It is not uncommon to hear from Europe’s media that climate change is to blame whenever a weather anomaly occurs on the old continent. The reason for the climate change of course gets attributed to man and fossil fuel emissions.
Therefore, it is all the more interesting that a new paper has just been published, telling us Europe’s climate is foremost driven by ocean cycles.
In a paper by Marius Årthun et al appearing in Nature Communication titled: Skillful prediction of northern climate provided by the ocean, researchers checked whether anomalous heat in the Gulf Stream’s northern extension provided predictability of northwestern European and Arctic climate.
Result: “Variations in ocean temperature in the high latitude North Atlantic and Nordic Seas are reflected in the climate of northwestern Europe and in winter Arctic sea ice extent” and that “a significant part of northern climate variability thus can be skillfully predicted up to a decade in advance based on the state of the ocean“. No, not CO2.
New study shows that ocean cycles allow for “skillful prediction” of northern climate. Source: Nature Communication here.
Norway will cool
What does it mean for the immediate climate future? The paper’s abstract writes:
Particularly, we predict that Norwegian air temperature will decrease over the coming years, although staying above the long-term (1981–2010) average. Winter Arctic sea ice extent will remain low but with a general increase towards 2020.”
If the authors are correct, it’s obvious that for the next few years CO2 will not be able to prevent Norway from cooling and winter Arctic sea ice from growing. That means the ocean is a more powerful driver. The Arctic obviously is strongly connected to the oceans, much more so than some alarmist scientists would have us believe.
Winter sea ice rebound expected
The authors also make further interesting points that certainly should be a surprise to those stuck on rapid manmade warming and ice melt. For example the scientists found an influence of “poleward ocean heat anomalies on northern climate” and that it may be possible to make predictions for the region beyond decades.
They write: “Our sea ice prediction is furthermore in agreement with recent model results predicting a rebound in winter sea ice extent as a result of decreased poleward heat transport.”
According to the authors, he North Atlantic has been cooling recently, a trend which is “predicted to continue over the coming years” and that “a further cooling of Norwegian SAT [surface air temperature] might therefore be expected” beyond their prediction horizon.
Ocean variability exerts “strong influence”
The authors emphasize there is “compelling evidence that oceanic variability exerts a strong influence on northern climate on multi-annual timescales“.
The entire paper is available here.
97 responses to “Arctic Warming Reverse! New Study Finds Winter Arctic Sea Ice “To Increase Towards 2020””
“Correlations are based on detrended data.”
so the detrended data shows high correlation with ocean cycles? WOW!
sod, if we look at the early 20th century to now, there has not been a warming trend in the Arctic anyway. It’s been an oscillation. That’s why your side ignores the 1920s-1940s and starts their trend line in the 1950s-1980s, when the Arctic was 1 to 2 degrees colder. Correlations based on detrended data just means that the authors don’t have to worry about which starting point they use.
Here’s what the long-term Arctic trend looks like. Notice that there was cooling after the 1940s until the 1990s.
Here’s what the 20th century-present Arctic trend looks like:
Yes, the Arctic temperature trend follows the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation. Neither are influenced by fossil fuel emissions.
Since the decadal variation of the AO [Arctic Oscillation] is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.
Kenneth Richard says:
“That’s why your side ignores the 1920s-1940s and starts their trend line in the 1950s-1980s, when the Arctic was 1 to 2 degrees colder.”
Actually from what I’ve seen they prefer to start with 1979 more often than not.
But really I never have quite understood why skeptics even try to accept the premise that Artic Sea Ice is a reliable proxy for global temperatures over these shorter periods?
Storms, wave, and wind action have a tremendous effect on all the metrics.
True, but no action is required. With increasing Arctic sea ice the alarmists themselves will say it’s not a reliable proxy.
The effect of the AMO is obvious in Arctic and Iceland temperatures.
It is also visible in the Icelandic sea ice data right through the Little Ice Age. (red dots are peaks in the AMO and thus dips in the sea ice extent.)
And from yesterday, when my image host was down, it even shows up in the retreat and advance of glaciers in both Switzerland and the USA. (Mt Baker graph turned on its side for easier comparison)
Double WOW.. sob-sob actually seems to have learnt something. !!!
Its ok though , I’m sure his next comment will dispel the hallucination.
The AMO generally has a flattish top, and that is where it has been for the last several years
MASIE shows the average sea ice extent since 2006is basically flat, (actually a very slight growing trend)
Absolutely NO manmade CO2 fingerprint here.
The magical gas has missed influencing the North Pole!
No CO2 effect at the South Pole either.
These are both places where there is very little atmospheric H2O, so if CO2 effect was masked by H2O, this is where it would show up.
Also the atmospheric temperature is closer to the emission temperature of CO2.
Still…. NOTHING, NADA….
[…] Fonte: notrickszone […]
We have a hiatus in Arctic sea ice extend now for 13 years.
Means: Neutral or slight upward trend.
1) what about sommer artic sea ice extent? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1980.6/every:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1980.1/every:12
2) By 2020? So we just have to wait 3 years and see if these scientists were right? Let’s do it … you have similar prediction running for 9 years now, when you claimed that 2020 would be 2.5 degrees colder than the temperature back in 2008. So 2020 will reveal if you dreams came true or not.
3) It’s long been known that Europe’s climate depends on ocean currents. CO2 forcing is acting globally, but currents of course redistribute that additional trapped heat.
As it was stated (“the average sea ice extent since 2006 is basically flat, actually a very slight growing trend”), Arctic sea ice decline has paused since 2006. That’s 11 years without a trend decline, as shown here:
Of course, you ignored what he actually wrote and decided to link to a graph that starts in 1980 instead. No one disagrees that the AO led to a decline in sea ice between the 1980s and 2000s.
Why do you believe Arctic sea ice has stopped declining since 2006, SebastianH? We understand it’s due to natural oscillations. What’s your explanation?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to reply to Johannes, I wanted to start a new comment thread.
However, I was commenting on summer decreasem, not the average of the extent Kenneth. So: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.6/to:2017.6/every:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.6/to:2017.6/every:12/trend (unfortunately trend lines don’t work correct for the “every” function, but the slope is visible.
I see. Since you realized that AndyG55 was right, Arctic sea ice has indeed stopped declining for the last 12 years (since 2006), and in fact has increased slightly, you decided that since that didn’t fit the narrative very well, you then showed us a graph that starts in 1980 instead. Then, when that didn’t work, you now claim you were only referring to the summer months, not the annual average (since the annual average doesn’t fit the narrative either). Apparently CO2-forcing occurs seasonally.
I asked you the question: Why do you think it is that we have not had a declining trend in Arctic sea ice since 2006? Why the pause? What’s the explanation/mechanism? SH sea ice has also not been declining since 2006. For that matter, during the entire satellite record, the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice has been increasing. So why do you think it would be so monumental if, for the next 3 years (2020), Arctic sea ice continued to remain steady, or grow a little more, since that’s what it has been doing already for the last 12 years?
Poor little ignoramus doesn’t seem to realise that summer max is purely dependant on WEATHER.
Trend in Arctic sea ice average is slightly POSITIVE since 2006, totally in line with the NATURAL AMO cycle.
seb doesn’t comprehend NATURAL cycles, all he has in his mind is CO2.
You do know, seb, that if you leave your inner city padded basement once in a while, you will actually reduce the CO2 that you have to tolerate.
and maybe, if you eat just sand, you can actually de-carbonise yourself.
How’s that fossil fuel Mercedes of your going, btw..
Did you ever say if it was diesel or petrol ??
Have you ordered your EV yet??
Or are you just remaining, as ever.. a totally AGW, SJW, wannabee HYPOCRITE. !!
I posted a chart beginning from 1980 to illustrate that summer extent decrease is accelerating (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1980.6/every:12/mean:5) … the last few years being “stable” is an illusion caused by relatively low sea ice extent in the summers of 2007 and 2008. The usual cherry picking of start and end dates that skeptics love to do.
Artic temperatures are generally below freezing, aren’t they? That means ice doesn’t melt when that’s the case. Warming effects would manifest themselves in the summer where temperatures (water and air) will be above freezing and cause the ice to melt. Warmer climate = more melting. In winter the ice isn’t melting and a warming there wouldn’t cause temperature to increase enough to cause melting.
That’s the reason behind looking at the summer ice extent. You don’t like it or don’t understand it … i don’t care. If it makes you feel better to use a different graph to convince yourself that arctic ice extent is stable … so be it.
So what caused the relatively low sea ice extent in the summers of 2007 and 2008? Was the mechanism different then compared to “the last few years”? Why hasn’t the sea ice declined since 2006?
What was the mechanism that caused the sea ice for the entire Southern Hemisphere to show an increasing trend since 1979?
Here’s what the Arctic sea ice looks like relative to the past:
“I posted a chart beginning from 1980 to illustrate that summer extent decrease is accelerating ”
You posted a propaganda ZERO-knowledge chart that starts at the HIGHEST extreme since the Little Ice Age
You are either TOTALLY IGNORANT that the late 1970s were up there with the EXTREME extents of the LIA or you were DELIBERATELY trying to be DECEITFUL.
I know which it is..
The big question for you to answer to yourself is…
Do you know how much of a LYING, DECEITFUL con-artist you come across as ??
I suspect that you DO know you are being deliberately “LYING and DECEITFUL”.
“That’s the reason behind looking at the summer ice extent. ”
So….. YET ANOTHER LIE !!!
LIES and BS is all you seem to have left..
Wouldn’t you agree, seb !!!
“caused by relatively low sea ice extent in the summers of 2007 and 2008.”
Yet another LIE, almost certainly through abject ignorance (seb’s stock in trade)
The current level of Arctic sea ice is GREATER than that of 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.
The reason there is SO MUCH Arctic sea ice, is because the Earth is only a small bump out of the COLDEST period in the whole Holocene interglacial.
I don’t want enable you and reply to you nonsense, but we had this “discussion” before … so i’ll just repost the combination of different sea ice extent charts for the artic from further back than 1980. Do you notice anything about the 70s “maximum”?
The summer maximum in MASIE since 2006 has a slight upward trend.
You GOOFED yet again, seb.
The El Nino has suppressed the growth in the last two years.
But EVERYBODY, except you, knows that is a WEATHER EVENT, and nothing to do with anything CO2 can do, because its built up solar energy from the oceans.
And EVERYBODY, except you, knows that CO2 DOES NOT cause ocean heating
“we had this “discussion” before ”
And you STILL haven’t learnt anything at all.
Your graph is a LOAD OF NONSENSE, seb.
.. and the fact that you don’t know why makes it even more hilarious.
Arctic sea ice extent was LOWER in the 1940’s. and was MUCH lower before the LIA.
The current level is actually ANOMALOUSLY HIGH compared to the rest of the last 10,000 years, That is because the Earth is only just a tiny bump out of the COLDEST period of the Holocene.
A further decrease in Arctic sea ice would be absolutely beneficial to all those living up there.
Commerce, fishing, travel, mining etc would all be possible again, like they were before the extreme sea ice extents of the LIA, mirrored in the late 1970’s
The well-being and livelihood of the people living up there means absolutely nothing to you , does it seb… just so long as you can produce childishly stupid graphs.
DOE graph average extent 6-7 million km² through the 1940’s
Current average extent 9-11 million km²
big oops, seb. 😉
Arctic sea ice hasn’t declined since 2006. In fact, there’s already been a slight upward trend. A prediction that sea ice will continue to not decline for another 3 years isn’t all that ambitious considering it’s been happening for 12 years now.
This rests on the assumption that CO2 molecules spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago are what has caused the oceans to warm (by a whopping 0.09 C since 1955). You believe in that, of course.
To help you understand why your CO2-is-the-cause-of-net-ocean heat-change belief has some shortcomings, perhaps you could read up on it a bit more…
Actually you are the one who is the believer here. Despite the facts you believe that 0.09 C is tiny (by use of the word “whopping”) and that CO2 forcing isn’t enough to cause such a change (I showed you the very simple calculations to make both values comparable, yet you “believe” that it is somehow incorrect and always fall back to “nature dominates” arguments without actually presenting a convincing argument that the CO2 forcing has no effect on ocean water as if it were some special substance that can make energy disappear or wont warm when loss of energy is lower than incoming energy).
It is. Ocean temperatures have routinely risen and/or fallen by 2 degrees C in less than 200 years during the Holocene, while CO2 concentrations remained steady (Bova et al., 2016). Here’s the “whopping” visual (the red part) of what the modern OHC change looks like:
Do you have physical measurements from an actual scientific experiment that shows that backradiation is a determinant of water temperature changes?
Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156 [click “Download” pdf]
[I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.
The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 126.96.36.199. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters.
Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can, also, be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.
One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG) [the Efficacy of Solar vs. GHG ocean heating]. They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.
These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.
What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.
It is established physics that the oceans are opaque to the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs while short wave solar radiation readily transports energy to a depth of many meters. Long wave GHG radiation is quickly returned to the atmosphere and, eventually, space as latent heat of evaporation as is demonstrated in [the experiment detailed in] “Appendix 1”. If established, this fact can only lead to the conclusion that a Radiative flux imbalance at the TOA caused by increasing GHGs will likely be restored to balance more quickly than a similar sized flux imbalance caused by changes in solar radiation. It follows that climate sensitivity to changes in GHG forcing is likely to be considerably lower than for similar changes in solar forcing. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no model, with a solid physical basis, can accurately track the slope of the temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the slope of the increase from 1970 to 1998, and the current temperature hiatus without assuming E(GHG) is considerably lower than E(Solar).
Where water is free to evaporate, test “A” shows that back radiation from GHGs will have a negligible effect on the heat content of that water. Test “B” shows that nearly all the energy from an increase in back radiation from GHGs is returned to the atmosphere as latent heat of evaporation. It follows that any Radiative flux change at the TOA will likely be restored more quickly if it is caused by a change in GHG forcing than if it is caused by a change in solar forcing.
6.1 Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory
So I’ve read up …
You didn’t attempt to describe how backradiation is supposed to work and instead chose to quote some incomplete description found in some paper you like. Incomplete because it just says “acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere”. That’s the effect Kenneth, I want to know if you understand what causes this effect if backradation were not “imaginary” like someone else put it. So, how does backradiation work? How does it (supposedly) cause warming?
Regarding the paper itself and the experiment in appendix 1: i don’t think this experiment is suitable to show that it’s just evaporation that increases when insulation increases, causing no slowing of heat loss. By using an open system and PC fans evaporation interacts with the outside world of this experiment resulting in a not so small one way energy transfer. In the atmosphere evaporation can not cause energy to escape the system. Further convection is allowed to transport energy to the outside of the system which also doesn’t happen in the atmosphere. The only way energy can leave the system is by radiation (towards space).
In part B of the experiment evaporation (fully) and convection (partly) is not allowed to transport energy to the outside, therefor showing the effect of backradiation.
It didn’t. I’ll change my mind if someone presents a suitable experiment to show that 100% of backradiation change is compensated by evaporation. Some back of the napkin calculations should have made it obvious to the author that this can not be the case. Since backradiation is hundreds of W/m², evaporation should be hundreds of W/m² too, but it isn’t. If the compensation effect only happens at exactly the temperatures we observe, then where is point where backradiation changes don’t get converted to 100% evaporation anymore (in both directions)? So a 1-4 W/m² change results in 1-4 W/m² more evaporation (even though it is currently responsible for just ~17 W/m² of heat transfer towards the atmosphere), what does a 50 to 100 W/m² change result in then?
Sorry, but you have to do better than posting a paper by some guy working an Australian “complex services company” who conducts some hobby experiments and hopes to be able to downplay the role of GHGs with the result.
YES it did..
you are just too scientifically illiterate to comprehend.
You HAVE to get better at showing that CO2 causes any warming of a convective atmosphere or of ocean water.
So far you are batting ZERO, despite your meaningless, irrelevant, analogies and mind-numbed YAPPING
You are EMPTY, seb.
You have NOTHING.
And you are SO DUMB, that you don’t even realise it.
PLEASE go and get a PROPER education, rather than a stint at clown school !!
“I’ll change my mind if … yap.. yap……”
You have absolutely ZERO intent of ever changing your brain-washed non-science.
You have proven that you CANNOT even support the very basis of your SCAM religion.
But you STILL refuse to accept REALITY.
You are LYING to yourself, seb..
and YOU know it…
… but you continue to LIE to yourself.
Its who you are, and you can NEVER change that.
“You didn’t attempt to describe how back-radiation is supposed to work ”
We will leave the FAIRY TALES up to you seb.
Its all you seem to be capable of. !!
I find it sophomoric for you to ask me to spend time regurgitating what the IPCC (and you) believe about how the CO2 “blanket” traps heat at the surface. I am not going to enable your off-putting condescension just to “prove” myself to you.
As you so often assume, this isn’t an either/or thing (“no slowing of heat loss”); it’s a how much/how little thing. The point of the paper is not that LW has no effect at all. It’s that, because of the fact that SW radiation can penetrate past the surface by 10s of meters to heat the ocean, and LW radiation cannot penetrate past the micrometer layer, the magnitude of influence for net ocean heat changes is predominantly determined by variations in SW absorption, not LW forcing. They are not equal in their influence like you and the IPCC believe. SW dominates. That’s exactly what I have tried (in vain) to explain to you over and over again for the last 6 months.
Are you willing to consider that, because of the penetrative inequality, the SW influence is far more determinative than you have assumed? I’m guessing not.
No, I don’t think you’ll ever change your mind no matter what evidence is presented. You’re too ensconced in your beliefs and pride and lack the humility to change. I changed my mind (very reluctantly) after the evidence became overwhelming. And then the ClimateGate (e-mails) sealed it. Until then, I had been skeptical, but was heavily influenced by the argument from authority (until I realized that that was made-up too).
But getting back, what if it’s shown to you that 90% of backradiation change is compensated by evaporation? Nearly all, but not all? Would you still claim that both SW and LW influences on OHC are equal, so a change in LW can be just as influential as a change in direct SW absorbed (as attenuated by changes in albedo)?
Again, you don’t have to accept that backradiation has no influence on the heat content of the ocean. Heck, I am not convinced that it doesn’t have any effect either. But that’s not what the issue is here. The issue is, on a continuum, which influence is more influential? For you to believe what you do, you have to presuppose that LW is just as influential as SW in determining OHC change. I don’t presuppose that.
I had assumed that you would employ ad hominems in an attempt to dismiss this, since that’s pretty much all you have. “Back of the napkin” calculation. The author is “some guy working an Australian complex services company who conducts some hobby experiments”. SebastianH, this is from a $472 textbook on Heat Transfer used in Engineering Science courses. The contributors to the book understand heat transfer physics.
You pretty much responded to this exactly how I expected you to: (a) falsely framing this as a 0 to 100% dichotomy (claiming the authors are saying LW has no effect at all), and (b) ad hominem attack on the author. I probably could have written much of it myself.
Interesting reply and a littlebit expected. I could use your comment and replace my name with yours and it would fit. I don’t know why you are projecting your own condition on others that don’t agree with your form of skepticism which seems to be a rather uninformed one, since you don’t believe things work like they do, but you don’t actually know how it works. You apparently even missunderstood that Irvine “paper”. The whole notion that backradiation changes is immediately compensated by evaporation is rooted in that flawed experiment. The author states that multiple times. I don’t care if that’s in a expensive textbook … do you think everything in textbooks is correct? If so, I can recommend you some that would improve your understanding of physics and math. Interested?
That’s still too high a number, but let’s say someone would show that 50% of CO2 forcing (direct and indirect by feedbacks) would cause increased evaporation and conduction, I’d say that this could very well be possible. After all an increase in surface temperature would also increase evaporation and conduction.
But that’s not what Irvine is writing. In his experiment he gets an identical temperature curve whether or not the “shield” is on top of the container. He concludes that there is no reduced heat loss and backradiation from the shield must get converted to evaporation. Why? Because when evaporation and conduction is suppressed (part B) he gets different temperature curves.
To check if that is the correct conclusion the author should have determined the weight of both containers before and after the experiment. The container with the shield should have lost more water than the other. My guess is that a very small if any difference would have been measured. Why? Because in his experiment evaporation and conduction are far greater in magnitude (W/m²) than backradiation from the shield. You can see that by comparing the temperature curves of test A and B with each other.
So again, the experiment is flawed and not showing what the author thinks it does and yet he bases his complete paper on that. He even writes “If this is an accurate representation of what happens then it follows that down Long Wave Infrared Radiation (LWIR) could have a slight cooling effect in warmer water” … radiation that cools something, right. I guess the author means that without evaporation the water would be warmer, but that doesn’t mean that radiation that causes evaporation actually cools something.
Anyway … I don’t agree with that paper and you can’t convincingly demonstrate that what the author writes is correct. You can not convinced, because of this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
That sums it up. You don’t agree because it violates your beliefs to think that, because of the orders of magnitude difference in penetrative efficacy, variations in SW radiation absorption easily overshadow variations in LW radiation. You prefer to think that the fact that IR cannot penetrate into ocean, but SW radiation can, by 10s of meters, has no bearing on their determinative influence.
You start out with the presupposition that SW and LW are equal in their influence on ocean temperatures, and even when a real world physical experiment demonstrates that they are NOT equal, but that SW completely dominates, you just re-state your beliefs that LW is just as influential as SW.
I expected no less from you.
It is a well known FACT that current Arctic sea ice levels are above that of some 90-95% of the current interglacial.
The ONLY times sea ice has been higher was during the LIA which was the COLDEST period in the last 8000 years,
The late 1970s were up there with those EXTREMES of the LIA.
So that is where the Arctic sea ice AGW scammers always start their graphs.
REALITY seb… try and get at some into your pitiful, deceitful life.
And why are you so desperate to make life difficult for the people living in the area. Do you really think there wouldn’t be MASSIVE BENEFITS from there being LESS sea ice?
Commerce , travel, fishing… all the thinks that USED to happen up there before the LIA.
You seem to really have a total disdain for other peoples’ life and livelihood. Quite disgusting.
“Do you really think there wouldn’t be MASSIVE BENEFITS from there being LESS sea ice? ”
seb’s NON-reply is noted. 😉
Come on seb.. I’m waiting for some more of your anti-science, anti human, comedy routine. !!
The only thing disgusting here are your replies. I have no idea why the moderators tolerate what you write. As other commenters here have said, your non-sense rants littered with insults, drive them away even if they generally would be on your side.
Here is my reply:
Maybe if you told the TRUTH once in a year, instead of LYING through your **** all the time
Why the EVASION of a simple question, yellow-back?
““Do you really think there wouldn’t be MASSIVE BENEFITS from there being LESS sea ice? ””
Come on seb.. I’m waiting for some more of your anti-science, anti-human, comedy routine. !!
Maybe you could even summon another meaningless, irrelevant, child-minded analogy..
…. if you try hard enough. !!
That would be HILARIOUS. !!
Your reply graph shows that you haven’t the vaguest clue what you are actually graphing.
Nothing unusual about that. You seem to be pretty much permanently clueless.
What is the average yearly sea ice extent over the last 10 years, seb?
What is the average over the period of the DOE graph, seb?
Come on seb.. we are all waiting for you to ADMIT your error..
… if you ever figure out what it is. 😉
Do you really think that someone could have measured the sea ice extent accurately before the satellite age? How would he/she have done that?
I am interested in the anomalies. Here is a corrected version without the stdev graph: http://imgur.com/a/fuYbW
Here’s a paper where the scientists measured the number of days/months per year with sea ice during the late 1800s to now (2004). They found that Arctic sea ice was lower (sea ice extent lasts 33 days longer now) during the first half of the 20th century. Perhaps you can check out how they did their assessments.
Durantou et al., 2012
“Sea surface temperature [Arctic Ocean] between ∼ AD 1885–1935 are warmer by up to 3°C with respect to the average modern temperature at the coring site.”
“For the period ∼ AD 1887–1945, reconstructed sea ice cover values are on average 8.3 months per year which is 1.1 months per year lower than the modern values.”
Of course you are. Because the trend since 2006 doesn’t fit the narrative you’re peddling. Speaking of, what was the cause of the lack of sea ice decline in the Arctic for the last 12 years? And why did Arctic sea ice extent last 1.1 month(s) shorter in 1887-1945 than now? What’s the mechanism?
“““Do you really think there wouldn’t be MASSIVE BENEFITS from there being LESS sea ice? ”””
AVOIDING answering still.. poor petal. !!
And yes seb .. we know that REAL numbers are of no relevance to you.
DOE shows 6-7 million km²
Current average is around 9-11 million km²
Please explain.. because my sides are hurting from laughing at you.
You did know that the current Arctic sea ice extent is GREATER than what it has been for some 90-95% of the last 10,000 years didn’t you.
The current extent is ANOMALOUSLY HIGH.
That’s because the world is only a small bump out of the COLDEST period in the whole of the current interglacial.
These are FACTS, seb… that your brain-washed mind is INCAPABLE of coming to grips with.
There was no lack of decline. There were 2 years (2007 and 2012) with especially low sea ice extent caused by unusually prolonged summer temperatures in the Arctic. Look it up, I gave you the links.
Of course you come from a world where it is perfectly normal to say trends are flat when numbers look something like this:
10 4 8 7 6The average is 7 and the trendline is flat, right?
1) That paper only looks at the Bering Sea
2) The reconstruction value is not sea ice extent duration above an absolute value, but above a percentage. I hope you know what that means … if the range between winter and summer extent increases, the time spent in either half increases. Now you know why the value was 1.1 months shorter in the past … because of this: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_seasonal_en.png
This is nothing but refusing to accept what you don’t want to be true. Notice the 12-year trend, SebastianH. Actually, the lack of a trend goes back to 2005.
Just because you don’t want to admit it doesn’t make it go away.
Yes, and those two years are included in the 12/13-year trendless record. That’s why it’s called a trend — it includes the lower and higher years. Why do you think we should just remove the years that are inconvenient to the narrative?
You appear to be getting desperate, SebastianH. The SH sea ice has been rising since 1979. The Arctic sea ice trend has been flat since 2005, rising slightly since 2006. And you have no explanation for it (a mechanism), so you pivot to claiming that the only month of the year that counts for AGW in the Arctic is September….or that the trend line doesn’t count because there were 2 years when sea ice was low. That’s like saying there was a cooling between 2001 and 2015 because…there wasn’t an El Nino year at the end to turn the trend around (make the cooling turn to warming).
And? The Bering Sea is part of the Arctic. And so why was the Bering Sea 3 degrees warmer during the late 1800s and early 1900s without all that, you know, CO2 pollution? What caused that?
You – again – didn’t make sure your start- and endpoints are in the same month (full cycles). Maybe this illustration of various trends over the last 12 year period of the woodfortrees data (it ends in June 2016) helps you to understand what your trendline actually means/is:
“CO2 forcing is acting globally,”
STILL the rabid LIES and anti-science BS.
Its all you have, isn’t it, seb.
The only forcing from CO2 is plant life growth.
You have been totally unable to produce ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, or of ocean water.
Oh look.. seb has ZERO EVIDENCE, as always.
a chihuahua behind a 6ft fence, YAPPING at a doberman, would be more in tune with realty.
…something sob-seb know NOTHING about.
Why do we buy dehumidifiers to cool our house in summer and not de-co²-fiers. ?
If you could de-co2-fy the entire column over your area there should would be some cooling effect. You could also “cloudify” the sky above your area, or you could just an AC unit / dehumidifier which only has to cool the insides of you building.
“If you could de-co2-fy the entire column over your area”
All the plants would die, you moronic twit.
And there is NO PROOF that CO2 has any affect in a convective atmosphere, or over oceans.
You KNOW that to be a FACT.
So stop your puerile brain-washed LIES .
And FFS, stop with the hypothetical GARBAGE and start gaining some semblance of REALITY.
You are looking like someone high on some sort of hallucinogenic, who is totally unable to face REAL LIFE.
I posted a chart beginning from 1980…
And that, folks, says it all.
Absolutely nothing new to see here from the UI trolls, just the same old and tired alarmist claptrap that has been debunked ad nauseum.
If alarmists feel that they really must scare people in order to promote their totalitarian leftist agenda, then maybe they should start with a more manageable challenge for themselves, and spring scary rubber spiders on the kiddies at their local park. Alarmists really suck at coaxing sane adults to join them under a blanket with a flashlight.
Here is a chart beginning in the early 20th century if you want more evidence that current sea ice extent is not really stable: http://imgur.com/a/oiTsl
You can also see the dip in 2007/2008 that enables skeptics to claim that there was no change since 2006 … if lying to yourself helps to make you feel better, ok, but don’t expect anyone outside the skeptic bulbble buying that non-sense.
Seb, you must be stupid as hell,since the charts in your link doesn’t match up at all. Some are true measured extent, others are standardized anomalies and using different scales.
Here is the CURRENT sea ice data showing that it is right on the 30 year average for the date.
Those charts were provided by AndyG55 a month ago. The last graph (stdev from 1981-2010 mean) isn’t off by much from the actual anomalies in degrees celsius: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/offset:-11.8167
Ha ha, Sebastian,your own plotted chart shows no more sea ice decline since 2006,which several people here have been telling you.
Yes he and others elsewhere posted them,but NEVER in the manner you did here. They always noticed the differences,you didn’t.
I posted the link showing the chart on the right side shows the TEN year average,which is what today’s sea ice level is currently at.
Your wood for trees chart,the Naval observatory charts I linked to agrees that since 2006,there has been around a zero trend on sea ice levels.
What is the matter with you Seb,you blind or just stupid?
sunsettommy, what is the difference between the stdev chart and a chart that would display the anomalies in degrees celsius? Can you tell me? What is the scaling factor?
I admit the oversight here, but seriously the difference is very small and “They always noticed the differences” isn’t true either. You are the first who noticed this.
Here is the corrected version: http://imgur.com/a/fuYbW
Be careful with the start and end dates you chose.
SebastianH, why do you think it is that Arctic sea ice hasn’t declined for 12 years now? Why do you think it is that Southern Hemisphere sea ice has been growing since 1979? What’s the mechanism that has caused these ice-growth trends?
You STILL haven’t figured just how WRONG and IGNORANT you truly are, have you seb?
You don’t even know what you are graphing. Real values against anomalies, hey seb, without any idea as to what is what. So sad.. so clueless.
You are the DUMBEST ever AGW worm, that is for sure. !!
Note that the DOE chart area is between 6 & 7Mkm²
Now, what is the value of the average sea ice area over the last 10 years, seb ??
Do try to use that feeble little mind of your at least once this century !!!
Kenneth, see below.
AndyG55, you should look up the difference between anomalies and absolute values. It’s a constant. So it’s perfectly valid to aline both lines. Why wouldn’t it be?
Crickets chirp as we await SebastianH reply to the data showing the current NH sea ice extent right at the 30 year mean from such a source. I mean after all wouldn’t a sane person that has worried so much about how much ice is floating around be relieved to find out his fears were unwarranted?
So far he has ignored the TEN year average which is from 2006.
Exactly … 10 years, not 30 years as you claimed above (blind or stupid you asked?).
Nothing stable about the last 30 years:
The 10 year average is an illusion of stable conditions (calculate the standard deviation), because of those dips in 2007 and 2012.
You wouldn’t say that the bold part of the following row of numbers is stable, would you?
20 19 18 17 16 15 10 13 9 11 10
Seb is good at ignoring FACTS..
It is basically the ONLY thing he seems remotely capable of.
Note that the average sea ice extent on your link is around 9-10 million sq.km for this year.
What are the values on that DOE chart.. looks like around 6 to 7 million sq. km to me.
OOPS.. seb GOOFS AGAIN. !!!
I am dying to hear your theory on why Vinnikov set the sea ice extent to 6-7 million sq. km and satellites measured 10.9 millione sq. km as the average extent in the last 120 months.
Seb, once again make a fool of himself
“Exactly … 10 years, not 30 years as you claimed above (blind or stupid you asked?).”
I posted the word Thirty to see if you noticed,but only after I gave you the expanded chart that clearly shows the TEN year on it,that you finally noticed. When I gave you the original link that had both TEN year charts on it, you didn’t notice it was ten years THEN. Did you even look in the link when I first posted it yesterday?
Meanwhile as usual, you ignored what the chart shows because you don’t like it.
Right, whatever you say. So is this a straw man argument Kenneth? Sunsettommy claiming I noticed it just now and then using that to make his argument? I think I get it now … so many examples here.
I didn’t ignore anything. It shows that the current ice extent is within the mean of the last 10 years. So you don’t think 2007 and 2012 were outlier years with warmer than usual september temperatures? See: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (click on the years on the left side)
You’re just now learning what straw man arguments are? You didn’t realize that you employ them routinely?
What caused the warming during the month of September, 2007? Can we assume you believe it was CO2? Scientists attributed it to anonymously hight solar heating of the ocean. Do you think they’re wrong — humans did it?
Abstract: The summer extent of the Arctic sea ice cover, widely recognized as an indicator of climate change, has been declining for the past few decades reaching a record minimum in September 2007. The causes of the dramatic loss have implications for the future trajectory of the Arctic sea ice cover. Ice mass balance observations demonstrate that there was an extraordinarily large amount of melting on the bottom of the ice in the Beaufort Sea in the summer of 2007. Calculations indicate that solar heating of the upper ocean was the primary source of heat for this observed enhanced Beaufort Sea bottom melting. An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat.
Conclusions: There was an extraordinarily large amount of ice bottom melting in the Beaufort Sea region in the summer of 2007. Solar radiation absorbed in the upper ocean provided more than adequate heat for this melting. An increase in the open water fraction resulted in a 500% positive anomaly in solar heat input to the upper ocean, triggering an ice–albedo feedback and contributing to the accelerating ice retreat.
“I am dying to hear your theory”
Oh dear, poor widdle seb wants me to tell him his very obvious error..
Nope, I’ve given up trying to help the low-IQ cretin to educate himself. Enough hints have been given.
He can live with the egg on his face. He must be totally used to it by now.
DOE says 6-7 million km²
Current average is around 9-10 million km².. OOPS
“Nothing stable about the last 30 years:”
And again we have seb showing his abject, total IGNORANCE about NATURAL CYCLES.
seb.. you could possible learn .. iff you actually wanted to.
But you CHOOSE to remain, as always, wilfully and moronically IGNORANT.
So you try throwing a strawman claim on me,after I exposed you for not looking at this link, http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/ I posted yesterday. I DELIBERATELY said 30 years, to see if you actually looked there. You didn’t as everyone can now see.
It was only after I posted a link to one of the charts to make clear it is a TEN year time frame,why do you think I was CAPITALIZING the 10 and 30 numbers in the first place,maybe to get you to notice something?
Stop digging so much……
so you recognize that it was an outlier year. Great.
Why would CO2 be the cause for a sudden increase in water temperatures in the Arctic? Warm water from elsewhere caused the ice melting more. Whether the greater temperature or the current was caused by more solar energy reaching the surface or accumulated CO2 forcing …. I don’t know. You found a paper saying it was the Sun, so maybe it was. Why did the ice extent increase in the following years? Did solar energy decrease? Or did the energy just go elsewhere?
@AndyG55: current average is between 10.5 and 11 million km². I made a graph just for you, showing you how ridiculous your claim is 😉 http://imgur.com/a/an666
So what event caused the 70s jump from 6.5 million km² to 12.5 million km²? And are you really serious with that claim?
@sunsettommy: you wrote 30 years, because you read 30 years in the left graph, as did I and as does probably everyone, because the 10 looks just like a 30 (http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/). You claiming that you “caught” me is the actual straw man here (and Kenneth: I am just teasing you). Did you invent your story to not look like you haven’t seen the 10 either? And why are we even arguing about this? What’s your point?
Why would CO2 be the cause of an increase in water temperatures? Why do you believe?
If you would really like to know why sea ice increases or decreases, here is some educational material from the NSIDC.
Thus, the presented facts suggest that the most significant cause of changes in the ice cover extent are the changes in the vertical water structure in the upper ocean layer, rather than the changes of thermal conditions in the atmosphere. These changes are induced by fluctuations in the horizontal dimensions of the halocline, which are governed in turn by the expansion or reduction of the surface Arctic water mass. Pg. 49
Conclusion: However, the order of the climate signal transfer in the climate system, when changes in the ocean induced by the disturbances of its freshwater balance precede changes in sea ice extent, and the latter precede changes in the atmosphere, suggests that self oscillation is the most probable cause for the development of natural processes at the present time. The idea, that the internal dynamics of the climate system are the main moving force in the development of the natural process, was used to account for vast glacial-interglacial fluctuations in the Pleistocene.
“Seb, you must be stupid as hell,”
Yep , you nailed that in one hit.!!
He STILL hasn’t realised what his error is in that graph, because he has ZERO CLUE what he is actually graphing.
He also is too dumb to realise that the current level is GREATER than it has been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.
Very much on the high side, only fractionally down from the EXTREMES of the LIA.
From the late 1970’s, which was up there with those extremes of the LIA, is all he has in his bag of propaganda slime.
Since 2006 , there has been a slight up-trend in average Arctic sea ice.
FACT.. so get over it, seb. Your INCESSANT LIES are easily countered.
A hint seb, since you will NEVER comprehend your moronic error in your graph.
The DOE graph gives an average extent of between 6 & 7 Mkm²
What is the average current value on the zero-trend NSIDC chart.
Maybe if you learn to think in the next day or so you will realise just how moronic you have been, yet again.
Gee! What would that chart be in dog years, if the Earth was a canine?
Let’s put things in perspective. There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 10,000 years.
Clearly there is nothing about which to be alarmed when it comes to our climate, except alarmism.
We are in an interglacial genius, the ice should be melting, the seas should be rising, and the temperatures are thankfully warming. The sky is not falling, go and find another cause or join a self help group.
Seb, here is two charts connected together from year 1925 to 1990. It shows 1979 as the peak year in that time frame.
The data doesn’t state at the peak. Those are exactly the graphs that I used, except If you want to compare to actual temperature anomalies beginning from 1980 you can use this graph and combine it with this woodfortrees graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/offset:-11.8167
SebastianH, are you able to answer the question? Why has there been no declining trend in Arctic sea ice for the last 12 years? What’s the mechanism?
And why has there been an increasing trend in Southern Hemisphere sea ice since 1979?
What’s the mechanism for the sea ice growth, SebastianH?
There is no trend, yeah right … is this the same “there are only steps” trick that skeptics use for describing the temperature trend?
Look at the second chart. Then go to: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
A warming of the climate increases the time temperatures are around freezing. That’s why it is necessary to look at the summer/september ice extent.
The dips in sea ice extent that happened in 2007 and 2012 and that make you imagine that it’s stable now were caused by warmer than usual september temperatures (click on the year 2007 and 2012 in the left sidebar on the second link and compare to other years in the recent past).
The other years in the past 12 continued the trend from before.
Satisified? Anything you don’t understand?
The green line is called a “trend”.
Yearly changes are called anomalies. Anomalies are different than trends.
Trends are stable. Anomalies are not. Trends are represented by straight lines, which is why we don’t call trends unstable.
I’ll ask for a 5th time. Why do you think it is that Arctic sea ice has not declined for 12 years? Why has SH sea ice not declined since 1979? What’s the mechanism?
So nothing again. Instead of following my instructions and trying to understand you most likely haven’t even read the whole comment and just wanted to correct me on one point you’ve deemed to be in need of correction.
And once more you are a victim of your confusion with numbers. The red line is not an anomaly, it’s the actual extent for each month. And further more you should watch for your start an end points when posting these graphs. They aren’t the same month of the year.
And last but not least … read my comment above! Follow the links! Try to understand!
Outlier years don’t influence longterm trends by much, they do influence short time trends. You skeptics have a way of picking out those short periods where highly fluctuating values “look” stable on average and pretend they are.
Yes, my mistake. In my haste, I just copied/pasted the link to the woodfortrees graph without remembering what it depicted (or bothering to look at it again). The red lines are indeed the actual trajectory of the ice extent, not the departure. I have temperature graphs in my head.
I was correcting you on your multiple statements about trends being “unstable”. A trend is not unstable. It is a straight line. And Arctic sea ice extent has slightly increased since 2006. In other words, it hasn’t been declining.
I’ll ask for a 6th time…since you’ve refused to answer the previous 5 times that I have asked you this question: Why is it that sea ice extent in the Arctic has not declined for the last 12 years? What caused that? And why has Southern Hemisphere sea ice been growing since 1979? What’s the mechanism, SebastianH?
You asked “What’s the mechanism for the sea ice growth, SebastianH?”
I explained it to you above (https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/23/arctic-warming-reverse-new-study-says-winter-arctic-sea-ice-to-increase-towards-2020/comment-page-1/#comment-1217730).
While looking at trends for the overall extent over all month is interesting too, global warming effects would be detectable in summer extent first. And if you had looked at the linked websites you would immediately have seen that.
So once again, I ask back: Satisified? (obviously not) Anything you don’t understand? (obviously yes)
So does CO2 not work during the non-summer months? Since when does global warming occur during one month out of the year (September)? Is it the same for the Southern Hemisphere? Does AGW only work during one month of the year down there too?
You didn’t describe a mechanism, SebastianH. You just said “it is necessary to look at the summer/september ice extent.” To keep the narrative propped up, it is necessary to ignore the other months because if we don’t do that then we see that there has been no decline in Arctic sea ice since 2006. You didn’t explain why that has happened You just provided instructions as to how to pick and choose your months to look at.
I’ll be more specific so you can try to avoid answering for a 7th time: What was the physical cause, or mechanism, that has led to the lack of a trend decline in Arctic sea ice, including all months of the year? What mechanism causes sea ice to grow, SebastianH? Has that mechanism been operating in the Southern Hemisphere? If so, what is that mechanism?
I wonder how often this needs repeating with you … I should compile a Kenneth FAQ to which I can link when you repeat your questions 😉
Are you really serious with this one? Look at the graph here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
What do you see? Most of the year temperatures are way below freezing. Do you think there will be lots of melting in those months even if the temperature increases by some degrees? No, the melting happens in the summer and increased temperatures prolong the melting season, causing less ice extent.
Is that so hard to understand?
I showed you a method to check the artic temperatures in specific years. 2007 and 2012 were outliers with unusually prolonged summer (see: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2012.png). The reason that you see no decline is that you think that a row of numbers like
10 4 8 7 6has a flat trendline. It has, but when the five numbers before that sequence were
15 14 13 12 11you should be able to identify the outlier and not declare those first 5 numbers “stable”.
You’ll probably will ask another time because you either didn’t understand or my English was too bad. Should I prepare a FAQ for you? 😉 And please, could you stop with that practise of chosing timespans that show what you want to show ignoring the longterm trend? Has arctic sea ice extent increased from 2007 to 2010? Yes it did! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007/to:2010/mean:12/trend … If we had 2010 now I am sure you would claim something like that 😉
What is the correct start point to get a flat trend? I tried multiple years and couldn’t get it right.
Just a thousand years ago…..,
Kenneth Williamson (1975) Birds and Climatic Change, Bird Study,
Between 1000 and 1300 average summer temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. Eric the Red, a renowned world citizen of that time, has been much maligned as the first progressive publicity man for giving Greenland
a false image in order to attract settlers; but in truth, the southwest of that vast country was warmer and greener by far than at any time until the Fieldfares Turdus pilaris arrived there in the mid-1930s. The sea-temperature of the Atlantic
was higher than it has been since, and there appears to have been none or very little ice to hinder the Vikings’ communications between Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland and Labrador (Mowat 1965). Indeed Brooks (1926) considers thatthe polar ice-cap may have disappeared entirely during the summer months, to build anew each winter.”
The world goes on Sebastian, Polar Bears are still here,so are humans who at that time were growing in population due to the ongoing warming world.
As I understand it, during that period (MWP) glaciers the world over, had receded further than they have today. There is much empirical evidence of that.
Correct. The Arctic today is still about 2-3 degrees C colder than it was just a few thousand years ago.
Kenneth – going to bug you for some info, if you don’t mind. I read somewhere that most of the glaciers in CA’s Sierra Mountains had disappeared completely by the end of the MWP. While they certainly are receding once again, we’ve not yet reached the minimum of that cycle of melt as of yet. Are you aware of any specific analysis here? Would love to have a good summary available the next time my paper, LAT’s, writes one their shrill ‘this has never occurred before,’ fake news articles. Thanks much.
Here’s one hint:
Glaciers of the Sierra Nevada
The Sierra Nevada extend over 400 miles forming a mountainous spine along eastern California. The beautiful alpine landscapes of the High Sierra owe much of their existence to the work of glaciers that have sculpted the bedrock through time. Within the southern and central regions of the Sierra Nevada, small glaciers are still at work, slowly eroding the high peaks and ridges, and depositing rock material below. The Sierra Nevada glacier population consists of approximately 498 ice features, including perennial ice patches and mountain glaciers (Raub et al., 1980). These features are small in size ranging from small ice patches with areas of less than 0.1 km2, to Palisade Glacier, the largest in the Sierra Nevada with an area of 1.58 km2 (Raub et al. 1980). These glaciers are remnants from a cool period in the climate referred to as the Little Ice Age (Matthes, 1940; Porter, 1981). Climatic cooling began around 1350 AD, during which time glaciers began to form and advance. This cool period persisted roughly through 1850 AD, at which time Sierra Nevada glaciers are thought to have reached their maximum extent for the Little Ice Age. Since that time, mountain glaciers throughout the world have showed signs of overall recession during the past century.
Please check back to this comment section a day or two from now. I should have plenty of paleoclimate data I can give you on the SN. Busy at the moment.
Hey – thanks much. I’ll be back.
Here’s a taste of what’s available about the Sierra Nevada, or SW North America. There is so much evidence that I am inspired to do a write up on the region (and how, miraculously, all the AGW-drought talk has ceased) for my next article. Look for it Thursday on the homepage of NoTricksZone. It’ll have plenty of graphs and links to papers for you to use with the LA Times.
Millar et al., 2006
“The paleoclimate modeled for Whitewing [Sierra Nevada, CA] during the Medieval period was significantly warmer and slightly drier than present (Table 4). Medieval mean annual minimum temperature was warmer than current by 3.2°C, with large differences in winter (+3.5°C, January) and summer (+4.0°C, July). Mean annual maximum temperature was also greater in the Medieval period (+2.3°C), with greater differences in winter (+3.2°C, January) than summer (+2.6°C, July). Annual precipitation was less by 24 mm.”
“Long-term trends in the temperature reconstruction are indicative of a 125-year periodicity that may be linked to solar activity as reflected in radiocarbon and auroral records. The results indicate that both the warm intervals during the Medieval Warm Epoch (-A.D. 800 to 1200) and the cold intervals during the Little Ice Age (-A.D. 1200 to 1900) are closely associated with the 125-year [solar activity] period.”
Whitehouse et al., 2010
“Paleoclimatic and model data indicate increased temperatures in western North America [∼AD 900–1300] of approximately 1 °C over the long-term mean. This was a period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests drought in the mid-12th century far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of subsequent droughts.”
Prein et al., 2016
Summary and Conclusion: “Projected changes of a poleward extension of the subtropical dry zones simulated by climate models and the corresponding decrease of precipitation in the U.S. Southwest have not been found in observations to date because of the large natural climate variability.”
“The causes of the California drought during November to April winters of 2011/12 to 2013/14 are analyzed using observations and ensemble simulations with seven atmosphere models forced by observed SSTs. … [T]he precipitation deficit during the drought was dominated by natural variability, a conclusion framed by discussion of differences between observed and modeled tropical SST trends.”
An analysis of the October 2013–September 2014 precipitation in the western United States and in particular over the California–Nevada region suggests this anomalously dry season, while extreme, is not unprecedented in comparison with the approximately 120-yr-long instrumental record of water year (WY; October–September) totals and in comparison with a 407-yr WY precipitation reconstruction dating back to 1571. Over this longer period, nine other years are known or estimated to have been nearly as dry or drier than WY 2014. The 3-yr deficit for WYs 2012–14, which in California exceeded the annual mean precipitation, is more extreme but also not unprecedented, occurring three other times over the past approximate 440 years in the reconstruction.
Wow Richard. Will look through this later. Looking forward to your upcoming effort.
While I was poking around out there, I ran into this. Would seem to be a wealth of reference in regards to glaciers the world over:
Supplement to Solomina et al 2016 Quaternary Science Reviews
[…] Fonte: notrickszone […]