Peter Wadhams, who regularly predicts an ice free arctic, and infamously speculated that he and his friends might be the target of a big oil assassination conspiracy, has written a book titled “A Farewell to Ice”.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams review – climate change writ large
The warning this book gives us about the consequences of the loss of the planet’s ice is emphatic, urgent and convincing.
Becoming a world authority on sea ice has taken Peter Wadhams to the polar zones more than 50 times, travelling on foot and by plane, ship, snowmobile and several nuclear-powered submarines of the Royal Navy.
Nonscientists who read his astonishing and hair-raising A Farewell to Ice will agree that the interludes of autobiography it contains are engrossing, entertaining and, when one submarine suffers an onboard explosion and fire while under the ice, harrowing.
Any reader should find the science of sea-ice creation and the implications for us all of its loss – explored and explained here with clarity and style – beautiful, compelling and terrifying.
…
“Our planet has changed colour. Today, from space, the top of the world in the northern summer looks blue instead of white. We have created an ocean where there was once an ice sheet. It is Man’s first major achievement in reshaping the face of his planet,” Wadhams writes.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change
Sadly I haven’t received my reviewer’s copy of Wadhams’ new book, but if we want any insight into the contents, perhaps this gem of a Wadhams prediction from June this year will help.
“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said.
“Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low].
“I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.
“Ice free means the central part of the Arctic and the North Pole is ice free.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
UPDATE: (Anthony) It seems none of Wadhams professional and private peers who made sea ice predictions for the Sea Ice Prediction Network this year agree with his forecast:
Source: https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/august
Wadhams, absurd comment,
“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,”
He says an area of less than 1 million is the same as disappear. What a funny guy since I learned back in grade school that disappear means it is not there anymore.
I believe this is the dictionary definition of “hedging one’s bet”…
He has high waffling skills. Lots of “may well” and “very likely”. He does slip up on the ice-free bit by failing to qualify the claim that next year, for sure, will be under a million square kilometers.
Climatology has a high degree of uncertainty. Anyone actually interested in understanding it knows that.
Thanks, clearly the policy advocates don’t understand.
==========
Heh, Jim Y., closet skeptic. Once he yanks the cord and sees the light he’ll burst out of the closet screaming ‘What is being done to us?’.
Whoops forgot the ==========
Jim, you’ve stumbled blindly over the core of much of skepticism. Climate science has no clue on natural variability, in fact a case could be made that our curiosity about natural variability has been violently suppressed.
If we are false-footed into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening, then there will be Hell to pay, and the bill will be delivered by horses of many hues.
============
less than 1 million…
only in ice science can something the size of Egypt….or Texas and New Mexico combined
…not exist
Wadhams is full of it.
Even Gavin Schmitt called his claims “bollocks”
There was pseudo interview with him in the Guardian yesterday where he said there is a “clear trend to zero” . He then goes on to explain that zero = 10^6 !! Top expert scientist, totally illiterate and innumerate.
He does not say why his is fitting a linear trend or his justification for expecting it to continue. Just to add a sciency bit he does talk about albedo feedback. Unfortunately if that postitiive feedback were significant we would have seen a tipping point and runaway melting after the OMG minima of 2007 and 2012. In fact we saw the opposite: a notable rebound.
This suggests that the negative feedback like enhanced outward LWIR and increased evaporation ( which he chose not mention ) are dominant, not his ice albedo.
Or just maybe the temperature of the water in the major ocean to which the Arctic ocean is linked could be a factor?
The well known and studied AMO went from its cold extreme in 1975 to it warmest extreme around 2006: in exactly the period that we have been monitoring sea ice reliably and saw the “catastrophic” decline in NH sea ice.
Models to not reproduce the AMO and they under-estimated sea ice decline in the Arctic. Coincidence?
Maybe sea temperature has something to do with the amount of sea ice. Since the volume of melted ice is the integral of instantaneous SST influence , there will be a lag of something less than a quarter cycle.
AMO is usually attributed 60y period so 10-15y after 2006 should see ice volume bottom out. That certainly seems to be the way things are going in the decadal trend analysis that I did.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
The most rapid melting was from 1997 – 2007: the rising quadrant of AMO. Now that AMO is in the falling quadrant of positive phase, ice melting is slowing down.
If Wadhams has spent 50 years studying Arctic ice as he claims and is a supposed world authority, he must know all this. The obvious conclusion is that he is being willfully misleading and alarmist.
No wonder he sees the need for action as urgent … before the canary in the coal mine wakes up and starts tweeting.
But Greg, we all know that the enthalpy in the ocean has gone into melting ice by the process of warmista enthalpy transport we learned about in thermo. [/sarc]
You’re right. Arctic ice either “is” or “is not”. But don’t get too comfy, it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Aha!
In the same way that 2 + 2 = 5, for unusually large values of 2 ?
Thanks Hivemind. Keyboard needed cleaning anyway.
That’s the official definition of gone accepted by researchers in the field.
If you had a million dollars in your pocket, would you say you had no money?
It’s ridiculous Griff. No ice is no ice.
Any way, no ice is better, as I’ve said before.
“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year”
It seems even when I translate this to something along the lines of “My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year”, I’m still stuck with those weasel words “may well have”.
These aren’t statements a scientist would make. We say the “model predicts” or “the expected value is” [some number] +/- [some other number] with [some probability].
As long as this sort of thing sells popular articles and books, people will do it. The sad part is some folks take it seriously, but polls show not very many. The dangerous one are politicians who’ve figured out they can make a buck off it.
That is a very important point I try to make time after time. When I read these global warming articles the language and the way they argue is NOT the way scientists argue or discuss things. They are never wrong nor have they ever been wrong. No prediction is too alarmist for them no matter how improbable. Random associations are made all the time and justified with specious made up statistics. They cherry pick data constantly but most importantly they don’t argue in a scientific fashion.
When confronted they almost always resort to “the consensus” instead of what real scientists do which is to pick up pencil and paper and show. If I say something flawed to a scientist he will just explain if necessary with formula why what I’m saying doesn’t work and demonstrate with some example how this doesn’t happen or does happen. Climate scientists NEVER do that. They always go into accusations, call to the consensus and if push comes to shove and you won’t give up will rely on computer models.
I know of no other profession or science which assumes a computer model is right and the data is wrong. Practically every climate article starts off with “the computer models predict this” therefore in 2050 this will happen. Even though the computer models are shown time and again to be fabrications of fits to selected data and don’t fit anything other than what they are fit to and even though the computer models have failed to predict anything and that the computer models have to be reset every year with new “initialization data” to even come close to matching historical results they blithely assume that 80 years from now these computer models will have correctly predicted some temperature or other condition which when extrapolated to some other natural correlation means consequences which are unavoidable and the death or cost of this or that.
It’s the most absurd thing that even a high school student can see the stupidity of but people around the world swallow it hook line and sinker.
You know AGW is just political science when no one other than fact checking skeptics call out these attention mongers who love to yell fire in a crowded theater. I guess there is no remorse among warmistas for the pathetic attention seekers among them.
No offense intended, but I have to correct your factional error. He loves to yell, “There MAY be fire”.
“There may be a fire, and everyone died.” There, fixed it.
current polar ice accumulations…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
I think this ice accumulation is a little more accurate for Aug. 22nd, 2016:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
I wonder if Peter Wadhams has looked at this data – the temps are now falling in the Arctic, and is averaging -1.2 C as of today:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
That’s an extent chart – all areas with more than 15% ice…
Lots of that area has more than 15% ice, but a lot less than 100%.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
It’s still ice Griff.
It’s refusing to go away, much to everyone’s chagrin.
Griff,
They used to use 30%, but it wasn’t scary. So now they use 15%.
It still isn’t scary to knowledgeable folks, who understand that:
1. We’re observing natural variability, and:
2. The original predictions of disappearing polar ice were flat wrong. So they began to concentrate on Arctic ice. But half right = wrong.
Here’s what’s happening, 1979 until now:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Global ice is the top graph. Does that scare you?
‘Ice Cold in Alex’ would be my preference. There was a sinister spy in that too although he redeemed himself before the end in time for a cold Carlsberg.
No commet, this guy is beyond absurd, (I guess that was a comment)
It sounds more like a commet 😉
Well, I don’t know. If he was a warmista it would have been hedged. So, it might be a comment.
HE IS 100% WRONG !
But he looks so nice that one is tempted to believe him.
If your taste runs to curmudgeonly geezers, I suppose, sure.
The dodo is still extinct. Other prophecies (forward and reverse) have been more circumstantial, less scientific, and more prescriptive.
Wadhams seems to be practicing what market traders call “averaging down”. The market is still going the wrong way to his predictions and he’s losing even more, but he can claim a lower percentage loss per trade.
The “need to be right” runs strong in this one.
Over educated nincompoop! He dirties the term “Scientist”.
Slightly pregnant, lol
The Guardian has in fact published three articles promoting Wadhams’s book in the last few days. Links and more comment here. In none of them does the so-called journalist think to get an opinion from another scientist. Kudos to Gavin for saying on twitter: “Wadhams says what other scientists will not” – mostly because they prefer to have physics behind their ideas.
The Guardian taking a slice of the sales revenue could explain
1) Why they need 3 articles about the book
2) Why no contrary scientific opinion is sought
3) Why below the line contrary comments are scrubbed.
Well, Gavin still calls Wadhams a scientist and not a silly old bugger. So I think praising kudos is not needed.
Prophets hate the internet. Someone can find their predictions that went wrong, and quote them being wrong.
I wonder what Wadhams’ explanation is for why the ice extent in the southern hemisphere isn’t disappearing. It is supposed to be “global” warming, isn’t it?
The CO2’s upside down in the Southern Hemisphere, so the dipole moment or something else sciency sounding is reversed …….
Simples, you can watch water swirling down the plughole in the opposite direction down there …..
And the constellation Orion is upside down d’an undah, as well. So his dangly bits don’t dangle at all, he sports a woody.
Orion upside down under?
Luftpumpe is right.
The conditions in the arctic and antarctic which influence sea ice formation are quite different…
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2012/11/arctic-melt-versus-antarctic-freeze-antarctica-warming-or-not
But, but, but….!!
I thought it was GLOBAL warming? Oh yes, I forgot, in the warmists’ world more ice means warming.
If the Antarcitc sea ice was melting away your gang would be screaming “Global Waaaarming!” and “the Antarctic is screaming!”. You wouldn’t been saying, “oh no, that’s not right, the Antarctic should be gaining in sea ice”.
Warm is warm, apart from when it’s cold, It’s absolute twaddle Griff.
Since Earth has never been ice free before, this certainly is cause for panic.
Absolute rubbish.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826611-200-when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/
Look out, Peter, someone’s out to get you! Look over your right shoulder: “Death by big oil”.
Remember, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.
And, dear Peter, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Arctic ice is expensive. Why can’t we just save Antarctic ice?
Arctic ice is expensive. Why can’t we just save Antarctic ice?
– noone buys that extensive icebox, expensive you know.
Update: See his own collapsed forecast for 2015: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/22/professor-peter-wadhams-will-not-bet-on-his-own-sea-ice-predictions/#comment-2262941 !!
I’d like to see his early predictions in writing to see if the Clintonesque definition of “ice-free” was present.
Sorry, Mods. I seem to have fallen foul of you by quoting something that is written on Wadham’s own whiteboard….
So Putin gets another pass.
Of course, the idea that “Big Oil” gives a damn about power produced CO2 – we don’t use oil for making electricity anymore, and never used much anyway. Half our oil is used fro plastics, etc and doesn’t have anything to do with energy. Only cars, and electric cars that are practical will be the demise of gas powered jobs, something this clown has nothing to do with. Amazing how monolithic corporations would find it impossible to put out a contract on this Joe Palooka. He claims big oil a big, powerful evil but apparently isn’t actually worried that they will do something. In terms of sheer logic, this guy is a basket case.
here is a clue. Wadhams does not speak for the science
Ignore wadhams
“It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue shrinking
and thinning year-round in the course of the 21st century as
global mean surface temperature rises. At the same time, in the
Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is expected,
but with low confidence. Based on the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble,
projections of average reductions in Arctic sea ice extent for 2081–
2100 compared to 1986–2005 range from 8% for RCP2.6 to 34% for
RCP8.5 in February and from 43% for RCP2.6 to 94% for RCP8.5 in
September (medium confidence). A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean (sea ice
extent less than 1 × 106
km2
for at least 5 consecutive years) in September
before mid-century is likely under RCP8.5 (medium confidence),
based on an assessment of a subset of models that most closely reproduce
the climatological mean state and 1979–2012 trend of the Arctic
sea ice cover. Some climate projections exhibit 5- to 10-year periods of
sharp summer Arctic sea ice decline—even steeper than observed over
the last decade—and it is likely that such instances of rapid ice loss
will occur in the future. There is little evidence in global climate models
of a tipping point (or critical threshold) in the transition from a perennially
ice-covered to a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean beyond which
further sea ice loss is unstoppable and irreversible. In the Antarctic, the
CMIP5 multi-model mean projects a decrease in sea ice extent that
ranges from 16% for RCP2.6 to 67% for RCP8.5 in February and from
8% for RCP2.6 to 30% for RCP8.5 in September for 2081–2100 compared
to 1986–2005. There is, however, low confidence in those values
as projections because of the wide inter-model spread and the inability
of almost all of the available models to reproduce the mean annual
cycle, interannual variability and overall increase of the Antarctic sea
ice areal coverage observed during the satellite era. {12.4.6, 12.5.5,
Figures 12.28, 12.29, 12.30, 12.31}
” Based on the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble,
projections of average reductions in Arctic sea ice extent for 2081–
2100″
Well since models badly under-estimated Arctic melting so far why would we have any confidence in them being even roughly correct on such wild and unscientific extrapolations?
“here is a clue. Wadhams does not speak for the science”
Ignore wadhams”
Hehe. Brilliantly put.
May I give it a try?
“here is a clue. Mosher does not speak for the science”
Ignore Mosher” 😉
Andrew
The difference between Wadhams and Mosher is that Mosher is hated for saying things that are pretty factual, where as Wadhams is loved for not doing that.
when precisely did Mosher do that?
“Mosher is hated for saying things that are pretty factual”
Hugs,
What did Mosher say that was factual?
Andrew
Mosher did say that Gavin disagreed with Wadhams.
Mr. Mosher says things that are “petty factual.”
Mosher, please don’t break your sentences into lines, handhelds do that on their own behalf.
Otherway you produce broken language.
Cheers
Models.
Ho, ho!
Steven Mosher August 22, 2016 at 11:08 am
“here is a clue. Wadhams does not speak for the science
Ignore wadhams”
HAH! From his Wikipedia bio:
“Peter Wadhams ScD (born 14 May 1948), is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice.
He is the president of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans Commission on Sea Ice and Coordinator for the International Programme for Antarctic Buoys.
Wadhams has been the leader of 40 polar field expeditions.[1]
Wadhams advocates for the use of climate engineering to mitigate climate change.[2]
He has received the Polar Medal.”
So he speaks for the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge. IOW he speaks for a department Physics at he same illustrious university where Isaac Newton’s chair resides and was once occupied by Stephan Hawking! A university known for the greatest physicists.
Looks like y’all, at least at Cambridge, have the same problem with tenure as we do.
In the absence of Cambridge and the various institutions’ disavowing Prof. Wadham’s provocative statements/predictions, tenure or not, they are complicit.
I am honestly at a loss. IF it is true that Arctic ice has been thickening over recent years AND that variable wind patterns affect the distribution of ice, why would Prof. Wadham claim in June 2016 that this year, but surely no later than next year, Arctic sea ice will decline precipitously to 1 million square kilometers (gone)?
The 2012 minimum extent, influenced by a known strong weather pattern, was far above his estimation for 2016. Does he have access to data or analyses that others don’t?
dogdaddyblog
He’s the crazy uncle in the basement that the family wants you to ignore. But how can one ignore him when he screams so loud and has such credentials and continues to hold a position of repute?
I don’t claim to be a sea ice expert, but I can look things up. I predict the minimum sea ice extent this year and next will be about 4 million sq Kilometers. Let’s check back in October when it starts to recover and see who’s closer.
I’m gonna claim 3.9 million sq Km.
Let’s see who’s closer 😉
Anybody want to go for 4.1 million sq Km?
Whatever, we’ll all be closer than Wadhams.
I think you all may be going over. I’ll bid 1,000,001 sq km. 😉 #ThePriceIsRight
Well, he is qualified to run for state Attorney General.
It’s not that though is it. Leftybollocks writers at rags like the Guardian go out of their way to find people like this idiot to quote and push their agenda that phony-socialism is good for poor people (so that people will give them money).
He’s just drinking a different Kool Aid than the rest of us. His possibly contains more organic elements such as lead, arsenic, etc. But that’s ok, it’s all natural
Speaking of Hemingway, “The Fool Often Pontificates” would be a good book title.
Ice-free conditions were once considered favorable. http://meteoritestudies.com/Arctic22.png
..More from the Great Dictator.
Poor Adolph. He gets blamed for almost as many things as Poor GW!
Any more of that shouting and swearing and he’ll get himself “no-platformed” by the SJW snowflakes
Almost a by-the-book stratagem: accuse others of what you’re actually doing.
For a guy like this to actually position himself as a victim is a good window into the psychology of your typical extremist warmist type.
CAGW Buzzword Bingo
Pity that the Arctic ice will disappear, and our children will never know what Arctic sea ice looks like. It’s a travesty that we can’t find the Arctic sea ice… probably because it’s melted and gone into the ocean as water.
As a Navy man I’d like to know more about these several trips under the ice in Royal Navy nuclear submarines. They don’t take extra civilians for many reasons including security and intelligence. And what about this explosion and fire? News to me and I know a lot of people in the business. Bo……..ocks
It is a dangerous job. Like when Hillary got shot at in Bosnia.
Prof Peter Wadhams on submarine HMS Tireless
March 2007
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/pop/research/tireless.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325973.200-accident-on-research-submarine-kills-two/
“The sonar was crushed as we surfaced,” he says, “but before the accident we got data from across 2000 kilometres of the Arctic from Spitsbergen to Alaska.”
The next question is whether the data will be fully analysed. As New Scientist reported last week (p 16), Wadhams is in dispute with the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council over funding.
Wadhams is not a civilian. He’s a soldier in the War On Climate Change (WW III as it were) the weepy Bill McKibben has declared.
One of the characteristics of academic mathematicians is that 50% are half mad, 25% 75% mad and 1% …….
Professor Wadham’s didn’t even have the bottle to put his money where his mouth is.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/22/professor-peter-wadhams-will-not-bet-on-his-own-sea-ice-predictions/
What a hypocrite!
Nor do the skeptics…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/why-global-warming-bullie_b_8886968.html
Griff,
From the very beginning of your link:
“I…challenge any individual or organization to a $25,000 bet that global warming is real and will continue.”
Pure deflection. Fake bet. Who disagrees with global warming? The planet has been warming at about the same rate since the LIA. Where’s the “human fingerprint”?
The alarmist claim is: “dangerous man-made global warming”. See the difference?
It’s also called ‘catastrophic AGW’. Acronym: CAGW.
But where is it? Show us where CAGW starts:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
His rationale is easy to understand. Look at the graphic Anthony added. It has the predictions of 38 groups, encompassing probably 100 scientists or more. How many have you heard of? Maybe one or two. If Waldham’s predictions were in the middle of the pack, would you know about him? Would he get the headlines? Would he be the featured speaker at conferences? Would his books sell?
He’s been wrong, year after year after year, yet he still gets the headlines. Why would he stop?
Dear Mr. Wadhams,
This letter is to inform you that your checking account balance is negative and the appropriate penalties will be assessed.
You see, since your account was showing a “clear trend toward zero” we extrapolated the balance toward same when said balance became less than $1,000.
The logic, with respect to your account balance, is very clear; we will appreciate your prompt attention toward rectifying this obvious problem as soon as possible. If you do not bring your account into compliance, or if you protest in any way, we will assume that you are in the process of hiring assassins to quite us … please don’t do this.
Thank you,
DonM
Accounts Manager
Cambridge Community Credit Union
We must be grateful for the book. The usual panicky newspaper quotes come and go, but are effectively unaccountable years later. A book sits on shelves and acts as a reminder of inflated claims. The author’s hubris will help cause the destruction of the idea of AGW.
There is a particular feeling associated with a 10 or 20 year old book that made wild claims that never came close to eventuating. That is the feeling that awaits Wadhams and his work. Without the book he might be spared it.
“Nonscientists who read (Peter Wadham’s) astonishing … will agree that the interludes of autobiography it contains are … when one submarine suffers an onboard explosion and fire while under the ice, harrowing.”
I wonder if that account’s a little like Hillary Clinton’s claim of dodging sniper fire when her plane landed in Bosnia? Anyone taking bets?
Tom, you should have Googled submarine disasters. I’ll take your bet to the tune of $1,000. Look it up, then pay me!
Dave Fair
Product Description
Most of the scientific establishment predict that the North Pole will be free of ice around the middle of this century. As Peter Wadhams, the world’s leading expert on sea ice, demonstrates in this book, even this bleak assessment of the future is grossly optimistic. Wadhams has visited the Polar Regions more often than any other living scientist – 50 times since he was on the first ship
to circumnavigate the Americas in 1970.
_______________________________________
There’s that high addictive potential of predicting ever growing dangers.
Returning to places where once in a live time you will find your nightmare came through – prepared to photograph and distribute by e-mail and twitter.
And again you get disillutioned, sobered – no completely ice free arctis, polarbearless.
maybe next year.
“when one submarine suffers an onboard explosion and fire while under the ice, harrowing”…
Ice Station Zebra, anyone?
Today, from space, the top of the world in the northern summer looks blue instead of white.
And in a couple of months it will look white again. Happens every year.
Professor Wadhams’ submarine data was challenged some time ago:
Arctic’s big melt challenged Friday, 4 May, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm
Is Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinning? Greg Holloway, and Tessa Sou Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney BC, Canada
The Arctic Climate System Study: Climate and Cryosphere Project Newsletter, Number 1, September 2001 Ice and Climate News
“In the case of submarine-inferred rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, combined modelling and data argue that a more physically plausible inference is that the ice was not “lost” but only shifted within the Arctic. The pattern of submarine sampling happened to miss the shift. Observations to date, together with model physics, imply only that the loss of sea ice volume is not inconsistent with the 3% per decade loss of ice area, a modest rate, itself not inconsistent with multi-decadal natural variability.”
Arctic Nasa Satellites show a 3%-per-decade reduction in area – but assessing thickness is more difficult
“It’s a circumstance where the ice tends to leave the central Arctic and then mostly pile up against the Canadian side, before moving back into the central Arctic again,” he told BBC News Online. “Because of territorial waters and where US submarines weren’t allowed to go in the 1990s – the submarines couldn’t enter Canadian waters and that’s where the ice was.”
Dr Holloway believes the fact that the British research tallied with the American studies was purely coincidental – a “fluke”.
______________________________________
Now BBC News Online knows ‘arctic melting’ is hiding behind not allowed territorial waters.
but it is the summer deep blue that’s the problem… (it will be a very long time before it stops freezing in the winter)
Griff,
For some perspective, here’s Antarctic ice compared with the city of Berlin:
That’s how much ice they’re predicting Antarctica might lose.
Should we panic yet?
dbstealey (replying to Griff)
Funny that. In June 2014 (just a few months ago), just the “excess” antarctic sea ice anomaly was larger than the entire land area of Greenland. Now, it is back to near-average levels today, but … somehow nobody thought that excess was a problem. Wrong message, eh?
Cretin
Warm weather is good, a NW passage is good, more abundant crops is good, cheap energy is good. Why do commies hate good things and love bad things?
Drought is good…? (or flooding other places) 50 degree C summer temps good…? sea level rise is good…?
People who think everyone who doesn’t agree with them are commies -bad.
Commies arguing they aren’t commies -bad.
Andrew
commies that don’t know that they are commies – IDIOTS (although from a certain perspective, useful)
So, this year, next year, sometime, never just about sums it up
Serious apology to the contributors of this thread – I should have known about Tireless and her accident. Perhaps I’ll give some credence to Mr Wadhams in future. Always check before shooting your mouth off.
What is most amazing about the statement that the Earth has changed color, is that this would be a powerful negative feedback in any case. Wadhams cannot be unaware of this fact.
The arctic is losing daylight very rapidly right now. The sun is already fairly near to the horizon. It will set in about a month’s time, not to be seen again until March or thereabouts.
With no ice cover and no further incoming radiation, the dark waters will emit ‘black body radiation’, much more so than ice. Further, any heat in the ocean, insofar at the temperature of the water is higher than the temperature of the atmosphere, will actually heat the atmosphere through evaporation, further cooling the ocean.
Less ice extent is a negative heat feedback for the ocean and there is no other possibility.
In short, about the time the ice melts and the ocean turns from high albedo to low, the sun and its incoming radiation goes away. The evaporation that cools the ocean may serve to warm the air a bit, maybe for a time. But as the ocean cools, the atmosphere will follow, sooner or later. And less ice with no Sun will definitely lead to a cooling ocean.
“What is most amazing about the statement that the Earth has changed color, is that this would be a powerful negative feedback in any case.”
Only if its albedo increased with increasing temperature. When ice melts, what is left behind tends to be dark.
Jim Y; I think you failed to read the remainder of my comment.
You see, just about the time the albedo changes, the incoming radiation goes away because the sun sets for six months. Any additional exposed water at that time is a huge negative feedfback for ocean warming.
Open water cools the ocean far more effectively than an ice cap.
Bob Kutz
It is actually 7 months of increased cooling by the newly exposed arctic ocean waters, but less than 2 months down south. The Antarctic sea ice does tend to behave more like the classic “sea ice reflects solar energy better” theme. It’s just that – since 1992 – we have been seeing increased Antarctic sea ice, and each million sq kilometers of new Antarctic sea ice means many more millions of Gigawatts of heat energy reflected from the earth each day.
But look at the Arctic in January:
Assume each sq meter of open ocean (at 2-4 deg C) loses an average of “only” 100 watts due to increased LW radiation, evaporation, conduction, and convection to the -25 degree Arctic air in mid-winter. (It’s actually about 120 watts averaged over an entire summer’s day when the air is much warmer, but actual energy losses depends strongly on the local “weather” above the water: water temperature, salinity, 1 meter air temperature, wet bulb temperature (relative humidity), wind speed, cloud cover, width of the open leads, and wave height, etc. Pretend 100 watts is correct for now.)
On January 12 of 2015, for example, the Cryosphere reported a negative -1.034 Million sq kilometer Arctic sea ice anomaly.
This is 8.1% below “normal” (1979-2010) average for the date. (Expected sea ice is 12.773 Mkm^2, reported sea ice was 11.739 Mkm^2).
100 watts/m^2 x 1.034 x 10^6 sq kilometers x 10^6 (sq meters/sq km) x 24 hours = 2,480 x 10^6 Megawatts-hrs.
How much energy was absorbed into the open Arctic water up north that day?
None. The sun was below the horizon the entire period.
Now, compare those increased global losses up north (caused by a negative sea ice anomaly in the arctic) with the increased solar reflections down south (caused by an increase in sea ice around Antarctica). On the same day in January 2015 (12 January 2015) the Cryosphere reported a 1.358 Mkm^2 POSITIVE sea ice anomaly around Antarctica. But the sun was above the horizon in January around the southern continent, and sunlight WAS being reflected all day from this increase in sea ice area around Antarctica.
In fact, over a 24 hour day, about 4246 more watts were reflected from each sq meter of the “excess” sea ice, compared to what would have been reflected from any given square meter of open ocean. (Assume clear skies, the monthly Antarctic sea ice albedo for January, and figuring only direct radiation.)
Multiply the 4246 watts-hrs/m^2 x 1.358 Mkm^2 = 5,768 x 10^6 Megawatt-hrs of additional heat losses.
RACookPE1978;
Thank you for that. It appears as though you’ve quantified the effect I was describing and are in agreement that less arctic ice at the end of summer is more than likely a negative feedback, rather than the positive feedback claimed by Wadhams and apparently misunderstood by Jim Y.
“What is most amazing about the statement that the Earth has changed color, is that this would be a powerful negative feedback in any case.”
Only if its albedo increased with increasing temperature. When ice melts, what is left behind tends to be dark.
Last year this peer reviewed paper was published, analyzing the “first ever” airborne EM mapping of ice thickness:
Recently, the feasibility of commercial shipping in the ice-prone Northwest Passage (NWP) has attracted a lot of attention. However, very little ice thickness information actually exists. We present results of the first ever airborne electromagnetic ice thickness surveys over the NWP carried out in April and May 2011 and 2015 over first-year and multiyear ice… Results indicate that even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.
When assertions are contradicted by empirical measurements, they can’t both be right. Which should we rely on, and which should be discarded?
I’m glad these nitwits put their nonsense in writing. The world has an undeniable record of their biblical level of ignorance and inaccuracy. He will join the “scientists” behind the coming ice age scare. Also, how do these people keep their jobs? Something has to be done about this tenure situation. First they exclude conservatives from the staffs, and then they promote these nitwitws.
The only thing Wadhams is exposed to is a resounding voice of ‘you were wrong’, each time his ice-free predictions fail.
It’s not really valuable science to say: ‘I’m sure the arctic will be ice free sometime in the future, but I have absolutely no clue when that will be’….