The climate models are as Tom says, good, but not that good. They didn't predict that energy would go missing, did they? In fact, the missing energy, has been apparent for many years now and only the last few years has seen La NIna beginning to reassert itself to start influencing temperatures. The models are good but are going to get much better. They will have to.
I agree that the models will keep improving. Where we are going to have to disagree is about the existing AGW signal. Where was 2010 in the global record, despite the very quiet sun and strong La Nina in the second half? Where do you expect 2011 to be? I am expecting it to continue to be amongst the warmest 10 on record - and I am not alone in that expectation.
Back on topic, I think also that there is a better than evens chance that the summer ice will set a new record this year, possibly dropping below the 4 million extent mark (3 of the last 4 years have seen a loss of 9.6 to 9.8 and this spring's maximum will almost certainly be in the range 13.7m to 14.0m).
Substantially all the evidence points to a highly significant and very likely unprecedented rate of warming in the Arctic.
Now we know 07' was a 'killer' but the maps don't go back that far but the 09 image up against the 11' image shows you how bad 2 years can be in taking out the 'backbone ' of the ice that survives the summer (2.5m+)
And my post 676? You know, - the evidence bit? What do you think of it?
Well the Foresight Institute piece is yet another in a wearisome list of people who profess to be 'independent thinkers' but betray their mindset with emotionally charged references to the scientific establishment. I have taken one sentence to illustrate the point.
There was never a “nanogate” so we will probably never know to what extent the nanotech “in-group” fudged, colluded, or simply used the old-boy network to marginalize their rivals.
I'm sorry Dave but how can I take as un-biased something where the author includes this as a comment? Does this display a neutrality of mindset or someone hunting for evidence on 'one side of the argument' ?
The graphs that follow relating to the ice core proxy for temperatures don't seem to reflect other graphs and commentary as regards the warmth of the MWP versus current warming. For example:
So, here we are again - arguing about historical records. Overall I am quite content that the current warmth surpasses anything in the MWP. I assume you are not.
Gray-W - Please could you clarify what precisely those numbers and colours are?
John, 2011 is 76k sq km ahead of 2006 as of yesterday.
As you say the ice is in a more fragile state than 5 years ago, as regards the amount of first year ice. The behaviour of ice extent (as opposed to area) over the next 4 weeks may be revealing. Last year the ice extent peaked several weeks after ice area, suggesting - as Gray-Wolf has commented previously, that the start of the melt causes extensive break up of the ice sheet which gives a temporary and deceptive 'boost' to the figures.
It is worth remembering that 'ice extent' means any area with at least 15% of ice, i.e. less than 85% open water.
Ice area, as per Cryosphere Today, is running 1.2m sq km below the 1979-2008 mean
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions".
This is exactly what I was talking about. An area of warmth around Greenland ("some area's") existed at a time when the earth was considered cooler. The graphs on the blog, show this clearly from the ice core, the data for which, comes from NCDC/NOAA. Could you find a better source? This is nothing to do with the Blog as such, Gandalf, it's to do with the data and the graphs. If you can find fault with the graphs, then fair enough.* Deal with the science and stop hiding behind peoples emotional outbursts because that is something you demonstrate too, as we have only recently discussed.
For those who have forgotten, my posting of this information is in support of this idea, that, " ice loss area, in the Arctic as of now, has been as great in the MWP".
Now lets get back to my original question -
What is the radiative energy of the sun and how does that compare with Bills energy loss of 1000W/m2/? from the open leads in the Arctic winter? Now adjust the radiative energy of the sun for the low angle and what do you get? And how does that compare? If there are other substantial parameters that are part of the equation, fine, please point them out.
If one finds that the outgoing energy per unit area, after taking into account the duration of summer etc., is more than the incoming energy, then, more heat will be lost from the ocean than it gains. It will cool. It will refreeze. Unless, that is, more warm water arrives to take it's place. Which brings us back to the start of this post. Regionally, the Greenland area was the same or warmer in the MWP than it is now. And taking that a logical step further, the mid latitudes were colder as the jetstream dived south.
* Edit: You don't have to construct a graph from the data - just look at the data here -
........go down the left hand column for one thousand years plus, (about 800AD) observe and compare the temperatures for then and now (recently).
Edited by user 03 March 2011 05:59:43(UTC)
| Reason: Edit bit added + "the same" added before "warmer"
This is the record of a single ice core in central Greenland. Click on the Data on that page.
Now this data has been plotted and shown here -
That part of the world was certainly warmer then, at the time the Vikings colonised Greenland, than it is now. It also clearly demonstrates the way temperatures have changed yoyo like without the need for CO2, just as Stephen has said.
Bare in mind that I do accept that CO2 does have an affect on global temperatures.
But warmer in this area back then, it certainly was.
Also how do the temperatures there now (ie 2010) compare to those in 1900? Is it warmer or colder there? I've not looked and there's probably no point in me doing so because if warmer it'll probably be a UHI or "fiddling" or some such. However, I think the mining industries in Greenland believe there's less ice in places now then there were a few years ago.
Why worry so much about the albedo effect of less sea ice if it is largely offset by the albedo effect of more continental snow cover?
Being more extensive and at a lower latitude where the sun is stronger would there not be a net increase in albedo at the same time as energy is leaking faster from those exposed Arctic waters?
That sounds like two negative responses to any warming process.
Edited by user 03 March 2011 18:41:48(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Courtesy of Wikipedia
The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grœnland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glaciers) is green in the summer.
Beat me too it - I read or heard some years ago that the name was an early attempt at marketing...
It's a very long stretch from a fancy name to a plausible case for a materially different climate, isn't it?
Possibly true, leaving aside the fact that snow cover is at best seasonal and at worst transient. Anyway, do remind me how snow cover over parts of the northern hemisphere helps with Arctic sea ice?
Edited by user 03 March 2011 21:57:35(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Edited by user 03 March 2011 22:00:49(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
It's to do with climate not weather. The argument is about extended snow cover as well you know.
We are in danger of falling out Dave. This thread is about Arctic ice and the comment about snow cover is irrelevant as well YOU know.
Increased snow cover over the northern hemisphere this winter is most definitely weather and not climate. If we have increased snow cover fairly consistently over the next 20 years then come back and remind me that it is now fair to classify the change as climatic.
There is a steady, recorded decline in Arctic Sea Ice.
Snow cover in the Northern hemisphere is ephemeral, and seems to have had no effect on extent or depth over the past years.
All that said,It looks like we might not get below 2007 this year.
Edited by user 04 March 2011 04:23:52(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified