Last night, when JAXA posted it’s preliminary ice extent numbers, the JAXA NH ice extent’s march toward the goal line looked like it was making forward progress. But I must not have noticed the penalty flag lying on the ground because this morning, the ref “pushed it back 10 yards”. We now have a recorded extent increase. Those who like visuals can see that the tip of the black trace below falls just under the horizontal yellow line indicating no change in extent:
(Vertical lines indicate day when minimum was recorded. Note that the extent generally oscillates after the first recorded extent increase.)
Hat tip to Bill Illis who must have loaded JAXA’s page at just the right moment!
To those wondering about the football metaphor: Neven had been using titles like “10 yard line” and “end zone”. So, I’ve been dying to find a suitable one! I keep waiting for an event that would amount to a “touchback” or a “safety”.
What is the range of days to minimum after the first increase is recorded?
That is.. after the first increase is recorded how many days until the minimum is reached.. ( we know the thing doesnt turn on a dime)
torched I tell you.. century breaks are coming.. coffins, nails!!
Other weird thing. I notice that 2007 is being cast as a ‘freak” year.
steven– Oh gosh. I don’t know. 2007 was sort of a “freak”. It was a big drop relative to what had been seen as the previous trend. On the other hand, if this is just the erratic way ice extent varies and also melts as the arctic warms, then it wasn’t a “freak”, it was just something no one anticipated based on previous understanding.
I’ve been a bit bemused by some of the excitement surrounding the word “century breaks”. Century breaks have always been common place during the ice melt. If this year breaks records it will be the steadiness and protracted nature of the melt that is likely to do it. It’s not “century breaks”.
Mind you, a real (not observational error) century break in the next two weeks would be a surprise. Ok– even an observational error one would be a surprise. The observations don’t seem that noisy.
The MASIE ice extent dropped 110,000 km2 for 9/10. Small upticks near the bottom are often followed by large drops. I’ll have to check on the average time to minimum after the first uptick. I have a vague memory it’s about a week, but I need to check.
It’s pretty clear that the seasonal correction curve for Arctic sea ice extent and area changed significantly in 2007. That’s why the anomaly behavior after 2006 looks so odd with large peaks and and even bigger valleys. It’ll be interesting to see if freezing is delayed like it was in 2007. If it is, there’s no question that the 365 day running average global ice area will drop to a new low.
It goes up, it goes down, and of course, it dosey does. But, of course, we still have new record
DeWitt–
This first zero crossing with JAXA is so small, we’d have to decide if it “counts” or not. I think this is going to be a white knuckle ride what with those rooting for a minimum and those rotting against watching and waiting.
Eli–
You are late to the party. We already discussed Bremen already having a record while NSIDC and JAXA don’t. I even mentioned that you seem to be getting grumpy that people aren’t paying enough attention to your ‘favorite’.
Oh– Eli, you should have bet some qualtoos on the JAXA minimum. Then you’d still be waiting to find out whether you are a good prognositicator. 🙂
In 2003 the extent recorded an increase on Sep 11, but there were subsequent fluctuations which caused the 7 day average not to bottom until the 22nd. So we may have another 10 days of this lovely (idle) speculation. There may be more extreme cases of this- I don’t hjave all the data.
DeWitt–Preliminary JAXA loss tonight is 8438. It went from 4527813 to 4519375.
ok, there are three sea ice extent records, JAXA, NSIC and Bremen, maybe more. Why is one better than the others? Why does it matter that one is at an extreme, while the others are within spitting distance? Why only look at one? Does this make any difference?
Same thing with the satellite records and the surface temperature ones. The differences are only important in that they tell you something about the different algorithms.
Eli is with Geoff on this. OTOH if you just want to bet try this with different latitudes through the season, you can even play it backwards as the ice grows in.
Eli
You are seriously violating the rule against trying to argue by asking what appear to be a series of rhetorical questions. But worse: They are stupid questions.
Who has said one is better than the others? When you find that person, ask them your question.
Remove the “why” from that question and it makes an even better question. Tell me your answer to the better question.
Who looks at only one? When you find them, ask them.
Does what make any difference? If yes, please tells us what it makes a difference to.
I suspect lots of people are with Geoff on this. For example, at Neven’s I posted
On your bet, it looks like the only choices are “Yes” and “No”. Doesn’t seem like much fun as bets go. How do you decide who gets the quatloos if 4 people bet yes and 4 bet no? Let us know who won when the time comes!
Lucia.
There are no stupid questions. Only stupid questioners.
Eli proves this.
I weep for his students.
Lucia.
“freak”. no doubt it retrospect 2007 is a freak year. As I recall it was the weather nuts who first blamed 2007 on freak weather, while others said.. no AGW ( it was both ). Its funny that just now its being framed as a freak.
More metaphors.
I used Eli’s link to the Bremen page, and was shocked by what I read. Not by their data, but by their cheer leading for the AGW case. But could their data be influenced by their philosophy, considering that their data always shows the lowest ice extent?
I’ll be glad when we’re back to discussing temperatures!
Geoff likes ‘idle’. He’s a very idle ***!
He’s also easily infected with Rabbett manner of speech, come to think of it.
In preparing for this spectacle, I did get the data from 2003 to now, which was a big effort for me, and graphed a few bits and pieces. One thing I noticed is that most years by the end of September the ice is back up to wherever it was on the first of September. So how much it loses in between those dates doesn’t seem of all that much consequence- but this could be quite wrong.
The thing is, I’m going to figure out how to apply my fancy-shmancy method of betting on ice to figure out some bet on temperatures. After that, maybe I can win quatloos on betting the 2012 annual temperature.
The only difficulty is that in my quatloo betting, you have to be closest, and there is a group. So, I’m not sure how much of an edge all this fancy-schamcy betting stuff could do. But maybe I can estimate odds on even money bets with
suckerspeople who are convinced temperatures will either soar or tumble.Re: steven mosher (Sep 11 14:52),
There’s a table here which shows the day-to-day changes in recent years. Scroll the embedded window down for the bigger set. 2011 is actually late for showing its first rise. In 2007 there were bigger rises on 1 and 2 Sept. Last year there was a rise on 29 Aug.
Nick/Steve–
You can also see there were many rises earlier than this one by noticing the traces below the yellow horizontal line in my figure. The purple-ish trace for 2010 seems to be the earliest first rise with JAXA. After that you see the three various greens for 2007, 2006, 2005, then bluish followed by ugly mustard brow for 2009 and 2004. It looks like maybe 2003 had a later first reversal. I’d have to trace through the numbers to find that.
My statistical forecast (based on area, volume and various features describing ice conditions) says JAXA won’t lose enough to hit a minimum, but not hitting the first reversal has definitely been making me wonder whether this year might not end up an outlier. (If you predict ultimately minimum based on current extent, 2005 is an outlier. So they are going to happen. But of course, it’s not fun to have an outlier when you first start trying to concoct one of these statistical predictions thingies!)
Needless to say, since I can’t incorporate historic Uni-Bremen into the statistical forecast and it did hit a minimum, that’s another reason I tend to expect a ‘low’ side outlier (should an outlier occur.)
The ice can increase at any time of the year (at least in terms of recalculations etc.) Almost every day of the year has at least one year when there was an increase in sea ice extent.
The average loss for day 254 is 4,000 km2, the last day there is a loss in the average. The highest loss was 120,000 km2 and the largest increase was 80,000 km2. On day 255 (September 12), the average extent increases by 1,300 km2.
What is the range of days to minimum after the first increase is recorded?
Uptick 16/08/2002 – Minimum 09/09/2002 : 24 later
Uptick 12/09/2003 – Minimum 18/09/2003 : 6 later
Uptick 03/09/2004 – Minimum 11/09/2004 : 8 later
Uptick 02/09/2005 – Minimum 22/09/2005 : 20 later
Uptick 24/08/2006 – Minimum 14/09/2006 : 21 later
Uptick 01/09/2007 – Minimum 24/09/2007 : 23 later
Uptick 03/09/2008 – Minimum 09/09/2008 : 6 later
Uptick 04/09/2009 – Minimum 13/09/2009 : 9 later
Uptick 29/08/2010 – Minimum 18/09/2010 : 20 later
(apologies for UK dates)
Lucia,
“So, I’m not sure how much of an edge all this fancy-schamcy betting stuff could do. ”
I think not very much. It is sort of like who gets to be a movie star… lots of people who are very talented, and only a tiny number of spots available.
In your contest there are only 2 winners per month, and usually a cluster of people around the winning number; seems to me ‘natural variability’ makes even the most skilled bettor barely more likely to win than anyone else who makes a reasonably close guess… the ‘peloton’ of bettors describes it I think.
SteveF–
I agree. I think the fancy-schmancy could be useful if you are evaluating bets at the various on-line wagering places about sea ice or if you are challenging individuals. But for the quatloos…. not so much. Knowledge will be more useful for longer term bets too- the monthly bets, not so much.
I think the IJIS minimum SIE is going to be reached this week and won’t fall much below 4.5 million square km. The weather is going to end it, despite thin ice and warm waters. There is hardly any compaction on the horizon.
.
I like to go a bit overboard with my metaphors, but 2007 really was an exceptional year in many ways. This year matched it without being that exceptional, weather-wise. It says something about the ice. It’s a bit like an ENSO neutral year matching the global average temperature 1998/2010.
.
If nothing changes, next year will be interesting. Although I’d prefer to see a ‘recovery’, as that would be more educative in some ways. A new, more pronounced record would be better in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if it’s going to happen, it better happen fast. The frog might still jump out of the water then, although I doubt it.
Neven–
Of course it all depends on precisely what one means by “exceptional” and how they decides what they consider “normal”. A linear model is not very probable– but it’s one of the choices that makes 2007 fall outside the ±95% uncertainty intervals. Using that, 2007 is outside and low– but we also see another year outside and high:
So if linear applied, both would be “exceptional” in the sense that excursions that far from the least squares lines happen less than 1/20 times. In any given year, this sort of things does constitute a surprise.
But– assuming one believes that ice will tend to decline so that some sort of determinisitic decline is expected, neither excursion is “exceptional” in “I matched all the numbers in the Powerball lottery!” way. But 2007 surprised people, particularly since the extent lost lasted so darn long into the season. You can see the green line indicating the late end date in the figure. Not only were we seeing a minimum, and quite a big decline relative to recent years, but it seemed like it was never going to end.
The mere fact that 2007 occurred does make me a bit nervous about mentioning that my forecast tool now pegs the probability of getting a new JAXA minimum extent at…. at… insert very low number that differs from zero here.. (I’ll be saying on Wed. That’s the official day to reveal those numbers, I will say it’s not ‘zero’ but it’s low. I should also note, my prediction doesn’t take into account weather. It’s just based on typical declines based on ice conditions like thinnness, area, volume etc.)
Wonder why Eli thinks people only look at one data source?
Watts has a pretty extensive list of them. Any he missed? Send him a tip and he’ll add them, I’m sure he’ll add it.
Interestingly, unless I’m looking at something really wrong, most of the series aren’t going to cross into record territory (without some kind of crazy weather event), many aren’t even that interesting compared to other years between 2007 and now.
Looking at the various series, Bremen actually looks to be the outlier, not the one you should be following.
If all of the groups posted their daily values in numerical format, it’s be interesting to look at the mean & error of the means to e.g., estimate the relative significance of this year compared to 2007. As far as I can tell, publicly available daily values in numerical format only exist for a few series, so that’s not in the cards.
