From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
I wonder how these predictions worked out? (Answers tomorrow!!)
.
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.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. “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.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3318239/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-in-five-years.html
.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arctic-ice-cap-in-death-spiral-xvwm398zpds
.
How could their data not include recent minima, yet still project out to ice free?
I assume they included lots of positive feedbacks in their models, yet were unaware of any of the actual physical negative feedbacks in the real world arctic.
How can you model a process that you clearly do not understand?
Not to be flippant, but frankly the less you understand something (and are not bothered by that fact) the easier it is to model.
Their model predictions appear to be based on prior years performance and projected holocausts. Prior to 2007 the sea ice was gradually decreasing (which basically stopped and stabilized in 2007) but climate science du-jour data ended prior to the stabilization. So all they saw was the gradual decline and projected it forward
They could have projected it forward with a ruler. No computer necessary, as clearly the “climate” part of their climate model was completely wrong in “projecting” what was to happen in the Arctic. Just by saying they missed on the later minima shows how little actually went into computations starting from the scientific basis of the annual freezing and melting of Arctic sea ice. Charlatans, mostly.
Being scientists though they projected forward using a Slide Rule with the goal posts attached to the opposite end.
wrong a straight line would assume an underlying linear data generating model.
gomprtz survival model is better.
linear goes negative
gompertz limits to zero
It’s like someone who has never worked in commerce and knows nothing about manufacturing, marketing, his possible competitors or cost analysis designing a spreadsheet to show how much profit he will make producing and selling his new gadget.
Or someone with no training in, or even knowledge of statistics. Using a fancy statistical package to analyze a data set in order to prove that the well known Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, actually never existed.
if the LIA existed that means its warmer now!
the only people who reject the observation that its warmer now
are sceptics
Just as May in the NH is generally warmer than January, so 2022 is warmer than the LIA. That’s to be expected and completely unalarming. If the climate warms a little more, we could call our time an Optimum!
Just like it is cooler now globally than at the turn of the 20th century and during the 1930s.
The only people who reject those observations are the corrupted and the willfully ignorant.
Sadly, most people fail to understand just how true this is. The better you understand things the more complex the model generally required to describe the physics that you observe and thus harder to model. Any idiot can model something you barely understand… you just can’t easily get the right answer that way.
True engineering is recognizing which contributing variables can be discounted/ignored in the modeling.
And since this is a non-linear system, those complex models will deliver results all over the place.
have a brilliant idea to solve that . . .
run around over 20 different models and then average them !
do I get a prize ?
you dont average them unless that lowers your error of prediction
Then why do they average the ensemble of incorrect climate models? How does that lower the error of prediction?
well. this reminds me of modelling missiles killing aircraft.
the simplest approach for guys who didnt understand missiles was to say
the missile has a pk. probability of kill.
Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills.
!!!
so we just model the missile as a pk draw
now engineers screamed!!!
so we modelled
1 missile engine, sensor, flight controls, guidance,
update from the launch vehicle
reaction to counter measures (chaff)
and the last 50 feet
proximity fuse
overpressure damage
we modelled the scrapnel going through the aircraft
the damage to systems
fuel leaks, fires, explosions, loss of flight control
and the PK was about 10%
all that precision and detail. was wasted.
of course you needed a super computer to run it
and you need live fire data to validate
or
just use a pk of .1 and roll a 10 sided dice
you never built a model
I’m a programmer who could never build one of these appalling models – because I would refuse the mandatory gulp of Kool Aid.
Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about. Why would you assume what you say obviously knowing nothing else about me?
Wait! I understand, your lack of understanding (regarding who I am or what I’ve done) allowed you to build a very simple (and incorrect) model to explain my statement. Touche!
Brilliant move.
For the record, I’ve built plenty of models. It’s actually in my job description. I don’t claim to be a climate scientist – so have never really built a model in this arena (a couple of very simple ones that I have never tried to publish), but I have built plenty of models in my fields of expertise. By profession I’m a physical chemist but my latest professional work has been focused on developing novel approaches to large telescope design.
