‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3BvoRcDxn

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Indeed, and the way things are going, it looks like WUWT (and Wang) will be closer to the final September Average for Sea Ice than any of the other forecast players in the ARCUS Sea Ice prediction Network:

"I love it when a plan comes together"...with apologies to Col. John 'Hannibal' Smith.

There is more than a slight chance that you either

a) Did not read the full article or
b) Did not fully divine that which was said in the article....


eg...

"Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.

Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half."

Oh I think the fact that there's been a 40+% increase in the Arctic Ice Pack, when it was predicted as being 'ice-free' by now makes the article worth posting...

Like the 'Ship of Fools' story as well..

---

Finally, thickness of the ice is deemed important.

WOW!!

Well- we all know how the arrow of time works: can't take that little admission back can they now  :D

Phemanderac wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 8:03am:

"Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather. ‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said. However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Yep, 2012 was weather. And we don't know how much ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’, because it has never been quantified. It may have been larger or smaller.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 7:35pm:

‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3BvoRcDxn They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly. Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html Indeed, and the way things are going, it looks like WUWT (and Wang) will be closer to the final September Average for Sea Ice than any of the other forecast players in the ARCUS Sea Ice prediction Network:

Oh dear.  David Rose.  Really?!?!?


A slight recovery from a record low in 2012 means that the Arctic isn't melting?!?!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/08/Figure2-350x280.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2012/09/naam-ice-031.jpg
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/09/21/arctic-sea-ice-what-why-and-what-next/

Of course - this is the same "journalist" that came up with the "no global warming" for 15 years nonsense.  "No warming" - despite the fact that the arctic continues to melt, sea levels continue to rise, the oceans continue to warm, global glacial mass balance continues to decline, and all of the last 15 years have had a positive surface temperature anomaly compared to long term averages

Don't mind me ignoring all that contradiction in the article, because I am and rightfully do so. I don't go with goal post moving. That is agw pseudo science games.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Don't mind me ignoring all that contradiction in the article, because I am and rightfully do so. I don't go with goal post moving. That is agw pseudo science games.

Yes.  All those pesky facts confuse you, don't they.  Just stick with believing whatever David Rose tells you.  After all - he is a tabloid journalist.  He couldn't possibly wrong.

...or could he?:

David Rose caught misrepresenting another scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/30/rosegate-david-rose-caught-mis/


Error-riddled articles and false statements destroy Daily Mail’s credibility
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/15/205415/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 12:18pm:

Don't mind me ignoring all that contradiction in the article, because I am and rightfully do so. I don't go with goal post moving. That is agw pseudo science games.

go copper internet  8-) 8-)

No confusion here wabbit. Tis you who follows the false prophet agw and goes along with any and all response regardless of where you left the goal posts.

agw is nothing but an ideology of excuses, mistakes, fraud, everything bar the kitchen sink equals agw so don't bother trying to falsify it.

u call it science. I call it fraud on a massive scale.

Temperatures in the Arctic region
http://en.vedur.is/media/vedur/myndasafn/frodleikur/medium/sth_hiti_enska.png

Wow - Cycles?

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 1:37pm:

No confusion here wabbit. Tis you who follows the false prophet agw and goes along with any and all response regardless of where you left the goal posts. agw is nothing but an ideology of excuses, mistakes, fraud, everything bar the kitchen sink equals agw so don't bother trying to falsify it. u call it science. I call it fraud on a massive scale.

What do you call copper internet in the allegedly clever country that built China in the asian century AND THAT YOU VOTED FOR BECAUSE YOU EAT CHILDREN  :) :) :) :) :) :) ?

lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 2:47pm:

Temperatures in the Arctic region http://en.vedur.is/media/vedur/myndasafn/frodleikur/medium/sth_hiti_enska.png Wow - Cycles?

WOW- RATES OF CHANGE!

'Here we discuss the feasibility of reconstructing year-round gridded Arctic sea ice from 1900 to 1953 from historical information and a coupled climate model. We decompose sea ice variability into centennial (due to climate forcings), decadal (coupled processes in the ocean-sea ice system) and interannual time scales (atmospheric circulation). The three time scales are represented by a historical climatology from HadISST (centennial), a closest analogue approach using the coupled control run of the CCSM-3.0 model (decadal), and a statistical reconstruction based on high-pass filtered data (interannual variability), respectively. Results show that differences in the model climatology, the length of the control run, and inconsistent historical data strongly limit the quality of the product. '

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/955/2008/cpd-4-955-2008.html

And the Antarctic-

'Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the presence of the ozone hole. Both serve to magnify the differences in temperature and atmospheric pressure between Antarctica and the tropics, which speed up winds and cause them to swirl faster and more tightly around the continent, said Sharon Stammerjohn, a leading sea ice researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

But it's not quite as simple as more wind, more ice.

"It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average," Stammerjohn said. "There's so much regional variability." '

and

'It's even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. "Thirty years isn't really that long," Stammerjohn said.'

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-story.html#page=1

So we can't do a circumpolar average because there is too much regional variability. But we can do a global average.

30 years isn't that long, but 20 years is ample time to prove AGW.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 2:53pm:

WOW- RATES OF CHANGE!

yeah similar 1910-1940 to current. Who woudda thunk?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 12:17pm:

A slight recovery from a record low in 2012 means that the Arctic isn't melting?!?

What was Dr Hawkins said?
lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 11:15am:

Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

Wow, weather caused the 2012 change? Damn and I thought it was AGW. And it's within 2 std deviations.

lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 3:02pm:

And the Antarctic- 'Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the presence of the ozone hole. Both serve to magnify the differences in temperature and atmospheric pressure between Antarctica and the tropics, which speed up winds and cause them to swirl faster and more tightly around the continent, said Sharon Stammerjohn, a leading sea ice researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder. But it's not quite as simple as more wind, more ice. "It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average," Stammerjohn said. "There's so much regional variability." ' and 'It's even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. "Thirty years isn't really that long," Stammerjohn said.' http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-story.html#page=1 So we can't do a circumpolar average because there is too much regional variability. But we can do a global average. 30 years isn't that long, but 20 years is ample time to prove AGW.

Nothing is ever proven... gawd, that is why error values are given for dna in a court of law!

:o :o

It's called the uncertainty principle  :o :o  ::)

lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 3:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 2:53pm: WOW- RATES OF CHANGE! yeah similar 1910-1940 to current. Who woudda thunk?

WOULD YOU MIND SAYING THAT AGAIN PLEASE OH MR EINSTENIAC-WHO-VOTED-FOR-COPPER-INTERNET-FOR-THE-ALLEGEDLY-CLEVER-COUNTRY-WHO-BUILT-CHINA-IN-THE-ASIAN-CENTURY because he eats children ?????????????  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Nothing is ever proven... gawd, that is why error values are given for dna in a court of law! It's called the uncertainty principle

Except when it's AGW. What is the level of certainty now? Better than 95%? I know there's a small wriggle room there, but that's about as absolute as you can get (Guess?).

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 3:24pm:

WOULD YOU MIND SAYING THAT AGAIN PLEASE OH MR EINSTENIAC-WHO-VOTED-FOR-COPPER-INTERNET-FOR-THE-ALLEGEDLY-CLEVER-COUNTRY-WHO-BU ILT-CHINA-IN-THE-ASIAN-CENTURY because he eats children ?????????????  Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  Grin

Off your meds again, I see.

lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 3:26pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 1st, 2014 at 3:24pm: WOULD YOU MIND SAYING THAT AGAIN PLEASE OH MR EINSTENIAC-WHO-VOTED-FOR-COPPER-INTERNET-FOR-THE-ALLEGEDLY-CLEVER-COUNTRY-WHO-BU ILT-CHINA-IN-THE-ASIAN-CENTURY because he eats children ?????????????  Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  Grin Off your meds again, I see.

More like 'self-medicating' than off his meds..