 | Phoenix44 on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
 | saighdear on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
| saighdear on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
 | energywise on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
 | brianrlcatt on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
| saighdear on Swiss parliament snubs Europea… |
| saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
 | oldbrew on Exploding nova alert |
| oldbrew on Suggestions-50 |
| Phoenix44 on Exploding nova alert |
| oldbrew on Why is June so cold and when w… |
| oldbrew on Why is June so cold and when w… |
 | liardetg on Why is June so cold and when w… |
 | stpaulchuck on New discovery reveals that oce… |
| brianrlcatt on Suggestions-50 |
– – –
Let’s see how this plays out over the full season.
Tallbloke's Talkshop
Evidently you are aware that sea ice is 3 dimensional!
Now where have I seen a graph like that before?
Obviously it’s a “crisis”
Well, if as Tommy Wils asked in the climategate emails, “What if global warming turns out to be a multidecadal oscillation?”, then there is obviously no crisis.
So tell us what “crisis” in scare quotes means to you.
They are “air quotes” Rog, not “scare quotes”.
Here is a comment of mine on XTwitter during a “debate” with a certain “Steve Goddard” on the very same topic:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1745607611267916075
Would you believe that the very same “Steve Goddard” has recently used the example of northern hemisphere snow cover to provide his flock of faithful followers with empirical evidence that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s global warming “predictions” are correct?!
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1740513138213306585
Some seek to deny the current plateau in Arctic Sea Ice by saying that extent measure is only surface, while volume would be a truer metric. That is true in theory, but in practice obtaining accurate and consistent data on sea ice thickness is a challenge yet to be reached. As you can imagine, detecting a depth dimension from satellites is fraught with errors, especially with drift ice not land anchored, moving around, sometimes piling up from winds. The scientific effort to measure volume has a short history and several uncertainties to ovecome before it can be trusted.
Unfortuanately for those wanting an ice free Arctic (well, no more than 1 Wadham they say), the volume record so far shows the same plateau:
“Satellite derived sea ice thickness (CryoSat 2, AWI algorithm v2.6) shows an anomaly thickness pattern very similar to that from PIOMAS, but CS2 shows negative anomalies propagating north of the Canadian Archipelago into the central Arctic while PIOMAS has neutral conditions there. A positive thickness anomaly around Wrangle Island is spatially more extensive in CS2. January 2024 adds another month to the record of CS2 data which now spans 13 years. Neither CS2 nor PIOMAS show any discernible trend over that time period underlining the importance of internal variability at decadal timescales.” Source: Polar Science Center
[…] February Arctic ice ahead of recent comparisons […]
Climate change row as British scientists claim ‘Day After Tomorrow’ modelling is wrong
Prediction by Dutch team that vital Atlantic system could reach a tipping point and trigger new ice age has been ‘forced’, say experts
9 February 2024
Prof Jonathan Bamber, director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at Bristol University, said: “They did this by imposing a huge freshwater forcing to the North Atlantic that is entirely unrealistic for even the most extreme warming scenario over the next century.“
Their freshwater forcing applied to the North Atlantic is equivalent to six cm/year of sea level rise by the end of the experiment, which is more than seen during the collapse of the ice sheet that covered North America during the last glaciation.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/climate-change-modelling-wrong-claim-uk-scientists/
AMOC alarmism hitting a new low? If that’s even possible 🙄
When your model exceeds known physical boundaries it’s surely time for a rethink. We don’t need silly stories like this…
Atlantic Apocalypse
https://futurism.com/the-byte/atlantic-current-verge-of-collapse
No, CNN and Other Media Outlets, Climate Change Is Not Causing the Ocean Circulation to Collapse
By Anthony Watts — February 13, 2024
There’s only one problem; the amount of freshwater from melting that they injected into the model is about five times the actual amount of ice available in Greenland to melt.
https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/no-cnn-and-other-media-outlets-climate-change-is-not-causing-the-ocean-circulation-to-collapse/
Good evening Ron (UTC),
Quoting from your quote “CS2 shows negative anomalies propagating north of the Canadian Archipelago into the central Arctic“.
Presumably given the rest of your comment the significance of that fact escapes you?
Is there any way to get an image in a comment on here? Rog seems to be able to embed Xweets, but that didn’t work for me above.
Apparently this should work
FYI Ron:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/nothing-swift-january-sea-ice/
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2024/02/SeaIceThickness_anomaly2023-350×430.png
Some of the Arctic ice is thinner than usual.
Some of the Arctic ice is thicker than usual
Most of the Arctic ice is about the same as usual.
Wake me up when something exciting happens.
