“…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″

Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is right.  In four months, just 132 days from now at the end of summer on the Autumnal Equinox September 22nd 2012, the Arctic will be “nearly ice free” according to a prominent NASA scientist in a National Geographic article on December 12, 2007. That is also the same article in which the future NSIDC director made himself famous with this quote:

“The Arctic is screaming,”

…said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

Here’s the article as a screen cap, highlights mine:

Seth Borenstein of AP wrote the story.

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

Which I’ve webcited the printer friendly version (sans advertising) for posterity here:

http://www.webcitation.org/67cXXHEjg

Some people are taking this prediction very seriously, for example, watch this video:

Children just aren’t going to know what an Arctic Icecap is.

So, given the proximity of this upcoming event, I’ve added a countdown for it in the right sidebar. We watch and wait until 7:49AM Pacific Time 14:49 UTC on September 22nd, 2012.

In the meantime, here’s the current sea-ice situation on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page

198 thoughts on ““…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″

  1. Ooooh… you have to bring this back in September, or at least whenever the ice extent starts its winter increase.

    REPLY: Check the sidebar, it will do the countdown and keep this story linked – Anthony

  2. Undoubtedly the sole reason for arctic ice still being with us was the ascension to the throne of the fellow who made the oceans quit rising. . . . . . .

  3. Here’s a few more:

    Frightening’ projection for Arctic melt

    The Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in the summer as soon as 2010 or 2015 – something that hasn’t happened for more than a million years, according to a leading polar researcher.

    The frightening models we didn’t even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true,” Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect – the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts.

    According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

    “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier, who leads an international team of researchers in the Arctic looking for clues to climate change.

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683

    —————————————————————————————————————
    Too late to keep Arctic sea ice from vanishing?
    ‘It’s hard to see how the system may come back,’ expert says

    Arctic sea ice next summer may shrink below the record low last year and it’s hard to see how it won’t eventually melt away completely, according to a University of Washington climatologist.

    Have we passed the tipping point?” he asked. “It’s hard to see how the system may come back.”
    The prospect of a mostly ice-free Arctic could mean a boom in shipping through the Bering Strait, several speakers said, but is bad news for polar bears and other animals.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134090/#.T681KejpG5I

  4. “This week, after reviewing his own data…”

    Well, that’ll do it to you, every time.

  5. My apologies to all for doing this to you…

    I Love Living In the Arctic

    I love livin’ in the Arctic
    It’s really quite cathartic
    Movin’ to the Antarctic
    After the big melt.

    Brisk air makes me feel brand new
    Turns my toes and fingers blue
    I can’t feel my sinews
    Even when eating smelt.

    Some say the ice is really cold
    It helps to be both dumb and bold
    Disregard all you’ve been told
    To live the way out here.

    But out here it’s really nice
    Lots to drink and lots of ice
    Yes I’d love a lemon slice
    In my frozen beer.

    The Arctic’s great I like it lots
    Though I could use a few more Watts
    A couple skeptics could help me spot
    A shortcut to the Pole.

    Al lives in Montecito
    Lunches in Cupertino
    Arugula, steak and vino
    And livin’ on the dole.

    I’m looking for my buddy Al
    He told me that he was my pal
    Too bad he lost his favorite gal
    But he still got all the bling

    Gotta love the six month night
    Sleep under the northern lights
    Can’t feel your feet? It’s alright
    They’ll thaw in the Spring.

    I came out here to beat the heat
    Sleeping on the Arctic sheet
    Frozen breath is really neat
    Once you chip it off your face.

    I just heard a deathly squeal
    I hope that wasn’t a baby seal
    I just threw up my last meal
    At least I’m saving the human race.

    Now your stomach’s growling
    While the wind is howling
    Nearby something’s prowling
    It’s just a polar bear.

    But hey don’t get your feelings bent
    He only wants to share your tent
    You’ll wonder where your manhood went
    When you see his icy stare.

    Maybe he wants to share your Coke
    Believe that if you are a dope
    At this point you have no hope
    And this fact do not ignore.

    Sure, he’s tall, cuddly and cute
    His pretty girlfriend she’s a beaut
    His friends and cubs they’re all enroute
    Did I mention he’s a carnivore?

    I love livin’ in the Arctic
    It’s really quite cathartic
    Movin’ to the Antarctic
    After the big melt.

    Who needs all that warmth and food
    Head covered in a 5 pound hood
    Losing half your body mass is good
    My! I look so svelte.

    You’re living large in a tiny hut
    Both your eyes are frozen shut
    And now you’ve got a tiny gut
    By living off the land.

    Oh, that’s right it’s frozen ice
    Even though they say it’s nice
    The leads aren’t good for growing rice
    And all your food is canned.

    You say you like the Summer
    Man that is a bummer
    Out here you could drive a Hummer
    But the gas is frozen solid.

    Searing pain inside your bones
    Battery dead on the satellite phone
    This place has all the comforts of home
    Except it’s a lot more squalid.

    Your frozen foot is turning black
    There’s no point in turning back
    Way out here there’s just no lack
    Of fun things to do.

    Melt some snow to get a drink
    The GPS is on the blink
    That way’s North at least I think
    That’s the way to go.

    I am the pride of my Nation
    I’ll be a sensation
    Is this Arctic Amplification
    My hand won’t fit my glove.

    It’s just a little swollen
    No chance I’m going bowlin’
    Looks like some fingers were stolen
    I could use some love.

    If I don’t make it don’t feel bad
    I don’t want you feelin’ sad
    Think of the good times I’ve had
    And how my heart is filled with glee.

    Been livin’ in a freezer
    Just thirty but I look like a geezer
    Pull off my dead skin with a tweezer
    And bury me at sea.

    CO2’s a demon gas
    It comes out of a bovine’s
    Asinine ideas have no class
    Soon we’re all going to burn.

    The UN says it’s CO2
    They say it’s all because of you
    Just stop breathing that’ll do
    You have so much to learn.

    CO2 is less than one percent
    But Al knows how the money’s spent
    He was just here but now he went
    Flying off to Rio.

    Al just wants to save the world
    Wants his frozen margarita’s swirled
    Sleeps in a warm bed toes are curled
    Life is better below zero.

    Tell my love I’ll be a little late
    My leg they had to amputate
    I be just a torso at this rate
    But it’s all good and well.

    I’m doing this to save the earth
    Al looks like he’s giving birth
    I’m doing this for what it’s worth
    Before the earth turns into hell.

    Oh I love livin’ in the Arctic
    It’s really quite cathartic
    Movin’ to the Antarctic
    After the big melt.

    Some say here it’s really cold
    Don’t be a sissy just be bold
    Follow Al do what you’re told
    Pay your carbon tax and tighten your belt.

  6. Since Obama told us that the border fence was ” basicaly done”, (5%) then if only 5% of the ice has melted by then, this will be true. It all depends on the definition of “nearly.”

  7. Those self appointed experts and prophets of imminent doom who made such wild and unsubstantiated claims should be presented with them at every opportunity, never be allowed to forget their past made up lies.

  8. My God, the Internet has changed human history for sure. The folly of Mann’s predictions are laid bare for eternity. Oh the humanity.

  9. IIRC, in 2008 Al Gore also predicted in Berlin that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013.

  10. Predictions are like, well, you know. Let’s make it interesting: anytime one of these clowns like Serreze makes a prediction and it’s wrong, they lose their job. [snip] Their choice.

  11. “if the ice all melt… then the gas, will be released. from the ocean.
    and we’ll all be poisoned!

    by the gas….

    from the ocean….

    That’s a LOT of gas. Enough to kill everyone.”

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  12. < on the Autumnal Equinox September 21st 2012,

    Anthony, this year Autumnal Equinox will occur on September 22.

    REPLY: Had it right in the countdown, but typoed the text fixed thanks. – Anthony

  13. The hard edge of real data sems to be bain of the warmistas. Making scary predictions have many advantages. One is press coverage and the oher is government grants and another is tenure.
    What is sad is that the fame, money, and tenure remain even when the scientific predictions are shown to be nonsense and entirely self-serving.
    Thank goodness we are getting more and more data all the time. And, so long as it isn’t adjusted it will prove the alarmists false.

  14. Just some guy 10:31pm:
    That’s what I thought she said, so I listened again, and, although the accent’s difficult with all the background music, it does seem as though she thinks carbon-dioxide is poisonous. My God, we’ve got a lot of work to do!.

  15. If the Arctic sea ice reflects 80% of the suns heat, how much does the Antarctic cap and sea ice reflect?

  16. JC says:
    May 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm
    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts…

    …and Climate Science is the belief in the expertise of ignorants.

  17. Rick K says:
    May 12, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    My apologies to all for doing this to you…

    Rarely has an advance apology been sooo appropriate ..
    >:p

  18. jsg;
    Yep, gotta avoid that gas stuff! It’s so invisible and suffocating and all-blanketing and …

    Oog. Trying to get into some people’s minds and POV is really a bad move. Stupefying, even.

  19. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    May 12, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    No Mark, it’s you that’s screaming about the sky falling.

    Indeed – talk about projection. All the screaming is coming from Mark Serreze.
    Big nancy.

  20. The original statement is not “at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”, the statement is “at this rate (of decline), at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”. Now just a simple check of sea ice page reveals that the rate of decline did not stay, the decline slowed down drastically right during 2007 (but who could have seen it by then?) and while arctic ice is way under average of previous years, it’s more or less stable since 2007. So the rate of decline did not stay and using elementary logic, the statement “if A then B” is true either if both A and B are true, or if A is false – which is this case. The original statement is true because the assumption it is based on did not come to be true.

  21. As I keep saying: The globe can be getting warmer or colder, but the idea that the human contribution from burning carbon fuels has anything to do with it is not only IMHO the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever – but so says the IPCC itself: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/west-is-facing-new-severe-recession.html.
    The ongoing discussion pro and con is becoming akin to the scholastic argument as to how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. Which is, of course, exactly what is intended, to achieve worldwide disorientation away from the actual IPCC aims of their monetary and energy policies – and bringing a whole discipline, if not all, of science into disrepute in the process. Even the UK Royal Society has become Lysenkoist.
    That’s not to belittle the effort by thousands of scientists fighting for the truth in climate research, but I dismay over the practical effect of diverting all this brain power in a direction not at all relevant to the IPCC’s actual and declared political and financial intentions – or more importantly: away from the actual work that needs doing.
    All IMHO, of course. My musings for what they may be worth on my various blogsite entries, and at http://www.lmhdesign.co.uk/sustainability.php and the Planet page on that website.

  22. Would it be reasonable to force these people to buy beachfront condos on the Arctic Ocean and make them live there? What I mean to say is that “there is a very public record of who has been lying to the public and who hasn’t – and it’s time to start using this information to make the liars and shirkers pay.” (Steve Zwick, Forbes, 19 APR 2012)

    [Note site policy – please supply a valid email address to comment ~jove, mod]

  23. Please note, to falsify Dr. Mark Serreze’s prediction it is not enough to show in late September, 2012, that “the Arctic Ocean has in fact not become nearly ice-free”, but you will have to prove a vastly stronger proposition, which is “the Arctic Ocean could not have been nearly ice-free by now under any circumstances”. Tergiversation rulez.

  24. I won’t be holding my breath about Arctic sea ice disappearing in the next four months. I’ll be breathing in and out as always, discharging my fair share of carbon dioxide. In the meantime for the next couple of months starting in June, I’ll be visiting up in the Great Midwest, in order to (hopefully) beat the Texas heat.

  25. With new quantum computing hardware and polynomial-time algorithms I am sure that Climate Science will be able to maintain the Ice Free by 2013 prediction well in to the next century. Time is after all not a required component in the general theory of relativity and in Quantum Computing al possible outcomes occur.

    Climate Science in the Multi-Verse.
    “It all melted in a parallel dimension and we are guilty destroying a sister Earth in another universe, we must purchase carbon credits and entangle them in a quantum state and send them off to another universe”. Climate Scientists could even issue a news releases about how they have examined the P-Branes to verify their conclusions.

    (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_time#Polynomial_time)
    (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-brane)

  26. Kasuha:

    Any prediction is provided with a get-out-clause (ask Madam Zara in her fairground tent), but the accuracy of a prediction is provided by comparison of the prediction with subsequent outcome. And the reliability of a predictor is demonstrated by the accuracy of his/her/its predictions.

    However, your post at May 13, 2012 at 12:35 am says, in full;
    “The original statement is not “at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”, the statement is “at this rate (of decline), at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”. Now just a simple check of sea ice page reveals that the rate of decline did not stay, the decline slowed down drastically right during 2007 (but who could have seen it by then?) and while arctic ice is way under average of previous years, it’s more or less stable since 2007. So the rate of decline did not stay and using elementary logic, the statement “if A then B” is true either if both A and B are true, or if A is false – which is this case. The original statement is true because the assumption it is based on did not come to be true.”

    As KnR says (at May 13, 2012 at 12:51 am) your excuse was to be expected, but it is a classic fail. Consider the following issues.

    Was the statement by Serreze logically true? Perhaps (that is debatable).
    Was the statement by Serreze misleading? Yes.
    Was the statement by Serreze intended to induce a political reaction? Yes.

    Was the statement by Serreze objected to by any of his colleagues? No
    Has the statement by Serreze proved to be a correct prediction? NO! It was plain wrong.

    Should such predictions of Serreze and his colleagues be trusted in future? Try to work that out for yourself.

    Richard

  27. Kasuha:

    In retrospect, I think I need to explicitly state something that I did not include it in my post addressed to you because it is obvious.

    When Serreze said “at this rate (of decline)” he was stating the method he used to make his prediction (i.e. the method was extrapolation).

    The method proved to be wrong and that proves Serreze either
    (a) did not know what he was talking about
    or
    (b) was deliberately presenting a falsehood.

    Richard

  28. Berényi Péter says: May 13, 2012 at 1:13 am
    (A load of bull)
    Since the Arctic could have been Ice Free if the Earth had been broken in half and driven towards the Sun by a Moon sized asteroid (‘Any Circumstances’) your proposition is nonsense.

    If there is Ice then the prediction is wrong, simple, make a prediction, take a measurement from nature, if the prediction disagrees with nature then the idea that was behind the prediction is wrong, as is the prediction. Unlike you, nature does not use semantics or philosophy or sophistry.

  29. Its just like religious doomsday predictors, they calculate a “the end is nigh” date and when the day comes and nothing happens they just say they got the calculations wrong and then give you an alternare date for the event.

    With the exception of the admitting that an error was made of course.

  30. I wonder if they’ll backtrack like the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 incident? “Oh, I said 2120, not 2012, the journalist must have transposed the numbers.”

  31. “There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”
    After the due date had past in 2008 I sent him an email regarding this and his response was we were wrong.
    The only thing that will be lacking in Sept 2012 is already lacking now and it is simply his Organisations credibility.
    But hey some people will do anything to get noticed :-)
    There was a young man called serreze
    Who’s jumpers were knitted from Polar Bears
    Which were very nice and allowed him to skate on thin ice.
    Sorry for the doggerel :-(

  32. It’s late:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250

    February 27, 2001:
    “The Arctic ice cap is melting at a rate that could allow routine commercial shipping through the far north in a decade and open up new fisheries.

    It was in 1906, after centuries of attempts, that Roald Amundsen finally navigated the North-West Passage through the sea ice north of Canada. Even today, only specially strengthened ships can make the trip.”

    So how did Amundsen do it? Amazing that it had taken “centuries of attempts” though.

    “But in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer
    .
    Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.”

    Wadhams is the one who declared in 2000 that ice thickness had declined by 43% over 20 years, during the Arctic summer, with data from submarines, (also supported by Rothrock), later quoted by Al Gore.

    Holloway and Sou, (2001 ) found that
    “In the case of submarine-inferred rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, combined modelling and data argue that a more physically plausible inference is that the ice was not “lost” but only shifted within the Arctic. The pattern of submarine sampling happened to miss the shift. Observations to date, together with model physics, imply only that the loss of sea ice volume is not inconsistent with the 3% per decade loss of ice area, a modest rate itself not inconsistent with multi-decadal natural variability.”

    Wadhams is still the “go to” person for the BBC on all matters Arctic and of course he was scientific adviser to the Catlin expedition….

  33. There is a lot of talk about wiggle room in the words used in the prognostications. Not only does that make them worthless as predictions, but imagine if the Arctic were ice free this summer !!
    There would be no talk about wiggle room from the catastrophists then, it will become cast iron science based predictions that prove the models came down from mt. Sinai on tablets of stone

  34. If I was paid a very large grant I wood come up with the same crap as they are peddling too

  35. Yogi Berra quotes which apply:

    1. It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

    2. The future ain’t what it used to be.

    3. If you don’t know where your going, you might end up someplace else.

  36. so many things COULD happen..
    How likely it is ? so we can test the credibility of these scientists…

  37. Science is really going down hill. Do people like Serreze realize, or care, that they are lowering the standing of all scientists involved in the study of the climate, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc? Will Serreze at least publicly admit his scaremongering mistake, just as he quite publicly made an unqualified projection of gloom? I challenge him to do so.

  38. I saw a car yesterday driving around the freeway south of San Jose with the “go Veg. Be Green” bumper sticker on it. That got us talking about supper, and we settled on dinner at Harry’s Hofbrau. I had the corned beef. Its a long drive donw from Nevada.

  39. Good article. I would not, though, use phrasing like “the elders of science” as that plays into the hands of some environmentalists who like to pretend to the public they are synonymous with science for the sake of the giant appeal to authority which is the bedrock of the CAGW movement. Like the Peter Gleick affair highlighted, they like to pretend to the public that their opponents are anti-science, when rather we skeptics support science. Real science is objective, honest advancement of human knowledge, and, of course, Anthony Watts, we both know how much (or not!) that applies to the CAGW movement.*

    *(E.g. depicting http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/arctic-sea-ice-coverage-anomaly.jpg when the real history was rather http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif and as seen in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ ).

    There are many cases where the phrase “scientists say” in much media could be better replaced with “some environmentalists claim.” By now, some institutions have reached the point where the only individuals likely to try getting employment at such as a career are those who know they would have no qualms about maintaining the party line, and accordingly they have become dominated by environmentalist ideologues rather than real scientists.

    I was just noticing the preceding in another context, nominally much different but part of the same general anti-growth ideological movement. I was recently reading a claim of “some scientists now believe that a ‘peak phosphorus’ will occur in 30 years” where the writers were implying science concludes such, when rather it is some environmentalists playing to mathematically illiterate ignorant audiences. (Such is actually an absurdity: Beyond the 71 billion tons of phosphorus reserves already inventoried according to an USGS estimate for extraction at about exactly current market prices, already hundreds of times current 0.2 billion tons/year global consumption, there is a practically unlimited amount of intermediate ores between such and the roughly around 30 million billion tons of phosphorus in Earth’s 3 * 10^19 ton crust at an average concentration of ~ 0.1%, where, for perspective, typical vegetation is only 0.03% to 0.2% phosphorus).

    Science used to be synchronous –and still should be– with an unsaid vision of supporting real technological progress for advancement and expansion of the material prosperity of mankind, of promoting a positive future. Some major segments of the environmentalist movement, including those making CAGW claims (as well as many other anti-growth memes and falsehoods), are trying to make science synchronous in the public consciousness with a dystopian vision of the future. Only then would most people come to believe in their vision: one of encouraging and eventually enforcing “lower material consumption,” “lower energy consumption” (the long-winded phrases used to pretend not to say poverty), with the hardcore ideologues at heart against space colonization, etc.

  40. Can’t find who said this (Einstein?) but it’s apposite…
    ‘When the experts are united in a point of view the layman would do well to believe that the opposite point of view may be mistaken.’
    And it applies a fortiori when the experts have a political agenda.

  41. Can’t recall who said…
    ‘When the experts are united in a point of view the layman would do well to believe that the opposite point of view may be mistaken.’
    …but it’s apposite.
    A fortiori if the experts have a political agenda.

  42. A message from Antarctica…

    “Hey, what about me? I’ve been gaining sea ice above normal for soooo long, and nobody cares. Hellooo??? You know, it’s always the Arctic, Arctic, Arctic!! When am I gonna gets some props? Sheeesh…”

  43. HIs prediction was made in 2007. This is noteworthy since this was a very ‘thin’ year for ice and his prediction was made at a time when, in recent terms, Arctic sea ice was getting less and less. It would appear that he simply extrapolated that trend. Since then, and obviously not envisaged by Mark Serreze, there has been a recovery in sea ice extend.

    Such are the trials and tribulations of natural variation, and predicting the future is the provence of fools if one overlooks these natural variations.

  44. Borenstein (the gullible)— again !!

    “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me !! “

  45. Have I mentioned lately, that a PhD recall provision is desparately needed? I would now extend this to the need for an accreditation program like the P.Eng program for engineers, for any scientist being a recipient of (at a minimum) public grant funds for research, and for a removal of any employer as a grant administrator if any scientist in their employ loses their “P.Sc” by virtue of what effectively is academic fraud. While it’s important to maintain the realm of objectivity and freedom for science, it appears necessary, in the absence of actual objectivity and the presence of ethical failure, to begin the process to expunge those who cannot, or more egregiously, will not, embrace the necessary rigour that good science demands.

  46. Now, now. To be fair, he never really defined what “could be nearly ice-free” means. For example, a 95% cover could be “nearly” I suppose.

    /snark

  47. Well, he did say “could be” and “nearly” ice free. Of course he “could be” wrong. LOL

  48. Making “accurate” predictions certainly helps your career

    “Mark Serreze is the director of NSIDC. In 2009, he succeeded Dr. Roger Barry, who retired from the post in 2008 after 31 years of service. Serreze, a senior research scientist at NSIDC since 2005, is also a full professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder Geography Department, and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). He studies Arctic climate, and the causes and global implications of climate change in the Arctic. Serreze is well known for his research on the declining sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean.”

    http://nsidc.org/about/people.html

    If you assume your research is solely on “declining ice cover”, how open will you be to objectively evaluating what is happening in the Arctic. He now has control over of those obtaining and analyzing the data and reporting the data.

    We have to watch the Watchers.

  49. It seems obvious to me that all post-Rio climate conferences should be held on a cruise ship at the north pole. In years when it cannot get there due to ice, we skip it.

  50. richard verney says:

    May 13, 2012 at 4:30 am

    HIs prediction was made in 2007. This is noteworthy since this was a very ‘thin’ year for ice and his prediction was made at a time when, in recent terms, Arctic sea ice was getting less and less. It would appear that he simply extrapolated that trend. Since then, and obviously not envisaged by Mark Serreze, there has been a recovery in sea ice extend.

    Such are the trials and tribulations of natural variation, and predicting the future is the provence of fools if one overlooks these natural variations.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————-

    So what you are saying is that a Phd teaches you how to draw a straight line? Mostly a line up when it comes to temperature and mostly down when it comes to Arctic ice. Let me try…….If the rate of Government spending on CAGW mitigation continues at this rate we will be bankrupt. Sorry, bad example. sarc/

  51. May I recomment to people the following

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=CEC7AE99-1

    This gives detailed ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic. Last year the data started on 15th May. I think it might be worthwhile explaining why we only provide data for a short period of time; 6 months.

    One of the important jobs of the Canadian icebreakers is to escort cargo ships supplying heavy goods to ports in the Canadian Arcitc. The season, and our resources, are both limited, so it is essential that the work be done with maximum efficiency. The planning process for 2012 is just beginning, so Environment Canada deploys the resources needed to get the detailed ice data about now. This process culminates in a supply convey getting the furthest north we go; Eureka in early September. So we only collect the data for 6 monhs of the year. However, this does cover the iconic NorthWest Passage.

  52. There was a Physicist called Mann
    Whose manifest problems began
    When he said all the ice
    Would be gone in a trice
    And the whole thing turned out to be sham

    (I know it wasn’t actually Mann, but it scans)

    :-)

  53. It’s a shame that people in positions of power in science have so little integrity. People with the mind set of Mark Serreze are little different than a pandering politician who will say anything to get attention (votes). And when faced with the reality of their words backtrack and obfuscate.
    My internal discretion indicator detects bias in the data from NSIDC, always a trait of agenda driven, government funded “science”.

  54. @Kasuha
    >>The original statement is not “at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”, the statement is “at this rate (of decline), at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”.

    But you see, Kasuha, this is the entire problem in a nutshell. Every pronouncement of the alarmists comes with a caveat or is couched in the language of “If,” “then,” “could,” and “might.” And why is that? It is because all of these predictions are based upon computer models which in turn are based upon sets of assumptions, both of which are FAULTY. The predictions are then dutifully presented by the media as if they are fact, and many people accept them as such.

    This, sir, is why the whole facade of global warming is now crumbling before your eyes. It simply wasn’t based in reality.

  55. Kaboom says:
    May 13, 2012 at 5:31 am
    It seems obvious to me that all post-Rio climate conferences should be held on a cruise ship at the north pole. In years when it cannot get there due to ice, we skip it.

    Ohhhh, nonononono, the conferences are too vital to the health of Mama Gaia — when the ice prevents the ship from getting there, we drop them off on the edge and they can walk.

    Guided, of course, by Pen Hadow…

  56. Günther Kirschbaum, your speculations ignore a lot of well-supiported climate science, mainly that low sea ice affects weather patterns in the Arctic marginally and not elsewhere. There has been a tendency since the recent low solar minimum to blame weather patterns like the winter blocking and snowstorms on Arctic temperature anomalies. It is much more likely that the weather patterns created the temperature anomalies. For example this past winter a persistent high over Scandinavia caused warmth in the Barents Sea and some cold outbreaks in eastern Europe. It would be as silly to blame that on low sea ice as it would be to blame the record cold January in Alaska on low sea ice or the subsequent record high Bering Strait sea ice on low sea ice.

  57. The detector or means for ascertaining the arctic anomaly on the linked page are obviously broken, starting in 2012. Note that in one of your figures, the 2012 data exhibits some four sharp downward spikes that aren’t apparent in the data of any other year. These spikes are clearly non-physical — for one thing ice doesn’t melt that suddenly, nor does it refreeze that suddenly, not on a sufficiently large basis to produce spikes like that, not several times in one year and not in any of the other years. Just thought you’d like to know.

    rgb

  58. bsk says:
    May 13, 2012 at 5:02 am
    You should link this in the article for posterity, Serezze now says ice free by 2030.

    The slowest death spiral in history…

  59. It is ice free in some models, which is a terrible tragedy for all those simulated polar bears and seals. Don’t worry, in the next round of models we’ll find new, previously un-modelled parameters to consider which will knock today’s modelled temperatures and catastrophes back into line with observation, while retaining the carefully fitted hind-cast curves. This way the inevitable lapse into thermogeddon will be pushed back a few years, at least until more new factors can be implemented to explain why it has not happened yet. It’s only a matter of refinement, increased resolution and more money, see. Most importantly, more money. Models are very costly to run, especially when you need lots of runs of them to average together (smooths out out the unsightly bumps which people might mistake for incorrectly modelled natural variability).

    JB, UK MET office..

  60. AGW predictions, like televangelist prophecies, are never held to very serious standards. AGW predictions seem to only be accurate if they are made about things that have already happened.

  61. Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science

    I think you do real scientists a grave disservice by mentioning them in the same breath.

  62. So the arctic might return to its normal ice free state…These people need to get a sense of history, the arctic has had no ice cap for most of earth’s existence.

  63. This is great. An archive of bold predictions. Let’s call ‘em out and cash ‘em or trash ‘em.

  64. bsk says:
    May 13, 2012 at 5:02 am

    “You should link this in the article for posterity, Serezze now says ice free by 2030.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/16/266463/arctic-ice-at-record-low-nsidc-director-serreze-ice-free-summer-by-2030-downward-spiral/?mobile=nc

    Nice.

    Dr. Serezze has gone from death spiral to downward spiral so that’s good news, right? Possibly over the next couple of years, we will then hear about ice spiral from cyclonic wind and ocean currents which of course will be ignored by the headline seeking media; and the (pseudo) scientists will have effectively backed off from their attention-whore relationship with MSM. And none too soon.

    So: Death Spiral to Downward Spiral to Ice Spiral. You heard it here first.

  65. bsk says:
    May 13, 2012 at 4:53 am
    “I think this is a great post, but there were many other “predictions” made. Let’s remember a few more!”

    From the link

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1828.summary

    I took this summary:

    “According to reports in this issue of Science (pp. 1934 and 1937) and the 15 December issue of Geophysical Research Letters, the arctic ice pack is not only shrinking in area but rapidly thinning as well. The big question now is what’s causing the shrinkage: natural polar climate fluctuations or global warming due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. If it’s all natural, the loss of arctic ice should eventually reverse, but if global warming is at fault, the entire ice pack will eventually disappear, with drastic climate implications for the Northern Hemisphere. ”

    I find the last sentence very intriguing as it gives a test for global warming theory:
    ” if global warming is at fault, the entire ice pack will eventually disappear,”
    “If it’s all natural, the loss of arctic ice should eventually reverse, “

  66. I suggest the measure of “nearly ice-free” should be that the minimum extent in 2012 is no more than 10 % of the largest minimum extent of the last 30 years. I feel the “10 %” and “largest minimum” terms of this measure are generous to Dr. Serreze, Perhaps he would care to comment? Or commit 10 % of his pension to a fund distributed to those in fuel poverty?

  67. I always find it interesting that the melting ice is assumed to be the result of global warming, ie. CO2. Why not the opposite? Maybe the melting ice is due only to a warmer Arctic. Maybe the warmer temperatures of the last 30 years are the result of that warming rather than the cause. How could that be?

    Well, if the Arctic warmed then the flow of heat from the equator to the pole would slow down. This would, in turn, warm the NH which lies in between. Now, if this was true one should see less warming in the SH since the Antarctic has not warmed. Low and behold, that is the case.

    In fact, the warming in the SH only shows about .6C warming per doubling of CO2 and that includes other possible natural warming factors. Now, where have we seen that number before?

    Now, that still leaves the question of what has caused the Arctic to warm. I have seen a few theories put forth but I don’t think we really know the answer.

  68. You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. Another factual statement is that most WUWT bloggers are incapable of understanding simple English.

  69. From last year:

    A decline to “4.8 [million sq km] is the actual PIOMAS, model-based prediction” for 2012.

    As always, the models were wrong.

  70. Looking at the sea ice reference page I have a question – Why haven’t the anomaly charts been updated for over a month now?

  71. Quite a dramatic pose of Hansen without handcuffs. Hansen says they have until the election this year to avoid the big tipping point. If they don’t avoid the tipping point by then it may not happen.

    Old44 asked: “If the Arctic sea ice reflects 80% of the suns heat, how much does the Antarctic cap and sea ice reflect?” You have to use climate change logic and math to make it work.

  72. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

    You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement.

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!! You funny man.

  73. Julienne Stroeve, once told me she would consider anything less than 1 million sq km…….ice free

    That’s the size of Egypt….
    …or the size of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas combined
    or 2/3 the size of the entire Gulf of Mexico

    If that’s what they consider ice free………………………………

  74. Other meteorologists in Federal service with inadequate demonstrations of proficiency are required to undergo retraining or terminaton of employment as a meteorologist if they bust too many forecasts. Perhaps it is time for someone to ask this forecaster to remedy his incompetence by undergoing remedial training, resigning his position, or be terminated as a federal employee.

  75. JJB MKI says:
    May 13, 2012 at 6:30 am

    It is ice free in some models, which is a terrible tragedy for all those simulated polar bears and seals. …

    Love It!

    Headlines:

    NYT:
    (New York) MASS EXTINCTION OF ARCTIC DENIZENS LIKELY ACCORDING TO MODEL STUDIES BY Andrew Revvedup
    Scientists today have reported that mass extinctions of modelled populations of polar bears are likely according to the latest climate models run with modelled estimates of populations based on varying numbers of modelled polar bears. “The average “mean polar bear” doesn’t have the proverbial chance of a snowball in hell of being able to survive our climate models”, says lead researcher, Gavin Hansen-Serreze. Prof. Hansen-Serreze was asked how his models compared to direct observtions from the arctic regions, but he didn’t see that the question was relevant. “The beauty of modelling in the modern computer age is that you can now exactly reproduce what will happen in nature, its causes and solutions, without ever leaving your office. Isn’t science wonderful? “, he stated. Prof. Hansen-Serreze was interviewed on his way to Washington to lobby for more resources to study the imminent extinction of modelled arctic fauna.

    Guardian:
    {London) WORLD WILDLIFE FUND DEMANDS END TO MASS EXTINCTIONS PREDICTED BY CLIMATE MODELS, ANNOUNCES MAJOR CORPORATE FUNDRAISER.
    Prince Charles, patron, announced that he will spearhead another campaign on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund is order to raise money from institutional and corporate donors, to further the work needed to prevent the mass extinctions of modelled polar bear populations in arctic regions. Palace officials also indicated Charles would be making a tour of commonwealth nations later this year to raise the spectre of the demise of modelled arctic fauna with school students, and encourage them to bring home how important these modelled populations are to the delicate balance of the world’s ecosystems. The WWF would be sending along donation boxes to be given to schools with along with a poster of “Mr. White”, the average mean polar bear, who is the representative bear used as the proxy for all bears in the climate model extinction scenarios. Charles was photographed today in Piccadilly Circus alongside a large stuffed caricature of Mr. White. When asked about the campaign, Charles explained, “its extremely important to the world that these mass extinctions do not occur.” ” We can’t afford to lose even a single Mr. White. Mum agreed that it would be best that I get about and see what could be done, especially, away from London”, he said.

    Ha!

  76. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

    So do you think his *RATE* might have been just a wee bit off when modeled?

  77. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

    “You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. Another factual statement is that most WUWT bloggers are incapable of understanding simple English.”

    Ooh – let me try! I wanna be a klimate scientist(tm)!

    “Right now, it’s raining an inch per hour in my backyard. At that rate, my house will be underwater in a week, Oh no! Man the life boats!”

    BTW “Caruba-lies” statement above exemplifies everything that is WRONG about climate “science” and the idiotic press releases we’re tortured with on an almost daily basis.

  78. “The Arctic is screaming,”

    Indeed it is. I can hear the Arctic screaming “Serreze is an exaggerating alarmist and a poor scientist!” lol

  79. jbunt says:

    May 13, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Looking at the sea ice reference page I have a question – Why haven’t the anomaly charts been updated for over a month now?

    They have frozen up!

  80. “We watch and wait until 7:49AM Pacific Time 14:49 UTC on September 22nd, 2012.”

    My birthday!

    And, as it happens, the birthday of both Bilbo and Frodo Baggins.

  81. Cuba lies is a fool.
    any five year old can make a prediction that will be 100% accurate, whilst being 100% useless
    ‘tomorrow it will either rain, or it will not’

    a totally useless prediction, which is why we don’t put 5 year olds in charge of climate science

    wait……..

  82. Wait for it, J.Z. will claim typos, mis-quoting, and being mis-understood. As follows:
    At this rate, the Atlantic Ocean could be fairly ice-free at the end of summer by 2021, faster than previous warnings.

  83. Paul Coppin says:
    May 13, 2012 at 8:21 am

    …Guardian:

    “Prince Charles, patron, announced that he will spearhead another campaign on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund is order to raise money from institutional and corporate donors…”

    Ah yes… Charles, Prince of Wails is at it again.

  84. Richard M says:

    May 13, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Now, that still leaves the question of what has caused the Arctic to warm. I have seen a few theories put forth but I don’t think we really know the answer.

    It could have something to do with the fact that around 90% of the population live in the Northern Hemisphere.

  85. The article says “could be…”.. Do you understand what that means? FYI..it’s not the same as “will be”…

  86. Video of Gore predicting ice-free Arctic in five years (“funf Jahre” as the translator said) in Berlin in 2008 seems to have been disappeared. I’ve been trying to find it again for nearly two years now. If anyone has it please post here and/or get word to me through my blog. Thanks much!!

  87. ” The Arctic is screaming” I love that scaremonger doozie.
    I get a lot of satisfaction from these dud predictions. The pickings will only get richer.
    Thanks A.

  88. Antbones says:

    May 13, 2012 at 8:56 am

    The article says “could be…”.. Do you understand what that means? FYI..it’s not the same as “will be”…
    ———————————————————————————————————————————–
    I just bought a lottery ticket. I “could be” a multimillionaire tonight. Geesh!

  89. Antbones,
    . So why didn’t he say “could not be”?
    Equally valid when dealing with conjecture. Conjecture can never be incorrect until such time comes that the conjecture refers to. Then it can damn sure be wrong.
    “Could” is akin to “will” when making conjecture.

  90. old44 says:

    May 13, 2012 at 12:11 am

    If the Arctic sea ice reflects 80% of the suns heat, how much does the Antarctic cap and sea ice reflect?

    That’s only when the sun is directly above the pole!

  91. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am
    You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ”
    >>>>>>>>>>

    The implication made by Serreze was clear. His intent was to convey the message that:

    1. If the current rate continues, blah, blah, blah (bad things will happen)
    2. The current rate is due to human CO2 emissions
    3. We must do something about CO2 emissions in order to curb the rate

    Attempting after the fact to suggest his prediction carried scientificaly valid caveats is a sad and pathetic attempt to re-write history to make it compatible with the present.

  92. The oriental guru gal is nutty (and I believe this is one of her videos either produced by her or one of her followers). I’ve seen some of her other videos and she is a dead ringer for a Monty Python messiah. Whatever she says can be safely ignored.

    What is at fault here is a belief in science gone awry. Maybe it is the fault of the “now” society. We want our “go-to-the-bank” theories done with just one research project and one article. And no one does decades-long basic research anymore because we “know” all the basics.

    It is from this erred basis of science practice in climate research that we get researchers willing to state such nonsense as Jay has done. Let us hope his bowl of crow will be properly nutritious.

  93. Kasuha says:
    May 13, 2012 at 12:35 am
    The original statement is not “at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”, the statement is “at this rate (of decline), at the end of 2012 arctic will be ice free”.
    ==========
    While the original statement is “technically” correct, it is false and misleading. It could even be fraud, if they were able to obtain increased funding to study the problem.

    One could just as correctly say, “Given the current rate of increase in Arctic Ice, the northern hemisphere will be covered in ice by 2030″.

    Thus, the reasonable conclusion, given the increasing ice in the arctic, is that China, India and the UN with their increased CO2 emissions are working to save the planet from a return to the ice age. While Hansen, Gore and the IPCC is working to bring about a return to the ice age, by reducing CO2.

  94. Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is right.

    That must be one crowded calendar of predictions.

  95. Caruba-lies at 7:28 am ‘You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. ‘

    Sort of like Glenn Reynolds the instapundit reporting that he had been told in 2008, IF he voted for John McCain, then Gitmo would remain open, terrorists would be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian courts, the US still would reject Kyoto-style carbon-dioxide-control measures and taxes, etc.

    IFF only more people like Reynolds had voted the other way, then the Senate would have ratified Kyoto, electric cars would be cheap and ubiquitous, solar generating stations would be, with minor federal subsidies, operating profitably and producing significant amounts of carbon-pollution-free energy, millions of people would have taken jobs in thriving new “green”, eco-friendly” industries, wishes would be horses and beggars all would ride, right?

    On the other hand, if the premises are faulty or if the overall situation originates with somewhat more complexity than two factors — CO2 and temperature; Republican or Democrat, rice and steel — then the ability of central committees to forecast the consequences of a particular policy quickly degrades. Possibly there are natural variations, or forcings, or feedbacks, or even anthropogenic factors affecting the icecap that were not evident in 2007. Perhaps the models still need work? Perhaps the models are wonderful but the input parameters were based on faulty (CRU?) data? Perhaps, as Lorenz found, that even a simple model with only three factors generates chaotic results and can’t be relied on for long-term forecasting. Do you know? I don’t.

    What I do know is that mass-media coverage of an expert authority making a confident assertion of a scary-scenario/long term forecast has proven unjustified. And that there’s a lesson in that for those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and memory to apply.

  96. Rick K.
    Hey, thanks for add to the poems of our climate. I do love rhyme and you did good feller! You should fix the meter here and there and shorten it a bit, but overall, wonderfully wacky. Think I’ll have smelt for lunch.

  97. Harold Ambler I shouldn’t worry
    We have Al on record 10th Dec 2007 saying with customary dramatic pause “7 years from now” like it was a certainty. The inevitable doom.

    Roll on 2014 when the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize can finally be awarded to a deserving recipient.

  98. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am
    You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. Another factual statement is that most WUWT bloggers are incapable of understanding simple English.

    Keep an eye on Ellesmere Island and let me know when the Canadians start building a deepwater port facility — we’ll get in on the ground floor and make a fortune…

  99. Mike says:
    May 13, 2012 at 11:02 am
    You are confusing the speculations of one scientist with a scientific consensus.

    We’re glad you agree that the leftist media has been printing nothing BUT speculation for years, mike… but we haven’t seen any ‘consensus’ anywhere. Could you point us to it?

  100. pouncer says:
    May 13, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Sort of like Glenn Reynolds the instapundit reporting that he had been told in 2008, IF he voted for John McCain, then Gitmo would remain open, terrorists would be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian courts, the US still would reject Kyoto-style carbon-dioxide-control measures and taxes, etc.

    My doorgunner in Vietnam said, “I was told that if I voted for Goldwater, the war in Vietnam would escalate and I’d be drafted and sent over here. I voted for Goldwater, and sure enough, the war expanded, I got drafted, and here I am. Or here we are, actually — did you vote for Goldwater, too?”

  101. carriesmoon says:
    May 13, 2012 at 5:57 am
    There was a Physicist called Mann
    Whose manifest problems began
    When he said all the ice
    Would be gone in a trice
    And the whole thing turned out to be sham

    (I know it wasn’t actually Mann, but it scans)

    :-)
    ======================================================
    Figure of speech Metonymy, the change of one noun for another related noun. It communicated.8-)

  102. I think all you haters have gotten it wrong. It was a typo and they meant to say that the “Indian Ocean” will be nearly ice free by the end of 2012.

    Frighteningly accurate.

  103. SteveC says:

    May 13, 2012 at 7:04 am

    Wait! Here’s another “predication”. You just can’t make this stuff up! http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896

    IN SAID ARTICLE, priceless:

    “The volume – extent and thickness – of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month, Serreze told IPS.

    “I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” he said”

  104. David says:
    May 13, 2012 at 3:23 am

    Yogi Berra quotes which apply:

    1. It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

    2. The future ain’t what it used to be.

    3. If you don’t know where your going, you might end up someplace else.

    4. When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

  105. pochas says:
    May 13, 2012 at 6:48 am
    This is great. An archive of bold predictions. Let’s call ‘em out and cash ‘em or trash ‘em.
    ================================================
    Now there’s an idea for billboards
    A prediction.
    The price of gas.
    (Perhaps a revision of the prediction)
    “Do you believe me now?”

  106. Mike says:
    May 13, 2012 at 11:02 am
    You are confusing the speculations of one scientist with a scientific consensus.

    ———————————————————————

    So a consensus that is made up of numerous scientists speculating on a topic can be correct even if each individual in it is wrong?

  107. Gas will be around this price (under $5) for a long time if we get the oil sands in Canada online. Obama and everyone else is on board for that, noone is worried but for the greenies who want to bring down the economy for a misperception and their own hubris.

  108. If you run the numbers, the sea ice has to be about 30% lower right now and then melt at about 20% higher per day than normal to reach Zero on the typical minimum day of Sept 12. And no year so far has melted out any more than 10% higher than normal per day so it would be physically impossible without March/April starting out the melt year 35% below normal. 2012, by contrast, was right at the average, so no soup for Serreze in 2012.

    But then, the NSIDC has many problems with numbers so I don’t imagine they have considered running the numbers.

  109. So if Arctic ice is just about the same in 2012 as when he made his prediction will that be enough to show he is wrong?

    Well no. Having right or wrong predictions has never meant anything to ‘global warming’.

    BTW, speaking of warming, where is it?

  110. The Arctic Death Spiral?

    Is that when you freeze to death AND FALL ON THE ICE spinning?

  111. The Bible has an excellent test for prophets in Deut. 18:21-22:
    ‘You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”
    ‘If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.’

  112. Jean Meeus says:
    May 12, 2012 at 10:42 pm
    < on the Autumnal Equinox September 21st 2012,

    Anthony, this year Autumnal Equinox will occur on September 22.

    REPLY: Had it right in the countdown, but typoed the text fixed thanks. – Anthony
    ================
    Umm, some might disagree with both of you :)

    Per:

    http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=22&month=9&year=2012&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1

    "September Equinox (Vernal Equinox) is on Sunday, September 23, 2012 at 2:49 AM in Auckland. "

    It's that UTC time thing :)

  113. anotherfred;
    So a consensus that is made up of numerous scientists speculating on a topic can be correct even if each individual in it is wrong?
    >>>>>>

    Good point. I think we’ve failed to take the CAGW movement to task in terms of their use of the word “consunsus”. When a large group of people needs to make a decision, they may do so by consensus. That is, the minority opinion stands down in favour of the majority opinion.

    What we forget to point out to the warmists who cite “consensus” in support of their position is that even if there was one (there isn’t) consensus says NOTHING about what is correct and what is wrong. A large group of people might arrive at a consensus that 2+2=3. The consensus merely defines the decision making process, it in no way makes it right.

  114. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    May 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    So if Arctic ice is just about the same in 2012 as when he made his prediction will that be enough to show he is wrong?

    Well no. Having right or wrong predictions has never meant anything to ‘global warming’.

    BTW, speaking of warming, where is it?
    ________________________
    It sure is not in mid North Carolina! It is a chilly 68.9F today. The average max temp for today is 78F.

    Too bad we can not come up with a catchy heartland bill board exposing this. Maybe this Susuki myth vs reality ( photo by © Bryan & Cherry Alexander Photography / ArcticPhoto)

  115. Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am

    “You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. Another factual statement is that most WUWT bloggers are incapable of understanding simple English.”

    No, we just can’t understand weasel words.

  116. As long as you qualify any claim with ‘could’ or ‘may’ you can make any claim.

    The Global Warming trend ‘could’ kill us all on Dec. 21st, 2012.
    The Sun ‘could’ go supernova in 2020.
    The Moon ‘may’ grow swiss cheese houses for us to live in when we colonize.
    The AGW people ‘could’ commit seppuku and reduce our carbon footprint.
    Windmills ‘may’ produce more rainbows.

    ….as you see some results ‘may’ be better than others….

  117. I agree with a couple of earlier replies. Heartland should use this on their billboards perhaps with the headline “The Real Inconvenient Truth”.

  118. Speaking of InstaPundit: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/143013/

    “In 2007, Congress vastly overestimated the government’s ability to create a market for cellulosic biofuels, which remain much more expensive to produce than corn ethanol. There was no commercial production of cellulosic fuel in 2010 or 2011—even though the 2007 law originally called for 100 million and 250 million gallons, respectively, for those years (the requirements were subsequently scaled back to around 6.5 million gallons for each year).

    So the same year the Arctic was predicted to be ice free in 2012, the Congress mandated 2012 production targets — a “five year plan” — for biofuels.

    Our laws are as potent as our ability to predict the climate.

    So putting government authorities in charge of the climate is a good idea, how, exactly?

  119. My granny could have wheels by 2014 in which case she would be a wagon, but if not, she won’t.

    How’s that for a scientific pronouncement? Right up there with Arctic Ice assessments I’d say.

  120. Mike said: May 13, 2012 at 11:02 am
    You are confusing the speculations of one scientist with a scientific consensus.

    Otter said: May 13, 2012 at 11:12 am
    We’re glad you agree that the leftist media has been printing nothing BUT speculation for years, mike… but we haven’t seen any ‘consensus’ anywhere. Could you point us to it?

    Sure:
    New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly, ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2004)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm

  121. I’d be shivering in my boots from fear after watching this video, except that I’m shivering because I’m cold in Boulder, CO where it is about 10F below normal. Of course, nothing is ever normal in Boulder. Just ask Mark Serreze. It’ll be back warmer than normal 70’s and 80’s maybe tomorrow. One sigma here is like 60F.

  122. Henny Youngman says: Went to my doctor. He said, bad news, Henny, you’ve only got 6 months to live. I said, doc, that’s terrible. Plus it’s gonna take me a year to pay off your bill. So he gave me another 6 months… (rim shot).

  123. When summer ends, be sure to come back to this and post a copy of the chart of sea ice level.

    Bob

  124. Next prediction – ice free 2013
    Next prediction – ice free 2014
    And so on…………….

  125. I feel panicked watching that video and the accompanying music score, and I know it is old, out of date and wrong on every point. How is this nonsense affecting the children of this world? So Sad…….

  126. I take it that this is the same AGW that has Mediterranean Europe a desert and the children in the UK never seeing snow in winter! I have heard it all before and it simply is not happening. Why do the warmists have difficulty in comprehending those very simple facts!!

  127. …and when none of these predictions come to fruition, the prognosticators will shrewdly take credit for preventing them, by pointing to the policies put forth by those governments that *did* do something! Then they’ll say “…and imagine how much we could’ve done [to change this or that] had the other governments followed suit.”

    Nothing will change, ever. This is the human condition: Some seek power/dominion; others seek personal transcendence. The End.

  128. Just can’t resist piling on here:

    Caruba-lies says:
    May 13, 2012 at 7:28 am
    You know his statement WAS correct :”At this rate. . . . ” At that rate, ice WOULD melt by 2012 — a FACTUAL statement. Another factual statement is that most WUWT bloggers are incapable of understanding simple English.

    Your statement reminds me of a saying my dad uses from time to time. It’s called “If…dog…rabbit” as in: “If the dog didn’t stop to take a $h1t, he would have caught the rabbit.”
    That’s a FACT as well.

  129. Smokey says:
    May 13, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Me neither. I don’t agree with Mr. Caruba himself 100% of the time (more like 95%), but he generally sticks to the facts, I enjoy his writing, and I appreciate his point-of-view. Mr. “Caruba-lies” on the other hand – not so much.

  130. Mike says – ‘Sure: New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly, ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2004)’

    300 Scientists implies Consensus, and Consensus implies fact…
    Thanks for the chuckles!

  131. the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ WOW! WOW!!!

    My grandpa ”could become” grandma, before the end of 2012 – if he grows those things. But then again, if he grows those things – – he wouldn’t be a grandpa / he would become a grandma…! In other words: if Arctic becomes ”ice free” wouldn’t be because of the phony GLOBAL warming!!!

    Start learning the correct way guys:: ”ice on the polar caps doesn’t depend on the temperature; there average temp is minus -30C, that is twice as cold than in your deep freezer. 2] on the land, ice is melted from below, by the geothermal heat, every day of the year. On the seawater is melted from below also: salty seawater can melt ice on below zero centigrade temp! Can you dig it?!

    The deficit of ice melted, needs replenishing every season! Therefore – it depends on the AMOUNT of water vapor that comes with the winds – the moist air is freeze-dried / IF THE AIR HAS WATER VAPOR. That’s the thing that is demonized by the Fundamentalists from both camps!!! In the permafrost temp get -60C below freezing, but no ice – because on those places vapor doesn’t come by the winds. Look, look, I’m scratching my head; why the extremist from both camps are demonizing water vapor and anything normal…?! please help; WHY, WHY?

  132. Frank K. says — “BTW ‘Caruba-lies’ statement above exemplifies everything that is WRONG about climate “science” and the idiotic press releases we’re tortured with on an almost daily basis.

    You so aptly nailed it with your backyard rain rate sarc. Mucho Kudos!

  133. All those ridiculous predictions come from climate models set up to predict what greenhouse warming will do in the Arctic. They don’t work because Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water from the Gulf Stream carried by Atlantic Ocean currents into the Arctic. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. Before it there was nothing but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. And since there was no concurrent increase of carbon dioxide the greenhouse effect was ruled out as a cause. Kaufman et al. originally determined this climate history in 2009 but they had no idea at all of what they had discovered. But their Arctic temperature curve looked very much like Mann’s hockey stick did and I assume that is why Bradley, Briffa and Overpeck all signed up as co-authors. I wrote a paper based on their observations which was peer reviewed and published. But when I offered it to Anthony for posting he turned his nose up because of what I said about excuses made by warmists and because I had a nerve to end my sentences with exclamation points! You can download it from this web address: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf

  134. Bah! “Arctic” this; “Autumn in September” that.

    You’re all a bunch of Hemispherists!!

    /sarc

  135. How do these people get away with it? Just how, how on earth do they do it?

    They have been caught out continuously. Observations have shown their models and predictions to be utter garbage over and over again. But. here we are, with stupid Australians (sorry guys, you are stupid for letting it happen) about to put up with an at least a 10% rise in their energy bills (read , in all prices since *everything* requires energy) in order to potentially, maybe, perhaps, stop the planet from warming by an amount so small that we cannot make a thermometer accurate enough to measure it. It is utter, utter, insanity.

    How do they get away with it?

  136. Could we have a “climatoligist” with a model showing the Antartic will be ice free in ?? years. Then I can invest in frakkiing there.

  137. Doesn’t CAGW theology state that the Ice caps and the tropical hot spot (Sounds like a nice rum and coke club) will be the flashing neon lights of Catastrophe?

    The CAGW hill really is starting to look bare as everyone starts to drift away, I guess when you declare that on this date aliens will turn up and they don’t and you keep saying wait 5 minutes more it gets boring.

  138. Anthony

    Is it possible to change the countdown side bar to show days, instead of months, so that we see it changing everyday towards the promised day of no summer ice in the Arctic?

    REPLY:I wish I could, but it seems limited and its the only option available from wordpress.com, which does not allow code embedded from 3rd party widget sources. When it gets to less than 30 days, it will switch to days – Anthony

  139. Anthony

    It would interesting if you could do a post on the predictions by our climate commissioner of empty dams in Australia compared to the reality.

  140. Arno Arrak says:
    May 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water from the Gulf Stream carried by Atlantic Ocean currents into the Arctic. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong.

    This is quite interesting. You may have noted that I have been floating an idea that the entire warming we’ve seen could be explained if there was some kind mechanism to warm the Arctic. Since the Earth is a big heat engine a warmer Arctic would slow down the engine. This, in turn, would cause a warming of the NH as the heat passes through it more slowly.

    This would also explain why the SH has not warmed very much. Since the Antarctic has not warmed the heat passes through the SH just as fast as it always did.

    The problem would be why the gulf stream picked up at the turn of the 20th century. You mentioned LOD which could certainly have an effect. However, Paul Vaughan’s work seemed to show something closer to 30 year cycles.

    Also, it would be nice if the idea also explained the MWP. The 2000 year chart of yours shows nothing similar during that time which means another mechanism is required. However, the fact that it was warm in N. Europe and Greenland fits very nicely with the gulf stream mechanism. That would mean your sediment chart missed the warming at that time which raises many questions.

  141. Did anyone else read and understand the “At this rate…” part of the prediction? If melting continued at the 2007 rate, you would have had an ice-free Arctic. While the scientitst expressed alarm, I didn’t see any of the scientists stating that it would continue at the record breaking rate.

    I don’t see why this is being held up as a failed prediction – it seems more like what folks were saying about Tiger Woods a couple years ago – if he keeps winning majors at this rate, he will break Jack Niclaus’ record. But Tiger didn’t keep winning, so he didn’t break it.

    REPLY: Did you read and understand your last sentence? – Anthony

  142. Well yes… compared to 20,000 years ago, the arctic is almost ice free! Those who feel nostalgia for that wonderful fun time should move to Antarctica. We will not miss you. GK

  143. SocialBlunder says:
    May 14, 2012 at 6:58 am
    Did anyone else read and understand the “At this rate…” part of the prediction?
    ==================================
    Apr 4, 2008 – “The sea ice is decreasing faster than all the models predicted,” says Jay Zwally, the ice satellite project scientist at NASA Goddard
    ==================================
    yes, you would think a government scientist would be smarter than that……wouldn’t you?

  144. It would be a failed prediction if melting continued “At this rate” and the Arctic weren’t ice-free. If you could find some information about the rates Jay Zwally predicted the Arctic will melt and compare it to reality, that would be interesting information. Based on the cited article, that appears to be 2040 – so keep the proof and we’ll check back then.

  145. “Could be” isn’t a prediction. “Will be” is a prediction. And he even qualified his statement with “at this rate.”

    Seriously, this is the best you can do, considering the money you got from Heartland?

    REPLY: No I can do lots better than the entertainment provided by these guys, and the results of that specific project (still only half funded) will be coming online in about a month. Be sure to check back then, and you can even be extra snotty. I’ll let you. I’m sure Emory University will be proud. – Anthony

  146. It would be a failed prediction if melting continued “At this rate”

    Wrong. It would be a failed prediction if any part of it failed to materialize. Like, you know, that whole, “At this rate” part of the prediction.

    You sure are spending a lot of time & words defending something you claim is meaningless. Funny that.

  147. With the slow motion swirling toilet bowl nature of the Arctic, it would take a lot to get rid of all that ice.

  148. yourgovernmenthatesyou says:
    May 14, 2012 at 1:30 am

    How do these people get away with it? Just how, how on earth do they do it?

    They have been caught out continuously….
    _______________________________
    “They” own the media among other things. I just answered a similar question here. They use the Delphi Technique and NGOs along with the media as I show to give “legitimacy” to pre-determined out comes.

  149. We don’t have to wait. Thanks to the logic of the terms “could” and “nearly,” we may proclaim their successful prediction even now at this early date.

  150. @Darren Potter said, May 13, 2012 at 7:22 pm:

    “Mike says – ‘Sure: New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly, ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2004)’

    300 Scientists implies Consensus, and Consensus implies fact…
    Thanks for the chuckles!”

    Science does not find absolute truth. If you want absolute truth go ask the Pope or your favorite religious authority. (Not to be anti-religion. Religion plays a vital role in many peoples spiritual lives.) Consensus statements are just what they say they are: the opinion at the present time of the relevant experts in a given field. They are useful for forming policy. Wilfully ignoring informed opinion is just plain stupid.

  151. Yo! mikey! I’m still waiting for that consensus! Not an article nearly a decade out of date!

  152. Face it guys: YOU ALL PREFER BULL / SCARED FROM THE TRUTH. That’s why they are scaring you by Arctic with no ice. When the ”Dung Beetles” like you get regularly lots of bull -> they are happy and get busy, busy, busy.

    Dung Beetles, monotony diet is boring and not healthy for you. For a change, have some truth: 1] water freezes on zero degrees centigrade. 2] on Arctic average temp is minus -30C, if it gets warmer by 3C, still is 27C below freezing point, still would be colder by 10C, than inside your deep freezer!!!. So, if ice on Arctic disappears – it’s for other reasons, nothing to do with temp.

    3] Arctic’s ice seats on the top of salty seawater. 4] salty seawater can and does melt ice from below, on temperature BELOW freezing point. 5] ice sacrifices some of itself to melt and turn into freshwater – as a buffer between the salty heavier water below and the remaining ice – so far so good. If the currents below increase – they take away that freshwater that is the buffer – more ice must melt, and more and more. That has nothing to do with the temp in the air. 6] do you want to know why current increases? (is the truth painful for you?)The answers are on my blog.

    7] apart of the different speed of the currents – the amount of ice depends on the amount of the raw material, for renewal of the ice every season. Do you know what the ”renewable material” for ice is? Here is a hint: the Swindlers are telling you that: water vapor is bad for the climate ( they are always opposite than what the truth is; to please their ”bull consumers / customers”.

    ”Truth-phobia” is a sickness; if you start using truth from me (as a salad) with your regular consumption of bull-dung from IPCC & Co; some of you can avoid psychiatrists on the end. Until then, have a good appetite; you have being getting avalanches of bull for the last 20 years; lucky you…you are addicted to bull-dung? Truth is strange; by hating it – the truth will not change or disappear. Who are ”the Bull-dung consumers? A: people that are scared from my proofs / facts / formulas. People that are starving / craving for more bull from Hansen, Mann, IPCC, so that they can whinge about the quality of the bull; but themselves are scared from the alternative / the truth

  153. Richard M says:
    May 14, 2012 at 6:55 am
    Arno Arrak says:
    May 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water from the Gulf Stream carried by Atlantic Ocean currents into the Arctic. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong.

    This is quite interesting. You may have noted that I have been floating an idea that the entire warming we’ve seen could be explained if there was some kind mechanism to warm the Arctic. Since the Earth is a big heat engine a warmer Arctic would slow down the engine. This, in turn, would cause a warming of the NH as the heat passes through it more slowly.

    This would also explain why the SH has not warmed very much. Since the Antarctic has not warmed the heat passes through the SH just as fast as it always did.

    The problem would be why the gulf stream picked up at the turn of the 20th century. You mentioned LOD which could certainly have an effect. However, Paul Vaughan’s work seemed to show something closer to 30 year cycles

    My feeling FWIW is that the Gulf Stream strength varies with the AMO, and particularly Arctic warming by the tail end of the Gulf stream which brings warm water into the Barents Sea.

    There is good evidence for this in fig 2 of this paper by Levitus et al 2009, showing a strong correlation between 0-150m Barents Sea water temps and the AMO over the last century:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039847.pdf

    also discussed at this WUWT thread.

    So what drives the AMO? If the PDO arises from the ENSO (according to Bob Tisdale), then its possible that the AMO similarly emerges from the nascent “Atlantic ENSO”.

  154. I recall reading in ‘Nature” magazine (?) several years ago that there was evidence that the climate warmed to some extent prior to many of the past ice incursions (ice ages). It has happened before and will happen again. What more can you say.

  155. Otter,

    Personally I think policy makes and others are better off going with the assessment of people who actually study the Arctic instead of being distracted by ignorant and highly biased bloggers and talk radio hosts. Anything else I can help you with?

  156. >>Personally I think policy makes and others are better off going with the assessment of people who actually study the Arctic instead of being distracted by ignorant and highly biased bloggers <<

    Personally, I think policy makers should avoid going with the failed assessments of people with suspect predictions regardless of how much time they spend studying the Arctic.

    And frankly, policy makers would be much better off going with bloggers that have had an incredible amount of success getting to the scientific heart of climate issues.

  157. David says:
    May 13, 2012 at 3:23 am

    3. If you don’t know where your [you’re] going, you might end up someplace else.

    If you don’t know the difference, just use “yer” for both “your” and “you’re”.

Comments are closed.