How can any responsible person forecast an ice free Arctic in the foreseeable future?
These idiots are on a joy ride in the Arctic but are having trouble because CO2 keeps moving the ice around. lol How many of these types of idiots have we had to rescue over the years? Don’t these clowns know that the Arctic was ice free in the early Holocene summers? So what is the point of rowing around the Arctic now and pretending levels of ice there are unprecedented?
Are those PENGUINS I see at 0:16? they look like penguins. I hope these guys didn’t use a REALLY bad GPS.
They’re climate refugees /
“How can any responsible person forecast an ice free Arctic in the foreseeable future?”
A responsible person could not. An alarmist/grantologist would.
Read this carefully, but do read it: http://bit.ly/q8u6OY because IWB &/or Doughy Toucan will be linking to it as though it has relevance to the discussion.
Fortunately, they won’t actually read the article thoroughly.
Let me just cover them by the sentence that it is implausible that the Arctic will become ice-free throughout the year in any foreseeable future (even if we assume those persistently exponentially growing \(CO_2\) emissions).
you seem to be confusing me with other people here, who are constantly not reading what articles actually say.
So please show me the quotes of scientists saying the arctic will be come ice free in the winter in the foreseeable (what exactly does that mean) future.
Oops sorry my mistake. Forgot that I am not allowed to ask for documentation backing up peoples assertions here.
You realize of course that in this article the author is saying that the greenhouse effect might be real.
You mean like Obama’s science adviser?
So please show me the quotes of scientists saying the arctic will be come ice free in the winter in the foreseeable (what exactly does that mean) future.
Where did I or anyone else here ever say that scientists said the Arctic will be come[sic] ice free in the winter in the foreseeable future?
If you just want to see documentation of something, look it up. I’m not about to do your pathetic homework for you.
let’s go to the AUDIO TAPE! I actually found the reference you are referring to, since it is against the rules for you guys to post it.
“2005 was the lowest level of summer sea ice, the lowest coverage of sea ice in terms of the area of the arctic that had ice on it in the summer in the entire time that humans have been looking at it. 2007 completely shattered the 2005 record, You can go to the NASA website and see animated visuals of this happening and it is just absolutely stunning. And what it means is that whereas a few years ago people were saying maybe we’ll lose all the summer sea by 2070 or if you are really pessimistic 2050, now people are saying we could lose the summer sea ice by 2015 And again nobody can say for sure whether that will happen because there is a lot of variability in the system sometimes it goes up sometimes it goes down. but the overall trend is sharply down.
and if you lose the summer sea ice there are phenomena that could lead you, not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well.
and if you lose that sea ice year round it drastic climactic change all over the hemisphere.”
so let’s look at it piece by piece. he accurately says 2005 was the lowest ice extent up to that point from when we have accurate records (you can quibble about “entire time humans have been looking at it”). he is correct that 2007 broke the record. Shattered is a rather emotional term. He is correct that IPCC predictions of loss of sea ice were for the time frame he described. THEN he uses the word “people” to reflect the views of a tiny minority of scientists about ice lose by 2015. Total exaggeration. Then he makes an accurate qualification of uncertainty. and an accurate statement about the trend being down. then he says it is possible to lose summer ice shortly thereafter due to phenomenon he does not explain.
So the question is did he say there WOULD be an ice free winter in the foreseeable future. Answer is, no he did not.
Were the statements alarmist and likely to lead people to believe it could happen with no valid justification. Absolutely.
I give you guys a full 50% credit on this one. Congratulations!
You are right. No one from the Naval Research Lab conservatively forecast an ice-free Arctic by 2013
Are you getting paid to write this tripe?
Last sentence second to last paragraph should read “Lose WINTER sea ice shortly thereafter”
2005 would make me wonder if the satellite or the masking algorithm changed after that. I believe we are looking at a combination of sensors for the current information like numbers 15, 16 , and 17. How many improvements were made in the resolution of the photos used to determine concentration of ice in a pixel? How many advances have been made fine tuning the masking land algorithm?
I just know that what was top of the line in 1979 was obsolete in 1980!
Gramps, you’re right
Everything changed….including satellites
Problem they have now, is they can’t tell the difference between ice and water.
Any amount of water, including melt ponds, and water between ice, is read as all water.
“You are right. No one from the Naval Research Lab conservatively forecast an ice-free Arctic by 2013
Are you getting paid to write this tripe?”
Steve with his usual ‘so what?’ statement. You know ,and don’t wish to acknowledge, the fact that those predictions have progressively gone down from 2100 (IPCC 2007) down to 2050 then 2040 and finally 2020-2030 with the exception of Maslowski.
Here is the reality of the situation. Real scientist have been consistently underestimating the severity of the ice melt because they could not take into account the full extent of all positive feedback loops.
Everything else that you have brought up consists of fools and unqualified people who made back of the envelope calculations.
Here is the bottom line Steve.
1. What counts is the fact that it is progressively melting, all your mewling not withstanding.
2. The majority of qualified scientists have been underestimating the severity of the situation. The exception-Maslowski- that you keep desperately repeating, amounts to nothing. How can one scientist’s error nullify the correct deductions of many more scientists?
3. You, Steve, are living in a glass house whose window panes have steadily been broken by reality’s stones. All you do is stand there pretending that the glass shards falling on you are not cutting you up.
In other words, you have been consistently wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, having no sense of self awareness whatsoever, you never acknowledge your failures. You think you can compensate for your eternal false prophesies by smashing the mirror of introspection and then projecting your failures upon others.
4. When reality comes it will impact you with the force of steel jacketed bullets going through fog. All you’ll do is pretend that you never said what you’re now clearly saying. Instead, you will dance the Orwellian foxtrot, claiming that you predicted the melt all along.
5. I once challenged you to make a prediction of what would happen in the Arctic by 2020. You showed how worthless your ‘real science’ is by saying that you predict that the ice cap will grow, shrink or stay the same.
Predicting that anything will happen is the same as saying that you don’t have a clue. Yet, in your lack of introspection, you will fail to deduce the obvious. If you don’t know what will happen then why do you bother telling others that they’re wrong? If you don’t know what is right, or at the very least likely to happen, then you are in no position to judge anyone else on anything they say?
6. The Arctic ice cap will be ice free somewhere between 2020-2030 during the summer for a few days initially. This ice free period will lengthen into weeks then years in subsequent years. The exception will be a small band of ice north of Canada and Greenland which will take longer to melt due to its being over shallow colder waters.
Like it or not!
Sure Steve, anything you say imagine.
And now, some news from realityland:
Do you realize you are looking at a model generated graphic based on Al-Gore-Rhythms which extrapolate pictures of the region and assume if ice exists based on a concentration greater than 15%. Fantasyland all the way!
Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore
Sure Grumpy. That non answer is all that ‘skeptic’ can give when they have nothing to say.
After all, since when has Al Gore been in charge of the NSIDC? When you slip into your psychotic, Glenn Beckian style, conspiracy theories you have proven that you are intellectually bankrupt as well as suffering from mass insanity.
Thank you and have a nice day. 🙂
IWB, have you never made a reference to the Koch brothers, big oil, etc?
When you slip into your psychotic hypocrisy you have proven that you are intellectually bankrupt as well as suffering from mass insanity.
Thank you and have a nice day.
(Oh, and UIUC is not the same agency as NSIDC, but thanks for playing.)
And he IS predicting an ice free arctic during the summer (except for those pesky small areas where the sigma something is around 3) sometime between 2070 and 2100.
You didn’t read the article. Again. Oh, well. It was very nice chatting with you. Better luck next time.
The Green House Effect is not just about CO2!
How many times do you have to be told that CO2 contributes less than 5% to the entire GHE. (If you feel comfortable calling it that) Personally I think the term has been corrupted beyond any useful meaning!
Even under natural long term weather patterns it is plausible that the Arctic could have a virtually ice free period at some time in the future. History provides evidence of double optimum periods during interglacials in the past. The law of averages says it is more likely we will not see that during this interglacial.
There are remedial reading comprehension classes available! It is never to late to learn!
I think Lubos places to much faith in a trace gas like many lukewarmers. Theories are nice but they need some evidence in the real world!
I think Lubos places to much faith in a trace gas like many lukewarmers.
(I think Lubos is toying with the “certain people” who are inevitably going to conclude that correlation is causation: It’s the one, gaping flaw in the argument that he presents, and I suspect it’s deliberate)
Sorry. I have been reading what he writes for some time. I no longer have a link to his site!
Just my personal opinion!
My how quickly the comments pile up that are irrelevant to what I wrote.
Hey I AGREED with you guys that he made an alarmist statement, that was at best terribly misleading.
Grumpy, I am quite aware that H2O and other factors impact on the GHE. What is it exactly that makes you think I need remedial reading. You people are SO unspecific. it wastes a lot of time, when you don’t reference your ad hominems to the source.
So you also think that Lindzen, Christie, Spencer, Michaels, and such are all wrong?
And then Steve of course potentially confirms my analysis by pointing out one researcher who made a claim about 2015 (or was it 2013). Steve, minority means less than half, tiny minority means more or less a handful. Provide me with links showing 20 climate scientists predicting ice free arctic by 2015 and I will retract my analysis of that part as totally innacurate.
And Stark, aren’t you proud of me? I did my homework, in spite of the fact that you guys are the ones making the assertions
How quickly you make comments irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Steve, the Arctic ice cap is thick in your mind. Or is it your mind that is as thick as the ice cap?
you guys are the ones making the assertions
Now that’s some good meta-humour.
I give you guys a full 50% credit on this one.
Wait, we got 50% of your straw-man arguments correct? Tony, you are a complete failure. You really can’t manage a greater feat than getting 50% of your own straw-men shot down by friendly-fire by your own admission.
Oh, haha, I’d better not speak too quickly.
Provide me with links showing 20 climate scientists predicting ice free arctic by 2015 and I will retract my analysis of that part as totally innacurate.
Tony, row a tin bicycle shed around the Arctic clockwise and I will retract my analysis of you as a foot-shooting twat.
could you PLEASE document your evidence of foot shooting twat.
immediately after my complaining that you guys don’t specify your attacks, you and Steve go and do it again. How I am ever going to learn if you don’t tell me what you are talking about? Which straw man arguments? I took an exact quote ( I transcribed it for your benefit. I then assessed each part of the quote. NO ONE has provided any thing to contradict my analysis, and then you go calling me names without telling me what exactly I am being a twat about.
But I am patient. p[lease explain to me what in my analysis of the Holdren quote is wrong. Grumpy asserts that the satellites just sucked then. that at least has some semblance of an argument.
Which straw man arguments?
“show me the quotes of scientists saying the arctic will be come ice free in the winter in the foreseeable (what exactly does that mean) future.” [you made this requirement out of this air]
“I am not allowed to ask for documentation backing up peoples assertions here.” [see above]
“it is against the rules for you guys to post it.” [see above]
“So the question is did he say there WOULD be an ice free winter in the foreseeable future.” [that is not the question]
“I AGREED with you guys that he made an alarmist statement” [nobody asked you to agree or disagree]
“you also think that Lindzen, Christie, Spencer, Michaels, and such are all wrong?” [a pointless question entirely unrelated to anything else discussed here by anyone except you, Tony]
“minority means less than half” [no one said that it meant otherwise]
“tiny minority means more or less a handful” [which is more or less a meaningless statement since you’re the only one talking about minorities, tiny or otherwise]
“Provide me with links showing 20 climate scientists predicting ice free arctic by 2015” [because this is the Tony Duncan weblog, of course]
“you guys are the ones making the assertions” [do I even need to explicitly shoot this one down?]
I’m just going to save myself a lot of time in the future. When I say, “Tony, your mom is fat.” it means, “Tony, you’re making straw-man assertions again, and your mother is morbidly obese.”
I am shocked. You are actually being specific. Of course with you it generally does not good, because you can always find some way to rationalize your statements no matter what. Hope springs eternal however.
#1. ““show me the quotes of scientists saying the arctic will be come ice free in the winter in the foreseeable (what exactly does that mean) future.” [you made this requirement out of this air]”.
well you did post a link to an article and that was the ONLY quote you took out of the article. If that was just an arbitrary quote that meant something else, I am happy to have you explain why you posted that quote. hard to call it a straw man, when it was the only quote you used. Excuse me for assuming the obvious.
#2 +3 ““I am not allowed to ask for documentation backing up peoples assertions here.” [see above]”. ““it is against the rules for you guys to post it.” [see above]”
this is just an observation from the numerous times I have asked for someone to back up an assertion and it was never done. I doubt it is an actual rule and that Steve deletes comments that have documentation. I think I was being sarcastic.
#4 ““So the question is did he say there WOULD be an ice free winter in the foreseeable future.” [that is not the question]”
see #1 where you posted the quote. then see that STEVE used Holdren as an example of someone saying the arctic would be ice free in the winter. the only refernece anyone made to a scientist predicting an ice free arctic in the winter (so far. I am open to examining other cases).
#5 ““you also think that Lindzen, Christie, Spencer, Michaels, and such are all wrong?” [a pointless question entirely unrelated to anything else discussed here by anyone except you, Tony]”.
I was referring to GRUMPY. HE was the one that brought up trace gases and irrelevantly implied that I thought ONLY CO2 impacted the GHE. if it was a straw man, please take it up with him. I was COMMENTING on what someone said I wrote. And I try to be polite and respond to their comments. if you consider that a straw man not much I can do about that,\.
#6 ““minority means less than half” [no one said that it meant otherwise]”
I did not say that anyone meant otherwise. I was pointing out that Steve had COMMENTED that one scientist had made a prediction about summer ice lose by 2013. I noted that he was referring to where I said a tiny minority, as if his finding one person, somehow contradicted my assertions. Im my view it does not and my pointing it out is totally relevant to my analysis of Holdren’s talk.
#7″“tiny minority means more or less a handful” [which is more or less a meaningless statement since you’re the only one talking about minorities, tiny or otherwise].
Yes, I was the one talking about tiny minorities. it is relevant to show that Holdren;s statement was at best misleading if not outright disingenious. I was saying it specifically to point out he was being a bad boy. I thought you liked it when a scientist can be shown to be bad boys! As stated above it was responding to Steve bringing up one scientist as if that disputed the idea of minority.
#8“Provide me with links showing 20 climate scientists predicting ice free arctic by 2015″ [because this is the Tony Duncan weblog, of course]
being a skeptic, I make my mind up about issues not based on peoples assertions, but on actual evidence. This is Steve’s blog, and he can do and say whatever he wants. If we are having an actual discussion, then I expect people to provide support for their statements. If Steve is contesting my assertion that only a tiny minority of scientists contend the Arctic will be ice free by 2015, Then I will only believe that if he can provide me with documentation to that effect . Again this was in response to a comment that Steve made that was directly connected to my analysis of Holdren’s talk. If it is a straw man talk to him about it.
#9 ““you guys are the ones making the assertions” [do I even need to explicitly shoot this one down?]
You lost me on that one so there is not much I can say. I can guess that this refers to the above requesting documentation. since that is what i was referring to. It applies to anyone who makes assertions. backing up assertions with facts is just how I operate around questions of science. if you have a better way please let me know.
As usual i look forward to your surely fascinating explanation of how all of this is just another straw man.
Tony, do you get paid by the word?
as if his finding one person, somehow contradicted my assertions
Tony, you asked for one scientist, & when Steven provided you with one you then lectured him about minorities and demanded 20. You are being disingenuous.
Please answer the rest of my questions.
Not really. Soros pays by the comment. But ask Julienne, he gives bonuses and word count can factor into that. Unfortunately he does not care about sarcasm. I keep pushing but he insists it is not helpful.
Well Tony, you better make sure you cash the check quick cause it looks like old George will need a little loose cash. But I am sure he has enough for a good worker like you.
I asked for one scientist. Steve provided one and I responded with my analysis of that one.
He certainly filled his part of the bargain, and I give total credit for exposing alarmist statements, from the highest scientist in public office no less, that are not backed by science.
the same with Hansen’s 5 meter sea level rise. Steve exposed an alarmist statement from a scientist well know to the public and the media.I analyzed his statement and agreed that it was alarmist and non scientific. I also pointed out that HANSEN acknowledged that it was unscientific, but that does not take away the alarmist nature of the comment.
I am happy to give Steve and others their due for providing a service that is important. I am also happy to point out the reality when there is distortion and exaggeration or lack of substance. that is why I give 50% credit for both of those instances.
and WHAT questions? I just went over this whole post and found none.
No worries. I do make him chuckle. he gets bored by those straight-laced scientists all so serious and fact oriented (I think he invested heavily in Apple in 2000. He is doing fine)
Apparently when you have $14 billion you don’t need to go by the divide by 2 and add 7 rule. But I can’t help but think being with a 25 year old when you are in your 80s you are asking for trouble.
Funny the name should come up! I found this:
Not so sure of that. As I recall, when they pulled Rockefeller off, he had a smile on his face.
Well Tony, he promised her a Manhattan apartment for her services. You should be in line for a villa in Greece for all the redirecting you have done, but remember, he renigged on his promise to her…….
How did you know about the Villa?
70% of the Arctic has thick ice when you show a map with a resolution about 10 miles across and no better.
Do you really think the ice to the east coast of Greenland is 2m thick?
I could swim through that better than someone could swim from Cuba to Florida.
Please do! Report back to us from the other side.
Polar bears or sharks?
I’ll take Amino Acid and gator69 as bait instead, nobody will miss them and we will be improving the gene pool 😀
you are obviously not a driver in the northeast. That picture show BLACK ice. it is the most dangerous kind and very hard.
But don’t you love how Steve can’t totally eviscerate any argument with just one line!
In case you morons are completely unfamiliar with Arctic ice, NSIDC and JAXA use 15% concentration to measure extent – meaning that 85% of the area is open water.
How long have we been talking about this topic?
see I told you I could handle this? But I will give you the honors.
Did his 15% comment make you laugh too?
Say hello and give a big hug to the polar bears while you are at it. The water is probably about as nice as it is going to get this year! I say go for it, What have you got to lose!
is it really fair for you to question Steve? I thought the ratio had to be at least 10:1 before anyone else did so. So far it is only Steve, Gator, Stark and Grumpy, and Sundance. I was doing fine. I have handled much worse odds. Steve doesn’t like it when I respond to people’s innacurate descriptions of me, but I am glad you are going back to the original post
Our resident Expert Juggler! Have you done a Youtube of the Chainsaw act yet. That would be fun to watch! My neighbor has some 24 inch Stihs you could practice with or I have a couple of 20 inch huskys.
I have said for years I would do a chainsaw juggling act when somebody offered to pay me $10,000 (and that was years ago, i would probably want 20 now).
Juggling chainsaws just requires strength, and very little skill.I would want the money for the time taken to bulk up. Also the chainsaws are modified quite extensively. Not evident to the casually onlooker but extremely important in the actual execution (hmmm. was that a double entendre? Might have to fit that into my show somehow. thanks Grumpy!)
No, side tracking the issue is no laughing matter, especially when it makes no sense.
I did laugh at your black ice comment though. Finally someone with a bit of intelligent wit around here ….
I’m curious if the ice is as thick as the NAVY map shows (which is important to remind folks is a model, not actual data), then why does the ice continue to decline at a relatively fast pace this month despite the sun starting to go lower in the sky and temperatures cooling down? I’ve looked at the buoy data and there is not a substantial amount of bottom melt (at least through the end of July when the reporting information is available). The re-establishment of the Beaufort Sea High is leading to enhanced transport out of Fram Strait because it is combined with a strong low over Eurasia, but that’s the only thing that really stands out in the wind field. Air temperatures under the high pressure cell are warmer than normal, particularly in the central Arctic, but given the NAVY model says the ice is quite thick there, that can’t be the cause. I’m guessing the ice is thinner in the Beaufort/Chukchi seas than is being reported by this model.
20110806 = 6.2451500
20110807 = 6.1441500
20110808 = 6.0511300
20110809 = 5.9742700
20110810 = 5.8769500
The Navy maps accurately predicted the loss in the Chukchi Sea over the last week or so, and they also predict that pattern is nearly at an end.
Cue the Village People
In the navy
Yes, you can chart the icy seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, people, make a flat earth stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can’t you see we need a skeptics hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the Ludditeland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow Crog-magnon man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a last ditch non death -spiral stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)
This is only in fun of course, coudln’t resist. 😀
Trust Julienbe to start talking boring old science wheh the boys are enjoying a bit of manly blog wrestling, and me and Tony are winning as well….
Now that one belongs with similar tales from the Brothers Grimm!
Jaxa has 8-11 at 5,898,281. Is there often that big a discrepancy between your numbers and theirs? And I assumed that as August gets darker, that 100,000 KM (8/9-8/10/11 ) losses would be rather uncommon.
JAXA almost always reads slightly higher than NSIDC. I believe they use different satellites, and different algorithms for processing the signal. Possibly JAXA is better at picking up very thin ice?
Peter, I also looked at the NSIDC graphs and they are showing about half of the area grayed out. Nothing on the site says anything about that.
AND greater that 15% equals 100% is real data! With an up to 85% error factor! Do you count the pixels or do you use a model with an Al-Gore-Rhythm to determine ice conditions?
Grumpy, just a quick response to your comment about the satellites. Yes, a combination of satellites is used in the NSIDC sea ice record, starting with Nimbus-7 SMMR and then a follow-on of SSM/I sensors post 1987. While we use sensors with the same channels and the same algorithm, some slight differences in inclination, time-of-day of orbital crossings, etc. result in the need for an intercalibration to make sure the time-series is consistent. This intercalibration is done on the level of the sea ice extent, using sensor overlap periods to adjust the algorithm tie-points so that the ice extents match up. Sometimes we have 5 months of overlap period, sometimes longer, sometimes less.
Same quality sensors since 1979? Right!
& just to remind you of the above, Tony: Your mom is fat.
I think you know that that means now.
Your unbiased approach is refreshing.
glad you finally can see that (BTW someone wrote “sarc” after your comment).
It just bugs me that both sides exaggerate and Since Steve only points out one side I feel, for his sake, I should keep him and his followers somewhat on track.
You are completely full of shit
coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
I do appreciate you responding to my comments recently with actual documentation, supporting your assertions. And I was pleasantly surprised when you came to Julianne’s defense.I hope those weren’t just abberations
You are on your last warning
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,928 other followers