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.
Arctic sea Ice Extent
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
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.
Mean arctic sea ice anomaly - 1953-2018
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

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.
5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

151 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 30, 2019 9:38 am

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?

Reply to  Michael Moon
April 30, 2019 10:26 am

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.

Tom Schaefer
April 30, 2019 10:42 am

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

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
April 30, 2019 11:33 am

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.

Teddz
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
April 30, 2019 12:16 pm

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.

Greg
Reply to  Teddz
April 30, 2019 12:45 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Schaefer
April 30, 2019 12:27 pm

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

MarkW
April 30, 2019 12:50 pm

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.

April 30, 2019 1:49 pm

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)

Marcus
April 30, 2019 1:59 pm

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 ?

Neville
April 30, 2019 3:33 pm

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?

John Endicott
Reply to  Neville
May 1, 2019 5:14 am

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

Beyond pointing and laughing? no.

Edwin
May 1, 2019 8:59 am

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.

May 1, 2019 11:02 am

AMO and Arctic warming is normal during a centennial solar minimum.

comment image

May 2, 2019 9:08 am

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.