I interviewed Ted Scambos PhD, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, at the AGU meeting in 2012. His sea ice prediction is at :25 in.
Compare to climate denier Joe Bastardi’s prognostications from 2010. These people forget that a video record of lies, inaccuracies and distortions will be their legacy.
extent is a false metric. one cannot accurately gauge the difference in the material conditions of the sea ice by using a 2-dimensional image. As Dr. Scambos said, we are worrying more about basal melt from warm waters. This is causing a loss of ice VOLUME that is currently 76% below the 1980’s norm, even though the extent is currently about 50% below the 1980’s.
Using extent, a decimeter thick ice measures the same as a 4-meter ice. If you look at the trend of volume we realize there will be a rapid change that will suddenly plunge us into a world that has not been seen since the Eemian.
However sea ice thickness, and hence volume, is much harder to measure/model than extent and area.
CryoSat-2 will be back in October, but even then a lot of assumptions (snow depth in particular) have to be made when coming up with the numbers.
The 2016 predictions of Malice in Blunderland (AKA Goddard/Heller) haven’t turned out too well either:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/could-northabout-sail-to-the-north-pole/
The record of lies, inaccuracies and distortions grows ever longer.
Reblogged this on AGR Daily News Service.
its too late. if those ice sheets are melting at a couple of mm now. we are well down the path. The critical time was back in the 80s.
While I make no predictions I would note per NASA research the arctic regions were ice free from 8500-6500 BP, that per NASA studies of past temperatures the arctic regions were warmer than today as little as in1000 AD. If it was not warmer than trees in alaska found under a melting glacier that old had to grow under ice which is unlikely.
If one looks at the graph you may note the ice levels have been about the same for the last 8 years, since 2006 so maybe the 1979 to than was just a high point. in any case I fail to see an explanation of how they can compare current ice reporting to the 1979-2015 numbers when the satellite broke in April this year and has never been replaced which was used to generate all those numbers.
(Apologies to all except Tommy Poo for the repetition, but every time he shows up here, I’m going to hit him with this — and I’m going update my retraction-request counter each time.)
Tommy Poo,
This is at least my fifteenth request for you to retract (and apologize for) your lies about the NASA/GISS global-temperature work, lies that I called you out on *months* ago.
Do you remember this particular claim that you made?
…and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.
I proved you wrong by showing that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594
When you continued to post here without retracting that completely false claim, I followed up here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/28/bill-maher-on-trump-energy-policy/#comment-84709
You also ignored that second request to retract your claim.
And a third.
And a fourth.
And a fifth.
And a sixth.
And a seventh.
And an eighth.
And a ninth.
And a tenth.
And an eleventh
And a twelfth
And a thirteenth
And a fourteenth.
So I’m following up with yet another request (this one is at least the fifteenth). Will you admit that you were wrong about NASA and how it processes temperature data?
Every time you show up here, I will ping you about this.
Every. Single. Time.
And I won’t stop until you acknowledge that you were wrong.
(Actually, I don’t really expect Bates to man up and admit that he was wrong; I’m simply using him as an example of how deniers are utterly and completely incapable of admitting error, even after they tell the most egregious whoppers).
No need to apologize caerbannog666.
Tom claims “per NASA research the arctic regions were ice free from 8500-6500 BP”, but doesn’t offer a pointer to where “NASA” says that.
Here’s the interesting thing: A number of recent papers (e.g. Stranne et al, 2014; Funder et al, 2011) have explored arctic sea ice variation during the Holocene and found that there were indeed periods where sea ice was less than today.
Stranne et al studied it using a general circulation model. They discussed at great length the parameterization of the model, the type of ice cover modes it produces, subtleties of the feedback mechanisms, etc. Imagine, a computer model that gives results of the kind that Tom wants to hear! But of course, Tom wouldn’t know that amongst their conclusions they write:
“However, at the same time as our simulations show the importance of the surface albedo feedback, there are likely two distinctly different underlying causes for the feedback to kick in: increased insolation (past) and increased GHG levels (present).”
Funder et al went into the field to find evidence of past beaches with seasonally open water (where there is ice today), and estimated when they were open by carbon dating driftwood. Pretty cool, especially using species ratios to infer where that driftwood may have originated. And what is included in their conclusion?:
“The reduction of the HTM sea ice in northern Greenland fits with the simulated ice distribution and surface temperature in orbitally forced ECHAM5/JSBACH/MPI-OM (EJM) and LOVECLIM general circulation climate model simulations.” (HTM refers to Holocene Thermal Maximum.)
They also discussed details of the different results amongst models and their weakness in predicting where open water would occur in the time frame they observed it from their field/laboratory work. Of course, they pointed to where the models need to be improved. Yet again, models give Tom the results he wants to hear about. But does Tom care how these paleo studies relate to our current situation?
Needless to say, it takes time to understand these papers, but why invest any of that when you can just say “NASA says…” when it suits you?
Maybe it’s on the same page on the NASA site Where all the pictures of Nibiru are stashed,not to mention the announcement that Chemtrails are REAL (!!!!) and also it might be where some guy I know was blithering about the article they “deleted” about the Earth having 10 ,count ’em TEN,invisible moons.
I believe it would be a benefit to all your readers if the owner of this site got somebody over an NOAA to explain in detail how they are coming up with their current ice numbers with the satellite broke and how they are adjusting the numbers to make the data match. What numbers did the adjust and by how much? How did they prove the adjustments are correct. If one can believe the current numbers are actually supported than one can discuss the future with a lot more confidence.
I have the same problem, with the STAR, RSS, UAH and Giss data sets, the numbers simply do not track with each other so you can pick one data set and come up with any number you want. That resembles faith not science.
Tom, read this:
http://nsidc.org/the-drift/data-update/sea-ice-index-processing-resumed-with-dmsp-f18-satellite-data/
Sorry but I don’t think our little Tommy can read. Only rant…. ☺️
Tom – “The satellite” is not broke. If you look at the graph the trend is self evidently down. If you don’t like graphs here are plenty of pretty pictures of the Central Arctic:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/summer-2016-images/#CAB
Once again, Tommy Poo, aka Master Bates, aka the Mental Onanist, (aka in the UK, that dotty wanker) succeeds in making the thread all about him rather than the topic at hand—-which is to “compare and contrast” what a real climate scientist predicts and the maunderings of a lazy denier—Bastardi in this case.
And since we’re doing AKA’s for Tommy Poo, be aware that there is NO translation for “bastardi” into English that is positive, and that’s fitting for our boy Joe. Much like our friend Marc Morano (aka Morono), he runs his mouth about things he really doesn’t understand. His BS in meteorology equips him only to be a weather man, and NOT to make such half-assed predictions about arctic sea ice.
I am struck by his semi-coherent “wandering” around the topic of sea ice and climate change, especially when contrasted with the intelligent comments made by Dr, Scambos. Joe is a lightweight, a dilletante, and he should be embarrassed that clips like this ARE going to be his legacy. (Grandchild Bastardi to GrandPa Joe at some future point, probably when the kid is taking junior high science—–“GrandPa, were you really that clueless? And did someone really pay you to say such stupid stuff?” Joe’s response—“Duh!”)
There’s a trend here somewhere, but deniers just can’t see it!
I will update the animation next month when this year’s minimum is known – should be interesting.
Interesting – yeah! I’m thinking volume is going to be very low.
Joe Bastardi and people like him do not care about their legacy and have no interest in the plight of future generations or what they may think. They can be compared to the depraved late U.K D.J Jimmy Savile, who obviously only cared about the present, without any concern beyond tomorrow.