Since you are evidently lost for words Ron, I am forced to conclude that the significance of the NSIDC’s fact has indeed escaped you?
Something exciting has already happened Rog! Did you blink and miss it?
Here is chapter and verse for you:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/02/facts-about-the-arctic-in-february-2024/
“By this morning Ingunn had merged with the remnants of the prior cyclone…
The storms have sucked plenty of anomalously warm air into the central Arctic.”
I’m giving Jim a chance to make his case.
So far, he seems to be playing the troubadour.
!! Is that why we’ve had large wave damage here since Saturday: Stonehaven and Sun/Monday Northline Railway & Links Golfcourse Damage around Golspie and further North ? https://www.thenational.scot/news/24118313.scotrail-provides-update-key-line-following-significant-damage/ & https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvr25ewe3yo & https://news.stv.tv/north/large-waves-and-flooding-to-hit-stonehaven-as-public-urged-to-avoid-coast
Your “facts” are base on data to Feb 4, 2024. Ron’s are based on significant changes after Feb 4 as evident in his Feb 11, 2024 data.
Which suggests you may be what some have suggested… a troll.
We have ice core records from Greenland that go back into the last major ice age.
We have ice core records from Antarctica that go back 800 thousand years through multiple major ice ages.
The records clearly show that the ice accumulations on the Greenland and Antarctica ice that is sequestered on land is much more in the warmest times with least sea ice and the ice accumulations on ice that is sequestered on land is much less in the coldest times with the most sea ice.
The polar climate has always had alternating warmer times with much ice accumulations and colder times with little ice accumulations.
These warm and cold cycles are natural, necessary, self-correcting and there is no stable state in between. There is a thermostat, like in many houses. When there is adequate land ice pushing into the oceans sea ice shuts off the ice machines. When there is not adequate land ice pushing into the oceans, sea ice is removed and the ice machines are turned on. CO2 does not influence the temperature that sea ice forms or thaws. Quit stressing about polar sea ice, it increases and decreases on demand to maintain the sequestered ice on land in cold places. It does not snow enough on Greenland or Antarctica when the ice doughnuts, made up of ice shelves and sea ice are too large. The sea ice and ice shelves must be diminished from time to time to allow evaporation and snowfall to replenish the sequestered ice.
What if the alternating warming and cooling turns out to be natural self-correcting responses of the climate systems, in different regions, in which when there is not enough ice being pushed into the turbulent salt water currents the sea ice is removed and evaporation and snowfall rebuilds the sequestered ice until it is deep and heavy enough to increase the ice flow into the turbulent salt water currents and chill the salt water enough to rebuild sea ice and turn off the evaporation and snowfall until more ice is needed. This theory is consistent with the modern thousand year cycles and it is consistent with the 40 thousand year and the 100 thousand year major ice ages. This all depends on the amount of ice and water that take part in the cycle. This will sometimes correlate with Milankovitch or whatever else and more often it will not properly correlate. The Arctic and Antarctic cycles sometimes correlate and sometimes they do not. This is characteristic of different regions having a response that depends on what is happening in that regions. If the climate systems in different regions did not have different response, if the worldwide climate responses were more synchronized, then it would likely be that the only factors would be external forcing. With responses in different regions being out of phase with other regions, much of the time, internal responses must be studied and understood better. Water is abundant, water changes state, we most often choose materials that change state in our cooling and heating systems, it is unlikely that the climate system uses a trace gas that is not changing state for cooling the climate systems.
Mr Snow White, I’m unclear why the data Ron correctly says is largely valueless proves it’s not valueless?
You have to prove the data has value, nit just post the data. Do you see?
PopesCT: “Water is abundant, water changes state, we most often choose materials that change state in our cooling and heating systems, it is unlikely that the climate system uses a trace gas that is not changing state for cooling the climate systems.”
The latent heat of condensation/vaporisation is an efficient way to shift energy via a buoyant gas such as water vapour. It completely bypasses the near-surface CO2 ‘blanket’ too. Energy carried in LW radiation diffuses slowly through the troposphere in comparison.
Afternoon all (UTC),
It’s been a busy morning here on the now frozen shores of Santa’s summer swimming pool, and the afternoon will be even busier.
I will, however, take this opportunity to ask Ron, Rog et al. a question which a recent interlocutor of mine on XTwitter singularly failed to get around to answering:
Thanks in advance
Instead of asking us to haver about the ups and downs of various seasonal metrics, Jim ought to get around to giving us his answer to the question posed in the first comment of this thread:
“Is the [PIOMAS ice volume model] data following the IPCC linear downward trend to an ice free Arctic in summer 2035, or a cyclical trend following the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation?”
