My gut feel would be, all things being equal, that sea ice minimum next September would be no higher than 2009 and possibly slightly lower?

Any evidence from previous freezing seasons to shed light on that??

Probably nothing Chris.

Just imagine the massive piles of data coming from multiple runs of these models. These will be open to ex postfacto interpretation and selection, so there will always be somebody who can claim that something is “consistent” with what they had modelled.

Like the person who comes home from a day at the horse racing brags about how well they did on the 3:15.

Or the person who said that share prices would go down three years ago .. and just look what happened!

Or the quatrains of Nostradamus – we kinda get their full meaning after the event, as they are twisted to fit known past events.

If there was some massive, unprecedented ice buildup in the Arctic then sure, I could understand. But there has been nothing out of the ordinary, and yet we are supposed to believe that suddenly the models show icy summers in the arctic for the next several decades.

Logically, it would seem that something other than the input of raw data is affecting the output. In which case, projections (both current and previous) are suspect.

NASA, another alarmist about a melting North Pole presents it’s own “peddle back”
strategy:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40932&src=eorss-iotd

From your link…

Our planet’s highest monthly maximums of incoming sunlight (insolation) at the top of the atmosphere occur not in tropical latitudes, but in polar ones. The top-of-the-atmosphere insolation at the North Pole peaks in June at about 520 watts per square meter. By contrast, the insolation at the equator peaks in March at about 439 watts per square meter.

I see what they’re doing but even here they’re wrong. The maximum insolation is the SOUTH pole around the Winter solstice unless I’ve got it the wrong way round. (I was sure the Earth was closest to the Sun during NH Winter.)

DaveE.

True — if you happen to be making the transit by submarine.

…a serious weather event in the North Sea between 17 and 19 November.

Sounds like a horoscope. What kind of weather event? The North Sea is a large body of water and storms aren’t exactly rare in November. Isn’t this just the Barnum effect?

Maybe he’s right about the upcoming winter, but it’s pretty mild here at the moment (and there’s no sign of it getting colder soon). Perversely, I hope he’s right, because I like cold winters (though not too cold, thank you).

Did he actually reveal what his method was, or was it just some armwaving about solar activity and the moon?

Regarding models, I agree entirely. I had to correct my (geology/geochemistry) PhD thesis from saying ‘models show that…’ to ‘has been modelled as…’ after one of our Professors picked up this very issue – models cannot prove or show anything, because they are built on a series of assumptions of various degrees of correctness, and then generally modified to best fit with any available observational information.

I also found Anthony’s question very amusing —– sure put things into perspective.

Well-said.

Yeah and if your aunty had balls she would be your uncle !

I almost feel sorry for the opposition. It looks like the adults are starting to wake up.

Hard science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc): to encourage man.

not so hard science (biology, climatology, etc): to humble man

soft science(psychology, sociology, etc): to frustrate man

Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events…
Wrong. Modelling shows … models. Measurements and observations show things – modelling shows nothing.

…and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust.
Note to readers: in climanetics the word “robust” has a special meaning – it applies retrospectively to past observations as in “last years football scores were robust”.

Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns
This is blasphemy. Are they really saying that random natural events can be of similar size to … mankind ?

The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.
So – it’s all over the place – and you cannot pin it on greenhouse gases – but there is a human signal. What is a human signal ? A voice ? Morse code ? Some writing ? These people are supposed to be scientists and they are talking about “human signals”. What are they on about – jungle drums at the North Pole ?

The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.
Well it’s just a pity that they did not publish this trend and this variability beforehand – like normal predictions.

It gets better:
About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.
So their own model – or models – show the ice recovering. But about half the models show the opposite. Are they wrong ?

The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.
They have observed a recovery. Not a temporary recovery. The results for 2010 are not in – yet. Not until …next year. Too early to say if it’s temporary or not. This is junk.

They really saved the best until last – nobody knows if there is a tipping point. Are they hedging ?

This is cargo-cult stuff. It’s not science.