From Amy Butler's twitter. Unusual coupling of the stratosphere and troposphere this summer. Models at times too eager to end pattern.

On 6/24/2019 at 6:32 AM, blizzard1024 said:

Based on the latest map from University of Maine's "climate change institute" todays global anonmaly is + 0.2C.  This dataset uses a 1979-2000 climo.  It is has been running negative at times lately. The  UAH was at  0.32C for May. If the equivalent CO2 is now at 560 ppm because of other GHGs then we have doubled since pre-industrial era. It is a little warmer now than before. Not much to see here. This is why action is very slow to go to renewables.  So climate scientists are trying to relate weather events to climate change which is ridiculous. Hurricane Harvey stalled over Texas because it was unusually cold aloft and hence an upper level low captured a tropical cyclone, then it stalled. That will give you 60" of rain.

The switch to fv3 has messed up Maine's anomaly calc, June is going to be warm, top 3 most likely.

On 6/6/2019 at 12:54 PM, forkyfork said:

does this low scoot out or rot in place?

4 days later forecasts are variable but most keep it going for quite some time - probably helping by preventing a classic dipole

22 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

PIOMAS gives you a chance this year. Cryosat2 doesn't look very promising...pretty big differences this season in the two.

A crapshoot. I see you also picked 19/20. Have to check back in a couple of weeks to see if we still have a shot at getting lucky (or unlucky).

On 7/28/2015 at 11:19 PM, chubbs said:

2012 - 2019/20, 2013 - not in our lifetime - but I would have taken 2016-2020 if it was offered. Just eyeballing the trend line, looks like 2013 is more likely to occur than 2012 up until roughly 2018.

Bump

Crunch time for my wag.

A month ago would have pushed the record min out in time, but will let it ride given the current pattern.

Recent summer warming in the Yukon exceeds the Holocene climatic maximum despite reduced summer insolation vs early Holocene.

https://t.co/gCPWogUB5N

Top 100m of ocean. Tends to go up in steps, with this decades step unusually large.

IPO phase could bring September ice-free date forward.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL081393

Very unlikely that the warming in the southern oceans over the past couple of weeks has anything to do with upwelling. Expansive Hadley cells a more likely explanation. Note that fresh water from Antarctica ice sheet is just starting to ramp-up and will take centuries to play out.

On 2/12/2019 at 11:58 PM, bdgwx said:

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.

 

 

 

Antarctic sea ice has large natural variability. Here are a couple of speculations: 1) I don't recall the details but one paper flagged the the large nino in 2015/16. For sea ice the timing does line-up, 2) The antarctic ozone hole is slowly recovering this would tend to weaken winds and produce warming, both of which will reduce sea ice extent 3) Antarctica warming lags because of the deep ocean nearby which is slow to warm. as time proceeds though Antarctica will catch-up. 

Per the chart below, the south pole has also warmed in the past decade in a way that doesn't match enso, so it is likely more than just enso.

A nice explainer on ice sheet dynamics and WAntarctic instability but not for the climate faint of heart.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/big-melt-earths-ice-sheets-are-under-attack

6 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Having said that, I’m not going to engage in this discussion further as it simply is a waste of time for me to keep typing out responses here and I’d rather use my time in a much more beneficial manner. 

Thank you!!!!!!!!

Rapidly receding Arctic Canada glaciers revealing landscapes continuously ice-covered for more than 40,000 years

Here we show that pre-Holocene radiocarbon dates on plants collected at the margins of 30 ice caps in Arctic Canada suggest those locations were continuously ice covered for > 40 kyr, but are now ice-free. We use in situ ¹⁴C inventories in rocks from nine locations to explore the possibility of brief exposure during the warm early Holocene. Modeling the evolution of in situ ¹⁴C confirms that Holocene exposure is unlikely at all but one of the sites. Viewed in the context of temperature records from Greenland ice cores, our results suggest that summer warmth of the past century exceeds now any century in ~115,000 years. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08307-w

7 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Every job and field on the planet involves the exact same dynamics. You're writing about this as if climate science is uniquely susceptible to the corrupting influence of...people needing jobs or something. If that's true of climate science, then it's at least equally true of deniers as well, and I can certainly think of additional motives on the denier side that are lacking on the climate scientist side.

Exactly. Who is funding the Heritage , Heartland Foundations and other DC think tanks that come up with denier meme's?  Wealthy petrodollars.  So this particular meme is pure hypocrisy. The reality is that climate scientists could be making much more money on Wall Street or in myriad other careers. While Koch is stuck in the oil business.