Here’s a correlation of the (inverted) PIOMAS model data anomaly (green dots) to the averaged AMO (red curve).
Time presses Rog,
However, have you by any chance ever tried applying Willis Eschenbach’s patent pending “CEEMD smooth” technique to PIOMAS volume?
And how is your own green curve derived?
Ballcocks – Apparently Willis is reluctant to reveal his secrets!
Trying an alternative technique:
What have you done here Jim? Used one datapoint in 12 of a highly seasonally variable metric?
Tut tut.
That’s Willis’s graph Rog, not mine. By all means take it up with him on Zeke’s blog:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-arctic-sea-ice-shell-game/comment/48764104
However you’ll note that he somehow neglected to answer this question of mine:
“Can anybody here explain why “lowess-smoothed” sea ice extent should in any sense be a “better fit” than “a straight line”, given the physics of the sea ice annual melt/freeze cycle?”
https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/sea-ice/science-sea-ice
Perhaps you could stand in for him, in his hour of need? Feel free to replace “lowess-smoothed” with “CEEMD smoothed” and/or whatever you call your own methodology.
What do you mean “my own methodology” Jim? I’ve simply plotted the monthly PIOMAS anomaly data (green dots) and the annually averaged AMO (red curve) in a time series. The “methodology” for the green dots, such as it is, is described on the Y-axis legend at the right of the plot. The raw data is here, fill your boots.
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt
No fancy smoothing. no data cherrypicking, no funky trendlines with drop shadows, no bullshit.
Quit prevaricating and answer the question.
“Is the [PIOMAS ice volume model] data following the IPCC linear downward trend to an ice free Arctic in summer 2035, or a cyclical trend following the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation?”
I’m exceedingly familiar with very raw PIOMAS data Roger.
Where does your “annually averaged AMO” data come from?
It may be similarly obvious to you, but where does your green line come from in the second image?
In provisional answer to your question. Neither.
Now answer mine. In what way is your green line related to “the physics of the sea ice annual melt/freeze cycle?”?
TIA
I’m exceedingly familiar with very raw PIOMAS data Roger.
Got a link for that? I showed you mine.
Where does your “annually averaged AMO” data come from?
Can’t find the link ATM, I’ll get back to you.
It may be similarly obvious to you, but where does your green line come from in the second image?
It’s just a 65yr sine wave in phase with the AMO, scaled to best fit the PIOMAS data.
In provisional answer to your question. Neither.
Well at least we don’t need you to cease prevaricating to see what the correlation coefficients for the two trendlines says about it. We’ll see how the differential changes in the coming months. AMO Sine wave approximation wins by 2.9% at the moment.
Now answer mine. In what way is your green line related to “the physics of the sea ice annual melt/freeze cycle?”?
In the same way the IPCC’s linear projection is. They are both hypotheses, supported by theory and observations. (one of which will be proved incorrect by 2028).
The more interesting issue is whether the climate cabal have totally goofed their greenhouse physics (CERES data says they have), and Tommy Wils was asking the right question after all.
Tommy Wils, Swansea University to the mailing list for tree-ring data forum ITRDB, 28 Mar 2007 (email 1682)
Good morning Roger,
I showed you mine.
Wash your mouth out with soap! That’s no way to talk to a lady.
However, since you asked so sweetly please (discreetly) see:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/model_grid
It’s just a 65yr sine wave in phase with the AMO
Thanks for the info. No reference whatsoever to sea ice physics then?
CERES data says they have
Got any learned references for that assertion? I once tried to hold an intelligent conversation with Willis about CERES, but he flounced off in a huff, as is his wont.
Morning Jim.
CERES data says they have [botched the greenhouse physics]. Got any learned references for that assertion? I once tried to hold an intelligent conversation with Willis about CERES, but he flounced off in a huff, as is his wont.
Sure.
Sadly that’s not what I meant by “a learned reference” Rog.
Have you by any chance read a certain professor of computational astrophysics on Ned & Karl (2017)? If not, please see:
“We can be very confident that Nikolov and Zeller’s argument that planetary surface temperature is set by pressure alone is wrong. Not only does pressure alone not define temperature, in the absence of a planetary greenhouse effect the surface should radiate as much energy as it receives from the Sun, which is clearly not the case for the Earth.“
This is their 2023 CERES radiative work, not their 2017 pressure effect work (still unrebutted in the lichurcher), although it incorporates it to assess baseline values.
Anyway, if you’re predisposed to ignore their 2023 work on the basis of word salad rather than actual analysis of their 2017 work, try this instead.
Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297
Evenin’ Rog,
NZ’s “2023 CERES radiative work” quotes their “2017 pressure effect work” 9 times, and the Arctic not once.