Your Wikipedia page says your a social scientist. I like your description of your dice roll model, but that’s not a model. That work wasn’t wasted – if it was done right! Because if you have that model, as you get real world data, you can update your model.
Many of their so called positive feedbacks, either don’t exist or are actually negative feedbacks.
For example they claim that open waters absorb more sunlight than does ice. That is true at the equator. It is not true in polar regions.
At best at the low angles found in polar regions, water and ice reflect pretty much the same amount of sun light. However that’s only true when the ice is clean. As time progresses it starts to pick up a layer of Chinese soot. As a result it can actually absorb more sunlight than water does.
Beyond that, ice is an insulator, insulating the water from the much colder air. When the ice goes away, the ability of the polar oceans to lose heat to space increases, dramatically.
that effect is in every model
their “model” appears to be “first take several years of declining values, then take a ruler and a pencil and draw a straight line to the zero line” …
Old endpoint, “A” chosen high; Recent endpoint “B”, chosen low; extrapolate the line, which definitionally has negative slope. It will cross zero.
it will cross 0. this is why the ipcc rejected those predictions
wrong model!
It doesn’t matter what inputs you give it, the answer is always Ice free just around the corner.
2050
yes you can model things you dont understand.
every cpu you use had to use a spice model which approximates things it doesnt understand
Does the cpu request billions/trillions in funding to approximate that which it doesn’t understand?
ice free for the first time in 100,000 years???
Apparently they believe that the last interglacial was warmer than this one.
Just how many SUV’s were being driven 100,000 years ago?
It also seems that these dudes have never heard of the Holocene Optimum.
But it is just crummy Griff ice after all. /sarc
The overall, downward trend in the minimum extent from 1979 to 2022 is 12.6 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. The loss of sea ice is about 78,500 square kilometers (30,300 square miles) per year, equivalent to losing the size of the state of South Carolina or the country of Austria annually. (NSIDC)
What was happening with Arctic ice prior to 1979, Griffie?
DOesn’t matter, since that data does not support the narrative, it officially doesn’t exist.
That would be a gain of North Carolina, or the Czech Republic
How many times Wales is that?
I know you will react badly to mentioning him, but Tony Heller did a chart of pre-satellite, pre 1978 ice extent. 1978 was a post war high.
Too bad Tony doesn’t participate here- I seem to recall he had a falling out with this site- but his work is extremely important!
Nope.
Linear projecting again
Trends in nature NEVER change, right?
Any trend that doesn’t support the claim that CO2 is the climatic control knob, is just weather.
Imagine if these Climastrologists had been milling about the very first autumn when leaves on trees changed colors and fell off. “The trees are dying and it’s all your fault!”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/27/what-happened-to-the-ice-free-arctic/#comment-3607999
I thought the ice was gone,what happened?
It was just hiding during the summer months.
The decline stopped after 2007 which you ignore all the time because you are not interested in the evidence but to push an ideology.
I love how griff has gotten so good at cherry picking.
First, he picks the coldest year in the last 150 years to start his trend line.
Then he completely ignores the fact that for the last 10 to 15 years, the ice hasn’t been declining despite continued increases in CO2, and despite the fact that his boys have been declaring a death spiral for arctic ice.
What do you think caused the high amount of extent in 1979 (15.6 million (high)) and (8 million (low)) when Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was cold for a decade and pacific decadal oscillation was cold decades earlier. On June 18 arctic was 10 million km and absorbed 72 watts per day till Aug 8th (6.2 million km²).
Then by Sept 25th all that heat had escaped leaving the arctic with only 4.84 million km². Losses since arctic stopped absorbing solar energy was 1.36 million (not another 3.8 million km²).
The sun’s energy was much less than what earth was emitting. Sea ice loss slows after August 8th as sun weakens each day.
The fools who think CO2 has energy like the sun and will melt all the sea ice are living in their own imagination.
I have asked you this before but you never responded.
How is it that the open season at the coalport in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) increased from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year in the late 1930s? (Hint – warming of the Arctic)
Yes dear.
Of course dear.
Whatever you say dear.
[ Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear … ]
When are you going to remove your head from your anal orifice? My goodness, you are pathetically ignorant. You’d certainly have failed my science class.
If you look at the incredible, dare I say unprecedented, increase in sea ice extent from 2012 to 2022 it is clear we are heading for an ice age very shortly. In fact, it is worse than we thought.
Poor griff, yet again displaying its ignorance of the FACT that current Arctic sea ice levels are in the top decile of Holocene extents.
Oh-Kay…
And what’s the trend since 2007…the last 15 years?
Hint … ZERO
As a space alien blown of course by an ill fated galactic wind, I was forced to land in a place you Earthlings call “Wisconsin” last January. I noted that the temperature at the time was -10degF and that temps progressively increased regularly over the next eight months to +94degF in August. My computer model tells me that temps will surely be over +200degf by next August….Let this serve as a warning to all!… and smart people should send me money. That will make you feel good about yourself.
And that loss of ice led to an increase in the negative feedback mitigating the further loss of more ice.
The hilarious Arctic Sea Ice Debacle of the Early 21st Century will be held up as anecdotal evidence that humans are much better at interpolation than extrapolation.
It must be the so called Wadhams Ice that is there, but you can’t see it.
1 Wadham = 1M km2 Arctic ice extent (= his lowest prediction)
h/t Iowa Climate Science Education
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
and
Wrong
Someone needs to hold these reporters’ and prognosticators’ respective feet to the fire. And I’m not talking about the imaginary modeled fire of CC/GW/AGW.
Perhaps …
Don’t hold your breath. Paul Ehrlich has been wrong about damn near everything and he’s still a revered “scholar.”
“The original headline [WaPo], posted online after President Trump announced al-Baghdadi’s killing, read: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48.” It was later changed to “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.””
As with Ehrlich, protect the narrative at all cost; cognitive dissonance be damned!
The 2022 minimum is tied for tenth lowest in the nearly 44-year satellite record, with 2018 and 2017. The last 16 years, from 2007 to 2022, are the lowest 16 sea ice extents in the satellite record.
And apart from extent, volume, thickness and age of the ice are all trending lower.
Are you saying that 44 years is the length of your record?
It is if one throws out the earlier inconvenient data.
Any longer than that, and the data doesn’t support his pre-conclusions.
So since 2017 there has been no loss in extent? We can safely assume that it will never be ice free then.
How many years were ice free?
What’s that? I didn’t hear you.
And yet a submarine surfaced at the pole, remember griff? No?
in 1958/59 the USS Skate surfaced near the pole through thin ice less than 2 feet thick.
You can check ships logs quite a long way back, but you won’t because we know pretty well Arctic ice goes up and down like a fiddler’s elbow.
Ask a polar bear.
more linear projections while ignoring cycles and polynomials
I know you won’t take a blind bit of notice, Griff, but prior to the last 16 years, we have the following articles showing concern over ice-free poles.
All of the following can be verified for yourself, but you won’t bother checking:
Read ’em and weep
+11
Sierra Hotel!
I did find all the DMI’s “Nautisk Meteorologisk Aarbog” maps @
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps
“Zaytzev, Y.I. 1972. Construction of Cosmos satellites”
Eleven Soviet Union Meteor-1 weather observation satellites were
launched from 1964-69 & were designed to monitor atmospheric Ts
& SSTs, humidity, radiation, sea ice conditions, snow-cover, &
clouds (information not totally verified). They were part of the
total Kosmos series that also collected data on the earth’s
ionosphere, the Sun, ….
I’ve never seen any reference to this before nor any data they
collected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kosmos_satellites_(1%E2%80%93250)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(satellite)
That one is confirmation the USSR were measuring ice ay the caps
If you’re interested the PDF is here
Thanks.
I saw the confirmation in the Zaytzev paper pdf. The
Wiki Meteor article included that caveat in relation to
the particulars of what they monitored. I’ve never seen
any Arctic ice/glacier maps generated from the data
they collected. It would be interesting to see that as
well as the Nimbus satellite (1964) & the American Navy Joint Ice Center data from the early 70s.
Sorry for the confusion!
There’s still ice there i thought it was gone?
Another dishonest and misleading claim since you keep ignoring the well-established fact that the decline stopped after 2007.
Ever notice how hard griff works to ignore any data that doesn’t support his religious convictions.
Let’s totally ignore the fact that there has been no meaningful change in ice levels for over 10 years.
Let’s totally ignore the fact that griff is choosing the coldest year since the end of the Little Ice Age as his starting point.
Still having problems with learning what “present-tense conjugation” means, I see.
Obviously not in the Arctic. Perhaps you were thinking about somewhere else?
And FAR, FAR higher than it has been for nearly ALL of the last 10,000 years
Sea ice levels are still very high compared to the Holocene average,
Griff, according to the science that was settled decades ago, we should have already experienced an ice-free arctic.
And still the arctic is NOT ice-free.
The experts were wrong just a decade or so out. What evidence is there to trust them 100 years out?
Yet the GND-type policies, using the same “settled science” as an excuse, is destroying economies and access to cheap and reliable energy.
Griff, don’t you find that “unsettling”?
If not, why not?
How many of these expert prognosticators are still considered to be experts?
It’s almost like in order to be considered an “expert” you MUST be wrong. The more often, the more of an expert you are. (See Krugman)
And his pal, Robert Reich.
Can’t forget Paul Krugman, no matter how hard I try.
Just remember, economics was the one profession where an esteemed expert could be consistently wrong and still be esteemed.
Long ago an expert was a person 50 miles from home with a box of slides. Now perhaps it’s a climate “scientist” 50 miles from home with a computer model.
Of course it’s not just the ice, it’s ALL of their dumb doomer predictions.
Nobody is listening to this crap anymore, because we know they are lying.
The only downside with these silly predictions is you have to wait a while for them to pass.
But they’re always wrong. There aren’t many professions where you can have a 100% failure rate and get an award for it.
Who do they thing they are, economists?
Even better: They tack econometric modes onto the tail-end of UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models.
In politics, you can even be installed as the fake “president.”
Or Georgia governor.
“There aren’t many professions where you can have a 100% failure rate and get an award for it.”
LOVE IT!
I believe teaching has become one of those professions.
I would have said prostitution but probably not too far out from your guess these days!
Prostitution is one of the few remaining honest professions.
Incompetence thrives where results don’t matter.
Once a bit more sea ice melts, the Arctic Ocean will more easily vent energy transported from the tropics via the Gulf Stream into space. This helps balance outgoing energy with incoming energy. The feedback system must be negative, not positive for this particular variable.
[/MrT=ON] Stuff that up your models, CAGW fools.[/MrT=OFF]
I have a question – rather than a comment. Is there any evidence that the Arctic was ever ice free in the present interglacial??
I’ve heard that it was either ice free or nearly so during the Holocene Optimum.
Some evidence here: Polyak, L., and 17 others, 2010. History of sea ice in the Arctic, Quaternary Science Rev., 29, 1757-1778, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010
There is also evidence from raised beaches in the Arctic that the Arctic Ocean was seasonally ice-free during the Holocene..
Since most WUWT readers already know the answers, it would have been helpful to the few folks who ‘don’t know’ who wonder unto WUWT to quickly see the answer. A July 2022 Satellite shot of Arctic ice would have been enough or 10 Satellite shots since 2013 would have been better. I have been emailing Sat pictures of July Arctic ice to anyone who needed to be clued in since 2013. The general public are largely under the assumption there is no Summer ice in the Arctic and don’t believe their eyes even if it is coming from NOAA. A media blitz by scientists predicting doom has staying power from a propaganda standpoint. The general public assume the outcome of the prediction prior to the predicted outcome and will operate on that assumption forever. This is because the general media will not follow-up if the prediction result is negative. This is the reason WUWT is a very active blog at a time when blogs are dying fast. The ardent war footing political emphasis that WUWT, (which I am in line with) has taken in the past two years maybe a death knell. It wears thin. I urge WUWT to return what it was from the beginning a ‘Science Blog’. Truth in science and science itself is intrinsically interesting even to the educated layperson from varying political perspectives. Even though political agendas has leveraged science to a large degree and completely leveraged climate science and meteorology, science must be free of a political agenda. If you going to dive into the deep of the politics of global energy policy you have to go deeper than climate science and climate change politics which would take the blog far away from science. Who can unravel the current reset that is underway?
If I withdraw $200 from an ATM and then five minutes later do it again and then five minutes later again? In a rather short time, I will be bankrupt.
The models predict this.
That’s not bankruptcy.
That would be unwise, especially in Philadelphia.
all depends how often & how much your parents are depositing into your account.
If you actually have a job and make deposits that match or exceed withdraws, you won’t run out of money.
This is proven out by reality.
A job, or access to a suitably generous government program.
Absolute tosh and complete rubbish of the worst sort. The models, which are artificially weighted to produce the desired outcome, predict nothing – they project that the more you take out, the more you get; it’s only by taking less (or even zero) out that you get less in return.
If I withdraw $200 from an ATM and then five minutes later do it again and then five minutes later again? In a rather short time, I will be bankrupt.
So the models were originally written to simulate bank transactions and were repurposed to simulate the climate?
Sounds about right.
LL stick to Simon Says games. That is the simplistic level more suited to your thinking.
Because Temperature is not = Climate
Also why the Globe Is Greening.
It is greening because farmers at high latitudes, as most are because the soils at low latitudes are all wasted, going green because the farmers plant their crops of sugar in the fall/autumn.
Thus, Sputnik sees green on the ground for 10 months of the year instead of not-much-more than 2 months
The farmers do that because the growing seasons at the higher latitudes are closing in,
i.e. getting shorter.
By time farmers see good planting weather for typically and historically grown ‘spring crops’, the shorter season means those plants/crops are still in the field when winter arrives.
Hence autumnal plantings are now required.
That’s not very difficult to understand but what is, is that a Warming Atmosphere means a Cooling Earth
hence The Real Problem being that folks who left Kindergarten with a Grade Fminus subsequently become Climate Scientists.
Where do you get your incorrect info from, Peta ?
He makes it up as he goes.
Soil at low latitudes have been destroyed?
I guess that explains all the record crops they have been having.
The word could is a clue!
If you sell a product and the information about the product is misleading or false Advertising Standards will severly punish your company. A repeated offence will get your company shut down. Why do we not apply a similar standard to false or misleading news?
By the time this winter is over, the EU will be wishing for Global Warming
According to highly respected model based previsions from acclamed climate prophets, arctic summer sheat ice is a thing of the past.
If by chance go there and see some sheat ice or look at the DMI maps (https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php), do not trust your eyes : they are lying to you. Trust the BBC, CNN, …, or Al Gore approved climate models instead.
Experts are amazing!
50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50
Global climate is ALWAYS changing, with the Arctic having more than likely
been “ice-free” during the Eemian & the Holocene Optimum, both of which
polar bears survived. So it’s obvious the polar sea ice/glacier Armageddon
scare story’s just more useless drivel for radical greenie wienies to
scare people into giving up their freedom for the sake of safety so
they end up with dictatorial power. Any change in ice levels- either high
or low- would be used by them to create needless fear & panic.
Currently, the lie is that the 1979 NSIDC satellite base line for Arctic
polar ice is the gold standard as there was no satellite data before that.
That isn’t even close to the truth as Paul Homewood previously revealed
in this article from April 16, 2015:
https://archive.ph/95QCM#selection-93.0-97.14
Satellite Monitoring Of Arctic Sea Ice Pre 1979
In both this article & its comments, as well as his article from the day
before- “Why Measuring Arctic Ice Trends From 1979 Is Gross Deception”-
provide many references to other satellite data from the 1960s.
1) The 1964 Nimbus satellite:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/1960s-satellite-imagery-of-polar-ice-discovers-enormous-holes-in-the-sea-ice/
Also, information from IPCC FAR WG 1 chap 7 referenced these two facts-
1) A graph showing satellite data from 1972.
2) The American Navy Joint Ice Center putting out weekly satellite
data since the early 70s.
Along with that, there are papers referenced before the satellite
era that may have good data points/information/commentary:
WUWT-
Historic Variation in Arctic Ice- 6/20/09
Historic Variations in Arctic Sea Ice– Part Two- 8/22/14
Watching the 2007 historic low sea ice flow out of the Arctic Sea- 4/13/09
Science debunks the “Arctic sea ice extent at its lowest for at least
1500 years” meme- 2/22/18
Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959– not so thick- 4/26/09
Since sea ice/glacier levels have always been changing at different rates
in different places at different times, we really don’t know what average is.
Back in those days NASA was tasked with Muslim outreach.
The predictions are fine once you realise you are using the wrong calendar.
“Then, we compute– well, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say, compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” -Richard Feynman
Anthropological Climate Change theories are wrong- That’s all there is to it.
It continues to be covered with ice. Stupid c*nts who spew lies are simply going to continue to spew lies, and stupid c*nts who refuse to learn actual facts will continue to believe them.
What is the correct amount of ice for the Earth?
…glaciers staying out of my backyard!
The first response to, “Arctic Ice Could be Gone in Five Years” etal
Should be, “So What?”
The first response should be “There’s a 100% possibility the ice won’t be gone”.
There are a hundred such articles he could have chosen from. How in the world can so-called experts be so wrong?? It’s got NOTHING to do with their wrong-footed models and everything to do with lazy a$$ researching with so much free money being thrown around. It’s now the msm’s turn to realize this amazing cash cow!
They are saying “may be”, “could be”, so they are covered.
So many alleged scientists; such rejection of history, including most of the Holocene…
Instead of humbly avoiding limelight, the above alleged scientists adore being in the public eye.
When am I going to get the northwest passage I was promised???
Some people never learn. You don’t make predictions, especially not about about the future.
Historical data is fixed which means that an infinite number of models can be created which will perfectly replicate the data. For example, Fourier transforms and Taylor series are a couple of examples. For every correct model there are and infinite number of incorrect models and no effective way to prove a model is correct by using historic data.
The only way a model can be correct is by identifying a very well proven mechanism such as the laws of thermodynamics and using these to construct the model. This is why 3-D modeling used in mechanical engineering works. It’s based on well established and relatively simple physical laws.
There is no identified and well proven mechanism for the melting and freezing of polar ice. The Antarctic ice cover has been hitting new highs while the Arctic was hitting new lows even though both should be equally affected by the Earth’s orbit.
Also, basing any model on something like 20 years of data for a phenomenon that spans millions if not billions of years is really the height of stupidity.
Perhaps these scientists should check with the US Navy, who had submarines surface in water at the North Pole in both 1962 and 1987, for which they have photographic evidence.
Perhaps Griff, Simon, bdgwx and the other Climate Change True Believers would like to comment on this photo.
It is absolutely amazing that there are so many proclaimed leading scientists in their field, that were and continue to be so wrong. Time to be truthful. It has been too long.
predictions for ICE free are found in the ipcc reports
not newspapers.
2050 or so
The little ice age happened.