We all cringed, then laughed when Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC first said it, then marveled about it as it got a life of its own, being the buzzphrase for every alarmist who wanted to shriek about declining Arctic sea ice.
In 2007 we heard him say:
“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.
So far, the “screaming” hasn’t kept anyone awake at night, and we have not returned to the low of 2007 in the last three melt seasons.
In 2008 Serreze made the bold claim:
The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
And in 2008 we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”. As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. Summer 2008 had more arctic ice than summer 2007, and summer 2007 was not “ice free” by any measure.
With those failed predictions behind him, in an interview in The Age just a few weeks ago, Serreze pulled a Harold Camping, and changed his prediction date. Now he’s saying the new date for an ice free summer is 2030.
”There will be ups and downs, but we are on track to see an ice-free summer by 2030. It is an overall downward spiral.”
Now from a most surprising source, Andy Revkin at the NYT, a strong statement saying he’s not buying it anymore:
On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future
But even as I push for an energy quest that limits climate risk, I’m not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to today’s policy debates. This is one reason I don’t go for descriptions of the system being in a “death spiral.”
The main source of my Arctic comfort level — besides what I learned while camped with scientists on the North Pole sea ice — is the growing body of work on past variability of conditions in the Arctic. The latest evidence of substantial past ice variability comes in a study in the current issue of Science. The paper, combining evidence of driftwood accumulation and beach formation in northern Greenland with evidence of past sea-ice extent in parts of Canada, concludes that Arctic sea ice appears to have retreated far more in some spans since the end of the last ice age than it has in recent years.
…
Michael MacCracken, a veteran climate modeler and chief scientist at the Climate Institute, noted on the Google group on geo-engineering that this new paper adds credence to proposals for an Arctic focus for managing incoming sunlight as a way to limit greenhouse-driven impacts. (Personally, I don’t see this kind of effort going anywhere unless and until climate impacts trend toward worst-case outcomes.)
He’s referring of course to this paper we covered here on WUWT:
New study suggests Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
I wrote then:
This is interesting. While there’s much noise from alarmists that we are on an “Arctic death spiral” the team for this paper’s press release today found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago. The paper references changes to wind systems which can slow down the rate of melting (something we’ve seen on the short term, even NASA points this out for recent historic ice retreats). They also suggest that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely saying that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return (i.e. a tipping point).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Here is the NH daily sea ice going back to 1972. It is going to take a long time for the minimum each year to reach Zero on the graph. ”
Assuming that the curve isn’t a cyclical signal. The curve also looks like a curve of the tides just past high tide and could be simply cycling towards low tide, before heading back up. Given that SH sea ice is increasing a the same time, what we could be seeing is simply a long term cycling of warmth back and forth between one hemisphere and the other.
Any assumption that the heat between the hemispheres is always balanced is only an assumption. Ocean currents and wind could carry heat from one hemisphere to the other in a cyclical, oscillating fashion. The idea that the heat balance of the hemispheres is constant seems unlikely given that the earth and cosmos is in motion.
He must have gotten the memo from big Al G to turn up the heat on the AGW hype machine.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/175967-gore-climate-skeptics-are-spreading-bullst
We are seeing the beginning of the end of the Warmista. It is coming in exactly the expected way. Climate scientists are reporting results of empirical research and it contradicts Warmista myth. I am so pleased to be able to think about and talk about some observations about driftwood collecting in the Arctic over the centuries. Warmista cared only for computer models and magical statistics. They were totally averse to facts of the environment, except for their outrageous lies in promotional photos of mythical polar bears and such.
As someone else mentioned above, this change emphasizes that Anthony Watts has been the bedrock of rationality on the web throughout the debate over hysterical Warmista theses about climate change. Those students of climate science who have taken advantage of WUWT have received a genuine education in science, scientific method, professors, and how all three can become corrupted. The debates within climate science are just beginning because the genuine science of climate is just beginning. My hunch is that climate science will look very much like the work of Roger Pielke, Sr.
People like Revkin are taking the opportunity to step down gracefully. Science provides that opportunity. New and original empirical research provides new topics and new takes on old topics. It moves the ball toward the goal. There will be endless opportunities to embrace it. Just about all the Warmista can be expected to take the opportunity to come in from the cold.
Can anyone explain to me to me why on the Cryosphere images the purple colours (thicker ice) of 2007 disappears more quickly than the reds and greens (thinner ice) of 2011? I have been watching this with interest over the last couple of months and it is very definately the case the much thicker ice of 2007 melts more quickly than the much thinner ice of 2011. Or is this also to do with wind circulation or is the colour scheme just plain wrong?
Hang on a minute. You note that Seereze said in 2008 that arctic ice may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, and from the the link: With the climate feedbacks kicking in,” Serreze said by email, “we’ll lose the summer ice cover probably by the year 2030.”
But then you write:
“And in 2008 we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”. As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. ”
As we know, 2008 is not 2030.
Meanwhile: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
August 3, 2011
Arctic sea ice at record low for July
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July 2011 reached the lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record, even though the pace of ice loss slowed substantially during the last two weeks of July. Shipping routes in the Arctic have less ice than usual for this time of year, and new data indicate that more of the Arctic’s store of its oldest ice disappeared.
Way to go Andy !
Bystander says:
August 9, 2011 at 4:20 am
So in other words the changes we’re seeing now are from a different source that past variability.
Oh? And how do you get from here to there with that statement? And do not start off with evidence that CO2 is causing warming in the Arctic. I want you to come at it from the other end. First, you should show me the proof that ‘past variability’ (a strangely undefined term) is not the cause of current ice conditions.
Philip Shehan said:
“And in 2008 we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”. As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. ”
As we know, 2008 is not 2030.
Philip, I’d click on the image at the top of this article to take you to the ABC news article and read it if I were you; you’ll find the original quote to which Anthony’s paragraph relates…
Cheers
Mark
Philip Shehan says:
August 9, 2011 at 8:32 am
“As we know, 2008 is not 2030.”
—————————————————————————-
The quote that the Arctic might be ice-free in 2008 can be attributed to the ABC news article:
“There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”
After Spencer’s and Braswell’s paper it will be shown that probably ALL excess heat from whatever source is lost so that even DA is now wrong, This Earth is probably self regulating and that’s why we are still here.
well, the world is getting warmer, and that heat transports to the arctic and so over the long run you can expect the average minimum ice to diminish. It’s a big old slush puppy now.
will it ever be ice free? really not the right question. an ice free Npole some september?
really not the right question. For the most part some climate scientists have been search for some iconic way of demonstrating the problem. Some simple statement or image that sells: like….
Ice all gone: polar bears dead. That’s a media agenda. On the science side we can confidently say that in a warming world the arctic ice will see lower minimums on average. We would not expect the ice to grow if arctic SST drop by 5C. If you stick to the core science, rather than the science that tries to find headlines, you’ll do much better. The right question
will a long term retreat in minimums have measurable effects or feedbacks.
There are not a lot of headlines and pictures for that
The worlds getting warmer ( for a host of reasons) in a warmer world we fully expect more heat to be transported northward. More heat northward in general will result in lower minimums. It would be pretty silly to argue against that. Will that decrease happen year in and year out? no, nobody makes that argument. more is at play than simply the temperature, but temperature obviously matters.
mycroft says: “Revkin no least!! perhaps the jumping of ships is about to start??”
In the past, Revkin has, on rare occasions, rejected some Warmist notions, so this isn’t new behaviour. He’s been subsequently threatened with “the big cutoff,” otherwise he might be a little more of a sceptic. His sincerity is not in doubt.
Regarding tipping points, the albedo of water overlaps that of ice at the zenith angles involved at the poles. The T^4 radiation law will ensure refreezing every winter as the Arctic Sea is exposed 24 hours a day to the 4°K blackbody temperature of the night sky.
“ThinkingScientist says:
August 9, 2011 at 7:48 am (Edit)
“The main source of my Arctic comfort level — besides what I learned while camped with scientists on the North Pole sea ice — is the growing body of work on past variability of conditions in the Arctic. The latest evidence of substantial past ice variability comes in a study in the current issue of Science.”
So, what we see today is no more extreme than has been observed in the past. In other words, what we see today is within the expected range of climate variability. So therefore it cannot be distinguished from natural variation. So why do we need an AGW theory hypothesis conjecture fantasy?
#####
Lets see how that approach to science plays out. If you look at a history of temperatures you will see plenty of ups and downs. for example you will see a dip in 1992. there is nothing out of the ordinary about that dip. Its well within the range of dips and peaks in the past. “natural variability!”
But we generally are more curious than that. Looking at the data we see that there was a volcano. Does the volcano explain the dip? well yes, when we apply our understanding of how radiation propagates through the atmosphere we can predict that particles and gases from a volcano interfere with the transmission of shortwave radiation to the surface. We have tested physics models that tell us how EM interacts with particles of various sizes. We use these physics to build systems that defend our country ( for example the physics of radar chaff) . So what do we have here. we have two “explanations” for the dip
1. The “dip” is natural. The dip is not outside the range of past dips. There is nothing out of the ordinary that requires an explanation. TRUE.
2. The dip is explained by the volcano and radiation physics: TRUE.
The problem with #1 is that it assumes that all science operates by noticing something ut of the ordinary as a prior condition of investigation. That is, if there is nothing out of the ordinary then there is no need for an explanation. The problem of course is that “ordinary” is not well defined.
In the course of the history of earth the range of states for the arctic goes from ice free to full of ice. Nothing will ever be surprising or out of the ordinary. But that’s not how all science works. If you want to understand or explain the current decline, then appealing to “natural variation” is no explanation whatsoever. Its an explanation without any predictive power. Its an explanation that can’t be falsified. Its the absence of explanation, it’s anti science.
Sagt Günther Kirschbaum an August 9, 2011 4:12 am
Not aware of where Anthony Watts predicted “ice-free summers” by 2011^H3^H6. Citation(s) please?
Steven Mosher says:
August 9, 2011 at 9:25 am
“The worlds getting warmer ( for a host of reasons) in a warmer world we fully expect more heat to be transported northward. More heat northward in general will result in lower minimums. It would be pretty silly to argue against that.”
No mention of manmade CO2, computer models, magical statistics, or anything Warmista. Great!
This issue has come up numerous times before and despite all efforts to clarify it, it still continues.
Discussion in 2008 was that there may be open water at the North Pole in summer – i.e., the ice edge could potentially retreat past the North Pole. There was never any discussion whatsoever among scientists that the Arctic might be ice-free in 2008. Unfortunately, some news organizations mischaracterized it as such, and even when written correctly (as in the ABC article) many people (including commenters here) misunderstood the “North Pole” to mean the entire Arctic Ocean.
In addition, the possibility of the event was discussed because for the first time during the satellite record, the North Pole was not covered by the thick, 3-4 meter multiyear ice, but rather by first-year ice that was 2 m or less thick. Such ice could have potentially melted, though it was unlikely given the high latitude and perhaps that unlikelihood should have been conveyed more forcefully.
Walt Meier
NSIDC
Walt,
I appreciate your attempt to clarify the issue. My best advice is for Dr. Serreze to go on record and say that his statements were more emotional soundbites than scientific, apologize for using them, then provide a quality essay using the best science available, minus such emotional talking points.
I’ll give Dr. Serreze full unfettered access to WUWT should he wish to do so, with only one caveat: he can’t call people that frequent here “deniers” nor denigrate them as he has done in the past.
Respectful discourse is welcomed. – Anthony
waltmeier says:
August 9, 2011 at 10:02 am
“There was never any discussion whatsoever among scientists that the Arctic might be ice-free in 2008. Unfortunately, some news organizations mischaracterized it as such, and even when written correctly (as in the ABC article) many people (including commenters here) misunderstood the “North Pole” to mean the entire Arctic Ocean.”
With all due respect, Dr. Meier, what do you make of this NOAA press release?
Ice-Free Arctic Summers Likely Sooner Than Expected
April 2, 2009
Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected. The updated forecast is the result of a new analysis of computer models coupled with the most recent summer ice measurements.
—
By “ice free” my assumption upon reading the title is that there is NO ICE! No qualifications were used like “mostly ice-free,” “ice edge has retreated beyond …” etc.
And by “summer” I would think they are referring to the entire time between June to September. So – no ice in the arctic between June and September, correct?
From your comments above, I would assume that you would strongly disapprove of this kind of misleading press release from NOAA – am I correct? Remember these press release are meant for public consumption – not for other scientists (who probably know better).
(If you’re wondering why ordinary citizens are so distrusting of climate science, it only takes are few misleading, over-hyped press releases like this from government organizations like NOAA for people to start tuning you out…)
In regards to Andy Revkin: I agree, his sincerity is not in doubt — and one should correctly remember that the ClimateGate Gang unsuccessfully attempted to bully him into toeing the line in 2009 –> “Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
“The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. … I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. … What are you doing and why?” — email from Michael Schlesinger, University of Illinois professor, to Revkin
Andy Revkin, I feel, believes the world is warming, and that mankind’s CO2 emissions are responsible, but generally is one of the pragmatists, calling for mitigation and a huge push on new cleaner energy sources. Not always entirely/at-all impartial, but not a bad guy. I have him on my ‘read daily’ list, for good reason.
Andy Revkin’s written work has incrementally moved away from enthusiasm
for the concept of “one warm world” with “settled science”.
The shift began shortly after the Climategate e-mails demonstrated how
the “Team” members, especially Mike Mann considered him a puppet
on a string. Even then, Mann was afraid Revkin might try to think for
himself.
Think, Andy. Think !
“If you lie, lie big. For a little of even the most outrageous lie will stick, if you press hard enough. Never hesitate, never qualify, never concede a shred of validity or even DECENCY to the other side. Attack, attack, attack!
Hitler circa 1920 quoted page 38 in “The Third Reich At War”
Steven Mosher,
Well said.
Walt Meier,
Well Clarified.
____
I applaud Revkin’s well reasoned article. As discussed in the post about the latest Holocene Climate Optimum sea ice study, it is interesting to see that the sea ice was diminished in the past, and obviously made a “recovery”. But this is really not earth shattering news as other studies have indicated this as well. But to me, what is more interesting is noting the conditions under which this happened. The CO2 levels were about what we had previous to our modern run up, i.e. they were about 270-280 ppm, but we know that was not the cause of the low sea ice, but rather, it was a slightly greater NH summer insolation from the Milankovtich cycles. So our modern era low sea ice must have some similarly strong forcing, and of course, the greater CO2 levels versus then fits the bill quite nicely.
But more interesting questions to ask would be:
How quickly did sea ice decline during that Holocene Optimum as compared to how quickly it is declining now. This might give some indication of how quickly we might get to an ice free summer condition as well as being able to compare the forcing from anthropogenic GH emissions versus the Holocene Milankovitch summer insolation.
Also, I note with interest than many people seem to think that just because something happened in the past and it’s happening now that they must have the same cause. Obviouisly not true, nor logically must be true under any conditions. A similar effect need not have the saem cause nor would one expect it to have the same kinds of feedbacks.
Alex the skeptic says:
August 9, 2011 at 4:22 am
“How many blunders must an ‘expert’ make before he is declared inept? at best?”
Ask Hansen, he has racked up quite a few! Then again, as a blunder draws near they move the goal post…The gift that keeps on giving?
Maurizio Morabito says:
August 9, 2011 at 3:23 am
As per the ancient Chinese proverb …whenever a rabid warmist comes out with yet another dire prediction all one has to do is sit comfortably on the banks of that river called The Internet, and soon the corpse of that dire prediction will float by.
Beautiful, I love it!
I think you’re missing the point.
You are technically correct, however, in your assertion that a recurrance of past climate events does not necessarily mean they have the same cause. However, good scientific practice means we do need to understand what caused these past events and then determine if those same processes are at work now.
Do you understand the null hypothesis?