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.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19393075
—–
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”.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
——-
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”.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2hozOJWog
——-
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…..
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/06/when-sea-ice-is-gone.html
——-
TheRealNews – 29 May 2014
Transcript [Youtube] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11899
[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.
“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?
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?
Now Wadhams has ruled out an ice free Arctic by 2015 or 2016. Now he has demonstrated “very poor scientific practice”.
That submission was made by Wadhams in early 2012.
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.
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.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Broecker%201999%20GSA%20Today.pdf
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1
Forecasting is difficult, especially about the future. (Storm P.)
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?
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.
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.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
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.
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?
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.
” But the Antarctic behaves differently – it’s not losing ice.”
…
That is not what GRACE and CryoSat-2 say
David Socrates, thank you for the clarification.
Other than the Antarctic peninsular that sticks out into the South Atlantic… Antarctica is not losing ice.
Still, the fact remains – the trend that realists acknowledge in Arctic ice (down) is not observed in Antarctic ice.
As a fellow realist (not a fantasist) I’m sure you will agree that the Arctic and Antarctic ice trends differ.
And as CO2 is well mixed…
Mcourtney
…
Are you forgetting the fact that the WAIS is collapsing ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm
Again, so what? From today’s Arctic sea ice extents for all months of the year between 22 Aug and 22 Mar (7 of the 12!) the more Arctic sea ice retreats into open ocean, the more heat energy is lost from the exposed open waters. There is too little solar radiation to make up for the increased losses from evaporation, convection, radiation, and conduction.
Actually it is just the opposite. Open water has a much (0.06) lower albedo than ice (~0.6) or snow-covered ice (0.9). Thus, as the ice retreats heat input into the ocean increases.
For an Trenberth’s diagram of flat-plate insulated, isolated, insolated one-sided icebergs in space? 8<)
For the fresh, cleanly frozen Antarctic sea ice cycling every year between latitudes 58 south to 67 south? Yes, record high levels of antarctic sea ice does reflect more energy back into space every month of the year.
For the edge of the Arctic sea ice up at latitudes 74, 75, and 80 north? No. Measured sea ice albedo in mid-summer (June-July-August) is 0.46. (It does begin raising again in September back towards a mid-winter of 0.83 by November.) Measured open water albedo at 2-5 or 10 degrees solar elevation angle exceeds 0.35 There is slightly more SW radiation absorbed (a few tens of watts/m^2) , but the extra losses of evaporation, LW radiation, and convection create a net cooling effect in the high Arctic for 7 months of the year.
Do you disagree? Please, show me your hourly calc's for direct radiation reflected and absorbed for August 22, for September 22, for October 22 for the edge of the arctic and antarctic sea ice.
Don’t worry, Luke, the next decade will see temperatures decline and a shorter growing season, food shortages and famine and more cold related mortality will make everything just fine, you’ll see.
mpainter So you are making a prediction that temperatures will decline over the coming decade? I suggest you publish an article stating your prediction and we can all see if it comes true. If temperatures increase (which they certainly will) will you accept AGW?
So that mus explain the increase in September Arctic sea ice from 2012 to 2014? What angle is the sun’s rays coming in at in mid September? Heat is also lost to the system as the Arctic enters Autumn.
Luke, here are 2 articles worth reading on albedo. Note that Arctic sea ice has increased from the satellite record minimum in 2012. 2013 minimum up, 2014 minimum up. What does that tell you about the oceans absorbing more heat and causing more melt in following years?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Luke,
extrapolating from trends is what can lead to a failed prediction. Please look at the graph and read the linked pages.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
Luke,
Can you explain the cause of this?
Luke, is the trend you speak of a natural event? Only time will tell but the satellite record often shown starts at 1979.
There was a small decline in the arctic ice pack during the late 1930s and early 1940s but nothing like we are seeing now. The collapse of the arctic ice pack that we are witnessing is unprecedented in the last 1450 years.
From Kinard et al 2011. Nature. Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years.
Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the
Arctic1,2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3,4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the
question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region
to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.
Oh. I thought your quote said, “Just the excess Antarctic sea ice extent in June 2014 is now more than two million square kilometres – higher than it has ever been recorded at any time in any century, as large an excess ice area as the entire ice cap of Greenland – with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles around the world, particularly as excess sea ice will block shipping around Cape Horn within 10 – 12 years.”
It is quite simple, there is no deep science involved whatsoever. A simple parabolic fit to September PIOMAS Sea Ice Volume data (since 1979) shows it would become negligible by the year 2020. If the last two years are included, that is. On the other hand, if they are omitted, the parabola crosses zero around 2016.
That’s because the last two years have seen quite some upsurge in these values (given in thousand cubic kilometers). September arctic sea ice volume is 84% higher this year than it was two years ago.
2012 3.787
2013 5.479
2014 6.972
It is good news after all, that Professor Peter Wadhams does pay some attention to measurements. However, it is a pity he does not mention the very fact that forced him to change his mind.
Wadhams does look at Piomass which lead him to launch his criticism in parliament of Slingo of the met office. My suspicion is that those very numbers lead him to change his mind. Luke and co would do well to wait and see, just like Wadhams.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
The big warmy hot had trouble clearing customs?
LOL! I had forgotten all about that. Thanx for the reminder.
For those who missed it, here’s the [short] article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words
If the good professor is still around in 2018-20, he’ll change the goalposts yet again. Remember, you heard it here first……
This clown is just providing another sound bite to the high priest of the global warming scam .By the looks of him he is going to run out of runway before the latest uttering is also proven to be complete BS .
Eventually he will be right just as easily as forecasting the Gulf Of Mexico may someday be inhabited by Polar Bears .
We are allowing science to be confused with modelling exercises that have now been proven to the garbage in garbage out of programmers .
In any event, global warming is a far better alternative than global cooling and humans puny power is not going to control the thermostat one way or the other .
Suppose the Arctic opens up for shipping. The entrepreneurs will take advantage of that. The anti-productivist “greens” will say, “You can’t do that. We are against all capitalist pig greedy schemes. We want a world where everybody has no self-motive, but contributes to everyoneels’s welfare.” Groovy thought but see what happens in real-life Communist regimes.
“Finland does it. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France…everybody in the EU does it.” Never mind that the USA protects them from being taken over by Nazis and Soviet power mongers.
Socrates,
On WAIS here are a couple of points. The collapse (retreat of the grounding line) began about 20,000 years ago. It is irreversible because “the WAIS could continue to retreat even in the absence of further external forcing” and there are no topographic obstacles to prevent it from flowing downhill into the ocean.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5438/280.abstract
Greenland surface mass balance
http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Similar situation for University of Manitoba Professor David Barber. He said in National Geographic in June 2008 “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time in history.”
When that did happen, he pushed it out to 2015, according to the Saskatoon Star Pheonix, which reported…”The ice that has covered the Arctic basin for a million years will be gone in little more than six years because of global warming, a University of Manitoba geoscientist said. And David Barber said … he estimates the Arctic sea should see its first ice-free summer around 2015.”
I have challenged him to a wager multiple times with increasing odds in his favor – he has ignored me.
See…
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/10-to-1-odds-for-prof-david-barber/
When and where did he change it?
I had the same question. I found this here that cited him stating 2020.
http://www.adn.com/article/20141102/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-un-releases-climate-report
Slightly OT – some new research on the origin of current glaciation 3Mya at the start of the Pleistocene:
The key role of global solid-Earth processes in preconditioning Greenland’s glaciation since the Pliocene
Bernhard Steinberger1, Wim Spakman, Peter Japsen and Trond H. Torsvik
Terra Nova (2015) in press, DOI: 10.1111/ter.12133
Abstract
After >500 Myr of absence, major Northern Hemisphere glaciations appeared during the Plio-Pleistocene, with Greenland leading other northern areas. Here we propose that three major solid-Earth processes underpinned build-up of the Greenland ice-sheet. First, a mantle-plume pulse, responsible for the North Atlantic Igneous Province at ~60 Ma, regionally thinned the lithosphere. Younger plume pulses led to uplift, which accelerated at ~5 Ma, lifting the parts of the East Greenland margin closest to Iceland to elevations of more than 3 km above sea level. Second, plate-tectonic reconstruction shows a ~6° northward component of Greenland motion relative to the mantle since ~60 Ma. Third, a concurrent northward rotation of the entire mantle and crust toward the pole, dubbed True Polar Wander (TPW), contributed an additional ~12o change in latitude. These global geodynamic processes preconditioned Greenland to sustain long-term glaciation, emphasizing the role of solid-Earth processes in driving long-term global climatic transitions.
His prediction makes one of two postulates:
1. That the multi-year sea ice which has remained/emerged during the height of solar output in SS24 will disappear as solar output reduces to its circa 11 year minimum up to 2020 (assuming that the cycle is not a protracted one of 17 years as some postulate).
2. That, in fact, solar minimum correlates with arctic ice minimum (which may be narrowly true at the SS23/24 boundary but remains to be correlated at other ones).
I am not a University climate scientist or physicist, but my rudimentary understanding of such matters suggests to me that neither of those two postulates is the most statistically likely, in the absence of strange wind events such as caused the 2007 summer minimum of arctic ice extent.
Perhaps, in addition, this eminent Professor could be challenged to predict a date for the elimination of Antarctic Sea Ice also, as that disgraceful entity has had the temerity to counterbalance the lost Arctic Sea ice in ways which render the total polar sea ice extent slightly above the 30 year mean the past 18 months (oscillating of course above and below that mean data point from month to month)?
You see, if total sea ice volume doesn’t decline, sea level rises won’t occur, so all the domesday scenarios of arctic ice melting will be shown to be false. Not a good sales pitch for future grants, but necessary not to be hauled up before the climatologists’ equivalent of the SEC for ‘climate securities fraud’……
Astrologers, fortune tellers and climate scientists, I just don’t have much faith in any of their predictions.
why not add this to your Climate Fail files ? Sure looks like it belongs .
Oh -and add Al Gore’s prediction while your at it .
I always love the ‘less than one million square kilometers equals an ice free arctic is generally accepted’ meme.
I understand that the number is greater than zero, but one million is way beyond some arbitrary and de minimis amount.
‘It’s too difficult to melt the extremely thick ice of the Canadian archipelago’ just proves the point. The arctic will not be made ice free from CO2, whatever the source.
And in what world is a million square kilometers of sea ice considered inconsequential?
Normal summer ice minimum being about 7.5m km^2, wouldn’t something less than 400k make sense? Set ice free to somewhere around 5% of the normal area. At that point, you could look at a sea ice map and agree that the sea ice is pretty much gone. At 2.5 times that amount, it’s not only not gone, it is still of consequence, not only to climate, but to shipping, arctic wildlife and the indigenous peoples.
I recall (somewhat off topic but parallel story) a story in the New York Times where some master sergeant was lamenting the fact that his health was seriously damaged by chemical weapons in Iraq that ‘did not exist’. That was the official story, but his health condition testified to the fact that it was untrue. He actually suffered from ailments caused by chemical agents that we were being told were not there.
I can just imagine a ship’s captain, probably of a tramp freighter taking an ill advised shortcut from Asia to Europe or the like, explaining that his ship sank because he hit some ‘non-existent’ sea ice.
The point being that one million square kilometers of sea ice is hardly ‘ice free’ conditions.
My $0.02 on the day before Christmas Eve.
Everybody have a great Christmas (or Hanukkah, Rabi al Awwal, Kwanzaa, Holiday, Festivus, Boxing Day, Feast of St. Stephen, or ______________(insert your particular religious day of observation choice here)!
See y’all next year!