It’s refreshing to see NSIDC director Mark Serreze coming to grips with his role in stirring up Arctic ice scare stories (like the famous “death spiral”) in 2007:
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
With sea ice levels in the Arctic at record lows this month, a new report comparing scientists’ predictions calls for caution in over-interpreting a few weeks worth of data from the North Pole.
The Sea Ice Outlook, which will be released this week, brings together more than a dozen teams’ best guesses at how much sea ice will disappear by the end of the warm season in September. This year began with a surprise. More sea ice appeared than anticipated, nearing its mean level from 1979-2007. But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June. Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it, and they expect below average ice for the rest of the year.
But looking ahead, the ultimate amount of sea ice melt is hard to determine. Some trends, like the long-term warming of the Arctic and overall decreases in the thickness of sea ice, argue for very low levels of sea ice. But there are countervailing factors, too: The same weather pattern that led to higher-than-normal temperatures in the Arctic this year is also changing the circulation of sea ice, which could keep it in colder water and slow the melting.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:17 am
R. Gates,
You finally show up. I didn’t see any comments from you in the DC-3 survey thread. There was not one.
____________________
I only came back on-line today (6-20) after a much deserved R&R to San Diego. I’ll go look for that thread, and see if there’s anything meaningful I can contribute. Thanks for the heads up…
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:17 am
“Ice Free means No Ice, None.”
RESPONSE:
What I said, to take full context into account was:
“2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”. 2020-2030 is. 2013 came from Maslowski whose prediction is an outlier compared to the others. He has now changed his predictions to 2016 +/- 3 years.”
PLEASE NOTE THAT I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT 2020-2030 WAS THE RANGE THAT MOST SCIENTISTS HAD GIVEN, NOT THE MEDIA AS I ALREADY STATED, NOR MASLOWSKI WHOM THEY WERE QUOTING AND WAS NOT IN THE RANGE OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE SCIENTISTS PREDICTIONS. THEN I STATED THAT WITHIN HALF THAT TIME RANGE THE ARCTIC WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ICE FREE.
I FAIL TO SEE WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT IF SOMEONE PREDICTS THAT SOMETHING, ICE CAP OR OTHERWISE, IS GOING TO SHRINK COMPLETELY BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THEN BEFORE THAT TIME HAS ELAPSED IT’S GOING TO SHRINK PARTIALLY.
“As the Arctic becomes mostly ice free, which happen in about half the time range of the predictions of TOTAL lack of ice (10-20 divided by two=5-10=2015-2010), It is going to have a massive impact on the weather of the Northern Hemisphere.”
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
I really don’t care about who predicted 2013, 2023, 2033 or 2313.
What I would like from you is the slope in the Global Sea Ice Anomaly from thus:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Or an equivalent explanation:
What the hell is going on with Global Sea Ice?
This is so true. Showing global sea ice is a great argument. If all the Arctic ice were gone all year round, but the same amount would grow in Antarctica, there would be no problem whatsoever. Period.
I use the same kind of argument when people whine about world hunger. What world hunger? It is cancelled out by all those obese people in the West. This idea always makes me feel good when overeating. ‘Eat some more, my friend. You’re fighting world hunger, ‘ I like to say to myself on such occasions.
Steve Goddard says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
My prediction is 5.5. That is the only number I have given for 2010
_____________________
Steve, is that from the IJIS/JAXA data, or something else?
Pamela Gray says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:19 am
Yeah, Pam, it is totally weird, is it not?
Does the Earth freeze from the S. Hemisphere going North, or does the Earth melt from the N. Hemisphere going South?
Or, if we had another 30 years of satellite data, would we not be seeing the same trends in reverse from the 40’s to the late 70’s?
Günther, you don’t have to go far to do your cherry picking, do you?☺
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points at the Antarctic sea ice and says, “but but look at these charts! Surely they prove that AGW models are crap!”.
No, just chery-picked data, that is what the models are based upon.
If the Antarctic existed on another planet, and if time began in 1979, you might have a point.
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
“The prediction of 2013 for an ice free Arctic ocean in the summer has been the most widely publicized date, but it is NOT the most widely accepted date by the actual experts in the field, nor the mean date given by GCM’s. The media have used it so much because it is so sensational and relatively close, and AGW skeptics love to pounce upon it to show how foolish the AGW believers are and how wrong their models are.”
Thank you, thank you, R. Gates. And thanks for the links.
rbateman says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:59 am
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:33 am
I really don’t care about who predicted 2013, 2023, 2033 or 2313.
What I would like from you is the slope in the Global Sea Ice Anomaly from thus:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Or an equivalent explanation:
What the hell is going on with Global Sea Ice?
_____________________
You seem to think that somehow a chart of Global Sea ice is more meaningful than looking at the Arctic and Antarctic as the separate regions with different dynamics that they are? I don’t happen to think a global sea ice chart is all that helpful as each region’s sea ice grows and expands and has it’s own influences, both long term and short term. Besides, what happens in the Arctic sea ice will be far more influencial to the majority of the worlds population which is in the N. Hemisphere. I guess you must be one of those AGW skeptics I was talking about in my previous post who is determined NOT to see the true different dynamics of the Arctic and Anarctic?
In general, Arctic year to year sea ice is decreasing faster than Anarctic sea ice is increasing (year to year), and will continue to do so for the next few decades, until both will show declines from current means. A better chart is really this one:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
The chart clearly shows more negative anomalies since 2000 in Global Sea ice, and the reason is the Arctic has been declining slightly more than the Antarctic has been increasing. Look for that trend to continue…
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
… Increased torrential rainfall due to the increased humidity that will come from the increased evaporation of an open and warming ocean. There will also be droughts.
/sarcasm on
I’m no climatologist… but I think you may have left out a couple of other predictions like:
We will have epic snow storms, or… less snow.
We will have catastrophic heat waves, or… temperatures will be at or below normal.
We will have devastating hurricanes, or they will continue to remain quiet.
(and if these don’t come to pass, see us in 2019 when we revise our timeline and predictions).
/sarcasm off
All smiles! Happy Father’s Day to those who qualify (and in the spirit of my post… and to those who don’t as well!).
JP
villabolo says: June 20, 2010 at 10:37 am
“It appears, Andrew, that you are confusing what the general Media has to say and what the actual scientists are saying”
No confusion here. I do sense some regret on your part that perhaps the CAGW camp ‘did not do a good enough job in communicating’.
Ho, Ho, Ho.
What the masses have been told have been quotations from climate scientologists on video.
I do understand the difference between a scientist and a sensationalist.
One uses real measured data, publishes it, documents and publishes methods, awaits independent confirmation, makes firm predictions and publishes them, understand falsify-ability, the concept of the null hypothesis and the scientific method.
The other works in the realm of Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Climate ‘Science’ and is on record as saying “The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013”.
Oh, one other thing; A scientists can generally recognize a sine-wave.
Douglas DC says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:22 am
it appears that Nina’s pushed Nino out of the stroller……
It does appear that way:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/equpacsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
villabolo says:
—
There have always been droughts. Do you mean an increase in the incidence of droughts, a decrease in the incidence of droughts or more of the same incidence of droughts?
Can you see how “increased evaporation of an open and warming ocean” might lead to an increase in albedo?
Richard M says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:59 am
What Serreze admitted was pure confirmation bias……The intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
He is saying what politicians want to hear. He has a government job.
“Richard Lindzen on climate science in the service of politics”
Does the refractive index play any role here or are the laws of physics repealed in climate ? I thought that light was totally reflected in an air to water interface with incidence above 49 degrees. All light would be reflected above 70 degrees latitude at the solstice and at lower latitudes at any other time. Blackness of the surface doesn’t enter the picture. Allowing for atmospheric bending of incoming light does not markedly alter the critical latitude (moving it slightly higher).
Claims of increased albedo due to loss of whiteness are the kind of nonsense that makes a technically educated person (engineering for me) sceptical. The physics doesn’t support the arm waving.
I also don’t understand why commercial enterprise hasn’t taken advantage of the navigation freedom this lack of ice has made possible. If the RCMP could pass through the Arctic in both directions in 1940-44 in a wooden boat http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm followed by the tanker Manhattan (1969) http://sunshiporg.homestead.com/manhattan.html then the route is proved. The present low ice levels must be much more favourable than existed in those two earlier times. Unless, of course, the reality is not being presented.
Regards
Paul Thomas
Steve,
Please explain you prediction of Arctic Sea ice for 2010. You said 5.5 million sq. km, and you’re also on record for saying that Arctic Sea ice volume has increased 25% since 2008. But these two numbers don’t agree too well. Looking at the following summer minimum from IJIS/JAXA:
2006 5.781 million sq. km.
2007 4.254 million sq. km.
2008 4.707 million sq. km.
2009 5.249 million sq. km.
So you say we’re only increasing the minimum by 250,000 sq. km. this year over last? That not even up to the increase between 2007-2008, or 2008-2009. That’s not much of a recovery considering we’ve got 25% more volume now (according to you).
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:50 am
I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points at the Antarctic sea ice and says, “but but look at these charts! Surely they prove that AGW models are crap!”.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would certainly say that in this case (and many other cases) that the news is crap.
“As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice”
This and similar statements are always cropping up in the media and give the average reader the impression that both poles are rapidly dwindling away, when the real case is that growth in Antarctic ice is strongly offsetting and balancing the losses in Arctic ice. I see this all the time. Then, if there really must be more than a cursory nod to the Antarctic, the focus will shift to the Peninsula. Hardly any mention at all about all that other bit, the really really big bit that is actually growing. It’s this kind of media blindness which is turning people into sceptics, or atleast sharpening their BS detectors.
This is a great point which should be made to all concerned scientists. That if they really care about how the science of global warming is being presented to the public, then they need to make sure that things (the things they are saying) are being accurately reported- that there is an accurate representation of the general facts.
But all too often it’s the sceptics who are left holding the bag.
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:14 am
So tell me Villabolo, do you have a prediction / forecast / scenario for the Arctic seeing as the Antarctic is not doing too badly. I put not doing too badly because you ignored it when replying to my comment. I await your response.
Good point Günther, with the Arctic ice free there be millions of
hectares open to farming. I like to say to myself on such occasions.
R. Gates
“I also love it when the rather uneducated AGW skeptic points”
Please detail your educational attainments and your field studies in the arctic which enable you to make such superior observations.
This will enable us to judge whether your continued postings on this blog are worth reading in the future or whether you might be the source of the hot air causing global anomalies.
I hope you can appreciate why blogs like WUWT exist now.
barry says: June 20, 2010 at 10:45 am
“An ice free summer in 2013 was one prediction amongst many.”
Quite the ‘robust’ ‘theory’, isn’t it.
Einstein:
Jan 1 1919:
The light from the star will be deflected by 2 degrees; this will be visible during a solar eclipse.
Jan 4 1919:
The light from the star could be deflected by 2.6 degrees.
Jan 16 1919:
The light from the star might be deflected by 11.34 degrees.
Feb 1 1919:
The deflection may not detectable.
Feb 25 1919:
The light from the star should be deflected by 0.1223 degrees.
Mar 13 1919:
The light from the star could possibly be deflected by 4.13 degrees.
Mar 27 1919:
The light from the star will likely be deflected by between 0 and 23.81 degrees.
Apr 11 1919:
The light from the star may well be deflected 3.81 degrees.
May 30 1919:
See I was right!
I am shocked, shoked I tellls ya!!! Why didn’t you say:
“All temperature measurements have shown the Arctic to show more atmospheric warming than the Antarctic, ….”?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
villabolo says:
June 20, 2010 at 9:31 am
2013 IS NOT the most widely publicized prediction for “ice free summers in the Arctic”.
At the end of 2008 Al Gore said the Arctic could be ice free in “5 years”. That is 2013. I would link the video from YouTube of him saying it but for some reason, strangely, that video is gone now.
RESPONSE:
This is almost as bad as quoting what the Media has to say. Why don’t you pay attention to what the majority of Climatologists themselves are saying? Al Gore’s statement came from Maslowski whose prediction was that the ice cap would disappear around 2013 a date that was below the predictions of 2020-2030 that
the majority of Climatologists were making.
As for the “prediction” that Gore made, it is available on a Skeptic video below. Please note that Gore said “that there is a 75% chance” of the ice cap being ice free within 5-7 years. That video is the third one down on this link.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/15/gore-derangement-syndrome/