The problem with skeptic blog sites (WUWT, Heritage Foundation etc.)

[skierinvermont]

I provided you the links above. Apparently you didn't bother to follow them.

You are still making an apples to orange comparison. You need to be comparing ice volume anomalies to extent ANOMALIES.

Every year since 2007 has experience a bigger ice volume anomaly in summer. There are similar dips that occur in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Yes, the dip in 2010 is slightly larger than those dips. This is why I object to charts beginning in 1979 that show monthly anomalies - because in some months anomalies are just bigger than others.

As you can see below the "extent anomaly" grew by nearly 2 million square kilometers from early 2010 to mid 2010. Multiply this by an average ice thickness of ~1.7m and you get the observed drop of 3,400 cubic km.

That's actually surprisingly good agreement!

I wouldn't expect it to agree quite so perfectly, if there were a small difference it could be explained by a little more than usual thinning of the ice during summer. While we would expect some correlation between extent anomalies and volume anomalies - they are not the same thing and so there are likely to be some differences. The fact that simply multiplying the change in extent anomalies (-2 mil sq km) by the average ice thickness (1.7m) yielded the exact volume anomaly change tells me that there is no inconsistency between the extent data and the volume modelling by PIOMAS.

Note the extent and volume anomaly drops that occurred mid 2007, mid 2008 and mid 2009 as well.

[skierinvermont]

No response Cliff?

[Clifford]

No response Cliff?

I had one written... but lost or deleted it.

Your graphs both do and don't show an accurate picture of what is happening with the sea ice. I still like the JAXA style of of overlapping sine waves.

I realize the summer sea ice extent anomaly is greater than the winter anomaly which gives the perception of a sine-wave in sea ice extents. But, that doesn't account for the drop in PIOMAS last summer which was beyond all previous years which apparently started recovering mid-season.

I think PIOMAS should naturally be bottoming out anyway, as it appears as if the majority of "0ld Ice" is already gone.

The satellite photo series that I'm seeing of the arctic are quite extraordinary. Some appear to be real photos, some false photos, and some composites. Unfortunately I haven't found good series before 2000.

By mid-summer that arctic apparently is pounded by huge cyclone storms.

There may be some cohesion in the "ice sheet" in June, but by mid-July, that cohesion is apparently lost and the former ice-sheet would better be described as a million tiny icebergs, and for nearly a month, it exists as independent floating chunks of ice. Then, as quickly as it broke up, by late September it refreezes. But, much of the sea ice lost through the Fram strait seems to be expelled mid-winter which indicates a more fluid nature of the ice than a solid sheet nature, and more iceberg-like form than solid form. I believe I saw photos in the past of huge chunks of ice sitting on top of chunks of ice, which could be explained by the wind-blown chunks of ice... for a very long time.

As mentioned earlier, the Northwest passage seems to be on the down-current side, yet it has been open several times in the past (1906, I think, as well as a few years in the 1940's).

What I can't ascertain for certain is whether the "ice sheet" exhibited this destabilizing and reforming back in the 70's and 80's, or other years for that matter. What was it like when the Northwest passage was open? Why was the Northwest passage open?

There has to be some thickness and temperature data feeding into these models that we're not seeing. But, at this point, perhaps it is best just to wait until July/August/September to see what the ice sheet is like when it goes through the annual collapse/reformation cycles.

[skierinvermont]

I had one written... but lost or deleted it.

Your graphs both do and don't show an accurate picture of what is happening with the sea ice. I still like the JAXA style of of overlapping sine waves.

I realize the summer sea ice extent anomaly is greater than the winter anomaly which gives the perception of a sine-wave in sea ice extents. But, that doesn't account for the drop in PIOMAS last summer which was beyond all previous years which apparently started recovering mid-season.

I think PIOMAS should naturally be bottoming out anyway, as it appears as if the majority of "0ld Ice" is already gone.

The satellite photo series that I'm seeing of the arctic are quite extraordinary. Some appear to be real photos, some false photos, and some composites. Unfortunately I haven't found good series before 2000.

By mid-summer that arctic apparently is pounded by huge cyclone storms.

There may be some cohesion in the "ice sheet" in June, but by mid-July, that cohesion is apparently lost and the former ice-sheet would better be described as a million tiny icebergs, and for nearly a month, it exists as independent floating chunks of ice. Then, as quickly as it broke up, by late September it refreezes. But, much of the sea ice lost through the Fram strait seems to be expelled mid-winter which indicates a more fluid nature of the ice than a solid sheet nature, and more iceberg-like form than solid form. I believe I saw photos in the past of huge chunks of ice sitting on top of chunks of ice, which could be explained by the wind-blown chunks of ice... for a very long time.

As mentioned earlier, the Northwest passage seems to be on the down-current side, yet it has been open several times in the past (1906, I think, as well as a few years in the 1940's).

What I can't ascertain for certain is whether the "ice sheet" exhibited this destabilizing and reforming back in the 70's and 80's, or other years for that matter. What was it like when the Northwest passage was open? Why was the Northwest passage open?

There has to be some thickness and temperature data feeding into these models that we're not seeing. But, at this point, perhaps it is best just to wait until July/August/September to see what the ice sheet is like when it goes through the annual collapse/reformation cycles.

The drop in PIOMAS last year from peak to trough was larger than other years because the drop in extent anomaly was also larger. We went from quite high extent close to the long term average early in the year to near record low extent. This is why there was a large drop in the volume anomaly as well.

2007, 2008, and 2009 all saw the volume anomaly drop between 1 and 2 thousands cubic km from early in the year to mid year. Last year saw a drop of 3 thousand cubic km. The larger drop in the extent anomaly was larger than 2008 or 2009, but roughly equal to 2007 which saw a 2 thousand cubic km drop. Last years volume drop could have been bigger than 2007 because more of the volume drop could be attributable to melting and ice flowing out of the arctic, whereas in 2007 we basically had very strong winds compacting the ice edge which was responsible for the minimum.

I agree the JAXA extent chart is a much better way to present things. I wish PIOMAS presented volume in the same way. Presenting anomalies as one long series as PIOMAS does can be misleading because the anomalies are larger at certain times of years than others (summer). So every summer in the PIOMAS series you see a blip downwards.

I cannot concludes just by looking at the extent anomalies and the volume anomalies charts that the volume anomaly is wrong. I would expect some correlation, so if no correlation were observed that might be evidence for something. However, it appears that there is a quite good, if inexact, intra-annual correlation. So I do not see any significant discrepancy.

[Peter M]

The bickering here- all means nothing. What counts is what happens this decade with increased climate disruptions.

And by 2020 or 2030- what will we see- and will those still saying a problem does not exists be around.

[LakeEffectKing]

The bickering here- all means nothing. What counts is what happens this decade with increased climate disruptions.

And by 2020 or 2030- what will we see- and will those still saying a problem does not exists be around.

If the temperature trends of the last decade (flat or minimal cooling or minimal warming, however one views the various methods) continue for the next 9 years, not much change. New cars, more cars, and a booming India, China, Eastbumfook, etc.

A steady or falling temperature should pretty much end AGW hypothesis as has been/is stated, as we'd be outside the confidence bars.....by alot. Maybe we could finally go after some large domestic reserves, and begin cutting the OPEC umbilical cord.

If we start to/ resume a temperature rise of more than .15 deg. C., then there will be additional evidence that humans are having more than a trivial role in the addition of heat to the climate system.

[Mencken_Fan]

I'm sorry I don't have any specific examples for you but I appreciate what you're saying. Being neither scientist nor mathematician I cannot resolve many of the finer details but my logic skills permit me to read and reasonably analyze many websites and blogs on climate change; and the number of "logic red flags" that go up during my reading is amazing.

No matter the reputation of the site, I can almost always find something my logic tears to shreds. Bias is rampant; on both sides. Finding truth amidst this fog is dreadfully difficult! Critical thinking is...well, critical - in forming any conclusions.

I would suggest first of all, in no way do I believe there's any "hoax." There are pros, cons, benefits, and losses for each side; politically, economically, and personally for the credulity of the scientists involved. The issue is so difficult, it leaves many rational people dizzy. As soon as someone starts talking "conspiracy" I turn off.

Based solely on critical thinking (knowledge, logic, data, trust/reliability of source, etc) I suspect AGW (from multiple sources) is real...and will eventually become a serious problem (though no time soon.) Being I'll be 60 this year, I doubt I'll see much, if any, serious warming in my remaining lifetime.

There is reasonable argument for cooling or at least a stall in the warming during the next few decades (as happened early/mid 20th Century.) If this happens, we may experience rapid warming when we revert to the warm cycle. This could be a big shock to those who thought AGW was nonsense.

All in all, I enjoy the show, accept that it's a slow process, and never get overly excited by short-term aberrations (too many do!) And with the rest of you, I anxiously await the next Arctic melting season!

[skierinvermont]

I'm sorry I don't have any specific examples for you but I appreciate what you're saying. Being neither scientist nor mathematician I cannot resolve many of the finer details but my logic skills permit me to read and reasonably analyze many websites and blogs on climate change; and the number of "logic red flags" that go up during my reading is amazing.

No matter the reputation of the site, I can almost always find something my logic tears to shreds. Bias is rampant; on both sides. Finding truth amidst this fog is dreadfully difficult! Critical thinking is...well, critical - in forming any conclusions.

Try reading the peer-reviewed literature.. much higher quality.

[Peter M]

All of these 'skeptics sites' have little do with Science- but promote a political agenda. Many have ties to Fox News, who uses them as a source for 'information;' about global warming.

Since its like the blind leading the blind- nothing is really discussed, except the 'party line' of the beliefs of the fringe right wing. Which deny a problem exists, provides dubious information to its viewers, who want to hear news on global warming that has probably been certified by the Koch industries.

Ultimately, as global disruptions and warming increase this decade it should prove interesting to see how these sites do. Fox will be discredited before long, as will those in congress, as events begin to spin out of control.