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
Phlogiston said:
“The next ice age is (in geological terms) imminent, and in the face of this CO2 is no more than a fart in a thunderstorm.
You are still bandying about chaos and attractor terminology without presenting any model or analogical experimental system – just invoking it as an article of faith.”
___
By “immenent” I take it you mean sometime in the next 30,000 years or so. Milankovtich cycles would not support an ice age before that time frame. I never mentioned “attractors” in my immediately prior post when talking about CO2, as it would seem to obfuscate the issue. We don’t know all the attractors in the climate system, though we do know a few. More importantly is the notion that a system, such as the climate that exists on the edge of chaos can be tipped one way or another by the slightest nudge, and this is being proven over and over again in the research that small changes in the climate inputs can, at some critical “tipping” point, lead to big changes in the system. To suggest that just because CO2 is only increasing a few ppm a year is not a big deal ignores the evidence that at some point, the climate regime will shift in a nonlinear, (and not simply logorithmic way). The analogy to a sand pile is quite appropriate here, as you add a few grains at a time and nothing happens and then suddenly, one grain added can cause the pile to collapse to a new equalibrium state. This is a simple example of system at the edge of chaos, not unlike the climate system seeing a few ppm of CO2 added each year.
As far as farting…one fart in a large room won’t add up to much, but try farting over several centuries in a room as humans have done with anthropogenic CO2 and the earth’s atmosphere and see how the room smells…
I second that notion. The time lapse SST color chart that shows warmed waters circulating to the poles is a must see. Bob? Can you link us there?
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:23 am
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….
What a great experiment this will turn out to be!!
….. 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.
_______________________________________________________________
I agree that we should know in about five to seven years. However if Joe Bastardi is correct we will be in a world of hurt especially if the idiotic politicians curtail our energy use and continue wiping out farmers at the rate they have in the last decades.
High energy costs, High food costs, Curtailed food production, Major cold and the realization that the politicians and news media have been lying to us so their wealthy “friends” can become even richer is a sure recipe for trouble a la French Revolution. All it needs is a major earthquake interfering with world food production to ignite it because the politicians, at least here in the USA, scrapped the strategic grain reserve programs at the request of the grain traders.
“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept…
…As suggested by others, a far more efficient and effective method for relief of those in need during difficult times would be a monetary trust held in reserve to purchase commodities when needed.
…Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on farm prices that is a disincentive to innovation, productivity gain, increased production and effective market response. The fact that the reserve stock exists would be a known market factor, contributing to less risk that buyers might confront any significant price run-up, and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains…” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush
A monetary trust can not magically produce food that does not exist…
And the true reason NOT to have grain reserves:
“In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends..very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008
They were correct. We had record high prices, food riots, children starved to death and of course the grain trader Cargill had record earnings.
For those who seem to think farmers are getting the high prices:
“Since 1984, the real price of a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent, according to C. Robert Taylor, professor of agriculture and public policy at Auburn University. Taylor says there is a “widening gap” between retail price and farm value for numerous components of the market basket, including meat products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, cereal and bakery products, fresh fruit and vegetables, and processed fruit and vegetables…” http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/00july-aug/lilliston.html
vukcevic says:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
___________________________________________________________________
Very nice. I am glad you added text for those of us interested but ignorant. Thanks.
Once again Gates, you fail to present your mechanism for a fragile climate system. So you new term/phrase is “on the edge of chaos”. Do you stay up nights thinking of new terms!?!?!? I think you’re making it up as you go along, much like the calm soothsayer in “The Life Of Brian”.
WilliMc says:
November 24, 2010 at 7:31 am
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.
_____________________________________
I bring it up occasionally for the newbies/trolls.
Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress states:
Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/16/hockey-stick-paper-mcshane-and-wyner-statisticians/#more-31767
And there is this pro-AGW paper:
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
“Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
If CO2 is preventing the start of another Ice Age, I think I will buy a coal burning stove to heat my house….
Owen says:
November 24, 2010 at 10:22 am
…..BOTH hemispheres are warming due an enhance greenhouse effect. Heat is accumulating in the ocean, land, and atmosphere causing both sea ice and land ice to melt.
_________________________________________________________________________
You are a tad bit out of date. NASA reports the PDO flipped to the cooling phase and “Bottom Falling Out of Global Ocean Surface Temperatures?
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Having just returned from another New Orleans meeting – this time, a NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium — I thought I would check the latest sea surface temperatures from our AMSR-E instrument.
The following image shows data updated through yesterday (October 27). Needless to say, there is no end in sight to the cooling…. “
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/29/spencer-bottom-falling-out-of-global-ocean-surface-temperatures/
Actually, burning coal and natural gas will likely be our future in an ice age, but only in the beginning. The drawback are where these deposits can be found. In an ice age, much of our resources will eventually be under miles of ice, including our temperate forests. As the population moves South to stay in front of the ice, we will have fewer heat resources. Burning animal dung, brush, and other dry savanna scrub will be our go to source of heat. That wouldn’t bother me much. When we were kids we used to play dodge ball out in the field with dried “chunks”.
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 2:19 pm
“Actually, burning coal and natural gas will likely be our future in an ice age, but only in the beginning. The drawback are where these deposits can be found. In an ice age, much of our resources will eventually be under miles of ice, including our temperate forests. As the population moves South to stay in front of the ice, we will have fewer heat resources. […]”
I’ve pondered this now and then and it seems the answer might be ice tunnels. I’d think it would be rather dangerous, but we certainly have the technology right now for boring transport tunnels through ice. Think “Ice Truckers” but upside down and there’s no melt season.
Joe Bastardi:
Have you published a peer reviewed paper that supports the conclusion that Arctic ice conditions in 2030 will be similar to conditions seen in 1977 or can you cite a peer reviewed paper that supports this view?
I have found one item, Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas: Centennial Ice Cover Observations By Ivan E. Frolov, Zalmann M. Gudkovich, Valery P. Karklin, Evgeny G. Kovalev, Vasily M. Smolyanitsky, which suggests that there is a 60-year “natural cycle” that will cause the Arctic ice extent to rebound, but this is not a peer reviewed study and it does not identify what the natural forcing elements are that drive the cycle and the time period used to establish the cycle is only 85 years (too short to establish whether the 60 year cycle is a permanent or temporary cycle or whether the cycle time period is accurate) and the area surveyed does not include the entire Arctic.
I have been looking for an analysis that sets out the specific mechanism for Arctic ice conditions to return to 1977 levels with a chart or a graph showing annual predictions comparable to the multi-year projection by the IPCC below and have not found it, can you provide a link?
The IPCC information compared to actual observations can be found at:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ipccvsobsthru2010.png
Citizens,
On the question of ‘returns’ (in this case going backwards in time) of low arctic ice conditions useful data which doesnt often see the light of day is the the UK Met Office Library thanks to the HMNavy/Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).
You might be interested in SLIDE 43 of 45 in my Presentation in WANews10No27.pdf – one of redbold items in comments in “World Cooling has….thread:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=4
You might be interested in SLIDE 43 of 45 in my Presentation in WANews10No27.pdf – one of redbold items in comments in “World Cooling has….thread:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=4
Words (followed by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office graph) read:
Arctic Ice & Polar Bears – More ‘GW propaganda of the 2nd kind’
– The true story of pack-ice off Iceland according to HMSO Official Reports-
All changes in the Arctic & Antarctic follow natural highly variable patterns. They are not new or special and have been recorded for over a thousand years and have been very well known to the British navy for a long time and available in the Met Office library**. The Antarctic has been cooling for decades & the Arctic has started to cool in the last year or two. Ice break-up is a natural process and has been happening for millions of years – before media noticed.
**HMSO 1963 Weather In the Home Fleet waters Vol 1 Northern Seas part 1 table XV page 246 shows the very high variability of ice off Iceland (eg) since 1900 and the
long periods of change of two decades or more. Figures 124 & 125 (page 256) show that historical records indicate there was no pack ice off Iceland for about 180 years
from 1020AD to 1200AD yet there was plenty of pack ice through the rapid expansion of industry since 1900 (Fig 126 page 257). graph) read:
Arctic Ice & Polar Bears – More ‘GW propaganda of the 2nd kind’
-The true story of pack-ice off Iceland according to HMSO Official Reports-
All changes in the Arctic & Antarctic follow natural highly variable patterns. They are not new or special and have been recorded for over a thousand years and have been very well known to the British navy for a long time and available in the Met Office library**. The Antarctic has been cooling for decades & the Arctic has started to cool in the last year or two. Ice break-up is a natural process and has been happening for millions of years – before media noticed.
**HMSO 1963 Weather In the Home Fleet waters Vol 1 Northern Seas part 1 table XV page 246 shows the very high variability of ice off Iceland (eg) since 1900 and the
long periods of change of two decades or more. Figures 124 & 125 (page 256) show that historical records indicate there was no pack ice off Iceland for about 180 years
from 1020AD to 1200AD yet there was plenty of pack ice through the rapid expansion of industry since 1900 (Fig 126 page 257).
Citizens,
On the question of ‘returns’ (in this case going backwards in time) of low arctic ice conditions useful data which doesnt often see the light of day is the the UK Met Office Library thanks to the HMNavy/Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO).
You might be interested in SLIDE 43 of 45 in my Presentation in WANews10No27.pdf – one of redbold items in comments in “World Cooling has….thread:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=4
Words (followed by Her Majesty’s Stationary Office graph) read:
Arctic Ice & Polar Bears – More ‘GW propaganda of the 2nd kind’
– The true story of pack-ice off Iceland according to HMSO Official Reports-
All changes in the Arctic & Antarctic follow natural highly variable patterns. They are not new or special and have been recorded for over a thousand years and have been very well known to the British navy for a long time and available in the Met Office library**. The Antarctic has been cooling for decades & the Arctic has started to cool in the last year or two. Ice break-up is a natural process and has been happening for millions of years – before media noticed.
**HMSO 1963 Weather In the Home Fleet waters Vol 1 Northern Seas part 1 table XV page 246 shows the very high variability of ice off Iceland (eg) since 1900 and the
long periods of change of two decades or more. Figures 124 & 125 (page 256) show that historical records indicate there was no pack ice off Iceland for about 180 years
from 1020AD to 1200AD yet there was plenty of pack ice through the rapid expansion of industry since 1900 (Fig 126 page 257). graph)
I cannot comment on Joe’s 2011 Arctic ice prediction , but I tend to agree about his 2030 prediction . The historical pattern of Global Mean Temperature Anomaly suggests that the anomaly may continue its decline until 2030 from its current level of 0.391C [HADCRUT3] down to about 0.06 which is about the level it was in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s .T o me it appears that this decline is underway but may be periodically be interupted by El Nino’s. One would expect more La Nina periods than El Ninos during the next 20 years to bring this about. Already we have had two in a three year period. Bob Tisdale recently wrote about the impacts of La Ninas and EL Ninos on global SST’s which in turn affect global temperature anomalies .
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Made it over the frozen mountain pass. The ranch house is in good working order. No frozen pipes (I worked on prevention measures last week). The temperature is in the single digits at 1:00 PM.
R. Gates, you are just talking out of your hat unless you can provide plausible mechanism for your theory.
============================
Stay warm, Pamela. Correction, though: He is not talking out of his hat, but out of his ars*.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
LA Times is recycling the usual BS: Things look very bleak for the polar bear
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polar-bears-20101125,0,5731619.story
Any of you troll anonymous disasturbationists that want to predict numbers below 4.5, I will put good money on you being wrong. …… Didn’t think so…
And so does the BBC.
Same subject, different location, climate change, melting ice all bad for polar bears.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11836156
Very tiresome, very boring and as real world events continue to oppose the climate fiction (read blatant lies) extremely stupid.
Hi, Pamela! You’re now almost exactly 400 mi. SE from where I type at the moment. But I’m only at a hundred feet or so altitude, so it’s only about 27°F, not your mountain plateau cold stuff! Much colder and snowier than normal; running about 12°F below average.
Piers_Corbyn
November 24, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Thanks Piers Corbyn! I myself appreciate it!
salvatore del prete says:
November 24, 2010 at 8:11 am
I say all of these factors govern climate,and futher they are tied into solar activity to one degree to another. I say if solar activity stays quiet,the above will or should tend to phase towards a colder mode in the coming years,resulting in colder global temperatures.
Agree….the driver of all these climate drivers is unique, there is no coincidence going on here.
Hi, we have a lively little climate change thread here http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/emission-trading-77931/index284.html#post821558
One of our posters has made this claim anyone like to comment?
The whole “Bastardi theory” is just unsubstantiated words that just don’t hold up to scrutiny.
I’m no scientist but when I look at the historical graphs for temperature in the Artic it seems to suggest that how cold it gets or vice versa deon’t seem to be the only reason for more or less ice. I’m aware that wind has been put forward as another reason for less ice too.
It’s obviously far more complicated than anyone seems to understand at the moment and the more/less ice is convient to fit into any given viewpoint of which there have been many.
Anyone with more than a few brain cells and no political requirement to feed knows that AGW is nonsense. CO2 isn’t a culprit since that lunacy grew out of Thatchers desire to remove the dependency on coal for energy generation and stop the miners holding the UK to ransom.
Can all this nonsense end please. It is tedious ot the point of craziness.
Ice moves. All the time. It moves faster than a rock tunnel does. Way faster. The ice tunnels would break apart before they could be used for extraction. And reinforcing them would be impossible. Miles of moving, shifting ice will crush any reinforcement you could think of.
Pete M. said:
“Anyone with more than a few brain cells and no political requirement to feed knows that AGW is nonsense…”
_____
And a staunch warmist could say the exact same thing about the AGW skeptics and so this clearly shows the extreme gap between some warmists and some skeptics, for I have no political agenda at all, have been studying AGW as an educated but non-professional scientist for over 30 years and have come to the exactly opposite conclusion. Perhaps you would argue, I have “less than a few brain cells” then, and that’s fair enough, but I think your assertion that only stupid people or politically motivated people still believe in AGW is somwhat simpleminded in itself and doesn’t speak to the complexity of the issue. There are thousands of dedicated scientists who believe AGW is real based purely on the science, and for you to suggest that they have less than a few brain cells tells me your statement is more emotional than rational.
Pamela Gray says:
November 24, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Once again Gates, you fail to present your mechanism for a fragile climate system. So you new term/phrase is “on the edge of chaos”.
______
Hardly my term. As a scientist, you certainly should have encountered that phrase before in your study of chaos theory. I would suggest you start here:
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Edge-of-Chaos
and then perhaps go here.
http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/edgeofchaos.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9907/9907412v4.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1576r2618715224/
The climate (and hence weather) are systems existing on the edge of chaos, with small changes leading to big differences. From Milankovitch cycles to El Nino/La Nina cycles , we see this happen at all levels. The central issue in the AGW debate is not about whether the climate is a system existing on the edge of chaos, but rather, how sensitive is the climate to the year by year increase that humans have caused since the 1700’s?