One of the mice, cce, suggested that Eli put up this image from the NASA there ain't no old ice today news conference.
Some things speak for themselves but Eli would remind gentle readers that the reason the bunny risked a couple of beers with Stoat was that the easiest place to reach a new extreme from is from a new extreme, especially if the system has some memory.
Only 1/2 a year to go now...
ReplyDeleteMaybe less ;-)
ReplyDeleteOf course, apart from who wins the bet, whether the summer ice minimum sets a new record or not is immaterial. Any anomaly around the -2 million sq km mark will reinforce that the downward trend of recent years is real and may be sustained, leading to summer ice disappearance well before about the projected 2050s. (Even though the likes of JohnS might then use that as "evidence" of a recovery ... tsk, tsk!)
I find this Arctic Ice Watch slightly surreal really. This exercise takes longer than watching paint dry or grass grow, but is eminently more "exciting" than either of the latter. Of course, if you really looked, there is a lot of science going on in paint drying or grass growing that might warrant watching them too. Well ... maybe not.
Cymraeg llygoden
Watching the grass grow is not a slow occupation round our way. Add water to grass during summer, and watch the action. Sufficient to require hours in the seats of tractor and mower (and there's plenty left over to feed the rabbits - more grass = more breeding).
ReplyDeleteBut back to the ice: the scary thing about that graphic is that the area of old ice in Feb is smaller than the area of ice at last year's minimum. And the La Nina's decaying...
The other day a budding skeptic told me that because ice caps are melting not only on Earth but on Mars as well, then this melting is not caused by carbon dioxide but rather by the Sun. Maybe one of Eli's friends or foes, human or otherwise, can cast either some light (a few shadows) on this line of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAnd not that I'm into the occult, but I find it sinfully fun to be celebrating Halloween on Easter.;~)
Well, duh. When you have a bunch of open water, the summer before, the ice cover this winter will be newish in age.
ReplyDeleteAnd do you have Mosh-pit banned? If so, please let him back in. I like him. He's cool.
ReplyDeleteCynthia, Your budding skeptic is regurgitating old myths long since debunked by the likes of RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to ask your friend why even more extreme warming has not been observed on Mercury and Venus…Since they are closer to the sun any change in the sun’s output should affect them even more than it does earth, and certainly Mars.
BTW, to keep all the old timers up to date: My Very Extravagant Mother Just Sat Up Near Papa. Is to be replaced by: My Very Exciting Magic Carpet Just Sailed Under Nine Palace Elephants. (In order to include the planetoids: Ceres, Pluto and Eris.) Memorize it! There will be a test on Tues.
Arch Stanton
Oops, sorry. Make that “dwarf planets” (It is so hard to keep up to date) :-(
ReplyDeleteArch Stanton
The ice caps on Mars ARE CO2 (There were reports earlier this decade that challenged this, but a fair reading is that there is water ice there underneath the CO2) See also
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050519084729.htm
No one is really banned here TCO, there are just a few magic words.
As first poster said, only 1/2 year to go to prove your point. But I can remember a post in the later part of last year from Rabett, and well supported from various Anons, that the exposed summer arctic seas were going to absorb all this heat, and hence not allow the winter ice to grow. O dear how wrong it all was.
ReplyDeleteAnd now the faithwarmers like cym, and plenty of other Anons will come on board in these next months, as the summer ice refuses to go below 4 m sq km, and say how it all doesn't matter, its going to happen next year if not this year blah, blah blah. Old cym better watch paint and grass because the ice is going to be very disappointing to him.
Hansen is now sounding really shrill with 6 degrees of oncoming warmth. When your guru starts to sprout rubbish, paint and grass is going to be your refuge.
JohnS
dear John, please let me remind you of your guess in the past:
ReplyDeleteSo my guess Rabett, maximum ice extent for 30th March 08 is greater than any max since 2004, so 14m sq kms at a minimum. We have added 8m sq km, before the Cryosphere defined winter has even started, so whats another 3m sq km.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/penny-for-old-guy-cryosphere-today.html
we will see what comes out of it.
even IF it will pass 14 sq kms, it will still be one of the lowest winter ice covers of the northern sea over the last 30 years.
the only person sounding shrill around here, seems to be you. you completely missed Eli s point, so let me repeat it to you:
we already LOST most of the old (and that means thick!!) ice!!!
And do you have Mosh-pit banned? If so, please let him back in. I like him. He's cool."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to Steven Mosher?
The guy who has essentially equated the Hockey stick with the "Piltdown man" fraud?
You (and he) may find that "cool" but most reasonable people would just consider it kooky.
But to each his own, I guess.
There are no shortage of nuts on the internet, that is for certain.
You appear to be becoming a little deranged, JohnS, because I very seriously doubt that Eli said "that the exposed summer arctic seas were going to absorb all this heat, and hence not allow the winter ice to grow", or at the very least not the interpretation you seem to be conveying, that ice wouldn't form much at all over the winter.
ReplyDeleteThere's no sun for ~6 months of the year in much of the Arctic, so of course there's going to be winter ice! Even if all the ice disappeared in the summer, I'd warrant there'd still be many millions of square kilometres of ice over the winter, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got above "double figures" in such an instance.
Since we are in uncharted territory (that precipitate dip in summer ice min), no one knows. The bet makes a 6 to 9 month wait watching ice wax and wane bearable with you around.
And as for my forecast, I've made comment on it over at Stoat, who I think will claim the prize.
Cymraeg llygoden
for all intents and purposes, winter ice has reached 14 million sq km extent, since there is some error bar on the measurement which i would guess is probably bigger than the small difference between current ice extent and 14m sq km extent.
ReplyDeleteBut that's really beside the point and never had anything at all to do with Eli's original bet -- and little if anything to do with anything related to possible climate change, for that matter.
John is arguing about something -- winter ice extent -- that, in and of itself, simply makes no difference.
Need to be careful with our words. The Cryosphere Today site has ice area, which is not the same as ice extent. So Rabett in the presentations of the Cryosphere images, has comment on area, as are my musings
ReplyDeleteFriend Sod becomes the first of the blah, blah people "even if it will pass 14 m sq...". It has already passed 13.85 m sq km, so Sod is readying for the grass and paint. The corner has been turned old Sod, 14.5 m sq km next winter. Its getting cold.
And cym, he who doesn't want to read past Rabett responses, looks forward to waxing and waning in addition to grass and paint.Interesting times, cym
Old Gaia just doesn't want to perform for all you faithwarmers who want catastrophe. If I'm deranged, then you're going to need a new nutter term for your 6 degree guru. Even Connolley couldn't wear that nonsense.
JohnS
Poor john even has to take issue with someone who has acknowledged he was right on the 14 m sq km number -- in orer to divert attention from the rest of my comment: ie, that the whole focus on winter ice is misplaced and essentially meaningless as a gage of what is happening with the climate.
ReplyDeleteIt really is kooky to continue to deny that reality, John.
It is also know as "displacement' when one tries to pawn one's own kookiness off on others.
It looks like you could gather all of the 2+ year sea-ice from this year and fit it in the 1985-2000 average area corresponding to 6+ year sea-ice. It would appear that 2013 is being overly optimistic.
ReplyDelete*
"And do you have Mosh-pit banned? If so, please let him back in. I like him. He's cool."
Former student of Roger Pielke, I take it?
Need to be careful with our words. The Cryosphere Today site has ice area, which is not the same as ice extent. So Rabett in the presentations of the Cryosphere images, has comment on area, as are my musings
ReplyDeletedear John, please don t try to wiggle out by making false claims. you reply was to a post by Eli, which did show AREA, not extent.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/penny-for-old-guy-cryosphere-today.html
"extent" is well below average too, of course.
but this graphs looks like "extent" never was BELOW 14 mio sq km.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html
Friend Sod becomes the first of the blah, blah people "even if it will pass 14 m sq...". It has already passed 13.85 m sq km, so Sod is readying for the grass and paint. The corner has been turned old Sod, 14.5 m sq km next winter. Its getting cold.
you wrote "14m sq kms at a minimum." it didn t sound than, as if you were talking about just reaching that number.
i do understand why sceptics want to make this sea ice area something special (or this january, or this winter), but the simple fact remains: this sea ice area is NOT special!
I'm all a dither. An Anon gives me faith praise and acknowledges my 14 m sq km. Friend Sod says I didn't get the 14 m sq km. That is correct, however I'm more than happy to accept I was out a smidgin when THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED ICE GROWTH THIS WINTER.
ReplyDeleteOf course this doesn't mean anything when anything more than 13 m sq km was going to be doom and gloom for the faithwarmers. You all were readying your catastrophic stories if the winter ice was less than 13 m sq km, and when it didn't happen, suddenly it didn't matter. Thats why its special, old Sod, because it strongly conflicts with your faithwarmer story. Gavin Schmidt in a past post at RC had the 3 million summer area as very unusual. However when ice returns with 11 m sq km growth, which has not been recorded in the post 1979 satellite period, the faithwarmers say it doesn't matter.
None of you seem to want to touch your 6 degree guru. Just askin!
JohnS
"Gavin Schmidt in a past post at RC had the 3 million summer area as very unusual. However when ice returns with 11 m sq km growth, which has not been recorded in the post 1979 satellite period, the faithwarmers say it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteBecause it doesn't, at least not when it comes to the trend in ice loss.
Though you obviously can not see it, the two are directly related. In fact, the record low in summer area makes the record winter "recovery" that much more likely.
The more clear water there is in late summer, the greater the opportunity for a record "ice recovery" in winter.
Or look at it the other way around: if the ice cover were a record high in late summer, the opportunity for ice growth (increased area coverage) would be reduced, since there would be less open water that could freeze over.
JohnS: Have you heard that open water tends to freeze, when the temperature is belowe zero cees? Oh, I forgot, you are a denier of the reality.
ReplyDeleteI predict that we we will soon see denialist arguments of the form "yeah sure global temperatures are again rising sharply, but that is due to decreased albedo due to decreased arctic sea ice, not because increased CO2 causes global warming".
ReplyDeletePico
But little Anons, it was Rabett late last year who was saying the summer ice low meant more warmth absorption and thus a lesser winter ice return. I must have missed where you boldly came forward and said to Rabbett,you're wrong Rabett, a summer low makes the big winter return that much more likely.
ReplyDeleteBut you see Anons, ice has not just returned but it returned above the mean in several areas- Bering Sea,Baffin/Newfoundland Sea. It has failed to return to the mean in the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Barents Sea. How does it behave so irregularly,little Anons. How does that winter ice not just return but return with a vengence, little Anons, in some areas and not others. The faithwarmer religion has the Arctic hurtling toward catastrophe, at the one time. Very democratic. Natural causes for more winter ice here, less there- shirley not
So who is denying reality, little Anons. Poster Mail of above qualifies very well. But be careful Maily, faithwarmers don't do predictions, they do projections. Haven't you learnt anything from your 6 degree guru.
JohnS
So who is denying reality, little Anons"
ReplyDeleteLook in the mirror.
You are floundering here, John, grasping for the lifeboat like those people who got thrown from the sinking Titanic into the icy arctic waters. (won't have to worry about that in a couple decades, will we?
You can post about winter ice (a fairly standard phenomenon: both the ice and your posts) until the polar nears come home but what really means something from the standpoint of climate is not winter ice but the downward trend in average annual ice mass over the past few decades.
For your benefit, John (and your's alone, since everyone else here gets it): ice mass depends on AREA and THICKNESS.
All that new winter ice cover is probably only a couple feet thick which means much (if not most) of it will be gone this summer.
Hey TCO, good to see you. I told you that ATMOZ was a sharp one.
ReplyDeleteahh, Eli, I'm sorry. I'll behave
On a related note, I think we shouldnt make too much of one years of ice data. Give it another twenty years or so before we start drawing conclusions.
( TCO will get this joke)
Moshpit!
I get it ... and we have a downward trend over the past 30+ years already.
ReplyDeleteOne year of winter ice ceover is clearly not enough to predict a change in the ice mass trend, but I think one year may be enough to sense a change in public attitude with regard to the reality and seriousness of AGW.
While some continue to mud wrestle over at CA in the mosherpit, the public is beginning to move forward to address AGW.
There is not much the libertarians can do about it (Sorry, but most of the public simply does not read Big foot stories on climate audit and Reasononline and even FOX News' darling John McCain wants to do somthing about AGW)
Hey,
ReplyDeleteMosher, how about correcting (as in "admit you were wrong about") the mischaracterization of Hansen's Bulldog's aka, Tamino's )previous post that you have been spreading about the blogosphere?
Based on past unsubstantiated charges that you have made and never "corrected" (eg comparing Michael man's work to the Piltdown man fraud), I won't hold my breath.
You, my friend are most certainly no skeptic. not even close.
Mosh:
ReplyDeleteI already knew that he was a smart and nice and middlin honest mother fucker. didn't need you for that. Had already seen it on the Tucson airport kerfuffle. Where Steve M. was being his usual butt-sucking pussy-ass Clinton-loving evading, equivocating self.
It's good to see that great minds think alike. But read up a little grasshopper. I been in this snake pit for a while. I'm no young pup. No nube.