New Sea Ice Records Broken

[manbearpig]

Newsflash From NOAA website

http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw...fc.pns.afc.txt

NOAK48 PAFC 032215 PNSAFC PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE AK 215 PM AKDT THU MAY 3 2012 ...RECORD SEA ICE AT PRIBILOF ISLANDS... THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREME WINTER FOR SEA ICE IN THE BERING SEA AND NOW WE HAVE BROKEN THE RECORDS FOR MOST NUMBER OF DAYS WITH ICE AT BOTH SAINT PAUL ISLAND AND SAINT GEORGE ISLAND. AS OF TODAY SEA ICE HAS BEEN AT SAINT PAUL ISLAND FOR 103 DAYS THIS WINTER BREAKING THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 100 DAYS SET IN 2010. THE NUMBER OF DAYS WITH SEA ICE AT SAINT GEORGE ISLAND TOTALED 79 WHEN THE ICE RETREATED NORTH ON THE 25TH OF APRIL. THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 60 DAYS WAS SET IN 2010. THE SEA ICE EDGE TODAY IS WELL SOUTH OF SAINT PAUL ISLAND AND ICE IS LIKELY TO REMAIN AT THE ISLAND THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF MAY. THE SEA ICE IS NORTH OF SAINT GEORGE ISLAND TODAY BUT ICE IS FORECAST TO PUSH SOUTH OF THE ISLAND OVER THE WEEKEND DUE TO COLD NORTH WINDS. THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ALASKA SEA ICE PROGRAM BEGAN ARCHIVING DATA IN THE MID 1980'S. SEA ICE DATA PRIOR TO THIS IS VERY LIMITED AND INCONSISTENT. KCOLE 2012 $$

Analysis on Award Winning Website:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/0...a-ice-summary/

[angelman]

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ALASKA SEA ICE PROGRAM BEGAN ARCHIVING DATA IN THE MID 1980'S. SEA ICE DATA PRIOR TO THIS IS VERY LIMITED AND INCONSISTENT

Would I be right in thinking that the warnings of disappearing polar ice by NOAA did not come with the same disclaimer (as the quote)?

[ron]

Oh dear, are you cheeky deniers cherry picking again? I haven't read much in this sub-forum for a while but was half hoping the debate had moved beyond these desperate tactics. Sadly not, and as a neutral in the debate I have to wonder why.

Still seems like good news though, the ever decreasing total volume of Arctic sea ice seems to have remained at the admittedly low 2011 levels for the first few months of this year. Has global warming halted? Since we have been through a long La Nina event which was particularly strong in 2010/2011 probably not but time will tell. In fact given the extent of the La Nina event I'm a bit surprised the ice hasn't recovered far more across the entire area rather than just in a few regions as cherry picked by the award winning web site.

The La Nina is now dissipating and we seem to be returning to neutral conditions for the summer in the northern hemisphere, though there is traditionally a lag in land surface temps. Not that these facts about the Earth's climate system seem to worry the extremists at either end of the climate debate, in time the alarmists will pipe up again when the next El Nino kicks in and the deniers will suddenly remember that these natural oscillations exist...

Interesting website if you compare the data against GISS temps - please ignore if you are basing your opinion of this scientific matter on your political viewpoint.

Historical El Nino/ La Nina episodes (1950-present)

[manbearpig]

What is cherry picked ?

The fact that a sea ice record has been broken.. ? You could also argue then that NOAA have cherry picked this too. After all, it was they that announced it.

There are several temperature/natural data charts that seem to correlate better than CO₂ good to see that you are spotting these too.

What is your opinion on the latest Briffa expose ?

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012...deception.html

[ron]

Of course it is a genuine result - the point is that only one genuine result has been picked... Did I really need to say that??? I am surprised at the overall Arctic ice loss though, it should have been losing much less this year if you look at global temps and natural oscillations. Then again the climate models have always suggested that global warming would be greater at the poles. Maybe they are more accurate than I thought.

The natural oscillations are very well known and accounted for but deniers and alarmists tend to forget them if it supports their point of view. 1998 is the old favourite of the deniers even though they know it was at the time of a very strong El Nino, and that weaker El Nino effects since then have given rise to higher temps.

Overlaying these natural oscillations on top of a rise in greenhouse gases correlates very well. Not surprising really since the greenhouse effect is a simple, well-proven and explainable effect. I have never believed that all the science behind the subject is settled but strangely the bits that are settled are the areas the deniers focus on... Weird.

Genuine sceptics would apply their minds to the unknowns such as a mechanism that might stabilise or even counteract the greenhouse effect as temperatures rise. Svensmark does this with clouds admittedly but he is in the minority. Or perhaps come up with a natural source for the overall trend in temperature rise that correlates even better than CO2. They tried GCRs which worked OK for ancient climate changes but does not correlate at all for recent warming.

You can make your old "if it's not a cat it's a dog" accusation if you wish, but that analogy is very far from the truth of the matter. Instead why not explain exactly what has caused warming? I'm open minded enough to listen to new theories that explain what is going on. Natural or not, planets don't warm without a reason.

[manbearpig]

I am surprised at the overall Arctic ice loss though, it should have been losing much less this year if you look at global temps and natural oscillations

So how much should it have gone back ? Surely you must have researched this and not just picked the thought out of the air

Unless of course there is more to arctic sea ice than just temperature ? What are your thoughts on that ?

[ron]

So how much should it have gone back ? Surely you must have researched this and not just picked the thought out of the air

The research being that two La Nina events should have cooled temperatures as they have done globally. Sea currents and wind patterns have local effects which is why your cherry picking is a bit pointless but overall you would expect a recovery of ice. Sorry for not quantifying that for you

[manbearpig]

Instead why not explain exactly what has caused warming?

What exactly has caused warming? Well, that will probably never be known. But there are some good analyses done that link warming - and other climate to the sun and the correlation is much better than temp/CO₂.

Here is an interesting recent one based on tree cores, note that there is no hockey stick

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/1...olar-activity/

[ron]

What exactly has caused warming? Well, that will probably never be known. But there are some good analyses done that link warming - and other climate to the sun and the correlation is much better than temp/CO₂.

Here is an interesting recent one based on tree cores, note that there is no hockey stick

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/1...olar-activity/

Which solar cycle correlates with recent warming?

[manbearpig]

Which solar cycle correlates with recent warming?

You could look at this report from NASA : http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+...ticle15310.htm



While we're on the subject, how does CO₂ correlate with global temperature ?





Perhaps Ron could explain why there is divergence between temperature and CO₂