.

Monday, October 6, 2014

More conspiracy theories at WUWT, this time it's HadCRUT4

Sou | 3:29 PM Go to the first of 134 comments. Add a comment

I don't have time for a long post right now, so I'll just comment on one of today's recycled conspiracy theories at WUWT (archived here). It relates to the newest version of HadCRUT4.

The trio of WUWT record-keepers, Werner Brozek, Walter Dnes and Just The Facts, are musing nefarious intent is behind the release of HadCRUT 4.3.0.0, which replaces version 4.2.0.0:
Why are they changing things so quickly? Do they want to take some of the heat off GISS? Are they embarrassed that Dr. McKitrick has found no statistically significant warming for 19 years and before the ink is barely dry on his report, they want to prove him wrong? Are they determined that by hook or by crook that 2014 will set a new record?

It's a strange question - to complain that improvements are made too quickly. Would they prefer that the scientists sat on the information for a few years? That they kept it hidden?

Their "nefarious intent" musing is one of the classic signs of conspiracy ideation. What this trio are implying that the Met Office Hadley Centre scientists are making up stuff, which is ridiculous. Their tossing in McKitrick's analysis is a distraction. They want to fool people into thinking global warming has stopped. It hasn't. That's probably why this trio are a bit concerned that 2014 might rival the previous hottest years on record - 2010 and 2005. Even without an El Nino (which might still emerge before the end of this year.)

Even without the new version, temperature records change as more data is added. This can effect records going back some years. Even way back in time, because of the way data is gridded and anomalies are calculated.

The newest version of HadCRUT4 (version 4.3.0.0) has more grids covered than the previous version. In particular, it now covers more of the high northern latitudes as well as more of Africa, South America and some other parts of the world. (The Arctic is warming faster than most places, so more coverage would be expected to raise the anomaly in more recent years.) You can see the difference in the animation below (h/t KC), in which I compare the grid coverage back in May this year (HadCRUT.4.2.0.0) with that in August (HadCRUT.4.3.0.0). I've added highlights to show some of the areas that now have more coverage:


Source: Met Office Hadley Centre and older page


As you can probably guess, the greater coverage in the high latitudes means that this version brings the anomaly in recent years a bit higher. The Arctic is warming faster than most places. This can be seen in the chart below:

Source: Met Office Hadley Centre
You can't easily see any difference in the main chart, so the Met Office has added the variance in the bottom panel of the chart to make it clearer. The greatest positive variance is only around 0.02 degrees Celsius. The greatest negative difference is less than 0.01 degrees Celsius. It makes the data coverage more complete but doesn't have a huge impact on the long term change. Getting up towards a one degree rise in temperature over that in the early twentieth century.

I won't bother with the rest of the WUWT article.


From the WUWT comments


Just a few. The WUWT crowd seems nuttier every visit.

mpainter talks about some "UHE- unadjusted". Could he be referring to the satellite data UAH? If so, that has to have a heap of adjustments like diurnal adjustments, calibration between satellites etc, before they even get to convert the readings into temperature anomalies. At least the ground records are mostly from temperature readings.
October 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm
You have put your finger on the very nub of the problem. These adjustments are why I no longer believe the thermometer record. And then there is the UHE- unadjusted. And thus the thermometer record becomes grist for the propaganda mill.

RoHa piles on with:
October 5, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Exactly. This is a point that should be repeated often.
I would also add that each adjustment means they got it wrong last time. The more adjustments, the greater the track record of being wrong, and there is no reason to believe they are getting closer to being right. So why believe them at all?

Stephen Richards piles on even more. Anthony Watts does cultivate a weird suspicious bunch, doesn't he.
October 5, 2014 at 1:42 pm
and these people were at “the dinner” pretending to be genuinely pleasant people !!

thinair adds his paranoia and wants to read the emails.
October 5, 2014 at 2:52 pm
There must be emails, somewhere, that will give the world good documentation on their motivations for upward revisions at this time. 

The batty duke chimes in, talking through his ignorant hat as usual. rgbatduke writes a very, very long rambling, mostly wrong comment which shows he doesn't have a clue about homogenisation. I'll just copy the first paragraph. He's as big a paranoid conspiracy nutter as the best of them at WUWT.  Dunning and Kruger would have a field day with him. (How does he hold onto his job?)
October 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm
I’m made the observation that if one tests the p-value of the null hypothesis “the major temperature anomaly adjustments have been unbiased” one essentially rejects the null hypothesis with extreme prejudice. And not just HADCRUT — if anything, GISS has been worse. HADCRUT also fails to even try to correct for the UHI associated with their data sources, and GISS’s correction — you might have guessed it — produces more warming by the time they are done with it. Amazingly, they found a way to make UHI into UCI to the point where it actually net warms instead of knocking off the 0.1 to 0.2 C that is the most plausible outcome of correcting for it. 

Nick Stokes pops in to correct some misconceptions. However, I've read far enough. If you want more, then here's the archive.

134 comments:

  1. Just goes to show the deniers will make something up to complain about if they can't find anything. And they do like their rhetorical questions, I hate rhetorical questions.

    Climate Etc is claiming there is no evidence the ocean is warming, again. I despair. I have already seen it picked up by some deniers today. In my opinion there is truth in the allegation she sets the denier talking points to a certain extent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i am guessing she didn't get her opinion from this paper
      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

      Delete
  2. I will have a closer look at Dr Curry's opinion later (sorry about the subject change). But is it true that when error ranges are presented on an estimate, she only focuses on the lower bound? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're talking about her article about the two new ocean heat paper, Harry, I didn't see that.

      But it does seem as if Judith Curry can't balance the energy budget. Sad. I wonder where she thinks the bulk of all the extra energy is going. Hot air on denier blogs? She wrote:

      The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean.

      Translation: Judith is "not convinced by" any science that demonstrates the importance of mitigating global warming.

      Delete
    2. Yes I was talking about those two papers. She appears to have put spin on it that the ocean might be cooling.

      I guess she is going to say there is no particularly convincing evidence of sea level rise either.

      Delete
    3. If energy's not in the atmosphere and not in the ocean, where is it? It would be helpful if Curry were to offer an alternative that does not essentially depend on denying the role of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Or she cut to the chase and step out of the closet, if that's the real backstory.

      Delete
    4. NASA's JPL has a story up on the Llovel et al paper,

      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321

      "NASA Study Finds Earth's Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed" with the tag line,

      "The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."

      a.k.a. your usual denier spin on things. Don't they know Brother Trenberth resolved this particular issue years ago? The science is settled on OHC, that's where all the greenhouse gases have gone and why we now have oceans of acid.

      Delete
    5. From the same article:

      "Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same Nature Climate Change journal issue on ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere from 1970 to 2005. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates."

      No word about ice breakers.

      Delete
    6. Lemme get this;

      "Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best.."

      We don't know what the Southern Ocean temperature was before Argo floats were deployed (say, 2003), but now we that they are out there we can declare that said Southern Ocean has warmed over the last 35 years?

      Delete
    7. marke yes. As I understand it the measurements were "spotty", but the estimates still showed warming. The re-evaluation in the study suggests that the estimated warming was underestimated

      Delete
    8. I've written about both studies now, if anyone wants to carry on the discussion there.

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/a-lot-more-heat-is-found-in-ocean.html

      Delete
  3. The comment "...why I no longer believe the thermometer record" says it all really. They don't want to understand how the data is being improved because they don't want to accept what it shows.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Arctic is warming faster than most places. This can be seen in the chart below:

    Indeed,but when will they stop building ice breakers.


    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/nuclear-icebreakers-clear-the-way-for-arctic-oil/498968.html

    "To make year-round navigation possible, more ice-class ships are needed as conditions do not seem to be improving drastically..

    ...Despite talk of global warming, the polar ice seems to be showing signs of coming back in strength.


    Richard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG is this our first declaration of a triple recovery of Arctic Ice!!!!!

      http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/double-recovery-of-arctic-sea-ice.html

      Delete
    2. Richard, given it was only a couple of years ago that there was no commercial shipping there in *summer*, to be talking about year-round navigation is amazing and (depending on the cargo) risky to the environment.

      If you're interested, here are the results of a straw poll at a recent conference on the Arctic - about when attendees figured the Arctic would be ice free in summer (to all intents and purposes - which I think means less than one million sq km of ice).

      https://twitter.com/micheltsamados/status/514436189143986176

      It's from scientists but it's in no way a scientific prediction. Just gives you some idea of the current thinking. There were more votes for 10 to 30 years than any other category, which is in line with what I've seen elsewhere.

      Delete
    3. "It may even melt out completely in a coming summer and thus initiate a third recovery which will be the final nail in the coffin of man-made global warming."

      LOL

      Delete
    4. Maybe no commercial shipping worldwide but the Russians have been using icebreakers since the 1930s in the Arctic region for internal commercial use. They were going to offer up the North sea route back in 1967 but the Suez crisis put paid to that, I am not sure of the political reasons for that but it was only until the break up of the Soviet Union that it became feasible again. Oil and gas has become the main driver today, As the Moscow times says the main routes are south but nonetheless in the 2010/11 season 10,000 ships were rescued.


      Richard.

      Delete
    5. Richard, you are probably confusing Russian icebreakers transporting stuff in the Arctic with ships fully traversing the Arctic. The latter was very rare before the 21st century. Too much ice.

      Delete
    6. It was never a problem, they escorted two German battleships through just before they went to war with each other back in 1939/1940

      Richard.

      Delete
    7. Soviet traffic on the NSR peaked in 1987 and declined rapidly afterwards, with
      associated deterioration of the infrastructure, following the collapse of the Soviet/
      Russian economy. The route was formally opened for foreign vessels in 1991.

      Richard

      Delete
    8. Knew i had it somewhere,

      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/419575/Northeast-Passage

      "In the late 1960s the Soviet Union made some overtures toward allowing foreign ships to use the Northern Sea Route, but they did not officially open it to foreign shipping until 1991"

      richard.

      Delete
    9. Am I missing the point here - the predictions for an "ice free" Arctic only apply to summer. There will still be plenty of ice at other times of the year for the foreseeable future.

      So to ask when they will stop building ice breakers is a strange question.

      Delete
    10. its worth comparing reality with Richard's version:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route

      Oh, and we have the Germans going to war with Russia in 1939/40. Even Operation Barbarossa has been moved in time:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

      Oh, and it was a commerce raider 'Komet'. not two battleships.

      Not a man who checks his 'facts' then.

      Delete
    11. Just to add to Millicent's post, the suez crisis was in 1956 not 1967.

      JG

      Delete
    12. you have to dig deep to the actual reason the Soviets withdrew the 1960s offer-

      "In the late 1960s the Soviet Union made some overtures toward allowing foreign ships to use the Northern Sea Route, but they did not officially open it to foreign shipping until 1991"

      richard

      Delete
    13. ah one not two, thanks.

      richard

      Delete
    14. we have to be careful what we say-

      "Richard, given it was only a couple of years ago that there was no commercial shipping there in *summer*,"

      there was!!

      Richard

      Delete
    15. "In the late 1960s the Soviet Union made some overtures toward allowing foreign ships to use the Northern Sea Route, but they did not officially open it to foreign shipping until 1991"


      there was a political reason , you will have to dig deep on that one.

      Richard

      Delete
    16. "ah one not two, thanks."

      No Richard. Not two battleships but one commerce raider.

      This is a battleship.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck

      This is the commerce raider in question.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet

      The difference is considerable.

      Delete
    17. Y'all are missing the fact that "ice-class ships" are not ICE BREAKERS, they're just ships strengthened to deal with running into light ice.

      So they're talking about year-round navigation by ice-strengthened ships (not ice breakers) rather than the occasional summer transit by ships accompanied by ice breakers brought along to clear a route for them, when necessary.

      Richard's even further off than you think.

      Delete
    18. Richard says "...Despite talk of global warming, the polar ice seems to be showing signs of coming back in strength. "

      Here is a link that is appropriate for the "Arctic ice recovery" spruikers like Richard.

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100237031/you-genuinely-have-to-be-an-idiot-to-think-that-arctic-sea-ice-is-recovering/

      It is very unlikely that he will read the article and the enclosed science but the url summarises the message.

      Delete
    19. Millicent yes, being into naval history I smoked the inaccuracy in Richard's claim WRT 'two German battleships' straight away, for the vessel was what would be described in British terminology an AMC Armed Merchant Cruiser a Raider. Why do some insist on describing any 'warship' as a 'battleship' a practice prevalent in UK TV news.

      And what dhogaza said.

      Delete
  5. It was never a problem,...

    Anonymous Richard, I am really not sure what your point is. You appear to be hammering away at some point about the feasibility of shipping routes through the Arctic as if that proves something about ice recovering but that is not the issue because, obviously, there has never been a problem with shipping routes.

    However there obviously are many problems associated with a Northern Sea Route and commercial shipping will not be interested until those problems ease. And what is easing those problems? Oh yes, the lack of ice caused by climate change.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There has never been a problem with shipping routes I agree!! "

      We have the Canadians with a funding pot to build ice breakers for the next 30 years, the Alaskans building 4, the American government lobbied to build more, the Russians building the biggest, most powerful ever built. I see no problem keeping shipping moving even though the Moscow times point out a resurgence of ice.

      Richard

      Delete
    2. You misread my post. I think there is a problem with shipping routes until there is less ice and reliably less ice. It is you who seems to be trying to make some point about this and, possibly, linking it to recovering ice. Or not.

      If you could actually explain which point you are making ...

      I am not the only one who does not understand you - see Harry Twinotter's post above.

      Delete
    3. "I am not the only one who does not understand you"

      That's ok , just as long as you understand that ice breakers have to be used all year round.

      http://rt.com/business/russia-icebreaker-arctic-ice-293/


      "The new Icebreaker will be granted the highest ice class – 9, meaning the ship will be able to break ice thicker than 4 meters in the Arctic area all year round"

      Richard

      Delete
    4. I should add-

      http://www.arctic-info.com/ExpertOpinion/Page/-the-need-for-icebreakers-will-increase-after-the-year-2016-

      "The need for icebreakers will increase after the year 2016

      Recently there has been more work for our icebreakers. Over the past three years there has been a significant increase in transit freight traffic along the Northern sea route, this includes large vessels under foreign flags: both tankers and bulk carriers. For this reason, especially in the summer, there has been an increase in the need for icebreakers on the Northern Sea Route"

      Richard

      Delete
    5. No, that is not OK. Forums are two way. If someone asks you to clarify what you are saying then you should try to be clearer.

      What is the significance of ice breakers being used all the year round? What point are you trying to make?

      Delete
    6. OK, crossed posts. You tried to explain a bit more in AnonymousOctober 7, 2014 at 2:30 AM.

      Are you trying to say because they need icebreakers more that proves ice is increasing and therefore climate change is not a problem?

      I think all you have shown is that shipping is increasing so there is more need for ice breakers. And shipping is increasing because of less ice and global warming.

      Delete
    7. I asked a question but nobody answered. Just trying to clarify when the arctic will be ice free in a roundabout way-

      "The Arctic is warming faster than most places. This can be seen in the chart below:

      "Indeed,but when will they stop building ice breakers."

      Sorry, I should have asked in a simpler way, when will the Arctic be ice free.

      Richard

      Delete
    8. "And shipping is increasing because of less ice and global warming"

      Hard to say, in the days of the Soviet Union it was only one country using it, now open to everyone.

      The ice breakers are bigger, navigation is better, so it is much safer today.

      Richard

      Delete
    9. Richard

      CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as more of it is emitted, the climate system will increasingly be forced into radiative imbalance. Temperatures, on average, will rise globally. Arctic temperatures are already rising faster than the global average. Arctic summer sea ice cover will diminish on average over the next several decades.

      These are all matters of well-established fact. Disputing them requires that you deny the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, which would mark you out as an anti-science crank.

      At this point you have a relatively simple choice: admit that there is no chance whatsoever of a prolonged resurgence of Arctic summer sea ice over coming decades or be dismissed as a nutter.

      Your call.

      Delete
    10. so when will the ice disappear and there will be no need for ice breakers in the summertime. Just that the Moscow times said the ice is increasing.

      Richard

      Delete
    11. Estimates vary on when the Arctic will be substantially free of sea ice in summer. Nobody disputes that this is virtually inevitable now. Nobody is suggesting a WINTER ice-free Arctic any time soon. So increased shipping *year-round* will require a fleet of all-year-capable ice breakers. Obviously.

      Please consider what I wrote above wrt greenhouse effect denial and crankery.

      Delete
    12. Let me repost Sou's straw poll of when it will be ice-free, in case you missed it:

      https://twitter.com/micheltsamados/status/514436189143986176

      Delete
    13. @Anonymous Richard

      "Sorry, I should have asked in a simpler way, when will the Arctic be ice free."

      That's OK. We are used to deniers' rather muddled thinking processes here. It is worthwhile trying to join up your thoughts on a forum so everyone at least knows what you are trying to say.

      Delete
    14. "Nobody disputes that this is virtually inevitable now"-


      Reading the reports of increasing ice from the Moscow times,, ice breakers being built , bigger and more powerful - I wonder. Personally I doubt it will be ice free, But the idea it might be ice free makes a good story and not unique looking back over reports from the last 100 years.



      Richard

      Delete
    15. Richard... You are working it hard.

      You're going on and on with anecdotal data points when we have very solid data on long term ice extent in the Arctic.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

      The long and short is, Arctic sea ice is in a rapid decline unseen in the past 1000+ years. This is a consistent finding with all other areas of research on climate systems and is consistent with what is expected from increasing greenhouse gases from man-made sources.

      Delete
    16. I woud'nt say i am working it hard, i am just observing that the shriller the voices become the more ice breakers being built.

      Business being the way it is would not build more ice breakers if not needed. It is fairly easy and cheaper to retrofit existing ships to handle a certain amount of ice, So if the ice was diminishing they would not waste money building ever larger, more powerful ice breakers.

      But I think the sheer numbers of ships rescued in the 2010/11 season
      , 10,000 answers this.

      Richard

      Delete
    17. @Anonymous Richard

      Yes, you are working it hard and you are going on and on.

      You keep trying to make an unsubstantiated case for bigger more powerful icebreakers meaning the Arctic is not ice free. The thing is you have not made the link so it is meaningless.

      You then doubt "it is inevitable" and then claim ice free has been quite normal over the last 100 years. This is just random contradictions and unsupported anecdotal musings.

      As I said we are used to muddled thinking from deniers here but this is just repeating yourself.

      Delete
    18. Richard... Sorry, but you're still presenting anecdotal evidence that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You certainly can't use "they're continuing to build more ice breakers" as a metric for projecting sea ice extent.

      Sea ice extent is going to be a function of changes in long term global temperature (and Arctic amplification), not the number of ice breakers.

      Delete
    19. Why build larger and more powerful ice breakers. For prestige?

      http://rt.com/news/world-biggest-icebreaker-russia-275/

      Richard

      Delete
    20. "The thing is you have not made the link so it is meaningless"

      Usually when a machine is built larger and more powerful it is to handle a greater capacity of job - thicker ice?

      Richard

      Delete
    21. you have to remember this will dwarf the ice breakers used by the Soviets from the 1930s onwards.

      Richard

      Delete
    22. @Anonymous Richard

      Exactly, I have no idea why Russia would build bigger icebreakers and apparently you don't know either as you cannot make a coherent point about it. Prestige? Possibly.

      Or perhaps actually read the article you cite:

      The main objectives of these new icebreakers would be servicing the Northern Sea Route and carrying out various expeditions to the Arctic. Constructions of new icebreakers are important for Moscow as Russia is continuing to collect data to expand its continental shelf borders in the Arctic.

      Still no joined up connection to whatever it is you are trying to say. Which I think is that the Arctic will never be ice-free. Or is it that it is perfectly normal to be ice-free?


      Delete
    23. Richard...

      1) Business history is littered with the bones companies who made poor decisions.

      2) Or, perhaps, they're projecting that they can extend the trans-Arctic shipping season with ice breakers as the sea ice continually thins out.

      The nature of Arctic sea ice is that it is going to continue to be variable for many decades, or even centuries, to come. Even after we get to seasonally ice free conditions the length of the ice free window is going to vary from year to year, gradually extending to a longer and longer period. But still, that ice is going to come back each winter and melt away in the summer into late Fall each year.

      Delete
    24. This is about right and tend to agree-

      "The nature of Arctic sea ice is that it is going to continue to be variable for many decades, or even centuries, to come"

      Judging by the past it is entirely feasible it will be ice free one day, After all we know one day the Sahara will have monsoons again.

      Richard

      Delete
    25. Richard... It's going to start to be seasonally ice-free within the next decade or so. That's something that's not been seen for quite a long time, and we've caused this to happen in the span of ~50 years.

      Delete
    26. Maybe. We will see, the decades pass quickly.

      Though i hope that when it doesn't they don't keep pushing it to the next decade!

      Lets take a look each year , should be interesting.

      Richard








      Delete
    27. Richard... They've not "kept" pushing it out. In fact, actual model projections didn't have the Arctic going ice free for many more decades. The ice has retreated far faster than models had suggested.

      There's a very low probability of a "maybe" in the cards. It's just a matter of how soon we hit bottom.

      Delete
    28. "Or perhaps actually read the article you cite"

      "The objectives of these new icebreakers would be servicing the Northern Sea Route and carrying out various expeditions to the Arctic. Constructions of new icebreakers are important for Moscow as Russia is continuing to collect data to expand its continental shelf borders in the Arctic"

      You mean this is the reason for even more larger more powerful icebreakers than in the 1930's.

      Strange I would have thought with the decrease in ice they could scale back the size.

      Richard

      Delete
    29. "In fact, actual model projections didn't have the Arctic going ice free for many more decades. The ice has retreated far faster than models had suggested"

      Can i take a look at these model predictions, just post a link.



      Richard

      Delete
    30. ice class ships:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_class

      Delete
    31. Richard : "Can i take a look at these model predictions, just post a link."

      No!

      In the time you spent to post 25+ incoherent comments in this thread, you could have found a few second to enter 'ice free arctic' in Google Scholar, or your favourite bibliographic database search engine (just kidding, I know you don't search bibliographic databases).

      Incidentally, you could have spent a few minutes more to read the search results. Maybe you would have learnt something.

      Delete
    32. Richard wrote: "I asked a question but nobody answered. Just trying to clarify when the arctic will be ice free in a roundabout way-"

      I answered here two hours before you asked the question.

      Delete
    33. @richard

      I tried to give you an answer on WUWT but three times my posts have disappeared. I assume I am being blocked or terminally moderated.

      So you may complain of being restricted here but at least you were warned and it was not for being contrarian. At WUWT they make it too difficult for anyone to express anything that does not sing with the choir.

      Reflect on that.






      Delete
  6. I would like to weigh in on this (talking past each other) conversation about the need for icebreakers in the future given the expectation of low summer ice coverage in the Arctic (ref. Richard, et al. above). My take (as a businessman) on the icebreaker issue is this: As the average Aortic temperature increases over time, several impacts will include (a) smaller areas with large ice coverage in most areas in the summer (what is thought of as the best shipping time), (b) more open passageways with smaller ice floes increasing earlier and later in the summer season (more open areas but still dangerous for shipping), (c) thinner ice over a large area in the winter (possibly easier to break up with an ice breaker) and (d) possibly variable movement of ice floes throughout the melt season (for a thin-skinned ship...yikes!). What would this mean to me as a shipper as I balance the risks (loss of ship), costs & time (alternate routes), etc.? I would see great advantage in the Arctic passageways as they open up and a longer season - time and $, the variables important in my profit/competitive model. But, I would worry about ice issues damaging shipping in the early/later part of the season more has year-to-year variance will add risk as I will want to start/end earlier/later each year. So, I wouldn't mind having an ice breaker or two around to help out. But, as I realize that the ice reforms a bit later and reforms a bit thinner each year (expected statistically from models of a warming Arctic and already demonstrated by observation) I would start betting that I could get a ship, or dozen, through later and later (earlier and earlier) in the season if I had an ice breaker (or dozen) keeping the Arctic passages open longer and longer. It may even be cost effective for me (shipper) to hire two or three ice breakers to lead a convoy of large takers and freighters through the forming ice - this is what I expect to happen as shippers become more and more familiar with the risks/benefits of Arctic route shipping. This is speculation, but it is based upon the millennia old economic thinking of shippers: how can I get my shipment to market cheaper and faster than the competition. The ocean floors are littered with the wrecks of those who took their chances, but that never stopped anyone because in the end the benefits outweighed the risks. The same is with the Arctic and the advent of ice breaker conveys might be just another means of mitigating risk. I for one, vote for more ice breakers.
    JCG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't ya' just love spell checkers? (Aortic temperatures). Indeed, our "Aortic temperatures" do seem to increase at times, as evidenced by the heated discussion on icebreakers. But let's not let it cause steam to come out of our ears!
      JCG

      Delete
    2. Back in 2009 NOAA were talking of a possible ice free summer in the Arctic by 2015, I don't think this will happen.

      Richard

      Delete
    3. Richard... The definition of ice free conditions is anything below 1million km2. Initial ice free conditions could, at this point, occur any year. Maybe next year, maybe not for another 5 years. That's more a function of internal variability which is not predictable.

      This is different than "seasonally ice-free" conditions. Seasonally ice-free would be sea ice <1M km2 each year, and even then we'll still likely get a year here and there that sneaks above that level.

      Delete
    4. "That's more a function of internal variability which is not predictable"

      I would imagine that is a problem for models.

      Richard

      Delete
    5. Richard... Not really. The models don't pretend to try to predict short term variability. That's implied, to a certain extent, through the uncertainty ranges. But what you see in the difference between the models and the observations in these charts is that the actual observed trend is far below the model projections.

      Delete
    6. My premise is based on "ice free" for one is not necessarily "ice free" for another. Each interested person (or business) has a different working definition of "ice free". For a shipper, "ice free" is likely to mean something closer to "ice free enough to get ships through with sufficient risk mitigation to make it all economically worthwhile.". For one particular party of interest ice free might mean "no ice in sight for thousands of miles in any direction." For another, say a biologist, it might mean "no ice with swimming distance of the shoreline," whatever swimming distance might mean. A shipping company, to first order (i.e., focused on business), does not care what is causing any decrease/increase in Arctic ice, but does care if the state of ice (extend, thickness, motion) can be modeled well-enough to be able to make cost-effective decisions on whether to use an Arctic route at any particular time of the year ... or not. Since current climate models are predicting an increase in the duration and extent of "conditions more favorable for shipping" - as defined by the shipping company - shipping companies will start (have started) economic modelling of the use of the Arctic routes. For them, "no ice" does not mean "no ice in sight for thousands of miles," it means what cost-effective means are available to take advantage of the conditions (early, mid, let season) in spite of the presence of "ice". Using ice breakers to increase the number of ships/yr sent via the Arctic routes, mitigate risk, create proprietary routes to increase the bottom line and steal business from competitors is one strategy. I do not know if shipping companies are developing such strategies (likely they are) or when they might start implementing them (likely slowly over the coming decades). So what NOAA or ARCUS say is "ice free" may be only partially relevant to what a shipping company needs. The "talking about possible ice free summer by 2015" by NOAA was just that, "talk" and the probability of that occurrence was always seen as very low. No shipping company was ever going to bet the fleet on "talk." Whereas, based on models with predictions verified over time? Maybe, with cautious steps. The past (and current) models have provided good predictive capabilities over the last few decades, even if they have underestimated certain parameters.

      Delete
    7. Richard, if you are going to make a statement, particularly one that may be contentious, provide a link or few people will believe you and will think you are a denialist troublemaker or thread hog or both;

      For example: "Back in 2009 NOAA were talking of ...."

      Delete
    8. Richard, I've added some more links for you below. I haven't read all the comments so they might be repeats. Whatever. Then carry on your discussion somewhere else, where it might be relevant. Like a maritime forum or an Arctic sea ice discussion.

      Hogging threads with ignorant off topic comments is not a way to make a good impression here.

      Delete
    9. Jon Gradie : I find your comments packed with good sense, no doubt because I've been thinking much the same. In a general sense, more activity will require more support services.

      I think there's also a good old-fashioned strategic interest. The Arctic Ocean has never been a major military theatre but the potential is there now. Ice-breakers are just part of the naval mix.

      Delete
  7. Richard... Here you go. This is from the USGS based on Stroeve 2007, but includes fairly up-to-date figures as well.

    http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/meetings/110825_USGS_Durner_ice%20projections.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Took a look at this one,

      http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

      "This suggests that the Arctic could be seasonally free of sea ice earlier than the IPCC projected range of 2050 to well beyond 2100"

      Well i guess "could" leaves wiggle room.








      Delete
    2. Yes, Richard... That's the data from Stroeve07, as it was being discussed in 2007 on the NSIDC site.

      The reference I gave comes from 2011, and is an update on those figures. Remember, Stoeve07 (along with the NSIDC post) are based on data prior to the 2007 and 2012 records, so you're not seeing those two data points on that chart yet.

      Delete
  8. I've never heard someone so passionate about ice-breakers in my life. I suppose they'll need ice-breakers in the winter for quite a while yet. Ice-breakers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and the summer, the 2010/2011 season was at an ice low but 10,000 ships needed to be rescued.

      Passionate- yes, they are incredible machines.

      Richard

      Delete
    2. I propose we club together to offer our friend Richard a nice ice-breaker, because he seems to be willing to drag the conversation to this level.

      Delete
    3. "10,000 ships needed to be rescued."

      Really? That's an extraordinary claim. Fully 1/10th of the global mercantile fleet was wedged in ice, even as rates for bulkers, containers and tankers continued so soft as to drive yards and lines into bankruptcy?

      That's not by any chance a figment of your imagination, is it? How about a list of vessels so affected?

      Delete
    4. 10,000 ships needed to be rescued.

      Yep, you're going to have to provide a citation here, or we're going to conclude this is only evidence of your being a graduate of the University of Making Shit Up.

      And if you do manage this - but I'm betting you won't - you'll then have to provide evidence of the number of rescues in a typical season.

      Delete
  9. More ship traffic enabled by melt-back, particularly year-round, will require more ice-breakers for those situations where they run afoul of remaining ice. Richard mistakes the needs of greatly increased traffic for the amount of Arctic ice, which is separately quite available and dropping fast.

    In short, Richard is waving red herrings. If there's almost no traffic, you only need a few tow trucks for when folks end up in the ditch. With lots of traffic, you need a fleet of them.

    Richard, I suggest you check out some data on actual ice levels, rather than continuing with your argument by misdirection.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Further to KR and "actual data," researchers don't actually rely on shipping activity as a proxy for ice conditions, popular though voyage anecdotes are among frightened people hiding from reality. Shipping is a handy rhetorical loom for weaving a comforting fable and Richard knows that, of course, at some level.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Russians are keen to claim an economic zone extending along the Lomanosov Ridge to the North Pole. Icebreakers large enough to maintain a presence at the North Pole all year round would strengthen their case, possession being 9/10 of the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As some above asked, "is it about national prestige?". The reasons given in the quoted Moscow Times article would seem to indicate that this is the case.

      Delete
    2. Just as likely for power and control They will be shipping Yamal oil and gas through the Arctic.

      http://barentsobserver.com/en/energy/2013/02/novoportovskoye-will-boost-arctic-oil-shipping-13-02

      Delete
  12. If I understand correctly, Russia requires an escort for commercial traffic traversing the NSR. So, lots of traffic, lots of escort ships required, lots of fees collected.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ @ CCD FB Byatt
    14 mins · Edited
    HOW THE INTERNETS MOST DEVASTATING REBUTTALS OF ANTHONY WATT'S NONSENSE POSTS BEGAN , SALUTE TO SOU,
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/about-us.html

    HotWhopper: About HotWhopper
    Global warming and climate change. Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers.
    BLOG.HOTWHOPPER.COM

    ReplyDelete
  14. What happened while I was away? Another thread hogger or is this one we've met in the past by another name? All thread hoggers look the same.

    Richard, the article was about HadCRUT 4.3 and conspiracy theories of same. If you have a point to make about that, then comment away.

    If you want to write about Arctic shipping go to a maritime forum.

    If you want to write about Arctic sea ice, choose an article about Arctic sea ice.

    If you think you are bringing us some astounding new information, write a concise comment, with links and with a punch line and an explanation of the point you are making.

    Otherwise stop.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is another one for Richard.

    Richard, before you toddle off to your maritime forum or make any more of a fool of yourself than you've already made here, try these links about about Arctic sea ice. They should keep you busy for a few hours at least.

    Meier et al 2012: A simple approach to providing a more consistent Arctic sea ice extent time series from the 1950s to present

    March through August Ice Edge Positions in the Nordic Seas, 1750-2002

    images of Arctic ice edge positions in August

    here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10,000 ships rescued in the 2010/11 season, which was a low ice period,should give you pause for thought!!

      Richard

      Delete
    2. I have to say though that most of these might have been ships that visit the region for tourism and re-supply without actually passing through,

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/theres-more-behind-arctic-shipping-than-climate-change/article16665819/

      "So is there a strong relationship between sea ice loss and increased ship activity? Findings from the U of Ottawa study reveal that some relationship between sea ice reductions and shipping volume increases do exist, but the linkage was not as strong as might be expected. This suggests that other factors are playing a more prominent role in influencing Arctic shipping patterns, such as tourism demand, community re-supply and construction needs, as well as research and resource exploration activities. It seems like the perception that the Arctic is opening up because of climate change is greater than the reality"

      Richard

      Delete
    3. Richard, stop your silliness. I see you are posting this rot on denier blogs, where they'll believe just about anything. HotWhopper is here to demolish disinformation - mainly disinformation about climate but we'll demolish disinformation about other stuff too.

      Last year this is what shipping was like in the Arctic, from The Arctic Institute:

      In terms of actual transits, 2012 saw 46 vessels using the route while in 2013 71 ships took the NSR, an increase of 54%. While this percentage looks impressive, we have to keep in mind that we still deal with quite small absolute numbers. In contrast, the Suez Canal has around 18,000 transits per year and the Panama Canal about 13,000.

      Furthermore, it is enlightening to take a closer look at some of the routes that the vessels took. In fact, 17 “transits” only started or ended in Pevek in Chukotka, and did not come from or go down to the Bering Strait. This is remarkable given that the NSR is defined in Russian law as a set of marine routes from Kara Gate, south of Novaya Zemlaya, in the west to the Bering Strait in the east.[3] Also Khatanga Bay and Anabar Bay in the Laptev Sea are mentioned once and twice, respectively as a port of destination, which is not anywhere close to the end points of the NSR definition.


      So, if, say even one quarter of ships in the Arctic this year had to be rescued, that would mean there were three times as many ships there as those that went through the Panama Canal. And more than twice as many as crossed the Suez Canal. And more than 500 times as many as used the Northern Sea Route last year.

      That's enough. Any more nonsense from you and it will be promptly deleted.

      Delete
    4. Haha! So the 10,000 stuck vessels is nonsense. As expected from deniers. BTW, Sou, did you notice that the blog owner in your link was running away from a bet with William Connolley on ice extent? Deniers talk a good game, but can't walk the walk.

      Delete
    5. People who've been made moronic by their ideology will repeat absolutely anything-- no matter how farcical-- if it helps cement their prejudice. Otherwise perfectly intelligent folks will skip past all safeguards against looking foolish and gullible, so long as what's on offer is compatible with their illusions.

      Did Richard actually come up with this rumor on his own? It reeks of Goddard.

      Delete
    6. The weird thing is that it would completely contradict what Richard wants to believe. I mean if there were 10,000 ships needing rescuing then how many ships does he think must have been there? 100,000? There could only have been that many ships if a huge amount of the Arctic had become free of ice.

      And 100,000 would probably be twice as many ships as there are merchant vessels in the world.

      http://www.statista.com/statistics/264024/number-of-merchant-ships-worldwide-by-type/

      Delete
    7. Don't expect it to make any kind of sense.

      I think if one counts short sea vessels, ferries and the like the number comes to something like 100,000. How they all managed to cram themselves into the Arctic will remain an enduring mystery, as will the strange emptiness of the Suez and Panama canals, the failure of ferries to appear on schedule at their normal ports, etc. That's all part of "don't expect it to make sense."

      Delete
    8. We've got to think about all the icebreakers that supposedly rescued those 10,000 ships. Wikipedia lists icebreakers, including ones out of commission. Say there were 100 days - a bit longer than summer - that ships went into the Arctic and got stuck. That would average a rescue of 100 vessels each and every day. That's assuming an even spread, which would be highly unlikely.

      On top of that, even assuming that all those 100 vessels took only one day to be rescued, there probably aren't enough icebreakers in the entire world to do that.

      Delete
    9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    11. Since you insist, Richard - I give in.

      You've finally been immortalised.

      Delete
    12. just for you Sou, please pass onto Joe as he did not believe ( Haha! So the 10,000 stuck vessels is nonsense) and i will post on his reply and mine to WUWT-

      "The icebreakers in the Bay of Bothnia assisted 4 277 merchant vessels and 590 towing
      operations were conducted. The average waiting time was 9 hours and 7 minutes. 18
      59,6% of all port calls did not have to wait for icebreaker assistance at all, but 32,4% of
      the port calls had to wait more than 4 hours for icebreaker assistance (so-called long
      waiting)"

      "According to statistics from the Baltic Sea icebreaking authorities, 10750 vessels
      received assistance from icebreakers this season"

      http://portal.fma.fi/sivu/www/baltice/BIM_Joint_Annual_2010_2011.pdf

      Richard

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. Richard, you posted numerous times that 10,000 vessels had to be *rescued*. That report is about icebreakers assisting vessels to get through the ice in the ice-breaking season. That is, clearing paths through the ice in winter. That's normal traffic around and between ports in the northern latitudes. That's completely different to what you were claiming - and it's got nothing to do with summer ice disappearing in the Arctic.

      Honestly. If you'd produced that report when you were asked (multiple times), you'd have saved yourself from immortality in the HotWhoppery. As it is, you are going to stay there - for either or both a ridiculous attempt by you to con HotWhopperites (who are pretty immune to being conned) or because you were too dense to know what you were talking about.

      Next time you write something, make sure you provide a link because you cannot be trusted to tell it how it is.

      Obviously there were not 10,000 rescues. There aren't that nearly enough ice-breakers in the Arctic. The report even reported one bad day where they actually had to take vessels through one at a time. Obviously that was abnormal. But it wasn't a "rescue", it was clearing a passage through the ice as happens all the time up there.

      Delete
    15. Each winter, where I live, long lines of cars form up behind the snowplows as they ascend the hills and mountain passes. The cars are certainly "receiving assistance" from the plows, but I doubt that they are "being rescued". The size of the snowplow fleet is determined more by the number of cars using the roads than by the year-to-year snowfall conditions.

      Delete
    16. 'received assistance' ≠ 'rescued'

      And what's the number of assistances/rescues in an average season?

      Let alone the point that has been repeatedly made: surely, if, as you have not demonstrated, the number of such incidents has actually increased, then logically this is an artifact of more shipping being attracted to the more open, ice-free waters? Thereby arguing for the exact opposite of your claim?

      This is exactly the kind of 'I've got my one factoid and I'm never going to surrender it' nonsense that characterises much of what passes for 'skepticism' among deniers. Witness all the 'but it was really warm one day in 1838' prattle that is used to 'refute' Australia's angry summer etc..

      Delete
    17. The Baltic Sea isn't the Arctic Ocean. Most of the Baltic isn't even above the Arctic Circle and can't be characterized even as "the Arctic region." The Baltic has been densely traveled by ships for hundreds of years. The Baltic has and will continue to ice over, routinely. Dealing with iced shipping lanes is not "rescue."

      Richard is a vast disappointment. What a waste of time.

      Delete
    18. True dbostrom, Richard was a waste of time. 10k assisted NOT rescued, and in the Baltic and it's not summer ice and...

      One interesting thing from Richard's pdf is the graph of ice extent on slide 9. I know it's terrible to eyeball these things, but post ~1987, it looks like there are fewer peak ice extents (dark blue) more minimum ice extents (grayish blue) and the overall trend looks down. Too lazy to try and quantify, but it does seem like a downward trend in extent. I surfed around and found this:
      "Information on sea ice extent in the Baltic Sea goes back to 1720. The maximum sea ice extent has been decreasing most of the time since about 1800. The decrease in sea ice extent appears to have increased since the 1980s but the large interannual variability prohibits a clear assessment as to whether this increase is statistically significant. The frequency of mild ice winters, defined as having a maximum ice cover of less than 130 000 km2, has increased substantially. The frequency of severe ice winters, defined as having a maximum ice cover of at least 270 000 km2, has decreased (Figure 2)."
      http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/arctic-sea-ice-1/assessment
      and here is the chart showing the decrease:
      http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/maximum-extents-of-ice-cover

      Richard is a vast disappointment

      Delete
  16. Two weeks after "science's strangest social event to date," Watts hosts conspiracies about the Met Office faking data, showing all the bad faith and recalcitrance (some) of us expect.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just read an article wherein scientists hypothesize the melting Arctic caused the cooler average temperatures in the USA this year.

    If that turns out to be true, in my simple mind, Russian ice breakers and doomsday sea level rise scenarios aside, the question becomes: will more Arctic melting cool more of the world?

    As mentioned by Rob and others above, the Arctic melted much faster than predicted this year. Disappearing redheads aside, I don't remember any catastrophic weather events tied to the melting ... so far ... dun ... dun ... dun.

    Will more Arctic melting cool more of the world? Serious question. Not playing gotcha (as if). (Not with this crowd anyway.) Shove some insight into my brain that I just can't derive from research papers and half-baked pop journalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I give newcomers a bit of leeway. I also noted your next comment. If you are interested in Arctic ice discussions, Neven's blog is excellent.

      http://neven1.typepad.com/

      Or watch this space for future posts on the subject. Or comment on an older blog article, like this one:

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/07/about-increasing-winter-antarctic-sea.html

      Delete
    2. BTW - this question is not really irrelevant to the article. Not as far afield as what has gone before. So if anyone wants to answer feel free.

      I'm on the road so don't have time to give it full attention. I will point out that the melt this year wasn't a record. It was sixth lowest IIRC and just a bit lower than last year.

      Specific weather events aren't necessarily the main issue. It's the connections the Arctic has - in the oceans and atmosphere, therefore the changes it will bring in climates in other places as the ice disappears.

      Delete
    3. I think I can answer. Yes, there is a theory that the reduction in arctic sea ice contributes to cold snaps in the US and in Europe, this theory is several years old. It's complicated so I will not try to repeat the details.

      But no one is saying the GLOBE is getting colder as a consequence. The cooling is local, and is caused by shifting wind patterns. This is just a redistribution of hot and cold so the net effect is zero.

      Delete
  18. Oops. I just read this:

    "If you want to write about Arctic sea ice, choose an article about Arctic sea ice."

    Sorry. Feel free to ignore my comment immediately prior.

    And FWIW, I just caught up on WUWT. I didn't mind Tisdale's rebut of your comments on his comments, but trying to harm a person's livelihood just because they hurt your feelings is shameful. I doubt he'll succeed, but the mere fact the attempt was made is pitiful. So lame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. "Bob Tisdale" and those commenting are simply following Anthony Watts' lead. I'm not the first whose livelihood AW and his followers have tried to ruin and I don't expect I'll be the last. This was a bit more public than most of his efforts (he usually just makes threats in the comments, urging people to write to people's employers etc). Being a woman meant that some comments were a bit more, shall we say "colourful", than the usual personal attacks at WUWT.

      If "Bob" and the commenters had had the science to back them up they'd have used it. Attacking me is intended to distract from the fact that "Bob" didn't have science on his side.

      I think it means that HotWhopper is doing something right :)

      Delete
    2. Indeed you are, Sou. Before HotWhopper we had no idea how much we needed you ;)

      Seriously, I think you've hit just the right tone and have all the right skills to shred the mist and fog of deniery. Outstanding job. And they hate it!

      Delete
    3. You know you're really rattling them when they carry on this disgracefully.

      The article is merely laughable, but it's notable that one of the earliest comments is 'BT' himself gloating about what an unpleasant read the comments thread would most likely be. He wasn't wrong...

      That thread is truly disgusting and anyone associated with it ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they'd need to be capable of it, of course.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't have taken "Bob Tisdale" to be the unethical sleazy character he's now shown himself to be. It just goes to show that you can't judge a man by his ENSO.

      I didn't bother reading all the comments, but did see that the WUWT conspiracy theorists were hard at it as usual. They must think I'm Superwoman with everything they've imagined I've done.

      Delete
    5. "...with everything they've imagined I've done."

      Yes, Sou. I think there must be a section of your blog that I have not seen or you are keeping hidden from us. I have searched in vain and cannot find anything to match what they are saying about you. So fess up and tell us where you make all these nasty postings?

      I notice a couple of people who have been moderated here whinging about how they were shut down. On the way completely reinventing what actually happened and substituting some fantasy about how they bested you. Oh, oh - perhaps my conspiracy meter is not turned on? Perhaps you did delete all their sensible comments.

      Delete
    6. I don't have a clue what most are talking about. Maybe they haven't heard of the HotWhoppery or they just felt like making up stuff (like Bob did about me supposedly "speculating").

      One of them I do recall. He got irate about something or the other and got more and more abusive. At one stage he started posting very silly threats (anonymously of course) that he was going to insert a rootkit on my computer. You might be able to guess who that was. Needless to say, he was banned. (Do I need to add that there is no way he could access my computer?) He's still smouldering from the look of it.

      There are quite a few very strange people who live in cyberspace. And WUWT seems to attract them.

      Delete
    7. Pointing out someone is wrong, and giving the reasons why is considered a personal attack by some. They reveal themselves to be trolls in my opinion. Watch out for a sock puppet attack as well, it's insane I know but such is the mentality of a bully.

      Delete
    8. The comments below the Tisdale post are truly disgusting. Not what you would expect from decent people passionate about improving science, more something you would expect from political extremists. Extremists with emotional problems with intelligent independent woman.

      Keep up the good work.

      Delete
  19. "I think you've hit just the right tone and have all the right skills "

    What Cugel Said. You rock.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Has nobody thanked Richard yet? I thought that as a demonstration of comedic faux scepticism it was golden. Garbled facts, conclusions that the 'facts' didn't support, and no time interval is too short if it gives him the trend he wants.

    WTG Richard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well temp trends are interesting-

      say from 1938-

      or from around 1918- 1938.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php


      richard

      Delete
    2. They are. For instance the early 20thCE warming which followed a very cold period, with high vulcanism, lasted about 20 years. Current warming, from a much warmer start, has been going on for getting on twice that and is continuing. Makes you think, doesn't it?

      Delete
    3. In the arctic 1938 looked hotter and the run up looked more extreme than the last 20 years.

      Richard

      Delete
    4. Richard - the chart you are referring to only shows six years or so of the last twenty years. The Arctic did warm up in the early part of last century, mostly attributed to internal variation, but there is less summer ice now than there was back then so it's already quite a bit warmer these days. The fact that it didn't cool right back down was what prompted international research in Antarctica. Scientists were already worried about global warming back in the 1940s. This is from 1947:

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/flashback-to-1947-arctic-climates.html

      Delete
    5. Look above, too, for my comment where I discovered that Richard's own doc on the Baltic showed ice was decreasing there, too. I also found this:
      "Information on sea ice extent in the Baltic Sea goes back to 1720. The maximum sea ice extent has been decreasing most of the time since about 1800. The decrease in sea ice extent appears to have increased since the 1980s but the large interannual variability prohibits a clear assessment as to whether this increase is statistically significant. The frequency of mild ice winters, defined as having a maximum ice cover of less than 130 000 km2, has increased substantially. The frequency of severe ice winters, defined as having a maximum ice cover of at least 270 000 km2, has decreased (Figure 2)."
      here: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/arctic-sea-ice-1/assessment

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.