UK Met Office backpedals on Arctic Ice – "…unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020."

But they do say that “first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080”. By then there will be nobody that remembers this forecast.

Yet on the same day, bumbling Arctic explorer Pen Hadow says in a UK Telegraph interview:

To all intents and purposes the Arctic will be ice free in a decade. I do find the implications of this happening in my lifetime quite shocking.“.

Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?

From a Met Office press release on October 15th

Arctic sea-ice

The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low. At the time it was widely reported that this was caused by man-made climate change and that the rate of decline of summer sea ice was increasing.

Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080. It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020.

Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns. Arctic weather systems are highly variable year-on-year and the prevailing winds can enhance, or oppose, the southward flow of ice into the Atlantic. Consequently, the sea ice has not declined every year, but has shown considerable variability — both in extent and thickness.

The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.

About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists. We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.

h/t to WUWT reader Patrick Davis

0 0 votes
Article Rating
97 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Yates
October 28, 2009 4:10 am

Let’s see if the MSM reports this ‘correction’.

October 28, 2009 4:14 am

As they say the first casualty in war is the truth. Seems like the alarmists have gotten to the point where they are totally unbelievable.

Don B
October 28, 2009 4:19 am

Fascinating. In Klyashtorin and Lyubushin’s book, they show how Arctic ice coverage mirrors global temperature, with an 8 year lag, and predict 30 years of global cooling. So, if 2007 was the nadir of Arctic ice, followed by 30 years of “robust” recovery of ice, that would put the start of the next melting in about 2037. Thirty years of melting after that could mean an ice free Arctic in the 2060-2080 window. Has the Met started reading Russian?
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?

Tom in Florida
October 28, 2009 4:22 am

Well, it’s a start.

October 28, 2009 4:22 am

“But they do say that “first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080″. By then there will be nobody that remembers this forecast.”
Why are these people NEVER held accountable for their failure to forcast anything????

dorlomin
October 28, 2009 4:22 am

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
What is all the fuss about again?

October 28, 2009 4:25 am

It really breaks my heart to see those poley bears floating away on their tiny little ice-floes, and no-one cares about them at all.
The deniers screech that “their population is increasing!”
OK, so logic says that there will be MORE poley bears floating around like the flotsam and jetsam of capitalist society.
Shame.

October 28, 2009 4:27 am

Human signal in the 30-year trend – which exactly?
AFAIK, in 2007/8/9 the NW passage got opened for the first time since – surprise, surprise – 1941/44.
Not to forget: http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpg

Peter Plail
October 28, 2009 4:33 am

They seem to be covering their backsides with every paragraph, yet despite attributing the 2007 to prevailing winds (somewhat belatedly) they still claim it is consistent with the model that originally told them it was global warming wot dun it!
These are supposed to be leading climate scientists yet they don’t seem to apply any logical analysis to what they say. I think they are slowly reaching a tipping point when they fess up and admit it is all part of natural cycles and that man’s CO2 contribution will not cause runaway anything.

H.R.
October 28, 2009 4:35 am

“But they do say that “first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080″. By then there will be nobody that remembers this forecast.”
Kinda’ reminds me of a sign some bars have hanging up as a joke:
“Free Beer Tomorrow.”
In effect, all we ever see is a sign that says “The Ice Will Be Gone Tomorrow.”

vg
October 28, 2009 4:58 am

Dorlomin: DMI is not posting because since October 1 data not reliable. Upon re-adjustment will look more like 2005 probably…same applies to Jaxa, Norsex etc. CT just goes ahead they dont care….as long as it goes down

rbateman
October 28, 2009 5:00 am

The bottom line is that if your 1 year or 5 year forecast is flaky, why should your 50 year forecast be any better?

Henry chance
October 28, 2009 5:00 am

Free ice next year
Science is in
Surely we will see a blizzard soon

John Laidlaw
October 28, 2009 5:05 am

Sadly, I’m getting a “connection reset” error when trying to access the Met Office page linked to from above. I did search Google News in the hope of finding another link buried somewhere, but instead found this splendid bit of tosh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8324428.stm
Note that the phrase “peer-reviewed” figures prominently in the body text.

Sandy
October 28, 2009 5:12 am

When will these morons realize that low arctic ice is dumping enormous amounts of heat out to space. I think DaveE suggested this forms a negative feedback system pulling the climate back to equilibrium, or at least its attractor.
Positive feedback and linear trends in the climate system are for kid’s stories.

DennisA
October 28, 2009 5:18 am

Climate variation in the European Arctic during the last 100 years
First Author Hanssen-Bauer, Inger, Organization: Norwegian Meteorological Institute. CliC International Project Office
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/metadata_pabstracts.php?s=0&table=Abstracts&id=20&parid=&tag=&country=&letter=&sorder=&stype=&limit=&q=
The State of the Arctic Climate System
Analyses of climate series from the European Arctic show major inter-annual and inter-decadal variability, but no statistically significant long-term trend in annual mean temperature during the 20th century in this region. The temperature was generally increasing up to the 1930s, decreasing from the 1930s to the 1960s, and increasing from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature level in the 1990s was still lower than it was during the 1930s.

October 28, 2009 5:19 am

The money quote for me was at the end. If the rate of global temperature rise increases.
By the way, isn’t today supposed to be the day when Piers Corbyn releases his methodology

April E. Coggins
October 28, 2009 5:22 am

We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.
They remain ready to bravely jump either way, depending on the weather. LOL!

kim
October 28, 2009 5:24 am

I like this in the last paragraph: “The observed temporary recovery…….indicates that the Arctic Ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.” I like it for two reasons, one is that they are introducing doubt that a tipping point exists and the other is their complete inability to sense that a tipping point has been reached, one that has now tipped the whole process back into freezing back up.
They are tiptoeing around in the dark. What happens when the light goes on?
============================================

Manfred
October 28, 2009 5:27 am

to regain some credibility, the first thing to do would be to remove the 2 obviously false upwards step changes in the sea-ice history, the latter occuring when switching to satellite data
the second fix would require to replace the flat lines before the satellite era with a cyclical line that is at least reasonably consistent with historical reports.
the third fix would be to replace the linear trend line with a cyclical trend.

John Lish
October 28, 2009 5:29 am

More interesting is that they said that half the IPCC models don’t correspond with reality:
“About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.”
That’s quite damning.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 5:30 am

“Why are these people NEVER held accountable for their failure to forcast anything????” mrpkw
“Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who!”” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Fred from Canuckistan . . .
October 28, 2009 5:36 am

paraphrasing Kate . . . when Pen Hadow and the UK Met office are arguing, you should pray for an asteroid hit not take sides

Tim Clark
October 28, 2009 5:38 am

Since there’s only a single “Robust”, they must not be very sure of themselves.

MattN
October 28, 2009 5:45 am

Can someone please link to the article which states that the Arctic will be ice free by 2010? Or was is 2012?
Either way, I’d like to see the original prediction….

Alan the Brit
October 28, 2009 5:47 am

Contradictions prevail:-
“invariably recovers from extreme events.”
“show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.”
Well, which is it, it cannot be both!
What human signal, not that old chestnut of CO2 increases coupled with temperature increases? Correlation does not equal causation!

Gary
October 28, 2009 5:48 am

There’s an interesting pattern emerging on the current AMSR-E sea ice extent chart. It looks to be following the 2006 track in shape, but at a much lower total area number. Anybody know if the weather patterns in the two years are similar?

Wondering Aloud
October 28, 2009 5:48 am

“long-term trend of reduction is robust”
“Robust” here is an unclear term. In this case it is used in place of the more accurate but less tasteful term BS.

Colin Porter
October 28, 2009 5:57 am

“About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.”
With a 23% recovery from 2007, the Met office must be telling us that 50% of models are wrong. Now we only need to get rid of the remaing 50%.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 6:02 am

“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
Mr. Moderator,
What am I, some kinda of bad boy? I see 4 comments after mine that have been approved. Perhaps there is more than one moderator. That I can understand.
I can take insults from Leif since I consider the source but if I am on some special list then just ban me outright or take me off it.

hunter
October 28, 2009 6:03 am

The cowards in the aGW promotion industry clearly do not have the strength of their convictions.
Apocalyptic claptrap always sees these kinds of mealy mouthed excuses and ‘clarifications’.

