From Ars Technica: Arctic melt bottoms out at new record low

This year’s melt (blue) has ended up well below 2007’s record (green).
NSIDC

Yesterday, the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced that the Arctic melt season was probably over. This year’s melt had already set records back in August, so the only real question was just how low it would go. Assuming there’s not a downward fluctuation during the next couple of weeks, the answer is 3.41 million square kilometers, or about half of the typical low point observed from 1980-2000. That’s about 750,000 square kilometers below the previous low (set in 2007), an area roughly equivalent to that occupied by Texas.

In fact, as the NSIDC notes, every year since 2007 has seen unusually strong summer melts: “The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years.” Although weather has undoubtably played a role in making this year’s melt unusually severe, the strong tendency toward record amounts of open water in the Arctic Ocean seems to lend credence to the ideas of Cornell professor Charles H. Greene, who has referred to recent trends as signs that we’ve entered what he called an “Arctic warm period.”

One of the surprising aspects of all of this is that it’s happening much faster than most climate models have predicted. Many of them had been indicating the ice would be relatively stable for most of the current century.

from Ars Technica

From Ars Technica: Berkeley Earth project is back to re-re-confirm Earth is warming

Enlarge / The gray areas are one and two standard deviations from the calculated temperature (black line). The other surface temperature records are colored red, green, and blue.
Berkeley Earth

Despite plenty of indications that the Earth has gotten warmer—like melting glaciers and ecosystems that are shifting toward the poles—there are a number of climate skeptics who simply don’t accept the temperature records produced by three different organizations (NASA, NOAA, and the CRU). Many of them pinned their hopes on physicist Richard Muller, who was also not convinced the professionals had gotten it right. But Muller did something about it, forming the Berkeley Earth project, and building a huge database of land temperature records.

Back in October, Muller dropped his findings in a rather unconventional location: an editorial in The Wall Street Journal. Despite the hype, the results were rather bland. He produced a temperature record that was nearly identical to that of the other organizations. But now, Muller is back for round two, and this time he has chosen the New York Times as an outlet for his climate musings.

As before, his team uses a different statistical method of reconstructing temperatures that works well with short records, taken at sites that were shut or moved. NASA, NOAA, and the CRU use methods that require long records, so they have to make adjustments to the data from sites that have shifted or gotten new equipment. This compensates for the fact that these changes will lead to discontinuities in the record. Since Berkeley Earth doesn’t need the same length, it can just skip adjustments entirely: any record with a discontinuity is just split there, and treated as two records. The team has now also pushed its analysis back to almost 1750, adding a century to the land temperature records produced elsewhere.

 

from Ars Technica