This is Neven's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Neven's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Neven
Recent Activity
IJIS SIE hasn't reached the minimum yet, but decreases are very small now.
Short intermezzo: ECMWF forecasts a very large and intense high taking over almost all of the Arctic. Clear skies and not the right winds in the right places will probably mean the 2014 melting season has turned the corner, but perhaps IJIS SIE can drop just a few thousand km2 more.
Jai, I read about this paper yesterday. Can we see this paper as an addition to the Schröder et al. paper on melt pond cover fraction that stated that the beginning of the melting season largely determines the outcome of the melting season?
The only reason that Arctic sea ice is of any significance at all is because it supports the larger AGW narrative. But the question then arises about what happens when it no longer supports that narrative. We're not quite there, are we? Or does a second rebound year in a row (which, history shows, has almost always happened after every record), that still finishes around 6th/7th spot on record, negate the overwhelmingly negative trend? In other words, you're running ahead of things. Neven, no one gives a rats behind about melting Arctic ice. There are peer reviewed scientific papers that claim the Arctic sea ice melted completely as little as 6,000 years ago. OK, just to see how much you really understand of all this. What caused the Arctic to go ice-free or almost ice-free (no one knows for sure) 6000 years ago? And is that same thing causing the Arctic to go ice-free this century (mainstream opinion is somewhere in the 2030's)?
I have a final announcement to all visiting skeptics, fake or real: I'm not interested in general AGW stuff, there's plenty of space for that elsewhere on the Internet. The triumphant tone also gets tiresome very fast, with the 2012 silence in mind. The only thing I'm interested in is your perspective on this second rebound year, if there is anything in particular that caused it, and if it is the start of a great recovery (just like last time), by what mechanism exactly? No ice age cometh BS, UHI nonsense, hiatus hype, etc. The ASIB is more than open to any seriously thought through theory (Chris Reynolds' Slow Transition is a prime example), but not to 'because AGW is a hoax!', 'because the AMO!' or 'because the null hypothesis!'. Explain. If the bar is set too high, then why not leave the silly alarmists and go back to your own echo chamber?
Neven, don't feed the trolls--not worth it. I really don't think you needed to bring race and gender into this when you disparagingly brought up "old, white male ego." Thanks for your concern, K Z. My experience is that most fake skeptics are male, white and old, and heavily influenced by the Cold War era, still fighting the commies. Maybe it's the pictures I saw of Heartland conferences. And btw, I've seen several mentions of "fake skeptics." What does that mean? I don't want to use the word "denier". Although it is the correct description, it opens the door to victim bullying and concerned comments. That's why I use "fake skeptics". A fake skeptic is someone who poses as a skeptic, but is the exact opposite. I see it as someone who is 100% certain of something, for instance that AGW cannot possibly have any negative consequences whatsoever.
Jai, it was my impression that there were more periods of high pressure dominating than last year, but I admit that I don't take the time to keep an eye on the buoys. I don't know how 2014 relates to previous years, but like Blaine wrote in the PIOMAS thread: Incident sunshine was quite high in 2014, probably even over the 2007-2012 average, although below 2012. Certainly, looking at the pressure pattern over the Arctic this summer, I would have predicted much stronger melt than actually occurred. During this summer, the pressure over Greenland was slightly lower than the 2007-2012 average, and the pressure over the Laptev Sea coast also was slightly lower. The pressure over the rest of the Russian coast was, however much higher. In other words, we had much lower heat transport from land into the sea ice near the coast than in other recent years.
If it pans out, you warmists are in for a rough ride. Have a nice decade. If AGW turns out to be no problem whatsoever, that would be fantastic news. I'll gladly accept any personal rough ride for that to be true. I'd go out dancing naked in the streets. If fake skeptics are wrong, on the other hand, not only will they be wrong - a huge blow to their old, white male ego -, but this also means that AGW will have serious consequences, and a lot of them have actively participated in the disinformation campaign to prolong business-as-usual. Now, that is what I call a rough ride.
