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.
I’m sorry but warmists appointed Al Gore as their spokesman and cemented that appointment when they defended, applauded, and distrubited his “An Inconvenient Truth”. To now say “Al is not a scientist” would have been just as relevant in exploring his many mistakes and exaggerations, but that was not done. Take a poll in America on names people recognize as knowing about Global Warming and Al will top the list. So own him, you created him.
Second, I would bet millions of dollars that if the Antartic was in a downward trend it also would be held up as an example of AGW. To hear this continued nonsense that the North Pole circumstances are due to AGW, but the Antartic’s are due to ozone holes and changing currents smells like bull cookies.
Andrew30
“So, I think that no matter what happens, it is ordinary.”
So basically, there is no evidence you would accept to contradict your belief?
That’s a bullet proof Null. Otherwise known as faith
Andrew30 says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
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,
Not silent at all, e.g.
From the BBC in Dec 2007, a report on a talk by Serreze:
Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
Julienne;
“I think we would all agree that linear extrapolation is not an accurate way to forecast sea ice or any climate variable”: Julienne
“We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean.”: Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
Apparently neither is a “high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data”
“You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise”: Julienne
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007.” “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” : Professor Wieslaw Maslowski
Did you catch that bit; “is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007”. The 2013 date did Not Include the 2007 minima, he is Not surprised! His CAGW Models predicted it before the 2007 minima, not after.
Are you aware of any other renegade predictions, projections, forecasts or errors that you would like to clear up at this time?
Serreze is talking about weather here, not climate. Weather is more chaotic than climate and therefore more difficult to predict a few months out. By analogy, I can tell you with great confidence that December will be hotter than June in the southern hemisphere – it receives more sunlight in December. That’s climate. But I can’t tell you what the maximum temperature will be on any given day – that’s weather.
Steven Mosher says at 7:35 pm:
“So basically, there is no evidence you would accept to contradict your belief?
That’s a bullet proof Null.”
Sorry, that’s wrong. And it is not a ‘belief.’
The null hypothesis encompasses past parameters. Unless the current climate exceeds those parameters, it can not be argued that anything now occurring is out of the ordinary.
Show that the climate is acting unusually, and you will have my complete attention.
Otherwise, natural climate variability is a sufficient explanation.
Steven Mosher says: June 20, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“Otherwise known as faith”
No. You asked what would be ordinary.
Is an Ice Free Arctic ordinary? Yes.
Is an Ice Age ordinary? Yes.
Are satellites falling out of the sky ordinary? Yes.
Is poorly written software ordinary? Yes.
Volcanoes, starvation, disease, earthquake, extinction, evolution, lightning, mountains rising, the Mediterranean drying up completely, rift valleys splitting, they all have happened more than once; they are all ordinary event in the history of this temporary collection of interstellar dust.
Perhaps if you had asked what would be Extraordinary you might get have got a different response. Extraordinary would be difficult to answer because I would have to think of something that has not already happened lots of times but is physically possible.
Faith? I don’t think so.
“So 2013 is the only date that matters to most.”
________________
Matters to most of the uneducated and ignorant. And it is not a crime to be either, nor is it a personal attack. The bulk of the population get what little they do know about the Arctic and specifically, about the state of the Arctic cryosphere from the news or from their favorite pundit. They would do well to do more research and then they’d see that 2013 is far from the mean prediction by the experts as to when the Arctic might be ice free in the summer. They’d also learn that there may be a long period when the Arctic is virutally ice free in the summer (1 million sq. km. or less) before finally seeing absolutely no ice at all in the Arctic during the summer low.
Phil. says: June 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
If I ask someone, “Do you agree”, and they say “Yes, but”, it means that they do not agreed, the yes is just being deceptive.
That said, you were a little to quick with the cut-and-paste, you could have had a good cherry if you left out the sour grape at the end.
“I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections”
That is cherry, and then the sour grape
“But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
If that is what passes as a rebuttal between CAGW believers, it explains a lot about the peer review process.
“Not silent at all”, perhaps you are right, I should have said; supportive and reinforcing.
Ice Free in 2013, even Dr. Serreze would not even be surprised.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I am not a modeler nor a paleoclimate scientist. I primarily work with satellite data. Thus, I have not done any studies of what the sea ice may have looked like in the MWP. From the papers I’ve read there is no conclusive evidence that the Arctic was ice free during the MWP. There are scientists who are experts at such studies and if you’re interested I can direct you to some of their publications.
Andrew30, you are correct that Dr. Maslowski initally forecasted 2013 before the record minimum of 2007 happened. He has been looking into the role of the ocean in melting the ice from below, the contribution of which has been substantial (hence the reason for his aggressive projections).
Andrew30, you should understand that predictions are made by running models and making assumptions about future forcings, or by using statistical/empirical relationships and assuming these relationships will hold in the future (stay constant). Of course they are not going to be perfect because they are based on assumptions about the future, which may or may not turn out to be true. What they do is give an idea of an outcome given a certain set of constraints. And they should be treated as such.
Phil, thank you for pointing to other news reports that show differences of opinions from that of Dr. Maslowski.
Phil.
June 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Am I right to guess you had to do a search and you found a transcript that shows Surreze said those things? I don’t remember the buzz about Mark Surreze saying those things. Pretty aware of that ‘death spiral’ though.
Also, I don’t see Surreze mentioning 2013 in the quote, specifically. It looks like Andrew30’s comment was about “I do not recall any headlines int 2007, 2008 or 2009 that that indicated that the CAGW people had disowned Dr. Maslowski;”. Surreze does not mention him or the 2013 prediction made famous by Al Gore. The listener would have make the mental leap to put the two together to arrive at the conclusion you seem to be implying is clear without the mental leap. Also, to make a blanket statement about all global warming scientists from what Surreze said in this bite is unfair. Or does Mark Surreze after all really speak for all global warming scientists?
What Andrew30 said is easily true—the general population has only heard impending doom from global warming scientists in the media and there is no effort from this other group that you are trying to pointing out to clear up that supposed misconception.
From looking at the poll numbers for a few years now I don’t think many are even listening to global warming scientists anyway. 🙂
> rbateman says:
>June 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm
>
>Georg says:
>June 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm
>
>Great analysis. Extend that to the Antarctic, and describe what will happen when >the opposing forces meet at the Tropicana.
A similar analysis would be difficult to apply to Antarctic because so much of the ‘ice’ area is made up of land based ice. (14 million sq
“natural climate variability is a sufficient explanation”
Q. So why is the climate doing {fill in the blank}?
A. Natural variability.
Oh. Gee, who needs science anyways. Saying that has whatever happened in the past, no matter the current context, is ‘natural’, well…
“I’m sorry but warmists appointed Al Gore as their spokesman”
Get real! You just use (tiresomely!) Gore as a bludgeon to say “I’m an ultraconservative Bush Republican anti-global warming ideologue”, as a badge of proclamation. I’ve never seen his movie, or read his stuff, and I find all the AlGore-ism pathetic.
R. Gates says:
June 20, 2010 at 8:42 pm
the uneducated and ignorant
Projecting?
“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.”
“POLES” – plural! How can a publication with ‘science’ in its name ignore half of the data? Per the NSIDC Antartic ice is running 1 million km2 above average.
If the “firmest” predictions are this far off, how can the model be considered robust enough to generate anything useful? (Other than grant funding, that is.)
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“Andrew30, you are correct that Dr. Maslowski initally forecasted 2013 before the record minimum of 2007 happened.”
So when you wrote:
“You should also understand that 2007 did take everyone by surprise.”
Was that was just an attempted excuse/diversion or did it have some reference to the preceding sentence.
“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.”
It is the ‘also’ (meaning: in addition to the prior item) that implies that the two items are related (2013 prediction, 2007 minima); we know that they are not.
So, why the ruse, or did you believe the 2013 Ice Free date and the 2007 minima were related two hours ago?
The collective will have to work much harder to move this goal post.
R. Gates says: June 20, 2010 at 8:42 pm
“They’d also learn that there may be a long period when the Arctic is virutally ice free in the summer (1 million sq. km. or less) before finally seeing absolutely no ice at all in the Arctic during the summer low.”
They’d also learn that it has happened before and what it was like in the past:
—
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291255 (APR 28, 2010)
“Researcher Tom Andrews put together a team and got funding from the International Polar Year in order to study eight identified ice patches in the MacKenzie Mountains, striking archaeological pay dirt. The team found and recovered a variety of ancient hunting tools, all of different ages.”
“The searches of the melting ice patches have yielded up 2,400-year-old spear throwing tools, a 1,000-year-old ground squirrel snare, and bows and arrows dating back 850 years. Andrews said, “The implements are truly amazing. There are wooden arrows and dart shafts so fine you can’t believe someone sat down with a stone and made them.”
“The Canadian Arctic is normally covered by ice and snow, but climate change has been changing that fact. The ice melt has allowed for ancient artifacts to be recovered.”
—
Trees, grasses, squirrels, bows, arrows and hunters, in the Arctic; 1,000 years ago. Sounds like a nice place.
Then the “uneducated and ignorant” would not fear an Ice Free Arctic in 2013, they would understand that it is normal and has all happened before. They would understand the Arctic’s natural climate, warm and woody. Then all the “uneducated and ignorant” would vote.
Julienne says: June 20, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“Andrew30, you should understand that predictions are made by running models and making assumptions about future forcings, or by using statistical/empirical relationships and assuming these relationships will hold in the future (stay constant). Of course they are not going to be perfect because they are based on assumptions about the future, which may or may not turn out to be true.”
I do, and you have explained exactly why they fail to predict. A model must be based on an understanding of the past, not on an assumption about the future, physics does not change.
You can not train a model to do something that you yourself do not understand. First learn what has already happen in the past, do not cover up or omit inconvenient details since they often contain the most challenging parts of the problem.
One small group of people can not know everything about the past. There are many people who have ideas, physicists, chemists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, biologists, volcanologists; to name a few. Include all the knowledge, data and scientific work available.
Let everyone know what you are doing and how you are progressing. If the model can not make sense of the knowledge then the model is not ready and you need more ideas and more basic science, with real data and real experiments.
Take time, get it right. When the model can predict the past 150 years based on an initialization of the state of the system 1350 years ago, then and only then is it ready to begin to predict the near future. If the model misses a significant event then the model is wrong and throw all the perdictions in the bin and you start over.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 20, 2010 at 3:53 am
R. Gates is running late…
*checking watch*
=====================
Five hours ahead – well done!
It is exactly past natural variability that is the most worrying aspect of Global Warming.
There is nothing unnatural about industrial civilization. We as human being are part of Nature, and everything we create comes from Nature, using Natural laws to make it work. “Artificial” versus “Natural” is simply a mindframe, as faulty as the duality of body and mind. There is no such separation in reality.
Therefore, we know that natural events can trigger runaway global warming, and that can cause mass exinctions. See the Permian Extinction Event.
So if volcanoes, or asteroids, or solar radiation can cause a mass extinction or a serious change in the planetary ecosystem’s balance, why can’t industrial civilization? It is but another natural input – and an extremely large one. Just look at a night picture of Earth to see the kind of impact human civilization has. You cannot deny that.
It was recently discovered that digging for geothermal energy plants can cause earthquakes. It happened in Switzerland. So discounting AGW because its effects are within natural variability makes as much sense as continuing geothermal digging because earthquakes are within natural variability.
The wiping out of 90% of Earth’s lifeforms is perfectly within natural variability. It happened 5 times already. There would be nothing strange with a sixth event. The only difference being that unlike an asteroid or a volcano, we can STOP our harmful input and keep the ecosystem in an equilibrium that is favorable to us – at least untill an asteroid hits or the Yellowstone caldera erupts or what have you.
Btw, folks, whether an ice-free Arctic is naturally re-occuring or not has nothing to do with how much destruction a much warmer planet can cause *today*.
The estimate is in 1000, world population was something on the order of 400M. Now it is 6.6B.
Markedly higher sea levels, natural or not, would be quite a different impact 75 years from now than then –no matter how “naturally” they came about.
While it might be unintentional, Mr. Gates’ comments highlights the difficulty in accepting their propositions without skepticism: “The sharing of data from the different models will help to begin getting all the different factors included to paint a much more accurate picture of what is happening.” Data? What data? A model’s output is NOT data! It is the result of modeling. Data is an INPUT, or used to adjust parameters within the model. The inability to distinguish between a calculated output (based on calculations and assumptions that is most published models have been demonstrated to REQUIRE a warmist outcome) is, at best, disturbing. At worst…
An editorial correction:
The inability to distinguish between a calculated output (based on calculations and assumptions that is most published models have been demonstrated to REQUIRE a warmist outcome)—AND DATA, I.E., FACT,— is, at best, disturbing.
A reply to Robert Austin’s comment
June 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm
__________
I don’t disagree with most of what you said. Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Phil. says:
June 20, 2010 at 1:03 pm
You are mistaken, you are thinking about ‘total internal reflection’ which only applies when light passes from the denser medium, i.e. water to air.
hmmmm, you’re telling me light doesn’t reflect off the water? Refraction goes both ways when changing from between mediums.