Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice - what to make of it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, since parts of Antarctica are icing up real good like with all this here global warming, somebody proposed relocating all the polar bears down thar to the South Pole. But that would be very bad for the penguins !

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, since parts of Antarctica are icing up real good like with all this here global warming, somebody proposed relocating all the polar bears down thar to the South Pole. But that would be very bad for the penguins !

I think the reason for increased ice at the south pole has been explained here a number of times. Now go play with the bears.

[Keepitsimple]

you've been advised many times over: a reduced rate of warming... is not cooling!

More blather. Never said the hiatus was cooling - only that the warming (Global) that has occurred since 1998 is not statistically significant.....and the accusation that 1998 is a "cherry-picked" date loses its luster with each passing year. I did however, say that USCRN (and presumably ClimDiv as well) - shows cooling in the US since the introduction of USCRN 10 years ago. Not a long enough period to make a big statement - but it's a trend that shows little sign of abating any time soon.

[waldo]

More blather. Never said the hiatus was cooling - only that the warming (Global) that has occurred since 1998 is not statistically significant.....and the accusation that 1998 is a "cherry-picked" date loses its luster with each passing year. I did however, say that USCRN (and presumably ClimDiv as well) - shows cooling in the US since the introduction of USCRN 10 years ago. Not a long enough period to make a big statement - but it's a trend that shows little sign of abating any time soon.

what hiatus? Didn't you read all the denialsphere hoopla over the latest NOAA adjustments? And here, let me give you another gentle reminder about cherry-picking... you're welcome:

again: to you, what does ignoring the GLOBAL in global warming do for you? What does your choosing to isolate on localized, regional, land only and a most smallish segment of the earth (the contiguous U.S. states that, again, represent only 1.5% of the earth) do for you? Simple, as much of a U.S. cheerleader as you are, the U.S. is not the world!!! What does your choosing to isolate on a most smallish 10 year period of time do for you? Just how desperate are you, hey Simple? Simple, only the fringe of the fringe deny global warming! The new denier meme: "No warming since 2005... but only in the U.S."

[bush_cheney2004]

Meanwhile, back in Antarctica, the ice continues to confound the high priests and their sacred climate change models:

Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

[waldo]

Meanwhile, back in Antarctica...

oh my, I trust no one reports your post to the board moderator... you haven't provided a linked reference for your quote or image. That typically gets people warning messages... and in my case a threat of suspension. But then again, its clear why you didn't provide a source isn't it! That's right, you selectively pulled a quote that fits your agenda, yet somehow, somehow... you managed to completely ignore those statements within the article that speak to why Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased, particularly over recent years. Imagine that, why so selective and self-serving, hey? Here, let me provide your missing source for you

of course, what you're missing (purposely) is the right perspective in terms of the yearly melt of that increasing Antarctic sea-ice extent (almost to its complete entirety), the ever increasing melting loss of Antarctic ice-sheet mass, and the scientific reasons why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased. Here let me help you out... you're welcome:

Antarctic sea ice makeup is principally single-year ice (ice which melts almost to its entirety each year). Alternatively, Arctic sea-ice has traditionally been made up of degrees of multi-year ice and new single-year ice formed through each years annual freezing cycle... of course, Arctic multi-year ice has continued to disappear in line with the degrees of melting encountered, particularly since the 70s. And, of course, that Arctic first-year ice formed is the first ice in the melting cycle to melt, never getting a chance to become multi-year ice. The following graphic showing the seasonal melting versus freezing cycles (per the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC))... and the effective annual melting of the Antarctic sea-ice, almost to its entirety:

These images using satellite-derived sea ice concentration data show average minimum and maximum sea ice during March and September for the Arctic and Antarctic from 1979 to 2000. Seasons are opposite between the Southern and Northern Hemispheres; the South reaches its summer minimum in February, while the North reaches its summer minimum in September. (March is shown for both hemispheres for consistency.) The black circles in the center of the Northern Hemisphere images are areas lacking data due to limitations in satellite coverage at the North Pole.

—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

in terms of Antarctic land ice-sheet melting, the following graphic per NASA Grace Satellite measurements: "The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion tons of ice per year since 2002"

scientific based reasons why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice:

2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice

.

Edited June 17, 2015 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

Thank you, Waldo, for providing the missing source.

[Keepitsimple]

what hiatus? Didn't you read all the denialsphere hoopla over the latest NOAA adjustments? And here, let me give you another gentle reminder about cherry-picking... you're welcome:

Waldo - you disappoint me. I've always considered you to be a climate zeolot - but one with some integrity. Your chart has nothing to do with Cherry Picking - and everything to do with being at best, disingenuous. The "pause" that you've shown is a linear average for 19 years - in the spirit of how trends are displayed - and thank you - it does accurately portray the hiatus. Your 17 year "rise" in Global temperatures simply picks the coldest point ever in a past year and draws a line to the current temperature. It means nothing - complete foolishness not worthy of even your blather.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you, Waldo, for providing the missing source.

The source was not missing...you just have to read it. It's on the graph too.

Edited June 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

More Antarctic ice....more excuses...for models that never saw it coming.

[waldo]

The source was not missing...you just have to read it. It's on the graph too.

no - you absolutely did not provide the source... the Guardian article that you quoted from and pulled the graphic from!

[waldo]

More Antarctic ice....more excuses...for models that never saw it coming.

do you know of any models that can predict, to a time-span over 3 years (in particular), localized area ozone depletion, cyclonic wind strength increase, and less mixing between warm and cold layers of the ocean surrounding Antarctica?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

The increasing sea ice for Antarctica was missed by most climate change models, but not all of them. The smart ones knew when to discount "anthropogenic forcing". But who wants a climate model that actually shows cooling ? Sorry alarmists, the satellite data are messing up the presumed melting sea ice narrative down under.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/399/2015/tc-9-399-2015.pdf

Edited June 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Waldo - you disappoint me. I've always considered you to be a climate zeolot - but one with some integrity. Your chart has nothing to do with Cherry Picking - and everything to do with being at best, disingenuous. The "pause" that you've shown is a linear average for 19 years - in the spirit of how trends are displayed - and thank you - it does accurately portray the hiatus. Your 17 year "rise" in Global temperatures simply picks the coldest point ever in a past year and draws a line to the current temperature. It means nothing - complete foolishness not worthy of even your blather.

oh Simple! I really have touched a nerve of yours, hey! I appreciate you've exhibited your "eyeballing prowess" many times in the past... but uhhh.... that graphic provides no linear regression trending... drawing a straight line across the graph is not, as you say, "a linear average"! And yes, the graphic is but a visual presentation of what cherry-picking is all about... pick the cherry one way versus picking it another (opposite) way.

here Simple, have another for your "non-climate" related period... albeit, granted, you've shifted off your reeeediculous 10-year interval. The following graphic per the interactive tool available from the University of York website (re: Cowtan & Way)... is that a warming trend Simple... even to your cherry-picked 1998 start-date?

.

[Keepitsimple]

oh Simple! I really have touched a nerve of yours, hey! I appreciate you've exhibited your "eyeballing prowess" many times in the past... but uhhh.... that graphic provides no linear regression trending... drawing a straight line across the graph is not, as you say, "a linear average"! And yes, the graphic is but a visual presentation of what cherry-picking is all about... pick the cherry one way versus picking it another (opposite) way.

As I said, your example was foolish.....but it did serve to nicely confirm the hiatus.

[waldo]

The increasing sea ice for Antarctica was missed by most climate change models, but not all of them. The smart ones knew when to discount "anthropogenic forcing". But who wants a climate model that actually shows cooling ? Sorry alarmists, the satellite data are messing up the presumed melting sea ice narrative down under.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/399/2015/tc-9-399-2015.pdf

is your link intended to support your statements?

As I said, your example was foolish.....but it did serve to nicely confirm the hiatus.

no - the example showcases just what your penchant for cherry-picking accomplishes! Is this your way of acknowledging the graphic doesn't support your claims of it presenting a... what did you call it... "a linear average for 19 years"? But Simple, you've offered no comment on my other latest example that actually lined up with your cherry-pick. Wassup Simple?

in any case, of course, fake skeptics/deniers purposely obfuscate by focusing on short(er)-term non-climatic period fluctuations... nice try, Simple!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

.

This shows that there is no warming trend statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level since 1998.

[waldo]

This shows that there is no warming trend statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level since 1998.

what confidence does that confidence interval speak to?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

This shows that there is no warming trend statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level since 1998.

Perhaps I should clarify myself. A zero warming trend is within the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the linear regression results. However, probability that the warming trend since 1998 is zero or negative under the assumptions of the linear regression model is 4.5%.

what confidence does that confidence interval speak to?

95% confidence level is the most standard confidence level used to determine statistical significant across the vast majority of scientific fields (there are a few exceptions obviously such as particle physics).

[waldo]

However, probability that the warming trend since 1998 is zero or negative under the assumptions of the linear regression model is 4.5%.

.

95% confidence level is the most standard confidence level used to determine statistical significant across the vast majority of scientific fields (there are a few exceptions obviously such as particle physics).

of course... but not what I asked. The confidence within that confidence interval is that with which you can reject that the observed warming trend is just due to random variability.

[-1=e^ipi]

of course... but not what I asked. The confidence within that confidence interval is that with which you can reject that the observed warming trend is just due to random variability.

Performing a linear fit to the Cowtan and Way data just determines if there is a linear trend in temperatures over time. It say nothing about what is causing that trend.

[waldo]

Performing a linear fit to the Cowtan and Way data just determines if there is a linear trend in temperatures over time. It say nothing about what is causing that trend.

Captain Obvious... that's another discussion, hey!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

I just wanted to clarify whether or not the Cowtan and Way data supports your claim about if the temperature trends since 1998 are statistically significantly different from a pause or not.

I'm not sure why you were bringing 'random variability' into it 2 posts ago.

[waldo]

I just wanted to clarify whether or not the Cowtan and Way data supports your claim about if the temperature trends since 1998 are statistically significantly different from a pause or not.

I'm not sure why you were bringing 'random variability' into it 2 posts ago.

random variability... as in chance... not causal tie (as in natural variability). Hence why I asked you what the confidence in the confidence interval was speaking to... which you still didn't answer.

[-1=e^ipi]

random variability... as in chance... not causal tie (as in natural variability). Hence why I asked you what the confidence in the confidence interval was speaking to... which you still didn't answer.

I answered that. It was with respect to the linear regression model of temperature vs time, which you provided. Taking a single data set and performing a linear regression to see if there is a trend over time doesn't tell you what causes that trend (be it CO2, the Sun, El Nino or a giant pikachu).

And I'm note sure you understand what you are writing when you are referring to 'the confidence in the confidence interval'. You provided the 2 sigma confidence level, that is all I have used.

Edited June 17, 2015 by -1=e^ipi