Welcome to HotWhopper Chat
Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.
Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Forums
In this Discussion
Where Australia's electricity comes from
This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.
Arctic sea ice extent "recovering fast" (again!)
in Deniosaurs
Perhaps Sue will cover this on the main blog, but if not, then it's worth mentioning that it's the time of year again when the Deniosaurs celebrate the latest 'recovery' of Arctic sea ice extent. WUWT, aided and abetted by Paul Homewood, is leading the charge with the following tales of the great 2016 rebound:
"- The earliest minimum since 1997 – shows how cold it is there
- This year extent was 22% above 2012, despite two massive storms
- Thickness is way up on 2010 and 2011
- Already extent is above 2007, as well as 2012, for this date
- We are looking at one of the fastest ice growths in September on record"
Every point made here falls into the 'one side of the story' category. They can all be countered with a single "but"...
- 'Extent 22% above 2012 despite two massive storms' but summer conditions that were generally unfavourable for ice melt go unmentioned.
- 'Thickness is way up on 2010 and 2011' but way down on 2014 and 2015. According to Neven, "During August 2016 more sea ice volume was lost than during any other August in the past decade."
- 'Already extent is above 2007, as well as 2012, for this date' but it's only been 5 days since minimum extent was reached and in 2007 and 2012 ice extent minimum wasn't even reached until 14 September!
- 'We are looking at one of the fastest ice growths in September on record' but, as was mentioned above it's only been growing for 5 days!! What we're looking at is a five day snapshot.
Ah, the fickle world of the deniosaurs. They can simultaneously deny the validity of scientists extrapolating from a decades long downward trend in sea ice minimum extent values, whilst themselves happily extrapolating from a 5 day 'trend' in sea ice extent that - one that happens to be in the direction they like.
(Hope the images and link were posted correctly.)
"- The earliest minimum since 1997 – shows how cold it is there
- This year extent was 22% above 2012, despite two massive storms
- Thickness is way up on 2010 and 2011
- Already extent is above 2007, as well as 2012, for this date
- We are looking at one of the fastest ice growths in September on record"
Every point made here falls into the 'one side of the story' category. They can all be countered with a single "but"...
- 'The earliest minimum extent since 2007' but the second lowest extent on record and well within the normal range of minimum extent dates. Anyway, it's not unusually cold there. Even AW links to the DMI chart showing the Arctic is currently (as of 15 Sept) anomalously warm.
- 'Extent 22% above 2012 despite two massive storms' but summer conditions that were generally unfavourable for ice melt go unmentioned.
- 'Thickness is way up on 2010 and 2011' but way down on 2014 and 2015. According to Neven, "During August 2016 more sea ice volume was lost than during any other August in the past decade."
- 'Already extent is above 2007, as well as 2012, for this date' but it's only been 5 days since minimum extent was reached and in 2007 and 2012 ice extent minimum wasn't even reached until 14 September!
- 'We are looking at one of the fastest ice growths in September on record' but, as was mentioned above it's only been growing for 5 days!! What we're looking at is a five day snapshot.
Ah, the fickle world of the deniosaurs. They can simultaneously deny the validity of scientists extrapolating from a decades long downward trend in sea ice minimum extent values, whilst themselves happily extrapolating from a 5 day 'trend' in sea ice extent that - one that happens to be in the direction they like.
(Hope the images and link were posted correctly.)
Comments
New post at WUWT points out that, based on NSIDC daily data, the individual day of minimum extent in 2016 was Sept. 7th, not the 10th as stated. Anthony presents this as a conspiracy theory: 'NSIDC try to hide that minimum extent this year was reached earlier than they admit'. Two curious things:
1) AW states himself that NSIDC apply a 5-day smooth, which indeed makes Sept. 10th the date of minimum extent in 2016. So he simultaneously presents and solves the 'mystery'.
2) Using individual dates would likely put 2016 clear as the 2nd lowest extent on record, since the individual daily minimum this year was ~78,000 km^2 lower than in 2007.
Willfully ignoring the reality that we are dealing with huge physical systems and measuring them is next to impossible. Today's technologies are an amazing result of decades worth of dedicated effort and a hell of a learning curve. A thing to marvel at, once one learns about its details.
Rather than stand in awe of all we can measure with amazing accuracy,
All they want is to focus on whatever error margins will always exist -
so the ruthless and malicious will always have the "uncertainty game"
to turn into bludgeons for fighting back the learning.
This is old and I'm sure it leaves much to be desired, but it's an attempt to explain what I'm driving at.
It would be fun if someone wanted to discuss it, I think the topic deserves some attention.
Or, as a stand-alone icon:
I have the other icons as well and if there's any interest in them, I can upload them e.g. to the Wiki for easy reference and download. They can then be used elsewhere together with explanations of why that characteristic applies.
Scientists in the UK are conducting similar studies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37304856
to try and put the recent floods in the UK into some sort of historical context
It would be interesting to see the rest of the icons if you get time, thanks.
Apparently extrapolating from ~ 2 weeks data is now deemed sufficient to suggest that 'an ice age cometh'; never mind that Arctic sea ice is still nearly 2 million km sq. below its 1981-2010 average for the date, or that the decades long record suggest exactly the opposite.
They always aim low at WUWT, which means they nearly always hit their targets.
http://i.imgur.com/An8hW1B.gif
not sure how to embed a gif - so click on the link
HT David Curran at Open Mind
my comment
Micheal Shermer mentions this phenomena in Merchants of Doubt when he says (and I paraphrase)
“In debates with the “skeptics” I put up graphs showing rising temps, rising sea levels and disappearing ice and then they put the same graphs up and argue the opposite”
In fact, October 2016 saw the lowest average extent for that month in the satellite record: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-the-arctic/
It will come as no surprise to people who read this chat page or the main blog that, despite their apparent interest in the subject as expressed in September, the fakes have responded to the latest data as they always do when it shifts against them: they simply stop talking about it.