The 'Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016' turned out to be not so great for sea ice doomsters

Last week I mentioned how WeatherUnderground was touting the ‘Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016’ as being a repeat of the ice crusher cyclone in the summer of 2012. People that want to see Arctic sea ice reach new lows, so that they can shout things like “See, told you! Climate change!” were banking on it to bring sea ice extent to new record scarcity, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth, while secretly grinning to themselves “take that, deniers”. It’s a strange bunch of people, in my view, that rally around wanting to see such things happen.

So far, NSIDC hasn’t shown much of an impact from the GAC16, and in the last couple of days, ice has upticked slightly as it regrouped (magnified inset mine):

N_stddev_timeseries-08-22-16

Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The storm last week, if it had major impact, would have put the plot closer to the green 2012 line. We are now just about a month away from the seasonal minimum, which usually occurs somewhere between Sept 15th and 25th. There’s still the possibility that another cyclone might roar through and save the day for the doomsters, but it looks like NSIDC and NASA could well be correct.

It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it, as there doesn’t seem to be any new mentions of the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016” popping up. Be assured though that we’d never [hear] the end of it had it turned out to beat the Arctic cyclone of 2012 in ice breaking capability. Of course, the caveat here is that weather is not climate.

Meanwhile, Professor David Wadhams doubles down on his “ice free” predictions with a new book: A Farewell to Ice.

Wadhams prediction from June this year contained his usual doominess.

“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.”

But, both NSIDC and NASA have said since then that a record low isn’t likely, much less ice free:

NSIDC:  ‘A new record low September ice extent now appears to be unlikely.”

NASA: ‘…highly unlikely that this year’s summertime sea ice minimum extent will set a new record’

But there’s always that hope for doom next year. So far, Wadhams track record on this point has been pretty dismal. Plus, he keeps moving the goalposts.

And, 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, not one said below 1 million square kilometers:

SIPN-sea-ice-forecast-2016

Source: https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/august

Sad when nature just won’t kowtow to the doomsters, isn’t it? But, human history is fraught with visionaries who said impeding doom is right around the corner. It’s a lifestyle choice I suppose.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
226 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kenw
August 23, 2016 10:39 am

… “It’s a lifestyle choice I suppose.”
One that can pay extremely well….

K. Kilty
Reply to  Kenw
August 23, 2016 7:26 pm

It might be genetic.

Simon
Reply to  Kenw
August 23, 2016 11:43 pm

“One that can pay extremely well….”
Really? Know any climate scientists? Theya are not paid well at all. Certainly not in my country.

pbweather
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2016 12:50 am

I think statement “can pay extremely well” refers to large sums of money available to research depts for climate related topics, which would dry up quickly if climate change were found to be not as dangerous or important as politicians currently think. So it is not in these research agencies interest to show that climate change is not an issue as this would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2016 3:08 am

Simon, I don’t know what country you are in, but the main Climate Scientists in the USA are paid extremely well. Their grants run in to the millions of dollars.

seaice1
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2016 4:23 am

“Their grants run in to the millions of dollars.” Their pay and their grants are different things.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
August 24, 2016 8:53 am

Their pay depends on them getting grants.
The more grants they get, the more they get paid by their employer.

seaice1
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2016 5:14 am

MarkW -. Their pay and their grants are different things. Do you agree? That their grants runs into millions of dollars does not say anything about their pay.

Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2016 8:33 am

Don’t read much on climate funding, eh?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/
That’s before we even talk about the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars shoveled at “green” companies.

PA
August 23, 2016 10:39 am

My prediction a couple of months ago was the season will end up 2 standard deviants below normal.
Prediction still looks good.

MarkW
Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 11:07 am

A standard deviant? They’ve categorized those already?

george e. smith
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 11:33 am

Well there’s a whole lot of standard deviants listed on that diagram.
All of those people working on the problem, and no two of them agree with each other.
Well their predictions cover enough territory that maybe one of them will come close.
If I could get a grant, I’d be willing to generate a prediction of my own.
I have figured out how to represent ice area and thickness simultaneously in a single complex number. Then I can use Laplace Transforms to compute the ice area and volume simultaneously for a whole year.
Gotta be some foundation out there who would fund my grant to do that.
g

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 11:54 am

How many deviants would you have to analyze before you can determine what a standard deviant is?

Frederick Michael
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 12:02 pm

George E. Smith — Just make a pole-zero plot!

Bob Boder
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 12:03 pm

George;
Unless you can prove that the arctic is going to be ice free because of AGW you have no chance at your grant. Sorry

Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 12:15 pm

George e.:
You need to call it a model. And you need a lot of waffle words.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 3:22 pm

A standard deviant? They’ve categorized those already?

“There’s nothing new under the sun…..”

Chester
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2016 11:18 pm

George, you wrote “on that diagram … no two of them agree with each other”. You might want to actually look at the diagram. There are, for example, two predictions for 4.0.

Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 12:35 pm

Two standard deviants….
Would that be two Clintons below normal?
Sorry…couldn’t resist.

Robert Austin
Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 2:20 pm

1981 to 2010 average = normal? The only thing normal about that average is that it is comprised of a large subset of the short set of satellite era data.

NavarreAggie
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 24, 2016 4:53 am

This always bothered me. Why not used the ENTIRE data set to determine the “baseline” average, then update that baseline as each new year of data is added? Instead, we’ve artificially chosen a subset of the data to represent some “normal” condition. How do we know that particular subset doesn’t represent “abnormal” conditions? Truly shoddy work.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 24, 2016 7:23 am

We know that there are multi-decadal cycles out there. Shouldn’t “normal” be calculated from a base at least as long as the longest cycle known?

RWturner
August 23, 2016 10:40 am

Looks like that major increase in ice volume over the past few years does make a difference. In line with Archibald’s post yesterday, the trend in now cooling and the ice volume will continue its saw-tooth ascent back towards “normal.”

PA
Reply to  RWturner
August 23, 2016 3:00 pm

Well… the ice has been trying to recover since 2007.
There were a couple of icelandic volcanoes. Which dirtied up the snow until 2012. Then the late 2014/2015/2016 El Nino.
We could set a record for volume increase this winter.
This year is going to be the 3rd to 6th lowest minimum. Starting from the lowest maximum.

TonyL
August 23, 2016 10:44 am

I could forecast an ice-free arctic this year, and it would not hurt a bit. So far, every prediction I have made about climate has been exactly wrong, so one more is no big deal.
Prof Wadhams does not need any more ink around here. The fellow seems to have “issues”, so maybe we could let it go.

Resourceguy
Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 1:47 pm

Agreed

PA
Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 4:26 pm

Yeah, an ice free arctic during the summer has zero effect on anything.
No one except warmunists gives a rat’s *ss if the arctic is frozen in the summer.
Perhaps someone can explain why an ice free arctic gets warmunits so excited? Do they want to pay for arctic ice? Do they hate waterskiing? Are they lousy swimmers? What is their issue?

gnome
Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 4:52 pm

As someone who lives, by preference, in the tropics, I frequently ask, and no-one ever answers, what’s so good about ice.
Are those warmists simply crazy?

PA
Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 5:16 pm

Are those warmists simply crazy?
Yes, Warmunists are simply crazy. That is the best explanation I’ve heard so far.

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  PA
August 23, 2016 9:16 pm

“As someone who lives, by preference, in the tropics, I frequently ask, and no-one ever answers, what’s so good about ice.”
It keeps my tropical drinks cold! 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 4:41 pm

Hey, TonyL, you likely will never read my comment in this thread (to Anthony, below), but, in case you do, I wanted to tell you that by that affirmation of the article as a whole, I did not mean to contradict your assessment of Wadhams. I think you are right. Not a pretty sight.
And so, farewell to Wadhams.

August 23, 2016 10:49 am

While I don’t recall the details of the storm of 2012 I noticed that the event this August was associated with a deep cold upper level low over the Canadian Arctic Islands (CAI). And noticed that surface temps were near or below freezing at the several at the relatively few stations I could access! So I am wondering if the difference between 2012 and 2016 is that even though both were “windy” at the surface the surface temperatures were lower in 32916?

