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

 

Yes, its fair enough but what that shows a conclusion that has been reached many times before is that you can't use modern temperature trends to deduce the senstivity of the atmosphere of greenhouse gases because there are always confounding factors on the 10 to 20 year timescale which either enhance or reduce the warming. The paper does try to deal with the fact that the models don't include the timing of ENSO events which are clearly important on this timescale particularly the 1998 mega El-Nino.

I thought the article below it  on uncertainties in climate change attribution was very interesting (same link)

 

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.

This is my beef with using short time periods as proof of one cycle or another, so on that score why should 30 years prove a more accurate assesment of our climate than 20 years. IMO we need greater timescales to determine if a change is afoot.

 

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.

This is my beef with using short time periods as proof of one cycle or another, so on that score why should 30 years prove a more accurate assesment of our climate than 20 years. IMO we need greater timescales to determine if a change is afoot.

Well, the longer the better, obviously.  But whatever time period is chosen you have to be mindful of the starting point. As you know, that's always been 'my beef' (as you put it) about using 1997-98 as the reference point for the argument that warming has stopped.  Ideally you need matching conditions at the start and end of the period under review.

On the other hand you can see clearly that there is a warming trend in the graphs that use an extended period, together with the inevitable natural cycles and variation.  I do think we've moved past the point of debating whether there is AGW taking place but I do accept there is some uncertainty about the extent of AGW in the warming trend.  But nothing like the 50-75% claimed by Bill.

---

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

---

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

I would be inclined to wait for an adtjustment on that figure .Q.

Incedently, some Nilas ice has shown up in the CA. and Greenland sea.

Link below.(the dark blue).

http://www.aari.ru/resources/d0015/arctic/gif.en/2013/20130910.GIF

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

I would be inclined to wait for an adtjustment on that figure .Q.

Incedently, some Nilas ice has shown up in the CA. and Greenland sea.

Link below.(the dark blue).

http://www.aari.ru/resources/d0015/arctic/gif.en/2013/20130910.GIF

 

Thanks AIMSIR. Unfortunately I can't take too much comfort from the Greenland sea since thats basically an event horizion. But seeing nilas in the NW passage is good. its starting to show up on the canadian maps too, although its rated here as new ice, which is a bit younger and thinner than nilas. 

 

---

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

I would be inclined to wait for an adtjustment on that figure .Q.

Incedently, some Nilas ice has shown up in the CA. and Greenland sea.

Link below.(the dark blue).

http://www.aari.ru/resources/d0015/arctic/gif.en/2013/20130910.GIF

There was me, thinking you had a real problem with any 'adjustments'..... I stand corrected!

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

There's nothing especially unusual in a 30k loss at this stage.

---

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again . The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either. 

I would be inclined to wait for an adtjustment on that figure .Q.

Incedently, some Nilas ice has shown up in the CA. and Greenland sea.

Link below.(the dark blue).

http://www.aari.ru/resources/d0015/arctic/gif.en/2013/20130910.GIF

There was me, thinking you had a real problem with any 'adjustments'..... I stand corrected!

I would like it to be pointed out anywhere in here where I have ever expressed a problem with adjustments????.

There is no need to correct yourself on that one John.

Quite a large IJIS loss today of ~30k. If anything the melt season seems to be speeding up again

IMAGE. Members enable at bottom of page

. The north pole hole shows little sign of closing up either.

It was quite large but not massively unusual as GTW says, unless it is followed by something similar in coming days.

Today's (provisional) figure shows a small c. 2k increase. In theory the minimum should be achieved some time in the next week.

---

Interesting how closely it's still following 2010 which had an uptick at almost the same time! Deja vu, anyone?

BBC have an article about the 3 year's of the ESA Cryostat observations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23964372

---

Interesting how closely it's still following 2010 which had an uptick at almost the same time! Deja vu, anyone?

 

Yes, I'm sure I used to get a deja vu experience just like this

(Apologies)

---

Interesting how closely it's still following 2010 which had an uptick at almost the same time! Deja vu, anyone?

Is there a point to be made here, John?.

I'm genuinely confused and would be interested in an explaination..

 

Yesterday's values from the IJIS site:

Version 1 (old version) - 5,030k, being a 59k loss

Version 2 (new version) - 4,825k, being a 9k loss

On either measure we're looking at around 6th lowest minimum, possibly 5th if the minimum is delayed another week.

1980s average was 7.2 (new) to 7.3m (old), so around 30-35% down

---

Interesting how closely it's still following 2010 which had an uptick at almost the same time! Deja vu, anyone?

Is there a point to be made here, John?.

I'm genuinely confused and would be interested in an explaination..

 

It was just an observation on the similarity between the two years.  I am fairly sure that John has commented on the similarity before.

---

Interesting how closely it's still following 2010 which had an uptick at almost the same time! Deja vu, anyone?

Is there a point to be made here, John?.

I'm genuinely confused and would be interested in an explaination..

 

It was just an observation on the similarity between the two years.  I am fairly sure that John has commented on the similarity before.

A fair point Peter.

That's a big difference between IJIS version one and two.

Will version 1 be phased out with time?.

That's a big difference between IJIS version one and two.

Will version 1 be phased out with time?.

Well perhaps not relative to the size of the numbers but non-trivial certainly.  There is an explanation of the changes on the IJIS site, here:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html

Essentially the re-analysis is based on higher resolution data, so I am deducing that where a 10 sq km grid was marked as 'ice', with a 1km grid it may be that it becomes more open water and less ice.  Similarly around coastlines, distinguishing land from sea is now more precise.

Yes, I think I read somewhere that the cut-off date is 30th September.

---

That's a big difference between IJIS version one and two.

Will version 1 be phased out with time?.

Well perhaps not relative to the size of the numbers but non-trivial certainly.  There is an explanation of the changes on the IJIS site, here:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html

Essentially the re-analysis is based on higher resolution data, so I am deducing that where a 10 sq km grid was marked as 'ice', with a 1km grid it may be that it becomes more open water and less ice.  Similarly around coastlines, distinguishing land from sea is now more precise.

Yes, I think I read somewhere that the cut-off date is 30th September.

Thanks for the link.

All is explained plainly enough.

It shows a huge improvement in resolution.

Irony?  I just went to look at the NSIDC website and this message came up:

"NSIDC is closed today because of sever [sic] weather and flooding. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you."

---