Dübal & Vahrenholt don’t mention the Arctic either. What’s the relevance of either to your original post?
While is a fascinating exchange to follow, the fact remains that the IPCC’s “theory” of “greenhouse gas” climate change is complete rubbish.
How do we know?
Examine the best available data from geologic evidence. The 550 million year (my) evidence (used by Happer & Lindzen) produces the following correlations between (1) atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and (2) changing atmospheric CO2 and changing global temperature (over 25 million year increments):
(1) r = 0.29
(2) r = 0.10
Correlation cannot confer causation, but lack of correlation means causation is impossible.
The same result is obtained by looking at the best data for both CO2 and global average temperature (combined land+ocean surface temps) for the years 1885-2014. Correlation coefficient is 0.12.
No correlation means no causation possible.
Furthermore, the IPCC seems to believe CO2 (and methane, CH4) are reactive over the complete spectra of IR given off by Earth. In fact, they are far from reactive to most of the IR spectrum emanating from Earth.
For all practical purposes, Earth’s outbound IR is limited to the IR spectra between 5 µm and 50 µm. Methane is only reactive to Earth’s outbound IR in the region of 8 µm, but atmospheric water vapor (H2O) completely absorbs IR in that range (from 5 µm to about 8 µm) overwhelming any possible warming from methane. The range of extremely marginal impact from CH4 is in the “tail” of Earth’s outbound IR, so for all practical purposes, methane as a climate change force is a farce.
The only meaningful range of outbound IR from Earth where CO2 has a marginal impact is in the area of roughly 12 µm to 18 µm, an area where, again, H2O begins to overwhelm (as IR wavelength increases over that range) any impact from CO2.
This evidence, together with the complete lack of correlation between CO2 and global average temperature (except for the cherry-picked most recent years since 1980) provide compelling evidence that the IPCC’s climate change theory is a complete fraud.
Finally, if that weren’t enough, the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel emission CO2 has been scientifically determined to be about 5.4 years (two independent sources). This means the only CO2 in the atmosphere from the entire history of fossil fuel usage is limited to about 16 ppm out of the current estimate of 420 ppm.
Again, the IPCC fiction is maintained by assuming the residency of fossil fuel emissions CO2 is an absurd 50 to 200 years, figures necessary to promote their climate change fiction.
Sorry, 1885-1014 should be 1885-2014!
“Dübal & Vahrenholt don’t mention the Arctic either.”
Sorry Jim. I didn’t factor in your monomania.
Mornin’ Rog (UTC),
The topic of this conversation is “February Arctic ice”. See above.
At the risk of repeating myself, “time presses“.
Whilst I’d love to have a deep and meaningful conversation about the significance of CERES data acquired above the Arctic circle, that seems to be an impossible dream.
As indeed does receiving an answer to this on topic question. At the risk of repeating myself:
“Please explain to me in what way your sacred [extent] metric is relevant in the middle of the Arctic winter.”
Luv,
“Snow”
Morning Jim,
I found the link to the AMO data you asked for.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/
As regards the radiative physics in polar regions, the Nikolov and Zeller article you didn’t bother to read has this on the ‘greenhouse effect’ over antarctica:
“Combining the original NZ model with an analytical formula that quantifies the response of global temperature to albedo perturbations (Eq. 18) produced Eq. 20, which fully describes the global surface temperature of rocky planets and moons without recourse to a greenhouse-gas radiative forcing. The latter is a model-generated quantity based on a conjectural 19th-Century hypothesis, which is not supported by modern satellite observations. For example, the classical definition of the “greenhouse effect” as a difference of outgoing long-wave fluxes between the surface and the top of the atmosphere (Ramanathan 1989; Schmidt et al. 2010) yields physically nonsensical results over central Antarctica, where the “greenhouse effect” becomes negative (Schmithüsen et al. 2015; Sejas et al. 2018). However, the actual atmospheric thermal effect over the Earth’s South Pole measured with respect to the thermal environment of the Moon’s airless South Pole is about 144 K (Fig. 5). Hence, the radiative “greenhouse effect” as currently defined has no meaningful relationship to the actual surface warming caused by the presence of an atmosphere.”
Thanks for the link Rog,
However, didn’t you find the time to read the “Ant” bit in front of “Arctic” in NK 2022?
FYI, from some experts in such matters:
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2861/arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-how-are-they-different/
Hi Tallbloke,
I note the AMO data is still not available for 2023/24.
Have you any idea when this data will re-appear on-line
NOAA: Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
10. Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain. [bold added]
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_10
– – –
Where does that leave AMOC theories?
Neil H: you can get up to date SST info here
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Not AMO itself but you can select ‘North Atlantic’