arbiter of who is or isn’t maintaining an adult conversation.

            It’s like Rosie O’Donnell saying Lance Armstrong needs to watch his diet.

            Go play in traffic.

          • omnologos Says:

            exactly, Rosie. Exactly.


          • Nice try, but no sale on the bullshit attempt to suggest that it’s my form that’s bad.

            I can assure you your attempts to draw attention from your monotonous routine of trying to make the discussion anything and everything but the underlying science aren’t fooling a soul, and that’s all well and good–but don’t bother suggesting at the same time it’s any of us not following the actual science.

            Off, most expeditiously, is the general direction in which you must fuck.

      • Kenny Mathis Says:

        “Just curious?”
        Looks more like a copy job, form a denial website as opposed to someone who is actually looking for information.

        @Anthropogenic climate change passenger……This is a direct copy and paste from the 2007 IPCC Climate Change Report….Pg 33 section 1.4


        • Thanks Kenny, I did it for memory and it’s been probably about I don’t know 2009 the last time I reread the report.

          Your statement truly shows that you are in denial by the way. The IPCC do no original research it’s just a review of the peer review science in the scientific literature. That means you actually think scientists are wrong and morons are right. It’s like the American cardiologists Association assessment report which reviews the cardiologists literature and make recommendations for heart disease. But somehow the Association is wrong and yet a group of fast food lobbyists think that plumbers are better at heart disease.

          So you didn’t answer my question why is the scientific literature incorrect and you apparently right?

          • Kenny Mathis Says:

            Didn’t say I was right. I just know that CO2 levels have risen sharply and the temp is not climbing at the rate they said it would. That’s all.

          • MorinMoss Says:

            It’s not just CO2 as there are other climate forcings. This is not a new idea – Hansen gives estimates for the -ve or +ve strength of a dozen forcings in a 1981 paper.

            CO2 may be one of the most persistent over many decades but it’s not even remotely the strongest in the short term.

            There are significant uncertainties with the impact of some of these.
            One of my questions is if some forcings have a greater impact if they happen in one area instead of another.

            The recent paper about airplane flights over the Pacific having a much more significant that over the Atlantic implies that is so.

            And black soot settling on white ice has a much greater impact than if it fell on blue ocean – as far as warming or melting is concerned.


        • Somehow you actually think that there is a hiatus in global warming? if so then I’m sorry you’re mistaken. You should look at some of the temperature projections and you can see a high variability in surface temperature and that somehow they didn’t know that. If someone would post Peter’s video The Birth of a Crock. Then you can see exactly what is really going on. And how people with no clue can misunderstand the information. The idea of a monotonic increase in temperature is not real there is a number of heat exchange systems in the climate as well as seasonal to annual variability in the feedback mechanisms such as cloud cover etc. the surface temperature records are what we call high noise data. In other words you have to look at a trend line. Here’s something you can do to find out for yourself. Get the temperature records from GISS and El Niño and La Niña dates for each year. Then plot the temperature for El Niño then La Niña and neutral and you’ll see a clear trend line that you would otherwise not see looking at the data (you will not see a hiatus).

          you can see it is a major player in the surface temperature record variability. It is the ENSO variability. in short it exchanges with deeper layers of the ocean (there’s a lot more to that but I don’t have the voice for it). The next moderately long El Niño will break the previous temperature record (Excluding a very large volcanic abruption ). Because global warming has NOT stopped …


          • Kenny: if that’s what you really think you know (the warming pause canard), please explain ocean heat content observations.

          • greenman3610 Says:

          • Kenny Mathis Says:

            The study considers the tropical Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a climate cycle that plays out over the course of several decades. Within this large pattern fall El Niño and La Niña, well-known faster cycles that cause shifts in the distribution of warm water in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. While El Niño and La Niña last only a few years, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation lasts several decades. The last time it was in a cooling phase – cooling waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean – it lasted from roughly 1940 to the early 1970s. During that cool phase, warmer, drier weather dominated in the midwestern United States.

            This is from an article titled….”Solving The Mysteries Of Hiatus In Global Warming” from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. It’s a pretty good read.


          • Fundamentally the PDO would not cause significant changes to global temperatures. It is the change in location of the cold and warm water masses. It alters the path of the jet stream. The PDO phase will act to steer the jet stream over the Western United States and not global surface temperatures.

            You are confused. The Scripps climate scientists Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12534.html
            Are NOT talking about the PDO phases but eastern tropical Pacific which is part of the ENSO.

            Global surface temperatures so call hiatus is “tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.” Even with a negative ENSO of about -.2 to -.4 we are still at the forth warmest month.

            In short we are putting heat in the deep ocean but there is no real hiatus in global warming. If you go to NOAA and get the yearly records and average you will get the following.
            1961 1970 is 57.07 F
            1971 1980 is 57.11 F
            1981 1990 is 57.42 F
            1991 2000 is 57.67 F
            2001 2010 is 58.05 F
            So each decade change is .04 .31 .25 .38 note no hiatus because taking the average over the ten years removes most of the oscillations. It would be best to do an 11 year running mean (132 month) this would remove solar as well. 132 month is below.
            http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

            The so call hiatus is a short term Global surface temperatures excluding the heat below the waters. Global warming has not stopped.

          • omnologos Says:

            Hypothetically, how long of a hiatus would you need before saying that global warming has stopped? Would you ask for the 132 month avg to come down, or stay the same?


    • “…One more thing…..I thought we were going to be ice free in the Arctic this summer…”

      That’s because you’re an idiot and believe the straw man ‘arguments’ spewed out by David Rose and the like.

      If you had ever read the IPCC AR4 you would know that the Arctic was projected to be ice free by 2080.
      So far as I know the latest IPCC report says it will now be ice free in summer by 2060.

      So now you know are you going to stop parroting that particular peice of denierblog junk ?
      No thought not.

      By the way – the sinlge person you are misquoting estimated ice free in summer by 2016 plus or minus 3 years. He is looking likely to be right isn’t he.
      This year is the second lowest volume on record and the fourth lowest extent on record at 398,000 square miles below the average for the last two decades.
      Those are the simple observable measureable facts.

  7. yt75 Says:

    The Artic sea ice gif is really simple and clear, possible to have an update with 2013 data ?

  8. ahaveland Says:

    Thom Hartmann also picks up on the DM nonsense, with my animation too 🙂

    Politically Corrected – The Daily Mail on Climate Change


  9. […] For the last decade, according to the denial industry, sea ice has been "recovering". Which is completely correct, if, by "recovering", you mean there is 75 percent less ice volume than there was 30 years ago  […]


Leave a Reply to MorinMoss Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: