Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Normander are these recent graphs the same ones you were showing months ago or are these updated versions?
The ones I link will change with time. If you look back through this thread, you will notice that they are all current. I guess for the sake of discussion, I should have uploaded them to a server so they would stay static (relevant to the point I may have been making at the time), however if I did such, those here making arguments would simply accuse me of altering them myself.
So yes, all are updated as they are done so by the agencies providing them.
The ones in the last post here should show the new results the next time they update them.
This is on key with the discussion we have been having and relevant to the points I was making concerning some of the agencies and their claims. (as well as those here who were using that information to argue I was wrong)
I know, I know, " it's Watts and he has been discredited" , blah, blah, blah...
I am not asking anyone to take what is in the link at face value. If they can not validate their claim, you are encouraged to be skeptical about it or disregard it in your assessment.
That said, it discusses the current problems with the "reports" and how they slip in wording that is contrary to the actual data.
Be weary of anything you read, especially when it is from "Official Administrations".
I know we would all love to believe that these "administrations" are always right, never do wrong, and always hold to the utmost principals. This is reality though and as they say... "sh... it happens".
Anyway, this is why I dislike the agencies doing summaries and providing no source to the original data within the summaries. They must be checked, and corrected when they error. Nobody is above such requirements.
And for those who refuse to dirty their mouse pointer clicking on that filthy denier site,
Quote:
From: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:46 AM
To: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Ah, okay. Thanks. That links to our report on August conditions.
August 2010 was indeed the 2nd lowest. However, for the minimum we’re currently 3rd lowest and I don’t see us reaching 2nd lowest this year.
Your fella Watts is specifically brought up early on.
But the larger issue is there so many pieces of this puzzle. Climate change doesn't hinge only on sea ice levels.
That is nifty and all, but they are making their argument that the ice is losing volume, this can be seen not to be true. Notice each year they claim the ice grows back and then loses more the following year. Interesting hypothesis, yet not validated by observational data.
I am not here to defend watts, my point was concerning the ice, to which people here claimed I was wrong for questioning the claim made by these administrations. More specifically, the case with the NSIDC.
Also note that I was right in my question as the NSIDC had to retract their claim and correct their summary page which you and others here were using as absolute proof and scoffing at my looking at the actual data.
So I find it rather ironic that you post a video which is nothing more than baseless unsupported claims and comical fallacious picking (calling people deniers and dressing up as to "appear" like them acting stupid) which accuses those asking questions like I have of being confused while the data specifically contests their claims.
Shall we go back to the data again and look at more closely? The ice had retreated to a minimum in 2007 to which it grew back in 2008, and then above that in 2009. Each year area and extent increased. The ice thickened, and the following year, the melt did not recede as your video claims.
2010, is the only evidence they have of support (but only to an extent). That is, 2010 still has a higher area and extent than 2007, and anything claimed as is in the video is mere speculation. Neither of us know to such what will happen (though your video arrogantly proclaims itself the high divination expert and we all know how well they are doing at that).
What I do know is that so far, we are above 2008 and it looks as this growth season may be a strong growth due to the La Nina. Does this mean I am claiming all the ice will return? No, I won't be so arrogant to claim such, though your side of the isle tends to be so confident each time they make a prediction when they speak of predictions and models as if they were observational data.
The main point of my discussion concerning the recent topic of the NSIDC is simply that some of you here blindly accept their claims and in the face of the actual data.
those reading here can see how you accused me of fixing the data, scoffed and dismissed the points I made and heckled and jabbed at any evidence I provided all the while pointing to your precious sources as absolute authorities.
Well, we see that these administrations are not perfect, they make mistakes, they misjudge and maybe let a bias drift in to their work.
Your video tries to point out a the fact that Watts site had a mistaken prediction. So? When they miss, they admit it. I don't see people there clinging to their ideology in the face of the data. I however do see such with those on your side of the fence. They cling to their bias and make every excuse to prove it correct. If the observational data conflicts with it, they shape it, twist it, and turn it until they can come up with a way to fit it with their bias.
Sorry, but that isn't science, that is pure and unadulterated faith in ones own "belief".
As for your last evasion of "Climate change doesn't hinge only on sea ice levels." which is nothing more than an admission of defeat to your position on this issue which is why you post predictive claims without support in such a video displayed to serve your excuse, the fact remains there are problems all over in the field similar to that with the sea ice. Besides, you seemed to think it pretty strong evidence when it looked as if it would support your position. In fact, if you like I can provide you with all of the claims made by researchers and administrations as to back then, when it was in their favor of a strong melt, they were claiming that the sea ice was a significant indicator of climate change, some even claiming it was the key to it all. Funny how your position all of a sudden changes when it doesn't. Rather interesting and it (I am speculating here based on my observation of your discussion and evidence choice) suggests that you are so held to your bias that it doesn't matter what the data is, you will find a way for it to meet your hypothesis. Sad really.
Each area you point to as evidence to climate change, we find to be in the same issue. The observational data not matching the predictions, the data collection being poor or in question which leads to the need to use unheard of methods to coax it to the bias being sought.
You can keep pushing science fiction, it surely does make for some good movies (I happened to like all of the doom and gloom AGW movies), but it makes for very poor science.
Thankfully, with the internet and its ability to access a good portion of the data, we can check them on their work, ask questions and hold them to their claims. As it should be and what truly serves the best interest of science itself.
from the NOAA today on ice levels (2010- the second lowest after 2007)
Sea Ice Extent
August's Northern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot
Arctic sea ice continued its annual decline, typically reaching a September minimum. The August 2010 average Arctic sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 6.0 million square kilometers. This value is 22.0 percent or 1.70 million square kilometers below the 1979–2000 average—the second lowest August sea ice extent on record, behind 2007. This was the 14th consecutive August with sea ice extent below the long-term average. August 1996 was the last year that had above-average sea ice extent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Arctic dipole anomaly returned during August 2010, bringing warm southerly winds into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where temperatures were 1°-3°C (1.8°F-5.4°F) above average during the month. The warmer-than-average conditions enhanced melting in this area. Arctic sea ice extent for August has decreased at an average rate of 8.9 percent per decade.
from the NOAA today on ice levels (2010- the second lowest after 2007)
Sea Ice Extent
August's Northern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Extent plot
Arctic sea ice continued its annual decline, typically reaching a September minimum. The August 2010 average Arctic sea ice extent—which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites—was 6.0 million square kilometers. This value is 22.0 percent or 1.70 million square kilometers below the 1979–2000 average—the second lowest August sea ice extent on record, behind 2007. This was the 14th consecutive August with sea ice extent below the long-term average. August 1996 was the last year that had above-average sea ice extent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Arctic dipole anomaly returned during August 2010, bringing warm southerly winds into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where temperatures were 1°-3°C (1.8°F-5.4°F) above average during the month. The warmer-than-average conditions enhanced melting in this area. Arctic sea ice extent for August has decreased at an average rate of 8.9 percent per decade.
It seems likely that the sea ice extent-will reach an absolute minim this week (it is warmer then normal in the high arctic this week) So it seems likely- though not guaranteed this will be the second lowest extent of ice after 2007.
I will have to find more data on 'volume' though 3 plus year old ice has been declining.
The NOAA also released this today
The first eight months of 2010 tied the same period in 1998 for the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record worldwide. Meanwhile, the June–August summer was the second warmest on record globally after 1998, and last month was the third warmest August on record. Separately, last month’s global average land surface temperature was the second warmest on record for August, while the global ocean surface temperature tied with 1997 as the sixth warmest for August….
For January–August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 58.5 F (14.7 C) tied with 1998 as the warmest January–August period on record. This value is 1.21 F (0.67 C) above the 20th century average.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for August 2010 was the third warmest on record at 61.2 F (16.2 C), which is 1.08 F (0.60 C) above the 20th century average of 60.1 F (15.6 C). August 1998 is the warmest August on record and 2009 is the second warmest….
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June–August 2010 was the second warmest on record, behind 1998, at 61.3 F (16.2 C), which is 1.15 F (0.64 C) above the 20th century average of 60.1 F (15.6 C).
The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 1.80 F (1.00 C) above the 20th century average of 56.9 F (13.8 C) — the warmest June–August on record, surpassing the previous record of 1.66 F (0.92 C) set in 1998.
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
