Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is right. In four months, just 132 days from now at the end of summer on the Autumnal Equinox September 22nd 2012, the Arctic will be “nearly ice free” according to a prominent NASA scientist in a National Geographic article on December 12, 2007. That is also the same article in which the future NSIDC director made himself famous with this quote:
“The Arctic is screaming,”
…said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.
Here’s the article as a screen cap, highlights mine:
Seth Borenstein of AP wrote the story.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
Which I’ve webcited the printer friendly version (sans advertising) for posterity here:
http://www.webcitation.org/67cXXHEjg
Some people are taking this prediction very seriously, for example, watch this video:
Children just aren’t going to know what an Arctic Icecap is.
So, given the proximity of this upcoming event, I’ve added a countdown for it in the right sidebar. We watch and wait until 7:49AM Pacific Time 14:49 UTC on September 22nd, 2012.
In the meantime, here’s the current sea-ice situation on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony
It would interesting if you could do a post on the predictions by our climate commissioner of empty dams in Australia compared to the reality.
Arno Arrak says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water from the Gulf Stream carried by Atlantic Ocean currents into the Arctic. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong.
This is quite interesting. You may have noted that I have been floating an idea that the entire warming we’ve seen could be explained if there was some kind mechanism to warm the Arctic. Since the Earth is a big heat engine a warmer Arctic would slow down the engine. This, in turn, would cause a warming of the NH as the heat passes through it more slowly.
This would also explain why the SH has not warmed very much. Since the Antarctic has not warmed the heat passes through the SH just as fast as it always did.
The problem would be why the gulf stream picked up at the turn of the 20th century. You mentioned LOD which could certainly have an effect. However, Paul Vaughan’s work seemed to show something closer to 30 year cycles.
http://i49.tinypic.com/219q848.png
Also, it would be nice if the idea also explained the MWP. The 2000 year chart of yours shows nothing similar during that time which means another mechanism is required. However, the fact that it was warm in N. Europe and Greenland fits very nicely with the gulf stream mechanism. That would mean your sediment chart missed the warming at that time which raises many questions.
Did anyone else read and understand the “At this rate…” part of the prediction? If melting continued at the 2007 rate, you would have had an ice-free Arctic. While the scientitst expressed alarm, I didn’t see any of the scientists stating that it would continue at the record breaking rate.
I don’t see why this is being held up as a failed prediction – it seems more like what folks were saying about Tiger Woods a couple years ago – if he keeps winning majors at this rate, he will break Jack Niclaus’ record. But Tiger didn’t keep winning, so he didn’t break it.
REPLY: Did you read and understand your last sentence? – Anthony
Well yes… compared to 20,000 years ago, the arctic is almost ice free! Those who feel nostalgia for that wonderful fun time should move to Antarctica. We will not miss you. GK
Oh, and here I thought it was accelerating. Gosh, silly me.
SocialBlunder says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:58 am
Did anyone else read and understand the “At this rate…” part of the prediction?
==================================
Apr 4, 2008 – “The sea ice is decreasing faster than all the models predicted,” says Jay Zwally, the ice satellite project scientist at NASA Goddard
==================================
yes, you would think a government scientist would be smarter than that……wouldn’t you?
It would be a failed prediction if melting continued “At this rate” and the Arctic weren’t ice-free. If you could find some information about the rates Jay Zwally predicted the Arctic will melt and compare it to reality, that would be interesting information. Based on the cited article, that appears to be 2040 – so keep the proof and we’ll check back then.
“Could be” isn’t a prediction. “Will be” is a prediction. And he even qualified his statement with “at this rate.”
Seriously, this is the best you can do, considering the money you got from Heartland?
REPLY: No I can do lots better than the entertainment provided by these guys, and the results of that specific project (still only half funded) will be coming online in about a month. Be sure to check back then, and you can even be extra snotty. I’ll let you. I’m sure Emory University will be proud. – Anthony
Wrong. It would be a failed prediction if any part of it failed to materialize. Like, you know, that whole, “At this rate” part of the prediction.
You sure are spending a lot of time & words defending something you claim is meaningless. Funny that.
With the slow motion swirling toilet bowl nature of the Arctic, it would take a lot to get rid of all that ice.
yourgovernmenthatesyou says:
May 14, 2012 at 1:30 am
How do these people get away with it? Just how, how on earth do they do it?
They have been caught out continuously….
_______________________________
“They” own the media among other things. I just answered a similar question here. They use the Delphi Technique and NGOs along with the media as I show to give “legitimacy” to pre-determined out comes.
We don’t have to wait. Thanks to the logic of the terms “could” and “nearly,” we may proclaim their successful prediction even now at this early date.
@Darren Potter said, May 13, 2012 at 7:22 pm:
“Mike says – ‘Sure: New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly, ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2004)’
300 Scientists implies Consensus, and Consensus implies fact…
Thanks for the chuckles!”
Science does not find absolute truth. If you want absolute truth go ask the Pope or your favorite religious authority. (Not to be anti-religion. Religion plays a vital role in many peoples spiritual lives.) Consensus statements are just what they say they are: the opinion at the present time of the relevant experts in a given field. They are useful for forming policy. Wilfully ignoring informed opinion is just plain stupid.
Yo! mikey! I’m still waiting for that consensus! Not an article nearly a decade out of date!
Face it guys: YOU ALL PREFER BULL / SCARED FROM THE TRUTH. That’s why they are scaring you by Arctic with no ice. When the ”Dung Beetles” like you get regularly lots of bull -> they are happy and get busy, busy, busy.
Dung Beetles, monotony diet is boring and not healthy for you. For a change, have some truth: 1] water freezes on zero degrees centigrade. 2] on Arctic average temp is minus -30C, if it gets warmer by 3C, still is 27C below freezing point, still would be colder by 10C, than inside your deep freezer!!!. So, if ice on Arctic disappears – it’s for other reasons, nothing to do with temp.
3] Arctic’s ice seats on the top of salty seawater. 4] salty seawater can and does melt ice from below, on temperature BELOW freezing point. 5] ice sacrifices some of itself to melt and turn into freshwater – as a buffer between the salty heavier water below and the remaining ice – so far so good. If the currents below increase – they take away that freshwater that is the buffer – more ice must melt, and more and more. That has nothing to do with the temp in the air. 6] do you want to know why current increases? (is the truth painful for you?)The answers are on my blog.
7] apart of the different speed of the currents – the amount of ice depends on the amount of the raw material, for renewal of the ice every season. Do you know what the ”renewable material” for ice is? Here is a hint: the Swindlers are telling you that: water vapor is bad for the climate ( they are always opposite than what the truth is; to please their ”bull consumers / customers”.
”Truth-phobia” is a sickness; if you start using truth from me (as a salad) with your regular consumption of bull-dung from IPCC & Co; some of you can avoid psychiatrists on the end. Until then, have a good appetite; you have being getting avalanches of bull for the last 20 years; lucky you…you are addicted to bull-dung? Truth is strange; by hating it – the truth will not change or disappear. Who are ”the Bull-dung consumers? A: people that are scared from my proofs / facts / formulas. People that are starving / craving for more bull from Hansen, Mann, IPCC, so that they can whinge about the quality of the bull; but themselves are scared from the alternative / the truth
Richard M says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:55 am
Arno Arrak says:
May 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by warm water from the Gulf Stream carried by Atlantic Ocean currents into the Arctic. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years in mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong.
This is quite interesting. You may have noted that I have been floating an idea that the entire warming we’ve seen could be explained if there was some kind mechanism to warm the Arctic. Since the Earth is a big heat engine a warmer Arctic would slow down the engine. This, in turn, would cause a warming of the NH as the heat passes through it more slowly.
This would also explain why the SH has not warmed very much. Since the Antarctic has not warmed the heat passes through the SH just as fast as it always did.
The problem would be why the gulf stream picked up at the turn of the 20th century. You mentioned LOD which could certainly have an effect. However, Paul Vaughan’s work seemed to show something closer to 30 year cycles
My feeling FWIW is that the Gulf Stream strength varies with the AMO, and particularly Arctic warming by the tail end of the Gulf stream which brings warm water into the Barents Sea.
There is good evidence for this in fig 2 of this paper by Levitus et al 2009, showing a strong correlation between 0-150m Barents Sea water temps and the AMO over the last century:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039847.pdf
also discussed at this WUWT thread.
So what drives the AMO? If the PDO arises from the ENSO (according to Bob Tisdale), then its possible that the AMO similarly emerges from the nascent “Atlantic ENSO”.
OK my “a href” failed, here is the link to the WUWT Barents thread from a couple of years back:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/
I recall reading in ‘Nature” magazine (?) several years ago that there was evidence that the climate warmed to some extent prior to many of the past ice incursions (ice ages). It has happened before and will happen again. What more can you say.
Otter: The statement is not out of date.
http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/environment-a-climate/121-enviroment-climate
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
Mike~ Then why are they WRONG?
Otter,
Personally I think policy makes and others are better off going with the assessment of people who actually study the Arctic instead of being distracted by ignorant and highly biased bloggers and talk radio hosts. Anything else I can help you with?
>>Personally I think policy makes and others are better off going with the assessment of people who actually study the Arctic instead of being distracted by ignorant and highly biased bloggers <<
Personally, I think policy makers should avoid going with the failed assessments of people with suspect predictions regardless of how much time they spend studying the Arctic.
And frankly, policy makers would be much better off going with bloggers that have had an incredible amount of success getting to the scientific heart of climate issues.
If you don’t know the difference, just use “yer” for both “your” and “you’re”.