bdgwx

It's somewhat of an interesting twist isn't it?

NSIDC isn't the source though. Their "NSIDC in the News" section is just links to various articles and blogs that mention NSIDC. They have hundreds of links in this section every year. It's not even clear if these articles (which are dead links now) were in reference to a bona-fide peer reviewed study or some random blogger's opinion. Note the disclaimer in the section. The following items link to media coverage of NSIDC in various news outlets, online magazines, editorial pieces, and blogs. The content of these articles and blog posts does not necessarily reflect the views of NSIDC, our collaborators, or our funding agencies. Like I said, I can't see the articles anymore so I have no idea what the details of these "predictions" are. But based on the timing of when the articles appear I can speculate a bit. There were two fellows during this period that made some very aggressive predictions that got widespread media attention. The first was Maslowski and the second was Wadhams. Neither was characterized by broad acceptance in the academic community. In Wadham's case he was pretty much entirely ignored. Maslowski was a legit researcher but in his defense his work was frequently taken out of context. His 2016±3 date (which was often erroneously cited as 2013) was statistical and appeared in a publication that I believe used many methods to arrive at many different estimates with 2016 being the lowest therefore making a cherry pick and really bad at that. Masklowski even warned against taking his work out of context and specifically chided Al Gore for doing just that. The point...be careful about linking media popularity with the mainstream views of bona-fide scientists. They are often at odds with each other.

Broadly speaking the first "ice-free" year has been getting pushed up. You'll find select studies here and there that have really aggressive predictions, but those are either few in number or not well received enough to influence the consensus much. In the 1990's the prevailing prediction was around 2100 or thereafter. And in the IPCC's AR3 report from 2001 it was stated (via a chart) that the first annual mean extent of 10.5e6 km^2 would not occur until about 2040. In reality it actually occurred in 2007. Even today many sea-ice models continue to struggle with the rapid pace of sea ice declines in both the NH and SH. Today it seems as though the consensus lands somewhere in the 2040-2060 range. So we still have a good wait ahead of us before we see < 1e6 km^2 of extent at the minimum. It's certainly possible that it could occur prior to 2040. Some on this forum and the ASIF believe we'll be lucky to make it to 2040. I'm in the more conservative camp and believe it will be after 2040. I'm prepared to be proven wrong though.

So in an effort to steer this thread back on track...it looks like the refreeze has really ramped up lately. We are still in record territory for this time of year, but it looks like 2019 might jump ahead of 2016 in the next week or so.

CO2 does not add heat. It traps heat. In this context "trap" means to slow the egress transmission of heat without slowing the ingress transmission of heat. The insulation in your home acts as a thermal barrier to trap heat. The furnace adds energy to your home. Because the insulation has changed the rate at which heat is lost your home will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the insulation than it would otherwise. But the furnace is still the energy source. ...similarly... The GHGs in Earth's atmosphere act as a thermal barrier to trap heat. The Sun adds energy to the Earth. Because the GHGs have changed the rate at which heat is lost the Earth will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the GHGs than it would otherwise. But the Sun is still the energy source.

Just understand that natural CO2 molecules have the same radiation behavior as anthroprogenic CO2 molecules. So an anthrprogenic pulse of CO2 (like with fossil fuel combustion and cement production) will lead to the same amount of warming as a natural pulse of CO2 (like which occurred during the PETM) given the same magnitude of the pulse. In that manner the laws of physics don't really care how the CO2 got into the atmosphere. I also sense a bit of the logical fallacy affirming a disjunct. Just because CO2 was naturally modulated in the past doesn't mean that it can't be anthroprogenically modulated today and cause warming. And yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past. This is an essential piece in the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem. Remember, solar output is about 1% weaker for every 120 million years in the past. 600 mya the solar radiative force was about -12 W/m^2 (see Gough 1981). So it would take ~9.5x the amount of CO2 just to offset the reduced solar forcing of the past relative to today (note that 5.35 * ln(9.5) = +12 W/m^2).

I believe the point of the graph was to test your comprehension of noisy information. This is actually a carefully studied topic in academia especially in the context of climate data in which there is a disproportionate number of analysis out there in the blogosphere that suffer from various cognitive biases. I want you to get started with this paper. Daron et al, 2015: Interpreting climate data visualisations to inform adaptation decisions There are many well documented cognitive biases that influence an individual's comprehension of a graph. They include but are not limited to anchoring, framing, etc. In a nutshell when individuals are presented with a plot of noisy data some of them are incapable of mentally forming a linear or exponential regression trendline in their head.

Also per the NSIDC 5-day average 10/17/2019 marks the all time highest negative anomaly on record. We are 3.065 sq km below the 1981-2010 climatological average. This breaks the 3.048 record set on 10/9/2012. In other words, we have less sea ice (in terms of extent) relative to average than at any point in the satellite era.

Per NSIDC the daily extent on 10/17 was 5.374e6. On this date in 2012 and 2016 was 6.082e6 and 5.954e6 respectively and the climatological average is 8.470e6. Obviously 2019 is yet another year among recent years with lackluster sea ice extents in the NH. And the SH isn't picking up the slack like it was prior to 2016. Globally sea ice extents are at record lows. In fact, globally sea ice extents have spent more time below -4σ than it has above -2σ since 2016. That is certainly noteworthy.

The September mean was 4.316 which is the 3rd lowest behind 2012 and 2007. Assuming the last 5 years of means and trajectories would approximate the remainder of the 2019 a top 3 finish in the annual mean seems plausible.

Speaking of Joe Bastardi...he is listed on Principia Scientific International's member page. This brings us full circle to another topic that was discussed in this thread; namely the litigation of Mann vs. FCPP/Ball. See, it was John O'Sullivan's article posted on July 4th, 2017 on the PSI's website in which the claim that Mann refused to release his data regarding MBH98 first appeared. John O'Sullivan, it turns out, is the CEO and operator of PSI. He also happens to be an associate of Ball via their authorship of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and had, at least until Ball ditched him, a mutual agreement that he would act as legal counsel for Ball. Except...that O'Sullivan is neither an expert in climate science nor a lawyer. But, in a strange twist, he did happen to find himself involved in the Mann vs. FCPP/Ball case anyway. I'll let you guys read the relevant court documents here and here and make your own judgement regarding Mr. O'Sullivan and Bastardi's support of him and his site.

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.