Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2010

Arctic Sea Ice: It’s Back

Filed under: Environment,Obama — DRJ @ 2:07 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

As the Obama Administration sends out signals it will pursue landmark climate change legislation, the climate is acting like nothing has changed:

Arctic sea ice

“Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.”

— DRJ

39 Responses to “Arctic Sea Ice: It’s Back”

  1. and according to SCIENCE, sea ice is super-reflecty so global cooling is a more dangerouser possibility now…

    it’s very worrisome.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  2. Don’t worry. This is just weather, not climate. Al Gore Rulz!

    Seriously, the trouble with climate modelers, for the umpeenth time, is that their models are treated as if they are predictive. And they aren’t.

    If CO2 is the driver, then we should have “back predictability” with past CO2 levels.

    When confronted with this, climate modelers say that there are other factors that complicate matters.

    So why can’t other other factors mitigate their dire preditions?

    This is what happens when politics invades science.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  3. Looks like Global Cooling…. at least if I was half as stupid as the warming folks that is what I would say it looks like.

    That line keeps going up according to my time series analysis only using the last 3 months of data.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  4. I like how “we might touch the normal line” gets headlined as “it’s back.” Next you’ll take on some of those warmist conclusions huh?

    imdw (4fe3dc)

  5. If I read that graph correctly, the ice one good month two years in a row. Whoop-de-shit.

    roy (a1e331)

  6. With such a short history to judge from, who the hell is to say what is normal – except the warmists who wanted to make a political statement in support of their religion.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  7. Are any of you climate scientists? Really, questioning Obama is for losers.

    Today I updated my chart of daily high temperatures that I have been keeping since the beginning of the year. At the way these high temperatures have increased we will be seeing a high of 130 degrees around June 21 and 190 degrees by September 30. I figure we have about 10 months before we run out of energy to power our air conditioners and the rise of the oceans will force us to live on the top of the 30 highest mountains in CO, WY and CA.

    The top of Mt McKinley will be the new Bahamas but no intelligent journalist for the NY Times would want to live that close to Sarah Palin.

    MU789 (d20b17)

  8. Hey, imdw? Care to comment on statistics instead of politics? I’m particularly interested in your opinions on hiding or destroying data.

    Oh, that’s right. You just get your talking points from DK or DU.

    By the way? What is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere right now? 150 years ago? 1500 years ago? 15,000 years ago. Please correlate with sealevel changes.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  9. “With such a short history to judge from, who the hell is to say what is normal – except the warmists who wanted to make a political statement in support of their religion.”

    The graph line that we might intersect — the one that DRJ’s source calls “normal” — is labelled as the average from 1979-2000

    imdw (603c39)

  10. Please explain in more detail, imdw. Reference your work.

    And remember, YOU are the one who claims that the results are improper. Back it up with the statistics I am certain you have taken. Right?

    Also: get back to me with the CO2 concentration data versus sea level changes. Again, you are the one supporting the position that there is a horrible crisis.

    Fact is, you know nothing about this. You are just starry eyed about all things “D.”

    As usual.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  11. “The graph line that we might intersect — the one that DRJ’s source calls “normal” — is labelled as the average from 1979-2000″

    imdw – Exactly my point.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  12. And on the off chance that you are not completely blinded by your partisanship, go to this site:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

    You will learn some things.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  13. #8,

    I don’t know the years you ask about but over the last 350 million years the rate has varied from 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm and the current 380 ppm is near the bottom and well below the optimum for both plants and animals.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  14. There’s something about 1978 that I can’t recall. I think it may have an impact on the average to some degree. But back then, we were ridding ourselves of freon and telling the girls to use pump hairspray instead of aerosol so we wouldn’t have glaciers in Tennessee. And it was a scientific fact, too.

    My suggestion to fix global warming: fill all A/C units with freon, make all the ladies go back to 80s hair and use aerosol hairspray, go to Hawai’i and take chunks of lava home with you to make Pele angry.

    John Hitchcock (03bf8c)

  15. Hi Machinist:

    You might enjoy the link I posted. That is one of the topics covered.

    The whole AGW group is politically motivated right now. Models need to be predictive. This one isn’t. And they hate it when that is pointed out to them.

    It gets in the way of their politics.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  16. “imdw – Exactly my point.”

    I’m not so sure that the people who have monikered that line “normal” — scare quotes included — are “warmists”

    imdw (cf562d)

  17. Eric – I’ll bet that if you recalculated the average to be 1979-2009 and replotted the line, 2010 would be above average. SHAZZAM!!!!

    Aren’t statistics wonderful!

    daleyrocks (718861)


  18. “…I’m not so sure that the people who have monikered that line “normal” — scare quotes included — are “warmists”..”

    I’m not so sure imdw knows anything other than “D.”

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  19. “I’m not so sure that the people who have monikered that line “normal” — scare quotes included — are “warmists””

    imdw – Don’t know about that part. What I do know, you git, is that the warmists wanted to induse hysteria because we were below the “normal” and that the oceans would soon rise and gaia burn to a crisp shortly thereafter based on a 20 tear time series. STOOPID!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  20. A sad story…

    Famed global warming activist James Schneider and a journalist friend were both found frozen to death on Saturday, about 90 miles from South Pole Station, by the pilot of a ski plane practicing emergency evacuation procedures.

    “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing”, recounted the pilot, Jimmy Dolittle. “There were two snowmobiles with cargo sleds, a tent, and a bright orange rope that had been laid out on the ice, forming the words, ‘HELP-COLD‘”.

    His widow…

    “He kept talking about when they ‘get down to chili’, and I thought they were talking about the order in which they would consume their food supplies“, Mrs. Schneider recounted. “I had no idea they were talking about Chile, the country from which you usually fly or sail in order to reach Antarctica”.

    GeneralMalaise (c1b78b)

  21. “imdw – Don’t know about that part.”

    Just follow the link.

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  22. Follow the exit signs, IMDEEDOUBLEDOO. Make like a banana and split.

    GeneralMalaise (c1b78b)

  23. Just follow the link.

    Translation – I can’t defend my earlier point, so please look at the monkey over there!

    Dmac (21311c)

  24. A recent Japanese study of arctic sea ice blames a majority of the reduced amount of ice measured over recent years to wind current patterns, rather than any supposed “warming”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  25. “blames a majority of the reduced amount of ice measured over recent years to wind current patterns, rather than any supposed “warming”.”

    SPQR – That is the consensus apart from the warmists, since we don’t have a long enough dara series from which to calculate a “normal.”

    daleyrocks (718861)

  26. Well, wind is warmth, in a sense. We should be careful about this kind of thing. The Earth does warm and cool. They screwed up their timing, but eventually, it will be getting warm when solar activity picks up again.

    When that happens, a lot of people will buy their horseshit again. Even though it’s well proven the experts were liars, and their standards of ‘peer review’ and ‘use this data’ were deliberately slanted. They’ll just use a new unimpeachable authority after another. they’ll keep living like kings while demanding more tribute payment from the peasants. Most of them realize this is a scam.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  27. Everything happens in cycles, 80,000 most of the Eastern Seaboard was underwater, must have been those mammoth SUVs, it is sheer arrogance to pretend
    that we are such a driver in the climate

    ian cormac (349188)

  28. Dustin,

    I know that experts on both sides have said weather is not climate, which to me is another way of saying you can’t go by short-term trends. I accept that but as long as GW advocates point out deviations from normal, it’s worthwhile to point out when things are normal, too.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  29. I suspect discussing the weather will be around for a long time.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  30. Well said, DRJ. It was certainly helpful to me to read about the global cooling hysteria from before I was born, when I was writing an undergrad paper about global warming. Pointing out the normal (and how it contradicts over-exrapolated short term trends (or really, not trends at all), is critical.

    I hope the next time the cap melts, people realize what you’re pointing out. Of course, you’re not peer reviewed by Michael Mann or NASA, so it will be easy for the liars to ignore. God bless the internet.

    dustin (b54cdc)

  31. I’ve long deemed AGW to be a bunch of crap, due in part to the fact I dislike hot or even generally warm weather. That dislike led me a long time ago to observe the type of climatic conditions that generated heat. In so doing, I didn’t see any indication that carbon dioxide was to blame. Or should I say, nope, the AGW fanatics have yet to correlate the way that heat caused by what are known as ridges of high pressure are somehow triggered by, or at least intensified by, carbon dioxide.

    And I’ll long believe that the biggest bozos into AGW-derangement Syndrome are people who live in areas like Arizona. I’m looking at you, John McCain.

    Mark (411533)

  32. Ag80:

    I suspect discussing the weather will be around for a long time.

    I know you know this, Ag, but sometimes it seems like that’s all we Texans talk about.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  33. “sometimes it seems like that’s all we Texans talk about”

    DRJ – It sounds like you folks really know how to have a good time! Heh!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  34. It is pretty wild weather, daley.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  35. DRJ – You got me. A big night for me is polishing my light bulbs.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. “Translation – I can’t defend my earlier point, so please look at the monkey over there!”

    It’s by following the link that I figured out that the person calling this line “normal” was likely not a “warmist.” Is this really a conclusion that is in dispute? Just look at the dude’s blog!

    “I’ve long deemed AGW to be a bunch of crap, due in part to the fact I dislike hot or even generally warm weather”

    This is a wonderful expression of anti-AGW sentiment.

    imdw (842182)

  37. Amusing coming from someone like you. Because you clearly don’t support AGW based on your careful reading of the scientific literature.

    Eric Blair (fecec9)

  38. This is a wonderful expression of

    No, it isn’t. But it does serve as a reminder that you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills at all.

    To go right along with your total lack of skills at anything else.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3505 secs.