Skip to content

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong

October 8, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

The Telegraph has picked up on my series of stories on Arctic sea ice. In particular, with a refreshing willingness to look at inconvenient facts, they have reported how the ice has been redrawing at a record pace since the minimum, something I have repeatedly pointed out. (for some reason, the NSIDC and Met Office don’t think it relevant to tell the public about this).

The Telegraph also remind readers about Peter Wadhams’ nonsensical forecasts..

 

 

 

 

 

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 – they were wrong

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

 

 

There are some useful maps and graphs, and in particular this one showing how, contrary to oft quoted misdirection, ice volume has not been reducing since 2007.

 Unfortunately space is given at the end for Bob Ward to spin his usual nonsense, but congrats are in order to the Telegraph to actually publish the facts that the Met Office, and climate scientists in general would like to cover up.

 

27 Comments leave one →
  1. AlecM permalink
    October 8, 2016 10:41 am

    Ex spurts can claim this that and the other; only experiment proves the point.

    My analysis is that the 50-70 year Arctic melt-freeze cycle is caused by the same mechanism that amplifies Milankovitch insolation change at the end of ice ages, and it’s nothing to do with CO2, whcih has near zero effect on our planet’s surface temperature in its present continental distribution.

    My turn to spurt possible nonsense…….

    • October 8, 2016 12:45 pm

      Alec, I know you speak in jest; Milankovitch cycles are way longer than the quasi-60 yrs. cycles that the Russians and the Norwegians have observed and documented. I am persuaded by Zacharov’s explanation of the multi-decadal variability.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/arctic-sea-ice-self-oscillating-system/

      • AlecM permalink
        October 8, 2016 2:10 pm

        I used the term ‘amplifies’. The mechanism is regional climate change as phytoplankton biofeedback increases [aerosols] reducing cloud albedo, the reverse of currently accepted physics and a modification of the CLAW mechanism. [Lovelock was misled by bad cloud physics from Hansen who with van der Hulst missed a key optical process in the late 1960s.]

        There are two processes: the first is the release of dimethyl sulphide into the air from melting ice; dms accumulates peritectically in ice as phytoplankton cells burst during freezing. The second is growth of phytoplankton blooms as Fe micronutrient from accumulated dust is released during ice melt.

        There is plenty of evidence in the present Arctic satellites observed massive (>100 km) blooms adjacent melting pack ice in the fast melt early 2000s and observers noted that as ice melted it fizzed. Also Antarctic ice cores show chlorophyl accumulates in the Milankovitch warming periods. This leads to ~20 ppm global [CO2] increase as the local Southern Ocean warms, proven by proxies.

        So, the 50-70 year Arctic cycle is accumulation of DMS and dust as new ice forms in a cooling period, followed by warming as accumulated dms and particularly Fe is released into the environment causing a warming period.

        The end of ice ages is because as Milankovitch insolation increase causes slight warming pack ice with 80,000 years accumulated dms and Fe is in unstable equilibrium. It melts back to the new stable size. The present pack ice freeze is the start of the next ice age…….

    • October 8, 2016 2:31 pm

      Interesting idea. I can see how dms and zooplankton fluctuate as an effect from the seasonal flux of ice extent, but I don’t see the feedback from those effects upon the ice extent itself, especially how they could cause multi-decadal cyclical changes. Do you have links to published papers?

      • AlecM permalink
        October 8, 2016 2:51 pm

        They key palaeoclimate evidence was published in 2007 by a Stanford group and the ice core stuff by a Laussane group in 2003.

        Mix in the basic physics’ mistakes and you get a plausible mechanism which shows this part of IPCC ‘settled science’ is badly wrong. The other IPCC mistakes will be revealed later.

        Scientific incompetence or science fraud? There’s evidence for fraud being used to push the present claims but the origin appears to be genuine mistakes which, to keep the fraud going, have also been protected.

        Anybody with a pair of eyes can see optically thick clouds with larger droplets have higher albedo than clouds with small droplets. However, NASA and the IPCC claim small droplets are the explanation of high albedo, hence justifying the incorrect claim that optical depth is proportional to 1/mean droplet size.

  2. October 8, 2016 10:46 am

    “… climate models have improved considerably since then and they now do a much better job of simulating historical events.”

    You what? Do we need historical events to be “simulated”? And what do these simulations tell us about the future? Answers on a postcard.

    Write out 100 times: “Nature is doing what nature has always done.”

    • AlecM permalink
      October 8, 2016 11:06 am

      Because the underlying radiative physics is so obviously wrong to any professional scientist (simple energy balance failure), the calibration by hind-casting to past, real, mostly natural events AUTOMATICALLY prevents the models from predicting the future.

      Yup: it’s that stark a judgement, akin to an imaginary World in which a yoga-loving Newton, standing on his head, claimed that all apples fall upwards, therefore gravity repels….:o)

  3. Gamecock permalink
    October 8, 2016 10:54 am

    ‘Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.’

    That’s too bad. Arctic sea ice is NOT desirable.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      October 9, 2016 2:38 am

      Yippeeee..

      …. someone else realises that the drop since 1979 has been a RECOVERY from the terrible Arctic Sea Ice extremes of the Little Ice Age.

      The Iceland sea ice index clearly shows that , around Iceland at least, Arctic sea ice levels in 1979 were nearly as extreme as the LIA.

      Imagine the massive economic benefits if the countries facing the Arctic were able to safely navigate the area for more than a few weeks each year !!

  4. October 8, 2016 11:45 am

    Bob Ward gets to pronounce?

    eye-roll / head shake

    The sooner Bob is redundant and faced with a tasking more comensurate with his talents the better – I’d say he’d do well as a fast food drive through litter picker.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      October 8, 2016 2:38 pm

      “I’d say he’d do well as a fast food drive through litter picker”

      I doubt it – he would probably come up with a computer model proving that there was no litter problem, even if customers couldn’t get from one side of car park to the other…

      • October 8, 2016 6:59 pm

        huh… OK … fair point.

        Human statue then?

      • October 8, 2016 7:01 pm

        I’v even pay for the metallic paint job

  5. christopher booker permalink
    October 8, 2016 12:27 pm

    The real story behind this story is more comical than you allow for, Paul. There are a number of clues, like the mention of Maslowski, that the Telegraph science editor picked up the story from what I wrote about in detail in last Sunday;s Telegraph. It was you who had alerted me, as so often, to what was happening in the Arctic, and I elaborated on it at some length, as you reported yourself, The only reason I didn’t pay tribute to you last week was that I also wanted to quote David Whitehouse of the GWPF, and I knew I was going to mention you this Sunday when the lead item in my column picks up on your excellent pieces on the Guardian’s “100 months to save the planet” fiasco. What made all this even more comical was that my newspaper alerted me this morning to the Daily’s piece, suggesting that I might wish to mention it in my column tomorrow – clearly unaware that the Daily’s story had been promptedby what I wrote in the same paper last week. But as usual you are the real unsung hero of the tale, even though you do get a proper singalong in my column tomorrow!
    Incidentally, on Bob Ward, I have always thought from his appearance and general demeanour, his real job is as a night-club bouncer. Quite how he strayed into climate change is as much of a mystery as how a young, unknown physics Phd was chosen to manufacture that hockey stick back in 1998,

    • AlecM permalink
      October 9, 2016 11:23 am

      Whatever enabled Ward and Mann to emerge from their respective swamps, it was, like a Hockey Stick, bent.

  6. October 8, 2016 12:33 pm

    Note that there is 0.3 m sq miles more ice than 2007, about 0.8 Wadhams above 2007.

    I have not seen any comment on the Antarctic ice extent recently, what is the total ice situation now?

    • October 9, 2016 9:14 am

      There were some very strong winds in early September that disrupted sea ice growth, according to the NSIDC.

  7. The Old Man permalink
    October 8, 2016 8:20 pm

    Let me help second Paul’s post in the small way that I can .. i.e., Spread the word to a little different bandwidth crowd at Not On My Watch ..

    https://notonmywatch.com/?p=902

  8. Mick J permalink
    October 8, 2016 8:22 pm

    It was quite a surprise today to see two articles at the Telegraph that challenged popular orthodoxy.
    ————-
    “The ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ has been billed as a floating island of plastic debris, stretching out across an area of ocean the size of India, a testament to man’s abuse of the planet.

    So when images emerged from the first aerial survey of the area they proved somewhat underwhelming.

    Far from showing a vast swathe of plastic containers, fishing nets and rubbish, the detritus was seen to be scattered over a wide area, with just 1,000 large objects discovered in a survey of thousands of square miles.

    Although The Ocean Cleanup, the charity who carried out the sweep, claimed that they had found more plastic than was expected, other experts said the ‘garbage patch’ was a myth which had never been substantiated by any proper scientific research and risked diverting attention from the real problem – a dangerous build of microplastics in the area.

    Dr Angelicque White, Associate Professor at Oregon State University, who has studied the ‘garbage patch’ in depth, said: “The use of the phrase ‘garbage patch’ is misleading . I’d go as far as to say that it is a myth and a misconception.

    “It is not visible from space; there are no islands of trash; it is more akin to a diffuse soup of plastic floating in our oceans.

    “Yes, there is plastic in the ocean. Peer-reviewed papers suggest that the highest concentration of microplastic is around three pieces of plastic the size of a pencil eraser in a cubic meter.

    “The continued use of verbage such as ‘plastic islands’, ’twice the size of Texas’, is pure hyperbole that I personally believe undermines the credibility of those that should be focused on helping reduce the source stream of marine debris to our oceans.””

    More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/05/great-pacific-garbage-patch-is-a-myth-warn-experts-as-survey-sho/

    • October 8, 2016 11:31 pm

      @MickJ

      it’s there I tell you! – but you can’t see it … it’s hidden (© K Trenberth)

      Now then…. if there’s supposedly so much of it (Texas?) – it isn’t going to be difficult to spot who’s dumping it – but I see no evidence offered by the people bleating about it – or indeed any attempt whatsoever to verify the provenance of the trash – apart from inferred demands for more funds for “research”….

      Anecdotally organised crime has some role in making piles of unloved waste + garbage disappear for cash – scams in Italy and Japan come to mind.

      The most marine garbage I have seen (by miles) anywhere is in west Africa – why aren’t these SJWs or whatever they are – down there campaigning?

      This has all the hallmarks of a panic / crisis manufactured for ideological purposes.

      The IMO rules are pretty clear – and aren’t being enforced away from developed nations.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      October 9, 2016 10:21 am

      What I don’t get, is if they really care so much.. why haven’t they hired scoops and gone and tidied it up.

      Betting because there is NO MONEY to be made.

  9. October 9, 2016 1:39 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  10. Stonyground permalink
    October 9, 2016 7:27 am

    “That’s too bad. Arctic sea ice is NOT desirable.”

    Arctic sea ice is seen as an important marker by the alarmists. So although it may be undesirable, growing sea ice plays an important part in proving them wrong. Only when climate change alarmism has been completely discredited can we get some kind of return to sanity with regard to energy policy.

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    October 9, 2016 7:47 am

    Greenpeace currently have a banner ad’ chasing new funding to ‘keep the Arctic how it’s supposed to be – cold’. It isn’t ‘supposed’ to be anything, it just is. Typical of the misdirection they serve up on a regular basis. The world really would be much better served by not having the Arctic frozen and blocked solid for most of the year.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      October 9, 2016 10:22 am

      “The world really would be much better served by not having the Arctic frozen and blocked solid for most of the year.”

      +1000 !!!

  12. October 10, 2016 5:53 am

    I was all for it until I saw the Torygraph graphics label Sea Ice Volume in Millions of Square Miles.

  13. William Sellwood permalink
    October 12, 2016 7:55 am

    I have no idea if the “warmist” or your sceptical statements are right or wrong. The “science” is way beyond me. But anthropogenic climate change, if it exists, is merely one example of the havoc humans are wreaking on the Earth, many of which are a matter of everyday observation; loss of species, loss of habitat, shortage of water, desertification. These, and “warming” (if it exists), are the result of human overpopulation.
    Why is the root cause of all this, i.e. there are just too many of us, never mentioned? Everything else is but a sticking plaster on the latest problem to become fashionable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: