This is Neven's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Neven's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Darn it, wrong again. :-B
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm still here. Sorry for not putting up any blog posts since the minimum. I'm in the final stages of the house building (much later than anticipated, of course). We hope to move in before Christmas etc. That's to say, I hope we will, because my wife said she'll kill me if we don't. It will get really, really quiet then. ;-) Another reason for the blogging silence is that the Arctic Sea Ice Forum is also taking up a chunk of my time. It's not so quiet there. I want to be more active next melting season again. There is so much that needs to be gotten to the bottom to (grammar?)!
Toggle Commented 6 days ago on PIOMAS October 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center: As always, (modeled) sea ice volume has also hit its minimum in September: 6810 km3. This number is... Continue reading
Posted Oct 8, 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks for the links, Kevin. And Leslie, sorry about that. I wasn't 100% if mark was genuine or not, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I felt I could do this because there's less traffic to the blog. I also never have had to deal a lot with fake skeptics coming to crow victory when the Arctic sea ice minimum is the 6th lowest on record. There were a couple, and I wanted to show a minimum of hospitality. But, of course, I won't let the blog's comment section go to the Philistines, as we say in Dutch.
Sorry about that, Chris. Have a glass of wine. :-)
That would lead me to think that this is possibly cyclical because we have not reached a point that is more ice free apparently than the years 900 - 1200 and perhaps more recently to a lesser extent the period 1750 - 1850. You base this conclusion on a couple of sentences from a 1964 paper, and extrapolate this anecdotal evidence with very little details to all of the Arctic? Do you have any idea how much the Arctic has changed after 1964, with regards to air temperature and sea ice cover? Can you tell us how much warmer those spots with frozen ground etc have become since then? And what about palaeclimatology after 1964? Have you even looked into that? Where did you get the Lamb paper from? It looks to me that rather than with an enquiring and open mind you set out with predetermined conclusions, ie that it's all cycles and AGW cannot possibly have anything to do with it. I've done my share of trolling, which is why I can be somewhat lenient, but I think this charade has now lasted long enough.
Mark, you might be doing it subconsciously because you have just started following the AGW debate, but you are displaying classic troll behaviour: first spread disinformation and then act indignantly when someone makes this clear in not so nice terms (it's the Internet, keep your pants on), interspersed with further classic fake skeptic memes. Let's leave it at this.
(Vines from Italy grown on the scottish border) Almost 10 (!) years ago this was written on the RealClimate blog: Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I’ve been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a ‘Medieval Warm Period‘ was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you don’t get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. I’ll examine each of these propositions in turn (but I’ll admit the logic of the last step escapes me). I’ll use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) “Winelands of Britain” by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers. - See more at: Anyone interested might want to read the entire blog post.
Mark, spreading misinformation-myths, whether consciously or not, is doing harm, because you might confuse people on a potentially serious issue. It's especially harmful, and perhaps disingenuous, when people take the time to (mostly) politely show you why your statements are wrong, and you then repeat what you have already said in a slightly different shape (the wine in the UK meme, for instance). It'd be a shame if Gideon Low is right in his assessment of your posting behaviour so far in this thread. To remove any doubt, I would appreciate it if you refrain from regurgitating debunked fake skeptic disinformation, while excusing yourself that you don't know exactly and your opinion is as good as anyone's on scientific subjects. Thanks.
I don't mind genuine skepticism one bit, mark.
Mark, Piers Corbyn is an absolute crank. I generally don't like to link to WUWT, but here's the piece on Corbyn. Don't be fooled (too much).
Mark, you should go to WUWT and see what they say about Piers Corbyn there. (a whole degree warmer for over 100 years) A whole degree warmer than what, and where?
To note that Arctic sea ice in general could melt out in one to two warm summers, making this seem like a probable scenario, does not have scientific validity, as the chance of this happening must be very insignificant. At the same time only 10 years ago the chance of 2007, 2011 or 2012 happening was also deemed insignificant. Volume has now increased so much that I also think that we won't be approaching ice-free conditions in coming years, but initial ice state conditions like we've seen in the past couple of years, combined with a year full of persistent freak weather, could do it. That doesn't mean that if it happens 20 years from now, everything is just fine. That would still be inconceivably fast on geological timescales. And like I wrote in the conclusion: The phenomenon of an ice-free Arctic isn't some sort of firing gun, after which the consequences of Arctic sea ice loss start running their course. They have already started and could become more serious in decades to come. An ice-free Arctic only has real importance as an iconic figure, like that photo that was made of Earth by astronauts standing on the Moon. And it's scientifically interesting. But the consequences of the process leading to an ice-free Arctic are most likely already underway.
IJIS SIE is going up now and needs a 43K drop to get to a lower minimum, which is highly unlikely at this late date. Furthermore, the DMI 80N graph shows a first uptick, which is a sign of refreezing. So, I guess that was it for this year. Thanks for watching everyone. I'm looking forward to discussing the coming freezing season and the implications of this second rebound year (especially volume-wise).
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?