Wadhams Wrong Again!
By Paul Homewood
It’s that time of the year again!
Unfortunately Peter Wadhams is wrong yet again:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
Ice extent is a bit lower than recent years this September, but it is still well above both 2007 and 2012.
DMI, of course, like to show a highly misleading graph, showing an ongoing declining trend, along with cut off y-axis.
In reality however, the decline stopped in 2007, and there has been no trend since, merely year to year variation.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/sie_monthmean.uk.php
Is the choice of 2007 a cherry pick? Not really, because a lot of the thick multi-year ice was swept out through the Fram strait in that and the following year. Subsequently the thinner ice replacing it has been more prone to melt.
In other words, 2007 cannot be statistically regarded as an outlier, but integrally connected to following years.
As we can see, temperatures around the Arctic have been normal all summer:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Sea ice is also thicker this year than in 2008 across the central Arctic. Most of the thickest ice then was off the north coast of Greenland, soon to be swept away.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
All the indicators therefore suggest that Arctic sea ice extent is currently stable..
Meanwhile, down under Antarctic sea ice extent has been very close to average during September, when it is at its highest:
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Peter Wadhams is Professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge
According to the Arctic Research Programme,
Peter is acknowledged internationally as a leading expert on sea ice and polar oceanography
I hate to think what the common or garden experts must be like!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Like that majority of people, I have little understanding of the polar regions (and no desire to visit them either). Given the information that you provide, these “experts” ought to be questioned seriously by reporters, but never are.
I listened to Radio 4 for an hour this morning and climate change was mentioned as causing all sorts of issues without challenge (climate disaster / crisis etc were mentioned dozens of times in one hour): one earnest lady claimed that hundreds of UK species were being destroyed by climate change: not challenged of course. A programme later in the day had a naturalist saying that most of the species damage was predator and land use driven, this one did not mention climate change once ………….. her last BBC appearance I think.
Not again. Please!
“Peter is acknowledged internationally as a leading expert on sea ice and polar oceanography”
Remember Amateurs built the Ark, Experts built the Titanic.
When it comes to climate, even the supposed experts often sound like novices. Still, if they must keep sticking their necks out and inviting everyone to chop their metaphorical heads off, so be it.
Its time someone took a hairdryer and melts this damn Arctic. I mean those Alarmists must be frustrated beyond words. Just imagine – everything you say turns out wrong. How do you look in the mirror again? There is going to be a lot more ice as we enter a period of low sun activity so there is more frustration for those lads coming. I pity them.
Would that perchance be the same Peter Wadhams who claimed that three ice climate scientists were assassinated by ‘big oil’ – one of whom was ‘murdered’ by the ingenious method of lightning strike (presumably fossil fuel powered). And he’s the leading expert on sea ice? I see.
Yep, that’s him. One of those ‘murdered’ was near my office where she was run over by a tipper truck making a wide swing for a tight left turn and she was stupid enough to cycle up the inside.
Dr Wadhams seems curiously unaware that Arctic sea ice follows the AMO, as you might easily expect. After all the AMO dataset is derived from northern Atlantic sea surface temperatures and warmer water leads to less ice.
Of course the AMO has a very clear cycle, which according to a certain Dr. Michael E. Mann has been tracked over at least the last thousand years in the paleo proxy data. When the cycle turns down Dr Wadhams may be quite surprised.
“Peter is acknowledged internationally as a leading expert on sea ice and polar oceanography. I hate to think what the common or garden experts must be like!”
I am not sure that these anomalies of climate science reflect on the scientific or academic qualifications of the scientist in question because in their activism role they serve the UN’s activism needs for which they are surely adequately compensated.
Sincerely
Chaamjamal
Tambonthongchai.com
Google Dr. Susan Crockford University of Victoria she is the Polar Bear expert in Canada.And reports on sea ice. She claims the Polar Bears are thriving and sea ice is stable
Thriving? How dare you say such a thing, based on, I guess, surveys that show the numbers of polar bears have increased 5 fold in 50 years. And I suppose you are placing undue weight on the claims by people who live in the Arctic (those who don’t go outside without a high powered rifle) about the increased numbers.
Every gullible believer (in ClimateChange) knows that the real numbers of polar bears must be declining because they haven’t (yet) eaten any gullible believers (in ClimateChange) living in southern California nor any BBC camera men (unless this was covered up).
We need David A. to leave his nursing home and travel there and expose this lie about polar bear numbers increasing. If that fails he could stand under a cliff and catch a falling walrus.
I agree with you Paul that the DMI should show the full y-axis from zero, so that the ice loss is not exaggerated.
Also, they should not use a linear trend because analysis of the ice loss data shows an abrupt loss of ice only between 2001 and 2007 as described below:
1979-2001: Year to year variations, with a mean of 7.3 million km².
2001-2007: An abrupt loss (step-loss) of 2.2 million km².
2007-2019: Year to year variations, with a mean of 5.1 million km².
The abrupt loss between 2001 and 2007 confirms your argument that 2007 should not be regarded as an outlier, since the ice has only shown year to year variations since 2007 (with no downward trend), i.e., it is behaving in a similar manner to the 1979-2001 period.
Meanwhile the BBC (Jonathan Amos BBC Science Correspondent) is wetting himself with excitement over the Polarstern icebreaker beginning its year-long Arctic drift.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49941340
The’ve found a good ice floe “after a warm Arctic summer”!
They claim “This summer’s warmth has produced the second smallest Arctic sea-ice extent in the satellite era”. Really!
“We don’t have any robust climate predictions for the Arctic and the reason is we don’t understand the processes there very well”!
“The climate models were highly uncertain as to how this temperature trend would develop in the coming decades”. So much for settled science.
Am I correct in assuming that Jonathon Amos is wetting himself with joy because he will be spending the next 12 months (or more) on the Polarstern? More exciting TV on the BBC!
Well, if they delete all records set between 1910 and 1975, they should be able to claim the fastest ice-bound Polar drift EVER-AH.
Does not look like a shortage of ice there!
No evidence that changes in sea ice extent are related to AGW
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/28/sea-ice-extent-area-1979-2018/
In Academia, politics, and the press one be proven to be dead wrong time and again in their chosen field and still be considered a respected expert. Far be it for Cambridge to get rid of this incompetent fraud.
And if anyone questions the experts we are told we are stupid and we don’t want doctors operating on us!
It’s just Begging the Question – how can you be an expert if your predictions are constantly wrong?
He’s a liar. Hes now saying “ice-free” means less than an arbitrary number. Because ges previous predictions of ice-free never happened. I predict Chelsea will be risk-free this weekend – that is, they will score fewer than ten goals.
Absurd non-science garbage.
“…previous predictions…”
I happened to be watching last night some old James Randi shows where the professional magician challenged various fakers and silly buggers to prove they could do things like psycho-kinesis. Whenever a proper protocol is imposed …nothing happens!
The testees often look genuinely stunned, as if they actually believe in themselves. I would bet that a week later they were back to blithely preaching to the converted and wishful.
Randi was always extremely sarcastic about “gullible scientists.” In one program he demonstrated an almost absurdly silly trick in levitating a match box (Hint: it involves the loose skin on the back of your hand). And then said “You would think this couldn’t fool anybody? Well it fooled a lot of the PhDs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.”
‘Wadhams . . . in the Department of Applied Mathematics’
Where 1,000,000 square kilometers = 0
Demmit, on the military blog I infest I have a running £100 bet that Arctic ice will fall below four Wadhams in the third week in September. I win if it doesn’t. No one has taken it up in five years.
“Unfortunately Peter Wadhams is wrong yet again”. Don’t you mean fortunately!
A dear old friend who was a retired Headmaster,would be saying may God preserve us
from experts!
May God preserve us from experts!
Yep. Every time I hear, “The experts were surprised, ” I cringe.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.