I am currently predicting an 80% + melt off of the Arctic Sea Ice with 1-in-4 to 1-in-8 chance of Ocean Current Reversal, enough to, well: KILL US ALL with 300 mph high winds. If there are unusually few Clouds, like for 2007’s great Melt. See: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report08/images/essays/ocean/o2.jpg

So I cheer & Root for Clouds !
I’d prefer to be Wrong rather than Dead.

The lively debates on WattsUpWithThat.com have found
an index for Barrow (Alaska)’s weather & nearby: see: http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/melt-out_small-1.png – - from the site: http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

My problem is the Sea Ice Volume Anomaly http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
has shown 2200 km3 more of an Anomaly = LESS Ice, than Last Years’ Piomas-derived minimum of 5800 km3 “left over”. Of course any Anomaly Trend, may Reverse at any time, but the Anomaly has worsened by 300 a week for 10 straight weeks.

But your “uah-lt” Satellite temps for the Arctic Ocean, continue about 2.5 degrees C above average – - as they have since December. Winds also broke the Nares Ice Dam early, etc.

I figure it FACTORS AS THE RATIO of EL NINO STRENGTH:

2007 was 1.1, 2010 is 1.8. If so, dividing 2010 by 2007 (4000 is 2007’s Loss over 2006) gives:

1.8/1.1 times 4000 = 6545 km3 Loss = “We all Die”

(OK, I give it 15%: see reasons below)

You see, there is not 6545 km3 to lose.
Only 5800.

A negative result means it melts off WAY EARLY
= Polar overheat
= Ocean currents start conveying Warmth SOUTH.
= They take Months to reverse at Ocean Currents’ speeds of 3 knots, meanwhile the WINDS have to take over Heat Transfer and, as the Oceans weigh 1900 times the Atmosphere, they have to go faster

— likely, the 300 mph winds AS OBSERVED IN THE FOSSIL/ICE CORE RECORD. NO buildings survive North of Venezuela. None.
99% dead America.

(and, as NASA’s Drew Shindell found 74% of Gradual Arctic Warming = 1.09oC –is from Cap & Trade, you can thank the Cap & Trade Lobby — which also means I am getting no help from either Right OR Left on this).

But the Clouds were trending low, like 2007, then snapped back towards Normal the last Week. NO SUN = GOOD. Maybe Clouds will counteract the other factors.

Or Not.

The other big coin flip: the present Ocean Current system may not be similar enough to the Ice Age End for the same result — beaches on Greenland Imply an Open Arctic in summer till after 6000 BP and there was no SuperWind every year. Just the First year. Some think maybe 8200 BP too. But there IS a Ocean current system that excludes it. As we now have a Closed Arctic Ocean = like the Ice Age, is that enough similarity ?

And would you bet 2 BILLION childrens’ LIVES on it ?

And of course we will see undersetimations of Melt from PIOMAS, like in 2007, if it melts the Central Arctic. But then we had ICESAT to show the True Loss. And since then “Icebridge” flew over the Central Arctic, which data plug right into the Piomas framework.

But Icebridge plane Flights stopped once Cryosat Launched.

… The Europeans of course, have decided to ignore the “QuickLook” feature on Cryosat which would give a timely & precise MEASURE of Ice Volume – - to preserve “Academic Priority of Publication” for a year or 2 or whenever they feel like it, or until they like the results, or …

— you know the Drill with the Europeans: Right ?

So since May there are no Laser thickness measurements to calibrate Piomas (except near shore stations & ships) … and it defaults to the the usual proxy: Microwave reflectance, which is already plotting the big Open Water patches as THICK Ice, as 90% ice reflects more SUN than a mix but 0% Ice = 100% OPEN water: Heats up from Sunlight without Ice to cool it, and thus ALSO puts more radiation up vertically, tricking the Satellite into showing it as THICK ice — which you see on sites not calibrated with shore station & ship-measured thickness. And until recently: Planes.

Dr. Roy, you & your people ALREADY do the only “breakout” of air Temps for the Arctic Ocean http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt>
. . .

. . . Can you post something similar for CLOUDS ?

Sincerely, Charles Wilson

One of the true believers in AGW with whom I’ve had a few arguments had the following comment on your article

“I have no idea how he managed to come to that conclusion. I just looked at the AMSR data (I am involved in one of the other instruments on the same satellite, so get access to the raw data) and it looks nothing like what he suggests.
In fact, in the AMSR-E record last week was the second warmest, only 2009 was higher. I also don’t see why he is using the poorly calibrated 2002 data.”

Could you please provide an answer?

This is off topic but I hope you forgive me.

The question arose based on an article I read about the tropospheric hot spot on skepticalscience.com

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

It points out that no long term trend is observable in the tropospheric hot spot and puts this down to “long-term biases caused by orbital decay and the cooling stratosphere”. And this problem had been overcome by the work of a series of groups who had “accounted for these biases” and had shown the expected warming trend (Titchner 2009, Sherwood 2008, Haimberger 2008). I was wondering whether you could pick apart those comments for me?

On a side note it also got me thinking about how the technology had changed. My understanding is that the satellite record is the product of a series of satellites. I imagine that with each subsequent satellite lessons are learned and technology is improved so that the record has become more reliable over time. Is this in fact true? If you have the time to flesh out how things have changed or point me in the direction of further reading you’d be doing a great service to a curious mind.

Thanks

Global warmists will have to find another job, maybe carrying coal to the sun to mak eit hotter? Read here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html?full=true

“What the sun will do next is beyond our ability to predict. Most astronomers think that the solar cycle will proceed, but at significantly depressed levels of activity similar to those last seen in the 19th century. However, there is also evidence that the sun is inexorably losing its ability to produce sunspots (see “The sunspot forecast”). By 2015, they could be gone altogether, plunging us into a new Maunder minimum – and perhaps a new Little Ice Age.”

Makes sense to me, given the distribution of landmasses between NH and SH, that these gravitational changes influence the large oceanic flows etc.