Joe Bastardi paid a visit today in Sea Ice News #30 and left a comment with a forecast.
Joe Bastardi says:
Keep in mind that while I forecasted a warm summer in the arctic, the forecast I make
is for NORTH of the arctic Circle. I was not forecasting for exclusively the area north of 80 north.
I think we will find that it was a warm summer overall north of the circle, but we had a nice [ice] cube in the middle!
In addition the sea ice forecast I made was for a min between 2008 and 2009, after a rapid spring melt, a leveling off, which is close to where it wound up. Remember I have been debating publicly and visibly the death spiral people on this matter.
My forecast for next year is for sea ice to melt only to levels we saw back in 2005, or 06. If I had to put a number on it, I think it would be around 5.5 at its lowest.
The ice is coming back, will do so in forward and back steps, with forward defeating the back steps. I am on record as saying we will be back to 1977 levels by 2030. The real problem would be is if there is no corresponding drop in the southern hemisphere sea ice. Like the 70s, cries of ice age will start again. So my forecast for next years melt is for 5.5.
Book it now Anthony.. cheers and Happy Thanksgiving JB
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am so happy to see Bastardi make this predicition and the more even important longer term prediction that arctic sea ice will continue to recover through 2030. The sea ice, I believe, will prove to be the decider of this great climate battle.
My own prediction is that we will know the answer to this question in 5-7 years, as I expect sea ice extent, area, and volume to rapidly decline. And the new cryosat satellite will soon weigh in with its measurement of ice volume.
See: http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55 for excellent analysis of arctic ice by someone who has over-wintered on the ice pack and spent a career studying it directly.
What a great experiment this will turn out to be!!
So what will be the skeptic fall back position when we have ice free arctic summers by 2020 (instead of the predicted recovery)? I will remember this prediction by Bastardi – I already have a screen shot of the page. If he’s right, more power to him and good news for the world. If not, well, real problems lie ahead, especially if the frozen methane hydrates thaw.
So Will, what was the ice doing before 1978 then?
The only thing you get from cherry picking is enough cherries to bake a pie.
Cold snap here in the UK, how I miss that global warming!
The big question is, will the ice recover quickly enough over the next few years (as it will) to stop government bodies wasting even more tax dollars on AGW? I fear it won’t, but I’m still wondering how all the ‘experts’ are going to squirm out of it! My idea is that the climate modellers (mathematicians) will get hung out to dry by all the other departments. It’s going to be an academic bloodbath of blame at some universities. Can’t wait to see it start at mine, I’ve booked front row seats.
The problem with Bastardi’s analysis, that is a net transfer of heat from the south to the north, is that southern hemisphere atmospheric temps are also increasing (not as much but increasing) and South American glaciers are melting in tandem with northern counterparts. Antarctica enjoys more thermal isolation than does the arctic. GRACE shows a noisy signal for the antarctic land ice mass, but a decreasing signal. CRYOSat will so provide it’s own data on that issue.
We’ll soon know if the intra-global heat transfer mechanism of Bastardi holds any water whatsoever.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is still absorbing outgoing infrared radiation and distributing that heat to the atmosphere – and will continue to do so in an increasing fashion as we rapidly (and wantonly) oxidize the world’s supply of reduced carbon that it took nature hundreds of millions of years to sequester underground.
More details on the UK ‘s early and cold winter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11827592
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:23 am
If Joe is right, and I think he is, the world won’t need a high tech ice measuring system. It will blatantly obvious to all but the lunatic fringe.
Geology and measured history are there and un-spun. Models that don’t work if the CO2 levels reach 1200 ppm aren’t worth very much, certainly not what they’ve cost the taxpayers who’ve footed the bills. On the other hand, Joe is using simple observations and a non-computer model to predict the future. It would appear that a lot of businesses think he’s doing an excellent job.
Personally, someone who’s got some skin in the game (be right or go home), is a lot more credible than those who reach out to the organized extortionists (aka Gov).
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:23 am
The sea ice, I believe, will prove to be the decider of this great climate battle.
If he’s right [Joe Bastardi], more power to him and good news for the world.
====================================
This is not a “great climate battle”.
It is a stupid, multi-trillion dollar, politically motivated, pseudo-scientific waste of time and taxpayer money,
a loathesome scam that may result in the deaths of millions of people in third world nations,
an international breach of trust between the public and what the scientific method should represent to the world,
a mass disease of bureaucratic groupthink which has infected even the smartest of the ranks,
and a complete waste of time for important scientific discovery that could be used to protect our species from the coming cool-down.
And if Joe Bastardi is right, it is not “good news”.
It is very bad news and even worse news because the idiots in charge have been barking up the wrong tree….so our species is in no way prepared.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Thanks for the comments Joe. Your reasoning is elegant and practical. Based on your methods, I’ll throw 5.8 out there and see what bites. I’m even thinking we’ll see 6.0 broken? We’ll see when April rolls in.
Will Stewart raises an important issue. I presume what he is suggesting is that there is an auxiliary hypothesis relating to melt versus export ice that if true supports the principal hypothesis that global warming is still occurring (whatever the cause) and that Arctic sea ice (of the right sort) is disappearing. The problem with this from the point of view of a relatively neutral bystander is that the continual appeal to ad-hoc hypotheses to protect some underlying theory from refutation is the surest way to ensure that theory’s destruction. What I would like to see is a clear prediction (or indeed retro-diction) derived from the AGW research programme that demonstrates unequivocally the link between emissions and climate change. Einstein’s Relativity was not accepted for a decade until Eddington’s observation of the effect of the sun’s gravitational lens provided powerful confirmation of a theory that many still disputed.
A theory that explains everything, explains nothing. A theory that successfully predicts something is quite likely to predict another.
Enneagram says:
November 24, 2010 at 4:49 am
Don´t forget M.Vukcevic temperature´s relation with GMF.
Don’t forget Enneagram that (e – m ) stands for electro – magnetic; but ‘wobble’ happen to be more attractive word than ‘jerk’, as seen here too.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
The only warm place in the world will be China where they are building 1 to 2 coal fired power plants a week. CO2 helps plants grow, so China will be “globally warm” and have food. I also wonder if soot helps warming other than the poles??
Good for them, Bad for us.
By the way, the troposphere is shrinking (cooling) due to lack of UV from the Sun. Look at the latest 10.7 cm Flux values. The Flux is at 75. The lowest value is 65; at this point in the Solar Cycle, the Flux should be at 175 [the max is ~280 corresponding to a Sunspot level of ~260].
Quiet Sun and more heat escaping due to a thinning troposphere, I go with 5.8 Mill km2.
According to the “consensus”, there is supposed to be enough CO2 in the air above me to cause it to warm. I dare any “consensus” scientist to stop by my house and put their tongue on any metal surface today. I’ll even let you try the Sun-exposed ones. Hell, even the wood siding is cold enough to cause your tongue to stick to it.
If you respond by saying, “That’s just weather”, you have just proven my point. Weather kicks CO2 in the arse!
Joe Bastardi has been right. Whatever factors he has been using for study has been working pretty well.
The global warming predictions of a death spiral are not working out. Whatever factors they are using for study are nor working well.
If your hypothesis is wrong you have to junk it. That’s all.
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:23 am
“So what will be the skeptic fall back position when we have ice free arctic summers by 2020 (instead of the predicted recovery)?”
Owen, you really don’t get it – true skeptics (not the right wing politicians who have glommed on to the skeptical position) are interested in good, verifiable science, which we do not have at this point – on so many levels. If the arctic goes ice free & you can link it to CO2 (separating the very real effects of the AMO & PDO cycles), then there would be some data to support the AGW position, but we don’t have that data now.
In fact we have just the opposite. Read Bastardi’s post again & understand what he is saying. Given we know that we have a warm bias due to a warm PDO & warm AMO, if the IPCC models were right, we should have observed temps that are exceeding the IPCC models since the model is only working on CO2. Observed temps = CO2 forcing + AMO forcing + PDO forcing. The reality, even with the warm bias of the AMO & PDO, temps are lower than the IPCC model would forecast. This is such an important point that Joe has been pushing for years. This is real observed data – not models – & this observation, at the very least says the real CO2 forced warming is less than the models forecast, if not completely absent. So, what do think will happen as we loose these warming biases – as the PDO & AMO go into their cold cycles? Don’t bet on any net warming of the global average temps.
Again, you needed to read Bastardi’s post more closely – we need time to get this kind of data before making decisions that essentially re-engineer society. What are you worried about? If you are right, time & the data will validate you & we haven’t lost anything in the mean time. That’s all Bastardi is asking. He’s not saying your are wrong – he saying let’s spend the time to do the science right. That is the essence of the skeptical positon. That used to be how all science was done.
You probably haven’t followed Bastardi’s forecasting over the years, but he is certainly one of the best long term forecasters in the business. I would not bet against him.
Happy Thanksgiving, Joe!
And thanks for the article, this is an experiment that will be done no matter what.
Is it not true the Southern Ocean feeds the North Atlantic? Is the SO warming or cooling?
vukcevic says:
November 24, 2010 at 6:47 am
It would be much more “a la mode”, nicer and perhaps more “intelligent”/”progressive” to say it is forced by “pesky” and “ugly” CO2 (Is it “black”, isn’t it?)
Beesaman says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:45 am
It’s going to be an academic bloodbath of blame at some universities. Can’t wait to see it start at mine, I’ve booked front row seats.
Curiously your “nome de plume” means -almost-to “Kiss the hand” in Spanish.
Buy more popcorn!, as we have said here, many times, at WUWT.
It is currently -23 degrees at Meacham, Oregon. And sunny. The air is bone dry.
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 6:21 am
The problem with Bastardi’s analysis, that is a net transfer of heat from the south to the north, is that southern hemisphere atmospheric temps are also increasing (not as much but increasing) and South American glaciers are melting in tandem with northern counterparts
That is absolutely false!!, and I tell it from SA Millions would than God if it would be the contrary, but, unfortunately IT IS NOT!.
Guess you OWE a lot to your Prophet….
From the various comments I wonder why no one has mentioned Nigal Calder or Gerald Roe’s papers which have shown the Milankovitch theory, after adjusting, show a very close correspondence. Their adjustments indicate the ice age began about 5,000 years ago.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/milankovitch-back-to-1974/
Lubos Motl examined Gerold Roe’s paper and asserts “a trivial mistake” was corrected. Changes in amount of “sunshine” do not “immediately change the ice volume,” and as a consequence it is the “rate of change”:
“In this case the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?
Nigal Calder knew that this was the right comparison to be made back in 1974.”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html
The lesser cycle of warm periods encompassing a few centuries appear to have been a bit colder each cycle.
Be forewarned,
WilliMc
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am
I dare any “consensus” scientist to stop by my house and put their tongue on any metal surface today.
Looking 10-15 years ahead, you might appreciate the current ‘warmth’ a bit more .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EW.htm
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 7:06 am
That LICKING A METALLIC SURFACE TEST of yours, should be immediately considered as the International Standard for determining the Freezing Point of Water and enforce it as obligatory for any Global Warming Scientist as a condition for attending current sinful Climate Jamborees.
We all know that HE has said that he puts his “tongue” where he puts his mouth . (Or…was it his money?)
🙂
Juraj V. says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:04 am
Mediocre summer ice in 2010 is in direct relation of recent warm North Atlantic SST peak and thus relatively “warm” Arctic sea. North Atlantic SST heads down now, Bering sea looks cold so all indicators point to ice increase in near future.
Nice assessment. I use the site below to follow the global SST machinations. It doesn’t have an archive so I save the graphics each month and build a sequence of each area so I can click through and see how things are developing. You may or may not find it useful.
It’s updated daily so you can use your own progress time frames.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
Joe said,
“My forecast for next year is for sea ice to melt only to levels we saw back in 2005, or 06. If I had to put a number on it, I think it would be around 5.5 at its lowest.”
Joe also said:
“I am on record as saying we will be back to 1977 levels by 2030.”
___
I respect Joe and have begun to follow some of his forecasting, but I believe Joe’s Sea Ice forecast is based on many assumptions related to solar cycles, the PDO, the NAO, AMO, etc. Joe doesn’t seem to be one of those who thinks that the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s can have much of an effect on altering the ocean cycles. Furthermore of course and related to this lack of belief in the longer term effects of CO2 would be Joe’s implicit belief that Trenberth’s “missing heat” has not gone into the ocean at all and most likely isn’t “missing” at all, except in Trenberth’s mind perhaps.
I’ll stand on record as saying the Joe will be proven to be wrong not just about 2011, but about the next 20 years as well. Not only will the Arctic Sea Ice continue with the longer term decline it has been in since even before 1970, but it is very likely we will see a seasonably ice free Arctic by 2030.
This fall so far has shown a continuation of the weaking of the polar low, with large masses of cold air already being forced out of the Arctic because of high pressure over the Arctic areas. This already portends a lower winter sea ice growth (and certainly thinner). This change in the atmospheric pressure regime over the N. Pole has been discussed at length here on WUWT by several Ph.D. experts, but it seems to not have influenced Joe’s thinking for some reason.
The erroneous assumption by many is that the changes to climate caused by CO2 are linear or even logarithmic in nature– they are neither. The climate record shows clearly that the changes come in sudden shifts of regime, as one would except from a system pushed to edge of chaos. The earth has seen 800,000+ years of CO2 at levels 40% less than we have now. To think ocean cycles and other climate inducing natural cycles would not be effected (in a chaotic way) by this geologically speaking sudden rise in CO2 is illogical.
Thanks Joe and Anthony for fighting the good fight! Keep the faith. I hope Joe is right and by 2030 you are both arguing with the MSM that we are NOT all going to die from global COOLING!