Thanks for the projection and the strawmen, Cincinnatus, but you didn't really answer my question: Why do you think that from now on the 2013 and 2014 rebounds will be a yearly event? What will cause this? Something like the AMO? Or is because of offsetting water vapor changes? But how does that work exactly with regards to Arctic sea ice recovery? What's the mechanism? And if it's a yearly event, when can we expect the first year with a minimum that will not make the top 10? When will the Northwest Passage and/or Northern Sea Route not open? Last, but not least, how can you be sure? Is your (false) god telling you this? :-)
Minor point, for the NOAA/ESRL/PSD/NCEP surface air temperature map I suggest using the 7- or 30-day anomaly, which would be more consistent with other elements of your update than the 1-day. Maybe the 7-day anomaly, but 30 days is a bit too long for a bi-weekly update, and makes it hard to compare. All three graphs are represented on the ASIG, though.
Au contraire, "Et tu, Gaia?" is creative, Neven. Okay, that's true. I'll give you 1 point then and let your second comment stand! :-B You're just grumpy because your raison d'etre has vaporized again in what will be a yearly event. I'm not that grumpy, tired rather, and if I am grumpy it's not because of Arctic sea ice, but because of an impossible kitchen design. This blog is not my raison d'être either, although I do see it as a sort of community work (which is also partly selfish), and it's also good for my English, which is useful as I'm a translator by profession. Due to personal circumstances (yes, still building) it was more of a strain to blog in the past two years, but it's also fun, interesting and useful. I wouldn't be doing this if it weren't. Life's too short for doing stuff out of sheer fanaticism. In fact, 2012 consumed a lot more of my energy, so despite my personal wish for the world to end, it's rather convenient that the Arctic death spiral has been put on hold for the time being. :-P But the last six words in that sentence intrigue me: "what will be a yearly event". Why do you think it will be so? And how can you be sure?
Image
During the melting season I'm writing (bi-)weekly updates on the current situation with regards to Arctic sea ice (ASI). Central to these updates are the daily Cryosphere Today sea ice area (SIA) and IJIS sea ice extent (SIE) numbers, which I compare to data from the 2005-2013 period (NSIDC has... Continue reading
Posted 4 days ago at Arctic Sea Ice
58
I will just respond to Chuck Simmons' comment, as he kicked this page up. The page is just meant as an 'about me' to show people where I'm coming from, which makes it easier for them to judge my writings. Transparency is very important, especially in a controversial debate like the one concerning AGW. For further discussions about CO2 levels, consequences and policy, I would kindly ask you to go to the Arctic Sea Ice Forum (link on the top right). --- Chuck, I totally agree with you that one should always act as an optimist and that it is definitely possible that we solve our current conundrum(s). But to solve a problem you have to know what the cause is, and you have to solve it with new thinking, not the old thinking that caused the problem to begin with. This means that the symptoms can only be countered if the root cause is understood and eliminated. In this case, I believe it's the dominant theory of infinite GDP growth - the parameters of which are arbitrary - that needs to be overhauled, in order for the problems that emanate from it to be halted and then reversed. It's like a house. We've built this wonderful house, but we now must choose whether we keep on adding stories to it and take on more and more tenants, or whether we want to stabilize and reinforce our foundations so that the house remains as wonderful as it is, no, even more wonderful, because strong houses get more beautiful as they become older.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Climate disclaimer at Arctic Sea Ice
I still find that you are both off track with regards to the influence and importance of the NAO. I'm not negating the influence and importance of the NAO. I'm just saying it's a rough indicator that helps compare melting seasons, but the devil is in the details.
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
I really do not think so - let me again provide the NAO JJA perspective: John Christensen, you have a point, of course, but at the same time, like Chris Reynolds says: AO/NAO do not necessarily tell us where the highs and lows are positioned, and this is crucial. It's the reason I tend not to look at AO/NAO that much, although it is a rough indicator. No, I don't see it as the reduction of heat entering the Arctic, I see it as an increase in mid-latitude water vapor entering the arctic, leading to increased relative humidity, cloud cover and cooler temperatures. I remember you (and others) writing about that on the ASIF at the time. It's a very interesting explanation of why temps were lower this year, despite periods of high pressure and thus insolation.
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks a lot for your comments, Blaine, and sorry to hear about your problems with TypePad. Don't forget: TypePad loves you. ;-) So, to summarize, 2014 in principle was similar to 2007-2012, atmospherically speaking, but because of the way the atmosphere was set up - ie distribution of highs and lows - less heat entered the Arctic. This caused a start of the melting season that saw very little melt ponding, which, if the work by CPOM scientists is correct, has consequences for the minimum. Although the Sun reached the ice due to large high pressure areas over the Pacific American side of the Arctic, the lack of low pressure on the Siberian side caused a more or less static situation where the ice was melting in situ, instead of being sloshed around, compacted and transported towards lower latitudes. The result was very marked (compared to previous years) on the Atlantic side of the Arctic. The ice over on the Pacific side was strengthened compared to 2013, and thus we saw the same phenomenon as in 2010 and 2011 where a barrier of multi-year ice protects the rest of the ice pack behind it (from warmer SSTs etc). Because of all this (lack of melt ponds and transport) the ice in the Central Arctic thickened some more, and the rate of PIOMAS modelled volume decrease slowed down considerably. Is this summary about right?
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Last week NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center published a two-part set of videos called A Selective History of Arctic Sea Ice Observations. These videos are short, simple, but extremely informative. And very nicely done, I may add. So now you must watch them! Part 1: And part 2: NASA also... Continue reading
Posted Sep 10, 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, I'm not sure if I'm going out on a limb here, but with the creation of the forum, it seems that you have diverted the best, and most serious scientific crowd sourcing work to the sideline, only to leave your main blog open to abuse by septics. The forum definitely plays a role, but I think it's also because of the 'boring' melting season (would be far from boring just 10 years ago) and because I'm not blogging as much as I should. That last reason is also a bit because of the Forum, because I now have to read 10 times as many comments as I used to here. :-) The reason a couple of people have now shown up who are convinced that the chances that AGW could serious problems is zero, obviously has to do with this second rebound year. This is only logical, and I will even let their comments stand, especially if they concern Arctic sea ice, but my patience for proven misinformation and disparaging broad brush generalisations has just about run out. Create one forum entry for comments that contain ad hominems and insults (your call). Just dump the whole comment in there, and replace the comment with a pointer to the forum entry. Then create a forum entry for a known myth, and drop each comment that advertises that myth into that thread. That way, you remove all off-topic distractions on your main blog, but posters still have their comments available and other people can still comment on them. Away from your main blog threads. Good idea, Rob, but too much work. At one point I'll just block people, like I've done twice before in the past 5 years (if memory serves me well).
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thank you for sharing your superiority with us, Ostepop. Now back to WUWT you go, to converse with the scientific-minded elite.
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm a bit tired and don't have a lot of time. Next commenter who regurgitates fake skeptic zombie myths, will be shown the door.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven. Can you explain for me why these scientists from India are "Not trustworthy" please. Is it because they are from India? Like jdallen_wa says: Andrew Orlowski from the Register is not a trustworthy source of information. Handle with care. The 'discussion' you're trying to initiate here by jumping from one argument to another, has been, is still being, and will be discussed for thousands of times on the Internet. This is not the appropriate venue for it. It's boring and useless. If you want me or others here to explain or correct misinformation regarding the Arctic and its sea ice, then fine. But you'll also have to make an effort and not resort to simply copying and pasting d/misinformation from highly unreliable sources. Please, be skeptical.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
That's another highly untrustworthy source of information, Kristian. It's too bad you think it's reliable enough to post as a completely off-topic item on this blog. Please, don't do that anymore.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Another fantastic year of coverage of this ongoing debacle, Neven! Thanks, A-Team. Just wait until I'm finally done building the house, aka Arctic Sea Ice Blog headquarters. ;-)
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Has somebody opened up a portal to the dolt-dimension (i.e. WTFWT)? Oh, I remember, it was you Neven.... I believe it's a portal that opens itself, Chris. And as a fellow-dolt I can be somewhat empathic and indulgent. :-) It's unfortunate that people so uncritically assume misinformation to be true and then spread it around the Internet. Rebounds soon become recoveries, even though it's too early to tell, slowdowns become hiatuses/pauses/stops/reversals, even though there are several short-term factors at play that will flip again one day. I'll have more to say about this in due time.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Too bad it's not just a game, keithwqq.
Toggle Commented Sep 6, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice