Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!

By Larry Kummer. Summary: We have had 30 years of bold but false predictions by climate scientists, met by silence from their peers. These make skeptics, and are one reason why the public does not support radical public policy actions. Here are 20 years of predictions about the melting North Pole.
Burning World - dreamstime_108149276

ID 108149276 © Ig0rzh | Dreamstime.

A stream of predictions about an ice-free arctic ocean

Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge, is famous for his predictions – and his amazing record of being wrong. Journalists report each prediction as if made by Einstein, not telling readers about Wadhams’ dismal record. That is how they report climate science and keep their readers misinformed.

“Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there {across the arctic ocean}.” — “Arctic Meltdown“, a NASA press release on 27 February 2001.

Eighteen years later, no regular cargo crossing the arctic ocean. There are small numbers of specially built ships making the passage on the northern coasts (e.g., here, here, and here).

“By 2013, we will see a much smaller area in summertime than now; and certainly by about 2020, I can imagine that only one area will remain in summer.” — BBC, 13 May 2009.

Twice wrong. The 2013 average and minimum ice extent was roughly unchanged from that in 2009. In 2018, the minimum was 4.6 million square kilometers, only 12% down from 2009. I doubt 2020 will be much different.

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

The Scotsman, 29 August 2012.

Not only was it not “all gone by 2015” but that quote appeared three weeks from the record low point on September 17.

“I have been predicting [the collapse of sea ice in summer months] for many years. The main cause is simply global warming …This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates.” — The Guardian, 17 September 2012.

Ditto. There was a great deal of excitement among alarmists about the 2012 low, and the usual linear extrapolation to a disaster coming really soon. Wadhams presented at the September 2014 Royal Society conference “Arctic sea ice reduction: the evidence, models, and global impacts.” A few climate scientists made mildly critical tweets about his presentation. Gavin Schmidt (Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) was the most critical. He is, to the best of my knowledge, exceptional in his willingness to speak out about alarmist claims by his peers. See the tweets. But there is no evidence they called friendly journalists to protest journalists’ uncritical publication of Wadham’s predictions. But skeptical climate scientists often receive barrages of criticism from their peers, sometimes for repeating material in the IPCC’s reports and peer-review literature (e.g., Roger Pielke Jr. by scientists such as Gavin Schmidt – details here).

“Most people expect this year will see a record low in the Arctic’s summer sea-ice cover. Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship. …Ice-free means the central basin of the Arctic will be ice-free and I think that that is going to happen in summer 2017 or 2018. — The Guardian, 21 August 2016.

Twice wrong, again. The 2016 minimum was 23% above the 2012 minimum. The arctic was not ice-free in 2017 or 2018. Not even icebreakers cross over the North Pole.

“{T}he planet is swiftly heading toward a largely ice-free Arctic in the warmer months, possibly as early as 2020.” — Yale Environment 360, 26 September 2016.

The record minimum extent was in 2012. The previous minimum was 4.16 million km in 2007. The 2018 minimum was 4.95 million km. That is a 19% increase over 12 years. Wadhams had lots of headline-loving company among climate scientists. For example, Wieslaw Maslowsk – a research professor at the Navy Postgraduate School.

“Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. …Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. …’Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,’ the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. ‘So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.'” — BBC, 12 December 2007.

The “projection” of an ice-free summer in 2013 was not “too conservative.” It was too aggressive. The Atlantic: the melting North Pole That is an example of successful clickbait by Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic on 29 December 2015. This is the alarmists’ usual trick of describing weather as “extraordinary” based on our brief instrument record, when it probably is not.

“It’s really hard to predict when we could see ice-free summers in the Arctic, but it could be as soon as in 20 to 40 years, Francis says.” — Jennifer Francis was then a professor at Rutgers, now a senior scientist at Woods Hole. Quoted in The Verge, 10 May 2018.

Now that is a safe prediction. If accurate, it will become famous in 2040 or 2060. If wrong, it will go down the memory hole with all the other wrong predictions about climate.

The real story

See the three lines in color showing the sea ice extents of 2007 (blue, middle), 2012 (dotted, bottom), and 2018 (thin grey, top), and the thick grey line of the 1981 – 2010 mean. Sea ice extent has been flattish for twelve years. For another perspective, the PIOMAS model shows that Arctic sea ice volume has been flattish for nine years. Click graph to enlarge. The below graph shows the big picture: arctic sea ice extent has declined (in fits and starts) since the satellite record began in 1979. There is little reason to assume that it has stopped melting. This graph shows it in a meaningful way – using statistics, in standard deviations from the 1981-2010 mean (unusual for climate science). A two or three standard deviation low in a 66 year record is not extraordinary, given the volatile nature of weather data and its multi-decadal cycles.

Some recent papers about the cryosphere.

Both of these are surprising news, contrary to the doomster narrative. I doubt that either will be mentioned in the mainstream press or the liberal websites (that report every doomster paper as gospel). Red emphasis added. “Non-uniform contribution of internal variability to recent Arctic sea ice loss” by Mark England in Journal of Climate, in press.

“Over the last half century, the Arctic sea ice cover has declined dramatically. Current estimates suggest that, for the Arctic as a whole, nearly half of the observed loss of summer sea ice cover is not due to anthropogenic forcing, but due to internal variability. …”

A new 200‐year spatial reconstruction of West Antarctic surface mass balance” by Yetang Wang et al. in JGR Atmospheres, in press.

“High‐spatial resolution surface mass balance (SMB) over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) spanning 1800‐2010 is reconstructed by means of ice core records combined with the outputs of the European Centre for Medium‐range Weather Forecasts ‘Interim’ reanalysis (ERA‐Interim) and the latest polar version of the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (RACMO2.3p2). The reconstruction reveals a significant negative trend (‐1.9 ± 2.2 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1) in the SMB over the entire WAIS during the 19th century, but a statistically significant positive trend of 5.4 ± 2.9 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1 between 1900 and 2010, in contrast to insignificant WAIS SMB changes during the 20th century reported earlier. …”

What about global sea ice totals?

See this update at Climate.gov, as of March 2019. Global sea ice is decreasing.

Update: a warning from long ago that was ignored.

I strongly recommend this op-ed in the BBC: “Science must end climate confusion” by climate scientist Richard Betts, 11 January 2010. He cautions about scientists exaggerating or misrepresenting climate science “if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda.” Too bad they did not heed his warning. Also see his comment in the NYT elaborating on his BBC article and providing some context for the decline of arctic sea ice in 2007.

Conclusion

I began to assemble a list of predictions made by climate scientists during the past 30 years. A little research showed that this would be a long list, including a lot of failed predictions. I abandoned it as pointless. Skeptics already know this. Alarmists will just scream “denier” (if they ignore the IPCC’s work, they will ignore failed predictions – no matter how long the list). Most people no longer care. The endless stream of bold but false predictions about climate change does not disprove anything about the science. But it has affected the public. It contributes to the majority of the public ranking climate low as a public policy priority, and their disinterest in paying for it. There is another level to this. A few climate scientists get their 15 minutes of fame by making clickbait predictions. Which is their right. But the reluctance of other climate scientists to criticize their peers – no matter how outlandish the claim – leaves the public hearing only the alarmist side of the science. This silence makes them complicit in it.

This series about the corruption of climate science

The stakes are too high. We cannot afford this.
  1. About the corruption of climate science.
  2. The noble corruption of climate science.
  3. A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.
  4. A look at the workings of Climate Propaganda Inc.
  5. New climate porn: it forces walruses to jump to their death!
  6. Weather porn about Texas, a lesson for Earth Day 2019.

For More Information

Here is an example of a typical episode of hysteria about polar ice in 2013: The North Pole is now a lake! It was gullibly accepted by many on the Left, who ignored the rebuttals by scientists. James D. Agresti shows the long history of mis-reporting melting at the North Pole. Back in 2009 and 2010 I wrote skeptically about the melting sea ice predictions (e.g., here, here, and here). This goes up on my list of accurate predictions. Also sSee the important things to know about global warming. For more information see all posts about the arctic area and polar sea ice, and especially these …
  1. About the forces melting the arctic sea ice (not just CO2).
  2. What we learned from the freak storm that “melted the North Pole” on 30 December 2015.
Advertisements

151 thoughts on “Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!

  1. Larry

    “Also s(S)ee the important things to know about global warming. For more information see all posts about the arctic area and polar sea ice, and especially these …”
    One too many ess’s ?

  2. Good posting, Anthony, and good report, Larry. I think the evidence that the Arctic isn’t undergoing unusual melting is readily shown by the lack of Climate Refugees from the Arctic! That’s right, while there are many Climate Refugees from Central America, there simply are not floods of Penguins escaping the melting Arctic. There, simple evidence from a simple, but somewhat sarcastic, man.

    • there simply are not floods of Penguins escaping the melting Arctic.

      That may be because there have never been penguins at the Arctic.

      • The polar bears ate them, which is why the polar bears are now starving to death. We’ve got the pictures!

        All caused by CO2, don’t you know.

        • Well they didn’t call them penguins, that’s all.

          Actually, they did call them that. It’s where the name penguin comes from. back in the 16th century penguin was a synonym for great auk (latin name Pinguinus impennis). Later, when what we call penguins were first discovered by Europeans it was similarity in appearance to the great auk that got them the name penguins.

      • That may be because there have never been penguins at the Arctic.

        yes an know. The word penguin first appears in the 16th century as a synonym for great auk (check out Gary Pearse’s link to Wikipedia for more information about them). What we know of as penguins today got their name from their resemblance to the great auk (aka Pinguinus impennis).

        So yes “penguins” once existed in the Artic, just not what modern day folk think of as penguins.

        • “yes an know” should have been “yes and no”. I’m pretty sure misplacement of the space triggered auto corrupt that time. grrrr. where’s the edit button when you need it.

  3. ” We have had 30 years of bold but false predictions by climate scientists, met by silence from their peers.”

    err Not true.

    stop getting your science from the MSM

    Based on the analysis of CMIP3 climate change simulations (e.g., Arzel
    et al., 2006; Zhang and Walsh, 2006), the AR4 concludes that the Arctic
    and Antarctic sea ice covers are projected to shrink in the 21st century under all SRES scenarios, with a large range of model responses
    (Meehl et al., 2007b). It also stresses that, in some projections, the
    Arctic Ocean becomes almost entirely ice-free in late summer during
    the second half of the 21st century. These conclusions were confirmed
    by further analyses of the CMIP3 archives (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007;
    Bracegirdle et al., 2008; Lefebvre and Goosse, 2008; Boé et al., 2009b;
    Sen Gupta et al., 2009; Wang and Overland, 2009; Zhang, 2010b; NRC,
    2011; Körper et al., 2013). Figures 12.28 and 12.29 and the studies of
    Maksym et al. (2012), Massonnet et al. (2012), Stroeve et al. (2012) and
    Wang and Overland (2012) show that the CMIP5 AOGCMs/ESMs as a
    group also project decreases in sea ice extent through the end of this
    century in both hemispheres under all RCPs. However, as in the case of
    CMIP3, the inter-model spread is considerable
    In the NH, in accordance with CMIP3 results, the absolute rate of
    decrease of the CMIP5 multi-model mean sea ice areal coverage is
    greatest in September. The reduction in sea ice extent between the
    time periods 1986–2005 and 2081–2100 for the CMIP5 multi-model
    average ranges from 8% for RCP2.6 to 34% for RCP8.5 in February
    and from 43% for RCP2.6 to 94% for RCP8.5 in September. Medium
    confidence is attached to these values as projections of sea ice extent
    decline in the real world due to errors in the simulation of present-day
    sea ice extent (mean and trends—see Section 9.4.3) and because
    of the large spread of model responses. About 90% of the available
    CMIP5 models reach nearly ice-free conditions (sea ice extent less than
    1 × 106
    km2
    for at least 5 consecutive years) during September in the
    Arctic before 2100 under RCP8.5 (about 45% under RCP4.5). By the
    end of the 21st century, the decrease in multi-model mean sea ice
    volume ranges from 29% for RCP2.6 to 73% for RCP8.5 in February
    and from 54% for RCP2.6 to 96% for RCP8.5 in September. Medium
    confidence is attached to these values as projections of the real world
    sea ice volume. In February, these percentages are much higher than
    the corresponding ones for sea ice extent, which is indicative of a substantial sea ice thinning.
    A frequent criticism of the CMIP3 models is that, as a group, they
    strongly underestimate the rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice
    extent observed during the past few decades (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007;
    Winton, 2011), which suggests that the CMIP3 projections of summer
    Arctic sea ice areal coverage might be too conservative. As shown in
    Section 9.4.3 and Figure 12.28b, the magnitude of the CMIP5 multi-model mean trend in September Arctic sea ice extent over the satellite era is more consistent with, but still underestimates, the observed
    one (see also Massonnet et al., 2012; Stroeve et al., 2012; Wang and
    Overland, 2012; Overland and Wang, 2013). Owing to the shortness of
    the observational record, it is difficult to ascertain the relative influence of natural variability on this trend. This hinders the comparison
    between modelled and observed trends, and hence the estimate of the
    sensitivity of the September Arctic sea ice extent to global surface temperature change (i.e., the decrease in sea ice extent per degree global

    warming) (Kay et al., 2011; Winton, 2011; Mahlstein and Knutti, 2012).
    This sensitivity may be crucial for determining future sea ice losses.
    Indeed, a clear relationship exists at longer than decadal time scales
    in climate change simulations between the annual mean or September
    mean Arctic sea ice extent and the annual mean global surface temperature change for ice extents larger than ~1 × 106
    km2 (e.g., Ridley
    et al., 2007; Zhang, 2010b; NRC, 2011; Winton, 2011; Mahlstein and
    Knutti, 2012). This relationship is illustrated in Figure 12.30 for both
    CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. From this figure, it can be seen that the sea
    ice sensitivity varies significantly from model to model and is generally
    larger and in better agreement among models in CMIP5.
    A complete and detailed explanation for what controls the range of
    Arctic sea ice responses in models over the 21st century remains elusive, but the Arctic sea ice provides an example where process-based
    constraints can be used to reduce the spread of model projections
    (Overland et al., 2011; Collins et al., 2012; Hodson et al., 2012). For
    CMIP3 models, results indicate that the changes in Arctic sea ice mass
    budget over the 21st century are related to the late 20th century mean
    sea ice thickness distribution (Holland et al., 2010), average sea ice
    thickness (Bitz, 2008; Hodson et al., 2012), fraction of thin ice cover
    (Boé et al., 2009b) and oceanic heat transport to the Arctic (Mahlstein
    and Knutti, 2011). For CMIP5 models, Massonnet et al. (2012) showed
    that the time needed for the September Arctic sea ice areal coverage to
    drop below a certain threshold is highly correlated with the September
    sea ice extent and annual mean sea ice volume averaged over the past
    several decades (Figure 12.31a, b). The timing of a seasonally ice-free
    Arctic Ocean or the fraction of remaining sea ice in September at any
    time during the 21st century were also found to correlate with the
    past trend in September Arctic sea ice extent and the amplitude of the
    mean seasonal cycle of sea ice extent (Boé et al., 2009b; Collins et al.,
    2012; Massonnet et al., 2012) (Figure 12.31c, d). All these empirical

    …..

    These various methods all suggest a faster rate of summer Arctic sea
    ice decline than the multi-model mean. Although they individually
    provide a reduced range for the year of near disappearance of the
    September Arctic sea ice compared to the original CMIP3/CMIP5 multi-model ensemble, they lead to different timings (Overland and Wang,
    2013). Consequently, the time interval obtained when combining all
    these studies remains wide: 2020–2100+ (2100+ = not before 2100)
    for the SRES A1B scenario and RCP4.5 (Stroeve et al., 2007, 2012; Boé
    et al., 2009b; Wang and Overland, 2009, 2012; Zhang, 2010b; Massonnet et al., 2012) and 2020–2060 for RCP8.5 (Massonnet et al., 2012;
    Wang and Overland, 2012). The method proposed by Massonnet et
    al. (2012) is applied here to the full set of models that provided the
    CMIP5 database with sea ice output. The natural variability of each
    of the four diagnostics shown in Figure 12.31a–d is first estimated
    by averaging over all available models with more than one ensemble
    member the diagnostic standard deviations derived from the model
    ensemble members. Then, for each model, a ±2 standard deviation
    interval is constructed around the ensemble mean or single realization
    of the diagnostic considered. A model is retained if, for each diagnostic,
    either this interval overlaps a ±20% interval around the observed/reanalysed value of the diagnostic or at least one ensemble member from
    that model gives a value for the diagnostic that falls within ±20% of
    the observational/reanalysed data. The outcome is displayed in Figure
    12.31e for RCP8.5. Among the five selected models (ACCESS1.0,
    ACCESS1.3, GFDL-CM3, IPSL-CM5A-MR, MPI-ESM-MR), four project
    a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before 2050 (2080) for
    RCP8.5 (RCP4.5), the earliest and latest years of near disappearance
    of the sea ice pack being about 2040 and about 2060 (about 2040
    and 2100+), respectively. It should be mentioned that Maslowski et al.
    (2012) projected that it would take only until about 2016 to reach a
    nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer, based on a linear extrapolation
    into the future of the recent sea ice volume trend from a hindcast simulation conducted with a regional model of the Arctic sea ice–ocean
    system. However, such an extrapolation approach is problematic as it
    ignores the negative feedbacks that can occur when the sea ice cover
    becomes thin (e.g., Bitz and Roe, 2004; Notz, 2009) and neglects the
    effect of year-to-year or longer-term variability (Overland and Wang,
    2013). Mahlstein and Knutti (2012) encompassed the dependence of
    sea ice projections on the forcing scenario by determining the annual
    mean global surface warming threshold for nearly ice-free conditions
    in September. Their best estimate of ~2°C above the present derived
    from both CMIP3 models and observations is consistent with the 1.6
    to 2.1°C range (mean value: 1.9°C) obtained from the CMIP5 model
    subset shown in Figure 12.31e (see also Figure 12.30b). The reduction
    in September Arctic sea ice extent by the end of the 21st century, averaged over this subset of models, ranges from 56% for RCP2.6 to 100%
    for RCP8.5.

    In light of all these results, it is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover
    will continue to shrink and thin all year round during the 21st century
    as the annual mean global surface temperature rises. It is also likely
    that the Arctic Ocean will become nearly ice-free in September before
    the middle of the century for high GHG emissions such as those corresponding to RCP8.5 (medium confidence). The potential irreversibility
    of the Arctic sea ice loss and the possibility of an abrupt transition
    toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean are discussed in Section 12.5.5.7.

    #####################################

    Now, next you will argue that scientists should “call out” when guys say wild stuff in the press.
    Brothers keeper crap.
    There is no obligation to correct mistakes other make in the press. The job is to correct the published science.

    As you note:

    https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/when-climate-scientists-criticise-each-other/

    I suppose if skeptics did a better job of criticizing their own, they would have the moral high ground.
    they dont.

    But hey, who knew that a failure to call out your fellow scientists in the feild changed the physics of c02!!

    Imagine that, if scientists dont criticize their fellows in the press, then c02 doesnt cause warming
    if they do criticize them then c02 does cause warming!

    Who knew physics depended on the social behavior of scientists.. Post modern WUWT

    • A lot of good comedy from intellectual idiots going on around here. Once again, the sky is NOT falling. When it does, you will be the first to know.

    • “stop getting your science from the MSM”

      What like most of the population does? Or like the psychologically tramatised youth that are now convinced the human race is about to face extinction due to climate change.

      • Exactly. When the top echelon climate scientists start taking on the most apocalyptic predictions in the MSM, I will know they deserve being in the top echelon. But they don’t. They want to keep the fear factor at a high decibel level.

        • “we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Dr Stephen Schneider

        • An English major playing the “I am a scientist” card is always a hoot to watch. Even funnier is he doesn’t seem to grasp why people are laughing at him when he does it.

          • I can’t help but imagine his “science hat” being an Underwood typewriter cover lined with tin foil.

    • Consequently, the time interval obtained when combining all
      these studies remains wide: 2020–2100+ (2100+ = not before 2100)

      So the estimations of ice free summer Arctic range from tomorrow to maybe never. aks “no idea at all. ” Outstanding level of scientific understanding.

      Thanks for bringing us up to date on the state of the actual science, rather than the BS we get force fed by the media every day of the year.

      • Apparently a few billion more needs to be spent on research. Maybe we could tighten up projections by a tenth of a degree or a few months in 200 years. Not that the new numbers would turn out to be correct though.

      • Greg,

        Thanks for pointing to that. I don’t know what to make of the October trend, since the other months are flattish.

        The Polar Science Center page about arctic sea ice volumes says this about October, but does not explain its significance.

        “The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 103 km3. …The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 103 km3.”

        http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

        • Hi Larry, you need to distinguish between PIOMAS which is basically a model fed with ice area data, (ie they do not measure thickness) and CPOM which comes from satellite measurement of “free board” ( difference of sea water level and top of ice ) to estimate the thickness and hence volume.

          This is the first comprehensive coverage of actual thickness, all other datasets estimating thinckness are basically guessing in one way or another. Sadly, CPOM are rather vague about their uncertainty. They do not give data for summer months, including September, since pools of water on ice are not clearly distinguishable form open water. October is the nearest we get for the minimum.

          PIOMAS:

          The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North.

          I don’t know what to make of the October trend, since the other months are flattish.

          Well I would not expect all parts of the yearly cycle to show the same behaviour. Since the summer minimum was always “the canary in the coal mine” when it was melting, I don’t see why it should not be the key parameter to follow now. This is what everyone has been hearing about since Inconvenient Untruth and AR4 came out, so this is what they need to be informed about now.

          Spring max ice is marginally lower now than in 2010 but if you fit a trend line to the available years, it will not show significant change either way.

          The key point in that data is the 65% recovery in annual minimum from 2012-2013 . Oddly after all the OMG coverage of the 2012 minimum, this outstanding fact was completely ignored and remains completely ignored by the media and alarmists generally.

        • Oct, Nov,Dec are increasing; Jan, Feb flat; Mar, April slight reduction. That is why alarmists suddenly dropped Arctic sea ice and diverted attention to speculative millennial scale changes in Antarctic ice sheet. Then they found they could declare a “lowest evah” in March Arctic sea ice and switched again.

          It’s the same game a picking out whatever city records a max temp and ignoring anywhere is which hits a record low.

          When they need to constantly change the desired metric for changes in sea ice, they are simply cherrypicking whatever data suits the agenda.

        • I just checked for updates at CPOM , they only have Oct,Nov for 2018 so far, but both are again above previous years in my graph.

          http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html ( click on “data” icon on their graph for the monthly averages).

          Their comment for Mar 2018 indicates they do have data. Updating the data on the graph and downloadable seems low priority and still done manually, apparently.

    • But hey, who knew that a failure to call out your fellow scientists in the feild changed the physics of c02!!“. It’s not the physics of CO2 that’s the issue. The issue is the crappy models and the fact that they are incapable of applying the laws of physics. That’s what other scientists should be calling out, and it’s an absolute disgrace that they don’t (and an even greater disgrace if they can’t do so without losing their jobs). The appalling inaccuracy of the models is what tells you that the models are useless for any kind of prediction.

      • You left out and half of them aren’t scientists at all they are activists, and qualified refugees from non science fields looking for a job.

        • And of the half that are “scientists”, all too many are really just activists. You can’t be both an activist and a scientist. The one requires a pre-set viewpoint that you work towards regardless of where the data leads whereas the other requires following wherever the data leads regardless of any pre-set viewpoints one might have once had.

    • A frequent criticism of the CMIP3 models is that, as a group, they
      strongly underestimate the rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice
      extent observed during the past few decades

      What is clear is that sea-ice expert scientists modelling the Arctic have no clue about the relevant factors driving Arctic sea-ice decline and its variability. Yet there is no shortage of “doom and gloom” in the media about the Arctic despite 12 years without significant melting. They have been telling scary tales for decades and they have succeed in scaring children like Greta Thunberg with zero science.

      Sea-ice expert scientists have the respect they deserve: None.

    • “”stop getting your science from the MSM””

      So you say it´s ok to openly and honestly p*** in the eyes of a common man?
      Your rage is bringing your stupidity too visible. You behave like a sour loser. I understad that because you can´t win, and you know it. Lose with dignity, you ridiculous creature.

      “”But hey, who knew that a failure to call out your fellow scientists in the feild changed the physics of c02!!””

      You don´t know the physics of CO2. You are just riding the gravy train. All in for the money.

    • Mosher,

      (1) This post gives predictions whose due date lies in the past. Nothing in 12.4.6 of AR5 WGI saves those false predictions – because it discusses the future.

      “Although they individually provide a reduced range for the year of near disappearance of the September Arctic sea ice compared to the original CMIP3/CMIP5 multi-model ensemble, they lead to different timings. Consequently, the time interval obtained when combining all these studies remains wide: 2020–2100+ (2100+ = not before 2100) for the SRES A1B scenario and RCP4.5.”

      Also, note that its “bottom line” forecast is only for AR5’s worst case scenario, RCP8.5, and given with medium confidence (confidence levels distinguishes the IPCC’s good science from Wadham’s claims).

      “It is also likely that the Arctic Ocean will become nearly ice-free in September before the middle of the century for high GHG emissions such as those corresponding to RCP8.5 (medium confidence).”

      (2) “Imagine that, if scientists dont criticize their fellows in the press, then c02 doesnt cause warming …Who knew physics depended on the social behavior of scientists..”

      So you didn’t read the post or didn’t understand it. Let’s replay the tape for you. From the Conclusions:

      “The endless stream of bold but false predictions about climate change does not disprove anything about the science. But it has affected the public. It contributes to the majority of the public ranking climate low as a public policy priority, and their disinterest in paying for it. “

      (3) I hope that comment is by someone other than the real Steven Mosher. If it is him, that’s sad. I used to respect him.

      • (3) I hope that comment is by someone other than the real Steven Mosher. If it is him, that’s sad. I used to respect him.

        It’s the real deal alright. He hasn’t been worthy of respect for years, ever since he devolved into a drive-by troll.

        • It has all happened since his ego got to him and he started thinking he was actually a scientist.

        • John,

          He has provided some of the sharpest insights I’ve seen in the climate policy debates. Now he writes troll-like drivel.

          Even in these dark times, that’s one of the saddest sights I’ve seen in a long time.

          • Even sadder is the current dribblings of David Attenborough. I used to get so rapt in his shows. Now I just turn the sound off and appreciate the HD picture quality of the vision.

        • Like so many on the Climate Alarmist gravy train, he appears to have decided that his pay check is more important than his self respect.

          • MarkW

            What’s the opposite of Big Oil profiteer?

            Mosher – a non scientist given the title of scientist by his employer, suckling off the state teat and pretending he deserves the title scientist.

          • What’s the opposite of “Big Oil Profiteer”?

            I don’t know, what’s a good synonym for something that actually exists?

      • Respect and Mosher in same sentence is bad joke. He is just wasting ink to write someone elses opinions. And it´s just mouthfoaming scream without any content of reality. The financier behind his back has made a gigantic miss shot.

    • “It also stresses that, in some projections, the
      Arctic Ocean becomes almost entirely ice-free in late summer during
      the second half of the 21st century. These conclusions were confirmed
      by further analyses of the CMIP3 archives.”

      No, Mosher. The conclusion might be supported by the other analyses, but they cannot confirm it. Confirmation of a forecast of future events can only occur when those events happen. You know better.

      The false claim of certainty made by those touting manmade climate change is the basis for all these failed predictions. They seem to be very slow learners.

      • remember It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It

    • Except the North Pole is not melting. For the past few decades Summer temps in the Arctic have been below average and for the rest of the year above average but below freezing.

      Moreover we know that any ice loss is mainly to do with winds from Siberia pushing the ice out to sea.

    • When you fail to call out the charlatans in your midst, don’t cry when you get treated like you are one of them.

      (and folks remember: don’t get your science from English majors).

      • The First IPCC Report contains much useful data before it underwent radical adjustments.

    • What do you call it when a group of scientists say one thing to each other, then go out and say something else entirely to the press?

      • … and elevate the prestige of those engaging in the latter with awards for “climate communications” and “ethics”.

    • I love it. “There is no obligation to correct mistakes other make in the press.”

      Of course not. Because the end justifies the means. As long as sufficient panic is raised, it matter not whether that panic was justified or not.

      You’re either an ethical scientist or not. An ethical scientist wouldn’t let mistakes in the press go unchallenged. The reputation of their field depends upon it.

      However, ethics has been overridden by mob rule. The vast majority of scientists who think themselves ethical want absolutely no part of the ostracization, ridicule, and possible administrative action when they are labeled a “DENIER” for questioning a pro-climate change statement, regardless of the validity of their question.

    • Steven Mosher, I suggest that before you copy and paste into your reply, that you remove all the line breaks except where you end a paragraph. This would make your reply much easier to read on screens with narrower widths.

    • Steve couldn’t help himself with his looong foot in the mouth reply to the essay, he writes this idiocy:

      “stop getting your science from the MSM”

      Did you even read what Larry Kummer wrote?

      The very first paragraph:

      “Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge, is famous for his predictions – and his amazing record of being wrong. Journalists report each prediction as if made by Einstein, not telling readers about Wadhams’ dismal record. That is how they report climate science and keep their readers misinformed.

      “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there {across the arctic ocean}.” — “Arctic Meltdown“, a NASA press release on 27 February 2001.”

      A NASA press release…..

      All of the predictions were made by scientists themselves, some who supposedly work in the Arctic field. The media only prints them for the public since THEY think this will destroy the skeptics….., but alas the rational ones are busy laughing over their breathless pontifications of DOOM! if all that ice really go away.

      Why do you do this Steve, make a fool of yourself is something to achieve for these days?

    • I’m calling out every Government funded climate scientists as charlatans. Every one of you knows that we could add a small amount of iron sulfate to the oceans and completely control the amount of growth in CO2 while feeding hundreds of millions with the increased fisheries that would result (volcanoes do the experiment about every couple decades for us). But no, you’d much rather have the issue of climate change to pursue your Marxist anti-human de-industrialization agenda. You people (Steven Mosher et. al.) are sociopaths. CO2 is a resource, not a problem, but you feed off irrational fear.

      RussGeorge.net

    • Hey Mr. Mosher:
      On my computer, your comment
      has such bad formatting, and is
      so hard to read, that it makes
      my comments’ formatting
      (left justified narrow columns
      because I have a vision problem),
      seem pretty easy to read !

      You should re-format, and
      re-post, your compost, again,
      Mosher — you still won’t know
      what you’re talking about,
      but to be fair, we need to
      read your comment
      before we insult you !

      Yes, of course
      the climate predictions
      have been 100%
      — 100% wrong.

      The coming climate change catastrophe
      is a fairy tale, based on NOTHING MORE
      than wild guess, always wrong, predictions
      of a bad news future climate … completely
      the opposite of actual, pleasant
      good news all the way, global warming
      in the past 300 years, since the 1690’s,
      during the Maunder Minimum,
      in the Little Ice Age.

      Only a fool would believe today’s predictions,
      after 60+ years, starting with oceanographer
      Roger Revelle in 1957 … and I guess that would
      make YOU a … ?

      My climate science blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      — Please stay away Mosher, there are
      no wild guess predictions of the
      future climate, for your enjoyment !

      And I don’t care for the accuracy
      of the surface temperature “data”,
      assuming “data” decsribes that infilled,
      “adjusted”, “re-adjusted”, with barely any
      Southern Hemisphere measurements
      before 1900, and too few from 1910 to 1940,
      pile of steaming you know what !

      Have a nice day,
      Mr. Mosher

    • Mosher apparently thinks the models are scientific. Since none of them stem from first principles, they are not scientific. The models have lots of “parameters,” which is modeler’s code for, “we get the results we wanted when we make up these numbers and put them in.”

      Mr. Mosher, please take some courses, I recommend Thermo I and II, and then Transport of Heat and Mass. Lots of famous universities have free courses on-line, including the glorious U of Michigan, where you can learn whereof you speak.

    • Don’t get so emotional, Steven Mosher. You used to be a good sceptic until you got a handsome job and title that ruled that option out. You also know full well that scepticism in science is its life blood, even though you are a citizen layman scientist. Moreover, if kumbayah science won’t incorporate scepticism into itself, guess what? It will be supplied from outside!

      Another thing you know is that, on both sides of the issue, there are scientifically literate supporters of their take on it and throngs of people who who have faith only (on the proponent side) or contrarians on the sceptical side who have no clue about
      the science. That you choose to conflate sceptic with such contrarians is a ‘tell’ that isn’t a credit to you.

      Finally and this mistake I excuse because your training and experience in science has been during post normal times and catastrophists in the camp you are in also are guilty of it: sceptics do not have an obligation to offer alternative theories (although they have offered some fine ones that perforce have become mainstream), nor to correct rubbish from sci-illiterate contrarians (although we tend to be equal opportunity sceptics for much of it – some flighty stuff is even blocked from WUWT and the much dreaded MacIntyre and McKittrick demolition team deals only in serious criticism of dodgy science).

      On your data, link dump, I’m afraid that gravely falsified climate models do not impress even many of your own camp these days. Yeah, yeah, gravity, etc, etc are models, but no one would put then in the same category as politically self serving cli-sci Armageddon models.

    • So the sea ice is going to be gone in 2060 or is it 2100! LOL

      Tell me what the sea ice coverage will be next year, the year after, and 5 years from now, then maybe I’ll believe you know what is going on.

      You know what? I predict an extinction event will occur in 2031 when a large asteroid hits the earth. Since your go to answer is prove that the projection is wrong, then I claim the same. Prove my projection wrong!

    • Steven: I don’t make fun of you or call you names, because you have made some good points in your WUWT comments (but less so lately, sorry to say). But this time you have gone a bit too far. You seem to be saying that Peter Wadhams didn’t actually say what he said when he made those predictions, every one of which has failed. He is after all a scientist at a moderately distinguished university and he has a ScD degree. He not only said all the things he said, but he keeps on saying them; he has written a book in which he says it in writing, and he can be seen and heard saying the same things on YouTube videos.

      So please don’t tell us that the MSM are distorting the words of scientists (OK in some cases they do and the scientists being misquoted are usually conspicuous in their failure to correct them) in the case of Wadhams – the poster boy for the “ice-free Arctic” – there’s no need to use hyperbole; he does it for them. And has he ever once made an apology for making predictions that turned out wrong? Or given an analysis of why he thinks his predictions were wrong and what he’s done to amend his model to better conform to observations? Not that I’ve seen.

      Peter Wadhams doesn’t come across as glibly articulate and smugly complacent like Michael Mann, if anything he’s almost a caricature of a dithering old “mad scientist” in an ivory tower, but he’s no less dangerous, and he’s no less of an embarrassment to real science.

    • ”The potential irreversibility of the Arctic sea ice loss and the possibility of an abrupt transition
      toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean are discussed in Section 12.5.5.7.’

      ‘Potential irreversibility and possibility of an abrupt transition. Nice weasel words that fit the Precautionary Principle but are worthless for any other thing. Scare mongering at its best.

    • Mosher spends quite a few hours here “correcting” the mistakes of us deniers.
      On the other hand the declares that he has no obligation to correct any mistakes that benefit him.

      Yet another example of his willingness to trade his self respect for cold hard cash.

    • What part of your special pleading addresses the simple fact of the reports/predictions cited in the posting?

      The reports/predictions were widely “hyped”; presented as self-evident truths. They are the ultimate form of argumentum ad verecundiam.

      They were wrong and brought science into disrepute. Each time someone (on either side of the debate) presents a proposition that is plainly either a gross over-simplification or an agenda-promoting “headline” detached from reality, it damages credibility.

      That is not helpful to broadening our collective understanding – whether or not one agrees that there is significant and damaging anthropogenic warming going on.

  4. Wow, Steven Mosher, you read the posting about Arctic Ice and sat down and typed all of that reply out? Impressive! Or did you just type out the part at the end, the one filled with insults and typos? Post modern WUWT? I’ll stick with Anthony, thanks.

    (I am leaving in those insults, for the purpose of exposing Steve’s double standard) Sun/MOD

    • Wow, Steven Mosher, you read the posting about Arctic Ice

      Judging by his “reply” I find it very doubtful he read past the headline before cutting a pasting the bulk of his reply, adding a few insults at the end and hitting “post comment”. If he did read past the headline, he clearly didn’t comprehend what he read (again judging by his “reply”).

  5. The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with our climate. Failed climate “predictions” are just the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong with mainstream climate “science” and self-appointed prognosticators. To wit: “It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. Indeed. The hyperventilating by the Alarmists has now reached epic proportions. They know, deep down, that the whole climate scam is coming to an end. The reason is that the IPCC itself is nothing but a corrupt political body pretending to do science. Their basic premise, that we humans are driving “climate change” is entirely false. Even the idea of climate change has been corrupted to now mean unusual weather, which they claim is increasing. It is all a Big Lie.

  6. Gee whiz, all these years of forecasts about something that still hasn’t happened – and I still do not know what the panic attack is all about, other than getting money out of me.

    So none of these count, right?
    – Axial tilt angle
    – Ice floats, so it’s less dense than water. See your ice tea for reference. When the ice melts, it doesn’t overflow the glass it sits in unless YOU overfilled the glass with tea for starters.
    – Earth has cycles that come and go at the planet’s will.
    – Volcanoes spewing gases.
    – Money is a great incentive for sticking to psychobabble and skewed and/or incorrect results that get you more money.

    Okay. Moving on.

  7. Every ten years or so we get a new series, or a recalibration of old series, of alarmist predictions from “scientists”.

    Their predictive record? Zero.

    I also note the hypocrisy as the climate change preventers continue to fly, drive, live in big houses, etc. They fail to practice the “prevention” steps they want everyone else to take.

  8. Its bad enough when so called “”Scientists”” make such wild guesses,
    with no hard evidence to support it, but the real villains are the so called
    reporters in the Media.

    Now are they all intent on destroying the Western countries economy, or are
    they simply looking for the “Gotcha” moment when they can scoop all of the
    other reporters.

    To call them reporters is of course now juts a sick joke.

    MJE VK5ELL

  9. “climate scientist Richard Betts, 11 January 2010. He cautions about scientists exaggerating or misrepresenting climate science “if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda.”

    He forgot his own advice: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/global-heating-more-accurate-to-describe-risks-to-planet-says-key-scientist

    “Global heating” is a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the world’s climate, according to a key scientist at the UK Met Office.

    “Prof Richard Betts, who leads the climate research arm of Britain’s meteorological monitoring organisation, made the comments amid growing evidence that rising temperatures have passed the comfort zone and are now bringing increased threats to humanity.

    His views were echoed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a professor of theoretical physics and founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He said his recent Hothouse Earth report , which was one of the most widely quoted and downloaded studies of this year, had helped to change the language used to describe the climate crisis.

    “Global warming doesn’t capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate,” he said.”

    • Dennis,

      Great catch!

      Also, good to remind us of the “Hothouse Earth” report. It will figure prominently in future analysis of the early 21st century Replication Crisis.

      • You could have googled(or other search engine of choice) it.

        from Websters:

        comfort zone noun
        Definition of comfort zone
        1 : the temperature range within which one is comfortable
        2 : the level at which one functions with ease and familiarity

        The problem with “comfort zone” is, as should be apparent from the definition, it’s rather subjective. what temperature range you (either as an individual or your species as a whole) are comfortable may be different from the range others (either as individuals or as species as a whole) are comfortable even if there is significant overlap in the middles of those ranges.

      • Derg- ” comfort zone” They are referring to the climate when it was benign during the time of Neanderthals as indicated by the fossilized lawn chairs and remains of cocktail umbrellas in middens.

  10. If we are still moving away from the last LIA then it surely is logical the the Arctic ice cap should recede. If the long term Arctic ice trend stays static or increases, then we are not warming as we SHOULD be (when exiting the LIA) but we may be reentering a cold period.

    Again, It is quite natural for the Arctic ice cap to recede or even disappear .

    Or does all this climate nonsense rely on this planet being in utter stasis of being only just out of the LIA?
    Warming is good, it make nature flourish, warmth and increase CO2 is really great as history shows. When CO2 is about the 500ppm level and its a couple of degrees warmer, life really is great!

    The current rate of CO2 rising levels is no danger, no disadvantage — it’s an enabler of a better more productive era for living entities on this planet. To misunderstand that is to misunderstand the very basics of how life on this planet operates!

    • Again, It is quite natural for the Arctic ice cap to recede or even disappear.

      Yup. And if it did, it would be a benefit.

    • Yes, for most of the earth’s existence it did not have polar ice caps. They are unusual, so we must expect that at sometime in the future they will disappear. Various hypotheses have been proposed for the appearance and disappearance of the ice caps including CO2, but this is usually dismissed as being too weak optically to account for the massive changes. We just don’t know what all the factors determining long-termed climate are, let alone short-termed weather.
      What if the Arctic ice cap melts? Since it is floating it won’t affect the sea level. Polar bears will go onshore as they do anyway. Sea levels are affected only by the melting of the Greenland ice cap (minor) and the Antarctic ice cap (major).
      Finally, science is about careful, adequate and unbiased measurement. Models are best used to test hypotheses based on measurements and created using induction/deduction. Relying on correlations is very, very dangerous. So, climate science isn’t science. In fact, one old and wise scientist once said to me: “subjects with Science in their name aren’t.” (Science, that is – political science, social science, indigenous science, climate science……)

      • No, No, No! You don’t understand. I want the earth to return to those ideal conditions of centuries ago when half the Mayflower pilgrims perished in their first new world winter and the growing glaciers encroached on European alpine villages. If I don’t get my way, I’m going to be very anxious and quite cross with you all. I’m not used to being denied my rights, you know. And what’s all this about nobody knowing just exactly how the future is going to turn out to be? Where’s my blankie?

  11. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there {across the arctic ocean}.” — “Arctic Meltdown“, a NASA press release on 27 February 2001.

    Link not working

  12. The reconstruction reveals a significant negative trend (‐1.9 ± 2.2 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1)

    What?

    • Does anybody get why it’s supposed to be significant? It could be zero or positive within error bounds?

  13. “I began to assemble a list of predictions made by climate scientists during the past 30 years. A little research showed that this would be a long list, including a lot of failed predictions. I abandoned it as pointless.”
    I disagree – such a list is useful for debunking the latest scare:

    scary prediction: Arctic predicted to be ice free next year!
    Response: Do you realize they have been making that prediction for the last 30 years and it has never come true?

    • I began to assemble a list of predictions made by climate scientists during the past 30 years. A little research showed that this would be a long list, including a lot of failed predictions. I abandoned it as pointless.

      I wholeheartedly disagree. It’s very important to be able to point to past failures – if people don’t remember the past, they’re doomed to repeat it. So next time someone claims “ice free artic in x years” you can point to all the previous times that prediction has been made and history has revealed it to be wrong each and every time and then ask them why they think “this time is different”.

      • We should rub their noses in their failed predictions. The wider public will take notice and begin to understand.

      • Please publish that list. It will be worthwhile, perhaps it may open some of the non-committed ‘s minds.

        We can use it to either educate or provoke the Greens.

      • I am in complete agreement with John Endicott’s comment that assembling lists of predictions is NOT pointless and actually a very valuable exercise.

        With AGW, the scientific method has broken down, so that the hypothesis has become confused with the proof and experimental data. Climate models are simply a sophisticated form of expressing a hypothesis (and because they are highly complicated with scores of assumptions and trying to forecast a chaotic system, they don’t have much skill); they are not a proof. And they change the goalposts constantly.

        Illustrations of the falsification of the specific predictions (hypotheses) flowing from the models provides the best evidence for the lay person and policy makers of the weaknesses of the hypothesis–or strengths, I guess, if they turn out to be correct.

        Actually, would love a Prediction Vault page on WUWT that collected brief summaries of specific predictions (as Larry did) and provided tags for prediction dates and subjects (ice extent, sea level, snowfall, hurricanes, drought, etc) so that past predictions and outcomes could be referenced by subject and author on a timeline as they came due and will come due.

    • Jim,
      Jim,

      “Do you realize they have been making that prediction for the last 30 years and it has never come true?”

      Perhaps they don’t care, since each time scientists like Wadham make such bold claims – they get good mention in the press. Win!

      Perhaps they’re practicing what they learned as children.

      “‘Tis a lesson you should heed:
      Try, try, try again.
      If at first you don’t succeed,
      Try, try, try again.”

      • They don’t care because they’re never publicly called out on their previous failures when they make their “new” predictions. Compile the list as a resource to be used in calling them out.

      • A minor point – Wadhams prediction was in 2001 and it is now 2019. Only a climate science model could make that 30 years.

        • Eh? No one claimed Wadhams prediction was 30 years old. What was stated was: “I began to assemble a list of predictions made by climate scientists during the past 30 years.” 2001 was during the past 30 years (which spans from 1989-2019)

        • Though, it should be pointed out, that ice-free arctic predictions actually go back further than 30 years:

          The Argus (Melbourne) July, 17, 1954: “The ice-packed Arctic Ocean may become navigable in another 25 to 50 years if the present warming-up tendency of the polar region continued.”

          New Scientist, December 1, 1960 : “The Arctic Ocean will be open year-round before the end of the twentieth Century.”

          Tuscaloosa News, May 18, 1972: “Arctic Ocean to be ice free by 2000?”

          • John,

            Those are great stories. Links or quotes would be needed to make them claims by scientists, rather than the more common bold ignorant talk by journalists or activists.

            Note that the first is unlike the next two. It says “if the present warming …continued.” That makes it a conditional – describing a scenario (in climate-talk, a “projection”). It’s not false unless that trend continued and then the arctic was not navigable.

            The second is a simple prediction, and been proven false.

            The third is a typical click-bait headline: sensational, but defensible because expressed as a question. Betteridge’s Law says that correct answer to questions in headlines is almost always “no.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

          • Those are great stories. Links or quotes would be needed to make them claims by scientists,

            Such “news: stories inevitably refer back to “scientists says” occasionally naming one of the “scientists”.

            The Argus (Melbourne) July, 17, 1954 story claims it was said in the US congress where a group of scientists were pushing for funds. No specific scientist was named.

            New Scientist, December 1, 1960 attributes the claim to Robert Cushman Murphy an American ornithologist who went on numerous oceanic expeditions

            Tuscaloosa News, May 18, 1972 attributes the claim to Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen who says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000

        • Retired Engineer,

          The reference in the summary to the “30 years” climate campaign starts the clock, somewhat arbitrarily, with James Hansen’s Senate testimony in 1988. This post is one in a series looking at its claims.

          This post refers to one particular set of claims.

  14. I am dissolutioned with climate change. I have been hanging out for years now to take a cruise from Boston to Vancouver over the top but there is no sign of the big cruise lines doing that in my lifetime.

  15. While not a prediction, this article shows some were noticing warming conditions in the Arctic in 1922. A ship captain had never seen such evidence of warming since he first sailed the Arctic in 1868. There is a legitimate debate about how much sea ice there was then versus now, but warming in the Arctic is not unprecedented.
    But don’t tell that to the 18 year olds who get all their propaganda from the MSM. Is there any question why so many are freaking out about the end of civilization?

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-15221422_shadow.jpg

  16. ““Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there {across the arctic ocean}.” — “Arctic Meltdown“, a NASA press release on 27 February 2001.”

    That was one prediction I was hoping would come true. Imagine the economic surge opening up such trade routes would cause.

  17. There is a fundamental dishonesty in climate scientists not addressing the issue of failed predictions.

    All it takes to disprove any theory is ONE failed prediction. Climate science has hundreds of failed predictions. These failed predictions are strong evidence there are fundamental flaws in climate science and until this can be remedied climate science cannot be trusted for public policy.

  18. Someone please explain to me why the idea of an ice-free Arctic is such a threat? Since it’s an ice cap, not attached to land anyway, and it’s fresh water, if it DOES melt, it will very likely offset the Gulf Stream in a considerable way and possibly block the overturn current. I thought this was established a long, long time ago.

    So if that happens, the warm water from southern regions won’t be able to keep the UK’s west coast warm (that would be Cornwall and Wales, mostly) and the weather overall will change considerably. Probably much more nasty, with stronger storms, but fewer hurricanes. Since cold water and cold air both can be found in a glass of iced tea, does that not seem obvious?

    Have any of those Doomsday Event promoters thought about that for even a second??

    Naw, I didn’t think so. Just askin’.

  19. In light of what Stepen says upthread ….

    Larry:
    What renegade idiot scientists blab and the sensationalist media grab a hold of because, well, sensation sells (and yes politicised groups too) – does not the science make.
    Just like his Lordship does not speak for (all) Naysayers.
    Prof Wadhams did not speak for the science with his daft utterance …. that is contained in the IPCC ARs.

    This graphic shows what the IPCC say about Arctic Sea-ice decline ….

    https://i1.wp.com/i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/SeaIceProjections2_zpssnsxjkwv.png

    So it is on the projected track after being way below for a few years because of exceptional weather in the 2007 and 1012 melt seasons.

    Rather than pile in on Mosher (and no me as well no doubt) – how about denizens quote something the IPCC has said to support the slaying of a Strawman presented here.
    Otherwise you wail at the world because is the way human psychology works.
    And nothing can be done about it.

    • Anthony,

      these days people have become very selective in using anything from the IPCC reports, then now ignore the numerous per decade projections, because it is a well known failure on their part, but still drool over their absurd RCP8.5 nonsense, since it is something to support their FUTURE propaganda narrative.

      Mosher tried hard to deflect readers from noticing that it was a select number of scientists, some who actually work in the Polar region science making these over the top, No Summer ice prediction that were way off base.

      Steve Mosher posted a CUT AND PASTE, a massive amount of far into the future speculative drivel, one that has no proven verification value.

      Steve the same man who wrote this just before his long pile of IPPC stuff:

      “stop getting your science from the MSM”

      He calls long into the future unverified speculation as science research…………….

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      How come you didn’t see what he was doing?

      • Because “There as none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.

    • Anthony,

      “What renegade idiot scientists blab and the sensationalist media grab a hold of because, well, sensation sells (and yes politicised groups too) – does not the science make.”

      Like Mosher, you appear to either have not read or not understood the post. That’s sad. But I’ll replay the conclusion for you.

      “The endless stream of bold but false predictions about climate change does not disprove anything about the science. But it has affected the public. It contributes to the majority of the public ranking climate low as a public policy priority, and their disinterest in paying for it. “

      People read the news, not the long reports by institutions like the IPCC. So scientists in other fields routinely speak out to correct their peers’ misstatement of what’s known for political or personal gain. That is how institutions maintain their integrity.

      Journalists in the major media follow their lead, and include critical rebuttals in their stories about sensational claims about science. That’s why news in other fields of science is not dominated by people like Wadham. That’s why they retain public confidence.

      • I would love to agree that folks retain confidence because other fields behave responsibly. Sadly it is not the case.

        The reason why other fields did not cry out and disparage climatologists for their falsehoods and manipulation is because of raw FEAR that it may attract the spotlight onto their own field of study.

        Over 50% of paper published have been found to be wrong. That is not climatology but over all (in)disciplines. I would bet it is far higher in climatology alone.

        That is why folks don’t believe anyone any more. If no one is reassured by reassurances about vaccines is that we have been lied to too often. Flat-earthers do not even believe Neil deGrasse Tyson. It no longer matters, once confidence is destroyed it VERY hard and VERY long to regain trust.

        Climategate was a watershed for not just for climatology but for science as a whole : because of the conspicuous silence of other scientists.

  20. The second grade statistical analysis of Waldham is very typical of those who don’t comprehend that time series set to statistical trends have no meaning as time does not make climate. Put another way, trends only work with x and y being dependent variables and since time does not make ice, the correlation has no predictable meaning. Namely, trends of independent variables are transient and have no basis of correlation just coincidence for short intervals. Once you realize the mental deficit of Waldham, you don’t bother listening to him, as it is a total waste of time. Just a statistical idiot spewing statistical predictions.

  21. PIOMASS sea ice volume has not been flat for nine years. The september minima has been flat for nine years. Probably the minima for a sinusoidal function. As the trend is nearly horizontal with an exaggerated y-axis scale to make it look relevant, it takes 20 years to break the trend confidence interval. Breaking the trend of nearly horizontal lines is very hard to do.

  22. According to the IPCC, ‘nearly ice free’ in the Arctic means < 1 million km sq. September sea ice extent for 5 consecutive years. Extrapolating the current linear trend in September data 1979-2018, which is -820,000 km per decade, we shouldn't expect to see 'ice free' September conditions before the mid 2060s.

    Is this really at odds with the scientific consensus, taking the IPCC reports as the 'consensus'? The AR5 (2013) WG1 summary for policymakers states that September reductions by the end of the 21st century range from 43% to 94% (based on 2012 extent) , depending on the scenario. Only the very highest scenario (RCP8.5) would see extent meet the the 'ice free' criteria before mid-century. The lowest scenario would still not meet the criteria even by the end of the century!

    So it's fair to say that the scientific consensus has not been making "bold but false predictions" with regard to Arctic sea ice decline. Holding up the views of one individual scientist and claiming they are representative of all scientists is a clear example of the 'straw man' fallacy.

    • DWR54,

      “So it’s fair to say that the scientific consensus has not been making “bold but false predictions” with regard to Arctic sea ice decline.”

      Duh, I didn’t say that they did.

      “Holding up the views of one individual scientist and claiming they are representative of all scientists is a clear example of the ‘straw man’ fallacy.”

      That’s quite a reading FAIL Let’s replay the tape to see what I actually said.

      “The endless stream of bold but false predictions about climate change does not disprove anything about the science. But it has affected the public. It contributes to the majority of the public ranking climate low as a public policy priority, and their disinterest in paying for it.“

      People get their information about science from the news. If climate scientists fail to speak out about their peers who misrepresent the science – as is routinely done in other fields – then the institution of climate scientists will lose credibility. Rightly so. As it has.

      Lots of trolls in this thread.

      • Larry:
        “People get their information about science from the news. If climate scientists fail to speak out about their peers who misrepresent the science ”

        Yes indeed, they absolutely should speak out.
        As it is extremely counter-productive for climate science.
        A “win” for sceptics” …. as after the fact the average person will be cynical of all climate science (not knowing what the consensus is – as apposed to the extreme if not stupid individual may say).
        So heads you win and tails you win my friend.

        However it does happen ….

        Julia Slingo (UKMetO Chief Scientist): In evidence to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic.
        As reported in a national broadsheet newspaper ….

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter

        “Slingo also dismissed fears that the Arctic could be entirely free of sea ice in summer as soon as 2015. Between 2025 and 2030 would be the earliest date she would consider it possible, she said, and the Met Office’s latest models suggested 2040-60 as most likely. “Our expectation is certainly not in the next few years as you’ve heard from some evidence,” she said.
        She also said that suggestions the volume of sea ice had already declined by 75% already were not credible. “We know there is something [happening on the thinning of sea ice] but it’s not as dramatic as those numbers suggest.””

        Full transcript …

        https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc1739-iv/uc173901.htm

        “as is routinely done in other fields”

        Have you ever considered that Climate science is unique in being bombarded by a narrative from the sceptical side (in very high profile mainstream news outlets – especially in the US) … such that it has plenty enough to do to counter that.

        I would suggest that in “other fields” that is generally not the case.
        An exception may be in the immunisation field, where misinformation has serious consequences at an individual level in terms of endangering vulnerable kids/babies against viral disease (MMR).

        “I began to assemble a list of predictions made by climate scientists during the past 30 years. A little research showed that this would be a long list, including a lot of failed predictions. I abandoned it as pointless..”

        No, go on – please do Larry.
        Name those that should have happened by May 2019 – as told by the IPCC ARs THAT IS.
        Not that idiot individuals and sensationalist and biased media have reported.
        As that is all that climate science can have control over
        They are not arbiters of human psychology/failings.
        Just like the Naysayers have his Lordship, amongst others making climate scepticism a laughing-stock.

      • Larry Kummer

        If what you’re saying is that sometimes news media misrepresent the consensus view on Arctic sea ice extent decline in particular and on climate science in general, then fair enough. I agree. Perhaps your article is just a slightly odd way (to my mind) of stating this rather banal observation.

    • Holding up the views of one individual scientist and claiming they are representative of all scientists is a clear example of the ‘straw man’ fallacy.

      Except, it’s not one individual scientist. While Larry’s article focused on one, it did mention others. In addition to the very outspoken Wadhams, Larry mentioned Wieslaw Maslowsk (who was Al Gore’s go to guy for his claims about the imminent ice-free artic). And Jennifer Francis as the latest to make an ice-free prediction (at least her prediction leaves plenty of time for it to be forgotten about by the time its ready to be evaluated).

      Not mentioned by Larry was NSIDC’s Mark Sereeze (he of the arctic death spiral) who announced on CNN a 50-50 change of there being an ice-free artic by the end of the summer of 2008. How’d that go Mark?

      Then there’s James Hansen’s prediction of 5 to 10 years till an ice free artic, also made in 2008.

      Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Research Council, Jay Zwally of NASA and many others have been cited over the years making similar failed predictions as well as the various generic citations of “scientists from _____” where _____ is the name of some organization such as NASA.

      So no, it’s not just one individual. But then you knew all along it wasn’t one individual but chose to lie and claim it was anyway. Shame on you.

      • John,

        “NSIDC’s Mark Sereeze (he of the arctic death spiral) who announced on CNN a 50-50 change of there being an ice-free artic by the end of the summer of 2008.”

        I have not found that quote. You might mean this one:

        “This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.’”

        — From AP: “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” by Seth Borenstein, 12 December 2007

        The article appears to have gone down the memory hole. But the Wayback Machine never forgets:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20071213223111/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

        This is a rigorous prediction, not one of Wadham’s clickbait claims. It states the result if a trend continues.

          • John,

            That’s not a prediction by Serreze. See the full quote.

            “‘We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is “does the North Pole melt out this summer?” and it may well,’ said the center’s senior research scientist, Mark Serreze. It’s a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said.”

            The “50-50” number is the “bet” in the office pool (unclear what that means). He doesn’t say who in the office is betting. Scientists, technicians, secretaries?

            All Serreze says is a throw-away comment: “it may well” melt. Which was perfectly correct, as the odds of that happening were well above zero.

          • “It may well” is endorsing the bet (you don’t make bets and advertise the bets unless you think it’s something that can realistically happen – that’s assuming there ever was a bet and it’s not just something he made up to illustrate his ideas that the artic is in trouble). and since it didn’t that means it was a failed prediction. And why even mention the bet at all? – because he’s endorsing the idea that the artic is heading for an imminent meltdown. This is further backed by his comments about how the end time for the ice keeps getting updated to sooner and sooner later on in the article. Remember this is the same Mark Serreze who describes the artic as “screaming” and “in a death spiral”. He’s offering up “scary scenarios” in the words of Dr. Schneider and the scary scenario of the bet he offered up has been proven false.

          • All Serreze says is a throw-away comment: “it may well” melt. Which was perfectly correct, as the odds of that happening were well above zero.

            And a herd of Zebra’s may well tromp across your lawn. That’s perfectly correct, as the odds of that happening are well above zero (if, like the arctic melting that year, your definition of well above is so close to zero as to be practically indistinguishable to any reasonable observer).

            But again, why mention the bet on CNN at all? because he’s publicly endorsing the idea of an imminent ice-free in the artic. The idea that he isn’t is zero point zero.

      • So basically, it sounds like it would be correct to say that “all scientists studying the arctic who have had a microphone shoved in their face have made very bad predictions.”
        There may be others who don’t make those predictions, but no one has asked them.

        • Jonas,

          “So basically, it sounds like it would be correct to say that ‘all scientists studying the arctic who have had a microphone shoved in their face have made very bad predictions.’”

          No, that’s quite false. There are many news stories mentioning scientists discussing the consensus forecast range. But the stories with exciting headlines result from climate scientists making the bold predictions outside the consensus. And those get repeated by activists.

          Wadham is an exemplar for this.

          • For the sin of making an incorrect prediction he is a favourite pin up here but Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. He has also lead 41 Arctic research missions. If you want some insight into the Arctic he is not someone to ignore.

          • In science there is no such thing as “consensus”. Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.

          • Loydo, if he only made an incorrect prediction once, he’d barely be worth mentioning. It’s the fact that he keeps making it (only changing the dates after the previous iterations prove false) over and over and over again that gets him the ridicule such behavior deserves. How many times does someone have to be wrong before they wise up?

          • Loydo –

            Some 198 member states will pay up to 100B / year into a ‘Paris Agreement’ because Peter Wadhams lead 41 Arctic research missions.

            Sure. Serious. The consensus way.

    • What scientific consensus?
      Such a beast never existed, despite the lies of those who’s paycheck depends on preserving that myth.

  23. “Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge, is famous for his predictions – and his amazing record of being wrong.” Possibly we could get him to make some stock market picks, so the rest of us could do the opposite.

    • This is what the cli-sci means when the say: “It’s the physics.”and this is from the physics depsrtment of Sir Isaac Newton’s alma mater don’t you know.

  24. This is so ridiculous. We have had records of polar ice since the early ’70’s. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. Journalists who publish speculation about what the ice will do in years to come are, as my mother used to say, “Talking through their hats.”

    Why doesn’t everyone just stop?

    • I agree. I haven’t read one thing about these predictions that use real, known fundamental quantities or measurements to CALCULATE what will happen. As a result we are only seeing statistical analyses of what some scientist thinks will happen.

      I could do the same thing with Newton’s Laws of Motion only I wouldn’t measure anything that goes into my projections. I would simply say something struck the car and it moved 10 ft. A second thing struck another car and it moved 20 ft. So I project that when the next object strikes a third car it will move 30 ft. Of course I would classify the projection as having a high confidence level.

  25. Serious weather/climate model question: Has anyone ever tried to take a machine learning / big data approach to predicting weather, where you just dump all the weather data you have about the recent past into a completely agnostic (unstructured with no a priory assumptions), oblivious to any physics, and ask it to optimize making weather predictions at various time scales into the future? It would quickly determine that in almost every situation it gets colder at night, and that weather moves generally west to east in the USA, and that it gets warmer in spring and cooler in fall (things we know) but it would also note other patterns and trends that we may not think are related.

    The next step would be to due the same exercise on data sets separated by a decade or so and let it optimize those predictions.

    Finally, one could compare the differences in the calibration of the 5 or 6 machine learning models from various decades to determine if there really is something structured over longer time scales going on

    • Tom,

      There are some machine learning projects being done. IBM was using its Deep Blue machine to predict weather. I have not checked in on them in a year or so.

      I have notes on a few other such projects in my files.

    • We’ve got records going back a couple of hundred years in a lot of cases. The trouble with doing what you suggest “all the weather data you have about the recent past” is that the current models all use data that has had the crap adjusted out of them. Yes, some needed to be adjusted, but a lot have been adjusted without justification. (Some of those Australia are an example of that). The fact not a single model works is a minor issue.

      To go back to raw original data would undermine the need for adjustments and all the models that stem from them and the people behind them. It needs access to public money – so it won’t happen.

      • Indeed the data has been “homogenised” to fit the agenda, so any analysis AI or otherwise, will be baised to fit the intent of those “adjusting” the data.

        The cooling of the 1930/s by Hansen et al and the gross manipulation of the SH record by BOM has rendered any long scale analysis pointless if based on the “official” datasets.

    • That is a good idea. However, would that be actual, objective, repeatable data, or the homogenized variety?

  26. Until the real, so called climate scientists start to publicly contradict all those who are speaking in their names, the real, so called climate scientists own everything these spokesmen have to say.

  27. By looking at historic graph (1953-2018) in the thread it can be seen that the Arctic sea ice extent anomaly can’t be matched to solar activity or the CO2 changes during period. There is no indication of the 60 year periodicity, hence it is not related to the AMO controlling the N. Atlantic currents temperatures, but there is a very, very remote possibility of the 100 year half (solar) cycle.
    However there is a variable that gives a good match, and that is the (inverse) rate of Chinese industrialization as represented by the Chinese GDP (1950-2010, wiki had no later data graph available)
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ASIce.gif

    Huge amount of soot generated by China’s industry is transported with the jet stream and deposited by precipitations in the Arctic area
    http://www.ccacoalition.org/sites/default/files/styles/main_image/public/fields/news_mainimage/box-climate-station-1024×576.jpg
    (Goby desert dust has been identified in the Arctic ice)
    (Apology for the linked graph not being to the usual standard since I’m away from home, graph was assembled on a 6in tablet)

  28. Larry

    “Also s(S)ee the important things to know about global warming. For more information see all posts about the arctic area and polar sea ice, and especially these …”
    One too many ess’s ?

  29. Where’s silly Mosher gone? Perhaps he could look at the two Vinther et al studies of Greenland and the 2016 BAS Turner et al study of the Antarctic peninsula and he might start to wake up?
    Willis recently called Greenland “way cool” over the last 7,500 years and this fits in well with other post Holocene optimum studies.
    But does any sensible person really take any notice of this drive by bandit anymore?

    • But does any sensible person really take any notice of this drive by bandit anymore?

      Beyond pointing and laughing? no.

  30. I disagree. I think we need a list of all the “official” CAGW predictions, not just about the Arctic Ocean’s ice, that have not come true. Such a list needs to be published regularly not just for us keeping score but for the general public.

    Until this past elections I was convinced the public had lost interest. However when 100 Democrats, 42% of that party in the new Congress, claim to support the New Green Deal we have problem. If Democrats retake the Senate and defeat Trump then you can bet they will shut off any further debate or even discussion about CAGW. It is only then we face catastrophe, economic catastrophe.

  31. People need to think more of what they read in the media over time periods. We have been assailed by Sea level rise but we no longer hear about “Isostatic Rebound” which states that the land is also rising from the sea. You can therefore see that the coordinates are all wrong that so called scientists lead us to believe because they are paid to mislead by the power base that wants hysteria maintained. It is good for busines so follow the money to see where it leads you. You have to do your research and its not easy so just believe what you read and worry.

Comments are closed.