Gore says 5 years, now NOAA says 30 instead of 100 years. Place your bets.
Ice-Free Arctic Summers Likely Sooner Than Expected
NOAA News April 2, 2009
Mean sea ice thickness in meters for March (left) and September (right) based on six models. Top panels: September ice extent reached the current level by these models. Bottom panels: Arctic reached nearly “ice-free summer” conditions.
High resolution (Credit: University of Washington / NOAA)
Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected. The updated forecast is the result of a new analysis of computer models coupled with the most recent summer ice measurements.
“The Arctic is changing faster than anticipated,” said James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and co-author of the study, which will appear April 3 in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s a combination of natural variability, along with warmer air and sea conditions caused by increased greenhouse gases.”
Overland and his co-author, Muyin Wang, a University of Washington research scientist with the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean in Seattle, analyzed projections from six computer models, including three with sophisticated sea ice physics capabilities. That data was then combined with observations of summer sea ice loss in 2007 and 2008.
The area covered by summer sea ice is expected to decline from its current 4.6 million square kilometers (about 2.8 million square miles) to about 1 million square kilometers (about 620,000 square miles) – a loss approximately four-fifths the size of the continental U.S. Much of the sea ice would remain in the area north of Canada and Greenland and decrease between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.
“The Arctic is often called the ‘Earth’s refrigerator’ because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun’s radiation back into space,” said Wang. “With less ice, the sun’s warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air.”
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
h/t David Walton
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rhys Jaggar (22:12:20) : ‘It is well known that the sexual drives of women increase in their thirties. Does this mean that they will become so obsessed with sexual intensity in their fifties and sixties…etc?
hahaha, I shall remember that one! Climate models eh?
The Great Illusion is that Science happens out there, under a great poobah, that “experts know all about” polar conditions. It happens here, and now, under our own noses, when we say “that doesn’t look/feel/sound right” and start investigating… for ourselves. It can be messy even if the results are sparkling clean. But we can all do it.
It’s the cold end of the spectrum that fluctuates most. Polar temperatures fluctuate hugely, seasonally, decadally, century-wise; polar winters fluctuate more than their summers;our own winters fluctuate far more than our summers.
oh and could we have a nice push-button poll too, including “no change” and “getting colder again” and “getting a lot colder”
I’m betting that NASA computer models making predictions for arctic ice melt over the next 30 years aren’t any more accurate than their computer model predictions for Solar Cycle 24. It’s nice to have a short enough time frame that you can disprove the models!
For your amusement Mr Watts, a thread at this morning’s Independent, based on an article by a fairly staunch supporter of ‘runaway climate change’ Mr Johann Hari (qualifications in climatology: zero; qualifications in belligerent journalism: the Nobel Prize; qualifications in politics: Scots’ style left-wing demagoguery)
——————————-
Why do you believe the ‘climatologists’?
rhysjaggar wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 07:17 am (UTC)
1. If the oilmen want to make more profits they have a big ‘marketing campaign’.
2. If European Govts want us to break from Saudi oil dependency, we have a ‘climate change campaign’.
What’s the difference?
I am minded, when reading your climatological sermons, of the infamous Don Whillans, who I will paraphrase: ”E knows he’s a world class climatologist, you seem to think so to, I’m not so sure, but has anyone bothered to ask the atmosphere?’
———————————–
Link | Reply | Thread
Re: Why do you believe the ‘climatologists’?
cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 07:35 am (UTC)
Who do you believe? Hairdressers? Bus drivers?
————————————
Link | Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: Why do you believe the ‘climatologists’?
rhysjaggar wrote:
Friday, 3 April 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
1. How about Dick Lindzen, Professor at MIT?
2. How about Dr Roy Spencer, world authority on the analysis of global temperatures based on the satellite record since 1979?
3. How about Lord Lawson and Sir Christopher Monckton?
4. How about the Swiss weather station network, which has recorded the coldest and snowiest winter in that country for over 20 years?
Not sure any of those would appreciate being called hairdressers and bus drivers you know, but I’d love to be present when you politely inform them of course…….
————————————————————-
Keith Minto, Joe Miner, Howarteh, Phillip Bratby:-)
Jolly good point I thought, think of the billions of taxpayers dollars, rubels, pounds, euros, yen etc tha can now ber saved, NOAA no it all so sack the rest I say!
Now I know all you scientists out there don’t always understand plain English, & that you all talk to each other in formulaic terms such as “H2SO4 professor & the reciprocal of Pi to your good wife” etc, but could someone expalin to me if, (& here I get nervous), these models of icemelt prediction, which always seem to be way off ending in “it’s happening faster than we previously thought”, allow for regelation to play its part in the ice melt (the real one I mean), & do computer models properly allow for this seeing that the ice never really gets any direct heat from the sun except at very low angles? I remember from my school days watching the experiment where the 5lb weights each end of a cheese wire slice thro’ a chunk of ice a foot cubed after several minutes & the ice remained frozen. I would have thought that regelation would play its part somewhere?
Mikey,
The experts have put there money on the line:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/
But the global warming [snip] are afraid to take the bet.
FYI. That “NOAA understands…..” is a boilerplate paragraph that NOAA seems to adds to every possible communication.
The first time you read it nausea may be induced. Or your coffee may be unpleasantly ejected through your nostrils.
It is beyond me why any agency would choose to display such vanity.
My own theory: NOAA is the victim; the paragraph is being added to all files by a computer virus the agency has been unable to remove.
Sorry guys, that should have read’ that’ & ‘be saved’ & ‘NOAA know it all’.
I should remember more often my late father’s motto, “engage brain before operating mouth” ditto for typing I guess:-)
Computer models again!! Why not measure the sea ice thickness for a hundred years and then maybe we will be able to make short term estimates.
“TWO pieces of evidence were recently presented to substantiate the views held by most geologists that some day there will be no frozen North and that vessels will sail in Arctic seas now imperilled by ice floes.”
From the New York Times, January 28, 1934.
So there has been a consensus for some 75 years.
Ooh, anyone here gonna grab some popcorn during this 30 year anticipation? I cant WAIT for it to melt! Kinda like watching an Edge of your Seat movie!
Hang on! I thought that is what Pen Hadow is doing, measureing ice thickness?
The arctic ice will all be gone in 24 hours. I know this because someone told me.
If we are to place our bets we need some odds. Pehaps Betfair could start a market on this?
I might be around after 5 years but I sure ain’t going to be around after 30 so if I have a bet my grandchildren are going to have to hold the ticket.
My odds would be 5 yrs – 1000-1against.
30 yrs – 2-1 against.
100 years – even money.
Lots of opportunity for betting in between those parameters.
But my bet would be over 100 years – I have a lot of faith in those sunspots. What odds Betfair, even if I have to pass the ticket on to my great grandchildren?
Remember…it’s all revenue. Funding for scientists, budget for government agencies, and about 40% of the U.S. budget. No logic, no reason, no common sense, no science will over come those “requirements”.
For this to go away, it will take either A) a funding source other than taxation, or B) approx. 40% reduction (U.S.) in spending.
Real science will make it slightly more difficult for various people/agencies to justify this, but only in a mosquito-like fashion.
Remember how many people were against the bail-outs last fall? I think it was around 80%? That had zero impact on stopping that train…in fact, didn’t even slow the train down.
I will make one prediction, having nothing to do with ice cover…that being that this president’s time will be limited to 4yrs.
JimB
I like short term predictions, thus they can be proven wrong in less time. While if the Arctic Summer sea ice melted it would not cause the sea level to rise (though most probably would think it would), they are using the Arctic as a climate poster boy to show that global warming is indeed happening and the results will be catastrophic to the entire earth.
Warm water melts ice a lot more quickly than warm air. It is warmer ocean currents that have melted the Arctic (more than the 30 year average). Since the oceans are cooling, there should be significantly less ice melt in coming years. Russian ice breakers have found the ice to be much thicker this year.
So we will have two years in a row with less ice melt, the trend has reversed. When we get four, five, six years in a row with growing ice, this will doom the theory, but we have to get through the next three years. This Summers ice extent is critical, it looks like it will be larger than last years by a good margin and hopefully will.
“Sooner Than Expected”
Every year I hear the same – everything is worse than expected.
I’m pretty sure that it will be 20 instead of 30 years next year. They need to keep it fresh.
Lets ask the members of the Catlin Expedition. They are right on top of the problem currently and would have the best view of this warming and melting right now.
Smell Test: The glaring error in this study is they matched only two years worth of history with several sophisticated computer models. Combining errors of each mathematically increases the total errors. Who paid these guys and who commissioned the study? These are the questions we should asking namely working the problem backwards from the answer to the question.
” Steven (00:29:07) :
Mikey,
The experts have put there money on the line:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/
But the global warming [snip] are afraid to take the bet.”
No, no Steven. You completely misunderstand. I don’t want to bet on somebody else’s forecast. I want to bet against the forecasts the heroes at Real Climate support.
I’m talking about stuff like this…
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/25/hansen_forecast_1988.jpg
or this…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/#more-6368
or even this…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/mid-winter-report-card/#more-4934
In fact I’d express the same sentiment the Real Climate people expressed, right back at them. It went like this…
“If the authors of the paper really believe that their forecast has a greater than 50% chance of being correct, then they should accept our offer of a bet; it should be easy money for them. If they do not accept our bet, then we must question how much faith they really have in their own forecast.”
I’ll also take a wager against that 5 years to no ice prediction by Gore mentioned above if they want to back that one up.
But basically my point was, if there was a place to bet on that sort of stuff, I’ll bet you couldn’t get good odds betting against the alarmist forecasts. I don’t think anybody; Real Climate, or Gore, or anybody else would actually bet on them. Would this disprove consensus, I wonder. Somebody should set up a booking office in Vegas for an experiment.
I wonder if James Overland has forgotten the poster which he co-authored for the ACSYS conference in 2003/4?
“First-Hand Accounts from 19th Century Explorers Logs for the Canadian
Arctic Reflect Similar Climate Conditions as Present”
Kevin R, Wood • Arctic Research Qffice & James E Overland • Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
“The widely perceived failure of 19th century expeditions to find and transit the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic is often attributed to extraordinary cold climatic conditions associated with the ‘Little Ice Age’ evident in proxy records.
However, examination of 44 explorers’ logs for the western Arctic from 1818 to 1910 reveals that climate indicators such as navigability, the distribution and thickness of annual sea ice, monthly surface air temperature, and the onset of melt and freeze were within the present range of variability.
The majority of data come from large naval expeditions that had the capacity to support an intensive scientific program through the Arctic winter.
The ship tracks and winter-over location of Arctic discovery expeditions from 1818 to 1859 are surprisingly consistent with present sea ice climatology.
On a number of occasions expeditions came within 150 km of completing the Northwest Passage. By 1859, all possible routes comprising the Northwest Passage had been discovered.”
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/metadata_pabstracts.php?s=0&table=Abstracts&id=39&parid=&tag=&country=&letter=&sorder=&stype=&limit=&q=
“Carbone (02:41:04) :
“Sooner Than Expected”
Every year I hear the same – everything is worse than expected.
I’m pretty sure that it will be 20 instead of 30 years next year. They need to keep it fresh.”
I agree. In fact…they can go from 30 to 20, then from 20 to 10, and then, magically, it will have already taken place in the past! 🙂
“Didn’t you see it?…it happened already 2yrs ago!…all of our models were correct!”
Or, as John Cleese put it…”That parrott’s dead.”
JimB
Rhys Jaggar (00:00:52) :
Could you please explain what you mean by:
“Scots’ style left-wing demagoguery”
JimB.. Unforunately i believe it will be 8 years. As soon as i read ” models”, the analysis goes to the scrap heap. Investing in energy companies, in view of a) gov’t restrictions on new supplies, b) colder climate, c), relatively low prices. Natural gas prices are at 10 year lows. My feeling is, there is too much vested interest in “global Warming”, to derail the train, no matter the facts. We just as well should profit from the misinformation. AMSU temps., especially at 46k feet, are at multi year lows. RSS for march shows cooling, particularly in the tropics. fm
Of course the models are correct. If it wasn’t for that pesky volcano in Alaska the ice would be less this year. Come October we will fit some arbitrary constants to the models to take into account the volcano to show how perfectly they fit looking backwards.
Timebandit — By the way Al made his prediction of ice free in five years in 2008 so we get to judge at the end of 2013 not 2014. Can’t be moving the goal posts.
“analyzed projections from six computer models, including three with sophisticated sea ice physics capabilities. That data was then combined with observations of summer sea ice loss in 2007 and 2008.”
Without being able to see the actual paper this appears to be based on the wind related ice loss of 2007 and subsequent low ice levels in 2008. In other words, it really isn’t based on Co2 but is a simple curve fitting exercise. Of course, these researchers will be retired in 30 years and will never be held accountable.
Maybe they could be held responsible if the ice extent in 5 years is outside the error bars …