Man Based Global Warming....

Do not confuse area with volume. Much of that new extent is very thin, thus the total volume (and mass) of ice is reduced. The DTU report is explicit about this.

 

There you go, confusing ufourya with something that requires at least a 3rd grade math education to understand. Not fair, that's way over his head.

 

It will become obvious that as the extent grows, the 'young ice' will thicken and volume will increase as well.

All of this STILL misses the central point that CO2 is not the predominant cause of global warming and there is ZERO (which is, admittedly slightly higher than Shawn Clark's I.Q.) to indicate that it is, beyond computer models.

Additionally, the ice mass of Antarctica is measureably GROWING.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

So, if warming and melting are truly global events, why is the recent ice loss in the North offset by gain in the South?

 

In a paper released last week, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 'rediscovers' the Medieval Warm Period after it was hidden by Mann et al's 2008 Hockey Stick.

News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

“The more interesting and potentially controversial result is that our data indicate surface water temperatures during a part of the Medieval Warm Period that are similar to today’s,”..., “Our results for this time period are really in stark contrast to the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions.”

 

If it persists, then yes, it probably would thicken. We'll see soon enough.

More fast ice means... more fast ice. In other words it's flowing faster off the continent. That's a plausible a consequence of warming, not cooling. Warmer ice flows more easily, and warmer air carries more water vapor and so allows more snow to fall. The observation of increased extent of sea ice off Antarctica is consistent with that: it's flowing into the sea at a greater rate and therefore covers a larger area before melting. Unlike most Arctic ice, most of this ice is not *forming* at sea, it flows into the sea and melts there.

The fundamental physical principle is that atmospheric CO2 is insulative. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing because of human activity. Therefore on average the Earth must get warmer. It's as basic as putting a lid on a pot of water on a stove.

 

There are things wrong with the view that CO2 is the main driving force in global warming.

Let's discuss them one at a time. The climate models used by the IPCC predict a 'hot spot' - a 'signature' of warming by greenhoise gases - about 10 kilometers above the tropics. That 'hot spot' simply does not exist. Decades of measurements by satellite and balloons have failed to reveal it.

Conclusion: Something else has caused the warming.

 

That's denying the antecedent.

Try again.

 

No, it's drawing a realistic conclusion as opposed to clinging to a hypothesis that fails to demonstrate its own premise:

A simple analogy on climate modeling – looking for the red spot Watts Up With That?

(The reference to Fred and a blanket are from the analogy used to demostrate the failure of real world observation to comport with the imagined scenario of computer models and increasing CO2.)

All global warming models predict some sort of developing ‘hotspot’ in the atmosphere above the tropics. Here is the graph for one of the models, but they all look roughly similar:
(F) Model predicts air above the tropics heats up. from the NIPCC Report p. 107
This picture shows the air from 75 degrees north to 75 degrees south (the equator in the middle) and up to 30 km above the Earth. We can think of this air pattern as corresponding to the pattern in Fred’s bedroom when Fred used a blanket: although the actual mechanism is different, something is ‘keeping the heat in’, so to speak. Just as we did with Fred in bed, we can compare reality with this picture. Is the heat in the real atmosphere doing what the model predicts? Here is the temperature trend in the real world:
(G) Real world trend develops no hotspot. from the NIPCC Report p. 106
What have we actually proved here? Well, proved, without possibility of error, nothing, of course: no question at all about the real world ever has a complete perfect proof as an answer, so don’t be misled if someone says the world still might be heating due to CO2 despite the absence of the warm spot that is supposed to do the warming. Of course anything might be happening; but how likely is it?

...The indisputable fact about these atmospheric temperature predictions is that if the pattern doesn’t happen, the model is wrong...

 

Pretty satellite picture at night. (The boundaries are drawn in, Shawn.)



North Korea - the PERFECT environmentalist paradise uses an unmeasureable amount of energy through wasteful expenditure of lighting the darkness. The only drawback is that the people eat bark and grass to survive. Let's all go live there and feel proud that we're not creating so much CO2!

If I had to guess, i'd say one-half of the Korean peninsula is a free-market society with free people and the other is centrally controlled slave state. But that's just my anti-statist bias talking, no doubt.

 

Did global warming stop in 1998?

 

Surface Area Required to Power the Whole World With Solar and Wind Power : TreeHugger

 

hey look.... another hockey stick.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Arctic 'warmest in 2,000 years'

 

And, as usual, people who know what they are doing (rather than a reporter) easily find problems with the underlying 'science'. (The graph shown in Fibber's linked article is Kaufman's.) The exposition below demonstrates not only cherry-picking data, but apparent intentional misuse of data.

Kaufman and Upside-Down Mann

by Steve McIntyre on September 3rd, 2009

Kaufman et al (2009), published at 2 pm today, is a multiproxy study involving the following regular Team authors: Bradley, Briffa (the AR4 millennial reconstruction lead author), Overpeck, Caspar Ammann, David Schneider (of Steig et al 2009), Bradley as well as Otto-Bleisner (Ammann's supervisor and conflicted NAS Panel member) and "JOPL-SI authors" who are various contributors of sediment series.
One of the few proxy data contributors not listed as a coauthor is Mia Tiljander, whose data was used upside down in Mann et al 2008. Amusingly, the Kaufman Team perpetuates Mann's upside down use of the Tiljander proxy, though they at least truncate the huge blade (resuling from modern sediments from bridge-building and farming.)
The graph below shows the original data from Tiljander (oriented so that warm is up.)

Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander Boreas 2003 Figure 5 - rotated to warm is up orientation. The increased sedimentation in 19th and 20th centuries is attributed to farming and bridge construction and is not evidence of "cold".
Mann et al 2008 series #1064 can be seen to be an inverted version of the Tiljander series, as shown by the plot below.

Figure 2. Mann et al 2008 proxy 1064 plotted reverse to Mann orientation (showing that the author's original orientation is achieved only by inverting the Mann orientation.)
Kaufman et al make decadal averages of their proxies. The graph below shows the Mann 2008 data (Mann orientation), converted to 10 year anomalies, truncated to 1800 and then scaled. Mann orientation is upside-down to the orientation in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 3. Mann et al Series 1064 (in Mann orientation) converted to 10-year averages, truncated to 1800 and scaled. Mann orientation is upside-down to the orientation in Figures 1 and 2.
Next here is a plot of Kaufman series #20 (lake Kortajarvi) from their SI. This was presented in an exceedingly annoying format - it was available only in a photo form and thus the data was not available digitally. I transcribed series 20 manually and may have a couple of discrepancies as the data format was very annoying. (I've uploaded my transcription) In addition, data was missing in the SI from 1225 to 1105. Unlike Mann et al 2008, Kaufman et al truncated post-1800 data. You can readily see that this closely matches the Mann version and is thus also upside-down relative to Tiljander's intended orientation.

Figure 4. Plot of Manually Transcribed Kaufman series #20.
The continued use of upside-down data by the Team is really quite remarkable. It's not as though they were unaware of the issue.
The upside-down use of Tiljander data was originally observed at CA www.climateaudit.org/?p=3967). We know that Mann and Schmidt were monitoring CA because changes to Mann's SI (always without attribution) were made soon after CA posts.
The use of upside-down data in MAnn et al 2008 was even published at PNAS earlier this year (McIntyre and McKitrick PNAS 2009 see here). In their response at PNAS, Mann et al described the claim that they used the data upside-down as "bizarre", notwithstanding the fact that the correctness of the observation could be readily seen merely by plotting Mann's data (and even in the data plots in the Mann et al 2008 SI).
The Team is exceptionally stubborn about admitting even the least error. We had seen an amusing illustration in Mann et al 2007, where the incorrect geographic locations of MBH98 proxies was perpetuated: the rain in Maine still continued to fall mainly in the Seine.
It is even more amusingly illustrated by Kaufman's perpetuation of Mann's upside down use of the Tiljander proxy (rather than conceding Mann's error and using the data in the right orientation.) Also note here that Bradley was involved in both studies.
I'm sure we'll soon hear that this error doesn't "matter". Team errors never seem to.
And y'know, it's probably correct that it doesn't "matter" whether the truncated Tiljander (and probably a number of other series) are used upside-down or not. The fact that such errors don't "matter" surely says something not only about the quality of workmanship but of the methodology itself.
What does "matter" in these sorts of studies are a few HS-shaped series. Testing MBH without the Graybill bristlecones provoked screams of outrage - these obviously "mattered". Indeed, in MBH, nothing else much "mattered". The Yamal HS-shaped series (substituted in Briffa 2000 for the Polar Urals update which had a high MWP) plays a similar role in the few studies that don't use Graybill bristlecones. The present study doesn't use bristlecones, but Briffa's Yamal substitution is predictably on hand. (See the latter part of my 2008 Erice presentation for some discussion of this.)
Further analysis will require examination of the individual proxies. Kaufman et al provide 10-year decadal averages in their photo SI, promising that data will be made available at NCDC, but it wasn't as at the time of writing this note. While they say that all data is public (other than annual versions of some series that they obtained from original authors), but I could only locate digital versions of some of the series.
The problem with these sorts of studies is that no class of proxy (tree ring, ice core isotopes) is unambiguously correlated to temperature and, over and over again, authors pick proxies that confirm their bias and discard proxies that do not. This problem is exacerbated by author pre-knowledge of what individual proxies look like, leading to biased selection of certain proxies over and over again into these sorts of studies.
We've seen this sort of problem with the Yamal tree ring series (22), which has been discussed at CA on many occasions. (See for example the discussion in the latter part of www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.2008.erice.pdf ). Briffa originally used the Polar Urals site to represent this region and this data set was used in MBH98-99 and Jones et al 1998. This data set was updated in the late 1990s, resulting in an elevated Medieval Warm Period. Briffa did not report on the updated data; it has never been reported. The data only became available after quasi-litigation with Science in connection with data used in Esper et al 2002. Instead of using the updated Polar Urals version with an elevated MWP, Briffa constructed his own chronology for Yamal, yielding a hockey-stick shaped result. The Yamal substitution has been used in virtually every subsequent study (a point noted by Wegman et al 2006) and is used once again in Kaufman et al 2009. In other studies, a simple replacement of the Yamal version with the updated Polar Urals version impacts the medieval-modern relationship and this needs to be considered here.
On the other hand, a long Siberian tree ring series known to have an elevated MWP is not used: the Indigirka River (Siberia) tree ring series was used in Moberg et al 2005, but is not used in this study, though it is a long chronology in the same sort of region.
They use Briffa's version of Tornetrask (as a leading component of their Fennoscandia (#18). Tornetrask is used in virtually every reconstruction, a point made on many occasions at CA (also see Wegman et al 2006). An updated Tornetrask version (Grudd 2008) had an elevated medieval warm period - see discussion in www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.2008.erice.pdf).
Notable omissions are the Mount Logan ice core and Jellowbean Lake sediment series. (See www.climateaudit.org/?p=2348, www.climateaudit.org/?p=806 for discussion of the Mount Logan proxies.) The Mount Logan ice core delO18 values decrease in the 20th century, contrary to the presumed increase. Although Mount Logan isotopes are as well resolved as the ice core isotopes used by Kaufman et al, they are excluded (along with a candidate sediment series) on the basis that the “bad” results for these proxies are due to changes in “moisture source” rather than temperature.

