Friday, September 10, 2010

Reality denier: After Arctic sea ice extent grows by over 7,000 Manhattans in three years, alarmist Mark Serreze claims "It's continuing down in a death spiral"

Another big-ice Arctic thaw, say experts
"There are claims coming from some communities that the Arctic sea ice is recovering, is getting thicker again," Mark Serreze, director of the Colorado-based centre, told Postmedia News on Wednesday.

"That's simply not the case. It's continuing down in a death spiral."
...Serreze said the overall pattern is unmistakable: "The decline in the extent of ice — the square kilometres — is being attended by a decrease in the volume of ice."
[Sept 7, 2010]: Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Average ice extent for August was 5.98 million square kilometers (2.31 million square miles), 1.69 million square kilometers (653,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 620,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the average for August 2007...


Anonymous said...

And Serreze hangs out with Elvis and JFK when he's not wishful dreaming about the Arctic.

davidwwalters said...

Your statement:
"Average ice extent for August was 5.98 million square kilometers...below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 620,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) above the average for August 2007..."
While what you say is true, it is misleading. 2007 was the record minimum year since data has been collected.

"As of that date (Sept. 11,2010), the ice covered 4.73 million square kilometers of ocean, which means this year will be at the very least the third worst on record for minimum ice coverage (the worst was 2007), and only the third time on record the minimum has dipped below five million square kilometers. The most recent four years are also the worst four on record — “worst” because the less ice coverage there is in summer, the more solar heat the Arctic Ocean can absorb, making it harder to form new ice and more difficult to maintain the thickness of old sea ice."

But not only is the extent of the ice diminishing, its thickness is also on the wane. This means the total volume is declining.

Tony Sidaway said...

Tom, even without looking at the modeled sea ice volume (which one could reasonably question, but only just) it's abundantly clear that the 2010 sea ice anomaly is going to be one of the three biggest on record. If you class the current ice extent as a recovery, it can only be because you use the all time record low September minimum extent, for the year 2007, as your new baseline. What is your justification for this baseline adjustment? Why don't you stick to the 1979-2000 baseline as the scientists who measure sea ice extent do? By that measure, this year's minimum sea ice extent is still going to be well below two standard deviations below baseline. Where did all that multi-year ice go, Tom? Unless we regularly saw sea ice September minima within striking distance of that 21-year baseline, it would be foolish to talk of recoveries, would it not?

BenV said...

I see that people are still contributing the words of others so Tom. David says, "Your statement" and Tony says, "Tom".

Tom Nelson is only quoting from the links that he posts. These are not his words. Think of Tom's site as a news show or newspaper that reports on what others have said. A reporter will tell you what the President said. But it isn't the reporter that said it. Same with Tom Nelson. Go to the links, find out who the author is or who was quoted in the article and makes your responses directed toward them. Whether you agree with what Tom posted or not we should still thank him for searching out these links and providing them to others.

Louis Hooffstetter said...

Tell me where to get my eyes calibrated, because I can't quite make out Mark Serreze's "Death Spiral". However, I do see a cyclical pattern (well below the 1979-2000 baseline) that appears to vary naturally from year to year.

While the 2010 sea ice extent will be below the 1979-2000 sea ice baseline, it looks like it will make substantial gains this winter, and may exceed 2002 - 2003 levels by winter's end.

Tony Sidaway asks: "What is your justification for this baseline adjustment? Why don't you stick to the 1979-2000 baseline as the scientists who measure sea ice extent do?" That's an excellent question. But also consider two equally relevant questions: "What is the justification for the 1979-2000 baseline?" and "How does that baseline compare to the highest baseline one could possibly generate from modern data?" My hunch is that the are pretty much the same thing.

The main point of this post is to say that I think it's extremely unfortunate that alarmists like James Hansen and Mark Serreze are in positions where they can 'adjust' critical climate data before it's presented to the general public. The odor of malfeasance (real or imagined) contaminates the final products. The biggest problem is that their alarmism destroys their credibility. Even if they turn out to be correct, the backlash against their blatant alarmism and apparent shenanigans with data adjustments will prevent us from seeing the truth and acting on it in time.