Arctic Ocean predicted to be ice free by 2013 – oops

In 2007, when Arctic sea ice melted to an extraordinary low extent, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) predicted that, due to global warming, the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013.  “The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist  Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, [Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California] who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.’”   At the time, the prediction was claimed to be a “conservative” forecast.

But then Nature intervened. Satellite imagery shows that the Arctic has 60 percent more ice now than it did in 2007 for the same date, almost one million square miles more.

Arctic-ice-2007-vs2013

Some adventurers had planned to sail the Northwest Passage this year to take advantage of the ice-free conditions.  Now about 20 yachts are trapped in the ice.  Some environmentalists tried to row through the Northwest Passage, but they, too, became blocked by ice.

The London Telegraph reports that a leaked document from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ” has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.”  The Telegraph notes that “The original predictions led to billions being invested in green measures to combat the effects of climate change.”  It appears that the money was wasted.

The “leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report” the UN document set to be published later this month.  See: The new IPCC climate report is already in trouble.

By the way, Antarctic sea ice extent is at or near maximum ever recorded for the month also.

How much longer can the IPCC maintain its scam to extract money from industrialized countries?

P.S. On March 23, 2013 Sierra Club Canada also predicted that Arctic ice would disappear this summer.

Sierra-club-arctic-prediction

Advertisements

33 comments

  1. What a load of junk.

    The vast majority of climate scientists project the Arctic will be ice free in summer by 2060 – including the IPCC.

    This year is 398,000 square miles BELOW the average.

    Got that?!

    398,000 square miles BELOW the average.

    And OF COURSE it’s grown (30% not 60%) from last year. Last year was a record smashing low. Now it’s returned to nearer the trend line which is still falling rapidly.

    And this is for EXTENT anyway. That means any area that has 15% of ice in it, even if it’s just thin slush and broken chips – which most of it is this year by the way.

    A far more accurate measurement is VOLUME.

    75% of Arctic summer sea ice volume has melted in the last 35 years.

    Simple, observable, measurable FACT.

    It’s not a question of ‘if’ the Arctic melts away completely in summer – it’s just a question of ‘when’. And given that it’s been around 26 million years since it last melted and it took thousands of year to melt last time it is obvious we are in big trouble.

    The current super-rapid climate change is a serious problem – the biggest problem we as a species have had to face – utterly ridiculous claims about ‘cooling’ are not just absurd they are grossly irresponsible.

      1. Compared to other climate shifts in the ice core record of almost one million years, and the geologic record after that, this current rate of heat increase and acidification increase, are “super-rapid”.

        Also, you are accusing others of cherry picking dates when your response does the exact same thing. What is being seen now is a multi decade trend one ONE direction. Down. And it’s mostly caused by increased heat from the burning of fossil fuels. You are welcome to subtract the other heat forcers like El Ninos. The trend is still there.

        This basic part of the science is settled. We’re moving forward with policy to address it now.

      2. Christopher, do you have any physical evidence supporting your contention of “increased heat from the burning of fossil fuels”? You imply that such emissions are the major cause. Where is the physical evidence? As for your claim that the “science is settled, i quote Michael Crichton: “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it
        is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
        Whenever you hear the consensus ofscientists agrees on something or other,
        reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

      3. There are multiple lines of evidence that all lead to most of the the extra heat on Earth coming from an increase in greenhouse gasses, and not from other forcers. There are “fingerprints”. NOAA is very clear about this.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

        And when it comes to ocean acidification, the observation is direct. The molecules of CO2 in the ocean causing carbonic acid to increase can literally be traced back to the burning of fossil fuels. It’s a different CO2.

        Also, Michael Chrichton was no climate scientist. He was a poor judge of the situation.

      4. So you are a believer in SKS, That explains a lot. The cited “fingerprints” particularly Harries have been debunked. Even Harries, himself, has backed off his 2001 paper contention.

      5. I dont know the history of the Harries paper, but your implication that the notion of “less heat is escaping into space” is false, is…..false. There are at least two more studies listed there that had redundant findings. You have zero evidence or knowledge that more heat is not being trapped in the earth system since the start of the industrial revolution.

        I dont know what “SKS” is but if you’re referring to the website then you’ll note that they are only writing a more accessible version of the 2009 NOAA statement. NASA also backs this up, as well as JAXA, and UK CRU.

      6. By the way, I went to go look for criticism of the Harries paper and found horrible straw man arguments. All Harries is saying is an increase in the greenhouse effect blocking outgoing radiation waves is indeed taking place.

        Jonathan, much like the authors at the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, I suspect, but have no proof, that your motivation in these slights of hand in this blog is to retard what you see as “scary” regulations coming down the pike. But that makes for bad reality checking.

    1. Leslie is correct. This 2013 number was NOT popular with the climate science community. It was a far outlier position. Running an article suggesting some kind of overall “gotcha” is misleading.

      And for the Tucson Citizen, and Jonathan DuHamel to basically give the same false impressions as this past weekend’s Telegraph and Daily Mail is troubling. The Telegraph and Daily Mail are being trounced by the legitimate science press this week for their misbehavior. DuHamel deserves the same spanking. At this stage it is a violation of ethics to write like this. It’s a moral violation.

      Here are the legit critiques of this false impression:

      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.UjHfiRbWH8v

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

  2. By the way.
    The maximum winter ice extent in Antarctica has been growing for the last thirty years as a result of global warming.
    The warmer southern ocean has led to an increase in rain and snow and to increased ocean stratification. To put it into terms that even the climate ignorati can understand it means that the run off from land and the increase in rain and snow on the ocean has led to the surface layer being less salty.
    I think even climate change deniers will know that less salty water freezes more easily than salty water.
    This effect was long ago projected by climate change models to increase sea ice extent by 1% per decade. This is exactly what has now been confirmed by observations.

    So you might want to read a little bit of science BEFORE posting ignorant rubbish like the above regarding the Antarctic. Even Judith Curry – the deniers favourite – has published research papers on this phenomenom so you can’t even claim it’s biased.
    The rest of your nonsense isn’t even worth my time to debunk.
    Just shamefull ill-informed psuedo junk.

      1. You might also note that in terms of Milankovitch forcing it is now the Southern Hemisphere’s turn to enjoy warmth given the precessed position of the perihelion point. It should be melting, not increasing. BTW, the geologic record shows that N.H. continental glaciation has inter-glacial periods which last about 11,000 years, half the precession’s full period (and therefore we in the north can expect a return to conditions that are the precursors to ice age norm in the next several centuries). The terrestrial axial tilt, unlike 11,000 years ago, no longer favors the north.

        So the Cubs better hurry.

        CLIMATEGATE – (now I, II & III plus FAKEGATE) – the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

      2. More has been discovered about the dynamics of rain and snow fall in Antarctica, among other patterns, since the early 2000’s, which are the dates of info used to make the IPCC 4th assessment. More precipitation IS a condition from the globe warming.

        Besides, you’re not actually going to roll your position back to the naive argument that warming isnt happening? Even the majority of deniers don’t hold that position anymore. The continuing addition of heat to the earth system is confirmed by multiple international sources, NASA, NOAA, JAXA, UK CRU. It would be on par with denying gravity and light to deny the trend.

    1. As usual the AGW alarmists sound like astrologers/fortune tellers, etc. as they dig out some “forecast” hitherto unknown, then pretend they had it all along.
      AGW ALARMISTS – so insistent on not revealing temperatures prior to 1880 that they must think the earth is only 133 years old

  3. There are issues with the reported Arctic ice estimates during the summer.

    As discussed before, passive microwave sensors understate the amount of sea ice during the melting season, due to difficulties discerning melt water on top of ice. I am more trusting of the NIC (National Ice Center) reports as they also include analyses of satellite imagery and reports from vessels in Arctic waters.

    As of yesterday, Sept 11, the ice extent continued its normal decline, reported by NIC at 5.6 M Sq. Km, with the packed ice portion (>8/10ths) at 4.7. In 2012 the extent at this date was. 4.6 M, and the 8/10ths part was 3.1 M. The difference is significant. Note how much higher is the packed ice this year.

    Over the past several years, the minimum has occurred on day 265 +/- 1 day (Sept. 21 to 23). For example, last year on Sept. 21, NIC showed ice extent at 4.2 M. Sq. Km., with the 8/10ths portion at 3.3 M.

  4. Much of your post is misleading or inaccurate.

    1.) You have no proof of politics or corruption changing the basic science conclusions of the international climate science community. You just made that up.

    2.) Tornadoes and hurricanes (spinning things) are too weird and NOT on the normal list of first items of concern in the medium term with global warming. INstead the connection to droughts, deluges, heat waves, melting, flooding, sea level rise etc, are. Please stop citing individual years on sea level rise. ALL trends go up and down if you look at single years. Climate science doesnt look at single years. You know that.

    3.) In the same way that both your brain and gravity act as separate forces on your moving arm when you walk, there are multiple forcers on long term climate. Not to be too simplistic, but there are *natural variations*, and there is the *strong and fast addition of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel emissions*. Rising temperatures on Earth do not go up on a smooth line. They jump up and down over decades, while trending higher and higher on average. Climate scientists often like to zoom out to the 30 year term or more to get clearer views of the phenomenon.

    Two significant climate science findings of late have found that *natural variations* have made the recent heating on land and air slower than the rise in the 90’s. But both science journal published papers warn those variations are cyclical and will NOT continue to retard the constant upward trend, which will shake them off like Mohamad Ali coming back into the ring after a short sit and drink of water. The increasing greenhouse effect in the atmosphere has not stopped in any way, shape or form, and it’s overt lying to say so.

    Here is the short layman’s introduction from the science journal, Nature, which is a strictly edited publication of science findings: http://tinyurl.com/ksu93ug

    Now the science literature.

    First is ocean absorption of the extra heat. Scientists emphasize this will not last. http://tinyurl.com/n7ctqjk

    Second, and perhaps even stronger, is a longer term La Nina than expected. It’s fighting against the warming, but is cyclical and will not last. Additionally the cooling effect from the La Nina may be keeping global averages on a shallower incline but *summers in the Northern hemisphere still break through and are less effected*. This is why North America continues to break heat records on an upward trend line and why the Arctic continues to melt away.http://tinyurl.com/ob9z9hg

    Bonus round! And it’s always worth noting, NONE of this retards ocean acidification at all. The rising CO2 continues to shift the pH of ocean water around the world, which not only contributes to the weakening of coral reefs and shellfish species and food webs, but now has been shown to likely contribute back to global warming. http://tinyurl.com/myhauwo

    -Christopher

  5. Using the 60% more than the lowest point to try to claim Global warming is not occurring is like bragging about bring your F minus grade up to an F. It is still getting worse overall. The increase in ice area in much, much thinner than the ice that was there before.

  6. Gentlemen:

    The comments are running far astray of the premise of this post: predictions were made that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free this summer. The predictions were wrong.

    As Richard Feynmann, Nobel Prize-winning physicist put it: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Q.E.D.

    1. If you would had done a little research like say a reporter might have it would have become clear to you this is Koch Brothers BS.

  7. Jon if you delete other information on your source material how does this future the search for the truth?

  8. Note to Jerry Kelly: your comments have been deleted and you are now banned from commenting because you have continually violated the Tucson Citizen commenting guidelines, and, your comments have nothing to do with the subject of the post.

  9. Lets remember the man made CO2 counts for less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Why does this fact get left out when they post climate change. Cows produce more CO2 then all of industry combined. That is a fact look it up for yourself.

