bdgwx

Assuming it is correct this is the largest one day NSIDC decline within ±7 days of 9/17. -111k...9-17-2019 -99k...9-13-2006 -98k...9-18-1990 -95k...9-22-2003 -91k...9-17-2010

Great link. Thanks. On a global basis in the last 365 days daily highs have outnumbered lows by about 1.8-to-1. On a global basis in the last 365 days all time highs have outnumbered lows by about 4.9-to-1.

After a bit more research I was able to find the court documents. It is important to point out that the Mann vs. Ball case is related to Mann vs Frontier Centre for Public Policy as well. The alleged defamatory statements by Ball occurred via an FCPP interview. The Mann vs. FCPP part of the case was settled just a few months ago. Ball was a codefendant in the same case along with 3rd unnamed party. The case number is VLC-S-S-111913 and is accessible here for a nominal fee. It's possible that the admission by the FCPP that "untrue and disparaging accusations" made toward Mann (and presumably by Ball) may have been a factor in Ball's petitioning the court for dismissal before the court made a judgement based on the merits. Seeing the favorable response Mann had with one defendant it would not be unexpected if Mann were to appeal the dismissal against Ball. Refer to the FCPP's letter below.

The Weaver vs Ball case is similar. This case was dismissed largely because the judge equated Ball's article with similar ludicrous, outrageous, and unbelievable comments which lacked a sufficient air of credibility to be believable in the first place. In other words, it's not defamation if the defendant isn't credible in the eyes of rational thinking persons. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm [75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Ball which paradoxically favored Ball in the eyes of the court. With the precedent set it makes me wonder if the Mann vs. Ball case would have transpired the same way had Ball not petitioned the court for dismissal on what has been said by Mann's legal team to be related to Ball's health (and not the merits of the case). I was not able to find the official court documents for Mann vs Ball, but here is what Mann posted on social media regarding the matter.

That top chart is misleading indeed. First, it's not peer reviewed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a huge red flag. Second, Dansgaard was among the first ice core researchers. His 1969 work is based on ice core samples from Camp Century in Greenland. So this isn't a global temperature proxy. It is a Greenland temperature proxy using oxygen isotope techniques. And "present" is in reference to 1967 which is the last data point in his dataset. So we're missing the last 50 years of warming which for Greenland is at least 1.0C (and possibly higher) according to Berkeley Earth and various other compilations of Greenland temperatures. So if Bastardi is giving his blessing to this chart then he's going to have to accept that temperatures (at least in Greenland) are higher today than at any point in the last 2000 years. And the recent warming occurred at a rate that is unusual for the holocene and during a period in which temperatures were on a secular decline falling off from the holocene climate optimum circa -6000 BCE. Here is Dansgaard's 1969 dataset. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/2429 https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/campcentury/cc-1ynew.txt

That statement isn't just misleading but completely incorrect. There are all sorts of fingerprints that can be used to narrow down which physical process resulted in the warming. Dr. Spencer knows this so I don't why he would make such a statement anyway. So yeah, that was far beyond just being misleading. There were a couple of other statements that leaned more toward the misleading end of the spectrum too though. For example, "I’m not saying that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes...". This is a very misleading statement. We might not know exactly how much warming will occur, but our understanding of the process and feedbacks involved gives us far better understanding than just "no idea". And then through inference he conflates uncertainty with faith. Again...very misleading. Uncertainty is not the same thing as faith. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Uncertainty especially when quantified is itself based on evidence. The message people are getting from statements like these is that anything less than 100% perfect knowledge is the same as having no understanding whatsoever.

And in keeping with the spirit of this thread here is another example of a blog post or statements by an expert which I feel contains misleading information. For those that don't know Dr. Spencer is one of the maintainers of the UAH satellite temperature dataset and is often labeled as a "skeptic". He fully acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG and that humans can and likely are having a significant impact on the climate. I happen to respect him and his contributions to the science, but I do disagree with him on many points namely on his downplay of the magnitude of the anthroprogenic effect, our confidence in this conclusion, and our ability to make decisions from what we've learned so far. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/the-faith-component-of-global-warming-predictions

Assuming the remaining 4 monthly means are close to the averages of the last 5 years then 2019 might be expected to finish 3rd or 2nd for the annual mean.

I like the new NSIDC sea ice extent chart. You can add the ±2σ band to the display now.

According to a 5yr moving average from a consensus of many surface based datasets the warming trend is about +0.15C/decade from 1958 to 2018. Note that solar activity peaked in the late 1950's. And from 1998 to 2018 that trend is likely over +0.20C/decade. Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) is increasing at a rate of 10e21 joules/yr with OHC breaking records pretty much on a yearly basis now. The energy imbalance on the planet is at least +0.6 W/m^2 as of 2019.

No one is saying that the Sun can't ever be a significant agent for a warming event. What is being is said is that the Sun is not a significant agent for THIS particular warming event. And there's not just one line of evidence used to base that claim from. There's actually multiple lines of evidence; many of them quite convincing. Haven't I gone over all this with you before?

I agree. 3% is too low. 10-20% sounds pretty reasonable to me as well.

Why does it say "using unadjusted temperature dataset"? Is the temperature displayed on it? What am I missing? And what agenda do you think the original charts had?

Yeah, it takes a lot of energy to make the phase change from solid to liquid. Global mean surface temperatures are running a bit behind of most model predictions while Arctic sea ice is declining faster than originally predicted. I wonder if more of the planetary energy balance is going into the cryosphere and less in the atmosphere could explain the discrepancy? Anyway, it does appear like 2019 is shaping up to have yet another well below normal minimum extent...possibly top 3 lowest.

Sea ice area continues to decline though. This means the ice is spreading out. As noted above this typically means extent is poised for a significant drop.

Arctic sea ice extents have taken a plunge recently and are now in record territory for this date dropping below 2006, 2016, 2017, and 2018 levels. So the melt season is already off to an aggressive start.

Yeah so it looks like the ensemble range on this study is 2040 to 2055 with a mean of about 2047 for the first ice-free (< 1e6 sq km) September.

This is a thread focused on the Arctic region, but it's the Antarctic behavior that's most striking. There was a transition from record highs in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to record lows in 2016, 2017, and 2018. It almost seems like a fluke. I'm wondering if we won't see a reversion to the mean in the next few years. In looking at the IPCC predictions from model simulations there was an expectation that Antarctic sea ice extents would hold steady and perhaps even increase ever so slightly through 2025. Arctic sea ice is behaving about as expected. I realize the IPCC has underestimated the magnitude of the decline, but at least the general trend (downward) has been correct. The trend could even tolerate a sizable jump at this point perhaps even up to 2008/2013 levels.

Preliminary numbers show that the annual mean extents for the NH finished second lowest behind 2016. SH was similar...it finished second lowest behind 2017. The SH is whole different beast, but the fact that we had 2018 end badly lends a bit of credence to the idea that 2017 may not have a fluke. I wonder if we're beginning to observe the paradigm shift down there too. Any thoughts csnavy?

And combined SH and NH sea ice extents are now 2nd lowest. And aside from a couple of brief blips global sea ice has remained below 2σ from the mean for about 2.5 years now. And much of that time it was actually 3σ below the mean.

I looked at the data this morning. Assuming I didn't miscalculate at the current pace 2018 is on track to have the 2nd lowest annual mean sea ice extent. The top 3 lowest would be 2016, 2018, and 2017.

November mean extent came in at 9.81e6. This is lower than my estimation of 9.9e6 from my earlier post. Extents are hugging the lower interdecile range of the 1981-2010 average. Even assuming we hit the climatological average for December of 12.8e6 (I don't see how that's possible at this point) then 2018 will easily land in the top 5 lowest for annual mean extent. If December comes in at a more modest (but still high by recent standards) 12.4e6 then 2018 could make a run for the second lowest behind only 2016.

I believe this figure is in reference to TSI which is incident radiation normal to the beam angle. To get the integrated radiation over the entire Earth you have to multiple by Earth's cross sectional area. Conveniently the cross sectional area of a sphere is 1/4 the surface area. That means the power going into the geosphere is actually 1360 / 4 = 340 W/m2. So you need to take that -8.0 W/m2 and divide it by 4 as well. This gives us a normalized value of -2.0 W/m2 of force that's being applied. Note that Zharkova's super grand solar minimum claim is 4x the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum (a fact she acknowledges). So will this hypothetical Modern Minimum really be 4x as deep as the Maunder Minimum? Maybe. But, I'm not going to hold my breath. Furthermore, I believe this is the maximal effect. It's not the mean forcing you'd derive if you integrated the radiation reduction over the several decades in which the minimum is taking place. Remember, it will slope down on the entry and slope up on the exit. And of course, this in no way turns off the CO2 effect. It's persistent positive radiative forcing effect is still very much in play. And it will remain in play (unless we go to a negative CO2 emissions regime) for 100s or even 1000s of years easily outlasting this hypothetical grand minimum.

Again...no one is suggesting that the total effect of CO2 is larger than the total effect of the Sun. What we are saying is that the change in the effect of CO2 is larger than the change in effect from the Sun relative to the preindustrial era. Also, the Rahmstorf study regarding a hypothetical grand minimum and it's effect on the climate isn't the only one available for you to review. I posted 3 others above. Finally, if you're going to include oceanic composition in your list then it would be imperative to also include atmospheric composition. Afterall, the Stefan/Boltzmann law tells us that the Earth should be radiating with a temperature of 255K, but because our atmosphere traps heat it actually radiates at 288K which is a +33K effect. The atmosphere matters...a lot. Changes in its composition can and do have a measurable effect.

CO2 like most polyatomic molecules really does have it's molecular vibration modes activated by photons with wave number 667. This process converts quantized photon energy into thermal energy. And it's been confirmed by laboratory experiments going as far back as Tyndall in the mid 1800's, modern infrared spectroscopy, paleoclimate records, and fully explained by molecular physics and quantum mechanics. This is reality and it's been known for over 150 years. My phrasing "all other things being equal" is a nod to the fact that there are many physical processes that act as agents to force global heat uptake changes beyond just greenhouse gases and solar radiation. It's the net effect of all of them that determines the magnitude and direction of the "force" placed on the climate system.