The narrative surrounding Arctic sea ice has been one of consistent warning, punctuated by a series of prediction failures that have spanned decades. Scientists have long been forecasting the demise of Arctic summer ice, but their deadlines have continually passed, leaving us with a track record of failed predictions. The latest claim is no different, suggesting that it’s too late now to save Arctic summer ice. But as we’ve seen, the timeline for these forecasts can shift considerably and unpredictably.
In the recent study led by Prof Seung-Ki Min of Pohang University, South Korea, and Prof Dirk Notz, of the University of Hamburg, Germany, they assert that the Arctic will be ice-free in September in the coming decades. However, it’s worth noting that projections of this nature have been made before and subsequently revised. The once-dreaded ‘first ice-free summer’ was initially predicted to be in 2012, but then fluctuated back and forth for years. This kind of time-hopping has led to considerable skepticism and has undermined the credibility of such predictions.
Abstract
The sixth assessment report of the IPCC assessed that the Arctic is projected to be on average practically ice-free in September near mid-century under intermediate and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, though not under low emissions scenarios, based on simulations from the latest generation Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models. Here we show, using an attribution analysis approach, that a dominant influence of greenhouse gas increases on Arctic sea ice area is detectable in three observational datasets in all months of the year, but is on average underestimated by CMIP6 models. By scaling models’ sea ice response to greenhouse gases to best match the observed trend in an approach validated in an imperfect model test, we project an ice-free Arctic in September under all scenarios considered. These results emphasize the profound impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic, and demonstrate the importance of planning for and adapting to a seasonally ice-free Arctic in the near future.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8
The key takeaway here is that these are projections, models based on certain conditions and parameters. The crux of the matter is the unpredictability of natural phenomena and the myriad factors influencing them.
The new study claims that 90% of the melting is a result of human-caused global heating, but the remaining 10% are natural factors such as variation in the sun’s intensity and emissions from volcanoes. The researchers can’t pinpoint a specific year for the first ice-free summer due to this natural variability in the climate system.
Even Prof Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who was not part of the study, acknowledges the difficulty in making accurate predictions. He admits his past prediction about an ice-free Arctic by 2030 may have been overly aggressive. This sort of retraction only amplifies the reality of the situation: Arctic sea ice predictions have been notoriously inaccurate over time.



The inherent complexity of the Earth’s climate system, combined with the inability to account for every single variable that influences the melting of Arctic ice, puts these predictions on shaky ground. As has been proven repeatedly over the years, alarmist deadlines for an ice-free Arctic have come and gone, leaving us to ponder the credibility of these predictions. In the realm of science, it’s crucial to distinguish between what we know and what we assume.
Decades of failed predictions about the end of Arctic sea ice should prompt us to view these new findings with a critical eye. As we continue to study and learn about the Earth’s complex climate system, it’s essential to strike a balance between caution, skepticism, and the willingness to reassess our models and predictions.
HT/Hans Erren and strativarius
“it’s too late now to save Arctic summer ice.”
Okay. What else?
“Here we show, using an attribution analysis approach, that a dominant influence of greenhouse gas increases on Arctic sea ice area is detectable in three observational datasets in all months of the year, but is on average underestimated by CMIP6 models.”
Huh?
“… influence of greenhouse gas increases … underestimated by CMIP6 models.”
Did someone finish their 1st draft, then the professor asked how it would look without RCP8.5?
Finally! They found the holey grail! Irrefutable proof. We sceptics can all go home now it seems…..
“Attribution analysis:” Run one model, remove CO2 from it, run it again and see that ice won’t decrease without CO2. Simples.
“an approach validated in an imperfect model test”. Way to go, use an imperfect model and expect perfection.
And if the Arctic is ice free in late summer, so what?
No ice for Eskimo’s G&T. How cruel of you.
Heck, maybe the Eskimos will have to buy air conditioners. 🙂
So it looks like a pretty average salesman will soon be able to sell fridges to Eskimos. And as an added bonus if the Eskimos, sorry Inuits, all leave the fridge door slightly ajar then that could keep the sea ice all year round, simples 🙂
The end of the world as we know it.
