This method seems awfully indirect to me. I need to read the article and see if they've done any controlled experiments on patches of ice with know thickness to see if their estimated thickness data matches up.

Meanwhile, I was reading where Bismarck ND hit a daily record record yesterday at 64 F. Of course one day means nothing. But assuming the earth is warming, the distribution of record highs and record lows should become skewed. I wonder how many daily record highs have been recorded verses daily record lows this year.

Again the "Tunnel" idea restores the sea ice thickness problem going on. Computer modeling will prove this.

With all the technology we have cannot we come up with a hands-on method of obtaining 'scientific' measurements and associated data that dispenses with 'models'? They simply have no credibility whatsoever.
Tomorrows models change like todays weather and climate projections.

now...off subject...can anyone show some data on this article where "Climatologists had predicted this would be the worst winter Canada has endured in 15 years. Temperatures are not as low as in previous record years in Ontario, but the level of snow is approaching record levels. Environment Canada says Ottawa is approaching a record-breaking year with 410.7 centimetres this year compared to the previous record of 444.6 centimetres that fell in the winter of 1970-71.

http://www.recorder.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=936914

I wonder how many iterations of the "model" were needed for the estimates to match with their expectations.

Because quite frankly, since the model is merely estimating thickness, the only point of the estimation process would be to confirm the expectations the researchers had to begin with. Why screw up a theory with real data when you can just create a model to confirm what you want it to.

I'm sure Paul and Brett can confirm how great atmospheric models are relative to verification more than 3 days out or in the past.

Better yet, who funded this and how much did it cost?

The most dramatic losses in sea ice cover have occurred since 2003

Arctic sea ice is at it's highest level since 2002.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Antarctic sea ice is 1,000,000 km2 ahead of last year's record maximum pace.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

This is what they call "dramatic losses?" Both Arctic and Antarctic ice are greater than they have been at any time since the "dramatic losses" began. Follow the money. Science has nothing to do with this.

"The method uses a new modeling approach--the only model based entirely on historical observations--"

That should be interesting.

A computer model based on what really happened.

Hooray! Another model to predict an effect rather than a cause.

Here's and interesting article http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Seems CO2 cannot be responsible for the warming attributed to it and NASA and others are refusing to repeat the test or at least release their results.

It is now very apparent the best way to prove CO2 is not the cause of the .6 K increase we have seen since the end of the Little Ice Age is to in fact try to prove that it is.

What a wonderful irony, but not the first time this has happened in science. Unfortunately, the craze caught on so quick the skeptics, including myself, were conned into trying to prove a negative rather than attempting to prove the same theory.

Heck, the skeptics might even be able to get Gov't funding to finally "PROVE" that CO2 is the culprit. NASA alone gets $5 billion. The Skeptics will fail and will have lots of specific questions for the AGW proponents.

They, from my experience, will have no answers.

After this one is settled, perhaps we can try to prove that $5 trillion already spent on welfare since 1970 has indeed wiped out poverty and reduced the wealth gap as it was intended. How about we also prove that Social Security will work forever as it is designed. Let's prove that gay marriage is indeed harmful. Let's prove that abortion since 1972 has ruined our nation.

And when we fail at proving any of the above, let's start to prove that we are in fact human beings with large capable brains that are capable of running our own lives without the need for Gov't having to tell us how.

Regards,

Steve

As a software engineer, I'm very aware of the limitations of computer models for complex systems and I am always suspicious about their results. Previously, actual measurements were taken and the results were extrapolated. Now, we're estimating the ice thickness virtually?

People already have problems distinguishing computer model results from what's actually going on in the real world. (Thank you, RealClimate.org.) This new method will perpetuate this issue.

Another problem will be in comparing past estimates with the new estimates. This often leads to headline-grabbing faulty analysis ("the new estimates show Arctic sea ice is 20% thinner than in 1979").

BTW: I'm amazed at how much of our climate data is estimated. There are only a few thousand land weather stations in the world and most are in North America and Europe. How can there possibly be enough stations in Africa and Asia to measure climate change properly? Same goes for measuring and estimating precipitation.

NGW Steve:
You should enjoy this article on the same general tact.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_epicycles_of_global_warmin.html

excerpt:
How good are the assumptions in these models? Well consider the fate of Ferenc M. Miskolczi (pronounced Ferens MISkolshee), a first-rate Hungarian mathematician, who has published a proof that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible. His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming.

It's a joke to imply that the people at the USGS are doing this entirely for money. Did Patrick H and others actually read this article and the links provided in it?

This model, built on historical observations, complements thermodynamic models that simulate ice thickness. Science benefits from having different models. Comparing different model outputs can help improve predictive capabilities. Many scientists worldwide are using satellite and ground observations of the Arctic's atmosphere, ice and ocean to gain a better understanding of how changes at the top of the world affect ecosystems both locally and globally.

The models were built using actual ice thickness data. Making and testing models like these will improve future models and future predictive capabilities. Whether you believe it or not, we need computer models.

Mankind advances through research and development. Research and development takes money. Computer simulations or models are used for most if not all R&D. Things are much better today than 100 years ago, because of computers and computer models.

Hi Patrick H - Here's a link for you on Europe's unusually warm winter:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMWm8tRfZ5kIIwHx4Sg1JntW-sLQD8V6P5JO1

NGW Steve - If there was no CO2 in earth's atmosphere, how cold would earth be? I've read estimates that it would be 14 degrees celsius colder. Not sure about that, since there is still water vapor and other GHG's.

I also don't understand your argument. I understand why N2, O2, CO2, CH4 and water vapor are considered green house gases - they absorb the suns energy at various wavelengths, visible and invisible. What I don't understand is how each gas interacts with the other when warmed by the sun? Any information you can provide would be helpful.

If CO2 absorbs IR energy in 3 narrow bands, it would re-radiate whatever energy it absorbs, as heat, back towards earth or into the surrounding atmospheric gases, such as O2, N2, correct? Wouldn't that heat add to the temperature of the atmosphere, since the other GHG's are also absorbing their share of the sun's energy?

Don't a large number of countries have bases in the polar regions to allow scientists to take measurements of the environment?

I linked to an artcile citing that "The Basic Equation are wrong" argument a few days ago. I had reservations about it then and I still do now. If the equations are wrong, why did no one notice it until now? I'm not saying that such a thing isn't possible, its just that its an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence to back it up. So you shouldn't just say

"Seems CO2 cannot be responsible for the warming attributed to it and NASA and others are refusing to repeat the test or at least release their results."

without some verification of his claim. Even if NASA is refusing to repeat his experiment it doesn't necessarily mean that its because they're embarrassed to be called out. Maybe the author is a known nuttjob, and they don't feel they need to waste time refuting his arguments. It's impossible to tell without more research.

Patrick Henry,

How are

The most dramatic losses in sea ice cover have occurred since 2003

and

Arctic sea ice is at it's highest level since 2002.

contradictory? If there were dramatic losses in 2003-7 and a comback in 2008, it's not surprising that the arctic sea ice is the highest since 2002. That still doesn't erase the fact that sea ice declined significantly in 2002-2007. Of course, it does strengthen the argument that the ice decline may be cyclical (although uts still not a very strong argument in my opinion).

To my imposter NGW Steve :)

I say that it cannot be responsible for the warming attributed to it for several reasons, not just the above study, which BTW was peer reviewed and corroborated by the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Peer review is the standard for AGW to be real, is this standard only reserved for AGW? :)

In all seriousness, when you calculate how much energy it takes to warm the planet and how much cooling can be "trapped" by CO2, you will see my statement above is at least credible, and more realistically correct.

Regards,

Steve

Hi Steve,

I think I remember a theory that cycles of incresing and decreasing levels or arctic sea ice are linked to changing patterns of ocean currents to some degree.

NGW Steve - If there was no CO2 in earth's atmosphere, how cold would earth be? I've read estimates that it would be 14 degrees celsius colder. Not sure about that, since there is still water vapor and other GHG's.

Gary B,

Sorry, but that is hearsay. If you can find the study(s) and it has methods, then we can see if it holds water.

I also don't understand your argument. I understand why N2, O2, CO2, CH4 and water vapor are considered green house gases - they absorb the suns energy at various wavelengths, visible and invisible. What I don't understand is how each gas interacts with the other when warmed by the sun? Any information you can provide would be helpful.

N2 and O2 are not considered GHG's, however most of the energy in our atmosphere is contained within N2 and O2 in the form of kinetic energy. Remember 99.

Only one band of IR from the Sun is absorbed by CO2, it is the least energetic band the Sun produces and it completely absorbed by Water Vapor where present.

CH4 can be totally masked by Water Vapor and is in such small quantities, it is a GHG by name only, not effect. It turns into water vapor and CO2 within 7 years as well.

CO2 primarily absorbs IR that is emitted from a warmed Earth. This energy is a maximum of 8% of the total energy the Earth emits as it only absorbs a few bands. I say maximum because Water Vapor also absorbs all or parts of the same bands. Water vapor absorbs nearly all the bands that the Earth emits. The three bands that CO2 absorbs are below 300 K or 27 degrees C.

All the individual gasses are warmed by Conduction and Convection during the day, and only CO2 and CH4 are warmed by IR from the Earth at night. Check out how cold it gets in a desert at night to see just how much CO2 and CH4 absorb.

If CO2 absorbs IR energy in 3 narrow bands, it would re-radiate whatever energy it absorbs, as heat, back towards earth or into the surrounding atmospheric gases, such as O2, N2, correct? Wouldn't that heat add to the temperature of the atmosphere, since the other GHG's are also absorbing their share of the sun's energy?

Correct, except N2 and O2 will not absorb the energy radiated by CO2 and CH4. O2 and N2 are however warmed by UV, much higher energy than IR. Most of the energy in our atmosphere is transferred from the surface to the air via conduction and then convection. Water and water vapor absorb much of the UV, visible spectrum, and IR. It is the primary and by amount of energy it can absorb and it's shear mass is basically the only effective GHG.

A quick example of the amounts of energy we are talking about. If you applied all the energy required to raise all the CO2 in the atmosphere (750 billion tons) to the top centimeter of the all the oceans, it would raise the temp of that top centimeter .04 degrees C. That means if you wanted to raise the temp of that same mass of water 1 degree, you would need enough energy to raise all the CO2 2,500 degrees C.

Compounding this is that CO2 only absorbs a very small amount of the energy the Earth emits of which is below 27 degrees C.

It just does not add up.

I will be glad to elaborate or answer any more questions the best I can.

Regards,

Steve

Hi Gary B,

What is a joke is to write a paper mentioning dramatic losses in sea ice cover at a time when the world's largest repository of sea ice is at an all-time record high.

If it wasn't for global warming hysteria and the 50 billion dollars funding it, few people would even care or think about sea ice.

What I would like to know is what are the effects of nature on the atmosphere? I was under the assumption that the earth went through natural stages of destruction and rebirth. Pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong but, isn't there historical and scientific evidence to support the idea that the earth might be changing on it's own and that our influence may only be a fraction of the problem?

Hi Steve imposter,

You are arguing semantics about the sea ice loss, but I'll play devil's advocate. If the "most dramatic losses" occurred between 2003 and 2007, and 2008 brought back a full recovery - that would imply that the "most dramatic gain" occurred over the last six months. Which further underscores the problem I was highlighting.

NGW Steve,

Sorry, that was me who was posing as you that post. I meant to type your name at the top as a sort of "to" line, like we often do. Instead I put it in the FROM field. Sorry about that.

Maybe I am subconsciously trying to drive you from the blog by cinvincing you that you have multiple personalities!!

wauna know:

Good question, as far as I have found in the peer reviewed literature regarding GW, there was no real earth prior to the early 1970's. Though they state that life existed prior to that time, the climate was a non-issue and really was a non-entity. At least as far as research can review.

Therefore, it can be implicitly stated that the current technology in AGW research finds that the earth had the "perfect" climate in the 70's and that it is a non-starter for research prior to that time. Since we have certainly warmed since the 70's and it corresponds to rapid development of human society's use of carbon based energy, it stands to reason that the sole cause of the warming is, you guessed it, humans.

Going into more specifics, it was the 80's and 00's that caused the most problems. Almost magically, the late 70's and 90's were found to be neutral relative to the climate.

Hope that helps.

I would like to point though, that the unwashed, illiterate heathens of the world, know full well that the only constant on the surface of the earth is climatic change. It is solely because of this change that I am able to write this post from Central Ohio since a mere 15k years ago or so, there was about 8,000 feet of ice above my head making it probably challenging to lift my fingers to type. That, of course, if I was here then and the internet was running properly. Oh, and if I believe the scientists who claim such things happened in the past.

I wouldn't say that the earth cylces between all out destruction and rebirth, but it does cycle all the time. Hence evolution. Human contribution to the changes are miniscule at best.

Patrick H - I disagree for several reasons.

1.) The article talks about a "new model" that uses actual measurements (holes drilled in the ice, etc) to verify it's accuracy. It (the article) talks about using this new model, and the information learned from creating and validating it, to better predict future changes in the ice and climate in general.

The most dramatic losses in sea ice cover have occurred since 2003, and as scientists acquire newer data, they will apply the new model to study recent years of ice thickness and volume change.

"Sea ice is affected by the accumulation of environmental factors to which it has been exposed," said USGS Director Mark Myers. "Understanding the natural variability of sea ice thickness is critical for improving global climate models. Sea ice regulates energy exchange and plays an important role in the Earth's climate system."

Sounds to me like they are doing their job. Trying to make better models. Trying to better predict future changes. The above paragraph says to me that they will continue to use the new model to study ice thickness, USING RECENT YEARS DATA. I would like to see how the model handles the ice thickness and volume from this winter.

2.) It takes money to conduct research. Climate change research is still in it's infancy, IMHO, so more research or continuing research is needed. Which goes back to what I originally said - you need a lot of money to conduct research. So, Patrick H, are you implying that this research is useless? If it gives us better models and better predictive ability, then why would it be useless?

3.) Obviously a lot of people care about the ice and the climate.

Thanks Natural GW Steve for the explanation. That does help answer some questions.

Hi Gary B,

Worldwide sea ice is a little above normal and shows no statistically significant long term trend since measurements began.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

I'm not going to spend time discussing scientific philosophy with you because you obviously haven't read what I have written about that the last two or three days.

Here is more info from USGS about measuring sea ice:

Reductions in Arctic sea ice during the past decade have elevated scientific and societal questions about the likelihoods of future scenarios. Is the recent sea ice decline an indicator of anthropogenic exacerbations to positive feedbacks that will lead the Arctic to an unprecedented future of reduced ice cover, or is the decline simply an ephemeral expression of natural low frequency climate oscillations that will eventually return the Arctic to prior conditions? This unanswered question bears significant ramifications to Arctic ecology as well as the Earth's climate system, and it is being rigorously investigated by numerous scientists throughout the world.

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/remote_sensing/sea_ice.html

Judging by this USGS website, they seem to be spending their money wisely, trying to get a better understanding of the Arctic ice. Even they admit that there are unanswered questions. One year doesn't make a trend. I hope the Arctic does recover, but we need studies like this and we need new, more accurate models to help us better forecast future conditions.

All of us will benefit from better weather forecasts, if the models keep getting better.

Cbmclean,

I could tell that was not one of my other personalities, the post would have been more terse :)

It may seem to be an extraordinary claim, but it really depends on your view. If you already are under the assumption that CO2 is a powerful shaper of climate, then it may appear that any statements that infer any differently must be incorrect and bold.

I am, however, lookin