Moving the goalposts – has Professor Wadhams Explained His Now Changed 'ice-free' Arctic Prediction?

Over the past few years the Arctic expert, Professor Peter Wadhams, has strongly predicted an ‘ice-free’ Arctic no later than 2016. Late this year he changed it to 2020 without apparently giving an explanation.


Guest post by WUWT reader Jimbo

Peter Wadhams is a Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge and an expert on Arctic sea ice and waves. He has studied the Arctic since 1970. In the last few years he has predicted that the Arctic will be ‘ice-free’ no later than September 2016. (It is generally accepted that an ‘ice-free’ Arctic is 1 million km2 or less, as it is very difficult to melt the thick multi-year ice in the Canadian Archipelago).

Late this year Prof. Wadhams changed his prediction of an ice-free Arctic to 2020.

Q) Has Professor Wadhams given the reason[s] for his changed prediction? As a ‘denier’ I just want to know so that I can have a better understanding of when we are likely to see an ‘ice-free’ Arctic.

Below are his repeated predictions of an ‘ice-free’ Arctic no later than 2016.

Daily Telegraph – 8 November 2011

Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015’

Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”

Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.

“It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”


BBC News – 27 August 2012

Professor Peter Wadhams, from Cambridge University, told BBC News: “A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016.

“I was one of those scientists – and of course bore my share of ridicule for daring to make such an alarmist prediction.”


Guardian – 17 September 2012

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.


Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013

“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”.


The Scotsman – 12 September 2013

Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert

“The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.

“The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.”


Arctic News – June 27, 2012

My own view of what will happen is: 1. Summer sea ice disappears, except perhaps for small multiyear remnant north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, by 2015-16. 2. By 2020 the ice free season lasts at least a month and by 2030 has extended to 3 months…..


TheRealNews – 29 May 2014

Transcript [Youtube]

[Q] WORONCZUK: And, Peter, what’s your take? Do you think that we’ve already passed the point of no return in terms of controlling polar ice cap melting?

[A] WADHAMS: Yes, I think we have. A few years ago, I predicted that the summer sea ice–that’s the September minimum–would go to zero by about 2015. And at that stage, it was only really one model that agreed with me. My prediction was based on observations from satellites and from measurements from submarines of ice thickness, which I’ve been doing from British subs, and Americans have been doing the same from American subs. And the trend was so clear and so definite that it would go to zero by 2015 that I felt it was safe to make that prediction, and I still think it is, because next year, although this year we don’t expect things to retreat much further than last, next year will be an El Niño year, which is a warmer year, and I think it will go to zero.

I knew earlier this year he would change his mind. I was just waiting for the reason he would give, but I can’t find it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David L.
December 12, 2014 12:05 pm

He doesn’t need a reason. He’s one of the true believers.

Reply to  David L.
December 12, 2014 12:51 pm

If he really wants to be taken seriously, and paid appearance money for TV interviews, he needs to start wearing a bow tie like Bill Nye.

Reply to  David L.
December 12, 2014 1:16 pm

Actually, he just needs an accusation, namely, that you are a heathen if you do not believe and parrot word-for-word whatever he says whenever he says it.
He also needs your money, you know, for “subs” and so on… but he has it already, so that is not a real priority.

Reply to  David L.
December 12, 2014 1:17 pm

Only a denier would ask for explanations and evidence.
Deniers are so rude to science!

Ian H
Reply to  Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU)
December 12, 2014 8:22 pm

If it doesn’t talk like a scientist; or think or reason like a scientist, then can we call it a scientist?

Reply to  Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU)
December 12, 2014 11:34 pm

Ian H
You ask

If it doesn’t talk like a scientist; or think or reason like a scientist, then can we call it a scientist?

I don’t know the answer to your question, but the behaviour of Wadhams (reported above by Jimbo) is typical of “climate scientists”. They often alter their statements without explanation when their predictions are reaching the point of total failure.
Predictions of “climate scientists” that are on record but are now said to not have existed include
Greatest warming would be at both polar regions (The first IPCC Report).
The 1998 El Nino was a “sign of things to come” (very many “climate scientists” in 1998).
Within a few years winter snowfall in Britain will become “a very rare and exciting event” and “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” (David Viner in 2000).
“Committed warming” would cause warming at a rate of 0.2°C per decade over the first two decades of this century (The fourth IPCC Report).
Warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases” in the tropics would be 2 to 3 times greater at altitude than at the surface; i.e. the so-called Hot Spot (The fourth IPCC Report).
Climate models provide accurate predictions (The fifth IPCC Report).

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU)
December 13, 2014 1:47 am

Don’t forget the UKMO one when they got their super duper mega mega computer.
Something along the lines of ‘ 4 of the 5 yrs after 2009 would be warmer than 1998’. Mind you, with the introduction of HadCRU 3+n, they are trying hard to get there.

Reply to  David L.
December 12, 2014 8:57 pm

Yes he seem to be one of those who forgot that Thou shalt have no other gods before me but instead he seems to have turn his Faith elsewhere…. maybe to The new Faith of IPCC: Humans are Universe´s centre

Reply to  norah4you
December 13, 2014 2:06 am

I almost forgot. Here is a commenter who said that they has emailed Wadhams about his earlier predictions. I cannot vouch for the veracity so maybe if they are around they could supply an image capture of his correspondence with Wadhams.

tom s says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
I wrote a correspondence to “Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams” and he actually responded; Here is my email to him;
“Good day professor….. do you still stand by these words? Because in light of NOAA’s forecast for above average ice this coming Aug and Sep it appears your time is running out……
To which he responded; “Dear Mr Skinner, I think you should wait until September 2015 before you assert that I’m wrong, since that remains my prediction. Yours sincerely, Peter Wadhams”…..

Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 2:33 am

Some people never learned Theories of Science…. all they learnt was how to get more funds for their own behalf… 🙂

Reply to  David L.
December 13, 2014 1:58 am

Where are the warmists today defending this Arctic sea ice expert? They are never around when you need them.
Here is another sea ice expert who got it wrong for an ice-free Arctic for 2013. He changed his mind and upped the prediction to 2019 – using a model of the complicated climate and extrapolating. When will people stop listening to these ‘experts’?
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” – Dr. Richard Feynman – physicist – 1966

BBC – 8 April 2011
[Richard Black]
Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.
The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowski‘s team a deal of criticism from some of their peers……….
“In the past… we were just extrapolating into the future assuming that trends might persist as we’ve seen in recent times,” said Dr Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California………….
And one of the projections it comes out with is that the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 – “plus or minus three years”………..

Steve from Rockwood
December 12, 2014 12:06 pm

So an ice-free Arctic isn’t really ice-free because the multi-year ice will never melt?

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
December 12, 2014 12:40 pm

This means that all of the Rolli Polli Bears will have to congregate at Ellesmere during the summer months as will their main food supply The Furry Wurry Seals. At least it will be in the shallows of the Arctic Ocean and the seals can hunt clams and fish. It will also make it easier to count the Bears

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
December 12, 2014 4:37 pm

But, they are the authority. No analysis is needed…

Reply to  roachstaugustine
December 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Ties in nicely with Tim Ball’s article about “Academia”.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
December 13, 2014 5:29 am

Look at the ozone hole. It is fine at 110.1 Dobson units, but at 109.9 it’s a HOLE.

Reply to  Steve from Rockwood
December 13, 2014 6:56 am

That’s what I was thinking — ice-free except for where it isn’t ice-free.

December 12, 2014 12:08 pm

Because he’s a crackpot.
Not only sceptics acknowledge that.
He is a figure of fun.

Reply to  MCourtney
December 12, 2014 1:19 pm

But the joke is on the rest of us, funding his vacations on “subs”.

December 12, 2014 12:10 pm

British and American submarines, why not Russian, Swedish and Nowegian? Or don’t they go in for this warming rubbish.

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  old44
December 12, 2014 12:26 pm

Swedes and Norwegians don’t have nuclear subs able to operate under the ice and the Russians aren’t likely to share any information they have about a strategically important region. Putin must be a bit miffed that sea ice isn’t retreating as predicted, he had big plans for claiming the pole as Russian along with it’s resources.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
December 12, 2014 12:54 pm

Russia plants flag on arctic sea floor
the Arctic ice will keep recovering until this goes full scale again.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
Reply to  old44
December 12, 2014 3:34 pm

Yeah, the Russians must be stupid for building all those new nuclear powered icebreakers.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
December 13, 2014 3:38 am

No, they’re brilliant. It’s always been “possible” to transit from the North Sea to the North Pacific in August and September, it just wasn’t economically practical due to insurance rates and the possibility of burning through too much fuel pushing all the ice-sludge out of the way. The Russians are exploiting the global-warming meme by building a couple huge nuclear ice-breakers, and charging a “reasonable” fee to insure that you can take the shortcut without too much risk

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
December 13, 2014 4:29 am

A friend of mine went on a trip to the Antarctic on a Russian Nuke Ice-breaker. It was a tourist trip. Yeah…they “lease” their icebreakers out to tour organizers. He said the ship was incredible. They took about 100 folks down to lay on the beaches with the seals.

December 12, 2014 12:14 pm

The great thing about being a well paid prophet is that prophets are seldom held ot account for their lack of accuracy.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  hunter
December 12, 2014 1:11 pm

Just like economists.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 12, 2014 1:23 pm

True. But politicians are so far ahead of economists in terms of lack of accountability that, by comparison, the shortcomings of economists are virtually negligible.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 12, 2014 10:14 pm

And journalists.

Ian W
Reply to  hunter
December 12, 2014 1:51 pm

He is only a prophet to profit from it

Les Johnson
December 12, 2014 12:15 pm

eeven earlier predictions. In 2001, wadhams said that “swithin a decade”, there would be regular summer access.

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 12, 2014 1:03 pm

From 2002
“There will be anarchy as northern seas open up to shipping”

Bryan A
Reply to  sfx2020
December 12, 2014 2:23 pm

Anarchy…Commerce…What’s the difference???

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 13, 2014 12:51 am

Les Johnson,
I have that earlier prediction but it relates to the North-West passage. Below are other Arctic predictions / speculations / projections from Professor Peter Wadhams. PS there is nothing unusual about the North Pole being ‘ice-free’ as I will show after this comment post.

New Scientist – 2 March 2002
Arctic melting will open new sea passages
…..But in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer……
Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.

BBC – 12 December 2007
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
Wieslaw’s model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice.” …..
“The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
“There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
“In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly….”

Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.

Nature – 18 September 2009
“We’re entering a new epoch of sea-ice melt in the Arctic Ocean due to climate change,” says Peter Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is conducting research in the Fram Strait off Greenland aboard the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise. “In five years’ time most of the sea ice could be gone in summer with just an ‘Alamo of ice’ remaining north of Ellesmere Island.”

BBC Newsnight – 12 May 2011
Prof Wadhams says in summer “it could easily happen that we’ll have an ice-free North Pole within a year or two“.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group2012?
The Case for Emergency Geo-Engineering to save the Arctic from Collapse
AMEG is presenting to the
All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group
Tuesday, 13th March, 1:00 – 2:30 pm
AMEG will set before the APPCCG new evidence that shows that because of rising sea and air temperatures the Arctic is in a state of rapid collapse, with a high probability that the Arctic will be completely ice-free at its summer minimum as early as 2013 and having no sea-ice in the Arctic for six months of the year by 2018-20.
[Professor Peter Wadhams – founding member of AMEG]

Ambio / Springer – Jan 19, 2012
Arctic Ice Cover, Ice Thickness and Tipping Points
Within a decade we can expect summer ice to be largely confined to a redoubt north of the north coasts of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, the only location where substantial MY ice will be found.
The indications are that this is indeed a ‘tipping point’ for the ice cover, in that it will not return to a year-round cover but will change to a purely seasonal cover of FY ice, as currently found in the Antarctic…..

WWF – Before 2013
Catlin Arctic Survey – results
“It shows we’re getting a big contraction of the ice cover in summer now, which never used to happen. And once it starts happening, it’ll never stop.
“The amount of open water generated is so great that it’s absorbing a lot of radiation in the summer, and it warms up by several degrees. It takes much longer to cool down in the autumn, so the next year’s cycle of ice growth is disrupted, and so it goes on.

Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 12:59 am

Apparently there is nothing unusual about an ‘ice-free’ North Pole, yet experts keep telling us that it has not happened in millions of years / unprecedented and all that. Why are they experts and I’m not?

New York Times – May 18, 1926
Lincoln Ellsworth of the Amundsen-Ellsworth transpolar expedition told The Associated Press here today that he saw much open water at the North Pole when he and his sixteen companions passed over it last Tuesday night in the dirigible Norge.
Edmonton Journal – 29 May 1928
Reported Open Water Near the North Pole
Ottawa Citizen – Apr 3, 1969
North Pole is the goal
…While the Pole itself doesn’t move, the ice above it does – sometimes there is open water at the site and hitting the exact loca-tion is no easy chore….
New York Times – 29 August 2000
“The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning,” said Dr. Claire L. Parkinson, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But the report said the ship encountered an unusual amount of open water all the way up. That is reason for concern.”
New York Times – 29 August 2000
Correction: August 29, 2000, Tuesday A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming.
Common Dreams – 4 September 2000
Climate Change Has The World Skating On Thin Ice
by Lester R. Brown
“If any explorers had been hiking to the North Pole this summer, they would have had to swim the last few miles. The discovery of open water at the Pole by an ice-breaker cruise ship in mid August surprised many in the scientific community.”
NOAA Faqs – found 18 November 2013
10. Is it true that the North Pole is now water?
Recently there have been newspaper articles describing the existence of open water at the North Pole. This situation is infrequent but has been known to occur as the ice is shifted around by winds. In itself, this observation is not meaningful.
Naval History & Heritage | U.S. Naval Institute – August 11, 2011 [1959 ???]
USS Skate (SSN-578) Becomes the First Submarine to Surface at the North Pole
…The date was 11 August 1958 and the Skate had just become the first submarine to surface at the North Pole….
[89] U.S. and British sailors explore the Arctic ice cap while conducting the first U.S./British coordinated surfacing at the North Pole. The ships are, left to right: the nuclear-powered attack submarine Sea Devil (SSN-664), the fleet submarine HMS Superb (S-109) , and the nuclear-powered attack submarine Billfish (SSN-676), 18 May 1987.

Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 1:11 am

For those who want to raise the issue of Polynyas, here it is. I don’t deny them, but why did Wadhams not state clearly that this is normal? Polynyas are areas of the Arctic sea ice which is made up of persistently open water.

Polynyas are areas of persistent open water where we would expect to find sea ice. For the most part, they tend to be roughly oval or circular in shape, but they can be irregularly shaped, too. The water remains open because of processes that prevent sea ice from forming or that quickly move sea ice out of the region.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 9:35 am

Takes much longer to cool down? Bunk. It cools much faster in the absence of ice. How do they get away with such basic errors of physics?
I also see they note the increase is water temperature. But there is no net gain in heat in the Arctic. It is past the ‘neutral line’ and is a net loser of heat. Claiming that the melted ice will let in enough additional heat to make the Arctic water a net accumulator is also not going to fly. The ice melt is from the ingress of warm water from the south. Now that it stopped it is refreezing again. What a surprise. The claims for the loss of sea ice being caused by ‘global warming’ are as many as they are unsupportable with the facts.

Reply to  Jimbo
December 15, 2014 10:51 am

Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before.
I love these guys. To them “Never having happend in the last 30ish years” apparently translates to “has never been experienced before”. And somehow, the “Journalist” who is publishing this doesn’t have the guts to call them on this BS.

December 12, 2014 12:16 pm

He always said it would be 2020, we have always been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia, and chocolate rations have been increased from 30 gms to 25 gms per week. All is doubleplusgood!

Reply to  Severian
December 13, 2014 4:33 am

So…it’s BETTER than we thought, in Bizzaro land?

Reply to  jimmaine
December 13, 2014 6:09 am

No worse than we thought – the prognosis is ALWAYS worse than we thought.

December 12, 2014 12:18 pm

The ocenas will boil away – Hansen
Children won’t know what snow is – Viner
The Arctic will be ice free – Wadham
There are more crackpots than you can shake a stick at – JimS

michael hart
Reply to  JimS
December 12, 2014 12:39 pm

We’re gonna need a bigger stick.

Reply to  michael hart
December 12, 2014 1:25 pm

They own the stick. We can’t have it.

Bryan A
Reply to  JimS
December 12, 2014 2:25 pm

You got the 3 Wise Men … where is the MANN-ger??

Reply to  Bryan A
December 12, 2014 4:54 pm

Gawd, does that make Algore the Holy Child?

Reply to  Bryan A
December 13, 2014 8:56 am

Or just a donkey looking on…

Jason Calley
Reply to  JimS
December 13, 2014 6:21 am

Hey JimS! By 2020, the Inuit people will only have three words for “ice.” Those three words will be “rumored”, “invisible”, and “Slurpee”.

DC Cowboy
December 12, 2014 12:21 pm

It doesn’t seem to me that he has changed int, only ‘refined’ it.
May 29, 2014 “the trend was so clear and so definite that it would go to zero by 2015 that I felt it was safe to make that prediction, and I still think it is …” certainly appears to me that he is still thinking ‘ice free’ by 2015. In fact he seems to have upped the ante by agreeing that the ‘death spiral’ is beyond our ability to affect. “Do you think that we’ve already passed the point of no return in terms of controlling polar ice cap melting?” ” Yes, I think we have.”
The 2020 date just offered a further prediction about the length of time the Arctic would be ‘ice free’ in the summer.

Leonard Lane
December 12, 2014 12:21 pm

I do not see anything fun about such people sowing seeds of panic and despair with wild predictions and never, ever saying they were wrong when everything goes opposite of their predictions. In the meantime, he and his ilk are wasting untold $billions that could be used for worthwhile purposes. People are suffering around the world while these parasites waste the money. The money they waste could ease suffering of the poor and sick. Nothing fun or funny to those poor people suffering.

Bryan A
Reply to  Leonard Lane
December 12, 2014 2:27 pm

Relax…even the Bible says there will be MANY FALSE PROPHETS

Reply to  Leonard Lane
December 13, 2014 1:29 am

There is nothing wrong with making a prediction, then changing your mind. What is wrong is not acknowledging your ‘error’ and not explaining why you have changed your prediction. If he has done this then let me apologize in advance.
PS Anthony, I think we need another Arctic ‘ice-free’ countdown clock.

Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 3:20 pm

Jimbo – quite right.
Appreciate your attention to this matter.
Peter Wadhams is – to my eyes – a very experienced polar hand – see, for example: – and [over 40 polar expeditions . . . .]
Not being ageist, but as a matter of record, he is now past the state retirement age in the UK, having been born in May 1948.
[I’ve not found anything about his schooling, but have not sought Link-edIn, or similar. Maybe others can be more indefatigable?]
Accordingly, he probably [>99.5% certainty] has (the bulk of) his pension locked in.
It follows that he has a degree of freedom to try to foist his beliefs on others, should he so choose.
In fairness – do the believers usually grant that concession to non-believers? – he did say 2015 (and let’s agree that ‘ice-free’ means “ice-free, apart from perhaps a million square kilometres or so up in he Canadian archipelago, or near, where he ice is – um – pretty thick”, or similar) and it is only 2014.
{why am I cutting this guy a bit of rope? Because I can . . . . . . . .}
I think he will be wrong.
If he is right, I will say I erred tonight [if prompted . . . . My memory is imperfect – but ask, and you will receive.].
Now – if he is wrong, I would like to see his admission of error [and I’m sure he will be prompted!].

December 12, 2014 12:24 pm

Wadhams has the advantage of not caring if he looks ridiculous. Probably had developed this trait early in his life.
Arctic ice extent has reached a new equilibrium, beginning in 2007. Since that year, season-end ice extent has fluctuated about a mean. This will continue until SST changes.

Gentle Tramp
December 12, 2014 12:24 pm

“Moving the goalposts” will be the favorite and very necessary “sport” of the faithful CO2-Witchhunters in the next 20 years. Here is another one by the German CAGW pope Schellnhuber:

Rob Dawg
December 12, 2014 12:25 pm

I think climate prognosticators should be subject to SEC rules for the dissemination of false information. People has invested billions based on these claims.

average joe
Reply to  Rob Dawg
December 12, 2014 3:19 pm

Exactly my belief Rob Dawg. 100% The situation is very similar. Corporate officers have tremendous incentives to report, or even believe in. biased information. The SEC rules and required auditing holds that somewhat in check. With the high stakes of these climate science prognostications, they do need to be held accountable for disseminating false info. Internal bias can make people believe things that are not facts. Perhaps this is something to suggest to our government reps to try to get some legislation passed.

December 12, 2014 12:27 pm

Peter Wadhams ScD (born 14 May 1948), so currently 66 plus 6 equals72 and long retired so not around to be reminded of his claims , I wonder of that has anything to do with it ?

Reply to  KNR
December 12, 2014 7:22 pm

Your slide rule needs oiling.

Kon Dealer
December 12, 2014 12:29 pm

If he is not senile, then he either incompetent, or is a liar.
Given the current state of the Arctic sea ice, he has to be one of the above.

Reply to  Kon Dealer
December 12, 2014 12:40 pm

Why only one ?? he’s a climatologist so could multi task !!

Bryan A
Reply to  Kon Dealer
December 12, 2014 2:31 pm

Just a Manipulator of Data. You can write a code to produce a Hocky Stick regardless of what garbage is fed into it

Bruce Cobb
December 12, 2014 12:41 pm

Well obviously, 2020 is when the missing heat hiding deep in the oceans comes back out.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 12, 2014 12:44 pm

But what if the missing heat continues downward into the core and the earths core overheats and the world explodes?
Well even in that case the professor would be wrong since the prediction of lack of Arctic ice shouldn’t count if the earth explodes.

Reply to  Alx
December 12, 2014 7:37 pm

Before the core explodes it would have to reach “Millions and Millions of degrees” (Al gore jr. I guess F, C, K degrees would not matter much then).

Reply to  Alx
December 13, 2014 9:40 am

U degrees?

December 12, 2014 12:41 pm

Evangelists have been using this trick for a while, that is of delaying and changing dates.
But even dooms day evangelists at least pretend to come up with a reason. They just don’t walk into the congregation and say, “Late breaking news, new date for the end of the world” and then talk about the pancake breakfast.

Reply to  Alx
December 12, 2014 1:28 pm

They just don’t walk into the congregation and say, “Late breaking news, new date for the end of the world” and then talk about the pancake breakfast.

You apparently don’t attend the right church. In the Our Lady Gaia Church of CAGW and Blessed Climate Study Grants , it’s common practice.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alx
December 12, 2014 2:32 pm

World ends at 10…Film at 11

December 12, 2014 12:43 pm

It appears he has, in fact, maintained his prediction of an “ice free” Arctic in 2016.
He is simply being more specific and now saying it will be soon after the 48th month of 2016.

pablo an ex pat
December 12, 2014 12:43 pm

Now it appears that the future is no longer certain while the past is still subject to change.

Reply to  pablo an ex pat
December 12, 2014 12:49 pm

Indeed Pablo, Those who control the present control the past.

Reply to  jim Steele
December 12, 2014 1:05 pm

Thanks to the Internet, (and )
It’s just not possible to control information like it used to be.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  jim Steele
December 12, 2014 2:35 pm

Like Santa….those who control the presents control……
Or are they grants?…

Reply to  jim Steele
December 13, 2014 10:25 am

Brilliant, Pablo. Oh yeah, I am a geologist who’s specialty is the past 15,000 years – so it is a bit painful to witness.

December 12, 2014 12:47 pm

Guest post by WUWT reader Jimbo

Nice post.

Anything is possible
December 12, 2014 12:49 pm

Maybe being ridiculed by his fellow alarmists had something to do with it :

December 12, 2014 12:50 pm

“He has studied the Arctic since 1970”
Maybe he should have studied the history of the Arctic as well.

Reply to  D.I.
December 12, 2014 7:38 pm

After 44 years of study I would still give a “fail”.

December 12, 2014 12:50 pm

With the decline in summer temperatures and warmer winters I’d expect more snow and less seasonal melt slowly taking over the melt cycle.
We have held onto and slightly built upon our 2013 ice gains this year, don’t think 2015 will be the same, but I don’t think it will be a 2012 either…

December 12, 2014 12:51 pm

Jimbo, Good post. We need to keep them accountable. Based on natural climate dynamics, I have about a thousand dollars in bets that Arctic sea ice will be clearly on the increase by 2025.

December 12, 2014 12:52 pm

Erm why should he explain it? He’s getting paid well, hell I’d be predicting s** like this too.

December 12, 2014 12:55 pm

Paul Ehrlich is the master. He’s been tap dancing for fifty plus years.

Reply to  brians356
December 12, 2014 7:32 pm

True… all others are mere aprentices…

December 12, 2014 12:58 pm

He is clueless and wrong.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
December 12, 2014 1:30 pm

State-of-the-art models clearly state that he is as unfailingly correct as he is incapable of error.
The models also predict that the 2020 date will be moved back once 2020 approaches.

george e. smith
December 12, 2014 12:59 pm

I’m wondering if Bob Tisdale’s Alaska hot spot (oceanic) which may have spawned the immediate past Californian mega storm, could actually result in higher precipitation of solid rain over the disappearing arctic ice.
Wouldn’t a good snow cover, be a better insulator between the atmosphere and the sheet ocean ice ??
Anybody know ??
In silicon Valley the mega storm was a pffftt !!

Reply to  george e. smith
December 12, 2014 1:37 pm

george e. smith on December 12, 2014 at 12:59 pm
In silicon Valley the mega storm was a pffftt !!

george e. smith,
I was in New Almaden area in south part of San Jose during the media’s over-hyped storm. It was a rather benign pfffft at that.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 14, 2014 4:30 pm

Anymore, all weather is “Extreme” “Mega-” & Super-” weather.
Today we had a mega-sunny day . tonight will be Super-dark.
Extreme sunrise expected.

December 12, 2014 1:04 pm

Gaia, in her infinite mercy, has chosen to give Mankind a reprieve, and has held back for 4 more years to see if we will finally Do The Right Thing, and raise taxes.
Because that’s what Gaia wants – it is written in the most Holy of Holy Book!

Reply to  wws
December 12, 2014 7:29 pm

Amen, brother ;o)
See ya Sunday at the Holy Mother Gaia Church of Benevolent Climate Science Grants potluck. I make a mean mac ‘n cheese casserole. Ya gotta try it. I hear Mann has a great Tree Bean Salad, unless he brings his Tiljander Upside-down Cake. It’s awesome.

Reply to  H.R.
December 13, 2014 9:45 am

Whose bringing the cool aid?

Reply to  wws
December 13, 2014 6:01 pm

Whose bringing the cool aid?
Groan! I shoulda’ seen that one comin’.

December 12, 2014 1:07 pm

No explanation? Of course he gave an explanation.
The previous prediction only bankrolled his cushy life, sucking the public teat, until 2016. This new prediction extends his teat-sucking until 2020. And when we get to 2019, he will extend once more to 2028. Beyond that he does not care, because he will be six feet under…..
Do you need further explanation?

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
Reply to  ralfellis
December 12, 2014 2:23 pm

Being slightly older than the good Dr. I am concerned as to the reason you think he will be 6 feet under by 2028 ?

Reply to  Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
December 12, 2014 5:21 pm

Maybe the non-symetrical growth under the giant bags under his left eye?

Reply to  Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
December 12, 2014 5:22 pm

… made u look…

December 12, 2014 1:12 pm
it looks to me that the trend since 2007 is pretty much flat.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Marcos
December 12, 2014 3:38 pm

You humiliate yourself, your family and your ancestors by insisting on using accurate and real data.
Please get with the program and stop that. We will send you supporting model data as soon as you:
(1) let us know what numbers you wish to see; and
(2) you clear out some space in your dumpster.
For Pete’s sake, if we can teach psychology & sociology students to parrot the “team” line, we can definitely teach you. Pretty soon you will forget all about posting short, crisp, accurate comments.
Continued backsliding will result in loss of your “HotWhopper” platinum access privileges (i.e.: granting the right to comment and edit/create responses to your comments).
/sarc off

Reply to  Chip Javert
December 13, 2014 4:40 am

“We will send you supporting model data as soon as you:”
We will send you supporting model data AND FUNDING BY WAY OF MANY GRANTS as soon as you:”
Fixed it for ya.

Reply to  Marcos
December 13, 2014 7:52 am

December 12, 2014 at 1:12 pm
it looks to me that the trend since 2007 is pretty much flat.
No, I read it as Jan 2006 beginning the Arctic Sea Ice Flat Spot.
We need the good noble bard Monkton to run his “How long is a flat line of irregular data a flat line?” algorithm on the Arctic Sea ice. For this entire past year, the Arctic sea ice has STAYED within 2 std deviations of its long-term mean sea ice area – so the Arctic is within normal variation. Whether past years were higher or lower is irrelevant, because this year, Arctic Sea ice has stayed within “normal” limits.
The much hyped “Arctic Death Spiral of ever-hotter Arctic ocean waters melting more sea ice which allows more energy to be absorbed is reversed: Between Aug 22 and Mar 22 each year, more net energy is now lost from the newly exposed open Arctic oceans by increased evaporation, convection, conduction and radiation than is gained by the sun’s exposure at low solar elevation angles.
On the other hand, the Antarctic Sea Ice has been steadily increasing 1992, but its area has been exploding ever faster the past several years since June 2011. (A while before the the Arctic low spot of Sept 2012.) Arctic and Antarctic sea ice net area is unimportant when looking at reflection of energy from either pole.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 8:03 am

The fact that Arctic ice is within two standard deviations of it’s average is not important. What is important is that Arctic ice has been below the running average for 13 consecutive years. Now, if the level of Arctic ice were randomly distributed, it should spend half it’s time above the average and half it’s time below it’s average.
Tell us, what is the probability that you could flip a coin and get heads 13 times consecutively?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 8:34 am

Arctic Ice decline is over and a new, lower average extent has existed since 2007.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 3:10 pm

The long term trend continues to be down. It takes more than seven years to make a “trend”. I suggest you look at 30 years worth of data.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 3:32 pm

The alarmist cult cherry-picks the Arctic only because arctic ice has been declining for a few years. The bipolar see-saw says that as one pole loses ice, the other gains ice, and vice-versa, so global ice remains unchanged. That is what’s happening here.
As we see, global ice [the red line] is slightly above its 30-year average.
Question: is there any scary prediction that the alarmist crowd has made correctly? So far, the answer is “No”. They have been 100% wrong about every alarming prediction. Tell us, how could they be as wrong as flipping a coin 13 times consecutively, and never calling it correctly? It takes real charlatanism to do that, and only mouth breathing head-nodders still believe them.
Why anyone would still believe the alarmist crowd’s nonsense is beyond me.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 3:50 pm

Be careful when you begin to say “global ice remains unchanged”

You seem to be ignoring data from GRACE and CryoSat-2 with your graph, as it is only showing sea ice area.

Remember, “global ice” is the sum of both sea ice extent floating on the sea , and the ice sheets and glaciers sitting on land.
The melting ice is causing sea level rise.

Reply to  David Socrates
December 13, 2014 3:57 pm

No, the graph of “global ice” is the sum of Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice.
And Antarctic sea ice, as confirmed by NSIDC email, does NOT include the 1.5 Mkm^2 of Antarctic shelf ice.
Show me that “calibration” thickness data (by ice core drills) for Antarctic land ice and Greenland land ice, would you? Last I heard there were only TWO drill bore holes verifying ice depth for all of Greenland – kind of like assuming you know EXACTLY how the height of the ground in Kansas, OK, MO, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New Mexico all change by measuring the height of one mountain in West Virginia and one mountain in Colorado. One time. (And no bore holes to rock outside of Vostok for all 14.0mMkm^2 of Antarctica.)

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:00 pm

If melting ice is causing sea level rise, why is sea level rise decelerating? And GRACE was not designed to measure ice volume. Its measurements are questionable. Do a search here of ‘sea level’ and gain knowledge.
Once again: EVERY alarmist prediction has been flat WRONG. The only people left believing in CAGW are those whose beliefs are based on religion, not on science.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:03 pm

Mr RACookPE1978

Look very carefully at your graph.
Please note the title.
It says “Global Sea Ice Area”
Now, as you know “area” does not measure thickness. You need three dimensions to make volume.

Reply to  David Socrates
December 13, 2014 4:07 pm

Now, as you know “area” does not measure thickness. You need three dimensions to make volume.
David Socrates

Reflection (albedo changes between open ocean and sea ice) does NOT depend on thickness of the sea ice.
PIOMASS is a modeled program using assumptions designed to validate assumptions to justify further assumptions. For albedo, for multi-year-sea-ice, it has NO value other than serving alarmist catastrophysicists’ and their continued funding

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:05 pm

Mr RACookPE1978
GPS measurement of Greenland bedrock rebound verifies and confirms the GRACE mass measurments

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:08 pm


Sea levels are rising.
Acceleration or deceleration of the rate of rise does not change the fact that they continue to rise. The melting ice ends up in the sea.

Reply to  David Socrates
December 13, 2014 7:49 pm

Irrespective of the open sea losing heat, the total volume of ice is shrinking. That in and of itself is an indication that things are getting warmer. The melting is confirmed by sea level rise.

Melting sea ice cannot change ocean levels. Melting land ice has occurred in the past, has continued through to the present, and may continue for a while until the next Ice Age returns. At which time, sea levels will drop back to the “normal levels” some 250 – 380 feet below today’s highs. Fear the ice, for it kills. Embrace the warmth, for it brings life.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:11 pm

Mr RACookPE1978
Irrespective of the open sea losing heat, the total volume of ice is shrinking. That in and of itself is an indication that things are getting warmer. The melting is confirmed by sea level rise.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:18 pm

Don’t need thirty years, myself. That is for people like yourself who wish to dodge the facts by citing some bs formula.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:24 pm

The above was for DSocr.
Arctic ice extent has stabilized for seven years. You can expect it to grow now that the globe is poised for a deepening cooling trend. Get out your fur socks, sockrat.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:28 pm

If it’s supposed to grow, why is the 2014 Arctic extent less than the 2013 extent
See the blue line for 2014 dipped below the green line for 2013 in late September?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:39 pm

Mother Nature did that so that alarmists would have something to wet their britches over.
Ma Nature has also accomodated you in western Antarctica, where geothermal heat has accelerated ice shelf movement. Now alarmists can gasp “Collapse!” and pee a whole puddle. Isn’t Mother Nature swell?

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:43 pm

Did Mother Nature play a joke on you in 2012 when she caused the Arctic extent to be the smallest in the satellite record? Arctic ice extent has stabilized for seven years…….except for 2012 right?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:44 pm

You have made the assumption that 1979-2000 represents the true long-term average. All of this is short-term snapshots when compared to the long cycles frequently found in nature. Considering that in earth’s history ice has extended far south of the northern pole, and has been completely free of ice during other periods, this whole issue is moot. The amount of ice at the poles cannot be used as an indicator of CAGW. Nothing is out of the realm of natural variability.

David Socrates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 4:54 pm

No, the average used is the 1981-2010 average
Go here…
Then add years to the chart from 2013, 2012, 2010, etc….and on until you find the first year that has a minimum extent in Sept-Oct…

I counted 13. …

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 5:07 pm

Sockrat, it is going to get colder in the coming decade and I strongly advise that you break your habit of wetting your britches, before it gets too cold.
That will only make it worse for you, you see.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 6:01 pm

Sea levels have been rising since the LIA, and since the last great stadial before that. It is normal, natural, and not due to any human activity.
The endless predictions were for SL rise to accelerate. That has not happened. Thus, they were wrong.
It is amusing to watch alarmists. No matter how many times their predictions are shown to be wrong, they never stop Believing.
Just like “ice”, LOL! Ice. There is nothing about “ice” that matters, except that Arctic ice declined for a short time, giving the alarmist contingent incredible hope. Now will they face reality?
No, because their Belief is based on religion, not on science.
The melting ice ends up in the sea.
No foolin’. Where else would it end up? On a mountain?☺

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 9:40 pm

Over 4.5 billion years you may get 13 consecutive heads.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 13, 2014 10:09 pm

yeppers: And NONE of those Greenland GPS locations is in the center of the Greenland ice pack: From the link above :

The Greenland GPS Network (GNET) of more than 50 geodetic stations can detect millimeter scale changes in the bedrock primarily along the Greenland coast. The network is dense enough and the instrument precision is accurate enough to decipher changes over months to decades and to attribute the changes to multiple factors.

So – If (when) the center of Greenland has 280+ feet of new ice deposited since 1944 (pushing the rocks under the middle of the ice cap down even further below sea level), where are the edges of the mountains around the ice cap expected to go? (Hint: Up.)

December 12, 2014 1:12 pm

Why not 2021? Or 2027? How about 2019?
When 2020 comes and goes with Arctic icepack [doing] fine I bet this fine gentleman will, without pause or hesitation, make a prediction for 2025 to be ice free.

December 12, 2014 1:14 pm

Easy come, easy go, with tenure of course.

December 12, 2014 1:20 pm

Peter Wadhams is a climate “scientist” therefore he will make any kind of wild prediction and then change it. Think of our friend Hansen and the Potomac flooding everywhere. Think of our friends in the UK Met Office and extreme weather, etc, etc.
Why bother with real science when you can just make it up!

December 12, 2014 1:23 pm

Peter Wadhams Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge:
Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015′
Stefan Rahmstorf Professor of Physics of the Oceans at the Potsdam Institute:
WUWT widget from 2009 wasn’t good enough.
Next these learned professors of Ocean Physics will tell us that “Martians are spying on us from the bottom of the ocean”.

December 12, 2014 1:25 pm

The Arctic Circle Assembly met October 31 to November 2, 2014 in Reykjavik, Iceland. The event enabled three days of meetings and presentations on all things “Arctic.” See:
The Alaskan Dispatch reporter summarized 10 key points he felt important – two are shared here:
[. . .]
2. The Arctic Ocean will likely have a sea ice free month by 2020: British physicist Peter Wadhams observed, there seems no natural mechanism for turning the thawing processes off. There seemed a broad consensus that even if there are efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions – the Arctic will continue warming for the foreseeable future. “Wadhams is predicting the end of the polar ice cap by the summer of 2020.” Alaskan Dispatch:
[. . .]

Above is a reported source documenting Wadhams’ date of 2020 that he predicts.

Frederick Michael
December 12, 2014 1:29 pm

The role of the Fram Strait in the ice loss makes any prediction of total loss suspect.
More Arctic sea ice freezes than melts EVERY YEAR, but a lot flushes out the Fram Strait (between Greenland and Svalbard) into the North Atlantic. When there’s less ice, there’s less flush. This negative feedback may prevent very low levels from going any lower. See here:
There’s another possible effect having to do with the impact of this North Atlantic ice on the gulf stream but that’s very complex and may not be significant.

December 12, 2014 1:44 pm

Question ?
Do any of the prediction geniuses ever ask people that live in the Arctic their opinion and what their ancestors said about times past ?

Reply to  Lonie
December 12, 2014 3:48 pm

…Too expensive to fly those people to the lab for questioning.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Lonie
December 13, 2014 3:47 am

That would require a highly paid ethnographer to construct some carefully leading questions in the original tongue of the natives, and then have 12 stipend-supported graduate students to be trained for the survey work, then flown to the arctic, and housed in temporary, military style shelter, flown in on a C5-A. At a total cost of $2.6 million. The problem is that my grant to do this is being held up since the Republicans took the majority in both chambers

Reply to  Lonie
December 13, 2014 4:50 am

If they did, the answer would be “It’s worse than we thought…”
Party line to get those gummint $$$, doncha know.

Curious George
December 12, 2014 1:47 pm

Professor Waldhams is doing for Oxford what Professor Ehrlich is doing for Stanford. There is nothing like a tenure system .. but I don’t know much about Oxford.

Yellow Journalism
December 12, 2014 1:56 pm

He actually made the statement in 2009, not this year. Here is an article from The Australian, feeding from The Times. No reason is given but it’s not a recent claim. Try 5 years ago.

North of 43 and south of 44
December 12, 2014 1:57 pm

The big warmy hot had trouble clearing customs?

DD More
December 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Jimbo, great memory hole resource.
Per the Tele atricle –
Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”
Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.
Although it would reappear again every winter, its absence during the peak of summer would rob polar bears of their summer hunting ground and threaten them with extinction.

So the ‘leading authority’ thinks the Most Incorrect Model is the best AND doesn’t know it is spring time ice hunting that is most important to the polee bears?

December 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Maybe his calculations discount rotten ice.

Doug Proctor
December 12, 2014 2:06 pm

When they are correct they were prophets. When they are wrong they were raising consciousness.
They have no need for apology. Noble causes excuse over zealousness and intemperate exaggerations

December 12, 2014 2:15 pm

It may be light relief to mock Waldhams and others of his ilk, good scientists who did pioneering work in the past but who cannot cope with changes in empirical evidence that challenge their beliefs, but in the real world the band wagon moves briskly on.
The BBC headline on the Lima talks is : “Will Kerry strike gold at Lima” which is perverse because he has gone to the summit with the express purpose of giving away gold – the wealth and savings of the people of America. How could he ever fail?
The BBC gives the impression that any minute now a decision will be announced that commits US and UK to an irreversible transfer of money and a disruption of normal life that , in Britain at least , has only previously been seen in the years during and immediately after WWII. I lived through some of that time and it really was not pleasant . But the BBC is jubilant at the prospect.

Reply to  mikewaite
December 12, 2014 2:47 pm

My apologies to the Prof : Wadhams not Waldhams

Carl Chapman
December 12, 2014 2:15 pm

My prediction for Prof Wadham’s 2019 prediction: 2024.

Stevan Makarevich
December 12, 2014 2:29 pm

Are you sure that is the correct photograph? I could have sworn it was Foster Brooks.

Reply to  Stevan Makarevich
December 12, 2014 2:36 pm

maybe it was taken after lunch, here is one from before

Reply to  vukcevic
December 12, 2014 5:30 pm

That was a heck of a lunch.

December 12, 2014 2:33 pm

Doesn’t really matter, the Mayans predicted that the world would end in 2012, so obviously, none of us are even here.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
December 12, 2014 2:33 pm

and when it (all but the very old ice) melts for a month. What the hell happens that anyone would care about ?

December 12, 2014 2:49 pm

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I had thought that Greenland (the part of the Arctic that doesn’t float) maintained below freezing temperatures, even in high summer. (With temperatures dropping to – 30 C or so in winter.)
How is Greenland going to melt if the temperature never goes above 0 C? And how can the “Arctic” ever be “ice-free” if Greenland remains covered with ice?
Seems like a sloppy claim whatever the timetable.

Reply to  pouncer
December 12, 2014 3:03 pm

Check the 10 day forecast for Summit Greenland. It rarely gets above freezing there, even in summer:
Check Google earth photos of the tidewater glaciers around the perimeter of Greenland. I think Greenland ice is in good shape. Tidewater glaciers calve into the sea – it’s what they do as they advance.

Reply to  pouncer
December 12, 2014 3:18 pm

“Ice-free Arctic” refers to sea ice. There is evidence that the Arctic was ice free earlier in the Holocene, when it was warmer than today (the Climatic Optimum).
There is slim chance of that happening now, as the globe steps down into a new ice age.

December 12, 2014 3:04 pm

“we’ve already passed the point of no return in terms of controlling polar ice cap melting”
Stated by a Professor,
so the science is settled then, so no point in changing our ways !!!

Reply to  1saveenergy
December 13, 2014 4:54 am

Actually, in an ironic sort of way, that may be the ONLY correct statement he’s made, given that we’ve NEVER been able to control what the ice does, one way or the other. The “point of no return” probably happened a few million years ago.

December 12, 2014 3:07 pm

In any case, current global SEA ice extent is now more than one standard deviation above the mean for this date:comment image?w=1536&h=1023comment image?w=1536&h=1023

December 12, 2014 3:12 pm

The big news is that he can predict El NIno years……….

December 12, 2014 3:14 pm

Why was Wadhams smiling through most of the interview. He really doesn’t appear too concerned by his own predictions.

December 12, 2014 3:19 pm

How is it possible for such a person to be employed by a University? The University of [Cambridge] is seriously putting its reputation at risk as are all the Universities supporting AGW (A complete fraud and forecasting failure). Maybe a list of universities supporting AGW should be published online to [be] sure your son/daughter [doesn’t] go there to study (and also for posterity, when the fraud goes to court). LOL

Reply to  Eliza
December 13, 2014 4:55 am

Because just as in religion and politics, there is ZERO accountability. They continue to get funding/grants, and the train rolls on…

December 12, 2014 3:20 pm

Forgive tipos my keyboard!

December 12, 2014 3:26 pm

an ‘ice-free’ Arctic is 1 million km2 or less…..
That’s the size of Egypt…..just once I’d like to see someone superimpose a map of Egypt on to the Arctic….just so everyone could see how ludicrous it is

December 12, 2014 3:32 pm

“Why was Wadhams smiling through the entire interview …”
“Duping delight” is the clinical term (no joke), psychos really enjoy getting away with a whopper. Usually its just a quick smirk, he must really enjoy this whopper to smile the whole time.

mike restin
Reply to  Scott
December 12, 2014 4:14 pm

He’s remembering how he’s going to get away with it.
Gruber told him to just keep lying and smiling.
That’s worth smiling about when you know it works.

December 12, 2014 3:37 pm

Wadhams is a gimp.
Talking of which, does anyone know what happened to that bloke who was going to live on an iceberg for a year?

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 12, 2014 4:15 pm

I have no idea but it might be interesting to get an update.
What was that guy’s name?

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 12, 2014 11:43 pm

Here’s an update – not going until spring, when of course, he’ll find an ice berg ready to melt.
“Alex Bellini, 36, will set off next spring to look for a suitable iceberg north of Greenland with the intention of highlighting the speed at which the planet is warming,”
“says he feels compelled to ‘do something’”
“‘This man is amazing and what an incredible project,’”
“However, the project has been met with a mixed response.”
“Getting tired of people getting sanctimonious about not getting a job and essentially living like a bum ‘for the planet’ ”

Reply to  Oakwood
December 13, 2014 12:40 am

Thanks. Anthony; we should follow this. How about a link on the r/h side of the site? With hope, one week when he’s on it, it will be a rollover.

December 12, 2014 3:44 pm

Of course he could blame his postponement on the hiatus. That would nullify his culpability.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 12, 2014 3:45 pm

So Apocalypse Not, again? Has anyone told Leonardo Dicaprio? I think he was planning on partying at the North Pole on his rented mega-yacht, perhaps rowed by polar bears if he can’t find enough bio-diesel.
Like the Riley Finn character in Buffy, I never thought I would need to learn the plural of apocalypse.

December 12, 2014 3:51 pm

But of course; the reason is accelerated man-made global warming!

Robert Austin
December 12, 2014 4:02 pm

“and of course bore my share of ridicule”

And deservedly so! Wadhams is an ideal example of the complete lack of correlation between intelligence and the number of degrees after your name.

Reply to  Robert Austin
December 12, 2014 6:04 pm

There are no degree programs in wisdom that I know of.

December 12, 2014 4:03 pm

A real Millerite that chap. Of course, some people made a religion out of what Miller taught. Oddly it is still around today.

December 12, 2014 4:26 pm

You heard him say his prediction was based on computer models.
I think anytime we hear long term predictions in the natural sciences based on computer models, we should just remind the speaker and ourselves that computer models in the natural sciences have proven to to unreliable, again and again. There are too many variables, known and unknown. We don’t have any good grasp on the parameters corresponding to these variables. And, every variable potentially interacts with all other variables. A simple system with just three variables has 2^3 variables, interactions, and constant (Plus measurement error). The PDO wasn’t discovered until the mid 90’s, which means every computer model of climate before then was incorrect. And today, from what I read, as an amateur, there is no way to model or predict the PDO. There is just too much we don’t know to create computer models of climate. It is a joke.
The fastest computer just makes bad predictions fastest. Like I say, if they could predict climate, they would be billionaires just from investing in corn and soybean futures.

Farmer Gez
December 12, 2014 4:28 pm

Cue the muzak whilst we ride the downward Arctic ice elevator. I think we will all be thoroughly sick of the tune before we arrive, if we ever arrive!

December 12, 2014 4:39 pm

Another case of mistaking the middle of a sine curve for a linear trend.

December 12, 2014 4:42 pm

We need a campaign to educate people in the media of one thing about scientific theories: their proponents use them to make predictions as a way of confirming their validity. If scientists will not make predictions that we can confirm or deny by independent observations, they are not scientists, they are promoters. And when computer model predictions don’t come true, you don’t just slide the date, you declare them to be invalid.

Reply to  rayvandune
December 13, 2014 5:02 am

I’ve been waiting to see this for some time. All it will take is just one major media outlet to list all of these claims. And it can’t be Fox, for obvious reasons.
But any one of the other major networks would have a blockbuster of a story on their hands. Maybe 60 Minutes?…Anyone?…Beuhler?

December 12, 2014 5:09 pm

I think Wadhams is just trying to match the Peak Oil prophets. I lost track of how many times the world has run out of oil since 1970.

Reply to  Golden
December 13, 2014 12:08 pm

or over-population

Reply to  Golden
December 13, 2014 9:59 pm

Or that the days of oil under 100$/ barrel are never to be seen again.. That was the .97 consensus about a decade ago when oil peaked out at about 180. This time its different they said.

Baa Humbug
December 12, 2014 5:27 pm

The likes of this grant-seeking moron professor just go on and on with no consequence for their actions. Sereze, Flannery, Hansen and many others are in the same game.
Yet sceptics keep playing this game with these snake oil salesmen on their turf under their rules.
How many times and ways has the 97% meme been debunked? Yet it’s still trotted out by those in authority without batting an eyelid.
How many times has the ocean acidification meme been debunked? Yet it’s still trotted out by those in authority without batting an eyelid.
That carpet bagger Steven Chu was in Australia this week addressing the National Press Club. He stated every debunked meme as if they were proven facts.
Time to change tack. There ain’t no wind where we’re sailing and it’s not enough to hope mother nature will sink the CAGW ship. 18 yrs of mother nature hasn’t even flapped the CAGW sails.

Reply to  Baa Humbug
December 13, 2014 5:13 am

Couldn’t agree more, and have stated this several times. It doesn’t speak well to the average intelligence of Jane/John Q. Public. The general public is intellectually lazy, and unwilling to commit even 15mins/day in actually researching anything. Pink Floyd got it right with the term “Comfortably Numb”.
I frequently reduce the “evidence” to just one, single data point when I’m in these discussions with friends and neighbors. Like a single tidal gauge, or the buoy temperature data from the ocean buoy nw of San Fran. I always use something that can’t have it’s data “adjusted”, and ask if it’s warming up, how come this data doesn’t show it? How come that data doesn’t show it? The temp trend in Maine is another favorite…I explain that in 2013, if you looked at the trend from the mid 1800s to present, there was NO warming in Maine…flat line. But if you checked the same data in 2014, now it’s suddenly warmed up in Maine by 2degC. How did that happen?
By then they are typically VERY uncomfortable, and they desperately want to crawl back into their comfortable box and curl up with their binky.
Another great line comes from the movie Men In Black, when Tommy Lee Jones says “No…a person is smart. People are stupid.”

December 12, 2014 5:35 pm

I’m pretty sure, if you listen to the audio, he said the Arctic would become mice-free by 2015. And I think he’s on track! Go, science!!

Reply to  BallBounces
December 12, 2014 5:40 pm

Oh, is that what he said.
I was thinking he said the arctic ice would be free, and I was trying to figure out who would pay for it in the first place.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 13, 2014 5:15 am

The ice will be free…it’s the shipping and handling that’s gonna be a bitch.

Reply to  BallBounces
December 13, 2014 10:37 am

“mice-free” He is holding that in reserve in case he runs out of wriggles.

Dave in Canmore
December 12, 2014 5:51 pm

Jimbo great post! Your well- sourced comments are always high quality and appreciated. Glad to see a full post here on WUWT. We are all richer and more knowledgeable from your work.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
December 12, 2014 7:45 pm

Well said. Thanks Jimbo – I don’t know your background, but you are one sharp person and I appreciate all your work here and elsewhere.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
December 12, 2014 11:18 pm

Ditto. Thanks Jimbo – as obsessed and as passionate as many of us – it takes over our lives when we know there are other (probably more important) things we should really be doing. You must spend hours collecting all those quotes and references in order to seek the truth. I remember once staying up for three nights until ‘stupid o’clock’ just researching and calculating how much man-made CO2 is produced by large scale bread manufacture on a global scale – just to prove a point. Thanks again.

December 12, 2014 6:27 pm

Did this guy predict the record sea ice around Antarctica this year?
Actually the furious fifties have been sending up wintery summer weather (even by the standards of NZ’s deep south) and the weather gods at the National Institute for Atmospheric and Water research (NIWA) have been strangely silent about it.

Reply to  J Cuttance
December 13, 2014 5:19 am

I think he’s just an ARCTIC expert. 🙂

December 12, 2014 6:36 pm

When’s he retire?

Robert Westfall
December 12, 2014 6:41 pm

Typical cult behavior.
When the predicted end of world doesn’t happen. Just have a vision and change the date.

Reply to  Robert Westfall
December 13, 2014 12:45 am

It’s great, isn’t it? ‘Same time next year, lads.’

December 12, 2014 7:53 pm

It was sheer dumb luck that Arctic polar ice satellite data started in 1979, at the peak of a 30-yr AMO cool cycle, which contributed to Arctic Ice Extents being at peak levels.
A 30-yr AMO warm cycle started in the early 90’s, at which time Arctic Ice started to decrease and reached a summer minimum in 2007. As the AMO warm cycle winds down and shifts to a 30-yr cool cycle in the 2020’s, Arctic ice will contine to recover.
A 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005, which is already adding Arctic sea ice on the Pacific side of the Arctic.
CAGW Warmunists overplayed Arctic sea ice and the recovering ice extents are starting to crush their leaky boat. In 5 years, they’ll have a very hard time explaining why Arctic Ice extents are at late 1990’s levels instead of being ice-free in the summer as predicted.
It only gets worse for Warmunists from here….

December 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Stupid is as stupid does.
Maybe we should call the modelers Gumpers

Joel O'Bryan
December 12, 2014 8:14 pm

Sometimes I think academic tenure is good. Other times, when I see intellectually bankrupt rubbish from an aging professor, I know it has it’s downsides.
On the plus side of tenure: it let’s them say whatever they like.
On the down side: it doesn’t even have to have a shred of truth to it.

December 12, 2014 10:07 pm

Well he is 66 years old and so another 6 years could be his retirement.
On the other hand he might have bought a new crystal ball which has been homogenised differently from his last one.

Joe Bastardi
December 12, 2014 10:08 pm

The El Nino explanation rivals anything I have seen for being out of touch. a) its not that strong b) Many stronger el ninos have not done it, why this one. Proof the lunatic fringe is out there

Eyal Porat
December 12, 2014 11:01 pm

One of the funniest evah! 🙂
Freud would have been proud!

December 13, 2014 12:00 am

Some good quotes on Wadham’s 2020 prediction here (link below):
“Wadhams’ pronouncement was angrily challenged by one of the scientists modeling sea ice decline, but the elderly physicist stuck to his guns.
“The modelers, he told Alaska Dispatch News later, are very sensitive about their models. But he added that it’s hard to deny the actual data. He had plotted the ice decline as a graph curving steadily and increasingly downward since the 1970s and hitting zero in 2020.”
“No models here,” Peter Wadhams, told the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland, on Sunday. “This is data.” [These are data?]
“This data shows ice volume “is accelerating downward,” Wadhams said. “There doesn’t seem to be anything to stop it from going down to zero.”
“Former Alaska North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta, liked the graph. “It made it easy to understand,” he said.
And how to define ‘ice free’?:
“Wadhams later clarified that by “ice-free” he didn’t exactly mean the Arctic was going to look like the Baltic Sea in summer. The scientific definition of “ice-free” is complicated. It is basically based on the amount of ice found in a number of grids when looking at the Arctic from space.”
An “ice-free” Arctic, as defined by scientists, would remain full of floating ice in the summer, but the ice would be broken up enough that a ship could push through it.
[‘Complicated’ is what Gore said about the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentrations in AIC. So some room for moving goalposts I think]

Man Bearpig
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 13, 2014 1:20 am

Yeah, it looks like it has been falling at a steady rate since 1979 with a couple of up surges, 1 starting in ~1982 and the other more recent with quite a sharp upturn at the end … but what was it doing before that? Say, in the 1930’s / 40s

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 13, 2014 3:46 am

See my comment above

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 13, 2014 5:24 am

Yup…nice graph. Looks like a pretty decent increase since roughly 2010?
We need to figure out a way to stop this increase, STAT. The repercussions of more ice will be a disaster for all life as we know it.

Reply to  jimmaine
December 13, 2014 9:23 am

It certainly looks like an upturn since 2010. I will just love it if the Arctic continues its recovery, because there is absolutely no way that the warmistliars will be able to counter it. It would go against ALL they believe! The next few years is going to be soooo interesting.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 13, 2014 8:05 am

one ‘interesting’ thing about that graph is that even though the more recent monthly values have been going up, the trend that they show at the bottom never changes from -3.0 km/decade

Patrick Bols
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
December 13, 2014 2:59 pm

assuming this curve is correct it should give us reason for concern. the extent of the polar ice cap is one parameter but the total amount of ice is no joking matter. better come up with a reasonable explanation for that. saying that the trend was up since 2007 is not good enough. the same thing happened between roughly 1981-1988

Reply to  Patrick Bols
December 13, 2014 3:17 pm

Patrick Bols,
Relax. Polar ice is unimportant. When Arctic ice declines, Antarctic ice increases, and vice-versa. Total global ice is above it’s 30-year avearage [the red line].
“Ice” is the last gasp of the alarmist cult. They use bogus charts like PIOMAS, when in fact global ice cover is completely normal.
The alarmist crowd has been completely wrong about everything. Why would you believe anything they say?

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2014 3:33 pm

Well, at the spring equinox, when Antarctic sea ice is recovering from its yearly low area in mid-February, and when Arctic sea ice is approaching its maximum yearly area in early April, both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice do both receive the same solar radiation at nearly the same solar elevation angles for the same number of hours each day.
But on September 22, when Arctic sea ice is at its yearly low, but Antarctic sea ice has yet to reach its yearly high on Oct 1, the edge of the ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice is receiving FIVE TIMES the solar energy than the edge of the Arctic sea ice does up at 79-80 north.
Antarctic sea ice is much more important than Arctic sea ice in the earth’s radiation and reflection budgets. One is up between 79-81 north, the other at 57-58 south.

Reply to  Patrick Bols
December 13, 2014 3:24 pm

Patrick Bols
assuming this curve is correct it should give us reason for concern. the extend of the polar ice cap is one parameter but the total amount of ice is no joking matter.

true, true. A colder planet (due to increased heat loss if Arctic sea ever does resume declining from 2007-2012 levels) will be a terrible thing.
Oh. Do you think increased Arctic sea ice is a “good thing”?
Antarctic sea ice has been increasing since 1992, and has been rapidly increasing every season since 2011. Is that a “good thing” or a pending disaster?

December 13, 2014 1:15 am

I will continue to keep an eye on our good professor Wadhams. Rest assured that if it becomes obvious that there will be no ice free Arctic in 2020 he will change his predictions again. Can you imagine if Wadhams was a cancer expert. Warmists do ask us the medical analogy. The fact is that Climastrology and Oncology are not the same thing.

Man Bearpig
December 13, 2014 1:17 am

Yet another witch doctor doing his rain (or Arctic ice) dance for the sake of mankind.

4 eyes
December 13, 2014 1:52 am

Lost in his own imaginary world. If I were a professor, or one of his students, or the person funding him, I’d give him mouthful because as a professor he has to show his reasoning and calculations because he is nominating specific years – opinions are not what is wanted on this issue because so much hangs on it. Why don’t alarmists challenge this guy, or just tell him to shut up because in fact he is hurting the “cause”. Some of these guys never substantiate what they say – maybe they think that we’ll just accept their word for it despite being proved wrong year after year. His life long study and his major prophecies have been proved wrong, just like religious prophecies have been proved wrong. When is the world going to end, dear professor, please tell me? I have enough of people like this guy, he’s got to be put in his place in a big way. Rant finished.

Reply to  4 eyes
December 13, 2014 2:41 am

Why don’t alarmists challenge this guy…..
Oh, they do. During Wadham’s recent presentation to the Royal Society they tweeted the following comments

In case there was any ambiguity, statements by Wadhams on arctic sea ice/CH4 trends are *not* widely agreed with by scientists

– Gavin Schmidt

Wadhams asked direct Q on physical basis for his prediction. He answers there isn’t any. But defends his prediction robustly

– Mark Brandon

Entertaining break with Wadhams. Back to science now ho ho 😉

– Sheldon Bacon
Wadhams has complained to the Royal Society. (worth a augh)

Reply to  MikeB
December 13, 2014 3:13 am

In the Financial Times quote linked in my post Wadhams expressed his frustration with the IPCC’s ice free forecast. Here is Wadhams.

FT – 2 August 2013
……..One doesn’t need to look far to find IPCC scientists who are – for different reasons – even less flattering about some of its work, including one helping to shape the latest assessment. Peter Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice at Cambridge university, is a review editor on the new Working Group I report. He was pleased to be involved with this one because he was so upset about certain aspects of the last IPCC assessment in 2007.
“They made a couple of real clangers there,” he said gloomily, staring around his cluttered lair in the university’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. One was a contentious decision not to include a best estimate for future sea level rises because it was thought the potential impact of ice sheets was still too poorly understood. Wadhams, along with other critics, believes this led to a serious underestimate of how high sea levels will rise. “They just chickened out,” he fumes. “I mean, in a really systematically cowardly way. And it shows how naive these scientists are or how terrified of sticking their neck out.”…….

Now I have to ask you, who did the ‘clanger’ now? Is the Arctic sea ice well understood? Who is the chicken? I will award bonus points to Wadhams for sticking his neck out. I will now deduct points for not explaining the science basis for his repeated prediction. Even if he did he changed his prediction so the ‘basis’ would be ‘wrong’ anyway.

Reply to  4 eyes
December 13, 2014 10:38 am

4 eyes you are unfair to Prof Wadhams.
You wrote: “Lost in his own imaginary world. If I were a professor, or one of his students, or the person funding him, I’d give him mouthful because as a professor he has to show his reasoning and calculations because he is nominating specific years….”
Surely his reasonings and calculations are on the whiteboard in front of which he chose to be interviewed for the Real News?

December 13, 2014 2:09 am

4 eyes
You ask

Why don’t alarmists challenge this guy, or just tell him to shut up because in fact he is hurting the “cause”

I answer, because he is NOT hurting the “cause”: he is promoting it.
Whadhams is merely behaving as “climate scientists” typically do. I pointed this out above (i.e. here)with a list of examples (and Stephen Richards added another).
I am sure that if you try then you can add to the list.

December 13, 2014 2:47 am

From around the beginning of the century up to 1940 a substantial climate change was in progress, average temperatures were rising, most of all in the arctic where the sea ice was receding
…warming was rapid from about 1920 to 1940 …it was during the second and third decades of the 20th century that the climatic warming became noticeable to everybody … the average total areas of the arctic sea ice seems to have declined by about between 10 and 20%

Hubert Lamb ‘Climate History and the Modern World’

December 13, 2014 3:05 am

The thing about predictions is, they are always about the future. I know, someone has said this before.

Reply to  dipchip
December 13, 2014 3:33 am

I don’t think you got that quite right.

December 13, 2014 3:33 am

Here is one possible reason why he changed his mind. We will only know his reason[s] when he tells us.
For those with the time, click the Arctic air temperature dates going back to 1958.

December 13, 2014 3:34 am

Jimbo says (amongst many other excellent things): “Why are they experts and I’m not?”
In my opinion, Jimbo, over the years you have skewered many warmists by exposing their previous claims, and changed predictions. You are definitely an expert in my view.
And further on this theme, elsewhere on this blog it has been pointed out that Peter Wadhams is a figure of fun, even among warmists : eg. : Entertaining break with Wadhams. Back to science now #RSArctic14” ho ho 😉
Recently Rob Wilson commented on a Bishophill Blog attempting to say that Steve McIntyre was cherry-picking because he showed that modern analysis confirms the decline of tree ring growth while air temperatures have increased since 1980 at Sheep Mountain. I suggested that he should be pushing for clean work in his own area of research rather than apologising for the hockey stick.
In the same way, why are mainstream alarmist scientists not distancing themselves from the likes of Peter Wadhams? Wadhams of course is not the only Arctic Death Spiral proponent. Think of Mark Serreze, present director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), or, as has been pointed out above, Wieslaw Maslowski.
Of course, from the skeptic viewpoint, it is great that mainstream scientists do not have the balls to call out their lunatic fringe. Skeptics just have more ammunition to ridicule warmista opinion.

December 13, 2014 3:36 am

Summer 2016 will be ice-free in the arctic? Does that mean they’ll have to postpone the big Arctic cruise until 2020?

Reply to  Walter Dnes
December 13, 2014 3:38 am

Ack. I meant “Won’t” be ice free

December 13, 2014 3:41 am

Here are the rest of the gang. Some have failed like Professor Wieslaw Maslowski and some we need to wait until 2020 but most are careful to add caveats, unlike Wadhams, who rarely did.
Where is the media? They should be doing this work, not me. I’m not fossil fuel funded either, I’m just a concerned citizen. Concerned that we are being led astray to spend billions on garbage. If it was not for the internet we would be lost.

Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim – Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________ – 16 November 2007
“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
[Professor Louis Fortier – Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
[Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009
“…There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….”
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
“… can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
Guardian – 11 August 2012
Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water.”
[Dr Seymour Laxon – Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling – UCL]
Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
“If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]

December 13, 2014 4:31 am

Sorry but the lead in describes Wadham’s as an expert. Because all his predictions have been wrong then it would be best to describe him as a buffoon.

Reply to  Stacey
December 13, 2014 8:06 am

The noble thing to have done would have been to say:
“I think I got it wrong. I will not make anymore predictions of an ice-free Arctic.”
Then continue your studies etc. But when he realised Arctic sea ice was a stubborn animal, he simply made another prediction. At least Dr Maslowski gave a reason for his failure before issuing a new, computer simulated, refined prediction. 😊
[my bold]

BBC – 8 April 2011
By Richard Black
New warning on Arctic sea ice melt
…”In the past… we were just extrapolating into the future assuming that trends might persist as we’ve seen in recent times,” said Dr Maslowski, who works at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
“Now we’re trying to be more systematic, and we’ve developed a regional Arctic climate model that’s very similar to the global climate models participating in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments,” he told BBC News……

Solomon Green
December 13, 2014 4:46 am

Paul Homewood reveals that some of Wadhams’ fellow climatologists make fun of him for his outrageous forecasts.
Apart from the graph the remark that I liked best was from James Annan of betting fame:
“Hasn’t Wadhams already predicted 4 of the last 0 ice-free summers?”

Brock Way
December 13, 2014 5:21 am

Actually, the ice already went to zero, once you correct for time of observation bias and homogeneity.

Reply to  Brock Way
December 13, 2014 5:29 am

And UHI.

Reply to  Brock Way
December 14, 2014 4:51 pm

Arctic Ice extent will have a negative value in 2021. A negative value means it’s now Antarctic Ice extent.

December 13, 2014 5:21 am

These people must learn that outrageous forecasts should be aimed at a timeline beyond their lifespan. That way they can enjoy the grants before the truth emerges.

December 13, 2014 6:08 am

I always like to remind myself of this with these types of quotes…

December 13, 2014 6:13 am

What a pity these climate change charlatans, who keep making outrageous unscientific alarmist predictions, are not held accountable in some way.
Take the case of Australia’s former chief scientist, Professor Penny Sackett, who made outrageous claims 5 years ago, which influenced the climate change policy of the then Australian Labor government.
Penny Sackett’s 5 years ended on 4 December 2014, and of course we know her comments were a load of bullshit. But she used the authority of her office, her position and her qualifications to present her outrageous fairy tale on climate. She should be held to account or disciplined or charged for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Reply to  Mervyn
December 13, 2014 5:02 pm

But won’t be, of course.

December 13, 2014 6:14 am

Clearly Wadhams isn’t good at listening. ‘Predicting the Future – 101’ repeatedly makes the point to the students studying the subject that predictions should always be only verifiable after your lifetime and, if that cannot be achieved, at least until after you retire. This guy’s a bit of a loose cannon in the ranks of The Cause.

Gary Pearse
December 13, 2014 6:44 am

“He has studied the arctic since 1970”
A guy like this doesn’t really study anything. By 2016, we will know that virtually all of us know more about the arctic than Wadhams. What does he know that allows him to predict such things totally wrongly. A wasted career and wasted life is not the worst of it – he’s been teaching the wrong thing for 45 years. Note his diction in reference to measuring thickness of ice by submarine – as if HE were doing the actual measurements while commanding a submarine:
“My prediction was based on observations from satellites and from measurements from submarines of ice thickness, which I’ve been doing from British subs,…” This is a cartoon classic idea for Josh.
“…and of course bore my share of ridicule for daring to make such an alarmist prediction.” The irony burns. He didn’t “have” the idea until Maslowski made the prediction. Wadhams status as an arctic expert was in jeopardy so he me-tooed himself to share in the glory. And of course took full possession of it by repeatedly regurgitating it in the media. ““A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016. “I was one of those scientists….” Note he disappears Maslowski!!
Is it really an ad hominem to suggest Wadhams is a pompous idiot, demonstrating that students of his have not been getting an education since 1970? How much has this ridiculous fellow been paid for this service over his career?

December 13, 2014 8:20 am

Here is written evidence submitted to the UK parliament’s select committee by Wadhams in response to Slingo of the Met Office. The next time he goes to Parliment with his garbage he will be ignored. What does he think about Slingo’s scientific judgment now?

I am writing in response to information provided recently by Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Meteorological Office,…..
In response to questions from the Chair, Prof. Slingo ruled out an ice-free summer by as early as 2015. Furthermore, Prof. Slingo rejected data which shows a decline in Arctic sea ice volume of 75% and also rejected the possibility that further decreases may cause an immediate collapse of ice cover.
The data that Prof. Slingo rejected are part of PIOMAS, which is held in high regard, not only by me, but also by many experts in the field…..
Slingo offers no reason whatsoever for dismissing this extremely pertinent set of measurements and their associated interpretation, arguing that “the observational estimates are still very uncertain”. This is not the case. I expand on this in an Appendix to my letter.
It has to be said that it is very poor scientific practice to reject in such a cavalier fashion any source of data that has been gathered according to accepted high scientific standards and published in numerous papers in high-profile journals…..
It is absurd in such a case to prefer the predictions of failed models to an obvious near-term extrapolation based on observed and measured trends….

Now Wadhams has ruled out an ice free Arctic by 2015 or 2016. Now he has demonstrated “very poor scientific practice”.

Reply to  Jimbo
December 13, 2014 8:22 am

That submission was made by Wadhams in early 2012.

December 13, 2014 8:43 am

It’s very tempting to make stupid predictions when they seem to have even a slim chance of coming off. The fame that would inevitably follow, the personal appearances, your face on the front front cover of every popular science rag, makes it almost irresistible to some.

William Astley
December 13, 2014 8:51 am

Wadhams is only one of many. They keep kicking around the same incorrect theories, ignoring the fact their theories do not explain the observations.
Come on man. Look at all of the ruddy data. The correct hypothesis makes the paradoxes go away. Think out of the dang box. There are piles and piles of observations and analysis results that explains why there was a reduction in Arctic sea ice over the last 40 years, explains why high latitude sea ice (both poles) is suddenly increasing (post 2012), and indicates that there will be record sea ice (both poles) in the near future.
I find it astonishing that Wadhams, Broeker, and company ignore the paleoclimatic data which clearly shows the planet cyclically warms and cools (same pattern of warming that was observed in the last 40 years: High latitude warming, with more warming in the Northern hemisphere than the Southern hemisphere.) The paleo data shows the planet cyclically warms and then cools (warming is always followed by cooling, sometimes abrupt cooling) with a periodicity of 1400 years, with 500 year beats (a beat is a variance in the cycle periodicity of plus or minus 500 years). (William: The dang point is what the heck caused the past cycles? It was not CO2. Also guys what is your explanation for the ‘pause’ in warming? Roughly every 8000 to 10,000 years there is paleo evidence of abrupt climate change which is due to the unknown super, super powerful climate forcer. )
Wadhams, Boeker, Trenberth, and so on, ignore the fact that the current high northern latitude warming does not match the signature of warming based on the signature of warming if CO2 was the forcing function. The general circulation models predicted that the majority of the warming due to AGW (any green house gas) should occur in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the AGW forcing change. The current high latitude warming does match the pattern of warming in the paleorecord which indicates the current observed warming was caused by the same forcing function that caused the past warming (modulation of planetary clouds by solar magnetic cycle changes.)
Based on what has happened before we will see record Arctic sea ice, due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt slowdown. Wally Broeker’s angry beast article (which started the idea of humans poking climate with stick) is an indication of the complete inability of those in the field to consider the obvious answer. Wally is the originator of the myth that change’s the North Atlantic drift current ’caused’ past abrupt climate change. Basic back of the envelop calculations, confirmed by computer models indicates a complete interruption of North Atlantic drift current has only a minor affect on European climate. (See Seager’s article.)
William: The planet’s climate does not suddenly change from interglacial to glacial. The planet resists, rather than amplifies forcing changes. Humans are not poking ‘climate’. It’s the sun that is the cyclic climate change poker.

Models to the Rescue?
No one understands what is required to cool Greenland by 16 °C and the tropics by 4 ± 1 °C, to lower mountain snowlines by 900 m, to create an ice sheet covering much of North America, to reduce the atmosphere’s CO2 content by 30%, or to raise the dust rain in many parts of Earth by an order of magnitude. If these changes were not documented in the climate record, they would never enter the minds of the climate dynamics community. Models that purportedly simulate glacial climates do so only because key boundary conditions are prescribed (the size and elevation of the ice sheets, sea ice extent, sea surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 content, etc.).
In addition, some of these models have sensitivities whose magnitude many would challenge.
What the paleoclimatic record tells us is that Earth’s climate system is capable of jumping from one mode of operation to another. These modes are self-sustaining and involve major differences in mean global temperature, in rain-fall pattern, and in atmospheric dustiness. In my estimation, we lack even a first-order explanation as to how the various elements of the Earth system interact to generate these alternate modes …. (William: Come on man. Abrupt climate change is due to a super, super, large forcing function, rather changes to the North Atlantic drift, current which basic analysis indicates is an urban legend.) >

The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth by Richard Seager

Harry van Loon.
December 13, 2014 10:00 am

Forecasting is difficult, especially about the future. (Storm P.)

December 13, 2014 10:33 am

4 eyes you are unfair to Prof Wadhams.
You wrote: “Lost in his own imaginary world. If I were a professor, or one of his students, or the person funding him, I’d give him mouthful because as a professor he has to show his reasoning and calculations because he is nominating specific years….”
Surely his reasonings and calculations are on the whiteboard in front of which he chose to be interviewed for the Real News?

December 13, 2014 12:16 pm

You all can laugh if you want. I would have kayaked right up to the North Pole this summer, but I missed making one of my lay-away payments on my kayak, and they released it out and sold it out from under me.
I could not find a whiskey brand to promote me.
Now planning for next year.

December 13, 2014 12:39 pm

His prediction as to the particular year that the arctic will be ice free may be wrong but the trend in loss of arctic sea ice is undeniable.

Reply to  Luke
December 13, 2014 12:46 pm

His prediction as to the particular year that the arctic will be ice free is wrong.
The trend down since the 1970s (when satellites started looking) is undeniable. But is it understood as to why the trend exists?
If we can’t predict how it will behave (and obviously, Prof Wadhams can’t) then it’s fair so say we don’t know why the ice has behaved in the way it has so far.
So the decline in Arctic ice is just another observation.
Like rivers flowing downhill and birds flying equatorially for the winter – it doesn’t imply my man’s fault.

Reply to  MCourtney
December 13, 2014 1:20 pm

Glad you agree that the downward trend is undeniable. You suggest the decline has no explanation. I suggest that years of study by thousands of climate scientists suggests a very straightforward explanation. Increases in heat-trapping gasses caused by burning of fossil fuels has lead to an increase in global air and ocean temperatures. Do you have another explanation?

Reply to  MCourtney
December 13, 2014 3:38 pm

Luke, the explanation you request cannot be given. Not by me or by anyone who is not a laughing stock. That was Prof Wadhams’ mistake.
1) The increase in Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) is not correlated with the global temperature. So even if Global T related to Arctic ice coverage GHGs would not be implicated.
2) GHGs (CO2 at least) seem to be well mixed in the atmosphere so if CO2 affects the Arctic it ought to affect the Antarctic. But the Antarctic behaves differently – it’s not losing ice.
3) Ice melts quicker when broken up into pieces. Storms break up ice (and icebreakers researching AGW, but nothing else that we know of). But storms are not related to global T (medium confidence IPCC AR5). So Arctic ice is a poor proxy for AGW anyway.
Luke, the climate has stopped significantly warming for the last 15years (despite accelerating emissions of CO2). So why didn’t the Arctic ice melt stop declining until about 3 years ago? Explain that lag.
No. I am not so arrogant as to propose an explanation for something that we (humanity) does not know, yet.