Reply to  Cold Wind
August 23, 2016 11:22 am

2012 flushed ice out Fram Strait. 2016 just sat on the North Pole.

ClimateOtter
Reply to  Cold Wind
August 23, 2016 11:48 am

Hey! Bad enough the alarmists make claims out to 2100, but you have to go all the way to 32916?

Reply to  ClimateOtter
August 26, 2016 8:36 am

Hey, I have a completely accurate model of 32916 that says temperatures will definitely be higher than 0 degrees Kelvin and very likely less than one million.

Latitude
August 23, 2016 10:51 am

Thick ice does not blow around as easily….and it’s a whole lot thicker..temps have been below normal mostly too
The Atlantic is not going to help them either.
1 million km2 is an odd metric in the first place….the size of Egypt…or Texas and New Mexico combined
Seems if you wanted to know how much…you would measure volume

Reply to  Latitude
August 23, 2016 12:43 pm

Volume is harder. The first ‘good’ observational data will come on the next ice monitoring satellite equiped with laser altimetry. It will be able to measure how high above water the ice rides, and then convert that to thickness which, when combined with extent, gives a volume estimate. IIRC scheduled to launch before 2018.

rbabcock
Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 1:09 pm

So what are they going to compare the data coming out of this new satellite to? Since it will (hopefully) be the most accurate, is it going to become the standard? And if so, how many years do we go before we get a baseline? Inquiring minds want to know.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 1:37 pm

In areas where ice coverage is complete (IE no open water) how do you determine sea level?
Just assume the satellite is a constant height above sea level?

Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 2:00 pm

RB, nothing. What they have now is modeled by DMI or guestimated from ice ridges/visual roughness. MW, thats pretty much it. But they know the orbit rather precisely, and orbital drift is a slow process. Shouldn’t be a big problem. After all, despite waves and geoid sat alt of sealevel is good to less than a millimeter accuracy.

Robert Austin
Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 2:32 pm

Satellite data to measure thickness should be a great contribution to tracking the volume of Arctic ice. I recall the Wegener Institute performing instrumented flyovers (in 2009 I think) with a DC-3 and finding much thicker ice than expected.

Don K
Reply to  ristvan
August 24, 2016 5:33 am

But they know the orbit rather precisely, and orbital drift is a slow process. Shouldn’t be a big problem. After all, despite waves and geoid sat alt of sealevel is good to less than a millimeter accuracy.

Rud, You generally know what you’re talking about, but I think you may be a bit optimistic on this one. AFAIK satellite orbits are known to about 2cm rms and current Arctic ocean sea levels are not well known at the cm scale. Moreover, a 1cm error in sea ice surface elevation estimation must, I should think, lead to a much larger error in ice thickness estimates. I’ve been looking through the NASA ICESat2 requirements document http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/project/ICESat2_program_level_requirements.pdf and I can’t find a sea ice thickness estimate specification. The closest thing I’ve found is 3cm accuracy along a 50km track for ice freeboard under clear sky conditions when a reference (i.e. an open water lead) is available. I suspect that might translate to a 20-30cm uncertainty in estimating ice thickness … on good days.
I could be way wrong. Hope I am.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
August 24, 2016 8:54 am

If they are going to measuring changes in sea ice volume, they are going to need to be able know the exact height of the satellite not just now, but over months and years.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
August 24, 2016 11:22 am

To be a little more explicit. An error of only a cm or two between the assumed height of the satellite between now and say 10 years [from] now, would be a non-trivial fraction of any gain or loss the satellite would otherwise have measured.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2016 11:46 am

That 1 cm change in orbit over ten years could be simply due to atmospheric drag as well.

rw
Reply to  Latitude
August 24, 2016 11:00 am

I’m perfectly willing to go along with the million square kilometres criterion. If it ever reached that level, I would have second thoughts. This is one issue where climate realists can afford to be generous.

August 23, 2016 10:52 am

It doesn’t matter whether the doomster predictions pan out – they get the press about the doom; this alone reinforces the ‘believers’ thought and will do its part to implant the incessant repetition of doom into those sitting on the fence.

August 23, 2016 10:53 am

The AGW enthusiast are grasping at straws it is over for them. I am being rather bold in making this statement but the cooling has began and it started when the recent El NINO ended and now we have to see how it evolves.
The Arctic region is now showing below average temperatures for the first time in quite sometime and this could be significant as we move further.
Antarctica showing warmth of late but it does not matter since the temperatures there are so far below the freezing mark regardless. I think the climate engine as far as change goes comes about in the N.H. mainly in the Arctic region and North Atlantic Ocean.
This period of time in the climate not unique at all.
Arctic Ice will recover as we move forward.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 12:34 am

Sorry Jim the earth is only warming because of the NASA and GISS adjustments to the record. Without the adjustments it has only warmed 0.8 degrees C since 1885.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:31 am

With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 5:58 pm

“the earth is only warming because of the NASA and GISS adjustments to the record.”
Really?
If you are so sure that the uncorrected data is more accurate than the corrected data, publish your findings in Nature and plan a trip to Stockholm to collect a Nobel prize.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:04 pm

“With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.”
Wrong
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1986/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2014/trend/plot/uah/from:1986/to:2014/plot/uah/from:1986/to:1996/trend/plot/uah/from:1996/to:2014/trend
No “taint” of Dr. Hansen here.
Note that the satellite record shows cooling from 1986-1996.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:49 pm

Jim Y,
MarkW is correct. The satellite record shows the recent ≈20 year ‘Pause’:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
There is no convincing evidence that global warming is anything but the planet’s natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 10:17 pm

dbstealey
Your graph conveniently stops in 2015, which is not just a cherrypick of the start date but of the end date, as well. Here is the actual graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 3:12 pm

Jim Y,
First, I was just using a chart I had handy to show that MarkW was right. When you figure out how to find the provenance of a chart, you’ll see that I was just being lazy.
Until then, thanx for posting the WFT chart above showing the recent, unusually large El Nino. It’s just deflection, but it gives me a chance to show what’s been happening since the recent, big El Nino peaked.
I used your own chart. Just moved the start date up.
And MarkW was correct:
“With the exception of the current warming which was caused by the recent El Nino, there has been no warming in almost 20 years.”

seaice1
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 5:25 am

dbstealey and MarkW. With the exception of the recent temperature rise there has been no warming. Can’t you see how ridiculous that sounds?
If you are avoiding El Nino years then you must start after the 1998 one, otherwise you are cherry picking.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 26, 2016 12:37 pm

seaice1,
It’s very easy to understand, if you read the entire quote instead of misrepresenting it.

rw
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 24, 2016 11:04 am

Here on the eastern side of the N. Atlantic, it has gotten appreciably cooler over the past ten years or so. I first noticed it 7-8 years ago, but I suspect the cooling began around 2005. This is also how I knew that the N. Atlantic was cooling even before I read any reports on the matter.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  rw
August 24, 2016 10:18 pm

The Eastern side of the North Atlantic is not the whole world.

bit chilly
Reply to  rw
August 25, 2016 4:21 pm

the only real warming in the northern hemisphere that has taken place since the 80’s has been in winter,mostly in the temperate areas. anyone that thinks warmer winters in places like scotland,denmark etc is a bad thing is a complete idiot.

August 23, 2016 10:56 am

“It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it, as there doesn’t seem to be any new mentions of the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016” popping up. Be assured though that we’d never here the end of it…”
Should be “hear” sir!
[fixed, thanks =mod]

Mark from the Midwest
August 23, 2016 11:02 am

The cyclone may have had one small impact, it appears that the Northwest Passage is a bit more clogged than it was 2 weeks ago, just as the Crystal Serenity clears Nome and heads northward to the Beaufort Sea. As long as everyone is making predictions I will boldly predict that the Crystal Serenity will run into some nasty conditions and waste 5 or 6 days waiting for the ocean going tug that is accompanying it to clear a path.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 23, 2016 11:25 am

Depends on which route they take, northern or southern. Northern is where the storm pushed in ice. Dont know enough about southern route depths to know if it is feasible for such a large vessel.

Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 11:54 am

The planned route is the southern one. There is some sea ice here but it should be okay for a big ship with an ice-breaker accompanying them.
The southern route into Cambridge Bay is very shallow and is full of many shoals. They will have to go very slow and use sonar/radar to avoid running aground. Apparently, the ship has tons of this technology but it is still risky.

tetris
Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 12:17 pm

A neighbour of mine is the master of Canada’s second largest ice breaker and is up there right know.
His ship/crew had to come to the rescue of a similar “expedition” a couple of years ago that ran aground on a shoal. He thinks the tug/research vessel may be able to help under light/moderate conditions, but told me that if the cruise ship runs into anything like the conditions that prevailed last year they’ll wind up in trouble.
Can’t beat “boots-on-the-ground” info and experience..

Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 12:51 pm

Bill, thanks for that info. Now I know how to research it more.

Reply to  ristvan
August 23, 2016 1:10 pm

Crystal Serenity has a draft of 29.6 feet, so about 9 meters. The 3A route they are taking has a published draft limit of 10 meters in the Ross Strait portion coming into Cambridge Bay. Even with side thrusters there is very little margin for error. And RRS Shackleton (aka BoatyMcBoatface), the brand new UK Arctic research vessel, doesn’t look powerful enough to be a significant aid if they ground.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 23, 2016 12:21 pm

The interesting question concerns Northabout, the small sailing ship doing the Polar Ocean Challenge. They are presently some ways from Beaufort, but the terms of the challenge are to forego assistance from icebreakers. I’m guessing they won’t be disappointed for a huge cruiseliner to go through the passage ahead of them.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 23, 2016 1:09 pm

Here an update today on Arctic Ice, Cyclone and ships
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/update-aug-23-arctic-ice-cyclone-and-ships/

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 23, 2016 9:21 pm

Winds and currents close-up those leads within hours.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(sea_ice)

climanrecon
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 24, 2016 1:17 am

I follow Northabout (aka the Arctic Ship of Fools) via the ships log (see the link below), which gives the lat/long in each report, they have had to go South (from 76N to 70N) to go around some ice, which of course slows their progress in longitude. Looks like this expedition is just encountering conditions that were found 130 years ago, but no doubt this will be spun to produce the desired conclusion, but will they risk entering the NW passage in late Aug/early Sept?
http://polarocean.co.uk/ships-logs/

Ron Clutz
Reply to  climanrecon
August 24, 2016 4:02 am

They are racing against time and needing the weather to work for them, but not hinder them. The wall of ice in Laptev put their objective in doubt early on. For all we know, future years may make such an attempt impossible. The cruise line is hoping otherwise.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 26, 2016 1:15 pm

Northabout is about a week ahead of Ouslan’s successful circumnavigation of 2010 so seem to be in good shape to complete their voyage. Regarding the reference to ‘130 years ago’, if that’s a reference to the Vega expedition which was first to traverse the NE Passage, they took two years and were trapped in ice in September short of the Bering Strait.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Ron Clutz
August 26, 2016 2:45 pm

Phil, right now it looks good for them, with the southern route through the Archipelago open. Serenity is at Ulukhaktok, and Northabout should get around the tongue of ice north of Alaska.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/serenity-nearing-ulukhaktok-aug-25/

Mike
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 23, 2016 12:22 pm
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 23, 2016 12:40 pm

According to ‘Cruisin‘; Crystal Serenity hasn’t reported their position recently; at least not since August 14th near Juneau.
Ship Tracking puts them somewhere near Nome; but without a definitive position/
At least the Crystal Serenity is transmitting from their shipboard cameras.
http://legacy.crystalcruises.com/cache/cybridge2.jpg
Such a nice view and weather.

Mike
Reply to  ATheoK
August 23, 2016 1:05 pm

Tried to post link but I guess lost to moderation. Try sailwx(dot)info Crystal Serenity C6SY3 and their escort RRS Ernest Shackleton ZDLS1. Mike

Ron Clutz
Reply to  ATheoK
August 23, 2016 1:11 pm

Theo, see link above (The cruise ship is identified as “passenger ship” but not by name.)

Resourceguy
Reply to  ATheoK
August 23, 2016 1:49 pm

What percent of capacity do they have on board, or is it a ghost ship?

u.k(us)
Reply to  ATheoK
August 23, 2016 3:16 pm

Not many people taking advantage of the pool 🙂

Reply to  ATheoK
August 23, 2016 4:37 pm

Plus many. Wonder why?

frankclimate
August 23, 2016 11:04 am

My prediction was 4.1 ( the seventh from left) and it seems to me: a bit too low. 🙂

Barbara Skolaut
August 23, 2016 11:19 am

“disappear” equals “less than one million square kilometres”?
What am I missing (besides brain-numbing stupidity)?

Frank K.
Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
August 23, 2016 11:38 am

“…brain-numbing stupidity”
This daily “brain-numbing stupidity” foisted upon us by the Global Warming industry is the main reason I have begun switching OFF the mainstream media. I’m sure some “honest” scientists lament that their research and observations are being highly distorted by our modern media, but I place the blame squarely upon THEIR shoulders for NOT pushing back on the inane and often bizarre claims made by many of the nutcases that make up the Global Warming industry (which includes certain “scientists” in government and academia).
Fortunately, it’s quite easy to block or remove nauseating media sources like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYT, WAPO, Twitter, Instagram etc. from your computer browser, smartphone, and pad device. You can also block these clowns on Facebook (if you still use it). And you can take the major step (as I have) of “cutting the cord” – i.e. removing premium or enhanced cable channels from your home, and simply getting an internet feed. Finally, it goes without say that you should avoid purchasing any of their “products,” be they newspapers, magazines, books, or other related publications.
You CAN do something…

urederra
Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
August 23, 2016 1:46 pm

That reminds me of the other big scientific “issue”, the ozone hole. You may think that the hole is defined as a zone with no ozone (sorry for the alliteration) but you would be wrong, the ozone hole is defined as a zone with less than 800 Dobson units of ozone, or a number close to that. I am too lazy to find the correct one and does not change the point, which is that they change the definitions to scare people.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  urederra
August 23, 2016 9:54 pm

Whether a hole is a hole or not a hole:
Your comment makes me wonder if the “window” of my room is the hole in the wall or the glass in the hole. If I slide the glass in the hole our of the way and look through a screen, am I looking through a window?
When Soothsayer/Seer David Wadhams changes the definition of “ice free” to 2 M sq. km., we will know what sort of hole he is.

MarkW
Reply to  urederra
August 24, 2016 7:32 am

Just to be contrary, a hole in my back yard doesn’t have to go all the way through the earth to qualify as a hole.

Reply to  urederra
August 26, 2016 1:25 pm

Actually below 220 Dobson, actual values usually hit about 100 Dobson at the minimum. There is a real ‘Hole’ though since the column ozone drops to such low values because the ozone maximum between ~15 and 20 km is destroyed leaving a ‘hole’ where there was previously a ‘peak’.
E.g.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-10-18.21.png

Ivor Ward
August 23, 2016 11:25 am

Well there is another would be ship of fools out there to prove that the ice is all gone this year. Let;s hope they are not too disappointed.
http://polarocean.co.uk/

Curious George
Reply to  Ivor Ward
August 23, 2016 11:42 am

Never underestimate the Russians. They are offering tours to the North Pole aboard a nuclear powered icebreaker, three trips during a summer (too late now for 2016.)

Reply to  Ivor Ward
August 23, 2016 1:01 pm

Yeah, there’s another happy bunch.

“…BUT slowly going East. Ice tomorrow I think. The Irish in 2004 had a torrid time around here with the ice, so hoping we get better luck…”

Perhaps better than yesterday?

“…Well after the scare of last night, the boys did a full service on the engine and oil change. Changed filters, swopped tanks, had their last shot of Vodka and started the engine. Fingers crossed again, but engine sounds sweet. We needed it today, as my first watch Zero wind. Reminded me of Murmansk all those days ago. If we didn’t have the engine we would have done just a few miles. Genoa up now and giving us some distance.
Whilst making progress, our East is slowing down. Our course it’s not straight East now, but South East. We are going a lot further South than predicted, as we have a large tongue of ice coming down to the Coast. The only way around sadly is South, hopefully that is all it will take to get through. Our last ice of the East Siberian Sea… ”

Maybe not as good as yesterday, “last shot of vodka…”

Proud Skeptic
August 23, 2016 11:26 am

Interesting way of measuring…”amount of ocean with at least 15% of sea ice”. What happens if a bunch of the ocean has 14% sea ice and the rest of it gets twice as thick? What if the part of the ocean with 15-20% sea ice is smaller but the extent of the ocean with 10% is twice as big?
The more I learn about this stuff the less impressed I am by the way things get measured.

Fred Harwood
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
August 23, 2016 12:17 pm

Now perhaps two decades ago, an Austrian friend took the Russian nuclear ice breaker tour to the North Pole. Don’t see anything particularly noteworthy about it.

bit chilly
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
August 25, 2016 4:27 pm

measurement in climate science appears to be a philosophical process at times.

rbabcock
August 23, 2016 11:28 am

I prefer the site not associated with the NOAA http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
Somehow I just think they are more honest.

Diogenese2
August 23, 2016 11:36 am

At least give credit to Prof. Wadhams for nailing his colours to the mast and making a prediction realisable within the life span of almost everybody (3 months). What courage when one might expect failure to endanger his reputation, his tenure and mark him as a delusional idiot to be mocked. Oh, hang on though………….

JohnWho
August 23, 2016 11:37 am

“It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it…”
Doesn’t matter, the damage in the minds of men has already been done.

ClimateOtter
Reply to  JohnWho
August 23, 2016 11:51 am

What about women? Oh wait, there was that ‘feminist’ take on science…. yep, the damage is already done!

Reply to  JohnWho
August 23, 2016 1:04 pm

Nah!
Those touters were already damaged.
Lost in their delusional dreams of ice free Arctic and snow free winters…

Chimp
August 23, 2016 11:50 am

Why less ice is bad and more ice good is a bit of mystery, anyway.
Neither polar bears nor their ringed seal prey are the least bit endangered. A NW Passage clear in summer would be a good thing, would it not?

David Smith
Reply to  Chimp
August 23, 2016 1:51 pm

+1
Exactly what I always say.

RAH
August 23, 2016 11:52 am

Someone tell this ignorant truck driver how arctic ice being broken up or concentrated by WIND and/or WAVES supports the AGW meme of melting Arctic ice? I just can’t see how less ice extent, area, or volume due to wave and wind action supports AGW at all for any HONEST evaluator.

Doug
Reply to  RAH
August 23, 2016 12:29 pm

CO2 causes wind and waves. Duh.

Janice Moore
Reply to  RAH
August 23, 2016 1:17 pm

RAH!
This is your sister: I do not want to EVER hear you call yourself “ignorant”** again. You have proven by your comments on WUWT over the years that you grossly mischaracterize that brave, skilled, truck driver when you call him “ignorant.” I have found myself asking the question, “RAH reminds me of my brother (an engineer who drives a big truck for a living because of wanting to live where tech jobs are scarce); he, too, must have earned a college degree, he is so well-informed and insightful. I wonder what it is?” many times. You may have used your fine mind to educate yourself only informally. Whatever! You are the functional equal of many here WITH degrees! And yes I am finally done! 🙂
Oh, one more thing: STAY SAFE OUT THERE. I pray for you (and some other professional drivers) every day.
Janice
** Yes, yes, I realize simple (as opposed to willful or neglectful) ignorance is not, per se, anything to be ashamed of, but, you get what I mean, DON’T YOU! 🙂 (others might not, thus, I write to close off, at least, THAT hole in the fence for the critics to charge through onto the road, heh …. and they’ll find another one, nooo doubt)

RAH
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 23, 2016 9:55 pm

Janice Moore
One reason I use “ignorant” and “truck driver” is because I read a comment making fun of the fact that this blog has a “truck driver” making comments here. That very stereotype shows the ignorance of others and I make light of it with sarcasam. Another reason is the simple fact is that I am ignorant when it comes to a whole lot of math and science. Ignorance is just the state or condition of having not learned. The definition of the term in no way indicates a lack of intelligence or a lack of the ability too learn. IOW Ignorance and Stupidity are not the same thing.
At 03:00 this morning I depart Anderson Indiana pulling a 53′ foot dry van trailer. I will drive 220 mi up to Elk Grove Village on the NE side of the greater Chicago metro area. I will make 6 stops at different places to deliver and pickup and then return to Anderson. I have never done this run before but am expected to complete it in the maximum allowable 11 hours driving time and maximum allowable 14 hours total on duty time. Not a job for a dummy nor for a person that does not move with alacritous efficiency.
[And we here thank you for your work ethic and safety record. PS. The government thanks you for the taxes you pay. .mod]

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 24, 2016 6:42 am

Dear RAH,
Praying for you today (as always). Yes, indeed, ignorance is in itself not stupidity.
And GOOD FOR YOU to pick up that cretin’s empty epithet and wear it as a badge of honor!
(thanks for coming back across the “airwaves” with that reply)
Take care,
Janice

Reply to  RAH
August 23, 2016 2:52 pm

“Someone tell this ignorant truck driver how arctic ice being broken up or concentrated by WIND and/or WAVES supports the AGW meme of melting Arctic ice? ”
Simple.
1. C02 is GHG.
2. Increasing GHGs ( c02, methane ) and other forcings, like black carbon and land use) changes
the radiative balance of the planet.
3. The systems warms in response to this forcing.
4. That means, over time, warmer SSTs and warmer atmosphere.
5. This warming is NOT uniform or monotonic.
6. In the north pole we can expect– warmer SSTs ( over time ) and lower snow cover.
7. Over time warmer SSTs will lead to less ice cover and lower Ice volumes.
8. This decrease will not be uniform and will not be monotonic.
9. As the ice becomes thinner it is more prone to
A) being exported
B) being broken up
1) brokenn up ice has a larger surface volume and melts faster
10. As the the arctic become more open— wind blowing over the surface
induces ekman pumping… basically upwelling that exacerbates the melt
So.. the warming of AGW is just one of the contributing factors
Figuring out what portion of the loss is directly attributable to AGW?
not very important. c02 warms the world and eventually the ice will melt as the result of a combination of factors– c02 being just one… the one we can control somewhat

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 3:43 pm

So, Steven Mosher, what happens during the seven months of the year when LESS arctic sea ice means MORE cooling of the arctic ocean due to increased evaporation losses, increased long wave radiation losses, increased convective losses and increased conduction losses from the upper ocean surface?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 4:43 pm

Ah, SM. Your point 3 is a bit weak. Polar amplification. And your point 6 ignores that models said polar– not just north pole. And your point 10 is hilarious. Please point to Exkman cipurrent papers in the Arctic Ocean.

ossqss
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 5:57 pm

C’mon Steven, you portray CO2 and Temp in a linear relationship with your points. That ain’t right and you know it. Perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts on ECS too? Maybe even talk to us about saturation levels as it relates to CO2 and varied IR aspects in physics. The BEST is behind us bro.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 7:13 pm

Bookmarked for future reference. Time will tell. Maybe. I’m just a passenger and I don’t know the driver.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 8:03 pm

Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm: No 11. and yet it moves… and some have noticed the refreeze has started already
12. The Atlantic Cod have been returning south for some years.
13. The AO is negative.
14. The northward deepwater flow is cooling rapidly as measured ad 59N, Barents.

joelobryan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 9:36 pm

Mosh,
I can control my direction of pissing in a rainstorm gale too. Recommendation is to piss in downwind direction. But regardless, My piss though won’t matter much in a rainstorm. Same with human CO2 emissions.

joelobryan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 9:53 pm

Yeats,
“he best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”
The Alarmists will win if good men sit idly by and do nothing.
Thank you Christopher.
Joel
I will not sit idly by.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 11:29 pm

“So, Steven Mosher, what happens during the seven months of the year when LESS arctic sea ice means MORE cooling of the arctic ocean due to increased evaporation losses, increased long wave radiation losses, increased convective losses and increased conduction losses from the upper ocean surface?”
Not much. the final state of the planet is determined by the radiation leaving at the TOP… n

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 11:33 pm

“Mosh,
I can control my direction of pissing in a rainstorm gale too. Recommendation is to piss in downwind direction. But regardless, My piss though won’t matter much in a rainstorm. Same with human CO2 emissions.”
Ah you think that your science is settled..
its so funny to read skeptics who are CERTAIN that c02 has no effect.
me? I am skeptical… doubling c02 gives you from 1.5C to 4.5C of warming
LOTS of room in that range to be a skeptic, lukewarmer, or alarmist.
but very few people are CERTAIN that the value falls below 1.5 or above 4.5
I take it you think the science is settled and certain that the effect of c02 is tiny..
Go get your nobel

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 11:36 pm

“C’mon Steven, you portray CO2 and Temp in a linear relationship with your points. That ain’t right and you know it. Perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts on ECS too? Maybe even talk to us about saturation levels as it relates to CO2 and varied IR aspects in physics. The BEST is behind us bro.”
Not linear. dope. which syllable of NOT monotonic slipped by you.
ECS… between 1.5 and 4,5C
Saturation.. not an issue… ERL

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2016 11:41 pm

“c02 being just one… the one we can control somewhat”
You are kidding right? We produce maybe less than 5% of total. El Nino caused a spike in CO2 growth.
We have no control over atmospheric CO2, almost none, 1\10000th of control

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 8:08 pm

How does calling someone a “dope” win the debate?

Jpatrick
August 23, 2016 11:58 am
Pat Frank
August 23, 2016 12:16 pm

The entire obsession with Arctic ice requires human culpability for global warming, speciously rechristened as “climate change.” Take the accusatory guilt of GHG emissions out of the equation, and what is left?
Dr. Wadhams would be left with saying, well, the recent warming due to natural variation has reduced the amount of Summer Arctic ice to rather less than the late 20th century average.
Whoop-de-do. His work is suddenly bereft of its perfervid meaning. Who’d pay attention to him?
Hence the death-grip enviro-weenies have on climate models and their projections. Climate models are the deus ex machina of human guilt.
Absent them, and the E-weenies are lost. Life has no focus, no meaning, no excitement, no emotional highs, no good-guys, no bad-guys, no deep social alliances, and no certainties of self-righteous moral superiority. Just the banalities of getting on with life.

RAH
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 23, 2016 12:22 pm

The biggest fallacy of the “climate weenies” and their disciples is their unwavering belief that the amount of sea ice in the Arctic is an accurate indicator of global temperature.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Pat Frank
August 23, 2016 2:52 pm

I knew that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas before anyone talked about models.
If models are wrong, which I don’t dispute that they probably are, it could be worse than model predictions.

Akatsukami
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:11 pm

And it could be better than model predictions. And monkeys could fly out of my butt. See what a weasel word :”could” is

Pat Frank
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:37 pm

Before models all that could have been known is that CO2 converts 15-micron radiant energy into kinetic energy. That’s all anyone knows now, too.
No one knew then, nor knows now, how the climate responds to a CO2 increase. There may be no detectable warming at all.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 8:23 pm

im Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm; Pity you hadn’t started by learning the gas laws, then studied Maxwell’s treatises on heat, and done some experimenting in atmospheric physics. But wait, you ‘just knew’, you said….

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:36 am

Temperature increases are less than the models predict, but Jim is still holding out hope that the models could be wrong on the cool side.
Sad really, the way warminsts go out of their way to beclown themselves.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:10 pm

Brett Keane
What makes you think I don’t understand gas laws; like Peng Robinson and Benedict–Webb–Rubin equations.

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 2:59 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “like Peng Robinson and Benedict–Webb–Rubin equations.”
Wow, you know how to use Google too!

August 23, 2016 12:18 pm

Dear Dr. Wadhams,
The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.
Kind regards,
Milton Friedman

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  DVan
August 23, 2016 2:50 pm

OK! We will see in a hundred years.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 5:42 pm

Dear Mr. Yushchyshyn,
Good news! Your wait is over. The GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have been proven unskilled, unfit for purpose, i.e., “junk,” for several years, now. Here is a book:comment image
(found here, https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/ebooks-by-bob-tisdale/ )
and a lecture:
“No Certain Doom: On the Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures”
(Dr. Pat Frank)

(youtube)
Welcome to WUWT (yes, it is pretty obvious that you are new (smile)). In the search box in the upper right of this page, type “climate models” or similar search terms to find many WUWT articles about the GCMs.
Janice

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 10:08 pm

Nice use of The Imperial We.
My model claims anyone reading this post today will not see in a hundred years.

KTM
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 12:06 am

But the Global Warming conjecture is already more than 100 years old yet still unproven despite decades and hundreds of billions of dollars spent trying.
If more time is the answer, then the oldest predictions should be the most accurate. So in 1965 when the top alarmists predicted 7 degrees warming by the year 2000 accompanied by a 10 foot rise in sea level, how that that pan out?

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:37 am

Notice how the warmists wants to ignore all of the failed predictions made to date. History always starts with today for these guys.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:13 pm

Janice
If you read my original comment, you would know that I question models.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:15 pm

“Welcome to WUWT”
I always knew that WUWT is a popular site with global warming deniers. And I will find out about climate models from more reliable sites than WUWT, such as NASA and NOAA.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:31 pm

No, I don’t expect to convince everyone; just those who want to know the truth.
And, it is easy to know when I win an argument here; people call the temperatures “adjusted,” or resort to ad homs.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:33 pm

I didn’t say that you don’t want to know the truth.
I will know whether or not you are when I read your reply.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 8:52 pm

Jim Y says:
“I always knew that WUWT is a popular site with global warming deniers.”
Please explain: what are readers here denying?
I’ve known that global warming is happening since before this site began. I’ve also repeatedly posted my own opinion; that AGW probably exists. But there must be a difference, or you wouldn’t feel compelled to label readers here as “deniers”.
Here’s the difference:
Climate alarmists have made lots of scary predictions over the years—very alarming predictions, based on their belief that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe (I know, I know; now it’s “climate change”). But not one of those scary predictions has ever come true; no exceptions.
So in response, skeptics say: “Show us. Produce verifiable, testable, scientific measurements, quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all global warming, including the planet’s natural warming from the LIA, and from ocean effects, from solar effects, from Milankovitch cycles, etc.”
But no one has ever been able to quantify AGW in a way acceptable to scientists in general. There is no measured “Fingerprint of AGW”. In fact, guesstimates for 2xCO2 by reputable scientists range from more than 6ºC, down to 0.00ºC, and just about everything in between (and some scientists say that rising CO2 has a net cooling effect).
The standard response from the alarmist crowd is to label everyone who disagrees with them as “deniers”. And we see it again today:
“…global warming deniers.”
If you can’t do better than that, you’ve lost the science debate. Politics is another story. In politics, ad hominem attacks are typical. But here, ad-homs like that just mean you have no measurements. But you have your belief, and you call people names if they question it, or if they ask you to quantify your assertions with testable measurements.
That’s one big difference between scientific skeptics and climate alarmists.

catweazle666
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 3:06 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “I didn’t say that you don’t want to know the truth.”
Jimbo you sad, patronising, pig ignorant, scientifically illiterate little troll, you wouldn’t recognise the truth if it scuttled under your slimy, noisome bridge, jumped up and bit you on the snout.
So take your denier schtick and stuff it where the sun don’t shine, you adolescent little nobody.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
SHOO!

James at 48
August 23, 2016 12:29 pm

I suspect the inflection will be early this year. Perhaps within the next 3 weeks.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  James at 48
August 23, 2016 12:33 pm

Time to fire up the annual Minimum extent/date contest.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 23, 2016 1:41 pm

we could wait till after the minimum, that way we could all be Texas sharpshooters.

August 23, 2016 12:59 pm

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Evangelical climate change orgs, experts and mainstream CAGW-sympathetic media: BBC, National Geographic, Sierra Club, ABC, The Guardian, Whadam and Al Gore et al., assured us (prayed for) that Arctic summer sea-ice would have disappeared by 2014.
Despite record and increasing CO2 emissions, sea-ice levels in the Arctic have remained largely the same for nearly a decade.
Just don’t mention the other pole, the Antarctic, which continues to expand at record levels, setting record low temps as it grows. Inconvenient realities contradictory to what climate ‘experts’ and those billion dollar computer models predicted. Sshhhh.
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/you-were-lied-to-about-arctic-sea-ice-dissapearing/

Reply to  Climatism
August 23, 2016 2:10 pm

A paper just out tries to explain the lack of polar amplification in Antarctic that models predicted. Another model failure. As Arctic ice continues its cyclic recovery, it will be even more embarassing when in a few years they have to publish on Arctic ice recovery.

seaice1
Reply to  ristvan
August 24, 2016 6:10 am

“As Arctic ice continues its cyclic recovery”
What recovery? Trends in minimum sea ice extent are continuing downward. If you don’t agree then take my offer.

tetris
Reply to  ristvan
August 24, 2016 2:51 pm

seaice1
Remove the 2012 Arctic cyclone caused outlier minimum and you’ll see that the turning point in Arctic ice loss was 2007. 2012 aside, the other seven years since have had minima above 2007 -and there is now growing evidence of an increase in multi-year ice.
Without getting lost in semantics, ristvan is correct: an increase [ever so slight] in both extent and volume qualifies as a recovery.
Whether that observation fits with your narrative is another matter all together.

cesium
Reply to  ristvan
September 6, 2016 1:01 am

tetris: Take out the 2012 minimum and 2016 is the minimum for volume and probably extent.
Please remember that weather is not climate.

Janice Moore
August 23, 2016 1:00 pm

Anthony,
As always, a worthwhile, informative, article, but, this one, with its forthright, take-no-prisoners, strong, writing style, brought a smile to my face as I thought, “Anthony’s back.”
So glad that the mighty ship Watts has finally made it through stormy, narrow, Devastation Pass into the deep, wide open, sunlit, sound. Full ahead!
Looking forward to more fine writing,
Janice
P.S. And the thread reflects your bold and powerful fact-driven tone — GREAT COMMENTS, so nicely stated with gusto. What a great bunch you all are, you WUWTers!

N W S seattle
August 23, 2016 1:10 pm

The great Ice Crusher will start tomorrow looks like, with winds over half the Artic over 20mph and and area about the size of Alaska will have 45 to 50 mph winds. Goodbye cruel ice or was that the known world.

Tippy Hedron
August 23, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Weather Underground. FWIW, I tend to have trouble believing a guy who’s named his website after a domestic maoist terrorist group.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Tippy Hedron
August 24, 2016 5:07 am

Well said!

Matthew Epp
August 23, 2016 1:32 pm

I’m hoping for ice too thick and dense for the stupid cruise ship to make it through, forcing them to retreat back to the Pacific instead of making it to the Atlantic and New York. I don’t wish them harm, just a blocked passage.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Matthew Epp
August 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Matthew Epp
Now on the original Ship Of Fools I remember myself gleefully hoping — maybe they’ll have to begin eating each other!
I guess you are a nicer guy than I am.
Eugene WR Gallun

Dipchip
August 23, 2016 1:42 pm

The Crystal Serenity and her 1700 passengers and crew hauled anchor after a 12 hour port call in Nome Alaska; and headed up through the Bering Straight Sunday evening the 21st. They will continue on and pick up an ice breaker near Uluhaktok Canada, Victoria Island and enter the narrow channel to the south of Victoria Island. I’m not sure but I believe they are on schedule after leaving a week ago.
http://www.ktva.com/on-the-crystal-serenity-keeping-alert-for-an-icy-voyage-ahead-337/
http://www.adn.com/arctic/2016/06/12/this-luxury-cruise-ship-will-soon-sail-through-the-arctic-heres-what-that-means-for-alaska/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/16/a-luxury-cruise-ship-sets-sail-for-the-arctic-thanks-to-climate-change/

tetris
Reply to  Dipchip
August 24, 2016 3:02 pm

They’re just getting into the “interesting” part of the voyage – have a closer look at a map/chart of the area ahead of them.
BTW: the Canadian Coast Guard does not provide ice breaker escort to clear the way, so they must be referring to research vessel that is accompanying the cruise ship. That vessel has no ice breaking capabilities though.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  tetris
August 24, 2016 5:11 pm

Their way – heading east bound across north Canada, trying to wind their way through the narrow ice-packed straits and shallow waters up there between the islands – is the hard way. Far, far easier (more realistic!) is the north Europe-across Siberia path the other ship is attempting. That direction at least puts most of the ice on the other side of the pole, and gives average paths much deeper and far wider … both make it easier to get across and not be trapped.

MRW
August 23, 2016 1:45 pm

Isn’t it Peter Wadhams not David Wadhams?

Janice Moore
Reply to  MRW
August 23, 2016 2:54 pm

He figured if he changed his first name no one would remember.

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 23, 2016 4:15 pm

Plus many, you sly little devil.

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 2:44 pm


Warming melts ice. It is the “skeptics” who don’t get, natural variation, not “warmers.”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 6:58 pm

Pardon me Jim, but warming that occurs below 0 C does not melt ice. If you will check the stats, around 75% of the recorded warming has been during the winters at the poles. Summer temperatures in the arctic have been at or below normal.
The ocean cycles rule the arctic ice , not the global temperature. Check back in when the AMO, PDO and ENSO are all in a cold phase and tell us then how man’s influence has caused the ice to melt.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 10:23 pm

Jim Y.,
Keep in mind the 2 big questions:
1. Is a bit of warming going to be catastrophic? (CAGW)
2. Should Bill McKibben be followed?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/bill-mckibben-goes-full-jackboot-on-climate-change/
Okay, a 3rd question. How fast and by what amount can regulating emissions change the future temperature?
Perhaps we should adapt, as we can do.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
August 24, 2016 10:04 pm

1. A “bit” is subjective and so is “catastrophic.” A temperature change of a few degrees is the difference between now and Chicago being under a mile of ice, and could also be the difference required for the South Pole not to be under a mile of ice.
What would you consider to be catastrophic? A thousand deaths? A million? A billion?
2. I followed your link on Bill McKibben to this link;
https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
I didn’t see anything on the link about suspending civil liberties or anyone’s constitutional rights. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it.
I agree with him that a massive effort to develop new energy sources would result in millions of new jobs, and not unemployment. But, there are somethings I don’t agree with;
Stopping pipelines is not a solution. Few people are willing to shut everything down until we can run everything on solar power. It will take decades to replace fossil fuels. There is enough room for new pipelines and for fracking and the oilsands if we stop importing oil from overseas.
I also don’t think that we should try to reduce carbon dioxide to 350ppm, but rather, contain it to 550ppm, not because the extra carbon dioxide is beneficial, but because removing that much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would take centuries or millennia. Also, the notion of being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere sounds to me like an excuse to drive gas guzzling vehicles and to have accidents in our pants every time toilets back up at nuclear power plants.
As far as your third question goes, ending the use of fossil fuels would not change future temperature, but only stop unnatural warming.

Mr GrimNasty
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 1:57 am

The Arctic has been ‘warm’ in the period since c2000 – about as warm as the period c1930-1940!
Can you explain why it was natural and safe in 1944 and mam-made and dangerous in 2014?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Mr GrimNasty
August 24, 2016 10:21 pm

What is your data source?

Gabro
Reply to  Mr GrimNasty
August 26, 2016 3:56 pm

Five of the warmest months at Barrow, Alaska were in the interval 1928-37. Five other of the warmest months there occurred during 1993-98 (two in ’96), if those records can be trusted. The other two happened in 1954 and 1968.
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:39 am

I love the way warmists actually seem to believe that natural variation only occurs when their predictions aren’t being met.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2016 10:08 pm

I love the way “skeptics” actually seem to want to ignore natural variation when it is the answer to their question to “warmists.”
Natural variations happen. If they explain why models need to be adjusted, that is how science works.

Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2016 3:33 pm

Jim Y says:
I love the way “skeptics” actually seem to want to ignore natural variation…
And I love the way you’ve ignored every reply some folks have made to your comments.
I’d ignore those replies too, if I didn’t have any credible evidence quantifying “dangerous AGW”. The alternative is to argue by assertion. Best to just ignore factual replies.
In fact, natural variability does explain all current temperature observations, since there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.
Plenty of evidence has been posted showing that the temperature changes being observed now also happened before human industrial emissions existed—and to a much greater degree. I can post the evidence again if anyone requests it.
Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Ockham also warned against adding extraneous variables to the explanation. Carbon dioxide is the extraneous variable in the climate alarmist debate.
Whether CO2 is low, or high, global temperatures don’t act any differently. Any rational person who considered that evidence would begin to at least question the “carbon” narrative.
So the promoters of “dangerous man-made global warming” are either irrational, or they aren’t being honest for whatever reason.
After a one-third rise in CO2, global warming stopped for almost twenty years (the ‘Pause’). The belief that CO2 is the control knob of the planet’s temperature just doesn’t make sense any more.

Richard
August 23, 2016 2:58 pm

OMG!! The second lowest Arctic sea ice ever recorded!!! (On the satellite era). We’re doomed!!!

August 23, 2016 3:19 pm

I assume the use of a +/- 2 sigma band instead of the standard +/- 3 sigma used in industry, is to make changes seem more alarming?

stevekeohane
Reply to  dradb
August 23, 2016 3:40 pm

That is the only thing I can think of. We thought everything was normal if it fell within +/-3 sigma. Of course one might have to torture the process to make the output conform. It worked for chips, ICs.

Reply to  stevekeohane
August 23, 2016 4:24 pm

Well, actually back in the day when I had indirectly (and regretably) significant 1 sigma production responsibilities, we would flog non-performers then keel haul them. 6sigma forever. Even in the faux HR, Legal, and Financial departments. i kid you not. Senior management was that nuts, and I was #16 in the pecking order. Of course, that Fortune 50 corporation has since failed, been split into multiple pieces, one sold to the Chinese and another to PE. Just like jackals scavanging a Serengeti kill. Same result. Darwin at work.

Rick C PE
Reply to  dradb
August 23, 2016 5:23 pm

Sorry, 2 sigma defines the 95% confidence interval. 3 sigma is 99.73% – a level achievable in precision manufacturing, but not very meaningful in observation of the natural world. 2 sigma is the most common usage to quantify uncertainty.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Rick C PE
August 24, 2016 5:19 am

95% is really not good enough for scientific work either.

MarkW
Reply to  Rick C PE
August 24, 2016 7:40 am

What about 97%?

toncul
August 23, 2016 3:44 pm

Good job. Can you zoom in a little more please ?
so that everybody can see the recovering of sea ice ?
August 23th will stay in history as the beginning of global cooling.

tetris
Reply to  toncul
August 24, 2016 3:08 pm

I assume you don’t want us to zoom on ton cul…

BillJ
August 23, 2016 3:50 pm

I’m sure that the followers of Harold Camping were a little (extremely?) disappointed when the world didn’t end in 2011 as he prophesied. Some people thrive on expectations of doom and gloom. Others simply profit from them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction

Philip Schaeffer
August 23, 2016 5:01 pm

Anthony said:
“It’s a strange bunch of people, in my view, that rally around wanting to see such things happen.”
Well, I bet that when zee Germans invaded Poland, there were a lot of smug told you so’s going round, and I doubt that many of them actually wanted WW2 to start.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
August 24, 2016 6:52 am

A couple of observations, Mr. Shaeffer:
1. The miniscule warming since the end of the Little Ice Age makes the Poland invasion a rather silly analogy.
2. Given that your analogy isn’t silly, the AGWer’s conjecture would be that the sauerkraut Ad0lph ate when he was 8 years old would cause an invasion of Poland.
lololol
#(:))

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 24, 2016 7:04 am

?? Anyone else not have a clue what that means, or is it just me?
My point is simply that taking pleasure in being right is not the same thing as wanting something bad to happen.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 24, 2016 10:11 pm

Miniscule warming? Compared to what? Not to the temperature change during the previous 850 years.comment image
[citing Mann’s Hockey Stick? Really? -mod]

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 25, 2016 3:27 pm

Re: [citing Mann’s Hockey Stick? Really? -mod]
JY needs to get up to speed. The best alarmist chart to date is Marcott’s:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Total bogosity, to be sure. But the public isn’t very interested in reality:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg

August 23, 2016 5:32 pm

i am old enough to remember when the title “scientist” connoted a positive image

August 23, 2016 6:05 pm

darn shame that standard deviations are linear.

ossqss
August 23, 2016 6:06 pm

I would offer this observation from 2007-8 ish as an active participant at the WU. It was stated (via live web cast) by the grand marshal (JM) that he participated in a 2 week seminar in Denver on how to basically embellish any weathrer event into a climate related disaster to move forward the energy contol agenda. They have certainly carried out that philosophy in full at that site. The reference to the Russian Heat wave blocking high event years back as a verified man made climate event not seen in 1,100 years of records was too much to take.
Quack Masters lost a follower that day, for all the right reasons.

SAMURAI
August 23, 2016 7:22 pm

It looks like Arctic surface temps could hit -2C within the next few days, which is when new sea ice begins to form:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
All the recent cyclone seems to have done is remove heat from Arctic waters, which means it should result in some rather spectacular sea-ice expansion this fall starting from early September….
With a cold La Nina cycle developing over the next 2 years, “The Blob” having already dissipated, the PDO already in its 30-year cool cycle, the North Atlantic ocean temps collapsing, the AMO quickly approaching its 30-year cool cycle (from 2019?), and the current solar cycle already producing near zero sunspots, Arctic sea ice extents from next year on should start exceeding the 2012 record Minimum by +2 MILLION KM^2 every year and start tracking within 2 standard deviations of the mean for the entire year starting from 2018/19 and continue doing so consistently for the next 30 years when both the PDO and AMO are in their respective 30-year cool cycles.
Once CAGW alarmists’ Arctic sea ice hobby horse lies shattered in pieces, they’ll have a REAL hard time explaining why NONE of their doom and gloom predictions are coming CLOSE to matching reality: sea level rise stuck at 7 inches per century, global warming trends flat for 20 years, severe weather incidence at average levels for past 60~100 years, longest US large-hurricane drought since 1850, global crop yields setting record highs, global greening increased 25~50% just since 1980 from the CO2 fertilization effect, ocean pH stuck at 8.1, Antarctic land ice growing at 100 billion tons/year, Arctic sea ice extents increasing, methane concentrations stuck at 1.7ppm for 20 years, etc., etc., etc.,
CAGW has already far surpassed the criteria necessary for hypothetical disconfirmation under the rules of the scientific method…
Why is CAGW still a thing?

Janice Moore
Reply to  SAMURAI
August 23, 2016 8:34 pm

Why is CAGW still a thing?

Money.
*
*
(and I know you knew that SAMURAI — just had to state the disgusting truth once again — your post is GREAT and so true! AGW IS DEAD. It is only a matter of time until the money which is already flowing elsewhere, dries up completely. Until then, we science realists have to hold the line for truth for, above all, Enviroprofiteers are opportunists.)
Back to the drawing board, O Vile Snake Tessssla (et. al.) you’re on your own.
Oh, that reminds me of a funny TV ad I saw last week. A solar power products manufacturer boasted about 30 years in business! (or the like). Thirty years. And they still can’t make a profit (without tax/rate surcharge funds and heavy handed government regulations to give them contrived market share).

SAMURAI
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 23, 2016 10:27 pm

Janice–
Yes, the trifecta of government tyranny; the never ending process of illegally expropriating: money, power and control from the governed…
Wow… a solar company that’s actually been feeding off the trough of government subsidies for 30 years… How proud they must be…
Too bad about the 112 wind and solar corporate debacles that have already gone bankrupt over the past 20 years at the cost of $billions to taxpayers…
Ah, yes… The “price of progressivism”…
Just let the free-market decide when and what new power sources eventually replace fossil fuels, because governments SUCK at picking winners and losers….

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 23, 2016 11:24 pm

“It looks like Arctic surface temps could hit -2C within the next few days, which is when new sea ice begins to form:”
5 days out
http://pamola.um.maine.edu//DailySummary/frames/GFS-025deg/ARC-LEA/T2/40.png
But SST is probably more important
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_newdisp_sst_north_pole_stereo_ophi0.png

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 6:41 am

Steven Mosher


(In reply to SAMURAI’s quote.)

It looks like Arctic surface temps could hit -2C within the next few days, which is when new sea ice begins to form:


5 days out

In the SHEBA long-term sea ice experiment when frozen in and drifting across the Arctic, Judith Curry found new surface ice on the (formerly open) melt ponds began forming overnight on August 12, latitude 78-79 north. Each night thereafter, it re-formed, and froze deeper (thicker) each night. A few days later, the new fallen snow was being supported through the day by the night ice layers. Regional Albedo quickly followed back up to the wintertime average level by mid-September.
So, the melt ponds freeze first (a few days ago actually as we write this on 24 August). The ice on these melt ponds (above the sea surface) then supports more new snow each day, and the combination reflects more and more energy every hour. Much, much earlier than your “seawater” freeze date of 30 August-1 September.
Instead, by 30 August-1 September, there is no difference in the daily heat energy reflected by open Arctic ocean waters and the sea ice. By 1 September, and for the next 7 months, more open ocean waters mean more cooling of the upper ocean layer.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 7:39 am

if you think the minimum has been reached.. go ahead and offer a bet.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 5:18 pm

Minimum has absolutely NOT been met. But the refreezing has started based on Dr Curry’s observations on 12 August. That would be an inflection point on the arctic sea ice curve based on her observation of frozen melt ponds in 1996-1997, not a minimum point.

Seth
August 23, 2016 9:33 pm

If the decline is sea ice volume is linear, then a guess of when zero will hit is about 2035.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

Reply to  Seth
August 23, 2016 11:07 pm

A linear model is UNPHYSICAL..
how to tell?
Take the equation…compute.. the volume 100 years from now ( it will be negative)
A better model would be one related to survivial.. like a gompertz regression

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2016 8:47 am

Lots of linear models have zero bounds. For instance, I’m losing interest in this thread, but I project my interest will bottom out at zero.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Seth
August 24, 2016 5:45 am

The older PIOMAS version (before they adjusted it when they realized how silly it was) trended toward the sea ice volume being ZERO by:
2009,
2010,
2013,
2015,
etc. etc.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bbQ4vIdJyvE/ULQ-HPk-flI/AAAAAAAAG88/NXa5Dz0q3pw/s1600/FIGURE11.JPG

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 9:59 am

compaction is NOT melting and is not a loss of ice in fact long term it is thickening the ice, the total volume now is much higher than in 2012, and i dont care which models you select the reality is the ice is thickening rapidly over the last year.

tetris
Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 24, 2016 3:16 pm

Just what my neighbour the Canadian ice breaker captain has been telling me for a few years now from “boot-on-the-ground” observations. More of it, and multi year… No model can beat that.

Reply to  Bill Taylor
August 24, 2016 10:16 pm

volume is modelled.
be careful son

O R
August 25, 2016 12:46 am

Nothing significant has (yet) happened with the ice extent after the Big Cyclone.
But something has started to eat the Arctic sea ice. Look at the recent drop in ice volume:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20160824.png

bit chilly
Reply to  O R
August 25, 2016 4:50 pm

every single chart showing volume is guesswork. no matter how educated those guesses may be they are just guesses. nowhere do i ever see the 10, 20, 30 plus metre thick ice mentioned. hell there is ice up there over 50 m thick as can be seen from any arctic voyage images.
as to the possible late season compaction mentioned, i truly hope so, and the wind keeps blowing strong, ripping more heat from the surface and the wave action keeping the heat insulating ice abated.

Johann Wundersamer
August 25, 2016 3:07 am

Climate protection keeps busy:
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1107252.html
Air traveling 300 days a year against coral bleaching.

Hans Berg
August 25, 2016 9:40 am

Considering it is still spinning and expected to intensify again, it is a bit early to write off the effects of this cyclone. Even more intriguing models have a set up early next week with intense winds off the coast of Siberia through the Fram Straight. Let’s wait to see what that does with ice transport/compaction/melting before drawing conclusions.

August 25, 2016 4:01 pm

Re:
volume is modelled.
be careful son

The first empirical measurements of sea ice thickness are now in:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065704/full
From the paper:
…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.
Looks like Bill Taylor was right.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 26, 2016 8:41 am

TY for that, i have spent my life being “right” on issues that can be proven with science……and have also been MOCKED by “scientists” for daring to post TRUTH.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 29, 2016 7:41 pm

repeat after me
the NWP is not the arctic
2011 and 2015 are not 2016
The ONLY complete ( cover everything) Long term volume records…. are
MODELLED
Now, folks are start to collect bits and pieces of observational data ( which also requires modelling)
to do comparisons..

August 26, 2016 3:40 pm

Oh, Noes!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is 940,000 sq km Higher Than 2012…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  dbstealey
August 26, 2016 5:16 pm

dbstealey

Oh, Noes!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is 940,000 sq km Higher Than 2012…

And, very conveniently for the “impressionable” who look at short-term plots … The 2006-2007 sea ice plots are no longer visible. Only the “very dangerously low” 2012 dip is left below the wanderings of today’s sea ice extents up north.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Oh. By the way.
In just a few days (1 September on a normal recent year sea ice extents, earlier if there is less sea ice) , there will no longer be any heat gain difference (energy difference) over a 24-hour clear day between the total sunlight reflecting from sea ice and and reflecting from the open arctic ocean. From 1 September through 31 March: Less sea ice = More global cooling!

Reply to  dbstealey
August 29, 2016 7:37 pm

Hold on to your hats
http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png
the next 10 days… looking at the weather forcast….
5% chance of a new record low
but the key thing is all the old ice that is exporting through the Fram

Griff
August 28, 2016 7:38 am

Just a little reality update: extent is now on NSIDC showing equal to 2007 – so a tie for second lowest extent…
And there’s still a storm blowing and its still melting…
Recovered since 2007? No! No better extent, worse condition than 2007.
and if melt conditions in June had been the same as 2007, you’d be looking at a new record…

Smueller
August 29, 2016 3:15 am

arctic storms split the ice. It is obvious it will not melt immediately. 15% sea ice will therefore momentarily increase or probably stay the same. However if it has been split sufficiently it will melt more quickly. you need to wait to see the effect of an arctic hurricane.
I’m not sure why the writer mocks all mentions of the low pressure over the arctic. None of the reports referenced glorifies the hurricane and the possible record low ice extent. Weird?

August 29, 2016 7:06 am

Seems like the Arctic sea ice has made a signficant drop in the last few days. So what happened???comment image

August 29, 2016 7:12 am

A dramatic warmup is what happened and Joe Bastardi failed to show it to his audience by cutting off the right side of the chart in his weekend updates!!!! Talk about deceit.

August 29, 2016 7:14 am

A dramatic warmup occurred, that is what happened!!! Why did Joe Bastardi hide it from his viewers over the weekend by cutting off the right side of the chart?

Reply to  Dennis Hlinka
August 29, 2016 7:27 am

Here is the Arctic temperature chart that Joe Bastardi purposely cut off so as to not show the dramatic rise in temperatures. I don’t know why the chart didn’t show up in my previous post:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png

DWR54
August 29, 2016 3:48 pm

Apologies for late posting, but the thread is still open and the subject matter could fairly be described as ‘ongoing’, so…
NSIDC updated to 28th here: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png
The storm actually continued for a few days after Anthony’s initial post. This, plus the fact that NSIDC uses a 5-day smooth for their ‘daily’ update, means that the full impact of the storm is only now emerging.
Arctic sea ice extent for 28th Aug is now the 2nd lowest on record for the date, surpassing 2007. It remains to be seen whether this continues for the rest of the melt season.

kim
Reply to  DWR54
August 29, 2016 4:00 pm

Go, Ancient Ice, Go!
============

Griff
Reply to  DWR54
August 30, 2016 7:15 am

yes – and the wind is still blowing up there…
2nd lowest extent and area and still falling…
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/2016-mega-dipole.html

Fredster
August 30, 2016 2:06 am

Where’s the proof that man is responsible for this change? In primitive societies, they think God is responsible for everything that happens – the religion of Global Warming attributes it to man.

%d bloggers like this: