That's Dana Nutticelli from SKS (see above).
They'll do anything to make a dramatically reduced melt sound like a continued decline - because they have everything pinned on declining ice being directly caused by increased CO2.

The question should be why did the ice not melt anywhere near as much this year, and does it signal a pattern change.
Maybe previous melting had precious little to do with CO2 and AGW but was essentially weather and ocean current related. 
Certain groups have too much invested in the doomed planet mentality.

Next year the graphs are going to show a big jump in multi-year ice which we have been told was gone for good.
That's is how a real receovery starts, this summer is different to the 'recoveries' shown in that silly animating graph because it is not just more 1st year ice that managed to survive.
 

That's Dana Nutticelli from SKS (see above).
They'll do anything to make a dramatically reduced melt sound like a continued decline - because they have everything pinned on declining ice being directly caused by increased CO2.

The question should be why did the ice not melt anywhere near as much this year, and does it signal a pattern change.
Maybe previous melting had precious little to do with CO2 and AGW but was essentially weather and ocean current related. 
Certain groups have too much invested in the doomed planet mentality.

Next year the graphs are going to show a big jump in multi-year ice which we have been told was gone for good.
That's is how a real receovery starts, this summer is different to the 'recoveries' shown in that silly animating graph because it is not just more 1st year ice that managed to survive.
 

shttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html 

It is very interesting to find this in your link -

Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales,

This clearly supports Arctic ice melt being largely the result of more penetration of the Arctic by the NADrift/Gulfstream caused by anomalous synoptics rather than air temperature and decreased albedo which many posting here have considered the main reason.

And what might increase gulfstream flow? Well, the answer has to be in the North Atlantic because not much Pacific water can get into the Arctic. It seems to me that on the multi-decadal time scales, the Azores high pressure cell being a main driver of the gulfstream is something that NASA should be looking into, in relation to the suns UV output and its connection with ozone and pressure distribution.

That's Dana Nutticelli from SKS (see above).
They'll do anything to make a dramatically reduced melt sound like a continued decline - because they have everything pinned on declining ice being directly caused by increased CO2.

The question should be why did the ice not melt anywhere near as much this year, and does it signal a pattern change.
Maybe previous melting had precious little to do with CO2 and AGW but was essentially weather and ocean current related. 
Certain groups have too much invested in the doomed planet mentality.

Next year the graphs are going to show a big jump in multi-year ice which we have been told was gone for good.
That's is how a real receovery starts, this summer is different to the 'recoveries' shown in that silly animating graph because it is not just more 1st year ice that managed to survive.
 

quote:

Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales,

If the "precious liitle" is around what I think it is at about 25/30% of present warming, then we do still have a problem - but a much longer period of time to do something about it.

The question should be why did the ice not melt anywhere near as much this year, and does it signal a pattern change.

The question should be why did the ice not melt anywhere near as much this year, and does it signal a pattern change.

Because last year's melt was exceptional and driven in part by unusual synoptics which did not occur this year.  Therefore no-one (except the sceptics) expected this years melt to be as much.  Simples.

The main reason why melt was less [ie slower] than expected this year was an unusual persistence of cold cyclones in the central arctic. This has a particularly important influence during June when the sun is strongest.

Connected to this is the fact that all 18 summer months during 2007-2012 had negative NAO, all 3 months in 2013 had positive NAO. What has happened this year is that heat has been distributed differently around the Northern Hemisphere.

The question is whether 2013 was just a blip or is the start of a batch of years with a different pattern. The energy imbalance remains, but the precise distribution of extra heat from year to year will continue to vary.

Hi Essan!

I think last yearssynoptics were 'average' really? Most of the years , post 07', have been average with only 07' itself and this year showing marked departures from the 'average' ( synoptics wise?)?

The question has to be why we still lost the ice we did with a year so conducive to ice retention? Post 07' we saw many sceptics jumping on the 'extreme' synoptics of that year ( esp. ice export due to the winds the exceptional synoptics brought with them) but we do not appear to see them being as consistant with this years 'extremes'?

Through the season they appeared keen to note the potential for ice retention but now appear silent on just how splendid the synoptics ( and rare?) proved to be?

For my part I am content to see them being so 'loud' about things as I cannot see anything other than a very fragile situation that will revert back to the losses we have witnessed, under 'average' conditions' should they return next season?

And what of the opposite of this season? Post 07' the studies found the 'perfect melt storm' synoptics returned every 10 to 20 years with the tweo previous to 07' being 10 years apart. Wgat will happen to the ice should next year encounter a season closer to the 'perfect melt storm' than conditions closer to the 'perfect ice retention storm'?

Fours talk about 'healthier' ice age mean nothing when that 'older ice' is of a thickness that puts it at risk of melt out through a single season.

I am not saying that we should not be gladdened by a halt to the type of losses we witnessed last summer, I am sure no one can be anything but heartened by it, but let us not lose track of the bigger picture across the basin?

We have seen the same occur with global temps with a 'perfect storm' of cool drivers slowing the warming being heralded as some kind of 'recovery'. surely it posts just as large a warning of the opposite occuring where a conflagration of warm drivers , on top of the AGW signal, brings us a period of rapid warming?

Any 'slowdown in both warming or ice loss brings us breating space, the reverse brings us into problems of natural reinforcing feedbacks removing warming / ice loss ever further from 'natural' forcings.

When folk look to the mechanics of an 'ice free' ocean it becomes very clear that even years similar to this would leave us with the 'sub 1 million sq km' ice free basin. The situation rapidly moves from one that weather can influence to one that is dictated to by the ice condidtions themself.

When I see the type of losses we incured this year, ubder the best of circumstances, it highlights just how fragile the ice has become. Let us not lose our heads to our sense of relief.

 

The Arctic sea ice extent is much higher than last year's record low but it is down from the 1980s average.  The Antarctic sea ice area is also approaching an all-time record level. 

Does it signal that the global warming theory is wrong? 

Well actually it does.  Along with many other indicators, it signals that the theory is 75% to 50% wrong. 

That is something that many people will just not accept. 

 

Ah, another sweeping and unsupported statement.

I wonder if anyone from Admin will ask you to retract or provide evidence for this odd assertion?   I suppose you offer no evidence because there is no evidence.

 

The Arctic sea ice extent is much higher than last year's record low but it is down from the 1980s average.  The Antarctic sea ice area is also approaching an all-time record level. 

Does it signal that the global warming theory is wrong? 

Well actually it does.  Along with many other indicators, it signals that the theory is 75% to 50% wrong. 

That is something that many people will just not accept. 

 

Ah, another sweeping and unsupported statement.

I wonder if anyone from Admin will ask you to retract or provide evidence for this odd assertion?   I suppose you offer no evidence because there is no evidence.

Personally I'm very keen to close the climate forum permanently but the admins are more tolerant of it than me.

If they do close the climate forum, I will move to NW permanantly even in winter... Although as long as this thread stays ill be happy. When was the last time CT updated, I'm sure they haven't for a while now?! So I don't really know if the melt season has ended yet, the losses are becoming really quite small and this week should average positive gains on an average year. The weather is pretty cold still across the arctic, although now its actually above average. 

I like this forum (TWO) mostly because I have been posting on it since 2001 and the format does encourage a very wide range of people to participate in all its sub-forums. If Brian closes it fair enough its his forum.

I like this forum (TWO) mostly because I have been posting on it since 2001 and the format does encourage a very wide range of people to participate in all its sub-forums. If Brian closes it fair enough its his forum.

Well, I prefer TWO to netweather; I think despite what everyone thinks its far more tollerant. Tbh unless you go censorship mad I don't think its actually possible to have a climate forum without this sort of argument breaking out. I do my best to steer clear of it myself, as its just tiresome now; but personally I think the actually full closure of the forum would be more irratating than peoples baiting that goes on here. 

 

The Arctic sea ice extent is much higher than last year's record low but it is down from the 1980s average.  The Antarctic sea ice area is also approaching an all-time record level. 

Does it signal that the global warming theory is wrong? 

Well actually it does.  Along with many other indicators, it signals that the theory is 75% to 50% wrong. 