  10. Sea Ice Extent is not a good indicator of how much ice there is because thickness is not accounted for. The decline of Arctic sea ice is not a simple steady decline. Maslowski and others predicted 2020 as the year we will have an ice free Arctic ocean. Keep in mind that since 2007, all sea ice minimums were below 4 mil sq. km, while before 2007 all minimums were OVER! PIOMAS model projects an ice free Arctic summer by 2017.
    Whether 2017, 2020, or 2030, we will have an ice free summer well before 2060.

    The important thing to remember is that this is happening because of our increasing efforts to put more and more CO2 into the air.
    Nature and physics does not care that it is done innocently, or that the burning of fossil fuels is done with good intention of putting food on our children’s table.

  11. Even over “thousands of years” there are turning points or “cusps”. Ironically it was in Gore’s docu-melodrama that points it out, however indirectly. The chart of temps/carbon dioxide over the 650,000 year period correspond with the 110,000 year fluctuation of the terrestrial orbital eccentricity which conveniently for civilization had a cusp almost 12,000 years ago which allowed the ice age we are in to lapse into the inter-glacial we now enjoy. That was enabled by the increase in eccentricity which allowed the perihelion point precession to get us out of the continental glaciers as the axial tilt was also favorable. The 22,000 year period of the perihelion point has now switched to favor the Southern Hemisphere while both the eccentricity and the axial tilt slowly move toward a cooling regime. The rock record reveals the periodicity of this mechanism as shown in Gore’s propaganda piece. Each inter-glacial lasts about 11,000 years for the Northern Hemisphere. Gore claims coincident carbon dioxide level rising caused it but now we can see that it was the oceans releasing CO2 when the water warmed and then re-dissolving it when colder that cause the apparent link.

    1. Of course the orbits caused and started the change. The Milankovitch cycles. But it’s also understood now that CO2 slowly became an accelerant upon that effect, like compound interest on a credit card. That’s what I leaned from a lecture at the American Geophysical Union (AGU). CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas that reflects infrared heat. Always. No matter if it began a process or became a positive feedback forcer.

      1. But carbon dioxide acts somewhat like the glass of a greenhouse. Increasing the thickness of the glass increases the weight of the greenhouse, not its internal temperature.

        Given all the feedbacks involved, earth never should have reverted to continental glaciation the dozen or so times it has since the beginning of Pleistocene times.

        CONSENSUS SCIENCE – makes just as much sense as gay marriage

      2. The greenhouse effect does not work that way. More CO2, more methane. INCREASES the effect. This science has been known for over 100 years. Longer than the knowledge of relativity or continental drift.

        The changing of Earth’s orbit appears to be a stronger forcer than the greenhouse effect in the distant past. Right now that’s not really a relevant factor.

        Your comment about gay marriage is offensive and antique. You’re welcome to your private feelings about it, but the culture has moved on now.

      3. Do you have any explanation for there being no vineyards on Vinland (Newfoundland), no sustainable farmland on Greenland, no Scottish wine and no olive groves in Germany as there were in the Medieval Optimum? I’ll bet it’s the fact that, though solar activity during the 20th Century appears to have matched that of the Viking Era, the parameters for waning warm forcing currently underway with the Milankovitch Cycle has everything to do with it.

        And why do we not do what so many of us have been espousing for the past four decades, as NASA’s most foremost flight director puts it here (note his answer to the fourth question): http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/space/article/Sunday-conversation-NASA-veteran-Chris-Kraft-4778332.php

        Speaking of NASA, the modern culture has chosen to bypass the memory of mankind’s greatest accomplishment in favor of a barbarian society’s 17th Century B.C. perversions. Congratulations, culture.

        FORTY YEARS (and nine months) – since the last time we landed men on the moon; guess we haven’t done it since Roe vs Wade

Comments are closed.