(One thing that strikes me as interesting is every series agrees that 2007 was exceptionally low, there appears to be a lot more variability in the estimates for this year.)
Note added: by “interesting” I am referring to the 2011 value relative to the values of data points generated by 2008-2010 using the same day. If it is within the same “cluster” of data… not very interesting.
Another uptick after the IJIS revision. This might well be it.
.
Lucia, with ‘exceptional’ in relation to 2007 I mean the weather. The conditions were perfect for melting and then for compaction. Normally you get a bit of this and that, but in 2007 it was only ‘this’, no variation.
.
But this year seems to be exceptional too in another way: ice thickness.
A graph larry hamilton showed suggests this. It shows NSIDC and JAXA on top of each other with Bremen below in recent years. All 3 tend to match prior to 2007. Not sure what this means, but if one is the “outlier”, it appears to be Bremen. (Is being the 1 outlier out of 3 better or worse? We don’t know.)
Yep. What we are seeing may just be the normal spread for individual days. Each system uses a slightly different algorithm/ resolution etc. So, we expect differences.
I note that given Eli’s tendency to “push” Bremen, the person who seems to think we ought to look at one particular metric may be Eli. There are a few Bremen pushers at Neven’s too.
As I noted before: I tend to show JAXA because they provide prompt data in numerical formats. That’s why I picked it for bets way back in 2008– which certainly isn’t cherry picking for any particular result. I think prompt data in numerical format is ‘the’ reason JAXA has more visibility. Very few people are going to do the pixel gazing Paul Klemencic seems to be doing over at Neven’s. Bremen can write PR releases– but if they just posted data, they’d have zillions of bloggers mentioning it for them. Afterwards, the bloggers would still run the press release.
JAXA gets coverage by providing the most convenient bloggable data. That’s pretty much it.
Also Eli say:
Only extent record I see among these is Bremen. Eli must be looking at the data with different glasses than me.
We’re into a rapidly cooling phase now, so it appears to me that it would take an extreme weather even to “set things right” for Eli.
NSIC has a fighting chance for a new record, but I’d put the odds against it.
JAXA, small, almost no chance of breaking record territory.
NORSEX — no chance (area or extent).
DMI — no chance.
IMS — fighting chance, but odds against it.
Like everybody else I’m convinced sea ice is getting lost, and the driving force is global warming. That doesn’t mean you have to try and game the data to prove something you already know.
Neven–
On thickness- it’s the lowest. But once again the diagnosis of “exceptional” sometimes depends on what one expects.
Given what we’ve seen in the past 30 years, didn’t you expect thickness to decline? Area’s declined– does anyone think thickness wouldn’t decline with it? I’ll admit I’m no expert, but I’d be somewhat surprised if average thickness across the pack didn’t decline as area declines. For one thing: The proportion of ‘edge region’ to central core is higher. The former tends to thinner, the latter thicker. So, to a large extent, I see the volume loss as very strongly linked to area loss. Will thickness vary around the “mean” for a particular area? I expect so. But I don’t know if the thickness is particularly low given the low area. I don’t know what that thickness ‘should’ be at this area.
Lucia:
Yep, that’s pretty much it. If more of the products produced daily series, they’d get used a lot more, which would increase their “circulation”.
This is an example of shooting yourself in the foot, by not sharing your “raw” data products.
I note that given Eli’s tendency to “push†Bremen, the person who seems to think we ought to look at one particular metric may be Eli. There are a few Bremen pushers at Neven’s too.
.
FWIW, Eli ‘pushed’ UB for as long as I can remember.
.
JAXA gets coverage by providing the most convenient bloggable data. That’s pretty much it.
.
That, and their graph looks nice. 🙂
Re: “What is the range of days to minimum after the first increase is recorded?
Uptick 16/08/2002 – Minimum 09/09/2002 : 24 later
Uptick 12/09/2003 – Minimum 18/09/2003 : 6 later
Uptick 03/09/2004 – Minimum 11/09/2004 : 8 later
Uptick 02/09/2005 – Minimum 22/09/2005 : 20 later
Uptick 24/08/2006 – Minimum 14/09/2006 : 21 later
Uptick 01/09/2007 – Minimum 24/09/2007 : 23 later
Uptick 03/09/2008 – Minimum 09/09/2008 : 6 later
Uptick 04/09/2009 – Minimum 13/09/2009 : 9 later
Uptick 29/08/2010 – Minimum 18/09/2010 : 20 later
(apologies for UK dates)”
6 days later to 24 days later would appear to be a wider range than 9th to 24th Sept. So at a very quick first glance it looks like we are better predicting date of minimum directly than predicting minimum from delay from first uptick. I think I would expect that to remain the case with more analysis. If so, it seems rather pointless noting when the first uptick is. But maybe 2 consecutive upticks is more reliable….
crandles (Comment #81331)
the only point in noted the delta from 1st uptick to minimum is that yesterday was 1st uptick of the year.
I see todays data has also been revised:
4 hrs ago:
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4519375
Now:
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
Jaxa always goes down at the beginning of the day and goes slightly up at the end. Because the daily changes are low for now, it is possible that a day with losses in extend can change in gaining ice extend. So this is the second day in row now with a gain in arctic ice extend according to JAXA. Anybody an idea for the upward correction(I did noticed a downward correction on ‘heavy losing extend days’) So maybe it isn’t a correction but a part of the 24hour cycle of the arctic.
Could be true. Note that UB has been lower than the other two since 2008. How far back do you remember? 🙂
Two down’s in a row? Almost makes me want to see how often the first two declines were in a row. (Almost, but not quite.)
MASIE went down again today from 4.379 to 4.340 Mm2. CT also set a new low at 2.9047 Mm2 area. I don’t think we’re quite done yet.
DeWitt–
I agree. I’d be pretty surprised if we are done!
Because remaining losses are bounded by zero, I added a new “method” to estimate the 95% confidence intervals. It permit me to assume the residuals are skew. (I don’t know if I did this a ‘legitimate’ way, but any-hoo…. I did a kludge.)
Anyway, it’s now predicting for the 7 day average:
“Skew-Normal median:4.456; ±95% range: [4.344,4.529] km^2×10^6”.
The current 7 day average is 4.558. So, my forecast models confidence intervals contain a minimum loss of 0.029 million square kilometers.
So, according to my ‘latest and well… latest’ fiddled ice extent predictomer-model, actually being done would be an outlier! (Or the predictomer-model would be wrong. 🙂 )
Thanks crandles, that’s what I was wondering..
odd, that the first uptick is a less reliable predictor..
Agreed Carrick.
it’s getting warmer, ice will melt out…
interesting to note who focuses on the trivia:
alarmista and contras
You’ll note that often in human affairs the hottest debates occur over the most trivial issues.
diffuses the radical potential. That’s a marx quote or something.
Carrick.
Just reviewing some of the documents.. I’d probably go with Bremen.. or MASIE (IMS) which has multiple sensor sources (not limited to 89ghz).. tough call. more reading
Lucia, I think your reading of ‘exceptional’ is correct.
I also think there is a problem with looking for ‘exceptional’ events. It tends to send the goddards of the world off in search of past freak events or periods.
The world is warming. we expect the ice to decline. Not in a simple straightforward manner. we expect the area to decrease, thickness to decrease, and left unchecked we expect that at some point in the future the average sept extent will be less than 1 M sq km.
Where people get into trouble (rhetorically and scientifically) is where they look for the ‘exceptional’. We dont believe in AGW BECAUSE of exceptional events. we believe because the physics is sound. That physics entails less ice over time, less volume over time, and eventually a very marginal icepack in sept. Sure, exceptional events reassure us, but they are not WHY we believed in the first place.
less talk of “ice free” ,’historic” ,record’ ,death spiral.. blah blah blah…
Some people think that focusing on ‘exceptional’ events makes a stronger argument. but they forget who they are arguing with. They are arguing with people who are convinced by photos of submarines surfacing at the N pole
We dont believe in AGW BECAUSE of exceptional events.
There are some people who believe in AGW, but do not believe in the consequences of AGW. That is where the debate has shifted to. The debate about ‘is AGW real or not’ was settled a few years back, goal posts were shifted.
.
Enough exceptional events in a row and the debate ‘will it be bad or will all be hunky dory’ gets interesting. The Arctic, of course, has been one big exceptional event for the last decade or so. It isn’t exceptional because of the focus, that’s turning things around. Besides, how much ice can focus melt?
.
Some people think that focusing on ‘exceptional’ events makes a stronger argument. but they forget who they are arguing with. They are arguing with people who are convinced by photos of submarines surfacing at the N pole
.
It’s the exceptional events that make the impact in the real world. Arguing with the ‘submarines at the North Pole’ people is a metaphysical way of getting the collective consciousness to accept an inconvenient truth.
.
But the ‘submarines at the North Pole’ people are not really the problem any longer. Right now the ‘all will be hunky dory’ people are the problem. It delays the start of the real debate some more, but this goal post will be shifted too. Exceptional events, such as in the Arctic, will (it might take another wasted 10 years or so).
BTW, this is interesting:
.
Uptick 12/09/2003 – Minimum 18/09/2003 : 6 later
.
Makes me have to think some more. Looking at the SLP maps from that time, I see there’s a huge cyclone in the 5-6 days leading up to the first uptick, pushing out the ice from the Beaufort Sea to what I assume were also warmer waters then.
.
Mind you, that ice in the Beaufort isn’t there this year, as 2003 had about 2.35 million square km more ice than yesterday.
.
A big cyclone like that would be interesting to see now. Maybe we’ll get one next week.
Neven–
I think we are using exceptional in different ways. I don’t see the arctic as “one big exceptional event for the last decade or so”. Or at least, I don’t see it as any more or less ‘exceptional’ than other things. Ice is melting. The global surface temperatures are getting warmer. This is what we expect because of AGW.
Well… but saying the north pole will be ice free doesn’t force anyone to accept anything because that specific thing turns out to be not all that exceptional.
Except I consider the events at the arctic “expected”.
If your point is series of breaking records gets more attention than showing the slope– that’s true. We will get more news stories in years when records break because it gives a journalist a hook. But using the word “exceptional” is a double edged sword.
I think what you mean to communicate is that the low ice extent seen this year would have been seen as exceptional back in 1970 or 1980 because in those years, we would need to achieve some sort of inconceivable perfect storm of weather (accompanied by an attack by aliens). But owing to AGW, this sort of low extent is not exceptional and we anticipate this level of ice extent will become routine, and eventually, we the amount we see now would be seen as exceptionally large.
After that, it’s just a matter of whether people believe that the drop is due to AGW and will progress. Some ‘not-called-skeptic’ scientists think only part of this drop is AGW and part may be natural variability. So, clearly, some people will not embrace the graphs showing exponential or quadratic decays and so on. When they hear you use terms like “exceptional”, they may just suggest that the 70s and 80s were themselves “exceptional”– as having exceptionally high ice owing to natural variability and the big drop is due to moving toward a period of “exceptionally low” ice.
So in the end, arguing by ‘exception’ really isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.
Neven–
That does look amazing! Are we expecting a cycline next week?
Lucia, we can play word games (I’d rather not), but to have the Arctic lose its sea ice so fast – speaking on a geological time scale – is nothing short of exceptional, sensational even. If it comes about within the next 20 years or so and continues after that, it will make it more difficult to say all will be hunky dory. It will shift the goal posts yet again, all the way until the collective consciousness is ready to accept reality (or not).
.