With government shutdown, only Berkeley Earth is available for 2018. Clear where we are headed. More details on 2018 at link below.

http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/

On 1/23/2019 at 9:14 AM, snowlover91 said:

What does conservative, breitbart or the market have to do with the topic of this thread? The topic is focused on climate manipulation of data/records to which my post was addressed. Both the skeptic and AGW side are guilty of manipulating the records at times; my point is simply that there have been some very concerning statements and emails from the AGW side which certainly gives plausibility to the idea of data tampering, manipulation and attempts to keep out scientific research that would discredit or undermine the AGW view of things.

 

Your "side" comments are just an old denier talking point. The goal is to make climate denial seem like an honest difference of opinion or mere political difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. The science is very clear. Its not new science either, the basics have been known for 150 years, and the accumulation of evidence is overwhelming.

The denier meme's that you are so fond of were ginned up 30 years ago in conservative think tanks. Why do we keep hearing the same memes. Because they are effective in misinforming. Just like the ancient quotes that you copied and pasted from some denier site. Go back and look at board discussions from 10-15 years ago - the same meme's - only now the world is much warmer.  Guessing we will be still be hearing the same 10 years from now - while temperatures continue to climb.

I see snowlover has given us another tour of the denialsphere.  The irony is climate change is very amenable to a conservative market-based solution. Too bad Breitbart isn't interested. Wonder why?

Here is an article summarizing the Deconto presentation, flagged above, and others at the recent AGU session on ice sheet stability. Sounds like relatively good news, I guess.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/sea-level-rise-may-not-become-catastrophic-until-after-2100/579478/

UK met 2019 forecast.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast

November Antarctic sea ice. Blutarsky.

Nino lifting global SST. Bottomed out well above the 2011/12 nina levels.

Not the whole story, but the other man-made and natural factors tend to cancel out.

13 hours ago, etudiant said:

I'd thought that NASA had concluded, on the basis of satellite measurement, that Antarctica was still gaining mass,

More broadly though, the climate record laid down in the ice sheets suggests that abrupt changes are more likely than gradual shifts. 

This is a system with many contributing elements, some alive, some just physical. Humility seems a useful attribute when trying to understand its functioning.

There was one NASA study a couple of years ago with that result, but all the other studies have concluded the opposite.  Even the NASA study, indicated that the vulnerable W Antarctic ice sheet was starting to go. Below is a chart from the best current reference, a comprehensive review published earlier this year. You are right, the climate record is clear, we are headed for abrupt changes, that is exactly what the thread article is describing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y

10 hours ago, bdgwx said:

The climate in the midwest is a bit tricky because it is (or at least has been) effected by anthroprogenic forcing agents that are completely unrelated to global warming. Refer to Alter et. al. 2017 for information on how agricultural significantly altered the climate in the midwest.

The scientific consensus has never been that polar ice would be gone by now. In fact, the consensus has actually had an embarrassing history of underestimating Arctic sea ice extents; the region and metric most relevant to this myth. A good illustration of this is IPCC AR3 published in 2001 in section 7.5 where they discuss predictions of the cryosphere. They say "The simulations of ice extent decline over the past 30 years are in good agreement with the observations, lending confidence to the subsequent projections which show a substantial decrease of Arctic sea-ice cover leading to roughly 20% reduction in annual mean Arctic sea-ice extent by the year 2050." and then show computer simulations of the expected trajectories. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to compare these simulations with observations after 2001. 

Also note that "climate change" or at least the slight variant "climatic change" actually predates "global warming" in the scientific literature. And ironically both terms are believed to have had their first appearance as scientific vernacular by the same person, Mitchell, who was a climate scientists publishing research as early as the 1950's. It should also be noted that Swedish and Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius had been using phrases like "raising the temperature of the earth's surface" in the context of the greenhouse gas effect and specifically CO2 as early as 1896! Refer to Arrhenius 1896 and Rodhe et. all 1997.

And speaking of Arrhenius...he actually figured out some important concepts in regards to global warming including the water vapor feedback, the more aggressive warming in the polar regions, and the fact that the oceans help mitigate anthroprogenic CO2 forcing by scrubbing out some our CO2 emissions. And this all happened in the 19th century (as in prior to 1900) over 120 years ago and long before modern physics (general relativity and quantum mechanics) became a thing.

Yea the science isn't new. The basics were worked out in the 19'th century and it is not very complex. Funny, greenhouse warming was generally accepted in the 1980s, by republicans and democrats. At that time a number of climate modeling forecasts were made that turned out to be accurate and the theoretical and observational evidence for greenhouse warming is now overwhelming. Yet, in the US there is much more skepticism now than in the 1980s. The media coverage of this report has been horrible. Focusing on the political polarization and not the science.