It’s refreshing to see NSIDC director Mark Serreze coming to grips with his role in stirring up Arctic ice scare stories (like the famous “death spiral”) in 2007:
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
With sea ice levels in the Arctic at record lows this month, a new report comparing scientists’ predictions calls for caution in over-interpreting a few weeks worth of data from the North Pole.
The Sea Ice Outlook, which will be released this week, brings together more than a dozen teams’ best guesses at how much sea ice will disappear by the end of the warm season in September. This year began with a surprise. More sea ice appeared than anticipated, nearing its mean level from 1979-2007. But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June. Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it, and they expect below average ice for the rest of the year.
But looking ahead, the ultimate amount of sea ice melt is hard to determine. Some trends, like the long-term warming of the Arctic and overall decreases in the thickness of sea ice, argue for very low levels of sea ice. But there are countervailing factors, too: The same weather pattern that led to higher-than-normal temperatures in the Arctic this year is also changing the circulation of sea ice, which could keep it in colder water and slow the melting.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
Oh Noes! There goes the ice floes!
Whither hence noone knows
Or if it melts and not re-grows.
Oh cube of ice in my gin so clear
Spare me the agony
Of crying in my beer
Oh! the fear! the fear!
starts off reasonable, ends up with the usual trash that creates sceptics.
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
Fascinating to read the article and then look at the two graphs of sea ice and arctic temperatures. It seems that in the first part of this year, when temperatures were well above average, sea ice was at higher levels than in 2005-2009. Then from the end of April/beginning of May, with temperatures at or below average, the area of sea ice shrank dramatically, the opposite of what one might have expected. Seems to suggest that temperature is not the main driver of the area of sea ice.
“sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected.”
Once more “sea ice free summers” is the cry, tell you what Mark, lets wait and see shall we?
Oh yes and another thing, no mention of the Antarctic, that doesn’t agree with the models, does it Mr. Serreze?
Mind you does any one really give a toss? The Artic Sea ice has fluctuated widely for millenia, as I said, let us wait and see.
I noticed these same “scientists” were dead silent with the record growth this winter of ice. I guess sensationalism every spring will help the cause.
Also adjusting the prediction of ice free.
I’ll add my two cents worth to Athelstan.
Does the Arctic (whatever the scientists mean by that word) being ice-free in the summer matter a great deal in the overall scheme of things? And where is the empirical evidence, or even an estimate of the likelihood, that the global situation is going to continue on its present course ad infinitum? It never has done in the past.
I’m waiting for this to play out in the arctic;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-their-plunge/
Will take a while, though.
OMG!
For a moment there, Mark Serreze started sounding like a real scientist: “We don’t know.”
Of course, he shouldn’t be blamed for the way the article’s writer than goes on with the obligatory warning of gloom and doom about the melting ice.
I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice? It’s ups and downs are extraordinarily noisy and I submit a poor way to track which way the climate is heading. Looking at the total heat content of the oceans with the Argo bouys gives a much more consistent number indicator of the earth’s temperature and where its headed in the future.
We’re All Dumbed.
The gnostics have their secret knowledge and its sources and use their acumen to “predict the futue”.
But, “I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'”
…-
This: “sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. ” dovetails with this:
“Human race ‘will be extinct within 100 years’, claims leading scientist
As the scientist who helped eradicate smallpox he certainly know a thing or two about extinction.
And now Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, has predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years.
He has claimed that the human race will be unable to survive a population explosion and ‘unbridled consumption.’
Fenner told The Australian newspaper that ‘homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years.’
‘A lot of other animals will, too,’ he added.
‘It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html
“Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it”
What about the previous 100,000 decades? Like during the Roman warm period or the Minoan warm period etc.
Thanks
JK
I don’t see many references to this report though…
http://www.canada.com/Scan+Arctic+dispels+melting+gloom+researcher+says/3175785/story.html
But then this is real observation from ‘close up and personal’ with very accurate technology towed by a very basic aircraft and not based on clever algorithms from extremely expensive satellites.
Perhaps the reason the ice extent is reducing is that it is being piled up into thicker ice?
So now WUWT is agreeing that a few weeks of ice data is nothing to get excited about? What happened to the ice recovery and how we would stay at “normal” levels?
WUWT and Serreze at least agree that we will have ice free summers by the end of the 21st century….Not sure what all the hub bub is about if everyone seems to agree…
As I understand it, new ice melts quickly, old ice melts slowly.
There have been reports that “old ice”, more than 3 meters thick, is prevalent this year.
The predictions are the summer melt will not equal 2007.
I wonder… If Billy Mays were still alive, do you think he might just be able to sell this stuff? You know, “Thats the power of Climate Change!” And if you order before checking the facts, we’ll double the offer!” You’ll get twice the melting for just $19.95!”
After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the death spiral, this admission is too little too late in my view. Where are the TV reporters?
No one has a clue whether the earth will warm or cool over the next decade, but it seems to me that the fix is in… the Kerry Lieberman tax and rape bill…. I mean ‘jobs’ bill is ready to be shoved down our throat next…
Washington is broken.
Sean says:
June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
Because it’s the ‘game changer’, the ice at the poles melt, the albedo of the earth changes, sea levels rise and we all drown in boiling water or something like that.
If the ice at the poles doesn’t melt, there will be no ‘catastrophic’.
I’ve been saying since mid-April that nothing impactful happens May 1-July 1 with arctic sea ice (re eventual extent minimum), so at least I can’t be accused of attempted revisionism after the fact.
Congratulations to Serreze for finding his “humble place” finally.
Sean says: June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
Fat free means No Fat, None.
Peanut free means No Peanuts, None.
Salt free means No Salt, None.
Sugar free then No Sugar, None.
Caffeine free means No Caffeine, None.
Ice free means No Ice, None.
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013. That is the only ‘prediction’ that I am aware of that occurs within the lifetime of any of the ‘predictors’. It is less than three years away.
The ‘prediction’ will likely be observed in the negative.
A Theory can not change its prediction unless the theory changes itself.
On October first 2013, they will have to toss the ‘Theory’ into the dust bin, or admit that it has All been speculation all along, and that they really have no clue about the climate and the affect that CO2 might have on the climate or that the climate might have on CO2.
Let the back-peddling begin, they have three years of publication and front page publicity to erase and less than three years to erase it. The prediction was made three years ago, a six year lead time, if they can not get a six year prediction correct, it says a lot about 100 year ‘projections’.
The clock is ticking.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”: Albert Einstein
To be a theory a conjecture must make at least one definite prediction. The prediction must be verifiable. The theory can not make two opposing predictions. If any one of the predictions is not realized by observation then the theory is discarded or at least returns to be conjecture or at best a hypothesis
That is why.
Having read the linked article now, it says the predictions from the experts for 2010 minimum to be released next week will range from between 1M km/2 to 5.7M km/2. Wheeeeeee. Talk about a graphic exhibition of how immature the understanding of what the important factors are in this area.
There are others-like Joe Bastardi who say that July will tell the tale now that it appears that Nina’s pushed Nino out of the stroller……
“…in the THREE DECADES they’ve been able to measure it”
…that says it all.
Are these people stupid?
Btw, if the experts do as well this year as last year, then reality will pretty much nail Steve Goddard’s prediction of 5.8M km/2. Because last year, the highest of the expert predictions was just below the eventual reality.
I could be reading this wrong but it looks like thier objective is to prove global warming rather than unbiased research.