Month: January 2023

Fear Not for Arctic Ice New Year 2023

Impressive Arctic ice recovery continued in December as seen in the animation below:

The month of December 2022 shows Hudson Bay (lower right) starting with some western shore ice and ending ice covered, adding in that basin 1.25M km2. Just above Hudson, you can see the Gulf of St. Lawrence icing over, and Baffin Bay adding ice as well, now up to 49% of its annual maximum.

At the extreme left Okhotsk Sea also starts with little shore ice and grows from 53k km2 up to 393k km2, reaching down to Japan.  At the top Kara freezes over and Barents and Greenland Seas add ice to their margins. The graph below shows the December ice recovery.

Note the average year adds 2M km2 and 2022 was matching that until the last week or so.  Not surprising when the polar vortex pushed freezing Arctic air as far south as Texas and Florida, incursion of warm southern air into the Arctic inhibited further ice growth.  SII tracked MAISIE with somewhat lower extent toward the 

The table below shows year-end ice extents in the various Arctic basins compared to the 16-year averages and some recent years.

Region 2022365 Day 365 Average 2022-Ave. 2020365 2022-2020
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 12864130 13071346  -207216  12765491 98639 
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070966 1070354  612  1070689 277 
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 964526  1481  966006 0 
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087133  5  1087120 17 
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897840  5  897827 18 
 (5) Kara_Sea 864832 886899  -22067  879232 -14400 
 (6) Barents_Sea 270677 438702  -168025  371122 -100445 
 (7) Greenland_Sea 674210 582086  92124  592839 81371 
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 889961 994988  -105027  867509 22452 
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854843 853370  1473  854597 245 
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1254256 1237220  17036  1257919 -3663 
 (11) Central_Arctic 3222361 3204794  17567  3159881 62481 
 (12) Bering_Sea 373249 405344  -32095  249522 123727 
 (13) Baltic_Sea 22409 32724  -10315  7986 14423 
(14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 393473 388636  4837  479972 -86498 

This year’s ice extent is 207k km2 or 1.6% below average.  Only Baffin Bay and Barents Sea have sizeable deficits to average, while Greenland Sea shows a surplus.  Other Arctic basins are already maxed out or near the average for this date.

Comparing Arctic Ice at End of Years

At  the bottom is a discussion of statistics on year-end Arctic Sea Ice extents.  The values are averages of the last five days of each year.  End of December is a neutral point in the melting-freezing cycle, midway between September minimum and March maximum extents.

Background from Previous Post Updated to Year-End 2021

Some years ago reading a thread on global warming at WUWT, I was struck by one person’s comment: “I’m an actuary with limited knowledge of climate metrics, but it seems to me if you want to understand temperature changes, you should analyze the changes, not the temperatures.” That rang bells for me, and I applied that insight in a series of Temperature Trend Analysis studies of surface station temperature records. Those posts are available under this heading. Climate Compilation Part I Temperatures

This post seeks to understand Arctic Sea Ice fluctuations using a similar approach: Focusing on the rates of extent changes rather than the usual study of the ice extents themselves. Fortunately, Sea Ice Index (SII) from NOAA provides a suitable dataset for this project. As many know, SII relies on satellite passive microwave sensors to produce charts of Arctic Ice extents going back to 1979.  The current Version 3 has become more closely aligned with MASIE, the modern form of Naval ice charting in support of Arctic navigation. The SII User Guide is here.

There are statistical analyses available, and the one of interest (table below) is called Sea Ice Index Rates of Change (here). As indicated by the title, this spreadsheet consists not of monthly extents, but changes of extents from the previous month. Specifically, a monthly value is calculated by subtracting the average of the last five days of the previous month from this month’s average of final five days. So the value presents the amount of ice gained or lost during the present month.

These monthly rates of change have been compiled into a baseline for the period 1980 to 2010, which shows the fluctuations of Arctic ice extents over the course of a calendar year. Below is a graph of those averages of monthly changes during including this year. Those familiar with Arctic Ice studies will not be surprised at the sine wave form. December end is a relatively neutral point in the cycle, midway between the September Minimum and March Maximum.

The graph makes evident the six spring/summer months of melting and the six autumn/winter months of freezing.  Note that June-August produce the bulk of losses, while October-December show the bulk of gains. Also the peak and valley months of March and September show very little change in extent from beginning to end.

The table of monthly data reveals the variability of ice extents over the last 4 decades.

The values in January show changes from the end of the previous December, and by summing twelve consecutive months we can calculate an annual rate of change for the years 1979 to 2022.

As many know, there has been a decline of Arctic ice extent over these 40 years, averaging 70k km2 per year. But year over year, the changes shift constantly between gains and losses, ranging up to +/- 500k km2.

Moreover, it seems random as to which months are determinative for a given year. For example, much ado was printed about June and July 2021 melting faster than expected resulting in higher losses of ice extents. But then the final 3 months of 2021 more than made up for those summer losses

As it happens in this dataset, October has the highest rate of adding ice. The table below shows the variety of monthly rates in the record as anomalies from the 1980-2010 baseline. In this exhibit a red cell is a negative anomaly (less than baseline for that month) and blue is positive (higher than baseline).

Note that the  +/ –  rate anomalies are distributed all across the grid, sequences of different months in different years, with gains and losses offsetting one another.  For example in 2022 the outlier months were June and September where unusual amounts of ice were lost.  Despite above average gains Oct.–Dec., the year ended with a large negative anomaly.gained.  June 2021 lost more ice than the baseline, but about the same as 2017, and not as much as 2012. The gains in Oct.-Dec. 2021 were ~1M km2 above baseline, but were exceeded by the same months in 2019 and 2020.  The bottom line presents the average anomalies for each month over the period 1979-2021.  Note the rates of gains and losses mostly offset, and the average of all months in the bottom right cell is virtually zero.

A final observation: The graph below shows the Yearend Arctic Ice Extents for the last 32 years.

Year-end Arctic ice extents (last 5 days of December) show three distinct regimes: 1988-1998, 1998-2010, 2010-2022. The average year-end extent 1989-2010 is 13.4M km2. In the last decade, 2011 was 13.0M km2, and six years later, 2017 was 12.3M km2. 2021 rose back to 13.06  2022 slipped back to 12.6M. So for all the the fluctuations, the net is zero, or a slight gain from 2010. Talk of an Arctic ice death spiral is fanciful.

These data show a noisy, highly variable natural phenomenon. Clearly, unpredictable factors are in play, principally water structure and circulation, atmospheric circulation regimes, and also incursions and storms. And in the longer view, today’s extents are not unusual.

 

 

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring Arctic ice extents.

 

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/b6tDhTY

January 2, 2023 at 11:07AM

Scientist: ‘There Is No Climate Crisis’ And ‘No Particular Correlation Between CO2 And Temperature’

The modern notion that human CO2 emissions are equivalent to a “deadly poison” may one day be viewed as “the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world.” 

In a new paper published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Manheimer (2022) summarizes some of the evidence for the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate as he rips apart the claim that humans are driving a changing climate.

About 4000 years ago the limit of Northern Hemisphere tree growth extended 322 km (200 miles) farther north than it does today, as it was much warmer back then.

During Medieval times the Vikings were able to grow barley for centuries. Today Greenland is too cold to grow this crop.

The Romans grew wine grapes in northern Britain, indicating the climate was much warmer than today about 2000 years ago. Wine vineyards cannot flourish at these latitudes today (unless the new “hybrid” grapes, bred to survive in colder climates, are used).
 
Observing paleo temperature and CO2 concentration charts for the last hundreds of millions of years, it can be affirmed there is “no particular correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

Image Source: Manheimer, 2022

via NoTricksZone

https://ift.tt/t4xvF2g

January 2, 2023 at 10:10AM

The Rise and Fall of Peer Review

Adam Mastroianni has written a marvelous article at his substack, Experimental History, evaluating the history, the function and the misfunction of the peer review process.

For the last 60 years or so, science has been running an experiment on itself. The experimental design wasn’t great; there was no randomization and no control group. Nobody was in charge, exactly, and nobody was really taking consistent measurements. And yet it was the most massive experiment ever run, and it included every scientist on Earth.

Most of those folks didn’t even realize they were in an experiment. Many of them, including me, weren’t born when the experiment started. If we had noticed what was going on, maybe we would have demanded a basic level of scientific rigor. Maybe nobody objected because the hypothesis seemed so obviously true: science will be better off if we have someone check every paper and reject the ones that don’t pass muster. They called it “peer review.”

This was a massive change. From antiquity to modernity, scientists wrote letters and circulated monographs, and the main barriers stopping them from communicating their findings were the cost of paper, postage, or a printing press, or on rare occasions, the cost of a visit from the Catholic Church. Scientific journals appeared in the 1600s, but they operated more like magazines or newsletters, and their processes of picking articles ranged from “we print whatever we get” to “the editor asks his friend what he thinks” to “the whole society votes.” Sometimes journals couldn’t get enough papers to publish, so editors had to go around begging their friends to submit manuscripts, or fill the space themselves. Scientific publishing remained a hodgepodge for centuries.

https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

It is an exceptional essay which helps to explain much of what is occurring in “science” and academia.

Here is a list of his section titles and some excerpts.

A WHOLE LOTTA MONEY FOR NOTHIN’

POSTMORTEM

If reviewers were doing their job, we’d hear lots of stories like “Professor Cornelius von Fraud was fired today after trying to submit a fake paper to a scientific journal.” But we never hear stories like that. 

PEER REVIEW, WE HARDLY TOOK YE SERIOUSLY

CAN WE FIX IT? NO WE CAN’T

Making peer review harsher would also exacerbate the worst problem of all: just knowing that your ideas won’t count for anything unless peer reviewers like them makes you worse at thinking. 

PEER REVIEW IS WORSE THAN NOTHING; OR, WHY IT AIN’T ENOUGH TO SNIFF THE BEEF

Peer review doesn’t work and there’s probably no way to fix it. But a little bit of vetting is better than none at all, right?

I say: no way. 

SCIENCE MUST BE FREE

HOORAY WE FAILED

Nobody was in charge of our peer review experiment, which means nobody has the responsibility of saying when it’s over. Seeing no one else, I guess I’ll do it: 

After this discussion he explains:

What should we do now? Well, last month I published a paper, by which I mean I uploaded a PDF to the internet. I wrote it in normal language so anyone could understand it. I held nothing back—I even admitted that I forgot why I ran one of the studies. I put jokes in it because nobody could tell me not to. I uploaded all the materials, data, and code where everybody could see them. I figured I’d look like a total dummy and nobody would pay any attention, but at least I was having fun and doing what I thought was right.

Then, before I even told anyone about the paper, thousands of people found it, commented on it, and retweeted it. 

https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

Total strangers emailed me thoughtful reviews. Tenured professors sent me ideas. NPR asked for an interview. The paper now has more views than the last peer-reviewed paper I published, which was in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And I have a hunch far more people read this new paper all the way to the end, because the final few paragraphs got a lot of comments in particular. So I dunno, I guess that seems like a good way of doing it?

https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The essay is fantastic and deserving of a read, perhaps even a subscription.

4.8
4
votes

Article Rating

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/tiqSGXI

January 2, 2023 at 08:48AM

“Fastest Warming In 5,000 Years”

7:31 AM · Jan 2, 2023 Somehow the 1990 IPCC report completely missed the unprecedented warming of the 20th century. ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/hbvMkSu

January 2, 2023 at 08:41AM