North pole to melt this year?

Day 201 Race Report
Revised day 201 melt was 86,700 sq km, losing ground to 4 of the past 5 years, including 2007, with another day off the clock.

month day year ice diff
7 20 2002 8.514688 -0.067031
7 20 2003 8.529375 -0.092813
7 19 2004 8.748750 -0.122813
7 20 2005 7.990938 -0.111250
7 20 2006 7.800156 -0.074844
7 20 2007 7.271094 -0.092187
7 19 2008 8.156875 -0.097969 - prelim
7 19 2008 8.168125 -0.086719 - revised
 
from Steve McIntyre (as usual) at climateaudit.org

Day 202 Race Report
2008 simply can’t keep trading baskets with 2007 if it’s going to carch up. Lost a little ground in the early returns, so it will probably be a it more in the revised. Another sub=100,000 sq km day. 2008 is playing without any sense of urgency.

month day year ice diff
7 21 2002 8.435469 -0.079219
7 21 2003 8.423281 -0.106094
7 20 2004 8.697500 -0.051250
7 21 2005 7.856250 -0.134688
7 21 2006 7.745781 -0.054375
7 21 2007 7.167656 -0.103438
7 20 2008 8.077344 -0.090781
 
Some of the more frequent (and less informed) posters on this thread seem to think that climate change should be linear and simple. Unfortunately, nature doesn't work that way. Climate change will vary year to year, with some being cooler and some warmer than others. The following article -
The Link

predicts the next decade will have some cooling followed by rapid heating. That means we have 3650 days of MOP's post's of other people's data on climate.

texasflag.gif
 
GT- Glad to see you are still at it and glad to see that you continue to post actual data.

As for the article, it doesn't really seem to support either view of the situation. Way too many clarifiers.

It does interest me that (in my limited findings) not a single model released/used by the IPCC mentioned anything about a decades long cooling pattern. There did not even seem to be a hypothetical that this could happen.

In a nutshell what is so hard to fathom is how this latest article can be so sure that temperatures will start to go up again rapidly in 10 years, when less than 10 years ago not a single climate scientist predicted this cooling period.
 
They say we will have a few years of cooling before a rapid increase in tempretures simply to cover their *** for the next few years. Pathetic.

They don't have a clue whats going to happen.
 
GT, it is amusing how much faith you have in these reports. what possible reason do we have for trusting such a prediction? where was there ever any indication that we could take 20 years off of global warming before heating again? why should a reasonable person actually take such a prediction seriously?

by the way, how fast is it going to cool? how much? what if it eclipses the entire .8 Celsius of warming we have experienced in the past 100 years? should we care if it warms rapidly again? why?

at what point do you start to question such things?
 
GT- Fair enough. This is an interesting topic.

As to your analogy, I have no problem cutting out the BigMacs! However if my cardiologist told me in 1998 I had ten years to live based on the plaque in my arteries and then in 2008 said that the plaque has actually started to go down and she now thinks it will continue to go down for the next 10 years, I'd still cut out the BigMacs but I would sure as hell hold off on the triple bypass if she suggested that course.
 
GT...as usual you have done great violence to my position. i know that there will be variability. in fact, i have taken issue with some skeptics saying that the earth "stopped warming in 1998" and decided that this does not accurately represent the situation. while it is true that 1998 is the hottest year on record, the following 4 years still trended upwards from the years before 1998. 2002 is the year i use as when the temperatures leveled off and now have been going down the past 2 years (roughly, depending on which index you use). i do think that there is a point at which prophecies of doom and gloom are ridiculous. i am not saying we are necessarily there yet, but if it does continue to cool for 10 MORE years, i think we will be WAY over the line.

i do mention that the hottest year on record was 1998, because that is an interesting point to be sure. the farther we get from that year, the more silly claims to radical manmade global warming become. however, i have recently begun speaking of 2002 as the last year of warming because the graphs make it fairly clear that the warming trend continued upwards until then.

it does amuse me how much i am described as a nutjob and a whacko when it is yourself, steinbeck and a few others who continue to misrepresent me or, in the case of steinbeck, just have very little of substance beyond the skills of a high school rhetoric teacher to say to me.

in other news:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
anything's possible....but with each passing day 2008 catching 2007 is looking more unlikely....

Steve: Thanks. 2008 could easily catch 2005 and/or 2006, which make it #2. But it still looks like it will be a substantial step back towards the average despite the starting advantage of all the “new ice”. So it will be spun both ways as usual.

DAy 207:
month day year ice diff
7 26 2002 8.003594 -0.072031
7 26 2003 8.030000 -0.040156
7 25 2004 8.414219 -0.053594
7 26 2005 7.497344 -0.061719
7 26 2006 7.469844 -0.080000
7 26 2007 6.688594 -0.092656
7 25 2008 7.601250 -0.077969
 
i have missed several days (climate audit has not been as vigilant on the updates) but the bottom line is that while 2008 has made modest progress on 2007 in terms of melting....it is still 850,000 behind with less time now. looks incredibly unlikely that it will catch 2007 and seems to be comparable to 2005 and 2006:


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
oops....the preliminary was way off.....the updated figures are far less impressive in terms of actual melting. looks like the worst is behind us although we won't know for sure for a week or so....

revised results for day 209 are in, melt was even smaller than the prelim figure:

Day 209
date, extend, melt
07-28-2003, 7922969, -80156
07-27-2004, 8250469, -98906
07-28-2005, 7307031, -79063
07-28-2006, 7340000, -61250
07-28-2007, 6527969, -66875
07-27-2008, 7475938, -49062

10-day moving average dropping like a brick, but melt needs to stay this low for the baby ice to have a chance at beating 2006 come September. 2008 is now 950,000 square kilometers behind 2007 in terms of ice melt.
 
Day 210 (prelim from climate audit)
Missing extent data has been filled by linear interpolation
date extent(Gm2) difference EWMA difference
7/29/2002 7.696289 -0.081367 -0.086226
7/29/2003 7.843750 -0.079219 -0.074441
7/28/2004 8.132031 -0.118438 -0.067930
7/29/2005 7.212656 -0.094375 -0.082731
7/29/2006 7.267656 -0.072344 -0.062769
7/29/2007 6.479375 -0.048594 -0.088237
7/28/2008 7.385938 -0.090000 -0.082483

2008 made up a big chunk on 2006, a small chunk on 2007 and lost ground to 2005.
 
looking just about impossible for 2008 to come anywhere close to 2007 now in terms of ice melt. it will be interesting to see how it finishes out compared to other years:

from climateaudit

DAy 211
month day year ice diff
7 30 2002 7.614922 -0.08136717
7 30 2003 7.795469 -0.04828100
7 29 2004 8.070625 -0.06140600
7 30 2005 7.123750 -0.08890600
7 30 2006 7.198594 -0.06906200
7 30 2007 6.428125 -0.05125000
7 29 2008 7.316250 -0.07453100
 
I'm not inclined to side with either conclusion on anthropomorphic global warming (global warming does indeed happen), but I do find it funny every year there is a new natural disaster that gets dramatized and never lasts.

Just off the top of my head of past chicken little’s:

Global Cooling
Ozone Hole
Lyme Disease
Mad Cow
West Nile Virus
Bird Flu
SARS
Most Hurricanes on Record (following Rita - ended up being very low)

This year it looks like salmonella will be the boogie man.
 
I have to plead ignorance on the whole global warming issue, though it seems to me good stewardship would dictate we implement policies which conserve scarce, nonrenewable energy sources, avoid depleting the world's fisheries, and curb or even reverse the deforestation occuring in the world's rainforests, regardless of whether such policies would impact global warming.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes the fears materialize as in polio in the 1950s, sometimes the fears somewhat materialize as in the influenza outbreak of 1917/1918, and sometimes the fears don't materialize.
 
actually sawbonz asks a very timely question. how good are these models? this peer-reviewed paper (i believe, someone PLEASE check that claim out because i could be misunderstanding it).....says "no." if this is true, our climate models have faired VERY poorly.....even up tp 30 year predictions were lousy....according to this abstract.


paper claims climate models perform poorly to date

from the paper:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top