Using data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), Japanese skeptic blogger Kirye just tweeted how Arctic sea ice volume has surged to the 3rd highest level in 16 years.
Data source. Danish Meteorological Institute. Chart source: Kirye.
Today, there’s not a climate ambulance chaser to be found in the Arctic. Some ten years ago, a number of leading experts predicted the summertime Arctic would be ice free by now. Boy, did they goof!
Here’s a chart by Kirye showing a year-by-year plot:
Note that over the past decade the trend has been steady, even somewhat upward.
Once reason Arctic ice is expanding is likely in part due to the cold Atlantic, especially the North Atlantic.
AMM second lowest since 1948
Hurricane expert Philip Klotzbach at Twitter presents a chart showing the standardized AMM for the past July: it shows this year to be rather astonishing:
AMM Index 2nd lowest since 1948. Chart: Philip Klotzbach.
This July’s Atlantic Meridional Mode (AMM) index value was the 2nd lowest July value on record (since 1948), trailing only 1972. A negative AMM tends to be associated with colder tropical N Atlantic SSTs, higher sea level pressures and less active Atlantic
Record low relative tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures
Moreover, days ago Klotzbach also presented another chart depicting July, 2018, relative sea surface temperatures for the Tropical Atlantic (10°N – 25°N):
Chart: Philip Klotzbach.
As the chart shows, in July they reached a record low since measurements began in 1948. In fact there’s never been such a steep drop over an 8-year period.
The cold temperatures will serve to significantly dampen hurricane activity this year, Klotzbach points out.
Michael Mann hyperventilating, expert hints
Lately there’s also been quite a bit of (hysterical, climate-ambulance chasing) talk about the regional heat waves and “extreme” weather that have hit parts of the northern hemisphere. Obviously they’ve been ignoring the huge cold developments at places they used to like focusing on.
At PBS activist/alarmist scientist Michael Mann attributes it to manmade climate change. However, expert meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue differs, tweeting here that the factor behind it all hasn’t been behaving unusual at all:
Interesting, climate scientist Michael Mann attributes the last month of extreme weather to a “slow”, “more wild” and “undulating” jet stream. But that’s typical of “summer” in Northern Hemisphere regardless of climate change.
Typically this jet stream theory is related to Arctic changes e.g. sea ice depletion. Mixed answers from empirical & modeling studies. This direct causal link from climate change to the actual behavior of jet stream in a given month seems beyond our attribution capabilities.”
However, this thinking is consistent w/null hypothesis that climate change impacts [affects, causes, intensifies] all extreme weather events [always]. These jet stream “slow downs” or blocking events are actually poorly understood features of the climate system.”
53 responses to “Arctic Ice Volume Surges To 3rd Highest In 16 Years…AMM Lowest Since 1972…Maue Hits Mann”
I GUESS THERE MUST NOT BE MUCH GLOBAL WARMING IN THE TOP SECTION OF THE PLANET.
Where are the hurricanes that we were told would be more numerous and stronger?
Climate change indeed.
Aiming to get through the North West Passage this year
Looks right on track for a similar to 2012 year, despite skeptics “celebrating” ice volume.
Poor mindless seb doesn’t know the difference between volume and extent.
INGORANCE is seb’s middle name.
Oh dear … now it gets bizarre, Spikey. Brainfreeze from all that imagined cooling?
So you admit you don’t know the difference.
When the topic is VOLUME, why post a link to extent?
Just dumb !!
I see, Pierre wants to write about 10 years old failed predictions of other people, but not his own failed predictions … well, Mr. Cold climate „ambulance chaser“, just be careful who you call goofying around 🙂
You can tell that seb KNOWS he and the AGW scam are LOSING the battle against REALITY, with ever one of his posts.
These guys are “meant” to be climate scientists, seb
MASSIVE FAILURE on their behalf.. ALWAYS
MASSIVE FAILURE on your behalf too, seb, when it comes to supporting the very basis of the AGW scam.
Go away, troll.
You could remedy your LOSING situation ,seb.
two simple questions…
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Show us you have something worthwhile to say to support your FAILED agenda.
Or just sulk back into your troll-pit.
[…] Arctic sea ice volume has surged to the 3rd highest level in 16 years. […]
I hope they realise that the Canadian Coast Guard announced recently that those Climate Fools attempting the NW Passage (because according to the dogma it should be ice free by now) would have to pay for the costs of rescue.
There is good reason to believe the more undulating jet stream loops are related to the ~11 year solar cycle minimum conditions which we have again entered.
The last time we had a similar string of big jet stream blocking events was in 2010, when blocking caused the great Moscow heatwave. That was at the bottom of the last solar minimum.
Solar scientist Mike Lockwood, who is an IPCC lead author, linked such jet stream events to solar activity – in that particular case the very cold UK winter of that year.
We’re again seeing that pattern: very warm patches and very cool patches depending upon which side of the jet stream you are. The patches persist because of the slow progression of the Rossby waves.
Mike Lockwood was the same guy in 2007 that stood before the media and pronounced the sun has little to do with climate change.
There have been statements that fires are attributable to global warming.
We do know, however, that air temperature never gets hot enough to ignite a fire.
The real issues are two:
a. fuel buildup over many years of active fire suppression, and
b. people and/or their inadvertent actions produce the “spark”
In the USA, about 84% of wildfires involve a human component. For example, near us last week a truck caught fire and the driver pulled to the side of the road — into dry grass. The fire was between two nearby towns, so was controlled quickly. Some get away before firefighters arrive.
Are you serious?
Do you know air temperature would be needed to initiate combustion, seb?
You guys are serious! OMG!
Why would you even try to argue like that?
Sorry, seb, but you looked as if that’s what you were saying. You need to write simply rather than try to be “clever”. You don’t have the qualifications.
But I’ll keep it simple. Fires are not caused by atmospheric temperature. They are caused by sparks, sun shining through glass that has been carelessly left around, by lightning, by human activity — legal, illegal, or just plain careless.
If you have any evidence of spontaneous combustion in plants, we’d love to hear about them.
Did you know that the commonest time of year for wildfires is Spring? Followed by Autumn?
Seb, are YOU serious?
You have NO argument.
You have said NOTHING.
“Natural fires are generally started by lightning, with a very small percentage started by spontaneous combustion of dry fuel such as sawdust and leaves.”
Deeply packed moist leaves begin decaying, and the temperature generated by the rotting vegetation can sometimes reach ignition. If there are other combustibles nearby, and they catch fire, then it spreads.
Piles of fresh grass clippings can also be a fire risk. Piled up oily rags in work spaces can also do the trick. And then there’s the lensing effect of water in a jar.
In Jr. High our science teacher demonstrated how water in a test tube could focus sunlight. He focused it on one of the window shades, which almost immediately began to smoke. He quickly removed the lens before the shade burst into flames (but not before a burn mark was left). Whew! Close call, teach.
There used to be public service announcements on TV many years ago to educate people, in the hopes of minimizing the fire risk from yard debris/compost piles and oily rags, etc.
But air temps alone are never sufficient. Of course, if the [O2] of our atmosphere were higher, that might not be the case, not from the heat of the atmosphere but because Oxygen is so very reactive.
Poor seb. Now thinks that air temps can ignite a fire.
You really do live in a fantasy land, seb.
Ice melts with a change of 0.08ºC
Fires ignite at an air temp of 40ºC or so…
Physics and science just ARE NOT your thing, are they seb.
If there was ever any doubt that you are a troll, this reply should make it clear for everyone. Well, or you really can’t read and understand the basics 😉
So seb, you have ZERO counter to the two points made above.
You KNOW that air temperature doesn’t get hot enough to ignite anything.
So why the idiotic “are you serious? question?
Just trolling again??
Glaciers do not melt from a 0.08C change in temperature
Fire is not ignited by air temperatures of 40C or even 50C
Get over yourself, seb.
The real reason for the severity of the fires is the green agenda not allowing continual proper fire control.
“Well, or you really can’t read and understand the basics”
Your “basics” seem to be that 0.08ºC ocean warming over 55 years is enough to melt huge glaciers (but active volcanoes below that glacier have zero effect), and that air temperatures of 40ºC cause bush fire to ignite.
Seems that your “basics” should be subjected to a massive revision/education…. away from the kindy level they are currently at.
See Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451
John, you are arguing against global warming being responsible for wild fires with the required temperature to ignite stuff. That is why I’m asking if you are serious.
That’s almost at the same level as arguing against the greenhouse effect by stating that Earth is not actually a glass house with some plants growing in it.
Interestingly, your side claims that a 1 degree Celsius air temperature increase causes 600 percent more burned area. So while it’s not claimed to actually ignite a fire, it’s claimed that air temperature increases of just 1 degree cause more burns and more areas burned.
“For much of the U.S. West, projections show that an average annual 1 degree Celsius temperature increase would increase the median burned area per year as much as 600 percent in some types of forests.”
There’s one crucial detail overlooked in your ‘calculations’, namely the fact that -to name an example- when I was born there were ~300 billion (yes, 9 zeros) more trees than there are now. And I’m only age 52. And still, at today’s rate; for every new human born about 100 trees disappear from earth to not be replenished or replanted elsewhere. Those are even low estimates, according to most who’ve done counts. Let’s take that 1 example. The lack of sufficient tree-cover alone, globally, makes up for at least 2 degrees Celsius warming at the land surface level for the past 50 years. The fact that we haven’t observed those 2 degrees is most likely influenced by added pollution (i.e. global dimming) and lowering solar output during that same time.
Tree cover is an enormous influence on surface T. Plus very sensitive to becoming feedback loops in changing climates; They can’t migrate at the required growth speed for survival, each migratory process is either coincidence, man-made or by evolutionary drivers. They go down faster when soil is dry, when storms are stronger, when extreme Ts make them less resistant to disease, older trees now die younger, so the CO2 intake is highly impacted by the lower leaf-count, and all are -obviously- feedbacks galore.
Are you certain you have included all that in your remarks about the rise in wildfires due to T rise? I don’t see it.
Just an increase of the area burned, not more burns.
What is your point? Are you trying to defend the weird argument that your skeptic buddies are making here?
While I thought it was self explanatory, I’ll repeat: Your side believes that a change in atmospheric temperature of 1 degree causes a 600% increase in the area burned during forest fires. Do you believe this claim is based upon observational evidence? Do you have any skepticism about its accuracy?
peak area burnt in the USA was the 1930s,40s by a LONG way.
Are you saying it was much warmer then than now, seb ?
“the weird argument”
What weird arguments are those seb?
That temperature doesn’t cause fire ignition?
That’s the only argument I can see being made.
Do you have any counter evidence?
You said…“with the required temperature to ignite stuff”
What atmospheric temperature makes bush fires ignite, seb?
Come on seb, stop avoiding questions directly related to your idiotic anti-science statements.
In the United States, 84% of wildfires are (in some way) related to the activities of people. People activities provide the ignition. Fires close to housing, towns, other structures are fought immediately and aggressively.
Fires that get started in uninhabited areas where there is a huge fuel load will often become mega-fires.
Firefighters try to protect structures, but otherwise mostly get out of the way.
Because of past forest management, big fires are in our future regardless of whether the temperature goes up or down.
“arguing against the greenhouse effect”
Do you have ANY measurements of atmospheric CO2 causing warming, seb?
How does one argue about something that doesn’t exist.
And no, the atmosphere is NOT anything like an actual greenhouse. That is the first BIG ERROR in the whole AGW scam.
Nothing blocks convection or conduction which are the main controls of the lower atmosphere, governed by the gravity/pressure/thermal gradient. H2O is the only molecule that modifies thatgradient, because of its differnet phases and latent energy.
The radiative greenhouse effect ie warming by the radiative effects of greenhouse gasses, has never been measured on this planet or any other planet.
If you think it has, then PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.
And of course, Kenneth, that hypothetical destruction from fire needs to be seen in a context of the real damage done by greenie policies.
And I don’t know how representative of the literature on it this is, but if it’s even close then the warmists need to reconsider their narrative.
Note that they advance PC speculations on the meaning of it all, but the fact remains that CO2 has increased, and fires and burned areas have decreased.
Kenneth, so you are trying to defend that weirdness. Great.
I’ll refer you to that Carbonbrief link too … it’s all double counted unreliable data. And you should never rule out the better tech that is available now to fight fires and detect them earlier.
You must be really slow. Your side’s argument against global warming is that the temperature is not high enough to ignite a fire. You don’t seem to recognize how weird of an argument that is and on top seem to think that I am arguing against that or something … who knows why.
That is not the point. The point is that you try to argue with temperatures not being high enough to ignite a fire and because of this global warming can’t cause more and larger burned areas. If you can’t see the problem with this line of argument, well … I am guessing you need to be in a certain state of mind to become this kind of “skeptic”.
Not in the timespan where reliable data exists. I find it fascinating that you have no problem with unreliable data when it somehow supports your agenda, but when it doesn’t you claim to be a skeptic. Very flexible you are 😉
So when I ask for observational evidence to support your beliefs that CO2 rise causes more wildfires, you provide a link to carbonbrief.org? It’s no wonder why your reputation here is so severely compromised. You make claims that are unsupportable, and then when asked to support your claims anyway, you provide links to blogscience.
“Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.”
“Understanding the causes and consequences of wildfires in forests of the western United States requires integrated information about fire, climate changes, and human activity on multiple temporal scales. We use sedimentary charcoal accumulation rates to construct long-term variations in fire during the past 3,000 y in the American West and compare this record to independent fire-history data from historical records and fire scars.There has been a slight decline in burning over the past 3,000 y, with the lowest levels attained during the 20th century and during the Little Ice Age (LIA, ca. 1400–1700 CE [Common Era]). Prominent peaks in forest fires occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (ca. 950–1250 CE) and during the 1800s. Analysis of climate reconstructions beginning from 500 CE and population data show that temperature and drought predict changes in biomass burning up to the late 1800s CE. Since the late 1800s , human activities and the ecological effects of recent high fire activity caused a large, abrupt decline in burning similar to the LIA fire decline. Consequently, there is now a forest “fire deficit” in the western United States attributable to the combined effects of human activities, ecological, and climate changes. Large fires in the late 20th and 21st century fires have begun to address the fire deficit, but it is continuing to grow.”
“Although an increasing frequency of forest fires has been suggested as a consequence of global warming, there are no empirical data that have shown a climatically driven change in fire frequency since the warming that has followed the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. We present here evidence from fire and tree-ring chronologies that the post-‘Little Ice Age’ climate change has profoundly decreased the frequency of fires in the northwestern Québec boreal forest. A 300-year fire history (AD 1688-1988) from the Lake Duparquet area (48°28′ N, 79°17′ W) shows an important decrease, starting 100 years ago, in the number and the extent of fires. … The contradictory results between predicted and observed effects of warming on fire frequency call into question our present capability to generalize the effect of increasing CO2 levels on fire frequency.”
but the fact remains that CO2 has increased, and fires and burned areas have decreased.
I see. So if the data don’t support your beliefs, they’re unreliable. We better start in 1960. Or 1980. And we better ignore the data before then, as that way we can claim there’s been an increase, and because CO2 increased since 1960, we can say CO2 rise and wildfire rise correlate, and because they correlate, CO2 must have caused it. After all, that’s how “climate science” works.
We don’t find your beliefs supportable, SebastianH.
“Your side’s argument against global warming is that the temperature is not high enough to ignite a fire. “
So you are saying that the temperature IS high enough to ignite a fire.
And you say our arguments are weird. !! ????
WOW, Just WOW
Or are you agreeing that they are NOT high enough, and were just making your normal headless chook cackling sounds, as a baseless trolling attempt.
No seb, the only person here with UNRELIABLE anything … IS YOU !!
The only thing you can be relied on to produce is ZERO real evidence.
There is ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 affecting climate or fires or ocean temperatures.
You KNOW that.
It is why you continually adopt your headless chook routine.
If information comes from carbon briefs, you can be ALMOST CERTAIN that it has been twisted and warped and distorted and tortured to meet the AGW mantra.
Seb is too dumb and too brain-hosed to realise that fact.
Carbon Brief is a warmist propaganda website.
About as reliable as you might expect for serial liars.
Carbon Brief is an EU sponsored website with no regard for the truth, as is obvious not just from the gross errors they make, but even more so from those errors they do not correct.
In response to my “the fact remains that CO2 has increased, and fires and burned areas have decreased.” SebH blathers “Not in the timespan where reliable data exists.”
And, as usual, he provides nothing to back up his assertion. He can’t, because… HE JUST MAKES STUFF UP!
In addition to the reference I cited above which he did not refute (surprise, surprise), here’s another I just found here (July 2018).
“Analysis of charcoal records in sediments  and isotope-ratio records in ice cores  suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years.”
(NOTE – in their final paragraph they pay lip service to the fiction that “global warming” will cause more fires in the future, but the fact remains that the drastically increased atmospheric CO2 is so far ONLY correlated with a DECREASE in fires.
All SebH can do is cite the proven liars carbonbrief (see my links on them above). I will not waste any time on their deceit.
Bottom line, you are correct in all your criticism of him.
Kenneth, I’ve got news for you. You are blogscience and the bad kind of course … I don’t know if one could even call you guys “amateur scientists”.
I see … describing how unreliable data is, is the same as ignoring the data. And you call others “blogscience”. Fun times.
Serious question Yonason: who do you think you are or what WUWT is? The arbiter of truth? 😉
Yonason, it’s a waste of time refuting your nonsense and besides, you’ll do as you just did here … so what’s the point? In your mind, you’ll always win. You are the second pigeon next to spikey on that pigeon chess board.
Oh dear … can it get any worse?
Above you claimed that humans are causing global wildfire incidents to increase with their CO2 emissions. You were asked to support this claim/belief. You apparently think you did support this claim/belief by providing a link to the carbonbrief.org blog.
I characterized this response as using blogscience to support your beliefs/claims…and then I proceeded to provide links to peer-reviewed scientific papers published in real scientific journals that said global wildfires have been decreasing in recent decades relative to the last hundreds to thousands of years, meaning that the correlation is CO2 rises and wildfires decline in frequency — the exact opposite of your claim/belief.
A substantive response to the presentation of peer-reviewed scientific papers that do not support, but rather undermine, your claim/belief would be to provide scientific evidence that these scientists citing the decrease in wildfire frequency in recent decades are wrong. Instead, you chose to reply by writing in bold “You are blogscience”, which is the equivalent of responding to a substantive presentation of observational evidence with sophomoric name-calling.
You have offered nothing of substance in this comment thread. All you’ve done is provide a link to a blog with a well-documented history of smearing those who disagree with their zeitgeist.
Try again, SebastianH. Provide evidence that these scientists are wrong that there is “a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally”. Please refrain from providing links to your favorite blogs.
Earl and Simmonds, 2018
“We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally linked to an increase in net primary productivity observed in northern Africa, along with global agricultural expansion and intensification, which generally reduces fire activity.”
“it’s a waste of time refuting your nonsense “
You never have been able to anyway.. baseless anti-science opinions do not refute anything.
“Oh dear … can it get any worse?”
Yes, you could cite SkS..
.. or come up with yet another mindless irrelevant analogy.
When it comes to idiotic anti-science comments, you have already chewed a hole through the bottom of the barrel, but you just keep digging deeper and deeper.
Only you can imagine just how deep you can dig your rancid troll-hole.
You have already dug way deeper than even I though you could possibly go.
[…] P. Gosselin, August 8, 2018 in […]
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
“These jet stream “slow downs” or blocking events are actually poorly understood features of the climate system.”
Like hell they are. There are mountains of evidence on correlations now. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/1/014005/meta
The new Sentinel-5P data that is coming in only corroborates that research, by the way. I’d say we’ll see a 90% certainty for that understanding in the coming papers on that. Poorly understood my ass.
Which is why there were wavy jet streams around 1977, the COLDEST period since the LIA… right ????
And when a paper says, “as evidenced by continued loss of Arctic sea ice”, it shows that they have no interest in actual data. There has been zero trend in Arctic sea ice over the period that the Jet stream has been wavy.
Arctic temperatures show zero trend this century apart from the effect of the EL Nino, basically all gone.
Greenland SMB has been increasing the last two years BECAUSE Of the wavy jet stream.
Winter NH snow cover has been INCREASING, who wants snow in summer anyway. DOH !!!
This paper can be dismissed as either very poor scientific research or as baseless AGW propaganda.
Ignore Sebastian !!