Thanks Brett:The sea ice extent will always look somewhat the same, but I quetion It's depth. Do you have any maps on this aspect. KIPP

Reply: Not at this time.

I thought I was halucinating when I came across this,Absolutly Amazing!!!!

National Weather Service lesson: No evidence CO2 is causing global warming

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d2-National-Weather-Service-lesson-No-evidence-CO2-is-causing-global-warming

Simply looking at the aerial extent of the ice can be misleading. One must also factor in the thickness of the ice - and how that changes year by year - to get an accurate view of ice coverage in those regions.

thanks for the charts further calculus is ongoing squires lots of dedications as usual jane.

OK, now that sea level rise figures are firming up.

How come no ones talking about what we are going to do with the nuclear power plants on the coasts?

This is a huge problem that has been ignored.

What is the cost going to be? Will it even be possible to move the radioactive material out of the way in time. And that's if we still have stable societies.

Sorry to preempt G.Karst...

NSIDC is out with the October sea ice extent numbers. I got their data via ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

Here's how October compares to the last few years:

2007 Southern Hemisphere = 18.68 million sq km
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 18.10 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 18.55 million sq km

2007 Northern Hemisphere = 6.77 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 8.39 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 7.50 million sq km

2007 Global: 25.45 million sq km
2008 Global: 26.49 million sq km
2009 Global: 26.05 million sq km

The 2009 totals are 2nd lowest in the 30-year record for the Northern Hemisphere and Global extents (2007 was the record lowest for both) and 9th highest for the Southern Hemisphere extent.

So does October represent a stall in the recovery, or the resumption of a downward trend? I have my opinions, and I'm sure you all have yours, so I'll leave it at that.

October (month end averages) NSIDC (sea ice extent)

30 yrs ago
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 18.9 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 9.5 million sq km
Total = 28.4 million sq km

Recorded Arctic min yr.
2007 Southern Hemisphere = 18.6 million sq km
2007 Northern Hemisphere = 6.8 million sq km
Total = 25.4 million sq km

Last yr.
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 18.1 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 8.4 million sq km
Total = 26.5 million sq km

This yr.
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 18.5 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 7.5 million sq km
Total = 26.0 million sq km

GK

Travis:

Amazing! We were within minutes of each other. Just so the info contains something new, I am posting a quick comparison of 1st month Arctic ice growth September to October.

1980 Northern Hemisphere (Oct.) = 9.5 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere (Sept) = 7.8 million sq km
Delta Sept\Oct Extent = +1.7

2007 Northern Hemisphere (Oct.) = 6.8 million sq km
2007 Northern Hemisphere (Sept) = 4.3 million sq km
Delta Sept\Oct Extent = +2.5

2008 Northern Hemisphere (Oct.) = 8.4 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere (Sept) = 4.7 million sq km
Delta Sept\Oct Extent = +3.7

2009 Northern Hemisphere (Oct.) = 7.5 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere (Sept) = 5.4 million sq km
Delta Sept\Oct Extent = +2.1

1979-2000 mean (Oct.) = 9.3 million sq km
1979-2000 mean (Sept) = 7.0 million sq km
Mean Delta Sept\Oct Extent = +2.3

So 2009 growth rate (2.1) is slightly lagging the mean (2.3), however I do not think it has significance... yet. GK

Interesting to see the difference between Travis' display of the information versus GKarst's version.

Even the presentation of Data (numbers have no opinion), can be stilted by unconscious bias of the information 'provider'. Adding the totals does not make the lack of Arctic ice any less pronounced. The two poles are independent of each other....they are on opposite ends of the Earth. Let the data 'speak' for itself without making assumptions...or is that impossible for human reasoning that gets clouded by emotions.

Arctic sea ice extent - October

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure3.png

Some further context is the fact that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining much faster than average model projections. Through 2005, it was on the edge of the lower uncertainty boundary. 2007 pushed extent well beyond that lower boundary. The observations compared with projections are after slide 20:

http://www.arcus.org/annual_meetings/2006/downloads/presentations/af_thursday/panel1/4_0215pm-Tore_Furevik.ppt

So the question is whether the models severely underestimated the drop and Arctic summer ice will be gone in 20 years, or there was some natural variation helping it along that may help slow the decline for awhile going forward. Probably a little of both. But the question isn't if summer ice will disappear, but when.

HarryL writes:

"National Weather Service lesson: No evidence CO2 is causing global warming"

That amusing section appears to be gone now.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/append/lessonplans.htm

I wonder if some denier hacked into their site. Someone at The Examiner perhaps?

Did'nt you (skeptics) stated all year long :

- that 2009 was cooling, cooler, colder, even cold.

- that the last 10 years were cooling, cooler, colder, and even cold.

Oh, i know - it was so cold and dry that ice evaporated.

PaulM;

Don't get excited about the nuclear plants.
By the time sea level becomes a threat to them, they will have been closed for hundreds of years.

Can't you find somthing real to get agitated about?

paulm posted:

OK, now that sea level rise figures are firming up.

How come no ones talking about what we are going to do with the nuclear power plants on the coasts?

This is a huge problem that has been ignored.

What is the cost going to be? Will it even be possible to move the radioactive material out of the way in time. And that's if we still have stable societies.

___________________

Seriously...is that the thing you have chosen to be worried about? You are assuming an uproven theory (AGW) will continue to heat the world, causing ice to melt (at an unknown rate), leading to a massive rise in sea height (with the amount of rise being a matter of educated guess, at best). You are then assuming that even if there is a rise in sea height, there is nothing we can do about it and massive floods will come inland to the point where nuclear power plants will be indundated (these plants may be close, but I don't know of any plants built on piers sticking out into the ocean). You are also assuming that this catyclysm will happen so quickly that nothing can be done in time to move nuclear material out of the way.

Wow...I'm in awe. My personal number one worry right now is who is going to win the World Series!!! Good thing we have people like you looking out for us!!!

I'm also curious where you see the sea level rise figures "firming up"...I certainly haven't seen that happening and it certainly has nothing to do with this story. There is, however, a general consensus that the sea level rise will be somewhere between nothing and 1000 feet over the next hundred years (assuming, of course, that the sea level does not drop). I guess this may qualify as "firming up" to you.

SteveH:

Simply looking at the aerial extent of the ice can be misleading. One must also factor in the thickness of the ice - and how that changes year by year - to get an accurate view of ice coverage in those regions.

What is really misleading is to try to link ice cover changes to temperature when ocean currents and wind patterns are far more important. And the last time I looked the planet had two poles so the warmer concentration on the Arctic is a useless diversion.

that 2009 was cooling, cooler, colder, even cold.

No. They said that we are in a cooling trend. Given the fact that year-to-year variability due to changing ENSO conditions is high 2009 can turn out to be exceptionally warm or cold. (It wasn't catastrophic warming that made 1998 exceptional but a very strong El Niño.)

that the last 10 years were cooling, cooler, colder, and even cold.

They said that the satellite and radiosonde data was showing atmospheric cooling and that the ARGO buoy system was showing that the oceans were beginning to lose heat.

Oh, i know - it was so cold and dry that ice evaporated.

I think that you are confused about the glaciers on Kilimanjaro. Arctic ice cover is very sensitive to changes in the NAO and wind patterns. We had similar scares in the 1920s and the 1950s and have seen an open Northwest passage several times in the past century. Your error is to use the few years of satellite history as all history.

OK, now that sea level rise figures are firming up.

Are they? From what I see there has been not much global change in the past decade and the trend is not exactly a worry for anyone who is rational.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg

How come no ones talking about what we are going to do with the nuclear power plants on the coasts?

You just lost me. Why should you do anything with the nuclear plants on the coasts?

This is a huge problem that has been ignored.

I think that you are imagining a problem that does not exist. A posting on the status of sea ice at one pole has nothing to do with nuclear power plants. Sea ice does not change sea levels and global sea ice cover is near the mean.

What is the cost going to be? Will it even be possible to move the radioactive material out of the way in time. And that's if we still have stable societies.

LOL What exactly are you talking about? This is not a movie but reality. There is nothing scarey about a sea level increase of 33 cm per century and the last time I looked, most plants were not designed to operate for a century. You might want
to face reality as it is rather than as you imagine it to be.

What you need to worry about are forced closures of plants that provide good jobs because the American utilities are unable to make commitments to deliver long term access to electricity. You need to worry about what happens when coal and nuclear plant cancellations ensure that there is not much of a recovery in the US because the lower energy output will make local manufacturing impossible. You need to worry about a poorer America being harmful to the local environment because it cannot afford to look after it as it used to. You need to worry about the increasing forest cover reversing as individuals start to cut down trees for stoves because they cannot get sufficient natural gas or electricity in the winter.

Even the presentation of Data (numbers have no opinion), can be stilted by unconscious bias of the information 'provider'. Adding the totals does not make the lack of Arctic ice any less pronounced. The two poles are independent of each other....they are on opposite ends of the Earth. Let the data 'speak' for itself without making assumptions...or is that impossible for human reasoning that gets clouded by emotions.

It is amazing how people who keep talking about a global problem cherry pick local data when it suits them. If we are talking about a global problem we need to look at global conditions and those show nothing to be worried about.

Anonymous|November 4,2009-

"It is amazing how people who keep talking about a global problem cherry pick local data when it suits them. If we are talking about a global problem we need to look at global conditions and those show nothing to be worried about."

Wrong. The conditions on Earth vary greatly, oceans, mountains, deserts, forests, poles and equators. To not separate the effect that Global Warming is having upon different areas is not good science. The Earth is so large that even the term 'Global Warming' is misleading to people who are not aware of the implications. To consider the 'climate' of the Earth as a homogeneous thing, and use that in arguments about 'Climate Change' is blatant 'cherry-picking'. The Earth can be getting 'colder' in some areas, 'drier' in others, 'warmer' in some areas, and so on. The general trend has been for warmer overall 'Global Temperatures', but remember that is over time meaning 'climate'. How can anyone take seriously high and low 'backyard weather' temperatures as a measure of any significance, especially when we have progression of opposite seasons on each half of the Earth.

Anonymous.. to expect anything other than 'predictable chaos' when talking of weather or climate is misleading, it is an attempt to statistically 'water down' the effect of 'Global Warming'. Nice straw man argument. not buying it...nobody 'lives' in more than one place at any one time, just because you don't 'see' anything doesn't mean it isn't happening!

@Anonymous: Who said anything about winds or ocean currents, or even temperatures for that matter? Of course all three affect the ice - anyone with an 8th grade understanding of geology gets that. I simply stated that in order to get the true extent of the ice, one must take into account its thickness and how said thickness varies year by year. End of story.

idecline | November 5, 2009 2:59 AM

To ignore equilibrium forces between the poles is probably an error. After all, the totality of ice floats in the same bath tub... just at different ends.

I have no problem with Travis's post because I recognize him as a honest truth seeker. His comments merely highlight aspects of the data. Conclusions can only be reached by the individual viewing the observations.

I have concluded we have too much ice and always have. Summer ice a legacy of the ice age. Most AGWers have concluded 'there cannot be too much ice... ever'. GK

RE: Vangel | November 4, 2009 8:06 AM

We had similar scares in the 1920s and the 1950s and have seen an open Northwest passage several times in the past century.

I'd like to assume you refer to 2007 and 2008. That would be twice. However, I think that would be a lousy assumption on my part, so please do tell when the "several" times were in the past century that the Northwest Passage was "open." While you're at it, some documentation of "scares" about disappearing Arctic ice in the 1920s and 1950s would also be nice.

paulm:

"How come no ones talking about what we are going to do with the nuclear power plants on the coasts?"

-- Dont worry, Obama wont let the water rise that far. Or maybe he'll just waterproof and sandbag them. (Assuming paulm is being facetious or just watched another GW movie.)

"2007 Southern Hemisphere = 18.68 million sq km
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 18.10 million sq km
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 18.55 million sq km"

Average = 18.44m sq km. blah, blah, blah.... With the numbers available here, there is one conclusion; none of the numbers presented exceed 3 standard deviations, thus there is no global warming.

Thank you for your time and energy in this matter. The government gravytrain money will now be ended.

Oh wait, we live in Obamaland.

Did anyone notice the dramatic increase in sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula? That is where all the "south pole is melting" evidence was gathered from.

Some people thought it was undersea volcanoes causing the melting, which is sounding more and more reasonable.

RE: AnotherMark | November 9, 2009 11:10 PM

Average = 18.44m sq km. blah, blah, blah.... With the numbers available here, there is one conclusion; none of the numbers presented exceed 3 standard deviations, thus there is no global warming.

"Another" Mark,

Explain to me why 3 standard deviations ought to be the determining factor for such things, and why your observation should necessarily prove anything at all. Your logic escapes me.

I realize its kinda confusing but when all the numbers are within a narrow range without significant variation, the numbers are considered normal. If one number is outside of a range of 3 standard deviations, it is considered an outlier and worth researching the reason. If there is a trend of 5 numbers moving in one direction or the other, that is considered statistically significant, and again, worthy of researching the trend.

The numbers here do not meet the definition of an outlier or a trend.

As an example, the "Hockey Stick" graph met the definition of a trend. Upon review, it was found that the data used to create the graph was incorrect and no trend existed.

As a side note, my original post was facetiously made, so any humor would have escaped liberals because they have no sense of humor.

Brett,

Did something happen to my latest response to AnotherMark? I sent it last night, but it appears not to have made it here. There weren't any links, so that should not have been an issue.

Reply: I will look for it Travis.

In any case, I wanted to clarify my question to AnotherMark: is there a special reason you are setting the bar at three standard deviations instead of two standard deviations? If I see something happening 4 or 5 times out of 20 that's only supposed to happen once out of 20, I think that's worth investigating. By setting the bar at 1 in 100 like you are with 3 sigma, you'll be missing out on a lot of scientific inquiry.

Also, whether or not five points make a significant trend depends entirely on the size of the sample. Thus my second question to AnotherMark is, what kind of data are we talking about, and how much of it is there? Are we talking yearly sea ice data, monthly data, or daily? Extent, area, or thickness? Global, Arctic, or Antarctic?

Tell me what we're talking about and THEN we can have a real conversation about its significance and trend.

Brett,

I'm not sure if my last post went through; I posted a response to AnotherMark the same evening he posted his (November 11th), but it seems it didn't make it through. It didn't contain any links, so I'm not sure why it didn't make it. If you have a chance, would you take a look in the spam bin? Thanks.