We excluded the isotope-based records from ices cores in the Saint Elias Mountains (S4) and from Jellybean Lake carbonate (S5), both in the Yukon, because the proxies are more strongly controlled by changes in moisture-source and atmospheric moisture transport patterns than by temperature.
​

The problem with this sort of reasoning is: if changes in moisture source cause isotope values to go down, they will also cause isotope values to go up.
Worsening this particular situation is the failure of Lonnie Thompson to report “adverse” results at Bona-Churchill (see the CA posts mentioned above.) Bona-Churchill, an ice core site near Mount Logan, was drilled in 2002. The unseemly delay in reporting results led me to speculate several years ago that these results were “bad” for Lonnie Thompson’s advocacy. This prediction was confirmed in a diagram presented in a workshop; the data itself remains unpublished to this day.
I note that the Dye-3 isotopes (#12) have been “corrected” to account for ice flow. In my opinion, the place for such adjustments should be in the original articles and not in multiproxy compilations. This will need to be assessed.
As has observed on many occasions at CA and on other critical blogs (it's been independently noted by Jeff Id, David Stockwell and Lubos Motl as well as myself), when data sets are selected ex post according to whether they go up in the 20th century - as opposed to all the data sets, the results are subject to a very severe HS bias. David Stockwell published this result in 2006 (see here) (an article cited in McIntyre and McKitrick PNAS 2009) illustrating it as below (similar illustrations are available at Jeff Id's and Luboš'):

The most cursory examination of Kaufman et al shows the usual problem of picking proxies ex post: e.g. the exclusion of the Mount Logan ice core and Jellybean Lake sediment series; or the selection of Yamal rather than Polar Urals - a problem that is even pernicious because of the failure to archive "bad" results (e.g. Thompson's Bona-Churchill or Jacoby's "we're paid to tell a story"). Until these problems are rooted out, it's hard to place much weight on any HS reconstruction.
Update: Here are interesting layers extracted from Kaufman showing the respective contributions of the respective proxy types clearly rather than the typical spaghetti graph. This shows nicely that the seven (of 23) ice core proxies make no contribution to the HS-ness of the result and that they do not show 20th century uniqueness. The biggest HS comes from the Briffa tree rings (and I'm sure that the Yamal series will contribute the majority of the HS-ness in this composite.) The 12 sediment series are intermediate: here we still need to examine the orientation of these series and which sediment series contribute to HS-ness.



Excerpt from Kaufman et al.
Update: As noted by a reader in the Loso thread, compaction is a problem with this sort of data. The Murray Lake data includes density information, which is plotted below. Density stabilizes at a mean of about 1.09, but less compacted recent sediments are less dense.

Reference: Kaufman et al Science 2009. SI Data is supposed to be at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009 but isn't there as at Sep 3, 2009 6 pm when the article was published.
Tiljander, Boreas 2003 www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/Tiljanderetal.pdf

 

Ah, yes, another someone who knows what he's doing: a retired mining executive whose previous criticisms on the same grounds have been repudiated. First an airplane designer, and now this guy. Let us know when you find two climatologists or atmospheric physicists who can demolish those results.

 

When a specific prediction made by a specific class of models is wrong it means that the models are at least partly wrong or incomplete. It does not mean that the underlying physical mechanisms do not exist. CO2 remains a greenhouse gas, and the burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

If the model is wrong, which is certainly possible, hell even probable, then it's wrong. But it doesn't mean that the opposite conclusion is magically true.

 

Yet another ad hominem attack. When the facts cannot be shown to be wrong, throw slurs. McIntyre is a professional statistician, well qualified to critcise the Hockey Team members when they use statistical methods to massage their data. In fact, Mann and others repeatedly have to admit errors pointed out by McIntyrre. There are no credible 'repudiation's of his criticisms.

 

Point taken. It also doesn't mean that the original proposition based on the model be heralded as settled science. Nor that economic policy be fashioned around it. Nor that cataclysmic doomsday hysteria be acclaimed as truth. In fact, a healthy skepicism of the claim seems appropriate.

 

Next thing you will tell us the Morton Thiokol engineers who wrongly predicted Space Shuttle Challenger would explode on the pad should have been listened to. They were wrong. It managed to hold together a whole 73 seconds into flight before exploding...and might have made it had NASA not also ignored their own max wind shear guidelines (probably some other crazy models were used for those.)

EDIT: Y'all recognize the sarcasm, right?

 

Even though you don't deserve it, your request is fulfilled:

(The Kaufman paper linked by Fibber utilizes CRU data which are inconverniently not available for serious scientists to review) Be sure to go to the full article, scroll down and click on the animation for a graphic view of accurate temperature measurements that pretty much do the demolition you request, Mr. Schumacher. I doubt the graphic will animate here at PC. I'm making the bold - and perhaps unwarranted -assumption that you are interested in the truth.

Now, will you believe your own eyes or some folks who won't allow you to see how they arrived at their conclusions?

The full article:

DMI arctic temperature data animation doesn’t support claims of recent Arctic warming Watts Up With That?

An excerpt:

...Since we can’t really look at the Hadley CRU data since it is held under lock and key despite the repeated FOI requests so that analysis and verification can be performed, we can’t really analyze it pertaining to NOAA’s claim of warming. Since NOAA and HadleyCRU use many of the same stations above 60N (they’d have to since there are so few) it seems reasonable to assume they share similar data in the Kaufman et al paper.

Fortunately there is another Arctic temperature data source available we can look at to compare against. And that is from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). Like NOAA, they offer a dataset that shows temperature in the high latitudes.Here is what they say about that dataset and how it is obtained.

The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
The ERA40 reanalysis data, has been applied to calculation of daily climate values that are plotted along with the daily analysis values in all plots. The data used to determine climate values is the full ERA40 data set, from 1958 to 2002.
​

Here is the most recent DMI graph of Arctic temperature:


Note that the blue line represents the “melting point” of ice in Kelvin or 0°C/32°F The green line represents the average climate from 1958 to 2002, i.e. the “baseline”
I don’t have time to get into a detailed analysis of the raw DMI data this morning as I have other duties, but I do have time to do a visual check that is just as telling.
Kaufman et al claims they “found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.” That should easy to spot in the DMI graphs if it exists. So I animated the entire set of DMI graphs from 1958 to 2009. See if you can spot the temperature spikes or the “…cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.” signature.


click for full sized animation

Watch the top of the bell curve above the blue line. See any big changes? I don’t. Note that in the animation above, due to a slight change in DMI’s graphical presentation for 2008 and 2009, I had to graphically fit 2008 and 2009 to match the rest of the animation framework so that there would not be a distracting jump at the end. The data is unchanged in doing this.
One of the most common claims of alarmists is that the Arctic is “melting” and that implies a temperature cause in their statements. But as we see, during the critical melt window, the DMI data seems to hold right along the climatic normal.

One thing about DMI, if you go to their main web page, http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php you don’t find any alarming pronouncements about Arctic melting or temperature reversal like you do at NOAA.

Others like NASA say the wind pattern changes is more of an issue, blowing the sea ice southward. Perhaps NOAA and Kaufman should look more closely at before making grand claims.