Ice Melt Season Draws to Ragged Close

September 6, 2016

ice0906

It appears that arctic sea ice will not set a new low record extent this season,(2012 was the low mark) barring unforseen events, but the trend remains clear, with most of the ice in such a state of chewed-up, ragged disarray.
We don’t know when the first arctic open-water summer will be, but this is how the ice is going to increasingly look on the way there.

ice0906a

Advertisements

28 Responses to “Ice Melt Season Draws to Ragged Close”


  1. Nuts. With each year being a record-setting hot one, that confounded Arctic icecap just doesn’t seem to be getting the memo about global warming. At least it is jagged & ragged now, as opposed to being just glass smooth like it was back in 2006 in Al Gore’s movie, where that forlorn polar bear was trying to climb on it.

    (these days, the polar bears who eye delicious humans are shot, as Peter described in one of his Dark Snow reports)

    • Torsten Says:

      Russell, do you have any ideas on when a yearly trace of arctic sea ice extent will follow the top of the 2 SD grey zone in that chart above, instead of the bottom as it did all of this year?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Don’t ask Russell any questions that require science or math knowledge—-he doesn’t have any, as he freely admits. Talking to him about “2 SD” or “sea ice extent”is a waste of time.

        Go away, Russell!

        (And ANY animal that is large enough and formidable enough to “eye delicious humans” and consider eating them is quite often shot—–which is decidedly unfair to the animals for just doing what hungry animals do—-I am a supporter of the Right to Arm Bears movement—-let’s restore some balance here).


        • Stay Russell. It takes a special kind of talent to create this much activity on an otherwise mundane update about an inevitable trend.


        • Luv “dumboldguy”, he’s the gift that keeps on giving. Don’t ask him any questions that require him to back up the accusations he makes against me and skeptic climate scientists—-he doesn’t have any, as he’s inadvertently demonstrated ever since I first showed up here. Regarding his bit about ‘restoring fairness’ to polar bears, of course he is kidding. Had he been up there where the bear was shot, we all know he would not have sacrificed himself to keep the bear alive. “Right to Arm Bears”, ha-ha, but as usual, all show and no go.

          Meanwhile, thanks to Charles Zeller for the invite and to Peter Sinclair for not resorting to deleting my comments, which would be the much safer and easier thing to do. Unlike other bloggers, Peter is likely aware that if he starts deleting/blocking comments from people who otherwise follow the rules and decorum of the blog, it is a signal to any otherwise disinterested bystander that the argument has been lost / the problem must be buried.

          Optimist that I am, I invite y’all to think about me differently: Wouldn’t I turn into one of your biggest allies if you could just stand and deliver with evidence proving skeptic climate scientists are paid and orchestrated to push industry-created material which everyone knows are lies? And if y’all are so dead-certain that Heartland purchases my words with the paltry strings-free grants I receive, why doesn’t any of your influential people – Peter must know some – make a serious effort to outbid Heartland for my words? Meanwhile, I don’t want any of you to go away. I believe some of you can rise to become some of the most ardent skeptics out there the moment you fully comprehend how the AGW issue is only kept alive by unsupportable ‘science’ talking points and even more unsupportable talking points about the industry corruption of skeptic climate scientists. Instead of viewing your leaders with awe, you will become disillusioned with the sheer extent of what ends up with looking like they’ve lined their pockets with big donor money while engaging in the kind of racketeering they currently claim is being done by skeptics.


      • @Torsten: And to paraphrase straight from the blog post reproduction above, do you know when the first arctic open-water summer will be? Or did you not think this wipeout on your part all the way through? Have you not noticed that your beloved 2012 ice extent minimum was significantly far below ’13, ’14 and ’15, as seen in this interactive chart? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html Too bad the machine busted, ’16 would be indicated to not be matching your calamity wishes either. Think about it, if this keeps up, the decline in ice extent (which nobody disputes) will be generating a flatter and flatter decline over time ….. while your beloved CO2 extent (also which nobody disputes) will keep climbing. Think about all this in a reverse way: James Hansen predicted the westside Manhattan freeway would be underwater by 2048. Considering how no significant sea level rise is being seen there now, the prediction chart for the rise will have to start steepening the closer we get to that date.

        Yep, I’m no climate scientist. But just like Al Gore, Hoesung Lee, Naomi Oreskes, Peter Sinclair, and blog commenters having no confidence to identify themselves, I point to the scientists. The difference is I point to both sides and ask why their assessments contradict each other. You guys pretend there is only one side, telling everyone that any ‘scientist critics’ who pop up out there are paid to lie …. while abysmally failing to provide friend and foe alike with evidence proving that last accusation.

        • Snow White Says:

          You still haven’t answered my question Russell:

          https://climatecrocks.com/2016/09/06/ice-melt-season-draws-to-ragged-close/comment-page-1/#comment-86099

          At the risk of repeating myself, is the downward trend obvious to you? Or not?


          • Dude. Take my statement outside to any otherwise disinterested bystander, “… if this keeps up, the decline in ice extent (which nobody disputes) will be generating a flatter and flatter decline over time …” and ask them if that looks like I deny a downward ice extent trend. They’ll look at you like you have some kind of English comprehensive problem. Of course I don’t deny the obvious trend, and if you were fully aware of the science assessment content from skeptic climate scientists and skeptic speakers, you’d know they don’t deny that either. The question now is for all to see, whether you actually have any depth of familiarity with skeptic material, or do you get your position from strictly pro-AGW sites? The discussion is not whether the ice has declined or whether the globe has warmed, it is whether IPCC reports conclusively prove human activity is primarily responsible for this.

            But once again, you fellas tell all not to look at ‘industry-corrupted’ material from skeptics. And again, I ask you to show your evidence that any such corruption took place. It does not get any more elemental than that. But I also ask why guys such as you feel compelled to pose questions with an embarrassing false premise angle to them.

          • Snow White Says:

            Thank you for eventually answering my question Russell. It seems we are agreed that “the trend remains clear” and “most of the ice [is] in a state of chewed-up, ragged disarray”?

            However please stop putting words in my mouth. Not least because I am self evidently not one of “you guys”!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            And are you also “….a kind and gentle princess, with lips red as a rose and skin white as snow…. “?

            Beware of Russell—-he is the main bearer of poisoned apples on Crock, and they often take the form of words he puts in other people’s mouths. Have no fear, though—–should you take a bite of one of them, there are many old and not-so-handsome princes here on Crock who will help you.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS Russell’s use of “dude” and “you fellas” and “guys” is just an attempt to appear “with it” and “manly” on his part—-it’s a sign of his cluelessness and insecurity and shouldn’t be taken personally (although he WOULD get himself slapped silly if he walked into a bar in NJ where I grew up and spouted such BS). He is what he is, and it’s good that we only have to deal with him in the ether..

            I DO congratulate you on getting Russell to say SOMETHING about Arctic sea ice, though—-I have asked him questions about the science of sea ice decline almost as many times as C-bannog has asked Tommy Poo to support T-P’s BS, and he has never replied to them.

            Of course, his answer here says little of significance (as we should expect from a failed business major and graphic artist with NO science background who now makes his living whoring for the fossil fuel interests). He is actually pretty good at evasion, deflection, distraction, obfuscation, and general avoidance of any real debate—-he could be an eighth Dwarf—-one who builds Straw Men to beat up on and change the subject.

            As he does here yet again with “The discussion is not whether the ice has declined or whether the globe has warmed, it is whether IPCC reports conclusively prove human activity is primarily responsible for this”. Really? maybe inb your mind, but not on this thread, Russell. And there is no “discussion” in the minds of 99% of the real climate scientists, Russell—-the globe is warming because man is putting unprecedented amounts of GHG into the atmosphere and causing global warming. PERIOD.

            I have asked Russell many time to explain to us why the sea ice is in decline and the globe is warming, and give us some reason other than buildup of CO2 from human activity and he has NEVER responded. The fact that he now says he “agrees” that the ice is in a declining trend is merely an attempt to salvage what little credibility he has on this site. Anyone who says it isn’t is a “Tommy Poo”, and Russell is at least smart enough to avoid that fate.

            And thanks for the laugh of the day, Russell. It is hugely funny to hear you speak of “….questions with an embarrassing false premise angle to them….”, since you are THE walking, talking definition of a “false premise”—–that premise being that a science-illiterate moron who takes money from AGW deniers funded by the fossil fuel interests to sow FUD about AGW is NOT a whore. LMAO!

      • Torsten Says:

        This comment to Russell needs some space, so I’ve chosen not to nest it under his reply to me.

        “And to paraphrase straight from the blog post reproduction above, do you know when the first arctic open-water summer will be?”

        So, you have no answer for my question. A suitable (and honest) answer would include “I don’t have any ideas.”

        You claim to paraphrase me, but are inaccurate. I did not ask you if you know, but whether you had any ideas. This is an important distinction. Your failure to recognize it helps me understand your problem with language. As for me, I don’t “know” when, or if the first open-water summer, by whatever your criteria may be, will occur. Let’s imagine an August in which it is possible to sail to the north pole from the Bering Strait to Fram Strait without seeing any ice. There is likely to still be a lot of ice present along the north side of Greenland and the Canadian islands, yet the arctic is essentially ice free from a navigation perspective. Due to annual variation in weather, it may not happen again for another decade after that event. And that is something you and so many other pseudo-skeptics don’t seem to appreciate, that global warming is not a monotonic progression of temperature. We have observed that ice extent has become more variable. That makes predicting future amounts more uncertain, and also suggests other fundamental changes in the system are occurring.

        “Or did you not think this wipeout on your part all the way through?”

        Your attempt at a sarcastic comment was a wipeout, Russell.

        “Have you not noticed that your beloved 2012 ice extent minimum was significantly far below ’13, ’14 and ’15, as seen in this interactive chart? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

        I recall deniers crowing about September ice extents for 2008 and 2009 being so much greater than 2007, and that a “recovery” was underway. You don’t seem to recall that the four years after 2007 had greater September extents than that record-breaking year. And so you think that citing ’13, ’14, and ’15 is supposed to impress me? Going back a little further, I also recall the 2005 minimum being newsworthy at the time. Only one year since (2006) has exceeded its value.

        Also, I’m not sure why you think it is my “beloved” ice extent minimum. It’s a variable that is observed and studied. It has some usefulness in understanding what’s going on up there. But there are other variables (volume being an obvious one).

        “Too bad the machine busted, ’16 would be indicated to not be matching your calamity wishes either.”

        Calamity wishes? Get real, Russell. In April 2012 I made a prediction of the September average sea ice extent. I used a statistics approach in which I made a simple assumption; that the past trend would hold for another year. This meant calculating an estimate for the uncertainty in my prediction. Unsurprisingly, my central estimate was for less ice. The actual observed value was much lower, but within the uncertainty bounds I’d calculated. I posted my results here:

        https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?131140-Sea-Ice&p=2068550#post2068550

        I have an appreciation that this system (the arctic) does not lend itself to simple predictive modelling of the sort I played with. I even made that comment in that very post. But only in your world, seemingly devoid of any understanding of how science is done, would you conclude that the “machine busted”.

        “Think about it, if this keeps up, the decline in ice extent (which nobody disputes) will be generating a flatter and flatter decline over time ….. while your beloved CO2 extent (also which nobody disputes) will keep climbing.”

        I have thought about it. Further along in the same thread I link to above, I decided to replicate someone else’s method for predicting the 2013 extent. The method used a Gompertz fit, which would result in a gradually lessening rate of decline as the results approach zero. It predicted more ice in September 2013 than in 2012, but the actual value was well above my upper uncertainty estimate. But I’d already acknowledged that this simple kind of modelling was no longer of much use.

        Again, you call it my “beloved CO2 extent” (sic). CO2 concentration affects the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s an important variable. Get over it.

        “Think about all this in a reverse way: James Hansen predicted the westside Manhattan freeway would be underwater by 2048. Considering how no significant sea level rise is being seen there now, the prediction chart for the rise will have to start steepening the closer we get to that date.”

        What does Hansen’s interview comment about sea level in New York have to do with arctic sea ice extent?

        “Yep, I’m no climate scientist. But just like Al Gore, Hoesung Lee, Naomi Oreskes, Peter Sinclair, and blog commenters having no confidence to identify themselves, I point to the scientists. The difference is I point to both sides and ask why their assessments contradict each other. You guys pretend there is only one side, telling everyone that any ‘scientist critics’ who pop up out there are paid to lie …. while abysmally failing to provide friend and foe alike with evidence proving that last accusation.”

        I’m not sure you have the ability to understand when there is or is not a contradiction. I don’t think I’ve written anything here that claims there is only one side or that all critics are paid to lie, so don’t paint me with that brush. But I have concluded that the evidence for CO2-driven global warming tells a far more consistent and satisfactory story of what is being observed than what the “other side” presents. Further, what I have seen is that most of the armchair critics have an abysmal understanding of math and science. Your comments at this blog reinforce that conclusion.

        Lastly, years ago, experience with some ass who tracked me down in the real world over a simple and uncontroversial explanation to a problem I’d provided at a bulletin board taught me to be careful about where I reveal my identity. I’ll continue to use only my given name to identify myself here and at other websites. Surely, the content of what I write is more important than my identity?


        • Oh, brother. The relatively short answer to your sidestep about semantics is that I’ve always viewed the “do you have any idea?” phrase to be a colloquial way of saying “do you know?”, as in “do you have any idea of what the yellow light in a stop signal means.” My response to all of your words is “So, you have no answer for my question” in the larger context of whether you know why an ice-free Arctic summer has not yet occurred when alarmists ranging from the UK Guardian and Al Gore insinuated it was inevitable as the result of ever-increasing GHG emissions. Luv the total sidestep of yours about Hansen’s sea level rise prediction requiring the ever steepening curve for additional water as a counterpoint to the potentially ever-flattening curve for declining Arctic ice extent, particularly when it undercuts your bit about who’s having the language comprehension problem here.

          And then you undermine your position further with the unsupportable worthless and disingenuous talking point word “deniers”. My scientist pals don’t deny climate change in the least. Try pulling that talking point on them in direct one-on-one debate. Fabulous that you display such detailed analysis of sea ice, but to borrow from another movie quote to illustrate what talking points can do to you in such debates, “You’re great in the locker room, pal, and your reflexes might die hard, but you’re weak when you put your spikes on.”

          I don’t have the expertise to go toe-to-toe with you on sea ice, but I can point you straight to people who can. The question now is, just like when I posed it to Christopher “Russell is a hatchet man for Heartland” Keating at his blog, do you have the guts to take your material straight into the lion’s den and do a public debate with a co-equal, as Dr Scott Denning did recently ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlASubg7rGE )? I have little doubt it can be arranged. But a predictable (and honest) answer from you would likely be “there’s no way on Earth I’d give the time of day to deniers paid by oil money to lie.” …… oops ……

        • Torsten Says:

          Russell, from this and other responses, it is clear that you accept the downward trend in arctic sea ice, and that you expect its rate of decline to flatten. Which means, however, that new lows are possible before the curve is actually flat. You are silent on whether you expect an upward trend to eventually establish itself. It’s okay to say you don’t know or have any ideas on that. But you haven’t acknowledged the fact that five years separated the 2007 and 2012 record lows, while suggesting that 2016’s failure to reach a record low is somehow an indictment against the notion of CO2 driven warming. Just on that basis, you should understand that it might be premature to say the “machine busted”.

          You wrote,

          “My response to all of your words is “So, you have no answer for my question” in the larger context of whether you know why an ice-free Arctic summer has not yet occurred when alarmists ranging from the UK Guardian and Al Gore insinuated it was inevitable as the result of ever-increasing GHG emissions.”

          I gave you a precise answer for the question you asked. I elaborated in a way that should help you understand my thinking on this topic. Now you claim it was a different question of a “larger context”. That’s bullshit. That question has a totally different meaning, and do not pretend that it doesn’t. I don’t read much that is written in the Guardian, and I have not watched Gore’s movie or paid attention to anything else he does. If you’ve read and understood my earlier answer, it should be clear that it is independent of what those guys’ opinions are.

          “Luv the total sidestep of yours about Hansen’s sea level rise prediction requiring the ever steepening curve for additional water as a counterpoint to the potentially ever-flattening curve for declining Arctic ice extent, particularly when it undercuts your bit about who’s having the language comprehension problem here.”

          I am truly confused by this statement. Are you suggesting that a flattening arctic sea ice curve means that water is not available for Hansen’s (very unlikely, IMO) claim about sea level rise in Manhattan? You strung those two comments one behind the other, and I now see the possibility that you think the sea ice loss is the source of water for the sea level rise. Please tell me I’m mistaken. Regardless, I cannot defend a comment made in an interview by Hansen. I would rather consult a review of the published literature.

          “And then you undermine your position further with the unsupportable worthless and disingenuous talking point word “deniers”.

          The people who were making those claims denied that global temperature has been rising, they denied the existence of a downward trend in sea ice extent, and they even denied CO2’s interactions with infrared radiation. I won’t dignify them with the term skeptics, because they are not skeptics in the scientific sense of the word. They are deniers.

          “I don’t have the expertise to go toe-to-toe with you on sea ice, but I can point you straight to people who can. The question now is, just like when I posed it to Christopher “Russell is a hatchet man for Heartland” Keating at his blog, do you have the guts to take your material straight into the lion’s den and do a public debate with a co-equal, as Dr Scott Denning did recently ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlASubg7rGE )? I have little doubt it can be arranged. But a predictable (and honest) answer from you would likely be “there’s no way on Earth I’d give the time of day to deniers paid by oil money to lie.” …… oops ……”

          You may not have the expertise to discuss this topic, yet you felt well enough informed to make a snide comment at the top of this thread. I decided to explore your views by asking a simple question. You doubled down with the statement that “the machine busted”, and implied a hopelessly simple view that because the fours years since 2012 haven’t seen a record low in sea ice, that our understanding of AGW is somehow fatally flawed. I provided some information to show that I have thought about this topic. Also, that this effort at understanding was done some time ago. So no, I wouldn’t do a debate like Denning did. I’m not well enough informed to deal with nuances in a live setting (or even in a written format). And I’ve witnessed the Gish Gallop, something we regularly see from Tom Bates in here, and which is impossible to counter in a live setting.

          If you post nonsense here, I may comment in response, when I have time. It’s as simple as that. Don’t try to make this into something it isn’t.


          • So, ill health prevents you from doing one-on-one debates with the people you criticize. I wish you improvement with the condition if that’s possible, and as much comfort as possible if this is something unavoidable. However, may I additionally suggest (when the opportunity allows) that rather than accepting without question that skeptics (i.e. those with authority to offer conclusions based on their own scientific expertise, as compared to, say, Trump) deny “rising global temperature / downward sea ice extent trend / CO2’s interactions with infrared radiation”, that you instead find evidence for this denial in order to beat down people like me who challenge you on it. I submit you won’t find any such denial, but what you will find is an ocean of efforts to employ character assassination by their critics in order to marginalize these scientists in the eyes of the public. You are truly independent of Gore, the Guardian, etc? Then why do you resort to using the literally unsupportable “denier” talking point word or the other worthless talking point about ‘authority in the issue being restricted to published literature?’ That point is as ridiculous as saying an expert on Duesenberg history is untrustworthy because he hasn’t published an article in Hemmings Motor News.

            Regarding your confusion over Hansen’s Salon 1988 article “40 year swamping of Manhattan’s westside freeway” prediction (meaning 2028 instead of what I typo’d as 2048 above), try breaking this down to its simplest components: CO2 is indisputably rising; AGWers across the board say this heats up the planet, causing among other things, a death spiral in Arctic ice, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. Has there been a discernible rise in the sea level by the westside freeway? No, there has not. The longer this problem continues, the steeper the rise in a graph measuring this situation will have to be, the closer we approach 2028. Again, with increasing CO2 levels which supposedly cause accelerating glacial melt and thermal expansion from added planetary heat. The same heat that was already supposed to have rendered the Arctic ice-free by now. But your ice hasn’t gotten the memo, and no doubt by now you’ve already seen the uptick from this summer’s minimum. If this same general extent is seen for a summer minimum next year and for summers after that, never again approaching the big 2012 minimum, do you not have the inverse of what can happen to the curve that needs to be plotted for Hansen’s sea level rise, in the face of ever-increasing CO2 levels? In other words, both graphs clearly NOT showing what was predicted to happen?

            Let me put it in a way that’s impossible for you to misunderstand, by completing the sentence I first commented about: “arctic sea ice will not set a new low record extent this season … even though we thought for sure that a year of record warmth caused by unprecedented levels of CO2 would make this to happen.” Yep, my original comment was snarky, and for good reason. How many times will it take for skeptic climate scientists, speaking about this and myriad other prediction failures while never denying that CO2 levels are increasing, before you see what the real problem is here?

            With all due respect, sir, I do not “try to make this into something it isn’t”, I’m on point every time I come in here or elsewhere. It is all about whether the IPCC’s science assessments stand on their merits or not. I point to skeptic climate scientists who dispute IPCC reports, and further point out how it is the enviro-activists who are truly the ones trying to “try to make this into something it isn’t when they accuse skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption. Gish gallop / obfuscate is not what I or skeptics do, it is what AGWers have every appearance in the world of doing for the express purpose of burying something that can destroy their whole so-called global warming crisis. Look no farther than your most influential leaders for this appearance. Then ask yourself why there has ever been a perceived need to stray away from the pure science into unrelated political tangents that implode when there is no evidence to back them up – namely, skeptics are paid to knowingly misinform the public with illicit industry-sourced money. Could the reason be because your leaders have always been petrified that their science can’t actually stand up under the Scientific Method, ‘science’ which otherwise allegedly justifies whatever massive AGW mitigation measures and actions that have been proposed?

          • Torsten Says:

            Ill health? What did I write that leads you to that conclusion? Also, you seem to think that a live debate is useful. It may be entertaining, but unlikely to advance science. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that challenges to engage in a live debate are common amongst people who disagree with the AGW view. I find that odd.

            “…CO2’s interactions with infrared radiation”, that you instead find evidence for this denial in order to beat down people like me who challenge you on it.”

            Tim Ball regularly has essays published at WUWT. Ball is a member and contributor to http://principia-scientific.org/ . He is a co-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”. On his own site he states “Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount. Warmists claim it explains 90 percent, Skeptics an insignificant amount. Both avoid the real issue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon.” I think this man has no legitimate authority, but his writing has influenced many people who do believe he has authority. Much of what he writes is a misrepresentation of climate science and character assassination.

            Regarding my use of the term denier, I have stated above why I use that word. If the shoe fits…

            There is plenty of noise in the published literature. Having satisfied myself that points typically brought up by the people you defend have been regularly shown to be misleading or wrong, and yet they are regularly repeated, makes me wary of statements outside of the peer reviewed literature. And this includes hyperbole from proponents of the AGW view, including statements that Hansen may have made in a 1988 interview as he points out a Manhattan window to illustrate his point. But your hammering on a few statements made outside of that literature, while seemingly incapable of taking the broad body of evidence in favour of AGW, is typical of your camp.

            “try breaking this down to its simplest components: CO2 is indisputably rising; AGWers across the board say this heats up the planet, causing among other things, a death spiral in Arctic ice, melting glaciers and rising sea levels. Has there been a discernible rise in the sea level by the westside freeway? No, there has not.”

            Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd. 2012. Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1597.html

            The “hotspot” includes New York. The paper is about the spatial distribution of sea level rise. It provides evidence “consistent with a modelled fingerprint of dynamic SLR”. Other papers referenced within it indicate less of a rise at New York than Hansen claimed in the interview. Why would I accept Hansen’s statement in an interview over this study’s conclusions? So, there is no problem with the 2028 claim unless you think it is credible or widely accepted by people how would have to do something about it (e.g., make infrastructure changes). I don’t think it is. Again, you harp on one claim and ignore the broader literature. That’s a form of denial.

            “If this same general extent is seen for a summer minimum next year and for summers after that, never again approaching the big 2012 minimum, do you not have the inverse of what can happen to the curve that needs to be plotted for Hansen’s sea level rise, in the face of ever-increasing CO2 levels? “

            That’s a big IF, Russell. What evidence do you have that it cannot reach, or drop below, the 2012 level, other than your simplistic reasoning that because that metric didn’t drop below the 2012 value this year, it won’t in future? You are suggesting the AGW view is that these things move in lockstep with rising CO2, and I’ve already pointed out that this is false. And whose unrealistic prediction of an early date for an open arctic are you using, while ignoring other more conservative values? What you are doing is creating a strawman, easy for you to knock down, and impressive for the uneducated, but typical of people who have no substantive argument.

            “I’m on point every time I come in here or elsewhere. It is all about whether the IPCC’s science assessments stand on their merits or not.”

            IPCC third report showed a range of sea level rise possibilities to 2100, and the highest of these was about 0.9 m.

            AR4 stated “Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.” However, the report did include “Model-based projections of global average sea level rise at the end of the 21st century (2090-2099)” and was clear in its table stating that the reported ranges excluded future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow, and that “the upper values of the ranges given are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise.” The highest value reported was 0.59 m.

            In AR5, the highest value in any range of sea level rise out to 2100 was 0.98 m. And the central value of that projection was 0.74 m.

            Despite these values offered by IPCC, you choose to talk about a 1988 comment by Hansen. You are NOT about discussing the IPCC science assessments.

            Lastly, you opened the discussion with a reference to Gore, and after telling you that I basically don’t give a shit what the man says, you still find a need to suggest I’m influenced by him (i.e. Gore as an originator of the term denier, after spelling out for you the behaviour that can only be described as denial). This is the Gish Gallop. No amount of explanation or clarification will stop you doing it.

    • Torsten Says:

      From Peter’s post above this one:

      As of yesterday, arctic sea ice extent is somewhat less than it was a year ago, so this year’s September mean may be lower, or similar to last year. Add that data point to the chart and you still have a declining trend. And the trend is what this is about, as you undoubtedly have heard many times.

      • Torsten Says:

        It didn’t accept the link to the chart I mentioned. Russell will have to navigate there on his own and try to hold that thought.


        • A declining trend …. in a curve that is one year flatter than the last instead of the same or steeper. Is that something you disagree with?

        • Torsten Says:

          If this year’s value is lower than last year’s, it is a mathematical certainty that the slope of the linear trend line will be steeper. Even by simply drawing a straight line from the earliest data point to last year’s, and then drawing another line from the earliest data point to this year’s value, you should be able to see that this is true.

          Look at the chart embedded a couple of posts down by Snow White. That final data point was an interim value for September 2016 that was current on the day he posted it. The final value recorded by NSIDC is lower. The slope of this latest trend calculation is not as steep as it was in 2012, but neither was the slope in 2011 compared to 2007. I do not know where it will end next year. Try to keep in mind that the absolute minimum value achieved for extent in a given year is only one of several metrics. There are others, and they do not support your simplistic view that the arctic is not “getting the memo”.

          It’s hard to believe that this has to be explained to you.

      • Snow White Says:

        If I can manage to embed it here’s the NSIDC annual minimum extent, including 2016 thus far:

        No doubt the downward trend will be obvious to Russell?

  2. Gingerbaker Says:

    And, of course, this is not sea ice volume, just extent.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      There’s a difference? The deniers don’t think so (or don’t want to admit it because it doesn’t support their BS).

      Even at some future point in time when the planet has warmed so much that many parts have had to be abandoned because they’re just too hot, it will still get cold enough in the winter in the far north for ice to form on the Arctic Ocean, even though it may be so thin that it will all disappear every summer.

      If the “extent” at that future point should ever show a year to year INCREASE, the deniers will jump on that and start screaming “An ice age is coming, an ice age is coming!”. Bet on it!


  3. This is satellite view of northern Greenland, the ice is breaking up. 9/3/2016 – 9/7/2016 will show cracks forming and the main icecap breaking off its attachment point to Greenland, 9/8/2016 is blank.
    Is this normal? Or an “oh crap” moment?

    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Coastlines&t=2016-09-07&v=-194560,-948992,788480,-367872

  4. Jim Hunt Says:

    It’s certainly not “normal”, but the “main icecap breaking off its attachment point to Greenland” can even happen in the depths of winter:

    http://econnexus.org/a-new-world-view-from-nasa/


Leave a 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: