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.

Advertisements

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

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

  2. 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.”

    • 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.

  3. 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.

    • 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?

      • 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?

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

      • “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! 🙂

    • 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. “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]

  9. 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.

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

    • “…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…

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.)

    • 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…”

  11. 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.

    • 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.

  12. 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………….

  13. “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.

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

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

    • 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)

      • 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]

      • 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

    • “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

      • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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

      • “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

      • “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

      • “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

  16. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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….

      • 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.

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

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

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

      • 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:
        https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/online-cover-climate-models-fail.jpg
        (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

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

      • 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?

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

      • “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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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!

  18. 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/

    • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.

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

  19. 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!

  20. 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.

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

  22. 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.

    • 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

  23. 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/

    • 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.

      • 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.


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

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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?

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

  26. 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?

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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?

    • 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).

      • 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….

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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..

    • 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!

  33. 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…

  34. 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?

  35. 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.

  36. 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?

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

Comments are closed.