It’s refreshing to see NSIDC director Mark Serreze coming to grips with his role in stirring up Arctic ice scare stories (like the famous “death spiral”) in 2007:
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
With sea ice levels in the Arctic at record lows this month, a new report comparing scientists’ predictions calls for caution in over-interpreting a few weeks worth of data from the North Pole.
The Sea Ice Outlook, which will be released this week, brings together more than a dozen teams’ best guesses at how much sea ice will disappear by the end of the warm season in September. This year began with a surprise. More sea ice appeared than anticipated, nearing its mean level from 1979-2007. But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June. Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it, and they expect below average ice for the rest of the year.
But looking ahead, the ultimate amount of sea ice melt is hard to determine. Some trends, like the long-term warming of the Arctic and overall decreases in the thickness of sea ice, argue for very low levels of sea ice. But there are countervailing factors, too: The same weather pattern that led to higher-than-normal temperatures in the Arctic this year is also changing the circulation of sea ice, which could keep it in colder water and slow the melting.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm
And a surprising amount of snow-free land along shorelines in the Canadian Archipelago, too. Not even that brutal, as the snow is melting off the sea ice.
Warm enough to support farming yet?
What melts faster: the Sea Ice or the Snow on the Sea Ice?
There was only 1 scientist among the sea ice community advocating Arctic ice free summers by 2013. The scientist made that prediction because the role that he believes the ocean is playing in thinning the ice, a role he feels neglected in many other studies. The scientist (Dr. Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School) runs a high resolution regional sea ice/ocean model for his assessments (which can model processes such as the inflow of the warm water through Bering Strait, something that global climate models currently do not resolve). His model work shows large bottom melting of the ice by the ocean and he has validated his model with buoy data. To get the 2013 date, he extrapolates. I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable.
The IPCC AR4 models suggest ice-free summers sometime between 2050 and 2100 based on the business as usual GHG scenarios. Thus, that was the range most scientists were quoting in the literature and media (not 2013).
Then I published a study in 2007 that compared the observations from 1953-2006 to those from the IPCC AR4 models. What that study showed is that on average the observations are about 30 years ahead of the climate models in terms of how much September ice there is at the moment in the Arctic. This lead many scientists to believe ice-free summers could happen sooner than the models predict, so that 2030 might be more reasonable.
I don’t think the actual date as to when it happens is all that important. If it happens, the consequences will be the same. It will be a large climate shift for the planet. This is because removal of the sea ice affects the temperatures in the Arctic, which in turn alters the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. It is this temperature gradient that drives our atmospheric and oceanic circulation, the role of which is to transport the excess heat received at the equator to the poles. Thus, you would expect significant changes in our weather patterns as the temperature gradient changes. How this will play out is an active research area at the moment. There is not enough data at the moment do assess this observationally, so climate models are used. At the moment these models are not consistent in their predictions as to how precipitation patterns around the world will change if there is no sea ice during summer in the Arctic.
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
‘Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Increased surface melting.’
—————————–
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
JK says:
“…you sure haven’t said _why_ it matters.”
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious to even the most casual observer: the entire debate is over global warming [more specifically, over catastrophic AGW caused by human emissions of CO2].
By cherry picking only the Arctic, you are selecting a regional climate. Anyone can do that, and it proves nothing. For example, the Gobi desert is fast approaching Beijing, and is now only about 40 miles away. Does that prove or disprove CO2=CAGW? Or is it simply a regional climate change?
[BTW, “climate” has always referred to regional, not planet-wide conditions. But like other definitions, the CAGW crowd has perverted the definition of climate from its original meaning.]
Billy Liar says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
No, and the sea ice isn’t turning blue-gray there yet either (if you looked at the images…)
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious to even the most casual observer: the entire debate is over global warming [more specifically, over catastrophic AGW caused by human emissions of CO2].
I don’t know, I don’t talk about “catastrophic” – I’ll leave that for others… but by global, you seem to be trying to say “all warming all the time? No? Then I don’t believe it.” Fine.
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I like your thinking, pard.
The debate over Global Warming drags Climate Regional into a kangaroo court.
When the real Globe stands up, there is found little warming to write home about.
The concensus finding is overturned due to the charges being framed.
Now it’s time to open up the data and see what’s really going on.
Billy Liar says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
JK says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm
‘Any significance to the further advance of the blue-gray color in the Arctic?
http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Increased surface melting.’
—————————–
Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.
Quite and the ice hasn’t turned blue on http://ice-map.appspot.com/ there yet.
Billy says:
“Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.”
The North Pole webcams show completely waterlogged snow that’s within a week of turning into puddles.
Sarah says:
June 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Billy says:
“Phil, you forgot to look at the North Pole webcam – there isn’t any surface melting there yet.”
The North Pole webcams show completely waterlogged snow that’s within a week of turning into puddles.
Probably, there’s already a crack in the ice through the site (late in May http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0528-025222.jpg).
So the buoy in the background is now on a different floe to the rest, hence the movements referred to by Billy Liar:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
fair question:
How low would the sea ice have to go before people agreed it was out of the ordinary
We already see cycling patterns that put the “null” into question
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comments
I think its a fair request to both sides in the debate to put some markers down.
Those who think the ice is vanishing and those who think what we are seeing is ‘ordinary’ or normal.
( you can of course believe that the ice is melting, that it is out of the ordinary, but that GHGs are not the sole cause )
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I do not recall any headlines int 2007, 2008 or 2009 that that indicated that the CAGW people had disowned Dr. Maslowski; or that they thought his pronouncement were unsound, or that they thought he was loose cannon. Nope, just silence in the media, with the opportunists (of all kinds) picking up the ball and running with it. Surely if a few dozen scientists thought such a pronouncements was insane, is would have registered somewhere in the media. Nope, the few dozen scientists were happy to let it slide, that is until the ice began to grow, and the date was seen to be in jeopardy.
So the story you and others have allowed to be presented to the people is that there is consensus (everyone agrees) and that the Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013 (not noticeably contested).
I know that both of these things are false, perhaps you do to, but I think that November 2007 would have been the time to speak up.
Julienne you better drop a note to William Connolly, he needs to update Wikipedia to indicate the irrational nature of the good doctor, because the prediction is still there on the “Timeline of the future in forecasts” page.
Steven Mosher says: June 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm
“How low would the sea ice have to go before people agreed it was out of the ordinary”
I think that a two kilometer thick slab of ice covering all of Canada is just as normal and just as natural as fruit trees, grasses and furry woodland creatures on Elsmere Island.
It has all happened before and it will all happen again, and again, and again until the Sun depletes its’ lighter fuels and its corona expands beyond the orbit of the Earth.
So, I think that no matter what happens, it is ordinary.
I thought you guys at WUWT were telling us that another ice age was coming with all that “the line’s going to touch” and Pips 2.o thick ice etc. Heck, I bought new ice skates and invested in a polar bear herd. Now it doesn’t matter?
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:35 pm
First, I will say that I personally do not consider you a “troll” and you provide a good foil for Steve. Otherwise, He is generally preaching to the choir.
Be sure though, that your comment “Oh, and of course, lately you need a pretty good BS meter…” works both ways. And why is it that you only need a good BS meter lately. I mean, some of the most dire CAGW predictions have already been discredited by the passage of time. And which side has indulged the most in trashing those who are not official “climate scientists”?
Finally, I listened to the presentation by Dr. Barber but I don’t think that I was quite as wowed as you appear to be. The extensive ‘rotten ice” observations are interesting and I am sure that these scientists are gathering valuable observations but it is obvious that the man is a GCM and CAGW believer and allows his bias to show. Barber apparently started his ice study carrier in 1980, coincident with the start of the satellite observation era. Missing is any real discussion of long term climate cycles, cycles that are considerably longer than his involvement in the science. Barber invokes in a nebulous way, the knowledge and wisdom of the Inuit but does not mention the historical knowledge of European peoples. Some anecdotal evidence is sacred and some profane. And he displayed a Hansen chart showing Arctic warming. It is common knowledge here that GISS Arctic temperatures are suspect.
Barber chortled over all the money that they were getting. Okay, we all like money, but he lost me for good when he invoked the polar bears. If only he had just stuck to his specially, ice.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Andrew, I am afraid you are incorrect. If you search on numerous Arctic scientists names and their “predictions” for the future state of the Arctic sea ice cover, you will find their assessments. There is only one name with the 2013 prediction. Regardless of Dr. Maslowski’s statements, NSIDC has stood by a 2030 estimate and the media has reported on this as well.
You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise. It made us realize that the ice pack had gotten thin enough to be vulnerable to weather patterns that favored extensive ice loss. These weather patterns had happened in the past during the observational record, but had not yielded such a dramatic summer retreat of the sea ice.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I do not recall any headlines… So the story you and others have allowed to be presented to the people is that there is consensus (everyone agrees) and that the Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013 (not noticeably contested).
That is pretty much the stupidest pronouncement yet on this post.
Why not read the science, at least, and then get back to us (after you get off the intellectual high horse).
Julienne says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The IPCC AR4 models suggest ice-free summers sometime between 2050 and 2100 based on the business as usual GHG scenarios. Thus, that was the range most scientists were quoting in the literature and media (not 2013).
I think it’s been mainly Al Gore and Mark Surreze that have made in into the media.
The literature is another story, i.e., the average person never reads it. So the only ‘media’ that matters to the average person is what is said on TV and radio. 2013 is the forecast for ice free summers in the Arctic. And Arctic ice is in a ‘death spiral’.
I think it’s important to keep a distinction between what the average person sees and what someone scientifically inclined sees. The scientifically inclined is a small part of the population. In fact, I think even the scientifically inclined, for the most part, has not read the IPCC reports and most science journal.
So 2013 is the only date that matters to most.
Julienne says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm
To get the 2013 date, he extrapolates. I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable.
Yes, you’re right. It’s very easy to agree with that.
Julienne,
Thanks for providing some truly expert perspective here. I hope the AGW “warmist” and sceptic alike can appreciate your knowledge, background, and the time you take to post.
JK says: June 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“Derogatory remark … Nothing of substance … Personal slur…”
Nothing out of the ordinary, it has all happened before, it will all happen again, and again, and again, until the CAGW followers gain insight or manners.
There is no predicted date for either of those outcomes or even a model indicating that either outcome is possible.
Julienne
June 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I take it you are alarmed by what you see in Arctic ice because of 2007?
Have you done any study on what Arctic ice could have been like 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period?
Smokey says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Doesn’t matter. This is what matters. Global ice cover is above average. See?
What you’re doing Smokey is you’re presenting data. And there are some who don’t want data. They want to believe computer climate models rather than the real observations that data come from.
Andrew30
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
What we have here is failure to communicate.
There is a disconnect between what a part of the science world calls the media and what most other people who are outside the world of science(i.e., most of the population), and even others in the science world, call the media.
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:20 am
Sean says: June 20, 2010 at 5:08 am
“I don’t mean to be irreverent but why do we look so much at sea ice?”
“The Arctic will be Ice Free in 2013.”
This is the most widely publicized ‘prediction’ from the CAGW camp. It is ‘predicted’ that the Arctic will be Ice Free during 2013.
Spin; Following the unusual large melt in 2007, a speculation was made by one scientist that “if the melt were to continue at this rate, the arctic would be ice free in summer by 2013.
He did not say “the arctic WILL be free in 2013. Neither did the consensus of climate scientists, in fact they said that the arctic would rebound. It did, but only partial and even then in extent only (15% or more ice cover) the ice thickness continued to decline, ergo less volume. As of today the 2010 melt is nearly 800,000 KM2 ahead of 2009. As for publicizing, I thought it was the skeptics making the noise.
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“Andrew, I am afraid you are incorrect. If you search on numerous Arctic scientists names and their “predictions” for the future state of the Arctic sea ice cover, you will find their assessments.”
Perhaps I was not clear when I used the phrases, “silence in the media” and “presented to the people”. It might have been clearer if I had said:
Neither I nor anyone I know has ever seen or heard a news or documentary report on commercial television or radio that indicates that the 2013 date was a childish extrapolation (a wild guess) by a single person and that the persons analysis is contested by all other scientists in the consensus.
One of you said it; the Media reported it; and none of you immediately contested it. You let it slide, for a long time.
PS.
I do not see NSIDC is the TV Guide, did you mean NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, CTV or CNN?