ANOTHER BOLD PREDICTION OF AN ICE-FREE ARCTIC
Guest post by Mark Johnson

Al Gore trumpets the latest conclusions of Climate Change Advocate David Barber. “Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting more quickly than anyone expected,” says University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System study released Friday. Barber is the lead investigator in the largest climate change study done in Canada. Barber said before the expedition, scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly.
It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100. “We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.” “We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said.
When you read the article, notice a few things:
1) The conclusions are ALL Based on CLIMATE MODELS.
2) Canada Government paid $156-million to Barber et al for the study.
3) The Inuit population are starting to chase the cash cow as well: “There’s also the need for economic development,” Hmmmmmm.
We have finally heard from the Great Climate Change Advocate Al Gore. On his obscure blog, Al says “Its worse than we thought.” Are you kidding me?
=====================
Obscure blog? Let’s look at the numbers for Al Gore -vs- WUWT and find out.

Yup.
In fact, WUWT does pretty well when you look at the entire family of web offering by Gore’s enterprises:

Keep those hits and links coming folks. Thanks – Anthony
NOTE: In the Alexa generated graphs above, the lower number the better for traffic rank. For example in the top graph, WUWT is around the top 10,000 trafficked sites on the web while alogore.com is in the top 100,000 trafficked sites on the web. It’s RANK not HITS.
Since some commenters are confused, here is the description from Alexa:
What is Traffic Rank?
The traffic rank is based on three months of aggregated historical traffic data from millions of Alexa Toolbar users and data obtained from other, diverse traffic data sources, and is a combined measure of page views and users (reach). As a first step, Alexa computes the reach and number of page views for all sites on the Web on a daily basis. The main Alexa traffic rank is based on a value derived from these two quantities averaged over time (so that the rank of a site reflects both the number of users who visit that site as well as the number of pages on the site viewed by those users). The three-month change is determined by comparing the site’s current rank with its rank from three months ago. For example, on July 1, the three-month change would show the difference between the rank based on traffic during the first quarter of the year and the rank based on traffic during the second quarter.
How Are Traffic Trend Graphs Calculated?
The Trend graph shows you the site’s daily traffic rank, charted over time. The daily traffic rank reflects the traffic to the site based on data for a single day. In contrast, the main traffic rank shown in the Alexa Toolbar and elsewhere in the service is calculated from three months of aggregate traffic data.
Daily traffic rankings will sometimes benefit sites with sporadically high traffic, while the three-month traffic ranking benefits sites with consistent traffic over time. Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site’s value, we’ve chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site’s overall popularity. We use the daily traffic rank in the Trend graphs because it allows you to see short-term fluctuations in traffic much more clearly.
It is possible for a site’s three-month traffic rank to be higher than any single daily rank shown in the Trend graph. On any given day there may be many sites that temporarily shoot up in the rankings. But if a site has consistent traffic performance, it may end up with the best ranking when the traffic data are aggregated into the three-month average. A good analogy is a four-day golf tournament: if a different player comes in first at each match, but you come in second at all four matches, you can end up winning the tournament.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he did not invent the paperless office.
$156 million? Imagine how many poor people in Africa could be fed, clothed and housed for $156 million…its an obscenity.
Al who? Is he a scientist?
I’m an idiot.
For having voted for an idiot.
What a jackass.
I usually don’t like it when people mock Al Gore.
But he f—–g deserves it after garbage like this.
Gore doesn’t even have a comment section…
Watts the point of visiting Al’s Journal?
I don’t see in the article where it mentions computer models, just an ice breaker. Is there another link somewhere?
I have not read the post yet but it would appear to the untrained eye that old Algore is using Phil Jones office. He’s trying to “hide the Ice”. His organizational skills are not great either!!
$156m for “[Global warming just over that next hill]”
Wow! I feel like a cheap date now – all this time here and still no check from the Oil Companies
Ummm… best have a look at the labeling of the Y axis in your graph. It shows Gore’s site kicking the stuffing out of WUWT. The original Alexa graph has it right.
REPLY: No, you have it backwards. In traffic ranks, the lower number the better, for example WUWT is shown in the top 10,000 website traffic rank on the web, compared to alogore.com in the 100,000 range. Also, note the Y axis is logarithmic, not linear -A
Would you verify that the scale is correct? Looks up side down.
Uhmm,…… is it me or are the numbers on the vertical axis inverted?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html
In case you wanted the Pravda version of the original story…
Are the numbers on the left of the graph reversed?
Regards
This is quite interesting too:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com+realclimate.org
If you look at data for the trailing six months, you can see the climategate spike.
Al Gore at work, a less complicated job… shovelling snow.
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/igloo.jpg
Just an Idea why don’t you whack a trendline on those graphs it may be hard for some people to follow without a line up or down
/sarc off
OIC…..nvm…
“It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.”
That’s only possible if ocean currents can transport enough heat into the Arctic to counter the >100 W/m^2 net radiative cooling that occurs when liquid ocean surface is exposed to a clear Arctic winter sky of perpetual darkness.
In other words, that’s not possible on this world.
I wrote to Prof. Barber to see if he had run his model to predict the Arctic Sea ice extent in September 2010, at minimum. I did not get a reply. Not that I was expecting one. After all, it is not a good idea to produce output from models that someone can actually check on to see if it correct.
Looks like Barber went to the Arctic in a ship. I don’t see where the prediction came from a computer model. Is there more info on this somewhere?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/arctic-ice-melt-alarms-scientists-83704042.html
Sorry Windriven, click the graph and check the source. The numbers reported above are a furfy, when you go to thelink it gives the percentage of hits, and WUWT is killing Big Al.
Oh, sorry. Greenies don’t check sources before spilling their guts, do they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251881/Ministers-lavished-9m-climate-change-stunts–public-opinion-left-cold-global-warming-propaganda.html
Ministers lavished £9m on climate change stunts… but public opinion is left cold by global warming ‘propaganda’
A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.
The projects paid for by the Government’s Climate Challenge Fund did next to nothing to change public opinion, a Whitehall report found.
A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £ 9million, it emerged yesterday.
The projects paid for by the Government’s Climate Challenge Fund did next to nothing to change public opinion, a Whitehall report found.
We’re winning!
I notice that too. According to the numbers listed on the left, his site is getting far more hits that WUWT. The lower the graph line, the higher the ranking.
REPLY: no, you have it backwards. See explanation I just added. – A
News?
ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar quit USCAP
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605543.html
Al oh Al ……… there
How I Bow to thee ……… there
You are a profit to me …….. there
Nobel Peace Prize for thee ….. there
I’m so happy we found Al Gore again!! I thought he may have disappeared in a snow drift somewhere! (yes warmists, weather is not climate…. this is just a poke at Al, although you might want to look here before you call me an idiot):
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Al is the gift that keeps giving, I reckon the warmist girls/guys may be starting to figure that out by now.
Considering the change in circumstances over the last few months, any rational AGW proponent will have come to the conclusion that Al’s propaganda is a weapon of mass destruction. His words constitute ‘friendly fire’.
Really, if you think about it….. it’s kind of pathetic and I almost feel sorry for him;)
NOT!!
(great success U S and A!!!)