That is something that many people will just not accept. 

 

Ah, another sweeping and unsupported statement.

I wonder if anyone from Admin will ask you to retract or provide evidence for this odd assertion?   I suppose you offer no evidence because there is no evidence.

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

 

Personally I'm very keen to close the climate forum permanently but the admins are more tolerant of it than me.

Brian, I've PM'd you

 

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

Being charitable then yes, that could be the message.  But it would be helpful to understand what natural drivers he thinks he has found that map the pattern of global warming.  If one of us plucked a number from thin air there would be a rapid burst of critical posts, wouldn't there?

 

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

Being charitable then yes, that could be the message.  But it would be helpful to understand what natural drivers he thinks he has found that map the pattern of global warming.  If one of us plucked a number from thin air there would be a rapid burst of critical posts, wouldn't there?

Yes, there would and I would say the man made contribution is much larger than 25% to 50% . Indeed where did the numbers come from would be my next question but I am trying to understand the statement that a theory is '70% to 50% wrong'

If they do close the climate forum, I will move to NW permanantly even in winter... Although as long as this thread stays ill be happy. When was the last time CT updated, I'm sure they haven't for a while now?! So I don't really know if the melt season has ended yet, the losses are becoming really quite small and this week should average positive gains on an average year. The weather is pretty cold still across the arctic, although now its actually above average. 

Today's values from IJIS:

Old version: 5,117k, down 40k

New version: 4,862k, down 31k

Today marks the start of a 16 day window within which every minimum extent value has been achieved this century.

The average date:  for the 1980s (11th), 1990s (11th) and 2000s (15th)

So, based on the statistics I would say there's about a 70/30 chance that we'll start to rebound this week and 30/70 that it will be next week.

 

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

Being charitable then yes, that could be the message.  But it would be helpful to understand what natural drivers he thinks he has found that map the pattern of global warming.  If one of us plucked a number from thin air there would be a rapid burst of critical posts, wouldn't there?

Yes, there would and I would say the man made contribution is much larger than 25% to 50% . Indeed where did the numbers come from would be my next question but I am trying to understand the statement that a theory is '70% to 50% wrong'

Quite.  Is that the grammar perhaps, or the syntax, or the data......

 

The Arctic sea ice extent is much higher than last year's record low but it is down from the 1980s average.  The Antarctic sea ice area is also approaching an all-time record level. 

Does it signal that the global warming theory is wrong? 

Well actually it does.  Along with many other indicators, it signals that the theory is 75% to 50% wrong. 

That is something that many people will just not accept. 

 

Ah, another sweeping and unsupported statement.

I wonder if anyone from Admin will ask you to retract or provide evidence for this odd assertion?   I suppose you offer no evidence because there is no evidence.

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

Okay, maybe that was confusing but this is what I'm talking about - just published in Nature Climate Change.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

The Arctic sea ice extent is much higher than last year's record low but it is down from the 1980s average.  The Antarctic sea ice area is also approaching an all-time record level. 

Does it signal that the global warming theory is wrong? 

Well actually it does.  Along with many other indicators, it signals that the theory is 75% to 50% wrong. 

That is something that many people will just not accept. 

 

Ah, another sweeping and unsupported statement.

I wonder if anyone from Admin will ask you to retract or provide evidence for this odd assertion?   I suppose you offer no evidence because there is no evidence.

I would be interested to know what it means. I think Bill is saying that AGW is responsible for between 25% and 50% of the warming so far ? That is how it reads anyway 

 

Okay, maybe that was confusing but this is what I'm talking about - just published in Nature Climate Change.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

 

OK, but that paper covers a 20 year period from 1993-2012, the last 15 of which has seen the slowdown/pause in warming .  I see that the paper refers to the models including natural variability but I am sure that Tom has made the point that the models don't deal with the specific timing or extent of the ENSO cycle, so I question how valid that statement is?  Perhaps Tom could comment.

I haven't read the paper in detail but I don't see anything that supports your suggestion of a 50-75% error in the rate of warming. Even if there is, I would question whether a 20 year period is sufficient to reach that conclusion, even more so given the last 20 years.