I understand that if you just look at your spreadsheet with numbers, you can go: “Exponential fit, quadratic fit, delta this, sigma that: not exceptional, we’re expecting this.” But this has implications in the physical word, and the fact that we do not know how far these implications might go (NH weather patterns, permafrost + methane clathrates) pretty much rules out ‘hunky dory’ as a policy strategy.
.
It’s like watching the house burn down and drily say: ‘That was to be expected, wood burns’.
Are we expecting a cycline next week?
.
If you go to the ECMWF weather forecast map, click on ‘N-Hem’ and then 144h on ‘500 hPa’ and further, there is something in the middle of the ice pack that could be labelled a big cyclone. But it’s 5-6 days away, so the forecast will probably change.
“The debate about ‘is AGW real or not’ was settled a few years back” Not so fast bub. By Who, When, Where, Why and How was it settled? Sincere question.
Andrew
Andrew, do you know about that picture of a submarine at the North Pole in 1953?
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness, the rhetorical effectiveness, of focusing on “exceptional” events.
I will note for the record that focusing on exceptional events..
the hockey stick, katrina, the russian heatwaves, the record in 2007, the floods in australia, have not in my opinion moved the debate forward. They have moved it back. They have moved the discussion to aspects of climate science that are most suspect.
attribution of extreme events.
They take the oxygen out of the room. They lead to gore making suspect statements in his movie, they give skeptics ammunition. It is essentially a message of fear and we know that messages of fear can work for short periods, but over a long period people become immune to fear mongering and it actually works against you. We know that like we know that climate science is true. I consider people who think otherwise to be denialist.
I’m happy saying that what we see in the arctic is totally expected in the grand scheme of things. Our observations there confirm our beliefs that AGW is true. I’m no more motivated by a record than I am by the general slow decline.
But you are playing the game: you are using “exceptional”.
Exceptional and sensational: more word games. BTW: characterizing some unnamed persons policy strategy as “hunky dory” is also a word game.
If you are still trying to justify the use of the word “exceptional”, you really are playing games. What the implications might be is separate from whether or not something is “exceptional” or “sensational”. F=ma has implications for the physical world (sometimes good, sometimes bad). But the fact that it has implications does not make it “exceptional”.
There is nothing obviously wrong with saying this. It all depends on who you say it to, and the context of your conversation. If you douse a wooden house with gasoline and light a match, it would be odd to describe the consequence of house catching fire as “exceptional”. There would be circumstances (for instance, an arson investigation) where the only appropriate observation would be to observe that burning is to be expected after this series of events.
Mind you: The consequence may be unfortunate for the owner, but it’s hardly “exceptional”. If you hear about it, you might explaim, “Oh! how tragic!” The fact that the house burning is unfortunate and had ill consequences for the owner would hardly be a reason to claim wood burning after being doused with gasoline and ignited by a match is “exceptional”.
Look: It is unfortunate people grow old, lose their memories and physical abilities and eventually die. But this unfortunate and almost inevitable evolution of people’s minds and bodies is exceptional.
It strikes me as odd that you seem to believe that we have to accept the use of the word “exceptional” merely because you think something is “unfortunate”. It seems odder still that you think I’m the one playing word games by suggesting that I prefer not to use the word “exceptional” for things that we expect to occur. Things we expect to occur are not “exceptional”.
Things we expect to occur are not “exceptionalâ€.
.
We expected them to occur between 2070 and 2100. As things stand now, they are occurring in the coming two decades. This is exceptional. The speed is exceptional.
.
The house is burning down in exceptional speed, and you, Lucia, are one of the co-owners. It isn’t just happening in your spreadsheet. There is a world out there.
.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the effectiveness, the rhetorical effectiveness, of focusing on “exceptional†events.
.
I don’t have an agenda, so I don’t really care about rhetorical effectiveness. I only care about the truth, transparency and doing what is right.
.
Nothing is effective as long as the collective consciousness (which the submarine people and the hunky dorians – how do you like that wordplay, Lucia 😉 – are on the forefront of) isn’t ready or able to face up to inconvenient truths. That is the ultimate problem. You are just using the ‘rhetorical effectiveness’ argument to smear and delay some more.
.
Let’s just see how things evolve and take it from there, shall we? I’m not expecting the exceptional event that is the Arctic to suddenly overthrow everything. We need even more exceptional events, and we will probably get them.
Re: Neven (Sep 12 13:05),
A submarine doesn’t need open water to surface. Polynyas form and freeze over with ice less than three feet thick all the time pretty much everywhere in the Arctic ocean. In the movie Stargate:Continuum there’s a scene where the USS Alexandria (SSN-757) surfaces through 2 feet of solid ice. Missile submarines can break through pretty much anywhere in the Arctic at any time of year, or both the US and Russia wouldn’t have boomers as well as hunter/killers on patrol under the ice.
Neven,
Something like 1,000,000,000 people on the planet are already at risk from severe weather events. We are doing next to nothing about it in terms of adaptation. Why do you think a possible increase in the frequency of these events that cannot yet be measured is going to move anyone to spend serious money on mitigation (not a rhetorical question, I’m really interested in your answer)? The whole focus of the warmers on extreme events is counter-productive. Future uncertain events, positive or negative, are not a good motivator, as anyone who has taken quality management training could tell you. That’s why people like Lomborg focus on no-regrets policies.
Steve, you say, “I’m happy saying that what we see in the arctic is totally expected in the grand scheme of things. Our observations there confirm our beliefs that AGW is true. I’m no more motivated by a record than I am by the general slow decline.” You may be justified to believe it may be GW, but to attribute it to AGW means you are certain of some data that the majority of the world is blind to. You are most definitely not a lukewarmer.
Why do you think a possible increase in the frequency of these events that cannot yet be measured is going to move anyone to spend serious money on mitigation
.
I’m not an optimist, to tell the truth. But in theory, I believe that if anything has the chance to wake people up to the fact that this could become very serious, it’s an increase in extreme events (things like 100-year floods happening two years in a row). And not only where the poor people are, but also where we live. Inside our monkeysphere.
.
The whole focus of the warmers on extreme events is counter-productive.
.
That depends on how many extreme events there are, I guess. I sometimes think it is used as an argument because submarine people and hunky dorians are greatly annoyed by the fact that there are a lot of extreme events lately (and not probably over either with another La Niña coming).
.
The focus on extreme events isn’t counter-productive, as the extreme events are actually very productive in making people see that everything might just perhaps not be hunky dory. What you are trying to do is to focus on the focus to take the focus away from those extreme events. Hopefully for you the frequency in extreme events goes down a bit.
.
But nature always bats last.
Well, we are now having trouble with the use of “we”.
I never thought models would predict timing. So, I never expected that the model time table would hold. I expected melting to occur and melting is occurring. So, I don’t find observation that it is melting “exceptional”.
Huh? I don’t think expressing my opinion that some things are rhetorically ineffective either smears or delays. If the method is effective, it’s effective. If it’s not, it’s not. I think the latter is the case, but if I’m incorrect, I don’t see how my expressing my view on this would render an otherwise effective communication technique ineffective.
Rob
Why do you think this? The word was coined to describe people who believe AGW is true. So SteveF’s believe in AGW can’t possibly make him not a lukewarmer.
Re: Neven (Sep 12 15:12),
You’ve missed the point. We have severe events now that actually kill lots of people in, say, Bangladesh. We do essentially nothing about it. We certainly don’t spend serious money. Yet somehow, the threat of a (small) increase in the frequency and severity of future severe events which will have the strongest effect on people already at risk is supposed to motivate us to spend lots of money to maintain that future threat at the current level? Not hardly. We won’t even stop people from building on flood plains and barrier islands known to be at risk in the US.
Maybe the people you call “hunky-dorians” would be annoyed by this if it was a true fact. My impression is the problem for people using extreme events to demonstrate AGW is there aren’t any more extreme events than previously. Of course we do see extreme events and these are reported. Some– like earthquakes and tsunami’s have no possible connection to AGW. Others like hurricane’s have a plausible hypothetical connection. But there’s no evidence these are increasing.
Lucia #81359,
I think I would be classified as a lukewarmer…. at least by some. I have on different blog treads been called both a CAGW extremist and a vocal den*er; I think it depends on your point of view. I guess that makes me both, right?
But the quoted text does not come from me. It was Mosher. (As Jeff complains, there are just too many Steve’s around. 😉 )
SteveF–
I’ve also been called all three. Didn’t mosher coin the word lukewarmer?
? Not hardly. We won’t even stop people from building on flood plains and barrier islands known to be at risk in the US.
####
yes people wont even take no regrets options.
even in liberal SF there isnt a second thought about building in places that are threatened.
generally speaking coasts are liberal. generally speaking we subsidize people ( rich people) living on coasts. we reward them for engaging behavior that is risky now. Any suggestion that they change this behavior is met with derision.
DeWitt,
“We won’t even stop people from building on flood plains and barrier islands known to be at risk in the US.”
.
Well, no. But I don’t think that is a bad thing. What is a bad thing is having everyone else underwrite their insurance costs. I’d say let people build where they want, just make sure they don’t expect to have treasonable insurance rates…. go in with your eyes open and no bitchin’ about losses from ‘natural disasters’ (or astronomical insurance rates either).
Neven, how ’bout you answer my question…the answer seems pretty foundational to your belief system. I would hope you could answer it straightforwardly…or at least pretend you have an answer or *something*. -Andrew
Lucia, I was there when it was coined.. Its on a CA thread somewhere.. I think it might have been david smith, but I just picked it up and ran with it cause I finally had a word for what I think
neven:
‘I don’t have an agenda, so I don’t really care about rhetorical effectiveness. I only care about the truth, transparency and doing what is right.”
The simple fact is we use language to change people’s behavior. To change what they think and hopefully to change how they act. Our other choice is to use a clue by four of physical persuasion. You are not writing for no reason. You hope that the information you provide will change what people think. And you believe that if you change their thinking you will change their behavior. Saying
“I have no agenda” is a rhetorical device. It says ” you can trust what I say” It also happens to be a bad rhetorical device, because as human beings we know that if you are like us you have an agenda. You have motives and desires. If you didnt have these things, then you would not be able to speak to us. The key is to understand your motive ( purpose for speaking) understand your audience ( what works for them) and use tools that work for them.
Andrew,
The debate was settled: GHGs warm the planet. Man is increasing GHGs. The open questions are these:
Scientific:
How much warming
Moral
What actions should we take
Political
What is the best way to convince people.
There isnt any real question that GHGs ( like water vapor and C02) make our planet warmer than it would be without them. Like I’ve said that physics is now cookbook engineering.
If you discuss one of the 3 open questions you will have a chance to make a contribution to the dialog.
Lucia, read his comment again. He clearly states the melting of the arctic is AGW. What % do you thinks he means Lucia. I also believe that polyatomic molecules participate in AGW, but I certainly wouldn’t attribute the arctic melt solely to AGW. Have we not been paying attention to solar, clouds, etc. I was simply reacting to the certainty of his obviously wrong statement. Lukewarmers in general remind me of bisexuality – sooner or later you’ve got to hop of the fence and pick a hole.
Steven Mosher, the debate was settled by who, when, and how? -Andrew
Yes.
This is from your comment:
Mosher is saying he
a) believes in AGW. This fits the definition of lukewarmers. Lukewarmers are supposed to believe in AGW.
b) He thinks the melting is due to AGW. This fits the definition of lukewarmers. Lukewarmers are supposed to believe AGW is sufficiently strong to have some noticeable effects.
The distinction between “luke” warmers and “no adjective” warmers is how much warming they expect, especially their estimate of climate sensitivity. Lukewarmers think sensitivity is in the lower range discussed by the IPCC as opposed to thinking it is in the upper range.