The only way to prevent that is to bring about the end of the world as we know it … ie we must all freeze in the dark and never leave home, become vegans, and live short brutal lives.
And the climate enthusiasts will praise themselves for saving the world as the arctic sea ice does whatever the heck it wants in spite of the hair shirts.
The real problem for Artic animals is when there is TOO MUCH SEA ICE, eg LIA and around 1979
Too much sea ice drives all the sea life away, makes hunting very difficult for PBs etc
Since the slight return to more normal Holocene levels (still in top 5-10% though), a lot of sea life has returned to the Arctic waters.
That’s what I’ve been saying for years. Why should I care about Arctic Sea Ice? It’s happened before, life flourished.
Let’s just move on from this nonsense.
Exactly. And no sea ice doesn’t even rise the sea level. Maybe it even lowers the sea level because of more evaporation and precipitation.
It has been proven that trees could grow much closer to the poles (and much higher up the mountain) during long periods the last 15k years.
At the present time, the warmists should be shouting about the Canadian wildfires….obviously caused by man made global warming…in fact a demrat governor of New Jersey is doing just that….anything goes…lie cheat and steal is justified to achieve the end….just win baby! All Power to the Warmists!
They are, predictably so.
Pity this new study came out AFTER the Russians built new icebreakers. But maybe the Russians know something about this prediction being wrong like all before it. Russian climate model INM CM5 is the only CMIP6 model that does NOT produce a spurious tropical troposphere hotspot. And it’s ECS is 1.8C, which suggests plenty of summer Arctic ice to break along the Russian Northern Route.
The Russians have been studying the Arctic as an exploitable resource since the 90’s, moving forces into bases around the Arctic and actively patrolling the Northern fleet through that whole area. At the same time they were building nuclear icebreakers and planting a flag under the ice at the north pole. I don’t think they fully bought into the idea that Arctic ice was going to melt away completely, but they were going to be prepared just in case it did.
Man, those Polo Bears are gonna be pissed…….
Poliés don’t need late summer sea ice to survive or thrive. They do need early spring land fast ice to hunt ringed seal pups.
And if they can’t do that, they’ll find another food source. That’s how it works.
Climate change researchers?
It was only a few years ago that there was a lot of loose talk about the celebrated “northwest passage” in northwest Canada becoming so devoid of ice that it would become a major commercial sea route. And that various nations would go to war over access to it.
“Northwest Passage”? Impossible. No precedent. Unthinkable. Where is my study grant money.
The Northwest Passage was transited by the St Roch – a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner, the first ship to completely circumnavigate North America, and the second vessel to transit the Northwest Passage in the 1940’s.
So, were they sitting on horses on deck?
Recently saw an ad in the paper for a cruise along the Northwest passage sometime next year. Rather costly but cruise ships have made the voyage before.
The ‘Linbad Explorer’ completed the 4790 mile (7712km) passage from St John’s, Newfoundland to Point Barrow, Alaska in 23 days in 1983 charging voyagers between $16,900 and $23,000 for example
Arctic sea ice quit declining in 2012. The trend since then has been up for ten summers and flat since 2007.
The lowest years all suffered Arctic cyclones in August, September or, as in 2016, both. That piles up and scatters the floes.
It’s presently above the average for the past decade (2011-20):
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
An August cyclone could drop it below the average by end of melt season, but unlikely to exceed record low of 2012.
Somebody should tell the biased British Antarctic Survey who’ve just recently released a somewhat biased and woke new map of the Arctic and Antarctic.
Thanks for the link. The psychology of adding the 2012 minimum as a default line could be imagined both ways.
It’s right on the 2012 level right now so I wouldn’t be too confident about that.
yesterday 11,594,000 extent, 2012 11,558,000 extent.
2012 started from a high maximum. There has been less melting this year. Please look at the other years since then. Some were lower on this date but all still beat 2012 in September.
For interest, UAH monthly temperatures for the lower trop air over Australia coincidentally show a least squares trend of slight cooling for 11 years and 1 month to the present. I am not suggesting a causal link between them.

When there is negligible trend in a set of numbers like these, the next trend can be cooler or warmer or unchanged according to the Fickle Finger of Fate, but So What? Geoff S
Sorry, finger trouble at home.


As with the Monckton ‘pause’, just because there is no trend between two points in a temperature data series it doesn’t mean there has been no further warming.
The linear trend in UAH AUST from its start in Dec 1978 up to Mar 2012 (the month before the onset of this latest ‘pause’) is +0.16C per decade, which equates to a total warming of +0.52C up to that point.
As of May 2023, the warming rate in UAH AUST since Dec 1978 has risen slightly to +0.17C per decade, equating to a total warming since Dec 1978 of +0.74C. So, during this latest period of ‘no trend’ there has been a further +0.22C of warming in Australia, according to UAH.
This is because temperatures since April 2012 have generally remained at a high level, relative to the entire series. Linear regression picks that up.
TFN,
Do you really think that I do not know that?
Why did you bother to go to print about it?
Geoff S
The other key takeaway is that volume-based publication effort in climate science pays dividends without regard to predicted outcomes or useful policy guides. Follow the promotion and annual evaluation money.
I’m 100% confident Artctic will be ice free in the coming 2 to 3 billion years.
From the linked article…
“The sea ice usually then begins to freeze again over the winter. But Dr Serreze said that would be difficult this year.”
Wow. Just wow. Difficult for sea ice to form in one of the coldest places on the planet during a time when there is no sunlight for months?
Is he really a scientist?
Four months of darkness with no sun and some person with a science degree ,(which does not qualify any one to call them self a scientist ) states that it will be difficult for sea ice to form in the Arctic winter this year .
For some one to make this sort of prediction it will be very easy to show in 12 months time that he is completely wrong.
Which should alert us to question their study which looks very shonky to me.
Dr. Serreze, a.k.a. Arctic’s sea ice death spiral’s father.
They’ve forgotten, the main reason the AGW is predicted to massively effect the poles is because the poles are difficult for people to go see for themselves. No larger deserts at the equator, no forests missing in inhabited regions, but those poles, they’re doomed! +2 degrees at the piles might raise summer temps to -40C!!!!
When activists enforce their agenda over the science, they are not scientists.
“The new study claims that 90% of the melting is a result of human-caused global heating, but the remaining 10% are natural factors ”
This seams oddly contrived and unreasonably precise. Did the paper say where this came from? Did the peer reviewers question it?
Models. What did you think?
To sum it up.
Same Old S&$t different day!
One has to wonder though, who actually believes this crap anymore?
“A critical eye”
The sheer number of failed predictions is beginning to induce cynicism
Measured in Wadhams…
Some gems:
As with the article some days ago on WUWT: if you agree with the concept that precipitation is lessened by giant windfarms, then it does the same with snow. If children won’t know what snow is then it could be because of wind farms not any kind of climate change.
So, does anyone aspire to make such a colossal mistake that an interesting physical phenomena is so named? I hope this unit of measurement is carved on his gravestone.
Re #1: Hansen was asked what he thought might happen in 40 years when the CO2 had doubled. We’ll never know whether he was right since the West Side Highway (sic) was completely demolished and rebuilt by 2001.
“… acknowledges the difficulty in making accurate predictions…”
Difficulty? How about impossibility!
It depends on the conditions. If you make up the conditions, you can make up the result. Simple as that.
Again I have this £100 bet that Arctic Ice will bottom out above 4Mkm2 in September as it has for 14 years out of 16. Takers? No. And I love the Danish Met Office graph that has Arctic (above 80N) temps since 1958. Tap on any year. The mean shows melt second week in June , rise to GOLLY say plus2 degsC then refreeze mid August. Year after year. :2023 very normal with HORROR some brief spikes rising to minus 20 from minus 27. Colour me unimpressed
Well, if it’s already too late to change, we should change nothing, and see if it happens. I suspect, like other “tipping points” that have already been reached, nothing of consequence.
“Arctic sea ice predictions have been notoriously inaccurate over time.”
***************
Yup. Especially when they were coming from a certain pair of politicians back in 2009:
Flashback 2009: Kerry ridicules Inhofe on science, then predicts ice free Arctic summer in 5 years – YouTube
Al Gore on Arctic Ice at COP15 – YouTube
Their models can’t even predict the past without tinkering with the “parameters”, let alone the future.
Here’s how “attribution analysis” appears to work (from the point of view of a cynical sceptic): “Let’s see, CO2 went up, and Arctic summer ice went down….Hmm… Hah! Eureka! QED!” Dress it up a bit with a few graphs, throw in some big words, and send it to Nature. Nature will send it out for peer review to your cronies (just to make sure there are no typos). Nature will publish it, the Guardian will feature it in another piece of “worse than we thought” doom-mongering. Your cronies will cite it so you can show how many citations you got when you apply for your next grant. The Climate Science juggernaut rolls on, and on, and on…
In geology, a lot of the data can be very fuzzy and observations can often be slanted to support the pet theories held by the observer. I see a fair bit of that, and I would hazard a guess that it’s not much different in other branches of science. But in Climate Science, the predetermined conclusion approach has been elevated to an art form. In fact, it’s a foundational principle of the whole field.
Peer Review – AKA spell and grammar check.
A) Climate Models have repeatedly been shown not fit for purpose. Any appearance of a reasonable model run is an accident.
B) Averaging synthetic numbers (model output) does not make a better prediction. Instead any appearance of a better prediction is pure accident far from reality!
C) This research writeup is an embarrassing compilation of dubious claims, opinion, waffle words.
Y’all should be red faced embarrassed to show your faces in public. Hopefully, some honest government will prosecute climate modelers for their activism and abject lack of honesty.
I live in an area that’s been on the edges of the smoke fallout from the Canadian wildfires. On Wednesday, it was hazy all day and the smell of smoke was in the air.
I went looking for information and the local weather guessers, based on models of the expected wind conditions, were predicting that the smoke would be increasing in our region Thursday afternoon and into today.
Lo and behold, it rained Wednesday night and yesterday the smoke was greatly diminished. Rained again last night and today it’s cloudy, but not much in the way of haze or smoke smell.
If their models can’t be trusted to predict what’s going to happen over the next two days, why in the heck would we expect them to be able to predict what’s going to happen in a decade or a century?
The whole thing is just stupid.
Although the outer (southernmost) fringes of the Arctic Ocean melt every year (mostly north of Scandinavia, Russia, and Alaska), the sea ice close to the North Pole is unlikely to ever melt completely.
I have seen graphs of “average temperatures” above 80 degrees North latitude as functions of Julian date going back about 40 years (I wish I could remember who publishes them). These graphs show that, although temperatures there bounce around a lot from October through April (always well below the freezing point), the temperature every year tends to peak around 275-276 K (2 – 3 C) from late May through early September, and remain remarkably flat for those 3 to 4 months.
The circle north of 80 degrees latitude is mostly covered by ocean, with only the northern edge of Greenland and a few Canadian islands extending into this circle. The Arctic Ocean extends southward to about 70 degrees latitude from the east coast of Greenland, across the North Atlantic, and north of Scandinavia, most of Russia, and Alaska.
This means that during the “warm” (or less cold) season, the circle of ice north of 80 degrees latitude is nearly surrounded by open water, which promotes evaporation and formation of clouds and fog, which blocks out most of the sunlight during the time of maximum sun angle. The evaporation also pulls heat out of the air, which prevents it from warming much above freezing.
A sheet of ice nearly covered with clouds and chilly fog most of the summer is not going to melt very much!
I’m not sure about the “Julian date” reference, but the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) has annual “Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel” graphs going back to 1958 (66 years rather than “about 40”).
URL : https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
They recently changed the Y-axes (average temperature) from Kelvin to degrees Celsius, along with the colour scheme, so comparison with older image files / screenshots may be “jarring” at first.
Does the attached screenshot look familiar ?
What controls the levels of sea-ice is the water below it far more than the air above it.