Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Breaks All-Time Record For Ice Growth — ‘Increasing to 19.512 million sq km, and beating last year’s record high of 19.477’

Via: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-breaks-all-time-record/

By Paul Homewood

S_daily_extent

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

According to NSIDC, Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all time record high on 14th September, increasing to 19.512 million sq km, and beating last year’s record high of 19.477. Records started to be kept in 1979.

This year’s record is 941,000 sq km above the long term mean, and continues an upward trend in recent years.

Extent has declined slightly in the last two days, so it may have now reached its maximum for this year.

image

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/

 

 

IPCC

Let’s just recall what the IPCC are saying about Antarctic sea ice in the draft of the next report.

 

Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast  to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

 

Translation – They were not expecting this and don’t understand why it is happening.


Prof. Ross McKitrick: ‘Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph’

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

UN IPCC: We Predicted Less Antarctic Ice and We Have No Idea Why It Is Increasing

IPCC: We Predicted Less Antarctic Ice and We Have No Idea Why It Is Increasing

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/ipcc-we-predicted-less-antartic-ice-and-we-have-no-idea-why-it-is-increasing/

David Rose is getting a lot of hate for telling the truth about shoddy climate models.
But this quote from the leaked upcoming AR5 jumped out at me:
“‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
Read the full article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Sent by gReader Pro…

Global Warming Movement Faces End Times?! UK Daily Mail on New UN IPCC Report: ‘World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong’

graphic\

 

Excerpts:

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

It says the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless there is drastic action to curb greenhouse gases – with big rises in sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and  is in a state of flux’.

She said  it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human  influence caused more than half  the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ –  90 per cent certain – in 2007.

Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the …

‘Forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong’ – UN IPCC Report Leaked to UK Daily Mail: ‘IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability’

————————————————————
(http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=7cdf4e5062&e=f4e33fdd1e) .

** CCNet 15/09/13
————————————————————

** IPCC Report Leaked
————————————————————

** Scientists Admit They Got Warming Rate Wrong
————————————————————

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong. The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for Policy-makers showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’. She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’. As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening gap between predictions and reality’. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html)

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements and misrepresentations’ about the pause in global warming – and its climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says a new analysis by a leading independent researcher. Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world will warm by twice as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as Nasa’s climate centre in …

Study in journal Nature Climate Change: 114 out of 117 climate model predictions from 1990’s wildly overestimated global warming

Christy said he believes the models overestimate warming because of the way they handle clouds.

“Most models assume that clouds shrink when there is CO2 warming, and that lets in more sun, and that’s what heats up the planet – not so much the direct effect of CO2, but the ‘feedback effect’ of having fewer clouds. In the real world, though, the clouds aren’t shrinking,” he said.

The study also says that an overestimate of the power of CO2 as a greenhouse gas could be why the models over-predict, but that they do not know why the models are wrong at this point.

Christy said he is not optimistic about the models being fixed.

“The Earth system is just too complex to be represented in current climate models. I don’t think they’ll get it right for a long time.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/#ixzz2emI2comn