Robinson
October 28, 2009 6:08 am

In other Stupid news, Global Warming is set to raise the cost of a loaf of bread to £6.50.

Jordan
October 28, 2009 6:11 am

Difficult to know where to start with this one.
“2007 … reaching an all-time low”
By all-time low, can we take it they mean since 1979?
“Modelling … shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events”
Can’t recall hearing that point being emphasised in the past. Better late than never I suppose.
” in part, to unusual weather patterns”
Can’t recall that point being made at the time. Perhaps they’ve been watching Jeff ID’s most excellent video demonstration.
“The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.”
We’ll be looking forward to assessing the accuracy of their prediction for next year, taking into account their ability to model trend and variability. When does the Met Office propose to publish its prediction?
“About half of the climate models involved ”
That’s about as even-stevens as it gets. Half don’t agree with the other half.
“now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend”
So the trend period is varied to get the required answer. What was all that about not cherry-picking the last 10 years to make a point?

David
October 28, 2009 6:11 am

Bearing in mind that TWO of the “quality” selection of people who are credited with proving content for the London Science Museum’s Prove-**it website are from the Met Office, I wonder if the museum will rewrite the content to match this new data?

DR
October 28, 2009 6:13 am

You’d swear the entire history of planet is encapsulated in the last 30 years.
“all time low” “long-term trend” “expected”

October 28, 2009 6:16 am

“Kaboom (04:25:28) :
It really breaks my heart to see those poley bears floating away on their tiny little ice-floes, and no-one cares about them at all.
The deniers screech that “their population is increasing!”
OK, so logic says that there will be MORE poley bears floating around like the flotsam and jetsam of capitalist society.
Shame.”
The funny part is……………………….. You are serious !!!!!!!!!!!!

October 28, 2009 6:17 am

“Back2Bat (06:02:07) :
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
Mr. Moderator,
What am I, some kinda of bad boy? I see 4 comments after mine that have been approved. Perhaps there is more than one moderator. That I can understand.
I can take insults from Leif since I consider the source but if I am on some special list then just ban me outright or take me off it.

You are not special (insert joke here).
We all wait in que

Frank K.
October 28, 2009 6:24 am

I’m not surprised by this, coming on the heels of the bungled forecast for 2009 ice extent by the NSIDC:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/09/tech/main5228298.shtml
UKTOYAKTUK, Northwest Territories, Aug. 9, 2009
Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice Melt in Summer
Scientists Watch for Possible Record Low of Polar Ice Cap

I’m frankly getting sick and tired of this constant scientific drivel about polar ice coming from people who should simply be telling us the facts rather than aiding and abetting the MSM in telling yet another AGW scare story.
And, of course, we should ask where is the follow-up in the MSM when the forecasts are way off, as was the case this year? Well, here’s the follow up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/tech/main5385527.shtml
LONDON, Oct. 15, 2009
Study: Arctic Ice Will Melt in 10 Years
British Explorers Return from North Pole with Ice Data Suggesting it Will Soon Disappear in Summer Months
(CBS/AP) The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.
CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports that the explorers walked – and swam – 280 miles across the Arctic ice of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, drilling hundreds of ice samples as they went.
The Catlin Arctic Survey team, led by explorer Pen Hadow, measured the thickness of the ice as it sledged through the northern part of the Beaufort Sea earlier this year during their research project. Their findings show that most of the ice in the region is first-year ice that is only around six feet deep and will melt next summer. The region has traditionally contained, thicker multiyear ice which does not melt as rapidly.

And a mere two weeks later we have the Met office contradicting this report!

October 28, 2009 6:25 am

Good news!, Global Warming is melting away!
No one of us will be here then. How could we do to make them accountable for their predictions?.
Well. Anyway it is an acceptable and political scape goat.

October 28, 2009 6:28 am

Back2Bat, it was probably that Monty Python quote. They had to check that it was accurate . . .
I’ve had the same thing happen to me, of my comments awaiting moderation, and I’m usually just off topic with my comments. I don’t think you should take it personally. And besides, you don’t know if those four comments were actually submitted before yours, and maybe they had to wait 30 minutes before their comments were approved.

CheshireRed
October 28, 2009 6:30 am

I Googled ‘ice free Arctic’ and here’s a couple of BBC links that positively scream ‘catastrophe’, plus one from NatGeo’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8307272.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091015-arctic-ice-free-gone-global-warming.html
Now what, pray, are the odds of both these august media organisations running similar stories any time soon, just as the Met’ Office has revised back its latest guesses by another 50-70 years?
PS. Note the BBC’s efforts; first in 2007 and then a pant wetting repeat in 2009. Not biased at all, then.

October 28, 2009 6:48 am

“The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.”
An interesting sentence, which questions the notion of an arctic tipping point (heresy), notes the recovery since 2007 (near heresy) but refers to it as temporary (back to safe orthodox territory).
So, what’s this mean for the death spiral?

PaulH
October 28, 2009 6:54 am

“Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?”
I think they should bring out that roulette wheel the “experts” were playing with a few months back. Just add numbers representing “the years before the arctic melts after we are gone” and give it a spin.

Myron Mesecke
October 28, 2009 6:55 am

kim (05:24:13) :
“They are tiptoeing around in the dark. What happens when the light goes on?”
They scatter like roaches?

geo
October 28, 2009 7:01 am

“all-time low”. . . in the last 30 years when we have semi-accurate numbers.
I understand newspapers have space constraints, but c’mon.

the_Butcher
October 28, 2009 7:10 am

What about Al Gore’s 5 fingers last year conference in Germany?
It’s 4 fingers left now…

October 28, 2009 7:12 am

Anthony: Of all the questions you’ve asked over the years, this one, “Gosh, who to believe? Somebody that fakes biotelemetry data or somebody that won’t hand over climate data for replication studies?” is the easiest to answer.
Neither.

Stephen Goldstein
October 28, 2009 7:13 am

With apologies to John Cleese, Brilliant . . . Simply Brilliant.
Possibly, responding to criticism of non-falsifiability, the warmists have provided a falsifiable prediction. Sadly, as pointed out earlier, few of us will be around to call them on it in 2060 or thereabouts.

Corey
October 28, 2009 7:18 am

Kim,
I like that line too:
<blockquote.The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.
The are packpeddling on the whole idea of “tipping points”, a CYA approach. The only problem is that it is too late for them to take this stance.

October 28, 2009 7:24 am

From the press release, “The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.”
They can detect it but they didn’t quantify it.
They continue, “The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.”
But it’s also consistent with a multidecadal period where El Nino events dominate.
They continue, “About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years. The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that THE ARCTIC ICE HAS NOT REACHED A TIPPING POINT, IF SUCH EXISTS.”
[My caps]
They conclude with, “We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.”
And if global temperatures do not continue to rise…

Gene Nemetz
October 28, 2009 8:01 am

So let’s hear this publicly from Al Gore.

October 28, 2009 8:06 am

“though there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modeling from the Met Office.”
Insert
Tom Hanks’ laugh from “The Money Pit”
/Insert

Jeff
October 28, 2009 8:09 am

It seems to me that when an organization or researcher refuses to release his data that it cannot really be called ‘data’. It is, after all, only rumor, until released, & should be refered to by that name.

Sam the Skeptic
October 28, 2009 8:18 am

kim (05:24:13) :
“They are tiptoeing around in the dark. What happens when the light goes on?”
I reckon that’s when they find they’ve got no clothes on! 😉

Bill Sticker
October 28, 2009 8:22 am

For Fred from Canuckistan;
“when Pen Hadow and the UK Met office are arguing, you should pray for an asteroid hit not take sides…”
Seen this one from October 8th?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6444895/Asteroid-explosion-over-Indonesia-raises-fears-about-Earths-defences.html

October 28, 2009 8:25 am

“Jeff (08:09:15) :
It seems to me that when an organization or researcher refuses to release his data that it cannot really be called ‘data’. It is, after all, only rumor, until released, & should be refered to by that name.”
I like that idea !

Tenuc
October 28, 2009 8:40 am

Well who’d have thought the Met Office would jump onto the ‘lets-cover-our-arses’ train this soon… :>o
Much better if they came clean and said,
“We now realise that the degree of ice formed at the poles is the end result of many inter-linked non-deterministic dynamic chaotic processes, as is the rest of Earth’s climate systems. Currently we have no clear understand of how these complex processes work on an individual basis, or how they interact with each other to produce the nett effect.
We also do not have accurate enough data of sufficient granularity to even start to quantify the outcomes of these processes and even if we did, the power of the total population of computers in the world would be insufficient to process the data to be able to provide accurate forecasts of climate change.
Until all the above issues have been resolved, the best information we can give is that our sun is the main driver of climate change, and CO2 has little or no effect.”
Until the Met Office decides to be honest and publish the above statement of fact, they are not an organisation to be respected or trusted.
As Piers Corbyn would say, “It’s the sun, stupid”… 😉

Robert Wood
October 28, 2009 8:41 am

The UK Met office is widely rejected by the population due to its constant failure to predict “hottest Summer ever” every year!

Fred Lightfoot
October 28, 2009 8:43 am

MattN (05.04.06)
Google ”arctic ice free by 2010” and you get 336,000 results, now how many are the BBC and IPCC I will leave up to you.
Have fun !

climatebeagle
October 28, 2009 8:45 am

With a summer ice-free prediction of 2060-80 there must be intermediate predictions, let’s ask for those and see how accurate the met office is in the near term, rather than waiting for 50+ years.

October 28, 2009 8:49 am

“Jeff”(08:0:15) And what of the peers who review this data less research? Are they not simply rumor mongers?

DaveE
October 28, 2009 8:51 am

mrpkw (06:16:01) :
I think you should visit Kabooms spoof alarmist site LOL
DaveE.

Retired Engineer
October 28, 2009 9:05 am

Fidel Castro said you should predict things far enough in the future so you won’t be around to explain why they didn’t happen. The MET finally figured this out. Perhaps they should apply the same logic to their summer and winter forecasts. “2087 will have unusually warm weather.”
I predict we’ll all be dead by 2105. (I know it will be cold by 21:05)

Thomas J. Arnold.
October 28, 2009 9:12 am

Lo! The weasely wordsmiths at the Met Office are ‘robustly’ backpedalling, glory be!
“Ifs and buts and apples and nuts” as my father used to say and are the Met finally reading the BIG picture?
Mr. McIntyre’s recent clinical deconstruction of Briffa, some off message doubters at the BBC…………….. something’s afoot.
Alas the loony British Politicians continue the ‘we’re all doomed’ scenario, do they not read anything about and around the subject of AGW………..do they read??
If anyone were to read recent relevant news/science articles, they would surely conclude that the science is very, very far from settled and back off…………..fat chance!
The Arctic Ocean sea ice is not going away anytime soon, 2060/80 it will be there still, I’m equally confident in saying, that I won’t be.

F. Ross
October 28, 2009 9:17 am

“Modelling[sic] of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080.
For “robust” read “a bust.”
For “2060 and 2080” read “later and even later”
So much for their models.

Leon Brozyna
October 28, 2009 9:23 am

And in a generation, these same type of backward looking people will be warning of a new ice age, even though the climate will again be warming up a bit.
In climate, as in every other publicly-funded endeavor, disaster looms and must be carefully studied {♫ Money … ♫ We need money … ♫ We need lots and lots of money ♫} to prepare for the coming predicted changes.

Andrew
October 28, 2009 9:27 am

“And what of the peers who review this data less research? Are they not simply rumor mongers?”
To quote Jerry: “Worse. Much, much worse.”
Andrew

Jimmy Haigh
October 28, 2009 9:31 am

“first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080″.
Well, John (Swiftboat) Kerry is recently on record as saying that the Arctic will be ice free by 2013. Who, indeed, to believe?

Jerry Haney
October 28, 2009 10:06 am

I thought the “science” was settled, but how can that be if only half of their “models” are correct? So, evidently the AGWers have not “settled” on their own “science”.

Steve M.
October 28, 2009 10:24 am

MattN (05:45:06) :

Can someone please link to the article which states that the Arctic will be ice free by 2010? Or was is 2012?
Either way, I’d like to see the original prediction….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Matt, was a pretty easy google search.

P Wilson
October 28, 2009 10:36 am

F. Ross (09:17:36)
That ought to be re-written as : “Observations based on non Met Office satellite data shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events….

Reed Coray
October 28, 2009 10:46 am

“Tipping points” were pounded into AGW alarmists’ heads when as children on the school yard they mounted the teeter-totter by wrapping their legs around the board in the up-side-down position.

October 28, 2009 10:51 am

So the record lows are caused by natural variability well, well
And in Antarctica
An interesting post on real climate explaining that reduced Antarctic ice melt observed in recent years is not inconsistent with AGW. In this analysis they are, IMO, correct but they use natural variability to explain why. Agani probably correct but if natural variability matters then it matters generally and until GCM’s build ENSO, NAO, SAM and the rest into their models they are never going to deliver robust ( sic) results
OIn summary record low antractic melts and record high arctic melts are both caused by natural variability… and what else I wonder.. quite a lot and nobody knows till we get models that work

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 11:07 am

“You are not special (insert joke here).” mrpkw
We are all special.
Take this Back2Bat (preemptive self-rebuke)!
“For anger slays the foolish man,
And jealousy kills the simple.
Job 5:2
touché
A fool’s anger is known at once,
But a prudent man conceals dishonor.
Proverbs 12:16
ouch!
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry,
For anger resides in the bosom of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:9
feel free to pile on!
Thanks Janice.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 11:19 am

Oh,
I apologize Mr. Moderator for the “special list remark.” I ignore that still, gentle voice to my own harm.

M White
October 28, 2009 11:20 am

Tuesday, 12 December 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6171053.stm
Pen Hadow 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
These are the stories we hear from the media. Those with a hint of balance are few and far between.

David Hoyle
October 28, 2009 11:36 am

Once again the ‘prediction’ is around 50 years… Close enough to be frightening, but far enough away to be hard to prove or remember by anyone who is around now….these predictions are always just out of reach and ‘steps’ must always be taken now to prevent any further warming … I’ve just been reading my tea leaves and I am expecting a BIG bill from Copenhagen…

October 28, 2009 12:47 pm

Row bust,
Scantily clad models in a boat with oars.

stumpy
October 28, 2009 1:12 pm

If they keep revising their models to match observation, they will always be behind the 8 ball, and no more accurate than a linear extrapolation.
When will we see a model where observation matches their projection???
They are too quick to re-fudge their models everytime nature fails to do as told!

October 28, 2009 1:17 pm

In the year 2060 chances are, if H.Abdusamatov is right, there will be a new Catlin 2nd. expedition, to explore ice from uninhabited and then frozen London city to the north pole..

richard clenney
October 28, 2009 1:56 pm

Re: P Wilson:
That ought to be re-written as: ” Observations based
on non Met Office satellite data shows that ice MAY
invariably recover from SOME extreme events….”
I am American, and I really enjoy this blog. My
country is in for a bad time, maybe we can start cutting
our losses by 2010, (around the time the ice melts).
Time to fasten my seat belt.

Boudu
October 28, 2009 3:09 pm

Just got back from Piers Corbyn’s conference in London. Two BBC journos showed up; Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. Black promised to report Corbyn’s prediction of a serious weather event in the North Sea between 17 and 19 November.
Oh, and get some warm clothes. According to Corbyn we’re in for a cold and snowy winter.
I’ll have some videos from the event on Climate Realists web site soon !

Jack Hughes
October 28, 2009 3:37 pm

The extent of Arctic sea ice has been decreasing since the late 1970s. In 2007 it decreased dramatically in a single year, reaching an all-time low.
The arctic ice has been measured in this way since 1979. This is what they mean by “all time”. At the Met Office time began in 1979.
Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events…
Wrong. Modelling shows … models. Measurements and observations show things – modelling shows nothing.
…and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust.
Note to readers: in climanetics the word “robust” has a special meaning – it applies retrospectively to past observations as in “last years football scores were robust”.
Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns
This is blasphemy. Are they really saying that random natural events can be of similar size to … mankind ?
The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend.
So – it’s all over the place – and you cannot pin it on greenhouse gases – but there is a human signal. What is a human signal ? A voice ? Morse code ? Some writing ? These people are supposed to be scientists and they are talking about “human signals”. What are they on about – jungle drums at the North Pole ?
The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office.
Well it’s just a pity that they did not publish this trend and this variability beforehand – like normal predictions.
It gets better:
About half of the climate models involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report, show that ice declines in steps — failing to recover from extreme years.
So their own model – or models – show the ice recovering. But about half the models show the opposite. Are they wrong ?
The observed temporary recovery from the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009 indicates that the Arctic ice has not yet reached a tipping point, if such exists.
They have observed a recovery. Not a temporary recovery. The results for 2010 are not in – yet. Not until …next year. Too early to say if it’s temporary or not. This is junk.
They really saved the best until last – nobody knows if there is a tipping point. Are they hedging ?
This is cargo-cult stuff. It’s not science.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 3:41 pm

“They are too quick to re-fudge their models everytime nature fails to do as told!” stumpy
Hard science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc): to encourage man.
not so hard science (biology, climatology, etc): to humble man
soft science(psychology, sociology, etc): to frustrate man

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 4:05 pm

Jack Hughes (15:37:10) :
I almost feel sorry for the opposition. It looks like the adults are starting to wake up.

redneck
October 28, 2009 4:30 pm

“We expect Arctic ice to continue to decline in line with increasing global temperatures. If the rate of global temperature rise increases then so will the rate of Arctic sea-ice decline.”
Yeah and if your aunty had balls she would be your uncle !

Ron de Haan
October 28, 2009 5:12 pm

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

Paul Vaughan
October 28, 2009 5:36 pm

Sandy (05:12:02) “When will these morons realize that low arctic ice is dumping enormous amounts of heat out to space.”
Well-said.

Paul Vaughan
October 28, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Bob Tisdale (07:12:17)
I also found Anthony’s question very amusing —– sure put things into perspective.

Ian Blanchard
October 29, 2009 2:25 am

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

Yarmy
October 29, 2009 2:25 am

Boudu (15:09:26) :
…a serious weather event in the North Sea between 17 and 19 November.
Sounds like a horoscope. What kind of weather event? The North Sea is a large body of water and storms aren’t exactly rare in November. Isn’t this just the Barnum effect?
Maybe he’s right about the upcoming winter, but it’s pretty mild here at the moment (and there’s no sign of it getting colder soon). Perversely, I hope he’s right, because I like cold winters (though not too cold, thank you).
Did he actually reveal what his method was, or was it just some armwaving about solar activity and the moon?

October 29, 2009 2:58 am

To all intents and purposes the Arctic will be ice free in a decade.
True — if you happen to be making the transit by submarine.

DaveE
October 29, 2009 8:29 am

Ron de Haan (17:12:02) :

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

From your link…

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

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

Chris
October 29, 2009 9:04 am

I just have to ask, exactly what has happened in the past few months that has caused such a massive change in the output of the models?
If there was some massive, unprecedented ice buildup in the Arctic then sure, I could understand. But there has been nothing out of the ordinary, and yet we are supposed to believe that suddenly the models show icy summers in the arctic for the next several decades.
Logically, it would seem that something other than the input of raw data is affecting the output. In which case, projections (both current and previous) are suspect.

Jordan
October 29, 2009 3:50 pm

“exactly what has happened in the past few months that has caused such a massive change in the output of the models?”
Probably nothing Chris.
Just imagine the massive piles of data coming from multiple runs of these models. These will be open to ex postfacto interpretation and selection, so there will always be somebody who can claim that something is “consistent” with what they had modelled.
Like the person who comes home from a day at the horse racing brags about how well they did on the 3:15.
Or the person who said that share prices would go down three years ago .. and just look what happened!
Or the quatrains of Nostradamus – we kinda get their full meaning after the event, as they are twisted to fit known past events.

Rhys Jaggar
October 30, 2009 3:25 am

Slightly off topic, has anyone got any ideas as to the effect on arctic ice next summer of the past month or so being significantly above average in temperature and, hence seeing a delayed start to the steepest phase of the annual freeze-up?
My gut feel would be, all things being equal, that sea ice minimum next September would be no higher than 2009 and possibly slightly lower?
Any evidence from previous freezing seasons to shed light on that??

ICE
December 7, 2009 10:25 am

Ice, ice everywhere

%d bloggers like this: