Arctic To Be Ice Free By Early September

Monday 11 July 2011

8,500,000 km^2 / 150,000 km^2/day = 56 days after July 11.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Arctic To Be Ice Free By Early September

  1. Andy WeissDC says:

    It’s only a matter of days before we can swim across the Arctic Ocean.

  2. A K Haart says:

    “…within 30 years.” Hmm – yet another career’s worth of elapsed time before the claim matures.

  3. PJB says:

    Let’s see now…. it used to be in 20 years then it was as soon as 2013 and now we are back to 30 years….. looks like a cyclical phenomenon (or death spiral, as you prefer) to me.

    Bullshit can be recycled, can’t it?

    • Justa Joe says:

      This is getting to be like the UFO/Bigfoot deal. Let us know when the Arctic is “ice free” and not just projections even though I’m not sure why a seasonally ice free arctic is anything to worry about.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      actually you are confusing sources. The IPCC said more than 30 years in 2007. One or two scientists have made predictions unsubstantiated by any actual science for ice free conditions in the near future. Most scientists still say 20+ years, and almost all have only revised downward since 2007.But Steve is gonna show them, with all the cold he has reported recently all over the world, ice extent will no doubt be close to 2006 and then the total ice recovery will have begun in ernest.

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        I know Tony, NSIDC is not a real science agency and they study something besides ocean ice! Right?
        The IPCC does not do science so they only repeated the average of what the researchers they compiled claimed.

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        The value of claims made by the IPCC is about equal to claims made by any other advocacy group such as Al Gore or Joe Romm!

      • Latitude says:

        “actually you are confusing sources”

        It’s nice to know the science is settled and everyone is on the same page now……………

      • Tony Duncan says:


        then obviously evolution is a TOTAL scam since there are all sorts of disagreements about almost every specific. And don’t EVEN get me started on quantum relativistic cosmology

      • Grumpy Grampy ;) says:

        Apples and pomegranates! Evolution is an established field of study that is still being refined using the scientific method. Climatology is an infant field that is more phrenology than real science. There is not enough “Accurate” historical data to decide if we are experiencing any thing out of normal variations.
        You are the one claiming no reputable scientific body made wild claims about the Arctic Death Spiral!

      • Actually, “Tony Duncan”, you’d have to take up whether the “Artic” is actually in a death spiral with the peer-reviewed scientists who predicted 2013±3. But since you’re not a scientist with even one publication to your name you can’t exactly dispute the claim that the “Artic” will be ice-free in less than 5 years, can you? I mean, if you have a better prediction based on evidence, let’s hear it.

        By the way, I’ve done a pretty extensive search, and I can’t find even one peer-reviewed paper accepted for publication that this IPCC person wrote. I don’t think you can cite him as authoritative.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Grumpy and latitude
        it doesn’t matter is it is apples and pomegranates, if your assessment of the value of a science if based on what a very small sample of those scientists say, then you can always show that the science is wrong in almost every field by picking the ones that made the wrong arguments. ESPECIALLY historical fields such as evolution, cosmology and climate change.
        it does not matter that Darwin and Wallace argued about whether selection was the only agency for evolution. Or whether DeVries says that macromutation is more important than selection, or Williams said that genetic not organismic selection is the key. Just as it doesn’t matter if one scientist says 3 years for ice free arctic and the majority of others say 30 years.
        Sr. Stark,, no I don’t have to take up with the scientist who said 2013. He is almost certainly wrong. here is the NSIDC statement on their website. “The scientific community has a range of predictions concerning when we could see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. It could be as early as 2013 or as late as 2100. NSIDC’s projections generally fall somewhere in the lower half of this range.”
        You can certainly ridicule any individual scientist that you like for making wild claims, but that does not mean that the idea is completely wrong, in Climate science, Evolution or quantum cosmology.
        and since Steve has been giving out the REAL facts about how cold it is in the arctic and how there have been record late ice breakups and that 2011 is tracking 2006 and most recently how there has been almost no melting in the arctic the last few days, he is going to prove ALL the climate scientists wrong when ice minimum is near 2006 levels. After all there is over a MILLION kilometers of ice still up there, and Steve seems to think it is mostly MYI and will just sit there unmoving as the alarmists beg for it to melt!

      • Well, “Tony Duncan”, I guess if you don’t believe in Real, Peer-Reviewed Science, you must be anti-science. I mean, the IPCC isn’t a published, peer-reviewed person, & it seems that every single published, peer-reviewed person doesn’t meet your standards of authority, so exactly what does your faith rest upon?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Does ANYONE have clue what Sr. Stark is talking about?

        Sr. Stark
        Of course I don’t believe in peer reviewed science, I have STEVE Goddard!

  4. PJB says:

    Perhaps 150 / 8,500 ( 1.75%) might also be due, in whole or in part, to compaction by wind?

    Considering the quantity of hot air coming from Dr. Serreze perhaps it is melt, after all…

  5. Wait, I thought th’ vaunted “Artic” ice researches who comment here said 2022 at the latest. Are they going to have to revise their numbers soon? Who could have ever predicted that?

  6. Scott says:

    Sigh. Nowhere in there do they say the average was 150k km^2, nor do they say that the rate will continue at that level throughout the melt season.

    There are plenty of overly alarmist and flat out wrong things said…no reason to pull this quote and try to make it sound worse than it is.


    • Neven says:

      no reason to pull this quote and try to make it sound worse than it is.

      Unless your name is Steven Goddard. 😛

      • GregW says:

        The Arctic has been predicted to be ice free by 2013 and 2100 and practically every year in between. There’s something not right about a science that is that fast and loose with the scaremongering, doomsaying predictions. I thought it was amusing to see Steve speed things up a little. Probably it didn’t strike you as funny, but “De gustibus non est disputandum.”

    • Nowhere in there do they say the average was 150k km^2, nor do they say that the rate will continue at that level throughout the melt season.

      I agree. You make a pretty good case that scare-mongering tactics like that should be left out of serious articles. Pity no-one listens to you. But until then, keep telling the scare-mongers to stop including fantasy numbers so we don’t have to do your work for you.

    • GregW says:

      Scott, I think the reason was humorous exaggeration. They’re not harvesting corn, grazing cattle or harvesting the ice in Greenland at this time either. So I didn’t take this as serious science. I’m not a scientist but I think even |I can tell the difference. But even as a tongue-in-cheek prediction it’s still uncannily close to the one below reported by the BBC in 2007:

      “Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.”
      “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

      • Scott says:

        I’ll concede your point…I guess it was just the title that irked me a bit.

        Reading the actual article, my real argument with it is not at all what Steve pointed out (which is actually factual) but instead the text shortly after statement where they say that the loss is due to global warming, an attribution which has definitely not been shown.


  7. dp says:

    Per the article, warm Atlantic water is moving north into arctic cold water and melting ice that would otherwise prevent the warmth from radiating in to space. Meaning that the heat in the Atlantic is going to be lost to space above the Arctic. That is a cooling event, no? And this warm water that is leaving the Atlantic ocean – what is it being replaced with? I see only one path and that is cold water from the circumpolar current has to enter the Atlantic. This is a cooling event for the Atlantic, no? With all this cold circumpolar water moving into the Atlantic, where does the replacement water come from? I can only surmise that water from the southern Pacific ocean will join the circumpolar current where that heat will be lost to space. That is a cooling event, no? Where does the water come from that replaces that lost in the Pacific ocean? The only path I see is cold water from the Arctic. This will urge deep warm water already in the Pacific to the surface where it will lose heat to space. That is another cooling event, no?

    • glacierman says:

      Cooling event/warming event……it’s a death spiral. The ice is rotten, full of holes… the ozone layer. No matter what happens it will be adjusted to fit the climate models, because that is all they know. They have more faith in their computer fantasies than in studying natural processes and Earth history.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      Yes of course, Let’s just snap up anyone’s fantasy and toss it out as if it were reality.

  8. The article says “In the past 10 days, the Arctic ocean has been losing as much as 150,000 square kilometres of sea a day, said Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC.”

    It’s worse than we thought! The Arctic ocean is shrinking! At that rate, Canadians and Russians will soon be able to shake hands without stepping off their native soil!

    • Scott says:

      I don’t know how we all missed that, LOL.


      • GregW says:

        “Reading the actual article, my real argument with it is …the text shortly after statement where they say that the loss is due to global warming, an attribution which has definitely not been shown.”
        I guess that’s my main problem with global warming alarmism. Facts are mixed in with computer modeled projections and wild speculation as if they are all valid because a scientist said them; as if scientists have never disagreed about anything until now. It may be true that AGW is significant and serious but even if so why all the hype? Why not calmly and methodically study the question without all the doomsaying PR and references to “canaries in the coal mine” as if we are all doomed.

      • Scott says:

        Again Greg, good point. We’ve seen that with all sorts of alarmist icons. Kilimanjaro is a great, and refuted, example.

        Lake Powell’s plummeting volume is another one. Too bad for them it’s less than 5 ft from “normal” now (normal being the average since filled). Since the 2004 low, its volume for July 17 increased by 80%. For 2011, that date had the highest inflow on record. Recent outflows have been well above average, and if they’d been maintained at average, we’d probably be pretty close to the average value for now. And what would one expect? Droughts happen and things recover. This hasn’t been tied to CAGW, and it’s likely it won’t be.

        All that said, my personal view of the Arctic is that it’s somewhere between Kilimanjaro and Powell. I think GHGs are likely affecting it and so it won’t show the recovery that Powell has. But…I think there are a lot of other factors going into the Arctic, and as with Kilimanjaro, we’ll find that GHG forcings are not the dominant culprit.


  9. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The Grauniad could even say “Yep, it’s ice free” come September and their readers will believe.

  10. AndyW says:

    Steve, when you have a blog called Real Science was it done with a sense of irony because there is none in your blog posting here from you.

    In fact the Arctic has been losing at up to 150 000 km2 per day but as you know, the summer melt graph bottoms outs so the gradient gets less. You need to start cutting out the chaff and just leaving the wheat mate 😉


  11. barry says:

    “8,500,000 km^2 / 150,000 km^2/day = 56 days after July 11.”

    I can’t work out Steve’s point, but this equation is ludicrous. Is Steve implying that someone has posited an ice free Arctic late this September?

    If so, then it plays well to the facetious snarkery that is all the rage around the climate debate. I guess that kind of discourse needs a home somewhere.

    • suyts says:

      Barry, you really believe the climate debate is worthy of anything else? Don’t you tire of this annual horse race prognostications?

      The polar bears are fine. It doesn’t matter if the ice melts on the top of the world. The penguins will be fine too if the scientists can keep their hands off of them. The malaria outbreak didn’t. Neither did cholera. The earth isn’t warming. Hurricanes and tornadoes are declining. Our droughts and heat waves have been more severe in the past. The corals are fine. Oh, but I should go on, but you get the point.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      “8,500,000 km^2 / 150,000 km^2/day = 56 days after July 11.”

      Barry; what Steve is trying to show with his Calculatus Eliminatus is a linear progression of ice melt until September 5th (?!).

      Steve, you either need a calculator or you need to retire the one you have because:

      150,000 X 56 = 8,400,000.

      And why July 5th when the melt can continue up to a week or more?

  12. Ill wind blowing says:

    Suyts, with a message from the twilight zone:

    “The polar bears are fine. It doesn’t matter if the ice melts on the top of the world.”

    In your alternative Universe.

  13. barry says:

    Barry, you really believe the climate debate is worthy of anything else?


    You think the debate deserves rhetoric, snark and misrepresentation. And you’re a ‘skeptic’. There’s a kind of consistency between your opinion on the discourse and the typical ‘skeptic’ output, so I guess I should congratulate you on your integrity.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s