Why do you think what Moshers says means he’s not a lukewarmer?
andrew, the question “why is the earth warmer with an atmosphere than without one” isnt exactly what you call a debate. It’s a question. And that question has been answered over the last 100 years or so. The answer is the world is warmer with an atmosphere than without one because (super simply) of the way the various molecules in the atmosphere interact with radiation that originates from the sun and the energy that reradiates from the earth. That answer has been refined over the past century. It is that answer that allows us to engineer radars, and ir sensors, and sensors in satillites. All of those devices depend upon this physics being correct. No one person settled the debate, because there never really has been a debate. That is to say, there has never been an alternative view that does everything that this theory does with as much depth, breadth, or accuracy. Now, have some people, denied that theory? Surely. But denial does not constitute debate. To challenge a piece of working engineering, and this science is used in everyday engineering, to debate that “know how” you cannot merely assert the negative. You have to explain how radars work if that science is wrong. You have to propose an alternative explanation for everything it explains. You have to explain why people should engage you in discussing 2+2= 4.
For example: when clouds pass between you and the sun, is there less energy hitting you or more? can you explain why? explain how the molecules a cloud is made up of interfere with the sun light. When you work that physics out you will find out something about many different molecules and various wavelengths of energy. Its a long road, but once you finish you can join the conversation.
Rob.
50%
inside joke. you wont get it
lucia, I am fully aware of the definition of a lukie. I for one believe that GH’s have the potential to warm. Who doesn’t. I am bothered by the certainty of his untrue statement about AGW as the cause of arctic melt. Lukies may believe that GHG’s have some efficacy in terms of warming, but to state unequivocally that arctic melt is solely AGW is outrageous, especially from someone who knows better.
Neven (Comment #81357)
says:
But in theory, I believe that if anything has the chance to wake people up to the fact that this could become very serious, it’s an increase in extreme events (things like 100-year floods happening two years in a row). And not only where the poor people are, but also where we live. Inside our monkeysphere.
If I’m reading this correctly, are you suggesting that your preference is for an uptick in extreme events to knock some sense into those that aren’t killed by such events into addressing the seriousness of AGW? If so, it would suggest that you are as entrenched in the monkeysphere as anyone.
Rob==
I keep reading what he wrote and he doesn’t seem to say that the melting is solely due to AGW. He said what we see is totally expected in the grand scheme of things. It’s not clear what ‘the grand scheme of things’ is, but that doesn’t mean he is saying that 100% of the observed melt is due to AGW.
I think you are concluding he is not a lukewarmer because you are reading in meaning that is not contained in what he wrote.
Steve, if it is as you say, an inside joke, you would do well to reserve that for private emails. I don’t know you but have read many of your comments on various threads – overall impression – you are smart, arrogant, and generally have the personality of an appeaser. I know you are aware of the activity as well as potency of the GG’s. Methane and water have the same activity (IR) as CO2, but are much more potent. Do you know the difference between activity and potency Steve?( Hint it is wrong in most textbooks) If you would have attributed the arctic melt to H2O, I would not have responded to you inside joke.
Lucia , “I’m happy saying that what we see in the arctic is totally expected in the grand scheme of things. Our observations there confirm our beliefs that AGW is true. Lucia, do you suppose he was referring to H2O when he talks about AGW. I think we know better. He is a warmista, he just doesn’t realize it.
andrew, the question “why is the earth warmer with an atmosphere than without one†isnt exactly what you call a debate.
Steven Mosher,
“The debate was settled:” You called it a debate, Socrates.
Andrew
Neven:
Actually, we have no idea how “exceptional” this warming is compared to other warming events.
It stands to reason that if the Arctic Ice is more sensitive than we thought to temperature change, that this sort of rapid transition might be a relatively frequent occurrence.
You can’t have it both ways, insensitive to natural forcing, but somehow hypersensitive to human ones.
Rob–
I haven’t said he was referring to H20 when he talks about AGW. He means AGW when he write AGW. I still don’t know what concept you think is contained in the bit you quote that is also inconsistent with lukewarming. Is it the bit where he says “AGW is true”? Is it that he expected melting? Is it that “what we see” is “totally expected”?
I’m asking because I don’t see anything in what he writes that is inconsistent with lukewarming. But evidently you do. So I think either a) you are interpreting him as claiming something I don’t understand him to be claiming or b) we have different notions about what lukewarmer means. I gave the definition of lukewarmer means and you say you know the definition. So, now I’m trying to figure out what it is you are understanding Mosher to be claiming that I am not understanding him to be claiming.
Lucia, you are smart and this is not obtuse. What does the A in AGW mean to you. Answer that and I will address you questions.
I interpret it to mean “anthropogenic”.
Rob,
“I know you are aware of the activity as well as potency of the GG’s. Methane and water have the same activity (IR) as CO2, but are much more potent. Do you know the difference between activity and potency Steve?( Hint it is wrong in most textbooks)”
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you be a little more explicit? A good start would be explaining “Methane and water have the same activity (IR) as CO2”; the infrared spectra of these three are not at all the same… what exactly do you mean by “the same activity”? When you say most textbooks are wrong about something (which is not to say they could not be), it would be helpful to be a little less cryptic and say exactly where you think those textbooks are mistaken.
A lot of people are going to look really silly soon have a look at DMI ice extent now its probably not going to be even close to record (that is averaged mean ice loss over whole year). Me thinks its quickly gaining and at this rate may be record GAIN.
Andrew (Comment #81386)
There is a long standing rule that people whose names are already used by frequent commenters must add something to be unique. Note we already have more than 1 Andrew including Andrew_KY. You are required to change names.
I know it’s hard for you to remember which name you used last, but the plugin on the admin side lets me find all of them. If you’d like me to suggest one of them, I’ll be happy to refresh your memory.
“CO2 potency” and “CO2 activity” sound more like pseudoscience speak when used in context with AGW. It has another meaning for growers of certain consumer products.
Perhaps Rob could post links to some of the climate textbooks which talk about “CO2 potency” and perhaps expand on how they’re wrong? (I’d be happy to see just the first of these.) Strangely neither of these terms (CO2 potency nor CO2 activity) find a place in the IPCC AR4.
Odd that.
Lucia, this is probably going further than it should. Mosher implied, but later called it an inside joke, that the arctic melt was due to AGW. You must be aware that to many people, especially the uninitiated, the A in AGW means anthropogenic CO2, not the other excitable polyatomic molecules, such as H2O, CH4, and N2O. When radiated they all have a theoretical maximum in terms of their re-radiation energy( activity). If we radiate an identical mass of CO2 and CH4 with an identical amounts of energy, CH4 is much more potent in terms of re-radiation, i.e., it is more potent. In terms of Steve’s attribution of arctic melt to AGW, I was simply asking for the basis of his statement. Is he attributing the A to CO2 (my guess is probably yes), or to H2O, in which case he is wrong. At any rate he said it was all an inside joke, so the point is mute.
Rob
Not withstanding the later joke, I just didn’t understand him to be saying 100% of the melt was due to AGW. I was understanding him to be saying that if we believe in AGW, melting occuring is consistent with that belief. That is: melting is in the direction we expect if we believe in AGW. In contrast, refreezing is the wrong direction. If increased ice extent occurred, to retain an belief in AGW we would have to find some explanation to explain the refreezing while still retaining our belief in AGW.
That’s what I thought he meant. I admit there was some ambiguity what with the “larger scheme of things” type stuff. But that’s what I thought he meant.
When Mosher says AGW, I assume me means CO2, Methane, N2O etc. but not water vapor or clouds.
I think he is attributing A to CO2, Methane, N2O and not water vapor, clouds or albedo from ice. Maybe he includes things like soot and variations in aerosols in AGW– but not H20.
I think the joke is to say exactly 50%. I don’t think Mosher thinks we actually know the fraction that is AGW and the fraction that is non-anthro. I think the joke part is expressing excess confidence in 50%.
Carrick, it is not as you say, pseudoscience. I grant you that you won’t find it any climate textbook but it is one of the most important concepts we teach to first year med students. Refer to Goodman and Gilman- “The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics” (the bible of pharmacological texts). If were to plot absorptivity (0 to 1) versus wavelength, all of the greenhouse gases will reach their maximum absorptivity (1) at some level of long-wave radiation, i.e. they are equi-active. Methane, for example will reach its maximum absorptivity with far less LWR than CO2, i.e. it is more potent. When we reach 1, it indicates that at that wavelength the energy is fully absorbed. Adding more gas of that type will not absorb any more energy as that wavelength is fully saturated. Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. The temperature response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere depends on the amount of positive and negative feedbacks from water vapour, clouds and other sources. The temperature effect of increasing CO2 concentration is almost logarithmic. This means if doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a 300 ppm increase, causes the temperature to rise by 1 oC, it would take another 600 ppm increase to add a further 1 oC temperature gain. Water and CO2 appear to be equi-active and equi-potent, but water comprises about 70% of the atmosphere compared to .04% for CO2. So what does Steve mean when he says that arctic melt is proof of AGW?
Rob–
Reading what you wrote to SteveF, I am even more confused by whatever you are inferring from what mosher wrote.
Also now that I read all that, I think I need to clarify: When I said mosher considers AGW to be co2, methane etc and not water, I don’t mean to suggest mosher doesn’t believe in positive feedback due to increased water vapor consequent to the action of CO2. I include that feed back in AGW because it would vanish if the co2, methane etc were taken out– and I think mosher does too.
When you are asking about warming caused by H20 rather than CO2, I assumed you meant H20 that just magically vaporizes for no particular reason (though possibly cosmic rays) and then drives it’s own feed back.
Rob, you said:
So when you say this, you don’t mean climate textbook but pharmacology textbooks perhaps?
It’s an interesting intermixing of terminology, but you could lay off the personal war with Steven. Certainly it would be odd to be discussing something in climate science, introduce pharmacological terminology, then not explain that is what you are doing, while expecting the other person to answer questions about the nuances in terms you’ve just introduced.
So … does CO2 increase potency in five-leaved plants… or not?
Rob–
Looking back on it all…. I tried to answer your questions. So, now, could you explain precisely what in Mosher’s original post made you conclude he can’t be a lukewarmer? That was my very original question and we still don’t seem to be getting there. (I think you ought to be able to tell me what make you think he can’t be a luke warmer even if you latered learned something or another was an inside joke.)
Lucia, my rsponses attempted originally to comment only about Moshers comment. It then got somewhat esoteric in addressing comments from SteveF and Carrick. My point was, before he stated he was 50% joking, that he could never provide convincing data or even an compelling argument that the arctic melt is due to AGW. Carrick, as for you, I have no war with Mosher, I was just responding to his unbeknownst 50% joke.
That point eluded me. What I was wondering about is your claim that he can’t be a lukewarmer. I don’t see how that his ability or inability to prove arctic melt is due to AGW (which I suspect he would concede) would mean he can’t be a lukewarmer (which he seems to be.)
Lucia, if he was joking as he said he was, then my comment is not as relevant. If he really believes the melt is due to AGW as opposed to GW, then he is a warmer, simply because he affirms his belief but could never proof it. That is the religiosity of the warmista, not scientists. Given the mass of H2O, the potency of CH4 and other poylatomics, I don’t understand the pivotal role you, and apparently Mosher, ascribe to CO2 in orchestration of the warming. The mass balance doesn’t compute.
Rob #89391,
The more you explain, the more unclear your comments become to be. I have no idea what you are saying with:
.
Optical absorbance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbance) is most commonly defined as the natural log of the ratio of the incident intensity to the intensity after passing through the material. (In some fields, the base-ten log is used instead of the natural log; the two definitions yield absorbance values which differ by a constant factor of 2.3026.)
When there is no absorption (no attenuation) the ratio is 1, so the absorption is Ln(1/1) =0 (just as you say). However, if 90% of the incident radiation is removed, the the absorbance is Ln(1/0.1) = 2.3025. If 99% of the incident radiation is removed, then the absorption is: Ln(1/0.01) = 4.6052. (If you choose to work with the base-10 log definition, the respective values are 1 and 2 for these examples). In any case, absorbance is most certainly not limited to a maximum value of 1, as you seem to suggest.
You go on to say:
I don’t at all understand what you are trying to say; it would help if you could provide working definitions of what you mean by “equi-active” and “equi-potent”. The atmosphere does indeed contain ~0.04% CO2 by volume (AKA 390 PPM). The water content of the atmosphere varies quite a lot depending on temperature and region, but it is at most a few percent anywhere. According to Wikipedia: “Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.” Where does your value of “70% of the atmosphere” come from?
Rob-
Lukewarmers are warmers. They are warmers who believe climate sensitivity is on the lower end of the range described by the IPCC. Lukewarmers do believe in AGW.
I don’t know what you mean by “the mass balance doesn’t compute”.
Please forgive me, I not avoiding discussion, but I have an early morning flight and need to go to bed. If you like I can come back to it on Thurs. I realize I introduced some terminology to the climate field and don’t wan to leaving it hanging. SteveF, yes, 70% was not atmosphere, but greenhouse effect. Keep thinking in the meantime, you are both smart enough to get it.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Jaxa shows a decline on their preliminary. Extent is higher than on the 9th and 10th though.
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4529844
Rob,
“Keep thinking in the meantime, you are both smart enough to get it.”
Snark is neither prudent not constructive. And yes, lots of people here are most certainly very smart…. and extremely skeptical of comments/claims which appear to make no sense. Whether or not you choose to address the questions raised is entirely up to you, but I am beginning to have honest doubts that you can.
Rob the question has been asked many times: what percentage of arctic melt is due to AGW. You can search through the threads here to see I’ve pretty consistently said, if forced to answer I’d say 50%. I’d say 50% because it minimizes the error when I have no clue what “portion” can be attributed to AGW. I think the question is an interesting technical distraction, but a distraction. I don’t mind distractions on tuesday. Does that make it clear. Being a lukewarmer involves these minimal beliefs.
1. Radiative physics is correct. GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool the planet.
2. Sensitivity is more likely to be less than 3( or 3,2) C not more.
3. Apple pie and motherhood about transparency.
There isn’t any position on the “portion” of arctic melt that can be attributed to AGW. Some portion. It’s not a wheel that turns in the grand scheme of things. Simply, the connection between 1 and 2 and the “portion” isnt at all clear.
Generallly you cant be a Lukewarmer if you
A deny radiative physics alltogether.
B. argue that sensitivity is more likely to be greater than 3C than less than 3C.
C. think data sharing and code sharing are not good practices.
Big tent.
Rob:
“Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. ”
You need to aquaint yourself with the part of the atmosphere where C02 plays a lerge role because of the absence of water: the stratosphere. There is some interesting history on that ( related to my past employment in defense) You will find that history in a wonderful post on real climate. see this whole series
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
from this paragraph on
“The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s. Military officers lavishly funded research on the high layers of the air where their bombers operated, layers traversed by the infrared radiation they might use to detect enemies.”
When the lives of your friends depends upon the physics of radiative transfer, it’s not a science you doubt without deadly consequences. Just sayin.
steven mosher (Comment #81408)-A little friendly advice on debating tactics: the instant you link to someone else to make your argument for you, you raise the probability that the person you are arguing with is never going to listen to you, even if you have a valid point. When the link in question is to RC, that probability raises to damn near unity. If RC has a good argument, I would advise plagiarizing it rather than referencing it. No really. Just make their argument, here, and pretend you came up with it. This isn’t the academic world, it’s the internet, there is no reason for you to diminish the power/effectiveness of the argument by reminding everyone of who it comes from.
Again, this is just debate advice. Frankly I can understand why, if RC told someone they were completely sane, they might get themselves to a psychiatric ward for evaluation. Even when they aren’t wrong, them being associated with an argument is going to damage the credibility of an argument by association. It’s not entirely rational, it’s not logically justifiable, but it’s understandable.
For what it’s worth, they aren’t wrong that the GHE won’t “saturate”, although frankly they say some ridiculous things about science being “set back” by people pointing out flaws in the early arguments. The science moved forward to the point where the early arguments turned out to be partly right for the wrong reasons but to suggest that pointing out the original reasons were wrong was “setting science back” is disgusting.
I wouldn’t plagiarize RC, nor would I be very interested in talking to somebody who ignores an argument because it comes from a particular source, but I think your point about the “science being setback” is a valid one.
It’s not the science that got set back, it’s a particular (politically driven IMO) argument that got set back.
AndrewFL: Re-read the sentence that contains the words “set” and “back”. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
.
Then when you have some time, you might as well re-read the actual RC post itself. It’s pretty neat.
On the Weart/Pierrehumbert post, I largely agree with toto, above. The duo concludes,
That sounds right, to me.
The issue with RC isn’t that they are reliably wrong or misleading; they’re correct more often than not. Their problem is that they’ve squandered the trust that came with their authoritative credentials and academic positions. At least from the perspective of many scientifically-literate readers who aren’t True Believers, myself included. RC’s authors seem to have no qualms about making incomplete and misleading arguments, when it suits them. The routine use of aggressive moderation tactics to stifle informed discussion doesn’t help. Or perhaps, given their apparent agenda, that does help.
Both Neven and Steven Mosher claimed in this thread that the debate about AGW being real or not was settled. I ask respectfully again for the details of who this was settled by, when and how.
Andrew
Andrew: “This isn’t the academic world, it’s the internet, there is no reason for you to diminish the power/effectiveness of the argument by reminding everyone of who it comes from.”
One problem with borrowing an argument from RC, rather than making it directly yourself, is that you never know if a good counter argument was moderated out at RC. So, if someone wants to borrow their argument, I agree, they should bring it here directly and be ready to defend it.
There’s always The Science of Doom which has a much looser moderation policy than RC, but not as much traffic.
Lucia: “Lukewarmers are warmers. They are warmers who believe climate sensitivity is on the lower end of the range described by the IPCC. Lukewarmers do believe in AGW. ”
Now there is a good question. What is the climate sensitivity for lukwarmers. Does it need to be less that 2C for 2xCO2? Less than 1.5C? What? My thinking is around 1C, +- 0.4C.
Tilo–
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
I think a lukewarmer thinks sensitivity is inside the range the IPCC discussed but on the lower end. They don’t need to feel certain— just that’s where they think it probably is. One could call 1.500000000000000 the lower bound. So based on how I use the word, I think someone thinking it’s 1.0C is a “no-changer”, or possibly “almost-imperceptible to detect-or”.
Mind you: I don’t own the English language. But– in my opinion– something has to divide people who think the sensitivity is + ε C where ε < < 1C and who think over 90% of the change over the 20th century is almost certainly due to natural causes and so we are likely to see cooling during the 21st century from people who think anticipate that sensitivity is at least high enough that — notwithstanding the fact that natural variability does exist– we do expect to see warming during the 21st century.
Now, maybe the actual division shouldn’t be thinking sensitivity is between 1.500000000C and 3.0000000000C. Maybe the division should be: Do you think there is a better than 75% chance we will see warming in the 21st century? (Pick your percent over 50%). But I think people who think cooling is more likely than warming during the 21st century are some type of coolers, not ‘x-warmers’. People who think cooling and warming are almost equally likely are “neitherers”. And lukewarmers– to really qualify as fitting a description containing “warmer” in it, must be anticipating that warming is more likely than cooling. In my view: at least twice as likely.
I don’t know where believing sensitivity is between 0.6 and 1.4 C puts a person. And as I said: I don’t own English, so I can’t dictate the use of the word. But if someone tells me they think it’s that low and calls themselves a lukewarmer, I would ask them their guess on the probability of warming in the 21st century. If it’s greater than 75%– I’ll lean toward believing they are a lukewarmer. Also: I consider them on the cool end of lukewarmers.
If they tell me they think the likelyhood of warming is less than 75%, I won’t call them a lukewarmer. (I’m not going to hunt them down and argue with them about self labels, but I would just avoid calling them anything.)
So, I think my definition may be more restrictive than moshers. But I think I was around for the conversation coining lukewarmer too. 🙂
Tilo-
Also, in some past discussions (with I think Liza), I said that, in my opinion, one cannot simultaneously be a cooler and a lukewarmer. Moreover, it is important not to defend ones self attribution of “lukewarmer” with being convinced one’s arguments supporting their claim we are more likely to see cooling than warming in the 21st century are right. If someone thinks their predictions of cooling are right they should admit they are a cooler, explain why they think cooling is the correct prediction etc. If they happen to accept radiative physics, they should explain why they anticipate cooling even though radiative physics does indicate CO2 has a warming tendency etc.
But in my view, what they shouldn’t do is themselves a lukewarmer. But if they do– well… I don’t own English. So, if asked, I’ll just say that I wouldn’t call them a lukewarmer.
Extent rose on update!
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
lucia (Comment #81435)-At last, someone sets a lower bound! I regret to see that I don’t fall in it.
Andrew_FL–
I’ve always thought a lower bound must exist. The question is: Where is it?
I think it’s true that some people who might like to call themselves “lukewarmers” are embracing a term that doesn’t match their actual views. There are some people in a “fuzzy” region. Sort of like saying “Is that color on the yellow side of orange or on the red side of orange?” But — in my opinion– there are a range of beliefs that are clearly not lukewarming in the same way that pure-no-red in it at all yellow is not orange– not pure yellow is not orange even if orange contains some yellow.
Lucia: I do think that there is a 75% to 80% chance of warming in the 21st century. But I expect it to be around 1C. And I expect the adverse effects from that 1C to be almost nonexistent. There may be a few less polar bears and the earth will likely have a greater biomass. I don’t think there will be much change in extreme weather events. I expect about 8 to 14 inches of sea level rise. Since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, I don’t expect to see acceleration in the rate of either temperature or sea level rise.
I think that Svensmark is right about cosmic rays and CCNs, and I think that Lindzen has something in his cloud iris effect (although he may not have all the numbers completely nailed down at this point). And I think that more clouds means more albedo which will be a counter effect to CO2 forcing. Of course I don’t know what the next 7 or 8 solar cycles will do, but I doubt that we will get the kind of build and high level that we had in the 20th century.
I guess that, for me, a lukewarmer is a little cooler than how you use the term.
Tilo–
Given that, if you call yourself a lukewarmer, I wouldn’t kick and scream and insist you aren’t. OTOH– at least one commenter here who insisted 21st century cooling was more likely than warming and also insisted on self-describing as lukewarmer. I think you’d be on the cool edge of lukewarmer and we could all have angels dancing on the head of a pin discussion about who thought what. Sort of like argument about “is that orange or yellow-orange?” It might turn out that most people consider you right in there.
The reason I do insist on some lower bound– even if it’s fuzzy is that intimations of “the ice age commeth” were fairly frequent from a blog visitor who self-identified as “lukewarmer”. Clearly, if “lukewarmers” do believe “the ice age cometh” (and sometime soon), then Paul K2 would be have some reason to suggest that future temperatures rising could be a “nail in the coffin” of lukewarming. In contrast, it makes no sense for anyone to think data showing warming at a rate lower than the IPCC suggests — which is precisely in line with what lukewarmer’s suggest we are likely to see– is a “nail in (their) coffin”!
The lower bound.
I think at times we’ve put the lower bound at somewhere around the lower bound of the IPCC.. 1.5 ish.
My thinking on this matter goes as follows.
From first principles ( see work done here ) we can estimate the climate response for ANY increase in forcing to a first order. That is we can estimate that an increase of 1 watt of forcing gives us a a response in C of around ( what was it .41C per watt )
From well understood physics supported by observation we can estimate that doubling C02 gives us approx 3.7 additional watts.
some mathturbation and we are at a figure of around 1.5ish for
a “first order” estimate of the sensitivity to doubling C02.
That is without feedbacks.
Arguments about feedbacks are all over the place. A minority view puts the effect after feedbacks to be less than 1.5. This view is supported by a few thin lines of evidence. No modelling “evidence”, no paleo evidence, only evidence from analysis of transient responses. On there other hand there is a large amount of evidence from several different approaches that after feedbacks the value is greater than 1.5C per doubling. So the way I look at it the first order estimate gives us a good anchor point. If you want to argue for less than 1.5, you got some ground to make up.. you need support from paleo lines of evidence, you need more convincing support than Lindzen and Spencers papers give.. Likewise if you think that the value is over 3C.
Andrew_FL.
I am not debating with you. That’s why I feel free to send you to RC.
First because I hope you wont read it and will remain ignorant, second because I know you will make ignorant comments about RC. Here is the sad thing. You could read that history article and learn something about the things we had to learn to defend our country. You can even go online and search back and see some of the early dissertations on from that fascinating period. But you won’t. That’s sad because you really could have fun if you joined the debate, the real debate. As long as you stand outside the debate people will continue to send you to some core reading material. We won’t argue with you or answer your questions. I know that is frustrating, but there is a path forward for you. You can start by taking a tiny step. say the following 3 times:
GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool it
For right now, you dont even have to say how much.. you dont even have to specify which GHG.. you dont even have to believe it.
Here is a few interesting sea ice charts.
First, the trend in the March Maximum sea ice (on the average of day 67), the trend in how much ice Melts (during an average season) and the September Minimum sea ice (on the average day 255).
The Max has been declining by 32,261 km2 per year (or 0.2% from the average 14.77M km2). The Melt throughout the season has been increasing at 14,147 km2 per year (or 0.2% from the average 8.71M km2) and the Minimum has been declining by 46,408 km2 per year (or 0.8% from the average 6.06M km2).
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5617/nhseasonaltrends2011.png
Extending these (linear) trends out to the year 2100, results in about 1.0M km2 of ice still remaining in September, 2100.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9575/nhseasonaltrendsto2100.png
I think this also demonstrates that one needs to take into account the sea ice extent at the March Maximum as well when trying to determine when we have no summer ice.
For right now, you dont even have to say how much.. you dont even have to specify which GHG.. you dont even have to believe it.
.
Ah, some more lessons on rhetorical effectiveness…
.
When will you give him lesson 2 on spreading FUD? And then of course there’s lesson 3 on ‘own goals’. Lesson 4 will probably be about putting the focus on the focus to take the focus away from the exceptional events.
.
If you want to be an effective delayer, you’d be wise to listen to Steve’s PR lessons, Andrew. Not wise, smart. Wise implies a sense of morality.
Steve: “some mathturbation and we are at a figure of around 1.5ish for a “first order†estimate of the sensitivity to doubling C02.”
Unfortunately, I think you are considering all heat loss as radiative. Apparently, the non feedback number is not as direct or easy as you would like to think. And the generally accepted range is 1 – 1.2.
Judith has a discussion on the subject here:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
“No modelling “evidenceâ€, ”
The question is, what would the modelling evidence be if the models actually reflected reality.
“no paleo evidence”
I’m not sure how the paleo evidence tells you anything. In the paleo evidence the temperature can go sharply from up to down while CO2 continues to rise for centuries after temperature has begun to fall. And the inverse can be seen in the other direction. That doesn’t indicate that CO2 is a dominant forcing agent.
“you need more convincing support than Lindzen and Spencers papers give..”
There we part ways. I don’t consider the models as having yet been proven to have any skill at all and I don’t consider the paleo evidence as being convincing either. On the other hand, Lindzen has taken the arguments against his paper and either made the corrections or shown the problems with the arguments. But maybe you would like to point out the fatal flaw in Lindzen’s most recent paper. I also believe that the Svensmark effect is marching straight to verification – both in the lab with the CLOUD experiments and in the atmosphere with the Forbush decreases.
Neven: “Wise implies a sense of morality.”
Morality? What is that based on? Is it a modeled output? A contingent social convention? What?
Steven Mosher (Comment #81450)-Someone clearly completely missed the point. Ah well. Let’s see shall we:
“First because I hope you wont read it and will remain ignorant, second because I know you will make ignorant comments about RC.”
This assumes I am ignorant. Heh. Funny, Steven, you could have avoided much of the chastising I’m gonna give you if you had noticed that I wasn’t saying I have a problem with an argument just because of where it comes from. It’s a logical fallacy to do so. Here is the thing though: I know people who won’t believe something for that reason. I don’t think you should void your chances of convincing such people by referencing RC. I’m actually on your side. That’s why it’s called “friendly advice.”
“say the following 3 times:
GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool it
For right now, you dont even have to say how much.. you dont even have to specify which GHG.. you dont even have to believe it.”
I have a silly little story that might make it clear why you aren’t doing anything useful making such a comment to me:
And so the Priest said to the Rabbi, “I don’t ask that you believe in my God, just repeat to yourself that God does exist.” And The Rabbi replied “What’s the point, I already believe that much!”
Mosher, one need not need preach to someone who already believes something, nor must one convince the convinced. I am trying to help you convince the unconvinced. I am telling you that I know your current strategy will not work.
I notice Neven doesn’t come close to knowing what I believe, either. So many misunderstandings, so little time…
lucia (Comment #81442)-I have just been wanting someone to provide a more rigorous definition of “lukewarmer” for some time. I believe this is the first time that someone has been less than vague about how low you could think sensitivity is and still be a “lukewarmer”-I find I’m not in there.
Re: Neven (Sep 13 12:53),
Your so-called delayers are not actually a problem. Doing nothing is the expected response. It doesn’t need to be defended. Advocates like you, OTOH, need to:
1. Make the case that warming will happen.
2. That it will be closer to the high end of the IPCC range than the low end.
3. That there is a real mitigation plan that will achieve measurable results that is politically and economically practicable.
4. That the cost of adapting to the warming will be higher than the cost of mitigation plus adaptation to the warming that can’t be mitigated.
5. Actually put a mitigation plan with measures into effect and enforce it.
Point 1 is on fairly solid ground. Point 2 doesn’t seem to be working out. Points 3 and 4 are on really shaky ground. IPCC WG II and III reports are not convincing. The costs of warming appear to be exaggerated and are based on questionable research Any benefits from warming are denigrated or ignored completely. The costs of mitigation are minimized and have even less intellectual support. As a result, point 5 is not really in the cards. The results of the Kyoto Protocol also don’t make point 5 look very realistic either.
Neven,
It’s clear you have never worked in a field where persuasion was required, or if you did you never learned anything. Once andrew realizes that he is fighting against something that he doesnt need to fight against, that is once he opens his mind, there is a chance for him to learn. Open mindedness, is a key to growth. All of his energy is directed toward denying something he doesnt have to deny. If he practices not denying it, he will see that his energy can be directed otherwise. That will open his mind further. The suggestion that he doesnt even have to believe it is a well known and successful mind management technique. Smile, Neven. even though you are unhappy.
cognitive psychology
Here, its a form of this
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html
http://www.2habitsaweek.com/252/fake-it-til-you-make-it/
Damn Andrew.. I keep confusing you with KY.
sorry.
thats like the third time I’ve done that. ANdrew FL, those comments were meant for andrewKY.
sorry, dude.
arrg
Steven Mosher, It’s evident you are thoroughly confused. Maybe if you straightforwardly answer the question I have posed twice now, things will get better for you. -Andrew
I vote for Neven as the most entertaining commenter on this thread. The elegant use drama in his comments wins the day, IMO.
It appears Neven has thrown in the towel. He wrote
“So after reading the extra update from NSIDC I’m confident enough to call the minimum (if I were less of a coward I would have done it 3-4 days ago):”
He look at weather maps. I don’t. Based on my predictometer (which draws on no information from weather maps), I’m not ready to call a minimum for the 7 day average.
Mind you, the 7-day minimum almost always happens after the absolute minimum. I guess they could happen at the same time if a sufficiently large 1-day extent jump occurred. But the predictometer says there is still a chance the 7 day minimum will fall a smidge.
Lucia,
Is ‘predictometer’ a word you developed on your own, or did you borrow it from either a) climate science, b) Willy Wonka, or c) someone else?
I made it up! But it does sound sort of”Willy Wonka-ish doesn’t it?
DeWitt:
This is a pretty good summary of what is required from the CAGW crowd.
My biggest problem is, even if I were to accept the “C” in the AGW, I still think their mitigation proposals (e.g., carbon tax) will have no net beneficial effect (e.g., actually reduce future CO2 emissions enough to bother with, let alone, factoring in the economic costs of their proposed mitigation strategies), and I so oppose those proposals on those grounds alone.
Carrick,
Of course that is right. But seriously, you need some sensitivity training. A good start would be re-reading all of Neven’s comments above. 😉
‘Catastrophes’ come in many versions… some of which are political. I am not sure that avoiding climate related catastrophes, even if those were technically credible, would be more important for humankind than avoiding the political versions. I wonder if those who are sincerely concerned about GHG driven warming appreciate the damage done to achieving their expressed goals when they align themselves with the extreme left and the loony greens. Sometimes “the enemy of my enemy” rational is self-defeating.
I don’t think it sounds particularly Wonka-ish.
Anyway, as for catastrophic consequences of warming, I have yet to find evidence for trends toward anything getting worse in ways consistent with greenhouse warming. In fact, I have tended to find that many things may be highly consistent with the expectations for warming from AGW, but are in fact not “catastrophic” but good. The fact that recent warming has been characterized primarily by trends on the coldest days, in the coldest places, seems like the most obvious one, in retrospect.
Jaxa preliminary is up again.
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4565781
Now I need to see if the 7 day minimum extent rose.
Re: Carrick (Sep 13 19:01),
That’s why Pielke, Jr. is in favor of a small carbon tax that would support research on alternate energy sources. He doesn’t believe that a carbon tax that would be high enough to reduce consumption significantly and therefore CO2 emissions is politically practicable (his Iron Law). Look how much angst there is about gasoline at close to $4.00/gallon in the US.
The proposed increase in CAFE to 42 mpg for cars by 2016 looks to be pie in the sky as well. The only way I see that happening is by increasing the price of cars that get lower mileage to ridiculous levels and selling high mileage cars at break even price at best. A much higher fraction of diesel would help, but there isn’t enough refinery capacity in the US to support that many diesel cars. We would likely have to import diesel fuel. Refineries in the US were designed to produce gasoline and diesel at a fairly narrow range of ratios. They would have to be rebuilt nearly from the ground up to change that or completely new refineries would have to be built. Good luck getting the necessary permits.
DeWitt: “That’s why Pielke, Jr. is in favor of a small carbon tax that would support research on alternate energy sources.”
Once such a tax is passed it will grow every year. This is as certain as the sun rising.
Update:
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4589844
The rise confirmed. This might be an early end to the melt season.Wow!
DeWitt – I think there is a fairly high volume trade in gasoline from EU to US. EU has problem of too high a diesel market which I think has its roots in diesel being seen as a way to protect against Japanese petrol car imports. Something I have wondered from time to time, but not bottomed out, is if the US figures re: source of oil supply net back to the crude source of EU refined gasoline. Also I’m not conviced that a total refinery rebuild is needed to switch production emphasis though I am sure it would need significant capital to put the extra kit on site. New area for me but so far my impression is that historically policy has not been designed taking account of the full LCA impacts of different fuel production pathways.
Re: lucia (Sep 14 08:36),
I’m waiting for the extent to reach 100,000 km² greater than the minimum extent. Initial lows are frequently tested at least once and sometimes exceeded. Day 252 for the minimum isn’t all that early for the historical record. Discounting a trend, there are 10 years in the record that are earlier than day 252.
Yep! It’s early in the JAXA record– but it’s not ridiculous. I say wow because week ago, I was on tenterhooks because I was worrying my “predictometer” spread wasn’t going to contain the low end. extent loss had been on the high end, and when you post a spread, your a bit out on a limb, aren’t you?
The Weart/Pierrehumbert article cited above, especially the summary section cited by AMac is excellent, destroying the saturation nonsense that was rampaging about the web and clearly showing how very important CO2 is to the greenhouse effect. Thanks to Steve Mosher for pointing it out.
I note here however an blatant and disturbing mistrust of RC, as the purveyors of solid scientific information – they are “warmistas,” they are politically driven, they should not be directly cited because even the hint of association with RC would weaken the credibility of the argument. Too bad.
Yes Owen, It is too bad. RC has had a unique opportunity to interact with people and has chosen not to.
It’s early in the JAXA record– but it’s not ridiculous.
.
It’s not ridiculous because the combination of thin ice and warm waters kept extent decrease going, in the face of weather patterns that would’ve caused a minimum around September 1st in the good old days.
.
I have a post up comparing 2007 with 2011 (heck of a lot of work it was too).
Neven– Not blink comparators! NOOOOO! I know lots of people love them, but I can almost never compare anything to anything with a blink comparator.
Neven:
A minimum on September 1 (day 244)? There isn’t a year on record (even including weather fluctuations) where the melt occurred this early (at least not in any of the data sets I look at, perhaps Neven could dig up an outlier or too).
Perhaps Neven is thinking of those good old days of the Little Ice Age? Let’s go back to 50-year life spans and world wide subsistent living. Yep, those good old days.
At the post linked in his 1:00pm comment, Neven offers a cogent interpretation of the 2011 ice melt results. If it proves out, it’s obviously relevant — even determinative — for the Dekker/Connolley Bet.
BTW, I admit now that “2007 freak melting season” was a bit over the top. Perhaps I got carried away because I was writing for ClimateProgress. I changed it upon rereading and went back to ‘exceptional’, as it’s Lucia’s favourite word. 😉
.
.
Carrick, you could be right, as in the (recent) past the edges of the ice pack were much further south and thus in warmer areas. So, it was easier to melt, even if weather conditions weren’t perfect for compaction and flushing. If I have time I’ll have a look at Cryosphere Today area numbers.
Carrick,
According to Wiki, average human lifespan at birth has been estimated at ~33 years prior to ~10,000 years ago. The lucky ones who made it past 15 years could expect (on average) to live to their early to mid 50’s. In the long run, we are all dead, but….. ‘long’ used to be shorter.
Color me skeptical, AMac. About the only thing predictable about the Arctic is its lack of predictability. I don’t think some guy just looking at data without any sort of analytic modeling is going to give him the kind of insight needed to make the kind of claims Neven keeps making.
I mean there’s this whole plethora of terminology about the Arctic that has sprung up, and it’s gained some type of mystical meaning. Somehow if you can say the words, have an approximate understanding of what they mean, and can string them together to make them sound somewhat coherent, then you are suddenly an Arctic Ice guru. I have a suggestion for this phenomenon:
The Cult of the (nearly) Frozen Arctic.
Neven:
I think we agree on this much: There appears to be a high-pressure dome that’s settled over the Northern Arctic, and pretty much put a clamp on things. This just illustrates how important weather remains as the primary driver of arctic ice up there (and as long as that’s the case, predictability is out the window).
What’s maybe exceptional about this year was the overall lack of melting, given the conditions going in.
Here is are the current weather conditions, btw
pressure
temperature
Reference page
Owen (Comment #81498),
I think that is painting with too broad brush. RC does sometimes provide high quality (and accurate) information. They sometimes are shamefully self-serving in their commentary and moderation. I think some of the group are better than others; Gavin is probably the straightest shooter, Mike Mann the least credible (no surprise there). The issues I have with RC are two: 1) blatantly non-uniform moderation policies; which seem mainly designed to gag relevant and thoughtful comments, and 2) consistent overstatement of the certainty of warming projections (and a host of consequent impacts). IMO, they present “the science” so as to make it appear public action is more urgent than it really is.
.
I think it is pretty clear that they have a ‘agenda’ to promote public action; you can even read the UEA emails to confirm they consider RC to be primarily a means to promote public action on CO2 emissions. I do not think they are ever going to allow legitimate debate of technical issues, since that would defeat the entire purpose of their blog.
That does not mean all the information they provide is incorrect, but it does mean that the blog is never going to present (or even allow!) a balanced commentary on legitimate technical issues. It is as clear a case of caveat emptor as I have ever seen. So I do in fact assign an added measure of doubt to what RC says, and I don’t think that is at all unreasonable considering what I have observed.
BTW, I assign an much greater measure of doubt to most of what I read at WUWT. I don’t think that is unreasonable either.
Temperature: Where there is no ice, it’s still warm enough to melt ice. Where there is ice, it’s not. (I know bottom melt happens under the ice. But still….)
DeWitt Payne:
.
.
1. Although I know you were already reasonable on this point many years ago, it’s really nice to see that this is being contested less and less (even on WUWT).
2. It’s about risk management. If there is a risk that the middle or high end of the IPCC range comes about, something needs to be done. If we keep quibbling about whether it will be a little bit bad (over all), or very bad, or hunky dory, obviously nothing will be done. Which is what we are seeing.
.
But we’re only talking AGW here, and it’s silly to look at it in isolation. AGW isn’t the only global problem we are currently facing, there are many others. In fact, I believe AGW is only the cherry on the cake which will multiply the severity of the other problems.
.
I personally believe that with the current economic system none of these problems will ever be solved satisfactorily, so there’s not much use talking about adaptation vs mitigation costs (delaying real, meaningful action of course) if the context isn’t changed.
.
If you want to know my view on this, I have written a guest post a few months back that Michael Tobis was so kind as to publish on his site.
.
I don’t have the solutions. I need you and other people of good will to find them together with me. But I know what isn’t the solution: Business as usual, however comforting it may seem.
There appears to be a high-pressure dome that’s settled over the Northern Arctic, and pretty much put a clamp on things.
.
I’d rather say that the big low over the Canadian Archipelago is the party pooper. Lows in general make for an earlier minimum when they dominate the Arctic (depending on where they are situated, of course).
.
This just illustrates how important weather remains as the primary driver of arctic ice up there (and as long as that’s the case, predictability is out the window).
.
You’re half right here, IMO. What you say, applies to the end of the melting season. But even then, as we saw this year, it’s the overall thickness of the ice that determines how much of a primary driver the weather is allowed to be. With this kind of weather, in absence of thin ice and warm waters, the IJIS minimum extent (and the first upticks) would have been reached even sooner than it has.
.
That you are only half right, is more or less proven by the weeks leading up to the last phase of the melting season. Because the weather turned bad after July 15th, but 2011 still managed to follow 2007’s track, without the perfect conditions 2007 enjoyed.
.
The same was proven last year, when a late switch in the weather (the weather turned bad for ice decrease around June 30th, and stayed that way until the final weeks of the melting season), made extent and area plummet to a firm third place on all graphs.
.
But this year it was even clearer, as the waters were warmer and the ice seemed to be thinner still.
.
Of course, I’m just some guy making claims by looking at data without any sort of analytic modeling.
Neven
Saying it’s about risk management doesn’t address the point. You still need to show there is a risk that the warming is at the high end, and idealy quantify it. Risk managers do want to know if the risk is 0.0000001% vs. 0.01% vs 10% or 50%.
There is, after all, a risk a huge asteroid could hit the earth in the upcoming 100 years. The consequences could be devastating. No one is suggesting we upend the economy to respond to that risk. That’s also “risk management”. So, if you are going to go the risk route a) quantify the probability of any particular rise b) when doing so, include information that indicates that the observations are on the low end of projections, and weight observations heavily. They aren’t just “one run” out of 55 model runs. They are “the” run that happens to be earth.
Lucia, the economy will be upended as it has never been under a BAU-scenario, and not just because of AGW. That would be my main point, as explained in the gues post on Tobis’ blog.
.
But looking at GW in isolation: How much percent risk would you be willing to take? 10%? 5%? 1%? Do you have fire insurance for your house? Why? At least your house can be rebuilt. A relatively stable climate can’t.
Neven, “A relatively stable climate can’t.”
Why do you think a warmer climate is a less stable climate?
Neven–
I’m a bit dubious about your claim that with the weather we had, we should have had a minimum on Sept 1. If we apply a linear fit to the day for the minimum vs. year it’s not statistically significant. Still, if we ignore that and assume that the increase in the day of the minimum is statistically significant, we find this years minimum would be 6 days ahead of schedule. This happens to fall smack dab on the -1σ uncertainty for a predicted value based on the uncertainty in the regression.
So, it would suggest that– yes– the minimum is early relative to what this curve fit suggest, which makes sense given that in the end, the weather was somewhat favorable to preserving ice.
But if we apply the mean trend on days vs. year, trace back and find that the effect of “year” is only 5 days. So, based on regression at last, if the weather had been similarly favorable in 1972, we would have expected the minimum to occur 5 1/2 days sooner in 1972 relative to now. That would mean the 3rd or the 4th. So that’s still later than Sept 1.
This estimate assumes they day for the minimum is increasing with time despite the fact the trend is not statistically significant.
I’m not going to make cracks about you just being a guy eyeballing stuff without analytical modeling, I just don’t think you can put a number on the day when the minimum “would” have occurred in the past given your visual analysis of weather maps. I think there is way too much noise in the data, and I don’t think you can quantify what you are seeing in any real way.
My inclination is to believe that — despite lack of statistical significance– they day when we hit the minimum has, likely, shifted forward a little. But the data are far too noisy for us to say for sure. If the date for the minimum has crept forward, likely as not, if we’d had exactly the same weather in 1972, the minimum would have occurred earlier in 1972– with a ‘likely’ value being that it would have occurred around Sept. 3. But this estimate is huge.
In fact, I can post, and show that given the uncertainty in the data, we can’t even exclude the hypothesis that the date for minimums is getting earlier which would mean that if we had similar weather in 1972, the minimum would have happened a day latter!
Why do you think a warmer climate is a less stable climate?
.
Because of all the extra energy in the system. It is bound to have an effect on weather patterns in regional climates, as the system shifts to find a new balance to accommodate the extra energy.
I think there is way too much noise in the data, and I don’t think you can quantify what you are seeing in any real way.
.
Of course not. I’m guesstimating rather than quantifying.
Neven, you believe a warmer climate is a less stable climate “Because of all the extra energy in the system. It is bound to have an effect on weather patterns in regional climates, as the system shifts to find a new balance to accommodate the extra energy.”
Weather patterns … Tropical cyclone activity should soar, right?
.
Your article on Michael Tobis’ blog. “Infinite growth is at the root of all global problems” you claim. How do you define growth? Think of growth as cultural/economic evolution (Darwin got his ideas about biological evolution from political/economic philosophy). There is no limit to human ingenuity. Innovation is the essential driver of economic evolution. It has the potential to continue forever.
.
If you think rising consumption as such is a problem, then consume less. Please don’t force _me_ to stop consuming more because _you_ have silly ideas that consumption as such is bad. I don’t think it is – at all. To the extent that production of some specific products lead to important negative societal or ecological consequences, externalities, I will support that government deals prudently with that.
@Neven
Take this:
As the Proterozoic Eon drew to a close the earth started to warm up. By the dawn of the Cambrian and the Phanerozoic Eon, Earth was experiencing average global temperatures of about +22C. Hundreds of millions of years of ice were replaced with the balmy tropical seas of the Cambrian Period within which life exploded at a rate never seen before or after.
Neven, please bottle your tears, I would love to taste them. If you’re not going to offer any new ideas and instead plan to push the alarmist line, expect to be thrashed.
Weather patterns will surely change. And that’s terrible. Like, Luthor stealing 40 cakes terrible. 😉
More seriously, it would be nice if people could be more specific about the claims of what weather patterns would change and in what ways.
Of course, I can tell you that in terms of temperature extremes, weather patterns appear to be changing to, on the whole, reduce their levels. This because recent warming is mostly cold day, cold place warming. In terms of temperature, then, the climate is becoming more mild.
Is the claim then, that there will be instability in the precipitation side? Well, global records of precipitation are not so readily accessed, but from all indications I have seen, the general prediction in which there is the most confidence is more rain overall. There is very little confidence in anything more specific, such as when, where, and how much. So if any one would like to be more specific, I’d be happy to see if the claimed effect stands up to scrutiny. I can tell you right now, the probability of that is extraordinarily small.
I read that blog on a hit and miss basis and missed your post. Do you have a link to your article? Then I can read your argument.
How much risk of which outcome? How adverse is the outcome? If the thing we were “risking” was that the earth’s temperature will rise 0.7C over the 20th century, I’m willing to accept 100% risk and do absolutely nothing. Nothing. Squat Bupkis. If it’s 2C, that’s different– that’s enough to motivate me to do something as opposed to nothing.
But as you know, I lean toward doing something. I think that something should involve heavy investment into nuclear power generation.
I have a mortgage and home owners insurance is required by the bank. 🙂
My home owners insurance doesn’t cover for floods. If my house is flooded, I have to pay that. The bank is ok with this.
I also don’t carry insurance to cover my credit card payments if I am in an accident and my husband and I haven’t taken out a policy with AFLACK to cover lost income in case of illness that prevents work.
But these likely rhetorical questions and their answers are somewhat pointless: One doesn’t insure for any and all risks. You insure for some and risk others. So just asking “do you have X insurance?” isn’t much of an argument in favor of against doing something for AGW.
Neven,
The total energy level of the system doesn’t drive weather. It takes differences in temperature to drive circulation. If you believe that the poles warm faster than the equator, as both paleo-data and model calculations suggest, the temperature difference driving the planetary circulation heat engine will decrease as the total energy content of the planet increases. Warmer air with higher specific humidity has higher enthalpy and the enthalpy content is highly non-linear with temperature. So even though meridional heat transport must increase in a warmer planet, it should actually take less air movement to accomplish that.
Neven,
Risk management calculations require not only a probability distribution estimate for the risk, but a cost estimate distribution as well. You need to compute a risk index distribution, which is the product of the probability of the risk times the cost. Then you have to see if there’s a real benefit to mitigation, as that’s not free either. See my points 3 and 4 above on why there’s a large uncertainty on all these points.
Re: Neven (Sep 15 08:14),
Do you buy extended warranties on the consumer goods you buy? I don’t, or at least almost never. It’s not a good buy in most cases. In one of the few cases where I did, the vendor went bankrupt shortly thereafter, so not a good investment. When buying insurance, it’s important to know that the insurance will actually pay off in the event of a loss. See my points 4 and 5 above.
The economy is always getting upended. It’s sort of like climate. It’s never been stable on any time scale.
Neven:
Neven and I don’t agree on things, especially word choice (something that scientists like me are especially irascible on, just ask my wife), so I wanted to point out that I thought this was a particularly cogent and well thought out paragraph. That I actually agree 100% on.
AGW isn’t the cherry on top, unless it brings good, so maybe a bad analogy. The real immediate problems have to do with sanitation, health care, food, housing, water on a global scale to match a rapidly expanding world population. Ignoring these will only lead to untold misery, as will deferring to respond to these in deference to a potential but uncertain future threat.
We know and can pretty well quantify the consequences of not acting on the threats facing us now. It actually strikes me as completely immoral to accept the cost of ignoring these problems (again) in deference to a proposed solution that appears (to me) to have zero chance of mitigating the harm it was supposedly designed to mitigate against. I suppose it is on this point that Neven and people in his “group” will disagree with me.
Re: Carrick (Sep 15 20:23),
Which is why ‘delayers’ accuse militant warmers of wanting to condemn the less developed world to perpetual poverty. It’s hyperbole, but there is some truth to it.
Wish I hadn’t missed this discussion because of my 71st birthday a few days ago- a birthday of superlatives, BTW, or at least one superlative. It was my oldest! Anyway, nobody in the discussion brought up the long term temperature trend which has been about 0.7C per century the last 300 years. Can anyone either show me that the approximate 0.7C C per century rise is in error- or offer any reason why that long term warming trend has ended? I’m a lukewarmer who thinks we’ll probably see around 1.5C temperature rise in 100 years because we’re in that long term warming trend and GHG will add a little to it- perhaps 50% GHG forcings and 50% other forcings we don’t understand. Lucia, my 1.5 C warming barely qualifies me as a cool lukewarmer in your lexicon, but my GHG warming is only about 0.75 C, so do I still qualify? I’m trying to decide how to label myself, perhaps cool lukewarmer skeptic. I reject the denier/racist appelation that Gore would suggest. Any ideas?
Doug– The actual rise over the century and the sensitivity are different things. The sensitivity is defined based on the notion of pseudo-equilibrium, which means, “If we doubled the CO2 and held it there, the earth’s surface temperature would increase dT in C.” The dT is the sensitivity.
The amount it will warm in a century depends on
1) climate sensitvity.
2) How much we actually increase CO2 (and methane and other things. )
3) Some aspects of “weather”. (Because at least a little of the fluctuation will be “weather”.)
Re: Doug Allen (Comment #81759)
Well, it depends on what you project for the concentration of CO2. Currently it is growing at a rate that is well fitted by a parabola, according to which it was about 370 ppm in 2000 and will be about 670 ppm in 2100. If the equilibrium sensitivity is 1.5 C/doubling, that would mean an increase in temperature of
1.5* Log[670/370]/Log[2] = 1 C
However, 1.5 C at equilibrium could mean only about 0.94 C at doubling time (transient response), in which case we get
0.94* Log[670/370]/Log[2] = 0.8 C
This is close enough to what you guessed above that I think we could call you a lukewarmer, if only barely 🙂
Re: Julio (Comment #81767)
Oops… I meant 1.5 Log[670/370.]/Log[2] = 1.3 C in the first equation up there. Sorry!
Julio:
Say it’s not so! Julio is extrapolating nearly 100 years into the future using a polynomial!!!
That’s a /fail my friend.
Julio, are you projecting or predicting future CO2 levels?
Escape hatch! 🙂
Thanks Lucia. I do understand the difference between climate sensitivity, and here’s the confusion which I think is relevant to the entire discussion. When you write about warming in the 21st century, I think you mean from 2000 until 2100 or at least from now until 2100. Perhaps I misunderstand you? You write above, “I don’t know where believing sensitivity is between 0.6 and 1.4 C puts a person. And as I said: I don’t own English, so I can’t dictate the use of the word. But if someone tells me they think it’s that low and calls themselves a lukewarmer, I would ask them their guess on the probability of warming in the 21st century. If it’s greater than 75%– I’ll lean toward believing they are a lukewarmer. Also: I consider them on the cool end of lukewarmers.”
From my original example- expecting temperature to increase around 1.5 degrees C during the 21st century- I think climate sensitivity is less than 1 degree C (some negative feedbacks- climate homeostasis) because I do assume the 0.7C warming trend continues. I make the additional assumption that CO2 PPM will double towards the end of the century. However, I can answer your question on the probability of warming in the 21st century- yes I’m over 75% confident based entirely on my confidence that a 300 year old trend of ~ 0.7C per century is likely to continue.
I think ones explicit expectations about whether or not the 300 year old trend continues or not is is crucial because climate sensitivity can never be nailed down with any accuracy unless the plus or minus 0.7 C per century of the warming trend is explicitly assumed or denied. For instance, if my guesstimates were right- CO2 doubled by 2200 and temperatures had risen 1.5C, that would indicate a climate sensitivty of about 1.5 to some, but of only 0.8 to me. This is an important difference. Are you and others making any implicit judgments about the warming trend- I see no explicit judgments. If this line of reasoning isn’t important, tell me where I fell off the turnip truck.
Hey Julio,
I barely am a lukewarmer- hooray. I hate identity crises at age 71!
I mention in my post above to Lucia that I assume CO2 will double from 2000 levels, towards the end of this cenury. I fear my fellow man wouldn’t reduce its carbon emmissions much even if CAGW was certain. It also doesn’t look likely to me that we are going to run out of the stuff soon despite predictions to the contrary since I was a kid. I’m a conservationist and environmental (among other disciplines) educator who feels like the inmates are running the asylum. CAGW greens have hijacked the environmental movement; grants for me-too consensus climate science abound while money for real scientific research and for protecting and preserving biospheres and their ecologies has dried up. BTW, the principal reason I think climate sensitivity is low is because in my field, biology, homeostasis is a governing mechanism, and I have no reason to doubt that it governs climate dynamics, too.
Re: Carrick (Comment #81771)
Oh please. You have to extrapolate somehow, or else just stay at home. 🙂
A parabola is a minimalist choice. Consumption of fossil fuels is (currently, AFAIK) accelerating, so I need a positive second derivative. I don’t know anything about the sign of the higher-order derivatives, though, so I just set them equal to zero.
Some people prefer exponentials, but that involves a big assumption about all the higher-order derivatives: that they are *all* positive, with no hint of a slowdown anywhere! Otherwise put, a true exponential growth is only possible with truly infinite resources, which is clearly not the case here.
Also, FWIW, my projection (thanks, AMac!) falls smack in the middle of some IPCC scenario, I forget which. So I categorically deny the charge that I am trying to corrupt the youth here…
Re: Julio (Sep 19 21:34),
Why not a modified logistic curve. That is exponential initially and is also the sort of behavior you would expect to see for a finite resource.
Re: DeWitt Payne (Comment #81785)
Yes, that makes sense, and it avoids the weirdness with polynomials. (Also, on second thought, a never-ending parabola also requires infinite resources, so it was unfair of me to criticize exponentials on those grounds.)
But the parabola was less work, a beautiful fit to the past 50 years or so, and well within the IPCC projections, so…